jerseyhoya wrote:

Great visual representation of how much the playing field has narrowed from 538. Distribution all jammed up there in the middle.

Interesting stuff, jh.

TheDude24 wrote:This ish just got real.

I really have lost all respect for Ohio

Mountainphan wrote:Joe Biden.....the gift that keeps on giving.

What are the odds that Hillary will get the call in the bullpen to replace our friend, Joe on or before October 15th?

Biden is not the problem.

I actually thought he handled that pretty well, after messing up so bad. I laughed a lot when I first read about it, but when I saw the video I was pretty impressed. He just talks too damn much. Can't help himself.

Mountainphan wrote:Joe Biden.....the gift that keeps on giving.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mzbuRgnI4[/youtube]

What are the odds that Hillary will get the call in the bullpen to replace our friend, Joe on or before October 15th?

Wow, he forgot a state senator was in a wheel chair and recovered quickly after realizing his flub. And that BASTARD WANTS TO BE VP!!! THE HUBRIS!!!

if only many caucasian americans werent racist this wouldnt be close.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eypiqtAdvg&e[/youtube]

This is such a fun race to follow.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:Joe Biden.....the gift that keeps on giving.

What are the odds that Hillary will get the call in the bullpen to replace our friend, Joe on or before October 15th?

Biden is not the problem.

I actually thought he handled that pretty well, after messing up so bad. I laughed a lot when I first read about it, but when I saw the video I was pretty impressed. He just talks too damn much. Can't help himself.

No, but he's not the solution either and for a candidate lacking experience, that's not helpful for Obama.

mpmcgraw wrote:if only many caucasian americans werent racist this wouldnt be close.

If anything, your logic overall is probably somewhat backwards.

jerseyhoya wrote:
Krauthammer thinks you are wrong.

he doesnt think im wrong. because what i think is that it is ridiculous that she didn't know what it was, had never heard it.. actually look at that, he agrees with me! from the article you just quoted "Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is." i dont care if Gibson only was speaking about 1 aspect of the doctrine and not the malleable nature of the term.

sorry man. you should probably stop trying to defend ms palin in this matter, its just not going to work from any angle. it's insanity that she didn't know how to respond to that question. actually, fine fair enough... even if we accept that she may have been confused as to which part of the doctrine Charlie wanted her to respond to. he asked point blank to do that! "how do you interpret it?"

i guess the answer that krauthammer wanted to hear from her (as i did) would be something like "well, there are a few different bush stances that have been linked to this so-called bush doctrine. let me respond to this one..."

i would have been fine with that.

its just sad man. i want to be proud of this country again, i love this country, and watching her react to that question is just embarrassing. there are a few things out there on this topic by the way... krauthammer may have used the term first, but he certainly doesnt own the definition. http://www.google.com/products?oe=utf-8 ... rine+books

WilliamC wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:if only many caucasian americans werent racist this wouldnt be close.

If anything, your logic overall is probably somewhat backwards.

the white guy thinks black people are the racists

ha shocking

mpmcgraw wrote:

WilliamC wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:if only many caucasian americans werent racist this wouldnt be close.

If anything, your logic overall is probably somewhat backwards.

the white guy thinks black people are the racists

ha shocking

I am thinking that aside from the nutcases like you who are trying to make race an issue it isn't being made a big issue on either side.

If there is a side though that is making it an issue, it is not from the "caucasian" front.

There are more black people voting for Obama because he is black than white people not voting for him because he is black. I don't really care how that sounds.

It shouldn't be an issue but some people want it to be. Just don't distort the issue from what it really is.

Considering that 88% of blacks voted for John Kerry in 04 I seriously doubt there are more blacks voting dems because of Obama than whites who wouldnt have voted for McCain if the dems had a white candidate for the simple fact most of them voted dem anyway.

that really wasnt a who is more racist issue for me it is a matter of fact.

I'd have to say that anyone that thinks it is more one race than the other is in my opinion extremely ignorant, but i don't really feel like taking a deeper dive into this can of worms so whatever.

all hail white people who do no wrong.

jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eypiqtAdvg&e[/youtube]

This is such a fun race to follow.

You know, I thought Franken was kind of a joke before, but know, I think I kind of like his style.

mpmcgraw wrote:
I'd have to say that anyone that thinks it is more one race than the other is in my opinion extremely ignorant, .

This is why I questioned you.

That is the end of that. You are the one that brought one stupid opinion in, so I countered.

What the hell was your original point anyway? Seems to me you were the one singling out a race for no reason. Maybe it wasn't opinion because of the fact that there are a lot of white racists. There a lot of racists everywhere. But YOU were the one doing the profiling.

Camp Holdout wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
Krauthammer thinks you are wrong.

he doesnt think im wrong. because what i think is that it is ridiculous that she didn't know what it was, had never heard it.. actually look at that, he agrees with me! from the article you just quoted "Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is." i dont care if Gibson only was speaking about 1 aspect of the doctrine and not the malleable nature of the term.

sorry man. you should probably stop trying to defend ms palin in this matter, its just not going to work from any angle. it's insanity that she didn't know how to respond to that question. actually, fine fair enough... even if we accept that she may have been confused as to which part of the doctrine Charlie wanted her to respond to. he asked point blank to do that! "how do you interpret it?"

i guess the answer that krauthammer wanted to hear from her (as i did) would be something like "well, there are a few different bush stances that have been linked to this so-called bush doctrine. let me respond to this one..."

i would have been fine with that.

its just sad man. i want to be proud of this country again, i love this country, and watching her react to that question is just embarrassing. there are a few things out there on this topic by the way... krauthammer may have used the term first, but he certainly doesnt own the definition. http://www.google.com/products?oe=utf-8 ... rine+books

What's sad (man) is that you let politicians determine whether or not you take pride in your country.

WilliamC wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:
I'd have to say that anyone that thinks it is more one race than the other is in my opinion extremely ignorant, .

This is why I questioned you.

That is the end of that. You are the one that brought one stupid opinion in, so I countered.

What the hell was your original point anyway. Seems to me you were bringing singling out a race.

saying that there are more black people voting for Obama because he is black is a stupid opinion because the vast majority voted dem anyway.

all ethnicities have morons but unfortunately it is only favoring one candidate at this point at least from the way I see it.

I agree that we can end this discussion but the last thing I will say is this. How do you know that it isn't just the voters voting for who they want to win the election? I am pretty sure that John Kerry was not black. Al Gore sure as hell wasn't black.

The Dems struggle to win elections. What reason were whites not voting for Kerry and Gore at the same rate as Obama? They ARE. Maybe moreso.

I am struggling to see where you come out with racism in anything that has gone down to this point. Of course it is there, but it isn't there to be as impactful as I think you believe it is. And it is a two way street.

I think it has to do with the fact that Republicans are better at winning elections moreso than being racist. There is certainly not a higher percentage of whites or Republicans voting for McCain than nominees in years past. It is a near dead lock like it has been the last two elections. I don't see racism, I see a party that loses elections.

I see you trying to make excuses. I will be shocked if Obama doesn't win, but if he doesn't it doesn't mean that the country is racist like some people are going to be eager to point out.

QUOTE WAR

WilliamC wrote:I agree that we can end this discussion but the last thing I will say is this. How do you know that it isn't just the voters voting for who they want to win the election? I am pretty sure that John Kerry was not black. Al Gore sure as hell wasn't black.

if you honestly believe the world is like that good for you, but I lost my innocence a while ago

The Dems struggle to win elections. What reason were whites not voting for Kerry and Gore at the same rate as blacks?

because more white people are rich and Bush's plans significantly favor rich people? not sure where you are going with this either.

I think it has to do with the fact that Republicans are better at winning elections moreso than being racist. There is certainly not a higher percentage of whites or Republicans voting for McCain in years past. It is a near dead lock like it has been the last two elections. I don't see racism I see a party that loses elections.

I see you trying to make excuses.

I truly believe that after the past 4 years more white middle class previously republican voters would have swung over to Obama if not for the color issue.

Yes the top tier republicans are despicable human beings and excellent politicians.

dajafi wrote:

Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats.

I could have told you that.

Estimates are that Obama will get 98% of Black vote, up from 88% in 2004. If African-American voting increases by 20% then Obama will end up with 5 million more African-American votes than Kerry got. It's fair to say that most of those 5 million are voting for him because he's Black. I know a few White people who give one of their primary reasons for voting for Obama is because he's Black. They might have voted for the Democrat anyway.