Jump to content

All Things Pro-Obama


Soxy
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 15, 2008 -> 05:23 PM)
Racism and Ignorant W.V. Voters

 

This is staggering.

 

Unfortunately, this doesn't only exist in West Virginia. I think racism is going to be a factor in November, and I can't stand that at all. I am voting McCain, but if he wins due to racism I will feel terrible. I'd rather see Obama win if it means ignorance over something as irrelevant as skin tone doesn't play a role.

Edited by whitesoxfan101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 786
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 16, 2008 -> 07:29 AM)
Unfortunately, this doesn't only exist in West Virginia. I think racism is going to be a factor in November, and I can't stand that at all. I am voting McCain, but if he wins due to racism I will feel terrible. I'd rather see Obama win if it means ignorance over something as irrelevant as skin tone doesn't play a role.

 

For most states, I don't think it will play a role. but McCain will clearly win in Kentucky and WV, where voters openly have expressed to newspapers they aren't voting for him because they are worried he's just going to give jobs to all his black friends. "They've seen it before"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to scratch my head after reading this on MSNBC's First Read:

Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 16, 2008 -> 07:52 AM)
I had to scratch my head after reading this on MSNBC's First Read:

 

Why? He is actually doing what a legislator should be doing, representing his consituants, instead of his own self-interests. Good for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 16, 2008 -> 09:05 AM)
Why? He is actually doing what a legislator should be doing, representing his consituants, instead of his own self-interests. Good for him.

Too bad our President wasn't like this guy with regards to the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 16, 2008 -> 09:05 AM)
Why? He is actually doing what a legislator should be doing, representing his consituants, instead of his own self-interests. Good for him.

Yeah that.

 

I wonder what the superdelegate totals would look like if everyone representing a district or state voted for who their district went with. I'm sure it'd probably favor Obama but it would probably take weight away from population centers at the same time. And just be an even bigger mess than it already is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 16, 2008 -> 08:05 AM)
Why? He is actually doing what a legislator should be doing, representing his consituants, instead of his own self-interests. Good for him.

One can argue: "Why do we even have politicians?"

 

Whenever there's an issue to decide on just have the people take a vote on it and the majority wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stay Tuned:

 

Obama To Respond Forcefully To Bush's Attacks

Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice vowed on MSNBC this morning that Obama will respond forcefully today to President Bush's claim yesterday that Democrats' willingness to negotiate with hostile foreign powers constitutes "appeasement."

 

"What you're going to hear is a very vigorous response to what was an outrageous, unprecedented, and divisive attack from President Bush yesterday," Rice said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 16, 2008 -> 12:29 AM)
Unfortunately, this doesn't only exist in West Virginia. I think racism is going to be a factor in November, and I can't stand that at all. I am voting McCain, but if he wins due to racism I will feel terrible. I'd rather see Obama win if it means ignorance over something as irrelevant as skin tone doesn't play a role.

I said that a few days ago and was laughed at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 16, 2008 -> 08:18 AM)
One can argue: "Why do we even have politicians?"

 

Whenever there's an issue to decide on just have the people take a vote on it and the majority wins.

Do you have a damn clue how democracy is supposed to work? Let's just all become Communist, shall we?

 

This just appalls me on the line of thought you're carrying here, if you're serious. I can't tell because it doesn't make sense if you are saying that legislators shouldn't follow their constituants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 16, 2008 -> 03:18 PM)
One can argue: "Why do we even have politicians?"

 

Whenever there's an issue to decide on just have the people take a vote on it and the majority wins.

 

because the sheer amount of votes would be gigantic, the populace would be underinformed, and who would draft the legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is kind of cliche but we are a republic, not a direct democracy. We don't make decisions, we elect people to make those decisions for us. If we don't like said decisions we elect someone else to make different decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama succinctly says what I was trying to say:

“The president did something that presidents don’t do, and that is launch a political attack, targeted at the domestic political market, in front of a foreign delegation.”

 

“That’s exactly the kind of appalling attack that divides our country, and alienates us from the world… So much for civility.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 15, 2008 -> 04:07 PM)
Jetski :headbang :notworthy

 

Is he one of the state "regional" delegates or one of the 45 that go to Denver?

 

one of the 45. craziness. meaning his name will probably end up in news stories or on tv if/when he decides to switch. pretty cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senator Chuck Hagel:

 

“I’m not sure who he was talking about or what he meant,” said Hagel late Thursday. “I’m not aware of any officials who have ever talked about a policy of dealing with terrorists.”

 

“I don’t know if the president was confused and if he was referencing Iran, or if he was referencing terrorists,” Hagel said.

 

He added, “I agree with Sen. Obama and many of us who have talked about engaging Iran.”

 

Hagel praised Defense Secretary Robert Gates for a speech Wednesday in which he called for diplomacy with the Iranian government.

 

“Sen. Obama, Sen. Biden, Gen. (Brent) Scowcroft, a number of us, have been saying for many years that great powers engage (in diplomacy),” said the Nebraska Republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just listened to a part of Bushs speech yesterday. He talks about talking to terrorists and rogue regimes. He says "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

 

Now, to day we hear that Bush was in Saudi Arabia begging the government to increase oil production... as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama Gets More Pledged Delegates...

The credentials committee of the Nevada Democratic Convention has concluded their business and announced totals for the state's delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The totals are a huge success for Ill. Sen. Barack Obama, who improved upon his showing in the Jan. 19 precinct caucuses and will now head to Denver in August with 14 delegates from Nevada to N.Y. Sen. Hillary Clinton's 11.

 

THe original count was 13-12.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn Greenwald today:

 

High standards at the Washington Post Op-Ed page

 

Last week, The Financial Times highlighted some of the ugly sentiment in West Virginia against Barack Obama, including comments such as "I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife's an atheist." The article reported that "several people said they believed he was a Muslim." It ended by quoting West Virginian Josh Fry as saying "he would feel more comfortable with Mr. McCain" than Obama because: "I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president."

 

In one of the most repellent columns one will ever read, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker defended Fry's claim that Obama is something other than "a full-blooded American." Advancing an argument that Atrios guest blogger aimai aptly described as "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!," Parker said "we now have a patriot divide" in America that "has nothing to do with a flag lapel pin . . . or even military service." Instead:

It'
s
about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American value
s
. And root
s
.

 

S
ome run deeper than other
s
and therein lie
s
the truth of Jo
s
h Fry'
s
political
s
en
s
e. In a country that i
s
rapidly changing demographically -- and where new neighbor
s
may have arrived la
s
t year, not la
s
t century -- there i
s
a very real
s
en
s
e that once-upon-a-time America i
s
getting lo
s
t in the da
s
h to diver
s
ity.

 

We love to boa
s
t that we are a nation of immigrant
s
and we are. But there'
s
a different
s
en
s
e of America among tho
s
e who trace their bloodline
s
bac
k
through generation
s
of
s
acrifice.

It goes on and on like that. So according to Parker, what makes McCain a "full-blooded American," but not Obama, has to do with "blood equity," "heritage," "rapidly changing demographic," and "bloodlines." She then wrote that "white Americans primarily -- and Southerners, rural and small-town folks especially -- have been put on the defensive," and that:

What they
k
now i
s
that their forefather
s
fought and died for an America that ha
s
wor
k
ed pretty well for more than 200 year
s
. What they
s
en
s
e i
s
that their heritage i
s
being
s
wept under the carpet while multiculturali
s
m become
s
the new national narrative. And they fear what el
s
e might get lo
s
t in the remodeling of America.

 

Obama's grandfather fought in World War II -- for America -- and enormous numbers of people who are something other than "white Americans" have fought in one American war after the next. But never mind that. These arguments about "bloodlines" are Parker's reasons why Obama shouldn't be President and why he's not a "full-blooded American."

 

Today, The Washington Post has invited the very same Kathleen Parker onto its Op-Ed page to share her views on the Democratic candidates, and specifically to opine on the matter of John Edwards' endorsement this week of Obama. She abandons her White Pride argument today in favor of the important and Serious claim that Obama and Edwards are gay girls.

 

The Post promotes her Op-Ed on its front page this way: "Kathleen Parker: Two Democratic Pretty Boys." Here's how her Op-Ed begins:

 

Well, at lea
s
t they didn't
k
i
s
s
.

 

I wa
s
bracing my
s
elf for the lip loc
k
Wedne
s
day when John Edward
s
endor
s
ed Barac
k
Obama.

 

That appears under the Post headline: "The Democrats Hug It Out." We then learn that "the two men exchanged a manly air-hug" when they appeared together; that "Obama and Edwards make an attractive picture -- Ultra Brite cover boys of youth and glamour"; that Edwards has a "28,000-square-foot house and $400 haircuts"; and that "Obama and Edwards look and talk pretty, but Clinton, unflinching and steely, exudes pure brawn." All of that makes Obama and Edwards too girly "to sit across from the likes of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

 

Those are some very Serious political arguments brought to us by The Washington Post from an important and Serious political commentator. As always, while everything to the Left of Marty Peretz's New Republic is too fringe and radical to be heard from, there simply is no such thing as being too far to the Right to fall off the mainstream spectrum. Is there any better proof of that than the appearance by Kathleen Parker on the Post's Op-Ed, fresh off her White Pride column, to write an Op-Ed that has little purpose other than to argue that Obama and Edwards are pretty, weak girls who wanted to hug and kiss each other?

Edited by BigSqwert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...