PDA

View Full Version : Would Obama have won if he was...



Dan Thompson
7/12/2010, 06:36 PM
White?

I am not trying to cause trouble, but I think a lot of the vote for him was, a Republican backlash, and the fact that he could get most of the minority vote.

StoopTroup
7/12/2010, 06:39 PM
I think it would have been over before McCain got Palin to be his running mate

James Carville could have beaten McCain IMHO

Now that James has had a mental collapse over this oil deal...McCain could beat him in 2012 though.

StoopTroup
7/12/2010, 06:42 PM
The best way to find out is to make McCain the Man again in 2012. If it was such an outrage in 2008....he should be able to send Obama back to Chicago.

yermom
7/12/2010, 07:09 PM
McCain was pushing it age-wise then, IMO. no way he'd make it in 2012

StoopTroup
7/12/2010, 07:19 PM
McCain would chew you age hata's ears off in a cage match. :D

zOilnSTglNM

ddub0224
7/13/2010, 05:19 PM
Obama won because of the anti-republican sentiment and because of McCain's age. The media created a "need for change" hype and Obama provided the ratings. He had practically no experience even combining his time in both the US and IL legislature.

Obama received over 94% of the black vote. You can't get more than 60% of the people in this country to agree on anything....except racial issues in minority communitities. The ironical thing is, when polled the typcial black voter considers themselves evangelical which contrasts the ethical stance Obama took on the controversial issues. I know several "conservative" black people who flat out said they voted for Obama so they could see the first black president.

Short and sweet - if Obama was white, he would not even have been a candidate in the Democratic primary. Haven't you noticed that anyone who disagrees with him on anything is labeled a racist? The media has not held him accountable for anything...and he has been a carbon copy of Bush!

ddub0224
7/13/2010, 05:21 PM
Oh, and it didn't help that McCain couldn't even get the support of his own party!

goingoneight
7/13/2010, 06:11 PM
The best way to find out is to make McCain the Man again in 2012. If it was such an outrage in 2008....he should be able to send Obama back to Chicago.

Absolutely right. Best viewpoint on President Obama so far.

That said... is there any doubt he swept the minority vote? I know it's stupid, but a LOT of people voted on black versus white in 2008. Some say "at least they voted..." IBTD

texaspokieokie
7/14/2010, 09:34 AM
it is as racist to vote for him because he's black as it is to not vote for him because he's black.

i stole that but from where,i don't remember.

Serge Ibaka
7/15/2010, 12:47 PM
it is as racist to vote for him because he's black as it is to not vote for him because he's black.

i stole that but from where,i don't remember.

Enlightening!

GottaHavePride
7/15/2010, 01:35 PM
Obama won because of the anti-republican sentiment and because of McCain's age and because the prospect of Sarah Palin in a position of power scared a lot of people ****less. The media created a "need for change" hype and Obama provided the ratings. He had practically no experience even combining his time in both the US and IL legislature.



Fixed.

texaspokieokie
7/16/2010, 08:46 AM
is Palin as veep more scarey than pelosi as speaker ???

ddub0224
7/16/2010, 03:01 PM
looks, pelosi is way scarier. ideology, pelosi is WAY WAY scarier.

GottaHavePride
7/16/2010, 03:27 PM
is Palin as veep more scarey than pelosi as speaker ???

Both are scary to me.

oudavid1
7/16/2010, 03:51 PM
Pelosi can **** ** **** .......actually, wouldnt even *** ***

Breadburner
7/16/2010, 11:35 PM
How come nobody ever talks about the white part of Owebama....

the_ouskull
7/18/2010, 12:57 PM
Because then they're not being controversial and edgy. By skirting the issue of race, they can say "I'm not racist, but..." which usually precedes racist statements...

Oh, and Palin in ANY elected office is scary. She should stick to makin' bab... actually, no, she shouldn't do that either. Can she cook? I mean, not to be sexist or anything...

the_ouskull

oudivesherpa
7/18/2010, 02:43 PM
The only Democrat I've ever voted for was Kennedy, because he's Irish, am I racist because I wanted an Irish american to be president? However, I voted for Regan because he was Irish and Conservative. I guess that's racist because he was a Conservative.

Shakadoodoo
7/22/2010, 12:14 PM
How come nobody ever talks about the white part of Owebama....

Thats funny! Because no one ever considered him Half white until he became president - now Whites want to claim him. 99.9% of the time - if you have a little black in you then you are considered all Black - Most blacks in America are not full black - If police are profiling people - I am sure they do not say - "Wait - he is only half black - don't stop him." It is funny because now they even want to change the census to add "half white" as a race. But the fact will still remain in the perceptions of most people - a little black makes you a full blood Negro.

But to answer the thread question - I am sure a lot of people voted for him because he was black - but he was also democrat - most minorities vote democrat anyway. If Michael Steele ran for president - I am sure many blacks would not have voted for him - Including me!

JLEW1818
7/22/2010, 09:12 PM
why must most minorities vote democrat? free money? gotta love that.

Shakadoodoo
7/22/2010, 10:26 PM
why must most minorities vote democrat? free money? gotta love that.

You must be a Michael Williams, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity lover to say that - But you expressed why most minorities vote Democrat - because of the stereotypical sarcasm that conservatives use to describe minorities. Just as you have done. It is really a rich and poor thing - there are way more poor whites getting free money than minorities. All black people do not steal - but - I can accept a perceived non reality as a reality - but just remember - that does not make it true! And I hope you realize that that was a bigoted comment.

ddub0224
7/23/2010, 11:19 AM
Thats funny! Because no one ever considered him Half white until he became president - now Whites want to claim him. 99.9% of the time - if you have a little black in you then you are considered all Black - Most blacks in America are not full black - If police are profiling people - I am sure they do not say - "Wait - he is only half black - don't stop him." It is funny because now they even want to change the census to add "half white" as a race. But the fact will still remain in the perceptions of most people - a little black makes you a full blood Negro.

But to answer the thread question - I am sure a lot of people voted for him because he was black - but he was also democrat - most minorities vote democrat anyway. If Michael Steele ran for president - I am sure many blacks would not have voted for him - Including me!

Not sure anyone is wanting to claim him right now. He has a lower approval rating at this point in his presidency than this previous two predecesors.

While it is never fair to generalize, one could make a very compelling argument that the democratic party is the more "racist" party of the two in that race drives policy. They prey on minorities to build dependence on government. Don't forget that it was not the democratic party who fought to end slavery. It was not the democratic party who fought to end segregation in schools.

And this is not about black or white. Nor should any argument bring in race. That is what really urkes me about the democratic leadership right now (and yes that includes the president) - race keeps getting thrown around as a rebuttal to arguments or as an excuse. Debate the issues. People don't disagree with you because you are black - they don't like your policies. People aren't calling you illegal because you are hispanic - you are breaking the law by being here.

Shakadoodoo
7/23/2010, 01:46 PM
Not sure anyone is wanting to claim him right now. He has a lower approval rating at this point in his presidency than this previous two predecesors.

While it is never fair to generalize, one could make a very compelling argument that the democratic party is the more "racist" party of the two in that race drives policy. They prey on minorities to build dependence on government. Don't forget that it was not the democratic party who fought to end slavery. It was not the democratic party who fought to end segregation in schools.

And this is not about black or white. Nor should any argument bring in race. That is what really urkes me about the democratic leadership right now (and yes that includes the president) - race keeps getting thrown around as a rebuttal to arguments or as an excuse. Debate the issues. People don't disagree with you because you are black - they don't like your policies. People aren't calling you illegal because you are hispanic - you are breaking the law by being here.

First of all - It is comical to me when people say that Obama is half white because that never means anything until a mixed person accomplishes something. That is the same thing Muhammad Ali said when they claimed his light-skinned mother was a descendant of Henry Clay - Which made no since because it was his father who had the last name Clay.

Second - It gets old watching Democrats and Republicans argue about who is less racist than the other as if they are just playing ping-pong with our emotions and whoever wins the point gets our vote. Both Democrats and Republicans prey on the minority vote.

Also, I am tired of Republican Propaganda stating that they fought to free the slaves. They fought to save the union - freeing the slaves was just a by-product - Here are a couple of quotes from racist Ab Lincoln himself -

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Source: Gabor S. Boritt, "'And the War Came'? Abraham Lincoln and the Question of Individual Responsibility," Why the Civil War Came edited by Boritt (1996), pp 3-30.

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man." Source - http://www.pointsouth.com/lincoln/race.htm

As far as desegregation in schools - Yes, it is a step that needed to happen, but it is questionable of how effective it really was/is - we could argue that point all day but I would like to point this out - Why is there a class called Afro-American History when it happened in America - why is it not part of the regular American History curriculum? And to make it so bad - it is an elective that one does not even have to take. But then again - as Rush Limbaugh said - we are not ordinary Americans - And one more thing - Do you know what else came with desegregation in schools - the special ed program - Before desegregation there was no such program - but as soon as the schools were desegregated they somehow "felt" a need to creat it - and if you want to find where the black kids are in the school - goto the special ed hallway - it is segregation still partially at work. I have been a teacher for 15 years now and most kids in special education have no business being there - They may be slow learners because no one took the time to teach them their ABC's and 123's before they started school but when they are tought correctly - they learn just as fast as all the other kids - In fact - I coach a wrestling program and I had kids that were in special ed that I had no Idea were in special ed. There was nothing what so ever wrong with their learning ability - but it is very convenient to throw kids in special ed to help the school reach their benchmarks - Forget about really teaching the kids - lets just push them into special education where there test scores do not affect the school in a whole.

But back to your original point about Democrats being more racist than republicans - Truth is BOTH have racist histories - I think the better question is which one is less racist. But in the end - we need to fix our own communities and stop crying about who does more or less for our communities. Many minorities have been brainwashed into thinking they are victims which could not be further from the truth - every man, woman and child in this country has the right to "Get up, Get out and Get something" and that is what we need to do. Many of the issues that face us in our communities are self inflected and we need to kick our own selves in the a## and fix these issues. In the end we are all Americans and we should all be on the same team - but most of the time this seems to be forgotten and all we do is divide and conquer ourselves when essentially we all want the same things - we may disagree on how to get there but most of us want life, love and liberty for all people living in this country.

One more note - Discussion like these need to take place with out everyone throwing stones at each other. Only then will be become the "Melting Pot" we are suppose to be.

On a brighter note - "How 'bout them Sooners!"

texaspokieokie
7/23/2010, 05:14 PM
Excellent post,Shak !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JLEW1818
7/23/2010, 08:09 PM
donkeys suck dong

take away the worthless, and they would never have a person in office

oudavid1
7/24/2010, 12:06 AM
nObama

ddub0224
7/26/2010, 12:32 PM
First of all - It is comical to me when people say that Obama is half white because that never means anything until a mixed person accomplishes something. That is the same thing Muhammad Ali said when they claimed his light-skinned mother was a descendant of Henry Clay - Which made no since because it was his father who had the last name Clay.

Second - It gets old watching Democrats and Republicans argue about who is less racist than the other as if they are just playing ping-pong with our emotions and whoever wins the point gets our vote. Both Democrats and Republicans prey on the minority vote.

Also, I am tired of Republican Propaganda stating that they fought to free the slaves. They fought to save the union - freeing the slaves was just a by-product - Here are a couple of quotes from racist Ab Lincoln himself -

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Source: Gabor S. Boritt, "'And the War Came'? Abraham Lincoln and the Question of Individual Responsibility," Why the Civil War Came edited by Boritt (1996), pp 3-30.

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man." Source - http://www.pointsouth.com/lincoln/race.htm

As far as desegregation in schools - Yes, it is a step that needed to happen, but it is questionable of how effective it really was/is - we could argue that point all day but I would like to point this out - Why is there a class called Afro-American History when it happened in America - why is it not part of the regular American History curriculum? And to make it so bad - it is an elective that one does not even have to take. But then again - as Rush Limbaugh said - we are not ordinary Americans - And one more thing - Do you know what else came with desegregation in schools - the special ed program - Before desegregation there was no such program - but as soon as the schools were desegregated they somehow "felt" a need to creat it - and if you want to find where the black kids are in the school - goto the special ed hallway - it is segregation still partially at work. I have been a teacher for 15 years now and most kids in special education have no business being there - They may be slow learners because no one took the time to teach them their ABC's and 123's before they started school but when they are tought correctly - they learn just as fast as all the other kids - In fact - I coach a wrestling program and I had kids that were in special ed that I had no Idea were in special ed. There was nothing what so ever wrong with their learning ability - but it is very convenient to throw kids in special ed to help the school reach their benchmarks - Forget about really teaching the kids - lets just push them into special education where there test scores do not affect the school in a whole.

But back to your original point about Democrats being more racist than republicans - Truth is BOTH have racist histories - I think the better question is which one is less racist. But in the end - we need to fix our own communities and stop crying about who does more or less for our communities. Many minorities have been brainwashed into thinking they are victims which could not be further from the truth - every man, woman and child in this country has the right to "Get up, Get out and Get something" and that is what we need to do. Many of the issues that face us in our communities are self inflected and we need to kick our own selves in the a## and fix these issues. In the end we are all Americans and we should all be on the same team - but most of the time this seems to be forgotten and all we do is divide and conquer ourselves when essentially we all want the same things - we may disagree on how to get there but most of us want life, love and liberty for all people living in this country.

One more note - Discussion like these need to take place with out everyone throwing stones at each other. Only then will be become the "Melting Pot" we are suppose to be.

On a brighter note - "How 'bout them Sooners!"

Very good points, and I agree with the summary - Everyone, no matter what color their skin is or their heritage, needs to shut up, man up, and grow up. They need to take responsibility for themselves.

I agree with the education comments for the most part. I think the fed gov needs to back down and let the states have more say in the curriculum. And yes there are too many "special needs" kids now. It seems like everyone gets diagnosed with something. These kids need proper guidance and motivation coupled with an opportunity to succeed. They don't need to have their hands held all the time.

One note of correction to you though - I never said Republican's were the ones who ended slavery...I said that it was not the Democratic party. My point was that the Democratic party who self-proclaims to be the party who has always fought for minority's rights really has no basis for the claim. What they do is promote government programs that people learn to rely on as a crutch. Then, "vote for us, we gave you X".

Really when it comes down to it, you are absolutely right....color doesn't matter cause we are all Americans. However, color does matter for those priveleged enough to be a part of Sooner Nation and those colors are Crimson and Cream!!!

Shakadoodoo
7/27/2010, 10:15 AM
Very good points, and I agree with the summary - Everyone, no matter what color their skin is or their heritage, needs to shut up, man up, and grow up. They need to take responsibility for themselves.

I agree with the education comments for the most part. I think the fed gov needs to back down and let the states have more say in the curriculum. And yes there are too many "special needs" kids now. It seems like everyone gets diagnosed with something. These kids need proper guidance and motivation coupled with an opportunity to succeed. They don't need to have their hands held all the time.

One note of correction to you though - I never said Republican's were the ones who ended slavery...I said that it was not the Democratic party. My point was that the Democratic party who self-proclaims to be the party who has always fought for minority's rights really has no basis for the claim. What they do is promote government programs that people learn to rely on as a crutch. Then, "vote for us, we gave you X".

Really when it comes down to it, you are absolutely right....color doesn't matter cause we are all Americans. However, color does matter for those priveleged enough to be a part of Sooner Nation and those colors are Crimson and Cream!!!

I can dig it!!!

swardboy
7/27/2010, 03:54 PM
If a black, conservative republican had been running, the media would have stomped a mudhole in him just as they always do these "aberrations" of the civil rights legacy. I truly believe about any Democrat trotted out would have beaten McCain....and the WORST thing the republicats could do would be to trot him out again. Conservatives won't support the old flip-flopper.

And for the record, there are a LOT of up and coming black politicians that this cracker will GLADLY support...It is NOT a racist issue with me.

Lout
7/28/2010, 01:23 AM
[

One note of correction to you though - I never said Republican's were the ones who ended slavery...I said that it was not the Democratic party. My point was that the Democratic party who self-proclaims to be the party who has always fought for minority's rights really has no basis for the claim. What they do is promote government programs that people learn to rely on as a crutch. Then, "vote for us, we gave you X".


Hate to butt in and not trying to single you out here, but historically the "Democrats didn't fight for the end of slavery" argument doesn't work. While you're factually correct that the Democratic party wasn't fighting for racial equality, your analysis is problematic because it ignores the fact that the Republican and Democratic parties in the 19th century really do not resemble the parties as they exist today. At that point, the Democratic party was the party of the white, deep south. Republicans were old school industrialists and capitalists from the north, and their concept of Repbublicanism was very different than modern conservatism with its major tints of Evangelical Christianity. This is why today you still have socially moderate, economically conservative Republicans up north who really do not see eye-to-eye with their more religious oriented cohorts to the south. So yes, the Dems did not fight to end slavery, but that is because during that historical moment, they were a party that had very, very different political philosophies and constituents than they do now. The descendants of those Democrats still live in the south, but most of them vote Republican and probably share many of the same ideas as their Democratic ancestors (politically, I'm not saying all white, southerners are racists).

As for the Democrats claims of being crusaders for the rights of the oppressed, that's obviously mostly pomp and circumstance. However, to say that that they have no basis to claim this is really ignoring quite a bit of American history post WWII. African-Americans shifted their votes to the Democrats in 1960 and played a key role in electing Kennedy. This happened precisely because Kennedy was a new type of democrat--a socially moderate northerner that supported civil rights. Taylor Branch has a great 3 part biography of MLK Jr, and the first volume does a great job detailing this shift and many of the actions taken by the Kennedy administration after the fact--e.g., deploying troops to help James Meredith integrate the University of Mississippi. You're certainly correct to be cynical about current Dems trying to claim they are fighters for the people, but I think you're being a bit too dismissive, given the historical record.

oudavid1
7/28/2010, 03:54 AM
I just want a new president....who are the GOP gonna have as primary candidates?

Lout
7/28/2010, 11:25 AM
McCain's not even in consideration, Palin probably won't because she serves the GOP better by being a PR image. Depending on how the midterms shape out, I'd say the GOP will try to find a candidate that appeals to the anti-incumbency movement, but will still play ball when it comes to old school politics. That's the most unfortunate thing about the tea party movement. It's going to be coopted and sold out just like the Evangelical base was by Rove/Bush. I'm not even right-leaning, but these are two great examples of how the two-party system practically ensures that any dissent/social movement is going to get lip service while being coopted and ignored.

the_ouskull
7/28/2010, 01:02 PM
donkeys suck dong - take away the worthless, and they would never have a person in office

This sums up the major public differences between the two parties right there.

A Democrat rants for multiple paragraphs, using proper language, facts, and statistics to back up their opinion; all valid and sound points.

Then jLew responded. The typical Republican response to a Democrat being right. Profanity. Ignoring the topic at hand, and the comments most recently made, in lieu of spouting off some party talking-point that attacks the other side rather than supporting your own. (And yes, both sides are guilty of this, but at least the Democrats are also guilty of humanity..)

...and I'm a registered Democrat, but it's only so I can continue to vote in Oklahoma, as "Libertarian" looks bad in a two-party monopoly.

And, on an entirely separate note, what, exactly, did you mean by "the worthless" jLew? Please, continue...

the_ouskull

ddub0224
7/28/2010, 01:11 PM
So skull, what is a Democrat's factual response to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oLIUT16ko0

Serge Ibaka
7/28/2010, 01:28 PM
So skull, what is a Democrat's factual response to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oLIUT16ko0

Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

ddub0224
7/28/2010, 02:04 PM
and the fact part is......?

Serge Ibaka
7/28/2010, 02:10 PM
lol. What a fool...

the_ouskull
7/28/2010, 04:15 PM
So skull, what is a Democrat's factual response to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oLIUT16ko0

I've never heard an "official" response, but I'm sure it'd go something like, "The United States Democratic Party does not negotiate with idiots."

Are you f*cking kidding me with that? Tell me some 9/11 conspiracy theories while you're at it. Got any good "bin Laden secretly works FOR the CIA" stories?

The "factual" response would be to first teach the people that are still thick enough to think that that argument's a legit one how to read, so that they could read his birth certificate... or the birth records of the clinic in which he was born... etc...

HE'S THE PRESIDENT NOW! Bush couldn't buy a third term, although if he had, he'd have been the first president to serve three terms, and only win the election in one of them...

...and when you b*tch and moan about my saying that, using arguments like, "That was 10 years ago!"

...you'll know how Democrats feel to hear you still questioning the legitmacy of his candidacy; something you didn't do NEARLY as passionately until AFTER he won.

But, when you don't have any other legitmate arguments to trot out there that the pundits aren't beating senselessly to death already, why not break out "Ol' Faithful?" *ss.

Edit: What's REALLY sad, is what you WANT to hear is that the Democratic Party has been planning this since the end of World War II, and that Obama is their secret Manchurian Candidate, and his entire birth record, and youth in Hawaii was actually an exact replica of his, who was executed shortly after taking office in the White House. I'm pretty sure that was Glen Beck's Christmas show, in fact...

the_ouskull

ddub0224
7/28/2010, 04:33 PM
[QUOTE=the_ouskull;2916669]I've never heard an "official" response, but I'm sure it'd go something like, "The United States Democratic Party does not negotiate with idiots."

Are you f*cking kidding me with that? Tell me some 9/11 conspiracy theories while you're at it. Got any good "bin Laden secretly works FOR the CIA" stories?

The "factual" response would be to first teach the people that are still thick enough to think that that argument's a legit one how to read, so that they could read his birth certificate... or the birth records of the clinic in which he was born... etc...

HE'S THE PRESIDENT NOW! Bush couldn't buy a third term, although if he had, he'd have been the first president to serve three terms, and only win the election in one of them...

...and when you b*tch and moan about my saying that, using arguments like, "That was 10 years ago!"

...you'll know how Democrats feel to hear you still questioning the legitmacy of his candidacy; something you didn't do NEARLY as passionately until AFTER he won.

But, when you don't have any other legitmate arguments to trot out there that the pundits aren't beating senselessly to death already, why not break out "Ol' Faithful?" *ss.

Edit: What's REALLY sad, is what you WANT to hear is that the Democratic Party has been planning this since the end of World War II, and that Obama is their secret Manchurian Candidate, and his entire birth record, and youth in Hawaii was actually an exact replica of his, who was executed shortly after taking office in the White House. I'm pretty sure that was Glen Beck's Christmas show, in fact...



no conspiracy theory on 9/11...i'll leave that to the liberal icon michael "let me eat" moore. just show the birth certificate. show it. why hide it? explain that one. this could all go away if you show it.

not sure about the bush comments. you might want to get some counseling to let the past go. oh wait, then how could you blame obama's mess on bush!?!?

no i don't think obama has been a secret weapon...heck the guy hasn't even been around for 10 years! he was was a young minority that could speak very well....the anti-bush

Serge Ibaka
7/28/2010, 04:53 PM
just show the birth certificate. show it. why hide it? explain that one. this could all go away if you show it.


They did. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Are you done now?

ddub0224
7/28/2010, 05:05 PM
They did. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Are you done now?

Haha, dude...snopes, really? Now that's not a biased source! I know that it was made available for a short time - I am asking why everything is sealed and so secretive. Hey, what does snopes say about his Connecticut social security number?

KC//CRIMSON
7/28/2010, 05:30 PM
Hey, what does snopes say about his Connecticut social security number?

They said you're a dimwit and to stop smoking Fruit Loops.

JLEW1818
7/28/2010, 07:58 PM
skull is a cute donkey

the_ouskull
7/28/2010, 09:26 PM
Skull is a Libertarian. I fight ignorance, not "the other side." Grow up and join a real fight, not an ongoing argument about who sucks less while nothing gets done and the world around us is falling apart.

the_ouskull

the_ouskull
7/28/2010, 09:44 PM
Haha, dude...snopes, really? Now that's not a biased source! I know that it was made available for a short time - I am asking why everything is sealed and so secretive. Hey, what does snopes say about his Connecticut social security number?

You mean Snopes... the website known, for years and years now, to debunk all kinds of bullsh*t myths and memes? IT'S a biased source now?

I think we could show you video, Truman Show-style of this guy's birth, leading all the way up to this very second, Spaceballs-style, and you'd still doubt the veracity. H*ll, you're just about f*cking stupid enough that you could have been born his Siamese twin, and you'd still doubt his birth. Keep spouting what your figureheads tell you.

"Obama blames everything on Bush!" whined the conversatives.
"Bush blamed everything on Clinton!" whined the liberals.
"Clinton blamed everything on Bush!" whined the conservatives.
"Bush blamed everything on Reagan!" whined the conservatives... at themselves...

...and that's the way that it goes, idiots. You're just becoming more aware of it now 'cause the news is covering some menial little thing, trying to make it news - somehow - to fill every single one of the 24 hours in the cycle. The last president that had a legitmate argument, aside from Obama (yeah, I said it, it's true... deficit much? bailing out your blueblood buddies much?) is probably L.B.J. I think he could legitmately get away with blaming Nixon.

The cycle of bipartisanship is what allows the government to control the common man, and the fact that they've managed to make the conversative side of the coin all dug in about "Gawd and fambly" makes them that much more difficult to fumigate. Now they're taking money from the ignorant to line their own pockets, and then getting up in their re-election speeches talking about how "God will be beside us" and other such crap, and then those same ignorant vote for them again.

Obama wasn't JUST about Bush, you know...? I mean, it's not like, barring cheating again like he did in Florida, he could have run again. But, yes, a large part of Obama's popularity wave was because he was not G.W.B. In fact, McCain almost caught up once he started distancing himself from G.W.B.... until Sarah Palin BECAME G.W.B. with (alleged - 'cause I'll never look) t*ts. If McCain's DAUGHTER had been his running mate, he'd have gotten further along. Palin's "I'm just a hockey mom from Wasilla" schtick lasted all of about three or four primaries, and then people started asking her questions she didn't know the answer to, like, "How long ago did dinosaurs walk the Earth."

I'm surprised she didn't launch into a story about the time Jesus rode up to her farm on a Velosciraptor to play a little ice polo with her kids. And that idiot was the REPUBLICAN candidate. Joe Biden may have said (and will very, VERY likely, continue to say) some ridiculously stupid sh*t... but he's not mentally ret*rded. I'm not sure Palin can prove otherwise.

But at least she's a "stick to it when the going gets tough" kinda g.. what? You're kidding me. She f*ckin' quit already? Nice.

Instead of each side attacking the OTHER side, how's about you start attacking your OWN side to get some worthy f'in' candidates in front of The People? How's THAT for a novel idea, Glen Beck?

Ron Paul is the best candidate I've seen in years and years, and he's not even allowed to speak at the debates. Well, of course he's not. He doesn't want to talk about what the other two candidates want to talk about. (Abortion, and Immigration, and Gay Marriage, and blah, blah...) He wants to talk about the sh*t that MATTERS!

How come you don't?

the_ouskull

ddub0224
7/29/2010, 08:32 AM
No, Snopes the website that is owned and operated by a couple out in California. The buddy website touted and promoted by about.com that is owned and operated by the far left leaning New York times.

We "idiots" are not just becoming more aware of the way the goverment works and how politicians are self-crazed, egocentric blowhards - lest you forget that "we" are they ones who are fighting against all the new government run programs. It's the kool-aid drinking, blind followers like you claim not to be, that are the true idiots. The real idiots are the ones who attack others (much like yourself) instead of trying to get somewhere.

You say to start attacking my own side (which by the way you don't even know what it is) but yet all you have done is bash republicans and defend the great obama. OK, you did take a shot at Biden, but come on that doesn't count..the man is a walking gaffe!

Ron Paul has many good points, but he is not "electable". His main down fall is his desire to do away with the Fed Reserve and go back to a gold standard. While you can make valid arguments for that, the global economy would collapse with a drastic change...not to mention the inablilty to support such a complex infrastructure.

Where did the Palin and Beck references come from? There are far more liberal nutjobs in the media than there are are conservative "extremists" as I'm sure you would call them. Did you ever turn on a tv during the bush years!?!?!?

Look, you obviously get off on be confrontive (again look at your signature lines) but apparently you want to discuss issues. So, I would enjoy debating any "real issues" you want to discuss. However, if you just want to get into pissing contests, then I'm heading back to the Fark section to enjoy being on this site.

ddub0224
7/29/2010, 08:40 AM
They said you're a dimwit and to stop smoking Fruit Loops.

wow, good one! a worthy rebuttal to that would be, "i'm rubber, you're glue..."

the_ouskull
7/29/2010, 11:12 AM
Make sure you lock the door on your way out. I need slack-jawed yokels running around here, using "words" like "confrontative" like I need an *sshole... right here...

http://chicagoboyz.net/wp-content/uploads/*******_elbow.jpg

But, lest you leave thinking you "won" or whatever, please understand this: Nobody with a brain wants to argue with you in more than anything but spurts, because you're not arguing using facts, or statistics, or logic... you're arguing using someone else's talking points. You don't know anything for yourself. If you did, you wouldn't be throwing up "is Obama really even a citizen" arguments. Your opinions are the opinions you've been told to have. It wouldn't surprise me to find you were raised with them. And now they're like religion to you.

- Believed them your entire life off of the basis of someone else's faith.
- Become angry/"confrontative" when they are questioned.
- Listen to, but continue to completely dismiss, any evidence to the contrary.
- Rinse. Repeat.
- Hate gays, 'cause Gawd does. Can't forget that one.

You want to discuss "issues?" Fine. Pick one that matters. That REALLY matters. Not one that matters to a bunch of Christers who stress the importance of family whilst robbing the poor of their ability to maintain one. That talk about how important it is to help people while continuing to take their money to bail out their buddies in the financial industries that made some poor decisions and lost all of their own money... which was government and taxpayer money to start with...

Good luck. Enjoy fark. Maybe you can find someone to change the URL of the pic I posted earlier so that I don't have to do anything else to it... 'cause I know it won't survive the filters...

the_ouskull

ddub0224
7/29/2010, 01:00 PM
"Lest I think I won" - heh?!?!? Everything you are complaining about is exactly what you are doing. All you need to do is throw out the race card and you will have completed the liberal talking points for dummies. You might even have a future on MSNBC. You pick out groups of people based on their beliefs and then attack and belittle them – not the issue, but the person. “Christers” who hate gays because God does?!?! Man, I’m not even going to touch that one.

Bailouts – you want to go there? Let’s start a comparison of the bailouts & stimulus (including bribes and kickbacks) payouts. This administration has “bailed out” more of their buddies (or repaid in many cases) than the previous. And while we’re at it, lets check the campaign contributions from those financial institutions to see who got more…and let’s do big oil too while we are at it since that is another liberal bullet point to hit. Both the parties are in the back pockets of corporations, unions, and special interest groups! They are all dirty!!!

"Lest I think I won", I will offer an olive branch – here is a quote you can add to your self-indulging signature:

“Debating skull is like trying to convince a texas fan that OU is better – you can eliminate all logic & reason from the argument. The most impetuous and stubborn person will win. Advantage, skull”

KC//CRIMSON
7/29/2010, 05:49 PM
wow, good one! a worthy rebuttal to that would be, "i'm rubber, you're glue..."

Oh yeah? Well I slept with your wife!

KC//CRIMSON
7/29/2010, 06:23 PM
No, Snopes the website that is owned and operated by a couple out in California. The buddy website touted and promoted by about.com that is owned and operated by the far left leaning New York times.

We "idiots"

From the Snopes owners themselves....


"For the record: We're not Jewish (not that it should matter to anyone save anti-semites), we don't live in the San Fernando Valley (and never have), and neither one of us is a Democrat ("liberal" or otherwise). Barbara's a Canadian citizen who couldn't possibly have an affiliation with a U.S. political party, and I'm officially registered as an independent. Neither of us has ever made a donation to a political party or candidate, worked on behalf of a political campaign (either on a paid or volunteer basis), or publicly endorsed or supported any party, candidate, or political cause (not even to the extent of displaying a bumper sticker, putting up a yard sign, or wearing a campaign button). Someone didn't know how to do basic investigative research, and it wasn't us."


Way to go, "idiot."

the_ouskull
7/29/2010, 09:31 PM
It's hard to realize that you're not in on the joke because you are the joke, but we're hoping that it'll happen for you soon enough. Good luck with it.

the_ouskull

ddub0224
7/30/2010, 08:06 AM
From the Snopes owners themselves....


"For the record: We're not Jewish (not that it should matter to anyone save anti-semites), we don't live in the San Fernando Valley (and never have), and neither one of us is a Democrat ("liberal" or otherwise). Barbara's a Canadian citizen who couldn't possibly have an affiliation with a U.S. political party, and I'm officially registered as an independent. Neither of us has ever made a donation to a political party or candidate, worked on behalf of a political campaign (either on a paid or volunteer basis), or publicly endorsed or supported any party, candidate, or political cause (not even to the extent of displaying a bumper sticker, putting up a yard sign, or wearing a campaign button). Someone didn't know how to do basic investigative research, and it wasn't us."


Way to go, "idiot."

You just don't get it, do you? Try replying to what is posted. I never said any of that about them. I said it is owned and operated by a couple out in California. Did you refute that? Nope, cause it's true. Idiot card passes back to you.

ddub0224
7/30/2010, 08:08 AM
Oh yeah? Well I slept with your wife!

Quick little one liners, trying to ride on skull's coattails....grow up man.

ddub0224
7/30/2010, 08:10 AM
It's hard to realize that you're not in on the joke because you are the joke, but we're hoping that it'll happen for you soon enough. Good luck with it.

the_ouskull

are we telling jokes now? nice comeback.

the_ouskull
7/30/2010, 09:11 AM
You've been telling jokes for a couple of days. You're the innovator. The rest of us are just now catching up to you.

the_ouskull

ddub0224
7/30/2010, 09:44 AM
Ok, all "joking" and jabs from previous posts aside - you claim to be a libertarian...what is it then about this administration that you agree with? I am not starting a new debate, I am asking out of pure curiousity: Based on your passionate responses above, what is it about this administration that you agree with? I have a basic understanding of the libertarian beliefs, but I may be missing something. To me, it would appear that you would have some major issues with what the government is doing.

the_ouskull
7/30/2010, 11:07 AM
Right now, very little. When Congress puts through $37 billion more to Afghanistan that was supposed to be going towards (at least $10 billion of it, anyway) education; towards keeping teachers in jobs... I've got a problem.

We're losing the war at home; the war against ignorance, and apathy, and we're losing it BADLY, because the money that we need to fight it is going to the war that we're losing over in the desert... to both our side and our enemies, apparently. Kids don't care about education anymore. They feel like they're too good for it; that coming across to adults, or to ANYBODY in public, as an educated person, is too much to ask of them; it's not important to them.

It's important to the kids growing up in all of the countries that the United States owes money to now, I can guarantee you that.

End both wars. Use that money to stimulate the economy and to foster small business growth. Penalize corporations for going overseas. Charge them taxes, for that matter. I'm not a "tax the rich" guy, I'm a "tax everybody equally" guy. Yes, their 10% is higher than my 10%, but they certainly shouldn't be paying LESS than I do!

Ending a third war, the war on drugs, that's also been a losing battle for decades now, wouldn't be a horrible idea either. By legalizing marijuana, the U.S. could stand to bring in a LOT of money. Education hasn't suffered in countries where it's legal; or de-criminalized, now. It would open up a TON of room in our already over-crowded prisons, putting people that deserve to be behind bars behind bars instead of a 50 year-old divorcee who fired up a joint that he bought from one of son's friends because he was depressed about his life, and wanted to zone out for a while.

- Booze is legal. Prescription drugs are legal. Both of those can KILL you; an overdose is possible. The problem the government has with the legalization of marijuana is that they don't know how to tax it.

But, all of this is assuming that the government even tax at all. Unlike most Libertarians, I DO see the value of taxation, but our tax dollars are literally being thrown away and being thrown away with virtually NO accountability. The government has created an ignorant, apathetic populace, and that populace has gotten to the point where the government is blindly robbing from them, with no remorse, and - especially compared to the scope and frequency of the crimes - no reprisal. When they've been allowed to act without consequences for so long, the idea of being forced to "play by the rules again" is a scary one, but if they don't give up some of this power that they have falsely created in themselves, then our country is going to continue to slide into the sh*tter, and we're getting really, really, REALLY d*mned close to the Event Horizon already...

Dysgenics is real, and I think it's as big a threat to our country right now as any terrorists. If we weren't sitting in their back yard, acting like we own the place, they wouldn't hate us quite so much. Even though, with "entertainment" like Jersey Shore, and the Real World, we've given then every reason to.

the_ouskull

ddub0224
7/30/2010, 11:55 AM
While I agree with most/some of it, I will respect your view on all of it because I can tell you have passion in what you believe. I whole-heartedly agree with you in that one of the main underlying contributors to a lot of our problems is the “unaccountable” attitude that our society has. Where you will probably disagree with me though, is that I believe the decline in our moral compasses is what has led to this apathetic nature. And I feel that Washington is the polarizing force misguiding that compass. They blatantly lie and point fingers at someone else. There has been no change, and in my opinion even less transparency. I do not think they act in the best interest of the people.

Thank you for your sincere response. These are the types of dialogues that I enjoy having – real people discussing real issues.

C&CDean
7/30/2010, 03:06 PM
Well I think you're both a couple of dillweeds.

KC//CRIMSON
7/30/2010, 03:38 PM
You just don't get it, do you? Try replying to what is posted. I never said any of that about them. I said it is owned and operated by a couple out in California. Did you refute that? Nope, cause it's true. Idiot card passes back to you.

ZOMG! You said they were out in California, OH NOES!

Yeah, cause nothing is quite insinuating like: "The buddy website touted and promoted by about.com that is owned and operated by the far left leaning New York times." huh?

That'd be like me saying: ddub0224 is from planet Trog who is a buddy planet with planet MouthBreather who are all left leaning communists!


Idiot card goes back to you, *ucktard.

KC//CRIMSON
7/30/2010, 03:41 PM
Quick little one liners, trying to ride on skull's coattails....grow up man.

Oh yeah? You play ball like a girl!

and skull knows he can't hang with my skills.....

ddub0224
7/30/2010, 03:53 PM
ZOMG! You said they were out in California, OH NOES!

Yeah, cause nothing is quite insinuating like: "The buddy website touted and promoted by about.com that is owned and operated by the far left leaning New York times." huh?

That'd be like me saying: ddub0224 is from planet Trog who is a buddy planet with planet MouthBreather who are all left leaning communists!


Idiot card goes back to you, *ucktard.

Ha, Ha. Trog, Mouthbreather...is that in some secret world you pretend to be a part of while living in your parent's basement?

KC//CRIMSON
7/30/2010, 04:04 PM
Ha, Ha. Trog, Mouthbreather...is that in some secret world you pretend to be a part of while living in your parent's basement?

Yeah, it's a secret place where I go to bang your Mom!

Hey-O!

ddub0224
7/30/2010, 04:16 PM
So you're not gay!?!?!?

KC//CRIMSON
7/30/2010, 04:17 PM
So you're not gay!?!?!?

not according to your mom, son.

ddub0224
7/30/2010, 04:19 PM
popular opinion begs to differ

KC//CRIMSON
7/30/2010, 04:25 PM
Wait...wait...wait....I shouldn't have called you son. I'm not your Dad.

I was almost your Dad, but the guy behind me had correct change!!

Hey-O!

ddub0224
7/30/2010, 04:29 PM
so you do like guys behind you!

ddub0224
7/30/2010, 04:31 PM
well, i'm outta here. keep working on your material and we can pick this up on monday.

KC//CRIMSON
7/30/2010, 04:52 PM
so you do like guys behind you!


Nice, nothing say's I'm witty like recycling peoples jokes!