The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[Matt]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102200220.html

The sad part is, he would win the primary...but he can't win the general. Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot more and more.

Edit: Damnit, I spelled his name wrong :(

[ShadowBoxing]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102200220.html

The sad part is, he would win the primary...but he can't win the general. Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot more and more.

Edit: Damnit, I spelled his name wrong :(Oh no, Obama could easily win the general. He is a very smart and strong politician.

[The Question]

A mniority becoming the President?


http://www.foederationsdatenbank.de/fdb/folgen/Movies/bilder/worf.jpg


HAHAHAHAHA! Impossible.

[ShadowBoxing]

He is half-white.

[Chris B]

I would possibly vote for Obama. But he is still inexperiended, something that would likely be used against him the primaries, as well as in the general election. He would be better off waiting a few years.

[Matt]

Oh no, Obama could easily win the general. He is a very smart and strong politician.

Don't be so naive.

Realistically there are four reasons he can't win.

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

[Matt]

He is half-white.

No one will see that. All they will see is a black man running for president. It sounds horrible, but you are being incredibly naive. If the last election proved anything, you need the South to win and do you really think even a small minority of southern states would elect a black man?

[ShadowBoxing]

No one will see that. All they will see is a black man running for president. It sounds horrible, but you are being incredibly naive. If the last election proved anything, you need the South to win and do you really think even a small minority of southern states would elect a black man?Tenessee is about to elect a black man senator. South Carolina has a gay person as it's Senator and actually all you need is east, west and midwest to win a general.

[Matt]

Tenessee is about to elect a black man senator. South Carolina has a gay person as it's Senator and actually all you need is east, west and midwest to win a general.

The "black man" in Tenessee is currently losing. And you assume that there are no racists in east, north, west, and midwest states? Close swing states like Flordia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio will go red simply because the thing that swings those states will be the fact that Obama is black.

I'm not saying thats a good thing. It is horrible. But it is reality.

[Chris B]

On a related note, I think a Mark Warner/Barack Obama ticket may not be a bad idea in say the 2012 election.

[ShadowBoxing]

Don't be so naive.

Realistically there are four reasons he can't win.

1) His name is Obama. As horrible as it sounds, that makes him unelectable.
His middle name is Hussien, but that's still the most retarded thing I have ever heard.
2) He is a senator. The last senator to win the presidency was JFK. Before that, it was Warren G. Harding. Senators just don't have a good shot. Too much to attack them for. Every vote is scrutinized, every decision recorded. Its just not prefferable for a campaign.
But unlike many Senators he is seen as a Washington outsider, not an insider which is usually what plays against them.
3) He has practically no record. For all the hype around him he has really done nothing thus far in Senate.
That probably works to his credit. Less for his opponents to scrutinize. You don't win general elections on voting records, you win it by presenting yourself well to the American people.
4) He is black. It sounds mean, but its true. That alone will keep him from winning.
Ummm....no, it won't.

[Matt]

His middle name is Hussien, but that's still the most retarded thing I have ever heard.

No, its not. Look at the list of presidents, never has there been a man whose name ends in a vowel. 42 presidents, and not one with an ethnic sounding name. Any political scientist will tell you, these things effect voters.


But unlike many Senators he is seen as a Washington outsider, not an insider which is usually what plays against them.

That probably works to his credit. Less for his opponents to scrutinize. You don't win general elections on voting records, you win it by presenting yourself well to the American people.


You need a record to win. Otherwise his opponent (who could very well be John McCain, a long time, experienced Senator will cut him down for his lack of one.



Ummm....no, it won't.

Yes, it will.

[ShadowBoxing]

The "black man" in Tenessee is currently losing.
Harold Ford is currently 48% to the opponents 42%.
And you assume that there are no racists in east, north, west, and midwest states?
Well Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah don't tend to have race issues. And if he took Evan Bayh as his running mate he carry those. That would be about all you'd need.
Close swing states like Flordia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio will go red simply because the thing that swings those states will be the fact that Obama is black.
Cleveland, Ohio elected the first black mayor, Carl Stokes. Pennsylvania not only has a large black population, but is considered a very progressive state on Civil Rights legislation. Florida is considered the north of the south, and considering that fact that a minority would probably swing the Latino vote to Democrats, he could carry that state too.
I'm not saying thats a good thing. It is horrible. But it is reality.
Your arguments are kinda foolish.

[Matt]

Harold Ford is currently 48% to the opponents 42%.


My mistake, I was thinking of Steele in Maryland.


Well Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah don't tend to have race issues. And if he took Evan Bayh as his running mate he carry those. That would be about all you'd need.

Cleveland, Ohio elected the first black mayor, Carl Stokes. Pennsylvania not only has a large black population, but is considered a very progressive state on Civil Rights legislation. Florida is considered the north of the south, and considering that fact that a minority would probably swing the Latino vote to Democrats, he could carry that state too.


You are generalizing these places by "not generally racist"...but the ones who live there (and they are there, racists are everywhere, whether or not you want to admit it)...will swing the states.


Your arguments are kinda foolish.

And yours are naive and overly idealistic.

[ShadowBoxing]

No, its not. Look at the list of presidents, never has there been a man whose name ends in a vowel. 42 presidents, and not one with an ethnic sounding name. Any political scientist will tell you, these things effect voters.

That's a really stupid point. That's like those people who say "we've never elected a President whose name starts with "Mc". Doesn't mean we won't.
You need a record to win. Otherwise his opponent (who could very well be John McCain, a long time, experienced Senator will cut him down for his lack of one.
You could hold a gun to the GOPs head, and they still won't run the "Democrat and sheeps clothing" who is John McCain. You do realize the guy has voted both in favor of abortion and gay marriage in the past.
Yes, it will.
Um, no. If he were gay that would matter. Black....nope. It actually might mobilize more people to vote for him.

[comicgirl]

Oh no, Obama could easily win the general. He is a very smart and strong politician.oh, yeah....I had the pleasure of meeting him a couple months ago. He could do it.

This guy actually knows and cares what its like just to be a regular guy, just trying to make it. Down to earth.

[Matt]

That's a really stupid point. That's like those people who say "we've never elected a President whose name starts with "Mc". Doesn't mean we won't

You could hold a gun to the GOPs head, and they still won't run the "Democrat and sheeps clothing" who is John McCain. You do realize the guy has voted both in favor of abortion and gay marriage in the past.

Um, no. If he were gay that would matter. Black....nope. It actually might mobilize more people to vote for him.

Why not try reading up on the subject instead of just talking out of your ass and saying "no it won't."? Whether you want to admit it or not, these are the types of things that effect elections, name, skin color, etc. You may wish to be naive, but these have been proven time and time again.

As for McCain, he is currently the front runner in pretty much every poll...so make of that what you want.

[Matt]

oh, yeah....I had the pleasure of meeting him a couple months ago. He could do it.

This guy actually knows and cares what its like just to be a regular guy, just trying to make it. Down to earth.

I'm not saying that he is not a good guy. I am saying that he is unelectable.

[ShadowBoxing]

My mistake, I was thinking of Steele in Maryland.
Yeah he is going to lose.
You are generalizing these places by "not generally racist"...but the ones who live there (and they are there, racists are everywhere, whether or not you want to admit it)...will swing the states.
KKK membership is at about 1200 these days, mostly concentrated in SC and Alabama. And they could not stop the election of a gay Senator (Lindsey Graham), and he is gay. Apparently saying Mukaka (a racial slur)
causes you to lose general elections.

Race is still an issue to some, but it won't affect a Presidental election. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes (who Obama defeated) are not successful gages of how black candidates will do. Obama is beloved as a keynote speaker. He will unite Democrats, who all love him. He will also mobilize several states in the midwest in you bother to read last weeks Time Magazine which outlines what his entire campaign strategy should be.
And yours are naive and overly idealistic.
Recent polls show otherwise. They show that about 80% of white people would have no problem with electing black or latino public officials.

[comicgirl]

Yeah he is going to lose.

KKK membership is at about 1200 these days, mostly concentrated in SC and Alabama. And they could not stop the election of a gay Senator (Lindsey Graham), and he is gay. Apparently saying Mukaka (a racial slur)
causes you to lose general elections.

Race is still an issue to some, but it won't affect a Presidental election. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes (who Obama defeated) are not successful gages of how black candidates will do. Obama is beloved as a keynote speaker. He will unite Democrats, who all love him. He will also mobilize several states in the midwest in you bother to read last weeks Time Magazine which outlines what his entire campaign strategy should be.

Recent polls show otherwise. They show that about 80% of white people would have no problem with electing black or latino public officials.


Bottom line: Things are achangin'. If the village idiot can buy his way into office, why not someone who may actually do a good job?

I used to really dig McCain...but, he'd just be another Dubya in the end

[Matt]

Yeah he is going to lose.

KKK membership is at about 1200 these days, mostly concentrated in SC and Alabama. And they could not stop the election of a gay Senator (Lindsey Graham), and he is gay. Apparently saying Mukaka (a racial slur)
causes you to lose general elections.

Race is still an issue to some, but it won't affect a Presidental election. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes (who Obama defeated) are not successful gages of how black candidates will do. Obama is beloved as a keynote speaker. He will unite Democrats, who all love him. He will also mobilize several states in the midwest in you bother to read last weeks Time Magazine which outlines what his entire campaign strategy should be.

Recent polls show otherwise. They show that about 80% of white people would have no problem with electing black or latino public officials.

Sigh, being racist doesn't mean you just join the KKK and say slurs.

Polls won't show anything either. These are things that people don't talk about, don't even think about. But time and time again, history has proven, it is there.

[Ben Urich]

Bottom line: Things are achangin'. If the village idiot can buy his way into office, why not someone who may actually do a good job?

Because this is America. :whatever:

[comicgirl]

Because this is America. :whatever:indeed.....we've already had one black president. Let's make it two.

[JLBats]

indeed.....we've already had one black president. Let's make it two.

Warren G. Harding was pretty black.

[ShadowBoxing]

Why not try reading up on the subject instead of just talking out of your ass and saying "no it won't."? Whether you want to admit it or not, these are the types of things that effect elections, name, skin color, etc. You may wish to be naive, but these have been proven time and time again.

As for McCain, he is currently the front runner in pretty much every poll...so make of that what you want.Dude I study politics, and concetrate in racial politics. dude :down. It's only like the 100th time I've said this.

This year, according to recent polls we will have the largest influx of black representitives we have ever had, and largest increase in black state reps as well. Massachusetts is about to elect a black governor (46/33). Tenessee and black senator (48/46). Steele is actually 46/46 with his opponent. A total of 138 are running this year alone. currently about 50% of them are more than carrying those elections. 15% are tightly contested.

In fact black people in the South have successfully combined the well known stereotype of black christian moral values and the progressive nature of most Democrats/Liberals. To make candidates who both appeal to the value voters and local dems.

[Ben Urich]

Warren G. Harding was pretty black.

Bill Clinton. :o

[Matt]

Dude I study politics, and concetrate in racial politics. dude :down. It's only like the 100th time I've said this.

This year, according to recent polls we will have the largest influx of black representitives we have ever had, and largest increase in black state reps as well. Massachusetts is about to elect a black governor (46/33). Tenessee and black senator (48/46). Steele is actually 46/46 with his opponent. A total of 138 are running this year alone. currently about 50% of them are more than carrying those elections. 15% are tightly contested.

In fact black people in the South have successfully combined the well known stereotype of black christian moral values and the progressive nature of most Democrats/Liberals. To make candidates who both appeal to the value voters and local dems.

I've studied politics too. I have a concentration in American and a minor in Poli sci, so lets not turn this into a pissing contest.

I'm not saying things aren't changed. But its not there yet. Also, you cannot compare one area to an entire country. Second, you cannot compare senate or governor to the President.

We've simply going to have to agree to disagree. You think I am wrong, I think you are naive. We'll have to leave it there.

[comicgirl]

Warren G. Harding was pretty black.Clinton, baby...

[JLBats]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Harding.jpg
Harding, *****es!

[Ben Urich]

They should make a TV movie with Sam Jackson as Barack Obama.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9f/Haditwiththesesnakes.JPG/300px-Haditwiththesesnakes.JPG
"I've had it with these mother****ing bullies on ths mother****ing playground!"

[ShadowBoxing]

Sigh, being racist doesn't mean you just join the KKK and say slurs.

Polls won't show anything either. These are things that people don't talk about, don't even think about. But time and time again, history has proven, it is there.Umm no, time and again polls and surveys have proven pretty accurate in determining racism. In fact if you were to survey the KKK (as I just had to) you'd find that they are less racist across the board on all questions. "Would you live next to, date, allow a negro in your home, hire, elect, etc." all showed positive increases, especially "live next to" which showed a dramatic increase of about 25%. Applying that to a general public, who actually used to show incredibly low numbers, show that race is not the issue it once was. Also considering how nearly at the "black races" this year are hotly contested shows that the determination is starting to dwindle.

Even in Maryland, which is currently 46/46, Steele actually is losing black voters for running as a Republican, yet still holding a tight race.

[comicgirl]

Umm no, time and again polls and surveys have proven pretty accurate in determining racism. In fact if you were to survey the KKK (as I just had to) you'd find that they are less racist across the board on all questions. "Would you live next to, date, allow a negro in your home, hire, elect, etc." all showed positive increases, especially "live next to" which showed a dramatic increase of about 25%. Applying that to a general public, who actually used to show incredibly low numbers, show that race is not the issue it once was. Also considering how nearly at the "black races" this year are hotly contested shows that the determination is starting to dwindle.

Even in Maryland, which is currently 46/46, Steele actually is losing black voters for running as a Republican, yet still holding a tight race.

Steele has been trying to play both side against the middle.

I live in PA; a lot of MD voters think he's a Democrat. His tv spots and road signs are........ambiguious

[ShadowBoxing]

Steele has been trying to play both side against the middle.

I live in PA; a lot of MD voters think he's a Democrat. His tv spots and road signs are........ambiguiousWatch Harold Ford ads, you'd think he were the Republican and Steele was the Democrat.

[comicgirl]

Watch Harold Ford ads, you'd think he were the Republican and Steele was the Democrat.I know, WTF!?!?! That's our "cousin" Maryland.

P.S. - I'll be so glad when we had Santorum his walking papers! yes!

[ShadowBoxing]

I know, WTF!?!?! That's our "cousin" Maryland.

P.S. - I'll be so glad when we had Santorum his walking papers! yes!Yeah he is gone.

[jaguarr]

The fact that he is a Washington outsider may be very attractive to a lot of voters. He's also incredibly charismatic, a uniter, and very much seems to be in touch with the more common man and wants to really do what's right for the entire country as a whole, not just his rich "friends" so to speak. I've really had enough of elitism in our leadership and Obama is so far outside of that whole thing that it makes having him as a President very enticing. I would vote for him in the generals.

jag

[comicgirl]

Yeah he is gone.nah,nah,nah-nah......hey-hey-hey.........stay the hell in Virginia!:woot: :word: ..oh, yes...that will be a good day.

Barak for Pres ' 08, baby!! Take that, Trent Lott!!:ninja:

[BT18]

First of all, the republicans already have all the racists votes all locked up (and no I'm not including anti-white racism which I know is the only kind the Hannitys and Savages of the world and their followers see).

But this is just endemic of the bull***** that is celebrity driving politics, and just people not giving a damn enough to look into anything beyond what the corporate media feeds them.

Obama would make a fine candidate in 2012, but lets hope Democrats have an incumbant running then.

I can't even count the number of times I saw John Edwards accused of only having "4 years of national experience for president" and people buying into it, despite the fact that he was elected in 1998, giving him 6. What are they going to do with Obama, say he'll only have 2 years experience ? Hey, why not?

There are 3 people who would be great candidates. Apparently it's up to people outside of the corporate media to shove them down the throats of the unengaged out there, all of whom have a perfectly good chance of winning the primary and a GREAT chance of winning the general election the minute they announce their candidacy.

http://www.nato.int/pictures/review/9902/b9902-31.jpg
General Wesley Clark
http://www.liberalstreetfighter.com/ee/images/uploads/PH2006013001345.jpg
Senator Russ Feingold
http://forum.ascmc.org/news/images/20041104a1.jpg
Senator Barbara Boxer

and by the way, I was a supporter of Obama before probably anyone else on SHH had heard of him, back when his main claim to fame was an inordinate amount of people signed up to his meetup.com profile, just starting out running in the Illionois primary in summer 2003.

[NOFX]

I cant wait until White people are no longer the majority! We wont have issues like "oh he's black, he cant win!"

[Immortalfire]

His name sounds like a terrorist. :wow:

[JLBats]

His name sounds like a terrorist. :wow:

Point to Matt.

[comicgirl]

His name sounds like a terrorist. :wow:
Hey, fire! What's up, man! Come on, that sounds like something Dubya would say. What! Did you say Osama?! :wow:

[ShadowBoxing]

His name sounds like a terrorist. :wow:.Change on letter to "S" and his full name would be Barak Hussein Osama.

[comicgirl]

First of all, the republicans already have all the racists votes all locked up (and no I'm not including anti-white racism which I know is the only kind the Hannitys and Savages of the world and their followers see).

But this is just endemic of the bull***** that is celebrity driving politics, and just people not giving a damn enough to look into anything beyond what the corporate media feeds them.

Obama would make a fine candidate in 2012, but lets hope Democrats have an incumbant running then.

I can't even count the number of times I saw John Edwards accused of only having "4 years of national experience for president" and people buying into it, despite the fact that he was elected in 1998, giving him 6. What are they going to do with Obama, say he'll only have 2 years experience ? Hey, why not?

There are 3 people who would be great candidates. Apparently it's up to people outside of the corporate media to shove them down the throats of the unengaged out there, all of whom have a perfectly good chance of winning the primary and a GREAT chance of winning the general election the minute they announce their candidacy.

http://www.nato.int/pictures/review/9902/b9902-31.jpg
General Wesley Clark
http://www.liberalstreetfighter.com/ee/images/uploads/PH2006013001345.jpg
Senator Russ Feingold
http://forum.ascmc.org/news/images/20041104a1.jpg
Senator Barbara Boxer

and by the way, I was a supporter of Obama before probably anyone else on SHH had heard of him, back when his main claim to fame was an inordinate amount of people signed up to his meetup.com profile, just starting out running in the Illionois primary in summer 2003.General Wesley Clark would be great.

[Immortalfire]

Change on letter to "S" and his full name would be Barak Hussein Osama. This is all too weird. Beware of this guy :eek:

[eat aliens]

I don't think Obama is bad for a democrat, I did like his speach at the DNC. But he hasn't even served a full term in the senate and as far as I know hasn't done much. He'd be better off building a larger reputation for himself adn run in 2012.

[ShadowBoxing]

I don't think Obama is bad for a democrat, I did like his speach at the DNC. But he hasn't even served a full term in the senate and as far as I know hasn't done much. He'd be better off building a larger reputation for himself adn run in 2012.Probably so. Some think he ough to try to get on board with the next Democratic candidate as VP, that might be a wiser choice. But he does have that JFK appeal.

[raybia]

Man, I really hope that if Obama runs he doesn't hire Matt as his campaign consultant.

If Ford wins in Tenn. look for Obama to run for Prez. A President who happens to be black is destined to happen eventually. He may or may not win but I wouldn't let the fact that I'm black stop me. Any black person with that type of mentally might as well either kill himself or move to Africa.

[raybia]

Probably so. Some think he ough to try to get on board with the next Democratic candidate as VP, that might be a wiser choice. But he does have that JFK appeal.

If he doesn't get become the Democratic nominee but he performs well, look for him to be the VP running mate anyway.

[JLBats]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Harding.jpg
Harding, *****es!

You people sicken me for not acknowledging this:cmad:

[Superman79]

A mniority becoming the President?


http://www.foederationsdatenbank.de/fdb/folgen/Movies/bilder/worf.jpg


HAHAHAHAHA! Impossible.


honestly, I think we'll have a minority before we have a woman...at least that's just the way it seems to me.

BTW- As a McCain republican, I would vote for Obama in a heartbeat...he's an old school politician...as in he knows how to compromise rather than stick to a blind set of party policy points...

[ShadowBoxing]

You people sicken me for not acknowledging this:cmad:I really liked it...

[SouLeSS]

2) He is a senator. The last senator to win the presidency was JFK. Before that, it was Warren G. Harding. Senators just don't have a good shot. Too much to attack them for. Every vote is scrutinized, every decision recorded. Its just not prefferable for a campaign.


Ahah. Ouch.

[JLBats]

I really liked it...

Maybe people just didn't get the whole "Warren G. Harding has tainted blood" thing.

[Superman79]

2) He is a senator. The last senator to win the presidency was JFK. Before that, it was Warren G. Harding. Senators just don't have a good shot.

You're right...It's been FOREVER since they won a World Series :D :p

[Quietstorm]

I mean this is exciting and everything but...he's needs to step his game up.

[ShadowBoxing]

I mean this is exciting and everything but...he's needs to step his game up.Well he just went on Oprah...that's usually the first step.

[JLBats]

Well he just went on Oprah...that's usually the first step.

He now has the "overweight soccermom who can't think for herself" vote.

[souloffire]

First of all, the republicans already have all the racists votes all locked up...

Does that include Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, the former klansman's, vote?

[Quietstorm]

Well he just went on Oprah...that's usually the first step.

Yeah I know, I saw that the other day. I called it when Oprah asked him if he would run, and he just kind of avoided answering the question.

[ShadowBoxing]

He now has the "overweight soccermom who can't think for herself" vote.That's an important voting block.

[Quietstorm]

Oh wait, did you see how those women were drooling over themselves when he was on Oprah? I thought he wife was about to lay the smack down.

[hippie_hunter]

I'd rather see someone more experienced and have his voting record develop more than have him run for President in 2008. 2012 though seems like a fair shot.

[SentinelMind]

Someone here said Lindsey Graham is gay. Can someone please verify that because I haven't seen a source to confirm that. I hope you're not relying on him simply never getting married or that he "looks gay".

And no, it is not Barack Obama's time. That is ludicrous. Finish out a term first. Even Hillary knew she had to wait until she finished a term before running.

I think Obama has...a shot in 2012 or 2016 ...but yeah he does have to overcome race problems, his name, and being a Senator. Senators have a hard time getting elected because their record is scrutinized. The irony here is that because Obama is new, he' d have no record to judge. If he were to run and failed, he'd lose all his media power and influence. ALL OF IT.

Furthermore, DO NOT ....DO NOT underestimate the power of name/race/identity/language being used to sway voters, especially southern voters. For several decades, the Republicans have tried to undermine the Democrat Party by calling it the "Democrat Party". Yes, studies have shown people respond more negatively to the Democratic Party by simply taking out ONE SYLLABLE! Furthermore, 15-20 percent of Tennessee have said they know "someone" COUGH COUGH who will not vote for Ford for U.S Senate because he is black. That's nearly 1/5 of the population. Just because someone doesn't hate an ethnic group doesn't mean they'll feel comfortable voting for a member for that ethnic group. People vote for what makes them familiar. Obama would have many things to overcome. Don't let 'excitement' color your judgement here.

[Spider-Bite]

I believe that in 2008 he would lose, but in 2012 he would win.

two reasons. too much inexperience. and he's black.

by 2012 we will be four years more advanced in the war on racism. That's another four years for more progressive youths to reach voting age, and four more years of the old time day americans dieing of old age. The country will be four years less racist if you know I mean.

and? look how fed up the country is with republicans right now? If our next president is a republican than imagine how fed up they will finally be with them by 2012?

and he will have 6 years experience at about the time he announced his bid for the presidency. a few extra years to raise money, be seen and hear with lots of exposure and gain followers.

I actually dont' doubt our next president will either be Rudy or McCain in 2008, and whoever it is will lose their e-election in 2012 to Obama. That's what I think will actually happen.

[KingOfDreams]

I like Obama but I think he should wait until the time is ripe for someone like him to win. First of all, racism still exists and because of that he probably wouldn't win the general election. And second of all, he's only had one term in Congress. His inexpereince will be his downfall I feel if he runs. He might be a good VP though...and that would give him experience in the executive branch.

[KingOfDreams]

Someone here said Lindsey Graham is gay. Can someone please verify that because I haven't seen a source to confirm that. I hope you're not relying on him simply never getting married or that he "looks gay".

It's his voice in my opinion. But you have to understand, in the south there's a lot of straight men who are like that.

[comicgirl]

It's his voice in my opinion. But you have to understand, in the south there's a lot of straught men who are like that.yeah, I don't think he's gay. I have two older male cousins; they love women, never married. THe older I get, the smarter I think they are:o

[BT18]

Someone here said Lindsey Graham is gay. Can someone please verify that because I haven't seen a source to confirm that. I hope you're not relying on him simply never getting married or that he "looks gay".


Looks gay, sounds gay, provides stock, cutesy lines about waiting till he's 60 to get married because that's what Strom Thurmond did. Was clearly insinuated to be gay by his '02 opponent in order to get some political traction (which obviously didn't pay off). There's no need to bull***** here.

The dude is about as straight as a spring. And no, it didn't stop him (and perhaps encouraged him to hide his true identity further) from voting for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Another victim of the shame-spiral red-America mind-warping machine.

[samurai black]

If he runs in 200, he'll be making a huge mistake that could cost him his career. For one his campaign will be banking on the errors of Bush rather than his own voting record. Though it could work, it would be a costly mistake if he loses. He would lose a huge amount of support and momentum. It takes time to build up the support needed to run an effective presidential campaign, and unless he's been secretly meeting and planning his presidential campaign while being a senator, i don't see how he could manage.

[SouLeSS]

I don't want a black man running my country. Or a woman. Or anyone other than a pure blooded White man.

Call me old fashion, racist, a biggot, call me whatever, I couldn't care less.

[BT18]

I don't want a black man running my country. Or a woman. Or anyone other than a pure blooded White man.

Call me old fashion, racist, a biggot, call me whatever, I couldn't care less.

Retarded is actually something more fitting.

[samurai black]

I don't want a black man running my country. Or a woman. Or anyone other than a pure blooded White man.

Call me old fashion, racist, a biggot, call me whatever, I couldn't care less.

When i saw this thread, i knew this would soon follow, shame.

[SouLeSS]

Sorry, but I'll move if I have some feminist ***** running my country.

Not gonna lie, a big reason that Females, Black so on and so forth are thinking of / running for candidacy is because they want to be the first. Having a whiteman in power has worked for all this time, why change it now?

[comicgirl]

.........stupid..............f**ing............new bie

[JLBats]

Sorry, but I'll move if I have some feminist ***** running my country.

Not gonna lie, a big reason that Females, Black so on and so forth are thinking of / running for candidacy is because they want to be the first. Having a whiteman in power has worked for all this time, why change it now?

:dry::huh:

You seriously think the "whiteman" is doing a good job, or working?

As if the colour of the "whiteman"'s skin has anything to do with it.

[SouLeSS]

Our economy is low, but we're still doing fine.

Of course the color has something to do with it. First non-whiteman that becomes president is going to do all kinds of outrageous ****, just because they are they first. Guarentee you.

[jaguarr]

Sorry, but I'll move if I have some feminist ***** running my country.

Not gonna lie, a big reason that Females, Black so on and so forth are thinking of / running for candidacy is because they want to be the first. Having a whiteman in power has worked for all this time, why change it now?

Wow, are you horribly misguided. If you think for one second that the "whitemen" in power today have really worked to the betterment of this country or that they give a f**k about you in any way, shape or form you are sadly mistaken.

jag

[JLBats]

Our economy is low, but we're still doing fine.

Um, actually, you have it in reverse. Economy is alright now, if you don't take into account the huge defecits. It's everything else that isn't so great.


Of course the color has something to do with it. First non-whiteman that becomes president is going to do all kinds of outrageous ****, just because they are they first. Guarentee you.

I find it more likely that the first will act mostly run of the mill, so that more will come in the future.

[KingOfDreams]

I don't want a black man running my country. Or a woman. Or anyone other than a pure blooded White man.

Call me old fashion, racist, a biggot, call me whatever, I couldn't care less.

You are a poor excuse for a human being.

[ShadowBoxing]

I don't want a black man running my country. Or a woman. Or anyone other than a pure blooded White man.

Call me old fashion, racist, a biggot, call me whatever, I couldn't care less.Okay I think I will call you an old fashion racist bigot. Especially considering this Not gonna lie, a big reason that Females, Black so on and so forth are thinking of / running for candidacy is because they want to be the first. Having a whiteman in power has worked for all this time, why change it now?
Is the dumbest statement ever. Yes whitemen have worked so well between Ulysses S Grant our first drunk/alcoholic President, Andrew Jackson slaughtering Indians, Chief Justice Taney supporting the notion of blacks as subhuman, the large amounts of racial/ethnic and gender injustice that still is strong in this, a free nation. Why should I wait decades for another white man to change all this. The main problem with never having a black/female president is tyranny, one group having too much power and too much sway. It would make a huge difference and help us a lot to boarden our horizons of who we consider a leader.

Your right, there would be major change if we elected a minority. One change would be that finally that minority would have a voice and not be so helpless and have to scream over all the rich white people to get what they need. We might actually start to look at people for who they are, and progressive might become a socially acceptable thing again. That's what would happen.

[KingOfDreams]

I bet by "pure blooded white man" he doesn't mean Jews or Catholics either.

[ShadowBoxing]

I bet by "pure blooded white man" he doesn't mean Jews or Catholics either.He must hate the Kennedys then.

[KingOfDreams]

I really shouldn't assume things about people but someone who says that about black people and women usually would include those groups too I think. I'm basing this on accounts of white supremicists I've read about.

[ShadowBoxing]

I really shouldn't assume things about people but someone who says that about black people and women usually would include those groups too I think. I'm basing this on accounts of white supremicists I've read about.Don't worry, SouLess brings any "assumptions" we make about him at this point on himself.

[Darkdd]

Our economy is low, but we're still doing fine.

Of course the color has something to do with it. First non-whiteman that becomes president is going to do all kinds of outrageous ****, just because they are they first. Guarentee you.
*vomits*

[cryptic name]

Wow, are you horribly misguided. If you think for one second that the "whitemen" in power today have really worked to the betterment of this country or that they give a f**k about you in any way, shape or form you are sadly mistaken.

jag

no politician, regardless of race or gender, gives a f**k about any of us.

[cryptic name]

Your right, there would be major change if we elected a minority. One change would be that finally that minority would have a voice and not be so helpless and have to scream over all the rich white people to get what they need. We might actually start to look at people for who they are, and progressive might become a socially acceptable thing again. That's what would happen.

i really doubt this.

[Tobiaswins]

Why should it matter what color the skin is? If the individual is a good candidate then he has my vote regardless of party or Color. Yes Obama could indeed win, there is still a huge majority of voters that don't vote, that factor alone could easily make all the difference in a close race. I also believe that a huge majority of Americans are in the middle politically, and as a whole are tired of the whole Left V.s Right, Liberal V.s Conservative, Republican V.s Democrat debate. Last election many people did not vote because all we got was Bush v.s Kerry, and in my opinion they both sucked. Yes Racists still exist, but trust me they are a dying breed, it is still very possible for a candidate like Obama to win.

[raybia]

I don't want a black man running my country. Or a woman. Or anyone other than a pure blooded White man.

Call me old fashion, racist, a biggot, call me whatever, I couldn't care less.


LMAO!!!

You are too much!!!

Say hello to T-Rex.

:woot:

[Slipknot]

I would love to see Obama run for President in 2008. I'd definitely vote for him.

[Spider-Bite]

Sorry, but I'll move if I have some feminist ***** running my country.

Not gonna lie, a big reason that Females, Black so on and so forth are thinking of / running for candidacy is because they want to be the first. Having a whiteman in power has worked for all this time, why change it now?

having a white man in power has not worked for the last 6 years. skin color is irrelevant and so are genetials. Is Bush using his penis to fight the terrorists?

It can't possibly be that these people care about their country could it?

You do not sound intelligent at all. You really don't. In fact you sound a lot like Osama Bin Laden.

[terry78]

If Obama did run, all those people that don't vote would immediately jump up to vote, because half of them would vote just to see a different type of guy in office, and the other half would vote just to keep the same guy out.

[Man-Thing]

So what's he done? Gave a good speach at the DNC, is that it?

[SentinelMind]

So what's he done? Gave a good speach at the DNC, is that it?

No, he also gave a nice smile on the front cover of Time Magazine.

[Matt]

If Obama did run, all those people that don't vote would immediately jump up to vote, because half of them would vote just to see a different type of guy in office, and the other half would vote just to keep the same guy out.

Exactly, the entire "people who don't vote would put him in office" argument is ridiculous, as there are plenty racist rednecks who don't vote who would to keep him out too.

[lazur]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102200220.html

The sad part is, he would win the primary...but he can't win the general. Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot more and more.

Edit: Damnit, I spelled his name wrong :(

I have no idea where this guy stands politically. I saw an interview with him and I liked his demeanor and I liked that's he's well-spoken. However, when asked what he would do in certain situations, he was like "We need to do what works" and then he went on about how politicians on opposing sides of the aisle should just find a middle ground or something. He never went into specifics, which unfortunately is what's so UNattractive about the democratic party nowadays. It's like most of them want to disagree with what's currently being done, but inside they actually agree and so, therefore, they can't really come up with an alternative (notwithstanding the Iraq war, of course).

While he seems likeable enough, he seems to me like just another politician with nothing to offer but the same tired "I'm better, but I can't tell you how" philosophy

[terry78]

So basically, you want him to choose a side as opposed to saying both ends of the spectrum should attempt to work together on issues.

[lazur]

So basically, you want him to choose a side as opposed to saying both ends of the spectrum should attempt to work together on issues.

No, but simply saying "we just have to do whatever works" is not going to resolve that conflict, as "whatever works" is NOT a political strategy. Ask John Kerry, who attempted to do "whatever works" by essentially appeasing his audience and trying to tell them what he THOUGHT they wanted to hear.

However, even if "whatever works" does have some type of substance, "whatever works" may not be seen as "working" by everyone, and so the divisiveness continues.

What I want from this guy is some originality and some SOLUTIONS, as opposed to the same old "I'll do a better job than the other guy, just don't as me how" crap.

[The Monocle]

Sorry, but I'll move if I have some feminist ***** running my country.

Not gonna lie, a big reason that Females, Black so on and so forth are thinking of / running for candidacy is because they want to be the first. Having a whiteman in power has worked for all this time, why change it now?Because the reason white men have been working isn't because they are white men.

[Equinox]

As Muhammad Ali once said..

Black is beautiful..:up:

I still cant beleive in this age, posters like Soulless, would actually think that the color of a person's skin would directly be linked to his brain.. :huh:

[sinewave]

To everyone who says he can't win because of lack of experience, how much experience did Bush have before running for the Presidency? He ran a few companies into the ground and then was governor for a little while. that's it. He had no experience within the federal government at all. Obama is easily smarter and more in touch with the average person than Bush is. He's got the minority vote, which could be huge. He'd probably get a huge chunk of the "security mom" vote just because the polls show that they're sick of Bush, and he'd get the progressive and a lot of the moderate votes. I'd vote for him over Clinton, McCain, Giulliani, Biden, Kerry, Edwards and maybe even Gore and Clark.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

It blows my mind that there are many people who actually think there's a worse choice than Bush, and the reason the choice is worse is that the candidate might have a lot of melanin in his skin or might not have a penis. :down:huh:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

"too much melanin" = Barak

"might not have a penis" = Hillary

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/HYPE/24.jpg

[comicgirl]

"too much melanin" = Barak

"might not have a penis" = Hillary

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/HYPE/24.jpgwell, Duyba has less melanin and a penis (in Laura's purse). Eureka! THAT'S why he's president.

[jaguarr]

To everyone who says he can't win because of lack of experience, how much experience did Bush have before running for the Presidency? He ran a few companies into the ground and then was governor for a little while. that's it. He had no experience within the federal government at all. Obama is easily smarter and more in touch with the average person than Bush is. He's got the minority vote, which could be huge. He'd probably get a huge chunk of the "security mom" vote just because the polls show that they're sick of Bush, and he'd get the progressive and a lot of the moderate votes. I'd vote for him over Clinton, McCain, Giulliani, Biden, Kerry, Edwards and maybe even Gore and Clark.

Very good point. I'd vote for him over all those others, too. Washington needs new blood and too many of those people are a part of the problem rather than the solution as far as I'm concerned (McCain and Hillary first and foremost).

jag

[blind_fury]

So what's he done? Gave a good speach at the DNC, is that it?
What did Dubya accomplish before he became president? :huh:

Oh that's right, he was nominated because he was related to George Bush Sr. :whatever:

[blind_fury]

I don't want a black man running my country. Or a woman. Or anyone other than a pure blooded White man.

Call me old fashion, racist, a biggot, call me whatever, I couldn't care less.
I can't wait until the majority of America is made of minorities. lolz!

[Ben Urich]

I don't want a black man running my country. Or a woman. Or anyone other than a pure blooded White man.

Call me old fashion, racist, a biggot, call me whatever, I couldn't care less.

I hope you die a slow, painful death. :yay:

[Truthteller]

The problem with Obama from what I've seen so far is his lack of originality. I'm not sure why so many folks seem to favor him as President. I've heard him give a few speeches, one at the last Democrat convention, and it was just more of the same old thing. Pandering bleeding heart liberalism. And for me, that just isn't going to do it.

To support a candidate, I need to hear more from him than he cares for the poor and downtrodden. Those things are a given. For me a leader needs to show that he can make hard decisions that go beyond just feeling sorry about a situation and throwing money at it. I have not seen that from Obama yet. We need more than a good personality and an attractive face. But I am not closed to him. Maybe he will come through with a little grit and toughness, and if so I will consider him more highly.

[jaguarr]

To support a candidate, I need to hear more from him than he cares for the poor and downtrodden. Those things are a given. For me a leader needs to show that he can make hard decisions that go beyond just feeling sorry about a situation and throwing money at it. I have not seen that from Obama yet. We need more than a good personality and an attractive face. But I am not closed to him. Maybe he will come through with a little grit and toughness, and if so I will consider him more highly.

In this day and age, those things are NOT a given, which is why Obama is really getting some attention at the moment. Otherwise, I get where you're coming from and agree in some ways.

jag

[Truthteller]

In this day and age, those things are NOT a given, which is why Obama is really getting some attention at the moment. Otherwise, I get where you're coming from and agree in some ways.

jagGranted, for some they are not. Of course I meant from my perspective. So, I might say Obama is half way there - I need to see him take the next step.

[sinewave]

The problem with Obama from what I've seen so far is his lack of originality. I'm not sure why so many folks seem to favor him as President. I've heard him give a few speeches, one at the last Democrat convention, and it was just more of the same old thing. Pandering bleeding heart liberalism. And for me, that just isn't going to do it.

To support a candidate, I need to hear more from him than he cares for the poor and downtrodden. Those things are a given. For me a leader needs to show that he can make hard decisions that go beyond just feeling sorry about a situation and throwing money at it. I have not seen that from Obama yet. We need more than a good personality and an attractive face. But I am not closed to him. Maybe he will come through with a little grit and toughness, and if so I will consider him more highly.

i personally can't take another 4-8 years of "grit and toughness". i'd prefer a uniter to a divider. you get more done that way.

[BT18]

Truthteller, you aren't going to vote for any democrat, since you've obviously got the truthiness sloganeering playbook down pact like the good dittohead you are, so up yours.

And earlier in this thread I said Obama should wait, but actually I've changed my mind. Abraham Lincoln's national experience consisted of a 2 year term in the US House and losing the Illinois senate race 2 years before he ran for president.

I've thought of Wesley Clark as somebody who could be our Eisenhower. I've thought of Barbara Boxer as somebody who could be our Reagan. But motherf*(ker why not somebody who could be our Lincoln ?

and again, the microscopic sliver of racists who the GOP doesn't already have the rubber stamp vote of would be far outweighed by record breaking turnout of minority voters, much less all the other people Obama appeals to as much if not more like the youth.

[KingOfDreams]

edit: never mind

[terry78]

Truthteller, you aren't going to vote for any democrat, since you've obviously got the truthiness sloganeering playbook down pact like the good dittohead you are, so up yours.

And earlier in this thread I said Obama should wait, but actually I've changed my mind. Abraham Lincoln's national experience consisted of a 2 year term in the US House and losing the Illinois senate race 2 years before he ran for president.

I've thought of Wesley Clark as somebody who could be our Eisenhower. I've thought of Barbara Boxer as somebody who could be our Reagan. But motherf*(ker why not somebody who could be our Lincoln ?

and again, the microscopic sliver of racists who the GOP doesn't already have the rubber stamp vote of would be far outweighed by record breaking turnout of minority voters, much less all the other people Obama appeals to as much if not more like the youth.
There's more of them than you think. A lot of older people in the south will go against Obama on principle alone, and some younger ones. And not to just pigeonhole the south as my roots are there, but I know what's realistic and what's not.

[Fred_Fury]

OMGOMGOMG BARACK OBAMA!!! The Democrats big white hype might run for president!!!

who cares?

[comicgirl]

Obama is too smart to bank his capital now. Its just news of the week.

This is not a stupid man

[cryptic name]

If Obama did run, all those people that don't vote would immediately jump up to vote, because half of them would vote just to see a different type of guy in office, and the other half would vote just to keep the same guy out.

i don't vote and this guy running wouldn't change that. it doesn't matter who or what party wins these elections.

[terry78]

i don't vote and this guy running wouldn't change that. it doesn't matter who or what party wins these elections.
Those idealistic types that are pissed about this regime we have now would more than likely change their tune and vote. Their mindset would be "a black guy running? I know the good 'ol boys club would hate that, so I'm gonna vote for him just to spite them." And he's a Dem to boot, and not a repub like Alan Keyes, so that's a double whammy.

[comicgirl]

Those idealistic types that are pissed about this regime we have now would more than likely change their tune and vote. Their mindset would be "a black guy running? I know the good 'ol boys club would hate that, so I'm gonna vote for him just to spite them." And he's a Dem to boot, and not a repub like Alan Keyes, so that's a double whammy.
Alan Keyes is a tool. If there's a God, he'll never hold public office.

[sinewave]

OMGOMGOMG BARACK OBAMA!!! The Democrats big white hype might run for president!!!

who cares?

more intelligent reparte from everyone's favorite skid mark.

[sinewave]

Alan Keyes is a tool. If there's a God, he'll never hold public office.

agreed.

[Dorian Gray]

BARACK OBAMA!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/dorian23/vwxxg4.gif

[Arkady Rossovich]

I hear that he`s just being praised because he`s a fresh face and not much else.When it comes down to bare facts,i doubt he would win.

[Truthteller]

i personally can't take another 4-8 years of "grit and toughness". i'd prefer a uniter to a divider. you get more done that way.Although I sympathize with the sentiment, I suspect that we have much longer than 4-8 of grit and toughness, dispite how ever much we might wish against it.

I'm not sure the "uniter vs. divider" thing works. We actually have had the last two Presidents start out as uniters, only to be demonized by the opposing party who focus on dividing.

[ShadowBoxing]

Although I sympathize with the sentiment, I suspect that we have much longer than 4-8 of grit and toughness, dispite how ever much we might wish against it.

I'm not sure the "uniter vs. divider" thing works. We actually have had the last two Presidents start out as uniters, only to be demonized by the opposing party who focus on dividing.Clinton was a fairly good uniter, and that is shown through the legislation he passed and the budget surplus he left us. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, is not so much.

Bush did not start out as anything. His initial approval ratings were almost as abismal as they are now. 9/11 united us, not Bush. And the fact that Bush was unable to maintain that is characteristic of his "divisive" nature. Clinton was able to unite a peacetime nation through his use of triangulation as was a brillant politician.

[Truthteller]

Yes, I was speaking of our last two Presidents; Clinton and Bush. Both started out to unite, but in neither case did it work because the opposing party would have none of it - except in a few specific cases.

[Matt]

Come now TT, Bush never tried to unite. From the second he entered office he had a "with us or against us" attitude. He is known for being very hostile towards anyone whose opinion differs from his, that is a reputation he carried all the way back to his days as governor. 9/11 united the people, not Bush. A chimp could be president and America would've united following 9/11...and Bush still somehow managed to divide the people just months after that.

[Truthteller]

...Bush did not start out as anything. His initial approval ratings were almost as abismal as they are now. 9/11 united us, not Bush. And the fact that Bush was unable to maintain that is characteristic of his "divisive" nature. Clinton was able to unite a peacetime nation through his use of triangulation as was a brillant politician.If you recall, or go back and check; "The new tone" was a major part of Bush's initial agenda. You might recall he even worked with Ted Kennedy on the education bill - letting him write much of it. Bush tried to unite, as did Clinton. Its just that the opposing party ultimately will not go along with it. As such, as a particular item to look for in a candidate, its a bit of a red herring.

[Truthteller]

Come now TT, Bush never tried to unite. From the second he entered office he had a "with us or against us" attitude. He is known for being very hostile towards anyone whose opinion differs from his, that is a reputation he carried all the way back to his days as governor. 9/11 united the people, not Bush. A chimp could be president and America would've united following 9/11...and Bush still somehow managed to divide the people just months after that.See my reply above. Come on now do you not remember the emphasis that was put on the "New Tone" by Bush in Washington when he first came to office? It was a big deal, and very well documented. Its not in dispute.

[Matt]

See my reply above. Come on now do you not remember the emphasis that was put on the "New Tone" by Bush in Washington when he first came to office? It was a big deal, and very well documented. Its not in dispute.

Its what he said, his actions were very different. His first day in office he cut federal aid to anyone who supports women who have abortions. Not exactly bridging the gaps. As for No Child Left Behind, while he may have worked across bi-partisan lines to pass it, he still hasn't allocated it the funding it needs to succeed.

[Truthteller]

My point is that the "Uniter vs Divider" aspect may not be as critical for a good leader as one might initially think. I put some stock in it at one time, but I am now given to reconsider. - Even so as it applies to Obama, I would say that at least he is not as shrill as some of his other party members, so that would seem to work in his favor. I still would like to hear more from him though than the well known litany of left wing concerns.

[sinewave]

You know, I actually think Bush could have possibly been a decent President if he didn't have people like Rove and Cheney influencing his decisions. Cheney is extremely paranoid and secretive and seems to have quite a bit of disdain for opposing viewpoints and Rove just plays too many games to try and make the Republican party seem like the only party that matters. Bush probably would have been much better at uniting people and creating a more bi-partisan atmosphere in Washington if it weren't for those two. That just goes to show how important the rest of the administration is in shaping the policies and image of a President.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Crap, I ate out of Obama's hand last night on Tavis Smiley.

[jaguarr]

Crap, I ate out of Obama's hand last night on Tavis Smiley.

<Sam Elliot Voiceover>Obama. It's what's for dinner</Sam Elliot Voiceover>

jag
bear

[Wilhelm-Scream]

ha, best Sam Elliot It's What's For Dinner ever.

[Wolverine Fan]

Good! I hope he wins. He would probably do alot better job then what Bush is doing.

[ShadowBoxing]

You know, I actually think Bush could have possibly been a decent President if he didn't have people like Rove and Cheney influencing his decisions. Cheney is extremely paranoid and secretive and seems to have quite a bit of disdain for opposing viewpoints and Rove just plays too many games to try and make the Republican party seem like the only party that matters. Bush probably would have been much better at uniting people and creating a more bi-partisan atmosphere in Washington if it weren't for those two. That just goes to show how important the rest of the administration is in shaping the policies and image of a President.Perhaps, I don't know the man personally, but in videotapes I have seen pre-Presidency he came off as a spoiled rich kid. Some people think we are the company we keep, so I might also contend that Bush would not have surrounded himself with Rove or Cheney had he not agreed with their worldview.

However some say, those I know who have met him, that he is a dork and kind of a good time charley. Which would suggest he is more of the figurehead, possibly average joe he claims...and just has bad advisors.

Either way I'd have to say he is pretty incompetent and doesn't make very good decisions regardless.

[sinewave]

Perhaps, I don't know the man personally, but in videotapes I have seen pre-Presidency he came off as a spoiled rich kid. Some people think we are the company we keep, so I might also contend that Bush would not have surrounded himself with Rove or Cheney had he not agreed with their worldview.

However some say, those I know who have met him, that he is a dork and kind of a good time charley. Which would suggest he is more of the figurehead, possibly average joe he claims...and just has bad advisors.

Either way I'd have to say he is pretty incompetent and doesn't make very good decisions regardless.

you're probably right. i bet the only reason he made it as far as he has is because of people like rove and cheney who know how to work the system to their benefit. i guess what i was thinking was that he'd be a better prez with less classically evil people behind him.

[cryptic name]

Those idealistic types that are pissed about this regime we have now would more than likely change their tune and vote. Their mindset would be "a black guy running? I know the good 'ol boys club would hate that, so I'm gonna vote for him just to spite them." And he's a Dem to boot, and not a repub like Alan Keyes, so that's a double whammy.

ah, i see. carry on then. any way, there's only one possible candidate that could shake me out of my apathy...

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l165/cryptic_name/S2Jj8nwu.jpg

lower taxes, a feesible exit stratagy, and freedom as the right for all sentient beings. vote PRIME

[ShadowBoxing]

you're probably right. i bet the only reason he made it as far as he has is because of people like rove and cheney who know how to work the system to their benefit. i guess what i was thinking was that he'd be a better prez with less classically evil people behind him.I don't know how I would define "better" in this situation though. I mean, on his own steam, I don't think he could get re-elected without Rove (and possibly Cheney). I think, as I said, he'd be an incompetent, perhaps spoiled and or good ol'boy Politician. But, that just it, he'd still be incompetent, and a bad decision maker.

Better, or maybe the word I'd use is "forgetable". It's possible in the scheme of things without them he'd be your classic do nothing President. Like a Tyler. Someone who just is not notable for much. But I hesitate to define that as "better". I mean I guess you wouldn't say it's worse, but...

[Man-Thing]

so I'm still curious, what has Obamba done?

and is he a Muslim?

[ShadowBoxing]

so I'm still curious, what has Obamba done?
Other than become the first black Senator. Nothing really substantial. He has become very popular in his first term though.

Here is a rundown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
and is he a Muslim?
He is Christian, Protestant.

[NOFX]

so I'm still curious, what has Obamba done?

and is he a Muslim?
He's a Christain. Half white/half black.

[Man-Thing]

Other than become the first black Senator. Nothing really substantial. He has become very popular in his first term though.

Here is a rundown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

He is Christian, Protestant.

he's not the first black senator.

[NOFX]

he's not the first black senator.
ok one of the first!

[ShadowBoxing]

he's not the first black senator.Oh you're right, I meant ONLY black senator.

[Man-Thing]

Oh you're right, I meant ONLY black senator.

I thought that's what you meant.

[ShadowBoxing]

I thought that's what you meant.If Harold Ford Jr. wins he will run.

[Man-Thing]

Harold's not gonna win, I don't think. I'm in Tennessee, and from what I can tell his time he spent at the playboy mansion ruined his campaign.

The thing is, he done his whole campaign commercial in a church and Bob Corker aired one of Ford in the church but calling into question his time with the bunnies.

I don't like either one of them, I think I'm gonna write in "Homer J. Simpson", just so I can see it in the news paper.:D

[BT18]

What we really need are more people who clearly aren't going to vote for any Democrat telling us they aren't going to vote for a particular democrat as if people should care.

Especially with the perfect stereotypical diction like "he done his whole campaign commercial ".

[Man-Thing]

What we really need are more people who clearly aren't going to vote for any Democrat telling us they aren't going to vote for a particular democrat as if people should care.

Especially with the perfect stereotypical diction like "he done his whole campaign commercial ".

???

[Quietstorm]

Barack Obama, asked about drug history, admits he inhaled
By Katharine Q. Seelye The New York Times

Published: October 24, 2006

PHOENIX, Arizona Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who said Sunday that he was considering running for president in 2008, has created a little sunlight between himself and both Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

For one thing, he said, "When I was a kid, I inhaled."

"That was the point," Obama told an audience of magazine editors.

The direct admission was in contrast to Bill Clinton's denial in his 1992 campaign for president that he had smoked marijuana.

"I didn't inhale," Clinton said, cementing the idea that he liked to have things both ways.

Obama had written in his first book, "Dreams From My Father" (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow"). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him.

In an interview here at a meeting of the American Society of Magazine Editors, Obama said he was not making light of the subject.

"It was reflective of the struggles and confusion of a teenage boy," he said. "Teenage boys are frequently confused."

The question of drug use has become a standard one for politicians, sometimes as a test of their ability to be straightforward. If the politician has used drugs, conventional wisdom says it is best to try to get the question out of the way early.

Read More (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/24/news/dems.php)

I'd really like to read this book. I think I may stop by the library soon.

[Kritish]

I don't give a crap if he smoked pot, I think it should be legal.

I do if he was smoking crack.

[Cyclops]

You know, the more and more he says, the more and more I like him. He seems honest, and I like that. I'd vote for him.

[Maxwell Smart]

No one cares anyway. If they did Clinton wouldn't have gotten elected, since it was abundantly obvious that whole "I didn't inhale" bit was a crock.

[Quietstorm]

You know, the more and more he says, the more and more I like him. He seems honest, and I like that. I'd vote for him.

Yeah I like him too. Someone I know over at another board met him at a book signing recently, and said that he was laid back. He told the media to "shut the hell up" (under his breath) when they were telling him what to do and how to act :woot:

[Excel]

i think will score him points, actully with most, because of how honest n regular he seems to be.

[kypade]

Now if he'd only admit that he still inhales on a regular basis.

[ShadowBoxing]

I like the honesty.

[jaguarr]

Honestly, in this day and age, I think finding a political candidate worth a damn who hadn't at least tried the stuff would be impossible.

jag

[ShadowBoxing]

Honestly, in this day and age, I think finding a political candidate worth a damn who hadn't at least tried the stuff would be impossible.

jagI think in this day and age if you have never been exposed to anything of this, you're probably pretty out of touch anyways. I mean who wants a politician who still thinks MJ can cause the "reefer madness".

[HellOnEarth]

I don't give a crap.

[terry78]

We want the everyman. Bush claims to be the everyman, but the everyman doesn't come from an affluent family. Obama even mentioned that he and the family fly coach all the time with regular people, not first class.

[jaguarr]

I think in this day and age if you have never been exposed to anything of this, you're probably pretty out of touch anyways. I mean who wants a politician who still thinks MJ can cause the "reefer madness".

I tend to agree. Any politician who tries to paint themselves as "angelic" immeidately makes me suspicious of them, anyway, and suggests that they really lack real life experience that I would consider very valuable in giving them enough perspective to do their jobs.

jag

[Kritish]

I think in this day and age if you have never been exposed to anything of this, you're probably pretty out of touch anyways. I mean who wants a politician who still thinks MJ can cause the "reefer madness".

I think there's a better case to ban cigarettes than pot.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

You know what's cool that no one ever talks about?
Back when he was a young, hungry up-and-coming journalist...Dan Rather was doing a special on Heroin addiction, and he didn't feel that he could fully understand the phenomenon unless he'd tried it, so he actually scored some H and shot it up and described his experience. :up:

[cryptic name]

i think this guy's trying really hard to make younger people like him. i don't trust him.

[Quietstorm]

I think in this day and age if you have never been exposed to anything of this, you're probably pretty out of touch anyways. I mean who wants a politician who still thinks MJ can cause the "reefer madness".

If you've never smoked weed, then it means you're out of touch? :huh:

[Noon]

This guy makes me wish I was American and old enough to vote, if you guys don't elect him I think you'd really be missing out.

I hope he does run

[terry78]

i think this guy's trying really hard to make younger people like him. i don't trust him.
And other candidates are trying hard to make older people like them. You can't please everybody. You either get the youth vote or the older vote, unless you can get both groups, which is rare.

[terry78]

If you've never smoked weed, then it means you're out of touch? :huh:
Yes, it means your mind is nowhere near as open as it should be.:o

[cryptic name]

Yes, it means your mind is nowhere near as open as it should be.:o

that's stupid. who decides how open your mind should be?

[Quietstorm]

Yes, it means your mind is nowhere near as open as it should be.:o

Oh c'mon terry tell me you're joking.

I don't smoke, but my mind gets open everytime I drink dat vodka juice :o

[cryptic name]

You know what's cool that no one ever talks about?
Back when he was a young, hungry up-and-coming journalist...Dan Rather was doing a special on Heroin addiction, and he didn't feel that he could fully understand the phenomenon unless he'd tried it, so he actually scored some H and shot it up and described his experience. :up:

that's really f**kin awsome.

[terry78]

Oh c'mon terry tell me you're joking.

I don't smoke, but my mind gets open everytime I drink dat vodka juice :o
Yes, I am joking. I don't drink or smoke at all, man. I've sampled a bit back in the day, but I don't do either/or.

[ShadowBoxing]

If you've never smoked weed, then it means you're out of touch? :huh:That's why I said exposed, I did not mean necessarily "do them" but not be some guy who thinks every urban legend surrounding them is truth. As Terry said, you have to be open to them.

[jaguarr]

That's why I said exposed, I did not mean necessarily "do them" but not be some guy who thinks every urban legend surrounding them is truth.

Exactly. :up:

jag

[ShadowBoxing]

I tend to agree. Any politician who tries to paint themselves as "angelic" immeidately makes me suspicious of them, anyway, and suggests that they really lack real life experience that I would consider very valuable in giving them enough perspective to do their jobs.

jagYeah, you deal with people everyday. All types or men, women and children. People who take that "angelic" position in life tend to end up very afraid to take risks and generally (from my experience) have a degree of social ineptness. I also find those who don't at least stay open to the idea of trying things (not even trying them, but just being comfortable with the notion of) like drugs, sex, booze, being friends/relations with people "unlike" yourself, tend to be very uncomfortable in their own skin.

These things make for a very bad leader.

[Ben Urich]

My uncle worked for Dan Rather back when he was an up-and-coming journalist. Apparently, if a woman on his staff wanted to advance, she had to sleep with him. :down

[Quietstorm]

That's why I said exposed, I did not mean necessarily "do them" but not be some guy who thinks every urban legend surrounding them is truth. As Terry said, you have to be open to them.


I see what you're saying.

[cryptic name]

My uncle worked for Dan Rather back when he was an up-and-coming journalist. Apparently, if a woman on his staff wanted to advance, she had to sleep with him. :down

give him a break, it might've been the heroin :cwink:

[ShadowBoxing]

My uncle worked for Dan Rather back when he was an up-and-coming journalist. Apparently, if a woman on his staff wanted to advance, she had to sleep with him. :down
http://www.ratherbiased.com/photos/dan_gun.jpg
Good night and good luck girl:oldrazz:

[RockSP]

"I'm like a black president, cuz ****** ain't seein' me!"--Skillz (f.k.a. Mad Skillz)

[lazur]

Good! Now make him President so he can legalize it!! :woot:

[lazur]

Good! Now make him President so he can legalize it!! :woot:

[ShadowBoxing]

Exactly. :up:

jagRight, I hate how people judge someone else's tastes as weird (especially when it's a cultural thing).

I mean hell one day I'll get bored with regular, good ol sex. And then I'll probably do that thing that you do...that's in my avatar...ya'know, minus the talking meatball.

[Slipknot]

Lazur has been acting so weird lately... it's freaking me out. Oh... and yeah, I really like Obama and hope he decides to run in 2008.

[Kritish]

I might vote for him.

[jaguarr]

Lazur has been acting so weird lately... it's freaking me out. Oh... and yeah, I really like Obama and hope he decides to run in 2008.

lazur is a stoner. :)

jag

[Matt]

At least he is honest.

[lazur]

Lazur has been acting so weird lately... it's freaking me out. Oh... and yeah, I really like Obama and hope he decides to run in 2008.

Define "weird", please.

[tomahawk53]

Yeah, you deal with people everyday. All types or men, women and children. People who take that "angelic" position in life tend to end up very afraid to take risks and generally (from my experience) have a degree of social ineptness. I also find those who don't at least stay open to the idea of trying things (not even trying them, but just being comfortable with the notion of) like drugs, sex, booze, being friends/relations with people "unlike" yourself, tend to be very uncomfortable in their own skin.

These things make for a very bad leader.

I agree.

Also the people that try to take that angelic position are often hiding a bunch of skeletons in their closets. It's smart of Obama to come out and admit it because sure enough it would probably have come out eventually anyway.

[blind_fury]

John Kerry is an idiot. If he was more honest about his peace protest of the 60's instead of caving in to right-wing think tanks he could've got alot more swing voters for sticking to his beliefs. Just goes to show you how out of touch he was.

Obama is smart. He knows people are tired of the same old spin.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Obama is smart. He knows people are tired of the same old spin.I watched him on Tavis Smiley the other night for the first time and no doubt about it, he's smart and he won me over just with his ideas, attitude and delivery. It got me excited, the thought of a president who seems....admirable :eek:

And it blows my head off that people (like Hype Poster, "SoullesS") would decide not to vote him in as president, without hearing word one from him, just because of the ammount of melanin in his skin.

The guy even said, "Call me a bigot, a racist, whatever. I don't care. I don't want a Black man running the country."

I'm more like, "Call me intelligent, educated, wise...whatever, I don't want a freaking moron like George Bush (under the influence of EVIL men like Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) running the country."

Hey, maybe Bush struggles to concoct complete English sentences, but at least he's White!
:rolleyes:

[blind_fury]

Obama better not be too uplifting. It's the best way to get assassinated.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Obama better not be too uplifting. It's the best way to get assassinated.That's true.

Ghandi - shot
John Lennon - shot
Dr. Martin Luther King jr. - shot
JFK, RFK - shot
Lincoln - shot

I'm not gonna say Malcolm X 'cause he was more hateful than those guys at one time.


and.....NO one's tried to sh00t Bush?, or Michael Savage?...or David Duke?...or Uwe Boll?

puhLEASE

Reagan got shot, but he survived, because psychos are bad aims and you get better medical care when it isn't the U.S. gov't. that assassinated you.

[Hotwire]

At least he's honest. So with that in mind, he's never going to win another election. Honesty just doesn't fit into this country's political sytem.

[Quietstorm]

That's true.

...or Uwe Boll?

puhLEASE



Haha! :woot:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

At least he's honest. So with that in mind, he's never going to win another election. Honesty just doesn't fit into this country's political sytem.

I liked George Bush's strategy when they asked him if he'd ever done cocaine.
He sort of said that it was irrelevant, so he wasn't going to bother even answering. LOL

Well, ask me if I've ever done cocaine.
I'll say, "No."

Pretty easy.
But not easy enough for George. :huh:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Haha! :woot:
It's not funny!:cmad:
He's impervious!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/BabyUwe.jpg

[Quietstorm]

It's not funny!:cmad:
He's impervious!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/BabyUwe.jpg


That is one of the most ugliest things I've seen in my life. :o

[Wilhelm-Scream]

That is one of the most ugliest things I've seen in my life. :o

Shoot it!
Shoot it!

Aim fo' the HEAD!
Shoot it in the HEAD!

[Hotwire]

I liked George Bush's strategy when they asked him if he'd ever done cocaine.
He sort of said that it was irrelevant, so he wasn't going to bother even answering. LOL

Well, ask me if I've ever done cocaine.
I'll say, "No."

Pretty easy.
But not easy enough for George. :huh:
Probably because he's done cocaine. But he's lied about a lot of other things worse than doing cocaine in college.

[celldog]

Barack Obama, asked about drug history, admits he inhaled
By Katharine Q. Seelye The New York Times

Published: October 24, 2006

PHOENIX, Arizona Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who said Sunday that he was considering running for president in 2008, has created a little sunlight between himself and both Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

For one thing, he said, "When I was a kid, I inhaled."

"That was the point," Obama told an audience of magazine editors.

The direct admission was in contrast to Bill Clinton's denial in his 1992 campaign for president that he had smoked marijuana.

"I didn't inhale," Clinton said, cementing the idea that he liked to have things both ways.

Obama had written in his first book, "Dreams From My Father" (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow"). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him.


So...if he had "liked" the pusher, he would have used it?? :whatever: How about "because it's wrong" Obama???



In an interview here at a meeting of the American Society of Magazine Editors, Obama said he was not making light of the subject.

"It was reflective of the struggles and confusion of a teenage boy," he said. "Teenage boys are frequently confused."

The question of drug use has become a standard one for politicians, sometimes as a test of their ability to be straightforward. If the politician has used drugs, conventional wisdom says it is best to try to get the question out of the way early.

Read More (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/24/news/dems.php)

I'd really like to read this book. I think I may stop by the library soon.


This cat is too sneaky and too liberal. And no experience.

[jaguarr]

This cat is too sneaky and too liberal. And no experience.

The only part you don't like is that he's liberal, because "too sneaky" and "no experience" could just as easily be applied to Bush when he was running for his first term. ;)

jag

[rdh007]

^Glad you typed it so I didn't have to. :up:

[Hotwire]

The only part you don't like is that he's liberal, because "too sneaky" and "no experience" could just as easily be applied to Bush when he was running for his first term. ;)

jag
You and I agree in this thread. I'm sure as a youth, Barack made choices for different reasons than he does now. The point is that he learned from them, and is willing to admit mistakes. That is a very admirable trait that a ton of politicians just don't have.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

This cat is too sneaky and too liberal. And no experience.How many companies has he run into the ground?
How many times has he been caught in lie?
How connected is he to the most Machiavellian Bastards on the planet?
How well can he navigate his native language?
How sociopathic (http://www.bushflash.com/unb.html) is he?
Where did Georgie W get all his experience?.....killing every murderer in Texas but sparing Henry Lee Lucas?

Yeah, LOL, "THIS cat is too 'sneaky'"

George Bush is despotism, murder and stupidity on wheels. But hey!...he's not "sneaky or inexperienced!" :o



I have this weird feeling that B.O. would say, "I'm going to Iraq to serve the men TURKEY!!!" instead of stupidly making a display of his duplicitous nature by lying to his OWN FAMILY to do it.

GAWD!:rolleyes:

[Scar Predator]

Barack Obama, asked about drug history, admits he inhaled
By Katharine Q. Seelye The New York Times

Published: October 24, 2006

PHOENIX, Arizona Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who said Sunday that he was considering running for president in 2008, has created a little sunlight between himself and both Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

For one thing, he said, "When I was a kid, I inhaled."

"That was the point," Obama told an audience of magazine editors.

The direct admission was in contrast to Bill Clinton's denial in his 1992 campaign for president that he had smoked marijuana.

"I didn't inhale," Clinton said, cementing the idea that he liked to have things both ways.

Obama had written in his first book, "Dreams From My Father" (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow"). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him.

In an interview here at a meeting of the American Society of Magazine Editors, Obama said he was not making light of the subject.
.

Oh wonderful! Yet another politician who's used drugs. :cmad: At least he didn't skirt the issue like Clinton. However, I'll be closing watching how he responds to the subject of drug use and the war on drugs very closely now. This "aw, it's just youthful indiscretion" stuff doesn't hold water. It's time for these candidates to show some backbone.

sXe

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Oh wonderful! Yet another politician who's used drugs. :cmad: At least he didn't skirt the issue like Clinton. However, I'll be closing watching how he responds to the subject of drug use and the war on drugs very closely now. This "aw, it's just youthful indiscretion" stuff doesn't hold water. It's time for these candidates to show some backbone.

sXe

Why did you say "Clinton" when our current president obviously did cocaine and was actually pulled over for drunk driving?

Clinton was never pulled over for drunk driving.

Drunk driving can K.I.L.L. people.

Why say "Clinton" when you can say "BUSH"?!?

Did Obama ever get pulled over for drunk driving?
I don't care if he was hopped up on Meth, as long as he never DROVE!

:rolleyes:

And how does a person's youthful stupidity foretell the decisions they'll make decades later?

Are you saying that the reason Iraq has turned into a quagmire is that Bush snorted cocaine in his youth?

Please, posters, use at least a SECTION of brain, K?
Thx:up:

[terry78]

Most people would relate to him because a lot of them did experiment in their youth, and did stupid things that related to alcohol and drugs. And many of them ended up being successful in the long run.

[tomahawk53]

So Obama used cocaine huh?

How do the Democrats on here feel about that? I seem to remember some of you calling for GWB head when it was rumored that he did coke in his youth...

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Most people would relate to him because a lot of them did experiment in their youth, and did stupid things that related to alcohol and drugs. And many of them ended up being successful in the long run.weird how that works.
In fact, I can't think of a single life-changing/revolutionary/billionaire who DIDN'T ingest any drugs at some point.

People who NEVER did are living happily on their polygamist compounds in southern Utah or happily weaving their wares in dirt-poor, crap-ass Amish encampments and germ-infested communes, doing "positive-thinking" exercises, trying to PRAY this hideous, savage planet into some form of equilibrium and peace.

:o

[Wilhelm-Scream]

So Obama used cocaine huh?

How do the Democrats on here feel about that? I seem to remember some of you calling for GWB head when it was rumored that he did coke in his youth...So, do you want to stop for a sec and reflect on how that post of yours should be totally retracted? on several levels?:csad:

[Holly Goodhead]

From what I've seen, living in Chicago, he seems like a real cool and honest guy. So naturally, he'll never become President.

[cryptic name]

weird how that works.
In fact, I can't think of a single life-changing/revolutionary/billionaire who DIDN'T ingest any drugs at some point.

People who NEVER did are living happily on their polygamist compounds in southern Utah or happily weaving their wares in dirt-poor, crap-ass Amish encampments and germ-infested communes, doing "positive-thinking" exercises, trying to PRAY this hideous, savage planet into some form of equilibrium and peace.

:o

yeah, they should get with the program and vote some meaningless figure heads into power

[tomahawk53]

So, do you want to stop for a sec and reflect on how that post of yours should be totally retracted? on several levels?:csad:

Not at all.

I'm just curious about what the reactions going to be from the Democrats on here about it.

If it's not ok in someone’s eyes for a republican that was a rumored to have done coke to be president then it shouldn't be ok for a democrat that admits using coke to be the president either correct?

I distinctly remember 'I don't want a coke-head as president'.

[Holly Goodhead]

Not at all.

If it's not ok in someone’s eyes for a republican that was a rumored to have done coke to be president then it shouldn't be ok for a democrat that admits using coke to be the president either correct?

I distinctly remember 'I don't want a coke-head as president'.

There's a difference between trying it and depending on it.

[tomahawk53]

There's a difference between trying it and depending on it.


Yes there most certainly is.

I don't think either of them is dependent on it though.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Not at all.

I'm just curious about what the reactions going to be from the Democrats on here about it.

If it's not ok in someone’s eyes for a republican that was a rumored to have done coke to be president then it shouldn't be ok for a democrat that admits using coke to be the president either correct?

I distinctly remember 'I don't want a coke-head as president'.

I don't. I remember people being disgusted by the fact that George wouldn't fess up.

He has N.E.V.E.R. admitted to trying cocaine. He's also never denied trying it.
This obviously means that he tried it, 'cause as I said, ask ME if I tried it. I'll say, "Never! No way. Never have. I was more of an LSD guy."


So, you don't see a difference between hiding from the question, and coming right out and difusing the question?

[tomahawk53]

I don't. I remember people being disgusted by the fact that George wouldn't fess up.

He has N.E.V.E.R. admitted to trying cocaine. He's also never denied trying it.
This obviously means that he tried it, 'cause as I said, ask ME if I tried it. I'll say, "Never! No way. Never have. I was more of an LSD guy."


So, you don't see a difference between hiding from the question, and coming right out and difusing the question?

I think we are talking about two different things.

When it was posted on the hype about GWB 'possibly' using coke he was immediately guilty in most of the hypes eyes. (I'm not saying that I think he didn't do it because you are correct he was extremely dodgy about the question and could have just said 'NO'...but didn't.)

Anyway when that came out MANY on here were saying that they didn't want a coke head for president even though if he did use it in his youth he doesn't now (I'm pretty sure about that anyway).

But now that a very prominent Democrat has openly admitted to using it do they still want 'a coke head' as president. I'm just a sure that Obama doesn't use it now as I am about GWB.

So if GWB tried it when he was in his youth = No coke head for president
does Obama tried it when he was in his youth = No coke head for president?

[blind_fury]

So Obama used cocaine huh?

How do the Democrats on here feel about that? I seem to remember some of you calling for GWB head when it was rumored that he did coke in his youth...
I doubt Obama would have a hypocriticl drug policy if he had a choice.

[Scar Predator]

Why did you say "Clinton" when our current president obviously did cocaine and was actually pulled over for drunk driving?

Clinton was never pulled over for drunk driving.

Drunk driving can K.I.L.L. people.

Why say "Clinton" when you can say "BUSH"?!?

Did Obama ever get pulled over for drunk driving?
I don't care if he was hopped up on Meth, as long as he never DROVE!


Please, posters, use at least a SECTION of brain, K?
Thx:up:

Because the article drew the comparison between Clinton and Obama in their admissions. I certainly don't approve of Bush's coke use or his DD arrest, which I think should result in an automatic 1 year revocation of license for the first offense.
Moreover, my point was that the "I was young, it's no big deal" stuff isn't helpful. Candidates from both parties need to take a firm stance against the drug culture if they want to be viewed as responsible leaders. What I want to hear is strong rhetoric : "I used ( insert drug here ) and I was a moron for doing so. Don't do drugs and don't drink, kids. All that does is cause problems."

^ That's me using my poison free brain. I'm 49ervenom and I approve this message. SXE.

[blind_fury]

The drug war hurts alot more people than it helps. It would be refreshing to have a mainstream candidate who actual focused on rehabilitation for addicts and the decriminalization of mildly addictive drugs.

[kypade]

more like sUXe.

[Scar Predator]

The drug war hurts alot more people than it helps. It would be refreshing to have a mainstream candidate who actual focused on rehabilitation for addicts and the decriminalization of mildly addictive drugs.

Drugs hurt people. Drugs ruin lives of innocent loved ones. There is no defensible reason to use drugs. The war on drugs only hurts people who are self centered enough to alter their consciousness. The answer isn't decriminalization. The answer is some legislation with some real teeth ( big time penalities ) to wake up the public.

[blind_fury]

What happened to live and let live? You have no business telling me what I can and can't ingest! It's my body and my life and if I want to get high in the privacy of my home, it MY business. Not yours and certainly not the government.

Get a hobby. Make toy model planes or do crossword puzzles. Just leave me alone to do what I wish with my life. It's none of your concern.

[Hotwire]

The important thing to remember here is that Barack has owned up to his mistakes as a youth. He admits them and has moved on. He nw focuses on the issues at hand, and an opponent of his that brings it up, will be pegged as avoiding the issues. That's the difference between him and Bush. Bush still will not admit he has ever done anything wrong.

[Scar Predator]

What happened to live and let live? You have no business telling me what I can and can't ingest! It's my body and my life and if I want to get high in the privacy of my home, it MY business. Not yours and certainly not the government.

Get a hobby. Make toy model planes or do crossword puzzles. Just leave me alone to do what I wish with my life. It's none of your concern.

The problem is it's not just about you. When a person becomes intoxicated, they become dangerous. Countless lives are ended each year because Joe Schmo wants to get high then he does something stupid to himself or someone else because that drug had control of his mind.
Live and let live doesn't apply to the drug culture which only deals in near misses, despair and death.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

The problem is it's not just about you. When a person becomes intoxicated, they become dangerous. Countless lives are ended each year because Joe Schmo wants to get high then he does something stupid to himself or someone else because that drug had control of his mind.
Live and let live doesn't apply to the drug culture which only deals in near misses, despair and death.

I, assume you're for legislation against 90 year olds and cell phone users being able to drive.....

I also assume that you realize that the power to create a human intelligence out of thin air is an awesome responsibility....much more terrifying than the power to wield a gun or to drive a car, so....citizens should be required to earn a license before they can procreate.

I'm also assuming that you believe all homeless schizophrenics should be coralled and relocated, so that they'll stop punching me and spitting AIDS bloody-gum juice on me at work.

Right?

Also, speaking of AIDS, I assume promiscuous Vodka-addicts should be imprisoned....obviously.....since they "become dangerous" and "end countless lives". :up:

And, of course the current administration should be hunted down and confined, since they've become dangerous and cost countless lives.

K:up:
You rule!

[Man-Thing]

I watched him on Tavis Smiley the other night for the first time and no doubt about it, he's smart and he won me over just with his ideas, attitude and delivery. It got me excited, the thought of a president who seems....admirable :eek:

And it blows my head off that people (like Hype Poster, "SoullesS") would decide not to vote him in as president, without hearing word one from him, just because of the ammount of melanin in his skin.

The guy even said, "Call me a bigot, a racist, whatever. I don't care. I don't want a Black man running the country."

I'm more like, "Call me intelligent, educated, wise...whatever, I don't want a freaking moron like George Bush (under the influence of EVIL men like Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) running the country."

Hey, maybe Bush struggles to concoct complete English sentences, but at least he's White!
:rolleyes:

If Obama were to get elected, would you say that it wasn't democracy, but the Bohemian Grove?

[blind_fury]

The problem is it's not just about you. When a person becomes intoxicated, they become dangerous. Countless lives are ended each year because Joe Schmo wants to get high then he does something stupid to himself or someone else because that drug had control of his mind.
Live and let live doesn't apply to the drug culture which only deals in near misses, despair and death.

That's why I said "in the privacy of my home". I knew you were going to say that bs about drug crazed hippies stealing babies. Ok, make a law saying you can't use drugs in public. Fine but don't come into MY home and tell me what I can and can't do with my own body. I'm an adult and I should be free to do as I choose just as long as I don't hurt anyone else. Like I said, it's none of your concern, NARC, so get a new hobby instead of harrassing innocent drug recreationist.

[Scar Predator]

I, assume you're for legislation against 90 year olds and cell phone users being able to drive.....


I also assume that you realize that the power to create a human intelligence out of thin air is an awesome responsibility....much more terrifying than the power to wield a gun or to drive a car, so....citizens should be required to earn a license before they can procreate.

I'm also assuming that you believe all homeless schizophrenics should be coralled and relocated, so that they'll stop punching me and spitting AIDS bloody-gum juice on me at work.

Right?

Also, speaking of AIDS, I assume promiscuous Vodka-addicts should be imprisoned....obviously.....since they "become dangerous" and "end countless lives". :up:

And, of course the current administration should be hunted down and confined, since they've become dangerous and cost countless lives.

K:up:
You rule!

Most of this post is just rhetorical balderdash but I'll answer a few valid points: If someone's driving skills deteriorate to the point of danger, then their license should be revoked. No, cell phone use while driving should not be legal. Lastly, schizophrenia doesn't excuse someone from the law. If someone is threatening you, report them to the police. If they attack you, you have the right to defend yourself.

[cryptic name]

Most of this post is just rhetorical balderdash but I'll answer a few valid points: If someone's driving skills deteriorate to the point of danger, then their license should be revoked. No, cell phone use while driving should not be legal. Lastly, schizophrenia doesn't excuse someone from the law. If someone is threatening you, report them to the police. If they attack you, you have the right to defend yourself.

i talk on my cell phone while driving all the time i barely run anybody over

[Scar Predator]

That's why I said "in the privacy of my home". I knew you were going to say that bs about drug crazed hippies stealing babies. Ok, make a law saying you can't use drugs in public. Fine but don't come into MY home and tell me what I can and can't do with my own body. I'm an adult and I should be free to do as I choose just as long as I don't hurt anyone else. Like I said, it's none of your concern, NARC, so get a new hobby instead of harrassing innocent drug recreationist.

People that use drugs are the ones in need of a new ( or any) hobby. If you are going to fight for something, let it be something worthwhile.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Most of this post is just rhetorical balderdash but I'll answer a few valid points: If someone's driving skills deteriorate to the point of danger, then their license should be revoked. So, we just wait until they kill a few people 'cause they mixed up the brake pedal with the gas pedal?

No, cell phone use while driving should not be legal.

How do you propose that we enforce that? And why is talking on a cell phone any different than talking to a friend in the back seat?
Should we also criminalize drivers who talk to their passengers?



Lastly, schizophrenia doesn't excuse someone from the law. If someone is threatening you, report them to the police. If they attack you, you have the right to defend yourself.

Let me spin that a bit....

"Lastly, if a responsible tax payer who's tripping his balls off on LSD is threatening you, report them to the police. If they attack you, you have the right to defend yourself."


Sound good?

[Wilhelm-Scream]

If Obama were to get elected, would you say that it wasn't democracy, but the Bohemian Grove?Bohemian Grove is the reason he won't win. :)

If you care to wager, PM me your P.O. Box

I'm in for $700 that Obama will not win.
Wanna go?

[Scar Predator]

So, we just wait until they kill a few people 'cause they mixed up the brake pedal with the gas pedal?

Hopefully, it doesn't come to that. I always thought it would be a good idea for people over 65 to take a driver competence test every few years to make sure all the wiring still works.


How do you propose that we enforce that? And why is talking on a cell phone any different than talking to a friend in the back seat?
Should we also criminalize drivers who talk to their passengers?

In VA a cop can pull someone over if they are seen talking on a cell phone while driving.




Let me spin that a bit....

"Lastly, if a responsible tax payer who's tripping his balls off on LSD is threatening you, report them to the police. If they attack you, you have the right to defend yourself."


Sound good?

Or we can make laws and promote a culture of responsibility that stops people before they start tripping/using. The best defense is a good offense. Sounds better.

[ShadowBoxing]

I'm not gonna say Malcolm X 'cause he was more hateful than those guys at one time.
That was cooked up by the media. His position was, and always was, that what Martin Luther King was asking for was prudent and necessary. But that if you were not going to give concessions to King, which they weren't at the time, as one guy who saw him speak put it "there was our guy Malcom outside the door waiting to make you give us concessions".

So the relationship was more the black's diplomat (Martin) and then their muscle (Malcom X). Malcom was an uplifting speaker to the black community, in fact SNCC (The Student NON-Violent Coordinating Committee), the Panther Party (Not the Black Panthers for Self Defense...that's different), and NOI all got behind Malcom X.

Malcom X famous photo holding a gun was actually taken at his home after death threats convinced him someone was trying to kill him, however the media would cook it up to make him look violent and "evil". And the people who assassinated him were both NOI members. The reason, well most likely had to do with his estrangement with the NOI. You see Malcom had found out his teacher, E. Muhammad, had been having adulterous affairs (forbidden by Islam)...so...well you know how those things go.

Also his "chickens came home to roost comment", again perverted by the media, meant that white society violence against blacks had escalated to a point where it came to claim the life of their leader. He did not mean JFK got his come upings, rather that white violence had caused the incident.

[Man-Thing]

Bohemian Grove is the reason he won't win. :)

If you care to wager, PM me your P.O. Box

I'm in for $700 that Obama will not win.
Wanna go?

hmmm....

Well, let's see... I don't believe Obama will win either, and since I've NEVER been wrong predicting a presidential race, I will NOT go against my insticts and lay down 700 bucks for something I think is silly to begin with, plus I kinda agree about the Bohemian Grove thing...

[blind_fury]

People that use drugs are the ones in need of a new ( or any) hobby. If you are going to fight for something, let it be something worthwhile.


The right to use recreational drugs is worth fighting for. Some of my most powerful, richest experiences were while under the influence of drugs. I've had intense religious experiences while on drugs. Now why is the government stepping in to prevent that? Are you so naive to think the government should be allowed to decide my personal discoveries and my choice to physically alter my perception???

Take the red pill next time, NARC.

[cryptic name]

The right to use recreational drugs is worth fighting for. Some of my most powerful, richest experiences were while under the influence of drugs. I've had intense religious experiences while on drugs. Now why is the government stepping in to prevent that? Are you so naive to think the government should be allowed to decide my personal discoveries and my choice to physically alter my perception???

Take the red pill next time, NARC.

wow

[blind_fury]

Or we can make laws and promote a culture of responsibility that stops people before they start tripping/using. The best defense is a good offense. Sounds better.
How about promoting responsibilty while giving people the freedom to do as they choose with their own bodies?

CAN YOU DIG IIIIIIT??? :word:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Or we can make laws and promote a culture of responsibility that stops people before they start tripping/using. The best defense is a good offense. Sounds better.So we should illegalize cigarettes since we know for a fact that they're addictive, deadly, and present an enormous financial burden?

Stop 'em before they start?
And, well, I guess the only way to deter them is in a similar way to the way we "deter" users of LSD, or any OTHER illegal drugs.

To stop the use, production and nefarious profit, we should really lock up cigarette smokers or at the very least fine the f*** out of them. Right?

Also, how many people a year are killed by drunk people?
Trust me. You don't WANNA know.

So you're just as "ANTI" - Vodka/Whiskey/Rum/Gin/Beer/Schnapps, etc. as you are against LSD? Right?

Weird, 'cause every.single.time.I.EVER.did.LSD.or.WEED........I sat, blown away, within the confines of my house.

Believe it or not,......there were NO casualties! :eek:




This is not meant as an insult, only an observation...you are an ignorant fool. :csad:

[Scar Predator]

That was cooked up by the media. His position was, and always was, that what Martin Luther King was asking for was prudent and necessary. But that if you were not going to give concessions to King, which they weren't at the time, as one guy who saw him speak put it "there was our guy Malcom outside the door waiting to make you give us concessions".

So the relationship was more the black's diplomat (Martin) and then their muscle (Malcom X). Malcom was an uplifting speaker to the black community, in fact SNCC (The Student NON-Violent Coordinating Committee), the Panther Party (Not the Black Panthers for Self Defense...that's different), and NOI all got behind Malcom X.

Malcom X famous photo holding a gun was actually taken at his home after death threats convinced him someone was trying to kill him, however the media would cook it up to make him look violent and "evil". And the people who assassinated him were both NOI members. The reason, well most likely had to do with his estrangement with the NOI. You see Malcom had found out his teacher, E. Muhammad, had been having adulterous affairs (forbidden by Islam)...so...well you know how those things go.

Also his "chickens came home to roost comment", again perverted by the media, meant that white society violence against blacks had escalated to a point where it came to claim the life of their leader. He did not mean JFK got his come upings, rather that white violence had caused the incident.

All true.

[ShadowBoxing]

Drugs hurt people.
Yet we seem to feel painkillers and alike are useful in medical procedings...and yes they can have bad after effects there too.
Drugs ruin lives of innocent loved ones.
But by your logic, if it's illegal, it ruins guilty lives.
There is no defensible reason to use drugs.
Is there any defensable reason to watch television. It rots my brain, uses up time I could spend enriching my life. What about posting on the internet, I learn nothing here. Most "fun" things are diversions from actually accomplishing anything. So are most drugs.
The war on drugs only hurts people who are self centered enough to alter their consciousness. The answer isn't decriminalization.
On some, you're right. Cocaine and Crack should stay illegal because they are seen as highly dangerous, have horrible and immediate after effects. Are almost instantly addictive, even to the least addictive of us.

However pot, certain psychedelics, certain stimulents, and depressants have very little chance of dependency, are hard to overdose on. Anything is dangerous used outside of moderation, even exercise. Cocaine and Crack, as I mentioned, have incredibly low moderations...and those would not be worth legality. However let's say you can only possess X amount of pot at one time. Prevents you from trading, but you can still smoke it, go out buy more, and don't OD since you can be penalized for having too much.

I've never even done drugs (except XTC once...never again..) and I think it's ludicrious to outlaw all of them. Especially when Tobacco and Alcohol are legal in any dose.
The answer is some legislation with some real teeth ( big time penalities ) to wake up the public.
Yeah we had that...it was called the War on Drugs...and it failed, by doing the opposite.

[Scar Predator]

Also, how many people a year are killed by drunk people?
Trust me. You don't WANNA know.

Over 17,000 in 2005 between car and boating accidents. Pathetic.

So you're just as "ANTI" - Vodka/Whiskey/Rum/Gin/Beer/Schnapps, etc. as you are against LSD? Right?

You betcha.

Weird, 'cause every.single.time.I.EVER.did.LSD.or.WEED........I sat, blown away, within the confines of my house.

Believe it or not,......there were NO casualties! :eek:


This is not meant as an insult, only an observation...you are an ignorant fool. :csad:

The bottom line is the country is a better, safer place without recreational drug use. If you think that is ignorant, so be it.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

That was cooked up by the media. His position was, and always was, that what Martin Luther King was asking for was prudent and necessary. But that if you were not going to give concessions to King, which they weren't at the time, as one guy who saw him speak put it "there was our guy Malcom outside the door waiting to make you give us concessions".

So the relationship was more the black's diplomat (Martin) and then their muscle (Malcom X). Malcom was an uplifting speaker to the black community, in fact SNCC (The Student NON-Violent Coordinating Committee), the Panther Party (Not the Black Panthers for Self Defense...that's different), and NOI all got behind Malcom X.

Malcom X famous photo holding a gun was actually taken at his home after death threats convinced him someone was trying to kill him, however the media would cook it up to make him look violent and "evil". And the people who assassinated him were both NOI members. The reason, well most likely had to do with his estrangement with the NOI. You see Malcom had found out his teacher, E. Muhammad, had been having adulterous affairs (forbidden by Islam)...so...well you know how those things go.

Also his "chickens came home to roost comment", again perverted by the media, meant that white society violence against blacks had escalated to a point where it came to claim the life of their leader. He did not mean JFK got his come upings, rather that white violence had caused the incident.

You'd learn more watching actual footage of historical figures on PBS spewing angry Black-Hate than you learn in your sacrosanct academic bubble.

I said Malcolm was (at one time) "more full of hate than the other listees" because of, uh,....actual interviews, where, he was getting violent and talking just as irrationally as any revered poster on stormfront.com.

I suppose your profs told you that Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson's anti-Jew attitudes were "cooked up by the media" as well.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/HYPE/rolleyesx100.jpg