__________________
From toxic waste to the unpronounceables on your food labels, chemicals are all around and within us......

You know, I don't think that it's either racist or sexist to observe that the GOP yet again is offering us a selection of old, rich, white guys.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

It is when that is presented as a reason to reject them all.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

That would be like saying that the Dems are a bunch of racists and sexists seeing as they have always nominated a white male too...in fact that would then label the whole country as nothing more than racist or sexist seeing as we have only had white male Presidents.

In fact seeing as blacks have sought the Democratic ticket before doesn't that mean that its the actual registered Dems who are the racists and so on?

A fair point. I wouldn't say that it's a reason to reject them all (I have other reasons for that )

Ah, Traveler. Always have to argue against something that I didn't say. Well, stick with what you know, I guess.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

To be a bit more blunt about it, what is your problem with us nominating a white male or only offering white male candidates? That is most definately racist and sexist on your part imo.

Still arguing against what I didn't say.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Fine, deleted that, tell me why you have a problem with us only offering white males, that smacks of racism to me.

And, yet again, I didn't say that.

All I said was that I don't think that there's anything wrong with noting that the GOP consistently offers only rich white men, even at the primary level, for president. The Dems (which I'm not, remember?) at least have some non-whites and non-men in their primaries both now and historically.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I didn't know you weren't a Dem. (Though as a liberal err who else are you gonna vote for?)

Anyway since when have this set of candidates been rich? Anyway it remains our prerogative to nominate who we choose, and its not the party that stops colors or women from running, its the women and the colors.

Perhaps. I'm not sure that it's true. Would the party support a non-Christian? How about a gay man?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Not a gay, but that's not sexist or racist.

But the person would have to win the nomination in the first place, if he or she did then they would be on the ticket no matter what.

For example Condi Rice is a black woman, if she chose to run we'd support her as a party and if and when she won the nomination she'd be just as respected a candidate as others before her on the GOP ticket.

I don't even think the democrats would nominate a non-Christian or a gay person. Sadly our country just isn't there yet.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Sadly? I don't think you meant it that way but do clarify, are you saying its sad that we keep nominating (from both parties) straight people who are Christians???