Tomorrow's not a big day for the Clinton camp?Tomorrow is a big day for the Obama camp. Hawaii is a sure thing but Wisconsin hangs in the balance. Lat I heard, it is within 5 points either way.
And, this will forever perpetuate the cycle of racism in this country. If you were really a champion against racism, I would've expected you'd get this by now.Obviously I shouldn't have used those terms that I did, and I apologize once again.
I shouldn't even have to say it, but I have absolutely no prejudices against Obama because of his skin color or name. I am opposed to him based on his stated positions on several issues. (If he agreed with me on more than social issues, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, because as I've written several places, he is the most dynamic speaker I have ever heard.) The point I was trying to make was that, despite my disagreements with Obama, I could be for him anyway if I accepted the argument that his name and skin color would have a positive long term effect on the enemies of this country. I don't believe that to be true, and I stated why.
Only if they win. Otherwise there are many reason to not take the Wisconsin vote seriously.Tomorrow's not a big day for the Clinton camp?Tomorrow is a big day for the Obama camp. Hawaii is a sure thing but Wisconsin hangs in the balance. Lat I heard, it is within 5 points either way.
And, this will forever perpetuate the cycle of racism in this country. If you were really a champion against racism, I would've expected you'd get this by now.Obviously I shouldn't have used those terms that I did, and I apologize once again.
I shouldn't even have to say it, but I have absolutely no prejudices against Obama because of his skin color or name. I am opposed to him based on his stated positions on several issues. (If he agreed with me on more than social issues, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, because as I've written several places, he is the most dynamic speaker I have ever heard.) The point I was trying to make was that, despite my disagreements with Obama, I could be for him anyway if I accepted the argument that his name and skin color would have a positive long term effect on the enemies of this country. I don't believe that to be true, and I stated why.

Given your follow-up post to this, I think it does have everything to do with something else.That's simply not true. I was specifically arguing against the argument that Muslims around the world would have a long term positive attitude of Obama simply because of his name and skin color. This has nothing to do with anything else.Not to mention, his POV would prohibit anyone of color from ever entering the presidential office. I'll give him the benefit of just being naive here. But, I'd otherwise consider it an outrageously racist perspective he's espousing here.What did you expect? You just painted approximately 6 billion people with a very broad brush.Up above I was referred to as a racist. That's very depressing to me. It's a sad day when my use of racist terms to illustrate what I believe will eventually be the world opinion of Barack Obama is in itself described as racist.
I think it's safe to say that it's not WHAT you said, per se...it's HOW you said it. You just can't make comments like that without expecting a HUGE back-lash. Might have just been a mistake on your part, but just learn from that mistake and move forward. It's gonna take people a little while to forget that one though...But to what I THINK was your original point, ANY President will ultimately be judged and remembered on their actions during their time in office. What did "you" (President) do while you were in office?!" That is true whether said President is white or black, male or female, homosexual or heterosexual, young or old, Christian or non-Christian, etc., both in the United States and abroad. Some people who harbor ists/isms will have two strikes against said President if they don't "fit their mold" for what a President will look like. However, you using two historically derogatory terms towards African-Americans just seemed completely inappropriate and unnecessary to make that point.Wow, where to begin. First of all, we are dealing very specifically with what would be the Islamic world's impression of Obama as President. No other issue regarding Obama's views or the man himself is implied. The words I used have a very specific meaning; any African-American reading this will instantly understand what I am trying to say without (hopefully) taking offense; certainly none is intended, and if anyone is offended, I apologize.
I don't feel as though I am part of the Clinton camp therefore who am I to say if it's a big day. I have particapted a little in helping spread the word for Obama therefore I feel like I am part of the Obama camp.Tomorrow's not a big day for the Clinton camp?Tomorrow is a big day for the Obama camp. Hawaii is a sure thing but Wisconsin hangs in the balance. Lat I heard, it is within 5 points either way.
Thank you. I will abstain from using such words in the future. Again no offense was intended.I think it's safe to say that it's not WHAT you said, per se...it's HOW you said it. You just can't make comments like that without expected a HUGE back-lash. Might have just been a mistake on your part, but just learn from that mistake and move forward. It's gonna take people a little while to forget that one though...But to what I THINK was your original point, ANY President will ultimately be judged and remembered on their actions during their time in office. What did "you" (President) do while you were in office?!" That is true whether said President is white or black, male or female, homosexual or heterosexual, young or old, Christian or non-Christian, etc., both in the United States and abroad. Some people who harbor ists/isms will have two strikes against said President if they don't "fit their mold" for what a President will look like. However, you using two historically derogatory terms towards African-Americans just seemed completely inappropriate and unnecessary to make that point.Wow, where to begin. First of all, we are dealing very specifically with what would be the Islamic world's impression of Obama as President. No other issue regarding Obama's views or the man himself is implied. The words I used have a very specific meaning; any African-American reading this will instantly understand what I am trying to say without (hopefully) taking offense; certainly none is intended, and if anyone is offended, I apologize.
My $0.02.
I admit I used wrong words earlier and I have apologized for them. But I don't understand your point; how is what I have written here perpetuating racism?And, this will forever perpetuate the cycle of racism in this country. If you were really a champion against racism, I would've expected you'd get this by now.Obviously I shouldn't have used those terms that I did, and I apologize once again.
I shouldn't even have to say it, but I have absolutely no prejudices against Obama because of his skin color or name. I am opposed to him based on his stated positions on several issues. (If he agreed with me on more than social issues, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, because as I've written several places, he is the most dynamic speaker I have ever heard.) The point I was trying to make was that, despite my disagreements with Obama, I could be for him anyway if I accepted the argument that his name and skin color would have a positive long term effect on the enemies of this country. I don't believe that to be true, and I stated why.
No kidding. And he isn't the only one. Beat it.timschochet> there is thread dedicated to McCain. This one's about Obama.HTH![]()
Now, now. I have no problem with the McCain and Hillary supporters posting in here. To be frank so far it hasn't worked out to well for them.No kidding. And he isn't the only one. Beat it.timschochet> there is thread dedicated to McCain. This one's about Obama.HTH![]()
I actually think that Wisconsin is HUGE for both Obama and Clinton. If Obama wins, he continues to roll-along with his incredible momentum and close the gap in Texas and maybe Ohio/Pennsylvania. If Clinton wins, Obama's momentum slows and she maybe picks up more votes in those three other states as a result. I think people have said it before in other threads, but a lot of people on the fence want to back a winner. That's where I thought what Obama accomplished in Iowa was so incredible! Had Hillary won Iowa and New Hampshire by sizable margins, the perception of her being the "presumptive nominee" would have continued and we wouldn't likely be having this conversation right now.If Obama can pull out Wisconsin tomorrow night, it'll go a long, LONG way towards gaining the nomination.Only if they win. Otherwise there are many reason to not take the Wisconsin vote seriously.Tomorrow's not a big day for the Clinton camp?Tomorrow is a big day for the Obama camp. Hawaii is a sure thing but Wisconsin hangs in the balance. Lat I heard, it is within 5 points either way.

Clinton's getting zero buzz out in the Wisconsin burbs. I can't think this will be anything but an Obama landslide.I don't feel as though I am part of the Clinton camp therefore who am I to say if it's a big day. I have particapted a little in helping spread the word for Obama therefore I feel like I am part of the Obama camp.Tomorrow's not a big day for the Clinton camp?Tomorrow is a big day for the Obama camp. Hawaii is a sure thing but Wisconsin hangs in the balance. Lat I heard, it is within 5 points either way.
How do you stop racism? By taking steps to overcome it. You're saying you would like to believe that Obama's being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism, but you can't get yourself to believe it so, for that reason, you won't vote for him. So you're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. By saying you can't vote for him because of racism, you're perpetuating racism. The only way to overcome racism is to break the mold. If Obama isn't elected, racism continues. If Obama is elected but your scenario unfolds, racism continues. But if Obama is elected and the exact opposite of your scenario results, a significant long-term step in ending racism takes place.I admit I used wrong words earlier and I have apologized for them. But I don't understand your point; how is what I have written here perpetuating racism?And, this will forever perpetuate the cycle of racism in this country. If you were really a champion against racism, I would've expected you'd get this by now.Obviously I shouldn't have used those terms that I did, and I apologize once again.
I shouldn't even have to say it, but I have absolutely no prejudices against Obama because of his skin color or name. I am opposed to him based on his stated positions on several issues. (If he agreed with me on more than social issues, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, because as I've written several places, he is the most dynamic speaker I have ever heard.) The point I was trying to make was that, despite my disagreements with Obama, I could be for him anyway if I accepted the argument that his name and skin color would have a positive long term effect on the enemies of this country. I don't believe that to be true, and I stated why.
Posting here is one thing. Constantly filling the thread with garbage is something else.Now, now. I have no problem with the McCain and Hillary supporters posting in here. To be frank so far it hasn't worked out to well for them.No kidding. And he isn't the only one. Beat it.timschochet> there is thread dedicated to McCain. This one's about Obama.HTH![]()
No no no you still misunderstand me. I never said that Obama being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism: it certainly would be, but that wasn't my argument. What I wrote was that there was the hope that Obama's election would change the perception of America in the Islamic world. If that were to happen, it would be enough to override my policy differences with Obama. But I don't in the end believe that will happen.Given what we know of the way the Islamic world reacts to things, I made a prediction of how they would react after Obama does not immediately end all support of Israel. I predict they will be dissapointed, and they will decide that he is a stooge. In order to illustrate this, I used racial terms that I should not have used, and this obviously completely ruined the point I was trying to get across.How do you stop racism? By taking steps to overcome it. You're saying you would like to believe that Obama's being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism, but you can't get yourself to believe it so, for that reason, you won't vote for him. So you're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. By saying you can't vote for him because of racism, you're perpetuating racism. The only way to overcome racism is to break the mold. If Obama isn't elected, racism continues. If Obama is elected but your scenario unfolds, racism continues. But if Obama is elected and the exact opposite of your scenario results, a significant long-term step in ending racism takes place.I admit I used wrong words earlier and I have apologized for them. But I don't understand your point; how is what I have written here perpetuating racism?And, this will forever perpetuate the cycle of racism in this country. If you were really a champion against racism, I would've expected you'd get this by now.Obviously I shouldn't have used those terms that I did, and I apologize once again.
I shouldn't even have to say it, but I have absolutely no prejudices against Obama because of his skin color or name. I am opposed to him based on his stated positions on several issues. (If he agreed with me on more than social issues, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, because as I've written several places, he is the most dynamic speaker I have ever heard.) The point I was trying to make was that, despite my disagreements with Obama, I could be for him anyway if I accepted the argument that his name and skin color would have a positive long term effect on the enemies of this country. I don't believe that to be true, and I stated why.
Only one of those paths leads to the potential of ending racism.
Only if they vote against him based on his race.No no no you still misunderstand me. I never said that Obama being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism: it certainly would be, but that wasn't my argument. What I wrote was that there was the hope that Obama's election would change the perception of America in the Islamic world. If that were to happen, it would be enough to override my policy differences with Obama. But I don't in the end believe that will happen.Given what we know of the way the Islamic world reacts to things, I made a prediction of how they would react after Obama does not immediately end all support of Israel. I predict they will be dissapointed, and they will decide that he is a stooge. In order to illustrate this, I used racial terms that I should not have used, and this obviously completely ruined the point I was trying to get across.How do you stop racism? By taking steps to overcome it. You're saying you would like to believe that Obama's being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism, but you can't get yourself to believe it so, for that reason, you won't vote for him. So you're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. By saying you can't vote for him because of racism, you're perpetuating racism. The only way to overcome racism is to break the mold. If Obama isn't elected, racism continues. If Obama is elected but your scenario unfolds, racism continues. But if Obama is elected and the exact opposite of your scenario results, a significant long-term step in ending racism takes place.I admit I used wrong words earlier and I have apologized for them. But I don't understand your point; how is what I have written here perpetuating racism?And, this will forever perpetuate the cycle of racism in this country. If you were really a champion against racism, I would've expected you'd get this by now.Obviously I shouldn't have used those terms that I did, and I apologize once again.
I shouldn't even have to say it, but I have absolutely no prejudices against Obama because of his skin color or name. I am opposed to him based on his stated positions on several issues. (If he agreed with me on more than social issues, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, because as I've written several places, he is the most dynamic speaker I have ever heard.) The point I was trying to make was that, despite my disagreements with Obama, I could be for him anyway if I accepted the argument that his name and skin color would have a positive long term effect on the enemies of this country. I don't believe that to be true, and I stated why.
Only one of those paths leads to the potential of ending racism.
Your argument however, that voting FOR Obama is the only way to end racism, is dangerously close to the idea that that those who vote against Obama are perpetuating racism.
I agree. I hope there is no one here who believes that I will be voting against Obama based on his race.Only if they vote against him based on his race.No no no you still misunderstand me. I never said that Obama being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism: it certainly would be, but that wasn't my argument. What I wrote was that there was the hope that Obama's election would change the perception of America in the Islamic world. If that were to happen, it would be enough to override my policy differences with Obama. But I don't in the end believe that will happen.Given what we know of the way the Islamic world reacts to things, I made a prediction of how they would react after Obama does not immediately end all support of Israel. I predict they will be dissapointed, and they will decide that he is a stooge. In order to illustrate this, I used racial terms that I should not have used, and this obviously completely ruined the point I was trying to get across.How do you stop racism? By taking steps to overcome it. You're saying you would like to believe that Obama's being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism, but you can't get yourself to believe it so, for that reason, you won't vote for him. So you're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. By saying you can't vote for him because of racism, you're perpetuating racism. The only way to overcome racism is to break the mold. If Obama isn't elected, racism continues. If Obama is elected but your scenario unfolds, racism continues. But if Obama is elected and the exact opposite of your scenario results, a significant long-term step in ending racism takes place.I admit I used wrong words earlier and I have apologized for them. But I don't understand your point; how is what I have written here perpetuating racism?And, this will forever perpetuate the cycle of racism in this country. If you were really a champion against racism, I would've expected you'd get this by now.Obviously I shouldn't have used those terms that I did, and I apologize once again.
I shouldn't even have to say it, but I have absolutely no prejudices against Obama because of his skin color or name. I am opposed to him based on his stated positions on several issues. (If he agreed with me on more than social issues, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, because as I've written several places, he is the most dynamic speaker I have ever heard.) The point I was trying to make was that, despite my disagreements with Obama, I could be for him anyway if I accepted the argument that his name and skin color would have a positive long term effect on the enemies of this country. I don't believe that to be true, and I stated why.
Only one of those paths leads to the potential of ending racism.
Your argument however, that voting FOR Obama is the only way to end racism, is dangerously close to the idea that that those who vote against Obama are perpetuating racism.
I didn't misunderstand you. But you were using racist terminology in discussing the Islamic world's viewpoint as the primary reason you were not going to vote for Obama. And I was attempting to show the logical framework of your argument to you, and how the only way to find out if your incredibly cynical, jaded, and apparently racist prediction won't come true is to believe and work towards it not coming true.No no no you still misunderstand me. I never said that Obama being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism: it certainly would be, but that wasn't my argument. What I wrote was that there was the hope that Obama's election would change the perception of America in the Islamic world. If that were to happen, it would be enough to override my policy differences with Obama. But I don't in the end believe that will happen.Given what we know of the way the Islamic world reacts to things, I made a prediction of how they would react after Obama does not immediately end all support of Israel. I predict they will be dissapointed, and they will decide that he is a stooge. In order to illustrate this, I used racial terms that I should not have used, and this obviously completely ruined the point I was trying to get across.Your argument however, that voting FOR Obama is the only way to end racism, is dangerously close to the idea that that those who vote against Obama are perpetuating racism.
It's not the primary reason I'm not going to vote for Obama. I was stating the reason I was considering overriding my other viewpoints against Obama.If I agreed with Obama's economic and foreign policies, I would vote for him.To tell you the truth, friend, I wish I was wrong about the Islamic world. When 90% of them believe, according to polls, that the Mossad plotted 9/11 and that the British secret service murdered Princess Di, how can anyone not be cynical about them? In most of their countries, maps where Israel should be have a black spot instead, and several of our "allies" including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, feature Holocaust denial studies in their major universities. In the Sudan and other Arab states which are on the African border, slavery of dark-skinned Africans is still practiced.All of the above is reality. You can call my prediction "incredibly cynical, jaded, and apparently racist" all you want, but there are good reasons to believe as I do.I didn't misunderstand you. But you were using racist terminology in discussing the Islamic world's viewpoint as the primary reason you were not going to vote for Obama. And I was attempting to show the logical framework of your argument to you, and how the only way to find out if your incredibly cynical, jaded, and apparently racist prediction won't come true is to believe and work towards it not coming true.No no no you still misunderstand me. I never said that Obama being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism: it certainly would be, but that wasn't my argument. What I wrote was that there was the hope that Obama's election would change the perception of America in the Islamic world. If that were to happen, it would be enough to override my policy differences with Obama. But I don't in the end believe that will happen.Given what we know of the way the Islamic world reacts to things, I made a prediction of how they would react after Obama does not immediately end all support of Israel. I predict they will be dissapointed, and they will decide that he is a stooge. In order to illustrate this, I used racial terms that I should not have used, and this obviously completely ruined the point I was trying to get across.Your argument however, that voting FOR Obama is the only way to end racism, is dangerously close to the idea that that those who vote against Obama are perpetuating racism.
Okay, I think we should cut timschochet a break here. His point was merely that if he thought that electing Obama would change the perception of America in the Islamic world in a substantive way, it would override all of his policy differences and he would vote for him. But because he doesn't see that happening (I don't think I do either), he will support the candidate that most reflects his views (McCain). I don't see how that's a controversial position for him to take.I didn't misunderstand you. But you were using racist terminology in discussing the Islamic world's viewpoint as the primary reason you were not going to vote for Obama. And I was attempting to show the logical framework of your argument to you, and how the only way to find out if your incredibly cynical, jaded, and apparently racist prediction won't come true is to believe and work towards it not coming true.No no no you still misunderstand me. I never said that Obama being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism: it certainly would be, but that wasn't my argument. What I wrote was that there was the hope that Obama's election would change the perception of America in the Islamic world. If that were to happen, it would be enough to override my policy differences with Obama. But I don't in the end believe that will happen.Given what we know of the way the Islamic world reacts to things, I made a prediction of how they would react after Obama does not immediately end all support of Israel. I predict they will be dissapointed, and they will decide that he is a stooge. In order to illustrate this, I used racial terms that I should not have used, and this obviously completely ruined the point I was trying to get across.Your argument however, that voting FOR Obama is the only way to end racism, is dangerously close to the idea that that those who vote against Obama are perpetuating racism.
Thank you; you understand me perfectly. However, I used some terms I shouldn't have in trying to illustrate my point, for which I have apologized, and I am apologizing again. Now I'm off to bed!Okay, I think we should cut timschochet a break here. His point was merely that if he thought that electing Obama would change the perception of America in the Islamic world in a substantive way, it would override all of his policy differences and he would vote for him. But because he doesn't see that happening (I don't think I do either), he will support the candidate that most reflects his views (McCain). I don't see how that's a controversial position for him to take.I didn't misunderstand you. But you were using racist terminology in discussing the Islamic world's viewpoint as the primary reason you were not going to vote for Obama. And I was attempting to show the logical framework of your argument to you, and how the only way to find out if your incredibly cynical, jaded, and apparently racist prediction won't come true is to believe and work towards it not coming true.No no no you still misunderstand me. I never said that Obama being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism: it certainly would be, but that wasn't my argument. What I wrote was that there was the hope that Obama's election would change the perception of America in the Islamic world. If that were to happen, it would be enough to override my policy differences with Obama. But I don't in the end believe that will happen.Given what we know of the way the Islamic world reacts to things, I made a prediction of how they would react after Obama does not immediately end all support of Israel. I predict they will be dissapointed, and they will decide that he is a stooge. In order to illustrate this, I used racial terms that I should not have used, and this obviously completely ruined the point I was trying to get across.Your argument however, that voting FOR Obama is the only way to end racism, is dangerously close to the idea that that those who vote against Obama are perpetuating racism.
I think we have had some people say that their personal experiences lead them to believe that would be the case.Serious question...am I a bad person for thinking that a black man as the leader of the free world would be a good thing for this country and it's image?
Nope. One more point, not about what it means in terms of perception from outside the US but within. I don't think you can overstate how significant this would be for the African American community, in particular the youth in that community.Serious question...am I a bad person for thinking that a black man as the leader of the free world would be a good thing for this country and it's image?
Given his background, I think that would be very significant. I don't think Hillary represents the the same thing to women since her husband first held the office.Nope. One more point, not about what it means in terms of perception from outside the US but within. I don't think you can overstate how significant this would be for the African American community, in particular the youth in that community.Serious question...am I a bad person for thinking that a black man as the leader of the free world would be a good thing for this country and it's image?
The controversial part was where he said Obama would be perceived as an uncle tom or house ######. HTHOkay, I think we should cut timschochet a break here. His point was merely that if he thought that electing Obama would change the perception of America in the Islamic world in a substantive way, it would override all of his policy differences and he would vote for him. But because he doesn't see that happening (I don't think I do either), he will support the candidate that most reflects his views (McCain). I don't see how that's a controversial position for him to take.I didn't misunderstand you. But you were using racist terminology in discussing the Islamic world's viewpoint as the primary reason you were not going to vote for Obama. And I was attempting to show the logical framework of your argument to you, and how the only way to find out if your incredibly cynical, jaded, and apparently racist prediction won't come true is to believe and work towards it not coming true.No no no you still misunderstand me. I never said that Obama being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism: it certainly would be, but that wasn't my argument. What I wrote was that there was the hope that Obama's election would change the perception of America in the Islamic world. If that were to happen, it would be enough to override my policy differences with Obama. But I don't in the end believe that will happen.Given what we know of the way the Islamic world reacts to things, I made a prediction of how they would react after Obama does not immediately end all support of Israel. I predict they will be dissapointed, and they will decide that he is a stooge. In order to illustrate this, I used racial terms that I should not have used, and this obviously completely ruined the point I was trying to get across.Your argument however, that voting FOR Obama is the only way to end racism, is dangerously close to the idea that that those who vote against Obama are perpetuating racism.
Please let me know pieces of classic literature violate this so I can commence burning.The controversial part was where he said Obama would be perceived as an uncle tom or house ######. HTHOkay, I think we should cut timschochet a break here. His point was merely that if he thought that electing Obama would change the perception of America in the Islamic world in a substantive way, it would override all of his policy differences and he would vote for him. But because he doesn't see that happening (I don't think I do either), he will support the candidate that most reflects his views (McCain). I don't see how that's a controversial position for him to take.I didn't misunderstand you. But you were using racist terminology in discussing the Islamic world's viewpoint as the primary reason you were not going to vote for Obama. And I was attempting to show the logical framework of your argument to you, and how the only way to find out if your incredibly cynical, jaded, and apparently racist prediction won't come true is to believe and work towards it not coming true.No no no you still misunderstand me. I never said that Obama being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism: it certainly would be, but that wasn't my argument. What I wrote was that there was the hope that Obama's election would change the perception of America in the Islamic world. If that were to happen, it would be enough to override my policy differences with Obama. But I don't in the end believe that will happen.Given what we know of the way the Islamic world reacts to things, I made a prediction of how they would react after Obama does not immediately end all support of Israel. I predict they will be dissapointed, and they will decide that he is a stooge. In order to illustrate this, I used racial terms that I should not have used, and this obviously completely ruined the point I was trying to get across.Your argument however, that voting FOR Obama is the only way to end racism, is dangerously close to the idea that that those who vote against Obama are perpetuating racism.
Well to be fair there are certainly people, millions right here, who will harbor Obama ill will simply based on his skin color. Some of them will likely be of his own race and I think it would be naive to think those expressions will never be used. The problem was taking it to lengths he did.The controversial part was where he said Obama would be perceived as an uncle tom or house ######. HTHOkay, I think we should cut timschochet a break here. His point was merely that if he thought that electing Obama would change the perception of America in the Islamic world in a substantive way, it would override all of his policy differences and he would vote for him. But because he doesn't see that happening (I don't think I do either), he will support the candidate that most reflects his views (McCain). I don't see how that's a controversial position for him to take.I didn't misunderstand you. But you were using racist terminology in discussing the Islamic world's viewpoint as the primary reason you were not going to vote for Obama. And I was attempting to show the logical framework of your argument to you, and how the only way to find out if your incredibly cynical, jaded, and apparently racist prediction won't come true is to believe and work towards it not coming true.No no no you still misunderstand me. I never said that Obama being elected president would be a positive step in overcoming racism: it certainly would be, but that wasn't my argument. What I wrote was that there was the hope that Obama's election would change the perception of America in the Islamic world. If that were to happen, it would be enough to override my policy differences with Obama. But I don't in the end believe that will happen.Given what we know of the way the Islamic world reacts to things, I made a prediction of how they would react after Obama does not immediately end all support of Israel. I predict they will be dissapointed, and they will decide that he is a stooge. In order to illustrate this, I used racial terms that I should not have used, and this obviously completely ruined the point I was trying to get across.Your argument however, that voting FOR Obama is the only way to end racism, is dangerously close to the idea that that those who vote against Obama are perpetuating racism.
I think that's part of the problem right there (bolded text). How many people in the "Islamic world" are having conversations with their friends, their co-workers, their families, etc. right now, saying "I wish I was wrong about the Americans. When 90% of them believe..."It comes down to basic ignorance and plenty of assumptions on both sides. Folks here in the U.S. "know" what "THEY" are ALL likeTo tell you the truth, friend, I wish I was wrong about the Islamic world. When 90% of them believe, according to polls, that the Mossad plotted 9/11 and that the British secret service murdered Princess Di, how can anyone not be cynical about them? In most of their countries, maps where Israel should be have a black spot instead, and several of our "allies" including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, feature Holocaust denial studies in their major universities. In the Sudan and other Arab states which are on the African border, slavery of dark-skinned Africans is still practiced.
, folks in the Middle East "know" what "WE" are all like.
Only one problem: "We" and "they." How many Saudis, Iraqis, Afghans, Sunnis, etc. do YOU know personally? How much time have you spent in the Middle East? Where are you obtaining your information that helped you formulate your opinions of what "they" are all-like? Surveys...but what is the source of those surveys? Who funded them? Have you taken the time to investigate counter-points to the assertions being made by said surveys?
I think there was polling dataon this.I think that's part of the problem right there (bolded text). How many people in the "Islamic world" are having conversations with their friends, their co-workers, their families, etc. right now, saying "I wish I was wrong about the Americans. When 90% of them believe..."It comes down to basic ignorance and plenty of assumptions on both sides. Folks here in the U.S. "know" what "THEY" are ALL likeTo tell you the truth, friend, I wish I was wrong about the Islamic world. When 90% of them believe, according to polls, that the Mossad plotted 9/11 and that the British secret service murdered Princess Di, how can anyone not be cynical about them? In most of their countries, maps where Israel should be have a black spot instead, and several of our "allies" including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, feature Holocaust denial studies in their major universities. In the Sudan and other Arab states which are on the African border, slavery of dark-skinned Africans is still practiced., folks in the Middle East "know" what "WE" are all like.
Only one problem: "We" and "they." How many Saudis, Iraqis, Afghans, Sunnis, etc. do YOU know personally? How much time have you spent in the Middle East? Where are you obtaining your information that help you formulate your opinions of what "they" are all-like? Surveys...but what is the source of those surveys? Who funded them? Have you taken the time to investigate counter-points to the assertions being made by said surveys?
People such as Al Qaeda leaders and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran) do not speak for Islam, the religion. They get a VAST majority of the press, as do radical factions/leaders who buy into their hate speech. However, Islam <> "THEM"...just like "timschochet <> Klan member" after unwisely using a few racial slurs to try and help make a point.
You catch my drift?! There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world possessing thousands/millions of altering views on the world...just like there are hundreds of millions of Christians in the world possessing thousands/millions of altering views as well. Reducing Muslims to "they" as a single block/unit is another comment that kind of walks a tight-rope, if you know what I'm saying.
Just trying to be helpful! Learn from this, that's all.![]()
That actually could be pretty effective.I think the only ad spot the Democrats need to play in the fall is a 20 second clip of McCain singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" while showing this one simple picture.
Clinton supporter?She's going to get destroyed here.I don't know why, but I have a real bad feeling about Wisconsin.![]()
The national media has spun it so that even if Clinton is within 5 points of Obama it is a moral victory for her. There is reason to be a bit wary today - she is ahead in a couple of polls that I've seen.Clinton supporter?She's going to get destroyed here.I don't know why, but I have a real bad feeling about Wisconsin.![]()
I keep telling myself this so as not to get too caught up in Obama winning. I think there is alot of truth here.I think Clinton getting the nom could be the best thing in the world for Obama. Hillary would get beaten pretty resoundingly by McCain, setting up a four year "things would be better if I were in there" tour for Obama. During those 4 years, he sharpens his skills, gets behind some serious legislation, shakes all the right hands and comes out smoking in 2012. This will also give 4 more years for Iraq to get things together, giving Obama the perfect opportunity to come in and end that thing the right way. He'd still have the legacy of being the president that ended the war, without all the consequences of pulling out now.Funny, I just read something that said, in the end, the superdelegates won't matter, but that it's a very real possibility that even with superdelegates, neither candidate will reach the necessary number.That isn't going to happen. What will happen is that the undeclared "superdelegates" will end up deciding this thing. And, they will vote mostly based on their self-interests.I suspect this has been addressed somewhere either in this thread or in the FFA, but I'm too lazy to search right now. Can I get a quick summary of what happens if neither candidate reaches the necessary number of delegates required to receive the nomination? This is looking very probable according to what I've been reading. TIA
I'm wary as well. I just don't trust any polls involving Obama after NH.The national media has spun it so that even if Clinton is within 5 points of Obama it is a moral victory for her. There is reason to be a bit wary today - she is ahead in a couple of polls that I've seen.Clinton supporter?She's going to get destroyed here.I don't know why, but I have a real bad feeling about Wisconsin.![]()
Yes, he uses "big" words ........People still buyin into this guy huh?
I am.People still buyin into this guy huh?
Yes, he uses "big" words ........People still buyin into this guy huh?
"Yes we can"