Why is it that the radical left...

[Riprorin]

only supports the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It isn't really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

 

[Strk]

As opposed to the love and admiration the radical right has for others?

 

[Riprorin]

Who has placed more minorities in the highest positions of government, President Bush or President Clinton?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
only support the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It's really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

Why is it the insane right doesn't provide any examples when bashing what their twisted mind perceives as the "radical left?"

 

[Strk]

Who has violated more human rights passively or actively? Republican administrations or Democratic ones?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who has placed more minorities in position of authority, President Bush or President Clinton?

What's Powell's authority? Carry Bush's lies to the UN?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Riprorin
only support the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It's really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

Why is it the insane right doesn't provide any examples when bashing what their twisted mind perceives as the "radical left?"

Yeah, I'd be interested in finding out how Clinton is a part of the radical left.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who has placed more minorities in position of authority, President Bush or President Clinton?

What's Powell's authority? Carry Bush's lies to the UN?

If they don't (carry out the the radical left's ideological bidding) the radical left trashes them.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who has placed more minorities in position of authority, President Bush or President Clinton?

NO ONE CARES WHO DID. If they aren't suitable for the job, they shouldn't be there. Who gives two sh1ts what color they are?

Originally posted by: cobalt
You know this country is in trouble when we are still bickering about racial diversity in anything, including politics. I don't care if they are all white, black, or whatever damn color, I just care they do their job RIGHT. I could care less about racial diversity activists, are they gonna throw a green person in there who can't fvcking read just to say they are more racially diverse? This country needs to grow up, and fast.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who has placed more minorities in position of authority, President Bush or President Clinton?

What's Powell's authority? Carry Bush's lies to the UN?

If they don't (carry out the the radical left's ideological bidding) the radical left trashes them.

Powell's own opinion was ignored on every important issue. You conservatives only seem to like minorities when they keep their opinion to themselves and do what the man tells them

 

[yllus]

I really haven't heard anyone on the left (radical or moderate) opposed to General Powell's progression up to SecState. Personally I'd love to see him make President, but in this neck of the woods I get classified as a conservative.

The new SecState, Rice...I see what you're saying though you could benefit from toning down the message a little. Because she carries forth Bush or the GOP's policies, she's the "token" minority. You're right, in that case it's more about using minorities as a lever to gain power than it is about legitimately hearing their claims.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who has placed more minorities in position of authority, President Bush or President Clinton?

What's Powell's authority? Carry Bush's lies to the UN?

LMAO!! Now it's Rice's turn. Nothing like letting the minorities do your dirty work for you.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who has placed more minorities in position of authority, President Bush or President Clinton?

What's Powell's authority? Carry Bush's lies to the UN?

LMAO!! Now it's Rice's turn. Nothing like letting the minorities do your dirty work for you.

Umm... no matter what, whether the SoS is white, black, asian, pacific islander, the SoS will do the dirty work for Bush anyways.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: yllus
I really haven't heard anyone on the left (radical or moderate) opposed to General Powell's progression up to SecState. Personally I'd love to see him make President, but in this neck of the woods I get classified as a conservative.

The new SecState, Rice...I see what you're saying though you could benefit from toning down the message a little. Because she carries forth Bush or the GOP's policies, she's the "token" minority. You're right, in that case it's more about using minorities as a lever to gain power than it is about legitimately hearing their claims.

Rice is a Cold War specialist on USSR. She is the equivalent of a dodo bird not just since 9/11, but since 1991. When the biggest threat was terrorism, she was still obsessing with Cold War era missile defense dreams. Now she is Secretary of State, the US top diplomat. What are her diplomatic skills, and where has exhibited those? What power of persuasion and credibility does she have in the world which largely thinks she helped start a war based on lies and disinformation.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who has placed more minorities in position of authority, President Bush or President Clinton?

What's Powell's authority? Carry Bush's lies to the UN?

LMAO!! Now it's Rice's turn. Nothing like letting the minorities do your dirty work for you.

Umm... no matter what, whether the SoS is white, black, asian, pacific islander, the SoS will do the dirty work for Bush anyways.

So how is it a position of authority? Being in charge of a department that is largely ignored and marginalized by this administration.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who has placed more minorities in the highest positions of government, President Bush or President Clinton?

What a Joke. Only Lemmings would be proud of Religious Radicalism taking over the Govt.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who has placed more minorities in the highest positions of government, President Bush or President Clinton?

What a Joke. Only Lemmings would be proud of Religious Radicalism taking over the Govt.

How is "relgious radicalism taking over the government"?

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who has placed more minorities in the highest positions of government, President Bush or President Clinton?

Are you admitting Bush is a member of the radical right?
(Not saying he is)

Anyway, radicalism isn't always wrong. It simply means you need to have a little bit more introspection time to think about whether you really need to push things that much. Most often though, is seems the radical on both sides aren't lemmings to anyone but themselves.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Rice is a Cold War specialist on USSR. She is the equivalent of a dodo bird not just since 9/11, but since 1991. When the biggest threat was terrorism, she was still obsessing with Cold War era missile defense dreams. Now she is Secretary of State, the US top diplomat. What are her diplomatic skills, and where has exhibited those? What power of persuasion and credibility does she have in the world which largely thinks she helped start a war based on lies and disinformation.

Oh that's BS. Every damned SecState in decades has been a Cold War specialist, that was the defining area of study of these people's lifetimes when it came to politics - and for good reason.

Under Clinton, Albright was a Russian and Central/Eastern Europe political expert. Christopher before her was a practising lawyer who dealt more with the Middle East but people barely remember the guy's name. Now Dr. Rice is easily the equal of Albright or Christopher in experience in the same fields, but she's a dodo bird? Okay, who could come up to bat that would be a better choice?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who has placed more minorities in the highest positions of government, President Bush or President Clinton?

Are you admitting Bush is a member of the radical right?

I'm not but the radical left thinks so.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who has placed more minorities in the highest positions of government, President Bush or President Clinton?

Are you admitting Bush is a member of the radical right?

I'm not but the radical left thinks so.

obvious++;

I'm sure the radical right would be just as happy calling Clinton a Commie

 

[Infohawk]

The only people Bush has convinced with his token appointments are fundies and other people who follow him blindly.

 

[Riprorin]

Let's get back on topic:

Why is it that the radical left...only supports the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It isn't really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Let's get back on topic:

Why is it that the radical left...only supports the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It isn't really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

Why would someone respond to you? You'll just re-crap your first post. That's because you are close-minded. You have no interest in learning or listening to other people. Cheers.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Let's get back on topic:

Why is it that the radical left...only supports the advancement of minorities when they do their ideological bidding?

If they don't the radical left trashes them.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It isn't really about caring for the welfare of minorities at all, is it?

Why would someone respond to you? You'll just re-crap your first post. That's because you are close-minded. You have no interest in learning or listening to other people. Cheers.

And you have no interest in addressing the question so you obfuscate.