angrypeppers 1 #1 June 7, 2008 The thought of having Hillary for a VP makes me queasy. I don't like the woman, no scratch that, I loathe the woman. Not personally...never met her. But from what I've seen over the last however many months, I think she's be a horrific choice for Obama. Sure, she got a lot of votes; good for her. But I'm not sure she would be able to sit back and do the job without overshadowing Obama. What would she really bring to the table that would help the Dems that someone like Bill Richardson couldn't? Or is this just a case of the media trying to push something to keep people watching/reading?Burn the land and boil the sea, You can't take the sky from me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #2 June 7, 2008 That could be dangerous for Obama....look at all the people who have mysteriously, suspiciously died that were connected with the Clintons... Hillary could be president after all...lol. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #3 June 7, 2008 You can stop feeling queasy. The odds of her being offered the spot are practically nil. Omaba absolutely has to appear to be the one in control; not the Hillary people, not the polls, not the pundants. Hillary and Bill are FAR too much of a distraction and I really don't see how Obama could even consider it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #4 June 7, 2008 QuoteHillary and Bill are FAR too much of a distraction and I really don't see how Obama could even consider it. He won't. The idea is just a vehicle for the idiots who like to speculate about some grand assasination conspiracy.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #5 June 8, 2008 QuoteYou can stop feeling queasy. The odds of her being offered the spot are practically nil. ooohhh - the predictions and prophecies again. Like they haven't been burned enough in this campaign. After a cool-off period everything is possible and on the table. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,390 #6 June 8, 2008 QuoteYou can stop feeling queasy. The odds of her being offered the spot are practically nil. Omaba absolutely has to appear to be the one in control; not the Hillary people, not the polls, not the pundants. Hillary and Bill are FAR too much of a distraction and I really don't see how Obama could even consider it. Every president we have ever elected has been a Rich White Guy. If Obama picked a female running mate, it would be (AFAIK) the first ticket ever w/o a RWG on it. Is there still enough racist/sexist bigotry in the US to cause that fact alone to be an automatic win for McCain?"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #7 June 8, 2008 QuoteIs there still enough racist/sexist bigotry in the US to cause that fact alone to be an automatic win for McCain? I don't know it would be an automatic win, but I think it *will* have an affect - how much, I'm unsure.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deisel 37 #8 June 8, 2008 I completly agree with Mike. The GOP WANTED to run against Hilary. It would have been the largest negative voter turn out in history. There is simply no way that Obama should have the Clintons anywhere him. Having her there automatically makes his 'change' slogan hypocracy. And yes, it should be a RWG in the #2 spot. Not for any practical purposes but an attempt to appease some of the fears of those uneasy about trusting a black man to run the country.The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #9 June 8, 2008 appease some of the fears of those uneasy about trusting a black man to run the country. Quote It's a sad state of affairs in our country when we have the largest primary voter turnout in history simply because a black man is running, countless people who have never bothered to vote before are showing up to vote without even knowing where the man they are voting for stands on many important issues, the only thing that matters is the color of his skin. Racism(along with idiocy) is alive and well in this country, only it's going a way we aren't used to seeing it go.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tbrown 26 #10 June 8, 2008 It's a sad state of affairs in our country when we have the largest primary voter turnout in history simply because a black man is running, countless people who have never bothered to vote before are showing up to vote without even knowing where the man they are voting for stands on many important issues, the only thing that matters is the color of his skin. Racism(along with idiocy) is alive and well in this country, only it's going a way we aren't used to seeing it go. You're suffering under the delusion that elections are, or used to be, at some mythical time in the past, decided by rational thinking voters. Hope you don't spend your Halloweens waiting up for the Great Pumpkin.... Elections have been full of lies, slander, and fraudulent chicanery all the way back. George Washington is our ONLY president to ever run unopposed, and when he retired, his Veep, John Adams, warned voters that the republic would disintegrate into a French style reign of terror if they ever elected Jefferson. What's got so many blacks - and so many women - out voting is that this year was the first time that either a woman or a black man had a serious shot at the job. And the black man still does. So who can blame either group for turning out in droves to vote for one of their own ? It might not please Plato (who said a democracy was the corruption of a republic), but it sure got the people's attention. Sort of a shame that the first serious woman and the first serious black had to run against each other, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Barack's not going to pick Hillary, because if he does, he not only has to drag her along, but Bubba Bill as well. And that just ain't a-gonna happen. And if he ever somehow did, he'd be throwing a sure thing to McCain. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #10 June 8, 2008 It's a sad state of affairs in our country when we have the largest primary voter turnout in history simply because a black man is running, countless people who have never bothered to vote before are showing up to vote without even knowing where the man they are voting for stands on many important issues, the only thing that matters is the color of his skin. Racism(along with idiocy) is alive and well in this country, only it's going a way we aren't used to seeing it go. You're suffering under the delusion that elections are, or used to be, at some mythical time in the past, decided by rational thinking voters. Hope you don't spend your Halloweens waiting up for the Great Pumpkin.... Elections have been full of lies, slander, and fraudulent chicanery all the way back. George Washington is our ONLY president to ever run unopposed, and when he retired, his Veep, John Adams, warned voters that the republic would disintegrate into a French style reign of terror if they ever elected Jefferson. What's got so many blacks - and so many women - out voting is that this year was the first time that either a woman or a black man had a serious shot at the job. And the black man still does. So who can blame either group for turning out in droves to vote for one of their own ? It might not please Plato (who said a democracy was the corruption of a republic), but it sure got the people's attention. Sort of a shame that the first serious woman and the first serious black had to run against each other, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Barack's not going to pick Hillary, because if he does, he not only has to drag her along, but Bubba Bill as well. And that just ain't a-gonna happen. And if he ever somehow did, he'd be throwing a sure thing to McCain. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #11 June 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteYou can stop feeling queasy. The odds of her being offered the spot are practically nil. ooohhh - the predictions and prophecies again. Like they haven't been burned enough in this campaign. After a cool-off period everything is possible and on the table. Cheers, T Actually, I dare you to go back through any of my predictions about this campaign and find any that have been proven false yet.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #12 June 8, 2008 It is truly a shame that the first woman or black to have a shot at being POTUS were such poor candidates. Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and others have started from far more humble circumstances and yest proved themselves worth academically, and professionally as well. There are other that are equal to some of our best presidents, and yest they will never get a chance. Does that tell us something? It damn sure does. We may never get the best person for the job again. We only get what others want us to choose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #13 June 8, 2008 QuoteWe may never get the best person for the job again. We almost never get the "best" person for the job, we just get the one that got the most votes. This is true for just about every election that has ever taken place.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #14 June 9, 2008 >It's a sad state of affairs in our country when we have the largest >primary voter turnout in history simply because a black man is running, It's even sadder when people look at Barak Obama - and all they see is a "black man." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #15 June 9, 2008 Yep I see Ivy League, Liberal, Lying Scum.Others just see a liberal savior. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #16 June 9, 2008 QuoteIt's a sad state of affairs in our country when we have the largest primary voter turnout in history simply because a black man is running, countless people who have never bothered to vote before are showing up to vote without even knowing where the man they are voting for stands on many important issues, the only thing that matters is the color of his skin. Racism(along with idiocy) is alive and well in this country, only it's going a way we aren't used to seeing it go. You mentioned the people who voted without knowing his stand on the issues. Were you referring to black people who vote for him because of his race? Or non-black people who vote against him because of it? Racism works in two directions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #17 June 9, 2008 Quote Yep I see Ivy League, Liberal, Lying Scum.Others just see a liberal savior. This, of course, is in contrast to the Ivy League, Conservative, Lying Scum we currently have in the office. Meh. Your post makes no sense.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #18 June 9, 2008 QuoteYou mentioned the people who voted without knowing his stand on the issues. Were you referring to black people who vote for him because of his race? Or non-black people who vote against him because of it? Racism works in two directions. I don't think the race of the voter matters - If a black person votes against a black man for his color, that's also racism If a non-black person votes for a black man for his color, that's also racism. (I think GQ was noting the prevalence of solely race based decision making "For" Obama, but I'd suspect there's a contingent on both sides and, at best, we can hope all the idiots cancel each other out). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #19 June 9, 2008 (I think GQ was noting the prevalence of solely race based decision making "For" Obama, but I'd suspect there's a contingent on both sides and, at best, we can hope all the idiots cancel each other out). Quote That's pretty much dead on the point I was trying to make, hopefully the idiots on both sides will cancel each other out so the people who choose their candidate based on the issues will determine this election.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #20 June 9, 2008 Quote That's pretty much dead on the point I was trying to make, hopefully the idiots on both sides will cancel each other out so the people who choose their candidate based on the issues will determine this election. Unfortunately, I don't think the math works out. Let's say that 10% of any given population are racist. 10% of the minority is always still going to be less than 10% of the majority, so racists on the side of majority "win". It's not that the majority is per capita more racist, but that since they are the majority, they will still have larger numbers.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #21 June 9, 2008 QuoteUnfortunately, I don't think the math works out. Let's say that 10% of any given population are racist. 10% of the minority is always still going to be less than 10% of the majority, so racists on the side of majority "win". It's not that the majority is per capita more racist, but that since they are the majority, they will still have larger numbers. Advantage: Democrat (in this instance)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #22 June 10, 2008 Unfortunately, I don't think the math works out. Let's say that 10% of any given population are racist. 10% of the minority is always still going to be less than 10% of the majority, so racists on the side of majority "win". It's not that the majority is per capita more racist, but that since they are the majority, they will still have larger numbers. Quote you bring up a good point, but do we really know what the ratio is?? It could work out in either candidates favor, personally I just don't want to see this election decided by either of those groups, whether they blindly vote for Obama because he is black, or against him. And on a side note, I'm really interested in seeing what the debates between these two are going to be like. We all know that Obama is the more charismatic speaker, but I think that is going to lose its luster when he starts debating McCain face to face and people realize that he really doesn't have a solid position on anything, he tries to give the big speech about change to dazzle his audience with BS while tap dancing around the question. That's just my take on it though, maybe he'll prove me wrong and win me over, this is the first time I've ever been a swing voter so I'm going to give him a fair shot. Of course the two candidates could always make it easy on us and do a bi-partisan ticket!!History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
quade 3 #20 June 9, 2008 Quote That's pretty much dead on the point I was trying to make, hopefully the idiots on both sides will cancel each other out so the people who choose their candidate based on the issues will determine this election. Unfortunately, I don't think the math works out. Let's say that 10% of any given population are racist. 10% of the minority is always still going to be less than 10% of the majority, so racists on the side of majority "win". It's not that the majority is per capita more racist, but that since they are the majority, they will still have larger numbers.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 June 9, 2008 QuoteUnfortunately, I don't think the math works out. Let's say that 10% of any given population are racist. 10% of the minority is always still going to be less than 10% of the majority, so racists on the side of majority "win". It's not that the majority is per capita more racist, but that since they are the majority, they will still have larger numbers. Advantage: Democrat (in this instance)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #22 June 10, 2008 Unfortunately, I don't think the math works out. Let's say that 10% of any given population are racist. 10% of the minority is always still going to be less than 10% of the majority, so racists on the side of majority "win". It's not that the majority is per capita more racist, but that since they are the majority, they will still have larger numbers. Quote you bring up a good point, but do we really know what the ratio is?? It could work out in either candidates favor, personally I just don't want to see this election decided by either of those groups, whether they blindly vote for Obama because he is black, or against him. And on a side note, I'm really interested in seeing what the debates between these two are going to be like. We all know that Obama is the more charismatic speaker, but I think that is going to lose its luster when he starts debating McCain face to face and people realize that he really doesn't have a solid position on anything, he tries to give the big speech about change to dazzle his audience with BS while tap dancing around the question. That's just my take on it though, maybe he'll prove me wrong and win me over, this is the first time I've ever been a swing voter so I'm going to give him a fair shot. Of course the two candidates could always make it easy on us and do a bi-partisan ticket!!History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
