Obama backs Bush

bravo said:
2. Affirmative action: .... Bush has said other factors, such as socioeconomic status, should be considered, which would include poor white students.

Obama now agrees with that view. "Inside Higher Ed" referred in May to "Obama's suggestion that he may be ready to change the focus of affirmative action policies in higher education -- away from race to economic class. ... In his debate in Philadelphia with Hillary Clinton, he said in response to a question, that his own privileged daughters do not deserve affirmative action preferences, and that working-class students of all colors do." [/color][/size]
Click to expand...


Go Obama! :party:
 
Annie said:
Oh dear, now this. Links at site:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_02_15-2009_02_21.shtml#1235229051



And from the "Why not just make W, the 'war czar'?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18policy.html?_r=2
Click to expand...


Yeah, I mentioned these detainees in Egypt among other places just after the "shut down GITMO" announcement. Specifically noting that it was cosmetic as long as these renditions cont'd. Amazingly nobody on the site was interested at that time.
 
2. Affirmative action: Bush said of the 2003 University of Michigan affirmative action case: "I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education. But the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed" -- because it depended solely on race. Bush has said other factors, such as socioeconomic status, should be considered, which would include poor white students.

Obama now agrees with that view. "Inside Higher Ed" referred in May to "Obama's suggestion that he may be ready to change the focus of affirmative action policies in higher education -- away from race to economic class. ... In his debate in Philadelphia with Hillary Clinton, he said in response to a question, that his own privileged daughters do not deserve affirmative action preferences, and that working-class students of all colors do."
Click to expand...

Steps in the right direction. When Cypress and I used to argue Affirmative Action I would often talk about using economic status rather than tan lines as a measure of who needs assistance.
 
Damocles said:
Steps in the right direction. When Cypress and I used to argue Affirmative Action I would often talk about using economic status rather than tan lines as a measure of who needs assistance.
Click to expand...

Socioeconomic status makes a lot more sense simply because it's far more likely to target children of slaves. A lot of affirmative action programs helped blacks in general, and "richer" blacks who had immigrated long after slavery were receiving most of the benefits.
 
Watermark said:
Socioeconomic status makes a lot more sense simply because it's far more likely to target children of slaves. A lot of affirmative action programs helped blacks in general, and "richer" blacks who had immigrated long after slavery were receiving most of the benefits.
Click to expand...
Okay, but it would have also entered my neighborhood. Many lives would have been changed if some of my friends had an inkling of a chance to go to college.

(Not like I don't think they could have if they had it as a goal, but the reality is most of them have no belief that they will ever have a chance at this. Changing that feeling would have benefited them greatly.)
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, I mentioned these detainees in Egypt among other places just after the "shut down GITMO" announcement. Specifically noting that it was cosmetic as long as these renditions cont'd. Amazingly nobody on the site was interested at that time.
Click to expand...

Amazingly, (I say amazingly because not one liberal ever had a problem with the practice until Bush) extraordinary renditions began in the 90's under Clinton. As soon as Obama stated he would close Gitmo the speculation that he would increase renditions began to circulate. Lo and behold it has come to pass.

<snip>In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.<snip>
 
Wow, pinheads are curiously silent on all of this, aren't they? So how many "illegal" wiretaps do you guys figure Obama has approved in his first 30 days? How many waterboardings do you think have taken place in those foreign prisons? You know, I said all along, electing a liberal democrat might be the best thing that ever happened for the war on terror, because suddenly... it would all become "okay" to fight terror! Notice, we don't see Duhla here in a fit of rage, protesting this at all! Not a peep! So, as long as the US is "torturing" prisoners under a Democrat, things are hunky-dory, and they will do like the little idiot dungheap, and use the very same argument Bush supporters made a few years ago! Oh, they are goooooood! They've got this 'hypocrite' thing down pat!

Gitmo is a casualty of war. It should serve as an example to all conservatives, what trying to take a 'moderate' stance gets you. All the bluster and heat was focused on Gitmo, it was politicized by the left, and dumb ass McCain along with other RINO's took the bait! They said... Well, okay, we'll go along to get along here, and agree that Gitmo needs to be closed... and this 'red meat' was devoured by the left. Now, Obama has to close it, he is too politically invested not to do it... he's got Eric Holder down there now, trying to figure out how in the hell to go about it. My guess is, the detainees will be shipped off to some undisclosed foreign prison, where they can be waterboarded daily... oh well, that's the price they pay for politics.
 
Oh, it's not hard to outclass the classless. I just wonder where Duhla is? For months, she carried the banner for liberals against "torture" with the rest of the pinheads here following right behind her... now suddenly, since The Messiah is okay with it... well, it's not that big a deal!

It's like Clinton's bombing of the aspirin factory in Sudan. That act of American aggression against a sovereign nation didn't matter, because it was done by a Democrat. Same with Bosnia and Kosovo... not a peep of 'outrage' from the left! But let a republican topple one of the worst tyrant dictators since Hitler, and oh my god! You would have though he had invaded Iowa!

It's precisely this 'two-facedness' which I find appalling about libs. As long as they are in political power, nothing else really matters to them. It's not even about their constant stream of liberal socialist entitlement programs, Bush gave them more of that than the previous two Democrat presidents, it's about the power.
 
I came to the "all about power" theory about three years ago. When you are dealing with a lying bastard and trying to figure out his motive and what he'll do next, you can't simply ask him, because he'll lie to you. So you develop a hypothesis, test it by predicting what he'll do when "A" happens, and if he does "B" as predicted, then the hypothesis becomes a working theory. "All about power" works every time with liberals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top