Democratic Primaries from here

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Klark		#76	[url]	[-]
Posts: 778 05-10-08 8:07 PM	Kayso Gnomehater wrote: Being white and not voting for a black because they're black is not the same as being black and voting for someone because they're black -- not in this context. The exit polls only cited "race was a factor". It did not say what factor. You are making up the the talk about voting against someone because they are black. Why? Because you want to label people as racist for your own agenda. Pathetic.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Klark		#77	[url]	[-]
Posts: 778 05-10-08 8:19 PM	Cafu07 wrote: Cinabre wrote: Stupid, debatable, but not racist. And yes, the standard needs to be applied to both sides. No, there is a major difference between the two sides: Clinton has already lost so there's no reason to vote for her. At this point, votes for Clinton are actually votes against Obama. I'll give the people of Pennsylvania and Indiana a break because the media was still pretending that Clinton had a chance to win when they voted, but now the media has admitted what those of us who understand a little math knew over a month ago: this primary is over. The vast majority of those that will vote against Obama now do so because they are racists. And we have two states chock full of racists coming up next on the schedule. Strange, because this thread starts with showing that math proving that Hillary DOES have a chance to win. It's a small chance, but a chance. You make up the lie about "Hillary has already lost" just to call people racist. You miss the inherent concept of an election - expressing a citizen's choice. We had the same problem back in the Spanish election after the Madrid bombing. Assigning one candidate as only a negative option based on outside forces reduces democracy to a farse. Why would people go to the polls if one option is "be a racist" option? It's moronic to boil a selection of candidates (although of the same party, each with different qualifications and outlooks) down to only one viable, non-racist choice. No only do you debase the idea of democracy but you damage society by, after the fact, assigning labels on people for expressing their choice. You two are the reason why racist still exists in our country.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
vizco		#78	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2950 05-10-08 9:09 PM Raid Peon	It's obvious that Clinton is staying the race because it's real close and something could happen between now and the convention to change people's minds about Obama enough to give her the nomination. She's a few hundred delegates behind, if that, out of four thousand, and is a woman who has a history of playing out her cards until the last hand. Clinton's votes are obviously votes against Obama; that doesn't make them racist any more than votes for Obama against Clinton make you a sexist. They obviously have policy and temperament differences that would make them very different Presidents; it's perfectly rational for Democrats to prefer one over the other without it being due to some character defect. Just because you are deeply in love with Obama doesn't mean everyone else is, or is a bad person for not understanding that he's the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and Abraham Lincoln all rolled into one. Insulting everyone who disagrees with you is hardly the best way to convince anyone you are other than a smitten fanboi. Harmony of Souls : My Quiver All this science I don't understand; it's just my job five days a week.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Kayso Gnomehater		#79	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4422 05-10-08 9:57 PM BANNED email Brad for details	The exit polls only cited "race was a factor". It did not say what factor. You are making up... You read every exit poll? Or you do you just know that I watched/read only the exact same news segments you did? What's pathetic is your leaps in "logic" -- and I use that term with eyes rolled so far back I'm afraid they might get stuck there. What I read/saw as I recall: 12% of rural Pennsylvania voters said they could not support a black candidate for President. But, if I were you, I'd keep arguing what you think I meant and/or read. When you can put your special brand of "logic" into my head, you fair a lot better in arguments.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Klark		#80	[url]	[-]
Posts: 778 05-11-08 9:38 AM	Kayso Gnomehater wrote: The exit polls only cited "race was a factor". It did not say what factor. You are making up... You read every exit poll? Or you do you just know that I watched/read only the exact same news segments you did? What's pathetic is your leaps in "logic" -- and I use that term with eyes rolled so far back I'm afraid they might get stuck there. What I read/saw as I recall: 12% of rural Pennsylvania voters said they could not support a black candidate for President. But, if I were you, I'd keep arguing what you think I meant and/or read. When you can put your special brand of "logic" into my head, you fair a lot better in arguments. I cited my source; do you want to cite yours? The CBS exit polls even says, of the 12% of white people that said race was a factor, 24% voted for Obama. If you cannot point to the data, and as we are using the same number of 12%, it sounds like there is an interpretation in there somewhere, yours or a reporters. It sounds like your "recall" is a product of your bias and your "logic" is predetermined.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Kayso Gnomehater		#81	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4422 05-11-08 10:44 AM BANNED email Brad for details	My source is either CNN, the internets, or NPR. "Race was a factor" and "would not support a black candidate for President" could two vastly different things. It's much more likely I got the 12% number wrong than the details of that number. It sounds like your "recall" is a product of your bias and your "logic" is predetermined. Another string of words that don't mean anything. How the fuck do you know if I'm recalling something correctly or, if I'm not, why? And what the fuck does "logic is predetermined" even mean in this context? How is it predetermined when I'm just telling you what I heard?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Klark		#82	[url]	[-]
Posts: 778 05-11-08 11:32 AM	Kayso Gnomehater wrote: My source is either CNN, the internets, or NPR. ... How is it predetermined when I'm just telling you what I heard? No, your source is your memory. You have no proof of it. You are expressly "just telling [us] what [you] heard". We expect more of a basis for your allegation of racism than your memory. This is especially true in light of my counterproof. As I said, it's likely that you perceived that angle or some journalism expressed his opinion.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Kayso Gnomehater		#83	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4422 05-11-08 2:41 PM BANNED email Brad for details	We expect more of a basis for your allegation of racism than your memory You can expect a fucking cookie. I can't control your expectations. This is especially true in light of my counterproof. What the fuck is counterproof? What does that mean? Three options: I didn't hear what I thought I heard, The journalist didn't interpret the data they way you think he should have, or he's referencing another poll. Believe it or not, CBS isn't the only exit poll conducted. I don't care and you have no idea which.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Klark		#84	[url]	[-]
Posts: 778 05-11-08 5:32 PM	Or you make it up out of whole cloth because you are an Obama fanatic. Or just a racist. Or just moronic. Lots of possibilities. It's pretty stupid to come to an political discusion group and assume you can make up allegations without some kind of reference or proof. Without the proof to back up your allegations, all of those excuses remain possibilities, with you posts pointing more and more to the latter options.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Kayso Gnomehater		#85	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4422 05-12-08 2:14 AM BANNED email Brad for details	Klark wrote: Or you make it up out of whole cloth because you are an Obama fanatic. Or just a racist. Or just moronic. Lots of possibilities. It's pretty stupid to come to an political discusion group and assume you can make up allegations without some kind of reference or proof. Without the proof to back up your allegations, all of those excuses remain possibilities, with you posts pointing more and more to the latter options. How am I supposed to prove I heard something? Do i need to get something notarized? Since my posts point more and more to latter options, how about a link for that? Or at least some analysis. Without the proof to back up your allegations blah blah blah pointing more and more to you just arguing to argue.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Klark		#86	[url]	[-]
Posts: 778 05-12-08 10:41 AM	I looked at a number of election exit polls for Pennsylvania. CNN Fox News MSNBC Time ABC News NY Times Newsweek No news source comes close to reporting what you are saying.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

The official Prexus message board that won't sell out.

Democratic Primaries from here

Quick Reply