Mitt and Marco: the WASP and the WHISP
Mitt Romney is rumored to disobey the mainstream media's Hispanic Skin Color Advisory System while vetting vice-presidential candidates. According to experts, the likely Republican VP candidate, Marco Rubio, who is of Cuban descent, is too light-skinned to be considered fully Hispanic, falling under a subprime minority group classification as White Hispanic, or WHISP.
With big thanks to Oleg at The People's Cube
9 comments:
According to the liberal leftists edicators we stole this nation from the illegal aliens in the first place which is of course one of the reason our education system totaly sucks
"Marco Rubio, who is of Cuban descent, is too light-skinned to be considered fully Hispanic..."
Does that mean the Marxist-in-Chief is too light-skinned to be considered black?
Blacks consider him to be black, even though he's half White. Funny how their racism can make them overlook his White half.
"I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement)..." --- Doug Ross
Someday, if we ever really grow-up as a society, the American people need to ask themselves a very serious question.
Understanding that the First Amendment gives the press almost unlimited rights and protections, do the American people feel those rights and protections should stay in place when the MSM crosses the line from journalism, to outright political operatives for one party? (as is the case with the MSM/Democrats)
A. Levy,
That question has been asked and answered for hundreds of years.
Newspapers have always printed a point of view. Very often that point of view advocated one political viewpoint or idea over another.
You really don't think the press was unbiased in its "reporting" of say the Boston Massacre do you? The Charlestown Tea Party of the same era?
Want to see political divisiveness? Read the headlines and articles leading up to the Civil War.
The key is to recognize that the media has a bias and not to buy into the idea from any organization that it is "fair and balanced" or "purveyors of the truth." They aren't.
All media outlets have a bias because all people have a bias.
The "cartoon" is cute and actually pretty accurate. They need to do spell check, however. What is Race-Bating? Try "Baiting" instead.
AIB/44
Anon 9:25 said;
"All media outlets have a bias because all people have a bias."
Is simply having a bias the same as being a political operative?
So then President Obama (peace be upon him) is now a "White African American"? He is, after all, half white. Or is that not white enough?
Anon 3:42 wrote:
Is simply having a bias the same as being a political operative?
Yes. But even assuming it is not the same, are you claiming "political operatives" do not have the same freedom of speech as others?
Post a Comment