1
   

It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary

 
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2008 10:36 pm
snood wrote:
Instead of beginning with analysis, let's begin with some sad facts; When Kentucky Representative Ben Chandler endorsed Barack Obama, over 500 phone calls flooded his office, the vast majority of them using the word "nigger."

Chandler's aides (who were white) went home shaken, crying, in utter disbelief. They didn't think racism still existed.


If you look at it a different way, the reaction of Chandler's aides might be taken as encouraging.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2008 05:17 am
The depths of these black people's general willingness to forgive and tendency to look for the good in people I guess could be seen as other than dangerous naivete in some circumstances, but how should it encourage, when their dismay was because they found that brand of raw racism is there?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2008 11:32 pm
roger wrote:
snood wrote:
Instead of beginning with analysis, let's begin with some sad facts; When Kentucky Representative Ben Chandler endorsed Barack Obama, over 500 phone calls flooded his office, the vast majority of them using the word "nigger."

Chandler's aides (who were white) went home shaken, crying, in utter disbelief. They didn't think racism still existed.


If you look at it a different way, the reaction of Chandler's aides might be taken as encouraging.


And if you look at it in yet another, clearer, way it's not necessarily indicative of any fact other than there are a small percentage of miscreants in every place where people live:

Montgomery County, the congressional district of Ben Chandler had a population of 22,500 people eight years ago.

If we assume the population has remained static since 2000, and 90% of the callers used the n-word, and 100% of these callers are actually residents of Montgomery, we are left with 2% of the population of Montgomery County being bigoted miscreants. That's 2% too much, but hardly indicative of a torrent of racism in Montgomery County, let alone the state of Kentucky.

It's understandable that Chandler's aides were upset by the bigoted calls, but they are pretty naive if they think racism no longer exists.

I feel pretty certain that endorsers of Hillary Clinton receive foul sexist messages from a small percentage of miscreants in their areas as well, and I have already seen a small percentage of A2K posters write some outrageously malicious things about McCain.

I happen to think that if Obama wins the nomination it will be a very close race and a small percentage of people who would never leave such offensive messages but will also not vote for a black man, may decide the contest (at the very least there will be no shortage of people explaining his defeat in this way), but I base this on nothing more than a sense of things, and could easily be wrong. Certainly the Chandler incident isn't even anecdotal evidence for my sense of things.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2008 12:33 am
Re: It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary
okie wrote:
snood wrote:
We all know this, but I think it not unwise to remind ourselves every so often - the attacks of the Republicans are going to get wa-ay nastierÂ…

Come on snood, wake up. The ugliness is between Senator Clinton and Barack Obama. Whichever candidate wins the Democratic race will then have to convince the electorate to vote for them, but I see more ugliness between the candidates in each party right now. If you ever thought some Democrats would never use the race card in their own party instead of just on Republicans as they have always done, I would encourage you to analyze a bit more about what is going on right now.

Remember, I warned you about the Clintons many months ago, and you dismissed it, but you need to pay attention to what is happening right now. The Clintons will stop at nothing that they think might be necessary or that they think might work in order to win. And if they beat Obama, they will use the same stuff to beat any Republican.


That prediction back in January has been fairly accurate. The desperate Ms. Clinton continues to explore and think of every option imaginable to keep her campaign hopes alive, even speculating on Obama being assassinated, after all Bobby Kennedy was in June, and it isn't June yet, so she intends on seeing this thing through to the bitter end. A couple questions come to mind, why did she mention this? I can think of only a couple reasons:
A. She should stay in the race because anything can happen to preserve her chances, including the death of her opponent, after all Bobby Kennedy was assassinated and so could Obama.
B. She is preparing the country for such an event, perhaps she knows something we don't? That possibility is pretty sinister to consider, so I will fall back to "A" as being the most likely.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2016 05:05 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

No such happy flirtation with "all the guys" is attributed to Clinton, the pants-wearing, perpetually suspected lesbian murderess of Vince Foster. At Christmas, Hillary Clinton nutcrackers were quite the snapped-up item. /snip/



This is an article....with throw-ups of a Vince Foster-murdering HRC. How they LOVE to hide behind it.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2016 05:36 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

snood wrote:

No such happy flirtation with "all the guys" is attributed to Clinton, the pants-wearing, perpetually suspected lesbian murderess of Vince Foster. At Christmas, Hillary Clinton nutcrackers were quite the snapped-up item. /snip/



This is an article....with throw-ups of a Vince Foster-murdering HRC. How they LOVE to hide behind it.


I'm actually kinda worried about you, Lash. In your estimation of priorities, it's important enough to you to prove that somehow people repeatedly reference Vince Foster to deflect relevant criticism from Hillary that you're searching 7 and 8 year old threads. If you were thinking clearly, you'd see that the very fact you have to search that far back weakens an argument that was a bit harebrained to start with.

You seem to be far enough down the rabbit hole that you believe that the effort to smear Clinton is well used time and energy, that it would be better for Trump to be president than Hillary, and that anyone who isn't in step with your feverish point of view is part of the problem (not to mention a gullible Hillary enabler).

I still hold out a small hope that you have the humility and intelligence that you can unscrew yourself from this tree limb, and see it as the remote and extreme stance that it most assuredly is. But you sure ain't making it easy.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2016 05:48 pm
@snood,
You need to back up what you say.

"Searching" is no problem with the search feature.

You and many other Dems attempt to deflect legitimate criticism of Hillary Clinton by throwing up Vince Foster. I said you did. you said I need to apologize because I'm wrong. I prove I'm right. You are not going to move those goal posts now and say I shouldn't be finding proof that I'm right.

You guys do it on the reg.

Admit it and move on.

I will tell you I've seen more non-Hillary supporters mention it than I thought, so it's a bit of a wash --- except for the fact that I was right about you...

*grin*
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2016 05:53 pm
@Lash,
No, you are not right. And no, I didn't move any goal posts. When you said "Snood has done it five times" you were making a reference to the PRESENT discussion about the PRESENT election. Are you going to lie and say you meant including ALL discussion EVER involving Hillary? You have no credibility or high ground to be directing anyone else "move on". You're the one who's stuck.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2016 05:57 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

When you said "Snood has done it five times" you were making a reference to the PRESENT discussion about the PRESENT election.

I don't know what makes you think that. You're incorrect. This Vince Foster manipulation goes back forever - as the posts I'm finding prove.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2016 06:01 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

snood wrote:

When you said "Snood has done it five times" you were making a reference to the PRESENT discussion about the PRESENT election.

I don't know what makes you think that. You're incorrect. This Vince Foster manipulation goes back forever - as the posts I'm finding prove.

Lead on Quixote. It's kind of interesting in a seriously perverse way.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/12/2021 at 10:49:04