I have never expected him to govern, or did I say that sometime? Why are you so afraid of a candidate having a platform that is so abstract that it creates discussion? Where else can you get the coverage for ideas out to the people? There is no other political forum that reaches so many Americans. What changes is Gingrich trying to affect? Apparently his route is not as affective to get the message out, because I am not aware of his mission.

You seem to single out Paul's platform as the only one that is impossible to implement during a presidency. I don't see anyone's platform as being able to be established, but they are projecting their message. Paul's just so happens to be the most radical, and has garnered a following that will, over time, cause a demand to be addressed.

To add support to what Aquila is saying, Bush called for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman in February, 2004. I haven’t seen much about that lately.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040224-2.html


Why would anyone be afraid of a candidate who has yet to do any better than 10% of the vote. When all the dust has settled, I don’t think Paul’s thinking will have much impact. If ever there was a “fairy tale” candidacy it’s Ron Paul’s.

To answer the question:

I am now ready to declare what many people may have selected all along. I am declaring for Barack Obama.I would vote for Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, should she or he get the nomination, over any Republican. I detest Mitt Romney and am already tired of Mike Huckabee’s psycho-religious babbling. If we just have to have a Republican I think I would prefer John McCain.

Texas does not have its primary until well after “Super Tuesday “– March 4th. A vote in Texas by that time will be either irrelevant or it will make someone.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/TX-D.phtml

BTW: It’s good to see two Republicans like Aquilla and scubatim tearing into each other. As the late Justin Wilson would have said, “continue yourselves.” For what it’s worth, my thoughts are more in line with Aquilla’s.

If Ron Paul's platform involved only changes to the Constitution, then you'd have a good point. However, his fiscal conservative and isolationist stances do not all require such action. I think part of the reason why you're so against Ron Paul is that many would-be Republican voters will be doing a write-in for Ron Paul and this will split the Republican vote (though, I happen to know a number of would-be Democratic voters who'll probably write-in for Ron Paul as well). The Republican party needs to return to its fiscal conservative roots in order to attract these voters back. The current crop of Republican front runners (with the possible exception of John McCain) are...well...unsatisfying.

If you don't expect him to govern, then why in the world would you support him for President? That's kind of what Presidents are expected to do.



Afraid? Moi? Hey, I'm participating in the "discussion".




People here have complained that Ron Paul isn't getting any coverage. Some sort of grand conspiracy I suppose. Fact is, he's not a viable candidate.




I'll mention that to Newt next time I do lunch with him. In the meantime, if you're interested in what he's doing, you can find out all about it here. One thing he's not doing is running for President.




I single out Paul's platform because it is completely unrealistic and a person who's been a Member of Congress as long as Paul has been would know that. So, why is he running for the GOP nomination for President knowing full well that nothing he is "promising" could get accomplished? Why is he doing that? Is this some sort of a game to him? Isd he the gadfly that shows up to city council meetings to whine about anything and everything? Is he making a mockery of the process of selecting a President? Why is he running? Why are you supporting him if you don't even expect him to govern? Is this all some sort of a game to you and the other Paul supporters? Ron Paul is a sham and a charlatan. He's out there running around collecting money from people by making promises he knows full well he can't keep. So, what's he going to do after the primary process is complete? Sell swamp land in Florida? You gonna buy into that too?

Meanwhile, the other candidates do have plans that they lay out on their respective websites. Workable plans, feasible plans. Will they get everything they want? Probably not, but it does give one an indication of what direction they want to steer the ship of state. Ron Paul wants to sink it near as I can tell.

Edited to add a response to Logo....

If Ron Paul's platform involved only changes to the Constitution, then you'd have a good point. However, his fiscal conservative and isolationist stances do not all require such action. I think part of the reason why you're so against Ron Paul is that many would-be Republican voters will be doing a write-in for Ron Paul and this will split the Republican vote (though, I happen to know a number of would-be Democratic voters who'll probably write-in for Ron Paul as well). The Republican party needs to return to its fiscal conservative roots in order to attract these voters back. The current crop of Republican front runners (with the possible exception of John McCain) are...well...unsatisfying.

I'm not afraid of Ron Paul peeling off Republican votes any more than any other Libertarian candidate would. He's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Show me one of his "fiscal conservative" or "isolationist stances" that are realistically doable and we can talk about it.


Aquilla

Probably because that issue is actually a non-issue to the majority of America. Just my two cents.


You sure like to bash a lot for someone that isn't affected by a message that has garnered more attention and support than predicted.


You would vote for anyone that isn't Republican, I would venture to guess. This in itself makes a discussion with you impossible.


I think it just goes to show that Republicans are able to think for themselves. I think that is much better than the sheep following that is going on in the Democratic camps. Go ahead and continue as you were, and I will continue to have an intelligent discussion with fellow Republicans. I don't see anything wrong with disagreements from within. I call that a form of progress, you think it is infighting. Not very progressive for someone that associates with progressives, if you ask me.

After seven years of Bush, I think we've had about all the Republicanism we can stand. If discussion with me is "impossible," they you could try not responding rather than exercising your compulsion to get in the last word.



Unfortunately for you scubatim, this thread is not in the Republican only section. It seems to me that there are a lot of "sheep" following behind Ron Paul.

I agree with Tim. We're not "tearing into each other" at all. What we are doing is having a reasoned discussion of actual issues surrounding this campaign and which candidate is most likely to be successful. Now this may not be as important as a discussion about which Democrat is going to get which television talk show host's endorsement or who has made the best impression with Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, but hey. We are Republicans after all.

Think of this as the pre-season in the NFL. That's a time when teams hone their skills and get ready to rock and roll in the regular season. You think we're sharp now, just wait until next fall!



That's not good......


Aquilla

Here's a link to Ron Paul's platform. Many of his positions do not require a Constitutional amendment. To name a few:
1. Withdrawing from the WTO
2. Withdrawing from NAFTA/CAFTA/etc.
3. Withdrawing from Iraq
4. Strict enforcement of property rights

It's all in the link. I agree that he cannot get everything he wants: he cannot even get most of what he wants. He would have to pick just a few issues and run with those. Also, I do not agree that he's irrelevant. He has brought at least some of these topics into the main political dialog.

I do agree, however, that Ron Paul has no chance of winning the Republican nomination.

Oh, hell, I thought this was a primary season, I wasn't aware it was the general election! I support his philosophy. Why would I not vote for him? I don't support any of the other candidates platforms as much as I do Paul's. I would gladly vote for him for President if he got the nomination, but I am not one to get false hopes that he will the the nod. Voting for who you actually agree with most is the intent of the process. Why would I vote for someone I didn't support? Is that what you do?






Viable or not, he has a following of people that support his message and his philosophy. He has gotten more support than anyone here that feel the need to tear him apart had predicted. In fact I view the Paul bashers as those that are afraid to admit that the Republican Party has moved left of the conservatism that used to be the basis of the Republican Party. He has been pulling similar numbers as some of the "viable" candidates. In Iowa, he was 7% ahead of Giuliani, and only 3% behind McCain and Thompson. In NH, he was 1% behind Giuliani and 3% behind Huckabee.


Exactly. No one is talking about the changes he is trying to affect, but a lot of people are talking about the changes Paul is trying to affect. Sounds like Newt is successfully accomplishing his mission.



Nothing? Promising? I see proposals, but if you want to look at promises, Giuliani has his "Commitments", but that is the closest thing to a promise I can think of.


He has the right to do so.


You may view it as such, I view it as a great message that needs to be presented.


No, I don't think he is whining about anything.


I don't think so, anyone with a platform and fulfills the requirements laid out in the Constitution can run. Voting for someone because they are more "electable" or are leading in some poll is more of a mockery of the process in my opinion.


You would have to ask him. I can't speak for other people.


Do I really have to go over this again? Here is the quick version. I agree with his strict constitutionalis views. No one else in the field has a platform that I agree with on as many issues. Why would I vote for someone that I don't agree with if there is a candidate that I agree with more? Sounds like an irresponsible use of my vote.


Another one of your intelligent statements that I won't waste any more time on.


As does Ron Paul, what's your point?


You mean they won't follow through with every promise they are making? Why would you support them?


That is a matter of opinion, I would say. I am not sure how restricting federal power and limiting federal spending and reducing federal taxes would sink the ship. But you must be an expert at something, so should we take your word for it?



Just one? OK!
Social Security




Because Bush represents every Republican. Right?



Why is that "unfortunate" for me? You can say that a lot of sheep are following Paul, but I can also say that there are a lot of sheep following Obama. Should we talk about him for a minute? What change exactly is it that he is promising? By the way, didn't the Democrats gain power in Congress in 2006 on a message of some great change? Do you think America hasn't noticed that we have had no change? How about Clinton? Is she actully proposing anything that she can get done? What exactly will she do that will be described as change? Keep the troops in Iraq until 2013? Require every American to get healthcare or pay a fine? Good one! What about Edwards? I don't think I can even come up with anything substantial that I have seen from him. At least Paul has an original thought.

It’s impossible to have a discussion with me, yet you are doing just that. Right!

Yeah, Right!

Are you looking for debate or affirmation? You are not likely to find many people echoing your "right" - affirmation - on this board.

Wrong! How many of the Republican candidates whom I mentioned - Romney, Huckabee or McCain - have broken with Bush on a major issue? I wasn't referring to Paul in that paragraph, since I don't think he'll be the Republican nominee.

I’ve had to deal with Bush since 1994, when he became Governor of Texas. The war in Iraq and his stilly stance on stem-cell research are not necessarily Republican, but they are things that make me detest Bush.





http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry232571

Your views do not exactly line up with Ron Paul’s. He is talking about establishing a Social Security lock-box, while on December 4, you were talking about abolishing Social Security.

You have lost me with all of this rabble. I don't know what you just said. You win.


Oh, I didn't know there was the stipulation that I had to point you to a plank in his platform that would fullfill your " "fiscal conservative" or "isolationist stances" that are realistically doable and we can talk about it" and that I had to agree with. That wasn't specified. We were discussing just one issue that " "fiscal conservative" or "isolationist stances" that are realistically doable and we can talk about it", I didn't know that if I posted something, I had to agree with it. You didn't specify that. Or maybe you are changing the discussion alltogether?

Not only is spelling far down on the list of things you do well, reading comprehension can be added to the list.

Really net2007, if you can't figure out the difference between "man" (singular) and "men" (plural), I'm just wasting time and bandwidth on you. How it is you have taken a remark directed at a single individual and turned into a grand conspiracy against all White people is really beyond comprehension.

Perhaps your outrage is indicative of a marked proclivity to BE outraged. The original statement was not directed at you, yet you've seized upon it like a pit bull on a postman's leg and you won't let it go.



This would have been an excellent time for you to follow your own advice. Shame you passed it up.



No free passes. I'm subject to the same admonishments, warnings, thread closings and strikes same as everyone else. Such is the triumph of truly colorblind enforcement of the rules.



There you go again. Flashing your Deputy Moderator badge and wagging your finger in self-righteous indignation. There is a "report" feature to direct posts that break the rules to a real Moderator. Instead of trying to play Wyatt Earp and enforce your own rules of decorum, why don't you leave it to those tasked with the responsibility?

People notice a lot of things, net2007. Right now, I notice that we're totally off-topic.


What would have been better "from the get-go" would have been if you had resisted the urge to turn one sentence into a race riot, but since you didn't, here we are. Parsing words and arguing semantics and meanings.

I wouldn't describe you as "infinitely clueless and arrogant" but if that's how you define yourself, I won't disagree with it.

nighttimer



Your funny, thanks for embracing me with your superior knowledge of the difference between singular and plural nouns, I'm supposing you couldn't find a misspelled word this time, lol, who knows. A common rule in dirty forum posting techniques is when all else fails attempt to establish oneself as the more experienced poster through means that are not relevant to the conversation. Such as spelling and grammar, in your case you focus on the one or two words I misspell every so often, while claiming I don't understand the grammar in which you use.

Regarding the difference between singular and plural nouns, didn't you ever learn that the singular form of a noun can be used to refer to multiple people, places or things depending on sentence structure?

For example you said................ "only a white man in his infinite arrogance and cluelessness, would make such a comment"

In this sentence the word "man" is used instead of the word "men" while you refer to more than one person, and here is why. When looking at the sentence structure above the word "man" is indeed singular, but for one reason. Its in reference to a "single race" not a "single person". Get it? I haven't lost you have I ?

That sentence starts with the definition of who you are addressing........ "only a white man"

Followed by A description of who you are addressing....... "in his infinite arrogance and cluelessness,"

Followed by what you believe they would do...... "would make such a comment"


Nice tap dancing around the truth though, but I don't buy it. Next time you feel urged to give out English lessons to buff up your arguments, be sure your as qualified as you think.




Well like I said at the end of my last post, perhaps we should continue this in a more relevant forum. I'm no Wyatt Earp either, your charming ability to turn any issue into a matter of race was shown before I joined in here. I'm just calling it like I see it, you make racially suggestive comments as much or more than anyone on this site, yet preach about the same type of racist commenting you seem to be highly practiced in carrying out yourself, while being in denial on top of that. If I were a moderator, you would probably find me to be fair. Id sooner address you specifically in debate, than giving out warnings. Unless of course it were really necessary.




Well then to get this back on track and present statements from another forum that you never addressed lets do this, below are comments you left in my last forum followed by my responses to it........ http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...16025&st=20




I noticed that your opinion on Huckabee is actually, generally a favorable one but what it your responses to comments like the ones above? Like I said Nighttimer I nothing against you, but it frustrates me when so many issues are turned into a matter of race, and sometimes the things you say, like what you said in this forum a few days ago, really make me wonder, if you prefer it to be that way.

Well, I find it to be usually true that if you have to proclaim yourself to be a certain thing, you probably aren't. The way that Fox News always says it's "fair and balanced" makes me wonder why don't they let their deeds do the talking instead of their words? Could it be because they know it's just crap?



Let me ask you a question. How do you engage in a serious discussion about the candidacy of Barack Obama and not mention race? It takes no sleight of hand magic trick to "turn" it into a matter of race. Race is right there bubbling underneath the surface. You can pretend that it is not, but who are you fooling?

My favorable opinion about Mike Huckabee was formed when he (along with Sam Brownback, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo) chose to show up and speak to a predominantly Black audience in a debate hosted by commentator and talk show host Tavis Smiley. To their lasting shame McCain, Romney, Thompson and Giuliani all skipped the debate. As it turns out their absence gave Huckabee a chance to shine and he spoke about race in a way that was unusually candid and open for a Republican. I found Huckabee to be a breath of fresh air on a subject a lot of conservatives and Republicans only speak of in critical and derisive terms.

You think I'm obsessed with matters of race? No, I'm not. What I am aware of the racial subtext in many subjects and I'm not inclined to tip-toe around the matter because it might annoy someone by pointing it out. If turning any issue into a matter of race is wrong, it's equally wrong to ignore race when it's evident it factors in such as when I brought up "The Bradley Effect" and it's possible contribution to Obama's loss to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and confounding all the polls.

Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center in the New York Times provided a possible explanation as to why the pollsters got it wrong:

...another possible explanation cannot be ignored — the longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.

Mrs. Clinton beat Mr. Obama by 12 points (47 percent to 35 percent) among those with family incomes below $50,000. By contrast, Mr. Obama beat Mrs. Clinton by five points (40 percent to 35 percent) among those earning more than $50,000.

There was an education gap, too. College graduates voted for Mr. Obama 39 percent to 34 percent; Mrs. Clinton won among those who had never attended college, 43 percent to 35 percent.

Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews.

In New Hampshire, the ballots are still warm, so it’s hard to pinpoint the exact cause for the primary poll flop. But given the dearth of obvious explanations, serious consideration has to be given to the difficulties that race and class present to survey methodology. link

Now tell me, net2007, by referencing Kohut's explanation of what may have possibly been a contributing factor (not the sole factor or even the most significant) in Hillary Clinton's narrow three-point win over Obama, am I introducing race into the topic or confirming that it may have relevance?

nighttimer


Nighttimer, its convenient for you, being part of the left wing in America, to criticize a news station simply because they don't dedicate 90% of their air time, demoting the war, and bashing the bush administration. Id rather not get into the nature of news networks now because thats a long conversation, but for you to proclaim that I'm in fact not fair, just like Fox news is your opinion and your welcome to it. Perhaps if I were to demonstrate this unfair nature you believe I surely posses, you could do more than throw out such comparisons, which are based on little substantiation, and high amounts of speculation.

I am conservative, and republican and I support the war. Therefore I tend to back these beliefs thoroughly, in the process I may very well seem unfair to those who don't share such beliefs. However I try and make an active effort at viewing both sides of any given issue. Like the candidates for example, I favor the republicans, but I managed to watch every democratic debate but 1. That way I was educated on whoever it is I have a strong opinion on. That Includes you, I didn't comment on you without noticing a clear pattern in the things you say regarding race on this site.



Regarding your first question in the quote above, I was not noticing you mentioning race, near as much as your choice of words. You can mention race when it is relevant, but what you said in this forum made me feel almost certain of what drives you to mention race as much as you do. That being racism ironically. Its all in the words you chose, and what you said was nothing short of a racist slander against whites that perfectly demonstrated how you feel about them in general. The fact that you were insulted is about as irrelevant as Michael Richards having been insulted during his stand up performance.

It seems to me very obvious that allegations of racism are made frequently, swiftly, and sometimes drastically, until of course those allegations fall right on the lap of the accuser, then its nothing but sidestepping, and denial.

Now also in the quote above you mention Obama's loss in New Hampshire, and say that the reason for this loss is possible racism. Why am I not surprised? Lol, I mean seriously why am I not surprised?

Ok you then go on to say it was perhaps not the sole reason he lost, but was certainly a contributing factor. Let me ask you something, how familiar are you with these areas? Well I can say in all honesty that Ive never been to either Iowa or New Hampshire, but I will tell you this much, Hillary has a strong political team, and more money than any candidate. Before Iowa they were predicting she would win in New Hampshire. Remember that? The truth is he has done better in both these states than anyone was predicting, and he would be the first one to tell you this Nighttimer. His 2nd place finish in New Hampshire was a sucsess given the numbers he pulled in, and given what he did in Iowa.

Bottom line is that Iowa is 93% white, New Hampshire is 97% white, yet Obama won in Iowa and darn near won in New Hampshire which was considered to be Hillary's for the taking just a couple weeks ago. Obama's success here is solid proof that just the opposite of what you think happened, is true. Not only did his race not effect him in some of the most substantially white states in this country, he is actually doing better than he had figured, and arguably better than any other democratic candidate ! And all this after campaigning in states that are whiter than rice, on a paper plate, in a snow storm! LMAO, I mean come on where is your argument here beyond speculation?

So there you have it, any racism that is playing a role here is so minute that it is not preventing him from getting the attention he deserves. Do you want to know why that is Nighttimer? Because unlike prior black candidates such as Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson, he is not running the race card into the ground.
I truly believe that he would try and represent America rather than solely represent Black America. He doesn't give me that same vibe that Al and Jessie do, because on top of his words and actions today, he doesn't have this long history of demonizing the white man, and in the process doing more to divide us than to unite us. Thats the story for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, but this guy Obama deserves some credit, for not playing into such childish politics.

Simply because Fox News proclaims themselves "fair and balanced" doesn't mean they are anymore than Rosie O' Donnell could proclaim herself "slim and gorgeous." Let's take it to he next step: you say that you're fair, but your opening sentence says because I'm "part of the left-wing in America" I must be criticizing Fox News because they don't dedicate 90 percent of their airtime "demoting the war and bashing the Bush Administration (does that mean Fox "promotes" the war and "supports" the Bush Administration?).

Is it is fair to assume that a liberal Democrat must oppose the war, not watch Fox News and loathe George W. Bush? You can find rock-ribbed, die hard conservative Republicans who hate the war, hate Fox News and hate Bush.

A "fair" person doesn't look to find out what category to slot someone into and then draw conclusions about. This person is Black so they must be angry and obsessed with race. That person is a Democrat so they don't like Republicans. That person is a liberal so they must want to cut-and-run in Iraq. Ever stop to think maybe I don't like Fox News because I think they lack any pretense of objectivity? Ever stop to think that as a journalist I don't see the likes of Bill O' Reilly and Sean Hannity in the same league as a Walter Cronkite or Ed Bradley?

That is why I doubt your claims of fairness. I see in you the same biases, preferences, prejudices and lack of objectivity as anyone else here.



In the almost five years I've been a member of , I can count on one hand the number of individuals I have publicly described as a racist. You aren't the first White person to call me a racist and I doubt you'll be the last.

Trying to open a closed mind is like trying to empty the ocean with a spoon, so believe whatever you want. I'm a vicious White-hating liberal. The war in Iraq is a noble cause. Fox News is fair and balanced, Brittney Spears should be Mother of the Year and pigs will fly. It isn't the best application of my time wasting it trying to convince you otherwise.



I don't know. Why are you not surprised? Where did you read that I claimed that the Andrew Kohut explanation proved racism was the reason for Obama's defeat. It sure wasn't in anything I wrote.



Wait a minute. Where is YOUR argument? Besides a lesson in the racial demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire, all you have offered up is anecdotal evidence and your subjective opinion as to how well Obama has done so far.

Net2007, you are putting the proof to the fantasy of your "fairness." Without offering up anything in the way of rebuttal to Andrew Kohut's analysis of why the polling went wrong in New Hampshire, you proceed to take a giant whiz all over it.

I never said Barack Obama lost in New Hampshire because poorer and less-educated Whites refused to vote for him. Neither does Kohut. He merely offers up statistical data that leads him to conclude that it MIGHT---repeat--MIGHT---have contributed to the polls being so wrong when nearly all of them anticipated Obama winning N.H. outright and some indicating he would do so by a double-digit margin.

Perhaps in your failure to read and comprehend you missed the caveats I included in my last paragraph? Or did you just not understand when I wrote:



You just demonstrated net2007, that when the mood strikes you, the pretense of being "fair" goes right out the window when you want to ridicule what you refuse to believe is even remotely possible. There are plausible and reasonable rebuttals to Kohut's analysis, but you have to be interested in looking for one.

Apparently, you are not.

nighttimer



Ok you say sarcastically, in reference to me. The following.....

This person is Black so they must be angry and obsessed with race?

Here you go, your black so I must assume your angry and obsessed with race for that reason, is that what your suggesting? I'll have you know that I claim what I have based on things you have said, I guess you can say I pay attention to what the posters say on this site and my memory is long.

But your unsubstantiated suspicions are interesting, given your the one who specifically spoke of the white man in his infinite arrogance and cluelessness. Your not in the position to lecture me or anyone in the area of race after that, and you wont find me say anything even remotely similar to what you said in this room just a couple days ago, anywhere on this site. Try it.

Now above you also pointed out that I make a relation between left wing America to those who don't like bush, don't support the war, and in some cases don't like Fox news. Thats because there is a relation, again I'm just calling it like I see it. In my experiences with people, Ive seen that those who are liberal or Democrat are more likely to be against the war, bush, or even Fox news. Most polls are also consistent with this in regards to the war and opinions of Bush.
As for those with negative opinions on Fox, I've personally noticed its more common on the left, although I've seen no polls regarding fox news opposition.
There is an obvious trend amongst democrats and what their preferences are, but your right there are always exceptions on both sides.

Look, I don't fancy my thinking above that of left wing America, but there are distinct differences between the left and right, that are very much identifiable. If I say that most liberals don't support the war, its because I know it to be true. What you will never hear me say is that the fact they don't support the war, or the president, means that they are less American. A person can point out these differences, and keep an open dialogue. My point was to illustrate that your position as a fair critic of Fox news is likely jepordized by bias, and that comes from my knowledge of your posting more than the simple fact that your a liberal democrat.




Yea and in the one year Ive been here I can only count the number of members Ive accused of racism on one finger. That of course being to you in this very forum. You see it takes a lot for me to go there, and I mean a lot. I don't cry racism every time someone says something that is suggestive. In your case here are the traits that you posses. 1. First and most importantly you have made racially suggestive comments on more than one occasion 2. You have accused several members of being racist 3. The issue of race is what you focus on the most in debate.

Now the last two traits mentioned above, alone can mean little, in my opinion, but for one to posses all of these traits hrm............ well what do I know I'm just a member. That stuff just gets old, fast. However if I ever make a race related forum, you will be one of the first id actually want to debate with. Perhaps silly stereotypes could be discussed, or something.


Reread what I wrote please, I didn't say you or Andrew Kohut proved racism was the reason for Obama's defeat. I said...............

"you mentioned Obama's loss in New Hampshire, and said that the reason for this loss is possible racism."

Thats consistant with what you wrote which was............

"it's equally wrong to ignore race when it's evident it factors in such as when I brought up "The Bradley Effect" and it's possible contribution to Obama's loss to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and confounding all the polls."

But still like I said whether or not you were being 100% conclusive, the fact that you would find a way to relate his loss in NH to him being black does not surprise me.



What do you mean where is my argument, I gave you my argument. In two of the whitest states in the nation, both containing well over 90% white voters, Obama has come out looking better than any other candidate. He has a 1st and 2nd, and when compared to Hillary's 3rd and 1st, that puts him on top. Especialy when considering that for months she had a substantial lead. So not only is he on top, he had to work his way out of being behind for months on end. So this is my argument. The fact that these states are overwhelmingly white, goes against any suspicions some are having that white racism is going to play any significant role in this race for Obama. Simply put, He wouldn't be where he is now if not for white Democratic voters liking the guy.

Are there some white voters that will not vote for him based on his skin color? Of course, racism isn't absent here, but I don't see it playing any significant role in this presidential race, given how highly he was regarded by whites in both Iowa and New Hampshire. If anything this is a clear indicator that the ways of the past are dead. Racism will always linger in the shadows, but as a nation we have beat it. Some like Al Sharpton will live the rest of their lives in the past, while most of the rest of this nation has moved on. I mean I don't want to sound overly patriotic, but I love this country. We have come so far in so many ways, and in regards to racism there isn't much if anything to fix in our political system, the work we have to do from here on out is primarily within society itself. This means blacks as well as whites making an effort, not just one or the other.

I don't care if your memory is as long as a elephants. Where's the evidence?



You're still the only one who has made this wild leap in logic that a comment directed toward a specific individual is a blanket indictment of a entire race. I'm not lecturing you as much as I'm correcting your erroneous interpretation. Repeating it over and over won't make it true, but by all means, continue your role as Defender of All Things Caucasian and believe whatever you like.



Your "experiences" are anecdotal, unverified and in the context of this debate, completely worthless. "Most polls are consistent with this," you say? Fine. Where's the evidence?



So we're left again with nothing more substantial than your "experiences" and what you've "personally noticed." Oh well, it's not proof of anything, but I guess I should be used to that by now...



That's just weak,net2007. "If I say that most liberals don't support the war, it's because I know it to be true." Based on what? Your personal experiences with a small group of self-identified liberals? You may think that makes it true. I think that makes it a crock.

If you expect to be taken seriously, you're going to have to bring a bit more to the party that that. What you think you KNOW to be true is more than countered by what you DON'T know. Nobody cares what you think is true. It's what you can prove that matters and you aren't even making an effort. You are making assumptions based upon absolutely nothing more than what you think---not know---to be true.



Your point is you don't have a point. What makes you a "fair critic" of Fox News? Because you enjoy it? As a conservative Republican, shouldn't that mean you have an intrinsic bias in favor of Fox News?

Additionally, I find your claim to that you are so "knowledgeable" of my posts to be more than a little dubious. Where's the evidence?



Racism isn't your thing, net2007. You don't seem to understand it and you don't articulate it well. Your analysis on matters of race is at times naive at best, and extremely shallow and superficial at worst. If I "focus" on race in debate, what of it? Should I apologize and feel bad about that?

The fact of the matter is if I react to racial issues on America's Debate it's because there are so many opportunities to do so. In your extremely brief time on this board as a newbie, you've missed some of the debates where African-Americans are placed front and center--and typically in a negative light. Hurricane Katrina, affirmative action, Coretta Scott King's funeral, the refusal of the major Republican candidates to speak at a debate held at a historically Black college, the Jena 6, reparations, slavery, the war on drugs, George W. Bush's lack of support from Blacks, The Bell Curve, eugenics, the Sean Bell shooting, Don Imus, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Confederate flag, crime, poverty, and on and on.

I don't have a problem writing, talking and debating issues of race. But I'm not interested in debating with anyone whose mouth is open and their mind closed. I have learned quite a bit from Whites on this board about race and how they think, react, and experience it. That part has value and merit. What I totally disregard are the opinions of arrogant and clueless White people---such as in the case of Barnaby2341 telling me I would only be supporting Barack Obama because he's Black--because they have no worth to me.

Too many people prefer to run for cover when race comes up. That's too bad because it often smothers a real discussion openly and honestly. I've been able to have that debate here with many individuals and learn from them and every now and then return the favor. So, it doesn't really matter if you get it net2007, because even if you don't, others do.



I have doubts whether a race-related topic started by you would hold much interest for me. There may be subjects where I could learn from you, but the subject of race isn't one of them.



You don't have a monopoly when it comes to loving your country. However, loving your country doesn't mean you should sugarcoat over its problems. Yes, we have come so far in so many ways and made so little progress in others. Racism has not been beaten and certainly not in the American political system where racial politics still exist and remains a problem.

Or maybe you're just not familiar with how race factors into voter disenfranchisement, gerrymandering and race-baiting still exists as evidenced by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's comment about "shucking and jiving" in the presidential race.

Maybe in your idealized America, net2007, racism is just a antique from the past. But not everyone in living in your America.

Nighttimer, much has been written since I last posted. I read some, but not all because I don't like reading other people's writing when they cannot write succintly. Your initial reason for casting a vote for Sen. Obama was racist. You claim to be voting for him for reasons other than race, but you words failed to make that point. Two posters on this board not named aevans176 interpreted your statement as racist. Your true reasons are known only to you.

Outside this message board I live a life. In that life I suffer when the gas prices increase. The newscaster reports that the number of foreclosure has again reached an all-time high. School costs are going up every year, making it harder to increase earnings. Yet, there remains hope because Bush's term will be up soon. However, when I follow the news coverage of the presidential election I hear about people voting for Hillary because she teared up, or they voted for Obama because he is black, or he appeals to the youth, or she appeals to senior citizens. And then I think, "Are we really this stupid?" Are Americans really going to decide who runs the economy based on tears, skin colors, and sex organs? I like to believe they're not, but history is not on my side.

I agree with this statement(?), but I would be remiss if I didn't ask, "What on God's green Earth is this mess you call a sentence?"

You act as if I have to come up with a reason for supporting Barack Obama that satisfies you, barnaby2341. I don't believe I need to do any such thing. Why? Let's reference your post of January 9 where you make several off-the-wall statements:

You're African-American, which means you're only going to vote for a Democrat.

All African-Americans only vote for Democrats? That is wrong and it's a stereotype.

Barack Obama is an African-American which means you're going tribal.

Since Barack Obama is an African-American and I am too that must mean we're all part of the same "tribe" and our shared racial identity trumps all other considerations? That is racist.

My vote, unlike yours, will come from a decision-making process and an analysis of his positions and ideas then compared against other candidates.

Because you're White you make your decisions based upon a thinking process and analysis of a politician's positions and ideas and compare them against other candidates. That seems to suggest because I'm not White I do not, can not or will not do exactly the same thing in coming to a decision. That is arrogant.

Your vote was never up for grabs. That is what I call a sheep.

I am a self-described liberal Democrat so it's unlikely I would crossover to vote for a Republican. That does not make me a sheep. It just means I prefer the Democratic contenders to a extremely lackluster field of Republicans, every last one of which has fatal flaws that will make it difficult for them to appeal to the GOP base. You are supporting Ron Paul, a Republican with libertarian leanings, but a Republican just the same.

You're part of the herd yourself. You have jumped on board of the quixotic campaign of an obscure and iconoclastic Texas Congressman whose popularity is largely based upon becoming a You Tube sensation (and a favorite of White supremacists), but you choose to wag a condescending finger at me. That is clueless.

I will vote for Ron Paul when the time comes and not think twice about it. I'll also know that he won't win. That makes you a hopeless romantic.



Change the first "in" of the second sentence to "is" and it should read, "But not everyone is living in your America." I don't believe one incorrect letter makes a sentence a mess. A mistake, but not a mess, however you can characterize it however you like.

Thank you however for affording me the opportunity to correct a gaffe I missed. Allow me to return the favor. In your first paragraph, the word should be "succinctly," instead of "succinty."

Was that succinct enough for you?

Who Will you vote for? and who will you Not vote for?

I assume this means "hypothetically, for each major party" since if I vote for anybody at all, it will probably be the Green Party candidate or some other bleeding-heart liberal.

Let's see; I've never voted, or supported the election of, any Republican candidate, although I'm sure there are many I would respect. Among the major players in the GOP race, the one who gives me the creeps (although, by all reports, he is a Nice Guy) is Mike Huckabee, with his vision of the United States as a wholly owned subsidiary of Christianity. (I've seen his placards around here. They say "Faith, Family, Freedom." Should any Presidential candidate really list "faith" as the Number One priority? Not to mention the fact that "family" is just a code word for "religious conservatism.") The other major Republican candidates (not counting some of the ultra-conservative small fry) don't scare me as much, although Rudy Giuliani's moderate social views fail to make up for his desire to turn the nation into Fortress America. (Just as Huckabee's moderate economic views fail to make up for his desire to Christianize the government.) I have no strong feelings about the others except to note that I don't agree with them on the issues. Ron Paul adds a nice breath of fresh air to the party.

Among the Dem