Probably not an argument, so much as an observation.
Senator Alan Keyes would like to have a word with you.
Like advancec spelling?
Sorry, it had to be done. You can’t make mistakes when you’re criticizing someone’s ability with the English language…
Obama only counts for 1/2 of a black person, so the ratio would be more like 86:1
You’re not worth talking to, much less arguing with.
Only if they’re doing so because they believe America’s just not ready for a white man to be President. 
How cuuuuuuuuuute.
I’m old enough to remember poll taxes, literacy tests, and other similar barriers thrown in the way of blacks getting to the polls.
More recently, I’ve seen blacks tossed off the rolls of registered voters because some felon had a similar name.
We’ll skip past the burden of few and crappy voting machines at urban precincts, causing long lines and placing an added burden on urban black voters that suburban white voters rarely had to face, since those voters were at least able to vote, even if it was ensured that it would be more difficult for them.
But kindly take that “they’ve been able to vote for 138 years” shit and shove it up your ass.
So, did those headlines appear?
You’re a day late and an argument short, amigo.
mosier, the Constitutional ratio is 3/5, not 1/2, if that’s what you’re referring to.
RTF, depends on where you look, and what filters you use. No wonder you haven’t seen any.
Whoa, I think you might be overreacting here. I just took Cisco’s post as a joke playing on my own “first chance in 200 years” remark. He was actually making a valid point, IMO – that for the first century or so, they couldn’t vote at all.
Your underlying point is well-taken: if someone pulls the lever for Obama beacuse they believe he’s the best candidate for the job, then, obviously, that’s not a racist vote, and there’s no question but that the gentleman from Illinois has plenty of reasons to garner support.
Oh, then you haven’t seen any either.