More than likely, Obama will be the dem's choice to go against McCain.

If Obama loses the presidential election vs. McCain (especially if it's another close election) :
1. Do you think there will be race riots in the U.S. ?
2. Do you think there will be more conspiracy theories of "disenfranchised" voters ?
3. Do you think there will be more conspiracy theories of a "stolen election" ?

If McCain wins there will be an exodus.

More than likely, Obama will be the dem's choice to go against McCain.

If Obama loses the presidential election vs. McCain (especially if it's another close election) :
1. Do you think there will be race riots in the U.S. ?
2. Do you think there will be more conspiracy theories of "disenfranchised" voters ?
3. Do you think there will be more consipracy theories of a "stolen election" ?

for numbers 2 and 3 if there are the same reports coming from places like in the last 2 elections than yes. and for bush they aren't conspiracy theories there is solid evidence to make said claims.

If McCain wins there will be an exodus.

Yeah. Sure. An exodus.

More likely there will simply be a lot of liberals bitching for four years... but doing absolutely nothing about it. It's the American way.

~String

Yeah. Sure. An exodus.

More likely there will simply be a lot of liberals bitching for four years... but doing absolutely nothing about it. It's the American way.

~String

The first thing he will do is reinstate the draft. ;)

The first thing he will do is reinstate the draft. ;)

Sure. With a Democratic controlled Congress on one hand and a nation, hostile to the war, on the other? Nope. Just like Bush, Sr. wouldn't raise taxes and Bill Clinton would allow gays in the military. Promises sound nice but carrying out the big ones is a bit more difficult.

~String

The first thing he will do is reinstate the draft. ;)

that would be political suicide in the states

It's unfortunate. I think an actual force drawn from the populace would be a good thing for a Republic from a societal standpoint.

1. Do you think there will be race riots in the U.S. ?

Maybe in a few places but it'll be less like a political riot and more like looters who use any excuse to break the law.

2. Do you think there will be more conspiracy theories of "disenfranchised" voters ?

Absolutely. No shortage of theorists here.

3. Do you think there will be more conspiracy theories of a "stolen election" ?

My god I can here the pissing and moaning already,which is funny because the dems are trying to break all of their own rules as we speak.

Look, I don't care if the candidate is purple, In America today they need to secure the white male vote to win. That would've been a lot easier without all the reverend wright/william ayers crap that Obamason surrounds himself with.

Voter disenfranchisement is not a conspiracy theory, LOL...

Probably not stories on a "stolen election" unless McCain loses (as I am expecting). After Kerry's loss in '04, news stories such as Diebold machines counting more votes for Bush in a district than total number of voters in a district were not considered even as minor stories.

If McCain wins there will be an exodus.

I will be booking a flight the instant I ever hear McCain won... T_T

Hopefully the government is smart enough to forsee this and take appropriate precautions.

They are already well aware of it, and have chosen not to take appropriate actions.

I will be booking a flight the instant I ever hear McCain won... T_T

What? why?

Impressive trolling, SAM.

Impressive trolling, SAM.

;)...

2008 Republican presidential hopeful Senator John McCain of Arizona has repeatedly stated that he's against reinstating the military draft, but he's taken strong stands before only to dramatically reverse positions at a later date. Case in point, he voted against AmeriCorps, a federal program launched by President Bill Clinton in 1993. It can best be described as a domestic version of the Peace Corps where thousands of young volunteers help build houses and provide education for the needy. At this time, the program numbers 50,000 volunteers, paling against the much more robust Peace Corps.

In 2001, McCain did another 180-degree turn, and co-sponsored the Call to Service Act with Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana. "The all-volunteer military is looking for lifers," said McCain, "not those who might want to serve for shorter tours of duty. The one exception to this trend is AmeriCorps, the program of national service begun by President Bill Clinton."

The Call to Service Act would have quadrupled the size of AmeriCorps to 250,000 volunteers, specifically adding and beefing up the "citizen-soldier" arm of the program known as the National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC). Of Clinton's 50,000 AmeriCorps volunteers, the NCCC program consisted of 1000 volunteers. The reason for McCain's turnaround view of AmeriCorps was that he saw the NCCC part of the program as a way to greatly increase the size of the military without reinstating a draft.

In his article for The Washington Monthly, "Putting the 'National' Back in National Service", McCain wrote, "AmeriCorp's National Civilian Community Corps (is) a service program consciously structured along military lines. NCCC members not only wear uniforms and work in teams, (they also) live together in barracks on former military bases and are deployed to service projects far from their home base."

Source (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/250271/john_mccain_and_the_military_draft.html)


April 2 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain said the U.S. must make building up the military ``an urgent priority'' because of the stress placed on the armed forces by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personnel shortages, while ``acute,'' can be relieved without reviving the draft, he said.

``We waited too long to begin that buildup,'' the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said today in an address in Pensacola, Florida. McCain noted that he long has advocated enlarging U.S. military forces.

Source (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&refer=home&sid=aMzorLmjbISQ)

All the candidates have said they would build up the military.

They are already well aware of it, and have chosen not to take appropriate actions.

Bullshit. Elections are the purview of the state, not the federal government and my state (Ohio, which had an abysmal record for the last eight years) is getting rid of electronic voting altogether.

~String

I could see some rioting only if Obama won the popular vote in the primaries, and recieved more delegates, and Clinton won through the superdelegates. That might be enough to deliver it to McBush.

http://xs226.xs.to/xs226/08155/mcbush481.jpg (http://xs.to)

Race riots if Obama loses ?

What if he doesn't get the nomination? :shrug:

Even if he doesn't win the Democratic nomination he has learned a valuable lesson with which to build upon. :)


If he does win the Democratic nomination and loses the Presidential election, as did many other ppeople in the past, why should anyone be that pissed off about a election that everyone voted on? I'm sure he would stop any type of demonstrations knowing his personality unless he wants to see something happen. :rolleyes:

I could see some rioting only if Obama won the popular vote in the primaries, and recieved more delegates, and Clinton won through the superdelegates. That might be enough to deliver it to McBush.

Come on! He may be a total right wing republican, but he's hardly McBush. As right wingers go, they couldn't be more different. Or, is this simply the fact that all people who don't share your narrow view are all classified as such.

~String

String, this is nothing more than the Democrats attempt to stigmatize McCain before the general election. I covered CPAC in Feb. and the conservatives there, the cock-eyed, Bush-loving, right-wingers, all hate McCain and booed him while he spoke.

I will be booking a flight the instant I ever hear McCain won... T_T

Yeah. You and all the other Hollywood elites who beat their chests and said the same thing when Bush won in 2000 ... and then again in 2004 ... Oh, wait ... They're still here. They didn't leave — and neither will you.

Race riots, really? If he loses fair and square I dont see any reason why that would ever happen, I'm sure people would be upset but i dont think they would riot.

Come on! He may be a total right wing republican, but he's hardly McBush. As right wingers go, they couldn't be more different. Or, is this simply the fact that all people who don't share your narrow view are all classified as such.

~String

mccain to a certain extent has been trying to push himself as bush's heir

Come on! He may be a total right wing republican, but he's hardly McBush. As right wingers go, they couldn't be more different. Or, is this simply the fact that all people who don't share your narrow view are all classified as such.

~String

He's in favor of continuing Bush's neo-con strategy for reforming the Middle East through military power. He opposes any significant reform in health care or investment banking. Maybe he's doesn't have a Karl Rove, but he's just as bad from my POV.

He's in favor of continuing Bush's neo-con strategy for reforming the Middle East through military power. He opposes any significant reform in health care or investment banking. Maybe he's doesn't have a Karl Rove, but he's just as bad from my POV.

All in favor of letting the mideast bomb themselves into oblivion say "I".

All in favor of letting the mideast bomb themselves into oblivion say "I".

I, the region is fucked up enough without us sticking our fingers in it

Ok here is my opinion
But if Obama Wins the election he will get assassinated and if Clinton wins we r all gonna hate her
and if McCain wins its gonna be WWIII in Iraq
so What else can we do?

Ok here is my opinion
But if Obama Wins the election he will get assassinated and if Clinton wins we r all gonna hate her
and if McCain wins its gonna be WWIII in Iraq
so What else can we do?

You're wrong on so many levels, I would suggest reading through some of the other politics threads. There are some smart people here on all sides of the issues.

You're wrong on so many levels, I would suggest reading some through the other politics threads. There are some smart people here on all sides of the issues.

yes and there are also some really stupid people here

He's in favor of continuing Bush's neo-con strategy for reforming the Middle East through military power. He opposes any significant reform in health care or investment banking. Maybe he's doesn't have a Karl Rove, but he's just as bad from my POV.

Oh! So... um... he's a Republican and not a Democrat. Wow... thanks for the pointing out the obvious.

~String

yes and there are also some really stupid people here

:D What'd you call me?

Oh! So... um... he's a Republican and not a Democrat. Wow... thanks for the pointing out the obvious.

~String

Not just a traditional republican, but a Neo-Con.

Ok here is my opinion
But if Obama Wins the election he will get assassinated and if Clinton wins we r all gonna hate her
and if McCain wins its gonna be WWIII in Iraq


so What else can we do?

Just vote for your choice and hope they don't fuck us up any more than we have been already! :eek:

Bullshit. Elections are the purview of the state, not the federal government and my state (Ohio, which had an abysmal record for the last eight years) is getting rid of electronic voting altogether.

~String

I know. Some places are better than others, but for the most part, the knowledge of our highly poor election standards and inaction are collective in all the various regions.

What? why?

Suggestion of Republicans. "If you're not with us, get out.", etc. :p

He's in favor of continuing Bush's neo-con strategy for reforming the Middle East through military power. He opposes any significant reform in health care or investment banking. Maybe he's doesn't have a Karl Rove, but he's just as bad from my POV.

Then you lack the ability to seperate and discern. Though I don't particularly care for either of them McCain and Bush are disimilar in a number of policy arenas. Seizing on a trio of issues and claiming this is intellectucal foundation for the sort of crude labelling you have done is ridiculous.

Suggestion of Republicans. "If you're not with us, get out.", etc. :p

Then go — if you're really serious. Nobody's stopping you now. Why wait for an election result? I mean, if your attachment to your nation is entirely dependent on a certain political party or ideology being in power, then you aren't much of an American, in my opinion. We'd probably be better off without you.

Come on! He may be a total right wing republican, but he's hardly McBush. As right wingers go, they couldn't be more different. One could be Democrat, say Clinton, or Libertarian, like Ron Paul. But you meant standard Republican, probably - not much of a range there, since the Great Purge of Gingrich.

McCain, like W (and H before) looks like a continuation of Reagan, administratively. That had far more to do with W's disasters than W's personality quirks or "social conservative" campaign bait. From an executive point of view - and that's the job - McCain looks quite a bit like Reagan, H, - and W.

The more likely public comparison (since no accurate description of the spectacularly bad Reaganomics is possible in US public discourse), if McCain wins over Obama, will be with Hoover. And any draft will be "voluntary", into WPA style projects.

Not much of a range there.

McCain, like W (and H before) looks like a continuation of Reagan, administratively. That had far more to do with W's disasters than W's personality quirks or "social conservative" campaign bait. From an executive point of view - and that's the job - McCain looks quite a bit like Reagan, H, - and W.

I know Reagan is akin to Satan to you, but Reagan was a competent executive in ways W. can't even imagine.

Yeah. You and all the other Hollywood elites who beat their chests and said the same thing when Bush won in 2000 ... and then again in 2004 ... Oh, wait ... They're still here. They didn't leave — and neither will you.

lol. Can you tell me the name of one Hollywood elite who said they were going to move out because of Bush getting elected? Not that it matters, but I think you're wrong.

Anyway... I did say the same thing in 04 (though I did not mean until 09 when I will graduate). I said to myself Americans can reap what they sow, and I won't stick around for it.

Now, though, I really like it here, which I didn't so much before. How much you like a place is generally determined by a small number of people. I've become rooted with a group of people I don't want to leave. So I'd prefer not to. But I think this country is screwed beyond repair if McCain is President. Even if I had some great opportunity I'd lose by staying here, I most likely wlil not... :O

Then go — if you're really serious. Nobody's stopping you now. Why wait for an election result? I mean, if your attachment to your nation is entirely dependent on a certain political party or ideology being in power, then you aren't much of an American, in my opinion. We'd probably be better off without you.

I'm not going to leave in the middle of University and repeat credits in some other country and end up with a degree that may be worth less.

It is dependent on a ideology being in power. I don't see why it would not be.

Not just a traditional republican, but a Neo-Con.

Oh. In that case... burn him, he's a witch!

I don't know a single conservative Republican who isn't a "neo-con" (such a lovely term we use now...). He's a Republican-- he's conservative. I mean, that comes with the territory. Bush and McCain couldn't be more different as white/male Republicans. The only reason why we perceive Hillary and Obama as so gosh-darned different is because he has a black ding-dong and she has a white hoo-hoo. Inside their skulls, they are both identical party cogs who'll employ the same techniques and attempt to get the same changes made.

Wow... I am humbled before this diversity.

I know. Some places are better than others, but for the most part, the knowledge of our highly poor election standards and inaction are collective in all the various regions.

Agreed.

~String

Hey string I just started reading Dune! Its a great book!

I don't know a single conservative Republican who isn't a "neo-con" (such a lovely term we use now...). He's a Republican-- he's conservative. I mean, that comes with the territory.

I have to disagree with you here. There are plenty of Republicans who aren't Neo-Cons. There was, for example, a story in yesterday's NYT about how the so-called pragmatists from the first Bush administration are battling the Neo-Cons for the right to McCain's ear on foreign policy.

Hey string I just started reading Dune! Its a great book!

Cool... how'd you... er... let's talk about it here: Dune (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71448&highlight=dune)

I have to disagree with you here. There are plenty of Republicans who aren't Neo-Cons. There was, for example, a story in yesterday's NYT about how the so-called pragmatists from the first Bush administration are battling the Neo-Cons for the right to McCain's ear on foreign policy.

Hmmm. Perhaps. But, isn't every conservative and/or Republican just a "neocon" these days to anybody on the left? That was more the point I was making... though, I stand corrected on the premise that all conservative/Repubs are somehow neocons.

~String

I know Reagan is akin to Satan to you, but Reagan was a competent executive - - No, he wasn't. And W had basically the same executive team, not only in ideology but many of the same people - biggest difference was the compliance W could count on from Congress.

What has happened under W is Reaganomics without Congressional resistance. "Competence" is hardly the indicated description. And McCain is heir to all that.

I don't know a single conservative Republican who isn't a "neo-con" There used to be more, the Party is running short - again, Ron Paul the obvious, but there's Huckabee and some others.

But "neo-con" in the loose sense just refers to an allegiance to unabashedly imperial military dominated foreign policy and laissez faire corporate dominated domestic economics. Which fairly describes McCain. That isn't "conservative" at all, really, but what can you do ?

I could see some rioting only if Obama won the popular vote in the primaries, and recieved more delegates, and Clinton won through the superdelegates. That might be enough to deliver it to McBush.

http://xs226.xs.to/xs226/08155/mcbush481.jpg (http://xs.to)

LOL, that's a funny picture.

I have to agree though, some on the left are already stigmatizing and stereotyping McCain before he gets out of his chair. Seeing how McCain has helped put together many bipartisan bills, and is even admired by some democrats in congress, I don't think it's fair to say he's some sort of "neo-con" or "genetic copy of Bush".

The only way there might be race riots is if Hillary manages to somehow cheat Obama out of the nomination via backroom deals with superdelegates despite Obama winning a majority of normal delegates.

I think the likelyhood of Clinton doing something like that is actually pretty high. All she needs is the fig leaf of winning the popular vote (which she could possibly do if you include Florida and Michigan) and she could argue that she deserves the nomination.

I plan to cross party lines and vote for her May 6 in Indiana to increase the likelyhood of a Democratic blowup. I really don't want the most liberal man in the Senate who goes to a church that follows black liberation theology (a doctrine that mixes racism, Christianity, and communism) to be president.

The only way there might be race riots is if Hillary manages to somehow cheat Obama out of the nomination via backroom deals with superdelegates despite Obama winning a majority of normal delegates.

I think the likelyhood of Clinton doing something like that is actually pretty high. All she needs is the fig leaf of winning the popular vote (which she could possibly do if you include Florida and Michigan) and she could argue that she deserves the nomination.

I plan to cross party lines and vote for her May 6 in Indiana to increase the likelyhood of a Democratic blowup. I really don't want the most liberal man in the Senate who goes to a church that follows black liberation theology (a doctrine that mixes racism, Christianity, and communism) to be president.


So you would undermine the democratic process to help your candidate essentially cheat their way into the whitehouse? :(

So you would undermine the democratic process to help your candidate essentially cheat their way into the whitehouse? :(

It's perfectly democratic for a person to vote for whomever they want, or don't want, to win. And when the opponent is considered to be as much of a threat as right wingers do, then I can't see them having an issue with it. Democrats wouldn't bother dispensing with this method either if there were a blood-feud between Republican candidtates either.

~String

Mad I challenge you to bring forth just one example of Obama demonstrating is belief in Black Liberation theology.
As for McCain, I used to like him, and I donated money to his causes. However, when he got in Bush's bed and started snuggling up to him, I had to draw the line. I am sure he saw that as necessary in order to win the Republican nomination. And he has succeeded in that cause. However, in my view, it cost him his soul. I can never trust the man again. So I will not vote for him. With the exception of Iraq, I never know on what side of the fence he is going to be on from day to day. The man has put new meaning into the term flipflop. First he was against intervention in the mortage crisis, then he was for intervention. Who knows where he is at on the issue today?

Mad I challenge you to bring forth just one example of Obama demonstrating is belief in Black Liberation theology.All I know is that Black Liberation Theology is the theology of the church he has been going to for 20 years. Now I'm not one to hold someone responsible for every tenet of their faith, but would we accept a white candidate who went to a church that preached that blacks were evil and the cause of all our problems? Who went to that church for 20 years!?
As for McCain, I used to like him, and I donated money to his causes. However, when he got in Bush's bed and started snuggling up to him, I had to draw the line. I am sure he saw that as necessary in order to win the Republican nomination. And he has succeeded in that cause. However, in my view, it cost him his soul. I can never trust the man again. So I will not vote for him. With the exception of Iraq, I never know on what side of the fence he is going to be on from day to day. The man has put new meaning into the term flipflop. First he was against intervention in the mortage crisis, then he was for intervention. Who knows where he is at on the issue today?I agree. I hate McCain. I just hate Obama and Clinton more. I'm tempted to root for the dems to let them fuck things up and take the blame for it. But with the mortage crisis, falling dollar, etc I'm afraid the economic/environmental policies favored by the dems would push us into a depression. So I've got to throw my support behind that two faced bastard McCain and hope for the best. I'm really hoping he picks a good VP candidate I can at least get excited about (Bobby Jindal? Ron Paul? Romney? Rice? Newt?). I mean, he is pretty old, the VP may just get to sit in the big chair.

...but would we accept a white candidate who went to a church that preached that blacks were evil and the cause of all our problems? Who went to that church for 20 years!?

And there's the $65,000 question!

To answer: No... we wouldn't. The only people in the USA who are allowed to get away with such an act are blacks. We, as white people, just need to accept that... or we're the racists.

~String

No, he wasn't.

Whatever. It's impossible for you to say anything good about Reagan — or any Republicans for that matter — so your criticism, intellectually-speaking, means about as much to me as what I flushed down the commode after lunch today.

And W had basically the same executive team, not only in ideology but many of the same people - biggest difference was the compliance W could count on from Congress.

Really? Shultz works for W? Casey works for W?

But "neo-con" in the loose sense just refers to an allegiance to unabashedly imperial military dominated foreign policy and laissez faire corporate dominated domestic economics.

So now, you define Neo-Conservatism? Exactly how does that happen?

It's perfectly democratic for a person to vote for whomever they want, or don't want, to win. And when the opponent is considered to be as much of a threat as right wingers do, then I can't see them having an issue with it. Democrats wouldn't bother dispensing with this method either if there were a blood-feud between Republican candidtates either.

~String

I just dont find this tactic to be ethical. :shrug:

And there's the $65,000 question!

To answer: No... we wouldn't. The only people in the USA who are allowed to get away with such an act are blacks. We, as white people, just need to accept that... or we're the racists.

~String

I disagree... Firstly because I haven't seen firm establishment that Wright did actually preach that (and I Don't care enough to check :p).

Assuming that is an accurate portrayal of Wright, we do accept plenty from Republican candidates who go to evangelical churches.

I disagree... Firstly because I haven't seen firm establishment that Wright did actually preach that (and I Don't care enough to check :p).

If you support Obama, I find that lack of interest disturbing. Nevertheless, let me help you. From Obama's Church's website: http://www.tucc.org/home.htm
The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.

And here's a quote from one of Dr Cone's books, A Black Theology of Liberation

The definition of Jesus as black is crucial for christology if we truly believer in his continued presence today. Taking our clue from the historical Jesus who is pictured in the New Testament as the Oppressed One, what else, except blackness, could adequately tell us the meaning of his presence today? Any statement about Jesus today that fails to consider blackness as the decisive factor about his person is a denial of the New Testament message. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus reveal that he is the man for others, disclosing to them what is necessary for their liberation from oppression. If this is true, then Jesus Christ must be black so that blacks can know that their liberation is his liberation. . .

The black Christ is he who threatens the structure of evil as seen in white society, rebelling against it, thereby becoming the embodiment of what the black community knows that it must become. . .

To be a disciple of the black Christ is to become black with him. Looting, burning, or the destruction of white property are not primary concerns. Such matters can only be decided by the oppressed themselves who are seeking to develop their images of the black Christ. . .

Whites do not recognize what is happening, and they are thus unable to deal with it. For most whites in power, the black community is a nuisance –something to be considered only when the natives get restless. But what white America fails to realize is the explosive nature of the kingdom. Although its beginning is small, it will have far-reaching effects not only on the black community but on the white community as well. Now is the time to make decisions about loyalties, because soon it will be too late. Shall we or shall we not join the black revolutionary kingdom?
I got the excerpt from this site: http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/03/obamas-marxist-liberation-theology.html

And there's the $65,000 question!

To answer: No... we wouldn't. The only people in the USA who are allowed to get away with such an act are blacks. We, as white people, just need to accept that... or we're the racists.

~String

I don't mind I come from a long line of racist heathen :) My shoulders can bear the burden along with the other stuff I bear. There is a line from a long lost song that bears the truth of my burden:

" if heartaches were horses and hardtimes were cattle, I'd be riding home at sunset sitting tall in the saddle."

Pointing out one religious belief and calling it more ridiculous then the next is like trying to find the most retarded kid on the short bus.

I disagree... Firstly because I haven't seen firm establishment that Wright did actually preach that (and I Don't care enough to check :p).

Well, since you don't care enough to check, or actually seek out the video (which I've seen) where he's made such claims, then that is your ignorance, which ignorance you continue in because you lack the desire to admit you're wrong. Better to remain uninformed than to humble yourself before reality.

Assuming that is an accurate portrayal of Wright, we do accept plenty from Republican candidates who go to evangelical churches.

Is that your best. Exhumed-- going to an all white or all black or "evangelical" (do you have a clue what that word means?**) church does not a racist make. It's the words that are uttered. And if McCain went to an all white church that directly espoused the belief that whites were created superior to minorities, then you'd be all on the bandwagon calling him a racist.

~String

**Evangelical simply means: "of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels". There are other poetic interpretations, but to "evangelize" means to spread the word, so in a sense, Islam and Christianity are both evangelical. Moreover, my parents belong to the Assembly of God which is about as evangelical as you get and it's a pretty mixed crowd, the foremost fact being evident in that one of the pastors is of Korean lineage and the other [the "head pastor"] of [pure] Choctaw lineage.

Pointing out one religious belief and calling it more ridiculous then the next is like trying to find the most retarded kid on the short bus.

What about suicidal cults? How about those religions that espouse the belief that "whites are superior" or that "blacks are superior"? We are humans and we are given the ability to "judge" for a reason, denying that right and obligation is a step towards anarchy. Obama's church is idiotic and their members (the ones who knowingly go despite what the preacher says) are racist idiots.

~String

What about suicidal cults? How about those religions that espouse the belief that "whites are superior" or that "blacks are superior"? We are humans and we are given the ability to "judge" for a reason, denying that right and obligation is a step towards anarchy. Obama's church is idiotic and their members (the ones who knowingly go despite what the preacher says) are racist idiots.

~String

You make it seem like the majority of what is said at their church is hate speach. I very much doubt that. I used to attend a christian church for several years and on occasion my pastor would make remarks that people would find offensive, and Im sure some people in the church did. The message however was an over all positive one. I would assume the case is the same here.

You make it seem like the majority of what is said at their church is hate speach. I very much doubt that. I used to attend a christian church for several years and on occasion my pastor would make remarks that people would find offensive, and Im sure some people in the church did. The message however was an over all positive one. I would assume the case is the same here.

You're joking! So, now you're apologizing for this behavior? Would you so quickly jump to the defense if this were an all white church and the reverend were spouting a message of peace, but peppered with the notion that blacks were just a little immature as a race and they needed white guidance? I doubt it.

This is, yet another case, of white guilt driving people to apologize for another black racist. Sorry. If McCain were knowingly associating with a church that did the same thing we'd have liberals painting their walls with his blood.

~String

More than likely, Obama will be the dem's choice to go against McCain.

If Obama loses the presidential election vs. McCain (especially if it's another close election) :
1. Do you think there will be race riots in the U.S. ?
2. Do you think there will be more conspiracy theories of "disenfranchised" voters ?
3. Do you think there will be more conspiracy theories of a "stolen election" ?

Forget race riots, if McCain wins I'M going to riot!

You're joking! So, now you're apologizing for this behavior? Would you so quickly jump to the defense if this were an all white church and the reverend were spouting a message of peace, but peppered with the notion that blacks were just a little immature as a race and they needed white guidance? I doubt it.

This is, yet another case, of white guilt driving people to apologize for another black racist. Sorry. If McCain were knowingly associating with a church that did the same thing we'd have liberals painting their walls with his blood.

~String

Because... black people didn't enslave whites and oppress them even when laws were passed to make it illegal. I know according to Republicans we all live in a Leave it to Beaver world where everything is just peachy, but for blacks, it was a little bit of a different experience.

You're joking! So, now you're apologizing for this behavior? Would you so quickly jump to the defense if this were an all white church and the reverend were spouting a message of peace, but peppered with the notion that blacks were just a little immature as a race and they needed white guidance? I doubt it.

This is, yet another case, of white guilt driving people to apologize for another black racist. Sorry. If McCain were knowingly associating with a church that did the same thing we'd have liberals painting their walls with his blood.

~String

In the church I went to The pastors comments would sometimes come off as antismetic, or in some cases he would make comments about hispanic people that could be offensive to some. I do not feel the need to apologize for wrights actions, however i feel like painting Obama with the same brush is out of line. John Mcain was happy to accept the endorsment of John Hagee whos comments in the past have been along the same lines as Wrights but I dont see anyone throwing a fit about that.

Maybe in a few places but it'll be less like a political riot and more like looters who use any excuse to break the law.

2. Do you think there will be more conspiracy theories of "disenfranchised" voters ?

Absolutely. No shortage of theorists here.

3. Do you think there will be more conspiracy theories of a "stolen election" ?

My god I can here the pissing and moaning already,which is funny because the dems are trying to break all of their own rules as we speak.

Look, I don't care if the candidate is purple, In America today they need to secure the white male vote to win. That would've been a lot easier without all the reverend wright/william ayers crap that Obamason surrounds himself with.

Like can we wake up,this is not 3 weeks ago.This is today where most indications are The wright situation further added to Obamas popularity after that amazing speech regarding race.The support for him has grown worldwide,this isnt Clinton,his support base further reaches in areas that secure the nomination and the presidency if the media can stop pretending Mccain is so popular when in reality his popularity is not even nearly as big as Obamas being that he turns off young voters who see him as old,boring,been there and done that and time after time americans expressed change.As Chris Matthews said CHANGE MEANS CHANGE,CHANGE in the way the president looks,reacts,handles policies and the economy,CHANGEEEEE! To young people Obama is the epitome of change,even more than Clinton whose skin color still remains the same wereas Obamas further indicates a true change,while you gather your personal opinions about him up others have strong opinions and believe he is in it for a change,his record being the most liberal senator is an attraction to the world.

With the Iraq Occupation still going so badly, and the economy tanking, I don't see how Obama could lose. Still we shouldn't be complacent, remember Americans are pretty dumb.

Because... black people didn't enslave whites and oppress them even when laws were passed to make it illegal. I know according to Republicans we all live in a Leave it to Beaver world where everything is just peachy, but for blacks, it was a little bit of a different experience.

No duh! And I never said anything about forgetting that.

Did you hear the pastor's words? The issue isn't forgetting about the past, it's about preaching a message of hate. This is ridiculous-- so now white Americans are supposed to assuage the horrors of the past by giving a pass to a pastor who wants, basically, to ignite hatred now.

Brilliant.

In the church I went to The pastors comments would sometimes come off as antismetic, or in some cases he would make comments about hispanic people that could be offensive to some. I do not feel the need to apologize for wrights actions, however i feel like painting Obama with the same brush is out of line. John Mcain was happy to accept the endorsment of John Hagee whos comments in the past have been along the same lines as Wrights but I dont see anyone throwing a fit about that.

I could care less about what church you went to. I'm talking about Obama attending a church for roughly twenty years that preached such a message. And in retort, you bring up some guy who likes and supports McCain as a distraction away from the fact which we are discussing (and which point you've yet to answer): if we were talking about a white church and a white candidate for president, would you give him/her the same pass you're giving Obama?

~String

I could care less about what church you went to. I'm talking about Obama attending a church for roughly twenty years that preached such a message. And in retort, you bring up some guy who likes and supports McCain as a distraction away from the fact which we are discussing (and which point you've yet to answer): if we were talking about a white church and a white candidate for president, would you give him/her the same pass you're giving Obama?



No, I did not bring that point up to detract from the topic at hand. I think its a valid point that a Republican Candidate can accept a religious nutjobs endorsement and recieve little to no criticism but a black democratic candidate cannot. I could not forgive any person of any color if they sat through hate speach laced sermons for years, but what I have heard is a less than 2 min clip of rants that have been made over 20 years of preaching. you expect me to believe that this was a regular occurance in the church? If so then why was more audio footage not presented? I do not by any means condone the things that have been said, but nor do I condem Barrack Obama for attending the place were they were spoken. Does he suscribe to such beliefs? From his record as a distinguished politician and public servant of a prodominetly white country I can only conjecture he does not.

Well Jesus was a revolutionary, and so was MLK, what's wrong with that?

Blacks aren't going to give a shit if Obama loses fair and square. Yes you'll some protests, but nothing violent. This wouldn't be the first time a Black politician has lost a high profile election.

Blacks aren't going to give a shit if Obama loses fair and square. Yes you'll some protests, but nothing violent. This wouldn't be the first time a Black politician has lost a high profile election.

OMG are you mad?

No black politician has been as popular as Obama,hell no politician in the presidential history including those nominated presidents has the fame and support of some 89 percent of this entire world.If Obama loses honestly that spells huge trouble for america in the perception of foreigners who will become even more disgusted wiith this country,riots and hatred will increase,within our own country a backlash against the government will occur,seriously i fear Obama losing is going to spark some serious riots,violence among oppressed individuals will increase,maybe not as bad but steadily increasing as time pass.Seriously whoever runs this country is gunning for Obama,him losing to Mccain of course is going to spark controversy,the young wll despise Mccain even more than they do now and the young is the primary target because a number of them are the our politicians and senators or whatever position they may hold of some power.You may see my aged well(lol)face in 20 years running for senate of some sort lol.

hell no politician in the presidential history including those nominated presidents has the fame and support of some 89 percent of this entire world.

I'm Sure FDR had him beat. Though, statistics probably weren't taken or kept back then. Beyond that, I could not possibly care less what the rest of the world thinks about how we vote. Americans should not allow it to impact their voting one damned bit.

~String

If McCain were knowingly associating with a church that did the same thing we'd have liberals painting their walls with his blood. McCain has been associating himself, not only knowingly but with much effort on his part -

you might even say he's been sucking up to -

reverends who say (and write, even, so obviously calculated) things far worse than anything I can find Wright actually saying ( in context, for the actual meaning, as adults find meaning in things), and say them right in front of McCain, with his favor, sometimes with his microphone from his podium by way of introducing him.

And some of the lefties have been trying to get some attention paid to that, without much luck. The liberal media is doing its usual puzzlingly non-liberal thing again this year, apparently,hiding its true nature behind an appearance of rightwing bias and corporate cooperation. No one, to my knowledge, has even asked McCain to repudiate anything his chosen "spiritual guides" and courted religious supporters have said.

Something we haven't had much of, in the US, is religious riots.

I could care less about what church you went to. I'm talking about Obama attending a church for roughly twenty years that preached such a message. And in retort, you bring up some guy who likes and supports McCain as a distraction away from the fact which we are discussing (and which point you've yet to answer): if we were talking about a white church and a white candidate for president, would you give him/her the same pass you're giving Obama?

~String

To radical leftists, they are empathetic to Obama's anti-American preacher, so it's not an issue for them. Infact it reinforces their favor for Obama, because the further a candidate is to the left, the more they'll favor him/her.

We can see already just how radical some leftists are on how they treat McCain. To them he's practically a "fascist", which is obviously is a delusion. He's closer to the political center than probably any Republican candidate's been in many elections.

I'm Sure FDR had him beat. Though, statistics probably weren't taken or kept back then. Beyond that, I could not possibly care less what the rest of the world thinks about how we vote. Americans should not allow it to impact their voting one damned bit.

~String

No presidential candidate or elected president in history has had the popularity as Obama,Obama is history in the making,the respect for him is worldwide.

Forget race riots, if McCain wins I'M going to riot!

I'll be doing my best to make sure you do riot then.

Did you hear the pastor's words? The issue isn't forgetting about the past, it's about preaching a message of hate. I've heard them on video, at least I think I have, and if that's what people are getting all worked up about they need to get a little better handle on things in this country.

The stuff that scares me is not Wright's stuff - it's straight out of Martin Luther King's book, it's coming from an accomplished veteran of the US military whose patriotism is unquestionable, none of it is batshit fundie, and Obama himself seems to have taken the right lessons from it - but Hagee's and Parsley's and the rest of the panoply's of hallucinating nutcases that McCain is inviting on board with his industry lobbyists.

Between someone calling for Armageddon in the Middle East as the fulfillment of Scripture, with the backing of a good share of the US military and several powerful corporate honchos,

and someone accusing the US government of a role in the spread of HIV, with the agreement of some of a ghetto congregation of Christians in Chicago,

I know which one scares me the most as the "spiritual guide" of the American Commander in Chief. Especially one with some "issues" around hot temper and senility.

As far as riots - as long as the campaign and election is run reasonably (not a given), I don't see any likely. Even in foreign countries, they've already seen the US reelect W - they don't have high expectations.

Obama will win against McCain. If he can beat a democratic runner-up with over 8 years experience as a first lady and even more years serving as a senator, he can beat McCain.

I think Obama would win the popular vote. What worries me is losing in Ohio and Florida and then losing the electoral vote.

OMG are you mad?

No black politician has been as popular as Obama,hell no politician in the presidential history including those nominated presidents has the fame and support of some 89 percent of this entire world.If Obama loses honestly that spells huge trouble for america in the perception of foreigners who will become even more disgusted wiith this country,riots and hatred will increase,within our own country a backlash against the government will occur,seriously i fear Obama losing is going to spark some serious riots,violence among oppressed individuals will increase,maybe not as bad but steadily increasing as time pass.Seriously whoever runs this country is gunning for Obama,him losing to Mccain of course is going to spark controversy,the young wll despise Mccain even more than they do now and the young is the primary target because a number of them are the our politicians and senators or whatever position they may hold of some power.You may see my aged well(lol)face in 20 years running for senate of some sort lol.

No I'm not mad, but a violent protest would justify the reasons as to why he lost.

I think Obama would win the popular vote. What worries me is losing in Ohio and Florida and then losing the electoral vote.

That's my fear. His only hope is turning Oregon and Colorado, which he has a great chance of accomplishing.

You're joking! So, now you're apologizing for this behavior? Would you so quickly jump to the defense if this were an all white church and the reverend were spouting a message of peace, but peppered with the notion that blacks were just a little immature as a race and they needed white guidance? I doubt it.

This is, yet another case, of white guilt driving people to apologize for another black racist. Sorry. If McCain were knowingly associating with a church that did the same thing we'd have liberals painting their walls with his blood.

~String

What about Billy Grahams anti semetic comments to Nixon? This is all about Whites being the Majority. So when something is directed towards them, the outrage will be magnified. One thing I notice in rap battles, when the other MC is non Black, the Black rapper obliterates him with racial insults, especially white and asian rappers. However, when the Asian or White rapper retaliates with racial insults, the crowd goes cold, and outrage ensues, the non black rapper will booed off the stage. And for what? For doing the same thing a Black rapper did to him. The only difference is he's outnumberd by other people that don't look like him. If it was a pro Asian or White crowd, the outrage of the Black Racial slur will be minute.

So you would undermine the democratic process to help your candidate essentially cheat their way into the whitehouse? :(Pretty much every Republican I know is planning to cross party lines to vote for Hillary May 6. My parents even told me they were planning to do that before I even suggested it! When a retired former union steel worker is crossing party lines to prevent Obama from becoming president, I think people are really overestimating his popularity.

I talk to a lot of people from all walks of life in the course of my day, and most Democrats I know are not happy with either candidate. Not happy to the point of either crossing party lines or not voting.

The really funny thing is that Democrats are trying to spin the massive increase in Democratic registration as an actual increase in people who plan to vote Democrat. I think they're going to be sorely disappointed come November!

I think you're going to be sorely disappointed after 4-8 years of McCain, should it come to pass.

I think you're going to be sorely disappointed after 4-8 years of McCain, should it come to pass.
I doubt it. My expectations aren't that high. I hate that bastard. But at least he's not Obama or Hillary.

I doubt it. My expectations aren't that high. I hate that bastard. But at least he's not Obama or Hillary.

mccain would be a disaster. while hillary or obama may or may not be good i am sure for the average american they will be better

We can only hope

If Mccain does get elected he'll turn back to his old self. The Maverick Repulicrat:)

I doubt it. My expectations aren't that high. I hate that bastard. But at least he's not Obama or Hillary.

To me that reads "but at least he's not going to try to do anything that would avoid utter ruin of the USA".

If Mccain does get elected he'll turn back to his old self. The Maverick Repulicrat:)

Probably. He's a Goldwater Repub at heart and he's only cozy now with the core of the party in order to get elected. It's a typical game.

~String

To me that reads "but at least he's not going to try to do anything that would avoid utter ruin of the USA".
Close. I'm hoping he'll not be as likely to cause the utter ruin of the USA as Hillary or Obama. Raising taxes, protectionism, increased regulations. Not a prescription for economic recovery.

What you describe is a lot closer to what we had in the 90s... which led to a booming economy and balanced budget (not that I think anyone at this point can be expected to bring that back any time soon). On the other hand McCain would continue the policies that have led us to the brink of disaster.

What you describe is a lot closer to what we had in the 90s... which led to a booming economy and balanced budget (not that I think anyone at this point can be expected to bring that back any time soon). On the other hand McCain would continue the policies that have led us to the brink of disaster.The nineties were good economic times because we had dirt cheap gas and the internet tech bubble. Plus, we had divided government for most of the nineties, which kept the government from doing very much. And, the less the government does, the better off we are.

The nineties were good economic times because we had dirt cheap gas and the internet tech bubble. Plus, we had divided government for most of the nineties, which kept the government from doing very much.

I partly agree with your first points. As I said, I don't think the 90's are reproducible. There were a lot more favorable circumstances then, and I don't think the Clinton policies would of continued their success had Bush not taken office (though of course, it would of been way better).

Doesn't your point on gas illustrate the need for a government that does something? Without government action it will be very much more difficult to do anything about our oil addiction. Likewise with the tech bubble. Maybe without the Bush administration removing the Clinton funding for scientific research (as well as not even adjusting the funding to keep up with inflation) and driving research overseas we could have had a microbiology bubble right now (and hopefully minus the bubble part). Same with the effective stem cell ban.

And, the less the government does, the better off we are.

You can be sure McCain will be doing some very big things, like Bush. Particularly exorbitantly pricey wars.

Republicans aren't really the party for small government these days.

Probably. He's a Goldwater Repub at heart and he's only cozy now with the core of the party in order to get elected. It's a typical game. Judging by his allies and associates and personal character, his administration is another Reagan continuation (as W's was) - (and as with Reagan, his second wife is probably going to be pretty influential).

The nineties were good economic times Only compared with the incredible garbage of the 80s and 00s. The decline of the middle class and manufacturing base in the US continued right on through 'em, the Federal budget was borrowing from Social Security to stay level, the banks were deregulated and started their veer into today's wall, the second of the Decline Bubbles (tech) hit its inflation phase, the great Mexican NAFTA collapse started erupting refugees northward, and so forth.

Mexican NAFTA collapse started erupting refugees northward, and so forth.

That's simplistic. The Mexican population increased by almost 30 million in the nineties. It's still increasing by a ridiculous rate. That has as much to do with their hemorrhaging population as anything else.

~String

If Mccain does get elected he'll turn back to his old self. The Maverick Repulicrat:)

That the hope, but after 8 years of ass kissing you got to worry.

Close. I'm hoping he'll not be as likely to cause the utter ruin of the USA as Hillary or Obama. Raising taxes, protectionism, increased regulations. Not a prescription for economic recovery.

Shifting the tax burden from the middle to the upper class will not leave the country in ruins. Increased regulations will only ensure that no one is taking any shortcuts, if we didn't have strict regulations, we'll end up like China, with a myriad of defective and deadly products. Republicans have controlled all 3 branches of the government, and did nothing to improve anything. Republicans had their chance, and they've been a complete disaster for the common man. Republicans are only interested bailing out the big guy, and their abysmal resume of corporate welfare proves this.

You know what bothers me? The demonization of either party: each party claims the other is grossly wrong, corrupt, down right evil, although to be fair republicans demonize democrats far more the vice versa. Most of us are moderate on many issues but be dammed if we disagree as we then have to choose sides and then go as far to one side a possible.

I keep to the general stance that any of the three candidate will be an improvement of the 'Mush for brains. Each candidate has his or her flaws: McCain is really old and suspiciously lacking in knowledge or care in issue likely to matter in the coming years (such as the coming energy crisis). Hillary is well hated for years of scandal and cronyism, obama is wild card and his abilities are completely unpredictable, he could be the next Bill Clinton or he could be the next Ronald Reagan.

Obama biggest problem is that he is black, this is also his greatest advantage, if he wins he will stand as an icon of American racial equality, the black community will be forced to grow up and stop blaming the government as the government will be headed by one of them, the nation will feel unified and proud of its self, egalitarian even, the coming economic and energy crisis will be viewed as a challenge the nation together can tackle. If he loses the black community will see it as continuing oppression by the white man, ever black preacher will be validated, every educated white's pessimism about the nature of things will be validated, racial disharmony will increase combined with the coming crisis our nation will divided and even weaker.

I partly agree with your first points. As I said, I don't think the 90's are reproducible. There were a lot more favorable circumstances then, and I don't think the Clinton policies would of continued their success had Bush not taken office (though of course, it would of been way better).


Republicans aren't really the party for small government these days.

I don't know if you remember, but the U.S. economy was heading into a recession just before GWB took office.

I agree that the Republicans in congress and GWB have been acting like liberals with money; it's rather pathetic.

As for the race riots, if Obama loses against McCain, I think it's very possible.
In some people's mind if McCain wins anything short of a landslide, then it "must have been" a stolen election, and so they'll conjur up conspiracy theories. Race riots are a plausable outcome if some influential people stir the pot.

I don't know if you remember, but the U.S. economy was heading into a recession just before GWB took office.

I agree that the Republicans in congress and GWB have been acting like liberals with money; it's rather pathetic.

As for the race riots, if Obama loses against McCain, I think it's very possible.
In some people's mind if McCain wins anything short of a landslide, then it "must have been" a stolen election, and so they'll conjur up conspiracy theories. Race riots are a plausable outcome if some influential people stir the pot.

it will only be a stolen election if the evidence exists for. which for bush it does. if there aren't major reports of efforts to suppress votes and other shenigans it will be a close race but a fair one

it will only be a stolen election if the evidence exists for. which for bush it does. if there aren't major reports of efforts to suppress votes and other shenigans it will be a close race but a fair one

What evidence is there that GWB "stole" the election ? :shrug:
I suppose you can find "evidence" in far left-wing blogs and "news sources".

What evidence is there that GWB "stole" the election ? :shrug:
I suppose you can find "evidence" in far left-wing blogs and "news sources".

no math as i have said repeatly

no math as i have said repeatly

So even though "mathematically" and legally GWB won the 2000, 2004 elections; he still "stole" the election(s) ?!?!
That doesn't make sense.

So even though "mathematically" and legally GWB won the 2000, 2004 elections; he still "stole" the election(s) ?!?!
That doesn't make sense.

guess you don't know statistics.
odds that bush won florida in 2000 and ohio in 04 without election fraud based on exit polls and the confindence they are done to.
1:10,400,000,000
what doesn't make sense is someone saying bush one legaly and fairly with the odds of it happening that way being so low.
(note odds found out by assuming the were 5 major exit polls and they were all wrong in both elections also assumed was that they were done to have 95% confidence)
though i have doubts you will believe math the people who keep supporting bush at this point seem to find logical and scientific reasoning offensive.

guess you don't know statistics.
odds that bush won florida in 2000 and ohio in 04 without election fraud based on exit polls and the confindence they are done to.
1:10,400,000,000
what doesn't make sense is someone saying bush one legaly and fairly with the odds of it happening that way being so low.
(note odds found out by assuming the were 5 major exit polls and they were all wrong in both elections also assumed was that they were done to have 95% confidence)
though i have doubts you will believe math the people who keep supporting bush at this point seem to find logical and scientific reasoning offensive.

Ahhhhh, so even though he won the election, conspiracy theories based on these "odds" from "reliable" exit polls trumps the counted facts...... ohhhh kayyyyy :rolleyes:

Ahhhhh, so even though he won the election, conspiracy theories based on these "odds" from "reliable" exit polls trumps the counted facts...... ohhhh kayyyyy :rolleyes:

i am the one dealing in counted facts. You need to learn some shit about science math and logic. first off exit polls are the universal method of detecting election fraud when the results ( bush winning) don't match the exit polls ( bush losing) it is a sign of election fraud. I sorry your ignorant of how to detect election fraud and statistics but instead of getting huffy you should take the time to learn.

i am the one dealing in counted facts. You need to learn some shit about science math and logic. first off exit polls are the universal method of detecting election fraud when the results ( bush winning) don't match the exit polls ( bush losing) it is a sign of election fraud. I sorry your ignorant of how to detect election fraud and statistics but instead of getting huffy you should take the time to learn.

And how do you know the exit polls are 100% accurate ?
Who exactly took the exit polls ? How did they take their poll ?
Did they poll EVERYONE ? or just some of the people that voted ?

When I voted in 2000 & 2004, there wasn't anyone standing outside to exit poll me; does that mean I was "disenfranchised" by your "more reliable" exit polls ?

I can find EXACT numbers from the actual elections :
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

Can you show EXACT numbers from your exit polls, which are "more reliable" than the actual votes ?

The methods used by the Cons to steal 2000 and 2004 could be the subject of another thread, but they were varied. They used caging lists, distribution (or lack) of voting machines in certain historically Democratic districts, electronic voting fraud, fake protestors, and above all, the Supreme Court.

The methods used by the Cons to steal 2000 and 2004 could be the subject of another thread, but they were varied. They used caging lists, distribution (or lack) of voting machines in certain historically Democratic districts, electronic voting fraud, fake protestors, and above all, the Supreme Court.

Have any reliable sources to 100% prove this to be true, that could tip the election ?
Preferably unbiased sources, not left-wing blogs or left-wing "news" sources.

And how do you know the exit polls are 100% accurate ?
Who exactly took the exit polls ? How did they take their poll ?
Did they poll EVERYONE ? or just some of the people that voted ?

When I voted in 2000 & 2004, there wasn't anyone standing outside to exit poll me; does that mean I was "disenfranchised" by your "more reliable" exit polls ?

I can find EXACT numbers from the actual elections :
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

Can you show EXACT numbers from your exit polls, which are "more reliable" than the actual votes ?

well since you don't seem to understand the concepts behind what i am trying to present i am not going to bother trying. you can live in your dream world i am going to reality and science

cazzo read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_polls

Each candidate has his or her flaws: McCain is really old and suspiciously lacking in knowledge or care in issue likely to matter in the coming years (such as the coming energy crisis). Hillary is well hated for years of scandal and cronyism, obama is wild card and his abilities are completely unpredictable, he could be the next Bill Clinton or he could be the next Ronald Reagan. Overall, not a bad assessment of the candidates. Except for the part where you said Obama might be the next Ronald Reagan. I'd say he might be the next Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or Herbert Hoover.

well since you don't seem to understand the concepts behind what i am trying to present i am not going to bother trying. you can live in your dream world i am going to reality and science

You still haven't answered my question, based on your arguement.
I read the description of exit polls in wiki as you provided; we all know what exit polls are.

Your agruement (that GWB "stole" the election) is based on exit polls.
So which exit polls are you basing it on ? Who took the polls ?
Did they poll everyone ?
I wasn't polled in those elections, and nor were many other Americans, yet you trust a poll more than the actual vote count.
You know there's different polls, taken by different groups with different agendas..........

Most importantly, what were the actual poll numbers that you base your arguement on ?
You seem pretty hell-bent that GWB "stole" the election based on polls, so what are these undisputable numbers you're so confident of ?

Overall, not a bad assessment of the candidates. Except for the part where you said Obama might be the next Ronald Reagan. I'd say he might be the next Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or Herbert Hoover.

Perhaps he was referring to their charisma. Both Reagan and Obama have a lot of charisma.

Have any reliable sources to 100% prove this to be true, that could tip the election ?
Preferably unbiased sources, not left-wing blogs or left-wing "news" sources.

Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio (http://www.nvri.org/about/ohio_conyers_report_010505.pdf)

I don't know if you remember, but the U.S. economy was heading into a recession just before GWB took office.

I agree that the Republicans in congress and GWB have been acting like liberals with money; it's rather pathetic.

As for the race riots, if Obama loses against McCain, I think it's very possible.
In some people's mind if McCain wins anything short of a landslide, then it "must have been" a stolen election, and so they'll conjur up conspiracy theories. Race riots are a plausable outcome if some influential people stir the pot.

More conservative fear mongering. If Obama loses, the Blacks will ATTACK US ALL! /yawn

Overall, not a bad assessment of the candidates. Except for the part where you said Obama might be the next Ronald Reagan. I'd say he might be the next Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or Herbert Hoover.

Leaving the U.S.S.R out, can you please list 3 things that Reagan improved in the American Economy during his tenure. Supporting evidence will be appreciated. Thank you in advance.

*crickets*

Leaving the U.S.S.R out, can you please list 3 things that Reagan improved in the American Economy during his tenure. Supporting evidence will be appreciated.

He made more of the military /industrial complex very wealthy. Just go back during his tenure and you'll see many of those types of companies making billions in profits.

Overall, not a bad assessment of the candidates. Except for the part where you said Obama might be the next Ronald Reagan. I'd say he might be the next Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or Herbert Hoover.

Obama is already bigger than any president in history,if he continues to be a man of his word he is bound to become the most popular,well liked.

Overall, not a bad assessment of the candidates. Except for the part where you said Obama might be the next . I'd say he might be the next Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or Herbert Hoover.

I like saying he could be either way, because republicans will say he will be the next dastardly Bill Clinton and Hillmocrats will say he will be the next 666/eer Ronald Wilson Reagan, moderates like me would say he might be both in combined charisma points. But a Herbert Hoover is also likely if Obama wins and the peak oil depression begins under his term, might be best if McCain takes that fall and Obama runs as the next Franklin Roosevelt (minus that bitch running again) in 2012.

i just dont want Hillary to win.
if she wins we all pay the concequences.

i just dont want Hillary to win.
if she wins we all pay the concequences.

I don't really have a problem with most of hillary's policies, but I do with the fact that everyone hates her, how the fuck did she think she can win, if she wins it will have been by less then legitimate means, mark my words! I once met a feminist who hates her because she did not achieve power on her own but by crawling up her husband's used dick!

I was trying to figure out how anyone could apply the word "elitist" to anything Obama said in Pennsylvania, and a blogger helped me out:

It's what the New Media Circus has settled on to replace "uppity".

If Obama loses on his own somehow, not making his case or whatever, that's one thing,

but if he loses because this madrassa/Farrakhan/Wright/"bitter" kind of media crap actually sells to white people old enough to vote, a race riot might be in order.

but if he loses because this madrassa/Farrakhan/Wright/"bitter" kind of media crap actually sells to white people old enough to vote, a race riot might be in order.

So another words, if the news media (or anyone else) shows any facts about Obama that are bad, and he loses, that justifies a race riot ?!
I guess the news media and anyone else better keep their mouths shut, and only point out the nice points of Obama.:eek:

Need I say more.....

So another words, if the news media (or anyone else) shows any facts about Obama that are bad, and he loses, that justifies a race riot ?! If the news media ever gets around to discussing facts about Obama at all, you let me know, OK ?

So another words, if the news media (or anyone else) shows any facts about Obama that are bad, and he loses, that justifies a race riot ?!
I guess the news media and anyone else better keep their mouths shut, and only point out the nice points of Obama.:eek:

Need I say more.....

what facts are bad the bitter comment in context is really a plus

If the news media ever gets around to discussing facts about Obama at all, you let me know, OK ?

The news media have been talking about the facts (good and bad) of ALL of the candidates.
Is the media suppose to handle Obama with Kid Gloves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_gloves)?

but if he loses because this madrassa/Farrakhan/Wright/"bitter" kind of media crap actually sells to white people old enough to vote, a race riot might be in order.

i dont think the madrassa/Farrakhan will be an issue. But explain the other thing to all the white people just trying to survive. TBH, with that and the pennsyvania thing any other politician would have been packing their bags right now.

What did he say that was wrong? I guess that's not the issue. Bitter white men are the mainstay of the Republican party, and it doesn't seem to matter that Republican policies are the root cause of their misfortune.

The news media have been talking about the facts (good and bad) of ALL of the candidates.
Is the media suppose to handle Obama with Kid Gloves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_gloves)?

no but they should at least treat him fairly and hit him with things of substance something i have yet to see

Hillary has (HAD) a better chance at beating McCain. I have no problem with Obama but when i found out he was running i knew that it was pretty much over for the Democrats.

With the Iraq Occupation still going so badly, and the economy tanking, I don't see how Obama could lose.

In Diebold, we trust!!!

Seriously, after 7 years of W the Dem candidate should be 10% ahead easily. But this is a 50-50 right now, so what does that tell you???

Hillary has (HAD) a better chance at beating McCain. I have no problem with Obama but when i found out he was running i knew that it was pretty much over for the Democrats.

hillary has never had a better chance than winning in the general than obama

oh brother. so win the general election BIG DEAL.

What did he say that was wrong? I guess that's not the issue. Bitter white men are the mainstay of the Republican party, and it doesn't seem to matter that Republican policies are the root cause of their misfortune.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/bingo1.jpg

Well. I think that B O would have had a better chance in 2016.

First of all Hillary is going to win, not Obama or McCain.

Obama is already bigger than any president in history,if he continues to be a man of his word he is bound to become the most popular,well liked.

This might be one of the most ridiculous posts I've read on this site.

First of all Hillary is going to win, not Obama or McCain.

Your High!

I only wish she wins because I am sick and tired of male leaders. Thats just me. I don't give a squat about Mccain or Obama.

I only wish she wins because I am sick and tired of male leaders. Thats just me. I don't give a squat about Mccain or Obama.

That's like wanting for vote of obama because you sick and tired of white leaders! Just because she female does not mean she going to be better then the men, or do you want infamous examples of female rule to show you that women are just as capable as men at being corrupt, cruel and vicious leaders.

Obama is all that is wrong with America:
1) A polarizing prick who talks about unity
2) A condescending elitist douchebag who pretends to speak for 'all Americans' while talking shit about the racist bible humping hillbilly squirl eaters
3) A smooth-talkin' pretty boy that blinds voters into believing he's mainstream
4) A constitutional law professor who says "Gore won"
5) A mocking bird that I want to get off my freakin TV

Race riots? Who cares. They'll march, they'll burn and loot, and then they'll get back to whatever they were doing before. These threats aren't doing anyone any good. And I think the middleclass blacks don't pay any attention about this conspiratorial bullshit that Wright preaches. (USA created AIDS, etc.)

mocking bird?

http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/dumbocrows.jpg

The news media have been talking about the facts (good and bad) of ALL of the candidates. They have not. You, for example, never found out anything about John Edwards's health care proposals, and still can't compare the legislative record of the three remaining candidates.
i dont think the madrassa/Farrakhan will be an issue. It already has been. It has and will cost Obama thousands of votes in the primaries (especially in places like Ohio, and soon Indiana), deflected attention from his policies and take on issues, and helped keep Hillary in the running. But explain the other thing to all the white people just trying to survive. TBH, with that and the pennsyvania thing any other politician would have been packing their bags right now. Aside from the campaign spin wars, there's nothing there to explain. McCain and his associates have said things not only worse but false practically every day for months now, Hillary has said worse and false many times, why is that kind of reasonable, adult statement even on the radar ?

What's more elitist, for example, than media pundits and Beltway politicians assuming bluecollar white voters in Pennslyvania can't be addressed as adults and recognize the intent ?
Hillary has (HAD) a better chance at beating McCain. Hillary has never polled higher than Obama against McCain, has always polled to lose to McCain head to head nationally, and has no upside potential in name recognition or familiarity. She has the highest negatives of any candidate for President in a long time, amounting to a strange and irrational hatred capable of motivating certain demographics friendly to McCain as no other candidate can, and no record of accomplishment to fall back on for the pragmatic. Plus she's coming out of this primary battle looking pretty bad, alienating much of her lukewarm support.

Look at the Rep voters crossing over to vote for her in these primaries - do you really think they'll vote for her over McCain ?
Obama is all that is wrong with America: I got dibs on spotting that first - if the con men can tap into the Anerican anti-intellectual core, so that Obama's articulate speech and gentleman's demeanor become liabilities in themselves, he's in trouble.

We've seen the prepared and committed Gore become the disdainful and self-entitled one when matched against the fratboy rich kid dilettante with the cruel streak and the Eastern establishment bloodlines, we saw the decorated two-tour Kerry become the suspect soldier when matched against the draft-avoiding drug-using neglecter of soft stateside duty with the string- pulling daddy covering his dereliction and irresponsibility, now we're seeing the grandparent raised ghetto-living single mother's child self-made lawyer and Senator become the elitist when matched against the upperclass bred Beltway power insider with the fancy New York address.

It's wingnut world ! and you thought a sphere couldn't be turned upside down - - -

Obama is all that is wrong with America:
1) A polarizing prick who talks about unity
2) A condescending elitist douchebag who pretends to speak for 'all Americans' while talking shit about the racist bible humping hillbilly squirl eaters
3) A smooth-talkin' pretty boy that blinds voters into believing he's mainstream
4) A constitutional law professor who says "Gore won"
5) A mocking bird that I want to get off my freakin TV

Race riots? Who cares. They'll march, they'll burn and loot, and then they'll get back to whatever they were doing before. These threats aren't doing anyone any good. And I think the middleclass blacks don't pay any attention about this conspiratorial bullshit that Wright preaches. (USA created AIDS, etc.)

Wow your demonizing, oh wait no your racist, RACIST!!!