Obama is the presidential candidate [Archive]

tmx

4th June 2008, 07:35

I so happy about this, and I feel like he can win the election. Base on his background and race to be able to achieve this is a breakthrough (within the political structure we have seem to have here) and just shows atleast people can think for themselves and not make decisions base on preset propaganda and prejudices. But then again, just a president alone is not enough, the main problem I think we seem to have is the Congress who don't seem to make any decisions and has been greatly intimidated by the current administration. The democrat party will have to do some work and come up with good ideas in the time ahead.

Mccain will help turn this country somewhat around I don't feel confidence with him. McCain has completely changes his agenda from what he's used to be and just endorse anything conversative (or not) to wins himself votes.

Storm

4th June 2008, 08:37

Very interesting....I followed the Obama/Clinton primary season till about March in a lot of detail...now to see if the infighting in the Democratic party will affect their chances against McCain in November.
Its surely a fresh face in US politics and would perhaps improve American (government) popularity around the world if does win the elections and does bring about change (especially with regards to Iraq)

leopard

4th June 2008, 09:13

I am not really sure that McCain is a significant stumbling block but rather Barrack will walk presidential seat over the course. McCain might still gain great support from conservative voters, while currently a fresh figure is something urgently needed with whom the wind of chance taken along.

Although in many campaign McCain claimed to deny and take different issue with that of Bush policed, strategist said that he had strong linkage with the current incumbent, and there will be strong resemblance of the current style if elected for president it would be continuation of Bush.

A former president, supposedly Ronald Reagan also said that McCain must separate from Bush if want to win. It could happen with or without any intention. Leopard cannot change the spot. ;)

leopard

4th June 2008, 09:34

Sorry I forgot the lyric of the song, it must read: wind of change :)

A.F.F.

4th June 2008, 09:50

Sorry I forgot the lyric of the song, it must read: wind of change :)

I thought the other song: Once you go black, you never go back. :)

leopard

4th June 2008, 10:09

I thought the other song: Once you go black, you never go back. :)
Once tasting the black, the rest is tasteless.

satisfaction guaranteed ;)

Dave B

4th June 2008, 11:10

Thank goodness that's over (bar the shouting and wrangling). In the UK we've had near-saturation coverage, and while it's hugely important the whole contest has become somewhat tedious.

BDunnell

4th June 2008, 13:27

Good.

Mark

4th June 2008, 13:32

I expect at least in the UK we'll get a bit of a rest from it now until the contest proper starts up after the summer.

jim mcglinchey

4th June 2008, 20:46

I think its now time for the Jewish lobby to start worrying, although Obama is bending over backwarsd to assure them that the Jews and the Israelis will always be special. We'll see.

Drew

4th June 2008, 21:34

I can't believe there was so much hype, it wasn't even the real elections!

BDunnell

4th June 2008, 21:52

I think its now time for the Jewish lobby to start worrying, although Obama is bending over backwarsd to assure them that the Jews and the Israelis will always be special. We'll see.

Shame he has to do that, really.

rah

5th June 2008, 00:35

Can't help thinking that Clinton is holding on just in case Obama gets assassinated. Why else is she not conceding defeat.

millencolin

5th June 2008, 04:21

Thank god thats bloody over. i was sick of hearing about 'The Democratic Presentential Campaign'. It was always the same bloody news story 'Clinton loses yet doesnt concede... blah blah blah blah....

Now all the news shows and late night talk shows have something else to talk about now!

leopard

5th June 2008, 04:54

Can't help thinking that Clinton is holding on just in case Obama gets assassinated. Why else is she not conceding defeat.

We are talking about US, not Pakistan.

rah

5th June 2008, 05:36

We are talking about US, not Pakistan.

I know!

leopard

5th June 2008, 09:06

I know!

Thank God :)

veeten

5th June 2008, 12:17

Can't help thinking that Clinton is holding on just in case Obama gets assassinated. Why else is she not conceding defeat.
No. The reason why is that either she can extract a Vice-Presidential bid for either herself or one of her cronys.. er, supporters or gain positions for them when the presidential cabinet is announced.

Either one is conditional to getting her share of voting blocks from the primaries & caucases she garnered, a bargaining position.

tmx

6th June 2008, 09:33

Hillary is preparing to make the speech of admitting defeat tomorrow. While I feel the two party system result is 'too big government', I think they can make a decent pair, anything is better than currently.

We are talking about US, not Pakistan. I agree, I think the assassination is a bit out of context. But this lend me a chance to joke: If Obama is afraid, he can get a Mexican as a vice president, if the vice president becomes president he can open the border, therefor Obama would be alright.

Mark

6th June 2008, 09:40

Looks like Hillary will not be Vice President, it's not really surprising, I think she's too big a figure to play a Vice President type role.

Garry Walker

6th June 2008, 10:01

Can't help thinking that Clinton is holding on just in case Obama gets assassinated. Why else is she not conceding defeat.

Why would Obama get assassinated? Because the whiteys are all so rascist, huh?

rah

6th June 2008, 17:11

Why would Obama get assassinated? Because the whiteys are all so rascist, huh?

Are you telling me there are no rednecks out there popping embolisms at the thought of an African American President?

Clinton did also refer to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.

Roamy

6th June 2008, 17:12

Obama and Yo Mama = great ticket - NOT

This country need a third party not just at the Pres level but throughout all of congress.

Obama won't take Billary because he does want Bill Clinton living down the hall.

BDunnell

6th June 2008, 17:19

SOD

6th June 2008, 19:51

meh, I have more interest in the election in Botswana.

Jag_Warrior

7th June 2008, 01:48

meh, I have more interest in the election in Botswana.

Hey now! Hillary has been known to move to another location if it means she can buy... I mean, get elected to a political office. What does Botswana have open? How about Head Dog Catcher In Charge of Pooper Scoopers?

I have little faith that either Obama or McCain have what it takes to solve our major problems. But no matter who wins, at least it means that the current gang of neocon wingnuts will be out the door.

I'd like to see Bob Barr (Libertarian candidate) get more attention. But he has too much common sense to ever be elected President of the U.S.

Canada Cornrow

7th June 2008, 02:40

I'd like to see Bob Barr (Libertarian candidate) get more attention. But he has too much common sense to ever be elected President of the U.S.

With all due respect, Bob Barr is an opportunistic moron. I'm not even sure he won the Libertarian Party's nomination yet.

Jag_Warrior

7th June 2008, 04:39

What makes him an opportunistic moron?

Canada Cornrow

9th June 2008, 03:26

What makes him an opportunistic moron?

I admit I may have been too harsh in my assessment. He's just the right wing version of Ralph Nader.

leopard

9th June 2008, 04:48

I agree, I think the assassination is a bit out of context. But this lend me a chance to joke: If Obama is afraid, he can get a Mexican as a vice president, if the vice president becomes president he can open the border, therefor Obama would be alright.

Montoya has proven a lot and is now probably free on market, he can leave Nascar anytime once the offer comes.

leopard

9th June 2008, 04:51

Obama and Yo Mama = great ticket - NOT

Aren't there the better ones. ;) :p :

Garry Walker

9th June 2008, 14:16

Are you telling me there are no rednecks out there popping embolisms at the thought of an African American President?
Ahh the good old Whites are racists stuff.

Well, let`s go by the stats the USA government offers us and they show that 94% of blacks are killed.. by other blacks

They also say that over 90% of violent interracial crime is committed by...blacks on whites and that a black is 64 more likely to attack a white, than a white to attack a black.

Consider these numbers before coming out with more racist whitey crap.

SOD

9th June 2008, 15:46

anytime a black man kills a white man he gets executed.

Who sold the Black communites though fraudulent mortgages? whitey did. What a way to hollow out a society, decimate the Black community through repossessions then make the whiety pay to bail out the banks who made those loans.

rah

9th June 2008, 16:06

Ahh the good old Whites are racists stuff.

Well, let`s go by the stats the USA government offers us and they show that 94% of blacks are killed.. by other blacks

They also say that over 90% of violent interracial crime is committed by...blacks on whites and that a black is 64 more likely to attack a white, than a white to attack a black.

Consider these numbers before coming out with more racist whitey crap.

Lol did you read my post, or did you just assume my response? I did not say that all whites are racist. I said that there are some racist whites. Unless you are saying that there are no racist whites which i doubt.

Haven't we talked before about taking statistics out of context.

A.F.F.

9th June 2008, 16:40

anthonyvop

9th June 2008, 16:49

SOD

9th June 2008, 16:53

^ you have a hard time understanding it.

please refute if you can.

anthonyvop

9th June 2008, 17:02

^ you have a hard time understanding it.

please refute if you can.
Oh I can.

Enjoy.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

Capital Punishment Statistics

Summary findings | BJS publications | Selected statistics
Summary findings
Executions

In 2007, 42 inmates were executed, 11 fewer than in 2006.

* In 2007, 42 persons in 10 States were executed -- 26 in Texas; 3 each in Alabama and Oklahoma; 2 each in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee; and 1 each in South Dakota, Georgia, South Carolina, and Arizona.

* Of persons executed in 2007:
-- 28 were white
-- 14 were black

* All 42 inmates executed in 2007 were men.

* Lethal injection was used in 41 executions in 2007; 1 execution was by electrocution.

* Thirty-eight States and the Federal government in 2006 had capital statutes.

Prisoners under sentence of death

The number of prisoners under sentence of death decreased for the sixth consecutive year in 2005.

* At yearend 2006, 37 States and the Federal prison system held 3,228 prisoners under sentence of death, 17 fewer than at yearend 2005.

Since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976, white inmates have made up more than half of the number under sentence of death.

Prisoners on death row by race, 1968-2006

* Of persons under sentence of death in 2006:
-- 1,802 were white
-- 1,352 were black
-- 28 were American Indian
-- 35 were Asian
-- 11 were of unknown race.

* The 358 Hispanic inmates under sentence of death at yearend 2006 accounted for 11% of inmates with a known ethnicity.

Buy wait. It gets better
Seems that Blacks committ more murders than whites in the US. So if anything it is the White people who are getting the shaft.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

Murder Offenders
by Age, Sex, and Race, 2004

Whites:5,339
Blacks:5,608

SOD

9th June 2008, 17:07

what are you trying to refute with those statistics? For a start, go back and re-read what I wrote.

anthonyvop

9th June 2008, 21:52

what are you trying to refute with those statistics? For a start, go back and re-read what I wrote.

You implied that Blacks recieving the death penalty in the US are victims of some form of Racism.

The Stats I provide prove that in fact it is the opposite.

Canada Cornrow

10th June 2008, 02:49

Oh I can.

Enjoy.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

Capital Punishment Statistics...

Funny how he makes you prove your argument yet he never so much as includes a link or a quote to back up any of his broad assertions. It's the kind of argument you get from an adolescent who thinks he has the world all figured out and us adults "just don't get it, man": make any type of wild assertion and claim it as the truth and then instead of backing it up claim that you need to prove him wrong. That way you have to do all the work and he can then counter with an ad hominen on your source, a strawman argument or just move the goal posts. It's quite pathetic and I can't understand why more commenters don't call him out on his rhetorical BS.

TOgoFASTER

10th June 2008, 03:56

Stats provided prove nothing.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Feb04/Death.row.demo.lm.html

anthonyvop

10th June 2008, 04:14

Stats provided prove nothing.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Feb04/Death.row.demo.lm.html

F.Y.I.

Cornell University is the State University of New York.
New York is anti-Capital Punishment.
Cornell is considered one of the most "Liberal" Universities in the U.S.

Garry Walker

10th June 2008, 10:49

anytime a black man kills a white man he gets executed.

Thankfully anthonyvop did his job in destroying this already.

Who sold the Black communites though fraudulent mortgages? whitey did. What a way to hollow out a society, decimate the Black community through repossessions then make the whiety pay to bail out the banks who made those loans.

Huh?

Lol did you read my post, or did you just assume my response? I did not say that all whites are racist. I said that there are some racist whites. Unless you are saying that there are no racist whites which i doubt.

Haven't we talked before about taking statistics out of context.

I am sure there are whites who hate blacks just because they are black, and funnily enough, I think there are blacks who hate whites just because they are whites. The latter probably is a more common sight than the former, that is my impression anyway.

How do you take this stat out of context - Well, let`s go by the stats the USA government offers us and they show that 94% of blacks are killed.. by other blacks.

They also say that over 90% of violent interracial crime is committed by...blacks on whites and that a black is 64 more likely to attack a white, than a white to attack a black.

Exactly the kind of denial some here are promoting is one of the reasons why the extremely high black crime rate is done nothing about it. Because to state it, would be racism, so let`s bury our heads in sand, instead of trying to understand the problem and doing something about it.

ioan

10th June 2008, 11:18

I read this thread and realized that Obama will not be president, and it's clear why.

leopard

10th June 2008, 11:27

He is a young and competent candidate, young younger than Mosley, let alone his rival.

TOgoFASTER

10th June 2008, 19:28

F.Y.I.

Cornell University is the State University of New York.
New York is anti-Capital Punishment.
Cornell is considered one of the most "Liberal" Universities in the U.S.

LOL The expected.
Your bean counter stats show nothing other than there are more whites than other races on death row etc. General population of the US shows that would be a true bean counter stat. It does not at all reflect the results of black on white, white on black, white on white or black on black, or other ethnic groups on other ethnic groups murders in death row cases and numbers.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A632205

TOgoFASTER

10th June 2008, 19:40

I read this thread and realized that Obama will not be president, and it's clear why.

Don't let the few cloud your vision. They are the old tired past and do not want the ole boy network changed.
The last eight years of criminal mediocrity spoke to their wants and needs.

Canada Cornrow

11th June 2008, 06:25

I read this thread and realized that Obama will not be president, and it's clear why.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. We elected Jimmy Carter once. We can do it again. Have faith. :s mokin:

Canada Cornrow

11th June 2008, 06:45

Don't let the few cloud your vision. They are the old tired past and do not want the ole boy network changed.
The last eight years of criminal mediocrity spoke to their wants and needs.

Where do I start with this one? For starters apparently you can somehow read the minds of people whose politics you don't agree with. Not only that but you can also magically conjure up our "wants and needs". How the "last eight years of criminal mediocrity spoke" to us is apparently so obvious it doesn't need any explanation. You've managed to outdo even SOD in the question begging and strawman department, which is no mean feat. Keep up the good work. There could be a medal in this. :up:

Jag_Warrior

11th June 2008, 06:55

Carter could thank Nixon for his election win. Obama can thank Lil Bush if he wins.

If Obama can paint McCain as McBush, I don't think we have nearly enough neocon wingnuts and David Duke types in the U.S. to stem the tide that'll either stay home or vote for Obama. He's got some tough choices to make for a VP though. He can pick Hill Billary and bring in the flakey feminists (driving away many men who have more than a 7th grade education and don't live in trailer parks) or he can pick a qualified fiscal and social moderate... and have the lefty flakes stay at home or make a McCain protest vote. Tough choices.

But both candidates will focus more on the fringe elements of their parties than I think they should.

Ranger

11th June 2008, 09:11

anytime a black man kills a white man he gets executed.

Last time I checked, OJ Simpson is still alive.

...oops, opened a can of worms there! :D

I read this thread and realized that Obama will not be president, and it's clear why.

Because some supporters have opinions with flawed logic?

Trust me, this is a symptom for people on whatever side of the fence you sit.

SOD

11th June 2008, 11:44

Thankfully anthonyvop did his job in destroying this already.

His stats failed to disprove any of my claims. thank you and come again.

odykas

11th June 2008, 17:40

Best news is that Hilary is sent home ;)

rah

12th June 2008, 00:55

Best news is that Hilary is sent home ;)

I absolutely agree.

jso1985

12th June 2008, 01:44

His stats failed to disprove any of my claims. thank you and come again.

how? for me it proved they execute everyone regardless of their race!.
or at least he's trying, where are your proofs?

Galveston dunes

12th June 2008, 03:10

I forgot who leads the house the dems or the rep.
See to me it really doesn't matter cause when it comes down to it; either one will have a full scale war with the hill.JMO
don't expect too much too soon. Thats all i'm saying.Not like he's no GOD but it took Ole billy boy two terms didn't.OK 1 and a half.

Roamy

13th June 2008, 10:08

Last time I checked, OJ Simpson is still alive.

...oops, opened a can of worms there! :D

Because some supporters have opinions with flawed logic?

Trust me, this is a symptom for people on whatever side of the fence you sit.

mallen he killed a white WOMAN - we let that slide !! :eek:
so 50% is a stalemate

Jag_Warrior

14th June 2008, 18:39

I believe it was the great American philospher of the 1970's, George Jefferson, who said, "when you've got enough green to cover the black, it don't matter." It was either George or Mr. Bentley... I can't recall.

Most studies have an agenda. But one that I read 15 or 20 years ago made sense, at least to me. It found that gender, race and socio-economic status all played a part in criminal sentencing. If the convicted criminal was an upper to upper middle class White female, the sentence was on average much less harsh than if the convicted criminal was a lower class Black male. Wealthy people tended to get less harsh sentences than poor people. Females tended to get less harsh sentences than males (look at the recent rash of female child molestors and the light sentences they get). Whites tended to get less harsh sentences than Blacks. Unlike the mixing of stats that some are doing here, this study compared apples to apples: like crime to like crime.

I think studies like the one I read are what prompted or supported the uniform sentencing guidelines that we tend to see in the U.S. now. And I believe that is the way it should be. If a Martha Stewart type kills someone, she should not be able to use her gender, race or wealth and social status to weasel out of it. If an adult female molests a child, she shouldn't be convicted and then argue that she's too cute to go to jail, as happened in Florida a couple of years ago.

I'm not for Obama (or McCain). But I believe Hillary and her crew, on top of being corrupt, would have taken us down the road to group and identity politics that we haven't seen since Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats were around. We've come too far to go back because of someone like her.

anthonyvop

15th June 2008, 15:09

Most studies have an agenda. But one that I read 15 or 20 years ago made sense, at least to me. It found that gender, race and socio-economic status all played a part in criminal sentencing. If the convicted criminal was an upper to upper middle class White female, the sentence was on average much less harsh than if the convicted criminal was a lower class Black male. Wealthy people tended to get less harsh sentences than poor people. Females tended to get less harsh sentences than males (look at the recent rash of female child molestors and the light sentences they get). Whites tended to get less harsh sentences than Blacks. Unlike the mixing of stats that some are doing here, this study compared apples to apples: like crime to like crime.
.

So you read a study 15 or 20 years ago that jibes with your sensibilities and are going to stick with it despite all of the studies since.
The fact that I posted Govenment Stats mean nothing?

You can't even compare some crimes even though statistically they are grouped together.

You cannot compapre the "Crime" of a woman having sex with a 14 year old boy(Lucky kid) with that of a man havings sex with a 8 year old girl. Even though statistically they are listed the same....Sexual assault on a minor.

Garry Walker

15th June 2008, 15:25

You cannot compapre the "Crime" of a woman having sex with a 14 year old boy(Lucky kid) with that of a man havings sex with a 8 year old girl. Even though statistically they are listed the same....Sexual assault on a minor.

Yes.
Harsher punishments are not neccesarily because of the race, but there are so many other factors to consider.
But of course, crying racism is the best way.

His stats failed to disprove any of my claims. thank you and come again.

Actually, he completely demolished your idiotic claims and so far you have given zero evidence, nothing.

SOD

15th June 2008, 17:40

Actually, he completely demolished your idiotic claims and so far you have given zero evidence, nothing.

too bad you have a hard time understanding what I wrote.

Garry Walker

15th June 2008, 18:15

too bad you have a hard time understanding what I wrote.

I understood what you wrote, the problem was that it was complete ****, to put it in a nice way. Nothing but rabid hatred for whites.

Jag_Warrior

15th June 2008, 18:29

You can't even compare some crimes even though statistically they are grouped together.

You cannot compapre the "Crime" of a woman having sex with a 14 year old boy(Lucky kid) with that of a man havings sex with a 8 year old girl. Even though statistically they are listed the same....Sexual assault on a minor.

The hell you can't! I'm amazed that you'd say such a thing. It's sick that just because a middle aged male may still have a 20 or 30 year old fantasy of nailing his 8th grade teacher that he would say "lucky kid", in relation to an adult (male or female) being given a light sentence for taking advantage of a CHILD (male or female). There may be a gay male who would say the same thing in relation to having a thing for his 8th grade male teacher 20 years ago. Sicko groups like NMBLA wish that more people would see it that way. Thankfully, they don't. And what if one of these molestors has AIDS or some other disease? Yep, lucky kid. :rolleyes:

Any adult caught taking advantage of a child should be locked in a cage like the animal they are. If they die in that cage before serving their sentence, that's OK too. More clean air for the rest of us to breathe. I don't give a flip how cute they might be. But if society sinks to a level that some kids will not be protected (because of their gender or whatever), I suppose we'll have more incidents like the father in Pennsylvania(?) who bashed a female teacher's skull in with a baseball bat several years ago, after she sexually molested his young (lucky) son.

This is exactly why I think uniform sentencing guidelines are generally a good idea. Once you're convicted of a crime, the jurors' prejudices are largely removed. If you don't want to get locked up, simple: obey the law. I don't care if you're black, white, green or yellow. I don't care if you're a Jew or Gentile. I don't care if you look like Cindy Crawford or Sandra Bernhard. I don't care if you have PMS and took 8 Tylenols before you committed the crime. Did you do it? Yep? Fine. Slam goes the cage door!

Yet another example of how group and identity politics is taking this nation down the tubes.

Jag_Warrior

15th June 2008, 18:42

Yes.
Harsher punishments are not neccesarily because of the race, but there are so many other factors to consider.
But of course, crying racism is the best way.

Since he was referencing my post, I assume you're commenting on it also. The teacher was White. The kid was White. :confused: Help me out here.

One thing that David Duke and Al Sharpton have in common: they both tend to see racism where there is none. Two sides of the same coin, IMO.

anthonyvop

15th June 2008, 21:04

The hell you can't! I'm amazed that you'd say such a thing. It's sick that just because a middle aged male may still have a 20 or 30 year old fantasy of nailing his 8th grade teacher that he would say "lucky kid", in relation to an adult (male or female) being given a light sentence for taking advantage of a CHILD (male or female). There may be a gay male who would say the same thing in relation to having a thing for his 8th grade male teacher 20 years ago. Sicko groups like NMBLA wish that more people would see it that way. Thankfully, they don't. And what if one of these molestors has AIDS or some other disease? Yep, lucky kid. :rolleyes:

Any adult caught taking advantage of a child should be locked in a cage like the animal they are. If they die in that cage before serving their sentence, that's OK too. More clean air for the rest of us to breathe. I don't give a flip how cute they might be. But if society sinks to a level that some kids will not be protected (because of their gender or whatever), I suppose we'll have more incidents like the father in Pennsylvania(?) who bashed a female teacher's skull in with a baseball bat several years ago, after she sexually molested his young (lucky) son.

This is exactly why I think uniform sentencing guidelines are generally a good idea. Once you're convicted of a crime, the jurors' prejudices are largely removed. If you don't want to get locked up, simple: obey the law. I don't care if you're black, white, green or yellow. I don't care if you're a Jew or Gentile. I don't care if you look like Cindy Crawford or Sandra Bernhard. I don't care if you have PMS and took 8 Tylenols before you committed the crime. Did you do it? Yep? Fine. Slam goes the cage door!

Yet another example of how group and identity politics is taking this nation down the tubes.
I agree with you in most respects.
I particularly hate so-called, "Hate Crimes". beat somebody up? It is a hate crime. Shouldn't matter your motivation.