Ticomaya
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 08:23 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
I don't know about them but after two years of posting here, there can't be a more honest and genuine poster than myself.


Shocked Laughing

Who do you think you're fooling, Harper (first post April 29, 2004)?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 08:23 am
sozobe wrote:
Steve, I talked about that several pages back -- Republicans clearly prefer Hillary in terms of who is the more beatable candidate. Rush Limbaugh makes this explicit -- "Keep her in it so we can win it." I posted something about some Republican WASPs in Columbus, OH (my city) talking about how they're confident that McCain has the nomination sealed up so they're voting for Hillary, as a preferred (easier-to-beat) opponent. Nappy chimed in with info that she's heard similar things are going on in Texas.


Yeah, Limbaugh is appealing Republicans to vote for Hillary now in Texas too..

JPB wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
As an observer, I dont think race comes into it. Obama appears to be just as popular with younger whites as he is with non whites, which is to the credit oft American voters.

I think it's naive to think that race doesn't come into it. Obama appears to be just as popular with younger whites as he is with non-whites is a testament to the future but can't be generalized to say that race is a non-issue today.

Plus, it's an overstatement. Obama does well with young whites, but he isnt "just as popular with younger whites as he is with non whites" - not by a long shot.

Percentage vote for Obama among 17-29 year olds

Virginia
72% among whites
91% among blacks

Maryland
53% among whites
87% among blacks

California
63% among whites
35% among Latinos

Georgia
58% among whites
91% among blacks

Tennessee
39% among whites
81% among blacks

South Carolina
52% among non-blacks
77% among blacks


(I'm afraid those are the only states for which exit polls specify data for both the white and a non-white subgroup of 17-29 year olds. In all the other states, there werent two such groups constituting a large enough share for the pollsters to provide reliable crosstabs, or - in the very first states - there was no separate category by race/age combined.)
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 08:29 am
I don't know if this an omen but I saw snow for the first time in thirty years (other than flying over it)
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o318/melissa90299/IMG_0353.jpg
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o318/melissa90299/snow1.jpg
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 08:30 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
I don't know about them but after two years of posting here, there can't be a more honest and genuine poster than myself.


Shocked Laughing

Who do you think you're fooling, Harper (first post April 29, 2004)?


Get help.


(Tico, king of the altie)
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 08:48 am
Ask Tough Questions? Yes, They Can!

SAN ANTONIO It took many months and the mockery of "Saturday Night Live" to make it happen, but the lumbering beast that is the press corps finally roused itself from its slumber Monday and greeted Barack Obama with a menacing growl.

The day before primaries in Ohio and Texas that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination for him, a smiling Obama strode out to a news conference at a veterans facility here. But the grin was quickly replaced by the surprised look of a man bitten by his own dog.

Reporters from the Associated Press and Reuters went after him for his false denial that a campaign aide had held a secret meeting with Canadian officials over Obama's trade policy. A trio of Chicago reporters pummeled him with questions about the corruption trial this week of a friend and supporter. The New York Post piled on with a question about him losing the Jewish vote.

Obama responded with the classic phrases of a politician in trouble. "That was the information that I had at the time. . . . Those charges are completely unrelated to me. . . . I have said that that was a mistake. . . . The fact pattern remains unchanged."

When those failed, Obama tried another approach. "We're running late," the candidate said, and then he disappeared behind a curtain.

Before he beat his hasty retreat, however, Obama found time to assign blame for the tough questions suddenly coming his way. "The Clinton campaign has been true to its word in employing a 'kitchen sink' strategy," he protested. "There are, what, three or four things a day?"

Spoken like a man who had just been hit on the head with a heavy piece of porcelain.

Obama may be the front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but to a large extent Hillary Clinton is setting the terms of the debate in the final days before Tuesday's crucial primaries. If Clinton doesn't win both states, even her closest advisers have said she'll face pressure to pull out of the race -- and yet, for the first time in months, she seems to have put Obama on the defensive.

First came her ringing-phone ad last week: "It's 3 a.m., and your children are safely asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?" Then the Clinton campaign trumpeted the acknowledgment that a top Obama aide had discussed NAFTA with a Canadian official -- contradicting adamant denials by Obama and his underlings. Add to that the opening of the trial in Chicago for Obama pal Tony Rezko, and Obama had lost any hope of controlling the theme of the day.

Even the much-mocked Clinton assertion that she offers "solutions" instead of Obama's "speeches" appears to have spooked him into a change in tactics. The candidate has largely disarmed himself of the mass rallies that have been the high points of his campaign in favor of small and sober town hall forums.

And so, Obama found himself in San Antonio on Monday, presenting a small group of veterans with a collection of small-bore policies that sounded downright Clintonian. "I led a bipartisan effort to improve outpatient facilities. . . . I passed legislation to get family members health care while they're caring for injured troops. . . . I've introduced legislation to make sure each service member receives electronic copies of their medical and service records upon discharge."

The modest proposals were met with modest applause.

For 40 slow minutes, Obama delivered his policy prescriptions and answered questions from the veterans. "I want the budgets to come in on time!" he told one questioner. He pledged to another his support for SR 1838, a new VA facility in the Rio Grande Valley. He told a third questioner about his plan for a $4,000 tuition credit. And the great orator found himself proclaiming that "it makes sense to have transferability."

Whatever. Reporters, at tables in the back of the room, answered e-mails and read newspapers. Obama, by making no news in his speech, had left them plenty of time to plot their ambush -- executed minutes later to the obvious surprise of the candidate.

"I don't have any preliminary statement," Obama said as he began his news conference, encouraging reporters to "just dive in." That was a mistake.

Tom Raum of the Associated Press led off with a question about whether an Obama aide had told Canadians not to take seriously the candidate's public rhetoric critical of the NAFTA trade agreement. "Let me, let me, let me, let me just be absolutely clear what happened," Obama answered, explaining that the meeting was a "courtesy" and involved no "winks and nods."

Then an agitator -- columnist Carol Marin with the Chicago Sun-Times -- broke in. Marin, a visitor to the Obama entourage who accused the regulars of being too "quiet," accused the candidate of concealing details about fundraisers Rezko had for him and a real estate transaction between the two.

"I don't think it's fair to suggest somehow that we've been trying to hide the ball on this," Obama answered. But this only provoked a noisy back-and-forth between Marin, Sun-Times colleague Lynn Sweet and Michael Flannery from Chicago's CBS affiliate. "How many fundraisers? . . . Who was there? . . . Disclosure of the closing documents?"

Obama, while repeating his formulation that it was "a boneheaded move" to do business with Rezko, tried to shut down the requests for more information. "These requests, I think, could just go on forever," he said. "At some point, what we need to try to do is respond to what's pertinent."

Reporters, however, had a different idea of what was pertinent, and the questions about Rezko, NAFTA and other unpleasant subjects continued to come. An aide called out "last question," and Obama made his move for the exit -- only for reporters to shout after him in protest. "C'mon, guys," he pleaded. "I just answered, like, eight questions."

The questioning, however, has only just begun.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/03/ST2008030303289.html?hpid=artslot
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:10 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
I don't know about them but after two years of posting here, there can't be a more honest and genuine poster than myself.


Shocked Laughing

Who do you think you're fooling, Harper (first post April 29, 2004)?


Ticomaya - have you thought this through? The lady speaks truth when she says she's only been posting here for 2 years - the person posting previously was a man, who no longer exists in any legal sense....Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:26 am
Ticomaya wrote:
nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
You've already made it clear the only reason you want him to win is because he's a black man.

What a crock of ****. He's posted that just him being a black man would be reason enough alone, but as it happens he's found right from the start that in the case of Obama, there are many other reasons why he supports him as well.


Okay, the main reason he wants him to win is because he's a black man. I'm sure he's also enamored with his plan to slash the DoD budget. Unless you've not been paying attention -- and I've known you to not pay attention -- you know snood injects race into many, many issues at this site. So don't try and act like my comment is coming from out in left field. And, yes, I'm going to focus on his stark comment where he made it clear he doesn't want another white guy to be the President. And in that same post he stated his ignorant belief that if a black man is elected President it will cause me to have an anxiety attack. Snood clearly doesn't know me or what I believe if he thinks I give a flying fuk what color the next President's skin may be.

The reason I don't want Obama to win has nothing to do with the color of his skin. Snood plays the race card whenever he has the opportunity ... yet he -- and Deist -- has the temerity to accuse me of injecting race into the conversation?


Thanks, fellas. I've found this discussion clarifying. Snood, clearly, is the problem.

Snood thinks about race. He thinks about the history of blacks in America. He thinks about the culture of african-americans. He thinks about his skin color. He thinks about the history of whites in America. He thinks about the culture of european-americans. He thinks about their skin color.

And there's the problem of race in america right there. Snood and other blacks (and there's a few whites in here too) think about race.

They ought to stop thinking about this stuff because it is their thinking that now creates racism in america. The premise of their thinking is..."differences"! With that premise, it's no surprise that they will inevitably toss that race card out onto every table, scattering crumpet crumbs and jiggling teacups.

If they would just stop thinking "different!" and begin thinking "ditto!" or "copy" or "clone" or "facsimile" then race would no longer pose problems for everyone. Race would disappear as a factor in social and mental architecture.

Clearly, blacks like snood have commonly failed in this natural progression towards non-blackness because they haven't properly appreciated the vital non-blackness of the conservative world-view and value-set.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:28 am
Hillary is not one who can bring people together; she's an attack dog who is unable to create an atmosphere of "working together" when she feels threatened.

We need a president who's first priority is to bring people together; we've had enough division in our country. At least Obama will give it his best shot.

Hillary's 35 years of experience hasn't taught her much about cooperation and motivation.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:30 am
Hillary Goes Orwellian on Iraq
by Andrew Gumbel

Hillary Clinton may fancy she opposes the war in Iraq, but she has a funny way of showing it. On Monday night in Austin, she had this to say about what the United States military has done over the past five years:

"We have given them the gift of freedom, the greatest gift you can give someone. Now it is really up to them to determine whether they will take that gift."
There was nothing accidental about this line. She delivered it in response to two Iraq veterans introduced at a town hall meeting at the Austin Convention Center by her friend and campaign surrogate Ted Danson. She liked the line enough that she delivered it again a couple of hours later, at a campaign-closing rally at a basketball arena in south Austin.

"The gift of freedom" is, of course, a curious way to describe an unprovoked invasion and occupation causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and leaving just about every aspect of life chaotic and fraught with daily dangers. To then lay responsibility for the mess on the Iraqis -- we did our bit, now you do yours -- is the worst kind of dishonesty, a complete abdication of moral principles. It's the sort of thing George Bush has said to justify his decision both to launch the invasion in the first place and then stay the course -- a course Hillary Clinton has spent many months telling primary and caucus voters she thinks was misconceived from the start.

Why, then, is she taking on the president's rhetorical tropes? Could it be she didn't -- and doesn't -- oppose the Iraq war quite as much as she's been letting on?

George Orwell rightly warned us about the way politicians use words like "freedom" when such usage begs more questions than it answers. "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way," he wrote in his famous essay Politics and the English Language. "That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different."

Clinton's audience certainly thought that what she was doing was standing four-square behind the veterans. That was they way they took it, and applauded her accordingly. Perhaps, though, before they make their choices tomorrow, the voters of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont should reread her words and ask themselves what the hell she really meant.

link
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:32 am
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/H/v/1/political_card_tricks.jpg
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:36 am
My prediction for today...

Hillary wins Ohio.

Obama wins Texas, but just barely.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:38 am
blatham wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
You've already made it clear the only reason you want him to win is because he's a black man.

What a crock of ****. He's posted that just him being a black man would be reason enough alone, but as it happens he's found right from the start that in the case of Obama, there are many other reasons why he supports him as well.


Okay, the main reason he wants him to win is because he's a black man. I'm sure he's also enamored with his plan to slash the DoD budget. Unless you've not been paying attention -- and I've known you to not pay attention -- you know snood injects race into many, many issues at this site. So don't try and act like my comment is coming from out in left field. And, yes, I'm going to focus on his stark comment where he made it clear he doesn't want another white guy to be the President. And in that same post he stated his ignorant belief that if a black man is elected President it will cause me to have an anxiety attack. Snood clearly doesn't know me or what I believe if he thinks I give a flying fuk what color the next President's skin may be.

The reason I don't want Obama to win has nothing to do with the color of his skin. Snood plays the race card whenever he has the opportunity ... yet he -- and Deist -- has the temerity to accuse me of injecting race into the conversation?


Thanks, fellas. I've found this discussion clarifying. Snood, clearly, is the problem.

Snood thinks about race. He thinks about the history of blacks in America. He thinks about the culture of african-americans. He thinks about his skin color. He thinks about the history of whites in America. He thinks about the culture of european-americans. He thinks about their skin color.

And there's the problem of race in america right there. Snood and other blacks (and there's a few whites in here too) think about race.

They ought to stop thinking about this stuff because it is their thinking that now creates racism in america. The premise of their thinking is..."differences"! With that premise, it's no surprise that they will inevitably toss that race card out onto every table, scattering crumpet crumbs and jiggling teacups.

If they would just stop thinking "different!" and begin thinking "ditto!" or "copy" or "clone" or "facsimile" then race would no longer pose problems for everyone. Race would disappear as a factor in social and mental architecture.

Clearly, blacks like snood have commonly failed in this natural progression towards non-blackness because they haven't properly appreciated the vital non-blackness of the conservative world-view and value-set.
I've found that by using an 18% gray card and adjusting shutter speed and/or the aperture size I can alter all people and the entire universe to a single neutral non-descript, valueless white rendering the concept "colour blind" with an entirely new meaning.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:46 am
High Seas wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
I don't know about them but after two years of posting here, there can't be a more honest and genuine poster than myself.


Shocked Laughing

Who do you think you're fooling, Harper (first post April 29, 2004)?


Ticomaya - have you thought this through? The lady speaks truth when she says she's only been posting here for 2 years - the person posting previously was a man, who no longer exists in any legal sense....Smile


Ahh ... good point.

I retract my prior statement.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:46 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
As an observer, I dont think race comes into it. Obama appears to be just as popular with younger whites as he is with non whites, which is to the credit oft American voters. Its what he says which makes him such a refreshing and attractive change. Mind you even the Republican canditate seems to disassociate himself with the present incumbent, so perhaps being an attractive change is not difficult.


In my opinion, one of the reasons Obama gained the momentum he did was precisely because people did not perceive him as using the race card. The race card is an important reason why folks like Jesse Jackson never got anywhere, as those people are rejected. Folks like Rice, Powell, Thomas, and others present their character without race written all over it, thus they are judged as individuals. Likewise, Obama gained that reputation as an individual presenting himself by his character, not by race, at least that was my perception to this point.

However, now this is the rub, if people begin to find out that he has cleverly camouflaged a racial agenda, the perception of him could change pretty rapidly. As I pointed out to snood, the sword is double edged, and he that handles the sword can also be hurt by the sword. This will be interesting to watch how Obama handles the increased scrutiny of his record.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:47 am
Barack 'Present' Obama shows how he handles tough, pressure situations:

Quote:
Angry Barack Obama bombarded by media
BY MICHAEL SAUL
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

Tuesday, March 4th 2008, 4:00 AM

SAN ANTONIO, Tex. - An exasperated Barack Obama scurried away Monday from the toughest news conference of his campaign, telling reporters who kept shouting questions that he'd spent enough time on the grill.

"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions," Obama, looking surprised, told shouting reporters as he fled the room. "We're running late."

from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/04/2008-03-04_angry_barack_obama_bombarded_by_media.html

Quote:
Obama responded with the classic phrases of a politician in trouble. "That was the information that I had at the time. . . . Those charges are completely unrelated to me. . . . I have said that that was a mistake. . . . The fact pattern remains unchanged."

When those failed, Obama tried another approach. "We're running late," the candidate said, and then he disappeared behind a curtain.

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302769_pf.html

Now, no longer to simply grin and vote 'Present', he skates.

Is this man ready to be Commander in Chief and face the Iranians, the North Koreans and Al-Qaeda?

They'll have more than eight questions for him, I promise you.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:52 am
This is interesting.
It looks like Hillary is saying that McCain will be better then Obama.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry3896372.shtml

And no, I did not read any of the comments posted by other people at the bottom of the article.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 10:26 am
Obama to win TX today.

Hillary to win OH by a few points.

Hillary to win RI.

Obama to win VT in a landslide.

---

At the end of the day, Obama's pledged delegate lead increase by 20+.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 10:35 am
A blogger at DailyKos thinks Hillary is a RACIST!!!

Quote:
In case you needed yet another reason to despise Hillary Clinton and her vermin strategists, she's now running an ad blatantly lying about Obama's subcommittee. Her ad includes debate footage heavily doctored to make Obama blacker.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 10:42 am
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
A blogger at DailyKos thinks Hillary is a RACIST!!!

Quote:
In case you needed yet another reason to despise Hillary Clinton and her vermin strategists, she's now running an ad blatantly lying about Obama's subcommittee. Her ad includes debate footage heavily doctored to make Obama blacker.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408


It's so. Of course, I once posted on daily kos and I claimed that nappy noggin loves enemas.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 4 Mar, 2008 10:44 am
dys said
Quote:
I've found that by using an 18% gray card and adjusting shutter speed and/or the aperture size I can alter all people and the entire universe to a single neutral non-descript, valueless white rendering the concept "colour blind" with an entirely new meaning.


You're on to something, dys. If we can get the Polaroid people to make an attachment for black peoples' eyes and brains, then that would really help the efforts to get them color-blind.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 574
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 08:39:44