# How will you react if Obama wins?



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Hypothetically, if Obama won the election, what would you do? I'm just curious because the interchange is the most right-wing forum I participate in. Michael Moore and some people were talking about "I'm moving to Canada if Bush wins" back in 2004.


----------



## Dr.Watson (Sep 25, 2008)

Sack-cloth & Ashes.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Bite my lip and deal with it, I guess.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

omairp said:


> Hypothetically, if Obama won the election, what would you do? I'm just curious because the interchange is the most right-wing forum I participate in. Michael Moore and some people were talking about "I'm moving to Canada if Bush wins" back in 2004.


Isn't there some way we can enforce those promises?


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

Do my best to support candidates for house and senate to regain some balance.

I won't like it, but if the people elect him, they get what they deserve.

On the other hand if it were to be proven that Acorn's false registrant of voters helped him steal the election...


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

obiwan said:


> Do my best to support candidates for house and senate to regain some balance.
> 
> I won't like it, but if the people elect him, they get what they deserve.
> 
> On the other hand if it were to be proven that Acorn's false registrant of voters helped him steal the election...


All that ACORN's false registration proves is that the claims of millions of new [Democratic] voters being registered is a sham. And generally, people who are registerd by pushy agents who hunt them down aren't going to show up at the polls anyway.

The idea of moving to another country because of who wins an election _in this country_ is silly. It shows no faith in our system of checks and balances and the political process to prevent anything from getting too far out of hand, and it's insulting to people who really _do_ have to flee a new administration in their own country because they'll be hunted down and murdered.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Pour a big Scotch, take a deep breath, and ponder how much worse it's going to get before it gets better. I'd probably have the same reaction if McCain were to win.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

" Don't mourn,organize!"- Joe Hill, murdered union activist

NADER 2012


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I'll react no differently than I did when Bush was elected or when Clinton was elected or when any previous President was elected for that matter. I believe in a vigorous campaign but when it's over and the people have spoken I will support the new President as he leads the nation. I may not support all of his policies, but I believe that the President is the President and if my candidate loses I will treat the winner with the same respect that I would expect from the other side if my guy had won.

Cruiser


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I know I'm not your target audience, but I'll be celebrating.

My duties as an elected official will have me working at the polls Election Night. Then, when I'm done, the question is whether to go home or to join the other Democrats in the state up in Burlington.

Oh, and by the way, the fraud this election is the claims of rampant vote fraud by ACORN. It is true that some of their contract employees have committed registration fraud. The reason that most of those cases have come to light is because they were turned in by ACORN.

And think about it: say they were able to get some guy to register to vote as Mickey Mouse. Do you really believe that if someone shows up at the polls claiming to be Mickey Mouse he will be allowed to vote? Or the guy who was supposedly registered 73 times: are you claiming that he will be allowed to show up and vote 73 times?

And what about the case out in New Mexico, where the claims of the Republican Party that they had evidence of 28 fraudulently registered voters have now been shown to be false?

The Republicans are doing what they did in 2000 and 2004--subverting democracy by trying to suppress voter turnout in Democratic areas.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Do I believe that Mickey Mouse can "early vote" and not have it be caught in time? Heck yeah I do. Why wouldn't I?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Jack,subverting voter turnout is no worse than subverting voter education and deliberate exclusion from State ballots. There are 4 other candidates appearing on many state ballots. When voicing the argument of their support being statistically small,by private entities who run the debates without overview: You are putting up seperate drinking water signs. 

Can anyone name the third party candidates, their platforms?


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Kav said:


> Can anyone name the third party candidates, their platforms?


Former Republican Georgia Congressman Bob Barr is running as the Libertarian Candidate. No one here in Georgia is giving him much attention.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Obama won a long time ago. I have already reacted.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> I know I'm not your target audience, but I'll be celebrating.
> 
> My duties as an elected official will have me working at the polls Election Night. Then, when I'm done, the question is whether to go home or to join the other Democrats in the state up in Burlington.
> 
> ...


You're right tens of thousands of dead people vote in Chicago every election. Not people posing to be them.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> And think about it: say they were able to get some guy to register to vote as Mickey Mouse. Do you really believe that if someone shows up at the polls claiming to be Mickey Mouse he will be allowed to vote? Or the guy who was supposedly registered 73 times: are you claiming that he will be allowed to show up and vote 73 times?


If he goes to separate polling places, then sure, he will be able to vote numerous times. This sort of thing has been done- by both parties- for years.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Miket, 
There was a small party in Germany. They paraded in goofy uniforms and were the but of Cabaret comedian jokes. In a political compromise their shrieking leader became Chancellor and the jokes were the first of many things and lives that stopped.
In post WW2 we did a reamrkable piece of political manuevering. The tiny japanese communist party was allowed to be active. Instead of the party going underground, they became by their own publicity irrelevant.
Bob Barr seems to have some quality that got him elected as a republican. If those qualities are somehow negated by the Libertarian platform, uninformed voters should hear why.
Anyone care to name the other 2 candidates?


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> You're right tens of thousands of dead people vote in Chicago every election. Not people posing to be them.


Not so much anymore. Not that many will really believe that but there have been a number of reforms that make it pretty hard to get the dead to vote here in Illinois. I'm not saying it never happens but it's not like 30 or 40 years ago.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> Isn't there some way we can enforce those promises?


We don't want your illegal immigrants coming across the border "in search of a better life" and stealing jobs from good hard-working Canadians. I'm petitioning for an electrified fence along the border as we speak. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Move to Nepal and become a monk. That way I won't die laughing when people find out they voted way more left than they wanted.

Seriously, The right are not such poor loosers as the left. Since Bush has become President the whole Republican party has become more left. In fact, I'm not sure what they are anymore. Reagan was clearly right and a few others weren't far behind, but the rest was just a bunch of followers without much conviction, so stray easily. Like before Reagan the miss-match is more clear. In general I think they are far more honest than the left, so produce better laws. But, as shown by not standing up to Bush they are sort of a lost ungrounded bunch. 

One thing I clearly don't like about Bush, anytime we borrow money that is raising our taxes, which he doesn't get. So, Bush raised our taxes way way way way to much by borrowing. If he hadn't cut the percentage that we pay we would be really have a much bigger IOU. Lower rates keep more people employed so more people pay taxes which equals more government revenue. The Democrats are simply to greedy and Kill the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg.

The next four years will be many loses to this country.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

I wasn't really excited about the election until I realized who doesn't like Obama, thus I'll probably be celebrating. Honestly I'll be celebrating because most of the people around me will.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> I wasn't really excited about the election until I realized who doesn't like Obama, thus I'll probably be celebrating. Honestly I'll be celebrating because most of the people around me will.


Alan Keys should be President, not Obama.

Alan Keys is somebody to cheer for, not Obama.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

omairp said:


> We don't want your illegal immigrants coming across the border "in search of a better life" and stealing jobs from good hard-working Canadians. I'm petitioning for an electrified fence along the border as we speak. :icon_smile_big:


You're implying that Michael Moore would degrade himself by having a real job.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

WA said:


> Alan Keys should be President, not Obama.
> 
> Alan Keys is somebody to cheer for, not Obama.


Really? I thought it was a sham when he got into a primary debate. He seems a bit crazy - obviously he was an ambassador, so he isn't completely crazy.

I dunno the debate he was in really turned me off to him.

If we're trying to pick a black person we would celebrate being President I would say: Thomas Sowell.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> If we're trying to pick a black person we would celebrate being President I would say: Thomas Sowell.


I didn't know that was what we were trying to do. I thought we were trying to elect the best person to govern the country. What worries me is the people who are trying to pick a white person to be president.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I didn't know that was what we were trying to do. I thought we were trying to elect the best person to govern the country. What worries me is the people who are trying to pick a white person to be president.


I guess if one sticks a microphone in front of enough people, one will eventually find a few cuckoos! I'm sure there are plenty of African-American Obama voters who are voting for Obama just because of his skin color, and that's fine with me. People vote for a particular candidate for very personal reasons. Some are well thought out and some are not. What about those who have just decided to vote for Obama in light of the current economic issues simply as a knee jerk reaction. His poll numbers went up almost as immediately as the DJIA went down, does that seem rational.

By the way, what most of those people are saying is really no different than some of the nutty things that have come from the mouth of Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and other left wing supporters of Obama. Its just that for some reason they don't get much play.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The implication that to not vote for Obama is racist is really not fair.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I don't think we need another Clinton so I guess I'll react differently if Barack wins.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> ...And think about it: say they were able to get some guy to register to vote as Mickey Mouse. Do you really believe that if someone shows up at the polls claiming to be Mickey Mouse he will be allowed to vote? Or the guy who was supposedly registered 73 times: are you claiming that he will be allowed to show up and vote 73 times?...


H*ll, in Chicago they do it all the time (remember the slogan; vote early and often!). Regarding your Acorn assessment, you forgot to mention they're canvassing cemetarys for new voters! Oh and by the way, Obama's from Chicago!


----------



## JohnRov (Sep 3, 2008)

I'll take a deep breath and see what happens. I don't believe the man is the one to unite this country and I disagree with all of his views. What scares me the most is having a Democratic legislative and executive branch.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I will probably laugh for about 2 straight days. I had to put up with Dubya for 8 years, now it's the other side's turn to experience some pain and suffering. Enjoy.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

JohnRov said:


> I'll take a deep breath and see what happens. I don't believe the man is the one to unite this country and I disagree with all of his views. What scares me the most is having a Democratic legislative and executive branch.


I feel your pain. Just look what happened over the six years that the republic party controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress!

Buzz


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I worry about what Obama will do. Even if they overreach and are put out of power in four years, they could do some damage. 

And I have not liked what the Republicans, especially Bush have done, especially in Iraq. Even though the war is going much better now, it has been a tragic waste of lives, American credibility and resources.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I worry about what Obama will do. Even if they overreach and are put out of power in four years, they could do some damage.


I am not so sure Obama or McCain could do any better or worse than what we've had to endure the past eight years (there are two votes for POTUS I've cast that I sometimes wish I could take back!).

As such, the spectre of an Obama presidency doesn't scare me as much as the sprectre of a Democrat-controlled Senate. No good will come of the Dems controlling the White House, Senate and Congress.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Take a little time off*

I have made no secret of my fear of single party rule. However, I don't plan on leaving the country. If Obama is elected, I will see just how far to the left we get pushed. I suppose I can sit out of things for a couple of years, and wait for the inevitable backlash before going back to working full time. I will not put in the extra hours to earn more, if those extra earnings are going to be taxed at more than 40% or 45% (I am including federal and state taxes, social insecurity, etc.)


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

agnash said:


> I have made no secret of my fear of single party rule. However, I don't plan on leaving the country.


That reminds me that a bunch of Hollywood Lefties like Barbara Streisand threatened to leave the country if GWB got elected. Well...WE'RE STILL WAITING!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

omairp said:


> Hypothetically, if Obama won the election, what would you do? I'm just curious because the interchange is the most right-wing forum I participate in. Michael Moore and some people were talking about "I'm moving to Canada if Bush wins" back in 2004.


If Obama winning could get all the trailer parks to empty out I'd vote for him again.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I've thought about this. I will immediately suspend all charitable donations, both personally and on behalf of my company, and when solicited, I will blame Obama and suggest they get it from Him. I will crack down on my renters unless they have displayed a McCain Palin sign. No slack, enforce late payment fees; something I usually ignore. And if I have to lay people off, I will make it crystal clear that it is because of Obama.

Whenever I am solicited for anything, sales or charity, and I decline, I will explain that it is the fault of Obama and the Liberal economic policies of the 90's, Barney Frank et al, that caused a collapse. When someone applies for a job and I can't hire them, I will tell them to come back after Obama.

I will "spread the pain around."


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> If Obama winning could get all the trailer parks to empty out I'd vote for him again.


How about the housing projects?


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

Have a drink to Obama-Biden & pray that they can help heal our nation here & abroad.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> I didn't know that was what we were trying to do. I thought we were trying to elect the best person to govern the country. What worries me is the people who are trying to pick a white person to be president.


I was responding to the person who thinks Keyes should be president.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> I will probably laugh for about 2 straight days. I had to put up with Dubya for 8 years, now it's the other side's turn to experience some pain and suffering. Enjoy.


The funny thing is that President Bush is a liberal, not a conservative, so we'll be getting the same thing under a President Obama.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> The funny thing is that President Bush is a liberal, not a conservative, so we'll be getting the same thing under a President Obama.


I think what you mean to say is that Bush is not a frugal spender of government money. There is a lot more to being a tried and true liberal then spending a lot of other people's money.


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

Chaulk up the higher taxes as the price you pay for not having a peasant revolt, and not dealing with the problems which other countries I wouldn't mind living in do. Hope he doesn't get assassinated, resulting in mass rioting.


----------



## tinytim (Jun 13, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> The Republicans are doing what they did in 2000 and 2004--subverting democracy by trying to suppress voter turnout in Democratic areas.


You are kidding aren't you?


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Grin and bare it. Hope we don't move to full socialism. Pres, house and senate all Dems. Very scary. Won't be any checks and balances.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

nolan50410 said:


> I will probably laugh for about 2 straight days. I had to put up with Dubya for 8 years, now it's the other side's turn to experience some pain and suffering. Enjoy.


I'm sure we all will with Obama


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The implication that to not vote for Obama is racist is really not fair.


I'm sure the majority of people voting for McCain are not doing it because of racism. I also have no doubt that there will be a substantial portion of the McCain vote that will be doing it, in whole or in part, because of racism.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

tinytim said:


> You are kidding aren't you?


No, it's a simple matter of fact.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I guess if one sticks a microphone in front of enough people, one will eventually find a few cuckoos! I'm sure there are plenty of African-American Obama voters who are voting for Obama just because of his skin color, and that's fine with me.







Be sure to catch the part where it is "okay" if Palin is Obama's VP.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm sure the majority of people voting for McCain are not doing it because of racism. I also have no doubt that there will be a substantial portion of the McCain vote that will be doing it, in whole or in part, because of racism.


That's true about both candidates. That fact (although mostly unprovable, I'll admit) means that all of us have a long way to go as far as making our society as fair to all as possible.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm sure the majority of people voting for McCain are not doing it because of racism. I also have no doubt that there will be a substantial portion of the McCain vote that will be doing it, in whole or in part, because of racism.


I know people in my own family who are voting for McCain because of race, but I also know at least as many who are voting for Obama because of race.

The privilege of being part of a multi-racial family is seeing just how politically incorrect everyone can and will be behind closed doors.


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

I saw an interesting poll a few weeks back. It asked people whether Obama's race made them more likely or less likely to vote for him. I think it was 6% said less likely, but 9% said more likely.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

I'm a Mccain guy but I would never vote because of race. I know most black people will vote for Obama because of his race. That, in and of itself, does not make it racism. I think that most black people want to be a part of having the first AA president. So assuming Obama is intelligent, which I believe he is, there is bound to be very high percentage of blacks that will vote because of his race but NOT because they are racist. There is a difference between a race influenced vote and racism.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> I'm a Mccain guy but I would never vote because of race. *I know most black people will vote for Obama because of his race*. That, in and of itself, does not make it racism. I think that most black people want to be a part of having the first AA president. So assuming Obama is intelligent, which I believe he is, there is bound to be very high percentage of blacks that will vote because of his race but NOT because they are racist. There is a difference between a race influenced vote and racism.


I would be interested in learning how you know that most African Americans will vote for Obama because of his race.

Buzz


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> I would be interested in learning how you know that most African Americans will vote for Obama because of his race.
> 
> Buzz


Do you believe it is due to his policies? Please click.



Wayfarer said:


> Be sure to catch the part where it is "okay" if Palin is Obama's VP.


Certainly not a statistically valid sampling, but it is very amusing.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

M6, did you read the entire post? He said that racism was not necessarily the reason.

I really think that folks throw the word "racism" around so easily that people don't listen when the person using the word has a legitimate complaint.

There are a lot of polls saying Obama is doing well among blacks and a lot of black people quoted as being eager to vote for someone of their own color. That they are interested in advancing one of their people is understandable and not necessarily "racism."


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> That they are interested in advancing one of their people is understandable and not necessarily "racism."


I have to disagree. If I said I wanted to vote for McCain in order to advance one of my own people, I believe I would be accused of racism.

It is a pet peeve of mine, as I see this all too often in my own family, namely, behavior that would be called racist if engaged in by a white or Asian member of the family, is tolerated and excused for African American or Hispanic family members. Yes, I do have my own personal Rainbow Coalition. Walking the walk while Jessie talks the talk.:icon_smile:


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

Let's see...I voted for W twice. So we're six years and counting in a war that can't be won, bin Laden is still roaming around Afghanistan or Pakistan, real estate values are cratering, the banks have been nationalized, our allies don't trust us and our adversaries don't fear us. 

If either Obama or McCain wakes up President elect on November 5, how much worse can either of them make it? For that matter, how much better (and how quickly) can either of them make it?

Forty years ago I was devastated when RFK was assassinated. Later that summer all hell broke loose in Chicago during the convention and that spectacle being beamed into living rooms across the country resulted in Nixon being elected. Somehow we survived and no matter who wins two weeks from today, somehow we'll survive again. 

The main difference in my opinion is that I truly believed in 1968 that all the issues we argued about could and would be resolved. Today not so much. 

Another Johnny Walker Black, please...


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> I think what you mean to say is that Bush is not a frugal spender of government money. There is a lot more to being a tried and true liberal then spending a lot of other people's money.


Well, I know you're not referring to classical liberalism.

Define being liberal.

I define a conservative as one who believes in a small federal government (federalism). A conservative believes that problems can and should be solved at a lower level.

I define a liberal as one who believes in a large federal government, and one who belives problems can and should be solved with government.

Most people can not be defined as either, because most people are not ideologues. Many are single-issue voters, party-line voters, etc.

I would define myself as an anti-federalist or a classical liberal or a conservative. I fall into the catagory that believes government only causes problems. I believe I can solve my own problems and don't need the government doing things like mandating health care, "saving" money for me as in Social Security, or mandating that I use CFLs.

I would also define President Bush as a liberal. He has run a large government with a massive and bloated budget. He has socialized banks and the financial system. Just setting the ground work for a President Obama to socialize everything else.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Do you believe it is due to his policies? Please click.
> 
> Certainly not a statistically valid sampling, but it is very amusing.


Yes because they'd otherwise be voting for McCain.

LOL, just clicked the link, it was damn funny.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> I would be interested in learning how you know that most African Americans will vote for Obama because of his race.
> 
> Buzz


Look at the polls


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Now, now, McCain's got a solid 2%, even 3% in some polls.

I suppose you could explain this away when it's McCain versus Obama, but what about Obama/Clinton, when it was nearly as lopsided?


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Now, now, McCain's got a solid 2%, even 3% in some polls.
> 
> I suppose you could explain this away when it's McCain versus Obama, but what about Obama/Clinton, when it was nearly as lopsided?


I'm waiting for one of you show where McCain would otherwise be getting the Black vote or that the democrats wouldn't be getting the vast majority of Black votes.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> M6, did you read the entire post? He said that racism was not necessarily the reason.
> 
> I really think that folks throw the word "racism" around so easily that people don't listen when the person using the word has a legitimate complaint.
> 
> There are a lot of polls saying Obama is doing well among blacks and a lot of black people quoted as being eager to vote for someone of their own color. That they are interested in advancing one of their people is understandable and not necessarily "racism."


I didn't use the word racism, I simply asked TBones to tell us how he knows that (to quote TBones), "most black people will vote for Obama because of his race." It seems simple enough.

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Now, now, McCain's got a solid 2%, even 3% in some polls.
> 
> I suppose you could explain this away when it's McCain versus Obama, but what about Obama/Clinton, when it was nearly as lopsided?


Very good point


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> I would be interested in learning how you know that most African Americans will vote for Obama because of his race.
> 
> Buzz





TBOWES said:


> Look at the polls


You know, TBowes, there are just so many polls and they range wildly in their reliability. Would you mind pointing me to the one or ones that tell you that most African Americans are voting for Obama because of his race? Thanks!

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

jpeirpont said:


> I'm waiting for one of you show where McCain would otherwise be getting the Black vote or that the democrats wouldn't be getting the vast majority of Black votes.


The percentage of 2 or 3 percent of the black vote for McCain would be be higher if he was running against another white candidate because he would not be getting the vote of the small minority of Republican blacks (I yield there are not many) crossing over like Colin Powell. Also he is loosing the minority of blacks who might otherwise vote Republican. Further, historically Republicans have done substantially better then 2 or 3 percent. Again, this is not racism but I think it's a historical moment if Obama gets in and most blacks want to be part of it.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> You know, TBowes, there are just so many polls and they range wildly in their reliability. Would you mind pointing me to the one or ones that tell you that most African Americans are voting for Obama because of his race? Thanks!
> 
> Buzz


Would you mind telling my how you can prove otherwise. You first. THANK YOU


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Be sure to catch the part where it is "okay" if Palin is Obama's VP.


Totally classic! I really miss Stern on free radio. This is almost as good as the OJ prank call.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Would you mind telling my how you can prove otherwise. You first. THANK YOU


I don't think that I have to prove otherwise because I never said otherwise. In fact, I have not taken any position on this matter. I simply and respectfully asked you to share the evidence upon which you based your statement, "_I know most black people will vote for Obama because of his race._"

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> I don't think that I have to prove otherwise because I never said otherwise. In fact, I have not taken any position on this matter. I simply and respectfully asked you to share the evidence upon which you based your statement, "_I know most black people will vote for Obama because of his race._"
> 
> Buzz


Use your logic, don't be naive. Read my post to Jpeirpont. Look at the historical data. I'm not going to hold you hand on this. Use your intelligence. Sorry you don't get it. That's it for me with this topic. I have other info but in the interest of ending this I choose not to share with you. As usual taking to you just wastes my time.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Use your logic, don't be naive. Read my post to Jpeirpont. Look at the historical data. I'm not going to hold you hand on this. Use your intelligence. Sorry you don't get it. That's it for me with this topic. I have other info but in the interest of ending this I choose not to share with you. As usual taking to you just wastes my time.


Gee, just because you are unable to support your statement with impirical evdidence, you don't have to get nasty about it and walk away in an apparent snit. I am sorry that I am naive and in need of hand-holding, but I really do want to know the evidence upon which you based such a strong conclusion. If you actually have other evidence...and I believe you when you say you do...I for one would really like to peruse it!

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Gee, just because you are unable to support your statement with impirical evdidence, you don't have to get nasty about it and walk away in an apparent snit. I am sorry that I am naive and in need of hand-holding, but I really do want to know the evidence upon which you based such a strong conclusion. If you actually have other evidence...and I believe you when you say you do...I for one would really like to peruse it!
> 
> Buzz


I sure you would that's your stock and trade but I have a job. How about you? Or are you mister mom? Sorry I can't accommodate you.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> I sure you would that's your stock and trade but I have a job. How about you? Or are you mister mom? Sorry I can't accommodate you.


That's too bad, I was really looking forward to learning something from you about race relations in America. Maybe you will have time to share when you get out of work!

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> That's too bad, I was really looking forward to learning something from you about race relations in America. Maybe you will have time to share when you get out of work!
> 
> Buzz


Yes, i agree with you. You could use an enhancement of your intellect but then "you can't make a silk purse from a pigs ear".


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> You know, TBowes, there are just so many polls and they range wildly in their reliability. Would you mind pointing me to the one or ones that tell you that most African Americans are voting for Obama because of his race? Thanks!
> 
> Buzz


It is remarkable that anyone would require a poll to establish such an obvious proposition. The overwhelming African-American support for Obama is grounded in tribalism pure and simple. It is unfortunate but certainly not as malevolent as those who would not vote for Obama because if his race. There is an important difference between a Polish-American who is inclined to vote for Stan Krzyminski because he also is Polish-American and an Irish-American who won't vote for Stan because he is Polish-American. While the former isn't exactly admirable, it is not nearly as pernicious as the latter. That said, I have little doubt that there are far more Americans who are voting for Obama because of his race than those who are not voting for him because of his race. Most Americans, regardless of race, would like to see an African-American president; they view it as a wonderful opportunity to heal in some measure the wounds of our racist past. This includes everyone I know who supports McCain. Their unwillingness to support Obama is grounded in Obama's liberal record and a past that is mired with thinking that is quite Leftist.

As for what I'll do if Obama is elected: My wife and I will be hosting an election party -- something we do every four years, and once the race has been conceded I will offer a toast to winner and his success, whoever that will be, as I always do.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Yes, i agree with you. You could use an enhancement of your intellect but then "you can't make a silk purse from a pigs ear".


 Ha-ha-ha! I really mean it, that is just so, so amusing! Thank you for providing the laugh of the day! Anyway, I thought you needed tyo get back to work...I am sorry to have diverted you.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> It is remarkable that anyone would require a poll to establish such an obvious proposition. The overwhelming African-American support for Obama is grounded in tribalism pure and simple. It is unfortunate but certainly not as malevolent as those who would not vote for Obama because if his race. There is an important difference between a Polish-American who is inclined to vote for Stan Krzyminski because he also is Polish-American and an Irish-American who won't vote for Stan because he is Polish-American. While the former isn't exactly admirable, it is not nearly as pernicious as the latter. That said, I have little doubt that there are far more Americans who are voting for Obama because of his race than those who are not voting for him because of his race. Most Americans, regardless of race, would like to see an African-American president; they view it as a wonderful opportunity to heal in some measure the wounds of our racist past. This includes everyone I know who supports McCain. Their unwillingness to support Obama is grounded in Obama's liberal record and a past that is mired with thinking that is quite Leftist.
> 
> As for what I'll do if Obama is elected: My wife and I will be hosting an election party -- something we do every four years, and once the race has been conceded I will offer a toast to winner and his success, whoever that will be, as I always do.


You might very well be right, Mike, however TBowes says that he has the evidence...he even told me to read the polls...and I only want him to share that evidence with the rest of us naiifs.

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Ha-ha-ha! I really mean it, that is just so, so amusing! Thank you for providing the laugh of the day! Anyway, I thought you needed tyo get back to work...I am sorry to have diverted you.
> 
> Buzz


Your more than welcome. The pleasure was truly mine.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Now, now, McCain's got a solid 2%, even 3% in some polls.
> 
> *I suppose you could explain this away when it's McCain versus Obama, but what about Obama/Clinton, when it was nearly as lopsided?*





jpeirpont said:


> I'm waiting for one of you show where McCain would otherwise be getting the Black vote or that the democrats wouldn't be getting the vast majority of Black votes.


Please read before responding


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> It is remarkable that anyone would require a poll to establish such an obvious proposition. The overwhelming African-American support for Obama is grounded in tribalism pure and simple. It is unfortunate but certainly not as malevolent as those who would not vote for Obama because if his race. There is an important difference between a Polish-American who is inclined to vote for Stan Krzyminski because he also is Polish-American and an Irish-American who won't vote for Stan because he is Polish-American. While the former isn't exactly admirable, it is not nearly as pernicious as the latter. That said, I have little doubt that there are far more Americans who are voting for Obama because of his race than those who are not voting for him because of his race. Most Americans, regardless of race, would like to see an African-American president; they view it as a wonderful opportunity to heal in some measure the wounds of our racist past. This includes everyone I know who supports McCain. Their unwillingness to support Obama is grounded in Obama's liberal record and a past that is mired with thinking that is quite Leftist.
> 
> As for what I'll do if Obama is elected: My wife and I will be hosting an election party -- something we do every four years, and once the race has been conceded I will offer a toast to winner and his success, whoever that will be, as I always do.


Well said.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Obama tribalism bad, McCain tribalism good. McCain is celtic. My mother is celtic. My mother lost her pension to McCain white buddie from clan Keating. Mother wants to take Skian Dubh to McCain and Keating. 84 y/o Mother cannot so vote for guy in other tribe. Maybe other guy give mother two goats instead of campfire story about being prisoner of yet another tribe. Mother bangs shellieleigh on TEEVEE to emphasize her deep enmity for celt who call her 'my friend'
Mother like black irishman with wig maker in lineage.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> If Obama winning could get all the trailer parks to empty out I'd vote for him again.


That would be nice. The only problem is the lefties give more people an unwanted reason to live in them.

Lefties don't have the magic bullet. When certain taxes go up more people become unemployed and that means less taxes are paid to pay for these magic social programs you vote for. Unemployed people don't pay taxes, so where is the money going to come from with more unemployment for these social programs? Jimmy Carter, with a heart of Gold, raised taxes so high companies had to lay people off to pay these wonderful taxes, which then needed higher taxes to help these newly unemployed people- repeat repeat repeat- who is left employed and how many business are around to hire employees? The best way isn't always the what appears to be the easy way. If you open a store and have the highest prices who is going to buy from you? You can't hire people because not enough people will buy from you, so how could you pay an employe? Mr. Walmart had the lowest prices and became the richest person on earth. It seems backwards doesn't it? But that is how it works- even with taxes.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Let's not forget about all the folks reacting by posting their disappointment in the interchange.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> I will probably laugh for about 2 straight days. I had to put up with Dubya for 8 years, now it's the other side's turn to experience some pain and suffering. Enjoy.


But they didn't do all the Republican things they should have done and ended up doing a bunch of Democrat stuff I certainly didn't want.

I wonder how much Republican stuff the next four years will bring. Since the far far left rules with an iron fist were certainly going to be paying for it with more than money.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

The topic is fair game for conversation, but it implies a win for Obama.

I wonder-if McCain wins, what will you Obama supporters do? I ask because it seems like people think Obama has a lock on this, and I think the disappointment will be profound and demonstrative if McCain wins.

For the record, I support Ron Paul. I don't have a dog in this fight.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Your more than welcome. The pleasure was truly mine.


TBowes, my good man, I am enormously pleased to have contributed to making your day more pleasant. Now, if you will kindly direct us to the evidence you say that you have which proves your statement that, _"I know most black people will vote for Obama because of his race,"_ you will show yourself to be a man of true honor as well as good humor!

Buzz


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Mad Hatter said:


> For the record, I support Ron Paul. I don't have a dog in this fight.


Me too, assuming Kansas still allows us to do a write-in candidates. If not, I will vote for Bob Barr.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Please read before responding


I am still waiting for some evidence, that Blacks aren't vote for McCain because he is white. You weren't the only exposing such ignorant logic.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

WA said:


> That would be nice. The only problem is the lefties give more people an unwanted reason to live in them.
> 
> Lefties don't have the magic bullet. When certain taxes go up more people become unemployed and that means less taxes are paid to pay for these magic social programs you vote for. Unemployed people don't pay taxes, so where is the money going to come from with more unemployment for these social programs? Jimmy Carter, with a heart of Gold, raised taxes so high companies had to lay people off to pay these wonderful taxes, which then needed higher taxes to help these newly unemployed people- repeat repeat repeat- who is left employed and how many business are around to hire employees? The best way isn't always the what appears to be the easy way. If you open a store and have the highest prices who is going to buy from you? You can't hire people because not enough people will buy from you, so how could you pay an employe? Mr. Walmart had the lowest prices and became the richest person on earth. It seems backwards doesn't it? But that is how it works- even with taxes.


I'm not speaking in political terms. Tralier park sorts seem to be the most anti Obama folk you could possbily come around in my very limited experience with them. Maybe his win might send them all to Canada.


----------



## the law (Sep 16, 2008)

This is why I'm voting third party. :icon_smile_big:

I guess I'm a political masochist. ic12337:


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> I'm not speaking in political terms. *Tralier* park sorts seem to be the most anti Obama folk you could *possbily* come around in my very limited experience with them. Maybe his win might send them all to Canada.


Since you have limited experience with them I suggest you not generalize about them. Your post is as absurd a one that I've seen regarding the topic.

I thought so called "trailer park sorts" were those that Obama was supposedly fighting for. By the way, when disparaging those living in trailer parks try to at least spell properly!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Rather than the code speak, it would be clarifying if peirpont would provide a definition of just what the "trailer park sort" really is.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

the law said:


> This is why I'm voting third party. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> I guess I'm a political masochist. ic12337:


Green party?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

*Third parties and independants*

GREEN PARTY- Cynthia McKinney- former 2 term Georgia congresswoman

Libertarian- Bob Barr- former Georgia Congressman

Prohibition- Gene Amondson

Reform - Ted Weill

Socialist - Brian Moore

Socialist Workers-Roger Callio

Party for Socialism and Liberation-Gloria las Ruiz

RALPH NADER- Independant


----------



## Dr.Watson (Sep 25, 2008)

^ Their is still a prohibition party?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Kav said:


> GREEN PARTY- Cynthia McKinney- former 2 term Georgia congresswoman
> 
> Libertarian- Bob Barr- former Georgia Congressman
> 
> ...


You left off one of the only worth-a-**** third parties, the Constitution party.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> I'm not speaking in political terms. Tralier park sorts seem to be the most anti Obama folk you could possbily come around in my very limited experience with them. Maybe his win might send them all to Canada.


You mean motor-home park? A lot of that group paid $27,000 for a dinner on Obamas behalf, don't think they will be moving to Canada.

Look at what happened with those TAXs that the Democrats created that Bush Sr. signed into law. 4-5 months later were in a reccession, companies went out of business, many became unemployed, lost their homes- those taxes made more pooor people, which is, how is that helping?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Kav said:


> GREEN PARTY- Cynthia McKinney- former 2 term Georgia congresswoman
> 
> Libertarian- Bob Barr- former Georgia Congressman
> 
> ...


Whoa!

Please don't short-change the...

Boston Tea Party - Charles Jay

Party for Socialism and Liberation - Gloria La Riva

New American Independent Party - Frank McEnulty

America's Third Party - David Jon Sponheim

... and a host of other worthy Independents!

*


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

People have always voted for race. How many Irish Americans voted for Reagan because he is Irish background? 

So, big deal if people vote race.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> Since you have limited experience with them I suggest you not generalize about them. Your post is as absurd a one that I've seen regarding the topic.
> 
> I thought so called "trailer park sorts" were those that Obama was supposedly fighting for. By the way, when disparaging those living in trailer parks try to at least spell properly!


While I find your righteousness endearing. I wasn't disparaging anyone actually. I think most people know the type of people who live in those environs are less likely to vote Obama. West Virginia anyone. 
To you latter point, people vote against their best interest all the time.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

WA said:


> You mean motor-home park? A lot of that group paid $27,000 for a dinner on Obamas behalf, don't think they will be moving to Canada.
> 
> Look at what happened with those TAXs that the Democrats created that Bush Sr. signed into law. 4-5 months later were in a reccession, companies went out of business, many became unemployed, lost their homes- those taxes made more pooor people, which is, how is that helping?


No, I mean trailer parks, that is what we call them here in CT. 
I'm not here to defend Obama's policies there have been many threads on it already.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

WA said:


> People have always voted for race. How many Irish Americans voted for Reagan because he is Irish background?
> 
> So, big deal if people vote race.


I agree, but my point was that the statements in relation to McCain were plain stupid. Blacks will vote 90% Donkey even if you put a cow up there.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

jpeirpont said:


> I am still waiting for some evidence, that Blacks aren't vote for McCain because he is white. You weren't the only exposing such ignorant logic.


Obviously it would be nearly impossible to locate a particular story on MSNBC.com about Obama, since they have a team of writers and newswire trawlers putting everything out there they can.

But there was an article in the last few weeks in which black people were quoted as stating that they would feel "betrayed" if Obama lost. That "we got this close, and someone took it from us." They expected violence and rioting in the streets if "they" lost. Because to them, the only thing Obama has going for him is that he's black, and the only thing McCain has going for him is that he's not.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

The irony is that I'm supporting Obama because of as opposed to despite my conservatism.

A large part of this is that I'm a fiscal conservative first and foremost, and despite the glaring flaws in the Obama plan and the McCain plan, the former is more economically sound (as agreed by the majority of Republican economists).

Also, I have little faith in a person who would appoint Sarah Palin as a VP candidate despite being the oldest person to take office. This is not age discrimination; it is a valid concern as Senator McCain himself acknowledged.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'm yet to hear anyone give a satisfactory explanation of why Obama is more qualified to be president than Palin. "More polished" doesn't cut it, either.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'm yet to hear anyone give a satisfactory explanation of why Obama is more qualified to be president than Palin. "More polished" doesn't cut it, either.


My reason for support is not so much the Senator himself for me as it is his economic team.

Also, Senator Obama is quite apparently intelligent (whether or not one agrees with him). Governor Palin seems to me like a village idiot let loose, and it is insulting to me as a conservative that such a person would be made a figurehead for conservative ideology. I do not think I'm alone in opposing her from conservative grounds.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

JibranK said:


> The irony is that I'm supporting Obama because of as opposed to despite my conservatism.
> 
> A large part of this is that I'm a fiscal conservative first and foremost, and despite the glaring flaws in the Obama plan and the McCain plan, the former is more economically sound (as agreed by the majority of Republican economists).
> 
> Also, I have little faith in a person who would appoint Sarah Palin as a VP candidate despite being the oldest person to take office. This is not age discrimination; it is a valid concern as Senator McCain himself acknowledged.


Who are the republican economist. Woud love it if you would list them for all to see.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree with you about their relative qualifications. I do disagree that "more polished" does not count. This person will have to meet with world leaders, etc.

I figure Palin has more executive experience (although not enough where I would be comfortable saying she is really qualified to be president.)

Obama has more polish and more experience dealing with the national scene. However, I also worry about the experience level beneath the polish. He has no experience running anything.

However, Obama is running against McCain. I'm voting for McCain, mostly because I agree with his political positions more than Obama's. I have some reservations about McCain's temper making decisions his brain should be making, but hopefully, he will have advisors he respects to help counter that. He is far more experienced than Obama, although he will find that administration is not for the faint-hearted (as will Obama.)

It is one thing to pontificate when you never have to decide anything; another thing entirely to administer even a small office, much less the federal government.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

WA said:


> You mean motor-home park? A lot of that group paid $27,000 for a dinner on Obamas behalf, don't think they will be moving to Canada.
> 
> Look at what happened with those TAXs that the Democrats created that Bush Sr. signed into law. 4-5 months later were in a reccession, companies went out of business, many became unemployed, lost their homes- those taxes made more pooor people, which is, how is that helping?


very good point


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Ha-ha-ha! I really mean it, that is just so, so amusing! Thank you for providing the laugh of the day! Anyway, I thought you needed tyo get back to work...I am sorry to have diverted you.
> 
> Buzz


Don't sell you self short, most on here think you are a laugh of the day.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

The Economist poll was anonymous. But I also spoke to professors at UChicago, which is notably conservative and they seemed to share that view as well.

Also, that should read 'economists' and should end with a question mark. Would is spelled with an 'l'.


----------



## playdohh22 (Dec 4, 2007)

if obama is elected as president(which is promising). i'm gonna' move back to my home country.


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

omairp said:


> I'm just curious because the interchange is the most right-wing forum I participate in.


You should visit ARFCOM. It makes this place look like Berkeley. :icon_smile_big:

If he wins I'm buying more guns and ammo before they get banned/even more expensive. I like liberty.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm sick of hearing about Obama's 'race' giving him by default the 'black' vote. The man had a white mother. He interrupted his campaign to visit his white granmother. A white woman can give birth to a black baby, but a black women will never give birth to a white one under these idiotic assumptions. Obama is an AMERICAN. I can't make it anymore black and white.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Dr.Watson said:


> ^ Their is still a prohibition party?


Well, THAT'S not a party I would be party to!:drunken_smilie:


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Keep looking for work, I guess...


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> While I find your righteousness endearing. I wasn't disparaging anyone actually. I think most people know the type of people who live in those environs are less likely to vote Obama. West Virginia anyone.
> To you latter point, people vote against their best interest all the time.


I was not trying to endear myself to you or anyone. Just curious what makes you think those living in those "environs" would be less likely to vote for Obama? Are their environs from which people are more likely? I'm really trying to connect trailer parks and non-Obama voters. People in Hinsdale, IL. are less likely to vote for Obama. Do you think their reasons are any different?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Don't sell you self short, most on here think you are a laugh of the day.


Be that as it may...and I really am glad to provide that service...I would still like to be directed to the evidence you say you have to support your statement that most African Americans are going to vote for Obama because of race.

Buzz


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

thunderw21 said:


> You should visit ARFCOM. It makes this place look like Berkeley. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> If he wins I'm buying more guns and ammo before they get banned/even more expensive. I like liberty.


Lol! BTW, when are we going to get a Tactical Cammo forum over here? ;-)

I would suggest buying the guns and ammo (and mags, mags, mags) NOW. There is already spot shortages. If The One, Peace be upon him, actually gets elected, the stores will be empty by November 6. If I had been able to put my 401K in bulk .223 rather than those stupid mutual funds, I' would be sitting pretty!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

What happens if Hillary wins?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^WTF(!)?????? Again, I find myself confused!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Consider the source, Eagle.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Kav said:


> I'm sick of *hearing* about Obama's 'race' giving him by default the 'black' vote. The man had a white mother. He interrupted his campaign to visit his white granmother. A white woman can give birth to a black baby, but a black women will never give birth to a white one under these idiotic assumptions. Obama is an AMERICAN. I can't make it anymore black and white.


Oh, well, then let's just not mention what's actually happening. Better?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Kav said:


> I'm sick of hearing about Obama's 'race' giving him by default the 'black' vote. The man had a white mother. He interrupted his campaign to visit his white granmother. A white woman can give birth to a black baby, but a black women will never give birth to a white one under these idiotic assumptions. Obama is an AMERICAN. I can't make it anymore black and white.


American, I agree, but there is more to it than that, don't you think?

Does the fact that Obama is African-American have any sway with voters? (I think that is the issue under consideration, here)

Or, are you saying that when a white woman gives birth to a baby with a black father the baby should not be considered (or labeled, if you will) African-American (by the community, society, the government, himself)?


----------



## 14395 (Mar 10, 2004)

Howard said:


> What happens if Hillary wins?


I think we would all be very surprised if that happened, Howard.

I hope you are registered and will vote on election day.
It's every American's right.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Be that as it may...and I really am glad to provide that service...I would still like to be directed to the evidence you say you have to support your statement that most African Americans are going to vote for Obama because of race.
> 
> Buzz


THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE. JUST OPEN YOUR MIND.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE. JUST OPEN YOUR MIND.


You know, TBowes, you keep saying that. My mind is indeed open, I just want to have the benefit of perusing the information upon which you base your statement, "_I know most black people will vote for Obama because of his race_." So, if you would kindly provide a URL or other reference point, I for one would be extremely grateful. Thanks!

Buzz


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

Liberty Ship said:


> Lol! BTW, when are we going to get a Tactical Cammo forum over here? ;-)
> 
> I would suggest buying the guns and ammo (and mags, mags, mags) NOW. There is already spot shortages. If The One, Peace be upon him, actually gets elected, the stores will be empty by November 6. If I had been able to put my 401K in bulk .223 rather than those stupid mutual funds, I' would be sitting pretty!


That would be tacticool. :aportnoy:

I've already spent most of my $ on as many firearms I can get my hands on, but I still need an AK. And ammo!
Hmm, what about a bunker or ammo fort? A tactical nuke or two wouldn't hurt, so I could nook things from orbit. :icon_smile_wink:

But seriously, I'll be flying the Gadsden flag in place of the American flag for as long as The One is elected if he is elected.


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> You know, TBowes, you keep saying that. My mind is indeed open, I just want to have the benefit of perusing the information upon which you base your statement, "_I know most black people will vote for Obama because of his race_." So, if you would kindly provide a URL or other reference point, I for one would be extremely grateful. Thanks!
> 
> Buzz


As of yesterday, one poll showed that 84% of black voters support Obama and on election day that number could rise to 94%. Of course, the black vote has always gone for the Democrats in recent elections, but not to that extent. Follow race and you'll find a major reason that many people are voting for Obama (or even against him).

Many casual voters don't even know for what Obama stands.
https://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3

To think race doesn't play a major role on both sides (specifically the black vote) in this election is ignorant.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

TBOWES said:


> Look at the polls


if obama were white he would still receive 90% or more of the african american vote. generic democratic presidential candidates always receive disproportionate support from black voters. if anything, the difference is the intensity of support which can be detected through increased levels of participation/voter registration etc.

in response to the original question, i will celebrate and probably wake up with a hangover. it's going to be nice to wake up realizing we have grown-ups managing our foreign policy.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> You know, TBowes, you keep saying that. My mind is indeed open, I just want to have the benefit of perusing the information upon which you base your statement, "_I know most black people will vote for Obama because of his race_." So, if you would kindly provide a URL or other reference point, I for one would be extremely grateful. Thanks!
> 
> Buzz


Already answered. Go back and read my posts. Keep reading this until you understand.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Already answered.


No, my request has not been answered, just artlessly dodged.



TBOWES said:


> Go back and read my posts. Keep reading this until you understand.


What I understand is that you were simply shooting your mouth off when you said, "_I know most black people will vote for Obama because of his race_," as right wing blow-hards are wont to do and you don't have any evidence whatsoever to back up your statement.

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> No, my request has not been answered, just artlessly dodged.
> 
> What I understand is that you were simply shooting your mouth off when you said, "_I know most black people will vote for Obama because of his race_," as right wing blow-hards are wont to do and you don't have any evidence whatsoever to back up your statement.
> 
> Buzz


Read my post about historical data, polls etc. There is where I answered it. Others accepted it but not you. Thats you choice.

Hey,
Let me ask you a question. Do you work? Don't have to answer, as I was just wondering.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

thunderw21 said:


> As of yesterday, one poll showed that 84% of black voters support Obama and on election day that number could rise to 94%. Of course, the black vote has always gone for the Democrats in recent elections, but not to that extent. Follow race and you'll find a major reason that many people are voting for Obama (or even against him).
> 
> Many casual voters don't even know for what Obama stands.
> https://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3
> ...


Finally, someone willing to put some rigor into his thought process. Thank you!

What I find remarkable about this poll is that even a think tank on African American affairs found double digit support for McCain among African Americans. Of course, you are correct, race has a great deal to do with the way we vote, whether it is Obama acolytes or the minions scared witless by the late and un-lamented Lee Atwater and his promotion of Willy Horton to a national campaign issue.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Hey,
> Let me ask you a question. Do you work? Don't have to answer, as I was just wondering.


I am not sure why you care, but I will answer because you are exhibiting a never-before-seen burst of curiosity. Yes I do work. I have had a long career in service to my country.

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

So there you have as I said the other day. Polls was in my answer to you. So you don't want to here it from me I'm fine with someone else clarifying it. Well done thunder as M6 is unfortuanately a very thick lad.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Read my post about historical data, polls etc. There is where I answered it. Others accepted it but not you. Thats you choice.


Is this the post you mean?



TBOWES said:


> The percentage of 2 or 3 percent of the black vote for McCain would be be higher if he was running against another white candidate because he would not be getting the vote of the small minority of Republican blacks (I yield there are not many) crossing over like Colin Powell. Also he is loosing the minority of blacks who might otherwise vote Republican. Further, historically Republicans have done substantially better then 2 or 3 percent. Again, this is not racism but I think it's a historical moment if Obama gets in and most blacks want to be part of it.


To be honest, that really isn't empirical evidence, it is just more speculation on your part. But nice try anyway.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> So there you have as I said the other day. Polls was in my answer to you. So you don't want to here it from me I'm fine with someone else clarifying it. Well done thunder as M6 is unfortuanately a very thick lad.


No, Thunder actually presented some evidence to support his hypothesis. I disagree with Thunder, but I respect his reasoning and conclusions.

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

TBOWES said:


> So there you have as I said the other day. Polls was in my answer to you. So you don't want to here it from me I'm fine with someone else clarifying it. Well done thunder as M6 is unfortuanately a very thick lad.


YOu just have so much time on your hands. I was wondering. Am I correct that you wife is a surgeon?


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> No, Thunder actually presented some evidence to support his hypothesis. I disagree with Thunder, but I respect his reasoning and conclusions.
> 
> Buzz


Sour grapes I'm afraid


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> No, Thunder actually presented some evidence to support his hypothesis. I disagree with Thunder, but I respect his reasoning and conclusions.
> 
> Buzz


How do you explain the overwhelming support For Obama? Mere coincidence.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> How do you explain the overwhelming support For Obama? Mere coincidence.


Unlike you, I do not claim to know why African Americans...or any other group, for that matter...votes one way or another. My guess, based on reading evidentiary polls and speaking with many friends and colleagues from various ethnic groups, is that there are multiple explanations for group voting patterns. That African Americans find much to admire in Obama's various positions, in addition to racial affinity. I think the more interesting question is why members of certain affinity groups that traditionally cast heavy votes for Democratic candidates will vote for McCain!

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Sour grapes I'm afraid


Are you saying that I should not respect Thunder and his arguments? You really should go back and read your Aesop, I fear you misunderstood him if you ever read him at all.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> YOu just have so much time on your hands. I was wondering. Am I correct that you wife is a surgeon?


No more time than you have on your hands, apparently. Yes, my wife is a surgeon. I still have full time employment.

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Are you saying that I should not respect Thunder and his arguments? You really should go back and read your Aesop, I fear you misunderstood him if you ever read him at all.
> 
> Buzz


OK I give up whats a Aesop. I need to pick up all the lingo.

So you kind of a MR MOM. It's OK, I'm, jealous.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> OK I give up whats a Aesop. I need to pick up all the lingo.
> 
> So you kind of a MR MOM. It's OK, I'm, jealous.


You have never heard of Aesop and you're throwing around terms like sour grapes? That's almost as rich as the right wingers in another thread who had never heard of Swift and the Yahoos!

No, I am not a Mr. Mom, though I think to be a stay-at-home dad is an honorable occupation.

You have what seems to be an unusual interest in my private life and my family.

Buzz


----------



## playdohh22 (Dec 4, 2007)

Kav said:


> I'm sick of hearing about Obama's 'race' giving him by default the 'black' vote..


though you are sick of hearing it, it is true.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> You have never heard of Aesop and you're throwing around terms like sour grapes? That's almost as rich as the right wingers in another thread who had never heard of Swift and the Yahoos!
> 
> No, I am not a Mr. Mom, though I think to be a stay-at-home dad is an honorable occupation.
> 
> ...


The interest is innocent I assure you. I've been a member since nov 07 and have maybe 1/4 of the posts you have. So I was wondering what you did. I noted your comment about your wife's prof and was wondering if you were lucky enough not to have to work. And yes I never heard of a Aesop, i must confess. I have no w spelling checker here so bear with me as I am a lousy speller.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> You have never heard of Aesop and you're throwing around terms like sour grapes? That's almost as rich as the right wingers in another thread who had never heard of Swift and the Yahoos!
> 
> No, I am not a Mr. Mom, though I think to be a stay-at-home dad is an honorable occupation.
> 
> ...


OK esop, thats what I use. Aesop is probably the traditional spelling. OK


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

Some of my friends are openly considering moving to Europe. Our business tax rate is already one of the highest in the world, and Obama's economic policies will make it that much worse.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

CCabot said:


> Some of my friends are openly considering moving to Europe. Our business tax rate is already one of the highest in the world, and Obama's economic policies will make it that much worse.


Our business tax rates are only high on paper. I have worked for multiple fortune 500 companies and none of them ever paid much (if anything in taxes). I've also worked for a number of small businesses and every one of them pay an actual tax rate much lower due to various deductions and tax credits. I really wish people would move away from talking points and towards reality.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

hurling frootmig said:


> Our business tax rates are only high on paper. I have worked for multiple fortune 500 companies and none of them ever paid much (if anything in taxes). I've also worked for a number of small businesses and every one of them pay an actual tax rate much lower due to various deductions and tax credits. I really wish people would move away from talking points and towards reality.


can you be more specific. I'm a CPA and would be very interested.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

hurling frootmig said:


> Our business tax rates are only high on paper. I have worked for multiple fortune 500 companies and none of them ever paid much (if anything in taxes). I've also worked for a number of small businesses and every one of them pay an actual tax rate much lower due to various deductions and tax credits. I really wish people would move away from talking points and towards reality.


People like Steve Forbes have been arguing for a streamlined tax system for years. Neither party wants it, they want loopholes so they can reward the special interests that support them. The current tax code is around 50,000 pages. It seems like there should be a much more efficient way of accomplishing the basic goal of correcting revenue. If you are right, and most businesses pay a lot less than the stated tax rate, then lets close the loopholes and lower the rate. Seems simple.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

EP said:


> I think we would all be very surprised if that happened, Howard.
> 
> I hope you are registered and will vote on election day.
> It's every American's right.


Yes EP,I'm registered to vote,looking forward to a new president.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Terpoxon said:


> People like Steve Forbes have been arguing for a streamlined tax system for years. Neither party wants it, they want loopholes so they can reward the special interests that support them. The current tax code is around 50,000 pages. It seems like there should be a much more efficient way of accomplishing the basic goal of correcting revenue. If you are right, and most businesses pay a lot less than the stated tax rate, then lets close the loopholes and lower the rate. Seems simple.


Amen.


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

hurling frootmig said:


> Our business tax rates are only high on paper. I have worked for multiple fortune 500 companies and none of them ever paid much (if anything in taxes). I've also worked for a number of small businesses and every one of them pay an actual tax rate much lower due to various deductions and tax credits. I really wish people would move away from talking points and towards reality.


I am sorry but no, this has no basis on reality. The idea that corporate businesses have all snuck around the IRS and found a way to avoid paying any taxes is one the more absurd liberal talking points/conspiracy theories I have ever heard.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CCabot said:


> I am sorry but no, this has no basis on reality. The idea that corporate businesses have all snuck around the IRS and found a way to avoid paying any taxes is one the more absurd liberal talking points/conspiracy theories I have ever heard.


As a corporate tax lawyer for 25 years, I agree. Perhaps hurling frootmig only worked for corporations that lose money -- no doubt a strange pattern that is just an unfortunate coincidence. Or perhaps Mr. Frootmig confuses a gross income tax with a net income tax, or maybe just favors the former.

Furthermore, a person's obsession with corporate tax burdens usually betrays a lack of understanding not only of the difference between the legal versus economic incidence of a tax but also the interplay such tax incidence has with the principles of vertical and horizontal equity. Not that lack of understanding ever keeps people from having strong opinions of course.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

thunderw21 said:


> That would be tacticool. :aportnoy:
> 
> I've already spent most of my $ on as many firearms I can get my hands on, but I still need an AK. And ammo!
> Hmm, what about a bunker or ammo fort? A tactical nuke or two wouldn't hurt, so I could nook things from orbit. :icon_smile_wink:
> ...


After two days of intense personal reflection and inner struggle I have decided not to post an "I Am Legend" AR-15, dog, and extra mags in the bath tub image as my response to this thread out of respect to the dignity of this forum. As hysterically funny as that might have been. Unless, of course, someone begs me to.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> As a corporate tax lawyer for 25 years, I agree. Perhaps hurling frootmig only worked for corporations that lose money -- no doubt a strange pattern that is just an unfortunate coincidence. Or perhaps Mr. Frootmig confuses a gross income tax with a net income tax, or maybe just favors the former.
> 
> Furthermore, a person's obsession with corporate tax burdens usually betrays a lack of understanding not only of the difference between the legal versus economic incidence of a tax but also the interplay such tax incidence has with the principles of vertical and horizontal equity. Not that lack of understanding ever keeps people from having strong opinions of course.


Yesterday, I went out on the Obama site and read all the tax/financial position papers. I can honestly say that whoever wrote them NEVER has run a business or participated in business in the private sector in any meaningful way. I run businesses. It was terrifying reading.

To make an analogy, it is as if the passengers of an airliner are about to vote to replace the cockpit crew with a bunch of 8 year olds who have never done anything but played video games and letting them lock themselves in. The economics reminded me of little girls playing "tea party" cutting up and distributing imaginary cakes and pouring imaginary tea.

I think a large part of the current marked instability involves fear that these idiots might actually get elected. And if they do, brace for impact!


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> People like Steve Forbes have been arguing for a streamlined tax system for years. Neither party wants it, they want loopholes so they can reward the special interests that support them. The current tax code is around 50,000 pages. It seems like there should be a much more efficient way of accomplishing the basic goal of correcting revenue. If you are right, and most businesses pay a lot less than the stated tax rate, then lets close the loopholes and lower the rate. Seems simple.


Actually, my Congressman, Paul Ryan (R - WI -1), has proposed a complete overhaul to the tax plan, that should solve not only our tax problems, but our social security and medicare problems.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> Actually, my Congressman, Paul Ryan (R - WI -1), has proposed a complete overhaul to the tax plan, that should solve not only our tax problems, but our social security and medicare problems.


It's bizarre that he doesn't even answer his own FAQ's. For instance, the question about whether this isn't just a massive tax cut for rich people never answers the question, but simply blathers on about how the plan encourages saving and investment, protects people who have investment income from double taxation, etc., etc.. It strikes me that if he could truthfully answer that this will not bring about a huge tax cut for rich people he would say that.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> As a corporate tax lawyer for 25 years, I agree. Perhaps hurling frootmig only worked for corporations that lose money -- no doubt a strange pattern that is just an unfortunate coincidence. Or perhaps Mr. Frootmig confuses a gross income tax with a net income tax, or maybe just favors the former.
> 
> Furthermore, a person's obsession with corporate tax burdens usually betrays a lack of understanding not only of the difference between the legal versus economic incidence of a tax but also the interplay such tax incidence has with the principles of vertical and horizontal equity. Not that lack of understanding ever keeps people from having strong opinions of course.


Obviously we are talking about net. I guess the tax departments of the companies that I worked for did a better job than the ones that you worked for.

For the record, I would vastly prefer a flat tax with no loopholes. Unfortunately I don't see that happening no matter who is elected.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Most of us are descended from people who came to America to escape various forms of oppression.

The inevitable reverse migration of oppressed people keeps being rumoured from offhand comments by Hollywood actors and now those sure to face economic suppresion of the american dream. 

I will gladly see you all off with a tearfull wave. I am curious, which republic with similar ideologies to ours you are moving to.

Don't forget to check your gun collections into baggage and not carryon.


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> can you be more specific. I'm a CPA and would be very interested.


Burn!:aportnoy:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Kav said:


> Most of us are descended from people who came to America to escape various forms of oppression.
> 
> The inevitable reverse migration of oppressed people keeps being rumoured from offhand comments by Hollywood actors and now those sure to face economic suppresion of the american dream.
> 
> ...


Are you referring to the rumour that Oprah is slated to be the next Ambassador to the Court of St. James's? In which case I'm pretty sure her private jet will accomodate her weaponry.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

It's the Court of St James*'s*


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> It's bizarre that he doesn't even answer his own FAQ's. For instance, the question about whether this isn't just a massive tax cut for rich people never answers the question, but simply blathers on about how the plan encourages saving and investment, protects people who have investment income from double taxation, etc., etc.. It strikes me that if he could truthfully answer that this will not bring about a huge tax cut for rich people he would say that.


Do you not know how to read?

"This plan closes tax loopholes and eliminates tax shelters for the rich."

"The Simplified Tax incorporated in the _ Roadmap _is more fair than the current tax code. Most of the deductions and credits in the current system are used by upper-income individuals. This plan clears out these special preferences and deductions, lowers tax rates, and offers a generous exemption amount. For instance, the standard deduction amount - $25,000 for a couple - is twice that of current law."

Also, if you read it, you have the option of filing under the old rules, although, I have no idea why you would.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> Do you not know how to read?
> 
> "This plan closes tax loopholes and eliminates tax shelters for the rich."
> 
> ...


You put me in a difficult position. From your answer I can't decide if you're not smart enough to understand a straightforward question, or not honest enough to answer it.

I know that he claims the plan closes loopholes and eliminates tax shelters. What he does not answer is the very simple question he poses: will this plan bring about a massive tax cut for the rich? The fact that loopholes and shelters are eliminated does not, in itself, answer the question.

Can you?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm refering to all the gutless wonders who advocate leaving the USA in times of perceived trouble, left,right,up,down; I have little regard for anyone who cuts and runs.
This is MY country, nobody is chasing me out.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I'm with you, Kav.

And by the way, it's my flag, too.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Kav said:


> I'm refering to all the gutless wonders who advocate leaving the USA in times of perceived trouble, left,right,up,down; I have little regard for anyone who cuts and runs.
> This is MY country, nobody is chasing me out.


I'm with you Kav. By the way who are the right wing Hollywood types who are threatening to leave the country if The One is elected? I'd be interested to know, so that I can give them a piece of my mind. Many thanks in advance.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> You put me in a difficult position. From your answer I can't decide if you're not smart enough to understand a straightforward question, or not honest enough to answer it.
> 
> I know that he claims the plan closes loopholes and eliminates tax shelters. What he does not answer is the very simple question he poses: will this plan bring about a massive tax cut for the rich? The fact that loopholes and shelters are eliminated does not, in itself, answer the question.
> 
> Can you?


You're right, only the rich get big tax breaks. Not all those Americans who have investments in 401ks and other personal savings, families making $100,000 a year would see a substantial tax cute (10% on all income as opposed to the progressive rates they pay now.

Warren Buffet and the like like to complain the rich don't pay enough taxes because of all the loopholes, and now this closes that.

If you read the whole plan, the plan makes for a tax cut for everyone.


----------

