Originally posted by idoru
I'm by no means saying that I agree with Larry Johnson. I've read through the blog at various points in the past and agree with you on comparing him to Mattsanity. " stirrer" would be the most apt name in this situation.
I'm simply stating what I've thought for a while now; he's going to have a lot of thrown at him once he enters the general election, and given the sheer idiocy of a large portion of America, I see it being something that will be hard for him to overcome.
I think there's just as good a chance that the general public won't tolerate it and the backlash will win him voters.
And it's all speculation until the glove fits, so in discussing it, the only thing you're going to perpetuate is one big, long game of telephone in which the details of one accusation shoot through the internets and tomorrow morning Grandma Bessie is asking you if you heard about the "Black Panther Orgy Video" where Obama's wife s Louis Farrakhan while railing against the Aryan Nation.
Just a bunch of bull.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by RJT
And it's all speculation until the glove fits, so in discussing it, the only thing you're going to perpetuate is one big, long game of telephone in which the details of one accusation shoot through the internets and tomorrow morning Grandma Bessie is asking you if you heard about the "Black Panther Orgy Video" where Obama's wife s Louis Farrakhan while railing against the Aryan Nation.
poetry.
idoru
quote:
Originally posted by RJT
I think there's just as good a chance that the general public won't tolerate it and the backlash will win him voters.
And it's all speculation until the glove fits, so in discussing it, the only thing you're going to perpetuate is one big, long game of telephone in which the details of one accusation shoot through the internets and tomorrow morning Grandma Bessie is asking you if you heard about the "Black Panther Orgy Video" where Obama's wife s Louis Farrakhan while railing against the Aryan Nation.
Just a bunch of bull.
Touche. :stongue:
RJT
I should say, though, that I "get it." Obama's black, so the general consensus is that people are going to come after him in some way, shape, or form with the "reverse race card."
All I'm saying, is that if anyone wants to play that game (and I mean anyone - right up to the top of your "right-wing-GOP-conspiracy" ladder if you like), they better have all their ing bases covered - because that's a land mine waiting to blow right up in the face of whoever wants to use it.
The one thing all these nutters rattling the "America won't elect a black man" sword have right is that race is a sensitive issue in our country - where they've got it wrong is in predicting how any major issue with race will actually play out. It's Russian Roulette, plain and simple.
Clovis
Racialist
Lebezniatnikov
Also, everybody glosses over the fact that John McCain has a lot of baggage as well. Just for starters, his wife had investments in the Sudanese government - you know, the one carrying out a genocide? He called her a cvnt in front of a microphone once. He voted against banning waterboarding. He voted against the new GI Bill. He physically assaulted a fellow Senator IN the Capital Building.
I refuse to believe that the word "whitey", given entirely without context but purported to have been spoken in an as-of-yet unseen video, is a cause for any real concern.
Zoso
Okay, I ususally avoid political discussions, as I get flamed into the abyss. But I just have to ask a genuine question or two here.
Can someone please explain to me the following:
1.) why do we need a Democratic administration at this point?
2.) why do we need more/expanded Social policies?
3.) why do we want MORE people MORE dependent on a large, central government?
4.) who will pay for more/expanded Social policies and how?
Again, I'm not baiting. I genuinely want to understand current desire of the public to have these things. Thank you!
Dj Skez
For the people that might have missed the controversial Obama T-shirt that made news.
His explanation is a classic hillbilly response.
"He has huge ears and a huge smile...his hairline matches that character and that's what I saw.
Even though you have to admit that that old man had a point with his ears and hairline matching Curious George. :clown:
Ted Promo
he sounds like a slightly more hickish version of the pedo on Family Guy. He even whistles his s's.
XaNaX
quote:
Originally posted by RJT
The one thing all these nutters rattling the "America won't elect a black man" sword have right is that race is a sensitive issue in our country - where they've got it wrong is in predicting how any major issue with race will actually play out. It's Russian Roulette, plain and simple.
Yeah, honestly I don't think that Obama being black would prevent him from being elected. I guess there are some corn fed hicks in this country who are racist through and through and won't be able to get past the color of his skin but I think they are in the minority. Obama and his 'blackness' is just not that scary to the average white voter. He is a wealthy and educated man, its not like he is Suge Knight and is out drinking 40s, smoking blunts, and pistol whipping white people while on the campaign trail. If Obama's views lined up with mine, I wouldn't think twice about voting for him because of his race.
RJT
I feel like it's important to preface all of this with the fact that this is my opinion, which is rooted in what I know specifically of the general traits associated with the Democratic party (and not necessarily true of how they've been historically reflected). I neither claim it to be a perfect, nor even particularly good account of what I think will actually happen, just some justifications for the way I spend my vote.
quote:
Originally posted by Zoso
1.) why do we need a Democratic administration at this point?
The simplest answer I can give (for my part) is that I'm very much for higher taxes/more government programs (like socialized medicine, more money for education, etc.). I also think the only possibility for the expansion of social tolerances and acceptance of genuine science (on issues like abortion, drug, and environmental policy to name a few) only really has the hope of being realized with the Democratic party, and I think especially social tolerance issues are in need of major change in this country (specifically with regard to the amount of legislature that is passed here infused with Christian concepts of morality).
quote:
Originally posted by Zoso
2.) why do we need more/expanded Social policies?
It may again prove to be a bit of a democratic (read: socialist) cliche at this point, but I genuinely believe that a society functions best when the disparity in quality of life between the lowest social class and the middle class is as small as possible - expanded social programs and reformed tax practices make that possible. I almost always cite Sweden or Iceland as an example of a country where massive taxes lead to massive social works that generally increase the quality of life for everyone, and not just the few at the top of the ladder.
quote:
Originally posted by Zoso
3.) why do we want MORE people MORE dependent on a large, central government?
I think that's pretty well addressed above, but in summary it's to provide the best quality of life for the most people in the most reasonable way possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Zoso
4.) who will pay for more/expanded Social policies and how?
This is where tax reform would come in - and undoubtedly where I'll be mocked most for idealism. The simple (yet incomplete) answer is from everyone, but the tax system we have been living with for half a century or better clearly favor those who have more, and remains as this kind of latent "manifest destiny", "I made it myself, so it's mine" mentality that a lot of people associate with the U.S.
I think it's time for that mindset to go.
Zoso
Cheers for the replies, Rob! Now I've something to think about and tinker with.
