With the large college voter turnout expected,the large African American turnout expected you can pretty much expect an OBAMA payback on May 6th.Honestly Clinton may have a breath of fresh air however she must be haunted by the numbers that only reveal Obama has not went backward,he actually moved forward.Did anyone catch the number of new voter turnouts and how Obama dominated much more than half of them? That is not a good look for Clinton going into these other states,With more time the fact is Obama closes gaps quickly in every state he enters.A state as loyal to Clinton was barely a double digit win,he came from behind 20 something points,with the bitter comment controversy his numbers are increasing.Clinton really didnt do shit last night as i stated but keep this fight prolonged.Obama is still ahead by alot in the popular vote and every other number.Hilary is increasingly turning off superdelegates with her Kitchen sink knife whatever strategy lol,editorials are bashing her even more,she is destroying the democratic party with her desperate actions to become the presidential candidate.I would hate to be in her shoes even after the big win last night.:shrug:

Imagine Obama gets the nomination and McCain wins the election...it is slowly turning to a race basis and there are more non-blacks in the country....

It's not his race at all that's killing him, It's his company and taste for radicalism. And now his speaking power is weakening. He stammers and dodges the tough questions. Race has nothing to do with it except that you can't win the general election on just black and new voters. You have to captivate the regular joe which he's failing to do.

The "tough" questions being things like his American flag jewelry?

The "tough" questions being things like his American flag jewelry?
What could be more important than whether or not the candidate wheres a flag pin?

Because it has been exposed that OBama does not wear flag pins we now know that Obama is an America hater, and a communist who will send our children to Arabia to be brainwashed into becoming homosexual communist Muslims by Obama's Islamofascist terrorist radical liberal backers.

And he's letting people think that.
He should answer directly and consistantly with his passed comments. Thousands of people have died for that flag. Spiders got a counter if you want to check the latest numbers in Iraq.
To dis the flag durring war time is political suicide.

yes, and everyone knows that choosing not to wear a lapel pin version of the American flag that was most likely made in China is a huge dis to America WTF!!!?

To dis the flag durring war time is political suicide.

He's right. Evidently, the average person cares more about this superficial BS than real issues. It's depressing.

It's not his race at all that's killing him, It's his company and taste for radicalism. And now his speaking power is weakening. He stammers and dodges the tough questions. Race has nothing to do with it except that you can't win the general election on just black and new voters. You have to captivate the regular joe which he's failing to do.

Oh please,stop with this poor logic and silly exaggeration.

Pennsylvania was all in all Hilarys state,this is no big surprise,the media is doing what they are paid to do,give props were its due,yet still be realistic looking at the longroad which Hilary has a total block but refuses to bow down and will fight to the very end.This has nothing to do with his speaking power weakening.HAHA are you kidding me? What land do you live on? His lead in the averaged national polls done nationwide are showing his margining widening against Hilary and Mccain,So what are you talking about? I swear alot of things you say are so opposite of the truth.Pennsylvania has some of what i call FAKE ASS DEMO-RATS,anytime these Hilary supporters claim to vote for Mccain rather than Obama,i say fuck these conservatives bum bitches,its quite obvious no one wants to look into the fucked up old establishment mentality these ditzy elderly broads carry in these rural areas,that stubborn conservatism that leads to poor judgement,just imagine

SALLY AGE 62:OBAMA SAID I WAS BITTER,WE DONT NEED A PRESIDENT THAT MAKES FALSE COMMENTS ABOUT PEOPLE.

Its like bitch are you stupid?? We are talking about a president of the united states,what about his power to change this shitty economy?? Because he called your ass bitter he should not have a chance to change this poor economy? Americans are pretty dumb as someone stated,its reality,that old established mentality,that poor conservative judgement.These type of mentalities are what the american people who want change see and become even more disgusted with.This just further fuels Obamas fanbase for a fiend of an entire change that results from these very old conservative mentalites that have destroyed the nation or prevent any achievements from happening.

He's right. Evidently, the average person cares more about this superficial BS than real issues. It's depressing.

Thats because Americans have been made retarded because of a steady influx of Mcdonalds and reality TV

Thats because Americans have been made retarded because of a steady influx of Mcdonalds and reality TV

Pennsylvania has those conservative billies that would never betray ole sister Hilary Rodham,SHES THERE SCRANTON GIRLLL.!

...Or they thought she would be the best candidate.../shrug

Imagine Obama gets the nomination and McCain wins the election...it is slowly turning to a race basis and there are more non-blacks in the country....


It has been a race based election so far. Just look at the black votes for Obama; state after state he gets 80+% of the black vote. While Obama is getting 40-60% of the white vote. It's fairly obvious that the black community is primarily voting on race lines, while whites votes are based on other issues.

It has been a race based election so far. Just look at the black votes for Obama; state after state he gets 80+% of the black vote. While Obama is getting 40-60% of the white vote. It's fairly obvious that the black community is primarily voting on race lines, while whites votes are based on other issues.

Perhaps, white and brown voters are afraid to be called racists or that they hate females...take your pick....

Since the economy will be worse next year followed by the worst Christmas ever - there will be a bigger let down if Obama wins....the media that supports him will turn against him in a hurry. So, I wonder what he will do? Invade Iran?

It has been a race based election so far. Just look at the black votes for Obama; state after state he gets 80+% of the black vote. While Obama is getting 40-60% of the white vote. It's fairly obvious that the black community is primarily voting on race lines, while whites votes are based on other issues.

How do you know the black people aren't voting on issues too?

Very few people vote on issues...they all vote on emotions....otherwise we would not be in this mess.

How do you know the black people aren't voting on issues too?

From : http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/exit.polls/index.html
"Obama racked up margins of more than 90 percent among Pennsylvania's black voters"

Do you really think that this is because of "issues" and not race ???
And the race margins weren't much different in other state primaries.

How do you know the black people aren't voting on issues too?

Its absurd if he insinuated they did not.Blacks are extremely passionate about the issues at hand and the vote from a black person better mean a instant change,the black voters are your strictest voters when it comes to the issues at hand due to oppression,gentrification hitting black communities badly,its quite hard to get some to even vote because they are convinced anyone thats affiliated with the government is crooked,however this Obama guy is changing that and bringing massive amounts out,this is why Hilary is expected to lose definetly in North Carolina and will likely be crushed in Indiana.

What Grandma Billary supports or some as well as the conservatives will argue is that Obama only has the black vote,the man has the overall much bigger support and popularity than Clinton and Mcpain.

Both candidates have basically same issues....then 90% black vote means it is all emotion...let us face it....

Both candidates have basically same issues....then 90% black vote means it is all emotion...let us face it....

The emotion is result of the issue at hand.If oppression is a problem the vote will be for those they truly think can make a change.They are connected,the issues are what most voters voting for.The republicans have destroyed the economy,people are struggling,houses are lost,gentrification is in high effect,healthcare is some shit.Oh do trust this election the issues are biggest at hand.Damn iraq,the issues within this country are the biggest concern with many Democrats(REAL DEMOCRATS).

Both candidates have basically same issues....then 90% black vote means it is all emotion...let us face it....

LOL, nobody wants to admit 90% of black voters in PA voted for Obama because of race. Or any of the other states he got a landslide of black votes over Hillary. I guess it's not very politically correct to point such things out. :eek:

From : http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/exit.polls/index.html
"Obama racked up margins of more than 90 percent among Pennsylvania's black voters"

Do you really think that this is because of "issues" and not race ???
And the race margins weren't much different in other state primaries.

NO NO NO,your statements lack credibility.You came to the forefront with a poor assumption that cannot proven by anything but what you would probably want to think.Without a doubt some are voting because he is black,however if being black is the only case answer me why Sharptons popularity was never this big? All or most blacks do not just vote on race,that is a pathethic assumption conservatives think based on there ignorance that blacks are quick to shit on a candidate that fails to make an actual change.As DC black residents about black ex-mayor Anthony Williams.

Obama being black signifys change,his debate skills,his plan and his popularity further fuel the black support to finally nominate what was thought to be the impossible 10 years ago.The first black president who really would make a positive change.

SILLY stop it.Your statements lack credibility.You came to the forefront with a poor assumption that cannot verified by anything but what you would probably want to think.Without a doubt many are voting because he is black,however if being black is the case answer me why Sharptons popularity was never this big? All or most blacks do not just vote on race,that is a pathethic assumption conservatives think based on there ignorance that blacks are quick to shit on a candidate that fails to make an actual change.As DC black residents about black ex-mayor Anthony Williams.

Oh Really ?
If 90% of white voters in PA (and the other states) voted for Hillary, you can bet your bank account that people would be attributing that to race, and not issues. :rolleyes:
Like I say, it's just not politically correct to point out that much of the 90% of blacks that voted for Obama was based on race.

Oh Really ?
If 90% of white voters in PA (and the other states) voted for Hillary, you can bet your bank account that people would be attributing that to race, and not issues. :rolleyes:
Like I say, it's just not politically correct to point out that much of the 90% of blacks that voted for Obama was based on race.

Please stop the justification for such a poor argument.First off to even compare the white voters to the black voters is absurd.Oppression exist bigtime within the black community,the issues are affecting them big at hand,Katrina disaster and its failed policies are on the minds of these black voters,who can prevent these natural disasters from mostly affecting them,to insinuate that they are not hung on the issues is by far stupid,foolish and plain ole delusion.Just because you have 80 percent of a certain group basing there judgement on sex or race does not mean you can hop on the larger margins of the other group and say its race related only.That logic is by far poor and cannot be justified so such statements should not be made.If blacks vote specifically on race answer my question to why the popularity of Sharpton never rose well with Black voters?

Point exactly.Your argument is poor,unfound,unproven,incorrect.You generalize which is not a wise thing to do.

Please stop the justification for such a poor argument.First off to even compare the white voters to the black voters is absurd.Oppression exist bigtime within the black community,the issues are affecting them big at hand,Katrina disaster and its failed policies are on the minds of these black voters,who can prevent these natural disasters from mostly affecting them,to insinuate that they are not hung on the issues is by far stupid,foolish and plain ole delusion.Just because you have 80 percent of a certain group basing there judgement on sex or race does not mean you can hop on the larger margins of the other group and say its race related only.That logic is by far poor and cannot be justified so such statements should not be made.If blacks vote specifically on race answer my question to why the popularity of Sharpton never rose well with Black voters?

Point exactly.Your argument is poor,unfound,unproven,incorrect.You generalize which is not a wise thing to do.


Like I said, if 90% of white voters in PA (and the other states) voted for Hillary, you can bet your bank account that people would be attributing that to race. :D

Like I said, if 90% of white voters in PA (and the other states) voted for Hillary, you can bet your bank account that people would be attributing that to race. :D

I dont care what you said,The fact is your argument is poor,incorrect,unfound,unproven,untrue no matter what you say or do so just stop these poor attempts to justify such a foolish statement that has no credibility.And you still refuse to answer my question in regards to Sharpton andhis lack of support from basically the world,he was black!,he was a democrat,he spoke change,why didnt the black and brown back him?

Your statements cannot be justified.;)

And you still refuse to answer my question in regards to Sharpton andhis lack of support from basically the world,he was black!,he was a democrat,he spoke change,why didnt the black and brown back him?

I don't "refuse" to answer your question.
I just can't find poll results to confirm or deny that Sharpton got a large majority of votes from the black community in 2004. Can you find those results ?

I don't "refuse" to answer your question.
I just can't find poll results to confirm or deny that Sharpton got a large majority of votes from the black community in 2004. Can you find those results ?
Oh please!,you dont need no results to know Sharptons populary was not even a pebble of Obamas.Just stop trying.:rolleyes:

Oh please!,you dont need no results to know Sharptons populary was not even a pebble of Obamas.Just stop trying.:rolleyes:

But I do; you're arguement was that Sharpton didn't get a large black vote in the 2004 election like Obama is now. Yet you and I can't find proof to verify your statement.

I don't think Sharpton was on the ballot in 2004.

Oppression exist bigtime within the black community,the issues are affecting them big at hand,Katrina disaster and its failed policies are on the minds of these black voters,.........

Most large cities where there is a decent black population have black mayors, councilman etc. including New Orleans during Katrina. The Louisiana Small Business Administration is headed by a black with a large black staff. So, if there is opression going on...it could be self inflicted....

But I do; you're arguement was that Sharpton didn't get a large black vote in the 2004 election like Obama is now. Yet you and I can't find proof to verify your statement.
SHARPTON WAS NOT OVERALL AS POPULAR AS OBAMA PERIOD,BLACK,WHITE,WHATEVER.YOUR ARGUMENT IS STILL UNFOUND,UNPROVEN,ILLOGICAL,WHY EVEN MAKE IT? YOU HAVE NO PROOF,NO ANYTHING.YOUR JUST BLABBERING.:rolleyes:

LORD_VOLDEMORT,

Clinton seems to be able to ultimately by popular vote win Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico which are key to the WH. Obama will not take those State from McCain and hence we'll be stuck with Mr. 100 years more war man.

You want that?!?!?!?

If no then accept the facts.

While I like Obama a lot, I'd like him a lot more if he did the right thing and acquiesce to VP so we can get on with fixing the country. THAT'S the right thing to do and if he really cared about the USA he'd do it.

Michael

LORD_VOLDEMORT,

Clinton seems to be able to ultimately by popular vote win Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico which are key to the WH. Obama will not take those State from McCain and hence we'll be stuck with Mr. 100 years more war man.

You want that?!?!?!?

If no then accept the facts.

While I like Obama a lot, I'd like him a lot more if he did the right thing and acquiesce to VP so we can get on with fixing the country. THAT'S the right thing to do and if he really cared about the USA he'd do it.

Michael


Mccain does not have a chance in the general election.Obamas popularity greatly outdoes his,polling is out of wack at this point,this early in the election.Mccain will never get the vote of African americans or college voters,he would struggle among Latinos and other groups,lets not fall for the propaganda.Obama is likely to win the democratic nomination and definetly the presidential election.His abilities to close gaps are unstoppable,given a state as loyal to Clinton as PA,for him to even close the gap by 10 points is still by far a concern for Clintons future abilities in the states ahead.She is going to be demolished in the states ahead,she does not have the popularity,the skills to catch up to Obama who will only further widen his margin in the states ahead,especially since none left are extremely pro-Clinton such as PA.Those are the facts.Mr.100 years would have to pull some crooked bullshit to win this election that is expected to be the most easiest election to figure out,the media makes money pretending its a brewing battle going down,it attracts more viewers,readers,brings in far more money.That is why you have comedy shows joking about Petraues sucking up to Obama saying things like"""I'M NOT SAYING THIS ONLY BECAUSE YOUR GOING TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES" as people laughed,because its actually so obvious,only a serious stump or something damaging is going to slow Obamas momentum.Remember

CONTROVERSY SELLS.

I agree that the media hype things but I also think they gave Obama a pass early on that he is not gong to ever enjoy again.

Also, a Clinton Obama ticket seems like a really great team to me.

Sure, all things equal I'm leaning Obama BUT I still think an Obama-X team has a chance of losing. A Clinton-Obama team has no chance of losing.

WHY TAKE THE RISK!?!?!?

What is more important here - that Obama win or that the USA get a good team and things get fixed???

Surely you can see my point?

Rationality in politics? That will be the day....

LOL, nobody wants to admit 90% of black voters in PA voted for Obama because of race. Or any of the other states he got a landslide of black votes over Hillary. I guess it's not very politically correct to point such things out. :eek:

Of course blacks are voting on race. Older white women are voting on gender. Some people are voting against Obama on race. There may be some voting against Hilary on gender.

People loyal to Bill are voting for Hillary. People voting on name recognition are voting for Hilary.

You can play reverend Wright as being about patriotism and not about race but I don't think blacks question reverend Wright's patriotism and I don't question reverend Wright's patriotism. The reverend Wright mess was about race and about political correctness. Reverend Wright told the truth and America demands that we all protect the lies "liberty and justice for all". Obama has proved that you can become president while black so long as you act white and do not associate with any angry blacks who look and sound like angry blacks. I am white but the more I here reverend Wright the more I like reverend Wright. I love people who bluntly tell uncomfortable truths the way reverend Wright does, but most Americans hate people who bluntly tell uncomfortable truths the way reverend Wright does.

Most Americans don't like people who like people who tell uncomfortable truths therefore Obama will have a hard time becoming president.

What could be more important than whether or not the candidate wheres a flag pin?

Because it has been exposed that OBama does not wear flag pins we now know that Obama is an America hater, and a communist who will send our children to Arabia to be brainwashed into becoming homosexual communist Muslims by Obama's Islamofascist terrorist radical liberal backers.


Name one historical American hero that has worn a Lapel pen? MLK, JFK, Reagan, RFK, etc. Did any these guys where lapel pens? And do you wear a Lapel pin?

Of course blacks are voting on race. Older white women are voting on gender. Some people are voting against Obama on race. There may be some voting against Hilary on gender.

People loyal to Bill are voting for Hillary. People voting on name recognition are voting for Hilary.

You can play reverend Wright as being about patriotism and not about race but I don't think blacks question reverend Wright's patriotism and I don't question reverend Wright's patriotism. The reverend Wright mess was about race and about political correctness. Reverend Wright told the truth and America demands that we all protect the lies "liberty and justice for all". Obama has proved that you can become president while black so long as you act white and do not associate with any angry blacks who look and sound like angry blacks. I am white but the more I here reverend Wright the more I like reverend Wright. I love people who bluntly tell uncomfortable truths the way reverend Wright does, but most Americans hate people who bluntly tell uncomfortable truths the way reverend Wright does.

Most Americans don't like people who like people who tell uncomfortable truths therefore Obama will have a hard time becoming president.


Did Blacks vote on Race when they Supported Ben Cardin over Michael Steele? NO!! Did blacks vote on Race when Ed Rendell ran against Lynn Swann NO! Did Blacks vote on Race when Al sharpton ran against John Edwards in the SC primaries? NO. You have no historical references to support your accusations.

But I do; you're arguement was that Sharpton didn't get a large black vote in the 2004 election like Obama is now. Yet you and I can't find proof to verify your statement.

But I can, that what makes me smarter then you;)


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/SC/index.html

But I can, that what makes me smarter then you;)


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/SC/index.html

Good investigating.
I still think race had a lot to do with why 90% of the blacks in PA voted for Obama.
It'd be hard to deny, that if 90% of the white's voted for Clinton over Obama, people would suspect race had something to do with it. I sure would. ;)

Black people have unique issues, perhaps they finally feel Obama is someone who will deal with them, or at least identify with them better than a white woman, although Bill was very popular among African-Americans.

It is politically incorrect to say this:

A large number of whites will vote for a black candidate either on issues or saying they are not racists. But a large number of blacks will vote for a black candidate because he is the brother....that may help them better than a white person.

Of course blacks are voting on race. Older white women are voting on gender. Some people are voting against Obama on race. There may be some voting against Hilary on gender.

People loyal to Bill are voting for Hillary. People voting on name recognition are voting for Hilary.

You can play reverend Wright as being about patriotism and not about race but I don't think blacks question reverend Wright's patriotism and I don't question reverend Wright's patriotism. The reverend Wright mess was about race and about political correctness. Reverend Wright told the truth and America demands that we all protect the lies "liberty and justice for all". Obama has proved that you can become president while black so long as you act white and do not associate with any angry blacks who look and sound like angry blacks. I am white but the more I here reverend Wright the more I like reverend Wright. I love people who bluntly tell uncomfortable truths the way reverend Wright does, but most Americans hate people who bluntly tell uncomfortable truths the way reverend Wright does.

Most Americans don't like people who like people who tell uncomfortable truths therefore Obama will have a hard time becoming president.


The Wright issue is not damaging Obama at all,the only pricks paying attention to that is the conservatives and even among them many of there wish is for people to get over this isss fearing that it could backfire on the republicans who are trying toi spread chaos in the race.This is why Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to keep that North Carolina Wright ad from being played.They fear a backlash and the conservative country bitch who is responsible for airing it like the typical country stubborn slag who wont bow down from her pathethic actions refuses to take them down.Obama is going to be the likely president,the media plays on the minds of people on basis of CONTROVERSY SELLS.The reality is Mccain does not have een half the support Obama has regardless what anyone says.There is no MCCAIN mania throughout the world,or even clinton.Obama is the most popular presidential candidate in american history so the only way he loses is if something really damaging comes up (which i doubt)or Mccain will have to cheat.

But I can, that what makes me smarter then you;)


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/SC/index.html

GET EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMMMMMMMM!
:D

Terrorists know how to exploit nationalistic rage in dropping the effective US Collective IQ enough to ensure a McSame victory, which will perpetuate our most self-defeating US policies. Sadly, the inherent collective USAmerican IQ is beneath understanding this, and so our destiny is at the mercy of a few bomb-throwers.

Terrorists or neocons? Fear is a powerful motivator for all sides...

http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=2798679275960015727&esrc=sr5&ev=v&len=3552&q=%22the+power+of+nightmares%22&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D2798679275960015727&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D2798679275960015727% 26q%3D%2522the%2Bpower%2Bof%2Bnightmares%2522%26to tal%3D481%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3 Dsearch%26plindex%3D4%26hl%3Den-GB&usg=AL29H206TvGWJ9WwT1DecX7k-JFmUZD-MA

http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=4602171665328041876&esrc=sr2&ev=v&len=3553&q=%22the+power+of+nightmares%22&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D4602171665328041876&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D4602171665328041876% 26q%3D%2522the%2Bpower%2Bof%2Bnightmares%2522%26to tal%3D481%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3 Dsearch%26plindex%3D1%26hl%3Den-GB&usg=AL29H21AVoObsEni1mNlVB70FHiZh0QsbA

http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=2081592330319789254&esrc=sr6&ev=v&len=3581&q=%22the+power+of+nightmares%22&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D2081592330319789254&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D2081592330319789254% 26q%3D%2522the%2Bpower%2Bof%2Bnightmares%2522%26to tal%3D481%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3 Dsearch%26plindex%3D5%26hl%3Den-GB&usg=AL29H22qnaGpb5Bpm2dvDTvFqwR5sWS7zA

kmguru: "Fear is a powerful motivator for all sides..."

Sharply elevating fear does not promote the side, or cause of reason in the USA. Regarding the definitive choices ahead in the USA, there are two opposing sides that concern me most: On one side there are USAmericans who recognize our naked hubristic vulnerabilities to terrorist provocation and blinding fear. On the other side are the apparent majority, reassured by major media, angered by terrorists, who allow these influences to primarily shape their perceptions, and who are loathe to confront the reality of our unprecedented moral and economic isolation in the eyes of the world around us. Obama's hopeful offer of opportunity for positive change may not stand a chance, if fear and rage are amplified as we near November. It would be difficult for the Obama campaign to even broach this topic, without triggering the dynamic whereby the dysfunctional defense-mechanisms of our insecure nationalism beat down reason. I believe the danger is so great that his campaign should confront it directly, openly, and soon. When push comes to shove, Obama's oblique "I can kick some ass too" insinuations won't carry the day. Either USAmericans will learn the alternatives to belligerent compliance with the intents of terrorism, or we will fall deeper into that trap, and cheer for a strongman to lead us into hell. To expect that those who goaded us into our present quagmires will sit back in this year of decision is naïve.

Because we have debated and learned so little of substance in the USA about the psychology of national provocation, this dark potential for a new breakdown in national reason overshadows every other factor in the coming election.

Because we have debated and learned so little of substance in the USA about the psychology of national provocation, this dark potential for a new breakdown in national reason overshadows every other factor in the coming election.

I did watch the 3 part BBC documentary. The whole thing boils down to interest groups that want to dominate the world affairs. In the past, groups starting their own religion using charismatic leaders, and more recently using politics and fear as the base of change.

Pastors all over, be it Christianity or Hinduism use fear as the sermon to push their agenda...that is nothing new. It occurs to me that if we use "terrorism" as the fear factor to rule, people will freeze to do anything and this time the whole society will suffer.

That is where we are today and the matter will not resolve itself. We are heading to fall off a cliff very soon.

Based on the history, Obama the charismatic leader, will get the support from the neocons...as long as he tows their line just like Bill Clinton. When he does not, they will cut him down....just like Bill Clinton....

Pastors all over, be it Christianity or Hinduism use fear as the sermon to push their agenda...that is nothing new. It occurs to me that if we use "terrorism" as the fear factor to rule, people will freeze to do anything and this time the whole society will suffer.

That is where we are today and the matter will not resolve itself. We are heading to fall off a cliff very soon.

To deny or belittle the fact there's radical muslim terrorists in the world, happily willing to blow themselves and 100+ innocent people with them, is naive to say the least.
Most people realize the people downplaying terrorism are leftists, which isn't a surprise since many left-wing radicals are empathetic to terrorist attacks on innocent people; especially if they're "fascist" westerners.........
They love to use terrorist attacks for their perverted anti-US propoganda.

To deny or belittle the fact there's radical muslim terrorists in the world, happily willing to blow themselves and 100+ innocent people with them, is naive to say the least.

I agree. While we are painting these people naive, do not forget to do the same to people to try to solve this issue with Billions of dollars of programs that creates more radicals so that they can spend more of your money....may be they are the smart ones....and the public is naive...

Cazzo: "the people downplaying terrorism are leftists, which isn't a surprise since many left-wing radicals are empathetic to terrorist attacks on innocent people"

That's utterly baseless. There are terrorists, terrorized, reactionaries, and rationalists in every broad ideological category. There are very few in any camp that advocate terrorism, but especially in the USA it is more common to misreact with reactionism, just as terrorism intends.

To deny or belittle the fact there's radical muslim terrorists in the world, happily willing to blow themselves and 100+ innocent people with them, is naive to say the least.

No one is denying it, however, Terrorism isn't a recent phenomenon. Humans have engaged in mass killings of the innocent for centuries. No *war* can control the actions of a psychotic suicide bomber. The worst acts of terrorism is taking place in Darfur. Where hundreds of thousands of civilians have been executed needlessly. So to say you actually care about the innocent dying seems to be very selective.





Most people realize the people downplaying terrorism are leftistswhich isn't a surprise since many left-wing radicals are empathetic to terrorist attacks on innocent people; especially if they're "fascist" westerners.........
They love to use terrorist attacks for their perverted anti-US propoganda.


He adds that even including the September 11 attacks, the number of Americans killed by terrorists since records on this were kept is about the same as those killed by lightning, accident-causing deer or severe allergic reaction to peanuts

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article616813.ece


We should be having a War against Automobiles Cazzo, since they take allot more lives then Terrorism. But it's true that Conservatives like you just choose to ignore it.


Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

In 2003 there were 6,328,000 car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million injuries and 42,643 people were killed in auto accidents.

In 2002, there were an estimated 6,316,000 car accidents in the USA. There were about 2.9 million injuries and 42,815 people were killed in auto accidents in 2002.





There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There were about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents in 2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration


So, over 40,000 people die every year in Auto accidents. Can you please tell me how many people are killed per year in terrorist attacks? Thank you in advance.

Tom Plate / Syndicated columnist

Obama wins the "World Primary"
LOS ANGELES — OK, so he did lose the Pennsylvania primary but might Barack Obama be otherwise elected King of the World?

Let's imagine that there was one additional presidential primary added to the endless mix that helps determine who will next occupy the White House. It would be an imaginary primary for all those people in the world who cannot vote in American elections because, well, they are foreigners.

Let's call it the World Primary.

We're not just talking Canada and Mexico here. Sure, they have to live right next to us, so perhaps a few of them should be designated as honorary superdelegates, in respect of their gallant, if sometimes pained, propinquity.

But people from Pakistan to Venezuela to Iraq are immensely affected by the economic, as well as political, decisions of the president of the United States. Even indeed North Korea, which tends to pride itself on being isolated from the rest of the world, can hardly hope to escape the long reach of an American president's policies.

So what if a World Primary were held now? Who would be the world's choice?

No formal statistics exist, of course. The world isn't being polled on this question, precisely because it doesn't get to vote. But a recent trip abroad convinced me that, as of this moment, Barack Obama would win a World Primary, hands down.

Sure, a good measure of genuine respect exists almost everywhere for Sen. John McCain, especially from older citizens around the globe. A war hero is a hero, period, even if the war in question was ill-conceived. And, of course, Hillary Clinton's husband remains a popular figure in many parts of the world, his eight years of personal flaws and policy indecisions notwithstanding. And many women respect Hillary Clinton's record of public service.

But the imagined fact of the matter is, the junior senator from Illinois would win the World Primary. He projects to the rest of the world as the New Frontier candidate of the 21st century. Much of the world imagines that an Obama presidency would offer the idealism of a Woodrow Wilson and the youthful vigor of a John Kennedy — absent the peevish arrogance of George W. Bush or the embarrassing personal peccadilloes of an all-too-human Bill Clinton.

Imagination is not reality, of course. Obama might well be nominated and prove the second coming of abject Democratic campaign failures George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. Or the relatively young politician could be elected and prove the second coming of abject White House failure Jimmy Carter.

But there's no denying that an Obama presidency would present to the world a striking departure from the usual.

Many Africans would of course toast the development to the heavens; many Muslims would find considerable comfort in the election of a Christian who nonetheless has the middle name of Hussein. In Asia, the now-surging continent of ever-increasing optimism, Obama would be hailed as opening a new chapter in a more nuanced, sensitive and cosmopolitan U.S. foreign policy.

An astute temperature-taker of Asian opinion is Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, author of the grandly provocative new book "The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East," and a globe-trotting, world-class diplomat. The dean believes Obama's election would prove so enormously electric that perhaps as much as 50 percent of global anti-Americanism could dissipate virtually overnight.

People respond to the senator's optimism, eloquence and evident vision. Anti-American or not, most are eager for the U.S. to elect a politician who brings out the best in everyone.

This column is not an endorsement, but simply a report. There are many months to go before the direct two-man (or man-woman) face-off is a fact. But the Democrats in general (and the Hillary Clinton campaign in particular) would do everyone a favor if they were to unite around the man who lived briefly in Indonesia, much longer than in Hawaii, and who continually gives the world the impression of the United States of America no longer as the same old, tired self.

Or so our imaginary World Primary would suggest.

UCLA professor Tom Plate is a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy and the Burkle Center for International Relations.



:D

PUNCH EM B!!!!!!

Let's call it the World Primary.

Why not call it one mans opinion which is what it really is.

Why not call it one mans opinion which is what it really is.

UM NO!

Obama being much more popular than Mccain and Clinton are facts,in fact i have much more sources,links,facts,references.OBAMA MANIA EXIST BIGTIME.THERE IS NO HILARY MANIA,THAT IS A FACT,NOT AN OPINION.SO PLEASE LETS NOT RESPOND WITH DELUSIONS IN ATTEMPT TO FEEL LIKE YOUR HILARY,WHOSE POPULARITY IS NOT HALF THAT OF OBAMAS WORLDWIDE DUE TO THE COLOR OF HER SKIN HAS AS BIG AS A FANBASE.;)

Obama won't be President.

well as the US election is a popular topic here too and australians seem to know more about the policies of each candiate than the adverage american does i would have to say i agree with you. In australia obama is seen as both good for the US and good for Australia as well. This could be because he is the leftest of all the candiates which means he is closer to our political parties compared to either hillery OR Mcaine (and no i dont just mean the left side of our politics but rather that the US left is to the right of our right side)

...Australians seem to know more about the policies of each candiate than the adverage american does...
Hell, Aussies let the Brits strand them on some distant larger island.

Americans kicked the Brit's asses back to their little island.

No Aussie is America's better.

I'd vote Obama. It seems guaranteed to cause the most upset.
Americans kicked the Brit's asses back to their little island.
We're eternally grateful.

Man vs. machine I always bet on the machine. Thus in the Diebold vs. Obama match I put money on the prearranged winner....

Obama's a favourite down under too. Seriously.

challanger i all ready said that:p

While Hillary Clinton snagged the biggest-name backer of the day, Barack Obama has reportedly added two more superdelegates to his fold.

Richard Machaceck, a Democratic National Committee member from Iowa, has declared for Obama after the Illinois senator won 16 of the 29 national convention delegates at stake in congressional district conventions over the weekend, the Des Moines Register is reporting.

And the Associated Press says US Representative Ben Chandler of Kentucky, grandson of a former two-time governor of the Bluegrass state, is supporting Obama as well.

Clinton is hoping that the endorsement of North Carolina Governor Mike Easley might lead to a couple other superdelegates down the line.

Obama continues to eat away at Clinton's lead among the elected officials and party leaders who are likely to determine the Democratic nominee. Less than 300 of the nearly 800 superdelegates have yet to declare their preference. Obama already leads in total delegates and total popular vote.


AFTER WRIGHT

AFTER BILLARYS KITCHEN KNIFE WHATEVER STRATEGY

HE CONTINUES TO SNATCH SUPEREDELEGATES AWAY.HE HAS EARNED LIKE 82 TO HER 14 IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS


Wow i told you Ultra Cons America is not falling for it this go round.They fiend for change to much,all this jibberish and the media bashing on Wright who appears to many now as being down to earth while the media plays to the role of those rednecks(thats what we cityfolk call dem)living in the backwoods.

GET EM B!:D

Terrorism's pawns will ever shrink from any such challenge.