Absolutely. The argument I've heard for American Airl.......uhhhh.....Affirmative Action is to "level the playing field" because whites have all the power. I don't agree with the methods (or the arguments) but if this is the argument, and we find ourselves with a president AND a vice president from the same race.....a race that only represents about 12% of the country as a whole (and not coincidentally, the race that fights the hardest for AA), then I would have to argue that the playing field is starting to look pretty level. Sure, there will still be arguments for and against, but as to your question: Do I believe this would be AN argument against AA? Hell yes. And B-Bob, I have nothing against American Airlines, it's Alcoholics Anonymous that I can't stand. All those damn meetings.
Since the AA race card has been played, let me lead with the Pro-life/Pro-choice card. Seriously, without getting into THAT debate, Max, is that issue so critical to your view that you would accept a candidate who was weaker on other matters because of it??
I will reply before MadMax comes in. I'm not going to say what my stance is on abortion, but I know pro life people take it as seriously as anything you could about a candidate. If you believe, and pro-choicers don't get mad, I'm just giving my opinion, that abortion is really taking away a human being, who has done nothing to deserve it, then I can understand that being your number one issue on a candidate. Hell some radicals kill over this issue, you don't see anyone getting killed over affirmative action.
I'm more of a Democrat than a Republican, but if he runs, I'll vote for him. Has anyone seen that Will and Grace where Jack walks in and asks if they've voted yet?
Pole, can you clarify your opinion a bit? I would think that if two people that benefitted from AA were badasses (not that Rice is anything other than a twit), that you'd remark to yourself, "hey... look... affirmative action is a wondrous thing". I don't see your leap where you think ie, "hey... the (government intervention) seatbelt laws saved (some random stat) last year! I will conclude that now, seatbelt laws are no longer necessary!". I don't see the structure.
Max: Pat Buchanan over Colin Powell?? Sorry to put you on the 'hotseat.' Not challenging your views -- just one of the great things of this BBS is hearing from various viewpoints. Thanks for your candor.
Four quick deaths and the guy is president. I would vote for him. Of course, his AA position and abortion position mirror my own for the most part, so I'm not concerned about that. But even if that were't the case, I'm a firm believer that a person with whom I agree 80% to 90% of the time is certainly not someone to oppose.
Only a twit could come up with that analogy, so you've reaffirmed my feelings about Rice. Here's a ridiculous analogy that actually works relative to yours: Strict guidelines (government intervention) are enforced to save the world from Global warming. The next ice age commences. World leaders note that the strict guidelines either worked too well or were never really necessary in the first place. There is now an argument against said strict guidelines, and thusly, they are no longer enforced.
first off...i don't think we're gonna end up with pat buchanan and colin powell in an election... second...man, i don't know...i can't stand buchannan for the most part..and there's a lot about powell i love...but i just can't stomach the thought of aborted kids. i think it's the kind of thing that one day we'll look back on and say, "damn, how did we allow abortion on demand? this was going on right here. how did we allow that?" the same thing we say about slavery today...or at least i hope we'll say that.
He'd be a great President and I'd vote for him. But what about all the people here saying they'd vote for him if he had the same policies as Bush. Bush has taken a lot of bashing for going after Iraq, but I'd have to believe that Powell would be going after them just as hard if he were President.
Powell was the one who advised Bush to wait for the UN's blessing. In the beginning of the debate, he and Rumsfeld (sp) were on opposite ends of the argument.
Max -- I put the candidate I like least (possibly on par with Cheney) to test the extremes. Your answer was honest -- and tells me how strongly you feel about this. Thanks.
But David Palmer won. Plus, I don't know that Colin Powell has approved killing Dennis Hopper's family in the past, so that's probably not an issue. Seriously, though, yes there will be people who would be so adamantly opposed to an African-American president that they might well attempt an assassination, but I don't think fear of those who seek to prevent the country from moving forward should allow them to prevail. Taking risks is the only way to move forward. But it's not my life, so it's easy for me to sit here and say that.
wasn't powell acting funny the last go-around? you have to wonder if he has one of those bob kerrey's ghosts in the closet. I don't see why he otherwise wouldn't have run. maybe cheney will step aside this next go around.
Max: I totally respect your philosophy, however, we are talking about the difference between effective governance and a crazy person. I have friends with whom I radically disagree on many things including abortion, yet I count them among my friends because they are good people. On the other hand, I've met plenty of left wing nutcases who share nearly all of my beliefs and philosophies but I wouldn't want to spend 5 minutes in a room with them because they are just nuts. As phiosophical as I am about many things, I think that having someone effective to govern is more important than having someone who shares one very specific ideology no matter how important it might be to me. As for Powell, I would probably vote for him even if he ran as a Republican. I have always voted for who I thought would be best for the country, state, county or city and that includes people from every political party. IMO, Powell would make a terrific president and I've thought that for quite a while.
