Jump to content

The Next President of the USA will be?


Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

I hate to tell you this, but racism is just as rampant among blacks as it is whites. Worse at times. And it sickens me that people just don't get that.

I don't mind that Osama is black. What I DO mind is that he's a damned extreme liberal who has ties with people that hate whites. I'd rather vote for Alfred E. Neuman.

I wouldn't consider him an extreme liberal. Hillary tends to be more liberal than he is, except on foreign affairs. Of course, she has the personality of a fucking rhino so screw her

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wouldn't consider him an extreme liberal. Hillary tends to be more liberal than he is, except on foreign affairs. Of course, she has the personality of a fucking rhino so screw her

If it's all the same to you I'll pass. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't consider him an extreme liberal. Hillary tends to be more liberal than he is, except on foreign affairs. Of course, she has the personality of a fucking rhino so screw her

Im sorry wannabe but ive been waiting to pull this out. the bold part is the main point at the bottom

washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007..._wall_whos.html

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall - Who's the Most Liberal of Them All?

It's no secret that The Fix gets our fix on raw data. Politics, like baseball, has decades worth of information to slice and dice in hopes of better understanding what it going on out there.

So, you can imagine my excitement when an e-mail arrived today from National Journal that offered a glimpse of its 2006 vote ratings. These ratings are compiled annually by the magazine's congressional correspondent par excellence, Rich Cohen. They aim to use dozens of congressional votes to place each member in an ideological spectrum. The votes are split into three categories - economic, social and foreign. Each member is ranked cumulatively in these three topics.

Lawmakers are given a score from 0 to 100. Zero marks a member of Congress in absolute opposition to the most liberal or conservative member of their affiliated party. One hundred percent says that member is in lockstep. For example, a Democratic House member with an 82.5 liberal score is more liberal than 82.5 percent of the House. A Republican senator with a 36.2 conservative score is more conservative than just over one-third of the Senate.

While the full report won't be out until tomorrow, National Journal provided a glimpse at how the various members of Congress scored.

In the most surprising result, the most conservative senator in the presidential mix is not Sam Brownback of Kansas but Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. In 2006, Hagel's vote rating was 72 percent. That score compares to 70.3 percent for Brownback and 56.7 percent for Sen. John McCain of Arizona. While Hagel is the most outspoken Republican critic of the Bush administration, he generally supports the GOP line. His score reflects that.

However, since Hagel and Brownback came to the Senate in 1996, this is only the third year when Hagel rated more conservative than Brownback. The past two instances were in 2002 and 2003, when Hagel nudged Brownback by less than 1 percent each time.

By contrast, McCain continues a trend in recent years of moderation, or at least that is what the selected votes reflect. Taken by decade, McCain ranked as more conservative than more than 80 percent of the Senate in each of the years he served during the 1980s (1987-1989). During the 1990s, McCain broke 80 percent four times (1990, 1991, 1992 and 1994). Later in the decade, his score dipped considerably. He was at 68.3 percent in 1998 and 67.7 percent in 1999. This decade has seen even further slippage. McCain now ranks in the 50 percent range for the last three years, and four out of the last five years.

Interestingly, none of the three senators are particularly conservative on social issues. Brownback leads the way. His ratings show him as more conservative than 53 percent of the Senate. He's followed by Hagel at 52 percent, and McCain with 46 percent. The three are the most conservative senators on economic issues. Brownback scored a stratospheric 92 percent, Hagel at 82 percent and McCain at 64 percent.

Among the Democratic senators running for president, the results are more typical.

Barack Obama of Illinois had the most liberal voting record in 2006. He was more liberal than 86 percent of the Senate. Chris Dodd of Connecticut was close behind - achieving a mark of 84 percent more liberal. Joe Biden of Delaware rated 77.5 percent. Hillary Clinton of New York had the lowest overall liberal score in 2006, clocking in 70.2 percent.

While it's somewhat irrelevant to look at Obama's lifetime liberal rating since he only has two years under his congressional belt, the long view provides interesting context for Clinton, Dodd and Biden. Of the trio, Dodd ranks highest at 79.2 percent. Clinton follows him closely with a score of 78.8 percent during her first six years in the Senate. Biden has a lifetime liberal rating of 76.8 percent. Those ratings suggest the premise that Clinton is too moderate/conservative to win the Democratic presidential nomination may be false. She has, however, grown more moderate during her tenure as senator. Her highest liberal rankings came in 2002 and 2003, while her lowest came in 2006.

Clinton's liberal streak is most evident on social votes where her 80 percent score in 2006 ranks only behind Dodd's 93 percent. She ranks least liberal among the four Democratic senators running for president on economic (63 percent) and foreign (62 percent) issues.

National Journal's numbers have been known to pack a punch. The magazine proclaimed John Kerry of Massachusetts the most liberal senator in late February 2004. The news immediately became a prime talking point for Republicans seeking to paint Kerry as out of step with the electorate at large.

Yep, he want's change, with the prospects of a 20 seat majority in the senate and possilbe 4o seat majority in the house, the most liberal minded person, will have his way with the american people if elected. why would you reach across party lines when you only need a few Repubs to switch. plus Obama skill of pork spending, a few well placed off ramps in those repubs districts will be just enough to turn this country into a nightmare.

Edited by Pb Derigable
Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate to tell you this, but racism is just as rampant among blacks as it is whites. Worse at times. And it sickens me that people just don't get that.

I don't mind that Osama is black. What I DO mind is that he's a damned extreme liberal who has ties with people that hate whites. I'd rather vote for Alfred E. Neuman.

Yeah,.. I get really tired (as I'm sure you do too) of hearing black people saying

"I'd never vote for a white guy to be president!" and "hang that whitey from a tree!"

It's rampant, I tells ya. Rampant!

:rolleyes:

I'm glad that you personally don't care that Obama is Black, Rock. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for many in your party. As that article shows, many repubs will not consider voting for Obama souly.. erm, I mean (wink).. solely.. because he's Black. I think that's a sad (using the kindest possible terms) commentary of the republican party. <_<

I'm still waiting to hear CRB's responses to the questions I put to him about the article. :whistling:

and btw, Rock..

If you voted for GWB, you did vote for Alfred E Neuman. :P

bushneuman1fx.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Im sorry wannabe but ive been waiting to pull this out. the bold part is the main point at the bottom

It won't matter Pb, now they will just attack your sources. It's how it always goes, they use the most blatantly biased sources to support their argument but anything you put up can't be believed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It won't matter Pb, now they will just attack your sources. It's how it always goes, they use the most blatantly biased sources to support their argument but anything you put up can't be believed.

yeah, becasue he it's not true unless it is posted on HuPO or DailyKOS. THe same site that was glad to hear Ms. Regan had died or that the cancer would come back and kill tony snow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah,.. I get really tired (as I'm sure you do too) of hearing black people saying

"I'd never vote for a white guy to be president!" and "hang that whitey from a tree!"

It's rampant, I tells ya. Rampant!

:rolleyes:

I'm glad that you personally don't care that Obama is Black, Rock. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for many in your party. As that article shows, many repubs will not consider voting for Obama souly.. erm, I mean (wink).. solely.. because he's Black. I think that's a sad (using the kindest possible terms) commentary of the republican party. <_<

I'm still waiting to hear CRB's responses to the questions I put to him about the article. :whistling:

and btw, Rock..

If you voted for GWB, you did vote for Alfred E Neuman. :P

bushneuman1fx.jpg

Trust me, I did NOT vote for that asshat. :lol:

But I also must say that if you can't see the reverse prejudice out there, you're just not paying attention. And these are not the days of slavery and "beatin' coons". Slavery was abolished loooooong ago. And the blacks who still hang on to those days need to LET IT GO. Especially as minorities of all types are getting preferential treatment these days.

True, there are still a few backwoods hicks out there who think the way they did 200 years ago. But they are, fortunately, in the minority.

When was the last time you saw a white person play "the race card"? We can't. But assholes like OJ are free because they could. I guarantee you that if he was a honky whitebread motherfucker like me he'd have fried.

Edited by Rock Action
Link to post
Share on other sites
So I'm watching the Daily Show and one thing kept popping into my mind...Jon Stewart is simply not funny...ever. It's not that I hate his politics or anything, really it isn't. I love Stephen Colbert, he does exactly what Stewart does but he's hilarious. I just can't see how anybody would watch the Daily Show over the Colbert Report.

Honestly, I love comedy. Hell, I even love Chris Rock, who may hate me because of my skin color. But seriously...Jon Stewart. My god I never laughed once in three episodes...

Maybe I missed something...or maybe he just sucks. I'm leaning towards the latter

Both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert appeal to very different people. I find many fans of Stephen don't like Jon, and vice-versa. I think the difference is that Stephen Colbert is more of a true acting comedian, whereas Jon Stewart is more of a Social Critic Comedian (think Bill Hicks, but to a much lesser extent). I find them both quite hillarious, honestly, because I like both kinds of comedians. Admittedly, I can't say you prefer acting comedians as you're a fan of Chris Rock and Chris, like Jon, is a Social Critic comedian.

Jon does tend to have more duds then Stephen, admittedly, and I do recall Daily Shows that just weren't funny on any level. However, I'm religious in my watching of both shows.

My love of Jon Stewart is that even though he is a fake news anchor, real news has gotten so off-track and biased that Jon's fake news is more real these days (IMO). Hence why I prefer watching The Daily Show over Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. It's true that Jon is probably more biased then any of them, but atleast he admits it.

His main punchline is he acts like an idiot. Like if somebody would say, "The Bush policy has failed in Iraq" he would say, "Are you sure" in a joking way, where Steve colbert would play an idiot also, but he will act like an idiot with a counter point. You know, he'll ask how to fix it not just make fun of it.

Steve plays a charater, a ultra conservitive, while Jon plays himself, a self serving left winger. but make fun of right wingers, but steve has alot more thought behid it,

Uh... I think you have the two switched. Stephen plays the idiot. Pretty much, his character believes the exact opposite of what the real Stephen actually believes. Jon Stewart, however, is straightforward.

When Jon answers the "the Bush policy has failed" with "are you sure," it's not some character who is the opposite of Jon Stewart. That's Jon Stewart, being sarcastic. When he says "are you sure," he actually means "no shit, Sherlock." However, the character of Stephen Colbert would actually mean "are you sure" because the character blindly supports Bush and all right-wing Conservatism. And that's the major difference. Jon Stewart is not a character. He's just sarcastic. Stephen Colbert, however, is a character.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh... I think you have the two switched. Stephen plays the idiot. Pretty much, his character believes the exact opposite of what the real Stephen actually believes. Jon Stewart, however, is straightforward.

When Jon answers the "the Bush policy has failed" with "are you sure," it's not some character who is the opposite of Jon Stewart. That's Jon Stewart, being sarcastic. When he says "are you sure," he actually means "no shit, Sherlock." However, the character of Stephen Colbert would actually mean "are you sure" because the character blindly supports Bush and all right-wing Conservatism. And that's the major difference. Jon Stewart is not a character. He's just sarcastic. Stephen Colbert, however, is a character.

His main punchline is he acts like an idiot. Like if somebody would say, "The Bush policy has failed in Iraq" he would say, "Are you sure" in a joking way, where Steve colbert would play an idiot also, but he will act like an idiot with a counter point. You know, he'll ask how to fix it not just make fun of it.

Steve plays a charater, a ultra conservitive, while Jon plays himself, a self serving left winger. but both make fun of right wingers, but steve has alot more thought behid it,

I don't understand how is your quote any different from mine. we both stated Steve plays a character, and Jon plays himself, and Jon acts sarcastic, while Steve acts like a person who blindly supports the G.O.P. stance.

S

Link to post
Share on other sites
As an American,.. does it make you happy and proud, or sad and

ashamed to read that such blatant racism still exists in America?

:whistling:

Hermit, I can't say I am happy to read such things. However, the racial situation in this country is what it is no matter how much you or I may dislike it. It also just goes to show you that there is some strong opposition out there to an Afro American Presidential candidate. I seriously doubt this election will be a walk in the park for BO should he become the democratic nominee no matter how much you libs claim it will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand how is your quote any different from mine. we both stated Steve plays a character, and Jon plays himself, and Jon acts sarcastic, while Steve acts like a person who blindly supports the G.O.P. stance.

S

Maybe I misread? It seemed to me you were saying that they both played an idiot character, and Stephen just did it better.

You say Jon's punchline is that he acts like an idiot. To me Jon's punchline always had something to do with Bush (my one real criticism of Jon... the whole Bush thing is a bit overdone, though, admittedly, he's phasing it out). Stephen's punchline is the acting like an idiot... but literally.

Edited by Nathan
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I misread? It seemed to me you were saying that they both played an idiot character, and Stephen just did it better.

You say Jon's punchline is that he acts like an idiot. To me Jon's punchline always had something to do with Bush (my one real criticism of Jon... the whole Bush thing is a bit overdone, though, admittedly, he's phasing it out). Stephen's punchline is the acting like an idiot... but literally.

thats what i wanted to say, but if i said it, people think i am biased. All of the bush bashing got old a long time ago. and IM the one who quit listening to Rush Limbuagh after all i heard was liberal bashing.

Jon does play a sarcastic idiot and Steve play the sterotypical Conservitive idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thats what i wanted to say, but if i said it, people think i am biased. All of the bush bashing got old a long time ago. and IM the one who quit listening to Rush Limbuagh after all i heard was liberal bashing.

Agreed.

Jon does play a sarcastic idiot and Steve play the sterotypical Conservitive idiot.

See, this where I think you're wrong. Jon doesn't "play" anybody. What you see on TV is Jon Stewart. He's no idiot. He's just sarcastic.

However, the Stephen Colbert you see on TV is not the real Stephen Colbert. The persona on TV is a character.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed.

See, this where I think you're wrong. Jon doesn't "play" anybody. What you see on TV is Jon Stewart. He's no idiot. He's just sarcastic.

However, the Stephen Colbert you see on TV is not the real Stephen Colbert. The persona on TV is a character.

okay, i agree with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trust me, I did NOT vote for that asshat. :lol:

But I also must say that if you can't see the reverse prejudice out there, you're just not paying attention. And these are not the days of slavery and "beatin' coons". Slavery was abolished loooooong ago. And the blacks who still hang on to those days need to LET IT GO. Especially as minorities of all types are getting preferential treatment these days.

True, there are still a few backwoods hicks out there who think the way they did 200 years ago. But they are, fortunately, in the minority.

When was the last time you saw a white person play "the race card"? We can't. But assholes like OJ are free because they could. I guarantee you that if he was a honky whitebread motherfucker like me he'd have fried.

Dude,.. puh-lease. OJ didn't get off because he was Black; he got off because he was rich and could afford a Dream Team of lawyers to bamboozle the system (they bamboozled the dumb-ass jury, actually). If you think a Black man murdering a white woman and a white man can simply "play the race card" to get off, I'd say you're waaay out of touch, muh-man. If you look at incarceration rates based on race, you'll see that Blacks (and minorities) hardly stand to reap any benefit from "playing the race card".

US_incrates2001.jpg

I don't deny that there are Blacks who are racist,.. but the more relavent point is that Whites have not been systematically victimized by racism in this country like Blacks have.. and to some degree still are. You gotta admit,.. you simply dont hear Blacks saying they'd never vote for White man to be president (look at the support Bill Clinton got from Black voters, as one obvious example), but we certainly are hearing White republicans say they'll never vote for a Black man to be POTUS, aren't we?

btw.. I'm glad to hear you didnt vote for asshat GW Neuman. B)

Edited by Hermit
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hermit,

In all fairness you are right about OJ in the fact that he had tons of money and could afford to hire the legitimized criminals necessary to sucker the public. But being black didn't hurt either, nor did his "star" status.

We've both got legitimate points on this one. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup,.. racism is alive and well in America, CBR. <_< No news there, bud.

I wonder, do the anti-black sentiments expressed by those "who can't fathom that [Obama]

could become the first African American president" resonate with you on a personal level?

As an American,.. does it make you happy and proud, or sad and

ashamed to read that such blatant racism still exists in America?

:whistling:

That's the way the media spun it, maybe they just don't like "him" :rolleyes:

Obama is the biggest racist there is bub! :whistling:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the way the media spun it, maybe they just don't like "him" :rolleyes:

"I'll never vote for a black person"

"Hang that darky from a tree!"

Yeah,.. the media spun it as racism, but clearly it wasn't.. huh? :rolleyes:

slapface.gif

Maybe in your neck (red?) of the woods that's not considered racism, Dzl, but... it is.. racism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"I'll never vote for a black person"

"Hang that darky from a tree!"

Yeah,.. the media spun it as racism, but clearly it wasn't.. huh? :rolleyes:

slapface.gif

Maybe in your neck (red?) of the woods that's not considered racism, Dzl, but... it is.. racism. ^? <_<

And you heard this with you're own ears? :huh: I don't deny it exists, hell I work with a guy that on a daily basis makes reference to "White People this and white people that" so who keeps the train a rolling?

edited to say at least I'm proud to list what neck of the woods I'm from!

Edited by Dzldoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
Trust me, I did NOT vote for that asshat. :lol:

But I also must say that if you can't see the reverse prejudice out there, you're just not paying attention. And these are not the days of slavery and "beatin' coons". Slavery was abolished loooooong ago. And the blacks who still hang on to those days need to LET IT GO. Especially as minorities of all types are getting preferential treatment these days.

True, there are still a few backwoods hicks out there who think the way they did 200 years ago. But they are, fortunately, in the minority.

When was the last time you saw a white person play "the race card"? We can't. But assholes like OJ are free because they could. I guarantee you that if he was a honky whitebread motherfucker like me he'd have fried.

Wow...just, wow... :o:(

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow...just, wow... :o:(

Anyone that thinks OJ is innocent must be smoking crack. Those 12 jurors verdict was as racist a thing ever done in this country. They didnt care that two people died because they were two whites with money. Thats a fact and you know it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone that thinks OJ is innocent must be smoking crack. Those 12 jurors verdict was as racist a thing ever done in this country. They didnt care that two people died because they were two whites with money. Thats a fact and you know it.

That pretty much sums it up. Unfortunately.

Trust me, I hate feeling like this. But I have to call things as I see them, with no prejudice involved.

Reverse discrimination and "white bashing" is all the rage these days. <_<

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.

Guest
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.


×
×
  • Create New...