Conquer Club

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:37 pm**

HapSmo19 wrote:Here's a good representation of the mindset of black voters. The last minute is the best

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AAZzgTLsDYY

Ahhh...Michael Savage, entertaining guy.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:42 pm**

Neoteny wrote:
suggs wrote:Ah, Lincoln...How much experience did he have when he became President?

He owned a baseball team.

Would've have been better if he'd been an actor, but thats good enough for me.
Hey! I was vice captain of my cricket team once -SUGGS FOR PRES.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:45 pm**

I would vote for suggs
I mean damn we are goin to hell anyways

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:49 pm**

Deadpool809 wrote:I want someone in the White House who understands how Congress works, through experience.

LOL. Yes after being a Senator for several years I am sure Obama has NO CLUE how congress works.

Deadpool809 wrote:I want a President who understands the military, their command structure, and how military action is implemented.

I would say Obama understands it very well. He understands that we spend unfathomable amounts of taxpayer money to fight unnecessary wars with people who posed us no threat. Now if you say "I want a President who is a warmonger", I will believe you.

Deadpool809 wrote:II want a President who knows what Capital Gains taxes even are, and can come up with coherent economic strategies on his own.

I want a President who took the high road by working his way up to make his fortune. Not one who took the low road and dumped his poor crippled wife to marry a young rich heiress and her family billions.

Deadpool809 wrote:I want a President who understands the military, their command structure, and how military action is implemented. Most of all, I want a President who understands these things, so it is HIM running the country, not his advisors who can tell him anything they want, and he won't know the difference..

Sounds like YOU want a President who actually understands technology. One who knows how to use & comprehend something as simple as email instead of having his secretary "work the computer" for him. One who isn't afraid of the Internet. One who actually owns a cell phone.

You certainly aren't talking about Gramps McCain. The man can't even send an email so he certainly is no longer capable of running todays hi-tech military. I guarantee he still has a VCR...and it still blinks 12:00am. Such a perfect choice for a cutting edge nation.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:52 pm**

suggs wrote:Ah, Lincoln...How much experience did he have when he became President?

Wiki wrote:A Whig and an admirer of party leader Henry Clay, Lincoln was elected to a term in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1846. As a freshman House member, he was not a particularly powerful or influential figure. However, he spoke out against the Mexican-American War, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory" and challenged the President's claims regarding the Texas boundary and offered Spot Resolutions, demanding to know on what "spot" on US soil that blood was first spilt.

...

In 1857-58, Douglas broke with President Buchanan, leading to a fight for control of the Democratic Party. Some eastern Republicans even favored the reelection of Douglas in 1858, since he had led the opposition to the Lecompton Constitution, which would have admitted Kansas as a slave state. Accepting the Republican nomination for Senate in 1858, Lincoln delivered his famous speech: "'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other." The speech created an evocative image of the danger of disunion caused by the slavery debate, and rallied Republicans across the north.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:03 pm**

tzor wrote:
suggs wrote:Ah, Lincoln...How much experience did he have when he became President?

Wiki wrote:A Whig and an admirer of party leader Henry Clay, Lincoln was elected to a term in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1846. As a freshman House member, he was not a particularly powerful or influential figure. However, he spoke out against the Mexican-American War, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory" and challenged the President's claims regarding the Texas boundary and offered Spot Resolutions, demanding to know on what "spot" on US soil that blood was first spilt.

...

In 1857-58, Douglas broke with President Buchanan, leading to a fight for control of the Democratic Party. Some eastern Republicans even favored the reelection of Douglas in 1858, since he had led the opposition to the Lecompton Constitution, which would have admitted Kansas as a slave state. Accepting the Republican nomination for Senate in 1858, Lincoln delivered his famous speech: "'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other." The speech created an evocative image of the danger of disunion caused by the slavery debate, and rallied Republicans across the north.

I do believe that was a rhetorical question.

This is not the country that Lincoln ran. And we are not the same people.

Right, sure, OK. Our country has changed, our people have changed to a degree.

Are you suggesting Lincoln was simply the right guy at the right time? Because I personally think the qualities of a good leader are universal -- and experience is NOT at the top of the list. Intelligence is.

We are still humans here. We study history for a reason -- because the past isn't dead and gone; it isn't even past.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:05 pm**

Indeed. Not very much.
He was a surprise choice, Douglas was fav for quite a while, unless I've totally forgotten my US hisotry, which atm, is quite likely.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:10 pm**

Btw -- I keep bringing up Lincoln specifically because the parallels between him and Obama (in terms of pure facts, some irrelevant) are fascinating.

Both came from Illinois
Both were relatively obscure, and had relatively little experience in Congress, before becoming the candidate
Both had/have amazing speaking ability
Lincoln's actions and speeches all called for reconciliation -- so far Obama has been following the same route. In short, both are/were uniters, not dividers

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:12 pm**

Backglass wrote:LOL. Yes after being a Senator for several years I am sure Obama has NO CLUE how congress works.

Why would he? He was in office for a couple MONTHS, then started running for President. What major legislation has he proposed, and carried through the whole process? Hell, when was the last time he even voted? Holding the office doesn't give you experience. Doing the job does. And he hasn't done a thing since he took office.

As to the rest of your post - gonna pass. The thread is about Racism, and Obama, not about irrational hatred of all things right of Clinton. That debate is pointless anyway, in my experience.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:16 pm**

InkL0sed wrote:Lincoln's actions and speeches all called for reconciliation -- so far Obama has been following the same route. In short, both are/were uniters, not dividers

Uhh - Lincoln's election divided the country and caused a Civil War. Obama's idea of reconciliation is calling for his opponents to agree with everything he does - namely, the same basic Liberal policies the Democrat Party has championed for a while now.

I am not debating those policies, but let's be realistic here. A uniter seeks to find common ground. Obama is planted in the left. He may be many things, but a "Uniter" isn't one of them. McCain fits that bill more than Obama - the Conservative base's dislike for him is evidence that he is open to certain LIberal ideas that would help "bridge the gap" and bring the country a little closer together.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:21 pm**

Deadpool809 wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:Lincoln's actions and speeches all called for reconciliation -- so far Obama has been following the same route. In short, both are/were uniters, not dividers

Uhh - Lincoln's election divided the country and caused a Civil War. Obama's idea of reconciliation is calling for his opponents to agree with everything he does - namely, the same basic Liberal policies the Democrat Party has championed for a while now.

I am not debating those policies, but let's be realistic here. A uniter seeks to find common ground. Obama is planted in the left. He may be many things, but a "Uniter" isn't one of them.

Lincoln was a moderate. Unfortunately, yes his election did cause the Civil War -- you happen to know anything of how he handled the South upon their defeat?

Obama frequently talks about how the country comes first -- not the party. Republicans have actually switched parties to vote for him. Yes, he is of course a liberal, but he has often called for a dialogue with Republicans, and has said he would listen to them. He has frequently said he doesn't want party-lines to get in the way of doing what's best for the country. And I remember that his most major piece of legislation in the Senate (because, yes, he HAS done some things in the Senate) was in conjunction with a Republican. Can't recall what it was about, but that's besides the point.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:23 pm**

InkL0sed wrote:I am a retard

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:28 pm**

InkL0sed wrote:I do believe that was a rhetorical question.

I know but there was something in that quote that resonated with me. I mean if you had replaced "Polk" with "Bush" and the "Mexican-American War" with the "Iraq" war, then Mr. Lincoln had more "guts" than Obama in war opposition (as opposed to the I wasn't in congress at the time) and more problems from opposing the status quo than McCain.

Of course it's a shame we can never see what his comments to the Iraq war would have been, but damn it, they would have been colorful indeed. I mean come on, resolutions to make the president show congress the "spot" where American blood was first shed?

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:30 pm**

HapSmo19 wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:I am a retard

The irony, it kills me.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:31 pm**

tzor wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:I do believe that was a rhetorical question.

I know but there was something in that quote that resonated with me. I mean if you had replaced "Polk" with "Bush" and the "Mexican-American War" with the "Iraq" war, then Mr. Lincoln had more "guts" than Obama in war opposition (as opposed to the I wasn't in congress at the time) and more problems from opposing the status quo than McCain.

Of course it's a shame we can never see what his comments to the Iraq war would have been, but damn it, they would have been colorful indeed. I mean come on, resolutions to make the president show congress the "spot" where American blood was first shed?

I think Obama was, what, in the Illinois State Senate at the time? Not exactly a prime position to make anti-war speeches.

Which I think he did, actually...

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:36 pm**

America certainly has a lot to learn, a lot to answer for in regards to racism. But, the other side to this is that we face racism because we HAVE large numbers of differant races, with many different cultures and backgrounds all mixed in. To blame the US for racism without celebrating the extraordinary divirsity and sheer numbers, to compare us to Europe, which is still fairly uniform and STILL has trouble "meshing" together .. is a bit hypocritical.

This doesn't excuse the wrongs that occur here, by any means. But, I get a little tired of being "lectured to" by Europeans who themselves have plenty to answer for as well.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:37 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
edwinissweet wrote:http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/poll-finds-obama-still-faces-racial-gap/20080716092109990001

America certainly has a lot to learn, a lot to answer for in regards to racism. But, the other side to this is that we face racism because we HAVE large numbers of differant races, with many different cultures and backgrounds all mixed in. To blame the US for racism without celebrating the extraordinary divirsity and sheer numbers, to compare us to Europe, which is still fairly uniform and STILL has trouble "meshing" together .. is a bit hypocritical.

This doesn't excuse the wrongs that occur here, by any means. But, I get a little tired of being "lectured to" by Europeans who themselves have plenty to answer for as well.

Racism is the plight of individuals and sub groups of individuals... not the nation as a whole. To suggest that America is a racist nation is as bad as an individual being racist.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:42 pm**

Oh yeah, let's get back on topic.

Honestly, I don't think the majority of people are that racist towards Obama. I think as always we hear a very vocal minority here on the Internets that imply otherwise... but I think Obama's charisma overcomes most people's doubts.

Obviously there are still racists around -- probably always will be -- but we have made enormous progress in a short amount of time in the grand scheme of things. I also think tzor offered a good explanation for the disparity in numbers earlier on.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:43 pm**

InkL0sed wrote:Oh yeah, let's get back on topic.

Honestly, I don't think the majority of people are that racist towards Obama. I think as always we hear a very vocal minority here on the Internets that imply otherwise... but I think Obama's charisma overcomes most people's doubts.

Obviously there are still racists around -- probably always will be -- but we have made enormous progress in a short amount of time in the grand scheme of things. I also think tzor offered a good explanation for the disparity in numbers earlier on.

I don't think that charisma is a quality that is the best decider for a nation's leader, do you?

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:44 pm**

polarbeast23 wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:Oh yeah, let's get back on topic.

Honestly, I don't think the majority of people are that racist towards Obama. I think as always we hear a very vocal minority here on the Internets that imply otherwise... but I think Obama's charisma overcomes most people's doubts.

Obviously there are still racists around -- probably always will be -- but we have made enormous progress in a short amount of time in the grand scheme of things. I also think tzor offered a good explanation for the disparity in numbers earlier on.

I don't think that charisma is a quality that is the best decider for a nation's leader, do you?

Well, that's not the point I was making; but actually, I do.

Suggs summed it up very well a while ago -- I think I'll go find that post...

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:46 pm**

Deadpool809 wrote:As to the rest of your post - gonna pass.

Not a surprise.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:48 pm**

InkL0sed wrote:
polarbeast23 wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:Oh yeah, let's get back on topic.

Honestly, I don't think the majority of people are that racist towards Obama. I think as always we hear a very vocal minority here on the Internets that imply otherwise... but I think Obama's charisma overcomes most people's doubts.

Obviously there are still racists around -- probably always will be -- but we have made enormous progress in a short amount of time in the grand scheme of things. I also think tzor offered a good explanation for the disparity in numbers earlier on.

I don't think that charisma is a quality that is the best decider for a nation's leader, do you?

Well, that's not the point I was making; but actually, I do.

Suggs summed it up very well a while ago -- I think I'll go find that post...

suggs wrote:I don't think you do need that much experience. After all, no matter what experience you may have had, nothing will adequately prepare you for the greatest job in the world.
Truman and Johnson had prior WhiteHouse experience, and few people would claim they rank amongst the great Presidents.

Thats why the President has advisors and experts -frankly I would be more worried if some one like Colin Powell (well, he seems cool, but i mean an ex-military man) got the job, because specialists tend to enjoy their specialities, and also not to know too much about anything else.

The President is meant to give GENERAL direction, an overall impetus to policy making, and to hopefully inspire those around him. Some coherent ideological drive is also probably a good idea, to prevent aimlessness, fudge and confusion.

I could't give a rats arse whether Obama has had 20 or 2 years Senatorial experience -as long as he is intelligent, hard working, inspirational and decisive, I'm sure he'll do a grand job.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:50 pm**

InkL0sed wrote:Well, that's not the point I was making; but actually, I do.

Suggs summed it up very well a while ago -- I think I'll go find that post...

I will take character over charisma any day. experience and honesty are tied for second. f*ck charisma... I know plenty of charismatic people... but I would have to kill them if they were in charge of my political system.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:54 pm**

Backglass wrote:
Deadpool809 wrote:As to the rest of your post - gonna pass.

Not a surprise.

It shouldn't be. I have had the same tired debate with liberals of all stripes with the same tired position. It is pointless - you choose to see reality how you like, because you are more interested in hating Bush than actually having a real debate about the workings of anything.

I'm not even a Republican, and I don't even like McCain. You wanna vote for Obama because it makes you feel good - and that's fine with me. I have just learned through much experience to not even bother trying to talk sense into people like you. Your mind is made up - and no amount of reality will change that.

Not trying to be hostile, but really - if you are going to dance around here and smile like "ha ha, he knows I am right, that is why he won't debate it" - that just isn't the case. I know it is a waste of time, and it makes way more sense to just pass.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:58 pm**

InkL0sed wrote:
HapSmo19 wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:I am a retard

The irony, it kills me.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9KReZyAZLI0

Conquer Club

america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed

Re: america, be ashamed