will republicans vote black

ZOS23xy

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Posts
4,906
Media
3
Likes
29
Points
258
Location
directly above the center of the earth
Ever notice that there are never any "left wing radical extremists?" Wonder how that could be?[/QUOTE]

That's a cuz they blow things up, as they did in the late 60's. They've been heard, and are largely extinct.

I was wondering how a team of Obama and Joe Biden would do...
 

gcbenji0

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Posts
433
Media
10
Likes
14
Points
163
Location
Los Angeles
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
i think america has become more and more comfortable with a black president but a woman president still urks people
 

simcha

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Posts
2,173
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
268
Location
San Leandro, CA, USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Ever notice that there are never any "left wing radical extremists?" Wonder how that could be?

That's a cuz they blow things up, as they did in the late 60's. They've been heard, and are largely extinct.[/quote]

Visit Berkeley, California. I work there 5 days per week. You'll find plenty of living "left wing radical extremists." Speaking as a moderate liberal, Berkeley can be a very annoying place.

And many of us call it Berzerkeley here, and for a very good reason.
 

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
:tongue: I have a hard time believing most Americans would view Obama's uncredited borrowing from someone else for one his speeches as a huge campaign issue. That's stretching it. If that's all the GOP has to run on, I'd say they should hang it up now.

Well if you recall the Kerry slam, "He was for it, before he voted against it" was the big slam on Kerry when it came to the Iraq war. Imagine the Republican smear campaign, "Democrats spent the better part of 2008 trying to determine whether the (Presidential/VP) candidate was a plagiarist." And now that they've, made their selection, he's their (Presidential/VP) candidate ?"

See what I mean, the stigma is going to stick either way. So neither can be the running mate of the other was my point. Not whether the GOP candidate had any platform or stance on issues.
 

B_Marius567

Sexy Member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Posts
1,913
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I think it depends on the Rapethepublican. Some Rapethepublicans are even black like, Clarence Thomas, Condaleeza Rice, and Colin Powell.

There are racist Demoncrats. I have a few friends who are Demoncrats and very pro-Hillary because well, "They don't do chocolate." It makes me want to vomit, I tell you.

Racism isn't exclusive to one party, unfortunately.

NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA DOES NOT MAKE YOU A RACIST!!!!!!!
 

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
i think america has become more and more comfortable with a black president but a woman president still urks people

Or is it, America has become more and more comfortable with the concept of a black, male President vs white, female President ? It's not only a gender vs race issue, but both are present in this candidacy. So is it the fact that O'bama is still a male trump out Hillary's gender ? Or is this a black vs white thing ? To me, O'bama is winning based upon being better than Hillary in public speaking events. Not that Clinton is horrible, O'bama is a captivating speaker based solely on the show/presentation. As for substance, there's very little delineating Clinton & O'bama. To be honest, McCain is simply not the public speaker O'bama is, Reagan and Bush weren't/aren't either. There are people that just have that gift, and actors that you could say have it are James Earl Jones, Sean Connery, Jack Nicholson just to name a few.
 

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA DOES NOT MAKE YOU A RACIST!!!!!!!

True, but to those that feel one should vote O'bama and didn't (that's if they ever found out one way or another), might use the race card and imply, either expressly or implicitly, that was or might be the case, regardless of outcome. Perhaps even be more vehemently vocal about it as the case, in the event O'bama lost ?
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
131
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
True, but to those that feel one should vote O'bama and didn't (that's if they ever found out one way or another), might use the race card and imply, either expressly or implicitly, that was or might be the case, regardless of outcome. Perhaps even be more vehemently vocal about it as the case, in the event O'bama lost ?

Transformer, this has been bugging me for a while: Why do you keep typing O'bama instead of Obama? It makes it seem like you are a latent racist trying to stir up trouble.
 

joejack

Cherished Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Posts
727
Media
727
Likes
326
Points
283
Location
Florida
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Obama's mama's white, so he is white. Just like if your mama is a jewess, you are a jew. And Hillary (former Goldwater girl) may as well be a Republican.
 

joejack

Cherished Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Posts
727
Media
727
Likes
326
Points
283
Location
Florida
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Me, I'm voting for Hillary in the NC primary (I'm a registered independent) since she's the underdog. The Clintons don't lose gracefully and I want to enjoy the scrapping at the Dem convention, so I'm going to do my little part. In the general I'm going to hold my nose and reluctantly vote for McCain, who is not a conservative at all

A man of high principle, this one is.
 

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Transformer, this has been bugging me for a while: Why do you keep typing O'bama instead of Obama? It makes it seem like you are a latent racist trying to stir up trouble.

"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269836,00.html"

Anyway, I thought elsewhere I had seen it spelled with the apostrophe. How does that make me "a latent racist trying to stir up trouble" ?

Did I start the thread, "Will Republicans vote black" ? Then ask the question, "Will Republicans let democrats have a black President ?" That by it's very nature is racially charged. In a forum that might get a little controversial, one shouldn't read more into a post that may offer a candidly open, rationalization of what might be thought or perceived by others. When everyone is discussing a topic from all angles, certainly, consideration of that angle merits it's due consideration for discussion ? From a purely objective standpoint, it is a possibility isn't it ? As much as anyone would detest racism, it certainly does exist and denial would be naive and pretentious. So why not put it out for discussion amongst a focus group such as this to gain a better understanding ? If I let it bug me enough, maybe even look to find a hidden agenda, the threads title might be interpreted to imply on a certain level that Republicans are racist. That would make the author a "latent racist trying to stir up trouble", wouldn't it ?
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
131
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269836,00.html"

Anyway, I thought elsewhere I had seen it spelled with the apostrophe. How does that make me "a latent racist trying to stir up trouble" ?

If he was in Kenya that is how it would be spelled. In the US, it has been americanized to Obama.

Did I start the thread, "Will Republicans vote black" ? Then ask the question, "Will Republicans let democrats have a black President ?" That by it's very nature is racially charged. In a forum that might get a little controversial, one shouldn't read more into a post that may offer a candidly open, rationalization of what might be thought or perceived by others. When everyone is discussing a topic from all angles, certainly, consideration of that angle merits it's due consideration for discussion ? From a purely objective standpoint, it is a possibility isn't it ? As much as anyone would detest racism, it certainly does exist and denial would be naive and pretentious. So why not put it out for discussion amongst a focus group such as this to gain a better understanding ? If I let it bug me enough, maybe even look to find a hidden agenda, the threads title might be interpreted to imply on a certain level that Republicans are racist. That would make the author a "latent racist trying to stir up trouble", wouldn't it ?

There is definately an underlying racist tone to this thread. It may just be there to bring the issue of race out to the forefront and discuss it without trying to incite any racial tension on this already tense board. The highlighted lines of text in you response seems to imply that you are trying to get a discussion started on this very thing, that you claim to detest.
 

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
There is definitely an underlying racist tone to this thread. It may just be there to bring the issue of race out to the forefront and discuss it without trying to incite any racial tension on this already tense board. The highlighted lines of text in you response seems to imply that you are trying to get a discussion started on this very thing, that you claim to detest.

So if it's there to bring it to the forefront for discussion, being the volatile topic it is, whether it incites racial tensions or not, you seem to want to hang me by singling me out for "taking the bait" ? Don't you think that by posting volatile threads, there is a distinct possibility that a witch hunt might result ? Posts taken out of context ? Even posts for the purpose of labeling ? If the purpose is to have a witch hunt and there are threads created for the sole purpose of "entrapment", would that not be construed as lurking, inciting racial tensions and so on ? It certainly doesn't make me the instigator ? What is the motive of the thread, even the motivations of the express or implied accusations of your posts ? If one doesn't want to hear what they don't want to hear, why would it be brought up for discussion ? Why would an LPSG member post, revisit & read, then repost, pursuing the entrapment or witch hunt ? This isn't about me, remember, it's about:

"Will Republicans vote black ?" And more specifically, "Will Republicans let democrats have a black President ?".

Please stay on topic in that regard. The first question seems plausible to ask, but let's face it, implying the Republicans letting democrats have a black President, or anything else for that matter, is pretty ludicrous to ask ? Almost as ludicrous as asking if the Republicans would allow democrats a white female President ? I wasn't aware that in any point of the history of the American election process that the Republicans let anyone have the candidates of their choice for the opposing party ? Democrats, devoid of election tampering pretty much select their candidate for Presidency in their own selection process, whether it's by popular demand or not, there's a delegate award process that pretty much is similar to the electoral college, so popular vote can be circumvented even in determining a Democratic nominee for President. Now come November 2008, I'm certain the American people will vote their preference for the Presidency, but again, how is that construed as Republicans letting Democrats being allowed to have a black President ? Each of us gets a single vote, and each state will award electoral votes based upon popular vote and it's all or nothing. It's how Bush won in 2000, Gore won the popular vote, but the states he needed all the electoral votes from, to sum to a Presidential election win, he didn't get. BTW, that wasn't my fault either.

To be honest, I doubt anything I've posted in this thread would incite riots like a Rodney King incident, but if you prefer, you can continue to imply that I am this one eyed racist monster (based upon the doubt in your mind), if that's your prerogative, that is, if you so choose to continue to follow down that line of posting ? I personally don't empower it ! Others might believe you based upon how you go about it, but again, what's your or their agenda, is it a lame attempt to ban. Or maybe I'm reading way too much into this and it's all just one big mis-understanding ?
 

Northland

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Posts
5,924
Media
0
Likes
39
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
Or is it, America has become more and more comfortable with the concept of a black, male President vs white, female President ? It's not only a gender vs race issue, but both are present in this candidacy. So is it the fact that O'bama is still a male trump out Hillary's gender ? Or is this a black vs white thing ? To me, O'bama is winning based upon being better than Hillary in public speaking events. Not that Clinton is horrible, O'bama is a captivating speaker based solely on the show/presentation. As for substance, there's very little delineating Clinton & O'bama. To be honest, McCain is simply not the public speaker O'bama is, Reagan and Bush weren't/aren't either. There are people that just have that gift, and actors that you could say have it are James Earl Jones, Sean Connery, Jack Nicholson just to name a few.
First off, Ronald Reagan was a very good public speaker-especially when he made his 1980 run for President-and won. After being shot, and aging, his coherency began to slip; he was sitll though, very good at speaking to people-perhaps in part from his years as an actor, President of SAG, and Governor of California. People liked him and enjoyed listening to him even when he said nothing of any consequence or substance.

As to the bigger reasons of Obama over Clinton, it is more than just an ability to reach people through talking. Obama presents as friendly and likeable. Clinton has a constant anger or sarcasm (at times both) in her voice, face and mannerisms-those qualities don't sell and neither do her tired old lines.
 

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
First off, Ronald Reagan was a very good public speaker-especially when he made his 1980 run for President-and won. After being shot, and aging, his coherency began to slip; he was sitll though, very good at speaking to people-perhaps in part from his years as an actor, President of SAG, and Governor of California. People liked him and enjoyed listening to him even when he said nothing of any consequence or substance.

As to the bigger reasons of Obama over Clinton, it is more than just an ability to reach people through talking. Obama presents as friendly and likeable. Clinton has a constant anger or sarcasm (at times both) in her voice, face and mannerisms-those qualities don't sell and neither do her tired old lines.

No offense, but Reagan was up against Carter and had the upper hand when it came to the Iran Hostage situation, even a Chrysler Corporation bailout plan and oil shortages of those times. Come to think of it, between Reagan and Bush of that era, we had an S&L Bailout plan too, it's also when Saddam Hussein was empowered and Iran Contra occurred. Pretty much a model of the current Bush fiasco, war was the prevailing rule those years. We were also beating communism and Russia & the Berlin Wall came down. People were simply ready to move on from Carter after a single term. And if rhetoric of the 1984 campaign "Well, There you go again." is exemplary of superior speaking skills, I doubt Reagan or Daddy Bush had anything more than the same Cowboy mentality that "W" rode into DC on. I recall W's inaugural parade, people were still protesting the manner in which the election was determined and the way FL turned out. I actually thought it was a sad day for America that Bush went in that way. 2004, America was and is still to this day, terrified by terrorism. I believe it's what McCain gets in on or at least a big part of the approach the Republicans resort to.

Don't get me wrong, but after having lived thru those 12 years or RR & Papa Bush, when "W" showed up, I knew we'd have a repeat of the good old days of RR and Papa Bush. That in my opinion, simply wouldn't stand up to Obama's oratory skills today. In that era it works, even beats Obama back then, but like 1992 and today, America was/is fed up with the Cowboy mentality. If Obama were to defeat McCain, in Nov 2008, I'd have to say, America is definitely fed up with Cowboy politics and the war mentality McCain brings to the podium & debate.

I concur, the demeanor and mannerisms of Obama as you indicate, are a difference between Clinton and Obama, but again, confidence & posture at the podium is a very learned speaking skill.
 

gjorg

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Posts
2,057
Media
0
Likes
154
Points
193
Location
USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
There is definately an underlying racist tone to this thread. It may just be there to bring the issue of race out to the forefront and discuss it without trying to incite any racial tension on this already tense board. The highlighted lines of text in you response seems to imply that you are trying to get a discussion started on this very thing, that you claim to detest.
Duh! Go to the op! This is a racial question! Nothing underlying about it. Very in your face nothing hiding racial question.
 

gjorg

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Posts
2,057
Media
0
Likes
154
Points
193
Location
USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Have we come a long way or not,having to walk on eggshells with the race issue? Tonight Vanessa Williams,on Barbra Walters special,said she was called a nigger on the bus in third grade! Kudos to her for not saying the N-word! Remmember when that blond republican author called John Edwards a faggot in public. Now imagine if she had called obama a nigger. There is a white elephant standing in the middle of the democratic party.Someone will say it,perhaps when it comes down to Mcain vs. Obama , but it will be said. Are we ready!
 

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Have we come a long way or not,having to walk on eggshells with the race issue? Tonight Vanessa Williams,on Barbra Walters special,said she was called a nigger on the bus in third grade! Kudos to her for not saying the N-word! Remmember when that blond republican author called John Edwards a faggot in public. Now imagine if she had called obama a nigger. There is a white elephant standing in the middle of the democratic party.Someone will say it,perhaps when it comes down to Mcain vs. Obama , but it will be said. Are we ready!

I don't think it will be said by McCain's people, but by the media explaining away and demonstrating demographics of Obama's deep southern state successes and clearly connecting the dots with the "black" vote, for me that distinction is the same as saying it. In prior elections, I can't recall the demographics being laid out in such a manner. It's almost as if it were a wake up call to indicate why the states were so heavily in favor of Obama. Short of taking it to the next level/connection, the President that delivered the "Emancipation Proclamation" & 13th amendment to the Constitution, you guessed it Abe Lincoln, from Illinois. For me, this Democratic nominee race became what it was in NH. That's when HRC in her debate, brought up the fact she was historically the first woman who if successful would be the first female President. That opened the door and what followed after Michigan simply has escalated to undertones of racism. I really think it's why HRC has lost what was perceived as the lead she had. Edwards was the only one with no card to play, that is unless he picked up the "fag" card that the Republican author threw out to him ?