Powell endorses Obama

[ambler]

Originally Posted by metman

K.O>>Again, as i said 6 months or so ago, white libs cannot say anything negative about a minority. It CANNOT happen.

Might as well talk to a wall instead. (Make sure it's a black wall, though, so you show compassion and an open mind. Compassion is key)

So would it be correct to infer that conservatives are purveyors of a point of view that is superior in its accuracy of minorities? Sounds like that's what you're trying to say.

[FrankStylV7]

Originally Posted by ambler

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point.


I thought I read that your view is that race should be as consequential as shoe size. I disagree with the premise based on history where shoe size never factored into whether or not one had access to the political process. Race, on the other hand, does and always has mattered. It's no different now, save for the unwarranted outrage some express over it which, given the aforementioned historical points, might appear to some as selective and aribtrary. Hence, my charge that your comparison of race to shoe size is naive, if not invalid. Again, I prefaced it by saying that I may not have properly understood your point.

This issue is not the shoe size.

The issue is that the conversation comes back to the color of the shoe whenever a detractor of said shoe says that the shoe is a bad fit, uncomfortable, or is not very good when you're trying to get down your 40M time.

I should be able to ***** about the last three (or more!) without being told that the only reason I didn't like the shoe is because it's the wrong color.

[METSSC]

Originally Posted by ambler

Who is denying that? Obama is only relevant on the heels of one of the worst presidents ever. But there is nothing wrong with his race being a factor in his favor, which is what a lot of people are stubbornly resisting.

Come on now it's been 8 years since Bubba left office.

[KingOlerud]

Originally Posted by ambler

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point.


I thought I read that your view is that race should be as consequential as shoe size. I disagree with the premise based on history where shoe size never factored into whether or not one had access to the political process. Race, on the other hand, does and always has mattered. It's no different now, save for the unwarranted outrage some express over it which, given the aforementioned historical points, might appear to some as selective and aribtrary. Hence, my charge that your comparison of race to shoe size is naive, if not invalid. Again, I prefaced it by saying that I may not have properly understood your point.

I posited to you that the moldy, nonsensical concept of "race" is something that has been drummed into consequence by the prejudiced, loony left. And that if they weren't there trying to leverage, divide and victimize by so-called "race" every chance they got, the world would be a better place.

You called this vision I have of the non-consequence of "race" naive. To which I asked, "if my vision of race is so naive, how is it that a half arab, black guy is this close to being elected President of the United States?"

So... if my vision of race is so naive, how is it that a half arab, black guy is this close to being elected President of the US of KKK A? Take all the time you need to formulate an answer. Remember... either race really matters or it really doesn't. Go on.

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by KingOlerud

I posited to you that the moldy, nonsensical concept of "race" is something that has been drummed into consequence by the prejudiced, loony left. And that if they weren't there trying to leverage, divide and victimize by so-called "race" every chance they got, the world would be a better place.

You called this vision I have of the non-consequence of "race" naive. To which I asked, "if my vision of race is so naive, how is it that a half arab, black guy is this close to being elected President of the United States?"

So... if my vision of race is so naive, how is it that a half arab, black guy is this close to being elected President of the US of KKK A? Take all the time you need to formulate an answer. Remember... either race really matters or it really doesn't. Go on.

Of course it does, and Palin is a racist.

[ambler]

Originally Posted by KingOlerud

I posited to you that the moldy, nonsensical concept of "race" is something that has been drummed into consequence by the prejudiced, loony left. And that if they weren't there trying to leverage, divide and victimize by so-called "race" every chance they got, the world would be a better place.

You called this vision I have of the non-consequence of "race" naive. To which I asked, "if my vision of race is so naive, how is it that a half arab, black guy is this close to being elected President of the United States?"

So... if my vision of race is so naive, how is it that a half arab, black guy is this close to being elected President of the US of KKK A? Take all the time you need to formulate an answer. Remember... either race really matters or it really doesn't. Go on.

Race matters. I've said so in every post on this thread and mentioned it as part of my reason for voting for Obama.

But to pretend that this is the first election where race is an issue is wrong, hence so is the misguided outrage surrouding it. In fact race, gender and religion have always mattered in the selection of the presisdent.

[ambler]

Originally Posted by KingOlerud

I posited to you that the moldy, nonsensical concept of "race" is something that has been drummed into consequence by the prejudiced, loony left.
.

Because the right has never used race for any nefarious or insidious end.

[NeilAllen]

Fund raised a great point today in the WSJ, how it would have been nice if Brokaw had made the tiniest reference to the Surge in one of his questions in nearly a half-hour of airtime, and how Russert never would have let Powell off the hook without bringing it up.

[ambler]

Originally Posted by METSSC

Come on now it's been 8 years since Bubba left office.

You can't be serious that either Bush is a better president than Clinton was.

[ambler]

Originally Posted by NeilAllen

Fund raised a great point today in the WSJ, how it would have been nice if Brokaw had made the tiniest reference to the Surge in one of his questions in nearly a half-hour of airtime, and how Russert never would have let Powell off the hook without bringing it up.

And the correct answer to the surge ( I didn't know people were capitalizing it now) is that while it may have been effective, it doesn't justify the initial illogic of the war, the lack of casus belli, the poor planning in almost every aspect, the exhorbitant cost of the war, the naivety that we are actually going to "impose" a constitutional democracy/that they will want it if they get a taste of it/that they are even capable of sustaining any semblance of one after we withdraw, if we ever withdraw.

We're going to be there in some capacity for a long time. The war was a mistake and the success of the surge does not change that.

[kingdiggler]

So one uncle tom trying not to be an uncle tom, endorses another uncle tom not trying to be an uncle tom.

[NeilAllen]

Originally Posted by ambler

And the correct answer to the surge ( I didn't know people were capitalizing it now) is that while it may have been effective, it doesn't justify the initial illogic of the war, the lack of casus belli, the poor planning in almost every aspect, the exhorbitant cost of the war, the naivety that we are actually going to "impose" a constitutional democracy/that they will want it if they get a taste of it/that they are even capable of sustaining any semblance of one after we withdraw, if we ever withdraw.

We're going to be there in some capacity for a long time. The war was a mistake and the success of the surge does not change that.

So according to you that would have been the proper answer for Powell to give on whether it was the surge that put America in a position to draw down troops and enable the Iraqi takeover of the war that he himself supported. . . and what it says about Obama's military and foreign policy acumen that he opposed this strategy. Got it.

[kingdiggler]

But Obama is a transitional figure who transcends everything.

[lgm6986]

Originally Posted by ambler

But there is nothing wrong with his race being a factor in his favor, which is what a lot of people are stubbornly resisting.

But there is something wrong with people who very publicly pretend that the only people who are voting based on race in this election are voting against Obama, and in fact cite it as the only possible way he can lose.

[kingdiggler]

Originally Posted by lgm6986

But there is something wrong with people who very publicly pretend that the only people who are voting based on race in this election are voting against Obama, and in fact cite it as the only possible way he can lose.

ding ding ding we have a winner!