Geeeieeeeeeeeezussss!!!!!!!!!!!!

I even went to...
AntiRonPaul.com - Ron Paul Haters Unite! Ron Paul will not win the 2008 election. Funny Images, Articles and Videos!
...and they actually have the newsletters written either by him or by his organization in the 1990's.

I guess I don't have a candidate to vote for at all. I definitely am not voting for Hillary Clinton, as the Clinton administration incarcerated the most African men ever in the history of the United States. I'm sure she will have more of the same lynching of our people in her policies.

When it comes to Barack Obama, I don't even know what he is about.

[quote=menzzingos;1455101]If it takes being an AA to know that having Bush as president not once but TWICE is beyond freaky.... then Damn... is all I have to say about that!

[size="4"][color="Red"]Who said it took being an AA to know that having Bush as president for any length of time, sucked? Bush is not going to be president anymore, no matter what,(thank God for term limits), so I don't see what he has to do with whether or not AA's vote for Obama or Clinton in the Democratic primary.

A polite request ....can anyone kindly explain on here the policies Hillary has and contrast with Obama's stance, so we can see this "glaring" lack of good enough government policies on Obama's manifesto? Would be very enlghthening...

Don't know who this is directed to, but I never stated that their stances were dramatically different. They are members of the same party, and a party that tends to not have the extremes of the Republican party, at that, so theirs stances are logically going to have very little divergence. That's why primaries are very different contests than General Elections, where the choices are Black and white, good and evil, etc. That's why I stated a long time ago that the Black vote was more likely to split. There are SEVERAL candidates with pretty similar stances on issues vying for people's votes. That's not like choosing between Obama and Reagan, or Hillary and Mike Huckabee(christian evangelical Republican). Other things play more of a role, like experience, loyalty, who people feel they already know, etc. Once a Dem nominee is named, the overwhelming majority of Black folks in AMerica are going to likely vote for them, no matter who it is, because we tend to find the Republicans totally unpalatable, not so much because we are in love with Democrats. I think in the last election 12% of AA's voted Republican, which is high, considering the usual numbers.

If you compare their positions one by one, they are very similar on everything, except the war. Though, neither of them voted to cut off funding to the war by a certain date, when they had the oppurtunity to, so even on that issue, they aren't terribly far apart. If you check their Senatorial voting record ratings for how often they voted in unison with Bush. Hillary's is 31 out of 100, Obama's is 33 out of 100, meaning Obama voted WITH Bush slightly more than she did, but again, no real difference.

I stated that their command of issues was different. That is something that one would probably have to have watched the debates to know, although there are other ways to figure it out. During the most recent New Hampshire debate, that happened on Saturday night, for instance. Questions came up about how candidates would deal with Pakistan. Clinton responded in a very detailed way and brought up the many complexities that would need to be considered. Both Obama and Edwards seemed like they were out of their depth. SHe generally seems to have a better command of issues and a more thought out process of how to deal with them, than either Obama or Edwards, which again, is not surprising to me. Obama and Edwards seem to be bigger on broad ideas then on the details of carrying out/implementing those ideas. Nothing wrong with that, Reagan was more idealogical than detail oriented and he was successful if you measure success by doing what you set out to do, but he had many years of experience as a govenor, and was friggin 70 by the time he became prez. THis current loser in the WHite house is more of an ideological type than a detail type well, maybe that's a bad example........He can't be bothered with details, and that's the source of a lot of his atrocious decision making.

BTW, I watched all of the Dem debates in 2004 and Sharpton owned every one of the other Dem candidates including John Kerry, in every debate he appeared in. Old school, hard line political junkies like Chris Matthews were in awe of his command of issues, that's how he started becoming a regular fixture on the political show, Hardball. Just thought I'd throw that in, for all the people who like to cast aspersions on people like Sharpton, and act as if one has to comport themselves like a tight butt white man, to debate effectively,lol. NOt only is that not true, all of the white men in the debates with Sharpton, INCLUDING John Kerry, looked flatfooted and slow thinking in comparison to him. Something that Chris Matthews could not stop commenting on......I can't think of too many people, Black or white that could see Sharpton in a debate, and that includes the current Dem candidates and Republican candidates

One last thing, at no point would I advocATE That anyone follow ANYONE blindly, because they happen to be black or otherwise, in the same token I wouldn't support discounting someone just because they happen to be a "newbie" on the international scene,yes it would be comforting to see someone with some black in him in the white house if he won (God alone knows how many black/part black young men especially those with black women as partners will get inspired and know they can reach for the seemingly unreachable in legit ways apart from music and sports..) or discount them beacuse they happen to have some black in them...(that shit does happen), not fair ImHO...the clintons have had so much practise at what they were doing that it would have been absurd for Hillary to not be working obviously like she wanted to get in power, it was known from when Bill was in power she had aspirations too!
I also find quite strange that noone has any qualms with the Clintons targetting the black and women votes but find it sooooo terrible that Obama would try to go for the black vote too???

I don't think anyone is discounting Obama for being a newbie. People are just asking legitimate questions about experience, lack thereof, when you lack experience people are going to examine your command of issues more closely, that's valid, same way it's legitamate to ask questions about whether you want someone who is too much of a Washington insider, like some folks view Hillary and decide not to vote for her. That's what people do when they are deciding who to vote for,lol.

I don't know who here thinks it's terrible for Obama to go for the Black vote. I think all candidates should court the Black vote, especially in places where a lot of us reside, like South Carolina. They'd be fools not to. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with people acting like AA's HAVE to vote for or like or identify with Obama, just because he's Black, or else what's wrong with us, or when people act like an AA pondering any other choice,(among people whose stances are quite similar, mind u), or taking other things into consideration like experience or command of issues, perceived electability, is absurd or tantamount to being ready for the looney bin or mental retardation status. People resent that. THe same way many women get annoyed when people act like they MUST support Hillary cause she's a woman, and want to query, question and harangue them, try to DICATE to/IMPOSE on them/CONDESCEND to them, about what is a very personal and private CHOICE.

I heard the story about Paul(or his camp)...... not surprised....

lesser of 2 evils....like I said....

Ron Paul in October 1990:

"A mob of black demonstrators, led by the "Rev." Al Sharpton, occupied and closed the Statue of Liberty recently, demanding that New York be renamed Martin Luther King City "to reclaim it for our people."

Hmmm. I hate to agree with the Rev. Al, but maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis?

But Al, the Statue of Liberty? Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."

Ron Paul in December 1990:

"[Martin Luther King, Jr.] was also a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration. King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys. The Rev. Ralph David Abernathy revealed before his death that King had made a pass at him many years before. And we are supposed to honor this "Christian minister" and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on a par with George Washington?"

Ron Paul in January 1991:

"Martin Luther King: Socialist: St. Martin was a world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours ("non-violence" didn't apply in all spheres, I guess). He was a flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate. He replaced forced segregation in a few states with forced integration in all states. And he was a dedicated socialist. What a guy. He probably deserves two holidays.... In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused to vote, while in Congress,f or a Martin Luther King national holiday. I didn't know then about his plagiarism, but the rest of King's crimes were clear. J. Edgar Hoover once called him "the most dangerous man in America." Who could have known the danger would continue after his death and threaten to strangle our culture?"

Exactly. This is definately media bias in my opinion. I only saw it mentioned in two places. Chris Matthews highlighted it on his N.H. primary coverage on MSNBC and it was mentioned on Fox news by of all people Sean Hannity. I felt she should have been roasted for that idiotic statement. But due to the media love affair with the Clintons, they just gave her a pass.

Burning Spear

you already know the answer . same reason we won't accept substandard service from a black business but will run again and again and again to patronize a business by an outsider who is disrespectful to us.


I'm actually for examination of issues and policies for any candidate....and their voting record ,etc......

I don't think all of the critiques or evaluations against Obama are unfair...He is a first term Senator and he hasn't completed a full term yet...so there's not much to judge him by.

politics over here is about a big song and dance, so unless a person is so inclined to look up stuff by themselves.....we just get slogans and promises...

I dont think politics are a song and dance.Its do to imagery.Whatever image you can sell wins.Even though the election cycle is exhauting and candidates are shuttled from place to place, few voters will rarely see a candidate in person.Thus the image is everything.

What I do know is that if young people is as energized as they appear early on, the outcome may well be historic.

It's a song and dance to me.......despite this being the information age where you can watch tv . and INSTANTLY check ANYTHING you hear...

the same themes are gonna be used in political ads

"misleading quotes"...."out of context voting records"

"This candidate voted AGAINST tax cuts"

TV is gonna use "polls" to tell Americans what other Americans are thinking




...and other dumbed down tactics....


and these ads will work....because it's a joke....

Actually, everything he said about MLK is for the most part true. However, his racist overtones have shown me just how conniving phucking crackers are. Looking at Ron Paul today, you couldn't even fathom those words. Oh well...I really don't want to be forced to vote for Barack Obama without knowing his policies in depth, which he won't talk about other than mentioning "change"...