No, of course not. More of a general direction. My position is that we as a society and we as individuals shouldn't treat/view one another differently based on race. You posted a piece saying we shouldn't be colorblind like that. So I was just wondering in which ways you think we should not be colorblind towards one another as far as present actions go?
i think i covered that in every post about this though: people of different ethnicities exist. they have been treated quite badly in the past. the effects of that can be seen in society today (various inequalities). to say that we are all the same is not true because of these lingering effects. yes we should be treated the same. but just to say that and ignore the issue of race doesn't do the problem justice. we need to realize the effects and treat them so they don't repeat.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
i think i covered that in every post about this though: people of different ethnicities exist. they have been treated quite badly in the past. the effects of that can be seen in society today (various inequalities). to say that we are all the same is not true because of these lingering effects. yes we should be treated the same. but just to say that and ignore the issue of race doesn't do the problem justice. we need to realize the effects and treat them so they don't repeat.
Okay, I agree on how people of certain races have been severely mistreated in the past. And I agree that we shouldn't ignore that. I agree that we should be treated the same. But exactly how do we do that problem justice is where I am unclear about what you're proposing. How do we treat these problems of the past in today's society?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
True, but the sad truth is that the white people of today have inherited that legacy and are left to deal with the consequences of history. The proper way to deal with those consequences can't simply be to declare them "water under the bridge". They must be addressed head on. Ignoring them or wishing them away doesn't cut it.
Meaning what exactly? The people of today did not commit these acts and the ones who are should most certainly be addressed...other than that, I don't understand what exactly we should be doing about it other than educating ourselves on the mistakes of the past and focusing on not repeating them.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No, of course not. More of a general direction. My position is that we as a society and we as individuals shouldn't treat/view one another differently based on race. You posted a piece saying we shouldn't be colorblind like that. So I was just wondering in which ways you think we should not be colorblind towards one another as far as present actions go?
Not a solution, but how about a parable?
It's great when someone quits smoking - but if they already have lung cancer, survival will require a lot more than simply quitting.
Okay, I agree on how people of certain races have been severely mistreated in the past. And I agree that we shouldn't ignore that. I agree that we should be treated the same. But exactly how do we do that problem justice is where I am unclear about what you're proposing. How do we treat these problems of the past in today's society?
well i think you just asked the question of the day! or the century?
i'd say the first step is not brushing it off. i'm not saying you're doing this. but that's what it originally sounded like when we first started this 'conversation' and that's where my responses were coming from. we as a society should have an open dialogue about this and go at it head on. we should talk about how exactly people are still unequal today and how it can be more hidden in so many ways for so many reason. i know how you feel about barack obama, but honestly his 45 minute speech about this stuff is a good example.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
How do we treat these problems of the past in today's society?
i know this question wasn't addressed to me, so pardon me for butting in. Personally, i think we start by acknowledging the truth of their existence. Not only that societal inequalities are a direct result of a hideous history, but also that racism is very real today. The problems of the past are not just that. Only then can we begin to truly heal and correct societal inequalities. We need to acknowledge the fact that racism isn't just the gross examples we see manifested in white sheets and swastika tattoos. Racism exists in very subtle forms throughout our society.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
The "street cred" and "righteousness" remark was meant to be snarky. It's not that I think your decisions aren't based on principles, but rather a response to the impression I get when you write phrases like "D next to the name" as opposed to "Democrat" or "Obama supporters are like this" - which immediately lead to me saying "Nader supporters are like that."
The funny thing is, I was having a conversation with a Democratic activist here at work last week where I was more in "your" position defending my past Nader votes. Weird how things work. I did point out that if it wasn't for Nader ruining Gore's run (debatable, I know), then the Democrats would be dealing with a Lieberman nomination right now. He didn't think me too funny, though.
Obviously I don't think all Obama supporters are all the same on anything in particular. That was my reasoning for the question. To me Kucinich is more like Nader on the issues and you mentioned that you would vote for him had he gotten the nod. So I have to wonder if how much you're willing to settle depends on whether or not the candidate has 'Democrat' beside his name....which ironcally enough is actually seen as a 'D' on the ballot if I remember correctly.
And yes, it is highly debatable to blame Nader for Gore's not winning seeing as how we live in a democracy, where's the blame for the people who actually voted for Bush? and all of the third party candidates on the ballot received more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore in FL an-.....don't get me started....
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i know this question wasn't addressed to me, so pardon me for butting in. Personally, i think we start by acknowledging the truth of their existence. Not only that societal inequalities are a direct result of a hideous history, but also that racism is very real today. The problems of the past are not just that. Only then can we begin to truly heal and correct societal inequalities. We need to acknowledge the fact that racism isn't just the gross examples we see manifested in white sheets and swastika tattoos. Racism exists in very subtle forms throughout our society.
absolutely. it seems to become more hidden or manifested in different ways since de jure segregation became illegal. we still deal with a lot of de facto segregation for example.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
absolutely. it seems to become more hidden or manifested in different ways since de jure segregation became illegal. we still deal with a lot of de facto segregation for example.
Wow. De jure, De facto... i'm impressed. And i agree.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
well i think you just asked the question of the day! or the century?
i'd say the first step is not brushing it off. i'm not saying you're doing this. but that's what it originally sounded like when we first started this 'conversation' and that's where my responses were coming from. we as a society should have an open dialogue about this and go at it head on. we should talk about how exactly people are still unequal today and how it can be more hidden in so many ways for so many reason. i know how you feel about barack obama, but honestly his 45 minute speech about this stuff is a good example.
i know this question wasn't addressed to me, so pardon me for butting in. Personally, i think we start by acknowledging the truth of their existence. Not only that societal inequalities are a direct result of a hideous history, but also that racism is very real today. The problems of the past are not just that. Only then can we begin to truly heal and correct societal inequalities. We need to acknowledge the fact that racism isn't just the gross examples we see manifested in white sheets and swastika tattoos. Racism exists in very subtle forms throughout our society.
I never claimed that racism didn't exist today or that it isn't something that we need to continue to address....just the opposite, actually. However I do not agree that we need to treat or view people differently today based on race. That was what I came into this thread to challenge. Race should no longer matter if we truly want to move past racism. To favor anyone based on the color of their skin promotes inequality.
Do either of you think the race of Barack Obama should matter when one is making the decision to support him?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I never claimed that racism didn't exist today or that it isn't something that we need to continue to address....just the opposite, actually. However I do not agree that we need to treat or view people differently today based on race. That was what I came into this thread to challenge. Race should no longer matter if we truly want to move past racism. To favor anyone based on the color of their skin promotes inequality.
Do either of you think the race of Barack Obama should matter when one is making the decision to support him?
Of course not. And i don't think it has. Nor, however do i think we should downplay the historical significance of his nomination. It is worthy of mention. Nor do i think that if the black community exhibits a strong emotional response to his success, it is a sign of "reverse racism".
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
I never claimed that racism didn't exist today or that it isn't something that we need to continue to address....just the opposite, actually. However I do not agree that we need to treat or view people differently today based on race. That was what I came into this thread to challenge. Race should no longer matter if we truly want to move past racism. To favor anyone based on the color of their skin promotes inequality.
Do either of you think the race of Barack Obama should matter when one is making the decision to support him?
when you say treat or view people differently based on race, then are you saying you're against things like affirmative action for example? i'm not here nor there about that right now, i'm just trying see the whole picture of what you're saying.
as for the last question i'm not sure i can even answer that or that it's my place to answer that. people have all sorts of reasons for voting for people. some people must vote for people who match their beliefs 100%, some vote on whether or not they'd have a beer with them, some vote on if they match their beliefs enough and can get the job done . . .
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
when you say treat or view people differently based on race, then are you saying you're against things like affirmative action for example? i'm not here nor there about that right now, i'm just trying see the whole picture of what you're saying.
Yeah, I've struggled with affirmative action in the past and it still always comes down to treating people differently based on race, which I view to be wrong and racist. That's all I've been saying here from the beginning...is that we shouldn't focus on one's race in today's society if we truly wish to move past racism.
as for the last question i'm not sure i can even answer that or that it's my place to answer that. people have all sorts of reasons for voting for people. some people must vote for people who match their beliefs 100%, some vote on whether or not they'd have a beer with them, some vote on if they match their beliefs enough and can get the job done . . .
So, I guess it's not part of your personal reasoning then?
No candidate matches my beliefs 100% of the time. And as far as getting the job done...only one candidate is proposing the things I'd like to see get done so it's an easy choice.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yeah, I've struggled with affirmative action in the past and it still always comes down to treating people differently based on race, which I view to be wrong and racist. .
AA is neither of these. i have to go but will elaborate later. For now let's just say that Affirmative Action is basically a necessary part of that "lung cancer treatment".
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Yeah, I've struggled with affirmative action in the past and it still always comes down to treating people differently based on race, which I view to be wrong and racist. That's all I've been saying here from the beginning...is that we shouldn't focus on one's race in today's society if we truly wish to move past racism.
So, I guess it's not part of your personal reasoning then?
No candidate matches my beliefs 100% of the time. And as far as getting the job done...only one candidate is proposing the things I'd like to see get done so it's an easy choice.
if i were voting based on race or gender issues, don't you think i'd be a clinton supporter? i mean it would fit, wouldn't it. i have many reasons i'm voting for obama, and his race isn't a part of that really. this is not to say that his race doesn't make this very significant and historic though.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Of course not. And i don't think it has. Nor, however do i think we should downplay the historical significance of his nomination. It is worthy of mention. Nor do i think that if the black community exhibits a strong emotional response to his success, it is a sign of "reverse racism".
I think that his success should be based on his merit. To act as if something that should be insignificant is suddenly significant is to take away from what got him there. If I were him I wouldn't want people to celebrate the fact that I'm the first black president as if that was some deciding factor in what got me there. I'd want it to be clear that it was about who I am and what I brought to the table that got me where I am.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
if i were voting based on race or gender issues, don't you think i'd be a clinton supporter? i mean it would fit, wouldn't it. i have many reasons i'm voting for obama, and his race isn't a part of that really. this is not to say that his race doesn't make this very significant and historic though.
It is historic but I view society as already past racism, anyway thus how Obama has gotten this far...so I don't see it as significant other than it being a first and reaffirming what I already thought of the situation. We had already progressed before Obama.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
AA is neither of these. i have to go but will elaborate later. For now let's just say that Affirmative Action is basically a necessary part of that "lung cancer treatment".
AA is not making choices based on race?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think that his success should be based on his merit. To act as if something that should be insignificant is suddenly significant is to take away from what got him there. If I were him I wouldn't want people to celebrate the fact that I'm the first black president as if that was some deciding factor in what got me there. I'd want it to be clear that it was about who I am and what I brought to the table that got me where I am.
His success should be based on his merit. i havn't suggested it should be otherwise, and i don't think it is based on anything but his merit. i also believe that to suggest that a people who have come through slavery, Jim Crow, Katrina, Jena, etc., to the point where an African American is poised to achieve the loftiest position in the United States should not be excited or even teary eyed at the thought is more than callous. That isn't saying he didn't achieve all of this based on merit. i don't think even the most socially concsious of us white folks can even begin to truly understand.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
i think i see what you're saying and i think i'm talking more about colorblind on a societal level, not a personal (or interpersonal) one. we have to make race relevant in order to focus on and deal with the problems of racism. for example, the acknowledgment that our recent history of racism has contributed to inequalities in things like education and financial situations. at the same time we could definitely do as you say and be 'colorblind' towards each other in the way of treating each other well. but we can't be colorblind as a society and think that we are all equal in regards to things like education and economic situations because if people think that, we will never be able to become equal.
whaaaaa? sounds like you're saying in order for ppl to be equal we must treat them the opposite...? maybe i just misread that
there's plenty of white ppl in shitty schools and holding shitty jobs, too
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i believe i already said that what i'm saying is not about reliving it. it's not about treating each other differently. in order to obtain equality we have to realize the effects of our racist history and how that has impacted our society. or else we will continue to repeat history. that is all.
does anyone honestly think that black ppl had it good in the past???
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
The "street cred" and "righteousness" remark was meant to be snarky. It's not that I think your decisions aren't based on principles, but rather a response to the impression I get when you write phrases like "D next to the name" as opposed to "Democrat" or "Obama supporters are like this" - which immediately lead to me saying "Nader supporters are like that."
The funny thing is, I was having a conversation with a Democratic activist here at work last week where I was more in "your" position defending my past Nader votes. Weird how things work. I did point out that if it wasn't for Nader ruining Gore's run (debatable, I know), then the Democrats would be dealing with a Lieberman nomination right now. He didn't think me too funny, though.
i think a big part of the problem that comes into play here is a good % of obama supporters can't or won't explain why they support obama. they ask a million questions about you, kucinich, nader...and those get answered most of the time, but the second they are asked 'well, now, why do YOU support obama?' all you get is 'i don't owe you any explanation to you!!!!!' or some other cop out. and no, i'm not saying 100% of obama supporters are like this, but a lot of them here do seem to be that way and in turn what other conclusion can one make as to why they are supporting him? why is it some big secret?? like in that clip i posted when chris matthews asked another politician who supports obama what his achievements were and all he could do was stutter and say he brings ppl together. that's not answering the question. i've also seen 'reasons' to support obama posted here as 'he's the only realistic option, deal w/ it!' those non answers aren't good enough for many and the very fact that there's no real substance behind their support your mind is left to wonder why they do support him?
and you see that faaaaaaaar more w/ obama supporters than nader or kucinich supporters, at least in my mind.
why does it matter if one says D or Democrat??? how does it appear on the ballots?
and nader didn't cost gore the election, the supreme court overruling state law as well as all those ppl who were prevented from voting b/c some report said they committed a crime a few years in the future as well as other things are what cost gore the election oh, and gore just giving up, too. when he conceded i couldn't believe it, especially in an inconvenient truth when he said he was president of the united states or something...if you felt that way why'd you give in so easily!? as rep peter king said on camera when asked if he was worried about the election he said no b/c 'it only matters who does the counting and we're gonna do the counting'
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
AA is neither of these. i have to go but will elaborate later. For now let's just say that Affirmative Action is basically a necessary part of that "lung cancer treatment".
not necessarily...b/c if it comes down to a few ppl being qualified if someone of color is just a little qualified AA says to give them the job instead of the person who has a lot more experience and qualifications. not all the time, maybe, but it happens
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
i think i covered that in every post about this though: people of different ethnicities exist. they have been treated quite badly in the past. the effects of that can be seen in society today (various inequalities). to say that we are all the same is not true because of these lingering effects. yes we should be treated the same. but just to say that and ignore the issue of race doesn't do the problem justice. we need to realize the effects and treat them so they don't repeat.
cross the river to the eastside
Okay, I agree on how people of certain races have been severely mistreated in the past. And I agree that we shouldn't ignore that. I agree that we should be treated the same. But exactly how do we do that problem justice is where I am unclear about what you're proposing. How do we treat these problems of the past in today's society?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Meaning what exactly? The people of today did not commit these acts and the ones who are should most certainly be addressed...other than that, I don't understand what exactly we should be doing about it other than educating ourselves on the mistakes of the past and focusing on not repeating them.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It's great when someone quits smoking - but if they already have lung cancer, survival will require a lot more than simply quitting.
well i think you just asked the question of the day! or the century?
i'd say the first step is not brushing it off. i'm not saying you're doing this. but that's what it originally sounded like when we first started this 'conversation' and that's where my responses were coming from. we as a society should have an open dialogue about this and go at it head on. we should talk about how exactly people are still unequal today and how it can be more hidden in so many ways for so many reason. i know how you feel about barack obama, but honestly his 45 minute speech about this stuff is a good example.
cross the river to the eastside
i know this question wasn't addressed to me, so pardon me for butting in. Personally, i think we start by acknowledging the truth of their existence. Not only that societal inequalities are a direct result of a hideous history, but also that racism is very real today. The problems of the past are not just that. Only then can we begin to truly heal and correct societal inequalities. We need to acknowledge the fact that racism isn't just the gross examples we see manifested in white sheets and swastika tattoos. Racism exists in very subtle forms throughout our society.
Obviously I don't think all Obama supporters are all the same on anything in particular. That was my reasoning for the question. To me Kucinich is more like Nader on the issues and you mentioned that you would vote for him had he gotten the nod. So I have to wonder if how much you're willing to settle depends on whether or not the candidate has 'Democrat' beside his name....which ironcally enough is actually seen as a 'D' on the ballot if I remember correctly.
And yes, it is highly debatable to blame Nader for Gore's not winning seeing as how we live in a democracy, where's the blame for the people who actually voted for Bush? and all of the third party candidates on the ballot received more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore in FL an-.....don't get me started....
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
absolutely. it seems to become more hidden or manifested in different ways since de jure segregation became illegal. we still deal with a lot of de facto segregation for example.
cross the river to the eastside
As a huge fan of analogy, i must say, this is a pretty good one.
Wow. De jure, De facto... i'm impressed.
I never claimed that racism didn't exist today or that it isn't something that we need to continue to address....just the opposite, actually. However I do not agree that we need to treat or view people differently today based on race. That was what I came into this thread to challenge. Race should no longer matter if we truly want to move past racism. To favor anyone based on the color of their skin promotes inequality.
Do either of you think the race of Barack Obama should matter when one is making the decision to support him?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
well prepare to have your mind blown! i'm impressed that you agree.
cross the river to the eastside
And that treatment should not involve smoking cigars, instead.
It would involve steering clear of smoking all together. The treatment shouldn't include what caused the cancer in the first place.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Of course not. And i don't think it has. Nor, however do i think we should downplay the historical significance of his nomination. It is worthy of mention. Nor do i think that if the black community exhibits a strong emotional response to his success, it is a sign of "reverse racism".
when you say treat or view people differently based on race, then are you saying you're against things like affirmative action for example? i'm not here nor there about that right now, i'm just trying see the whole picture of what you're saying.
as for the last question i'm not sure i can even answer that or that it's my place to answer that. people have all sorts of reasons for voting for people. some people must vote for people who match their beliefs 100%, some vote on whether or not they'd have a beer with them, some vote on if they match their beliefs enough and can get the job done . . .
cross the river to the eastside
Yeah, I've struggled with affirmative action in the past and it still always comes down to treating people differently based on race, which I view to be wrong and racist. That's all I've been saying here from the beginning...is that we shouldn't focus on one's race in today's society if we truly wish to move past racism.
So, I guess it's not part of your personal reasoning then?
No candidate matches my beliefs 100% of the time. And as far as getting the job done...only one candidate is proposing the things I'd like to see get done so it's an easy choice.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
AA is neither of these. i have to go but will elaborate later. For now let's just say that Affirmative Action is basically a necessary part of that "lung cancer treatment".
if i were voting based on race or gender issues, don't you think i'd be a clinton supporter?
cross the river to the eastside
Bingo.
I think that his success should be based on his merit. To act as if something that should be insignificant is suddenly significant is to take away from what got him there. If I were him I wouldn't want people to celebrate the fact that I'm the first black president as if that was some deciding factor in what got me there. I'd want it to be clear that it was about who I am and what I brought to the table that got me where I am.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It is historic but I view society as already past racism, anyway thus how Obama has gotten this far...so I don't see it as significant other than it being a first and reaffirming what I already thought of the situation. We had already progressed before Obama.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
AA is not making choices based on race?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
how is that?
the entire program is based on race.
His success should be based on his merit. i havn't suggested it should be otherwise, and i don't think it is based on anything but his merit. i also believe that to suggest that a people who have come through slavery, Jim Crow, Katrina, Jena, etc., to the point where an African American is poised to achieve the loftiest position in the United States should not be excited or even teary eyed at the thought is more than callous. That isn't saying he didn't achieve all of this based on merit. i don't think even the most socially concsious of us white folks can even begin to truly understand.
You may agree with AA, and that's your view. But yes, its about race. That's the whole point of the policy.
whaaaaa? sounds like you're saying in order for ppl to be equal we must treat them the opposite...? maybe i just misread that
there's plenty of white ppl in shitty schools and holding shitty jobs, too
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
does anyone honestly think that black ppl had it good in the past???
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i think a big part of the problem that comes into play here is a good % of obama supporters can't or won't explain why they support obama. they ask a million questions about you, kucinich, nader...and those get answered most of the time, but the second they are asked 'well, now, why do YOU support obama?' all you get is 'i don't owe you any explanation to you!!!!!' or some other cop out. and no, i'm not saying 100% of obama supporters are like this, but a lot of them here do seem to be that way and in turn what other conclusion can one make as to why they are supporting him? why is it some big secret?? like in that clip i posted when chris matthews asked another politician who supports obama what his achievements were and all he could do was stutter and say he brings ppl together. that's not answering the question. i've also seen 'reasons' to support obama posted here as 'he's the only realistic option, deal w/ it!' those non answers aren't good enough for many and the very fact that there's no real substance behind their support your mind is left to wonder why they do support him?
and you see that faaaaaaaar more w/ obama supporters than nader or kucinich supporters, at least in my mind.
why does it matter if one says D or Democrat??? how does it appear on the ballots?
and nader didn't cost gore the election, the supreme court overruling state law as well as all those ppl who were prevented from voting b/c some report said they committed a crime a few years in the future as well as other things are what cost gore the election oh, and gore just giving up, too. when he conceded i couldn't believe it, especially in an inconvenient truth when he said he was president of the united states or something...if you felt that way why'd you give in so easily!? as rep peter king said on camera when asked if he was worried about the election he said no b/c 'it only matters who does the counting and we're gonna do the counting'
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
not necessarily...b/c if it comes down to a few ppl being qualified if someone of color is just a little qualified AA says to give them the job instead of the person who has a lot more experience and qualifications. not all the time, maybe, but it happens
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way