Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

[lictor616]

That's right.....I will only start to worry when they stop focusing so relentlessly on America and all things American. Still waiting for the "China Politics" forum.

You mean your distinguished trading partner? Either way with the creature in the white house right now, the US will be more and more LIKE china in more aspects that you could care to imagine... .

when are you going to get your OBAMAO button bush_cheney?

http://english.cri.cn/6909/2009/09/25/45s518651.htm

[kimmy]

That's right.....I will only start to worry when they stop focusing so relentlessly on America and all things American. Still waiting for the "China Politics" forum.

We have that. It's secret, you can't read anybody else's messages, you don't get replies, and stuff mysteriously gets deleted all the time. You're going to love it!

I'm so excited that you are joining the revolution! Soon you will not want to post anywhere else.

-k

{director kimmy, China Politics Forum Peoples' Freedom Youth Brigade.}

[lictor616]

We have that. It's secret, you can't read anybody else's messages, you don't get replies, and stuff mysteriously gets deleted all the time. You're going to love it!

I'm so excited that you are joining the revolution! Soon you will not want to post anywhere else.

-k

{director kimmy, China Politics Forum Peoples' Freedom Youth Brigade.}

looking at the well kept, clean and orderly ranks of the chinese army really should send shivers of anguished angst to anyone depending on the "intergrated" and PC American Army...

[Guest American Woman]

The fact that other nations also have large swathes of their population that shouldn't be anywhere near a voting poll doesn't change the fundamental fact that by and large the american electorate is not capable of yielding rational, sober or particularly sagacious decisions.

Yet America has thrived. As have any number of other Democracies. Go figure.

Your nation teaches "creationism" alongside evolution, and can't point out to the country they are currently at war with (and HAVE BEEN at war with before)

any sort of attempt to legitimize such an appalling state of affairs might as well go out the window.

Nor can people from other nations perform similar tasks. So what's your point regarding singling out Americans?

And for the record, stating facts is not "legitimizing" anything any more than saying the first Black to win the U.S. presidency is "historic/et al" is evidence that he was elected only because he is Black. Yet you keep trying to tie the two in together. You are aware that JFK made history when he was the first Catholic elected, right? Yet I don't see evidence that people said he only won because he was catholic. That people voted for him only because he was Catholic.

[Guest American Woman]

looking at the well kept, clean and orderly ranks of the chinese army really should send shivers of anguished angst to anyone depending on the "intergrated" and PC American Army...

So an army that's integrated is less effective than one that's not?

I'd love to hear the 'reasoning' behind that statement.

As a side note, I see all of the focus being on America and all the 'bad things' we are doing/have done, as China quietly goes about its business, as the main thing that should "send shivers of anguished angst" to anyone who truly cares about the bad things being done in the world, not the United States. But sometimes it seems more people care about the United States than anything else.

Edited October 22, 2009 by American Woman

[Shady]

Let's not forget about White guilt when discussing Obama's election as President. It was also a significant factor.

[bush_cheney2004]

You mean your distinguished trading partner? Either way with the creature in the white house right now, the US will be more and more LIKE china in more aspects that you could care to imagine... .

You obviously have not heard the hip-hop in China yet. When I transferred some materials technology to China in the late 90's, there was no reciprocal arrangement besides cheap labor, struggling to learn the ways of the Americans.

I wanted to see a real Yak, but they preferred that I didn't.

[lictor616]

Yet America has thrived. As have any number of other Democracies. Go figure.

Nor can people from other nations perform similar tasks. So what's your point regarding singling out Americans?

And for the record, stating facts is not "legitimizing" anything any more than saying the first Black to win the U.S. presidency is "historic/et al" is evidence that he was elected only because he is Black. Yet you keep trying to tie the two in together. You are aware that JFK made history when he was the first Catholic elected, right? Yet I don't see evidence that people said he only won because he was catholic. That people voted for him only because he was Catholic.

america has thrived? compared to who and for how long? The apogee of american power was in the 50's, and the 50's would scare the pants off modern americans today... no affirmative action, rampant racism, no feminism, no crypto-communist hippies... everything since that golden age has gone in the dustbin of history.

I,m not trying to tie the two together THEY ARE LINKED TOGETHER... listen if JFK won by getting the catholic vote... then people voted for him because he was CATHOLIC... which still would be a dumb thing to do.

But there isn't any conclusive evidence that could suggest this. And JFK's nomination was never given a quarter of the hoopla Obama's did.

They even ARTICULATED IT IN THE NEWS... look here's a typical headline: "Obama takes historic spot as first black president"

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/20..._spot_as_f.html

"Bush hails Obama's 'historic' triumph as America's first black president prepares to unveil his team

"Bush-hails-Obamas-historic-triumph-Americas-black-president-prepares-unveil-team"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...nveil-team.html

HELLO!??! Are you still doubting that what makes his presidency special is his race... and that that fact is also responsible for swaying many many votes (not to mention the 13% minority of people who are black who voted in near total unanimity for the candidate?)

[lictor616]

Let's not forget about White guilt when discussing Obama's election as President. It was also a significant factor.

enormous, probably accounted for half the white votes he got.

[lictor616]

So an army that's integrated is less effective than one that's not?

I'd love to hear the 'reasoning' behind that statement.

As a side note, I see all of the focus being on America and all the 'bad things' we are doing/have done, as China quietly goes about its business, as the main thing that should "send shivers of anguished angst" to anyone who truly cares about the bad things being done in the world, not the United States. But sometimes it seems more people care about the United States than anything else.

here's the reasoning: female companies are often plagued with problems that never would affect an all mkale army... pregnancies, love disputes, rapes... etc.

[weareone]

america has thrived? compared to who and for how long? The apogee of american power was in the 50's, and the 50's would scare the pants off modern americans today... no affirmative action, rampant racism, no feminism, no crypto-communist hippies... everything since that golden age has gone in the dustbin of history.

I,m not trying to tie the two together THEY ARE LINKED TOGETHER... listen if JFK won by getting the catholic vote... then people voted for him because he was CATHOLIC... which still would be a dumb thing to do.

But there isn't any conclusive evidence that could suggest this. And JFK's nomination was never given a quarter of the hoopla Obama's did.

They even ARTICULATED IT IN THE NEWS... look here's a typical headline: "Obama takes historic spot as first black president"

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/20..._spot_as_f.html

"Bush hails Obama's 'historic' triumph as America's first black president prepares to unveil his team

"Bush-hails-Obamas-historic-triumph-Americas-black-president-prepares-unveil-team"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...nveil-team.html

HELLO!??! Are you still doubting that what makes his presidency special is his race... and that that fact is also responsible for swaying many many votes (not to mention the 13% minority of people who are black who voted in near total unanimity for the candidate?)

With that type of logic you could argue that Obama deliberately ran for the presidency to swing votes to the Democrats.

[lictor616]

With that type of logic you could argue that Obama deliberately ran for the presidency to swing votes to the Democrats.

??!?!? is anyone doubting that he did? lol

[lictor616]

With that type of logic you could argue that Obama deliberately ran for the presidency to swing votes to the Democrats.

double post**** deleted

Edited October 22, 2009 by lictor616

[weareone]

??!?!? is anyone doubting that he did? lol

He couldn't possibly do that until he got the nomination to run for the Presidency from the Democratic Party. Then he did it, but not before the nomination. So know you can claim that Obama's run for the presidency to swing black votes to the Democratic Party was premediated.

[lictor616]

He couldn't possibly do that until he got the nomination to run for the Presidency from the Democratic Party. Then he did it, but not before the nomination. So know you can claim that Obama's run for the presidency to swing black votes to the Democratic Party was premediated.

could you rephrase that in non-gibberish talk for me please?

swing the black vote not premediated!??!?! what?!

[weareone]

could you rephrase that in non-gibberish talk for me please?

swing the black vote not premediated!??!?! what?!

Very simple. Until Obama got the nomination there is no way he could have swung black votes.

Now, if you would have debated my argument that Obama could not have run simply to swing the black vote and stated that the Democratic Party deliberately nominated Obama to swing the black vote, you would probably be correct. You didn't do that.

[lictor616]

Very simple. Until Obama got the nomination there is no way he could have swung black votes.

Now, if you would have debated my argument that Obama could not have run simply to swing the black vote and stated that the Democratic Party deliberately nominated Obama to swing the black vote, you would probably be correct. You didn't do that.

!?!? what a strange way to approach this? Do you really believe that Obama was not a favored candidate in the Democratic committee? Do you think he got there despite not being nominated by the party?

what are you talking about?!? for god's sake!

[Guest American Woman]

CNN National Exit Polls

Vote by Race

Total Obama McCain Other/No Answer

White (74%) 43% 55% 2%

African-American (13%) 95% 4% 1%

http://www.asianamericansforobama.com/cnn-...onal-exit-polls

a 95% black voter turnout .... hmmmmmm interesting... why so unanimous?

There wasn't a "95% black voter turnout," Obama got 95% of the black vote, but there was only a 65% black voter turnout, compared to a 66% white voter turnout. So actually a slightly higher percentage of whites than blacks voted. As for Obama getting 95% of the black vote, Gore got 90%, so hmmmmm....interesting.... wonder what that was all about since Gore is a white man, eh?

As for the headlines saying women voted for Hilary, since there are a lot more White women than there are Blacks, interesting that the white woman didn't win the primaries, eh? And likewise, odd that the POTUS ticket with the white woman on it didn't win.

Furthermore, since 5% of Whites polled said they wouldn't vote for a Black and 19% said they know people who wouldn't vote for a Black, and since the White population is so much higher than the Black population, one could say that Obama won, not because he's Black, but in spite of being Black.

Try as you might to say this is all about race, I repeat that it's only 'all about race' to those who oppose him.

Edited October 22, 2009 by American Woman

[lictor616]

There wasn't a "95% black voter turnout," Obama got 95% of the black vote, but there was only a 65% black voter turnout, compared to a 66% white voter turnout. So actually a slightly higher percentage of whites than blacks voted. As for Obama getting 95% of the black vote, Gore got 90%, so hmmmmm....interesting.... wonder what that was all about since Gore is a white man, eh?

As for the headlines saying women voted for Hilary, since there are a lot more White women than there are Blacks, interesting that the white woman didn't win the primaries, eh? And likewise, odd that the POTUS ticket with the white woman on it didn't win.

Furthermore, since 5% of Whites polled said they wouldn't vote for a Black and 19% said they know people who wouldn't vote for a Black, and since the White population is so much higher than the Black population, one could say that Obama won, not because he's Black, but in spite of being Black.

Try as you might to say this is all about race, I repeat that it's only 'all about race' to those who oppose him.

the black... turnout in2008 was 68%

white voter turnout in 2008? 58.5%... the first time in history that blacks voted in GREATER AVERAGE THEN WHITES... (wink wink,, wonder why!) http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/vot...008/tables.html

black voter turnout in 2000 was 48%. And even then, that was a record high since the NAACP launched an unprecedented $10 million

voter education and registration project, and the demos bribed black communities by Democrats and unions in "get out the

vote"... remember the "vote or die" schemes...

get a black candidate and you get 20% higher voter turnout... and still higher unanimity, and the media gets to tar every opposing voice as racist and criminal? ...

sounds like a recipe for racial oppression!

[Guest American Woman]

the black... turnout in2008 was 68%

white voter turnout in 2008? 58.5%... the first time in history that blacks voted in GREATER AVERAGE THEN WHITES... (wink wink,, wonder why!) http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/vot...008/tables.html

U.S. Census Bureau Press Release -- MONDAY, JULY 20, 2009

Looking at voter turnout by race and Hispanic origin, non-Hispanic whites (66 percent) and blacks (65 percent) had the highest levels in the November 2008 election.

So Blacks and Hispanics had the highest turnout. Guess all those Hispanics couldn't wait to vote for a Black man, eh? Except Clinton got a higher percentage of the Hispanic vote in '96 than Obama did, so there goes that theory (before you even try to present it ).

black voter turnout in 2000 was 48%. And even then, that was a record high since the NAACP launched an unprecedented $10 million

voter education and registration project, and the demos bribed black communities by Democrats and unions in "get out the

vote"... remember the "vote or die" schemes...

get a black candidate and you get 20% higher voter turnout...

Relative to the presidential election of 2004, the voting rates for blacks, Asians and Hispanics each increased by about 4 percentage points.

4% isn't quite the 20% of your claims, is it? Furthermore, Blacks weren't the only ones with a higher turnout. Asians and Hispanics also voted in higher numbers, with their increase in voter turnout matching Blacks percentage-wise.

Furthermore, more women voted than men.

By sex, women had a higher voting rate (66 percent) than males (62 percent).

And according to your theory, your posts, gender was a factor, and women were voting for women. Yet with all those women voting, the ticket with a woman on it lost. Go figure, eh?

and still higher unanimity, and the media gets to tar every opposing voice as racist and criminal? ...

sounds like a recipe for racial oppression!

Because of course "the media" is doing that. Tarring every opposing voice as a racist and criminal. And most likely Fox News is the worst.

Edited October 23, 2009 by American Woman

[Sir Bandelot]

Just wanted to bump this up, in glib anticipation for what we are about to hear tomorrow.

Obama will do what he has to do. There is no other choice. What he shouldn't have done is allowed the people to be misled, into thinking he would bring any kind of positive change whatsoever.

Prove me wrong, Mr. President.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Shady]

Just wanted to bump this up, in glib anticipation for what we are about to hear tomorrow.

Obama will do what he has to do. There is no other choice. What he shouldn't have done is allowed the people to be misled, into thinking he would bring any kind of positive change whatsoever.

I don't think he misled anyone. Throughout the campaign, he insisted that Afghanistan was the "good" war.

[Sir Bandelot]

I don't think he misled anyone. Throughout the campaign, he insisted that Afghanistan was the "good" war.

Perhaps, depends on which sound bite you heard or media outlet you read from. But in any case that's why I said "allowed the people to be misled"...

So even if he didna do it, laddie, he's still the guilty one... as we shall probably soon see.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Obama will do what he has to do. There is no other choice. What he shouldn't have done is allowed the people to be misled, into thinking he would bring any kind of positive change whatsoever.

Prove me wrong, Mr. President.

President Obama doesn't owe you a damn thing in that regard....maybe it would help next time to distinguish between campaigning and actual governance.

Some people will always be gullible (errrr....stupid)!