Obama...worst Thing For America In A Long Time?

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't care what you believe in and fully support your choice to back McCain and his fellow Repubs. However, I find fault in taking anything at face value ... whether it be from the media, a Michael Moore Documentary, Fox News, the Bible, Loose Change, that JFK was taken out in a coup d'etat, and so on and so forth.

Lumping in Michale Moore with a list that contains the Bible?I'll see what I can do, put in a good word for you etc. but I'm pretty sure you are going to hell now.

[Balloon guy 158]

If you think I'd pick either Hilary or McCain then your thought processes are scrambled. If that happens, I'll write in Jimmy Carter and be done with it.

Quit pretending your vote counts

[H_Factor73 2]

Here's the problem, you guys are trying to explain to me why Wright isn't that bad, but Obama felt he was bad enough to disown him from the Obama camp.

As much as Obama is an agent for change, he still lives by the political animal that has been created. He had to disown him, because he's not going to do any good playing Clinton's Huckabee with a political suicide move like that. Politics is politics. You can't change the rules unless you've got the platform to do it. In this case that is the presidency.Actually what I was saying was in response to:

So you guys want to give him a pass because you want to vote Obama with a clear conscience.

My conscience is clear. I have no problem with Wright's words.

[H_Factor73 2]

I'll see what I can do, put in a good word for you etc. but I'm pretty sure you are going to hell now.

As much as I try to distance myself from the truth, my soul is safe.

[Nimue1995 1]

Of course it's a joke. What's wrong with you people? Did you not read my serious response? Did you not SEE the damn smiley faces? That MEANS joke!! Ha-ha. If we suck so bad....leave. Seriously. Go find greener pastures. What do you mean they don't exist. Really? Oh, they exist but the country you would like to go to has an immigration policy ten times worse than ours? Really? Who would have thought THAT was the case, us being the king of suck and all that.

So your answer is to leave? My answer is to try to work to make things better than they are. Maybe you're the one that has a problem hmmm? And part of my answer was in response to the other post you made above that one also. But regardless that's what this country is all about. Being able to speak our mind without fear of being thrown in jail or worse. So Rev. Wright spoke his mind and you label it hate speech. Whooptedo. Next door in Idaho are some white supremists that also speak their mind. And I label it hate speech but you know what? They have the right to say it. Fact is if we dug hard enough, we could find something offensive in some speech that ANY person gave in public. Give me a Rev. Wright who has a passion for what he believes even if I don't agree with it over some spineless jellyfish preacher that doesn't ever offend anybody and therefore has the substance of a marshmallow.

[Balloon guy 158]

As much as Obama is an agent for change, he still lives by the political animal that has been created. He had to disown him, because he's not going to do any good playing Clinton's Huckabee with a political suicide move like that. Politics is politics. You can't change the rules unless you've got the platform to do it. In this case that is the presidency.Actually what I was saying was in response to:My conscience is clear. I have no problem with Wright's words.

I have alreadt stated before that I like Obama, as liberal and bad for this country he is, as long as we keep a republican senate and congress to prevent him from destroying the country, Obama can be a positive influence for many people.And I also am much more okay with affirmative action etc than my republican brothers, I think the black man still isn't starting the race on the same level so giving him a little advantage is okay by me. So you and I got no problems, just having fun watching your side reveal the dirty little racist underbelly that they pretend isn't there while I calling me a racist homophobic bigot.

[H_Factor73 2]

So you and I got no problems

Was there ever any question?

[Balloon guy 158]

So your answer is to leave? My answer is to try to work to make things better than they are. Maybe you're the one that has a problem hmmm? And part of my answer was in response to the other post you made above that one also. But regardless that's what this country is all about. Being able to speak our mind without fear of being thrown in jail or worse. So Rev. Wright spoke his mind and you label it hate speech. Whooptedo. Next door in Idaho are some white supremists that also speak their mind. And I label it hate speech but you know what? They have the right to say it. Fact is if we dug hard enough, we could find something offensive in some speech that ANY person gave in public. Give me a Rev. Wright who has a passion for what he believes even if I don't agree with it over some spineless jellyfish preacher that doesn't ever offend anybody and therefore has the substance of a marshmallow.

I'm pretty sure Mr Rogers never said a racist thing in all the many many years he was in public.Nor have I.

[Balloon guy 158]

Was there ever any question?

No, I was more saying that over your shoulder so others would realize that deep down I wish I was you, and you wish you were me.That's just how it should be

[H_Factor73 2]

No, I was more saying that over your shoulder so others would realize that deep down I wish I was you, and you wish you were me.That's just how it should be

Yeah, I can understand you wanting to be tolerant and open minded. I also can understand me wanting to be rich.

[Loismustdie 0]

I'm pretty sure Mr Rogers never said a racist thing in all the many many years he was in public.Nor have I.

Listen to BG, he is a smart guy. Not everyone is a racist. Not every public speaker says racist things, and anyone who says that is very foolish indeed. As a matter of fact, very few do- that's why it's newsworthy when it happens, because it's very WTF? It is NOT the norm anymore, thank God, and I love that SOME of this country has moved past this shit.

[Loismustdie 0]

So your answer is to leave? My answer is to try to work to make things better than they are. Maybe you're the one that has a problem hmmm? And part of my answer was in response to the other post you made above that one also. But regardless that's what this country is all about. Being able to speak our mind without fear of being thrown in jail or worse. So Rev. Wright spoke his mind and you label it hate speech. Whooptedo. Next door in Idaho are some white supremists that also speak their mind. And I label it hate speech but you know what? They have the right to say it. Fact is if we dug hard enough, we could find something offensive in some speech that ANY person gave in public. Give me a Rev. Wright who has a passion for what he believes even if I don't agree with it over some spineless jellyfish preacher that doesn't ever offend anybody and therefore has the substance of a marshmallow.

So, others say awful things to so it makes it o.k.? Is that what you tell you children? This is very basic shit here.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

If the original post that started this sub-discussion was the most ridiculous, this one may be the most bigoted and closed-minded.Scads, are there? Because I did a pretty thorough Google search on keywords related to IQ and voting patterns, and all I could find was a phony chart showing that the IQ of Kerry voters was higher than Bush voters -- and explanation of where the urban legend had come from. I did find some backed research that showed that the more years of college = more likely to vote Republican, but it made no attempt to correlate IQ. So, could you link us to one of these "scads" of studies? They wouldn't have been done by liberal arts professors, would they?

I guess you did a thorough Google search on the wrong words, then. I searched "demographics," "ideology," and "education level," and got my results pretty quickly and easily. Before I post them below, they were mostly done by social scientists and professional pollsters -- Zogby, Pew, Ipsos, AP, etc. Will you only believe polls designed by Bill O'Reilly and conducted by Ann Coulter (because there's no chance of bias then, no sirree)?But here you go, scads and links aplenty:1) An extremely detailed six-part breakdown of the US electorate, by the Pew Research Council: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=945Key Points: Among Social Conservatives, 30% have incomes over $75,000; 28% have college degreesAmong Liberals, 41% have incomes over $75,000; 49% have college degreesIn the study's narrative:

Interestingly education, up to the undergraduate level, increased both a person's chances of being liberal and of him or her voting Republican. This is explained by the fact that education leads to higher incomes, which are correlated with voting Republican. At the post-graduate level, liberals outnumber conservatives and a majority commonly votes Democratic.Ideological groups are distinguished by certain societal attributes, such as religion, marital status, education, and gun ownership, yet are relatively similar in terms of race and ethnicity. Generally liberals were more likely to be secular, single and in possession of a college degree, while less likely to own a gun. Conservatives, most of whom adhere to social as well as fiscal conservatism, tended to be far more religious and more likely to be married and own firearms. The majority of Social Conservatives and Pro-Government Conservatives attended church services once a week. Weekly churchgoers were also in the plurality among the general population and all ideological demographics, except liberals. Of liberals, a plurality, 43% attended church services "seldom or never," compared to 25% of respondents overall.

2) CNN breakdown of exit polls by demographics, 2006: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html3) Pew spreadsheets, voter breakdown 2005 polling: http://people-press.org/reports/tables/242.pdf4) Article on economist’s blog: “Do conservatives self-select away from academic careers?”http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...-selection.html5) Zogby Poll demographics breakdown: http://learcenter.tempdomainname.com/pdf/P...sSurveyData.pdf6) Over 8,000 results found on Political Research Online searching keywords "ideology and education level": http://www.allacademic.com/one/prol/prol01...php?click_key=1Now, would you care to show me the opposite, i.e, numerous studies providing evidence that conservatives are better educated on average than liberals, or numerous studies showing that there is no statistical difference between education level and ideology? I've backed up what I said, now can you back up your statement that I'm wrong and "bigoted"?

[checkymcfold 0]

Listen to BG, he is a smart guy. Not everyone is a racist. Not every public speaker says racist things, and anyone who says that is very foolish indeed. As a matter of fact, very few do- that's why it's newsworthy when it happens, because it's very WTF? It is NOT the norm anymore, thank God, and I love that SOME of this country has moved past this shit.

that's not the point. racism is a weird thing in a contemporary context, largely because it's so institutionalized that we don't even notice when its effects, well, affect stuff.we don't need affirmative action because active racism is everywhere. we need it because the playing field still isn't level, since we've really just started reparations about a generation ago. you can't expect to undo 200 years of shit in 40, especially when you're trying to alter the very foundational mores of one of the largest countries on earth.it's not as though saying racism still exists means that america sucks, or that by saying that we'd be better off with universal health care means that our health care sucks, or that saying that we've lost in iraq means that our country can't defend itself, etc. it's about making a country that is already great even better. blacks here are better off right now than in darfur, but until they're as well off as white people here, generally, blacks (and other minorities, for that matter) have a right to be pissed, and dr. king and rev. wright can say all the inflammatory shit they want to.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Listen to Checky, he's a smart guy.Not that BG isn't -- they both are, but in this case Checky is both right and eloquent.

[checkymcfold 0]

King was speaking during a time that the democrats in the south wouldn't allow blacks to drink from the same fountain, eat at the same restaurant, etc. Wright is speaking about the unfairness while Oprah, a billionairess sat in the pews, Obama who lives in a mansion sits in the pews, while his mansion is being built.Yea, similar words, but same message? I don't think so.

oprah and obama are anomalies. they point to our country moving forward with respect to race, but until there are a proportionate number of college-educated blacks and whites, and until the average black salary is comparable to an average white one, etc., we still have work to do. and until we're there, blacks have every wright (ha) in the world to be pissed as hell.

Here's the problem, you guys are trying to explain to me why Wright isn't that bad, but Obama felt he was bad enough to disown him from the Obama camp. So isn't your real argument with Senator Barak Huessain Obama? The guy that promises change from the way politics are done? the guy that promises hope for change from the status quo? the guy that promises change for hope to change the slime that covers politicians?

i largely blame the media for making obama do the obviously politically expedient thing by distancing himself from wright. i wish he didn't have to do that, but it would be retarded of him to do otherwise, and he's not a blithering idiot. the sort of change he's talking about with respect to politics isn't some sort of naive annihilation of the way politics has always been done in this country. he's still an american politician, and has been for years. he's not speaking for sea change, just change, and he's been (at least thus far) impressively practical, nuanced, and honest about those sorts of things in public thus far.

[hblask 1]

I guess you did a thorough Google search on the wrong words, then. I searched "demographics," "ideology," and "education level," and got my results pretty quickly and easily. Before I post them below, they were mostly done by social scientists and professional pollsters -- Zogby, Pew, Ipsos, AP, etc. Will you only believe polls designed by Bill O'Reilly and conducted by Ann Coulter (because there's no chance of bias then, no sirree)?But here you go, scads and links aplenty:1) An extremely detailed six-part breakdown of the US electorate, by the Pew Research Council: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=945Key Points: Among Social Conservatives, 30% have incomes over $75,000; 28% have college degreesAmong Liberals, 41% have incomes over $75,000; 49% have college degreesIn the study's narrative:2) CNN breakdown of exit polls by demographics, 2006: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html3) Pew spreadsheets, voter breakdown 2005 polling: http://people-press.org/reports/tables/242.pdf4) Article on economist's blog: "Do conservatives self-select away from academic careers?"http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...-selection.html5) Zogby Poll demographics breakdown: http://learcenter.tempdomainname.com/pdf/P...sSurveyData.pdf6) Over 8,000 results found on Political Research Online searching keywords "ideology and education level": http://www.allacademic.com/one/prol/prol01...php?click_key=1Now, would you care to show me the opposite, i.e, numerous studies providing evidence that conservatives are better educated on average than liberals, or numerous studies showing that there is no statistical difference between education level and ideology? I've backed up what I said, now can you back up your statement that I'm wrong and "bigoted"?

After reading the articles, I think the strongest conclusion is that liberals don't want to work, and therefore stay in school longer than most people. It didn't say anything about intelligence, although the quote you provided did show that successful people tend to vote Republican. This is your evidence? Um, yeah, thanks for that.

[checkymcfold 0]

btw, IQ is pretty much bullshit, anyway.about as much bullshit as any suggestion that getting more education is either indicative of laziness or something to be scoffed at.there are plenty of smart conservatives. the problem is that to be a conservative, you either have to be a dumbass, get tricked somewhere along the line, or be a self-centered twat. oh, or breathe too much helium at your place of employment. (before i get yelled at, that last thing is obv a joke.)

[Southern Buddhist 1]

After reading the articles, I think the strongest conclusion is that liberals don't want to work, and therefore stay in school longer than most people. It didn't say anything about intelligence, although the quote you provided did show that successful people tend to vote Republican. This is your evidence? Um, yeah, thanks for that.

I wasn't the one making the IQ statements -- that was Mr. Perfect SATs. I did say that having a doctorate does not correlate with a low IQ. If you want to argue that, make your case. If not, the articles I linked to didn't mention intelligence (as a test score) because that wasn't my argument to start with.The narrative notes "up to undergraduate level" and that up to that level higher incomes vote Republican. It also pointed out that more liberals than social conservatives have incomes over $75,000 (hence more liberals could be considered "successful" under what you apparently consider the only measurement of success). I consider education at least one measure of success, and by that yardstick liberals are way ahead -- which was the point you disputed as wrong, that liberals are better educated than conservatives.Now where's your evidence that better educated people are more conservative?

[nutzbuster 7]

btw, IQ is pretty much bullshit, anyway.about as much bullshit as any suggestion that getting more education is either indicative of laziness or something to be scoffed at.there are plenty of smart conservatives. the problem is that to be a conservative, you either have to be a dumbass, get tricked somewhere along the line, or be a self-centered twat. oh, or breathe too much helium at your place of employment. (before i get yelled at, that last thing is obv a joke.)

twat?HUH???TWAT???I CUNT HEAR YOU!!!...SPEAK UP....I HAVE AN EAR INFUCKTION!

[hblask 1]

I wasn't the one making the IQ statements -- that was Mr. Perfect SATs. I did say that having a doctorate does not correlate with a low IQ. If you want to argue that, make your case. If not, the articles I linked to didn't mention intelligence (as a test score) because that wasn't my argument to start with. The narrative notes "up to undergraduate level" and that up to that level higher incomes vote Republican. It also pointed out that more liberals than social conservatives have incomes over $75,000 (hence more liberals could be considered "successful" under what you apparently consider the only measurement of success). I consider education at least one measure of success, and by that yardstick liberals are way ahead -- which was the point you disputed as wrong, that liberals are better educated than conservatives. Now where's your evidence that better educated people are more conservative?

I'm not a Republican or a conservative (in the modern sense), so I have no interest in making a point that either is more intelligent than anyone. My point was that any claim that Obama voters, or even Democrats, are smarter than the average public is pure BS. One of the sites I found compared statewide ACT scores to voting patterns and found no correlation. But such a study suffers from the same flaws as the ones you posted -- selection bias, no controls, no statistics -- just some meaningless numbers that, to the unsophisticated, appear to support a pre-ordained conclusion.The bigoted comment was in response to the claim that Republicans are gun-toting rednecks. It's a ridiculous stereotype.Having said that, it's probably true that people who are not mainstream will tend to support parties that promise to leave them alone. That's one of the most important principles of this country -- that harmless people who are little bit odd should be left alone. Therefore, parties that tend to support smaller govt (or those that *claim* to support smaller govt, like the R's) will tend to attract those with the most to lose. Those "gun-toting rednecks" that you have such contempt for are the heart of America -- people who give this country it's color and strength. E Pluribus Unum, baby. But saying "the minority who tend to be persecuted by big government support small govt" is a lot different than saying "everyone who supports small govt is a gun-toting redneck". And both of those statements are a lot different than contemptuously looking down your nose at people who are different than yourself.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

That's one of the most important principles of this country -- that harmless people who are little bit odd should be left alone.

I wish either side really agreed with this.As to the intelligence thing, I think it's both silly and unfair to somehow equate the validity of a particular party's standpoints with the mean intelligence of people who support that party, or some subset of the people, or anything like that. In my experience, the majority of academics that I encounter tend to be liberals. This doesn't mean however that because they are smart and they support a particular party that this party is therefore the correct one. Now, if one party were overwhelmingly supported by the top economists, political scientists, business leaders, etc etc, then I could see one making a case. But if not, its much more substantial to debate the issues themselves rather than who agrees with the issues.And finally, I think Lois is really out of touch if he thinks that neither Hillary or Barak have a chance anymore.

[hblask 1]

Now, if one party were overwhelmingly supported by the top economists, political scientists, business leaders, etc etc, then I could see one making a case.

Economists from the Chicago/Austrian schools of economics (I'm not exactly sure what the difference between the two is) have won a large number of Nobel Prizes for Economics over the last couple decades, so that's saying a lot. Neither the R's or the D's seems to either strongly favor or disagree with those schools of thought, but instead favor a school of economics that says "Our campaign contributors deserve favorable treatment under law". I don't need to mention who I think does support these schools of economics.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I'm not a Republican or a conservative (in the modern sense), so I have no interest in making a point that either is more intelligent than anyone. My point was that any claim that Obama voters, or even Democrats, are smarter than the average public is pure BS. One of the sites I found compared statewide ACT scores to voting patterns and found no correlation. But such a study suffers from the same flaws as the ones you posted -- selection bias, no controls, no statistics -- just some meaningless numbers that, to the unsophisticated, appear to support a pre-ordained conclusion.The bigoted comment was in response to the claim that Republicans are gun-toting rednecks. It's a ridiculous stereotype.Having said that, it's probably true that people who are not mainstream will tend to support parties that promise to leave them alone. That's one of the most important principles of this country -- that harmless people who are little bit odd should be left alone. Therefore, parties that tend to support smaller govt (or those that *claim* to support smaller govt, like the R's) will tend to attract those with the most to lose. Those "gun-toting rednecks" that you have such contempt for are the heart of America -- people who give this country it's color and strength. E Pluribus Unum, baby. But saying "the minority who tend to be persecuted by big government support small govt" is a lot different than saying "everyone who supports small govt is a gun-toting redneck". And both of those statements are a lot different than contemptuously looking down your nose at people who are different than yourself.

One of the studies did point out that conservatives are more likely to own guns than liberals, so calling conservatives "gun-toting" isn't that much of a stretch. As for "redneck," I'm a Southerner! These people AREN'T different than myself. They're my relatives, neighbors, and friends. I go to NASCAR races to sit beside them. I joke with them and call them redneck to their faces -- which is fine by them because their T-shirts and bumper stickers say the same thing. I had a friend once, not a Southerner, who had a Deliverance-type fear of rednecks. Made me laugh my ass off. I told him if his car ever broke down by the side of the road, the first redneck to see him would stop, probably fix the car for him, for free, and if he couldn't fix it, would take him to his destination door-to-door, apologizing all the way that he couldn't get the car running.That said, rednecks have their drawbacks, including (among some of them, not all) casual racism, contempt for education, and a firm conviction that their narrow view of the world is the only correct one. They sure aren't the ones that give this country its "color," and although they think they are the end-all and be-all, they don't give it any more strength than any other group does. It's that "first among equals" attitude that I don't like. Sure, they're swell people, but they're no more extra-special swell than blacks, hispanics, women, gays, Jews, or anybody else. Politicians pander to them by calling them the salt of the earth, but that's partly a code implying that no one else is, and that I disagree with. E pluribus unum, baby!

[JustDoIt 10]

The bigoted comment was in response to the claim that Republicans are gun-toting rednecks. It's a ridiculous stereotype.

SB defiantly has issues there.

I do understand the ideology of what you're saying, but why on earth, then, do so many relatively ill-educated, poor or working-class white people vote Republican? I know dozens and dozens of deeply conservative Republican rednecks around here with their "god, guns, and guts" t-shirts and their beer, and they don't exactly seem awash in the entrepreneurial spirit. [They don't exactly seem washed, either, but that's another story.] Meanwhile, Silicon Valley has plenty of entrepreneurs who are Democrats.I mean, face it, the rednecks wail and whine about the "white man" being laid off when the factory closes and the only reason they do is because deep down (or not so deep down at all) they believe that their skin and their penis should entitle them to special privileges. And Republicans have played into just that mindset ith their attacks on "political correctness" and "special interests." As Noam Chomsky astutely points out, they define everyone -- women, gays, blacks, etc. -- as a special interest, except whites or men, which Republicans define as the "national interest." If a woman is a special interest, why isn't a man also a special interest? If a black is a special interest, why isn't a white?