Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 238): Slipping pro-sexual and pro-homosexual information under-the-wire,

So you only say that there should be anti-homosexual information and anti-sex information?

Got a newsflash. Sex is a part of life. The vast majority of people will have sex. And the vast majority will not wait until marriage.

Offering factual information is what schools are supposed to do.

Fact: There is lots of scientific evidence for evolution
Fact: There is ZERO scientific evidence for creation. And I mean ZERO. I'm not getting into the debate here, but this is an incontrovertible fact, as clear as the statement that the earth orbits the sun and with about as much evidence for it. (You will recall that religion tried to block that "theory," too.) And I am aware of ICR and it's "scientists." They have produced ZERO valid scientific evidence. ZERO.

I prefer to teach facts.

FACT: Males have penises. Females have vaginas. They can be combined in certain methods to produce extreme pleasure. This extreme pleasure carries a load of risks and consequences with it. These risks can be reduced by utilizing a number of readily-available implements including condoms (male and female), hormonal birth control, diaphragms, intrauterine devices, etc.

FACT: Some men like to have sex with other men and some women like to have sex with other women. These people exist, live with us, work with us, pay taxes and bills, and go on about their lives like the rest of us. They are not to be feared and you cannot "catch it."

But you would call the above "pro-sex" and "pro-homosexual."

You would also ignore data demonstrating that teaching the above 1) reduces teenage sex 2) reduces teenage pregnancy and 3) reduces teenage STD incidence.

Because THAT is the GOP platform. Screw the facts. Screw the evidence. Screw doing what works, just grab a cross and a flag and hold them high, declare that we are the "real American" and "Pro-America" (direct quote from S.P.) and that this is how we're going to proceed because it's the RIGHT thing to do, even if it kills us!

Meanwhile, some tax cuts for the rich, slip a lot of money in government contracts to security firms, mercenaries, oil companies, and others, and then we wonder why the country is going to hell in a handbasket.

Fortunately, MD80, it appears that a majority of people in the U.S. have more smarts than you do. They've seen what these policies have done to the U.S. We were once the most powerful and greatest nation in the world and now we are a crumbling, falling empire.

And that's why the GOP is going to lose the whole Federal Government after November 4. I very much hope that people remember 2008 the next time the GOP has a "plan."

And to add fodder to the discussion:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081024/ap_on_re_us/high_school_hiv

Education? Prevention?

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 251): Education? Prevention?

I like the Catholic Church's approach. Condoms are bad, even if they stop HIV. Even in Africa where 30% of people have HIV people shouldn't use condoms.

That's dogma for ya.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 250): I prefer to teach facts.

-Your- version of the facts.

Here's someone else's version.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ven-new-Government-curriculum.html

Check out the comments on that article, to see what the average parent really thinks. That's not "Duhmerica", so you won't find the anti-traditionalist censorship you find on this side of the pond.

Looks like teaching crap to kids won't fly so far in Great Britain. Happy, they are not.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 253): -Your- version of the facts.

No no no. THE facts. There's only version of the facts.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 253): Check out the comments on that article, to see what the average parent really thinks.

The comments are the same as yours. Brainless, emotive, full of falsehoods, and completely illogical.

Children are prepared to learn about sex when they ask about it. But MD80 would probably tell his six-year-old that he was brought by the stork.

Meanwhile, my kid would get a copy of Where Did I Come From? by Peter Mayle.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 254): No no no. THE facts. There's only version of the facts.

Data is data, facts are how you choose to assemble and present the data. A report is still "factual" even if you intentionally leave out a portion of the data, as long as the data you keep remains faithful to the original sampling. So stop right there.

As I have said seemingly a hundred times, in the complete absence of sexual instruction in school, sexual television, sexual magazines, sexual music etc. the kids will develop as they ought to.....by playing sports, joining a boys or girls club, mowing lawns or selling lemonade, doing their homework, doing chores, learning from mom and dad, etc. None of these things are happening now in the numbers of old. Sure is an awful lot of meaningless sex going on though.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 254): Children are prepared to learn about sex when they ask about it. But MD80 would probably tell his six-year-old that he was brought by the stork. Meanwhile, my kid would get a copy of Where Did I Come From? by Peter Mayle.

The stork story is perfectly fitting for a child of 6. They need not know more.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 255): in the complete absence of sexual instruction in school, sexual television, sexual magazines, sexual music etc. the kids will develop as they ought to.....by playing sports, joining a boys or girls club, mowing lawns or selling lemonade, doing their homework, doing chores, learning from mom and dad, etc. None of these things are happening now in the numbers of old. Sure is an awful lot of meaningless sex going on though.

You do realize that the era with highest teen pregnancy rate was the 50's right? Where girls were sent to "finishing school" for 9 months..

You're using the same technique I just castigated Doc about. Using "data" that was custom assembled, 60 years ago, for the purpose of trying to sway America into your evil sex-ed curriculum. I say evil because the intention of it is -not- to educate kids (as we have been told), but to indoctrinate them as early as possible into adult sex.

Hey.....if you care about America, you would put all of this to a vote. But you know a vote would eliminate all possibilities of programming all our children to be porn stars.

Let us vote on your "sex ed"? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 257): I say evil because the intention of it is -not- to educate kids (as we have been told), but to indoctrinate them as early as possible into adult sex.

Uh huh.. Look at Hanna Montana.. Look at Disney movies like High School Musical.. those are more far more encourage teen sex than having Miss. Fields tell a child that their parents get it on

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 258): Uh huh.. Look at Hanna Montana.. Look at Disney movies like High School Musical..

For once we agree. Two pieces of celluloid that the world could easily do without.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 255): As I have said seemingly a hundred times, in the complete absence of sexual instruction in school, sexual television, sexual magazines, sexual music etc. the kids will develop as they ought to.....by playing sports, joining a boys or girls club, mowing lawns or selling lemonade, doing their homework, doing chores, learning from mom and dad, etc. None of these things are happening now in the numbers of old. Sure is an awful lot of meaningless sex going on though.

But the farther back in time you go, likely the younger the average mother's age. In the early 1900's people weren't being taught about fisting in kindergarten (your horrific claim, not mine), watching "sexual television," reading "sexual magazines" or listening to "sexual music."

What's the explanation?

Could it just possibly be that you're wrong?

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 257): evil sex-ed curriculum

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 257): indoctrinate them as early as possible into adult sex

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 257): programming all our children to be porn stars

Reading your claims, which get more ludicrous with every post you make, I somehow get the impression that you have a problem with sexuality as a whole. The concept seems threatening to you, and the thought that people (particularly young people) have a healthy sex life or sexual urges seems to disgust you. I don't want to get too personal, but I'm starting to believe that there's something in your individual background that triggers these emotions.

I suggest we round up the discussion; you have shown that you're not listening to any rational argumentation, you answer facts and data with propaganda (see above) and since you get more and more emotional, we're not really on the same basis anymore.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 258): Uh huh.. Look at Hanna Montana.. Look at Disney movies like High School Musical.. those are more far more encourage teen sex than having Miss. Fields tell a child that their parents get it on

If you think that those programs encourage teen sex, then what exactly do most of the
programming on MTV, VH-1, and the CW do? Add narcissism to the mix?

Aside from the the constant commercial plugs on the network, I'd rather have my kids watch
the Disney Channel as opposed to one of the before mentioned networks.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 255): The stork story is perfectly fitting for a child of 6. They need not know more.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness."

Especially to a child.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 262): If you think that those programs encourage teen sex, then what exactly do most of the programming on MTV, VH-1, and the CW do? Add narcissism to the mix? Aside from the the constant commercial plugs on the network, I'd rather have my kids watch the Disney Channel as opposed to one of the before mentioned networks.

It just a different age group. Disney pick them up in th 10-15 age group with HSM and Hanna Montana, the delivers them to MTV, and CW for the rest of their teenage years.

UGh.. 12 year old girls dressed like street walkers in Hanna Montana clothes.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 239): How about making people work insead of giving them welfare? How about not rewarding teen welfare mothers with a government check. Sound a little too drastic?

That's great but what do you do with the baby?

My answer:
"If you are under the age of 18 and you father or mother a child, you may not keep the child."

In other words, you may abort or the baby can immediately go to non-related adoption. But the first and only legal qualification for being a parent should be that you have to be an adult first.

Oh, you Americans are so funny...  

Lowrider:
From the other thread

I think just about any Democratic candidate would be ahead of McCain, even if Biden was the nominee.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 267): I think just about any Democratic candidate would be ahead of McCain, even if Biden was the nominee.

Looks like Dash has a new nickname. Hidin Biden. I wonder if he knows just how deep in the crypt he will be buried if he gets to be the VP? What a change, going from an outspoken Senator in charge of his own committee, to crypt keeper in the old executive office building. Wonder if he still thinks its worth the trade? He'll probably be able to claim he has a lot in common with Harry Truman before too long.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1854640,00.html

Well it looks like that 250K marker for Obama's tax increase is being lowererd to 150K
according to Biden (it wasn't a gaffe either). Somehow, I think that marker will go even lower.
At least that means even more wealth will be redistributed! YES WE CAN!!!

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 269): Well it looks like that 250K marker for Obama's tax increase is being lowererd to 150K according to Biden

Yeah, I saw that in the news. It was only a matter of time. Right after January 20th we will start hearing from the Obama administration that the situation is much worse than they thought. Sound familar? Worked in '93, why not run that play again.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 270): Right after January 20th we will start hearing from the Obama administration

Are you admitting that you are on the losing side in this election?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 271): Are you admitting that you are on the losing side in this election?

I've been saying that we would have a democratic party member in the White House for over 2 years now, where have you been?

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 199): O's agenda is so 'gay' - according to Matt Barber

Quoting Superfly (Reply 267): I think just about any Democratic candidate would be ahead of McCain, even if Biden was the nominee.

Oh really?

Obama is only 2 or 3 percent ahead (likely voters - registered voters doesn't mean squat this late), and to achieve that:
- he had to rennig on campaign finance and has outspent McCain 4 to 1
- The election is happening weeks after the worst economic disaster in 70 years
- Obama has the active support of nearly the entire media establishment (such as the LA Times sitting on a potentially damaging tape)
- He has benefitted from the most professionally run campaign in history, against one of the worst.

With all those advantages Obama should be 20 or 30 points ahead, not just 2 or 3. If it wasn't for the added magic of the racial significance, McCain would be ahead.

And if Obama did not have any one of the advantages listed above, he'd be losing.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 273):

Well said and for the most part true. I might disagree on the professional campaign only because the media is more than willing to drag him across the finish line so it's been nothing but the No Drama Obama tour.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 273): He has benefitted from the most professionally run campaign in history,

Hmmm, shouldn't that read; "Obama has organized the most professionally run campaign in history"?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 273): With all those advantages Obama should be 20 or 30 points ahead,

I've been saying that dozens of times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 273): If it wasn't for the added magic of the racial significance, McCain would be ahead.

You really think that his race is a plus?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 274): I might disagree on the professional campaign only because the media is more than willing to drag him across the finish line so it's been nothing but the No Drama Obama tour.

No question, Obama's campaign has been extremely well managed. They have made very few mistakes. The only mistakes on the Obama camp are those occasions when Obama is unscripted and says what he really thinks (income redistribution etc).

Just wait - the campaign has raised the bar forever. from 2012 onwards, both sides will spend $1 billion or more, and will have James Cameron-level production values. Wonderful... just what we need - a longer, more extravagant election run-up..

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 277): Either way I'm sick tired of this nation and its obsession with race/ethnicity/color/gender, etc. Can't we just have two Americans running for President instead of a black one and a white one?

  
Amen!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 273): If it wasn't for the added magic of the racial significance, McCain would be ahead.

Would you care to elaborate this statement? I'm serious, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here. He's getting votes because of his race, or losing them because of it?

Either way I'm sick tired of this nation and its obsession with race/ethnicity/color/gender, etc. Can't we just have two Americans running for President instead of a black one and a white one?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 275): Hmmm, shouldn't that read; "Obama has organized the most professionally run campaign in history"?

No, because he didn't. He laid out what he wanted and hired Plouffe, Alexrod, and Rouse to do the day to day work. Those three are the ones running the campaign.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 275): You really think that his race is a plus?

Absolutely. If he were white he would not be the nominee.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 275): Hmmm, shouldn't that read; "Obama has organized the most professionally run campaign in history"?

What makes you think he organized it. He's the star. Producers and directors behind him pull the strings. That's what campaign managers do.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 275): You really think that his race is a plus?

Let's see - you have 95% of the black population voting for Obama simply because (as one black guy told me last week), "he's a brother" (actually he used another term - starts with 'n'). Black turnout has been exceptionally high as well. That should more than overcome the 2 or 3% that won't vote for a black guy.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 277): Would you care to elaborate this statement? I'm serious, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here. He's getting votes because of his race, or losing them because of it?

I'm saying he's gaining votes. The whole 'white guilt' thing. I know more than one woman who will vote for him just for that.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 280): (as one black guy told me last week),

Sounds like a real scientific sample.  

I thought you had an better understanding of politics than this. Blacks usually vote Democratic around 90% and most of the time, the Democratic candidate is White. So to say that all or even 95% of Blacks are solely basing their vote on race is completely false. Now if the Republicans nominated say....Alan Keyes and suddenly 95% of Blacks were supporting Keyes, then you'd have a point. So far, you don't.
I'd like to see where you are getting your numbers from.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 280): That should more than overcome the 2 or 3% that won't vote for a black guy.

Care to back up those numbers?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 282): I thought you had an better understanding of politics than this. Blacks usually vote Democratic around 90% and most of the time, the Democratic candidate is White.

But turnout appears to be extremely high. That makes the difference.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 282): Sounds like a real scientific sample.

What can I say - met him at a pawnshop trying to hock a guitar.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 273): Obama is only 2 or 3 percent ahead (likely voters - registered voters doesn't mean squat this late), and to achieve that: - he had to rennig on campaign finance and has outspent McCain 4 to 1 - The election is happening weeks after the worst economic disaster in 70 years - Obama has the active support of nearly the entire media establishment (such as the LA Times sitting on a potentially damaging tape) - He has benefitted from the most professionally run campaign in history, against one of the worst. With all those advantages Obama should be 20 or 30 points ahead, not just 2 or 3. If it wasn't for the added magic of the racial significance, McCain would be ahead. And if Obama did not have any one of the advantages listed above, he'd be losing.

These are the hallmarks of someone who will be a better leader. You could have the greatest campaign people, but it counts for nothing if you stand up on stage and make a mess of your campaign presentations. Obama hasn't - so far as I've seen, he's put on a polished performance.

The worst economic disaster is something that could have happened to anyone, it's just that it happened when the Republicans were in power. If Obama had been in G.W. Bush's shoes at this moment, the Democrat candidate would have been hammered by the Republicans over this.

The point is, the Republicans seem to be scared of talking about the economy.

McCain carries on with all this ridiculous "fight, fight, fight" nonsense at his campaigns, while Sarah Palin does little more than throw grenades at the Republican campaign through her silly "hockey-mom/lipstick" rhetoric (what's that got to do with running a country?).

The Republican campaign has blundered from one crisis to the next and Sarah Palin badly eroded any credibility McCain may otherwise still had. Palin is seen as a joke. She is the subject of jokes and satire and she continues to provide more and more material for the satirists to work with. Palin needs to start acting seriously, or don't say anything at all. Everything she says seems to land the Republicans in some kind of hot-water or controversy. That's not good for the campaign.

Obama has run a superb campaign - but the main thing he hasn't done is allow himself to be the subject of jokes and satire. He doesn't give the satirists much to work with.

However, I still believe the Republicans were in for a tough fight, even without the self-inflicted Palin problems. They had a very tough sell trying to distance themselves from the existing unpopular Republican leadership.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 282): Blacks usually vote Democratic around 90% and most of the time,

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 283): But turnout appears to be extremely high. That makes the difference.

And that is the difference. The black turnout to vote has historically been pretty low. Not the case this time and they aren't voting for McCain so what's that tell you Larry?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 279): Absolutely. If he were white he would not be the nominee.

I actually wondered about this myself during the primary season where he ran against a much more experienced candidate who knows what it takes to win the Presidency. A lot of people claimed that this was because voters did not want to be seen as being racist and thus, by voting for the "black" guy, they could clear their conscience.

However a more likely theory is that voters really did want a break from the old, a break from tradition, a fresh, new start, and Obama represented that. A relatively new face in Washington, from a single-parent family, of mixed race, eloquent, and promising "change". Given that most people actually don't think about the issues as hard as folks like you, or Dreadnought, or Aaron747, or Superfly do, instead take a superficial glimpse at the issues and listen to the media, it's easy to see how he became the nominee and may even win the election. Let's face it, with an unpopular President and an equally unpopular Congress even Donald Duck would have been seen as a great candidate. The fact that Obama is an excellent speaker clinched it for him. So I think his race might have helped him but the circumstances around probably helped him more.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 280): Let's see - you have 95% of the black population voting for Obama simply because (as one black guy told me last week), "he's a brother"

This I have an issue with. In my book it is equally ignorant and wrong to vote against a person because of their race/gender as it is to vote for the person because of their race/gender. I still got what, 5 days to decide, but if I end up voting for McCain it won't be because he's white and the other guy black, or vice versa. To vote based on those superficial labels that we are so good at giving to people is to not exercise your right to vote appropriately. It would be like me voting for a gay candidate simply because he's gay. Alright, so he may understand my situation a bit better but it would have to be coupled with experience and a proven track of being a good leader. Otherwise I'll vote for the old lady who lives with her cat.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 285): And that is the difference. The black turnout to vote has historically been pretty low. Not the case this time and they aren't voting for McCain so what's that tell you Larry?

What it tells me is that they are thinking, here is someone who might make a difference, someone who doesn't appear to be another member of the old men's club that doesn't want to know or care about me.

But that goes for any group of voters who feels like the candidates are all out-of-touch.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 284): Obama hasn't - so far as I've seen, he's put on a polished performance.

Reagan put on a polished performance and there are those here that will still say he was a bad President. Being able to speak well, or looking good, means nothing when it comes to leading.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 286): So I think his race might have helped him but the circumstances around probably helped him more.

If Sen. Obama were the white junior Senator from Illinois do you think he would have gotten the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention? Do you think the press would have given him even half the attention that they did? With Senator Clinton in the race? Sorry, but I don't think he would be the nominee given those circumstances.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 287): What it tells me is that they are thinking, here is someone who might make a difference, someone who doesn't appear to be another member of the old men's club that doesn't want to know or care about me.

That's a nice fairy tale. Tell me, where were they when Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton were running and those two have done much more for the black population over the decades than Senator Obama.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 288): Tells me that McCain did a poor job reaching out to Black voters.

By your own words blacks vote for democratic party candidates 90% of the time. No matter how much he reached out it wasn't going to matter.

RJdxer:
So why are you griping since there isn't a significant change in how Blacks vote?

If there was a Latino candidate running, there would be a large amount of support from Latinos for the Latino candidate. Big deal!
If there was a Asian candidate running, there would be a large amount of support from Asians for the Asian candidate. Big deal!
If there was a Indian candidate running, there would be a large amount of support from Indians for the Indian candidate. Big deal!
If there was a Jewish candidate running, there would be a large amount of support from Jewish voters for the Jewish candidate. Big deal!

[Edited 2008-10-29 18:53:56]

[Edited 2008-10-29 18:56:02]

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 289): Tell me, where were they when Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton were running and those two have done much more for the black population over the decades than Senator Obama.

BTW, Obama is not trying to a Black leader. He is striving to be an American leader.
You need to look past his skin color James.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 289): By your own words blacks vote for democratic party candidates 90% of the time. No matter how much he reached out it wasn't going to matter.

I think this is a weak argument. Traditionally blacks vote for Democratic candidates in high percentages. It is entirely realistic to say McCain won't win the majority of black voters. But by appealing to black voters, he can shave the percentage. Shaving the black vote to 80 or 70 percent in states such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio can have the effect of tipping the state in McCain's direction. He would be effectively diluting the power of the black vote.

Now, you could made the argument that it isn't cost effective for McCain to appeal to black voters - i.e., the time and material resources devoted to persuading 10 to 20 percent of the black vote in keys states is high and could be better spent elsewhere in the campaign.

But it is interesting to note that Obama's campaign has had the courage to reach out to demographics in the electorate that are not traditionally Democratic. He isn't going to win the white male vote, for example. But he's making it much closer than Kerry or Gore did (at least in the polls) and it has the overall effect of tipping states in his direction.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 289): If Sen. Obama were the white junior Senator from Illinois do you think he would have gotten the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention? Do you think the press would have given him even half the attention that they did? With Senator Clinton in the race? Sorry, but I don't think he would be the nominee given those circumstances.

I'm not saying his race did not help, of course it did, but it alone by itself did not carry him through. Would he be where he is right now had he been white? Probably not, but his other qualities/characteristics that I brought up (eloquence, fresh face, charisma, promise of change, etc) would still be there, as well as the circumstances that made his candidacy more acceptable. It's all academic right now, but who knows maybe he could have had a chance. I guess we'll never know, right?

Now, shouldn't we focus instead on why his race helped him in the first place? Or why should it matter? Let's face it RJ, our country, as great as it is, still has some very serious issues when it comes to race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation.

Let me turn it around on you for a second. Would you say that Hillary lost the nomination because she's a woman? I think that contributed to it partially, and the way in which the media is attacking Palin right now makes it even more obvious. The media has focused its attention on Palin's wardrobe, pregnancy, domestic situation, etc. Now, is that fair? Do we talk about Obama's ties or McCain's prostate? There's a lot of people in the US who don't view women in power in a positive way (how many times did they call Hillary a [email protected]* in here) unfortunately female candidates feel the heat for it more so than their male counterparts.

As a side topic anyone else catch the Hollywood-esque Obama ad that ran for 30 mins?

Quoting Cpd (Reply 284): The point is, the Republicans seem to be scared of talking about the economy.

He's been talking about virtually nothing but the economy, and the dangers of a redistributionist.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 284): The Republican campaign has blundered from one crisis to the next and Sarah Palin badly eroded any credibility McCain may otherwise still had. Palin is seen as a joke. She is the subject of jokes and satire and she continues to provide more and more material for the satirists to work with. Palin needs to start acting seriously, or don't say anything at all. Everything she says seems to land the Republicans in some kind of hot-water or controversy. That's not good for the campaign.

Because she has been slammed hard by the MSM. If she wasn't a threat, would they have bothered? She hasn't made a fraction of the gaffes that the experienced Joe Biden has made, and he gets a pass every time.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 284): Obama has run a superb campaign - but the main thing he hasn't done is allow himself to be the subject of jokes and satire. He doesn't give the satirists much to work with.

Yes, he has had a superb campaign. As far as being the butt of jokes, his campaign immediately accuses such attempts as racism. Question him about Wright? that's racism. Complain about welfare and redistribution? That's racism. We hear that every other day, and it's a huge cannon in the US. Guaranteed, if he becomes president, he will continue to use that weapon to silence critics (through surrogates, of course).

Quoting Superfly (Reply 291): BTW, Obama is not trying to a Black leader. He is striving to be an American leader.

Granted, but he is still too quick to use the race card. He's used it twice directly against McCain ("Did I mention he's black", remember?) who has NEVER raised any sort of racial attacks of any sort.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 290): If there was a Jewish candidate running, there would be a large amount of support from Jewish voters for the Jewish candidate. Big deal!

Know why, though? Because we know that, no matter how religious he is, he's not going to try to drive his religion down anyone's throat because Judaism expressly forbids proslyetizing and discourages conversion.

And if you're a Jew, religious freedom becomes quite important when people keep trying to pass laws institutionalizing Christianity.

So that's why he'd get Jewish support. Most of the time, we don't think of ourselves as much of a minority.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 295): Because she has been slammed hard by the MSM. If she wasn't a threat, would they have bothered? She hasn't made a fraction of the gaffes that the experienced Joe Biden has made, and he gets a pass every time.

What is with this conspiracy theory about the media?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 295): Yes, he has had a superb campaign. As far as being the butt of jokes, his campaign immediately accuses such attempts as racism. Question him about Wright? that's racism. Complain about welfare and redistribution? That's racism. We hear that every other day, and it's a huge cannon in the US. Guaranteed, if he becomes president, he will continue to use that weapon to silence critics (through surrogates, of course).

I haven't heard that yet. Give me some examples.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 289): If Sen. Obama were the white junior Senator from Illinois do you think he would have gotten the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention? Do you think the press would have given him even half the attention that they did? With Senator Clinton in the race? Sorry, but I don't think he would be the nominee given those circumstances.

That's pretty weak sauce you're serving.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 296): What is with this conspiracy theory about the media?

Do ou really live in the US?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 296): I haven't heard that yet. Give me some examples.

In June, Obama plays the race card: “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2040982720080620

In August, DNC Chair Howard Dean plays his card: “If you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the [laughs] Republican party.”

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/153493.html

On the September 12th edition of “The View” Whoopi Goldberg asks McCain: Do I Have To Be Worried About Becoming a Slave Again?” if McCain appoints originalist justices to the Supreme Court.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/jus...worries-about-becoming-slave-again

On September 17th Obama tells his supporters to “argue and get in their face” of people who do not support him.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...-obama-tells-supporters-argue.html

The same week Obama put out a Spanish language ad misquoting Rush Limbaugh as suggesting “Mexicans are stupid” and should “shut your mouth or get out.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09...to-rush-limbaugh-stir-controversy/

On September 24, impeached corrupt judge and Democrat Congressman Alcee Hastings said: “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. “

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/2...what-they-do-with-jews-and-blacks/

On October 9, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid implied that any connection between Obama and failed Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines was racist because “The only connection that people could bring up about Raines and Barack Obama is they both are African-American, other than that there is nothing.”

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/192383.html

And let’s not forget all the examples from “news” media figures who opine that racism is the only reason Obama could lose.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...dberg23-2008sep23,0,6910088.column

And that last accusation has been aired daily for the past couple of weeks.

Why did Obama (during the debates) say tax breaks for everyone that makes less than $250,000, but tonight he said tax breaks for people making less than $200,000?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 297): In August, DNC Chair Howard Dean plays his card:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 297): On the September 12th edition of “The View” Whoopi Goldberg

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 297): On September 17th Obama tells his supporters to “argue and get in their face” of people who do not support him.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 297): Alcee Hastings

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 297): Harry Reid i

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 297): “news” media figures

So you hold Obama responsible for what everyone else says about him and for encouraging people to debate publicly?

Are you really interested in being an American?