2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[LtMarvel]

You do know that the "Southern Strategy" was a good 100+ years after the founding of the Republican Party, right? So, even if your claim of that event marking the swing of the Republicans toward racists (and it's not), that still means that for well over 100 years, 2/3s of their history, Republicans stood for equal rights. Meanwhile, the Democrats, founded about 60 years earlier, have for 160+ years stood for racism, slavery, and bigotry. There's no "in short order" switch there, you are simply historically WRONG. And there is still no switch today. The Republicans still stand for equal rights... it's just that the Democrats have successfully bought off their former slaves with handouts and benefits and preferences, until being for anything other than racial preferences is labeled "racist". They have perverted the definition... they say "treating everyone equally is racist, you are only NOT racist if you agree to racial preferences that reward people for their skin color!" It's not the Republican Party that changed, it was the strategy of the racists that changed...
Logic is not your strong suit. You need to know that when facing mirror. Given one counterexample does not mean that the rest of the GOP record is clean. Yet you make that assertation.

[Samurai]

Logic is not your strong suit. You need to know that when facing mirror. Given one counterexample does not mean that the rest of the GOP record is clean. Yet you make that assertation.

I gave 2 whole posts, nearly 20,000 words of counter examples... go back and reread them. And there are many, many more in the 2nd link I posted.

No party has a 100% clean record, and no one has said they do. But on balance, it is very clear if you look at the facts that the Republican Party has generally been on the side of equality and civil rights their entire existence, and the Democrats have mostly been on the side of racism.

[Nick Soapdish]

You do know that the "Southern Strategy" was a good 100+ years after the founding of the Republican Party, right? So, even if your claim of that event marking the swing of the Republicans toward racists (and it's not), that still means that for well over 100 years, 2/3s of their history, Republicans stood for equal rights. Meanwhile, the Democrats, founded about 60 years earlier, have for 160+ years stood for racism, slavery, and bigotry. There's no "in short order" switch there, you are simply historically WRONG. And there is still no switch today. The Republicans still stand for equal rights... it's just that the Democrats have successfully bought off their former slaves with handouts and benefits and preferences, until being for anything other than racial preferences is labeled "racist". They have perverted the definition... they say "treating everyone equally is racist, you are only NOT racist if you agree to racial preferences that reward people for their skin color!" It's not the Republican Party that changed, it was the strategy of the racists that changed...

You're correct.

That isn't when the Republicans stopped standing for equal rights. That happened back in 1877 when they sold the blacks down the river in exchange for the Presidency.

In a deal with the Democrats, the rest of the Southern states were allowed back into the Union (with poll taxes and grandfather clauses to disenfranchise the blacks) in exchange for Rutherford B. Hayes' recognition as president.

So the Republicans stood for Equal Rights for just over 20 years of their history with an apex during Johnson's administration. They were still better than the Democrats of the era with their apathy for the blacks' cause rather than outright white supremacy that the Southern Democrats held. Whom they later courted.

And yes, the Democrats have been in the wrong longer than they were in the right. They didn't take an interest in racism at all (other than the wrong side) until FDR's election and moreso during the Civil Rights movement.

However, I'm more concerned with what a party has been doing in the last few years or even the last half century than how they acted from 1856-77.

[Crowley]

I gave 2 whole posts, nearly 20,000 words of counter examples... go back and reread them. And there are many, many more in the 2nd link I posted.

No party has a 100% clean record, and no one has said they do. But on balance, it is very clear if you look at the facts that the Republican Party has generally been on the side of equality and civil rights their entire existence, and the Democrats have mostly been on the side of racism.

I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years either.
— Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, Dec. 5, 2002

George Allen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRfP3vj8Gl8

[LtMarvel]

...and your examples have been dismissed as nonsense. Only president to veto civil rights legislation: Republican.

Who are against gay rights? Repubican.

David Duke, KKK member, ran (and won the primary of) Republican.

Made up black welfare queen to score political points: Republican.

Ran racist Willie Horton ads: Republican

Ran push polls suggesting opponent fathered child with another race: Republican

[Briareos]

Yet of course the left and the Democrats have a hissy fit when say a law that has these exact words The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.


Yup only on the left could laws that forbid descrimination or preferences be considered racist...

[Briareos]

...and your examples have been dismissed as nonsense. Only president to veto civil rights legislation: Republican.

Who are against gay rights? Repubican.

David Duke, KKK member, ran (and won the primary of) Republican.

Made up black welfare queen to score political points: Republican.

Ran racist Willie Horton ads: Republican

Ran push polls suggesting opponent fathered child with another race: Republican

Had being a latino as a reason for preventing a Judge from being appointed as a member of a higher court: Democrats

Who wrote this: http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/10/simple-sambo-wants-to-move-to-big.html : Democrats

Who support policies that discriminate against Asians in college admissions: Democrats

[Crowley]

Had being a latino as a reason for preventing a Judge from being appointed as a member of a higher court: Democrats

um... what?

Are you referring to Alberto Gonzales?

[rick]

Had being a latino as a reason for preventing a Judge from being appointed as a member of a higher court: Democrats

Back it up.



Who wrote this: http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/10/simple-sambo-wants-to-move-to-big.html : Democrats


Rude yes, but a black man calling out another black man for sucking up to white people is many things, but not racist.



Who support policies that discriminate against Asians in college admissions: Democrats


Again, back it up.


I'm sure we will all be amused.

[section 8]

Rude yes, but a black man calling out another black man for sucking up to white people is many things, but not racist.
Agreed, An uncle Tom by any other name....

[Samurai]

Here's more reputable sources on Odinga and Obama, since you claimed you couldn't find any, first from CBS News:

Obama's Criticism Irks Kenyan Government
Government Says Obama Is A Stooge For Political Opposition
Read Mike Flannery's Travel Blog
Get breaking news alerts
by Mike Flannery

(CBS) There are signs of tension between Sen. Barack Obama and African leaders. On Monday, Obama stepped up his criticism of government corruption in Kenya.

But as CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports, the government fired back, saying Obama is a stooge for an opposing political party.

A surprise raid that seized and burned copies of Kenya's oldest newspaper, The Standard, still prompts journalists there to call last March 2 the darkest day in the more than 100 years they've been publishing.

"For us as an institution, I think it was the lowest point in the history of this newspaper," News Editor Douglas Okwatch said.

It was because of that raid that Sen. Barack Obama went to the Standard's offices. He declared that democracy can't work without freedom of the press and freedom of information.

"It is not just a loss for the Standard. It's a loss for the people of Kenya. So my hope is that this is one episode that won't be repeated," Obama said.

At the University of Nairobi two hours later, the senator offered more pointed criticism, something he's done almost every day since arriving last week. After remaining largely silent, the government of President Mwai Kibaki is beginning to respond, suggesting that Obama may have fallen under the spell of opposition leader Raila Odinga.

A potential presidential candidate himself, Odinga's been at Obama's elbow here fairly often and is a member of the Obama family's Luo tribe.

"Sen. Obama has to look at critically about where he's receiving his advice from," said government spokesman Dr. Alfred Mutua. "Just because somebody, somewhere wants to run for president and is using Sen. Obama as his stooge, as his puppet to be able to get to where he wants to get to."

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Barack.Obama.Kenya.2.331658.html

Next, just what Odinga's goons have been up to:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23000292-601,00.html
http://abandoned-orphaned.typepad.com/paulmyhill/2008/01/rape-as-a-weapo.html

Here's an agreement Odinga signed that, if elected, he'd institute Sharia Law:

http://eakenya.org/newsevents/article.htm?id=8

[Red Jack]

this makes me sad more than anything because, even in the face of mounting facts, feet get dug in in favor of a party that has almost literally said that it is anti human and pro industry, anti constitution and pro elite.

There's no shame in changing your mind about something when that something turns out to be a pile of crap.

There's a reason so many Republicans have had second thoughts about the party recently. The bad guys took over a long time ago and they've just now realized it.

[rick]

Here's more reputable sources on Odinga and Obama, since you claimed you couldn't find any, first from CBS News:



http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Barack.Obama.Kenya.2.331658.html

Next, just what Odinga's goons have been up to:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23000292-601,00.html
http://abandoned-orphaned.typepad.com/paulmyhill/2008/01/rape-as-a-weapo.html

Here's an agreement Odinga signed that, if elected, he'd institute Sharia Law:

http://eakenya.org/newsevents/article.htm?id=8


You do realize that your proof of Obama being in the pocket of the Kenyan Prime Minister is his statement that burning down a newspaper was a bad thing?

Not exactly the most damming statement now is it?


edit: Actually Sam I'm going to drop this argument now.

I realize that this is just another Sunday evening political argument to you, but I have to say that while I normally do my best to be patient with you, the basic dishonesty of your position on Obama is actually just sort of pissing me off.

I know you are who you are and you are going to believe whatever ridiculous propaganda the lower echelon of the far Right spoon feeds you. But really, sometimes it’s just gets to be old, and I find that I just loose me willingness to humor you.

Today Obama is a member of a family of evil Muslims waiting to push Islamic law down out throats, tomorrow he will be a racist member of a black separatist church and then the next day he will be part of a corrupt political machine. Whatever Laura Ingham or Rush Limbaugh is saying you will be parroting later that day.

It’s just how it is with you.

You are a nice enough fellow, but you don’t think through your politics, you only think through your talking points. And despite the sports team mentality you bring to politics, that just isn’t how it really works.

So have a nice night, have fun, but I’m out.

[Crowley]

this makes me sad more than anything because, even in the face of mounting facts, feet get dug in in favor of a party that has almost literally said that it is anti human and pro industry, anti constitution and pro elite.

There's no shame in changing your mind about something when that something turns out to be a pile of crap.

There's a reason so many Republicans have had second thoughts about the party recently. The bad guys took over a long time ago and they've just now realized it.

and look at their media mouthpiece... "terrorist fist jab," "Baby mama,"
Rush Limbaugh "“looks like Curious George.”

the recent convention button:
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/3B54CD8B-9936-4396-8DBA-3953165D5647/

The Sock Monkey:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/sockobamaweb.jpg
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/sockobamaweb.jpg
Curious George shirt:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/14/curious-george-shirt/

This shit isn't being sold at the Democratic Events. It's marketed to the GOP... as are Rebel Flags and the like.

[Red Jack]

I know. How high does the mountain have to get?

[FalconX2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25314919#25314851

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25314919#25314889

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25314919#25314919

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25314919#25314965

:eek:

Senators Joe Biden and Lindsey Graham were on Meet the Press today. Biden kicked so much ass! If he were like this in every debate, I might have supported him over Obama.

One little gem he provided with regards to offshore drilling:

The US has already leased 41 million acres of offshore area for drilling. Oil companies are only pumping in 10.2 million of those acres. Why? They know they can easily maximise their profit without going to the trouble of doing it.


Now John McCain wants to lease the oil companies more area to drill? They're not making use of more than 75% of the area they've already been given. Add that to what we already know: even if they did make use of that added area, it would take a minimum of 10 years for oil production to have any effect on prices.

[Nick Soapdish]

One little gem he provided with regards to offshore drilling:

The US has already leased 41 million acres of offshore area for drilling. Oil companies are only pumping in 10.2 million of those acres. Why? They know they can easily maximise their profit without going to the trouble of doing it.


Now John McCain wants to lease the oil companies more area to drill? They're not making use of more than 75% of the area they've already been given. Add that to what we already know: even if they did make use of that added area, it would take a minimum of 10 years for oil production to have any effect on prices.

I've heard an industry analyst say that it could be as few as seven years when they're retrieving oil. Also, it could have an immediate effect on the speculator market because they're trading in oil futures.

However, that same analyst believed that we could be getting 1-2 million barrels a day - compared to the 20 million that we currently use each day and the 86 million that the world currently uses each day. Others have estimated between 2-4 million. It's still under 5% of the global usage (which is what matters unless we nationalize it) if the global usage doesn't go up.

And I think that they aren't drilling in those areas because it's not worth the start-up cost. The other ones are believed to have more oil.

[Samurai]

You do realize that your proof of Obama being in the pocket of the Kenyan Prime Minister is his statement that burning down a newspaper was a bad thing?

Not exactly the most damming statement now is it?


edit: Actually Sam I'm going to drop this argument now.

I realize that this is just another Sunday evening political argument to you, but I have to say that while I normally do my best to be patient with you, the basic dishonesty of your position on Obama is actually just sort of pissing me off.

I know you are who you are and you are going to believe whatever ridiculous propaganda the lower echelon of the far Right spoon feeds you. But really, sometimes it’s just gets to be old, and I find that I just loose me willingness to humor you.

Today Obama is a member of a family of evil Muslims waiting to push Islamic law down out throats, tomorrow he will be a racist member of a black separatist church and then the next day he will be part of a corrupt political machine. Whatever Laura Ingham or Rush Limbaugh is saying you will be parroting later that day.

It’s just how it is with you.

You are a nice enough fellow, but you don’t think through your politics, you only think through your talking points. And despite the sports team mentality you bring to politics, that just isn’t how it really works.

So have a nice night, have fun, but I’m out.

Actually, Obama is all those things at once, there's no changing from one to the next, and nothing contradictory there.

Just to clarify though, Odinga isn't a Muslim himself, but he signed an agreement with the Muslim leadership of Kenya to gain their support. And that support included both at the ballot box and, when that wasn't enough, burning down churches and schools and mass rape of women and children. Odinga himself is actually a Socialist, educated in East Germany when it was still under Soviet control.

And Obama spoke in support of this guy practically every day he was in Africa, for several weeks, it wasn't just 1 statement about seizing a newspaper.

But I understand the need to take a break from the politics, Rick. Have a good evening. I'm off to have dinner with my dad... mmm, home-made roast pork!

[FalconX2000]

I've heard an industry analyst say that it could be as few as seven years when they're retrieving oil. Also, it could have an immediate effect on the speculator market because they're trading in oil futures.

However, that same analyst believed that we could be getting 1-2 million barrels a day - compared to the 20 million that we currently use each day and the 86 million that the world currently uses each day. Others have estimated between 2-4 million. It's still under 5% of the global usage (which is what matters unless we nationalize it) if the global usage doesn't go up.

And I think that they aren't drilling in those areas because it's not worth the start-up cost. The other ones are believed to have more oil.

All of the 75%? Or even most of it? I don't buy it. The oil companies are fat cats that know they don't have to use all their resources because they can ratchet up the price and still make more profits. It's less risky to drill a hole in people's wallets than in the ocean floor.

[rick]

But I understand the need to take a break from the politics, Rick. Have a good evening. I'm off to have dinner with my dad... mmm, home-made roast pork!


My best to your Dad and enjoy dinner.

[Nick Soapdish]

All of the 75%? Or even most of it? I don't buy it. The oil companies are fat cats that know they don't have to use all their resources because they can ratchet up the price and still make more profits. It's less risky to drill a hole in people's wallets than in the ocean floor.

Yeah, I think so.

They got a lot of leases 50 or more years ago before they knew whether or not there was much oil there. They've done some exploratory drilling and haven't found much. So they're not bothering.

It's not going to make much of an impact on the price anyway (assuming that they have as much as the parts of the Gulf that they want to drill in) so they'd just be able to get some of their oil from closer and cut down on distribution costs. I don't see a good reason to suspect conspiracy here.

It may be a good reason to suspect that there isn't any point in opening up more spots to drill because they could be over-estimating the supply again.

[Briareos]

Back it up.






Rude yes, but a black man calling out another black man for sucking up to white people is many things, but not racist.





Again, back it up.


I'm sure we will all be amused.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004305

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/asians-not-whit.html

[Sabrinaset]

Aw, maaaaan ... not Curious George! I loved his books when I was learning how to read! :frown:

[Samurai]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004305

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/asians-not-whit.html

The Affirmative Action story had an especially galling ending...

The authors of the new study seem to be hoping that their conclusions will erode white voters' support for such measures. Their report says their findings "can hardly be satisfying" to "those who campaigned for the elimination of affirmative action in the belief that it would advantage the admission of white students." The study even predicts a white backlash against race-neutral admissions policies if Asian-Americans continue to make gains.

NO, YOU IDIOTS! It's WRONG to exclude someone that deserves to be there because they are smart and worked hard and did well on their grades and exams, in order to favor someone else simply because of the color of their skin! It's WRONG when it's used to discriminate for or against Asians, whites, or blacks! If someone gets in because they are just that darn smart or worked that hard, they deserve it, no matter their race. But if someone gets in because they got bonus points based on which box they checked under "race", then it is wrong, and needs to stop, no matter what race benefits (or doesn't) from ending it. What a horrible miscalculation on why people are opposed to Affirmative Action...

[Nick Soapdish]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004305

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/asians-not-whit.html

I don't think many are going to believe the last one. White people being discriminated against is so much better of a story - at least for the white people. I appreciate you not trying to play this one off as how Democrats discriminate against black people this time.

We've gone over the first one before. I don't think that it's actually racism by the Democrats - at least not the same type. They're indifferent to his race except that it helps Republicans so they're "only" playing politics. That's probably even more contemptible though.

It may also be partly in recognition that if he gets to the Supreme Court nomination, it's more difficult to sink him, even if he isn't qualified.

Clarence Thomas was the second least qualified nomination in a long time because he only had two qualifications - black and conservative. He had three years of experience with legal stuff back in the '70s and one year as a judge - the year prior to being nominated. The rest of his experience was bureaucratic. Of course, his response against his criticism and the claims of sexual misconduct (backed up by 3 co-workers of Hill and 4 other contemporaries testified that she'd complained of them at the time) was to pull the race card.

He remains opposed to affirmative action, but apparently not tokenism.

[LtMarvel]

Affirmative action is a fine policy. There needs to be a larger middle class in the African-American community. Since the reasons there isn't one are the reprehensible acts of our country, aa seems like a fair way to pay off a bit of USA's karma debt.

[kingdom2000]

duplicate...

[kingdom2000]

Clarence Thomas is an idiot. All these years on the court and I don't believe the man has ever authored a court opinion. Probably because he can't. He is so damn predictable I don't even know why he bothers to pretend to hear a case.

Affirmative action has its time and place. That has now passed. The law is basically legal discrimination.

For those that love it, where is the call to extend the law to all minority groups? Shouldn't illegal immigrants get a chance at the middle class (hell might as well extend citizenship to Mexico right?), what about Native Americans, asians, and other miniority groups? Where is the call for fairness in those areas? Why blacks only? Are you not discriminating when supporting black only laws that ignore other groups? In the interest of PC, I do hope you called your Congressmen often to get this issue of discrimination corrected. Oh wait...I bet it never occured to you.

[Red Jack]

Clarence Thomas is an idiot. All these years on the court and I don't believe the man has ever authored a court opinion. Probably because he can't. He is so damn predictable I don't even know why he bothers to pretend to hear a case.

Affirmative action has its time and place. That has now passed. The law is basically legal discrimination.

For those that love it, where is the call to extend the law to all minority groups? Shouldn't illegal immigrants get a chance at the middle class (hell might as well extend citizenship to Mexico right?), what about Native Americans, asians, and other miniority groups? Where is the call for fairness in those areas? Why blacks only? Are you not discriminating when supporting black only laws that ignore other groups? In the interest of PC, I do hope you called your Congressmen often to get this issue of discrimination corrected. Oh wait...I bet it never occured to you.

No. And that's the problem. You can't address every situation with the same solution.

Immigration is a choice. If you hate it at home and you go to a new country you are ASSUMING the burden of catching up with whatever is happening in that country. You ASSUME you will have to learn the language. you ASSUME you will start at or near the bottom of the social and economic pack. And, under these conditions, ALL IMMIGRANTS are essentially the same: they get treated like shit for a generation and then they enclave and assimilate.

Blacks, as opposed to african or carribean immigrants, have had a unique experience in this country and unique measues were ATTEMPTED to redress the vile treatment we received here generationally.

I find it laughable that there's so much anger about a few government jobs and contracts and a VERY few college seats but absolutely none about the ongoing inequalities in this country and the fact that not one of the legal measures meant to offer redress for those generational ills was impemented cleanly. At every turn, from AA to Welfare, "conservatives" have fought, diluted and, in recent years, both rolled back the gains that were made and propagandized their constituencies that the gains themselves were unfair to begin with.

As an analogy, yours isn't.

[kingdom2000]

No. And that's the problem. You can't address every situation with the ame solution.

Immigration is a choice. If you hate it at home and you go to a new country you are ASSUMING the burden of catching up with whatever is happening in that country. You ASSUME you will have to learn the language. you ASSUME you will start at or near the bottom of the social and economic pack. And, under these conditions, ALL IMMIGRANTS are essentially the same: they get treated like shit for a generation and then they enclave and assimilate.

Blacks, as opposed to african or carribean immigrants, have had a unique experience in this country and unique measues were ATTEMPTED to redress the vile treatment we received here generationally.

I find it laughable that there's so much anger about a few government jobs and contracts and a VERY few college seats but absolutely none about the ongoing inequalities in this country and the fact that not one of the legal measures meant to offer redress for those generational ills was impemented cleanly. At every turn, from AA to Welfare, "conservatives" have fought, diluted and, in recent years, both rolled back the gains that were made and propagandized their constituencies that the gains themselves were unfair to begin with.

As an analogy, yours isn't.

So...the black experience is the only experience that matters. Good to know.

[FalconX2000]

So...the black experience is the only experience that matters. Good to know.

That's the kind of statement that touches off firestorms. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would have been:

All the minorities are getting mistreated and have less oppurtunity. Only the blacks are getting (policy here). Why are they getting favourable minority treatment?

[FalconX2000]

So...the black experience is the only experience that matters. Good to know.

QUOTE=kingdom2000;7061989]So...the black experience is the only experience that matters. Good to know.[/QUOTE]

That's the kind of statement that touches off firestorms. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would have been:

All the minorities are getting mistreated and have less oppurtunity. Only the blacks are getting (policy here). Why are they getting favourable minority treatment?

[cactusmaac]

I once again labor to remind Sam and others that the word "media" is the plural form of "medium," and that when you say things like "The liberal media is..." it makes you look like an illiterate.

It makes him look like a regular member of the public, not a grammatical nanny. It's no different to using agenda, data or insignia as a singular.

[the4thpip]

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1206062,00.jpg

The Barack Obama doll is available in a limited edition of 999 and costs €139 ($216). The 36-centimeter (14-inch doll) wears a black suit, complete with Stars and Stripes lapel pin, a white shirt and Obama's trademark sky-blue tie.

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MzIzMTQmbnI9Mg_3_3,00.html

Why does he have a lapel pin? :evilangry:

[Briareos]

No. And that's the problem. You can't address every situation with the ame solution.

Immigration is a choice. If you hate it at home and you go to a new country you are ASSUMING the burden of catching up with whatever is happening in that country. You ASSUME you will have to learn the language. you ASSUME you will start at or near the bottom of the social and economic pack. And, under these conditions, ALL IMMIGRANTS are essentially the same: they get treated like shit for a generation and then they enclave and assimilate.

Blacks, as opposed to african or carribean immigrants, have had a unique experience in this country and unique measues were ATTEMPTED to redress the vile treatment we received here generationally.

I find it laughable that there's so much anger about a few government jobs and contracts and a VERY few college seats but absolutely none about the ongoing inequalities in this country and the fact that not one of the legal measures meant to offer redress for those generational ills was impemented cleanly. At every turn, from AA to Welfare, "conservatives" have fought, diluted and, in recent years, both rolled back the gains that were made and propagandized their constituencies that the gains themselves were unfair to begin with.

As an analogy, yours isn't.

Yes god forbid someone has a thought process that he applies to his rulings as opposed to just how felt that day...

[Samurai]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25324195/

Looks like Obama is in the pocket of Big Ethanol, no matter how many 3rd world people starve, or how wealthy Obama's advisers and contributors become, he'll support it...

[Typo Lad]

So...the black experience is the only experience that matters. Good to know.
I don't know if it's the "only", but one must admit it's unique.

Many other experiances are too.

[Red Jack]

So...the black experience is the only experience that matters. Good to know.

Strike two. First an unworkable analogy and now a poor and inaccurate paraphrase. Thanks T-Lad. One unique experience doesn't preclude others and one system of redress cannot possibly fit all.

[Typo Lad]

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1206062,00.jpg



http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MzIzMTQmbnI9Mg_3_3,00.html

Why does he have a lapel pin? :evilangry:

Obama has worn the pins. Heck, at the NORPAC/AIPAC thing, he wore an Israeli/Us fflag pin.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25324195/

Looks like Obama is in the pocket of Big Ethanol, no matter how many 3rd world people starve, or how wealthy Obama's advisers and contributors become, he'll support it...

Your link (and record) is broken.

Oh and Red? Any time. We may not always agree, but I think we have as lot of common ground on this cause.

[Samurai]

Obama has worn the pins. Heck, at the NORPAC/AIPAC thing, he wore an Israeli/Us fflag pin.



Your link (and record) is broken.

Oh and Red? Any time. We may not always agree, but I think we have as lot of common ground on this cause.

The link works just fine for me, I just tried it again before responding.

[Michael P]

It makes him look like a regular member of the public, not a grammatical nanny. It's no different to using agenda, data or insignia as a singular.

You're correct. They're all wrong.

[Typo Lad]

The link works just fine for me, I just tried it again before responding.
I get a blank page. Try refreshing.

Your browser and your mind.

[Samurai]

I get a blank page. Try refreshing.

Your browser and your mind.

Then here's what it says:

Obama camp closely linked with ethanol
Industry endorsed by candidate has provided some of his top advisers

By LARRY ROHTER
updated 6:19 a.m. PT, Mon., June. 23, 2008

When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry’s most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama .

Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Mr. Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.”

Links to Tom Daschle
Nowadays, when Mr. Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle , the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Mr. Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, “he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy.”

Mr. Obama’s lead advisor on energy and environmental issues, Jason Grumet, came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan initiative associated with Mr. Daschle and Bob Dole , the Kansas Republican who is also a former Senate majority leader and a big ethanol backer who had close ties to the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland .

Not long after arriving in the Senate, Mr. Obama himself briefly provoked a controversy by flying at subsidized rates on corporate airplanes, including twice on jets owned by Archer Daniels Midland, which is the nation’s largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state.

Jason Furman , the Obama campaign’s economic policy director, said Mr. Obama’s stance on ethanol was based on its merits. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Mr. Furman said.

Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, “He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what’s best for the country.”

Mr. Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his role advising the Obama campaign on energy matters was limited. He said he was not a lobbyist for ethanol companies, but did speak publicly about renewable energy options and worked “with a number of associations and groups to orchestrate and coordinate their activities,” including the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition.

Of Mr. Obama, Mr. Daschle said, “He has a terrific policy staff and relies primarily on those key people to advise him on key issues, whether energy or climate change or other things.”

Obama, McCain differ on subsidies
Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve “energy security” while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts.

Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.

“We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market” and contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo. “Besides, it is wrong,” he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, “which is much more efficient than corn ethanol.”

Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence,” he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization ’s rules but which his advisers say is not.

Many economists, consumer advocates, environmental experts and tax groups have been critical of corn ethanol programs as a boondoggle that benefits agribusiness conglomerates more than small farmers. Those complaints have intensified recently as corn prices have risen sharply in tandem with oil prices and corn normally used for food stock has been diverted to ethanol production.

“If you want to take some of the pressure off this market, the obvious thing to do is lower that tariff and let some Brazilian ethanol come in,” said C. Ford Runge, an economist specializing in commodities and trade policy at the Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota . “But one of the fundamental reasons biofuels policy is so out of whack with markets and reality is that interest group politics have been so dominant in the construction of the subsidies that support it.”

Sugar cane more efficient
Corn ethanol generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it, while the energy ratio for sugar cane is more than 8 to 1. With lower production costs and cheaper land prices in the tropical countries where it is grown, sugar cane is a more efficient source.

Mr. Furman said the campaign continued to examine the issue. “We want to evaluate all our energy subsidies to make sure that taxpayers are getting their money’s worth,” he said.

He added that Mr. Obama favored “a range of initiatives” that were aimed at “diversification across countries and sources of energy,” including cellulosic ethanol, and which, unlike Mr. McCain’s proposals, were specifically meant to “reduce overall demand through conservation, new technology and improved efficiency.”

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama has not explained his opposition to imported sugar cane ethanol. But in remarks last year, made as President Bush was about to sign an ethanol cooperation agreement with his Brazilian counterpart, Mr. Obama argued that “our country’s drive toward energy independence” could suffer if Mr. Bush relaxed restrictions, as Mr. McCain now proposes.

“It does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol,” he argued.

Mr. Obama does talk regularly about developing switchgrass, which flourishes in the Midwest and Great Plains, as a source for ethanol. While the energy ratio for switchgrass and other types of cellulosic ethanol is much greater than corn, economists say that time-consuming investments in infrastructure would be required to make it viable, and with corn nearing $8 a bushel, farmers have little incentive to shift.

Ethanol industry executives and advocates have not made large donations to either candidate for president, an examination of campaign contribution records shows. But they have noted the difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain.

Brian Jennings, a vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, said he hoped that Mr. McCain, as a presidential candidate, “would take a broader view of energy security and recognize the important role that ethanol plays.”

The candidates’ views were tested recently in the Farm Bill approved by Congress that extended the subsidies for corn ethanol, though reducing them slightly, and the tariffs on imported sugar cane ethanol. Because Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama were campaigning, neither voted. But Mr. McCain said that as president he would veto the bill, while Mr. Obama praised it.

This story, After Attacks, Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol, originally appeared in The New York Times.

[Stressfactor]

Why does he have a lapel pin? :evilangry:

Actually, this is a tradition that dates back to pre- 9/11. Congressmen and women along with many other high-level US goverment workers are usually given a gold pin with the American Flag enameled on it when they are sworn in. Most (if not all) wear theirs to work daily after receiving the pin.

[Samurai]

Actually, this is a tradition that dates back to pre- 9/11. Congressmen and women along with many other high-level US goverment workers are usually given a gold pin with the American Flag enameled on it when they are sworn in. Most (if not all) wear theirs to work daily after receiving the pin.

Yeah, but not Obama... he doesn't like flag pins and calls it "false patriotism". Personally, I think they burn him like a cross does a vampire... ;)

[Typo Lad]

“It does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol,” he argued.

I... agree with this.

I don't agree with Ethanol as an answer, but hey, have you checked his energy policy to see if Ethanol plays a part, or are you just fear mongering?

[JamesRitcheyIII]

So...the black experience is the only experience that matters. Good to know.

Don't get upitty, Kingdom--you'll be treated better in the Gulags Obama will inevitably set up for 'PC'-challenged white people once he takes office. :biggrin:

So...you're fine with white ancestors building this country on the backs of black ancestors, and then for a hundred years (and still today) after their 'emancipation', being treated like second-class citizens and perpetual 'suspects'? 9/11 was almost a reprieve, because the recreational bigots--I mean--Republican Conservatives (see Sabrina's >nudge< >wink< post--they really think it's an 'in-joke') had a new group to focus on.

This isn't racial guilt, that 'catchphrase' the Limbaugh contingent use rather than thinking and coming up with their own words--it's that Affirmative Action never affected me in any way, shape or form--no doubt, any more than it has you. I take people one at a time, and don't think I should be held accountable for the 'Sins of My Fathers' individually, but that doesn't mean if a people are disenfranchised and regarded as 'criminals-to-be' at birth by institutionalized bigotry, that maybe they shouldn't have a 'legal balance' weighed in their favor.

The only people who have thwarted my pursuit of 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' and fucked up my life regarding College ain't black people--they are conservative white people who made sure I couldn't afford it--by allowing grants and loans for school to lapse for a period in the eighties. I could barely live indoors, much less pay for school on a bus-boy's tips in 1981-83. It would have been my only chance--despite my being accepted to two fine local Universities, and aceing the entrance exam to Emory, one of the top schools in the country.

[rick]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004305

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/asians-not-whit.html


You do realize that neither of those opinion pieces actually say what you re claiming they say right?

[Typo Lad]

Yeah, but not Obama... he doesn't like flag pins and calls it "false patriotism". Personally, I think they burn him like a cross does a vampire... ;)
Except, as I mentioned, he's worn them.

Also, as a dyed-in-the wool Bushnick, I was wondering what you think of this (http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/06/09/laura-bush-defends-michelle-obama/)

Michelle Obama has a new defender from those who say she isn’t patriotic enough — First Lady Laura Bush. In an interview with ABC News, Bush said that Obama’s February remark that she was proud of the United States “for the first time in my adult life” was misconstrued.

Rest in the body.

[Charles RB]

Here's more reputable sources on Odinga and Obama, since you claimed you couldn't find any, first from CBS News:

That is a more reputable source, thank you.

Of course what it's saying is that the Kenyan government said Obama was being manipulated by Odinga rather than that he actually was been buddying with him, and they're saying this after he criticised Kenyan government corruption & the government having a go at the freedom of the press.

Strangely this didn't get mentioned in your previous sources and that they presented the Obama/Odinga link as far more than an accusation by a criticised corrupt government.


The Sock Monkey:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/sockobamaweb.jpg
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/sockobamaweb.jpg
Curious George shirt:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/14/curious-george-shirt/


What the FUCK is wrong with the party faithful over there?

[rick]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25324195/

Looks like Obama is in the pocket of Big Ethanol, no matter how many 3rd world people starve, or how wealthy Obama's advisers and contributors become, he'll support it...

It's like living in the Twilight Zone around here sometimes, it really is. :rolleyes:

[rick]

Yeah, but not Obama... he doesn't like flag pins and calls it "false patriotism". Personally, I think they burn him like a cross does a vampire... ;)


No, what he said was that just putting on a pin doesn't make you a patriot.

Your quote is correct, but you really shouldn't skip the context like that just to make a smear.

[Samurai]

Except, as I mentioned, he's worn them.

Also, as a dyed-in-the wool Bushnick, I was wondering what you think of this (http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/06/09/laura-bush-defends-michelle-obama/)



Rest in the body.

She was just being nice. She also praised Hillary Clinton in that piece.

“I think she probably meant ‘I’m more proud.’ That’s what she really meant,” Bush said from Afghanistan.

Michelle gave the speech multiple times, and said "1st time" every time. She said what she meant, and she meant what she said, IMO, and Laura's statement boils down to "Oh, she couldn't possibly have actually meant what she said..."

[Typo Lad]

You're really, really married to the idea of the Obamas as America-hating, Terrorist sympathising, White-baiters, aren't you?

It's impressive. Sad, but impressive.

[Samurai]

You're really, really married to the idea of the Obamas as America-hating, Terrorist sympathising, White-baiters, aren't you?

It's impressive. Sad, but impressive.

Well, with new forms of marriage being approved all the time, it won't be long until our love is officially recognized! ;)

[Typo Lad]

Well, with new forms of marriage being approved all the time, it won't be long until our love is officially recognized! ;)
Ha-hah! Subtle bigotry is funny!

C'mon Tom, you're better than that.

[the4thpip]

Well, with new forms of marriage being approved all the time, it won't be long until our love is officially recognized! ;)

Sorry, Samantha. Nobody will ever consider you a consenting adult.

[rick]

Ha-hah! Subtle bigotry is funny!

C'mon Tom, you're better than that.


I'm sorry, but sure, that was a bit rude on his part, but I did still laugh when I read it. :redface:

[Typo Lad]

I'm sorry, but sure, that was a bit rude on his part, but I did still laugh when I read it. :redface:
I'd probably find it funny another time, truth be told.

[K-DoG7p7]

All I care about

Obama
NASA

"The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years.
WHAT?? Delay the Ares V?? STUPID!!

As president, Obama will support the development of this vital new platform Crew Exploration Vehicle to ensure that the United States' reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period.
And at the same time Invest in the Crew Capsual of the Ares V ???
No Mars :/


Can't find any info on McCain..

[Typo Lad]

Really? You're more concerned with a pie-in-the-sky Mars plan than educating our children so that they know what mars is?

[K-DoG7p7]

Really? You're more concerned with a pie-in-the-sky Mars plan than educating our children so that they know what mars is?

There not my kids..
:biggrin:

[Michael P]

There not my kids..
:biggrin:

No, but they'll be fixing your car, conducting your surgeries, and establishing your Martian colonies.

[Charles RB]

I'd say immediate education improvements would take priority over long-term space colonisation, since without the former you won't have much of a latter.

[Red Jack]

Don't get upitty, Kingdom--you'll be treated better in the Gulags Obama will inevitably set up for 'PC'-challenged white people once he takes office. :biggrin:

So...you're fine with white ancestors building this country on the backs of black ancestors, and then for a hundred years (and still today) after their 'emancipation', being treated like second-class citizens and perpetual 'suspects'? 9/11 was almost a reprieve, because the recreational bigots--I mean--Republican Conservatives (see Sabrina's >nudge< >wink< post--they really think it's an 'in-joke') had a new group to focus on.

This isn't racial guilt, that 'catchphrase' the Limbaugh contingent use rather than thinking and coming up with their own words--it's that Affirmative Action never affected me in any way, shape or form--no doubt, any more than it has you. I take people one at a time, and don't think I should be held accountable for the 'Sins of My Fathers' individually, but that doesn't mean if a people are disenfranchised and regarded as 'criminals-to-be' at birth by institutionalized bigotry, that maybe they shouldn't have a 'legal balance' weighed in their favor.

The only people who have thwarted my pursuit of 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' and fucked up my life regarding College ain't black people--they are conservative white people who made sure I couldn't afford it--by allowing grants and loans for school to lapse for a period in the eighties. I could barely live indoors, much less pay for school on a bus-boy's tips in 1981-83. It would have been my only chance--despite my being accepted to two fine local Universities, and aceing the entrance exam to Emory, one of the top schools in the country.

QFT

And this is where the Rebs have been masterful at spinning the game.

By conflating class issues with those of deep seeded "racial" prejudices, they have succeeded in convincing a significant number of americans that the seats in college they should be pissed off about are the tiny number "set aside" for blacks and, to a lesser degree, other minorities. The thesis seems to be, "the field is level so why are THESE guys getting a free ride?'

Except the field isn't level. There have been and remain all sorts of special set asides for the traditional "in groups" that screw the little guy of all ethnicities and genders.

Why, for instance, are we not focused on legacies, who make up a much higher percentage of college admissions than the AA "set asides?" Why should the fact that your parents or grand parents went to a particualr school influence your chances of getting in?

But that fact does. And so do many others that, due to the previous (and, yes, ongoing) entrenched disparities would prevent qualified candidates, whatever their color or gender, from getting a seat at the table. You want to even the field for everybody, start there.

And while you're at that end of the table, take off the children of the rich getting to buy their way into schools they would not otherwise be qualified to enter. How many kids are getting bumped from college right now because Muffy's daddy went to Choate? And yet no outcry from the conservative contingent. Those two categories alone, if removed, would end this "debate."

Why aren't we upset about sports scholarships (an oxymoron) which only exist to draw funds to the college through increased game attendance and corporate sponsorship and have been proven in many cases to promote and even graduate substandard students of all descriptions whose only "academic" contribution was that they could run, catch, jump, throw or row better than average? Sure, on paper, those are supposed to be field levelers but, in practice, that's not how it plays.

Shouldn't the various professional leagues, all generating multiple billions in revenue, finance their own trade schools to create the next generation of athletes? Why should colleges and universities be in that game at all?

Do we assume that that the loss of revenue to the public school system, created in no small measure by "White Flight," has not resulted in a de facto separate-and-unequal school system divided between whites and blacks (and latins) with whites in the upper tier?

Pitting american blacks against american asians is a master stroke of racially divisive politics. Why are the asians fighting the blacks for seats at all? Are those the only seats in contention? As James said, it's not the blacks that prevent them from getting into a given school. But it is conservative republicans who have made the spurious and ugly argument that it is, playing into and manipulating an existing cultural antipathy to suit their own political ends.

This stuff isn't hard or subtle. You just have to look at it.

[K-DoG7p7]

No, but they'll be fixing your car, conducting your surgeries, and establishing your Martian colonies.

No they don't.. Unless they rate of Asylum seeker from the US increase even more in the next few years.

Look People.. NASA has an Annual budget of $17.3 billion (2008)
And thats NOTHING compared to the amount of money wasted on Iraq in fact..

Taking Money from NASA is like robbing a streetbegger to give to the midelclass guy in like at starbucks while the rich oil tychoon is driving along splashing water on people...
YES I SAID SOMETHING THAT I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND!!!

NASAs Budget should be TWICE what it is and the Military budget should he at least HALF..
You can't fight "Tellolists" with Armies.. You all know the expression "Killing a Fly with a bazooka"

The Cold War is over.. Stop looking for new ways to thing out the working class

[Typo Lad]

No they don't.. Unless they rate of Asylum seeker from the US increase even more in the next few years.

Look People.. NASA has an Annual budget of $17.3 billion (2008)
And thats NOTHING compared to the amount of money wasted on Iraq in fact..

Taking Money from NASA is like robbing a streetbegger to give to the midelclass guy in like at starbucks while the rich oil tychoon is driving along splashing water on people...
YES I SAID SOMETHING THAT I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND!!!

NASAs Budget should be TWICE what it is and the Military budget should he at least HALF..
You can't fight "Tellolists" with Armies.. You all know the expression "Killing a Fly with a bazooka"

The Cold War is over.. Stop looking for new ways to thing out the working class
Serious pair of question -

How old are you, and is English your first language?

I can't respond further until I know the answers, as I do not wish to insult.

[K-DoG7p7]

24 and no..

[Michael P]

I, on the other hand, am entirely comfortable with declaring you a complete fuckwit.

[K-DoG7p7]

I, on the other hand, am entirely comfortable with declaring you a complete fuckwit.

Why? because i want to see us a human evolve past inbreeding and fighting over fictional characters?

[Michael P]

Why? because i want to see us a human evolve past inbreeding and fighting over fictional characters?

No, because you don't know shit about shit, but think you do.

Don't worry; it's a common ailment.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25324195/

Looks like Obama is in the pocket of Big Ethanol, no matter how many 3rd world people starve, or how wealthy Obama's advisers and contributors become, he'll support it...

I'm well aware of Obama's stance on this issue, and its one of the rare cases where I somewhat agree with you after I get through the partisan BS.

But comon, Illinois grows huge amounts of corn, it hardly seems unreasonable for him as Illinois senator to support some legislation favouring ethanol. He has repeatedly stated that it is not a viable replacement for petrol, hence his emphasis on fuel efficiency, business incentives for alternative energy, $150 billion for alternative energy development, developing clean coal technology (Illinois has lots of coal too, IIRC), doubling funding for basic research, etc.

*gasp* Samurai actually follows MSNBC!:eek:

...or maybe he was just googling the news and saw the headline.

[Typo Lad]

Okay dog.

What you said, aside from being incomrehensible in places due to how you phrased it, is nonsensicle.

I'm a firm believer in the space program. However, it cannot exist at the expense of nessecary social programs. How are we supposed to be on another world when we can't even manage this one? No-one's saying shut it down... they're saying do it cheaper or slower.

As for the comparison to Iraq, well that's a false comparison. Why? Because we're in Iraq. Right now. The expense is what we call a "fact on the ground". We are not on Mars. It is not a fact on the ground.

Am I happy with how much we spend on the military? No. THat doesn't mean I can't also be unhappy about wasting money on a Manned Mars Mission.

[K-DoG7p7]

No, because you don't know shit about shit, but think you do.

Don't worry; it's a common ailment.

what shit.. com on.. you said i don't know shit about shit then stop there? why not enlighten me?

[FalconX2000]

All I care about

Obama

WHAT?? Delay the Ares V?? STUPID!!

And at the same time Invest in the Crew Capsual of the Ares V ???
No Mars :/


Can't find any info on McCain..

There are times when pushing technology too far ahead of its time becomes cost ineffective. The money used for interplanetary exploration, which has little to no practical application for the next few decades, could go into much more urgent needs.

McCain will be too busy bombing Iran to care about space, except with regards to orbiting nukes.

[K-DoG7p7]

it cannot exist at the expense of nessecary social programs[/B]. How are we supposed to be on another world when we can't even manage this one? No-one's saying shut it down... they're saying do it cheaper or slower. Who said it has to? take the money for that from the military.. the US is NOT the world police so stop acting like it.., there is a reason the rest of us look down on you..



As for the comparison to Iraq, well that's a false comparison. Why? Because we're in Iraq. Right now. The expense is what we call a "fact on the ground". We are not on Mars. It is not a fact on the ground. then GTFO of Iraq.. no one wanted US troops there, it wasn't needed and its only destabilized the region more then it was

Am I happy with how much we spend on the military? No. THat doesn't mean I can't also be unhappy about wasting money on a Manned Mars Mission.
If you half the Military budget and double the NASA budget.. you still have 220 BILLION left to spend on everything else..

[FalconX2000]

No they don't.. Unless they rate of Asylum seeker from the US increase even more in the next few years.

Look People.. NASA has an Annual budget of $17.3 billion (2008)
And thats NOTHING compared to the amount of money wasted on Iraq in fact..

Taking Money from NASA is like robbing a streetbegger to give to the midelclass guy in like at starbucks while the rich oil tychoon is driving along splashing water on people...
YES I SAID SOMETHING THAT I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND!!!

NASAs Budget should be TWICE what it is and the Military budget should he at least HALF..
You can't fight "Tellolists" with Armies.. You all know the expression "Killing a Fly with a bazooka"

The Cold War is over.. Stop looking for new ways to thing out the working class

You know, you really can kill a fly with a bazooka.

And Obama plans to get the troops out of Iraq too. That place is sinking $3 billion every week. Most of the money saved will be used to fix things like social security, healthcare, give vets proper treatment, etc.

McCain wants to stay in Iraq with current troop levels for the forseeable future btw.

[K-DoG7p7]

There are times when pushing technology too far ahead of its time becomes cost ineffective. The money used for interplanetary exploration, which has little to no practical application for the next few decades, could go into much more urgent needs.
.
What you don't get is that interplanetary exploration CAN solve world hunger.. In fact most of the leaps in agriculture the last few decades have come from the space program..

[FalconX2000]

I, on the other hand, am entirely comfortable with declaring you a complete fuckwit.

I was thinking he was just being funny....I'm still not sure.

[Typo Lad]

Who said it has to? take the money for that from the military.. the US is NOT the world police so stop acting like it.., there is a reason the rest of us look down on you..


then GTFO of Iraq.. no one wanted US troops there, it wasn't needed and its only destabilized the region more then it was

If you half the Military budget and double the NASA budget.. you still have 220 BILLION left to spend on everything else..
You're talking to someone who'se been against the war from the start.

It's really easy to say "take the money from the military" and "pull out". As much as I want our troops out, no President is going to be able to wave a magic wand and do that. it's going to take time to scale down and yes, it's going to take money. That's going to be a priority over sending a man somewhere where we can send a machine for cheaper.

[Red Jack]

I'm taking a break. Things get heated on this topic and things get said. I haven't fallen in yet, myself (this time), but I'm trying to cut back.

It's just politics.

It's not like we're arguing about whether or not Chuck Dixon likes gay people or whether Ed Benes has an ass fetish.

[Michael P]

I was thinking he was just being funny....I'm still not sure.

Oh, he's funny, but in the same way as a supermodel with a mole that's slowly getting bigger.

[FalconX2000]

What you don't get is that interplanetary exploration CAN solve world hunger.. In fact most of the leaps in agriculture the last few decades have come from the space program..

Those are incidental, just like velcro was. Money spent on basic research (which Obama plans to double, as I said earlier) is a much surer way to do make advances on Earth.

However, since you seem to know these advances so well, please feel free to enlighten me how it has helped increase food production. I'm not doubting you, but I am curious.

[Typo Lad]

What you don't get is that interplanetary exploration CAN solve world hunger.. In fact most of the leaps in agriculture the last few decades have come from the space program..
Um, no. No it has not.

Other things, sure. Hell, the scanners in the supermarket are based on NASA tech and some of the bits in the computer you're typing on are as well.

Agriculture though? Nu-uh.

Sorry man you're kind of coming off as one of those "one issue" people who see everything as it relates to said issue, right or wrong.

Space is good. Space is not all.

Fix Earth first.

[cactusmaac]

Why, for instance, are we not focused on legacies, who make up a much higher percentage of college admissions than the AA "set asides?" Why should the fact that your parents or grand parents went to a particualr school influence your chances of getting in?


Generally, the SAT and GRE scores of legacy admissions either exceed or are not much behind those of non-legacy students. People who get in via AA tend to have significantly lower SAT scores from the general student body but will find it much easier to gain admission.

[Typo Lad]

Generally, the SAT and GRE scores of legacy admissions either exceed or are not much behind those of non-legacy students. People who get in via AA tend to have significantly lower SAT scores from the general student body but will find it much easier to gain admission.
Do you have sources for these "well known facts"? Because my dad's founding Dean of a college, and I used to work at one, and that doesn't match our stats.

True, we were one college in NY, but I'd like to see actual sources.

[K-DoG7p7]

Those are incidental, just like velcro was. Money spent on basic research (which Obama plans to double, as I said earlier) is a much surer way to do make advances on Earth.

However, since you seem to know these advances so well, please feel free to enlighten me how it has helped increase food production. I'm not doubting you, but I am curious.
Long story short.. NASA helps to provide the world with plants that are better adapted to grown in harsh conditions and yield larger crops.. Astronauts gotta eat too..

[FalconX2000]

Long story short.. NASA helps to provide the world with plants that are better adapted to grown in harsh conditions and yield larger crops.. Astronauts gotta eat too..

I get what you're saying, but NASA is hardly in the lead on that issue. Tougher crops are bred by farmers and other researchers too.

[Typo Lad]

Long story short.. NASA helps to provide the world with plants that are better adapted to grown in harsh conditions and yield larger crops.. Astronauts gotta eat too..
Long story have a source?

[Typo Lad]

I get what you're saying, but NASA is hardly in the lead on that issue. Tougher crops are bred by farmers and other researchers too.
(Psst... and doesn't the Army do stuff like that too?)

[cactusmaac]

You know, you really can kill a fly with a bazooka.

And Obama plans to get the troops out of Iraq too. That place is sinking $3 billion every week. Most of the money saved will be used to fix things like social security, healthcare, give vets proper treatment, etc.



It won't be much difference. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cost $1203 billion dollars in the last budget. The cost of the commitments in both Iran and Afghanistan is $180 billion dollars per year. Spending on social programs is going to go massively up in the next two decades as the boomers age and retire. Even eliminating the US military won't make a dent in the payments due.

[Paul McEnery]

Okay dog.

What you said, aside from being incomrehensible in places due to how you phrased it, is nonsensicle..

Morts, I want you to answer a question before I address this.

Is English your second language?











Or: It's hot! I want me a nonsensicle! A banilla one!

[Paul McEnery]

It won't be much difference. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cost $1203 billion dollars in the last budget. The cost of the commitments in both Iran and Afghanistan is $180 billion dollars per year. Spending on social programs is going to go massively up in the next two decades as the boomers age and retire. Even eliminating the US military won't make a dent in the payments due.

What if we sent our old folk to the war?

[cactusmaac]

Do you have sources for these "well known facts"? Because my dad's founding Dean of a college, and I used to work at one, and that doesn't match our stats.

True, we were one college in NY, but I'd like to see actual sources.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6374.html

[Typo Lad]

Or: It's hot! I want me a nonsensicle! A banilla one!

I like this one better.


What if we sent our old folk to the war?

I like this idea, actually.

[K-DoG7p7]

Long story have a source?

www.google.com/ use it .. its easy..

Granted they don't actually do the research in house.. but they fund a LARGE part of it..

[cactusmaac]

What if we sent our old folk to the war?

It would make more sense to turn them into biofuel.

[Sabrinaset]

9/11 was almost a reprieve, because the recreational bigots--I mean--Republican Conservatives

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, you're so precious with the overgeneralizations.

Really? You're more concerned with a pie-in-the-sky Mars plan than educating our children so that they know what mars is?

I dunno, Typo ... I mean, right now, we have kids who don't know where Europe is on a map AND no one on Mars. Maybe we're better off with at least one of them? And yeah, I could be wrong here, but the scientific advances we'd make could well be worth the cost. I mean ... didn't we ultimately get the DVD because of the Apollo missions? Then again, my Grandfather, who did work on them says that so he could me trying to make himself look good there ...

YES I SAID SOMETHING THAT I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND!!!

You can't fight "Tellolists" with Armies..

...and Michael P didn't eviscerate you for those sentences? He must be in a good mood today.

Or: It's hot! I want me a nonsensicle! A banilla one!

I just made chocolate-covered frozen bananas with nuts, Paul. I know it has to be hot in Frisco right now, it's broiling here ... you want some? I have a few with sprinkles too!

[K-DoG7p7]

...and Michael P didn't eviscerate you for those sentences? He must be in a good mood today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go

[Karen El]

I dunno, Typo ... I mean, right now, we have kids who don't know where Europe is on a map AND no one on Mars. Maybe we're better off with at least one of them? And yeah, I could be wrong here, but the scientific advances we'd make could well be worth the cost.

Is it really such a binary choice - Go to Mars OR educate the chillun? And even if it was, look at it this way - lots of other countries have excellent educational facilities, but the USA has the best space program. Go with what you're good at.


I just made chocolate-covered frozen bananas with nuts, Paul. I know it has to be hot in Frisco right now, it's broiling here ... you want some? I have a few with sprinkles too!

*drools*

[Paul McEnery]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, you're so precious with the overgeneralizations.



I dunno, Typo ... I mean, right now, we have kids who don't know where Europe is on a map AND no one on Mars. Maybe we're better off with at least one of them? And yeah, I could be wrong here, but the scientific advances we'd make could well be worth the cost. I mean ... didn't we ultimately get the DVD because of the Apollo missions? Then again, my Grandfather, who did work on them says that so he could me trying to make himself look good there ...!

And Orange Tango!

And if we don't edumacate the young'uns, maybe they'll think it's just like a trip to Dissernylang, and they'll all hop aboard the Go-Away-Forever Express!

[Sabrinaset]

And Orange Tango!

And if we don't edumacate the young'uns, maybe they'll think it's just like a trip to Dissernylang, and they'll all hop aboard the Go-Away-Forever Express!

I read "The Marching Morons" TOO, Mr. McEnery!

[Gilda Dent]

The Affirmative Action story had an especially galling ending...

That's not really the ending, it's a little over midway.

What it does say is that the one group most "harmed" by Affirmative Action, Asian-Americans, is overwhelmingly in favor of it.

And such "harm" really is hard to take seriously as such. Those with the grades to get into Stanford but don't for whatever reason don't end up on skid row or stuck in open-admission community college, they end up in some other top-notch school they were qualified for.

Like, say, not getting into Harvard and going to USC instead, just to choose a completely random example that has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal circumstances.


NO, YOU IDIOTS! It's WRONG to exclude someone that deserves to be there because they are smart and worked hard and did well on their grades and exams, in order to favor someone else simply because of the color of their skin!

Well, except that it isn't like that. First, nobody has ever been admitted to a prestigious school "simply because of the color of their skin". It isn't just any black or Latino student that gets in, it's the most qualified minority applicants who get a preference. And it isn't Mr. Super-Qualifed that gets bumped to that back-up school whose prestige is slightly below their first choice, it's the borderline student who was barely getting in in the first place.

In short, it's the least qualified people who otherwise would have been admitted getting bumped for the most qualified minorities, while other blatantly lesser-qualified students sail past more qualified students due to athletic ability and preference systems set up to benefit (predominantly white) wealthy legacies.

It's WRONG when it's used to discriminate for or against Asians, whites, or blacks! If someone gets in because they are just that darn smart or worked that hard, they deserve it, no matter their race. But if someone gets in because they got bonus points based on which box they checked under "race", then it is wrong, and needs to stop, no matter what race benefits (or doesn't) from ending it.

The problem here is that these conditions are not mutually exclusive. Highly selective Universities routinely get a great many more qualified applicants than they have room for, so they pick and choose based on what they want their school's population to look like. Giving a preference to a qualified minority over a qualified white or Asian person isn't anywhere close to letting in unqualified people due to race.

Well, with new forms of marriage being approved all the time, it won't be long until our love is officially recognized! ;)

Really? New forms of marriage are being recognized all the time? Other than same-sex marriage in a small number of states, what are these "new forms" and where are they being recognized?

[Gilda Dent]

Also, I agree somewhat with K-Dog in principle.

Sure, we need to spend more on education, but raiding the NASA budget, which is a tiny portion of the Federal budget, to fund this would harm the space program for a negligible amount of money relative to the education budget.

Yes, spend more on education, but find the offsets somewhere else where it won't be as harmful, or cut back some pork.

[Briareos]

North Korea has joined Cuban dictator Castro in endorsing Obama.

[Paul McEnery]

North Korea has joined Cuban dictator Castro in endorsing Obama.

And Satan, Ba'al and Be'elzebub all came out for McCain!

Dang, now how will I choose!

[Red Jack]

North Korea has joined Cuban dictator Castro in endorsing Obama.

When did Cubans and N. Koreans get the right to vote in our elections?

I mean, really, who cares what they think?

Smokescreen.

Would you like a series of photos depicting Republican Presidents getting cozy with brutal dictators past and present? It's can be done, my friend. And it's not even hard.

You REALLY want to stay out of those waters. There be dragons.

[section 8]

And Satan, Ba'al and Be'elzebub all came out for McCain!

Dang, now how will I choose!

sarcasm aside i feel the same way.

i Doubt Obama's experience, and his optimism reminds me of the saying "if it sounds to good to be true it probably is."

Meanwhile, each time McCain opens his mouth he sounds more and more like
George W Bush.

Like i said before i may have to sit this one out.

[Sabrinaset]

And Satan, Ba'al and Be'elzebub all came out for McCain!

Hmm, McEnery did NOT go for the Mephisto reference! He is obviously slipping!

The Amazing McCain starring in: Brand New Day!

[section 8]

Hmm, McEnery did NOT go for the Mephisto reference! He is obviously slipping!

The Amazing McCain starring in: Brand New Day!

Everyone knows Mephisto votes Independent.

[KevinTBrown]

All I care about

Obama

WHAT?? Delay the Ares V?? STUPID!!

And at the same time Invest in the Crew Capsual of the Ares V ???
No Mars :/


Can't find any info on McCain..

Get used to it. Lots of info to not be found out there about McCain. :rolleyes:

[KevinTBrown]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Just to "see" Samurai squirm a bit.... :biggrin:

[Sabrinaset]

When did Cubans and N. Koreans get the right to vote in our elections?

I mean, really, who cares what they think?

And now, for a 2004 election flashback ... (http://www.slate.com/id/2109217/)

[Paul McEnery]

Hmm, McEnery did NOT go for the Mephisto reference! He is obviously slipping!

The Amazing McCain starring in: Brand New Day!

Oh, that's really good.

Or I'm really, really sleepy.

Could be both.

[Tetsuo_man]

Hmm, McEnery did NOT go for the Mephisto reference! He is obviously slipping!

The Amazing McCain starring in: Brand New Day!

That is hillarious!

[Crowley]

Obama backing FISA is deeply disappointing to me

Yes, even with the caveats..

[Briareos]

About all those "inactive" oil sites you'll be hearing about:

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/06/about_those_inactive_oil_lease.php

[Crowley]

About all those "inactive" oil sites you'll be hearing about:

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/06/about_those_inactive_oil_lease.php

two words:

Enron Loophole.

[Samurai]

That's not really the ending, it's a little over midway.

What it does say is that the one group most "harmed" by Affirmative Action, Asian-Americans, is overwhelmingly in favor of it.

And such "harm" really is hard to take seriously as such. Those with the grades to get into Stanford but don't for whatever reason don't end up on skid row or stuck in open-admission community college, they end up in some other top-notch school they were qualified for.

Like, say, not getting into Harvard and going to USC instead, just to choose a completely random example that has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal circumstances.



Well, except that it isn't like that. First, nobody has ever been admitted to a prestigious school "simply because of the color of their skin". It isn't just any black or Latino student that gets in, it's the most qualified minority applicants who get a preference. And it isn't Mr. Super-Qualifed that gets bumped to that back-up school whose prestige is slightly below their first choice, it's the borderline student who was barely getting in in the first place.

In short, it's the least qualified people who otherwise would have been admitted getting bumped for the most qualified minorities, while other blatantly lesser-qualified students sail past more qualified students due to athletic ability and preference systems set up to benefit (predominantly white) wealthy legacies.



The problem here is that these conditions are not mutually exclusive. Highly selective Universities routinely get a great many more qualified applicants than they have room for, so they pick and choose based on what they want their school's population to look like. Giving a preference to a qualified minority over a qualified white or Asian person isn't anywhere close to letting in unqualified people due to race.



Really? New forms of marriage are being recognized all the time? Other than same-sex marriage in a small number of states, what are these "new forms" and where are they being recognized?

"Qualified" is not a binary status. There is a range, based on tests, grades, extra-curricular activities, etc that determine how qualified an individual is. Not enough black students (in their opinion) are able to meet the qualifications standards that whites and especially Asians are able to achieve, so the schools cut their least qualified Asians and whites in order to let in even less qualified blacks. The school figures out how many more blacks it wants, and then awards blacks (or penalizes whites or Asians) by a certain amount in order to get the result they want. So, for instance, if they are taking everyone who scored 420+ out of a possible 600 points (points being earned for grades, tests, etc), but that doesn't give them the racial mix they want, they might deduct 30 points from everyone who checked "Asian", deduct 15 points from everyone who checked "white", and add 30 bonus points to everyone who checked "black". And THEN they'll say "Ok, everyone who scored 420+ is in!" However, before the alterations, some of the Asians may have scored 440, and some of the blacks only 390. After the tampering and selecting for skin color, suddenly the Asian with A's got only 410 points, not enough to meet the 420 mark, but the black student who got Bs and Cs now has 420 points and makes it in.

Is that student objectively and categorically "unqualified"? No, but they are less qualified than other students who were rejected because their skin was the wrong color. And studies have shown that black students who got in despite lower grades tend to struggle and drop out more than students (including other black students) who got in based on merit alone.

As for your personal experience, mine was this: I was accepted to Harvard (grades and test scores were very good), but I'd have to pay for nearly all of it myself ($20,000+ per year just for remaining tuition after the loans we qualified for, and that didn't even include living expenses, books, etc). I come from a poor family, and hoped that I'd win some scholarships or additional loans, but didn't. (Many were for women, minorities, etc) So I ended up living at home and attending CSU Chico, which I graduated from with double honors, both GE and my major (the only person in my graduating class to do so), and getting a double major (History/Soc Sci) in just 4 years, taking 15-18 units every time.

[Samurai]

Oh, and going back to FEMA for a moment, it seems to be much improved now:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25334982/

Flood victims: FEMA is doing a heckuva job
Embattled agency's flood response a marked improvement from Katrina

EAST ST. LOUIS, Ill. - When floodwaters knocked out the water treatment plant in Mason City, Iowa, FEMA rolled into town and promptly set up an account with a Pepsi bottler to supply bottled water. Then FEMA officials moved into a vacant store and began handing out the stuff.

"We saw different FEMA people in and out," City Administrator Brent Trout said. "We really started seeing FEMA people showing up to see what was going on in town and putting out the word on flood assistance."

Nearly three years after Hurricane Katrina turned FEMA into a punchline, many homeowners, politicians and community leaders in the flood-stricken Midwest say that so far, the agency is doing a heckuva job — and they mean it.

Up and down the Big Muddy, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is being commended for responding quickly and surely.

"The lessons we learned from Katrina we've taken very seriously," said Glenn Cannon, FEMA assistant administrator for disaster operations. He added: "We've changed the way we do business. We don't wait to react."

After Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005, FEMA came into New Orleans late and unprepared, and soon became a symbol of government bungling. President Bush's compliment to FEMA Director Michael D. Brown — "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!" — became a big joke.

Now, storms and flooding in the upper Midwest have left 24 people dead, driven tens of thousands from their homes and caused billions in damage.

After the rain started falling in early June, FEMA arrived with 13 million sandbags to pile onto the levees, 200 generators, and 30 trucks to haul off debris. Across the upper Midwest, the agency has delivered nearly 3.6 million liters of water and 192,000 ready-to-eat meals. About 650 inspectors are working in Iowa, Indiana and Wisconsin alone.

Flood victims praise quick response
In Iowa, Indiana and Wisconsin alone, FEMA has received about 45,000 registrations for assistance from disaster victims. The agency has already handed out $81 million in housing assistance funds, said Carlos Castillo, a FEMA official.

Flooded-out homeowners said FEMA has been quick to dispense checks, and leaders in inundated towns in Iowa said the agency wasted little time in assessing damage. That is key to getting federal disaster declarations that trigger eligibility for assistance, including money to help repair or replace a home.

"They have been trying hard to be proactive throughout this crisis, and had people on site almost immediately after the flooding began," said Iowa Lt. Gov. Patty Judge.

Senators on both sides of the river, Missouri's Claire McCaskill and Illinois' Dick Durbin, Democrats who rarely miss a chance to criticize the Bush administration, are offering good early reviews of FEMA's response to this disaster.

"I think they've made a world of improvement both in terms of their preparedness and in terms of their attitude," McCaskill said. "My sense is they are no longer thinking they can deliver disaster relief from a cubicle in Virginia and are fully engaged on the ground."

FEMA has had a presence in the Midwest since December, when severe ice storms caused widespread damage in Missouri. Field desks were set up after torrential rains and flooding in Missouri in March, and after tornadoes devastated parts of several central states, including Iowa and Missouri, later in the spring.

Officials from the federal agency began arriving at Missouri flood sites such as Canton and Hannibal more than a week before the river's crest, serving as advisers to state and local emergency authorities.

[KevinTBrown]

Getting back to the election:

So how much does experience count? http://www.newsweek.com/id/142892

[CutterMike]

"Qualified" is not a binary status. There is a range, based on tests, grades, extra-curricular activities, etc that determine how qualified an individual is.
(...)

Yadda yadda yadda.

You are completely ignoring another possibility -- I would like to believe that you are doing so inadvertently, rather than maliciously.

Don't you tink that it's possible... just vaguely possible... that if there are several candidates who rank, essentially, equally on the school's scoring system and one is a minority which is under-represented in the pool of incoming students, then of those three equal contenders the preference goes to the minority student, rather than having the selection committee play a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors to see which one gets in...?

Don't you think that, just MAYBE, that could be what happens? ...Or are you going to continue to maintain that the selection committee just shreds any application that doesn't sound "ethnic" enough?

[Samurai]

Yadda yadda yadda.

You are completely ignoring another possibility -- I would like to believe that you are doing so inadvertently, rather than maliciously.

Don't you tink that it's possible... just vaguely possible... that if there are several candidates who rank, essentially, equally on the school's scoring system and one is a minority which is under-represented in the pool of incoming students, then of those three equal contenders the preference goes to the minority student, rather than having the selection committee play a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors to see which one gets in...?

Don't you think that, just MAYBE, that could be what happens? ...Or are you going to continue to maintain that the selection committee just shreds any application that doesn't sound "ethnic" enough?

First, there aren't "enough" black students who are "essentially equal" (in the eyes of most schools), and they end up having to give bonus points based on which "race" box a student checked in order to make up the difference.

Second, if some students ARE essentially equal, it would still be wrong to decide who gets in based on the color of their skin! Let me put it to you this way... let's say there's a school someplace that feels (for whatever reason) that it wants as many white and Asian students as possible, and as few blacks as possible. Let's say they are debating 2 choices: The first actively penalizes any student who checks the "Black" race box on their application. The 2nd option says that there won't be any actual penalty, but if students are "essentially equal" in their scores, then the white or Asian student will automatically get in instead of the black student.

Would you say that either or both of these is ok? Would you be fine with the 2nd even if you felt the 1st was racist, or would you see both of them as racist, since they both decide who gets in based on skin color?

[CutterMike]

(...)
... let's say there's a school someplace that feels (for whatever reason) that it wants as many white and Asian students as possible, and as few blacks as possible. Let's say they are debating 2 choices: The first actively penalizes any student who checks the "Black" race box on their application. The 2nd option says that there won't be any actual penalty, but if students are "essentially equal" in their scores, then the white or Asian student will automatically get in instead of the black student.

Would you say that either or both of these is ok? Would you be fine with the 2nd even if you felt the 1st was racist, or would you see both of them as racist, since they both decide who gets in based on skin color?
First: Any school that actively decides that they want "as few [Insert Race Here} as possible" would be making a racist choice, pretty much by definition.

Second: Both of your "options" are exactly the same, unless you can explain how "automatically disqualified" (semantically and functionally equivalent to "the other automatically gets in") is NOT actively penalizing the candidate that is rejected. In either case the candidate is actively rejected because the decision is made that "we want as few [of them} as possible.

In which case, see Point, the First.

I don't think you're even TRYING to come up with a logical argument.

Sorry. Bored now. Back to Presidential politics.

[Adam C]

Not enough black students (in their opinion) are able to meet the qualifications standards that whites and especially Asians are able to achieve, so the schools cut their least qualified Asians and whites in order to let in even less qualified blacks.

...they might deduct 30 points from everyone who checked "Asian", deduct 15 points from everyone who checked "white", and add 30 bonus points to everyone who checked "black".

Question: do you have any actual evidence or real world examples to back up these claims you are making?

[Nick Soapdish]

No, because you don't know shit about shit, but think you do.

Don't worry; it's a common ailment.

I keep on thinking that you're Matt Doc Martin.

I'm well aware of Obama's stance on this issue, and its one of the rare cases where I somewhat agree with you after I get through the partisan BS.

But comon, Illinois grows huge amounts of corn, it hardly seems unreasonable for him as Illinois senator to support some legislation favouring ethanol. He has repeatedly stated that it is not a viable replacement for petrol, hence his emphasis on fuel efficiency, business incentives for alternative energy, $150 billion for alternative energy development, developing clean coal technology (Illinois has lots of coal too, IIRC), doubling funding for basic research, etc.

*gasp* Samurai actually follows MSNBC!:eek:

...or maybe he was just googling the news and saw the headline.

I don't think that ethanol is the answer.

Even if we start getting it from sugar although I do like McCain's idea of ending the sugar tariff (and default sugar subsidy for US manufacturers), but God help us if we aren't able to convert a decent chunk of that land into water conservation areas at the least (if not actual conservation areas, and yes, they're different).

IMO, ethanol is just a smokescreen for real solutions to our oil dependency, but it does play well with the base.

About all those "inactive" oil sites you'll be hearing about:

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/06/about_those_inactive_oil_lease.php

Some good points, but he also adds his own bullshit or just plain cluelessness.

A lot of the oil leases that are out there aren't be used because oil companies don't think that there's anything to them.

And I do agree with his assertation that it takes a long time to develop an oil lease. Although a lot of those leases have been held for a long time. Like since the 50s. Oil companies do get a limited time to develop their lease, but sometimes that limited time is 99 years. There are actually a number of oil leases that are held by oil companies in Florida waters and close to our coasts.

He also overlooks the little detail that according to his own argument, we don't know if we'll be getting any more oil by opening up more of the Gulf. And we've already agreed to open up more Gulf waters in the last few years (2001). They're curiously quiet about the promise that those have shown from the testing that they've presumably done after arguing so long and hard that it was needed.

I think that Sara Banaszak (from the second link) is the one that was arguing that we should open up the Gulf because we'd get another 1-2 million gallons of oil a day (over 2% of the current world demand) in only 7 years.

[Sabrinaset]

Sorry. Bored now. Back to Presidential politics.

THEN LET THE BIBLE WARS BEGIN!!! (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080624/D91G51AG0.html)

Now come on guys ... you're all gonna re-rail this thread ... or I'm going to assume license to DE-rail it!

[FalconX2000]

It won't be much difference. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cost $1203 billion dollars in the last budget. The cost of the commitments in both Iran and Afghanistan is $180 billion dollars per year. Spending on social programs is going to go massively up in the next two decades as the boomers age and retire. Even eliminating the US military won't make a dent in the payments due.

Not if the boomers stay healthy. The lack of preventive care in all these private health insurance schemes is killing the system. Digitization of records would help some too.

Also, I agree somewhat with K-Dog in principle.

Sure, we need to spend more on education, but raiding the NASA budget, which is a tiny portion of the Federal budget, to fund this would harm the space program for a negligible amount of money relative to the education budget.

Yes, spend more on education, but find the offsets somewhere else where it won't be as harmful, or cut back some pork.

Obama isn't cutting funding rom all NASA projects, just the ones that have to do with deep space exploration and colonisation. There's plenty of other facets of the organisation that won't be affected funding wise at all.

North Korea has joined Cuban dictator Castro in endorsing Obama.

If they are sincere, then I'm happy. If Obama wins he might have more pull with North Korea, might even be able to bring down tensions and loosen the borders a little so the families can see each other more easily.

[FalconX2000]

Oh, and going back to FEMA for a moment, it seems to be much improved now:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25334982/

Well they'd better be. Imagine the hell that would come down if they responded poorly to this after Katrina. Good for them.

I don't think that ethanol is the answer.

Even if we start getting it from sugar although I do like McCain's idea of ending the sugar tariff (and default sugar subsidy for US manufacturers), but God help us if we aren't able to convert a decent chunk of that land into water conservation areas at the least (if not actual conservation areas, and yes, they're different).

IMO, ethanol is just a smokescreen for real solutions to our oil dependency, but it does play well with the base.

I agree. Ethanol is, imo, Obama's weakest point on energy.

The Japanese recently invented a car that is fueled by plain water, and get you about 80 km or one hour of driving on a single litre.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jivb7lupDNU

[Nick Soapdish]

I agree. Ethanol is, imo, Obama's weakest point on energy.

The Japanese recently invented a car that is fueled by plain water, and get you about 80 km or one hour of driving on a single litre.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jivb7lupDNU

I'm more than a little skeptical. One of the biggest problems with hydrogen-powered cars is that it's so difficult to get the hydrogen from water in any kind of energy-efficient way. And this has short-circuited all of that?

I'm thinking it's another cold fusion.

Or heck! Why look at another version of technology when we've had claims of cars that run on water in the past?

Maybe it is real and if so, it'd be great. But I want to hear from a few scientific minds on it first.

[LtMarvel]

Okay dog.

What you said, aside from being incomrehensible in places due to how you phrased it, is nonsensicle.

I'm a firm believer in the space program. However, it cannot exist at the expense of nessecary social programs. How are we supposed to be on another world when we can't even manage this one? No-one's saying shut it down... they're saying do it cheaper or slower.

As for the comparison to Iraq, well that's a false comparison. Why? Because we're in Iraq. Right now. The expense is what we call a "fact on the ground". We are not on Mars. It is not a fact on the ground.

Am I happy with how much we spend on the military? No. THat doesn't mean I can't also be unhappy about wasting money on a Manned Mars Mission.
I don't think it is nonsensical argument. He stated that there are bigger budget items than NASA, and those could be cut easier.

[Samurai]

First: Any school that actively decides that they want "as few [Insert Race Here} as possible" would be making a racist choice, pretty much by definition.

Second: Both of your "options" are exactly the same, unless you can explain how "automatically disqualified" (semantically and functionally equivalent to "the other automatically gets in") is NOT actively penalizing the candidate that is rejected. In either case the candidate is actively rejected because the decision is made that "we want as few [of them} as possible.

In which case, see Point, the First.

I don't think you're even TRYING to come up with a logical argument.

Sorry. Bored now. Back to Presidential politics.
There are a limited number of openings in a university. By unfairly and artificially increasing 1 race, you are doing it at the expense of another. So, by your statements above, increasing the number of whites and Asians at the expense of black students is racism. You must also then admit that artificially increasing the number of blacks at the expense of whites and Asians is also racism, right?
Question: do you have any actual evidence or real world examples to back up these claims you are making?
http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?section_type=com&td=20020514161521

Two-Tiered System
Michigan does not dispute it uses a two-tiered admissions policy. One standard is for "under-represented" minority groups (African-Americans, Hispanics and Native-Americans). The other policy is for whites.

The University defends the policy in order to achieve a desired racial mix and a diverse campus experience.

That attitude may conflict with the two-decades old Bakke case. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court tried a balancing act by upholding the use of race as a factor in college admissions but barring the use of quotas or separate tracks for minority and white applicants.

Smoking Gun
Five years ago, a Michigan professor obtained (through the Freedom of Information Act) the University’s confidential admissions documents. These papers ranked applicants according to SAT scores. The combined totals were placed on a grid. All the white students had to be above the top line for acceptance. All minority students had to be above the bottom line.

After the lawsuit was filed, the policy was changed in an attempt to comply with the Bakke case’s ruling that race could be a factor but not the factor.

Under the new system, applicants get points for various criteria. According to a 60 Minutes transcript: "A perfect high school grade point average is worth 80 points, having a parent who went to the school is worth 4. Scholarship athletes are awarded 20 points. A perfect SAT score is worth 12 points, an outstanding essay gets you 1, and being a minority is worth 20."

According to author Stephen Thernstrom:

"If race is just one of many factors, it is nearly twice as important a factor as scoring in the 99th percentile on the SAT’s. ...Alarmingly, large numbers of the students admitted as a result of racial preferences fail to graduate. Of those who were freshman in 1991-92 for example, 35 percent of all African-Americans and 48 percent of black male students had not received their diplomas six years later, drop-out rates nearly triple that of the whites and Asians who had entered at the same time."

The Students Involved
The lead plaintiff in the case, Gratz v. Bollinger, is Jennifer Gratz. She was refused admission to Michigan. Court documents suggest Ms. Gratz is "the kind of student any college would want to admit. A policeman’s daughter who attended public school in a working-class Detroit suburb, Gratz had a 3.76 grade point average in high school and scored a 25 on the ACT, the college-admissions test that serves as an alternative to the SAT. She was a math tutor, a blood-drive organizer, a volunteer at her school’s senior citizens events, a cheerleader and homecoming queen."

Because of the two-tiered race-based admissions policy at Michigan, 100 percent of the minority applicants with Jennifer’s grades and test scores were admitted. She was not. The documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act labeled Ms. Gratz’s application "Postpone" (waitlist) while all minority applicants in her academic achievement category were stamped "Admit."

A co-plaintiff in the case, Barbara Grutter, was denied entrance to Michigan’s Law School. The Law School has a quota set aside for 10-12 percent of each entering class for preferred (minority) groups. To achieve this racial goal, Michigan accepted minorities with dramatically weaker credentials.

For example, Ms. Grutter had a 3.8 undergraduate grade point average and a score of 161 on the Law School Admissions Test, putting her in the 86th percentile. Court documents reveal that 80 percent of minority applicants with a 3.25 average and test scores of 156 to 163 were admitted to Law School. For whites and Asians with those credentials, "the admission rate was a mere 8 percent."

Policies like these only mask the real problem – low quality K-12 education that leaves minorities unprepared for rigorous university curricula. (Freeing students from under-performing schools via voucher programs may help increase competition and quality).

The intent to provide equal opportunity for everyone is laudable. But merit should serve as the deciding factor. Quotas and extra points for skin color go completely against the original intent of Affirmative Action.

More here: http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/Issues/2003/0304/0304pre1.cfm

[Red Jack]

I'm still at a loss to see how you were penalized, Sam.

You got a college education. You apparently kicked ass.

What did you lose? You can't wear the big red H you wanted? Boo hoo. Suck it up. You were in no way victimized or harmed.

By the way you're whining about not getting your success in precisely the manner you wanted I think you wouldn't last ten seconds as a black guy.

Life isn't always reducible to arithmetic and your inability to understand the desire for and the means (very very small means) of redress for centuries of brutally unfair treatment really diminishes you as an intellect.

Instead of rudimentary math, perhaps try looking at the issue in terms of Newtonian physics. It will help.

[Samurai]

I'm still at a loss to see how you were penalized, Sam.

You got a college education. You apparently kicked ass.

What did you lose? You can't wear the big red H you wanted? Boo hoo. Suck it up. You were in no way victimized or harmed.

By the way you're whining about not getting your success in precisely the manner you wanted I think you wouldn't last ten seconds as a black guy.

Life isn't always reducible to arithmetic and your inability to understand the desire for and the means (very very small means) of redress for centuries of brutally unfair treatment really diminishes you as an intellect.

Instead of rudimentary math, perhaps try looking at the issue in terms of Newtonian physics. It will help.
If "Suck it up, you still got a college education" is the answer, then we can say the same to blacks who fail to get into top schools because of their grades, but make it into state universities and community colleges no problem, right? "Hey, you still get a degree, so what if you don't have an H on your jacket"...

And I never said I don't understand the desire for redress. I do. But not all desires should be acted upon... a desire for revenge that in itself breaks the law or commits an "eye for an eye" is not always a good thing, and that's exactly what AA is. An eye for an eye. Sins of the fathers. Some other black people, possibly no relation to you at all if your family immigrated here recently, were discriminated against by some other white people, mostly long dead by now. So in turn we'll discriminate against today's white people as payback (in no way responsible for the actions of other whites from decades or centuries ago and quite possibly not related at all if they immigrated here recently, like my family).

Even if you don't want revenge and have no animosity, I can understand the desire for a special benefit or privilege simply being offered to you for the asking. Why look a gift horse in the mouth, right? I'm sure some white kids, in previous generations, felt the same way when they were told not to worry, they wouldn't have to compete with black students on a level playing field, the school would make sure the white kids got preference. "I have nothing against them," they might say, "but heck, they're offering me a spot at a prestigious school when my grades are less than stellar, and less than some of the black students that applied... why should I turn down that opportunity? It wasn't like it was my decision to discriminate or anything, I'm just accepting an offer..."

Haven't you heard that "An eye for an eye will eventually make the whole world blind"? When does it end, if ever? Why do you feel racial favoritism and policies that reward skin color are ok when they benefit YOU, but terrible when they act against you? You are defending institutionalized racism and policies that, were they acting against you rather than for you, you'd be hollering bloody murder about.

[Typo Lad]

FEMA's better now! Yay! That totally makes up for the massive clusterfuck they were.

Um... no.

Glad they're better, but that doesn't wipe away the past failure caused by cronysim

[Charles RB]

Well they'd better be. Imagine the hell that would come down if they responded poorly to this after Katrina.

I too am impressed that Fema has finally started doing the job it's meant to have been doing for years.

[Charles RB]

And Satan, Ba'al and Be'elzebub all came out for McCain!

Truth stranger than fiction - the former head of the Hanoi Hilton has come out for McCain. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7459946.stm)

This is really quite bizarre (especially for McCain, I bet).

(Under the rules set by Samurai and Bri, this must mean McCain was close buddies with the guy at the time or some shit like that.)

[KevinTBrown]

Truth stranger than fiction - the former head of the Hanoi Hilton has come out for McCain. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7459946.stm)

This is really quite bizarre (especially for McCain, I bet).

(Under the rules set by Samurai and Bri, this must mean McCain was close buddies with the guy at the time or some shit like that.)
Well, it does say in that article:

"McCain is my friend," said 75-year-old Mr Duyet

[Charles RB]

I'm assuming he's wrong in thinking that.

But hey, if Obama is clearly a Odinga stooge because the Kenyan government says so, then...

[Samurai]

I'm assuming he's wrong in thinking that.

But hey, if Obama is clearly a Odinga stooge because the Kenyan government says so, then...
I think it's partially a case of getting to know McCain personally, and respecting his strength, honor, and courage...

Mr Duyet reminisces instead about how he often summoned the future US presidential candidate to his private office for informal chats.

"We used to argue about the war - about whether it was right or wrong," he says.

"He is a very frank man - very conservative, and very loyal to his country and the American ideal.

"He had a very interesting accent and sometimes he taught me words in English and corrected my accent. I have followed his career since he left prison."
...and partly because McCain has been a leader in reestablishing relations with Vietnam, which has been good for the country economically.
Mr McCain played a crucial role in bringing about that initial rapprochement - a fact which helps explain Mr Duyet's enthusiastic support for the McCain presidential campaign.

"So now I consider John McCain my friend because he did much to mend relations between our two countries. And if he becomes president he will do more to improve those ties."

[Red Jack]

If "Suck it up, you still got a college education" is the answer, then we can say the same to blacks who fail to get into top schools because of their grades, but make it into state universities and community colleges no problem, right? "Hey, you still get a degree, so what if you don't have an H on your jacket"...

And I never said I don't understand the desire for redress. I do. But not all desires should be acted upon... a desire for revenge that in itself breaks the law or commits an "eye for an eye" is not always a good thing, and that's exactly what AA is. An eye for an eye. Sins of the fathers. Some other black people, possibly no relation to you at all if your family immigrated here recently, were discriminated against by some other white people, mostly long dead by now. So in turn we'll discriminate against today's white people as payback (in no way responsible for the actions of other whites from decades or centuries ago and quite possibly not related at all if they immigrated here recently, like my family).

Even if you don't want revenge and have no animosity, I can understand the desire for a special benefit or privilege simply being offered to you for the asking. Why look a gift horse in the mouth, right? I'm sure some white kids, in previous generations, felt the same way when they were told not to worry, they wouldn't have to compete with black students on a level playing field, the school would make sure the white kids got preference. "I have nothing against them," they might say, "but heck, they're offering me a spot at a prestigious school when my grades are less than stellar, and less than some of the black students that applied... why should I turn down that opportunity? It wasn't like it was my decision to discriminate or anything, I'm just accepting an offer..."

Haven't you heard that "An eye for an eye will eventually make the whole world blind"? When does it end, if ever? Why do you feel racial favoritism and policies that reward skin color are ok when they benefit YOU, but terrible when they act against you? You are defending institutionalized racism and policies that, were they acting against you rather than for you, you'd be hollering bloody murder about.

Again, I think you've got issues. If you really think that a few minor set asides and a relatively small program of preference (for an extremely brief period) in any way constitutes equitable or even similar treatment to the awful thing it's attempting to balance, I submit that you are a whiny little [expletive deleted] who has really REALLY poor math skills. And absolutely no ethical structure whatsoever.

If you think your experience in ANY way equates with that of the millions of blacks who got and get screwed on a daily and generational basis by the inequities of this society, you're dreaming.

It's not revenge, you sad little person. It's a tiny, tiny attempt at balance. But because you perceive yourself to have been personally inconvenienced, and let's not pretend you lost a thing beyond self-created prestige points, you bend every conversation to this thing that seems to have hurt you so.

THE BLACK GUY TOOK MY SEAT! WHAAA! WHAAAA!

To paraphrase some guy from the VERONICA MARS series: Proust is Proust whether it's Harvard or UCLA.

You got what you wanted: a stellar academic career, but you didn't get it in precisely the way you wanted so, for the rest of your life you PRETEND to give a damn about basic equality of peoples and whine that life has been unfair? Yeah, right. You're just one more selfish guy who can't stand that the ATV his parents bought him was yellow instead of red and the ghetto kids got all the red ones because of a lottery win.

Suck it up. Your "pain" over this issue is a worthless ghost and makes you look less of a human as a result. You haven't even seen the shoes much less walked a mile in them. Really. It's like a person getting a bad fiction review in the New York Times claiming to have been raped by the reviewer while there are actual rape victims ten feet away.

It's not an Eye for an Eye unless you actually lose an eye. Having to buy generic colored contact lenses because you prefer to have blue eyes instead of green is not a punishment. Hell, it's not even an event. Hardly worth the time it takes to discuss.

You worked hard. You excelled. You were rewarded multiple times over. I'm supposed to feel you got shafted how, exactly? Now, just for giggles, take a good look at the history of black people in this country vis a vis education, right up to the present. Compare and contrast. If you've got a shred of an ethical standard you'll shut up about this for the rest of your life.

You've got a bigger brain than the parts you're using to keep feeling this way. Grow up.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm more than a little skeptical. One of the biggest problems with hydrogen-powered cars is that it's so difficult to get the hydrogen from water in any kind of energy-efficient way. And this has short-circuited all of that?

I'm thinking it's another cold fusion.

Or heck! Why look at another version of technology when we've had claims of cars that run on water in the past?

Maybe it is real and if so, it'd be great. But I want to hear from a few scientific minds on it first.

"Hey, I know, let's run our cars on food!"

Cue instant worldwide food shortage and economic disaster.

Guess what else we're short of?

[Paul McEnery]

THE BLACK GUY TOOK MY SEAT! WHAAA! WHAAAA! .

Yeah, about that. Every time I try to take the bus, there's some black people sitting down at the front where I want to be sitting. Sometimes I think this affirmative action thing has gone way too far! That's my seat. I'm a white man, dammit, and I get to sit wherever I like! Get back to the back of the bus where you belong!
:evilsmile:

[Paul McEnery]

I don't think that ethanol is the answer.


Don't be silly.

Ethanol is the cause and the solution of all our problems.

[the4thpip]

"Hey, I know, let's run our cars on food!"

Cue instant worldwide food shortage and economic disaster.

Guess what else we're short of?

Well, we got more salt water than is good for us, actually, thanks to global warming.

[Typo Lad]

Yeah, about that. Every time I try to take the bus, there's some black people sitting down at the front where I want to be sitting. Sometimes I think this affirmative action thing has gone way too far! That's my seat. I'm a white man, dammit, and I get to sit wherever I like! Get back to the back of the bus where you belong!
:evilsmile:
You're British - you're supposed to ride on the roof.

[Samurai]

Again, I think you've got issues. If you really think that a few minor set asides and a relatively small program of preference (for an extremely brief period) in any way constitutes equitable or even similar treatment to the awful thing it's attempting to balance, I submit that you are a whiny little [expletive deleted] who has really REALLY poor math skills. And absolutely no ethical structure whatsoever.

If you think your experience in ANY way equates with that of the millions of blacks who got and get screwed on a daily and generational basis by the inequities of this society, you're dreaming.

It's not revenge, you sad little person. It's a tiny, tiny attempt at balance. But because you perceive yourself to have been personally inconvenienced, and let's not pretend you lost a thing beyond self-created prestige points, you bend every conversation to this thing that seems to have hurt you so.

THE BLACK GUY TOOK MY SEAT! WHAAA! WHAAAA!

To paraphrase some guy from the VERONICA MARS series: Proust is Proust whether it's Harvard or UCLA.

You got what you wanted: a stellar academic career, but you didn't get it in precisely the way you wanted so, for the rest of your life you PRETEND to give a damn about basic equality of peoples and whine that life has been unfair? Yeah, right. You're just one more selfish guy who can't stand that the ATV his parents bought him was yellow instead of red and the ghetto kids got all the red ones because of a lottery win.

Suck it up. Your "pain" over this issue is a worthless ghost and makes you look less of a human as a result. You haven't even seen the shoes much less walked a mile in them. Really. It's like a person getting a bad fiction review in the New York Times claiming to have been raped by the reviewer while there are actual rape victims ten feet away.

It's not an Eye for an Eye unless you actually lose an eye. Having to buy generic colored contact lenses because you prefer to have blue eyes instead of green is not a punishment. Hell, it's not even an event. Hardly worth the time it takes to discuss.

You worked hard. You excelled. You were rewarded multiple times over. I'm supposed to feel you got shafted how, exactly? Now, just for giggles, take a good look at the history of black people in this country vis a vis education, right up to the present. Compare and contrast. If you've got a shred of an ethical standard you'll shut up about this for the rest of your life.

You've got a bigger brain than the parts you're using to keep feeling this way. Grow up.

You're not getting it... as far as I know, a black student didn't "get my seat". I was accepted but had to turn it down due to finances. They didn't say "Sorry, you can't come, we've giving your spot to that guy instead", I told them "Sorry, I'd like to come, but I just can't afford it". And I'm not bitter or angry about my personal experience, I only brought it up because Gilda did.

So, I see we've moved beyond the "It's not racism" to "So what if it's racism, we deserve it!" People justify racism in many ways, and "We deserve it, and besides, it's not really hurting them all that much, if at all" is a very, very common excuse. Well, at least you now recognize that what you support IS RACISM, you just feel it's "good racism" or "deserved racism", so we've made some progress. I think it's sad that even now, in the 21st century, people are still calling for preferences based on the color of a person's skin instead of the content of their character.

[Paul McEnery]

Truth stranger than fiction - the former head of the Hanoi Hilton has come out for McCain. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7459946.stm)

This is really quite bizarre (especially for McCain, I bet).

(Under the rules set by Samurai and Bri, this must mean McCain was close buddies with the guy at the time or some shit like that.)

I thought Berlusconi coming out for him was damning enough.

[KevinTBrown]

You're British - you're supposed to ride on the roof.
And if you're Samurai, you throw 'em under the bus.





:rolleyes:

[Typo Lad]

I still say it's not racism, because it doesn't impact JUST one race.

If Red Jack, me, Gilda Dent and you all competed for the same college seat and we were all equelly qualified, then yes, the college would first look to see what race they ahd the most percentage of.

That's a huge difference than examiners from Yale asking potential students to read the Hebrew on the seal and not taking anyone who could.

[Gilda Dent]

"Qualified" is not a binary status. There is a range, based on tests, grades, extra-curricular activities, etc that determine how qualified an individual is.

Well, exactly. It isn't binary, it's a range, and those that get bumped to make room for a small number of minority applicants were those that were on the bubble anyway.

Is that student objectively and categorically "unqualified"? No, but they are less qualified than other students who were rejected because their skin was the wrong color. And studies have shown that black students who got in despite lower grades tend to struggle and drop out more than students (including other black students) who got in based on merit alone.

Again, you repeat your oversimplification. Nobody is being rejected "because their skin was the wrong color". The majority of students at every top school in the US (other than USC, which has a plurality of Asians) remains white. Whites and Asians aren't being rejected based on their ethnicity. A small number of the least qualified get bumped to make room for a small number of qualified minorities, with ethnicity being one factor used in addition to grades, test scores, extracurricular activities, essays, interviews, and other intangible qualities.

As for your personal experience, mine was this: I was accepted to Harvard (grades and test scores were very good), but I'd have to pay for nearly all of it myself ($20,000+ per year just for remaining tuition after the loans we qualified for, and that didn't even include living expenses, books, etc). I come from a poor family, and hoped that I'd win some scholarships or additional loans, but didn't. (Many were for women, minorities, etc) So I ended up living at home and attending CSU Chico, which I graduated from with double honors, both GE and my major (the only person in my graduating class to do so), and getting a double major (History/Soc Sci) in just 4 years, taking 15-18 units every time.

Congratulations. Perhaps your outrage would be better aimed at the kid who went to Harvard because he had more money than you did, but was otherwise less qualified.

[Paul McEnery]

You're British - you're supposed to ride on the roof.

I would have thought it was more "out of the way, I know how to drive this thing better than you do, come on, how hard can it be, wey hey! Boogler boogler, beep beep!"

[FalconX2000]

I too am impressed that Fema has finally started doing the job it's meant to have been doing for years.

It's a government organisation. And a big one. This is unprecendented! :biggrin:


With regards to Fidel Castro, hamas, etc voicing support for Obama, people are looking at this all wrong. This isn't negative or neutral. This is positive or neutral.

Neutral perspective: All these people shouldn't have any say in American elections. Don't pay them any mind.

Positive perspective: These people will be more willing to listen to Obama. He will have more influence with them and America will be more likely to achieve its' objectives at the negotiating table because of it. For example, Nigerian rebels said they would consider a ceasefire, stopping their efforts against Shell oil company if Obama asked them to due to their 'high esteem' for him.

[Paul McEnery]

And if you're Samurai, you throw 'em under the bus.





:rolleyes:

Stop standing in front of me in line! That's racist!

[Paul McEnery]

It's a government organisation. And a big one. This is unprecendented! :biggrin:


With regards to Fidel Castro, hamas, etc voicing support for Obama, people are looking at this all wrong. This isn't negative or neutral. This is positive or neutral.

Neutral perspective: All these people shouldn't have any say in American elections. Don't pay them any mind.

Positive perspective: These people will be more willing to listen to Obama. He will have more influence with them and America will be more likely to achieve its' objectives at the negotiating table because of it. For example, Nigerian rebels said they would consider a ceasefire, stopping their efforts against Shell oil company if Obama asked them to due to their 'high esteem' for him.

Well, you know, better to look at Castro being pro Obama.

Not the 84% of Europeans. That's a big scary number.

And one that says some things about the American population at large that people don't want to hear.

[Samurai]

I still say it's not racism, because it doesn't impact JUST one race.

If Red Jack, me, Gilda Dent and you all competed for the same college seat and we were all equelly qualified, then yes, the college would first look to see what race they ahd the most percentage of.

That's a huge difference than examiners from Yale asking potential students to read the Hebrew on the seal and not taking anyone who could.

Typo, c'mon, you know better than that. You can be racist against more than 1 race at a time. Or would a sign that said "No blacks or Hispanics need apply" automatically NOT be racist because it included more than 1 race?

Also, racism can be about preferences FOR your own race, no matter which other races it hurts. (A sign that says "Only whites need apply" isn't specifically targeting any one other race, but it's still racist).

You should know these things...

[Briareos]

It's a government organisation. And a big one. This is unprecendented! :biggrin:


With regards to Fidel Castro, hamas, etc voicing support for Obama, people are looking at this all wrong. This isn't negative or neutral. This is positive or neutral.

Neutral perspective: All these people shouldn't have any say in American elections. Don't pay them any mind.

Positive perspective: These people will be more willing to listen to Obama. He will have more influence with them and America will be more likely to achieve its' objectives at the negotiating table because of it. For example, Nigerian rebels said they would consider a ceasefire, stopping their efforts against Shell oil company if Obama asked them to due to their 'high esteem' for him.


Or maybe they see another Liberal they can roll over and get what they want at the expense of the American people. You have to believe they are looking at Obama and see a even dumber Bill Clinton and he let the North Korean's develop nukes right under his nose.

[Briareos]

Barack Obama's secret weapon: Criminals!

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/06/the_obama_campaigns_secret_wea.php

[Briareos]

William Kristol on MoveOn.org's new ad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/opinion/23kristol.html?hp

[Charles RB]

...and partly because McCain has been a leader in reestablishing relations with Vietnam, which has been good for the country economically.

Ah, supporting a foreign candidate on grounds of improving your country's economy.

This is totally different to why Castro must be in favour of Obama, of course. That must be dodgy! Let's make it out as a big deal!

I thought Berlusconi coming out for him was damning enough.

Berlusconi likes him?

That must be why McCain feels all dirty inside.

[Paul McEnery]

Ah, supporting a foreign candidate on grounds of improving your country's economy.

This is totally different to why Castro must be in favour of Obama, of course. That must be dodgy! Let's make it out as a big deal!



Berlusconi likes him?

That must be why McCain feels all dirty inside.

I wouldn't know.

I've never felt around inside him, myself.

[Charles RB]

Not the 84% of Europeans. That's a big scary number.

And one that says some things about the American population at large that people don't want to hear.

...could you enlighten me as to what that is? (I guess you could say it means Europe is more ready for a black US Prez than the US, but Obama's won the Dem nomination and leading in the polls...)

[CutterMike]

Truth stranger than fiction - the former head of the Hanoi Hilton has come out for McCain. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7459946.stm)

This is really quite bizarre (especially for McCain, I bet).

(Under the rules set by Samurai and Bri, this must mean McCain was close buddies with the guy at the time or some shit like that.)
Waitaminnit...!

...Are they remaking "The Manchurian Candidate" AGAIN?!!?

[Paul McEnery]

...could you enlighten me as to what that is? (I guess you could say it means Europe is more ready for a black US Prez than the US, but Obama's won the Dem nomination and leading in the polls...)

That a very large chunk of America is racist, obviously, and that a very large chunk of America is delusionally far to the right.

It wasn't exactly a preference thing, though. It was: acceptable or not?

Obama got 84% acceptable
McCain for 36% or something close to that.

It does not follow that people who find McCain acceptable necessarily would prefer him, either. I suppose the same is true of Obama, but somehow I find that less convincing.

On the face of it, this means that Obama would win 70% of the vote in Europe. We'll see how it is here.

[Michael P]

It could also simply mean that Europe leans heavily to the left, or that they'd prefer a President who doesn't continue Bush's policies.

[Paul McEnery]

It could also simply mean that Europe leans heavily to the left,.

If one has a purely relativistic perspective, yes.

If, OTOH, one regards liberal democracy and socialism as a matched pair that ought in a well-balanced society to roughly split the populace between them 50-50 (with social democracy as a reasonable compromise), then we'd see European democracy as in a more or less healthy state, and American democracy as badly skewed.

That large numbers of Americans seem to hate Obama just on the basis of his funny sounding name, let alone that he's black would seem to back my understanding of where the centre actually is. And how far from it America has strayed.

[king mob]

It could also simply mean that Europe leans heavily to the left, or that they'd prefer a President who doesn't continue Bush's policies.

The latter is more accurate as there's a number (UK included) of very right wing governments in Europe.

[section 8]

It's a government organisation. And a big one. This is unprecendented! :biggrin:


With regards to Fidel Castro, hamas, etc voicing support for Obama, people are looking at this all wrong. This isn't negative or neutral. This is positive or neutral.

Neutral perspective: All these people shouldn't have any say in American elections. Don't pay them any mind.

Positive perspective: These people will be more willing to listen to Obama. He will have more influence with them and America will be more likely to achieve its' objectives at the negotiating table because of it. For example, Nigerian rebels said they would consider a ceasefire, stopping their efforts against Shell oil company if Obama asked them to due to their 'high esteem' for him.

Or maybe They think he's weak. lets not forget none of the above are looking ot for the US's best interest.

[Red Jack]

Typo, c'mon, you know better than that. You can be racist against more than 1 race at a time. Or would a sign that said "No blacks or Hispanics need apply" automatically NOT be racist because it included more than 1 race?

Also, racism can be about preferences FOR your own race, no matter which other races it hurts. (A sign that says "Only whites need apply" isn't specifically targeting any one other race, but it's still racist).

You should know these things...

in·er·tia –noun
1. inertness, esp. with regard to effort, motion, action, and the like; inactivity; sluggishness.
2. Physics.
a. the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.


cul·ture (klchr) -noun.
1.
a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
b. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
c. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
d. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.


Now. Combine them and you get a thing I like to call "Cultural Inertia."

You, like many who pay lip service to the concept of equality, spend a good deal of time on the literal meaning of words to the exclusion of their practical application.

For multiple centuries, despite the writing over the door, this nation did not live up to its stated creed. During that time, patterns of thought and behavior were established and calcified vis a vis whites vs non-whites and black, slave descendants in particular.

Then, one day, after a stack of people of all persuasions had fought and died to get some actual truth injected into the realizing of various founding documents of this experiment (and, no, I'm not talking about the Civil War), a slim majority of citizens said, "Enough. This crap stops today."

It sounds great and it lets a lot of people pat themselves on the back for having done a Good Thing but, in reality, it was the first word of the first sentence of a paragraph that isn't even close to completion. All it addressed was the letter of the law and how the government promised to operate from then on. Which, of course, it did not.

When fascists invade your country and you kill them in enough numbers to make them leave, you are not a mass murderer or a fascist. You are correcting something that shouldn't exist. Lots of people die in the process and no one finds it pleasant but, at the end, no one accuses the defender of anything but heroism in the face of a massive ugliness.

The reason for this is cultural inertia or, more aptly in this case, momentum, has only been slowed rather than stopped. Once the invader has left, the society proceeds as it had originally intended. Like diverting a train to a separate track for a short period before returning it to its primary route.

But when you STOP the train cold, as Will Smith does in all the recent HANCOCK promos, you see the result. The inertia smashes it to bits.

In the case of negative treatment of various non-white groups in this country, each with an individual set of [sometimes similar but by no means the same] grievances, civil rights legislation put the government's foot down on how the law would henceforth operate as it affected the citizenry.

And what happened? Did all those racists and racist institutions STOP cold and rethink the central theme of their lives and their founders/parents lives? Did the train stop? No. There was no Hancock. There was no derailment. The people who hated the changes, the attempt at derailment, just as the UnReconstructed Southerners did, found ways around.

Wanted: Secretary. Only All American candidates need apply.

You will need to pass certain tests in order to vote here, son. What was George Washington's father's middle name?

Yes, I know you're qualified, Sally, but, if you look up, you'll notice that ceiling is quite made of glass.

Redlining neighborhoods.

Disproportionate penalties for identical crimes that differ only when the ethnicities involved vary (i.e. if a black man kills a black man he gets less time than if he kills a white man. If a white man kills a white man or a black man he gets less time than the black for EITHER crime.).

Half the people here are still outraged over the OJ verdict but don't bat an eyelash about the multiple deaths and beatings of innocent non-whites simply because they were non-white and in the way of some cops. On that point they are uniformly silent.

Books like THE BELL CURVE receiving wide critical acceptance for recasting the old Asians are, genetically, smarter than whites who are smarter than blacks nonsense.

All these are functions of cultural inertia- in this case, the racism that permeated the US for the largest part of its history. An object, Sam, or an idea in this case, tends to stay in motion unless it meets an equal or superior opposing force.

You get that, right? It's rudimentary physics and it works perfectly as an analogy for social movements.

So, when you reduce your argument to, "We're all equal now so any balancing done by anyone in terms of Race or gender is therefore precisely as egregious an offense as that which it hopes to obviate" is, simply, bullshit. Not an alternate view. Not a legitimate debate point. Bull. Shit.

Nobody gives up power willingly, Sam. The power that was exerted and, to a lesser degree is still exerted, over those Out groups created a wave front that still ripples through the culture and still destroys lives and opportunities for all sorts of people. The field is not even close to being level. For your argument to have even a pretense of weight, the field would have to be level. It isn't.

It will take time and an opposing force considerably larger than AA to fix that original problem as you are demonstrating so beautifully here.

AA is not racism, Sam. It's not as simplistic as you need it to be to fit into the thimble you want. It's a stab at equity and balance in the face of something monstrous, evil and generationally long lasting.

And it's a wicked small stab at that.

[Samurai]

in·er·tia –noun
1. inertness, esp. with regard to effort, motion, action, and the like; inactivity; sluggishness.
2. Physics.
a. the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.


cul·ture (klchr) -noun.
1.
a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
b. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
c. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
d. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.


Now. Combine them and you get a thing I like to call "Cultural Inertia."

You, like many who pay lip service to the concept of equality, spend a good deal of time on the literal meaning of words to the exclusion of their practical application.

For multiple centuries, despite the writing over the door, this nation did not live up to its stated creed. During that time, patterns of thought and behavior were established and calcified vis a vis whites vs non-whites and black, slave descendants in particular.

Then, one day, after a stack of people of all persuasions had fought and died to get some actual truth injected into the realizing of various founding documents of this experiment (and, no, I'm not talking about the Civil War), a slim majority of citizens said, "Enough. This crap stops today."

It sounds great and it lets a lot of people pat themselves on the back for having done a Good Thing but, in reality, it was the first word of the first sentence of a paragraph that isn't even close to completion. All it addressed was the letter of the law and how the government promised to operate from then on. Which, of course, it did not.

When fascists invade your country and you kill them in enough numbers to make them leave, you are not a mass murderer or a fascist. You are correcting something that shouldn't exist. Lots of people die in the process and no one finds it pleasant but, at the end, no one accuses the defender of anything but heroism in the face of a massive ugliness.

The reason for this is cultural inertia or, more aptly in this case, momentum, has only been slowed rather than stopped. Once the invader has left, the society proceeds as it had originally intended. Like diverting a train to a separate track for a short period before returning it to its primary route.

But when you STOP the train cold, as Will Smith does in all the recent HANCOCK promos, you see the result. The inertia smashes it to bits.

In the case of negative treatment of various non-white groups in this country, each with an individual set of [sometimes similar but by no means the same] grievances, civil rights legislation put the government's foot down on how the law would henceforth operate as it affected the citizenry.

And what happened? Did all those racists and racist institutions STOP cold and rethink the central theme of their lives and their founders/parents lives? Did the train stop? No. There was no Hancock. There was no derailment. The people who hated the changes, the attempt at derailment, just as the UnReconstructed Southerners did, found ways around.

Wanted: Secretary. Only All American candidates need apply.

You will need to pass certain tests in order to vote here, son. What was George Washington's father's middle name?

Yes, I know you're qualified, Sally, but, if you look up, you'll notice that ceiling is quite made of glass.

Redlining neighborhoods.

Disproportionate penalties for identical crimes that differ only when the ethnicities involved vary (i.e. if a black man kills a black man he gets less time than if he kills a white man. If a white man kills a white man or a black man he gets less time than the black for EITHER crime.).

Half the people here are still outraged over the OJ verdict but don't bat an eyelash about the multiple deaths and beatings of innocent non-whites simply because they were non-white and in the way of some cops. On that point they are uniformly silent.

Books like THE BELL CURVE receiving wide critical acceptance for recasting the old Asians are, genetically, smarter than whites who are smarter than blacks nonsense.

All these are functions of cultural inertia- in this case, the racism that permeated the US for the largest part of its history. An object, Sam, or an idea in this case, tends to stay in motion unless it meets an equal or superior opposing force.

You get that, right? It's rudimentary physics and it works perfectly as an analogy for social movements.

So, when you reduce your argument to, "We're all equal now so any balancing done by anyone in terms of Race or gender is therefore precisely as egregious an offense as that which it hopes to obviate" is, simply, bullshit. Not an alternate view. Not a legitimate debate point. Bull. Shit.

Nobody gives up power willingly, Sam. The power that was exerted and, to a lesser degree is still exerted, over those Out groups created a wave front that still ripples through the culture and still destroys lives and opportunities for all sorts of people. The field is not even close to being level. For your argument to have even a pretense of weight, the field would have to be level. It isn't.

It will take time and an opposing force considerably larger than AA to fix that original problem as you are demonstrating so beautifully here.

AA is not racism, Sam. It's not as simplistic as you need it to be to fit into the thimble you want. It's a stab at equity and balance in the face of something monstrous, evil and generationally long lasting.

And it's a wicked small stab at that.
You are deluding yourself if you really believe rules and laws that say "We'll give preferential treatment to people based on their skin color" isn't racist. By its very definition, it is racism, pure and simple. You may feel it's justified, or you deserve it, or whatever mental gymnastics you use to justify it, but don't forget that you are supporting institutionalized racism because this time, you are the one benefiting from it. And that makes allll the difference. If there were a school, with exact same policies and procedures, that gave preference to whites or Asians at the expense of blacks, you know in your heart you'd call it racism, and be outraged and opposed to it.

[Red Jack]

You are deluding yourself if you really believe rules and laws that say "We'll give preferential treatment to people based on their skin color" isn't racist. By its very definition, it is racism, pure and simple. You may feel it's justified, or you deserve it, or whatever mental gymnastics you use to justify it, but don't forget that you are supporting institutionalized racism because this time, you are the one benefiting from it. And that makes allll the difference. If there were a school, with exact same policies and procedures, that gave preference to whites or Asians at the expense of blacks, you know in your heart you'd call it racism, and be outraged and opposed to it.

Do you really not understand that we don't live in a conceptual vacuum but in a society made up of humans?

It's not racism.

It's a corrective measure meant to offset [a very small part of] the effects of centuries of racism.

If a skyscraper is tipping to one side, you're not tipping it back by applying opposing pressure, you're STRAIGHTENING IT. Get it? I'm trying to use simple physical examples so it's not muddy.

OF COURSE, if you switched it to whites, things would be different. That's how it was for nearly four centuries (cultural inertia/momentum, remember?). You claim to have gotten into a fairly highbrow school but can't process this tiniest and most obvious of facts.

MMmmmmmakes me wonderrrrrr.

[Sabrinaset]

Do you really not understand that we don't live in a conceptual vacuum

...Unless you're on the X-boards ...

[Red Jack]

...Unless you're on the X-boards ...

Well.

yeah.

[Samurai]

Do you really not understand that we don't live in a conceptual vacuum but in a society made up of humans?

It's not racism.

It's a corrective measure meant to offset [a very small part of] the effects of centuries of racism.

If a skyscraper is tipping to one side, you're not tipping it back by applying opposing pressure, you're STRAIGHTENING IT. Get it? I'm trying to use simple physical examples so it's not muddy.

OF COURSE, if you switched it to whites, things would be different. That's how it was for nearly four centuries (cultural inertia/momentum, remember?). You claim to have gotten into a fairly highbrow school but can't process this tiniest and most obvious of facts.

MMmmmmmakes me wonderrrrrr.

The problem is that your definition of racism is wrong. It isn't "preferences for white people." It is "preferences based on race." A program that unfairly benefits ANY RACE, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, etc and rewards or punishes people according to their race or skin color is racism. There is no "* - except when black people benefit and white people punished" caveat at the end. Black people can be racists, they can benefit from racist policies. A black-owned business that only hires blacks and won't consider anyone of a differet race who applies is just as racist as an Asian company who refuses to hire anyone other than fellow Asians, or a white company that refuses to hire anyone other than whites.

It seems someone has filled your head with that "blacks can't be racist" garbage... I've heard it all before, I know the arguments, and it's BS. No race is immune to racism, and just because a preferential treatment is for one race instead of another doesn't make it 1 iota less racist.

As for your "straightening the building" analogy, there are 2 schools of thought on what equality really means: Equal outcomes or equal opportunity. I believe in equal opportunity only, and am strongly opposed to "equal outcome" policies. Equal opportunity says "everyone lines up on the same starting line, and the winners of the race get medals." Equal outcome says "Ok, Johnny is a slower runner, so he'll get a 10 second head start. Carrie is a fast runner, so she'll start 100' behind the starting line and everyone else. That should make it a "fairer" race, and everyone will get the same medal whether they finish or not." We are getting WAY too much of that latter kind of junk today, and AA is a real life example of it.

[KevinTBrown]

Guys, can we take this elsewhere please and get the focus back on the bashing McCain.... er, the election. :smile:

Thanks.

[FalconX2000]

Or maybe they see another Liberal they can roll over and get what they want at the expense of the American people. You have to believe they are looking at Obama and see a even dumber Bill Clinton and he let the North Korean's develop nukes right under his nose.

The North Koreans don't have nukes. They tried creating them under the Bush administration and were coddled into submission.

That a very large chunk of America is racist, obviously, and that a very large chunk of America is delusionally far to the right.

It wasn't exactly a preference thing, though. It was: acceptable or not?

Obama got 84% acceptable
McCain for 36% or something close to that.

It does not follow that people who find McCain acceptable necessarily would prefer him, either. I suppose the same is true of Obama, but somehow I find that less convincing.

On the face of it, this means that Obama would win 70% of the vote in Europe. We'll see how it is here.

People outside America can see things in a less politically charged atmosphere. Hillary supporters can switch over to Obama with no 'bruised feelings' because they haven't deluded themselves into thinking its a good idea to vote against their political agenda out of spite (except for those who supported Hillary simply because she was a woman). I don't think the racist number is really a huge percentage. As for right wing/left wing...can the labour parties be called the progressive party?
:confused:

[Michael P]

The North Koreans don't have nukes. They tried creating them under the Bush administration and were coddled into submission.

Goddamned appeasing Bush administration.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/25/stories/2008062556031500.htm

Well...this is unusual.

Apparently, Obama is being sent a gold plated idol of the deity Lord Hanuman from India as a symbol of his support in that country.

[Mr.EZ]

Cindy McCain on the cover of this week's Newsweek scares the piss out of me. She looks like a Stepford Wife with a stretched out face and these glowing blue eyes.

I'm pretty sure if you threw holy water on her, she'd burn.

[Samurai]

The North Koreans don't have nukes. They tried creating them under the Bush administration and were coddled into submission.



People outside America can see things in a less politically charged atmosphere. Hillary supporters can switch over to Obama with no 'bruised feelings' because they haven't deluded themselves into thinking its a good idea to vote against their political agenda out of spite (except for those who supported Hillary simply because she was a woman). I don't think the racist number is really a huge percentage. As for right wing/left wing...can the labour parties be called the progressive party?
:confused:

Actually, they do claim to have at least several nukes, they detonated a small one as a test and proof, and they were made during the Clinton administration. They only revealed they have them under Bush.

The intelligence, the official said, indicated the program was launched in the late 1990s -- several years after North Korea signed the agreement with the United States, Japan and South Korea.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkorea/

North Korea detonates nuke, joins planet's most dangerous club

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/north-korea-nuclear-test-091006
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/09/n_korea_nuke_test/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Korean_nuclear_test

[Infra-Man]

Guys, can we take this elsewhere please and get the focus back on the bashing McCain.... er, the election. :smile:

Thanks.

That reminds me... I've always wanted to use this image but never got a chance to. Seems like now's a good time...

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/7692/internetarguemntyl6.jpg

[KevinTBrown]

Oregon Republican for Obama:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Color_Oregon_blue.html#comments

[CutterMike]

http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/25/stories/2008062556031500.htm

Well...this is unusual.

Apparently, Obama is being sent a gold plated idol of the deity Lord Hanuman from India as a symbol of his support in that country.
Oh, dear.

You KNOW that Rush, et. al. are going to make the most of the fact that Hanuman is the Hindu Monkey-god. It's gonna be "Curious George" all over again!

[KevinTBrown]

I always check out the polls average by Real Clear Politics. What I find interesting is not the fact thet Obama is leading or increasing his lead, but that McCain is losing percentages.

At this time last week he was at about 42%. Currently he's at 40.8%. Obama has been holding rather steady at about 48%, currently 48.3%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

[CutterMike]

Did anyone else read the Chris Nolan interview here on CBR the other day?

The comment that he attributed to Michael Caine, I thought, was quite germaine to this discussion.

The gist of it was that Americans see America as Superman; The rest of the world sees America as Batman.

Smart cookie, that Michael Caine guy.

[Infra-Man]

It'll be interesting to see what happens to the polls after three key points: the Democratic Convention, the Republican Convention, and the first debate. The last of these key points will be the most important, obviously.

The Democrats' convention may put the pressure on the Republicans to put on a good bit of spectacle (which may prove difficult), but the DNC is still lagging behind in its fundraising goals (most recently documented here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-16-DNC_N.htm)), which may make it tough to put on the glitz come August.

[Infra-Man]

Did anyone else read the Chris Nolan interview here on CBR the other day?

The comment that he attributed to Michael Caine, I thought, was quite germaine to this discussion.

The gist of it was that Americans see America as Superman; The rest of the world sees America as Batman.

Smart cookie, that Michael Caine guy.

So really, what Rev. Jeremiah Wright meant to say was, "What, are you dense? Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think we are? We're the goddamn America."

/got nuthin

[Nick Soapdish]

Did anyone else read the Chris Nolan interview here on CBR the other day?

The comment that he attributed to Michael Caine, I thought, was quite germaine to this discussion.

The gist of it was that Americans see America as Superman; The rest of the world sees America as Batman.

Smart cookie, that Michael Caine guy.

But Batman's cooler!

[section 8]

Cindy McCain on the cover of this week's Newsweek scares the piss out of me. She looks like a Stepford Wife with a stretched out face and these glowing blue eyes.

I'm pretty sure if you threw holy water on her, she'd burn.

I wouldn't recommend trying, if you are wrong you get mauled by the secret service, if you are right, a horde of demons.

Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me

[Crowley]

I always check out the polls average by Real Clear Politics. What I find interesting is not the fact thet Obama is leading or increasing his lead, but that McCain is losing percentages.

At this time last week he was at about 42%. Currently he's at 40.8%. Obama has been holding rather steady at about 48%, currently 48.3%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Bob Barr is cutting into McCain's support significantly in Georgia. I really hope Ron Paul runs independent and cuts into McCain nationally, either that or he throws support behind Obama (which I think is unlikely)

[Red Jack]

That reminds me... I've always wanted to use this image but never got a chance to. Seems like now's a good time...

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/7692/internetarguemntyl6.jpg

I reject that. I'm neither an ass nor a child.

But I will drop it.

[kingdom2000]

The problem is that your definition of racism is wrong. It isn't "preferences for white people." It is "preferences based on race." A program that unfairly benefits ANY RACE, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, etc and rewards or punishes people according to their race or skin color is racism. There is no "* - except when black people benefit and white people punished" caveat at the end. Black people can be racists, they can benefit from racist policies. A black-owned business that only hires blacks and won't consider anyone of a differet race who applies is just as racist as an Asian company who refuses to hire anyone other than fellow Asians, or a white company that refuses to hire anyone other than whites.

It seems someone has filled your head with that "blacks can't be racist" garbage... I've heard it all before, I know the arguments, and it's BS. No race is immune to racism, and just because a preferential treatment is for one race instead of another doesn't make it 1 iota less racist.

As for your "straightening the building" analogy, there are 2 schools of thought on what equality really means: Equal outcomes or equal opportunity. I believe in equal opportunity only, and am strongly opposed to "equal outcome" policies. Equal opportunity says "everyone lines up on the same starting line, and the winners of the race get medals." Equal outcome says "Ok, Johnny is a slower runner, so he'll get a 10 second head start. Carrie is a fast runner, so she'll start 100' behind the starting line and everyone else. That should make it a "fairer" race, and everyone will get the same medal whether they finish or not." We are getting WAY too much of that latter kind of junk today, and AA is a real life example of it.

Quoted for truth.
Who would think that would be said about a Sam post. Hell might be on the verge of freezing over.

[FalconX2000]

I tend to think of affirmative action as an 'equal oppurtunity' measure anyway, at least that is the purpose of it. Blacks, native Americans and other minority races to varying extents tend to start out way way behind due to the crappy starting position of their race in general. That crappy starting position has a large part to do with the effect of generations of racism from whites, some of which still exists today.

Can it be carried too far? Of course it can, just like any other policy. I'm not going to argue whether the application has been too much, just right, or whatever. I'm saying the policy to boost minorities through having a higher percentage of the best of them receive higher education is a sound principle. It is a much better way to boost the productivity of the minorities, providing more symbols, more incentive to these groups who tend to stick together (and who can blame them?). It is a far far better solution to adressing the effects of past racism than reperation payments.

[Samurai]

I tend to think of affirmative action as an 'equal oppurtunity' measure anyway, at least that is the purpose of it. Blacks, native Americans and other minority races to varying extents tend to start out way way behind due to the crappy starting position of their race in general. That crappy starting position has a large part to do with the effect of generations of racism from whites, some of which still exists today.

Can it be carried too far? Of course it can, just like any other policy. I'm not going to argue whether the application has been too much, just right, or whatever. I'm saying the policy to boost minorities through having a higher percentage of the best of them receive higher education is a sound principle. It is a much better way to boost the productivity of the minorities, providing more symbols, more incentive to these groups who tend to stick together (and who can blame them?). It is a far far better solution to adressing the effects of past racism than reperation payments.

AA is not equal opportunity, it is equal outcome, which is the antithesis of equal opportunity. It says "Blacks are 12% of the population, so no matter what grades, test scores, etc, we need to get somewhere in that percentage neighborhood of black students enrolled (in order to not "look racist". So they'll instead actually be racist.) So they look at the applicants, figure out about how many bonus points they need to give in order to achieve the desired OUTCOME, and they alter the finishing line and starting line in order to artificially manufacture the result they want.

That is in no way equal opportunity. Equal opportunity would say "We are not even going to ask what race a student is, we'll judge all applications by the same standards, and whatever the racial breakdown turns out to be, that's what it is."

Proponents of AA like to claim they are just creating an "equal opportunity" by giving black students a 20 point head start in the race, but that's just propaganda. When you understand the real definitions of equal opportunity and equal outcomes, you realize very quickly that a color-blind application process where race plays no factor at all is equal opportunity, and an artificially engineered point system that rewards and punishes students for their skin color is trying to manufacture a specific outcome (through racism and racist policy).

[the4thpip]

A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows Barack Obama with a big lead -- 12 points, to be exact -- over John McCain.

Now, that's a high number. In fact, it's a noticeably wider margin than that found by several other recent polls. Then again, this is the second poll released within one week that's found a double-digit margin between the two presumptive major party nominees. The first one, a Newsweek poll released last Friday that showed a 15-point Obama lead, could be written off as an outlier. With this second one out, though, it might be time to take these numbers seriously -- or, at least, as seriously as it's worth taking any poll conducted this far away from Election Day in any race. (That is, typically, not very, at least not as a predictor of the final results. But it does provide an interesting snapshot, and a sense of what's possible.)

The explanation for the numbers found in these two polls seems to be a high proportion of self-identified Democrats surveyed. Sample composition -- how many Democrats to include, how many Republicans and how many independents -- will be a question pollsters will have to wrestle with this cycle. A lot more Americans are identifying as Democrats than in previous years. It may be that L.A. Times and Newsweek have gotten their proportions right, and that other pollsters have underestimated the size of the Democratic wave this year. Or it could be the other way around. That remains to be seen.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

Spread at realclearpolitics now 7.5

[FalconX2000]

AA is not equal opportunity, it is equal outcome, which is the antithesis of equal opportunity. It says "Blacks are 12% of the population, so no matter what grades, test scores, etc, we need to get somewhere in that percentage neighborhood of black students enrolled (in order to not "look racist". So they'll instead actually be racist.) So they look at the applicants, figure out about how many bonus points they need to give in order to achieve the desired OUTCOME, and they alter the finishing line and starting line in order to artificially manufacture the result they want.

That is in no way equal opportunity. Equal opportunity would say "We are not even going to ask what race a student is, we'll judge all applications by the same standards, and whatever the racial breakdown turns out to be, that's what it is."

Proponents of AA like to claim they are just creating an "equal opportunity" by giving black students a 20 point head start in the race, but that's just propaganda. When you understand the real definitions of equal opportunity and equal outcomes, you realize very quickly that a color-blind application process where race plays no factor at all is equal opportunity, and an artificially engineered point system that rewards and punishes students for their skin color is trying to manufacture a specific outcome (through racism and racist policy).

The world isn't a flat sports track. If we were to use your earlier analogy, before the race these whites dug a bunch of pot holes and bumps along the track of minorities and gave them a beating so they'd be in horrible shape when the time came to run.

Thus, on the day of the race the blacks, latinos, native Americans, etc, stumbled and fell in far greater numbers than the whites. This left lasting physical and psychological impact that was passed even passed onto other minority racers. Thus, the referees and officials decided to give blacks a few metres less to run, because getting to the finish line requires so much more work in general when someone is a minority due to all the things that came and, to an extent, still come with it.

Affirmative action should not continue forever. Yes, it can be overdone. Yes, some whites who never did anything wrong may end up paying the price, especially if it is overdone. Nevertheless, the policy is sound in principle, and helps to bring the minorities onto true equal starting footing with the whites. Hopefully, after 2-3 decades the system can be phased out.

[FalconX2000]

Actually, they do claim to have at least several nukes, they detonated a small one as a test and proof, and they were made during the Clinton administration. They only revealed they have them under Bush.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkorea/



http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/north-korea-nuclear-test-091006
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/09/n_korea_nuke_test/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Korean_nuclear_test


Ah yes, I can't believe I forgot about that. I also heard they've had lots of trouble with their weapons tests.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15217370/
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/04/korea.missile/

[the4thpip]

Guys, can we take this elsewhere please and get the focus back on the bashing McCain.... er, the election. :smile:

Thanks.

I agree. Great discussion on Affirmative Action, but maybe it should have its own thread?

[Red Jack]

AA is not equal opportunity, it is equal outcome, which is the antithesis of equal opportunity. It says "Blacks are 12% of the population, so no matter what grades, test scores, etc, we need to get somewhere in that percentage neighborhood of black students enrolled (in order to not "look racist". So they'll instead actually be racist.) So they look at the applicants, figure out about how many bonus points they need to give in order to achieve the desired OUTCOME, and they alter the finishing line and starting line in order to artificially manufacture the result they want.

That is in no way equal opportunity. Equal opportunity would say "We are not even going to ask what race a student is, we'll judge all applications by the same standards, and whatever the racial breakdown turns out to be, that's what it is."

Proponents of AA like to claim they are just creating an "equal opportunity" by giving black students a 20 point head start in the race, but that's just propaganda. When you understand the real definitions of equal opportunity and equal outcomes, you realize very quickly that a color-blind application process where race plays no factor at all is equal opportunity, and an artificially engineered point system that rewards and punishes students for their skin color is trying to manufacture a specific outcome (through racism and racist policy).

Well. I would have dropped it but nobody else seems to want to so...

No. Sam. You're wrong. You've arrived at a set of conclusions based upon an initial false assumption which is this: Secondary education is a goal or a result in itself.

It isn't. It's a rung, the first on a long ladder that leads to full participation in the society at levels that had been previously and aggressively denied. it is not an end but part of a beginning and, as such, cannot be described as an outcome. There are plenty of Harvard grads who've done almost nothing with their lives and plenty of graduates of state schools who are kicking ass and taking names. No outcome is assured by any diploma much less getting to attend. School cannot be described as an outcome.

No outcome is assured, only the opportunity. By aggressively denying that opportunity, specifically based upon race, a hole was created. By counterbalancing that past aggressive behavior with a relatively minor set of opportunities, you create a partial counter to the harm that was done.

Also AA is about the society, not individuals. It is, as a small as it is, an attempt to provide access where access was previously unfairly denied. It is an acknowledgment of past evil behavior and an attempt to rectify its effect. No one is being kept from competing the "normal" way. If your brain's big enough and your skill set expansive enough, colleges will find a way to seat you. This is in addition to that, literally to the side. There is nothing keeping you from completely ignoring AA.

My brother went to Yale, btw, and he didn't get in because he's black but because he's wicked smart. My family paid the ride. I myself covered his junior year. No special treatment. No set asides (though I'm sure there were folks like you who stigmatized him that way).

But there were kids right there with him who got a leg up because they were black. Just like the kids of the rich and the powerful and those who'd attended years previous. Those legs up are just as artificial and require that somebody not get a seat for reasons other than grades, yet, at no time have you ever had a problem with them.

It's obscene what you're doing here. I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you really don't deserve it.

[the4thpip]

Barack Obama 317 John McCain 221

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

[Charles RB]

The North Koreans don't have nukes.

They had at least one - they tested it.

Whether they have any others is another matter. (Quoth Have I Got News For You: "So, this is the news that North Korea had a nuclear bomb and they've blown it up. So now they don't have one anymore.")

[KevinTBrown]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Beat ya to it: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7064868&postcount=2362


:biggrin:

[KevinTBrown]

Opinion on Obama's decision to not take public funds: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/06/flipflop.html

[FalconX2000]

They had at least one - they tested it.

Whether they have any others is another matter. (Quoth Have I Got News For You: "So, this is the news that North Korea had a nuclear bomb and they've blown it up. So now they don't have one anymore.")

As I said in my own reply to Samurai, many analysts say the blast was too small to be a successful nuclear detonation. North Korea might have thought they had a nuke, but if they did the test failed.

[Mr.EZ]

I just want to thank the people who regularly post in this thread. You may or may not have stances I agree with, but after looking at the political yahoo message board for 5 minutes, I'm very grateful that I have your posts to read.

Bunch of animals over there, jeezus.

[Infra-Man]

I reject that. I'm neither an ass nor a child.

But I will drop it.

It wasn't meant to compare you or Sam to either thing in the pic, it was just something funny to lighten the mood a bit.

[FalconX2000]

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

This post is in reply to Sam, with whom I talked with a few days ago about Obama not revealing his birth certificate. The entire thing was based on me taking his word for granted that it was true. I guess I should have asked him to back it up. Oh well.

In any case, Obama's birth cert is displayed.

[Paul McEnery]

I agree. Great discussion on Affirmative Action, but maybe it should have its own thread?

Well, here's the thing.

The racists want to take Obama down, and the fascists want to encourage the racists to vote for McCain or at least stay home, and there's enough tacit racism around that maybe it can shave a percentage point or two.

So what do you expect Samurai and Briareos to be doing but rolling out the same old tired excuses for racism the far right's been spewing for decades. Their sponsors are hoping Buchanan's strategy for the GOP has still got some juice in it.

The thing that amazes me is that anyone's bothering to talk to them about it. I mean, I suppose it's useful to know what crap the blogofascists are spewing this week, but this stuff is just so painfully boilerplate.

We know that affirmative action works, and it's a good thing that it works. Anyone who has a sociology degree would have been exposed to the data and the methodology and would know this. Anyone who claims to have a sociology degree and yet disputes this is lying to somebody about something. I wonder what it could be?

We know that this is a wedge issue between the black poor and the white poor (and other races too, I dare say). Exploiting it for electoral purposes, sowing even more division and racism in the country by doing so, especially when you know there's no academic justification for doing so, is the mark of an utter cunt.

[KevinTBrown]

Well, here's the thing.

The racists want to take Obama down, and the fascists want to encourage the racists to vote for McCain or at least stay home, and there's enough tacit racism around that maybe it can shave a percentage point or two.

So what do you expect Samurai and Briareos to be doing but rolling out the same old tired excuses for racism the far right's been spewing for decades. Their sponsors are hoping Buchanan's strategy for the GOP has still got some juice in it.

The thing that amazes me is that anyone's bothering to talk to them about it. I mean, I suppose it's useful to know what crap the blogofascists are spewing this week, but this stuff is just so painfully boilerplate.

We know that affirmative action works, and it's a good thing that it works. Anyone who has a sociology degree would have been exposed to the data and the methodology and would know this. Anyone who claims to have a sociology degree and yet disputes this is lying to somebody about something. I wonder what it could be?

We know that this is a wedge issue between the black poor and the white poor (and other races too, I dare say). Exploiting it for electoral purposes, sowing even more division and racism in the country by doing so, especially when you know there's no academic justification for doing so, is the mark of an utter cunt.

"Rolling" or "Trolling"....?

[the4thpip]

Ralph Nader says the only thing different about Barack Obama is that he is “half African-American.” The Independent presidential candidate also accused his Democratic rival of attempting to “talk white.”

“There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American,” Nader said in an interview with a Denver newspaper Monday. “Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.”

http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/25/ralph-nader-barack-obama-wants-to-talk-white/

[jesse_custer]

We know that affirmative action works, and it's a good thing that it works. Anyone who has a sociology degree would have been exposed to the data and the methodology and would know this. Anyone who claims to have a sociology degree and yet disputes this is lying to somebody about something.

As a master's student in sociology who recently finished a very, very in-depth course on social stratification, I confirm Paul is right.

[Red Jack]

It wasn't meant to compare you or Sam to either thing in the pic, it was just something funny to lighten the mood a bit.

No worries. It's funny.

[Joe Rice]

Nader's idiot comments clipped
http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/25/ralph-nader-barack-obama-wants-to-talk-white/

Holy effin ess. I can't wait to see Smash talk about this.

[Paul McEnery]

Holy effin ess. I can't wait to see Smash talk about this.

Oh, I don't know. I think Ralph's right about where Obama stands -- if it's an impolitic, hell, just plain rude, way to put it.

But this shows exactly how little he understands what the whole job of being President is about. Or for that matter, the whole job of running for President. Payday loans? Really? That's the national issue of the day? Hell, I doubt if it's even top of Ralph's list.

Which makes it a bit of an ugly comment, doesn't it. Is he suggesting the only black Americans are the ones who live in poverty? Or that Obama is only running as a black candidate? Or that he's not black enough. Really, Ralph? You want to make this a wedge issue to snap up a couple of black votes? I'm blacker than Obama because I understand payday loans?

Boy, it's so not going to be fun watching Ralph destroy the last of his credibility on this pointless run.

[jesse_custer]

Sounds like fun to me.

[Joe Rice]

Oh, I don't know. I think Ralph's right about where Obama stands -- if it's an impolitic, hell, just plain rude, way to put it.

But this shows exactly how little he understands what the whole job of being President is about. Or for that matter, the whole job of running for President. Payday loans? Really? That's the national issue of the day? Hell, I doubt if it's even top of Ralph's list.

Which makes it a bit of an ugly comment, doesn't it. Is he suggesting the only black Americans are the ones who live in poverty? Or that Obama is only running as a black candidate? Or that he's not black enough. Really, Ralph? You want to make this a wedge issue to snap up a couple of black votes? I'm blacker than Obama because I understand payday loans?

Boy, it's so not going to be fun watching Ralph destroy the last of his credibility on this pointless run.

Or, of course all black people are deeply involved with ghetto exploitation.

[Samurai]

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

This post is in reply to Sam, with whom I talked with a few days ago about Obama not revealing his birth certificate. The entire thing was based on me taking his word for granted that it was true. I guess I should have asked him to back it up. Oh well.

In any case, Obama's birth cert is displayed.

No, not quite. First, that wasn't posted when the controversy first began. After the controversy started, he leaked the Certificate of Live Birth (not a Birth Certificate) to Daily Kos, and eventually had it put up on his own site.

Second, when that was posted, there was this reply:

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/20/was_obamas_certificate_of_birth_manufactured.thtml
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/20/obama%E2%80%99s-birth-certificate-the-problems/

Now, the Barack cert scan is quite a bit lighter, and that may be the reason we can't see the fold marks or the embossing. And Obama's people are probably the ones who blacked out the number (though I don't know why they would, it's not like a Social Security number). Still, it isn't his actual Birth Certificate, it's either a modern document from the State of Hawaii or its a forgery meant to squash the questions. I think the former is the more likely, despite the apparent flaws, because I'd be surprised if Barack was stupid enough to try and pull a forgery over on us. But the site does raise some interesting points about how it looks digitally made.

[Paul McEnery]

No, not quite. First, that wasn't posted when the controversy first began. After the controversy started, he leaked the Certificate of Live Birth (not a Birth Certificate) to Daily Kos, and eventually had it put up on his own site.

Second, when that was posted, there was this reply:

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/20/was_obamas_certificate_of_birth_manufactured.thtml
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/20/obama%E2%80%99s-birth-certificate-the-problems/

Now, the Barack cert scan is quite a bit lighter, and that may be the reason we can't see the fold marks or the embossing. And Obama's people are probably the ones who blacked out the number (though I don't know why they would, it's not like a Social Security number). Still, it isn't his actual Birth Certificate, it's either a modern document from the State of Hawaii or its a forgery meant to squash the questions. I think the former is the more likely, despite the apparent flaws, because I'd be surprised if Barack was stupid enough to try and pull a forgery over on us. But the site does raise some interesting points about how it looks digitally made.

Or, you know, it simply doesn't matter, and it's another fucking smear issue designed to cast doubt on whether or not Obama's a real American.

What a crock.

[KevinTBrown]

No, not quite. First, that wasn't posted when the controversy first began. After the controversy started, he leaked the Certificate of Live Birth (not a Birth Certificate) to Daily Kos, and eventually had it put up on his own site.

Second, when that was posted, there was this reply:

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/20/was_obamas_certificate_of_birth_manufactured.thtml
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/20/obama%E2%80%99s-birth-certificate-the-problems/

Now, the Barack cert scan is quite a bit lighter, and that may be the reason we can't see the fold marks or the embossing. And Obama's people are probably the ones who blacked out the number (though I don't know why they would, it's not like a Social Security number). Still, it isn't his actual Birth Certificate, it's either a modern document from the State of Hawaii or its a forgery meant to squash the questions. I think the former is the more likely, despite the apparent flaws, because I'd be surprised if Barack was stupid enough to try and pull a forgery over on us. But the site does raise some interesting points about how it looks digitally made.

Prove it.....

[darkhanamaru]

Still, it isn't his actual Birth Certificate, it's either a modern document from the State of Hawaii or its a forgery meant to squash the questions. I think the former is the more likely, despite the apparent flaws, because I'd be surprised if Barack was stupid enough to try and pull a forgery over on us. But the site does raise some interesting points about how it looks digitally made.

Samurai stop the bull. It looks like every replacement certificate I have ever seen including my own. I have had to replace mine because the old one fell apart.

Not that it matters anyway since that archaic law about birth was really only meant for Alexander Hamilton.

[FalconX2000]

Meanwhile, Jim Wallis has begun duking it out with James Dobson about Dobson's criticism/distortion of Obama's 2006 speech on religion and politics.

http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/06/wallis-rips-dobsons-ripping-of.html

Looks like Obama's religious involvement is paying off. Furthermore, all this publicity will further help eradicate the 'Obama is a Muslim' rumour.

[Dreadstar]

Not that it matters anyway since that archaic law about birth was really only meant for Alexander Hamilton.

That archaic law is the only thing keeping us from the possibility of President Schwarzenegger. So yeah, to me, it matters.

[Gilda Dent]

No, not quite. First, that wasn't posted when the controversy first began. After the controversy started, he leaked the Certificate of Live Birth (not a Birth Certificate) to Daily Kos, and eventually had it put up on his own site.

Second, when that was posted, there was this reply:

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/20/was_obamas_certificate_of_birth_manufactured.thtml
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/20/obama%E2%80%99s-birth-certificate-the-problems/

Now, the Barack cert scan is quite a bit lighter, and that may be the reason we can't see the fold marks or the embossing. And Obama's people are probably the ones who blacked out the number (though I don't know why they would, it's not like a Social Security number). Still, it isn't his actual Birth Certificate, it's either a modern document from the State of Hawaii or its a forgery meant to squash the questions. I think the former is the more likely, despite the apparent flaws, because I'd be surprised if Barack was stupid enough to try and pull a forgery over on us. But the site does raise some interesting points about how it looks digitally made.

When you get a new birth certificate from the state of your birth, it's issued in whatever is the current form for that state, not as a replica of the original. The birth certificate I have stored away in our fire safe was printed in 2001. This doesn't make it any less legitimate a birth certificate.

Yes, that looks like a modern document. So? Why does it matter when it was printed? It establishes Obama's citizenship by birth as a part of the public record, which is what it's supposed to do.

Has John McCain released his birth certificate? I'd like to see a scan of the original so that we can establish that he's a real American. None of these possibly forged "modern documents" that can't be trusted, I want to see the original. In person. Otherwise, how can I tell it isn't a photoshop?

[FalconX2000]

That archaic law is the only thing keeping us from the possibility of President Schwarzenegger. So yeah, to me, it matters.

I wouldn't mind Schwarzenegger running. I wouldn't vote for him because he has already demonstrated complete budget incompetence and didn't shield education and healthcare services from the 10% budget cut, but I don't see a problem with him running except for the immigrant laws.

[darkhanamaru]

That archaic law is the only thing keeping us from the possibility of President Schwarzenegger. So yeah, to me, it matters.

You, mean, besides people not voting for him? Let the democratic process answer those questions not some triviality such as where someone was born. Citizenship should bring full rights.

[Tetsuo_man]

Has John McCain released his birth certificate? I'd like to see a scan of the original so that we can establish that he's a real American. None of these possibly forged "modern documents" that can't be trusted, I want to see the original. In person. Otherwise, how can I tell it isn't a photoshop?


Exactly he may not have been born on a millitary base.

[Dreadstar]

You, mean, besides people not voting for him? Let the democratic process answer those questions not some triviality such as where someone was born. Citizenship should bring full rights.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Michael P]

Has John McCain released his birth certificate? I'd like to see a scan of the original so that we can establish that he's a real American.

Don't be ridiculous, Gilda. Of course McCain's a real American.

He's white.

[Lester C.]

What I love about this election is that whomever wins, the Neocons lose. I have nothing against them personally, as I'm sure they are all fine people, but Bush's policies post 911 have come directly from them and we are all much poorer because of it. As Samurai, who isn't a neocon, says in his quote the only thing that can get him to vote for McCain is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. As far as I'm concerned that's a good thing. A very good thing indeed.

[Sally Sensational]

Exactly he may not have been born on a millitary base.

I was born on a military base. Is there something different about my birth certificate?

[Royal]

No, not quite. First, that wasn't posted when the controversy first began. After the controversy started, he leaked the Certificate of Live Birth (not a Birth Certificate) to Daily Kos, and eventually had it put up on his own site.

Second, when that was posted, there was this reply:

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/20/was_obamas_certificate_of_birth_manufactured.thtml
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/20/obama%E2%80%99s-birth-certificate-the-problems/

Now, the Barack cert scan is quite a bit lighter, and that may be the reason we can't see the fold marks or the embossing. And Obama's people are probably the ones who blacked out the number (though I don't know why they would, it's not like a Social Security number). Still, it isn't his actual Birth Certificate, it's either a modern document from the State of Hawaii or its a forgery meant to squash the questions. I think the former is the more likely, despite the apparent flaws, because I'd be surprised if Barack was stupid enough to try and pull a forgery over on us. But the site does raise some interesting points about how it looks digitally made.

Total weak sauce. you might as well call my replacement certificate fake and expose me as a Highlander.

Your CJJ is flawed and don't work here.

[Typo Lad]

Hell, my original birth certificate says "Baby Boy". I didn't get one with my name till I was 18. Does that make it "fake"? I mean, it doesn't match.

[Tetsuo_man]

Well Mccain was botn technically on us soil on a millitary base in another country. But he could have been born off the base and had his certificate remade to say he was on the base and thus eligible to be prez. I'm just pointing out the same for what sam is saying of obama not being eligible for being president for not being born in this country can also be used against mccain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

[Lester C.]

I was born on a military base. Is there something different about my birth certificate?

Can we ship you back? I'll even throw in a soccer ball.

[Red Jack]

The whole thing is silly. If you were born to an American parent, anywhere in the world, you are eligible to be president provided that parent doesn't switch citizenship or you don't yourself before you're 35. Several candidates have been born in other countries. George Romney, for one. So what?

My brother the Yalie was born in Thailand. In theory he could be president.

Obama could have been born on Fidel Casto's desk surrounded by Satan worshippers who were spying for the Nazis and he'd still be eligible to be president. His father was married to his mother and she is an American. End of story.

The whole "controversy" is just another way for racists to say "Don't trust the darkie. He's not like us."

This election is going to be REALLY interesting.

[Infra-Man]

Hell, my original birth certificate says "Baby Boy". I didn't get one with my name till I was 18. Does that make it "fake"? I mean, it doesn't match.

You have been living a lie!

[Red Jack]

Well, here's the thing.

The racists want to take Obama down, and the fascists want to encourage the racists to vote for McCain or at least stay home, and there's enough tacit racism around that maybe it can shave a percentage point or two.

So what do you expect Samurai and Briareos to be doing but rolling out the same old tired excuses for racism the far right's been spewing for decades. Their sponsors are hoping Buchanan's strategy for the GOP has still got some juice in it.

The thing that amazes me is that anyone's bothering to talk to them about it. I mean, I suppose it's useful to know what crap the blogofascists are spewing this week, but this stuff is just so painfully boilerplate.

We know that affirmative action works, and it's a good thing that it works. Anyone who has a sociology degree would have been exposed to the data and the methodology and would know this. Anyone who claims to have a sociology degree and yet disputes this is lying to somebody about something. I wonder what it could be?

We know that this is a wedge issue between the black poor and the white poor (and other races too, I dare say). Exploiting it for electoral purposes, sowing even more division and racism in the country by doing so, especially when you know there's no academic justification for doing so, is the mark of an utter cunt.

I missed this the first time.

The reason I engage in this case is that, despite the obvious facts, a lot of folks BELIEVE the boilerplate crap. It has to be challenged whenever it presents. It has too much traction as it is.

[Sabrinaset]

I was born on a military base. Is there something different about my birth certificate?

Military brat here too, and so far as I know, there's nothing different about them. So far as I remember (I don't deal with maternity much) there's the long form (which has all the infoirmation certifying that a birth took place, including all relevent signatures and suchlike) and the short form, which mostly just says that the information recorded on the long form exists. Oh yeah ... there's also souveneir birth certificates which have copies of the babies footprints that the hospital gives out to parents, and which always seems to get people in trouble because they think it's more of a legal document than it really is.

[Crowley]

No, not quite. First, that wasn't posted when the controversy first began. After the controversy started, he leaked the Certificate of Live Birth (not a Birth Certificate) to Daily Kos, and eventually had it put up on his own site.

Second, when that was posted, there was this reply:

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/20/was_obamas_certificate_of_birth_manufactured.thtml
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/20/obama%E2%80%99s-birth-certificate-the-problems/

Now, the Barack cert scan is quite a bit lighter, and that may be the reason we can't see the fold marks or the embossing. And Obama's people are probably the ones who blacked out the number (though I don't know why they would, it's not like a Social Security number). Still, it isn't his actual Birth Certificate, it's either a modern document from the State of Hawaii or its a forgery meant to squash the questions. I think the former is the more likely, despite the apparent flaws, because I'd be surprised if Barack was stupid enough to try and pull a forgery over on us. But the site does raise some interesting points about how it looks digitally made.

Sam,

You couldn't tell that a badly photoshopped picture of Robert Byrd in KKK gear wasn't real.

[Gilda Dent]

Yeah, it doesn't matter whether he was born on a base or not, just like it doesn't matter whether one was born in Hawaii before or after it became a state.

There are two ways to be a native born citizen: Be born on US soil or have at least one parent who was a citizen at the time of your birth.

Why this is even an issue baffles me, but if we're going to hold one candidate up to a certain level of scrutiny, we should do it for both. If we're going to ask about Obama's birth certificate, I want to see McCain's. If we're going to ask Obama to prove he wasn't a Muslim as a child, I want to see McCain prove that he wasn't a Bahai.

If we're going to apply a standard to one candidate, we should apply it to both.

[Tetsuo_man]

I wasn't really trying to say mccain shouldn't be president because of where he was born just that sam's original post on obama seemed hypocritical seeing as mccain's birth situation.

[kingdom2000]

I missed this the first time.

The reason I engage in this case is that, despite the obvious facts, a lot of folks BELIEVE the boilerplate crap. It has to be challenged whenever it presents. It has too much traction as it is.

True, because much like the "Obama is a muslim" story that many many stupid people belive and vote accordingly (thanks to Fox News), despite the fact his pastor controversy contradicts that belief (but again that doesn't stop Faux News), this just feeds into that paranoia. Frankly I don't think its a "black" thing. It's "paint him as a maybe terrorist" for the stupid stupid republican sheep out there thing.

[Lester C.]

I've heard people state that Obama isn't black because he doesn't talk black and has a white mom. The latest person to say this is Ralph Nader of all people. As someone who in a similar situation, I was wondering what you guys think.

[Mr.EZ]

I don't give a rat's ass about who was born where, or what color anyone's skin is, or who has a penis or a vagina. I'm voting for the person who I think won't ruin what's left of the country. Obama seems on the up and up about most stuff, and McCain seems like a monster.

If you know anyone who's voting for the wrong reasons, bitchsmack them into the 21st century.

[Charles RB]

I've heard people state that Obama isn't black because he doesn't talk black

...you are joking. :frown:

[Sabrinaset]

I've heard people state that Obama isn't black because he doesn't talk black and has a white mom. The latest person to say this is Ralph Nader of all people. As someone who in a similar situation, I was wondering what you guys think.

Nader's math confuses me. He said that Obama is HALF African-American. But his father is Kenyan, and his mother is from Kansas ... so uhm ... doesn't that make him 100% African-American? But no, he's only HALF African American, so he is only a quarter African and a quarter American ... so the other half according to Ralph is ... ?

Know what I think? Ralph Nader is walking proof we need to hire better math teachers.

[KevinTBrown]

Nader's math confuses me. He said that Obama is HALF African-American. But his father is Kenyan, and his mother is from Kansas ... so uhm ... doesn't that make him 100% African-American? But no, he's only HALF African American, so he is only a quarter African and a quarter American ... so the other half according to Ralph is ... ?

Know what I think? Ralph Nader is walking proof we need to hire better math teachers.
And here I thought he was everybody's all-American...

[Sabrinaset]

I don't give a rat's ass about who was born where, or what color anyone's skin is, or who has a penis or a vagina. I'm voting for the person who I think won't ruin what's left of the country. Obama seems on the up and up about most stuff, and McCain seems like a monster.

See, this I completely agree with. Obama's race or whether he was born in ... well, wherever he was born, or any of that stuff is irrelevent, he's just better than McCain for the job.

And here I thought he was everybody's all-American...

Well, if we go by my lil bratty brother, most Americans are pretty bad at math, why should Nader be an exception ... I know it's been awhile, but I think Ralph is mangling the Distributive Property. It's supposed to be 1/2A + 1/2B = 1/2 x (A+B), where Nader thinks 1/2A + 1/2B = 1/2 x 1/2 x (A + B).

[section 8]

I've heard people state that Obama isn't black because he doesn't talk black and has a white mom. The latest person to say this is Ralph Nader of all people. As someone who in a similar situation, I was wondering what you guys think.

A lot of bi-racial people have one race they identify with more often than the other, depending on how the world sees them and more imporantly how they see themselves.
This does not null and void the other race, few bi-racial people would deny of disown either race. It really isn't possible, it is part of who you are.

Having been raised by his white mother, and appearing black to the rest of the world i'm sure the subject of race is murky waters to Obama.

[Charles RB]

Nader's math confuses me. He said that Obama is HALF African-American. But his father is Kenyan, and his mother is from Kansas ... so uhm ... doesn't that make him 100% African-American?

Mmm. You can't get more African-American than being the sprog of an African (who sprogged with an American).