2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[JamesRitcheyIII]

McCain's Birth Certificate:

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m231/jamesritcheyiii/2572961469_3d98d04db6.jpg


"Thought lost for the ages, the document was found in a clay jar, in an abandoned cave, on the outskirts of Sedona, by a shepherd boy in 1947. The desert climate and the dry atmosphere in the caves kept the parchment remarkably well preserved." (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/15046/0204)

[section 8]

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.

Um i agree with MOST of this post, Except i'm still undecided, and i don't advocate the use of violence......

[section 8]

Mmm. You can't get more African-American than being the sprog of an African (who sprogged with an American).

There are those who argue that he doesn't count because he isn't the decendant of slaves.

[Sabrinaset]

There are those who argue that he doesn't count because he isn't the decendant of slaves.

So, an African ISN'T an African because he was born in Africa instead of the US ...? *long sigh*

Okay. I know I'm gunna regret asking this (because I know I won't get an answer) ... but you've said there are those who will argue he doesn't count. Could we have a link to these people?

[section 8]

So, an African ISN'T an African because he was born in Africa instead of the US ...? *long sigh*

Okay. I know I'm gunna regret asking this (because I know I won't get an answer) ... but you've said there are those who will argue he doesn't count. Could we have a link to these people?


Sorry, this was banter i overheard in a Bar/pizza place in Myrtle Beach, about three days before the infamous debate. (Naturally i didn't hear anyone say anything like this at the debate itself.)

(some of us have lives that span beyond our computers.)

[Charles RB]

Sorry, this was banter i overheard in a Bar/pizza place in Myrtle Beach, about three days before the infamous debate.

Sadly, I can believe some people think he's not "African-American enough" because his dad was actually from Africa instead of being the descendent of a deported slave.

People are thick.

[Paul McEnery]

Sadly, I can believe some people think he's not "African-American enough" because his dad was actually from Africa instead of being the descendent of a deported slave.

People are thick.

The definition continues to be complicated over here. Like that numbskull who called an English person of African descent African-American.

And of course it is complicated. We know where we are with the Irish-Americans and the Italian-Americans and the German-Americans and the Squareheads. They came here with their own cultures and dialects and powerbases and connections to the old country.

In that sense, African-American doesn't really exist. Your average black American's connection to the old country is a horrible mess -- largely doesn't even exist -- and the average black American's connection to culture and language is screwed to hell too; outside of jazz and the blues, that is, but even then there's been such cultural miscegenation in the underground that who knows where the hell we are. Is Jazz still a great black music? Or the Blues? Are Jazz and the Blues even still Jazz and the Blues, even? It feels like the music's been assimilated, but left the population behind.

And of course the big problem is that the population hasn't been assimilated. As we see in the Obama nomination -- and now the election -- there's a shit ton of Schwarzenhass out there.

Which of course brings us back to our friend who calls Black English people African-Americans. Because it wouldn't much matter if we changed the name for them to Furry Super Animals, a good 30% of white folk in America would start pronouncing Furry Super Animals so we know they really mean Nigger.

So, here's the radical thought. There are only two groups of people in America who can lay claim to being just "American", and that's the Native Americans and the African-Americas. The first because they were dispossessed of their land, and the second because they were dispossessed of their own culture.

[section 8]

In that sense, African-American doesn't really exist. Your average black American's connection to the old country is a horrible mess -- largely doesn't even exist -- and the average black American's connection to culture and language is screwed to hell too; outside of jazz and the blues, that is, but even then there's been such cultural miscegenation in the underground that who knows where the hell we are. Is Jazz still a great black music? Or the Blues? Are Jazz and the Blues even still Jazz and the Blues, even? It feels like the music's been assimilated, but left the population behind.

And of course the big problem is that the population hasn't been assimilated. As we see in the Obama nomination -- and now the election -- there's a shit ton of Schwarzenhass out there.

Which of course brings us back to our friend who calls Black English people African-Americans. Because it wouldn't much matter if we changed the name for them to Furry Super Animals, a good 30% of white folk in America would start pronouncing Furry Super Animals so we know they really mean Nigger.

So, here's the radical thought. There are only two groups of people in America who can lay claim to being just "American", and that's the Native Americans and the African-Americas. The first because they were dispossessed of their land, and the second because they were dispossessed of their own culture.

Heh heh you said Obamanation

In a nutshell you just described one of the main reasons for my distrust of "Political Correctness"

Lets just define ourselves as "Human" and take it from there.

[KevinTBrown]

Heh heh you said Obamanation

In a nutshell you just described one of the main reasons for my distrust of "Political Correctness"

Lets just define ourselves as "Human" and take it from there.

No, he said, "Obama nation." Note: 2 words, not one.

[section 8]

No, he said, "Obama nation." Note: 2 words, not one.

Ok folks when i talk about having to spell it out when i am joking

case In point

[Samurai]

Heh heh you said Obamanation

In a nutshell you just described one of the main reasons for my distrust of "Political Correctness"

Lets just define ourselves as "Human" and take it from there.

I wonder if Emil Blonsky's middle name was Hussein? :)

[Paul McEnery]

No, he said, "Obama nation." Note: 2 words, not one.

and "nomination", anyway.

[Nick Soapdish]

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.

It's racial stereotyping - or just plain racism.

Like just about everybody has said, racism is a very complicated topic. It's not just a matter of black and white. One of the many types of racism is black/black racism - because one black isn't black enough or is too black.

[CutterMike]

(...)
(some of us have lives that span beyond our computers.)
Oh, sure! Rub it in, why dontcha?!!?

[FalconX2000]

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.

I am a Singaporean raised by an English teacher mum, a dad with a good command of English and learnt alot of my vocabulary through movies and American cartoons. My original accent holds little resemblence to that of the typical Singaporean and Singlish didn't come naturally to me until about 5 years ago. I still lapse casually between the two modes of speaking, usually without noticing. That doesn't make me any less Singaporean.

[FalconX2000]

Oh, sure! Rub it in, why dontcha?!!?

*brings jar of salt*:biggrin:

[the4thpip]

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.


I guess the suggestions is that Obama is a really a turrist plant, and that his mother was actually a Palestinian freedom fighter but when Barrack's father gave birth to him he...

Oh wait.

[Mr.EZ]

Um i agree with MOST of this post, Except i'm still undecided, and i don't advocate the use of violence......

Bitchsmacking doesn't have to mean physical violence. It can be simply owning another person in a debate, like I've seen so many do with some close-minded people in this thread.

[Mr.EZ]

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 a republican shill, and because republicans rule by fear, Nader's doing his job by raising doubts about Obama. The guy prides himself on his ability to take away votes for Democrats, and he needs to be stopped.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Nader's a republican shill, and because republicans rule by fear, Nader's doing his job by raising doubts about Obama. The guy prides himself on his ability to take away votes for Democrats, and he needs to be stopped.

This patently isn't true. Nader may be a lot of things, a crazy old crank with more passion than sense, a zealot who (and far as I can tell) has said one stupid thing regarding Obama's race, but his rhetoric is virulently anti-corporatism, anti-war profiteer, pro-consumer safety and pro-populist. Ten minutes of listening to him would bear that out. He believes both parties have betrayed America by collaborating with the 'Military/Industrial Complex'. I can't say I disagree--under Clinton, civil liberties suffered almost as badly as under Bush--besides further widening the gap between rich and poor. Nader's ego-based hubris lies in trying to get himself elected, when he should likely be backing Obama, since neither appear to be in anyone's pocket--doing the right things for the right reasons. Obama would do well to include Nader in some Economics-related capacity in his administration--or the head of Health and Human Services.

[Mr.EZ]

This patently isn't true. Nader may be a lot of things, a crazy old crank with more passion than sense, a zealot who (and far as I can tell) has said one stupid thing regarding Obama's race, but his rhetoric is virulently anti-corporatism, anti-war profiteer, pro-consumer safety and pro-populist. Ten minutes of listening to him would bear that out. He believes both parties have betrayed America by collaborating with the 'Military/Industrial Complex'. I can't say I disagree--under Clinton, civil liberties suffered almost as badly as under Bush--besides further widening the gap between rich and poor. Nader's ego-based hubris lies in trying to get himself elected, when he should likely be backing Obama, since neither appear to be in anyone's pocket--doing the right things for the right reasons. Obama would do well to include Nader in some Economics-related capacity in his administration--or the head of Health and Human Services.

I don't have to hear Nader speak, I read his book. Nader himself, both in his book "Crashing the Party," and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all." Assuming these poll numbers are correct, the 13% plurality would have given Gore a victory in Florida and the presidency.

I agree that Nader would do more good than harm, if he allied himself with Obama.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

I don't have to hear Nader speak, I read his book. Nader himself, both in his book "Crashing the Party," and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all." Assuming these poll numbers are correct, the 13% plurality would have given Gore a victory in Florida and the presidency.

I agree that Nader would do more good than harm, if he allied himself with Obama.

You only think Gore didn't win Florida. :biggrin:

Nader's only problem is the calcification of his ego, over looking at 'The Big Picture'--that some people (albeit scant few) get intro politics to make America a better place, and believe as he does, regardless of independent party affiliation. His behavior is like what you hear about ghosts reenacting the same experience incessantly. I'm glad he's still around to say what he says, but he has a peculiar kind of tunnel vision, and hasn't seemed to have noticed that Obama is ideologically the same sort of person that he is (or was), as scant few of the Dems, and virtually none of the Republicans are.

[Mr.EZ]

You only think Gore didn't win Florida. :biggrin:


No, I think Gore won in FL, and the republicans stole the election using illegal tactics.

[section 8]

THank God for Katherine Harris, or was it Satan?

Which one ate babies?

[Mr.EZ]

THank God for Katherine Harris, or was it Satan?

Which one ate babies?

Both, they went at it Lady and the Tramp style. They met up at the baby's belly button and then made out.

[Gilda Dent]

Nader's math seems fine to me.

Black father + white mother = 1/2 African American, 1/2 white.

He's half black, half white. In the US, mixed race people are generally identified by whatever race is dominant in their physical appearance or by whatever race they choose to identify as. Obama looks like a black man, and has black ancestry, so he's considered black.

You know what I want? I want proof that McCain is actually white. Show me some evidence that he doesn't have any black or Native American ancestors.

Or we could, and I know this may be radical thinking, but bear with me for a minute, focus on their policy stances and what they will likely do if elected and not get distracted by debates over the semantics of how to identify Obama's race.

[FalconX2000]

Nader's math seems fine to me.

Black father + white mother = 1/2 African American, 1/2 white.

He's half black, half white. In the US, mixed race people are generally identified by whatever race is dominant in their physical appearance or by whatever race they choose to identify as. Obama looks like a black man, and has black ancestry, so he's considered black.

You know what I want? I want proof that McCain is actually white. Show me some evidence that he doesn't have any black or Native American ancestors.

Or we could, and I know this may be radical thinking, but bear with me for a minute, focus on their policy stances and what they will likely do if elected and not get distracted by debates over the semantics of how to identify Obama's race.

Nobody was arguing about race semantics anymore. The horse is dead.

[FalconX2000]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-mccain.html

Just a little funny article about how McCain helped Obama out (inadvertently) with a bill he pushed through in 2004.

[Lester C.]

I think Nader may have a point about Obama exploiting his multiracial status. I can't speak or Obama but I know I have exploited the fact I'm multiracial. For instance, whenever I've applied for financial aid, scholarships, student loans etc I circle African American on my application. On the other hand when it comes to applying for jobs that don't stress having a diverse work force I circle two or more races.

[the4thpip]

Nader's math seems fine to me.

Black father + white mother = 1/2 African American, 1/2 white.

He's half black, half white. In the US, mixed race people are generally identified by whatever race is dominant in their physical appearance or by whatever race they choose to identify as. Obama looks like a black man, and has black ancestry, so he's considered black.

The point is that Barrack's father was in no way African American, as he was only in the US on a student visa.

[TCJohnson]

But now that is just getting into semantics. His father was african, he is american so saying he is half aftrican-american is accurate.

[Joe Rice]

But now that is just getting into semantics. His father was african, he is american so saying he is half aftrican-american is accurate.

Not in the accepted use of the word. "African-American" means a pretty specific thing in this day and age; and it's something that Obama isn't, really.

[Typo Lad]

But now that is just getting into semantics. His father was african, he is american so saying he is half aftrican-american is accurate.
It's technically correct, but not colloquially correct.

Regardless, it should not matter.

[the4thpip]

But now that is just getting into semantics. His father was african, he is american so saying he is half aftrican-american is accurate.

No, he is half African, half American in that case. He is 100% African-American, not half.

[TCJohnson]

It's technically correct, but not colloquially correct.

Regardless, it should not matter.

Agreed.

10 characters

[the4thpip]

It's technically correct, but not colloquially correct.

Regardless, it should not matter.

I'd say it's the opposite... Technically incorrect, but colloquially correct.

[Lester C.]

Most black people have lost all aspect of their African roots. Everything from the language to the cultural traditions have been lost. So is it accurate to call any of us African?

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Perhaps McCain should stop exploiting his 'whitest old white man in America' status, by incessantly showing his face on TV. It's shameless. :biggrin:

Point being, I've seen almost every available public appearance by Obama, and have read excerpts from his book. He's mentioned race once in speaking engagements, as far as I know, and has never said the words 'Ooo-Ooo, look at me, I'm so African American'--and has made a point to express to people that his race is American. In his book, he talks of overcoming falling into the trap of resentment of entrenched societal racism against his ethnicity. In fact, he's made a point of steering conversation away from it, and towards being a 'uniter'--someone who has a record of being a coalition-builder. He talks the talk. walks the walk, and this all comes off as a massive projection.

The News Media talk about race incessantly, so it's easy to get confused. It's like the Hillary supporters talking about what Obama did to poor, poor Hillary. The only thing he did was be an inspirational speaker who seems honest, against someone with an irritating voice who comes off publicly like a compulsive liar caught in a lie, and trying to talk her way out of it.

[Typo Lad]

The thing is, James, people (of multiple races) who feel there is a unique African-American "experiance" have been calling him out for the reasons you're praising him. It's a total silly smear, and certainly evocotive of racism. What you're saying up there though, is some of what the silly talking heads and race-baiters are saying.

1) He doesn't act "black" enough; he must be faking.
2) He doesn't act "black" enough, he must be self-hating.
3) He doesn't act "black" enough, he must really be a Black Supremacist.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

The thing is, James, people (of multiple races) who feel there is a unique African-American "experiance" have been calling him out for the reasons you're praising him. It's a total silly smear, and certainly evocotive of racism. What you're saying up there though, is some of what the silly talking heads and race-baiters are saying.

1) He doesn't act "black" enough; he must be faking.
2) He doesn't act "black" enough, he must be self-hating.
3) He doesn't act "black" enough, he must really be a Black Supremacist.

Not me, man. I'm saying that while he's never claimed to be descended from slaves, he's dealt with hardship bigotry and 'other-ness' that gives him a unique perspective. I could take the attitude that I'm a Puritan, a Jew, European, Irish, Huguenot, Native American--descended from the dispossessed and persecuted (and persecutors) many times over, or I can (and have--a long time ago) come to the conclusion that I'm an American. There's hardly an African-American who can't claim European Ancestry, as terrible as that is from a 'predation' standpoint--but the point is, our whole culture is a Mendelian Hybridization--a synthesis. We are the 'wretched refuse' done good, and that should be the only color anyone is concerned about. The divide has always been between rich and poor, and 'two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner.' politics, versus equality for all humans. Race Hatred and division keeps our blinders on, from seeing the real villains--those who manipulate Memes like they're playing a harp.

EDIT: Perhaps there are subtleties I'm missing in the argument of the divisive elements of our society--but I've heard 'No one can understand MY pain' from people before--and it's always from people who are developmentally-challenged, who don't understand that pain is the only universally human experience, outside of the 10% of people who are making more money than the 90% combined.

[Red Jack]

THere are lots of class issues in the "black community."

what I most admire Obama for in this instance is that he's grappling with both sides from an AMERICAN stance. The reason his message is resonant is it's in keeping with the Frank Capra version we like to have of ourselves without being sickly sweet or otherwise cloying. He's appealing to the part of us that put us on the moon, ended legal segregation, cured innumerable diseases etc.

And it's not naive nor is it cynical.

There are at least two "dream" America's. Obviously there's the selfish, Me First and Screw the Rest of You version that seems to appeal to so many. And then there is the one I mentioned above where Mr. Smith actually MAKES his point, Mr. Deeds ISN'T an oddball freak and George's life isn't wasted on other people.

It's perfectly pragmatic to present that POV and Obama is doing it with aplomb. And it's working. This approach is short-circuiting a lot of traditionally conservative mindsets, forcing them to imagine themselves as Americans and exposing the racists, classists, war/fear mongers and general idiots for what they are.

That isn't to say that EVERY conservative falls into one or more of these categories. There are many reasons that don't involve screwing people over for one to be and maintain a conservative POV. But it's tricky when the "other guy" is appealing to your patriotism and American-ness and telling you at the same time that you don't have to be a bastard to realize either.

McCain can't touch that. All he's got is the fragments of the Old Guard. It's a significant force but, frankly, you're not going to get too far telling Americans that hope is either bad or naive or that we're not all in this together. Literally every day the policies of the Old Guard are proving to many conservatives that they've been backing the wrong horse all these years and that maybe, just maybe it's time to vote in their own interests rather than those of what they once perceived as their champions.

Nothing trumps political rhetoric, "my friends," as much as actual, hit-you-in-the-wallet reality.

Will Obama bring the massive, global, society-shifting change once he's in office. Nope. No individual, not even a president, can do, on their own, what needs doing. But, as a presage of the sort of sea change in approach that we need and which we lacked in Bush the Lesser- especially after 9/11- I think we can assume Mr. Obama is the goods and that things will get better on a great many fronts.

And maybe, just maybe, we can all be in it together.

I hope we can. And I think Mr. Obama does too.

And I'm pretty sure we'll all see.

[FalconX2000]

I think Nader may have a point about Obama exploiting his multiracial status. I can't speak or Obama but I know I have exploited the fact I'm multiracial. For instance, whenever I've applied for financial aid, scholarships, student loans etc I circle African American on my application. On the other hand when it comes to applying for jobs that don't stress having a diverse work force I circle two or more races.

I think he's exploited it to the benefit of others at least as much as himself and hasn't done it in a ham handed or cheesy way. His "A More Perfect Union' being a case in point, among many examples.

[Gilda Dent]

The point is that Barrack's father was in no way African American, as he was only in the US on a student visa.

Yes, but we're not talking about Obama's father's ethnicity, we're talking about Obama's. His father was African. Obama is an American of 1/2 African descent, thus, literally, 1/2 African-American, 1/2 white.

Or does "African-American" mean something other than "American person of African descent" that I'm not aware of?

[Dreadstar]

Or does "African-American" mean something other than "American person of African descent" that I'm not aware of?

Yes, that is the exact point of the semantic that's being argued, the meaning of the label.

[Mr.EZ]

He's an American, plain and simple. I don't call myself Irish/Scottish-American. I don't know anyone who calls themselves Italian-Americans, German-Americans, Haititan-Americans, Australian-Americans etc. They call themselves Americans.

And that's what Obama is. American.

[Paul McEnery]

Yes, but we're not talking about Obama's father's ethnicity, we're talking about Obama's. His father was African. Obama is an American of 1/2 African descent, thus, literally, 1/2 African-American, 1/2 white.

Or does "African-American" mean something other than "American person of African descent" that I'm not aware of?

You're massively point-missing here, Gilda. The semantics don't mean a damn thing.

The whole of what Ralph was saying is the snide (and inexcusable) insinuation that Obama isn't black enough because he isn't raising the issues that Ralph thinks he should.

Because, you know, being black means you should only care about ghetto shit.

It's time Ralph went back to being President of air-bags. Because that's about what he's good for.

[Gilda Dent]

He's an American, plain and simple. I don't call myself Irish/Scottish-American. I don't know anyone who calls themselves Italian-Americans, German-Americans, Haititan-Americans, Australian-Americans etc. They call themselves Americans.

And that's what Obama is. American.

Yes, that's his nationality. We're talking about ethnicity.

And I know lots of people who identify with the country or countries from which their families came, who identify themselves as Asian or Latino or Irish or Italian. With some, it's used by itself, and with others as an attributive noun modifying "American." The latter formation does a nice job of allowing the person to take pride in, or at least identify both their ethnicity and their nationality, but even with those that use the ethnic identifier solo, the American part is implied.

[Gilda Dent]

You're massively point-missing here, Gilda. The semantics don't mean a damn thing.

The whole of what Ralph was saying is the snide (and inexcusable) insinuation that Obama isn't black enough because he isn't raising the issues that Ralph thinks he should.

Because, you know, being black means you should only care about ghetto shit.

It's time Ralph went back to being President of air-bags. Because that's about what he's good for.

I did read that. One of the references was to payday loans, which I find puzzling. How is that specifically a "ghetto issue"? There are payday loans places all over the place around here in our middle-class 'burbs. They, like car title loans, are ripoff scams that make loan sharks look reasonable and need to be controlled, but it's hardly a "ghetto" issue; it's a public policy issue for anybody who gets sucked into one of these scams.

[Red Jack]

Yes, that's his nationality. We're talking about ethnicity.

And I know lots of people who identify with the country or countries from which their families came, who identify themselves as Asian or Latino or Irish or Italian. With some, it's used by itself, and with others as an attributive noun modifying "American." The latter formation does a nice job of allowing the person to take pride in, or at least identify both their ethnicity and their nationality, but even with those that use the ethnic identifier solo, the American part is implied.

here's the answer.

If you're of primarily German ancestry, you're a German-American.

If you're primarily of Belarusan ancestry, you're a Belarusian-American.

If you're primarily of Kenyan ancestry, you're a Kenyan- American. etc.

Everyone tells the joke of Charlise Theron being an African American but really she's a South-African American which, of course, is not the same thing at all. Cute joke though.

However, if you're a slave-descendant of mostly African descent, you're Black or African American. The reason being that the CONTINENT of Africa is as specific as you can get in such a case while the majority of immigrants can trace to where they're from and thus self identify.

We don't say European-American because it's too generic. We say [Country of Origin]- American. For slave-descendant blacks Africa is as close as we can get.

Like others I wish it was just American for everybody but we're not there yet. And, personally, I prefer to be referred to as Black.

[Mr.EZ]

Yes, that's his nationality. We're talking about ethnicity.

And I know lots of people who identify with the country or countries from which their families came, who identify themselves as Asian or Latino or Irish or Italian. With some, it's used by itself, and with others as an attributive noun modifying "American." The latter formation does a nice job of allowing the person to take pride in, or at least identify both their ethnicity and their nationality, but even with those that use the ethnic identifier solo, the American part is implied.

Oh my goodness, thank you so much for explaining that to me! I didn't understand it one bit.

If a person was born in America, they're American. If my relatives lived in New York before I was born, I wouldn't call myself a New Yorker-Bostonian-American. Your ethnicity is where you were born, adding on any other crap is PC nonsense.

It's just as easy to say, "I was born in America, but my ancestors are from Ireland and Scotland."

[Typo Lad]

EZ,

I don't know if I agree with that. I mean, I'm a Jewish-American. That's not just my religion, it's my ethnicity too. I'm still American, but the Jewish is a key part. It's a seperate culture, in a good way.

[Red Jack]

Oh my goodness, thank you so much for explaining that to me! I didn't understand it one bit.

If a person was born in America, they're American. If my relatives lived in New York before I was born, I wouldn't call myself a New Yorker-Bostonian-American. Your ethnicity is where you were born, adding on any other crap is PC nonsense.

It's just as easy to say, "I was born in America, but my ancestors are from Ireland and Scotland."

no. it's not nonsense. it's how the world actually works. And there's no such thing as an "ethnic American." not yet.

[Mr.EZ]

I guess I'm just old fashioned, and immune to PC garbage.

[Red Jack]

I guess I'm just old fashioned, and immune to PC garbage.

It's neither PC nor garbage. But thanks for playing.

[Gilda Dent]

Oh my goodness, thank you so much for explaining that to me! I didn't understand it one bit.

If a person was born in America, they're American. If my relatives lived in New York before I was born, I wouldn't call myself a New Yorker-Bostonian-American. Your ethnicity is where you were born, adding on any other crap is PC nonsense.

It's just as easy to say, "I was born in America, but my ancestors are from Ireland and Scotland."

You said you didn't know anyone who identified themselves as [ethnicity]-American, so I provided counter-examples.

"American" is a nationality, and because the United States is such a highly diverse country with a mixture of so many cultures, it makes little sense to use that as an ethnicity.

A person who identifies as [ethnicity]-American isn't denying the American part of their identity or lessening the importance of it in any way, they're using an identifier that describes more than one aspect of who they are.

My mom's an American. Her ethnicity is very much Filipino. It's there in how she thinks, her language, the food she cooks, the cultural values she inherited from her parents. She is both an American (nationality) and a Filipino (ethnicity). Acknowledging one doesn't denigrate the other.

And I'm going to disagree, Red Jack. I think it will be a bad thing when people stop celebrating the things that make them and the cultures they came from unique. It doesn't mean we can't also celebrate the things that make us the same. It isn't binary; we can do both.

[Paul McEnery]

here's the answer.

If you're of primarily German ancestry, you're a German-American.

If you're primarily of Belarusan ancestry, you're a Belarusian-American.

If you're primarily of Kenyan ancestry, you're a Kenyan- American. etc.

Everyone tells the joke of Charlise Theron being an African American but really she's a South-African American which, of course, is not the same thing at all. Cute joke though.

However, if you're a slave-descendant of mostly African descent, you're Black or African American. The reason being that the CONTINENT of Africa is as specific as you can get in such a case while the majority of immigrants can trace to where they're from and thus self identify.

We don't say European-American because it's too generic. We say [Country of Origin]- American. For slave-descendant blacks Africa is as close as we can get.

Like others I wish it was just American for everybody but we're not there yet. And, personally, I prefer to be referred to as Black.

Exactly. African-American is just as generic as European-American. In fact, the division between the two is insulting to both. For all that any black American knows about their heritage, you might as well say we're all African-Americans (since we are).

"African-American" is just a piece of 70s PC euphemism (or is it 80s?). I can see the point, trying to give the black community the same dignity and sense of roots as, say, the Italian-American community. But it simply isn't true, and if you're looking for dignity, that particular cupboard is bare, so better to look in another one.

Use of the term African-American leads to absurdities like referring to British actors as African-Americans (when you're twisting to avoid saying the insulting thing -- usually while saying an insulting thing), or referring to T'Challa as an African-American when he's actually African. Daft!

Most native black Brits just want to be called English (or British, or Scottish, or whatever it is people want to identify with this week). That's certainly what Leslie said. Leslie was a seven year old kid I asked about it when I was in the same class as him. "Where did you come from?" I wanted to know. "I'm from here!" Took me a couple of times, but I got it eventually.

So from my point of view, the word "African-American" writes cheques it can't cash. There are connections to be made, sure, like Fela Kuti and Sly and the Family Stone; and there's some heritage left in jazz and the blues; and to my eye, black people look better dressed in African fashions than the suit and tie motif. But that's about it. As I see it, Black America is, for better or worse, on the frontier and working from a blank slate.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

"African-American" is just a piece of 70s PC euphemism (or is it 80s?).

As I recall, you started hearing 'Afro-American' said in the 70's, and in the 80's it turned into African-American (Cause 'Afro' is a hairstyle, yo!)

But that's just loose recollection.

[Paul McEnery]

As I recall, you started hearing 'Afro-American' said in the 70's, and in the 80's it turned into African-American (Cause 'Afro' is a hairstyle, yo!)

But that's just loose recollection.

Tighter than mine!

And I liked Luke Cage better when he was an Afro-American.

[Gilda Dent]

Exactly. African-American is just as generic as European-American.

Or Asian, but it doesn't bother me in the least to be described as Asian, which isn't to say that my experience is in any way analagous to that of black Americans, only that a general descriptor isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Tighter than mine!

And I liked Luke Cage better when he was an Afro-American.

Black Vulcan approves this post.

http://members.aol.com/SprFriends/blackvulcan2.jpg

[Mr.EZ]

It's neither PC nor garbage. But thanks for playing.

Great argument. :rolleyes:

[Mr.EZ]

Exactly. African-American is just as generic as European-American. In fact, the division between the two is insulting to both. For all that any black American knows about their heritage, you might as well say we're all African-Americans (since we are).

"African-American" is just a piece of 70s PC euphemism (or is it 80s?). I can see the point, trying to give the black community the same dignity and sense of roots as, say, the Italian-American community. But it simply isn't true, and if you're looking for dignity, that particular cupboard is bare, so better to look in another one.

Use of the term African-American leads to absurdities like referring to British actors as African-Americans (when you're twisting to avoid saying the insulting thing -- usually while saying an insulting thing), or referring to T'Challa as an African-American when he's actually African. Daft!

Most native black Brits just want to be called English (or British, or Scottish, or whatever it is people want to identify with this week). That's certainly what Leslie said. Leslie was a seven year old kid I asked about it when I was in the same class as him. "Where did you come from?" I wanted to know. "I'm from here!" Took me a couple of times, but I got it eventually.

So from my point of view, the word "African-American" writes cheques it can't cash. There are connections to be made, sure, like Fela Kuti and Sly and the Family Stone; and there's some heritage left in jazz and the blues; and to my eye, black people look better dressed in African fashions than the suit and tie motif. But that's about it. As I see it, Black America is, for better or worse, on the frontier and working from a blank slate.

I'll say it again. If you are born in America, you are an American. Where your ancestors come from is something to be proud of, but it's not your ethnicity. You are spouting PC garbage.

[Tetsuo_man]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/27/mccain-makes-awkard-wife_n_109576.html

not suprising that it comes from the man who supposedly called his wife a c*nt.

[Mr.EZ]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/27/mccain-makes-awkard-wife_n_109576.html

not suprising that it comes from the man who supposedly called his wife a c*nt.

I was more concerned with this, where he celebrates the GI Bill he's been opposing since it's creation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/27/mccain-takes-credit-for-g_n_109685.html

[JamesRitcheyIII]

I think what EZ was trying to express his feelings about--metaphorically, is the way I feel: that American should be, and hopefully will be the place where diversity is the norm. Not some homogeny-driven, antiseptic, 'colorblind' nonsemse--but the idea that this is the place invented so that every kind of person can come here, and become an American. We are the anomaly--we ALL developed in different environs, with different customs and different characteristics--an unheard of experiment--first with crazy ideas about religion, then self-government, then about race--but it all boils down to culture. Any Anthropologist can tell you the differences in race are little more than skin-deep. While Native Americans struggle to reconstruct and preserve theirs (mine--partially), later immigrants adapt or band together (ditto), and the descendants of captured slaves reinvent their own form of unique culture in amazing, creative ways, then white people steal their music (guilty)--in an odd way, it's all working, although not to many's justified dissatifaction, due to the Forces of Evil running the show. Yet, this is THE preposterous place, in all of human history--no matter how much the forces of ignorance have tried to ruin 'The Great Experiment (from the start!)', it is what it is. What it's been called, A Beacon of Freedom, is what it will inevitably become, sans hypocrisy, no matter how hard the priveleged and narrow-minded wish to derail it.

[Red Jack]

I'll say it again. If you are born in America, you are an American. Where your ancestors come from is something to be proud of, but it's not your ethnicity. You are spouting PC garbage.

You've been given several arguments on this point, all legit. You haven't offered anything more than a dismissive declaration that it's "PC garbage."

I suggest, humbly, that maybe your idealism would be better served if it had SOME contact with the actual world as it exists. These derivations and ethnic groups weren't made up by some ad agency or political party but through the very real need for self-protection that immigrants, indigenous peoples and slave descendants had for most of this nation's history. All of it, actually. Right up to this very moment.

By seeing those classifications as nothing more than arbitrary adspeak– which they are not and never have been-you take yourself out of any serious conversation that is being had on the subject.

Typo is right. There's a difference between separation and appreciation of difference. Yes, Americans have more qualities in common than things that separate, but dismissing the very real differences because you don't like them is pretty foolish and is why you got the "thanks for playing" response. We are not a tribe yet. Not conceptually and not physically and plugging your ears and eyes to that is not the way to make us one.

These things don't exist in some vacuum.

The US is to Europe what Christianity is to Judaism, i.e. a move toward the conceptual idea of tribe without a need for blood distinctions. However the entirety of this nation's history has been friction between those, like some of the presidents I listed, who believe the melting pot only applies to whites and those who think it's for everybody. And then there's the difference between definitions of "melting pot."

So, yeah, if you're going to pop off summary and ill conceived judgments about one of the powerful, complex and central frictions that has plagued this nation since it began, then you get a one line dismissal in response.

[Gilda Dent]

I'll say it again. If you are born in America, you are an American. Where your ancestors come from is something to be proud of, but it's not your ethnicity. You are spouting PC garbage.

Your second statement doesn't follow from your first.

My father was born in Honolulu in 1946. This was not exactly the best time nor the best place in our nation's history to be an American of Japanese descent. His family spoke Japanese at home, they ate foods and had cultural customs that they brought with them from Japan in the 1800s and which had been passed down through generations in his family and in most of those in his mixed Japanese/native Hawaiian/Filipino neighborhood. Some of these traditions were derived from those of the Europeans and European descendants that occupied and took over this sovereign nation, but most were not.

All of those things--language, food, naming customs, religious and spiritual traditions, ideas regarding abstract concepts such as loyalty and honor, all of those are part of one's ethnic background. This is not PC nonsense, it's the way things are. People bring their cultures with them when they immigrate, and some or much of that is passed down through the generations depending on how important preserving an independent cultural identity is.

There's an underlying assumption that often comes with statements such as "Your ethnicity is American, period." Please note, I'm talking in a general sense, and not about your specific motives here. This assumption, or rather set of assumptions, is that there is one single identifiable "American culture" and that culture is derived from Western European norms, and anyone who doesn't fit within those norms or attempt to acculturate to them isn't a "real American" whatever that means.

There is often a bit of unspoken (and perhaps unconscious) prejudice in favor of Western European values in such statements. Again, please note that I am not attempting to ascribe motives to you personally, only to examine what the idea you're presenting often means.

There is no one American culture. There are dozens, hundreds of them.

There's nothing wrong with celebrating those ways in which we are the same. There is also nothing wrong with celebrating those aspects of our cultures that make us different.

We're not a melting pot. We're a tossed salad, all in the same bowl, but keeping our unique flavors and identities as we work together.

[section 8]

It seems to me that PC is a tool for racism just as much as it is to combat, how often do you hear certain people say "minorities" and yet by tone alone you know they mean "N****rs"? (Chapelle did a sketch on this subject btw)

On this forum i am only politically correct to avoid having to explain myself every thirty seconds, in life, I use terms such as "Indian" and "Half breed" To describe myself. Mainly because i think the idea of PC is to allow people to BE racist yet sound nice

[kingdom2000]

lots of stuff that basically says "your wrong", the past is everything (but lets not learn and move past it). Now feel guilty if your white.

To bad you didn't give it one line of dismissal.

[Gilda Dent]

I don't think "PC" really means anything other than as a pejorative to describe language or attitudes the speaker doesn't like.

[RachelEvil]

I don't think "PC" really means anything other than as a pejorative to describe language or attitudes the speaker doesn't like.

Well, it originally meant "going along with the prevailing politics" and was mainly used in the Soviet bloc.

And then, around 20 years ago or so, it began to mean what you said.

[Red Jack]

To bad you didn't give it one line of dismissal.

Okay.

If you put quotes around something, that means someone actually said it. If they didn't and you do it anyway, you're a liar.

Don't start none, won't be none.

That's my sincere advice to you.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--presidentialpoll0627jun27,0,7396578.story

Only one poll seems to have delibrately done this so far as far as I know, but half the people in the poll were asked their presidential pick, then asked about how they feel the candidates stand up to each other on national issues. The other half were asked about which candidate fared against each other on national issues first, then asked which candidate they favoured.

Obama gains considerably among the latter half which is reminded about the issues first before making their choice.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/?page=7

Hmm, I'm not judging yet, but this news is a little troubling for Obama. Apparently the public/private partnership affordable housing projects have fallen into disrepair, including in areas he represented. it got so bad the buildings have been slated for demolishment.

Unlike the thing with Obama's house, this seems a bit more real in terms of his involvement with Rezko, who owned one of the companies charged with managing the buildings.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.theage.com.au/us-election-2008/obamas-law-what-it-tells-us-20080627-2y3u.html?page=1

Quite a good article looking in-depth to Obama's life at Harvard, as a lawyer and constitutional professor.

[Joe Rice]

here's the answer.

If you're of primarily German ancestry, you're a German-American.

If you're primarily of Belarusan ancestry, you're a Belarusian-American.

If you're primarily of Kenyan ancestry, you're a Kenyan- American. etc.

Everyone tells the joke of Charlise Theron being an African American but really she's a South-African American which, of course, is not the same thing at all. Cute joke though.

However, if you're a slave-descendant of mostly African descent, you're Black or African American. The reason being that the CONTINENT of Africa is as specific as you can get in such a case while the majority of immigrants can trace to where they're from and thus self identify.

We don't say European-American because it's too generic. We say [Country of Origin]- American. For slave-descendant blacks Africa is as close as we can get.

Like others I wish it was just American for everybody but we're not there yet. And, personally, I prefer to be referred to as Black.

Huh. This thought I just had doesn't mean much, but I suppose it'd be more accurate to call Barack a Kenyan-American.

[the4thpip]

Yes, but we're not talking about Obama's father's ethnicity, we're talking about Obama's. His father was African. Obama is an American of 1/2 African descent, thus, literally, 1/2 African-American, 1/2 white.

Or does "African-American" mean something other than "American person of African descent" that I'm not aware of?

I am not American, and English is not my first language, but to this linguist, he would be half African-American if his father was African-American, which Barrack sr. was not.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I don't think "PC" really means anything other than as a pejorative to describe language or attitudes the speaker doesn't like.

QFmuddafrugginT.

[Mr.EZ]

I think what EZ was trying to express his feelings about--metaphorically, is the way I feel: that American should be, and hopefully will be the place where diversity is the norm. Not some homogeny-driven, antiseptic, 'colorblind' nonsemse--but the idea that this is the place invented so that every kind of person can come here, and become an American. We are the anomaly--we ALL developed in different environs, with different customs and different characteristics--an unheard of experiment--first with crazy ideas about religion, then self-government, then about race--but it all boils down to culture. Any Anthropologist can tell you the differences in race are little more than skin-deep. While Native Americans struggle to reconstruct and preserve theirs (mine--partially), later immigrants adapt or band together (ditto), and the descendants of captured slaves reinvent their own form of unique culture in amazing, creative ways, then white people steal their music (guilty)--in an odd way, it's all working, although not to many's justified dissatifaction, due to the Forces of Evil running the show. Yet, this is THE preposterous place, in all of human history--no matter how much the forces of ignorance have tried to ruin 'The Great Experiment (from the start!)', it is what it is. What it's been called, A Beacon of Freedom, is what it will inevitably become, sans hypocrisy, no matter how hard the priveleged and narrow-minded wish to derail it.

Yup, that's pretty much it. We're the melting pot. We always have been. America is a stew filled with all these different types of ingredients, meats, veggies and spices. But we're all mixed together into one stew.

If you're the type of person that feels the need to put your ancestors country of origin before the American part, then your priorities are out of whack. Celebrate your heritage, just remember where YOU come from, not your grandparents. If the country of origin was so great, you'd have been born there. But you weren't, your family came here, and since that moment, you're an American. If you want so badly to put the German, Italian, Irish, Scottish, African, Japanese, Chinese etc, before the American, then you should go to that place, and drop the American part entirely. There's plenty of people who only want to be known as American, and you're bogging us down.

Salad, my ass.

[CutterMike]

(...)
Salad, my ass.
That's just... an image I really didn't need...

Who's got the brain-scrubber?

[Red Jack]

Yup, that's pretty much it. We're the melting pot. We always have been. America is a stew filled with all these different types of ingredients, meats, veggies and spices. But we're all mixed together into one stew.

If you're the type of person that feels the need to put your ancestors country of origin before the American part, then your priorities are out of whack. Celebrate your heritage, just remember where YOU come from, not your grandparents. If the country of origin was so great, you'd have been born there. But you weren't, your family came here, and since that moment, you're an American. If you want so badly to put the German, Italian, Irish, Scottish, African, Japanese, Chinese etc, before the American, then you should go to that place, and drop the American part entirely. There's plenty of people who only want to be known as American, and you're bogging us down.

Salad, my ass.

Soooo....

All that history and distorted, hypocritical and lethal treatment which was what caused the majority of those groups to form protective enclaves, that doesn't mean anything to you. And the fact that 12% of the population is descended from people who were forced to come here and treated like cattle for several centuries and nearly like cattle for just over one, all the people who were slaughtered into near or total oblivion and now eke out miserable existences on barren "Reservations," all those people should just "go home" if they don't feel like the party has been perfectly fun?

You're bogging us down, kid. And have been for quite a long while now.

Let's be clear. When the founders were talking about the "melting pot" they were talking about doing away with class and money distinctions that made life in Europe unbearable for white men. At no time were they considering women or anyone who wasn't white for the melting. Even when they were pressed to do so by friends and spouses.

And the melting worked for its original purpose. Scots and Irish and Germans and Brits and Boers and Dutch and French descended Americans, for the most part, do think of themselves the way you describe. As White. That was the melt.

However, sadly (for some), there are a lot of us here for whom the ethos is sound but who, for various reasons (none of which are our own fault) have not been allowed to melt. A salad or a quilt is best you're going to get under these circumstances. We've melted as far as we're gonna.

And since there are more of "us," that is to say "proudly hyphenated Americans" who agree that displaying our heritages is neither anti patriotic nor undermining of the experiment, may I suggest it is you who might want to consider some travel plans if you don't like it.

I pray you're under 20 years old and/or have repeatedly flunked history.

Otherwise you've no excuse.

[Typo Lad]

I was more concerned with this, where he celebrates the GI Bill he's been opposing since it's creation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/27/mccain-takes-credit-for-g_n_109685.html

Non-story. It's a common debate term. Poorly chosen, maybe, bu used a lot.

As for PC... E, you don't know what PC is "We're all American" is PC. It's VERY un-PC to single yourself out.

[kingdom2000]

Once again blah blah blah if your white, you suck and you should feel guilty about everything you racists bastards. Don't you know probably not your ancestors did is all your fault and you should pay the piper for it everyday of your existence because all white owned slaves and all whites have no other agenda but to keep the proud hyphenates down.

[Joe Rice]

Once again blah blah blah if your white, you suck and you should feel guilty about everything you racists bastards. Don't you know probably not your ancestors did is all your fault and you should pay the piper for it everyday of your existence because all white owned slaves and all whites have no other agenda but to keep the proud hyphenates down.

That's not even close to what he said. Do you read well?

[Red Jack]

Once again blah blah blah if your white, you suck and you should feel guilty about everything you racists bastards. Don't you know probably not your ancestors did is all your fault and you should pay the piper for it everyday of your existence because all white owned slaves and all whites have no other agenda but to keep the proud hyphenates down.

The New York Times just ran an article on burn victims. Apparently, while the grafts that come from cadavers have offset some of the need, live donors are best and there just aren't enough to go around as of today.

I think, rather than lurking here in hopes of maybe, possibly, jumping out at me and attempting to make yet another feeble attempt at a swipe for tweaking an issue that is up your nose for some reason, perhaps you should sign up as a donor. And I don't mean post mortem. I mean today, right now, if you can, run to your nearest hospital and make that transfer. In your case a 100% gift would be best, I think.

Lots of people- fire fighters, soldiers, even kids and random bystanders of explosions- could do with a graft.

They need the help. They need the skin and since yours is so obviously wasted on you, I think it's the least you can do.

[Gilda Dent]

Yup, that's pretty much it. We're the melting pot. We always have been. America is a stew filled with all these different types of ingredients, meats, veggies and spices. But we're all mixed together into one stew.

Stew also isn't a bad metaphor. The potatoes and carrots and corn and beef and all of the other ingredients don't stop being what they are when you put them in together.

If you're the type of person that feels the need to put your ancestors country of origin before the American part, then your priorities are out of whack.

It isn't a need do deny my nationality, it's a method of identifying certain aspects of myself that matter to me, things that make me part of who I am. There is no lessening of the "American" part in saying that I'm a Japanese-American, or sometimes just saying that I'm Japanese, with the "American" part left off depending on context.

Celebrate your heritage, just remember where YOU come from, not your grandparents. If the country of origin was so great, you'd have been born there.

False premise. Those other countries people come from are going to have their good points, aspects of the culture that they want to bring with them when they come to the United States. It isn't a denial of one's American identity to also identify with one's culture or origin.

But you weren't, your family came here, and since that moment, you're an American.

Actually, my father's family never immigrated to the United States. Their country was annexed by the US after being taken over by European businessmen because it was a highly valuable economic resource, and they were denied citizenship for a couple of generations despite being born in the US. There was even a special law passed making it so that they couldn't become citizens no matter where they were born or how long they lived in the US.

My mom was an immigrant, though. Becoming an American took about eight or nine years, though; it didn't happen the moment she immigrated, and to this day she retains dual citizenship in the United States and the Philippines. This isn't denying being an American, it's celebrating more than one aspect of one's being.

If you want so badly to put the German, Italian, Irish, Scottish, African, Japanese, Chinese etc, before the American, then you should go to that place, and drop the American part entirely. There's plenty of people who only want to be known as American, and you're bogging us down.

Good for them. I enjoy being an American. I also like being Japapino and Minnesotan and a Californian and currently a Southerner. All of the places my family came from and that I've experienced are important to me.

Yes, I'm an American, but I'm not just an American. I am many other things as well. My nationality is an important part of me, but it isn't all of me.

Salad, my ass.

Eh, I'm also fine with your stew example. Or soup, that would work as well. I'm kinda partial to an orchestra--dozens of different instruments, each set with it's own unique voice, working together and being better together than it would be in the absence of any of those voices.

[TCJohnson]

Good for them. I enjoy being an American. I also like being Japapino and Minnesotan and a Californian and currently a Southerner. All of the places my family came from and that I've experienced are important to me.


I have a t-shirt that summs it up perfect for me. American Made With Scottish Parts!

[TCJohnson]

And the melting worked for its original purpose. Scots and Irish and Germans and Brits and Boers and Dutch and French descended Americans, for the most part, do think of themselves the way you describe. As White. That was the melt.


I can only speak for the Scots since that was what I was decended from...but are you aware of how many scottish heritage societies there are in the US? Or how many scottish heritage festivals there are? There are 2 a month within 50 miles of the DC area between May and October.

No, we do not just consider ourselves as white only.

[CutterMike]

I have a t-shirt that summs it up perfect for me. American Made With Scottish Parts!
Because, as our motto says: "If it's not Scottish... IT'S CRAP!!"

[Red Jack]

I can only speak for the Scots since that was what I was decended from...but are you aware of how many scottish heritage societies there are in the US? Or how many scottish heritage festivals there are? There are 2 a month within 50 miles of the DC area between May and October.

No, we do not just consider ourselves as white only.

Sure. The melt only melted so far, was the point. Not melting any further.

[Corrina]

While everyone is primarily American, it would be very unrealistic to think that our ethnic origin is completely irrelevant, too.

Especially if the ethnic origin is beyond the so-called norm of Caucasian. Obviously, being of mixed race affects Obama's mindset & upbringing because people reacted to him differently than they would have if he were white. The world is what it is.

But that doesn't mean we can't identify first as Americans, trying to reach the ideals of what America is supposed to be. We haven't gotten there yet, we've had a lot of roadblocks to this so-called 'land of freedom,' slavery at the top of them, but the fact that most Americans still believe in striving for that ideal is what draws us together, beyond ethnic considerations.

[kingdom2000]

But that doesn't mean we can't identify first as Americans, trying to reach the ideals of what America is supposed to be. We haven't gotten there yet, we've had a lot of roadblocks to this so-called 'land of freedom,' slavery at the top of them, but the fact that most Americans still believe in striving for that ideal is what draws us together, beyond ethnic considerations.

I wish that where true because as red jack clearly illustrates we are not. Ethnic is everything. American is last. Slavery is something that America will never get passed because there is no advantage in allowing us to. The lesson of history on that is obvious but for some reason people just persist in hammering the shit out of it day after day after day. Its become the excuse for all the wrongs of society now. I am frankly tired of it.

Despite how history was taught, only about 2% of the population has slaves, because only that amount could afford them. A mass majority of the people in this country do NOT have ancestors that owned slaves and frankly this idea that we "owe" a balance that can't be restored is a large part of the reason that we as a country will never get passed it. 200 years from now there will always be a Red Jack type that goes "and there was slaves so that is why shit happened today."

[Red Jack]

I wish that where true because as red jack clearly illustrates we are not. Ethnic is everything. American is last. Slavery is something that America will never get passed because there is no advantage in allowing us to. The lesson of history on that is obvious but for some reason people just persist in hammering the shit out of it day after day after day. Its become the excuse for all the wrongs of society now. I am frankly tired of it.

Despite how history was taught, only about 2% of the population has slaves, because only that amount could afford them. A mass majority of the people in this country do NOT have ancestors that owned slaves and frankly this idea that we "owe" a balance that can't be restored is a large part of the reason that we as a country will never get passed it. 200 years from now there will always be a Red Jack type that goes "and there was slaves so that is why shit happened today."

It's a common tactic to run "all the way back" to slavery as if nothing happened in between to create the disparities so many of us currently enjoy. Just so we're clear: you can drop slavery in this discussion in the sense that no one is talking about slavery. No more than anyone is talking about the Crusades. Although, to understand certain modern conflicts, a working knowledge of the Crusades might be helpful.

We're talking about how the fact of slavery and subsequent American Apartheid created the social divisions and frictions you would like to ignore in terms of blacks and whites and, by extension, between whites, blacks and other non whites (and women and non-straights). I know you'd like history to have obvious cut-off points where people could point and say "Aha! Now, we're all finsihed with that. Let's move on."

But it doesn't. No one has to reach back 150 or 300 years. We have our own lives and those of our parents and grand parents to look at.

You can't talk about the present without understanding the past. You don't. So maybe you should just ignore it all, since the conversation bugs you so much. It's not like you actually give a damn.

You don't know what a "Red Jack type" is. You don't even understand what I write here.

[Paul McEnery]

I wish that where true because as red jack clearly illustrates we are not. Ethnic is everything. American is last. Slavery is something that America will never get passed because there is no advantage in allowing us to. The lesson of history on that is obvious but for some reason people just persist in hammering the shit out of it day after day after day. Its become the excuse for all the wrongs of society now. I am frankly tired of it.

Despite how history was taught, only about 2% of the population has slaves, because only that amount could afford them. A mass majority of the people in this country do NOT have ancestors that owned slaves and frankly this idea that we "owe" a balance that can't be restored is a large part of the reason that we as a country will never get passed it. 200 years from now there will always be a Red Jack type that goes "and there was slaves so that is why shit happened today."

Yeah, cause of course nobody living today stood by and did nothing, or actively worked and voted against the civil rights movement.

And of course nobody living today has profited from discrimination against a black underclass.

And nobody living today has perpetuated that discrimination.

Nobody living today is responsible for destroying black neighbourhoods and scattering the people across the city into substandard squalour.

Nobody living today has encouraged discrimination by the police force, or backed them up when they get caught.

Nobody living today is broadcasting racist insinuation everyday on the TV and the radio; and nobody living today is taking their cue from it as to how to live their lives.

Nobody living today would think about withholding their vote from a man who shares their politics simply because he is black.

Nobody living today would keep a Nobel Peace Prize winning statesman on a terrorist list -- or hell, lobby to keep him imprisoned -- because he fought against an apartheid regime.

Nobody living today would keep somebody out of a decent job or a country club or a house in a good neighbourhood because of the colour of their skin.

Nobody living today would deliberately take funding away from neighbourhood schools that have a predominantly black population.

Nobody living today would forget to send help to a disaster zone that has a strong black population, and then forget again to get around to rehousing them after the clean up.

Not that any of that matters, because what we're looking at is a decimated population that's had no chance up till now to build up any wealth or connections that would help them climb the ladder the same way other well-entrenched groups of people are easily able to do. We're looking at a population that's been kept down and damaged some more for good luck, and had even what little advantage they had taken away from them, and are constantly told by the media how worthless their lives are...

But to hell with that, it's not like we'd want them to have a fair shot at freedom and equality anyway, right?

[Paul McEnery]

Or, to put a more positive spin on it, it's not about whether it's your fault that this all happened, it's about the fact that it's our opportunity to set it straight. How great is that?

[Adam C]

If you're the type of person that feels the need to put your ancestors country of origin before the American part, then your priorities are out of whack. Celebrate your heritage, just remember where YOU come from, not your grandparents. If the country of origin was so great, you'd have been born there. But you weren't, your family came here, and since that moment, you're an American. If you want so badly to put the German, Italian, Irish, Scottish, African, Japanese, Chinese etc, before the American, then you should go to that place, and drop the American part entirely. There's plenty of people who only want to be known as American, and you're bogging us down.

I'm not really sure what your point is beyond claiming that somehow people should ignore their ethnic identities for some idealised, single American identity that doesn't really exist except for wistful thinking. However inaccurate the term "African American" identity exists because black people have been a historically discriminated against minority in the United States which has reinforced endogamous tendencies and the identity of a specific black culture and experience. As everyone has been saying, you can't just wish ethnic identity to go away, and talking about it as though 'being American' should come first is simplistic at best when the American experience has not been the same for everyone or as positive for certain groups.

And buggered if I would know what application your statements would have to Native Americans, who are concerned over things that happened to them on their own homeland that has left them in a state of improverishment and demoralisation that makes the Black experience look like a picnic.

[Adam C]

And another thing...


But you weren't, your family came here, and since that moment, you're an American. If you want so badly to put the German, Italian, Irish, Scottish, African, Japanese, Chinese etc, before the American...

...this is just an observation, but while you mention all these other ethnic groups, it came up specifically in regards the issue of black Americans. And I've noticed that it only ever comes up in regards to issues surrounding black people in America, and not Italian, German, or Irish American issues. (And seemingly not Asian American issues either, even with relatively historic discrimination against Japanese people.)

[Gilda Dent]

In the hyphenated form [ethnicity]-American, having the ethnic marker come first does not indicate that it is first in importance. Anyone familiar with how the English language works recognizes this as a form of compound word using a noun-noun formation with the first being a noun used attributively, ie, to modify the word following it. The word being modified, the second one, is the more important word.

A garden rake is a rake, not a garden.

A baseball bat is a bat, not a baseball.

A Japanese-American is an American of Japanese descent. To claim that such a formation means anything other than this is either ignorance or willful disregard for the truth.

[Briareos]

Yeah, cause of course nobody living today stood by and did nothing, or actively worked and voted against the civil rights movement.

And of course nobody living today has profited from discrimination against a black underclass.

And nobody living today has perpetuated that discrimination.

Nobody living today is responsible for destroying black neighbourhoods and scattering the people across the city into substandard squalour.

Nobody living today has encouraged discrimination by the police force, or backed them up when they get caught.

Nobody living today is broadcasting racist insinuation everyday on the TV and the radio; and nobody living today is taking their cue from it as to how to live their lives.

Nobody living today would think about withholding their vote from a man who shares their politics simply because he is black.

Nobody living today would keep a Nobel Peace Prize winning statesman on a terrorist list -- or hell, lobby to keep him imprisoned -- because he fought against an apartheid regime.

Nobody living today would keep somebody out of a decent job or a country club or a house in a good neighbourhood because of the colour of their skin.

Nobody living today would deliberately take funding away from neighbourhood schools that have a predominantly black population.

Nobody living today would forget to send help to a disaster zone that has a strong black population, and then forget again to get around to rehousing them after the clean up.

Not that any of that matters, because what we're looking at is a decimated population that's had no chance up till now to build up any wealth or connections that would help them climb the ladder the same way other well-entrenched groups of people are easily able to do. We're looking at a population that's been kept down and damaged some more for good luck, and had even what little advantage they had taken away from them, and are constantly told by the media how worthless their lives are...

But to hell with that, it's not like we'd want them to have a fair shot at freedom and equality anyway, right?


Your right they're called Liberals.

[rick]

Your right they're called Liberals.


You really do live in an alternate reality don't you?

Do most of the guys wear goatees?

[Briareos]

Brilliant piece on why liberals lie about what they really want.

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/06/my_latest_townhall_column_why_4.php

[Adam C]

In the hyphenated form [ethnicity]-American, having the ethnic marker come first does not indicate that it is first in importance. Anyone familiar with how the English language works recognizes this as a form of compound word using a noun-noun formation with the first being a noun used attributively, ie, to modify the word following it.

That too. Good call Gilda.

Here's another inflammatory remark presented without reasoning or evidence. Link to shitty right-wing blog to follow soon.

[Adam C]

Brilliant piece on why liberals lie about what they really want.

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/06/my_latest_townhall_column_why_4.php

Man, I so called that.

[Briareos]

You really do live in an alternate reality don't you?

Do most of the guys wear goatees?

The left needs people to be poor in order to have a political base.

The total annual income of blacks rose from 191 billion at the end of 1980 to 259 billion at the end of 1988 (Reagan's term). The number making over $50,000 went from 392,000 in 1982 to 936,000 1988. More then half of them increased their income by over 50%.

[Briareos]

Man, I so called that.

Actually I wanted to post that first but had to respond to Paul. Conservatives don't care about your ethnicity they want everyone to be able to prosper from their own hard work. Conservatives judge people by their actions not their skin color.

[rick]

Brilliant piece on why liberals lie about what they really want.

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/06/my_latest_townhall_column_why_4.php

Okay, now that one was actually funny.

Us Liberals keep telling everyone that we believe one thing, but because it doesn't fit into the typical "Right Wing News" sterotype of what a Liberal is, we are actually just biding our time until we can institutie our communist aggenda.

That piece never quite moved beyond farce really.

[Adam C]

The left needs people to be poor in order to have a political base.

The total annual income of blacks rose from 191 billion at the end of 1980 to 259 billion at the end of 1988 (Reagan's term). The number making over $50,000 went from 392,000 in 1982 to 936,000 1988. More then half of them increased their income by over 50%.

And ask you to read Paul's post again and actually apply some intelligence to it, but I realise I might as well get a stone to weep.

[Adam C]

Us Liberals keep telling everyone that we believe one thing, but because it doesn't fit into the typical "Right Wing News" sterotype of what a Liberal is, we are actually just biding our time until we can institutie our communist aggenda.

It's true! I like read it in a blog post by David Horowitz!

[rick]

The left needs people to be poor in order to have a political base.

The total annual income of blacks rose from 191 billion at the end of 1980 to 259 billion at the end of 1988 (Reagan's term). The number making over $50,000 went from 392,000 in 1982 to 936,000 1988. More then half of them increased their income by over 50%.


There are more than 20,000,000 black Americans and you are making the case that the rise in income of around 500,000 is some kind of major conservative accomplishment?

Interesting.

[Briareos]

There are more than 20,000,000 black Americans and you are making the case that the rise in income of around 500,000 is some kind of major conservative accomplishment?

Interesting.

You have to also consider the horrible economic conditions Reagan got from Carter

[CutterMike]

Actually I wanted to post that first but had to respond to Paul. Conservatives don't care about your ethnicity they want everyone to be able to prosper from their own hard work. Conservatives judge people by their actions not their skin color.
So based on that, you'll be voting Obama in November, since he worked his way up from a single-parent household and McCain married his money and business/political contacts?

[Gilda Dent]

Never mind.

[Adam C]

Actually I wanted to post that first but had to respond to Paul. Conservatives don't care about your ethnicity they want everyone to be able to prosper from their own hard work. Conservatives judge people by their actions not their skin color.

I'll be sure to remember that in the context of your previous remarks about Mexicans.

[rick]

You have to also consider the horrible economic conditions Reagan got from Carter


Bri, I was an adult in the wrok force under both Carter and Reagan and I can tell you without hesitation that the country wasn't in much better shape economicly at the end of the Reagan administration then it was at the beginning of it. And let's not forget that Carter inherited a bad economy frm Gerald Ford in the first place.

You remember WIN don't you?

You need to keep in mind that with the end of the Vietnam war the US fell into an economic slump that it only finally recovered from during Bill Clintons eight years of unpresidented economic growth and prosperity.

Not that I really expect you to be able to accept that.

[Red Jack]

Actually I wanted to post that first but had to respond to Paul. Conservatives don't care about your ethnicity they want everyone to be able to prosper from their own hard work. Conservatives judge people by their actions not their skin color.

Really?

Maybe you guys should mention that to the people you vote into office then. I think they have other ideas.

[Ninja Kris]

Yes. Fun to watch Briareos and Kingdom 2000 called out on their idiocy.

Can we get back to the election now.

[CutterMike]

(...)
You need to keep in mind that with the end of the Vietnam war the US fell into an economic slump that it only finally recovered from during Bill Clintons eight years of unpresidented economic growth and prosperity.

Not that I really expect you to be able to accept that.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry to jump on this before Bri and Sam get a chance to, but that is the funniest damn' Freudian slip that I have seen in AGES!

Edited to add:
Personally, I rather thought that the Reagan years were more unpresidented than Clinton...

[kingdom2000]

Yeah, cause of course nobody living today stood by and did nothing, or actively worked and voted against the civil rights movement.

And of course nobody living today has profited from discrimination against a black underclass.

And nobody living today has perpetuated that discrimination.

Nobody living today is responsible for destroying black neighbourhoods and scattering the people across the city into substandard squalour.

Nobody living today has encouraged discrimination by the police force, or backed them up when they get caught.

Nobody living today is broadcasting racist insinuation everyday on the TV and the radio; and nobody living today is taking their cue from it as to how to live their lives.

Nobody living today would think about withholding their vote from a man who shares their politics simply because he is black.

Nobody living today would keep a Nobel Peace Prize winning statesman on a terrorist list -- or hell, lobby to keep him imprisoned -- because he fought against an apartheid regime.

Nobody living today would keep somebody out of a decent job or a country club or a house in a good neighbourhood because of the colour of their skin.

Nobody living today would deliberately take funding away from neighbourhood schools that have a predominantly black population.

Nobody living today would forget to send help to a disaster zone that has a strong black population, and then forget again to get around to rehousing them after the clean up.

Not that any of that matters, because what we're looking at is a decimated population that's had no chance up till now to build up any wealth or connections that would help them climb the ladder the same way other well-entrenched groups of people are easily able to do. We're looking at a population that's been kept down and damaged some more for good luck, and had even what little advantage they had taken away from them, and are constantly told by the media how worthless their lives are...

But to hell with that, it's not like we'd want them to have a fair shot at freedom and equality anyway, right?

The problem I have is how he and others continue to use slavery as some trump card to all arguments. Its now only used as an excuse for bad behavior and bad policy. No one for generations even has a real clue about slavery, its some boogeyman story we are all told to show how evil white people (so that bad behavior and bad policy can be excused).

All his talk of "history" and he doesn't even use it correctly to apply to today. Racism begat slavery, not slavery begat racism. If the racism hadn't existed, the slaves would have probably continued to be based on class (illegal immigrants today could be an argument for that).

At this point the only time that "trump" card should be used is when the discussion is for history or an example of legalized rascism, not the catch all its as used today. Especially when there a gobs and gobs of examples from the last 50 years that are far more relevant to today. They also actually apply to people today. Yeah, sorry but most white people today do not come from people that had owned slaves which is the main reason to bring it up, to feed that guilt of past responsibility. But racist behavior on the otherhand, again that argument can have legs depending on when used and what examples cited.

For example, use slavery as past example of institutionized racism and how it continues to exist, then I would be the first to agree. Hell I am apparently the only that thinks that Obama is currently losing the election because the polls are not able to account for closeted racism.

The above would have been perfectly good, in the now, examples. But damn quit just throwing slavery out there as a fraking trump card to win an argument especially if going to apply it so damn poorly.

[kingdom2000]

Yes. Fun to watch Briareos and Kingdom 2000 called out on their idiocy.

Can we get back to the election now.

:rolleyes:
But to the point, how do Repubs feel about Captain Flip-Flop (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/29/late-editions-mccain-flip-flop-flashback/), McSame? I mean they tought us in 2004 that flip-flopping was the greatest evil that a politician can commit and the list of McCain's make Kerry look like an rookie by comparison.

* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.
* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion,he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.
* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
* He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.
* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.
* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
*McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
* McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
* McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
*In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
* McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.
* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.
* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.
* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
* McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.
*McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting“irresponsibly.”His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.
* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
*In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving“feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
*McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as“a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.”In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade
* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
*In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* McCain decided in2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and acorrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.
* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.
* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

Now some of these I agree with him on (and of course others do not), but the main is point is changing your mind is an evil to the Republican party and their supporters so how do they reconcile this with the man that re-defines the term flip-flop?

[Red Jack]

The problem I have is how he and others continue to use slavery as some trump card to all arguments. Its now only used as an excuse for bad behavior and bad policy. No one for generations even has a real clue about slavery, its some boogeyman story we are all told to show how evil white people (so that bad behavior and bad policy can be excused).

All his talk of "history" and he doesn't even use it correctly to apply to today. Racism begat slavery, not slavery begat racism. If the racism hadn't existed, the slaves would have probably continued to be based on class (illegal immigrants today could be an argument for that).

At this point the only time that "trump" card should be used is when the discussion is for history or an example of legalized rascism, not the catch all its as used today. Especially when there a gobs and gobs of examples from the last 50 years that are far more relevant to today. They also actually apply to people today. Yeah, sorry but most white people today do not come from people that had owned slaves which is the main reason to bring it up, to feed that guilt of past responsibility. But racist behavior on the otherhand, again that argument can have legs depending on when used and what examples cited.

For example, use slavery as past example of institutionized racism and how it continues to exist, then I would be the first to agree. Hell I am apparently the only that thinks that Obama is currently losing the election because the polls are not able to account for closeted racism.

The above would have been perfectly good, in the now, examples. But damn quit just throwing slavery out there as a fraking trump card to win an argument especially if going to apply it so damn poorly.

Except nobody did that. YOU are focused on slavery because it's, in your mind, an easy thing to dismiss. No one with a brain makes the argument you're trying to counter and the fact that you keep bringing it up in the way you do says you don't really know what you're talking about.

[Ninja Kris]

how do Repubs feel about Captain Flip-Flop

How should I know. I've never been a Repuke.

Find that desperate flailing on your part.

Krow I prefer Edwards or Hillary. But Obama better than McCain.

[KevinTBrown]

I blame McCain's constant flip-flopping to his finishing fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy (894 of 899). A smarter man would know better.....

[Briareos]

I'll be sure to remember that in the context of your previous remarks about Mexicans.

My previous comments had nothing to do with their ethnicity. It's simply human nature. It's simply far easier to come here and work here so you can get much more compensation here then you could in Mexico. I don't blame them one bit but the only way to solve the problem Mexico has will involve shutting off the flow of illegal immigration here.

[Briareos]

(...)
You need to keep in mind that with the end of the Vietnam war the US fell into an economic slump that it only finally recovered from during Bill Clintons eight years of unpresidented economic growth and prosperity.

Not that I really expect you to be able to accept that.
I'm sorry to jump on this before Bri and Sam get a chance to, but that is the funniest damn' Freudian slip that I have seen in AGES!

Edited to add:
Personally, I rather thought that the Reagan years were more unpresidented than Clinton...[/QUOTE]

Nonsense if you look at the data for unemployment and inflation they took a nosedive during the reagan years. There was a slight recession during the first Bush years (that was already over when Clinton took office) he just rode on Reagan's coat tails.

[Crowley]

I'm sorry to jump on this before Bri and Sam get a chance to, but that is the funniest damn' Freudian slip that I have seen in AGES!

Edited to add:
Personally, I rather thought that the Reagan years were more unpresidented than Clinton...

Nonsense if you look at the data for unemployment and inflation they took a nosedive during the reagan years. There was a slight recession during the first Bush years (that was already over when Clinton took office) he just rode on Reagan's coat tails.[/QUOTE]

Or actually back in reality... Clinton cut down spending and worked with Republicans on reducing the deficit... which is why we had a Budget Surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration.

And before you try and claim the budget surplus was due to HW or Reagan, or is mythical... you'd be wrong on both counts and the numbers can back my claims up..

[kingdom2000]

How should I know. I've never been a Repuke.

Find that desperate flailing on your part.

Krow I prefer Edwards or Hillary. But Obama better than McCain.

and once again :rolleyes:

Most people would look at that list and go damn. I think its pretty significant and a sign of McCain's tendencies especially when he is saying (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/29/mccain.obama/index.html) "Senator Obama's word cannot be trusted."

[Ninja Kris]

and once again :rolleyes:

Most people would look at that list and go damn. I think its pretty significant and a sign of McCain's tendencies especially when he is saying (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/29/mccain.obama/index.html) "Senator Obama's word cannot be trusted." Bit I guess getting in a silly dig is more important.

Since I will not vote for McCain and highly doubtful I will ever vote for a Repuke and think I have said so, your post was useless to me.

Your position and Briareos' on race is what makes you both idiotic. Not who you will vote for.

[Tetsuo_man]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aXcOoughoRFQ&refer=politics

[kingdom2000]

Since I will not vote for McCain and highly doubtful I will ever vote for a Repuke and think I have said so, your post was useless to me.

Your position and Briareos' on race is what makes you both idiotic. Not who you will vote for.

You asked to have the conversation come back to politics, I did that and now you are dissatisfied. Clearly you do not want it to return to the election. So fine, it will not.

As for what your implying, may I say you can go straight to hell. Not agreeing with someone does not mean they are racist. I don't think bringing up slavery is a valid reason that affirmative action is good and just. I think its a piss poor way to debate when there are a shit load of current examples that could have been used instead. Its the easy tossed out to automatically create guilt and get people to back off because to attempt to counter it gets fools like you to automatically paint you as racists. So thanks for being an example of that.

I guess disagreeing is only allowed within certain rules. One thing I seen with all too consistency in regards to treatment of Sam and Bri is how the "liberals" here are quick with the insults when someone sticks to their guns and thats a damn shame. At least some of the people here are better then that but clearly you are not one of them. Do not ever imply I am racist. I now know your not better then that but its still inexcusable behavior.

[Ninja Kris]

You asked to have the conversation come back to politics, I did that and now you are dissatisfied. Clearly you do not want it to return to the election. So fine, it will not.

As for what your implying, may I say you can go straight to hell. Not agreeing with someone does not mean they are racist.

Didn't say you were a racist. Or even imply it. Said you were being idiotic. Two different things. Please do a better job reading posts. Stop embarrassing yourself.

You gave me reasons why McCain is awful. I know that. Felt I should tell you why I think you're idiotic as you clearly misunderstood. Several other people tried to tell you why you're wrong on race. Fine. I'm done.

Bored with you now.

[Samurai]

You asked to have the conversation come back to politics, I did that and now you are dissatisfied. Clearly you do not want it to return to the election. So fine, it will not.

As for what your implying, may I say you can go straight to hell. Not agreeing with someone does not mean they are racist. I don't think bringing up slavery is a valid reason that affirmative action is good and just. I think its a piss poor way to debate when there are a shit load of current examples that could have been used instead. Its the easy tossed out to automatically create guilt and get people to back off because to attempt to counter it gets fools like you to automatically paint you as racists. So thanks for being an example of that.

I guess disagreeing is only allowed within certain rules. One thing I seen with all too consistency in regards to treatment of Sam and Bri is how the "liberals" here are quick with the insults when someone sticks to their guns and thats a damn shame. At least some of the people here are better then that but clearly you are not one of them. Do not ever imply I am racist. I now know your not better then that but its still inexcusable behavior.

The thing I find never-endingly hilarious is that the people DEFENDING state-mandated laws that reward and punish people based on the color of their skin are the ones that call other people racist! As if judging a person by the content of their character and their skills alone, without factoring skin color into it, is a terrible, horrible thing that must never be allowed. And only by judging people by their race can you not be a racist...

Paging Mr. Orwell...

[CutterMike]

The thing I find never-endingly hilarious is that the people DEFENDING state-mandated laws that reward and punish people based on the color of their skin are the ones that call other people racist! As if judging a person by the content of their character and their skills alone, without factoring skin color into it, is a terrible, horrible thing that must never be allowed. And only by judging people by their race can you not be a racist...

Paging Mr. Orwell...
Based on the last figures that I saw, fewer than 1% of the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are black.

Now... Is the reason for this:

A - There actually ARE only four black businesspeople in the United States with the "content of (...) character and (...) skills" to manage a Fortune 500 company, while white males innately have those attributes out of all proportion to their numbers in the general populace;

B - Racist Liberals are crowding corporate boards to keep blacks out of the big chair in order to maintain their stranglehold on the black vote, or;

C - ...Or could it possibly... just POSSIBLY be that when it comes time to chose a CEO, the (predominantly white male) boards tend to pick white males like themselves, who went to the same schools and belonged to the same fraternities and clubs and, essentially get easier consideration, simply because they're "Just Like Us™"? Could it POSSIBLY be that the world is NOT colorblind and anyone who thinks that the world, or any group in it, IS colorblind is deluding himself at best or lying through his teeth at worst?

But, then again, since you seem to agree with Bri that:
(...) Conservatives don't care about your ethnicity they want everyone to be able to prosper from their own hard work. Conservatives judge people by their actions not their skin color.
I'll put to you the same question that I askd him:
So based on that, you'll be voting Obama in November, since he worked his way up from a single-parent household and McCain married his money and business/political contacts?

[Buzz Dixon]

THere are lots of class issues in the "black community."

what I most admire Obama for in this instance is that he's grappling with both sides from an AMERICAN stance...maybe, just maybe, we can all be in it together.

I hope we can. And I think Mr. Obama does too.

And I'm pretty sure we'll all see.What you said.

[Samurai]

Based on the last figures that I saw, fewer than 1% of the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are black.

Now... Is the reason for this:

A - There actually ARE only four black businesspeople in the United States with the "content of (...) character and (...) skills" to manage a Fortune 500 company, while white males innately have those attributes out of all proportion to their numbers in the general populace;

B - Racist Liberals are crowding corporate boards to keep blacks out of the big chair in order to maintain their stranglehold on the black vote, or;

C - ...Or could it possibly... just POSSIBLY be that when it comes time to chose a CEO, the (predominantly white male) boards tend to pick white males like themselves, who went to the same schools and belonged to the same fraternities and clubs and, essentially get easier consideration, simply because they're "Just Like Us™"? Could it POSSIBLY be that the world is NOT colorblind and anyone who thinks that the world, or any group in it, IS colorblind is deluding himself at best or lying through his teeth at worst?

But, then again, since you seem to agree with Bri that:

I'll put to you the same question that I askd him:

Why does it seem like you ruled out A and B, and have not considered any possible D, E, or F?

But to answer your question, no, I won't be voting for Obama. Nothing at all to do with race or how they got their money, I'm (sadly) voting for McCain because I strongly disagree with many of Obama's policies and priorities. I think that the things he'll do to this country will weaken it, and generally be bad for most Americans, even if they are done with Obama's best intentions. Now, I'm not a fan of McCain, at all. I don't like at least half his policies either, and he is shamelessly trying to appeal to all sides simultaneously. While I think he'll probably screw up domestically as well, I trust his foreign relations policies and experience far more than Obama's. I wish there were a real conservative as a viable candidate this time, but lacking one (as we have ever since Reagan left office), I'll take the best of 2 bad choices and vote McCain, hoping to get better candidates next time.

[Buzz Dixon]

I wish I had the link (I think it can be found on Andrew Sullivan's blog) but apparently the real white supremecists are hoping Obama gets elected; they think it will be a great recruiting tool for them.

[Buzz Dixon]

One reason Obama's message resonates so much with me is because even though I'm a white hillbilly raised in Appalachia...
...my mother was born in Naples...
...my wife was born in Korea...
...my son-in-law was born in Romania...

Mr. Obama's story sounds very familiar to me.

[Buzz Dixon]

For the record, I haven't left the Republican party, the Republican party has left me.

I voted for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush because I believed them when they admitted they had screwed up in the past but promised they had learned their lessons and wouldn't do it again.

I am angry at both of them for having lied to me.

I think disposing of Saddam Hussein was a Very Good idea even if this administration did not seem to have a clear idea of what to do after they accomplished that.

I think torture is an abomination and is pretty much useless as an information gathering tool and is helpful only in forcing confessions to justify the torture. I stopped supporting this administration when I learned they decided they wanted to torture people first and then looked for legal justification to do so.

I have no problem with charging Al Queda members with war crimes and, if proven and justified, executing them after a legal, open trial. I do not think that is what is happening right now, and even though the end result may be a justifiable one based on actual crimes committed and harm done, the process at which that result is achieved is not.

The means justify the end.

I do not think Barack Obama is a saint. I do not think he will solve all our problems. I fully anticipate opposing a lot of his policies and proposals.

But I believe he is going to change to futile left/right conservative/liberal mindset that grips politics today. I believe he already has, but the tail of the dying dinosaur still has some thrashing to do.

[Buzz Dixon]

A long term prediction re Republicans and Democrats:

In 2050 the Democrats will again be the conservative party, the Republicans will be the party of the working people, probably not as radical as their roots, but certainly 180 degrees opposite of what they are now.

[Buzz Dixon]

A long term prediction re Republicans and Democrats:

In 2050 the Democrats will again be the conservative party, the Republicans will be the party of the working people, probably not as radical as their roots, but certainly 180 degrees opposite of what they are now.

[Buzz Dixon]

forum hiccup

[Red Jack]

I'm really hoping for another party. Progressive I hope.

And I'd love for the electoral college to go away.

[FalconX2000]

A long term prediction re Republicans and Democrats:

In 2050 the Democrats will again be the conservative party, the Republicans will be the party of the working people, probably not as radical as their roots, but certainly 180 degrees opposite of what they are now.

Probably any party that achieves domination for a long period starts morphing into the conservative party.



In other news, remember that GI bill McCain has been opposing all this time? Now that it has passed congress despite his best efforts to stop it, the Nevada Senator is trying to take credit for it.:mad:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_takes_credit_for_Gi_bill_0628.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16022.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-pelosi/mccain-flip-flops-again_b_109703.html

[the4thpip]

I'm sorry to jump on this before Bri and Sam get a chance to, but that is the funniest damn' Freudian slip that I have seen in AGES!


Um... was Bri just revealed to be a sock puppet?

Mods, could you compare IP addresses here? I don't think that post was meant to be sent from Briareos' account.

To think, all that bad grammar may have been faked for years....

[the4thpip]

Does Cindy McCain agree with Leona Helmsley that "taxes are for poor people"?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/143775/

[kingdom2000]

A long term prediction re Republicans and Democrats:

In 2050 the Democrats will again be the conservative party, the Republicans will be the party of the working people, probably not as radical as their roots, but certainly 180 degrees opposite of what they are now.

Despite Sam choosing to ignore it for his own revisioinist history, the parties do tend to switch positions about every 100 years so that seems about right for the next reversal.

[the4thpip]

I guess no serious chance of the 2-party system expanding?

I mean, it kind of happened in the UK.

[Nick Soapdish]

Um... was Bri just revealed to be a sock puppet?

Mods, could you compare IP addresses here? I don't think that post was meant to be sent from Briareos' account.

To think, all that bad grammar may have been faked for years....

He was trying to quote CutterMike's post and failed.

[Michael P]

The thing I find never-endingly hilarious is that the people DEFENDING state-mandated laws that reward and punish people based on the color of their skin are the ones that call other people racist!

What, you mean like conservatives with mandatory minimums?

[Michael P]

Why does it seem like you ruled out A and B,

Because the notions are patently absurd.

and have not considered any possible D, E, or F?


Like what?

[Typo Lad]

I'm (sadly) voting for McCain because I strongly disagree with many of Obama's policies and priorities. I think that the things he'll do to this country will weaken it, and generally be bad for most Americans, even if they are done with Obama's best intentions.

So which of his policies are you against? Care to break it down for the folks at home?

[the4thpip]

So which of his policies are you against? Care to break it down for the folks at home?

It's that Obama is "eager to surrender to the terrorists."

I actually saw that as on-screen text on FoxNews.

[CutterMike]

Um... was Bri just revealed to be a sock puppet?

Mods, could you compare IP addresses here? I don't think that post was meant to be sent from Briareos' account.

To think, all that bad grammar may have been faked for years....
No... It was just that, when Bri did the cut-and-paste of my comment, the leading "[quote]" tag got erased which threw everything off.

I wish to state for the record that I do not now have, nor have I ever had, my hand up Briareos' backside.

[Typo Lad]

Seriously Pip, let Samurai and whoever wants answer.

I keep hearing about all of Obama's "Policies", but nine out of ten times, I'm given a link to something someone tangentially connected to him has said.

I don't want that. I want to know what things in Senator Obama's official platform bother you.

To flip it, Senator McCain may or may not have called his wife a Bad Word once. I don't care about that. I care that he is now denouncing bills he once sponsored. I care that he sought out the endorsement of a man whose goals are the same as as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. I care that he is quite clearly pandering. I care that he considers the restoration of habeas corpus to be a bad thing. Those, to me, are real issues.

I do not think Senator Obama is perfect. He's flipped on Wiretapping and he's flipped on Public Funding. Still, that's two flips to McCain's dozen or so flips.

So what policies of Obama scare you, Samurai?

[FalconX2000]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901478.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I have now come to believe that the mass media needs to stop relying on Associated Press so heavily. I didn't have this opinion before because I wasn't really concentrating on where their main info sources were anyway.

Obama did not flop on his view of the D.C. handgun ban when commenting on the Supreme Court's second amendment decision. He did not take an actual stand on the issue until he talked about the Supreme Court decision. When asked in earlier months, he replied that he did not know enough about the law to give an opinion of it yet.

Now, it could be a fair accusation that he was delibrately waiting for the supreme court to make a decision before he calculated his own stand, but the media is plain wrong when they say that Obama has flip flopped on the issue. This misinformation has been wrongly conveyed to viewers over the past several days, creating what we know as a 'media myth'.

[KevinTBrown]

I'm starting to really like Gen. Wesley Clark:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/ap_on_el_pr/clark_mccain

And, of course, McCain's campaign response is no surprise:

"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to question John McCain's military service, that's their right," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said after Clark's appearance Sunday. "But let's please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is he's proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain's military service record."

Uh, yeaaaahhh....

Sorry, but when a highly respected GENERAL is calling into question your military experience and your ability to lead this country, you listen.

[Infra-Man]

Here's a glimpse at how the false rumors about Barack Obama have spread and affected the opinions of voters in the small city of Findlay, Ohio:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901871.html?hpid=topnews

Excerpts from the article:
On the television in his living room, Peterman has watched enough news and campaign advertisements to hear the truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a Christian family man with a track record of public service. But on the Internet, in his grocery store, at his neighbor's house, at his son's auto shop, Peterman has also absorbed another version of the Democratic candidate's background, one that is entirely false: Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

"It's like you're hearing about two different men with nothing in common," Peterman said. "It makes it impossible to figure out what's true, or what you can believe."

Here in Findlay, a Rust Belt town of 40,000, false rumors about Obama have built enough word-of-mouth credibility to harden into an alternative biography. Born on the Internet, the rumors now meander freely across the flatlands of northwest Ohio -- through bars and baseball fields, retirement homes and restaurants.

[sic]

Does he choose to trust a TV commercial in which Obama talks about his "love of country"? Or his neighbor of 40 years, Don LeMaster, a Navy veteran who heard from a friend in Toledo that Obama refuses to wear an American-flag pin?

Does he trust a local newspaper article that details Obama's Christian faith? Or his friend Leroy Pollard, a devoted family man so convinced Obama is a radical Muslim that he threatened to stop talking to his daughter when he heard she might vote for him?

"I'll admit that I probably don't follow all of the election news like maybe I should," Peterman said. "I haven't read his books or studied up more than a little bit. But it's hard to ignore what you hear when everybody you know is saying it. These are good people, smart people, so can they really all be wrong?"

[sic]

"People in Findlay are kind of funny about change," said Republican Mayor Pete Sehnert, a retired police officer who ran for the office on a whim last year. "They always want things the way they were, and any kind of development is always viewed as making things worse, a bad thing."

When people on College Street started hearing rumors about Obama -- who looked different from other politicians and often talked about change -- they easily believed the nasty stories about an outsider.

"I think Obama would be a disaster, and there's a lot of reasons," said Pollard, explaining the rumors he had heard about the candidate from friends he goes camping with. "I understand he's from Africa, and that the first thing he's going to do if he gets into office is bring his family over here, illegally. He's got that racist [pastor] who practically raised him, and then there's the Muslim thing. He's just not presidential material, if you ask me."

Said Don LeMaster: "He's a good speaker, but you've got to dig deeper than that for the truth. Politicians tell you anything. You have look beyond the surface, and then there are some real lies."

Said Jeanette Collins, a 77-year-old who lives across the street: "All I know for sure about Obama is that we're not ready for him."

Only one man on College Street remains open-minded, and recently even Peterman has started to sway. Like most of his neighbors, he dislikes McCain for his stance on the Iraq war and would like to cast his vote for a president who will bring the troops home. But on a recent visit to his son's auto shop, Peterman overheard misinformed customers talking again about a Muslim in the White House.

"I don't know. The whole thing just scares me," Peterman said. "I'm almost starting to feel like the best choice is not voting at all."

The Truth Squad

So far, those who have pushed the truth in Findlay have been rewarded with little that resembles progress. Gerri Kish, a 66-year-old born in Hawaii, read both of Obama's autobiographies. She has close friends, she said, who still refuse to believe her when she swears Obama is Christian. Then she hands them the books, and they refuse to read them. "They just want to believe what they believe," she said. "Nothing gets through to them."

The new advertisement running in Findlay, in which Obama is pictured with his white mother and white grandparents as he talks about developing a "deep and abiding faith in the country I love" while growing up in the Kansas heartland, is dismissed by residents of College Street as the desperate lies of another dishonest Washington politician. And they say that Obama's moves to put distance between himself and the Muslim community, with his campaign declining invitations to visit mosques and Obama volunteers removing two women in head scarves from the camera range at a rally in Detroit earlier this month are just a too-late effort to disguise his true beliefs.

For the past month, two students from the University of Findlay have spent their Tuesday nights walking from door to door in the city to tell voters about Obama. Erik Cramer and Sarah Everly target Democrats and swing voters exclusively, but they've still experienced mixed results. Sometimes, at a front door, they mention their purpose only to have a dozen rumors thrown back at them and the door slammed. "People tell us that we're in the wrong town," Everly said.

[FalconX2000]

Here's a glimpse at how the false rumors about Barack Obama have spread and affected the opinions of voters in the small city of Findlay, Ohio:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901871.html?hpid=topnews

Excerpts from the article:


http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7049/readitontheinternetrm9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Paul McEnery]

Here's a glimpse at how the false rumors about Barack Obama have spread and affected the opinions of voters in the small city of Findlay, Ohio:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901871.html?hpid=topnews

Excerpts from the article:

"It makes it impossible to figure out what's true, or what you can believe."

JFC.

And that's what it's come down to. People with no critical thinking being baffled by bullshit.

[section 8]

Due to the "Myspace Suicide i will not go into detail,

But she's not doing it right.

[FalconX2000]

Due to the "Myspace Suicide i will not go into detail,

But she's not doing it right.

:biggrin:

-snip-

*Cartoon edited out due to discomfort caused *

Somehow across the street looks nicer.

[FalconX2000]

On a less humorous note, it looks like Obama gently tapped down Clark's comments about McCain.:frown: I understand it's politically more complicated to pull off this attack than others, but its sad nonetheless. Clark had a great point!

I served 2 years of national service. I was a corporal in the army, a clerk in the IPPT Section (physical training) overseeing and interacting with thousands of National Service men in the engineers camp. That does pad my human resources resume. It does not really add all that much to any claim I make to being qualified to command an army. Sure, it's something McCain has that Obama doesn't. It's a molehill, not a mountain and a legitimate point that might not occur to alot of people.

I haven't watched the actual speech yet. It'll probably be good.

[Red Jack]

hm.

i don't see the humor there. More the total irresponsibility of making and posting something like that. Jesus.

[Gilda Dent]

Back on topic, is this really a question, whether to believe a rumor you hear from your mechanic or information coming from reputable news sources?

The idea that Obama is from Africa is too stupid to even take seriously, except for . . . well, really stupid people who obviously failed eighth grade social studies and don't understand how the US government works well enough to pass a citizenship test.

My ten-year-old sister is bright enough to tell you what's wrong with that bit of stupidity.

[Red Jack]

The toon FalconX posted wasn't about suicide, it was about cutting, which is something different. Also, it doesn't make the pain go away, but it does give one a false sense of control and the pain stimulates the production of endorphins as a result, which linger for a bit, and those endorphins make you feel a little better for a short period of time. It's a form of masochism, but an unhealthy one.



No. That's a suicide manual.

With-the-vein is how to actually die. Across the vein can kill you too but it's less likely. I think the mods should dump it if the original poster won't. Really.

I'm not kidding.

[Gilda Dent]

Never mind. It's off topic anyway.

[Buzz Dixon]

Back on topic, is this really a question, whether to believe a rumor you hear from your mechanic or information coming from reputable news sources?

The idea that Obama is from Africa is too stupid to even take seriously, except for . . . well, really stupid people who obviously failed eighth grade social studies and don't understand how the US government works well enough to pass a citizenship test.

My ten-year-old sister is bright enough to tell you what's wrong with that bit of stupidity.News services -- ALL news services -- have failed miserably since the 1950s. They are far too often lazy and report what partisans say without attribution or questioning the facts, or else they are partisan themselves.

The mechanic down the street is the guy you know, trust, and like. His opinion carries more weight that whatever talking head is screaming over the TV set.

That's the reality. The question is how to make it work.

[Michael P]

The mechanic down the street is the guy you know, trust, and like. His opinion carries more weight that whatever talking head is screaming over the TV set.

Except the mechanic down the street usually gets his opinion from the talking head screaming over the TV set.

[Buzz Dixon]

Except the mechanic down the street usually gets his opinion from the talking head screaming over the TV set.But you (rhetorical) don't know that. All you know is that he keeps your car running so you can get to work and pay your bills.

The Democrats did a real good job of alienating a lot of people who would have otherwise supported their party in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Obama is the first Democratic candidate who stands a chance of bridging that gap, but it's going to take a while. Right now all the old tropes are being thrown at him.

The current administration has really damaged the Republican party in ways that won't be apparent for another couple of election cycles. If Obama can tamp down any Democrats who want to indulge in payback against Republicans and/or conservatives, he might be able to guide his party to dominance for the next 30-40 years.

[kingdom2000]

No. That's a suicide manual.

With-the-vein is how to actually die. Across the vein can kill you too but it's less likely. I think the mods should dump it if the original poster won't. Really.

I'm not kidding.

The proper way to commit suicide via the wrists is a vertical cut down the wrists, not a horizonal cut across the wrist. So no the picture isn't a manual for suicide and frankly I would have concerns about the intelligence of people on this board if they looked at it and went "thats how you do it! good to know for next time."

[Michael P]

But you (rhetorical) don't know that.

Anyone who doesn't know that sucks at critical thinking.

[Gilda Dent]

News services -- ALL news services -- have failed miserably since the 1950s. They are far too often lazy and report what partisans say without attribution or questioning the facts, or else they are partisan themselves.

The mechanic down the street is the guy you know, trust, and like. His opinion carries more weight that whatever talking head is screaming over the TV set.

That's the reality. The question is how to make it work.

I don't agree with your characterization regarding news sources here, but even granting that they aren't as rigorous as they should be, reputable news sources are obviously going to have access to more and better sources and resources than your mechanic. He might be a nice guy, but he's at most trustworthy regarding how to fix and maintain your car, not when it comes to factual information regarding national issues.

[Dreadstar]

I don't agree with your characterization regarding news sources here, but even granting that they aren't as rigorous as they should be, reputable news sources are obviously going to have access to more and better sources and resources than your mechanic. He might be a nice guy, but he's at most trustworthy regarding how to fix and maintain your car, not when it comes to factual information regarding national issues.

Very true. However, I can still trust him not to intentionally omit a valuable bit of information transforming a news item into propaganda.

I've begun to lose faith in the majority of media for exactly that reason.

[kingdom2000]

But you (rhetorical) don't know that. All you know is that he keeps your car running so you can get to work and pay your bills.

Did someone tell Fox News and Rush Limbaugh because there entire existence is predicated on people getting their information from as few sources as possible (and as the above example shows, it clearly works). If the daily news teaches you anything, its that critical thinking is the least used ability for most people.

[Nick Soapdish]

Very true. However, I can still trust him not to intentionally omit a valuable bit of information transforming a news item into propaganda.

I've begun to lose faith in the majority of media for exactly that reason.

Your mechanic is a lot more unbiased than mine. When discussing politics with my mechanic or barber or even friends and family, they don't usually go out of their way to mention facts that undermine their arguments or beliefs.

Same with me.

[Tetsuo_man]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/mccain_in_2004_bin_laden_may_h.php
The two men tell the senator they support President George W. Bush, and to that end, McCain says, "(Osama) Bin Laden may have just given us a little boost. Amazing, huh?"

[Buzz Dixon]

Anyone who doesn't know that sucks at critical thinking.People who suck at critical thinking still get to vote. The question is how does one go about circumventing their personal networks with an outside message?

[Buzz Dixon]

I don't agree with your characterization regarding news sources here, but even granting that they aren't as rigorous as they should be, reputable news sources are obviously going to have access to more and better sources and resources than your mechanic. He might be a nice guy, but he's at most trustworthy regarding how to fix and maintain your car, not when it comes to factual information regarding national issues.But that's the way the world works. Everywhere. People trust people they know. There's an old saying, "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care." People know their mechanics care, they don't know if some talking head on the TV cares.

It's foolish to expect people to drop their personal support networks to vote your (rhetorical) way. Their personal support networks are far more valuable to them than abstract arguments.

You want to change their minds, get inside that personal support network. Talk radio does.

[Nick Soapdish]

You want to change their minds, get inside that personal support network. Talk radio does.

That's a really disagreeable model that I'd like for the liberals to avoid.

I don't think that it works so well with their message anyway. Air America wasn't exactly a rousing success.

[Gilda Dent]

But that's the way the world works. Everywhere. People trust people they know. There's an old saying, "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care." People know their mechanics care, they don't know if some talking head on the TV cares.

It's foolish to expect people to drop their personal support networks to vote your (rhetorical) way. Their personal support networks are far more valuable to them than abstract arguments.

You want to change their minds, get inside that personal support network. Talk radio does.

Oh, I strongly disagree. It's far from everywhere. There are people that look to legitimate authority in regard to factual information and take the qualifications of the authority into account.

Looking to one's social network for factual information regarding things not in those people's areas of expertise is, well, stupid, especially when it contradicts established objective evidence.

This isn't to say that nobody does this, but it's hardly everywhere. There are people who look to legitimate authority for factual information rather than trusting Joe Six Pack just because he's a nice guy.

I'm not asking people to abandon social networks when deciding who to vote for; that's a personal preference. But when it comes to getting factual information, I do expect reasonable people to do this.

[Buzz Dixon]

I don't agree with your characterization regarding news sources here, but even granting that they aren't as rigorous as they should be, reputable news sources are obviously going to have access to more and better sources and resources than your mechanic. He might be a nice guy, but he's at most trustworthy regarding how to fix and maintain your car, not when it comes to factual information regarding national issues.Gilda, it does not matter to the voters in question. They rely on individual human beings whom they trust, not abstract concepts in mass media. You want to change their votes, figure out how to influence the influencers.

[Red Jack]

I couldn't care less what my friends and neighbors think on any subject that directly impacts my life. I make my choices based on available data and my own judgment and most of the people I know are the same.

I've never heard of anyone being swayed one way or the other by their barber or mechanic.

[Buzz Dixon]

That's a really disagreeable model that I'd like for the liberals to avoid.

I don't think that it works so well with their message anyway. Air America wasn't exactly a rousing success.Talk radio works because the best practitioners -- regardless on where they are on the social/political spectrum -- know how to talk to just one listener at a time. They treat that mike like a person, they frame their talk the way they would if sitting down in private across the table from someone.

It has a powerful emotional connection. if you (rhetorical) wish to campaign without reaching people's emotions, you might as well cede the election to McCain today.

[Nick Soapdish]

Talk radio works because the best practitioners -- regardless on where they are on the social/political spectrum -- know how to talk to just one listener at a time. They treat that mike like a person, they frame their talk the way they would if sitting down in private across the table from someone.

It has a powerful emotional connection. if you (rhetorical) wish to campaign without reaching people's emotions, you might as well cede the election to McCain today.

I'm referring to the particular brand of talk radio that the Republicans have been using. I think that it's possible to do it by being nice to other people, but it's easier to rant about one's problems (or listen to a caller's rant) and then blame the other side.

[Buzz Dixon]

I couldn't care less what my friends and neighbors think on any subject that directly impacts my life. I make my choices based on available data and my own judgment and most of the people I know are the same.

I've never heard of anyone being swayed one way or the other by their barber or mechanic.Swayed, no. Reinforced, yes. What's going on here is social reinforcement, letting people know it's okay to think and feel the way the rest of the community does.

To overcome this, the message has to be presented to key influencers within such a network in such a way that convinces them it's okay to hold a contrary opinion.

[Buzz Dixon]

.....I'm referring to the particular brand of talk radio that the Republicans have been using.I'm not.

[Paul McEnery]

People who suck at critical thinking still get to vote. The question is how does one go about circumventing their personal networks with an outside message?

I'm thinking grabbing Murdoch by the goolies and quietly suggesting he behaves himself.

But you're looking for something that's outside of my personal fantasy life, aren't you.

[Paul McEnery]

Swayed, no. Reinforced, yes. What's going on here is social reinforcement, letting people know it's okay to think and feel the way the rest of the community does.

To overcome this, the message has to be presented to key influencers within such a network in such a way that convinces them it's okay to hold a contrary opinion.

I'm thinking the evangelical church members who are saying enough is enough might do the job.

[CutterMike]

I'm thinking grabbing Murdoch by the goolies and quietly suggesting he behaves himself.

But you're looking for something that's outside of my personal fantasy life, aren't you.
I Pity the Fool™ who grabs Murdoch like that; he'll have B.A. and the rest of the Team down on him so fast...!:tongue:

[kingdom2000]

I'm thinking the evangelical church members who are saying enough is enough might do the job.

No, I have faith (pun intended) that by the convention the flock shall return to the republican party and McCain. They will eventually take the Sam and Bri approach - better the man willing to do violence on the non-believers then the one that isn't.

[Paul McEnery]

No, I have faith (pun intended) that by the convention the flock shall return to the republican party and McCain. They will eventually take the Sam and Bri approach - better the man willing to do violence on the non-believers then the one that isn't.

Shockingly, the evangelicals have spotted that the far right ain't so Christian.

It might have been the mass murder tipped them off. But mostly it was the "shit where you eat" environmental policy.

Spare the Planet! It's where I keep my stuff!

[Adam C]

My previous comments had nothing to do with their ethnicity. It's simply human nature. It's simply far easier to come here and work here so you can get much more compensation here then you could in Mexico. I don't blame them one bit but the only way to solve the problem Mexico has will involve shutting off the flow of illegal immigration here.

Yes, but you just didn't say that. You said "I want Mexicans to be miserable," and when I pointed out that the problems in the country (hell the entire region) are more complex than that and involve elite monopolisation of political and economic power you said "So what you're saying is that Mexicans are too stupid to keep the government from taking away their land?"

[FalconX2000]

hm.

i don't see the humor there. More the total irresponsibility of making and posting something like that. Jesus.

Fine, I'll edit out the pics if you're so opposed to it.:tongue: I still find them funny. Try typing 'Reiko' into google.

That's a really disagreeable model that I'd like for the liberals to avoid.

I don't think that it works so well with their message anyway. Air America wasn't exactly a rousing success.

Rachel Maddow rocks!

[Buzz Dixon]

I'm thinking the evangelical church members who are saying enough is enough might do the job.The Republicans are seeing a slow but steady defection out of their camp and over to Obama. Younger evangelicals are going for Obama, older evangelicals are just not going to vote.

[Red Jack]

Fine, I'll edit out the pics if you're so opposed to it.:tongue: I still find them funny. Try typing 'Reiko' into google.

Pass. I don't find suicide manuals pointed at kids funny. Or pointed at anybody, really. But thanks for dumping it.

[Paul McEnery]

The Republicans are seeing a slow but steady defection out of their camp and over to Obama. Younger evangelicals are going for Obama, older evangelicals are just not going to vote.

Not that I think it's a partisan issue, but it's nice to see the evangelicals thinking more about what they can do for their community/country/world, and less about what the President can do for them.

Or maybe they're looking at the disasters that are the Catholics and Episcopalians right now, and deciding it's their turn to bust a move! :biggrin:

[FalconX2000]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/us/politics/29hussein.html?_r=1&bl=&ei=5087&en=442dcec2d2792561&ex=1214971200&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1214910859-SfvflNu68NpEuJVB54bADA&oref=slogin

Apparently, some people are adopting 'Hussein' as their informal middle name to show solidarity with Obama and to protest how its been exploited by political opponents in the media.:eek:

[Red Jack]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/us/politics/29hussein.html?_r=1&bl=&ei=5087&en=442dcec2d2792561&ex=1214971200&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1214910859-SfvflNu68NpEuJVB54bADA&oref=slogin

Apparently, some people are adopting 'Hussein' as their informal middle name to show solidarity with Obama and to protest how its been exploited by political opponents in the media.:eek:

LOL.

::best russian accent::

"Vhat a KONtree!"

I love it.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

The Republicans are seeing a slow but steady defection out of their camp and over to Obama. Younger evangelicals are going for Obama, older evangelicals are just not going to vote.
I've had great phone conversations lately with one of my sisters, a 44 year-old, life-long Republican/Conservative/Evangelista, who has made the shift to Obama--after having voted for Bush the last two elections. She's one of those whacked-out Bible-thumpers who believes in the Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount--who feels betrayed by the current administration, on moral grounds. Like many of the 'misinformed', who've read 'the Red Parts' of the New Testament, she believes 'Christian' means 'Christ-Like'--and doesn't see a million dead Iraqis, thousands of dead and maimed American soldiers, Katrina, or Afghanistan's Opium Economy, or the divide between rich and poor here growing exponentially, and, chiefly--an unwillingness to talk to our enemies--as signs of a particularly 'Christian' nation.

[Buzz Dixon]

I've had great phone conversations lately with one of my sisters...one of those whacked-out Bible-thumpers who believes in the Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount--who feels betrayed by the current administration, on [B]moral grounds.Yeah, that pretty much sums up my feeling re the current Administration and the Republican party that let them get away with it. I don't believe in rewarding bad behavior and bad faith* so I'm voting for Obama this year.




* (as in the opposite of "good faith" not religious faith)

[Samurai]

Yeah, that pretty much sums up my feeling re the current Administration and the Republican party that let them get away with it. I don't believe in rewarding bad behavior and bad faith* so I'm voting for Obama this year.




* (as in the opposite of "good faith" not religious faith)

3 points:

Bush isn't running this year.

McCain is not the same as Bush

Voting Obama is rewarding bad faith and bad behavior from the left.




We heard a lot about why would someone vote for someone they disagree with just to spite someone closer to their own views, in the Hillary/Obama equation. It strikes me that there are voters doing the same thing on the right... in order to spite Bush, they'll vote for someone diametrically opposed to their own views, morals, and beliefs. McCain certainly isn't the greatest candidate, but if you scratch the surface of Obama's rhetoric, you find the most liberal Senator in Congress, a person with decades-long friendships with crooks, killers, racists, and terrorists, and someone who is simply too radical and inexperienced to be President. Voting for him is a much bigger mistake than however you feel about supporting Bush in hindsight, and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

[Typo Lad]

Hey Samurai, did you see my question yesterday.

[Buzz Dixon]

3 points:

(1) Bush isn't running this year.

(2) McCain is not the same as Bush

(3) Voting Obama is rewarding bad faith and bad behavior from the left.
(1) No, but his Administration's policies will be affecting us for at least a generation to come. We can minimize the negatives aspects if we start now, or we can aggravate them by telling the world we endorse them. Re-electing the party that is responsible for these choices is only aggravating the problem.

(2) He has not renounced Bush; promised to investigate, charge, and convict those in this Administration responsible for war crimes; declined the services of Karl Rove and other Republican power brokers who are responsible for the election of this Administration; and has pretty much signed off on an open ended occupation with no clear definition of when conditions would be right for withdrawal. He has tried to garner public support with a proposed gas tax holiday which will only benefit the oil companies, not the consumers he's trying to woo.

There's more, but that's sufficient.

(3) The Democrats (assuming that's what you mean by "the left") have pretty much gone along with everything this Administration has asked for. The only notable exception -- and even there not 100% -- is Senator Obama. For that reason alone he is the only viable Democratic candidate this year.

He's the only one that's even making an attempt to do something different.


...if you scratch the surface of Obama's rhetoric, you find the most liberal Senator in Congress...Like Andrew Sullivan, I feel if the last 8 years is what passes for conservatism, then let's let the liberals run things for a while.

[Samurai]

Hey Samurai, did you see my question yesterday.

Just went back and found it.

Some are what I feel he would do if elected (despite some of his pre-election claims), and others are what he has admitted he will do. For instance, I don't think we should flee from Iraq before it is ready to support itself. His early rhetoric said he'd leave there immediately. Now he claims it'd be a much slower withdrawl, leaving troops behind, etc. Which is true? I think he'd lean toward the former, and the more nuanced position was just to silence his critics.

Then there are his likely extremely liberal appointments to the Supreme Court.

He refuses to drill in Anwar and off the coast to relieve our current need for oil while we're still investigating alternative energies, and he's in the pocket of ethanol producers.

He says he'll investigate and prosecute Bush officials.

And his oppressive taxes on the rich while repealing the Bush tax cuts, and he claims he'll then put in his own, even deeper tax cuts for the poor and middle class. I don't believe him. "Oh, we'll have to hold off on those cuts for a while, there are so many things to pay for..." And even if Obama genuinely did want those cuts (and I don't think he does), the Democrat Congress won't approve them.

Talking to our enemies one on one (without any preconditions) is pointless unless you are either approaching them from a position of strength or you're willing to offer them concessions, and I think Obama will offer concessions and appeasement in the mistaken belief that he can win "peace in our time" that way.

I think he would, in general, push an extremely liberal social agenda, including increasing "hate speech", Affirmative Action, amnesty for illegals (McCain would probably do that one too), gun control, etc, etc.

Finally, I feel he is both extremely inexperienced and naive, and has few morals, standards, or patriotism. He associates with scum of the earth and criminals, and he strikes me as incredibly insincere, and someone who merely thinks change itself is inherently good because he doesn't like America, and sees almost anything as an improvement. I very strongly disagree with that.

There's more, if I poured over his positions on a variety of issues I'm sure I could point out this and that disagreement, but I'm off to work right now.

[Buzz Dixon]

Speaking of Andrew Sullivan...

Here's one (always stupid but nonetheless tenacious) meme that must now surely die out. Obama was billed by some - on Fox right and Clinton left - as a lofty, saintly, principled figure who would bring the party crashing to its usual "eggheads-and-African-Americans" defeat because of his super liberal squeamishness. Yeah, right. Most black male 46 year-olds manage to get to be the favorite for the presidency by acting like Gandhi.

But Obama's post-primary pivot to neutralize all the usual GOP attacks - and reintroduce himself to Middle America - has been more than usually pronounced. He can live with FISA telecom immunity; he's flexible on troop withdrawal from Iraq; he's happy with executing child rapists; he doesn't need public financing; he'll out-patriot the Right; he's touting his support for welfare reform; he'll expand Bush's faith-based programs; and he's okay with the Supreme Court's view of the Second Amendment. Oh, and he'll reduce taxes on the middle class, while hiking them for the rich or successful or whatever you'll let me call them.

Does this sound like a man who's happy to lose an election rather than compromise on a few political stands? He knows that the pent-up desire among Democrats to win this election gives him more lee-way with the base than he might otherwise have. And he's using that as effectively as he can.

It's been clear for a long time: A man who beat the Clintons is as ruthless as they are. Just smarter, and less susceptible to losing his grip on the core principles he still believes in.

[Samurai]

Like Andrew Sullivan, I feel if the last 8 years is what passes for conservatism, then let's let the liberals run things for a while.

Andrew Sullivan is light years from conservative, why would you listen to him on what conservatives should be?

[Kevinroc]

Andrew Sullivan is light years from conservative, why would you listen to him on what conservatives should be?

Because he's not a hypocrite drug addict. :tongue:

[KevinTBrown]

Andrew Sullivan is light years from conservative, why would you listen to him on what conservatives should be?

So is McCain... so why are you even bothering to vote for him?

[Sabrinaset]

(1) No, but his Administration's policies will be affecting us for at least a generation to come. We can minimize the negatives aspects if we start now, or we can aggravate them by telling the world we endorse them. Re-electing the party that is responsible for these choices is only aggravating the problem.

(2) He has not renounced Bush; promised to investigate, charge, and convict those in this Administration responsible for war crimes; declined the services of Karl Rove and other Republican power brokers who are responsible for the election of this Administration; and has pretty much signed off on an open ended occupation with no clear definition of when conditions would be right for withdrawal. He has tried to garner public support with a proposed gas tax holiday which will only benefit the oil companies, not the consumers he's trying to woo.

There's more, but that's sufficient.

(3) The Democrats (assuming that's what you mean by "the left") have pretty much gone along with everything this Administration has asked for. The only notable exception -- and even there not 100% -- is Senator Obama. For that reason alone he is the only viable Democratic candidate this year.

He's the only one that's even making an attempt to do something different.


Like Andrew Sullivan, I feel if the last 8 years is what passes for conservatism, then let's let the liberals run things for a while.

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter, sir.

I'm gonna break my self-inposed exile from this thread to add the following:

4) Obama is an actual uniter, not a divider. The guy can actually reach across the aisle and get things done.

5) I think his life experiences have turned him into someone with the beleifs, stances, and opinions (not just on the war) who can make the contry believe in itself again.

It really all boils down to this for me. If Hillary got the nomination, I'd vote for McCain or Libertarian or Green or whatever ... well, I'd be voting against Hillary. With Obama, I actually have someone I'd be voting for.

And like Buzz, the Republicans left me, not I them. But the conservatives have not been running the country with this administration...in fact, I can't wait until a real conservative pops up with the balls to actually go on TV or something and tell W that he ain't a conservative at all, and tell him the fifty or sixty reasons why he ain't. I dunno where the real conservatives went. Maybe they're hiding out in a cave outside and three miles beneath Cleveland.

And Samurai ... maybe these Bush officials SHOULD be investigated and prosecuted?

[Paul McEnery]

Andrew Sullivan is light years from conservative, why would you listen to him on what conservatives should be?

No, Sullivan is a conservative. You're a fascist.

You keep getting those two confused.

[Infra-Man]

Andrew Sullivan is light years from conservative, why would you listen to him on what conservatives should be?

Since when is Andrew Sullivan not a conservative?

[Paul McEnery]

Since when is Andrew Sullivan not a conservative?

Since he called out Bush for not being a conservative?

[Infra-Man]

Since he called out Bush for not being a conservative?

Fuck, Barry Goldwater's zombie/reanimated corpse would do the same thing.

[Sabrinaset]

Since he called out Bush for not being a conservative?


You have it wrong. Bush is not a Conservative. Geez, the way he's grown the government ALONE ...

EDIT TO SAY: No wait, never mind. I got what Paul was saying. I dunno what the heck this administration is.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Andrew Sullivan is light years from conservative, why would you listen to him on what conservatives should be?
Andrew Michael Sullivan (born August 10, 1963) is an English libertarian conservative author and political commentator, known for his often personal style of political analysis. He is a British subject. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan)

What Paul said.

Just a word of warning--The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been proven a hoax perpetrated by the Prussian Secret Police, largely plagiarized from an earlier work.
There is no vast liberal conspiracy--only thinking Americans wanting America back from those who hate 'We, The People', and seek, tirelessly, to undermine our sovereignty.

[cactusmaac]

Since when is Andrew Sullivan not a conservative?

He went kind of nuts after the gay marriage controversy kicked off in 2004. Since then he's been happy attacking Republicans on positions he held previously. He's always been more of a libertarian than a conservative. Like David Horowitz, he's the kind of guy who likes throwing bombs irrespective of the target.

[FalconX2000]

From what I see, there hasn't actually been a conservative American government for the past few decades. There's been big governments who paid with taxes and big governments who paid with debt.

[Typo Lad]

Political conservative, not fiscal. Big difference.

And Samurai? I'm on pain meds right now, so not so coherent. Will address your issues later. Thank you for answering though.

Ironically some reasons you're against him are why i am for.

[KevinTBrown]

Political conservative, not fiscal. Big difference.

And Samurai? I'm on pain meds right now, so not so coherent. Will address your issues later. Thank you for answering though.

Ironically some reasons you're against him are why i am for.
Being on the meds might be the best way to address them. They'd probably make a hell of a lot more sense that way.

[Samurai]

Political conservative, not fiscal. Big difference.

And Samurai? I'm on pain meds right now, so not so coherent. Will address your issues later. Thank you for answering though.

Ironically some reasons you're against him are why i am for.

Hope you feel better soon.

And I'm not surprised that you like him for some reasons I dislike him. For example, I support McCain because I think he'd appoint at least somewhat more conservative justices than Obama. But if you want more liberal judges, that would be a reason to support Obama. Same if you are a supporter of Affirmative Action, or any of a number of issues we disagree on. Fact: Obama is more to the left than McCain. Maybe that's a good thing to you, and a reason to support him. It's a bad thing to me, and a reason not to support him, even though McCain is hardly more than 50% conservative either.

[Sabrinaset]

The thing is Sam, for me at least, it's not so much a Liberal vs. Conservative thing here as it is a good vs. evil one ... and I'm finding it a lot easier to see Obama as good than I do McCain.

[Samurai]

The thing is Sam, for me at least, it's not so much a Liberal vs. Conservative thing here as it is a good vs. evil one ... and I'm finding it a lot easier to see Obama as good than I do McCain.

You're saying that you see the insincere, naive guy who hangs with racists, crooks, and terrorists, and who will implement all kinds of legislation you strongly disagree with, as the "good guy" over a war hero with decades of both military and legislative service? I'd think you were going by looks alone if you weren't gay! ;)

[Joe Rice]

Stop lying.

[Sabrinaset]

You're saying that you see the insincere, naive guy who hangs with racists, crooks, and terrorists, and who will implement all kinds of legislation you strongly disagree with, as the "good guy" over a war hero with decades of both military and legislative service? I'd think you were going by looks alone if you weren't gay! ;)

Well, now, I'd say McCain has hung with a few unsavory characters himself ... and has actually been one *cough*KeatingFive*cough* ... so that's sorta a moot point.

... and as for the bolded part ... I don't know what to say. It's a weird feeling ... I think I'm at a loss for words. Yeah, that must be it.

[Tages]

You're saying that you see the insincere, naive guy who hangs with racists, crooks, and terrorists, and who will implement all kinds of legislation you strongly disagree with, as the "good guy" over a war hero with decades of both military and legislative service? I'd think you were going by looks alone if you weren't gay! ;)

Because of Bush, a million Iraqis are dead.

McCain is not terribly uncomfortable with the prospect of doing the same thing to another million Iranians.

Obama, his statements about Pakistan and sending peacekeepers to Darfur included, is the candidate less likely to get more people killed.

Your lies mean nothing to me.

[Typo Lad]

You're saying that you see the insincere, naive guy who hangs with racists, crooks, and terrorists, and who will implement all kinds of legislation you strongly disagree with,

You just described McCain, from my POV.

The man sought out the nomination of multiple-hate filled people, and this is after condemning them in the past.

pandering bonus point!

[Magneto X]

the candidate less likely to get more people killed.

Killed, schmilled. Why can't you just accept that the good John McCain is, while regaining America's glory for us, just sending those killed to a better place?

[kingdom2000]

You're saying that you see the insincere, naive guy who hangs with racists, crooks, and terrorists, and who will implement all kinds of legislation you strongly disagree with, as the "good guy" over a war hero with decades of both military and legislative service? I'd think you were going by looks alone if you weren't gay! ;)

Even if what you say is true (and its not), who Obama hangs with is a fraction compared to the volume of terrorists, crooks, and racists that Bush knows yet you don't reject him. You could care less about those things. Those are just excuses to make yourself more "moral" in your choice. Hell you rejected Kerry for "flip-flopping" yet McCain is Captain flip-flop. So obviousily that doesn't matter.

So instead of stating crap you don't really care about (because if you did you would have to reject both Bush and McCain too and we know your not going to), at least justify it for things you do care about, ie concerns over less war, rather then more, big business and the rich will lose their tax cuts and government will might not be allowed to do what it wants to "protect" us.

[Infra-Man]

I previously posted a link to a Washington Post story about how false rumors and internet smears concerning Barack Obama have affected the opinions of voters in the city of Findlay, Ohio.

Here's another interesting WaPo article in which a political theorist attempts to find the originator of the chain-email smear campaign against Obama:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062703781.html

[Corrina]

How can a person be insincere and naive?

Naive: from answers.com: lacking wordly experience, simple and guileless.
from encarta: extremely simple and trusting.

Insincere: Without sincerity. Sincerity is truthfulness, from webster's. To be insincere is to not be whole, pure or genuine.

You can't be guileless and without sincerity at the same time. Pick one or the other.

[section 8]

Because of Bush, a million Iraqis are dead.

McCain is not terribly uncomfortable with the prospect of doing the same thing to another million Iranians.

Obama, his statements about Pakistan and sending peacekeepers to Darfur included, is the candidate less likely to get more people killed.


are you thinking short term? or in the long run?

[JamesRitcheyIII]

are you thinking short term? or in the long run?

Probably the ones who've spent the last eight years 'culling the herd', either by making their friends huge amounts of money from defense contracts in a trumped up war, 'free trading' our jobs out of existence, or deregulating corporations and providing no oversight in the FDA for our food--which is turning up poisoned a disproportionate amount of the time, compared to previous administrations. Or hiring incompetents to head FEMA, and having soldiers hold US citizens on a bridge in Louisiana for 36 hours at gunpoint, with no food or water. Or shutting down NORAD for a 'training exercise' on the morning of September 11th, 2001.

[Samurai]

How can a person be insincere and naive?

Naive: from answers.com: lacking wordly experience, simple and guileless.
from encarta: extremely simple and trusting.

Insincere: Without sincerity. Sincerity is truthfulness, from webster's. To be insincere is to not be whole, pure or genuine.

You can't be guileless and without sincerity at the same time. Pick one or the other.

I mean naive is the sense that he is lacking real experience, and often makes silly comments that show he doesn't know much about what he's talking about.

And insincere in the sense that he is pandering to various groups, that he doesn't honestly believe much of what he is saying, he (or his handlers) just think it will play well in Peoria, and that he has very few real morals or core beliefs or values other than "change is good." And if he does have some, he's keeping them well hidden because he doesn't think it'll jell with the pre-packaged image he's trying to market.

[Kevinroc]

I mean naive is the sense that he is lacking real experience, and often makes silly comments that show he doesn't know much about what he's talking about.

That's John McCain in a nutshell. He doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia, he just confused Somelia and Sudan.

Face it, McCain doesn't know what he is talking about.

(Here's where I got the Somelia/ Sudan thing: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/30/mccain-confuses-sudan-and-somalia/ )

[Samurai]

Because of Bush, a million Iraqis are dead.

McCain is not terribly uncomfortable with the prospect of doing the same thing to another million Iranians.

Obama, his statements about Pakistan and sending peacekeepers to Darfur included, is the candidate less likely to get more people killed.

Your lies mean nothing to me.

Not even close to a million Iraqi dead.

Many of those who are dead were Saddam loyalists or terrorists, or they were victims of those people.

25 million people are now free and living in a democratic country rather than a tyrannical dictatorship.

Things are rapidly improving over there now. For 2 months now the total US death count has been lower in Iraq than Afghanistan.

You have not 1 shred of evidence that McCain wants more Iraqis to die, and you know it. Look at the full context of the quote you are thinking of.

Pulling out too soon would reverse the progress we've made and lead to far more Iraqis dying than if we stay a bit longer and help keep the peace. If you really care about Iraqis lives and freedom, you'd support McCain, not Obama.

Sending US troops into either Darfur or Pakistan will either result in them being utterly non-confrontational and required to just watch (like UN troops), or if they do get involved, it will lead to open warfare, which very definitely will "get people killed".

[Samurai]

That's John McCain in a nutshell. He doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia, he just confused Somelia and Sudan.

Face it, McCain doesn't know what he is talking about.

(Here's where I got the Somelia/ Sudan thing: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/30/mccain-confuses-sudan-and-somalia/ )

Oh wow, he misspoke for a second. But hey, if thems the rules, and it proves what he knows or doesn't know, then Obama believes there are at least 57 states in the United States... Should we let someone become President if he doesn't even know how many states there are?

[Kevinroc]

Oh wow, he misspoke for a second. But hey, if thems the rules, and it proves what he knows or doesn't know, then Obama believes there are at least 57 states in the United States... Should we let someone become President if he doesn't even know how many states there are?

My point, Samurai, is that McCain is guilty of things you accuse Obama of being guilty of. Although I am much more concerned about the Republicans not caring what the difference is between Sunni and Shia.

[Corrina]

I mean naive is the sense that he is lacking real experience, and often makes silly comments that show he doesn't know much about what he's talking about.

And insincere in the sense that he is pandering to various groups, that he doesn't honestly believe much of what he is saying, he (or his handlers) just think it will play well in Peoria, and that he has very few real morals or core beliefs or values other than "change is good." And if he does have some, he's keeping them well hidden because he doesn't think it'll jell with the pre-packaged image he's trying to market.

Again, being naive means that he doesn't keep things well-hidden. Guileless is the opposite.

Choose better, more exact words that don't contradict each other. Surely, with all the words available, you can find insults that aren't in opposition. Like he's a fervent follower of a Christian crazy! And he's a crazy Muslim!

Try, stupid and insincere. Or idiotic and insincere, if you want to be alliterative.

[Samurai]

Again, being naive means that he doesn't keep things well-hidden. Guileless is the opposite.

Choose better, more exact words that don't contradict each other. Surely, with all the words available, you can find insults that aren't in opposition. Like he's a fervent follower of a Christian crazy! And he's a crazy Muslim!

Try, stupid and insincere. Or idiotic and insincere, if you want to be alliterative.

Stupid and idiotic are more insulting, I'm trying to be nice :)

And naive doesn't necessarily mean honest and guileless. It can also simply mean lacking in experience and knowledge. You can still try to cover up that naivete / lack of knowledge with insincerity and guile, which is Obama's tactic.

[Adam C]

He says he'll investigate and prosecute Bush officials.

This is bad HOW?

He associates with scum of the earth and criminals...

Good to see that you've finally come around on Bush.

...and someone who merely thinks change itself is inherently good because he doesn't like America...

But seriously, do you think that anyone is buying this risible nonsense for a second?

[Samurai]

This is bad HOW?



Good to see that you've finally come around on Bush.



But seriously, do you think that anyone is buying this risible nonsense for a second?

How is it bad? Because hundreds and hundreds of congressional investigations have cleared him and shown that, while he may have been mistaken, there is no real evidence that he was purposely lying.

Think about this... how would you have felt if in 2000, Bush had run promising to further investigate and prosecute Clinton and the people working for him, despite the findings of earlier investigations. Would you have said "well, it can't hurt to let them dig around, call up witnesses, etc, and if Bush's people discover that the Clintons did something wrong, they deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!" Or would you have said "Good God, yet another witchhunt, he's out of office, let it go!" Now, project your answer forward 8 years... Do you really want to start a tradition of, whenever the Presidency changes hands, have a ton of Justice Dept folks from the new administration investigate and prosecute all the former administration? Think hard before you answer...

[Adam C]

How is it bad? Because hundreds and hundreds of congressional investigations have cleared him and shown that, while he may have been mistaken, there is no real evidence that he was purposely lying.

You mean besides that CIA agents have stated that the administration was pressuring them to cook the intel on Saddam? Or that invasion has resulted in the needless deaths of many thousands? Or that the reconstruction process has been about as corrupt as Latin American banana republic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm) under Bush's direction and that he laid down a gagging order that keeps the matter from being discussed thus protecting the bastards who profited from fleecing the American taxpayer? And yet you bleat and bleat about Obama's supposed perfidy.

Speaking of which how does he hate America? Or are your smears that tiresomely predictable?


25 million people are now free and living in a democratic country rather than a tyrannical dictatorship.

No. 25 million people are living in a highly corrupt and unstable nominal democracy that has been pushed to the brink of civil war by Bush's fuck-ups.

[Sabrinaset]

No. 25 million people are living in a highly corrupt and unstable nominal democracy that has been pushed to the brink of civil war by Bush's fuck-ups.

Please, Adam ... there's WELL over 25 million people living in the US, and ... oh you meant Iraq ... :biggrin:

[TomStillwell]

...and someone who merely thinks change itself is inherently good because he doesn't like America...

Do you like America as it is now?

I don't. Does that mean I don't love my country or my fellow Americans? Am I no longer a patriot because I see that our country can be better?

I have no party loyalty. I never vote along party lines. I vote for capable men who I believe love my country as much as I do and wish to see her improved. I vote against injustice, corruption, incompetence, and ignorance.

Our current government has driven our country into the ground with greed, arrogance, stupidity, self service, and dogma.

We are war weary after throwing our good soldiers into a situation that has not made us safer. We invaded another country with an agenda not based on the tenets upon which our nation was founded.

Our economy is in dire straights because of special interest groups getting a free pass to do as they please as long as lobbyists are greasing hands. Alternate energy sources go unfunded and under developed by a politicians hip deep in oil money.

Our president has played fast and loose with the constitution, altering freedom as he sees fit. The free world sees us as bullies, warmongers, and torturers.

I don't like this America the Bush administration has devolved our once proud county into. We can't afford more of the same.

[Tetsuo_man]

Stephen Baldwin will leave america if Barrack gets elected becasue he fears change. Seriously i'm not making this up.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/celebrities_on_politics_ill_le.html

[Buzz Dixon]

How is it bad? Because hundreds and hundreds of congressional investigations have cleared him and shown that, while he may have been mistaken, there is no real evidence that he was purposely lying.Samurai, I stopped supporting Bush and his Administration because BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION:
They decided to torture people before determining if it was legal.
They then sought legal loopholes to torture people.
They literally used torture techniques and handbooks pioneered by the Gestapo and the Chinese Communists.
They did so knowing such methods DO NOT gather valid information but produce "confessions" where the victim will agree to anything just to make the torment stop.
They applied these techniques to hundreds, perhaps thousands of people...
...at least 66 of whom BY THIS ADMINISTRATION'S OWN ADMISSION were not terrorists but innocent civilians...
...eight of whom BY THIS ADMINISTRATION'S OWN ADMISSION were actually working FOR the U.S. Government and/or our allies and were simply rounded up by mistake...
...that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody BY THIS ADMINISTRATION'S OWN ADMISSION...
...and that BY THIS ADMINISTRATION'S OWN ADMISSION 25 of those deaths were the DIRECT RESULT of physical abuse and torture.

That's what Obama is talking about. That's what EVERY decent, moral, righteous, ethical human being ESPECIALLY AMERICANS should be talking about.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25479623#25465984

Keith Olbermann did a piece summarising McCain's flip flops. Devoting only 2 lines to each of them, he went on for 3 minutes.

[Joe Rice]

Samurai, I stopped supporting Bush and his Administration because BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION:
They decided to torture people before determining if it was legal.
They then sought legal loopholes to torture people.
They literally used torture techniques and handbooks pioneered by the Gestapo and the Chinese Communists.
They did so knowing such methods DO NOT gather valid information but produce "confessions" where the victim will agree to anything just to make the torment stop.
They applied these techniques to hundreds, perhaps thousands of people...
...at least 66 of whom BY THIS ADMINISTRATION'S OWN ADMISSION were not terrorists but innocent civilians...
...eight of whom BY THIS ADMINISTRATION'S OWN ADMISSION were actually working FOR the U.S. Government and/or our allies and were simply rounded up by mistake...
...that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody BY THIS ADMINISTRATION'S OWN ADMISSION...
...and that BY THIS ADMINISTRATION'S OWN ADMISSION 25 of those deaths were the DIRECT RESULT of physical abuse and torture.

That's what Obama is talking about. That's what EVERY decent, moral, righteous, ethical human being ESPECIALLY AMERICANS should be talking about.

Thank you. Seriously, thanks. This might even be a tattoo in the making . . .

[Samurai]

Samurai, I stopped supporting Bush and his Administration because BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION:
They decided to torture people before determining if it was legal.
They then sought legal loopholes to torture people.
They literally used torture techniques and handbooks pioneered by the Gestapo and the Chinese Communists.
They did so knowing such methods DO NOT gather valid information but produce "confessions" where the victim will agree to anything just to make the torment stop.
They applied these techniques to hundreds, perhaps thousands of people...
...at least 66 of whom BY THIS ADMINISTRATION'S OWN ADMISSION were not terrorists but innocent civilians...
...eight of whom BY THIS ADMINISTRATION'S OWN ADMISSION were actually working FOR the U.S. Government and/or our allies and were simply rounded up by mistake...
...that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody BY THIS ADMINISTRATION'S OWN ADMISSION...
...and that BY THIS ADMINISTRATION'S OWN ADMISSION 25 of those deaths were the DIRECT RESULT of physical abuse and torture.

That's what Obama is talking about. That's what EVERY decent, moral, righteous, ethical human being ESPECIALLY AMERICANS should be talking about.

You cite no sources at all for these claims.

Second, NOT every person captured or held by the US was "tortured". According to the administration, the worst technique they used was waterboarding, and that was done to only 3 people, all of them high-level Al Queda leaders.

All other prisoners were coerced with less onerous means, or not at all. So big red bold letters talking about the number of prisoners released from Guantanamo (which is what I'm guessing you're referring to, since you again give no source or context) as if each and every one of them were "tortured" is just false.

Most prisoners were treated very well, given healthy meals that complied with their religious restrictions, health care, Korans, access to lawyers, etc.

"Torture" (or coercion) absolutely does work if it can be verified, and it's a flat out lie to claim that they are knowingly using techniques that are 100% fallible and never give accurate information. Just what is your hypothesis on why they are using these techniques if, for thousands of years, it has never worked, and they always get false information? Oh wait, let me guess, they are just evil comic book villains torturing people for the fun of it?

US soldiers have been and are being investigated and prosecuted for abuse when it comes to light.

And now, these prisoners of war/enemy combatants were just awarded absolutely unprecedented legal powers and rights by the court.

[Joe Rice]

You cite no sources at all for these claims.

Second, NOT every person captured or held by the US was "tortured". According to the administration, the worst technique they used was waterboarding, and that was done to only 3 people, all of them high-level Al Queda leaders.

All other prisoners were coerced with less onerous means, or not at all. So big red bold letters talking about the number of prisoners released from Guantanamo (which is what I'm guessing you're referring to, since you again give no source or context) as if each and every one of them were "tortured" is just false.

Most prisoners were treated very well, given healthy meals that complied with their religious restrictions, health care, Korans, access to lawyers, etc.

"Torture" (or coercion) absolutely does work if it can be verified, and it's a flat out lie to claim that they are knowingly using techniques that are 100% fallible and never give accurate information. Just what is your hypothesis on why they are using these techniques if, for thousands of years, it has never worked, and they always get false information? Oh wait, let me guess, they are just evil comic book villains torturing people for the fun of it?

US soldiers have been and are being investigated and prosecuted for abuse when it comes to light.

And now, these prisoners of war/enemy combatants were just awarded absolutely unprecedented legal powers and rights by the court.

Stop lying. Stop misrepresenting. Stop defending the indefensible. Stop.

[Buzz Dixon]

These are for you, Samurai:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Wilkerson080618.pdf
http://current.com/items/89033258_general_accuses_wh_of_war_crimes
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/sweeping-and-wr.html
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3978231&page=1
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/the-witnessing.html
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2007/05/is_this_the_american_way_induc.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/06/us_asks_to_rewrite_detainee_ev.php
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/21/gitmo-report-scalia/
http://newsrackblog.com/?p=2367
http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=597957fd-6bbf-4d02-b29f-3dbd35176038
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/06/hbc-90003099
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061800336.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702862.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/if-the-detainee-dies
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2007/12/11/ag21.jpg