NationStates Jolt Archive

Clinton and McCain are completely out for me, due to being far too pro-war. I am willing to consider Obama because he seems more reasonable. However, I do not agree with most of his policies. For instance: He wants to double capital gains tax. Is he under the impression that speculators like myself are all multi-millionaires? The markets being my profession, I make as much as your average Joe, I am just being taxed more.

But that aside, if someone can supply me good reasons to vote for Obama, I may very well.

its not like you have much of a choice :p

He's black! That means you have to vote for him or you're racist!

He isn't John McCain.

Not a very inspiring reason, perhaps, but a compelling one nonetheless.

Clinton and McCain are completely out for me, due to being far too pro-war. I am willing to consider Obama because he seems more reasonable. However, I do not agree with most of his policies. For instance: He wants to double capital gains tax. Is he under the impression that speculators like myself are all multi-millionaires? The markets being my profession, I make as much as your average Joe, I am just being taxed more.

But that aside, if someone can supply me good reasons to vote for Obama, I may very well.

He's not Clinton nor McCain.

He's black! That means you have to vote for him or you're racist!

I can only hope that was in jest, or you are a very sad, brainwashed person

Clinton and McCain are completely out for me, due to being far too pro-war. I am willing to consider Obama because he seems more reasonable. However, I do not agree with most of his policies. For instance: He wants to double capital gains tax. Is he under the impression that speculators like myself are all multi-millionaires? The markets being my profession, I make as much as your average Joe, I am just being taxed more.

But that aside, if someone can supply me good reasons to vote for Obama, I may very well.

Obama wants to take away YOUR money, that you earned personally, and your primary concern is a war 10000kms away?

Personally I'd rather see Obama get hit by a car... the man's smugness astounds me. Besides, anyone who claims black "racism" is okay because all people are, in their hearts, racist isn't going to get anywhere with me...

Obama wants to take away YOUR money, that you earned personally, and your primary concern is a war 10000kms away?

I know! What are you THINKING, Parkus, valuing human life over a couple thousand dollars a year?!

Clinton and McCain are completely out for me, due to being far too pro-war. I am willing to consider Obama because he seems more reasonable. However, I do not agree with most of his policies. For instance: He wants to double capital gains tax. Is he under the impression that speculators like myself are all multi-millionaires? The markets being my profession, I make as much as your average Joe, I am just being taxed more.

But that aside, if someone can supply me good reasons to vote for Obama, I may very well.

I can't. He is far to liberal. Reganomics is the way to go. Closest to that is McCain. That is who I would vote for. Obama is all flash no real issues handeled and Hillary is a dictator in the making.

Obama wants to take away YOUR money, that you earned personally, and your primary concern is a war 10000kms away?

Yes, because it is costing MY money and it is killing people.

Clinton and McCain are completely out for me, due to being far too pro-war. I am willing to consider Obama because he seems more reasonable. However, I do not agree with most of his policies. For instance: He wants to double capital gains tax. Is he under the impression that speculators like myself are all multi-millionaires? The markets being my profession, I make as much as your average Joe, I am just being taxed more.

But that aside, if someone can supply me good reasons to vote for Obama, I may very well.
Because he's not a Republican, and he's not Clinton. There we go.

Reganomics is the way to go into even more debt, and utterly cripple the already-weak dollar and US markets.
Fixed.

Clinton and McCain are completely out for me, due to being far too pro-war. I am willing to consider Obama because he seems more reasonable. However, I do not agree with most of his policies. For instance: He wants to double capital gains tax. Is he under the impression that speculators like myself are all multi-millionaires? The markets being my profession, I make as much as your average Joe, I am just being taxed more.

But that aside, if someone can supply me good reasons to vote for Obama, I may very well.

The capital gains rate is currently a good deal lower than payroll taxes. I'm not sure if double is fair, but an increase certainly is.

Out of curiosity, do you pay self-employment tax on your capital gains? If you consider it your job, then you probably should. Just like professional gamblers do, since that is essentially what you are.

He's black! That means you have to vote for him or you're racist!

You would be racist anyway.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13557371&postcount=13

Yes, because it is costing MY money and it is killing people.

Not to mention that with taxes, there is at least a chance that the money will benefit you somehow, whereas with a war, the money that you're usually spending on taxes is going down the drain.

However, I would say: Find a third party candidate that appeals to you. If you cannot, then find the candidate that appeals the closest to your own values. If you cannot, then... try to become president yourself?

Because he's not a Republican, and he's not Clinton. There we go.

Those are already the reasons I am considering him. I need additional reason to actually vote for the fellow.

Those are already the reasons I am considering him. I need additional reason to actually vote for the fellow.
Because if you don't, the Republicans might win?

Not to mention that with taxes, there is at least a chance that the money will benefit you somehow, whereas with a war, the money that you're usually spending on taxes is going down the drain.

Just so.

However, I would say: Find a third party candidate that appeals to you.

I have found a few aspirants who I might vote for should they become nominated, but they may very well not.

If you cannot, then find the candidate that appeals the closest to your own values.

I am trying.

If you cannot, then... try to become president yourself?

I am too apolitical. Besides, my political career would be ruined as soon as someone started quoting my nation's posts.

Because if you don't, the Republicans might win?

Yeah, and last time that happened we went to war with a random country, dropped taxes so that we can't fund it, and then went into recession.

Because if you don't, the Republicans might win?

This is what passes for informed voting? :(

While I do happen to agree with many of Obama's policies, the biggest reasons I'm voting for him deal with his apparent support of things like government accountability and transparency as well as foreign policy. There are always endless debates over things like abortion, the death penalty, gay rights, etc. so while I share his stance on these issues for the most part, these are not the most important ones to me necessarily, as they will most likely just be debated and possibly changed again with the next president. However, government transparency and foreign policy are likely to be more lasting and fundamental changes to the current structure of government.

Also, whether you prefer Clinton's or Obama's health care plan, universal health care is something that is badly needed in this country.

This is what passes for informed voting? :(

No, it's what passes as sensible voting :D

Yeah, and last time that happened we went to war with a random country, dropped taxes so that we can't fund it, and then went into recession.

True, but it was a Democrat who employed the atomic bomb in warfare.

True, but it was a Democrat who employed the atomic bomb in warfare.

What does that have to do with this election? :confused:

Clinton and McCain are completely out for me, due to being far too pro-war. I am willing to consider Obama because he seems more reasonable. However, I do not agree with most of his policies. For instance: He wants to double capital gains tax. Is he under the impression that speculators like myself are all multi-millionaires? The markets being my profession, I make as much as your average Joe, I am just being taxed more.

But that aside, if someone can supply me good reasons to vote for Obama, I may very well.

If you don't I will bombard you with gay pokeman porn...
;)

True, but it was a Democrat who employed the atomic bomb in warfare.

...so? That also ended a World War and avoided an obscenely-blood invasion of Japan.

I can't. He is far to liberal. Reganomics is the way to go. Closest to that is McCain.

I am sorry, but cutting the debt is the most important issue to me. Regan spent bundles, so did Bush, and so would McCain.

I am sorry, but cutting the debt is the most important issue to me. Regan spent bundles, so did Bush, and so would McCain.

Not to mention Regan hated blacks and poor people.

...so? That also ended a World War and avoided an obscenely-blood invasion of Japan.

Killing over 200,000 non-combatants (counting the non-atomic bombings before Hiroshima and Nagasaki) hardly makes things less bloody. Besides, Japan was already prepared to surrender, that was just a power-move to show Stalin the U.S. was not to be trifled with.

Killing over 200,000 non-combatants (counting the non-atomic bombings before Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is hardly making things less bloody. Besides, Japan was already prepared to surrender, that was just a power-move to show Stalin the U.S. was not to be trifled with.

This is however, irrelevent, since the democratic party of 1945 looks very little like the democratic party post 1960s.

The same goes for the Republican party of 1945.

If you don't I will bombard you with gay pokeman porn...
;)

Is that not a torture method that was outlawed to use even upon terrorists?

Killing over 200,000 non-combatants (counting the non-atomic bombings before Hiroshima and Nagasaki) hardly makes things less bloody. Besides, Japan was already prepared to surrender, that was just a power-move to show Stalin the U.S. was not to be trifled with.

Yeah, it was a bad move. However, Obama doesn't strike me as the kind that would throw atomic bombs at other countries.

This is what passes for informed voting? :(
Yep. We've been informed of what the people in the Republican party are like for the last eight years. We don't want that, full stop.

This is however, irrelevent, since the democratic party of 1945 looks very little like the democratic party post 1960s.

The same goes for the Republican party of 1945.

Naturally. However, in all honestly I am not for a party, but for an individual. There simply are not many good individuals in the Republican party, but if one stepped forward, I would not mind voting for him.

Yeah, it was a bad move. However, Obama doesn't strike me as the kind that would throw atomic bombs at other countries.
More to the point, the context is completely and utterly different in almost every way.

Anyone who's anyone has a nuke or three nowadays, and it's not like we're in any kind of even remotely mortal struggle with... well... anyone at the moment.

Naturally. However, in all honestly I am not for a party, but for an individual. There simply are not many good individuals in the Republican party, but if one stepped forward, I would not mind voting for him.

To be fair, there are not very many good people in the democratic party either.

Theyre just incompetent rather than malicious;)

Killing over 200,000 non-combatants (counting the non-atomic bombings before Hiroshima and Nagasaki) hardly makes things less bloody. Besides, Japan was already prepared to surrender, that was just a power-move to show Stalin the U.S. was not to be trifled with.

The Japanese weren't just going to roll over, that much was obvious. Eventually, the US would have to invade if they wanted to end the Japanese Empire, and that would have killed thousands as well.

And of course it was also a power-move, but that wasn't all there was to it.

This is however, irrelevent, since the democratic party of 1945 looks very little like the democratic party post 1960s.

The same goes for the Republican party of 1945.

Yeah, now they're both mental.

However, in all honestly I am not for a party, but for an individual.
That's extremely stupid of you, to be honest.

Yep. We've been informed of what the people in the Republican party are like for the last eight years. We don't want that, full stop.

That was Bush. To say that all Republicans were like him would be to say all of America was (they voted him in after-all). I do not dislike McCain because he is a Republican; I dislike him because he is McCain.

That was Bush. To say that all Republicans were like him would be to say all of America was (they voted him in after-all). I do not dislike McCain because he is a Republican; I dislike him because he is McCain.
Bush did not handle the day to day administration of Just About Everything, his Republican Party mates in just about every sector of the government did. Nothing will change under McCain.

That's extremely stupid of you, to be honest.

Although to be fair, that's close to what American politics is. It's very individual based. When we had our election here, there were fears that the youth wouldn't get the voting system because they'd expect an American-style individual election.

More to the point, the context is completely and utterly different in almost every way.

Anyone who's anyone has a nuke or three nowadays, and it's not like we're in any kind of even remotely mortal struggle with... well... anyone at the moment.

Good point. Everyone has nukes, but if one person uses one then so will everyone else.

I have found a few aspirants who I might vote for should they become nominated, but they may very well not.

That would suck.

I am trying.

Good luck. However, although I normally do not advocate this, if you really can't find anyone you like, it might just be an idea to vote for Obama if you really don't want to see McCain or Clinton as presidents.

That, however, would be voting for the lesser evil - Not an optimal method of voting.

Good point. Everyone has nukes, but if one person uses one then so will everyone else.
... well yes, which is why any kind of nuclear threats on the Middle East are extremely hollow.

Bush did not handle the day to day administration of Just About Everything, his Republican Party mates in just about every sector of the government did. Nothing will change under McCain.

Which is why I am not voting for him. He is Bush 2: Return to Obtuse Land. But I would still vote for a Republican if there was a decent one running. LG is Republican that I would support. :D

That's extremely stupid of you, to be honest.

You mean you disagree with me.

... well yes, which is why any kind of nuclear threats on the Middle East are extremely hollow.

"Everybody Dies."

Because Obama Girl is hot.

I don't think I'll be voting for Obama anymore. Mainly because he called his grandmother in law a "typical white person" and according to him, she is racist.

Well dammit, I didn't know I was supposed to be racist! I guess I better start acting like a "typical White person" right Obama?

and people say Rev. Wright's teaching never rubbed off on him, right...:rolleyes:

I don't think I'll be voting for Obama anymore. Mainly because he called his grandmother in law a "typical white person" and according to him, she is racist.



Oh please. Youre reading into that how you want to, now what he meant. Typical does not mean every. And the typical white person his grandmothers age is afraid of black people. Ask your grandparents. I know mine were.

Besides, based off your posts in the past, me thinks you never planned on voting for him anway;)

Reganomics is the way to go.
Yeah we saw how well Reganomics have been in the last few years.

Oh please. Youre reading into that how you want to, now what he meant. Typical does not mean every. And the typical white person his grandmothers age is afraid of black people. Ask your grandparents. I know mine were.

Besides, based off your posts in the past, me thinks you never planned on voting for him anway;)

Well one would think that the comment applied to every White person in America, young and old. And to hear Obama say that his grandmother-in-law was a typical white person, you have to wonder how does he exactly think about the white population. Does he believe that only a small minority of us are racist, or does he think it's more wide spread than it actually is?

Let me ask you something. Let's put Mc. Cain in Obama's shoe, and he has a black grandmother in law that he calls a "Typical Black Person". How well do you think that would've gone over?

If your answer is not very well and it would be political suicide, then you're right. So why doesn't the same apply to Obama and his "Typical White Person" comment?

You mean you disagree with me.
No, I mean "that's a stupid way to vote, if ever there was one". That I disagree with you is fairly obvious, but voting in a party on the back of one man or woman is a particularly foolish thing to do. The Republican Party is still the Republican Party no matter who leads it, just as the Democrats are still the Democrats no matter who's in charge.

That's where the problem lies - voting for one person or another is a pretty shallow way to think about it.

Well one would think that the comment applied to every White person in America, young and old. And to hear Obama say that his grandmother-in-law was a typical white person, you have to wonder how does he exactly think about the white population. Does he believe that only a small minority of us are racist, or does he think it's more wide spread than it actually is?

A lot of white people, young and old do feel uncomfortable around black people. Just like a lot of black people think white people are subconsciencally racist. Thats a problem. Thats his point. Racism is on both sides.

Let me ask you something. Let's put Mc. Cain in Obama's shoe, and he has a black grandmother in law that he calls a "Typical Black Person". How well do you think that would've gone over?

That would depend on what he said about typical black people.

If your answer is not very well and it would be political suicide, then you're right. So why doesn't the same apply to Obama and his "Typical White Person" comment?

Because youre reading what isnt there.

Is that not a torture method that was outlawed to use even upon terrorists?

Yeah, but I'm a bastard...

Well one would think that the comment applied to every White person in America, young and old.

only if one had comprehension issues and desperately wanted to find fault with someone for political reasons.

Let me ask you something. Let's put Mc. Cain in Obama's shoe, and he has a black grandmother in law that he calls a "Typical Black Person". How well do you think that would've gone over?

it wouldn't have ever happened, because the party of racists wouldn't let a person with a black grandma into the position of seriously running for president at all.

more importantly, i don't think the word typical means what you think it does. because there is nothing objectionable about talking about people having typical experiences and attitudes if said experiences and attitudes are typical.

A lot of white people, young and old do feel uncomfortable around black people. Just like a lot of black people think white people are subconsciencally racist. Thats a problem. Thats his point. Racism is on both sides.

Either that or he's trying to say 'Look, look my Grandmother in law is racist and she's white! So you can't call Rev. Wright Racist!"

Yes there is Racism on both side, but Obama didn't help the problem by throwing his grandmother-in-law under the bus while defending his racist preacher.

That would depend on what he said about typical black people.

Oh please, you know this would cause a huge uproar in the black community, and rightly so. Obama painted the White population with a broad brush and that should cost him in the nomination run.

Because youre reading what isnt there.

Ok, then how am I supposed to read it?

Ok, then how am I supposed to read it?

With a magical seeing eye Dog, duh.

But that aside, if someone can supply me good reasons to vote for Obama, I may very well.

aloha print shirt at the inauguration.

more importantly, i don't think the word typical means what you think it does. because there is nothing objectionable about talking about people having typical experiences and attitudes if said experiences and attitudes are typical.

To me, Typical means it should be expected, or it's common. If a single restaurant in a chain typically serves bad food and typically has bad service, then you'd think the entire chain was that bad. So when Obama calls his grandmother-in-law a "Typical White Person" then apparently he expects white to be racist, and that it's common for white to be racist.

A lot of white people, young and old do feel uncomfortable around black people. Just like a lot of black people think white people are subconsciencally racist. Thats a problem. Thats his point. Racism is on both sides.



That would depend on what he said about typical black people.



Because youre reading what isnt there.

you forget that we white people are delicate--like flowers. any slight no matter how slight, how unintended and how made up wounds us deeply. we cannot listen to a speech on race that addresses us as adults who know something of the world lest we find a way that it might offend us.

To me, Typical means it should be expected, or it's common. If a single restaurant in a chain typically serves bad food and typically has bad service, then you'd think the entire chain was that bad. So when Obama calls his grandmother-in-law a "Typical White Person" then apparently he expects white to be racist, and that it's common for white to be racist.

In certain contexts it is typical for a white person to be racist. Think back to the days of slavery.

In certain contexts it is typical for a white person to be racist. Think back to the days of slavery.

Ok, now lets fast forward to....2008! Ta da, no more slavery, no more Jim Crow law, no more of "The Man" keeping the black folk down.

What's your answer now?

To me, Typical means it should be expected, or it's common. If a single restaurant in a chain typically serves bad food and typically has bad service, then you'd think the entire chain was that bad. So when Obama calls his grandmother-in-law a "Typical White Person" then apparently he expects white to be racist, and that it's common for white to be racist.

See, thats the problem. You are seeing what you want to see. It doesnt matter what "typically" means to you. It matters what it means in general.

And he didnt throw his grandmother under the bus. Did you even see what he said, or are you just seeing clips of him played by Sean Hannity on Fox News? He said "I could no more disown Reveren Wright for what he said than disown my own grandmother..."


See, not so bad in that context is it?

But you seem in a quest to be offended. I wont stop you I guess.

In certain contexts it is typical for a white person to be racist. Think back to the days of slavery.

or, to reiterate obama's exact point, my white grandparents. products of their times. i would honestly be surprised to find many people at all from their era that had completely avoided picking up on the open, legitimized, and governmentally enforced racism they grew up with and lived with. even if they stopped consciously believing such things. even if they actively tried to get rid of old racist patterns of thought and action. such things leave a mark.

Ok, now lets fast forward to....2008! Ta da, no more slavery, no more Jim Crow law, no more of "The Man" keeping the black folk down.

What's your answer now?

except that we know, objectively, that the man actually is still keeping people of color down. see all the studies that have been done about lending, house selling, job applications, etc. and then there is the issue of the more subconscious lingering beliefs and reactions, which most everybody is still holding and acting on.

Ok, now lets fast forward to....2008! Ta da, no more slavery, no more Jim Crow law, no more of "The Man" keeping the black folk down.

What's your answer now?

My answer is a question, what was the context of what Obama said? Was it that his grandmother is a typical white person for the time she was raised in, or was it that all white people now are racist?

See, thats the problem. You are seeing what you want to see. It doesnt matter what "typically" means to you. It matters what it means in general.

# exhibiting the qualities or characteristics that identify a group or kind or category; "a typical American girl"; "a typical suburban community ...
# distinctive: of a feature that helps to distinguish a person or thing; "Jerusalem has a distinctive Middle East flavor"- Curtis Wilkie; "that is typical of you!"
# conforming to a type; "the typical (or normal) American"; "typical teenage behavior"

And he didnt throw his grandmother under the bus. Did you even see what he said, or are you just seeing clips of him played by Sean Hannity on Fox News? He said "I could no more disown Reveren Wright for what he said than disown my own grandmother..."

See, not so bad in that context is it?

Let me finish that for you, "my own grandmother who tells me how scare she is of black men, and how she uses words that are racially charge, she is a typical White Person".

So apparently a Typical White Person is afraid of black men and uses racial slurs. Fan.....tastic. I don't exactly see him distancing himself away from Rev. Wright, nor do I see him acknowledging that he is a racist black person. All I see is "I cannot disown Rev. Wright as much as I can disown my grandmother, who is racist and is a typical White Person."

Where in that speech did he acknowledge that what Rev. Wright said was wrong and that he is a racist person?

But you seem in a quest to be offended. I wont stop you I guess.

No, I'm on a quest to stop stupid racist comment like these on both side. If a white person made this speech, I would be saying the same thing that I am saying now.

My answer is a question, what was the context of what Obama said? Was it that his grandmother is a typical white person for the time she was raised in, or was it that all white people now are racist?

The former. Unless you watch Fox News. Then the later.


But according to Hannity, Obama is also an anti-semite. That one Im still trying to figure out.

Where in that speech did he acknowledge that what Rev. Wright said was wrong

Um....several times....and several times before the speech as well.


and that he is a racist person?


Again...several times...


Now I know your getting all your information from Fox News.


This is living proof that Americans do not want to hear the truth, that people are still racist. They just want to be told how America is a Utopia.

My answer is a question, what was the context of what Obama said? Was it that his grandmother is a typical white person for the time she was raised in, or was it that all white people now are racist?

Obama never specify on whether or not he was talking about his grandmother generation or all White person in general, and since he didn't do that, we're going to have to assume he meant all white person. Because he said "Typical White person." not "Typical White Person over 60.".

Where in that speech did he acknowledge that what Rev. Wright said was wrong and that he is a racist person?

hey, maybe you can help me on this one. nobody else has been able to so far, and i really want to know - what exactly did wright say that is racist?

Um....several times....and several times before the speech as well.

Where? Because ever since the Rev. Wright thing broke, I've been watching Obama. Sure he came close to doing it, but he never actually said it. The latest one is apparently he's stuck in a Time Warp.

Now I know your getting all your information from Fox News.

and you're getting all your information from NPR, yea I can play this game too.

Obama never specify on whether or not he was talking about his grandmother generation or all White person in general, and since he didn't do that, we're going to have to assume he meant all white person. Because he said "Typical White person." not "Typical White Person over 60.".

And I'm sure if that's the case he'll clarify what he meant. Unlike you, I'm in no rush to assume that Obama is a racist. One instance of him saying something racist doesn't convince me.

Where? Because ever since the Rev. Wright thing broke, I've been watching Obama. Sure he came close to doing it, but he never actually said it. The latest one is apparently he's stuck in a Time Warp.



He said Rev. Wrights remarks were "inflamitory" and that Rev. Wright held a "profoundly distorted view".

Ill humor you kiddo.

From his speech:

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike. I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

In fact, if you view the last bolded, he says exactly what you wanted him to say. That Wright's comments were WRONG. So, are you ready to admit either that youre ignorant or that you just dont like Obama and are willing to use whatever ammo Conservative Pundits give you against him?


I think youre done here.

He said Rev. Wrights remarks were "inflamitory" and that Rev. Wright held a "profoundly distorted view".

Ill humor you kiddo.

From his speech:



In fact, if you view the last bolded, he says exactly what you wanted him to say. That Wright's comments were WRONG. So, are you ready to admit either that youre ignorant or that you just dont like Obama and are willing to use whatever ammo Conservative Pundits give you against him?


Thats pretty explicet to me. Stop watching Fox News and get some real info.

Well I'm wrong on that, I conceded you that, but there's still the matter of the "Typical White Person".

But that aside, if someone can supply me good reasons to vote for Obama, I may very well.

There is no good reason to vote for Obama. In fact you have stated a very good reason NOT to vote for him. There will be other candidates other than McCain on the ballot, time to vote for one of them.

Personally I'd rather see Obama get hit by a car... the man's smugness astounds me. Besides, anyone who claims black "racism" is okay because all people are, in their hearts, racist isn't going to get anywhere with me...

I wonder how many people remember David Duke? But everyone knows there are no black racists, only white ones. :(

Well I'm wrong on that, I conceded you that, but there's still the matter of the "Typical White Person".

That he was speaking the truth? In the context of his comment, his grandmother was a typical white person. Ask your grandparents how they feel about black people. I think you will be suprised.

Well I'm wrong on that, I conceded you that, but there's still the matter of the "Typical White Person".

white people in usia are typically racist.

There is no good reason to vote for Obama. In fact you have stated a very good reason NOT to vote for him. There will be other candidates other than McCain on the ballot, time to vote for one of them.

that depends on how much he dislikes mccain.

if he is OK with the idea of mccain winning but does not want to support an elderly war monger, he should check out all the other parties and see if there isnt one he would like to throw his support to in order to help them build their base.

if he despises mccain and the thought that he could one day be president of the united states he should vote for obama as the lesser of 2 evils even if it means paying his fair share of tax on his capital gains.

white people in usia are typically racist.

and you base this one what?

That he was speaking the truth? In the context of his comment, his grandmother was a typical white person. Ask your grandparents how they feel about black people. I think you will be suprised.

Please, I know how my grandparents feel about black people. But once again, Obama didn't specifically say "White people over 60." he just said "Typical White Person" which one could take to mean Young and Old white people alike.

Of course our grandparents are racist or at least prejudice, they grew up in the Jim Crow era. However, I don't know about you, but I don't consider myself racist, I never look at a black man and think "N*gger", I never avoid talking to black people and I always try to talk to people of different culture, mainly because they interest me.

From our parents generation down, I have met very few who are racist.

Please, I know how my grandparents feel about black people. But once again, Obama didn't specifically say "White people over 60." he just said "Typical White Person" which one could take to mean Young and Old white people alike.

Of course our grandparents are racist or at least prejudice, they grew up in the Jim Crow era. However, I don't know about you, but I don't consider myself racist, I never look at a black man and think "N*gger", I never avoid talking to black people and I always try to talk to people of different culture, mainly because they interest me.

From our parents generation down, I have met very few who are racist.



Ok but people your age are a minority of whites in America. The majority are people like our parents and grandparents. Who are still racist, even if its subtle.

the lesser of 2 evils even if it means paying his fair share of tax on his capital gains.

Isn't voting for the lesser of two evils a compromise of ones principles? I think it is.

Please, I know how my grandparents feel about black people. But once again, Obama didn't specifically say "White people over 60." he just said "Typical White Person" which one could take to mean Young and Old white people alike.

Of course our grandparents are racist or at least prejudice, they grew up in the Jim Crow era. However, I don't know about you, but I don't consider myself racist, I never look at a black man and think "N*gger", I never avoid talking to black people and I always try to talk to people of different culture, mainly because they interest me.

From our parents generation down, I have met very few who are racist.

then stop reading into his statement sentiments that arent there.

There is no good reason to vote for Obama.

:rolleyes:

Isn't voting for the lesser of two evils a compromise of ones principles? I think it is.

nope

one of my principles is trying to keep bad men from becoming president. why would anyone ever cast a vote that might help the worst choice get the office?

and you base this one what?

the findings of decades of sociological and psychological research, combined with an awareness of what racism actually is.

nope
why would anyone ever cast a vote that might help the worst choice get the office?

If everyone who decided to vote for the lesser of two evils voted for the third party candidate, perhaps that third candidate would get elected. Give that some serious thought and remember Jessie Ventura.

If everyone who decided to vote for the lesser of two evils voted for the third party candidate, perhaps that third candidate would get elected. Give that some serious thought and remember Jessie Ventura.

Except most third party candidates are...erm...loons.

Also remember Jesse had name recognition and celeberity status going for him.

If everyone who decided to vote for the lesser of two evils voted for the third party candidate, perhaps that third candidate would get elected. Give that some serious thought and remember Jessie Ventura.

should i ever come across a 3rd party candidate worth voting for ill keep that in mind. jesse ventura wont be that candidate.

Isn't voting for the lesser of two evils a compromise of ones principles? I think it is.
Depends what your principles are, no?

He's black! That means you have to vote for him or you're racist!

And if you don't vote for Hillary you're a sexist
And if you don't vote for McCain you're ageist

Identity politics really does make life difficult, doesn't it? ;)

Steenhuffel;13566222']And if you don't vote for Hillary you're a sexist
And if you don't vote for McCain you're ageist

Identity politics really does make life difficult, doesn't it? ;)

It's like a wedding really.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/John_McCain_official_photo_portrait.JPG/473px-John_McCain_official_photo_portrait.JPG

Something old.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/graphic/large/ObamaBarack.jpg

Something new.

http://www.visitingdc.com/images/bill-clinton-picture.jpg

Something borrowed.

http://www.party411.com/clinton-go.gif

Something blue.

Clinton and McCain are completely out for me, due to being far too pro-war. I am willing to consider Obama because he seems more reasonable. However, I do not agree with most of his policies. For instance: He wants to double capital gains tax. Is he under the impression that speculators like myself are all multi-millionaires? The markets being my profession, I make as much as your average Joe, I am just being taxed more.

But that aside, if someone can supply me good reasons to vote for Obama, I may very well.

If you disagree with most of his policies then don't vote for him. (It's too bad, I'm a big Obama supporter, I'd like to convince you, but I think convincing anyone of any point in an internet discussion forum is near-to-impossible.)

I believe that of the three candidates who have a realistic shot at the Presidency, Obama is the one most likely to have a) the desire and b) the ability to undo the imperialist, secretive, adversarial political culture that will be the poisonous legacy of the Bush Presidency. He managed to navigate through both Chicago and Springfield (IL) politics without becoming a tool of the local fiefdoms, which I think speaks highly of his ability to build effective and ethical organizations. I don't see that ability in either McCain's or Clinton's histories. Maybe even if you disagree with Obama's policies you can agree with me on this, I don't know.

As to the cap gains tax issue, I absolutely understand how it feels when tax policies affect you personally -- when I was listening to Bush's plan to take away the pretax status of employee healthcare contributions my reaction was "Oh, hell, no!" -- but in general, I don't see a problem with upping long term capital gains taxes. Handwringing from Maria Baritromo aside, the markets won't live or die on whether long term gains are taxed 15% or 25%. They did just fine with a 28% rate when the fundamentals were good.

Frankly, I'm also flummoxed in trying to come up with a tax scenario where you're actually paying higher taxes on your long-term cap gains than you would if you were taking home the same amount as salary, whether you're incorporated or no. I'm not doubting you, I just can't figure it, especially when you take self-employment tax into account.

I HATE ignorant arguments.

Here is what Obama said - "The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

He explicitly and has repeatedly said his grandmother is not a racist, but occasionally does or says things that are based on irrational beliefs about other races. He also makes the point that people like that not only can be found in all races, but that they are "typical".

But, hey, desperately avoid context of the statements in order to continue to through up ridiculous points. And, dammit, if you don't know it's not his "grandmother-in-law", but rather his grandmother who helped raise him, then you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

And, dammit, if you don't know it's not his "grandmother-in-law", but rather his grandmother who helped raise him, then you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Yeah, I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up. Obama's Grandmothers-in-law would be Michelle's grandmothers. I don't know if either of them are white, but I'm reasonably sure they didn't help raise him. But the whole argument is a bit silly anyway.

Hillary is a dictator in the making.

Regretably for you so is McCain. So to actually support democracy go Obama otherwise turn to the other two.

I know! What are you THINKING, Parkus, valuing human life over a couple thousand dollars a year?!

That's actually quite a difficult question to answer, dependant upon quite whom is dying. A few hundred Iraqis? Frankly, I'd take the extra money.

That's actually quite a difficult question to answer, dependant upon quite whom is dying. A few hundred Iraqis? Frankly, I'd take the extra money.

Gosh. I'm shocked that you'd say that since you're not racist or anything.

Convince me to vote for Obama
Convince me to convince you to vote for Obama.

Clinton and McCain are completely out for me, due to being far too pro-war. I am willing to consider Obama because he seems more reasonable. However, I do not agree with most of his policies. For instance: He wants to double capital gains tax. Is he under the impression that speculators like myself are all multi-millionaires? The markets being my profession, I make as much as your average Joe, I am just being taxed more.

But that aside, if someone can supply me good reasons to vote for Obama, I may very well.

Vote for Obama or I will hunt you down and cut off your legs.