Condi Rice for President

I'm amazed how someone can proudly be a citizen of a country where all are created equal, and use "egalitarianism" as a swear word.
Click to expand...
It is one thing to say that everyone is equal under the law or equal under God, it is another to say that everyone is the same and that there are no differences between the races or the genders.

Hugh, this may come as a shock, but most of the world's population is not Southern white heterosexual males.
Click to expand...
I am quite aware of that. But if most of the people in the world were Chinese, does that mean I should vote for a Chinese for POTUS? I don't see your point.

Now, given your feeble attempt to put forth an argument that Southern white heterosexual males are superior leaders, would you please explain Jimmy Carter. LBJ, Bob Byrd, just to name three?
Click to expand...
I do not remember using the word "superior". I think what I said is that my personal preference for POTUS region/race/sexual preference/gender is Southern/white/heteroseuxal/male. If you want to test my preference, just hold the current Congress up to it. Just see how many of the antigun socialist scum, like hillary/chucky/lautenberg/durbin/boxer/feinstein, are Southern white heterosexual males. I don't think my position is feeble, I think what's feeble is hiding your head in the sand and going through life insisting that there are no differences in people due to region/race/gender/etc.
 
Certainly there are differences, but none of them have anything to do with "values". That's the term YOU used.

Now you're just backpedaling.
 
Handy, the VALUE is in recognizing the differences rather than pretending that they don't exist. How many times do I have to say this?

Handy, I tire of you. You have called me a racist, a bigot, abnormal, referred to the KKK, and displayed every other sign of being a pompous carpetbagger. You are now on my ignore list.
 
Well, that's what I get for trying to reason with egalitarians. I said up front that it cannot be done, but that I would, as a courtesy, briefly explain a few points. I think I did that. I think I explained that, whereas I do feel it would be immoral and wrong to have a homosexual POTUS, that my concerns with a black female President were of a different nature and regarded things such as (1) electability and (2) the baggage that blacks/women carry and (3) the most courteous interface with foreign cultures. I think a people who recognize these things have better values than a people who pretend that race and gender do not matter.

And also I wanted to make the point that egalitarianism is more a Northern trait. "Condi for Pres" ain't gonna fly in the South because of her race and gender. Get over it. And "Condi for Pres" ain't gonna fly in the North because the North are the ones that are going to be electing Hillary. Y'all have to do better than Condi unless you want President Rodham-Clinton. :barf: :barf:
 
Well Hugh,
I'm sure your list of those ignored grows daily. Strong men are able to stand by their convictions, weak men put their hands over their ears and loudly yelling, "LALALALA, I'm ignoring you."
Hugh, you made the statements, then you backpeddle...not very manly.
It's quite clear that you believe anyone different from you is not equal in the eyes of God. And as far as differences in region, you have yet to explain those gems of the South, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Tell us about those paragons of Southern white heterosexual male hood. Not a week goes by when I don't read about Jimmy running around the world bad mouthing my Country or BJ Clinton spewing his trash. Both of whom are on record as being anti Second Amendment. Ms. Rice, the black woman, has gone on record as a staunch supporter of that Amendment. So, Hugh, how about an explanation.
 
oystermick ...

First off, my ignore list has been at two, now it is at three, and you are close to making it four with your emotional ranting. If those numbers don't meet your satisfaction, I couldn't care less.

I am not aware that I have backpedaled. Quite the contrary, I conceded that I think a homosexual is unfit to be POTUS but that my concerns with Condi are of a different nature. I don't see how much more forward I can be about it. Yet you keep on saying that I don't think everyone is equal and LA LA LA. You are having what we call a "hissy fit". If you cannot resume a more intelligent conversation, then yes I will put you on my ignore list.

I do not remember saying that Southerners are superior. I just said that it was my personal preference to have a Southern white heterosexual male POTUS (and people in general want a delegate who resembles them). YOU wanted to turn it into a contest, so I said hold the current Congress up against it. And you have a hissy fit.

Maybe you are thinking that I personally elected every POTUS in history? That would explain a lot, because then it would be all my fault that every POTUS has been a white male, and you could then question my personal integrity. Otherwise, it seems like your beef is not with me but with human nature and American culture. I don't think I have any obligation to justify human nature or American culture to you.
 
Only fools make decisions based on such relatively superficial issues such as race and gender. Choosing the person who's abilities best match the requirements and challenges of the job at hand is the wisest course in decision making. Perhaps you believe that people outside of your narrow viewpoint don't have the best abilities; that they're somehow fatally flawed or permanently disqualified by their race and/or gender.

To follow the logic of your 'values', any white, southern, heterosexual male trumps any male or female of color or differing orientation for any job. Given those 'values', you or one of your 'good buddies' would be a better pilot than Amelia Earhart, a better boxer than Muhammad Ali, a better scientist than Geo. Washington Carver, a better artist than Georgia O'Keefe, etc. Sir, those aren't 'values'. They exemplify vile, ignorant, elitist bigotry of the lowest form.

I grew up around 'ol' boys' who taked the same trash. Dispite trying to dress it up and make it sound reasoned and educated, it's still the same old racist/sexist tripe. I hope that the Creator sees fit to eliminate this strain of ignorance from the southern character (and that of our Nation) soon.

It's OK. You can take the sheet off your head now. Its the 21st Century.
 
Hugh, being on your "ignore list" would be a badge of honor for me. Better yet, why not put me on your double secret ignore list. :D
 
well i have had about enough of this southern bashing. if any of you have ever been anywhere you would know that racism is more prevalent in the ne us than in the south. i have NEVER encountered the level of hatred in the south that i have in the north for minorities. anyone remember the riots in boston, la, detroit etc. the south has nothing to compare with those things. not to mention that indiana and ohio have the largest klan groups in the nation. get your stereotypical heads out your asses and stop spewing the same old tired arguments. sounds exactly like the same approach antgunners us aginst us.

and besides it is a moot point. racism will never go away, NEVER, EVER! so learn to live with it or drive yourself nuts trying to change people. you haven't seen racism until you have seen the hispanics and the blacks go at each other.

this thread has revealed how ignorant and uninformed some people in this country are.
 
Sir,

Can you read? No one here is bashing the south nor accusing southerners in general of being racist/sexist troglodytes. What has come under some scrutiny here is HughDamright's warped sense of what constitutes 'southern values'; his assertion that southern, white, hetero males are inherently preferable than women or blacks to hold high office, be it President of the US or Secretary of State. What has also come under some scrutiny is his misguided assertion that blacks and females tend to be too blinded by attention to their own issues to be able to work for the greater good. I won't even begin to address his comments about asians, foriegners in general, gays, dwarves, etc.

These assertions based on stereotype are both wrongheaded and malignant. They fly in the face of daily, observable, demonstrable reality. Kinda like your stereotyping of blacks and hispanics regarding the alleged intensity of their racism. Racism will never go away if we continue to swallow tripe such as this. I, for one, don't care to 'learn to live with' this large pile of dung in my environment. Racism, like any evil, needs to be confronted. All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

"This thread has revealed how ignorant and uninformed some people in this country are." The irony of your statement is almost overwhelming. Wake up.
 
I read hugh's comments and believe he is saying that he would "prefer " to have someone that looked like him and held similar beliefs, all other things being equal.

However given the choice of say Condi v. Al Gore, Condi would come out on top...personal preferences aside.

Race, sex and creed being secondary preferences to qualifications for the job elected.

The old saying "birds of a feather..." means we inherently prefer those who look, act, smell, believe,etc like us.

That is not to say I believe that I am superior to those who don't...I just generally prefer their company.
 
No, Hugh didn't say "prefer", he said that favoring white males shows good values and is a moral (right or wrong) decision.
 
A black woman for president?

I would vote for a black street hoor before I would vote for Hillary, and would trust one more.
As for Condi Rice, I think she is one of the smartest people in public office, and I would vote for her in a second, and wouldnt give a thought about her color.
I am just proud we have a woman, like her in office, She is a great woman, a great black woman and her race should be proud of what she is, what she has done, and what she stands for.
As a white person, I am proud of our country that would put a person like her in the office she holds.
 
Threads like these... *sigh*. Sometimes I'm just ashamed for my southern countrymen.

Whatever happened to choosing a president based solely on qualifications and capability? If I found a presidential candidate who had good political support and I believed could balance the budget, keep our military strong -while- shrinking the government, helping the economy along, -and- most of all protecting our constitutional rights you better believe I'd vote* for he, she, or it, even if it was a pagan transexual with green hair and three eyes.

For God's sake, it's the job, not the appearance.


*(Yes, I understand that politics is a game and there's no sense in voting for a spur candidate when it means that a coherent force is going to install a candidate that's diametrically opposed to what I actually want. This is how Bush got into office with my quasi-approval, though I voted Badnarik.... I knew my county was going to seat Bush soundly. If my county were leaning 51% Kerry, I'd likely have not only voted Bush but campaigned. It's a sad state of affairs when your vote gets dictated by who you're voting -against-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top