Pabst is an old school racist. I know without research that whomever Pabst supports, I will be against, because he will subvert anyone who is not like him to servitude. No offense Pabst, but this is how you come off. You come off as someone who thinks that American, means white. You do not believe in the melting pot. I do not know what happened to you, so I will not judge you any more than I already have. I do know that you seem to be anti anything non-white, as a consequence you are not good for America.
Get your head out of the sand. I live in South Florida. I think me and 7 other white guys are the only non Latino Catholics in three counties. Everyone who speaks truths isn't racist. Instead of inane innuendo you could choose to argue a specific point. You're incapable of debate though. And yes you're right. It's obvious that as America gets browner it's just wonderful for our literacy, crime, productivity and quality of life.
What's that one about taking the log out of one's own eye before judging the speck in another's eye? Fruit: Tree: bigot
ZZZZZZ logic Although there has been republican congressmen and senators in the past, since there are currently none, the republicans are racist under your logic: " well you dated several black girls in your 20's but since you married a white girl in your 30's, obviously your a racist" " since there are no republican senators that are islamic, therfore is obvious the republicand are anti-islaminc" " Since there are currently no deaf republican senators, the republicans are against the deaf classic reasoning...LOL...Meanwhile, Robert Byrd was a card carrying member of the KKK.....but now he is no longer racist
There has been a very, very, very small percentage of black republicans elected to D.C. Currently and for the past 6 years, we have no black republicans in the house and senate in D.C. J.C. Watts was the lone black republican for years, and he is gone. Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that electing a black republican is an exception to the rule, and the situation that we currently have no black republicans in the house and senate in D.C. is demonstrative of the "normal" condition in the republican party. Today's situation is a return to the status quo of no black republicans, which is best explained by racism by white republicans... Republicans, going by what I have seen in the ET forum posts by white republicans, certainly are anti-Islamic. The numbers suggest that the Islamic people have no representation in D.C. by republicans in elected offices. The numbers also suggest that dems are also lean toward an anti-Islamic position, given the lack of representation relative to demographics. A comparison of the number of Jews in the house and senate in D.C. relative to the percentage of the population that is Jewish, shows that we do not have a genuine representative racial/ethnic proportional to race. There are a disproportional amount of Jews in these positions of power in D.C. in the house and the senate relative to Jewish people in America. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/senrec.html Anyway the situation is observed, we have a dominance of white males in the house and the senate in D.C., with a much greater percentage of white males in these positions of power relative to their respective percentage in the general population. The dems show much greater diversity of race in their representatives than do the republicans, but they are far from real representation of the racial groups that we have in our country. Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK, and he renounced that position of his youth and has made attempts to make amends for his mistake. Do we see the same from the white republicans? Nope...
Check mate! You started off by saying there were never any black republicans in the senate or congress....I proved you wrong. The you squirm off of that and your quote above answers the questions.... " there has been very very small % of black republicans elected to dc"..... Of course it would be small.....Even you acknowledge that Blacks vote democrat to the tune of 90-95%...that leaves a pool of less then 10 % of the population that would be Republican....!!! The more importnat question might be to look at te % of Black Congressmen ans Senators in the democratic party considering their near overwhelming devotion to the cause...
Provide a link to a quote from me where I said "There were never any black republicans in the senate or the house." Without that quote, you have nothing.... To your math, 10% of blacks vote republican, and whites can vote whatever way they like, so nothing prevents a red state with a history of voting republicans into the house and senate to elect a black republican...except racism.
But while McCain is seeking amends for his King Day vote, he has refused to back down on another controversial decision he made that put him at sharp odds with the civil rights movement. In 1990, McCain was one of the deciding votes in helping then-President George H.W. Bush sustain a veto against the relatively benign Civil Rights Act of 1990. In doing so, the senator found himself at odds with majorities in both chambers of Congress, most senior African Americans within the Bush administration, and the Republican-led U.S. Civil Rights Commission. He also helped Bush became the first president ever to successfully veto a civil rights measure -- Andrew Jackson in 1866 and Ronald Reagan in 1988 both had vetoes overridden. The act was a response to a series of controversial Supreme Court decisions made the year before. In those decisions, the court overturned a 1971 ruling that required employers to prove a "business necessity" for screening out minorities and women in its hiring practices. That burden of proof, the 1989 court said, should instead be placed on the plaintiff who alleged that his or her client had been unlawfully screened. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate, deeming this unjust, passed bills that would restore the old law. But the Bush administration objected, insisting that a reversion to the old way would amount to forcing employers to have hiring quotas. It was a controversial and somewhat dubious claim, one that the New York Times editorial page called "an unjustified charge." After all, the system had worked fine from 1971 through 1989. Nevertheless, the president vetoed the legislation. When a motion to override the veto came to the Senate floor, there was question as to whether it would receive the 67 votes needed to pass. The environment was so charged that white supremacist David Duke watched from one section of the Senate gallery while civil rights leader Jesse Jackson stood briefly at the chamber's other end. Ultimately, the vote fell one short: 66 to 34. Prominent Republican Senators like John H Chaffe, John Danforth, Pete Domenici, and Arlen Specter, all chose to override the veto. McCain - who had earlier voted for a watered down version of the bill, one that didn't reverse the court's decision - backed the president. Nearly two decades later, and on the verge of the 40th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson's landmark 1968 Civil Rights Act, McCain stood by his vote. Asked about the decision this past Sunday, he again repeated that the law amounted to a quota system that he historically has opposed. "The issue in the early '90s was a little more complicated," he told Fox News Sunday. "I've never believed in quotas, and I don't. There's no doubt about my view on that issue. And that was the implication, at least, of that other vote." It is, critics say, a shaky defense; one that only a third of the Senate felt comfortable holding on to. As noted by the Times at the time of the bill's debate, opponents could not produce any evidence that the original ruling in 1971 had led to a rash of quotas. And indeed, as Thomas Homburger of the Anti-Defamation League said at the time: his group historically opposes quotas and the Civil Rights Act of 1990 was "simply not a quota bill." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/11/mccains-other-controversi_n_96193.html
More zzzzzzzzzz side stepping... here's one for you... Blacks vote 90-95% democrat and account for 15-18% of population...how come there have been dozens of Jewish senators and congressmen...but only 5 black senators in history and republicans were 2 of those????? I got it!! Democrats are racist!!!! How come the Democrats have not elected more black senators ???? isn't it weird that depsite the blacks giving nearly 100% support to the dems....they always choose other candidates??? racism must be the answer going by your logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Affiliation_in_the_United_States_Senate This is actualy pretty interesting...Jews account for 13% of the senate...but 1.4% of population....and almost all of them are Democrat....whats the matter with the Dems? Only Jewish democrats are qualified to handle hearings and run for senate?? the Dems are racist pigs!!