Would people say Obama was stupid... (Cheney, generation, ethical, Republican)

[NCN]

Originally Posted by LauraKG

I can't take anyone seriously, regardless of race, who uses the word "race card." I'm sorry, but I just can't.

And what is a moderate doing in the Democratic party, anyway?

Probably the same thing a moderate is doing in the Republican party. Trying to get elected. When you are in the middle, you are closer to each side. Maybe a McCain/Clinton ticket would go over good! Has anyone from one party ever selected someone from the other party as vice? That would be another first.

[Haaziq]

Originally Posted by NCN

Probably the same thing a moderate is doing in the Republican party. Trying to get elected. When you are in the middle, you are closer to each side. Maybe a McCain/Clinton ticket would go over good! Has anyone from one party ever selected someone from the other party as vice? That would be another first.

I usually disagree with Democrats on a lot of things, so I can't imagine supporting one unless they ran with someone I liked. I don't like most Republicans either unless they are traditional conservatives (ie. Ron Paul) and not these modern neoconservatives who are pro-war and try to use their religious beliefs to create laws. I'm a Libertarian, but I know that they get ignored for the most part. So I prefer traditional conservatives over anything else. I agree with them more than any other group.

[srj1961]

The presidency has become a rotten job. All actual power is with the courts and the House of Representatives. Why? All federal judges are unelected life-appointees and beholden to no one. Only the House--NOT the Senate--can originate revenue bills, so they control the national purse strings. The president used not to be hounded by the press 24/7, such as nowadays. Nobody really qualified wants the job. It's a rotten job. So ALL the Democrats who chose to run for such a rotten job this go around were morons--not to mention being in the same corporate pockets at the end of the day as Republicans (look at the contributions list!), when all of the "soft" and "hard" money is accounted for. Slime balls, all of them. This 1 &1/2-party-system of Tweedle-Dee & Tweedle-Dummer would cause a shudder in our founders. Come to think of it, the only qualified candidate is the non-politician, Harvard graduate--Mr. Nader. Come to think of it, why would he want such a rotten job? Well, at least he'll stymie the Dems from dissin' me again! All or nuthin' brah! Recognize! God Bless our Troops.

[djf863000]

racism problem should be taught at young age.

[VMH2507]

Originally Posted by LauraKGrisgby

I never said that you were. I'm merely pointing out that you have no problem with blacks voting in a block, as long as that block is white.

You are misquoting me. I never said there was a problem one way or the other. My point is that you are tossing around the racist term when you have no knowledge of the motivation of the people. I have no problem with any group of people voting as a block for anyone black or white if that is their choice. You are the one who is tossing around the racist label and I object to your trying to make me out as an accomplise in this. My statement was only to try to clarify what you were trying to say. Truth be told I think that most people who vote as a block whether they be black or white do so because they feel that candidate will be better for them in their particular situation. I personally have never felt a need to vote along with any particular group -- I guess I am just too much of an independent and that explains why I have never belonged to either political party. I never could understand how anyone could just check the block at the top of the ballot for either all the Dems or all the Reps.

[Magnulus]

Originally Posted by Haaziq

I usually disagree with Democrats on a lot of things, so I can't imagine supporting one unless they ran with someone I liked. I don't like most Republicans either unless they are traditional conservatives (ie. Ron Paul).

I'll give credit to you for being an indepent thinker. Lemme gues, though, you are bitter... sort of a Clarence Thomas type? How does it feel to surround yourself with folks who have no problems singling out people based on race? If you really are ideologically pure, sit home this election because McCain is going to be smooching up to the racist vote. Oh, he won't come out and say it but he'll be saying "I'm the safe candidate", you know, "I don't look like in another life I'd steal your hubcaps and spray-paint graffiti", in not so many words. I really hope that, at least, he tries to take the verbal high ground and not play any race cards, but you don't know- I do know he won't have any problems courting the bigot vote, he's already courted the homophobic religious nut vote, so who knows...

Obviously it is possible to dislike Obama on non-racist grounds. Ideologically, like you, you might not agree with his anti-libertarian views. That's fine. But to call him "inexperienced" is often code-language for "dumb black kid". How do I know? I've heard white people talking- not in front of black people of course. But they do talk, and it's cringeworthy. Race relations haven't gone as far as some people thought, in some quarters. These same people would not have said the same thing about JFK or Clinton (both young), but they'll say it about Obama.

[Haaziq]

Originally Posted by Magnulus

I'll give credit to you for being an indepent thinker. Lemme gues, though, you are bitter... sort of a Clarence Thomas type? How does it feel to surround yourself with folks who have no problems singling out people based on race? If you really are ideologically pure, sit home this election because McCain is going to be smooching up to the racist vote. Oh, he won't come out and say it but he'll be saying "I'm the safe candidate", you know, "I don't look like in another life I'd steal your hubcaps and spray-paint graffiti", in not so many words. I really hope that, at least, he tries to take the verbal high ground and not play any race cards, but you don't know- I do know he won't have any problems courting the bigot vote, he's already courted the homophobic religious nut vote, so who knows...

Obviously it is possible to dislike Obama on non-racist grounds. Ideologically, like you, you might not agree with his anti-libertarian views. That's fine. But to call him "inexperienced" is often code-language for "dumb black kid". How do I know? I've heard white people talking- not in front of black people of course. But they do talk, and it's cringeworthy. Race relations haven't gone as far as some people thought, in some quarters. These same people would not have said the same thing about JFK or Clinton (both young), but they'll say it about Obama.

I don't like Hillary, Obama, or McCain. They're just loaded trash bags with different scents. I will pick the nominee I think would be good for our country at this moment. Obama is far too liberal. We have a messed up economy and debt. We don't need to be creating more multi-billion dollar programs. That's exactly what hardcore liberals do. They want to solve everything with an expensive program, but they don't tell their supporters how expensive it will be. They appeal to emotions but forget that fixing any problem in society isn't easy and isn't cheap.

And it is not our job to make everybody tolerant. If people want to be racists, it is their right. I couldn't care less about what some racist says about me. Only people who are racially sensitive make a big deal out of such things. That's why I have to point out the fact that I'm black each time I criticize Obama because if I don't, I get accused of being a racist.

P.S. If Clarence Thomas ran for president, he'd get my vote.

[Magnulus]

Originally Posted by Haaziq

Obama is far too liberal. We have a messed up economy and debt. We don't need to be creating more multi-billion dollar programs. That's exactly what hardcore liberals do. They want to solve everything with an expensive program, but they don't tell their supporters how expensive it will be. They appeal to emotions but forget that fixing any problem in society isn't easy and isn't cheap.

I don't have the time, and this website doesn't have the bandwith to fully debunk libertarianism as a political philosophy, but allow me to put forth the idea, that if our country doesn't spend some money improing our society, we are going to find our self at the bottom list of developed nations for generations to come. Maybe even slide back more towards a developing nation. I just view this spending as investing in our country. Sometimes it DOES NOT pay to be cheap, to buy crap. We need good roads, schools, good healthcare for everybody, a national energy policy, and all these other things, if we are going to be competitive as a nation in the 21st century.

P.S. If Clarence Thomas ran for president, he'd get my vote.

To his credit, Clarence Thomas is not a dumb man in the conventional sense, and I believe it is racist to say otherwise (I have heard liberals call him dumb, and I object to it). However, he is what psychologists would call "lacking insight"; he doesn't know why he believes what he believes. He is a very bitter man and this clouds his judgement on many occasions. The same kind of man as Rev. Wright, only his hatred is internalized, sort of a Stockholm Syndrome on a political scale. Thomas has acted both at the same time as if affirmative action is inherently unjust, yet denying that it was a boon to him as well; he can't see the hypocrisy in his situation, or if he does, perhaps he chooses to lash out at his critics by clinging tenaciously to the right to prove he is principled. Or perhaps he feels an inferiority complex due to his bitterness and rejection as a youth (Gullah was his native dialect, which is one reason he is often silent), and believes that by being a rare black conservative, he is somehow proving his superiority to his peers- perhaps he sees them as nothing more than "servants" or slaves of an ideology, and this motivates him to loathe that ideology in the same way he loathes the legacy of slavery-a sort of psychological/ethical projection. In short, he thinks he's not a "slave" or inferior by siding with people who belittle the impact of slavery and racism on a routine basis. Illogical, but that's his twisted psychology. All of these reasons are likely true.

Obama spoke about this bitterness in African-Americans in his "More Perfect Union" speech, about many blacks being bitter and convinced that America had done nothing for them, as Rev. Wright's famous and bitter sermon projected. But he has showed a solution to all this by affirming the bitterness of blacks and the legacy of slavery, the resentment of whites against the government "remedies" such as bussing or affirmative action, and asking us, as Americans, to come together and move beyond all this in the name of the common good.

[Haaziq]

Originally Posted by Magnulus

I don't have the time, and this website doesn't have the bandwith to fully debunk libertarianism as a political philosophy, but allow me to put forth the idea, that if our country doesn't spend some money improing our society, we are going to find our self at the bottom list of developed nations for generations to come. Maybe even slide back more towards a developing nation. I just view this spending as investing in our country. Sometimes it DOES NOT pay to be cheap, to buy crap. We need good roads, schools, good healthcare for everybody, a national energy policy, and all these other things, if we are going to be competitive as a nation in the 21st century.

Wow...just wow.

Are you insisting that Libertarianism is for the cheap? Get real.

Let's not talk about cheap. It is relying on the government that causes problems. They try to spend as little money as possible. Whenever they try to regulate something, they mess it up. Our school system got worse after No Child Left Behind got passed. As a matter of fact, it costs more in tax money to pay for a student to attend public schools than it does for parents to pay for their children to attend a private school. Where is your wonderful government there? People are not able to get jobs due to some of the restrictions and zoning laws the government makes. Our problem is government regulations.

When you rely on the government, you get cheap quality. When have you heard of a nuclear reactor exploding in a capitalist country? When have you heard of improperly trained workers working in a power plant in a capitalist country? When you allow private industries to fund projects, they spend what is necessary for quality. The government just spends enough to have what is promised. And let's not get on healthcare. My mom is a liberal and still opposes socialized healthcare. Why? Because of the quality. I suggest you check out Canada's healthcare system. My mom had to do a report on it while she was in college years back. They basically get put on a waiting list and it can take months for them to be seen. So, remind me how allowing the government to fund things makes them better. If you can honestly tell me that government regulation and control produces better results than a free market, I would suggest you take a history class.

[Haaziq]

Originally Posted by Magnulus

To his credit, Clarence Thomas is not a dumb man in the conventional sense, and I believe it is racist to say otherwise (I have heard liberals call him dumb, and I object to it). However, he is what psychologists would call "lacking insight"; he doesn't know why he believes what he believes. He is a very bitter man and this clouds his judgement on many occasions. The same kind of man as Rev. Wright, only his hatred is internalized, sort of a Stockholm Syndrome on a political scale. Thomas has acted both at the same time as if affirmative action is inherently unjust, yet denying that it was a boon to him as well; he can't see the hypocrisy in his situation, or if he does, perhaps he chooses to lash out at his critics by clinging tenaciously to the right to prove he is principled. Or perhaps he feels an inferiority complex due to his bitterness and rejection as a youth (Gullah was his native dialect, which is one reason he is often silent), and believes that by being a rare black conservative, he is somehow proving his superiority to his peers- perhaps he sees them as nothing more than "servants" or slaves of an ideology, and this motivates him to loathe that ideology in the same way he loathes the legacy of slavery-a sort of psychological/ethical projection. In short, he thinks he's not a "slave" or inferior by siding with people who belittle the impact of slavery and racism on a routine basis. Illogical, but that's his twisted psychology. All of these reasons are likely true.

You're trying to define somebody's psychology as if it were an absolute truth, yet you say perhaps so many times it makes my head spin. You either know his thought process or you don't. Your own suggestions mean nothing.

You're a typing contradiction.