The Obama Thread (Merged x6) [Archive] - Page 41

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 01:25 PM

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.

First of all, Wright never said that 3,000 innocent people deserved to die. Second, a lot of people think that HIV was "invented to kill Africans"...especially elderly African-Americans. With the Tuskegee Experiment as an example, it's not too much of a stretch. It certainly is the worst thing Wright has said, since there's no proof for it...but that's one comment and it's a view shared by a lot of people who are NOT bigots.

moraldeficiency

06-09-2008, 01:28 PM

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.

Attack, no, and it really wouldn't be a big deal except she expressly said she would not stay with a man that cheated on her to the public, then turned around and did that exact thing. It goes to character and if she never made that comment I wouldn't be saying ****, but she did and I am. I'm not sure I'm attacking her as much as pointing out an obvious lie showing her as a hypocrite and someone that will turn her back on her values to do the politically expedient thing. I believe personal buisness should stay personal unless you do something like say make a public statement regarding it. Then it's open game.

I also wouldn't be talking about her "military experience" if she hadn't stupidly made those repeated sniper comments insulting anyone in this country that's actually had to face enemy fire, but she did and I call her on that too. Sorry but that's the way I'm always going to regard public statements.

Maybe no one will ever no the real truth to either of those statements so we're just going to have to use what she actually said and weigh that against the facts of what happened, just like we do with everyone else.

moraldeficiency

06-09-2008, 01:30 PM

First of all, Wright never said that 3,000 innocent people deserved to die. Second, a lot of people think that HIV was "invented to kill Africans"...especially elderly African-Americans. With the Tuskegee Experiment as an example, it's not too much of a stretch. It certainly is the worst thing Wright has said, since there's no proof for it...but that's one comment and it's a view shared by a lot of people who are NOT bigots.

define bigot, cause I think we have different dictionaries.

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 01:31 PM

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.

You treat this "oppression of African-Americans" like it's a thing of the past. Like I've said before, the white superiority perspective went straight from oppressing and segregating black people in blatantly brutal ways to setting up black communities for failure and calling black people racists for complaining about their conditions in a country that's "equal". To assume that Obama got a free ride BECAUSE he was black or that preachers get away with comments BECAUSE they are black is assuming the white superiority standpoint that has not gone away.

The Senator

06-09-2008, 01:32 PM

First of all, Wright never said that 3,000 innocent people deserved to die.

He didn't say that, but he implied it. Of course, that's not in my argument above, is it?

Second, a lot of people think that HIV was "invented to kill Africans"...especially elderly African-Americans. With the Tuskegee Experiment as an example, it's not too much of a stretch. It certainly is the worst thing Wright has said, since there's no proof for it...but that's one comment and it's a view shared by a lot of people who are NOT bigots.

But again... you're willing to make excuses for Jeremiah Wright, but not John Hagee? I think it's totally retarded to think that white folks invented a disease to kill black people. What if I said that the U.S. invented HIV to kill gay people? Doesn't that make sense, too? Maybe they invented it to kill drug addicts? Or the Chinese? Or every demographic which has been beaten down by this brutal disease?

Jeremiah Wright is a total asstard, and if anyone thinks that the United States manufactured a disease because it hates black people (and considering gays were the first group of people blamed for the disease, that makes this claim all the less intelligent), they need to get their head examined.

This is why racism exists-- because some people are willing to make up nonsense and stake the blame on one race. Saying that white folks invented HIV to kill black people is no better than saying that if you kiss a black person, you will get hepatitis.

Varient

06-09-2008, 01:32 PM

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.

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.)

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."

Scary that three individuals can discount that as the exact reason why he doesn't get elected,... that the US isn't ready.

Heaven forbid that 45 years after the civil rights movement that has us all using the same toilets and resturants and sleeping facilities in a country that STILL has Fully white racist organizations and knots of exclusively white communities that RACE could be a viable reason that he's not elected.

(disgust)

It's Just GOTTA BE that Obama is flawed or has made mistakes - NOTHING ELSE.

V.

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 01:34 PM

According to my dictionary, a bigot is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

Darthphere

06-09-2008, 01:35 PM

Scary that three individuals can discount that as the exact reason why he doesn't get elected,... that the US isn't ready.

Heaven forbid that 45 years after the civil rights movement that has us all using the same toilets and resturants and sleeping facilities in a country that STILL has Fully white racist organizations and knots of exclusively white communities that RACE could be a viable reason that he's not elected.

(disgust)

It's Just GOTTA BE that Obama is flawed or has made mistakes - NOTHING ELSE.

V.

So you're on the record saying that if Obama isn't elected president that in your honest to God opinion it's because he's black. That's what you're saying.

The Senator

06-09-2008, 01:35 PM

You treat this "oppression of African-Americans" like it's a thing of the past. Like I've said before, the white superiority perspective went straight from oppressing and segregating black people in blatantly brutal ways to setting up black communities for failure and calling black people racists for complaining about their conditions in a country that's "equal". To assume that Obama got a free ride BECAUSE he was black or that preachers get away with comments BECAUSE they are black is assuming the white superiority standpoint that has not gone away.

No laws currently exist on the books which prohibit black people from living due to their race.

None.

Every case of racism is on a person-by-person basis. It is an individual crime, not the crime of society. You're blaming all of society for something which a select group of individuals do. You're scapegoating, instead of sucking it up and facing this adversity and moving past it.

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 01:38 PM

He didn't say that, but he implied it. Of course, that's not in my argument above, is it?

But again... you're willing to make excuses for Jeremiah Wright, but not John Hagee? I think it's totally retarded to think that white folks invented a disease to kill black people. What if I said that the U.S. invented HIV to kill gay people? Doesn't that make sense, too? Maybe they invented it to kill drug addicts? Or the Chinese? Or every demographic which has been beaten down by this brutal disease?

Jeremiah Wright is a total asstard, and if anyone thinks that the United States manufactured a disease because it hates black people (and considering gays were the first group of people blamed for the disease, that makes this claim all the less intelligent), they need to get their head examined.

This is why racism exists-- because some people are willing to make up nonsense and stake the blame on one race. Saying that white folks invented HIV to kill black people is no better than saying that if you kiss a black person, you will get hepatitis.

He never implied it, but no, that's not your argument...that's Matt's.

The United States has a history of hating black people. Anyone who says otherwise does need to get their head examined. And Wright did not say "white people" in general invented HIV, he said the white government as a part of institutionalized racism.

The Senator

06-09-2008, 01:41 PM

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 01:44 PM

No laws currently exist on the books which prohibit black people from living due to their race.

None.

Every case of racism is on a person-by-person basis. It is an individual crime, not the crime of society. You're blaming all of society for something which a select group of individuals do. You're scapegoating, instead of sucking it up and facing this adversity and moving past it.

It is the crime of society. The only that has changed is the government's laws (and that is only a recent change historically). Little children are still being taught to be racist...and scapegoating black people and claiming double standards based on the words of a few blacks fighting for Civil Rights is racism plain and simple.

moraldeficiency

06-09-2008, 01:44 PM

According to my dictionary, a bigot is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

So then if someone thought that a massive conspiracy was being carried out by one race against another without any proof they would be what?

A. a bigot
B. an idiot
C. both A & B
D. paranoid due to mental illness

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 01:45 PM

Oh, well, what a horrible, awful mistake on my part, then.

He believes that the white government invented HIV/ AIDS. I guess that changes things. :whatever:

Due to the government's history of institutionalized racism, of course that changes things. :o

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 01:45 PM

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 01:48 PM

So then if someone thought that a massive conspiracy was being carried out by one race against another without any proof they would be what?

As far as I know (since I don't look up whether or not a race created a disease to wipe out another), there is circumstantial evidence for the claim, however extremist it may be. It's enough to make certain people believe it even if there is no damning evidence that I'm aware of. I'll have to look into it some more. But historically, a person has a solid basis for claiming that a "massive conspiracy" was being carried out.

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 01:49 PM

by ignorant parents....the state government isn't marching in there and teaching them to hate

So you're saying that the government shouldn't answer for the long-lasting consequences of its actions?

moraldeficiency

06-09-2008, 01:52 PM

He never implied it, but no, that's not your argument...that's Matt's.

The United States has a history of hating black people. Anyone who says otherwise does need to get their head examined. And Wright did not say "white people" in general invented HIV, he said the white government as a part of institutionalized racism.

But then we can go down that part to eventually seeing that black people have a history of hating black people too, since all original slaves were sold to whites by other blacks. So maybe it's these black hating blacks that started HIV as a way of killing the other blacks they don't like? As stupid as that argument is, it makes just as much sense and is rooted in even more history than your argument.

The United States also has a history of hating every race on the planet, every religion, every handicap, every sexual preference (including straight vanilla sex), people of different heights, people of different hairstyles, etc...... get where I'm going? But even saying that, the US is worlds better in terms of tolerance than any other place I've ever lived hands down. That's one of the big reasons I decided to move and live here.

Marx

06-09-2008, 01:54 PM

So you're saying that the government shouldn't answer for the long-lasting consequences of its actions?

Have I somehow missed the part where our government still actively pushing racism in the country?

Our country has largely moved beyond issues of racism, despite certain activists who still try to chain us to it in an attempt to make themselves remain relevent.

Varient

06-09-2008, 01:56 PM

So you're on the record saying that if Obama isn't elected president that in your honest to God opinion it's because he's black. That's what you're saying.

???

"ON THE RECORD?"

LOL.

I have NOT changed my tune since this thread started.

THIS COUNTRY IS IN NO WAY READY FOR A BLACK PRESIDENT.

THE BLACK MAN IN QUESTION COULD BE THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST AND STILL NOT GET ELECTED HERE.

I STILL SAY THAT WE ARE AT LEAST TEN YEARS AWAY FROM THIS COUNTRY BEING MATURE ENOUGH TO STOP MAKING EXCUSES AND WHINING LIKE A STUCK PIG, AND THREATENING VIOLENCE IF IT HAPPENS.

I HAVE "NO" FAITH THAT THIS COUNTRY COULD ELECT A BLACK MAN UNDER "ANY" CIRCUMSTANCE AT THIS TIME.

*ahem* There's your record - and I'll add that the proof is in the pudding with the overlarge amount of penny-ante BS that has been thrown up on OBAMA that isn't even considered in other canidates.

There are people who will *****/whine/complain no matter what ANY black man does toward or in the office of President,.. and it will be all because he's black.

I remain disgusted that you and a few others don't see it as a viable reason in the face of the institutionalized racism that still exists.

V.

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 01:57 PM

I don't agree with Varient all that much....but IMO he is 100 percent right....I do hope I am proven wrong one day though

Darthphere

06-09-2008, 01:57 PM

???

"ON THE RECORD?"

LOL.

I have NOT changed my tune since this thread started.

THIS COUNTRY IS IN NO WAY READY FOR A BLACK PRESIDENT.

THE BLACK MAN IN QUESTION COULD BE THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST AND STILL NOT GET ELECTED HERE.

I STILL SAY THAT WE ARE AT LEAST TEN YEARS AWAY FROM THIS COUNTRY BEING MATURE ENOUGH TO STOP MAKING EXCUSES AND WHINING LIKE A STUCK PIG, AND THREATENING VIOLENCE IF IT HAPPENS.

I HAVE "NO" FAITH THAT THIS COUNTRY COULD ELECT A BLACK MAN UNDER "ANY" CIRCUMSTANCE AT THIS TIME.

*ahem* There's your record - and I'll add that the proof is in the pudding with the overlarge amount of penny-ante BS that has been thrown up on OBAMA that isn't even considered in other canidates.

There are people who will *****/whine/complain no matter what ANY black man does toward or in the office of President,.. and it will be all because he's black.

I remain disgusted that you and a few others don't see it as a viable reason in the face of the institutionalized racism that still exists.

V.

You just cemented the fact you are indeed the biggest racist on these boards.

"Obama lost, it must be because he's black!"

That is disgusting.

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 01:57 PM

But then we can go down that part to eventually seeing that black people have a history of hating black people too, since all original slaves were sold to whites by other blacks. So maybe it's these black hating blacks that started HIV as a way of killing the other blacks they don't like? As stupid as that argument is, it makes just as much sense and is rooted in even more history than your argument.

We're not talking about slavery, we're talking about racism.

Have I somehow missed the part where our government still actively pushing racism in the country?

Not blatantly, hence the "long-lasting consequences".

The Senator

06-09-2008, 01:58 PM

It is the crime of society. The only that has changed is the government's laws (and that is only a recent change historically). Little children are still being taught to be racist...and scapegoating black people and claiming double standards based on the words of a few blacks fighting for Civil Rights is racism plain and simple.

It's not my fault that some bigot in West Virginia believes that black people are the scum of the earth, and it's not my fault that they are teaching their children this stuff, either. I think you're acting like a big baby, blaming all of society for something that varies on an individual, case-by-case basis. There is nothing I nor anyone else can do to stop Bucktooth B. Redneck from teaching his daughter that marrying a black man will make her evil and ugly. Nothing. And there's nothing the government can do to stop it.

So, get off your "woe is me" horse and start doing something to stop all of these injustices, instead of blaming people who have nothing to do with racism for the racist acts which occur in this country.

Marx

06-09-2008, 02:00 PM

moraldeficiency

06-09-2008, 02:00 PM

As far as I know (since I don't look up whether or not a race created a disease to wipe out another),

The spanish started that concept a long time ago to get rid of those pesky natives living in the americas.

there is circumstantial evidence for the claim, however extremist it may be.

Please show this. And I do hope it's better than the "Jews orchrastrated 9/11" one, or at least equally funny.

It's enough to make certain people believe it even if there is no damning evidence that I'm aware of. I'll have to look into it some more. But historically, a person has a solid basis for claiming that a "massive conspiracy" was being carried out.

Do I have a basis to hate all english people for what they did to my ancestors? Would a native american be justified by coming into your house and scalping you cause black regiments in the past massacred natives just like the whites and they've been oppressed much more viciously than any black person could testify to? Ok, maybe that last one was too far but would they be justified just mistrusting and hating all black and white people because of what their ancestors did, or maybe not even ancestors but what people of the same color did?

moraldeficiency

06-09-2008, 02:06 PM

We're not talking about slavery, we're talking about racism.

Yes, cause they're completely unrelated.

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 02:07 PM

It's not my fault that some bigot in West Virginia believes that black people are the scum of the earth, and it's not my fault that they are teaching their children this stuff, either. I think you're acting like a big baby, blaming all of society for something that varies on an individual, case-by-case basis. There is nothing I nor anyone else can do to stop Bucktooth B. Redneck from teaching his daughter that marrying a black man will make her evil and ugly. Nothing. And there's nothing the government can do to stop it.

So, get off your "woe is me" horse and start doing something to stop all of these injustices, instead of blaming people who have nothing to do with racism for the racist acts which occur in this country.

I'm not blaming you for what anyone else chooses to teach their children. I'm blaming you for making comments like "start doing something to stop all of these injustices" as if people haven't already started. I'm blaming you for enforcing the idea of a double standard that favors black people in race relations. I'm blaming you for taking Wright's comments out of context and calling him a racist based on slightly controversial soundbites.

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 02:09 PM

Do I have a basis to hate all english people for what they did to my ancestors? Would a native american be justified by coming into your house and scalping you cause black regiments in the past massacred natives just like the whites and they've been oppressed much more viciously than any black person could testify to? Ok, maybe that last one was too far but would they be justified just mistrusting and hating all black and white people because of what their ancestors did, or maybe not even ancestors but what people of the same color did?

No, just like I don't have a basis to hate all white people. Give me proof that Wright hates all white people...or even white people in general.

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 02:10 PM

I'm not blaming you for what anyone else chooses to teach their children. I'm blaming you for making comments like "start doing something to stop all of these injustices" as if people haven't already started. I'm blaming you for enforcing the idea of a double standard that favors black people in race relations. I'm blaming you for taking Wright's comments out of context and calling him a racist based on slightly controversial soundbites.

He is a pastor....a supposed "Man of God"...if he has said opinions, he shouldn't be airing them publicly and as vehemently as he has been

Varient

06-09-2008, 02:11 PM

You just cemented the fact you are indeed the biggest racist on these boards.

"Obama lost, it must be because he's black!"

That is disgusting.

LOL
try harder.

There is NOTHING RACIST in believing that with all the obvious indicators in place that America remains unready to accept a black president.

You and a few other weaklings are just trying to forstall the obvious to defend your position.

When America no longer tolerates the multitude of openly racist organizations, when America can release and recompensense the HUNDREDS of blacks put into jail for YEARS for things that got whites a slap on the wrist, at worst, Not counting the HUNDREDS found innocent AFTER the advent of DNA testing - when COLOR doesn't come up in the election of ANY CANIDATE -

then I will believe it to be possible - and we remain a half generation away from that.

V.

Matt

06-09-2008, 02:12 PM

???

"ON THE RECORD?"

LOL.

I have NOT changed my tune since this thread started.

THIS COUNTRY IS IN NO WAY READY FOR A BLACK PRESIDENT.

THE BLACK MAN IN QUESTION COULD BE THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST AND STILL NOT GET ELECTED HERE.

I STILL SAY THAT WE ARE AT LEAST TEN YEARS AWAY FROM THIS COUNTRY BEING MATURE ENOUGH TO STOP MAKING EXCUSES AND WHINING LIKE A STUCK PIG, AND THREATENING VIOLENCE IF IT HAPPENS.

I HAVE "NO" FAITH THAT THIS COUNTRY COULD ELECT A BLACK MAN UNDER "ANY" CIRCUMSTANCE AT THIS TIME.

*ahem* There's your record - and I'll add that the proof is in the pudding with the overlarge amount of penny-ante BS that has been thrown up on OBAMA that isn't even considered in other canidates.

There are people who will *****/whine/complain no matter what ANY black man does toward or in the office of President,.. and it will be all because he's black.

I remain disgusted that you and a few others don't see it as a viable reason in the face of the institutionalized racism that still exists.

V.

But why should we elect Barack Obama? You seem to be saying we should elect him for no reason other than he is black and that if he loses, that too is because of no reason other than him being black. Is Barack Obama capable of winning or losing based on his policies, beliefs, and personality? I mean, if anyone is being racist here, it is you, as you are essentially saying "Barack Obama is nothing more than a black person and that is what defines him."

Marx

06-09-2008, 02:15 PM

Darthphere

06-09-2008, 02:17 PM

LOL
try harder.

There is NOTHING RACIST in believing that with all the obvious indicators in place that America remains unready to accept a black president.

You and a few other weaklings are just trying to forstall the obvious to defend your position.

When America no longer tolerates the multitude of openly racist organizations, when America can release and recompensense the HUNDREDS of blacks put into jail for YEARS for things that got whites a slap on the wrist, at worst, Not counting the HUNDREDS found innocent AFTER the advent of DNA testing - when COLOR doesn't come up in the election of ANY CANIDATE -

then I will believe it to be possible - and we remain a half generation away from that.

V.

I suppose you want your reparations check as well right?

Look, allow me to put this as simple as possible into perspective for you. If this primary has shown us anything it's that indeed we have made a huge stride in the right direction. A black man has a great chance at becoming president of the United States of America. A better chance than any other minority. A better chance than a woman. Realistically speaking, if Obama doesn't win this time around, he could do it in 4 years. The same can't be said for any woman or for example a hispanic. The problem with people like you is simple. You want change, the change Obama would represent and promises to bring to the US but you keep living in the past. Until you people (yes, you people as in african-americans) learn to let go of the past, mind you not forget, let go, we will never move forward as a society.

Varient

06-09-2008, 02:18 PM

I remain disgusted that you are willing to pin a potential Obama loss in November on race. No one is denying that racism still exists. The point is that the country has largely moved on. If Obama loses, it will be because he wasn't the messiah everyone thought he would be. If he loses, it will be because he just wasn't a good enough candidate. Will racism factor in? Probably a little in some states. But in the overall picture, no it will not.

Then we are disgusted together.
I live in a world where his lost is predestined REGARDLESS of the quality of his character BECAUSE the US can't hack the thought of a Black man in the highest office.

The amount of WHINING I hear whenever a blackman runs for any office above "Dog catcher" or any schooling above community college has become a steady drone it's so constant.

I have no clue where you exist where you believe that his race is a secondary concern.

V.

Mr Sparkle

06-09-2008, 02:20 PM

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...

are you really going to pretend that race doesn't play a part in elections?
especially since older people vote in larger numbers than the young?

moraldeficiency

06-09-2008, 02:21 PM

No, just like I don't have a basis to hate all white people. Give me proof that Wright hates all white people...or even white people in general.

You mean more than his comments? Gee I don't have a photocopy of his "I hate white people" club card. But when obama dropped him because of the racist comments and had to actually deliever a speech on racism distancing himself from wright because of it, there just might be something there.

So for my proof I have the man's own comments plus the actions of his own (former) parishoners. What do you have for the whole "white people made AIDS to kill the blacks" argument? Is it possible you've confused white people with doctor doom, cause that's a fairly common mistake?

Darthphere

06-09-2008, 02:22 PM

are you really going to pretend that race doesn't play a part in elections?
especially since older people vote in larger numbers than the young?

Sparky, or is it Spickle:o, none of us are denying the fact that racism exists and plays some part in politics. But to say it's a major road block is a bit exaggerated.

Darthphere

06-09-2008, 02:22 PM

You mean more than his comments? Gee I don't have a photocopy of his "I hate white people" club card. But when obama dropped him because of the racist comments and had to actually deliever a speech on racism distancing himself from wright because of it, there just might be something there.

So for my proof I have the man's own comments plus the actions of his own (former) parishoners. What do you have for the whole "white people made AIDS to kill the blacks" argument? Is it possible you've confused white people with doctor doom, cause that's a fairly common mistake?

I do.

Marx

06-09-2008, 02:23 PM

Then we are disgusted together.
I live in a world where his lost is predestined REGARDLESS of the quality of his character BECAUSE the US can't hack the thought of a Black man in the highest office.

The amount of WHINING I hear whenever a blackman runs for any office above "Dog catcher" or any schooling above community college has become a steady drone it's so constant.

I have no clue where you exist where you believe that his race is a secondary concern.

V.

I live in a world where he was elected the Democratic nominee...and became the first minority to ever lead a major political party ticket. I live in a world where racism is no longer a major issue. A world in which any potential Obama loss lies with him and his pumped up "save the world" mentality.

That's not to say, however, that racism in some form does not still exist. It will play a small part in some states. But the mentality that he is predestined to lose because of his race is not representative of the larger picture in this country.

Mr Sparkle

06-09-2008, 02:24 PM

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.

I think I asked you before, and so far I have gotten no satisfactory answer.
when and in which speech did Wright say that the 3,000 people in the twi towers deserved to die?:huh:

moraldeficiency

06-09-2008, 02:25 PM

Then we are disgusted together.
I live in a world where his lost is predestined REGARDLESS of the quality of his character BECAUSE the US can't hack the thought of a Black man in the highest office.

The amount of WHINING I hear whenever a blackman runs for any office above "Dog catcher" or any schooling above community college has become a steady drone it's so constant.

I have no clue where you exist where you believe that his race is a secondary concern.

V.

You know, I bet that's the same thing they said about every barrier for any people until someone actually broke that barrier and proved them wrong. Nothing is easy and being the first is always impossible until it's done.

And right now I would elect hitler if he could bring down gas prices and end the war, so I'd say race is the secondary concern to anyone that values things like money or their friends getting shot over the skin color of the president.

moraldeficiency

06-09-2008, 02:26 PM

I do.

I actually have one too. Irish immigrants don't count as real white people apparently, plus there are way too many blacks in my family.

Darthphere

06-09-2008, 02:29 PM

And right now I would elect hitler if he could bring down gas prices and end the war, so I'd say race is the secondary concern to anyone that values things like money or their friends getting shot over the skin color of the president.

You know the jews take a hit but the middle class would rise up again.:o

That was terrible.:csad:

Mr Sparkle

06-09-2008, 02:30 PM

So you're on the record saying that if Obama isn't elected president that in your honest to God opinion it's because he's black. That's what you're saying.

and apparently you are on the record as saying that if Obama isn't elected president, regardless of the fact that in 2004 experience was not a factor, and that the last 8 years have not been the best for your economy, or the fact that McCain the opposing candidate, has in the last year or so, aligned himself completely with the party he used to be at odds with, you're saying that despite those facts, if Obama loses, the fact that he was black had nothing to do with it?
are you on the record on that?
really? because it's hilarious to me, that I have seen racism, when I was young it was still pretty normal , the civil rights struggle ended in the early seventies more than 100 years after the emancipation proclamation, and you think since you haven't seen the worst of it, or you and your parents aren't racists everything is hunky-dory.
wrong.
seriously dudes.:whatever:

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 02:31 PM

I live in a world where he was elected the Democratic nominee...and became the first minority to ever lead a major political party ticket. I live in a world where racism is no longer a major issue. A world in which any potential Obama loss lies with him and his pumped up "save the world" mentality.

No...you live in a place where those things don't matter....There are parts of this country where black people are still afraid to either live in or drive through because of the prevalent racism in parts of this country...

moraldeficiency

06-09-2008, 02:32 PM

You know the jews take a hit but the middle class would rise up again.:o

That was terrible.:csad:

I'm pretty sure I'm going to hell for laughing at that. Ok, so I was already probably going to hell but now I'm going to the hell with celine dion music. *shudders*

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 02:32 PM

A world in which any potential Obama loss lies with him and his pumped up "save the world" mentality.

No, I don't think you live in that world.

Marx

06-09-2008, 02:32 PM

No...you live in a place where those things don't matter....There are parts of this country where black people are still afraid to either live in or drive through because of the prevalent racism in parts of this country...

Well I just think that to say racism will be THE issue that ends the Obama campaign is ridiculous.

Marx

06-09-2008, 02:33 PM

No, I don't think you live in that world.

I live in a world outside the 50's and 60's Forest.

Darthphere

06-09-2008, 02:34 PM

and apparently you are on the record as saying that if Obama isn't elected president, regardless of the fact that in 2004 experience was not a factor, and that the last 8 years have not been the best for your economy, or the fact that McCain the opposing candidate, has in the last year or so, aligned himself completely with the party he used to be at odds with, you're saying that despite those facts, if Obama loses, the fact that he was black had nothing to do with it?
are you on the record on that?
really? because it's hilarious to me, that I have seen racism, when I was young it was still pretty normal , the civil rights struggle ended in the early seventies more than 100 years after the emancipation proclamation, and you think since you haven't seen the worst of it, or you and your parents aren't racists everything is hunky-dory.
wrong.
seriously dudes.:whatever:

You can't really compare a Senate run to a Presidential run, you can't. Having people with little to no experience run for Congress and win are a lot more common than Presidential runs with little to no experience ending in victory.

Race is going to play a factor, again, you can't deny that. But to say that Obama will lose solely because he's black is both ignorant and idiotic.

moraldeficiency

06-09-2008, 02:35 PM

No...you live in a place where those things don't matter....There are parts of this country where black people are still afraid to either live in or drive through because of the prevalent racism in parts of this country...

Yeah, but why the hell would you want to drive through alabama or south carolina anyway?

Mr Sparkle

06-09-2008, 02:35 PM

Sparky, or is it Spickle:o, none of us are denying the fact that racism exists and plays some part in politics. But to say it's a major road block is a bit exaggerated.

I don't know, it's hard to believe but even Matt thought this to be true less than 2 years ago, as to why things have changed? who knows, I still know that many people will NOT vote for the dude, simply because he is black, and yes, he has little experience, but the weird thing is

experience in what?
this is the same argument given time and time again to justify not giving a job to a newcomer, I found that in business it is often the best practice to give the difficult job to someone with less experience than all the other super-experienced/old candidates, as they are far more settled and less open to new ideas than the newcomer "we just don;t do things that way" is the argument often used.
so yeah, I do think that race will play a big part in this, as I have seen my inbox flooded with e-mails about Obama's patriotism,religion, race etc.
it's sickening as the only e-mails i get about McCain is how damned awesome he is.

The Senator

06-09-2008, 02:42 PM

I'm not blaming you for what anyone else chooses to teach their children. I'm blaming you for making comments like "start doing something to stop all of these injustices" as if people haven't already started.

What does that have to do with anything? You should be getting off your ass and fighting to end these injustices. Yeah, there are others fighting it, but maybe you should expand the movement. Sitting here on a message board, *****ing about all the racial injustices in the world isn't going to solve these problems.

I'm blaming you for enforcing the idea of a double standard that favors black people in race relations.

I don't quite follow. What the hell are you talking about?

I'm blaming you for taking Wright's comments out of context and calling him a racist based on slightly controversial soundbites.

But they are racist. He said that the white government invented HIV/ AIDS to kill black people. If I said that black people invented lupus to kill off white Americans, you'd say I'm a racist. Or call me stupid. I don't see what Wright said as anything less than what I listed above.

Mr Sparkle

06-09-2008, 02:43 PM

You can't really compare a Senate run to a Presidential run, you can't. Having people with little to no experience run for Congress and win are a lot more common than Presidential runs with little to no experience ending in victory.

Race is going to play a factor, again, you can't deny that. But to say that Obama will lose solely because he's black is both ignorant and idiotic.

hahaha, settle down sweetheart.
we disagree simple as that.
the last election there was no way one could say that Personality was a deciding factor, to think that someone would solely vote on a candidates personality (because Kerry had more experience and had been far more bi-partisan than Bush) would be ignorant and idiotic right?
:huh:
wrong, many people voted solely on personality, I had endless discussions here about who was a traitor and who betrayed his band of brothers, when surely a vietnam vet has a guy who didn't even go to Vietnam beat on patriotism right?
wrong.
because people hate "intellectuals" thus Kerry sucked it big time, so factors that one could deem "idiotic" often end up deciding an election.
I think that if people can spend their Saturdays at home depot screaming at Mexican/Venezuelans/Colombians , on their days off, then it is almost a certainty that these kinds of people would galvanize and organize to simply vote against Obama.
I think it's very likely and in fact, naive to think otherwise.
plus, I think that many people that don;t even think they are that racist will discover new and interesting things about themselves.

Varient

06-09-2008, 02:46 PM

But why should we elect Barack Obama? You seem to be saying we should elect him for no reason other than he is black and that if he loses, that too is because of no reason other than him being black. Is Barack Obama capable of winning or losing based on his policies, beliefs, and personality? I mean, if anyone is being racist here, it is you, as you are essentially saying "Barack Obama is nothing more than a black person and that is what defines him."

Nope.
I'm maintaining that he CANNOT be elected because he is black - not that YOU should elect him because he's black.

He's not really being judged by character. And as long as the media searches for and too easily finds person after person to define him as "only" a black person - he will not be no matter what you believe.

I'm seeing what people are saying who are against him,... you don't seem to be.
If I were not afraid of folk latching onto my own reasons why I won't vote for him,... because they couldn't cook up better than "He smokes" or "He lacks experience" I'd give GOOD reasons to not vote for him.

ALWAYS horrifying for me as a black man to have legit reasons to say no when surrounded by folk who do not.

I agree Matt. (But it's just another thing to add to list of things that I've been called here on the Hype for not jumping from the rooftops with excitement for Barack Obama.)
Please.

Please name the "last" such person running for office that you did ANYTHING from the rooftops for.

V.

Crowforge

06-09-2008, 02:48 PM

Anyway I'll be glad when the race of the candidate no longer matters to anyone. I through with this discussion.

Mr Sparkle

06-09-2008, 02:49 PM

I glad, me still interested so me stay and watch.

The Senator

06-09-2008, 02:54 PM

are you really going to pretend that race doesn't play a part in elections?
especially since older people vote in larger numbers than the young?

I didn't say race doesn't play a part in elections.

However, if he could win over blue collar voters, he could have a huge, sustainable voting bloc for him which would make up for the loss of the "racist" vote.

If he can win blue collar voters, he can win states like Indiana and Ohio and he wouldn't have to appeal to Southern, stereotypical racists in the South.

But if he doesn't appeal to these voters, he will probably lose worse than if just the "racists" voted against him. It's surprising how people fail to realize that winning and losing elections comes down to who you appeal to, not who hates you. If Obama never has a chance of winning because of his race, then how did he win the Democratic nomination in the first place?

Mr Sparkle

06-09-2008, 02:57 PM

you do know that blue collar voters are more likely to be racist?
did you factor that in?

moraldeficiency

06-09-2008, 03:00 PM

you do know that blue collar voters are more likely to be racist?
did you factor that in?

Now come on, that's like saying all white collar workers are elitiest ******* pricks without conception of what actually working for a living is like.

Mr Sparkle

06-09-2008, 03:01 PM

Now come on, that's like saying all white collar workers are elitiest ******* pricks without conception of what actually working for a living is like.

no, that's like saying white collar workers are more likely to be elitist pricks.
I've worked with both and know both to be true.

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 03:03 PM

I think to assume Obama will lose because of his race and only his race is a bit extreme....

moraldeficiency

06-09-2008, 03:06 PM

no, that's like saying white collar workers are more likely to be elitist pricks.
I've worked with both and know both to be true.

Now I basically agree with what you're saying but then when I think about that it seems really pretentious to think or say that without any real facts other than a "based on the limited number of people I've met and that being filthered through my own unique perspective" type feeling, which I know isn't really worth ****.

Mr Sparkle

06-09-2008, 03:08 PM

Now I basically agree with what you're saying but then when I think about that it seems really pretentious to think or say that without any real facts other than a "based on the limited number of people I've met and that being filthered through my own unique perspective" type feeling, which I know isn't really worth ****.

and I agree with you on that, I just don't have the inclination to research the racist/spoiled factor on white to blue collar workers.

Varient

06-09-2008, 03:19 PM

I suppose you want your reparations check as well right?

Look, allow me to put this as simple as possible into perspective for you. If this primary has shown us anything it's that indeed we have made a huge stride in the right direction. A black man has a great chance at becoming president of the United States of America. A better chance than any other minority. A better chance than a woman. Realistically speaking, if Obama doesn't win this time around, he could do it in 4 years. The same can't be said for any woman or for example a hispanic. The problem with people like you is simple. You want change, the change Obama would represent and promises to bring to the US but you keep living in the past. Until you people (yes, you people as in african-americans) learn to let go of the past, mind you not forget, let go, we will never move forward as a society.

your short term memory is shot - otherwise you'd remember my stance on reparations from our last convo.
I don't deny strides have been made - try harder not to be so insulting. THE FACT that we are even having this convo proves that.

What you keep glossing over (no surprise) is where things stand at this moment.

Your major malfunction is this need to ignore what tears down your position.

You speak of the past? From the 1890's to present day History is full of white after white telling blacks to "get over it" and move on, while other whites continue to beat, rape,kill or mistreat blacks. Currently I can search w/o effort EASILY online to find DAILY cases of racial prejudice against blacks by whites in most places it matters - in residence, in schooling, and with occupation.

The current excuse is that because the government is no longer activily supporting such things that for the most part race no longer is a factor.

Meh.

If it were that easy,... the fighting to keep my kids in school,...the countless other things I must remain on guard for from those who will trip me up just because of my color - wouldn't be an issue. LOL "Living in the past?" Baby,.. I'm dealing with current events and that shapes my current position.

I was surprised when the gambit that I saw Hilliary pulling at the last moment fell through - after all it had worked for others for the last two hundred years,... but it doesn't change the fact that Obama getting elected ain't happening because the country isn't ready.

It's not racist to know better when every indicator sez so.

You guys are dreaming.

V.

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 03:21 PM

Varient....thats' what you get for living in America's armpit....The South....I kid, I kid....

I see your points though...

Marx

06-09-2008, 03:43 PM

Please.

Please name the "last" such person running for office that you did ANYTHING from the rooftops for.

V.

I've been called a liar, a hypocrit, and now a racist for not supporting Barack Obama. None of which are true. And not all by you.

As for political excitement, I was very enthusiastic about Al Gore and my Ohio Governor, Ted Strickland.

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 03:46 PM

What does that have to do with anything? You should be getting off your ass and fighting to end these injustices. Yeah, there are others fighting it, but maybe you should expand the movement. Sitting here on a message board, *****ing about all the racial injustices in the world isn't going to solve these problems.

Sitting here on a message board *****ing about people *****ing about racial injustice isn't going to solve any problems either...yet here we are.

I don't quite follow. What the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about your claims that race doesn't play a primary role in this election or that black people are partly to blame for race relations.

But they are racist. He said that the white government invented HIV/ AIDS to kill black people. If I said that black people invented lupus to kill off white Americans, you'd say I'm a racist. Or call me stupid. I don't see what Wright said as anything less than what I listed above.

I'd ask why you would think that.

Marx

06-09-2008, 03:50 PM

Sitting here on a message board *****ing about people *****ing about racial injustice isn't going to solve any problems either...yet here we are.

I'm talking about your claims that race doesn't play a primary role in this election or that black people are partly to blame for race relations.

I'd ask why you would think that.

Surely, you're not that dense Forest...

DACrowe

06-09-2008, 04:02 PM

Race won't be the only reason he loses the race, if he loses. But it will certainly play a factor in the critical swing voter rust belt states. You look at the primaries and he lost West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania by such large margins, you have to at least consider race played a part in those states; especially with the Jerimah Wright controversy in full swing at this time.

I think he needs to pick up at least 1-2 rust belt states (my money would be on Indiana and maybe Ohio), get Florida and open a pocket full of red states (Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, Nevada and maybe even North Carolina). I find Lousiana an interesting state as well. One would think it would go Democratic after seeing how poorly a Republican federal government treated them during the worst natural disaster in our history in 2005. Yet, most analysts are already projecting it as a McCain lock, which strikes me as odd.

Varient

06-09-2008, 04:12 PM

I've been called a liar, a hypocrit, and now a racist for not supporting Barack Obama. None of which are true. And not all by you.

As for political excitement, I was very enthusiastic about Al Gore and my Ohio Governor, Ted Strickland.

Not called you a liar, a hypocrite, or a racist.

If I were going to call you anything negative I'd call you a dreamer to believe this country has come far enough where race wouldn't be a determining factor in who becomes the President of the united states.

No heat,.. generally I call a person a liar for telling untruths by anyones standard, a hypocrite for requiring more than you do yourself, and a racist for putting limitations on a people based on color.

Not seein it.

As for myself,... I have and continue to have no faith in this country on anything of this magnitude.

V.

The Senator

06-09-2008, 04:15 PM

Sitting here on a message board *****ing about people *****ing about racial injustice isn't going to solve any problems either...yet here we are.

Yeah, or you could do something like join your local NAACP chapter like I did, and devote some of your time to the organization instead of whining about how awful racial problems are in this country.

I'm talking about your claims that race doesn't play a primary role in this election or that black people are partly to blame for race relations.

But race won't play a primary role in Obama's loss. How did he become the Democratic nominee if America has such a huge race problem? Over 2/3 of the contests were open primaries, meaning anyone could vote for Hillary instead of Obama and vice versa. If folks were so dead set against Obama, don't you think they would have turned out to help defeat him in southern states like Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Alabama and Virginia? Yet, he won those states with about 60-70% of the vote.

Racists could have destroyed Obama in Mississippi or North Carolina, but they didn't. Not even close.

I would say that, if Obama loses, the major reason why he loses will be because of his failures to connect to "Reagan Democrats" and blue collar voters.

And yes, black people are responsible for racial tensions. As are white people, asians, latinos, and other races. We are all responsible. If Jeremiah Wright says that white folks invented AIDS to kill the black man, I don't see how that is any worse than Bucktooth B. Redneck teaching his son that black people are evil. Both instances are hate speech. I believe that hate speech is unacceptable, regardless of its source or reasons.

I'd ask why you would think that.

Would think what?

That I think that hate speech from any source is uncalled for? Because I believe a verbal assault against white people is on the same level of grounds as a verbal assault against black folks? Because I believe that all races should be treated equally, and no one should get a free pass because of his or her skin color alone.

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 05:06 PM

Yeah, or you could do something like join your local NAACP chapter like I did, and devote some of your time to the organization instead of whining about how awful racial problems are in this country.

I'll do that as soon as I'm through on here. :whatever:

But race won't play a primary role in Obama's loss. How did he become the Democratic nominee if America has such a huge race problem? Over 2/3 of the contests were open primaries, meaning anyone could vote for Hillary instead of Obama and vice versa. If folks were so dead set against Obama, don't you think they would have turned out to help defeat him in southern states like Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Alabama and Virginia? Yet, he won those states with about 60-70% of the vote.

Racists could have destroyed Obama in Mississippi or North Carolina, but they didn't. Not even close.

I would say that, if Obama loses, the major reason why he loses will be because of his failures to connect to "Reagan Democrats" and blue collar voters.

One of the primary reasons he won't be able to connect with those voters is because of his race.

And yes, black people are responsible for racial tensions. As are white people, asians, latinos, and other races. We are all responsible. If Jeremiah Wright says that white folks invented AIDS to kill the black man, I don't see how that is any worse than Bucktooth B. Redneck teaching his son that black people are evil. Both instances are hate speech. I believe that hate speech is unacceptable, regardless of its source or reasons.

So you're saying an elderly preacher preaching anti-government sentiment from the pulpit is no different that a person inculcating in their child the hatred of another race?

Wow. :csad:

Would think what?

That black people made lupus.

That I think that hate speech from any source is uncalled for?

It is.

Because I believe a verbal assault against white people is on the same level of grounds as a verbal assault against black folks?

It's not.

Because I believe that all races should be treated equally, and no one should get a free pass because of his or her skin color alone.

That's all fine and dandy. I agree. But, if ANYONE is going to get a free pass due to their skin color in this country, it's a white person. Black people have come too far to have their accomplishments degraded to being a "free pass".

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 05:08 PM

still waiting for Jackson and Sharpton to apologize to the Duke athletes after calling them "barbarians"

Darthphere

06-09-2008, 05:13 PM

your short term memory is shot - otherwise you'd remember my stance on reparations from our last convo.
I don't deny strides have been made - try harder not to be so insulting. THE FACT that we are even having this convo proves that.

What you keep glossing over (no surprise) is where things stand at this moment.

Your major malfunction is this need to ignore what tears down your position.

You speak of the past? From the 1890's to present day History is full of white after white telling blacks to "get over it" and move on, while other whites continue to beat, rape,kill or mistreat blacks. Currently I can search w/o effort EASILY online to find DAILY cases of racial prejudice against blacks by whites in most places it matters - in residence, in schooling, and with occupation.

The current excuse is that because the government is no longer activily supporting such things that for the most part race no longer is a factor.

Meh.

If it were that easy,... the fighting to keep my kids in school,...the countless other things I must remain on guard for from those who will trip me up just because of my color - wouldn't be an issue. LOL "Living in the past?" Baby,.. I'm dealing with current events and that shapes my current position.

I was surprised when the gambit that I saw Hilliary pulling at the last moment fell through - after all it had worked for others for the last two hundred years,... but it doesn't change the fact that Obama getting elected ain't happening because the country isn't ready.

It's not racist to know better when every indicator sez so.

You guys are dreaming.

V.

I rather dream of a country that continues to make strides in equality than live in a self imposed hell where I'll never be able to move up the ladder in anything. You may like living there, but I don't. I rather be a dreamer than someone who thinks like you do. Its shocking that at the same time you scream and yell for change and equality and in the same breath continue the trends that block such progress from being made. It's saddening to see that you think change is a generation away as you put it when you can help bring change now. You almost make me want to vote for Obama just to prove you wrong.

The Senator

06-09-2008, 05:16 PM

I'll do that as soon as I'm through on here. :whatever:

You should. It might do you a world of good.

One of the primary reasons he won't be able to connect with those voters is because of his race.

Yeah, we've already been around this merry-go-round before. No use trying to prove you wrong when you won't budge. Black candidates have won elections before, so I don't see how his race will be the sole factor which derails him in the fall.

So you're saying an elderly preacher preaching anti-government sentiment from the pulpit is no different that a person inculcating in their child the hatred of another race?

Wow. :csad:

First of all, what does his age have to do with anything? Do you think I'm going to change my mind because Jeremiah Wright is a crazy old fart instead of a wise, young whipper-snapper :huh:

Second, he said that white America manufactured HIV to kill off an entire race of people. He is scapegoating the "white" government (which is stupid, considering there are black folks in government) for something it had no control over.

That black people made lupus.

Uh, I most certainly do not believe that. And if you're going to start questioning my integrity, then I have no reason to debate you. You're turning out to be just as ignorant as the people you speak out against.

It's not.

Why isn't it? Why do black people get first priority on the racist express? Why can a black person call a white person a "honky" but a white man can't say anything bad about black people? Black folks can lay all the blame on white folks, but if a white person said "maybe the black people should get off of welfare and start doing something with their lives," they would go ape****. I don't see how that's any different than saying "white people invented AIDS to kill black people because white people are evil!"

(I don't endorse these ideas, by the way-- I'm just pointing out what seems to be a double standard)

That's all fine and dandy. I agree. But, if ANYONE is going to get a free pass due to their skin color in this country, it's a white person. Black people have come too far to have their accomplishments degraded to being a "free pass".

Actually, some minority candidates get elected to office because of their skin color... that's why states set aside "majority-minority" districts, so that African Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc. can have representation in Congress...

Marx

06-09-2008, 05:16 PM

Not called you a liar, a hypocrite, or a racist.

If I were going to call you anything negative I'd call you a dreamer to believe this country has come far enough where race wouldn't be a determining factor in who becomes the President of the united states.

No heat,.. generally I call a person a liar for telling untruths by anyones standard, a hypocrite for requiring more than you do yourself, and a racist for putting limitations on a people based on color.

Not seein it.

As for myself,... I have and continue to have no faith in this country on anything of this magnitude.

V.

I just strongly disagree with the notion being suggested that if he loses it WILL BE because of race. Will it play a role? Yes, but a small one. As Jman said above, if the country has such an issue with race, how the heck did he become the nominee in the first place?

As for faith in the country...if you would truly open your eyes you would see that race is not the problem you make it out to be. This country has largely moved beyond racial boundaries. (Despite what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright would like for you to believe.)

still waiting for Jackson and Sharpton to apologize to the Duke athletes after calling them "barbarians"

You're probably going to be waiting a very long time BL.

ForestAflame

06-09-2008, 05:23 PM

Yeah, we've already been around this merry-go-round before. No use trying to prove you wrong when you won't budge. Black candidates have won elections before, so I don't see how his race will be the sole factor which derails him in the fall.

His race will be the primary factor amongst the blue-collar voters who you seem to think will decide this election.

First of all, what does his age have to do with anything? Do you think I'm going to change my mind because Jeremiah Wright is a crazy old fart instead of a wise, young whipper-snapper :huh:

Second, he said that white America manufactured HIV to kill off an entire race of people. He is scapegoating the "white" government (which is stupid, considering there are black folks in government) for something it had no control over.

He was claiming that, due to institutionalized racism, the government manufactured HIV. And Jeremiah Wright has experienced racism in very disturbing ways, more than a "young whipper-snapper" has experienced.

Uh, I most certainly do not believe that. And if you're going to start questioning my integrity, then I have no reason to debate you. You're turning out to be just as ignorant as the people you speak out against.

I know you don't believe that. :whatever:

You said that IF you believed that, I would call you stupid. So I said I wouldn't and instead I'd ask what made you feel that way.

Why isn't it? Why do black people get first priority on the racist express? Why can a black person call a white person a "honky" but a white man can't say anything bad about black people? Black folks can lay all the blame on white folks, but if a white person said "maybe the black people should get off of welfare and start doing something with their lives," they would go ape****. I don't see how that's any different than saying "white people invented AIDS to kill black people because white people are evil!"

Who said white people made AIDS to kill black people because white people are evil? Maybe when black people make up the majority of government, you can say "the black government needs to do such and such."

Marx

06-09-2008, 05:28 PM

He was claiming that, due to institutionalized racism, the government manufactured HIV. And Jeremiah Wright has experienced racism in very disturbing ways, more than a "young whipper-snapper" has experienced.

Just because someone has experienced racism does not make it ok to lash out against the world Forest. You can either choose to rise above it and fight for equality...or become a victim. In the cases of Jackson, Sharpton, and Wright they are content to chaining themselves to issues of race to remain viable.

The Senator

06-09-2008, 05:30 PM

His race will be the primary factor amongst the blue-collar voters who you seem to think will decide this election.

Again, we've been on this merry-go-round once or twice already. Certainly, racists live all across America, but if he loses blue collar states like Ohio and Michigan, which are controlled by Democrats, it will be because Obama could never get down on their level. Both states have become increasingly dominated by the Democratic Party. Both states have influential black politicians working at the state and federal level. I doubt racism will cause him to fail in those states.

He was claiming that, due to institutionalized racism, the government manufactured HIV. And Jeremiah Wright has experienced racism in very disturbing ways, more than a "young whipper-snapper" has experienced.

And that's why Wright is a racist. He blindly thinks that the United States invented AIDS to kill black people. Again, if I said that black people created lupus, everyone would consider me a racist. I do not see how saying that the racist government created AIDS to kill black people. Heck, it makes more sense to say that the government manufactured AIDS to kill gay people, considering gays were the initial scapegoat of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s.

Who said white people made AIDS to kill black people because white people are evil? Maybe when black people make up the majority of government, you can say "the black government needs to do such and such."

I do not care about a person's color of skin, so I don't think I'll ever blame the "black president" or "black government" for anything. Plus, I already live under a "black government" considering the bulk of DC's city government consists of African Americans and other minorities. Never once have I said that the "black government" in DC needs to do "such and such." :o

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 05:32 PM

If everyone started getting along Jesse and Al would cease to be relevant

StorminNorman

06-09-2008, 05:33 PM

Marx

06-09-2008, 05:34 PM

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 05:35 PM

I'll still be glued to my TV come Election Day...has there been any talk of when the first debate should take place??

Marx

06-09-2008, 05:37 PM

I'll still be glued to my TV come Election Day...has there been any talk of when the first debate should take place??

I'll be glued to my TV too! I haven't heard any talk of the first debate yet.

The Senator

06-09-2008, 05:38 PM

If Obama loses Ohio and Michigan it will be because people see him as elitist and snobbish. The last poll I saw the other day had John McCain leading Obama by a margin of five points. (I believe it was in the margin of error though.)

It wouldn't make sense to peg racism on Obama's loss in those states... Ohioans elected Ken Blackwell, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, Frank Jackson, and other minorities into power. Detroit has one of the highest per capita African American populations in Michigan. It and its suburbs usually determine the outcome of statewide elections. Same thing with Flint, which is one of the most liberal cities in the country. You can't tell me that Obama would lose both states solely because of racism.

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 05:38 PM

Election Day is November 3rd? or 4th? I am off of work on Tuesdays so if it was the 4th that would be cool

Marx

06-09-2008, 05:42 PM

It wouldn't make sense to peg racism on Obama's loss in those states... Ohioans elected Ken Blackwell, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, Frank Jackson, and other minorities into power. Detroit has one of the highest per capita African American populations in Michigan. It and its suburbs usually determine the outcome of statewide elections. Same thing with Flint, which is one of the most liberal cities in the country. You can't tell me that Obama would lose both states solely because of racism.

Exactly Jman. That's why I think some people on here should research what they're saying instead of blindly throwing accusations. I tend to get a little bothered by inaccurate judgements about my state.

Marx

06-09-2008, 05:43 PM

Election Day is November 3rd? or 4th? I am off of work on Tuesdays so if it was the 4th that would be cool

I'm fairly sure that it's the 4th.

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 05:49 PM

thats' cool then.....I can hang out at home and watch the wall to wall non biased (snicker) coverage

Marx

06-09-2008, 05:50 PM

thats' cool then.....I can hang out at home and watch the wall to wall non biased (snicker) coverage

Ahhh yes...non-biased. :hehe:

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 05:53 PM

lately I seem to end up on MSNBC because they seem the most harmless & clueless of the cable networks....CNN comes off as too stiff and Fox News, is well, Fox News....

Varient

06-09-2008, 06:28 PM

I rather dream of a country that continues to make strides in equality than live in a self imposed hell where I'll never be able to move up the ladder in anything. You may like living there, but I don't. I rather be a dreamer than someone who thinks like you do. Its shocking that at the same time you scream and yell for change and equality and in the same breath continue the trends that block such progress from being made. It's saddening to see that you think change is a generation away as you put it when you can help bring change now. You almost make me want to vote for Obama just to prove you wrong.
Sad.

You really don't read - you just react.
I have told parts of my story here, Making change where there was not, being First in things that no one else wanted me, all along color lines.

I made a point to reach back to where I'm from and teach others because knowledge is power and the greatest hinderance to my people is the witholding of information to keep them down.

Your silly behind keeps telling me what I'm about like my experiences that have taught me what I know didn't happen. You take an unwillingness to waste energy in areas where it's obvious that the change is "not yet" to be a willingness to live in a "self imposed hell".

LOL this is so funny. I have one guy on here telling me that my unwillingness to let blatant racism slide by is an inability to wisely pick my own battles - where he as a white guy thinks it is better to take racist abuse than stand up to bullies -

And you telling me that my belief that Obama can't be president this election because my life has shown me how this works -
means that I would rather stay down or block the advancement of equality.

I think this warrants bad language and telling you where you can go - but I realized you really don't know me or the way I think,.. hence the fact we can't talk for any length of time.

So instead of telling you how ignorant you are - I'll just say dream your own dreams dreamer.

V.

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 06:29 PM

and here I was trying to lighten the mood...

Marx

06-09-2008, 06:34 PM

Marx

06-09-2008, 06:35 PM

and here I was trying to lighten the mood...

How dare you BL! You should know better! :hehe:

Varient

06-09-2008, 06:49 PM

I just strongly disagree with the notion being suggested that if he loses it WILL BE because of race. Will it play a role? Yes, but a small one. As Jman said above, if the country has such an issue with race, how the heck did he become the nominee in the first place?

As for faith in the country...if you would truly open your eyes you would see that race is not the problem you make it out to be. This country has largely moved beyond racial boundaries. (Despite what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright would like for you to believe.)

I see things differently.
In EVERYCASE where the natives got too restless,.. ground was given to let them participate initially, but never to initially win. That always came in the following generation where whites got used to an idea.

Allowed to vote - but hey,.. you have to accurately guess the amount of jellybeans in the jar.

A scholarship was earned - but oh so sorry - there was an additional fee to step on campus - go home.

Yes you can live here,.. but there are no vacancies - those empty houses are taken.

Run for office? LOL History shows that NO position in America previously held (That I could find) by a white person was EVER won the first time a black person ran.

Why suddenly are WHITE PEOPLE telling me this is different?

Has a Black EVER run as a Dem or Repub Canidate FOR PRESIDENT?

NO.

I don't see race as big a problem as you think I do,.. I just see race as a point OTHERS keep putting in my face as the reason I can't live my life.

It is the same "two-stroke" mentality where I'm told to stand down by one group of whites while the other group swings the bat.

Instead of putting out a hand to stop the bat the "stand down" group of whites tells me to ignore the wood being swung and concentrate on dealing with them on an even playing field.

You'd THINK that if whites were really serious about racial equality they would STOMP on their myriad groups out there that keep the mess going, instead of continuing to tell us to look on the bright side,.. there has been change,.. we got those other whites to put down the noose.

V.

The Senator

06-09-2008, 06:51 PM

Has a Black EVER run as a Dem or Repub Canidate FOR PRESIDENT?

As a candidate, yes. African Americans have sought the nominations for both parties on multiple occasions. Obama is the first African American to run as a major party's nominee for president.

Carry on. :o

BlackLantern

06-09-2008, 06:52 PM

If a bunch of people want to sit around in a house or a field and talk about how much they hate "those colored folks" then that is certainly within their right, its when they decide to cruise around town to find someone to assault is where the problem arises....but I see Varients' point....

Varient

06-09-2008, 06:58 PM

Why the hostility Varient? It seems to me that the only one pushing racism in this conversation is you. With all due respect to you, you seem to be clinging to this notion that we (as a nation) are still living in the 50's and 60's.

To me, that's the same kind of language that you would find in any Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Jeremiah Wright playbook.

Racism still exists in this country, no one is denying that. But holding the entire nation accountable for what a very small percentage of americans still feel some forty years later is ridiculous.

Heh.
That wasn't hostility.
I was asked a question,... I answered,.. I was called a racist, I responded,.. Then I ended it by realizing that the person doing the namecalling has NO CLUE.

I'm thinking the issue here is where folk think we are. I can't adjust my skin color for locale and there are places my job in the Coast Guard forced me to go IN THE LAST TWO DECADES that showed me in no uncertain terms that the racism you guys keep preaching is no longer a issue still exists in overlarge quanities.

I know that as long as injustice is minimalized because "you" are not doing it means that change remains a slow process.

Obama for president? WAAAAY ahead of schedule.

V.

RockSP

06-09-2008, 07:00 PM

C'mon Varient. You're wasting your breath. Some people will never get it...or refuse to admit it if the do get it. They just think (or pretend to think) racism is/was some temporary fad or something.

I don't agree with you that Obama is unelectable, though. But I also am not silly enough to think if he is elected that there will be some monumental change in the country because of it; that if a black man becomes president then institutionalized racism is suddenly dead (and yes I've read comments on various boards from people...many of them black...who seem to think that would be the case. "We got a black president...cops ain't gonna f@#% with me no more!!":whatever:)

Varient

06-09-2008, 07:03 PM

As a candidate, yes. African Americans have sought the nominations for both parties on multiple occasions. Obama is the first African American to run as a major party's nominee for president.

Carry on. :o

"sought the nominations"
NOT RUN as "THE" canidate.

Obama is the first.

Peace.

The Senator

06-09-2008, 07:06 PM

"sought the nominations"
NOT RUN as "THE" canidate.

Obama is the first.

Peace.

The proper term is "nominee." Candidate refers to anyone who is running for the nomination. Ron Paul is still a Republican candidate. Hillary Clinton was a candidate until last Saturday. Obama is the nominee.

Varient

06-09-2008, 07:09 PM

The proper term is "nominee." Candidate refers to anyone who is running for the nomination. Ron Paul is still a Republican candidate. Hillary Clinton was a candidate until last Saturday. Obama is the nominee.

I stand corrected.

V.

Varient

06-09-2008, 07:11 PM

Spider-Bite

06-09-2008, 07:20 PM

Scary huh?
Like him being the first Black president would immediately mean big changes on race relations.

Meh.

a lot of blacks now feel included in the process. they feel like Americans. where as many of them before thought this was a white man's world.

this will have a big effect.

Spider-Bite

06-09-2008, 07:22 PM

has anybody seen fox news trying to use the "fist bump" him and Michelle exchanged as evidence that he's a terrorist? I guess half the people I went to high school with and half the people I go to college with are terrorists. As well as Michael Jordan.

The anti-obama camp really needs some new material.

RockSP

06-09-2008, 07:27 PM

"Dap". Or "pound".

Never "fist bump".

Ever.

comicgirl

06-09-2008, 07:27 PM

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

Spider-Bite

06-09-2008, 07:29 PM

"Dap". Or "pound".

Never "fist bump".

Ever.

Yeah actually "pound" is what I've always heard it called. But apparently it's the terrorist salute, and we just never knew it.

StorminNorman

06-09-2008, 07:31 PM

terry78

06-09-2008, 07:36 PM

The fist bump is going to become America's new greeting. Every country leader will be forced to do this once meeting with our people. And they also have to use the phrase, "what's good, nigggaaaa?"

Varient

06-09-2008, 07:45 PM

Varient, how do you explain the fact that Obama is beating McCain in the polls?

How can EVERY indicator point to Obama's race preventing him from winning when most indicators right now point to him winning the election?

Sorry,.. I didn't miss this on purpose.

Answer:
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7443467.stm

Viewpoints: Obama versus McCain
The big battle for the White House is about to start. Who has the wind behind him, Barack Obama or John McCain? What hurdles do they face and what strategies can they employ to overcome them? Five leading US pundits give their views.

Larry J Sabato is professor of politics at the University of Virginia.

The election is Barack Obama's to lose. The Democrats will be favoured: there is an unpopular war, an unpopular president and the economy has tanked. But Obama has demonstrated serious weaknesses and he has a lot of ground to make up.

The issue of race is the great unknown for Barack Obama
The great unknown for Obama is race - we simply don't know how it will play.

Obama will gain from minorities but will lose some of the white working class, particularly in the Rust Belt and the Appalachian region. Some will come back - the vast majority of those who voted for Hillary Clinton will come back, no matter how angry they are at the moment.

John McCain's strength in terms of the Republican Party is that he does have the image of the maverick and moderate, at a time when the public is deeply anti-Bush.

Another of his advantages, is that as we move into the fall, people will focus on defence, military policy and foreign policy.

The downside is his age. Last week, I really thought he was showing his age.

It will be a tough, uphill climb for him but it is doable.

Tom Mann is an elections expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington

The political environment for John McCain is overwhelmingly hostile.

Barack Obama's ideological position will be tested by John McCain
McCain could start to try to discredit Barack Obama. He could play on a set of concerns that exist or could be planted in the course of the campaign.

Certainly, there is his relative inexperience in politics and public life. There will also be problems revolving around his race and ideology.

His cultural as well as ideological position will be tested by McCain, and there will be an effort to try to associate [his campaign] with the tumultuous 1960s: student radicalism, ideological extremism, lack of patriotism. But, it will be hard for McCain to sustain this.

Everything is pointing towards a negative referendum [on the Bush years]. Obama's challenge is to get himself known to more people; to tell his story, to share his values and to make people comfortable with him, so that in the last two months he can focus on more substantive things like Bush's failures.

Karlyn Bowman is a public opinion researcher at the American Enterprise Institute.
The Democrats have extraordinary enthusiasm on their side.

There is a sour US mood, mostly directed at President Bush. John McCain has had to walk a fine line in terms of distancing himself from Bush, and has, so far, done well.

Obama's challenge will be to sustain the mood of enthusiasm over the summer

Many polls have shown the race is dead even - but there are a lot of variables. Pew Polls, for example, have shown John McCain ahead on handling Iraq. The issue of national security will be seen as his strength.

However, there is less attention focused on Iraq at the moment. It's on the back burner and there is a steady simmer but the economy is the strongest issue.

Many Americans feel that the country has gone off on the wrong track, with inflation etc.

There are certainly concerns over Barack Obama's inexperience.

His challenge will be to sustain the mood of enthusiasm over the summer, which will be difficult as people begin to think about their holidays.

He's been drawing wonderful crowds, and there has been an extraordinary turnout of young people - but whether they turn out to vote in November remains to be seen.

It's a very exciting race.

Tony Fabrizio is a Republican strategist who is not working on the campaign.

John McCain has defied gravity in the last few months in terms of the numbers: he is running 10-13 points ahead of the generic Republican brand and is continuing to fly there. But he will need to keep the independents on board, if he doesn't, he has little chance of winning.

What are the Republicans waiting for? It's already June and they need to be defining the race

The environment is favourable to Democratic Party but Barack Obama is an unknown commodity.

Is it possible that Obama might collapse under the weight of his own liberal record? Yes.

Is it possible that McCain could get defined as the third term of George W Bush? Yes.

One strategy for McCain is to make the race about Obama - to make it not about micro-policy but about ideological differences. Given Obama's record, this will be easy.

But what are the Republicans waiting for? It's already June and they need to be defining the race.

Obama portrays himself as mainstream, however he is anything but. If Obama isn't on the front pages of the newspapers soon defending himself, the Republican [campaign] isn't doing its job.

Walter Shapiro is the Washington bureau chief of Salon.com.

One of the main issues is, can John McCain present himself as the reformer, as the person that voters in New Hampshire and Michigan - which he will have to win in November - fell in love with in 2000?

McCain will need to revive his appeal to hang on to independents.

He may be able to prove that he is formidable without demonising Obama.

He could, for example, really try to stress that he is someone with reform credentials to change Washington that are as good, if not better than Obama's.

It is quite possible that Obama, on the other hand, will have to focus on the negatives: that McCain is an old man who is out of touch, one who sold his soul to the devil on taxes to win the approval of President Bush.

The election is five months away, and we have no idea what the voters will be thinking about in October - whether it will terrorism, economy, or something we haven't even thought about. After all, six months ago we wouldn't have thought that people now would be talking about the price of gas.

We try so hard to get ahead of the story that we end up making certain predictions about many things that reasonable people agree are unknowable

First of two posts to answer your Question -> This post to show that a lot of people say McCain is ahead with the polls and public opinion.

Marx

06-09-2008, 07:52 PM

Heh.
That wasn't hostility.
I was asked a question,... I answered,.. I was called a racist, I responded,.. Then I ended it by realizing that the person doing the namecalling has NO CLUE.

I'm thinking the issue here is where folk think we are. I can't adjust my skin color for locale and there are places my job in the Coast Guard forced me to go IN THE LAST TWO DECADES that showed me in no uncertain terms that the racism you guys keep preaching is no longer a issue still exists in overlarge quanities.

I know that as long as injustice is minimalized because "you" are not doing it means that change remains a slow process.

Obama for president? WAAAAY ahead of schedule.

V.

Think whatever you want Varient, you're going to anyway. If you want to continue living in the 50's and 60's, go for it. I, for one, choose to live in the 21st century.

C'mon Varient. You're wasting your breath. Some people will never get it...or refuse to admit it if the do get it. They just think (or pretend to think) racism is/was some temporary fad or something.

I don't agree with you that Obama is unelectable, though. But I also am not silly enough to think if he is elected that there will be some monumental change in the country because of it; that if a black man becomes president then institutionalized racism is suddenly dead (and yes I've read comments on various boards from people...many of them black...who seem to think that would be the case. "We got a black president...cops ain't gonna f@#% with me no more!!":whatever:)

Don't insult the integrity of me or any other posters on this forum. No one is denying racism exists. The debate is over where it currently stands. I can gurantee you that it certainly isn't the way Jackson, Sharpton, and Wright want you to believe.

I'm done debating this. I'll come back to this thread when the conversation changes. I do not enjoy banging my head against a wall.

Varient

06-09-2008, 07:53 PM

Varient, how do you explain the fact that Obama is beating McCain in the polls?

How can EVERY indicator point to Obama's race preventing him from winning when most indicators right now point to him winning the election?

???
I don't see "5 to 8" points lead as "beating McCain."

http://forums.superherohype.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5329&stc=1&d=1213059124

Obama has consistently held a lead of five to seven percentage points each night since it was reported that Hillary Clinton intended to suspend her campaign. These represent Obama's strongest showing versus McCain to date in Gallup Poll Daily tracking of registered voters' presidential election preferences. For much of the time since Gallup began tracking general election preferences in mid-March, McCain and Obama have been in a statistical dead heat. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

Today's data are based on June 6-8 interviewing. Gallup had been reporting a five-day rolling average for the general election to this point, but now that the major party candidates are known Gallup will move to reporting a three-day rolling average. Obama would still hold a statistically significant lead (matching his best to date) in the five-day rolling average based on June 4-8 interviewing given his recent stronger performance.

Since Obama clinched the nomination, Gallup has also asked registered voters for their Obama-McCain preference if Clinton were Obama's vice presidential running mate. At this point, Clinton would seem to give a slight three-point boost to Obama's margin over McCain, with the Obama-Clinton ticket leading McCain by an average of 51% to 42% over the past three days.

There is not an overwhelming consensus among Democrats that Obama choose Clinton as his No. 2. In the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update (based on June 6-8 data), 53% of Democrats say Obama should pick his former nomination rival for vice president, while 36% say he should choose someone else. -- Jeff Jones

RockSP

06-09-2008, 08:01 PM

Don't insult the integrity of me or any other posters on this forum.

Don't pretend to be insulted when no insults were issued.

DACrowe

06-09-2008, 09:13 PM

"Dap". Or "pound".

Never "fist bump".

Ever.

Yeah, I always called it the pound. I'm laughing my ass off at how confused news network personalities are by it and calling it "a cute fist bump." Looks like the pound is about to officially become uncool, if it still was.

terry78

06-09-2008, 09:16 PM

Yeah, I always called it the pound. I'm laughing my ass off at how confused news network personalities are by it and calling it "a cute fist bump." Looks like the pound is about to officially become uncool, if it still was.

As soon as the white guys start doing it, it offically loses its coolness amongst the brothas. Everyone knows that. :o

Tag279

06-09-2008, 09:35 PM

Think whatever you want Varient, you're going to anyway. If you want to continue living in the 50's and 60's, go for it. I, for one, choose to live in the 21st century.

Don't insult the integrity of me or any other posters on this forum. No one is denying racism exists. The debate is over where it currently stands. I can gurantee you that it certainly isn't the way Jackson, Sharpton, and Wright want you to believe.

Racism is alive and kicking hard.

Consider Jena and the events that led to the altercation.

Consider the black man that was shot 30-times on his wedding day by white police he had no criminal record.

Consider the young black man (20-yo) in my city that was hung because he was engaged to a white girl.

Consider the multiple shooting and suicide that happened in my county @ Lockheed Martin.

Consider that I am a trained experienced Firefighter EMT-B and a white man who was having a heart attack did not want me to work on him He demanded someone white. When I exposed his chest he had a rebel flag tatoo with a swastika in the middle.

When I was 18 and looking for work a prospective employer told me that I was qualified but he was going to hire someone white.

No I am not stupid and I know that Obama becoming President will not make racism disapear from the American fabric. His Presidency IMO would indicate how far we have come as a nation.

AND NO I DON'T THINK OBAMA IS ENTITLED BECAUSE OF THE CRAP BLACKS PEOPLE HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH.

I think he will do a good job as President; go AHEAD AND CALL ME STUPID.

Darthphere

06-09-2008, 10:56 PM

Lightning Strykez!

06-09-2008, 11:40 PM

I'm laughing my ass off at how confused news network personalities are by it and calling it "a cute fist bump."

Yeah, I too found this amusing. :p

Excel

06-09-2008, 11:42 PM

It was a pound :huh:

Is the news that out of it these days??? Anyways, lets hear it: who should be his VP?

Lightning Strykez!

06-09-2008, 11:43 PM

Kathleen.

Sebellius that is. :up: A governor who is a force to reckon with and would give Republicans pause.

Tag279

06-09-2008, 11:48 PM

Sebellius seems like she would be a good choice; but my question is how bad will the backlash be for not picking Hillary?

The Senator

06-09-2008, 11:53 PM

Sebellius seems like she would be a good choice; but my question is how bad will the backlash be for not picking Hillary?

That, plus she won't deliver her home state for Obama. Not to mention, she's about as inspiring as a bag of bricks (or at least that was the impression I got after watching her response to the State of the Union).

Marx

06-09-2008, 11:54 PM

Sebellius seems like she would be a good choice; but my question is how bad will the backlash be for not picking Hillary?

If he goes with Sebellius instead of Clinton, there will be serious backlash.

Lightning Strykez!

06-09-2008, 11:56 PM

If he goes with Sebellius instead of Clinton, there will be serious backlash.

The only backlash he's experiencing now in connection with Hillary is that he's sexist. How would choosing Sebelius create backlash? If anything that'd prove he's the exact opposite. You honestly don't think that would soothe alot of hurt womens feelings?

And Jman...yeah, she's a bit on the dull side, but I doubt few would challenge her smarts in terms of managing government. She'd balance him in the "experience" department...poking holes in that argument.

The Senator

06-09-2008, 11:59 PM

The only backlash he's experiencing now in connection with Hillary is that he's sexist. How would choosing Sebelius create backlash? If anything that'd prove he's the exact opposite. You honestly don't think that would soothe alot of hurt womens feelings?

And Jman...yeah, she's a bit on the dull side, but I doubt few would challenge her smarts in terms of managing government. She'd balance him in the "experience" department...poking holes in that argument.

I don't think women are pissed because they think Obama is sexist... I think they are disappointed that Hillary didn't win. Obama has to pick either her or a Hillary backer as his running mate. That's the only way I think he can truly mend the party.

He ought to pick Ed Rendell as his running mate. He's smart, charismatic, pragmatic and has excellent executive experience. He will secure Pennsylvania and he could campaign hard for Obama in Florida, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan.

Excel

06-10-2008, 12:02 AM

I dunno bout Sebelius...whoever he picks MUST deliver their state to him. I doubt Kansas goes blue.

Tag279

06-10-2008, 12:03 AM

I don't think women are pissed because they think Obama is sexist... I think they are disappointed that Hillary didn't win. Obama has to pick either her or a Hillary backer as his running mate. That's the only way I think he can truly mend the party.

He ought to pick Ed Rendell as his running mate. He's smart, charismatic, pragmatic and has excellent executive experience. He will secure Pennsylvania and he could campaign hard for Obama in Florida, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan.

Jman I don't think Rendell likes Obama very much; I cannot see him being his number one surrogate.

Matt

06-10-2008, 12:03 AM

I don't think women are pissed because they think Obama is sexist... I think they are disappointed that Hillary didn't win. Obama has to pick either her or a Hillary backer as his running mate. That's the only way I think he can truly mend the party.

He ought to pick Ed Rendell as his running mate. He's smart, charismatic, pragmatic and has excellent executive experience. He will secure Pennsylvania and he could campaign hard for Obama in Florida, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan.

If Rendell does not quit trying to lease the turnpike despite more than 80 % of Pennsylvanians being against it, he could very well lose PA for Obama. The relentless attempts to lease the turnpike is killing Rendell's popularity in PA.

Marx

06-10-2008, 12:04 AM

The only backlash he's experiencing now in connection with Hillary is that he's sexist. How would choosing Sebelius create backlash? If anything that'd prove he's the exact opposite. You honestly don't think that would soothe alot of hurt womens feelings?

And Jman...yeah, she's a bit on the dull side, but I doubt few would challenge her smarts in terms of managing government. She'd balance him in the "experience" department...poking holes in that argument.

The backlash he is experiencing is due to Hillary supporters being extremely disappointed that she didn't gain the nomination. So if he were to pick another woman, a less powerful woman - instead of Clinton - it would most certainly NOT unite the party of mend fences in any way.

Marx

06-10-2008, 12:05 AM

I dunno bout Sebelius...whoever he picks MUST deliver their state to him. I doubt Kansas goes blue.

I have a very difficult time seeing Kansas blue.

Tag279

06-10-2008, 12:05 AM

I dunno bout Sebelius...whoever he picks MUST deliver their state to him. I doubt Kansas goes blue.

Excel, you may have a point.

Matt

06-10-2008, 12:06 AM

Jman I don't think Rendell likes Obama very much; I cannot see him being his number one surrogate.

Gore hated Clinton, Edwards hated Kerry, LBJ and JFK hated on another. It is not uncommon for running mates to hate one another.

The Senator

06-10-2008, 12:09 AM

If Rendell does not quit trying to lease the turnpike despite more than 80 % of Pennsylvanians being against it, he could very well lose PA for Obama. The relentless attempts to lease the turnpike is killing Rendell's popularity in PA.

I don't know-- there was a statewide poll issued a couple of weeks ago which said that Obama-Rendell would handily win Pennsylvania. Rendell's appeal to Jewish voters may help Obama win Florida. And if Obama wins Florida, he won't need PA...

The Senator

06-10-2008, 12:11 AM

Jman I don't think Rendell likes Obama very much; I cannot see him being his number one surrogate.

Rendell would not become Obama's VP if he does not like him. The man has stated that he plans to retire from public life in 2010. All he has to do is turn Obama down if offered. And since Rendell seems to be quite the honest and respectable guy, I don't think he'd join Obama solely for political gain-- especially if he hates him.

Matt

06-10-2008, 12:13 AM

I don't know-- there was a statewide poll issued a couple of weeks ago which said that Obama-Rendell would handily win Pennsylvania. Rendell's appeal to Jewish voters may help Obama win Florida. And if Obama wins Florida, he won't need PA...

Rendell's popularity is dropping by the day due to his stupid attempts to lease the turnpike. If he enters the race, he will have to let go of that. Hell, he should let go anyway. Rendell has been a great governor, he shouldn't destroy his legacy.

I think a big risk of Rendell is, he could very well overshadow Obama. He is more experienced, he is far more down to Earth and likable. That could be problematic.

Excel

06-10-2008, 12:27 AM

I think a big risk of Rendell is, he could very well overshadow Obama. He is more experienced, he is far more down to Earth and likable. That could be problematic.

Umm...no dude, I dont think so. Obamas the "rock star" candidate; not even a Clinton could over shadow him.

Marx

06-10-2008, 12:29 AM

Umm...no dude, I dont think so. Obamas the "rock star" candidate; not even a Clinton could over shadow him.

In a matter of Pennsylvania, Rendell's lobbying to lease the turnpike could overshadown him.

Matt

06-10-2008, 12:32 AM

Umm...no dude, I dont think so. Obamas the "rock star" candidate; not even a Clinton could over shadow him.

That's a naive attitude. Rendell's likable, down to earth, relatable personality could overshadow Obama, who many consider to have a very elitist, snobbish demeanor.

In a matter of Pennsylvania, Rendell's lobbying to lease the turnpike could overshadown him.

Yep, kinda hard to claim you are "anti-lobbyist" when your own running mate is listening to lobbyists over his own people's overwhelming voices on all sides of the political spectrum and trying to lease something that brings in hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to the state for a mere 12.5 million. To a foreign company to boot.

Excel

06-10-2008, 12:33 AM

That's a naive attitude. Rendell's likable, down to earth, relatable personality could overshadow Obama, who many consider to have a very elitist, snobbish demeanor.

Matt I dont know where you hearing Obama is more elitist or snobbish than John McCain, but I guess Ill just take your word.

Marx

06-10-2008, 12:34 AM

That's a naive attitude. Rendell's likable, down to earth, relatable personality could overshadow Obama, who many consider to have a very elitist, snobbish demeanor.

Yep, kinda hard to claim you are "anti-lobbyist" when your own running mate is listening to lobbyists over his own people's overwhelming voices on all sides of the political spectrum and trying to lease something that brings in hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to the state for a mere 12.5 million. To a foreign company to boot.

It's bad enough to lease it to a domestic company. To lease it to a foreign company though, that's the real kicker Matt.

Marx

06-10-2008, 12:35 AM

Matt I dont know where you hearing Obama is more elitist or snobbish than John McCain, but I guess Ill just take your word.

John McCain comes off as alot of things...crazy...senile...a bit off his rocker...but elitist and snobbish are not among them Ex. It's a matter of perception.

Matt

06-10-2008, 12:38 AM

Matt I dont know where you hearing Obama is more elitist or snobbish than John McCain, but I guess Ill just take your word.

Do you not think there is a reason that Obama continues to be overwhelmingly unpopular with blue collar voters? Especially when his policies are identical to Clinton? Polls indicate that his personality does not resonate with these voting blocs.

Excel

06-10-2008, 12:40 AM

Matt what polls? POlls have him ahead in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Clinton barely beat him in Indiana...

Marx

06-10-2008, 12:46 AM

Matt what polls? POlls have him ahead in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Clinton barely beat him in Indiana...

Any of the polls that I have seen here in Ohio show them in a statistical dead heat. Some have even shown McCain ahead.

Matt

06-10-2008, 12:48 AM

Matt what polls? POlls have him ahead in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Clinton barely beat him in Indiana...

I'm talking about opinion and exit polls on the candidates and their personalities.

Tag279

06-10-2008, 12:49 AM

Do you not think there is a reason that Obama continues to be overwhelmingly unpopular with blue collar voters? Especially when his policies are identical to Clinton? Polls indicate that his personality does not resonate with these voting blocs.

He is a black college educated man, of course he does not resonate with large number of (white) blue collar voters in and around Appilacia 54% think he is a muslim and 20% of those voters admit the woud not vote for a black man for President.

What about blue collar voters in the Carolinas, Oregon, Montana, Illinois, Alabama, and Mississippi? Do black blue collar voters not count?

Excel

06-10-2008, 12:50 AM

The most recent poll from 2 weeks ago had Obama by 9...

Marx

06-10-2008, 12:54 AM

Has anyone else seen this on CNN yet?

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/09/gall.electoral.map.6.9.cnn.jpg

Solid McCain states are dark red
Leaning McCain states are lighter red
Solid Obama states are dark blue
Leaning Obama states are lighter blue
Yellow states are toss ups

Tag279

06-10-2008, 01:03 AM

Check this electoral map; it has a bit more detail.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Spider-Bite

06-10-2008, 01:17 AM

Gore hated Clinton, Edwards hated Kerry, LBJ and JFK hated on another. It is not uncommon for running mates to hate one another.

Gore hated Hillary Clinton, but your right. It's not uncommon for candidates to hate their running mate. It's a job, not a hang out.

Edwards was furious with Kerry for not responding more aggressively to the swift boat attacks claiming he didn't earn his purple heart, and Kerry didn't like Edwards because he felt that Edwards was campaiging for himself. At many events they were even passing out Edwards 04 pins, stickers, and posters, and this was after he was Kerry's running mate.

Spider-Bite

06-10-2008, 01:20 AM

Do you not think there is a reason that Obama continues to be overwhelmingly unpopular with blue collar voters? Especially when his policies are identical to Clinton? Polls indicate that his personality does not resonate with these voting blocs.

It's not his personality. On personality he's 10 times more likeable than either McCain or Clinton were.

His problems consist of false chain emails spreading rumours, his skin color, his former church, and a bitter primary. And women feeling like they were robbed.

Tag279

06-10-2008, 03:03 AM

kainedamo

06-10-2008, 04:37 AM

Here's an anti-Obama video where my comments have eventually been blocked 'cause the guy can't handle me continually asking him for evidence. I dunno why he doesn't just filter comments altogether.

bCFq1JOI0WU#ZGZBKQhKX_I

EDIT: No wait, I can still comment on the video. If I check that later today though I'll probably find my responses deleted again.

kainedamo

06-10-2008, 04:44 AM

I keep hearing about a "whitey" video where Michelle Obama supposedly says "whitey". Is this released on the Internet or is it simply a rumour plenty of people seem ready to believe?

rdh007

06-10-2008, 07:24 AM

I don't know-- there was a statewide poll issued a couple of weeks ago which said that Obama-Rendell would handily win Pennsylvania. Rendell's appeal to Jewish voters may help Obama win Florida. And if Obama wins Florida, he won't need PA...

PA and FL?
Educational Video, Using Technical Terms to Describe My Feeling on Dems Winning Both FL and PA (http://omgwetdream.ytmnd.com/)

The Senator

06-10-2008, 08:53 AM

It's not his personality. On personality he's 10 times more likeable than either McCain or Clinton were.

His problems consist of false chain emails spreading rumours, his skin color, his former church, and a bitter primary. And women feeling like they were robbed.

So you're telling me that a friend of mine who strongly disagrees with Obama's foreign policy goals is voting for McCain in November because she was influenced by some chain e-mail blasting his connections to Jeremiah Wright? :huh:

Obama might as well lose the election now. People are already making some classic excuses for him. :whatever:

moraldeficiency

06-10-2008, 09:18 AM

just saw this article in slate about why webb's a bad choice for VP, I should mention Noah is a bit of a self righteous know it all prick, so take his stuff with a major grain of salt but here you go:

http://www.slate.com/id/2193217/

It's anybody's guess who Barack Obama wants to be his running mate, but the chattering class has fallen hard for Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va.

On paper, Webb is the perfect choice for veep. Is Obama too closely identified with the left? Webb is a former Republican who served in the Reagan administration. (Washington Times editorial, June 7, 2008: "[Webb] offers Mr. Obama … an opportunity to blur some hard-left positions that are certain to alienate large blocs of voters.") Did Obama lose big in the Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia primaries? Webb's family roots lie in Appalachia, and he's a bona fide expert on the flinty Scots-Irish who settled there, having published a well-received book about them in 2004. (Eve Fairbanks, the New Republic, June 25, 2008, issue: "Like Obama, [Webb] is not simply a member of a group historically important to the party; he is someone who embodies that group, someone who has turned that group's narrative into his own.") Is Obama too cautious and detached? Webb is famous for speaking his mind. (Elizabeth Drew, the New York Review of Books, June 26, 2008 issue: "Like a boxer or a military man, Webb decides on his targets and charges straight at them.")

It's this last characteristic that's the problem. Webb, 62, is a bit of a blowhard. Because he's a writer, he's left a paper trail. In a 1979 Washingtonian article, "Women Can't Fight," Webb wrote that it had been a mistake to open the military service academies to women:

[Women's] presence at institutions dedicated to the preparation of men for combat command is poisoning that preparation. By attempting to sexually sterilize the Naval Academy environment in the name of equality, this country has sterilized the whole process of combat leadership training, and our military forces are doomed to suffer the consequences. … [T]he system has been objectified and neutered to the point it can no longer develop or measure leadership. …

Asked two years ago on Meet the Press whether he still believed this, Webb said, "I'm fully comfortable with the roles of women in the military today." He also said, "There's many pieces in this article that if I were a more mature individual I wouldn't have written." As late as 1992, though, Webb complained (in a New York Times op-ed that called the Tailhook investigation a "witch hunt"):

Military leaders are at best passive and at most often downright fearful when confronted by activists who allege that their culture is inherently oppressive toward females and that full assimilation of women depends only on a change in the mind-set of its misogynist leaders.

Such piggy statements won't endear Webb to the white female Hillary Clinton supporters who are threatening not to vote in the general election.

As Navy secretary during the Reagan administration, Webb was an ardent supporter of President Reagan's goal to create a "600-ship Navy," an ambitious benchmark whose urgency was unclear even at the height of the Cold War. By 1988, with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika program well underway, justification for the rapid buildup was dwindling fast. But when Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci removed 16 aging frigates from an administration budget request, Webb went ballistic and resigned, grousing to reporters on his way out that Carlucci failed to provide "leadership" or "strategic vision." Even Reagan was taken aback, writing in his diary, "I don't think Navy was sorry to see him go." This episode doesn't inspire confidence in Webb's qualities as a team player.

Now that Webb is a media darling, able to make even The Nation's Katrina Vanden Heuvel swoon like a bobby soxer over his "blue-collar street cred," the dominant narrative has it that Webb has finally soothed the savage beast within. But in his new book, A Time To Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America, Webb compares the U.S. Senate to "100 scorpions in a jar" and writes, "The jar needs to be shaken." No sooner was Webb elected in 2006 before he picked an utterly pointless fight with President Bush. At a post-election White House reception, Webb, who had ostentatiously declined to stand in a receiving line, was approached by the president, who asked, "How's your boy?" (Webb's son was serving in Iraq, and Webb had spoken of him often while campaigning against the war.) Webb replied, "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." When Bush replied brusquely, "That isn't what I asked. How's your boy?" Webb replied even more brusquely, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President." Four months later, Webb's aide Phillip Thompson was arrested carrying Webb's gun into the Capitol. Asked at a subsequent press conference whether he, Webb, was in the habit of obeying a strict handgun ban in the District of Columbia, Webb replied defiantly, "I'm not going to comment in any level in terms of how I provide for my own security." They may love that in Appalachia, but is it wise to place on the national ticket a candidate who virtually boasts about violating the law? Even Webb's friend (and mine) James Fallows has expressed polite trepidation about a Webb vice presidency.

There is much to admire in Webb. He's smart, he cares about ordinary people, and I hear his novels are excellent. (I've never read any.) He recently pulled off a coup in the Senate by outmaneuvering John McCain on a veterans' benefits bill. Webb may yet turn out to be a great senator. (Though that raises another problem: He only arrived there last year! The Obama ticket doesn't need another rookie, and, setting aside Webb's deep knowledge and experience in the area of military affairs, Webb is a government rookie.)

But Webb's personal history has demonstrated time and again that he can't play well with the other children. A volcanic temperament is endurable in a novelist or an opera singer. It is not endurable at the bottom of a national ticket. Nominating Webb isn't worth the risk that he'll alienate important constituencies, embarrass Obama, or break with him outright, as John Nance Garner did with Franklin Roosevelt. He's trouble, and Obama's already had too much of that.

The Senator

06-10-2008, 09:28 AM

Jim Webb would not be a good choice for Obama's VP. The man has less experience than Obama, he has a bad temper, and he has many problems in his personal life.

moraldeficiency

06-10-2008, 09:30 AM

Jim Webb would not be a good choice for Obama's VP. The man has less experience than Obama, he has a bad temper, and he has many problems in his personal life.

Well he was secnav so the experience is debatable but you're absolutely right about his temper and personal issues, though that didn't stop cheney.

BlackLantern

06-10-2008, 09:32 AM

obama needs to get someone that is within the comfort zone of the american public....

kane9321

06-10-2008, 09:54 AM

Excuse me,but RACE will play a huge part in these elections..cmon lets be real here!

The Senator

06-10-2008, 09:55 AM

Well he was secnav so the experience is debatable but you're absolutely right about his temper and personal issues, though that didn't stop cheney.

Webb spent roughly a year as Secretary of the Navy before being asked to resign, and he's only been a Senator for eighteen months. Added up, he has less experience than Obama.

kane9321

06-10-2008, 09:56 AM

The fist bump is going to become America's new greeting. Every country leader will be forced to do this once meeting with our people. And they also have to use the phrase, "what's good, nigggaaaa?"

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH..YOU BE THE MAN NOW DAWG:woot:

The Senator

06-10-2008, 09:58 AM

MSNBC's Veepstakes (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24672458/)

In the first round of voting, I picked Gephardt, Richardson, Kerrey, Bayh, Rendell, Edwards, Bredesen, Strickland, Bloomberg, Webb, Graham, Sebelius, Schweitzer, Feingold and Kaine.

Varient

06-10-2008, 09:59 AM

obama needs to get someone that is within the comfort zone of the american public....

(chuckle)

Ronald McDonald
Dr Seuss
Mr. Rodgers
David Hasselholf
Chuck Norris
Robin Williams
Tom Hanks
Jim Carey
ZZTop
Shrek

kane9321

06-10-2008, 09:59 AM

Sebellius seems like she would be a good choice; but my question is how bad will the backlash be for not picking Hillary?

A big one bro...a big one:csad:

moraldeficiency

06-10-2008, 10:03 AM

Webb spent roughly a year as Secretary of the Navy before being asked to resign, and he's only been a Senator for eighteen months. Added up, he has less experience than Obama.

Well he was also the first ever Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (3 years), before he became secnav, and he resigned after fighting with regan. But you're right there isn't much experience with him or obama (though I count that as a plus in a lot of ways).

moraldeficiency

06-10-2008, 10:05 AM

One more slate article I found interesting, this one by applebaum who's a bit more level headed than Noah (IMO):

http://www.slate.com/id/2193219/

"Will Americans vote for a black man?" I think I've been asked this question by foreigners of various origins a dozen times—or maybe three dozen times—since the U.S. presidential campaign began for real in January. Now we have the answer: Yes, Americans will vote for a black man. Which means that it is now time to turn this rather offensive question around the other way: Will foreigners accept a black American president?

I realize that this, too, may seem like a rather offensive question, particularly if one believes everything that one reads in the newspapers. Germany, to take one random example, is at the moment experiencing something like its own version of Obamamania. The press appears to see the Democratic candidate as what a Der Spiegel journalist calls "a cross between John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr."; the German foreign minister has already been heard chanting, "Yes, we can!"; and Obama T-shirts can be spotted in the hipper quarters of Berlin. This sort of enthusiasm isn't unique to Germany, either: British, French, and even Polish newspapers splashed Obama and his candidacy on their front pages last week, most accompanied by laudatory articles that solemnly proclaimed that "America has changed."

But has Europe changed? And have Asia and the Middle East changed? I hate to put it so crudely, but—European newspaper reporting to the contrary—racism is not a phenomenon unique to the United States. The situation of ethnic minorities in Europe and Asia is completely different from that of the United States, and in many ways our societies aren't comparable: Most nonwhite inhabitants of European societies are recent immigrants, not descendants of former slaves, and the particular situation of, say, the black Christian population in Arab-dominated Sudan is unique.

Nevertheless, it is safe to say that there is a distinct dearth of nonwhite politicians in Europe. The Indian caste system has an element of skin-color discrimination built into it. Arab societies have their own history of trading in black slaves, and the existence of anti-black-African prejudice in the Arab world is no secret. Periodically, African students in Moscow get beaten up on the streets.

Though certainly more severe in those countries that have large nonwhite populations, unreflective racism exists even in parts of the world that have barely any darker-skinned or nonnative inhabitants at all. Japan has been singled out by the United Nations for its racist treatment of foreigners. And while some of the stares that black Americans say they get on the street in Warsaw or Prague reflect simple curiosity, some, I'm told, also contain an element of hostility.

President Obama wouldn't have to worry too much about angry stares from people at bus stops, of course, and it is fair to assume that prejudices harbored by the odd foreign leader will vanish in the presence of the U.S. president. In the rosiest scenario, an Obama presidency—or just an Obama candidacy—might even force a broader international discussion of race. Last year, Andrew Sullivan wrote eloquently about the way in which Obama's face, just by itself, will help change America's image around the world.

By the same token, candidate Obama—merely by being who he is and looking like what he looks like—could begin to change European, Arab, and Asian attitudes about race. Millions of Africans would surely treat a U.S. president of African descent as "their" president, just for a start.

But in the meantime, do not be surprised if there is some backlash. A hint of what might be hiding behind those enthusiastic headlines emerged last week in Obamamanic Germany, where Die Tageszeitung, a Berlin newspaper, put a photograph of the White House and the headline "Uncle Barack's Cabin" on its front page. The editors argued that their intention was satirical, but since the same newspaper has also referred to the current U.S. secretary of state as "Uncle Tom's Rice," it is clear that they understood the nastiness of the "Uncle Tom" connotation perfectly well.

Listen carefully, too, when foreigners start worrying about Obama's lack of foreign-policy experience. Though this is a perfectly legitimate concern, I do think I occasionally catch a racist undertone in this kind of conversation. "How could a black man possibly understand European/Middle Eastern/South Asian politics?" is what my interlocutors sometimes, in fact, seem to be saying.

The correct response, of course, is that plenty of white men don't understand European/Middle Eastern/South Asian politics, either. But not everyone, everywhere, is going to understand that. Foreign coverage of U.S. politics always reveals a lot about foreign countries, but never more so than in this election season.

Matt

06-10-2008, 10:10 AM

Oh lord, that article is ridiculous. "Foreigners worry about Obama's lack of experience, so they're racist."

The Senator

06-10-2008, 10:15 AM

Oh lord, that article is ridiculous. "Foreigners worry about Obama's lack of experience, so they're racist."

Yup. Just like how everyone who doesn't want to vote for Obama is a racist, according to Spider-Bite, Tag279 and ForestAflame...

Mr Sparkle

06-10-2008, 10:28 AM

Again, we've been on this merry-go-round once or twice already. Certainly, racists live all across America, but if he loses blue collar states like Ohio and Michigan, which are controlled by Democrats, it will be because Obama could never get down on their level. Both states have become increasingly dominated by the Democratic Party. Both states have influential black politicians working at the state and federal level. I doubt racism will cause him to fail in those states.

I don't get it.
essentially, you can't know this, but you assert it as if it was fact.
how exactly do you know with certainty that IF he loses race won't have been the deciding factor?
"both states have influential black politicians" ? sure, does that mean that the people will think the Office of the President is the same as that?
surely the answer is no.
you can doubt racism will come into play, but really, if Race doesn't come into play then, why was the question " Is America ready for a black president?" posed in the first place?

And that's why Wright is a racist. He blindly thinks that the United States invented AIDS to kill black people. Again, if I said that black people created lupus, everyone would consider me a racist. I do not see how saying that the racist government created AIDS to kill black people. Heck, it makes more sense to say that the government manufactured AIDS to kill gay people, considering gays were the initial scapegoat of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s.

well, not really.
if you lived in society controlled by a black government, with a black majority, and that for centuries had exploited white people your claims wouldn't sound as unfeasible, regardless of how nutty they were.
context, it's what's for dinner :up:

I do not care about a person's color of skin, so I don't think I'll ever blame the "black president" or "black government" for anything. Plus, I already live under a "black government" considering the bulk of DC's city government consists of African Americans and other minorities. Never once have I said that the "black government" in DC needs to do "such and such." :o

oh my god.
did you just compare your situation to "living under a black government"?
say it ain't so, because it would ridiculous.
I mean, my god, are some people so lacking in perspective that they can;t see the racial lines drawn right in front of them?
hey, I don't care about a persons sexuality, so by that line of reasoning it means that surely if a gay man or woman ran for president he wouldn't lose because of it?

right?

Mr Sparkle

06-10-2008, 10:33 AM

Oh lord, that article is ridiculous. "Foreigners worry about Obama's lack of experience, so they're racist."

that's not what he said.

Listen carefully, too, when foreigners start worrying about Obama's lack of foreign-policy experience. Though this is a perfectly legitimate concern, I do think I occasionally catch a racist undertone in this kind of conversation. "How could a black man possibly understand European/Middle Eastern/South Asian politics?" is what my interlocutors sometimes, in fact, seem to be saying.

it should worry you when you have to dissect someone's words and throw away what doesn't gel with your philosophy.
I'm sure that headline about "uncle Barak" meant nothing to you either.

and just so you know, there are stores and entire sections of Japan closed off to foreigners.
I mean, just so you know.

moraldeficiency

06-10-2008, 10:37 AM

it should worry you when you have to dissect someone's words and throw away what doesn't gel with your philosophy.
I'm sure that headline about "uncle Barak" meant nothing to you either.

and just so you know, there are stores and entire sections of Japan closed off to foreigners.
I mean, just so you know.

I was going to say something about that, but then just figured why bother. (I only posted those articles to get some more dialogue going besides the always compelling game of "just how racist is the US?".

Mr Sparkle

06-10-2008, 10:41 AM

I was going to say something about that, but then just figured why bother. (I only posted those articles to get some more dialogue going besides the always compelling game of "just how racist is the US?".

well, there's something people need to understand.
I'm white ( a white Mexican...GASP!) very, very white, plus, I speak English flawlessly, so I have had the un-easy experience of seeing people treat my father one way and me a different way simply because of what they perceived.
racism is alive and well in California, it's not like I lived in the south, and worse thing, racism in Europe is a known fact.

The Senator

06-10-2008, 10:42 AM

I don't get it.
essentially, you can't know this, but you assert it as if it was fact.
how exactly do you know with certainty that IF he loses race won't have been the deciding factor?
"both states have influential black politicians" ? sure, does that mean that the people will think the Office of the President is the same as that?
surely the answer is no.
you can doubt racism will come into play, but really, if Race doesn't come into play then, why was the question " Is America ready for a black president?" posed in the first place?

If America wasn't ready for a black president, then how did Obama get the Democratic nomination in the first place? Obama managed to win open primaries in conservative states such as Mississippi and North Carolina, long after McCain secured the nomination. He even came close in Indiana and Texas. Why didn't racists come out in droves and vote against him? I don't see how people are already willing to blame a prospective Obama loss on racism.

It seems like many folks here are saying "well Obama won't win because Americans are racists!"

You know, they're making excuses before the election has even occurred. My argument is, it is foolish to say that racism will be the only factor which derails his chances of winning. When you look at states like Ohio and Virginia, which have elected black politicians state wide, I don't see how you will be able to blame Obama's possible failure in those states on racism and racism alone.

Hell, even if he loses by 3% of the vote, and 4% admits to being racist, you can look at other demographics and make a case that it wasn't solely the fault of racists that Obama lost. If he loses the blue collar vote and that vote difference adds up to 10%, that proves that if he appealed to those voters, he could have had a net gain of 6-10% of the vote.

Yet, some people are willing to jump on the "Everyone's racist!" bandwagon five months before the election, when Obama is having significant trouble recruiting blue collar voters, women, Catholics, and Jews. Every day it seems like the media discusses the demographics Obama is struggling to win.... yet people are throwing all of those analyses aside, while throwing their arms up in the air and shouting "OMG! America hates black people!"

oh my god.
did you just compare your situation to "living under a black government"?
say it ain't so, because it would ridiculous.
I mean, my god, are some people so lacking in perspective that they can;t see the racial lines drawn right in front of them?
hey, I don't care about a persons sexuality, so by that line of reasoning it means that surely if a gay man or woman ran for president he wouldn't lose because of it?
right?

Considering 57% of Americans admit that they are willing to elect a homosexual to the Presidency, I would strongly doubt that the candidate's sexuality was the only reason why he or she lost.

Also, I wrote the comparison because ForestAflame seems to think that black people are never elected to public office. I honestly don't believe I am governed by a "black government." I can't even name the last piece of legislation which came out of the DC council.

Kaleb

06-10-2008, 10:48 AM

Here in South Africa everybody wants Obama to be the next pres, and it makes me sick, cause the only us election coverage here is about the democratic party. Ive joined facebook groups ''South African for obama'' asking them why they want obama to be the us president and not one of them can give me a vaild answer.

moraldeficiency

06-10-2008, 10:52 AM

well, there's something people need to understand.
I'm white ( a white Mexican...GASP!) very, very white, plus, I speak English flawlessly, so I have had the un-easy experience of seeing people treat my father one way and me a different way simply because of what they perceived.
racism is alive and well in California, it's not like I lived in the south, and worse thing, racism in Europe is a known fact.

yeah I grew up there and while I'm about as white as you can get many of my cousins are black and the difference between how we get treated in stores and such when I lived in europe was pretty sickening. What I've noticed about nations in europe and asia is they generally get a pass on being racist because it's "nationalism" for them and it just happens to be that 99% of everyone in that nation is of one race (conviently), while in the US where you actually can have a jew, a muslim, a black person and a white woman walking down the same street without that being the intro to a joke racism is under such an exagerrate microscope it becomes some people's defining characteristic.

Mr Sparkle

06-10-2008, 11:06 AM

If America wasn't ready for a black president, then how did Obama get the Democratic nomination in the first place? Obama managed to win open primaries in conservative states such as Mississippi and North Carolina, long after McCain secured the nomination. He even came close in Indiana and Texas. Why didn't racists come out in droves and vote against him? I don't see how people are already willing to blame a prospective Obama loss on racism.

It seems like many folks here are saying "well Obama won't win because Americans are racists!"

You know, they're making excuses before the election has even occurred. My argument is, it is foolish to say that racism will be the only factor which derails his chances of winning. When you look at states like Ohio and Virginia, which have elected black politicians state wide, I don't see how you will be able to blame Obama's possible failure in those states on racism and racism alone.

Hell, even if he loses by 3% of the vote, and 4% admits to being racist, you can look at other demographics and make a case that it wasn't solely the fault of racists that Obama lost. If he loses the blue collar vote and that vote difference adds up to 10%, that proves that if he appealed to those voters, he could have had a net gain of 6-10% of the vote.

Yet, some people are willing to jump on the "Everyone's racist!" bandwagon five months before the election, when Obama is having significant trouble recruiting blue collar voters, women, Catholics, and Jews. Every day it seems like the media discusses the demographics Obama is struggling to win.... yet people are throwing all of those analyses aside, while throwing their arms up in the air and shouting "OMG! America hates black people!"

what exactly troubles you so much about the US being racist or not?
it's almost like people don't or can't get it through their head that racial equality in the US is a long way away.
I mean, he got the nomination, really, that's your measure of equality?
oh, ok, sorry I didn't know that I had fallen into the alternate earth the earth in which THIS (http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/34288prs20080213.html) didn't happen, or didn't happen all that often.
of course I'm sure the fact that it's called "racial profiling" means nothing, I mean, don't these people know Obama was nominated? maybe I should e-mail the ACLU that article about Obama's campaign so they can shut down their activities oriented towards the black community.
equality is here guys, Obama got the nod.
but of course, that would leave out all those other races, say maybe the US is ok with the other guys, except when it burns 10 people (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5981900/) alive in a mostly Immigrant apartment building in Ohio, where the police chief said arson was probably the cause and a fire hydrant near the building had been suspiciously broken.
so yeah, while I'm not saying the US is racist, to pretend that Obama's nomination is some sort of indicator of racial equality is just plain naive.
you will notice I'm not saying "OMG the us is racist" I'm stating clear cases and trends that should alarm anyone, and that frankly indicate a lack of education on both sides of the issue.
so. Obama, if he loses will not be solely due to race, but race would be a deciding factor, how come people are so comfortable with saying that the Media gave him a free pass BECAUSE he is black but can;t see the negative impact of his race?:huh: :up:

Considering 57% of Americans admit that they are willing to elect a homosexual to the Presidency, I would strongly doubt that the candidate's sexuality was the only reason why he or she lost.

so far I have not said it would be the only reason, of course I wonder if pretty much you have a built in handicap of 43%, just how successfula candidacy can you run?

Mr Sparkle

06-10-2008, 11:08 AM

yeah I grew up there and while I'm about as white as you can get many of my cousins are black and the difference between how we get treated in stores and such when I lived in europe was pretty sickening. What I've noticed about nations in europe and asia is they generally get a pass on being racist because it's "nationalism" for them and it just happens to be that 99% of everyone in that nation is of one race (conviently), while in the US where you actually can have a jew, a muslim, a black person and a white woman walking down the same street without that being the intro to a joke racism is under such an exagerrate microscope it becomes some people's defining characteristic.

completely agree, especially on the nationalism shield.
it sickens me when people say " we're just protecting our heritage"
:whatever: please......

The Senator

06-10-2008, 11:38 AM

what exactly troubles you so much about the US being racist or not?
it's almost like people don't or can't get it through their head that racial equality in the US is a long way away.
I mean, he got the nomination, really, that's your measure of equality?
oh, ok, sorry I didn't know that I had fallen into the alternate earth the earth in which THIS (http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/34288prs20080213.html) didn't happen, or didn't happen all that often.
of course I'm sure the fact that it's called "racial profiling" means nothing, I mean, don't these people know Obama was nominated? maybe I should e-mail the ACLU that article about Obama's campaign so they can shut down their activities oriented towards the black community.
equality is here guys, Obama got the nod.
but of course, that would leave out all those other races, say maybe the US is ok with the other guys, except when it burns 10 people (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5981900/) alive in a mostly Immigrant apartment building in Ohio, where the police chief said arson was probably the cause and a fire hydrant near the building had been suspiciously broken.
so yeah, while I'm not saying the US is racist, to pretend that Obama's nomination is some sort of indicator of racial equality is just plain naive.
you will notice I'm not saying "OMG the us is racist" I'm stating clear cases and trends that should alarm anyone, and that frankly indicate a lack of education on both sides of the issue.
so. Obama, if he loses will not be solely due to race, but race would be a deciding factor, how come people are so comfortable with saying that the Media gave him a free pass BECAUSE he is black but can;t see the negative impact of his race?:huh: :up:

I'm not saying that there isn't a certain level of racism and racial injustice in this country.

There is.

But, if America was so adamantly against letting a black man become president, then why did a record number of Americans vote to make him the Democratic nominee for President?

Why didn't racists come out in droves in Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina-- states in the 'deep south'-- in order to vote against him? Why is he where he is today?

He didn't become the Democratic nominee because America is filled with pigheaded racists. He didn't become the Democratic nominee because of his race at all. He got there on his own merits. Now it is up to him to ascend to the presidency on his own merits as well.

Racism will not be his downfall. If that was the case, he would have been out of the race in January.

so far I have not said it would be the only reason, of course I wonder if pretty much you have a built in handicap of 43%, just how successfula candidacy can you run?

Only 57% of Americans say they are willing to elect a president over the age of 70, while 94% of Americans say they are willing to elect a black man to the presidency. If you ask me, that means Obama already has a pretty big advantage over McCain...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/02/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist _/

Excel

06-10-2008, 11:46 AM

Exactly; McCains age will play a large factor.

moraldeficiency

06-10-2008, 11:51 AM

If mccain loses its because he's old.

Mr Sparkle

06-10-2008, 12:05 PM

But, if America was so adamantly against letting a black man become president, then why did a record number of Americans vote to make him the Democratic nominee for President?

Why didn't racists come out in droves in Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina-- states in the 'deep south'-- in order to vote against him? Why is he where he is today?

because you're thinking that the Democratic primaries are somehow indicative of racial preferences in the US, they are not.
you keep saying that "people should have come out in droves"
well, it's the democratic primaries, the people will come out in droves in the general election when independents and undecided voters will get their say.
I think that will be far more indicative than anything don't you think?

He didn't become the Democratic nominee because America is filled with pigheaded racists. He didn't become the Democratic nominee because of his race at all. He got there on his own merits. Now it is up to him to ascend to the presidency on his own merits as well.

Racism will not be his downfall. If that was the case, he would have been out of the race in January.

actually you're wrong, why do you have to go to an extreme? did I say America was "filled" with racists? did I ever say Race would be the one deciding factor, however for you to ignore it? ridiculous.
you keep saying that this factor or that WILL or WILL NOT be his downfall.
I'm sorry you're wrong, if the Presidency was a matter of getting there by your merits Kerry would be president and not Bush.
let's be honest, Gore would've won in the first place.
so, while we can debate about the importance of race for you unequivocally state that racism WILL NOT be his downfall is wrong.

Only 57% of Americans say they are willing to elect a president over the age of 70, while 94% of Americans say they are willing to elect a black man to the presidency. If you ask me, that means Obama already has a pretty big advantage over McCain...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/02/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist _/

how exactly do you reconcile that with your own statement?

I'm not saying that there isn't a certain level of racism and racial injustice in this country.

There is.

the question would be, do you really believe that only 5% of Americans have racial preferences, not even flat out racists, but racial preferences.
the problem with Gallup polls is that people misinterpret them as equal to the American mindset.
they are not.
for instace a poll by CNN says most people see lingering racism in society
in that poll 13% of whites and 12% of blacks consider themselves racially biased (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/12/racism.poll/index.html)
you don't really believe that just 5% of Americans harbor racial preference right?

The Senator

06-10-2008, 12:16 PM

because you're thinking that the Democratic primaries are somehow indicative of racial preferences in the US, they are not.
you keep saying that "people should have come out in droves"
well, it's the democratic primaries, the people will come out in droves in the general election when independents and undecided voters will get their say.
I think that will be far more indicative than anything don't you think?

Obviously, the general election will be the ultimate indicator. However, independents and Republicans and 'undecided racists' would have been able to participate in 40 of the 57 Democratic contests. Every contest in "traditionally racist" states such as Mississippi and North Carolina were open, meaning anyone could vote in the Democratic Primary. Yet Obama still won those states by 15-20 points. If America wasn't ready to elect a black president, then how could they be ready to make him the nominee for one of the two main parties in this country?

actually you're wrong, why do you have to go to an extreme? did I say America was "filled" with racists? did I ever say Race would be the one deciding factor, however for you to ignore it? ridiculous.
you keep saying that this factor or that WILL or WILL NOT be his downfall.
I'm sorry you're wrong, if the Presidency was a matter of getting there by your merits Kerry would be president and not Bush.
let's be honest, Gore would've won in the first place.
so, while we can debate about the importance of race for you unequivocally state that racism WILL NOT be his downfall is wrong.

The presidency is more than just the issues. It's about being able to sell yourself. Kerry couldn't sell himself. Hell, half the time, it was difficult to figure out which side of an issue he stood on. As for Gore, he won the popular vote. Americans voted for Gore; a technicality made Bush president.

Again, I'm not saying that racism won't be a part of his downfall. But I refuse to stand here, five months before the election, and say "well, if Obama loses, it's because America is racist."

You didn't say this. But others have. That's the mentality which seems to be floating around as of late. Spider-Bite went as far to say that he thinks Obama has such a great personality, that people must be against him because of his race and misleading emails. Not because of disagreements in policy.

Racism will not be the only contributing factor to his defeat. If he is defeated, I bet I will be able to find several demographics he could have won over.

the question would be, do you really believe that only 5% of Americans have racial preferences, not even flat out racists, but racial preferences.
the problem with Gallup polls is that people misinterpret them as equal to the American mindset.
they are not.
for instace a poll by CNN says most people see lingering racism in society
in that poll 13% of whites and 12% of blacks consider themselves racially biased (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/12/racism.poll/index.html)
you don't really believe that just 5% of Americans harbor racial preference right?

Well, my only response is, we'll see what happens during the election.

Mr Sparkle

06-10-2008, 12:36 PM

Obviously, the general election will be the ultimate indicator. However, independents and Republicans and 'undecided racists' would have been able to participate in 40 of the 57 Democratic contests. Every contest in "traditionally racist" states such as Mississippi and North Carolina were open, meaning anyone could vote in the Democratic Primary. Yet Obama still won those states by 15-20 points. If America wasn't ready to elect a black president, then how could they be ready to make him the nominee for one of the two main parties in this country?

so again, and this seems to be crux of your argument.
since Obama didn't lose the primary election this means that the US as a whole is ready for a black president.
because the voters, the racist voters would vote in primary and not simply save their votes for the general election, or simply elect a candidate they are sure to shoot down in the general.

The presidency is more than just the issues. It's about being able to sell yourself. Kerry couldn't sell himself. Hell, half the time, it was difficult to figure out which side of an issue he stood on. As for Gore, he won the popular vote. Americans voted for Gore; a technicality made Bush president.

that's weird though, because again, you keep saying that Issues are going to be the deciding factor, connecting to the demographics and such.
that would be the only reason NOT to vote for Obama really, because it's not like he was born into privilege, for one.
while we can agree on Gore, Kerry was simply a careful politician in an age when everything has be EXTREME!!!!! so of course people failed to see some neat unilateralism in him and thought, " when Osama comes a'kocking he'll just hand him to the keys to the city" whatever, the thing is that race will be an important factor, along with others, regardless of your rather confusing, unwillingness to recognize it.

Again, I'm not saying that racism won't be a part of his downfall. But I refuse to stand here, five months before the election, and say "well, if Obama loses, it's because America is racist."

You didn't say this. But others have. That's the mentality which seems to be floating around as of late. Spider-Bite went as far to say that he thinks Obama has such a great personality, that people must be against him because of his race and misleading emails. Not because of disagreements in policy.

Racism will not be the only contributing factor to his defeat. If he is defeated, I bet I will be able to find several demographics he could have won over.

well, you really should understand that many people out there still think he is a Muslim.
a muslim, as to why that would matter? who knows? still in this day and age for people to think that he is indeed a Muslim racist related to a murderous African dude?
well, that alone speaks volumes doesn't it? when political strategists, say things like " it seems that Obama isn't the political Tiger Woods we thought he would be" what does that tell you?
when Rush limbaugh says things like "Obama disowned his white half...he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side" well I can't help but to think that this will be a factor like the swift boat thing was for Kerry.

The Senator

06-10-2008, 12:45 PM

If voters are so worried about Obama's chances of winning the election, if people think that racists will vote against him, that folks will vote against him because they incorrectly think that he's a Muslim... then maybe voters should have thought about what kind of problems he would face in the general election before voting for him in the primary. Elections are about who can win. If we nominated a candidate who can't win, then folks don't really have a reason to *****. They brought this upon themselves.

Excel

06-10-2008, 12:50 PM

They are not worried. The states with those people wont have an effect; he was always going to lose them.

Matt

06-10-2008, 12:56 PM

Then you concede that racism will not be a factor in this election as even in the states where it is prominent enough to have an effect the Democrats would lose them even if Edwards were their candidate?

moraldeficiency

06-10-2008, 01:05 PM

Varient

06-10-2008, 01:05 PM

Consider Jena and the events that led to the altercation.

Consider the black man that was shot 30-times on his wedding day by white police he had no criminal record.

Consider the young black man (20-yo) in my city that was hung because he was engaged to a white girl.

Consider the multiple shooting and suicide that happened in my county @ Lockheed Martin.

Consider that I am a trained experienced Firefighter EMT-B and a white man who was having a heart attack did not want me to work on him He demanded someone white. When I exposed his chest he had a rebel flag tatoo with a swastika in the middle.

When I was 18 and looking for work a prospective employer told me that I was qualified but he was going to hire someone white.

No I am not stupid and I know that Obama becoming President will not make racism disapear from the American fabric. His Presidency IMO would indicate how far we have come as a nation.

AND NO I DON'T THINK OBAMA IS ENTITLED BECAUSE OF THE CRAP BLACKS PEOPLE HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH.

I think he will do a good job as President; go AHEAD AND CALL ME STUPID.
Notice how easy it is to pull up examples of what we speak,... and it all gets ignored under "not a factor or major concern" in this election.

The above is reality happening NOW not twenty years ago. I have a mild problem understanding where the "yeah buts" are coming from with the whites telling me that race doesn't make a difference?

yup,... it's official,.. time being wasted here - going back to "lurk-mode".

Excel

06-10-2008, 01:05 PM

Of course racism is a factor, but I dont think it will be in the major swing states.

Mr Sparkle

06-10-2008, 01:12 PM

Darthphere

06-10-2008, 01:15 PM

Notice how easy it is to pull up examples of what we speak,... and it all gets ignored under "not a factor or major concern" in this election.

The above is reality happening NOW not twenty years ago. I have a mild problem understanding where the "yeah buts" are coming from with the whites telling me that race doesn't make a difference?

Wow, how racist of you. Assuming everyone who disagrees with you is white. I am not white, and as far as I know was never white (except that one time with that stripper). Because "blacks" as you put it are the only ones living the struggle of racism, right? For every example of a black man being screwed over because of race, I can give you one where a hispanic, indian, or woman was screwed over as well. Again, we realize that racism exists, we "the whites" as you label us have never denied it. It will, I repeat WILL be a factor in the Presidential race, but to make the leap that somehow Obama will lose because of his race is a huge assumption to make. What will you say if he does win? Will you still call us all racists and not progressive enough to make such a huge change?

Final point: Racism exists. Yes, shocking, I can admit that. I have felt racism in my life. However, racism will continue to exist if people like you continue with your "Oh he won't win because America is racist" and "That type of change is still a generation away." and do nothing to reverse the trend. What you display on these boards is a man that is happy playing the victim, heck the race card instead of actually doing anything about it. I may be wrong, for all I know you are the second coming of MLK where you live. I can only go by what you post here, and what you post here is frightening to say the least.

yup,... it's official,.. time being wasted here - going back to "lurk-mode".

Do you promise? Because I know you will be back.

Matt

06-10-2008, 01:18 PM

that's assuming a lot matt.

I did not state it, I am asking Excel if that is what he is stating.

moraldeficiency

06-10-2008, 01:21 PM

I did not state it, I am asking Excel if that is what he is stating.

My bad, I'm kinda drifting in and out today.

Does it feel to anyone else like were so far past the point of reasonably assuming an outcome that it's like were now trying to give a line for the 2020 NBA finals?

Darthphere

06-10-2008, 01:23 PM

Matt

06-10-2008, 01:24 PM

Notice how easy it is to pull up examples of what we speak,... and it all gets ignored under "not a factor or major concern" in this election.

The above is reality happening NOW not twenty years ago. I have a mild problem understanding where the "yeah buts" are coming from with the whites telling me that race doesn't make a difference?

yup,... it's official,.. time being wasted here - going back to "lurk-mode".

Thats because a lot of it is a load of ****. The Jena kids should not have been charged with attempted murder, but at the same time they did commit a crime and it is not uncommon for prosecutors to charge a suspect with increased charges in order to force a plea bargin for something like aggravated assault. It happens on a daily basis to white people and black people.

As for the groom shooting, how convenient that Varient left out the fact that the groom was behind the wheel of a car, while intoxicated, and hit an officer with his car while trying to escape, after (which NUMEROUS witnesses have testified to) the officers had shown their badges and ordered him to stop.

1) Being intoxicated behind a wheel of a car while fleeing from police does make you a threat to society and therefore deadly force is warranted under the current standard of Tennessee v. Garner.

2) Numerous witnesses (who were nothing more than bystanders with no connection) also testified that one of the friends of the groom had said he was going to the car to get his gun.

Yeah, I'd say the shooting is justified.

As for the rest of the examples, they are cases of individual, not institutionalized racism. Furthermore, none of them are documented.

Matt

06-10-2008, 01:25 PM

My bad, I'm kinda drifting in and out today.

Does it feel to anyone else like were so far past the point of reasonably assuming an outcome that it's like were now trying to give a line for the 2020 NBA finals?

I think it is ridiculous. It seems to me that many posters, I won't name names (cough cough, Tag, Varient, Forestaflame) are trying to use a loss, that has not happened, and may very well not happen (and is not even likely if you consider current polls) to prove that Americans are racist. :huh:

Darthphere

06-10-2008, 01:26 PM

I think it is ridiculous. It seems to me that many posters, I won't name names (cough cough, Tag, Varient, Forestaflame) are trying to use a loss, that has not happened, and may very well not happen (and is not even likely if you consider current polls) to prove that Americans are racist. :huh:

Excuse me, not Americans "the whites".:o

moraldeficiency

06-10-2008, 01:26 PM

Charlotte Bobcats versus Portland Trailblazers.:o

You're a fool, it'll clearly be the Tijuana WormEaters vs the Bejing FreakishlyTallChinamen with TJ taking it in seven games thanks to poor teamplay by an aging Kobe Bryant.

moraldeficiency

06-10-2008, 01:28 PM

Mr Sparkle

06-10-2008, 01:38 PM

Yeah, I'd say the shooting is justified.

you'd consider shooting the guy 20 to 30 times "justified"?
is there a "Virginia Vs The Terminator" case I'm unaware about?:huh:

Tron5000

06-10-2008, 03:27 PM

Neal Boortz had a bit to say about Obama on his web page today. Now, go ahead and rail about Boortz if you want, instead of actually addressing the issue he brings up.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Barack Obama has been toying with the idea of imposing a tax on windfall profits on US oil companies, and it will definitely be a part of his presidential platform. Take a look at this latest statement he made in Raleigh, North Carolina. He said, "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills." Gee, that sounds like a wealth distribution plan if I've ever heard one. Rob from the rich to give to the "poor."

Ok .. first of all, just what are "windfall profits?" Does anyone have a handy definition? Might I offer one? Damn right I might. Try this: "A tax levied on a industry by a politician eager to pander to economically ignorant voters who, for whatever reason, are upset with that industry."

This term "windfall profits" has become another buzzword for liberals, and particularly the Barack Obama campaign. A majority of Americans probably couldn't tell you the first thing about windfall profits ... but the word inflicts these feelings of evil and wealth envy. Therefore, the Obama campaign will continue to use this fancy term to get you all riled up. Politicians are good at that.

Once again we run up against the economic ignorance of the American people. Most people couldn't tell you the difference between a profit and a profit margin if their flat-screen TVs depended on it. The profit margins – the amount of money they earn for a dollar of sales – have actually declined a bit. Banking institutions, cosmetics companies and pharmaceutical companies are just part of a long list of businesses that earn more than the evil oil companies.

Hopefully most Americans have enough economic smarts to know that the profits from these oil companies belong to the shareholders. Problem is, these people probably think that the shares in these oil companies are fat-cat insiders just reaping millions a year from their investments.

Wrong.

Throughout the oil and natural gas industries only about 1.5% of the stock is owned by company executives. Now this statistic doesn't come from the oil companies themselves, the numbers – and the numbers that follow – come from Bill Clinton's undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs; one Robert J. Shapiro.

Here's what Shapiro has to say about the ownership of the other 98.5% of oil company shares: "The data show that ownership of industry shares is broadly middle class, with the majority of industry shares held by institutional investors, often on behalf of millions of Americans through mutual funds, pension funds and individual retirement accounts."

So ... when Barack Obama talks about a windfall profits tax, just who's money is he going to seize? He's talking about taking the savings, investments and retirement funds of middle class Americans.

Pardon my language ... but would you folks please wise up out there? Quit being so damned ignorant to what is really going on!

You want more details on just who owns the shares? OK, I have those details. Just remember, when Obama talks about windfall profits --- THESE are the people who's money he plans to seize:

Again ... from the Shapiro study:

* Almost 43 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are owned by mutual funds and asset management companies that have mutual funds. Mutual funds manage accounts for 55 million U.S. households with a median income of $68,700.
* Twenty seven percent of shares are owned by other institutional investors like pension funds. In 2004, more than 2,600 pension funds run by federal, state and local governments held almost $64 billion in shares of U.S. oil and natural gas companies. These funds represent the major retirement security for the nation's current and retired soldiers, teachers, and police and fire personnel at every level of government.
* Fourteen percent of shares are held in IRA and other personal retirement accounts. Forty five million U.S. households have IRA and other personal retirement accounts, with an average account value of just over $22,000.

You see? The people listed in this study are ... YOU! Not fat-cat oil company executives. Not George Bush and Dick Cheney. This is YOUR money he's after ... YOUR money he wants to seize to create yet another government entitlement program ... helping people buy gas and pay electricity bills.

Someone (perhaps John Wayne) once said that it is too bad stupidity isn't painful. Well, in this case is just might be. Look at those median incomes above. That's you, my friends ... and if you sit by and let this anti-capitalist leftist rail against the oil companies; if you sit by and let him pander to the ignorance of the American voters with this idiotic "windfall profits tax" crap ... then try not to ***** when your retirement doesn't turn out to be as sweet as you thought it would.

By the way ... if you want to call BS on me with these numbers and statistics, by my guest. Here's the link for you to read the study for yourself. Knock yourself out, sport.

Marx

06-10-2008, 03:29 PM

Excuse me, not Americans "the whites".:o

Yeah, I noticed that comment too. :whatever:

The Chairman

06-10-2008, 03:44 PM

Thats because a lot of it is a load of ****. The Jena kids should not have been charged with attempted murder, but at the same time they did commit a crime and it is not uncommon for prosecutors to charge a suspect with increased charges in order to force a plea bargin for something like aggravated assault. It happens on a daily basis to white people and black people.

As for the groom shooting, how convenient that Varient left out the fact that the groom was behind the wheel of a car, while intoxicated, and hit an officer with his car while trying to escape, after (which NUMEROUS witnesses have testified to) the officers had shown their badges and ordered him to stop.

1) Being intoxicated behind a wheel of a car while fleeing from police does make you a threat to society and therefore deadly force is warranted under the current standard of Tennessee v. Garner.

2) Numerous witnesses (who were nothing more than bystanders with no connection) also testified that one of the friends of the groom had said he was going to the car to get his gun.

Not only that, but he did have a criminal record, as did his friends. Secondly, the club he was at that night was an alleged front for a prostitution ring (which is why they were there in the first place). Was 50 shots bit exteme? Perhaps, but in that type of situation, it's very easy to lose your cool. Until you've been in that type of situation, you really can't put the blame entirely on the cops.

Oh, and of the five cops involved, two cops were African American and one was Hispanic.

Tron5000

06-10-2008, 03:50 PM

Not only that, but he did have a criminal record, as did his friends. Secondly, the club he was at that night was an alleged front for a prostitution ring (which is why they were there in the first place). Was 50 shots bit exteme? Perhaps, but in that type of situation, it's very easy to lose your cool. Until you've been in that type of situation, you really can't put the blame entirely on the cops.

Oh, and of the five cops involved, two cops were African American and one was Hispanic.

Must've been those damn self-hating blacks. Uncle Tom sum-b****es.

Matt

06-10-2008, 03:57 PM

Neal Boortz had a bit to say about Obama on his web page today. Now, go ahead and rail about Boortz if you want, instead of actually addressing the issue he brings up.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

If the government truly had a desire to end Americans' burden at the pumps they would not only end taxes on the oil companies but they would also cap prices. That would keep the burden of a cap on oil companies to a minimum, as they would not be paying taxes. It would keep prices down as well. Also, there needs to be a real investigation into price gouging. Not a bull **** dog and pony show. A real investigation.

Tron5000

06-10-2008, 04:06 PM

If the government truly had a desire to end Americans' burden at the pumps they would not only end taxes on the oil companies but they would also cap prices. That would keep the burden of a cap on oil companies to a minimum, as they would not be paying taxes. It would keep prices down as well. Also, there needs to be a real investigation into price gouging. Not a bull **** dog and pony show. A real investigation.

Price-gouging? Oil companies' profit margins are going down as fuel prices increase. Oil companies usually make around a 4% profit margin. Other industries enjoy profit margins much higher, such as the cosmetics industry, automakers, movie theaters...Almost every industry makes higher than a 4 cent return on the dollar, or else they would be out of business.

And how can you cap the costs of a gallon of gas? You can't put a cap on how much a barrel of oil is going to cost from OPEC, so how can you cap the cost that is paid at the pump?

The Senator

06-10-2008, 04:15 PM

Price-gouging? Oil companies' profit margins are going down as fuel prices increase. Oil companies usually make around a 4% profit margin. Other industries enjoy profit margins much higher, such as the cosmetics industry, automakers, movie theaters...Almost every industry makes higher than a 4 cent return on the dollar, or else they would be out of business.

And how can you cap the costs of a gallon of gas? You can't put a cap on how much a barrel of oil is going to cost from OPEC, so how can you cap the cost that is paid at the pump?

:waa:

Poor oil companies, screwing the middle class and all. We should let them charge more for their oil, then force everyone to work 60-70 hours a week so they can afford their transportation to and from work...

Tron5000

06-10-2008, 04:17 PM

:waa:

Poor oil companies, screwing the middle class and all. We should let them charge more for their oil, then force everyone to work 60-70 hours a week so they can afford their transportation to and from work...

Do you know who profits when oil companies sell gas? Teachers, police officers, firefighters, postal workers, bankers...basically, all shareholders of said oil companies.

The oil companies make 4% profit margin, which is much lower than most other industries in America. You want them to do away with that 4% and just give us the gas? Good luck with that.

Mr Sparkle

06-10-2008, 04:21 PM

Do you know who profits when oil companies sell gas? Teachers, police officers, firefighters, postal workers, bankers...basically, all shareholders of said oil companies.

The oil companies make 4% profit margin, which is much lower than most other industries in America. You want them to do away with that 4% and just give us the gas? Good luck with that.

really?
you really believe that? you really believe that profiteering by Oil companies benefits teachers , firefighters and postal workers?
to what extent? sufficient to offset their yearly gasoline bill increase? or the increase in basic items due to transport costs?

The Senator

06-10-2008, 04:40 PM

Do you know who profits when oil companies sell gas? Teachers, police officers, firefighters, postal workers, bankers...basically, all shareholders of said oil companies.

The oil companies make 4% profit margin, which is much lower than most other industries in America. You want them to do away with that 4% and just give us the gas? Good luck with that.

I think I'll go ask my father how much the oil companies put in his pocket last week... because the last I knew, he was worrying about how he would fill his tank to get to work during the last week of school... once he knows that he's actually profiting from oil companies, I'm sure he'll change his mind about those "wallet-rapers," as he bluntly calls them...

(And he's a Republican!)

Tron5000

06-10-2008, 04:43 PM

I think I'll go ask my father how much the oil companies put in his pocket last week... because the last I knew, he was worrying about how he would fill his tank to get to work during the last week of school... once he knows that he's actually profiting from oil companies, I'm sure he'll change his mind about those "wallet-rapers," as he bluntly calls them...

(And he's a Republican!)

Ask your father is he has an IRA or other investment accounts. Then ask him if contained within the portfolios of these accounts are any oil company stocks. Let me know what he says.

The Senator

06-10-2008, 04:59 PM

Ask your father is he has an IRA or other investment accounts. Then ask him if contained within the portfolios of these accounts are any oil company stocks. Let me know what he says.

He does not have an IRA.

Chris B

06-10-2008, 05:24 PM

It appears that some of Obama's shortlist for VP has been leaked:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/10/1127710.aspx

Varient

06-10-2008, 05:26 PM

Wow, how racist of you. Assuming everyone who disagrees with you is white. I am not white, and as far as I know was never white (except that one time with that stripper). Because "blacks" as you put it are the only ones living the struggle of racism, right? For every example of a black man being screwed over because of race, I can give you one where a hispanic, indian, or woman was screwed over as well. Again, we realize that racism exists, we "the whites" as you label us have never denied it. It will, I repeat WILL be a factor in the Presidential race, but to make the leap that somehow Obama will lose because of his race is a huge assumption to make. What will you say if he does win? Will you still call us all racists and not progressive enough to make such a huge change?

Final point: Racism exists. Yes, shocking, I can admit that. I have felt racism in my life. However, racism will continue to exist if people like you continue with your "Oh he won't win because America is racist" and "That type of change is still a generation away." and do nothing to reverse the trend. What you display on these boards is a man that is happy playing the victim, heck the race card instead of actually doing anything about it. I may be wrong, for all I know you are the second coming of MLK where you live. I can only go by what you post here, and what you post here is frightening to say the least.

Do you promise? Because I know you will be back.

U underline to me that its a waste of time,... u r stirring **** right now because you can't argue.
Your words that I believe everyone who disagrees with me as seen as white,...
tsk.
Is Morale white? I disagree with him and I thought he was black,... My bad moral. Based on what Darth here believes my motivations are just that simple.

Give it up or go away Darth. You ignored my last three posts to you and are still stuck on what you think I meant 6 posts ago.

If you can't address what I said instead of what you think I mean - you need to drop it.

Heh,... take the last as an example,.. I'm going back into lurk mode and your silly behind addresses me directly to ask for a promise that I go?

I will say this though. There is an awful lot of "not me" going on with the anti-Obama folk.

In ten pages they have gone from "If he loses it won't be in any way because of color" to "Race may be a factor but it won't be the primary reason why."

The scariest part is that pack and parcel with the "not me" mindset is the continued denial NO MATTER HOW MANY EXAMPLES are brought up that race cannot be an issue.
That is the real reason this is a waste of time because faced with something that can't be excused - it becomes "an unfortunate accident"

Otherwise there is an "excuse" for everycase. Meh.

We don't live in the same country.
A Pro football player gets shot outside his home by a white off duty police officer driving a beater and wearing sweats who tried to get him to stop by waving his gun at him.

This white man followed him for over 30 miles OUTSIDE of his jurisdiction and while declaring he was a cop and demanding the football player pull over in the middle of the night - AT NO TIME DID HE SHOW A BADGE.

Finally the Black pro football player confronts the guy in front of his house. The white cop "fears for his life and shoots the black man 3 times ending his football career.

Please TELL me in this land of Milk and Honey how many reported cases of cops following White guys while off duty and waving guns for thirty miles before shooting them almost in their front yards.

See,... the disconnect here is that those who don't deal with it can't see it and instead namecall when they can't ptrove their points.

Darth,... based on how ignorant you've been I doubt you know what racism is from my end,.. but you keep trying to stir mess like you have a clue.

Please leave me out of your race baiting. You don't like what or how I say something,... I suggest you be specific and stay polite or expect me to contiue to ignore most of your mess.

V.

Varient

06-10-2008, 05:46 PM

what's funny is I'm sure those same guys thought no "upstart blackman" could stand a chance against the clinton juggernaut a few months ago.

fortunate that my views are documented on this thread from my first post,... please don't include me when you add phrases like "upstart" since my tone has never been the position that classed obama like white folk do,... giving negative attributes to blacks who don't fit the stereotypes.

My position remains the same: given the state of this country we are years before a black man can win the presidency.
Sorry you guys need to put more on it than that. I can state example after example of proof as to why by the behavior and actions of hundreds of people.

It's a waste of time.

There are those who want Obama to win,.. I can respect that.

Nothing in my experience says he can. History has shown in this country that you have to put forth the thought/concept and then waste a generation letting it soak in before expecting a viable chance.

Don't know the numbers,.. but I would say disgruntled Hilliary voters plus Hard core McCain voters equals Obama doesn't win,... period.

Prve me wrong - From what I read of Hilliary voters they are a vindictive lot. Obama would have to make Hilliary his running mate to get them to vote for him.

tsk.

Varient

06-10-2008, 06:03 PM

Thats because a lot of it is a load of ****. The Jena kids should not have been charged with attempted murder, but at the same time they did commit a crime and it is not uncommon for prosecutors to charge a suspect with increased charges in order to force a plea bargin for something like aggravated assault. It happens on a daily basis to white people and black people.

As for the groom shooting, how convenient that Varient left out the fact that the groom was behind the wheel of a car, while intoxicated, and hit an officer with his car while trying to escape, after (which NUMEROUS witnesses have testified to) the officers had shown their badges and ordered him to stop.

1) Being intoxicated behind a wheel of a car while fleeing from police does make you a threat to society and therefore deadly force is warranted under the current standard of Tennessee v. Garner.

2) Numerous witnesses (who were nothing more than bystanders with no connection) also testified that one of the friends of the groom had said he was going to the car to get his gun.

Yeah, I'd say the shooting is justified.

As for the rest of the examples, they are cases of individual, not institutionalized racism. Furthermore, none of them are documented.

"Varient left out the fact?"

Tsk.
My point here was to agree that a butt load of examples can be frieghted here with the anti-obama crowd making excuse after excuse as to "why" it was justified to do dirt to a black person.

One thing I should mention:
In EVERYCASE where blacks are shot by law enforcement a background / medical check is performed AFTER THE FACT to justify shooting the black in the first place,.. and the public accept that the cops were "justified" in shooting them regardless of circumstance IF they find anything.

Like being able to "feel" the blacks deserve to be shot ahead of time (disgust).

The Chairman

06-10-2008, 06:51 PM

"Varient left out the fact?"

Tsk.
My point here was to agree that a butt load of examples can be frieghted here with the anti-obama crowd making excuse after excuse as to "why" it was justified to do dirt to a black person.

One thing I should mention:
In EVERYCASE where blacks are shot by law enforcement a background / medical check is performed AFTER THE FACT to justify shooting the black in the first place,.. and the public accept that the cops were "justified" in shooting them regardless of circumstance IF they find anything.

Like being able to "feel" the blacks deserve to be shot ahead of time (disgust).

:rolleyes:

Okay, I'm not part of the anti-Obama crowd. As a matter of fact, I'm a vocacious supporter. And while racism is no doubt a reality in society, to use every incident in which a black person is seen as a victim to justify your belief is wrong.

The cops had no idea who Sean Bell was. They didn't know his criminal record, and they didn't need to. All they knew was that he was that he was posing a major threat to them and potential civilians and that was reason enough for them to take action. Was 50 shots excesssive? Perhaps. Is it justifiable to protest the incident on the grounds of police brutality? Sure. But to use it as an example of racism has no justificiation.

RockSP

06-10-2008, 11:41 PM

Oh, and of the five cops involved, two cops were African American and one was Hispanic.

Must've been those damn self-hating blacks. Uncle Tom sum-b****es.

^^Quite possibly so.

Tron5000

06-10-2008, 11:57 PM

^^Quite possibly so.

That was tongue-in-cheek, right?

RockSP

06-11-2008, 12:13 AM

That was tongue-in-cheek, right?

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they were self-hating. People like that do exist.

Tron5000

06-11-2008, 12:18 AM

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they were self-hating. People like that do exist.

Yes, they do. But "likely" and "realm of possibility" are far apart. Anything that can be physically or mentally done is, by definition, within "the realm of possibility." I simply ask for evidence supporting such a conclusion.

Marx

06-11-2008, 12:20 AM

It appears that some of Obama's shortlist for VP has been leaked:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/10/1127710.aspx

I can't say that I'm surprised by any of those names. I am rather excited to read that Strickland and Biden drew "extended discussion." I'm a huge fan of both!

Although, I also have to say that having a retired general on the ticket might not be a bad idea either.

In my opinion, John Kerry would be the worst decision he could make.

RockSP

06-11-2008, 12:20 AM

Yes, they do. But "likely" and "realm of possibility" are far apart. Anything that can be physically or mentally done is, by definition, within "the realm of possibility." I simply ask for evidence supporting such a conclusion.

I don't recall anyone saying "likely"...

Tron5000

06-11-2008, 12:26 AM

I don't recall anyone saying "likely"...

Never did. But I thought that my post implied the ridiculousness that I felt at that argument, so I thought "likely" to be reflective of that. Sorry for not better wording my statement.

RockSP

06-11-2008, 12:39 AM

Excel

06-11-2008, 12:42 AM

John Kerry???

Warner. Mark Warner is the way to go. Prime him ala Al Gore for 2016. That and hed easily get us Virginia.

Tron5000

06-11-2008, 12:42 AM

No, I understood your original post just fine. I thought you meant in your latest post that I was saying it was "likely" that they felt that way.

Murderers? Yep. Self-hating murderers? Eh...who knows.

Not willing to call them "murderers" based on what I've seen. But I'm glad we were able to clarify the other issue. :up:

Marx

06-11-2008, 12:47 AM

John Kerry???

Warner. Mark Warner is the way to go. Prime him ala Al Gore for 2016. That and hed easily get us Virginia.

Obama must not have been paying attention in 2004...that's about all I can say in regards to a Kerry VP. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

Lightning Strykez!

06-11-2008, 12:47 AM

I think it will come down to Strickland and Webb when it's all said and done. Although I'd like to see Sebelius, these guys will provide a counter-balance to what McCain is gonna bring.

Lightning Strykez!

06-11-2008, 12:47 AM

Obama must not have been paying attention in 2004...that's about all I can say in regards to a Kerry VP. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

Agreed. Kerry=Scary.

Marx

06-11-2008, 12:48 AM

I think it will come down to Strickland and Webb when it's all said and done. Although I'd like to see Sebelius, these guys will provide a counter-balance to what McCain is gonna bring.

I'm partial to Strickland out of those two. :cwink:

From what I understand though, Governor Strickland is not interested.

Excel

06-11-2008, 12:56 AM

For real, I defiently think Warners the way to go.

Tag279

06-11-2008, 03:52 AM

Yup. Just like how everyone who doesn't want to vote for Obama is a racist, according to Spider-Bite, Tag279 and ForestAflame...

When have I ever said that Jman?

kainedamo

06-11-2008, 02:26 PM

This anti-Obama video is ridiculously bad...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1q6y9xHbCM

Lightning Strykez!

06-11-2008, 02:29 PM

I'm partial to Strickland out of those two. :cwink:

From what I understand though, Governor Strickland is not interested.

Meh. That's what they all say. LOL :whatever:

The Senator

06-11-2008, 02:38 PM

Obama must not have been paying attention in 2004...that's about all I can say in regards to a Kerry VP. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

Are we sure they didn't mean Bob Kerrey? I don't know why John Kerry would be on that list.

For real, I defiently think Warners the way to go.

We need Warner in the Senate more.

Excel

06-11-2008, 02:47 PM

I'd rather have him in the White House in 2016.

kainedamo

06-11-2008, 03:09 PM

Would anyone at all be interested in helping me wage some sorta war against the guy that posted these videos?

DvrRQGcApkw

3_N1rqVo2W0&feature=related

So this guy does some things that piss me right off. Like, posting pictures out of context, posting pictures that definately have some sort of underlying racism going on, posting myths, not checking his facts, and basically coming across as a douche. It's not just that, it's how much of a hypocrite the guy is. Like in the details of the first video he has written "The War Hero vs a corrupt, race-baiting fraud." So Obama is a race baiter, but I suppose putting up pictures of Obama beside a camel and Obama dressed in foreign clothing isn't race baiting?? In his comments he continiously says he has Muslim friends and has nothing against Muslims, and yet not only continiously tries to portray Obama as Muslim, but implies the fact that American Muslims would want to vote for him is a bad thing. It's these things, and the fact that he disables the ratings to his videos and filters his comments.

The only dissenting comments he allows are stupid ones. Like, "Obama will see that our children memorize the beautiful Koran instead of the plead of allegence because we all know that Obama doesn't like the pledge.

Vote Muslim! Vote Obama!"

Or, "You are all red necks losers with no jobs. Kiss off you dumb *****. If you really think like this and have fox news make your choices, you should have you right to vote taken away."

To which Paul responded "Or maybe they could make our votes worth half, like FL & MI? Or, you know, we could go the 3/5ths route?

These are your Obama supporters, world. Take a good look."

Yeah, real easy to reply to that kind of comment isn't it Paul. He allows a bunch of dumb comments so he can have an easy response and always says something like "here are your Obama supporters". Man, Paul annoys the hell outta me. I made a response video, which he of course has blocked, but I still have it up on youtube. I want to humiliate this guy in some way. I want a whole string of people making videos calling him out on his BS.