Is playing the race card a wise move, considering all the crap and unfair critisism republicans of color are subjected to?
Perhaps posts like this are an affirmation of the liberal/progressive assumption that a person will cast their vote based on the color of thier skin, while faithfully ignoring the content of the candidate's charactor.
Sad but true -- mainly because we don't have a quota system for delegates. And since we send fewer delegates to the convention that the Democrats send to theirs, that makes the competition for seats that much tighter.
But in the end, what it comes down to is that if blacks don't participate in the GOP in significant numbers, then they do not get selected in significant numbers. And I notice at least a couple of folks in that picture who are arguably Hispanic, so i guess you aare lumping them in as white -- a familiar tactic among liberals when they want to blay a statistical game.
It means that some of the folks in the picture COULD BE Hispanic, but I cannot be sure without knowing more . I could reasonably make an argument that they are Hispanic based upon skin-tone and features, but is that really all there is to being "Hispanic"?
Just having a little fun at your expense, Greg. You're so "Predictably Conservative".
And, no, the "skin tone and features" you speak of are more of an indication of being of Yaqui or Aztec decent, or perhaps Mayan, rather than being a Spaniard, of the Conquistadoric era, although any of those heritages would be lumped into our "Hispanic" demographic. Such are the banes of labels, right? Easier just to call them all Mexicans, I guess, and hire them to groom Republican lawns.
Greg, if the GOP can fairly be characterized as "inclusive" and "open to diversity", then I'm the Queen of England. The reality is that, yes, there are Republicans of color out there, but they are few and far between.
As far as inclusiveness goes, I'll just throw the Log Cabin Republicans at you before you use them on me. Why anyone would belong to an organization dedicated to the destruction of their lifestyle boggles this mind almost to incomprehension.
So, who IS the queen of England? Now I'm really confused.
The Log Cabins were a sham group the Republican party put together to try to woo the gay and PFLAG vote, FYI. Why anyone would still belong at this point truly does boggle the mind. Sort of like an AA Beer Festival, it has no logic for existence.
It turns out we're all full of shit. Look again, in the uppper left hand corner, behind the guy with the Al Bundy hair-do. It's the forehead and ear of a BLACK MAN. Talk about your racial diversity! Almost one entire minority!
But what is not so funny is the assumption that a person's race, gender, religion or sexual orientation should dictate their political ideology or affiliation. It boggles my mind that the left assumes support based on aspects such as these, and that people who do not fit the mold are critisized for doing so, as seen in this Thread from the TPRS Archives.
"I think that the Democrats want us to come to the table to eat the crumbs, but Republicans want us to come and eat at the banquet," said Geraldine Sam of Lamarque, Texas, who is one of 20 black Republicans in the Texas delegation this year.
The Texans joined a throng of attendees Monday that included radio talk show host Armstrong Williams, Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and Democratic Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams at a soiree sponsored by the conservative Black America's Political Action Committee.
Is playing the race card a wise move, considering all the crap and unfair critisism republicans of color are subjected to?
Perhaps posts like this are an affirmation of the liberal/progressive assumption that a person will cast their vote based on the color of thier skin, while faithfully ignoring the content of the candidate's charactor.
Sad but true -- mainly because we don't have a quota system for delegates. And since we send fewer delegates to the convention that the Democrats send to theirs, that makes the competition for seats that much tighter.
But in the end, what it comes down to is that if blacks don't participate in the GOP in significant numbers, then they do not get selected in significant numbers. And I notice at least a couple of folks in that picture who are arguably Hispanic, so i guess you aare lumping them in as white -- a familiar tactic among liberals when they want to blay a statistical game.
Another liberal race-hating, bean counter shows his true colors.
OTH, 5 minutes into the convention coverage and I've already seen more babes than during the entire Dem freakfest.
Just making an observation, y'all. Besides, if you were honest, you'd admit that the GOP isn't exactly open to diversity.
Actually, the GOP is open to diversity. Quit repeating the lie.
Especially since you support the party of slavery and Jim Crow.
"Arguably Hispanic", isn't that like, "Defiantly Asian", or "Uncooperatively African American"?
For me, I'll just remain "Uncontrollably Liberal", and I am going to vote that way.
Damn that whole free vote thing, huh?
It means that some of the folks in the picture COULD BE Hispanic, but I cannot be sure without knowing more . I could reasonably make an argument that they are Hispanic based upon skin-tone and features, but is that really all there is to being "Hispanic"?
Just having a little fun at your expense, Greg. You're so "Predictably Conservative".
And, no, the "skin tone and features" you speak of are more of an indication of being of Yaqui or Aztec decent, or perhaps Mayan, rather than being a Spaniard, of the Conquistadoric era, although any of those heritages would be lumped into our "Hispanic" demographic. Such are the banes of labels, right? Easier just to call them all Mexicans, I guess, and hire them to groom Republican lawns.
Greg, if the GOP can fairly be characterized as "inclusive" and "open to diversity", then I'm the Queen of England. The reality is that, yes, there are Republicans of color out there, but they are few and far between.
As far as inclusiveness goes, I'll just throw the Log Cabin Republicans at you before you use them on me. Why anyone would belong to an organization dedicated to the destruction of their lifestyle boggles this mind almost to incomprehension.
So, who IS the queen of England? Now I'm really confused.
The Log Cabins were a sham group the Republican party put together to try to woo the gay and PFLAG vote, FYI. Why anyone would still belong at this point truly does boggle the mind. Sort of like an AA Beer Festival, it has no logic for existence.
NEWS FLASH!
It turns out we're all full of shit. Look again, in the uppper left hand corner, behind the guy with the Al Bundy hair-do. It's the forehead and ear of a BLACK MAN. Talk about your racial diversity! Almost one entire minority!
But is the Queen of England a member of the Log Cabin Republicans?
That's funny.
But what is not so funny is the assumption that a person's race, gender, religion or sexual orientation should dictate their political ideology or affiliation. It boggles my mind that the left assumes support based on aspects such as these, and that people who do not fit the mold are critisized for doing so, as seen in this Thread from the TPRS Archives.
By the way, you might have to drive all the way to LaMarque to find a black delegate to the Republican Convention.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131048,00.html
"I think that the Democrats want us to come to the table to eat the crumbs, but Republicans want us to come and eat at the banquet," said Geraldine Sam of Lamarque, Texas, who is one of 20 black Republicans in the Texas delegation this year.
The Texans joined a throng of attendees Monday that included radio talk show host Armstrong Williams, Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and Democratic Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams at a soiree sponsored by the conservative Black America's Political Action Committee.