Dean: GOP a "white, Christian party"

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by lifesaver
People go to SMU because they are rich. My comment wasnt a shot at SMU. It was a shot at my own chapter there. (But I'm sure they'll appreciate you getting their back and all.) They were not diverse and claimed to be (see the connection now?). With the makeup of SMU being 20% minority, they had no people of color in the chapter. I also dont tend to agree that catholics are a 'recognized minority' for the sake of diversity stats as these fellas were claiming.

HAHAHAHA...When that question came up, I thought to myself...'the only religion that unifies all SMU kids is the Church of Daddy's Money.

I know someone from that chapter!

[Sistermadly]

Originally posted by DeltaSigStan
I say I'm in a white frat all the time.....but that's just to spite the Asians who call me white washed

Heh. Maybe I'll start doing the same thing.

But wait, there are no black people in Vancouver to get upset about it, so it'd be kind of pointless.

[Sistermadly]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
With those demos, why would Pena and Webb ever be elected?

Lots of liberals who want to "do the right thing"? Not to disparage the candidates' worth, but never underestimate the power of a bleeding heart (and for the record, my heart bleeds pretty profusely).

[honeychile]

Originally posted by lifesaver
I'd be thrilled to correct you. Visit the campus and you'll understand what I am talking about. SMU is non-sectarian in its teachings. Most prodestant affilliated univeristies are that way. People dont go to SMU because they are Methodist. Just like people dont go to Trinity because they are presbyterian. I dont knwo if the same holds true for Notre Dame.

People go to SMU because they are rich. My comment wasnt a shot at SMU. It was a shot at my own chapter there. (But I'm sure they'll appreciate you getting their back and all.) They were not diverse and claimed to be (see the connection now?). With the makeup of SMU being 20% minority, they had no people of color in the chapter. I also dont tend to agree that catholics are a 'recognized minority' for the sake of diversity stats as these fellas were claiming.

Point is that they were an all white chapter claiming they were diverse bedcause they had a catholic. Thats BS. Just like your analogy was. An all white chapter at Notre Dame that had accepted a Methodist wouldnt be diverse either.

Your last sentence & paragraph said the same thing I did - trying rereading both of our statements without a jaundiced view.

And I used the generic Methodist, not SMU. Maybe I should have said Liberty College, since that gets so many liberals' panties twisted. The bottom line is what may be a minority at University A may not be a minority at University B.

[lifesaver]

Originally posted by honeychile
Your last sentence & paragraph said the same thing I did - trying rereading both of our statements without a jaundiced view.

And I used the generic Methodist, not SMU. Maybe I should have said Liberty College, since that gets so many liberals' panties twisted. The bottom line is what may be a minority at University A may not be a minority at University B.

I did reread. I stand by what I said. We said different things in those sentences. You implied that it was a minority thing, while I disagreed. Further, in a strict interpertation, catholics arent even a recognized 'minority' group by the federal governament. They arent subject to any 'protected' status. So legally speaking, they arent a minority.

But again, I was actually there, and saw the conversation I am referencing here. You werent. But thanks for jumping in and arguing about something you only heard second hand, about a chapter you've never visited on a campus youve never been to.

Liberty College dosent exist. I am assuming you meant Liberty University, which is a fundamentalist Baptist school. It ISNT non-sectarian in its teachings, and dosent have traditional greeks, so thats two bad analogies for you.