DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on October 20, 2008, 05:36:16 PM
-
I'm about 80% convinced that Obama has it. I hold back my being totally convinced till that Wednesday the 5th because of several factors.
1) Racism - Saturday, I dropped by to see my mom and she told me my uncle and his wife were coming in town to see her on Sunday. My uncle and I have had political discussions before. He wanted to support Dean in '04 mainly because of the energy and excitement he saw around Dean but he held back because he feared that Dean was too liberal. Kerry was his guy since Kerry was military and so was my uncle. My uncle is one of those old timey Dems who held on through Nixon's southern strategy but he went on, I'm sure, to vote for Reagan but Dem since Reagan.
I asked my mom if he had mentioned his position. She said he had not but she felt she knew for sure that he would be voting for McCain because she didn't think he would ever vote for a black man.
That was pretty devastating for me. I knew that he was a blatant racist back when I was a kid but I felt that he had grown out of that as he had mellowed with age. I've not talked to my mom today to see if she found out but if he, being something of a yellow dog Dem would see the race that way, then I worry about how many people like my uncle are out there.
2) Electronic Voting - Already, West Virginia is reporting widespread issues with the machines where a person will choose Obama and the vote will register for McCain. I saw a blurb from RFK Jr where he said that the election is already stolen.
My faith in the election system is about 40% of what it should be. I feel like voting is the only avenue available to me to effect change and exert some tiny modicum of control over our nation and that everyone should go out and cast their vote. On the other hand, sometimes I feel like the whole voting system is compromised by the electronic voting machines.
Vigilance is the key but I fear that there will be intimidation in poorer neighborhoods and some people will leave having wanted to vote for Obama but knowing that there vote will count towards McCain.
3) This last two week stretch. I'm really concerned that people who will have voted for Obama may stay to the house thinking that Obama "has got it". Or people will simply flake out and not plan to take off or won't take the time to go early vote. This two weeks that we're about to head into will prove difficult for Obama to keep people excited about his candidacy and those voters who are wanting to vote for him in an historic election may not stay excited without the weekly reminders of the debates.
GOP voters are older and more hardcore about their support and I fear they may show while all the kids that are now signed up will have partied all weekend and barely made it to class on Monday and not be able to crawl out of bed on Tuesday morning and make to the polls.
For first time voters, the idea of voting is exciting but it becomes daunting when they consider that they will have to have made sure they were registered first of all but then they actually have to go to the poll which they first have to find out how to find out how to find. That can be a real hassle to someone who's never voted before.
And while I have been more than happy to help GOP voters sign up or help them find where to vote, I have sincere doubts that a Republican will help anyone who they think might vote for Obama.
For the most part, I think everyone has made up their minds. That last 4 to 8% who haven't are probably not going to make a difference on the whole race.
Personally, I have to admit that I just want it to be over. It had been my intention to ignore the race this time around and not put myself in the position of giving a damn or hoping for a specific outcome but my idealism got the best of me and I let Obama's intellect, wisdom, rhetorical stylings and substance persuade me.
Most of the time, I find myself driving along and realizing that I'm thinking about the election too much. It's really depressing for me to see my country's citizens in the middle of an historic period where we have, in my perception, such a clear cut choice between what is right for America right now and something that was right for America 8 years ago.
John McCain is a good man. He is the textbook definition of an American Hero. I would have had real difficulty in 2000 deciding between him and Al Gore if things had gone differently. I used to have nothing but respect for the guy but he has simply sold his soul to Rovian devils in order to get the presidency. He actually has the guy who did the push-polls about his adopted daughter running the robo-calls trying to link Obama and Ayers.
I've tried to stay out of the dirt with you guys around here but it has proven very difficult as I have seen the people I most respect on the right here turn into the same kind of foaming at the mouth maddogs as rich and sirs. I had high hopes that this race would prove to be a boon for us here and it would result in real discussions about policies and stances but for the most part it has been an endless stream of invective, smears and slander.
Tit for tat and that was something of a disappointment. Maybe the election will change that somehow.
Looking forward to November 4th.
Brassmask
-
It ain't over til thefat lady sings.
That's why they play the game.
I think Obama will win but it will be a squeaker and i think charges of stolen elections will dog him.
-
John McCain is a good man. He is the textbook definition of an American Hero.
Don't let Tee catch you typing that. He'll revoke your fringe liberal card ;)
-
John McCain is a good man. He is the textbook definition of an American Hero.
============================================================
Audey Murphy is the textbook definition. Maybe Sergeant York.
McCain didn't win the war. He bombed people from a great height.
He got shot down.
He didn't save any comrade's life.
He didn't saw the locks off Auschwitz and feed the stariong victims of oppression.
But this is not an election to reward a hero. It is an election to pick a leader who will at least restore the country to the condition it was in before Juniorbush screwed it up.
-
John McCain is a good man. He is the textbook definition of an American Hero.
============================================================
Audey Murphy is the textbook definition. Maybe Sergeant York.
McCain didn't win the war. He bombed people from a great height.
He got shot down.
He didn't save any comrade's life.
He didn't saw the locks off Auschwitz and feed the stariong victims of oppression.
Maybe he didn't do the things you say here but if we are to believe what is said to have happened, he DID go to VietNam, he did get shot down, he was interned in the Hanoi Hilton, he was tortured and he did decline to leave unless everyone got to leave. And the reason he is a hero is because he did all that at his country's behest as was his duty as a member of our military.
The mission, the orders, what followed is moot. His choice to stay is heroic.
As I said, he has since sold his soul to Rovian devils.
-
Perhaps he is a species of hero. But he is not a classic American hero. He was not fighting for 'truth, justice and the American Way". He was fighting for Diem, Thu and major corruption, and had he not gone to Vietnam, it would have made no difference to anyone. There was nothing American to defend in Vietnam, it was a bad idea from start to finish, and visibly so from the very first adviser.
-
Perhaps he is a species of hero. But he is not a classic American hero. He was not fighting for 'truth, justice and the American Way". He was fighting for Diem, Thu and major corruption, and had he not gone to Vietnam, it would have made no difference to anyone. There was nothing American to defend in Vietnam, it was a bad idea from start to finish, and visibly so from the very first adviser.
If I've learned anything in the last few years, it is the understanding that there are no Supermen.
If you need to have it fit your idea of "hero" then to you I would say that he once conducted himself in a heroic fashion under the circumstances he found himself.
He is/was a decent man but he is simply the wrong man for the presidency at this time when Barack Obama is running against him.
-
I am trying to wrap my head around the idea that a man who drops napalm on peasant villages in a war to subdue an anti-colonial revolution by oppressed natives can be a hero.
The fucking bastard is a war criminal and an almost classic case of one and should have been put on trial for his life long before this.
His "torture" stories BTW are as phony as a three-dollar bill. His own jailer, located in Viet Nam and interviewed, has denied that he was ever tortured. If he was really tortured, he wouldn't be able to walk upright. For an individual who has caused human beings, children, to be roasted alive in flaming gasoline jelly, he got off pretty lightly and has one hell of a God-damn nerve to whine now about all his "tortures."
We sure do live in a sick, sick world. That a man like John McCain can not only run for President, but be acclaimed as a "hero" at the same time. Unbelievable.
-
>>Maybe he didn't do the things you say here but if we are to believe what is said to have happened, he DID go to VietNam, he did get shot down, he was interned in the Hanoi Hilton, he was tortured and he did decline to leave unless everyone got to leave. And the reason he is a hero is because he did all that at his country's behest as was his duty as a member of our military.<<
Every once in a while Brass. Every once in a while...
-
Getting shot down does not make anyone a hero.
Being a prisoner makes anyone a victim, not a hero.
-
Getting shot down does not make anyone a hero.
Being a prisoner makes anyone a victim, not a hero.
Getting in that plane makes a pilot a hero.
By the time he knows how to use his aircraft to fight , he knows quite well what risk he runs.
-
No, getting in a plane does not make anyone a hero.
Were the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor heroes?
Were the Nazis who flew the Stukas and strafed Poland heros?
McCain was not a hero because he flew a plane. He was following orders, perhaps putting himself in danger. You could say the same thing about the Wichita Lineman.
Worship of the military is not any sort of virtue. Unless you mean FASCIST virtue.
A Swedish pilot or a Swiss pilot is more likely to be heroic, because defending Sweden or Switzerland is highly unlikely to go 20,000 miles away and bomb someone else's country.
Americans fighting in Vietnam may have been brave, but heroes they were not. Some were misguided patriots, others were just suckers, but nothing they did benefited anyone in this country other than the arms industry.
-
No, getting in a plane does not make anyone a hero.
Were the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor heroes?
Were the Nazis who flew the Stukas and strafed Poland heroes?
McCain was not a hero because he flew a plane. He was following orders, perhaps putting himself in danger. You could say the same thing about the Wichita Lineman.
Worship of the military is not any sort of virtue. Unless you mean FASCIST virtue.
A Swedish pilot or a Swiss pilot is more likely to be heroic, because defending Sweden or Switzerland is highly unlikely to go 20,000 miles away and bomb someone else's country.
Americans fighting in Vietnam may have been brave, but heroes they were not. Some were misguided patriots, others were just suckers, but nothing they did benefited anyone in this country other than the arms industry.
Failing to resist the expansion of Communism?
Oh yes ,that was worthwile and important.
Imagine the world in which Communism was not resisted in Berlin,Korea , Vietnam , Cambodia(... well it wasn't resisted much in Cambodia , but that makes my point) or Afghanistan.
Perhaps the Soviet Union would not have become exhausted and collapsed without the fighting and every country that resisted on its own would have had no more success than Hungary in the Prague spring.
We could be speaking Russian now , except we would have no internet , or right to speak.
-
Gentleman, personally speaking, I would have been happy if this thread had ended with richpo's comments here:
Every once in a while Brass. Every once in a while...
In all my days in 3DHS, I can't recall ever reading the slightest of agreement from Richpo towards anything that I've ever said. While this comment is glowing endorsement or implicit agreement, it is something.
My comment here is not to put him on the spot or give him grief; I would much rather address my fellow travelers XO and Michael Tee. Please just take a minute and think about where we are.
We are potentially two weeks away from an historic turning point in US history. Our "team", the Democrats is about to "win". The GOP had 6-8 years of unfettered application of their ideologies and core principles. By nearly all accounts, it has been a resounding and utter failure. Two wars quagmires that have no real goals or end in sight under GOP control. Katrina. Worst economic crisis since the Great Depression mostly due to total de-regulation. 9.11 and the unbelievably wasted opportunity to bring the world closer to total peace. Halliburton. And on and on...
No doubt that an Obama administration will have its share of failures but I would hope that those of us who support Barack Obama might not start out in the mindset that the supporters of the Bush "administration" are ending in. I am saying that I am (perhaps overly) hopeful for the near future and that I fear that by spending our time to try and tear down McCain, Palin and their supporters.
Yes, I know that they won't stop trying to tear down Obama, Biden, those of us here who support that ticket and all the others who support him but that is their cross to bear. I heard Stephen Colbert toss out a line one night when asking a guest how the McCain ticket was going to bounce back. "How are they going to attack Obama and Biden," he asked, "because you can't win a footrace without a handgun, right?" And that is exactly how the right is going about this thing.
They can't outrun Obama in an honest footrace, so they have to take shots at him in hopes of slowing him down and for the last few years, I have held a memory in my head of something that John McCain said that made me respect him more than most in our federal government.
He was giving a speech on banning torture. He is an excerpt:
"America stands for a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. I have said it before but it bears repeating: The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy. But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies, and we can never, never allow our enemies to take those values away."
Though I have made rash comparisons in the past between those on the right and any number of horrible people or types of people or groups in the past, I am in no way meaning to compare our right-wing compatriots with terrorists or torturers but the intent and construction of his statement is what applies.
Those on the right are in what they perceive as the fight of their lives, the fight for the fate of the nation and what they want it to be like. Especially in these last two weeks, those in charge of this fight, the higher-ups, will have to sink even lower and lower to depths yet unplumbed. And most of those here will support those lower depth stances and actions. They will follow their higher-ups by choice, some not by choice and some will not follow.
But for those of us supporting Obama and Biden, this is not about who they are, it is about who we are. There can be no mistake that we have followed them into the ditches and also led and/or dragged them into those same ditches. Our only thin defense is that we ourselves felt the same hopelessness that is now befalling them and struck like children trying to affect some kind of power or control.
While you may or may not agree with any of this or none of this or even some of this, it is my hope that you will, at the very least, hopefully agree with me when I say, I don't want to spend the next (hopefully) 8 years arguing with the right about every little sniggly thing that they find fault with.
Obviously there is going to be disagreement and discord but, god dammit, do we have to spend 8 more years arguing over the minutiae of every statement that Obama makes and defending every statement Obama makes with equivocation and splitting the hairs of the meanings of words?
What has frustrated me over these last 8 years has been the total denial of any and all wrong-doing on the part of this out-going "administration" by its supporters and the absolute wills of steel regarding our perceptions of the situations and the validity of those perceptions. I, for one, don't want to be like that.
The analogies and metaphors could be poured forth in how we've treated each other over the last 8 years but I'm not going to do that. Let me state it plainly: For all our yelling, cursing, pivoting, finger-pointing and differences in opinion, as Americans and more importantly, we on the left are no better than they are on the right.
It's their country, too. If they vote, they have a right to complain and redress. We can talk about everything that happens and mix it up, of course, but as the supporters of the Obama administration, we should take it upon ourselves to at least TRY to understand, defend if we must but not constantly hammer on each other without mercy. Let's not blow our opportunity to be magnanimous in triumph.
I'm just sayin'.
Brass.
-
I can agree with this. It seems to me that McCain is not nearly as nasty a campaigner as he could be. I recall Olebush wasting nearly all of his time blathering on and on about three issues that had little or no bearing on anything: Dukakis being a member of the ACLU, Dukakis vetoing a law requiring the pledge of allegiance in schools, and Dukakis turning Willie Horton loose.
Juniorbush's handlewrs were equally nasty in both 2000 and 2004, if not nastier.
I expect that Richpo will continue to regurgitate every morsel of bile that Rush and others spew. The best response is just to let him run his mouth. Nothing he says has any actual relationship with the truth.
-
Failing to resist the expansion of Communism?
Oh yes ,that was worthwile and important.
Imagine the world in which Communism was not resisted in Berlin,Korea , Vietnam , Cambodia(... well it wasn't resisted much in Cambodia , but that makes my point) or Afghanistan.
Perhaps the Soviet Union would not have become exhausted and collapsed without the fighting and every country that resisted on its own would have had no more success than Hungary in the Prague spring.
We could be speaking Russian now , except we would have no internet , or right to speak.
==============================================
All that happened in Vietnam was that a lot of Americans got killed and the country was plunged into debt.
The USSR collapsed due to its own internal contradictions: they could not modernize without computers, they could not maintain control over the population if they gave them computers. Ronald Reagan was a bit player in this.
And no, we would not be speaking Russian. That is totally absurd. It is damn near impossible to get American students to write coherent English.
-
Failing to resist the expansion of Communism?
Oh yes ,that was worthwile and important.
Imagine the world in which Communism was not resisted in Berlin,Korea , Vietnam , Cambodia(... well it wasn't resisted much in Cambodia , but that makes my point) or Afghanistan.
Perhaps the Soviet Union would not have become exhausted and collapsed without the fighting and every country that resisted on its own would have had no more success than Hungary in the Prague spring.
We could be speaking Russian now , except we would have no internet , or right to speak.
==============================================
All that happened in Vietnam was that a lot of Americans got killed and the country was plunged into debt.
The USSR collapsed due to its own internal contradictions: they could not modernize without computers, they could not maintain control over the population if they gave them computers. Ronald Reagan was a bit player in this.
And no, we would not be speaking Russian. That is totally absurd. It is damn near impossible to get American students to write coherent English.
I think it was the threat of haveing to learn German , Italian or Japaneese that made Americans fight so hard in WWII.
If the USA had not modernised with computers the USSR would never have known the lack , Steve Jobs was more than a bit player in that.
-
It's their country, too. If they vote, they have a right to complain and redress. We can talk about everything that happens and mix it up, of course, but as the supporters of the Obama administration, we should take it upon ourselves to at least TRY to understand, defend if we must but not constantly hammer on each other without mercy. Let's not blow our opportunity to be magnanimous in triumph.
I'm just sayin'.
Brass.
Wow , that is nearly beautifull, I will remember your expression of magnanimous virtue when McCain wins and our citys erupt in riot.
-
<<I think it was the threat of haveing to learn German , Italian or Japaneese that made Americans fight so hard in WWII.>>
Actually it was the insult and the injury of the attack on Pearl Harbor, plus good old-fashioned American racism that made Americans fight so hard against the Japanese. As for Germany and Italy, Roosevelt still did not dare to declare war upon them because most Americans didn't give a shit and he had promised the country not to get dragged into a "European" war. A lot of Americans could already speak German or Italian and the prospect of learning a new language was not any kind of motivation for those who couldn't.
If Hitler had not felt compelled to declare war upon the U.S.A. pursuant to treaty obligations, the U.S. would never have entered the European war.
You are trying, once again, to falsely portray America as more democratic, courageous and anti-fascist than reality indicates.
<<If the USA had not modernised with computers the USSR would never have known the lack , Steve Jobs was more than a bit player in that.>>
One day when I have more time I am going to read up on the real story of how communist rule ended in Russia and Eastern Europe. As far as I'm concerned, none of the explanations offered in this forum, mainly I think by plane, seem credible, although I'm sure computers and defence spending had some role to play. This whole thing really is one huge mystery to me.
-
>>I expect that Richpo will continue to regurgitate every morsel of bile that Rush and others spew. The best response is just to let him run his mouth. Nothing he says has any actual relationship with the truth.<<
It's true, and not just in this one instance, that Brass has from time to time said things that make help me to see him as a decent human being no matter how wrong I consider his views to be.
XO on the other hand is just a total fucking asshole.
-
I think it was the threat of haveing to learn German , Italian or Japaneese that made Americans fight so hard in WWII.
If the USA had not modernized with computers the USSR would never have known the lack , Steve Jobs was more than a bit player in that.
======================================
But see, that is the point. The US modernized, not to defeat the Russians, but to make industry more efficient. The Russian bureaucracy knew nothing about computers, except that they would make samhazdats and other communications between Soviet peoples even more possible. Gorbachov decided to modernize and to become more open at the same time. About the same time, the WWII generation of the bureaucracy became too feeble to resist. The entire system was full of gaps and patches and it simply collapsed.
Jobs made personal computers affordable, as did Sinclair, Commodore, Radio Shack and Texas Instruments. The industrial use of computers came several years before that. My father was Recorder of deeds in Missouri and he was the first to get all the land records of the county from the 1820's to the present on computer tapes. This was around 1978-1979. I got my first TI 99-4a in 1983, I think.
.
-
Wow , that is nearly beautifull, I will remember your expression of magnanimous virtue when McCain wins and our citys erupt in riot.
Regarding "riots"...
If we go into the election day and polls are showing Obama with as commanding a lead as he is showing now and he loses, I would expect riots and I would think that riots are in order. I might be too scared to actually participate in riots. I'd hate to get killed or incapacitated and leave my wife in a lurch.
If Obama loses with a commanding lead in the polls and the exit polls (which the right has effectively worked to cast doubt on since 2000), this nation will be in dire need of some Revolution. It is not my intention to sound radical but resolved. It would be my hope that if all indicators show that Obama should have won and there is widespread reports of machines switching votes that those of you on the right to stand up and demand a thorough accounting of the election.
The secret ballot part of our elections can be a tricky thing at times. The is a great demand for trust in those charged with handling and counting of the votes from those of us in the electorate. RFK, Jr was on one of the morning shows today stating that the election is stolen already. I hope the polls indicate a great lead from any and all angles of polling so that it will be "un-stealable".
Obviously, there is nothing to be done regarding the electronic voting machines in this cycle. I will be contacting all my representatives, local and federal in coming days to press them to rid our nation of any and all electronic voting machines. No voting system, especially a necessarily secretive system like ours, is perfect, but knowing how easy it is to make software do what you want (when you have that knowledge), electronic voting machines can never raise to level of trust that I have for a simple paper ballot.
There has been much talk in the last few days of the race "tightening". I look at that with a jaundiced eye. If a majority of the polls show that happening then I will find that believable. If Rasmussen and Zogby are saying that only, then "tightening" talk, for me, is interpreted at "stealing" talk.
Plane, wouldn't you agree that if the majority of polls (prior and exit) show Obama overwhelmingly ahead and then he loses that would appear to be a miscarriage of justice and perhaps a riot might be in order?
And, if you feel it would not warrant a riot, then what situation would you ever feel might warrant one?
Brassmask
PS. If they were sincere, thanks for the kudos re: "almost beautiful" comment.
-
There has been much talk in the last few days of the race "tightening". I look at that with a jaundiced eye. If a majority of the polls show that happening then I will find that believable. If Rasmussen and Zogby are saying that only, then "tightening" talk, for me, is interpreted at "stealing" talk.
I see...the 2 most notable and objective polls are to be discounted, unless far more democrat leaning polls concur. Gotcha ::)
-
>>If we go into the election day and polls are showing Obama with as commanding a lead as he is showing now and he loses, I would expect riots and I would think that riots are in order.<<
Interesting.
You should consider the Bradley Effect before you put your stamp of approval on rioting.
I'm guessing you're talking about Black people since you yourself are too much of a coward to do what you feel should be done. Along those lines you should consider that the destruction will occur in Black neighborhoods. It's those who can least afford it that suffer most in these things.
Also, but it won't happen, if rioters showed up in my neighborhood, they wouldn't leave the cul-de-sac alive.
-
I see...the 2 most notable and objective polls are to be discounted, unless far more democrat leaning polls concur. Gotcha ::)
*sigh*
Let's talk about it.
Zogby and Rasmussen are constantly cited on FOX and by the McCain campaigns as showing that the race is tightening or shows McCain ahead.
Maybe I'm just as guilty of bias against them as you are in favor of them, but as far as I can tell, they are most often at odds with most other polls.
Of course, it could be that they are the most reliable and trustworthy but that would then mean that every other polling operation is "in the tank" for Obama. Now, is that what you are trying to imply?
The polls are never all going to be getting the exact same results but they should be in the same area within a few points. Right?
-
Also, but it won't happen, if rioters showed up in my neighborhood, they wouldn't leave the cul-de-sac alive.
Because you would personally kill them? With a gun? With a rifle? With a broadaxe or a scimitar?
-
Also, but it won't happen, if rioters showed up in my neighborhood, they wouldn't leave the cul-de-sac alive.
Because you would personally kill them? With a gun? With a rifle? With a broadaxe or a scimitar?
Requires prior planing to be effective.
I reccomend a barricade across the culdesac entrance and hidden rifle positions.
Not likely to work unless the neighbors are agreeable.
-
Wow , that is nearly beautifull, I will remember your expression of magnanimous virtue when McCain wins and our citys erupt in riot.
Regarding "riots"...
If we go into the election day and polls are showing Obama with as commanding a lead as he is showing now and he loses, I would expect riots and I would think that riots are in order. I might be too scared to actually participate in riots. I'd hate to get killed or incapacitated and leave my wife in a lurch.
If Obama loses with a commanding lead in the polls and the exit polls (which the right has effectively worked to cast doubt on since 2000), this nation will be in dire need of some Revolution. It is not my intention to sound radical but resolved. It would be my hope that if all indicators show that Obama should have won and there is widespread reports of machines switching votes that those of you on the right to stand up and demand a thorough accounting of the election.
The secret ballot part of our elections can be a tricky thing at times. The is a great demand for trust in those charged with handling and counting of the votes from those of us in the electorate. RFK, Jr was on one of the morning shows today stating that the election is stolen already. I hope the polls indicate a great lead from any and all angles of polling so that it will be "un-stealable".
Obviously, there is nothing to be done regarding the electronic voting machines in this cycle. I will be contacting all my representatives, local and federal in coming days to press them to rid our nation of any and all electronic voting machines. No voting system, especially a necessarily secretive system like ours, is perfect, but knowing how easy it is to make software do what you want (when you have that knowledge), electronic voting machines can never raise to level of trust that I have for a simple paper ballot.
There has been much talk in the last few days of the race "tightening". I look at that with a jaundiced eye. If a majority of the polls show that happening then I will find that believable. If Rasmussen and Zogby are saying that only, then "tightening" talk, for me, is interpreted at "stealing" talk.
Plane, wouldn't you agree that if the majority of polls (prior and exit) show Obama overwhelmingly ahead and then he loses that would appear to be a miscarriage of justice and perhaps a riot might be in order?
And, if you feel it would not warrant a riot, then what situation would you ever feel might warrant one?
Brassmask
PS. If they were sincere, thanks for the kudos re: "almost beautiful" comment.
You deserve a better compliment than I gave , you are being thoughtfull and generous.
But ...
Obama wins and no riot is expected , even though fraud is already being found and proven , if this fraud turns out to be the tip of the iceberg and there is indeed very much fraud helping Obama , there will be no riot?
Of course not , there is not one standard of maturaty riots are expected if Dems feel cheated , Republicans that feel cheated can suck it up.
Really when you hear rumor of your own side cheating , do you take it with the same size grain of salt as you do any other?
-
>>Because you would personally kill them? ... <<
Yup.
-
>>Because you would personally kill them? ... <<
Yup.
It is quite likely that the riots will occur near the homes of the rioters.
-
>>If we go into the election day and polls are showing Obama with as commanding a lead as he is showing now and he loses, I would expect riots and I would think that riots are in order.<<
Interesting.
You should consider the Bradley Effect before you put your stamp of approval on rioting.
I'm guessing you're talking about Black people since you yourself are too much of a coward to do what you feel should be done. Along those lines you should consider that the destruction will occur in Black neighborhoods. It's those who can least afford it that suffer most in these things.
Also, but it won't happen, if rioters showed up in my neighborhood, they wouldn't leave the cul-de-sac alive.
The Bradley Effect is not going to be a factor with this.
Some have said that the Bradley Effect was just an excuse or theory that covered for that election having been stolen.
People often misunderstand prudence for cowardice.
-
>>If we go into the election day and polls are showing Obama with as commanding a lead as he is showing now and he loses, I would expect riots and I would think that riots are in order.<<
Interesting.
You should consider the Bradley Effect before you put your stamp of approval on rioting.
I'm guessing you're talking about Black people since you yourself are too much of a coward to do what you feel should be done. Along those lines you should consider that the destruction will occur in Black neighborhoods. It's those who can least afford it that suffer most in these things.
Also, but it won't happen, if rioters showed up in my neighborhood, they wouldn't leave the cul-de-sac alive.
The Bradley Effect is not going to be a factor with this.
Some have said that the Bradley Effect was just an excuse or theory that covered for that election having been stolen.
People often misunderstand prudence for cowardice.
Looseing is all the evidence require to make an accusation of cheating , there may be no other evidence , but haveing lost why not cry foul?
What more is to loose?
-
Looseing is all the evidence require to make an accusation of cheating , there may be no other evidence , but haveing lost why not cry foul?
What more is to loose?
-----------------------------------------------
Why not accuse the likely winners of planning to complain of cheating if they lose in advance, when it is most likely that they will win?
-
>>The Bradley Effect is not going to be a factor with this.<<
You can see this in your crystal ball?
>>Some have said that the Bradley Effect was just an excuse or theory that covered for that election having been stolen.<<
Well there you go then. If you lose, it was stolen. Period.
>>People often misunderstand prudence for cowardice.<<
Not this time. You talk big, but you want those dark people to do your rioting for you.
-
>>People often misunderstand prudence for cowardice.<<
Not this time. You talk big, but you want those dark people to do your rioting for you.
Whatever you need to tell yourself, buddy.
-
Looseing is all the evidence require to make an accusation of cheating , there may be no other evidence , but haveing lost why not cry foul?
What more is to loose?
-----------------------------------------------
Why not accuse the likely winners of planning to complain of cheating if they lose in advance, when it is most likely that they will win?
Because actual cheating is already being caught.
-
>>People often misunderstand prudence for cowardice.<<
Not this time. You talk big, but you want those dark people to do your rioting for you.
Whatever you need to tell yourself, buddy.
I am ready to congradulate you on being magnamous in victory as you plan to be ,but can you please put up with our weeping and wailing with the same patience you wanted us to show for yours eight and four years ago?
-
I am ready to congradulate you on being magnamous in victory as you plan to be ,but can you please put up with our weeping and wailing with the same patience you wanted us to show for yours eight and four years ago?
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.
I regret using the word "magnanimous" because it implies an air of sarcasm but my sentiments were sincere and my intention is to focus on not being an asshole in the event that Obama wins.
-
I am ready to congradulate you on being magnamous in victory as you plan to be ,but can you please put up with our weeping and wailing with the same patience you wanted us to show for yours eight and four years ago?
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.
I regret using the word "magnanimous" because it implies an air of sarcasm but my sentiments were sincere and my intention is to focus on not being an asshole in the event that Obama wins.
Oh you know me , I hide sarcasm in serious words like Easter eggs in the grass.
But really will your attitude be mature in any outcome?
-
What evidense does RFK Jr have that the election has already been stolen, and did he saywho the election was stolen for?
-
What evidense does RFK Jr have that the election has already been stolen, and did he saywho the election was stolen for?
Has he been following the ACORN reports?
-
Speaking of ACORN, anyone catch how much Federal $$$ (OUR tax dollars) they have directly received, since 1998??
-
>> ... my intention is to focus on not being an asshole in the event that Obama wins.<<
Had to clean the Mountian Dew off my screen ...
Hell Brass, it would be a disappointment of titanic proportions if you weren't!
Believe me. if McCain wins, you won't see me in here for a week! Same goes if Barry wins. ;)