Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BnZ on September 21, 2008, 12:45:48 AM
-
I was wondering how long it would take the media to begin inciting racial animosity in this election.
Okay, Obama will loose because White people are inherently evil. We know this because someone took an this incredibly loaded poll. Surprise, it appears that many Whites have actually met a reasonable cross-section of the U.S. Black community, and for once the Honkies couldn't be bothered with lying about the matter to our pollsters. :eek:
Note that the ONLY fact allowed to be in play is the percentage of Whites who plan to vote or not vote for the Black guy. The percentage of Blacks who plan to vote or not vote for the White guy, is apparently totally unimportant. :rolleyes: Even if said percentage of the Black vote is laughably small compared to Obama's White supporters. :rofl
I can see it now, No White House no Peace! :devil
What I'd like to see is something along the lines of a Thomas Sowell vrs. Hillary Clinton campaign. Then we'd get a REAL through-the-looking glass psychadelic politico-racial situation.
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race (http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race)
-
Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.
Imagine that. 1/3 of democrats think the black folks are "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.
I find that astonishing.
Really.
'cmon. quit laughing.
I know yer laughing. it's not funny.
really.
'cause if it wuz true that would mean that more than half of democrats hate white women more than black people.
..and that's just plain crazy thinkin.
right?
:D
-
:rofl
-
(http://rockford.yi.org/ah/bornevil.jpg)
-
Personally I could care less if the candidate is purple like Barney, or their gender. For me it is all about the philosophy they bring to the table.
There will be people that will not vote for Obama because he is black. But there are also many people who will vote for him BECAUSE he is black as well.
I know several people who have nothing in common with Obama philosophically but are likely to vote for him anyway because he is, in one case "trendy", and in another "because he is black and if we vote for a black person it will show that we aren't a racist country."
It would be nice if we lived in a so-called colorless society. Unfortunately we do not and those that have wished and lobbied for a colorless society for decades are now the ones making color the issue. "Some whites won't vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black." It isn't just polls, it is also democratic pundits that are saying it. That makes color an issue. Whites voting FOR him because he is black also make color an issue.
It is funny, I look at Obama and see a middle aged liberal senator. I look at McCain and see an older centrist senator. In the interest of fairness, I looked at Mitt Romney as a middle aged, conservative, ex-governor and Hillary as an older left of center senator.
I suggest that a person should vote on the basis of which party best represents their own views, because it is the party's ideals that will be represented when in office, not the flowery speeches and platitudes the candidates deliver while on the soap box. Third party folks, don't bother with a high jack. In reality America is a two party system. Work within it. A good example of what can happen when you support your ideals and throw away your vote on a third party candidate is in 2000 when in all likelihood, liberal people who voted for Ralph Nader succeeded in getting a conservative elected by not supporting Al Gore, who was much closer to what they believe in. So instead they voted on principle instead of on the candidate that would be closest to what they believe in. Political parties are a big tent and you have to live in the tent that best represents what you believe in.
-
I suggest that a person should vote on the basis of which party best represents their own views, because it is the party's ideals that will be represented when in office, not the flowery speeches and platitudes the candidates deliver while on the soap box.
Sheeple! And more of 'em too!
'party' politics is screen, a tool and the more people feed at the party trough the more sheeple we get.
You have a brain. Use it. Don't be a minion or a subject.. be an individual and vote for the person that brings to the table the character, wisdom and practical experience necessary to best represent your version of what government policy should be.
Screw the labels.
-
Some white folks will not vote for Obama simply because he is black. And, some black folks will vote for him simply because he is black. It probably isn't an even trade, but I'm sure they at least somewhat cancel each other out.
-
I'll agree to that. Political candidates are individuals who spend six months under a microscope. Unlike many situations, there is far more than ample time and information to discern whether a candidate is an "exception" or a "rule" without having to fall back on playing the odds based on known group tendencies. Like I say, run Thomas Sowell against Hillary Clinton (not a "liberal", I refuse to let the Leftists use that find old name anymore. I am a Liberal.) See who I vote for. Just don't run Armstrong Williams, the Limbaugh-esque Black right-wing talk show personality, who is very conveniently thinking of voting for the Dem's man this election. :furious
What gets my goat is the obvious, almost amateurish attempt by the media to point their crooked little fingers at White people in America yet again and act like they are the only segment of the human race to practice ethnocentrism, when in fact modern Whites are probably the least ethnocentric group walking the face of the Earth. And this sort of pot-stirring of racial animosity almost constitutes incitation on the media's part, IMHO.
BTW, I don't think a third party candidate can win this election. I don't know if a third party candidate can EVER win a election. But I can say for sure, that if it is Demopublican from now on, there is no hope for this country. The two wings of the Boot-On-Your-Neck Party, are demonstrably going to do whatever they want. They don't debate about allowing more illegals in, they debate the particulars of how many and how. They don't debate about foreign interventionism, but merely how to intervene. They do not debate about whether or not to socialize more segments of the economy, but merely whose plan is best for that. The Republicans, ever since Barry Goldwater lost, have existed by positioning themselves JUST to the Right of the Dems and saying to the poor slobs who constitute the backbone of this nation, "What are ya gonna do? Vote for the GREATER evil? Screw you!" And I for one, am tired of it.
Personally I could care less if the candidate is purple like Barney, or their gender. For me it is all about the philosophy they bring to the table.
There will be people that will not vote for Obama because he is black. But there are also many people who will vote for him BECAUSE he is black as well.
I know several people who have nothing in common with Obama philosophically but are likely to vote for him anyway because he is, in one case "trendy", and in another "because he is black and if we vote for a black person it will show that we aren't a racist country."
It would be nice if we lived in a so-called colorless society. Unfortunately we do not and those that have wished and lobbied for a colorless society for decades are now the ones making color the issue. "Some whites won't vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black." It isn't just polls, it is also democratic pundits that are saying it. That makes color an issue. Whites voting FOR him because he is black also make color an issue.
It is funny, I look at Obama and see a middle aged liberal senator. I look at McCain and see an older centrist senator. In the interest of fairness, I looked at Mitt Romney as a middle aged, conservative, ex-governor and Hillary as an older left of center senator.
I suggest that a person should vote on the basis of which party best represents their own views, because it is the party's ideals that will be represented when in office, not the flowery speeches and platitudes the candidates deliver while on the soap box. Third party folks, don't bother with a high jack. In reality America is a two party system. Work within it. A good example of what can happen when you support your ideals and throw away your vote on a third party candidate is in 2000 when in all likelihood, liberal people who voted for Ralph Nader succeeded in getting a conservative elected by not supporting Al Gore, who was much closer to what they believe in. So instead they voted on principle instead of on the candidate that would be closest to what they believe in. Political parties are a big tent and you have to live in the tent that best represents what you believe in.
-
Good post BnZ.. enjoyed it. One less at risk of being sheeple on the planet.
:aok
-
This is one reason why I predict Michigan to go red for the first time since whenever. People like my parents who have towed the party line their whole lives will not be able to do it when they get behind the curtain. I'm not condoning it, I'm just stating it as a simple fact. Many of these people are lying when polled; they don't want everyone to know they're racists... But when they get behind that curtain and it's just them and the lever...
This could wind up being an extremely lopsided contest.
-
Obama is not black.
Obama is not white.
Obama is lucky because he is neither and both at the same time, and depending on what constituency he is addressing he can pick and choose
to his advantage.
Its not fair :rofl
-
This is one reason why I predict Michigan to go red for the first time since whenever. People like my parents who have towed the party line their whole lives will not be able to do it when they get behind the curtain. I'm not condoning it, I'm just stating it as a simple fact. Many of these people are lying when polled; they don't want everyone to know they're racists... But when they get behind that curtain and it's just them and the lever...
This could wind up being an extremely lopsided contest.
What percentage of Blacks will be voting for McCain? Do you think Black voter turn-out will improve or not improve this election for, I dunno, some mysterious reason? Can you name a strongly Democratic White media personality who is all of a sudden publicly announcing he may vote for McCain in this election?
I'm not after debating the merits of the candidates here, after all, they are more identical than zealots on either side care to admit. My point is that once again according the media my race is eeeeeeeeeeeeevil for noticing things about the Black population that everybody knows are generally true, and because, when given the choice between two candidates who are both fighting tooth and nail for ideological dead center, a certain percentage of Whites choose to go with the clone with whom they share an ethnic identity.
-
Sheeple! And more of 'em too!
'party' politics is screen, a tool and the more people feed at the party trough the more sheeple we get.
You have a brain. Use it. Don't be a minion or a subject.. be an individual and vote for the person that brings to the table the character, wisdom and practical experience necessary to best represent your version of what government policy should be.
Screw the labels.
Better to be a sheeple than a non-factor or person who helps get someone who is a polar opposite of what they believe in elected.
I am certainly not a sheep being led to slaughter or a lemming following a traditional dogma. What I am is a realist that actually understands how the system really works rather than a self-righteous fool that believes he is better just because he is "independent" or "cut from a different cloth".
So under your theory you lets say that you are a libertarian and vote for whatever candidate they throw up there who gets less than 1% of the popular vote. Then in a crucial state like Ohio goes against the GOP candidate and causes the GOP candidate to lose. The margin is less than the vote total that the libertarian candidate received thus causing all those libertarians to get a president that believes in more government, more governement intrusion into your life, higher taxes, more regulation and all sorts of other things that are completely against libertarian philosophy. All that despite the GOP being closer in philosophy to libertarians then the Dems are. Much closer. Sure, the libertarian may feel like a brain using individualist, but they cut off there nose to spite their face. Victory to their enemies, furnished by the self righteous brain user As in 2000 you can insert a left cause and Dem where it says GOP and it is the same. You suppose those Nader voters felt good about their protest vote or vote of principle when it caused a candidate that was close to their philosophy to lose? Yeah they probably did... So that is smarter, having pride in being a brain user and helping to work against what you believe in? Of course it is important for some to say, "Yeah I voted for the Green candidate, or libertarian so you can't blame me for the mess in Washington." Really? hmmm who is really at fault
I know a guy that has voted for the Communist party candidate every election since the 70s. He helps get Republicans elected because he refuses to vote for the Democrat who is closer to his value system. Sounds like a smart move to me. :noid
-
I respectfully disagree. The entire WOT sounds like and has the talking points of a party sheeple.
I see folks that don't like abortion voting the republican ticket right down to the local level.. where republican politics has nothing to do with republican policy. Sheeple.
The abortion rights issue has nothing to do with survival of the nation or the economy. yet.. these sheeple, blindly follow the goat with the bell playing their tune.
If you can't see the miasma of shame involved on both sides of the party isles and instead of playing party politics, started voting for the PERSON that is better qualified on issues relevant to the office considered we'd be doing better.. a LOT better as a nation, as a people and as a community.
Right now, a national campaign is going on for the presidency of the united states.. defense, foreign policy, economy, trade policy, taxes and education are the key issues. Now how many idiots will lemming up to the table and vote skin color, abortion or gay rights?
Screw 'party' politics, sheeple and lemmings.
Use your brain.. vote for something a little larger than Oprah's issues.
-
I respectfully disagree. The entire WOT sounds like and has the talking points of a party sheeple.
I see folks that don't like abortion voting the republican ticket right down to the local level.. where republican politics has nothing to do with republican policy. Sheeple.
The abortion rights issue has nothing to do with survival of the nation or the economy. yet.. these sheeple, blindly follow the goat with the bell playing their tune.
If you can't see the miasma of shame involved on both sides of the party isles and instead of playing party politics, started voting for the PERSON that is better qualified on issues relevant to the office considered we'd be doing better.. a LOT better as a nation, as a people and as a community.
Right now, a national campaign is going on for the presidency of the united states.. defense, foreign policy, economy, trade policy, taxes and education are the key issues. Now how many idiots will lemming up to the table and vote skin color, abortion or gay rights?
Screw 'party' politics, sheeple and lemmings.
Use your brain.. vote for something a little larger than Oprah's issues.
The democrats are on the wrong side of every single issue. The republicans certainly aren't on my side on all the issues but at least some.
-
argh.. I shoulda edited that..
<edit>
I see folks that do or don't like abortion or gay rights voting the republican or democratic ticket right down to the local level.. where party politics has nothing to do with national policy. Sheeple.
-
442:
How can you ignore the failure of "lesser-evilism?" That is how we got McCain, for goodness sakes. As a long-term strategy, it has a 0 percent chance of success. The Republican party in this country DEPENDS on being able to pander to the parasites, stealth Bolsheviks, and totalitarian utopians as much as they like. Because, as things stands, there is almost zero chance of any Republican candidate loosing an election by being too much like the Democrats, because too many small-government folks are too afraid of giving the Democrats even one election to punish the Republicans for their misdeeds. I say, what of it? Objectively, Bush's 8 years of governance have been no better for the cause of small government and liberty than Clinton's. Nay, they have probably been worse. Clinton was a Democrat, and his attempt to use the OKC bombing as a Reichstad-fire type incident, with which to lever in more creeping totalitarianism was blatantly aimed directly at rural government-distrusting Whites. Because of this, the resentment and resistance against him was immense and a beautiful thing to behold. However, because G.W. Bush is nominally a Republican Christian "good 'ole boy" and because the 9/11 terrorists were brown heathen foreigners, his administration constituted a perfect opportunity to get a thrust inside the guard of this nation's simple folk who have a healthy instinctive distrust of government, but an unfortunate implicit trust in the symbols of virtuous leadership, even where the substance is lacking.
There is historical precedence for one party fading and another coming to prominence in the U.S. Remember the Whigs? Not here anymore are they? The Populists of the late 19th century are another example. Although they did not eliminate either party, their influence eventually forced many items of their agenda onto the platforms of the major parties.
Better to be a sheeple than a non-factor or person who helps get someone who is a polar opposite of what they believe in elected.
I am certainly not a sheep being led to slaughter or a lemming following a traditional dogma. What I am is a realist that actually understands how the system really works rather than a self-righteous fool that believes he is better just because he is "independent" or "cut from a different cloth".
So under your theory you lets say that you are a libertarian and vote for whatever candidate they throw up there who gets less than 1% of the popular vote. Then in a crucial state like Ohio goes against the GOP candidate and causes the GOP candidate to lose. The margin is less than the vote total that the libertarian candidate received thus causing all those libertarians to get a president that believes in more government, more governement intrusion into your life, higher taxes, more regulation and all sorts of other things that are completely against libertarian philosophy. All that despite the GOP being closer in philosophy to libertarians then the Dems are. Much closer. Sure, the libertarian may feel like a brain using individualist, but they cut off there nose to spite their face. Victory to their enemies, furnished by the self righteous brain user As in 2000 you can insert a left cause and Dem where it says GOP and it is the same. You suppose those Nader voters felt good about their protest vote or vote of principle when it caused a candidate that was close to their philosophy to lose? Yeah they probably did... So that is smarter, having pride in being a brain user and helping to work against what you believe in? Of course it is important for some to say, "Yeah I voted for the Green candidate, or libertarian so you can't blame me for the mess in Washington." Really? hmmm who is really at fault
I know a guy that has voted for the Communist party candidate every election since the 70s. He helps get Republicans elected because he refuses to vote for the Democrat who is closer to his value system. Sounds like a smart move to me. :noid
-
I'm gonna vote for Obama because he's gonna screw the rich bastids and give me some of their money...they have too much anyhow :aok
-
I'm gonna vote for Obama because he's gonna screw the rich bastids and give me some of their money...they have too much anyhow :aok
LOL...its scary the people who actually believe that BJ.
-
442:
How can you ignore the failure of "lesser-evilism?" That is how we got McCain, for goodness sakes. As a long-term strategy, it has a 0 percent chance of success.
That ship has sailed. Huckabee or Romney or any other GOP candidate is not a candidate to be president. Lesser evilism may in fact be a guaranteed failure now and in the future. Certainly there are those that would argue that. Further right conservatives like Limbaugh would argue it. Air America and Keith Olbermann types would argue it that a moderate Dem is the left equivalent of a McCain. I would agree that both parties have moved further left in the last few decades. Scoop Jackson Democrats of the 50s and 60's are the current GOP mainstream. Hillary Clinton, is pretty representative of the standard Democrat norm and looked at 30-40 years ago would have been called a French Socialist. Much of that is imo due to social issues and society not agreeing with the 14% of republicans who say abortion is their biggest issue. Some is also due to the almost inevitable rise in the size of government. I suspect that the movement left is going to continue. Obviously McCain instead of a Romney for instance as the GOP nominee is a sign of that. Would it have been better and created less of a move to the left if they had run a solid conservative and lost the election or if a McCain were to win? I would say that the former would result in a further move to the left than the latter. Unfortunately this year a libertarian has the option of "using his brain" and voting for whoever the libertarians put up there (or some other non-Big2 party candidate) and getting nothing out of it or voting for McCain, and hoping that his victory does less harm to their cause than an Obama win certainly would. Same goes for Nader and the greens again this year.
I could make an argument that a President who is in philosophical disagreement with Congress and/or a Congress where the Dems control one side and the GOP controls the other would create a gridlock of government where little gets done. :) It falls under the "first do no harm" mentality.
I could also make the argument that who is president means much less than who is in Congress. Congress is the body that makes laws. The president is only president not a king or dictator- as much as paranoid types would argue against that. In Congress is where third parties have a chance to get voted in. Work in that direction to get a third party going more strongly.
Indeed Hangtime there are many people who vote based on the importance of one issue like abortion (either way). It is their right and they are being a bit narrow minded by doing that. Sometimes they cause a negative happening their cause. I believe it was 98 where a Right to life group turned out in force for a Anti-abortion third party candidate in New Mexico's gubernatorial election. They took a lot of votes away from the GOP candidate who was pro-life but not as strongly as they liked. Bill Richardson won the election in a margin that was much smaller than the third party percentage. So instead of the pro-life candidate GOP governor, the pro life folks got a pro-choice governor. But hey they were using their brains. Who can argue with that?
Hangtime we can agree to disagree but stop telling me to use my brain. Just because we disagree does not mean that I am not using it. It is tantamount to telling me I am stupid and THAT is something that I find insulting. I am not going to convince you of the merits of my argument and I can live with that.
-
Personally I could care less if the candidate is purple like Barney, or their gender. For me it is all about the philosophy they bring to the table.
There will be people that will not vote for Obama because he is black. But there are also many people who will vote for him BECAUSE he is black as well.
I know several people who have nothing in common with Obama philosophically but are likely to vote for him anyway because he is, in one case "trendy", and in another "because he is black and if we vote for a black person it will show that we aren't a racist country."
It would be nice if we lived in a so-called colorless society. Unfortunately we do not and those that have wished and lobbied for a colorless society for decades are now the ones making color the issue. "Some whites won't vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black." It isn't just polls, it is also democratic pundits that are saying it. That makes color an issue. Whites voting FOR him because he is black also make color an issue.
It is funny, I look at Obama and see a middle aged liberal senator. I look at McCain and see an older centrist senator. In the interest of fairness, I looked at Mitt Romney as a middle aged, conservative, ex-governor and Hillary as an older left of center senator.
I suggest that a person should vote on the basis of which party best represents their own views, because it is the party's ideals that will be represented when in office, not the flowery speeches and platitudes the candidates deliver while on the soap box. Third party folks, don't bother with a high jack. In reality America is a two party system. Work within it. A good example of what can happen when you support your ideals and throw away your vote on a third party candidate is in 2000 when in all likelihood, liberal people who voted for Ralph Nader succeeded in getting a conservative elected by not supporting Al Gore, who was much closer to what they believe in. So instead they voted on principle instead of on the candidate that would be closest to what they believe in. Political parties are a big tent and you have to live in the tent that best represents what you believe in.
It would have been easier for you to simply say that your a republican, and that You want everyone else you talk to, to vote republican.
Pathetic.
I completely agree with Hangtime; The two-party system in this country, which between them has seen some of the worst Foreign-policy and domestic-economic disasters' of all time, need to...nay, have needed to, go for good.
It's the "lesser of two evils" BS thats' brought this country to the point it is today. Something that is no better than the countries' that many people left to come here in the first place.
-
Indeed Hangtime there are many people who vote based on the importance of one issue like abortion (either way). It is their right and they are being a bit narrow minded by doing that. Sometimes they cause a negative happening their cause. I believe it was 98 where a Right to life group turned out in force for a Anti-abortion third party candidate in New Mexico's gubernatorial election. They took a lot of votes away from the GOP candidate who was pro-life but not as strongly as they liked. Bill Richardson won the election in a margin that was much smaller than the third party percentage. So instead of the pro-life candidate GOP governor, the pro life folks got a pro-choice governor. But hey they were using their brains. Who can argue with that?
Hangtime we can agree to disagree but stop telling me to use my brain. Just because we disagree does not mean that I am not using it. It is tantamount to telling me I am stupid and THAT is something that I find insulting. I am not going to convince you of the merits of my argument and I can live with that.
Agreed.. you've put more thought into the post than most folks put into a lifetime of political activism for their pet plover or spotted owl. ;)
You do indeed have a brain.. and seem to be acquainted with were it's supposed to be relative to the rest of your anatomy.
:aok
-
If being black (which is only 1/2 true) is such a negative in some 40% of white voter's eyes (racists), that means that 60% of white voters don't take race into their decision. How many black voters don't take race into account, seeing that almost all support Obama? I guess that's not an important question for the propaganda -er story.
Obama had the support of 90% + of the black voters in the democratic primaries. Does McCain have the support of 90% of white voters? It seems to me that blacks in general are more racist. They bring out the race card anytime something doesn't go their way. Of course it is racist of me to suggest that.
Being black (sort of) is the only reason Obama is in this race. Does anyone actually believe that a freshman senator in his 40s would be the democratic front runner if he was just another white guy? He looks different, therefore he will bring change. And everything will be perfect forever.
-
Hiya Skuzzy!
-
THANK you for that image. Got it on the HD.. before it gets yanked off the BBS.
Well done... well said. :aok
Oh.. and IN! ;)
-
Hmmmmm.... OK. Here's a toned down version.
I am certainly not a sheep being led to slaughter or a lemming following a traditional dogma. What I am is a realist that actually understands how the system really works rather than a self-righteous fool that believes he is better just because he is "independent" or "cut from a different cloth".
So under your theory you lets say that you are a libertarian and vote for whatever candidate they throw up there who gets less than 1% of the popular vote. Then in a crucial state like Ohio goes against the GOP candidate and causes the GOP candidate to lose. The margin is less than the vote total that the libertarian candidate received thus causing all those libertarians to get a president that believes in more government, more governement intrusion into your life, higher taxes, more regulation and all sorts of other things that are completely against libertarian philosophy.
So when exactly do we finally tell the Dems and Reps that we're mad as hell and not going to take this poop anymore?
I mean we've been picking between the lesser of two weasels since Reagan left office. For 20 masking years fer chrissakes; Bush1 v Dukakis..... YGBSM! And it got WORSE and stayed bad after those two dweezils!
Dear God... Clinton v Bush1, Clinton v Dole, Bush2 v Gore, Bush2 v Kerry. Now which one of those was too important not to vote 3rd party? Every single one, of course. That's what the Dems and Reps spoon feed us every time.
So when will there be an election where it's not important so we can vote 3rd party?
If not us, who? If not now, when?
oooOOOOOO- RAH!
If the Libertarians cause the greater of two weasels to win, it only hurries the day that such an overbearing government will fall.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
(http://cla.calpoly.edu/~mriedlsp/History111/Images/liberty_b.jpg)
"Liberty leading the People" by Eugene Delacroix
-
(http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk93/roguedayton/afichewalls.jpg)
Saved that image as well. I <<S>> you for posting it.
-
It would have been easier for you to simply say that your a republican, and that You want everyone else you talk to, to vote republican.
Pathetic.
Want to know what is pathetic? That you would draw that conclusion after I have been arguing a political philosophy that has nothing to do with the ideology of either side. I have used examples of both the right and left as well as not championed either side. I do not try to convince anyone to vote for a certain cause. That is left up to the propagandists on either side and to each person's individual philosophy. Where in anything I said did I talk badly about Obama or the left? Where did I say anything good about the right or McCain?
-
It's the "lesser of two evils" BS thats' brought this country to the point it is today. Something that is no better than the countries' that many people left to come here in the first place.
QFT
-
Agreed.. you've put more thought into the post than most folks put into a lifetime of political activism for their pet plover or spotted owl. ;)
You do indeed have a brain.. and seem to be acquainted with were it's supposed to be relative to the rest of your anatomy.
:aok
:salute Hangtime. Thank you. I have found that when you leave the ideology out of politics that it is a fascinating study of the human condition, propaganda, and hypocracy. lol That makes it interesting to me and helps me learn more about others. Yes I have a political ideology of my own but for the purposes of this thread, it was moot and therefore need not be mentioned. I stay away from debates about right vs left etc.
In this thread I have learned from several of you and over the next 6 weeks will keep that stuff in mind as we all watch this election play out.
-
That's all we can hope for.. little nuggets of clarity gleaned from each other.. the crap that passes out the anal orifice of the media is.. well; just crap. Gift wrapped. But still crap. ;)
-
Quote from: Toad on Yesterday at 05:11:11 PM
So when exactly do we finally tell the Dems and Reps that we're mad as hell and not going to take this poop anymore?
I mean we've been picking between the lesser of two weasels since Reagan left office. For 20 masking years fer chrissakes; Bush1 v Dukakis..... YGBSM! And it got WORSE and stayed bad after those two dweezils!
Dear God... Clinton v Bush1, Clinton v Dole, Bush2 v Gore, Bush2 v Kerry. Now which one of those was too important not to vote 3rd party? Every single one, of course. That's what the Dems and Reps spoon feed us every time.
So when will there be an election where it's not important so we can vote 3rd party?
If not us, who? If not now, when?
oooOOOOOO- RAH!
And what did voting third party get for those that did so? People did in each of those elections and outside of Nader in 2000, the only one that received any significant percentage was Perot and even he did no twin any states. A third party will only become relevant when people truly get sick of one of the major parties or when a third party comes along that really strikes a chord with a lot of people. A lot being more than the few thousands that vote Green or Libertarian. In other words the people will decide when a third party becomes relevant. As it stands right now not enough people agree with your stand to give it a shot at making policy and/or being elected for anything on a national level.
Work on a local level to get third parties more credibility and a larger following. That is where it is going to have to start. Any third party cannot compete on a national level right now. In 50 years? Maybe so if people work toward it. Wishing it to be isn't going to do much.
-
Want to know what is pathetic? That you would draw that conclusion after I have been arguing a political philosophy that has nothing to do with the ideology of either side. I have used examples of both the right and left as well as not championed either side. I do not try to convince anyone to vote for a certain cause. That is left up to the propagandists on either side and to each person's individual philosophy. Where in anything I said did I talk badly about Obama or the left? Where did I say anything good about the right or McCain?
As someone who loves the slash, I salute your mastery of the parry.
-
That's all we can hope for.. little nuggets of clarity gleaned from each other.. the crap that passes out the anal orifice of the media is.. well; just crap. Gift wrapped. But still crap. ;)
yup! Take everything that is reported with a grain of salt. If a person wants to be truly informed on an issue they have to educate themselves and realize where the info they are using is coming from. Does it have a spin or agenda? If so, take what they say through a filter. Become educated and make your own assessment.
-
As someone who loves the slash, I salute your mastery of the parry.
:salute
Want to hear the most incongruous thing? For several years I have been telling friends that I would like to START a third party. Yes, I do not believe that now is the time for one to be effective and have a role but I too am dissatisfied with the status quo. :lol
Now I guess I will wait for the post that accuses me of wanting everyone to vote for Ralph Nader or the Communist party candidate, or maybe write in Ross Perot
-
And what did voting third party get for those that did so?
Perot changed the debate; the focus of the election became the federal budget deficit and political reform came front and center. Additionally, he caused the two parties to embrace some of his positions on these issues to win back voters they had lost to Perot. Clinton won but when he introduced his program to trim the deficit by $500 million in four years he included much of Perot's plan of "shared sacrifice" by including tax increases along with spending cuts. He even phoned Perot to try to get him to publicly back the plan. Similarly, Clinton immediately implemented some of Perot's campaign points on ethics in government, like proposing a 5 year ban on lobbying after senior political appointees left government.
That's the kind of stuff you get........ at worst.
At best, you get a Libertarian President. :aok
-
Perot changed the debate; the focus of the election became the federal budget deficit and political reform came front and center. Additionally, he caused the two parties to embrace some of his positions on these issues to win back voters they had lost to Perot. Clinton won but when he introduced his program to trim the deficit by $500 million in four years he included much of Perot's plan of "shared sacrifice" by including tax increases along with spending cuts. He even phoned Perot to try to get him to publicly back the plan. Similarly, Clinton immediately implemented some of Perot's campaign points on ethics in government, like proposing a 5 year ban on lobbying after senior political appointees left government.
That's the kind of stuff you get........ at worst.
At best, you get a Libertarian President. :aok
You know you are right. Perot did not have an impact on the election because he took votes from both sides BUT he had a huge impact on the issues that were debated. Good point Toad We could use a Ross Perot this year, but did not get one.
-
So if you meet a "reasonable cross section" of American Blacks you come to those conclusions?
Idiotic drivel.
-
Fixed
So if you meet a "reasonable cross section" of American Blacks you come to those conclusions?
Accurate observations that are not warm, fuzzy or popular! Waa!!!!.
-
And what did voting third party get for those that did so? People did in each of those elections and outside of Nader in 2000, the only one that received any significant percentage was Perot and even he did no twin any states. A third party will only become relevant when people truly get sick of one of the major parties or when a third party comes along that really strikes a chord with a lot of people. A lot being more than the few thousands that vote Green or Libertarian. In other words the people will decide when a third party becomes relevant. As it stands right now not enough people agree with your stand to give it a shot at making policy and/or being elected for anything on a national level.
I hear that alot.. a kinda twsiting of the hand dismissal voting for the third party candidate is a waste. I see it as only true in only a few states.. the 'battleground' States. All of us that have thought about this much would rather have a three party race than a two party system... the pressing relevant question in this election is, can that be achieved.. and if so; how to do it without wasting a vote.
Most of us that have considered the election as a chess game would rather see the current government hamstrung.. since anything done generally makes things worse, having a do-nothing congress with an opposite party president usually equates to fewer liberties lost, less social welfare reform and less useless government waste... i.e.; slowing the march to socialism.
In light of that, and assuming a stronger democratic congress on the backside of this election, I personally don't want a democrat in the whitehouse, especially with a couple of decrepit SCOTUS judges retiring... again my choices lean to slowing the march to socialism.
Next in the big game is what's happening with the electoral college.. in those states that are 'certain' for the democratic or republican parties, voting for a third party candidate actually strengthens the national push for a three party system.. sends the signal it's time for a change, without risking 'throwing away' your vote.
In the states that are battleground, yes; your point of tossing away your vote on an independent or libertarian could allow one or the other of the big two to capitalize on the loss or gain to one side of the other... and here's where my opinion varies from the rest of the 'third party, uber alles' folks. If it's a battleground state, I'd vote republican on the top of the ticket, anti-incumbent the rest of the way down. I'm not too charmed about letting the dems screw us into oblivion.. I'm for keeping the bastids outta my wallet as long as I can.. even if it means giving my vote in a battleground state to McCain.. this time around.
Lucky for me, my convictions and read of the politics on the national scene won't be much of a problem for me.. this being NY, and NY being solid Blue without a snowballs chance in hell of becoming a battleground, I'll be voting for Barr or Paul on the top of the ticket and anti-incumbent the rest of the way down. Works for me.. on both levels.
Hope this makes sense in some convoluted way?
-
Fixed
Fix it all you want, you still sound like a racist ass.
-
Fix it all you want, you still sound like a racist ass.
*Yawn*
Try harder, please. This is just sad.
But truth be told, one reason this poll was such a farce is the fact that the terms polled about are deliberately vague, and nothing can really be proven either way. Not like violent crime rates or other phenomenon which can actually be broken down to numbers.
-
Makes sense hangtime. Especially in a non-battleground state.
-
Want to know what is pathetic? That you would draw that conclusion after I have been arguing a political philosophy that has nothing to do with the ideology of either side. I have used examples of both the right and left as well as not championed either side. I do not try to convince anyone to vote for a certain cause. That is left up to the propagandists on either side and to each person's individual philosophy. Where in anything I said did I talk badly about Obama or the left? Where did I say anything good about the right or McCain?
To refer back to your opening post...
It is funny, I look at Obama and see a middle aged liberal senator. I look at McCain and see an older centrist senator. In the interest of fairness, I looked at Mitt Romney as a middle aged, conservative, ex-governor and Hillary as an older left of center senator.
I suggest that a person should vote on the basis of which party best represents their own views, because it is the party's ideals that will be represented when in office, not the flowery speeches and platitudes the candidates deliver while on the soap box. Third party folks, don't bother with a high jack. In reality America is a two party system. Work within it. A good example of what can happen when you support your ideals and throw away your vote on a third party candidate is in 2000 when in all likelihood, liberal people who voted for Ralph Nader succeeded in getting a conservative elected by not supporting Al Gore, who was much closer to what they believe in. So instead they voted on principle instead of on the candidate that would be closest to what they believe in. Political parties are a big tent and you have to live in the tent that best represents what you believe in.
It's not the fact that you did not come out in open support for either the Dimocrats or the Republocant's. It's the fact that you are so willing to consign the fate of everyone to the same failing-yes, failing-Two party system. At first, you say a person should vote on the basis of who represents' their own views. Ordinarily, that would scream Independent or Third-party in this day and age. But you immediately turned around and trashcanned supporting your own ideals' and simply aligning yourself with either of the big 2 that at least get's one or two of them right. What the big newsflash to some people will be, is that if you look back at administrations' back to Reagan's times, BOTH parties, and their accompanying lackeys they get into elected office, have more or less followed the same agenda, administration after administration, and not taken any steps to rectify things' done by preceding office-holders. For example, Look at NAFTA. It's widely regarded as a mistake, yet went through it's inception under Bush Sr. (a republican), Was signed in under Clinton (A Democrat) and has not been repealed since, No matter who was in control of Congress. They just simply handed off the ball...Rather than stand up for the interests' of their constituents, or the american people.
A vote's never "thrown away." It's a(n) individual's expression of how they feel that our country should be run. It's not a tool for the greedy to manipulate to stay in power. And when all the big partisan talking heads, pundits, and candidates talk about "throwing away your vote" on Libertarian or Third-parties...They are the ones' simply trying to manipulate. Proof enough to me, at least, of their greed. And this has been the SOP for both main parties for far too long.
-
A vote's never "thrown away." It's a(n) individual's expression of how they feel that our country should be run. It's not a tool for the greedy to manipulate to stay in power. And when all the big partisan talking heads, pundits, and candidates talk about "throwing away your vote" on Libertarian or Third-parties...They are the ones' simply trying to manipulate. Proof enough to me, at least, of their greed. And this has been the SOP for both main parties for far too long.
Quoted for Truth.
-
MT.. If 95% of all negros will vote for osamabinbiden...
Where exactly do you get this "reasonable black cross section"?
lazs
-
They're voting the man... race doesn't enter into it at all. :rock
-
MT.. If 95% of all negros will vote for osamabinbiden...
Where exactly do you get this "reasonable black cross section"?
lazs
Nice try lazs, but don't twist the facts.
Here is the quote "Surprise, it appears that many Whites have actually met a reasonable cross-section of the U.S. Black community, and for once the Honkies couldn't be bothered with lying about the matter to our pollsters."
Not so subtly implying that just meeting enough Blacks will bring you to some kind of negative conclusion.
BS of the highest order.
-
I don't think you answered my question MT.. where is the reasonable in 95% of negros voting for an empty suit like osamabinbiden?
That is not the kind of people I want to be around for a "reasonable" conversation. Hell.. that kind of group would probly attack you in a mob group or burn down cities if they felt slighted in some minor way.
When whites vote 95% for the white guy in a white guy, look like a negro guy race then you might have a point.
It is pretty funny.. I am not sure playing on white guilt will work at this point.. shame a bunch of idiot democrats into lockstep voting by shaming them with some bogus white guilt crap?
Naaaa.. I am guessing that most of em are fresh out of white guilt by now.
lazs
-
95% of Negros think OJ is innocent.
-
95% of Negros think OJ is innocent.
Source? Or just plain lie?
-
I don't think you answered my question MT.. where is the reasonable in 95% of negros voting for an empty suit like osamabinbiden?
That is not the kind of people I want to be around for a "reasonable" conversation. Hell.. that kind of group would probly attack you in a mob group or burn down cities if they felt slighted in some minor way.
When whites vote 95% for the white guy in a white guy, look like a negro guy race then you might have a point.
It is pretty funny.. I am not sure playing on white guilt will work at this point.. shame a bunch of idiot democrats into lockstep voting by shaming them with some bogus white guilt crap?
Naaaa.. I am guessing that most of em are fresh out of white guilt by now.
lazs
The quote was about a REASONABLE NUMBER... not about REASONABLE as in personality. You seem to be missing the point consistantly.
-
I'm gonna vote for Obama because he's gonna screw the rich bastids and give me some of their money...they have too much anyhow :aok
I'm guessing 99.99999% of the O'Club posters have nothing to fear about it anyway