• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

emdash said:
it's not noteworthy when we're discussing his intelligence.
Click to expand...

Some people think it is. It's because some people think it had to be somebody more exceptional than if he were white. It's not an obscure belief that minorities and women have to do things better to gain the same attention for it.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Some people think it is. It's because some people think it had to be somebody more exceptional than if he were white. It's not an obscure belief that minorities and women have to do things better to gain the same attention for it.
Click to expand...
That's something I have a problem with, it's basically assuming racism where none may exist, and I don't think it proves brilliance in any way.
 
LaMidRighter said:
That's something I have a problem with, it's basically assuming racism where none may exist, and I don't think it proves brilliance in any way.
Click to expand...

Racism definitely existed in this country. Blowback is to be expected.

I don't think an average black candidate could win. I think it needed to be a Jackie Robinson. His name (Obama) didn't help much either.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Racism definitely existed in this country. Blowback is to be expected.
Click to expand...
Racism did and does exist in this country, blowback should be expected, sure, but all the white guilt is getting a little old now. I think by saying the first black anything post the civil rights movement cheapens an achievement, that is my opinion.

I don't think an average black candidate could win. I think it needed to be a Jackie Robinson. His name (Obama) didn't help much either.
Click to expand...
I think this is where we disagree, I think any qualified black candidate could have won this election, and wish it would have been a conservative candidate of any color to take the executive, I've seen plenty of blacks in this country emminently more qualified than Obama with more to say, and this is why when we keep using "the first black......." to demonstrate his brilliance it irks the holy hell out of me. Is the guy brilliant or is it hype is the real question, all I seem to be getting is the media machine answer here.
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
Racism did and does exist in this country, blowback should be expected, sure, but all the white guilt is getting a little old now. I think by saying the first black anything post the civil rights movement cheapens an achievement, that is my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm white and I don't feel guilty. The first of anything is noteworthy. In fact, one could argue that it's more noteworthy because it took 40 years after civil rights movement(really it never stopped, but we can agree on the late 60's).

LaMidRighter said:
I think this is where we disagree, I think any qualified black candidate could have won this election, and wish it would have been a conservative candidate of any color to take the executive, I've seen plenty of blacks in this country emminently more qualified than Obama with more to say, and this is why when we keep using "the first black......." to demonstrate his brilliance it irks the holy hell out of me. Is the guy brilliant or is it hype is the real question, all I seem to be getting is the media machine answer here.
Click to expand...

I don't think Condi could have won.

But I agree, "the first black..." doesn't automatically mean brilliant.

Mediocre people usually aren't the first to do something either though.

I truly believe if a black man spoke like Bush he wouldn't have ever had a chance.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I'm white and I don't feel guilty. The first of anything is noteworthy. In fact, one could argue that it's more noteworthy because it took 40 years after civil rights movement(really it never stopped, but we can agree on the late 60's).
Click to expand...
on't feel guilty either, but there is that white guilt movement, I don't so much think we need to look at the time it took, rather than what it took to get there.



I don't think Condi could have won.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, I would think she could, but this one is trickier because she was attacked on almost as regular of a timeline as our outgoing president, so I couldn't even begin to speculate.


Mediocre people usually aren't the first to do something either though.
Click to expand...
Eh, depends on what it is, but fair enough.

I truly believe if a black man spoke like Bush he wouldn't have ever had a chance.
Click to expand...
I think it would depend on the message and whether or not they could connect with people, but you may have a point.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Slippery Slope said:
I don't think that just because someone is and average joe, I can gain a useful perspective from his "reporting", a different perspective yes but a useful perspective? Not likely.
Click to expand...

The point was many people who normally have no interest in the Gaza conflict, may watch the news because of Joe.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Well, IMO, you'll look like an idiot for using the same tactics that those you attack use. It's hypocritical. If you really think you are right, rise above.
Click to expand...
Not hypocritical at all. Anyone is a fool to "take the high road" when dealing with those that don't: Lie when dealing with liars, don't take out a knife in a gun fight. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Not hypocritical at all. Anyone is a fool to "take the high road" when dealing with those that don't: Lie when dealing with liars, don't take out a knife in a gun fight. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I thought you were a Christian.

Lie when dealing with liars?

How can an objective onlooker know who is right?

Should America recruit people to blow themselves up in markets in Arab countries?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I thought you were a Christian.

Lie when dealing with liars?

How can an objective onlooker know who is right?

Should America recruit people to blow themselves up in markets in Arab countries?
Click to expand...
Just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I'm stupid. It certainly isn't a suicide pact.

There's no military or diplomatic advantage in blowing up markets so I don't see your point.
 
Southern Man said:
As I recall there were millions in the Democrat Party who claimed that Bush stole the election of 2000. The Democrat Party prevented his transition team from using federal facilities (his campaign asked me for money to help pay for rental of office space). Then they vandalized the White House and stole furniture. Then that withheld his political appointments.

Since the Democrats set the bar so low I can get pretty down and dirty and still be head and shoulders above them. ;)
Click to expand...
Oh look you exposed yourself as another mindless ditto-head by using the phrase "democrat party". Allow me to educate you, it's the democratic party. Just like it would be incorrect for me to call your party the "republic party". :2wave:
 
emdash said:
I like my racism like I like my men. make the most of that.

I'm not saying obama got the position because he was black. I'm saying that to be the first black editor, you don't necessarily have to be brilliant. you just have to be black. being "the first black editor" doesn't mean he's a genius--or perhaps I should say, any more of a genius than the white editors before him. if you are saying that all editors of harvard law whatever are complete geniuses, then that is another matter. why did you have to bring up race? perhaps I am not the racist one here.
Click to expand...
Fine so you admit to being a racist and now you admit to being flatly ignorant. To anyone who isn't racially or in this case racially and politically motivated, it would be obvious that a liberal black man would have to be head and shoulders above the competition to secure the position. Unless you can prove that there was suddenly some pressure or directive to appoint a liberal black man.

I didn't use the word genius, I used brilliant and yes, I do consider anyone who gets that position to be brilliant. It is Harvard law after all.

Perhaps you are the racist though, as evidenced by your commentary.
 
Southern Man said:
Just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I'm stupid. It certainly isn't a suicide pact.

There's no military or diplomatic advantage in blowing up markets so I don't see your point.
Click to expand...

You said you take on the tactics of your adversary.

If they lie, you lie.

Jesus didn't teach that. I'll let you tell me which Commandment that breaks.

It won't involve "CCD" or "Catechism". ;)
 
emdash said:
I understand that harvard is very impressive and everything. to say "obama is brilliant, he was an editor of the harvard law review" is one thing. to say "obama is brilliant, he was the first black editor of the harvard law review" is another thing. to me the mention of race in this instance is unnecessary, though slippery slope dude would use it to accuse conservatives of latent racism.

if managing to be elected president is evidence of brilliance then I don't want to hear anyone calling george bush a dummy ever again.
Click to expand...
If there wasn't a history of racism and bigotry against blacks then your point would be valid. It is a social milestone as well as an indication of his abilities and intelligence.
 
Tucker Case said:
8 years of Slick Willy, 8 years of Bush, 4 of Obama.

20 years of liberal presidents being made fun of.
Click to expand...
Sorry but Bush was not a liberal president, he was merely a puppet for the neocon agenda and so weak willed and weak minded that he was hood winked by them at every instance. Clinton on the other hand was a moderate/liberal republican.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Sorry but Bush was not a liberal president he was merely a puppet for the neocon agenda...
Click to expand...
:funny
Neo-cons are liberals with pro-American foreign policy goals.
 
Are people still abusing the term, "Neoconservative?"

I just don't get why people have to abuse the English language to criticize Bush. It's not like there's not many, many issues thast Bush can be legitimately criticized about. But why the compulsion to abuse language to do it?

BDS??
 
shiznit770 said:
The point was many people who normally have no interest in the Gaza conflict, may watch the news because of Joe.
Click to expand...
See, you don't even recognize the inherent tragedy of that statement. How smart can you be if you only pay attention to news if it's an opinion by someone ignorant? :doh This is exactly what I am talking about when I express concern over the dumbing down of our citizenry. DON'T praise or tune in to ignorance and it will stop being profitable. If it stops being profitable then it will be one less outlet of ignorance perpetuated. Apply that to all ignorance and pretty soon we can get back to praising intelligence.
 
JMak said:
Are people still abusing the term, "Neoconservative?"

I just don't get why people have to abuse the English language to criticize Bush. It's not like there's not many, many issues thast Bush can be legitimately criticized about. But why the compulsion to abuse language to do it?

BDS??
Click to expand...
They say it with such hostility... and are almost always completely unaware of what it means.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I thought you were a Christian.

Lie when dealing with liars?

How can an objective onlooker know who is right?

Should America recruit people to blow themselves up in markets in Arab countries?
Click to expand...
I am NEVER surprised at the frequency in which xians are hypocritical, in fact I'm only surprised when they actually do something or behave in a manner that is Christ-like.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You said you take on the tactics of your adversary.

If they lie, you lie.

Jesus didn't teach that. I'll let you tell me which Commandment that breaks.

It won't involve "CCD" or "Catechism". ;)
Click to expand...
No I said it opens the door for me to take on his tactics. If I choose to or not that would be entirely my choosing.

It's how you interpret Jesus's teachings. He taught me to turn the other cheek, His Old man only gave me two, so if you slap the second one then I'm free to slap back at will.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Fine so you admit to being a racist and now you admit to being flatly ignorant. To anyone who isn't racially or in this case racially and politically motivated, it would be obvious that a liberal black man would have to be head and shoulders above the competition to secure the position. Unless you can prove that there was suddenly some pressure or directive to appoint a liberal black man.
Click to expand...

a liberal black man or indeed anyone interested in being president of the united states would only have to be a more appealing candidate than his rival, which in this election was not much of a challenge.

Slippery Slope said:
I didn't use the word genius, I used brilliant and yes, I do consider anyone who gets that position to be brilliant. It is Harvard law after all.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that he is intelligent but I have yet to see ANY indication that the man is brilliant.

Slippery Slope said:
Perhaps you are the racist though, as evidenced by your commentary.
Click to expand...

well, that's not really relevant to this discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom