1
   

Obama Exposed As Black

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 08:54 pm
I rest my case.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 09:10 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
JTT wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I expect the company I keep is better then [sic] yours.


Since you provide constant and unremitting support for those who are war criminals and felons then this can only be taken as another of your silly opinions.


Come on, the people who you claim are war criminals and felons have never been adjudicated to be such.

Give us a break.


I think someone in these very pages once said that you had an appreciation for the truth, Finn, that you were more than a conservative shill. I actually even thought that that might have some semblance of truth to it.

Quote:


The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

Vincent Bugliosi

...

Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he'd still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html




Who was it, maybe Sozobe who, not long ago, said in a thread that someone had to say this and she was glad it was finally stated.

I'm disappointed that nonsense like this has issued from your mouth. I would have expected an honest appraisal of the situation from you, not a foxyian/ticoian attempt to deceive.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 09:37 pm
JTT wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
JTT wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I expect the company I keep is better then [sic] yours.


Since you provide constant and unremitting support for those who are war criminals and felons then this can only be taken as another of your silly opinions.


Come on, the people who you claim are war criminals and felons have never been adjudicated to be such.

Give us a break.


I think someone in these very pages once said that you had an appreciation for the truth, Finn, that you were more than a conservative shill. I actually even thought that that might have some semblance of truth to it.

Quote:


The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

Vincent Bugliosi

...

Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he'd still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html




Who was it, maybe Sozobe who, not long ago, said in a thread that someone had to say this and she was glad it was finally stated.

I'm disappointed that nonsense like this has issued from your mouth. I would have expected an honest appraisal of the situation from you, not a foxyian/ticoian attempt to deceive.


Sorry JTT but I really couldn't care less as to what disappoints you.

I don't even get a kick out of the fact that I've disappointed you as I might with someone who I enjoy sparring with.

Notwithstanding whatever tripe (spewed by erstwhile respectable actors or not) you can find on the internet, George Bush has not only not been judged to be a war criminal or felon, no one has charged him to be same in any competent court throughout the entire world..

Referring to Bush or any member of his administration as a "War Criminal" or "Felon" is demonstrative of a partisan fever that defies reason.

Go for it though, but try to prove it with something more than the equally partisan opinion of fellow Bush-Haters.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 10:03 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:


Sorry JTT but I really couldn't care less as to what disappoints you.

I don't even get a kick out of the fact that I've disappointed you as I might with someone who I enjoy sparring with.

Be that as it may, sadly Finn, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that you're merely a conservative hack, unaffected by the truth.

Notwithstanding whatever tripe (spewed by erstwhile respectable actors or not) you can find on the internet, George Bush has not only not been judged to be a war criminal or felon, no one has charged him to be same in any competent court throughout the entire world.

Referring to Bush or any member of his administration as a "War Criminal" or "Felon" is demonstrative of a partisan fever that defies reason.



Given your blind partisanship, Finn, and it's nothing but that, you're hardly in a position to judge what is a competent court.

[quote]
Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/obama-would-immediately-r_n_96690.html
[/color]


Go for it though, but try to prove it with something more than the equally partisan opinion of fellow Bush-Haters.

There's no need for me to prove anything. The facts so clearly point to war crimes, actually admitted to by both Bush and his minions, and criminal behavior on a scale unprecedented in American history, and you've had more than your fair share of sleazy presidents.

But I'm still disappointed in how you've turned out to be nothing more than a conservative shill, unaffected by the truth, lacking in compassion and reason and overall, just being a general asshole. But, surprisedly and unexplainedly, I'm still fond of you, ya big galoot.

It's not everyday that one can lay claim to being an endearing fabricator.


[/quote]
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 10:05 pm
nimh wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I've learned how important the distribution of genes is in this election.... a couple of differences in Baracks genetic make up and he would look like this [..]

and then the issue of race would not even have come up.... which may or may not have effected the outcome of the primary....


Yes. Considering that the exit polls pretty consistently show that voters for whom race was an important factor in their choice have gone to Hillary by significant margins, I suppose it would have made a difference if race had never been a part of this race.

There's a lot of white people out there who said race was a factor in their vote, and they've largely gone to Hillary. Been more of those than black and white people combined who said they voted partly on race and chose Obama. So just going on the data, it seems that a white Obama would have won more easily...


(And that's just talking about the people who actually admitted in those exit polls that they voted partly based on race. Think about the people who didn't. I bet there's more white folk out there who refused to admit that they voted against Obama based on his race, than there were people who voted for him based on race and refused to admit it...)

And how about the black people that voted for Obama because of race? Probably the percentage of blacks that voted for Obama is greater than the percentage of whites that voted for Clinton.

And I don't know how you can project a white Obama would have won more easily? I actually think alot of Obama's appeal is due to the desire to elect a black person for president, and if not for that, I wonder if Obama would be where he is now. I doubt very seriously that he would have been asked to give the keynote speech at the last DNC, and without that he probably would not have been on anybody's radar screen at all. He would still be a virtual unknown. The media hyped this guy to where he is following the last DNC, mostly because the party wanted to use the guy as a poster boy for the party. How else do you explain the phenomena of a guy that has virtually no experience being where he is today.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 10:18 pm
okie wrote:
The media hyped this guy to where he is following the last DNC, mostly because the party wanted to use the guy as a poster boy for the party. How else do you explain the phenomena of a guy that has virtually no experience being where he is today.


You couldn't possible be sentient when you write this stuff?

THE MEDIA HYPES MCCAIN.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE DISASTER THAT HAS BEEN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. NO EXPERIENCE, YOU ONLY HAVE TO LOOK TO THE FACTS TO SEE THAT! Everything he touched he screwed up royally.

Look at what all this "experience" has given McCain. He lies, he flip flops like there's no tomorrow, he's incapable of restraining his emotions, he is profoundly ignorant of the world around him, [write something bad here, it'll likely fit him like a glove]

You really have no shame, Okie. You've been so wrong for so long that there's no hope of you ever knowing anything approaching the truth.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 05:16 am
okie wrote:
And how about the black people that voted for Obama because of race?

According to the exit polls, the number of blacks voting for Obama at least partly on the basis of race is smaller than the number of whites voting for Clinton at least partly on the basis of race.

Of course that's just the people who honestly say so - and although exit polls involve casting a closed paper 'ballot' in a box, and is thus relatively discrete, I think there are still people who wont admit voting on the basis of race. But considering it's a lot more 'taboo' for a white to say that he voted against Obama because he's black than it is for a black to say he voted for him because he's black, I would think that taking that into account just makes the difference bigger still.

Time after time, race has been shown in the numbers, at least, to have cost Obama more votes than it yielded for him.

okie wrote:
Probably the percentage of blacks that voted for Obama is greater than the percentage of whites that voted for Clinton.

Proportionally yes, but in total number of votes of course there are a lot more white Clinton voters than black Obama voters, just because white voters outnumber blacks by something like 4:1 in the Democratic primaries.

That doesnt say much about whether they voted on the basis of race though; hence looking at the exit polls for that. And those show that race costs Obama more votes than it yields him.

okie wrote:
And I don't know how you can project a white Obama would have won more easily?

On the basis of the exit poll data.

okie wrote:
I doubt very seriously that he would have been asked to give the keynote speech at the last DNC, and without that he probably would not have been on anybody's radar screen at all. He would still be a virtual unknown.

Really now? You dont think that a guy who's almost universally praised as a brilliant orator and a charismatic politician would not have been given a prominent speaking slot, and would have remained a virtual unkown, if he had been white?

Trip out. Who knew that being white would stand that much in the way of rapid career advancement for a talented politician. That must explain why so few white politicians get the chance to rise up in the ranks ... oh wait.
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 05:18 am
Nimh, that was good!
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 05:48 am
Good one, nimh.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 12:27 pm
nimh nuked me! Seriously though, exit polls only tell you what the voters will tell you per the current situation, not how he got to where he is. And there is always the element of them telling you what is politically correct. I still believe Obama was picked for the DNC keynote speech for more than the reason he was supposedly a good speaker, but because he was black and the party wanted to use him because of it. And I think much of his support all follows due to the media creation and promotion that have happened as a result of that.

As an aside, I would like to tell you again, nimh, as well as other Obamaites here, I liked Obama far better than Hillary Clinton after watching the debates, and have always hoped that he would help put an end to the Clinton's ambitions, so I am glad about that if she does indeed lose, but as the campaign has progressed, I have become increasingly opposed to Obama because of what I am learning about him. There is a part of me that still wonders if the guy has an upside in terms of him having enough sense to see the benefits of more conservative policies. However after reading his book, I am pretty convinced now that he has a very deep seated and unchanging dedication to leftist idealogies, that go back a very long way, and which he purposely did not spell out in his book or talk about in detail now. We only hear about and see the signs that say, "Change that you can believe in, etc."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 01:54 pm
okie wrote:
And there is always the element of them telling you what is politically correct.


Marychrist, certainly. Like in any other survey or poll.
And photos in the media can be faked (I suppose, you don't believe in the moonlanding, too, okie).


Really a very good post, nimh!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 01:59 pm
But it's such a convenient argument!


"I know your data disagrees with me, but it might be wrong ya know!"


It's a finely honed tool.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 04:11 pm
nimh, how many people are voting FOR Obama because of race, including white and black? Do you have data for that? I think alot of whites are voting for Obama because of race.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 08:09 pm
okie wrote:
there is always the element of them telling you what is politically correct.


Absolutely. That's why I believe that if, for example, one in five white voters in West-Virginia and Kentucky say they voted for Hillary at least partly because of the candidates' race, you can bet your life that the number in reality is only larger.

Blacks (or whites!) voting for the black candidate at least partly because of his race, on the other hand, is not very politically incorrect, is it? If anything, it's actually quite PC - the kind of thing your average liberal would only all too eagerly admit to.

So I think - but this is just a guess on my part - that the exit polls underestimate the number of people who vote against Obama because he's black by much more than they underestimate the number of people who voted for him because he's black. So if already now, the number voting against him because of race is higher than the number of those voting for him because of race, well... then race is probably even more of a net loss for him in reality.

Which brings me to your other question:


okie wrote:
nimh, how many people are voting FOR Obama because of race, including white and black? Do you have data for that? I think alot of whites are voting for Obama because of race.

Yeah, that would be the same data. I went through the data for this question back up to the March 4 primaries, and here's what I found.

(Note how this data is different from that in the table I posted earlier tonight in the Polls etc thread: that table was only about whites who said race was an important factor in their choice, this table is about all voters who said so.)


http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/3083/roleofraceallvotersju1.png


In short, race has only really yielded Obama votes in the two states where blacks made up a third or more of the primary voters, Mississippi and North-Carolina. There, blacks who voted for Obama at least partly because of race apparently clearly outnumbered whites who voted against him at least partly because of it.

Voters in the socially liberal states of Vermont and Oregon also yielded a net few votes for Obama on race, but negligeable amounts because there just werent many voters there for whom it was an important factor.

Meanwhile, Hillary reaped significant amounts of votes on the basis of race in all the other states.

In Ohio and Pennsylvania, even if you look at all voters and not just white ones, those voting for Hillary for whom race was an important consideration outnumbered those who voted for Obama at least partly because of race by a margin of 20 percentage points. In Rhode Island they did so by 30 points; and in Kentucky and West-Virginia by 65-70 points.

When you translate those leads in numbers of votes, you're talking about a net 50-100 thousand votes she won in almost each of those states from those who called race an important factor in their choice.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 08:53 pm
JTT wrote:
There's no need for me to prove anything.


OK, if you insist.

Someone revealed to me your actual identity and confided that you are suspected of sexually preying on small children in your neighborhood.

You are a bad person JTT.

No need for me to prove anything of course, because I've come to the conclusion that based on the things you post that this sort of illegal behavior is probably what you've been up to.

Who needs proof?

You're guilty and you're busted you pedophile!

Or maybe it was the person who claimed you cheated on your taxes that is to be believed. OK, you're not a pedophile, you're a tax cheater.

Makes sense to me and so why do I need proof?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 09:06 pm
O. J. was found innocent.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 09:12 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
JTT wrote:
There's no need for me to prove anything.


OK, if you insist.

Someone revealed to me your actual identity and confided that you are suspected of sexually preying on small children in your neighborhood.

You are a bad person JTT.

No need for me to prove anything of course, because I've come to the conclusion that based on the things you post that this sort of illegal behavior is probably what you've been up to.

Who needs proof?

You're guilty and you're busted you pedophile!

Or maybe it was the person who claimed you cheated on your taxes that is to be believed. OK, you're not a pedophile, you're a tax cheater.

Makes sense to me and so why do I need proof?


The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 09:51 pm
dyslexia wrote:
O. J. was found innocent.
No he wasn't. He was presumed innocent and they failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 09:58 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
O. J. was found innocent.
No he wasn't. He was presumed innocent and they failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
far more accurate than I posted but consistent with my intention.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 10:00 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
O. J. was found innocent.
No he wasn't. He was presumed innocent and they failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


Depends on who's doing the viewing, Bill.
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 10:13:47