Obama

[napfirst]

better idea... don't post it. Hey I'm the worlds biggest conspiracy theorist but some of the garbage links between either of the two candidates and "evil" empires absolutely WREEKS of grasping for short straws....hey, I wear a tie....I must have links to both Obama and McCain...I must have sent a MASSIVE campaign donation on the premise they improve the car business....news at 5...ON THE CARTOON NETWORK, but ...beleive the propaganda if you wish and continue trying to convince others....

no conspiracy here.....just keep denying....

[RangerM]

That's a personal preference. For me, the color of the bigot doesn't matter, but in this discussion we are talking about white people being racist and not voting for a black candidate simply because of the color of his skin.

 

I thought this was started with a H/R shooting Obama for being black, but regardless.....

 

It is no more right or just that someone votes against Obama for being black, than someone who votes against McCain for being white.

 

That may sound ridiculous, but I ask....if someone is voting for Obama because he is black, then is he not voting against McCain for being white?

 

As crazy as that sounds, I have to ask myself, how is it that over 90% of all blacks in America support Obama? All blacks don't think alike, so there is only one common reason that I can think of. Do you know of any? If 90% of all whites supported McCain, I'd attribute that to race, as well.

 

I dealt with a bit of that when I moved to California, as far as the accent. I understand your frustration, but what exactly are the pros to labeling/considering yourself a hillbilly/redneck? As far as society goes, both have negative undertones. I doubt 10% of the population understands the origin of the terms. Honestly are there a large number of people that identify themselves as hillbilly or redneck who are also not racist?

 

I wouldn't expect anyone to be treated differently, but how is your ratio of white friends to minority friends? I'm not implying anything, it's a legitimate question when we are talking about racial equality and how we look at a national problem as individuals.

 

I'm not offended by your question. It's legitimate. I've never given it much thought, but as far as close friends (what I would call "true friends"), nearly all are white. If we go by my more public life (people I know at church, occaisonally hang out with, or those I know through other friends), then I'd suspect that the demographics reflect the popluation in general.

[99ktpbirdman]

obama on guns. www.pajamasmedia.com

[napfirst]

If obama is elected and we also get a democrat Congress, you can kiss your guns goodbye!

 

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

 

35. Do you support state legislation to:

a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.

b. ban assault weapons? Yes.

c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Edited October 17, 2008 by napfirst

[Deanh]

no conspiracy here.....just keep denying....

all i hear is you bleating like a sheep...open your bias eyes my friend....media absolutely FEEDS on easily led people like yourself....

[the_spaniard]

That may sound ridiculous, but I ask....if someone is voting for Obama because he is black, then is he not voting against McCain for being white?

 

Lets be clear, I would hope people would vote for the right candidate for THEM, regardless of color. My comment was that while it would be a tragedy for any candidate to be gunned down, given the history of african-americans in this country, it would a greater tragedy for the country as a whole if that candidate was potentially the first black president.

 

Particularly when we still have this crap going on. And yeah, that's in my neck of the woods.

 

 

I'm not offended by your question. It's legitimate. I've never given it much thought, but as far as close friends (what I would call "true friends"), nearly all are white. If we go by my more public life (people I know at church, occaisonally hang out with, or those I know through other friends), then I'd suspect that the demographics reflect the popluation in general.

 

And I do understand demographics play a big part of it, as do hobbies/activities preferences/socialization.

[sprinter]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=61152

 

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., a black Clinton supporter, explained why whites vote for Obama. According to Cleaver, "This is (their) chance to demonstrate that we have been able to get this boogeyman called race behind us. And so they are going to vote for him, whether he has credentials or not, whether he has any experience. …"

Here's where things get interesting.

 

As to the argument that an Obama election would show an America overcoming its history of racial injustice, Cleaver says no, it would show the opposite. "Yet Cleaver asserts," according to an Associated Press article, "that Obama as president could actually hamper efforts to curb racial injustice. He said future concerns about race 'would be met with rejection because we've already demonstrated that we're not a racist nation.'"

 

In other words, whites cleverly intend to vote for Obama – not because they consider him qualified or the better candidate, but so that they can diminish future allegations of alleged racism and racial injustice. But Cleaver sees through the plot. To Cleaver, America remains a "racist nation." And Obama as president simply pulls the wool over the eyes of America, minimizing the continued and future victims of racism, while giving America's racists free rein to continue their deviousness.

 

Former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, another Clinton supporter, makes the opposite argument. Ferraro claims that Obama's race gives him an advantage that obscures his otherwise thin résumé. "If Obama was a white man," said Ferraro, "he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

 

Black state Sen. Robert Ford, D-S.C., also a Clinton supporter, takes the Cleaver position. In explaining his refusal to support Obama, Ford said, "It's a slim possibility for (Obama) to get the nomination, but then everybody else is doomed. Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose because he's black and he's top of the ticket. We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything. I'm a gambling man. I love Obama. But I'm not going to kill myself."

 

Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can now breathe easier. If Obama loses, blame race. If Obama wins, blame race. Either way, Obama's election, as regards race relations, means nothing. So Jackson and Sharpton and the rest of the like-minded traveling circus can remain in the business of ferreting out, exploiting and often exaggerating allegations of racism for face time on TV and continued relevance.

 

In 1911, former slave Booker T. Washington prophetically wrote about "black leaders" like Cleaver, Jackson and Sharpton: "There is (a) class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. … There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public."

 

 

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/Ne...14.1&sflg=1

 

She's only 12 years old but Ashleigh Jones is feeling the heat of this election year.

 

That’s because the seventh grader at New Smyrna Beach Middle School was called a racist by classmates for wearing a pro-Sarah Palin t-shirt.

 

Jones is volunteering at the Republican Headquarters in New Smyrna Beach. The Palin t-shirt was a gift from her fellow volunteers.

 

But when she wore it to school she learned just how tough politics can be.

 

“Some of the students were calling me racist because I was Caucasian,” she said. “I wanted the Caucasian man to win. And I told them that’s not true. It’s my freedom of speech, it’s my opinion.”

[the_spaniard]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=61152

 

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/Ne...14.1&sflg=1

 

 

And then there are those of us voting for him because we think he is the better candidate to facilitate much-needed change. And no, I'm not white, nor am I a fan of Jackson and Sharpton. Oh yeah, and I have guns and hate the NRA. Amazing, huh?

Edited October 19, 2008 by the_spaniard

[sprinter]

And then there are those of us voting for him because we think he is the better candidate to facilitate much-needed change. And no, I'm not white, nor am I a fan of Jackson and Sharpton. Oh yeah, and I have guns and hate the NRA. Amazing, huh?

 

 

I don't think either candidate will "change" anything. Obama is being propelled along by the Trilateral Commission's Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Brzezinski, a brilliant prognosticator of one-world idealism, was a professor at Columbia University and the author of several books that have served as "policy guidelines" for the Trilateral Commission. Brzezinski served as the Commission's first executive director from its inception in 1973 until late 1976 when he was appointed by President Jimmy Carter as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

The only change will be toward one world government. And they don't want people to have guns because that means they can fight back. All you have to do is look at England and the crime rate over there.

I too have several guns which include the dreaded "Beltway sniper weapon" the AR15. I am not a member of the NRA and believe some of their sponsored legislation is moving toward more gun control. You should check out Gun Owners Of America. http://www.gunowners.org/

[suv_guy_19]

All you have to do is look at England and the crime rate over there.

 

 

They may have more property crime, but they certainly have a lower murder rate.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._by_murder_rate

[sprinter]

They may have more property crime, but they certainly have a lower murder rate.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._by_murder_rate

 

 

Property crime? Give me a break I guess instead of killing you they just beat the crap out of you. That would be considered a violent crime.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=21902

 

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

 

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

 

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

 

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

 

Highlights of the study indicated that:

 

 

The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.

 

Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;

 

"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

 

England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.

 

The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.

Interestingly, the study found that one of the lowest victimization rates -- just 15 percent overall -- occurred in Northern Ireland, home of the Irish Republican Army and scene of years of terrorist violence.

 

Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S.

 

Indeed, information on Handgun Control's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence website actually praises Australia and attempts to portray Australia as a much safer country following strict gun-control measures passed by lawmakers in 1996.

 

"The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns ... offer him a Foster's, and tell him the facts," the CPHV site says.

 

"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says CPHV.

 

However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.

 

Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also, they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories -- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent).

 

Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).

 

In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country.

 

WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

 

 

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

[suv_guy_19]

Property crime? Give me a break I guess instead of killing you they just beat the crap out of you. That would be considered a violent crime.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=21902

 

 

I find those numbers hard to believe when it comes to any of the countries listed. I guess when you think about it is possible over an 80 year life span. It would also seem then, that countries with longer life expectancy would have higher numbers.

 

In looking it does seem that the US has a much lower violent crime rate than other countries. That is very surprising given its much higher murder rate.

Edited October 19, 2008 by suv_guy_19

[napfirst]

obama's tax plan:

 

Barack Obama has claimed he would lower taxes on 95% of workers — even though more than 50% of workers don’t even pay taxes. What he says is true, but what it really means is that he is reintroducing a massive increase in the welfare state, costing about $30 billion per year. According to the Center for Data Analysis’ microsimulation modeling, Obama would increase the number of tax filers who receive a check from government without paying any taxes, including payroll taxes — people filing just to receive a welfare check — by about 10 million. Where will the $30 billion per year come from? From those who are paying taxes, of course. And indirectly from all of us, when the economy is dragged down by higher tax rates on businesses.

 

What is even more frustrating is that many low-income households would actually have higher effective marginal rates under Obama’s proposal than under McCain’s proposal. This means if these households increase their earnings, they will be faced with new tax burdens, so they are better off staying poor. Obama’s plan would particularly hit those under 200% of the poverty line. According to our microsimulation modeling, Obama would effectively be extending the poverty trap. This is something his own economic adviser has warned against. The reason for the higher marginal rates is the fact that Obama is increasing credits for the poor, rather than reducing taxes for everyone. When the tax credits phase out, the marginal rates on these households increase.

 

So to recap, Obama’s plan increases the number of welfare recipients, and extends the poverty trap of poor households.

[AAISkinsFan]

McCain's tax plan:

 

"The choice in this election is stark and simple," McCain said at the Denver town hall. "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't. I will cut them where I can."

 

But according to a respected, independent group of tax-policy experts, McCain’s plan would balloon the deficit and provide a windfall to the wealthy while affording only nominal relief to middle-class taxpayers. McCain has moved toward the Republican base on a handful of issues this campaign season, but his tax plan might actually shift the erstwhile deficit hawk to the right of the current president.

 

A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office found a full third of Bush's controversial 2001 and 2003 tax cuts went to the top 1 percent of earners. McCain's tax cuts would be more massive than Bush's, and appear to skew even more to the wealthy. President Bush touted his breaks as providing a boost for the economy, but some tax-policy experts credit Bush's tax policy with shifting the tax burden to the middle class, ballooning budget deficits, and contributing to a widening disparity in personal wealth.

 

In addition to permanently extending Bush's tax cuts, the major features of McCain's plan include slashing the corporate tax, reducing the estate tax, giving companies a deduction on new equipment and increasing the child tax credit. McCain also wants to extend relief from the gas tax this summer and the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which has been hitting upper-middle-class families with higher tax rates in recent years.

[sprinter]

Change anyone? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

 

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/15/lkl.01.html

 

KING: How will you utilize the talents of President Clinton?

 

OBAMA: Well, as you know, Bill Clinton is one of the smartest people out here and certainly one of the most brilliant political minds we have. He's got extraordinary relationships all across the globe. And so I want him as an adviser and, you know, I would want him to be involved in implementing strategies on a range of issues.

 

So, you know, he's an enormous resources, as all former presidents are. I mean, I've said this before. I think on the foreign policy front, George Bush, Sr. Has a lot of wisdom to impart. And his foreign policy team, you know, people like Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell, are extraordinary thinkers. So I think you want to utilize all the talents out here. And part of what I'm interested in is bringing that tradition of bipartisanship to our foreign policy back to Washington.

[Deanh]

Change anyone? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

 

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/15/lkl.01.html

yeah country has been utilizing individual expertise on a bi-partisan level for how long???????????? tough for you to accept some common sense? the parties ( both ) have their strengths and weakness's...why not utilize each others strengths.....NOW THATS JUST TOO DAMN WHACKY to the groupies....take the damn blinders off and embrace the WHOLE picture...its about the bloody country NOT the Dems and Republicans.....

[the_spaniard]

yeah country has been utilizing individual expertise on a bi-partisan level for how long???????????? tough for you to accept some common sense? the parties ( both ) have their strengths and weakness's...why not utilize each others strengths.....NOW THATS JUST TOO DAMN WHACKY to the groupies....take the damn blinders off and embrace the WHOLE picture...its about the bloody country NOT the Dems and Republicans.....

 

Best summation I have seen in a while. While I will be voting for Obama (in my view, lesser of two evils) I am pretty much disgusted at the shots both parties are taking at each other. McCain isn't the anti-Christ either, and he isn't completely responsible for our economic woes.

 

Is either of these candidates likely to bring about significant change or reform? Doubtful, but I had to go with the one furthest away from the current crap administration, as the one more likely too, if at all.

 

I believe the system as a whole is broken, and needs to be changed. When a bill that could save a crippled economy has to have tons of pork attached to it to pass, you know the whole system is screwed.

[Deanh]

Best summation I have seen in a while. While I will be voting for Obama (in my view, lesser of two evils) I am pretty much disgusted at the shots both parties are taking at each other. McCain isn't the anti-Christ either, and he isn't completely responsible for our economic woes.

 

Is either of these candidates likely to bring about significant change or reform? Doubtful, but I had to go with the one furthest away from the current crap administration, as the one more likely too, if at all.

 

I believe the system as a whole is broken, and needs to be changed. When a bill that could save a crippled economy has to have tons of pork attached to it to pass, you know the whole system is screwed.

wierd not being able to vote and just observing...man some are passionate to a level of absolute craziness, common sense gets booted out the bias door. Sad to my eyes is the total disdain towards each other the two parties have....seems OWN needs and beleifs superceed the countrys and GOD FORBID they could work all together as a damn team...thats just plain blasphemous....but witnessing all the agreeing to dis-agree whilst the country is in the toilet is in-excusable and in my eyes a direct result of an "old boys club".....THAt is what needs reforming...VOTE MULLALLY! LOL!

[sprinter]

and what experience has he gained?

 

[Deanh]

and what experience has he gained?

 

boy, for someone whom has stated he is not voting for the old guy with REALLY short arms ) you sure are obsessed with Bamma bashin.....( PS...thats me jumping to conclusions as our Firewall and security system here negates any chance of veiwing youtube clips ).....

[sprinter]

boy, for someone whom has stated he is not voting for the old guy with REALLY short arms ) you sure are obsessed with Bamma bashin.....( PS...thats me jumping to conclusions as our Firewall and security system here negates any chance of veiwing youtube clips ).....

 

 

watch it at home instead of screwing off at work and wasting your companies resources; as in writing into this forum

[Deanh]

watch it at home instead of screwing off at work and wasting your companies resources; as in writing into this forum

I multi task here, you may want to attempt it sometime.....I have also stated I do not have a computer at home...hell, I'd never get anything done and outside of work i have a pretty good side interest...called a life....these computers are evil....check youtube.... Edited October 23, 2008 by Deanh

[Bored of Pisteon]

If obama is elected and we also get a democrat Congress, you can kiss your guns goodbye!

 

People still don't realize that. And then what's next to come down the pike...

 

Shuffling people they don't agree with into railroad cars?

[sprinter]

I multi task here, you may want to attempt it sometime.....I have also staed I do not have a computer at home...hell, I'd never get anything done and outside of work i have a pretty good side interest...called a life....these computers are evil....check youtube....

 

 

That multi tasking might just get you fired

[Deanh]

That multi tasking might just get you fired

very doubtful....doing this does not effect my work performance....if it did I wouldn't frequent here. And, other than threads like this there is a wealth of information regarding ford motor which can be found useful....