For the black race to matter more in American politics, you need to vote more for Republican candidates.

That's not a joke.

When you're split more evenly among parties, those politicians tend to offer you more to get the balance of the population to swing in their favor.

So the next time you are voting, remember that, and vote Republican ;)

-Rudey

Is that the way rich white men do it? :) lol

The only problem is that voting Republican means voting for a platform that enforces negative stereotypes against us. Remember Bill Bennett?

AfAms are actually a quite conservative cultural group, particularly those who have escaped poverty. The issue, however, is
1) many of the older AfAms who have escaped poverty still remember it and its stigma and can't bring themselves to vote for a party that blames the poor instead of helps it , and
2) we all feel the effects of racism and just can't vote for a party that wants to pin the problms of America (many of which are the result of poverty --not race-- or lifestly issues we want nothing to do with anyway) on us (AfAms on the whole are quite homophobic).

A lot (respectively speaking) of AfAms voted for Bush simply because of the gay marriage issue, but none of his appointees were appointed with any thought of us in mind.

It is hard to buy into the idea of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps when all the good jobs seem to go to cronys. I don't mind a hypocrit, but know what you are.

I myself, get more and more conservative as I age. I will be taxed out the wazoo if I take my law firm job offer and my parents already are. I have lived in DC but have claimed TX as my state of residency for the past 2 years since we don't have income tax. I am married and don't believe in divorce. I am a Christian and honeslty believe family values are important, but honestly I don't really care about what goes on in someone else's bedroom. Nevertheless, despite my conservative or at least moderate stance on many issues I cannot vote Republican because an AfAm (I prefer American Black since I have never been to Africa, know no parts of it, and am just as American as you, but I digress) I know that Republicans still see me as a criminal.....now why would I support that?

What AfAms need is not to vote Republican or Democrat for that matter- we're only 13% fo the population, we're not gonna affect change either way. What we need to do is keep our money in our communities and start our own businesses. Right now Mobil oil could buy up the top 100 black businesses with the money it has liquid...and still have more left over. We need to get on that level. I am so over racism- who cares- be a racist- I know in this country money talks. We need to stop working for corporations and start corporations.

WE need to go back to the days of Greenwood, OK and that way, if we need political change we can forget voting, and just do like Ford and Mobil Oil do, fund campaigns. Voting is bull sh*t unless there are enough of you to matter, Mobil Oil and its shareholders constiute a small portion of the electorate, but they sure do run sh*t. That is what we need to do. FUND THE CAMPAIGNS..money buys influence.

That is where realy change lies. That is why Condoleeza is in the Cabinet- there is an oil tanker named after her.

Probably. If the stupid people of every race didn't vote so often for the Democrats, I'm sure they could take advantage of it as well.

-Rudey

Politics isn't about good vs. evil. To say the Democrats support your platform or that they are not racist is more than a joke.

Again, split votes tend to attract more favors from politicians.

As for money, which is a different matter, I don't see a Black business ever being created to compete with Exxon Mobil unless it magically finds a way to make fuel out of sand. But you can buy into Exxon at any point since a corporation is nothing more than its shareholders (citizens).

And if you do have money to donate, just don't donate it to one party. Because when Al Sharpton or John Kerry loses, you have nothing and the guy that donated to George Bush has a lot.

-Rudey

take advantage of what? an end to a government safety net? tax breaks for the rich? a polluted environment? corporate welfare? government meddling in people's private sex lives and birth control choices? limited civil liberties? and now, thanks to Bush, exorbitant government spending and an out of contol deficit?

Yea, you are definately right, I should definately start taking advantage of that :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rudey
[B]

As for money, which is a different matter, I don't see a Black business ever being created to compete with Exxon Mobil unless it magically finds a way to make fuel out of sand. But you can buy into Exxon at any point since a corporation is nothing more than its shareholders (citizens).

-Rudey

We can agree to disagree here, because I believe we can do anything whites can do. I don't buy into the we're inferior stuff.


Now the rest I agree with, kind of. But money, while different, is wat more important than voting- this is a capitalist country.

Again, if really stupid people want to vote for a Democrat candidate, go ahead.

-Rudey
--I'm sure griping on Greekchat.com is almost as good as having your candidate win the election.

I don't know what race you are*, but no matter how disgusting I
think what Bush has done is, point still remains that whatever it is AfAms are "taking advantage" of right now is NOT working. There are still a lot of us below the poverty line, still seen as criminals, etc.. and although politics is a dirty game...we need to play it.

*I only brought up race because I was only addressing what what AfAms needed to take advantage of when Rudey replied.

Do AfAms have obsessions with Japanese cartoons like Hello Kitty?

-Rudey

I don't really get your joke, but this one doesn't.

Oh, I wasn't directing my comment at you. Rudey and I have an ongoing debate on this topic. We sit on completely opposite sides of the political spectrum.
I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. I agree that African Americans need to start playing the political game both in terms of voting and in terms of back channels. While AfA's are only 13% of the population, they are capable of changing elections because in many areas they are highly concentrated. AfA's tend to vote disproportionately less then they appear in the overall population, in contrast to Hispanics who vote disproportionately more in many areas. Personally, I think that they would benefit from voting more. Period. But I also agree with you that there should be more AfA centered issue PACs and other money contributing venue. EMILY's list has made a huge difference in the number of women in elected offices. I similar organization could do a lot of AfAs.
I do know that the social conservatism of many AfAs has made them feel forced to vote Republican because of social issues. However, I don't think voting republican is the answer. I agree that the republican party blames the poor for their own situation and isn't looking to meaningfully help them. And if wealthier AfAs defect to the Republicans both with their money and their votes, whatever safety net there is for the poor in this country will be gone. The people who don't need the help have to put their money and power behind maintaining the government safety net and even expanding it, because otherwise it will be gone.
Truthfully that is one of the reasons I am so vehimently pro-choice. I personally don't care if Roe is reversed for me. I have excellent access to birth control and I live in New York, which legalized abortion before Roe was decided. My life isn't going to change, if Roe is reversed. But I fight for all the women who live in states where if Roe was reversed there would be no access to legalized abortion. I think many issues the AfA community face have a similar dynamic. The ones with the power, money and education have to speak for those who don't have those blessings.

Coming back to the topic:

This was an interesting article in the New York Times about how Conservatives don't like her and some Democrats do.

Some Liberals and Conservatives Find Themselves in Awkward Spots

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ax.xlarge1.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/po...l1/04reax.html

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - In a topsy-turvy moment in the Capitol, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader in the Senate, stood alongside Harriet E. Miers on Monday and had only kind things to say about her selection by President Bush for the Supreme Court.

Mr. Reid called her "a very fine lawyer," said her lack of judicial experience was "a plus, not a minus" and pronounced himself pleased that she was a trial lawyer. "That's what I am," he said.

For Mr. Reid, who suggested two weeks ago at a breakfast meeting that Mr. Bush consider Ms. Miers for the Supreme Court, the selection may have been a personal triumph. Evidence that, perhaps, a Republican president took to heart some advice from a Democratic leader.

Mr. Reid was not the only person saying unexpected things. The selection of Ms. Miers, a close confidante of Mr. Bush who both sides say has been a trailblazer for women in the law, turned politics inside out on Capitol Hill, where she quickly began her courtship of senators.

Conservative Republican stalwarts who had ardently defended the last nominee, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., were strangely silent. That is an indication that Ms. Miers could face trouble from the right, which has demanded a nominee with a record demonstrating a willingness to revisit Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decision.

Democrats, intent on preserving their right to block Ms. Miers even as their leader came forth with effusive praise, sounded cautious, yet oddly relieved.

After a year of partisan infighting over Mr. Bush's judicial nominees, Democrats had insisted that he not send them any candidates who had been blocked by filibusters. Several Democrats had also asked him to name a candidate from outside the judiciary, advice he apparently heeded, said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"I talked to President Bush this morning," Mr. Leahy said in a telephone interview from Vermont. "He well remembered that I had raised the point that he should look outside the judicial monastery. I said: 'Yeah, you're the first one who listened to me. I made the same recommendation to President Reagan and President Clinton.' "

While Republicans like Mr. Cornyn were polite in their praise, the most conservative Republican senators were mostly mum. One ardent opponent of abortion, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, issued no statement. Another, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, said simply that he wanted to know more about Ms. Miers. Senator John Thune of South Dakota said he would "reserve judgment."

-Rudey

Funny how you're arguing with something many political scientists have pointed at.

But then again you never, ever have facts - just accusations and smoke.

-Rudey
--Pooooof

I saw that; it seems like many conservatives were hoping the President would choose someone who has a more conservative record. It is very interesting to see the response to the nomination; it's not exactly what I would have expected.