Transcript : Powells Impressive Reasons for his Obama Endorsement
John Manning
Well worth your time...
Watch video here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#27265490
TRANSCRIPT:
MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution
to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama.
Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two
candidates that you're prepared to support?
GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of
these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years as your
setup said. And I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past
two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are
patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either
one of them, I think, would be a good president.
I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some
concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years.
It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's
a choice the party makes.
And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have
enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that
would give us confidence that you would be a good president."
And I've watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I've had
this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last
six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with
respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the
conventions. And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both.
In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to
deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every
day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned
me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic
problems that we had.
And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She's a
very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same
time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks,
I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States,
which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some
question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.
On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this
seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual
curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems
like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be
president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing
every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a
definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.
I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks,
the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become
narrower and narrower.
Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader
reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing
lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking
about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small
towns have values.
And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches
that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues
that are not really central to the problems that the American people
are worried about.
This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became
something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says
that he's a washed-out terrorist.
Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have
these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that,
because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has
had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're
trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I
think that's inappropriate.
Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go
after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far.
And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow.
It's not what the American people are looking for.
And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they
trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and
Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have
difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme
Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration.
I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members
of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as,
"Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer
is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a
Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is?
Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The
answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some
seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be
president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the
suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists."
This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw
in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in
Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo
essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on
the headstone of her son's grave.
And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the
headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed
that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was
20 years old.
And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian
cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of
the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he
was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at
the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and
he gave his life.
Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John
McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled
about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.
So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career,
we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good
president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the
individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of
time?
And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire,
because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is
reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his
rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well
as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the
standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional
president.
I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation
coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage,
and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
~~Transcript of full interview here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266223/
Codebreaker
man like him, period.
Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
John Manning
> Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> man like him, period.
> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
Are you saying Powell is a liar?
GEN. POWELL: I'm an American, first and foremost, and I'm very proud--I
said, I've said, I've said to my beloved friend and colleague John
McCain, a friend of 25 years, "John, I love you, but I'm not just going
to vote for you on the basis of our affection or friendship." And I've
said to Barack Obama, "I admire you. I'll give you all the advice I
can. But I'm not going to vote for you just because you're black." We,
we have to move beyond this.
"john p"
> Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> man like him, period.
Powell explained why he is endorsing Obama, and to suggest otherwise
that an individual like Powell is lying about this indicates racism on
your part. Perhaps racial preference might have had some sway because
it has been found that most people are at least at an unconscious
level racist, but an intellectual like Colin Powell can see past
color. Whatever boost Obama gets from blacks who vote for race alone,
is negated by the racism, unconscious or not, of others. If Obama
was white this race would have been over a long time ago, because the
McCain campaign has no real criticism of Obama, only gimmicks,
innuendo, lies, other scare tactics, and a base too dumb to see
through it.
> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>
If the election was about race, Obama wouldn't be winning. There are
more atheists in the country than blacks.
jemcd
<Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
>man like him, period.
>Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
>that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
>THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>
For the sake of argument I will assume you are white.
Every time you agree with or support another person that is white, are
you exercising racism?
Are you only agreeing/supporting them because they are white?
Do you automatically disagree with things said by people of a
different race than you, because of race?
Do you ever evaluate what somebody is saying or doing without framing
it by race?
If you answer no to any of these, then give Powell the same benefit.
If any are yes, then you are the one with the problem.
Did you listen to Powell's speech or can you not get past the color of
his skin?
And if this election is truly about race, why is the VP white? Why is
Obama not surrounded by blacks in his team?
If you need a way around your problem with Obama being black, try to
focus on the fact that he is half white.
michael
race in the race. Not McCain.
So your argue is not relevant.
<jemcd> wrote in message news:t19nf4pfcdfamp0vu...@4ax.com...
DarkMatter
as a social construct, not as an objective biological reality.
Correction
Codebreaker says...
>
>Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
>man like him, period.
>Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
>that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
>THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
That is so true.
It's the Scotsman in him.
He can't stand Republican fiscal incompetance anymore...
>
>
>
>On Oct 19, 4:54=A0am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>> Well worth your time...
>>
>> Watch video here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#2726549=
>> about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions=
jemcd
wrote:
The point was brought up about Powell endorsing Obama, and that proved
to codebreaker the endorsement was about race. McCain was not
mentioned, so perhaps your comment is irrelevant.
My questions were relevant in trying to find out how or why he
concluded that.
Tell me how Obama brought race into the election. Are talking about
his speech after the rev Wright thing?
I don't think I have a race issue to argue with Obama, I don't think
he or Powell are racist.
jemcd
Couldn't agree more. Race matters only to those that make it matter,
and subsequently by the ones affected from what follows.
jcon
> Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> man like him, period.
Gosh, is that why Powell joined the Republican Party,
because it's so full of blacks?
> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>
Well, about 13% of the US is black, so if it were all about
race, I think the poll numbers would be a little different.
Could you be any dumber?
-jc
HHW
> man like him, period.
> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
If this election is about race, why is the Black candidate leading?
If four star general and former Secretary of State Powell is endorsing
Obama purely on a racial basis, why are his expressed reasons so
carefully thought through and principled, so obviously in the American
national interest?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/powell-obama.html
HHW
> Codebreaker wrote:
> >Powellis endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> > man like him, period.
> > Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> > that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
> > THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>
> Are you sayingPowellis a liar?
>
> said, I've said, I've said to my beloved friend and colleague John
> McCain, a friend of 25 years, "John, I love you, but I'm not just going
> to vote for you on the basis of our affection or friendship." And I've
> said to Barack Obama, "I admire you. I'll give you all the advice I
> can. But I'm not going to vote for you just because you're black." We,
> we have to move beyond this.
>
> > On Oct 19, 4:54 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >> Well worth your time...
>
> >> Watch video here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#27265490
>
> >> TRANSCRIPT:
>
> >> to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama.
> >> Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two
> >> candidates that you're prepared to support?
>
Thank you for this, John.
John Manning
I believe that some people are racist and bigoted and simply won't
change, no matter what. In my view it's like they have a social disease
of hate and ignorance that doesn't seem to have a cure.
Christopher A. Lee
Which unfortunately they project.
There's a youtube video of people saying they won't vote for a n*****
because he'll implement "anti-white" policies.
A large proportion of the anti-Obama vote is that mentality.
The lies about his being an Arab, a Muslim and not a citizen are part
and parcel of it.
HHW
> On Oct 19, 12:56 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>
> >Powellis endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> > man like him, period.
>
> Powell explained why he is endorsing Obama, and to suggest otherwise
> that an individual likePowellis lying about this indicates racism on
> your part.
Precisely. Powell, a fine American statesman and military leader,
explained it in great detail and handsomely too. The American people
are waking up. They are voting the national interest irrespective of
color. They are voting against the politics of defamation and
polarization. I think they are beginning to see that in this case by
voting their interest they are also getting a bonus. They are passing
through an irrational barrier which will be destroyed forever just as
was the taboo against voting for a Catholic when we elected John
Kennedy.
Perhaps racial preference might have had some sway because
> it has been found that most people are at least at an unconscious
> level racist, but an intellectual like ColinPowellcan see past
> color.
He has selflessly dedicated his entire professional life to the
national interest.
Whatever boost Obama gets from blacks who vote for race alone,
> is negated by the racism, unconscious or not, of others. If Obama
> was white this race would have been over a long time ago, because the
> McCain campaign has no real criticism of Obama, only gimmicks,
> innuendo, lies, other scare tactics, and a base too dumb to see
> through it.
They can "see" all the way to Heavan.
>
> > Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> > that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
> > THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>
> If the election was about race, Obama wouldn't be winning. There are
> more atheists in the country than blacks.
And far more who care first about the country's future than about any
of these idiot distractions. Powell is representative of this healthy
love of country.
Certainly not a sock-puppet
> Race is a social construct, not a biological reality. Race matters but
> as a social construct, not as an objective biological reality.
Wrong. Race is a biological fact. Just look at how race is inherited
from
parents, in both humans and other mammels.
Correction
Certainly not a sock-puppet says...
Actually, biologists define "race" as any inbreeding group.
"Race" is esentially an obsolete concept for both
anthropologists and biologists:
"Anthropologists long ago discovered that humans'
physical traits vary gradually, with groups that
are close geographic neighbors being more similar
than groups that are geographically separated.
This pattern of variation, known as clinal variation,
is also observed for many alleles that vary from one
human group to another. Another observation is that
traits or alleles that vary from one group to another
do not vary at the same rate. This pattern is referred
to as nonconcordant variation. Because the variation
of physical traits is clinal and nonconcordant,
anthropologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries
discovered that the more traits and the more human groups
they measured, the fewer discrete differences they
observed among races and the more categories they had
to create to classify human beings. The number of races
observed expanded to the 30s and 50s, and eventually
anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races.
Twentieth and 21st century biomedical researchers
have discovered this same feature when evaluating
human variation at the level of alleles and allele
frequencies. Nature has not created four or five distinct,
nonoverlapping genetic groups of people."
Race and Genetics Controversies in Biomedical,
Behavioral, and Forensic Sciences
Pilar Ossorio and Troy Duster
American Psychologist January 2005
last_per...@yahoo.com
> Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> man like him, period.
> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
Blacks have always voted strictly along racial lines. Here in
Atlanta, they'd much rather vote in a convicted murderer, thief,
rapist (especially if the victims were not black) than a fully
qualified, rock of integrity caucasian. This is proven again
and again..and Atlanta and Fulton & Dekalb County are
probably among the most corrupt and incompetently run
urban areas in American history, along with other similar
metropolises, like Detroit. (The previous Atlanta mayor,
Bill "What's in it for Me" Campbell, is still serving his
sentence in federal lockup. Former Dekalb County
Sheriff Dorsey is in prison for ordering the murder of
the candidate who beat him out for re-election, etc.)
> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
Yes, to a large extent. The number of blacks who will vote McSame
you could count on one hand. A lot of whites all over America are
secretly seething at the thought of a black First Family.
THis election is about choosing the lesser of the two evils: I vote
Obama, and he will win unless something unforseen happens.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> In article <d0a32fe2-f54f-40be-83f4-5dad09402...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
> Certainly not a sock-puppet says...
>
>
>
> >On Oct 19, 5:20pm, DarkMatter <darkmatte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Race is a social construct, not a biological reality. Race matters but
> >> as a social construct, not as an objective biological reality.
>
> >Wrong. Race is a biological fact. Just look at how race is inherited
> >from parents, in both humans and other mammels.
>
> Actually, biologists define "race" as any inbreeding group.
>
> "Race" is esentially an obsolete concept for both
> anthropologists and biologists:
New politics. This "science' is based on politics, not science.
The observational evidence for race is overwhelming. The fact
that certain diseases and genetic conditions (sickle cell anemia
almost exclusively a disease of blacks, a common and well known
example) adds more evidence, which is myriad.
Politics does not make good science. The future could be grim.
Correction
last_per...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Oct 21, 7:00=A0am, Correction <Correction_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <d0a32fe2-f54f-40be-83f4-5dad09402...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Certainly not a sock-puppet says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 19, 5:20pm, DarkMatter <darkmatte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Race is a social construct, not a biological reality. Race matters but
>> >> as a social construct, not as an objective biological reality.
>>
>> >Wrong. Race is a biological fact. Just look at how race is inherited
>> >from parents, in both humans and other mammels.
>>
>> Actually, biologists define "race" as any inbreeding group.
>>
>> "Race" is esentially an obsolete concept for both
>> anthropologists and biologists:
>
>New politics. This "science' is based on politics, not science.
>
>The observational evidence for race is overwhelming. The fact
>that certain diseases and genetic conditions (sickle cell anemia
>almost exclusively a disease of blacks, a common and well known
>example) adds more evidence, which is myriad.
>
>Politics does not make good science. The future could be grim.
>
The sickle cell trait became prevalent in Africa and a few other
parts of the world where malaria is common because the trait
offers resistance to malaria. It is found more frequently in
persons of Middle Eastern, Indian, Mediterranean and African
heritage because those geographic regions are most prone
to malaria. The gene variant for sickle cell disease is related
to malaria, not skin color.
Ask a geneticist if he has concluded that indigenous Australians
and Africans share dark skin but not genetic lineage, because
of politics or science.
Attempts at "race definitions" are imprecise, arbitrary,
derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations,
and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the
culture making the racial distinctions. This is why scientists
overwhelmingly reject the notion that any definition of race
pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.
And if you're not interested in taxonomic rigour and validity,
you're not doing science, you're just creating social constructs
.
Just for yucks, how many "races" do you say there are and
where can I read the "good science" you think supports the
hypothesis?
Logician
> Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> man like him, period.
> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>
Really? Is why Obama keeps talking about invading Pakistan?
Blacks are racist! Well that is news from about 3000 years ago. Blacks
call one another "brother" if whites did that would that be tolerated?
Whites are destroying the world by not standing up for any rights for
white people. Obamacrats love that.
jemcd
wrote:
There is disagreement amongst scientists, I think it will gain wide
acceptance that humans have no division regarding race/subspecies.
As everything else is traditionally determined in the planet, the
differences amongst any set of humans falls well under the criterion
it takes to define any animals as different species/subspecies/race.
Scientists who disagree have not come up with anything to settle it or
properly refute the single race idea. It's either one human race, or
some arbitrary criteria that might make many thousands of races. As
groups, the previously defined races have more variation inside their
own group than they have comparing one group to another. There is more
genetic variation within Sub-Saharan Africa alone than within or
compared to any other group. That's pretty significant eh?
The sickle cell argument is not so strong, it is present in
Mediterranean, Mddle Eastern, and Indian peoples. It is more likely
that the genetic tendency for sickle cell is hereditary from people
that lived in areas with lots of malaria. (sickle cell is a sort of
defense against malaria) Black people descendant from African people
that did not live in areas with malaria have the same rates of malaria
as Northern Europeans. With gene flow, this differentiation may
disappear, maybe in a long time. With gene flow, have data supporting
that with Multiple Sclerosis, it has been associated primarily with
European populations but is increasing in African Americans but not in
Africans.
I agree with the single race idea, from the scientific perspective and
the appeal of the idea, we're not so different after all.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> In article <4f535aa0-9d31-4f11-b400-feb4ba46d...@75g2000hso.googlegroups.com>,
> last_permutat...@yahoo.com says...
But first, just for yucks, describe yourself: political ideology,
race, upbringing, profession, religion (if any), etc., etc.
Race as a social construct is a recent political idea, based on
politics, not science. But maybe you should inform the
American federal gov't of your findings. I think doing
away with A.A., race-based quotas, and the myriad
other race-based handouts (oh and let's not forget
'hate crime' laws, which are extremely race-based)
would be a grand idea!
Your argument might be a wee bit more convincing if
the facts were on your side, buddyroo.
last_per...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oops, if there were any doubts about your political ideology,
I think they were all put to rest, after reading over this line
you wrote above:
"The gene variant for sickle cell disease is related
to malaria, not skin color. "
The use of "skin color" for "race" is the hallmark of the
"race is a social construct" mythology crowd. Just
be honest and admit it; what drives your "science"
is an unmitigated hatred of European-Americans and
their culture, which you want to see eroded, diluted
and quite likely destroyed. One thing though, without
us, what would you be doing now? You sure as
hell wouldn't be sitting at a keyboard babbling your
mythology now would you?
Correction
last_per...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Oct 21, 2:12=A0pm, Correction <Correction_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4f535aa0-9d31-4f11-b400-feb4ba46d...@75g2000hso.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> last_permutat...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> >On Oct 21, 7:00=3DA0am, Correction <Correction_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <d0a32fe2-f54f-40be-83f4-5dad09402...@r37g2000prr.googlegro=
>ups.com>,
>> >> Certainly not a sock-puppet says...
>>
>> >> >On Oct 19, 5:20pm, DarkMatter <darkmatte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You won't rebut my argument or support your assertion
without first seeking information about me. You need
to create a social construct of me for yourself.
That's interesting...
>Race as a social construct is a recent political idea, based on
>politics, not science. But maybe you should inform the
>American federal gov't of your findings. I think doing
>away with A.A., race-based quotas, and the myriad
>other race-based handouts (oh and let's not forget
>'hate crime' laws, which are extremely race-based)
>would be a grand idea!
>
>Your argument might be a wee bit more convincing if
>the facts were on your side, buddyroo.
People, whether acting as individuals or in groups,
don't behave in accordance with scientific facts.
They try to get what they want and rationalize from
there, and their rationalizations are both built from
social constructs, and become social constructs
themselves.
For example, people are for or against "affirmative
action" for many different motivations, and though
all of their decision-making on the subject involves
their own perceptions about what is called "race"
there are no scientific facts involved at all in
their thought processes -- it's entirely about
perception and desire.
I happen to be for it.
See my other post for my reason.
Correction
last_per...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Oct 21, 3:35pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Oct 21, 2:12pm, Correction <Correction_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <4f535aa0-9d31-4f11-b400-feb4ba46d...@75g2000hso.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > last_permutat...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> > >On Oct 21, 7:00=3DA0am, Correction <Correction_mem...@newsguy.com> wro=
>te:
>> > >> In article <d0a32fe2-f54f-40be-83f4-5dad09402...@r37g2000prr.googleg=
>roups.com>,
>> > >> Certainly not a sock-puppet says...
>>
>> > >> >On Oct 19, 5:20pm, DarkMatter <darkmatte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> Race is a social construct, not a biological reality.
>I think they were all put to rest, after reading over this line
>you wrote above:
>
>"The gene variant for sickle cell disease is related
> to malaria, not skin color. "
>
>The use of "skin color" for "race" is the hallmark of the
>"race is a social construct" mythology crowd. Just
>be honest and admit it; what drives your "science"
>is an unmitigated hatred of European-Americans and
>their culture, which you want to see eroded, diluted
>and quite likely destroyed. One thing though, without
>us, what would you be doing now? You sure as
>hell wouldn't be sitting at a keyboard babbling your
>mythology now would you?
>
I couldn't ask for a better demonstration of
what I said about it all being about perception
and desire, utterly divorced from scientific
basis.
I am an American of European descent and you
disgust me not only because you are stupid
but because you are weak. I've always wanted
more non-whites in my workplaces because I enjoy
being dominant over them and have never had a
problem using them for my purposes, which has
usually been to make money. I have nothing to
learn from you.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> In article <49d2e2ab-5445-420a-9488-1a8e3b058...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> last_permutat...@yahoo.com says...
> >Race as a social construct is a recent political idea, based on
> >politics, not science. But maybe you should inform the
> >American federal gov't of your findings. I think doing
> >away with A.A., race-based quotas, and the myriad
> >other race-based handouts (oh and let's not forget
> >'hate crime' laws, which are extremely race-based)
> >would be a grand idea!
>
> >Your argument might be a wee bit more convincing if
> >the facts were on your side, buddyroo.
>
> People, whether acting as individuals or in groups,
> don't behave in accordance with scientific facts.
> They try to get what they want and rationalize from
> there, and their rationalizations are both built from
> social constructs, and become social constructs
> themselves.
How are those double talk classes going?
> For example, people are for or against "affirmative
> action" for many different motivations, and though
> all of their decision-making on the subject involves
> their own perceptions about what is called "race"
> there are no scientific facts involved at all in
> their thought processes -- it's entirely about
> perception and desire.
Again, you need to inform the federal gov't of your
findings, along with the NAACP, 100 Black Men
of Atlanta, The United Negro College Fund, etc.,
etc., etc.
Hmm, race is only skin color.... The laughs never
end with that one. Let's see, I can right off the top
of my head think of several blacks (e.g. Halle Berry, Lena Horne)
who are lighter skinned than I am after a day or two in
the sun. They are considered black by the whole world.
I have never been considered anything but caucasian.
I could meet someone for the first time on the street with
my dark skin at the beach, and that person would never
consider me negro. And cite one example of a
European descent (with no black in the family tree)
individual who has been a sickle cell patient. From
the NIH:
"In the United States, sickle cell anemia affects about 70,000 people.
It mainly affects African Americans. The disease occurs in about 1 out
of every 500 African American births. Sickle cell anemia also affects
Hispanic Americans. The disease occurs in 1 out of every 36,000
Hispanic American births.
"About 2 million Americans have sickle cell trait. The condition
occurs in about 1 in 12 African Americans."
So, the NIH says that sickle cell anemia is 72 times more common in
American blacks than hispanics.
And on closer inspection, it would likely be revealed that many of the
'hispanic' patients actually have
a black or two in their family tree somewhere. It happens.
This brings up the famous One Drop Rule that the whole world believes
in. IOW, just a little black
blood makes a person black. Atlanta's first black mayor, Maynard
Jackson (who became known
as 'Rhyming Maynard' in his later years), had blue eyes, talked
caucasian, was educated, and
acted caucasian. He was light-skinned too of course, clearly having
some caucasian ancestry.
But he was a black man. Nobody, including him, ever thought of him as
white. A white woman
can have a black baby, but a black woman can NEVER have a white one (I
heard this one
from a black woman, and she's quite correct.)
There are many diseases and conditions that are
very race-related. Medical professionals are quite
familiar with the associations.
> I happen to be for it.
> See my other post for my reason.
Some retards believe in all kinds of nonsense: fairies, little green
men
from Mars, messages from their shower head, etc.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> In article <93b86783-d557-4931-b217-36118ffe6...@v72g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
Your 'science' is jabberwock, based on hatred,
as I've alluded to. Get with the real world and
see my other post to you today.
>
> I am an American of European descent and you
> disgust me not only because you are stupid
> but because you are weak.
Huh?
> I've always wanted
> more non-whites in my workplaces because I enjoy
> being dominant over them and have never had a
> problem using them for my purposes, which has
> usually been to make money. I have nothing to
> learn from you.
Geez, racist who doesn't believe in race. Damn
son, you're sicker than I thought.
jemcd
wrote:
The federal government is likely aware that humans are all one race.
The factors of these organisations is politics, culture, ethnicity,
history etc.
>
>Hmm, race is only skin color.... The laughs never
>end with that one. Let's see, I can right off the top
>of my head think of several blacks (e.g. Halle Berry, Lena Horne)
>who are lighter skinned than I am after a day or two in
>the sun. They are considered black by the whole world.
>I have never been considered anything but caucasian.
You've stated a case against dividing humans into different races.
You're right, skin is irrelevant.
>I could meet someone for the first time on the street with
>my dark skin at the beach, and that person would never
>consider me negro. And cite one example of a
>European descent (with no black in the family tree)
>individual who has been a sickle cell patient. From
>the NIH:
Your statistics don't tell the whole story.
Sickle-cell disease occurs more commonly in people (or their
descendants) from parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where malaria is or was
common, but it also occurs in people of other ethnicities. This is
because those with one or two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are
resistant to malaria since the sickle red blood cells are not
conducive to the parasites - in areas where malaria is common, there
is a survival value in carrying the sickle-cell genes.
The origin of the mutation that led to the sickle-cell gene was
initially thought to be in the Arabian peninsula, spreading to Asia
and Africa. It is now known, from evaluation of chromosome structures,
that there have been at least four independent mutational events,
three in Africa and a fourth in either Saudi Arabia or central India.
These independent events occurred between 3,000 and 6,000 generations
ago, approximately 70-150,000 years.
Descendants of Africans that were in areas without malaria have
similar rates of sickle cell to Northern Europeans.
Sickle cell is not exclusive to blacks, it didn't even originate in
Sub-Saharan Africa.
The human race is a single race.
And the causes are environmental and then hereditary, regardless of
ethnicity. We all came from Africa, and our various environments
caused responses to different stimuli.
>
>> I happen to be for it.
>> See my other post for my reason.
>
>Some retards believe in all kinds of nonsense: fairies, little green
>men
>from Mars, messages from their shower head, etc.
And some people think humans of different ethnicities are different
subspecies from each other. The differences in humans anywhere is not
enough to classify as different races in scientific/biological terms.
Michael Fisher
> The differences in humans anywhere is not
> enough to classify as different races in scientific/biological terms.
True enough.
Unfortunately in general people exhibit a large amount of difficulty in
thinking scientfically.
mike
Codebreaker
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:56:14 -0700 (PDT), Codebreaker
>
> <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
> >Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> >man like him, period.
> >Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> >that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
> >THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>
> Every time you agree with or support another person that is white, are
> you exercising racism?
95% of blacks who will vote Obama will do so because
he is their fellow black. PERIOD
You are asking your question to the wrong person JERK
Codebreaker
> On Oct 19, 3:56 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>
> > Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> > man like him, period.
>
> Gosh, is that why Powell joined the Republican Party,
> because it's so full of blacks?
>
> > Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> > that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
> > THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>
> Well, about 13% of the US is black, so if it were all about
> race, I think the poll numbers would be a little different.
Whites are a self-destructive specy. They feel guilty
about everything, so they have to vote Obama
maybe to clean their conscience
> > > ~~Transcript of full interview here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266223/- Hide quoted text -
Codebreaker
> On Oct 19, 3:56 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>
> > Powellis endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> > man like him, period.
> > Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> > that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
> > THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>
> If this election is about race, why is the Black candidate leading?
If it is not about race, why NO BLACK has supported or endorsed
McCain?
The Master
> Whites are a self-destructive specy. They feel guilty
> about everything, so they have to vote Obama
> maybe to clean their conscience
Only the liberal whites, who feel guilty about being white. They feel
that you must bend over backward to kiss minority ass. They forget that
it's not racist to hate a black man because he's an asshole.
Codebreaker
ONLY A MOTHERFUCKER LIKE YOU DOES NOT
LIKE HIS OWN. AND THIS IS THE MESSAGE
THAT BLACKS HAVE BEEN SENDING DURING
THIS CAMPAIN
Codebreaker
Here is another jerk who has his brain
between his ASS
OBABBLE
> On Oct 19, 9:56 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>> Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
>> man like him, period.
>> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
>> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
>> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>>
>
> Really? Is why Obama keeps talking about invading Pakistan?
>
> Blacks are racist! Well that is news from about 3000 years ago. Blacks
> call one another "brother" if whites did that would that be tolerated?
>
> Whites are destroying the world by not standing up for any rights for
> white people. Obamacrats love that.
WHEN I WAS ONE OF TWO WHITES ON THE BASKETBALL TEAM I GOT ALONG FAMOUSLY
WITH EVERYONE. THEY EVEN CALLED ME NIGGER A FEW TIMES. I FELT
ACCEPTED. IT DID NOT OFFEND ME. I ASKED THEM IF I COULD USE THE TERM
WITH THEM. THEY ALL SAID AND I PARAPHRASE HERE: "NO"
Cary Kittrell
> On Oct 20, 11:17=A0am, jcon <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 3:56=A0pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> > > man like him, period.
> >
> > Gosh, is that why Powell joined the Republican Party,
> > because it's so full of blacks?
> >
> > > Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> > > that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
> > > THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
> >
> > Well, about 13% of the US is black, so if it were all about
> > race, I think the poll numbers would be a little different.
>
> Whites are a self-destructive specy. They feel guilty
> about everything, so they have to vote Obama
> maybe to clean their conscience
So, how's your secret campaign for the Presidency coming along?
-- cary
>
> >
> > Could you be any dumber?
> >
> > -jc
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 19, 4:54=A0am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> > > > Well worth your time...
> >
> > > > Watch video here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#272=
> 65490
> >
> > > > TRANSCRIPT:
> >
> > > > MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution
> > > > to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama.
> > > > Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two
> > > > candidates that you're prepared to support?
> >
> > > > GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of
> > > > these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years as your
> > > > setup said. And I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the pas=
> t
> > > > two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are
> > > > patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either
> > > > one of them, I think, would be a good president.
> >
> > > > I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some
> > > > concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years=
> .
> > > > It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that'=
> s
> > > > a choice the party makes.
> >
> > > > And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have
> > > > enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that
> > > > would give us confidence that you would be a good president."
> >
> > > > And I've watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I've had
> > > > this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last
> > > > six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam wit=
> h
> > > > respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the
> > > > conventions. And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both.
> >
> > > > In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to
> > > > deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every
> > > > day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned
> > > > me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic
> > > > problems that we had.
> >
> > > > And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She's a
> > > > very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same
> > > > time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks=
> ,
> > > > I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States,
> > > > which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some
> > > > question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.
> >
> > > > On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this
> > > > seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual
> > > > curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problem=
> s
> > > > like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be
> > > > president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing
> > > > every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a
> > > > definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.
> >
> > > > I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks,
> > > > the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become
> > > > narrower and narrower.
> >
> > > > Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader
> > > > reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing
> > > > lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking
> > > > about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small
> > > > towns have values.
> >
> > > > And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches
> > > > that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issue=
> s
> > > > that are not really central to the problems that the American people
> > > > are worried about.
> >
> > > > This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became
> > > > something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says
> > > > that he's a washed-out terrorist.
> >
> > > > Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have
> > > > these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that,
> > > > because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama ha=
> s
> > > > had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're
> > > > trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I
> > > > think that's inappropriate.
> >
> > > > Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go
> > > > after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far.
> > > > And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow.
> > > > It's not what the American people are looking for.
> >
> > > > And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they
> > > > trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and
> > > > Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have
> > > > difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme
> > > > Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration.
> >
> > > > I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members
> > > > of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as,
> > > > "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer
> > > > is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a
> > > > Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is?
> >
> > > > Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The
> > > > answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some
> > > > seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be
> > > > president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the
> > > > suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists."
> > > > This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
> >
> > > > I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I sa=
> w
> > > > in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in
> > > > Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo
> > > > essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on
> > > > the headstone of her son's grave.
> >
> > > > And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the
> > > > headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed
> > > > that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was
> > > > 20 years old.
> >
> > > > And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christia=
> n
> > > > cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star o=
> f
> > > > the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he
> > > > was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at
> > > > the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, an=
> d
> > > > he gave his life.
> >
> > > > Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John
> > > > McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled
> > > > about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of express=
> ions.
> >
> > > > So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career,
> > > > we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good
> > > > president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the
> > > > individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of
> > > > time?
> >
> > > > And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire,
> > > > because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is
> > > > reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his
> > > > rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well
> > > > as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the
> > > > standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional
> > > > president.
> >
> > > > I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation
> > > > coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage,
> > > > and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
> >
> > > > ~~Transcript of full interview here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266=
Codebreaker
> In article <835451c4-e3fe-47d8-941e-
> > > race, I think the poll numbers would be a little different.
>
> > Whites are a self-destructive specy. They feel guilty
> > about everything, so they have to vote Obama
> > maybe to clean their conscience
>
> So, how's your secret campaign for the Presidency coming along?
It is coming along as NO GOOD news for assronomers,
faggot, gay marriage, homosexuals and the like.
By the way IT IS NOT A SECRET. There is no such
thing as SECRET presidential Campain. I am NO Cabbalist
>
> -- cary
>
>
>
Cary Kittrell
Oh, you won't tell anyone your actual name so that we
may write you in come November 4th. I'd say that
qualifies as secret.
-- cary
>
>
> >
> > -- cary
> >
> >
> >
john fernbach
> Politics does not make good science. The future could be grim.-
Unlike the race-haunted past.
The past has just been a big Sunday school picnic for everyone. Klan
terrorism, lynchings, race riots, slavery, etc. -- but not very
"grim," you think?
john fernbach
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm an old white guy of Euro
ancestry who's been racist myself, at some times in my life, and at
its the best, the most universalistic aspects of my own "white" or
"European" culture tell me that racism is a crock of manure.
Euro-American opposition to slavery largely originated in the 1700s in
North America with the Quakers, who at the time were almost entirely
"white" by ancestry.
The abolitionist and anti-racist cause then was promoted in England
and American in the late 1700s by such activists as the great Wesleyan
evangelist John Wesley and by the upper-class evangelical Christian
William Wilberforce -- both pale-skinned fellas.
In the US in the 1860s, of course, there was a mix of white and black
abolitionists who agitated for an end of slavery -- the contributions
of Frederick Douglas should not be be forgotten or minimized. But it
was the white author Julia Ward Howe who wrote "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and
the white politician Abraham Lincoln and the violent white anti-
slavery agitator John Brown who brought the fight against slavery to
the political boiling point.
I don't mean to minimize or show disrespect for the struggles of black
Americans aka "African Americans" at all - hey, there were black
people doing slave labor in North America a long time before most of
my European ancestors arrived here. It's easy for white people like
me to forget that to a fairly remarkable extent, "America" as we know
it is a civilization that was largely based in the beginning on
enslaved African labor.
But I want to point out that there's been a strong movement within
"white" or European-American culture for a good 300 years now that's
been ANTI-racist, and ANTI-racial hatred and discrimination, and IN
FAVOR of moral univeralism and tolerance, if not always in favor of
multi-culturalism.
It makes me sick, then, when I see some apostle of racial division and
racial discrimination trying to claim "white culture" as the source of
violent and immoral and discriminatory racial politics.
Obviously lots of different people are genetically capable of racist
and tribalist behavior, of dividing up the universe between some self-
selected group considered to be "the people" and practically everyone
else.
History shows that White American Protestants can do this; history
also shows that Jews and Catholics can be racist and discriminatory as
well; we know that the ancient Greeks and some of the American Indian
tribes before Columbus also showed a violent "we/them" mentality, and
we see the same kind of murderous tribal-based politics today among
the Serbs, Croats and Muslims in the Balkans and among the Tutsis and
Hutu in Rwanda.
But does "white culture" support a nasty racist division of the world
that's basically tribalistic and small-minded, rather than embracing
the universal morality and outlook of St. Paul or Jesus or Montaigne
or William Blake or Shakespeare?
No. And it's not treason to "white culture" to work for racial
tolerance and a respect for racial and cultural diversity.
Universalism, racial tolerance and a respect for racial and cultural
diversity are key values of the European enlightenment at its best.
To hell with tribalistic and racist demagogues who preach otherwise --
no matter whether their excuses for primitive tribal morality are
allegedly based on "science" or just based on mob psychology.
St. Paul, Shakespeare, Wilberforce, William Blake, John Wesley, and
the 18th century Quakers and the 19th century socialists and
anarchists and Transcendentalists -- not to mention Harry Truman in
1948 -- all were smart enough to reject racism.
If we're not smart enough to join them, maybe it shows our own genetic
degeneration -- not into "nonwhites," but into moral idiots.
Correction
Codebreaker says...
>
>On Oct 20, 2:27pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 3:56pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Powellis endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
>> > man like him, period.
>> > Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
>> > that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
>> > THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>>
>> If this election is about race, why is the Black candidate leading?
>
>If it is not about race, why NO BLACK has supported or endorsed
>McCain?
>
Please. The Republicans admitted that the goal
they had set for themselves four years ago to
increase their appeal to black voters was an
utter failure -- and they admitted it when
Clinton looked like the one they would be
running against.
The plain fact is that the Republicans can
blow all the smoke they want, but you'd
have to be extremely stupid not to realize
that they only do things that favor the rich.
This is primarily why Republicans do not
attract black support.
You can add to this that you can't even find
intelligent white voters who will agree with a straight
face that Republicans are even competent enough
to keep the economy from falling apart.
Americans will give great leeway to leaders
who pander to their rich friends, but doing
so and burning down the house is a deal-breaker.
And where are the firings and swift legal actions
that the average guy gets subjected to when
he screws up? When a plumber screws up and
destroys your home's plumbing, do you invite
him back to advise you on what to do next, or
allow him to brow-beat you into accepting that
if you don't let him finish the job his way horrible
things will happen? You fire the guy.
Accordingly, they will be drummed out of office.
fla...@verizon.net
On 23-Oct-2008, Codebreaker <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
> > So, how's your secret campaign for the Presidency coming along?
>
>
> It is coming along as NO GOOD news for assronomers,
> faggot, gay marriage, homosexuals and the like.
Methinks the lady doth protest too muich.
Susan
last_per...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 20, 2:27 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 3:56 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>
> > > Powellis endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> > > man like him, period.
> > > Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> > > that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
> > > THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>
> > If this election is about race, why is the Black candidate leading?
>
> If it is not about race, why NO BLACK has supported or endorsed
> McCain?
Living in Atlanta for most of my life, I can tell you without doubt
that blacks ALWAYS vote along racial lines. They would vote
for any black felon--regardless of crime--if his only opponent was
a cauc. THis is why Fulton and Dekalb County, and the
City of Atlanta gov'ts, are cesspools of crime and corruption.
Some of them actually do get caught and sent to the joint,
like Bill Campbell, the previous mayor of Atlanta, and Sid
Dorsey, sheriff of Dekalb who murdered the negroid who
defeated him in an election.
Atlanta is a perfect result of what Southern whites feared
when the stupid and racist negroids were pushed to
the voting booths in the '60s. It's been into the shitter
ever since. Some Atlanta gov't offices are like stepping
into third world countries.
That said, I am voting for Obama.
OBABLE
last_per...@yahoo.com
No, quite logical actually. There is nothing worse than another
street whore for Israel and the ZioNazis as President. Obama
is the only other choice. I would NEVER want to be accused
of being a supporter of Reptile McCain. Technically of course,
Obama is 50% caucasian, but the One Drop Rule rules, and
early voting has brought countless negroes out of their gov't
offices and subprime mortgaged McMansions and gov't housing.
I saw on the news that some have waited 2-3 hours in line
to vote for the black man for President. This is unheard of.
DanielSan
> On Oct 19, 5:36 pm, jemcd wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:56:14 -0700 (PDT), Codebreaker
>>
>> <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>>> Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
>>> man like him, period.
>>> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
>>> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
>>> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>> For the sake of argument I will assume you are white.
>> Every time you agree with or support another person that is white, are
>> you exercising racism?
>
> 95% of blacks who will vote Obama will do so because
> he is their fellow black. PERIOD
Err, yeah, you're going to have to back that assertion up, bubby.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it? *
****************************************************
DanielSan
> On Oct 20, 11:17 am, jcon <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 3:56 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
>>> man like him, period.
>> Gosh, is that why Powell joined the Republican Party,
>> because it's so full of blacks?
>>
>>> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
>>> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
>>> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>> Well, about 13% of the US is black, so if it were all about
>> race, I think the poll numbers would be a little different.
>
> Whites are a self-destructive specy. They feel guilty
> about everything, so they have to vote Obama
> maybe to clean their conscience
"White" isn't a species, moron. And I, as a white person, am not voting
for Obama because I "feel guilty", idiot. I am voting for Obama because
I feel he has the better plan.
>
>> Could you be any dumber?
He could, but then he'd be competing with duke.
DanielSan
> On Oct 20, 2:27 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 3:56 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Powellis endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
>>> man like him, period.
>>> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
>>> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
>>> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>> If this election is about race, why is the Black candidate leading?
>
> If it is not about race, why NO BLACK has supported or endorsed
> McCain?
Because McCain sucks?
DanielSan
But it is racist to hate a black man because he's black. But, I do
appreciate the caricature. It's funny.
fla...@verizon.net
On 23-Oct-2008, DanielSan <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> > 95% of blacks who will vote Obama will do so because
> > he is their fellow black. PERIOD
>
> Err, yeah, you're going to have to back that assertion up, bubby.
While the black voter turn-out/registration has been
historically massive, there has been absolutely no
polls or any actual proof of any percentages.
Susan
DanielSan
> On Oct 23, 6:22 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 2:27 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 19, 3:56 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>>>> Powellis endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
>>>> man like him, period.
>>>> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
>>>> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
>>>> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>>> If this election is about race, why is the Black candidate leading?
>> If it is not about race, why NO BLACK has supported or endorsed
>> McCain?
>
> Living in Atlanta for most of my life, I can tell you without doubt
> that blacks ALWAYS vote along racial lines.
That's why Alan Keyes did so well among blacks. And that's why Al
Sharpton was the Democratic Presidential Candidate.
...wait, what?
fla...@verizon.net
On 23-Oct-2008, DanielSan <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> last_per...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Living in Atlanta for most of my life, I can tell you without doubt
> > that blacks ALWAYS vote along racial lines.
>
> That's why Alan Keyes did so well among blacks. And that's why Al
> Sharpton was the Democratic Presidential Candidate.
>
> ...wait, what?
Yeah, wait - you forgot Cynthia McKinney!!
Susan
DanielSan
Well, she's a woman, so she doesn't count.
*HIDES!*
John Manning
> Codebreaker wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 5:36 pm, jemcd wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:56:14 -0700 (PDT), Codebreaker
>>>
>>> <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>>>> Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
>>>> man like him, period.
>>>> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
>>>> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
>>>> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>>> For the sake of argument I will assume you are white.
>>> Every time you agree with or support another person that is white, are
>>> you exercising racism?
>>
>> 95% of blacks who will vote Obama will do so because
>> he is their fellow black. PERIOD
>
> Err, yeah, you're going to have to back that assertion up, bubby.
Here's a very revealing poll:
A Polling Free-Fall Among Blacks
By Dan Froomkin
Washington Post, October 13, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/10/13/BL2005101300885.html
In what may turn out to be one of the biggest free-falls in the history
of presidential polling, President Bush's job-approval rating among
African Americans has dropped to 2 percent, according to a new NBC/Wall
Street Journal poll.
last_per...@yahoo.com
last_per...@yahoo.com
> last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 6:22 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 20, 2:27 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 19, 3:56 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
> >>>> Powellis endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> >>>> man like him, period.
> >>>> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
> >>>> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
> >>>> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
> >>> If this election is about race, why is the Black candidate leading?
> >> If it is not about race, why NO BLACK has supported or endorsed
> >> McCain?
>
> > Living in Atlanta for most of my life, I can tell you without doubt
> > that blacks ALWAYS vote along racial lines.
>
> That's why Alan Keyes did so well among blacks. And that's why Al
> Sharpton was the Democratic Presidential Candidate.
>
> ...wait, what?
Wait for what, for your brains to jump back out of the crapper
and into your ass? They were never serious contenders and
blacks knew it. Negroids always vote along racial lines.
Get a sense of the real world, retard.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> On 23-Oct-2008, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > Living in Atlanta for most of my life, I can tell you without doubt
> > > that blacks ALWAYS vote along racial lines.
>
> > That's why Alan Keyes did so well among blacks. And that's why Al
> > Sharpton was the Democratic Presidential Candidate.
>
> > ...wait, what?
>
> Yeah, wait - you forgot Cynthia McKinney!!
She had a permanent position in Congress till she started telling
the truth too much about Israel, Shitstain. And you're forgetting,
Shitstain, that she was defeated by a black woman, just one
the ZioScabs sent lots of money to. You you get stupider
by the minute, Shitstain.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 23-Oct-2008, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >>> Living in Atlanta for most of my life, I can tell you without doubt
> >>> that blacks ALWAYS vote along racial lines.
> >> That's why Alan Keyes did so well among blacks. And that's why Al
> >> Sharpton was the Democratic Presidential Candidate.
>
> >> ...wait, what?
>
> > Yeah, wait - you forgot Cynthia McKinney!!
>
> Well, she's a woman, so she doesn't count.
Muttface and the atheist retard, living in harmony.
Hey retard, Muttface thinks she's among God's
Chosen.
fla...@verizon.net
On 24-Oct-2008, DanielSan <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 23-Oct-2008, DanielSan <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> last_per...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Living in Atlanta for most of my life, I can tell you without doubt
> >>> that blacks ALWAYS vote along racial lines.
> >> That's why Alan Keyes did so well among blacks. And that's why Al
> >> Sharpton was the Democratic Presidential Candidate.
> >>
> >> ...wait, what?
> >
> > Yeah, wait - you forgot Cynthia McKinney!!
>
> Well, she's a woman, so she doesn't count.
>
> *HIDES!*
ROFTLOL!!
Susan
Shevek
> On Oct 19, 5:36 pm, jemcd wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:56:14 -0700 (PDT), Codebreaker
>>
>> <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>>> man like him, period.
>>> Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
>>> that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
>>> THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>> Every time you agree with or support another person that is white, are
>> you exercising racism?
>
> he is their fellow black. PERIOD
Is that the reason why over 90% of blacks voted for Al Gore?
--
Shevek
DanielSan
Then why was the black approval rating of John Kerry so high? Was Kerry
black?
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* It has been said that Jesus died on a Friday and *
* was resurrected on a Sunday. It is not so much *
* that Jesus died for our sins, as he had a very *
* bad weekend for them. *
******************************************************
DanielSan
.....why WEREN'T they?
> Negroids always vote along racial lines.
> Get a sense of the real world, retard.
I already have a sense of it. I live there. And who uses the word
"negroid" anymore?
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
DanielSan
Who is "Muttface"? And you realize that I was joking, right? Hence
your need to snip it out.
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
John Manning
It's because Bush and the GOP are historically subtly racist. Kerry was
[is] not.
"Macaca" asshole, Virginia senatorial candidate George Allen is one of
the more blatantly obvious recent examples of a racist politician.
Here are some fine quotes from nationally syndicated right wing racist
GOP propaganda mouthpiece, pill popper pig-boy Rush Limbaugh:
"I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over
100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built
the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it
had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
"You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the
confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed."
"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals
resemble Jesse Jackson?"
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back (to an African
American female caller)."
===
The point is that racist attitudes permeate the GOP, not the Democratic
party. It can't be any surprise that blacks, along with almost everyone
else, notice the difference.
Herman Rubin
Correction <Correcti...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <a70fce16-06f9-4658...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
>Codebreaker says...
>>On Oct 20, 2:27pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 19, 3:56pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>>> > Powellis endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
>>> > man like him, period.
>>> > Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
>>> > that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
>>> > THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>>> If this election is about race, why is the Black candidate leading?
>>If it is not about race, why NO BLACK has supported or endorsed
>>McCain?
>Please. The Republicans admitted that the goal
>they had set for themselves four years ago to
>increase their appeal to black voters was an
>utter failure -- and they admitted it when
>Clinton looked like the one they would be
>running against.
>The plain fact is that the Republicans can
>blow all the smoke they want, but you'd
>have to be extremely stupid not to realize
>that they only do things that favor the rich.
The Republicans are also trying, at least to
some extent, to allow those with talent to
try to become rich. And many Democrats,
including Obama, are rich.
>This is primarily why Republicans do not
>attract black support.
This is because their community has taken
the isolationists attitude that race matters,
and that their children should not act "white"
and try to excel in mathematics and science.
Also, they value athletics and other things so
much more than academics that it is hard to find
competent blacks in those fields; the schools
also push the same, claiming that success is not
due to ability, and keeping the level of learning
down in all schools.
If you think that you are doomed to being poor,
you will vote for those who claim that they will
take from the rich and give to the poor. The
rich do not have that much to give.
>You can add to this that you can't even find
>intelligent white voters who will agree with a straight
>face that Republicans are even competent enough
>to keep the economy from falling apart.
McCain voted to restrain Fannie and Freddy;
Obama did not.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
fla...@verizon.net
On 24-Oct-2008, DanielSan <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> last_per...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> > Negroids always vote along racial lines.
> > Get a sense of the real world, retard.
>
> I already have a sense of it. I live there. And who uses the word
> "negroid" anymore?
Self-made subhuman slime, of course.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 24-Oct-2008, DanielSan <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> last_per...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Oct 24, 3:37 am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >> flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >>> On 23-Oct-2008, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>>> last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> Living in Atlanta for most of my life, I can tell you without doubt
> >>>>> that blacks ALWAYS vote along racial lines.
> >>>> That's why Alan Keyes did so well among blacks. And that's why Al
> >>>> Sharpton was the Democratic Presidential Candidate.
> >>>> ...wait, what?
> >>> Yeah, wait - you forgot Cynthia McKinney!!
> >> Well, she's a woman, so she doesn't count.
> >
> > Muttface and the atheist retard, living in harmony.
"last permutation" got engaged???
> > Hey retard, Muttface thinks she's among God's
> > Chosen.
>
> Who is "Muttface"?
He is, of course - bigots project. Just watch him.
> And you realize that I was joking, right? Hence
> your need to snip it out.
Of course.
Susan
last_per...@yahoo.com
> On 24-Oct-2008, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> > last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Oct 24, 3:37 am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> > >> flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > >>> On 23-Oct-2008, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> > >>>> last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>>>> Living in Atlanta for most of my life, I can tell you without doubt
> > >>>>> that blacks ALWAYS vote along racial lines.
> > >>>> That's why Alan Keyes did so well among blacks. And that's why Al
> > >>>> Sharpton was the Democratic Presidential Candidate.
> > >>>> ...wait, what?
> > >>> Yeah, wait - you forgot Cynthia McKinney!!
> > >> Well, she's a woman, so she doesn't count.
>
> > > Muttface and the atheist retard, living in harmony.
>
> "last permutation" got engaged???
>
> > > Hey retard, Muttface thinks she's among God's
> > > Chosen.
>
> > Who is "Muttface"?
>
> He is, of course - bigots project.
We know Muttface. You prove it with every post.
> Just watch him.
I've seen your pic, Muttface. Can't say it could've happened to
a nicer bigot.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> On 24-Oct-2008, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > Negroids always vote along racial lines.
> > > Get a sense of the real world, retard.
>
> > I already have a sense of it. I live there. And who uses the word
> > "negroid" anymore?
>
> Self-made subhuman slime, of course.
I realize bigots like you prefer 'nigger' but I thought I'd be
gentle. Look it up stupid:
"In physical anthropology the term is one of the three general racial
classifications of humans — Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Under
this classification scheme, humans are divisible into broad sub-groups
based on phenotypic characteristics such as cranial and skeletal
morphology. Such classifications remain in use today in the fields of
anthropology and forensics to help identify the ethnicity, lineage and
origin of human remains"
Physical traits
Ashley Montagu lists "neotenous structural traits in which...Negroids
differ from Caucasoids... flattish nose, flat root of the nose,
narrower ears, narrower joints, frontal skull eminences, later closure
of premaxillary sutures, less hairy, longer eyelashes, [and] cruciform
pattern of second and third molars"[17]"
Transition Zone
========================================
Today - Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
========================================
Editors just don't learn from history. Or is this all just another
profitable circus again ??
(you answer)
On Oct 19, 4:56 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
> Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
> man like him, period.
Otherwise, Powell is republican. Are Powell's doings even his ??
John Baker
<mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Oct 21 2004 - AP Poll: Kerry 49% - Bush 46%
>========================================
>Today - Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
>========================================
>
>Editors just don't learn from history. Or is this all just another
>profitable circus again ??
>
>(you answer)
>
Kerry wasn't so far ahead at this time four years ago that the GOP had
all but conceded the election. This time around, even the majority of
Republicans don't foresee a win for their side.
retired54
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:igl6g4t4j85qnqbmq...@4ax.com...
Correct
All one has to do is Google 2004 presidential polls and see Bush maintained
a slim lead with Kerry occasionally taking a very slim lead. The electoral
map looked MUCH different. The way it is today it's going to take a miracle
for McCain to win.
olddog
Douglas Berry
<mog...@hotmail.com> carved the following into the hard stone of
alt.atheism
>========================================
>Today - Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
>========================================
>
>Editors just don't learn from history. Or is this all just another
>profitable circus again ??
There's a slight difference between an eight point lead and a four
point one, but look at the electoral maps.
October 25, 2004
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Oct25.html
October 25, 2008
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
In 2004 Bush had a clear lead in electoral votes. Today, it's Obama
with an overwhelmin lead even without battleground states.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
jemcd
<Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>On Oct 19, 5:36 pm, jemcd wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:56:14 -0700 (PDT), Codebreaker
>>
>> <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>> >Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
>> >man like him, period.
>> >Let face it. Race matter and blacks have shown
>> >that they can be RACIST like anybody else.
>> >THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT RACE
>>
>> For the sake of argument I will assume you are white.
>> Every time you agree with or support another person that is white, are
>> you exercising racism?
>
>95% of blacks who will vote Obama will do so because
>he is their fellow black. PERIOD
The majority of blacks have traditionally voted Democrat, so what?
It's probably less than 10% of the US voting population.
Do you have a link for that 95% figure? I couldn't find that.
>You are asking your question to the wrong person JERK
I was asking you a question about you.
Can you answer it?
>
>> Are you only agreeing/supporting them because they are white?
>> Do you automatically disagree with things said by people of a
>> different race than you, because of race?
>> Do you ever evaluate what somebody is saying or doing without framing
>> it by race?
>> If you answer no to any of these, then give Powell the same benefit.
>> If any are yes, then you are the one with the problem.
>> Did you listen to Powell's speech or can you not get past the color of
>> his skin?
>>
>> And if this election is truly about race, why is the VP white? Why is
>> Obama not surrounded by blacks in his team?
>> If you need a way around your problem with Obama being black, try to
>> focus on the fact that he is half white.
jemcd
wrote:
>jemcd wrote:
>
>> The differences in humans anywhere is not
>> enough to classify as different races in scientific/biological terms.
>
> True enough.
>
> Unfortunately in general people exhibit a large amount of difficulty in
>thinking scientfically.
>
>mike
Ya, too bad fear & emotion and so on distorts our views.
The more barriers we break down amongst peoples, the better it is for
everybody. Religion and racism are tough barriers.
Transition Zone
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:26:03 -0700 (PDT), Transition Zone
>
> >Oct 21 2004 - AP Poll:Kerry49% - Bush 46%
> >========================================
> >Today - Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
> >========================================
>
> >Editors just don't learn from history. Or is this all just another
> >profitable circus again ??
>
> >(you answer)
>
> all but conceded the election. This time around, even the majority of
> Republicans don't foresee a win for their side.
OMG - that's just one or two repubs. Even Yahoo's own front page,
today on Oct 28, 2008 at 1:12PM Est says that Obama is averaging 50.6%
percent ahead of McCain's 43.4%. This is virtually a carbon copy of
the Kerry/Bush situation 4 years ago today, right-on-the-money. We so
dems are so BADLY overestimating this thing. This is amazing.
Clear out your eyes apiece, will ya ??
(heck - its actually worse. Since 1980, no dem prez candidate (except
Clinton's 1996 re-election) has ever won over 50% of voters. But don't
worry, in a week, you'll see reality.
Transition Zone
> "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
>
> news:igl6g4t4j85qnqbmq...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:26:03 -0700 (PDT), Transition Zone
>
> >>Oct 21 2004 - AP Poll:Kerry49% - Bush 46%
> >>========================================
> >>Today - Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
> >>========================================
>
> >>Editors just don't learn from history. Or is this all just another
> >>profitable circus again ??
>
> >>(you answer)
>
> > all but conceded the election. This time around, even the majority of
> > Republicans don't foresee a win for their side.
>
> Correct
>
> All one has to do is Google 2004 presidential polls and see Bush maintained
> map looked MUCH different. The way it is today it's going to take a miracle
> for McCain to win.
No. 4 years ago, Kerry clearly maintained a 50% lead in polling. Just
google it.
Transition Zone
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Transition Zone
> alt.atheism
>
> >Oct 21 2004 - AP Poll:Kerry49% - Bush 46%
> >========================================
> >Today - Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
> >========================================
>
> >Editors just don't learn from history. Or is this all just another
> >profitable circus again ??
>
> There's a slight difference between an eight point lead and a four
> point one, but look at the electoral maps.
>
> October 25, 2004
>
> http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Oct25.html
>
> October 25, 2008
>
> http://www.electoral-vote.com/
>
> In 2004 Bush had a clear lead in electoral votes. Today, it's Obama
> with an overwhelmin lead even without battleground states.
In addition to me posting proof that Kerry held a lead over Bush until
the actual election, we haven't even DISCUSSED the Bradley effect
that's going to factor in in, at least a few areas.
You are grossly overestimating Obama's lead. Every Rush Limbaugh
supporter out there is saying "vote Obama". And everyone knows what's
coming in the voting booth.
Why do we OVER-IDEALISTIC dems always have to learn the hard way??
retired54
"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f1fd2e3-18c4-4635...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
=========================
I did....You're very wrong.
olddog
retired54
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html
Maybe you're talking about something else?
olddog
Matt Silberstein
Zone <mog...@hotmail.com> in
<48414489-0c80-4085...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>Oct 21 2004 - AP Poll: Kerry 49% - Bush 46%
>========================================
>Today - Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
>========================================
>
>Editors just don't learn from history. Or is this all just another
>profitable circus again ??
Your source and mine don't seem to agree:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/_rcp_2004result_2004rcp_now.php
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html
>(you answer)
>
>On Oct 19, 4:56�pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>> Powell is endorsing Obama because Obama is a Black
>> man like him, period.
>
>Otherwise, Powell is republican. Are Powell's doings even his ??
His what? Anyway, is Susan Eisenhower Black? Ken Adlemen? William
Weld? C.C. Goldwater? Charles Fried? Arne Carlson?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
John Baker
I have little doubt that the GOP will try to steal the election, but
given Obama's commanding lead in virtually every poll, they're going
to have some serious explaining to do if McCain squeaks by.
And if that happens, Obama is a damned fool if he doesn't demand a
full investigation.
>
>olddog
>
olddog
=================================================
Where are you getting your data? I watched that election pretty carefully
and I don't remember it that way.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html
If you just keep posting this nonsense with no proof I'll just assume you're
a troll.
olddog
Transition Zone
wrote:
> alt.atheism
>
> >Oct 21 2004 - AP Poll:Kerry49% - Bush 46%
> >========================================
> >Today - Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
> >========================================
>
> >Editors just don't learn from history. Or is this all just another
> >profitable circus again ??
>
> There's a slight difference between an eight point lead and a four
> point one, but look at the electoral maps.
>
> October 25, 2004
>
> http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Oct25.html
>
> October 25, 2008
>
> http://www.electoral-vote.com/
>
> In 2004 Bush had a clear lead in electoral votes. Today, it's Obama
> with an overwhelmin lead even without battleground states.
That's beside the point - which is that people polled claim they
support the dem
when they actually plan to vote for the repub.
Transition Zone
> "Transition Zone" <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1f1fd2e3-18c4-4635...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 25, 1:34 pm, "retired54" <ne...@mind.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:igl6g4t4j85qnqbmq...@4ax.com...
>
> > > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:26:03 -0700 (PDT), Transition Zone
> > > <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>Oct 21 2004 - AP Poll:Kerry49% - Bush 46%
> > >>========================================
> > >>Today - Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
> > >>========================================
>
> > >>Editors just don't learn from history. Or is this all just another
> > >>profitable circus again ??
>
> > >>(you answer)
>
> > >Kerrywasn't so faraheadat this time four years ago that the GOP had
> > > all but conceded the election. This time around, even the majority of
> > > Republicans don't foresee a win for their side.
>
> > Correct
>
> > All one has to do is Google 2004 presidential polls and see Bush
> > maintained
> > a slim lead withKerryoccasionally taking a very slim lead. The electoral
> > map looked MUCH different. The way it is today it's going to take a
> > miracle
> > for McCain to win.
>
> google it.
>
> =========================
>
> I did....You're very wrong.
What I quoted is not wrong.
Transition Zone
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:34:26 GMT, "retired54" <ne...@mind.com> wrote:
>
> >"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
> >news:igl6g4t4j85qnqbmq...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:26:03 -0700 (PDT), Transition Zone
>
> >>>Oct 21 2004 - AP Poll:Kerry49% - Bush 46%
> >>>========================================
> >>>Today - Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
> >>>========================================
>
> >>>Editors just don't learn from history. Or is this all just another
> >>>profitable circus again ??
>
> >>>(you answer)
>
> >> all but conceded the election. This time around, even the majority of
> >> Republicans don't foresee a win for their side.
>
> >Correct
>
> >All one has to do is Google 2004 presidential polls and see Bush maintained
> >map looked MUCH different. The way it is today it's going to take a miracle
> >for McCain to win.
>
> I have little doubt that the GOP will try to steal the election, but
> given Obama's commanding lead in virtually every poll, they're going
> to have some serious explaining to do if McCain squeaks by.
Certainly no more than what the Cal Gov George Deukmejian
Administration had to.
Transition Zone
> "Transition Zone" <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:08a424b0-8ccb-48ca...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 25, 6:52 pm, Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Transition Zone
> > <mogu...@hotmail.com> carved the following into the hard stone of
> > alt.atheism
>
> > >Oct 21 2004 - AP Poll:Kerry49% - Bush 46%
> > >========================================
> > >Today - Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
> > >========================================
>
> > >Editors just don't learn from history. Or is this all just another
> > >profitable circus again ??
>
> > There's a slight difference between an eight point lead and a four
> > point one, but look at the electoral maps.
>
> > October 25, 2004
>
> >http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Oct25.html
>
> > October 25, 2008
>
> >http://www.electoral-vote.com/
>
> > In 2004 Bush had a clear lead in electoral votes. Today, it's Obama
> > with an overwhelmin lead even without battleground states.
>
> the actual election, we haven't even DISCUSSED the Bradley effect
> that's going to factor in in, at least a few areas.
>
> You are grossly overestimating Obama's lead. Every Rush Limbaugh
> supporter out there is saying "vote Obama". And everyone knows what's
> coming in the voting booth.
>
> Why do we OVER-IDEALISTIC dems always have to learn the hard way??
>
> =================================================
>
> Where are you getting your data? I watched that election pretty carefully
> and I don't remember it that way.
>
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html
>
> If you just keep posting this nonsense with no proof I'll just assume you're
> a troll.
Yes, well. Remind me to go easy on you after Nov 2nd. BTW, can you say
the phrase "Bradley Effect" ??
No ?? I didn't think so.
retired54
============================
sorry....i just don't get it but i'm sure you do
olddog
Transition Zone
> olddog <em...@address.com> wrote:
>
> > Where are you getting your data? I watched that election pretty carefully
> > and I don't remember it that way.
>
> >http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html
>
> > If you just keep posting this nonsense with no proof I'll just assume you're
> > a troll.
>
> > olddog
>
> but it can't account for how young voters are underrepresented in polls,
It even did in the New Hampshire Dem Primary giving Hillary the win,
there.
But, I don't think that olddog is here to talk facts, instead, he's
just here to sling around the "troll" name like most everyone else.
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Oct 25, 1:25 pm, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:26:03 -0700 (PDT), Transition Zone
>>
>> <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Oct 21 2004 - AP Poll:Kerry49% - Bush 46%
>>> ========================================
>>> Today - Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
>>> ========================================
>>> Editors just don't learn from history. Or is this all just another
>>> profitable circus again ??
>>> (you answer)
>> Kerrywasn't so faraheadat this time four years ago that the GOP had
>> all but conceded the election. This time around, even the majority of
>> Republicans don't foresee a win for their side.
>
> OMG - that's just one or two repubs. Even Yahoo's own front page,
> today on Oct 28, 2008 at 1:12PM Est says that Obama is averaging 50.6%
> percent ahead of McCain's 43.4%. This is virtually a carbon copy of
> the Kerry/Bush situation 4 years ago today, right-on-the-money.
Except you're full of shit.
At this point in 2004, Bush was at about 49% and Kerry was at about
47.5%. Which means Obama is a point higher than the winner of 2004 was
at this point and McCain is abut 5.5 points *below* the loser of 2004.
By the way, the EC map this far out in 2004 looked like this:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Oct29.html
Notice Bush with 281 a week before the election? And who was the winner?
Now, here's today's map:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Obama: 364
Guess who the winner is going to be?
We actually haven't seen EC maps like this since the Reagan landslide of
'84.
Put *that* in your pipe and smoke it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"You know, I'd get it if people were just looking for a
way to fill the holes. But they want the holes. They wanna
live in the holes. And they go nuts when someone else
pours dirt in their holes.
"Climb out of your holes people!"
- Dr. House, on faith
Mark K. Bilbo
And all the people saying they're going to vote for McCain are lying and
will vote for the Socialist Party candidate.
Sheesh...
Mark K. Bilbo
And Googling it will show that Kerry was behind one week before the
election. Further that Bush had more than enough projected EVs (about
281) to win.
retired54
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:or2nt5-...@blaze.blaze.net...
olddog
JustObservant
They can't steal "a landslide." It's also difficult to steal the
"current social pulse" that is about to elect Obama by a very
comfortable lead!
Transition Zone
> Transition Zone wrote:
>
> > No. 4 years ago,Kerryclearly maintained a 50% lead in polling. Just
> > google it.
>
> And Googling it will show thatKerrywas behind one week before the
> election. Further that Bush had more than enough projected EVs (about
> 281) to win.
Kerry was shown to be ahead of Bush in many areas in toss up states
up to and even DURING the election. Read here:
"washingtonpost.com
Surveying the Damage
Exit Polls Can't Predict Winners, So Don't Expect Them To
By Richard Morin
Sunday, November 21, 2004; Page B01
It will be a few more weeks before we know exactly what went wrong
with the 2004 exit polls. But this much we know right now: The
resulting furor was the best thing that could have happened to
journalism, to polling and to the bloggers who made this year's
Election Day such a cheap thrill.
That's because the 2004 election may have finally stripped exit
polling of its reputation as the crown jewel of political surveys,
somehow immune from the myriad problems that affect telephone polls
and other types of public opinion surveys. Instead, this face-to-face,
catch-the-voters-on-the-way-out poll has been revealed for what it is:
just another poll, with all the problems and imperfections endemic to
the craft.
It's also time to make our peace with those self-important bloggers
who took it upon themselves to release the first rounds of leaked exit
poll results. Those numbers showed Democrat John F. Kerry with a
narrow lead, which ignited premature celebrations in one camp and
needless commiseration in the other -- until the actual votes showed
President Bush had won.
If a few hours on the roller coaster of ecstasy and agony were all
that anyone had to endure, only the political junkies would be
interested in the whys and wherefores of the exit poll confusion. But
the false picture had real impact: The stock market plummeted nearly
100 points in the last two hours of trading, and the evening news was
replete with veiled hints of good news to come for the Kerry campaign.
Since then, some disappointed and angry Bush-bashers have seized upon
the early numbers as evidence of something amiss in the outcome. You
can read it on the Internet -- the election was stolen, the early exit
poll numbers were right.
But rather than flog the bloggers for rushing to publish the raw exit
poll data on their Web sites, we may owe them a debt of gratitude. A
few more presidential elections like this one and the public will
learn to do the right thing and simply ignore news of early exit poll
data. Then perhaps people will start ignoring the bloggers, who proved
once more that their spectacular lack of judgment is matched only by
their abundant arrogance.
It seems clear now that the 2004 exit polls were rife with problems,
most of them small but none trivial. Skewed samples, technical
glitches and a woefully inept question that included the undefined
term "moral values" in a list of concrete issues all combined to give
exit polling its third black eye in as many elections.
The sampling errors gave a boost to Kerry, who led in all six releases
of national exit poll results issued on Election Day by the National
Election Pool (NEP), the consortium of the major TV networks and the
Associated Press that sponsored the massive survey project. (The Post
received exit poll data as an NEP subscriber.)
In the first release, at 12:59 p.m. on Election Day, Kerry led Bush 50
percent to 49 percent, which startled partisans on both sides. That
statistically insignificant advantage grew to three percentage points
in a late-afternoon release, where it remained for hours, even as the
actual count began to suggest the opposite outcome. It was only at
1:33 a.m. Wednesday that updated exit poll results showed Bush ahead
by a point.
Even more curious numbers were emerging from individual states. The
final Virginia figures showed Bush with a narrow lead. Exit poll data
from Pennsylvania, which was held back for more than an hour, showed
Kerry ahead by nine percentage points. The actual results: Bush
crushed Kerry in Virginia by nine points, while Kerry took
Pennsylvania by just a two-point margin."'
-- www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64906-2004Nov20.html
Transition Zone
> Transition Zone wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 1:25 pm, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:26:03 -0700 (PDT), Transition Zone
>
> >> <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Oct 21 2004 - AP Poll:Kerry49% - Bush 46%
> >>> ========================================
> >>> Today - Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
> >>> ========================================
> >>> Editors just don't learn from history. Or is this all just another
> >>> profitable circus again ??
> >>> (you answer)
> >> Kerrywasn't so faraheadat this time four years ago that the GOP had
> >> all but conceded the election. This time around, even the majority of
> >> Republicans don't foresee a win for their side.
>
> > OMG - that's just one or two repubs. Even Yahoo's own front page,
> > today on Oct 28, 2008 at 1:12PM Est says that Obama is averaging 50.6%
> > percent ahead of McCain's 43.4%. This is virtually a carbon copy of
> > the Kerry/Bush situation 4 years ago today, right-on-the-money.
>
> Except you're full of shit.
>
> At this point in 2004, Bush was at about 49% and Kerry was at about
> 47.5%. Which means Obama is a point higher than the winner of 2004 was
> at this point and McCain is abut 5.5 points *below* the loser of 2004.
Horsey.
The Washington Post even says Kerry was ahead - even up TOO election
day. Get your facts straight.
And all this doesn't even address Obama's Bradley Effect problems
coming up.
"washingtonpost.com
Surveying the Damage
Exit Polls Can't Predict Winners, So Don't Expect Them To
By Richard Morin
Sunday, November 21, 2004; Page B01
The sampling errors gave a boost to Kerry, who led in all six