Obama wants to Raise Taxes, Good or Bad for the Economy?

[see4]

What happened to letting the spelling slide? Or did you realise US and UK/AU spelling differs...

I don't hate gays if I did it would mean I hate some of my oldest friends

Your sig isn't a wall of shame as much as a wall of bigotry... Your previous sig was very homophobic...

My previous signature was a quote from one of you people. If I could find it again, I would repost it. Wasn't my quote. Don't shoot the messenger.

Ok, so let me understand this, you are from Australia? And you are on a US pot forum, in the political section, debating about US politics? Do I have that right?

You are a fucking loser. Big time. You seriously have nothing better to do than complain on a US pot website about US politics, and you live in Australia? Wow. Just wow.

 

[UncleBuck]

i believe echelon may have been banned from all australian political message boards for his constant violations of australian hate speech codes regarding holocaust denial.

true story, echelon sympathizes with holocaust deniers all day long, even joins their groups and everything.

just trying to get see4 caught up on some of the wonderful personalities we have in the politics section.

 

[see4]

i believe echelon may have been banned from all australian political message boards for his constant violations of australian hate speech codes regarding holocaust denial.

true story, echelon sympathizes with holocaust deniers all day long, even joins their groups and everything.

just trying to get see4 caught up on some of the wonderful personalities we have in the politics section.

How could I have missed all this fun?

 

[UncleBuck]

How could I have missed all this fun?

the introductions have only begun.

you have some colorful personalities to get to know.

you'll be amazed at the massive percentage of righties who enjoy ellipses abuse as cover for their grammatical retardation and inability to spell simple words correctly.

 

[see4]

the introductions have only begun.

you have some colorful personalities to get to know.

you'll be amazed at the massive percentage of righties who enjoy ellipses abuse as cover for their grammatical retardation and inability to spell simple words correctly.

well i hope the others are as much fun as the current bunch. these guys are great! i've already got one blocking me. if i can get 2 more, i have a figurative hat-trick.

I was able to get on a list in record time too! less than 1 day!

 

[echelon1k1]

My previous signature was a quote from one of you people. If I could find it again, I would repost it. Wasn't my quote. Don't shoot the messenger.

Ok, so let me understand this, you are from Australia? And you are on a US pot forum, in the political section, debating about US politics? Do I have that right?

You are a fucking loser. Big time. You seriously have nothing better to do than complain on a US pot website about US politics, and you live in Australia? Wow. Just wow.

So the quote was to highlight his sexuality to everyone or just him? I'm pretty sure he knows he's gay

I love living in Australia, we are head and shoulders above the US and life is simply better here... That is a fact.

At the very top of the page there will be a box with a web address, I suggest you take note if you've forgotten where you are...

 

[echelon1k1]

i believe echelon may have been banned from all australian political message boards for his constant violations of australian hate speech codes regarding holocaust denial.

true story, echelon sympathizes with holocaust deniers all day long, even joins their groups and everything.

just trying to get see4 caught up on some of the wonderful personalities we have in the politics section.

citation or it never happened, just like camemberts 1st birthday...

 

[tokeprep]

I swapped it out for a much better one. If you're lucky you might make the wall of shame too.

Why was my comment shameful? No one even tried to argue that Obama would have won the primary if he weren't half black because the case is impossible to make. Approximately 7 million black people voted in the Democratic primaries in 2008 and Obama took 85% of their votes. Clinton lost to Obama by just 300,000 votes. If Obama had only gotten 80% of the black vote instead of 85%, that would have put her up by 400,000 votes, which means Hillary Clinton would probably be president of the United States right now.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why was my comment shameful? No one even tried to argue that Obama would have won the primary if he weren't half black because the case is impossible to make.

you sure are focused on black people taking away what you feel belongs to white people.

Approximately 7 million black people voted in the Democratic primaries in 2008

citation needed.

and Obama took 85% of their votes.

citation needed.

Clinton lost to Obama by just 300,000 votes.

obama actually lost the popular vote by about 300kvotes, kiddo.

[TH="align: left"]Nominee
[/TH]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] Barack Obama
[/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] Hillary Rodham Clinton [/TD]

[TH="width: 75, align: left"]Party
[/TH]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] Democratic
[/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] Democratic [/TD]

[TH="align: left"]Home state
[/TH]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] Illinois
[/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] New York [/TD]

[TH="align: left"]Delegate count
[/TH]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] 2,285½
[/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"]1,973[/TD]

[TH="align: left"]States carried
[/TH]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] 29+DC+DA+GU+VI
[/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"]21+ PR + AS [/TD]

[TH="align: left"]Popular vote
[/TH]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"]17,584,692[SUP] [1] [/SUP]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] 17,857,501 [SUP] [1] [/SUP][/TD]

[TH="align: left"]Percentage
[/TH]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"]47.31%
[/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] 48.04% [/TD]

If Obama had only gotten 80% of the black vote instead of 85%, that would have put her up by 400,000 votes, which means Hillary Clinton would probably be president of the United States right now.

you are not doing a good job of displaying your knowledge of political processes, but you are doing a bang up job on showcasing your resentment of black people who "take away" what you feel belongs to white people.

the popular vote does not really matter in primary contests, delegates do.

unless those mystical votes you talk about were perfectly targeted with the utmost precision, the result would have likely been the same.

but it is nice that you see obama's victory as solely due to the actions of a minority of black people, rather than the majority of white people.

obama won 9 out of the 10 whitest states in the union, and handily. if only those white people were more like you and voted for "one of their own", then hillary might have had a chance. but the fact is that they didn't, obama won the primary on the strength of his overwhelming performance in the whitest states in the union.

i'm not ready to call you a racist yet, as i believe your comments arise out of pure youthful stupidity and naivete rather than any kind of malice. but you are earning a place right next to some other less than savory members due to your continued focus on black people "taking away" what you feel belongs to white people, your full ride at ITT tech included.

you'll look back at this one of these days and kick yourself, kiddo.

 

[tokeprep]

you sure are focused on black people taking away what you feel belongs to white people.

I'm not saying anything "belongs" to anyone. The discussion was about people voting based on race, if you've forgotten. I said black people voted based on race, as evidenced by said primaries, and that racist voting is the reason Hillary Clinton was not the nominee.

If you're going to say it's wrong for white people to vote for white people, I am dumbfounded that you are unwilling to say it's wrong for black people to vote for black people. It's an inexplicable double standard.

citation needed.

citation needed.

See any compilation of the primary exit polls, like this one: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/06/democratic-nomination-voter-totals-by.html.

obama actually lost the popular vote by about 300kvotes, kiddo.

[TH="align: left"]Nominee[/TH]
[TD="align: center"] Barack Obama [/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] Hillary Rodham Clinton [/TD]

[TH="width: 75, align: left"]Party[/TH]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] Democratic [/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] Democratic [/TD]

[TH="align: left"]Home state[/TH]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] Illinois [/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] New York [/TD]

[TH="align: left"]Delegate count[/TH]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] 2,285½ [/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"]1,973[/TD]

[TH="align: left"]States carried
[/TH]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] 29+DC+DA+GU+VI [/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"]21+ PR + AS [/TD]

[TH="align: left"]Popular vote[/TH]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"]17,584,692[SUP] [1] [/SUP][/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] 17,857,501 [SUP] [1] [/SUP][/TD]

[TH="align: left"]Percentage[/TH]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"]47.31%[/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: center"] 48.04% [/TD]

I transposed the popular vote numbers, my mistake. But my point remains exactly the same.

States with the largest black populations (as a percentage of the population): Mississippi, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina. Obama won all of them.

Georgia is the telling example. 51% of the primary voters there were black, and 88% of them voted for Obama. If you trim Obama's black margin down in these states and reapportion the delegates, Obama loses the primary.

you are not doing a good job of displaying your knowledge of political processes, but you are doing a bang up job on showcasing your resentment of black people who "take away" what you feel belongs to white people.

the popular vote does not really matter in primary contests, delegates do.

unless those mystical votes you talk about were perfectly targeted with the utmost precision, the result would have likely been the same.

When I talk about the popular vote count my focus is on the unpledged superdelegates. If Clinton had amassed a greater number of popular votes, she could have more easily pursued the superdelegates to victory.

But that doesn't even matter. If Obama hadn't overwhelmingly won the black vote, he never would have racked up enough pledged delegates to win anyway--he wouldn't have carried all of the states I previously listed, and even if he had, he would have taken far fewer delegates.

but it is nice that you see obama's victory as solely due to the actions of a minority of black people, rather than the majority of white people.

obama won 9 out of the 10 whitest states in the union, and handily. if only those white people were more like you and voted for "one of their own", then hillary might have had a chance. but the fact is that they didn't, obama won the primary on the strength of his overwhelming performance in the whitest states in the union.

Black voters made up almost 40% of the primary electorate. When the split is 85-15, the effect is undeniable.

The 10 whitest states in the union are some of least populous and have the fewest delegates, so you cannot possibly mean that Obama won the primary based on his strength in those states--it is numerically impossible. He could have won 100% of the vote in those 10 states and it still would barely make a difference in the popular vote or the delegate count.

i'm not ready to call you a racist yet, as i believe your comments arise out of pure youthful stupidity and naivete rather than any kind of malice. but you are earning a place right next to some other less than savory members due to your continued focus on black people "taking away" what you feel belongs to white people, your full ride at ITT tech included.

you'll look back at this one of these days and kick yourself, kiddo.

There's nothing racist about this except the fact that black voters overwhelming voted for someone based on race. Again, my goal was to see you condemn this, since you were condemning white people for supposedly voting for white people on the basis of race. Instead, you're arguing that those black voters didn't make a difference, even though the data permits no other conclusion.

Let me emphasize this for you: I said Obama could not possibly have won the nomination without overwhelmingly taking the black vote. I never said the nomination "belonged" to Hillary Clinton or complained that anyone "took it away."

You're framing it that way because that's how you want to read what I said even though it's not there.

 

[UncleBuck]

black people voted based on race, as evidenced by said primaries, and that racist voting is the reason Hillary Clinton was not the nominee.

citation needed.

why do you assume that black people vote based on race? did you ask them? did you conduct a poll?

what about all the white people that voted for hillary? are those all racist votes?

or are you still being bitter because you think a black person took your spot at ITT tech?

obama would have never won the primary without his overwhelming performance in white states, where he swept 9 out of 10 of the whitest states in the union.