Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1842 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 24 Oct 2008 15:25 Post subject:
Hanzou wrote:
I find it ironic that those who support family values would be against Obama and for McCain.
Obama is a devoted husband and family man.
McCain cheated and eventually divorced his first wife when a hotter/richer woman came into his life.
That is true. I would hold it against McCain more had he not been a Prisoner of War, torchered for 5 years, 3 of which was in solitary confinement. I think that would do a job on anyone's psychology. Surely not an excuse, but a symptom. No one is perfect. McCain just might have done it anyway, who knows. I can tell you, he's no Bill Clinton!!!
If you are referencing my post regarding the two Muslim men I was speaking with, neither of them were McCain supporters. I am positive that there are more issues dear to them other than "family values", but that is what THEY mentioned.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1842 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 24 Oct 2008 15:30 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Hanzou wrote:
I find it ironic that those who support family values would be against Obama and for McCain.
Obama is a devoted husband and family man.
McCain cheated and eventually divorced his first wife when a hotter/richer woman came into his life.
Well there are reasons the religious right is cold to him even now.
Not just the "religious right", but "conservatives" in general. McCain has gone out of his way to stick it to "conservatives" over the years. Remember, just in 2004, he considered going on the ticket with Kerry. Kerry would have loved the McCain of 2004 on his ticket. At that time, he was the liberal medias "GOP Darling". My how times have changed.
BTW, what up with the REpublican and CHristian?? Key strokes (I do this sometimes)??? Or is there a point to be made???
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 24 Oct 2008 15:41 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
If you are referencing my post regarding the two Muslim men I was speaking with, neither of them were McCain supporters. I am positive that there are more issues dear to them other than "family values", but that is what THEY mentioned.
I think what you said has merit. I have read that Muslims in Europe tend to be very conservative and often complain about the liberalism of Europe, especially in regard to sexuality.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1842 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 24 Oct 2008 16:03 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
If you are referencing my post regarding the two Muslim men I was speaking with, neither of them were McCain supporters. I am positive that there are more issues dear to them other than "family values", but that is what THEY mentioned.
I think what you said has merit. I have read that Muslims in Europe tend to be very conservative and often complain about the liberalism of Europe, especially in regard to sexuality.
Many Muslims are a group in which "social conservatives" would have an ally with. Samething with many Blacks, who tend to be socially "conservative". I don't know about the "hate" wing of the Republican Party, but there is definetly a "Blind Wing" so to speak.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 24 Oct 2008 17:06 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
If you are referencing my post regarding the two Muslim men I was speaking with, neither of them were McCain supporters. I am positive that there are more issues dear to them other than "family values", but that is what THEY mentioned.
I think what you said has merit. I have read that Muslims in Europe tend to be very conservative and often complain about the liberalism of Europe, especially in regard to sexuality.
Many Muslims are a group in which "social conservatives" would have an ally with. Samething with many Blacks, who tend to be socially "conservative". I don't know about the "hate" wing of the Republican Party, but there is definetly a "Blind Wing" so to speak.
I think both parties have a lot of bigots and xenophobes.
The Dems have a lot of blue collar ones, but those people are socially conservative and tend to vote Dem due to historic union ties.
I am sorry, but I believe the Republican party has a much larger % of racists who see it as the "white party" and I do believe REpublicans play a lot of white male identity politics in coded ways.
Dems have bigots but those bigots are smaller and have no choice but to work with other constituencies they don't like (blacks, Hispanics, gays, tree-huggers, etc) because that is the only way they can get enough people together to even hope to win.
Republicans are much simpler...
1) Religious Right
2) War Hawks
3) Fiscal Conservatives
4) libertarianesque
5) straight up good ol' boy racists/xenophobes
The hardcore racist though hate both parties as a trip to American Renaissance can reveal.
Republicans could easily accommodate Muslims, about 20-25% of blacks, over 50% of Hispanics, and almost all Asians...also more women
The issue there is you have to do the following:
1) marginalize closet racists
2) take abortion out of the platform and just lump it under states-rights
3) marginalize intolerance religious right who can't even accept Mormons let alone Muslims
4) Change the border policy somewhat...to a more McCain policy, which is almost the same as Obamas.
I don't see that happening, but eventually they will have no choice, as white males shrink in number, as I said, in the next 20-30 years you will need only 35% of whites or so to win a national election, right now it is about 42% or so (about what Clinton got).
It will be an enviable party. This is not my opinion, this is reality if demographic trends hold. The only way this won't happen if the REpublicans can generate some type of white racial demographic right wing backlash that makes whites "racialize" and openly talk about "white interests"...
That's possible if Hispanics keep flooding in at such a high rate and whites find there is no where to "white flight" to...but that is a ways off.
I had a similar conversation today, i.e America in 2058 when 'Whites' will be the 'minority'. LOL! Keep dreamin. Many 'Blacks' still think things will change when Whites/White males i.e Republicans are a numerical 'minority'. My advice is: SEE South America. I predict a rise in a marginal buffer group (i.e mulatto) OR as theorized @ODR, a change in the definition of 'Whiteness'.
P.S. There is a closet racist Democrat (White, female) in one community group I belong to. All the 'Blacks 'in our organization acknowledge this (quite obvious by her demeanor). Yet, most, if not all, the Blacks in our group (largely Democrat) voted for her and ousted her opponet, a Black female Democrat. Her opponet was tied-in with a corrupt local Democratic organization. So, no one PARTY is privy to the racist label.
You can marry in this country as young as 13, with parents permission, in the 1950's Jerry Lee Lewis married his 12 year old cousin, legally, in a CHristian church.
Usually marrying a 9 year old does not mean she moves in with you and you sleep with her.
I can't find a Muslim country where that is allowed today. These marriages aer basically "I promise my daughter will be your wife when she is of proper age."...
It is not normal that men in most Muslim nations marry 9 year olds...that is an extreme fringe thing as well.
If you have evidence that this is the "norm" in most Muslim countries please show it.
Never said it was the norm in most Muslim countries.
However in many Muslim countries child brides are common. For example, about 20 years ago there was a case in India where a Muslim family sold their daughter to a Saudi Sheik. The Saudi was at least 50. The girl was around 10 or so. He clearly didn't see this as a problem. He was planning to take her back to his country as his wife, when a flight attendant (Indian and Hindu) intervened.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 27 Oct 2008 16:42 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
You can marry in this country as young as 13, with parents permission, in the 1950's Jerry Lee Lewis married his 12 year old cousin, legally, in a CHristian church.
Usually marrying a 9 year old does not mean she moves in with you and you sleep with her.
I can't find a Muslim country where that is allowed today. These marriages aer basically "I promise my daughter will be your wife when she is of proper age."...
It is not normal that men in most Muslim nations marry 9 year olds...that is an extreme fringe thing as well.
If you have evidence that this is the "norm" in most Muslim countries please show it.
Never said it was the norm in most Muslim countries.
However in many Muslim countries child brides are common. For example, about 20 years ago there was a case in India where a Muslim family sold their daughter to a Saudi Sheik. The Saudi was at least 50. The girl was around 10 or so. He clearly didn't see this as a problem. He was planning to take her back to his country as his wife, when a flight attendant (Indian and Hindu) intervened.
Well sure, but I can say the same thing about Africans who profess to be Christian or animist.
I guess the difference is that it is not argued as a religious issue or right...it is just a cultural norm.
You can marry in this country as young as 13, with parents permission, in the 1950's Jerry Lee Lewis married his 12 year old cousin, legally, in a CHristian church.
Usually marrying a 9 year old does not mean she moves in with you and you sleep with her.
I can't find a Muslim country where that is allowed today. These marriages aer basically "I promise my daughter will be your wife when she is of proper age."...
It is not normal that men in most Muslim nations marry 9 year olds...that is an extreme fringe thing as well.
If you have evidence that this is the "norm" in most Muslim countries please show it.
Never said it was the norm in most Muslim countries.
However in many Muslim countries child brides are common. For example, about 20 years ago there was a case in India where a Muslim family sold their daughter to a Saudi Sheik. The Saudi was at least 50. The girl was around 10 or so. He clearly didn't see this as a problem. He was planning to take her back to his country as his wife, when a flight attendant (Indian and Hindu) intervened.
I think the term "many" might be an exaggeration. I would name Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Afghanistan and Pakistan at most. I do agree hose are 5 countries too many.
Last edited by anonymouse on Mon 27 Oct 2008 17:18; edited 1 time in total
I had a similar conversation today, i.e America in 2058 when 'Whites' will be the 'minority'. LOL! Keep dreamin. Many 'Blacks' still think things will change when Whites/White males i.e Republicans are a numerical 'minority'. My advice is: SEE South America. I predict a rise in a marginal buffer group (i.e mulatto) OR as theorized @ODR, a change in the definition of 'Whiteness'.
This is actually the justification behind multiculturalism and diversity; the belief that only whites (or white males) can be racist, so having less of them will mean less racism. “People of color,” which includes a religious group like Muslims, are all united in “struggle” against the white, and although race is supposedly a social construct and everybody believes this, “people of color” have racial tolerance encoded in their DNA. Somehow we are to believe that human nature works differently for people on whom we project romantic qualities.
I had a conversation with two friends last month in which I asserted that once whites become a minority in this country, black America is f*cked. One of my friends who believes all this nonsense about the natural racial tolerance of non-white, non-Western people got irate with me. What he and other commentators on the demographic decline of whites in the U.S.A. assume is that this will only adversely affect whites, and what is bad for whites is good for blacks…..Right? Rarely has there been any serious discussion about what this decline portends for America’s black population beyond how wonderfully diverse we’ll become.
If white America is in trouble in the future black America is doubly so. With the pathologies that beset the black community it will have to compete with other groups in a similar position for jobs, government funding and the attention of society. There is absolutely no evidence that non-black “people of color” (I’m excluding identity politicians who speak for these groups) have any connection to black America, her historic struggles or feel any responsibility for black Americans. The recent troubles in Southern California between African Americans and Chicanos/Mexicans are an indication of what the future holds for black America. Imagine swarthy people who can be violently racist and can’t be guilt tripped into submission.
More troubling is the fact that most black intellectuals, politicians, leaders, etc. are totally unprepared for a post-white majority America. If they are some species of left-liberal, they dream wonderful dreams of multicultural “people of color” cooperating and building a society based on “social justice.” If they are motivated by racial resentment directed at whites, they salivate over the possibility that whites will get their comeuppance, never thinking that their own tribe might fare worse in a more diverse, less white society.
Will Arabs, Asians, Hispanics, fill in the blank, provide donations to black groups like the NAACP the way white America does? Will their communities definitely furnish volunteers that work in low-income black communities to replace the idealistic white ones? Will they even care about black America’s struggles and triumph’s in the U.S.A. when they, in the name of celebrating diversity, are disconnected from U.S. history? Will those who have their own story of victimization accuse black America of complaining too much as well?
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
