Well before when anyone said "We can do this" they could not all say "Yes we can" Now they have proof they can. Its like the first black man getting into professional basketball. Then every black man could do it. Even those who could not had a hoop and a ball and played the game. Becoming the President of the USA? Now they can do anything. With the bias in the judicial system and so many black fathers in jail, what black children miss, most of all, is a role model. A black man with a Harvard degree, a beautiful and smart wife and an intact family who is elected by a white majority to run the wealthiest most powerful country in the world? Thats a role model.
The ZOG owns your nation. What are you waiting for, Buff? Isn't this the reason you purchased all of your guns for? Kadark
Yup and now he knows it. And African Americans can do as well, if not better than, African students coming from abroad. Don't mind me, I never learned to mince my words.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah, those poor negros never had any success...whatever. I have a buddy I went to college with that is a black man that recently made senior manager at a CPA firm. Well on his way to partner if he sticks with it. They have always had the same chance at success as anyone else for a long time. Actually, my friend from college had parents that were well off enough to pay for his college but he could get all kinds of financial aid because he was black. I went in to financial aid and they practically laughed at me since I was a "rich white guy". The most they would talk to me about was maybe getting a loan if I was lucky. My parents spent a good part of the '80's barely making the mortgage note since my loser step dad was unemployed more often than not but when it came to financial aid, the fact that we were white made us "rich" and thus not qualified. Had another black friend in college who didn't last a semester but that was his fault. He preferred to drink 40's and chase women all day and basically couldn't get his mental state out of the ghetto. Felt bad for him in a way when he flunked out of a full ride via a football scholarship but he did it to himself. Moral of the story is no one is holding anyone else back except maybe themselves. Every one has at least an equal chance and I could argue that thanks to affirmative action my black friends had a better chance. It is all what you make of that chance....do you work hard or play around and squander the opportunity. I continue to conclude you are a total idiot!
The black man who looked at a white man and thought "these people are holding me back" will now look at the same man and think "they elected a black President!" Hes changed the African-American to the African-American Agreed.
Wrong..."these people are holding me back" is simply an incorrect perception at best and frankly sometimes just a bad excuse.
Its not a coincidence that for the same crime, not only are more black men arrested, but more are indicted, convicted and receive more harsh punishments. Its why Obama has to be who he is: educated, smart, patient and successful. He has to be as far from the stereotype as possible, he cannot be like McCain and show anger or frustration. Above everything else, he has to be cool.
I actually agree with SAM in regards to how Obama had to portray himself during the campaign, and I think that is part of what made his so exceptional. He literally could not screw up once. I mean that in the sense of, he couldn't run a campaign like John McCain ran the campaign. His margin for error was almost non-existent. But to the topic of bipartisanship...who the hell wants bipartisanship? If the Republicans wanted to have a bigger say, then they should have won some elections. The American people have spoken, and what they want is for the Democrats to go in there and get some shit done. Don't forget that the Senate has cock-blocked just about every bill the Dems pushed through in the last two years. This time around, it will be far easier to get those moderate conservatives to come to the center-left and vote Blue. The Republican party is barely even a national party at this point. They got destroyed for two elections in a row now, and it's time for the Dems to get some stuff done. Some stuff that will actually help this country as opposed to hurt it.
THAT, miss, is ridiculous. That's like saying I've been to the moon just because all of the guys that have actually gone were white. It's a bogus, ignorant statement. Obama's win, while a step in the right direction for race relations, was the triumph of one man, not the entire race. It does not mean, yet, that the black guy will get the job over the white guy if all things are equal. It does not mean that schools in ghettos are any better. It does not mean that blacks are not now suddenly being giving sentences far and away more harsh than those given to whites. You people have to give up the "It's all better now" crap. This doesn't change everything.
I bet you'll see the difference. Now all you guys have to do is get a woman President and women will stop taking Botox injections and puking in the toilet bowl. [NoT Palin though]
One of the problems faced by someone who wants to get rid of the entitlement mentality and put everyone to work is that America is already working more jobs at longer hours per person than any other country. We've hit diminishing returns on the "work harder" scale. What's gone missing is productivity maintenance and improvement. Productivity per manhour in several places has caught and passed the US, and in many places the standard of living available for a given level of productivity is higher anyway. And that productivity investment? Education, health care, infrastructure. All declining. Partly due to overwork, actually. But hey, we'll cut back some more on welfare, and lower wages again to create more jobs (that's how the country has been keeping the employment numbers up). That'll save a few pennies, and if we degrade the poor enough maybe we can finally see our way to taxing the rich again, like in the old days. Obama has a real job on his hands. And if he is foolish enough to rely on "bipartisanship" from the Reps he'll learn better pretty quick - he's not even going to get "partisanship" from his own Dems for a lot of what needs doing. Here's hoping he at least fights the good fight. He's a Righty, and Authoritarian, so there's an ideological limit to how much he can get done - but that's unlikely to be an issue. He'll be very lucky to approach it.
Bipartisanship: What does that even mean? One thing we must consider when examining issues of bipartisanship is the question of what it really means. As Rachel Maddow expressed yesterday: If Obama reaches out his hand across the aisle, what does that mean? How do any of us define bipartisanship? One of Maddow's guests, Michael Beschloss, pointed to the 1953 appointment of the Eisenhower cabinet, which included James P. Mitchell, the so-called "social conscience of the Republican Party", as Secretary of Labor. Beschloss describes him as an example of a token appointment, noting, "And he didn't feel very comfortable because it was a cabinet called 'eight millionaires and a plumber.' He resigned pretty fast. That's sort of what usually happens." But would, if the rumors are true, Colin Powell be a mere token as Secretary of Education? Or Robert Gates if he is retained as Secretary of Defense? Howard Fineman of Newsweek, when asked about cabinet rumors, had this to say: We might hope, in the end, that this is true. But that still doesn't speak to bipartisanship. What if the "compromise" is otherwise irresponsible? It will be interesting to watch the presumable Republican leadership—Sen. Mitch McConnell, who narrowly survived a tough race, Rep. John Boehner, and Rep. Roy Blunt—fashion the next two years at least of their party's Congressional policies. If they move left toward the center, they will be offering Obama something to work with. But if they break hard right, what will greet Obama as he tries to reach out? Will it be the venomous GOP of recent years, the demonizing, hypersensitive, party that vilified Max Cleland as a terrorist sympathizer and staged a morbidly fascinating dog-and-pony show in the name of Terry Schiavo? Or think of the Wall Street bailout that includes partial nationalization of the financial sector. House Republicans voting against the first bailout bill were demanding a reinforcement of failed trickle-down policies and a meaty bone thrown to insurance companies In the end, they did not convince their caucus fellows. What if the new Congressional leadership troika plays to this crowd? Does compromise mean President Obama should reinforce demonstrably dysfunctional policies in order to appease the opposition? If the compromise, such as it is, should be to appoint raving lunatics like William H. Pryor to federal courts, there may not be much basis for bipartisanship. If the compromise is a Palinesque anti-abortion law, there may not be much basis for bipartisanship. If the compromise is to run the country further into red ink by coddling the rich, there may not be much basis for bipartisanship. Certainly, we should not expect the GOP to roll over as Congressional Democrats did for years during the Bush administration, but if the GOP calls upon its rational best intentions to meet the president halfway in pursuit of a better America, then much can be done. If Republicans further alienate themselves playing to the emotional dysfunction of the party's evangelical social-conservative base, there is very little of substance that might be included, and conservatives will only feel further marginalized. Sen. Chuck Hagel as Gates replacement at Defense? Colin Powell at Education? Neither man would be easy to marginalize, and both could have powerful tempering effects in resolving partisan disputes in Congress. Former Iowa Representative Jim Leach at Agriculture? That would be a wise move; we would not expect midwest neighbor Hagel to allow President Obama to push Leach to the fringe, and if the nation starts seriously discussing farm subsidies in relation to food and biofuel production issues, it would help immensely to have a trusted Republican at the fore. To the other, while these swirling rumors are culled from U.S. News & World Report, it does not appear that Obama is seeking partisan parity in his Cabinet, but neither should we expect that outcome. However, if Fineman's wishful thinking of excellence comes true, party affiliation will matter less in Cabinet appointments than we are accustomed to. Let us hope for the best. ____________________ Notes: Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC. Broadcast November 5, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27576148/ Olbermann, Keith. Countdown With Keith Olbermann. MSNBC. Broadcast November 5, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27575836/ U.S. News & World Report. "Speculation About Obama Cabinet Underway". Political Bulletin. November 6, 2008. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_081106.htm
Here is some homework. How much of media representation of women is about age, appearance and "place" in the home?
Just catching a whiff of your "owed to partisan" mentality is enough to validate your cynical Imperialistic views. <large buzzer sounds> NOT!!
