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

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by shelookslikeone

 

African Americans
Americans Abroad
Arab-Americans
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
Educators
Environmentalists
Healthcare professionals
Jewish Americans
Labor
Latinos
LGBT
Native Americans
People of faith
People with disabilities
Rural Americans
Seniors
Small business owners
Students
Veterans/military families
Women
Young professionals
Youth

Well White Men are parts of Youth, Young Professional, Veterans/Military, Students, Small Business Owners, Seniors, Rural Americans People with Disabilities, People of Faith, Healthcare Professionals, Labor..... almost all the constituencies listed. Enough Said.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Well White Men are parts of Youth, Young Professional, Veterans/Military, Students, Small Business Owners, Seniors, Rural Americans People with Disabilities, People of Faith, Healthcare Professionals, Labor..... almost all the constituencies listed.

hmmmm, so are African Americans, Jewish Americans, Arab Americans, Asian, Hispanic, blah, blah, blah ... so, what's your point exactly ??

why is any survey, distributed by an arm of POTUS, based on some erroneous assumption ??

what if the white male participating is NOT any of the above ??
are you assuming it isn't possible ?

what if he is an Irish American and doesn't fit any other categories?

and, WHY aren't the Latinos referred to as Latin Americans ??

yet somehow ... RURAL is a specific classification of Americans ??
what is that about ?

it'll be "enough said" when the above questions are answered honestly and adequately.

Originally posted by DJW001
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!

Oh, I see. Though, do men not have any specific concerns? What about reproductive rights for men? Just curious.

Originally posted by lee anoma

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

edit on 21-11-2012 by lee anoma because: (no reason given)

Was just about to say that exact thing, thanks for taking care of that.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Renegade2283

Originally posted by shelookslikeone
After all, we need to make sure that a woman has her womanly right to murder her unborn child, but God forbid a man have a say so in absolutely anything that happens in his marriage - let alone his country.....

.....But God forbid a white person take pride in his race.

Though I do appreciate that you brought this to our attention, could you leave abortion and god out of it? I'm not trying to nitpick here, it just turns some people off right away when you divert off into such things. I'm really just trying to help you reform your post to one that will prevent people from straying off from the main topic into ones that don't exactly pertain to it, like abortion and religion.

Anyways, thanks for posting.

It fits. Abortion is an issues about marginalizing men in general. Not taking sides at this point.

Kinda seems like you are. Marginalizing men? What do you mean? Actually dont answer that. This is exaclty what I mean, we are going off-topic. See how it starts? We are supposed to be talking about the unfairness of the constituency list, not abortion. Just saying

I got this survey and it was way too long. This fake outrage is all much ado about nothing and it's not the "sitting prez" sending it out, it's the one of the dems party branches. If Romney's campaign didn't do the same it just shows they don't think ahead to promoting their party in the next few years or just know what their demographics is.

White males have had the most rights since the founding of this country and before that too. It was minorities and women who fought up to the late 20th century to get equal recognition. Some are still fighting it today and others have been rolled back or severely weakened.

Simply put this survey is a mix of demographics containing racial and ethnic, professional and geographic location mashed into one. Just imagine having 4 of these large multiple choice questions covering all the topics! It's clear the dems are trying to expand their outreach to various people groups that are expanding and can provide future benefits in elections. Simple math!

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Trustfund

 

I expect everyone to get an equal chance to identify themselves, as opposed to a special privileged few groups.

Obviously you fully support have specially privileged groups.

edit on 21-11-2012 by poet1b because: Typo

You think black people are priveleged?? I'll bet you wouldn't wanna walk in my shoes for a DAY.

The sky is falling!

President Kenya McBlackenstein has declared that white men aren't people!

That's odd, because as a white man I still find it incredibly easy to hail a cab on 5th Ave. Perhaps I am still a person, & maybe, just maybe there are things which come much easier to me than others I share the city with. Maybe there are Chinese women in this country who are passed up for employment for that reason.

Nah, couldn't be. Blacky is just trying to take over.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by shelookslikeone


I'm ready to be a minority that way others don't generalize me as an entitled white male.

reply to post by Honor93

and, fyi, even in the south, property owners (regardless skin color) voted. land owner thing abolished by 1850s ?? yeah, sure ... got a link ?

Read your own ACLU link, it says it.

i see you are also ignoring the whole "must be literate" to vote as well and everyone knows the slave population as well as minorities were the most illiterate of the groups available during that time.

It was illegal to teach slaves how to read, most were illiterate. Only the privileged few slaves with non-cruel masters learned how to read.

perhaps you should review this rather "infoplease"

It says the same things......Almost identical.

one important FACT you are either glossing over, purposely ignoring or simply wish to forget is this ... it wasn't until 1866 that ALL white men were granted the right to vote in one single state (NC to be specific) ... are you following that ?? ... in a southern slave state, all white men did NOT have the right to vote until after 1866.

Clearly you didn't read my post. It flat out says voting property requirements were abolished by the mid 1800's. It was gone nationwide by the 1860's, not just in NC.

and by 1870 [just 4yrs later] Amendment 15, granting voting rights to all black males was ratified.

Black code and Jim Crow laws prevented a whole lot of black people from voting. What don't you get? This is why the Voting Rights act was created... Do you think it was just made for kicks?

it was NOT a racial thing no matter how hard you try to make it one. the facts are there for those who wish to know.

Um, it actually was. I guess the US was never extremely racist. Read some books.. God.... Next thing you'll say is that the KKK was a northern fairy tale. And that "separate but equal" had nothing to do with race....

reply to post by Trustfund

actually, it doesn't say that [color=amber]by 1850 property ownership was abolished as a requirement to vote. what it does say is this ...

1856 - RESULT
North Carolina becomes the last state to eliminate the rule that citizens must own property in order to vote in certain elections, effectively extending the right to vote to all white men within the United States

get it ?? NC was the last state to eliminate such rules, some 80yrs after the country was established.

which goes right back to what i said about property rights being a necessity to vote UNTIL it changed.
yes, it changed ... over time. still didn't make the original decision regarding property owners racist as you tried to imply. plenty of black property owners had been voting long before 1856.

tis a shame that you can argue well enough but cannot or will not admit when you're wrong.

illegal activity and UnConstitutional activity are seldom the same thing. being illiterate was a obstacle to voting, however, being illiterate was not Constitutionally determined.
(as you tried to imply yet again)

what an argument you have going on with yourself here ...

It was illegal to teach slaves how to read

then follow with

Only the privileged few slaves with decent masters learned how to read

so, by your own admission, some slaves DID LEARN how to read and write, didn't they ?

and back to the beginning ... almost identical doesn't exist.
you could present a dozen articles that say different, that still doesn't make it so.

identical IS identical ... almost is never identical.
speaking of the AA group, don't they get rather upset when told ... they all look almost identical or is that acceptable now?

i did read your post and the implication of it and you were wrong as you said it and are still wrong because you think ALL white men have had the right to vote since day 1 and that is patently false.

confusing law with Constitutional protections and guarantees is your fatal error, not mine.
they are not the same thing.

the Constitution, the Freedom it protects and the equality it assures has nothing to do with the laws that conflict with it.
(racial inequality, voter disenfranchisement or any of the Jim Crow laws that evolved some 150yrs after the fact)

those errors you can blame on the Attorneys of the day, the poor court systems and the perpetual failures of the USSC to interpret the Constitutional conflicts correctly.

i never commented on the racist tendencies exhibited in this country but the current POTUS sure is with this survey and the Administration's support of it.

reply to post by Openeye


I'd say it is hypocritical to slam US values, and ignore that values in the rest of the world were far worse.

The DoI stated that all men were created equal, which doesn't include women. Women's rights came much later. And even then, the US was and is far ahead of the rest of the world.

While European countries did end slavery much earlier than the US, they remained monarchies with a strongly divided class system long after the US created the first democratic republic, and commoners in Europe had very little rights and in many ways were still treated like slaves.

And you ignored the fact that Britain supported the slave owning confederacy during the civil war.

I am not sure how the western expansion of the US went against US ideals. How is spreading democracy against US ideals

Native American tribes were very brutal towards competing tribes, and they fully embraced conquest.

Mexico attacked the US starting the Mexican American war, so why not take territories on which Mexico had no legitimate claim.

Sure, the people of the US embraced ideals they weren't capable of achieving, doesn't everyone? What is wrong with that? It is not hypocrisy.

reply to post by poloblack


I guess you think I grew up in a life of privilege. Must be, because I am white, I don't know what it means to struggle to survive.

If you had to spend a day in my shoes when I was struggling to get by, you would think a whole lot differently.

reply to post by Trustfund


If you had a decent knowledge of history, the you would know that the US constitution was based on the writings of Jonathan Locke. I suggest you do some research on the matter. The British document you refer to is about limiting the power of the crown.

Slaves brought to the US were taken care of, could breed, and many were able to work their way to freedom.

Slaves brought to Latin America were mostly worked to death, literally, nothing but a short horrible life to look forward to.

Slaves brought to the Middle East were either used as galley slaves, chained in the hull of a ship to row for the rest of their miserable lives, or else they had their junk cut off, the pork and the bean, and if they survived, they became household servants. That was their good deal.

So Yeah, when you look at the realities, slaves who came to the US got the good deal.

reply to post by Trustfund

just so you don't misunderstand, please let me be clear ... i am not in any way, shape or form supporting the institution of slavery, not then and not the corporate version of today.

i find the whole episode in our history appalling but it was what it was and it was not exclusive to any particular group of ppl. yes, our government has made plenty of mistakes along the way, however, restoring the principles outlined in the Constitution is NOT equal to preferring the days of institutionalized slavery.

i do hope you understand that discrimination of any group of ppl is wrong, including caucasions.
and, i am shocked that any government sponsored survey would rely on assumption to produce a result.

reply to post by poloblack


I would like to add, that the way the whole civil rights movement has been turned around, US born and raised black and white males are getting a dirty deal, and the immigrants are getting all the special privileges, and a blind eye is turned to their blatantly discriminating ways.

That is what I have seen and experienced.

Interesting thread. I do think it's a flawed questionaire if one is looking for as much data as possible. If a man takes it he can just not answer woman and thus they will know he's male.

For the person bent out of shape over a man controlling his wife's body, I say he can have an equal say if she gets to determine how many hours he works and what they spend their money on.

I am actually pro-life personally, but depending on your situation if a man wanted his wife pregnant for fifteen years then he could do that to her. The same society that would limit her choices would also have many laws limiting divorce and what "abuse" is. You know, the whole "rule of thumb" history?

reply to post by Honor93

yes, it changed ... over time. still didn't make the original decision regarding property owners racist as you tried to imply. plenty of black property owners had been voting long before 1856.

A minority of black property owners could vote, this was not common place. I've already said this in my post.

so, by your own admission, some slaves DID LEARN how to read and write, didn't they ?

Yes. The extreme minority of slaves, house slaves, who did not work in the fields, who were usually mullato. It was still illegal to teach slaves to read. I don't get your point.... like I said, go read some first hand slave accounts.

tis a shame that you can argue well enough but cannot or will not admit when you're wrong.

I'm not wrong. You're skewing history to fit your own agenda. The USA was a hugely racist country. Frederick Douglas could not even get a job as a ship caulker because northern whites did not want to work with him. I guess he made that up too, racism never existed. White supremacy was never the law of the land, no one was separate but equal and the civil rights movement was just for kicks.

you could present a dozen articles that say different, that still doesn't make it so.

The voting article I linked, and voting article you linked said the near exact same content. You just feel silly because you didn't bother to read it, then tried to prove me wrong with things I've already said. You're going in circles, just admit you have no clue what you are talking about. I'm getting bored of arguing with someone who has some incorrect white washed vision of history.

speaking of the AA group, don't they get rather upset when told ... they all look almost identical or is that acceptable now?

So now you're spouting off random racist statements? Why?

i did read your post and the implication of it and you were wrong as you said it and are still wrong because you think ALL white men have had the right to vote since day 1 and that is patently false.

Um, clearly you didn't. My post said over and over again white males who owned property could vote. I even bolded it and made it large text. Even bolded how Irish immigrants were discriminated against with literacy tests. Now you're just lying because you lost.

confusing law with Constitutional protections and guarantees is your fatal error, not mine. they are not the same thing.

Constitutional protections are meaningless when they are not being protected. I don't get your pointttttt. I care about what reality was, not what a piece of paper said.

those errors you can blame on the Attorneys of the day, the poor court systems and the perpetual failures of the USSC to interpret the Constitutional conflicts correctly.

No, I blame it on racist idiot judges, law makers, and the bigoted society of that time.

i never commented on the racist tendencies exhibited in this country but the current POTUS sure is with this survey and the Administration's support of it.

lol, yeah ok.

I'm done teaching you history. It is more than clear you don't want to learn.

reply to post by Kali74


Wait.... White Males are the most privileged bunch in America?

Since FREAKING WHEN?

As a white male I am Last in line for Jobs, college admissions, Don't even think about asking for Welfare if you're a white male!. In addition to this I am taught from a very early age in the american indoctrination,... errr school system that as a white male I am responsible for basically EVERY bad thing that's happened in the world in the last 500 years!

Here's some facts for you about the REAL HISTORY of the world

Yeah white people owned slaves in the Americas.... but did you know that the FIRST slave owner in the United States was ..... BLACK?

How about the RIDICULOUS assertion that white raiding parties just landed on the coast of Africa Bashed whole villages of black people over the head and threw them on ships to become slaves in America?

When the reality is the OVERWHELMING majority of slaves were in fact bought from islamic and zulu slave traders... Yep black people you can thank YOUR OWN PEOPLE FOR SELLING YOU OUT,,,, just like now where black on black violence is staggeringly disporportionate to any other ethnic groups.

Or how about the fact that many of those slaves were downright HAPPY to get out of Africa because as a slave in AFRICA all you had to look forward to was being raped, tortured, and eventually beaten to death by your owners.

But you're SOOOO RIGHT!!! As a white person I am so privileged that all of these LIES and Inequalities need to be heaped upon me day after day year after year to somehow "even the score". Because EVERYONE KNOWS GETTING EVEN SOLVES EVERYTHING....

Continue drinking the kool aid people.... And when you eventually REAP THE WHIRLWIND do try to act surprised.... after all us white males age 18-34 have TERRORIZED the world for the last 500 years why would you expect the future to be any different!