So what you’re saying is that there can be no other real reason not to vote for Obama other than racism? Because, y’know, they can’t have legitimate differences with his views or feel that a vague promise of ‘change’ isn’t enough to base their votes on? Or maybe even think he’s a decent enough fellow but they’d like it if he had more time in the Senate under his belt before running for President?
Don’t be silly. I am saying the numbers don’t work . There are not enough people left to elect him when you take out the die hard war mongering republicans and the bigots.
The way your statement read was that anyone who had reasons for not supporting Obama was “grasping at other excuses to justify not voting for the nigger”.
I didn’t read his statement that way. He didn’t say “anyone,” he said “many.” That’s certainly true, and it’s unquestionably true of a lot the Hillary supporters who can’t bring themselves to vote for Obama even though he represents their political interests better than McCain does.
How do you know it’s true or even unquestionably true of people in either group?
If they have other reasons that they have stated, why can’t those reasons be legitimate? Because you both clearly feel that in many cases those reasons are not.
Well the point is that everyone does not play by the same rules. I’d love to see CEOs, CFOs, etc. compensated with the same rules as regular workers, but there is a completely different and often non-transparent set of rules just for them and other officers. We end up with all kinds of abuses where corporations pay for housing, travel, vacations and other expenses that normal workers need to pay for themselves. I’d like to see all workers get the same health and insurance benefits.
As for pay based on abiloity and hardwork, that is exactly my frigging point you moron. My links show that CEO pay is not linked to performance. Someone can come into a company, make millions of dollars, run it into the ground, then get a “golden parachute” payment when they leave.
Wow, I guess I was wrong, those are really liberal states after all. California must be conservative: I bet less than 40% of the popualtion voted for Kerry.
This would be a good response if they ever actually stated any reasons. I’m talking about people like the PUMA idiots who are dead set against voting for Obama but never articulate any reason why.
Well, of course. The majority of the folks that post here are liberal. That’s pretty much a given fact. Therefore, any time that someone points out the fact that Obama is a socialist or that he’s as full of shit as a Christmas goose, you can only resort to ad hominem responses like yours, because you can’t deny the basic truth of what was said.
Hence my response to you.
Why do you conflate political opinion with basic truth? Perhaps that accounts for the tenor of the responses to your posts.
They do not have to state any reasons why. It’s up to the OBAMA! campaign to convince people to vote for him. If he can’t convince enough of them, he won’t be President. There is no reason to impute anything nefarious about it.
Huh? WTF?
Can you *support * “the basic truth” of what you said there?
If not, then derision is not only deserved but required.
I didn’t say they have to vote for him. I’m just noting that they’re voting against the political issues they identify themselves as agreeing with without volunteering any explanation as to why. There is no real ideological difference between Obama and Hillary and they have about the same experience (though Obama has a little more time in elected office). If they have some other explanation besides race, they’re not saying what it is.
Thankfully, it’s an increasingly shrinking group, though.
His compost is his cite.
I’m concerned about Obama’s socialist tendencies as well but I’d rather deal with that then a repeat of these last eight years. If we can work to get back to real communication about the issues that will be in a step in the right direction. Conservative or liberal aside I think we have allowed our elected leaders to feel a little bit too privileged and entitled. We can handle the socialist leanings as we weed out the corruption. We can’t keep electing leaders who will only help their cronies stay in control.
I’m curious, could someone furnish me with a list of the political stances held by Barack Obama which could fairly be considered ‘Socialist’ by the commonly understood definition of the term? I’ve heard this charge a few time and I’ve been through his website but haven’t really found anything I would call overtly Socialist.
Clothahump’s to the right of Attila the Hun, so everyone looks socialist to him.
“Sharing?! Compassion?! CHAAAAANGE?! Must be socialists! Dirty fucking hippies! And that Jesus fella looks a little pink, too!”
They’re obviously dirty, dirty liars. They…they have to be.
- A consistent refusal to support a repeal of child labor laws.
- Has never once praised the vision and intelligence of Ayn Rand. Never!
- Doesn’t spit on the ground when anyone says “Roosevelt”.
- Doesn’t lower his head in solemn reverence when anyone says “Reagan”.
- Kenyan, Keynsian, tomato, tomato…
Actually, I read through that link… until I got to the sixth paragraph, when the author referred to Obama attending (for 20 years) a racist church!
Without, you know, explaining exactly HOW his church was racist. It just is, you know?