ebrown p
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 10:43 am
maporsche wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
Who are the Majority in this country? Whites, right? Whatever benefits whites, should benefit ALL native Americans, do you agree, or is this a "for whites only" country?

As soon as another race gets a benefit, whites start screaming unfair, while they're getting it all along! Does not my taxes match yours, if we are making the same wages? Shouldn't I pay my fair share and if so, shouldn't I reap the benefit also, if I NEED it? :wink:


Could you clarify what you are referring to here? Is there a 'white-only' social program out there that I'm not aware of?


You mean... other than the presidency (as Clinton supporters don't think that a non-white can win)?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 10:44 am
Teeny said...

Quote:
As soon as another race gets a benefit, whites start screaming unfair, while they're getting it all along! Does not my taxes match yours, if we are making the same wages? Shouldn't I pay my fair share and if so, shouldn't I reap the benefit also, if I NEED it?


If we are making the same wage, AND if we have the exact same deductions, AND if we live in the same state, then yes your taxes match mine.
But since every state has its own tax rate,and since some county and/or local govts also have an income tax, I doubt if your taxes match mine.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 10:53 am
mysteryman wrote:
Teeny said...

Quote:
As soon as another race gets a benefit, whites start screaming unfair, while they're getting it all along! Does not my taxes match yours, if we are making the same wages? Shouldn't I pay my fair share and if so, shouldn't I reap the benefit also, if I NEED it?


If we are making the same wage, AND if we have the exact same deductions, AND if we live in the same state, then yes your taxes match mine.
But since every state has its own tax rate,and since some county and/or local govts also have an income tax, I doubt if your taxes match mine.


And as convoluted and twisted and unscrutable as the tax laws are, I'm pretty sure that there isn't any provision in them that take a person's race into account.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 10:58 am
ebrown_p wrote:

Could you clarify what you are referring to here? Is there a 'white-only' social program out there that I'm not aware of?


You mean... other than the presidency (as Clinton supporters don't think that a non-white can win)?[/quote]

The presidency is not a social program that targets whites specifically.

And I don't recall any Clinton supporter saying that only whites can win the presidency. I'm sure you'll be able to back up that statement though, you're usually quite thorough.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:00 am
okie wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Obama stuck his foot in his mouth last night.

According to the Huffpost, at a fundraiser in San Francisco, he claimed

Quote:
Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."


How is this possible?
He has NEVER had a single meeting of the subcommittee he chairs, yet now he wants to claim he knows more about foreign affairs?
He is gonna catch hell from Hillary for that statement, and in this case it is deserved.

The whole story is here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html

Not only that, MM, I heard he has never or almost never traveled to Europe in recent years, except maybe to London, and he is supposedly involved with European affairs on this committee. This is actually quite unbelievable for a so-called presidential candidate.


Were you as incredulous at Bush's paucity of knowledge and experience overseas, when he first ran?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:03 am
maporsche wrote:
maporsche wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:

Could you clarify what you are referring to here? Is there a 'white-only' social program out there that I'm not aware of?


You mean... other than the presidency (as Clinton supporters don't think that a non-white can win)?


The presidency is not a social program that targets whites specifically.

And I don't recall any Clinton supporter saying that only whites can win the presidency. I'm sure you'll be able to back up that statement though, you're usually quite thorough.


So you agree that Obama can win in the general election?

That kind of scuttles the "superdelegates should overturn the results of the primaries" argument the Clintons and their supporters are making.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:09 am
ebrown_p wrote:
maporsche wrote:
maporsche wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:

Could you clarify what you are referring to here? Is there a 'white-only' social program out there that I'm not aware of?


You mean... other than the presidency (as Clinton supporters don't think that a non-white can win)?


The presidency is not a social program that targets whites specifically.

And I don't recall any Clinton supporter saying that only whites can win the presidency. I'm sure you'll be able to back up that statement though, you're usually quite thorough.


So you agree that Obama can win in the general election?

That kind of scuttles the "superdelegates should overturn the results of the primaries" argument the Clintons and their supporters are making.


Yes I agree that Obama could win in the general election.

I won't be voting for him, but the rest of the country seems to not have a problem with the guy (at least compared to McCain or Nader).

I disagree that it scuttles Clinton's arguments regarding SD's though. Clinton would be a much better president than Obama IMO, so of course I think they should overturn the primary results, for the good of the country.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:10 am
I knew the Clinton's would pull something. I'd LOVE to hear those backroom threat sessions I hear Bill has been running.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:10 am
"Superdelegates don't have to follow the vote.."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:11 am
Lash wrote:
I knew the Clinton's would pull something. I'd LOVE to hear those backroom threat sessions I hear Bill has been running.


Don't seem to have been all that effective, though, do they?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:11 am
fat lady and all....
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:14 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lash wrote:
I knew the Clinton's would pull something. I'd LOVE to hear those backroom threat sessions I hear Bill has been running.


Don't seem to have been all that effective, though, do they?

Cycloptichorn


Apparently not.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:18 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
Still ROTFLMAO about real life drinking the right-wing Ayers kool-aid.


Once you get up off the F, and put your A back on, you might notice that Salon.com and the NY Times are not exactly 'right wing' .
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:18 am
They are sort of famous for last minute heroics...or anti-heroics. Waiting....
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:23 am
okie wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Obama stuck his foot in his mouth last night.

According to the Huffpost, at a fundraiser in San Francisco, he claimed

Quote:
Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."


How is this possible?
He has NEVER had a single meeting of the subcommittee he chairs, yet now he wants to claim he knows more about foreign affairs?
He is gonna catch hell from Hillary for that statement, and in this case it is deserved.

The whole story is here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html

Not only that, MM, I heard he has never or almost never traveled to Europe in recent years, except maybe to London, and he is supposedly involved with European affairs on this committee. This is actually quite unbelievable for a so-called presidential candidate.


I don't know if he's traveled to Europe or not.

But his pastor Jeremiah Wright traveled to Libya to meet with terrorist dictator Moamar Kadafi and lefty racist Louis Farrakhan.

So, his mentor Wright probably fills him in on the details of foreign affairs from his first hand experience.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:27 am
Lash wrote:
"Superdelegates don't have to follow the vote.."


True, they don't.

In fact, if they were required to they would be little more than a rubber stamp.

Why have supers if they don't have a voice?

The DNC obviously had this situation in mind when they put the supers in place.

If the DNC intended the supers to be a redundant reflection of the popular vote, then they are useless. They serve no purpose at all.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:42 am
real life wrote:
Lash wrote:
"Superdelegates don't have to follow the vote.."


True, they don't.

In fact, if they were required to they would be little more than a rubber stamp.

Why have supers if they don't have a voice?

The DNC obviously had this situation in mind when they put the supers in place.

If the DNC intended the supers to be a redundant reflection of the popular vote, then they are useless. They serve no purpose at all.


Their purpose... is to do what is best for the Democratic party (and the country at large). Specifically this means that the superdelegates will (as they should) prevent the fiasco of a brokered convention.

It is because of the superdelegates that Clinton will be dropping out by early June (and prossibly earlier).

Don't complain when they do this... they are just doing their job.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:59 am
Those of you who are frustrated and perplexed by the organizational ineptitude of the Democrat National Committee and its evident inability to craft primary election rules and a delegate structure that its local groups would tolerate, or to forsee the adverse side effects they would create should reflect on the fact that these habitual defects also infest the complex government-run systems and structures they would enact to "cure" all our problems. Right now the comedy is being played out in the Democrat Party. We should all dread the prospect of expanding it to include the whole government.
0 Replies
 
Gargamel
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 12:09 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Those of you who are frustrated and perplexed by the organizational ineptitude of the Democrat National Committee and its evident inability to craft primary election rules and a delegate structure that its local groups would tolerate, or to forsee the adverse side effects they would create should reflect on the fact that these habitual defects also infest the complex government-run systems and structures they would enact to "cure" all our problems. Right now the comedy is being played out in the Democrat Party. We should all dread the prospect of expanding it to include the whole government.


And we've enjoyed the competent hands of a Republican administration for so long. Pity.

Bungled illegal war vs. bungled Michigan primary. Which is worse? Too close to call, I say.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Tue 8 Apr, 2008 12:10 pm
Gargamel wrote:

Bungled illegal war vs. bungled Michigan primary. Which is worse? Too close to call, I say.


That's pretty funny (and true).

But I am disapointed at the DNC and this bumbling.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 742
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 09/21/2024 at 12:52:30