Who would you vote for if the election was today?
- Thread starter 44Thrilla
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
huevonkiller
Change (Deftones)
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 25,798
- Likes
- 90
- Points
- 48
Barry. I know, you're shocked.
bbwchingy0007
BBW Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Messages
- 2,500
- Likes
- 5
- Points
- 38
Obama I guess, but I'm not too sure why. Well, I think of myself as more left-wing and as far as I can gather the Republicans are like the Tories in England. And I hate Tories.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,947
- Points
- 113
Winston Churhill was a torrie, no?
I'm trying to figure out why Obama's qualified, as I'd like to find a reason to vote for him.
He's not got much experience, nor does he have any executive branch type experience. His associates are dubious, so it's questionable that he'd even surround himself with the right people. He's barely shown up for work in the senate, where he's chairman of a committee that oversees the Afghan war and they've held zero hearings. He's not been to Iraq in the past 900 days (3 years), so he has no expert opinion on the situation there.
McCain is underwhelming, and Barr is the Libertarian candidate. I don't see myself voting for either.
Given the entirety of the field on both sides, I would probably vote for Rudy if he were running, and certainly I'd vote for Bloomberg if he made a 3rd party run.
I'm trying to figure out why Obama's qualified, as I'd like to find a reason to vote for him.
He's not got much experience, nor does he have any executive branch type experience. His associates are dubious, so it's questionable that he'd even surround himself with the right people. He's barely shown up for work in the senate, where he's chairman of a committee that oversees the Afghan war and they've held zero hearings. He's not been to Iraq in the past 900 days (3 years), so he has no expert opinion on the situation there.
McCain is underwhelming, and Barr is the Libertarian candidate. I don't see myself voting for either.
Given the entirety of the field on both sides, I would probably vote for Rudy if he were running, and certainly I'd vote for Bloomberg if he made a 3rd party run.
Voodoo Child
Can I Kick It?
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2003
- Messages
- 11,032
- Likes
- 2
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Winston Churhill was a torrie, no?
I'm trying to figure out why Obama's qualified, as I'd like to find a reason to vote for him.
He's not got much experience, nor does he have any executive branch type experience. His associates are dubious, so it's questionable that he'd even surround himself with the right people. He's barely shown up for work in the senate, where he's chairman of a committee that oversees the Afghan war and they've held zero hearings. He's not been to Iraq in the past 900 days (3 years), so he has no expert opinion on the situation there.
McCain is underwhelming, and Barr is the Libertarian candidate. I don't see myself voting for either.
Given the entirety of the field on both sides, I would probably vote for Rudy if he were running, and certainly I'd vote for Bloomberg if he made a 3rd party run.</div>
That's exactly the dilemma I have. I'm not an Obama supporter, for all of the reasons you listed and then some, but neither do I want to put McCain in office. I guess I'll make my decision when Obama picks a runningmate.
I'm trying to figure out why Obama's qualified, as I'd like to find a reason to vote for him.
He's not got much experience, nor does he have any executive branch type experience. His associates are dubious, so it's questionable that he'd even surround himself with the right people. He's barely shown up for work in the senate, where he's chairman of a committee that oversees the Afghan war and they've held zero hearings. He's not been to Iraq in the past 900 days (3 years), so he has no expert opinion on the situation there.
McCain is underwhelming, and Barr is the Libertarian candidate. I don't see myself voting for either.
Given the entirety of the field on both sides, I would probably vote for Rudy if he were running, and certainly I'd vote for Bloomberg if he made a 3rd party run.</div>
That's exactly the dilemma I have. I'm not an Obama supporter, for all of the reasons you listed and then some, but neither do I want to put McCain in office. I guess I'll make my decision when Obama picks a runningmate.
huevonkiller
Change (Deftones)
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 25,798
- Likes
- 90
- Points
- 48
I'm voting for Obama because I agree with the bulk of his positions. And I like the way he ran his campaign for the most part, being able to take down that beast.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,947
- Points
- 113
The good news is that for the first time in 20 years, the president won't be named Bush or Clinton.
44Thrilla
cuatro cuatro
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 14,113
- Likes
- 216
- Points
- 63
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Winston Churhill was a torrie, no?
I'm trying to figure out why Obama's qualified, as I'd like to find a reason to vote for him.
He's not got much experience, nor does he have any executive branch type experience. His associates are dubious, so it's questionable that he'd even surround himself with the right people. He's barely shown up for work in the senate, where he's chairman of a committee that oversees the Afghan war and they've held zero hearings. He's not been to Iraq in the past 900 days (3 years), so he has no expert opinion on the situation there.
McCain is underwhelming, and Barr is the Libertarian candidate. I don't see myself voting for either.
Given the entirety of the field on both sides, I would probably vote for Rudy if he were running, and certainly I'd vote for Bloomberg if he made a 3rd party run.</div>Experience means nothing to me. In my opinion, the more time a politician spends in Washington (or as a mayor, governor), the less likely they are to be motivated enough to get anything done in office, or make good on their promises.
I can see where you're coming from when questioning his associates, but things his Pastor may have said mean nothing to me. I'm actually more turned off by the fact that he attends a church, more than I am that he attended that church. But that's just me. I suppose there's some question about his shady deal with Rezko, but there's nothing really there. And even if there was, it still doesn't make sense that Cindy McCain refuses to release her tax returns when she's essentially running for the number 2 spot on the US Order of Precedence.
As for his attendance, he's just completed a 17 month primary campaign in which he needed every vote possible to barely squeak out a victory. If you have a problem with his attendance, your problem is with the election process and not Obama. Jesse Ventura has recently brought it up, and I agree with him: the rules need to change because these campaigns are taking elected officials away from their jobs for way too long. They should either be forced to resign when they declare candidacy or they should cut down the time period for the election process. I don't understand why they can't hold every states primary on the same day. Give them a month to campaign and then everybody votes.
And going to Iraq does not make you an expert on Iraq, as much as John McCain wants you to believe that ( the same McCain that can't tell a sunni from a shiite). I highly doubt they are seeing anything of significant relevance when they do go over there. And Obama has always referred to Iraq as "a war that should never have been authorized and never been waged" so I don't understand how a visit to Iraq is going to accomplish anything.
I'm trying to figure out why Obama's qualified, as I'd like to find a reason to vote for him.
He's not got much experience, nor does he have any executive branch type experience. His associates are dubious, so it's questionable that he'd even surround himself with the right people. He's barely shown up for work in the senate, where he's chairman of a committee that oversees the Afghan war and they've held zero hearings. He's not been to Iraq in the past 900 days (3 years), so he has no expert opinion on the situation there.
McCain is underwhelming, and Barr is the Libertarian candidate. I don't see myself voting for either.
Given the entirety of the field on both sides, I would probably vote for Rudy if he were running, and certainly I'd vote for Bloomberg if he made a 3rd party run.</div>Experience means nothing to me. In my opinion, the more time a politician spends in Washington (or as a mayor, governor), the less likely they are to be motivated enough to get anything done in office, or make good on their promises.
I can see where you're coming from when questioning his associates, but things his Pastor may have said mean nothing to me. I'm actually more turned off by the fact that he attends a church, more than I am that he attended that church. But that's just me. I suppose there's some question about his shady deal with Rezko, but there's nothing really there. And even if there was, it still doesn't make sense that Cindy McCain refuses to release her tax returns when she's essentially running for the number 2 spot on the US Order of Precedence.
As for his attendance, he's just completed a 17 month primary campaign in which he needed every vote possible to barely squeak out a victory. If you have a problem with his attendance, your problem is with the election process and not Obama. Jesse Ventura has recently brought it up, and I agree with him: the rules need to change because these campaigns are taking elected officials away from their jobs for way too long. They should either be forced to resign when they declare candidacy or they should cut down the time period for the election process. I don't understand why they can't hold every states primary on the same day. Give them a month to campaign and then everybody votes.
And going to Iraq does not make you an expert on Iraq, as much as John McCain wants you to believe that ( the same McCain that can't tell a sunni from a shiite). I highly doubt they are seeing anything of significant relevance when they do go over there. And Obama has always referred to Iraq as "a war that should never have been authorized and never been waged" so I don't understand how a visit to Iraq is going to accomplish anything.
Денг Гордон
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 6,039
- Likes
- 26
- Points
- 48
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The good news is that for the first time in 20 years, the president won't be named Bush or Clinton.</div>
Until Clinton has him capped in the first year of his presidency.
Obama needs to be elected for two reasons: 1. End the Iraq War 2. Reinstate Net Neutrality.
Until Clinton has him capped in the first year of his presidency.
Obama needs to be elected for two reasons: 1. End the Iraq War 2. Reinstate Net Neutrality.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,947
- Points
- 113
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jun 8 2008, 05:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Winston Churhill was a torrie, no?
I'm trying to figure out why Obama's qualified, as I'd like to find a reason to vote for him.
He's not got much experience, nor does he have any executive branch type experience. His associates are dubious, so it's questionable that he'd even surround himself with the right people. He's barely shown up for work in the senate, where he's chairman of a committee that oversees the Afghan war and they've held zero hearings. He's not been to Iraq in the past 900 days (3 years), so he has no expert opinion on the situation there.
McCain is underwhelming, and Barr is the Libertarian candidate. I don't see myself voting for either.
Given the entirety of the field on both sides, I would probably vote for Rudy if he were running, and certainly I'd vote for Bloomberg if he made a 3rd party run.</div>Experience means nothing to me. In my opinion, the more time a politician spends in Washington (or as a mayor, governor), the less likely they are to be motivated enough to get anything done in office, or make good on their promises.
I can see where you're coming from when questioning his associates, but things his Pastor may have said mean nothing to me. I'm actually more turned off by the fact that he attends a church, more than I am that he attended that church. But that's just me. I suppose there's some question about his shady deal with Rezko, but there's nothing really there. And even if there was, it still doesn't make sense that Cindy McCain refuses to release her tax returns when she's essentially running for the number 2 spot on the US Order of Precedence.
As for his attendance, he's just completed a 17 month primary campaign in which he needed every vote possible to barely squeak out a victory. If you have a problem with his attendance, your problem is with the election process and not Obama. Jesse Ventura has recently brought it up, and I agree with him: the rules need to change because these campaigns are taking elected officials away from their jobs for way too long. They should either be forced to resign when they declare candidacy or they should cut down the time period for the election process. I don't understand why they can't hold every states primary on the same day. Give them a month to campaign and then everybody votes.
And going to Iraq does not make you an expert on Iraq, as much as John McCain wants you to believe that ( the same McCain that can't tell a sunni from a shiite). I highly doubt they are seeing anything of significant relevance when they do go over there. And Obama has always referred to Iraq as "a war that should never have been authorized and never been waged" so I don't understand how a visit to Iraq is going to accomplish anything.
</div>
Maybe he should have served one term in the senate then ran? Get some accomplishments under his belt...
Governors and Mayors do get things done.
As for his associates, how'd you feel if he made his pastor secretary of state? That's the kind of people he's hung with...
Going to Iraq, he'd at least see first hand whether it's worth staying.
I'm trying to figure out why Obama's qualified, as I'd like to find a reason to vote for him.
He's not got much experience, nor does he have any executive branch type experience. His associates are dubious, so it's questionable that he'd even surround himself with the right people. He's barely shown up for work in the senate, where he's chairman of a committee that oversees the Afghan war and they've held zero hearings. He's not been to Iraq in the past 900 days (3 years), so he has no expert opinion on the situation there.
McCain is underwhelming, and Barr is the Libertarian candidate. I don't see myself voting for either.
Given the entirety of the field on both sides, I would probably vote for Rudy if he were running, and certainly I'd vote for Bloomberg if he made a 3rd party run.</div>Experience means nothing to me. In my opinion, the more time a politician spends in Washington (or as a mayor, governor), the less likely they are to be motivated enough to get anything done in office, or make good on their promises.
I can see where you're coming from when questioning his associates, but things his Pastor may have said mean nothing to me. I'm actually more turned off by the fact that he attends a church, more than I am that he attended that church. But that's just me. I suppose there's some question about his shady deal with Rezko, but there's nothing really there. And even if there was, it still doesn't make sense that Cindy McCain refuses to release her tax returns when she's essentially running for the number 2 spot on the US Order of Precedence.
As for his attendance, he's just completed a 17 month primary campaign in which he needed every vote possible to barely squeak out a victory. If you have a problem with his attendance, your problem is with the election process and not Obama. Jesse Ventura has recently brought it up, and I agree with him: the rules need to change because these campaigns are taking elected officials away from their jobs for way too long. They should either be forced to resign when they declare candidacy or they should cut down the time period for the election process. I don't understand why they can't hold every states primary on the same day. Give them a month to campaign and then everybody votes.
And going to Iraq does not make you an expert on Iraq, as much as John McCain wants you to believe that ( the same McCain that can't tell a sunni from a shiite). I highly doubt they are seeing anything of significant relevance when they do go over there. And Obama has always referred to Iraq as "a war that should never have been authorized and never been waged" so I don't understand how a visit to Iraq is going to accomplish anything.
</div>
Maybe he should have served one term in the senate then ran? Get some accomplishments under his belt...
Governors and Mayors do get things done.
As for his associates, how'd you feel if he made his pastor secretary of state? That's the kind of people he's hung with...
Going to Iraq, he'd at least see first hand whether it's worth staying.
Real
Dumb and Dumbest
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,858
- Likes
- 4
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jun 8 2008, 07:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And going to Iraq does not make you an expert on Iraq, as much as John McCain wants you to believe that ( the same McCain that can't tell a sunni from a shiite). I highly doubt they are seeing anything of significant relevance when they do go over there. And Obama has always referred to Iraq as "a war that should never have been authorized and never been waged" so I don't understand how a visit to Iraq is going to accomplish anything.</div>
A lot has occured in the last three years. Why should I accept what Obama says about Iraq is truth if he doesn't know the situtation on the ground?
A lot has occured in the last three years. Why should I accept what Obama says about Iraq is truth if he doesn't know the situtation on the ground?
huevonkiller
Change (Deftones)
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 25,798
- Likes
- 90
- Points
- 48
I don't know how that disproves Thrilla's point.
Денг Гордон
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 6,039
- Likes
- 26
- Points
- 48
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jun 8 2008, 09:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jun 8 2008, 07:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And going to Iraq does not make you an expert on Iraq, as much as John McCain wants you to believe that ( the same McCain that can't tell a sunni from a shiite). I highly doubt they are seeing anything of significant relevance when they do go over there. And Obama has always referred to Iraq as "a war that should never have been authorized and never been waged" so I don't understand how a visit to Iraq is going to accomplish anything.</div>
A lot has occured in the last three years. Why should I accept what Obama says about Iraq is truth if he doesn't know the situtation on the ground?
</div>
Mccain has no idea either.
A lot has occured in the last three years. Why should I accept what Obama says about Iraq is truth if he doesn't know the situtation on the ground?
</div>
Mccain has no idea either.
Real
Dumb and Dumbest
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,858
- Likes
- 4
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 8 2008, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know how that disproves Thrilla's point.</div>
I can't imagine anyone that goes over to Iraq wouldn't come away with some impression of how the country is doing.
If he's running on a campaign promise to get us out of Iraq, isn't the least he could do is go over there and meet with Gen. Petraeus? Instead of being part of a group of disingenuous Democrats who forbid any news of progress in Iraq for their own political gain. Now that is being part of the broken Washington D.C. he says he wants to change.
I can't imagine anyone that goes over to Iraq wouldn't come away with some impression of how the country is doing.
If he's running on a campaign promise to get us out of Iraq, isn't the least he could do is go over there and meet with Gen. Petraeus? Instead of being part of a group of disingenuous Democrats who forbid any news of progress in Iraq for their own political gain. Now that is being part of the broken Washington D.C. he says he wants to change.
44Thrilla
cuatro cuatro
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 14,113
- Likes
- 216
- Points
- 63
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Maybe he should have served one term in the senate then ran? Get some accomplishments under his belt...</div>
Why? So he could have voted on more issues and sponsored a few more bills? I'm having a hard time thinking of just one thing that a Senator has accomplished on their own thats of any significance.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Governors and Mayors do get things done.</div>That has nothing to do with my experience point. I was only saying that veteran officials are less likely to be motivated in office. More going through the motions than anything else. Whether they are congressman, senators, mayors, governors, etc.. That's one of the reasons term limits exist.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As for his associates, how'd you feel if he made his pastor secretary of state? That's the kind of people he's hung with...</div>I don't know anything about the guy besides 3-4 minutes of his 30 year career as a Pastor that was taken out of context. I wouldn't want any Pastor as an elected official, but he couldn't be any worse than some of the cabinet members Bush has appointed.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Going to Iraq, he'd at least see first hand whether it's worth staying.</div>That's dumb. if he didn't think we should have gone do begin with, why would something he saw over there all of a sudden make him think its worth staying?
Why? So he could have voted on more issues and sponsored a few more bills? I'm having a hard time thinking of just one thing that a Senator has accomplished on their own thats of any significance.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Governors and Mayors do get things done.</div>That has nothing to do with my experience point. I was only saying that veteran officials are less likely to be motivated in office. More going through the motions than anything else. Whether they are congressman, senators, mayors, governors, etc.. That's one of the reasons term limits exist.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As for his associates, how'd you feel if he made his pastor secretary of state? That's the kind of people he's hung with...</div>I don't know anything about the guy besides 3-4 minutes of his 30 year career as a Pastor that was taken out of context. I wouldn't want any Pastor as an elected official, but he couldn't be any worse than some of the cabinet members Bush has appointed.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Going to Iraq, he'd at least see first hand whether it's worth staying.</div>That's dumb. if he didn't think we should have gone do begin with, why would something he saw over there all of a sudden make him think its worth staying?
Денг Гордон
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 6,039
- Likes
- 26
- Points
- 48
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jun 8 2008, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 8 2008, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know how that disproves Thrilla's point.</div>
I can't imagine anyone that goes over to Iraq wouldn't come away with some impression of how the country is doing.
If he's running on a campaign promise to get us out of Iraq, isn't the least he could do is go over there and meet with Gen. Petraeus? Instead of being part of a group of disingenuous Democrats who forbid any news of progress in Iraq for their own political gain. Now that is being part of the broken Washington D.C. he says he wants to change.
</div>
I saw Obama (with other Democrats) talking to Petraeus a few months ago. Don't remember seeing McCain there. Does it matter if Obama talks to Petraeus on US soil rather than Iraqi soil?
I can't imagine anyone that goes over to Iraq wouldn't come away with some impression of how the country is doing.
If he's running on a campaign promise to get us out of Iraq, isn't the least he could do is go over there and meet with Gen. Petraeus? Instead of being part of a group of disingenuous Democrats who forbid any news of progress in Iraq for their own political gain. Now that is being part of the broken Washington D.C. he says he wants to change.
</div>
I saw Obama (with other Democrats) talking to Petraeus a few months ago. Don't remember seeing McCain there. Does it matter if Obama talks to Petraeus on US soil rather than Iraqi soil?
44Thrilla
cuatro cuatro
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 14,113
- Likes
- 216
- Points
- 63
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ Jun 8 2008, 10:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jun 8 2008, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 8 2008, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know how that disproves Thrilla's point.</div>
I can't imagine anyone that goes over to Iraq wouldn't come away with some impression of how the country is doing.
If he's running on a campaign promise to get us out of Iraq, isn't the least he could do is go over there and meet with Gen. Petraeus? Instead of being part of a group of disingenuous Democrats who forbid any news of progress in Iraq for their own political gain. Now that is being part of the broken Washington D.C. he says he wants to change.
</div>
I saw Obama (with other Democrats) talking to Petraeus a few months ago. Don't remember seeing McCain there. Does it matter if Obama talks to Petraeus on US soil rather than Iraqi soil?
</div>
Yeah I was going to mention that but I forgot. Congress just had a 2day long discussion about the state of Iraq and the war. He doesn't need to go there to know whats going on. It's not like they'll even let him leave a secured area over there anyway, being a presidential candidate.
I can't imagine anyone that goes over to Iraq wouldn't come away with some impression of how the country is doing.
If he's running on a campaign promise to get us out of Iraq, isn't the least he could do is go over there and meet with Gen. Petraeus? Instead of being part of a group of disingenuous Democrats who forbid any news of progress in Iraq for their own political gain. Now that is being part of the broken Washington D.C. he says he wants to change.
</div>
I saw Obama (with other Democrats) talking to Petraeus a few months ago. Don't remember seeing McCain there. Does it matter if Obama talks to Petraeus on US soil rather than Iraqi soil?
</div>
Yeah I was going to mention that but I forgot. Congress just had a 2day long discussion about the state of Iraq and the war. He doesn't need to go there to know whats going on. It's not like they'll even let him leave a secured area over there anyway, being a presidential candidate.
TheBeef
Commish of FUN!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,495
- Likes
- 6
- Points
- 38
I dont really like McCain, who I dont consider to be a republican(hes a horn away from being a real life rhino), but I believe Obama is a dangerous radical....you literally are who your friends are in my opinion and his friends, up until he distanced himself, have been radicals....have any of you read his book by the way? Heres a few snipetts:
1)"I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE"
2)"The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."
3)"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"
In plain english:
1)I took pleasure in disliking white people
2)Race relations are a farce and white people will always be a menace to black people
3)I stopped admitting I was half white when I stopped caring what white people think
Those are pretty inflamatory statements from a presidential candidate, and I wonder if McCain could get away with similar writing....
1)"I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE"
2)"The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."
3)"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"
In plain english:
1)I took pleasure in disliking white people
2)Race relations are a farce and white people will always be a menace to black people
3)I stopped admitting I was half white when I stopped caring what white people think
Those are pretty inflamatory statements from a presidential candidate, and I wonder if McCain could get away with similar writing....
Денг Гордон
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 6,039
- Likes
- 26
- Points
- 48
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jun 8 2008, 10:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I dont really like McCain, who I dont consider to be a republican(hes a horn away from being a real life rhino), but I believe Obama is a dangerous radical....you literally are who your friends are in my opinion and his friends, up until he distanced himself, have been radicals....have any of you read his book by the way? Heres a few snipetts:
1)"I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE"
2)"The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."
3)"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"
In plain english:
1)I took pleasure in disliking white people
2)Race relations are a farce and white people will always be a menace to black people
3)I stopped admitting I was half white when I stopped caring what white people think
Those are pretty inflamatory statements from a presidential candidate, and I wonder if McCain could get away with similar writing....</div>
Which book are you referring to? I've only read Dreams of My Father, and nothing in that book jumped out at me.
1)"I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE"
2)"The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."
3)"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"
In plain english:
1)I took pleasure in disliking white people
2)Race relations are a farce and white people will always be a menace to black people
3)I stopped admitting I was half white when I stopped caring what white people think
Those are pretty inflamatory statements from a presidential candidate, and I wonder if McCain could get away with similar writing....</div>
Which book are you referring to? I've only read Dreams of My Father, and nothing in that book jumped out at me.
44Thrilla
cuatro cuatro
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 14,113
- Likes
- 216
- Points
- 63
What an intelligent way to do things, pull out 3 quotes from a book with hundreds of thousands of words and sentences and then completely take them out of context. You really brought this discussion to the next level, thank you!
TheBeef
Commish of FUN!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,495
- Likes
- 6
- Points
- 38
Im sorry if this damages the candidate that you are backing, but those quotes came directly from the man's books....if you believe I have misrepresented his meaning, please, by all means, clarify those thoughts for us all....In the future, I'd prefer it if you could look past your personal animosity for me so we could engage in a meaningful debate about sports and other interesting topics, if thats not possible, please let me know....
44Thrilla
cuatro cuatro
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 14,113
- Likes
- 216
- Points
- 63
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jun 8 2008, 11:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im sorry if this damages the candidate that you are backing, but those quotes came directly from the man's books....if you believe I have misrepresented his meaning, please, by all means, clarify those thoughts for us all....In the future, I'd prefer it if you could look past your personal animosity for me so we could engage in a meaningful debate about sports and other interesting topics, if thats not possible, please let me know....</div>
You took 3 quotes from an entire book and are judging a man by them. You want us to judge him with you without explaining the context in which these quotes were presented. Maybe that's acceptable to you, but most of us are definitely not....you.
You took 3 quotes from an entire book and are judging a man by them. You want us to judge him with you without explaining the context in which these quotes were presented. Maybe that's acceptable to you, but most of us are definitely not....you.
Similar threads
