Republican Hero Endorses Hillary?

lol... extreme prejudice huh? What are you talking about specifically?

I am not picking on you for being white. I am picking on you for making jokes at the expense of white people to elevate yourself morally, or whatever reason you do it for.

Petraus liked what specific thing Hillary did? You just like her because she supported your Iraq war.

 

Studies have established extensive explicit anti-black and anti-Hispanic prejudice among Republicans. A study done in 2012 reaffirmed a 2008 study that there is extensive racial prejudice in the Republican party and, in fact, reflected an increase where 79% of "Republicans" expressed explicit anti-black prejudice in 2012. The legislative actions of Tea Party Republicans both at the State and Federal levels of government reflect this extreme prejudice. This extremem anti-black and anti-Hispanic prejudice is best exemplified in the Voting Law and Immigration Law proposals coming from the Tea Party Politicans.

I don't support the identification and division of people based upon race, ethnic origin, gender, social status, or other individious criteria either expressely or implicitly by government or the people. There is no "expense" to me if all people are treated equal in the United States but historically that has never been the case. Every "demographic" group has been discriminated against and oppressed at some point in US history except WASP males. That is a historical fact and that discrimination and oppression continues today based upon invidious prejudice.

Based upon the news story Petraeus "liked" Hillary Clinton support for the CIA related to Benghazi. Petraeus was the head of the CIA and the Benghazi "consulate" was a front for CIA operations in Libya. It was not a diplomatic outpost as the Benghazi "consulate" provided no diplomatic functions.

As I noted in the OP I find Hillary Clinton highly objectionable expecially when it comes to her potential candidacy for president in 2016. Hillary Clinton is an extremist "Progressive Democrat" that is on a par with "Tea Party Republicans" which is why I oppose both equally.

It can also be noted that I oppose a US military interventionist foreign policy and opposed the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the Gulf War, the invasion of Panama, the Vietnam War, and even the Korean War in a historical context. Petraeus, in my humble opinion, was responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity when he commanded US forces in Iraq. Strange how many Republicans believed him to be a hero in Iraq and then condemned him for having sex with a woman. What strange priorities Republicans have. War crimes are acceptable but sex is not.

 

my guess, like Christ Christie, Petraeus will now be attacked at every opportunity by the right, even if they have to make stuff up....


.

 

The "Right" has never required facts, and even ignores facts, when it comes to political attacks.

 

I didn't know someone in Bush's cabinet gave warning the WTC was getting dangerous with militants moving into the area? Anyone who believes the two attacks were the results of the same (*)(*)(*)(*) poor planning prior to the attack is ignorant of the facts surrounding both attacks.

 

I would have to guess no, I will start researching , I like to read .

 

Voting laws aren't racist. Why do you think they are? You don't think the tea party supports them because of that whole ACORN voter fraud thing?

Immigration laws aren't racist. Is every other nation on earth racist then? Is Mexico racist against whites because they have immigration laws too you know. You realize there is a war going on in Mexico? That the most dangerous parts of this country are on the border? Let me guess you don't live in a border state affected by this at all, am I right? If the supply of low skilled labor goes up what happens to its price?

UCMJ condemned him not republicans. Why a war criminal?

Do you believe in equality, or discrimination under the law? Do you believe discrimination and racism can be used for good? What is your position on AA?

 

I don't think Republicans are going to keel over because of an endorsement. Neocons don't have any real reason to get their panties up in a wad about Hillary Clinton as President. She'd be more friendly to the neocon agenda than either Paul would.

But I do think it'd be a little bit too easy to make an unfair snipe about the extramarital affairs.

 

ACORN related to voter registration fraud and not voter identification fraud being committed at the polls. The "Voter ID Laws" relate to voter identification fraud at the polls which is a non-existant problem in the United States.

https://www.aclu.org/fighting-voter-suppression

Even Republicans involved in the passage of these "voting laws" in Florida have admitted that they targeted minorities.

http://atlantadailyworld.com/2012/1...-laws-were-made-to-suppress-blacks-democrats/

That's right, cut down on the early voting the Sunday before elections because black churches use that day to mobilize the black vote. If that isn't targeting black voters then what is?

The new crop of voting laws that will effectively block millions of "minority" and "poor" voters are nothing more than a new crop of Jim Crow voting laws that existed in the Southern states before the Civil Rights movement.

It can be noted that the Texas voter ID law is currently awaiting adjudication in the federal courts as those adversely effect by it (blacks and Hispanics) have organized a legal challenges through the NAACP and MALC joining with the US Department of Justice and other interested parties.

http://www.southernstudies.org/2013/09/lawsuits-pile-up-over-texas-voter-id-law.html

I believe it would be more accurate to state that immigration laws around the world are "protectionist" in that they effectively target people based upon numerous criteria including race, religion, ethnic heritage and other invidious criteria and the US is also engage in this practice. In our case it is based upon the invidious criteria of ethnic heritage and religious beliefs of Hispanics.

There is a difference between the United States and the other nations of the world though. The United States was founded upon the political ideology that the purpose of government was to protect the Inalienable Rights of the People. No other nation is founded upon this political ideology so we are unique.

It is estimated that over 80% of the "illegal" immigrants in the United States are of Hispanic origin and that fact alone reflects de facto discrimination in our immigration laws that overwhelmingly target Hispanics by denying them the ability to immigrate to the Unites States legally for peaceful purposes of employment. There's an old saying that "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck it is probably a duck" and our immigration laws are unquestionably anti-Hispanic based upon the statistics.

Always a fun Straw Man argument. The US creates prohibition laws that create violent criminal activity both in the United States and other nations, especially those boardering the US, and then people whine about the problem of the crime the laws create. Of course our immigration laws should address those with nefarious criminal intent but by allowing immigration for those seeking to immigrate to the United States for peaceful purposes it allows for better boarder inforcement against those that would cross the border for criminal purposes.

Instead of targeting the "criminals" we waste our border enforcement resources and tax dollars on those that simply want to come here to work.

BTW I grew up in Southern California so I'm very much aware of both the benefit to the economy of "illegal" immigrants in the work force as well as the negative effects of criminal illegal aliens.

That depends. Only if the supply of low skilled labor exceeds the demand for labor does the price of labor go up. As long as there is a labor shortage, such as we have for low skilled labor in America today, then the market pressure is that it increases the price of labor based upon the Law of Supply and Demand. We can also note that if the demand for labor does not exceed the supply then immigration responds to that and the number of immigrants is dramatically reduced. 2/3rds of the reason why we had a net zero percent change in the number of "illegal" immigrants between 2008-2010 was because the demand for low skilled labor evaporated in the United States (the other 1/3rd was due to better border enforcement).

It always amazes me that those that generally give lip service to "free market capitalism" are opposed to "free market capitalism" when it comes to labor and Hispanic immigration to the United States.

We can also note that if Republicans are opposed to a drop in the "price of labor" (i.e. wages) because of an excess in low skilled labor exceeding market demand then they would be supporting minimum wage laws but they don't.

Try going back to the earlier posts on this thread where well known "conservative" members of this forum condemned Petraeus for his sexual indiscretion in having an affair. Yes, the UCMJ condemned Petraeus for violations of it's "moral code of conduct" (based upon Christian religious teachings) while he was not held accountable for acts of murder and other human rights violations committed by the troops under his command while he was in charge of the Iraq War. As supreme commander of US forces in Iraq he was responsible for their conduct under International Law.

The Federal Affirmative Action Guidelines were an attempt to migitate the effects of denial of equality of economic opportunity based upon individuous prejudice that results in discrimination. It only applied to federal contractors and subcontractors with more than 50 employees and only required those enteprises to ensure policies and procedures that would attempt to reduce such discrimination. They never required quotas or placed any obligation upon any employer to hire a less qualified person for a position based upon race or gender.

It is true that other entities, such as colleges, also picked up the banner of "Affirmative Action" and created their own rules related to it. In some cases a qualified person was given preferrential treatment but in no cases was an unqualified person given preference. There have been a few, and that is very few, cases where discrimination against "Whites" has been presented in court but the fact remains that statistically there is not nor has there ever been discrimination against "WASP Males" in the United States or against "Whites" in general when compared to all other demographic groups.

Whites do not suffer discrimination because of Affirmative Action. That is a myth created by racists based upon rare anecdotal cases and half-truths that are the foundation for the racist propaganda that those with racial prejudice use to rationalize their prejudice.

Don't believe me? Try finding a single study that supports a belief that there is WASP male racial discrimination and oppression in America or ever has been historically. Every other demographic group, including White women, can provide evidence of discrimination and oppression in American history.