# To my dearest Obamabots



## A4NoOb (Sep 6, 2008)

Ew McCain. He’s another Bush. Who the fuck wants another Bush? 

We should all vote for Obama. Amazing Fuckalicious Obama. Why? Because he’s a fantastic speaker. That’s what all presidential candidates should be: English majors.  

We’re going to bash the GOP without even knowing what the GOP is. We’re going to call Sarah Palin “too inexperienced to be a Washington elite” without even knowing her track record. We’re going to attack Lieberman for participating in the RNC (oh wait who is Lieberman? A street artist?) But most importantly, we’re going to vote for Obama. Why? Because he’s eloquent. Because he’s for change. 

And the same people haven’t even taken a look into his track record. You’d rather be influenced by his sporadic speeches, yet overlook how Obama has avoided raising one policy during his entire campaign. When Russia invaded Georgia, Obama first claimed for a peaceful moral equivalency, then claimed for the UN Security Council to provide a solution and THEN agreed with McCain to deploy soldiers. Obama has neglected to provide an energy policy, has neglected his insights about missile defence, and has neglected to provide a plan for counter-terrorism. But you still vote for him, and think you’re the fucking smartest person in the world because you say “There’s No One Worse Than Bush!”  I sure do wish we had Clinton back! My God Was He Fucking Spectacular! Let’s forget what happened during the Waco Tragedy or the billions of dollars given through energy aid to North Korea. Clinton’s My Fucking Idol!

And for those of you voting for Obama because he’s black, you’re even worse than the above. During the RNC, I lauded the black people who cheered for McCain because they can put aside their racial differences and vote for someone based on his credentials.  But you fucking Obamabots are too indifferent. You think aesthetics is what makes a president responsible, you think someone is opinionated because he’s “eloquent”, you think someone is stupid because he’s from the same party as Bush.  What’s destroying America, more than the Iraq war, more than Health care, more than the color of skin of your president, is your own fucking stupidity.


----------



## shadowboy (Sep 6, 2008)

Lol.
I was a Biden supporter in the Iowa caucuses.
And now I support Obama, even though  hate his guts.
It ultimately comes down to our personal beliefs, man.
I am Pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-liberal, stances that differ from McCain by far.
Why should I vote for someone who won't represent my views when I can vote for someone who, although he isn't as experienced, has an excellent VP and staff team who can help him through the tough decisions?
Please enlighten me.


----------



## CPhantom (Sep 6, 2008)

lawdy, your rage is building to levels beyond that of which I can count o.o;








is not shrubbery o.o;


----------



## A4NoOb (Sep 6, 2008)

shadowboy said:
			
		

> Lol.
> I was a Biden supporter in the Iowa caucuses.
> And now I support Obama, even though  hate his guts.
> It ultimately comes down to our personal beliefs, man.
> ...



I completely respect that you are voting for Obama for like-principles. What I have a problem with, is the people who buy into Hollywood propaganda, and vote for Obama because he's a good orator. Majority of Democrats don't even know what Obama stands for, and they think his eloquent speeches are proof enough that he's credible. This whole issue of "I'm voting for Obama because he's for change!" is the most ignorant fallacy I've seen. Jumping out of the frying pan into the fire is also change.


----------



## Rayder (Sep 6, 2008)

I think that if Obama gets in office that things are gonna get so turned upside-down that we are really, REALLY all gonna be screwed in ways that most people won't even realize.

When I think of McCain, I think of a gangster.  
But we have to remember, they're party members and they have to go along with party ideals before they even get nominated.

All this means is that whoever gets elected, government will continue to stumble along just like it always has, screwing the poor people and serving their own agendas and telling us that they're doing it for our own good.

When was the last time a poor man got elected president?  How can a rich man possibly understand (or care) about a poor person's needs or wants?

This is not a government that is, "Of the People, By the People, For the People" anymore....for a VERY long time now it hasn't been that.  It is a government that is "Of the Rich, By the Rich, For the Rich."

I have no confidence that any of these party's nominees are going to do anything but serve their own interests.

None of these candidates care about white, black, brown or yellow, the only color they care about is green.  You don't have lots of green, they can't hear you.

Why do you think all the other countries hate America? This is why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cBiOTvxXcY


----------



## TheWingless (Sep 6, 2008)

BARACK ROLL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4


----------



## Doomsday Forte (Sep 6, 2008)

Rayder said:
			
		

> None of these candidates care about white, black, brown or yellow, the only color they care about is green.


I dunno, I'm pretty sure The Man wants to put down the Hulk too.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




*casts Apathy*


----------



## jesuschristmonke (Sep 6, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> This whole issue of "I'm voting for Obama because he's for change!" is the most ignorant fallacy I've seen. [/size]



Face it, people are dumb. There's nothing you can do about it except maybe exploit it if you are lucky (what Obama is doing). There's no use railing against the stupidity of the masses.

That being said McCain supporters are almost equally vapid.


----------



## PizzaPasta (Sep 6, 2008)

Who cares, we're all doomed anyway. You can either sit around and bitch and act like your vote actually matters or you can start hoarding gasoline and LCD and embrace the unavoidable, post-apocalyptic Mad Max future that lies ahead of us.


----------



## SkankyYankee (Sep 6, 2008)

Obama 08, but McCain 08 in the testing area!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Im hoarding LCDs as we speak.


----------



## Linkiboy (Sep 6, 2008)

IM VOTING OBAMA SO I DONT SEEM RACIST


----------



## Banger (Sep 6, 2008)

Stop voting on who is the lesser of 2 evils. They are both going to be bad for the country. 

*Does the doomsday dance*


----------



## PizzaPasta (Sep 6, 2008)

SkankyYankee said:
			
		

> Obama 08, but McCain 08 in the testing area!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




LULZ! I meant LSD. I'm not going to change it either. You know, for posterity.


----------



## .TakaM (Sep 6, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> I completely respect that you are voting for Obama for like-principles. What I have a problem with, is the people who buy into Hollywood propaganda, and vote for Obama because he's a good orator. Majority of Democrats don't even know what Obama stands for, and they think his eloquent speeches are proof enough that he's credible. This whole issue of "I'm voting for Obama because he's for change!" is the most ignorant fallacy I've seen. Jumping out of the frying pan into the fire is also change.


It sounds more like you're the one who's bought into the republican belief that all democrats like obama 'coz he's a 'celebrity lolz'


----------



## Rayder (Sep 6, 2008)

There is only one vote.......no confidence.  Write it in.


----------



## jesuschristmonke (Sep 6, 2008)

Rayder said:
			
		

> There is only one vote.......no confidence.  Write it in.



qft.


----------



## Prophet (Sep 6, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> Ew McCain. He’s another Bush. Who the fuck wants another Bush?
> 
> We should all vote for Obama. Amazing Fuckalicious Obama. Why? Because he’s a fantastic speaker. That’s what all presidential candidates should be: English majors.
> 
> ...



A4NoOb, you my friend are a very confused person. You always make a valid point and then proceed to bury it with backwater ideals and overtly discriminatory word choice. Exhibit A: your Islamaphobia thread http://gbatemp.net/index.php?showtopic=93670

I'm going to try not to devote as much time to your latest "look at me, I'm riled up!" outing, but there are some things you have said that I can not in good conscious stay silent on.

Firstly, yes you are right Obama does not take a hard stance on almost anything. And yes he seems to always be pandering. I say he "seems" because there is an alternative explanation. You see there are people who actually do this thing called "thinking" and when a person is thinking about something they rarely take a hard stance. You see these magical "thinking" creatures are more apt to see the world in shades of gray rather than clear cut monotones. Where as it would be a good sound bite to say "We are all Georgians", the "thinking" man has reservations. He might very well see merits to both sides of an argument, I know its a shocker but it's true; some people actually consider both sides of an issue. Furthermore, they may very well favor one side but rarely does the thinking man align himself totally with a pat answer. I consider Obama to be an intellectual. Is that good for the country? I don't know maybe we need a simpler leader. "DRILL DRILL DRILL" Doesn't get much simpler than that does it? All I'm saying is this, don't fault someone because they refuse to hand feed you what you want to hear. I wish Obama would take a hard stance on some things, but I respect the fact that he is cautious. Maybe that is a good quality in a leader.

Now secondly, I am a black man. Hi. Let me put this as bluntly as possible. Don't tell my people how they should or should not vote; after slavery, after Jim Crow, after the lynching of our fathers, after the rape of our mothers, after desegregation, after being 3/5s of a man, after the death of our leaders, after the FBI wire taps,  after poor schools and housing, after all this at the hands of the white ruling class... Do not tell me or my people not to vote based on race. We have been murdered and oppressed for our race and now you would cry foul if we thought to vote based on the color of our skin? 

How dare you.

/deep breath

Let me be perfectly clear. I am not advocating or implying that voting based on race is the informed or responsible thing to do, all I am saying is this: I will be damned if any black man  in this country should have to pause, to explain or justify their vote.

Also, all that you have just said about Obama's response to Georgia was said at the RNC. Word for word, you have repeated what aired a few nights ago. Are you sure you're not the true lemming?


----------



## Daimones (Sep 6, 2008)

.TakaM said:
			
		

> It sounds more like you're the one who's bought into the republican belief that all democrats like obama 'coz he's a 'celebrity lolz'



I have to completely agree with this guy. 

I mean, what about all the people voting for McCain because their parents are republican. I don't know who you are talking to but anyone I know that is voting for Obama is voting for him based entirely off issues, not this "celebrity" status you speak of(Not saying all of us do). But I know many a people who say they are voting for McCain simply because it's what their parents do (They all get bitched at fyi, not for voting McCain but for their reasoning).

I totally agree with you that people shouldn't vote based on celebrity qualities, or anything that doesn't factor into what makes a good president. But to say that its only Obama voters, is well, just fucking ignorant.


----------



## Urza (Sep 6, 2008)

I believe a summary of what the OP is trying to say is, most people are completely ignorant of what happens in politics yet still want to pretend that they actually have a say and care.

Well Captain Obvious, those of us who do actually know something about politics are already completely aware of this, while those of us who don't really don't give a shit because we're on the way to our minimum wage job.

aka this thread is useless and only exists because the OP wants to bawwwww

Also, Rayder gets a Captain Obvious Jr award for his mini-speech on how rich people run the government. REALLY NOW? THANKS FOR THE TIP.


----------



## A4NoOb (Sep 6, 2008)

Prophet said:
			
		

> A4NoOb, you my friend are a very confused person. You always make a valid point and then proceed to bury it with backwater ideals and overtly discriminatory word choice. Exhibit A: your Islamaphobia thread http://gbatemp.net/index.php?showtopic=93670
> 
> Is this your misconception of proving a relevant point? Isolate where my "word choice" is overtly discriminatory.
> 
> ...




Word for word? I have no hesitation to say this was a part of Guiliani’s speech. My intention had nothing to do with his copying his diction but with referencing the facts.


----------



## Urza (Sep 6, 2008)

Ok well I didn't bother to read your post but I'm going to type in really large font for no reason.

Haha oh wow the internet is pretty cool.


----------



## Doomsday Forte (Sep 6, 2008)

The bigger your text the more important your statement is.


----------



## A4NoOb (Sep 6, 2008)

Urza said:
			
		

> Ok well I didn't bother to read your post but I'm going to type in really large font for no reason.
> 
> Haha oh wow the internet is pretty cool.




I guess if you can't bother reading big font, then you won't bother when Obama gives you a big bill.


----------



## kikuchiyo (Sep 6, 2008)

Yeah, your political and bigoted rants seem both out of place on this board and wildly inaccurate.


----------



## DeMoN (Sep 6, 2008)

And people always wonder why most Americans don't vote...


----------



## Urza (Sep 6, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> Urza said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



THIS GUY IS A POLITICAL GENIUS

EDIT: FORGOT MY BIG FONT

ALSO CAPS LOCK


----------



## omatic (Sep 6, 2008)

Damn, you make lots of generalizations here. On top of that, it's hard to take you seriously if you sound like a raving lunatic AND you're using big letters with unnecessary colors. Then you start getting off topic by talking about Waco and Clinton as if that has anything to do at all with the current political situation, or your "point" in general. You should try ranting apart from anger if you're actually looking for discussion.


----------



## bobrules (Sep 6, 2008)

Everyone, vote barack obama and make US poor, so then Canada will be number one. Vote obama please, he will change US forever.


----------



## [M]artin (Sep 6, 2008)




----------



## A4NoOb (Sep 6, 2008)

kikuchiyo said:
			
		

> Yeah, your political and bigoted rants seem both out of place on this board and wildly inaccurate.



You think my rants are wildly inaccurate then show your evidence. 

People here are just bitching about size 3 font and my fucking 
flamboyant coloring.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Sep 6, 2008)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> Why don’t you forward your concerns to the Arab population since they are more responsible for slavery and mass genocide of Africans than the Caucasian ethnicity has even touched. EVERY group has been oppressed, should Jews *abuse their privilege of voting* because of Auschwitz? What contributions are you giving America when your logistics are clouded with racial bias, and you could care less if your vote results in a bad economy, increased terrorism, higher taxes etc. For FUCK’s sake, this is the President of the fucking United States who is going to change the future of international relationships and direction. I have every right to criticize those who vote without in depth knowledge and lack comprehension of their candidate’s capabilities.



Um, excuse me? when did it stop being a right, and start being a privilege? and by the way, its called a Democracy. look it up. I can vote for paris fucking hilton if she was on the ballot, and it would be none of your business. 

Make your vote for the man that would probably have a heart attack and die after he has been sworn in, but don't let me stop you, or even question it because, its none of my goddamn business. quit browbeating everyone that doesnt vote based on your belief system, and just accept that some people will cast a ballot for ANY number of reasons. Including race.


----------



## Urza (Sep 6, 2008)

dudeonline said:
			
		

> I can vote for paris fucking hilton if she was on the ballot, and it would be none of your business.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate


----------



## Sstew (Sep 6, 2008)

"Now secondly, I am a black man. Hi. Let me put this as bluntly as possible. Don't tell my people how they should or should not vote; after slavery, after Jim Crow, after the lynching of our fathers, after the rape of our mothers, after desegregation, after being 3/5s of a man, after the death of our leaders, after the FBI wire taps,  after poor schools and housing, after all this at the hands of the white ruling class... Do not tell me or my people not to vote based on race. We have been murdered and oppressed for our race and now you would cry foul if we thought to vote based on the color of our skin?"

Hahah Wow, So your going to vote based on race, Thats probably the MOST idiotic I think you could do. You should vote for who will actually Help this country, Not promise the world to people in his speeches, but will most likely if elected,Not follow up on anything mentioned in his speeches. 

McCain/Palin 08'


----------



## Jiggah (Sep 6, 2008)

I'm a bit lost here.  Exactly, what are McCain's policies?  Didn't hear them during the convention,  well maybe two, but zero specifics (cut taxes and decrease spending).  What government programs is he welling to cut?  Military, which takes a huge chunk of the pie?  How do you propose the use of renewable resources when you've voted down every single piece of legislation that deals with renewable resources?

If you know McCain and his policies like you said you do then give us the facts and allows us to get to know his policies.  I'm hoping he actually answers these questions during the debates.  It's starting to sound like Iraq when they throw the word "victory" around but give no specifics about what "victory" actually means.

So, yes, I agree stupidity is killing this country.


----------



## A4NoOb (Sep 6, 2008)

dudeonline said:
			
		

> Um, excuse me? when did it stop being a right, and start being a privilege? and by the way, its called a Democracy. look it up. I can vote for paris fucking hilton if she was on the ballot, and it would be none of your business.
> 
> Make your vote for the man that would probably have a heart attack and die after he has been sworn in, but don't let me stop you, or even question it because, its none of my goddamn business. quit browbeating everyone that doesnt vote based on your belief system, and just accept that some people will cast a ballot for ANY number of reasons. Including race.
> 
> ...


McCain is for self-sufficient energy. Our renewable energy plans are basically draining more money than it gives us. McCain wants to promote the use of clean coal, nuclear power plants and drill for oil along the Pacific and Gulf coasts. When the issue of The Surge arose, McCain stood alone against the media. And The Surge Was Successful. He encourages missile defense systems in NATO countries and took immediate action against Russia when they invaded Georgia. He wants to increase troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so they can finish the war more efficiently. This is an addendum to initiating smaller governments and cutting more taxes.


----------



## Doomsday Forte (Sep 6, 2008)

Godwin's Law!  Ahahaha, that didn't take long.


----------



## juggernaut911 (Sep 6, 2008)

I'm voting McCain cuz my mommy and daddy are!


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 6, 2008)

Palin is a dumb whore who was all for the bridge to nowhere.  So yeah vote McCain if you like incompetent morons that can't get their facts right OOPS MR. SURGE BORKS UP HISTORY, WHAT A GEENYUS what a dumbshit choice, why no vetting, is it because McCain is a dumbass ?  This bitch is JUST ANOTHER NEOCON.


----------



## Hooya (Sep 6, 2008)

Jiggah said:
			
		

> I'm a bit lost here.  Exactly, what are McCain's policies?  Didn't hear them during the convention,  well maybe two, but zero specifics (cut taxes and decrease spending).  What government programs is he welling to cut?  Military, which takes a huge chunk of the pie?  How do you propose the use of renewable resources when you've voted down every single piece of legislation that deals with renewable resources?
> 
> If you know McCain and his policies like you said you do then give us the facts and allows us to get to know his policies.  I'm hoping he actually answers these questions during the debates.  It's starting to sound like Iraq when they throw the word "victory" around but give no specifics about what "victory" actually means.
> 
> So, yes, I agree stupidity is killing this country.



I like how the OP isn't responding to this.  Logic doesn't work on far right wing voters.  It's against their nature.  It's why they all cling to their religion - it's easier than finding out the truth.  Yes, I went there.  No, I won't apologize.

To the OP:

Here's some things on the issues that you might care about:
Taxes:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/econo...xproposals_tpc/

Energy:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=93218190

Education:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-carno...i_b_116246.html

Health Care:
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/08/18...-care-policies/

Or do you also buy the GOP line that this election isn't about the issues?  If that's the case, please stay home on November 4.


----------



## laminaatplaat (Sep 6, 2008)

These united states elections are becoming very interesting and I'm really looking forward to the debate rounds that are getting closer. Al this trash talk between republicans and democrats isn't interesting at all. I want to see what they have to say when it isn't all auto-cue and reading from a paper. For me it will be much easier to see the different standpoints when they go head to head answering questions.

At first for me as a European it looked obvious that you would be stupid to choose mcCain and obvious to vote for Obama. But when the media wind settelt down after his "euro/world trip" they media started to more evenly spread its attention between both candidates. It was then when I found out that mcCain wasnt just another Bush duplicate but a serious candidate with its own agenda. Being Dutch the most interesting for me is what effect the new president will have on global events and economy. One of the things that I didnt expect is that McCain looks far more open for open global trade then that Obama does. I think that to get the western economy getting back going the right way the USA still plays a key role and an open economy of your country will help us all achieve that. btw I know that being proud of you country is very important for American people but seriously who gives a ******* that mcCain served as a soldier and was POW during the Vietnam war where he was tortured. I really don't see what that has to do with modern western politics

The running mates on the other hand is a different story. In my opinion Palin still doesn't look like the brightest person to walk the earth (and the US soil 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. I mean who cares that she can kill a bear and shoot sniperrifle, big whoop. Ofcourse it looks like stuff like that apeals to the general public. (in one interview a normal female voter said: If she can skin a animal she can serve our country as vice president) Biden looks like a much brighter person with, yes hear comes the golden word, more experience.




About the obamabot talk from the OP, at this moment it is still best to keep both candidates as possible 'best choice'!


edit: I forgot I needed some big letters and just wanted to say: McCain is so stupid when he says that the USA is the best country of the world.....


----------



## A4NoOb (Sep 6, 2008)

Hooya said:
			
		

> I like how the OP isn't responding to this.  Logic doesn't work on far right wing voters.  It's against their nature.  It's why they all cling to their religion - it's easier than finding out the truth.  Yes, I went there.  No, I won't apologize.
> 
> For the record, I'm not even Catholic or religious. If people are voting for McCain because of religious similarities or because it's in the family tradition, they are equally as stupid as Obamabots.
> 
> ...




No counter-terrorism plans? No issues about the Iraq war? No issues about the Russian-Georgian conflict? Is it these issues are irrelevant or are they issues Obama has failed to discern upon in roughly a year.


----------



## PizzaPasta (Sep 6, 2008)

*HEY FELLAS! HE'S RIGHT, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!!!!!*


----------



## bobrules (Sep 6, 2008)

I think CNN is bias towards Obama. I haven't seen any negative news about Obama yet.


----------



## Jiggah (Sep 6, 2008)

> McCain is for self-sufficient energy. Our renewable energy plans are basically draining more money than it gives us. McCain wants to promote the use of clean coal, nuclear power plants and drill for oil along the Pacific and Gulf coasts. When the issue of The Surge arose, McCain stood alone against the media. And The Surge Was Successful. He encourages missile defense systems in NATO countries and took immediate action against Russia when they invaded Georgia. He wants to increase troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so they can finish the war more efficiently. This is an addendum to initiating smaller governments and cutting more taxes
> [\quote]
> 
> McCain for some reason has changed his position on renewable energy as he states himself during his speech.  He is now for everything solar, wind, etc.  So, the issue of money is out the door there.  The use of clean coal, nuclear power and limited drilling are also part of Obama's plan.
> ...


----------



## Hooya (Sep 6, 2008)

What I posted are direct policy issues.  There's no room for spin there in my opinion.  I picked the sources I did because they had things laid out in an easy-to-digest format.

And just because I didn't post anything about national security doesn't mean that McCain and Obama don't have stances on those issues.  Please realize that I didn't post only Obama stats there, so You're right, based on what I posted McCain has No plans for counter-terrorism or the Iraq war.  /snark


----------



## Ace Gunman (Sep 6, 2008)

Hey now! What's all the hubbabubba-balloo? I hate to burst your bubble, but this topic is getting a bit sticky for my liking. Calm'er down or I'll be forced to chew you out.


----------



## granville (Sep 6, 2008)

@A4NoOb

You didn't watch the Dem Convention did you? You at least didn't listen to Obama's speech there. *He said we were pulling out of Iraq within months and sending more troops to the people who ACTUALLY ATTACKED US: terrorists in Afghanistan. Try to remember that the Iraq war was waged based on a complete lie (and one that the Bush administration KNEW they were lying about) and should never have taken place.*

As for the Russia-Georgia problem, even Bush himself doesn't know how to comprehend or handle this. So it's hard to attack the democrats on that. I expect the situation to pop up in the coming presidential debates, so you're likely to get your answer soon enough.

I'm an Independent who swings any way I feel like. Lately, my personal opinions lay along with the Democratic position. It's nothing to do with race (I'm white), partisan ties, or any other stupid affiliation with a person. I ally myself with whoever shares my ideas, regardless of party.

BTW, I was sort of neutral to the Clinton administration. They seemed to handle the economy well, but they had some serious scandal and other problems.

And I like McCain personally. I feel he's a great hero and a pretty cool person underneath. I just don't think he's what our country needs right now.

And I respect anyone's opinion who has the balls (or boobs) to suck it up and respect mine).

*It's all the news channels (even Fox News) that are biased towards Obama. He's new and fresh for them to talk about and for good reason once you think about it.*


----------



## 754boy (Sep 6, 2008)




----------



## JPH (Sep 6, 2008)

That's classic


----------



## laminaatplaat (Sep 6, 2008)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> I also think your understanding of the Georgian-Russo conflict is a bit off. Georgia attacked a separatist region, who had allied themselves with Russia. The issue that the U.S. as well as the U.N. are worried about is the fact that Russia over stepped it's use of force.



The separatist region south-ossetia was the start of the conflict. This region separated itself from Georgia in 92 separation war. No country but Russia accepts this separation of south-ossetia. Russia has been keeping the peace with peace troops ever since. What happened was that Georgia send a army into the Russia protected zone (that is officially Georgia) To retake the region. This was after being attacked by long range weapons from the side of Russia (Of course Interfax denies this) So that's the reason they moved their troops. Then Russia being loyal to the region showed their muscles and kicked Georgian ass for no good reason but to show their power to western civilisation. And the fact that no economic sanctions have been taken against Russia just shows how much power they have gained the last few years with oil and gas becoming more and more valuable.

edit: little edit now =no


----------



## jtroye32 (Sep 6, 2008)

i'm not voting for anyone because we need a whole new system of government in general that's not run based on big business while we sit here and argue about "you rich people are doing this.. it's your fault" "well, you middle class poor people are doing that" etc. Meanwhile the super-rich are sitting there going "keep going, we're just going to keep getting richer and more powerful while you little guys argue". we're the ones that need to change the country.


----------



## Hooya (Sep 6, 2008)

OK, since you asked:

Iraq:
Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin
McCain: (best I could do) http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...c7ea83f11d8.htm

I couldn't find anything better than those.  For the most part it's meaningless rhetoric on both sides.  Simple distillation though is that Obama wants us out eventually and McCain says "stay the course".  My personal belief from the beginning was that the war was wrong, set on false pretenses, and that since we got in, we should support our troops - by getting them back home.  We will leave a mess behind no matter how long we stay, better we get out now, especially since the Iraqis want us out anyway.

Georgia/Russia: (not great links, sorry)
McCain: http://news.yahoo.com/story//afp/20080812/...te_080812124306
Note that he calls for UN Security Council on the situation even though at the convention the GOP lauged at Obama for suggesting the same thing.
Obama: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3585750,00.html

I personally don't think Russia is completely at fault as so many people belive.  Too many first hand reports of people directly effected (and forced to leave their homes) say that the Georgian government was first at fault.  It's a messed up situation and honestly I don't think we have ANY right to get involved right now.  At any rate, I think that McCain's "Shoot first ask questions later" approach is the wrong way to address things.  The fact that Obama took a couple of days to figure out the best solution shows actual planning on his part.  Yes, McCain turned out to be right, as he turned out to be right that the surge "worked".  The bigger issue isn't to look at the things that happened to go his way - good for him - but to look at the judgement process that either candidate went through to get to their solution.  When it comes to a conflict literally on the other side of the world that doesn't directly involve us, I think taking a couple of days to think things through isn't a bad idea.


Flip-Flopping on the issues:
McCain: http://therealmccain.com/
Obama: http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.php/asy...-flip-flop-list

For the record I don't believe that the so called flip-flop is necessarily a bad thing.  I admire an official that can say "After re-consideration I now think this...".  What I don't like is when they pretend to have had their current position all along, when that's clearly not true.  What bothers me about McCain is that he's still trying to go by the Maverick title when in the last 2-3 years he's been increasingly voting down the party line.  In 2000 he was a Maverick, but he is not any more.  They both flip-flop.  All politicians do.  My personal belief is that Obama changes his mind on issues based on new evidence or experience, while McCain just seems to have pandered to his party in recent years (I don't believe for one minute that 2000 McCain would have picked Palin for a VP, even if under party pressure).

Now, don't you DARE call me an "obamabot".  I just did more issue pointing and research in the last few hours than I suspect you have done throughout the presidential race.  MOST "obamabots" are actually like this.  And I would really appreciate since I went through the time to look all these things up that at least the OP, if not some others, actually look at them...


----------



## Hooya (Sep 6, 2008)

laminaatplaat said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gosh, I hate it when a super-large military power steps in to police an international situation and gets carried away with their military force over a little country with almost no firepower to speak of.

oh wait....

Well, it must be OK when the USA does it.

(yes, I know the situations are very different, Russia had more right to do what they did than we did with Iraq)


----------



## laminaatplaat (Sep 6, 2008)

Hooya said:
			
		

> laminaatplaat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




uhm...

Let it be absolutely clear that I think it is outrages what Russia has done and I think economical sanctions should have been taken directly when it happend. To bad that Russia has Veto inside the U.N. and country's are to shitty to act on their own. (I don't blame em on that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)

And your right, The Iraq war can not be compared to the Ossetia conflict.


----------



## jtroye32 (Sep 6, 2008)

the US supplies weapons to terrorist/oppressing factions all the time. i read that there is a facility here in the US somewhere (name slips my mind at the moment) that trained a lot of major oppressors. This facility went under investigation so they changed the name of it and it still operates today. our government loves chaos for some reason, it's sickening if you look at the facts. the amount of money our government spends on our military in 1 year we could use to solve a lot of the worlds poverty and we can't even solve our own.


----------



## SkankyYankee (Sep 6, 2008)

PizzaPasta said:
			
		

> SkankyYankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL, that too. doomsday is going to be great with all those extra colors!


----------



## Prophet (Sep 6, 2008)

Sstew said:
			
		

> "Now secondly, I am a black man. Hi. Let me put this as bluntly as possible. Don't tell my people how they should or should not vote; after slavery, after Jim Crow, after the lynching of our fathers, after the rape of our mothers, after desegregation, after being 3/5s of a man, after the death of our leaders, after the FBI wire taps,  after poor schools and housing, after all this at the hands of the white ruling class... Do not tell me or my people not to vote based on race. We have been murdered and oppressed for our race and now you would cry foul if we thought to vote based on the color of our skin?"
> 
> *Hahah* Wow, So your going to vote based on race, Thats probably the MOST idiotic I think you could do. You should vote for who will actually Help this country, Not promise the world to people in his speeches, but will most likely if elected,Not follow up on anything mentioned in his speeches.
> 
> McCain/Palin 08'



I at no point said I would be voting based on race. But far be it for anyone to bemoan the idea of using race as a deciding factor. That is to say, men have died in this country over race. Race was a good enough reason to kill us, was good enough reason to oppress us, for years it was a good enough reason not to allow us to vote, but now race is small; too tiny a reason to use when choosing a candidate. Now that race, in the context of this campaign, might for once not serve the agenda of the white ruling class; now we need to throw race out the window. Your ignorance literally pains me, because I feel that  reaching you is hopeless.

To clarify, when I say the “white ruling class” I am speaking about the top 1% in America who seemingly own 90% of everything. The rank and file Caucasian is not my intended target. Many whites have felt oppression too and often at the very same hands of the ruling class that has pained my people. But it remains true that it is under the shoe of prominent whites, that the spirits of the minority have been trampled.

@A4NoOb

You are worst than a fool. A fool is not ignorant by choice, whereas you are so content in your ignorance that you rather speak lies and utter non-sense than concede a point. Why do you come and post this gibberish if you aren't even willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong?


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 6, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> shadowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Uh-uh, the accusations about the "cult of Obama", "celebrity candidate" and "OMG, scary change!" might have worked before Sarah Palin came along and delivered a speech with zero substance but smug, sarcastic cheap shots and chinless idiots were chanting at her speech like it was WWE. And then, of course, all of a sudden "Whoops, we''re for change too!"

Palin would be hilarious if she wasn't so vile, every time I see her I expect her to exclaim "Sometime I question your commitment to Sparkle Motion!"


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 6, 2008)

jtroye32 said:
			
		

> i read that there is a facility here in the US somewhere (name slips my mind at the moment) that trained a lot of major oppressors.



well, if you read it, it must be true.


----------



## A4NoOb (Sep 7, 2008)

Hooya said:
			
		

> OK, since you asked:
> 
> Iraq:
> Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin
> ...



"_You are worst than a fool. A fool is not ignorant by choice, whereas you are so content in your ignorance that you rather speak lies and utter non-sense than concede a point. Why do you come and post this gibberish if you aren't even willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong?_"

Let me suggest, this is nothing short of typical for Obamabots.


----------



## Hooya (Sep 7, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> And I even agree with you. Reconsideration can even become an admirable element of one's leadership. However Obama's flip-flopping is demonstrated from his lack of leadership. On every issue from nuclear power, to clean coal, to drilling he would either be critical or on the fence. And when the public opinion seems to lean the other way, he would come to a conclusion that of McCain's. Especially when America is targeted under terrorism, political scrutiny and the media, the last thing we need is a pliable President. Obama's concerns are about placating the people, not serving them. While talking to a Hispanic community, he told them that the American population should learn Spanish to be able to talk to immigrants.




You need to read my links, not just my comments on them.

Fair enough opinions on the Georgian thing.  Like I said I couldn't find any really decent links on those.  You didn't really comment on the candidates' stances, but whatever.

As far as Iraq.  I don't believe that we are "at war" there.  It is an Occupation.  As the RNC protester's sign said: You cannot win an occupation.  There is no "white flag".  What exactly would we lose by drawing out?  Oil?  Big Fukin deal!  We need to get off our oil addiction anyway - Obama has the right solution to that situation in my opinion.

Iran is a totally different issue, don't bring it into the Iraq debate.  Just because the names are similar doesn't mean the situation is.


----------



## Prophet (Sep 7, 2008)

A4NoOb, you are too cute for your own good.

Now here's my post in it's entirety:


			
				Prophet said:
			
		

> Obama.
> 
> Because he is black and my niece and nephew need some light.
> 
> ...



So, where does that leave us? Well it leaves my actual argument untouched and the logic of my personal inclinations questioned first by me and then baselessly attacked by you. 

**whisper** _If you just leave the thread quietly, Maybe no one will notice?_ 

P.S. I find it absolutely adorable that you keep track of all my past posts. I think someone might have a crush on me.


----------



## JPH (Sep 7, 2008)




----------



## MelodieOctavia (Sep 7, 2008)

I'm voting Prophet for president simply because he pwned this "debate" into the ground.

Like I said before, vote for whoever you want to it's nobody's business what your reason is for voting. hell some people voted for Bush because he was "handsome and well groomed" and nobody said a damn thing, so whats the big deal about race?I think it would be a nice change to see a black man in the oval office, but thats just me.


----------



## jtroye32 (Sep 7, 2008)

Hanafuda said:
			
		

> jtroye32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i don't recite garbage.
---------
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Official seal of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
Official seal of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC or WHINSEC), formerly the School of the Americas (SOA; Spanish: Escuela de las Américas) is a United States Department of Defense facility at Fort Benning near Columbus, Georgia.

Between 1946 and 2001, the SOA trained more than 61,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Some of them became notorious for having been responsible for human rights violations, including generals Leopoldo Galtieri and Manuel Noriega, dictators such as Bolivia's Hugo Banzer as well as some of Augusto Pinochet's officers.[1][2] The terrorist Luis Posada Carriles was educated here by 1961, although he never graduated.[3] [4][5] Critics of the school argue that the education encouraged such practices and that this continues in the WHINSEC. This is denied by the WHINSEC and its supporters who argue that the alleged connection is at least sometimes weak. According to the WHINSEC the education now emphasizes democracy and human rights. [6][7]


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 7, 2008)

jtroye32 said:
			
		

> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Interesting read. I had not heard of this before. Thanks. What's most interesting to me is that it's been around for so long, has clearly created more trouble than its done good, and congress just keeps on funding it, regardless of which party holds the majority.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 7, 2008)

Prophet said:
			
		

> To clarify, when I say the “white ruling class” I am speaking about the top 1% in America who seemingly own 90% of everything.



Obama also belongs to that class.


----------



## omatic (Sep 7, 2008)

This just goes to show that the internets is serious business.


----------



## kikuchiyo (Sep 7, 2008)

Hanafuda said:
			
		

> Prophet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah he earned his way there, from a single parent family to going and working at the best law schools in America.

And I don't know why Americans think their leader should be "one of the guys."  My leader should be smarter than me; I don't want to have a beer with George Bush, I want him to run the damn country.

As for not responding to your points, A4NoOb, you're not interested in a debate, as you've shown in how you talk to Prophet, you're just interested in spewing your opinion.  I don't have time to waste doing research for people like that.


----------



## laminaatplaat (Sep 7, 2008)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> Why should we propose waving a white flag when American casualties have almost dropped to 0? When the democratic government in Iraq has finally started controlling the situation by making negotiations with the Sunni population? And considering Ayatollahs from Iran are trying to destabilize the entire Middle east. Even if McCain wins the election, it will take a while for drilling in Alaska and off shore resources to offset American imports from the Middle East, so McCain's idea of "staying the course" makes more sense than the opposite.



I wouldn't say that US casualty's have been reduced to almost 0

Jan-07	83
Feb-07	81
Mar-07	81
Apr-07	104
May-07	126
Jun-07	101
Jul-07	80
Aug-07	84
Sep-07	66
Oct-07	38
Nov-07	37
Dec-07	23
Jan-08	40
Feb-08	29
Mar-08	39
Apr-08	52
May-08	19
Jun-08	29
Jul-08	13
Aug-08	23
Sep-08	4 (it is only the 7th op September)
Total	4155 (since march '03)

(source: http://icasualties.org/oif/USDeathByMonth.aspx)

But it looks like it is going in the right direction. On the other hand, 0 US casualty's is nowhere near the same thing as being done with the peace keeping operation (since this is not a war). So you can't say no American soldiers are dying so it is safe here, lets go home!


----------



## Hooya (Sep 7, 2008)

Hanafuda said:
			
		

> Prophet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Obama is not in the top 1%.  McCain is though.  And as recently as 2003 he was still making less than 100k.  He's much more closely connected to the typical American income than McCain is strictly financially speaking.  Yes, he's doing well now, but he wouldn't have made it this far if he wasn't.


----------



## A4NoOb (Sep 7, 2008)

<!--QuoteBegin-Prophet+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prophet)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now here's my post in it's entirety:

<b>Obama.

Because he is black and my niece and nephew need some light.

Because although I can't say I'm optimistic that his presidency will be as grand and revolutionary as I wish, I think that I can afford him a chance. After 8 years of seeing the American ideals twisted via fear, I think we can afford an inspirational figure a chance to bring about the "change" he seems to genuinely believe in. How ever naive it might ultimately be.

Lastly, because he is the lesser of two evils. McCain voted against making Martin Luther Kings birthday a national holiday. So yeah, I'd rather see the nation burn than give it to him.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don’t see how revealing your entire post changes my point. Claiming this was your emotion is even more obscure because we all vote based logistics coupled with emotion. Is it the naïve belief in change that you even admit to? Or is that McCain voted against Martin Luther King day your justification? Without having any understanding <i>why</i> McCain voted against it. 


Spoiler



Sources:  Newsweek Magazine 1-19-1998, page 62

January 6, 1964, was a long day for Martin Luther King Jr. He spent the morning seated in the reserved section of the Supreme Court, listening as lawyers argued New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a landmark case rising out of King's crusade against segregation in Alabama. The minister was something of an honored guest: Justice Arthur Goldberg quietly sent down a copy of Kings account of the Montgomery bus boycott, "Stride Toward Freedom," asking for an autograph. That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit sex--including King's cries of "I'm f--ing for God" and "I'm not a n**** tonight!"


This is your hero? Who was ashamed to be black and needed to fornicate with white prostitutes to feel reasured? 


<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Typical, that you would take it out of context to prove your point.

First off, I never meant to imply that I was or was not taking race into account when it came to how I would be voting. I am forced to take my race into account in all things; being black is not something I can turn on and off at my convenience. Furthermore, you may not have noticed but I have been making a larger point. You see when you are having a debate, you try not to impose your personal inclinations. I know it sounds weird to you but some people like to come to the table without preconceived notions stapled to their sleeves. Some people actually like to argue through logic, that way we can actually see which ideas fit and which are based solely in our biases. All I have done in this thread is argue a simple point (which I might add is yet to be scathed); a people who have endured due to their race, should not be asked to now separate race from how they will vote.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Did you “endure due to their race” as a personal experience, or was this something you learned through the Black History Curriculum? Are you forced into segregate schools? Onto the back of the bus? Unemployed because of racism? Because in the current system lead by Affirmative Action, it is the majority of Caucasians enduring discrimination. Federal procurement has extended over 300 billion dollars a year and shown preferential treatment towards women and minorities in private sectors. How many potential Caucasians are turned down government jobs because of imposed racial quotas? If we both applied as a teacher, what matters is not if I have higher qualifications than you, but our color of skin. The fact that you are black and I am white will result in your employment and my disqualification. And you want more of this when Obama becomes elected?

<!--QuoteBegin-Prophet+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prophet)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is to say, men have died in this country over race. Race was a good enough reason to kill us, was good enough reason to oppress us, for years it was a good enough reason not to allow us to vote, but now race is small; too tiny a reason to use when choosing a candidate. Now that race, in the context of this campaign, might for once not serve the agenda of the white ruling class; now we need to throw race out the window. Your ignorance literally pains me, because I feel that reaching you is hopeless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->I suppose your ignorance comes from your segregated school experience some 50 years ago. But since you love to play the victim, let’s have a history lesson. Before white slave traders entered this shameful profession dominated by Arabs and Black Chieftains, millions of European whites felt victims of White Gold trade practices:

<!--coloro:#0000FF--><span style="color:#0000FF"><!--/coloro-->A million Europeans enslaved<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<a href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040310-115506-8528r.htm" target="_blank">http://washingtontimes.com/national/200403...15506-8528r.htm</a>


Spoiler



"One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature — that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true," said Mr. Davis, an Ohio State University professor. 
"Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland." 
In a new book, "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800," Mr. Davis calculates that between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates called "corsairs" and forced to work in North Africa during that period. 
The raids were so aggressive that entire Mediterranean seaside towns were abandoned by frightened residents. "Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe.



<a href="http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm" target="_blank">http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm</a>


Spoiler



Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars.
“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa.”


<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Prophet+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prophet)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now I'm not sure if you have some type of selective reading disorder or what but I'm really trying to make this simple enough for you to get. We have come to a junction. We have my argument: the black man does not need to justify his vote; and then we have my personal feelings; Obama is a black man and it would do my niece and nephew's spirits good to see him succeed. 

My argument is the only thing I have brought into this thread. Why? Because you posed a faulty claim that begged to be debated and unlike you I know the parameters of debate. I posted my personal feelings in the other thread, because we were sharing our opinions. You out of sheer ineptitude, have decided to mix the two together. As if the heart and mind are one, as if logic can not be separated from emotion.

Why would you attempt this? Maybe because you are a small person who wishes only to appear “right”. Or perhaps you are inclined to say that my argument is rooted in my personal bias, hence making it all fair game? Well, if so you'd only prove to make yourself look even sillier. I have plainly stated that voting based on race is not necessarily a logical thing to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->This is the President of the United States. Not the President of Emotions, not the President of Race or the President of Personal Inclination. This president is going to determine foreign affairs, energy status and taxes. And you think voting is something personal, affecting only yourself. Well here’s some news for you: I’m affected by your vote as well. So when Obama get’s elected and I’m taxed higher, have higher energy bills, increased terrorism and when the American dollar plummets I’m suppose to say “Oh well, you only put your emotions before logistics.” 

After the Treaty of Versailles, many Germans were filled with emotions and decided to target the Jewish population as the oppressors. Six million Jews died as a consequence of Hitler’s election; and by your principles, those Jewish people have no right to criticize Germans for their vote.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->

"<i>*whisper* If you just leave the thread quietly, Maybe no one will notice? 

P.S. I find it absolutely adorable that you keep track of all my past posts. I think someone might have a crush on me.</i>"

If I would be gay, I would have more benefits with Affirmative Action policies when I search for a job. But no luck.

<!--QuoteBegin-Hooya+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hooya)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as Iraq. I don't believe that we are "at war" there. It is an Occupation. As the RNC protester's sign said: You cannot win an occupation. There is no "white flag". What exactly would we lose by drawing out? Oil? Big Fukin deal! We need to get off our oil addiction anyway - Obama has the right solution to that situation in my opinion.

Iran is a totally different issue, don't bring it into the Iraq debate. Just because the names are similar doesn't mean the situation is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Obama’s “solution” is to tax oil companies through the roof. That doesn’t help the common American get from their home to work.  

And don’t patronize me on the distinction in names between Iran and Iraq. The same people like you are ignorant of the fact that the majority of Iranians and Iraqis are Shiites. Both countries could easily fall into the rules of Iranian ayatollahs. Up to now, a reasonably elected Government governs Iraq, and America is doing what that government asked them to do.


----------



## Jiggah (Sep 7, 2008)

Oh please.  Stop trying to make this an identity issue and make it a policy one.

A simple request, give John McCain's stances on policy.  We've been through 5 pages and you've failed to do so.  I'm finding it hard to see how you're any different than "Obamabots."


----------



## A4NoOb (Sep 7, 2008)

Jiggah said:
			
		

> Oh please.  Stop trying to make this an identity issue and make it a policy one.
> 
> And these concerns aren't forwarded to Prophet because... oh shi- he's a deomcrat.
> 
> ...



I stand corrected, but a nearly 80% drop from last year doesn't suggest a change in direction? Negotiations from the government of Iraq are already in progress.
SideNote: your link 404'd


----------



## Jiggah (Sep 7, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> Jiggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And I replied to it, which you conveniently brush over.  As I've said, McCain is now also for renewable energy (he said as much in his speech), but he's voted against every single piece of legislation that deals with it.  Obama is also for clean coal, nuclear, and drilling.  That's one issue.  Give me more.  What is his policy on the economy?  He says decrease spending and cutting taxes.  What programs is he willing to cut?  A lot of that spending is tied with the war.  If he's going to cut programs to be fiscal, what programs?  Is he willing to cut money for the military?  If not, do we continue borrowing from foreign countries?  He says no, but again doesn't explain how we get out of it without touching any other part of his policy, which also ties into the tax cut.  With a deficit, and I'll assume with continued military spending, where is the money going to be coming from?  At least Obama gave a possibility of where that money will be coming from, taxing of corporations.


----------



## A4NoOb (Sep 7, 2008)

Jiggah said:
			
		

> And I replied to it, which you conveniently brush over.  As I've said, McCain is now also for renewable energy (he said as much in his speech), but he's voted against every single piece of legislation that deals with it.  Obama is also for clean coal, nuclear, and drilling.  That's one issue.  Give me more.  What is his policy on the economy?  He says decrease spending and cutting taxes.  What programs is he willing to cut?  A lot of that spending is tied with the war.  If he's going to cut programs to be fiscal, what programs?  Is he willing to cut money for the military?  If not, do we continue borrowing from foreign countries?  He says no, but again doesn't explain how we get out of it without touching any other part of his policy, which also ties into the tax cut.  With a deficit, and I'll assume with continued military spending, where is the money going to be coming from?  At least Obama gave a possibility of where that money will be coming from, taxing of corporations.



Regarding oil drilling it was my assumption Obama was against it: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/gree...g_not_a_lo.html
Regarding nuclear power, Obama has said little about whether or not he's for it. In fact he's criticized McCain for planning to make more nuclear powerplants by 2030: http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsU...443769620080624
Ronald Reagan policies of cutting taxes and forming smaller governments has resulted in government revenues increasing. Deficit also increase due to Democrats in Congress requesting social spending. The deficit we are occurring is not a tragedy of prime concern is if our economy is growing. When George Bush Senior struck a deal with Democrats in Congress to dramatically reduce deficit, recession was created and it in fact didn't reduce deficit at all. Businesses are the future of the economy.


----------



## PizzaPasta (Sep 7, 2008)




----------



## Prophet (Sep 7, 2008)

*1.* A4NoOb, if as you say all votes are based on "logistics coupled with emotion" than why do you fault the black man who would vote for Obama based on race? Is it strange that an emotion of comradely might implore him to do so? I think your original point just flat-lined.

*2.* To speak of Martin as some how less than a martyr is simply ignorant. I don't care what he did with whores or what he exclaimed in their presence, it does not subtract from what he has done for his people. Scratch that, it does not subtract from what he has done for all people. 

Let me add, isn't it general knowledge that McCain cheated on his past wife? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8aa_1219351070

His language has been equally lewd, there are reports of him calling his current wife a C*nt in public. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/07/r...ti_n_95429.html

*3.* As far as how race has personally effected my life, I can say wholeheartedly that I have endured. I have endured chiefly the remnants of oppression. No I wasn't around years ago for desegregation, but I can speak on gentrification. I can speak on hunger, I can speak on the danger that swells in the ghetto. I can speak on overpopulated schools and children who go without. I can speak about one in every nine black men being in prison. I can speak on bad decisions and I can speak on too few opportunities. So no, I never picked cotton or cleaned a house. But I'm living the fallout of that. My people are disproportionately disadvantaged, are we to pretend slavery and Jim crow had no hand in that?

*4.* Affirmative action is not something I agree with. You see, I speak as a black man second; Firstly I speak as an American who is disenfranchised. And being disenfranchised is not racially exclusive. There are whites and blacks and browns of all hues that will go to sleep hungry tonight. In essence, the problems of being black are second to the problems of being black-listed in America. I believe that those who need the most help, should be given the most aid; race holds no water here. Which isn't to say that the historically oppressed don't merit an extra leg up, but I think a better form of aid would be better schools for children in the ghettos of America. These children are disproportionately made up of minorities and they are in desperate need. Two birds, one stone.

*5.* I like the part where you try to educate me while completely missing the point. How does your assertion that slavery existed beyond America, excuse the concept that a people who endured said slavery (and Jim Crow) because of the color of their skin, should now be told not to vote based on race? "Lynch me for being black"; is a fine logic. But now voting impartially due to race is somehow inexcusable. As if a vote were some how a more drastic matter than the lives of my people.



			
				A4NoOb said:
			
		

> And you think voting is something personal, affecting only yourself.



No I understand that it affects more than just me and I take that chiefly into consideration, but um... I do think voting is something personal. Seeing as we all have the right to vote, then it stands to reason that we all have the right to decide whom to vote for based on our own criteria. Maybe the idea of having a “thinking” man as a president is something that holds appeal for me. Maybe I think that would be good for this country. Maybe I'm not an Obamabot, perhaps I actually like Obama's policies. Your right he will raise taxes and guess what? I don't care. I am willing to part with dollars if it means that we can improve this nation. You know; Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.

You have the right to back McCain, and I might disagree with your reasoning and views but I wouldn't lay Pre-Nazi claims at your feet (as you have done to me). Anyone can look back on history and make inferences. Hindsight is after all 20/20. The future however is not and I assume you aren't a psychic so a lot of the claims you make are just conjecture. What's worse, it isn't even remotely sensible conjecture.

I've heard of shooting yourself in the foot, but you must be cut off from the knee down by now.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Lastly, a side note. To those who have offered kind words, to those who came into this thread with validity to their claims and openness to opposition, and to those who have simply taken the time to read and digest the admittedly lengthy diatribes of myself and others, I offer my whole hearted appreciation. However naive, I find something beautiful in the idea that we have collectively taken time from our weekends to engage in a discussion.


----------



## Jiggah (Sep 8, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> Jiggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Obama's drilling policy is that oil companies are not utilizing the land leases that they've been given.  There are still a ton of land that can provide oil that has not been developed.  I also believe his idea of limited drilling goes in hand with the fact that states will have a choice as to whether or not drilling will be permitted on their coasts.  Both Republican governors of Florida and California have rejected drilling off their shores.

The criticism of McCain's plan is that it does not deal with where the waste will be stored, which is indicated in the article you posted.  A limited amount of nuclear power plants would be fine, but 45?  Really?  Where do we put all that waste?  In my backyard, in your's?

During the Reagan years, the poor actually got poorer and the rich got richer.  It's what's happening right now.  The deficit during the Reagan years weren't just tied to the Democrats social programs, but in a huge part due to increased military spending during the Cold War, on defense programs that went nowhere i.e. the Star Wars program.  It's wonderful that he got revenues, but he outpaced the revenues with spending.  Also, our current deficit is not a concern now, but at some point in the future it has to be addressed.  The fact that foreign countries are buying into America isn't a concern?  What are McCain's proposal that will stimulate the economy?

I agree, businesses are the future.  However, there is a huge difference between a small business and a corporation.  When money is flowing out of the economy, but not back in we have a problem.  Small businesses are the future, where money and work will stay within the country.  Corporations, not so much.


----------



## Hooya (Sep 8, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> Ronald Reagan policies of cutting taxes and forming smaller governments has resulted in government revenues increasing. Deficit also increase due to Democrats in Congress requesting social spending. The deficit we are occurring is not a tragedy of prime concern is if our economy is growing. When George Bush Senior struck a deal with Democrats in Congress to dramatically reduce deficit, recession was created and it in fact didn't reduce deficit at all. Businesses are the future of the economy.



You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  Read this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html
Then come back and talk about Democrat v. Republican economic policies and which expand or contract the economic divide.

You are a McCainbot.  I have posted more policy in this thread than you have A4NoOb.

By the way, the phrase "smaller government" means absolutely NOTHING unless you say what exactly he's going to do to make it smaller.  I'll tell you a few things that don't make government smaller that McCain supports:
1. Repealing Rowe v Wade - Forcing a religious policy of some onto everybody
2. Consitutional ban on gay marriage - see #1
3. Patriot Act - the single largest conceptual entrenchment of our personal freedoms that impacts the every day lives of millions of Americans

Please, tell me some of the things McCain will do to make government "smaller" (taxes are a non-issue, as long as they exist, they exist).  Also, please tell me some things that Obama will do to make government "bigger".  A "bigger" government to me imposes more restrictions on people's personal choices in their day to day lives.


----------



## A4NoOb (Sep 8, 2008)

Hooya said:
			
		

> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  Read this article:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html
> Then come back and talk about Democrat v. Republican economic policies and which expand or contract the economic divide.
> 
> ...




Wow you do one day's research googling different policies from different candidates and now your Mr. KnowItAll. Please tell me why we should divert this issue to abortion? You want to hear me on abortion then create a separate thread. Same thing with Gay Marriage. These are issues where government involvement is required no matter which partisan you belong to. The prime reason we have a government is to protect ourselves from foreign and internal threats. So we can thank the Patriot Act for preventing criminality and the potential deaths of Brooklyn Bridge and Ohio Mall. Noel Exinia was found smuggling over 500 pounds of cocaine through the American border from Mexico.


----------



## Hooya (Sep 8, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> Hooya said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The article is a distillation of information from a 300 page book.  I don't for an instant believe that you are more qualified to talk about the issue than the professor of poli-sci at Princeton that wrote said book.  I also fail to understand how actually knowing about the issues places me in the camp of "Obamabot".  I thought a 'bot was someone that was just blindly following based on the media hype.  I don't think that many of those people exist, and for those that do there is a member of the republican party following for exactly the same reason.

Just comparing how much real information I posted versus the information you posted.  I posted more.  End of story.

I never claimed to be Mr. know it all.

I never suggested we start talking about abortion or gay marriage, I just listed those examples of things I would consider "big" government, and it seems that by your definition you agree with me (gay marriage and abortion are not foreign or internal threats and I don't believe these are situations where "government involvement is required").  Anecdotal evidence to support the patriot act... sure, OK.

Sorry, doing a later edit on your anti-terrorism points.  I couldn't come up with anything about the Ohio Mall thing you mentioned.  Care to share a link about that?  As for the Brooklyn Bridge thing, the only things I could find were a shooting in 1994 - long before the patriot act - and some counter-terrorism exercises that were held there (not a direct reaction to a threat from what I can tell).  So I'm not sure what you're referring to with those.
The Noel Exinia thing is probably the only truly positive use of this kind of surveillance that I've read about (and has nothing to do with cocaine really, but my anti-drug-war stance is a different topic).  The problem I find with using that as an argument is that it was a result of FISA, which was enacted way back in 1978 and only amended as part of the patriot act (a positive that I will grant you).  I'm not against this kind of surveillance - it's the intra-domestic stuff that I'm against.

You responded to my post but ignored exactly everything that I asked you to defend your position on.  Please look at my last paragraph (which you even quoted) and answer that question.


----------



## Foie (Sep 8, 2008)

Prophet said:
			
		

> *4.* Affirmative action is not something I agree with. You see, I speak as a black man second; Firstly I speak as an American who is disenfranchised. And being disenfranchised is not racially exclusive. There are whites and blacks and browns of all hues that will go to sleep hungry tonight. In essence, the problems of being black are second to the problems of being black-listed in America. I believe that those who need the most help, should be given the most aid; race holds no water here. Which isn't to say that the historically oppressed don't merit an extra leg up, but I think a better form of aid would be better schools for children in the ghettos of America. These children are disproportionately made up of minorities and they are in desperate need. Two birds, one stone.
> 
> *5.* I like the part where you try to educate me while completely missing the point. How does your assertion that slavery existed beyond America, excuse the concept that a people who endured said slavery (and Jim Crow) because of the color of their skin, should now be told not to vote based on race? "Lynch me for being black"; is a fine logic. But now voting impartially due to race is somehow inexcusable. As if a vote were some how a more drastic matter than the lives of my people.



I don't have much time, so I'll just reply to these two points.  

4.  You say one of the best ways to help the poor children in the cities is to get them a better education.  But as I have seen, Obama has been at the very least non-committal if not against the use of school vouchers.  Schools aren't going to get better if you throw money at them.  It takes incentive, something that school vouchers would bring.  Many public schools are doing so poorly because they have no competition.  If you bring competition into the picture, everything will improve.  Because competition is one of the main driving forces of success in markets.  The market of education is no different is this aspect.  They have a complete monopoly in education, because these children have no say in where they spend their alloted tax dollars to go to school.  If little Timmy is playing basketball in his backyard, he isn't going to play very hard.  If you give Timmy a really nice hoop and the most expensive basketball, he will be happy, but still won't play very hard.  But when you bring little Johnny into the picture and tell them that the winner of the basketball game will get $5, it is at that point where you'll see little Timmy try his best.  You will be hard pressed to find a situation in which this concept doesn't apply.  If schools have competition, they will try harder to provide better education and the poor children will benefit.  

5.  How dare you.  "Lynch me for being black" is, and has always been, horrible logic.  To say that anyone would agree with that is extremely insulting.  The OP's point was that slavery is not limited to African Americans.  That was only the case in America's history.  Does it make sense for whites to have a feeling of dissent towards Muslims because many where enslaved a few hundred years ago?  That wouldn't fly quite well.  In our society.  You never endured slavery.  You said "Race was a good enough reason to kill *us*, was good enough reason to oppress *us*, for years it was a good enough reason not to allow *us* to vote..."  _You_ now have complete legal protection along with everyone else against violence, _you_ aren't being oppressed (with affirmative action, it's quite the opposite), and _you_ can vote along with everyone else if you please.  So using the word "us" is completely wrong in this sense.  It was your ancestors, not you, who had this horrible experience.  Racism is no longer a substantial issue in society.  If a politician was proven to be a devout racist, I do not hesitate to say his career would be over.  So because of this, voting based on race is racist in itself.  You're judging who to vote for based purely on the color of their skin.  That is simply not logical, such as slavery was illogical in the past.

Oh, and LETS CRITICIZE THE OP BECAUSE OF HIS LARGE TEXT AND USE OF COLOR.  NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT THIS IS *HIS* BLOG AND HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHATEVER THE HELL HE WANTS WITH IT.


----------



## Prophet (Sep 8, 2008)

<!--quoteo(post=1386759:date=Sep 8 2008, 04:55 AM:name=Foie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Foie @ Sep 8 2008, 04:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1386759"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1386374:date=Sep 7 2008, 03:58 PM:name=Prophet)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prophet @ Sep 7 2008, 03:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1386374"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>4.</b> Affirmative action is not something I agree with. You see, I speak as a black man second; Firstly I speak as an American who is disenfranchised. And being disenfranchised is not racially exclusive. There are whites and blacks and browns of all hues that will go to sleep hungry tonight. In essence, the problems of being black are second to the problems of being black-listed in America. I believe that those who need the most help, should be given the most aid; race holds no water here. Which isn't to say that the historically oppressed don't merit an extra leg up, but I think a better form of aid would be better schools for children in the ghettos of America. These children are disproportionately made up of minorities and they are in desperate need. Two birds, one stone.

<b>5.</b> I like the part where you try to educate me while completely missing the point. How does your assertion that slavery existed beyond America, excuse the concept that a people who endured said slavery (and Jim Crow) because of the color of their skin, should now be told not to vote based on race? "Lynch me for being black"; is a fine logic. But now voting impartially due to race is somehow inexcusable. As if a vote were some how a more drastic matter than the lives of my people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't have much time, so I'll just reply to these two points.  

4.  You say one of the best ways to help the poor children in the cities is to get them a better education.  But as I have seen, Obama has been at the very least non-committal if not against the use of school vouchers.  Schools aren't going to get better if you throw money at them.  It takes incentive, something that school vouchers would bring.  Many public schools are doing so poorly because they have no competition.  If you bring competition into the picture, everything will improve.  Because competition is one of the main driving forces of success in markets.  The market of education is no different is this aspect.  They have a complete monopoly in education, because these children have no say in where they spend their alloted tax dollars to go to school.  If little Timmy is playing basketball in his backyard, he isn't going to play very hard.  If you give Timmy a really nice hoop and the most expensive basketball, he will be happy, but still won't play very hard.  But when you bring little Johnny into the picture and tell them that the winner of the basketball game will get $5, it is at that point where you'll see little Timmy try his best.  You will be hard pressed to find a situation in which this concept doesn't apply.  If schools have competition, they will try harder to provide better education and the poor children will benefit.  

5.  How dare you.  "Lynch me for being black" is, and has always been, horrible logic.  To say that anyone would agree with that is extremely insulting.  The OP's point was that slavery is not limited to African Americans.  That was only the case in America's history.  Does it make sense for whites to have a feeling of dissent towards Muslims because many where enslaved a few hundred years ago?  That wouldn't fly quite well.  In our society.  You never endured slavery.  You said "Race was a good enough reason to kill <b>us</b>, was good enough reason to oppress <b>us</b>, for years it was a good enough reason not to allow <b>us</b> to vote..."  <i>You</i> now have complete legal protection along with everyone else against violence, <i>you</i> aren't being oppressed (with affirmative action, it's quite the opposite), and <i>you</i> can vote along with everyone else if you please.  So using the word "us" is completely wrong in this sense.  It was your ancestors, not you, who had this horrible experience.  Racism is no longer a substantial issue in society.  If a politician was proven to be a devout racist, I do not hesitate to say his career would be over.  So because of this, voting based on race is racist in itself.  You're judging who to vote for based purely on the color of their skin.  That is simply not logical, such as slavery was illogical in the past.

Oh, and <!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->LETS CRITICIZE THE OP BECAUSE OF HIS LARGE TEXT AND <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->USE<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--coloro:#FF00FF--><span style="color:#FF00FF"><!--/coloro--> OF<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--coloro:#0000FF--><span style="color:#0000FF"><!--/coloro--> COLOR<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->.  NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT THIS IS <b>HIS</b> BLOG AND HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHATEVER THE HELL HE WANTS WITH IT.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

As far as the "better schools" issue goes, I respectfully disagree with you. An argument could be made for and against vouchers. I do believe you are right that it would in theory work for a time, but I believe it wouldn't be a fix that would last. What is to stop us from running into this exact same problem? The structuring of private schools right now is strong, but we would easily over exert the system if vouchers caught on and what might that lead to? If private schools fill, how will we determine a precedence for admittance? What will the voucher system consist of, pay-what-you-can and the government pays the rest? Or would it be here's a voucher for X amount, you need to pay the difference. I'm far from an authority on this, so I might very well be missing a key part to this debate. My biggest fear however is this; there are parents who could careless if their children get a good education. You can set up a system where a family need only pay 5 dollars a month for their child to switch from the lowest public school to the greatest private one and you know what? There will be those parents who would still not take advantage. I like the concept of overhauling our current school system, because we can ensure that the children of a drunkard and the child of a responsible parent, can both get a better education.

Now on to your second point. I in no way meant to insinuate that anyone on this forum is agreeable that lynching blacks is some how logically sound, I was only expressing that there was a point in this countries history that saw this act as acceptable. Perhaps I  illustrated the point too graphically, but you must remember I have had to explain it now 4 or 5 times. The tell tale sign that my meaning was not in anyway to be perceived in the manner you have perceived it, was the quotation marks. I was simplifying my point, which is this: in a country where people of color were killed for said color; in a country where the lynching of these colored people was at a time "fine logic"; I have no patience, nor should any black person to hear "don't vote based on race." Where as you would like to act as if the enslavement of my forefathers was some ancient practice that I have drudged up, I will not allow it. We are not that many years removed from chains and rope and the ramifications of slavery still exist. If you believe differently, then please explain to me why blacks are disproportionately amongst the disadvantaged.

To the point of "whites were slaves too, you don't see us whining". I'm going to first say to you, that this is a truly ignorant argument and I hope you open your mind to what I'm about to tell you, because people trot out this misconceived counter far too often. Now, it can be argued extensively that slavery in America was far different from the forms of slavery that preceded it; this is a point that can be made and I will make it in a moment. But first I must shake loose this idea that somehow because a people who were once slaves, have come out of it and regained their social footing; this is proof that all former slaves should be able to recover just as quickly or without assistance. Even if we pretend that the circumstances of white enslavement in the Barbary Coast, is identical to black enslavement in America; even if I allow this huge pretense, your point still falls apart. How can anyone set a precedence for post-enslavement recovery?

Furthermore, now that we are free of the pretense let me state it clearly: American slavery was unique. It was in many ways a slavery of a different kind, a kind that many consider to a brand new form of slavery. Now I'm sure you are wondering if perhaps, I am saying all of this because I am black and in turn this only more relevant to me, because it happen to my people. Let me assure you, that is not the case. There are volumes upon volumes written on this basis, classes are taught around our country following this logic. Do you believe that all the proofs and historical re-examination is conjured up to appease blacks? Do you feel these books and courses are all based around a lie or are you willfully ignorant; able to refer to the little known fact of white slavery, while all the time blinding yourself to the blaring signs that point to the uniqueness of American slavery?

I'm not going to go into too many points of what sets American slavery a part, because if you cared to know these details, they are easily researched.

Suffice to say this; It is widely regarded that race had never played such a intrinsic role in the enslavement of a people, until American slavery. Slaves in America did not just happen to be black, slaves in America were slaves because they were black. Even while black slaves worked in the Caribbean and in French and Spanish colonies, these blacks were treated significantly different then their American counter-parts. In America the idea that slaves are a lower class of people, eventually transforms into blacks are a lower class of people and hence it is morally fine to have them serve as slaves. The greatest proof of this comes in two forms. The “one drop rule” and the American era of Jim Crow. If one drop of n**** blood was enough to make a man a slave, than what does that say about the American regard for the n**** people? Moreover, when the black people are released from slavery, the years to follow prove no easier because the rampant hatred of the n**** has taken grasp. Some of the worst things to befall blacks, occur after slavery has ended.

Lastly, you are right I have never actually been a slave. Just as the vast majority of Jews have never seen a concentration camp. Just as the modern Native American, did not watch as their forefathers were cut down. Just as most American men and women were not in the twin towers when they fell, but all have promised to “never forget.” And it is just like all those I have named, that I too carry with me not only the blood of my slain brethren but so too do I choose to bear their scars. And until the ramifications of slavery are set right,  until true equality is reached and it becomes more than the convenient facade you erect, until that day I will show my scars as proof and I will do so without apology.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 9, 2008)

John McCain is pathetic, he's abandoned all his principles just to get the nomination.  He was against Roe vs Wade being overturned, now he says it should be reversed.  He's just toeing the party line nowadays.  It's actually sad to see that.


----------



## A4NoOb (Sep 11, 2008)

Jiggah said:
			
		

> Obama's drilling policy is that oil companies are not utilizing the land leases that they've been given. There are still a ton of land that can provide oil that has not been developed. I also believe his idea of limited drilling goes in hand with the fact that states will have a choice as to whether or not drilling will be permitted on their coasts. Both Republican governors of Florida and California have rejected drilling off their shores.
> 
> Off shore drilling is accepted along the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska and unless the Congress does something funny by Sept. 30th, the same will apply to South California.
> 
> ...




My issue isn’t the fact that you’re trying to become knowledgeable. It’s good for everyone and I respect you for it. However, you came to the conclusion of voting for Obama before you even have seen these articles. Your response to my input shows nothing but arrogance towards this entire political discussion: You could care less if I have a point, the prestige of this writer automatically gives him the benefit of the doubt. Well that’s fucking great buddy. Go read the book and come back with your “real information”.

"_You responded to my post but ignored exactly everything that I asked you to defend your position on. Please look at my last paragraph (which you even quoted) and answer that question._"

Learn the basic fundamentals in reducing government. It means lowering the jobs offered by the government and increasing employment in private sectors.

I don't know why I'm still in this debate, but I'm assuming you people still want a fucking response.


----------



## mattchase00 (Sep 14, 2008)

<!--quoteo(post=1387601:date=Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM:name=Prophet)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prophet @ Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1387601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As far as the "better schools" issue goes, I respectfully disagree with you. An argument could be made for and against vouchers. I do believe you are right that it would in theory work for a time, but I believe it wouldn't be a fix that would last. What is to stop us from running into this exact same problem? The structuring of private schools right now is strong, but we would easily over exert the system if vouchers caught on and what might that lead to? If private schools fill, how will we determine a precedence for admittance? What will the voucher system consist of, pay-what-you-can and the government pays the rest? Or would it be here's a voucher for X amount, you need to pay the difference. I'm far from an authority on this, so I might very well be missing a key part to this debate. My biggest fear however is this; there are parents who could careless if their children get a good education. You can set up a system where a family need only pay 5 dollars a month for their child to switch from the lowest public school to the greatest private one and you know what? There will be those parents who would still not take advantage. I like the concept of overhauling our current school system, because we can ensure that the children of a drunkard and the child of a responsible parent, can both get a better education.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The problem with the school system is the system itself, it is by design geared towards passing standardize test then it is of actaully learn. Coupled with the fact that being a teacher as a career is one of the least "college monetary" professions out there gives no incentive to our competitive market to persue. Just in Houston, teachers make $30,000 or less a year, while other professions with the same ammount of "university/ college time", actually pay significantly more. It truly is a sad day when the people responsible for teaching us, actually become jaded just because the way the system is setup. The way to fix the school system is actually through the teachers themselves. Because within all of the circumstances of a poor school a great teacher can change the way students; think, believe, and live. While new supplies / schools / programs help, it is ultimatly the teachers responsibility for the learning of students within their care. Teachers have also been reduced to teach ciriculum that has explicitly to do with the "Standardize Test System", where there is no promotion of freedom of thought, but is reduced to what could be on a test. The goverment doesnt help matters, because they only give schools "funding" dependant only upon these test scores. So, if your school doesnt have the "important, school related studies", you loose funding and essentially the schools themselves become worse off. 

<!--quoteo(post=1387601:date=Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM:name=Prophet)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prophet @ Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1387601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now on to your second point. I in no way meant to insinuate that anyone on this forum is agreeable that lynching blacks is some how logically sound, I was only expressing that there was a point in this countries history that saw this act as acceptable. Perhaps I  illustrated the point too graphically, but you must remember I have had to explain it now 4 or 5 times. The tell tale sign that my meaning was not in anyway to be perceived in the manner you have perceived it, was the quotation marks. I was simplifying my point, which is this: in a country where people of color were killed for said color; in a country where the lynching of these colored people was at a time "fine logic"; I have no patience, nor should any black person to hear "don't vote based on race." Where as you would like to act as if the enslavement of my forefathers was some ancient practice that I have drudged up, I will not allow it. We are not that many years removed from chains and rope and the ramifications of slavery still exist. If you believe differently, then please explain to me why blacks are disproportionately amongst the disadvantaged.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I think your logic is a little askewed, you say that this "country's history" thought it acceptable to lynch the black race? I beg to disagree, unfortunaltly sir that is a generalization and should not be taken as fact. The actaul vast majority of people thought it was wrong, and if you do a little more research, the Jim Crowe laws were enforced in Southern States. Being as a mostly State doctrine, it was hard to overturn because of the 10th admendment of the US Consitution, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The States took the initiative to endores these laws, therefore the people were subject to them, however it is important to note that these laws were repealed, because of the people that believe that these laws were wrong came together to tear them down. I would also like to note that there was a substatial ammount of white persons that staked thier reputation, jobs, families, and lives to join and help the NAACP, through the trouble times. Most of what you put here is propaganda fed to you by would be teachers in your suburbs suggesting still that the white man is doing everything in there power to keep you down. I have experienced this first hand. While, I was in middle school, I was forced to go to a "disproporionately amongst the disadvantaged" all black school. It was amazing how many lessons were soon to be pulled out as achieveing black power, or the version of history that warrents that white people in general will or have always oppressed the blacks. I was failed in my 8th grade english class because I wrote a paper on "Opression of the Irish Immigrants". My teacher refused to grade it, changing the assignments directions to say "Write a paper on Black Oppresion." Because she didnt like to be proved wrong, that blacks were the only ones to feel oppression in the US. When I confronted the priciple on the matter, he kept to what the English teacher's decision and decided to fail me for the semester based on that. How does this go towards "reaching equality?"

<!--quoteo(post=1387601:date=Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM:name=Prophet)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prophet @ Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1387601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To the point of "whites were slaves too, you don't see us whining". I'm going to first say to you, that this is a truly ignorant argument and I hope you open your mind to what I'm about to tell you, because people trot out this misconceived counter far too often. Now, it can be argued extensively that slavery in America was far different from the forms of slavery that preceded it; this is a point that can be made and I will make it in a moment. But first I must shake loose this idea that somehow because a people who were once slaves, have come out of it and regained their social footing; this is proof that all former slaves should be able to recover just as quickly or without assistance. Even if we pretend that the circumstances of white enslavement in the Barbary Coast, is identical to black enslavement in America; even if I allow this huge pretense, your point still falls apart. How can anyone set a precedence for post-enslavement recovery?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I really do hate to burst your bubble here too, but the US is not the first to exploit a group of people to endure slavery. While, how morally wrong that slavery is, the Arabs almost exclusively enslaved "Christians", and the Egyptians exclusivly enslaved "Jews" (and blacks once the jews fled). This is however not a novel concept. To try to seperate your race out as novel idea to slavery, is just used to boost your ego, and narcissitic image of your race. Slavery is slavery. Arabs were known for cutting of arms of slaves, fingers, gouging eyes out, beheading. So, please save me the sob story that your race has had it the worse. I'm actaully sick to my stomach over people who believe it. 

<!--quoteo(post=1387601:date=Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM:name=Prophet)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prophet @ Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1387601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Furthermore, now that we are free of the pretense let me state it clearly: American slavery was unique. It was in many ways a slavery of a different kind, a kind that many consider to a brand new form of slavery. Now I'm sure you are wondering if perhaps, I am saying all of this because I am black and in turn this only more relevant to me, because it happen to my people. Let me assure you, that is not the case. There are volumes upon volumes written on this basis, classes are taught around our country following this logic. Do you believe that all the proofs and historical re-examination is conjured up to appease blacks? Do you feel these books and courses are all based around a lie or are you willfully ignorant; able to refer to the little known fact of white slavery, while all the time blinding yourself to the blaring signs that point to the uniqueness of American slavery? I'm not going to go into too many points of what sets American slavery a part, because if you cared to know these details, they are easily researched. Suffice to say this; It is widely regarded that race had never played such a intrinsic role in the enslavement of a people, until American slavery. Slaves in America did not just happen to be black, slaves in America were slaves because they were black. Even while black slaves worked in the Caribbean and in French and Spanish colonies, these blacks were treated significantly different then their American counter-parts. In America the idea that slaves are a lower class of people, eventually transforms into blacks are a lower class of people and hence it is morally fine to have them serve as slaves. The greatest proof of this comes in two forms. The “one drop rule” and the American era of Jim Crow. If one drop of n**** blood was enough to make a man a slave, than what does that say about the American regard for the n**** people? Moreover, when the black people are released from slavery, the years to follow prove no easier because the rampant hatred of the n**** has taken grasp. Some of the worst things to befall blacks, occur after slavery has ended.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

In fact as stated in my pervious post, why is all the lessons of pervious "slavery" ignored. Because it incoviences the propaganda that black slavery was the worst. Your logic is extreamly flawed because there are many books, and classes taught the way that slavery was not very diffrent, from the pervious examples. Stop trying to be so self rightegous, to say you have had it the worse. The subject is moot and of no matter. I doesnt matter how it happen, it only matters where we go from here!

<!--quoteo(post=1387601:date=Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM:name=Prophet)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prophet @ Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1387601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lastly, you are right I have never actually been a slave. Just as the vast majority of Jews have never seen a concentration camp. Just as the modern Native American, did not watch as their forefathers were cut down. Just as most American men and women were not in the twin towers when they fell, but all have promised to “never forget.” And it is just like all those I have named, that I too carry with me not only the blood of my slain brethren but so too do I choose to bear their scars. And until the ramifications of slavery are set right,  until true equality is reached and it becomes more than the convenient facade you erect, until that day I will show my scars as proof and I will do so without apology.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

One thing you forget, is that most white americans have never owned a slave, Even within the south only a third of the population owned slaves, and that was just limited to the south. Almost all northern states did not endorse or have slavery. So you are still cutting down a race that in large part had nothing to do with it. Ok, While I do respect you upholding your heirtage, it is however counter productive to achieveing equality with your pride. Just like the pride of the white people needs to go away, so does the black population. Let me be the first to say, "I AM WHITE, I AM SORRY ON THE BEHALF OF MY RACE, NOW LETS MOVE FORWARD TO CREATE A TRUE AMERICA, ONE WITHOUT BARRIERS OF DISCRIMINATION, AND THE IGNORANCE OF BIGOTRY." Dr. King believed in this! I believe your a follower of his work, yes? I can tell you this, Dr. King never would have supported Affirmative Action, nor other programs to "equate by disequate" race. He wanted us to ignore the color of our skins. Because to be so prideful in your own race, makes you in theory a racist! To vote for someone because they are black is racist. You want true equality? Then we all need to stop thinking that one race owes another, and just move on. Again, if your an advent follower of Dr. King, he only preached against socially biased laws, and never sought to "punish" the whole white race because of the black enslavement. I believe Dr. King to be a great man, but it sounds more like your siding with Malcolm X, where he believe and eye for an eye. Which, he believe that the white man should pay, and so by transfering power to the black man, instead of trying to just work together as brothers. I dispise Malcolm X, but I believe that Dr. King had it right. He is still a man that we can all look up to, and hopefully move forward from this narcissistic society.


----------

