US Elections

[Montreal Wanderer]

And you'd rather Obama than McCain in charge in the middle of all this, Monty?

No - I'd rather the first lady (Bill Clinton) was involved. i.e I prefer Hillary to Obama. I notice McCain is distancing himself from Bush (re Katrina).

[Montreal Wanderer]

Any responsible nation of the world, including the UK, should do all in its power to prevent a nuclear conflict.

Aye, but in the hypothetical situation under discussion, Hillary/the US wouldn't be preventing a nuclear conflict. Indeed, depending on whether you define one punch as a fight, it would be causing one by retaliating to Iran's strike. Here's another question: what if Iran struck another nation, one less politically aligned with the US? Say, North Korea, with its happy little dictatorship as yet strangely unchallenged by the "freedom forces"? That's the trouble with being Team America: World Police...

I was talking about the threat of retaliation as keeping the peace, rather than an actual strike. I have a feeling if the situation looked like happening, the US and Israel would launch a preemptive strike as that has happened before. Regarding the second question I'm not really sure - the US only has a record of doing the "right" thing for its allies against its enemies, but does nothing against its less pleasant allies or if its enemies fight one another. I have always worried a bit since India and Pakistan joined the nuclear club. Still I survived the cold war and things looked a little bleak in 1960.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Indeed, Monty. Wasn't picking a fight. Don't hit me Trouble is, the Cold War was a classic two-man stand-off between two roughly equal forces who - for all their mutual hatred, sabre-rattling and occasional insane leader - knew they couldn't win a face-off and moreover in some ways needed each other as their 'natural' enemies: war is peace, as Winston Smith well knew. Whereas now, we have conflict between unbalanced (in many senses) neighbours, often led by frightened despots in fear of their position - never a comfortable place to be, be you Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ariel Sharon or for that matter George W Bush.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Right wing bollocks.

Eh? Which bit?

[Worthy4England]

Right wing bollocks.

Eh? Which bit?

If democrats were smart (which they aren't - if they were they'd be republicans... ha),

We could start with this one and move on from here?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Right wing bollocks.

Eh? Which bit?

If democrats were smart (which they aren't - if they were they'd be republicans... ha),

We could start with this one and move on from here?

Sure, we can start with a different post to the one you quoted, if you want.

[Worthy4England]

Right wing bollocks.

Eh? Which bit?

If democrats were smart (which they aren't - if they were they'd be republicans... ha),

We could start with this one and move on from here?

Sure, we can start with a different post to the one you quoted, if you want.

Good

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Good

Seriously though, if you think I'm wrong then why don't you do me the courtesy of going to slightly more length than "right wing bollocks"?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Well, Hillary is finally done for. It's now really a question of when and how she gets out of the race, which might depend on what her remaining ambitions are. I have always disliked her and her husband, but even I feel some sympathy for the poor bitch; she was definitely the better candidate in every way imaginable (better qualified, better positions, better chance at winning in November).

Some amazing numbers in the voting in North Carolina - over 90% of blacks voting for Obama, Hillary with a decent majority of white voters - this is Obama, the great 'uniting' candidate, by the way. Imagine if any other group voted in such mass? What if 90% of jews voted for Lieberman?

McCain has been awfully quiet lately, allowing Hillary's team to do his work for him. But come this summer, the GOP have a large amount of money to take Obama down. I say 6% margin in November. Obama is unelectable, and it's going to take his party 2 months too long to realize this.

The worst part is going to be the crying of "America just isn't ready for a black president" bullshit on November 5. No, actually, America isn't ready for a race-pandering, inadequate and underqualified president, black or white.

[BWFC_Insane]

Well, Hillary is finally done for. It's now really a question of when and how she gets out of the race, which might depend on what her remaining ambitions are. I have always disliked her and her husband, but even I feel some sympathy for the poor bitch; she was definitely the better candidate in every way imaginable (better qualified, better positions, better chance at winning in November).

Some amazing numbers in the voting in North Carolina - over 90% of blacks voting for Obama, Hillary with a decent majority of white voters - this is Obama, the great 'uniting' candidate, by the way. Imagine if any other group voted in such mass? What if 90% of jews voted for Lieberman?

McCain has been awfully quiet lately, allowing Hillary's team to do his work for him. But come this summer, the GOP have a large amount of money to take Obama down. I say 6% margin in November. Obama is unelectable, and it's going to take his party 2 months too long to realize this.

The worst part is going to be the crying of "America just isn't ready for a black president" bullshit on November 5. No, actually, America isn't ready for a race-pandering, inadequate and underqualified president, black or white.

What a thoroughly unpleasant and racist statement that is.

Who the fook cares about how the votes split out, if Obama gets a majority what difference does it make that he gets 90% of the "black vote"?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

What a thoroughly unpleasant and racist statement that is.

Who the fook cares about how the votes split out, if Obama gets a majority what difference does it make that he gets 90% of the "black vote"?

What a thoroughly stupid and ridiculous statement yours is.

Mine was pretty much a bald statement of fact - these breakdowns are interesting, which is why they are collected, and then reported by organisations like the BBC.

[BWFC_Insane]

What a thoroughly unpleasant and racist statement that is.

Who the fook cares about how the votes split out, if Obama gets a majority what difference does it make that he gets 90% of the "black vote"?

What a thoroughly stupid and ridiculous statement yours is.

Mine was pretty much a bald statement of fact - these breakdowns are interesting, which is why they are collected, and then reported by organisations like the BBC.

Umm no it wasn't. You were trying to suggest that there is a significant difference between whether "white" or "black" people vote. A vote is a vote. Doesn't matter how it breaks down. The way democracy works (unless you are George Bush) is that whoever gets the most votes wins. Doesn't matter who casts those votes, whether they are male, female, white or black.

You are trying to suggest that Black voters vote for him because he is black. Don't try and deny that.

[sluffy]

You are trying to suggest that Black voters vote for him because he is black. Don't try and deny that.

Well they do!

Just as some white voters will vote for the white candidate.

We may think it is reprehensible that in the year 2008 that racism in civilised society still exits - but unfortunately it does and I think you are being naive if you believe otherwise.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

You are trying to suggest that Black voters vote for him because he is black. Don't try and deny that.

And you would try and deny the truth content of such a suggestion?

Look, I'm not going to take you on - here's the relevant part of the relevant BBC article:

Race split

Mid-western Indiana is home to large numbers of blue-collar workers, a bloc which has backed Mrs Clinton in previous contests.

According to exit polls conducted for AP, about two-thirds of white voters in both states who had not completed a college education supported Mrs Clinton.
In North Carolina, Mr Obama won the backing of 90% of the state's African-American voters, who make up more than a third of the state's electorate.

Mrs Clinton won 58% of non-black voters in the state, according to the polls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7384859.stm

My contention is that he is a one issue candiate. This stuff is relevant.

[BWFC_Insane]

You are trying to suggest that Black voters vote for him because he is black. Don't try and deny that.

Well they do!

Just as some white voters will vote for the white candidate.

We may think it is reprehensible that in the year 2008 that racism in civilised society still exits - but unfortunately it does and I think you are being naive if you believe otherwise.

Umm I think there is a distinction here to be made.

Nobody would EVER suggest that white people would vote for a white candidate purely because they are white.

But MWCIEC is definitely suggesting that black people vote for Obama because of the colour of his skin!

He has presented facts from the BBC, but then put his own twist onto them by saying that Obama was meant to be the "unifying" candidate, suggesting that he should get backing from "white" voters as well to be taken as a serious candidate. Hence suggesting that purely getting votes from "black people" isn't enough, hence the inherent racism in his post.

[TANGODANCER]

But MWCIEC is definitely suggesting that black people vote for Obama because of the colour of his skin!

He has presented facts from the BBC, but then put his own twist onto them by saying that Obama was meant to be the "unifying" candidate, suggesting that he should get backing from "white" voters as well to be taken as a serious candidate. Hence suggesting that purely getting votes from "black people" isn't enough, hence the inherent racism in his post.

Don't be silly. Mummy's favourite person on earth is Tiger Woods.

[sluffy]

You are trying to suggest that Black voters vote for him because he is black. Don't try and deny that.

Well they do!

Just as some white voters will vote for the white candidate.

We may think it is reprehensible that in the year 2008 that racism in civilised society still exits - but unfortunately it does and I think you are being naive if you believe otherwise.

Umm I think there is a distinction here to be made.

Nobody would EVER suggest that white people would vote for a white candidate purely because they are white.

But MWCIEC is definitely suggesting that black people vote for Obama because of the colour of his skin!

He has presented facts from the BBC, but then put his own twist onto them by saying that Obama was meant to be the "unifying" candidate, suggesting that he should get backing from "white" voters as well to be taken as a serious candidate. Hence suggesting that purely getting votes from "black people" isn't enough, hence the inherent racism in his post.

Again I would suggest you are being naive - read this for instance -

BNP makes rare foray into the shires to oppose black Tory candidate

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 93141.html


As for Pencil Biters post - I for one never viewed it as being racist - merely a statement of fact - I certainly did not read anything into it other than what was stated.

[BWFC_Insane]

You are trying to suggest that Black voters vote for him because he is black. Don't try and deny that.

Well they do!

Just as some white voters will vote for the white candidate.

We may think it is reprehensible that in the year 2008 that racism in civilised society still exits - but unfortunately it does and I think you are being naive if you believe otherwise.

Umm I think there is a distinction here to be made.

Nobody would EVER suggest that white people would vote for a white candidate purely because they are white.

But MWCIEC is definitely suggesting that black people vote for Obama because of the colour of his skin!

He has presented facts from the BBC, but then put his own twist onto them by saying that Obama was meant to be the "unifying" candidate, suggesting that he should get backing from "white" voters as well to be taken as a serious candidate. Hence suggesting that purely getting votes from "black people" isn't enough, hence the inherent racism in his post.

Again I would suggest you are being naive - read this for instance -

BNP makes rare foray into the shires to oppose black Tory candidate

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 93141.html


As for Pencil Biters post - I for one never viewed it as being racist - merely a statement of fact - I certainly did not read anything into it other than what was stated.

You missed the point. MWCIEC didn't try to imply that 58% of voters voted for Hilary Clinton because she is white, but he is trying to say that the black vote goes to Obame purely because he is black.

The colour of the voter is irrelevant. As is the colour of the candidate.

[CrazyHorse]

Ok. Let's draw a line under this one now, because I can see this discussion getting out of hand before too long.

Ta.

[warthog]

Ok. Let's draw a line under this one now, because I can see this discussion getting out of hand before too long.

Ta.

Shut it, whitey.