Obama’s ‘Constituency Groups’ Checklist Offers No Options for Whites or Men

Originally posted by missed_gear
I read the link....

Not sure I trust the source. Could not find anything similar....


MG

You could just use the link and go to the survey like I did.
I left them a nice little note.

This is ridiculous.
Hope and change is more about destroying traditional American values and the white judeo-christian heritage than anything else.
The Chicago school for gangsters is now applying the shock doctrine to the US.

reply to post by Asktheanimals

Hope and change is more about destroying traditional American values and the white judeo-christian heritage than anything else.

Who are you Bill O Reilly?

What is traditional American values? Going back to what it was like in the 1950's or earlier? No thanks.

Jim Crow?
Women didn't have rights?
Slavery?
Hating gays?
Everyone religious nutcases?
Blind patriotism?
Killing Native Americans?

Traditional American social values are trash, thank GOD they are dying!!

O'Reilly vs Stewart: Women & Minorities Not 'Traditional?'


www.mediaite.com...

White males are status quo.

Obama being a student of Alinsky would want it this way. This is how he organizes the community of racists... Behind the commonality of purpose against white men.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
White males are status quo.

Obama being a student of Alinsky would want it this way. This is how he organizes the community of racists... Behind the commonality of purpose against white men.

No, Alinksy helped organize poor black people in their own communities in a time where they were HEAVILY discriminated against and legally segregated.

But then again you probably know nothing about the man or his books other than what you read on right wing propaganda sites.

Originally posted by shelookslikeone
reply to post by khimbar

 

So women don't identify with men?

Why would women identify themselves with men? They aren't men.

Originally posted by Trustfund

Originally posted by 11235813213455
White males are status quo.

Obama being a student of Alinsky would want it this way. This is how he organizes the community of racists... Behind the commonality of purpose against white men.

No, Alinksy helped organize poor black people in their own communities in a time where they were HEAVILY discriminated against and legally segregated.

But then again you probably know nothing about the man or his books other than what you read on right wing propaganda sites.

Wrong...

Alinsky's tactics were designed to disrupt and take down ANY status quo. Had you read his material then you wouldn't have even bothered to post because you'd know better.

The example you provide is just one of many and quite diverse instances.

reply to post by Trustfund


Thread Title="Obama’s ‘Constituency Groups’ Checklist Offers No Options for Whites or Men"

Sure the 'Male/Female' question is there, but so is "Women" but not "Men"

Clever how the "Women" part was obviously omitted from your chop picture !!!!

Great tactic that unfortunately works on many people looking

The title of this thread is

Correct

Sorry, you can't hide from the Sun on this one

Originally posted by Trustfund

quickfacts.census.gov...

And now we see insertions that are not in the original !!!!!

Much of which is untrue of course !!!!

Another clever tactic.

You won't fool everybody here, but great attempt




reply to post by khimbar
Ditto

Originally posted by Trustfund
reply to post by shelookslikeone

 

Male in the first screenshot in case you missed it.

so why not just add... white people?

The 80% questionnaire is made up of white people. Why do you care so much? Are you that insecure?

Why do you even bother to state that? It didn't include white people not because it would be answered by omission, but rather because "white people" cant be classified as a constituent because it would be seemingly racist. Instead it states "African Americans" which is based on decent....not race. So it only makes sense that they wouldn't include "whites" since it didn't include "blacks" either, as I stated above. Not trying to be rude just trying to understand and clarify.

As for the gender, it does seem pointless to include women in the lists of constituents when you already state your gender above. So the question is less why not include men? Rather, Why include women in the constituents list? Just saying.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Are you serious? Please read my second response to the OP, or what is posted above as to why you most definitely should NOT include white people on the constituents. Maybe "European Americans" not being included would be a better argument, but "white people", come on, that is separating people into groups based on skin color. Isn't there a term for that?

As for the men not being a constituent. I too think the argument should be changed. This time to women should not be listed as a constituent as they had to have already stated their gender before the constituent part of the survey.

Just trying to clarify. Seems rather simple to me, don't see the big deal.

The "PC" term would have been Caucasian....

The US Govt defines Caucasians as "White-Americans" where as the rest of world define Caucasians as people whose ancestry can be traced back to Europe, North Africa, West Asia, Indian subcontinent and parts of Central Asia, a region known as the Caucasus.

Why is the US Govt's definition of "Caucasians" different from others?

I do not identify with any humans. Where is the sociopath box?

Originally posted by shelookslikeone
reply to post by khimbar

 

So women don't identify with men?

No I do not identify with men. I will never understand why instead of using a napkin you needing to wipe your hands on your pants. The need to pee on a tree when outside. An ability to walk outside for 5 minutes and come back inside dirty. Will also never understand why with the amount of time they spend grabbing themselves the inability to not pee on the seat.

reply to post by Renegade2283

As for the gender, it does seem pointless to include women in the lists of constituents when you already state your gender above. So the question is less why not include men? Rather, Why include women in the constituents list? Just saying.

Because women have specific issues that concern them that men do not have: equality of pay, reproductive rights, and so forth. Not all females would necessarily check this box. although some men might!

Don't worry, in 20 or so years you'll have your white male box to check off, as it is expected by that time you might actually need an advocacy group because you will have lost your status as most privileged.

Straight white males. The new 'minority' group in the USA. Yep.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Originally posted by missed_gear
I read the link....

Not sure I trust the source. Could not find anything similar....


MG

You could just use the link and go to the survey like I did.
I left them a nice little note.

This is ridiculous.
Hope and change is more about destroying traditional American values and the white judeo-christian heritage than anything else.
The Chicago school for gangsters is now applying the shock doctrine to the US.

edit on 21-11-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comment

Traditional American values? Do you know who else has been accused of that? Irish, Italians, Germans, Chinese. Russians, Jews, Catholics etc. And they did destroy what was then were traditional American Values and each group then helped create the ever changing American values that you seem to think are traditional. It is almost like people have no idea about American history and instead get theit ideas from 50s TV shows.

reply to post by Renegade2283


Then why bother listing African-American?
They list jewish but not Christians.
White and Christian are subject of omission here.
The whole trend is based on the idea that everything the US has done wrong is the fault of the white populace and we're no longer entitled to a say while everyone else gets a pass since they were disenfranchised. I don't completely disagree that point but the US did some things that were right as well.
Great lets include everybody!
But if I can't be part of "everybody" I suppose I should just sit down and shut up?

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
They list jewish but not Christians.
White and Christian are subject of omission here.

I disagree.

Being Jewish is/can be considered both an ethnicity and a religion. Some people believe you can be born Jewish or covert to Judaism. They likely included 'Jewish' to cover the first part of the definition not to slight all Christians.

I find that a bit of a stretch.

The list includes "people of faith".

I think that covers 'White Christians'...and just about every other religious faith don't you think?
Otherwise that would be a VERY long list if it dropped in EVERY possible religion.

Some of the more obscure faiths would ultimately be left off, and we'd have a thread about how Obama hates Mazdakism, the Builders of the Adytum, Eckankar, Jainisim...

- Lee

All those lables are complete BS. If you were born here, YOUR AMERICAN.

I had a Doctor once who was from South Africa. She was telling me when you earned her US Citizenship, They wouldn't allow her say she was African American cause she was "white". ...

Um, right before the list, is a male female option.....
and obviously if you don't click anything, you're white.

This survey is so nefarious!!!