titletownclown Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Interesting article by Victor Davis Hanson http://article.nationalreview.com/438474/the-new-racial-mess/victor-davis-hanson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Run To State Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Definite divider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINPIG Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 It's quite obvious, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Dog Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Divider Extraordinaire!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJAlltheWay24 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 It became pretty evident to me from the reactions on my college campus the night that he got elected that he would not be a Uniter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acemona Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 It became pretty evident to me from the reactions on my college campus the night that he got elected that he would not be a Uniter. Your post however, says more about your college campus that it does about the President. I have not read the article yet, but his speech on race during the campaign, he said that he would not be the panacea for race relations and that his campaign was not about race. I think the division comes b/c the right is simply not choosing to work with him or the leaders in Congress on anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldweatherfan Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Your post however, says more about your college campus that it does about the President. I have not read the article yet, but his speech on race during the campaign, he said that he would not be the panacea for race relations and that his campaign was not about race. I think the division comes b/c the right is simply not choosing to work with him or the leaders in Congress on anything. Of course it has absolutely nothing to do with his extremely liberal views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True blue (and gold) Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 You cannot unite those that refuse to be united. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJAlltheWay24 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Your post however, says more about your college campus that it does about the President. I have not read the article yet, but his speech on race during the campaign, he said that he would not be the panacea for race relations and that his campaign was not about race. Either way, he was the reason for more separation. And I'd imagine many other campuses at the same things occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugatti Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 You cannot unite those that refuse to be united. I agree. There was a big segment that never gave the President a chance and never will. I can't really say that he has gone out of way though to unite the masses. It always cracks me up he speaks of Republicans never working across party lines in their votes, but the Democrats are just as guilty never crossing party lines in votes. Obama is just like every other politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acemona Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I agree. There was a big segment that never gave the President a chance and never will. I can't really say that he has gone out of way though to unite the masses. It always cracks me up he speaks of Republicans never working across party lines in their votes, but the Democrats are just as guilty never crossing party lines in votes. Obama is just like every other politician. This is simply not true at all. One, they made all kinds of compromises on the big legislation they have passed - at the republicans behest and the republicans still chose to not support the legislation. Secondly, the democrats are not nearly as disciplined as the republicans when it comes to crossing party lines. I am sure there were some, but I would bet very few pieces of legisltation passed between 2000-2006 that did not have a decent number of democrats voting for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acemona Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Of course it has absolutely nothing to do with his extremely liberal views. What are those extremely liberal views again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKMustangFan Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 You cannot unite those that refuse to be united. Yeah, because the right is the only side that "refuses to be united".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugatti Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 This is simply not true at all. One, they made all kinds of compromises on the big legislation they have passed - at the republicans behest and the republicans still chose to not support the legislation. Secondly, the democrats are not nearly as disciplined as the republicans when it comes to crossing party lines. I am sure there were some, but I would bet very few pieces of legisltation passed between 2000-2006 that did not have a decent number of democrats voting for it. Whatever makes you sleep better at night. The point being neither party has shown much of a propensity to work across party lines, especially when it comes to voting. If party labels do not matter like they say, votes should be crossed over a lot more than they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKMustangFan Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Whatever makes you sleep better at night. The point being neither party has shown much of a propensity to work across party lines, especially when it comes to voting. If party labels do not matter like they say, votes should be crossed over a lot more than they are. :thumb: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts