NationStates Jolt Archive

Some dudes in Florida raised a club:

"Blacks against Obama"

WTF?

This is like, "Men against hooters" or "Homosexuals for Christianity".

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkOrCR_KWVU

Right, because blacks are so shallow that they would support anyone running for president as long as he or she is black.

Right, because blacks are so shallow that they would support anyone running for president as long as he or she is black.
If anything proved black people arn't shallow, this video isn't it.
The video's title:
"Black Protesters Heckle Obama: He Was Endorsed By The KKK!"

Something like this just perpetuates hate in this nation. That's why America is the way it is. I'm an American that is constantly disgusted by what people do. Not only here, but in almost every other nation also.

Some dudes in Florida raised a club:

"Blacks against Obama"

WTF?

This is like, "Men against hooters" or "Homosexuals for Christianity".

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkOrCR_KWVU
Well, gay men could care less about hooters and I personally know several homosexual Christians.

You seem to have it in your head that blacks must support Obama just because they are of the same race. Do you truly believe that white people support McCain just because he is white? Is it really inconceivable to you that some blacks have made a studied choice of Obama and his positions and policies and determined they do not agree with them? Blacks can't be conservative? Libertarian? Republican? They MUST be Democrats or at least the MUST support Obama due to his race?

You give blacks far too little credit and disparage their intelligence and ability to think for themselves.

This is like, "Men against hooters"

*waves*

(:rolleyes:)

*waves*

(:rolleyes:)

*revokes Soheran's Man card*

*revokes Soheran's Man card*

That was revoked a long time ago.

That was revoked a long time ago.

Then the point stands. *nod*

If race shouldn't be an issue, why did they have to make a big deal out of it by calling the club Blacks Against Obama?

If race shouldn't be an issue, why did they have to make a big deal out of it by calling the club Blacks Against Obama?

Because plenty of people believe that race is an issue... and they want to emphasize that it is not.

So it's not an issue, but whether or not it is an issue is an issue.

Christ, I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic or not, it almost makes sense.

Because plenty of people believe that race is an issue... and they want to emphasize that it is not.

In other words, they're trying to say people shouldn't vote for Obama just because he's black by saying people shouldn't vote for Obama precisely because he's black?

On a further note, I will say that anyone who'd vote against Obama because he was allegedly endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan are probably the same people who voted for Bush again in 2004 because Osama Bin Ladin "threatened" the United States if he was re-elected.

It tells you how shallow and impressionable they are.

In other words, they're trying to say people shouldn't vote for Obama just because he's black by saying people shouldn't vote for Obama precisely because he's black?

Stop being disingenuous. Their point is that, contrary to the assumptions of people like Hairless Kittens, it is perfectly possible and common for blacks to oppose black politicians.

Stop being disingenuous. Their point is that, contrary to the assumptions of people like Hairless Kittens, it is perfectly possible and common for blacks to oppose black politicians.

The movement is disingenous. You don't hear of anyone forming a club called "Christians against McCain/Palin" do you?

The movement is disingenous. You don't hear of anyone forming a club called "Christians against McCain/Palin" do you?
That wouldn't surprise me either.

I think the point the people behind the movement are trying to make is that "not all black people support Obama, and we're some that don't". Admittedly, I think the first part is an obvious statement, and I really don't care about their stance, but it's no less a valid statement than anything entitled "Christian XYZ" is in any other context.

The movement is disingenous. You don't hear of anyone forming a club called "Christians against McCain/Palin" do you?

See "Everything Jim Wallis has written in the past five years or so."

Hooters sucks. It is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the US. No wonder we can't build a decent sports car.

The movement is disingenous. You don't hear of anyone forming a club called "Christians against McCain/Palin" do you?

Er.. I think it's called the Episcopalian Church.

On a further note, I will say that anyone who'd vote against Obama because he was allegedly endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan are probably the same people who voted for Bush again in 2004 because Osama Bin Ladin "threatened" the United States if he was re-elected.

It tells you how shallow and impressionable they are.
No, it tells me that you'd prefer to lump everyone who opposes you into one group and then dismiss them with insults. How very Roveian of you.

Hooters sucks. It is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the US. No wonder we can't build a decent sports car.

I'd go on to defend it, but I'm 16, so eh.

No, it tells me that you'd prefer to lump everyone who opposes you into one group and then dismiss them with insults. How very Roveian of you.

And this tells me you're trying to be holier-than-thou. How Fass of you.

:rolleyes:

Oh please, if the other side pulled the exact same thing I'd call them on it as well. So far it's been the right wing that has been trying to play the polarizing card with crap like "Obama will negotiate with terrorists" and "Obama will raise your taxes" and recent history has shown that soundbite oversimplification works in politics.

The Daily Show had a bit that seems apropos of this thread.
Is Obama really the "Blacker" candidate? (http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/10/03/the-daily-show-larry-wilmore-questions-barack-obamas-blackness/)

And this tells me you're trying to be holier-than-thou. How Fass of you.
I ain't trying. I'm so much holier than thou that I shit gold, piss Goldschläger and cough up blood (I should probably get that last one checked).

Coughing up blood, eh? It's probably gold poisoning.

Coughing up blood, eh? It's probably gold poisoning.

Has HNF8 been eating too many $1000 hamburgers?

The Daily Show had a bit that seems apropos of this thread.
Is Obama really the "Blacker" candidate? (http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/10/03/the-daily-show-larry-wilmore-questions-barack-obamas-blackness/)

Yay! :D

Some dudes in Florida raised a club:

"Blacks against Obama"

WTF?

This is like, "Men against hooters" or "Homosexuals for Christianity".

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkOrCR_KWVU

While I was at a McCain Palin campaign headquarters in the state of Florida getting my McCain Palin badges, bumper stickers and sign for my house. At least 3 black persons came in asking for McCain Palin, badges, bumper stickers and signs for thier house while I was there.

Just because they are African Americans dosent mean they cant be Republicans. Dosent mean they cant be conservatives.

Colin Powell and Condi Rice are no less proud African Americans because they are Republicans or conservatives in their economic, political or social views.

Some dudes in Florida raised a club:

"Blacks against Obama"

WTF?

This is like, "Men against hooters" or "Homosexuals for Christianity".

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkOrCR_KWVU


:rolleyes:


Yeah, Because no black man could ever not support another black man.

And this tells me you're trying to be holier-than-thou. How Fass of you.

:eek2: Fass' name now becomes an... er, adjective.

I do like the sound of that sentence, though.

:D

We need to start naming values to Race Cards being played. Saying that someone has "played the Race Card" now has little bearing on how vehemently race became an issue as it soons becomes a game of one-up-manship... and my flush beats your straight.

Some dudes in Florida raised a club:

"Blacks against Obama"

WTF?

This is like, "Men against hooters" or "Homosexuals for Christianity".

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkOrCR_KWVU

Its been covered already, but it bears repeating.

Black people do not vote automatically for the Black guy, nor should they be expected to do so. If you assume that Black people vote lock-step for the Black guy, without attributing the same narrow racial loyalty to all white voters, then you are implying that Black people are less complex or less individuals than white people. That is, needless to say, a profoundly racist implication.

I'm white, and I will be honored to vote for Obama. As for Black people who vote against him, I think their idiots, but only because McCain sucks.;)

Well, gay men could care less about hooters and I personally know several homosexual Christians.

You seem to have it in your head that blacks must support Obama just because they are of the same race. Do you truly believe that white people support McCain just because he is white? Is it really inconceivable to you that some blacks have made a studied choice of Obama and his positions and policies and determined they do not agree with them? Blacks can't be conservative? Libertarian? Republican? They MUST be Democrats or at least the MUST support Obama due to his race?

You give blacks far too little credit and disparage their intelligence and ability to think for themselves.

The same kind of thinking that says that women who don't support Palin must be sexist.

The same kind of thinking that says that women who don't support Palin must be sexist.

When really they are just smart enough not to fall for McCain's sexist gamble that women would automatically vote for him if he picked a woman.;)

When really they are just smart enough not to fall for McCain's sexist gamble that women would automatically vote for him if he picked a woman.;)


He picked a woman you don't like so he is a sexist. Damn you McCain!

Its been covered already, but it bears repeating.

Black people do not vote automatically for the Black guy, nor should they be expected to do so. If you assume that Black people vote lock-step for the Black guy, without attributing the same narrow racial loyalty to all white voters, then you are implying that Black people are less complex or less individuals than white people. That is, needless to say, a profoundly racist implication.

I'm white, and I will be honored to vote for Obama. As for Black people who vote against him, I think their idiots, but [QUOTE]only because McCain sucks.

I would say the same about Obama, so we are even.

He picked a woman you don't like so he is a sexist. Damn you McCain!

No, he picked a woman to appeal to disaffected Clinton voters, because he thought that women would just vote for a woman. Therefor, he is sexist.

No, he picked a woman to appeal to disaffected Clinton voters, because he thought that women would just vote for a woman. Therefor, he is sexist.



:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

What a brilliant, nuanced, and informed response. I finally see the light! I'm going to go and register Republican as soon as possible.



:D

What a brilliant, nuanced, and informed response. I finally see the light! I'm going to go and register Republican as soon as possible.



:D



Your silly comment got what it deserved. :rolleyes:

Your silly comment got what it deserved. :rolleyes:

If that's the best you can do, you will never win an argument in your life. If that's the best you can do, I wish the whole GOP had your debating skills.

I admit I can't prove that's what was going through McCain's mind, obviously, but surely you can concede at least the possibility that he was trying to poach female Clinton supporters by picking a woman?

Or do you assume that an "R" beneath your name on CNN means that all your motives are automatically pure and above question?

If that's the best you can do, you will never win an argument in your life. If that's the best you can do, I wish the whole GOP had your debating skills.

I admit I can't prove that's what was going through McCain's mind, obviously, but surely you can concede at least the possibility that he was trying to poach female Clinton supporters by picking a woman?

Or do you assume that an "R" beneath your name on CNN means that all your motives are automatically pure and above question?

Flamebaiting, cute. You made an asinine comment and got what you deserved, want something better give people something better or you will more of this. :rolleyes:


As for your second comment, no shit! He must be sexist to want womens votes and make the best choice available to him for that to happen. Sexist pig!


As for your 3rd comment, not even worth my time. :rolleyes:


I am done with you.

Oh and Obama is a racist for picking Biden. Same reason as McCain is a sexist for picking Palin. :rolleyes:

Blacks against Obama, eh? Maybe they're the less than 10 percent of African-Americans who considers themselves Republicans. Meh. I'm Mexican-American but I wouldn't automatically vote for someone of the same ethnic background, especially if he was a right-winger.

Because plenty of people believe that race is an issue... and they want to emphasize that it is not.
Then they failed epically, or did no one else actually go to to the link.

Oh and Obama is a racist for picking Biden. Same reason as McCain is a sexist for picking Palin. :rolleyes:
That depends, are we interchanging racism and populism?

the KKK issues endorsements of presidential candidates?

Why should I care about the race of people who don't support Obama?

Why should I care about the race of people who don't support Obama?
beause this particular set of idiots really really wants you to understand that there can be black nutcases as well as white ones.

its fine for any black person or group of black people to decide that obama does not represent their best interests. but THIS group, if their signs are to be believed, dont have a clue.

I think the important thing about this whole thing is that the group is blacks against Obama. Its not pro-McCain or pro anyone else, having groups that are merely against someone is uterly pointless, regardless of the race, sex or anything like that. All these people are trying to do is hurt someone elses chance through attempting to play a racism card.

beause this particular set of idiots really really wants you to understand that there can be black nutcases as well as white ones.

its fine for any black person or group of black people to decide that obama does not represent their best interests. but THIS group, if their signs are to be believed, dont have a clue.

Ah. Well I suppose racial equality among dumbasses isn't a bad thing.

That depends, are we interchanging racism and populism?


I think you missed my point. It has been said Obama needed to pick a White VP in order to avoid alienating white voters as well as picking someone to make up for his lack of experience. Now you know a non-white VP would have made him take a hit so hence Biden.


So if McCain is a sexist for picking Palin to help him with women(not the only reason he picked her) therefore Obama MUST be a racist for picking Biden to help him with Whites (The largest voting block).


See? I don't agree with either, why? Because they are both asinine ways of thinking.

I think you missed my point. It has been said Obama needed to pick a White VP in order to avoid alienating white voters as well as picking someone to make up for his lack of experience. Now you know a non-white VP would have made him take a hit so hence Biden.


So if McCain is a sexist for picking Palin to help him with women(not the only reason he picked her) therefore Obama MUST be a racist for picking Biden to help him with Whites (The largest voting block).


See? I don't agree with either, why? Because they are both asinine ways of thinking.
If you use short-circuit logic to achieve a desired goal instead of following logic to it's actual goal, sure. Biden was picked to shore up Obama's credibility with white working-class, blue collar voters who saw him as an elitist, well those who arn't racist anyway. It has nothing to do with attracting white voters because they are white where as Palin was picked to invigorate evangelicals and attract women voters who wanted Hillary. Not any type of woman, just women. Sexist. Actually, his entire use of Palin is sexist. Your argument is flawed on any number of levels.

If you use short-circuit logic to achieve a desired goal instead of following logic to it's actual goal, sure. Biden was picked to shore up Obama's credibility with white working-class, blue collar voters who saw him as an elitist, well those who arn't racist anyway. It has nothing to do with attracting white voters because they are white where as Palin was picked to invigorate evangelicals and attract women voters who wanted Hillary. Not any type of woman, just women. Sexist. Actually, his entire use of Palin is sexist. Your argument is flawed on any number of levels.




And talking about flawed just look at your statement, there is so much double talk I am not sure where to begin. Lets focus on your BS about Palin shall we?

Palin was picked to invigorate evangelicals

FALSE! She was picked to invigorate conservatives that hated McCain, a base he needed to win.


and attract women voters who wanted Hillary. Not any type of woman, just women. Sexist

Not woman just women? Try harder, this falls flat. McCain was falling short with women in general not just ones who back Clinton. He picked Palin to aid him with them..ALL OF THEM. Assuming Clinton women would like a conservative like Palin is silly. Also saying wanting to appeal to women is sexist is asinine.

Actually, his entire use of Palin is sexist.

Not even close, you have provided NO proof to back that up.


Your argument is flawed on any number of levels.

That would be yours, mine is better. Lets move on to Biden BS shall we?


Biden was picked to shore up Obama's credibility with white working-class, blue collar voters who saw him as an elitist, well those who arn't racist anyway.

So picking one type of white isn't racist but picking one type of woman is? Right.:rolleyes: Your logic is flawed, Biden was picked to cover up Obamas lack of experience and keep whites from turning on him in general.


It has nothing to do with attracting white voters because they are white

Doubletalk? You just said he was.

Biden was picked to shore up Obama's credibility with white working-class, blue collar voters

Hmmm. Why just white working class? Why not Black or Hispanic or Asian or Mixed? Why just white? Racist?


If you use short-circuit logic to achieve a desired goal instead of following logic to it's actual goal, sure.

You covered that rather well. Good work.


Nice try to paint using Palin as sexist, but it fails big time. Move on to something else to bring her down. Her hairdo has more merit than this crap.

Oh and Obama is a racist for picking Biden. Same reason as McCain is a sexist for picking Palin. :rolleyes:

I thought you were done with me?:D

Nevermind. This conversation is rediculous. I'll gladly admit that I can't prove McCain's sexist, though it wouldn't supprise me. My real problem here is your petty, immature, and simple-minded responses.

Their is, however, a difference between picking Palin in part to appeal to Hillary Voters, and picking Biden in part to appeal to racist White voters. Biden would be supported by democrat leaning white people because he's a white democrat. To think that Clinton supporters would vote for Palin is to think that they would vote only on gender. So, yes, I would say its worse.

FALSE! She was picked to invigorate conservatives that hated McCain, a base he needed to win.
Evangelicals...

*snip other equally asinine statements*

Also saying wanting to appeal to women is sexist is asinine.


When your appeal is based on the target demographic being stupid enough to vote for someone with completely opposite views and absolutely no similarities other than a propensity for discharging uterine tissue, it's sexist.

I thought you were done with me?:D


That comment wasn't directed at you. Normally I would ignore you but you seem bent on baiting me.

Nevermind. This conversation is rediculous. I'll gladly admit that I can't prove McCain's sexist, though it wouldn't supprise me. My real problem here is your petty, immature, and simple-minded responses.


Flame me again and it's to the mods. Knock it off and debate in good faith. You get what you deserve and your comments got it.

Their is, however, a difference between picking Palin in part to appeal to Hillary Voters, and picking Biden in part to appeal to racist White voters. Biden would be supported by democrat leaning white people because he's a white democrat. To think that Clinton supporters would vote for Palin is to think that they would vote only on gender. So, yes, I would say its worse.



:rolleyes:

This is why you get only that. You keep making asinine comments and get mad when I roll my eyes at you. Want more than that? Try giving me more, if you can.


Biden would be supported by democrat leaning white people because he's a white democrat.

Then why not pick somebody non-white? Since race isn't a factor here. Wait a second, it is a factor and Biden got picked in part because he was a white man.



To think that Clinton supporters would vote for Palin is to think that they would vote only on gender.


He picked her to appeal to women in GENERAL. Palin was the best person out there to do that, Romney and Huckabee wouldn't have appealed to women at all, a base he needed. And with her being young and being a conservative she was the best choice overall. Not sexist, and neither of you have proven otherwise. What you are doing is trying to spin something to attack McCain and weaken Palin, you failed and need to move on.



FYI, learn to debate without immature personal attacks.

Evangelicals...

*snip other equally asinine statements*



Because all conservatives are Evangelicals. :rolleyes:


What else you got? Nothing?

When your appeal is based on the target demographic being stupid enough to vote for someone with completely opposite views and absolutely no similarities other than a propensity for discharging uterine tissue, it's sexist.



:rolleyes:


Because all women are liberal. McCain needed 3 things from his VP. Someone who is young, appeals to conservatives and women. Which one didn't Palin do? Palin is a young conservative woman....Nothing sexist there.

He picked her to appeal to women in GENERAL. Palin was the best person out there to do that...
That's what's being questioned. Sarah Palin champions the church-going hockey mom approach to being female. Is that what women generally find appealing? Although some might, others might similarly find it to be somewhat condescending.

It might, in some cases, be more representative of the interests of "women in general" to have a man that happens to agree with them. Of course, the best would be a woman that agrees with them, but that convergence of ideals is almost certainly the stronger aspect of appeal than what gender the representative is. Rather in the same way that (I imagine) "white people in general" would be better represented by Barack Obama than by Fred Phelps.

Because all women are liberal. McCain needed 3 things from his VP. Someone who is young, appeals to conservatives and women. Which one didn't Palin do? Palin is a young conservative woman....Nothing sexist there.
And you just did it as well, saying that merely being a woman is enough to appeal to women. Of course you don't see anything sexist, since you've just demonstrated that it to be part of your own mindset.

That's what's being questioned. Sarah Palin champions the church-going hockey mom approach to being female. Is that what women generally find appealing? Although some might, others might similarly find it to be somewhat condescending.

It might, in some cases, be more representative of the interests of "women in general" to have a man that happens to agree with them. Of course, the best would be a woman that agrees with them, but that convergence of ideals is almost certainly the stronger aspect of appeal than what gender the representative is. Rather in the same way that (I imagine) "white people in general" would be better represented by Barack Obama than by Fred Phelps.



Millions do agree with her, saying otherwise is sexist and asinine to assume no woman would. As for condescending I could say the same about Biden towards whites as not all agree with him. Remember he needed someone to appeal to the conservative base that hated him so the logical choice would be a conservative woman. Remember the GOP has a stigma that they are a white male party and pressure has been put on them to stray from that. Before you go on name one person that would have fit all McCains needs that isn't Palin.

And you just did it as well, saying that merely being a woman is enough to appeal to women. Of course you don't see anything sexist, since you've just demonstrated that it to be part of your own mindset.


:rolleyes:

When all else fails call someone a sexist/racist.

Before you go on name one person that would have fit all McCains needs that isn't Palin.
I think of it this way - Any young person, female or conservative that currently supports McCain would also have done so if he'd picked Huckabee.

But if you're really looking for the Young Female Conservative... Rice?

I think of it this way - Any young person, female or conservative that currently supports McCain would also have done so if he'd picked Huckabee.

But if you're really looking for the Young Female Conservative... Rice?


Condi Rice would have killed him, last thing he needs is a Bush member on staff.


Huckabee was not a good choice, his tax policies would have cost him too much and wouldn't have ended the notion that the GOP is a white mans party. He needed someone female and or non-white.

Millions do agree with her, saying otherwise is sexist and asinine to assume no woman would.
What percentage of women believe that abortion should be banned in all cases? I doubt you could even get one million that agree with her on that. Those that do are statistically insignificant and would have voted for McCain anyways.

Condi Rice would have killed him, last thing he needs is a Bush member on staff.


Huckabee was not a good choice, his tax policies would have cost him too much and wouldn't have ended the notion that the GOP is a white mans party.
Neither did Sarah Palin. She ended up just reinforcing it.

Neither did Sarah Palin. She ended up just reinforcing it.


Sarah Palin is a white man? WOW! :rolleyes:



Oh and for your other comment, nice job cherry picking her views. Good job.

BTW..

Only exception for abortion is if mother's life would end. (Jul 2006) Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin is a white man? WOW! :rolleyes:

No, she's not. However, she is thoroughly incompetent and was chosen over other conservative women with far superior credentials, thus reinforcing the notion that the Republican Party cares nothing for women. Similar to what happened with Clarence Thomas, really.

Oh and for your other comment, nice job cherry picking her views. Good job.
Well, she advocates a system that makes women legally subhuman, so I think it's rather more relevant than her other policies.

No, she's not. However, she is thoroughly incompetent and was chosen over other conservative women with far superior credentials, thus reinforcing the notion that the Republican Party cares nothing for women. Similar to what happened with Clarence Thomas, really.


Name them.


Well, she advocates a system that makes women legally subhuman, so I think it's rather more relevant than her other policies.


So being against abortion makes women subhuman? Tell me you mean something else.

:rolleyes:

When all else fails call someone a sexist/racist.

Well, is the fact that she's a woman what appeals to other voters? Because if that's the case then you are implying that women are shallow enough to put aside any issues that they may have with the republican party and McCain's policies just because she is a woman. Do you not see how that might be sexist?

Name them.
Elizabeth Dole. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Susan Collins. Olympia Snowe. Lisa Murkowski. Want I should continue?

So being against abortion makes women subhuman? Tell me you mean something else.
It denies women the right to bodily integrity, which all humans legally possess. As such, it declares women to be subhuman.

Well, is the fact that she's a woman what appeals to other voters? Because if that's the case then you are implying that women are shallow enough to put aside any issues that they may have with the republican party and McCain's policies just because she is a woman. Do you not see how that might be sexist?



Is this a joke? Did you even read any of this thread or did you just pop in here to say that? Where did I ever say that? I DIDN'T!



This is NOT about sexism it's about her being a conservative, if she was a liberal nobody would be saying this. Shit I could say the same about Hilary Clinton, so if Obama picked her he is a sexist.

Elizabeth Dole. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Susan Collins. Olympia Snowe. Lisa Murkowski. Want I should continue?




Dole - In her 70's. He needed youth.

Hutchison - 60's. YOUTH..He needs YOUTH!

Collins - Running for senate

Snowe - 60+. YOUTH!

Murkowski - Moderate Republican

Is this a joke? Did you even read any of this thread or did you just pop in here to say that? Where did I ever say that? I DIDN'T!

McCain needed 3 things from his VP. Someone who is young, appeals to conservatives and women. Which one didn't Palin do? Palin is a young conservative woman....Nothing sexist there.
Denying you said something tends to work poorly on internet forums.

This is NOT about sexism it's about her being a conservative, if she was a liberal nobody would be saying this. Shit I could say the same about Hilary Clinton, so if Obama picked her he is a sexist.
Does Clinton suddenly have almost zero experience and the inability to even form a coherent sentence? No? Then you couldn't say that and still be correct.

Denying you said something tends to work poorly on internet forums.



How many times must you take things out of context? Where did I say women would ignore their differences with the republicans and vote for her anyway? I didn't. Yeesh. :rolleyes:

How many times must you take things out of context? Where did I say women would ignore their differences with the republicans and vote for her anyway? I didn't. Yeesh. :rolleyes:

You said that being a woman was considered to be appealing to women.

Does Clinton suddenly have almost zero experience and the inability to even form a coherent sentence? No? Then you couldn't say that and still be correct.


Ignoring most of that, are you calling Obama a sexist? Or just an idiot for NOT picking her?

Is this a joke? Did you even read any of this thread or did you just pop in here to say that? Where did I ever say that? I DIDN'T!



This is NOT about sexism it's about her being a conservative, if she was a liberal nobody would be saying this. Shit I could say the same about Hilary Clinton, so if Obama picked her he is a sexist.

It's a simple enough question. You said she has to appeal to the young, the conservative and women. Well she's young so she must appeal to the young, she's a conservative so she must appeal to the conservatives so is it that she's a women what makes her appealing to women? I don't see what's so hard about this? These are your words not mine.

You said that being a woman was considered to be appealing to women.



Out of context.


And depending how few women there are in power that would be correct. She appeals to conservative women and can be used to appeal to the rest. Thats not sexist, it's a fact.

It's a simple enough question. You said she has to appeal to the young, the conservative and women. Well she's young so she must appeal to the young, she's a conservative so she must appeal to the conservatives so is it that she's a women what makes her appealing to women? I don't see what's so hard about this? These are your words not mine.


:rolleyes:


You are a joke.


Of course women never appeal to other women..Thats just outlandish. I don't see whats so hard about this, he needed to appeal to women which he was weak in...He choose a woman and gets labeled sexist. Of course he be called racist if he choose a white man or a non-white man..McCain can't win here.


Lets see, women appealing to other women is sexist? Please.

I am done with this. There is nothing sexist behind picking Palin at all, but the left leaning Bias of people here prevent them from seeing otherwise. This is about her being a conservative, not sexism.

This whole thread has now gone from trying to prove a failed point in calling McCain a sexist to calling me one and failing there. As I said before if Palin was a liberal nobody would be sayng this about her.

Have fun with your baseless mccain and palin attacking, nothing will change your mind. I have better things to do then waste my time with liberals who refuse to accept anything other than their own logic...Failed Logic.

Condi Rice would have killed him, last thing he needs is a Bush member on staff.

Huckabee was not a good choice, his tax policies would have cost him too much and wouldn't have ended the notion that the GOP is a white mans party. He needed someone female and or non-white.
Firstly, I've never thought of the Republicans as the White Man's party. Heck, Rice's prominent featuring in the Bush administration would be immediately cited as a counter-point on both parts. If anything, the Democrats would probably be historically thought of as more so - well, White and Latin, anyway.

The Republicans are the businessmen and evangelicals, neither of which depend on race or gender. No candidate that was ever seriously in the running breaks that mold (except, perhaps, McCain himself, though his recent statements about faith and economy suggest that he's going by the book), so the change is only ever going to be aesthetic.

Secondly, Rice has always been seen as one of the more coherent and composed members of Bush's administration. Her criticisms of less... reputable nations have never been far from the mark, and if not for the tendency of her nation to resort to violence, she'd be seen as a very radical and welcome figure on the international stage. Yes, she's got the whole Chevron thing behind her, but

a) Chevron is currently ranked top US oil company at emission reduction and alternative energy utilisation, which's gotta go some way towards excusing that,

b) Anyone who can persuade the Israelis to let off on the Palestinians and Hamas to consider accepting the existence of the state of Israel has easily deserved their position as a Secretary of State regardless of whose administration they're in, and

c) She's conservative enough, and experienced enough, to cover McCain's weak-spots.

Also, d) She's NOT Sarah Palin. But we may disagree on the validity of that one. :p

This is NOT about sexism it's about her being a conservative, if she was a liberal nobody would be saying this.
It's not about the fact that she's conservative. It's about the fact that she seems totally incompetent and uncontrollable, from what interviews we've seen, and yet was picked to be McCain's running mate.

You would certainly not be getting this sort of criticism about Rice. You might get more of the "Omg Bush III" comments, but neither Sexism nor Racism would be a problem, because she's eloquent, careful and has a developed sense of keeping on top of current issues. However much people might disagree with her on policy, she's strong on her own merits. You can't say that of Palin.

It's not about the fact that she's conservative. It's about the fact that she seems totally incompetent and uncontrollable, from what interviews we've seen, and yet was picked to be McCain's running mate.

You would certainly not be getting this sort of criticism about Rice. You might get more of the "Omg Bush III" comments, but neither Sexism nor Racism would be a problem, because she's eloquent, careful and has a developed sense of keeping on top of current issues. However much people might disagree with her on policy, she's strong on her own merits. You can't say that of Palin.

Rice would of been a brilliant pick, Bush issues aside.

That comment wasn't directed at you. Normally I would ignore you but you seem bent on baiting me.

Lier. It was directed at me. I checked. Now why you would bother to lie about that is beyond me, but for the record, you did.

And I'm not trying to bait you. If you attack me or my possissions I have a right to defend them. I may have been aggressive in some of my responses, but as a result of your initial unwillingness to provide a real response, and your own barrage of personal attacks.

Flame me again and it's to the mods. Knock it off and debate in good faith. You get what you deserve and your comments got it.

Get off your high horse. Go ahead and run to the mods. I'm sure that's exactly what you want, and if you fail to bait me into flaming you, you'll still go crying to the authorities anyway.

I don't normally report others to the mods, because I respect other's right to freedom of expression and because I have a skin thicker than tinfoil. However, I will defend myself against your attacks. And I suspect the record will lean in my favor. So go and report me, and let the consequences be on your head.

If you think you can shut me up with threats, you're in for a suprise.

:rolleyes:

This is why you get only that. You keep making asinine comments and get mad when I roll my eyes at you. Want more than that? Try giving me more, if you can.

I have given you more. If you're to close minded to see it or too dishonest to admit, that's not my problem.

Then why not pick somebody non-white? Since race isn't a factor here. Wait a second, it is a factor and Biden got picked in part because he was a white man.

He also got picked because he is qualified, while Palin is not. Obama is apparently trying to appeal to racist white folks (and a lot of other people) by picking a white Democrat. McCain appears to be trying to appeal to feminist Democrats by picking a Far right evangelical woman, which indicates that he thinks women will vote soley on gender, as if they have no independent political opinions. Also, Biden is qualified for the job. Palin is not. I'll admit Obama's motives for picking Biden may not have been perfect, but its not the same as Palin. Can you really not see the difference?

He picked her to appeal to women in GENERAL. Palin was the best person out there to do that, Romney and Huckabee wouldn't have appealed to women at all, a base he needed. And with her being young and being a conservative she was the best choice overall. Not sexist, and neither of you have proven otherwise. What you are doing is trying to spin something to attack McCain and weaken Palin, you failed and need to move on.

Of course he had other reasons as well. Which has no bearing on weather he also had a sexist motive. I admit I can't prove that he did, because I'm not a telepath. But it seems likely.

But your right about one thing. We should move on. After all, its not like this is the only line of attack against Palin and McCain.

Let's see: she's used malicious and arguably defamatory speech to link Obama to terrorists, thus increasing the risk of an assassination, she's being investigated over the bussiness with that trooper, she accepted a post potentially critical to national security with questionable qualifications, her husband's been a member of a seperatist organization...

Shall I go on?

FYI, learn to debate without immature personal attacks.

Actually, I consider my conduct to be relatively restrained and mature in light of the stupid non-arguments, threats, and personal attacks to which I have been subjected. I apologise if I have stepped over the line, but any jabs at you are no worse, and probably more accurate, than those you have thrown at me.

At worst, you're threatening to slander me to get me in trouble. At best, your a pot calling the kettle black.