T1B

I must say that if a person were to vote against a candidate mainly because of their racial background that would certainly qualify as racist or prejudicial. So if a person were to vote for a candidate mainly because of their racial background, shouldn't that also be racist or prejudicial ?
I'll entertain any logical discussion.

I personally will take neither approach. Race doesn't motivate me to vote a certain way. I don't really care what motivates someone else - that's their business.

I'll entertain any logical discussion.

...or maybe, not so much. You've been tossing out a lot of questions, but failing to take place in the discussions that they engender.

PSUFAN wrote:

I'll entertain any logical discussion.

...or maybe, not so much. You've been tossing out a lot of questions, but failing to take place in the discussions that they engender.

He's been doing that for 10 fucking years on these boards. Nothing new. Even KC Paul offers more to a thread than "wolfman".

BSmack wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:

I'll entertain any logical discussion.

...or maybe, not so much. You've been tossing out a lot of questions, but failing to take place in the discussions that they engender.

He's been doing that for 10 fucking years on these boards. Nothing new. Even KC Paul offers more to a thread than "wolfman".

His normal modus operandi in the past was to toss out a provocative question and then whine and bitch when somebody came back with an equally provocative response.

Now, he just tosses out the question and hides.

An improvement? I don't know.

Wolfman wrote:I must say that if a person were to vote against a candidate mainly because of their racial background that would certainly qualify as racist or prejudicial. So if a person were to vote for a candidate mainly because of their racial background, shouldn't that also be racist or prejudicial ?
I'll entertain any logical discussion.

What did MLK say? That line about judging not on the color of their skin but by the content of their character. That one says that yes, it also would/should be considered racist/prejudicial.

Wolfman wrote:I must say that if a person were to vote against a candidate mainly because of their racial background that would certainly qualify as racist or prejudicial. So if a person were to vote for a candidate mainly because of their racial background, shouldn't that also be racist or prejudicial ?
I'll entertain any logical discussion.

You seem to be concerned that there will be a larger number of blacks voting for Obama than for past candidates.

I would suggest that there will be a larger number of whites also voting for Obama than for past candidates.

Further, I think it might be just a question of motivation. Obama has run a campaign that will be studied for the next 20 years. Granted he is fortunate to have followed W (and in many other ways), but it is truly remarkable that a black candidate is the favorite in a presidential election 1 week before the election.

------------------
To answer your original leading question...Yes. It would almost always be racist. However, people do tend to identify with and vote for the candidate who presents the image of being "like me". w for instance was the "every man" while Kerry was the elitist. Lotsa spin, and the overarching "tribal" mentality of politics (and life unfortunately).

Well what's interesting is the fascination the press has had with him, call it novelty, call it what you will they've been in the tank for him even throughout the primary.

Tom In VA wrote:Well what's interesting is the fascination the press has had with him, call it novelty, call it what you will they've been in the tank for him even throughout the primary.

It's called Capitalism. Obama has been the big story. He's brought big ratings. He's brought in money. There's never been any ulterior motive other than bringing home a bigger paycheck.

Don't blame the press, blame the audience that is tuning in because that's what they want to see.

JayDuck wrote: It's called Capitalism. Obama has been the big story.

You know what, I find that an acceptable answer. Hence "the novelty". The story, and it is a story, sold. But, they've also been in the tank for him as well.

Tom In VA wrote:

JayDuck wrote: It's called Capitalism. Obama has been the big story.

You know what, I find that an acceptable answer. Hence "the novelty". The story, and it is a story, sold. But, they've also been in the tank for him as well.

Is there anything that will satisfy your victim complex?

Tom In VA wrote:

JayDuck wrote: It's called Capitalism. Obama has been the big story.

You know what, I find that an acceptable answer. Hence "the novelty". The story, and it is a story, sold. But, they've also been in the tank for him as well.

"In the tank" is pretty subjective, and really only works if you pick and choose. "The media" isn't a single entity. Obviously MSNBC is in the tank for Obama. And obviously Fox News is in the Tank for McCain. Outside of those stations, that have each been shills for one of the political parties for quite a long time, you can find examples to believe that any of the others are in the tank for whichever candidate you want to.

BSmack wrote: Is there anything that will satisfy your victim complex?

Not a victim over here. Just conveying information that even among journalists their opinion is that the coverage of Obama has been by and large more favorable, providing an incongruent amount of scrutiny to him as they have other candidates. It was even mentioned during the primary.

Don't complain to me B, read the fucking articles talking about this and take it up with them.

JayDuck wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

JayDuck wrote: It's called Capitalism. Obama has been the big story.

You know what, I find that an acceptable answer. Hence "the novelty". The story, and it is a story, sold. But, they've also been in the tank for him as well.

"In the tank" is pretty subjective, and really only works if you pick and choose. "The media" isn't a single entity. Obviously MSNBC is in the tank for Obama. And obviously Fox News is in the Tank for McCain. Outside of those stations, that have each been shills for one of the political parties for quite a long time, you can find examples to believe that any of the others are in the tank for whichever candidate you want to.

Indeed Fox is slanted. Is MSNBC the only one ? I'd have to say as far as extremes go, you have a solid take. While the other outlets at least give the appearance of being centrist, in general the MAJOR, t.v. and print outlets lean left of center.

For instance. Do you think that for one second the LA Times would "hold onto at the request of their source" a video tape of McCain at a party for an IRA leader or member of a German Nationalist party or what have you ?

Tom In VA wrote:

For instance. Do you think that for one second the LA Times would "hold onto at the request of their source" a video tape of McCain at a party for an IRA leader or member of a German Nationalist party or what have you ?

No. The LA Times is a liberal paper. But there are conservative newspapers, and magazines, that certainly would and have chosen what they publish based on what it more beneficial to John McCain as well.

Again, you are just going to get back to the Capitalism issue. There are more liberal leaning papers and magazines out there than conservative ones. But again, you are "blaming" the wrong thing. There aren't more liberal papers and writers than conservative ones because of some tinfoil hat conspiracy, there are more because more people buy their magazines and papers. Because that's what people want to read.

The only thing preventing them from going in the other direction, is that apparently not enough people will pay to read that shit.

Tom In VA wrote:...in general the MAJOR, t.v. and print outlets lean left of center.

That's if you peg the "center" at somewhere between Mussolini and Franco.

You people throw around the "socialist" tag (a term very dear to my heart) so carelessly.



May scientific analysis have mercy on your soul, Tom.

JayDuck wrote:Again, you are just going to get back to the Capitalism issue. There are more liberal leaning papers and magazines out there than conservative ones. But again, you are "blaming" the wrong thing. There aren't more liberal papers and writers than conservative ones because of some tinfoil hat conspiracy, there are more because more people buy their magazines and papers. Because that's what people want to read.

The only thing preventing them from going in the other direction, is that apparently not enough people will pay to read that shit.

Have to hand it to you. Good job man.

I mean ... RACK dude. Well put and all in all a solid, reasonable argument.

Martyred wrote: You people throw around the "socialist" tag (a term very dear to my heart) so carelessly.



May scientific analysis have mercy on your soul, Tom.

Science knows it's not an egregious attempt to pervert the term. And hardcore socialists scoff at the notion that Obama isn't in the backpocket of corporate America anyway .... but the concern is incremental anethesticized insertion of the socialist cock up our ass ... slowly ... well lubed ... barely feel a thing until .....


SLAM

Oh Science, NO.

So within context of purists like yourself - socialist and socialism spoken in America is handicapped a bit and nowhere near the magnitude you've grown to love and cherish.

Once again, I hope you find it in your Science given heart to forgive me.


Science Bless.

Tom In VA wrote: Once again, I hope you find it in your Science given heart to forgive me.

I would, but I adhere to a strict policy of "separation of Laboratory and State".

I think the Scriptures say it better than I ever could:

"...and behold, the Bunsen burner was a beacon of light unto mankind..."

Popular Mechanics 2:12

As I could have predicted---those here that are actually thinkers gave reasoned responses--those that are not attacked me for asking a tough question. No unlike what is happening in this campaign !

Wolfman wrote:--those that are not attacked me for asking a tough question.

They attacked you because you are a gibbering old shitbag.


The Grim Reaper seems to be taking his sweet fucking time with you. Come on already...

^^^^^^^^

case in point !
nothing beats logical and well thought out posting !

Wolfman wrote:^^^^^^^^

case in point !
nothing beats logical and well thought out posting !

His point was born of flawless logic... since you are indeed a gibbering old shitbag.

It doesn't tap too deep into the capacity of the thought of even a simpleton to determine this in fairly short order.