Clinton endorses Obama, calls for party unity

[Back]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/07/clinton.unity/index.html?eref=rss_topstories



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York announced Saturday she was suspending her presidential campaign, saying in a speech to her supporters, "I will continue to stand strong with you every time, every place and every way that I can."

She urged the cheering crowd to support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, presumptive Democratic nominee, in his bid for the White House, saying they should "take our energy, our passion and our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama ... I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me."

Her endorsement was met with a scattering of boos and thumbs downs from the large crowd at the National Building Museum in Washington.
She also encouraged party unity, acknowledging that the fight has been hard, but "the Democratic Party is a family, and now it's time to restore the ties that bind us together."

------------------------------------------

Fairly graceful exit.

How about it Hillary fans?

[CrystalTears]

They boo'ed her. How supportive.

[Clove]

Was she wearing a flag pin?

[Parkbandit]

While I am sad that the drama in the Dramacratic party has subsided with this speech.. I am relieved that she lost. There is something about how she speaks that annoys me into changing the channel. At LEAST I enjoy listening to Obama speak.. even if it's full of crap.

[Ilvane]

They boo'ed her. How supportive.

They didn't boo her. What speech were you watching again?

As a Hillary supporter, it was a nice speech. I'm sad she won't be the candidate. I still don't think I'll vote for Obama, even though she is asking for party unity. Something about this race has soured me on the Dems.

Angela*

[CrystalTears]

Her endorsement was met with a scattering of boos and thumbs downs from the large crowd at the National Building Museum in Washington.
Just going by what the story said.

[Ilvane]

A scattering of boos from a disappointed crowd when she endorsed Obama is hard considered booing Clinton herself.

Come on, nice twisting, but seriously.

Angela*

[CrystalTears]

What twisting? Was there not booing because she's endorsing Obama? How is that supportive?

[Khariz]

What twisting? Was there not booing because she's endorsing Obama? How is that supportive?

Are you serious? Every candidate gets booed when they formally drop out. Their fans are disappointed. Mitt Romney got HELLA boos when he praised McCain in his speech.

[Ilvane]

I'm sorry, since you are not a Clinton supporter, you obviously would not understand.

I can see why people who supported her would not want to support Obama. I can also see why not everyone would cheer her endorsement of him. But that does not mean she is not supported.

It's all about the disappointment that she is not the candidate.

Angela*

[CrystalTears]

I know they are disappointed, but I think boo'ing her because she's dropping out and supporting someone else when she's ran a great race is not the appropriate thing to do. Sue me.

[Some Rogue]

Hmm, anyone else notice it was "suspend" her campaign and not call it off?

[Ilvane]

Romney suspended too. So?

[Some Rogue]

So, she's leaving the option open to come in at the convention and pull something?

Sorry, I don't trust her. :shrug:

[Ilvane]

One major reason is that it just gives her the ability to get matching federal funds for her campaign if people donate to it. She is currently in debt. If people give to her campaign and she is suspended and not ended, she gets matching funds.

Angela*

[Latrinsorm]

I'm sorry, since you are not a Clinton supporter, you obviously would not understand....

[Mabus]

So, she's leaving the option open to come in at the convention and pull something?
She has every right to ask for concessions and changes to policy at the convention. Candidates entering a convention with delegates often have done so in the past. It is part of party politics, in both major parties.

I also agree with a previous poster that fundraising is another part of her suspending (rather then ending).

[Bobmuhthol]

<<She is currently in debt.>>

Hahahahahaha, Hillary Clinton in debt, that'll be the day.

[CrystalTears]

Her campaign funds are in debt, yes. She had to loan herself money.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<She had to loan herself money.>>

Inherently, then, she can't be in debt. Which she isn't. Fuck her campaign, she'll kill herself before going into debt.

[Parkbandit]

So, she's leaving the option open to come in at the convention and pull something?

Sorry, I don't trust her. :shrug:

Stop getting my hopes up for a Dramacratic Convention!

Bastard.

[Kembal]

Her campaign is $30 million in debt, with $11 million being loans to herself. If she doesn't raise enough money by the convention to retire it, she'll be out the money she loaned to her campaign, except for $250k.

Generally, when you start reaching eight digits in debt, you need to drop out pronto. She didn't, and it's going to hurt her badly.

[Clove]

<<She had to loan herself money.>>

Inherently, then, she can't be in debt. Which she isn't. Fuck her campaign, she'll kill herself before going into debt.She's in debt Bob. Learn to quote and follow your T-shirt's advice.

[Parkbandit]

She's in debt Bob. Learn to quote and follow your T-shirt's advice.


This one?

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/idiotSeeks.jpg

[Clove]

This one?

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/idiotSeeks.jpg

Heh heh. That's a good one. But I meant this one...

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/front/stfu-tshirt.jpg

[TheEschaton]

The booing was booing towards Obama, which I thought was fairly stupid though somewhat understandable.

Not towards Hillary, who was talking about Obama at that moment in time..

As a Hillary supporter, I thought the speech was pretty good. I thought the pundits were gonna make a deal out of not mentioning Obama til 10 minutes in, but that was before I realize it was a 30+ minutee speech.

And Angela, don't be a fucking dumbass. The whole speech was delivered for people like you, and if you, as a Democrat (or left-leaning, or progressive, or whatever person) seriously think the country would be better under McCain than it would under Obama, then you're batshit crazy and not actually a Democrat, left-leaning, or progressive. And believe you me, voting for Nader or some idiot like that will be considered voting for McCain this time around. Get in line, or register something else and stop pretending to care for our values. Because if you did, you would see Obama was the clear choice over McCain.

-TheE-

[Keller]

But . . . but . . . then who would host the party?

[Back]

Not to be smug, or elitist, or even partisan...

This was an exciting primary for Democrats. This primary will go down in the books. There was a fight, yes. Considering the prize? It was just. But either way it went it was historical for America.

I’m extremely proud of this primary, regardless of the outcome.

[Back]

Barack sent me an email today...


XXXXXXXXX --

Hillary Clinton announced her support for our campaign today.

Senator Clinton made history over the past 16 months -- not just because she has broken barriers, but because she has inspired millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to causes like universal health care that make a difference in the lives of hardworking Americans.

Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I'm a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her.

Senator Clinton will be invaluable to our efforts to win in November, and I look forward to campaigning alongside her to bring this country the change it so desperately needs.

Hillary and her supporters are joining us at an urgent moment.

It's going to require a new level of commitment from every single one of us to build a national campaign in the general election.

And we're going win this election the right way -- by growing our grassroots network of ordinary people giving only what they can afford.

Will you help bring a new supporter into the movement by promising to match their first-time donation?

By doubling the impact of someone's gift, you can encourage them to take the next step and own a piece of this campaign. Help us reach our goal of 20,000 new donors by making a matching donation now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/promise

It's time for all of us to come together to take on John McCain in the general election. John McCain offers another four years of George Bush's policies, which our country simply cannot afford.

To win, we must continue building an unprecedented organization in all 50 states. And that will only happen if we all work together, side-by-side.

Thank you for joining this movement and supporting a new kind of politics.

Together we can do more than just win an election. Together we can change this country, and we can change the world.

And we are honored to have Hillary Clinton at our side as we do it.

Barack

[Tisket]

Spam!

[Clove]

But . . . but . . . then who would host the party?Party at Ilvanes!

[Ilvane]

And Angela, don't be a fucking dumbass. The whole speech was delivered for people like you, and if you, as a Democrat (or left-leaning, or progressive, or whatever person) seriously think the country would be better under McCain than it would under Obama, then you're batshit crazy and not actually a Democrat, left-leaning, or progressive. And believe you me, voting for Nader or some idiot like that will be considered voting for McCain this time around. Get in line, or register something else and stop pretending to care for our values. Because if you did, you would see Obama was the clear choice over McCain.

See, that's the whole problem when you listen to enough bullshit from people on this board. I have already said that I was only considering McCain. They are the ones talking like I'm going to have a party for McCain, and so forth. I guess if you say things enough, people believe it.

That being said, I don't particularly care for Obama. It's going to take me some time to figure if I can stomach him. I don't know how you are doing it so quickly, considering you are also a Clinton supporter.

I don't like his church, because for all the talk of how he wants to unite America, his church that he was a member of for 20 years, doesn't show that. A place that spouts that kind of vitriol..I mean, do you really believe that it hasn't seeped into him someway in those 20 years? A church that espoused Farrakhan was a brilliant leader, and someone to be honored? Isn't this important??

I don't like that he's willing to negotiate with countries that we have no business negotiating with. I think we need to stay strong with those countries and not back down.

I don't like his wife, god help her. She's just now proud of her country.

As much as people say there isn't much difference between them, there are plenty.

And as a woman, I have to admit I'm disgusted that this country is not yet ready for a woman to lead it. We're so damned progressive aren't we?

When is it going to be that women get 1.00 for ever 1.00 men get for pay, rather than .82 cents?

Angela*

P.S. If you think being a Democrat means towing the party line and agreeing with them completely, then maybe you are right. I'm never going to be a "true" Democrat. I have opinions, and I don't always agree with the Democrats. Immigration for one, strength in the military, etc. Doesn't mean I don't agree with them mostly in principle.

[DeV]

The booing was booing towards Obama, which I thought was fairly stupid though somewhat understandable.

Not towards Hillary, who was talking about Obama at that moment in time..

As a Hillary supporter, I thought the speech was pretty good. I thought the pundits were gonna make a deal out of not mentioning Obama til 10 minutes in, but that was before I realize it was a 30+ minutee speech.

And Angela, don't be a fucking dumbass. The whole speech was delivered for people like you, and if you, as a Democrat (or left-leaning, or progressive, or whatever person) seriously think the country would be better under McCain than it would under Obama, then you're batshit crazy and not actually a Democrat, left-leaning, or progressive. And believe you me, voting for Nader or some idiot like that will be considered voting for McCain this time around. Get in line, or register something else and stop pretending to care for our values. Because if you did, you would see Obama was the clear choice over McCain.

-TheE-:clap: Well said, E.

Ilvane, seriously, I like you despite all the shit you get from board members, but please stop making a fool of yourself. Haven't you figured it out by now? No one gives a flying motherfuck what you think about any politician. Period. Your opinions have run their course and have become nothing but fodder for the masses; entertainment. Please stop espousing your viewpoints on why you won't vote for Obama. I think everyone understands exactly where you stand at this point in time, and yet, they still don't give a fuck.

[Parkbandit]

Yea Ilvane, get in line or else you aren't a Dumbacrat. Free thought is NOT ALLOWED! How fucking dare you.

[Ilvane]

PB I tend to agree.

Why did the Democrats only win 3 elections in the past 30 years? Might be because of this very reason. They don't like to accept people who don't think the exact way as they do.

Same on the Republican side. They want people who tow the party line for the most part.

That's why the two party system sucks so bad.

Angela

[Ilvane]

:clap: Well said, E.

Ilvane, seriously, I like you despite all the shit you get from board members, but please stop making a fool of yourself. Haven't you figured it out by now? No one gives a flying motherfuck what you think about any politician. Period. Your opinions have run their course and have become nothing but fodder for the masses; entertainment. Please stop espousing your viewpoints on why you won't vote for Obama. I think everyone understands exactly where you stand at this point in time, and yet, they still don't give a fuck.

Hon, I don't really care if people think what I believe is stupid. I don't care if people think I don't have a clue, am naive, foolish or have no clue. I have a right just like everyone else to have an opinion--whether a bunch of people on a message board think it's stupid or not.

I am deeply involved and interested in political discussions all the time--at school, and at the community level in my town. I'm actually pretty passionate and care about things.

I'm sorry if somehow free thought and opinion are considered 'fodder for entertainment'.

At least I give a shit about what is going on.

Angela*

[DeV]

It's evident you don't care what people think, and to a certain extent, it's admirable, but in the long run it becomes very much less so. In any case, I'm just calling it as I see it. Just because people care more and more less about your opinion doesn't mean you don't have the right to express it. If you can't see how foolish some of your posts come off, then by all means, carry on. :)

[Daniel]

Yea Ilvane, get in line or else you aren't a Dumbacrat. Free thought is NOT ALLOWED! How fucking dare you.

As I am not a semi former conservative I LOL at this post.

[DeV]

Why did the Democrats only win 3 elections in the past 30 years?

Because of people like you who foster statements like this:
See, that's the whole problem when you listen to enough bullshit from people on this board. I have already said that I was only considering McCain. They are the ones talking like I'm going to have a party for McCain, and so forth. I guess if you say things enough, people believe it.

[Ilvane]

Well, do you think there might have been some error in the ways of the Dems, or is it just everyone being vastly wrong?

My first election was voting for Clinton. I didn't vote for Bush either time, even though I struggled with voting for Kerry. Gore-- my kind of Democrat.

Sadly, those kind of Democrats have been pushed out of the party for style over substance. I really don't like that.

Angela*

[Parkbandit]

As I am not a semi former conservative I LOL at this post.


You still don't get it.. although I doubt we would find a single person surprised. You have a long history here of not understanding much. I don't blame you.. I blame racism for your ignorance.

[Daniel]

I get your hypocrasy just fine.

[Parkbandit]

I get your hypocrasy just fine.


You get it... just like you know how to spell it.

[Kembal]

See, that's the whole problem when you listen to enough bullshit from people on this board. I have already said that I was only considering McCain. They are the ones talking like I'm going to have a party for McCain, and so forth. I guess if you say things enough, people believe it.

That being said, I don't particularly care for Obama. It's going to take me some time to figure if I can stomach him. I don't know how you are doing it so quickly, considering you are also a Clinton supporter.

TheE is putting ideals/values/policies over personality. At this point, you're not.


I don't like his church, because for all the talk of how he wants to unite America, his church that he was a member of for 20 years, doesn't show that. A place that spouts that kind of vitriol..I mean, do you really believe that it hasn't seeped into him someway in those 20 years? A church that espoused Farrakhan was a brilliant leader, and someone to be honored? Isn't this important??

1. He's left the church.
2. No, it's not important. Judge the man by his own actions and words.
3. "Seeped into him"? You claim you want to prefer free thought and such, and yet you won't give Obama the credit of being able to think on his own. Remember, the church is also known for its charity and other social programs. You're putting the church on one dimension, which is unfair to the church and Obama.


I don't like that he's willing to negotiate with countries that we have no business negotiating with. I think we need to stay strong with those countries and not back down.

An actual policy disagreement! But slight problem for you Angela: that's been the Bush Admistration policy pretty much. Here's what happened with that strategy:

1. N. Korea tested a nuclear weapon.
2. Iran's grown in power and influence, and the moderates have been sidelined.
3. Cuba transitioned to a new leader and we have zero influence with him.
4. Syria's been screwing with Lebanon.

The one major time that the Bush Administration actually did talk to one of those countries, it was Libya....and guess what happened? They shut down their WMD programs.

There really is no problem with talking to the enemy/bad regimes. It's giving into them wholesale which is the problem. (See Chamberlain, Neville) If we had followed the policy you stated above during the Cold War, we'd be in a nuclear winter, because the Cuban Missile Crisis would have ended with missile launches.


I don't like his wife, god help her. She's just now proud of her country.

Let's take one statement and blow it all out of proportion! Doesn't that make you feel all warm and tingly inside?

Seriously, even if that really is the case for his wife, I wouldn't blame her. African-Americans haven't been treated right for the majority of this country's history, and only in the 1960's can you argue that this country started actually trying to integrate on a societal level. That's less than 50 years ago. It's nothing short of amazing that Barack Obama is now a major party nominee.

If you don't get that the African-American experience has been very different than the majority American experience, and it only now is really starting to converge, there's nothing more I can say here.


As much as people say there isn't much difference between them, there are plenty.

In personality, sure. But in policy....not really. Most of them are just implementation disagreements as opposed to genuine ideological differences. That is a hair's worth of difference compared to the vast chasm between them and McCain.


And as a woman, I have to admit I'm disgusted that this country is not yet ready for a woman to lead it. We're so damned progressive aren't we?

When is it going to be that women get 1.00 for ever 1.00 men get for pay, rather than .82 cents?

Setting aside the issue of equal pay (something that does need to be addressed, though the Supreme Court gutted the major legislative fix in place for that earlier), I'd advise you to stop thinking of Hillary's loss as this country's rejection of a woman leading it. Poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of Obama voters would've been fine with Hillary being the nominee had she won. She lost the primary because her campaign was geared toward a Super Tuesday victory (and spent its huge horde of cash on that), and when that didn't happen, her campaign was unable to right itself until March, when she finally found who she was as a candidate. She actually campaigned pretty well after March. The problem was that she had fallen too far behind by then to catch up.


P.S. If you think being a Democrat means towing the party line and agreeing with them completely, then maybe you are right. I'm never going to be a "true" Democrat. I have opinions, and I don't always agree with the Democrats. Immigration for one, strength in the military, etc. Doesn't mean I don't agree with them mostly in principle.

These policy differences you started listing out are kind of odd, because some are real and some are contrived.

1. Immigration: If you believe in an enforcement-only approach, then you need to question if McCain is going to provide that either. He's been on both sides of the issue in the past year.
2. Strength in the military: Uhh...haven't seen the Democratic Party (outside of Kucinich) argue otherwise. It's the concept of how to use the military that's the major policy difference between the two parties. That in no way means the Democratic Party wants a weaker military.

In the end, you really need to ask yourself whether your dislike of Obama is tied to your emotional investment in Clinton's campaign. I recognize that you're only considering supporting McCain, but you're doing a disservice to yourself if you're not willing to look at the choices objectively.

[Sean of the Thread]

I don't care if people think I don't have a clue, am naive, foolish or have no clue. I have a right just like everyone else to have an opinion--

Angela*

Sadly you're correct... even political idiots are allowed to vote.

[Latrinsorm]

And as a woman, I have to admit I'm disgusted that this country is not yet ready for a woman to lead it. We're so damned progressive aren't we?You want to piss and moan about how you're such a free thinker and simultaneously throw shit like this out there? The talking points you devour so readily are bad enough, but this really takes the cake.

Of course, I'm sure you'll file this under people "piling on", reinforcing your excuse not to critically evaluate yourself. It's clearly everyone else's fault, not yours!

[CrystalTears]

And as a woman, I have to admit I'm disgusted that this country is not yet ready for a woman to lead it. We're so damned progressive aren't we?
She's not just a woman. She's a Clinton. A lot of people don't want to have another term of either Clinton or Bush. It has nothing to do with her being a woman.

As an American, you should be proud that our country was basically divided because we couldn't decide on who we liked more to be our next president, a woman or a black man.

[Clove]

I don't like his wife, god help her. She's just now proud of her country.How catt... er progressive of you.
And as a woman, I have to admit I'm disgusted that this country is not yet ready for a woman to lead it. We're so damned progressive aren't we?Yes, we are. Seeing as she was neck and neck with Obama, you really don't have any foundation to base such a statement. After all the votes she got you have the nerve to throw out estrogen poison like that?

[Parkbandit]

As an American, you should be proud that our country was basically divided because we couldn't decide on who we liked more to be our next president, a woman or a black man.

When did McCain drop out? News to the rest of us.

[Ravenstorm]

And as a woman, I have to admit I'm disgusted that this country is not yet ready for a woman to lead it. We're so damned progressive aren't we?

Maybe, just maybe, people have reasons for disliking Hillary that have nothing at all to do with her gender? Or should we assume the real reason you dislike Obama is because he's black and we should all be disgusted that you aren't ready to have a black man as leader of your country?

[Parkbandit]

Maybe, just maybe, people have reasons for disliking Hillary that have nothing at all to do with her gender? Or should we assume the real reason you dislike Obama is because he's black and we should all be disgusted that you aren't ready to have a black man as leader of your country?

Wait.. isn't that the reason some of you liberals give for Obama losing primaries? I'm pretty sure that was the resounding reason in states like Kentucky, West Virginia, etc...

So.. people have reasons for disliking Hillary that have nothing to do with her gender.. but the same isn't true about Obama?

Sounds convenient.

[Ravenstorm]

No, I'm certain lots of people didn't vote for Obama because he's black. But some didn't vote for him because of other reasons, some of which Ilvane cited. (Whether they're good reasons is beside the point in this argument.)

However, according to her, the only reason for Hillary not to get the nomination is that she's a woman. I was attempting to point out the idiocy of her assuming it was the only reason.

[Faent]

So Ilvane wants to give McCain access to her womb? Wow, I never would have expected that. =)

[Ilvane]

And I didn't say the only reason was that she was a woman.

Angela*

[CrystalTears]

When did McCain drop out? News to the rest of us.
That's not what I meant and you know it. Thanks for trolling.

[Clove]

So.. people have reasons for disliking Hillary that have nothing to do with her gender.. but the same isn't true about Obama?

Sounds convenient.I'm pretty sure gender wasn't an issue with Obama. I'm also pretty sure that Ravenstorm was pointing out that the assumption that anyone who doesn't support Hillary has underlying gender issues is like assuming anyone who doesn't support Obama has underlying race issues.

You're getting paranoid Parkbandit.

[Clove]

And I didn't say the only reason was that she was a woman.

Angela*Really? What exactly does "I have to admit I'm disgusted that this country is not yet ready for a woman to lead it." mean in your world?

[Parkbandit]

Really? What exactly does "I have to admit I'm disgusted that this country is not yet ready for a woman to lead it." mean in your world?

That's not what she meant and you know it. Thanks for trolling

[longshot]

However, according to her, the only reason for Hillary not to get the nomination is that she's a woman. I was attempting to point out the idiocy of her assuming it was the only reason.

I got to fly in and watch the Indy 500 this year.

One of the funniest sights was the gigantic yellow sign this big guy held up that said, "HILLARY BELONGS IN THE KITCHEN."

By the way, welcome back Raven.

[CrystalTears]

Er.. thanks for throwing back my words at him? You're weird.

[Keller]

Er.. thanks for throwing back my words at him? You're weird.

It's sort of like he's got a grade school crush and is jealous that you, the former semi-conservative, and Clove, his competition, don't hate Obama.

[Parkbandit]

Er.. thanks for throwing back my words at him? You're weird.


I figured if it was good enough for you, it should be good enough for Ilvane.

:shrug:

[CrystalTears]

Color me confused that he's defending Ilvane now.

[Keller]

Color me confused that he's defending Ilvane now.

Trying to make you jealous. So you see the error in your ways.

[CrystalTears]

If the only people he's defending these day is Ilvane and Mabus, I'm glad I'm a former semi-conservative.

[Sean of the Thread]

As an American, you should be proud that our country was basically divided because we couldn't decide on who we liked more to be our next president, a woman or a black man.

Black man?

Last I checked he was bi-racial....

His mother is whiter than a French flag in WWII.

[CrystalTears]

Oh right, he's not black enough to be considered black. My bad. /rolleyes

[Keller]

If the only people he's defending these day is Ilvane and Mabus, I'm glad I'm a former semi-conservative.

It's because they see Obama for who he really is. A pandering racist unpatriotic populist muslim who speaks-so-well (Chris Rock on Colin Powell anyone?).

[Sean of the Thread]

Oh right, he's not black enough to be considered black. My bad. /rolleyes

/unrolleyes

Prolly one of the reasons he did so well in the midwest.

[Ilvane]

Really? What exactly does "I have to admit I'm disgusted that this country is not yet ready for a woman to lead it." mean in your world?

Exactly what is says.

Where did I say it was the ONLY reason again?

Reading comprehension, ftw.

Angela*

[Parkbandit]

If the only people he's defending these day is Ilvane and Mabus, I'm glad I'm a former semi-conservative.


I see that still bothers you... even after it was explained in great detail to you.

I just like a good fight is all... seems both Ilvane and Mabus get dog piled on for their dislike of Obama on this forum.. and since I agree with some of the dislike.. why not give them both a helping hand.

Besides.. if you are able to use that excuse that it's not what you meant.. shouldn't Ilvane be given the same benefit of the doubt.. especially since she's already said she didn't?

[Back]

It's because they see Obama for who he really is.

Thats on point. I’d amend that a bit though...

A pandering racist anti-semetic unpatriotic populist socialist muslim who speaks-so-well and wants to bring down whitey.

[Keller]

Exactly what is says.

Where did I say it was the ONLY reason again?

Reading comprehension, ftw.

Angela*

The following question should be answered with a yes or a no. One word will suffice. Please do not use more than yes or no to evade answering. Imagine we're in the 3d grade and I've handed you a hand-written question with YES and NO and scribbled on the rest so you cannot make up your own response. MAYBE IS NOT A VALID ANSWER TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

In your opinion if Hillary Clinton was a man, would she have won the democratic nomination?

[Khariz]

Thats on point. I’d amend that a bit though...

A pandering racist anti-semetic unpatriotic populist socialist muslim who speaks-so-well and wants to bring down whitey.

Sweet, nice synopsis. Mind if I use that?

[Parkbandit]

Thats on point. I’d amend that a bit though...

A pandering racist anti-semetic unpatriotic populist socialist muslim who speaks-so-well and wants to bring down whitey.


:rofl:

Backlash and Keller.. in complete agreement. You three make an awesome group.

[BigWorm]

Sweet, nice synopsis. Mind if I use that?

He has not one, not two, but three Muslim-sounding names.

[diethx]

The following question should be answered with a yes or a no. One word will suffice. Please do not use more than yes or no to evade answering. Imagine we're in the 3d grade and I've handed you a hand-written question with YES and NO and scribbled on the rest so you cannot make up your own response. MAYBE IS NOT A VALID ANSWER TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

In your opinion if Hillary Clinton was a man, would she have won the democratic nomination?

ffs, why are you even bothering?

[Parkbandit]

ffs, why are you even bothering?

Stupid questions come naturally to Keller... it's probably no bother at all.

[Mabus]

I got to fly in and watch the Indy 500 this year.

One of the funniest sights was the gigantic yellow sign this big guy held up that said, "HILLARY BELONGS IN THE KITCHEN."

By the way, welcome back Raven.
I remember watching an after-primary speech Clinton gave, and a man was holding up a sign that said "Iron my shirts".

I admit, I chuckled. Terrible, but I admired his audacity. It was clearly gender-biased, but fit with the other slogans and various items going around (the Hillary "nutcrackers" and such).

Gender was not the only reason she did not get the delegates, and likely was only a slim loss of votes, but it may have factored in a few states and districts. A general dislike of the Clintons (even with the party elites), a terrible caucus strategy and tactics her staff had not planned for probably had a lot more to do with losses then gender.

[Keller]

Stupid questions come naturally to Keller... it's probably no bother at all.

An oldie, but a goodie: You forgot :rofl:.

[Ilvane]

Now Keller, you know that it's not possible to answer that question in a yes or no, because it's only part of the reason--which I have stated numerous times. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand.

It is not just that she was a woman. There were other reasons too.


Angela*

[Keller]

Now Keller, you know that it's not possible to answer that question in a yes or no, because it's only part of the reason--which I have stated numerous times. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand.

It is not just that she was a woman. There were other reasons too.


Angela*

It's simple to answer w/ a yes or a no.

Further, it's not hard to understand "it's only part of the reason."

But the fact is: you stated you're disgusted that the US isn't ready for a female president.

How do you know that? What permits you to make such an accusation? Is it because if Hillary was a man, she would have won the nomination?

[Kembal]

Now Keller, you know that it's not possible to answer that question in a yes or no, because it's only part of the reason--which I have stated numerous times. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand.

It is not just that she was a woman. There were other reasons too.


Angela*

Actually, that's the point. Do you believe, whatever other reasons people had for not voting for her, that if she was a man, the amount of people who didn't vote for her on the basis of gender would have, thus securing her the nomination?

The whole question is how significant do you think that gender-based vote against her was?

It sounded like in your earlier post that you thought it was extremely significant. If that's not the case, that's fine....but then you went over the top with your generalization.

[Back]

Sweet, nice synopsis. Mind if I use that?

Far as I’m concerned, you did the real leg-work and distilled the absurdity of the situation with your own synopsizing. I just assisted. You own it.

[Parkbandit]

Actually, that's the point. Do you believe, whatever other reasons people had for not voting for her, that if she was a man, the amount of people who didn't vote for her on the basis of gender would have, thus securing her the nomination?

The whole question is how significant do you think that gender-based vote against her was?

It sounded like in your earlier post that you thought it was extremely significant. If that's not the case, that's fine....but then you went over the top with your generalization.

It was a stupid question by a stupid person. Seriously, how the fuck can you even begin to answer that? Hillary got some votes BECAUSE she is a woman but lost some votes BECAUSE she is a woman. But that's not even the argument. Let's just pretend she was a man. She wouldn't have had the name recognition that she had because she never would have been the first lady for 8 years and in the public spotlight. And that's JUST for starters. Who knows what she would have become if she was a man. Doubtful she would be a Senator.. since she got the job by that same 8 year name recognition.

What if scenarios never work as you can never prove nor disprove them.

[CrystalTears]

Well then perhaps she can explain why she said...

And as a woman, I have to admit I'm disgusted that this country is not yet ready for a woman to lead it. We're so damned progressive aren't we?

[Parkbandit]

Well then perhaps she can explain why she said...

I think she did with:


And I didn't say the only reason was that she was a woman.

Angela*

As politically stupid as Ilvane is.. I doubt she meant that the ONLY reason that Hillary lost was because she is a woman.

[Keller]

Well then perhaps she can explain why she said...

Ask him: Why can she justify saying [quote Ilvane].

To be honest, I don't think he's capable of understanding it. The rabies has affected his brain. That or the mad cow.

[Warriorbird]

Parkbandit defending Ilvane is hilarious.

If you feel that Hillary's philosophy and ideals are close to those of Kerry or Gore... you're nuts, Ilvane. She's much more conservative.

If you're going to vote Republican, vote a third party, or not vote... were you really a Democrat to begin with? You're voting for more of the same of the last 8 years.

[Latrinsorm]

Watch it, buster, I bet you're next up after PB gets Stanley "run off the board".

edit: Buster being Keller.

[CrystalTears]

I think she did with:



As politically stupid as Ilvane is.. I doubt she meant that the ONLY reason that Hillary lost was because she is a woman.
So how else do you interpret "this country is not yet ready for a woman to lead it"? Why would you even make that statement and then turn around and say "that's not what I meant". C'mon.

[Kembal]

I think she did with:



As politically stupid as Ilvane is.. I doubt she meant that the ONLY reason that Hillary lost was because she is a woman.

The merits of Keller's question aside, Ilvane unleashed a pretty damning accusation when she wrote that she was disgusted with the country because we weren't ready to be led by a woman. Only a very limited subset of people voted due to that reasoning, and thus her disgust (as it was written) seemed out of proportion.

She's acknowledged it now, so possibly the concept of voting for McCain out of spite appears to be withdrawn. (as opposed to voting for either of the two on different reasons) Though I dunno.

[diethx]

Parkbandit defending Ilvane is hilarious.

Seriously. Is today opposite day or something?

[Back]

All I am going to say about this is that Hillary got closer than any woman before her. Thats something to recognize and be proud of. This primary, for America, is something to be proud of.

Many civilizations throughout history have had no problem, and even great success, with women leaders. I can understand Ilvane’s disappointment.

[Parkbandit]

So how else do you interpret "this country is not yet ready for a woman to lead it"? Why would you even make that statement and then turn around and say "that's not what I meant". C'mon.


You mean how you said:




As an American, you should be proud that our country was basically divided because we couldn't decide on who we liked more to be our next president, a woman or a black man.

and then said it's not what you meant?

People make mistakes in wording. Like I said.. not even Ilvane can be so dumb to think that the ONLY reason she didn't get the nomination was because she was a woman.

[Ilvane]

I can't believe you don't understand that it was not the only reason..and I said it numerous times.

It was, (I'll say it again), one of many reasons why she didn't get elected.

The what-ifs are pretty ridiculous, considering she can't be anything but a woman who ran for president.

Angela*

[CrystalTears]

Okay, I'll elaborate.

As an American, you should be proud that our country was divided because we couldn't decide which of the democratic candidates we liked more to compete against McCain for the presidency, a woman or a black man.


I can't believe you don't understand that it was not the only reason..and I said it numerous times.
I don't know, when you use the word "disgusted", it sure means you feel strongly about the issue that she didn't get it because she's a woman. Other factors or not, that's a pretty strong statement to make.

[Parkbandit]

The merits of Keller's question aside, Ilvane unleashed a pretty damning accusation when she wrote that she was disgusted with the country because we weren't ready to be led by a woman. Only a very limited subset of people voted due to that reasoning, and thus her disgust (as it was written) seemed out of proportion.

She's acknowledged it now, so possibly the concept of voting for McCain out of spite appears to be withdrawn. (as opposed to voting for either of the two on different reasons) Though I dunno.


It's so funny how some of you are all up in arms over Ilvane's comments here.. but had no problem with Michelle Obama saying that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of America.

One is from a rather stupid person on an inconsequential Internet forum.. one is from the possible First Lady of the United States.

Unleashing a pretty damning accusation.. indeed.

[Parkbandit]

Parkbandit defending Ilvane is hilarious.



Sad when I have to be the voice of reason here.

[Parkbandit]

Watch it, buster, I bet you're next up after PB gets Stanley "run off the board".

edit: Buster being Keller.

Not likely.. I just put that fuckface on ignore. Before Stanley started making fun of dead sisters.. he at least had SOME redeeming qualities... something Keller is severely lacking.

[Keller]

Not likely.. I just put that fuckface on ignore. Before Stanley started making fun of dead sisters.. he at least had SOME redeeming qualities... something Keller is severely lacking.


PB has me on ignore? Who knew?

[Daniel]

Sad when I have to be the voice of reason here.

Yea. Totally. I'd be fucking distraught if it ever happened.

[Daniel]

PB has me on ignore? Who knew?

Lol.

[Parkbandit]

Yea. Totally. I'd be fucking distraught if it ever happened.


And in comes Daniel, posting his usual stupidity.

Well done, boy.

[Latrinsorm]

The voice of reason doesn't generally say "fuckface".

[TheEschaton]

It's because they see Obama for who he really is. A pandering racist unpatriotic populist muslim who speaks-so-well (Chris Rock on Colin Powell anyone?).


"He speaks so well? What the fuck kind of compliment is that? How'd you expect him to speak?? 'I'ma drop a BOOOOOOOOOOOMB up in here.' Speaks so well. Shit."

Honestly, Ilvane, let me break it down for you really simply:

1) If, after Hillary dropping out, you are considering McCain simply because you dislike Obama's personality (and all those things you mentioned, his church, his wife, etc, are personality issues), then you're not a Democrat because you would put personality traits over policy differences. This would suggest to me that you somehow 'preferred' Clinton's personality over those other two, and really, this would make me think you wanted Hillary because she was a woman, with other reasons supplementing that.

-or-

2. If, after Hillary dropped out, you are considering McCain over Obama for policy differences, then you're not a Democrat because you would pick Republican values over Democrat values. The policy differences between Hillary and Obama are so miniscule, they had to argue about the most minor details of all their policy concerns, making for perhaps the most boring debates ever. If you prefer McCain's policies over Obama's, then you never should've been voting for Hillary in the first place, which also suggests to me you were voting for her because she's a woman.

It's fine to have a variation of views in the Democratic party. I don't necessarily believe in the priority placed on the environment, nor how Democrats usually operate in Congress. However, to disagree so fundamentally with core Democratic values and policies, or consider them so unimportant as to relegate them as less important than WHAT YOU FUCKING THINK ABOUT OBAMA'S CHURCH, means you should seriously consider re-registering.

I, as a Hillary supporter, supported her not because she's a woman, but because I thought she was a better candidate, both politically and policy wise.

-TheE-

[Ilvane]

Nah, I didn't vote for her just because she was a woman. Just as if I wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he is black.

I preferred Hillary, what is so hard to understand?

[Kembal]

Nah, I didn't vote for her just because she was a woman. Just as if I wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he is black.

I preferred Hillary, what is so hard to understand?

That you would consider voting for McCain.

[Parkbandit]

Nah, I didn't vote for her just because she was a woman. Just as if I wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he is black.

I preferred Hillary, what is so hard to understand?


That you have to consider if you are going to vote for the media darling. You shouldn't have to think about it.

[Keller]

That you have to consider if you are going to vote for the media darling. You shouldn't have to think about it.


You truly are the voice of reason.

[Ilvane]

Why shouldn't I think about it? Is there something wrong with that?

[Parkbandit]

Why shouldn't I think about it? Is there something wrong with that?

According to the brilliant liberals on this forum.. obviously. If Hillary is out of it, your choice is clear. Obama or u r dum.

Get in line bitch.

[TheEschaton]

The only way you could justify your position, Ilvane, is if you:

A) thought Hillary was a moderate or centrist.

and

B) Obama was so far left, and McCain so centrist, that McCain was somehow closer to Hillary than Obama was, in policy terms.

A) is a weak argument, at best. McCain being a centrist was perhaps true in 2000, but is certainly not true now.

[Sean of the Thread]

As an American, you should be proud that our country was divided because we couldn't decide which of the democratic candidates we liked more to compete against McCain for the presidency, a woman or a bi-racial man.



Fixed for you again.

[Tsa`ah]

The notion of not voting for someone because you don't like the church they attend ... to me is tantamount to not voting for someone because they're (insert religion). I could understand if the candidate were preaching from the stump, but that hasn't been the case.

If you had bothered to look at Obama's voting trend .... it's pretty clear he takes a stance of not allowing the church (any) to tamper with legislation.

On the subject of people not voting for Clinton due to gender (as one of many reasons). Sure, there have been people who wouldn't vote for her because of gender. Just as I'm sure that many voters were turned away from her because she threw her vagina into the ring ... because she made gender an issue ... because she pandered specifically to women on many occasions ... because she fashioned herself as the apex of women's lib while completely ignoring every woman that made it possible, even as she trudged over their corpses (and even those still living).

Had Obama made his race an issue, as much of an issue as Clinton made her gender ... we'd have Edwards as our nominee at this point.

[Khariz]

If you had bothered to look at Obama's voting trend .... it's pretty clear he takes a stance of not allowing the church (any) to tamper with legislation.



Really? I thought it showed that he liked to abstain from voting, kekeke.

[Tsa`ah]

You obviously know zilch about IL politics.

[Khariz]

You obviously know zilch about IL politics.

I don't care about IL politics. I care what a U.S. Senator does.

But you are right. I know zilch about IL politics.

[Tsa`ah]

Then you would know that he took passes on voting as an IL senator .... US senators abstain from voting all the time. The issue was with his count as an IL senator, not a US senator.

Comprehension FTL I guess.

[Khariz]

Then you would know that he took passes on voting as an IL senator .... US senators abstain from voting all the time. The issue was with his count as an IL senator, not a US senator.

Comprehension FTL I guess.

To be honest, my original post above was a joke. The guy's voting record isn't what bothers me about him. I understand a politician being a politician.

[Tsa`ah]

Your avatar makes it far too easy to confuse you with Mabus.

I saw a reply when clicking "today's post" ... and your name, but just saw Mabus when reading the posts.

[Khariz]

Your avatar makes it far too easy to confuse you with Mabus.

I saw a reply when clicking "today's post" ... and your name, but just saw Mabus when reading the posts.

Yeah, I think I should change it for that reason alone, hehe.

[Mabus]

If you had bothered to look at Obama's voting trend .... it's pretty clear he takes a stance of not allowing the church (any) to tamper with legislation.

So the $225,000 he got for his "spiritual advisor" Father Michael Pfleger's St. Sabina church as a state legislator, or the $100,000 earmark for the church he had inserted into federal legislation for the church as a US Senator, should not be considered as part of this "trend", in your view.

Of course the fact that his top strategist, David Axelrod, was a member of the church's "Raising the Roof for
St. Sabina Committee" likely had nothing to do with that either, in your opinion I am sure. Or that Pfleger was an advisor to his campaign, until just a few weeks ago.

He named Wright ("God damn America!", now there is some "hope"...), Pfleger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y) and Meeks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM2M11BsA3g) as his "spiritual mentors and advisers" in a 2004 Chicago Tribune article.

All three are ultra-leftist racists. The judgement of the candidate is in question when he chooses to spend over 20 years of his 46 years alive with these people as his "spiritual mentors and advisers".

[Daniel]

And yet he's still the nominee. It must suck being the only voice of reason in a sea of idiocy.

[Parkbandit]

And yet he's still the nominee. It must suck being the only voice of reason in a sea of idiocy.


It is... and thank you for noticing.

[Ilvane]

Had Obama made his race an issue, as much of an issue as Clinton made her gender ... we'd have Edwards as our nominee at this point.

Clinton didn't make it about her gender, that's the whole thing. She ran as someone who was qualified to be president. I wish she had run more as a woman candidate, because it's an important part of it. So is a African-American. We can't pretend it doesn't exist.

Anyway, I think I'd almost prefer that Edwards had won it at this point. I could at least vote for him.

Angela*

[Ilvane]

The notion of not voting for someone because you don't like the church they attend ... to me is tantamount to not voting for someone because they're (insert religion). I could understand if the candidate were preaching from the stump, but that hasn't been the case.

Btw, that Pfleger guy scares the shit out of me.

Tsa'ah, do me a favor and check out some of his sermons and tell me that the church Obama was a member of for 20 years doesn't matter.

Angela*

[CrystalTears]

Clinton didn't make it about her gender, that's the whole thing.
She sure the hell did.

[Parkbandit]

Clinton didn't make it about her gender, that's the whole thing. She ran as someone who was qualified to be president. I wish she had run more as a woman candidate, because it's an important part of it. So is a African-American. We can't pretend it doesn't exist.

Anyway, I think I'd almost prefer that Edwards had won it at this point. I could at least vote for him.

Angela*

I'll be the *second* to push the bullshit button about this. She brought up the fact that this is a historical election all the time... and she wasn't always talking about Obama either. She reminded people constantly that she was a woman... which seemed to be a stretch most of the time.

Fucking CT

[Ilvane]

A stretch that she was a woman? hee.

Anyway, it's kind of obvious she was a woman. How can she not run and be a woman, same way as Obama can't run and not be an African American?

I just didn't perceive her as being pushy about the fact that she was a woman.

Angela*

[DeV]

On the subject of people not voting for Clinton due to gender (as one of many reasons). Sure, there have been people who wouldn't vote for her because of gender. Just as I'm sure that many voters were turned away from her because she threw her vagina into the ring ... because she made gender an issue ... because she pandered specifically to women on many occasions ... because she fashioned herself as the apex of women's lib while completely ignoring every woman that made it possible, even as she trudged over their corpses (and even those still living).

Had Obama made his race an issue, as much of an issue as Clinton made her gender ... we'd have Edwards as our nominee at this point.
Voting according to one's own race or gender is only beneficial to the candidate for whom it delivers a majority vote. It doesn't take racism or sexism to understand that [some] people will use race or gender as a reason to support a candidate or reject a candidate. However, the majority of free thinkers have deeper reasons for supporting their choice.

I believe, in Hillary's case, her actions had far more to do with her loss of the nomination than gender. She underestimated Obama from the start, ran a sloppy, poorly organized campaign, and then ran out of money. Gender played a minor role in that, if any.

In the case of this election, both sides are getting a crash course in race and gender issues and perhaps realizing that you can't play the oppression olympics without diminishing the experiences of those who also deal with racism, sexism, or both. In the end, I feel these trials by fire are necessary to a certain extent, and will serve to strengthen the movement for progress. Hell, we're halfway there.

The election of Obama or McCain now depends upon the degree to which the Democratic Party can now organize its campaign around class issues, and less around race and gender.

[Tsa`ah]

So the $225,000 he got for his "spiritual advisor" Father Michael Pfleger's St. Sabina church as a state legislator, or the $100,000 earmark for the church he had inserted into federal legislation for the church as a US Senator, should not be considered as part of this "trend", in your view.

Is this legislation? Are you not able to keep up?

Of course this follows your MO.

The earmark was for the community center attached to the Church. Please read "community center" and know exactly where this church is located and what they do for the surrounding community.

I will give you a hint ... they don't deliver food baskets at Thanksgiving or gifts at Christmas with strings attached. They don't feed and shelter the homeless only if they listen to Pfleger preach.

You just see the cash requested to be set aside and fail to actually educate yourself.


...

The rest of your post doesn't even deserve the thought invested for a response.

[Faent]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/08/feminists_the_choice_is_obvious/

The linked article is by Susan Jhirad, professor of English at North Shore Community College. It's for braindead Hillary ex-supporters wearing wadded panties who now want to fall on their knees in front of McCain's warcock.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/08/feminists_the_choice_is_obvious/

The linked article is by Susan Jhirad, professor of English at North Shore Community College. It's for braindead Hillary ex-supporters wearing wadded panties who now want to fall on their knees in front of McCain's warcock.


:rofl: Awesome.

There is no room in the Dumbercrat party for free thought.. you either get in line with the rest, or you are just a moron.

And seriously.. if you are going to quote someone.. maybe get a better source than some English teacher at a community college?

[Faent]

>>There is no room in the Dumbercrat party for free thought.. you either get in line with the rest, or you are just a moron.

No. There's no room in any party for being a McCain supporter. If you support McCain, no matter your party, you are a complete moron. Kthxbye.

[Ilvane]

I actually read that. I'm starting to agree with PB too much, and it's scary.

Angela*

[CrystalTears]

There is no room in the Republican party for free thought.. you either get in line with the rest, or you are just a former semi-conservative.Amirite? :D

[Warriorbird]

Faent vs PB? Ha!

[Mabus]

Is this legislation?
That is usually how politicians get earmark money to their campaign contributers, just like in this case.

[Parkbandit]

Faent vs PB? Ha!


It's not a fair fight.. clearly he's unarmed. Anyone who ends their rebuttal with "Kthxbye" is clearly retarded.

[Parkbandit]

Amirite? :D

Not by a long shot. I find it amusing that you find fault with who Ilvane is going to vote for.

:shrug:

[CrystalTears]

Not by a long shot. I find it amusing that you find fault with who Ilvane is going to vote for.

:shrug:
Not by a longshot my ass. I'm a former semi-conservative by your standards the second I started defending Obama. Even though I've stated quite a few times that I wasn't sure who I was voting for from the start, Obama or McCain, simply because Iraq is not my main concern and I need to hear what they have to say about everything else to convince me.

I, as well as lots of others here, have fault with who she's voting for because of her reasoning behind it, as it has nothing to do with their issues.

[Parkbandit]

Would you have considered yourself a conservative before this election?

[CrystalTears]

Yes, when I registered to vote, I felt I was (it was also so that I could vote in the primaries). As time goes on, I'm finding I'm rather set in the middle, leaning slightly more to the right than the left.

[Khariz]

Yes, when I registered to vote, I felt I was (it was also so that I could vote in the primaries). As time goes on, I'm finding I'm rather set in the middle, leaning slightly more to the right than the left.

Being a conservative typically isn't about "feelings". Just though you might like to know that.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, when I registered to vote, I felt I was (it was also so that I could vote in the primaries). As time goes on, I'm finding I'm rather set in the middle, leaning slightly more to the right than the left.


And wouldn't what you just posted define someone as a former semi-conservative?

And if you are casting a vote for Obama, you aren't leaning slightly more to the right than the left. Obama's voting record has him to the extreme left... farther than anyone in the Senate currently.

[Parkbandit]

Being a conservative typically isn't about "feelings". Just though you might like to know that.

Right, because all Conservatives are heartless bastards.

[CrystalTears]

Being a conservative typically isn't about "feelings". Just though you might like to know that.What do you know about feelings anyway?


And wouldn't what you just posted define someone as a former semi-conservative?
Let's try not to kid each other. As far as you were concerned, because I voted for Bush and was his supporter, I was a Republican. Obama comes into the picture and former semi-conservative gets dropped. I honestly don't care about the label, it was the quickness to drop me like a sack of potatoes for wanting to find out the issues and not automatically vote Republican. I never have.

I find it odd that you're defending Ilvane though and attacking me. I don't care if you ask me questions because I'll answer them. But why don't you ask her why, as a woman who is disgusted with the choice, would be quick to vote for someone who wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, after all the fights we've had on these boards regarding it? Why is she okay with McCain wanting to tell homosexuals they can't get married because he's all about the traditional marriage?

Question her loyalties a bit more and then we can talk.

[Back]

Maybe its time for a separation.

[DeV]

Question her loyalties a bit more and then we can talk.
I actually read that. I'm starting to agree with PB too much, and it's scary.Too late.

p.s. :rofl:

[Back]

Walk INTO the light, CT. Walk INTO. As in not away from.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Obama is not an extreme liberal. He's voted liberally, but he has also worked across party lines for bi-partisan bills. An 'extreme liberal' would not be okay with working to compromise with Republicans-- which is something Obama has said he's all for.

Saying Obama is an extreme liberal is the same as trying to say that McCain is just Bush, round 3.

[Khariz]

Obama is not an extreme liberal. He's voted liberally, but he has also worked across party lines for bi-partisan bills. An 'extreme liberal' would not be okay with working to compromise with Republicans-- which is something Obama has said he's all for.

Saying Obama is an extreme liberal is the same as trying to say that McCain is just Bush, round 3.

Uh, no, no it's not.

You are kidding right? It's not just a voting record that makes him a radical liberal. This guy seriously may as well be Karl Marx.

Wanting to nationalize everything under the sun, tax the shit out of everyone, and redistrubute the fuck out of rich people's and big business' money makes you extremely liberal.

[Faent]

>> ...clearly he's unarmed. -Parkbandit

Seriously.

The unrefined, untutored mind
of homo parkbandensis
could but treat of things concrete
and present to the senses.

>> ...clearly [he's] retarded. -Parkbandit

You have difficulties introspecting the contents of your own mind. When you look inside and examine your thought contents (metaphorically), you return reports of clarity when in fact you should be reporting an impenetrable fog. In the future, if you take something to be "clear", I recommend you sit yourself down and think hard about it for another twenty minutes before posting. Ask yourself repeatedly: "Am I really sure it's clear?"

[Parkbandit]

What do you know about feelings anyway?


Let's try not to kid each other. As far as you were concerned, because I voted for Bush and was his supporter, I was a Republican. Obama comes into the picture and former semi-conservative gets dropped. I honestly don't care about the label, it was the quickness to drop me like a sack of potatoes for wanting to find out the issues and not automatically vote Republican. I never have.

For someone who doesn't care about the label, you sure do bring it up alot.


I find it odd that you're defending Ilvane though and attacking me. I don't care if you ask me questions because I'll answer them. But why don't you ask her why, as a woman who is disgusted with the choice, would be quick to vote for someone who wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, after all the fights we've had on these boards regarding it? Why is she okay with McCain wanting to tell homosexuals they can't get married because he's all about the traditional marriage?

Question her loyalties a bit more and then we can talk.

I couldn't give two shits if Ilvane agrees or disagrees with me in all honesty.. I am just amused by you criticising Ilvane's choice for President when in all honesty, you've taken a far bigger leap from self proclaimed conservative to full out socialist.

[Parkbandit]

>> ...clearly he's unarmed. -Parkbandit

Seriously.

The unrefined, untutored mind
of homo parkbandensis
could but treat of things concrete
and present to the senses.

>> ...clearly [he's] retarded. -Parkbandit

You have difficulties introspecting the contents of your own mind. When you look inside and examine your thought contents (metaphorically), you return reports of clarity when in fact you should be reporting an impenetrable fog. In the future, if you take something to be "clear", I recommend you sit yourself down and think hard about it for another twenty minutes before posting. Ask yourself repeatedly: "Am I really sure it's clear?"

Dude.. I wasn't asking you to prove me right. Sheesh.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Uh, no, no it's not.

You are kidding right? It's not just a voting record that makes him a radical liberal. This guy seriously may as well be Karl Marx.

Wanting to nationalize everything under the sun, tax the shit out of everyone, and redistrubute the fuck out of rich people's and big business' money makes you extremely liberal.

There are way more politicians out there who are ridiculously more liberal than Obama is. I'm not going to say Obama isn't a clear-cut liberal-- he is. But to freak out and call him an extremist, or Karl Marx, is stupid. Way to over-react. He has views of how he wants things done, however he does recognize that half of the country disagrees with that and has blatantly said he doesn't agree with telling them to stick it in their ear. Hence why he has worked on bipartisan bills and has been a proponent of left-wingers working with right-wingers to find compromises.

[Parkbandit]

Obama is not an extreme liberal. He's voted liberally, but he has also worked across party lines for bi-partisan bills. An 'extreme liberal' would not be okay with working to compromise with Republicans-- which is something Obama has said he's all for.

He is the most liberal member of the current US Senate.


Saying Obama is an extreme liberal is the same as trying to say that McCain is just Bush, round 3.


Isn't that EXACTLY what Obama is leading people to believe? Isn't that his current tag line? I'm certain there are some liberal drones here that truly believe that.

[Khariz]

There are way more politicians out there who are ridiculously more liberal than Obama is. I'm not going to say Obama isn't a clear-cut liberal-- he is. But to freak out and call him an extremist, or Karl Marx, is stupid. Way to over-react. He has views of how he wants things done, however he does recognize that half of the country disagrees with that and has blatantly said he doesn't agree with telling them to stick it in their ear. Hence why he has worked on bipartisan bills and has been a proponent of left-wingers working with right-wingers to find compromises.

WHen someone has spent 20 years being indoctrinated with Liberation/Black Liberation theology...I don't think I'm overreacting.

Look, the guy is smart as hell. He's really good at pretending he's NOT at liberal as he actually is. He's talking the good talk right now, but once it's up to him, he'll be trying his hardest to right all those things that he sees as "wrongs". That scares the fuck out of me.

[Parkbandit]

WHen someone has spent 20 years being indoctrinated with Liberation/Black Liberation theology...I don't think I'm overreacting.

Look, the guy is smart as hell. He's really good at pretending he's NOT at liberal as he actually is. He's talking the good talk right now, but once it's up to him, he'll be trying his hardest to right all those things that he sees as "wrongs". That scares the fuck out of me..


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/picard-no-facepalm.jpg

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

He is the most liberal member of the current US Senate.

I disagree with that assessment because the whole picture wasn't taken into account. I think someone like Russ Feingold deserves that title WAY more.



Isn't that EXACTLY what Obama is leading people to believe? Isn't that his current tag line? I'm certain there are some liberal drones here that truly believe that.

I definitely think that's what the Left is trying to do-- make McCain seem like Bush v.3. Just because that's the tactic doesn't mean I agree with it. McCain's record also shows that he'll work bipartisan.

Both sides are going to play up the fears of their own side. Obviously McCain wants people to think Obama is the new incarnation of Karl Marx, no matter what his record and statements show-- just as it works in Obama's favor if people think McCain is going to just continue everything Bush has started. It doesn't make either side true, it's just a simple way of drumming up votes using scare tactics.

[Khariz]

What did you think was dumb about that? It's true.

Edit: To PB. Didn't want to quote the stupid picture.

[Daniel]

WHen someone has spent 20 years being indoctrinated with Liberation/Black Liberation theology...I don't think I'm overreacting.

Look, the guy is smart as hell. He's really good at pretending he's NOT at liberal as he actually is. He's talking the good talk right now, but once it's up to him, he'll be trying his hardest to right all those things that he sees as "wrongs". That scares the fuck out of me.

Lol @ whitey being afraid of empowered black people.

[Back]

Look, the guy is smart as hell. He's really good at pretending he's NOT at liberal as he actually is. He's talking the good talk right now, but once it's up to him, he'll be trying his hardest to right all those things that he sees as "wrongs". That scares the fuck out of me.

This passage reminded me of McCain for some reason.

[Khariz]

This passage reminded me of McCain for some reason.

I had to think about that for a second. I certainly agree that McCain tries as hard as he can to appear LESS liberal than he is. The difference between McCain and Obama though is that many of the same things that McCain sees as "wrongs" are the same things that I do. Obama...not so much.

[Parkbandit]

I disagree with that assessment because the whole picture wasn't taken into account. I think someone like Russ Feingold deserves that title WAY more.



From NBC's Mark Murray
National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator.

But a bit of context here: National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes).

National Journal's vote ratings became an issue in the 2004 general election, when Republicans used the magazine's ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal senator of 2003 to label the then-Democratic nominee as the "most liberal senator" -- even though that was his rating for just that one year, when (like Obama did) he missed quite a few Senate votes due to being on the presidential campaign trail.

As National Journal's editor wrote back then, "[O]ur magazine -- or, more precisely, our annual congressional vote ratings edition -- has become a Republican talking point in the 2004 presidential campaign. And that's been a fascinating, and disconcerting, experience. Fascinating because we're more used to being cited in congressional hearings than on the Today show. Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong."

Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine's most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006.

Another question that might come up is why the magazine released its voting ratings now -- just days before Super Tuesday. In fact, the magazine says it full congressional ratings won't come out until March. But, according to the editor in a Q&A published in the magazine: "Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season."

As for McCain, the magazine says that he didn't vote frequently enough in 2007 to get an overall rating. Per National Journal, "He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59."

And like with Obama's overall liberal score, rivals and critics could possibly seize on McCain's social rating....

Full disclosure: This reporter worked and wrote for National Journal from 1997 to 2003.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx

I would post the National Journal voting record, but you have to subscribe to the service.. which I don't.

[Mabus]

Why is she okay with McCain wanting to tell homosexuals they can't get married because he's all about the traditional marriage?

A shared view, here is the other candidate on the issue:
"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Not just McCain.

[Daniel]

Please continue that quote.

The second part is what is critical.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

From NBC's Mark Murray
National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator.

But a bit of context here: National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes).

National Journal's vote ratings became an issue in the 2004 general election, when Republicans used the magazine's ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal senator of 2003 to label the then-Democratic nominee as the "most liberal senator" -- even though that was his rating for just that one year, when (like Obama did) he missed quite a few Senate votes due to being on the presidential campaign trail.

As National Journal's editor wrote back then, "[O]ur magazine -- or, more precisely, our annual congressional vote ratings edition -- has become a Republican talking point in the 2004 presidential campaign. And that's been a fascinating, and disconcerting, experience. Fascinating because we're more used to being cited in congressional hearings than on the Today show. Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong."

Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine's most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006.

Another question that might come up is why the magazine released its voting ratings now -- just days before Super Tuesday. In fact, the magazine says it full congressional ratings won't come out until March. But, according to the editor in a Q&A published in the magazine: "Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season."

As for McCain, the magazine says that he didn't vote frequently enough in 2007 to get an overall rating. Per National Journal, "He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59."

And like with Obama's overall liberal score, rivals and critics could possibly seize on McCain's social rating....

Full disclosure: This reporter worked and wrote for National Journal from 1997 to 2003.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx

I would post the National Journal voting record, but you have to subscribe to the service.. which I don't.

I'm well aware that's what he's been labeled as. I'm saying I disagree with it-- and that others would qualify far more, in my mind.

[Mabus]

Lol @ whitey being afraid of empowered black people.
Being racist again, Daniel?

Just because most sensible people would disagree with the tenets of Black Liberation Theology does not make them afraid, it means they have sense.

Let's look at some of the racist drivel of BLT beliefs:
"To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!"

"All white men are responsible for white oppression."

"Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil." "

"If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist (or "the principalities and powers"), the white church seems to be a manifestation of it."

(all quotes by James Cone, advocate of Black Liberation Theology)

We could go on and on about this "religion", but it should be clear it is a racist religion, and it does admit its foundation comes from the Marxist belief in dialectical materialism (where it substitutes race for class).

[CrystalTears]

A shared view, here is the other candidate on the issue:
"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
Keep going...
He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

But alas! Beloved Hillary was no different!


Clinton opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex. During her husband's administration, she supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a law preventing the federal recognition of same-sex marriage. "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages, quoted in The New York Daily News.

However, in October 2006 Hillary Clinton was quoted by 365gay.com as saying, "I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out. From my perspective there is a greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic partnerships and that is my very considered assessment."

[Mabus]

But alas! Beloved Hillary was no different!
Clinton is out of the race, CT. You can let your old "she said it too!" attempt at arguments die now.

[CrystalTears]

I'm trying to show that Hillary's issues are not that much different than Obama's. To suddenly go across to McCain is a leap that doesn't make sense to some.

So someone needs to either fess up and admit that it was never about issues and mainly about "liking" the candidate as a person, or state why the sudden change.

[Keller]

There is no room in the Dumbercrat party for free thought.. you either get in line with the rest, or you are just a moron.

We call them former semi-liberals if they plan on voting for McCain

[Keller]

Amirite? :D


great minds think alike.

[Clove]

Not by a long shot. I find it amusing that you find fault with who Ilvane is going to vote for.

:shrug:Try not to be an ass PB. CT isn't criticizing McCain, she's been criticizing Ilvane's rationale for suggesting she'd vote for him, which frankly appears to me (and perhaps others) to be a childish sour-grapes "punishment" for the Democrat party for not selecting her girl. Frankly the oft cited statistics throughout the candidacy race that many Hillary supporters would not vote for Obama if he won the candidacy struck me as more of the same.

While I won't make a voting decision until I see some debates and hear some proposals from both candidates, I'm having a difficult time imagining myself not voting for McCain at this moment in time; and yet I criticize Ilvane for comments on how she would vote Republican if Hillary lost. Just so you don't miss the point (don't worry PB, I'm used to this, my Nana forgets things all the time too :D ) it's not McCain that I'm criticizing (and doubt CT is either) but Ilvane's reasoning (or more specifically, lack thereof).

[Keller]

Not by a long shot. I find it amusing that you find fault with who Ilvane is going to vote for.

:shrug:

Because you've always assumed Ilvane's political positions were based on rational thought before she agreed with you, right?

You're so fucking predictable.

[Parkbandit]

... in my mind.

Ah.. found the problem.

[Parkbandit]

I'm trying to show that Hillary's issues are not that much different than Obama's. To suddenly go across to McCain is a leap that doesn't make sense to some.

So someone needs to either fess up and admit that it was never about issues and mainly about "liking" the candidate as a person, or state why the sudden change.


Oh, the irony.

[Parkbandit]

Try not to be an ass PB. CT isn't criticizing McCain, she's been criticizing Ilvane's rationale for suggesting she'd vote for him, which frankly appears to me (and perhaps others) to be a childish sour-grapes "punishment" for the Democrat party for not selecting her girl. Frankly the oft cited statistics throughout the candidacy race that many Hillary supporters would not vote for Obama if he won the candidacy struck me as more of the same.

While I won't make a voting decision until I see some debates and hear some proposals from both candidates, I'm having a difficult time imagining myself not voting for McCain at this moment in time; and yet I criticize Ilvane for comments on how she would vote Republican if Hillary lost. Just so you don't miss the point (don't worry PB, I'm used to this, my Nana forgets things all the time too :D ) it's not McCain that I'm criticizing (and doubt CT is either) but Ilvane's reasoning (or more specifically, lack thereof).

Read the post above this.. and tell me CT isn't doing the SAME EXACT THING that Ilvane is doing. I've never claimed that Ilvane isn't completely batshit loony when it comes to most topics.. but how the fuck can you criticise her for her voting decisions.. and in the same breath get upset with me for pointing out CT's hypocrisy.

[Keller]

[CrystalTears is a] full out socialist.

:medieval:

Combative much? How she's a full out socialist?

[CrystalTears]

Where's the irony? Was I the one who stated at the beginning of all this that if Hillary didn't get nominated I was going to choose McCain? Am I the one who has issues with Obama's lack of experience and yet consider a speech Clinton made at a university part of her resume?

She hasn't chosen anyone based on issues. It's been about likeness of character.

[Parkbandit]

Where's the irony? Was I the one who stated at the beginning of all this that if Hillary didn't get nominated I was going to choose McCain? Am I the one who has issues with Obama's lack of experience and yet consider a speech Clinton made at a university part of her resume?

She hasn't chosen anyone based on issues. It's been about likeness of character.

Here's the irony:


I'm trying to show that Hillary's issues are not that much different than Obama's. To suddenly go across to McCain is a leap that doesn't make sense to some.

So someone needs to either fess up and admit that it was never about issues and mainly about "liking" the candidate as a person, or state why the sudden change.

You are making fun of Ilvane for choosing to vote for McCain instead of Obama because she is a Democrat... yet you are doing the same exact thing.

I just find it amusing.. especially with all the effort you are exerting to put Ilvane down for her decision.

[CrystalTears]

BECAUSE I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT, RETARD! I'm the one who has always been torn between McCain and Obama from the beginning. McCain is not that far right to say I'm betraying some party or something.

Would you feel better if I just said that I was only voting for Obama? Because it would be complete bullshit and I'm not in the business of appeasing anyone here.

If you don't like the fact that I'm not firmly on one side or another and haven't really shown to be that way across the board, when Ilvane has always demonstrated that she's a Democrat, well then we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not a mindless sheep and I'll give my vote to the person I have confidence in that can do the job, whether I agree with the majority of their issues or not.

[Keller]

Being racist again, Daniel?

Just because most sensible people would disagree with the tenets of Black Liberation Theology does not make them afraid, it means they have sense.

Let's look at some of the racist drivel of BLT beliefs:
"To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!"

"All white men are responsible for white oppression."

"Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil." "

"If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist (or "the principalities and powers"), the white church seems to be a manifestation of it."

(all quotes by James Cone, advocate of Black Liberation Theology)

We could go on and on about this "religion", but it should be clear it is a racist religion, and it does admit its foundation comes from the Marxist belief in dialectical materialism (where it substitutes race for class).


Have you read Cone's works or just the cherry-picked quotes analyzed eisogetically? That's rhetorical. I know the answer.

I'm not saying Cone's message is anything but controversial. But do you expect an educated and highly intelligent black man w/o a Christian background to embrace traditional spirituality? LibTheo is highly critical of traditional Christianity and is a thinking man's theology. Imagine that a community that had spent the last 200 years would analyze the majority (whites) religion and find it was wholly inconsistent with the way they (whites) lived their lives. It's pretty easy to cherry-pick quotes from a book written in the 60s (out of textual context, let alone temporal context) and present them as the basic tenants of LibTheo.

[Mabus]

Have you read Cone's works or just the cherry-picked quotes analyzed eisogetically? That's rhetorical. I know the answer.

And you would be correct.

I have asked my local library for his (and others) books dealing with BLT, and will read them fully as soon as they get them in. Web research of Liberation Theology and Black Liberation Theology produced those quotes, and others I did not post.

I disagree fundamentally with Marxism, and have read Karl Marx's letters, manuscripts and the book "The Communist Manifesto", as well as others books dealing with Marxism. it is clear from web research that BLT has its roots in Marxism (and replaces class from Marxism with race).

[Keller]

And you would be correct.

I have asked my local library for his (and others) books dealing with BLT, and will read them fully as soon as they get them in. Web research of Liberation Theology and Black Liberation Theology produced those quotes, and others I did not post.

I disagree fundamentally with Marxism, and have read Karl Marx's letters, manuscripts and the book "The Communist Manifesto", as well as others books dealing with Marxism. it is clear from web research that BLT has its roots in Marxism (and replaces class from Marxism with race).

I'm actually moving atm and selling most of my library on half.com. Pay the shipping and I'll send you what I've got left. No charge for the books.

edit: I just ran upstairs to look through what I've got left. The only thing by Cone I have left is Malcolm and Martin. I've got a few other LibTheo (feminist/homosexual) texts though, if you're interested.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not a mindless sheep and I'll give my vote to the person I have confidence in that can do the job, whether I agree with the majority of their issues or not.

Here's the thing... I don't think there is a person who can't do the job... it's the issues and the stances on those issues where people usually make the determination on which person to vote for. Most of the BHL's on this board are voting for Obama.. because they agree with him on the issues. They aren't voting for him because they don't think McCain can't do the job as President.

[Clove]

Read the post above this.. and tell me CT isn't doing the SAME EXACT THING that Ilvane is doing. I've never claimed that Ilvane isn't completely batshit loony when it comes to most topics.. but how the fuck can you criticise her for her voting decisions.. and in the same breath get upset with me for pointing out CT's hypocrisy.Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't have a problem with a person who sees redeeming qualities in both McCain and Obama (or Hillary for that matter) and is weighing which candidate BEST suits his or her priorities. I know I vote regularly for three different parties in our local elections. In my opinion this has been CT's position for many months "I like both candidates and I'm trying to decide which I'll finally end up endorsing." Heck even though I lean heavily towards McCain today, that's been my position too.

Ilvane on the other hand has been "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!" or Edwards if Hillary doesn't get it.... or McCain if Obama wins. Considering Ilvane's strong position on abortion and socialized healthcare, McCain seems like a bizarre fallback. Her desire to vote for McCain is really just a spite-vote against Obama which is odd when you consider that Obama falls closer to Hillary on issues than Hillary does to McCain. For someone who was so adamant about Hillary, that seems ridiculous.


Most of the BHL's on this board are voting for Obama.. because they agree with him on the issues. They aren't voting for him because they don't think McCain can't do the job as President.This happens to be one of the reasons Ilvane claimed she'd rather vote for McCain if Obama won the nomination. She felt Hillary could get the job done, but Obama couldn't and if left with him as an option, she'd go with McCain who she also felt could do the job. She observed this during one of the many times it was pointed out that Obama's proposals were similar to Hilary's. She countered with "I don't think he'll get them done." and then followed up with "McCain would be strong with defense which I think is important too" or some other drivel. I'd look up the post but then she'd accuse me of having too much free-time (which is SO far from true).

CT seems to be weighing issues. Ilvane seems to be... on an acid trip with Stanley, I suppose.

[Parkbandit]

CT seems to be weighing issues. Ilvane seems to be... on an acid trip with Stanley, I suppose.


You came up with that conclusion right after she posted this:


I'm not a mindless sheep and I'll give my vote to the person I have confidence in that can do the job, whether I agree with the majority of their issues or not.

:shrug:

Sounds to me that the issues aren't what CT is weighing.. more about who she thinks would do a better job as President... although I'm not sure how one could quantify that without taking the issues into account.

[Gan]

Put me in the camp of weighing both issues and policy agenda as well as overall opinion of being able to represent America at this place in time.

I'm not looking for another Reagan or another Kennedy. I'm looking for someone who can get the job done in today's political and global environment.

To be honest, domestic and foreign policies are useless if the guy in the driver's seat is an idiot, untrustworthy, or has no political capital domestically or internationally.

Bottom line, the President of America should not only talk the talk but walk the walk.

(I wonder if I can shove any more cliche's in this post...)

I'm sick and tired of party politics, ergo I'm voting for the best man for the job per my criteria. Period. End of Story.

[Daniel]

Being racist again, Daniel?

Just because most sensible people would disagree with the tenets of Black Liberation Theology does not make them afraid, it means they have sense.

Let's look at some of the racist drivel of BLT beliefs:
"To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!"

"All white men are responsible for white oppression."

"Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil." "

"If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist (or "the principalities and powers"), the white church seems to be a manifestation of it."

(all quotes by James Cone, advocate of Black Liberation Theology)

We could go on and on about this "religion", but it should be clear it is a racist religion, and it does admit its foundation comes from the Marxist belief in dialectical materialism (where it substitutes race for class).

Careful. Khariz has admitted to being a racist on these boards.

Also, quotes from "one" person does not constitute an entire line of thinking, no matter how taken out of context.

[Ilvane]

I'm not a mindless sheep and I'll give my vote to the person I have confidence in that can do the job, whether I agree with the majority of their issues or not.

Funny, and here I thought we were disagreeing.

That's what I'm doing. Deciding on which person I have the most confidence can do the job.

Imagine that.

Angela*

[Gan]

Funny, and here I thought we were disagreeing.

That's what I'm doing. Deciding on which person I have the most confidence can do the job.

Imagine that.

Angela*

I think its your thought process, as expressed by your numerous illogical posts and opinions on this very subject, that seem to be fodder for the more logical minded posters in the politics folder.

In other words.

Its not that you're deciding the best fit for the job thats in question, its the criteria in which your'e basing that decision on that's been questioned (and ridiculed)... repeatedly.

[Mabus]

Careful. Khariz has admitted to being a racist on these boards.
I do not know them, or their stand on issues of race. I have seen you make remarks that I felt were racist in nature, and you even once falsely accused me of being a racist.

I also do know that you have defended Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) and Jeremiah Wright.

TUCC (http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm) is a church that follows Black Liberation Theology (BLT), and Wright is an advocate for BLT.

Also, quotes from "one" person does not constitute an entire line of thinking, no matter how taken out of context.
I quoted a man (Cone) that Wright has quoted many times. I quoted him accurately. I agree I did not quote entire pages of text, and do not want to be accused of posting "walls of text" again without a good reason.

I do feel that what I have read of some of the written explanations of it (BLT) carry extremely negative racial tones, phrases and meanings. It seems to reinforce a "race against race" line of thinking that I find repugnant to sense.

I am just beginning a fuller study of it, and I may be misunderstanding its basic dogma, origin and tenets. Perhaps you could explain to me why Black Liberation Theology should be considered neither racist in dogma, nor Marxist in origin.

[CrystalTears]

I'm not a mindless sheep and I'll give my vote to the person I have confidence in that can do the job, whether I agree with the majority of their issues or not.
Yeah I knew this was going to bite me in the ass if I didn't explain it, so my bad. Seeing as how I don't agree with the majority of either McCain's or Obama's issues, I need to find a couple of the issues that are most important to me and see how they both measure up to it. It's mostly the economy at this point because it affects my work, and I'm not feeling the love with either of them right now. So yes, this is a hard decision for me to make as I need to hear more from both of them in the course of the next few months.

If you want to lump me in the same dumbass category as Ilvane, fine. Just understand that it wasn't me saying that I'm voting for Huckabee and if he doesn't get it I'm voting for Obama. I've always been divided since the beginning, and I don't see that as the same thing as what Ilvane has been tooting.

[Daniel]

I do feel that what I have read of some of the written explanations of it (BLT) carry extremely negative racial tones, phrases and meanings. It seems to reinforce a "race against race" line of thinking that I find repugnant to sense.


The problem is that you ignore the context that BLT came up in. It stems from a time when blacks were heavily marginalized within this society.

The theology itself was a reaction towards white churchs that utilized xianity to justify their bigotry and racism towards blacks, and it simply affirmed that xianity should be reformed and utilized to combat that.

It's purpose is not to be "hateful" towards whites, but rather to be self empowering despite whites hatred towards black.

At best you could make the argument that the theology is "out of date", but then you'd have to try and define the point at which black people have become fully empowered in this society. At best, that would be within this generation, and you'd still be making a subjective judgement on something you can not personally understand.

".Black Power is an affirmation of the humanity of blacks in spite of white racism"

I don't subscribe to black libertarian theology (or any other for that matter), but I'd hardly dismiss it as racist drivel. Khariz stated that he was afraid that Obama would get into his office and fix the "problems" that the BLT saw themselves. Unfortunately, those problems exist which means that he is indeed afraid of an empowered black man that is unafraid to address the problems of race in America, and not from a white perspective of the problem.

I also understand that sentiment, but I'm never going to support it either.

[Clove]

Sounds to me that the issues aren't what CT is weighing.. more about who she thinks would do a better job as President... although I'm not sure how one could quantify that without taking the issues into account.Well if you don't consider the ability to be an effective executive an issue then once again I don't know what to tell you. It really doesn't matter what the suggestions, proposals or promises a candidate makes if they lack the "stuff" to make it happen, and that's perhaps the most valid excuse Ilvane presented for desiring McCain over Obama. I just don't buy that Obama is incompetent, though undoubtedly McCain has more experience.

My personal opinion is that people ought to vote for the person who stands for the issues that are MOST IMPORTANT to them, which (at least in my case) can have you voting for someone who you disagree with on most of the (less important) issues; quality versus quantity. I guess I'm not a black or white guy.

That being said, McCain seems to be on the opposite side of the most important issues to Ilvane which is what generated incredulity from the board.

[Clove]

Funny, and here I thought we were disagreeing.

That's what I'm doing. Deciding on which person I have the most confidence can do the job.

Imagine that.

Angela*Imagine that. The problem is your posts in February did NOT indicate that you were still deciding.


I think its your thought process, as expressed by your numerous illogical posts and opinions on this very subject, that seem to be fodder for the more logical minded posters in the politics folder.

In other words.

Its not that you're deciding the best fit for the job thats in question, its the criteria in which your'e basing that decision on that's been questioned (and ridiculed)... repeatedly.Bingo.

[Khariz]

Just to be clear, Daniel:

I've never admitted to being a racist. I'm not a de jure racist, but I have no problem coming off as a de facto racist when it comes to stereotyping and making comments about how some jackass can't even communicate with me at a fast food restaurant because they choose to speak ebonics instead of english.

If it it looks like duck....blah blah.

Anyway, if a guy who has been indoctrinated in BLT and, based on his own public comments, wants to Nationalize as much of the industries in this country and tax the shit out of the ones we don't, is the kind of guy who makes you comfortable running the county...more power to you!

For me, I'd rather die.

[Keller]

Nationalize as much of the industries in this country


Are you talking about health care?

[Khariz]

Are you talking about health care?

Healthcare.

The oil companies after he bleeds them of all their profits and then they all go bankrupt.

I'm sure he'll find the opportunity to nationalize the airline industry as they all continue to to tank under regulations and energy prices.

If you'd like, I'll sit here and make predictions for everything that he will attempt to or will successfully nationalize if he stays in for an 8 year term. I bet I'll be right on at least half of them too.

Laugh at me know, that's fine. Four years from now, when I ressurrect this dead thread and half the people on this board no longer have a job, we'll see who is laughing! Like I said: Barack Obama may as well be Karl Marx.

[Keller]

Healthcare.

The oil companies after he bleeds them of all their profits and then they all go bankrupt.

I'm sure he'll find the opportunity to nationalize the airline industry as they all continue to to tank under regulations and energy prices.

If you'd like, I'll sit here and make predictions for everything that he will attempt to or will successfully nationalize if he stays in for an 8 year term. I bet I'll be right on at least half of them too.

Laugh at me know, that's fine. Four years from now, when I ressurrect this dead thread and half the people on this board no longer have a job, we'll see who is laughing! Like I said: Barack Obama may as well be Karl Marx.

No arguments from me that Obama is not the economic choice. But I'm not sure that overstating the issue helps.

Then again, when you consider he wants another stimulus package, Karl Marx might not be far off.

[Daniel]

Just to be clear, Daniel:

I've never admitted to being a racist. I'm not a de jure racist, but I have no problem coming off as a de facto racist.

If it it looks like duck....blah blah.

Irony.




For me, I'd rather die.

Of course you would. You benefit too much from the status quo and are afraid of what change means. You can't compete on an even playing field and would be a complete failure on one.

[Parkbandit]

Barack Obama may as well be Karl Marx.

I hope you aren't trying to scare the liberals with that line.. they view Karl Marx as a hero to the working class.

They would welcome the 2nd coming.

[Parkbandit]

Irony.



Of course you would. You benefit too much from the status quo and are afraid of what change means. You can't compete on an even playing field and would be a complete failure on one.

What even playing field.. you mean Affirmative Action?

:rofl:

[Keller]

What even playing field.. you mean Affirmative Action?

:rofl:

Could you articulate the argument in favor of affirmative action? Even if you think it's a bad one, just let us know that you at least know the argument.

[Khariz]

What even playing field.. you mean Affirmative Action?

:rofl:

I was going to say something even worse.

Daniel, I know that you'll never understand this, no matter what I say, but:

Taking my money away from me and giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is not "leveling the playing field". It is government endorsed theft of property. I don't give a shit about the "needy" and it isn't my problem when someone's station in life is worse than mine.

I earned what I have, and it is MINE now. I don't need YOU taking it away and then pretending that we now have a "level playing field".

The Broncos are playing the Seahawks. Broncos score 50, Seahawks score 10. Let's go ahead and kick 15 to the Seahawks. Now we've leveled the playing field and given them a chance! The Broncos are still winning but now the Seahawks "feel good" too! They "needed" the points. Shouldn't that make everyone feel better? FUCK NO it doesn't. The Broncos earned their shit, the Seahawks didn't.

This is what Barack Obama wants.

[Khariz]

I hope you aren't trying to scare the liberals with that line.. they view Karl Marx as a hero to the working class.

They would welcome the 2nd coming.

I'm not trying to scare anyone. I'm just stating a fact, as I see it.

Who is SHOULD scare is intelligent moderates and conservatives who actually understand what it means and want to prevent it from happening.

[TheEschaton]

Taking my money away from me and giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is not "leveling the playing field". It is government endorsed theft of property. I don't give a shit about the "needy" and it isn't my problem when someone's station in life is worse than mine.

I earned what I have, and it is MINE now. I don't need YOU taking it away and then pretending that we now have a "level playing field".

You don't seem to understand the basics of what "society" is. You've let a capitalist ECONOMIC theory cloud every single social theory ever. Society is a free market enterprise, now? What the fuck?

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

That is usually how politicians get earmark money to their campaign contributers, just like in this case.

It is NOT legislation, it's becomes part of the end "pricetag" for said legislation. Do feel free to dig up any legislation packed with and for religion that Obama has voted for though ... I'll be waiting.

The fact that people keep throwing Pfleger and Wright into the mix, and then point out a pittance that Obama secured for a community program in one of the poorest sections in Chicago is pretty fucking lame.

Pfleger's words annoy the crap out of me. However, as an adult I have come to the point in my life where I'm able to distinguish the difference between words and actions. Pfleger may spew more shit than Hagee, but he doesn't drive a Mercedes and probably doesn't own a Rolex. When we look at his actions, he has done more for the community surrounding his parish than 50 years of local politicians and their promises have. The Catholic church is wary of him because he adapted his presentation to appeal to the community around him ... but he got a job done (agree with it or not) that his predecessors could not.

This is a circular argument perpetuated by people with circular logic ... it all comes down to the same question. Which is worse, seeking the endorsements of far right religious hate mongers hundreds of miles away from you ... or having a long history of working with commie socialist leftist nuts in your own back yard?

[Tsa`ah]

Could you articulate the argument in favor of affirmative action? Even if you think it's a bad one, just let us know that you at least know the argument.

Since PB isn't happy with all of the opposition in the sandbox, I think we should occasionally quote Keller just out of spite.

[Parkbandit]

Since PB isn't happy with all of the opposition in the sandbox, I think we should occasionally quote Keller just out of spite.


I've never had more fun on these boards actually. I tire of kicking around the same ol' bullshit you spew.. it's good to get after someone with some real thought... just no follow through.

[Warriorbird]

His stimulus package is pandering. He wants a lot of spending.

McCain wants insane amounts more. Liberals are spendthrift... the Republicans are economy ruining. Spurring the economy and squandering the wealth is epic stupid.

Look at the spending growth under the Republican Congress.

Do you believe that racism doesn't exist, Khariz?

I'm not a huge proponent but I think there's a lot of folks who are woefully obtuse to its continued existence.

[Khariz]

Do you believe that racism doesn't exist, Khariz?



Why would you pick me of all people to ask that to?

I just got done saying that I am a racist in fact, even though I'm not literally a racist.

I don't walk around all day thinking to myself "God damn I hate ni**ers", but when some dumb kid at McDonalds can't even take my order in english, I honestly think to myself, when I get to the window "ahh, he's black, big surprise".

I don't dislike people of other races, hell, I'm married to a mexican and I'm the biggest arian you'll ever find, but I find racial stereotypes amusing, and blurt them out with glee at my discretion.

Racism is alive an well.

[Warriorbird]

While I think it makes up for it poorly... affirmative action can sometimes still work against racism in hiring.

[Khariz]

You don't seem to understand the basics of what "society" is. You've let a capitalist ECONOMIC theory cloud every single social theory ever. Society is a free market enterprise, now? What the fuck?

-TheE-

I know what "society" is. It is the aspects of society that you obviously think require "socialism" that I refute.


I ask you to take this second path - this harder path - not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, although you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all of those who helped you get to where you are, although you do have that debt.

I ask you to take it because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation. And because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you will realize your true potential.

-Barack Obama
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060811-xavier_universi/


That's the kind of shit I'm talking about. I don't agree with anything he said there.


Once the law is perverted by envy to a point where it is placed above property rights, there is no limit to the size of government or the amount of "legal" plunder that can be voted into "law". "Property rights" become subject only to the whims of a growing government and the "needs" of special interests that are able to seize the law for their own purposes. Since "needs" are unlimited, the "necessary" amount of "legal" plunder and government continually grows. This is the fatal flaw that allows democracy to mutate into socialism.

-John Galt

This, however, I agree with.

[TheEschaton]

Property rights as tantamount? That's stupidity to the umpteenth degree.

-TheE-

[Khariz]

Property rights as tantamount? That's stupidity to the umpteenth degree.

-TheE-

And why would you think otherwise? You want all the poor bastards who have nothing to take their share of my stuff so that it can "level the playing field".

[DeV]

I don't walk around all day thinking to myself "God damn I hate ni**ers", but when some dumb kid at McDonalds can't even take my order in english, I honestly think to myself, when I get to the window "ahh, he's black, big surprise".
This is hilarious coming from a guy married to a Mexican.

[Khariz]

This is hilarious coming from a guy married to a Mexican.

My wife is lazy as hell and habitually late to everything. Is it okay that I chalk that up to her being hispanic? Cause I do, haha.

[DeV]

I rofl'd more at the fact that your stereotypes are seemingly way mismatched.

[Gan]

And why would you think otherwise? You want all the poor bastards who have nothing to take their share of my stuff so that it can "level the playing field".

Thought you knew. As long as its not TheE's property thats being taken/given away - he's ok with it.

[Latrinsorm]

He is the most liberal member of the current US Senate.Wow, Kerry somehow got substantially less liberal in the past four years?? Who saw that coming!!?!?!?!??!
(all quotes by James Cone, advocate of Black Liberation Theology)Clyde advocates Christianity and he thinks gay people have space lasers. Christianity is clearly a scary fringe religion and John McCain has been going to one of these whackjob churches for apparently nine thousand years, I certainly won't be voting for him!!
I quoted him accurately.:facepalm:
For me, I'd rather die.See that, liberals? Conservatives are too tough to move to bullshit Europe, they move straight to white Jesus' heaven! Suck on that!
Taking my money away from me and giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is not "leveling the playing field".What does a person have to do to "earn" their inalienable rights these days?

I see no one else appreciates the hilarity of citing a character of Ayn Rand's to make an ethical point. I do though!

[Parkbandit]

Wow, Kerry somehow got substantially less liberal in the past four years??

No, some people just surpassed him.

[Mabus]

It is NOT legislation, it's becomes part of the end "pricetag" for said legislation. Do feel free to dig up any legislation packed with and for religion that Obama has voted for though ... I'll be waiting.

So legislation that provided earmarks to Obama's friends' church, and his campaign adviser's church, are not legislation because it gives money to Obama's friends' church and his adviser's church in the legislation...

Why should my money go to this church? Is it because Obama says so? You seem to accept the "pricetag" (as you call it) for Obama to give his friends some money, which he voted to approve as part of legislation.


The fact that people keep throwing Pfleger and Wright into the mix, and then point out a pittance that Obama secured for a community program in one of the poorest sections in Chicago is pretty fucking lame.
They helped indoctrinate him into racist dogma with Marxist leanings, and he paid them back with taxpayer money. Nothing wrong with that in your view.


Pfleger's words annoy the crap out of me.
Those words did not annoy your candidate, as he was friends with him for over 20 years (nearly half his life), and named him as one of his "spiritual mentors and adviser's" in a Chicago Tribune article.


Pfleger may spew more shit than Hagee, but he doesn't drive a Mercedes and probably doesn't own a Rolex.
Pfleger, as a Catholic priest, likely does not. But Wright got one hell of a golden parachute to "go away and be quiet". He took it, and a vacation, and then came back with both guns blazing.



Which is worse, seeking the endorsements of far right religious hate mongers hundreds of miles away from you ... or having a long history of working with commie socialist leftist nuts in your own back yard?
I would say spending over 20 years calling the leftist, racist nut-jobs "friends", and "spiritual mentors and adviser's" and providing them with taxpayers' money, far trumps asking for an endorsement.

[Mabus]

The problem is that you ignore the context that BLT came up in. It stems from a time when blacks were heavily marginalized within this society.

The theology itself was a reaction towards white churchs that utilized xianity to justify their bigotry and racism towards blacks, and it simply affirmed that xianity should be reformed and utilized to combat that.

It's purpose is not to be "hateful" towards whites, but rather to be self empowering despite whites hatred towards black.

At best you could make the argument that the theology is "out of date", but then you'd have to try and define the point at which black people have become fully empowered in this society. At best, that would be within this generation, and you'd still be making a subjective judgement on something you can not personally understand.

".Black Power is an affirmation of the humanity of blacks in spite of white racism"

I don't subscribe to black libertarian theology (or any other for that matter), but I'd hardly dismiss it as racist drivel. Khariz stated that he was afraid that Obama would get into his office and fix the "problems" that the BLT saw themselves. Unfortunately, those problems exist which means that he is indeed afraid of an empowered black man that is unafraid to address the problems of race in America, and not from a white perspective of the problem.

I also understand that sentiment, but I'm never going to support it either.
Thank you for your reply, Daniel.

[BigWorm]

Pfleger, as a Catholic priest, likely does not.

o rly?

Because I live in St. Louis and we have Raymond Burke as our Archbishop. He refuses to give communion to any politician that has voted pro-choice, but has no problem handing over the body of Christ to politicians who are pro-death penalty despite the fact that the Catholic church is equally against that practice. He even went so far as to say that anyone who voted for a pro-choice politician was committing a grave sin and shouldn't receive communion.

But its not like the Catholic church to be political or anything

[Daniel]

I was going to say something even worse.

Daniel, I know that you'll never understand this, no matter what I say, but:



Actually, I do understand what you are saying and I'd agree with you if it weren't for your leaving out a large part of the equation. You seem to believe that your relative success in this world is entirely dependent on the level of work and effort you put into it. However, the reality is that it is a function of the effort that you put in AND the environment that you find yourself in. For instance, you most definitely would not be in some big law school if you were born in Guinea. That's a simple fact.

That said, you can not reasonably expect people to gain the same things that you have if they were born in an environment that is not contributory to that kind of success. In America we have an environment where certain groups have been routinely marginalized based upon their race and ethnicity. That means that the environments that they grow up in are a direct reflection of that marginalization and the relative results of that are going to manifest itself today, even if the marginalization has recently stopped.

Is this to say that you haven't "earned" what you have obtained? Of course not. That's not the problem, the problem is that this implies that there are those who have worked harder than you have for the same value. That jeopardized your perceived sense of superiority and instead of seeing the reality of the situation you convince yourself that these people have only made it because of "taking what should have been yours", i.e. Affirmative action or some other such nonsense. You then take the logical step and assume that those who have not gained what you have are somehow lazier, or stupider, which may be true in some cases, but definitely not all.

I sense that you realize this, which is why you are so afraid of empowered black people. You know that if the field was equalized that you would have to compete with people who have been struggling their entire lifes and are thus more prone to succeed. This isn't a racial thing, but rather a consequence of being subjugated. As they say, the biggest adherents to any religion are the converts and that's what exactly what minorities are in America. Take a look at any type of organized sport that minorities have taken an interest in or at the higher levels of the US military. Minorities are disproportionately represented at these ranks and it's not because of affirmative action. It's because these are the avenues for advancement that were opened up first.

I feel sorry for you really, but don't worry when some black person takes your job because of "affirmative action" I'm sure you'll be able to find a lot of compassion from your bros.

[Daniel]

Thank you for your reply, Daniel.

Sure.

[Parkbandit]

Actually, I do understand what you are saying and I'd agree with you if it weren't for your leaving out a large part of the equation. You seem to believe that your relative success in this world is entirely dependent on the level of work and effort you put into it. However, the reality is that it is a function of the effort that you put in AND the environment that you find yourself in. For instance, you most definitely would not be in some big law school if you were born in Guinea. That's a simple fact.

Really? There isn't a single person that was born in Guinea that ended up going to a big law school? Maybe the "That's a simple fact" should read "This is just something I made up to make my case sound better"

But.. let's stick with America.. since that is the country in which Obama is running for President. In this country, anyone can become anything they want to as long as they put forth the effort and have the skill necessary to do the job. Hell, Obama is a PRIME example of the American dream.




I sense that you realize this, which is why you are so afraid of empowered black people. You know that if the field was equalized that you would have to compete with people who have been struggling their entire lifes and are thus more prone to succeed. This isn't a racial thing, but rather a consequence of being subjugated. As they say, the biggest adherents to any religion are the converts and that's what exactly what minorities are in America. Take a look at any type of organized sport that minorities have taken an interest in or at the higher levels of the US military. Minorities are disproportionately represented at these ranks and it's not because of affirmative action. It's because these are the avenues for advancement that were opened up first.

I feel sorry for you really, but don't worry when some black person takes your job because of "affirmative action" I'm sure you'll be able to find a lot of compassion from your bros.

Are you lik 100% positive that he said "I am afraid of empowered black people".. because I didn't see that anywhere in his posts.

[Mabus]

o rly?

We were talking about riches, Mercedes and Rolex.

So yes, really.

Try keeping up with the thread, rather then attacking with off-topic posts sometime. It can be more interesting that way.

[Khariz]

I see no one else appreciates the hilarity of citing a character of Ayn Rand's to make an ethical point. I do though!

I'm glad I amused someone other than myself! I think Galt is totally worth quoting. I agree with almost everything he said. I also thing its funny that concepts like the "Culture of Life" and the "Culture of Death" have seen a resurgence (through people like Bill O'Reilly). I'm also amazed that liberals are back to calling themselves progressives.

Life is very amusing.

[Khariz]

Actually, I do understand what you are saying and I'd agree with you if it weren't for your leaving out a large part of the equation. You seem to believe that your relative success in this world is entirely dependent on the level of work and effort you put into it. However, the reality is that it is a function of the effort that you put in AND the environment that you find yourself in. For instance, you most definitely would not be in some big law school if you were born in Guinea. That's a simple fact.


I don't disagree with you here. There is certainly an element of "luck" that goes with one's station in life. It's what you do AFTER you've gotten the meal served to you that sets you apart from others (within reason of course). I agree with your assessment of the person from Guinea. I don't agree that I believe that my relative success is ENTIRELY dependant upon my level of work and effort but rather MOSTLY. My point above was that just because someone has not reached the same station in life as me, whether by lack of effort, or bad luck from the draw, I don't OWE my stuff to balance the two out. I have no moral obligations to the guy in Guinea who can't go to law school, nor the crack dealer on the street corner.



In America we have an environment where certain groups have been routinely marginalized based upon their race and ethnicity. That means that the environments that they grow up in are a direct reflection of that marginalization and the relative results of that are going to manifest itself today, even if the marginalization has recently stopped.

Is this to say that you haven't "earned" what you have obtained? Of course not. That's not the problem, the problem is that this implies that there are those who have worked harder than you have for the same value. That jeopardized your perceived sense of superiority and instead of seeing the reality of the situation you convince yourself that these people have only made it because of "taking what should have been yours", i.e. Affirmative action or some other such nonsense. You then take the logical step and assume that those who have not gained what you have are somehow lazier, or stupider, which may be true in some cases, but definitely not all.



I beesech you to not assume what I think. I'm not down on people who have it worse than me and are doing everything they can to make it better. I'm down on the people who are ACTUALLY the looters and moochers, and take my stuff without paying me anything in return.

I completely respect the hard working man who is barely making a living. When I'm able, thats the kind of man that I would like to give a better job than he has now. I know he'll work for me, and help me be productive. His payment to me for giving him a better job will be his effort and work ethic. It won't be a handout.

But when that woman sits at home pumping out babies while her baby daddy sells crack on the street corner and both of them know they can survive off welfare, and never have to worry about getting a job, those people I detest.

The more entitlements, handouts, nationalized industries, etc. that the government gets into, the more of these types of people will amass. As you slowly bring down the producers of this country, the produces will also realize that the only way to get things is to show a "need" for it, no matter how false the actual "need" is. That encourages producers to stop producing and turn into moochers instead, because it's easier. The government will take care of me, right? So why should I work. Luckily, there are people like me who will never ascribe to that belief. I just hope there's a country left for me to produce for by the end of my days.

I don't want to be beholden to and entity that controls every dollar I make and gives it to people with bigger "needs".



I sense that you realize this, which is why you are so afraid of empowered black people. You know that if the field was equalized that you would have to compete with people who have been struggling their entire lifes and are thus more prone to succeed. This isn't a racial thing, but rather a consequence of being subjugated. As they say, the biggest adherents to any religion are the converts and that's what exactly what minorities are in America. Take a look at any type of organized sport that minorities have taken an interest in or at the higher levels of the US military. Minorities are disproportionately represented at these ranks and it's not because of affirmative action. It's because these are the avenues for advancement that were opened up first.

I feel sorry for you really, but don't worry when some black person takes your job because of "affirmative action" I'm sure you'll be able to find a lot of compassion from your bros.


I'm really not sure how many times I have to say this before it sinks in. I'm not afraid of black people, and I'm not a racist.

This has NOTHING to do with black people. It has to do with LIBERATION THEOLOGY (black, white, purple, whatthefuckever), having too many Marxist viewpoints for me to be comfortable with a person indoctrinated in it running my country.

I don't care if he's a black man. That has NO BEARING on what I think of Barack Obama. I have NO PROBLEM with a black man being my president. Install Clarence Thomas tomorrow, and I'll be fine. It's not Baracka Obama's color, it's his Socio-Economic brainwashing.

I'm an objectivist. He's a socialist. We don't mix well. That's seriously all there is to it.

[Apathy]

If I elect Obama president is he going to try and dance with my date?

[Latrinsorm]

Why should my money go to this church?Black Jesus has had it up to here with your shit, basically.
Those words did not annoy your candidate, as he was friends with him for over 20 years (nearly half his life), and named him as one of his "spiritual mentors and adviser's" in a Chicago Tribune article.Your friends never annoy you? Is it possible to have any with that philosophy?
In this country, anyone can become anything they want to as long as they put forth the effort and have the skill necessary to do the job. Hell, Obama is a PRIME example of the American dream.Totally, it's black people's fault that they don't have the "skill" to turn themselves white. Parkbandit's solved it, folks!

[Parkbandit]

Black Jesus has had it up to here with your shit, basically.Your friends never annoy you? Is it possible to have any with that philosophy?Totally, it's black people's fault that they don't have the "skill" to turn themselves white. Parkbandit's solved it, folks!

That's exactly what I said. Maybe you should go change your tampon.. you raging douche bag.

[Mabus]

Is it possible to have any with that philosophy?
There is a LARGE difference between knowing someone that you do not agree with, and calling that person your "spiritual mentor and advisor".

For me (as I cannot speak to others) I do not put up with any of my acquaintances being racist. I speak up, point out the ignorance that lead to their viewpoint and do my best not to associate with the person.

For the candidate in question he spent nearly half of his life associating with these people. He called them his "spiritual mentors and advisers", he hired them to work as campaign advisers, named books after one of their sermons and even got earmarks placed into legislation to aid their causes.

When the political winds blew him in a different direction he "suddenly" finds Wright to be someone he does not agree with. He states he leaves his church because he will be blamed for "any guest pastor" (leaving out he has known Pfleger, and called him more then a friend, for over 20 years).

There is a difference.

[diethx]

I can't wait until this election is over. :D

[Snapp]

I can't wait until this election is over. :D

You ain't seen nothin yet... we still have 5 months to go! You shoulda been here for the '04 election debates.

[Daniel]

My point above was that just because someone has not reached the same station in life as me, whether by lack of effort, or bad luck from the draw, I don't OWE my stuff to balance the two out. I have no moral obligations to the guy in Guinea who can't go to law school, nor the crack dealer on the street corner.

Well, we can definitely delve into the moral aspect of being in a society. However, I imagine that would be a futile cause. So, I'll just make two points here: 1) It's not just "luck of the draw" here in America. It has been deliberate. There is a difference there 2) We do ourselves no favors as a country to ignore the problems and issues of the lower classes. We may not feel that obligation to ourselves, but they sure as fuck want you too. You let things go on too long in a deplorable state and it will only eventually bite you in the ass.

As you said, you were afraid of what it meant to have a black man in the White House who wanted to fix these problems. You can definitely do everything in your power to stop that from ever happening, but the reality is that at some point it will happen. Whites are no longer the majority in America.

It's only a matter of time before more hispanics, Asians and African Americans start exerting them selves more and more politically without having to defer to the status quo. That's a reality that you will see in our life times. The question then becomes of whether or not they still have cause to "fix" these problems and how strongly they feel about it. I'd argue that positions like yours is only going to make it worse.




The more entitlements, handouts, nationalized industries, etc. that the government gets into, the more of these types of people will amass. As you slowly bring down the producers of this country, the produces will also realize that the only way to get things is to show a "need" for it, no matter how false the actual "need" is. That encourages producers to stop producing and turn into moochers instead, because it's easier. The government will take care of me, right? So why should I work. Luckily, there are people like me who will never ascribe to that belief. I just hope there's a country left for me to produce for by the end of my days.

I don't want to be beholden to and entity that controls every dollar I make and gives it to people with bigger "needs".


The problem here is that you assume that the only solution is to take from the rich and give the poor a handout. There are other ways to address inequality. In fact, I'd argue that AA, unregulated welfare and unemployment are other such entitlement programs are not the solution, but merely a stop gap that create more animosity than anything else. I recognize that sometimes it is neccessary to have that "insurance card" for when things don't go your way, but that doesn't mean you create a system that disincentives working for a living.

I'd propose that the place you start is education, basic education. AA at U of Michigan Law school is pretty worthless if large percentages of a population are not even graduating from highschool. You improve the schools by creating incentives for quality teachers to work in our worse schools and then give people a reason to show up by creating college education more accessible.

Does this cost money? Sure, but it also addresses the root problems that plague ALL Americans, not just one group over another.




I'm really not sure how many times I have to say this before it sinks in. I'm not afraid of black people, and I'm not a racist.

You said it, not me.

[Daniel]

But.. let's stick with America.. since that is the country in which Obama is running for President. In this country, anyone can become anything they want to as long as they put forth the effort and have the skill necessary to do the job.




Since when?

[DeV]

I feel sorry for you really, but don't worry when some black person takes your job because of "affirmative action" I'm sure you'll be able to find a lot of compassion from your bros.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/Summore000/untitled.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Since when?


Convenient quote.. should have included the next sentence of
Hell, Obama is a PRIME example of the American dream.


Look at you for another example. By your posts, you grew up poor on the streets of Chicago.. and now you make millions of dollars a year with thousands of people working under you.

What makes you any different than anyone else? Are you saying that there is something so special about you that other people couldn't possibly emulate? That's extremely unlikely.

[Daniel]

Convenient quote.. should have included the next sentence of


Why? It's pretty silly to look at one person and extrapolate that to a whole population. Frederick Douglas was an advisor to the US president. Does that mean slavery wasnt a problem?



Look at you for another example. By your posts, you grew up poor on the streets of Chicago.. and now you make millions of dollars a year with thousands of people working under you.


For the record I've never claimed I did this.


What makes you any different than anyone else? Are you saying that there is something so special about you that other people couldn't possibly emulate? That's extremely unlikely.
Of course not. It's called luck. A roll of the dice and I'm not here today and i know there are plenty of people who have done more than me and not gotten as far. That's precisely why I still care, as opposed to chalking it up to some lack of effort.

[Parkbandit]

Why? It's pretty silly to look at one person and extrapolate that to a whole population. Frederick Douglas was an advisor to the US president. Does that mean slavery wasnt a problem?


For the record I've never claimed I did this.


I'm lik 100% positive you said you made 10x the money I made and had 10x the responsibility. I just extrapolated the numbers.




Of course not. It's called luck. A roll of the dice and I'm not here today and i know there are plenty of people who have done more than me and not gotten as far. That's precisely why I still care, as opposed to chalking it up to some lack of effort.

I think we can both agree on this... the only reason you got to where you are now is purely by luck. If I'm being perfectly honest, I don't see any other explanation.

[Warriorbird]

If you're an objectivist, Khariz... why the fuck are you even considering voting for a Democrat OR Republican?

[Daniel]

I'm lik 100% positive you said you made 10x the money I made and had 10x the responsibility. I just extrapolated the numbers.



I think we can both agree on this... the only reason you got to where you are now is purely by luck. If I'm being perfectly honest, I don't see any other explanation.

Absolutely. Now that we've gotten the unsubstantiated personal attacks out of the way, care to answer the original question? Or is this where you bow out of the conversation and wait for another opportunity to make yourself look like an idiot?

[Warriorbird]

He doesn't like answering questions.

[Gan]

You ain't seen nothin yet... we still have 5 months to go! You shoulda been here for the '04 election debates.

Good times.


Good times.