First you are saying the majority is oppressing the minority now you are saying it doesn't matter.Obama wasn't the most experienced or the most qualified for the job by a long shot.He was probably the most inexperienced President we ever had.He has no military service,had never held a position as a Governor or a Mayor,never really had a real job,never owned a business,and had a few years as a Senator.

McCain spent 22 years in the military
Was in the United States House of Representatives for 4 years and in the US Senate from 1987 till now(23 years).
He is the 19th Senator in Seniority.

McCain also has a long grocery list of qualifications that would bury Obamas puny record.So you are wrong is saying that Obama was the most qualified when cleary he wasn't.

This whole election was based on skin color and nothing more.People voted for Obama because he was black.If Obama would have been a white male preaching change nobody would have gave 2 cents or his lack of experience.

I NEVER said Obama was the most qualified, I said he was the best candidate. Meaning he was the beast salesman for presidency.

You are right, McCain was the most qualified for the job, as far as experience. But in ability and ideas, I don't know who would be best.

I never the majority is oppressing the minority, I said they will do something to help themselves even if it hurts the other. Oppressing includes that AND intentionally harming the other.

regretfully, I suspect that there is a group of ppl who, if Obama's presidency turns out to be a dud, that would never vote for another african american for president. In the same vane, ther are groups of ppl who would never fote for him because of his skin color, nor would vote for someone based on sex. Remember, the blacks voted for him to the tune of about 90% as opposed to other elections when their vote was split between the parties at about 60 - 40. If he turns out to be a dud, do you think their votes will change? I would hope that most of us look beyond race and gender and go for the person who most closely resembles our political and moral standards

That is the rhetoric but the rhetoric there is kinda racist too. It assumes that a minority is always less qualified.

That isn't cool.

...some of that good ole Christian love you post all the time about in the religion forum Thomas.

Wow, just wow..again

No Winx I am just honest with myself.I suppose the 96% of the black voters that voted for Obama are also wrong?I don't care if it is PC or not.From what I have learned in my life is that the strongest leaders of both the Christian faith and who are running this country are white males.

Why everyone gives minorites a free pass for voting for their own but you call white males racist for voting for white males is so hypocritical it is stomach turning.It's fine for the blacks to only votes for blacks but for the whites to only votes for whites your the scum of the earth.

Please spare me the idiotic,unrealistic,and holier than thou soap box speech that only you and one other person care about.

Well number I have been involved in politics a long time and your a fool if you think that the best person for the job is always the best way to vote.Just because someone is doing a good job that doesn't mean that the majority of the people under that person is happy.A person could be doing a good job running a city but how many people are going to be happy paying 13% sales tax?Permits to have garage sales,not being able to wash your car in your own driveway,not smoking on public beaches,and hundreds of other idiotic laws that I have dealt with that made me think I was living in Communist China all because I thought I was voting for the best person for the job.

I vote for the person who has my best interest in mind not for the person most qualified.I am going to vote for a person who is pro military,pro America,and pro Christianity.That is my ideal leader and that is what I am looking for.

I am curious , where does christianity fall on that list? Would you vote for a black christian before a white atheist?

I NEVER said Obama was the most qualified, I said he was the best candidate. Meaning he was the beast salesman for presidency.

You are right, McCain was the most qualified for the job, as far as experience. But in ability and ideas, I don't know who would be best.

I never the majority is oppressing the minority, I said they will do something to help themselves even if it hurts the other. Oppressing includes that AND intentionally harming the other.

First you are saying the majority is oppressing the minority now you are saying it doesn't matter.Obama wasn't the most experienced or the most qualified for the job by a long shot.He was probably the most inexperienced President we ever had.He has no military service,had never held a position as a Governor or a Mayor,never really had a real job,never owned a business,and had a few years as a Senator.

McCain spent 22 years in the military
Was in the United States House of Representatives for 4 years and in the US Senate from 1987 till now(23 years).
He is the 19th Senator in Seniority.

McCain also has a long grocery list of qualifications that would bury Obamas puny record.So you are wrong is saying that Obama was the most qualified when cleary he wasn't.

This whole election was based on skin color and nothing more.People voted for Obama because he was black.If Obama would have been a white male preaching change nobody would have gave 2 cents or his lack of experience.

No Winx I am just honest with myself.I suppose the 96% of the black voters that voted for Obama are also wrong?I don't care if it is PC or not.From what I have learned in my life is that the strongest leaders of both the Christian faith and who are running this country are white males.

Why everyone gives minorites a free pass for voting for their own but you call white males racist for voting for white males is so hypocritical it is stomach turning.It's fine for the blacks to only votes for blacks but for the whites to only votes for whites your the scum of the earth.

Please spare me the idiotic,unrealistic,and holier than thou soap box speech that only you and one other person care about.

Of course I would vote for a black Christian before a white atheist.However if there was a black Christian and a white Christian both running I would probably vote for the white Christian.

Doesn't make you right still.

Diversity is embracing all cultures and recognizing that all people are important.

There is nothing weakening about that, it is a strengthening attribute.

And....as expected...this thread has been completely derailed.

The question was not whether or not diversity was a nation building/destroying thing.

It was also not about whether black people vote for black people.

It was ALSO not a question of racism even though some folks have absolutely nothing to input in a conversation except for that.

The question was actually pretty simple.

Given the current state of America...and given the current perception of failure(s) on the part of Democrats ( and Obama in particular will get blamed because like it or not he IS the President ) to do anything that is showing ( currently ) any REAL progress....

Would the voting public of America actually vote for another African American to be President.

Or, will Obama's perceived failures make people " gunshy " about voting another in?

Obama has pretty much 'poisoned the well' - not only for blacks, but for ALL candidates. He has created a gaping hole in the 'national dialogue' about what we WILL and what we WON'T tolerate from now on in our 'presidents' and other politicians. In a sense, that's a VERY good thing. It's about time we have a 'revolution without bloodshed' and remove the political 'dynastic / entitled' deadwood that has accreted on the 'body politic' over time. I'd love to see EVERY incumbent turned out and replaced with someone completely new. That won't happen. But we CAN turn enough of 'em out to make a significant difference in their comfort level - and that's just as good. I like the thought of them cryin' like little girls who don't have a date to the prom ...

As for color ... ? I don't give a rat's asss about what color a person is. I care about what PRINCIPLES they choose to observe and live by. I'd vote for Thomas Sewell or Walter E. Williams in a heartbeat. I'd vote for Bobby Jindal of LA. Color is irrelevant. PRINCIPLES are relevant. Obama has only ONE 'principle' ... 'Worship me.' He is the ANTITHESIS of progress - 'progress' does nothing for HIM ... only 'process' works for him, because 'process' means he never has to DO anything - and it's working for him - he's NOT doing anything, because the 'process' hasn't been 'completed'. Well, a 'process', in his world, NEVER gets completed, because to be completed means to have found a SOLUTION. He's not about solutions - he's about chaos and 'process'. And by his 'action'(-s), he has poisoned the well for the foreseeable future for ALL who come after him ...

How y' like that 'hope' and 'change' now ... ?

" ... about as much as you like that 'obsession and paranoia' ...whatever works for ya ... "

No ... they're NOT. The concept of 'cultural equivalence' is just as big a load of crap as is the myth of the 'value' of 'diversity'. I will NEVER equate the value of MY culture so as to put it on the same level as that of a tribe of people who still dwell in mud huts or worship goat gods. This, along with other culture- and nation-destroying myths, is all part of an organized plan to play the game of 'frog-in-the-pot'. If the frog's suddenly thrown into boiling water, he jumps out. if he's put into the pot and the water temp is slowly raised, by the time he realizes he's being killed, it's too late.

So no, all cultures and all peoples are NOT equally important or worthy of being elevated to the same level. 'Diversity' and 'cultural equivalence' do NOT 'strengthen' anything - they are part of the process of weakening a target (namely, the United States of America) for destruction.

And....as expected...this thread has been completely derailed.

The question was not whether or not diversity was a nation building/destroying thing.

It was also not about whether black people vote for black people.

It was ALSO not a question of racism even though some folks have absolutely nothing to input in a conversation except for that.

The question was actually pretty simple.

Given the current state of America...and given the current perception of failure(s) on the part of Democrats ( and Obama in particular will get blamed because like it or not he IS the President ) to do anything that is showing ( currently ) any REAL progress....

Would the voting public of America actually vote for another African American to be President.

Or, will Obama's perceived failures make people " gunshy " about voting another in?