"Obama's replacement in Ill. must be black"

[tk149]

I think the person who should be most affronted by this is Obama himself. Rush is basically saying that the primary reason Obama was elected senator in the first place is because he is black, not because he's smart, educated, capable, or any other positives. Just because he's black.

That's really insulting.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: mooseracing
First, they need to end the African-American thing...it's getting old quick. I wish I could go around saying that the country should only have whites running it, otherwise it would be a disgrace to our founding fathers.

Yes, it is getting old quick. But there is no reason that you have to say there should only be whites, since with Obama gone, there WILL only be non-blacks in the senate. You don't have to argue that something should happen when it already has happened. That is the real disgrace: out of 100 senators, none will be black and only 4 minorities. The only bigger disgrace would be to purposely replace Obama with a black solely on race. Yes, there should be another black senator (or several), but Obama's replacement choice shouldn't be racially motivated.

Agreed completely.

i dont agree at all. NOBODY should be in office due to skin color. there is no discrace senators are elected a people of any color can get elected.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Memo: A black man got elected President. You can STFU about racism now.

Obama is half white noob.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: winnar111
With a black man as President it's hardly fair to say they will be 'underrepresented' in government.

Just for kicks, I'll make that argument.

As any school kid can tell you, there are three branches to our government. The executive branch you've covered, and we've got a half black man there (50%). In judicial branch we've got a black guy (11%). In the legislative branch within the chamber that's the House of Representatives, we've got forty odd black people (10.5%). In the other half of the legislative branch, we've currently got half a black guy there (0.5%) and if he's not replaced it'll be 0%. 50%, 11%, 10%, 0%. Seems underrepresented to me.

Finally, TV shows have taught us all that since the 90s there has to be a token black guy.

 

[jhu]

I think the least qualified person should be selected. Really, in Strom Thurmond's last years, he was more or less a living corpse and he was allowed to vote and what not.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: winnar111
With a black man as President it's hardly fair to say they will be 'underrepresented' in government.

Just for kicks, I'll make that argument.

As any school kid can tell you, there are three branches to our government. The executive branch you've covered, and we've got a half black man there (50%). In judicial branch we've got a black guy (11%). In the legislative branch within the chamber that's the House of Representatives, we've got forty odd black people (10.5%). In the other half of the legislative branch, we've currently got half a black guy there (0.5%) and if he's not replaced it'll be 0%. 50%, 11%, 10%, 0%. Seems underrepresented to me.

Finally, TV shows have taught us all that since the 90s there has to be a token black guy.

Blacks are about 10-15% of the population. Seems fair.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: mooseracing
First, they need to end the African-American thing...it's getting old quick. I wish I could go around saying that the country should only have whites running it, otherwise it would be a disgrace to our founding fathers.

Yes, it is getting old quick. But there is no reason that you have to say there should only be whites, since with Obama gone, there WILL only be non-blacks in the senate. You don't have to argue that something should happen when it already has happened. That is the real disgrace: out of 100 senators, none will be black and only 4 minorities. The only bigger disgrace would be to purposely replace Obama with a black solely on race. Yes, there should be another black senator (or several), but Obama's replacement choice shouldn't be racially motivated.

Agreed completely.

i dont agree at all. NOBODY should be in office due to skin color. there is no discrace senators are elected a people of any color can get elected.

I think you're missing the point. Non-Hispanic whites make up about 65% of the population. In the Senate they make up 96% of the representation. Doesn't that seem to say that there might be something a little off in that?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: mooseracing
First, they need to end the African-American thing...it's getting old quick. I wish I could go around saying that the country should only have whites running it, otherwise it would be a disgrace to our founding fathers.

Yes, it is getting old quick. But there is no reason that you have to say there should only be whites, since with Obama gone, there WILL only be non-blacks in the senate. You don't have to argue that something should happen when it already has happened. That is the real disgrace: out of 100 senators, none will be black and only 4 minorities. The only bigger disgrace would be to purposely replace Obama with a black solely on race. Yes, there should be another black senator (or several), but Obama's replacement choice shouldn't be racially motivated.

Agreed completely.

i dont agree at all. NOBODY should be in office due to skin color. there is no discrace senators are elected a people of any color can get elected.

I think you're missing the point. Non-Hispanic whites make up about 65% of the population. In the Senate they make up 96% of the representation. Doesn't that seem to say that there might be something a little off in that?

In other news, non-hispanic whites make up about 2% of NFL running backs.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I think you're missing the point. Non-Hispanic whites make up about 65% of the population. In the Senate they make up 96% of the representation. Doesn't that seem to say that there might be something a little off in that?

In other news, non-hispanic whites make up about 2% of NFL running backs.

Are NFL running backs supposed to be a body representing the population of the United States?

What's funny is that in your ignorance you have actually helped my point. Why is it that black people are so disproportionately represented in athletics? Is it some sort of innate genetic superiority? It doesn't appear to be so. There are sociological reasons as to why certain groups tend towards certain positions, for running backs and senators.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I think you're missing the point. Non-Hispanic whites make up about 65% of the population. In the Senate they make up 96% of the representation. Doesn't that seem to say that there might be something a little off in that?

In other news, non-hispanic whites make up about 2% of NFL running backs.

Are NFL running backs supposed to be a body representing the population of the United States?

What's funny is that in your ignorance you have actually helped my point. Why is it that black people are so disproportionately represented in athletics? Is it some sort of innate genetic superiority? It doesn't appear to be so. There are sociological reasons as to why certain groups tend towards certain positions, for running backs and senators.

Why do you think it doesn't appear to be so? If you look at 40 yard dashes at the NFL combine, you can see who's at the top, and naturally those groups of people move towards using their skills.

And why does the US Senate racial breakdown have to mirror the population of the United States?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: dullard
That is the real disgrace: out of 100 senators, none will be black and only 4 minorities.

i dont agree at all. NOBODY should be in office due to skin color. there is no discrace senators are elected a people of any color can get elected.

I stand by my original statement. There are two disgraces:
1) It is a disgrace that the qualified minorities are not sufficiently running for public service. They should be ashamed of themselves. This is a known problem.
2) If there is a qualified minority and he/she doesn't get elected due to race, then we have another disgrace. I don't know of any examples off the top of my head, but I'm certain America isn't above racism yet, and thus there is a strong possibility that this happens.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: dullard
That is the real disgrace: out of 100 senators, none will be black and only 4 minorities.

i dont agree at all. NOBODY should be in office due to skin color. there is no discrace senators are elected a people of any color can get elected.

I stand by my original statement. It is a disgrace that the qualified minorities are not sufficiently running for public service. They should be ashamed of themselves. I'm serious here.

Maybe they don't want Oreos thrown at them like Michael Steele.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Are NFL running backs supposed to be a body representing the population of the United States?

What's funny is that in your ignorance you have actually helped my point. Why is it that black people are so disproportionately represented in athletics? Is it some sort of innate genetic superiority? It doesn't appear to be so. There are sociological reasons as to why certain groups tend towards certain positions, for running backs and senators.

Why do you think it doesn't appear to be so? If you look at 40 yard dashes at the NFL combine, you can see who's at the top, and naturally those groups of people move towards using their skills.

And why does the US Senate racial breakdown have to mirror the population of the United States?

If you look at the top times today for swimmers, they are nearly all white people. Do you think this is because white people are genetically better at swimming? Of course there is genetic variation between groups, but I am unaware of any study that has shown a genetic advantage for blacks that would yield this sort of disparity. (or anywhere close to it) Feel free to link it if you have it though. Either that or consider the fact that other things might be coming into play there.

As far as the Senate goes, I never claimed that it needed to mirror the US population as a whole. What I said was the fact that a 65% majority controlling 96% of the representation in that body might indicate larger sociological issues at work, while you seemed to think that it's just a case of 'let the best man win', where 96% of the 'best men' just happen to be white.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: winnar111
With a black man as President it's hardly fair to say they will be 'underrepresented' in government.

Just for kicks, I'll make that argument.

As any school kid can tell you, there are three branches to our government. The executive branch you've covered, and we've got a half black man there (50%). In judicial branch we've got a black guy (11%). In the legislative branch within the chamber that's the House of Representatives, we've got forty odd black people (10.5%). In the other half of the legislative branch, we've currently got half a black guy there (0.5%) and if he's not replaced it'll be 0%. 50%, 11%, 10%, 0%. Seems underrepresented to me.

Finally, TV shows have taught us all that since the 90s there has to be a token black guy.

Blacks are about 10-15% of the population. Seems fair.

So we're in agreement then? Fair would be 10-15 black senators and zero would be underrepresented.

 

[retrospooty]

Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., called on Gov. Rod Blagojevich to name a black man or woman to the seat

OK, so some yahoo named Bobby Rush asked an asinine question... That doesnt make it so, and it doesnt make it a social issue... It just makes Bobby look like an idiot who is putting race ahead of country.

NEXT!

 

[babylon5]

Double post

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: babylon5

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I think you're missing the point. Non-Hispanic whites make up about 65% of the population. In the Senate they make up 96% of the representation. Doesn't that seem to say that there might be something a little off in that?

In other news, non-hispanic whites make up about 2% of NFL running backs.

Are NFL running backs supposed to be a body representing the population of the United States?

[/quote]

I don't see why athletics and politicians can't both represent the faces of population for United States. If we really are for multi-cultural society, footballs or basketball teams or hockey teams or swim team should have same number of races that represented our society, from South America to Middle East to Asia. But we don't force them to do that. As for government politicians, we elected them, if people really want every race represented, we'd have done so already. But then, most people have no problem watching one race dominated in one sport team either, and people continue support whatever sport team they are into.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: winnar111
With a black man as President it's hardly fair to say they will be 'underrepresented' in government.

Just for kicks, I'll make that argument.

As any school kid can tell you, there are three branches to our government. The executive branch you've covered, and we've got a half black man there (50%). In judicial branch we've got a black guy (11%). In the legislative branch within the chamber that's the House of Representatives, we've got forty odd black people (10.5%). In the other half of the legislative branch, we've currently got half a black guy there (0.5%) and if he's not replaced it'll be 0%. 50%, 11%, 10%, 0%. Seems underrepresented to me.

Finally, TV shows have taught us all that since the 90s there has to be a token black guy.

Blacks are about 10-15% of the population. Seems fair.

So we're in agreement then? Fair would be 10-15 black senators and zero would be underrepresented.

Having 50% of the Presidency should more than compensate 10 senators, given than the Executive branch is the most powerful in government.

 

[Pepsei]

the governor should shut him up by picking an Asian man... maybe me..... i'll make sure i do nothing and not get caught with several mistresses yes, i said mistresses, since i'm left leaning.