If Obama wins the primary and loses the general election...

If Obama wins the primary and loses the general election this is what will happen:
After he loses there will be an uproar and liberals (jesse jackson and al sharpton) will claim that America is still racist and hates black people. Liberals will also claim that America is not ready to accept black people into American culture and that blacks are not treated as equals in American society (which may very well be true, but I don't think that'll be the reason Obama loses, if he does lose.)

They will also claim that McCain got a free pass and that any attack ad that was run by McCain focused on the race of the candidate so on and so forth.
They will have forgotten that any attack ad would have been run regardless of Obama's race because general elections are just mud slinging.

If he wins the primary and loses the general election, I will TTT this and see if it turns out to be true. I just need somewhere to put my amazing prediction.

oh you forgot the part about mccain rigging the election.

If it comes down to Florida, the Dems will argue that the voters who were disenfranchised during the primaries did not come out to vote again, thus giving the state to the repubs.

anyone saying florida dems were disenfranchised don't know about politics

I think by definition they were disenfranchised (or will be disenfranchised). The reason why their votes won't count for the primary is pretty much through their own parties stupidity, I'd love to say tough luck, because that's what logic dictates, but, It's someones right to vote. Pretty much the only real right you will ever have in America.

its fucking stupid to let states like iowa and new hampshire help dictate the outcome of the primaries. i agree vqc that it is the parties own fault for having a crappy system. they should make states like texas, california, florida first, and leave states like iowa and new hampshire towards the end. imo, it was howard dean on an ego trip with the whole florida and michigan not counting.

The #1 reason one should be worried about McCain is because he'll get to appoint 3 supreme court members. That will have a more lasting effect than anything else over the 4 years.

I thought that Democrats were a shoe in for the federal election because Bush is a republican. Maybe Hildog supporters will run to McCain because they have been against Obama this whole time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

I thought that Democrats were a shoe in for the federal election because Bush is a republican. Maybe Hildog supporters will run to McCain because they have been against Obama this whole time.

---

The same thing was assumed in 2004 and kerry choked on a fat cock. He had the election and chose to lose it.

Here's hoping the islams have drawn enough racial attention away from the blacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swiggidy

The #1 reason one should be worried about McCain is because he'll get to appoint 3 supreme court members. That will have a more lasting effect than anything else over the 4 years.

---

Scalia might have the most sound, logical arguments, but sometimes the court just needs someone like O'Connor who makes shit up on the fly but the result is one that follows your gut.

More importantly is my prediction. If Obama loses, America = Racist.

O ya, if Obama wins, Repubs come out and say "Obama wins because America was too afraid of looking racist," which sadly, may also be true.

racism has transformed from violent bigotry to being more passive and everyone is scared of being called a racist if they say something "controversial". theres a huge double standard going on, and im really fucking sick of it. obv there are really unintelligent bigots still, but that will never change. people like jackson, wright, and sharpton make me sick to my stomach, because they make everything about race. the same people (not just blacks) that complain about how racist america is and blah blah, are the same people that make everything an issue of race.

that was kind of an incoherent rant cause im really tired, but i think you get my point

Why do people talk politics on FTR? These discussions never seem to get anywhere :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwarfman

Why do people talk politics on FTR? These discussions never seem to get anywhere :(

---

This one wasn't supposed to get anywhere. I just need a place to put my prediction.

umm where im from black people are more racist towards whites... there like hey cracka what you think your doing, and im like uhhh

and also i believe with this post, i think a lot of people will actually vote ONLY because the fact that hillary is a female and obama is black etc... like I feel a lot of people wont even bother to figure out whats actually going on and vote for them because these dumb liberals feel we need a change etc...

btw i still think obama is a cover up, and if he is elected president jeremiah wright will sit as his right hand man (anarchist?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vaks

btw i still think obama is a cover up, and if he is elected president jeremiah wright will sit as his right hand man (anarchist?)

---

Okay, you said this once and I thought it was a level. But twice? If you seriously believe this you need help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwarfman

Why do people talk politics on FTR? These discussions never seem to get anywhere :(

---

This one wasn't supposed to get anywhere. I just need a place to put my prediction.

---

this says it all...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vaks

btw i still think obama is a cover up, and if he is elected president jeremiah wright will sit as his right hand man (anarchist?)

---

Okay, you said this once and I thought it was a level. But twice? If you seriously believe this you need help.

---

teh rev wright situation is fairly simple. obama doesnt believe the same crap that he does, although i suppose its remotely possible. the only question is why did you stay in his church for 20 years, and why did you lie and say you didnt know he was saying those hateful things. if you expect me to believe that you didnt know your pastor hates white people after 20 years, thats bullshit.

its pretty obvious to me that he stayed there to jump start his political career, because wright has a big influence in the black community in chicago.

also, i think rev wright is a scamster just like any cult leader. why does he have a 10k square foot house, and drive around in a benz, when there are poor black people with kids that im sure could use a hand. not to mention that his house is surrounded by only rich white people by a country club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

If Obama wins the primary and loses the general election this is what will happen:
After he loses there will be an uproar and liberals (jesse jackson and al sharpton) will claim that America is still racist and hates black people. Liberals will also claim that America is not ready to accept black people into American culture and that blacks are not treated as equals in American society (which may very well be true, but I don't think that'll be the reason Obama loses, if he does lose.)

They will also claim that McCain got a free pass and that any attack ad that was run by McCain focused on the race of the candidate so on and so forth.
They will have forgotten that any attack ad would have been run regardless of Obama's race because general elections are just mud slinging.

If he wins the primary and loses the general election, I will TTT this and see if it turns out to be true. I just need somewhere to put my amazing prediction.

---

I hope that all of the above happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swiggidy

The #1 reason one should be worried about McCain is because he'll get to appoint 3 supreme court members. That will have a more lasting effect than anything else over the 4 years.

---

Which is exactly my #1 worry about Obama.

Meanwhile, on the McCain endorsers front:

Ralph Parsley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg

John Hagee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q

and so on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QDr_3bbTmg&NR=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

Meanwhile, on the McCain endorsers front:

Ralph Parsley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg

John Hagee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q

and so on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QDr_3bbTmg&NR=1

---

So what? None of these guys was McCain's pastor for one day, not to mention 20 years.

By the way, Obama this week was endorsed by the leader of Hamas. (You can Google that I think.) There's a ringing endorsement for ya.

(Edit: Sorry, actually it was about 3 weeks ago. http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/200...lem-for-obama/)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

Meanwhile, on the McCain endorsers front:

John Hagee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q

---

im curious, did mccain sit in his church for 20 years? did mccain dedicate any books to hagee? its fair to complain about it, but its not the same as obama/wright. if wright had just endorsed obama, and thats all, i doubt it wouldve raised this much attention. im sure it wouldve attracted some, just like mccain/hagee, but not even close to as much. it wouldnt be an issue.

god damnit deacon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

god damnit deacon.

---

lol what took you so long?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deacon_bluez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

god damnit deacon.

---

lol what took you so long?

---

i was 10 tabling!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

Meanwhile, on the McCain endorsers front:

John Hagee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q

---

im curious, did mccain sit in his church for 20 years? did mccain dedicate any books to hagee? its fair to complain about it, but its not the same as obama/wright. if wright had just endorsed obama, and thats all, i doubt it wouldve raised this much attention. im sure it wouldve attracted some, just like mccain/hagee, but not even close to as much. it wouldnt be an issue.

---

McCain actively sought and has said he's proud of his endorsement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od-Gx6JmnoU&NR=1

You dont get anywhere in politics as a young black man in chicago without a little race anger in you. Thats just how chicagos democrats are. They want a little Sharpton. Obama knew this and 20 years ago he used rev. wright as his anger. Do I think obama believes any of the shit wright spouts? I doubt it. He just had no reason to leave. It still worked for him, up until now. He needed to a ingratiate himself with someone like that for political reasons. Thats just how the game is played. But this time it bit him in the ass because he tried to play both sides. I cant really blame him. The association with wright got him to where he was, he knew it and so did wright and so did everyone in illinois. It would be a big slap in the face to his constituents to dump him at the first sign of trouble. That would be just as big of a bad story.

I don't hold obama to it any more than i hold it against the myriad of politicians who say "While I'm PERSONALLY against abortion and I would NEVER have one, I think it should be legal". Thats horseshit and we all know it. Its just political expediency. Every party and every candidate does it. Its bullshit but thats the way the game is played.

please, keith olberman is such a terrible anchor. unbelievably biased. he really put a nice spin on what he said. he says, "friday mccain said that hagey supports what i stand for and believe in", then later mccain said,"its simply not accurate to say that just because somebody endorses me, that i embrace their views."

simply put, just because hagey supports some of what mccain believes, does not mean that mccain supports what hagey believes. you are basically saying oh well look at mccain he is the same as barack, but you arent hammering him. well, like i said before, mccain wasnt in hageys church for 20 years, was wed by him, or claimed he didnt know hagey was a racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

McCain actively sought and has said he's proud of his endorsement.

---

This is a key difference.

I actually don't dislike McCain... I used to like him alot.. but I think in the past 8 years he's sold out on enough issues (i.e. supporting Bush in '04 when it looked like he was dieing inside at the RNC) that I lost a lot of respect for him.

Idk dude anyone who worked on sportscenter is alright in my book

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

racism has transformed from violent bigotry to being more passive and everyone is scared of being called a racist if they say something "controversial". theres a huge double standard going on, and im really fucking sick of it. obv there are really unintelligent bigots still, but that will never change. people like jackson, wright, and sharpton make me sick to my stomach, because they make everything about race. the same people (not just blacks) that complain about how racist america is and blah blah, are the same people that make everything an issue of race.

that was kind of an incoherent rant cause im really tired, but i think you get my point

---

QFT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Idk dude anyone who worked on sportscenter is alright in my book

---

lol i forgot he used to work for espn. imo, skip bayless would be better than olberman as a news commentator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euphoricism

You dont get anywhere in politics as a young black man in chicago without a little race anger in you. Thats just how chicagos democrats are. They want a little Sharpton. Obama knew this and 20 years ago he used rev. wright as his anger. Do I think obama believes any of the shit wright spouts? I doubt it. He just had no reason to leave. It still worked for him, up until now. He needed to a ingratiate himself with someone like that for political reasons. Thats just how the game is played. But this time it bit him in the ass because he tried to play both sides. I cant really blame him. The association with wright got him to where he was, he knew it and so did wright and so did everyone in illinois. It would be a big slap in the face to his constituents to dump him at the first sign of trouble. That would be just as big of a bad story.

I don't hold obama to it any more than i hold it against the myriad of politicians who say "While I'm PERSONALLY against abortion and I would NEVER have one, I think it should be legal". Thats horseshit and we all know it. Its just political expediency. Every party and every candidate does it. Its bullshit but thats the way the game is played.

---

hey, whadda ya know? I completely agree with you.

So the other day I was riding my bike home. I was sitting at a corner waiting on a shit ton of traffic and a dude turns, stops and says something to me. I roll over to this pimped out cadie, black dude in front seat decked out in nice pimp clothes. And asks for directions. I start telling him which way to go and he turns to look (why do people do this?) and I notice a huge crossish tattoo on his neck, so he's turned back an notices me staring. We clarify the directions and he moves on.

Q: Are you allowed to stare at neck tattoos? Or am I just being really white?

crossish?

I think I need this word clarified to give an accurate response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingnat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

McCain actively sought and has said he's proud of his endorsement.

---

This is a key difference.

I actually don't dislike McCain... I used to like him alot.. but I think in the past 8 years he's sold out on enough issues (i.e. supporting Bush in '04 when it looked like he was dieing inside at the RNC) that I lost a lot of respect for him.

---

What exactly do you want him to do? If he didnt suck the RNCs dick he wouldnt be running for president. At least now he's being more sincere. He's telling the republicans to suck his dick on the immigration issue, for one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deacon_bluez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

Meanwhile, on the McCain endorsers front:

Ralph Parsley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg

John Hagee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q

and so on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QDr_3bbTmg&NR=1

---

So what? None of these guys was McCain's pastor for one day, not to mention 20 years.

By the way, Obama this week was endorsed by the leader of Hamas. (You can Google that I think.) There's a ringing endorsement for ya.

(Edit: Sorry, actually it was about 3 weeks ago. http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/16/a-hamas-problem-for-obama/)

---

Oh, and by the FARC, and by the separatist group ETA, and by the KKK's black division (super secret ones), the Sunni and Shiite sects, by Oliver Cromwell, by Saddam Hussein's (who also happens to be his distant third cousin, hence they share the name) corpse, by the Kurdish People, by Marcus Garvey's reincarnation, by Tupac Amaru, not to mention by Jeremiah "God Damn America" "20 Years" Wright, and of course by the FBI top ten most wanted list, with special endorsement by Osama (who is his other 4th distant cousin, hence the similar names) himself.


Did I forget any other Obama endorser? Damn, I guess I'll change the channel to Fox and see who I forgot.

I'm pretty sick and tired of listening to this exchange.

Bla bla bla bla Obama bla bla bla.
Bla bla bla 20Years bla bla bla bl a??


Why the hell does "20 Years" always have to come up in the next sentence?
Its kinda like the hip thing to say, to "show others" you know something about politics (HA!)
Whenever you run out of arguments, throw in "20 years", makes instantly for an argument.


"So I went to the ice cream shop the other day, and I saw this niceass chick standing next to an Obama poster."
"But did you hear that for 20 years that ice cream shop did only sell bad quality ice cream?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

crossish?

I think I need this word clarified to give an accurate response.

---

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils...rningcross.jpg

Hence the staring.

wow did you just pull everything you just said out of your ass jack? wtf are you talking about?

you need a reality check. its fine if you think that fox leans towards conservatism, because it does, but they are soooooo much more fair than msnbc and cnn. those channels are a fucking joke. just look at their ratings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deacon_bluez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

Meanwhile, on the McCain endorsers front:

Ralph Parsley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg

John Hagee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q

and so on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QDr_3bbTmg&NR=1

---

So what? None of these guys was McCain's pastor for one day, not to mention 20 years.

By the way, Obama this week was endorsed by the leader of Hamas. (You can Google that I think.) There's a ringing endorsement for ya.

(Edit: Sorry, actually it was about 3 weeks ago. http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/16/a-hamas-problem-for-obama/)

---

Oh, and by the FARC, and by the separatist group ETA, and by the KKK's black division (super secret ones), the Sunni and Shiite sects, by Oliver Cromwell, by Saddam Hussein's (who also happens to be his distant third cousin, hence they share the name) corpse, by the Kurdish People, by Marcus Garvey's reincarnation, by Tupac Amaru, not to mention by Jeremiah "God Damn America" "20 Years" Wright, and of course by the FBI top ten most wanted list, with special endorsement by Osama (who is his other 4th distant cousin, hence the similar names) himself.


Did I forget any other Obama endorser? Damn, I guess I'll change the channel to Fox and see who I forgot.

---

LOL.

Instead of reporting that Hamas wanted Obama to win the election, CNN reported that "McCain camp says Hamas wants Obama."

Fox news tilts you so hard=)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

I think by definition they were disenfranchised (or will be disenfranchised).

---

not being allowed to help choose a party's candidate is far from being disenfranchised

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

I think by definition they were disenfranchised (or will be disenfranchised).

---

not being allowed to help choose a party's candidate is far from being disenfranchised

---

they took their votes away....how is that not being disenfranchised?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

wow did you just pull everything you just said out of your ass jack? wtf are you talking about?

you need a reality check. its fine if you think that fox leans towards conservatism, because it does, but they are soooooo much more fair than msnbc and cnn. those channels are a fucking joke. just look at their ratings.

---

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...0/notagain.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

wow did you just pull everything you just said out of your ass jack? wtf are you talking about?

you need a reality check. its fine if you think that fox leans towards conservatism, because it does, but they are soooooo much more fair than msnbc and cnn. those channels are a fucking joke. just look at their ratings.

---

:roll:

hey, i wasnt the one that brought it up. he was the one who highlighted foxnews in size 30 font.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

I think by definition they were disenfranchised (or will be disenfranchised).

---

not being allowed to help choose a party's candidate is far from being disenfranchised

---

they took their votes away....how is that not being disenfranchised?

---

I think he means disenfranchised from the actual election.

When I said disenfranchised, I meant for the process of choosing their parties candidate. As far as I know disenfranchisement can occur for anything that requires voting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

wow did you just pull everything you just said out of your ass jack? wtf are you talking about?

you need a reality check. its fine if you think that fox leans towards conservatism, because it does, but they are soooooo much more fair than msnbc and cnn. those channels are a fucking joke. just look at their ratings.

---

I'm not going to get mixed up in some interwebs politics argument, but really? Can you really compare Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper to Bill O'reilly and Sean Hannity? C'mon....

Fox has ratings because they pander to a certain audience who want to hear a skewed point of view. CNN is a news station, even if their anchors are mostly liberal it's reporting is pretty fair. They run democrats through the mud every chance they get just as much if not more so than republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwarfman

Why do people talk politics ? These discussions never seem to get anywhere :(

---

fyp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrhappy333

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwarfman

Why do people talk ?

---

fyp

---

FY FYP !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

crossish?

I think I need this word clarified to give an accurate response.

---

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils...rningcross.jpg

Hence the staring.

---

I dont really get what swig is talking about if the guy just had a cross tatted on his neck...

oh and I thought it was common knowledge that fox was nothing but one big slanted editorial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

oh and I thought it was common knowledge that fox was nothing but one big slanted editorial.

---

Noooooo, its not slanted. Shame on you for thinking that!
Its Fair and Balanced ©.

I mean, they say it every day. IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

i would love to hear what the almighty boost and jack sawyers favorite news channel is. jacks i probably will not have heard of because hes from brittain, so pretend you live in america.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

oh and I thought it was common knowledge that fox was nothing but one big slanted editorial.

---

Noooooo, its not slanted. Shame on you for thinking that!
Its Fair and Balanced ©.

I mean they say it every day. IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

---

Where do you get your news? How do you manage to decipher what is biased and what is unbiased? Do you get your news from more than one place?

meh I dont really watch the news a ton-- but when I do I normally watch cnn or msnbc. You can attack them all you want, but I couldnt care less. I wont defend them, I just think they are less retarded than the dribble spewed on fox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

oh and I thought it was common knowledge that fox was nothing but one big slanted editorial.

---

Noooooo, its not slanted. Shame on you for thinking that!
Its Fair and Balanced ©.

I mean they say it every day. IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

---

Where do you get your news? How do you manage to decipher what is biased and what is unbiased? Do you get your news from more than one place?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

i would love to hear what the almighty boost and jack sawyers favorite news channel is. jacks i probably will not have heard of because hes from brittain, so pretend you live in america.

---

MTV and cartoon network obviously.

I recently tried to switch to NatGeo, but they proved too liberal for my tastes. I mean, lions mating 300 times a day in Afrika? Dubya Tee Eff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

meh I dont really watch the news a ton-- but when I do I normally watch cnn or msnbc. You can attack them all you want, but I couldnt care less. I wont defend them, I just think they are less retarded than the dribble spewed on fox.

---

i don't plan on attacking anyone, i figure that most people on FTR do a decent job of filtering and have some semblance of logical thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

I think by definition they were disenfranchised (or will be disenfranchised).

---

not being allowed to help choose a party's candidate is far from being disenfranchised

---

they took their votes away....how is that not being disenfranchised?

---

I think he means disenfranchised from the actual election.

When I said disenfranchised, I meant for the process of choosing their parties candidate. As far as I know disenfranchisement can occur for anything that requires voting.

---

oh okay. yeah they obv arent disenfranchised from the general election, but i was thinking about this earlier today. the problem is when you dont include those states, it kind of has a rippling effect. for the record, i have no proof of this, im just stating what i think. so say hillary wins florida and michigan by 10 points each, which is a very good victory. thats fantastic momentum for her campaign, and who knows how that wouldve changed the outcome of the primaries, because momentum is pretty big.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

I think by definition they were disenfranchised (or will be disenfranchised).

---

not being allowed to help choose a party's candidate is far from being disenfranchised

---

they took their votes away....how is that not being disenfranchised?

---

I think he means disenfranchised from the actual election.

When I said disenfranchised, I meant for the process of choosing their parties candidate. As far as I know disenfranchisement can occur for anything that requires voting.

---

oh okay. yeah they obv arent disenfranchised from the general election, but i was thinking about this earlier today. the problem is when you dont include those states, it kind of has a rippling effect. for the record, i have no proof of this, im just stating what i think. so say hillary wins florida and michigan by 10 points each, which is a very good victory. thats fantastic momentum for her campaign, and who knows how that wouldve changed the outcome of the primaries, because momentum is pretty big.

---

Does anyone know why the parties dont just run all the primaries on teh same day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

meh I dont really watch the news a ton-- but when I do I normally watch cnn or msnbc. You can attack them all you want, but I couldnt care less. I wont defend them, I just think they are less retarded than the dribble spewed on fox.

---

for the record, i never at any point, in any thread, suggested that fox news was perfectly balanced.

boost, im glad we can agree on one thing at least, and that is that we dont care about attacks on our preferred news station. you saying fox news is bullshit dribble isnt going to convince me to start watching msnbc, and visa versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

I think by definition they were disenfranchised (or will be disenfranchised).

---

not being allowed to help choose a party's candidate is far from being disenfranchised

---

they took their votes away....how is that not being disenfranchised?

---

I think he means disenfranchised from the actual election.

When I said disenfranchised, I meant for the process of choosing their parties candidate. As far as I know disenfranchisement can occur for anything that requires voting.

---

oh okay. yeah they obv arent disenfranchised from the general election, but i was thinking about this earlier today. the problem is when you dont include those states, it kind of has a rippling effect. for the record, i have no proof of this, im just stating what i think. so say hillary wins florida and michigan by 10 points each, which is a very good victory. thats fantastic momentum for her campaign, and who knows how that wouldve changed the outcome of the primaries, because momentum is pretty big.

---

Does anyone know why the parties dont just run all the primaries on teh same day?

---

idk. new shit comes to light? i think its good that they space it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

meh I dont really watch the news a ton-- but when I do I normally watch cnn or msnbc. You can attack them all you want, but I couldnt care less. I wont defend them, I just think they are less retarded than the dribble spewed on fox.

---

for the record, i never at any point, in any thread, suggested that fox news was perfectly balanced.

boost, im glad we can agree on one thing at least, and that is that we dont care about attacks on our preferred news station. you saying fox news is bullshit dribble isnt going to convince me to start watching msnbc, and visa versa.

---

its not always a bad thing to watch both. How can you learn anything if the only thing you hear is people telling you things you already know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

meh I dont really watch the news a ton-- but when I do I normally watch cnn or msnbc. You can attack them all you want, but I couldnt care less. I wont defend them, I just think they are less retarded than the dribble spewed on fox.

---

for the record, i never at any point, in any thread, suggested that fox news was perfectly balanced.

boost, im glad we can agree on one thing at least, and that is that we dont care about attacks on our preferred news station. you saying fox news is bullshit dribble isnt going to convince me to start watching msnbc, and visa versa.

---

its not always a bad thing to watch both. How can you learn anything if the only thing you hear is people telling you things you already know?

---

ya if Im browsing channels and see the oreily factor is on I often tune in. Its pretty good comedy imo and I get to see how the other side thinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

I think by definition they were disenfranchised (or will be disenfranchised).

---

not being allowed to help choose a party's candidate is far from being disenfranchised

---

they took their votes away....how is that not being disenfranchised?

---

I think he means disenfranchised from the actual election.

When I said disenfranchised, I meant for the process of choosing their parties candidate. As far as I know disenfranchisement can occur for anything that requires voting.

---

oh okay. yeah they obv arent disenfranchised from the general election, but i was thinking about this earlier today. the problem is when you dont include those states, it kind of has a rippling effect. for the record, i have no proof of this, im just stating what i think. so say hillary wins florida and michigan by 10 points each, which is a very good victory. thats fantastic momentum for her campaign, and who knows how that wouldve changed the outcome of the primaries, because momentum is pretty big.

---

Does anyone know why the parties dont just run all the primaries on teh same day?

---

I think its retarded too, but Im not sure having it all on the same day would work very well. Like will said, having the candidates in the spotlight with the heat cranked up gives us a lot of insight as to who they are. If we had it all on the same day wed have to have a series of debates before the mega-primary. Thats fine, but the problem is that they would be 8 way debates, and really confusing. The convoluted system we have setup now works to weed out the weak candidates that dont have much of a chance in the general. Its really not a terrible thing to have this process spread out over several months since we are going to have to deal with one of the winners for several years..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vqc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

meh I dont really watch the news a ton-- but when I do I normally watch cnn or msnbc. You can attack them all you want, but I couldnt care less. I wont defend them, I just think they are less retarded than the dribble spewed on fox.

---

for the record, i never at any point, in any thread, suggested that fox news was perfectly balanced.

boost, im glad we can agree on one thing at least, and that is that we dont care about attacks on our preferred news station. you saying fox news is bullshit dribble isnt going to convince me to start watching msnbc, and visa versa.

---

its not always a bad thing to watch both. How can you learn anything if the only thing you hear is people telling you things you already know?

---

ya if Im browsing channels and see the oreily factor is on I often tune in. Its pretty good comedy imo and I get to see how the other side thinks.

---

see if you wanted to actually have a discussion about that, i would do that. with oreilly, i seriously dont understand why people think hes lol stupid.

his negatives:
-hes an asshole
-hes very opinionated
-he has a tendency to not let people talk as much as they want to and cut them off

his positives:
-he has very equal amount of conservs and libs come on the show
-if he doesnt agree with something, whether republican or democrat, he will let it be known
-he isnt afraid to speak his opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

-he has very equal amount of conservs and libs come on the show

---

lol

quantity != quality.

Everyone with any objectivity realizes that those panels are rigged. Fox is known for having "democrats"/"liberals" on their panels that are the equivilent to "scientists" who push intelligent design. That or they often will have weak willed wimps who dont do a good job of asserting themselves.

Bill Maher also has a lot of conservatives on his show, obviously Real Time is fair and balanced.

weak argument imo. most everything what they talk about are just talking points in which most liberals/conservatives share the same views.

edit: that needs clarification. liberals agree w/ libs, conservs agree w/ conservs.

will,

I love how you attack the NY Times, Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, The Huffington Post, etc. as all being douchebags but think FOX and Bill O'Reilly are "Fair and Balanced".

What's interesting is that attacking what he perceives as being 'liberal',or 'radical left' media is Bill O's stock in trade. You seem to agree with him without questioning, plus use his tactics. You're entitled to your opinion, but you really need to watch/read other media to get the full picture.

If I were a citizen of your 'freedom' loving country, I'd be concerned about a major media outlet that is the closest the US has come to having an official government propaganda arm in recent times. I'd at least be availing myself of opposing viewpoints.

And, fwiw, I watch Bill O all the time.

Unfortunately, I'm a media junkie.

I watch all three, and definitely MSNBC is much more tilted toward the left than Fox is to the right. CNN is definitely lefty, but not as far as MSNBC.

Jack Sawyer: Does the fact that the Hamas story was reported make it incorrect? Can you say that the money quote was a misquote? Or do you just like to express a knee-jerk reaction to Fox News?

i said they were more fair and balanced. never said they were perfect. thats fine if you watch oreilly, good for you that you watch both sides. unfortunately, i just am not interested in what most them have to say. i mean fuck, i watch the oreilly factor 3-4 times a week, the news hour with jim lehrer 1-2 times, and pretty much get the rest of it from the drudge report. i rarely watch hannity and colmes, because they just dont appeal to me that much. hannity, as most people suggest is pretty biased to the right, and colmes is just kind of an idiot. plus if you watch it right after the o'factor, you are pretty much hearing more of the same. basically, when it comes to tv mainstream media, i trust fox news to report more fairly. some of you watch the oreilly factor for entertainment purposes. i dont want to watch keith olberman or chris matthews for entertainment purposes. i would rather watch south park or the office. for that matter, i dont think i even watch fox news other than oreilly and occasionally H & C. i guess what really pisses me off about people going off about fox news is that most of the people that do are just incapable of admitting that their preferred networks are biased as well. and if they do admit it, it never goes past, well they are a little, but nowhere close to as bad as fox news. im sure you all are saying the same about me, so whatever.

and fwiw, i dont think bill oreilly is god!!! i think he covers some interesting stuff that a lot of other news shows dont cover, and he has a lot of really stupid shit like talking about how mylie syrus (aka hannah montana) is ruining her career by taking photos of her half naked or whatever. also, bill oreilly is not the only person in the world that thinks all of the above news stations/web sites are crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deacon_bluez

I watch all three, and definitely MSNBC is much more tilted toward the left than Fox is to the right. CNN is definitely lefty, but not as far as MSNBC.

Jack Sawyer: Does the fact that the Hamas story was reported make it incorrect? Can you say that the money quote was a misquote? Or do you just like to express a knee-jerk reaction to Fox News?

---

the latter imo.

but i mean come on now....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bx0XwEw2Rjw

Its not about "which news channel do I prefer", or "you are not going to convince me to start watching something else". I do not care what you watch, nor when or how. I cannot vote in your country, nor will I have any influence on whatever outcome of your election. Let that be clear.
I do advise you, and everybody else however, to diversify your sources where you get news. Try and get the whole picture.


Its all about recognizing when something, somebody, some group wants to influence your opinion by repeating the same things to you over and over and over and over again. It was a popular method in Nazi Germany, also in George Orwell's 1984.
In other words, you do not choose, your choice gets made for you. You think you have a choice, and it sure seems like you have a choice, but by making sure your view of some of the available choices gets as distorted as possible, your eventual choice can and will be manipulated. Not realizing this is a bit problematic, as I expect you can imagine.


Not seeing that they (sic) want you to think in one way, and getting overly defensive when people point out the obvious ("but channel X does it too!! and much much worse!!") is not optimal. Blind trust in "what the people in the boobtube say" is a horrible thing.


I say we are in an information age. By getting stuck with only one news outlet (like for instance "i'll never watch cnn or msnbc, they are so biased, i'll continue watching Fox which is less biased! Yar!" ) will severely hamper your judgement|opinion|bias|{insert something political here}.
Understand that it does not matter which channels you watch, as long as you get the whole picture, not the opinions on top of opinions on top of opinions of people with obvious agendas.
There's tons and tons of legitimate news sources out there all you have to do is open your eyes, ears and mind. Do not use just one, use all you can find. Stay informed.


There was a good quote in this thread about Obama and "20 Years" Wright that I wanted to use to illustrate my point right now, as being the direct result of foxnews continuous drivel since it was not a level, but it somehow somewhen got deleted...