the whole thing sounds like a trap

especially the pro-hillary stuff

6/29/2008 2:43:37 PM

^ I agree.

Mr. Joshua has a point, though.

6/29/2008 2:47:37 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua : Cars are vandalized, bad things are written about McCain and Obama, yet the headline is about "Obama Hate Messages". Shit like that bothers me."

what is your trip, dude?

are you just so oversensitive that you perceive EVERYTHING to be a sleight against white people??

jesus man, get a hold of yourself. You sound almost like you're going off the hooksaw-deep-end with some "OMG LIBERAL MEDIA" tangent.

or did you JUST NOT READ THE ARTICLE?

-- 60 city-owned cars were hit with spraypaint.
-- the messages painted on the cars were "OBAMA smokes crack"

so we have some hate messages, and they are directed toward obama. Hence, the title of the article is 'Obama' hate messages

now here's another bit of information

-- specialty business cards were left at the scene
-- the cards had "negative" messages about Obama and McCain
-- they also had "positive" messages about Hillary Clinton.

doesnt sound quite so inflammatory. suspicious though. makes one wonder if it isnt some sort of reverse hate-crime thing, like marko alludes to. BUT THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE, ENTIRELY.

so... let me ask you again: what exactly is your trip about with either Obama, or the headline of the article?

Seriously... if they said "McCain smokes Viagra", then i would expect them to title the headline : 'McCain' hate messages -- but they didnt.

okay?






[Edited on June 29, 2008 at 3:49 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2008 3:43:49 PM

hmph...I misread the article the first time. I thought some of the cars also had anti-McCain grafitti.

[Edited on June 29, 2008 at 4:23 PM. Reason : ...not sure how Mr. Joshua read it.]

6/29/2008 4:23:01 PM

imo "obama hate messages" means obama has said hate messages lately...i dont particularly like that headline

6/29/2008 4:29:54 PM

"Our spendthrift ways are going to come to an end one way or another. Politicians won't even mention the issue, much less face up to it, since the collapse is likely to occur sometime beyond thier typical two-to-four-year time horizon. They hope and believe that the American people are too foolish, uninformed, and shortsighted to be concerned, and that they can be soothed with the pleasant slogans and empty promises of more and more loot."

-RP


That is what the truth sounds like. We cant afford the shit we do now.. adding more programs and entitlements are an insult to your intelligence... but it just doesnt seem to matter. Sad what this country is coming to.

6/29/2008 5:00:12 PM

okay now here come the random RP quotes

move along, nothing to see here.

[/thread]

6/29/2008 7:12:07 PM

Quote :

"are you just so oversensitive that you perceive EVERYTHING to be a sleight against white people??"

You're the one that brought up race. Who is the oversensitive one now?

Victimization is a classic Democratic strategy. HRC was all about being the poor little girl being beaten up by the boys club, Obama hasn't personally played the victim card, but the left and the talking-heads have been wringing their hands, "oh noes, all those nigger-hating people in the South and the midwest won't vote for an otherwise politically ideal candidate because he's black."

Give me a break.

6/29/2008 7:19:06 PM

Dems are hypersensitive about attacks on Obama that they perceive as crossing the line on race. Republicans are hypersensitive about unfounded or orchestrated victimization from the left.

The net result is that during this election cycle we will hear countless accusations of racism, followed by countless accusations that they are playing the race card.

6/29/2008 7:25:47 PM

That is actually a pretty good analysis.

6/29/2008 7:34:49 PM

^^^ mofucker, don't play that bullshit with me. i know you ain't stupid.

6/29/2008 7:36:41 PM

I'm dead serious. The reason we can't have an honest-to-god, knock-down, all-out, (over-hyphenated) discussion about race in the US is because there is a culture of perpetual victimhood perpetuated by many (not all) leaders in the black community. This isn't to ignore the crippling effects that poverty, poor education, and the incarceration of non-violent drug offenders have on the urban black community; but come on, you can't tell me that the media wasn't looking for a racial angle when they wrote this story.

At some point, blacks are going to have to quit pandering to the "talented tenth", "AIDS / gangsta rap / crack are all government conspiracies," and general "the white man is actively trying to keep us down" bit and take a good hard look at their own situation.

White people need to quit being patronizing and start listening to the black communities concerns with an open mind as well . . . this is a two way street.


In the mean time, the party which advocates over and over, "its ok, the government is here to help you," will continue to encourage voters to feel helpless in the face of their problems so as to sell them on programs that encourage dependence.

6/29/2008 7:46:30 PM

okay, right.

let's review what's happened, please:

1) some idiots tags a bunch of cars with "OBAMA SMOKES CRACK"...

2) the local news reports that Obama was the subject of "hate messages"

3) some white guy from the suburbs gets pissy because the liberal media who reported the event (A) dared to use the word "hate" in the headline and/or (B) was so inherently racist that they just plain ignored the old white guy who was just peripherally involved.

4) I came along and called bullshit on the guy above.

i mean, really, you silly white people need to quit with all this mock indignation and playing like you're being marginalized and shit.

Unfortunately, about the only thing that may have surprised me more than Mr. Joshua's whiny white-guy schtick, is that you came running to the defense. I'm a bit disappointed because out of all the conservatives on these forums... I liked to imagine you two were overall pretty reasonable.









[Edited on June 29, 2008 at 10:29 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2008 10:21:59 PM

Quote :

" The reason we can't have an honest-to-god, knock-down, all-out, (over-hyphenated) discussion about race in the US is because there is a culture of perpetual victimhood perpetuated by many (not all) leaders in the black community"

Where are you getting this idea from?

The main culprits are sharpton and jackson, but pretty much all other black leaders, including Obama himself, are all about black people pulling themselves up despite what they perceive as their obstacles. The main reason discussions on this issue don't gain ground is because many white people feel that there are no unfair race-based obstacles for blacks, which just isn't true.

And actually, Obama being half-white AND the president I think will provide a conduit for these types of discussions. He's more the Cosby-type of mentality that whites love so much, rather than the Sharpton-type they hate so much.

6/29/2008 10:39:55 PM

Quote :

"He's more the Cosby-type of mentality that whites love so much, rather than the Sharpton-type they hate so much. "

Why not leave race out of the election? This sounds like the Uncle Tom v. hardcore attitude of the post civil war days.

6/29/2008 10:43:26 PM

^ I agree, we should leave race out, which is what Obama did, before people started attacking him on a racial level. Obama still doesn't really talk about race much.

6/29/2008 10:49:44 PM

Quote :

"are you just so oversensitive that you perceive EVERYTHING to be a sleight against white people??"

Where did I say that it was a sleight against white people?

Quote :

"so we have some hate messages, and they are directed toward obama. Hence, the title of the article is 'Obama' hate messages"

I say that people are on crack all the time. It's not a racist statement. Unless you're racist enough to automatically associate crack with black people.

Quote :

"what exactly is your trip about with either Obama, or the headline of the article?"

Political vandalism mentioning two candidates occured. Normally this would be classified as simple vandalism. However, one of the candidates was black. Now it's being reported as a hate crime and is front page national news. If someone had done something like this over McCain and Clinton you probably wouldn't hear anything about it. It's simple sensationalism and I'm tired of the race card being brought up.

I have no problem with Obama. He's very charismatic and has good intentions. You're honestly acting like a lunatic lately. Please stop jumping at my throat whenever you think that I'm attacking him.

I'm tired of people trying to bring race into it as it's a non-issue for me.

[Edited on June 29, 2008 at 10:57 PM. Reason : ,]

6/29/2008 10:54:05 PM

I see a one-term President Obama happening.

6/29/2008 11:35:10 PM

at least we will have some ammo against black people who feel they are underrepresented.

6/29/2008 11:36:29 PM

WTF????? YOU JUST SAID "AMMO" IN REFERENCE TO A BLACK PRESIDENT

1-800-SECRET SERVICE

MOTHERFUCKER


:mad :GRR:

6/30/2008 1:00:44 AM

Quote :

"Taxes will go twice as high as they are now because us hardworkin americans will have to start supporting the hoodrats in the ghetto who sell crack all day and don't work."

Have you ever tried selling crack? That is some serious work.

6/30/2008 4:41:50 PM

not to mention they make less money than someone working at McDonalds.

6/30/2008 4:55:39 PM

Quote :

"I agree, we should leave race out, which is what Obama did, before people started attacking him on a racial level. Obama still doesn't really talk about race much."

Give me a fucking break. Obama is "leaving race out of it" because he has all of the fucking talking heads on TV doing it for him. It's akin to the SwiftBoat bullshit. Sure, Dubya didn't personally run those ads, but he sure as hell benefited from them.

6/30/2008 5:29:25 PM

Quote :

"I liked to imagine you two were overall pretty reasonable."

reasonable until we disagreed with you . . . amirite

6/30/2008 5:31:15 PM

^^sounds like hes beating the repubs at their own game

6/30/2008 5:34:21 PM

but he's "above that," right? Obama won't bring change. He'll bring more of the same bullshit that has seen the house endlessly investigating useless shit instead of actually doing anything important. Just like the house did against Clinton.

6/30/2008 5:35:30 PM

you sir are incorrect, but you gain a lol out of me

6/30/2008 5:36:26 PM

He isn't totally incorrect. One of the side effects of a lazy and politically illiterate electorate is that they view the president as the be-all-end-all savior when, in truth, he is but one (very powerful) cog in the engine of a republican democracy.

Unless there is a sea-change in how the Democrats in congress do business (unlikely), you're not going to see a huge shift in how politics are done.

6/30/2008 5:39:51 PM

i figured that out long ago my friend

[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 5:43 PM. Reason : slow]

6/30/2008 5:42:48 PM

burro, JCash, Joshua, et. al.

before you lump me in with the rest of (what you perceive to be) the dirty proletariat masses of Obamaniacs....

Let me explain the "hope" I see, and the "change" I want. It is two-fold:


          (1) a fundamental shift in our foreign diplomacy.

          (2) a fundamental shift in the direction of appointees to our Supreme Court


both of these are entirely, EXCLUSIVELY one might add, within the president's scope of power and influence.

all the rest -- race and class, honesty and integrity, domestic policy ... it's nice that we're talking about it all, and i'm impressed by his oratory skills. But put all of that rhetoric aside

Those two reasons, above..... THAT is why I want Obama to win. And it's why, I feel, he must win.







[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 6:22 PM. Reason : ]

6/30/2008 6:14:06 PM

well, you could get a change in that by voting for someone else. why Obama? Or is it just that he has a "D" by his name? At the very least, you understand what kind of "change" you want, which is far more than I can say for most of the obamaniacs. They hear "change," and they wet themselves.

6/30/2008 6:22:27 PM

someone else? lol. who is that? McCain? yeah right.

got some more options for me? Ron Paul? Ralph Nader? Bob Barr? Lyndon LaRouche? Richard Petty?

come on, dude.


EDIT:

o wait.... do you mean, why didnt I vote for Hillary?

I don't really need to justify a party primary to someone who isn't part of that process, and it's totally irrelevant now, but okay just for fun ....

the major reason? Bill. Another reason? Hillary. I don't like the entrenched political establishment they represent. I also have a fundamental aversion to the thought of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.







[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 6:35 PM. Reason : ]

6/30/2008 6:23:58 PM

I don't lump you in with anyone . . . I'm not sure where you got that idea because you never struck me as dogmatic and I haven't ever treated you as such

Quote :

"(1) a fundamental shift in our foreign diplomacy. (2) a fundamental shift in the direction of appointees to our Supreme Court"

Will a shift in our diplomacy be followed up with a significant shift in our actual policy? That is where I don't see a big difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Sure the Democrats talk big about wanting to get out of Iraq ASAP, it looks good for the elections, but they also don't want to risk it descending into chaos on their watch. That wouldn't be very humanitarian of them.

As far as appointees is concerned? It won't make much difference in one term. Stevens and Ginsberg are the two most likely to retire and both of them are liberals who would, presumptively, be replaced with liberals. It would prevent a McCain presidency from dominating the SCOTUS, but an Obama presidency wouldn't do much in the way of reversing it.

6/30/2008 6:41:27 PM

the dems are doing a good job making it feel like 92 again

6/30/2008 6:45:36 PM

^Was there a feeling of impending doom in 1992, where people felt like they were pretty much fucked no matter who became president? There very well could have been, I was too young to be involved in politics at that age.

[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 6:56 PM. Reason : ]

6/30/2008 6:54:10 PM

no, there was a feeling of people being pissed off at George H.W. Bush, because he seemed so completely detached from reality.

it wasn't entirely fair, but the man had a hard time of convincing people he gave two shits about the recession the economy was in.

it really is about perception.

also, there was that little Ross Perot feller, who continually was hammering Bush on his broken promise "Read my lips: no new taxes"

that was damaging.

6/30/2008 7:11:58 PM

Quote :

"Will a shift in our diplomacy be followed up with a significant shift in our actual policy?"

i sure as hell hope so. and I'm not talking about Iraq. Iraq is fucked. what im talking about is how we go forward engaging the rest of the world. allies and "enemies"

Quote :

"As far as appointees is concerned? It won't make much difference in one term."

oh the hell it won't. there will be five (5) justices over the age of 70 when the new president is sworn in.

you think only two are going to retire in the next 4 years? i think there will be more than that.

regardless, if it's two or five, the implications are enormous. You want some doddering old fart who thinks Samuel Fucking Alito is a model Supreme Court Justice to be the one nominating replacements?

not me mate. I'd rather have a progressive, constitutional scholar -- an adjunct professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, no less -- filling that role.

maybe it's just me?

6/30/2008 7:19:25 PM

can't be much of a "Constitutional scholar" if he doesn't understand then 2nd Amendment.

6/30/2008 7:58:09 PM

Quote :

"there will be five (5) justices over the age of 70 when the new president is sworn in. "

In January of 09:
Stevens - 88,
Ginsberg - 75
Kennedy - 72 (we share a birthday actually)
Scalia - 72
Breyer - 70

Scalia is the lone conservative, Kennedy is the swing vote, the other three are generally considered to be liberals. I simply don't see Scalia leaving under an Obama presidency, at least not in the first four years. Frankly, I don't see, nor have heard talk, of anyone other than Stevens and Ginsberg leaving. Net gain in left leaning justices: 0.

6/30/2008 9:00:36 PM

It would be bananas if they all left, though! With every branch of gov dominated by the left and all

[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 9:07 PM. Reason : You also might as well go ahead an assume Obama will have 2 terms]

6/30/2008 9:07:22 PM

I'm not assuming that at all. Winning an election and running a government are two completely different things.

6/30/2008 9:10:50 PM

nevertheless, most presidents are elected for both terms, and obama will see a nice economic bounce near the end of his term.

6/30/2008 9:23:27 PM

[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 9:31 PM. Reason : oops]

6/30/2008 9:27:48 PM

Actually only 13 of 42 have served a full two terms. Why would you presume an economic bounce?

6/30/2008 9:30:04 PM

Don't fool yourself by misapplying statistics. Since FDR, they've pretty much been getting elected to 2 terms. The only one-termers got fucked by finishing off on the bad ends of economic cycles.

Obama has impeccable timing because because he is coming at an economic low, and the economic cycle will simply get back to highs within 4 years (similar to Reagan's timing). The considerable incumbent advantage + good economic timing = automatic second term.

[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 12:26 AM. Reason : fsdf]

7/1/2008 12:24:48 AM

Quote :

"An Obama presidency ... Net gain in left leaning justices: 0"

I think you're probably right about Scalia... but who knows about anything, when it comes to old geezers. they'll break their hip and get life-threatening pneumonia in a blink of an eye.

Okay, fine... let's assume your prediction holds true. It's entirely reasonable.

It makes it even more imperative, even more critical, because with a McCain presidency ... Net gain in left leaning justices: -2



FUCK.

THAT.




Obama '08






[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 12:55 AM. Reason : ]

7/1/2008 12:50:46 AM

Quote :

"and he will get blamed for a lot of shit that he inherited"

like every other president?

7/1/2008 9:09:02 AM

Quote :

"It makes it even more imperative, even more critical, because with a McCain presidency ... Net gain in left leaning justices: -2"

That actually sounds pretty awesome, and it's one of the only reasons I'll vote for McCain.

7/1/2008 12:27:06 PM

thats fine. the end result, is McCain demoralizes the GOP base and fails to impress the undecided moderates.

whereas Obama energizes the Dem base, and engages the undecided moderates.

be sure to buy some all black outfits; you'll want to dress appropriately mournful the last week of January.

7/1/2008 1:10:06 PM

Quote :

"Obama energizes the Dem base"

he is already doing that...which is better for him than the last year, when he and hil-dog helped to divide the Dem base

7/1/2008 1:12:10 PM