Powell endorses Obama

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by ambler

Maybe yes, maybe not, none of us really knows. So any speculating about race in terms of Powell supporting Obama is just that: speculation.

But let's suppose for the sake of discussion that you're on to something, that race is a factor in terms of anybody's support of Obama. And that gender was an aspect in the ascendancies of Hillary and Sarah (I don't think you would protest this extrapolation). Then coulnd't we reasonably argue that the main reason anyone would support Obama, Hillary or Palin is because of race and/or gender and that this is wrong?

There's just one little problem here: race and gender have been criteria for the selection of every US president to date. No one has been nominated for the position unless they were white and male. For a long period of time it was not legal for non whites to hold elected office or vote. For a long period of time women were not allowed to hold elected office or vote. So unless you were a white male, you were effectively denied the opportunity to hold elected office or help decide who did. Talk about rigging a system and making race an issue!

I can't help but to notice that you have never brought that point up. You know what? I think you're right: race is a big part of why Obama is the nominee. And this follows a pattern dating back for 43 presidents.

So while I'm not sure if this answers your question, I have one of my own for you: is the only reason you indict race as an issue in this year's election but ignore its role throughout American history because this year's leading candidate is black? Gosh I hope not, but there are signs that point to that conclusion.

I have a question as well. Are you a retarded toolshed because you are insanely liberal, or are you insanely liberal because you are a retarded toolshed?

[ambler]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

I have a question as well. Are you a retarded toolshed because you are insanely liberal, or are you insanely liberal because you are a retarded toolshed?

I'm not sure I understand the question or agree with the presmises of it in the event that I do.

If there is some part that analysis you disagree with, by all means, bring it forward.

Otherwise, true to MOFO tradition, you reply with an insult and nothing further. Even YOU outperform the MOFO brand in general on this tendency, so I am especially disappointed to see it from you.

Again, I can appreciate your outrage and frustration, given America's ignorant spurning of Ron Paul, but it's unfortunate that you allow it to undermine your ethos in the realm of civil and intelligent conversation. I expect more from you.

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by ambler

Ron Paul

I'm sorry. My relevance filter only allowed me to see this.

[uphill struggle]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

I'm sorry. My relevance filter only allowed me to see this.

on what planet is ron paul relevant? next time haley's comet comes around you and the other paulites going to join the mothership?

[ambler]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

I'm sorry. My relevance filter only allowed me to see this.

That was actually funny! I double chuckled.

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by uphill struggle

on what planet is ron paul relevant? next time haley's comet comes around you and the other paulites going to join the mothership?

Hilton? When did you change names?

Are you really that ****ing stupid to think that was the point of that post?

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by ambler

That was actually funny! I double chuckled.

See, even though ambler is a condescending ass phishing to get a rise out of people with comments that he knows are only half truths, he at least was smart enough to get it.

[ambler]

Originally Posted by uphill struggle

on what planet is ron paul relevant? next time haley's comet comes around you and the other paulites going to join the mothership?

I have to admit to being a Ron Paul fan. Ditto Nader. WHat they have in common is that both bring an important POV to the table and were unfairly ignored.

I'm telling ya, get rid of the 2 party system and the electoral college. And that's just for starters. Otherwise we're all going to be tethered to elements we that and are forced to accept.

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by ambler

I have to admit to being a Ron Paul fan. Ditto Nader. WHat they have in common is that both bring an important POV to the table and were unfairly ignored.

I'm telling, get rid of the 2 party system and the electoral college. And that's just for starters. Otherwise we're all going to be tethered to elements we hat and are forced to accept.

Holy ****. I need more scotch. Other than the electoral college part, I agree with ambler.

[ambler]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

See, even though ambler is a condescending ass phishing to get a rise out of people with comments that he knows are only half truths, he at least was smart enough to get it.

Gregg, WTF? Race has always been an issue and to be outraged about it now is dubiously selective and arbitrary.

I'll admit: part of the reason I am voting for Obama is cause he's black. And because "electing a black president will be a watershed moment in American history". But don't take my word for it, that was the comment made by George Schultz, who wnet on to say he was voting for McCain anyway. Point being that even a McCain supporter can appreciate the significance of an Obama presidency, and for THAT reason.

[ambler]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

Holy ****. I need more scotch. Other than the electoral college part, I agree with ambler.

Maybe not scrap the EC altogether, but reform it a la Maine and Nebraska, where it's proportional, thereby making every vote count until the very last minute. No wonder so few people vote. In the EC system, your vote pretty much doesnt matter unless you live in a handful of states.

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by ambler

Gregg, WTF? Race has always been an issue and to be outraged about it now is dubiously selective and arbitrary.

I'll admit: part of the reason I am voting for Obama is cause he's black. And because "electing a black president will be a watershed moment in American history". But don't take my word for it, that was the comment made by George Schultz, who wnet on to say he was voting for McCain anyway. Point being that even a McCain supporter can appreciate the significance of an Obama presidency, and for THAT reason.

I guess when you don't judge a man by his race, it isn't significant.

What is significant to me is that we have to "Choose" between a lesser of two evils who doesn't even know what the Plunge Protection Team is and a bonafide socialist who will destroy the economy and shows strong signs of shitting on the constitution.

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by ambler

Maybe not scrap the EC altogether, but reform it a la Maine and Nebraska, where it's proportional, thereby making every vote count until the very last minute. No wonder so few people vote. In the EC system, your vote pretty much doesnt matter unless you live in a handful of states.

The biggest problem I have with scrapping it is that it makes the election come down to issues in cities and ignores the fewer people in smaller areas. People wouldn't perform on the job to help those in areas where their vote means less. They would focus solely on the areas with larger population, as that is where the cash cow is for getting elected.

Living in upstate NY, I see the problems with all funding and attention going to other parts of the state.

[ambler]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

I guess when you don't judge a man by his race, it isn't significant.

What is significant to me is that we have to "Choose" between a lesser of two evils who doesn't even know what the Plunge Protection Team is and a bonafide socialist who will destroy the economy and shows strong signs of shitting on the constitution.

I don't agrree with you. I think this is the first election in US history where either candidate is better than the sitting president.

As a Democrat, I dislike McCain less than any other Republican that has run for the office and would be perfectly comfortable with him as our president if he hadn't nominated Sarah Palin. I would even have like Huckleberrry for Veep.

I also disagree that it is a given how BO will act once elected, or if that even happens. (we talk about it like it's a done deal and it ain't) He'll want to be successful, and he knows the only way to do that is to molt and move to the center. Modern Dems pretty much have to or face being obsolete in a hurry. Given his choice of being Carter or Clinton, I'm pretty sure he'll want to be Clinton. And if he really bones up on his history, he won't wait until year 4 or 5 to make that move.

He got lucky that conditions were such that he could get elected and discovered a forumla to achieve victory. The he has run one of the most impressive political campaigns in our lifetime, so don't be so quick to diminish his potential as a manager.

Am I worried about how far he slants to the left or about his inexperience? You bet I am. But I still choose him over McCain because I believe that he has a far greater learning curve potential than does McCain. Jmac should have been elected back in 2000, and but for a Rove smear campaign might have been.


Unfortunately for Jmac, time is not on his side and he has incurred too much doubt even from what should be patches of loyalty, that if he does win, he is likely to be a very ineffective president.

[KingOlerud]

Originally Posted by ambler

But let's suppose for the sake of discussion that you're on to something, that race is a factor in terms of anybody's support of Obama.

You've just shifted the discussion purposefully (as in, I know you didn't do it by accident). Suffice it to say, I may be "onto something", but it sure as hell isn't what you just attributed to me. But by all means, write four more paragraphs about said misattribution below, and then pose a question which will demonize me.

Originally Posted by ambler

And that gender was an aspect in the ascendancies of Hillary and Sarah (I don't think you would protest this extrapolation). Then coulnd't we reasonably argue that the main reason anyone would support Obama, Hillary or Palin is because of race and/or gender and that this is wrong?

There's just one little problem here: race and gender have been criteria for the selection of every US president to date. No one has been nominated for the position unless they were white and male. For a long period of time it was not legal for non whites to hold elected office or vote. For a long period of time women were not allowed to hold elected office or vote. So unless you were a white male, you were effectively denied the opportunity to hold elected office or help decide who did. Talk about rigging a system and making race an issue!

I can't help but to notice that you have never brought that point up. You know what? I think you're right: race is a big part of why Obama is the nominee. And this follows a pattern dating back for 43 presidents.

So while I'm not sure if this answers your question, I have one of my own for you: is the only reason you indict race as an issue in this year's election but ignore its role throughout American history because this year's leading candidate is black? Gosh I hope not, but there are signs that point to that conclusion.

I have "ignored race's role throughout American history" now? How the hell would you know? But let's take the absolute worst case scenario here and assume that I have done this dirty deed, every single day of my life. I can assure you that it is because "race" is a demonic construct under pure ownership of the loony, prejudicial, hateful left.

"Race" is as dumb a concept as hair color, sightedness and shoe size. I have been betrayed and kicked in the teeth by people of all shapes and sizes. I have been taught and helped by people of all shapes and sizes. I've had the trust and respect of people of all shapes and sizes. And if the world wasn't full of small-minded folks who couldn't stop reminding the rest of us to genuflect upon the high art, made-up vision of so-called "race" at every turn, then it would be a much, much happier place.

But that doesn't mean I can't call it like I see it. I know that libs want to own this topic and silence everyone else about it. So you're looking in the wrong direction for that one.