0
   

Blacks and women celebrate Condi Rice.

 
 
dare2think
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:02 pm
If it had been up to Rice, blacks would still be in the back of the bus, according to her opinion, that the civil rights movement was unnecessary.
I have never, ever heard of any black person saying something as egregious as that.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:08 pm
Link it.

I dare you.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:12 pm
Lash wrote:
Link it.

I dare you.


Stop it...yer making me all hot and bothered, when I'm supposed to be thinking about politics. :wink: It's something about Lash, link as in chains, and "I dare you".... Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:15 pm
Cav--

LOL...
<smiles>


<tingles>
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:23 pm
Lash wrote:
Cav--

LOL...
<smiles>


<tingles>


Wanna convert me to the dark side? <Darth Vader asthma breaths>
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:23 pm
dare2think wrote:
If it had been up to Rice, blacks would still be in the back of the bus, according to her opinion, that the civil rights movement was unnecessary.
I have never, ever heard of any black person saying something as egregious as that.


You got a link that puts that alleged comment in context?

Perhaps you are referring to her very reasonable speculation that segregation would have faded away in time without the intervention of the Civil Rights Movement?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:26 pm
Convert you...? If I get my thighs wrapped around you, you'll never see the light of day again....
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 07:27 pm
I have officially stored up too much Cav lust.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 09:00 pm
Re: Blacks and women celebrate Condi Rice.
Lash wrote:
Well, I thought it would be nice to see that title somewhere...since I can't find it in Reality....

It is wild to me how such an effective, strong, woman--the closest advisor to the most powerful person in the world--has garnered no more support, no accolades from women and blacks--two groups who are always trying to find successful sisters or positive stories of black achievement.

I have noticed a distinct discrimination among women and blacks in whom they will ballyhoo, and whom they won't. If any other woman in this country had soared to the heights Condi has reached, it would be Mardi Gras 24/7...

Clarence Thomas is unwelcomed among his own race. The second black person to serve on the SCOTUS. Even if he had a disfiguring pigment problem and a third leg, if he were the slightest bit liberal--he'd have statues and streets named after him already.

I heard a Georgia mayor on NPR today, and was heartened. He was explaining to the (of course, liberal) quizzical reporter how he could be a Republican. It was as if he had to apologize to the entire black community... I was proud that he told the reporter he felt racially stereotyped to be expected to be a Democrat. He shouldn't be expected to be anything.

It is to the great, abiding shame of women and blacks to turn their backs on the great achievements of these people.

It is the New Racism; by blacks against blacks. The New Feminist Sexism. Appalling.


Oh. I was unaware there were no right wing women or black people.

This seems a LITTLE odd. But hey - you know your country.

But really - NO right wing women or black people????? Gosh.

If there were, I would have thought THEY would be celebrating Condi's rise, rather than leaving it to her political opponents? Sort of like - as far as I can see - the right have not made it a point to spend a lot of time congratulating Hillary Clinton for her election? Or congratulating Kofi Annan for his???

I wonder if most progressive folk can see beyond someone's gender, or colour, and find their policies and actions more important, and perhaps look more to these to decide if they will wax very enthusiastic about someone?

For myself, I think it great (as I have said elsewhere) that things in the US have reached a point where a black woman can reach such a position - and I would certainly, on a personal level, congratulate MS Rice for her achievement - but I would consider it odd to be trumpeting the appointment of a woman whose policies and beliefs - as evidenced by her actions - I believe to be a very negative force for the US and the world - JUST because she is a woman and black.

Reminds me - as I have also said elsewhere - of the feminist idiots who actually said - when Margaret Thatcher was elected - that, despite believing her politics to be appalling, they would rather have such appalling policies carried out by a woman than a man.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:01 pm
I didn't realize that NOW and the NAACP had come out as straight political organizations.

They began as something completely different. Advocates and champions of women and blacks, respectively. They've been co-opted by the Democrat Party. Nothing more than fundraisers and puppets.

Since they are obvious, blatantly biased political organizations--there is a need for groups to fill the void their partisanship has left.

Women and blacks need honest brokers.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:05 pm
Lash wrote:
Convert you...? If I get my thighs wrapped around you, you'll never see the light of day again....

OK, I think I gave away my thigh situation. They're not that big....really.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:15 pm
The other irony that appears to me here - I don't know what others think - is that we appear to have Sofia arguing for more political correctness from the left!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:20 pm
Peggy Noonan on Condi Rice (excerpted from the larger column):

Quote:
Another person said, "She's not very feminine." My first thought was: Neither was Colin.


"You want to discuss the appointment of Condi Rice to State. Ssssshhhhhhhh.

She is a good person; she has experience and accomplishments; she is stable, hardworking and sophisticated. She is also--this is breathtaking, still--a young black woman raised to the position first held by Thomas Jefferson. It is considered corny to point this out. But corny's not all bad. Look at it this way. In every U.S. embassy and consulate in the world very soon, non-Americans will walk in to see two things: a picture of the American president and next to it a picture of the young black woman who is this nation's secretary of state. They will notice this, and consciously or not they will think: This truly must be some kind of country.

Is there a drawback to her appointment? There must be. There is a drawback to everything. The Bush cabinet is getting very Bushian. That sends a clear message. But you don't always want to send a clear message. Sometimes you want to confuse things. Sometimes you want to give an unclear message to the world so that it will sit down and scratch its head, in silence. When Colin Powell was secretary of state, foreign leaders didn't know exactly where he stood, either in terms of policy or internally, in his place in the Bush hierarchy. It confused them. This was so wonderful. They confided all sorts of things to him because they didn't know what he'd respond to or how or what he'd bring home and wouldn't. It's good when foreign leaders confide. It can be good when they don't know. More head scratching, I say. More "ssssshhhhhhhh."

The criticism of Ms. Rice has been fascinating. Her critics need to sit down and have a Coke, as Bob Dole said. A friend said to me yesterday, "She is boring." I thought, really? You can't be boring enough; we've had quite enough excitement.

Another person said, "She's not very feminine." My first thought was: Neither was Colin.

My second thought was: How startling is this conversation? I should probably explain it was held in Manhattan.

"I think she is extremely ladylike in her bearing and manner," I said. "Soft voice, pastel suits, heels, not a hair out of place."

"Yes," my friend said, "but she doesn't give off any sparks of sexuality."

"That's another thing I like about her", I said. We don't want a secretary of state running around giving off sparks of sexuality, do we. We don't want a secretary of state giving off sparks at all. We want a nice, quiet, calming, competent, sophisticated, even-keeled person to do a good, solid, nonshowy job.

Why do I think President Bush picked her? Because he knows her, trusts her, and knows she'll take care of State while he takes care of the CIA, which will be another great Bushian battle. She managed the National Security Council; she'll manage State. It's fine. Don't fuss. Ssssshhhhhhhh.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110005907
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 08:35 am
Quote:
My second thought was: How startling is this conversation? I should probably explain it was held in Manhattan.


Thanks for posting the article, Fox! Laughter is indeed good for the soul Smile
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 09:14 am
dlowan--

As I stated earlier--political correctness is one thing--blatant racism is another. I don't know how easily other people see it-- I know it when I see it. Of course, we all don't see the same thing...

But, please be assured-- Being against PC is not synonymous with being pro-racism. My zeal to question PC is equal to the same importance in calling out unadulterated racism.

To me, it's like the difference in your high school coach touching your shoulder--or squeezing your breast--

Calling a black woman in the public arena "Aunt Jemima" is racist. Period.

Her silence on the matter is admirable.

FOX--

Hilarious article. Condi doesn't exude sexuality??!! How dare she! She could take a few lessons from Eleanor Smeal--or Hillary Clinton.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 09:17 am
Well, we really DON'T want a secretary of state running around giving off sparks of sexuality do we? LOL
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 09:22 am
Quote:
Well, we really DON'T want a secretary of state running around giving off sparks of sexuality do we? LOL


I think that we had enough sparks of sexuality in our last prez to last me a lifetime.

Sexuality belongs in private life, not public.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 10:21 am
sheesh, no one's even mentioned Madeleine Albright. And she wasn't even attractive.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 10:45 am
Madeline isn't particularly unattractive either. Actually she is quite personable in person as is Condi Rice. Personable, however, is not enough qualification to be Secretary of State. Madeline Albright had the qualifications and was easily confirmed for that position. She turned out to be not particularly competent or effective in the job.

Condi Rice is every bit as qualified as was Madeline Albright but hasn't yet been given an opportunity to show whether she is competent and effective in the job. Nevertheless the left is calling her 'unqualified' and 'not up to the task' or worse a 'bootlicker'. Of course the same people know that Madeline Albright was diabolically opposed to all of Bill Clinton's policies and goals....NOT!

I'm appreciating the women and minorities (along with the guys of course) who recognize what a splendid choice Condoleeza Rice most likely will be.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 01:09 pm
Interesting aside-- Albright and Condi were students of Albright's brilliant father--some Korbel..? Neat note in Condi History.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 08:31:59