NationStates Jolt Archive

How about excited about participating in politics and making a DIFFERENCE?

One of the largest problems with our electorate right now is that the feel apathetic. They feel as though their votes don't matter, that their participation is pointless, so they might as well not vote.

Obama changes that.

In addition to that, the simple fact is people find it easier to identify with someone whom they feel is similar to them in some respect, be it certain political positions, certain cultural positions, interests, or--yes--even gender and ethnicity(as sad as these last two are, it's still a reality for the vast majority of humanity.)

Now, imagine you're someone who's never been able to identify with many politicians, for one reason or another.

Yet all of a sudden here comes someone whom you can identify with, either because he's your skin colour, or simply because he excites you so much.

Yes, it's small wonder, and it's a good thing in most ways. We're not going to solve the issues of racial identity over night. Before we can, we need to get to the point where someone like Obama is not only electable, but not considered noteworthy because of their skin colour.

Until that happens, we're going to continue to see people identifying with politcians based upon this factor.

I know it is a sad reality that still goes on, but I don't see why we should just say well that's alright it is irrelevant and doesn't matter if they vote for him because he is black because it is wrong to vote against him because he is black.

But I wonder if he loses the election will people make racism the reason for it. But then I don't understand why there is all this fuss about his race, it has been going on for a while with people making an issue out of it that support it saying how good it is and people saying how bad it is and I just don't see why people should make a big deal out of it.

Well where is your evidence? You made a few claims yourself, the only evidence I saw was the article from USA today but whatever.

And yes I know very little on the social situation in America. But I do know that there have been people beforehand that have come from poor communities with abusive one parent homes and gone on to be successful in life, beforehand

You want to go back to the Primaries, go look in the threads. I provided the evidence in spades there.

However, since I'm making counter claims here, when you provide the first bit of evidence, I'll be happy to counter. As your claims right now require us to ignore history and pretend a black man in America is on exactly equal ground, I'll just giggle and point.

There have been. Can you tell me the number of Presidents that come from homes where with a single mother? How about the number who have come from homes where the father was from another country and still lived there? How about homes where the mother or father was black?

Go ahead. I'll wait for you to collect that information.

How about the number of CEOs who are black? How about the percentage of governors who have been black in the last fifty years? How about the percentage of Vice Presidents? How about the percentage of congressmen who have been black in the last fifty years?

Hint: It's not commensurate with the percentage of the population that is black and the answer to many of those is ZERO. Ignoring that in your argument, undermines the very idea of making a reasoned argument.

But I wonder if he loses the election will people make racism the reason for it.
That would depend on whether we see a Bradley effect or not.

Also, whether McCain's record is scrunitised as severly as Obama's.

I know it is a sad reality that still goes on, but I don't see why we should just say well that's alright it is irrelevant and doesn't matter if they vote for him because he is black because it is wrong to vote against him because he is black.

But I wonder if he loses the election will people make racism the reason for it. But then I don't understand why there is all this fuss about his race, it has been going on for a while with people making an issue out of it that support it saying how good it is and people saying how bad it is and I just don't see why people should make a big deal out of it.

Because things don't go away just because you wish really hard they didn't exist. People are making a big deal out of it because it is a big deal.

In middle America a large percentage of people still believe that Obama is both Muslim and has as a mentor and spiritual teach a crazy Christian. That the two are incompatible doesn't matter. Obviously, such problems wouldn't even possible for a white man. Clinton's campaign intentionally circulated pictures of Obama in Muslim garb, as well as pictures that were edited to highlight the fact that Obama is black and "different".

That's why people are making a big deal out of it. It's not speculation that race is affecting this election. It already has. If it's a close race, people very much will blame racism. And given the known effect of it, they'll be right.

To simplify such a complex situation to "They're voting for Obama because they are both black" is racist. Unless you can provide evidence that these supporters would vote for any black candidate, regardless of their policies.
The irony here of course is that it's GOP itself who thinks that women will vote for a woman, regardless of her policies. But it's sexist to point that out, apparently.

Is race and political view necessarily mutually exclusive? I would anticipate that a fair few of Obama's policies and a fair chunk of his rhetoric is linked to his experience as a black man in America. I would also anticipate that many blacks who are supporting Obama when they have never supported another candidate are doing so because they believe that this candidate, moreso than any other in history before, will be the most representative of their political views, and their needs, unsurprisingly.

I personally voted for Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja (Former Democrat leader in Australia) partially because as we are both women, I felt that she represented my views and would work to improve my situation in Australia. I felt confident that as a woman herself she would understand the issues important to myself personally. I didn't vote Democrat simply because she was a woman, but her gender certainly influenced my decision to a certain extent.

Just because someone who's black states that they will support a black man doesn't mean that race is the only reason. They may also do it because they think that he will understand and support their interests.

To simplify such a complex situation to "They're voting for Obama because they are both black" is racist. Unless you can provide evidence that these supporters would vote for any black candidate, regardless of their policies.

Well no race and political view are not always going to be mutually exclusive, as for Stott-Despoja she may have been in line with your views and if you thought she was going to make your situation better to vote for her is all well and good, but would you have the same support if it was a man rather than a women? The same question can go to people for and against Obama, if you change his race, I would dare say no for both sides of the fence. Though Stott Despoja was more about giving certain sections more rights rather than all sections equal rights, and she was a large reason why the Democrats now only have one member in a state government, but that is for another discussion.

The irony here of course is that it's GOP itself who thinks that women will vote for a woman, regardless of her policies. But it's sexist to point that out, apparently.

LOL I was wondering if someone would make that connection :p.

I know it is a sad reality that still goes on, but I don't see why we should just say well that's alright it is irrelevant and doesn't matter if they vote for him because he is black because it is wrong to vote against him because he is black.
No, no, you're missing what we're labeling as irrelevant.

Allow me to use capitalization to emphasize specific points to help you better understand.

We're saying that the OVERALL EFFECT ON THE VOTING TOTALS of people who vote for Obama because he is black IS IRRELEVANT COMPARED TO THE MUCH LARGER number of people who will vote AGAINST Obama because he is black.

But I wonder if he loses the election will people make racism the reason for it. But then I don't understand why there is all this fuss about his race, it has been going on for a while with people making an issue out of it that support it saying how good it is and people saying how bad it is and I just don't see why people should make a big deal out of it.

I don't see any reason to make a big deal out of it either, myself. It's just skin colour. It's irrelevant.

But then again, people are unreasonable. After all, you have people who make things like this:

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p100/lastofthebenders/FreeRep13-P-BB/nObama-Commie-Bumper-1-700.gif

To simplify such a complex situation to "They're voting for Obama because they are both black" is racist. Unless you can provide evidence that these supporters would vote for any black candidate, regardless of their policies.

^this

That would depend on whether we see a Bradley effect or not.

Also, whether McCain's record is scrunitised as severly as Obama's.

Well in regards to the Bradley effect, how will they know for certain rather than just making assumptions? Why couldn't people just maybe change their on other information between when they are polled to when they vote?

The same question can go to people for and against Obama, if you change his race, I would dare say no for both sides of the fence.

The problem you'd have there is that some people have openly admitted that you're wrong. It also ignores the history of racism in America.

You can "dare say" anything you like, but you're gonna have to provide some evidence, chief.

^this

Indeed. While I'm sure it plays a part of it, I imagine the greater reason for overall excitement is that he's a black candidate who has a great chance to succeed and has policies they're actually willing to support.

In other words, he's the first black man whom they think could actually win, and THAT'S the major reason for the excitement, because they'll truly feel represented.

Well in regards to the Bradley effect, how will they know for certain rather than just making assumptions? Why couldn't people just maybe change their on other information between when they are polled to when they vote?

Because they are often polled as they're leaving the voting booths or just as they're entering.

The Bradley effect is easily evidenced by a statistically relevant swing from exit polling to the outcome.

Because things don't go away just because you wish really hard they didn't exist. People are making a big deal out of it because it is a big deal.

In middle America a large percentage of people still believe that Obama is both Muslim and has as a mentor and spiritual teach a crazy Christian. That the two are incompatible doesn't matter. Obviously, such problems wouldn't even possible for a white man. Clinton's campaign intentionally circulated pictures of Obama in Muslim garb, as well as pictures that were edited to highlight the fact that Obama is black and "different".

That's why people are making a big deal out of it. It's not speculation that race is affecting this election. It already has. If it's a close race, people very much will blame racism. And given the known effect of it, they'll be right.

Don't give me all this wish really hard shit. I know it is a big deal I just don't see why it should be a big deal. Now so if Obama loses or it is a close race rather than looking over a variety of reasons people will just label Americans as racist simply because a black man is running rather than any other reason. Oh and if people vote against him because they think he is a Muslim than you can't call them racists.

The problem you'd have there is that some people have openly admitted that you're wrong. It also ignores the history of racism in America.

You can "dare say" anything you like, but you're gonna have to provide some evidence, chief.

People have openly admitted that they would still support if the candidate was white? Hmm sounds similar to how the Bradly effect works.

Because they are often polled as they're leaving the voting booths or just as they're entering.

The Bradley effect is easily evidenced by a statistically relevant swing from exit polling to the outcome.

So it is only done on exit polling? And to whoever asked do people change their minds for other reasons in the booth, yes maybe it hasn't happened that much in America but you do see polls taken only a few hours before hand showing a lead to a certain party and then the election result the other party wins, where both candidates are white.

People have openly admitted that they would still support if the candidate was white? Hmm sounds similar to how the Bradly effect works.

No, actually, the majority of black people already vote Democrat, or are you intentionally ignoring that?

Obama is exciting new voters who are mostly younger, but not of any particular race. You've not provided any reason to look at that as an effect of his race rather than his message.

What you're ignoring is that many voters have already admitted race was the primary reason for voting AGAINST Obama. It was a significant percentage of Clinton voters who voted for her because she was white and because she was female. Much greater than the other way around. You're welcome to check for yourself or simply go back to the primary threads where this was discussed at length.

So not only are you speculating and refusing to provide the first bit of evidence for why we should turn American history on its head, but you're also ignoring evidence everyone that's been following the elections knows to exist.

So again I ask, do you have support for your claim or do you just enjoy making shit up?

Indeed. While I'm sure it plays a part of it, I imagine the greater reason for overall excitement is that he's a black candidate who has a great chance to succeed and has policies they're actually willing to support.

In other words, he's the first black man whom they think could actually win, and THAT'S the major reason for the excitement, because they'll truly feel represented.

And why do they feel that they will be truly represented?

Don't give me all this wish really hard shit. I know it is a big deal I just don't see why it should be a big deal. Now so if Obama loses or it is a close race rather than looking over a variety of reasons people will just label Americans as racist simply because a black man is running rather than any other reason. Oh and if people vote against him because they think he is a Muslim than you can't call them racists.

Uh, no. If Obama loses a close race then the relatively small percentage of Americans that openly admit to having an issue with a black man would be responsible for the loss. You don't quite know how math works?

I'll help. See, if past performance holds up we can expect a couple of percentage points (that's what we saw in the primaries) swing due to people who admit to voting on race. That's just the people who admit to being racist. So if Obama loses by a percentage point or two, the racists were the cause of that swing. See how that works?

They think he's Muslim because he's black. I most certainly can call that racist. The same people know he has been a member of a Christian church for 20 years. Most of the same people fault him for being a member of the church. Again, intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand how this works?

So it is only done on exit polling? And to whoever asked do people change their minds for other reasons in the booth, yes maybe it hasn't happened that much in America but you do see polls taken only a few hours before hand showing a lead to a certain party and then the election result the other party wins, where both candidates are white.

You don't know how statistics work?

You expect a certain swing. Often polling difference can be explained by examining demographics, trends and the like. The swings are usually explanable statistically. That's how science works.

Now if the trends are best explained by a reluctance to admit racism, then that's the best explanation. Is it guaranteed? Nope, but then it's also not guaranteed that either party won the election. But reasonable evidence certainly can be examined.

And why do they feel that they will be truly represented?

Generally speaking? Every President beforehand had been a rich white male.

Obama is not a rich white male. He was a community organizer in Chicago and has been devoted to helping out those in need.

In other words, they're far more able to identify with him than they can with John McCain(or Bill Clinton, or George Bush--either one--etc etc etc...)

And why do they feel that they will be truly represented?

Well, for one thing, many black people already identify with democratic ideals. However, due to the fact that both parties have never been willing to support a minority candidate for either office, they feel disenfranchises, as they should. The selection of Obama lifts that stigma.

So, yes, that they take that as evidence of the end of racism that has kept them out of some of the highest offices in the land and thus view it as positive is not what you want to paint it as.

But, hey, just reword it. I mean, so far you've reworded the same argument 20 different ways to basically demonstrate that you don't actually know anything about racism in America and want to view a hope that this represents the availability of even the highest jobs to people of any race as equal to a hope that minorities never hold such jobs.

Actually it is 12.8% as per the 2006 US census.

Thank you for the clarification. I was throwing the 10% line out as an approximate. Still, 12.8% of the population hardly holds a big sway over the election comparatively.

Uh, no. If Obama loses a close race then the relatively small percentage of Americans that openly admit to having an issue with a black man would be responsible for the loss. You don't quite know how math works?

I'll help. See, if past performance holds up we can expect a couple of percentage points (that's what we saw in the primaries) swing due to people who admit to voting on race. That's just the people who admit to being racist. So if Obama loses by a percentage point or two, the racists were the cause of that swing. See how that works?

They think he's Muslim because he's black. I most certainly can call that racist. The same people know he has been a member of a Christian church for 20 years. Most of the same people fault him for being a member of the church. Again, intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand how this works?

Are they thinking he is Muslim because he is black or are they thinking he is Muslim because the Clinton camp circulated pictures of him in Muslim garb? Ok now we saw a few percentage points swing, so during the primaries we saw some people voting due to race, now was this entire against Obama because he was black and absolutely no one voted for Obama because of his race? Is that what the primaries showed?

So if one side does it, it is bad, but another side does it's alright because they is less of them?

Nope, it's not all right. It still is true to point out that whites holding those views could potentially have a much larger impact than blacks holding the same views. I for one never said it was ok to be bigoted in either regard.

Well no race and political view are not always going to be mutually exclusive, as for Stott-Despoja she may have been in line with your views and if you thought she was going to make your situation better to vote for her is all well and good, but would you have the same support if it was a man rather than a women? The same question can go to people for and against Obama, if you change his race, I would dare say no for both sides of the fence. Though Stott Despoja was more about giving certain sections more rights rather than all sections equal rights, and she was a large reason why the Democrats now only have one member in a state government, but that is for another discussion.

I voted for her because I felt that she wouldn't vote against things like abortion, equal pay and that she would campaign for the issues that I felt were important - paid maternity leave, equal rights for all and she campaigned for indigenous issues. The fact that she was a woman played a big part in the reasons why I felt secure that she would support my rights and beliefs.

I certainly wouldn't vote for Sarah Palin, regardless of her gender, because of her beliefs. Her gender merely makes me despise her more for her views.

Did you actually read what he wrote. They aren't the same thing. Moreover, you've not actually supported your position.

Are you really claiming that a swing that if EVERY black person in America that is eligible could represent about 2% is equivalent to the potential effect of racists who would never support a black man.

As of yet, I've never met anyone in person who said they were voting for Obama because he's black, but I have met a lot of people fulling willing to admit they don't want a "Muslim" with an America-hating pastor in the White House.

Note: The Muslim apparently follows every word of his Christian pastor. When I mentioned this, they said, "oh, you know what I mean."

Isn't that crazy? When called on BS people resort to "Oh you know what I mean?" No, I don't. Perhaps you could articulate yourself? I don't know if it's more of them being stupid, or a laziness of thought. Being too lazy to evaluate the actual ideas that come out of their mouths.

Are they thinking he is Muslim because he is black or are they thinking he is Muslim because the Clinton camp circulated pictures of him in Muslim garb? Ok now we saw a few percentage points swing, so during the primaries we saw some people voting due to race, now was this entire against Obama because he was black and absolutely no one voted for Obama because of his race? Is that what the primaries showed?

Again, you're ignoring the point. No one is claiming that he won't gain any votes because people are racistly voting FOR him. You keep trying to portray that as the argument, but it's a strawman. (No, I won't define strawman for you. Look it up.)

The claim that people are making is that the impact of racists will favor McCain. This is consistent with American history and all evidence. Now, you're welcome to try and convince us that there is a large racist contigent circulating emails and whatnot in order to get Obama elected BECAUSE he's black, but you're going to have to provide evidence.

Meanwhile, on the Muslim thing you keep ignore half of what I stated. You wanna try addressing the entirety or is that your argument doesn't hold up when you actually look at all the evidence rather than only little bits?

Well, for one thing, many black people already identify with democratic ideals. However, due to the fact that both parties have never been willing to support a minority candidate for either office, they feel disenfranchises, as they should. The selection of Obama lifts that stigma.

So, yes, that they take that as evidence of the end of racism that has kept them out of some of the highest offices in the land and thus view it as positive is not what you want to paint it as.

But, hey, just reword it. I mean, so far you've reworded the same argument 20 different ways to basically demonstrate that you don't actually know anything about racism in America and want to view a hope that this represents the availability of even the highest jobs to people of any race as equal to a hope that minorities never hold such jobs.

Well I have already said in another post where I admitted that I wasn't fully aware of the social situation in America.

But as you say and I fail to see how this is a reword of your agument but all of a sudden a black man is the candidate and then we see black people showing a lot more support than normal.

You want to go back to the Primaries, go look in the threads. I provided the evidence in spades there.
-snip-

Hey, umm... I agree with you, but this bit sounds a lot like what that Patrick fellow was doing a bit before... "In a totally different place is the source, you can go check it yourself". Now, I happen to remember you very handily posting those sources, but the burden of proof is on you here. Come on, you know better.

*has been a fairly silent spectator for a looooong time...*

Isn't that crazy? When called on BS people resort to "Oh you know what I mean?" No, I don't. Perhaps you could articulate yourself? I don't know if it's more of them being stupid, or a laziness of thought. Being too lazy to evaluate the actual ideas that come out of their mouths.

Unfortunately, because I am now a rich, white man people (the rich is the new bit, I've always been a white man) seem to think it's okay to express racist views to me. I quite frequently get to hear about wetbacks and ******s. I am not pleased by this turn of events.

The "Oh, you know what I mean" is the secret handshake of racists. It's the substituted for a wink and nod. Much like the trend for a while to call people Canadians or to casually note that "it's getting dark out" when there are black people outside.

Again, to pretend that racism doesn't exist requires me to ignore everything I've learned up until this point in my life. Do I think it's improving? Yup. But it simply requires a profound naivity to pretend like it's remotely possible that being black is an advantage in a Presidential race.

Again, you're ignoring the point. No one is claiming that he won't gain any votes because people are racistly voting FOR him. You keep trying to portray that as the argument, but it's a strawman. (No, I won't define strawman for you. Look it up.)

The claim that people are making is that the impact of racists will favor McCain. This is consistent with American history and all evidence. Now, you're welcome to try and convince us that there is a large racist contigent circulating emails and whatnot in order to get Obama elected BECAUSE he's black, but you're going to have to provide evidence.

Meanwhile, on the Muslim thing you keep ignore half of what I stated. You wanna try addressing the entirety or is that your argument doesn't hold up when you actually look at all the evidence rather than only little bits?

What my argument that some people are voting for him simply because he is black is wrong? Hardly a misrepresentation of my own argument.

The Muslim thing I asked you a question. Is it because he is black that they think he is Muslim or is it because the Clinton Camp (something you posted) circulated him in Muslim garb and said he was a Muslim, that they think he is a Muslim?

Hey, umm... I agree with you, but this bit sounds a lot like what that Patrick fellow was doing a bit before... "In a totally different place is the source, you can go check it yourself". Now, I happen to remember you very handily posting those sources, but the burden of proof is on you here. Come on, you know better.

*has been a fairly silent spectator for a looooong time...*

Uh, no. It's more like, he's wildly speculating and I'm not going to start finding sources that the entire rest of the thread has already seen just to debunk an unsourced and unsupported argument. Providing those sources required a lot of work.

I can specifically cite them though. I looked at the exit polling from many of the networks throughout most of the primaries. At one point, I listed the percentages from like 15 states from CNN's exit polls. It's not a vague reference to where I got it. It's evidence I've already provided to the same discussion with almost the same people.

It's equivalent like soap and soup are equivalent.

What my argument that some people are voting for him simply because he is black is wrong? Hardly a misrepresentation of my own argument.

You're argument is that it cuts both ways. The problem is, it doesn't. It's not zero sum.

Which is what people are pointing out to you. I'll demonstrate.

Me: Obama has to be careful not to aggravate the racist problem.
You: Well, that cuts both ways.
Me: No, it doesn't. It's not zero sum. Racism greatly favors the white candidate.
You: How can you say there are no racists supporting Obama?

See how that's not actually a reply? No one is claiming there are no racists supporting Obama. What people are saying is that it's not to the same degree or even enough to be relevant.


The Muslim thing I asked you a question. Is it because he is black that they think he is Muslim or is it because the Clinton Camp (something you posted) circulated him in Muslim garb and said he was a Muslim, that they think he is a Muslim?

I explained it to you. It's widely known that he's not Muslim. I have yet to encounter anyone who claimed he was Muslim who could not also discuss his pastor of 20 years.

The Muslim garb was meant to accent fears of a black man, not create them.

Well I have already said in another post where I admitted that I wasn't fully aware of the social situation in America.

But as you say and I fail to see how this is a reword of your agument but all of a sudden a black man is the candidate and then we see black people showing a lot more support than normal.

Yes, and showing a lot more support than normal when voter registration is so low due to apathy isn't surprising at all.

I already gave you explanation that would related to the color of his skin and not due to racism at all. That you refuse to look at nuance is a flaw in your argument. It's a flaw you need to correct in order to remotely rely on reason.

You're argument is that it cuts both ways. The problem is, it doesn't. It's not zero sum.

I never said it wasn't zero sum, in fact I was asking question about this, now it can cut both ways without being equal can it not?

I explained it to you. It's widely known that he's not Muslim. I have yet to encounter anyone who claimed he was Muslim who could not also discuss his pastor of 20 years.

The Muslim garb was meant to accent fears of a black man, not create them.

Earlier you said that people still believe that he is Muslim. So wtf? I know he isn't muslim you know he isn't muslim yet you said that a large percentage of people say that he is Muslim, and then you say it is widely known that he isn't?
In middle America a large percentage of people still believe that Obama is both Muslim and has as a mentor and spiritual teach a crazy Christian. That the two are incompatible doesn't matter. Obviously, such problems wouldn't even possible for a white man. Clinton's campaign intentionally circulated pictures of Obama in Muslim garb, as well as pictures that were edited to highlight the fact that Obama is black and "different".

You're argument is that it cuts both ways. The problem is, it doesn't. It's not zero sum.

Which is what people are pointing out to you. I'll demonstrate.

Me: Obama has to be careful not to aggravate the racist problem.
You: Well, that cuts both ways.
Me: No, it doesn't. It's not zero sum. Racism greatly favors the white candidate.
You: How can you say there are no racists supporting Obama?

See how that's not actually a reply? No one is claiming there are no racists supporting Obama. What people are saying is that it's not to the same degree or even enough to be relevant.

So there are racists supporting Obama? Which was my point exactly and I said why this was wrong to happen regardless of how there are more Dem's against Obama than for him due to his race doesn't change the fact that some people are racist for him and doesn't mean that it is right for them to do nor irrelevant.

Here you go...

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=626

Nearly half of Americans (46%) are unable to correctly identify Barack Obama as a Christian including 13% who still maintain that he is a Muslim and another 16% who say they have heard different things about his religion. In addition, 11% say they don't know because they have not heard enough about Obama's religion. The percentage of voters continuing to say that Obama is a Muslim is largely unchanged from June (12%) and March (10%), when the controversy over Obama's former pastor at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ was fresh in many people's minds. In the current survey, nearly one-in-five McCain supporters (19%) say that Obama is a Muslim, up from 14% in March. Fewer than one-in-ten Obama supporters (7%) identify him as a Muslim. More than three times as many white voters than African Americans see Obama as a Muslim (14% vs. 4%). Among white voters, 17% of those who have not completed college say Obama is a Muslim and 45% say he is a Christian. Among white college graduates, 7% say Obama is a Muslim while 69% say he is a Christian.

I nver said it wasn't zero sum, in fact I was asking question about this, now it can cut both ways without being equal can it not?

Nope. If it favors one candidate over another it doesn't cut both ways. It cuts one way. Cuts both ways specifically reference that both sides benefit or lose out. In this case, because of the nature of a race, both sides cannot benefit. Only one side can.

Earlier you said that people still believe that he is Muslim. So wtf? I know he isn't muslim you know he isn't muslim yet you said that a large percentage of people say that he is Muslim, and then you say it is widely known that he isn't?

Now you're getting it. They're saying they believe he's Muslim all the while admitting they're aware he's been a member of a Christian Church for 20 years. Worse, they fear that he takes everything the pastor says as Gospel, while somehow remaining Muslim. Yes, it doesn't make sense, but since when does a racist have to rely on logic?

Again, you're ignoring the point. No one is claiming that he won't gain any votes because people are racistly voting FOR him. You keep trying to portray that as the argument, but it's a strawman. (No, I won't define strawman for you. Look it up.)

The claim that people are making is that the impact of racists will favor McCain. This is consistent with American history and all evidence. Now, you're welcome to try and convince us that there is a large racist contigent circulating emails and whatnot in order to get Obama elected BECAUSE he's black, but you're going to have to provide evidence.

Meanwhile, on the Muslim thing you keep ignore half of what I stated. You wanna try addressing the entirety or is that your argument doesn't hold up when you actually look at all the evidence rather than only little bits?

Here's the simplistic answer to our problems here. 300 million people and blacks are 12.8% of them. So if 2 percent of the 12.8 is 2.4% of the total population. Let's say 3/4 of those people are of voting age. Now we're talking about 1.8 percent of the population. Considering only half of the people of voting age vote we're looking at .9% of the people or 345,600 across 50 states. Compare that .9% scale to white people and you get 1,518,750.

I voted for her because I felt that she wouldn't vote against things like abortion, equal pay and that she would campaign for the issues that I felt were important - paid maternity leave, equal rights for all and she campaigned for indigenous issues. The fact that she was a woman played a big part in the reasons why I felt secure that she would support my rights and beliefs.

I certainly wouldn't vote for Sarah Palin, regardless of her gender, because of her beliefs. Her gender merely makes me despise her more for her views.

Well that is fair enough Jade, but the question is if a male was saying the exact same things as Natasha would you be just as supportive?

So there are racists supporting Obama? Which was my point exactly and I said why this was wrong to happen regardless of how there are more Dem's against Obama than for him due to his race doesn't change the fact that some people are racist for him and doesn't mean that it is right for them to do nor irrelevant.

The problem is you used this to dismiss the FACT that racism is going to sway the election toward McCain. No one has argued that NO racists support Obama. In fact, I've repeatedly said the opposite. Meanwhile, you continued to argue that Obama is getting a relevant benefit as well. You have yet to support this and now it appears you've got the goalposts on wheels and yanking them all over the place.

It is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is who wins and why. If Obama wins it will NOT be because he is black. Because the net effect of his skin color will benefit McCain. I know you don't seem to get this, but it's patently obvious that the net effect is ALL that's relevant when saying whether or not he won because he was black.

So I went and found one race. Here is the exit polls, but the results that I analyzed at one point during the primaries are pretty consistent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226014/

You'll notice that among those voting on sex and those voting on race, both went dramatically for Clinton above the overall split in the race. Among those ignoring those factors, the fell below the overall outcome of the race.

So race and sex are shown to favor Hillary in race after race. Ignoring that race has hindered Obama thus far and will likely continue to do so requires one to ignore the evidence.

EDIT: I decided to do a second one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226001/

Ohio which is a "swing" state. Hillary is favored nearly two to one by those who thought race or gender was important. It represents about a 14 percent swing from those who didn't factor either one in. Think about how much that is. About one in five people said that race and/or gender was a factor in their decision.

Well I have already said in another post where I admitted that I wasn't fully aware of the social situation in America.

Then why discuss the election and the situation regarding Obama and racism with such authority?

But as you say and I fail to see how this is a reword of your agument but all of a sudden a black man is the candidate and then we see black people showing a lot more support than normal.

But why is there something wrong with a group of people who have never had a candidate share their experience and develop policies which are clearly relevant to their situation, who can speak with some authority on the challenges facing them in American society, showing more support for this candidate than previous ones?

You have consistently failed to answer that question.

His race and experience as a black man in America must certainly inform his platform and policies, and therefore make his campaign, policies and platform more attractive to black candidates. Race and political affiliation are not mutually exclusive.

Show me the proof that the majority of African Americans supporting Obama would support any black candidate regardless of their policies and I'll believe your complaint that his support is racist.

I feel lazy now for not doing this legwork myself, so thank you.

They taut their accuracy vs. other polls, but everyone does that. They don't have anything I can see for methodology or sampling. And everything is PDFs, which irratates me on a personal level...

It does seem lopsided, but Lakes does have a client list as well that's fairly long. I'll google later for some sort of independent analysis of them if I can find it now that I feel like a lazy ass for having someone else google their home pages...

So does Nate Silver read NSG or am I just lucky (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/whats-wrong-with-battleground-poll.html)? Well, at least now I know...

The problem is you used this to dismiss the FACT that racism is going to sway the election toward McCain. No one has argued that NO racists support Obama. In fact, I've repeatedly said the opposite. Meanwhile, you continued to argue that Obama is getting a relevant benefit as well. You have yet to support this and now it appears you've got the goalposts on wheels and yanking them all over the place.

It is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is who wins and why. If Obama wins it will NOT be because he is black. Because the net effect of his skin color will benefit McCain. I know you don't seem to get this, but it's patently obvious that the net effect is ALL that's relevant when saying whether or not he won because he was black.

So if both were white or both were black then we would see different polling at the moment?

I am saying that it isn't irrelevent to dismiss that some people are voting for him because he is balck because more people are voting against him, not from a results viewpoint but a social viewpoint.

Nope. If it favors one candidate over another it doesn't cut both ways. It cuts one way. Cuts both ways specifically reference that both sides benefit or lose out. In this case, because of the nature of a race, both sides cannot benefit. Only one side can.

Is there any evidence that suggest that Obama might be getting some votes from those that wouldn't normally vote for him or vote because he is black? And when you said it cuts both ways, I thought you meant it goes both ways.

Now you're getting it. They're saying they believe he's Muslim all the while admitting they're aware he's been a member of a Christian Church for 20 years. Worse, they fear that he takes everything the pastor says as Gospel, while somehow remaining Muslim. Yes, it doesn't make sense, but since when does a racist have to rely on logic?

No it doesn't make sense, but they think he must be a Muslim because he is black?

Earlier you said that people still believe that he is Muslim. So wtf? I know he isn't muslim you know he isn't muslim yet you said that a large percentage of people say that he is Muslim, and then you say it is widely known that he isn't?Since when does a large percentage constitute a majority? A large percentage holding one belief is not mutually exclusive with the opposite being widely known. For instance, it's widely known that human beings evolved, but a large percentage still believes otherwise.

So does Nate Silver read NSG or am I just lucky (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/whats-wrong-with-battleground-poll.html)? Well, at least now I know...

We ought to get him on here. He sounds like he'd be an excellent debater any which way.

So if both were white or both were black then we would see different polling at the moment?

I am saying that it isn't irrelevent to dismiss that some people are voting for him because he is balck because more people are voting against him, not from a results viewpoint but a social viewpoint.

We've been over this. The social viewpoint is more acceptable--relatively speaking--because it's identity politics and such.

It also, again, DOES NOT MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO WHO WILL WIN. What matters is the net effect.

Now, do you want to argue about whether it would matter about who wins, or are you finally going to admit to that and stop arguing about something that's irrelevant to the matter at hand?

We've been over this. The social viewpoint is more acceptable--relatively speaking--because it's identity politics and such.

It also, again, DOES NOT MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO WHO WILL WIN. What matters is the net effect.

Now, do you want to argue about whether it would matter about who wins, or are you finally going to admit to that and stop arguing about something that's irrelevant to the matter at hand?

I know we have been over it you have stated that it is more acceptable to be racist if it is positive rather than negative. Of course maybe those that are against voting for a black man is because they don't identify themselves with Obama.

I know we have been over it you have stated that it is more acceptable to be racist if it is positive rather than negative. Of course maybe those that are against voting for a black man is because they don't identify themselves with Obama.

Ding ding ding! He wins the prize!

It's more complex than that, and you know it. I would not consider those voting for Obama because he's black as all that racist in any real sense, because usually it's more about identification and promoting someone for one reason or another. There are elements of POTENTIAL bigotry in there--such as thinking that a black man couldn't win otherwise--but on a relative level, it is more acceptable.

I stress the relative part because it's still ULTIMATELY unacceptable, but it happens anyway. Whining about it isn't going to change things, and as we've also already established, the numbers from this are completely and totally overwhelmed by the numbers going the opposite way.

Now are we going to have to keep restating the same thing for forty more posts, or can we finally move on?

Ding ding ding! He wins the prize!

It's more complex than that, and you know it. I would not consider those voting for Obama because he's black as all that racist in any real sense, because usually it's more about identification and promoting someone for one reason or another. There are elements of POTENTIAL bigotry in there--such as thinking that a black man couldn't win otherwise--but on a relative level, it is more acceptable.

I stress the relative part because it's still ULTIMATELY unacceptable, but it happens anyway. Whining about it isn't going to change things, and as we've also already established, the numbers from this are completely and totally overwhelmed by the numbers going the opposite way.

Now are we going to have to keep restating the same thing for forty more posts, or can we finally move on?

Perhaps I should take the advice of Detective Fix? I know it happens anyway doesn't mean I am going to ignore it and think that it makes it ok regardless of the numbers going either way.

Perhaps I should take the advice of Detective Fix? I know it happens anyway doesn't mean I am going to ignore it and think that it makes it ok regardless of the numbers going either way.

I didn't say that it makes it okay.

But we've gone over this. And over this. We've established:

A. That it happens.

B. That it's not okay.

We've been going on for over a page and a half--and that's a forty-post page, mind.

Move. On.

I didn't say that it makes it okay.

But we've gone over this. And over this. We've established:

A. That it happens.

B. That it's not okay.

We've been going on for over a page and a half--and that's a forty-post page, mind.

Move. On.

I know we have and I never said you did mean it was ok anybody who reads this post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14054631&postcount=1802 will see that you don't think that it is ok.

Well in regards to the Bradley effect, how will they know for certain rather than just making assumptions? Why couldn't people just maybe change their on other information between when they are polled to when they vote?
sure they can. But if every poll up - and including polling day AND including exit polls have the Black candidate at, say, 18 pts up.
Then the actual results come in and he wins by 1pt, it's pretty damn obvious what's happening there.

Or do you seriously suggest that people will commit to one candidate, only to 'suddenly' change their mind upon entering the polling station and then just as suddenly forget who they voted for upon leaving said polling station.

I know we have been over it you have stated that it is more acceptable to be racist if it is positive...
It's only racist in the way that Affirmative Action is racist.
Which it's not (but can be contrived to be if one wishes to do so).

Well I have already said in another post where I admitted that I wasn't fully aware of the social situation in America.

^^ This is the point at which you need to stop talking as if you do know what you don't know.

I've read the entire exchange so far, and it seems to me that you started out wanting to make some casual "throw-away" remark about how un-nice it is for both white and black voters to vote for racist reasons and, gosh, wouldn't it be more nice if people didn't make such a big deal out of race.

Well, no shit, yeah, that would be nice. But your "can't we all just get along?"-style argument is meaningless compared to what actually IS.

Because of the disconnect between the conditions you wish existed and the conditions that actually exist in the US, your attempts to defend your wishes as if they were arguments based in fact fail pathetically.

It does not matter whether you or anyone/everyone else thinks race should not matter so much in the US. It DOES matter than much in the US.

It does not matter whether you think it's worth pointing out that black people can be racist, too. The fact remains that the number of white racists who will vote against Obama only because of his race is so much greater than the number of black racists who will vote for Obama only because of his race that it does render the black racist voters irrelevant.

Since you admit that you do not really understand the social situation in the US, rather than continue to argue about it with Americans, why don't you try taking what you have been told so far and reading up on it and thinking about it instead?

It's only racist in the way that Affirmative Action is racist.
Which it's not (but can be contrived to be if one wishes to do so).

Well, not to get sidetracked, but affirmative action is, in theory (assuming I have a correct understanding of what affirmative action is), racist.

Of course, it has an overall positive effect in an attempt to combat racism, but the theory behind it is of favouring some individuals over others based on race. Which is racism.

Well, not to get sidetracked, but affirmative action is, in theory (assuming I have a correct understanding of what affirmative action is), racist.

Of course, it has an overall positive effect in an attempt to combat racism, but the theory behind it is of favouring some individuals over others based on race. Which is racism.
That's what I mean. It's racist if you want it to be racist - meaning if you don't bother to look at why it's there.
Much like how Blou is calling Black people who vote for Obama cause he's black racists. It may be true at an extremely basic level, but it's ignoring a whole host of more important issues and reasonings behind their decision.

That's what I mean. It's racist if you want it to be racist - meaning if you don't bother to look at why it's there.
Much like how Blou is calling Black people who vote for Obama cause he's black racists. It may be true at an extremely basic level, but it's ignoring a whole host of more important issues and reasonings behind their decision.

A black man who votes for Obama can be argued as being racist - sure, but it's only really a VALID claim if you can show that that person would NOT normally vote for Obama based on policies or positions or personality, and is basing their vote PURELY (or in vast majority) on the colour of his skin.

Instead, what you see is 'identity politics' - someone voting for a candidate they identify with - which is what MOST voters do, black or white. Christians tend to vote for Christian politicians, for example.


The converse side of the argument is when a non-black voter that MIGHT have voted for the policies, position or personality, chooses to vote AGAINST Obama PURELEY (or in vast majority) on the colour of his skin.


And - in reality, what you tend to see is a very small proportion of voters vote FOR Obama purely for racial reasons. It happens that MOST of those who might favour a black candidate are statistically something like 80% likely to vote for Obama ANYWAY, because of party politics and his general platform.

Conversely, a much greater proportion of people are likely to vote against Obama JUST because he's a black man.

You can argue racism on either side, but the EFFECT of racism to elect Obama is negligible, while the EFFECT of racism to elect anyone-but-Obama could easily be enough to overturn any one 'issue' vote.

You want to go back to the Primaries, go look in the threads. I provided the evidence in spades there.

Here was one thread all about it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558108
=)

Are they thinking he is Muslim because he is black or are they thinking he is Muslim because the Clinton camp circulated pictures of him in Muslim garb?




CLINTON DID NOT START THE "OBAMA IS A MUSLIM" RUMOR!

Sorry, but several people have made this claim, and its simply not true. Joc can back this up, because he also lives in IL, that Republicans started this rumor back when he ran for the Federal Senate (they claimed he was sworn in on a Koran after he won as well), and it probably existed even before that.

Hey, umm... I agree with you, but this bit sounds a lot like what that Patrick fellow was doing a bit before... "In a totally different place is the source, you can go check it yourself". Now, I happen to remember you very handily posting those sources, but the burden of proof is on you here. Come on, you know better.

*has been a fairly silent spectator for a looooong time...*

No, its not the same. I feel for Joc here. Its fucking annoying to post the same sources OVER AND OVER again in various different threads, like he, The Cat Tribe, myself, Luizzo, and many others have had to do over the course of this election.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/30/am.mccain.palin.gotcha.cnn

Look at John's little smirk as Palin says something on the script! He's so proud! Oh and the media needs to stop picking on Sarah!

CLINTON DID NOT START THE "OBAMA IS A MUSLIM" RUMOR!

Sorry, but several people have made this claim, and its simply not true. Joc can back this up, because he also lives in IL, that Republicans started this rumor back when he ran for the Federal Senate (they claimed he was sworn in on a Koran after he won as well), and it probably existed even before that.

No she didn't, however she did say "He's not a Muslim, as far as I know.".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

6 point lead, 7 point lead in favorability.

No she didn't, however she did say "He's not a Muslim, as far as I know.".

Oh, yeah she did fan that flame for political reasons, not denying that. But Ive seen several people (some more then once) say "OMG REPUBLICANS DIDNT START THE OBAMA I A MUSLIM RUMOR CUZ WE ARE PERFECT IT WAS MEAN CLINTON" which is a blatant lie.

Are they thinking he is Muslim because he is black or are they thinking he is Muslim because the Clinton camp circulated pictures of him in Muslim garb?

There were widespread rumors about Obama being Muslim long before the Clinton camp circulated those pictures. The pictures were meant to capitalize on a fear already out there, not to create it.

Ok now we saw a few percentage points swing, so during the primaries we saw some people voting due to race, now was this entire against Obama because he was black and absolutely no one voted for Obama because of his race? Is that what the primaries showed?

Nope, but there were far more people who admitted to race being an issue who voted for Clinton in the primaries. And one would expect that a smaller percentage of people who used race to justify voting for the white person to actually admit it.

It's a very famous English saying that has it's origins in the Northern Ireland 'Troubles' about ignoring the biggest problem/issue and instead focusing on the smaller ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room

Family Guy did in one scene but with a giant squid.
It's much older than that. PT Barnum had a running gag in one of his three-ring circus shows where one of the clowns was always stealing things, and the climax is when he tries to walk off with an elephant. The manager demands loudly, "Where are you going with that elephant?" and the clown replies innocently, "What elephant?"

I wanted to compare and contrast two advertisements being played here in Colorado right now, one by McCain, and one by Obama.

Here is the Obama ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONM7148cTyc

First off, it's an unusual two minutes in length. (I realize Obama has perhaps one or two of the more typical thirty-second spots, but I have not seen any so I cannot comment on them.) It actually explains some policy positions and explains some of what Obama intends to do, rather than toss around buzzwords and use scare tactics.


Here is the McCain ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjvzyFyMO-k

Unlike Obama, this is your typical thirty-second spot, and you'll note it's one that relies heavily on fear tactics. "Massive government." "PAINFUL TAXES." Nice touch with the shadow on the baby, pulling the heartstrings.

It's emotive pandering garbage, really.

I point this out to show the real difference between the two candidates. Obama is not a panderer, at least not anymore than he absolutely has to be as required by our political environment. (I'm sure he wouldn't pander anywhere near as much if he didn't have to.)

McCain on the other hand most certainly is, no matter what he might have been before.

I'm watching my fellow Coloradans, and while many people in this area are staunch conservatives(thankfully few reacting to Obama as if he's an "uppity ******") and wouldn't even contemplate listening to him, a lot of people here ARE, and they're finding themselves open to voting for him. I'm talking about the same kind of people that elected Tom Tancredo, mind. It's crazy-go-nuts wonderful.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3227/2902027009_302d83b322_o.png
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/2902026929_ccbcc35f19_o.png

fucking christ!

we're approaching clintonian landslide territory here, and this time not reliant on the guy with funny ears to split the other side's vote.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3227/2902027009_302d83b322_o.png
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/2902026929_ccbcc35f19_o.png

fucking christ!

we're approaching clintonian landslide territory here, and this time not reliant on the guy with funny ears to split the other side's vote.

Indiana as a white state. I'd of never thought.

I wanted to compare and contrast two advertisements being played here in Colorado right now, one by McCain, and one by Obama.

Here is the Obama ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONM7148cTyc

First off, it's an unusual two minutes in length. (I realize Obama has perhaps one or two of the more typical thirty-second spots, but I have not seen any so I cannot comment on them.) It actually explains some policy positions and explains some of what Obama intends to do, rather than toss around buzzwords and use scare tactics.


Here is the McCain ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjvzyFyMO-k

Unlike Obama, this is your typical thirty-second spot, and you'll note it's one that relies heavily on fear tactics. "Massive government." "PAINFUL TAXES." Nice touch with the shadow on the baby, pulling the heartstrings.

It's emotive pandering garbage, really.

I point this out to show the real difference between the two candidates. Obama is not a panderer, at least not anymore than he absolutely has to be as required by our political environment. (I'm sure he wouldn't pander anywhere near as much if he didn't have to.)

McCain on the other hand most certainly is, no matter what he might have been before.

I'm watching my fellow Coloradans, and while many people in this area are staunch conservatives(thankfully few reacting to Obama as if he's an "uppity ******") and wouldn't even contemplate listening to him, a lot of people here ARE, and they're finding themselves open to voting for him. I'm talking about the same kind of people that elected Tom Tancredo, mind. It's crazy-go-nuts wonderful.

I honestly don't know how the Republicans have the balls to complain about 'big government' after the massive increases of the last 8 years...

I honestly don't know how the Republicans have the balls to complain about 'big government' after the massive increases of the last 8 years...

It's typical Republican scare tactics, especially around here.

You should see the anti-Mark Udall commercials. "Boulder liberal" this and "Boulder liberal" that. :rolleyes:

Indiana as a white state. I'd of never thought.

North Carolina too.

It's typical Republican scare tactics, especially around here.

You should see the anti-Mark Udall commercials. "Boulder liberal" this and "Boulder liberal" that. :rolleyes:

Oh, I've seen dirty tricks before. The Republican Party office (which is just about 4 miles from where I work) handed out those infamous flyers, last time around - the ones with the picture of the Bible, crossed out, and text that read something like "The Democrats Will Take Away Your Bible"...

So - I'm not surprised by dirty.. even evil - tricks.

But to massively increase government over two terms, and then turn around and accuse Democrats of being the 'massive government' party? That's just... wow.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3227/2902027009_302d83b322_o.png
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/2902026929_ccbcc35f19_o.png

fucking christ!

we're approaching clintonian landslide territory here, and this time not reliant on the guy with funny ears to split the other side's vote.

Fucking Awesome. And Virginia is blue. AN Flordia is leaning blue. So much for "McCain gets the elderly vote!"

Oh, I've seen dirty tricks before. The Republican Party office (which is just about 4 miles from where I work) handed out those infamous flyers, last time around - the ones with the picture of the Bible, crossed out, and text that read something like "The Democrats Will Take Away Your Bible"...

So - I'm not surprised by dirty.. even evil - tricks.

Are you serious? They really did that? Honestly?

The Democrats are just as Christian as the Republicans, and the Republicans have the gall to claim the Dems will take away the Bible?

Holy shit.

But to massively increase government over two terms, and then turn around and accuse Democrats of being the 'massive government' party? That's just... wow.
Unfortunately, it works on people who don't bother to think about what they're fed and check sources.

Luckily people like that are becoming fewer by the day. It's why those tricks aren't working much anymore.

(Seriously..."Take away your Bible..." that makes "Boulder Liberal" look like a schoolyard insult...)

Indiana as a white state. I'd of never thought.

North Carolina too.

Technically, 538 has them both (and Missouri, too) very pale red. More interestingly, it's got Florida and Ohio leaning blue.

Fucking Awesome. And Virginia is blue. AN Flordia is leaning blue. So much for "McCain gets the elderly vote!"

Lot of time yet til the election. I wouldn't put much stock in such early numbers.

Are you serious? They really did that? Honestly?

The Democrats are just as Christian as the Republicans, and the Republicans have the gall to claim the Dems will take away the Bible?

Holy shit.

But Obama was sworn in on a Koran! He's an ebil Muzlim and will take God out of the White House!

Unfortunately, it works on people who don't bother to think about what they're fed and check sources.

I know those people. =(

I'm even related to some of them. =(

Lot of time yet til the election. I wouldn't put much stock in such early numbers.

I dont know if 1 month is "lot of time". Especially since poll numbers tend to be pretty consistant this election, convention bounces non-withstanding.

Are you serious? They really did that? Honestly?

The Democrats are just as Christian as the Republicans, and the Republicans have the gall to claim the Dems will take away the Bible?

Holy shit.

Unfortunately, it works on people who don't bother to think about what they're fed and check sources.

Luckily people like that are becoming fewer by the day. It's why those tricks aren't working much anymore.

(Seriously..."Take away your Bible..." that makes "Boulder Liberal" look like a schoolyard insult...)

Yeah, the leaflets really happened. I don't know if Georgia was a central focus for it, or not, I know other southern states got them - but I live in the sort of part of Georgia where someone might tip their waitress with a Chick tract.

So... yes, the 'Clinton is a Commie', 'Boulder Liberal' stuff is not hard to get my head around.

Technically, 538 has them both (and Missouri, too) very pale red. More interestingly, it's got Florida and Ohio leaning blue.
So far.
But Obama was sworn in on a Koran! He's an ebil Muzlim and will take God out of the White House!

And replace it with...God!

Only it's with an Arabic name, so it's EVIL!


I know those people. =(

I'm even related to some of them. =(
Yeah, me too...:(
Yeah, the leaflets really happened. I don't know if Georgia was a central focus for it, or not, I know other southern states got them - but I live in the sort of part of Georgia where someone might tip their waitress with a Chick tract.

So... yes, the 'Clinton is a Commie', 'Boulder Liberal' stuff is not hard to get my head around.
Clearly.

I can't imagine why you continue to live there, especially being an British immigrant.

So far.

And replace it with...God!

Only it's with an Arabic name, so it's EVIL!


Yeah, me too...:(

Clearly.

I can't imagine why you continue to live there, especially being an British immigrant.

Liberal the place up, one Euro at a time!

we're approaching clintonian landslide territory here, and this time not reliant on the guy with funny ears to split the other side's vote.

Spock?



Frodo?

I can't imagine why you continue to live there, especially being an British immigrant.

Heh. A combination of a southern girl, and not really being able to relocate. Yet. But it's definitely a consideration, believe me.

I've been informed by several reliable sources that it's NOT all of America that is evil... only some parts. And I just happened to get lucky.

Liberal the place up, one Euro at a time!

I'd like to believe this was the reason... :D

Are you serious? They really did that? Honestly?

The Democrats are just as Christian as the Republicans, and the Republicans have the gall to claim the Dems will take away the Bible?

Holy shit.

Still better than posting flyers in predominantly black neighborhoods telling them to vote.

Giving the date as the day after the election.

Heh. A combination of a southern girl, and not really being able to relocate. Yet. But it's definitely a consideration, believe me.

I've been informed by several reliable sources that it's NOT all of America that is evil... only some parts. And I just happened to get lucky.
There are many lovely places to live.

Me, I recommend Colorado. If you want liberal, go to Boulder. :)

Still better than posting flyers in predominantly black neighborhoods telling them to vote.

Giving the date as the day after the election.
:mad:

Now that's outright fucked up.

Heh. A combination of a southern girl, and not really being able to relocate. Yet. But it's definitely a consideration, believe me.

I've been informed by several reliable sources that it's NOT all of America that is evil... only some parts. And I just happened to get lucky.

You know, Jersey's not so bad, once you get past the smell.

There are many lovely places to live.

Me, I recommend Colorado. If you want liberal, go to Boulder. :)


I've been there, but just passing through. Colorado was pretty, but I kind of got the feeling the heat would make me drop down dead. I was there in September, and it was pretty fierce.... We Englanders aren't used to this 'sun' thing you Americans have. :D

You know, Jersey's not so bad, once you get past the smell.

Never made it there yet. Managed NYC.

Wait... didn't you once say Jersey has curry?

I've been there, but just passing through. Colorado was pretty, but I kind of got the feeling the heat would make me drop down dead. I was there in September, and it was pretty fierce.... We Englanders aren't used to this 'sun' thing you Americans have. :D
Well, it's not so warm once you get into winter...

...hey wait! If you can't take Boulder sun, how can you take Georgia steam?

Well, it's not so warm once you get into winter...

...hey wait! If you can't take Boulder sun, how can you take Georgia steam?

I don't. I die. :(

And when I was there, I ended up covered in red dust. And when I'm here, hurricanes try to eat me.

Hey wait. Maybe America IS evil, after all....

I've been there, but just passing through. Colorado was pretty, but I kind of got the feeling the heat would make me drop down dead. I was there in September, and it was pretty fierce.... We Englanders aren't used to this 'sun' thing you Americans have. :D

Try Oregon or Washington, you have your pick of climates/terrain and the people are mostly awesome

Lot of time yet til the election. I wouldn't put much stock in such early numbers.

There are only the two more debates and the one VP debate left as scheduled events that can change the outcome, and while I'm taking fivethirtyeight's word for this, generally debates are only worth a 2% bounce with the first being the biggest audience. McCain had to gamble on a big gain in the first one, which is why he wanted Foreign Policy as the opener. He didn't get it. He now needs to nail debates that are out of his strength, Palin has to not face plant (I've discussed how this has been set up), and October surprises have to be really really surprising to turn the tide. And then he still has to overcome Obama's ground game advantage. During the primaries Obama closed really well, only regressing in the last two days. While I'm not saying it's impossible for McCain to win, it is close enough to start getting at least a little excited.

Never made it there yet. Managed NYC.

Wait... didn't you once say Jersey has curry?

Not a mile from where I live is about a mile long strip of nothing but Indian restaurants, grocers, clothing stores, and whatnot. We sell curry by the bottle, packet, or box (depending on the masala we're talking about)

Jersey City's also well known for a similar street that most people in the area refer to as Little India.

Try Oregon or Washington, you have your pick of climates/terrain and the people are mostly awesome

Washington - the state, right? I've been told I can get a good, English-style weather pattern there. i.e. it rains. A lot. :D

Not a mile from where I live is about a mile long strip of nothing but Indian restaurants, grocers, clothing stores, and whatnot. We sell curry by the bottle, packet, or box (depending on the masala we're talking about)

Jersey City's also well known for a similar street that most people in the area refer to as Little India.

*le sigh*

Sounds like heaven.

I don't. I die. :(

And when I was there, I ended up covered in red dust. And when I'm here, hurricanes try to eat me.

Hey wait. Maybe America IS evil, after all....
Nah, it does that to everybody.

Washington - the state, right? I've been told I can get a good, English-style weather pattern there. i.e. it rains. A lot. :D
Yes. Yes you can.

Especially near and in Seattle.

*le sigh*

Sounds like heaven.

Just a noisy, tasty slice of it.

Washington - the state, right? I've been told I can get a good, English-style weather pattern there. i.e. it rains. A lot. :D

yup - and so green and beautiful

plus - rarely a religious fanatic to be found.

I've been there, but just passing through. Colorado was pretty, but I kind of got the feeling the heat would make me drop down dead. I was there in September, and it was pretty fierce.... We Englanders aren't used to this 'sun' thing you Americans have. :D
you obviously need to move to NEW england.

there are some parts that are affordable.

I've been there, but just passing through. Colorado was pretty, but I kind of got the feeling the heat would make me drop down dead. I was there in September, and it was pretty fierce.... We Englanders aren't used to this 'sun' thing you Americans have. :D

See, that's why we have New England. Summers like Britain, winters like Siberia.:D

you obviously need to move to NEW england.

there are some parts that are affordable.
Yep. There's a reason they call it that, you know.

Oh, and remembering there's an election on, crazy Chris Matthews just said something mildly amusing. Comparing McCain and Obama on their responses to the economic crisis, he said, despite their differences, they both are like Raymond Burr standing on a boat and watching Godzilla stomp Tokyo -- you know, how "Godzilla" had all that intense giant-monster stuff, and every now and then they'd cut to Raymond Burr watching from the sidelines, going, "...wow...damn." I just thought it was apt.

Yep. There's a reason they call it that, you know.

Oh, and remembering there's an election on, crazy Chris Matthews just said something mildly amusing. Comparing McCain and Obama on their responses to the economic crisis, he said, despite their differences, they both are like Raymond Burr standing on a boat and watching Godzilla stomp Tokyo -- you know, how "Godzilla" had all that intense giant-monster stuff, and every now and then they'd cut to Raymond Burr watching from the sidelines, going, "...wow...damn." I just thought it was apt.
honestly they should both be able to stay out of it. the respective party leaders and whips should be able to make a deal and get enough reps in line to vote for it.

honestly they should both be able to stay out of it. the respective party leaders and whips should be able to make a deal and get enough reps in line to vote for it.
I agree. The concluding opinion of the MSNBC pundits tonight (for whatever it may be worth) is that Obama is not gaining any credit for himself by seeming so outside of this fray, but McCain is doing himself actual damage by trying to inject himself into it. In fact, both of them are working the phones behind the scenes like madmen, but in terms of their own public image, everybody seems to realize that this is a "Washington thing," as one pundit put it, not a campaign thing, and McCain's attempts to seem on top of it are apparently not going over all that well.

I agree. The concluding opinion of the MSNBC pundits tonight (for whatever it may be worth) is that Obama is not gaining any credit for himself by seeming so outside of this fray, but McCain is doing himself actual damage by trying to inject himself into it. In fact, both of them are working the phones behind the scenes like madmen, but in terms of their own public image, everybody seems to realize that this is a "Washington thing," as one pundit put it, not a campaign thing, and McCain's attempts to seem on top of it are apparently not going over all that well.

It's a fine line. They say you need to dress for the job you want... or, in this case, you have to project the image. So - these two men are doing what they each think 'looking presidential' looks like.

In McCain's case, that's scrabbling frantically, claiming credit for everything that works, and blaming someone else for everything that doesnt... but at least he's looking busy.

In Obama's case, that's standing back and looking in control, but letting other people that are better qualified, get their hands dirty... and take their own credit.

I know which looks more like the president I'D want.

In McCain's case, that's scrabbling frantically, claiming credit for everything that works, and blaming someone else for everything that doesnt... but at least he's looking busy.


George Bush: "You have learned well, my apprentence."
McCain: "Now I am the master."

I agree. The concluding opinion of the MSNBC pundits tonight (for whatever it may be worth) is that Obama is not gaining any credit for himself by seeming so outside of this fray, but McCain is doing himself actual damage by trying to inject himself into it. In fact, both of them are working the phones behind the scenes like madmen, but in terms of their own public image, everybody seems to realize that this is a "Washington thing," as one pundit put it, not a campaign thing, and McCain's attempts to seem on top of it are apparently not going over all that well.
mccain would be OK if he didnt keep trying to grandstand.

its so wierd for it to be a bush proposal that rests on the democrats in congress to pass. they sure dont want to hand the republicans a hammer to beat them with for the next month. it needs to be bipartisan but no one seems to be able to get past the chasm that divides congress these days

mccain would be OK if he didnt keep trying to grandstand.

its so wierd for it to be a bush proposal that rests on the democrats in congress to pass. they sure dont want to hand the republicans a hammer to beat them with for the next month. it needs to be bipartisan but no one seems to be able to get past the chasm that divides congress these days



Which we have Dear Leader to thank. Or "The Uniter" as hes known around Washington.

Which we have Dear Leader to thank. Or "The Uniter" as hes known around Washington.
for a supposedly charming man he sure sucks as a politician.

Obama is doing exactly what he should be doing. He's not on any of the relevant committees for this, so his job really should extend solely to showing up in Washington on a voting day and casting his vote. He's not the leader of his party in either house of Congress, he's not the party whip, and he's not the speaker. He may be working behind the scenes as viciously as he can, but publicly, he's playing his role precisely, that of the junior senator from Illinois. Any attempts to take a more active public role in this crisis than he otherwise would were he not campaigning would rightly look like grandstanding.

Spock?



Frodo?

Perotdo Baggins.

McCain is going to hate Youtube before this election is out:

Yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEtJmVlhTbo&feature=user

"Our leaders are expected to leave partisanship at the door and come to the table to solve our problems ... Senator Obama and his allies in congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process. Now is not the time to fix the blame. it's time to fix the problem...

So - already a little bit of a conflict... let's not fix blame, but it was Obama's fault....


Today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVdV-dVq-2Q&feature=user

"Senator, you said that now is not the time to fix blame, but to fix the problem... but you said almost in the same breath, "but the Democrats, including Senator Obama, are responsible for the rescue plan falling apart...

"No, actually I said yesterday, very clearly... went before the media and said - it's time not to fix the blame but to fix the problem...

So if both were white or both were black then we would see different polling at the moment?

I am saying that it isn't irrelevent to dismiss that some people are voting for him because he is balck because more people are voting against him, not from a results viewpoint but a social viewpoint.

Yup, we would. And the different polling we would see if both were white would be that Obama would be doing better. How does this help your point?

The results viewpoint is what you posted about. You said that we cannot ignore that Obama benefits from racism. This ignores that he doesn't. The ignorance of the statement has been admitted by you repeatedly. You do know what it means when you admit you don't know what you're talking about, don't you? That's when rational people stop making assertions.

McCain is going to hate Youtube before this election is out:

Yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEtJmVlhTbo&feature=user



So - already a little bit of a conflict... let's not fix blame, but it was Obama's fault....


Today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVdV-dVq-2Q&feature=user
It's extra awesome since him 'flying in to save the day' was to actually stir up decent in his own party over the already agreed on plan that had been settled earlier that day...

Yep, race is not an issue in this campaign...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008217186_webeffigy30.html

Yep, race is not an issue in this campaign...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008217186_webeffigy30.html

That really says it all doesn't it?

Yep, race is not an issue in this campaign...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008217186_webeffigy30.html

Shhhhhh... don't you know that there are people also hanging images of McCain? The racists cut both ways.

It's extra awesome since him 'flying in to save the day' was to actually stir up decent in his own party over the already agreed on plan that had been settled earlier that day...

Dissent.

Shhhhhh... don't you know that there are people also hanging images of McCain? The racists cut both ways.

Indeed, Im sure the kid who graffitied a wall with "Obama does crack" then went on to spray paint "And McCain does coke" too.

Dissent.

No no, I meant they were undressed and he brought them suits...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/30/on_social_policy_questions_pal.html


Awww, they prepped Palin so shed appear sane...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/30/on_social_policy_questions_pal.html


Awww, they prepped Palin so shed appear sane...

Unfortunately, she appears completely incapable of having a back bone now on any issue whatsoever. She talks about her PERSONAL feelings, yet doesn't say anything on actual POLICY. As well, I love the vagueness of everything she speaks. Does not come off, at all, as well informed, simply less controversial.

This election is going to be interesting to say the least. McCain screwed himself with Palin, and he's doing his best to keep the beast he unleashed at bay.

Indeed, Im sure the kid who graffitied a wall with "Obama does crack" then went on to spray paint "And McCain does coke" too.
I wonder how all of this compares with your messages of love here on these walls? :rolleyes:

Shhhhhh... don't you know that there are people also hanging images of McCain? The racists cut both ways.

Very funny Jocabia, but you know that is not what I have been saying.

Question: If people have a greater identify with Obama maybe because of race or for whatever reason. Now is it entirely possible that people are voting against Obama because they don't identify with him maybe because of race?

Maybe you can chalk this up to short term memory loss? Yeah, it's been an issue that has been around for ages...

If politicians were able to be influenced by logic, there wouldn't be a problem. They aren't. They're influenced by constituents.


If you think politicians are wholly or even mostly influenced by their constituents you are mistaken. While in some degree they are, their opinions are from several sources - personal principles, party affiliation, and lobbying among others. Constituent opinion is, sadly, not as influential as you may expect.

I wonder how all of this compares with your messages of love here on these walls? :rolleyes:

Yeah, like his practice of coming in after days of absence and sitting out the discussion to take a passing shot at a poster's character that in no way addresses the discussion being had?

Oh, wait...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/30/on_social_policy_questions_pal.html


Awww, they prepped Palin so shed appear sane...

Asked what magazines she reads, Palin said, "I've read most of them," and pressed for examples, Palin declined. "Any of them that have been in front of me over all these years," she said. "I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news to.... Alaska isn't a foreign country where it's kind of suggested it seems like, wow, how could you keep in touch with the rest of Washington, D.C. ... Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America."
Shuz? Vivarium? Pen World? Baseball Card Collector? Barely Legal? Well, that's impressive...I worked at a store that had a lot of magazines and I barely read a quarter of them...reading every magazine put in front of her must be time consuming...

I wonder how all of this compares with your messages of love here on these walls? :rolleyes:

Wtf are you talking about?


Wow, Im so glad I had taken you off ignore. Back you go.

Very funny Jocabia, but you know that is not what I have been saying.

Thats exactly what you were saying.

Shuz? Vivarium? Pen World? Baseball Card Collector? Barely Legal? Well, that's impressive...I worked at a store that had a lot of magazines and I barely read a quarter of them...reading every magazine put in front of her must be time consuming...
Well, she said she read what was put in front of her. That could be nothing but Highlights and Fur, Fish & Game.

Or maybe she went for that "vast variety": http://www.magsdirect.com/hunting-magazines.html

Yeah, like his practice of coming in after days of absence and sitting out the discussion to take a passing shot at a poster's character that in no way addresses the discussion being had?

Oh, wait...
Yesterday is days of absence? And I wasn't addressing the discussion? And you were addressing the discussion in this post?

And you would never take a passing shot at a poster....oh wait (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14044180&postcount=558)

Just for a bit of lighthearted silliness: Palin Quote Generator (http://palinquotes.sillycloud.com/) :D

Shuz? Vivarium? Pen World? Baseball Card Collector? Barely Legal? Well, that's impressive...I worked at a store that had a lot of magazines and I barely read a quarter of them...reading every magazine put in front of her must be time consuming...
ladies home journal, mccalls, mademoiselle, cosmopolitan, redbook, family circle, good housekeeping, the national enquirer

they get all the great mags in alaska

McCain is going to hate Youtube before this election is out:
Yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEtJmVlhTbo

So - already a little bit of a conflict... let's not fix blame, but it was Obama's fault....

Today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVdV-dVq-2Q
yesterday:
McCain: "It's Obama's fault that my fellow republicans didn't vote for the bailout!"
today:
McCain: "I never said it was Obama's fault that my fellow republicans didn't vote for the bailout!"
Such a shame no-one's told him about those magic talky-looky boxes we have nowadays that record what a person says.

Notice how many times he blinks during the 2nd clip? while he's talking, in the space of just 15 seconds he blinks 35 times! What does that tell you?
http://www.contactomagazine.com/articles/liarsigns0808.htm
His explanation is a classic study in lying.

ladies home journal, mccalls, mademoiselle, cosmopolitan, redbook, family circle, good housekeeping, the national enquirer

they get all the great mags in alaska
Considering how cold and lonely it must get up there during the Winter months, I'd wager the largest subscriptions are for Barely Legal, Hustler, Penthouse, Climax, Triple X and Dog Fanciers Monthly.

Yesterday is days of absence?
I had meant to say pages, so hey, you get one! Now you know what it feels like...must be weird for you, huh?
And I wasn't addressing the discussion?
Quoting the poster does not automatically mean you are addressing the discussion. You were, in fact, not addressing the discussion but instead taking a non sequitur pot shot at KoL. Unless you're jumping to the defense of racist graffiti artists by insisting that KoL started it first?
And you were addressing the discussion in this post?
No, I was addressing you, calling you out on your nonsense.

And you would never take a passing shot at a poster....oh wait (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14044180&postcount=558)
I was simply restating your position as you yourself have presented it, that opinions are above challenge. If you find your own characterization of your position insulting, imagine how the rest of us feel.

Stop squabbling, you two. Play nice.

Just for a bit of lighthearted silliness: Palin Quote Generator (http://palinquotes.sillycloud.com/) :D

"At the same time, if Americans so bless us and privlidege us and I would hope that's the case." It's almost eerie....

yesterday:
McCain: "It's Obama's fault that my fellow republicans didn't vote for the bailout!"
today:
McCain: "I never said it was Obama's fault that my fellow republicans didn't vote for the bailout!"
Such a shame no-one's told him about those magic talky-looky boxes we have nowadays that record what a person says.

Notice how many times he blinks during the 2nd clip? while he's talking, in the space of just 15 seconds he blinks 35 times! What does that tell you?
http://www.contactomagazine.com/articles/liarsigns0808.htm
His explanation is a classic study in lying.

I commented on that blinking in the Debate thread... whenever he started pushing the limit a bit... mass blinky. Not foolproof, I'm sure - but I do watch for it now...

Shuz? Vivarium? Pen World? Baseball Card Collector? Barely Legal? Well, that's impressive...I worked at a store that had a lot of magazines and I barely read a quarter of them...reading every magazine put in front of her must be time consuming...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3198/2902659751_c01702dc85.jpg

Thats exactly what you were saying.

Funny I don't remember that people were hanging cutouts of McCain. But I do remember saying that there are racists on both sides of the fence.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3198/2902659751_c01702dc85.jpg

Did she realy say this?

Shuz? Vivarium? Pen World? Baseball Card Collector? Barely Legal? Well, that's impressive...I worked at a store that had a lot of magazines and I barely read a quarter of them...reading every magazine put in front of her must be time consuming...

Barely legal hey? So she's into that sort thing hey?

It was time consuming and is why she didn't have time to teach her daughter about abstinence.

Did she realy say this?

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them...

Barely legal hey? So she's into that sort thing hey?
Maybe not her, but her future son-in-law certainly is.

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them...

Soo... safe to say she's Quayle V2.0? :p

Soo... safe to say she's Quayle V2.0? :p
Someone should ask her to spell "Potato"

Someone should ask her to spell "Potato"

WHAT?!

You mean there's no "e" in there?! :p

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them...

Bloody hell, she could have at least made something up, if you are going to lie you have to do a good job of it.

Maybe not her, but her future son-in-law certainly is.

Maybe he informs her of the issue in the magazine.

Bloody hell, she could have at least made something up, if you are going to lie you have to do a good job of it.

I can see it now... CNN.com, Oct. 17th, 2008:

"I stand by all the misstatements I may or may not have made." Sarah Palin

XD

Bloody hell, she could have at least made something up, if you are going to lie you have to do a good job of it.

yeah, it's not like there aren't safe and easy answers to that question. shit, she could just have claimed to not have much time for reading the paper (what with personally facing down the russians and all).

i wonder if her thought process ran something like this:

*hmm, this sounds like something that might be used against me, to make me seem like an ignorant backwoods yahoo...oooh, i know what will throw them completely!*
"yeah, i read all of them."
*yes! in your face, liberal media*

WHAT?!

You mean there's no "e" in there?! :p
silly me!
P-O-T-A-E-T-O
that's better!

yeah, it's not like there aren't safe and easy answers to that question. shit, she could just have claimed to not have much time for reading the paper (what with personally facing down the russians and all).

i wonder if her thought process ran something like this:

*hmm, this sounds like something that might be used against me, to make me seem like an ignorant backwoods yahoo...oooh, i know what will throw them completely!*
"yeah, i read all of them."
*yes! in your face, liberal media*
I think it was probably more along the lines of:
"Magazines? Oh! Those looky-reedy pages! Ummm...better say 'All of them' to make myself look super-smart!"

i just want to know if she listens to both kinds of music, too

here's an, albeity extreme, example of how some people in the US view Obama:
http://www.monkeyreview.co.uk/index.php/2008/09/26/this-woman-is-allowed-to-vote-in-america

IQ and paternity tests for all voters, please! If you're father's also your brother you're not allowed to vote!

On another note, here's probably why Ann Coulter has been so silent this election:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_If_we_took_away_womens_1003.html

If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and 'We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'
This was from last year when it looked like Hilary was going to win the nomination.

Now of course, it's GOP trying to woo the female vote. Having Coulter come on and support Palin would be too easy to attack. My bet is she's been told to shut the hell up in order to not make it any worse for McCain.

here's an, albeity extreme, example of how some people in the US view Obama:
http://www.monkeyreview.co.uk/index.php/2008/09/26/this-woman-is-allowed-to-vote-in-america

IQ and paternity tests for all voters, please! If you're father's also your brother you're not allowed to vote!
So, where are you going with this? She did say that she would prefer Hillary as President.

So, where are you going with this? She did say that she would prefer Hillary as President.
She also said she'd never support Obama cause he's an Arab and a Muslim.
Which backs what others have said on this thread about racism affecting American politics.

So, where are you going with this? She did say that she would prefer Hillary as President.

I'm going to assume that you had excessive earwax buildup and couldn't make out the parts of it that had to deal with how she felt about Obama. Would it be fair to make that assumption, considering you're glazing over the bigotry and idiocy?

Possible subtle flamebait is not so subtle...

here's an, albeity extreme, example of how some people in the US view Obama:
http://www.monkeyreview.co.uk/index.php/2008/09/26/this-woman-is-allowed-to-vote-in-america

IQ and paternity tests for all voters, please! If you're father's also your brother you're not allowed to vote!

lol, fucking bogans wtf is this? There are better reasons not to vote for Obama than these.

She also said she'd never support Obama cause he's an Arab and a Muslim.
Which backs what others have said on this thread about racism affecting American politics.

Except Muslim is not a race, and as for Arabs in her mind we are at war with the Arabs and so why should want to place the "enemy" in charge of the country?

Anyway I moved over to the next video to watch a fraulien drown a litre of beer.

lol, fucking bogans wtf is this? There are better reasons not to vote for Obama than these.
come now, you're insulting bogans by calling these.....'people'...that.
even rednecks doesn't come close. what can you call these 'people'?
Deliverance crowd?
Hills have eyes folk?

Except Muslim is not a race, and as for Arabs in her mind we are at war with the Arabs and so why should want to place the "enemy" in charge of the country?

Anyway I moved over to the next video to watch a fraulien drown a litre of beer.

I'm guessing it was more informative?

I'm guessing it was more informative?

Well yes and no but of you are looking for comedy than the the first video is better.

come now, you're insulting bogans by calling these.....'people'...that.
even rednecks doesn't come close. what can you call these 'people'?
Deliverance crowd?
Hills have eyes folk?

True, true I wouldn't know the correct term for these people.

come now, you're insulting bogans by calling these.....'people'...that.
even rednecks doesn't come close. what can you call these 'people'?
Deliverance crowd?
Hills have eyes folk?

West Virginians.

Well yes and no but of you are looking for comedy than the the first video is better.

Being an American and having other people undoubtedly characterize me by that, I find it less than humorous.

However, the one redeeming quality of it is that her accent is so heavy it borders on unbelievable. :p

However, the one redeeming quality of it is that her accent is so heavy it borders on unbelievable. :p

Could anyone understand anything the guy on the ATV was saying?

She also said she'd never support Obama cause he's an Arab and a Muslim.
Which backs what others have said on this thread about racism affecting American politics.
So you might not be a racist but you have a more polite way of expressing your intolerance to other people, who you deem less qualified than you? That also "affects American politics"?

Remember how a few pages back, some time ago we where offered proof, PROOF! I say that Obama's '50 state' strategy had been a fools errand because a single author had taken a look at the snapshot polls after the Republican convention/Palin announcement that the red states were redder and blue more purple? Yeah, well, that same author has had a second look. (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/30/so-who-s-winning-now.aspx)

I wrote, "the Red States had gotten redder--and the Blue States had gotten purpler" since the Democrats left Denver.
...
Not anymore.
...
First, two states that preferred McCain last time around--Virginia and North Carolina--have gone from red to blue. Virginia is no surprise. A prime Obama pick-off possibility, it has switched sides a whopping seven times this cycle, and neither candidate has ever led there by more than three points. Still, it's significant that Obama now holds his largest average advantage of the year--a still-slim 1.4 percent. North Carolina is more surprising. On Sept. 15, McCain was clobbering Obama 52 percent to 41 percent in the RCP average. But over the past two weeks, a pair of surveys--PPP and Rasmussen--have given him a two-point edge in their latest soundings; other polls show a sudden tie. As a result, Obama now leads in North Carolina by a razor-thin 0.7 percent margin. Of course, the Illinois senator is still a longshot in Tar Heel country. That said, the GOP doesn't want to be defending a state George W. Bush won by 13 points.

The second development may be even more troubling for McCain. According to RCP, every single blue state on the Arizona's target list has become bluer since the middle of the month. On Sept 17, McCain trailed Obama by a mere 2.7 percent in Wisconsin. But the two polls released since then--Research 2000 and Quinnipiac--show Obama leading by a solid six and seven points, respectively. Minnesota is a similar story: a 1.3 percent average gap on Sept. 17 has since doubled, and the only survey (Rasmussen) taken entirely since that date puts Obama up by eight, 52-44. Meanwhile, Obama's average lead in Pennsylvania has increased from 1.3 percent to 5.5 percent over the same period of time, and his advantage in Michigan--McCain's top target--has ballooned from two points to more than six. When fitted with the final piece in the puzzle--growing Obama leads the Bush states of Iowa (9.2 percent), New Mexico (6.0 percent) and Colorado (5.0 percent)--it's hard to see how McCain reaches 270 electoral votes.
...
To win, Obama needs only to retain to Kerry's 251 electoral votes and flip Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado--all three of which he currently leads by an average of five points or more. What's more, if Colorado slips away, Obama could still pick off Virginia, Ohio (where McCain leads by a mere 1.2 percent on average) or Florida (where McCain's average advantage has plummeted since mid-month from more than six points to less than one). McCain, on the other hand, needs to win a big Kerry state like Michigan or Pennsylvania while retaining BOTH Colorado and Virginia; if he loses either, he'll be forced to poach even more property from the Democratic column. That would be a daunting task. According to RCP, Obama would win 301 to 237 if the election were held today.

Of course, it's not over, and the author makes sure to note that-
Does this mean that McCain is toast? Hardly. As September has shown, support for the candidates can fluctuate wildly in response to events, and there's still time remaining on the clock for a comeback. Obama could still lose--easily.
However-
Usually the race narrows somewhat at the end, but "in six of th[o]se elections--1960, 1964, 1976, 1984, 1988 and 2000--the final margin was different from the Oct. 1 polling results by less than three percentage points."

Having several paths to victory while the other side is having to defend its backyard and play a larger catch up game...looks like the strategy is working out just fine. Or is it a tactic? Semantic debate is drowned out by chants of "Scoreboard!"

I'm going to assume that you had excessive earwax buildup and couldn't make out the parts of it that had to deal with how she felt about Obama. Would it be fair to make that assumption, considering you're glazing over the bigotry and idiocy?
I hear quite well thanks, and yet it appears that many seem quite comfortable expressing their own bigotry and intolerance towards others, and that is acceptable?

Possible subtle flamebait is not so subtle...
Are you suggesting that my question was "Possible subtle flamebait"? Where are you going with that?

So you might not be a racist but you have a more polite way of expressing your intolerance to other people, who you deem less qualified than you? That also "affects American politics"?

???

Are you suggesting he's racist? Or that he's intolerant for other reasons? Such as those he is intolerant of being incompetent or bigoted or prejudiced, perhaps?

To me, it seems like those are perfectly acceptable reasons to deem someone "less qualified" than oneself. And funnily enough, differing opinions DO "affect American politics". Who'da thunk it?

(Oh, and as a nitpicky aside, do you add question marks to every sentence to match your own method of speaking (ie a raised inflection at the end of every sentence) or do you do it because the full stop button is broken? Or are you're just missing the important question words from your lexicon? Yes, I realise the irony of having those questions there, seeing as how they all end in question marks.)

???

Are you suggesting he's racist?
No, I don't believe that I was.

Or that he's intolerant for other reasons... such as those he is intolerant of being incompetent or bigoted or prejudiced.
And you want to correct my English. :rolleyes:

To me, it seems like those are perfectly acceptable reasons to deem someone "less qualified" than oneself.
Okay.

And funnily enough, differing opinions DO "affect American politics". Who'da thunk it?
I couldn't agree with you more, although I don't necessarily find those differences as being "funny".

(Oh, and as a nitpicky aside, do you add question marks to every sentence to match your own method of speaking (ie a raised inflection at the end of every sentence) or do you do it because the full stop button is broken? Or are you're just missing the important question words from your lexicon? Yes, I realise the irony of having those questions there, seeing as how they all end in question marks.)
My English teacher always told me to put a question mark at the end of a sentence that asks a question. Perhaps you need to be less "nitpicky"? :)

So you might not be a racist but you have a more polite way of expressing your intolerance to other people, who you deem less qualified than you? That also "affects American politics"?
So what are you implying by 'I MIGHT NOT be a racist' then?
And while you're at it, mind explaining how I MIGHT NOT be a racist but I'm still intolerant of other people?
And where did I say they were less qualified than me?
seems to be this post borders rather heavily on flamebaiting.

So, where are you going with this? She did say that she would prefer Hillary as President.
And yet now she says she could never support Obama - the one candidate out there whose policies and ideals are almost identical to Hillary's - based on nothing more than he is an 'Arab' and a 'Muslim'.
What does that tell you about her, and here level of prejudice? What does that tell you about the level of prejudice in America and, most importantly, what does that tell you about previous Hillary supporters who now campaign so virulently against Obama? assuming you know any that fit that bill of course...

No, I don't believe that I was.
Ok. For readers like myself who lack comprehension skills (it's ok, I'm Australian, we're supposed to be stupid... or somthing) could you clarify your statement please?

And you want to correct my English. :rolleyes:
You know what? Point taken. I feel rather foolish now.

Okay.
Glad we are in agreement.

I couldn't agree with you more, although I don't necessarily find those differences as being "funny".
I don't think they are necessarily funny, although I can see the humour if I try. I think it's more a matter of "well, duh...". Which, again with my lack of comprehension, makes me wonder what you were getting at with your claim "That also "affects American Politics"?"

My English teacher always told me to put a question mark at the end of a sentence that asks a question. Perhaps you need to be less "nitpicky"? :)

It's just hard to tell what should be read as a question when I read a sentence that has no "question" phrases, but then ends with a question mark. And yeah, I'm nitpicky. Always have been.

Before this one blows out of proportion:

as far as I can see, nobody's been seriously flamed, flamebaited or otherwise verbally discommoded.
quote ping-pong often ends up in one of those obscure rows where nobody but the combatants knows what the fight's about. So please give it a rest, m'kay?

So what are you implying by 'I MIGHT NOT be a racist' then?
And while you're at it, mind explaining how I MIGHT NOT be a racist but I'm still intolerant of other people?
And where did I say they were less qualified than me?
seems to be this post borders rather heavily on flamebaiting.


And yet now she says she could never support Obama - the one candidate out there whose policies and ideals are almost identical to Hillary's - based on nothing more than he is an 'Arab' and a 'Muslim'.
What does that tell you about her, and here level of prejudice? What does that tell you about the level of prejudice in America and, most importantly, what does that tell you about previous Hillary supporters who now campaign so virulently against Obama? assuming you know any that fit that bill of course...

I think it's more; You're not racist, as far as he knows..

Remember how a few pages back, some time ago we where offered proof, PROOF! I say that Obama's '50 state' strategy had been a fools errand because a single author had taken a look at the snapshot polls after the Republican convention/Palin announcement that the red states were redder and blue more purple? Yeah, well, that same author has had a second look. (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/30/so-who-s-winning-now.aspx)



Of course, it's not over, and the author makes sure to note that-

However-


Having several paths to victory while the other side is having to defend its backyard and play a larger catch up game...looks like the strategy is working out just fine. Or is it a tactic? Semantic debate is drowned out by chants of "Scoreboard!"

Of course, CH will ignore this.

It's been about a week since the debate.

This is what the country looked like just before the debate, according to electoral-vote
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Sep25.html
This is what it looks like almost a week after
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Ohio, North Carolina and Florida all went from weak/barely republican to a tie. They were all red states in the past two elections. It seems as though Obama has done quite a lot of damage to McBush's campaign, and that the polls seem to show Obama winning the debate. You can argue opinion all you want, but the polls from a website many people in this thread have quoted from time to time show that Obama won the debate.

Also, Obama's campaign seems to have caused a large swing in two of the most valuable states in the election. Florida being fourth, and Ohio being seventh. Of the top 7, McCain only has one of them, Texas. I'd say Obama's strategy is going solidly.

It's been about a week since the debate.

This is what the country looked like just before the debate, according to electoral-vote
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Sep25.html
This is what it looks like almost a week after
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Ohio, North Carolina and Florida all went from weak/barely republican to a tie. They were all red states in the past two elections. It seems as though Obama has done quite a lot of damage to McBush's campaign, and that the polls seem to show Obama winning the debate. You can argue opinion all you want, but the polls from a website many people in this thread have quoted from time to time show that Obama won the debate.

Also, Obama's campaign seems to have caused a large swing in two of the most valuable states in the election. Florida being fourth, and Ohio being seventh. Of the top 7, McCain only has one of them, Texas. I'd say Obama's strategy is going solidly.

In saying that some did go the other way. (I might not have the states matched up exactly so I will also have the initials)

Colorado (CO) went from weak Dem to barely Dem
Louisiana? (LA) went from weak GOP to Strong GOP
West Virgina (WV) went from barely GOP to weak GOP

And also on the bottom of the map it says Dem pickup (vs 2004) before the debate it has Colorado (CO) Iowa (IA) New Mexico (NM, this took me a while to work out) and Virgina (VA). And when looking on the map on the same line after the debate it is still only those 4 states, though the amount tied went from 0 to 62 all from the GOP camp.

West Virginians.

The Martense clan?

Things do not bode well for the whole "for want of a vagina" narrative, do they?

It goes like this:

For want of a vagina
the white female vote was lost
For want of the white female vote
a state was lost
For want of a state
the election was lost
For want of an election
a country was lost
For want of a country
the world was lost
And all for the want
of a vagina.

Good thing it won't come to pass.

In saying that some did go the other way. (I might not have the states matched up exactly so I will also have the initials)

Colorado (CO) went from weak Dem to barely Dem
Louisiana? (LA) went from weak GOP to Strong GOP
West Virgina (WV) went from barely GOP to weak GOP

And also on the bottom of the map it says Dem pickup (vs 2004) before the debate it has Colorado (CO) Indiana? (IA) New Mexico (NM, this took me a while to work out) and Virgina (VA). And when looking on the map on the same line after the debate it is still only those 4 states, though the amount tied went from 0 to 62 all from the GOP camp.

Indiana is IN, Iowa is IA.

West Virginians.Hey! >=(

Indiana is IN, Iowa is IA.

Iowa, I never thought of that. I will correct my post.

Colorado (CO) went from weak Dem to barely Dem

though much of that one's movement is on the basis of an arg poll showing mccain in the lead. which, as they said on 538, would be more concerning if arg was a good pollster.

Having several paths to victory while the other side is having to defend its backyard and play a larger catch up game...looks like the strategy is working out just fine. Or is it a tactic? Semantic debate is drowned out by chants of "Scoreboard!"
What you and the others were pedalling before was that every State matters. Even Dean stated that "obviously some States matter more (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1843532,00.html?imw=Y)".

The fact that the Dems are concentrating more right now on the States that matter, is evidenced by the map on this web site (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/).

And how does this (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/25/112048/962/192/610002) play in the "every State matters" theme?

The Democrats' biggest voter registration goal is in Georgia, where the Obama campaign hopes to register 500,000 voters before the election, said Dean, who has spent the past month traveling the country on a voter registration bus tour.

"The Obama folks are serious about Georgia," [Howard] Dean said. Georgia has added 337,000 voters since 2006, but the state does not identify them by party affiliation.
Does that mean that they aren't serious about Idaho? :tongue:

yep

just like saying I crave pizza means I hate all other foods

yep

just like saying I crave pizza means I hate all other foods

Sexist!... wait wait, that's not right.. Uh, foodist?

Does that mean that they aren't serious about Idaho

yeah, i mean, its not like the proponents of the 50 state strategy at the national level started to help rebuild the idaho democratic party a couple years ago, allowing them to run more than token candidates for state-wide offices there or anything. oh wait, yes they did. fuck, there goes that talking point!

<- voted for larry grant in 2006, where he came within 5% of a win in id-01

You voted? :D

You are a pathetic excuse for stinky anarchist.

Sexist!... wait wait, that's not right.. Uh, foodist?

Do you have a favorite food? If so then you are ignoring all other foods out there. What happened to you? Were you lying when you said that you like nearly all kinds of food? Because if you don't have every kind of food for every meal then you must not have been telling the truth, mr liar liar pants on fire. Clothesist.

What you and the others were pedalling before was that every State matters. Even Dean stated that "obviously some States matter more (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1843532,00.html?imw=Y)".

The fact that the Dems are concentrating more right now on the States that matter, is evidenced by the map on this web site (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/).

And how does this (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/25/112048/962/192/610002) play in the "every State matters" theme?


Does that mean that they aren't serious about Idaho? :tongue:

So now the criteria is the strategy is bunk if Obama doesn't have a Reagan/Johnson style landslide? Awesome.

In fact, I believe we took great pains to note that in fact Obama wasn't going to turn every red state blue. Of course, to get here you had to conflate two arguments. "Every state matters" was given in response to your claim that Clinton was 'winning the states that matter.'-it was a counter point to your notion that the states were somehow weighted so that for some reason winning already blue states mattered more. As it turned out we were right and Obama agressively campaigning every state for every vote turned out to successfully trump Clinton sitting out 11 states because they 'didn't matter.' And so a 20 point front runner with the best brand in politics since Kennedy was defeated by a relatively unknown junior senator.

Now were supposed to believe that it was our own position that all states would all get likewise effort and any red state is a failure of the strategy. Laughable. As already stated, we never believed or advocated that all states would turn blue, but that the ground game would be building a foundation even in places where the old guard 'only states that matter' folk had written off. So yes, under the column of "fucking obvious" states that can be targeted to turn have been given more focus. Congratulations on discovering the color of sky, we look forward to your report on the moisture level of water. But equal effort was not part of what we where talking about, that's merely your current fantasy in your 'any port in a storm' desperation.

You voted? :D

You are a pathetic excuse for stinky anarchist.

it was fall in idaho and i was young, i got swept up in the moment... you had to be there

Get out of the way, you're about to get run over by goalposts!!!!

though much of that one's movement is on the basis of an arg poll showing mccain in the lead. which, as they said on 538, would be more concerning if arg was a good pollster.

But if this site is using arg as a basis for their calculations then this site may also not be that great either.

Meanwhile now that I am awake and not in a daze like last night I also noticed that I spelt West Virginia as West Virgina, nice to see no one else picked up on it, either that or no one cares about my posts anymore :(

So you might not be a racist but you have a more polite way of expressing your intolerance to other people, who you deem less qualified than you? That also "affects American politics"?

God, I hope so. Apparently, I'm intolerant too. I absolutely refuse to hire anyone unqualified for the jobs I'm interviewing for. I'm a bastard like that.

In what world is judging the qualifications of someone for a job before selecting them for that job a bad thing?

Unlike race and religion, qualification for a job is relevant. I can't believe you'd compare the two and then pretend like you're making a rational argument.

EDIT: This was a stupid reply on my part. I should have read more context. I posted a new reply later in the thread.

Remember how a few pages back, some time ago we where offered proof, PROOF! I say that Obama's '50 state' strategy had been a fools errand because a single author had taken a look at the snapshot polls after the Republican convention/Palin announcement that the red states were redder and blue more purple? Yeah, well, that same author has had a second look. (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/30/so-who-s-winning-now.aspx)



Of course, it's not over, and the author makes sure to note that-

However-


Having several paths to victory while the other side is having to defend its backyard and play a larger catch up game...looks like the strategy is working out just fine. Or is it a tactic? Semantic debate is drowned out by chants of "Scoreboard!"

Wow, talk about damning. What's he gonna say to that? "The author is biased." It's the exact SAME source reversing his claim. Ouch, that's got a hurt.

Worse, the three states he mentioned that were close but leaning McCain all just swung Obama's way.

Ok. For readers like myself who lack comprehension skills (it's ok, I'm Australian, we're supposed to be stupid... or somthing) could you clarify your statement please?
For basic clarification, one does not need to be racist to proffer bigotry or intolerance of others. Certainly bigotry, racism, and intolerance all have a profound negative affect on American politics, or any politics for that matter.

You know what? Point taken. I feel rather foolish now.
No need to feel foolish, as we all trip up now and then.

Glad we are in agreement.
By saying "okay" it doesn't mean that I agree with your statement. It means that I was not going to challenge your opinion.

I don't think they are necessarily funny, although I can see the humour if I try. I think it's more a matter of "well, duh...". Which, again with my lack of comprehension, makes me wonder what you were getting at with your claim "That also "affects American Politics"?"
Reflecting upon what we are discussing, in regards to what affects American politics, these words come to mind:

Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our Nation -- not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That is the true genius of America, a faith -- a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles; that we can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm; that we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door; that we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe; that we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted -- at least most of the time.
Perhaps a bit idealistic to say the least, but they are the words of Barrack Obama (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm). There are more profound words further on in the speech:

In the end -- In the end -- In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?
That was 4 years ago. It doesn't appear that too much has changed in politics over the past 4 years?

I think it's more; You're not racist, as far as he knows..
much like he's not a child-molester, as far as I KNOW.
gotcha.

So you might not be a racist but you have a more polite way of expressing your intolerance to other people, who you deem less qualified than you? That also "affects American politics"?

I'm going to leave my original reply up because I'm embarrassed by it.

I misunderstood your comments and I apologize for my reply. I should have read more context before replying. This is absolutely a reasonable reply to what he said, which was blatantly intolerant and Gattaca-ish. Good show.

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=PdJUCU1UH2w&rel=0&eurl=http

I have no comment on the video.

CH, you just keep pretending that Obama is more dangerous than McCain and we'll pretend that the person you're supporting didn't sing a song about bombing human beings.

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=PdJUCU1UH2w&rel=0&eurl=http

I have no comment on the video.

CH, you just keep pretending that Obama is more dangerous than McCain and we'll pretend that the person you're supporting didn't sing a song about bombing human beings.

I have some comments on it.

It's an overly emotive video using a piece of overly used music to strike a particular effect.

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=PdJUCU1UH2w&rel=0&eurl=http

I have no comment on the video.

CH, you just keep pretending that Obama is more dangerous than McCain and we'll pretend that the person you're supporting didn't sing a song about bombing human beings.

I won't, but that's because I'm just that annoying. I'm also that infuriated by now at the sheer notion of supporting a person that sings songs about bombing people over someone else because that someone else ran against the candidate of choice of a few.

John McCain, the person some of Clinton's poor little disaffected supporters now support (how dare that n*gger steal the nomination from her by running against her, eh? That's throwing her under the bus, I tell you! Unlike her, who simply said he's not a Muslim "as far as she knows" and used racism, which, by the whole bus analogy, might open a whole new can of worms. Hint, Rosa Parks got into trouble for her color, not for her gender) sang, off-key and giddily, a song about bombing human beings. To be a bit more graphic, let me tell you what bombs can do: They can blow members off, rendering a person unable to walk or manipulate objects for the rest of their lives, with phantom pains, including on children. A child victimized by such a bomb may come to ask if the hands they lost will grow back. Will the people who support the candidate singing the song in that video kindly tell them they do not? Of course, bombs may also simply kill, or maim. Human beings can live having the near entirety of their bodies deformed by second-degree burns after all. Or they might come unscathed, save for watching their friends and relatives die and suffer. But do go on, supporters of John McCain, and pretend he didn't sing a song about it, and didn't enjoy himself with such thoughts while he was at it. Furthermore, do go on pretending like John McCain is closer to Clinton than Obama. And after this big fat jug of doublethink, maybe you'll finally go on to admit you wouldn't vote for that "uppity n*gger", innit?

I wonder if those inbred racist morons in a few places will somehow find a way to send a noose to the White House when Obama is elected.

Edit: This post is directed to no one in this thread, I'm just venting.

I have some comments on it.

It's an overly emotive video using a piece of overly used music to strike a particular effect.

Emotive isn't the same as false. It's true that Bush joked about the fact that they couldn't find the weapons. I know I think that's funny, don't you? It's true that McCain joked about bombing Iran and basically got his nod on the back of getting everyone ready for him to be a war time President. So much so, that he even openly admitted he didn't know much about economics, but he knows him some war. Then he proceeded to make sure everyone knew just how sure he was there would be lots of war for our POW to preside over.

If you can show which part isn't true, I'll delete the post, apologize, and concede. Which part isn't true?

Emotive isn't the same as false. It's true that Bush joked about the fact that they couldn't find the weapons. I know I think that's funny, don't you? It's true that McCain joked about bombing Iran and basically got his nod on the back of getting everyone ready for him to be a war time President. So much so, that he even openly admitted he didn't know much about economics, but he knows him some war. Then he proceeded to make sure everyone knew just how sure he was there would be lots of war for our POW to preside over.

If you can show which part isn't true, I'll delete the post, apologize, and concede. Which part isn't true?
I didn't say it wasn't true. I just said it was overly emotive.

And it was. I think it could've gotten the point across better if it hadn't been as emotive.

I didn't say it wasn't true. I just said it was overly emotive.

And it was. I think it could've gotten the point across better if it hadn't been as emotive.

In the way, perhaps, that Schindler's List would have gotten its point across better if it had simply been a single camera history lecture?

In the way, perhaps, that Schindler's List would have gotten its point across better if it had simply been a single camera history lecture?

No.

For some things, emotion works beautifully.

For other things, not so much.

I think this might've been better otherwise.

But then agian maybe not. I dunno.

No.

For some things, emotion works beautifully.

For other things, not so much.

I think this might've been better otherwise.

But then agian maybe not. I dunno.

It's an emotional issue. Tide doesn't tell you it's a better detergent by just having a guy in a lab coat say, "Tide is better." A car ad doesn't just have a guy go, "This one is faster." Is it because these people haven't stumbled upon the magic formula that they shouldn't us emotion to convey their message? No, it's because it in fact helps convey a message.

You could dryly string those clips together and actually be left wondering if that was a warning against a hawkish candidate or if it was "fuck yeah, war!" He used the tools of film making, that yes Virginia play on emotion, to let you know what he was saying with those clips.

Now you may feel like you're bucking against being 'manipulated.' I'm afraid you've set the bar too far in the field. Anytime someone makes any argument to you from Tide is best to you should take Dalton st. to get to City Hall instead of Peck they are using the various tools of whatever medium including emotion (from rhetorical choices, voice inflection, or music in the clip) to influence you. If you've drawn your line in the sand at what amounts to a short political internet ad I'm afraid you gave up the goat yards ago.

If you really want to be 'above it' you'll have to look past the method and argue the content.

It's an emotional issue. Tide doesn't tell you it's a better detergent by just having a guy in a lab coat say, "Tide is better." A car ad doesn't just have a guy go, "This one is faster." Is it because these people haven't stumbled upon the magic formula that they shouldn't us emotion to convey their message? No, it's because it in fact helps convey a message.

You could dryly string those clips together and actually be left wondering if that was a warning against a hawkish candidate or if it was "fuck yeah, war!" He used the tools of film making, that yes Virginia play on emotion, to let you know what he was saying with those clips.

Now you may feel like you're bucking against being 'manipulated.' I'm afraid you've set the bar too far in the field. Anytime someone makes any argument to you from Tide is best to you should take Dalton st. to get to City Hall instead of Peck they are using the various tools of whatever medium including emotion (from rhetorical choices, voice inflection, or music in the clip) to influence you. If you've drawn your line in the sand at what amounts to a short political internet ad I'm afraid you gave up the goat yards ago.

If you really want to be 'above it' you'll have to look past the method and argue the content.

Fair enough.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/real-credibility-problems.html#comments

Eeeeeeeenteresting.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/real-credibility-problems.html#comments

Eeeeeeeenteresting.

With all that and Obama is still ahead there...damn...

The worst part, if Obama wins, McCain et alii will cry sexism for the next four to eight years.

The worst part, if Obama wins, McCain et alii will cry sexism for the next four to eight years.

I'll get 'em a tissue.

I'll get 'em a tissue.

One with chloroform, please.

Here's a topic:

I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible.

Given that politics is a game of compromise, and that decisions are necessarily made before all the facts are in, somebody please explain to me in tiny words why changing your mind after hearing more facts is a bad thing. I'd like my leaders to be able to be persuaded by a reasoned and reasonable argument. Wherein lies the problem?

-With all due respect, some candidates can boast more consistent records than others. John McCain has changed his position on multiple topics various times over the years, specifically on the subject of foreign policy. To call Barack Obama a flip-flopper would be to pretend that he has much of a record to speak of (not a value judgment, a statement of fact). However, politicians such as Dr. Ron Paul (Congressman from Texas, former presidential nominee candidate [R]) has consistently voted along the same lines for the entirety of his career. Compromises are one thing, but changes in principle stance are another, and I believe this to be the source of people pointing the incriminating "flip-flop" finger.

So here is how we stand now. If we add in all states in which Obama leads by more than 5% he comes to exactly 269 (including Colorado, which there is debate on how big his margin is there). When you add up all the states in which McCain has a greater than 5% advantage you get 163

269 is a tie. In the event of a tie, the election is decided by the House of Representatives. The democratic controlled house of representatives.

Now this 269 score means that Obama wins ONLY the states he is leading by more than 5%. It does not count states that are tied, or states that he is leading by less than 5%, falling within the margin of error.

In order for McCain to even get a tie he needs to win in the following states: New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada and Florida, all of which are leaning Obama. He also has to win North Carolina, which is a statistical tie, AND keep from losing his less than 5% lead in Missouri and Indiana

So if you JUST count the states in which the lead is outside the margin of error, Obama ends up with 269, and even to TIE that, McCain needs to win every single state in which Obama is winning by less than 5%, win every single state that is a tie, and win every single state that he's leading in. New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, Florida, North carolina, Missouri and Indiana.

And even if he does that, it's a tie. And a tie, as stated, is decided by the democratic controlled house of representatives., which means, in all likelihood, Obama wins, especially since this electoral vote tie will most likely result in a popular vote win for Obama

For McCain to win, he needs to take Colorado, in which Obama's lead, while according to some pollsters is above 5%, is not consistently listed as such, and can't be considered a "safe" win for Obama. If McCain does win Colorado, he can afford to lose either Nevada or New Hampshire, but not both, as this will again result in a 269 269 tie, even if McCain wins the aforementioned states

In order for McCain to win, he needs to keep Missouri and Indiana (in which he has a lead that falls within the margin of error), swing North Carolina, which is a tie, and take over Obama's lead in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Colorado and either New Hampshire or Nevada. Of the 9 states reasonably in play, McCain needs to win 8 of them. Of the 8 he needs to win, 5 are Obama favored, and one is a dead tie.

Snip.

But... McCain put someone with a VAGINA on his ticket! Surely he can't lose! And Obama is an uppity n*gger who should know his place! Surely he can't win! :eek2:

[/sarcasm, before anyone thinks I'm a racist moron]

The worst part, if Obama wins, McCain et alii will cry sexism for the next four to eight years.
thats ok. IF obama loses the dems will be crying racism for 4 years.

thats ok. IF obama loses the dems will be crying racism for 4 years.

While not being a fan of playing the victim, one of these claims will have more of a leg to stand on then other.

While not being a fan of playing the victim, one of these claims will have more of a leg to stand on then other.
true

but in the end race and gender ARE factors in elections.

thats ok. IF obama loses the dems will be crying racism for 4 years.
Not me! I'll be spreading theories about how the election was stolen :D

-With all due respect, some candidates can boast more consistent records than others. John McCain has changed his position on multiple topics various times over the years, specifically on the subject of foreign policy. To call Barack Obama a flip-flopper would be to pretend that he has much of a record to speak of (not a value judgment, a statement of fact). However, politicians such as Dr. Ron Paul (Congressman from Texas, former presidential nominee candidate [R]) has consistently voted along the same lines for the entirety of his career. Compromises are one thing, but changes in principle stance are another, and I believe this to be the source of people pointing the incriminating "flip-flop" finger.

Paul hasn't voted along the same lines, unless you consider repeatedly claiming to vote against all unconstitutional bills and then voting for a bill that he said was unconstitutional to be "voting along the same lines".

Paul hasn't voted along the same lines, unless you consider repeatedly claiming to vote against all unconstitutional bills and then voting for a bill that he said was unconstitutional to be "voting along the same lines".

One thing about you that is my fault annoys me: Whenever I read your posts I mentally hear Ryoji Kaji's very-calm voice due to your avatar. :p

Not me! I'll be spreading theories about how the election was stolen :D

Thank you, good citizen, for volunteering to take care of our tin hat supplies!

whoa! did you see this clip on the huffington post?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFm-Uj9aOhs


[qutote=transcript stolen from huffinton post] Mika Brzezinski asked McCain to put his vote for the bailout package into context with all of his anti-Washington ravings: "Given what you've been just saying on our broadcast right now, why then didn't you vote against a bill that is corrupting, and stand up to pork and all this spending during an economic crisis that some say puts this country on the brink of economic disaster?"

McCain responded:

Because of what you just said, Mika, that this bill is putting us on the brink of economic disaster there were plenty of other bills that I fought against, voted against. Well, the bill that the medicare prescription drug program, I voted against it, because it didn't -- because of the fact that it wasn't paid for. We're laying the cost on to future generations of Americans. I fought against plenty of bills. I am proud of my work, suspending my campaign, coming back to Washington, getting the Republicans at the table, which we were not, improving the bill, and I believe it will pass. Senator Obama phoned it in.
[/quote]

sarah palin isnt the only one who is a bit OFF when it comes to answering easy questions. maybe mccain should be taking more naps or something.

whoa! did you see this clip on the huffington post?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFm-Uj9aOhs


Mika Brzezinski asked McCain to put his vote for the bailout package into context with all of his anti-Washington ravings: "Given what you've been just saying on our broadcast right now, why then didn't you vote against a bill that is corrupting, and stand up to pork and all this spending during an economic crisis that some say puts this country on the brink of economic disaster?"

McCain responded:

Because of what you just said, Mika, that this bill is putting us on the brink of economic disaster there were plenty of other bills that I fought against, voted against. Well, the bill that the medicare prescription drug program, I voted against it, because it didn't -- because of the fact that it wasn't paid for. We're laying the cost on to future generations of Americans. I fought against plenty of bills. I am proud of my work, suspending my campaign, coming back to Washington, getting the Republicans at the table, which we were not, improving the bill, and I believe it will pass. Senator Obama phoned it in.


sarah palin isnt the only one who is a bit OFF when it comes to answering easy questions. maybe mccain should be taking more naps or something.

She must be contagious.

Did you see that McCain has pulled all efforts out of Michigan, today?

She must be contagious.

Did you see that McCain has pulled all efforts out of Michigan, today?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/campaign.wrap/index.html

Relative link, for others.

Did you see that McCain has pulled all efforts out of Michigan, today?

I'm somewhat surprised, but not terribly -- I think McCain needs to focus more on Florida and Ohio. Michigan might still go to McCain if Obama makes a misstep on the economy, since (as I understand it) that's basically what Michigan votes on.

She must be contagious.

Did you see that McCain has pulled all efforts out of Michigan, today?
yeah i did. its great news.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/campaign.wrap/index.html

Relative link, for others.
so hes pulling out of michigan in hopes of getting ONE electoral vote in maine? thats pitiful

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/campaign.wrap/index.html

Relative link, for others.

Was just about to post this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081002/pl_politico/22895

Jeez. You guys don't hang around. :)

so hes pulling out of michigan in hopes of getting ONE electoral vote in maine? thats pitiful

If he has no realistic chance in Michigan, which really he doesn't, it makes some sense.

so hes pulling out of michigan in hopes of getting ONE electoral vote in maine? thats pitiful

In this campaign? This may well be the Republican campaign that will be used to define 'pitiful' for decades to come.

Compare this move, if you will, to the selection of Sarah Palin for VP...

If he has no realistic chance in Michigan, which really he doesn't, it makes some sense.
im not sure that he has a realistic chance at one electoral vote in maine. he seems to hope to be riding he coattails of the big win by the republican senator who is up for re-election and is polling extremely well. but it still goes by district so which district is more conservative than the other?

In this campaign? This may well be the Republican campaign that will be used to define 'pitiful' for decades to come.

Compare this move, if you will, to the selection of Sarah Palin for VP...
palin was *this* close to being a good idea. at least mccain is enjoying campaigning with her...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/real-credibility-problems.html#comments

Eeeeeeeenteresting.

Wow, just wow. I can't find a single flaw in his arguments. So, basically, the site CH has been bitching about being too biased for Obama was just proven to be favoring McCain outright. AND it still has Obama winning in EV by about 2 to 1 even with completely skewed numbers.

Seriously, at this point, even the most skeptical among us must be getting light-hearted. It's going to take a complete blow up to change the race. Hell even after the debacle in Michigan, McCain just conceded that he can't win there.

palin was *this* close to being a good idea. at least mccain is enjoying campaigning with her...

Exactly. At the point they chose Palin they had all but lost. She hasn't made them any worse off and she certainly showed some promise of making them much better off. Part of their problem was they didn't vett her enough and they over-prepped her. They were bad handlers, but it wasn't overall a bad idea.

Exactly. At the point they chose Palin they had all but lost. She hasn't made them any worse off and she certainly showed some promise of making them much better off. Part of their problem was they didn't vett her enough and they over-prepped her. They were bad handlers, but it wasn't overall a bad idea.
ive come to believe that mccain's handlers dont believe in either of them. they give explanations of gaffs that make the both sound worse than the true explanation might. they (seemingly) coach them in ways that dont help them come off as competent.

its a trainwreck

ive come to believe that mccain's handlers dont believe in either of them. they give explanations of gaffs that make the both sound worse than the true explanation might. they (seemingly) coach them in ways that dont help them come off as competent.

its a trainwreck

Much like a campaign that doesn't plan past the first half of the race. It's been said that Obama's never been tested by a real campaign. Some might argue that's still true.

Much like a campaign that doesn't plan past the first half of the race. It's been said that Obama's never been tested by a real campaign. Some might argue that's still true.
word.

but he keeps his focus anyway and keeps running a pretty good campaign for letting the public know where he stands on things. (even though he is running a goodly number of attack ads.)

word.

but he keeps his focus anyway and keeps running a pretty good campaign for letting the public know where he stands on things. (even though he is running a goodly number of attack ads.)

Honestly, I actually disagree with most people. The fact is that Democrats haven't known how to deal with Republican missteps in the past. Both campaigns have missteps, but the fact is Obama and his handlers have been excellent at dealing with the missteps of both campaigns.

Frankly, I thought the way they handled the Bristol Palin questions was masterful and their reaction to the Palin selection was a stroke of genius. They basically smacked their own campaign before McCain could. There is something wonderful about a candidate that admits fault and corrects himself and his campaign.

so hes pulling out of michigan in hopes of getting ONE electoral vote in maine? thats pitiful

well, given that by 538's count obama has 269 electoral votes that are currently his by greater than 5%, and a tie is an obama win, it sorta makes sense in a desperate and crazy way. mccain needs to win everything that's close and 1 more vote. this way is much cheaper than trying to pick off an entire state that's 'solidly' obama.

This republican campaign should sell the movie rights to Hollywood immeditally. Its cometic gold.

Currently, 538 is putting a landslide for Obama at better than even odds.

Yeah, the skeptics were right. The only way we'd have a Dem in the White House was with a Clinton on the ticket. It's true. Clearly, ALL the evidence supports their claim. Or some. Well, there was once a poll that said as long as the Republics are complimenting Hillary Clinton, she's got a shot.

You know what amazes me, though. That anyone, and I do mean anyone, could possibly back a candidate who wants to be President, in real life, who signs about bombing human beings.

(Forgive me, but I never actually saw a clip of that before yesterday. Seriously, he sang about bombing a country with whom we are not at war.)

You know what amazes me, though. That anyone, and I do mean anyone, could possibly back a candidate who wants to be President, in real life, who signs about bombing human beings.

(Forgive me, but I never actually saw a clip of that before yesterday. Seriously, he sang about bombing a country with whom we are not at war.)

Destruction of a nation is funny as long as theyre brown people nations.

ps- You hadnt heard "Bomb Iran" before?

ps- You hadnt heard "Bomb Iran" before?
It was all over the radios in 1979-80, at least the kinds of stations I listened to (yes I am aware I am both dating myself and stereotyping myself at the same time)
I thought it was really catchy, and funny. But I think I would have better judgment than to blurt it out if I were, say, running for public office.