Article: Sorry to say, race is back as factor in Democratic contest

[some_user86]

Don't know if this has already been posted...
=========================================

Title: Sorry to say, race is back as factor in Democratic contest
By Morton Kondracke

A major Ohio political leader recently told me: “Obama will never carry Ohio. Some people call it the Bradley effect, but how do you think the guys who work at the GM plant in Youngstown are going to vote? For a black? I don’t think so.”

I didn’t believe it, but sure enough, race — nearly a forgotten factor in the Democratic presidential contest during Sen. Barack Obama’s long run of primary victories — evidently came back to help Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton win Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island on Tuesday.

And, unfortunately, it could be a factor again in Pennsylvania and — if Obama survives Clinton’s renewed onslaught to win the Democratic nomination — in the general election.

The “Bradley effect” — the tendency of voters to tell pollsters they’ll vote for an African-American candidate, then vote against him in the booth — certainly was evident in Ohio and Texas. Clinton outperformed pre-election polls by 3 points in Ohio, 1.5 in Texas and 8.3 in Rhode Island.

Moreover, exit polls in Ohio showed that fully 20 percent of primary voters acknowledged that “the race of the candidate” was “important” in deciding their vote. And Clinton won this group by a big margin — 59 percent to 39 percent.

Clearly, this represents white prejudice against Obama because he is an African-American and not the racial solidarity that regularly wins him 90 percent of the African-American vote.

It was the Ohio equivalent of Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell’s observation in early February that, “You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”

The Clinton campaign didn’t overtly stir up racial animosity in Ohio or Texas. It didn’t have to.

Rather, the Democratic contest was “racialized” back in January, when Clinton compared Obama to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and herself to President Lyndon Johnson, and when her husband, Bill, likened Obama’s South Carolina primary victory to the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s.

Before that, Obama was seeking to run as a “post-racial” candidate — the political equivalent of Tiger Woods.

Ever since the Clintons elevated the racial issue, however, blacks have been lining up strongly behind Obama and whites, to varying degrees, behind Clinton.

To be sure, Obama has been able to carry white males in many states, including working-class white males in some, enabling him to win 12 straight contests after Super Tuesday and amass a delegate lead over Clinton — perhaps an insurmountable one.

But the brilliant elections analyst Jay Cost, blogging for RealClearPolitics.com, has developed a convincing theory about the Democratic racial factor: Obama wins in states with majority-black Democratic turnout, like South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana and in states with few blacks, like Wisconsin, Washington and Vermont.

He also has won in states with mixed populations where white family income is high, such as Maryland and Virginia.

But Clinton, Cost contends, wins in states where blacks constitute a major minority, but where average white income is lower, such as New Jersey, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Ohio.

So, in largely white Wisconsin, Obama carried white males by a margin of 63 percent to 34 percent. But in Ohio, Clinton won, 58 percent to 39 percent.

And Clinton has been winning in states with large Hispanic populations, like California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. Hispanics and African-Americans often regard themselves as rivals for jobs, advancement and the status as America’s foremost minority.

In Texas, Latinos, 34 percent of the electorate, supported Clinton by a margin of 67 percent to 31 percent. Nineteen percent of voters said that a candidate’s race was an important factor, and Clinton carried this group by 52 percent to 47 percent.

In Rhode Island, another heavily working-class state, race was important to 20 percent of the electorate, and this group went 56 percent for Clinton.

But race is a factor and is likely to remain one, aiding Clinton in Pennsylvania and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in November, if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

McCain is too decent ever to raise the issue, and the Republican National Committee is unlikely to repeat its counterproductive effort to race-bait former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D) in Tennessee last year.

But if bottom-feeding slugs are willing to send out Internet messages lying about Obama’s religion, there’s probably nothing they won’t stoop to.

Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.

LINK: http://www.leadercall.com/opinion/local_story_070100607.html?start:int=0

[some_user86]

If this is such a big problem in the Democratic party, how can Obama get past race in the general election when he'll have to compete against the more "orthodox" Republicans?

[whottt]

Ehhh...being Black doesn't hurt him near as much as having the middle name of fucking Hussein does...


A guy named Hussein who intends to pull us out of Iraq....I can't imagine why anyone would have issues with that at this particular time.



I know...but pulling us out of Iraq is such a popular idea...which is why W got re-elected.

[whottt]

So what's you guys next great idea...

When we go to war with Iran you guys going to put up a nominee named Khomeni who wants us to pull out of Iran?



How brilliant...I wonder why the Democrats didn't come up with a candidate named Hitler who wanted to pull us out of Germany during WWII...would have been brilliant.


I know, I know...we're the stupid ones.

[some_user86]

Ehhh...being Black doesn't hurt him near as much as having the middle name of fucking Hussein does...


A guy named Hussein who intends to pull us out of Iraq....I can't imagine why anyone would have issues with that at this particular time.



I know...but pulling us out of Iraq is such a popular idea...which is why W got re-elected.

Bush got re-elected because people like me realized too late that the Iraq war was started on false pretenses of WMDs (where the fuck are they, dammit?). That and the fact that people of Ohio really, really care that those damn gays don't get married. Rove was brilliant for recognizing and exploiting that.

Plus, Kerry never inspired moderates like me to change our votes. He was a bad candidate.

[some_user86]

So what's you guys next great idea...

When we go to war with Iran you guys going to put up a nominee named Khomeni who wants us to pull out of Iran?



How brilliant...I wonder why the Democrats didn't come up with a candidate named Hitler who wanted to pull us out of Germany during WWII...would have been brilliant.


I know, I know...we're the stupid ones.

How is it Obama's fault that he was born with the name he was born? The guy is a fucking Christian. What more do you want?

[whottt]

And to think...all those years during the Coldwar you guys could have had a constant hold on power if only'd you come up with the brilliant idea of getting a candidate named Stalin who wanted to let the Soviets have their way with Europe.




What's funny is watching you guys scratch your heads unable to comprehend why people just don't get you.

[whottt]

It doesn't matter if we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons now...it's too late to change that decision.


Secondly...maybe some people just aren't that gung ho about the idea of pulling out of Iraq and creating Afghanistan part 2. Maybe it literally has nothing to do with race, and more to do with the fact that the majority of voters realize the abject stupidity of an immediate pull out from Iraq...since W was able to win re-election against a similar candidate...it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

[some_user86]

And to think...all those years during the Coldwar you guys could have had a constant hold on power if only'd you come up with the brilliant idea of getting a candidate named Stalin who wanted to let the Soviets have their way with Europe.




What's funny is watching you guys scratch your heads unable to comprehend why people just don't get you.

Enjoy the following the party line. How's balancing the budget going for the Republicans? That's right, it's ok to not do that anymore because the Party Chiefs don't agree with that anymore.

Only sheep vote for a candidate based on party alone (Democrat or Republican).

[some_user86]

It doesn't matter if we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons now...it's too late to change that decision.


Secondly...maybe some people just aren't that gung ho about the idea of pulling out of Iraq and creating Afghanistan part 2. Maybe it literally has nothing to do with race, and more to do with the fact that the majority of voters realize the abject stupidity of an immediate pull out from Iraq...since W was able to win re-election against a similar candidate...it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

Race is a factor when the voters admit to it during the exit polling. It can obviously be seen as a factor when both party candidates are advocating the same damn policy for Iraq (pulling out).

[some_user86]

It doesn't matter if we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons now...it's too late to change that decision.


Secondly...maybe some people just aren't that gung ho about the idea of pulling out of Iraq and creating Afghanistan part 2. Maybe it literally has nothing to do with race, and more to do with the fact that the majority of voters realize the abject stupidity of an immediate pull out from Iraq...since W was able to win re-election against a similar candidate...it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

I guess we should stay there until we create Vietnam part 2 instead.

[whottt]

Bottom line, if you think Obama would be faring better in this election if he was white...

You're wrong. In fact he's probably doing better with the anti-ameri...er Democratic voting base because he is named Hussein and wants us to leave Iraq...just like Saddam.


Sin,

Every single white Democratic Presidential Candidate who intended to pull us out of Iraq.

[whottt]

Race is a factor when the voters admit to it during the exit polling. It can obviously be seen as a factor when both party candidates are advocating the same damn policy for Iraq (pulling out).


It's really not the same policy, Hilary is not nearly as determined for a mandatory pullout by x date....or at least she hasn't been as vocal about it as Obama. Beyond that she's a woman, so it's not like it's a Black man VS a White man conflict.


Don't get me wrong...there are people voting against Obama because he's black...but there are also plenty of people voting for him because he is black. And there are people voting for Hilary because she's a woman etc.


But I honestly believe his name is a bigger factor that anything during this period of war.

I don't particularly like McCain, but make no mistake about it, the primary reason I am voting for him is because he doesn't want to pull us out of Iraq.


If he was black and the other two were white who wanted us out of the war cut and run style...I'd still be voting for him.



And as for Vietnam...pulling out of Iraq guarantees it will be another Vietnam...or worse.

[some_user86]

Bottom line, if you think Obama would be faring better in this election if he was white...

You're wrong. In fact he's probably doing better with the anti-ameri...er Democratic voting base because he is named Hussein and wants us to leave Iraq...just like Saddam.


Sin,

Every single white Democratic Presidential Candidate who intended to pull us out of Iraq.

So anybody against the Iraq war is anti-American? Brilliant. I'll tell that to the over 60% of the country also against the war. Guess we have to check reason, logic and intelligence out the door when we join Whott-brand Patriotism (TM).

[some_user86]

It's really not the same policy, Hilary is not nearly as determined for a mandatory pullout by x date....or at least she hasn't been as vocal about it as Obama. Beyond that she's a woman, so it's not like it's a Black man VS a White man conflict.


Don't get me wrong...there are people voting against Obama because he's black...but there are also plenty of people voting for him because he is black. And there are people voting for Hilary because she's a woman etc.


But I honestly believe his name is a bigger factor that anything during this period of war.

I don't particularly like McCain, but make no mistake about it, the primary reason I am voting for him is because he doesn't want to pull us out of Iraq.


If he was black and the other two were white who wanted us out of the war cut and run style...I'd still be voting for him.



And as for Vietnam...pulling out of Iraq guarantees it will be another Vietnam...or worse.

It's still irrational prejudice if it's because of name or race. The guy is a Christian. He was given his father's name. Even still, his father was an atheist. What the hell more is he supposed to do?

[some_user86]

Whottt-brand Patriotism: disown every part of your heritage to be an American.

[whottt]

What the hell more is he supposed to do?


Not expect to be elected President?

You act like I am denying him his constitutional rights or something.

[whottt]

Whottt-brand Patriotism: disown every part of your heritage to be an American.



More like Democrat Brand stupidity, find a guy named Hitler when we are at war with Germany and expect him to get elected President.


Yeap...it's exactly like that.


And btw, if that part of his heritage is that important to him at this particular moment in time...then...consider the concerns proven.

[some_user86]

Not expect to be elected President?

You act like I am denying him his constitutional rights or something.

Prejudiced reason to not get elected.

[some_user86]

More like Democrat Brand stupidity, find a guy named Hitler when we are at war with Germany and expect him to get elected President.


Yeap...it's exactly like that.


And btw, if that part of his heritage is that important to him at this particular moment in time...then...consider the concerns proven.

It's his father's name.

Every Muslim is supposed to change their religion and name to prove their loyalty to America?

Wait a minute... I thought the neo-cons told me weren't at war with Islam, only "radical Islam"? So, we really are waging a Crusade on the Muslims (the same way they say their waging a jihad on us)? So, when the neo-cons told me we were above that and that we were supposed to be above their fear-mongering ways, that was all a lie? And we should adjust our constitution to say "freedom of religion, except for Islam or any religion that doesn't fit our flavor of the month"? I thought we weren't supposed to change our way of life because they attached us. Wait... that was just bull to sell the us on the war, too? Right. Ok. Cool... I'm on the same page now. Got it. :tu

[whottt]

Prejudiced reason to not get elected.

Um...I hate to break the news to you, but every single vote cast for any candidate in this and every election is going to be due to some form of prejudice.



But in this particular case, it's not nearly as simple and color blind as...well, he's black.


Failure to see that is clearly being blind and prone to huge oversimplification.


In 2004 a white guy wanting to pull us out of Iraq was beaten out by the guy who took us into Iraq.


Coming up with a guy named Hussein who wants to do the same thing and failing to see that is a going to be a negative, or not expecting it to be one...is fucking political moronity.

[gtownspur]

twhott.

[whottt]

Hi pinky...still wearing the mark of when you made a complete and utter ass of yourself I see. Way to go...you're a credit to the board.

[some_user86]

I'm pretty sure now freedom of religion doesn't mean actual freedom of religion... it's freedom of religion, where religion is defined as your particular flavor of Christianity.

So much for that bull on the Statue of Liberty about "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

That's just PR bullshit to make us look better to the other countries. We're really in the business of Christianizing those lame-ass Brownies (TM).

[some_user86]

Um...I hate to break the news to you, but every single vote cast for any candidate in this and every election is going to be due to some form of prejudice.



But in this particular case, it's not nearly as simple and color blind as...well, he's black.


Failure to see that is clearly being blind and prone to huge oversimplification.


In 2004 a white guy wanting to pull us out of Iraq was beaten out by the guy who took us into Iraq.


Coming up with a guy named Hussein who wants to do the same thing and failing to see that is a going to be a negative, or not expecting it to be one...is fucking political moronity.

This is all pedantic because he's fucking Christian!

[whottt]

I'm pretty sure now freedom of religion doesn't mean actual freedom of religion... it's freedom of religion, where religion is defined as your particular flavor of Christianity.


Um...I missed the part of the constitution that says you have a guaranteed constitutional right to win the Presidential Election.


Silly me...when is my turn?





So much for that bull on the Statue of Liberty about "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door."


What part of President don't you get?


There is no constitutional right to win the Presidency. It is entirely a popularity contest, it has been from day 1, it will be on it's last day as well.




That's just PR bullshit to make us look better to the other countries. We're really in the business of Christianizing those lame-ass Brownies (TM).

That's a new one...you actually make the War for Oil guys sound smart.

[whottt]

This is all pedantic because he's fucking Christian!



I guess no one really gives a fuck that he's a Christian when it comes right down to it...


I mean, after all, aren't they all?

[some_user86]

Um...I missed the part of the constitution that says you have a guaranteed constitutional right to win the Presidential Election.


Silly me...when is my turn?






What part of President don't you get?


There is no constitutional right to win the Presidency. It is entirely a popularity contest, it has been from day 1, it will be on it's last day as well.




That's a new one...you actually make the War for Oil guys sound smart.

Where did I say it was his right to become President? Whottt putting words into other people's mouth again...

I'm just saying that even meeting the qualifications, if people vote against him because of his name or his race, it's wrong and prejudiced. If that's the primary reason not to vote for him, that's a tainted vote.

The majority of the people in the country are against the Iraq war. You're on the wrong side. The onus lies on your side to provide reasons to stay.

[some_user86]

I guess no one really gives a fuck that he's a Christian when it comes right down to it...


I mean, after all, aren't they all?

Apparently, some intolerant mo-fos do care.

Looks like, judging from your posts, you do too.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Hootie is still on about Obama's middle name?

Figures.

If you believe the polls, the public is pretty evenly split over an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Anyway a withdrawal would take well over two years, so it's all pretty misleading.

[whottt]

Apparently, some intolerant mo-fos do care.

You're the one saying you won't vote for the Old Fat White guy...not I.





Looks like, judging from your posts, you do too.


And I'd say judging from your posts you are both sexist(against women) and racist(against whites)...if you don't vote for Hilary this is definitely the case.


A pity...it seems so wrong.

I mean after all...she's got the same stance on Iraq as Obama does(your words not mine), plus she's more experienced in International affairs.

[whottt]

:lol Hootie is still on about Obama's middle name?

Figures.

Does it figure? I've got 4 more years to look forward to listening to you guys bitch about your stupidity...figure that.

Just tryin' to help.


You guys might finally get your anti-war candidate in there...once it's over.




If you believe the polls, the public is pretty evenly split over an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Do you believe polls? Did you in 04?





Anyway a withdrawal would take well over two years, so it's all pretty misleading.



Not as misleading as saying you are against a pull out and then voting for someone who is going to do just that...twice.


Me? I'm not so misleading.

[ChumpDumper]

Does it figure? I've got 4 more years to look forward to listening to you guys bitch about your stupidity...figure that.i have the rest of your posting life to look forward to your stupidity.


Do you believe polls? Did you in 04? I said "if" dipshit. What do you believe? Your own idiocy.



Not as misleading as saying you are against a pull out and then voting for someone who is going to do just that...twice.Who is doing that? Are you now lying about my voting record, of which you know absolutely nothing? Sure, you would lie about that. Why not?

It's cool that you can try to cloak your and other people's stupidity in other issues -- it's not a big deal.

There are plenty of racists still in America who will allow the race of the candidate to determine their votes, just as there are plenty of stupid people like you who will allow the middle name of the candidate to determine their votes.

Don't muddy the water -- you said the middle name was enough for you to never vote for Obama. You son't need to say anything else -- you have shown what is most important to you.

[whottt]

i have the rest of your posting life to look forward to your stupidity.


Which fortunately for you, isn't going to be near as common as yours I fear..




I said "if" dipshit. What do you believe? Your own idiocy.


I believe Republicans don't take as many polls as Democrats...much like they don't participate in rallies and politics forums as much as Democrats.



Who is doing that? Are you now lying about my voting record, of which you know absolutely nothing? Sure, you would lie about that. Why not?

It's cool that you can try to cloak your and other people's stupidity in other issues -- it's not a big deal.

I am not cloaking...you are...just put it out there who you are voting for and don't cloak stuff...

I've seen you be on one side of the issue long enough to judge where your loyalties lie...




There are plenty of racists still in America who will allow the race of the candidate to determine their votes,

Yeah...and Obama is not going to benefit from a single vote from someone like that...is he?

I mean surely if he were...you'd bitch about that now wouldn't you?




just as there are plenty of stupid people like you who will allow the middle name of the candidate to determine their votes.

LOL! Since my career isn't built around public perception and the seeking of a public office via vote...I am not really my own stupidest enemy, now am I?






Don't muddy the water -- you said the middle name was enough for you to never vote for Obama.


Hmmm...yeah it pretty much is...that and the photo. Be sure to have Barrack send me an email telling me how stupid I am that he's not President when it's over.



You son't need to say anything else -- you have shown what is most important to you.


Back at ya...good luck finding a Khomeni to put up in 12 :tu

[ChumpDumper]

Look whottt, you provided the last word on your level of political thought when you declared Obama's middle name as the reason to not vote for him.

You have effectively excluded yourself from any further serious discussion here.

It's just not happening anymore.

Fun while it lasted.




Well not really, but whatever -- you're finished.

[whottt]

Look whottt, you provided the last word on your level of political thought when you declared Obama's middle name as the reason to not vote for him.

Good...and I hope you concluded that the last word I provided indicated a great deal about my excellent political savvy.


I said his name would be the major reason he doesn't get elected...do you think I'm wrong?



I said that I personally wouldn't vote for him because he was stupid not to change his name...that act, of not realizing it's a negative, is what I am holding against him.


Do you think it doesn't matter?





You have effectively excluded yourself from any further serious discussion here.

It's just not happening anymore.

Fun while it lasted.


So you consider me excluded for being right about his name being a factor?



What's the next brilliant move...banning me from the train forum for realizing getting hit by a train will kill you?


I know...it's horrible that getting hit by a train will kill you.....that doesn't make me an idiot for realizing it.

[some_user86]

You're the one saying you won't vote for the Old Fat White guy...not I.






And I'd say judging from your posts you are both sexist(against women) and racist(against whites)...if you don't vote for Hilary this is definitely the case.


A pity...it seems so wrong.

I mean after all...she's got the same stance on Iraq as Obama does(your words not mine), plus she's more experienced in International affairs.

I never said why I won't vote for McCain or Hilary. How did you come to such a conclusion? I might just vote McCain if Obama loses the nomination. But, I won't let that stop Mr. Whottt from making wild accusations that have no basis in reality. I'm not black, so how can I vote for Obama due to racial affinity? I voted for an old, fat white guy in the last election. In fact, I voted for a retard, so I am not against mentally-disabled people either.

I came to such a conclusion about you because you seem to be so hung up that his name sounds so unlike yours. I suppose along with changing his name, he should have also bleached his skin white and straightened his hair to appease Mr. Whottt's Standard of Electability (TM). For you it's the name. For Joe Racist in Ohio, it's skin color that doesn't match their Standard of Electability (TM). I guess he should roll over and play dead now, just like blacks should have done in the '60s. But, dammit, they just won't do what you tell them to now that they aren't slaves anymore...

[whottt]

I never said why I won't vote for McCain or Hilary. How did you come to such a conclusion? I might just vote McCain if Obama loses the nomination. But, I won't let that stop Mr. Whottt from making wild accusations that have no basis in reality.


And those would be?





I'm not black, so how can I vote for Obama due to racial affinity?

What about racial bias? What about gender bias? What about religious bias?







I came to such a conclusion about you because you seem to be so hung up that his name sounds so unlike yours.

How do you know his name doesn't sound like mine?


His name does however sound like that of the ex leader of a country we are currently at war with...do you really think that doesn't matter to the voting public? Guess what...if your answer is yes, I wouldn't vote for you either.


Call me stupid, racist etc., doesn't change the fact that I am right and his name does indeed matter.

It matters...



I suppose along with changing his name, he should have also bleached his skin white and straightened his hair to appease Mr. Whottt's Standard of Electability (TM).

Whatever makes you feel smart slick...

[whottt]

His race does matter...it is a negative(call me racist stupid whatever) but history shows that being black does hurt ones chances of being elected.


Is that something that is insurmountable? Traditionally...pretty much. Currently? No...not in the current political climate and with these candidates.


In fact it could potentially be a positive and something that could push a candidate over the top in the current polarized politicized environment...


However, it's not going to be a positive to that degree for someone that is
A. A liberal
B. Has a muslim middle name identical to that of the Leader of the country we are currently at war with.
C. Wants to pull us out of that country.


But the name and his war stance are definitely insurmountable...and you can get irate about it, you can call names about it, you can be as bitter as you want about it...but you might as well go get bitter and irate about the sky being blue...it'll ulimtately be just about as productive. The fact that I realize this doesn't make me stupid, or racist...it makes me the one with the grip on the reality of American politics.

Keep deluding yourself...it'll fit right in with the mass lefty delusions that Islamic Fundamentalists are merely a bunch of misunderstood hippies and that they'll go away if we leave them alone.

[some_user86]

What about racial bias? What about gender bias? What about religious bias?
I'm atheist. No religion suits me. Islam and Evangelicals both try to sell their religion to me, so they don't suit me equally (although Radical Islamists have a wonderful tendency to want to kill me for not believing in their religion; then again, Radical Evangelicals want to kick me out of their "Christian nation"). I went to a Christian school here in San Antonio. I grew up with the Gospel and the Evangelical war against logic. It only re-affirmed my atheist beliefs. I've got no beef with having a woman as a president (we're far behind when India and the United Kingdom already beat us to having women leaders of countries). She's not the right candidate to be the first woman president. I've got no problem with white people (I'm in the U.S., aren't I?).

Trying to make this about me, Sir Whottt?


His name does however sound like that of the ex leader of a country we are currently at war with...do you really think that doesn't matter to the voting public? Guess what...if your answer is yes, I wouldn't vote for you either.


Call me stupid, racist etc., doesn't change the fact that I am right and his name does indeed matter.

It matters...


Has Obama been tied to al-Qaeda? All muslim-sounding names are automatically linked to al-Qaeda? Because I thought that's who we were at war with... War on Terrorism... not War on Muslims...

[whottt]

Has Obama been tied to al-Qaeda?

Do you think it matters to the voting public that much?




All muslim-sounding names are automatically linked to al-Qaeda?

Nope...and it doesn't matter.



Because I thought that's who we were at war with... War on Terrorism... not War on Muslims...



Well...actually , we're also at war with Iraq...or at least in Iraq...


All this is moot...


I think it's wrong for trains to kill you when they hit you...I can argue all day long about why it shouldn't be that way...doesn't change the fact that it is that way...no matter how stupid you think I am for realizing that.

[some_user86]

His race does matter...it is a negative(call me racist stupid whatever) but history shows that being black does hurt ones chances of being elected.


Is that something that is insurmountable? Traditionally...pretty much. Currently? No...not in the current political climate and with these candidates.


In fact it could potentially be a positive and something that could push a candidate over the top in the current polarized politicized environment...


However, it's not going to be a positive to that degree for someone that is
A. A liberal
B. Has a muslim middle name identical to that of the Leader of the country we are currently at war with.
C. Wants to pull us out of that country.


But the name and his war stance are definitely insurmountable...and you can get irate about it, you can call names about it, you can be as bitter as you want about it...but you might as well go get bitter and irate about the sky being blue...it'll ulimtately be just about as productive. The fact that I realize this doesn't make me stupid, or racist...it makes me the one with the grip on the reality of American politics.

Keep deluding yourself...it'll fit right in with the mass lefty delusions that Islamic Fundamentalists are merely a bunch of misunderstood hippies and that they'll go away if we leave them alone.

I like how the neo-cons have stolen the party mantle from true conservatives (Ron Paul). The Republican base is now primarily based on hyper-Evangelicals who believe that all muslims = Islamic Fundies. Memo to the Evangelicals: Islam was a tool used by political terrorists to convince their stupid followers to go blow themselves up. The fact that the current leadership hasn't recognized this is the primary reason for their continued failed excursions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now possibly Iran. We have to start thinking that the primary reason for the Radical Islam movement is an economic and political one (religion is always secondary). People fall victim to religion in times of desperation. Their religion just makes terrorism an easier justification, but take note: all religions allow for faith as a justification for violence.

[whottt]

I like how the neo-cons have stolen the party mantle from true conservatives (Ron Paul).

Ron Paul is a Libertarian...and his voters are not all conservatives...but many liberals who seem to think the Iraq War is a sidebar issue for Republicans, and not the key one.






The Republican base is now primarily based on hyper-Evangelicals who believe that all muslims = Islamic Fundies.

Ok...but the Religious Right has always been around...even when the party was isolationalist...and incidentally, being isolationist has never kept us out of wars, it's allowed them to become bigger...and it's forced us to enter them in disadvantageous circumstances often against our will, and the loss of life has been much greater because of it.

You see...not only do we have to isolate ourselves to be isolationist...but the rest of the world has to let us do that as well...and that will not be happening for a long long time.




Memo to the Evangelicals: Islam was a tool used by political terrorists to convince their stupid followers to go blow themselves up. The fact that the current leadership hasn't recognized this is the primary reason for their continued failed excursions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now possibly Iran. We have to start thinking that the primary reason for the Radical Islam movement is an economic and political one (religion is always secondary). People fall victim to religion in times of desperation. Their religion just makes terrorism an easier justification, but take note: all religions allow for faith as a justification for violence.


Dude...something as simple as the way a guy says a word is enough to keep someone from voting for him, any slightly unappealing trait, any thing...you can call for different voting standards...but you will never get it...you have to outsmart the voters......and the failure to realize that IMO, is grounds to disqualify anyone from getting my vote under most circumstances.

[whottt]

I'm just going to say the final word on this for now...

If I were to engage myself in the asinine idea that a racial or gender minority needs to be elected, just for the sake of being elected(and I do understand the desire on the part of some to see this happen even as I simultaneously question the wisdom of such a desire)...


I would conclude that such a candidate has the best chance of getting elected if they play against type....as opposed to embodying and championing every stereotypical stance you could come up with depending on their race or gender, to the point that they are a virtual caricature of such a candidate.


I mean hey...a guy named Hussein wants to pull us out of Iraq...what a suprise.




No...it'll be one that plays against type that pulls it off...not one that plays to type to the hilt.

[whottt]

And BTW, you don't think it's possible to be biased against ones own race/religion/gender/nationality? I bet there are a bunch of European jews that would strongly disagree with that statement. Bias is bias...


For instance 75% of the Liberal posters on this forum are religious bigots with an overwhelming prejudice against christians, and it is one of the determining factors in their vote. These guys are easy to find on the forum...they are the ones playing the race card right and left and accusing everyone else of being a bigot.

[some_user86]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian...and his voters are not all conservatives...but many liberals who seem to think the Iraq War is a sidebar issue for Republicans, and not the key one.
A true conservative still maintains some semblance of fiscal conservancy. Where did the rest of my buddies get thrown too? I haven't seen a fiscal conservative in the last three Republican administrations (I hear that if you see one's shadow, you get six more weeks of winter... ah, the explanation for global climate change!).



Ok...but the Religious Right has always been around...even when the party was isolationalist...and incidentally, being isolationist has never kept us out of wars, it's allowed them to become bigger...and it's forced us to enter them in disadvantageous circumstances often against our will, and the loss of life has been much greater because of it.

Up until the mid '60s, the Religious Right were part of the Democratic South. Conservatives in the South started breaking away from the Democratic party after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (gasp! racism and religion have a correlation?! Oh noes!). By the mid-70s, they were establishing themselves with a solid voice in the Republican party. They began replacing the fiscal conservatives by Reagan's time, reduced in potency during Bush Sr.'s term, and came back full blown in GWB's term. Now, the fiscal conservatives have been completely pushed out in favor of the Fundies (what a perfect way to fight Islamic Fundies! Islamic vs Christian Fundies at 9/8c on Fox!).



You see...not only do we have to isolate ourselves to be isolationist...but the rest of the world has to let us do that as well...and that will not be happening for a long long time.
I never advocated isolationism. How's your reading comprehension, buddy?




Dude...something as simple as the way a guy says a word is enough to keep someone from voting for someone...you can call for different voting standards...but you will never get it...you have to outsmart the voters......and the failure to realize that IMO, is grounds to disqualify anyone from getting my vote under most circumstances.

So, a black man in the '60s South, trying to get an education, job, etc, should have just understood that it's not the way things are done. No point in contesting it, just understood that this is the way the world works. So, now, when the country is faced with a new moral challenge, a black man with a weird name (but mainstream beliefs) should just understand that it's not the way things are done. No point contesting, just needs to understand that this is the way the world works. Cool. Got it.

You're using the fact that he didn't change his name (and erase all reminiscence of his father) as an excuse to justify the fact that you would never have voted for a black man or a man with a weird name.

I agree. It's not going to be his view on Iraq that's going to sink him (most people in the country agree on withdrawal). An "immediate withdrawal" would take years anyways. Iraq will be the furthest thing from voter's minds anyways, as the economy will be the prime focus (as in every election for the past half-century). I agree that what's going to sink him is the racial or ethnic intolerance of a minority people. Just like what's going to sink Hilary in the general election is her gender. But, let's never attempt to move forward from our irrational fears. Let's always maintain the status quo. After all, in the 20s-60s, the concern was if them negroes/brownies/cunts get the right to vote, they may run for president someday, right? Glad we never progressed to the horror of having those fools voting.

[some_user86]

And BTW, you don't think it's possible to be biased against ones own race/religion/gender/nationality? I bet there are a bunch of European jews that would strongly disagree with that statement. Bias is bias...


For instance 75% of the Liberal posters on this forum are religious bigots with an overwhelming prejudice against christians, and it is one of the determining factors in their vote. These guys are easy to find on the forum...they are the ones playing the race card right and left and accusing everyone else of being a bigot.

I never claimed against being a religous bigot. I harp on racial and ethnic prejudice. Things you can't control. Religion you can control.

The biggest problem with Christians is that they don't follow their own tenets. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Matthew 7:3). (I knew it would be good to keep my KJV bible around for a pissing fight.) I've got no beef with the majority of the philosophical beliefs of Christianity. I've got beef with some of the interpretations of its followers (and basically the fairy tale used to sell the philosophy; the philosophy can stand just fine without the whole immaculate pregnancy BS, among other things).

Note: By philosophical I meant in terms of how one should lead their life, not necessarily in terms of the belief about the universe.


For instance 75% of the Liberal posters...
I think Libertarian suits me just fine, thank you.

[whottt]

Up until the mid '60s, the Religious Right were part of the Democratic South. Conservatives in the South started breaking away from the Democratic party after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (gasp! racism and religion have a correlation?! Oh noes!). By the mid-70s, they were establishing themselves with a solid voice in the Republican party. They began replacing the fiscal conservatives by Reagan's time, reduced in potency during Bush Sr.'s term, and came back full blown in GWB's term. Now, the fiscal conservatives have been completely pushed out in favor of the Fundies (what a perfect way to fight Islamic Fundies! Islamic vs Christian Fundies at 9/8c on Fox!).


Absolutely false...the religious right have been the base of the Republican Party since the time of Lincoln and before. They are the original isolationists and that was the chief stance of the Republican party for many decades.





I never advocated isolationism. How's your reading comprehension, buddy?

You advocated Ron Paul...that's what he is. Actually, that's the best thing about him.





So, a black man in the '60s South, trying to get an education, job, etc, should have just understood that it's not the way things are done.

If he was running for President, then? Absolutely...and he'd have been right.

Like I said...you show me the constitutional right that guarantees someone the right to win an election for President and I'll stop saying it's pretty much a popularity contest.



No point in contesting it, just understood that this is the way the world works.

Um...when it comes to the Presidency or any kind of popular election, it nearly always does work that way, it nearly always will work that way...



So, now, when the country is faced with a new moral challenge, a black man with a weird name (but mainstream beliefs) should just understand that it's not the way things are done. No point contesting, just needs to understand that this is the way the world works. Cool. Got it.

If he wants to be President? Yeah...

You seem to continually confuse being the President with constituonal rights...not the same thing. The person who gets the most people to like him gets to be President, generally...it's just that simple.



You're using the fact that he didn't change his name (and erase all reminiscence of his father) as an excuse to justify the fact that you would never have voted for a black man or a man with a weird name.

No...I applaud him to his devotion for his father...he obviously loved him more than he loved improving his chances of being the President. Props...


And I never said I wouldn't vote for a black man...if the black man was the best candidate who most closely aligned with me on what I feel are the key issues I'd vote for him.

Would I ever vote for a black guy just to see a black guy elected President? Probably not...but plenty of racists will.




I agree. It's not going to be his view on Iraq that's going to sink him

We don't agree...that is a huge part of what is going to sink him.




(most people in the country agree on withdrawal).

You mean the majority of people that participate in polls agree on withdrawl...ironically enough, they had similar views in 04. They also thought Kerry won all the debates...





An "immediate withdrawal" would take years anyways.

Why set a timetable for withdrawl? What if the situation becomes optimum for enacting permanent beneficial change to the totalitarian regimes that infest the ME and making it a better situation for us, and every one born there...






Iraq will be the furthest thing from voter's minds anyways, as the economy will be the prime focus (as in every election for the past half-century).

Well if you guys think pulling out of Iraq is going to drive the price of Oil down you are even more stupid than I thought.





I agree that what's going to sink him is the racial or ethnic intolerance of a minority people.

Those are negatives...but the big negatives are he's named Hussein and wants us out of Iraq.



Just like what's going to sink Hilary in the general election is her gender.

With all due respect...what's going to sink Hilary is that she's not even good looking compared to a dog's asshole and she's got less tact, personal charisma and likeability than W...and she wants to pull us out of Iraq.



But, let's never attempt to move forward from our irrational fears. Let's always maintain the status quo.

People are stupid.....but so are the people that fail to realize that..and not voting for Obama because he's black is no more a case of racism than voting for him because he is...



After all, in the 20s-60s, the concern was if them negroes/brownies/cunts get the right to vote, they may run for president someday, right?

Actually...I don't think they were concerned at all about one of them running for President when they did that...do you really believe that?



Glad we never progressed to the horror of having those fools voting.


Yeah...you let me know when you've finally figured out the difference between a constitutional right and winning a Presidential election...I get the feeling it make take a while as you appear to have some form of mental short on that difference.

[whottt]

I never claimed against being a religous bigot. I harp on racial and ethnic prejudice. Things you can't control. Religion you can control.

You can also control your middle name...and your stance on the Iraq war.

[some_user86]

How does a person's middle name define his policy?

[whottt]

How does a person's middle name define his policy?


I don't know...but I bet if you put it in a vbookie, most of the people would bet on a guy named Hussein being in favor of pulling us out of Iraq, whether he was the dictator of Iraq, or the President of the USA...call it a hunch.


Lo and behold......




And how does their religion define their policy? Plenty of pacifistic christians...like that Obama guy for one...

[some_user86]

You can also control your middle name...and your stance on the Iraq war.

A stance which the majority of the nation agrees with.

In 2004, support for the Iraq War was a 50/50 split. It was a statistical dead heat (within the MoE). At that point, it comes down to who can have the best voter turnout (since < 60% of the electorate votes). Rove did a brilliant job of increasing conservative voter turnout by having anti-gay marriage bills in 14 of the hotly contested states.

Consider 2004 a win for the social platform, not a referendum on the Iraq war. And consider it a win for economics (as has been the case for the last 50 years), as we were mildly recovering from a recession (a recovery which should have lasted much longer and been much stronger than weak shit we got).

You can't use 2004 as a guide for this year's election, unless you want to say that things will be unpredictable until election day passes.

[some_user86]

I don't know...but I bet if you put it in a vbookie, most of the people would bet on a guy named Hussein being in favor of pulling us out of Iraq, whether he was the dictator of Iraq, or the President of the USA...call it a hunch.


Lo and behold......




And how does their religion define their policy? Plenty of pacifistic christians...like that Obama guy for one...

It's the Evangelicalness (TM) of their belief that defines policy. (25 cents per use of Evangelicalness (TM).)

[some_user86]

I don't know...but I bet if you put it in a vbookie, most of the people would bet on a guy named Hussein being in favor of pulling us out of Iraq, whether he was the dictator of Iraq, or the President of the USA...call it a hunch.


Lo and behold......




And how does their religion define their policy? Plenty of pacifistic christians...like that Obama guy for one...

You're right. It's because of prejudice.

I am not saying it's his right to be elected. I'm saying if that's the reason he won't be, it's because of prejudice.

I have yet to see a denial of this from you.

[Evan]

bound to happen

[spurster]

I guess this shows that Obama won't be getting the idiot vote this year.

It's also a great year to be a Democrat because we get to choose whether we're sexist or racist.

[some_user86]

Absolutely false...the religious right have been the base of the Republican Party since the time of Lincoln and before. They are the original isolationists and that was the chief stance of the Republican party for many decades.
Patently false. Ever heard of the "New Right"? Phrase came into existence in the late '60s, early '70s. The Democrats had control of the religious South since time of Lincoln. (To update yourself on your history, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right#History and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Right#United_States )






You advocated Ron Paul...that's what he is. Actually, that's the best thing about him.
I don't follow all of the party line. Just the parts I agree with. Libertarian party is where I fall most in line with, but not completely in line with.





If he was running for President, then? Absolutely...and he'd have been right.

Like I said...you show me the constitutional right that guarantees someone the right to win an election for President and I'll stop saying it's pretty much a popularity contest.



Um...when it comes to the Presidency or any kind of popular election, it nearly always does work that way, it nearly always will work that way...



If he wants to be President? Yeah...

You seem to continually confuse being the President with constituonal rights...not the same thing. The person who gets the most people to like him gets to be President, generally...it's just that simple.

I am not saying that he must be elected, that he should be elected, or that he will be elected. I'm saying that as long as the disagreement is primarily on his name, it's a prejudiced/tainted vote. What can one do? Nothing. It is what it is. But quit using your pseudo-justification to mask the fact that you aren't voting for him because of his name. Do you always make your decisions based on what others would do (like not voting for Obama because his middle name might turn off the intolerant Fundies)?



And I never said I wouldn't vote for a black man...if the black man was the best candidate who most closely aligned with me on what I feel are the key issues I'd vote for him.

Would I ever vote for a black guy just to see a black guy elected President? Probably not...but plenty of racists will.
You said your primary reason for not voting for him was his middle name. So, would you vote for a Hussein if he aligned with your views? So far, I have not found a affirmation that you would do such a thing.




We don't agree...that is a huge part of what is going to sink him.




You mean the majority of people that participate in polls agree on withdrawl...ironically enough, they had similar views in 04. They also thought Kerry won all the debates...


See my above post covering the 04 election.



Why set a timetable for withdrawl? What if the situation becomes optimum for enacting permanent beneficial change to the totalitarian regimes that infest the ME and making it a better situation for us, and every one born there...

He said he would continually evaluate his position based on the information given to him by the military commanders directly under his control (IOW, he ain't really pulling out of Iraq until the situation is optimal; no one is that stupid, and most don't believe that he would do it from day one; I want someone who will guarantee that they will do it eventually, and that they won't follow a neo-con agenda... something that McCain 2000 could promise, but I'm unsure of in McCain 2008).





Well if you guys think pulling out of Iraq is going to drive the price of Oil down you are even more stupid than I thought.

Drawing down military spending might allow us to relax our borrowing from foreign nations and reduce the falling rate of the dollar. It ain't about oil. It's monetary policy. A better energy policy comes from better energy research. Shit, you mean to say that the $1 billion we spent on energy research isn't doing anything? Say it ain't so?! It'll require a big jump in energy research to get us there, which means spending '60s NASA level in energy research. That money can come from the Iraq war that we're spending. Or, we relax our borrowing from China. Either way, it's a win-win. Not a futile cycle like we're doing in Iraq.




Those are negatives...but the big negatives are he's named Hussein and wants us out of Iraq.
There's that name again. So hung up on that name.




With all due respect...what's going to sink Hilary is that she's not even good looking compared to a dog's asshole and she's got less tact, personal charisma and likeability than W...and she wants to pull us out of Iraq.

Ahem... I can't argue with this one.



People are stupid.....but so are the people that fail to realize that..and not voting for Obama because he's black is no more a case of racism than voting for him because he is...
Who's arguing voting for him because of his race?




Yeah...you let me know when you've finally figured out the difference between a constitutional right and winning a Presidential election...I get the feeling it make take a while as you appear to have some form of mental short on that difference.
If you're voting against him only because of his middle name or his race, it's a prejudiced/tainted vote. Using the justification that "other people aren't gonna do it, so why should I?" is just a cop-out for holding the same beliefs.

[some_user86]

I guess this shows that Obama won't be getting the idiot vote this year.

It's also a great year to be a Democrat because we get to choose whether we're sexist or racist.

Not if the Dems end up with the Dream Ticket...

[Yonivore]

It's beginning to look like all the Democrat accusations of racial and sexist bias, launched at Republicans over the years, is just projection.

Now I understand why Democrats think Republicans are racists and sexists; it's because they are.

[some_user86]

It's beginning to look like all the Democrat accusations of racial and sexist bias, launched at Republicans over the years, is just projection.

Now I understand why Democrats think Republicans are racists and sexists; it's because they are.

I've experienced far more racial and ethnic prejudice as a member of the Republican party than coalescing with Democrats.

[rascal]

It doesn't matter if we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons now...it's too late to change that decision.


Secondly...maybe some people just aren't that gung ho about the idea of pulling out of Iraq and creating Afghanistan part 2. Maybe it literally has nothing to do with race, and more to do with the fact that the majority of voters realize the abject stupidity of an immediate pull out from Iraq...since W was able to win re-election against a similar candidate...it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

It does matter because fools like you supported it in the first place.

[Yonivore]

:reading
I've experienced far more racial and ethnic prejudice as a member of the Republican party than coalescing with Democrats.
Oh, do tell...

[xrayzebra]

How is it Obama's fault that he was born with the name he was born? The guy is a fucking Christian. What more do you want?

His church's "about us" statement. Posted without comment.

About Us

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

[some_user86]

:reading
Oh, do tell...

I guess I shouldn't expect much from kids my age (early 20s), but it's mostly continuous confusion of my supposed background (apparently, all brown people are Middle-Easterners) and then harassment based on said supposed background; continuous confusion of my supposed religion (apparently, all brown people are Islamic; I'm from a Buddhism-based background, but I am atheist) and then harassment based on said supposed religion (the most insulting thing is that my background has had an antagonistic relationship with Islam for longer than this country has existed); a continuous belief among some of my Republican friends that unless I am Christian or white, I shouldn't belong in the country much less a part of the Republican party (this one was recent); a continuous belief among some of my Republican friends that legal immigrants steal jobs and I should return to my home country (when I was born and raised for a good majority of my life here; this one was also recent). I can't even imagine what actual muslims must go through.

I just got tired of fighting these few idiots. So I thought I would be a quiet Republican, not a vocal one. But then, things started turning sour in Iraq when we didn't find any WMDs, and I started buying into the idea that maybe GWB knew that their were no WMDs and went to war anyways. I thought, ok, fine... Iraq was used as a tool to teach Iran and Syria a lesson. But then shit hit the fan and things kept getting worse until it was evident that Iraq had only served to embolden Iran. No matter how much Iraq fixes up, it'll never be enough to convince Iran that it isn't worth it to pick a fight with us (they'll think that it'll be a 50/50 chance that it'll end in a quagmire). I started reading into why the fuck they want to kill us. I found that the terrorist heads had found radical Islam as a tool to convince idiots to commit to their violent, but politically-motivated plans. This was against what the party line had told me. All along we kept spending and spending and spending on everything and nothing. Where the hell was the fiscal control? At first it was ok because we were getting out of the recession... but what was the excuse in 2005, 2006, and 2007? We were already out of the recession by then. Anyone could've seen this second recession coming. And we had known that a housing bubble was forming since 2003 and 2004 (maybe earlier). Why did no one prevent this mess from occurring (looks at the Federal Reserve)?

Then, as GWB pushed his social agenda more and more on to the public (advocating against stem cell research, which a majority of the nation and Congress supports), I was more and more incested (sp?). I should have expected that, but still. It was the icing on the cake. I was against gay marriage, but I had grown convinced that I was wrong on the issue (still don't agree with it personally, but I can't contest it anymore as an option that they should have). The whole ID vs evolution nonsense and separation of church and state debate started up, and I again found myself on the outside of the party.

All these factors combined, and continuously having to defend myself from attacks on my patriotism because of my skin color, led me to vow never to participate in a political election again. I vowed to leave the Republican party and stay independent from the two-party duopoly.

Of course, I am young, so I reneged on my promises.


====

Ok... going to sleep for at least two hours before heading in to work (yay for lax work times!)

[JoeChalupa]

I feel sorry for anyone who still see race as an issue when looking at a candidate....or anyone else for that matter.

[xrayzebra]

I feel sorry for anyone who still see race as an issue when looking at a candidate....or anyone else for that matter.

Joe, you want to tell all the blacks that, that voted for him
in all the southern states.

You really need to get serious in you thoughts.

[clambake]

yeah, them fuckin bleks. im votin for mccain because i want him in my foxhole when we get captured.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I feel sorry for anyone who still see race as an issue when looking at a candidate....or anyone else for that matter.


Have you seen the numbers regarding how many african americans have voted for obama? 90% .. I have a problem if someone votes for or against someone based soley on their race...

[Yonivore]

yeah, them fuckin bleks. im votin for mccain because i want him in my foxhole when we get captured.
What happens when clambake tries to get by without his mommy proofing and editing his posts.

[clambake]

What happens when clambake tries to get by without his mommy proofing and editing his posts.
i'm only able to talk this way when she's not directly behind me.

As you can see, she's back.

[xrayzebra]

What happens when clambake tries to get by without his mommy proofing and editing his posts.


Naw, that is how he talks in real life....... :lol

[Yonivore]

Naw, that is how he talks in real life....... :lol
I have no doubt.

[clambake]

i can't imagine what blacks in the south have against white presidential candidates. :spin

[xrayzebra]

i can't imagine what blacks in the south have against white presidential candidates. :spin

They are white?????

[clambake]

recent history has shown that southern blacks, in their time of need, were ignored by a leader that preferred a golf resort in arizona. all he did was offer excuses.

[xrayzebra]

^^Time of need, indeed. Obama and his wife, both black, both
raised in, only what can be termed, wealth. And he knows how
to take care of them. Give me a break.

FYI we don't have leaders, we have a President, Congress and
Judicial. We look to the President and Congress for leadership,
not leaders. Just like you hope someone you work for can
show some leadership and make a success of the business.

Uncle Surgar doesn't really exist you know. Just like Santa Clause.

[clambake]

^^Time of need, indeed. Obama and his wife, both black, both
raised in, only what can be termed, wealth. And he knows how
to take care of them. Give me a break.

FYI we don't have leaders, we have a President, Congress and
Judicial. We look to the President and Congress for leadership,
not leaders. Just like you hope someone you work for can
show some leadership and make a success of the business.

Uncle Surgar doesn't really exist you know. Just like Santa Clause.
do we have an "Over your head" smiley?

[xrayzebra]

do we have an "Over your head" smiley?

Oh, you should have an answer to that. Or is it, you
cant reply to the post. Hillary "cackle".

[Mr. Peabody]

^^Time of need, indeed. Obama and his wife, both black, both
raised in, only what can be termed, wealth. And he knows how
to take care of them. Give me a break.



ray, you're talking out of your ass again. Obama was raised by a single mother and his grandparents. They weren't wealthy in any sense of the word. He attended the schools he did because of scholarships and student loans.

[boutons_]

whott loves a Hollywood fake name of John Wayne, but would Whott love him as much if his name were Marion Morrison?

Ignoring a guy and all standas for just because you don't like his birth name? It's the self-indicting racist, biased bullshit from the right which so transparent and humorous.

[whottt]

whott loves a Hollywood fake name of John Wayne, but would Whott love him as much if his name were Marion Morrison?

No...luckily John Wayne was smart enough to realize he needed to change his name to be successful in his professional endeavor...unfortunately Obama is too stupid to realize that.






Ignoring a guy and all standas for just because you don't like his birth name?

Who's ignoring? I'm just not going to vote for an idiot for President. Or support idiots that do.





It's the self-indicting racist, biased bullshit from the right which so transparent and humorous.

Ahh...you're a hypocritcal and decietful piece of crap boutons...by far the most racist and bigoted person on this forum.

[boutons_]

whott, stand over there next to Aggie and Clanny, and just own yourself. It's hilarious

[whottt]

It does matter because fools like you supported it in the first place.



Um...douche, congress supported it...no one voted for Bush in the first place because he was promising to take us into Iraq, it wasn't part of his original campaign, and by the second campaign we were already there. And I didn't vote for him the first time...

See how stupid you are?



I suggest you blindly and ignorantly start flailing about with double standard and biased racism accusations...like all the other simple minded ass hats are doing.

[whottt]

yeah, them fuckin bleks. im votin for mccain because i want him in my foxhole when we get captured.


Ahh so it's ok for them to be racist because of past grievances...


Ok...well I'm pissed off about that whole getting kicked out of the jungle thing and being forcred to live on Ice...


So therefore I can have justified racism just like they can...


See, what makesd you an idiot is that you don't stand for equality as espoused in the constitution in the least bit...


What you stand for is payback, reverse discrimination, and inequality...in short, you are the bigot who does not believe in equality.

[clambake]

Ahh so it's ok for them to be racist because of past grievances...


Ok...well I'm pissed off about that whole getting kicked out of the jungle thing and being forcred to live in Ice...


So therefore I can have justified racism just like they can...


See, what makesd you an idiot is that you don't stand for equality as espoused in the constitution in the least bit...


What you stand for is payback, reverse discrimination, and inequality...in short, you are the bigot who does not believe in equality.
my sarcasm fills your agenda?

by your logic, being named sidney might have garnered so much attention at the hilton.

[boutons_]

Hey, Whott, for you next joke, tell us how pro wrestling is a competitive sport rather than choreographed, scripted, bombastic bullshit marketed to trailer park/bubba demographic, mostly13-year old boys? :lol

[JoeChalupa]

Joe, you want to tell all the blacks that, that voted for him
in all the southern states.

You really need to get serious in you thoughts.

Was I only speaking to caucasians? Did I not say anyone?

Get serious indeed.