Is Obama dividing America even more? [Archive]

PixelPusher

04-18-2009, 02:39 AM

These are highly partisan times in America. "Bipartisanship" (or, in the Obama nomenclature, "post-partisanship") makes for a catchy campaign slogan, but is difficult to execute upon in practice. The White House's aspirations (or pretense) of running a bipartisan administration died a quick and ugly death with two events: firstly, the House Republicans' decision to whip votes against Obama's stimulus package so as to produce a unanimous nay vote, and secondly, the Administration's decision to try and kneecap Rush Limbaugh.

Nonetheless, measurements of the partisan split in support for the President, as Pew Research has done here (they found a record partisan split in Obama's approval ratings, with 88 percent of Democrats but just 27 percent of Republicans approving of Obama's performance) are not quite as straightforward as they might seem. This is because partisan identification is at least somewhat fluid. The Republicans, in particular, have lost quite a bit of support over the past several years; those persons who continue to identify as Republicans are a hardened -- and very conservative -- lot. Just 24 percent of voters identified as Republican when Pew conducted this survey in March, which is roughly as low as that total has ever gotten.

We see some evidence of these effects in the comparison of Obama's numbers to those of George W. Bush's at a comparable point in his presidency. Obama and Bush had roughly the same level of support among members of their own party (88 percent for Obama, 87 percent for Bush) and roughly the same level of support among unaffiliated voters (57 percent for Obama, 56 for Bush). Bush, however, had more support from the opposition party (36 percent of Democrats versus 27 percent of Republicans). And yet Obama, not Bush, had the higher overall approval rating, because Democrats are a significantly larger constituency than Republicans.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1178-1.gif

A more telling measure might be to see a breakdown in support by voters who identify themselves as conservative, moderate or liberal. These categories are somewhat fluid too -- but less so than partisan ID.

ChumpDumper

04-18-2009, 02:43 AM

Jacob1983

04-18-2009, 02:49 AM

ChumpDumper

04-18-2009, 02:51 AM

Obama has made America more polarized than it ever was under Bush.:lmao

Approval ratings mean nothing.When you don't approve of them.

If they meant something, Bush would have committed suicide while in office.I'm pretty sure he considers that a sin.

I'm just saying that Obama hasn't done shit as president. That's all.So why are you guys having tea parties and shitting your pants all the time?

Jacob1983

04-18-2009, 03:05 AM

ChumpDumper

04-18-2009, 03:12 AM

I didn't have a tea party or attend one. So are you going to tell me that Obama has united America? Seriously, name one thing that Obama has done that has been for the good of the country? Name one thing. The guy promised change. What change? The guy promised a monumental amount of shit and he hasn't delivered on any of it. I know that presidential candidates lie and say whatever to get elected but Obama promised a ridiculous amount of things to get elected. I will just be glad when all Americans open up their eyes and see that Obama is not a god and that he's just a mere mortal like the rest of us. I know people that seriously thought that things in America were going to get better ASPA when Obama got elected. The economy and unemployment rate have both gotten worse since Obama's been in the White House and don't pull that shit of blaming it on Bush cause Bush ain't president anymore. Obama is president right now. It's on his plate. Obama wanted to be president so he's gotta take the good with the bad.I think drawing conclusions about a presidency less than three months in is extremely stupid. :toast

Jacob1983

04-18-2009, 04:07 AM

People did the same thing under Bush. If you can criticize Bush for fucking up, then you can criticize Obama for fucking up. Obama isn't immune to criticism just because of his skin color.

ChumpDumper

04-18-2009, 04:10 AM

People did the same thing under Bush.I gave him over two years, and his fuckup was the most egregious in my lifetime, up there with Watergate.
If you can criticize Bush for fucking up, then you can criticize Obama for fucking up.You said he didn't do anything.
Obama isn't immune to criticism just because of his skin color.I, however, am immune to straw men.

Cant_Be_Faded

04-18-2009, 04:11 AM

Well duh
he's black

ChumpDumper

04-18-2009, 04:14 AM

Jacob brings up his race enough completely out of the blue.

Interesting.

antimvp

04-18-2009, 07:46 AM

Obama has made America more polarized than it ever was under Bush. Approval ratings mean nothing. If they meant something, Bush would have committed suicide while in office. I'm just saying that Obama hasn't done shit as president. That's all.

so you started this thread already knowing the answer to your question...I say fuck off.

TheProfessor

04-18-2009, 08:00 AM

Obama has made America more polarized than it ever was under Bush. Approval ratings mean nothing. If they meant something, Bush would have committed suicide while in office. I'm just saying that Obama hasn't done shit as president. That's all.
What the fuck is your point? Is it that he's dividing America? Or that he hasn't done anything since in office? Or that he gets away with things because he's black? Please, pick a topic and stick with it instead of meandering when you can't back it up.

JoeChalupa

04-18-2009, 08:01 AM

There will ALWAYS be those who oppose the sitting president and his policies. That will never change for if that were the case the president would have a 100% approval rating and that simply isn't going to happen. Sean insHannity and Rush Limpballs and FoxNews WANT the country divided and that is why they are always bashing Obama's every move and they sure are not helping to "unite" this country by their constant right-wing rhetoric and by pushing and promoting the tea parties is just another indication that they want to create as much havoc as possible to make Obama look bad. That is just a fact.
So while I never had any expectations that the USA would automatically become ONE nation totally behind him I wasn't expecting this much hate from the right.
Okay the other networks are biased too but just watch FoxNews like I am right now and there hasn't been one, not one positive story about Obama. Not one.

FaithInOne

04-18-2009, 09:20 AM

Radicals tend to divide.

Regardless of which side they represent.

The good stuff hasn't even entered the fire yet. More fun is yet to come :lol

You can't bullshit Natural Law forever.

George Gervin's Afro

04-18-2009, 10:02 AM

I didn't have a tea party or attend one. So are you going to tell me that Obama has united America? Seriously, name one thing that Obama has done that has been for the good of the country? Name one thing. The guy promised change. What change? The guy promised a monumental amount of shit and he hasn't delivered on any of it. I know that presidential candidates lie and say whatever to get elected but Obama promised a ridiculous amount of things to get elected. I will just be glad when all Americans open up their eyes and see that Obama is not a god and that he's just a mere mortal like the rest of us. I know people that seriously thought that things in America were going to get better ASPA when Obama got elected. The economy and unemployment rate have both gotten worse since Obama's been in the White House and don't pull that shit of blaming it on Bush cause Bush ain't president anymore. Obama is president right now. It's on his plate. Obama wanted to be president so he's gotta take the good with the bad.

We have the minority party acting as if they won the election. They are catering to the far right nuts. Obama won a mandate to push through his legislation (just as Bush did in 04) like it or not. Obama has the right to pursure his agenda so to say he is dividing America is stupid. Right wingers will never like or support him, is that his fault?

Karl Rove's strategy from day one was to govern to the 51% conservative majority. So you look really stupid for trying to claim this is an Obama issue.

Cry Havoc

04-18-2009, 10:03 AM

People did the same thing under Bush. If you can criticize Bush for fucking up, then you can criticize Obama for fucking up. Obama isn't immune to criticism just because of his skin color.

It would shock me if you were over 15 years old.

Bush's approval rating in October of 2001: 92%.

You're wrong. Shut up.

George Gervin's Afro

04-18-2009, 10:04 AM

People did the same thing under Bush. If you can criticize Bush for fucking up, then you can criticize Obama for fucking up. Obama isn't immune to criticism just because of his skin color.

BUsh divided America by starting an unecessary war. Right wingers attacked Obama on day one.

JoeChalupa

04-18-2009, 10:09 AM

BUsh divided America by starting an unecessary war. Right wingers attacked Obama on day one.

I concur. Saying you want a president to fail on day one is no way to unite this country.

DarrinS

04-18-2009, 10:11 AM

BUsh divided America by starting an unecessary war. Right wingers attacked Obama on day one.

Lest we forget, a LARGE number of Democrats gave approval for that unnecessary war and also said Saddam had WMD.

I don't have to break out the quotes, do I?

I guess in politics, it's good to have a short memory.

As to the OP, I don't really think Obama, the man, is dividing America, but, perhaps, his policies are. I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not crazy about the direction I see the country headed. I'm especially worried about what will happen when they start taxing that hazardous gas, CO2 -- you know, the one, without which, there would be no life on Earth?

George Gervin's Afro

04-18-2009, 10:15 AM

Lest we forget, a LARGE number of Democrats gave approval for that unnecessary war and also said Saddam had WMD.

I don't have to break out the quotes, do I?

I guess in politics, it's good to have a short memory.

As to the OP, I don't really think Obama, the man, is dividing America, but, perhaps, his policies are. I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not crazy about the direction I see the country headed. I'm especially worried about what will happen when they start taxing that hazardous gas, CO2 -- you know, the one, without which, there would be no life on Earth?

I, like the majority of this country, supported Bush's Iraq ar because we were told they were an imminent threat. They had mobile bio labs. Rummy told us we knew where the wmds were, around Tikrit he said. Condi told us that we could see a mushroom cloud from all f Saddam's wmds.... S yeah he lost me when most of the stuff to justify the war was bull shit. My intial thought was it was too soon after 9/11 but Bush told us that we couldn't wait...

JoeChalupa

04-18-2009, 10:18 AM

Lest we forget, a LARGE number of Democrats gave approval for that unnecessary war and also said Saddam had WMD.

I don't have to break out the quotes, do I?

I guess in politics, it's good to have a short memory.

As to the OP, I don't really think Obama, the man, is dividing America, but, perhaps, his policies are. I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not crazy about the direction I see the country headed. I'm especially worried about what will happen when they start taxing that hazardous gas, CO2 -- you know, the one, without which, there would be no life on Earth?

Also don't forget that many, democrats and republicans, were not told the truth and were sold the same story that the people were and that was that Saddam was responsible for 911 and WMD's ready to fire and that a mushroom cloud was inevitable...which it is but wasn't then...but that can be hashed and re-hashed to suit your own needs.
This country was headed down the wrong direction under the Bush administration and I don't think we will ever agree that it is depending upon who is in the White House and how you feel about the sitting president. I didn't expect all the republicans and conservatives to suddenly embrace a democrat as president but the total lack of an honest effort to give the guy a chance, while not shocking, did come quicker than I expected.
Hopefully things will change in the months and years to come.

DarrinS

04-18-2009, 10:23 AM

I, like the majority of this country, supported Bush's Iraq ar because we were told they were an imminent threat. They had mobile bio labs. Rummy told us we knew where the wmds were, around Tikrit he said. Condi told us that we could see a mushroom cloud from all f Saddam's wmds.... S yeah he lost me when most of the stuff to justify the war was bull shit. My intial thought was it was too soon after 9/11 but Bush told us that we couldn't wait...

So, when a Democrat says Iraq had WMD, they were just misinformed, but when someone from the Bush admin said Iraq had WMD, they were liars?

Ok, I see how this works.

I'll admit, we (the U.S.) have egg on our face for that whole debacle, but you can't blame only those with an (R.) after their name because of an intel failure.

George Gervin's Afro

04-18-2009, 10:24 AM

So, when a Democrat says Iraq had WMD, they were just misinformed, but when someone from the Bush admin said Iraq had WMD, they were liars?

Ok, I see how this works.

I'll admit, we (the U.S.) have egg on our face for that whole debacle, but you can't blame only those with an (R.) after their name because of an intel failure.

one question. Who gave the democrats the intel? Before you respond with what Clinton said in 98, I would hope that Bush was not relying on 3 yr old intel to go to war.

DarrinS

04-18-2009, 10:27 AM

I didn't expect all the republicans and conservatives to suddenly embrace a democrat as president but the total lack of an honest effort to give the guy a chance, while not shocking, did come quicker than I expected. Hopefully things will change in the months and years to come.

Well, a few of his initial cabinet appointees and their tax problems were an embarrassment. There's also been a few diplomatic blunders.

I think more people would be behind him if he was trying to do so much so soon. People are only ready for change in small doses. All of this unprecedented spending during an economic downturn has people worried, and rightfully so, IMO.

PixelPusher

04-18-2009, 10:27 AM

So, when a Democrat says Iraq had WMD, they were just misinformed, but when someone from the Bush admin said Iraq had WMD, they were liars?

Ok, I see how this works.

I'll admit, we (the U.S.) have egg on our face for that whole debacle, but you can't blame only those with an (R.) after their name because of an intel failure.

You think Iraq is the only reason Republicans have been collectively shitcanned by a sizable majority of Americans?

DarrinS

04-18-2009, 10:28 AM

one question. Who gave the democrats the intel? Before you respond with what Clinton said in 98, I would hope that Bush was not relying on 3 yr old intel to go to war.

Bush and Cheney made it all up.

DarrinS

04-18-2009, 10:28 AM

You think Iraq is the only reason Republicans have been collectively shitcanned by a sizable majority of Americans?

No.

George Gervin's Afro

04-18-2009, 10:30 AM

Bush and Cheney made it all up.

Or maybe they fudged it a bit. Why don't you accept that as a possibility?

GaryJohnston

04-18-2009, 11:25 AM

Or maybe they fudged it a bit. Why don't you accept that as a possibility?

Doubt they fudged it. Do you have any idea what a massive conspiracy that would be? To falsify records that a country has nuclear weapons. Do you understand how many people would have to be involved on every single level, in the military, government, UN, private sector, etc. You liberals are crazy. Guess the Clinton Administration was in on it too.

Its a false hope for liberals to think that it was a conspiracy, and the fact that some of you push it speaks volumes of your lack of intellect. Im sure you are an American who enjoys living in this country, but the misguided, idealogical, anti-American in you would love for that conspiracy to be true wouldn't you............wouldn't you?

hope4dopes

04-18-2009, 11:40 AM

People bitched all the time how Bush divided America while he was president. Lord Obama said during his campaign how bad and evil Bush was and how divided America was under Bush. I think Obama is dividing America even more than it ever was under Bush. And no I don't hate Obama. I also don't think he's the anti-Christ either. I just believe that he's a mere human like the rest of us. I bring the question up because with that report about right wing extremism on the rise, it's logical to say that America is becoming more divided. I thought Obama was going to bring people together with his cool and hip political views and ideas.

Who knows what's really going on? Perhaps the people who put this turtle on the post want him to divide america. I mean I wonder how much money Soros would stand to make on currency speculations during this economic crisis, as the Obama administrations has so often told us"a good crisis is a terrible thing to waste" Chaos can be quite profitable.

However this administrations heavy handed antics,and arrogance has begun to bring a large group of people together, many of whom have never been involved in politics.Most of these people have been to busy earning a living and raising families and have relinqushed power to the political class.People want to take back power to their own hands.It may be that the Obamanation will wind up bringing together the American nation.

MannyIsGod

04-18-2009, 11:41 AM

So, when a Democrat says Iraq had WMD, they were just misinformed, but when someone from the Bush admin said Iraq had WMD, they were liars?

Ok, I see how this works.

I'll admit, we (the U.S.) have egg on our face for that whole debacle, but you can't blame only those with an (R.) after their name because of an intel failure.

You can't blame only Republicans and thats a fact. You can give Republicans and the Bush administration the lionshare of the blame considering they were pushing for the war on 9/12/2001 and thats a well documented fact.

MannyIsGod

04-18-2009, 11:42 AM

Well, a few of his initial cabinet appointees and their tax problems were an embarrassment. There's also been a few diplomatic blunders.

I think more people would be behind him if he was trying to do so much so soon. People are only ready for change in small doses. All of this unprecedented spending during an economic downturn has people worried, and rightfully so, IMO.

You know this is like complaining about the season the Lakers just had because they didn't win every single game. Obama's presidency is off to a great start especially when you consider the circumstances under which he took office.

baseline bum

04-18-2009, 12:00 PM

What the fuck is with this Jacob1983 dumbass?

Complains about Obama not being the messiah? Check
Pulls out the ###### card? Check
Recession that is at least 5 years in the making is Obama's fault? Check

I have to give this ignorant slut the title of worst poster on this site... and it's not limited to the Political forum either. You should see his bullshit in the NBA forum. I don't know what the fuck they put in the water in Dallas.

balli

04-18-2009, 12:01 PM

That intel failure was orchestrated by Cheney. So in effect the only thing you can blame democrats for, and it's legit to do so, is trusting that they weren't being lied to. But if you're leveling those criticisms as a republican you're a dumbass.

When republicans say it, it's like, "fuck democrats, they trusted us when we lied to them."

Oh, Gee!!

04-18-2009, 12:41 PM

according to wednesday's protests, there's about 300K white people that have divided themselves from the rest of the country. in the sense that those people hate having a black president, Obama is a polarizing figure. fortunately for us sane people, nobody gives a fuck about those people.

ChumpDumper

04-18-2009, 01:03 PM

sabar

04-18-2009, 01:26 PM

Why is everyone arguing a bunch of straw man points?

Yes he is dividing us further, but this is the reality of the world we live in now and a consequence of how we do politics today. The media, the issues, everything has polarized people to the extremes over the past decade and a half, and they will only listen to their side.

Looking at the rest of the world, we are just following the normal trend where political parties turn into extreme platforms on certain issues. The only thing that makes us different from Europe is our two political parties as opposed to 3-6.

Maybe if people change (not happening) we would be united. The government can promise change all it wants, but the psychology of the people lends themselves to be divided. As long as we continue to elect people who are polar opposites, this will continue to occur.

Is there truly any candidate we could of elected that would not have divided us more?
Nope. And pinning the blame on solely the president just proves the point that people are partisan sheep. And goes that's for both parties, no matter how much they want to believe that they are good and the other are evil. As long as they both have human beings, they are each as guilty as the other.

George Gervin's Afro

04-18-2009, 01:50 PM

Doubt they fudged it. Do you have any idea what a massive conspiracy that would be? To falsify records that a country has nuclear weapons. Do you understand how many people would have to be involved on every single level, in the military, government, UN, private sector, etc. You liberals are crazy. Guess the Clinton Administration was in on it too.

Its a false hope for liberals to think that it was a conspiracy, and the fact that some of you push it speaks volumes of your lack of intellect. Im sure you are an American who enjoys living in this country, but the misguided, idealogical, anti-American in you would love for that conspiracy to be true wouldn't you............wouldn't you?

One prime example:

How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
By DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH

Published: October 3, 2004

n 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.

One result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

Today, 18 months after the invasion of Iraq, investigators there have found no evidence of hidden centrifuges or a revived nuclear weapons program. The absence of unconventional weapons in Iraq is now widely seen as evidence of a profound intelligence failure, of an intelligence community blinded by "group think," false assumptions and unreliable human sources.

Yet the tale of the tubes, pieced together through records and interviews with senior intelligence officers, nuclear experts, administration officials and Congressional investigators, reveals a different failure.

Far from "group think," American nuclear and intelligence experts argued bitterly over the tubes. A "holy war" is how one Congressional investigator described it. But if the opinions of the nuclear experts were seemingly disregarded at every turn, an overwhelming momentum gathered behind the C.I.A. assessment. It was a momentum built on a pattern of haste, secrecy, ambiguity, bureaucratic maneuver and a persistent failure in the Bush administration and among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to ask hard questions.

Precisely how knowledge of the intelligence dispute traveled through the upper reaches of the administration is unclear. Ms. Rice knew about the debate before her Sept. 2002 CNN appearance, but only learned of the alternative rocket theory of the tubes soon afterward, according to two senior administration officials. President Bush learned of the debate at roughly the same time, a senior administration official said.

Last week, when asked about the tubes, administration officials said they relied on repeated assurances by George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, that the tubes were in fact for centrifuges. They also noted that the intelligence community, including the Energy Department, largely agreed that Mr. Hussein had revived his nuclear program.

"These judgments sometimes require members of the intelligence community to make tough assessments about competing interpretations of facts," said Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the president.

Don't play stupid. It's not very hard to manipulate a message. Of course since this was used to sell the 'imminent' threat howcould anybody say no?

You can take back you the necessity of the mass conspiracy for Bush and Cheney to fudge things a bit.

forgot the linky..
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html

Crookshanks

04-18-2009, 03:26 PM

ChumpDumper

04-18-2009, 03:29 PM

Eh, I think many Iraqis are just waiting for us to leave so they can get on with their ethnic cleansing and civil war.

clambake

04-18-2009, 03:34 PM

Why must we keep harping on the same tired old arguments? We're never going to convince you and you're never going to convince us - you think the Bush administration lied and the Iraq war was needless; we think Bush made the best decisions possible with the intel at hand and that Saddam Hussein was a threat and needed to be dealt with.
colin powell said " the evidence that led us to war was deliberately misleading".

So how about we put this to bed for good?
how about we put you to sleep.

There are plenty of other things to discuss and argue about than a 6-year old war!
not from you. i listen to the same talkies you do. how do you like life as a parrot?

pssst - I think the Iraqis are glad we took care of Saddam. They have a higher opinion of Bush than many Americans! There is absolutely no way they want to go back to life under Saddam and his sadistic, raping sons!
here you go again...........talking for all people throughout the world.

MannyIsGod

04-18-2009, 08:22 PM

Why must we keep harping on the same tired old arguments? We're never going to convince you and you're never going to convince us - you think the Bush administration lied and the Iraq war was needless; we think Bush made the best decisions possible with the intel at hand and that Saddam Hussein was a threat and needed to be dealt with.

So how about we put this to bed for good? There are plenty of other things to discuss and argue about than a 6-year old war!

pssst - I think the Iraqis are glad we took care of Saddam. They have a higher opinion of Bush than many Americans! There is absolutely no way they want to go back to life under Saddam and his sadistic, raping sons!

:lol @ the thought of putting the greatest blunder in American Foreign policy in my life time to bed. And yeah, they made the best decisions with the intelligence they happened to cherry pick and make up along the way.

You can actually put the subject to bed when you acknowledge what 90% of our country already has. The war was unnecessary, stupid, and hurt us in the long run.

MannyIsGod

04-18-2009, 08:24 PM

Here are some divering lines if I've ever seen them

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/issue-rdwt.php

Jacob1983

04-18-2009, 11:10 PM

Okay, here we go. I never called Obama a ######. While Bush was the president, he economy sucking was his fault. I'm not Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. I can admit 100 percent without a doubt that Bush made a lot of mistakes during his presidency. I can also admit that he did fuck up the economy. However, I believe that Obama is making things worse. Whatever happens from January 20, 2009 and on, is on Obama.

The reason why I ask if Obama is dividing Obama even more is because he bitched so many times during campaign how bad Bush divided America. Obama made it seem like he was going to unite America. Has he united America?

MannyIsGod

04-19-2009, 01:44 AM

DO you even have a definition of unite? When will he have united the country? What is your measuring stick of how divided we are? Please present your analysis

Cant_Be_Faded

04-19-2009, 01:58 AM

Iraq had nothing to do with Saddam being a threat. It was partly to scare the shit out of the muslim world into showing we are not the mortal cowards that are going to run away from a fight they had come to see us as, and partly to capitalize on a chaotic scenario and claim the most strategically important country in the middle east as our own. We pasted the deal with promises of eliminating threats and spreading democracy because they knew conservatives were stupid enough to believe such rhetoric. Republicans being republican by nature, they bit off more than they could chew, despite blatant evidence we were treading dangerous ground. Not unlike a greedy moneywhore scumfuck hedgefund manager acted throughout the course of the current financial situation.

Actually, from a non shortsighted (neocon) perspective, Saddam Hussein was the perfect leader for Iraq. He was secular, kept those barbaric fanatics scared shitless because he ruled with an iron fist, and was already our bitch in every plausible way a middle eastern secular leader of his vein could be. We never wanted to disarm him, and we never even gave him a chance to comply when we were imposing impossible to follow sanctions on his country for the decade between the two Iraq wars. No fucking way al-Sadr, Ahmedinjad, or any of those other shiite fucks get halfway head of steam if Saddam is there to neutralize their fanatic bull shit. Because he knew how to prevent leaders from using the bull shit religion of Islam as a tool to horde human cannon fodder. He controlled them with outright totally total pure brutality, far more effectively than Islam ever can. He was a pragmatic student of the Dad of his ideology, Josef Stalin. But the neocons portrayed him as some fanatic nuke-chunking threat to the US, like the one we are potentially creating in Iran after removing Saddam from the playing field.
Say what you will about republicans and the latest neocon movement, they are absolute masters of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Give me abortion, high taxes, and an overinfluential EPA any time over such stupid stupid squanderings of our global hegemony and status.

Winehole23

04-19-2009, 02:52 AM

C_B_F, blitzing linebacker. Come strong or don't come at all.

Winehole23

04-19-2009, 02:52 AM

Next blitzer...

Winehole23

04-19-2009, 03:02 AM

When the country was united after 9/11, we did a lot of dumb things in a hurry. I'm not so sure the unity is good for us. It's overrated IMO.

Power causes division. It's unavoidable, even with the best of intentions. I don't quite understand why *creating division* is a gripe. It seems like a commonplace to me. It's a common outcome of policy..

dav4463

04-19-2009, 03:03 AM

You know this is like complaining about the season the Lakers just had because they didn't win every single game. Obama's presidency is off to a great start especially when you consider the circumstances under which he took office.

What circumstances under which he took office?

He was pre-ordained to be president by the real first lady, the all-knowing, all-seeing, cult leader that is Oprah Winfrey. He was and is loved by a media who loves him just as much as they hate Bush. His questionable associations mean nothing to people because he is a "cool" presidential candidate.

You want to talk about circumstances. Try entering the office of president as two huge planes crash into the WTC and another one crashes into the Pentagon. Those are real circumstances.

Obama is handled with kid gloves. He is the new Messiah. He is King. All hail KIng Obama.

ChumpDumper

04-19-2009, 03:40 AM

You want to talk about circumstances. Try entering the office of president as two huge planes crash into the WTC and another one crashes into the Pentagon. Those are real circumstances.That was eight months after Bush took office, dumbass.

He is the new Messiah. He is King. All hail KIng Obama.The mantra of the butthurt.

dav4463

04-19-2009, 05:51 AM

That was eight months after Bush took office, dumbass.

The mantra of the butthurt.

Wow, a whole freaking 8 months! I guess that isn't considered to be early in the presidency.

dumbass.

MiamiHeat

04-19-2009, 06:39 AM

Cry Havoc

04-19-2009, 09:58 AM

Wow, a whole freaking 8 months! I guess that isn't considered to be early in the presidency.

dumbass.

That's a heck of a lot longer than it took the conservatives to decide that Obama is the worst person in the world who's going to lead America to certain doom.

clambake

04-19-2009, 10:55 AM

What circumstances under which he took office?

He was pre-ordained to be president by the real first lady, the all-knowing, all-seeing, cult leader that is Oprah Winfrey. He was and is loved by a media who loves him just as much as they hate Bush. His questionable associations mean nothing to people because he is a "cool" presidential candidate.

You want to talk about circumstances. Try entering the office of president as two huge planes crash into the WTC and another one crashes into the Pentagon. Those are real circumstances.

Obama is handled with kid gloves. He is the new Messiah. He is King. All hail KIng Obama.

:lmao well, well, well, are the resident forum republicans impressed with their new addition? :lmao

MannyIsGod

04-19-2009, 01:20 PM

8 months was enough time to ignore the warning signs of 9/11. Shit - it was 9 days short of 9 months. How many times did they blow off the warnings in that time?

ChumpDumper

04-19-2009, 02:12 PM

Try entering the office of president as two huge planes crash into the WTC and another one crashes into the Pentagon.
Wow, a whole freaking 8 months! I guess that isn't considered to be early in the presidency.It's considered eight months after he entered office.

If you need help next time, call this guy.

http://www.uncountedthemovie.com/images/goalposts.jpg

Ignignokt

04-19-2009, 02:22 PM

It would shock me if you were over 15 years old.

Bush's approval rating in October of 2001: 92%.

You're wrong. Shut up.

that's quite dishonest of you, i didn't know bush's term began in sept 0f 01.

until obama has had anything like 911 happened to him, then your point is moot.

PixelPusher

04-19-2009, 02:29 PM

that's quite dishonest of you, i didn't know bush's term began in sept 0f 01.

until obama has had anything like 911 happened to him, then your point is moot.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/xrpwgramtuk2hrx66nttna.gif

That's pre-9/11

ChumpDumper

04-19-2009, 02:32 PM

Bush has the interesting distinction of uniting America for and against him.

Cant_Be_Faded

04-19-2009, 07:33 PM

Just like his inbred father united americans against muslims and muslims against americans

888

04-19-2009, 08:40 PM

He got elected because he's a ######. And guy with the stupid sunglasses avatar, you're so pretentious and defensive it's not even funny. I registered to say that, see ya.

ChumpDumper

04-19-2009, 09:47 PM

You mean you created a sock puppet to say that. See ya next screen name.

Cant_Be_Faded

04-19-2009, 11:30 PM

He got elected because he's a ######. And guy with the stupid sunglasses avatar, you're so pretentious and defensive it's not even funny. I registered to say that, see ya.

ROFLROFLROFL

can i quote this and not get into trouble? i don't want to get delcidkellered again.

chumpdumper has been DUMPED. Time to move from bill gates to steve jobs avatar

George Gervin's Afro

04-20-2009, 08:27 AM

He got elected because he's a ######. And guy with the stupid sunglasses avatar, you're so pretentious and defensive it's not even funny. I registered to say that, see ya.

Well you got your one post worth. I have a feeling you were at one of the tea bag parties. Just a hunch..:lmao

Winehole23

04-20-2009, 09:16 AM

so you blame unity because the leader was a moron and abused it?

nice logic.We allowed him to abuse it, so yes.

Blake

04-20-2009, 10:56 AM

this thread is all over the place.

are Obama haters dividing this board even more?

Cry Havoc

04-20-2009, 11:29 AM

this thread is all over the place.

are Obama haters dividing this board even more?

Don't say that; you'll make them happy.

Illuminati

04-20-2009, 11:40 AM

He got elected because he's a ######.

So Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are really dark skinned Puerto Ricans?

Winehole23

04-20-2009, 12:05 PM

So Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are really dark skinned Puerto Ricans? Where others see evidence of race, this man sees a suntan (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE4A66FA20081107):

http://greatersurbiton.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/berlusconi.jpg

RandomGuy

04-20-2009, 12:37 PM

Obama derangement syndrome

The president is driving some people mad. That may be to his advantage in the short term

Illustration by KAL
BY MOST people’s standards Barack Obama has had an excellent week. He enjoyed a counter-Carter moment when navy commandos rescued an American hostage, leaving three kidnappers dead. He gave a measured speech on the economy. And, to cap it all, he gave his daughters a Portuguese water dog named “Bo”. What’s not to like?

Plenty, according to some people. Mr Obama may be widely admired both at home and abroad. But there are millions of Americans who do not like the cut of his jib—and a few whose dislike boils over into white-hot hatred. The American Spectator, which came of age demonising the Clintons, has run an article on its website on Mr Obama entitled “Il Duce, Redux?” The internet crackles with comparisons between Mr Obama and various dictators (Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini) or assorted psychotics (Charles Manson and David Koresh). When Jonah Goldberg, a conservative pundit, praised Mr Obama over the dispatching of the Somali pirates, his e-mail inbox immediately overflowed, he said, with “snark and bile”.

A recent Pew poll showed that public opinion about Mr Obama is sharply divided along party lines. Some 88% of Democrats approve of the job that he is doing compared with only 27% of Republicans. The approval gap between the two parties is actually bigger than it was for George Bush in April 2001. Bush loyalists, led by Karl Rove, have duly over-interpreted this poll in order to soften their former boss’s reputation as America’s most divisive president. Today’s Republican base is significantly smaller than the Democratic base was in 2001, so surviving Republicans are more likely to have hard-core views. But there are nevertheless enough people out there who dislike the president to constitute a significant force in political life.

As The Economist went to press, the bestselling book in the United States was Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny”. Mr Levin frequently denounces Mr Obama on his radio show as an exponent of the second of those two qualities. The new sensation in the world of cable is Fox News’s Glenn Beck, who has already attracted 2.2m regular viewers since his show was launched in January. Mr Beck recently apologised to his viewers for saying that Mr Obama’s America is on the path to “socialism” when it is really on the march to fascism. Media Matters, a left-wing organisation that monitors the media, reports that, since the inauguration, “there have been over 3,000 references to socialism, fascism or communism” in describing the president.

Rush Limbaugh claims that he has seen an uptick in his audience since he announced that he hopes that Mr Obama fails. He has no time for the idea that all Americans should wish their president well (“We are being told that we have to hope Obama succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles…because his father was black”). Mr Limbaugh is not the ankle-grabbing type. He has also added Robert Mugabe to the list of people to whom Mr Obama can be likened.

Why are some people so angry? For all his emollient manner and talk of “post partisanship”, Mr Obama is just as much an embodiment of liberal America as Mr Bush was of conservative America—an Ivy League-educated lawyer who became a community organiser before launching a political career in one of America’s most cosmopolitan and corrupt big cities, Chicago. Mr Obama almost lost the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton because of his lack of rapport with white working-class voters. In the general election he did worse than Michael Dukakis in the Appalachian states of Kentucky and West Virginia.

Tough times make for tougher talk
The economic crisis has transformed this cultural suspicion into a much more potent political force. It is true that Mr Obama’s solution to the recession—spending public money in order to stimulate demand and trying to prevent a run on the banks—is supported by most economists. Mr Bush would have done much the same thing. But it is nevertheless driving many Americans crazy. April 15th—the last day on which Americans can perform the melancholy duty of filing their tax returns—saw rallies (dubbed “tea parties” after the Boston one) in every state, 500 or so in all. The protesters, some of whom dressed in three-cornered hats and waved “Don’t tread on me” flags, repeated a litany of criticisms that has been mounting since Mr Obama won the election—that he is a big government socialist (or fascist) who wants to take people’s money away and crush their freedoms.

It is hard to judge so early in the game what the rise of anti-Obama sentiment means for the Obama presidency. Bush-hatred eventually spread from a molten core of leftists to set the cultural tone of the country. But Obama-hatred could just as easily do the opposite and brand all conservatives as a bunch of Obama-hating cranks.

What is clear is that the rapid replacement of Bush-hatred with Obama-hatred is not healthy for American politics, particularly given the president’s dual role as leader of his party and head of state. A majority of Republicans (56%) approved of Jimmy Carter’s job performance in late March 1977. A majority of Democrats (55%) approved of Richard Nixon’s job performance at a comparable point in his first term. But today polarisation is almost instant, thanks in part to the growing role of non-negotiable issues such as abortion in American politics, in part to the rise of a media industry based on outrage, and in part to a cycle of tit-for-tat demonisation. This is not only poisoning American political life. It is making it ever harder to solve problems that require cross-party collaboration such as reforming America’s health-care system or its pensions. Unfortunately, the Glenn Becks of this world are more than just a joke.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13496418

RandomGuy

04-20-2009, 12:41 PM

Obama derangement syndrome

It is hard to judge so early in the game what the rise of anti-Obama sentiment means for the Obama presidency. Bush-hatred eventually spread from a molten core of leftists to set the cultural tone of the country. But Obama-hatred could just as easily do the opposite and brand all conservatives as a bunch of Obama-hating cranks.

We can only hope.

Certainly the spittle-flecked invectives I have seen here qualify for that.

Seems to me like what passes for "conservative" is coming to mean "cranky hack".

Winehole23

04-20-2009, 01:01 PM

Mirror, Mirror (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708438/).

http://www.lothere.com/verso/images/1085/mirror_mirror.jpg

http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/wp-content/sulu-wiht-sword.jpg

Winehole23

04-20-2009, 01:02 PM

http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mirror.jpg

Winehole23

04-20-2009, 01:04 PM

http://www.noiselabs.com/blog/images/mirror_spock_mccoy.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.noiselabs.com/blog/images/mirror_spock_mccoy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.noiselabs.com/blog/category/pure-geekery/&usg=__J-0u4FCfYEHFLdehUAeW_NSw94k=&h=468&w=624&sz=44&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=6Fj2NLg75NFDhM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmirror,%2Bmirror%2Bevil%2Bspock%26hl% 3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1)

Winehole23

04-20-2009, 01:06 PM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CHdtrg0hmVo/RrjgfFOK2lI/AAAAAAAAAHU/KIuW9QZi2fA/s400/mirror-18.jpg

Winehole23

04-20-2009, 01:32 PM

http://images.cnhi.zope.net/images_sizedimage_172234521/lg

Winehole23

04-20-2009, 01:34 PM

http://members.tripod.com/makeitsomarketing/PICSTARTREKTOSBLUNAMARLENAFORBLOG.jpg

Winehole23

04-20-2009, 01:37 PM

http://www.suncommunitynewspapers.com/uploads/images/053008/Briefs/Star-trek-Threesome.jpg

Winehole23

04-20-2009, 01:42 PM

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2028/2179835335_8aa42edaeb.jpg

Winehole23

04-20-2009, 01:45 PM

http://trekmovie.com/images/dstmirmm.jpg

PixelPusher

04-20-2009, 01:52 PM

http://members.tripod.com/makeitsomarketing/PICSTARTREKTOSBLUNAMARLENAFORBLOG.jpg

lol...I wish TV would bring back some of the old cinematography cheese. Nothing says "romance" like a lens smeared with vasoline.

DarrinS

04-20-2009, 01:54 PM

Obama derangement syndrome

BY MOST people’s standards Barack Obama has had an excellent week. He enjoyed a counter-Carter moment when navy commandos rescued an American hostage, leaving three kidnappers dead. He gave a measured speech on the economy. And, to cap it all, he gave his daughters a Portuguese water dog named “Bo”. What’s not to like?

This is a great example of how you start off a powder puff piece.

Marcus Bryant

04-20-2009, 01:59 PM

This is a great example of how you start off a powder puff piece.

But, it was in The Economist...

PixelPusher

04-20-2009, 02:04 PM

This is a great example of how you start off a powder puff piece.

yeah, but having to cite a poll each and every time you say "most" gets tedious after a while...

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/7rgbix-vyeiwas4rbgbj1q.gif

...at some point you have to assume it's common knowledge that Obama enjoys the majority of popular support.

RandomGuy

04-20-2009, 04:27 PM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CHdtrg0hmVo/RrjgfFOK2lI/AAAAAAAAAHU/KIuW9QZi2fA/s400/mirror-18.jpg

The guy on the left was gay, and the chick on the right was likely a fling of the shows creator. Nichelle was HOT. Can't blame ol' Gene for that one. :toast

RandomGuy

04-20-2009, 04:35 PM

This is a great example of how you start off a powder puff piece.

This is a great example of a non sequitur that completely avoids addressing anything in the article.

WTF is your point?

DarrinS

04-20-2009, 04:47 PM

This is a great example of a non sequitur that completely avoids addressing anything in the article.

WTF is your point?

My point was that the opening paragraph didn't make me want to read on.

MannyIsGod

04-21-2009, 01:48 AM

Still waiting for Jacob to quantify the division.

DarkReign

04-21-2009, 10:58 AM

I dont need to read another post beyond the OP.

One word:

No.

Supergirl

04-21-2009, 12:11 PM

America *IS* divided. Obama is attempting to bring disparate sides together around common interests, something Bush did not even try to do.

But America is divided. Neither Obama or Bush is responsible for how divided we are, and only we can come together.

The primary divisions are not racial, but economic and religious. The differences between the haves and the have-nots in this country are stark. As are the differences between those who want this country to operate like a theocracy, and those who want us to retain the secular, pluralistic identity that has sustained us for hundreds of years.

RandomGuy

04-21-2009, 01:06 PM

My point was that the opening paragraph didn't make me want to read on.

Then skip ahead to the next bit, Mr. Confirmation Bias:

What’s not to like?

Plenty, according to some people

It was simply a neutral take on American reaction to the new president, not exactly a "puff piece" on the administration, and quite relevant in its analysis to the thread topic.

I find it rather revealing that you seem to imply that you won't read any article that might say something good about the administration. Well, maybe not really revealing, but certainly sadly stereotypical.

Jacob1983

04-21-2009, 01:24 PM

I'm not gonna answer because I already gave an answer. You just didn't like it. You didn't like it because your blinded by Obama. Some people are so loyal and blinded by their political party and ideologies that they can't see the truth.

RandomGuy

04-21-2009, 02:10 PM

Winehole23

04-21-2009, 02:27 PM

and this is in response to...? Who exactly?another one of micca's sock puppets muttering to itself, probably.

cf. FaithInOne and hope4dopes.

jack sommerset

04-21-2009, 03:40 PM

Hell yes he is dividing our country. He says he is open to "prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics."

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 03:47 PM

You seem easily excited. The last time I checked a poll about it, the majority of Americans considered waterboarding torture and thought America shouldn't practice it.

jack sommerset

04-21-2009, 03:50 PM

You seem easily excited. The last time I checked a poll about it, the majority of Americans considered waterboarding torture and thought America shouldn't practice it.

I seem easily excited. :lol Well I am not.

So you seem okay with prosecuting the former administration?

PixelPusher

04-21-2009, 03:52 PM

Oh, I get it...the more Jacob1983 and jack sommerset's views are relegated to the minority of popular opinion, the more "divided" America becomes.

jack sommerset

04-21-2009, 03:54 PM

I am okay with the USA cutting the balls off a suspected terrorist if they think, thats THINK they are a threat to the country. The wheels come off when the USA knows the person they are interogating has information that could save lives. Waterboarding. Thats for pussys!

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 03:58 PM

I seem easily excited. :lol Well I am not.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you seem okay with prosecuting the former administration?Depends on whom and what they did.

So you seem to favor blanket immunity no matter what anyone did?

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 03:59 PM

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 04:03 PM

So is it better to improve intelligence collection methods and simply employ more lethal force on the battlefield?

jack sommerset

04-21-2009, 04:03 PM

Depends on whom and what they did.

So you seem to favor blanket immunity no matter what anyone did?

Face it Chump...Obama is no leader. Times are tough for him and when times are tough what does he do......BUSH.BUSH.BUSH

jack sommerset

04-21-2009, 04:05 PM

I suggest you get waterboarded 186 times and let us know how it went.

The thing is Chump, if that pussy tactic was done to me, I could tell you all about it.

whottt

04-21-2009, 04:06 PM

He hasn't done shit yet, good or bad, it's just the liberals aren't bitching about Bush 24/7, there aren't as many bitchy conservatives on the internet as there liberals and media is largely in the pocket of his administration so it seems like things have calmed down. I woudn't say he's sucked...but he damn sure hasn't done anything to increase his approval rating. He's only been in office for like 3 months...I don't even think Bush had pissed off Europe and China yet by this point in his Presidency.

It's really too early to sit around pointing at what's he's done right or wrong and not be talking completely out of your partisan ass...

Well ok, I guess it is ok to bitch about not getting the $1000 bucks we poor were promised by his doubletaking ass. There is that...

And BTW you guys sound so fucking stupid acting like the white racists didn't vote for Obama...the real ones voted for him, they wanted to wake up white America and consider them just as much a problem as the minorities. Obama pulled the extremist vote, bigtime.

But it's still going to take time before he does something you can actually judge him on...good or bad.

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 04:06 PM

Face it Chump...Obama is no leader. Times are tough for him and when times are tough what does he do......BUSH.BUSH.BUSHFace it Jack. You just changed the subject. Times are tough for you and what do you do when times are tough what do you do......CHANGE THE SUBJECT.CHANGE THE SUBJECT.CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 04:08 PM

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 04:09 PM

And BTW you guys sound so fucking stupid acting like the white racists didn't vote for Obama...the real ones voted for him, they wanted to wake up white America and consider them just as much a problem as the minorities. Obama pulled the extremist vote, bigtime.

I think it's more likely that he pulled the vote of prejudiced whites who were more interested in the goodies he promised than exercising their racism at the polls.

whottt

04-21-2009, 04:10 PM

I, like the majority of this country, supported Bush's Iraq ar because we were told they were an imminent threat. They had mobile bio labs. Rummy told us we knew where the wmds were, around Tikrit he said. Condi told us that we could see a mushroom cloud from all f Saddam's wmds.... S yeah he lost me when most of the stuff to justify the war was bull shit. My intial thought was it was too soon after 9/11 but Bush told us that we couldn't wait...

You actually supported going into Iraq and have done nothing but bitch about is since?

What a douchebag you are...not only for thinking the reasons stated were the reasons we went in, but for not realizing what the fallout would be after doing it, even if we had found WMD.

I saw it coming from a mile off...which is why I was deadset against going into Iraq, until we went in, and then the only people we were hurting by bitching about it were the ones on our side or who we were trying to help.

whottt

04-21-2009, 04:12 PM

:lol

We missed these takes. :toast

Laugh all you want...it's just funny that you have stereotyped racists. You stereotyper you. The White Nationalists wanted Obama to win...oh wait, you think they were in love with McCain's immigration stance right?

jack sommerset

04-21-2009, 04:14 PM

Face it Jack. You just changed the subject. Times are tough for you and what do you do when times are tough what do you do......CHANGE THE SUBJECT.CHANGE THE SUBJECT.CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

No Chump, that is the subject. Thats Obama. Still campaigning in a way, Noway in hell they will prosecute the Bush Admnistration for "torture". Its his way to divert attention away from his shitty job. And that amigo is dividing the country.

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 04:15 PM

No Chump, that is the subject. Thats Obama. Still campaigning in a way, Noway in hell they will prosecute the Bush Admnistration for "torture". Its his way to divert attention away from his shitty job. And that amigo is dividing the country.So you are for blanket immunity no matter what anyone may have done.

whottt

04-21-2009, 04:15 PM

I think it's more likely that he pulled the vote of prejudiced whites who were more interested in the goodies he promised than exercising their racism at the polls.

I'd say there was a split at about the Klan level, everyone to the right of the Klan went for Obama though....and there are more of them.

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 04:16 PM

Laugh all you want...it's just funny that you have stereotyped racists. You stereotyper you. The White Nationalists wanted Obama to win...oh wait, you think they were in love with McCain's immigration stance right?:lol

I just like the fact that you are still trying to explain why you were so horribly wrong about the election.

Blake

04-21-2009, 04:16 PM

And BTW you guys sound so fucking stupid acting like the white racists didn't vote for Obama...the real ones voted for him, they wanted to wake up white America and consider them just as much a problem as the minorities. Obama pulled the extremist vote, bigtime.

holy cow.

real white racists voted for Obama in order to wake up white America?

holy cow.

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 04:17 PM

I'd say there was a split at about the Klan level, everyone to the right of the Klan went for Obama though....and there are more of them.

I'm thinking of the, um, "populist" whites. The Klan seems like a more overt form of the British National Party here in the US, and even less popular.

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 04:17 PM

I'd say there was a split at about the Klan level, everyone to the right of the Klan went for Obama though....and there are more of them.And you are intimately familiar with these people, right?

That's how you know, right?

Blake

04-21-2009, 04:17 PM

whottt

04-21-2009, 04:18 PM

And you are intimately familiar with these people, right?

That's how you know, right?

Sure...they have forums too. Like I said befor Obama even got elected...Ron Paul's platform reads like almost identical to the KKK manifesto, that's about where the split occurred. The true racists wanted Obama win...they feel like they are losing the war and need something to increase their numbers.

Blake

04-21-2009, 04:19 PM

Sure...they have forums too.

what's the name of one of these forums?

what's your user name over there?

I gotta see this.

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 04:19 PM

Sure...they have forums too.
:rollin

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 04:19 PM

Post of the Year.

whottt

04-21-2009, 04:22 PM

what's the name of one of these forums?

Are you too stupid to google and search them or what?

You think I'm lying that they exist or something?

what's your user name over there?

I gotta see this.

I never said I posted over there...

Just because I read what they have to say and know what their stance is doesn't mean I endorse it..

I mean I read what the idiots in this forum say too...doesn't mean I agree with them.

jack sommerset

04-21-2009, 04:30 PM

So you are for blanket immunity no matter what anyone may have done.

:lol Yet another question you know the answer to. You are like that cheap ass salesman that ask questions he knows all the answer to and the questions have no reason being in the conversation and at the end of the sales pitch "well you can see there is no reason why you should not by this lump of shit from me" Thats what you are selling. Shit.

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 04:32 PM

:lol Yet another question you know the answer to. You are like that cheap ass salesman that ask questions he knows all the answer to and the questions have no reason being in the conversation and at the end of the sales pitch "well you can see there is no reason why you should not by this lump of shit from me" Thats what you are selling. Shit.I see a lot of words but no answer.

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 04:35 PM

whottt

04-21-2009, 04:35 PM

I'm thinking of the, um, "populist" whites. The Klan seems like a more overt form of the British National Party here in the US, and even less popular.

I'm talking about the white supremacists that want a race war or hard racial segregation. They felt an Obama win would increase their members...

Which it did BTW, although not to the degree that they were hoping most likely.

Additionally they also felt like electing him would get us out of Iraq, which is pretty much something every white supremacist organization in the country wanted.

Cast apersions on that cocksuckers.

White blood being spilled to help a bunch of jews?

Yeah...the Neo Nazis absolutely love that we're doing that.

I hate to say it but you guys don't know your racial supremacists at all.

whottt

04-21-2009, 04:39 PM

Whottt the fuck are we doing talking about the Klan? I mean, it's certainly plausible that prejudiced whites put their dislike/hate/whatever on the back burner and voted for Obama based on his proposed fiscal policies. But then the ante must be upped and KlanTalk.com visited....

The Klan is not shit on the scale of the racial supremacist movement, and they probably qualify as a watered down PC version.....they were largely split on it.

Blake

04-21-2009, 04:40 PM

Are you too stupid to google and search them or what?

You think I'm lying that they exist or something?

I believe you. :lol

I have no need to read KKK forums.

I mean I read what the idiots in this forum say too...doesn't mean I agree with them.

Obviously you feel the need to read KKK forums.

Please copy/paste the thread you saw that said they all wanted to vote for Obama in order to wake up the rest of white America.

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 04:45 PM

The Klan is not shit on the scale of the racial supremacist movement, and they probably qualify as a watered down PC version.....they were largely split on it.

I'm referring to the run of the mill working class whites who dislike/hate other races but who don't exhibit the mental illness necessary to join the Klan or whatever similar group and who don't consider themselves white supremacists. It would seem to be a larger group.

whottt

04-21-2009, 04:47 PM

I believe you. :lol

I have no need to read KKK forums.

I do...and more than that.

Obviously you feel the need to read KKK forums.

Yeap, I do feel the need to do that....at times.

Please copy/paste the thread you saw that said they all wanted to vote for Obama in order to wake up the rest of white America.

Google it...

jack sommerset

04-21-2009, 04:48 PM

95 percent of black people voted for Obama. That sounds racist to me.

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 04:48 PM

I do...and more than that.You wear hoods and robes and burn crosses.

clambake

04-21-2009, 04:49 PM

bizzaro excuses re-emerge.

ahhhh the good times are back.

PixelPusher

04-21-2009, 04:51 PM

95 percent of black people voted for Obama. That sounds racist to me.

100% of white people voted for a white guy in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992...doy, der, duh. :dizzy

Blake

04-21-2009, 04:52 PM

Google it...

what the hell is the deal with posters today making stupid claims but instead of linking after a source request, they tell me to go look it up.

Lazy ass idiots.

LnGrrrR

04-21-2009, 04:56 PM

The thing is Chump, if that pussy tactic was done to me, I could tell you all about it.

LOL

It's so easy to talk tough on the internet.

Gonna find where I live to beat me up? :D

whottt

04-21-2009, 04:57 PM

I'm referring to the run of the mill working class whites who dislike/hate other races but who don't exhibit the mental illness necessary to join the Klan or whatever similar group and who don't consider themselves white supremacists.

Oh well...there are groups of people like that in every racial demographic and gender for that matter.

I doubt you can really consider those guys racists, at least no more than the mexicans, Arabs, Jews, Men, Women, Blacks etc that have the same attributes.

It would seem to be a larger group.
It would also not really be a true racist group...which was my point. My point is that the real racists supported Obama, on both sides of the political spectrum...

And they also were universally in favor of pulling out of Iraq.

jack sommerset

04-21-2009, 04:59 PM

100% of white people voted for a white guy in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992...doy, der, duh. :dizzy

Really? doy,der,dun! This is the first time we had a black man on the Presidental ticket. Its was pretty obvious black republicans did not stick with there party. Seems pretty obvious they went with there color and that is racist.

jack sommerset

04-21-2009, 05:00 PM

LOL

It's so easy to talk tough on the internet.

Gonna find where I live to beat me up? :D

idiot. noone is talking about beating anyone up. u have absolutly no reason to come up with that conclusion.

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 05:01 PM

My point is that the real racists supported Obama, on both sides of the political spectrum...

And they also were universally in favor of pulling out of Iraq.You took a poll?

Seems like you spent a lot of time researching this. Perhaps you can quantify your claims. Surely you didn't just make up a bunch of bullshit after reading a couple of posts on AryanTalk.

whottt

04-21-2009, 05:04 PM

You wear hoods and robes and burn crosses.

Coming from a Bush Iraq War supporter like yourself, that's hilarious.

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 05:05 PM

Coming from a Bush Iraq War supporter like yourself, that's hilarious.You said you did more.

Nice attempt to change the subject though. :tu

PixelPusher

04-21-2009, 05:06 PM

Really? doy,der,dun! This is the first time we had a black man on the Presidental ticket. Its was pretty obvious black republicans did not stick with there party. Seems pretty obvious they went with there color and that is racist.

Where you among the 54% of white voters who voted for Obama? No, you weren't? You voted for the white guy instead?

I don't know...sounds kinda racist to me - doy, der, duh!

whottt

04-21-2009, 05:06 PM

what the hell is the deal with posters today making stupid claims but instead of linking after a source request, they tell me to go look it up.

Lazy ass idiots.

You're the lazy one...you are the ones wants someone else to do something for you.

I'll tell you what, you pay me to do it, and I will copy and paste it for you. I'm not opposed to free education for the ignorant you see, just wasting my time on hopeless crusades.

whottt

04-21-2009, 05:09 PM

You said you did more.

And naturally, when presented with multiple paths, you chose the stupidest one...as usual.

Nice attempt to change the subject though. :tu

Change the subject to what from what?

jack sommerset

04-21-2009, 05:10 PM

Where you among the 54% of white voters who voted for Obama? No, you weren't? You voted for the white guy instead?

I don't know...sounds kinda racist to me - doy, der, duh!

Every black guy that voted for Obama is not racist. Sorry if you think thats what I meant. 95 percent though,can't be ignored. I am just saying there are lot more racist black people out there then are reported. Its my way to point out to black people racism goes both ways.

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 05:11 PM

And naturally, when presented with multiple paths, you chose the stupidest one...as usual.Tell us all what you mean by more. Explain your extensive research regarding white supremacists groups and your motivations for said research.

Change the subject to what from what?Your stupid claims you pulled out of your ass to me.

Winehole23

04-21-2009, 05:24 PM

Every black guy that voted for Obama is not racist. Sorry if you think thats what I meant. 95 percent though,can't be ignored. I am just saying there are lot more racist black people out there then are reported. Its my way to point out to black people racism goes both ways.Sincerely,

jack sommerset,

honorary African-American, self awarded:lobt2:

whottt

04-21-2009, 05:26 PM

Tell us all what you mean by more. Explain your extensive research regarding white supremacists groups and your motivations for said research.

Well since you asked nicely....I researched way more intense groups than run of the mill KKK bullshit, on both sides of the political spectrum.

The primary reason I did so is because I was frankly astounded by the number of racist liberals that ad-hoc labled mid-easterners as savages that could never live in a Westernized society...ST form stalwarts like boutons, Nbadan and exstatic for instance.

I mean those are pretty racist stereotypical statements right? I mean, "they're savages"...sounds exactly like the rationale for slavery in this country a few centuries ago.

I know I know...but they hated Bush and call Republicans racist so it's different when they do it...a free pass if you will.

This absolutely hypochrisy/complte blindness of these supposed liberals was curious to me and prompted me to begin researching all racial supremacists movements to see what other similarities I might find...and I found a great many, a stunning amount. Not just between more extremist types of libs, but also between racial nationalist movements of all types...I think in some cases these guys actually want to work together.

But I started by looking into the Ron Paul platform after noticing the similarities between the Ron Paul platform and KKK political agenda when the KKK came out to refute a report they supported Obama at the organiuzational level. I figured out pretty quickly that the KKK is largely impotent(and not really much in agreement with each other on anything) as any sort of unity movement and began searching out for more militant movements, and boy did I find a great many of them.

Your stupid claims you pulled out of your ass to me.

Well by you guys own admission you don't read any white supremacist forums, you just sit back and call Republicans racists and pat yourselfs on the back for your cleverness

I admittedly do read them, something no one seems to be questioning, as they attempt to label me a racist for doing so, so obviously, I am more informed on this than you are...and of the two of us you are the one talkng out of your ass...

Unless of course you read white supremacist forums as well...

So do ya?

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 05:32 PM

Well since you asked nicely....I researched way more intense groups than run of the mill KKK bullshit, on both sides of the political spectrum.

The primary reason I did so is because I was frankly astounded by the number of racist liberals that ad-hoc labled mid-easterners as savages that could never live in a Westernized society...ST form stalwarts like boutons, Nbadan and exstatic for instance.

I mean those are pretty racist stereotypical statements right? I mean, "they're savages"...sounds exactly like the rationale for slavery in this country a few centuries ago.

I know I know...but they hated Bush and call Republicans racist so it's different when they do it...a free pass if you will.

This absolutely hypochrisy/complte blindness of these supposed liberals was curious to me and prompted me to begin researching all racial supremacists movements to see what other similarities I might find...and I found a great many, a stunning amount. Not just between more extremist types of libs, but also between racial nationalist movements of all types...I think in some cases these guys actually want to work together.

But I started by looking into the Ron Paul platform after noticing the similarities between the Ron Paul platform and KKK political agenda when the KKK came out to refute a report they supported Obama at the organiuzational level. I figured out pretty quickly that the KKK is largely impotent(and not really much in agreement with each other on anything) as any sort of unity movement and began searching out for more militant movements, and boy did I find a great many of them.So SpursTalk made you research white racists.

There is no emoticon that can express how funny that is.

Well by you guys own admission you don't read any white supremacist forums, you just sit back and call Republicans racists and pat yourselfs on the back for your clevernessWhen did i do that?

Link, please.

I admitted do read them something no one seems to be questioning, as they attempt to label me a racist for doing so, so obviously, I am more informed on this than you are...and of the two of us you are the one talkng out of your ass...

Unless of course you read white supremacist forums as well...

So do ya?I freely admit that you read racist forums more than I -- for whatever reason, you want to read them.

I take issue with your claims that their feelings about Iraq and voting for Obama were indeed "universal" as you claim.

I'm saying you just made those conclusions after reading a few posts on racist message boards and they are neither accurate nor well-researched.

Which is exactly what you are saying you did.

Thanks for proving me right.

whottt

04-21-2009, 05:38 PM

By the way...I want to make this clear, I'm not saying the majority of real racist like Obama, only that they saw more benefit to voting for him than they did for McCain.

And they were why he won...

He was afterall the first candidate in history elected with his race being even part of the voter choice on election day.

But they don't like him...

The guy white racists like the most, extremist and otherwise?

Mr. Ron Paul.

Mabe I should go bump some old Ron Paul threads to see how many guys throwing the race card around here now were in love with him...ideological amigos if you will. Minds thinking alike...along the same paths. All that stuff...

And whatnot...

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 05:40 PM

By the way...I want to make this clear, I'm not saying the majority of real racist like Obama, only that they saw more benefit to voting for him than they did for McCain.

And they were why he won...:lmao

Really, whottt -- I've seen you make excuses for being wrong on this board, but this takes the cake.

It took you five months to come up with this whopper.

whottt

04-21-2009, 05:43 PM

So SpursTalk made you research white racists.

There is no emoticon that can express how funny that is.

Laugh all you want but I'd say the most frquent posters on this forum are right in touch with the stupidity of modern Americans...I mean didn't Obama win all the debates and election polls on this forum?

If you can think of a better microcosm of popular opinion I can find without getting up off my chair, by all means do so.

When did i do that?

Link, please.

I freely admit that you read racist forums more than I -- for whatever reason, you want to read them.

So therefore there's absolutely no way for you to know if I am talking out of my ass or not...which means you were when you accused me of doing so.

I take issue with your claims that their feelings about Iraq and voting for Obama were indeed "universal" as you claim.

I am talking at the organized level of course.

I'm saying you just made those conclusions after reading a few posts on racist message boards and they are neither accurate nor well-researched.

I read organizational charters.....it's a safe assumption that if someone is a member of an organization, they tend to agree with it's charter...

Probably more of educated opinion that you calling anyone doesn't agree with you a racist.

Which is exactly what you are saying you did.

I said nothing of a kind...given a choice you simply chose the stupidest of all paths, as you always do, and then you thaked me for it...also as you always do.

Thanks for proving me right.

You're welcome, as always.

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 05:45 PM

Wait a sec, I thought Obama was the overwhelming choice of white supremacists?

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:01 PM

Wait a sec, I thought Obama was the overwhelming choice of white supremacists?

He definitely was, against MCain at least....they saw nothing to gain from electing a moderate who had an open border stance, not to mention supports wasting American lives to help those damn Jews out....

I swear...you guys need to read more racist forums so you won't be so stupid on the subject....most of them hate the Jews as much if not more than Blacks....it's that whole Aryan thing, yannow?

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 06:01 PM

Laugh all you wantI am.

So therefore there's absolutely no way for you to know if I am talking out of my ass or not...which means you were when you accused me of doing so.You spoke in absolutes based on a few posts on a message board. You are quite clearly talking out of your ass.

I am talking at the organized level of course.Out of your ass of course.

I read organizational charters.....it's a safe assumption that if someone is a member of an organization, they tend to agree with it's charter...Where is voting for Obama in their charter?

Probably more of educated opinion that you calling anyone doesn't agree with you a racist.You have been saving up the straw over these past few months to make more straw men I see.

I said nothing of a kind...given a choice you simply chose the stupidest of all paths, as you always do, and then you thaked me for it...also as you always do.You just said that's all you did. Nice of you to kick your own ass. Makes it easy for me.

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 06:06 PM

He definitely was, against MCain at least....they saw nothing to gain from electing a moderate who had an open border stance, not to mention supports wasting American lives to help those damn Jews out....

So the candidate who would be just as amenable to open borders, if not amnesty, and who was also, oh, I don't know, black, would be preferable?

I swear...you guys need to read more racist forums so you won't be so stupid on the subject....most of them hate the Jews as much if not more than Blacks....it's that whole Aryan thing, yannow?

I'll have to pass on that one, bub.

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:07 PM

I am.

You spoke in absolutes based on a few posts on a message board. You are quite clearly talking out of your ass.

Out of your ass of course.

Where is voting for Obama in their charter?

You have been saving up the straw over these past few months to make more straw men I see.

You just said that's all you did. Nice of you to kick your own ass. Makes it easy for me.

Yes much better if I don't do anything to educate myself on the subject and just stick to calling Republicans racist from a position of complete ignorance, like yourself...

That's so much smarter..and more informed.

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:14 PM

So the candidate who would be just as amenable to open borders, if not amnesty, and who was also, oh, I don't know, black, would be preferable?

Yes...because his election will FINALLY make whites wake up realize it's us against them, that's exactly what their mindset was-is. About as tame as it got was staying home and not voting and letting Obama win that way.

What was to be gained for the white supremacists by the election of McCain?

Is he going to say nice things about them or something?

I'll have to pass on that one, bub.

But of course you will...why waste all that time when you have an inherent natural insight into the racist mind?

You just have to accept that some of us don't have that natural inherenet knowledge.

That goes for you too boutons.

And Chump...

And Blake.

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 06:19 PM

Yes...because his election will FINALLY make whites wake up realize it's us against them, that's exactly what their mindset was-is. About as tame as it got was staying home and not voting and letting Obama win that way.

What was to be gained for the white supremacists by the election of McCain?

Is he going to say nice things about them or something?

Thinking along those lines, if the white man wasn't sufficiently ready to take up arms with two successive African-American secretaries of state who also looked with favor upon Israel, as well as the fact that there is a black and a Jew or two on the Supreme Court, when is he ever going to get worked up?

If the white man is supposed to be concerned about African-Americans in positions of power, he's already had ample opportunity. And voting for McCain would presumably keep the 'natural order' of things in place for at least another four years.

But of course you will...why waste all that time when you have an inherent natural insight into the racist mind?

You just have to accept that some of us don't have that natural inherenet knowledge.

That goes for you too boutons.

And Chump...

And Blake.

I'd much rather speculate than consult the, um, source document, as it were.

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:19 PM

Anyway, sorry to shake up the hive with the statement I read white supremacists forums. I was trying to clearly to hide it.

And the brilliant logic leaves me no place to hide...I mean, I read this forum so I'm therefore a card carrying Obama supporter anti-Iraq warite like the majority of the forum memebers are.

I read LakerGround too...I guess we all know what that means.

Shit...that also means these fans on this board that claim to be fans of other teams are in fact...GASP...Spurfans.

Holy fucking shit...

I always you had a little Silver and Black in ya Clambake.

So, when's the stake burning?

clambake

04-21-2009, 06:19 PM

you guys have no idea the power of trailer trash.

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:23 PM

you guys have no idea the power of trailer trash.

Said the Mavfan on Spurstalk :lol

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 06:24 PM

So a rival basketball team is the same as a racist organization?

clambake

04-21-2009, 06:25 PM

i voted for mccain.......to save your job......remember?

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:26 PM

Thinking along those lines, if the white man wasn't sufficiently ready to take up arms with two successive African-American secretaries of state who also looked with favor upon Israel, as well as the fact that there is a black and a Jew or two on the Supreme Court, when is he ever going to get worked up?

You're kidding right? This is the Presidency we're talking about here.

If the white man is supposed to be concerned about African-Americans in positions of power, he's already had ample opportunity. And voting for McCain would presumably keep the 'natural order' of things in place for at least another four years.

:lmao yeap, he and his female VP...keeping the natural order.

I'd much rather speculate than consult the, um, source document, as it were.

Brilliant approach...because you always learn more about a book by looking at it then actually reading it.

Me? I read the Quran too...I guess we all know my religion now, don't we?

Fuck!

ChumpDumper

04-21-2009, 06:27 PM

Yes much better if I don't do anything to educate myself on the subject and just stick to calling Republicans racist from a position of complete ignorance, like yourself...You keep saying that, but never provide any evidence. Much like your claims about racist organizations.

That's so much smarter..and more informed.I never made up any unsupported claims. Talking out of your ass is not smart. You, however, are trying to make it an art form.

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:28 PM

What do you want me to do? Read them for you?

Why? Ya'll wouldn't believe me if I did.

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:30 PM

How dare whott and his stupid even slightly informed opinion formed from any sort of actual research into white supremacists organizations come in here and challenge our divine opinions that just WERE.

What an asstalker he is.../[looksdownnose]

You guys sure showed me...

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 06:34 PM

You're kidding right? This is the Presidency we're talking about here.

Sure. So why would they support the defiling of that office with a member of one of the races they hate? How is that not cutting off their nose to spite their lily white face? It's odd how racial aesthetes of the first order would do something like that.

:lmao yeap, he and his female VP...keeping the natural order.

So now misogyny is more important than racial purity to those groups?

Brilliant approach...because you always learn more about a book by looking at it then actually reading it.

I read the Quran too...I guess we all know my religion now, don't we?

Fuck!

BFD.

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:36 PM

So a rival basketball team is the same as a racist organization?

By the way Marcus, I want to thank you for agreeing with me. I mean, you read my posts don't you?

You too chump...

And shitbake.

clambake

04-21-2009, 06:37 PM

at least you're not begging anymore.......well, for now.

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 06:39 PM

I read your posts, unfortunately. Do you?

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:41 PM

I read your posts

Racist.

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 06:42 PM

Have I referred to you as that?

LnGrrrR

04-21-2009, 06:43 PM

Sure. So why would they support the defiling of that office with a member of one of the races they hate? How is that not cutting off their nose to spite their lily white face? It's odd how racial aesthetes of the first order would do something like that.

To be fair, no one ever said they were intelligent... :)

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:44 PM

I just don't see why you guys don't just go and read them to see if I am in fact talking out of my ass or not.

LOL afraid ya'll will go to hell if you do? :lmao

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 06:44 PM

To be fair, no one ever said they were intelligent... :)

Give whottt a chance.

Marcus Bryant

04-21-2009, 06:46 PM

I just don't see why you guys don't just go and read them to see if I am in fact talking out of my ass or not.

LOL afraid ya'll will go to hell if you do? :lmao

Gee, I don't know. Maybe reading white supremacist websites is not something I prefer to do during my leisure time. Also, perhaps I don't feel like providing them with any traffic.

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:46 PM

Why do anything to inform yourself in the slightest when you can remain completely ignorant? It's much more intelligent that way. Especially if you like to throw the word around a lot(constantly)

clambake

04-21-2009, 06:47 PM

can they type?

FaithInOne

04-21-2009, 06:50 PM

Obama needs to calm down these fucking rednecks.

MF'ers are making it impossible to find ammo. I can't even find primers to load my own. Shit!

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:50 PM

Gee, I don't know. Maybe reading white supremacist websites is not something I prefer to do during my leisure time.

B y all means...remain as ignorant as you want on subjects, it's what makes America great, but the problem is when you choose to remain ignorant while simulatensouly thinking yourself an expert...

The problems with this approach should be obvious, then again, why am I not surprised that point is lost on everyone I am arguing with at this time.

Also, perhaps I don't feel like providing them with any traffic.

True....with the way advertisers line up to advertise on their sites wouldn't want to give them any extra money.

Plus, your one click might make the difference between their survival or extinction, because it's at that point, which is why this thread went the direction it did...

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:52 PM

can they type?

Better than you capitalize...

I shit you not.

clambake

04-21-2009, 06:53 PM

how could such a powerful movement that dictated the outcome of a presidential election be so close to extinction?

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:55 PM

how could such a powerful movement that dictated the outcome of a presidential election be so close to extinction?

Because you are completely stupid...

clambake

04-21-2009, 06:57 PM

you brought it up......their extinction.

now....tell us how this all powerful movement could be so close to extinction.

whottt

04-21-2009, 06:58 PM

you brought it up......their extinction.

now....tell us how this all powerful movement could be so close to extinction.

And I already told you...because you are completely stupid. What part of that explanation aren't you getting?

clambake

04-21-2009, 07:02 PM

What part of that explanation aren't you getting?

the answer.......you didn't answer.

at least you aren't begging anymore.

FaithInOne

04-21-2009, 07:02 PM

If you guys are referring to the loser kool-aid obama drinker movement, the answer is simple.

Emotions and good feelings don't account for much in the real world. Illogical thinking by the ignorant in support of hidden government agendas for gain in control & power cannot really hold themselves up when they are dependent upon the capital of those who disagree. That then leads to the manipulation of the markets and our monetary system to artificially support the game and to be honest, the game has been raping this country for a while now and will not be able to continue without complete failure for too much longer.

whottt

04-21-2009, 07:03 PM

I did answer, and it was the correct answer...

whottt

04-21-2009, 07:05 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (5 members and 0 guests)
whottt, ElNono, FaithInOne, PixelPusher, DarrinS

Hey nono...aren't you from that country that exterminated all their blacks, supported the Nazis in WWII and lent shelter to Nazi War Criminals after it?

I'd definitely be interested in your thoughts on this...let me guess, you supported Obama and the Iraqi pull out too?

I know timvp's not here, but please post, I promise you can do it :tu

clambake

04-21-2009, 07:05 PM

whottt is telling you that white supremacist are drinking the cool-aid.

Winehole23

04-21-2009, 07:05 PM

You just have to accept that some of us don't have that natural inherenet knowledge.Accepted. I may start using this word.

clambake

04-21-2009, 07:06 PM

you think we should still nuke spain?

whottt

04-21-2009, 07:07 PM

you think we should still nuke spain?

Hmmm...I guess it all depends.

Do you live there?

clambake

04-21-2009, 07:09 PM

Hmmm...I guess it all depends.

Do you live there?

you said that because you thought i lived there?

profound.

Mr. Peabody

04-21-2009, 07:24 PM

whottt

04-21-2009, 07:26 PM

After perusing the child pornography forums, I can tell you that there was a powerful movement in the pedophile community during the election to get Obama elected. Their main concern had something to do with finally having kids in the White House.

Do you always wipe your ass with the constitution? Or just when you ignorantly think you're making a correct analogy?

Never mind...you answered the question in your post.

Winehole23

04-21-2009, 07:34 PM

I thought it was sly, what?

Oh, Gee!!

04-21-2009, 07:35 PM

By the way...I want to make this clear, I'm not saying the majority of real racist like Obama, only that they saw more benefit to voting for him than they did for McCain.

And they were why he won...

the "racist swing vote" is why Obama won? well, if the racists are why obama won, and obama is dividing the nation, aren't the racists really at fault for dividing the nation?

Oh, Gee!!

04-21-2009, 07:46 PM

Hey nono...aren't you from that country that exterminated all their blacks, supported the Nazis in WWII and lent shelter to Nazi War Criminals after it?

I'd definitely be interested in your thoughts on this...let me guess, you supported Obama and the Iraqi pull out too?

I know timvp's not here, but please post, I promise you can do it :tu

lemme guess, the boys from brazil are responsible for obama being elected

ElNono

04-21-2009, 07:58 PM

Hey nono...aren't you from that country that exterminated all their blacks, supported the Nazis in WWII and lent shelter to Nazi War Criminals after it?

The black population on our country mostly disappeared from two main causes:
1) They were sent to the frontline (cannon fodder) on the numerous armed conflicts we had back in the 1800's.
2) The yellow fever epidemic of 1871

The official stance of Argentina for most of WWII was neutral, because it created the better commercial opportunities, however, the military government in charge favored the Axis powers mostly because of the close ties with Mussolini. Towards the end of the war, Argentina actually entered the Allies side, since, again, that stance gave it better commercial opportunities.

And lastly, yes, Juan Peron, who had close ties with Mussolini, shepherded what is to be presumed about 300 Nazi war criminals into the country.

Those were indeed dark times for our country.

I'd definitely be interested in your thoughts on this...let me guess, you supported Obama and the Iraqi pull out too?

I did not support going to Iraq in the first place. I just didn't buy the snakeoil Powell was selling in the UN. And I did prefer Obama to win. I say 'prefer', because I'm not allowed to vote yet, so I couldn't support my preference with a vote.

Now, as far as this actual topic is concerned, I'm gonna have to pass. I simply don't know enough about the whole white supremacist movement (other than the bare basics), from both a historical or political standpoint to opine about it.