# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  A measure of racism: 15 percent?

## Carlos_E

I was talking the other day to a prominent Republican who asked me what I thought John McCains strongest issues would be in the general election.

Lower taxes and the argument he will be better able to protect America from its enemies, I said.

Republicans have a pretty good track record with those two.

The Republican shook his head. Youre missing the most important one, he said. Race. McCain runs against Barack Obama and the race vote is worth maybe 15 percent to McCain.

The man I was talking to is not a racist; he was just stating what he believes to be a fact: There is a percentage of the American electorate who will simply not vote for a black person no matter what his qualities or qualifications.

How big is that percentage? An AP-Yahoo poll conducted April 2-14 found that about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president.

I dont know if 8 percent sounds high or low to you, but I was amazed that 8 percent of respondents were willing to admit this to a pollster. And I figure that the true figure is much higher.

The same poll, by the way, found that 15 percent of voters think Obama is a Muslim. He is, in fact, a Christian. But thinking a person is a Muslim probably does not encourage you to vote for him in America today.

And consider this little nugget from Mondays Washington Post, in a story by Kevin Merida and Jose Antonio Vargas datelined Scranton, Pa.:

Barack Obamas campaign opened a downtown office here on March 15, just in time for the annual St. Patricks Day parade. It was not a glorious day for Team Obama. Some of the green signs the campaign had trucked in by the thousands were burned during the parade, and campaign volunteers  white volunteers  were greeted with racial slurs.

Signs burned? Racial slurs shouted out loud? In this day and age? Maybe that 15 percent estimate is low.

I am not suggesting for a second that McCain would exploit race in a campaign against Obama. He would not. But the real question is whether the racial issue has to be exploited at all. It is pretty powerful just sitting there on its own.

Ronald Reagan began his presidential campaign in 1980 by giving a speech at a county fair in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers  James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman  had been murdered in 1964.

Reagan made no mention of the murders or civil rights in that speech but did say, I believe in states rights. States rights was common code in those days for letting states discriminate against black people.

A few months ago, David Brooks, a conservative columnist for The New York Times, defended Reagan, claiming it is a distortion to say Reagan opened his campaign with an appeal to racism. 

But Brooks also wrote: Reagan could have done something wonderful if hed mentioned civil rights at the fair. He didnt. And its obviously true that race played a role in the GOPs ascent. 

In 2005, then-Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman gave a speech to a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People convention in Milwaukee denouncing the use of race as a wedge issue. 
Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization, Mehlman said. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong. 

On Monday, McCain went to Selma, Ala., where on March 7, 1965, more than 500 civil rights marchers were beaten and clubbed by state troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as the rest of America watched on television. 

They watched and were ashamed of their country, McCain said. And they knew that the people who had tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge werent a mob; they werent a threat; they werent revolutionaries. They were people who believed in America  in the promise of America. And they believed in a better America. They were patriots  the best kind of patriots. 

The Associated Press noted that McCain drew a crowd Monday of about 100 people that was mostly white, although, as the campaign noted, Selmas population is 70 percent black. 

I am aware the African-American vote has been very small in favor of the Republican Party; I am aware of the challenges, and I am aware of the fact that there will be many people who will not vote for me, McCain said. But Im going to be the president of all the people. 

Which was an intriguing point: Sure, there are voters who will not vote for Obama under any circumstances, but McCain was saying there are also voters who will not vote for him under any circumstances. 

*But which group, if either one, will hold the balance of power in November?*

----------


## Carlos_E

The last point is an interesting question.

----------


## gixxerboy1

I'm not surprised there are people who wont vote for him because he is black. But i would also bet there are people voting for him just because he is black. I wouldn't even try and guess a percentage on either. But i agree with you Carlos if 8% admitted im sure its really higher

----------


## Act of God

I would think it could be close to offsetting. If it is BO, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of voting age blacks voted for him (either because they are democrats or because he is black, or both). I believe a general estimate is 15% of the population is black (I'm not sure what % is voting age, though). If we go with the 8% we probably have as many people voting for BO as we do not voting for BO for the same reasons.

Now, is it just as wrong to vote for someone purely based on skin color as it is to not vote for them based on the same characteristic?

----------


## gixxerboy1

> I would think it could be close to offsetting. If it is BO, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of voting age blacks voted for him (either because they are democrats or because he is black, or both). I believe a general estimate is 15% of the population is black (I'm not sure what % is voting age, though). If we go with the 8% we probably have as many people voting for BO as we do not voting for BO for the same reasons.
> 
> *Now, is it just as wrong to vote for someone purely based on skin color as it is to not vote for them based on the same characteristic*?


I think both are equally as wrong

----------


## Carlos_E

> I think both are equally as wrong


I agree.

----------


## Tock

Here in Texas, it's assumed that a good % of white people won't vote for a black man. That sort of sentiment is more pronounced in the rural areas. That, and some other stuff (I once got kicked out of a timeshare sales pitch out there because I'm gay--long story) is why I won't go to east Texas.

----------


## Fat Guy

Unfortunately race is still a huge factor in this country. There are many narrow and bigoted perceptions that exist and play a role in our society at large.  :Frown:  I for one want Obama to win very much just because it will fly in the face of the many bigoted opinions that there are out there. 

Also, I think by electing a President of color that the U.S. is at a critical point in history in that the U.S.s collective social consciousness is in a position of true acceptance of diversity and it is not just lip service or pipe dreams. I feel its like a maturing process for our young political system. 

However, to vote on just the basis of skin color or whatever arbitrary characteristic that people identify with without any real thought or meaning to policy or political value is just plain ridiculous. Obama would have got my vote either way because Im a big fan of universal health care, labor unions, and ending this retarded war in Iraq. It just makes it cooler that Obama is black and knowing that some redneck is choking on the thought of having a black leader for the next 4 or 8 years.  :Nutkick: 

Go Obama!


On a side note I dont know if he will make it because I dont know if America is ready as a nation There is much evidence to suggest as a whole we are not  I hope I am wrong on this point. :Shrug:

----------


## RA

I am aware the African-American vote has been very small in favor of the Republican Party; I am aware of the challenges, and I am aware of the fact that there will be many people who will not vote for me, McCain said. But Im going to be the president of all the people. 


Well its true. Like 90%+ of the black vote go dem...the stuff about reagan was a stretch.

and if obama has the same views as his good reverend..no way in hell I would vote for him even if I was a democrat.

----------


## Carlos_E

> if obama has the same views as his good reverend..no way in hell I would vote for him even if I was a democrat.


What makes you think Obama has the same views? Because Fox News told you? McCain's pastor John Hagee is just as wacky. He said the Catholic church is "the great whore," an 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ,' a "false cult system," and linked it to Hitler's Nazi movement. So why attribute Obama's pastors views to him and not do the same for McCain?

----------


## RA

Yes, I get all my marching orders from Fox news. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 

I think if you choose someone like him to give you a weekly sermon and to marry you and your wife it does speak to your character. Obama has also done some "questionable" things that would go along with good ol jeremiahs teachings. 

I havent heard anything like that about McCains pastor. Link?





> What makes you think Obama has the same views? Because Fox News told you? McCain's pastor John Hagee is just as wacky. He said the Catholic church is "the great whore," an 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ,' a "false cult system," and linked it to Hitler's Nazi movement. So why attribute Obama's pastors views to him and not do the same for McCain?

----------


## Carlos_E

A bunch here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...cs&btnG=Search

----------


## Kale

I dont live in America and just see all this political American waffle from a distance, but isnt this guys mother white and his father black or visa a versa ?

----------


## youngerlion

If like he stated 8 percent admitted (think of the sterotype attached to an open racist) there definitely are more "closet bigots". Yes this will affect votes.
the simple fact is that racism does exist and affects society as a whole. racism with no descrimination exist but is highly unlikely. if you take a minority member from an equal background (wealth, class, prestige) as a white male and they both pursue the same education, at the same school, with the same gpa. on average the white man will earn almost twice as much in income as that minority member who works the same amount of time untill retirement. Race affects us all. It just seems to effect minorities in a negative way that many american are willing to ignore due to their own ignorance, under-education, limited paradigm, or maybe they do know. It just gives them unearned privledges, few will admit to receiving. ( see peggy Mccintosh) 

I play video games online regularly and you should hear all the unprovoked and unneccessary racial slurs screamed by white American gamers towards minorities. These attacks are made by all age groups and as a sociologist give me a small sample of what american white men as a whole really think. considering the large demographic of video gamers.

----------


## youngerlion

and dang carlos you are stout. what is your diet and training scehdule?

----------


## kfrost06

> What makes you think Obama has the same views? Because Fox News told you? McCain's pastor John Hagee is just as wacky. He said the Catholic church is "the great whore," an 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ,' a "false cult system," and linked it to Hitler's Nazi movement. So why attribute Obama's pastors views to him and not do the same for McCain?


Carlos that guy Hagee is not McCains pastor, never was ever. He did give his endorsement to McCain and Hagee is a jerkoff and McCain needs to refuse his endorsement. Sad that these pastors represent their religion by preaching hate.

----------


## Act of God

> Obama would have got my vote either way because Im a big fan of universal health care, labor unions


Are you serious? Those two things will be the downfall of the American Economy. I'm being dead honest here, research and re-think your stance on that.

----------


## Act of God

> Carlos that guy Hagee is not McCains pastor, never was ever. He did give his endorsement to McCain and Hagee is a jerkoff and McCain needs to refuse his endorsement. Sad that these pastors represnt their religion by preaching hate.


McCain isn't very religious. He has a very secular record IIRC and is very, very different than Bush as far as that stuff goes. Anything close to that he is exhibiting now is purely for election purposes. Obama IS very religious, before he ever ran and currently.

OT - Don't forget there are a ton of white people who will also vote for a black guy purely based on race. I believe most of them live in California and New York  :Smilie:

----------


## kfrost06

> if you take a minority member from an equal background (wealth, class, prestige) as a white male and they both pursue the same education, at the same school, with the same gpa. on average the white man will earn almost twice as much in income as that minority member who works the same amount of time untill retirement.


 :Bsflag: , show us a reference to this.

----------


## youngerlion

[QUOTE=Kale;3939021]I dont live in America and just see all this political American waffle from a distance, but isnt this guys mother white and his father black or visa a versa ?[/QUOTE

Yes obama is mixed, as am i. but in america states actually lawfully pursue the one drop rule. If you are any drop of afro-ethnic ancestry. You are a black man to them and entitle to the second class citizenship it affords. I had professor who was white as any other white man but forced to claim african american, (to no shame of his) due to a great great great ancestor being of mixed descent. they have done studies and most african americans are comprised of 15 percent or more of caucasian ancestry. the head of the NAACP himself test as being comprised of 55 percent white dna inheritance.

----------


## RA

Black father white mother. You should have heard a black minister in harlem talking about it. Every word made me pissed. (hes a hillary supporter)




> I dont live in America and just see all this political American waffle from a distance, but isnt this guys mother white and his father black or visa a versa ?

----------


## RA

> if you take a minority member from an equal background (wealth, class, prestige) as a white male and they both pursue the same education, at the same school, with the same gpa. on average the white man will earn almost twice as much in income as that minority member who works the same amount of time untill retirement.


 
Keep holding onto that notion so you have an excuse for failure.

----------


## youngerlion

> , show us a reference to this.


do a goole search on sholarly articles on the subject, you will find much data to back this. my numbers are somewhat off but they are not even comparing minority women to that of white men so i somewhat averaged to compensate for the dual-earning households in place today. you could take a sociology course on ethnic minority groups at your local university and further your knowledge of this important subject.

"Interracial differences in lifetime earnings are shown to be due primarily to differences in economic oppurtunity, rather than differences in socioeconomicbackground" c 1978 cornell university ALLAN G KING and CHARLES B. KNAPP

----------


## youngerlion

> Keep holding onto that notion so you have an excuse for failure.


KEEP BEING IGNORANT SO YOU CAN CONTINUE TO JUSTIFY YOUR UNEARNED PRIVILEGES AND LIMITED PARADIGM

----------


## youngerlion

SEE like i thought. only hateful bigotry on the subject . no intelligent/ objective thought with any backing besides hate and frustarion at the misinformation you eat willingly and if your not from the states. why do you share your uneducated opinion Roidattack? no one made any excuses. i just stated facts that you seem to be ashamed/ angry about with no purpose or any educational fact. I get nothing from this and im a successful educated minority that wanted to have an intelligent conversation. guess im at the wrong place.

----------


## RA

You sound young and pissed. I have no intention of having an e-duel with you. If you want to believe Im hateful and bigoted then go ahead...Maybe you will see the point I was trying to make sometime.




> SEE like i thought. only hateful bigotry on the subject . no intelligent/ objective thought with any backing besides hate and frustarion at the misinformation you eat at FOX and if your not from the states. why do you share your uneducated opinion Roidattack?

----------


## youngerlion

> You sound young and pissed. I have no intention of having an e-duel with you. If you want to believe Im hateful and bigoted then go ahead...Maybe you will see the point I was trying to make sometime.


you had no point. You are stating a subjective opinion with no facts. im not mad. just sad that your so ignorant, you really think u said something clever?

----------


## youngerlion

> do a goole search on sholarly articles on the subject, you will find much data to back this. my numbers are somewhat off but they are not even comparing minority women to that of white men so i somewhat averaged to compensate for the dual-earning households in place today. you could take a sociology course on ethnic minority groups at your local university and further your knowledge of this important subject.
> 
> "Interracial differences in lifetime earnings are shown to be due primarily to differences are shown to be due primarily to differences in economic oppurtunity, rather than differences in socioeconomicbackground" c 1978 cornell university ALLAN G KING and CHARLES B. KNAPP



lol, and still the bs flag. you dont have any facts or intelligent reasoning on the subject but you say im bs. that is funny. like i said , unearned privileges. its sad. read up on some mccintosh

----------


## RA

Its not clever its the truth. People will use whatever crutch they can to excuse themselves for not having enough money, a nicer car, etc. Its human nature. Ive just noticed that most of the time when people are citing stats like the one you had they are trying to blame someone else for their lack of success in life.




> you had no point. You are stating a subjective opinion with no facts. im not mad. just sad that your so ignorant, you really think u said something clever?

----------


## youngerlion

lol. stats are data comprised from a sample group or pop. to gather facts and inferences about a phenomonon that is being studied. just in case you didnt know. You still seem confused. im not blaming any entity for this data. just making an inference. you seem to have a guilty conscience from years of imperialistic bigotry. calm down. actually read before you make a conclusion jump and educate yourself.

----------


## kfrost06

Roid don't you know by now, if you disagree you are _ignorant_? Sure see that word being thrown around a lot. Why always resort to name calling? hmm. facts don't work so name calling is the only opition.

----------


## kfrost06

nice bling bling weapons in your avatar younglion.

----------


## youngerlion

ignorant is actually not a derogatory statement. it means you are not aware of something. it seems alot of white men arent. this seems to be the biggest problem with America to me. have a nice life with that limited paradigm your parents provided you with. good day bigots.

----------


## RA

> lol. stats are data comprised form a sample group or pop. to gather facts and inferences about a phenomonon that is being studied. just in case you didnt know. You still seem confused. im not blaming any entity for this data. just making an inference. *you seem to have a guilty conscience from years of imperialistic bigotry*. calm down. actually read before you make a conclusion jump and educate yourself.


 :Haha:  I kind of like you but if you keep running around the board using inflammatory statements your going to get suspended/banned. Just a warning bro.

----------


## Act of God

Must....resist...insults

----------


## Act of God

> , show us a reference to this.


+1, completely ridiculous and statistically impossible to ascertain because all things will NEVER be equal.

----------


## kfrost06

> ignorant is actually not a derogatory statement. it means you are not aware of something. it seems alot of white men arent. this seems to be the biggest problem with America to me. have a nice life with that limited paradigm your parents provided you with. good day bigots.


Well, we know Obamas pastor is full of hate and name calling I quess it should be expected that some of Obamas supporters are the same.

----------


## Fat Guy

> Are you serious? Those two things will be the downfall of the American Economy. I'm being dead honest here, research and re-think your stance on that.


 :Haha: What are you one of the last Bush supporters standing??? 

I think the question here is Are you serious?  : 893Buttkick Thumb: 

Maybe if you did some research and rethought your position you might enlighten yourself to a better understanding of how universal healthcare and strong unions make the world a better place for many and not just a select rich few  :Ccsmilie Flagge13: 
but that is a whole other thread isn't it?

Peace  :AaAuto26: 


Vote Obama!  :Welcome: 


Smiles are fun!

----------


## Act of God

> What are you one of the last Bush supporters standing??? 
> 
> Maybe if you did some research and rethought your position you might enlighten yourself to a better understanding of how universal healthcare and strong unions make the world a better place for many and not just a select rich few


1. Not a Bush supporter. He is far from conservative and far too religious and morally righteous.

2. It is a fact that labor unions are ruining the American corporations. Sorry, but unskilled line assembly workers don't need or deserve to make $100,000 a year. Subway booth workers don't need or deserve $80,000. Teachers work half the days of the year, they surely don't need....you get the point.

You want to know why we're sending all of our work out of the country? Look no further. Additionally, it creates a sense of entitlement and production goes down once the union job is secured. I'm an honors graduate in Economics and studied labor and employment law throughout lawschool, this is kinda my area of knowledge.

3. Universal healthcare ran by the US Government is nothing but a pitfall. If you want comparison go look at Canada. Sure "everyone" has health care, but what happens when you get really sick? I'll tell you what happens, you wait. You wait, and you wait some more. In fact, most wealthy Canadians come to the United States when they really need medical attention. Additionally, the private medical industry attracts the best and the brightest.

The US Government couldn't get water to New Orleans after Katrina, you think they are going to get you that bypass surgery a week after diagnosis? Think again.

Additionally, no one in their right mind would give up their existing coverage for this government crap health care (by the way, look at how nicely ran the VA hospitals are). So now you have people paying for their own health care, along with paying for other people's health care.

Ahh, you just love the welfare state. I bet you just walk around with your hands out expecting gold coins to drop from the sky...or at least to be dropped off in the mail.

Grow up.

----------


## BgMc31

We all know conservative white men will use the 'personal responsibility' to deny obvious racism and racial disparity in this country.

Here is a study by the Brookings Institute:

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007...te_isaacs.aspx

I hope we can agree that the Brookings Institute is credible.

So lets not deny the obvious as that is the main reason why we can never get past this issue of race and racism.

As far as the general election is concerned, I don't believe Obama has a chance to win (although I am supporting him). The 90%+ of voting eligible blacks (voting eligible being the important terminology) is much less than the 15% of whites who won't vote for him because he's black. 

The 8% that admitted to their racial bias is merely a speck of those with true feelings. The only difference is those who won't admit it use some othe excuse to hide their own prejudice even from themselves.

And don't get me started on Reagan. If you believe the man didn't court bigots and the white vote and systematically ignoring blacks completely (trickle down economics, the crack epidemic, etc.), I have some ocean front property in Vegas to sell you!

----------


## BgMc31

Ok,ok,ok, maybe McCain made a mistake by accepting Hagee's endorsement. True he wasn't his 'spiritual advisor', but what about the guy McCain did admit to being his 'spiritual advisor', Rod Parsely? His rhetoric is even more vile than Wrights. I don't see Hannity doing an in-depth investigation on him, or KFrost linking McCain's ideology to his. CAN WE SAY "HYPOCRISY"!

----------


## Act of God

> And don't get me started on Reagan. If you believe the man didn't court bigots and the white vote and systematically ignoring blacks completely (trickle down economics, the crack epidemic, etc.), I have some ocean front property in Vegas to sell you!


1. Trickle down economics works, you don't build from the ground up. Additionally, it has also been proven that increased taxes lower government revenue and the inverse is true as well. So much for Democrat economics.

2. Crack epidemic? elaborate please. I pray to god you aren't going to say something that qualifies as "tin foil hat".

----------


## BgMc31

> 1. Trickle down economics works, you don't build from the ground up. Additionally, it has also been proven that increased taxes lower government revenue and the inverse is true as well. So much for Democrat economics.
> 
> 2. Crack epidemic? elaborate please. I pray to god you aren't going to say something that qualifies as "tin foil hat".


Check the stats my friend. Although America did have an economic upswing during the Reagan administration, the wealth gap between blacks and whites widened and blacks, as a whole, didn't experience the benefits of this economic upswing.

Crack epidemic was largely ignored during Reagan's administration until it began to affect white America. Whole swaths of urban communities that were once working class neighborhoods were dessimated by crack, but it wasn't recognized until late into Reagan's administration. Even still the whole 'Just Say No' campaign was a joke.

----------


## Act of God

> Check the stats my friend. Although America did have an economic upswing during the Reagan administration, the wealth gap between blacks and whites widened and blacks, as a whole, didn't experience the benefits of this economic upswing.
> 
> Crack epidemic was largely ignored during Reagan's administration until it began to affect white America. Whole swaths of urban communities that were once working class neighborhoods were dessimated by crack, but it wasn't recognized until late into Reagan's administration. Even still the whole 'Just Say No' campaign was a joke.


I know economics and loosening the belt up top leads to better salaries, more jobs, faster growth, more investment in the future and more opportunities. This is a fact, without question.

I don't think Reagan intentionally ignored crack, but once it did start to creep out of the ghettos it became a more pronounced problem. At that time blacks were like 10% of the population in America. Only a portion of those blacks were using crack before it went prime time. I really don't see how that is the president's problem. Is he supposed to make sure no one does anything bad? He isn't santa claus, he isn't all knowing.

Additionally, it is not within the president's (intended) powers to make sure we aren't doing drugs. Clean up your own house, don't wait for someone to come do it for you.

----------


## Fat Guy

> 1. Trickle down economics works.


................. :Haha: 

You believe this to be true and you told me to grow up…. Now that’s funny.  :AaGreen22: 

You are a cowboy hat wearing, gun toting, flag waving, kill em all and let god sort em out, laissez-faire republicans aren’t you? 
Now your comments all makes sense now that we have a better perspective on your politics…. Yep, Yep Yee Hah!!!!  :Shoot: 

Ohh and two more things… Universal Healthcare for all and Live Better Work Union.

Vote Obama 2008!

----------


## Kratos

IDK, ignore the crack problem and you're a racist...Make penalties tough and you're a racist puting the black man in jail.

As for Obama, I think he'll get more than a fair go at the presidency. If people want to vote on race, that's stupid but that's also what makes it America.

----------


## BgMc31

> I know economics and loosening the belt up top leads to better salaries, more jobs, faster growth, more investment in the future and more opportunities. This is a fact, without question.
> 
> I don't think Reagan intentionally ignored crack, but once it did start to creep out of the ghettos it became a more pronounced problem. At that time blacks were like 10% of the population in America. Only a portion of those blacks were using crack before it went prime time. I really don't see how that is the president's problem. Is he supposed to make sure no one does anything bad? He isn't santa claus, he isn't all knowing.
> 
> Additionally, it is not within the president's (intended) powers to make sure we aren't doing drugs. Clean up your own house, don't wait for someone to come do it for you.


I'm not disputing trickle down economics works...in theory. But in theory communism works and we all know that when put to actual use, communism just like trick down economics doesn't work.

The problem with trickle down economics is it doesn't trickle down far enough. And poor economic times has a direct impact on drug/alcohol use and crime. Crack exploded in the inner city because of a depressed state of the economy in those areas. And so the president IS directly responsible and since he is the head of the country he should be responsible for taking care of his entire house not just the part that 'company' sees.

BTW, blacks at that time made up almost 15% of the population not 10% (actually census reports say 13%).

----------


## Act of God

> .................
> 
> You believe this to be true and you told me to grow up. Now thats funny. 
> 
> You are a cowboy hat wearing, gun toting, flag waving, kill em all and let god sort em out, laissez-faire republicans arent you? 
> Now your comments all makes sense now that we have a better perspective on your politics. Yep, Yep Yee Hah!!!! 
> 
> Ohh and two more things Universal Healthcare for all and Live Better Work Union.
> 
> Vote Obama 2008!



Don't own a cowboy hat
Don't own a gun
Don't own a flag
Not a republican

next?

----------


## Fat Guy

> Don't own a cowboy hat
> Don't own a gun
> Don't own a flag
> Not a republican
> 
> next?


How about**:
A fan of John Tesh or 
A corporate shill or
A floating green turd in the punch bowl of life 

IDK you pick one :Welcome:

----------


## J431S

> The Associated Press noted that McCain drew a crowd Monday of about 100 people that was mostly white, although, as the campaign noted, Selmas population is 70 percent black. 
> 
> I am aware the African-American vote has been very small in favor of the Republican Party; I am aware of the challenges, and I am aware of the fact that there will be many people who will not vote for me, McCain said. But Im going to be the president of all the people. 
> 
> Which was an intriguing point: Sure, there are voters who will not vote for Obama under any circumstances, but McCain was saying there are also voters who will not vote for him under any circumstances. 
> 
> But which group, if either one, will hold the balance of power in November?


wow! race is definite going to be an inevitable factor in November. let's wait and see how it will unfold.

----------


## thegodfather

*Carlos&Others-* I think it is naive to assume that the poll did not take into account the amount of people who would not vote for Obama based on the fact that he is black, and simply failed to indicate so. I would assume the people doing this polling take into account a certain percentage of people who are afraid to admit this to a pollster and have already factored that into the 8%. Of course, people with a racial agenda will always try to state things like "Man if its 8% and they admitted it JUST THINK how many people it really is." 


*Youngerlion.* If you are in fact a Sociologist, I think you may have skipped over the communications&English courses because your grammar and composition skills are seriously lacking. Anyway, if you are going to try to talk race and actually know what you are talking about, then you may as well ACTUALLY know the terms you are trying to use. You referred to a number of things, none of which you knew the concrete definitions of. For instance, Color-Blind Racism, Status Continium, Marginal Equality and Marginal Inequality. The definition of Color-Blind Racism, is basically a situation where a person will deny that racism actually exists in a particular area, essentially saying there is no problem, turning a blind eye to it. I could elaborate further on this. When you speak to "unearned priviledges," you are talking about perpetual racism, or what you could referr to as the status continium. Whites in the past made legislation and other moves to ensure the perpetuation of white priviledge. Although this is true of the past, this is no longer a relevant theory. Many people today HAVE benefitted from the moves their ancestors made, but it is in no way shape or form their fault, their problem, or their responsibility to rectify the problem through any sort of reperations. 

It's very easy for people to try and speak in terms of groups. The black vote, the white vote, the latino vote, the yellow vote, the gay vote, the senior vote. It really makes me sick to be honest. There is some truth to the fact that some people are way too racially oriented. We sit around worrying about WHY someone is going to vote for a particular candidate. Some people are going to get bent out of shape because they THINK that some other people aren't going to vote for Obama because he is black. Other people are going to get bent out of shape because they THINK some other people will vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black. I really just need to ask, who gives a fu*k in either case? Why are some of you people so concerned with the motivations of other people? In a truely liberal society people are free to make decisions and do what they like based on any motivations they might have. It is really none of your concern if someone doesn't vote for Obama because they're a card holding member of the KKK. Additionally, its none of your concern if someone votes for Obama because they're a card holding member of the Black Panthers. There is way too much energy exhausted on trying to place individuals into group based on any number of characteristics. 

There are in fact legitimate instances of racism, prejudice, and stereotyping. Unfortunately, the number of instances pales in comparison to the number of morons that pull any one of those cards at the drop of a fu*king hat, ruining it for the people with legitimate greivances over such instances. 


*BgMc31*- Im unsure of what you were referring to with the crack problem. If you are speaking about the unequal sentencing guidelines then I might be inclined to see your point. I thought for a second you might be implying that crack was introduced to the ghettos by the US government in order to "further subjugate the black man." Anyone who believes that need check themselves into a mental institution as soon as possible. 

Anyway, it really should not be the role of the President to deal with drug issues in American cities. Those issues are delegated to other government agencies. The President needs to worry about setting foreign policy, ensuring we have sound currency, and the continuity of government. Other then that, the role of the President or government in general should be extremely limited. You know me, I'm a Republican(libertarian), I dont think that the government has any right legislating drugs or any other substance for that matter. As such, I think there needs to be a certain level of personal accountability among people. So long as people are being provided the same opportunities and are competing on an equal playing field then there should be no need to bitch about racism and other such things. Unfortunately, and shamefully, my conservative brethern have ignored the inequities that exist in society and turn a blind eye to the problems plaguing the country. There is no easy solution.

----------


## thegodfather

*Fat Guy*- Fortunately for me, you are not qualified to make decisions on Universal Healthcare and economics which would have consequences for 350 million people other than yourself. If I'm wrong, then of course feel free to put your credentials on the table. Act of God has certainly brought his.

Universal Healthcare. This policy has a deleterious effect on society for a number of reasons. *1st,* when you acquiesce the right to make decisions over your health to the government, you have essentially given up all freedom to big brother. A universal healthcare system makes the individual much less free and now previous aspects that the individual had autonomy from the state over, no longer exists. *2nd,* when government gets involved in anything, they become horribly ineffecient. It is a rather simple equation when government takes over*-"costs go UP, quality goes DOWN"*. The quality of healthcare is systematically driven down over time, while the costs continue to rise. This can be seen in many areas where government is involved, the Department of Motor Vehicles- these people cannot even issue drivers licenses correctly.* 3rd*, as costs continue to rise, this entitlement program must get money from somewhere, and for that they must either RAISE TAXES or PRINT MONEY, which in essence is RAISING TAXES. This means the government is forced to steal an ever increasing percentage of the American workers income. This is Socialism at its finest. *4th*, as quality goes down, and the healthcare system becomes grossly ineffecient, situations like Canada and the US increase. People are put on extremely long waiting lists in order to get surgical procedures done. I could go on and on but I need some sleep...I'll continue this tomorrow...

----------


## Oki-Des

This is the first time a woman or a black man has run for president. I think this is a great step forward for our country regardless of whether they win or even receive a large percentage of votes. Everything takes time and both of these individuals have made history regardless of their color or sex.

----------


## kfrost06

> Ok,ok,ok, maybe McCain made a mistake by accepting Hagee's endorsement. True he wasn't his 'spiritual advisor', but what about the guy McCain did admit to being his 'spiritual advisor', Rod Parsely? His rhetoric is even more vile than Wrights. I don't see Hannity doing an in-depth investigation on him, or KFrost linking McCain's ideology to his. CAN WE SAY "HYPOCRISY"!


bgmc, please stop calling me names. I do not support McCain, in fact I hate him, you should know that by my previous post. It just so happens I hate all 3 canidates, I will probable write in my own name  :Wink/Grin:

----------


## kfrost06

> 2. It is a fact that *labor unions are ruining the American corporations*. Sorry, but unskilled line assembly workers don't need or deserve to make $100,000 a year. Subway booth workers don't need or deserve $80,000. Teachers work half the days of the year, they surely don't need....you get the point.


+1 on that, look at detroit for just one example. Uniouns are lke a cancer, they destroy everything and then eventually have nothing left.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Obama tends to win states that have either a) virtually no African-American population, and therefore minimal white-black racial tension; or b) states with an African-American population substantial enough (greater than 17%) to overwhelm the votes of the "racially motivated white vote."


April 23, 2008 6:36 AM

Pennsylvania & the Persistence of the Race Chasm

A few weeks ago, I published an article in In These Times showing how Hillary Clinton has been winning states almost exclusively in the Race Chasm - states whose populations are more than 6 percent but less than 17 percent black. The results of the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania - a state whose demographics fall squarely in the Race Chasm - continue the trend.

I have hypothesized that the Race Chasm exists because of racial politics. Specifically, in states where there is almost no black population, black-white racial politics has little traction because it isn't part of the political dialect. In states where there is a very large black population, the black vote can offset a racially motivated white vote. But in the Race Chasm, the black vote is too small to offset a racially motivated white vote.

So how prevalent was race as a factor in voting in Pennsylvania? The exit polls suggest that when Gov. Ed Rendell previously said race would be a huge factor, he was absolutely correct. Specifically, page 4 and 5 of the CNN exit poll show a whopping 19 percent of Pennsylvania voters said race was an important factor in their vote, with Clinton winning almost 60 percent of that segment. Broken down further, 13 percent of the white vote said race was a major factor in their vote, with Clinton winning 75 percent of that group.

These are big numbers, especially considering the fact that these numbers only represent voters who are willing to admit to pollsters they are voting on race. The real number is probably much higher, because some voters may not want to disclose such taboo voting habits.

Let me reiterate something I wrote in my original Race Chasm analysis:

_Clearly, race is not the only force moving votes. Demographic groups -- white, black or any other -- do not vote as monoliths. Additionally, the Race Chasm does not mean every white voter who votes against Obama nor every black voter who supports Obama is racially motivated._

However, considering the exit polling and the fact that Pennsylvania falls squarely in the demographic Race Chasm, it is clear that those who continue to pretend race is not a major factor in this campaign are deliberately averting their eyes from a very powerful force in the Democratic primary.


*Exit poll data:*


*Race of Candidate Was...
*Most Important: None
One of Several: 55% voted Clinton 45% voted Obama
Not Important: 53% voted Clinton 47% voted Obama

*Was Race of Candidate Important to you
*Yes: 59% voted Clinton 41% voted Obama 
No: 53% voted Clinton 47% voted Obama 

Whites Who Say Yes: 75% voted Clinton 25% voted Obama
Whites Who Say No: 58% voted Clinton 42% voted Obama
Blacks Who Say Yes: None
Blacks Who Say No: 9% voted Clinton 91% voted Obama
All Others: 52% voted Clinton 48% voted Obama


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...dex.html#PADEM

----------


## gixxerboy1

> +1 on that, look at detroit for just one example. Uniouns are lke a cancer, they destroy everything and then eventually have nothing left.


+2 unions suck

----------


## Carlos_E

*Was Race of Candidate Important to you
Blacks Who Say Yes: None*

People are saying Blacks are voting for Obama because he's Black. It looks like the polling data doesn't support the accusation.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> *Was Race of Candidate Important to you
> Blacks Who Say Yes: None*
> 
> People are saying Blacks are voting for Obama because he's Black. It looks like the polling data doesn't support the accusation.


but wasnt that the only group he won in pa? I'm asking not sure

----------


## Carlos_E

> but wasnt that the only group he won in pa? I'm asking not sure


No, that's not true. I posted a link to the polling data. He cut into Clinton's base a bit. He improved from Ohio with White men, and older voters. (Clinton's base.) 

Obama wins Blacks, people below the age of 39 and people will higher education and income. I think young people and people with higher education and income have more exposure to racial diversity so race isn't as big an issue.

CNN polling data:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...dex.html#PADEM

----------


## BgMc31

> bgmc, please stop calling me names. I do not support McCain, in fact I hate him, you should know that by my previous post. It just so happens I hate all 3 canidates, I will probable write in my own name


Kfrost, stop whining and read my post again! I didn't call you a hypocrit, I said you were guilty of hypocrisy. Which you are! You and other conservatives/republicans on this forum and in this country in general have all continued to lambast Obama for his association with Rev. Wright but you all have totally ignored McCains association with Hagee and Parsely. If you don't ignore it you attempt to explain it away as if it isn't a big deal. All I'm asking is if you are going to be critical of candidates questionable associations, make sure you do the same for all the candidates otherwie you are quilty of...HYPOCRISY!

----------


## SMCengineer

> *Carlos&Others-* I think it is naive to assume that the poll did not take into account the amount of people who would not vote for Obama based on the fact that he is black, and simply failed to indicate so. I would assume the people doing this polling take into account a certain percentage of people who are afraid to admit this to a pollster and have already factored that into the 8%. Of course, people with a racial agenda will always try to state things like "Man if its 8% and they admitted it JUST THINK how many people it really is." 
> 
> 
> *Youngerlion.* If you are in fact a Sociologist, I think you may have skipped over the communications&English courses because your grammar and composition skills are seriously lacking. Anyway, if you are going to try to talk race and actually know what you are talking about, then you may as well ACTUALLY know the terms you are trying to use. You referred to a number of things, none of which you knew the concrete definitions of. For instance, Color-Blind Racism, Status Continium, Marginal Equality and Marginal Inequality. The definition of Color-Blind Racism, is basically a situation where a person will deny that racism actually exists in a particular area, essentially saying there is no problem, turning a blind eye to it. I could elaborate further on this. When you speak to "unearned priviledges," you are talking about perpetual racism, or what you could referr to as the status continium. Whites in the past made legislation and other moves to ensure the perpetuation of white priviledge. Although this is true of the past, this is no longer a relevant theory. Many people today HAVE benefitted from the moves their ancestors made, but it is in no way shape or form their fault, their problem, or their responsibility to rectify the problem through any sort of reperations. 
> 
> It's very easy for people to try and speak in terms of groups. The black vote, the white vote, the latino vote, the yellow vote, the gay vote, the senior vote. It really makes me sick to be honest. There is some truth to the fact that some people are way too racially oriented. We sit around worrying about WHY someone is going to vote for a particular candidate. Some people are going to get bent out of shape because they THINK that some other people aren't going to vote for Obama because he is black. Other people are going to get bent out of shape because they THINK some other people will vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black. I really just need to ask, who gives a fu*k in either case? Why are some of you people so concerned with the motivations of other people? In a truely liberal society people are free to make decisions and do what they like based on any motivations they might have. It is really none of your concern if someone doesn't vote for Obama because they're a card holding member of the KKK. Additionally, its none of your concern if someone votes for Obama because they're a card holding member of the Black Panthers. There is way too much energy exhausted on trying to place individuals into group based on any number of characteristics. 
> 
> There are in fact legitimate instances of racism, prejudice, and stereotyping. Unfortunately, the number of instances pales in comparison to the number of morons that pull any one of those cards at the drop of a fu*king hat, ruining it for the people with legitimate greivances over such instances. 
> 
> ...


Nice! Exactly my thoughts.

----------


## SMCengineer

> *Fat Guy*- Fortunately for me, you are not qualified to make decisions on Universal Healthcare and economics which would have consequences for 350 million people other than yourself. If I'm wrong, then of course feel free to put your credentials on the table. Act of God has certainly brought his.
> 
> Universal Healthcare. This policy has a deleterious effect on society for a number of reasons. *1st,* when you acquiesce the right to make decisions over your health to the government, you have essentially given up all freedom to big brother. A universal healthcare system makes the individual much less free and now previous aspects that the individual had autonomy from the state over, no longer exists. *2nd,* when government gets involved in anything, they become horribly ineffecient. It is a rather simple equation when government takes over*-"costs go UP, quality goes DOWN"*. The quality of healthcare is systematically driven down over time, while the costs continue to rise. This can be seen in many areas where government is involved, the Department of Motor Vehicles- these people cannot even issue drivers licenses correctly.* 3rd*, as costs continue to rise, this entitlement program must get money from somewhere, and for that they must either RAISE TAXES or PRINT MONEY, which in essence is RAISING TAXES. This means the government is forced to steal an ever increasing percentage of the American workers income. This is Socialism at its finest. *4th*, as quality goes down, and the healthcare system becomes grossly ineffecient, situations like Canada and the US increase. People are put on extremely long waiting lists in order to get surgical procedures done. I could go on and on but I need some sleep...I'll continue this tomorrow...


I'll add one obvious point: Government got us into this mess to begin with, which started with HMO's and the ERISA law in the early 1970's. Now that we're seeing the affects of quasi-socialized healthcare, we purpose more government intervention instead reversing our mistakes. The free market would have prevented sky rocketing healthcare costs and HMO's. History repeats itself! Learn from it.

----------


## Tock

> 1. Trickle down economics works, you don't build from the ground up. Additionally, it has also been proven that increased taxes lower government revenue and the inverse is true as well. So much for Democrat economics.


Reduced government revenue results in smaller government, which is what conservative Republicans say they want. So . . . let's raise taxes, eh?

----------


## Kratos

Just curious BigMc31 when the last time it was you took such intrest in a primary election? Does race factor in your decision to support Barrack?

----------


## Carlos_E

> Does race factor in your decision to support Barrack?


Your question is funny.  :LOL:  I know you directed your question to BigMc31 but I'm going to throw in my two cents.

Obama won 92% of the Black vote. From PA exit polling. 

*Was Race of Candidate Important to you*
Blacks Who Say Yes: *None*

Maybe we support his platform and feel he is a better candidate than Clinton. I think 20-30% are anti Clinton votes. She was getting around 30% of the Black vote before her campaign started race baiting in South Carolina. It pissed people off. He's won 90% ever since.

----------


## Kratos

I'm not saying all black people, just curious for bgMc31 if he is really honest if race is an issue.

I'm saying there is no advantage or disadvantage to being black as a candidate for president. Some voters are pulled in that might not otherwise vote..I gave directions to the polls to a black family that has obviously never voted before in their life and now they are voting in a primary. Some white people are bigots no doubt so you loose that vote, but most aren't. In fact I would say a lot of white Americans may gravitate to Obama because he is black. Black guy taking about someone knew and different and calling for change...and he looks like someone new and different.

In the end it's what the American people want so it doesn't matter. If the majority of the country wants Obama that's who we get regardless of why. You are free to choose what matters to you.

Obama was a little known, and Hilary a dominant force in the beginning of the primary's. Once Oprah got her big ass behind Barrack and he also became the candidate of MSN and Nbcnews. Black people then knew there was a viable black candidate for president, so I don't think your data is relevant. But, I'm for sure not calling all black people racist.

----------


## thegodfather

> In the end it's what the American people want so it doesn't matter. If the majority of the country wants Obama that's who we get regardless of why. You are free to choose what matters to you.



Unfortunately thats just not true. The Electoral College see's to it that the "right" person gets put into office, and not the person that the American people necessarily elect. If the popular vote and the electoral college vote happen to coincide, it is just a matter of convienience.

----------


## Act of God

> Your question is funny.  I know you directed your question to BigMc31 but I'm going to throw in my two cents.
> 
> Obama won 92% of the Black vote. From PA exit polling. 
> 
> *Was Race of Candidate Important to you*
> Blacks Who Say Yes: *None*
> 
> Maybe we support his platform and feel he is a better candidate than Clinton. I think 20-30% are anti Clinton votes. She was getting around 30% of the Black vote before her campaign started race baiting in South Carolina. It pissed people off. He's won 90% ever since.


I'm sorry bro, I'm not buying it. Just like you aren't buying the 8% factor. It is just a little to convenient that Obama is getting ALL the black vote, considering Clinton was very very popular with blacks for a longggg time. Frankly, I find it a bit naive to not even question the motives behind it.

----------


## Act of God

> Reduced government revenue results in smaller government, which is what conservative Republicans say they want. So . . . let's raise taxes, eh?


If you look at history and facts, you see that lowering taxes increases government revenue EVERY TIME, without question. Similarly, raising taxes always lowers revenue.

For example, if you raise the capital gains tax people are less likely to invest in ways that expose them to capital gains. Since there is less investment the government collects less, even though the rate itself is higher. If you lower the capital gains tax it encourages more people, more investment, more money which, in turn, creates more tax revenue.

Imagine if a gas station is selling gas for $4. They make 100 sales a day for $400. The place across the street is selling for $3, which attracts 200 sales a day. They make $600. It really is that simple.

----------


## Carlos_E

> I'm sorry bro, I'm not buying it. Just like you aren't buying the 8% factor. It is just a little to convenient that Obama is getting ALL the black vote, considering Clinton was very very popular with blacks for a longggg time. Frankly, I find it a bit naive to not even question the motives behind it.


So you're saying every Black person lied in the exit poll? They said race of the candidate was not considered. 

I'll repeat:




> I think 20-30% are anti Clinton votes. She was getting around 30% of the Black vote before her campaign started race baiting in South Carolina. It pissed people off. He's won 90% and higher ever since.


The Clintons had the support of the Black community until South Carolina. If Black people voted for him because he's Black the numbers would have been higher in previous states. The numbers shot up in South Carolina after Bill Clinton and campaign surrogates started race baiting. His vote went to 80%. After Geraldine Ferraro's ignorant racial comments, his numbers went to 90%. That's why I said I think 20-30% are anti Clinton votes. I have Black female friends at work who voted for Clinton and now after everything her campaign has done and said they're donating money to Obama's campaign. The Clinton's have no one but themselves to blame for losing the Black vote. You piss people off, they will not vote for you!

----------


## Kratos

> Unfortunately thats just not true. The Electoral College see's to it that the "right" person gets put into office, and not the person that the American people necessarily elect. If the popular vote and the electoral college vote happen to coincide, it is just a matter of convienience.


ummm, I know...lets leave that alone for now.

----------


## Kratos

c'mon Carlos...no black people care about seeing a black person in the office of president...cough cough bullshit. No way are 90% of black people voting on race, but to say the percentage is none, I just don't believe you believe that.

----------


## Kratos

> If you look at history and facts, you see that lowering taxes increases government revenue EVERY TIME, without question. Similarly, raising taxes always lowers revenue.
> 
> For example, if you raise the capital gains tax people are less likely to invest in ways that expose them to capital gains. Since there is less investment the government collects less, even though the rate itself is higher. If you lower the capital gains tax it encourages more people, more investment, more money which, in turn, creates more tax revenue.
> 
> Imagine if a gas station is selling gas for $4. They make 100 sales a day for $400. The place across the street is selling for $3, which attracts 200 sales a day. They make $600. It really is that simple.


It is very likely we are past the peak of the curve. The bottom line of economics is that we can't provide more benifits and keep increasing govement spending if our economy isn't producing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

----------


## Act of God

> So you're saying every Black person lied in the exit poll? They said race of the candidate was not considered. 
> 
> I'll repeat:
> 
> 
> 
> The Clintons had the support of the Black community until South Carolina. If Black people voted for him because he's Black the numbers would have been higher in previous states. The numbers shot up in South Carolina after Bill Clinton and campaign surrogates started race baiting. His vote went to 80%. After Geraldine Ferraro's ignorant racial comments, his numbers went to 90%. That's why I said I think 20-30% are anti Clinton votes. I have Black female friends at work who voted for Clinton and now after everything her campaign has done and said they're donating money to Obama's campaign. The Clinton's have no one but themselves to blame for losing the Black vote. You piss people off, they will not vote for you!


I know this is completely anecdotal but I'm watching similar conversations on about 5 other boards (mostly automobile and sports related). Dead honest, in every board the biggest and most vocal Obama pushers are black guys. Do I think blacks lied in the exit polls? Yes, to an extent. Admitting you are voting for someone because he is black takes away from that person's accomplishments and blacks are very wary of being branded with getting something purely because of their skin color. I went to school with a bunch of black dudes (college and law school) who will never admit that being black had anything to do with their acceptance (even though they had sub par grades/LSAT's). At the same time, I know super rich white kids who will never admit that their daddy got them a job or got them into school. People in general, I guess, like to pretend they earned everything themselves even when they didn't.

You clearly have no problem assuming whites lied in their exit poll numbers, but all of a sudden believing blacks did is crazy? Come on man, let's be honest with ourselves. People tend to vote for people who look like them or who they feel comfortable/relatable to, period. Asians vote for Asians. Hispanics vote for Hispanics. Whites for for Whites. That is human nature, blacks are no different.

I'm fairly certain the black population of America aren't Marxist socialists, so I'm willing to believe there are other factors involved with the BO love affair.

----------


## Act of God

> It is very likely we are past the peak of the curve. The bottom line of economics is that we can't provide more benifits and keep increasing govement spending if our economy isn't producing.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve


Benefits need to be cut, regardless. Universal health care will only sink us further. The federal government is supposed to collect federal taxes, provide armed forces, maintain infrastructure and not much else. They aren't supposed to educate our children, run our healthcare, etc.

----------


## BgMc31

> Just curious BigMc31 when the last time it was you took such intrest in a primary election? Does race factor in your decision to support Barrack?


I'm 34 and have always taken a great interest in politics. The 1st time I voted, I voted for Clinton. As a youngster I knew that Jesse Jackson wouldn't make a good president. And I thought the same about Al Sharpton. I support Barack because he would make a better president than Hillary or McCain. The reason being is McCain would just further the Bush doctrine, and Hillary is politics as usual. We need something different.

I know the next question, where do hillary and barack differ? Big difference is their healthcare plans. Hillary will demand that everyone have it, while Barack wants to ensure that everyone has access to good afforable healthcare. There is a major difference between the two. One is socialized medical care, the other is equal access.

----------


## Kratos

I wasn't trying to pick on you BgMc, I'm just sure the percentage isn't zero. There is some percentage of black people who do care about race, I'm confident of that. I hate all the candidates this election.

----------


## BigLittleTim

With all the emphasis on the _black/white_ voter split, I thought it would be interesting to look at why so many _gay and lesbian voters_ don't trust Obama and are still supporting Hillary Clinton. (Appologies to Carlos.) 

From *Michaelangelo Signorile's* website: _"http://www.Signorile.com"_ 

"Obama! Hillary! McClurkin! I finally figured it out this week while listening to the show. We're all still in High School. 

See, Barack Obama is the adorable A-student who's the captain of the debate team AND the baseball team. We all had a raging crush on him. Every single one of us. And unlike the other popular kids, he would actually talk to us. He'd walk with us to class and talk to us about our favorite TV shows and music groups. And he'd defend us against the bullies, even the ones that were his friends. 

His smile was just so beautiful and honest, and once in a great while we'd see what almost looked like a wink when he was talking to us. "He knows, doesn't he? Did he just wink at me? Oh my god, does Barack feel the same way I do?" It was then that we asked him out. He smiled, gave us a little uncomfortable laugh, then got up and walked away to say hi to his other friends, without ever answering us. He rejected us without having the decency to reject us. And he'd still nod hello to us in the hallway, though he seemed to go out of his way to avoid talking directly to us. 

Barack had a Spring Break party when his parents were out of town. We didn't really expect to be invited, and we told ourselves that we didn't care, but we did. We cared, and we cared deeply, because we still loved him. Then we found out that he invited that jerk Donnie McClurkin to his party. Donnie McClurkin, who dumped us and spread all those nasty, awful rumors about us. As much as we hate to admit it, at that point something just snapped. We couldn't believe that he would invite Donnie, who had done such awful things to us! That was it, that was the last straw. 

We yelled and cried and screamed and cried, and cried some more. And who did we go crying to? Our older sister, Hillary. Hillary understood. She knew heartbreak. She knew what it was like to be madly in love with someone and have them rip our hearts out and stomp on it, then smile and pretend it never happened. And while she'd never hang out with us in public - she took us aside and gave us a big hug and a pat on the shoulder and told us that it would be ok. She glanced around again to make sure nobody was looking, but that never bothered us, and it certainly didn't bother us in our time of need. 

When we say we support Hillary because of experience, we're fooling ourselves. When we say it's because Baracka can't win big states, we're outright lying; we all know full well Barack Obama is capable of winning the big states against McCain. No matter what we tell ourselves and each other about why we're supporting Hillary, it's all a lie. We support Hillary because we hate Barack. _And we hate Barack because we love him, and he will never love us back_ - and he proved it by being so insensitive as to befriend that jerk Donnie. 

We say it wasn't a "dealbreaker" but the only way it wouldn't have been is if Barack had asked us out, which deep down we knew he'd never do. It was a dealbreaker. Many of us will never admit this, but Barack Obama makes us sexually uncomfortable. He reminds us all of "that boy" that we all have in our pasts, the one we will never forget, and more importantly, never forgive. Because in our hearts, we're all still in High School."

----------


## Carlos_E

> With all the emphasis on the _black/white_ voter split, I thought it would be interesting to look at why so many _gay and lesbian voters_ don't trust Obama and are still supporting Hillary Clinton. (Appologies to Carlos.) 
> 
> From *Michaelangelo Signorile's* website: _"http://www.Signorile.com"_ 
> 
> "Obama! Hillary! McClurkin! I finally figured it out this week while listening to the show. We're all still in High School. 
> 
> See, Barack Obama is the adorable A-student who's the captain of the debate team AND the baseball team. We all had a raging crush on him. Every single one of us. And unlike the other popular kids, he would actually talk to us. He'd walk with us to class and talk to us about our favorite TV shows and music groups. And he'd defend us against the bullies, even the ones that were his friends. 
> 
> His smile was just so beautiful and honest, and once in a great while we'd see what almost looked like a wink when he was talking to us. "He knows, doesn't he? Did he just wink at me? Oh my god, does Barack feel the same way I do?" It was then that we asked him out. He smiled, gave us a little uncomfortable laugh, then got up and walked away to say hi to his other friends, without ever answering us. He rejected us without having the decency to reject us. And he'd still nod hello to us in the hallway, though he seemed to go out of his way to avoid talking directly to us. 
> ...


Who is Michaelangelo Signorile??? I never heard of him. Must be a white gay thing.




> http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/h...y-problem.html
> 
> *Wednesday, April 23, 2008 
> Hillary's gay problem* 
> 
> My friend Phil Attey asks why Obama keeps mentioning gays and lesbians in his speeches - speeches he makes to the public at large, not just gay audiences - and Hillary never does. Phil writes:
> 
> Last month, a gay Philadelphian LGBT publisher raised the issue that Senator Obama, though often addressing LGBT issues and including us in his major speeches, was not granting his publication an exclusive interview. Senator Obama quickly addressed the issue and granted an exclusive interview to the national LGBT publication, The Advocate.
> 
> ...

----------


## BigLittleTim

OH Carlos!  :Wink/Grin: 

"I've never heard of Michaelangelo Signorile." Lah!

Google

-BigLittleTim

----------


## Carlos_E

> OH Carlos! 
> 
> "I've never heard of Michaelangelo Signorile." Lah!
> 
> Google
> 
> -BigLittleTim


Who is he and why should I pay attention to his opinion?

----------


## Tock

> Who is he and why should I pay attention to his opinion?


I know who he is, but don't pay much attention to him.
----------------------------

http://www.signorile.com/

*The Michelangelo Signorile Show* can be heard 2-6 p.m ET (11-3 p.m. PT), weekdays across the United States and Canada (and 200 miles offshore) on Sirius Satellite Radio's channel 109, OutQ. You can get a trial run online at Sirius OutQ. 

*Michelangelo Signorile reports*, comments, rants and madly obsesses about politics, media, popular culture and a host of other things that irk and interest him. He covers the gamut of issues, though he began his career--and is best known for--writing on gay politics and culture. Today Signorile hosts a lively four-hour radio program each weekday, on Sirius Satellite Radio. Four hours of his own brand of "conversion therapy -- converting people from that nasty, vicious, perverted and insane right-wing agenda to a more fun, fabulous and enlightened one." 

--------

*Quickie version

Michelangelo Signorile hosts* a daily (2-6 ET) talk show on Sirius Satellite Radio's OutQ. 

*Signorile served as editor-at-large and columnist* at _The Advocate_, and was a columnist for _OUT_ magazine. He's authored several books and written for many publications, including _The New York Times_, _USA Today_, _The New York Observer_, _Gay.com_, _New York Magazine_, and the _Village Voice_. His third book, Life Outside, was a 1998 finalist for the New York Public Library's Book Award for Excellence in Journalism. 

*Signorile has reported from* the floor of the Republican National Convention (three times!), and from the roof of the Vatican. He's hitched a ride with gay truckers barreling down the Wyoming highway, explored Italy's closeted gay underground, and visited with New Zealand's first transgendered member of Parliament. He's appeared on _Larry King Live_, _Good Morning America_, _Today_,_Paula Zahn Now_, _The O'Reilly Factor_, _60 Minutes_, and other shows.

----------


## Tock

> If you look at history and facts, you see that lowering taxes increases government revenue EVERY TIME, without question. Similarly, raising taxes always lowers revenue.
> 
> For example, if you raise the capital gains tax people are less likely to invest in ways that expose them to capital gains. Since there is less investment the government collects less, even though the rate itself is higher. If you lower the capital gains tax it encourages more people, more investment, more money which, in turn, creates more tax revenue.
> 
> Imagine if a gas station is selling gas for $4. They make 100 sales a day for $400. The place across the street is selling for $3, which attracts 200 sales a day. They make $600. It really is that simple.


The only problem is that the government is deep in debt, and every time they cut taxes, they borrow more $$$ and increase the National Debt.

Look at what this guy has to say (he's the recently retired head of the GSA--the US Comptroller) and tell me the US should cut taxes and borrow $$$:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QxoP_9W6FC8

----------


## Carlos_E

> I know who he is, but don't pay much attention to him.
> ----------------------------
> 
> http://www.signorile.com/
> 
> *The Michelangelo Signorile Show* can be heard 2-6 p.m ET (11-3 p.m. PT), weekdays across the United States and Canada (and 200 miles offshore) on Sirius Satellite Radio's channel 109, OutQ. You can get a trial run online at Sirius OutQ. 
> 
> *Michelangelo Signorile reports*, comments, rants and madly obsesses about politics, media, popular culture and a host of other things that irk and interest him. He covers the gamut of issues, though he began his career--and is best known for--writing on gay politics and culture. Today Signorile hosts a lively four-hour radio program each weekday, on Sirius Satellite Radio. Four hours of his own brand of "conversion therapy -- converting people from that nasty, vicious, perverted and insane right-wing agenda to a more fun, fabulous and enlightened one." 
> 
> ...


Ahh, no wonder I've never heard of him. Like I said earlier, he's a white gay thing. I don't see him listed as writing for any Black gay media.

----------


## SMCengineer

> The only problem is that the government is deep in debt, and every time they cut taxes, they borrow more $$$ and increase the National Debt.
> 
> Look at what this guy has to say (he's the recently retired head of the GSA--the US Comptroller) and tell me the US should cut taxes and borrow $$$:
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=QxoP_9W6FC8


Huh, if I didn't know better I'd say you're starting to sound like a Ron Paul supporter.  :Hmmmm: 

This is _the_ issue we should be worried about.

----------


## BigLittleTim

> Ahh, no wonder I've never heard of him. Like I said earlier, he's a white gay thing. I don't see him listed as writing for any Black gay media.


Divide and conquer... Divide and conquer....

"I can't vote for Obama: He's a black Protestant heterosexual thing."

Lah!  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 
-BigLittleTim

----------


## BigLittleTim

> Ahh, no wonder I've never heard of him. I don't see him listed as writing for any steroid boards.


 :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Tock

> Huh, if I didn't know better I'd say you're starting to sound like a Ron Paul supporter. 
> 
> This is _the_ issue we should be worried about.


Ya, I voted for him . . . it's the first time in 28 years I voted for a Republican, and I didn't feel very good about it. Sorta like dashing into a XXX bookstore for some adult reading literature, makes ya feel "dirty" . . . 

I didn't expect him to place very well, since my vote tends to guarantee a candidate's last place showing. Next November, I'll vote for whichever Democrat wins the primary election. I doubt that will make much difference, since this is Texas, and Jesus Christ himself could run as a Democrat in this state and not win . . .

Texas is as RED a state as there is . . .

----------


## SMCengineer

> *Ya, I voted for him* . . . it's the first time in 28 years I voted for a Republican, and I didn't feel very good about it. Sorta like dashing into a XXX bookstore for some adult reading literature, makes ya feel "dirty" . . .


I'm not gonna lie. I'm impressed.

----------


## Act of God

> The only problem is that the government is deep in debt, and every time they cut taxes, they borrow more $$$ and increase the National Debt.
> 
> Look at what this guy has to say (he's the recently retired head of the GSA--the US Comptroller) and tell me the US should cut taxes and borrow $$$:
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=QxoP_9W6FC8


You do realize it is possible to cut taxes and DECREASE spending right?

----------


## SMCengineer

^^possible but not likely with any of the three candidates.

----------


## Tock

> You do realize it is possible to cut taxes and DECREASE spending right?


Ya, like that's ever happened in the past, or ever will happen in the future.

First thing that needs a tax increase is gasoline. Right now the federal tax on a gallon of gasoline is about 20 cents. At $3.50 a gallon, that's only about 5.7% tax. That's not anywhere near enough to pay for the military effort it takes to keep foreign oil available to the USA, plus pay for research to find and produce a reliable substitute energy source. IMHO, the gas tax needs to be raised (over time) to 50% of the retail price, and a minimum of $1 a gallon, increasing over time with the rate of inflation. State taxes should be similarly raised to pay for roads, bridges, air pollution efforts, etc.

The increase in cost ought to result in wiser use of fuel, and reduce dependance on foreign oil, and raise $$$ to offset military expenses and etc. And the people who would pay would be the people who create the need for foreign military intervention and new fuel sources. 

-------

And there's lots other things that need to paid for, like the National Debt, interest on the National Debt (there's no getting around paying that), and social programs, infrastructure, national security, etc etc etc. There's no way that cutting taxes would raise enough $$$ to pay for everything that needs to be paid -- at least until the USA learns how not to be the planet's policemen, pays off its debt, and figures out how to fund all the social programs we want. 

The short answer to your question is, then, No. For practical reasons, it is not possible, in the current circumstances, to cut taxes and reduce spending.

----------


## Kratos

The gas tax is intended to pay for the interstate system. I want a battery powered car with 250 miles of range, I know someone can build it.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Divide and conquer... Divide and conquer....
> 
> "I can't vote for Obama: He's a black Protestant heterosexual thing."
> 
> Lah! 
> -BigLittleTim


Divide and conquer my ass. The advocate and Out magazine are both known in the Black gay community as not fairly representing "us." Take a count of the number of Blacks that make the cover. The magazines are geared toward the White gay community, not all of us.

----------


## BigLittleTim

Carlos,

I'm sorry you're so angry about this. 
If Obama is the chosen Democratic nominee I will vote for him for president. President McCain and Vice President Romney for the next eight years would be a true disaster.

Yours,

BigLittleTim

----------


## Carlos_E

> Carlos,
> 
> I'm sorry you're so angry about this.


Your "Divide and conquer" comment annoyed me. White gays tend not to notice that gay media focuses more towards the White gay community. You can see it in advertising. Take a look at some of the ads. If you see an ad with couples the only time you see a minority is when it's a mixed race couple. White/Black, White/Asian, White/Latin like you have to throw a White person in there for the ad to run. Or take a look at the Out's 100 Most influential people in gay culture list.

----------


## Tock

> The advocate and Out magazine are both known in the Black gay community as not fairly representing "us." Take a count of the number of Blacks that make the cover. The magazines are geared toward the White gay community, not all of us.


I've noticed that, too.

Here in Dallas, there seems to be a gay community which is 99% white. Clubs are mostly segregated, too. Also, since I moved here from Massachusetts, I noticed that a lot of white gays (white heterosexuals, too) native to Texas have odd attitudes toward blacks (and non-whites in general). 

Racism is everywhere . . . ugh . . .

----------


## Act of God

I'd assume that it is only natural to have more white people in ads and such considering this country is overwhelmingly white (74%). Homosexual advertising aside, non-whites are severely OVER represented in ads. Do you honestly believe that latinos, asians and blacks are left out of traditional advertising? Hell, you can't see a single commercial without it these days.

Interesting side note: If there is ever an ad where there is a black guy and a white guy arguing over something (which phone service to use, ISP, car) the black guy is ALWAYS right in the argument and the white guy is usually stupid in a funny way. Verizon and cablevision are notorious for these ads.

You can't get angry at an accurate representation, right? Out of every 100 people shown in ads it wouldn't be improper if 74 of them were white. There would only be 12-14 blacks in that same group.

Is there a discrepancy in the gay community, numbers-wise? I am definitely uninformed to the subject, but I would guess that the % of gays is more or less the same across race/ethnicity.

----------


## BgMc31

^^your second paragraph is absurd. Please provide proof of that. I work in advertising and have yet to see such an outrageous claim. 

Advertising is disproportionately slanted toward whites and at a level much higher than 74%. As a matter of fact, insider industry standards is closer to 85% toward white, medium income, married people.

----------


## thegodfather

> ^^your second paragraph is absurd. Please provide proof of that. I work in advertising and have yet to see such an outrageous claim. 
> 
> Advertising is disproportionately slanted toward whites and at a level much higher than 74%. As a matter of fact, insider industry standards is closer to 85% toward white, medium income, married people.


Isn't the whole point of advertising and marketing to target a specific buyer? If there is a commercial geared towards white, medium income, married people...Then one would assume that is the buyer the company is trying to target??... Jeez, people will take ANYTHING they possibly can and make it racial... Do you know why the windows are so big on public transportation? To further subjugate people of color and humiliate them for having to ride public transportation (EXTREME SARCASM!)...

----------


## Act of God

> ^^your second paragraph is absurd. Please provide proof of that. I work in advertising and have yet to see such an outrageous claim. 
> 
> Advertising is disproportionately slanted toward whites and at a level much higher than 74%. As a matter of fact, insider industry standards is closer to 85% toward white, medium income, married people.


Oh it's true, I pay very close attention to these things. The one Verizon commercial that sticks in my head was the two guys running a small business debating on which ISP to use while tossing a football back and forth. The white guy is totally clueless and the black guy is schooling him. The white guy then decides all he cares about is pizza. They ran about 3 commercials like that in the past 2 years. Cablevision did the same stuff before their lame 877-353-4448888888 raggaeton commerical crap.

This doesn't apply only to white/black. Women have been the smarter person in just about every commercial for years. If you think this is unintentional, think again. These commercials are thoughtfully casted and every nuance is carefully planned.

Funny, but somewhat accurate:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....u=stock_photos

Secondly, advertisements are a product of something we refer to as marketing. Here, someone who is selling a product tries to get people who will buy that product's interest.

Do you see anyone complaining that black people are the focus of every commercial for McDonald's lately? This is the same bullcrap we had to listen to in the 90's when people would complain that there aren't any blacks on 90210. 

I love your facts though. Wow, 74% versus 85%....how utterly RACIST of them! I don't know where you live but I can't turn on the television without seeing black people in just about every commercial or TV show. If anything, blacks are over represented in the media (television, music, sports, etc.).

----------


## buttercup

> Jeez, people will take ANYTHING they possibly can and make it racial... Do you know why the windows are so big on public transportation? To further subjugate people of color and humiliate them for having to ride public transportation (EXTREME SARCASM!)...


that was ludacris' arguement in the movie "crash"

----------


## BgMc31

> Oh it's true, I pay very close attention to these things. The one Verizon commercial that sticks in my head was the two guys running a small business debating on which ISP to use while tossing a football back and forth. The white guy is totally clueless and the black guy is schooling him. The white guy then decides all he cares about is pizza. They ran about 3 commercials like that in the past 2 years. Cablevision did the same stuff before their lame 877-353-4448888888 raggaeton commerical crap.
> 
> This doesn't apply only to white/black. Women have been the smarter person in just about every commercial for years. If you think this is unintentional, think again. These commercials are thoughtfully casted and every nuance is carefully planned.
> 
> Funny, but somewhat accurate:
> 
> http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....u=stock_photos
> 
> Secondly, advertisements are a product of something we refer to as marketing. Here, someone who is selling a product tries to get people who will buy that product's interest.
> ...


You have zero credibility because you are basing your statements off of your perception which is contrary to statistics. And based on one Verizon commercial is assinine.

The goal of advertising to to reach a certain demographic, and usually the demographic that can generate the most revenue. During the 90's at one point (during the time of 90210), there was not one tv show on the major networks with a minority lead. And there were very few shows with minority primary characters. Racism was clearly the reason. Why do I say this? Well for almost 10 straight years the Cosby show and its follow up show 'Diffrent World' were the two top rated shows in the country. It wasn't until the advent of channels lik WB and others that we began to see larger minority representation. IMO, whites are over representated in media. You can't turn on the tv without seeing a white guy (now see how ridiculous that sounds?).

And lets not get started on minority involvement in sports...I would hate to have people's feelings hurt!

----------


## Act of God

You are so clueless, I don't even have the energy to deal with you. I'll take my statements based on things I have seen with my own two eyes over your hearsay, unbacked, assertions. I love how you are automatically an expert on every subject that pops up around here. You are truly a jack of all trades...

Racism was "clearly" why there were a lot of whites on TV? How about the fact that whites were almost 80% of the US population back then and blacks were around 12%. Think that had anything to do with it, or do you just want to keep believing we all have white sheets in the trunks of our cars "just in case, wink wink"?

Get over yourself, you are the reason there is a divide.

----------


## Kratos

lol at BgMc and Act of God
I'm gonna let you in on a secret bgmc and it's only cause I've been drinking...a lot. The white people aren't telling anybody this cause it's better if Black people stay scared. Man are they gonna be pissed with me...
White people don't give a fvck about keeping black people down. Black people are like man life sucks and we're like yeah sucks for me too. I can speak for at least my generation, I just don't see black people and what they are doing coming up in conversation and how we can keep them out of corperate America. If ad exec's run an ad with a certain cast, it's cause they think that cast will give the best return on investment for their client. If you don't see the Wayne's Bros. on NBC prime time don't blame the NBC exec., they just want to score a hit and get the best ratings they can. When The Cosby Show was hot it was on TV cause it was an F-ing good show, my parents let me stay up when it was on...that might show my parents generation wasn't too bad either, but I can't speak for them. Who do you think was driving those ratings? Black people have always had less and a tough history in this country I don't deny. So, back to the campaign why you can't deny that race is going to sway some percentage of black voters.

I had a teacher in middle school, my health teacher, a black guy "I bet it would be a problem for people in you're neighborhood if a black family moved in." I'm thinking "yeah dumbass that's exactly what people in my neigborhood think about, how to keep black people out." This was in class. I said, "I can't see people having a problem with it." He didn't believe me.

----------


## BgMc31

> You are so clueless, I don't even have the energy to deal with you. I'll take my statements based on things I have seen with my own two eyes over your hearsay, unbacked, assertions. I love how you are automatically an expert on every subject that pops up around here. You are truly a jack of all trades...
> 
> Racism was "clearly" why there were a lot of whites on TV? How about the fact that whites were almost 80% of the US population back then and blacks were around 12%. Think that had anything to do with it, or do you just want to keep believing we all have white sheets in the trunks of our cars "just in case, wink wink"?
> 
> Get over yourself, you are the reason there is a divide.


Hahahahaha at your clueless comment. There are three things I consider myself nearly an expert on, football, strongman, and media marketing. The two athletic pursuits is because I competed at a high level for both (still do for strongman, retired from football in 02). The last thing, media marketing, I actually wrote my masters thesis on minority representation in the media in 07. Its my job as a media marketing executive for a major strip casino chain here in Vegas to know the business. So debating wth a racism denier that has seen shit with his 'own two eyes' so that makes him an expert is laughable at best. I once saw David Copperfield at a show here, make an elephant disappear, but that doesn't really make it so.

I'm the reason for the divide........hahahahaha! That's equally absurd! I'm the product of a mixed race family. And my wife is Hawaiian and white. So I'm not divding shit. I'm bringing races together in the best way possible...DNA BABY!

You are the clueless one brotha so yeah it doesn't make much sense to debate you. Until you and others like you (not all whites) stop denying that racism is a major factor in this country, we will never get past it.

Kratos, you hit the nail on the head! Whites don't care about blacks (as do black don't care about whites). Each group tends to only care more about their own (human nature). that is why this racism thing will never end. Unless we mix the races completely. And I'm well on my way to doing that! LoL!

----------


## Act of God

> Hahahahaha at your clueless comment. There are three things I consider myself nearly an expert on, football, strongman, and media marketing. The two athletic pursuits is because I competed at a high level for both (still do for strongman, retired from football in 02). The last thing, media marketing, I actually wrote my masters thesis on minority representation in the media in 07. Its my job as a media marketing executive for a major strip casino chain here in Vegas to know the business. So debating wth a racism denier that has seen shit with his 'own two eyes' so that makes him an expert is laughable at best. I once saw David Copperfield at a show here, make an elephant disappear, but that doesn't really make it so.
> 
> I'm the reason for the divide........hahahahaha! That's equally absurd! I'm the product of a mixed race family. And my wife is Hawaiian and white. So I'm not divding shit. I'm bringing races together in the best way possible...DNA BABY!
> 
> You are the clueless one brotha so yeah it doesn't make much sense to debate you. Until you and others like you (not all whites) stop denying that racism is a major factor in this country, we will never get past it.
> 
> Kratos, you hit the nail on the head! Whites don't care about blacks (as do black don't care about whites). Each group tends to only care more about their own (human nature). that is why this racism thing will never end. Unless we mix the races completely. And I'm well on my way to doing that! LoL!


I disagree. I think you look to make race an issue every time you have a chance. I'm not surprised in the least that you even did your thesis on it. What I find funny is how you are now trying to cultivate your mixed race status to gain credibility in the discussion when we all know how you identify yourself socially.

----------


## BgMc31

> I disagree. I think you look to make race an issue every time you have a chance. I'm not surprised in the least that you even did your thesis on it. What I find funny is how you are now trying to cultivate your mixed race status to gain credibility in the discussion when we all know how you identify yourself socially.


Wasn't this thread about race? Find one thread that I interjected race when it wasn't part of the topic? You seem to grasping at straws AofG. Since you don't have a viable argument, you resort to a claiming that I'm playing the race card all the time. Not my fault that you refuse to see the obvious.

As far as using my mixed race to gain credibility...I didn't and you know it. You just bemoan the fact that my argument holds more weight than yours and you will look for any excuse to dimiss it. Its funny, really. And yes, I've never denied the fact that I identify, socially, as being black. Considering despite my mixed race, I am relatively dark skin. Society sees me as a black man (as do they about Barack Obama), so there is always the need to 'act accordingly' and debunct stereotypes. Since you are a firm believer in those stereotypes, obviously, who is truly the reason for the divide?

----------


## kfrost06

I just want to jump in for one second, I missed, I truely missed Tock vs. Logan threads but thankfully we have Act of G vs BgMc and they are just as good!

Thank both of you guys and keep up the debates, they are very good.

----------


## RA

> The goal of advertising to to reach a certain demographic, and usually the demographic that can generate the most revenue. During the 90's at one point (during the time of 90210), there was not one tv show on the major networks with a minority lead. And there were very few shows with minority primary characters. *Racism was clearly the reason*. Why do I say this? Well for almost 10 straight years the Cosby show and its follow up show 'Diffrent World' were the two top rated shows in the country. It wasn't until the advent of channels lik WB and others that we began to see larger minority representation. IMO, whites are over representated in media. You can't turn on the tv without seeing a white guy (now see how ridiculous that sounds?).
> 
> And lets not get started on minority involvement in sports...I would hate to have people's feelings hurt!


 
Racism by who?

----------


## Act of God

> Racism by who?


According to conspiracy brotha, marketing to the largest consumer group (actual amount of people AND spending dollars) is racist. Apparently big companies are so racist they don't even want the tainted dollars of colored folk. Hell, look how badly Cadillac is doing now. They'd rather starve then have black people buy their products...oh wait, that was Lauren Hill.

At least he isn't looking to find racism in everyday life, thank god!

----------


## Kratos

> Kratos, you hit the nail on the head! Whites don't care about blacks (as do black don't care about whites). Each group tends to only care more about their own (human nature). that is why this racism thing will never end. Unless we mix the races completely. And I'm well on my way to doing that! LoL!


I don't like to talk about race as a white dude, cause it's so hard not to look like a racist. My little paragraph didn't make much sense because of too much vodka. I'll just tell you st8 up, you precieve more reacisim from whites than exisists in the real world. My human nature has had no conflict with how I see people.

----------


## Kratos

I watched 90210 because my sister and her hot friends were always over watching it.

----------


## Act of God

> *Was Race of Candidate Important to you
> Blacks Who Say Yes: None*
> 
> People are saying Blacks are voting for Obama because he's Black. It looks like the polling data doesn't support the accusation.


I just saw today that BO is 9/9 in states where the black population is over 17%. Can you really say it has NOTHING to do with it?

----------


## Kratos

> I just saw today that BO is 9/9 in states where the black population is over 17%. Can you really say it has NOTHING to do with it?


Oh, this can of worms again. You know what you're gonna get, just scroll back. IDK, it will be interesting to see how it plays out anyway. A lot of white trash people and southern racists. Black people largely vote democrat, the ones trying to help a brother out may have more impact in the primary than actual election. Clinton and Obama are both shooting the democrats in the foot by waging war within the party so long. I expect McCain will win and then promptly die sitting in the oval office.

----------


## Act of God

> Oh, this can of worms again. You know what you're gonna get, just scroll back. IDK, it will be interesting to see how it plays out anyway. A lot of white trash people and southern racists. Black people largely vote democrat, the ones trying to help a brother out may have more impact in the primary than actual election. Clinton and Obama are both shooting the democrats in the foot by waging war within the party so long. I expect McCain will win and then promptly die sitting in the oval office.


I just can't believe that anyone can take those "0% of blacks said race was a factor" polls seriously. It is simply laughable, that's all. I just want people to be honest.

----------


## Carlos_E

Qoutes



> I don't understand why this facet of the race is not focused on as much as Obama's struggles with rural, lower-income whites. No Democrat can win the White House without black votes - and a lot of them. And yet, Clinton has gone backwards fast in this segment for the past three months. Remember last fall when she had a massive 20 or even 30 point lead among African-Americans? Remember when the Clinton brand was almost synonymous with major black support? And while Obama has done solidly - and increasingly well - among white voters, Clinton's black support has cratered. Judging from my email in-tray, black voters are actually incensed and deeply disillusioned by the tactics of both Clintons. Bill has gone from being viewed as the first black president to being persona non grata and playing up his white Bubba act in rural counties.
> This is a fatal weakness in a Democratic candidate. And Hillary Clinton is now a fatally wounded politician.

----------


## Carlos_E

More quotes 




> Here's what now seems obvious: African-American voters killed the Clinton candidacy. It is a fitting end to the Clintons' campaign and an almost Shakespearean coda to their career. The Clintons were exposed in their long-running exploitation and reliance on minority votes. No group was more loyal to them than African-Americans; and in the end, like everyone else, African-Americans realized that the Clintons are frauds, disloyal to the core, cynical to their finger-tips, and finally, finally, returned the favor. A reader writes:
> 
> _I found it striking that Clinton did not even pretend to be courting African Americans in North Carolina. Had the tables somehow been turned and had Obama's soul been implanted in her body, he would have made a show of at least organizing one major African American outreach event there or in Indiana. Obama went bowling in Altoona, after all. I kept expecting Hillary, ever since South Carolina, and certainly since Louisiana, to give her own major speech on race to a black audience in which she expressed sincere regret for Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson and related comments by her surrogates. She could have done that while still stressing that her and Bill's mistakes were innocent in their intent, but that she is someone who looks not only at intentions but effects and regrets the rift.
> 
> Instead, she let Ferrarro rub salt in the wound. Don't get me wrong. Obama is such a talented candidate and such a symbol of hope to African Americans that he was going to get 80% of the black vote no matter what. But 92% and even higher than that in Gary! She got numbers in the past few states worse than Nixon and worse than Reagan._
> 
> After what the Clintons did in this campaign, and what they've revealed about themselves, and their alliance with Fox News and Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan, this couldn't be more appropriate.
> 
> This will be history's verdict: in the end, the Clintons were defeated not by Republicans, but by African-American Democrats. How wonderful. How poignant. In the end, the karma gets you. Maybe it had to be this way. But this final coup de grace against these awful, hollow, cynical people is a beautiful, beautiful thing.

----------


## Carlos_E

More



> Just now, on this morning's HRC conference call, Geoff Garin had this spin regarding the campaign's North Carolina 14 point loss: "We lost the white electorate in Virginia, started even in North Carolina among the white electorate just two weeks ago, and ended [with] a very significant win of 24 points among those voters." He called this shift -- you know, the white people deciding to vote for the white person -- "progress."
> 
> Right. Now, if only there was a way to make white votes count for more than the black ones...

----------


## Carlos_E

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ton_blackvote/

How Hillary Clinton botched the black vote

May 5, 2008 | If Hillary Clinton fails to wrest the Democratic presidential nomination from Barack Obama, there will be plenty of second-guessing about how she ran her campaign. What if her loyalty to campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle and chief strategist Mark Penn had not prevented her from demoting them sooner? What if her electoral strategists had better understood the power of caucus states and the way in which votes cast there translated into delegates? What if she had actually planned for the month following Super Tuesday, thereby preventing Obama from posting the 11 straight wins after Feb. 5 that provided him the pledged delegate lead he enjoys today? But beyond these questions, one little-discussed factor (with direct or indirect relation to all of the above) appears to have had fatal consequences for Clinton's campaign: She failed to mount a strong enough challenge to Obama's claim on the African-American vote.

Though a majority of black voters may inevitably have gone for Obama, nothing precluded the wife of the so-called first black president from keeping Obama's margins among blacks significantly narrower -- say, losing to him by 4-to-1 or even 3-to-1, rather than the devastating 9-to-1 margins by which Obama has often won African-American Democrats. "The Clinton campaign has been focused on Barack Obama's performance with white working-class voters in a few states, but they fail to mention Senator Clinton's abysmal performance with black voters all over the country," says political consultant and Obama supporter Jamal Simmons. "She has gone from leading among black voters to losing them 90 percent to 10 percent in Pennsylvania. One would expect Obama to win these voters, but 90-10 is a total collapse that Obama is not experiencing among any constituency. Simply put, Hillary Clinton has a black problem."

Outside of Missouri and maybe Delaware, staying competitive among black voters wouldn't have tipped any states for Clinton from the losing to winning column. But had she improved her performance to just 20 percent, she would have significantly reduced, if not eliminated entirely, her national popular-vote deficit (even without the disputed Florida and Michigan returns). And because the formula for assigning delegates favors the candidate who wins delegate-rich urban areas, Clinton could have limited the lopsided delegate-per-vote ratio Obama enjoyed in states ranging from Alabama to Maryland to Wisconsin.

Since the days of Adlai Stevenson -- which is to say, since the civil rights movement finally guaranteed the franchise for black voters -- the fate of candidates favored by so-called wine-track Democrats usually ends the same way. From Eugene McCarthy to Ted Kennedy, from Jerry Brown to Howard Dean, they make a big initial splash with the white liberal base, only to end up high and dry when working-class whites and blacks together align behind somebody else. What makes Obama different is that he has unified white liberals and African-Americans -- a powerful coalition Clinton needed to prevent. Given that roughly three in five black Democratic voters are women, Clinton's blunder here was preventable, and it may well have doomed her 2008 bid for the White House.

With Indiana and North Carolina voting tomorrow, the consequences of Hillary Clinton's low standing among black voters will once again be on display. She may win Indiana (polls show a tight race) and keep her expected loss in North Carolina to single digits. But with a better showing among black voters, these two outcomes might be a solid win and a narrow victory, respectively, and a net gain rather than a loss of delegates in the two states combined.

For all the talk now in the post-Rev. Jeremiah Wright phase of the campaign about the reasons for doubting Obama's electability, it is worth noting that black Democrats were initially among those most skeptical -- maybe "cynical" is the better word -- about the prospects of Illinois' junior senator. The widespread apprehension among African-Americans was not personal to Obama so much as it was historical, rooted in the deeply held suspicion that neither America nor even the multicultural Democratic Party was ready to nominate, let alone elect, a black man for the presidency.

This reality was made plain to me last December at an Obama rally headlined by Oprah Winfrey at the football stadium on the campus of the University of South Carolina. Tens of thousands of African-Americans came to Columbia that Sunday morning, many driving hundreds of miles from points elsewhere in the state or region, to see Obama and Winfrey appear side by side. I expected these black attendees to be already in lockstep behind Obama, and some were. But many people I interviewed said they were not convinced he would be the nominee or president; some said they came out that day to pay witness to the historical fact of his candidacy, not his inevitable presidency.

In fact, poll results as late as October 2007 showed a solid majority of African-Americans expressing their support for Hillary Clinton's candidacy. This was a natural reflex, of course. The former first lady, after all, is the wife of a president once almost universally beloved of African-Americans. So what went wrong?

In quick succession, three things happened in the month and a half between Thanksgiving and the New Hampshire primary. First, Oprah's unprecedented mid-December endorsement of Obama sent a clear signal to her mixed-race female-dominated audience that they should feel as comfortable having Obama on their living room television screens for the nightly newscast as they do having her there during late-afternoon coffee talk. Next, in January, white Iowans sent a safe-harbor signal to black Americans wary about the Democratic Party nominating a black candidate that it was OK to get behind Obama. Hillary Clinton had no control over either of those developments, of course. And a top Obama advisor confirmed to me that the campaign was already tracking movement by black voters toward Obama by Thanksgiving.

But Clinton did have (or should have had) control over the third factor: the behavior of her campaign and of Bill Clinton from that point forward. Yet, through a series of intended or unintended developments -- from Bill's "fairy tale" and "false premise" comments concerning Obama's stance on the Iraq war, to hints of black-brown animosities between African-American and Hispanic Democrats, to Hillary's incessant "not qualified to lead" insinuations about Obama -- the Clinton campaign signaled that if they were going to lose the black vote, they might as well turn it into an advantage with other elements in the Democratic coalition, notably white working-class voters.

Consequently, in a short span Hillary transformed from a celebrity into an object of scorn among numerous black Democrats. Was it inevitable? "I think once Obama became perceived as a viable candidate by the African-American community -- that is, after Iowa -- Clinton never had a chance to get any significant black vote," electoral analyst Charlie Cook, of the "Cook Political Report," told me. "I think President Clinton's statements, and the interpretation of his statements, hurt with white liberals. But she was already hemorrhaging her black support and ultimately was destined to get very little." Cook's "perceived as viable" qualifier here is crucial. Obama was never guaranteed to be perceived as viable, even by African-Americans, as those October 2007 polls amply demonstrate.

That may help explain why South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, went from cautioning Bill Clinton to "chill out" in January to lambasting him by late April. "I think a lot of Clinton surrogates have been marginalizing, demonizing and trivializing Obama," Clyburn bristled recently. When the former president complained that the Obama camp was playing the race card, Clyburn responded by dismissing the assertion as "bizarre" and reminding the public in a New York Times report that "it was the black community that bellied up to the bar" when Clinton faced impeachment. "I think black folks feel strongly that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation," Clyburn scoffed.

To understand the power of the black vote thus far in the 2008 Democratic primary, consider the fate of the two candidates in their own home states, both of which voted on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

Unsurprisingly, a whopping 93 percent of African-Americans in Illinois supported Obama. And even though New York was and surely will remain his low-water mark for black support, 61 percent of black New Yorkers still voted for him. Maintaining that level of support buffered Obama against the disparity in his performance among white voters in the two states, which were mirror opposites: 57 percent of whites backed him in Illinois, but in New York 59 percent of whites voted for Clinton. Consequently, despite their nearly identical home-state levels of white support, Obama netted more pledged delegates from Illinois (55) than Clinton did from New York (46), even though New York had far more delegates at stake.

In fact, by combining the delegate-earning power of Obama's black support in the metropolitan New York area -- along with the African-American pockets along the I-90 corridor from Buffalo to Syracuse to Albany -- with his black support in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh two weeks ago, Obama's Illinois victory effectively neutralized his net delegate loss in New York and Pennsylvania. That's right: Clinton squeezed out the same number of net delegates from her 17-point win in New York and 9-point win in Pennsylvania as Obama did in his 31-point win in Illinois -- even though New York and Pennsylvania combined (232 and 141 pledged delegates, respectively, for a total of 373) awarded nearly two and half times the delegates that Illinois did (153).

Nor can the results in those three states be dismissed as a case of Obama's manipulating the caucus system to squeeze out delegates from low-turnout contests, because Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania were all primary states -- and closed, registered-Democrats-only primary states at that. The combined returns from the three states, in fact, produced 118,603 more popular votes for Obama than for Clinton.

What might the situation look like now if Clinton had managed to keep Obama's 90 percent black support just to 80 percent? It's impossible to know for certain, because it depends on where specifically -- in which states and districts -- she garnered those extra black votes. But NBC News political director and delegate math expert Chuck Todd ventured a conservative, back-of-the-napkin estimate. "I'm not sure how many more delegates she would have gotten at 20 percent performance, but I'd guess roughly 25 to 30," Todd told me. "That may not seem like a lot, but it would have swung the net delegate margin by 50 to 60, or about a third of his current pledged delegate lead."

To supplement Todd's delegate estimates, I looked at something much easier to compute: the extra popular votes Clinton would have amassed in 13 primary states with significant black populations -- Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin -- had she won just 20 percent of the black voters in those states. For obvious reasons, I kept Illinois and New York off the list, but you'll notice that Arkansas, South Carolina and Tennessee are also missing. Why?

Like New York, Arkansas was a home game for Clinton and, at 25 percent, she exceeded the 20 percent threshold. In South Carolina she came pretty close (19 percent), perhaps because at that early juncture, and following her comeback win in New Hampshire and her caucus victory in Latino-dominated Nevada, some cynical black voters remained unconvinced that Obama had the juice to win the nomination. (The morning of the South Carolina vote, Bill Clinton made his controversial Jesse Jackson comparison in an effort to pre-spin Hillary's expected loss, but it's unclear whether many blacks in South Carolina would have heard about his comments prior to voting.) As for Tennessee, it voted on Super Tuesday, long after Obama was viable, but Clinton again exceeded the threshold (with 22 percent), perhaps as a result of her husband's connections to the state via Al Gore. But whatever the reasons, the notion that Clinton was doomed to 10 percent or less of the black vote everywhere is simply untrue. The above figures strongly suggest that she could have done better.

And the difference it would have made is striking: In those 13 other states, had she drawn just 20 percent of the African-American vote, Clinton would have shifted more than 270,000 votes from Obama to herself, a net swing of more than half a million votes. Which, by the way, is roughly the amount by which she trails Obama in the overall national popular vote right now. Just imagine how hard Clinton's spokesman Howard Wolfson would be spinning right now if Clinton were tied in the popular vote without Florida and Michigan, while still trailing among pledged delegates.

All of which brings me to a final point about the concentrated power of the black vote in the 2008 Democratic primary: The black vote was to Obama what small-state white voters in the Electoral College were to George W. Bush in 2000 -- namely, a concentrated bloc of voters whose power magnified their preferred candidate's electoral support beyond their absolute numerical value. For African-Americans, this should come as a pleasant irony, given the controversies about the counting of their votes in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio four years later.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has not given up on African-American Democrats. As Indiana and North Carolina approached, she seemed to be trying to build on her Pennsylvania victory by reaching out anew -- perhaps especially to African-American women. The most obvious evidence of this is Clinton's new television ad featuring America's most prominent contemporary black poet, Maya Angelou. "She intends to help our country become what it can become. She dares to say human beings are more alike than we are unalike," says Angelou in the ad. "I have found the person I think would be the best president for the United States of America."

The problem for Clinton is that too few other African-Americans, male or female, have reached this same finding. In her inimitable meter, Angelou proclaims in the ad that she "watched [Clinton] become interested in public health and in education for all the children -- and I watched her stand." But Clinton failed to stand for African-American Democrats when the chance presented itself late last fall and into early January, even if doing so meant firing key staffers or dressing down her own husband. Doing that might have denied Barack Obama the near-universal claim to their support he now enjoys, and the black-white coalition he built from it. For Hillary Clinton, the price of that failure may turn out to be nothing less than the nomination itself.

----------


## Kratos

I have ADD Carlos, too much reading for me. I will steal this quote from the article above though.

"Though a majority of black voters may inevitably have gone for Obama, nothing precluded the wife of the so-called first black president from keeping Obama's margins among blacks significantly narrower -- say, losing to him by 4-to-1 or even 3-to-1, rather than the devastating 9-to-1 margins by which Obama has often won African-American Democrats."

Yeah Hillary f-ed up, but with a strong black canidate, he is geting some percentage of support, that's all I was saying. I won't deny Obama is losing some white vote for being black and not just white votes, I've known racist china and mexican people too.

----------


## Carlos_E

> I have ADD Carlos, too much reading for me. I will steal this quote from the article above though.
> 
> "Though a majority of black voters may inevitably have gone for Obama, nothing precluded the wife of the so-called first black president from keeping Obama's margins among blacks significantly narrower -- say, losing to him by 4-to-1 or even 3-to-1, rather than the devastating 9-to-1 margins by which Obama has often won African-American Democrats."
> 
> Yeah Hillary f-ed up, but with a strong black canidate, he is geting some percentage of support, that's all I was saying. I won't deny Obama is losing some white vote for being black and not just white votes, I've known racist china and mexican people too.


My point with pulling all of the articles is Obama didn't just get the Black vote. Clinton lost it with her campaigns tactics and didn't try to get it back. Her surrogates would say "When Clinton is the nominee, Blacks will vote for her." No we won't. That's taking our vote for granted.

----------


## Carlos_E

This thread is not about Rev. Wright. Start your own thread. Don't high jack this one.

----------


## zartan

Didn't mean to hijack, I thought this was a discussion about the supposedly 'racist white vote', which Jeremy Wright is relevant in that discussion if you want to discuss motives, 'human nature', etc. Also the other point I had, the fact black voters almost all vote for Obama because he is black shouldn't be ignored. 8% vs 90%. Which is more racist?

----------


## BgMc31

^^If you are talking pure numbers then lets examine that. There are roughly 38million blacks in this country (13.1%). Half of those are voting age (thats being extremely generous). That's leaves 19million. Minus the 700K in jail. That leaves just over 18million. 90% voted for Obama. That's roughly 16million people right? Now whites make up roughly 70% of the US population. Which is 210million people. Half are of voting age. That's 105 million. 15% considered race is a factor. That means that roughly 12million whites won't admittingly vote for Obama. So going strictly by the numbers, there isn't a huge difference. And that is only taking the whites who admit to voting on race factors.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Didn't mean to hijack, I thought this was a discussion about the supposedly 'racist white vote', which Jeremy Wright is relevant in that discussion if you want to discuss motives, 'human nature', etc. Also the other point I had, the fact black voters almost all vote for Obama because he is black shouldn't be ignored. 8% vs 90%. Which is more racist?


It's a stupid question. 90% of Black voters voted for Kerry was that racist? Blacks as a whole vote Democratic. 

In this primary we voted for the better candidate who happens to be Black. Now go away. Go start your Rev. Wright thread and you can rant about him all you want.

----------


## zartan

Whats stupid is talking about the 90% votes when its Democrat vs Democrat as being the same as the GENERAL ELECTION, so you point is basically moot. Do you seriously think Obama would be getting the same percentage if he was white. lol, "hes just THAT much better". Cmon man, admit it, blacks support Obama because hes black. If you're so judgemental about the 8% of people saying they wouldn't vote for a black man, but you can't admit blacks are voting Obama because hes black, you're in serious denial.

----------


## zartan

> ^^If you are talking pure numbers then lets examine that. There are roughly 38million blacks in this country (13.1%). Half of those are voting age (thats being extremely generous). That's leaves 19million. Minus the 700K in jail. That leaves just over 18million. 90% voted for Obama. That's roughly 16million people right? Now whites make up roughly 70% of the US population. Which is 210million people. Half are of voting age. That's 105 million. 15% considered race is a factor. That means that roughly 12million whites won't admittingly vote for Obama. So going strictly by the numbers, there isn't a huge difference. And that is only taking the whites who admit to voting on race factors.


I was getting ready to jump on you for saying %90 of 18 million is 9 million :P. This argument you're making seems like semantics. Per capita theres more racism in the black community if we're defining racism as voting for someone who has the same skin color.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Per capita theres more racism in the black community* if we're defining racism as voting for someone who has the same skin color*.


No we're not. You are.

----------


## Act of God

However, voting (or not voting) for someone _based_ on skin color in *any* way is.

----------


## Kratos

No doubt Carlos has a point Hillary blew her chance with black voters. I lived in North Philly for a little while though. I've been called pink, honky, and cracker all in the same sentence. Racism in the black community does exist, and it is helping Obama with black voters that he is black. How can you hold white people accountable for the percentage of racist voters without admidting there are racial motives from black and white? It's a two way street there is racism on either side. There are also a lot of non racist good people on either side.

----------


## Kratos

There is a black guy (1/2 black anyway) with a good chance at being president of this nation. What more proof do black people need that...yes there is some lingering racism but the majority of racism is dying out. A democrat can't win the presidency without black votes, but it would be a neat trick to do it without white votes.

----------


## zartan

> No we're not. You are.


lol, see thread title:
A measure of racism: 15 percent?

the poll was about who would take race into account, you equated as a measure of racism. 

PS
it should be labeled:
A measure of racism: 90 percent?

90% is a much more startling statistic.
Oh, I forgot its 90% because Obama is just that different/better than Hitlery politically. lol, they have very similar viewpoints politically. Black people vote for Obama because he's black. They should rephrase the poll and send it to black people, 'Would you vote for a white candidate if there was a viable black running against', the numbers would be much higher than 8 or 15%. Watch in the general election, Obama will have most of the black REPUBLICAN vote as well (he will have close to 100% of the black vote), Why? Its the same reason black people defend Obama or Jeremy Wright so staunchly in previous threads. And I hope you say the reason is "we have similar viewpoints/experiences as black people, so we just understand each other better" because then I can tell you how hypocritical and just plain silly it is to call white people racist for doing the same thing.

----------


## Act of God

It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand...white devil!

----------


## zartan

> It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand...white devil!


Well I see we shut down another political thread with our white supremacist ideologies and our ultimate goal, hold the black man back at any cost

----------


## Kratos

lol, we all sound like a bunch of racists. Honestly the only time I feel uncomfortable around black people is when they talk about racism. There is no way for a white person not to sound like an ass when talking about it. How do you say politely, racism isn't my fault and I don't want to hear about it?

----------


## Act of God

> lol, we all sound like a bunch of racists. Honestly the only time I feel uncomfortable around black people is when they talk about racism. There is no way for a white person not to sound like an ass when talking about it. How do you say politely, racism isn't my fault and I don't want to hear about it?


You are a racist because: Some guy (who you don't know) who looked like you, did some fvcked up sh!t to someone who looked like me (that I don't know) at some point in the past (probably).

----------


## thegodfather

Any educated person would vote Republican/Libertarian. Only a Socialist the likes of Karl Marx,Lenin,&Castro would vote for a Democrat in this country.

----------


## zartan

> Any educated person would vote Republican/Libertarian. Only a Socialist the likes of Karl Marx,Lenin,&Castro would vote for a Democrat in this country.


Thats a bit of a sweeping generalization wouldn't you say? Maybe you're the communist afterall..

----------


## Kratos

> Any educated person would vote Republican/Libertarian. Only a Socialist the likes of Karl Marx,Lenin,&Castro would vote for a Democrat in this country.


I am my own modified version of libertarian. Republicans still want to tell people how to live their life according to the church and all that crap and I'm not a huge fan. It's better than the alternative though.

----------


## Kratos

republican party is full of its own problems

----------


## zartan

> republican party is full of its own problems


opensecrets.org - you can see whose taking money from who, republican party is far worse in my opinion.

If Ron Paul wasn't so dogmatic about certain topics he could definitely take over.

----------


## thegodfather

> Thats a bit of a sweeping generalization wouldn't you say? Maybe you're the communist afterall..


Not really...But of course when I say Republican I refer to the original platform of the party, not the current day bullshit, more specifically the neo-cons. Democrats as a whole, buy votes by promising entitlements, and since I am against pretty much every entitlement, I could never in good faith vote for a Democrat unless they had seriously renounced some of their ideology. I liked Dennis Kucinich, thats about it. I am more interested in those who are strict Constitutionalists, like myself. I wouldn't say that I'd always vote along party lines, it would just be hard for me to agree with a lot of the things the Democrats stand for, as most of their policies contradict the constitution.

----------


## zartan

> Not really...But of course when I say Republican I refer to the original platform of the party, not the current day bullshit, more specifically the neo-cons. Democrats as a whole, buy votes by promising entitlements, and since I am against pretty much every entitlement, I could never in good faith vote for a Democrat unless they had seriously renounced some of their ideology. I liked Dennis Kucinich, thats about it. I am more interested in those who are strict Constitutionalists, like myself. I wouldn't say that I'd always vote along party lines, it would just be hard for me to agree with a lot of the things the Democrats stand for, as most of their policies contradict the constitution.


and Republicans win votes by promising lower taxes, which they never balance out with lowered spending. Every Republican since Eisenhower has increased the deficit while almost every Democrat has lowered it. Would you consider education an entitlement? Perhaps we should do away with public schooling. We are one of the last nations thats not third world to provide free health care. I believe health care falls in line with education, something everyone is 'entitled' to, maybe im a castro-commie bastardo. Our health care system is so fvcked up you can hardly find a general practitioner or specialist who will spend more than 5 minutes with you, they might as well just print their own money. And we don't get any reform because of all the fvcking corrupt lobbyists.

Heres a case in point: My cousin has a small brain tumor, he went in for radiation therapy, the doctor was like 'well here's whats gonna happen, we're gonna irradiate the whole brain, yada yada yada', my cousin was supposed to just have focused radiation, the doctor hadn't even read the file! He was just gonna go in there and torch his whole brain. I don't know all the answers but it needs to be about health care, not how many patients can you see in an hour and still have time to spank one out in the bathroom.

----------


## Kratos

so universal health care is going to make doctors competent and spend more time with patients? There is a health care thread not too far down the page, we are way off topic.

----------


## zartan

> so universal health care is going to make doctors competent and spend more time with patients? There is a health care thread not too far down the page, we are way off topic.


no I'd like to see the lobbyists taken out of Washington and shot. They've got the whole system working for them not us.

----------

