The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[DorkyFresh]

Yeah, those people are called teenagers, and college students (minus the underacheiver part).
and Mexicans...















...i kid! i kid!

[BlackLantern]

Yeah, those people are called teenagers, and college students (minus the underacheiver part).

Most of the employees in my local Wal-Mart are not teenagers....nor college students...they are people who aren't qualified to do anything else or are content where they are....

[Tron5000]

Oh, Moses. :whatever:

Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda. Forget it. You want to believe in this drivel...fine.

Man have the conservatives ALWAYS been this stupid or is the stupidity ratio an exponent of time?

Let's ignore the fact, as conservatives (well, these neo-con propagandists) LOVE to do, the fact that Iran, VIA THE PENTAGON AND DD, stopped it's nuclear program in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

And with most estimates that it CAN NOT (CANNOT) produce enough uranium for a bomb, until 2015...granted IF it restarts the campaign. The probability of them producing a bomb before that is highly unlikely. Where's the imminent danger? You're telling me diplomacy...and I'm talking REAL diplomacy, not threats of sanctions and isolationism, can't work in 8-9 years. We can't do that?

This is the flippin' USA we can DO anything, but apparently we can't talk?

Dammit to hell. This is the country where Kennedy said we'd go to the moon by the end of the decade, and we did that in less than 8 years. And you war/fear-mongering idiots are telling me that diplomacy can't work?

I find it that it's these sick neo-cons who talk infinitely about America's brilliance believe SO little in it's potential. It really feels like they want to destroy this country. Forget about how they treat the constitution and the laws of our land. Look at how they our foreign "policy". "You're either with us or against us." Up until the mid-70 the Mid-East, in general, looked up to America, and considered them with high regards (and it's not the terr'rrst doing...they're a result of our policy). Now we're just a big ignorant, hypocritical bully.

Whatever...

Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 out of fears that once finished in Iraq,, the US would come calling next door. However, I ran has been busy over the last year installing new centrifuges and enriching uranium closer to the weapons-grade deliverable scale.

In what kind of talks would you like to engage with Ahmadinejad?

Do you always refer to those with opinions that differ from you as "stupid"? Do you have absolutely no respect for dissenting beliefs?

[souvlaki]

Most of the employees in my local Wal-Mart are not teenagers....nor college students...they are people who aren't qualified to do anything else or are content where they are....

What I'm saying is I'd rather a bunch of teenagers, and college students that are just as qualified to take a job at the local Wal-Mart and have people actually receiving education in this country and not needing to take those crappy jobs then hope to see a 40 year old working at the local Wal-Mart to make ends meet. Get what I'm saying? I would rather lower the number of under acheivers in this country and give jobs like that to teenagers, and college students. Crappy jobs like those are good for HS and college students, they build character (at least it did for me). Personally, when I see a person in their 40's working at Wal-Mart because it's the only way they can make ends meet to support their children, I find that sad.

[BlackLantern]

What I'm saying is I'd rather a bunch of teenagers, and college students that are just as qualified to take a job at the local Wal-Mart and have people actually receiving education in this country and not needing to take those crappy jobs then hope to see a 40 year old working at the local Wal-Mart to make ends meet. Get what I'm saying? I would rather lower the number of under acheivers in this country and give jobs like that to teenagers, and college students. Crappy jobs like those are good for HS and college students, they build character (at least it did for me). Personally, when I see a person in their 40's working at Wal-Mart because it's the only way they can make ends meet to support their children, I find that sad.

I believe in social Darwinism....some people get the good education and the great jobs, some get to push carts around a grocery store parking lot....its about balance....

[terry78]

We're in a recession. If you've never been unemployed for a period of time outside of school, you'd realize that. People are taking whatever the **** they can get right now.

[Crowforge]

I know I'm not quiting my crappy job...

[Tron5000]

I believe in social Darwinism....some people get the good education and the great jobs, some get to push carts around a grocery store parking lot....its about balance....

The world needs ditch diggers.

And you can't work full-time until the age of 16. We would hardly be able to staff all the menial US jobs with 16-23 year-olds (who haven't finished college). And lots of people don't go to college. What are they supposed to do, get a job as an engineer without a diploma? Not bloody likely.

[souvlaki]

I believe in social Darwinism....some people get the good education and the great jobs, some get to push carts around a grocery store parking lot....its about balance....

Well, yes, there will always be the underachievers, the uneducated, and I'm not idealistic enough to believe there wont always be those people. But I'm more talking about the people completely capable of working places other than Wal-Mart, but are doing so to make ends meet. I hope to God in eight years, regardless of who ends up getting elected, those people will not be put into such bad positions just to make ends meet, as well as also making it easier for a struggling student to pay for college so they can actually become educated, and not end up stuck as a Wal-Mart employee.

[Tron5000]

Well, yes, there will always be the underachievers, the uneducated, and I'm not idealistic enough to believe there wont always be those people. But I'm more talking about the people completely capable of working places other than Wal-Mart, but are doing so to make ends meet. I hope to God in eight years, regardless of who ends up getting elected, those people will not be put into such bad positions just to make ends meet, as well as also making it easier for a struggling student to pay for college so they can actually become educated, and not end up stuck as a Wal-Mart employee.

If people are completely capable of working somewhere other than Wal-Mart, then why do they choose not to do so?

And if you start as a cashier at Wal-Mart and work hard, you may be provided to supervisor. Then to manager. Next thing you know, they need a regional manager. Then they need someone in the corporate office. You can move up in such a company through hard work and determination.

[souvlaki]

If people are completely capable of working somewhere other than Wal-Mart, then why do they choose not to do so?

What country have you lived in for the last four years? Our economy is tanking. That is why people perfectly qualified to do other things end up working at Wal-Mart to make the house payment, or feed their kids. McCain's solution for the economy is the pretty much the same solution as Bush's... and it's not working.

[kainedamo]

If people are completely capable of working somewhere other than Wal-Mart, then why do they choose not to do so?

It's not a matter of choice. It's a matter of need.

And if you start as a cashier at Wal-Mart and work hard, you may be provided to supervisor. Then to manager. Next thing you know, they need a regional manager. Then they need someone in the corporate office. You can move up in such a company through hard work and determination.

That is fine for some people. Others would consider that a completely soul destroying career and a total waste.

[Tron5000]

What country have you lived in for the last four years? Our economy is tanking. That is why people perfectly qualified to do other things end up working at Wal-Mart to make the house payment, or feed their kids. McCain's solution for the economy is the pretty much the same solution as Bush's... and it's not working.

So tell me what policies of Bush's have destroyed our economy? His tax cuts are the reason our economy grew every single month for over 5 years.

[souvlaki]

Others would consider that a completely soul destroying career and a total waste.

Exactly. I don't think there is a single person that can honestly say their life's goal is to be a store manager at the Wal-Mart down the street.

[souvlaki]

So tell me what policies of Bush's have destroyed our economy?

Surely you are trolling.

The war in Iraq for starters.

[Tron5000]

It's not a matter of choice. It's a matter of need.



That is fine for some people. Others would consider that a completely soul destroying career and a total waste.

It's a total waste to accept a job with the possibility of promotion in order to provide a comfortable living?

People often take jobs they don't want. You do what you have to do to provide.

Some people are flat-out dumb and lazy. And that's why they can not rise above minimum wage. Do you know any intelligent, hard-working people who just can't catch a break and have to flip burgers at McDonald's on 3rd shift?

[BlackLantern]

I think he means more ground level type stuff....my standard of living has actually improved in the past few years

[Tron5000]

Exactly. I don't think there is a single person that can honestly say their life's goal is to be a store manager at the Wal-Mart down the street.

It was my life's goal to be a professional baseball player. That didn't work. I opted for another path.

Is your definition of a good economy one in which every single worker holds a job that they consider to be their "life's goal"? I haven't seen Utopia on any recent maps.

[souvlaki]

It's a total waste to accept a job with the possibility of promotion in order to provide a comfortable living?

People often take jobs they don't want. You do what you have to do to provide.

Some people are flat-out dumb and lazy. And that's why they can not rise above minimum wage. Do you know any intelligent, hard-working people who just can't catch a break and have to flip burgers at McDonald's on 3rd shift?

Maybe they are dumb and uneducated, or lazy because they can't afford to go to college because they come from a poor family. That is a problem that needs to be corrected as well. Not everyone chooses the environment they grow up in, and not everyone can afford to get a good education to improve their life. And when they graduate from those colleges, they struggle to find jobs because there are not jobs to be found. And that trend has been continuing for about 3-4 years now.

[Tron5000]

Maybe they are dumb and uneducated, or lazy because they can't afford to go to college because they come from a poor family. That is a problem that needs to be corrected as well. Not everyone chooses the environment they grow up in, and not everyone can afford to get a good education to improve their life. And when they graduate from those colleges, they struggle to find jobs because there are not jobs to be found. And that trend has been continuing for about 3-4 years now.

If "there are not jobs to be found," then how do I have 2? Did I just get lucky somehow? Did I hit the Job Lottery?

[BlackLantern]

I've juggled 3 part time jobs at once.....my nickname, among my friends, was "Job Bandit"

[Tron5000]

Maybe they are dumb and uneducated, or lazy because they can't afford to go to college because they come from a poor family. That is a problem that needs to be corrected as well. Not everyone chooses the environment they grow up in, and not everyone can afford to get a good education to improve their life. And when they graduate from those colleges, they struggle to find jobs because there are not jobs to be found. And that trend has been continuing for about 3-4 years now.

Maybe they should have studied harder in their (government-funded) high school and received a scholarship to college. Perhaps they should apply for grants. Maybe a student loan you can pay off after you graduate. Or you can be like me: work a full-time job at the same time you attend school. There are lots of reasons that people do not further their education; chief among them is the lack of desire to do so.

[souvlaki]

If "there are not jobs to be found," then how do I have 2? Did I just get lucky somehow? Did I hit the Job Lottery?

Just because your standard of living may have improved in the last eight years, don't act like that's been the case for a lot of people in this country.

[souvlaki]

Maybe they should have studied harder in their (government-funded) high school and received a scholarship to college. Perhaps they should apply for grants. Maybe a student loan you can pay off after you graduate. Or you can be like me: work a full-time job at the same time you attend school. There are lots of reasons that people do not further their education; chief among them is the lack of desire to do so.

Not everyone receives amazing education from public schools. That is part of the problem right there. The amount of money spent on the Iraq war alone could have solved a lot of those problems, like giving children a decent education in poorer neighborhoods. You have a very cynical view of people in this country.

[BlackLantern]

Not everyone receives amazing education from public schools. That is part of the problem right there. The amount of money spent on the Iraq war alone could have solved a lot of those problems, like giving children a decent education in poorer neighborhoods. You have a very cynical view of people in this country.

I disagree.....People have gotten lazier, more complacent...Schools have been forced to lower standards and coddle poor peformers due to pressure from parents groups and ridiculous programs like No Child Left Behind. There is a sever lack of work ethic in this country, people seem to think a good job will get handed to them simply becuase they graduated from a certain school.....Millions of Americans each year skip work and cause mass productivity loss due to trying to get on American Idol and various outher deplorable reality shows.....WE ARE SOFT and its slowly killing us

[marcofthebeast]

I don't see it being a cynical point of view when all he is really saying is if you work hard enough you may get the things you want.

[souvlaki]

I disagree.....People have gotten lazier, more complacent...Schools have been forced to lower standards and coddle poor peformers due to pressure from parents groups and ridiculous programs like No Child Left Behind. There is a sever lack of work ethic in this country, people seem to think a good job will get handed to them simply becuase they graduated from a certain school.....Millions of Americans each year skip work and cause mass productivity loss due to trying to get on American Idol and various outher deplorable reality shows.....WE ARE SOFT and its slowly killing us

Well I think we can both agree apathy is a problem in our country that needs to be improved.

[kainedamo]

It's a total waste to accept a job with the possibility of promotion in order to provide a comfortable living?

People often take jobs they don't want. You do what you have to do to provide.

Some people are flat-out dumb and lazy. And that's why they can not rise above minimum wage. Do you know any intelligent, hard-working people who just can't catch a break and have to flip burgers at McDonald's on 3rd shift?

I know intelligent, hard working people that do that while working through college.

[Tron5000]

Not everyone receives amazing education from public schools. That is part of the problem right there. The amount of money spent on the Iraq war alone could have solved a lot of those problems, like giving children a decent education in poorer neighborhoods. You have a very cynical view of people in this country.

You're correct, not everyone receives amazing education from public schools. That is the fault of the Teachers Unions. But there are outside sources for advancing your education. I learned a lot by reading on my own, and this helped me in all testing environments.

I think you reflect a lack of willingness to accept that most people do not receive college degrees based on decisions that those people made, rather than some mysterious outside forces manipulating their lives.

[souvlaki]

I don't see it being a cynical point of view when all he is really saying is if you work hard enough you may get the things you want.

But not everyone grows up in an environment that makes that possible. Not everyone grows up in a neighborhood that has a good high school. I just think it's cynical to think that most people working those crappy jobs are working those crappy jobs due to lack of ambition. They are doing it because they struggle to make it through college, and then when they graduate there are no jobs to be found.

[Tron5000]

I know intelligent, hard working people that do that while working through college.

And when they get out of college, are they likely to still be flipping those burgers in 3 years? I think not.

[kainedamo]

I just want to understand something here, Tron5000.

The bad state of the economy, the high unemployment rates and number of people in poverty, the government bears zero responsibility for any of it?

That kind of seems like what you're saying.

How much does the Iraq war cost per month?

[souvlaki]

I think you reflect a lack of willingness to accept that most people do not receive college degrees based on decisions that those people made, rather than some mysterious outside forces manipulating their lives.

Wow. Okay, you have fun with that argument. NOT EVERYONE WORKS AT CRAPPY JOBS BECAUSE THEY LACK AMBITION. THEY ARE DOING IT BECAUSE OUR ECONOMY SUCKS AND THERE ARE NOT JOBS. How is this hard to understand?

[marcofthebeast]

I have nothing against people working crappy jobs and disagree with Tron when he says people with low level jobs are lazy. Thats just not true they work their asses off. My point is is that if people want to make something of their live they shouldn't expect the government to do it for them. It's neither the governments place or specialty in doing so. I grew up in a poor neighborhood raised by a mom who worked two part time jobs went to college and raised two kids on her own. Anybody (barring people with injuries) can work hard enough to make their life better. Some people are so used to hand outs that they forget to be responsible for their own lives.

[BlackLantern]

People are always complaining about education....the war has little to do with it....

There is a climate in schools that discourage excellent performance, I've had "fellow students" destroy books I would bring to school to read because they felt I "read too much"

Among peers, showing intelligence is still a stigma, moreso these days...

I read a story about a kid in a Chicago school that had his eye put out because the teacher recognized his good performance during a test that a majority of the class failed....

[souvlaki]

Is Tron5000 stuck in a time warp, and posting from the year 2001? I'm really confused here.

[kainedamo]

I have nothing against people working crappy jobs and disagree with Tron when he says people with low level jobs are lazy. Thats just not true they work their asses off. My point is is that if people want to make something of their live they shouldn't expect the government to do it for them. It's neither the governments place or specialty in doing so. I grew up in a poor neighborhood raised by a mom who worked two part time jobs went to college and raised two kids on her own. Anybody (barring people with injuries) can work hard enough to make their life better. Some people are so used to hand outs that they forget to be responsible for their own lives.

But if the economy is in a bad place, if there are large amounts of people in poverty, if there is a large unemployment rate, surely that is a reflection of bad government?

[BlackLantern]

I think the point he is trying to make is that you can't always point the finger at the government or the President when things aren't good....sometimes the American public needs to look at itself to fix some of the problems

[Tron5000]

I just want to understand something here, Tron5000.

The bad state of the economy, the high unemployment rates and number of people in poverty, the government bears zero responsibility for any of it?

That kind of seems like what you're saying.

How much does the Iraq war cost per month?

The Iraq war constitutes about 1% of GDP. Yeah, I really think that's the problem.

[marcofthebeast]

The Economy is not something a capitalist government can completely control or should.

[kainedamo]

I think the point he is trying to make is that you can't always point the finger at the government or the President when things aren't good....sometimes the American public needs to look at itself to fix some of the problems


That's complete nonsense, quite frankly. It's a very cheap way for the government to wash it's hands of what are VERY large problems that can't be solved easily.

I'm not saying the government should hold each individual persons hand to make sure they each can have the best job.

I'm saying that if 1 in 5 Americans are illiterate, if tens of millions are on the poverty line, if tens of millions are unemployed, and if the economy is in a bad way, then the government obviously isn't doing enough.

[Tron5000]

I have nothing against people working crappy jobs and disagree with Tron when he says people with low level jobs are lazy. Thats just not true they work their asses off. My point is is that if people want to make something of their live they shouldn't expect the government to do it for them. It's neither the governments place or specialty in doing so. I grew up in a poor neighborhood raised by a mom who worked two part time jobs went to college and raised two kids on her own. Anybody (barring people with injuries) can work hard enough to make their life better. Some people are so used to hand outs that they forget to be responsible for their own lives.

This is what I am trying to say. Sure, I know hard-work if you want to rise above that position, to better your economic position, you can do so. There is no invisible hand holding you back. Sure, there may be barriers. But with hard work and determination, you can usually overcome these obstacles.

Of course not all people in low-level jobs are lazy. But those that are still in those jobs 10 years later likely are.

[kainedamo]

The Iraq war constitutes about 1% of GDP. Yeah, I really think that's the problem.

Answer me directly here.

How much responsibility, if any, does the government have concerning education, economy, and employment?

[souvlaki]

People are always complaining about education....the war has little to do with it....

There is a climate in schools that discourage excellent performance, I've had "fellow students" destroy books I would bring to school to read because they felt I "read too much"

Among peers, showing intelligence is still a stigma, moreso these days...

I read a story about a kid in a Chicago school that had his eye put out because the teacher recognized his good performance during a test that a majority of the class failed....

And how would you go about improving intelligence exactly? It sounds like you are implying that people have become more apathetic and an unwillingness to improve their way of life? What has Bush done to improve things?

All I'm saying is the Iraq war has sucked how much money from this country that could have gone toward improving education in this country? Apathy with school occurs when you don't have a desire to learn. It's hard to have a strong desire to do good in school if your school sucks.

[marcofthebeast]

But those that are still in those jobs 10 years later likely are.

Or happy, but most likely lazy.

[BlackLantern]

The government can't dictate a companys operating costs or how many people it employs at any given time.....

What good is education if kids won't behave and don't care to learn?

[marcofthebeast]

Speaking of crappy jobs, I gotta go.

[BlackLantern]

And how would you go about improving intelligence exactly? It sounds like you are implying that people have become more apathetic and an unwillingness to improve their way of life?

All I'm saying is the Iraq war has sucked how much money from this country that could have gone toward improving education in this country? Apathy with school occurs when you don't have a desire to learn. It's hard to have a strong desire to do good in school if your school sucks.

I do think that....I went to a pretty good public school in a good community and we had plenty of kids who didn't want to do a damn thing in class...I saw one of them working at Target last week

[kainedamo]

The government can't dictate a companys operating costs or how many people it employs at any given time.....

What good is education if kids won't behave and don't care to learn?

I seriously feel like grabbing you and shaking you.

The better the school is, the better the teachers are, the better the students do. It's very simple.

[Tron5000]

That's complete nonsense, quite frankly. It's a very cheap way for the government to wash it's hands of what are VERY large problems that can't be solved easily.

I'm not saying the government should hold each individual persons hand to make sure they each can have the best job.

I'm saying that if 1 in 5 Americans are illiterate, if tens of millions are on the poverty line, if tens of millions are unemployed, and if the economy is in a bad way, then the government obviously isn't doing enough.

What should the government be doing? Why are communities not better caring for their citizens and the education of their youth? Why are parents not imparting upon their children the ethics of hard work, education and personal responsibility? Why would people rather watch American Idol twice a week instead of attending a night class or picking up a second job?

[kainedamo]

What should the government be doing? Why are communities not better caring for their citizens and the education of their youth? Why are parents not imparting upon their children the ethics of hard work, education and personal responsibility? Why would people rather watch American Idol twice a week instead of attending a night class or picking up a second job?

So your answer to my question above is that the government has ZERO accountability. Gotcha.

[Tron5000]

Answer me directly here.

How much responsibility, if any, does the government have concerning education, economy, and employment?

I believe that the government's responsibility is to allow the private sector to more efficiently manage all of the above.

[BlackLantern]

I think we need to institute a tough standardized exit exam for HS across the US...you don't pass, you stay until you do or you decide to drop out

[Tron5000]

I think we need to institute a tough standardized exit exam for HS across the US...you don't pass, you stay until you do or you decide to drop out

And if you can't pass, you can't vote.

[kainedamo]

And if you can't pass, you can't vote.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!

MY god man.

Do you have ANY concern for the working classes at all?

[Tron5000]

So your answer to my question above is that the government has ZERO accountability. Gotcha.

What is government's accountability as compared to personal accountability? Is the government forcing someone to work at Krystal and then go home and play World of Warcraft or Grand Theft Auto for 8 hours? Is the government responsible for people buying Blu-Rays instead of saving money for college? Is the government responible for people having children at an early age? Is the government responsible for someone who would rather get high on his couch at night instead of picking up a second job or taking an extra class?

The government needs to get the hell out of the way and allow the economy to work. This country prospered because of the work ethic, ingenuity and determination of its people working for and against and in concert with other free people.

[BlackLantern]

And if you can't pass, you can't vote.

sounds good....or if you decide to drop out....however long it was until your graduation, you have to enter into some type of public service program....so let's say you decide to drop out after your sophomore year, you spend 2 years working for the Department of Public Works or something (no pay) until your class graduates...

[kainedamo]

I believe that the government's responsibility is to allow the private sector to more efficiently manage all of the above.

You want the private sector to manage public schools? :huh:

[Tron5000]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!

MY god man.

Do you have ANY concern for the working classes at all?

Why do we want someone who can't even get out of high school to make the most important decisions facing US citizens: who to elect to represent us?

[BlackLantern]

You want the private sector to manage public schools? :huh:

Why not??? because apparently the government isn't doing a good enough job holding hands....

[kainedamo]

What is government's accountability as compared to personal accountability? Is the government forcing someone to work at Krystal and then go home and play World of Warcraft or Grand Theft Auto for 8 hours? Is the government responsible for people buying Blu-Rays instead of saving money for college? Is the government responible for people having children at an early age? Is the government responsible for someone who would rather get high on his couch at night instead of picking up a second job or taking an extra class?

The government needs to get the hell out of the way and allow the economy to work. This country prospered because of the work ethic, ingenuity and determination of its people working for and against and in concert with other free people.

What you're saying is opinion that is subjective.

The state of the economy, education, and employment are verifiable facts. The dollar is very weak. Tens of millions are out of work. You can talk about personal accountability all day, it won't change a thing. Why the hell do you pay taxes to a government that you believe has no responsibility for the above?

Teenagers that have kids too soon? Let me ask you, it it any coincidence that the areas this happens most are the ghettos and poor areas? Bush won't fund sex education that teaches anything other than abstinance only sex ed. That right there is government accountability.

[Tron5000]

You want the private sector to manage public schools? :huh:

Um, yes. Throughout history, competition and the private sector have alwys produced the best results. I believe that there is no reason to think that this would not apply to education.

A government that controls the dissemination of information to its youth is one of the foundational principles of Marxism. I believe that vouchers are a good start, but complete privatization would be the most beneficial for America's youth and future.

[Tron5000]

What you're saying is opinion that is subjective.

The state of the economy, education, and employment are verifiable facts. The dollar is very weak. Tens of millions are out of work. You can talk about personal accountability all day, it won't change a thing. Why the hell do you pay taxes to a government that you believe has no responsibility for the above?

Because they force me to. I don't "pay taxes." They take from me my hard-earned money before I ever have a chance to see it.

[BlackLantern]

That and if graduation rate is reflective upon a companys' ability to manage people....be assured they will make sure people learn and graduate.....

[kainedamo]

Why not??? because apparently the government isn't doing a good enough job holding hands....

Um, the healtcare of America isn't in great hands in the private sector. To make all public schools private is a baaaaaaaaaaaad idea. You can't put education into the hands of people that care about one thing - profit.

[Tron5000]

What you're saying is opinion that is subjective.

The state of the economy, education, and employment are verifiable facts. The dollar is very weak. Tens of millions are out of work. You can talk about personal accountability all day, it won't change a thing. Why the hell do you pay taxes to a government that you believe has no responsibility for the above?

Teenagers that have kids too soon? Let me ask you, it it any coincidence that the areas this happens most are the ghettos and poor areas? Bush won't fund sex education that teaches anything other than abstinance only sex ed. That right there is government accountability.

It's not the responsibility of a parent to say to their child, "If you have sex, you may get pregnant?" "If you get pregnant, it's going to cost a lot of money?" "If you have a child at a young age, it will create for you obstacles that you otherwise would not face?"

[souvlaki]

lol... if these are the type of arguments I expect to hear from Republicans during the general election... heh. Good luck with that.

[Tron5000]

Um, the healtcare of America isn't in great hands in the private sector. To make all public schools private is a baaaaaaaaaaaad idea. You can't put education into the hands of people that care about one thing - profit.

Health care in America is in the state it is in because of government regulations and insane malpractice rates due to our frivolous "sue everybody" culture.

[kainedamo]

Why do we want someone who can't even get out of high school to make the most important decisions facing US citizens: who to elect to represent us?

Do you even know what a democracy is? Do you have any clue as to the history of western civilization?

Taking away the vote of those that "can't make it out of high school" is effectively taking away the vote from the poor. We've come too far to go back to something so draconian as that.

[BlackLantern]

Um, the healtcare of America isn't in great hands in the private sector. To make all public schools private is a baaaaaaaaaaaad idea. You can't put education into the hands of people that care about one thing - profit.

That is a whole other thread....

Well if their profit is predicated on student performance, wouldn't their be motivation to make sure the students perform?

[BlackLantern]

Do you even know what a democracy is? Do you have any clue as to the history of western civilization?

Taking away the vote of those that "can't make it out of high school" is effectively taking away the vote from the poor. We've come too far to go back to something so draconian as that.

Convicted prisoners lose the right to vote... are you going to make a case about that now too?

When you vote, it should be an informed choice....

[Tron5000]

Um, the healtcare of America isn't in great hands in the private sector. To make all public schools private is a baaaaaaaaaaaad idea. You can't put education into the hands of people that care about one thing - profit.

Profit drives competition, which drives production. If schools were privatized, they would fight for the best teachers, and best curricula and parents would not be forced to send their kids to crappy schools.

[kainedamo]

Because they force me to. I don't "pay taxes." They take from me my hard-earned money before I ever have a chance to see it.

You pay taxes because you are forced to...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


I'm putting you on ignore right now.

I urge everyone here to put Tron5000 on ignore. His arguments are incredibly ****ing moronic and lacking in any common sense and lacking in any real world evidence.

Seriously, the guy does not deserve to be listened to.

[BlackLantern]

...and teachers would probably get paid what they are supposed to get paid

[BlackLantern]

You pay taxes because you are forced to...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


I'm putting you on ignore right now.

I urge everyone here to put Tron5000 on ignore. His arguments are incredibly ****ing moronic and lacking in any common sense and lacking in any real world evidence.

Seriously, the guy does not deserve to be listened to.

If you have a job in the United States...taxes are removed from your wages before you receive your paycheck....so what exactly is he wrong about???

[kainedamo]

Convicted prisoners lose the right to vote... are you going to make a case about that now too?

When you vote, it should be an informed choice....

They're behind bars, they are not part of society.

Who dictates what is an informed choice?

I'm surprised at you, BlackLantern. Surely you can see how fascistic it is for a government to decide who is and isn't smart enough to vote. That's not progress, that's regression. That's what governments USED to do.

In Ireland, if you had two homes you could vote twice. Three homes, you could vote three times, and so on. Who suffers? The poor. Thank heavens we've moved on from that.

Giving every member of society one vote and one vote only is the best way. NOBODY should dictate requirements for a vote.

If you want a dictatorship, you're in the wrong country.

[Tron5000]

You pay taxes because you are forced to...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


I'm putting you on ignore right now.

I urge everyone here to put Tron5000 on ignore. His arguments are incredibly ****ing moronic and lacking in any common sense and lacking in any real world evidence.

Seriously, the guy does not deserve to be listened to.

My, such a scathing, well-articulated and issue-driven rebuke.


Anyone who puts me on Ignore, please inform me via .

[Tron5000]

You pay taxes because you are forced to...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


I'm putting you on ignore right now.

I urge everyone here to put Tron5000 on ignore. His arguments are incredibly ****ing moronic and lacking in any common sense and lacking in any real world evidence.

Seriously, the guy does not deserve to be listened to.

Yes, I am forced to. If I do not comply with the wishes of the Imperial Federal Government, they will confiscate my belongings, garnish my wages and place me in prison.

[kainedamo]

If you have a job in the United States...taxes are removed from your wages before you receive your paycheck....so what exactly is he wrong about???

What's wrong is that Tron5000 seems to see no other purpose for a government other than to start wars.

I like paying taxes. Even though a lot of people complain about high taxes and such, I'm sure most people like the fact that their money goes towards a better functioning society.

Tron5000 simply pays taxes because he is "forced to".

I find his attitude disgusting. Surely you're smarter than that, BlackLantern.

[BlackLantern]

Yes, I am forced to. If I do not comply with the wishes of the Imperial Federal Government, they will confiscate my belongings, garnish my wages and place me in prison.

Yea...Federal bang you in the ass prison

[Tron5000]

They're behind bars, they are not part of society.


Released convicted felons are not permitted to vote, even when they again become "part of society."

But I guess it's the government's fault they were incarcerated in the first place.

[BlackLantern]

What's wrong is that Tron5000 seems to see no other purpose for a government other than to start wars.

I like paying taxes. Even though a lot of people complain about high taxes and such, I'm sure most people like the fact that their money goes towards a better functioning society.

Tron5000 simply pays taxes because he is "forced to".

I find his attitude disgusting. Surely you're smarter than that, BlackLantern.

I have no issue with paying taxes, but I would like the money to be used to enrich, not as a handout to people not contributing to society....

[Tron5000]

What's wrong is that Tron5000 seems to see no other purpose for a government other than to start wars.

I like paying taxes. Even though a lot of people complain about high taxes and such, I'm sure most people like the fact that their money goes towards a better functioning society.

Tron5000 simply pays taxes because he is "forced to".

I find his attitude disgusting. Surely you're smarter than that, BlackLantern.

I have no problems paying taxes. But currently, I have no choice. That is why I support the FairTax.

I believe the purpose of government is to provide our nation with defense and transportation infrastructure and to not prevent people from expressing their free, God-given talents and beliefs and to prosecute those who do. Other than that, get the hell out of the way and let smart people do what smart people do.

[BlackLantern]

Let's look at it from another angle....all the best and brightest minds in the US go into the private sector because the US government doesn't pay squat....basically our country is run by a bunch of B and C students

[Tron5000]

Let's look at it from another angle....all the best and brightest minds in the US go into the private sector because the US government doesn't pay squat....basically our country is run by a bunch of B and C students

When people leave government positions, they usually do so because they demand for brilliant minds in the private sector exceeds the supply. Thusly, they can make more money working in the private sector. So if that is where the best minds are, then why the hell trust the government run anything?

Would UPS, FedEx and DHL be in business if the government ran the USPS in such a spectacular fashion? Would private schools command the prestige and money that they do if the government properly educated its subjegates?

[The Senator]

So, I still want to point out all of Spider-Bite's inaccuracies.

-He said that Ohio was a Republican state, which is untrue. It has elected more Democrats to office in the past two years, and throughout its history, it has correctly voted for the winner of the presidency in all but one election in the past 60 years. Making it a true swing state.

-He implied that Democrats don't win in West Virginia, which is untrue. Democrats used to do extremely well in that state. Democrats Jimmy Carter won it in 1980, and Michael Dukakis won it in 1988. Both of those candidates lost by a landslide against their Republican opponents. (to put this in perspective-- Carter didn't even win liberal states like New York and Massachusetts in 1980)

-He said that he doesn't believe that I'm "in the business" because I said my father was in the politics business-- which is untrue. My father has never been actively involved in politics. He has yet to acknowledge his mistake.

-He said that Obama will win Southern states due to black voter turnout, but he doesn't have factual evidence to prove that Obama will win in those states.

-He says that Obama won't lose states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Which is interesting, because Obama currently loses Michigan by 3 points (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_obama-553.html) on average against McCain.

-He just doesn't believe that gay voters support Clinton. I mean, they just don't. Nope. And he won't believe an article from a newspaper I have because he's never heard of it (or considers it a 'small paper'). Even though New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/02/examining_why_baracks_mojo_wit.html) backs me up, and he probably wouldn't believe that 30-38% of gays (http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/05/07/john-mccain-the-gay-vote/) could support John McCain over Barack Obama.

-He doesn't think Clinton does better in the South, even though she wins two Southern states while Obama wins none, according to opinion polls.

-He refuses to answer my concerns over how Obama voted in the Senate, versus how he said he would vote when he was on the campaign trail. Flat out refuses-- says I have to ask Obama myself about that. Sadly, I wasn't asking what Obama personally thought-- I was asking Spider-Bite to explain how a candidate of change can be a 'change' candidate if he votes like everyone else in his party.

-Worst of all, he accuses me and TheMarx of lying when we point out facts backed up with numbers... he doesn't have any numbers at all... just some cheesecake...

So, as you can see, Spider-Bite is quite inaccurate, and fails to admit when he's wrong. He's willing to make baseless claims which he can't support with factual evidence, yet he's willing to criticize other posters for being "wrong" even though those posters include factual data in their posts...

Still want to point out that these points have yet to be addressed by Spider-Bite, a week after they were raised...

[comicgirl]

Health care in America is in the state it is in because of government regulations and insane malpractice rates due to our frivolous "sue everybody" culture.I've worked with medical and now dental insurance co.'s and unfortunately, that's true.:csad:

[Tron5000]

I've worked with medical and now dental insurance co.'s and unfortunately, that's true.:csad:

That's, like, the first topic on which we have agreed. Does that mean I'm not a total moron?

[Asteroid-Man]

Way to go Obama!

[Marx]

Still want to point out that these points have yet to be addressed by Spider-Bite, a week after they were raised...

I'm still curious as to those answers as well.

[Spider-Bite]

Still want to point out that these points have yet to be addressed by Spider-Bite, a week after they were raised...

first off I haven't been on here 24 hours a day. Never even saw this post before.


Originally Posted by jmanspice http://forums.superherohype.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=14916345#post14916345)
So, I still want to point out all of Spider-Bite's inaccuracies.

-He said that Ohio was a Republican state, which is untrue. It has elected more Democrats to office in the past two years, and throughout its history, it has correctly voted for the winner of the presidency in all but one election in the past 60 years. Making it a true swing state.



it's possible I was wrong. Not sure.
-He implied that Democrats don't win in West Virginia, which is untrue. Democrats used to do extremely well in that state. Democrats Jimmy Carter won it in 1980, and Michael Dukakis won it in 1988. Both of those candidates lost by a landslide against their Republican opponents. (to put this in perspective-- Carter didn't even win liberal states like New York and Massachusetts in 1980)

I never, ever, ever said that.


-He said that he doesn't believe that I'm "in the business" because I said my father was in the politics business-- which is untrue. My father has never been actively involved in politics. He has yet to acknowledge his mistake.


You did say that. I said I was going for journalism experience to get a job in politics, and you went on to say your father was an advisor, and he never heard of anybody using journalism experience to become an advisor.
-He said that Obama will win Southern states due to black voter turnout, but he doesn't have factual evidence to prove that Obama will win in those states.


Obama will turn southern republican into swing states. Many analysts in the business agree with this, including DNC Chairman Howard Dean, which is why Obama is going with the 50 state strategy. If their advisors were so far off the mark, than Howard Dean wouldn't have raised so much money, and Obama wouldn't have mastered the caucass system. These guys know their stuff, better than me or you. and they knew it better than Hillary's people did.


-He says that Obama won't lose states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Which is interesting, because Obama currently loses Michigan by 3 points (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_obama-553.html) on average against McCain.

A bitter, dividing primary season just ended, and Hillary hasn't even conceded yet. She will tomorrow. Many of her supporters have said for a long time they would pick McCain over Obama. they will come back into the fold now. Long drawn out primaries always go through that. The number that threatens to defect is almost always double the number that actually does.

-He just doesn't believe that gay voters support Clinton. I mean, they just don't. Nope. And he won't believe an article from a newspaper I have because he's never heard of it (or considers it a 'small paper'). Even though New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/02/examining_why_baracks_mojo_wit.html) backs me up, and he probably wouldn't believe that 30-38% of gays (http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/05/07/john-mccain-the-gay-vote/) could support John McCain over Barack Obama.

I highly doubt that gays are going to support a candidate who would deny their right to speech their preference while serving in the military, protecting freedom of speech. I mean come on? you actually think gays will vote for McCain over Obama? I got oceanfront property in Kansas I'd like to see you. Real cheap too.

-He doesn't think Clinton does better in the South, even though she wins two Southern states while Obama wins none, according to opinion polls.

ummm, the whole fear of putting her on the ticket is her energizing the south. the south hates Hillary. and I highly doubt he wins none. I mean come on. None?
-He refuses to answer my concerns over how Obama voted in the Senate, versus how he said he would vote when he was on the campaign trail. Flat out refuses-- says I have to ask Obama myself about that. Sadly, I wasn't asking what Obama personally thought-- I was asking Spider-Bite to explain how a candidate of change can be a 'change' candidate if he votes like everyone else in his party.

He's a member of the party of change. And what do you mean, how he voted in the Senate verses how on the campaign trail? he's still in the Senate. and I know that early on, he voted present all too often. If that is what you were referring to, about my, you'll have to ask Obama, that's because I don't agree with his doing that.

-Worst of all, he accuses me and TheMarx of lying when we point out facts backed up with numbers... he doesn't have any numbers at all... just some cheesecake...

You guys have not been completely honest here. It's hard for me to every time me and you spoke with each other, but Marx, has been very dishonest, especially since Hillary lost.
So, as you can see, Spider-Bite is quite inaccurate, and fails to admit when he's wrong. He's willing to make baseless claims which he can't support with factual evidence, yet he's willing to criticize other posters for being "wrong" even though those posters include factual data in their posts...

Look man, the media is not always honest. Especially small media organziations, that nobody pays attention to. I could give you links to the national enquirer, if I wanted. That doesn't make it so. Don't you think it's funny that you guys have links to small media organizations, BUT NOT any organziations we've ever heard of?

I used to give links to a GQ magazine article with transcripts of an audio tape saying, that say they have the father of the original MJ accuser admitting it's all a lie. No such tape exists.

[Spider-Bite]

I'm still curious as to those answers as well.


You've been avoiding a lot of questions yourself. You've also tried to pretend that iraq didn't play a role in this election, and nobody will believe that you even believe yourself on that.

[Mr Sparkle]

It's not the responsibility of a parent to say to their child, "If you have sex, you may get pregnant?" "If you get pregnant, it's going to cost a lot of money?" "If you have a child at a young age, it will create for you obstacles that you otherwise would not face?"

yes , it is the responsibility of the Parent.
it's also the responsibility of the Parent to provide education, health care and pretty much every single necessity the child needs I imagine up until the child can readily take care of himself/herself.
however....
many parents are incapable of this, whether it be ignorance or any other number of factors, the idea is that the society then steps in to help the parent, thus a parents ignorance or incapability wouldn't be in the way of a developing child.
why do people ignore the fact that personal responsibility is important but in a large community is not a "cure-all" it's like this , I can recognize that socialism can only work in small communities (it's not ME saying this, it's scientific study) then how come people can't recognize the importance of the society in the development of the child? also, it's protection.
I mean, sure, we could all claim that it's all people's fault , because they have blu-ray DVD's yadda yadda yadda.
but is it really? those expenses fund YOUR existence, if they spent less, then there would be less stores, thus you'd be out of a job...not just you thousands of others, because, well, ever been to a mall on a friday night?

malls sells items that are not "necessity" and yet, they receive enormous amounts of cash which drives your economy and to a certain extent benefits you, so then, the question must be asked, if this is so, what's the reality behind the economy, what then aside from personal responsibility could remedy the situation.

well, simple, look at the labels, out of all the stuff you purchase which is made in the US, and then ask yourself if it's made overseas is it really more cost effective for the consumer ( which is often the argument) or simply more profitable for the company.
so then, the question would be, why not "corporate" accountability?
surely an American company would be willing to shear their profit margin to benefit their community no?

hahaha, really, they wouldn't?

then again, let's see if it's a fair assessment to ascribe this importance to personal responsibility within a society?
it really isn't, it's important sure, but there are other factors which must be considered, and the people of your country should see, and be rather concerned that all the while trying to protect their system from communists, Muslims, gays and stuff, all the while, the system has changed to corporatism.
the current struggles are the result of that AND the lack of personal responsibility.

[Mr Sparkle]

Let's look at it from another angle....all the best and brightest minds in the US go into the private sector because the US government doesn't pay squat....basically our country is run by a bunch of B and C students

wow, that would be like saying the best/bravest and noblest soldiers are part of blackwater and not the regular Army.

why don't you support the troops man :csad:?

[The Senator]

it's possible I was wrong. Not sure.

No, you are wrong. Look at Ohio's electoral history. Look at its statewide politics. Neither party has dominating control over it, which is why it is a swing state.


I never, ever, ever said that.

When I said that Clinton was leading in West Virginia and Kentucky, you said that you doubt she will win those states because Democrats don't win those states. Which is false, considering Democrats used to win West Virginia on a regular basis...


You did say that. I said I was going for journalism experience to get a job in politics, and you went on to say your father was an advisor, and he never heard of anybody using journalism experience to become an advisor.

I did not say that at all. My father is a teacher. StorminNorman said that his father was a political adviser. I am not StorminNorman. Therefore, I do not see why you think I made a post he made.


Obama will turn southern republican into swing states. Many analysts in the business agree with this, including DNC Chairman Howard Dean, which is why Obama is going with the 50 state strategy. If their advisors were so far off the mark, than Howard Dean wouldn't have raised so much money, and Obama wouldn't have mastered the caucass system. These guys know their stuff, better than me or you. and they knew it better than Hillary's people did.

Do you know how silly that sounds? You're talking as if it is an absolute, undeniable fact that he will win these states-- when there is zero evidence which supports your claim. You know why Howard Dean thinks we will win these states? Because he's the head of the Democratic Party! Just like how the chairman of the RNC thinks McCain will win California. No polls indicate this, no recent trends make this a likely occurrence-- yet he thinks McCain has a good shot in states like California, New Jersey and Washington. You're just shooting in the dark.


A bitter, dividing primary season just ended, and Hillary hasn't even conceded yet. She will tomorrow. Many of her supporters have said for a long time they would pick McCain over Obama. they will come back into the fold now. Long drawn out primaries always go through that. The number that threatens to defect is almost always double the number that actually does.

The primary has nothing to do with how Pennsylvania or Michigan will turn. They have always been swing states. They are swing states this election, and Obama has yet to appeal to certain demographics, such as blue collar voters, veterans, and the so-called "Reagan Democrats" who are quite abundant in these states.


I highly doubt that gays are going to support a candidate who would deny their right to speech their preference while serving in the military, protecting freedom of speech. I mean come on? you actually think gays will vote for McCain over Obama? I got oceanfront property in Kansas I'd like to see you. Real cheap too.

I'm gay, and I didn't plan on voting for Obama. He still disappoints me when it comes to gay rights. On that end, I have several gay friends who have said that they would rather vote for McCain over Obama. And the gay vote is fairly interesting. Reagan and Bush won the gay vote in the 1980s. Clinton, Gore and Kerry won it, but they only won 80% of it. The Democratic Party doesn't really have a strong grasp on the gay vote. And if 54% of the gay population wanted Clinton as the nominee, and a good chunk of them are disappointed that she didn't get the nomination, they might jump ship for McCain. McCain won't get a majority of the gay vote, but he can get 30-40% of the gay vote. He's already bound to get 10-20%, based on previous elections.


ummm, the whole fear of putting her on the ticket is her energizing the south. the south hates Hillary. and I highly doubt he wins none. I mean come on. None?

Polls say that he is behind 20 points in Georgia and Alabama. He's down 5 points in North Carolina and South Carolina. Down 10 points in Mississippi and Louisiana. He currently wins no states in the South. And I don't really think that will change.


-He refuses to answer my concerns over how Obama voted in the Senate,
He's a member of the party of change. And what do you mean, how he voted in the Senate verses how on the campaign trail? he's still in the Senate. and I know that early on, he voted present all too often. If that is what you were referring to, about my, you'll have to ask Obama, that's because I don't agree with his doing that.

I'm not talking about him voting present. I don't give a damn about that.

I care about when he voted against withdrawing our troops from Iraq six months before he went out on the campaign trail and said "I believe we need to withdraw from Iraq immediately." I'm talking about the numerous times he voted to continue funding the war, the numerous times he voted to keep our troops in Iraq...


Look man, the media is not always honest. Especially small media organziations, that nobody pays attention to. I could give you links to the national enquirer, if I wanted. That doesn't make it so. Don't you think it's funny that you guys have links to small media organizations, BUT NOT any organziations we've ever heard of?

I used to give links to a GQ magazine article with transcripts of an audio tape saying, that say they have the father of the original MJ accuser admitting it's all a lie. No such tape exists.

Great, excellent, except that the article I used from the Washington Blade had a poll from Quinnipac discussing the gay vote... Quinnipac is one of the top pollsters in the country, and if you haven't heard of that, then maybe you need to read up on politics...

[BlackLantern]

wow, that would be like saying the best/bravest and noblest soldiers are part of blackwater and not the regular Army.

why don't you support the troops man :csad:?

well, you aren't far off....having served in the USN, and interacting with other branches...yes our military has some bright and talented individuals, but a good chunk of the military is filled with a bunch of kids that either a) have nowhere else to go b)just trying to get college money c) it was either jail or the service....

Usually some of the brighter types do go on to consulting jobs, working for defense contractors, or PMC's like Blackwater....

[Mr Sparkle]

Usually some of the brighter types do go on to consulting jobs, working for defense contractors, or PMC's like Blackwater....

well, then, I'm right about corporatism aren't I?

[BlackLantern]

well, then, I'm right about corporatism aren't I?

My point is the reason our best and brightest gravitate towards the private sector is because, with most similar positions, working conditions and pay are much much better than any government job can offer

[The Senator]

By the way, Spider-Bite, here is the post StorminNorman made. Our discussion on what gets you a job as a political adviser began on page 236 of this thread. Never once did I say that my father was a political adviser.

My father is a political adviser (if that is the job you covet, my want to spell it correctly) and he has assured me that while Journalism classes can be helpful to a consultant - they are not crucial.

The various Congressman I have talked to (who I have come to for interning and an eventual position) have assured me that a political science tract is fine.

Everyone i have spoken to has stated experience in politics is the most valuable thing one can have.

Again, Spider-Bite, your credibility is non-existent.

[Matt]

I hope I never ever am on the opposite side of a debate with Jman. :wow:

[BlackLantern]

I hope I never ever am on the opposite side of a debate with Jman. :wow:

Dude...why do you think he's on the 'Mixers For Change 2008' ticket....

Our slogan is "Yes We Drink"

[Darthphere]

That's, like, the first topic on which we have agreed. Does that mean I'm not a total moron?

No.

[Matt]

Dude...why do you think he's on the 'Mixers For Change 2008' ticket....

Our slogan is "Yes We Drink"

With Jman's debating skills he will even get the anti-drinking, puritan voters behind you. :wow:

[The Senator]

I hope I never ever am on the opposite side of a debate with Jman. :wow:

When there is undeniable evidence that posters like Spider-Bite are wrong, I refuse to let it go until they admit their error. I don't care about opinions on issues-- but when someone presents something 100% false as a fact, such as the non-existent time when I said my father was a political adviser, I refuse to let the issue go.

Fact is, Spider-Bite was and is grasping for straws, so he got his facts confused-- and he flat-out refuses to admit he's wrong. There's the evidence-- now maybe he'll say that I own a bar in Pennsylvania or something, instead of apologizing for his blatantly false accusations.

[Matt]

When there is undeniable evidence that posters like Spider-Bite are wrong, I refuse to let it go until they admit their error. I don't care about opinions on issues-- but when someone presents something 100% false as a fact, such as the non-existent time when I said my father was a political adviser, I refuse to let the issue go.

Fact is, Spider-Bite was and is grasping for straws, so he got his facts confused-- and he flat-out refuses to admit he's wrong. There's the evidence-- now maybe he'll say that I own a bar in Pennsylvania or something, instead of apologizing for his blatantly false accusations.

:lmao: This is why I love having you in the political forum. :up:

[Darthphere]

All this debate has gotten me thinking. With Matt's direction, we should hold a faux presidential election in this forum. We grab posters who would represent certain candidates and have them engage in an actual debate. The rest of the forum posters can come up with questions and we can have someone (DBella) moderate the thing. A serious Hype election, not "Let me put Vote for Me over a picture of a hot chick" type thing we always do.

[Matt]

All this debate has gotten me thinking. With Matt's direction, we should hold a faux presidential election in this forum. We grab posters who would represent certain candidates and have them engage in an actual debate. The rest of the forum posters can come up with questions and we can have someone (DBella) moderate the thing. A serious Hype election, not "Let me put Vote for Me over a picture of a hot chick" type thing we always do.

I'd be up for that. Let me run it by Cmill and Bella. :up:

[Excel]

Who would I possibly represent??

Btw who else watching?

[Darthphere]

Who would I possibly represent??

Btw who else watching?

Why none other than Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr.:o

[BlackLantern]

Why none other than Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr.:o

Can we get someone bat**** crazy enough to be Ron Paul or Mike Gravel??

[Matt]

Who would I possibly represent??

Btw who else watching?

Well, ideally this will be based on platform and intelligent debate, doesn't that kinda exclude you Excel? :cwink: Then again, Obama won the Democratic nominee without those things.

[Darthphere]

On snap!

See Matt, this is why I didn't choose you for moderator.

[Matt]

On snap!

See Matt, this is why I didn't choose you for moderator.

Can I be your running mate on the "Disgruntled, I'm writing in Jack Bauer" ticket?

[Excel]

Well, ideally this will be based on platform and intelligent debate, doesn't that kinda exclude you Excel. :cwink: Then again, Obama won the Democratic nominee without those things.

:cmad:

[Darthphere]

Can I be your running mate on the "Disgruntled, I'm writing in Jack Bauer" ticket?

I was going to write in Morgan Freeman actually.

Freeman/Pullman 08!

[Matt]

:cmad:

You walked right into it kid. More proof of why your political inexperience will only result in you losing this mock election...kinda like Barack Obama's political in experience...y'know what, that one is just too easy. :oldrazz:

[Matt]

I was going to write in Morgan Freeman actually.

Freeman/Pullman 08!

I'd vote for that, after all, Morgan Freeman is in everything. Why not the White House too? :up:

[rdh007]

I'd vote for that, after all, Morgan Freeman is in everything. Why not the White House too? :up:
Everything? What about this:
http://stereogum.com/img/lohan_bikini_blog.jpg

Even Freeman has some amount of taste, I'm certain.

[Excel]

You walked right into it kid. More proof of why your political inexperience will only result in you losing this mock election...kinda like Barack Obama's political in experience...y'know what, that one is just too easy. :oldrazz:

Lack of expirience hasnt hurt him yet :o

[Spider-Bite]

[QUOTE]
I did not say that at all. My father is a teacher. StorminNorman said that his father was a political adviser. I am not StorminNorman. Therefore, I do not see why you think I made a post he made.

I do remember that now. I was arguing with both of you at the same time, and got you guys mixed up, and acknowledged that.

Do you know how silly that sounds? You're talking as if it is an absolute, undeniable fact that he will win these states--
Not true.


when there is zero evidence which supports your claim.


not true either.

You know why Howard Dean thinks we will win these states? Because he's the head of the Democratic Party! Just like how the chairman of the RNC thinks McCain will win California. No polls indicate this, no recent trends make this a likely occurrence-- yet he thinks McCain has a good shot in states like California, New Jersey and Washington. You're just shooting in the dark.
I am not shooting in the dark, considering experts who work for them have gone with a strategy based on this. As I said, these are experienced experts who know more than both me and you put together. A little humilty please? They aren't just declaring that they can win. They are implementing a strategy based on that belief. They are betting the house on it, and they wouldn't be doing that if they didn't actually believe it was a good idea.



The primary has nothing to do with how Pennsylvania or Michigan will turn.
I know this, and that is why it is so irrelevant, to say "Hillary won the swing states in the primary." They have no bearing on how the party will do in the general. Obama lost swing states to Hillary. He never ran against McCain.

They have always been swing states. They are swing states this election, and Obama has yet to appeal to certain demographics, such as blue collar voters, veterans, and the so-called "Reagan Democrats" who are quite abundant in these states.



He'll get enough of them, and when added to the voters with an education, the black voters, and loyal democrats, and Reagan Democrats who don't want more war, and they don't, he will win the election. Blue collar voters, veterans, and all of them still have to buy gas. And I don't doubt that McCain will not be doing himself any favors with veterans by oppossiing the GI Bill. He made a sacrifice to his country, but veterans mostly believe that when you serve, you deserve somethign in return for it.


I'm gay, and I didn't plan on voting for Obama. However, I have several gay friends who have said that they would rather vote for McCain over Obama. And the gay vote is fairly interesting. Reagan and Bush won the gay vote in the 1980s. I don't claim to know for a fact that this is not true, however I doubt it. Could you provide a link? I also doubt that gays were as openly out of the closet back then as they are now.

Clinton, Gore and Kerry won it, but they only won 80% of it. The Democratic Party doesn't really have a strong grasp on the gay vote.
Only 80%? My god that is like barely a majority :whatever:


And if 54% of the gay population wanted Clinton as the nominee, and a good chunk of them are disappointed that she didn't get the nomination, they might jump ship for McCain.They wont. No freaking way. Just the other day McCain said that if judges keep legalzing gay marriage, he will endorse the consitutional ammendmant to ban it. Not to mention, several famous gay figures will come out and endorse Obama. Even Ellen Degenerees grilled McCain on gay marriage on her show the other day. These people will influence the gay vote. Hell at my college, every single member of the Rainbow alliance has been behind Obama the entire race.

McCain won't get a majority of the gay vote, but he can get 30-40% of the gay vote.
That's a pretty big reach, don't you think? That is so incredibly unlikely. There is a better chance of an asteroid hitting the earth causing annihilation of the human race, than that happening.

He's already bound to get 10-20%, based on previous elections.
Maybe 10. Not 20.



Polls say that he is behind 20 points in Georgia and Alabama. He's down 5 points in North Carolina and South Carolina. Down 10 points in Mississippi and Louisiana. He currently wins no states in the South. And I don't really think that will change.

You might not think that will change. But that is thought. At this stage in the election, polls are not accurate. They really aren't. Just look at the polling data, for every primary battle. They aren't accurate. They aren't just slightly off, they are usually way off. And as I said, Obama's support will be stronger as the party unites. A lot of people are threatening to defect. Most of them will not make good on that threat.




I care about when he voted against withdrawing our troops from Iraq six months before he went out on the campaign trail and said "I believe we need to withdraw from Iraq immediately." I'm talking about the numerous times he voted to continue funding the war, the numerous times he voted to keep our troops in Iraq...

I do not blame Barack Obama at all when it comes to Iraq. Not one bit. The troops will not come home, unless he wins the election. You say your angry about his originally voting against bringing the troops home, and than you say you don't plan on voting for Obama. Come on. your trying to have it both ways here. McCain will not bring the troops home. Obama will. So which one is it? Do you want the troops to come home or not? You accuse Obama of flip flopping, while your flip flopping. No matter how anybody votes on a bill right now, the troops will not come home unless Obama wins the election.


Great, excellent, except that the article I used from the Washington Blade had a poll from Quinnipac discussing the gay vote... Quinnipac is one of the top pollsters in the country, and if you haven't heard of that, then maybe you need to read up on politics...

How can you be sure, the Washington Blade is truthfully using a poll from the pollster you trust? Hell I could create a web page right now, and site them as a source. When I go to the Quinnipac site, I see no such poll, indicating that Hillary enjoys more support from gays over Obama, or that McCain does either. I saw some articles which look like they might be for one state, but no national polls.

Maybe you can find that. I don't mean that sarcastically. maybe you can.

[The Senator]

I am not shooting in the dark, considering experts who work for them have gone with a strategy based on this. As I said, these are experienced experts who know more than both me and you put together. A little humilty please? They aren't just declaring that they can win. They are implementing a strategy based on that belief. They are betting the house on it, and they wouldn't be doing that if they didn't actually believe it was a good idea.

Experts have been wrong before. They thought Gore would win his home state eight years ago, they thought Kerry would win Ohio based on its demography. Experts are constantly wrong. Unless they come from the future, there is no way they can accurately claim that Obama will win Southern states-- especially when the evidence shows that he is significantly behind in states with big black populations like Georgia, Alabama, and North Carolina.


He'll get enough of them, and when added to the voters with an education, the black voters, and loyal democrats, and Reagan Democrats who don't want more war, and they don't, he will win the election. Blue collar voters, veterans, and all of them still have to buy gas. And I don't doubt that McCain will not be doing himself any favors with veterans by oppossiing the GI Bill. He made a sacrifice to his country, but veterans mostly believe that when you serve, you deserve somethign in return for it.

Again, you're shooting in the dark. Polls show that Obama is failing to win blue collar voters and veterans. Granted, he could win them. I'm not denying that. But evidence currently suggests that he has a huge problem with them.


I don't claim to know for a fact that this is not true, however I doubt it. Could you provide a link? I also doubt that gays were as openly out of the closet back then as they are now.

That's hilarious. Gays weren't openly out of the closet back in the 1980s? Are you kidding me? Because, you know, it wasn't like preachers didn't blame AIDS on homosexuals. Gays were considered a voting bloc in 1972.

And again, I cannot provide you a link, but I can provide you a book: "Culture War" by Morris P. Fiorina. It has some interesting stats on the gay vote between 1972 and 2004.


Only 80%? My god that is like barely a majority :whatever:

You said that you doubt gays will vote for McCain. That's the equivalent of saying '100% of the gay population will vote for Obama,' in my opinion.


.They wont. No freaking way. Just the other day McCain said that if judges keep legalzing gay marriage, he will endorse the consitutional ammendmant to ban it. Not to mention, several famous gay figures will come out and endorse Obama. Even Ellen Degenerees grilled McCain on gay marriage on her show the other day. These people will influence the gay vote. Hell at my college, every single member of the Rainbow alliance has been behind Obama the entire race.

Maybe at your college. But I know homosexuals who have said that they would rather vote for McCain than Obama. And I know of at least two who are members of the Republican Party. So it's insane and totally, factually inaccurate to say that gays will not vote for McCain.

Maybe you haven't heard of the Log Cabin Republicans (http://online.logcabin.org/)?


That's a pretty big reach, don't you think? That is so incredibly unlikely. There is a better chance of an asteroid hitting the earth causing annihilation of the human race, than that happening.

Why is it a big reach? Bush won 18.4 percent of the gay vote in 2004. McCain can easily add another 10-20% if enough disgruntled Clinton supporters decide to support him. It's a stretch that he could win that much, but it could happen.


Maybe 10. Not 20.

Fiorina proves you wrong.


You might not think that will change. But that is thought. At this stage in the election, polls are not accurate. They really aren't. Just look at the polling data, for every primary battle. They aren't accurate. They aren't just slightly off, they are usually way off. And as I said, Obama's support will be stronger as the party unites. A lot of people are threatening to defect. Most of them will not make good on that threat.

Say what you will-- but Obama is still down in those states.


I do not blame Barack Obama at all when it comes to Iraq. Not one bit. The troops will not come home, unless he wins the election. You say your angry about his originally voting against bringing the troops home, and than you say you don't plan on voting for Obama. Come on. your trying to have it both ways here. McCain will not bring the troops home. Obama will. So which one is it? Do you want the troops to come home or not? You accuse Obama of flip flopping, while your flip flopping. No matter how anybody votes on a bill right now, the troops will not come home unless Obama wins the election.

I blame Obama for not having the gall to oppose the war in Iraq on legislative grounds while he was a Senator not seeking the presidency. And I also think it is a stretch to assume that the troops will definitely come home if Obama is the President. There is a chance that they could stay there once he takes office.


How can you be sure, the Washington Blade is truthfully using a poll from the pollster you trust? Hell I could create a web page right now, and site them as a source. When I go to the Quinnipac site, I see no such poll, indicating that Hillary enjoys more support from gays over Obama, or that McCain does either. I saw some articles which look like they might be for one state, but no national polls.

I assume the Washington Blade is correct because it is on public record in DC and is paid for by the District's city government. I also assume it is correct considering it publishes articles from AP, Reuters, and other renowned news sources. Never once have I read an article in that paper which has made me scratch my head and say, "gee, I wonder if this is false?" I do that with the New York Times and the Washington Post, but haven't done that with the Blade.

Information comes from a variety of sources. When I start quoting Wikipedia articles (the ones which have no links to the polling data they use), then you can complain about the validity of my information. Until then, stop accusing people of presenting false articles because you've never heard of the publications they come from.


Maybe you can find that. I don't mean that sarcastically. maybe you can.

I already found it, but as I said-- it is in print, I lack a scanner, and I'm not going to prove myself to someone who has little credibility in the first place.

[hippie_hunter]

Debating Jman is scary, glad I'm on his good side instead of his wrath :(

[hippie_hunter]

Obama's going to have trouble if the Clinton demographic continues to act this way:

As Hillary Clinton repeatedly urged thousands of supporters to endorse and "help elect Barack Obama" Saturday, scattered boos and thumbs downs pierced the cheers.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/07/clinton-champions-obama-to-smattering-of-boos/

[Marx]

Debating Jman is scary, glad I'm on his good side instead of his wrath :(

I'm also glad to be with him among the ranks! :funny:http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

Obama's going to have trouble if the Clinton demographic continues to act this way:



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/07/clinton-champions-obama-to-smattering-of-boos/

He has alot of work to do. This isn't going to be over just because Clinton says "Vote for Obama!"

[BlackLantern]

I said this a couple weeks ago....Clintons supporters are not going to fall in lockstep behind Obama....

[The Senator]

I said this a couple weeks ago....Clintons supporters are not going to fall in lockstep behind Obama....

My mom and I watched Clinton's concession speech today... she said she wanted Clinton to be president, but she said that she was not sure if she would vote for Obama... so he will have to work hard to win over her supporters... especially women/ blue collar workers.

[Marx]

I said this a couple weeks ago....Clintons supporters are not going to fall in lockstep behind Obama....

...unless she is the VP.

[Tag279]

Why do you guys Jaman, TheMarx, Matt, and BL hate Obama so much if not hate why bear such visceral contempt?

Why vote against ones interest out of spite?

McCain is against a woman's right to choose, gay rights, the GI bill, and for staying in Iraq and building bases, among other things that Hillary AND Obama are for.

McCain voted with Bush policies 95% of the time WTF why dismiss your vote to a candidate that is in controvention to most of policies that you support?

[BlackLantern]

I never said I hated Obama....not once...my whole stance is that I do not believe he can be President....

I have said I would CONSIDER voting for McCain and I have also said that all this infighting in the Democratic Party sends a bad message to voters..

[The Senator]

Why do you guys Jaman, TheMarx, Matt, and BL hate Obama so much if not hate why bear such visceral contempt?

Why vote against ones interest out of spite?

McCain is against a woman's right to choose, gay rights, the GI bill, and for staying in Iraq and building bases, among other things that Hillary AND Obama are for.

McCain voted with Bush policies 95% of the time WTF why dismiss your vote to a candidate that is in controvention to most of policies that you support?

I don't hate Obama. Hell, it says in my signature that I will vote for him in November!

I feel he has significant problems he has to overcome, and I am not afraid to criticize him for his mistakes. I did the same with Clinton when I supported her. I refuse to make excuses for a candidate, especially if I disagree with them on certain issues. I also don't live in some magical la-la land where I blindly believe he will somehow win solidly Republican states like Georgia and Alabama because black folks live there-- even though polls say he has a slim chance of overtaking McCain.

[Tag279]

I never said I hated Obama....not once...my whole stance is that I do not believe he can be President....

Why not; and you think McCain can?

Because he has been in the senate 30-years and survived a POW camp?

Kennedy was young and he handled the Cuban missle crisis without causing WWIII.

Experience is not everything.

[BlackLantern]

Anyone in this thread that actually reads my posts knows that I don't believe that any of the candidates can be President....

Not for nothing, but you make it seem like surviving a POW camp is a menial thing

[Lightning Strykez!]

Well, ideally this will be based on platform and intelligent debate, doesn't that kinda exclude you Excel? :cwink: Then again, Obama won the Democratic nominee without those things.

Your sarcasm is deafening. :o

[hippie_hunter]

Kennedy was young and he handled the Cuban missle crisis without causing WWIII.

Kennedy is sooooo overrated when it comes to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Common sense prevailed in the crisis. Not only that but Kennedy had to make concessions as well such as removing missiles from Turkey just like how the Russians had to remove missiles from Cuba. He also had to make a guarantee that the United States will not invade Cuba.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Obama's going to have trouble if the Clinton demographic continues to act this way:



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/07/clinton-champions-obama-to-smattering-of-boos/

He has a lot of work to do, that is true. But here's the real kicker: Most people seem to believe that due to the defiant and divisive way Hillary ran her campaign that her supporters are bitter. If he loses in November part of that blame may naturally be put on her shoulders.

Conversely, imagine if Barack encouraged HIS followers to support Hillary? The entire mood in that rally would be different. No offense, but it just seems that Barack's group seems a bit more...ahem, forgiving and willing to move forward.

[Tag279]

I don't hate Obama. Hell, it says in my signature that I will vote for him in November! My bad I thought you were being parodoxical.

I feel he has significant problems he has to overcome, and I am not afraid to criticize him for his mistakes.

I agree, he does have some serious obstacles to traverse. But I also think he is a better candidate. He appears weak on foregn policy so he needs a VP that can shore that up.

I did the same with Clinton when I supported her. I refuse to make excuses for a candidate, especially if I disagree with them on certain issues.

I also don't live in some magical la-la land where I blindly believe he will somehow win solidly Republican states like Georgia and Alabama because black folks live there-- even though polls say he has a slim chance of overtaking McCain.

I agree to an extent Obama will not carry the southern states as a whole but I do think he has a chance to carry two out of 5 sothern states like: Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennesee, or Georgia. He has a real shot at Arkansas if Hill is his VP.


I meant no hostility or Ill will to any of you Jaman, TheMarx, Matt, and BL.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I highly doubt that gays are going to support a candidate who would deny their right to speech their preference while serving in the military, protecting freedom of speech. I mean come on? you actually think gays will vote for McCain over Obama? I got oceanfront property in Kansas I'd like to see you. Real cheap too.

I agree with you. In fact, I heard someone saying something earlier here today. Gays are definitely gonna go for Obama. His message appeals to the lifestyle and he is the face of change.

Also, it doesn't exactly hurt that he's hotter than McCain's B.C.E.-azz anyway. :lmao:

[Tag279]

Kennedy is sooooo overrated when it comes to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Common sense prevailed in the crisis. Not only that but Kennedy had to make concessions as well such as removing missiles from Turkey just like how the Russians had to remove missiles from Cuba. He also had to make a guarantee that the United States will not invade Cuba.

Hippie, I agree but if Bush-II was in office at the time WWIII would have started. Kennedy was not one to use cowboy diplomacy.

Compromise had to be reached but he had the wisdom to know when to compromise. Bush and or McCain would not be willing to compromise even if their actions were likely to result into WWIII.

[The Senator]

I agree with you. In fact, I heard someone saying something earlier here today. Gays are definitely gonna go for Obama. His message appeals to the lifestyle and he is the face of change.

Also, it doesn't exactly hurt that he's hotter than McCain's B.C.E.-azz anyway. :lmao:

Make no mistake-- Obama will win homosexuals. But that doesn't mean that McCain won't win any homosexuals (like Spider-Bite alluded to), and that certainly doesn't mean that he can't win 20-30% of the gay vote.

[Tron5000]

Obama's going to have trouble if the Clinton demographic continues to act this way:



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/07/clinton-champions-obama-to-smattering-of-boos/

http://hcsfjm.com/

"Hillary Clinton supporters for john mccain. We will never vote for obama."

[Tag279]

http://hcsfjm.com/

"Hillary Clinton supporters for john mccain. We will never vote for obama."

Why not when John McCain is AGAINST a woman's right to choose, leaving Iraq, universal healthcare, and most of the plans and programs Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama support?

Why vote against your interests for spite.

[DACrowe]

To make up for losing Pennsylvania and Ohio (which he will) plus states that will never be blue for a long time (Texas, for example), Obama needs to open up Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, maybe Montana, keep swing states Florida and Indiana and preferably one more state in the south (my hope being North Carolina, but I doubt it).

If he can get those states, he can live with losing the rust belt that isn't Indiana.

[BlackLantern]

Why not when John McCain is AGAINST a woman's right to choose, leaving Iraq, universal healthcare, and most of the plans and programs Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama support?

Why vote against your interests for spite.

Because if Hilary wants to run again she can always hold it over the Dems that she was the best candidate for the party....

[Doomed_hero]

http://hcsfjm.com/

"Hillary Clinton supporters for john mccain. We will never vote for obama."

Wow that is the most fear mongiering site I have seen in awhile, as well as one of the most ill informed.

[Matt]

He has a lot of work to do, that is true. But here's the real kicker: Most people seem to believe that due to the defiant and divisive way Hillary ran her campaign that her supporters are bitter. If he loses in November part of that blame may naturally be put on her shoulders.

Thats because it was their turn. Clinton could've easily taken the 2004 nomination, but she waited her turn. Many Clinton supporters feel that it wasn't Obama's time. He is young and would have another chance but just swooped in and stole what was Clinton's right. (I'm not saying thats true. I'm just playing Devil's advocate). The bitterness is really not suprising.


Conversely, imagine if Barack encouraged HIS followers to support Hillary? The entire mood in that rally would be different. No offense, but it just seems that Barack's group seems a bit more...ahem, forgiving and willing to move forward.

I some how doubt that. Not after the way this whole campaign played out. Both sides got their hands too dirty for unification to be an overnight thing.

[Matt]

Your sarcasm is deafening. :o

That was like, the best post I am going to make all year. I couldn't turn that chance down. :cwink:

[terry78]

http://www.dannychoo.com/detail/mac/eng/image/3544/Barrack+Obama+in+Air+Gear.html

Obama to appear in popular manga book. It begins.

[Crowforge]

He could use more practice. Likenesses can be tricky.

[The Chairman]

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036 (http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036)

Has anyone seen this video? It was pretty convincing until the whole McCain praise came about towards the end and the Illuminati Pictures logo popped up, but still it's kind of scary.

[Tag279]

Illuminati Pictures

Illuminati Pictures produces the series of Web videos titled "I Invented The Internet." The company also is behind "Flamethrower," a controversial series on Faith TV promoted as "'The View' if it was produced by Ann Coulter."

This video is tacit paranoid right-wing bull crap. This is the stuff that has been circulated since they got an inkling that a black person may become President. The dogs of character assassination by association have been loosed.

[Mr Sparkle]

Wow that is the most fear mongiering site I have seen in awhile, as well as one of the most ill informed.


yup, it's very, very stupid.
there was a guy saying "people are uninformed...Obama is a Muslim"
when it has been proven over and over again that he is not (wasn't the whole rev. wright thing because he attended church?):huh: why are some people so stupid?

[BlackLantern]

some are looking for an excuse to not vote for Obama.....valid or not, things like that factor in....

[Tag279]

yup, it's very, very stupid.
there was a guy saying "people are uninformed...Obama is a Muslim"
when it has been proven over and over again that he is not (wasn't the whole rev. wright thing because he attended church?):huh: why are some people so stupid?

Cognitive dissonance and fear Brother Sparkle.

some are looking for an excuse to not vote for Obama.....valid or not, things like that factor in....

Like I have said on prior posts, if Obama was a white man he would have garnered the nomination a month ago.

[Matt]

Cognitive dissonance and fear Brother Sparkle.



Like I have said on prior posts, if Obama was a white man he would have garnered the nomination a month ago.

If Obama were a white man he would've been laughed out of the race by the media as a nut job with a voting record more liberal than our one socialist Senator and mocked for having the nerve to run for President after only having served 2 years in the Senate when he began his campaign. Much like Edwards was in 2004 despite having a full term under his belt. If Obama were a white man with no platform prior to super tuesday, a voting record more liberal than a socialist, and basically no experience, he would've finished under Dennis Kucinich.

[Tag279]

If Obama were a white man he would've been laughed out of the race by the media as a nut job with a voting record more liberal than our one socialist Senator and mocked for having the nerve to run for President after only having served 2 years in the Senate when he began his campaign. Much like Edwards was in 2004 despite having a full term under his belt. If Obama were a white man with no platform prior to super tuesday, a voting record more liberal than a socialist, and basically no experience, he would've finished under Dennis Kucinich.

NO I disagree; a 100% white man with the same charisma, message, and stature would have won. He did not win the nomination because he is identified is black he has done so in spite of being black.

If he were white he would have done better in PA, KY, OH, & WV. Why didn't Alan Keyes get the republican nomination; he goes right down the party line.

I'll tell you why because he is black.

I imagine you want to discount the black folks voting for Obama as sheep but it has to do with his rhetoric and his ability to make people belive in him. Being idealistic and inspiring hope is what many people are looking for. Dogma and pragmatism has gotten us in the mess we are in it's time for something different.

Yes he is an uknown quantiy but picking the known quantity has not gone very well. ie GW Bush.

[Mr Sparkle]

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036 (http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036)

Has anyone seen this video? It was pretty convincing until the whole McCain praise came about towards the end and the Illuminati Pictures logo popped up, but still it's kind of scary.


really? pretty convincing?
I watched out of curiosity and I found it to do a worse job than most youtube users.
I mean, the questions it poses are like a piece from the Onion.

"when we are at war with Islamic extremists...can we afford to have a president with not just one but three Muslim names?"
I mean, it made me chuckle, when it was followed by the " Hollywood liberals" thing ( I never get that , if Hollywood is so bad why do the republicans keep getting candidates from them?) and then the whole "voted most liberal senator in 2007" which it never says voted by who.

it was voted by a magazine "National Journal" who also voted in 2003 Kerry as the most liberal, you see national journal fails to mention that in the run up to the presidential campaign, politicians miss a lot of votes, like McCain
who didn't vote often enough to get a rating.

he didn't vote often enough to get a rating, not exactly a strong selling point for McCain.

but then, of course, let's say that he is indeed the most liberal senator in the US in 2003 and does indeed have the Hollywood liberal support because of this.

um....doesn't that pretty much kill the " Islamic Extremist" possibility?:o
hahaha, gotta hand it to political hacks and idiots, they're not sharp enough to reason simple stuff like that.

then of course, the Rev. wright.
and this would be damaging right?
except it chooses the one quote that's actually true.
"Barack knows what it's like living in a society that is controlled by rich white people" GASP! the audacity...right?
except...uh.... here are the 400 richest people in the US
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

I didn't find a lot of black folks and I got bored after 24.
plus, there is that " Is America ready for a black President?" thing, that should really be "Is WHITE America ready for Black President?"
no matter.
the HIV thing is pretty nutty...duh.
but really, then to make a relation to Black liberation theology = Che Guevara?
(the banner was already addressed by Snopes.com but apparently the makers of the video have no access to the internet aside from youtube.
maybe parental controls are to blame)

sad really because in this day and age, a lot people think that getting all your information from one video is a-ok as long as you agree with that video.
again, there's tons of things that you can say about Obama, he fails in many, many aspects however, NONE of those are aspects are either the fact that he is a Muslim ( he is not) or the fact that he is Marxist (he is not) or the fact that he is racist (he is not) because those things are fabricated, meant to scare all the people that are frankly already scared.

why?

I leave that up you.

[Matt]

NO I disagree; a 100% white man with the same charisma, message, and stature would have won. He did not win the nomination because he is identified is black he has done so in spite of being black.

Yes, he did. At least in part. He got the media attention because of his skin color. He got the pass on a lack of a platform and experience due to his skin color.


If he were white he would have done better in PA, KY, OH, & WV. Why didn't Alan Keyes get the republican nomination; he goes right down the party line.

I'll tell you why because he is black.

He did not lose anything in PA or Ohio because of his skin color. He lost because his message did not correspond with blue collar votes and he was unwilling to pander. Keyes was running against a former President's son and was, well, a Republican. The Republicans had no interest in nominating a black man. Baby boomer democrats have been waiting for a viable black candidate to come into play.

[Tag279]

sad really because in this day and age, a lot people think that getting all your information from one video is a-ok as long as you agree with that video.
again, there's tons of things that you can say about Obama, he fails in many, many aspects however, NONE of those are aspects are either the fact that he is a Muslim ( he is not) or the fact that he is Marxist (he is not) or the fact that he is racist (he is not) because those things are fabricated, meant to scare all the people that are frankly already scared.

why?

I leave that up you.

Mr Sparkle you have said a mouthful...

Self affirming speculation exactly :cwink:

[Matt]

sad really because in this day and age, a lot people think that getting all your information from one video is a-ok as long as you agree with that video.
again, there's tons of things that you can say about Obama, he fails in many, many aspects however, NONE of those are aspects are either the fact that he is a Muslim ( he is not) or the fact that he is Marxist (he is not) or the fact that he is racist (he is not) because those things are fabricated, meant to scare all the people that are frankly already scared.

why?

I leave that up you.

Mr Sparkle you have said a mouthful...

Self affirming speculation exactly :cwink:

I dunno about the latter two. A man with a more liberal voting record than a socialist, can certainly be called a Marxist to an extent. As for a racist...I don't know Barack Obama's personal beliefs, but a man who listens to racist sermons for 20 years...again, the argument can be made.

[Mr Sparkle]

If Obama were a white man he would've been laughed out of the race by the media as a nut job with a voting record more liberal than our one socialist Senator and mocked for having the nerve to run for President after only having served 2 years in the Senate when he began his campaign. Much like Edwards was in 2004 despite having a full term under his belt. If Obama were a white man with no platform prior to super tuesday, a voting record more liberal than a socialist, and basically no experience, he would've finished under Dennis Kucinich.

really? as a Nutjob?:huh: you mean he wouldn't have gotten the VP nom like you just admitted Edwards did in 2004? (which of course would mean he had political strength because well, the VP slot is kind of important) you kind of repeated yourself so I'd like to know how you are able to reason your stance that Obama would be laughed out of the race despite your own example that places Edwards in the VP slot?:huh: also, you incorrectly state "more liberal that a socialist" that was just a dumb thing to say Matt.
you are aware that socialism isn't the road to liberalism and the two are completely different currents since socialism is about property and wealth administered by the society with the aim that everyone gets equal opportunity, liberalism is based upon individual freedom, in fact, liberalism has economic views diametrically opposed to socialism.

seriously, more liberal than a socialist?
what are you a 50 year old during the McCarthy age?:huh:

[BlackLantern]

To be honest, the issues that are most important to me(not the war), Obama has the opposite viewpoint....so why should I vote for him again??

[Mr Sparkle]

To be honest, the issues that are most important to me, Obama has the opposite viewpoint....so why should I vote for him again??


and those issues are?

[BlackLantern]

Healthcare, Education, and he seems to have that same censorship attitude toward the media that Clinton and Lieberman have

[Mr Sparkle]

Healthcare, Education, and he seems to have that same censorship attitude toward the media that Clinton and Lieberman have

ok, I know you're scared to death about

dun dun dun!!!!!
[blood drip]socialized healthcare!!![/blood drip]

but education?:huh:

[BlackLantern]

He seems to be skipping around NCLB....it needs to either get repealed or get an overhaul

[Mr Sparkle]

well then, your mind's made up.
though to be honest, he doesn't seem to have "the opposite" view as much as a different view.

[BlackLantern]

i think around 6th or 7th grade, thats where education needs the most work....kids need to know that there is competition in the real world, that there are winners and losers

[Mr Sparkle]

i think around 6th or 7th grade, thats where education needs the most work....kids need to know that there is competition in the real world, that there are winners and losers

doesn't the grading system already do that?
I mean, I'm not really familiar with it do you guys grade on a curve or something? in Mexico, you get an A and the rest of your peers get f's and d's tough for them.

[BlackLantern]

Schools here coddle because parents don't want to acknowledge their kids are dumb****s....right now we havee 9th and 10th graders that can read at a 6 or 7th grade level....

[Matt]

really? as a Nutjob?:huh: you mean he wouldn't have gotten the VP nom like you just admitted Edwards did in 2004? (which of course would mean he had political strength because well, the VP slot is kind of important) you kind of repeated yourself so I'd like to know how you are able to reason your stance that Obama would be laughed out of the race despite your own example that places Edwards in the VP slot?:huh: also, you incorrectly state "more liberal that a socialist" that was just a dumb thing to say Matt.
you are aware that socialism isn't the road to liberalism and the two are completely different currents since socialism is about property and wealth administered by the society with the aim that everyone gets equal opportunity, liberalism is based upon individual freedom, in fact, liberalism has economic views diametrically opposed to socialism.

seriously, more liberal than a socialist?
what are you a 50 year old during the McCarthy age?:huh:

Edwards was more experienced than Obama by about 4 years. And VP is not a process of election or media coverage but one man's choice as to who will balance their ticket be it on a policy or geographic stand point, so its kinda moot.

As for socialism not being linked to liberalism it is moot. The one socialist in Senate has a very left leaning voting record. Obama's is even more so. Being as Americans connect the far left to socialism, it is moot whether or not there is a connection, as perception of the American people is what matters.

[Crowforge]

A little socialism never hurt anyone.

[jaguarr]

Edwards was more experienced than Obama by about 4 years. And VP is not a process of election or media coverage but one man's choice as to who will balance their ticket be it on a policy or geographic stand point, so its kinda moot.

And besides, Edwards is white so it's totally different, right, Matt?


As for socialism not being linked to liberalism it is moot. The one socialist in Senate has a very left leaning voting record. Obama's is even more so. Being as Americans connect the far left to socialism, it is moot whether or not there is a connection, as perception of the American people is what matters.

So, because the one Socialist Senator in office has a left leaning voting record and Obama ALSO has a left leaning voting record, that must mean that Obama is a Socialist. Interesting. :huh: I honestly don't see this connection between Socialism and leaning left that you seem convinced that "The American People(tm)" perceive. Some Americans? Sure. All of them or even a majority of them? Mmmmm.....not so sure about that.

jag

[Matt]

A little socialism never hurt anyone.

Socialism in theory is a great idea. Socialism in practice simply becomes a corrupt institution.

[jaguarr]

Socialism in theory is a great idea. Socialism in practice often simply becomes a corrupt institution.

Thank GOD our little "Democratic" government can't ever become corrupt! :o

jag

[Tag279]

I dunno about the latter two. A man with a more liberal voting record than a socialist, can certainly be called a Marxist to an extent. As for a racist...I don't know Barack Obama's personal beliefs, but a man who listens to racist sermons for 20 years...again, the argument can be made.

I have attended Trinity (Obama's former church) in Chicago at least three times in the late 80s 88 and 89 under Rev. Wright. He did not preach hate he preached like other preachers. He talked about salvation overcoming circumstances and living right.

They looped what they could spin and used it to vilify Wright and hinder Obama.

I have been there and I am telling all of you every sermon was not whitey is bad. Again a 30-second sound bite is not an entire sermon.

[Matt]

And besides, Edwards is white so it's totally different, right, Matt?

Well, being as the media had a field day trashing Edwards and his lack of experience throughout the election and do not say a word about Obama's lack of experience, his lack of a platform, etc, I'd say yes.


So, because the one Socialist Senator in office has a left leaning voting record and Obama ALSO has a left leaning voting record, that must mean that Obama is a Socialist. Interesting. :huh: I honestly don't see this connection between Socialism and leaning left that you seem convinced that "The American People(tm)" perceive. Some Americans? Sure. All of them or even a majority of them? Mmmmm.....not so sure about that.

jag

Socialism IS on the left of the political spectrum. I do not even see how we are debating that.

[Addendum]

Thank GOD our little Socialist Republic government can't ever become corrupt! :o

jag

That's why we have the corporations run things

[Matt]

Thank GOD our little "Democratic" government can't ever become corrupt! :o

jag

I'm not saying Democracy is infallible. I am simply saying it is impossible to achieve perfect socialism as described by Marx due to human greed and corruption.

[BlackLantern]

I have attended Trinity (Obama's former church) in Chicago at least three times in the late 80s 88 and 89 under Rev. Wright. He did not preach hate he preached like other preachers. He talked about salvation overcoming circumstances and living right.

They looped what they could spin and used it to vilify Wright and hinder Obama.

I have been there and I am telling all of you every sermon was not whitey is bad. Again a 30-second sound bite is not an entire sermon.

As a pastor, hell as a decent human being, that kind of filth shouldn't be coming out of his mouth period...

[jaguarr]

Socialism IS on the left of the political spectrum. I do not even see how we are debating that.

There's a significant difference between Liberalism and Socialism and you know it, despite trying to clumsily tie the two together.

jag

[Matt]

I have attended Trinity (Obama's former church) in Chicago at least three times in the late 80s 88 and 89 under Rev. Wright. He did not preach hate he preached like other preachers. He talked about salvation overcoming circumstances and living right.

They looped what they could spin and used it to vilify Wright and hinder Obama.

I have been there and I am telling all of you every sermon was not whitey is bad. Again a 30-second sound bite is not an entire sermon.

Curious, as several paritioners who actually attended the church more than three times in two decades (religiously, infact) have said he goes off on rants like the "Goddamn America," or "The White Man Created AIDS," sermon in at least half of his sermons each year.

Furthermore, it wasn't a sound bite the media took out of context, it was from the Church's "Best of" promotional DVD.

[Matt]

There's a significant difference between Liberalism and Socialism and you know it, despite trying to clumsily tie the two together.

jag

That doesn't change the fact that socialism is to the left of the political spectrum which you seem to deny. Neo-liberalism is light socialism.

[jaguarr]

That's why we have the corporations run things

I've heard the U.S. referred to as a Corporacracy recently and I think that term fits rather well. Unfortunately.

I'm not saying Democracy is infallible. I am simply saying it is impossible to achieve perfect socialism as described by Marx due to human greed and corruption.

It's also impossible to achieve perfect Democracy as described by it's authors and proponents due to human greed and corruption. What is your point?

jag

[jaguarr]

That doesn't change the fact that socialism is to the left of the political spectrum which you seem to deny. Neo-liberalism is light socialism.

Where did I deny that Socialism is to the left of the political spectrum? Please show me. I would like that. :) And now it's NEO-Liberalism...not Liberalism as I had originally referenced, that's suddenly sharing so much in common with Socialism. Interesting. Care to map out the points of exactly how that is?

jag

[Matt]

I've heard the U.S. referred to as a Corporacracy recently and I think that term fits rather well. Unfortunately.

Well, I agree with you there, which is one of my biggest problems with the modern Democrat party (Barack Obama included). They are more concerned with seeing a 13 year old girl can get an abortion without her parents knowing than seeing that a person can find a job with a fair wage in the Corporacracy. Tell me, Jag, have you ever read Tom Franks "One Market, Under God,"? The book changed my life.


It's also impossible to achieve perfect Democracy as described by it's authors and proponents due to human greed and corruption. What is your point?

jag

But we're not talking about Democracy, this is a discussion about socialism, so what is your point? :huh:

[Matt]

Where did I deny that Socialism is to the left of the political spectrum? Please show me. I would like that. :) And now it's NEO-Liberalism...not Liberalism as I had originally referenced, that's suddenly sharing so much in common with Socialism. Interesting. Care to map out the points of exactly how that is?

jag

Not really Jag, as I do have to get into the bar and get my books in order from the weekend soon. Not to mention, I am not really up for a debate on semantics which is clearly the road that you are going to take this down. We both know that there are corrolations between the two, so we could sit here and argue all day over which terms one another used, but how about we just agree not to do that.

[jaguarr]

Well, I agree with you there, which is one of my biggest problems with the modern Democrat party (Barack Obama included). They are more concerned with seeing a 13 year old girl can get an abortion without her parents knowing than seeing that a person can find a job with a fair wage in the Corporacracy. Tell me, Jag, have you ever read Tom Franks "One Market, Under God,"? The book changed my life.

The real problem is that we are trapped in a two party system, effectively. The Republicans, Neo-Cons and PNAC A-Holes that have been running the show are more concerned with giving their corporate buddies heavy influence on public policy, further lining the pockets and self-serving interests of the uber-rich and instituting social policies that will leave this country legally retarded and destitute in 50 years. There's very little middle ground in either party these days. And, no, I've never read the book you asked about.


But we're not talking about Democracy, this is a discussion about socialism, so what is your point? :huh:

The point is that ANY form of government is susceptible to corruption through human greed. You originally said "Socialism in theory is a great idea. Socialism in practice simply becomes a corrupt institution." and my only point is that the same is VERY much true of Democracy, so somehow touting one as superior over the other because of it's corruption factor seems shallow at best to me.

jag

[Tag279]

Curious, as several paritioners who actually attended the church more than three times in two decades (religiously, infact) have said he goes off on rants like the "Goddamn America," or "The White Man Created AIDS," sermon in at least half of his sermons each year.

Furthermore, it wasn't a sound bite the media took out of context, it was from the Church's "Best of" promotional DVD.

Do you have the best of DVD?

Matt are you black?

Do you remember the the Tuskeegee Experement where the US navy infected black men with syphilis?

Did you know that Shortly after Reagan took office in 81 that he was told by the CDC and other health organizations that AIDS was going to become an epedemic and that he dismissed it becaue he felt it was a gay plague?

Wright may have been wrong in saying the US government created AIDS (The first case of an AIDS like illness showed up in a British Sailor in the Phillpines after WW-II) but he was on to something because it was the US government that would not put the word out about it before it reached epedimic proportions.

[Matt]

The real problem is that we are trapped in a two party system, effectively. The Republicans, Neo-Cons and PNAC A-Holes that have been running the show are more concerned with giving their corporate buddies heavy influence on public policy, further lining the pockets and self-serving interests of the uber-rich and instituting social policies that will leave this country legally retarded and destitute in 50 years. There's very little middle ground in either party these days. And, no, I've never read the book you asked about.

Well, I can't disagree with any of that. At any rate, if you get a chance to read it (though I imagine things are quite hectic with the newborn), you really should. Brilliant book.


The point is that ANY form of government is susceptible to corruption through human greed. You originally said "Socialism in theory is a great idea. Socialism in practice simply becomes a corrupt institution." and my only point is that the same is VERY much true of Democracy, so somehow touting one as superior over the other because of it's corruption factor seems shallow at best to me.

jag

I wasn't touting one as superior. Democracy was not an issue in the discussion. SOmeone mentioned socialism. I responded about Socialism. If we were having a discussion on Democracy, I would be glad to critique it.

[Matt]

Do you have the best of DVD?

Matt are you black?

Do you remember the the Tuskeegee Experement where the US navy infected black men with syphilis?

Did you know that Shortly after Reagan took office in 81 that he was told by the CDC and other health organizations that AIDS was going to become an epedemic and that he dismissed it becaue he felt it was a gay plague?

Wright may have been wrong in saying the US government created AIDS (The first case of an AIDS like illness showed up in a British Sailor in the Phillpines after WW-II) but he was on to something because it was the US government that would not put the word out about it before it reached epedimic proportions.

So now you've gone from denying Wright said these things to justifying why he said them? Interesting.

[jaguarr]

Not really Jag, as I do have to get into the bar and get my books in order from the weekend soon. Not to mention, I am not really up for a debate on semantics which is clearly the road that you are going to take this down. We both know that there are corrolations between the two, so we could sit here and argue all day over which terms one another used, but how about we just agree not to do that.


Alright, then. I accept your apology. :hehe:

jag

[Crowforge]

I've heard this all my life and never bought it.

[Tag279]

So now you've gone from denying Wright said these things to justifying why he said them? Interesting.

I never denyed wright said what was played on those clips What I did say, however, was that every sermon was not anti America and Anti-white.

Consider that it was not until 1968 that every American citizen had full voting rights during a Presidential election. My mother was arrested in Mississippi for demonstrating so that I could have the right to vote in any election and for any candidate I wish.

I am the great-great grandson of a former slave and former slave owner.

I had two relatives that died in the Tuskeegee Experement.

I also had a grandfather who was killed in Korea by his white Lieutenant (the Lut. hit my grandfather in the head with the but of a rifle) for pointing out the sniper that killed the Lut. after he (the Lut) struck my grandfather. My grand father said the shooter was to their left the Liuetenant said he was to the right. My grandfather controdicted him so he (the Lut) hit him (my grand father) after saying "boy you don't tell me!"

I am not justifying Wrights statements I am just pointing out while he made inflammatory statements he was not entirely wrong.

Hillary Cinton does not know what it is to grow up as a black man in America; and she has not been called a N***** and identified with the pain that words generates when it comes from a white person to a black person with malice intended.

[Matt]

No one is denying there are atrocities to the African American community. I suppose at the end of the day, all I am asking is...whats your point? Does that justify Wright's straight forward racism? How long should the African American community dwell on this? Should the Jewish community still be *****ing about all of their hardships? What about the Italians and Irish who also suffered institutionalized discrimination in early America? At some point, I guess you just have to move on. Its a crappy answer, but what else is there?

[Crowforge]

The two aren't connected (distrust of the federal government and racist comments). It isn't for us to determine when people should get over any trauma. And it isn't fair to compare racism to the discrimination felt by new immigrants, there's a world of difference.
It hasn't been that long since the civil rights movement started and some act like is was hundreds of years ago. For a lot of people those scary time are memories not history.

[Tag279]

No one is denying there are atrocities to the African American community. I suppose at the end of the day, all I am asking is...whats your point? Does that justify Wright's straight forward racism? How long should the African American community dwell on this?

How am I dwelling? The crap is still alive and well. In my city a black man was hanged because he was engaged to a white woman. The girls brother and his buddy hung him. That was two years ago.

In my county a man went into Lockheed Martin and killed seven of his coworkers. He was mad because he wasn't able to call people N***** in the workplace and they sent him to sensitivity training. So he decided to bring his shotgun and guns to kill N*****s

Should the Jewish community still be *****ing about all of their hardships? What about the Italians and Irish who also suffered institutionalized discrimination in early America? At some point, I guess you just have to move on. Its a crappy answer, but what else is there?

The above groups you mentioned still do not have to deal with the stuff on any level as they did when they first got to this country in the late 19th century.


My point is the racism you say I am dwelling on IS NOT gone for blacks and in a lot of cases hispanics. Wright chose his words badly I agree. But he has been wrongly villified. Pastor Heggie said that 911 was America's fault and that Katrina was God cleaning up New Orleans. Ron Parsley said the same things. No one was in uproar. But let a black preacher say it and he hates America.

Wright says America's foregn policy is a contributory factor to 911 and he is anti-American when he was quoting a WHITE ambassador. The sermon was to tell his congregation NOT To seek revenge for the loved ones lost in 911. I am sure you and others will say I am lying but his whole sermon regarding 911 was posted on the web.

One cannot control what others say. It is also true that people can say things you disagree with without you holding those beliefs. How many times have you heard about someone that has racist parents that realized they were not right and did not hold those same beliefs.

If a child CAN act and belive in contravention with their parents' racist beliefs Obama can't act and believe in controvention to his pastor?

[The Senator]

I do not stand for any preacher's disgusting attacks, regardless of skin color. I was one of the first posters ripping Jeremiah Wright apart, and I was one of the first posters ripping Hagee apart. I disapprove of all hate speech, whether the ignoramus in question says that gay people caused Hurricane Katrina or white folks invented AIDS to kill the black man. They're stupid claims, not at all grounded in reality.

[Tag279]

Jman I don't like hate speech either but my poimt is that it is unfair to assign those beliefs to Obama when he says otherwise.

[The Senator]

Jman I don't like hate speech either but my poimt is that it is unfair to assign those beliefs to Obama when he says otherwise.

Obama attended Wright's church for twenty years. I understand why people think he may believe some of the things Wright said.

People believe that McCain believes some of the things Hagee said, yet McCain has never been a member of Hagee's church. Hell, he didn't even know the man all that well.

Of course, I don't think the issue is "what does Obama really think?" The issue is, Obama hired Wright to serve on his campaign staff, even though Wright had said some of these disgusting things before. Obama's judgment was way off on that one.

[Crowforge]

So are you saying no politician has known questionable people for any amount of time?

[Tag279]

Obama attended Wright's church for twenty years. I understand why people think he may believe some of the things Wright said.

People believe that McCain believes some of the things Hagee said, yet McCain has never been a member of Hagee's church. Hell, he didn't even know the man all that well.

Of course, I don't think the issue is "what does Obama really think?" The issue is, Obama hired Wright to serve on his campaign staff, even though Wright had said some of these disgusting things before. Obama's judgment was way off on that one.

McCain actively sought Haggie's endorsement. And when Obama started his bid for the Presidency Wright was not on his staff.

Every minute of Wright's sermons was not to dog America or hate white people. The infamous 911 sermon like I said earlier was to tell the congregation not to seek revenge for loved ones lost on 911.

And the US government did infect black men with syphilis without their knowledge.

The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_ Male#cite_note-0) also known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Pelkola Syphilis Study, Public Health Service Syphilis Study or the Tuskegee Experiment was a clinical study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial), conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee%2C_Alabama), in which 399 poor — and mostly illiterate — African American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American) sharecroppers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecroppers) were studied to observe the natural progression of the disease if left untreated.

This study was criticized because it was conducted without due care to its subjects, and led to major changes in how patients are protected in clinical studies. Individuals enrolled in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study did not give informed consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent) and were not informed of their diagnosis; instead they were told they had "bad blood" and could receive free medical treatment, rides to the clinic, meals and burial insurance in case of death in return for participating.

Rather than treat all syphilitic subjects with penicillin and close the study, or split off a control group for testing penicillin; the Tuskegee scientists withheld penicillin and information about penicillin, purely to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. Participants were also prevented from accessing syphilis treatment programs that were available to other people in the area. The study continued until 1972, when a leak to the press[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_ Male#cite_note-2) resulted in its termination.

The AIDS assertion though wrong was not a stretch. The Tuskeegee Experement ended less than one year before I was born. HIV/ AIDS showed up in the US in 1977 5-years after the Tuskeegee Experement ended.

[Marx]

So are you saying no politician has known questionable people for any amount of time?

McCain actively sought Haggie's endorsement. And when Obama started his bid for the Presidency Wright was not on his staff.

Every minute of Wright's sermons was not to dog America or hate white people. The infamous 911 sermon like I said earlier was to tell the congregation not to seek revenge for loved ones lost on 911.

Now you're both just being nit-picky. This is the Obama thread, hence why the focus is on Obama.

But you know what, I'll go along with this for a minute. Yes it's true that other politicians have associated with "questionable" people over the course of time. No one is denying that. The point remains that Obama attended this man's church, was married by him, and had his children baptized by him. The issue comes with Obama claiming to have "never heard any such sermons" when the story first broke. Then changing his mind a couple of days later to saying that he indeed had heard these sermons, then deciding to hold a speech about the scandal and pretty much ignored the scandal saying that he could "no sooner disassociate himself from his white grandmother who dislikes blacks then he could Reverend Wright." He then chose to "cut all ties" to Wright after the good Reverend just wouldn't shut up and continued to damage his campaign.

Obama chose to put this man as the "spiritual advisor" to his Presidential campaign. It isn't so much whether people believe that Obama believes Wright's hate speech as it is an issue of Obama's character and judgement. Both of which he continually touts as exceptional.

And speaking of the campaign, are you really attempting to get into a matter of "well he wasn't on his campaign from the beginning?" Because I beg to differ (not that it actually matters WHEN Wright became a part of the campaign,) the fact that he DID become a part of the campaign is the issue.

If you want to get into McCain and Hagee, I highly doubt that you will find anyone in this thread or on this forum that has not spoken out against that relationship at some point.

Hate speech is hate speech no matter the source. Whether it is a right or left wing nut job. Neither is acceptable. And neither should be tolerated or condoned in any way.

[Mr Sparkle]

Edwards was more experienced than Obama by about 4 years. And VP is not a process of election or media coverage but one man's choice as to who will balance their ticket be it on a policy or geographic stand point, so its kinda moot.

by about "4 years"? so, then, the required experience in the senate so that you can be runner up to the presidency is 6 years?
ok, one could argue that this "balance of the ticket" would have to take into account media portrayals of both the candidates, as the media like I have said, plays a role but it's entirely responsible for the success of a given candidate, still seems to me that if we compare the two, the differences are rather subjective, and last time around, people did say on more than one occasion that Edwards was better suited for the job than Kerry.
I remember that, I don't agree with it, I just remember it.
also, on a weird note, two years ago you thought Obama's race would work against him.

Don't be so naive.

Realistically there are four reasons he can't win.

1) His name is Obama. As horrible as it sounds, that makes him unelectable.
2) He is a senator. The last senator to win the presidency was JFK. Before that, it was Warren G. Harding. Senators just don't have a good shot. Too much to attack them for. Every vote is scrutinized, every decision recorded. Its just not prefferable for a campaign.
3) He has practically no record. For all the hype around him he has really done nothing thus far in Senate.
4) He is black. It sounds mean, but its true. That alone will keep him from winning.

hmmmm.

As for socialism not being linked to liberalism it is moot. The one socialist in Senate has a very left leaning voting record. Obama's is even more so. Being as Americans connect the far left to socialism, it is moot whether or not there is a connection, as perception of the American people is what matters.

it's not moot, actually, your example was ill conceived If Americans connect the far left to socialism, then shame on you for perpetuating their ignorance as the two philosophies, as I pointed out, are diametrically opposed and in fact, socialism shares far more traits with corporatism than it does with liberalism.
you could have said he is by far the most liberal senator in the US, that would've have carried more weight.
Americans also connect Islam to Terrorism if I said "more violent than a Muslim" I would be wrong, some Americans connect black people with crime, if I said "crooked as a black man" I would also be wrong.
regardless of some flawed "perception" the public might have.

[Mr Sparkle]

So now you've gone from denying Wright said these things to justifying why he said them? Interesting.

here's an interesting thing.
and I find it humorous when I really think about it.
some people, some white people are really outraged that Rev. Wright said things about "them" and called them racist.
they are really upset, and they should ( about that, because the god-damn america thing, was dead on, if you listened to the whole thing you know the man was right) and they are all like

" I'm not racist, how dare you judge me on the actions of others!"

I just find that hi-larious.

[The Senator]

McCain actively sought Haggie's endorsement. And when Obama started his bid for the Presidency Wright was not on his staff.

Every minute of Wright's sermons was not to dog America or hate white people. The infamous 911 sermon like I said earlier was to tell the congregation not to seek revenge for loved ones lost on 911.

And the US government did infect black men with syphilis without their knowledge.

The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_ Male#cite_note-0) also known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Pelkola Syphilis Study, Public Health Service Syphilis Study or the Tuskegee Experiment was a clinical study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial), conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee%2C_Alabama), in which 399 poor — and mostly illiterate — African American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American) sharecroppers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecroppers) were studied to observe the natural progression of the disease if left untreated.

This study was criticized because it was conducted without due care to its subjects, and led to major changes in how patients are protected in clinical studies. Individuals enrolled in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study did not give informed consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent) and were not informed of their diagnosis; instead they were told they had "bad blood" and could receive free medical treatment, rides to the clinic, meals and burial insurance in case of death in return for participating.

Rather than treat all syphilitic subjects with penicillin and close the study, or split off a control group for testing penicillin; the Tuskegee scientists withheld penicillin and information about penicillin, purely to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. Participants were also prevented from accessing syphilis treatment programs that were available to other people in the area. The study continued until 1972, when a leak to the press[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_ Male#cite_note-2) resulted in its termination.

The AIDS assertion though wrong was not a stretch. The Tuskeegee Experement ended less than one year before I was born. HIV/ AIDS showed up in the US in 1977 5-years after the Tuskeegee Experement ended.

See-- you're doing it. You're making excuses for Wright, yet attacking McCain because he sought Hagee's endorsement. You represent a pretty big double standard...

[Matt]

My point is the racism you say I am dwelling on IS NOT gone for blacks and in a lot of cases hispanics. Wright chose his words badly I agree. But he has been wrongly villified. Pastor Heggie said that 911 was America's fault and that Katrina was God cleaning up New Orleans. Ron Parsley said the same things. No one was in uproar. But let a black preacher say it and he hates America.

Wright says America's foregn policy is a contributory factor to 911 and he is anti-American when he was quoting a WHITE ambassador. The sermon was to tell his congregation NOT To seek revenge for the loved ones lost in 911. I am sure you and others will say I am lying but his whole sermon regarding 911 was posted on the web.

One cannot control what others say. It is also true that people can say things you disagree with without you holding those beliefs. How many times have you heard about someone that has racist parents that realized they were not right and did not hold those same beliefs.

If a child CAN act and belive in contravention with their parents' racist beliefs Obama can't act and believe in controvention to his pastor?


It seems to me that you are pointing out cases of individual racism (which will never go away, on either side) and using them to support an argument of institutionalized racism.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Obama chose to put this man as the "spiritual advisor" to his Presidential campaign.


*sigh*

And? I keep hearing folks say this and I'm like...aaaaaaaaaaaaand? So what? The man has hang-ups. MANY people from his generation have them--that's why Obama is struggling with that whole age group.

Some of you are seeking perfection from a generation that saw atrocities NONE of us can lay claim to. Just because a man has flaws and idiosyncrasies doesn't mean he's impotent in the spirituality department too.
:whatever:

The Bible is full of examples of individuals who made HUGE mistakes in judgement but were still favored by God. Spirituality is not synonymous with perfection guys...jeez.

[Tag279]

It seems to me that you are pointing out cases of individual racism (which will never go away, on either side) and using them to support an argument of institutionalized racism.

So Jerimiah Wright is an institution and not an individual?

Obama is an individual just like Wright. Wright had freinds that were attacked and beaten and even killed during the civil rights movement. Wright lived through the assasinations of Malcom X, JFK, MLK, and RFK.

Black folks Wright's age still have a level of distrust for the government and are afraid of hidden racism. In their minds Jim Crowe was yesterday.

Barack Obama does not share those beliefs and Wright's should not be assigned to him.

But one has to admit that Wright's looped statements made it easier for individuals that already had negative perceptions about blacks to continue to hold on to them.

I would dare say that 30% of white america does not want a black candidate under any circumstances. The majority of that 30% will vote for McCain in November if they even vote.

[kainedamo]

Y'know, I've seen comments out there on the Internet reading along the lines of "what Wright said has confirmed my suspicions - black people are the real racists".

[Tag279]

Y'know, I've seen comments out there on the Internet reading along the lines of "what Wright said has confirmed my suspicions - black people are the real racists".

I hope thats sarcasm...

[Varient]

I've decided.

I'll vote for whomever promises to build a few hundred nuke plants in America IMMEDIATELY.

V.

[Matt]

So Jerimiah Wright is an institution and not an individual?

Obama is an individual just like Wright. Wright had freinds that were attacked and beaten and even killed during the civil rights movement. Wright lived through the assasinations of Malcom X, JFK, MLK, and RFK.

Black folks Wright's age still have a level of distrust for the government and are afraid of hidden racism. In their minds Jim Crowe was yesterday.

Barack Obama does not share those beliefs and Wright's should not be assigned to him.

But one has to admit that Wright's looped statements made it easier for individuals that already had negative perceptions about blacks to continue to hold on to them.

I would dare say that 30% of white america does not want a black candidate under any circumstances. The majority of that 30% will vote for McCain in November if they even vote.

I never claimed Jerimiah Wrgight was an institution. :huh: Again, no one is denying there is racism or that racism happened in the past. That does not justify Jerimiah Wright's racism. If a white man's entire family is murdered by a black man, does that give him the right to hate all black people?

[Darthphere]

Yes.

[kainedamo]

Ya gotta expect some bitterness and mistrust.

[The Senator]

So Jerimiah Wright is an institution and not an individual?

Obama is an individual just like Wright. Wright had freinds that were attacked and beaten and even killed during the civil rights movement. Wright lived through the assasinations of Malcom X, JFK, MLK, and RFK.

Black folks Wright's age still have a level of distrust for the government and are afraid of hidden racism. In their minds Jim Crowe was yesterday.

Barack Obama does not share those beliefs and Wright's should not be assigned to him.

But one has to admit that Wright's looped statements made it easier for individuals that already had negative perceptions about blacks to continue to hold on to them.

I would dare say that 30% of white america does not want a black candidate under any circumstances. The majority of that 30% will vote for McCain in November if they even vote.

That's an interesting and baseless claim without any stats to back that up... Obviously, there are some white folks who would never vote for a black man... but you're already laying the groundwork for the blame game come November, if Obama loses... based on this post, if Obama loses the election, you're going to blame white racists for Obama's loss instead of his inability to connect to certain voting blocs... even though those racists never would have voted for a Democrat in the first place...

[Marx]

*sigh*

And? I keep hearing folks say this and I'm like...aaaaaaaaaaaaand? So what? The man has hang-ups. MANY people from his generation have them--that's why Obama is struggling with that whole age group.

Some of you are seeking perfection from a generation that saw atrocities NONE of us can lay claim to. Just because a man has flaws and idiosyncrasies doesn't mean he's impotent in the spirituality department too.
:whatever:

The Bible is full of examples of individuals who made HUGE mistakes in judgement but were still favored by God. Spirituality is not synonymous with perfection guys...jeez.

I was responding to comments that Tag made. Trust me Lightning, I don't really want to rehash Reverend Wright for the 1000th time. This thread always seems to come full circle with the same arguments over and over and over again. You know?

[Marx]

That's an interesting and baseless claim without any stats to back that up... Obviously, there are some white folks who would never vote for a black man... but you're already laying the groundwork for the blame game come November, if Obama loses... based on this post, if Obama loses the election, you're going to blame white racists for Obama's loss instead of his inability to connect to certain voting blocs... even though those racists never would have voted for a Democrat in the first place...

You should know by now Jman that if Obama loses in November that it won't be by his own doing... :whatever:http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Matt]

You should know by now Jman that if Obama loses in November that it won't be by his own doing... :whatever:http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

Call me crazy, but it seems to me that Tag is almost implying that Obama is entitled to the presidency because of what past generations of African Americans went through.

[Marx]

Call me crazy, but it seems to me that Tag is almost implying that Obama is entitled to the presidency because of what past generations of African Americans went through.

In all honesty Matt, it's not the first time that I have gotten that feeling. (Whether it be from posters on this forum OR from people in real life.)

[Darthphere]

Yeah, it's obvious that if Obama loses instead of asking what Obama did or didn't do to win, the media and his supporters will just rely on "America just isn't ready for a black president and change."

[Matt]

And the saddest part is, the Democrats will probably start building him up for a second run in 2012 instead of a REAL moderate populist candidate. It will be all about blaming someone else for their loss ("The American people are racist!") as opposed to looking at themselves and accepting that they are no longer FDR's party, the champions of the middle class...but more a party whose goal is to ensure that a 13 year old girl can get an abortion without her parents knowing about it than ensuring someone with a family has a job with a reasonable wage.

[moraldeficiency]

Yeah, it's obvious that if Obama loses instead of asking what Obama did or didn't do to win, the media and his supporters will just rely on "America just isn't ready for a black president and change."

Yeah that'll be super. Especially now that the feminists are whining that same tune only in a different key. Harmony people, with everyone pissed off, self righteous and feeling entitled then we'll all be truely equal.

[kainedamo]

In reality I do think Obama has a lot of hearts and minds he needs to win over.

I do think there are a bunch of people that would traditionally vote democratic that won't vote for Obama because of a mistrust either due to his race or supposed connection to Islam. How many people there are that think like this it is hard to say.

This doesn't mean to say that I don't think there are democratic voters that wouldn't vote for him for genuine reasons.

Obama's race and religion are a factor in this election, and anyone that believes they're not is being naive.

[Darthphere]

Yeah that'll be super. Especially now that the feminists are whining that same tune only in a different key. Harmony people, with everyone pissed off, self righteous and feeling entitled then we'll all be truely equal.

Please, the amount of hate and vitriol spewed at Hillary's direction far outweighs any claims of her losing because she's a woman.

[The Senator]

In reality I do think Obama has a lot of hearts and minds he needs to win over.

I do think there are a bunch of people that would traditionally vote democratic that won't vote for Obama because of a mistrust either due to his race or supposed connection to Islam. How many people there are that think like this it is hard to say.

This doesn't mean to say that I don't think there are democratic voters that wouldn't vote for him for genuine reasons.

Obama's race and religion are a factor in this election, and anyone that believes they're not is being naive.

But will his race and religion cause him to lose the election?

They won't be the sole factors which cause him to fail. Anyone who will be willing to blame his loss in the general election on racism alone transcends naivety and reeks of ignorance.

[Marx]

Please, the amount of hate and vitriol spewed at Hillary's direction far outweighs any claims of her losing because she's a woman.

I thought the same thing when I read MD's post.

[Matt]

But will his race and religion cause him to lose the election?

They won't be the sole factors which cause him to fail. Anyone who will be willing to blame his loss in the general election on racism alone transcends naivety and reeks of ignorance.

Its amazing that no one will acknowledge that his race got him free passes with both the media and public on issues that would've sunk other candidates but people are already willing to scream "HE LOST CAUSE OF RACISM!" when it hasn't even happened yet.

[moraldeficiency]

Please, the amount of hate and vitriol spewed at Hillary's direction far outweighs any claims of her losing because she's a woman.

Yeah, I guess that really depends on whom you ask. I personally can't stand the family in the least and thought the media seemed to cater to her and her requests that they play nice with her rather than chewing into her many questionable issues.

But I do know that there have been feminists coming out of the woodwork to write on this and how the injustices continue. Personally I think she's done more harm to the feminist cause than anyone in modern history.

[Tron5000]

In reality I do think Obama has a lot of hearts and minds he needs to win over.

I do think there are a bunch of people that would traditionally vote democratic that won't vote for Obama because of a mistrust either due to his race or supposed connection to Islam. How many people there are that think like this it is hard to say.

This doesn't mean to say that I don't think there are democratic voters that wouldn't vote for him for genuine reasons.

Obama's race and religion are a factor in this election, and anyone that believes they're not is being naive.

How about "mistrust" based on the various lies he has told regarding his relationships with racists, bigots, Communists, domestic terrorists, and convicted felons?

[kainedamo]

His race and religion are a factor, I'm just not sure how much of a factor.

[Marx]

Its amazing that no one will acknowledge that his race got him free passes with both the media and public on issues that would've sunk other candidates but people are already willing to scream "HE LOST CAUSE OF RACISM!" when it hasn't even happened yet.

John Edwards was sunk for reasons that Obama should be...but won't be.

Yeah, I guess that really depends on whom you ask. I personally can't stand the family in the least and thought the media seemed to cater to her and her requests that they play nice with her rather than chewing into her many questionable issues.

But I do know that there have been feminists coming out of the woodwork to write on this and how the injustices continue. Personally I think she's done more harm to the feminist cause than anyone in modern history.

The media was not fair to Hillary Clinton. They never have been. Instead of concentrating on what they should be concentrating on, they were more concerned about rehashing her husband's extra-curriculars for ratings and condemning her for not being feminine enough while at the same time condemning her for showing emotion.

[Matt]

John Edwards was sunk for reasons that Obama should be...but won't be.

Hell, Edwards was sunk for less.


The media was not fair to Hillary Clinton. They never have been. Instead of concentrating on what they should be concentrating on, they were more concerned about rehashing her husband's extra-curriculars for ratings and condemning her for not being feminine enough while at the same time condemning her for showing emotion.

Once Barack entered the race and became the new "It-Boy," Clinton was treated like **** by the mainstream media. No matter what she did, she lost with them.

His race and religion are a factor, I'm just not sure how much of a factor.

Am I the only one who finds it a bit consescending for someone who has never even been to America to sit around and say "Yeah, you're a country full of racists and its gonna destroy a black man's campaign cause you're too racist of a country!"?

[Marx]

Hell, Edwards was sunk for less.


Yes he was. Sadly.


Once Barack entered the race and became the new "It-Boy," Clinton was treated like **** by the mainstream media. No matter what she did, she lost with them.


I still think the SNL skit had it spot on.


Am I the only one who finds it a bit consescending for someone who has never even been to America to sit around and say "Yeah, you're a country full of racists and its gonna destroy a black man's campaign cause you're too racist of a country!"?

No you're not Matt.

[kainedamo]

Am I the only one who finds it a bit consescending for someone who has never even been to America to sit around and say "Yeah, you're a country full of racists and its gonna destroy a black man's campaign cause you're too racist of a country!"?

Woah, back off a minute Matt. Don't you think you're twisting and exaggerating my post a little bit?

And I've been to America twice, by the way.

[Darthphere]

Woah, back off a minute Matt. Don't you think you're twisting and exaggerating my post a little bit?

And I've been to America twice, by the way.

You're on a no fly list now by the way.

[kainedamo]

Haha, aw man :(

[moraldeficiency]

The media was not fair to Hillary Clinton. They never have been. Instead of concentrating on what they should be concentrating on, they were more concerned about rehashing her husband's extra-curriculars for ratings and condemning her for not being feminine enough while at the same time condemning her for showing emotion.

That is your opinion and we clearly differ. I think the media is phenomially easy on both the clintons for some reason. Hillary had little experience, lied about the little experience she had, has botched her first attempt at health care in spectacular fashion, I could go on but you get the point.

The media concentrated (though I'd debate that as well) on some of Bill's affairs because quite frankly she's in the position she's in not because she's this role model of what a modern woman should be, but because she had a famous husband and was riding his coattails as far as they would take her, and the fact that she was cheated on, stated that she's not the type to "stand by her man" and defended him, found out that he did in fact cheat on her but then did in fact "stand by her man". That all goes to character and should be relevant when choosing a suitable canidate for president in the same way obama's choice of church matters.

Now I agree the media does concentrate on what will net them the highest ratings and thereby hold her to the exact same standard that they hold every political figure to, namely what they can do for them. If the things that galvanize people's interest to Hillary are only negative then I'm sorry, but tough ****. She made her bed and she has to lie in it. Maybe if she was famous for more than her husband and getting cheated on then there would be a point there.

I know you feel the media was mean to her. I personally feel the media was overly generous (especially after the sniper comments, that alone should have killed her nomination IMO). We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Matt]

Woah, back off a minute Matt. Don't you think you're twisting and exaggerating my post a little bit?

And I've been to America twice, by the way.

Not really. What if I stated something like "The Irish are too drunk to do this or that?" You're sitting around claiming a good majority of our country is racist and unable to get by the fact Obama is black, when you really have nothing to back up such a broad generalization with.

[Matt]

That is your opinion and we clearly differ. I think the media is phenomially easy on both the clintons for some reason. Hillary had little experience, lied about the little experience she had, has botched her first attempt at health care in spectacular fashion, I could go on but you get the point.

The media concentrated (though I'd debate that as well) on some of Bill's affairs because quite frankly she's in the position she's in not because she's this role model of what a modern woman should be, but because she had a famous husband and was riding his coattails as far as they would take her, and the fact that she was cheated on, stated that she's not the type to "stand by her man" and defended him, found out that he did in fact cheat on her but then did in fact "stand by her man". That all goes to character and should be relevant when choosing a suitable canidate for president in the same way obama's choice of church matters.

Now I agree the media does concentrate on what will net them the highest ratings and thereby hold her to the exact same standard that they hold every political figure to, namely what they can do for them. If the things that galvanize people's interest to Hillary are only negative then I'm sorry, but tough ****. She made her bed and she has to lie in it. Maybe if she was famous for more than her husband and getting cheated on then there would be a point there.

I know you feel the media was mean to her. I personally feel the media was overly generous (especially after the sniper comments, that alone should have killed her nomination IMO). We'll just have to agree to disagree.

She got off easy on that because her opponent was in the midst of a scandal. If the sniper comment was the only scandal at the time, it would've killed her campaign.

[Darthphere]

It's time for "HEATED DEBATE!"

[ForestAflame]

See-- you're doing it. You're making excuses for Wright, yet attacking McCain because he sought Hagee's endorsement. You represent a pretty big double standard...

Hagee's comments are inexcusable. Wright's comments, however hypocritical they may be, make sense from an oppressed black perspective.

[kainedamo]

Not really. What if I stated something like "The Irish are too drunk to do this or that?" You're sitting around claiming a good majority of our country is racist and unable to get by the fact Obama is black, when you really have nothing to back up such a broad generalization with.

I never said anything even remotely like that, Matt.

You're misconstruing my post so much that I now know how Michelle Obama feels.

How exactly do you get "the majority of the US is racist" from "Obama's race and religion will be a factor, but I'm not sure how much".

[ForestAflame]

I am pretty sure that Obama's race will be the primary factor in this election.

[Matt]

Hagee's comments are inexcusable. Wright's comments, however hypocritical they may be, make sense from an oppressed black perspective.

Make sense? Claiming the white man created a disease to kill the black man makes sense? Saying 3,000 civilians deserved to die (no matter what their government did to provoke it) makes sense? I beg to differ.

[Matt]

I never said anything even remotely like that, Matt.

You're misconstruing my post so much that I now know how Michelle Obama feels.

How exactly do you get "the majority of the US is racist" from "Obama's race and religion will be a factor, but I'm not sure how much".

Comeon, its not just one comment, you've been implying it for months and you know it.

[Marx]

That is your opinion and we clearly differ. I think the media is phenomially easy on both the clintons for some reason. Hillary had little experience, lied about the little experience she had, has botched her first attempt at health care in spectacular fashion, I could go on but you get the point.

The media concentrated (though I'd debate that as well) on some of Bill's affairs because quite frankly she's in the position she's in not because she's this role model of what a modern woman should be, but because she had a famous husband and was riding his coattails as far as they would take her, and the fact that she was cheated on, stated that she's not the type to "stand by her man" and defended him, found out that he did in fact cheat on her but then did in fact "stand by her man". That all goes to character and should be relevant when choosing a suitable canidate for president in the same way obama's choice of church matters.

Now I agree the media does concentrate on what will net them the highest ratings and thereby hold her to the exact same standard that they hold every political figure to, namely what they can do for them. If the things that galvanize people's interest to Hillary are only negative then I'm sorry, but tough ****. She made her bed and she has to lie in it. Maybe if she was famous for more than her husband and getting cheated on then there would be a point there.

I know you feel the media was mean to her. I personally feel the media was overly generous (especially after the sniper comments, that alone should have killed her nomination IMO). We'll just have to agree to disagree.

SO let me guess, you're one of those people who think that it's ok to attack Hillary Clinton for deciding to STAY with her husband? :whatever:

For whatever reason she choose to stay, she stayed. And people can speculate all they want, but no one will ever know the truth outside of that family.

[Marx]

I am pretty sure that Obama's race will be the primary factor in this election.

Actually no, it won't be the primary factor.

[Matt]

I am pretty sure that Obama's race will be the primary factor in this election.

You have absolutely nothing to back such a claim up with and ALL scientific polls indicate otherwise. Racism is not dead, but it is not the prevelant mentality many on this board make it out to be.

[The Senator]

Hagee's comments are inexcusable. Wright's comments, however hypocritical they may be, make sense from an oppressed black perspective.

But then, from a Christian perspective, don't Hagee's comments make sense?

Homosexuality is considered immoral by many Christians. Wouldn't a gay pride parade trigger an unholy wrath from God? Doesn't it make sense that he wiped out New Orleans because of their sinful behavior?

Back to Wright...I'm sick and tired of reading how African American preachers like Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton can say whatever they want to about white people, no matter how ignorant and false it is. "White people invented HIV to kill the Africans!" "White people do nothing but keep the black man down!" Those are utter lies and do nothing to alleviate the racial tensions in this country. But, of course, they're only saying these things because African Americans were oppressed at one point in our country's history-- and therefore it is justified.

This has got to stop on both sides, otherwise this will never end.