NationStates Jolt Archive

Jeez, I've been hearing nothing but Barack Obama this, Barack Obama that. Blah blah blah, now he's starting a Presidential committee, blah blah blah. Why does it seem like everyone is cumming in their pants over this guy? I mean to be honest, I doubt he'll even survive the primaries. I mean he is a first term senator out of Illinois, he does not have enough experience to even think about running for President. I mean he has to know the in and out of Washington DC. Yes I know, we did have Gerald Ford, but Ford was a weak President because he was inexperience. Not to say that he's not a great guy, and I do applause his humanitarian effort. I just think people shouldn't get their hopes up about Obama "taking the White House". Especially since we're still in '07!

Let me be the first to observe the 800-lb. silverback gorilla: Obama is of a minority race.

You know, I think it's good to at least consider a candidate who has not been completely consumed by the usual Washington grind. Why dismiss him just because he hasn't served on the Hill?

Besides, he's a clear thinker, an eloquent speaker, and, as far as I've seen, has taken the right stands on the most important issues.

I'm wondering about all the hype surrounding Barack Obama myself. Normally the media is biased towards the Democratic candidate for president, so why they would be favoring a guy who has no chance of winning the presidency is beyond me.

I think he might have a chance, actually. That's because he's taking advantage of this bizarre hype that seems to have been worked up for no apparent reason, the major opponent is Hillary, who's rather disliked, and it's extremely rare that one party holds the presidency for more than eight years. It doesn't make me respect the stupidity of the political system anymore, or the two parties involved, but I do think he has a decent chance.

Let me be the first to observe the 800-lb. silverback gorilla: Obama is of a minority race.

omg u r teh racizt fuerer!!1 ;)

Jeez, I've been hearing nothing but Barack Obama this, Barack Obama that. Blah blah blah, now he's starting a Presidential committee, blah blah blah. Why does it seem like everyone is cumming in their pants over this guy? I mean to be honest, I doubt he'll even survive the primaries. I mean he is a first term senator out of Illinois, he does not have enough experience to even think about running for President. I mean he has to know the in and out of Washington DC. Yes I know, we did have Gerald Ford, but Ford was a weak President because he was inexperience. Not to say that he's not a great guy, and I do applause his humanitarian effort. I just think people shouldn't get their hopes up about Obama "taking the White House". Especially since we're still in '07!

What the fuck does Senate experience have to do with the President?
The only thing the President needs to know is when he doesn't know something, that is the job of the cabinet.

I may misunderestimate the sense of the average US voter, but I believe that Mr. Obama has already made the fatal error of failing to change his name before entering politics.

I want to see him run, because he just won't win :p . Seriously, have you seen his voting record? It's about as off-center as a dart thrown by a blind man! He has shown no degree whatsoever of centrism, which is what one needs to win a presidential election these days. McCain and Juliani (sp?) (on the other side of the spectrum), who have shown themselves as much more centrist, have a much better chance of winning the presidential election (assuming they run) than Obama.

I want to see him run, because he just won't win :p . Seriously, have you seen his voting record? It's about as off-center as a dart thrown by a blind man! He has shown no degree whatsoever of centrism, which is what one needs to win a presidential election these days. McCain and Juliani (sp?) (on the other side of the spectrum), who have shown themselves as much more centrist, have a much better chance of winning the presidential election (assuming they run) than Obama.

If you think McCain is more centrist than Obama, you're a fucking moron.

I mean he is a first term senator out of Illinois, he does not have enough experience to even think about running for President. I mean he has to know the in and out of Washington DC. Yes I know, we did have Gerald Ford, but Ford was a weak President because he was inexperience.

ford was the house minority leader and had been a rep for 24 years. what does it take to be experienced in dc where you are from? and how did ronald reagan manage it?

You know, I think it's good to at least consider a candidate who has not been completely consumed by the usual Washington grind. Why dismiss him just because he hasn't served on the Hill?

And the Democrats would be wise to actually listen to him than for Hillary, Edwards, and any other Democrat on the extreme left. Obama is closer to the center than both Hillary and Edwards.

Besides, he's a clear thinker, an eloquent speaker, and, as far as I've seen, has taken the right stands on the most important issues.

And what do you consider the right stands and what do you consider issues to be important?

More news so old its cliche from everyone's favorite poster of news so old it's cliche.

I want to see him run, because he just won't win :p . Seriously, have you seen his voting record? It's about as off-center as a dart thrown by a blind man! He has shown no degree whatsoever of centrism, which is what one needs to win a presidential election these days. McCain and Juliani (sp?) (on the other side of the spectrum), who have shown themselves as much more centrist, have a much better chance of winning the presidential election (assuming they run) than Obama.

Both Rudy and John have filed exploratory committee papers I believe.

Experience is very important because it would be terrible to end up with an incompetent President.

Experience is very important because it would be terrible to end up with an incompetent President.
Like the current one? The only incompetent president is one who doesn't know when he doesn't know something and appoints a yes-man cabinet.

And what do you consider the right stands and what do you consider issues to be important?

Alright, let me clarify that a bit: he has avoided taking the worst stances on the most important issues, unlike some. In no particular order, he:


acknowledges the importance of conservation and alternative energy
is in favor of stem cell research
supports transparency, ethics reform, and bipartisanship
was against the Iraq War even before it started
is against laws on flag burning and gay marriage
opposes the use of religion as insulation against political criticism
supports increased CAFE standards
supports net neutrality


etc.

Lots more here (http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm).

Hillary, on the other hand, strikes me as a political opportunist, constantly shifting her beliefs to match whatever is convenient at the time.

If you think McCain is more centrist than Obama, you're a fucking moron.

Ha. Ya, ok...

Let me be the first to observe the 800-lb. silverback gorilla: Obama is of a minority race.
yup. GOP response would probably go something like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Kramer2.jpg
"He's a ******! He's a ******! Look everybody, He's a ******!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgmCBKPHnSY

Also, you forgot about his name. I can just see Fox (and GOP) 'accidently' calling him Osama repeatedly in the run-up to the election.

yup. GOP response would probably go something like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Kramer2.jpg
"He's a ******! He's a ******! Look everybody, He's a ******!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgmCBKPHnSY

Also, you forgot about his name. I can just see Fox (and GOP) 'accidently' calling him Osama repeatedly in the run-up to the election.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Hey, it's happened already. At least one Fox commentator I've seen insists on always referring to him as "Barack Hussein Obama".

Besides, if the GOP propaganda machine doesn't react like that (looking at some of the midterm campaign ads, even that's hard to say), you can sure as hell bet that a sizeable portion of the GOP base will.

Like the current one? The only incompetent president is one who doesn't know when he doesn't know something and appoints a yes-man cabinet.

No seriously... If we elected someone with no experience, he might really
screw things up. He could surround himself with bad advisors who give bad
advice and never listen to any smart people. An inexperienced President
might get us involved in some stupid war or make some stupid diplomatic
error that hurts our influence around the world. Even if he doesn't do
anything that bad, an inexperienced President might accidently screw up the
budget and we'd end up with record deficits. That would really really suck.
We should try hard to stick to guys with lots of experience so none of these
bad bad sucky horrible things ever happen.

Hey, it's happened already. At least one Fox commentator I've seen insists on always referring to him as "Barack Hussein Obama".
And CNN had 'Searching for Obama' as a headline in a report about Osama Bin Laden.

Alright, let me clarify that a bit: he has avoiding taking the worst stances on the most important issues. In no particular order, he:


acknowledges the importance of conservation and alternative energy
is in favor of stem cell research
supports transparency, ethics reform, and bipartisanship
was against the Iraq War even before it started
is against laws on flag burning and gay marriage
opposes the use of religion as insulation against political criticism
supports increased CAFE standards
supports net neutrality


etc.

Lots more here (http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm).

Hillary, on the other hand, strikes me as a political opportunist, constantly shifting her beliefs to match whatever is convenient at the time.

I think I like this guy.:)

Hey, it's happened already. At least one Fox commentator I've seen insists on always referring to him as "Barack Hussein Obama".

Care to back that up with a little proof please?

Besides, if the GOP propaganda machine doesn't react like that (looking at some of the midterm campaign ads, even that's hard to say), you can sure as hell bet that a significant portion of the GOP base will.

I'm sure they will attack his voting record. Seems to be the way things run. Hell, no matter who is put up by either side, its going to be a bloodbath anyway.

:rolleyes:
This is why I have little time for conservatives:
No sense of humour.

This is why I have little time for conservatives:
No sense of humour.

Oh I have a sense of humor. Just ask my girlfriend. I just did not find your statement funny whatsoever.

Hey, it's happened already. At least one Fox commentator I've seen insists on always referring to him as "Barack Hussein Obama".

Besides, if the GOP propaganda machine doesn't react like that (looking at some of the midterm campaign ads, even that's hard to say), you can sure as hell bet that a sizeable portion of the GOP base will.

oh noes not teh faux

Care to back that up with a little proof please?

Republican strategist Ed Rogers, commentator on MSNBC's Hardball (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKNLIoWyVx0).

Alright, it wasn't on Fox. But it was a GOP strategist.

yup. GOP response would probably go something like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Kramer2.jpg
"He's a ******! He's a ******! Look everybody, He's a ******!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgmCBKPHnSY

Also, you forgot about his name. I can just see Fox (and GOP) 'accidently' calling him Osama repeatedly in the run-up to the election.

Ah, jeez. I didn't mean it like that.

If Obama is elected, he will be the first minority to be elected president of the U.S. I guess some people think it would be a milestone in U.S. racial equality. . . Others might allege that he only got elected because of his race. That's why there's so much hype about him.

Republican strategist Ed Rogers, commentator on MSNBC's Hardball (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKNLIoWyVx0).

Alright, it wasn't on Fox. But it was a GOP strategist.

Thank you for proving it wasn't Fox.

I mean he has to know the in and out of Washington DC. Yes I know, we did have Gerald Ford, but Ford was a weak President because he was inexperience.

You're a fucking ignorant 'tard. Shrub didn't know dick about the ins and outs of Washington and he's been President for going on 6 years. And your comment about Ford being inexperienced shows that you are perhaps the ultimate 'tard. Ford served with distinction for quite a long time in the House Of Representatives.

Here's some advice: keep your mouth fucking shut when it comes to stuff you don't know dick about, which in your case is everything, and just go back to beating off to that infant bukkake snuff porn on your computer m'kay.

As for Obama, he will never come anywhere close to being elected President because he's black.

Is that racist?

Sure is.

But it's also true.

The Democrats have lost the entire South and having Obama as their nominee will only set them further back on the road to retaking the South.

If Obama does turn out to be the Democrat nominee, the Republicans will bring out the race card and you will see the far right fringe like the Klan and the Neo-Nazis out in force drumming up support for the Republican nominee.

I just did not find your statement funny whatsoever.
Which thus proves you have no sense of humour.
QED

Which thus proves you have no sense of humour.
QED

:rolleyes:

I do have a sense of humor. Just because I do not find something funny that you posted does not mean that I do not have a sense of humor. That is just plain ignorant to say so.

You're a fucking ignorant 'tard...you are perhaps the ultimate 'tard.
Here's some advice: keep your mouth fucking shut when it comes to stuff you don't know dick about, which in your case is everything, and just go back to beating off to that infant bukkake snuff porn on your computer m'kay.
Here's some advice: keep your obscene comments to yourself to avoid being banned.

It's not Wilgrove who's looking like a retard here.

:rolleyes:

I do have a sense of humor. Just because I do not find something funny that you posted does not mean that I do not have a sense of humor. That is just plain ignorant to say so.
See! You keep proving my point with the use of rollyeyes and assertions that you have a sense of humour.
Give it up. You can't win!

You're a fucking ignorant 'tard.

To continue to talk like this is going to get our sorry little butt banned. My advice to you is to tone down the rhetoric.

I want to see him run, because he just won't win :p . Seriously, have you seen his voting record? It's about as off-center as a dart thrown by a blind man! He has shown no degree whatsoever of centrism, which is what one needs to win a presidential election these days. McCain and Juliani (sp?) (on the other side of the spectrum), who have shown themselves as much more centrist, have a much better chance of winning the presidential election (assuming they run) than Obama.

Bush's lack of centrism really held him back, I'll tell you. :rolleyes:

See! You keep proving my point with the use of rollyeyes and assertions that you have a sense of humour.
Give it up. You can't win!

Oh brother. Why don't you grow up and stop being so ignorant.

Thank you for proving it wasn't Fox.

No problem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQslh512A-Y). Not sure why (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK0GZmMhQos) I thought (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-lrTQ707cw) Fox (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boiJmnUivjw) would be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTj3ILO6r4s) anti-Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knw3Wi0uTYw).

he is a first term senator out of Illinois, he does not have enough experience to even think about running for President. I mean he has to know the in and out of Washington DC.
Question: What do you call a lawyer from Illinois, a former state legislator who served just two years in the U.S. Congress, who decides to pursue the nation's highest office?

Answer: Mr. President.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html

No problem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQslh512A-Y). Not sure why (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK0GZmMhQos) I thought (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-lrTQ707cw) Fox (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boiJmnUivjw) would be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTj3ILO6r4s) anti-Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knw3Wi0uTYw).

Now care to actually post a point instead of videos?

No problem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQslh512A-Y). Not sure why (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK0GZmMhQos) I thought (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-lrTQ707cw) Fox (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boiJmnUivjw) would be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTj3ILO6r4s) anti-Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knw3Wi0uTYw).
You forgot this gem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=559kCaH1Shw

Yopu forgot this gem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=559kCaH1Shw

Yeah, but that was just an affiliate, so I figured I'd let it slide.

Expierience means nothing. Kennedy was a 1st term senator when he got elected, sure he had 3 terms in the house before that. But that isn't much expierience. Meanwhile, the two of the most incompetent presidents of recent times, Nixon and Il douche himself are far more expierienced. But it didn't stop them robbing political opponents and entering unnecesary wars,respectively. Expierience isn't completely unimportant but their are many other factors that came first in deciding my vote.

The most likely candidates are Obama or Clinton for the democrats and McCain or Guliani for the reps, and from what i've seen so far of the 4 my vote goes to Obama (and tradionally im not a always democrat voter either,2004=rep,2000=dem,1996=dem,1992=rep). Obama is being compared to Kennedy already, his campaign will be very interesting.

I think Obama is already sunk, partially for racial reasons. Apart from KKK-types who just hate the idea of a black guy in a seat power, theres also the white guys who think that minorities have an unfair advantage in many parts of society. What really convinces me is all the bashing thats going on right now about drug abuse, as well as his middle name. The fact that its this bad before he even has announced his intention to run; imagine what it would be like if he was running, it would be a fire hose of mud.

I think Obama is already sunk, partially for racial reasons. Apart from KKK-types who just hate the idea of a black guy in a seat power, theres also the white guys who think that minorities have an unfair advantage in many parts of society. What really convinces me is all the bashing thats going on right now about drug abuse, as well as his middle name. The fact that its this bad before he even has announced his intention to run; imagine what it would be like if he was running, it would a fire hose of mud.
But if he gets past the Democratic primaries, the Republicans will be hard pressed to run a good candidate. It may force them to nominate McCain, but that's doubtable.

Now care to actually post a point instead of videos?
umm..how is posting video proof of Fox in response to your demand for proof of Fox not actually a point?

Here's another link for you:
Fox review of Obama's book (http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/03/fox_news_battering_obama_over_books_admissions.php)

I Wouldn't worry, watching Fox has been compared to sticking your head into a toilet, in comparison to the kind of information you get.

I think Obama is already sunk, partially for racial reasons. Apart from KKK-types who just hate the idea of a black guy in a seat power, theres also the white guys who think that minorities have an unfair advantage in many parts of society. What really convinces me is all the bashing thats going on right now about drug abuse, as well as his middle name. The fact that its this bad before he even has announced his intention to run; imagine what it would be like if he was running, it would be a fire hose of mud.

He's got a better shot as a Democrat than as a Republican though, because there are a significant number of black votes to be had in both the primaries and the general election. I'm not going to say he'll be competitive in Mississippi, or that he's a walk if he gets the nomination, just that I don't think his race makes as large a difference as it might in other circumstances.

The name bashing thing will happen, no question, but it's also got a great chance to backfire. The only people who will find that clever are the Limbaugh listeners and the Freepi. Most independents, I suspect, will see that and go "is that all you've got--the name?"

As an Illinois resident, I must say: While in general a lack of experiance may not necessarily be a bad thing, Mr. Obamas decidedly is. I appreciate his carefully worded stances on major issues, but the sheer ineptitude he consistantly exibits is nigh awe-inspiring. Well, it's certanly jaw dropping in any case. He's allowed the Daley Machine running out of Chicago to run over him time and time again, destroying the states budget in the process.

Jeez, I've been hearing nothing but Barack Obama this, Barack Obama that. Blah blah blah, now he's starting a Presidential committee, blah blah blah. Why does it seem like everyone is cumming in their pants over this guy? I mean to be honest, I doubt he'll even survive the primaries. I mean he is a first term senator out of Illinois, he does not have enough experience to even think about running for President. I mean he has to know the in and out of Washington DC. Yes I know, we did have Gerald Ford, but Ford was a weak President because he was inexperience. Not to say that he's not a great guy, and I do applause his humanitarian effort. I just think people shouldn't get their hopes up about Obama "taking the White House". Especially since we're still in '07!

What's this about Obama?

I think Obama is already sunk, partially for racial reasons. Apart from KKK-types who just hate the idea of a black guy in a seat power, theres also the white guys who think that minorities have an unfair advantage in many parts of society. What really convinces me is all the bashing thats going on right now about drug abuse, as well as his middle name. The fact that its this bad before he even has announced his intention to run; imagine what it would be like if he was running, it would be a fire hose of mud.

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/ObamaObama/images/crowe.gif

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/ObamaObama/images/crowe.gif

That's about it in my mind, and Obama has handed them Armor-piercing depleted uranium shells for their shit-cannons with this old memoir of his.

That's about it in my mind, and Obama has handed them Armor-piercing depleted uranium shells for their shit-cannons with this old memoir of his.

Almost seems like a good move to me. Get it all out in the open early, so no one can accuse you of keeping skeletons in your closet. Not that certain people (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701040011) haven't tried, though...

Despite admitting that they had no evidence to support their allegations, Fox News' Sean Hannity and Robert Novak suggested that "dirty political tricks" by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) are behind the recent "leaking" of Sen. Barack Obama's admission that he had used cocaine. But as Democratic strategist Laura Schwartz noted, Obama wrote in a 1995 memoir that he used drugs; she added, "There's no leak." Earlier in the conversation, Novak claimed that "we have no evidence whatsoever that George W. Bush ever used cocaine."

Obama is good. He's charismatic, well educated, a real uniter, and he has taken the right stances on the right issues. Moreover, he is shit-tons better than either John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. He is the only front-runner in either party who I would want to vote for and support.

I would vote for and support Edwards if he won the nomination, but it would be because I didn't want a Rethuglican president. I would hold my nose and vote for Clinton if she was running against McCain or Romney, but I wouldn't even support her campaign, and if Giulliani ran against her, I'd vote for Giulliani.

Obama is the Dem who I believe can bring about a realigning election, finally closing the door on the excesses that the Reagan revolution has spawned.

Obama is good. He's charismatic, well educated, a real uniter, and he has taken the right stances on the right issues. Moreover, he is shit-tons better than either John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. He is the only front-runner in either party who I would want to vote for and support.

I would vote for and support Edwards if he won the nomination, but it would be because I didn't want a Rethuglican president. I would hold my nose and vote for Clinton if she was running against McCain or Romney, but I wouldn't even support her campaign, and if Giulliani ran against her, I'd vote for Giulliani.

Obama is the Dem who I believe can bring about a realigning election, finally closing the door on the excesses that the Reagan revolution has spawned.

This characterizes the problem with the US...people will vote for the wrong person just to keep out a party....even if the person might be good.

"we have no evidence whatsoever that George W. Bush ever used cocaine."
Well technically we don't.
We only have GWB's assertion that he did.
And why should we believe the word of a cocaine-user and alcoholic? Those guys lie all the time!

Ron Paul FTW.

Ron Paul FTW.

Amen. :)

This characterizes the problem with the US...people will vote for the wrong person just to keep out a party....even if the person might be good.

Frankly, I don't really give a shit. The Republicans are a corrupt, essentially evil party pandering to extremists and theocrats and I have no time for them or for their stances. Rudy Giulianni would have my support if he ran as a Republican against a Dem I disliked. Otherwise, a Dem would have my support all the way.

I do not trust Republicans, I have learned that they cannot be trusted any more. Their excesses under Bush have been so extreme, and so radically destructive that I do not believe that I ever will trust them again.

Let's not forget that other Illinois resident who ran for president. Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the South and he still won an electoral victory. The Democrats are already planning on a "win without the south" strategy, and Obama's color just doesn't matter in the north like it does in the South.

That said I am still baffled by why anyone cares about Obama. The only reason that anyone knew his name in the first place is that he gave the opening speech at the Democratic Convention. It seems almost providential that he's so universally loved. He doesn't seem to have centrist views, his race is a liability, and he has little experience, but the press can't say anything bad about him. It's baffling.

Frankly, I don't really give a shit. The Republicans are a corrupt, essentially evil party pandering to extremists and theocrats and I have no time for them or for their stances. Rudy Giulianni would have my support if he ran as a Republican against a Dem I disliked. Otherwise, a Dem would have my support all the way.

I do not trust Republicans, I have learned that they cannot be trusted any more. Their excesses under Bush have been so extreme, and so radically destructive that I do not believe that I ever will trust them again.

Another problem with the US...for every corrupt Republican there is a corrupt Democrat......but too many people hate to admit the truth...... maybe then they would have to think for themselves and actually take the time to learn about issues and people rather then just listen to PR.

Another problem with the US...for every corrupt Republican there is a corrupt Democrat......but too many people hate to admit the truth...... maybe then they would have to think for themselves and actually take the time to learn about issues and people rather then just listen to PR.

I don't think you understand. I do not believe that the Republican party is merely corrupt. I believe that it is incompetant and now evil because of the actions of the Republicans under George W. Until they can learn the lesson of moderation and control, they are no longer fit to rule.


A vote for one Republican will now enable the Dennis Hasterts, the Alberto Gonzaleses, the George W. Bushes, and the Rick Santorums within their party. To support them would be to condone evil, corrupt, far-right, ideologues who put ideology before competance.

Let's not forget that other Illinois resident who ran for president. Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the South and he still won an electoral victory.

That's only because the Democrats split and chose two candidates, though. If they had stayed united, Lincoln wouldn't have stood a chance.

I don't think you understand. I do not believe that the Republican party is merely corrupt. I believe that it is incompetant and now evil because of the actions of the Republicans under George W. Until they can learn the lesson of moderation and control, they are no longer fit to rule.


A vote for one Republican will now enable the Dennis Hasterts, the Alberto Gonzaleses, the George W. Bushes, and the Rick Santorums within their party. To support them would be to condone evil, corrupt, far-right, ideologues who put ideology before competance.

Oh yes, and the Democrats are Sooooooooooo much better. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, and the Democrats are Sooooooooooo much better. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Don't feed the partisan hack.

As an outside observer, who is very interested in American politics, I can't wait for the circus that will be the 2008 presidental elections - and I mean CIRCUS.

I think Obama is already sunk, partially for racial reasons. Apart from KKK-types who just hate the idea of a black guy in a seat power, theres also the white guys who think that minorities have an unfair advantage in many parts of society. What really convinces me is all the bashing thats going on right now about drug abuse, as well as his middle name. The fact that its this bad before he even has announced his intention to run; imagine what it would be like if he was running, it would be a fire hose of mud.

So if he runs, racists will be out in the open and hopefully exposed and decredibilised for what they are.

I don't really give a damn about Obama's ethnicity. What's important is that the views he has expressed so far would probably lead me to support him if I were American.

So if he runs, racists will be out in the open and hopefully exposed and decredibilised for what they are.

Yea! Obama can run as the Decredibiliser!

Let's see. He doesn't strike me as a black man with any "street cred". He was born rich, lived a rich life, and is half-white.

He has more in common, lifestyle-wise, with Republicans.

I don't think Obama has a chance. If Hilary washes out, the Dems will nominate someone "safe" like Edwards.

Hmm, if we're replaying the Vietnam Era, what are the chances that the Democrats nominate someone as dumb as McGovern, and mess up their easy shot at the White House?

Given their track record, I'd say there's a very good chance of that.

Edit: Ack! Time travel!

I don't think Obama has a chance. If Hilary washes out, the Dems will nominate someone "safe" like Edwards.

Hmm, if we're replaying the Vietnam Era, what are the chances that the Democrats nominate someone as dumb as McGovern, and mess up their easy shot at the White House?

Let's see. He doesn't strike me as a black man with any "street cred". He was born rich, lived a rich life, and is half-white.

He has more in common, lifestyle-wise, with Republicans.

And your point is... ?

Hmm, if we're replaying the Vietnam Era, what are the chances that the Democrats nominate someone as dumb as McGovern, and mess up their easy shot at the White House?

Less likely, though I've learned never to underestimate the ability of the Democrats to fuck up an easy win. 2004 reinforced that for me. But at least in this case, as opposed to 1972, the Republicans don't have the "dirty hippies" to run against. Being anti-war is now the mainstream position, and I'd be willing to bet that even the Republican candidate will be making withdrawal noises by 2008.

And your point is... ?

I'm waiting for him to repeat the Limbaugh line where he calls Obama a half-minority, or the one by that asshole from California where Obama becomes a "halfrican."

This characterizes the problem with the US...people will vote for the wrong person just to keep out a party....even if the person might be good.

They tried that with Kerry and lost.

umm..how is posting video proof of Fox in response to your demand for proof of Fox not actually a point?

Here's another link for you:
Fox review of Obama's book (http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/03/fox_news_battering_obama_over_books_admissions.php)

Nothing wrong with the headline and apparently it stemmed from a Washington Post Article.

Frankly, I don't really give a shit. The Republicans are a corrupt, essentially evil party pandering to extremists and theocrats and I have no time for them or for their stances.

The Democrats are a corrupt, essentially evil party pandering to extremists bent on destroying the Constitution of the United States and I have no time for them or for their stances.

See? I can be just as moronic as you are.

Rudy Giulianni would have my support if he ran as a Republican against a Dem I disliked. Otherwise, a Dem would have my support all the way.

So regardless of where someone from the opposing party stands, you'd vote straight ticket? Good job on wasting your vote. You are the reason why voting in this country sucks.

I do not trust Republicans, I have learned that they cannot be trusted any more. Their excesses under Bush have been so extreme, and so radically destructive that I do not believe that I ever will trust them again.

I do not trust Democrats, I have learned that they cannot be trusted any more. Their excesses under Clinton have been so childish, and so radically inept that I do not believe that I ever will trust them again.

Oh please. You are just showing yourself to be a childish prick with no understanding whatsoever. Both parties are guilty of everything you are saying so stop blaming one party only.

Less likely, though I've learned never to underestimate the ability of the Democrats to fuck up an easy win. 2004 reinforced that for me. But at least in this case, as opposed to 1972, the Republicans don't have the "dirty hippies" to run against. Being anti-war is now the mainstream position, and I'd be willing to bet that even the Republican candidate will be making withdrawal noises by 2008.

One would have thought in 1968 that being against the war was mainstream, and certainly by the early 1970s.

Another problem with the US...for every corrupt Republican there is a corrupt Democrat......but too many people hate to admit the truth...... maybe then they would have to think for themselves and actually take the time to learn about issues and people rather then just listen to PR.

Hear hear. I agree 100% Ashlyynn.

*hands you a cookie.

I don't think you understand. I do not believe that the Republican party is merely corrupt. I believe that it is incompetant and now evil because of the actions of the Republicans under George W. Until they can learn the lesson of moderation and control, they are no longer fit to rule.
]/quote]

Neither are the democrats fit to rule.

[quote]A vote for one Republican will now enable the Dennis Hasterts, the Alberto Gonzaleses, the George W. Bushes, and the Rick Santorums within their party. To support them would be to condone evil, corrupt, far-right, ideologues who put ideology before competance.

Someone truly needs to grow the hell up.

And introducing the President of the United States of America Mr Barack Obama...nah it doesn't work, and it won't go down well in Texas or Ken-tuk-eee and i've a fair idea why. I'd vote for him but i'm not an American, George W Bush would probably hand him the keys and ask him to park the car.
;)

I'd rather have someone in office who disagrees with my opinions, but is a stand-up guy (Obama), than someone from my own side of the spectrum who changes his views with the turning of the wind, to gain more votes (McCain). Not to mention the fact that McCain's son, who failed to complete NAPS, mysteriously got admitted to Annapolis. Coincidentially, the admission standards for the year were lowered enough that he could get in.

I'd still vote Rep.

Neither are the democrats fit to rule.

That's nice. PATRIOT Act, Warantless Wiretapping, MCA, Duke Cunningham, Plamegate, Katrina Response, Foley Coverups, Iraq Bungles, Afghanistan Bungles, etc. The list goes on and on. The Democrats haven't been part of this culture of corruption, and when they create one of their own, I won't be voting for them either.

The Republicans need to spend some time in the woods trying to remember what it means to be moderate, and trying to remember that good sense comes before ideology in the U.S. Until they have done that, and really shown that they have learned the lessons that the 2006 election should have taught them, I will not trust them. I am not sure that they ever can show that they have learned the lessons that they should have learned from Nixon and now Bush, but I certainly won't say that they never will.


Someone truly needs to grow the hell up.

Why, because I understand the way congressional law works? A vote for a Republican candidate in the Congress is a vote to put all of the Republicans in power in the committees. It is a vote to put all of the Republicans in control of The Rules. A vote for a Republican in the White House is a vote to put all of the Republicans in the driver's seat for national policy. It is a vote to put Republicans like Alberto Gonzales in control of the Attourney General's office. It is a vote for more Michael Browns.

Sorry, but if that means that I'm immature, or a partisan hack. Well, frankly, I think that the other option is being blind. The Republicans have run one of the most disgusting, despicable majorities in American history, and part of Democracy is to not say: "Well, everyone sucks, so when a party does bad, it doesn't mean a thing." We need to hold our leaders accountable. It is the people of the U.S. who are in charge of the government, not vice versa. That means that when a party oversteps it's bounds, it needs to have it's wrist slapped, and it needs to go to it's room until it knows how to behave better.

One would have thought in 1968 that being against the war was mainstream, and certainly by the early 1970s.

It was, but since the anti-war crowd was cast as being the "dirty fucking hippies," the Nixon campaign was able to run against them, and the result was that the voters were willing to vote for someone who's policies they disagreed with because they liked the alternative even less. That's not the case with this war. There aren't any dirty fucking hippies to cast as the bad guys this time.

That's nice. PATRIOT Act, Warantless Wiretapping, MCA, Duke Cunningham, Plamegate, Katrina Response, Foley Coverups, Iraq Bungles, Afghanistan Bungles, etc.

Do you want me to list some of the stuff that the Democrats are guilty of? We could keep the list going and going and going for both parties. No one party is clean dude. Both sides have done stupid stuff, violated law, etc etc.

The list goes on and on. The Democrats haven't been part of this culture of corruption, and when they create one of their own, I won't be voting for them either.

You shouldn't vote for either party period. Hell you shouldn't vote at all. Not with this intense anger of yours.

The Republicans need to spend some time in the woods trying to remember what it means to be moderate, and trying to remember that good sense comes before ideology in the U.S.

Something that dems need to do as well. Also, common sense should be placed above party and neither side seems to believe that.

Why, because I understand the way congressional law works? A vote for a Republican candidate in the Congress is a vote to put all of the Republicans in power in the committees.

And vice versa. We could keep this shell game up all day. It is worthless however.

Ya know? The rest of this, I'm just ignoring because you are indeed a partisan hack.

And vice versa. We could keep this shell game up all day. It is worthless however.

Ya know? The rest of this, I'm just ignoring because you are indeed a partisan hack.
And you're a hypocrite.

And you're a hypocrite.

really?

Obama's the guy who said "Of course I inhaled, that was the point", right? I'd vote for him.

really?

Corny, you're one of the biggest partisans this board has ever known.

Obama's the guy who said "Of course I inhaled, that was the point", right? I'd vote for him.

That's the kind of blunt honesty we need in politics.

That's nice. PATRIOT Act, Warantless Wiretapping, MCA, Duke Cunningham, Plamegate, Katrina Response, Foley Coverups, Iraq Bungles, Afghanistan Bungles, etc. The list goes on and on. The Democrats haven't been part of this culture of corruption, and when they create one of their own, I won't be voting for them either.

The Republicans need to spend some time in the woods trying to remember what it means to be moderate, and trying to remember that good sense comes before ideology in the U.S. Until they have done that, and really shown that they have learned the lessons that the 2006 election should have taught them, I will not trust them. I am not sure that they ever can show that they have learned the lessons that they should have learned from Nixon and now Bush, but I certainly won't say that they never will.




Why, because I understand the way congressional law works? A vote for a Republican candidate in the Congress is a vote to put all of the Republicans in power in the committees. It is a vote to put all of the Republicans in control of The Rules. A vote for a Republican in the White House is a vote to put all of the Republicans in the driver's seat for national policy. It is a vote to put Republicans like Alberto Gonzales in control of the Attourney General's office. It is a vote for more Michael Browns.

Sorry, but if that means that I'm immature, or a partisan hack. Well, frankly, I think that the other option is being blind. The Republicans have run one of the most disgusting, despicable majorities in American history, and part of Democracy is to not say: "Well, everyone sucks, so when a party does bad, it doesn't mean a thing." We need to hold our leaders accountable. It is the people of the U.S. who are in charge of the government, not vice versa. That means that when a party oversteps it's bounds, it needs to have it's wrist slapped, and it needs to go to it's room until it knows how to behave better.


I most definately agree and second your opinion, I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Corny, you're one of the biggest partisans this board has ever known.

Why don't you meet me in person and then come back and say that. I'm sure you will be quite mistaken in that assertion. Compared to both extreme sides on this board, i'm more closer to the middle on many discussions. Maybe I act like one because that is the only way to actually participate as both sides take extreme views and it seems that it is only those views that get noticed.

Why don't you meet me in person and then come back and say that. I'm sure you will be quite mistaken in that assertion. Compared to both extreme sides on this board, i'm more closer to the middle on many discussions. Maybe I act like one because that is the only way to actually participate as both sides take extreme views and it seems that it is only those views that get noticed.

that....or you're a right wing shill.

that....or you're a right wing shill.

Do I lean right? Yes I do. However, I'm more of a moderate Republican, willing to reach out across party lines and willing to compromise. If I was in Congress, I would not vote against bills that would be beneficial to the country regardless if it came from the Dems or the Reps.

Do I lean right? Yes I do. However, I'm more of a moderate Republican, willing to reach out across party lines and willing to compromise. If I was in Congress, I would not vote against bills that would be beneficial to the country regardless if it came from the Dems or the Reps.
The mere fact that you would never find any Dem=sponsored bill 'beneficial' to the country is neither here nor there, is it?
You're still a centrist and a moderate!

The mere fact that you would never find any Dem=sponsored bill 'beneficial' to the country is neither here nor there, is it?
You're still a centrist and a moderate!

Yep.

Why don't you meet me in person and then come back and say that.
Then you are still a hypocrite, one way or another.

First of all, I'd vote for Obama because of his character, which seems easily recognizable to me. It's been a long time since any politician inspired real confidence in me. I predict that if Obama is nominated, there probably will be a rascist response, and that will hurt the republican candidate more than anything. Mainstream America very much dislike rascism, and if the republican candidate becomes known as the guy rascists support, I bet quite a few won't vote for him.

We need to hold our leaders accountable. It is the people of the U.S. who are in charge of the government, not vice versa. That means that when a party oversteps it's bounds, it needs to have it's wrist slapped, and it needs to go to it's room until it knows how to behave better.
Why vote for either party then?

I will refuse to support/vote for him until he emails me back dangit!

Someone dug up Obama's high school yearbook--you can see it here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/18/181128/082). He went by Barry at the time, apparently. :D

yeah I skipped most of the thread, does anyone have a link where I can see where he stands on things? or his voting record or something?

all I get everywhere I look is the standard "I like America" crap.

Obama is a tool.

That's all I have to say about him and his stupid "Iraq troop cap" bill.

I will refuse to support/vote for him until he emails me back dangit!

His office is bad about that. I've yet tot get a response.

yeah I skipped most of the thread, does anyone have a link where I can see where he stands on things? or his voting record or something?

all I get everywhere I look is the standard "I like America" crap.

Socialist democrat.

from what I have seen of Obamas character and stance on political issues, it seems that if he were elected as president, I would finally have pride for the leader of my country and high hopes for a brighter future.

yeah I skipped most of the thread, does anyone have a link where I can see where he stands on things? or his voting record or something?

all I get everywhere I look is the standard "I like America" crap.

here you go Smunkee! :)

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BS030017

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

Why don't you meet me in person and then come back and say that. I'm sure you will be quite mistaken in that assertion. Compared to both extreme sides on this board, i'm more closer to the middle on many discussions. Maybe I act like one because that is the only way to actually participate as both sides take extreme views and it seems that it is only those views that get noticed.LOL
I get that Tony Blair feeling from you Corny. Read that shit with the TB voice, and it's bang on!

McCain or Guiliani will not win the Republican primaries. They are too far off the base. Rudy is a social liberal, I'm unsure on McCain.

I like Obama, but doubt he could win the primaries or the election. Maybe in 2012 if something happens, but I would back him any day.

Personally, I dont see a viable person who could make the base to center run and back needed to win. In either party.

Socialist democrat.

Better that than the authoritarian, anti-constitutionalist asswipe currently in office.

McCain or Guiliani will not win the Republican primaries. They are too far off the base. Rudy is a social liberal, I'm unsure on McCain.
What about Ron Paul? Are his chances good?

Better that than the authoritarian, anti-constitutionalist asswipe currently in office.

don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.


oh, and I looked up Mr. Obama, and I have to say while he is good looking, we are at odds on a LOT of issues, so unless he turns out to be the lesser of two evils (which is likely) I probably won't vote for him should he run for prez.

What about Ron Paul? Are his chances good?
He's running? No, his chances are not good.

He's running? No, his chances are not good.
I believe he is. Perhaps alongside Tancredo. Ron Paul is one candidate I'd most like to win.

This is so stupid, how could Osama run for president, he's a terrorist.

I believe he is. Perhaps alongside Tancredo. Ron Paul is one candidate I'd most like to win.
Well, I wouldn't spit on Tancredo if he was on fire, but Ron Paul seems like an honest enough guy, even though I think his political positions are juvenile at best.

yeah I skipped most of the thread, does anyone have a link where I can see where he stands on things? or his voting record or something?

all I get everywhere I look is the standard "I like America" crap.

Here's what I posted earlier:

Alright, let me clarify that a bit: he has avoided taking the worst stances on the most important issues, unlike some. In no particular order, he:


acknowledges the importance of conservation and alternative energy
is in favor of stem cell research
supports transparency, ethics reform, and bipartisanship
was against the Iraq War even before it started
is against laws on flag burning and gay marriage
opposes the use of religion as insulation against political criticism
supports increased CAFE standards
supports net neutrality


etc.

Lots more here (http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm).

Hillary, on the other hand, strikes me as a political opportunist, constantly shifting her beliefs to match whatever is convenient at the time.

don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.


oh, and I looked up Mr. Obama, and I have to say while he is good looking, we are at odds on a LOT of issues, so unless he turns out to be the lesser of two evils (which is likely) I probably won't vote for him should he run for prez.
Like what?
This is so stupid, how could Osama run for president, he's a terrorist.

Err... I think you missed something.:p

Err... I think you missed something.:p

Huh? You mean the fact that he's not even a US citizen?

You don't even understand the meaning of the word "socialist", do you.

Some days, I'm not convinced he knows the meaning of "the."

I hope you're kidding. Obama was born in Hawaii, and one of his parents was an American citizen. Jus soli and jus sanguinis right there.

I don't get it. Why do you people keep making that typo? The 'b' is nowhere close to the 's' on MY keyboard. Osama is not fit to be president, period.

;)

Socialist democrat.

You don't even understand the meaning of the word "socialist", do you.

I don't get it. Why do you people keep making that typo? The 'b' is nowhere close to the 's' on MY keyboard. Osama is not fit to be president, period.

;)

Not Osama bin Ladin, Barack Obama.
Heh.

Not Osama bin Ladin, Barack Obama.
Heh.

Who? Are they related?

Who? Are they related?

No.
And cut it out.

This is so stupid, how could Osama run for president, he's a terrorist.

This is why he will win:

every conservative pundit on the air is going to "accidentally" mispronounce the name, or spend a minute joking about it, because it's just too much to pass up.

but as soon as they do, the reasonable mainstream viewers will roll their eyes and change the channel.


If the republican candidate messes up once, or tries to be "hip and funny" at a rally to look good for the college kids, it's going to spread around the internet faster then the "macaca" video, and that will be it.

hardcore rightwingers will think it's funny, but mainstream america will roll their eyes, see it for the low blow that it is, and not vote for him.

and Obama will win.

but as soon as they do, the reasonable mainstream viewers will roll their eyes and change the channel.
You have a fatal flaw in your plan. You assume reasonable people watch that tripe. They don't. They are patronized by easily influenced ignorants who care less about the truth than about the slandering of people they assume are the enemy and they will all hear the "Obama Osama" crap and will repeat it ad nauseum believing his name alone makes him a terrorist supporter.

No.
And cut it out.

Chill, it's harmless fun ... :p

It's going to get REALLY old over the next year, especially if he decides to run, so where's the problem with me getting a few chuckles out of it before it's not funny anymore?

What about Ron Paul? Are his chances good?

No. :(

This is why he will win:
Flaw in your logic is that you rely too much on College kids voting.
Usually they don't.

I can't see Obama getting picked or, if he did, winning. For the same reasons I can't see any Black running for the Dems ever winning.
Reasoning?
Because the black vote ain't that much. They're only 15% of the population, and overwhelming vote Democrat anyway. Running a Black candidate would only garner a few thousand extra black votes for the Dems. Any gains here would more than countered by the rednecks voting against said candidate. Not just the overt racist ones either, but the ones who are afeared of losing all their privilleges.
The gop muck-flinging machine will launch into overdrive about how having a minority in the Whitehouse will see all those 'evil' EEO and PC policies forced through, which will hurt and destroy the honest, god-fearing Christian (white) man.
Every place in University will given to a minority first!
Hospitals will only treat minorities!
Unwed mothers will be given maseratis!
There'll be an annual 'let's spit on the white guy' day!

and so on.

Ironically, the one party who would benefit from having a minority candidate would be GOP itself. If they ran a black candidate, they would gather tens of thousands of black votes off the Dems, and all but the most kkk of rednecks would still vote for GOP, simply because they'll never vote for the Dems.

Damn, I have to keep reminding myself in these threads that Americans don't actually have to vote if they don't want to.

Anyways, I doubt even the mud-cannon Republicans could keep him out of the WH assuming he goes for it, if all their going to use is the name. I mean, honestly who would not vote for him because his name sounds like Osama. I mean, please....

Anyways, I doubt even the mud-cannon Republicans could keep him out of the WH assuming he goes for it, if all their going to use is the name. I mean, honestly who would not vote for him because his name sounds like Osama. I mean, please....

Welcome to U.S. politics. It's not what you stand for that counts; It's what you're smeared with.

I mean, honestly who would not vote for him because his name sounds like Osama. I mean, please....
Never underestimate the stupidity of the average voter, nor the depths politcial parties will descend to attack someone.

GOP even smeared one of their own (McCain) by implying he had had an affair with a black woman and fathered a baby.

Welcome to U.S. politics. It's not what you stand for that counts; It's what you're smeared with.

Though Clinton did a pretty nice job of squiggling out of a few tough spots...

Obama's race will be the same as kennedy's catholicness. The fact he was catholic cost him votes, but probably gained him more votes. I think it will be the same with Obama. Im white and i have no problem what soever voting in a black guy as president if he is the best candidate. And the scam who will vote against him just because of his race dont deserve the right to vote.

DAMN free speechs double edged sword.

What the fuck does Senate experience have to do with the President?
The only thing the President needs to know is when he doesn't know something, that is the job of the cabinet.

I don't think the original poster was being overly negative about Obama, it is just good to see a candidate has "some" political success and/or experience under their belt before trying to be President. I would like to see him wait another term, get established in the senate, and then make a run... Alot of potential voters know absolutely NOTHING about him..

Would anybody give a flying fuck about him if he wasn't ethnic? Of course not.

Positive discrimination now doesn't even require legislation....:rolleyes:

Would anybody give a flying fuck about him if he wasn't ethnic? Of course not.

Positive discrimination now doesn't even require legislation....:rolleyes:

His relative lack of name and ideal recognition allows people to project their own goals onto him.

Its not his melanin, its his apparently "closet Muslim religion." :rolleyes:

Obama confessed to using coke in High School, while launching a White House bid? That takes some balls.

I think he might have a chance, actually. That's because he's taking advantage of this bizarre hype that seems to have been worked up for no apparent reason, the major opponent is Hillary, who's rather disliked, and it's extremely rare that one party holds the presidency for more than eight years. It doesn't make me respect the stupidity of the political system anymore, or the two parties involved, but I do think he has a decent chance.



omg u r teh racizt fuerer!!1 ;)
That 'decent chance' is only to win Democratic candidacy. But rest assured, there's enough bigots to keep him from grabbing the Presidency. I mean, the guy is the only African American Senator at present.

Would anybody give a flying fuck about him if he wasn't ethnic? Of course not.

Just because his ethnicity is the only thing you "give a flying fuck about" doesn't mean the rest of us are as bigoted as you. Quit projecting your racism onto everyone else.

Positive discrimination now doesn't even require legislation....:rolleyes:

Yeah. White people have it tough. Now they even have to put up with black people, in politics. When will it end? Next they'll be taking our wimmin.

Would anybody give a flying fuck about him if he wasn't ethnic? Of course not.

Positive discrimination now doesn't even require legislation....:rolleyes:
Wow... and here I was thinking that you'd learned your lesson earlier in the thread. Can't you understand that racism isn't exactly welcome here?

People who are saying Obama "doesn't have enough experience" are only saying that because they can't think of anything substantial to say against him (and saying "he's black" just doesn't cut it, politically, these days). Fact of the matter is, NONE of the candidates (aside from Hillary) have had any experience whatsoever with sitting in the oval office. None of them. Not McCain. Not Lieberman. Nobody. Being a Senator or Congressman is not the same as being President. Completely different set of responsibilities. In fact, I think "he hasn't been a politician for very long" (what, only 6 or 8 years?) is probably one of the best things you can say about him.

Obama confessed to using coke in High School, while launching a White House bid? That takes some balls.

"Of course I inhaled. That's the whole point." - Obama on marijuana, I believe

I don't think the original poster was being overly negative about Obama, it is just good to see a candidate has "some" political success and/or experience under their belt before trying to be President. I would like to see him wait another term, get established in the senate, and then make a run... Alot of potential voters know absolutely NOTHING about him..
Hehe, you think alot of potential voters know anything about anyone.

"Of course I inhaled. That's the whole point." - Obama on marijuana, I believe

I give the man credit. Plus, he doesnt hide it behind his religion like some people.

"Cocaine use? I had not found God yet, so it doesn't count."

Would anybody give a flying fuck about him if he wasn't ethnic? Of course not.

Positive discrimination now doesn't even require legislation....:rolleyes:

were you always a nazi, and i just didn't pay attention to you before?

were you always a nazi, and i just didn't pay attention to you before?
How does what he said make him Nazi?

Flaw in your logic is that you rely too much on College kids voting.
Usually they don't.

I can't see Obama getting picked or, if he did, winning. For the same reasons I can't see any Black running for the Dems ever winning.
Reasoning?
Because the black vote ain't that much. They're only 15% of the population, and overwhelming vote Democrat anyway. Running a Black candidate would only garner a few thousand extra black votes for the Dems. Any gains here would more than countered by the rednecks voting against said candidate. Not just the overt racist ones either, but the ones who are afeared of losing all their privilleges.
The gop muck-flinging machine will launch into overdrive about how having a minority in the Whitehouse will see all those 'evil' EEO and PC policies forced through, which will hurt and destroy the honest, god-fearing Christian (white) man.
Every place in University will given to a minority first!
Hospitals will only treat minorities!
Unwed mothers will be given maseratis!
There'll be an annual 'let's spit on the white guy' day!

and so on.

Ironically, the one party who would benefit from having a minority candidate would be GOP itself. If they ran a black candidate, they would gather tens of thousands of black votes off the Dems, and all but the most kkk of rednecks would still vote for GOP, simply because they'll never vote for the Dems.

interesting points.

i am not black.nor am i a republican or democrat(both party's are horribly corrupt)
i agree with the libertarians on most issues,some i don't(open borders mostly)

i will say that i would probably vote for colin powell no matter the party he ran with.
he strikes me as a thoughtfull and moderate man.

if the repub's ran colin...i think he would be a shoo in for the oval office.
for some of the points you made.

hillary does not have a snowballs chance in hell(she is a political opportunist at best..and pretty transparent about it)

obama does not either(no exsperiance,the gop will drag him thru the mud,and alot will stick with the middle america types,hate to say it..the black thing is a huge hurdle for many whites...not really just rascist whites,but combined with other factors,alot of whites just wont vote for him)not to say they would not vote for any black man or women...just not him.

i like rudi to an extent,but he is a bit to liberal fiscally for my tastes.

my ideal candidate would be fiscally conservative,and socially liberal.

no one fits the bill here for me(from either party)

my ideal candidate would be fiscally conservative,and socially liberal.

no one fits the bill here for me(from either party)
Not even Ron Paul? Although I am not sure if he's been confirmed yet.

Obama confessed to using coke in High School, while launching a White House bid? That takes some balls.

lol...quite true

How does what he said make him Nazi?

its the combination of that and some stuff he was saying yesterday. mainly about how he hates darkies and would leave the country should one ever gain political power. so, nazi only in the hyperbolic and polite sense.

Are there a lot of racists around or are there just a few very vocal ones? I keep losing track of 'em.

its the combination of that and some stuff he was saying yesterday. mainly about how he hates darkies and would leave the country should one ever gain political power. so, nazi only in the hyperbolic sense, but a scum fucking racist shithead at least. nazi was me being polite.

Here are the posts in question, for reference:

meh. :rolleyes:

I would love to be outraged, but I'd emigrate if the UK elected a black prime minister, so I feel that would be a tad hypocritical.

As a UKIP member, I defy the will of any ethnic politician to echo my political ideals.

He also said something about feeling justified because he went to an elite school and his friends agreed with his views, but it makes more sense in context.

He also said something about feeling justified because he went to an elite school and his friends agreed with his views, but it makes more sense in context.

that part struck me a fundamentally odd. "well my racist idiocy ok because me and my rich friends that go to the best school around hold it together."

Not even Ron Paul? Although I am not sure if he's been confirmed yet.

ive heard some rumblings about ron paul,but he is to me like obama in many ways.
i know very little about him,other then he is a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment(which is a huge plus to me)
but as for his other positions,i will need to research him some.

alot of my shooting buddies like him,but i dont like to vote on single issue candidates.
i will vote against someone that is anti gun,but i wont vote for someone just because they are pro 2nd,makes little sense to most i know..but that's just me.(i am fiercely pro 2nd,as i am on all of the bor's)
that created a bad taste in my mouth with the repub's to be honest..their total lack of respect for the bor...plus the corruption didn't help.
any candidate i vote for needs to have at least a few views of mine in common with me.

it is unfortunate that politics work this way here,but they do..the last election shows that.

thats another negative(at least with me) for obama...chicago's crime rate is ridiculous,he is totally anti gun,like hillary,but has no vision on how to control crime other then take away guns...which only disarms innocents.

i will give ron paul a look,but i frankly dont like anyone from either party anymore,color me disgusted and cynical.

someone said earlier that obama should wait and get some exsperiance under his belt,along with a longer voting record.
i agree with that to an extent,but as someone also said,that"s his best advantage now.that he is not a d.c. insider.

power corrupts i guess,and the more time he spends in d.c. the more time he is exsposed to the rampant corruption.

ive heard some rumblings about ron paul,but he is to me like obama in many ways.
i know very little about him,other then he is a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment(which is a huge plus to me)
but as for his other positions,i will need to research him some.
Well, from what I know he is a libertarian, and even has links with Rothbard and L. Rockwell. But I agree on the rest - politicians rarely remain true to principles for long after (or even during the procedure of) their election.

that part struck me a fundamentally odd. "well my racist idiocy ok because me and my rich friends that go to the best school around hold it together."

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5425/motivator71358167xv.jpg

Jeez, I've been hearing nothing but Barack Obama this, Barack Obama that. Blah blah blah, now he's starting a Presidential committee, blah blah blah. Why does it seem like everyone is cumming in their pants over this guy? I mean to be honest, I doubt he'll even survive the primaries. I mean he is a first term senator out of Illinois, he does not have enough experience to even think about running for President. I mean he has to know the in and out of Washington DC. Yes I know, we did have Gerald Ford, but Ford was a weak President because he was inexperience. Not to say that he's not a great guy, and I do applause his humanitarian effort. I just think people shouldn't get their hopes up about Obama "taking the White House". Especially since we're still in '07!

what's experience got to do with it?...GWB never sat on a school committee and he runs for governor...then despite his supposed experience as gov of texas he has the distinction of being the worst Pres in history, has any body stupider every been in the Whitehouse?...there is no way Obama could do any worse...this "lack of experience" excuse is lame...

i know very little about him,other then he is a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment(which is a huge plus to me)

Anyone who puts so much emphasis on the second amendment sends up a red flag for me.

what's experience got to do with it?...GWB never sat on a school committee and he runs for governor...then despite his supposed experience as gov of texas he has the distinction of being the worst Pres in history, has any body stupider every been in the Whitehouse?...there is no way Obama could do any worse...this "lack of experience" excuse is lame...

i may be wrong,but i think alot of people have issues with obama...other then his race or lack of experience.

while on the flip side...many have issues with hitlery because of her experience,and nothing to do with her gender.

complicated issue not easily broken down into soundbites or talking points.

some americans actually think,contrary to the worlds opinion.

and it is not always lockstep with liberals....or conservatives.

this brings in other variables...something the media cant seem to give us,or you apparently..not a wisecrack...just the truth.

i may be wrong,but i think alot of people have issues with obama...other then his race or lack of experience.

while on the flip side...many have issues with hitlery because of her experience,and nothing to do with her gender.

complicated issue not easily broken down into soundbites or talking points.

some americans actually think,contrary to the worlds opinion.

and it is not always lockstep with liberals....or conservatives.

this brings in other variables...something the media cant seem to give us,or you apparently..not a wisecrack...just the truth.

Just the fact that you call her Hitlery makes me think you've 1) been getting information from shitty sources and 2) haven't put much thought into even the basics of this discussion. I may not like John McCain and think he's more two-faced than your average politician, but I'd never compare him to Hitler--that's just uncalled for. Hell, I hate Bush with a fervent passion and I wouldn't go there.

No seriously... If we elected someone with no experience, he might really
screw things up. He could surround himself with bad advisors who give bad
advice and never listen to any smart people. An inexperienced President
might get us involved in some stupid war or make some stupid diplomatic
error that hurts our influence around the world. Even if he doesn't do
anything that bad, an inexperienced President might accidently screw up the
budget and we'd end up with record deficits. That would really really suck.
We should try hard to stick to guys with lots of experience so none of these
bad bad sucky horrible things ever happen.

This is exactly what Bush is doing.

some americans actually think,contrary to the worlds opinion.


Link?

Anyone who puts so much emphasis on the second amendment sends up a red flag for me.

Right, someone who defends the Constitution is very dangerous. We need someone like Bush to overstep legal boundaries if we want to be truly safe. [sarcasm]:rolleyes:

Right, someone who defends the Constitution is very dangerous. We need someone like Bush to overstep legal boundaries if we want to be truly safe. [sarcasm]:rolleyes:
Let's see which logical fallacy that is? Spin the wheel of fallacies!
And it lands on... Straw man! Ohhhh, how bland.

The Constitution is a package deal, not just the first amendment and especially not the second. I have never seen those who focus so exclusively on the Second Amendment ever fight for any of the rest even half as viciously. Anyone who focuses on a single amendment over the others produces a red flag, and those who focus on the second even more so.

Let's see which logical fallacy that is? Spin the wheel of fallacies!
And it lands on... Straw man! Ohhhh, how bland.

Somehow I read that as Wheel of Fellatio. :p

Somehow I read that as Wheel of Fellatio. :p

Potaetoes, potahtoes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301901.html

@Those who think he should run in 2012 instead of 2008. Gives several reasons why Obama should run in '08.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610260146oct26,0,6498190.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Another interesting pov about why Obama shound run.

Potaetoes, potahtoes.

We're going back to potatos to buy back his power wrist.