Reply With Quote
I guess no one really gives a that he's a Christian when it comes right down to it...
I mean, after all, aren't they all?
Um...I missed the part of the cons ution that says you have a guaranteed cons utional 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 cons utional 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.That's just PR bull to make us look better to the other countries. We're really in the business of Christianizing those lame-ass Brownies (TM).
I guess no one really gives a that he's a Christian when it comes right down to it...
I mean, after all, aren't they all?
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.
Apparently, some intolerant mo-fos do care.
Looks like, judging from your posts, you do too.
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.
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.
Does it figure? I've got 4 more years to look forward to listening to you guys about your stupidity...figure that.
Figures.
Just tryin' to help.
You guys might finally get your anti-war candidate in there...once it's over.
Do you believe polls? Did you in 04?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.
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.
i have the rest of your posting life to look forward to your stupidity.
I said "if" dip . What do you believe? Your own idiocy.Do you believe polls? Did you in 04?
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?Not as misleading as saying you are against a pull out and then voting for someone who is going to do just that...twice.
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.
Which fortunately for you, isn't going to be near as common as yours I fear..
I said "if" dip . 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.
I am not cloaking...you are...just put it out there who you are voting for and don't cloak stuff...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've seen you be on one side of the issue long enough to judge where your loyalties lie...
Yeah...and Obama is not going to benefit from a single vote from someone like that...is he?There are plenty of racists still in America who will allow the race of the candidate to determine their votes,
I mean surely if he were...you'd about that now wouldn't you?
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?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.
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
Last edited by whottt; 03-12-2008 at 05:10 AM.
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.
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.
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 re , 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...
And those would be?
What about racial bias? What about gender bias? What about religious bias?I'm not black, so how can I vote for Obama due to racial affinity?
How do you know his name doesn't sound like mine?I came to such a conclusion about you because you seem to be so hung up that his name sounds so unlike yours.
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...
Whatever makes you feel smart slick...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).
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'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?).What about racial bias? What about gender bias? What about religious bias?
Trying to make this about me, Sir Whottt?
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...
Do you think it matters to the voting public that much?
Nope...and it doesn't matter.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...
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.
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.
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.
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 cir stances often against our will, and the loss of life has been much greater because of it.The Republican base is now primarily based on hyper-Evangelicals who believe that all muslims = Islamic Fundies.
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 cir stances.
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.
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.
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!).
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!).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 cir stances often against our will, and the loss of life has been much greater because of it.
I never advocated isolationism. How's your reading comprehension, buddy?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.
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.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 cir stances.
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/ s get the right to vote, they may run for president someday, right? Glad we never progressed to the horror of having those fools voting.
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.
I think Libertarian suits me just fine, thank you.For instance 75% of the Liberal posters...
Last edited by some_user86; 03-12-2008 at 07:23 AM.
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.
You advocated Ron Paul...that's what he is. Actually, that's the best thing about him.I never advocated isolationism. How's your reading comprehension, buddy?
If he was running for President, then? Absolutely...and he'd have been right.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.
Like I said...you show me the cons utional 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...No point in contesting it, just understood that this is the way the world works.
If he wants to be President? Yeah...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 seem to continually confuse being the President with cons uonal 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.
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...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.
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.
We don't agree...that is a huge part of what is going to sink him.I agree. It's not going to be his view on Iraq that's 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...(most people in the country agree on withdrawal).
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...
An "immediate withdrawal" would take years anyways.
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.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).
Those are negatives...but the big negatives are he's named Hussein and wants us out of Iraq.I agree that what's going to sink him is the racial or ethnic intolerance of a minority people.
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.Just like what's going to sink Hilary in the general election is her gender.
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...But, let's never attempt to move forward from our irrational fears. Let's always maintain the status quo.
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?After all, in the 20s-60s, the concern was if them negroes/brownies/ s get the right to vote, they may run for president someday, right?
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 cons utional 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.
Last edited by whottt; 03-12-2008 at 07:31 AM.
You can also control your middle name...and your stance on the Iraq war.
How does a person's middle name define his policy?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions