President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

How someone can say that awarding a job or project to someone less qualified because of their race is not racism, is beyond me.

Because, by definition, that is not what it is.

[hoagiepete]

How someone can say that awarding a job or project to someone less qualified because of their race is not racism, is beyond me.

Because, by definition, that is not what it is.

Not sure how you can say that. Here is definition according to Webster

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

In my example, you are discriminating because of race...a non-minority is passed over because of race.

[Monker]

How someone can say that awarding a job or project to someone less qualified because of their race is not racism, is beyond me.

Because, by definition, that is not what it is.

Not sure how you can say that. Here is definition according to Webster

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

In my example, you are discriminating because of race...a non-minority is passed over because of race.

So, you are taking a 1933 definition and applying it to modern times, nice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

That is racism. In your example, there is no hatred of white people. There is no belief that blacks are superior. There is no intolerance of white people. There is no policy supporting those ideas. There is NO SUCH THING as 'reverse racism'.

[RossValoryRocks]

How someone can say that awarding a job or project to someone less qualified because of their race is not racism, is beyond me.

Because, by definition, that is not what it is.

Not sure how you can say that. Here is definition according to Webster

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

In my example, you are discriminating because of race...a non-minority is passed over because of race.

So, you are taking a 1933 definition and applying it to modern times, nice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

That is racism. In your example, there is no hatred of white people. There is no belief that blacks are superior. There is no intolerance of white people. There is no policy supporting those ideas. There is NO SUCH THING as 'reverse racism'.

Did you read your definition?? I bolded the part you evidently didn't read...ends with DISCRIMINATION...which AA is...it is discriminatory...PERIOD....now if you want to debate the relative merits of AA and keeping a level playing field and such, I am game.

[G.I.Jim]

I think the practice of AA is disrespectful to people of minority classes, because it doesn't reward them for what they are capable of, but simply what they look like.

I agree donna.

As I said, I strongly believe there was once a place for it, but I also thing we've moved past it. I think some people use it as a crutch, and that's sad.

This is where we differ. I think AA is still a necessary evil, and that we have not moved past it.

That's because you're a racist.

[hoagiepete]

How someone can say that awarding a job or project to someone less qualified because of their race is not racism, is beyond me.

Because, by definition, that is not what it is.

Not sure how you can say that. Here is definition according to Webster

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

In my example, you are discriminating because of race...a non-minority is passed over because of race.

So, you are taking a 1933 definition and applying it to modern times, nice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

That is racism. In your example, there is no hatred of white people. There is no belief that blacks are superior. There is no intolerance of white people. There is no policy supporting those ideas. There is NO SUCH THING as 'reverse racism'.

I just googled the damn thing on Merriam Webster, cut and pasted. So now a guy has to have the "correct" dictionary which isn't even Webster? You guys are pieces of work.

Whatever. Call it what you want to then...but passing over one person for another less qualified strictly because of race looks, smells and IS fuckin' racism.

[7 Wishes]

It dawned on me today that if a terrorist really wants to get us, he or she will. There's no way around it - unless we completely stop all immigration and send every foreign national back to their countires of origin. Which means that Buchanan would have to go back to Scotland.

[Monker]

How someone can say that awarding a job or project to someone less qualified because of their race is not racism, is beyond me.

Because, by definition, that is not what it is.

Not sure how you can say that. Here is definition according to Webster

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

In my example, you are discriminating because of race...a non-minority is passed over because of race.

So, you are taking a 1933 definition and applying it to modern times, nice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

That is racism. In your example, there is no hatred of white people. There is no belief that blacks are superior. There is no intolerance of white people. There is no policy supporting those ideas. There is NO SUCH THING as 'reverse racism'.

Did you read your definition?? I bolded the part you evidently didn't read...ends with DISCRIMINATION...which AA is...it is discriminatory...PERIOD....now if you want to debate the relative merits of AA and keeping a level playing field and such, I am game.

How pathetic that some in this country actually believe that discrimination and racism are the same thing.

Racism can be expressed through 'discrimination' along with the hatred and/or a superiority complex. They are NOT the same thing.

Again affirmative action and quotas are NOT 'reverse racism'. There is no such thing.

[Monker]

How someone can say that awarding a job or project to someone less qualified because of their race is not racism, is beyond me.

Because, by definition, that is not what it is.

Not sure how you can say that. Here is definition according to Webster

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

In my example, you are discriminating because of race...a non-minority is passed over because of race.

So, you are taking a 1933 definition and applying it to modern times, nice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

That is racism. In your example, there is no hatred of white people. There is no belief that blacks are superior. There is no intolerance of white people. There is no policy supporting those ideas. There is NO SUCH THING as 'reverse racism'.

I just googled the damn thing on Merriam Webster, cut and pasted. So now a guy has to have the "correct" dictionary which isn't even Webster? You guys are pieces of work.

Whatever. Call it what you want to then...but passing over one person for another less qualified strictly because of race looks, smells and IS fuckin' racism.

I don't care, be all pissy because you yanked up an 80yr old definition of a word you can't seem to grasp the meaning of. Affirmative action is NOT racism. That is just a fact...get over it.

[RossValoryRocks]

How someone can say that awarding a job or project to someone less qualified because of their race is not racism, is beyond me.

Because, by definition, that is not what it is.

Not sure how you can say that. Here is definition according to Webster

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

In my example, you are discriminating because of race...a non-minority is passed over because of race.

So, you are taking a 1933 definition and applying it to modern times, nice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

That is racism. In your example, there is no hatred of white people. There is no belief that blacks are superior. There is no intolerance of white people. There is no policy supporting those ideas. There is NO SUCH THING as 'reverse racism'.

Did you read your definition?? I bolded the part you evidently didn't read...ends with DISCRIMINATION...which AA is...it is discriminatory...PERIOD....now if you want to debate the relative merits of AA and keeping a level playing field and such, I am game.

How pathetic that some in this country actually believe that discrimination and racism are the same thing.

Racism can be expressed through 'discrimination' along with the hatred and/or a superiority complex. They are NOT the same thing.

Again affirmative action and quotas are NOT 'reverse racism'. There is no such thing.

Ummm...the definition YOU POSTED says it is...

[hoagiepete]

I can't believe I'm wasting my time on someone that wants to debate the word "racism" with arguments based on the fact the Merriam Webster dictionary is outdated and should no longer be used. Give me a break. I really don't give a shit about the word or the new wikipedia type dicktionary definition of a term. My argument is all about what is right and wrong. I wasn't even referring to AA, but set asides for minority or DBE contractors, although it could be lumped in to the same discussion.

Bottom line...is it right...to award a project, hire someone or promote someone over another that is more qualified simply because of race (or sex for that matter)?

[7 Wishes]

Anyone who interprets as a negative for the left a lifelong conservative turned two-year "Democrat" in name only losing to a leftist liberal, is grasping for straws.

If anything, it's a flat-out rejection of the GOP and politics as usual. The only reason the Obama Administration backed Specter (which they barely did) was as reciprocity for the vote on healthcare and the upcoming one on healthcare reform.

Did you bother to read the new Rasmussen poll, which reflected the same findings as the recent CNN poll? That by a 45%-40% margin, Americans want Democrats to remain in control of Congress and the House in November?

You're not reading between the lines - you're only hearing what you want to.

And I will say it again - the Tea Party will split the Republican vote this fall.

[RossValoryRocks]

Anyone who interprets as a negative for the left a lifelong conservative turned two-year "Democrat" in name only losing to a leftist liberal, is grasping for straws.

If anything, it's a flat-out rejection of the GOP and politics as usual. The only reason the Obama Administration backed Specter (which they barely did) was as reciprocity for the vote on healthcare and the upcoming one on healthcare reform.

Did you bother to read the new Rasmussen poll, which reflected the same findings as the recent CNN poll? That by a 45%-40% margin, Americans want Democrats to remain in control of Congress and the House in November?

You're not reading between the lines - you're only hearing what you want to.

And I will say it again - the Tea Party will split the Republican vote this fall.

I saw the poll...I would even say its probably right...but right now the anti-incumbent backlash is severe...and the simple math of it is that the dems have more incumbent seats to lose.

They will lose the house this fall...and there is an extreme outside chance, like buy a powerball ticket your chances are better kind of chance, that they could lose the Senate as well.

The tea party isn't going to split the vote for the simple fact that if their candidate didn't make it, then they will most likely support the candidate (be he/she republican or democrat) who will quit spending like a drunken sailor and show some fiscal responsibility.

[Monker]

Anyone who interprets as a negative for the left a lifelong conservative turned two-year "Democrat" in name only losing to a leftist liberal, is grasping for straws.

If anything, it's a flat-out rejection of the GOP and politics as usual. The only reason the Obama Administration backed Specter (which they barely did) was as reciprocity for the vote on healthcare and the upcoming one on healthcare reform.

Did you bother to read the new Rasmussen poll, which reflected the same findings as the recent CNN poll? That by a 45%-40% margin, Americans want Democrats to remain in control of Congress and the House in November?

You're not reading between the lines - you're only hearing what you want to.

And I will say it again - the Tea Party will split the Republican vote this fall.

I saw the poll...I would even say its probably right...but right now the anti-incumbent backlash is severe...and the simple math of it is that the dems have more incumbent seats to lose.

They will lose the house this fall...and there is an extreme outside chance, like buy a powerball ticket your chances are better kind of chance, that they could lose the Senate as well.

The tea party isn't going to split the vote for the simple fact that if their candidate didn't make it, then they will most likely support the candidate (be he/she republican or democrat) who will quit spending like a drunken sailor and show some fiscal responsibility.

They will support the candidate that FOX tells them to.

[RossValoryRocks]

They will support the candidate that FOX tells them to.

Hardly. Fox doesn't have as much pull with the Tea Party (which is about 50% democrat/independent) as you credit them with.

[7 Wishes]

Nice try, Ross.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows that while 96 percent of Tea Party activists identify themselves as either Republican or Independent, only 4 percent say they are Democrats.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/02/democrats.tea.party/index.html

Compare that to the 35% of registered Republicans who switched ranks to vote Democrat in 2006.

[RossValoryRocks]

Nice try, Ross.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows that while 96 percent of Tea Party activists identify themselves as either Republican or Independent, only 4 percent say they are Democrats.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/02/democrats.tea.party/index.html

Compare that to the 35% of registered Republicans who switched ranks to vote Democrat in 2006.

Well color me surprised ...CNN poll shows the opposite what a Gallup Poll does ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-P ... phics.aspx )

Nice try indeed?! I will take a Gallup poll over CNN thanks!

EDIT: Wait...I see what you are saying...oh yes...you took my words and twisted them...sorry...Notice...I said that 50% are democrat SLASH independent, as in if you ADD THEM UP together...so your poll is correct...only 4% (6% in the Gallup poll) are democrats...but my point is that the tea party is 50% or a little less "republican" the rest being made up of democrats and independents.

[7 Wishes]

Wait...one poll shows 8% and the other shows 4%, so you're vindicated?

Ridiculous.

You're a laugh riot.

[RossValoryRocks]

Wait...one poll shows 8% and the other shows 4%, so you're vindicated?

Ridiculous.

You're a laugh riot.

You aren't READING everything moron...I said the Tea Party is 50% Democrat and Independent...and 50% Republican...So I am vindicated idiot...you took what I said and twisted it...go read my original statement. I NEVER said Democrats made up 50% of the Tea Party. Not once.

You obviously can't read a complete sentence.

And you call Strangegrey an ignoramus...

[Rick]

Wait...one poll shows 8% and the other shows 4%, so you're vindicated?

Ridiculous.

You're a laugh riot.

You aren't READING everything moron...I said the Tea Party is 50% Democrat and Independent...and 50% Republican...So I am vindicated idiot...you took what I said and twisted it...go read my original statement. I NEVER said Democrats made up 50% of the Tea Party. Not once.

You obviously can't read a complete sentence.

And you call Strangegrey an ignormamus...

I'm pretty sure he said Ignoramus. Carry on. Hi Stu!

[RossValoryRocks]

Wait...one poll shows 8% and the other shows 4%, so you're vindicated?

Ridiculous.

You're a laugh riot.

You aren't READING everything moron...I said the Tea Party is 50% Democrat and Independent...and 50% Republican...So I am vindicated idiot...you took what I said and twisted it...go read my original statement. I NEVER said Democrats made up 50% of the Tea Party. Not once.

You obviously can't read a complete sentence.

And you call Strangegrey an ignormamus...

I'm pretty sure he said Ignoramus. Carry on. Hi Stu!

Damn fat fingers...LOL
Ignormamus?? LOL

I just spent all day chasing a 7 year old around an amusement park...I am just whipped...

[Rick]

Wait...one poll shows 8% and the other shows 4%, so you're vindicated?

Ridiculous.

You're a laugh riot.

You aren't READING everything moron...I said the Tea Party is 50% Democrat and Independent...and 50% Republican...So I am vindicated idiot...you took what I said and twisted it...go read my original statement. I NEVER said Democrats made up 50% of the Tea Party. Not once.

You obviously can't read a complete sentence.

And you call Strangegrey an ignormamus...

I'm pretty sure he said Ignoramus. Carry on. Hi Stu!

Damn fat fingers...LOL
Ignormamus?? LOL

I just spent all day chasing a 7 year old around an amusement park...I am just whipped...

I hope you had a great time bro.

[7 Wishes]

We're talking about two different things, Stu.

The issue in question (as I perceived it) was the percentage of Democrats who comprise the Tea Party (which is supported by only 28% of the population). One poll says four; the other says eight. Either way, it's statistically insignificant. If you break it down, you'll see that 77% of the Independents who have aligned with the Tea Party, themselves voted for the GOP in the past election. So it's really a moot point - if you do the math, you can see that (at best) the Teabaggers can claim to have recruited 5.6% of the electorate (77% of 50%, the 8%" of Democrats = 20% (factored by the 28%) = 5.6%). I can guarantee you they have alienated just as many to NOT vote GOP in the fall.

[RossValoryRocks]

We're talking about two different things, Stu.

The issue in question (as I perceived it) was the percentage of Democrats who comprise the Tea Party (which is supported by only 28% of the population). One poll says four; the other says eight. Either way, it's statistically insignificant. If you break it down, you'll see that 77% of the Independents who have aligned with the Tea Party, themselves voted for the GOP in the past election. So it's really a moot point - if you do the math, you can see that (at best) the Teabaggers can claim to have recruited 5.6% of the electorate (77% of 50%, the 8%" of Democrats = 20% (factored by the 28%) = 5.6%). I can guarantee you they have alienated just as many to NOT vote GOP in the fall.

To quote Deano...wanna put some money on it??? Of course in the circles you run in it is going to alienate people...I think you will find the Democrats getting their asses handed to them, and rightly so, come the fall...Just as the Republicans, and rightly so, got their asses handed to them in 2006 and 2008.

It isn't going to be pretty. And it shouldn't be...The Democrats have gone too far...just as the Republicans did...and to use physics, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Pelosi won't be Speaker in just over 7 months...and Harry Reid probably won't even be in the Senate come the beginning of the next year, and rightly so.

The issue in question, now...as you see it is wrong, it NOT what Monker was talking about, he said the Tea Party gets their marching orders from Fox...which isn't true, they are evenly divided between Republicand and Democrats/Independents who are sick of the Federal Government in general. The SAME independents that voted Obama in 2008, are abandoning him in droves...and guess what...are voting if not Republican, at least anti-incumbent.

[Monker]

The issue in question, now...as you see it is wrong, it NOT what Monker was talking about, he said the Tea Party gets their marching orders from Fox...which isn't true, they are evenly divided between Republicand and Democrats/Independents who are sick of the Federal Government in general. The SAME independents that voted Obama in 2008, are abandoning him in droves...and guess what...are voting if not Republican, at least anti-incumbent.

I don't care what some goofy poll says of what party they belong to. FOX goes about propping up tea party candidates like a bunch of Mad Hatters waiting on Alice. They will vote for whoever FOX tells them to, because FOX is the main media sponsor of tea party candidates.

And, I don't think the results are going to be as dramatic as you hope...especially since they are nominating radical conservatives and ousting their own moderate Republicans. It's ridiculous how the Republican party has become even MORE extreme. it used to be the Democrats who were extremists towards liberal ideas...now it's the Republicans who are the extremists. Any party that can make Barry Goldwater seem moderate, or even liberal should be feared.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Any party that can make Barry Goldwater seem moderate, or even liberal should be feared.

Great quote.

[7 Wishes]

Stu, you just conveniently ignored statistical facts that show the Teabagger movement / Republican "Revolution" will have much less impact than you want them to come November.

[donnaplease]

I wanted to revive this thread to find out folks' opinions/reactions to the brewing scandal surrounding Joe Sestak.

Anyone?

[The_Noble_Cause]

I wanted to revive this thread to find out folks' opinions/reactions to the brewing scandal surrounding Joe Sestak.

Anyone?

I think Clinton has volunteered to be the fall guy to quickly bury this story and make it go away. I don't believe he was the one to contact Sestak, nor do I buy that the job Sestak was offered was non-paid. In terms of congressional bribery, however, this is small potatoes. If the GOP pursues this distraction at the expense of real issues, Sestak will win.

[slucero]

Here's the section of the U.S. Code that is in question:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 600

§ 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

And here's the White House response..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... ressman-se

Uncompensated Advisory Board Options.
We found that, as the Congressman has publicly and accurately stated, options for Executive Branch service were raised with him. Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.

White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.

note the WHite House press release actually ADMITS discussing "options" with Sestak.... THREE TIMES.. and also implicates the White House... "smoking gun" anyone?

The White House lawyers must be reading a different US Code... because US CODE clearly does not differentiate between "directly or indirectly", and also does not require "compensation" to be offered for the law to be broken.

The White House admits discussing this with Sestak, calls the offer a discussion of "options", and even couches it as a way "which would avoid a divisive Senate primary".

The law has been broken here... and someone needs to go to jail.