Who you gonna vote for?

Who are you going to vote for this November?

  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • John McCain

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ralph Nader

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bob Barr

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hillary Clinton (write in)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not gonna vote

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
I'm an ardent Hillary supporter and will NEVER vote for that race-baiting scumbag, Obama! :eek:

Read this: "Obama No". It's an article by Adolf Reed, an Ivy League professor at the University of Pennsylvania (not Penn State). He says contrary to myth, it's Obama who's been the one who's been race-baiting. He calls Obama "vacuous", a "con artist", "opportunists", etc.

Reed also says that the entire African American elite/intellectuals/Ivy League professors have sold there souls either by race-baiting the Clintons themselves, defending Obama's race-baiting, or keeping silent over it.

BTW, Reed is an African American.
yeah, i don't think i feel right voting for obama. i'm not sure yet
Originally posted by jca@Jun 9 2008, 07:14 AM
A lot of stuff will now come out on Obama. Either bad stuff or REALLY BAD STUFF, i.e. stuff that's true. :ph34r:

One of the many things which really pissed me off about this election was that the Corporate media's "narrative" which African Americans so cravenly endorsed was that somehow blacks have some kind of monopoly on Civil Rights, victimization, etc., and are by default the moral center of America.

Rubbish. Garbage. Ridiculous... :eek:

* 1/3 of all women in the US will be sexually assaulted in their life times. :huh:

* Women make 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work that men do. <_<

* Number of black Presidents? ZERO. Number of women Presidents? ZERO. :rolleyes:

* During slavery, blacks had it the worst--not that Indians had it swell by any means. But post slavery, Indians--those with the feather and not the dot :naughty: --had it worst for decades to come. Even now, Native Americans are the MOST LIKELY to be the victims of violent crime in America. :(

* More young black men kill themselves in a typical year (or two at the most), than blacks were killed by whites during the entire Jim Crow era. There's no data that I know of, but if one projects todays current level of violence against women, one can easily make a case that FAR more white women were killed by white men during the Jim Crow era than blacks where killed by white men.

* Granted that in the deep South, there were bogus poll taxes, literacy tests, voter intimidation and even lynchings to keep blacks away from the polls, but the fact remains, black men got the right to vote decades before women did.

* During the OJ trial, every knew OJ was guilty except black people. Michael Jackson anyone? The list of high profile blacks who get into trouble and race-bait is disturbingly long. Sure, during the Jim Crow era, all white juries refused to convict their fellow white lynchers of blacks, but now...can anyone tell me that whites saw Scott Peterson as INNOCENT? They most certainly did not. Or how about Drew Peterson, Yoran Vanderslut, Phil Spectre, Robert Blake? The point here is blacks are THE LEAST OBJECTIVE people when a black guy who is in trouble, e.g. Hillary had 60-70% of the black vote in December 2007, cries "RACISM!" How can a "black guy" win without the black vote? Obama knew this! :angry:

Anyhoo, Obama's a TOTAL SCUMBAG... Pass it on. :eek:
I'm curious... suppose you don't support any of the candidates... would you vote for the one you consider to be the lesser of two evils, or would you not vote at all?
I'm voting for the lesser of two evils, McCain. I'm super liberal, but after Hillary dropped out, I'm forced to vote for the old man because I'm sick of Obama and his "poor black man" speeches. He went to Columbia and Harvard. He's not poor! Plus, his wife's a bitch. Other than our differing opinions on the war, I think McCain will make a pretty good president. That's my two cents. <_<
Originally posted by Scythe@Jun 9 2008, 11:21 PM
I'm curious... suppose you don't support any of the candidates... would you vote for the one you consider to be the lesser of two evils, or would you not vote at all?
Generally, that's exacty what I do: Vote for the lesser of two evils.

In this case, I'm not sure who is the lesser of two evils, between McCain and Obama.

As a diehard liberal, I like Nader a lot and think he should be put on Mount Rushmore for his work as an activists. Nader has saved countless lives by making consumer products more safe. However, what he did in 2000 (and to a much lesser extent in 2004), I think he should be lynched! To say and continue to maintain that the difference between Bush and Gore is that of tweedle-dee & tweedle-dum is tweedle-morally-bankrupt. BIG TIME. If we had a parlimentary system, i.e. not a winner takes all electoral college, then Nader should always run for he & his followers be part of a liberal-left ruling coalition.

BTW, Nader is flat out lying, even though he's correctly citing exit polling data, when he points out most people who voted for him would have otherwise voted for Bush or not voted at all and so on... Now this is total bait-n-switch BULLSHIT. Nader is way too FUCKING SMART to believe in such non-sense. Political Campaigns 101: If you drive up an opponents negatives, people are going to be less likely to vote for the guy, give less money and so on. But it there's more...

1. Some would be Gore voters will vote for Nader. (For this Nader, should be lynched.)
2. Some would be Gore voters will vote for Bush. (For this Nader, should be lynched.)
3. Some would be Gore voters will stay home. (For this Nader, should be lynched.)

4. Some would be Bush voters will vote for Nader. (For this Nader should be thank. However Nader did attack Bush a little, but really went after the incumbent Gore the most. The corporate media for its devilish part played up the attacks on Gore--TO HURT GORE, I.E. HELP BUSH. That is Nader was the GOP/Corporate Media's unwitting attack dog.)
5. Some bitter people who would not otherwise vote went out and voted for Nader. (For this Nader should be thanked...)

Nader's explanation, a bogus talking point really, doesn't cover scenario's #2 & #3. That Nader's explanation only mentions the negligible damage he did to Bush and the positive result of him bringing out more bitter elements of the electorate who normally don't vote, but says nothing of the negative damage he did to Gore (save for point #1, which he downplays), which the exit polling doesn't examine (or if it did, Nader is ignoring it). In a close election, every vote counts. Taken in its totality, his attacks on Gore did cost Gore the election.

The corporate media narrative in 2000:

Bush 2000: Honest man's man. "Uniter, not a divider." "Restore honor & dignity back to the white house".
Gore 2000: "Serial exaggerator", ambitious, ruthless, "no legal controlling authority"...

The reality in 2008:

Bush 2008: $10 TRILLION NATIONAL DEBT, $4/gal gas, 4000+ dead in Iraq, Katrina, etc. etc. Divided the country along partisan lines, along Mason-Dixon lines.
Gore2008: Nobel Peace Prize & even an Oscar for God's sake! :rolleyes:

The Corporate Media's Narrative in 2008:
Obama 2008: "Brings people together" (Uniter not a divider), "Change" ("restore honor & dignity back to the White House".
Hillary 1991-2008 & beyond: Ambitious racist white bitch, liar, Tuzla snipers. Husband is a racist white bastard. (If one counts the people indicted & convicted during the the Clinton-Gore years, then the Clinton-Gore admin was one of the most honest EVER! And the Reagan-Bush41 admin was one of the most corrupt of modern presidencies. Bush43-Cheney have been protected by the media, 911 fearmongering, "war on terror" fearmongering, the GOP congresses, etc.)

It's deja-vu all over again.

Contrary to corporate media myth, it is none other than Obama who has divided the Dems along RACIAL lines, not Hillary & Bill, who both respectively have stronger civil rights credentials than Obama. (Much of Hillary's civil rights cred concerns women and children as well as minorities, where as Bill has a great civil rights record on minority rights. Only Johnson, Lincoln, Jesse Jackson, MLK etc. would beat Bill Clinton in Civil Rights for minorities. Bill's civil rights credentials for women & children are very strong too, despite his womanizing, which is no different from that of Washington's, Jefferson's, Franklin's, FDR's, JFK's, IKE's or MLK's or Jesse Jackson's.)

Obama is not the guy he pretends to be. The corporate media know this, they know his secrets, and have hand picked him to be the affrimative action candidate to destroy the Clinton brand, the Democratic Party, thereby electing John McCain. The affirmative action pedestal which they've given Obama, i.e. the Democratic nomination, will also serve as a lynching platform.

Now that Obama has the nomination, they will systematically tear him apart, both on policy and on legit personal scandals, which they've been sitting on.
Originally posted by Scythe@Jun 10 2008, 02:21 AM
I'm curious... suppose you don't support any of the candidates... would you vote for the one you consider to be the lesser of two evils, or would you not vote at all?
Generally, that is what I would do, but I'm not voting for the President this year, none of candidates represent anything that is actually important to me. I'll vote for all the local stuff.
Well, I hope you people who don't vote don't complain about anything involving politics or the government for the next 4 years. :annoyed:
Originally posted by Bloodlessr+Jun 10 2008, 08:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bloodlessr @ Jun 10 2008, 08:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Scythe@Jun 10 2008, 02:21 AM
I'm curious... suppose you don't support any of the candidates... would you vote for the one you consider to be the lesser of two evils, or would you not vote at all?
Generally, that is what I would do, but I'm not voting for the President this year, none of candidates represent anything that is actually important to me. I'll vote for all the local stuff. [/b][/quote]
I completely understand however, I will be voting because although none of them would be my first choice (or second for that matter) I do know who I DO NOT want and I will have to vote for the lesser of the two evils in an attempt to keep that person from winning.
Here's are but two examples revealing the real Obama. Both concern his best-selling memoirs:

L.A. Times questions his role in asbestos removal at Altgeld

Feb 20, 2007
BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist

Obama changed names of real people, created composite characters and re-created conversations in his best-selling memoir.

Obama disclosed in his introduction that he used literary devices to buttress his recollections. He also kept a journal. In August 2004 I wrote a column about Obama's use of literary license in Dreams and concluded: ''Except for public figures and his family, it is impossible to know who is real and who is not. . . .

"Colorful characters populate the Chicago chapters: Smitty the barber, LaTisha, the part-time manicurist, Angela, Ruby, Mrs. Turner and one Rafiq al Shabazz. Who they really are, or if they are composites, you would not know from reading the book."

Fornek reports that Johnson, 72, objects to Obama taking credit for helping force the CHA to remove asbestos at Altgeld Gardens. Johnson has not read Obama's book. She said he played no role in the asbestos-removal fight. She said he did help get "angel hair," another type of dangerous insulation, removed from attics in the complex's row houses -- and worked on public transportation issues and helped get a library built. ''He was not with us on the asbestos,'' she said.

Source: suntimes

The point here? Obama's books are an artsy weave of fact & fiction; they are eloquent discussions on the very real problems of race in America. That's the generous interpretation. The more cynical one would be that it is a self-serving political tool to get into higher office which is chock full of exaggerations, embellishments, dramatically contrived situations and outright made-up characters.

Keith Kakugawa was a close friend of Obama's at the Punahou School. (He appears in "Dreams" as a revised character named "Ray"who may be a composite of more than one Obama friend.) He says that Obama, being a dark-skinned kid growing up in a white household, sensed that something was amiss. "He felt that he was not getting a part of who he was, the history," says Kakugawa, who is also of mixed race. He recalls Obama's reading black authors —James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, Langston Hughes—looking for clues. Keith didn't know at first that Obama's given name was Barack. "We were in the library and there was a Malcolm X book," Kakugawa tells NEWSWEEK. "He grabbed it and looked at it and he's checking it out, and I said, 'Hold on, man. What you gonna do? Change your name to something Muslim?' He said, 'Well, my name is Barack Obama.' And I said, 'No it isn't.' And we got in an argument about that in the library and they had to tell us, 'Shhhh'."

Back in Hawaii in the 1970s, it could seem that everyone was some kind of a minority. The fact that Obama was half-black and half-white didn't matter much to anyone but Obama, Kakugawa says: "He made everything out like it was all racial." On one occasion, Obama thought he'd gotten a bad break on the school basketball team because he was black. But Kakugawa recalls his father's telling the teenager, "No, Barry, it's not because you're black. It's because you missed two shots in a row." (Here, Kakugawa's memory is different from Obama's. The Ray character in the book is the one obsessed with being discriminated against.)

Source: Newsweek, "When Barry Became Barack", Mar 22, 2008

A bit peculiar that a mixed raced kid living in a multicultural society, i.e. Hawaii, which is dominated by Asians, Polynesians, as well as whites would be so obsessed about racism. Obama's African father actually once publically wrote of anti-white racism coming from the justifyably bitter native Polynesians in Hawaii.

Note, Kukagawa is actually half black, half Japanese. Obama made up a character named Ray who was obsessed with race. But Kukagawa says it was none other than Obama who was obssessed with race. :rolleyes:
I always found it hilarious that Obama kept bragging about how he wants to bring "change" to Washington and how he repeatedly claims in ad after ad "I don't take money from oil companies!" :huh:

What's wrong with this?

First, as Bill Clinton repeatedly pointed out, it's been illegal for over 100 years to take money from oil companies. That is, NO ONE DOES. :eek:

Second, it implies everyone else does, in particular, Hillary takes money from oil companies. This is the kind of loaded and/or slippery language which Obama constantly engages in. <_<

Contrary to all the intense 24/7 anti-Hillary bashing, she's actually by far the most honest candidate between herself, Obama and McCain. One can see many vids of McCain and Obama flatly contradicting themselves--on the level of Tuzla snipers. Hillary lied once over Tuzla, for which she deserved to be hammered for. But the rest is pure corporate media propaganda. McCain is a much bigger liar. And Obama is the biggest liar since Bush 43! :angry:

Check out this vid of Obama self-contradictions. (Some of the examples of self-contradictions here are down right trivial, i.e. when he gets the names of some cities wrong, however note how he railed against anti-Iran fearmongering and then later fearmongers over Iran himself. The Michelle "whitey" tape has long been rumored to exist, but has yet to surface. Even though I can't make heads nor tails of its existence, I wouldn't rule it out since Obama has issued a very aggressive NON-denial over it, as opposed to an aggressive outright denial that it does not exist.)

Personally, I think Hillary is like the coolest chick, EVER! :)
This is what I think...

"Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda."