Jump to content

Recommended Posts

but to suggest that such a goal doesn't even exist anymore because we've already achieved it is silly
I have yet to see anyone suggest anything remotely close to this, so if this is what all you guys are arguing against, then you are arguing against a strawman.But yeah, I mostly agree with everything you've said in the last couple posts.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 630
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes, this is horrible, this post.

Turns out I'd do, what I've always done, cash farm subsidy checks and compulsively masturbate.

The majority didn't vote against him. The majority stayed home.   The GOP candidate had less votes in 2016 than in 2012 or 2008, when they lost both times.   Dems (and repubs) just HATED Hillar

and the proof is in the reaction afterward- this was about race all along, which we have said time and time again, which is fine. I was just honest about it.
This was my reaction as I watched the post-election coverage, too. Why did they pretend all those months that wanting to break that barrier was not part of why people voted for him? That's a noble goal. Is it enough to vote for someone who you otherwise disagree with? That's for each person to decide.
Without the MSM's help there is no way in hell he could have ever been elected on his own merits.
I disagree with this. There are a number of Obama voters who knew everything about him, from his affiliations with shady people, his outspoken advocation (is that a word?) of socialism, etc, etc, and they still wanted to vote for him. Not everyone's priorities in voting is the same as yours, or mine, or anyone else's for that matter.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, let's get a few things straight:-The images that came after Obama was declared the next President were predominantly of African Americans celebrating, and the tone of the news for the past two days has been celebratory, declaring that this is a milestone in American history. The conclusion of some on this board was that the election was, to paraphrase, always about race, and this celebration is evidence of that fact. Yes, Obama got 96% of the African American vote. Kerry, however, got 90%, so it was a fractional increase of about 7%. Race and history was an issue in many people's mind, that can not be denied, but it would be extremely incorrect to say that Obama won because of his race or because of support from people of his race. He won because he showed the American people that he was by far the better candidate (in terms of his campaign), because his personality, coolness under pressure, and intelligence resonated with many voters, and because it was, going as far back as about 2 years ago, an election that Democrats were almost destined to win.-The act of Obama winning didn't do anything about racism. Rather, it is an indication of the state of racism in America. No one can deny that we have moved way beyond the racism of the 50's and 60's. I would argue that even in the past 15 years or so we've become a considerably more tolerant and equal nation for all races and people. Obama will be a symbol that many minorities can rally around for hope and aspiration. One of the main issues facing the African American community today is that many simply don't have the hope that they can actually make something of their life. Many, especially those living in poverty, aren't driven to do great things because they don't see the possibility of great things. For them, Obama will be a symbol of what they can achieve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with this. There are a number of Obama voters who knew everything about him, from his affiliations with shady people, his outspoken advocation (is that a word?) of socialism, etc, etc, and they still wanted to vote for him. Not everyone's priorities in voting is the same as yours, or mine, or anyone else's for that matter.
By "a number", you mean upwards of 60 million, right?
Link to post
Share on other sites
At least we're going to heaven.So we got that going for us.
You're going to Heaven. I'm in Heaven. Such is the differerence between a deist and a secularist. Good luck with that. I hope it lives up to your imagination.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, let's get a few things straight:-The images that came after Obama was declared the next President were predominantly of African Americans celebrating, and the tone of the news for the past two days has been celebratory, declaring that this is a milestone in American history. The conclusion of some on this board was that the election was, to paraphrase, always about race, and this celebration is evidence of that fact. Yes, Obama got 96% of the African American vote. Kerry, however, got 90%, so it was a fractional increase of about 7%. Race and history was an issue in many people's mind, that can not be denied, but it would be extremely incorrect to say that Obama won because of his race or because of support from people of his race. He won because he showed the American people that he was by far the better candidate (in terms of his campaign), because his personality, coolness under pressure, and intelligence resonated with many voters, and because it was, going as far back as about 2 years ago, an election that Democrats were almost destined to win.-The act of Obama winning didn't do anything about racism. Rather, it is an indication of the state of racism in America. No one can deny that we have moved way beyond the racism of the 50's and 60's. I would argue that even in the past 15 years or so we've become a considerably more tolerant and equal nation for all races and people. Obama will be a symbol that many minorities can rally around for hope and aspiration. One of the main issues facing the African American community today is that many simply don't have the hope that they can actually make something of their life. Many, especially those living in poverty, aren't driven to do great things because they don't see the possibility of great things. For them, Obama will be a symbol of what they can achieve.
Obama won almost primarily due to one reason: Bush sucks, and McCain looked like BushAgain. Obama would've done well against anyone, but he won because of Bush.Your second paragraph is what I've been trying to say and am being accused of all sorts of crazy ideas because of it. Maybe your wording will work better.
Link to post
Share on other sites
you're stupid in so many ways. in which way does your hate differ from theirs? you're just as extremist as they are.
Here's the difference. The goal of my "hatred" as you call it, is to have a society free from oppression and powerlust at the hands of envious mediocrities who promise the ignorant an imaginary Nirvana as payment for handing over their lives.I simply want to be free of them. I would never attempt to export my beliefs through use of the police power of the state.Believe me, if the Christian Conservatives had their way, their REAL way, they would resemble Islam and would simply kill anyone in their way. Fortunately, one of the beauties of our system is that the Founding Fathers knew, despite the fact that they were religious, that religion had to be separated from governance.As a result, the Christian Conservatives that we see today are DOMESTICATED. They chase issues around the political landscape on an ad-hoc basis, and can largely be blocked with elections of functional atheists which comprise most of our population.They are an intellectual bacteria, but they are kept under control by the better sense of the body politic.So yes, we're both extremists. They are extremists who worship power and want to control the lives of all men. I am an extremist who simply wants to be left alone.
Link to post
Share on other sites
He is anything but confused (crazy perhaps?). He thinks Obama is a socialist and that his policies will be disastrous. But, he is enjoying watching the Christian right get their tails spanked and bitch and moan. So, me and neretva, agree on something.
Republican does not equal Christian Right... of course the media has made sheeple think that they are the same thing.
You're going to Heaven. I'm in Heaven. Such is the differerence between a deist and a secularist. Good luck with that. I hope it lives up to your imagination.
There's no way that BG could imagine how good it is. You're just talking crazy now.
I honestly believe that Sarah Palin was a huge reason for McCain losing, that and the sheer hype around Obama.
I'm surprised you didn't know this already, but no one cares what you believe.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Balloon guy, a class act with your post. :club: One thing is also a certain result from the U.S. Election ... it has been a class A global example of democracy in action to the world. People all over the world heard about the U.S. Election, the result, and fact that the candidates part as friendly rivals, unlike other parts of the world where the opposition is gunned down or tossed in prison on a trumped up charge. :ts It has been a course in Democracy 101 for citizens of countries run by authoritarian rule. Should be an interesting four years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to make something clear.I am rooting for Obama to succeed. I really hope that he a centrist like so many of you believe, and not a far left socialist like he say's.I think it is a great thing for our country that people we able to put the color of someone skin aside and vote them into the highest office in the land.I am frightened about some of the things he has proposed, but as long as Congress does not have a major majority I don't think a lot of them will get passed.I hope he really doesn't make John Kerry Secretary of State.I hope people don't throw him under the bus in 6 months when everything is not fixed.I hope Joe Biden doesn't speak to any foreign countries leaders any time soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First, I wish people would stop using the phrase "racist nation". Nations can't be racist, because nations aren't people. Individual citizens within a nation can be racist, but it is not a characteristic a nation can have.
Of course it can. A nation is an "organism" that has a personality, character and evolution over time. It doesnt even take a democratic majority and laws for a nation to have a characteristic such as racism, just enough of the population to give that characteristic effect. That said, the US isnt a racist nation, and anyone who claims it is really needs to read Larry Elders "Stupid Black Men".
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're going to Heaven. I'm in Heaven. Such is the differerence between a deist and a secularist. Good luck with that. I hope it lives up to your imagination.
Well you got one thing right.For the non-Christian, this is as good as it ever gets.For the Christian, this is the worst it will ever be.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I want to make something clear.I am rooting for Obama to succeed. I really hope that he a centrist like so many of you believe, and not a far left socialist like he say's.I think it is a great thing for our country that people we able to put the color of someone skin aside and vote them into the highest office in the land.I am frightened about some of the things he has proposed, but as long as Congress does not have a major majority I don't think a lot of them will get passed.I hope he really doesn't make John Kerry Secretary of State.I hope people don't throw him under the bus in 6 months when everything is not fixed.I hope Joe Biden doesn't speak to any foreign countries leaders any time soon.
Funny, I had a friend say to me today the difference between republicans and democrats is that republicans are sorry Obama won, but hope he succeeds because that's good for the countryDemocrats were sorry Bush won, and hoped that he would fail because that would be good for their party
Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, I had a friend say to me today the difference between republicans and democrats is that republicans are sorry Obama won, but hope he succeeds because that's good for the countryDemocrats were sorry Bush won, and hoped that he would fail because that would be good for their party
That is ridiculous. Why don't you phrase it better, like this:The difference between good people and bad people is that good people are sorry Obama won, but hope he succeeds because that's good for the countryBad people were sorry Bush won, and hoped that he would fail because that would be good for showing others how stupid the good people are
Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, I had a friend say to me today the difference between republicans and democrats is that republicans are sorry Obama won, but hope he succeeds because that's good for the country (but recognize that it is, by his very nature, impossible)Democrats were sorry Bush won, and ensured that success would be painted as failure because that would be good for their party
fyp
Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, I had a friend say to me today the difference between republicans and democrats is that republicans are sorry Obama won, but hope he succeeds because that's good for the countryDemocrats were sorry Bush won, and hoped that he would fail because that would be good for their party
Yup. I heard a lot of that this morning. A good percentage of people were just hoping Bush would screw something up so they could say "Ha" told you so.I have never understood that stance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That is ridiculous. Why don't you phrase it better, like this:The difference between good people and bad people is that good people are sorry Obama won, but hope he succeeds because that's good for the countryBad people were sorry Bush won, and hoped that he would fail because that would be good for showing others how stupid the good people are
I did phrase it that way..rim shot
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course it can. A nation is an "organism" that has a personality, character and evolution over time. It doesnt even take a democratic majority and laws for a nation to have a characteristic such as racism, just enough of the population to give that characteristic effect.
Racism implies free will and independent thought. A "nation" does not have those, only the people who live there have those characteristics. This is one of the Big Lies of statism, that a "nation" can have personality traits and desires. It just doesn't. This is not to deny that racism or happiness or stupidity can exist to varying degrees in different nations, but saying a "nation" is those these is a meaningless use of words.The only characteristics that can be ascribed to a nation are those that refer to it's legal environment or system of government (e.g., free, bureaucratic, anarchist), or to summary characteristics (e.g., ethnically diverse, mostly black, 80% Scandinavian). I could even live with assigning a percentage of racists (e.g., "3% of the US is racist."). But racism is an individual trait, and nations are not individuals, so the word doesn't make any more sense than saying a "the US is "an accountant" just because a certain percentage of accountants live here.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Racism implies free will and independent thought. A "nation" does not have those, only the people who live there have those characteristics. This is one of the Big Lies of statism, that a "nation" can have personality traits and desires. It just doesn't. This is not to deny that racism or happiness or stupidity can exist to varying degrees in different nations, but saying a "nation" is those these is a meaningless use of words.The only characteristics that can be ascribed to a nation are those that refer to it's legal environment or system of government (e.g., free, bureaucratic, anarchist), or to summary characteristics (e.g., ethnically diverse, mostly black, 80% Scandinavian). I could even live with assigning a percentage of racists (e.g., "3% of the US is racist."). But racism is an individual trait, and nations are not individuals, so the word doesn't make any more sense than saying a "the US is "an accountant" just because a certain percentage of accountants live here.
I disagree Henry. At one time a black man was only considered 3/5 of a person. They had to sit at the back of the bus, had separate eating areas, schools, could not own property (we owned them!). Those were all national things, not individual. That made our country racist against blacks. Pretty much until the 1960's. Then it changed, our county rejected old flawed beliefs, yet some individuals continued to believe that way, making them racist, but no longer our country.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup. I heard a lot of that this morning. A good percentage of people were just hoping Bush would screw something up so they could say "Ha" told you so.I have never understood that stance.
I can buy this in his 2nd term. In his first term his approval ratings were high for a lot of it and there were legions of Dems right behind him on Iraq in the beginning. People wanted to do well (both sides) and have a victory and get some revenge for 9/11 and help prevent futher attacks. As the Iraq war turned into a cluster**** where many of those goals were not met (or not possible to meet in some cases) people on the left became quickly disillusioned. By Bush's 2nd term, I think a lot of liberals were kinda hoping he would screw up so they could say told you so.I expect GOP people to be no different. They will grudgingly support him in the beginning and if things dont go well they will turn on him if he gets a 2nd term. Thats what happens. If you dont do well, the other party will eventually turn on you. Please stop pretending that you know how the entire GOP will react to a stinging loss when we have no recent precedent to go by. If the economy does not do a 180 within a few years, there will be PLENTY of "Ha, told you so" from the right. You get a chance at first like Bush did; if you **** it up dont expect the opposite party to give you a pass. If the country was not so evenly divided maybe it would not be that way.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can buy this in his 2nd term. In his first term his approval ratings were high for a lot of it and there were legions of Dems right behind him on Iraq in the beginning. People wanted to do well (both sides) and have a victory and get some revenge for 9/11 and help prevent futher attacks. As the Iraq war turned into a cluster**** where many of those goals were not met (or not possible to meet in some cases) people on the left became quickly disillusioned. By Bush's 2nd term, I think a lot of liberals were kinda hoping he would screw up so they could say told you so.I expect GOP people to be no different. They will grudgingly support him in the beginning and if things dont go well they will turn on him if he gets a 2nd term. Thats what happens. If you dont do well, the other party will eventually turn on you. Please stop pretending that you know how the entire GOP will react to a stinging loss when we have no recent precedent to go by. If the economy does not do a 180 within a few years, there will be PLENTY of "Ha, told you so" from the right. You get a chance at first like Bush did; if you **** it up dont expect the opposite party to give you a pass. If the country was not so evenly divided maybe it would not be that way.
Again you missed the point. 1. Nobody could turn around this economy in a short period of time, so that is moot no matter who was president.2. There is a difference with expecting someone to do a bad job, and hoping he does a bad job.3. I don't grudgingly support him. I fully support him. He is our president, I do not hope he messed up so the GOP can get back power. That is inevitable.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't know if you're being serious or you're bad at sarcasm, but posts like this don't help. we have the opportunity to actually unite behind a president who wants to work at getting us back to somewhere near unified as a country. and it's not all on him. it's on us, too. debating about policy is fine, but taking explicit pleasure in not your own victory but someone else's defeat is kind of stupid at worst, and not at all helpful at best.
Neretva is the president of the annoying trolls club. In fact I think he goes out of his way to provoke arguments by being as nasty and infuriating as possible. He either doesn't have a clue how to conduct a civil debate or he just chooses not to do so. I personally believe it's the latter. As such he doesn't really deserve any civil answers to his little tirades.
1) Nations are not humans, and assigning human qualities to them is silly.2) There are still racists in this country, but they are extremely marginalized.3) Racism can no longer be used an excuse for not achieving success, since the top position is now filled by someone from the race that is most frequently discriminated against.
This is not true according to LMD's post since LMD thinks it's only because of the MSM that he was elected.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I expect GOP people to be no different. They will grudgingly support him in the beginning and if things dont go well they will turn on him if he gets a 2nd term. Thats what happens. If you dont do well, the other party will eventually turn on you. Please stop pretending that you know how the entire GOP will react to a stinging loss when we have no recent precedent to go by.
no precedent? in what respect?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...