Teddybare Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Oh you don't think Bush Jnr is a better example of that? No. That would be rich, powerful family rigs elections . The fact he may or may not be a simpleton doesn't change a thing. Good diversion from the sham that is Obama though. Keep pointing out dubya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 No. That would be rich, powerful family rigs elections . The fact he may or may not be a simpleton doesn't change a thing. Good diversion from the sham that is Obama though. Keep pointing out dubya. No you're quite wrong, you were making a claim about positive discrimination and affirmative action. Bush Jnr was very much the beneficiary of the patronage and affirmative action of extraordinarily powerful and well connected Americans for one reason only-his family connection. Obama received the patronage of certain powerful democrats, but they didn't have the financial clout of Bush's Republican friends..but in the sleaze hole that is politics I'm afraid you cant really point a grubby finger at Obama-he's educated, as a student he was editor of the Harvard Law Review (whose previous incumbents have gone on to great things), he's also a fairly classy orator, in the mould of Clinton. Although I don't believe the sun necessarily shines out of his backside he would have been Presidential material whatever his colour was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidley Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Obama got to be President because he was touted as being black (which is not true) and nothing els, if he had been born white in NY he wouldn't have stood a chance no matter what is IQ was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Obama got to be President because he was touted as being black (which is not true) and nothing els, if he had been born white in NY he wouldn't have stood a chance no matter what is IQ was Nothing else? Where do you think US presidents come from other than Harvard/Yale/Brown and the right connections and motivation? He still stands impressively amongst US presidents (in terms of his credentials, although it seems that isn't good enough for some people), I think it's easier to identify the poor ones than the great ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 No you're quite wrong, you were making a claim about positive discrimination and affirmative action. Bush Jnr was very much the beneficiary of the patronage and affirmative action of extraordinarily powerful and well connected Americans for one reason only-his family connection. Obama received the patronage of certain powerful democrats, but they didn't have the financial clout of Bush's Republican friends..but in the sleaze hole that is politics I'm afraid you cant really point a grubby finger at Obama-he's educated, as a student he was editor of the Harvard Law Review (whose previous incumbents have gone on to great things), he's also a fairly classy orator, in the mould of Clinton. Although I don't believe the sun necessarily shines out of his backside he would have been Presidential material whatever his colour was. "won because of privilege" is not positive discrimination mate. "won because he happens to be mixed race" is. Kissinger and the wall street cronies don't have as much financial clout as the Texan republicans? Are you stoned? How hard is it to be a "fairly classy orator" when every word you say is scripted prompted and rehearsed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMqqsbeZvCI That's what happens when he's on his own. Then there was the inauguration ceremony which he masterfully failed in. He's a puppet nothing more. Of rich white democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 "won because of privilege" is not positive discrimination mate. "won because he happens to be mixed race" is. It's absolutely positive discrimination because people are being legged up into positions of authority purely because of who they know or are related to. Positive discrimination and privilege are two sides of the very same coin. If being 'mixed race' was seen as an 'advantage', America wouldnt have waited so long to elect a non white president. Obama's dad would have been sitting at the back of the bus only 40 years ago. Kissinger and the wall street cronies don't have as much financial clout as the Texan republicans? Are you stoned? Most 'Wall Streeters' are Republicans! How hard is it to be a "fairly classy orator" when every word you say is scripted prompted and rehearsed? Bush failed fairly spectacularly in that department and he served two terms! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMqqsbeZvCI That's what happens when he's on his own. Then there was the inauguration ceremony which he masterfully failed in. Terrible wasn't it. He's a puppet nothing more. Of rich white democrats. ..and that's different to any president and the party they happen to be aligned to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 It's absolutely positive discrimination because people are being legged up into positions of authority purely because of who they know or are related to. Positive discrimination and privilege are two sides of the very same coin. If being 'mixed race' was seen as an 'advantage', America wouldnt have waited so long to elect a non white president. Obama's dad would have been sitting at the back of the bus only 40 years ago. Most 'Wall Streeters' are Republicans! Bush failed fairly spectacularly in that department and he served two terms! Terrible wasn't it. ..and that's different to any president and the party they happen to be aligned to? It's different because this time the puppet masters used the fact that he was half black to get him into the position. Strange that Kissinger and his friends are republicans. Shocking. Maybe that means it's irrelevant which side wins, just like here, as both are as bad as the other and the shots are still called by money men. Maybe I am mistaken in my idea of positive discrimination. Telegraph: "Positive action is also not the same as positive discrimination, which gives applicants from disadvantaged and under-represented groups preferential treatment in the recruitment process, regardless of their ability to do the job. An employer cannot offer the job to a woman, or someone from an ethnic background, purely to improve the company’s gender balance. In that case it would mean favouring one candidate over another which is illegal. Positive discrimination has been, and remains, unlawful in this country." It happens though. Ethnic minorities in the states are given a SAT score factor as old people are in IQ tests. It happens here in football teams at various levels. It happens at large employers like the police, British gas, SCC, etc. If things continue down this route it won't be long before able bodies white males are campaigning for equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Yes you are very clever. You see? You're not always wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 You see? You're not always wrong! ooh hark at him lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 It's different because this time the puppet masters used the fact that he was half black to get him into the position. Well if it were an advantage it's no more relevant than JFK being elected because he was a good looking Catholic or Reagan because he had some notoriety as a film star. Strange that Kissinger and his friends are republicans. Shocking. Maybe that means it's irrelevant which side wins, just like here, as both are as bad as the other and the shots are still called by money men. Maybe I am mistaken in my idea of positive discrimination. Telegraph: "Positive action is also not the same as positive discrimination, which gives applicants from disadvantaged and under-represented groups preferential treatment in the recruitment process, regardless of their ability to do the job. The point I'm making is that the privilege that US presidents have enjoyed is no different from positive discrimination in that they've all had advantages which could be construed as 'unfair' or do you honestly believe pre Obama the playing field was level? An employer cannot offer the job to a woman, or someone from an ethnic background, purely to improve the company’s gender balance. In that case it would mean favouring one candidate over another which is illegal. Positive discrimination has been, and remains, unlawful in this country." I seem to remember Obama being in a competitive situation with other Democrat nominees and he was eventually elected by the people of the US, he wasn't guaranteed the job or given a shoe in because of his skin colour. It will have turned off as many people as it turned on. It happens though. Ethnic minorities in the states are given a SAT score handicap as old people are in IQ tests. It happens here in football teams at various levels. It happens at large employers like the police, British gas, SCC, etc. If things continue down this route it won't be long before able bodies white males are campaigning for equality. Does it really? I'd like to see some evidence of that please..preferably not reproduced from the Stormfront or BNP websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.