lostfan

Off-subject but I've been meaning to ask about your Roger Baldwin quote in your sig, IIRC he started off being a supporter of socialism, but he was a big anti-Communist later in life wasn't he?

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 01:26 PM) No, I wasn't pointing at you or anyone specifically. As far as Tex goes, there my not have been a specific accusation made, but there have been generic implications made. Which, if I'm not mistaken, you took my comment in the same context that Tex has been taking the subtle implications. Though, I wasn't very subtle. Still, I can totally understand his point of view. I know, well I think I know you well enough as a poster, but I tend to get defensive sometimes so I'm sorry if sometimes I come across as confrontational. Generally when I talk politics, I love to argue, but I have to speak directly at the person rather than around them, so I had to clear that up. I highly doubt anyone in here is trying to implicate Tex in anything, I think I started posting in here when I didn't understand why he felt he was included in the shotgun blast when he lives in West Texas and we're talking about a specific group of states, and when his reasons for voting McCain are well-known and he's stated them, but we're talking about uninformed voters. Still, after all these pages, I don't understand why he'd take it personally.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 12:56 PM) Okay, maybe I got a little harsh there. It happens in this forum quite a bit. So, I apologize to anyone that was offended by my choice of words. That being said, I just can't believe the spin that people put of things to reinforce thier own personal version of utopia. There is no utopia. It's a hard, cut throat, bitter, racist world and those are the facts. It may change eventually, but I won't see it in my lifetime. We're good, I just felt like that was directly at me and I wanted to throw that out there, I wasn't trying to start anything. In reference to what you said specifically I went into further detail with that later in the thread. Summary: Blacks are overwhelmingly Democrats, have been for a while, and will continue to be About 90% voted for Kerry About 95% voted for Obama (a Democrat, who is also charismatic and who got more votes from other races too) Some were idiots and voted on race alone, but not that many Anecdotally, I know of only 2 black people that voted McCain (my brother is one), the rest of them are Democrats and voted Obama, and I can't name a single one that voted for him because he was black Conclusion: A certain, unknown percentage of blacks voted based on race just like a certain, unknown percentage of whites voted against him for the same reason. This hasn't been denied or challenged by anyone on my side of the argument, to my knowledge, and nobody's been claiming ALL blacks voted purely, or that ALL white voters voted against him because they're racist (except Tex who sticks to his bizarre claim that we are) because it would be ludicrous.

If you want to call me an idiot, then just say it.

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 12:31 PM) Are you seriously trying to tell me we're better off with Cox at 3rd? Would you rather be pissed on or s*** on?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 11:36 AM) OMG I'M SHOCKED SOMEONE WENT THERE! I never miss an opportunity to do that.

Good, maybe he can coach 3rd again and do things like wave AJ Pierzynski around on an infield single and get thrown out by 55 feet.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 04:41 AM) Amazing: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/int...r-on-zogby.html So, he interviewd Havoc from nfl-fanatix?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 10:16 AM) Wow. I had totally missed that. I think it was about the auto companies where I had read that if every single employee were to work for free, the legacy costs they had would still have the company losing money. That is a huge difference. It also changes the palatability of a bailout, because all they have to do is survive 2009 and their cost structure changes dramatically. I am guessing it is only a matter of time before the UAW figures out a way to pawn off the retirement costs on to the government. Yeah, like my last post. Although it's obviously going to mean higher taxes, really the corporations are going to have to pay for it either way.

I've been on the fence as far as universal/socialized insurance is concerned and I still am, but I've been saying that this UAW/GM situation is probably good ammo for the "pro" people.

I haven't. What is it?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 10:04 AM) I can't explain in detail because I didn't hear the whole thing and I was on my way out the door this morning when I heard it but it has to do with a deal that the UAW recently made with GM, and something to do with retirement healthcare costs that are going to change (I don't remember how) which is currently why the number is so high. The UAW is taking on retiree healthcare costs from GM. That's what's costing GM so much and skewing the number.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 19, 2008 -> 10:01 AM) Why? Did you pick that up (the reason why) as well? I can't explain in detail because I didn't hear the whole thing and I was on my way out the door this morning when I heard it but it has to do with a deal that the UAW recently made with GM, and something to do with retirement healthcare costs that are going to change (I don't remember how) which is currently why the number is so high.

I saw today that that $72/hour figure or whatever it was is actually going to come down to about $44/hour in 2010 which is on par with the foreign companies in the US, but that GM needs a bridge to get there or the whole thing will collapse.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 09:50 PM) They'll lose GA. MN I just don't know - too close to call. Yeah, I just don't see them winning GA.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 08:03 PM) There's no conspiracy, it's just how the media works. It works around their profit margin, the other post I quoted was basically agreeing with me which means that of all the arguments we've had about media bias, we were trying to say the same thing (if that's what you meant).

You really expect him to sweep into Washington with a bunch of n00bs and take everything over? That's what Clinton and Carter did.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 03:44 PM) He said that the media covering Obama as if he were the incumbent could have been a factor in the south. My response was simply that had the media coverage being prObama ad nauseum been a factor anywhere at all in McCain's favor, he'd be president because the media coverage was ridiculously one sided. Some of that, McCain did to himself. Towards the end, he was being covered the same way announcers do in a game where one team is getting its ass kicked.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 03:27 PM) This thread is an example of even very smart people reading too much into things. Look, there are a small number of white people who voted for McCain due to race, there are also a small number of black people who voted for Obama because he's white. Now, my guess is those numbers percentagewise are quite similar overall, with perhaps a slight advantage going to Obama due to turnout. But overall, these factors both were obvious going into the election and not at all what determined who won. The maps of the south/bible belt/whatever you want to call in are undeinable in showing that the majority of the "racist white" vote who jumped from Kerry to McCain due to race reasons only, reside in the south. That doesn't make Tex or any other person in the south that jumped in such a way racist, but it means that a relatively noticeable (but still small) number of those votes occured due to race. I think the south is continuing to make progress (SEE: Virginia and North Carolina vote this year), and the deep south is improving, but it still has some work to do. The whole country does, but obviously a little moreso the south. Overall, if you went from a no show vote to Obama because he's black, you are a fool. If you went from Kerry to McCain because Obama is black, you are a fool. The numbers overall in those categories are small, none of the people on this board belong to either, and that's the end of the story. It's not really THAT complicated in my opinion. When my first post in this thread was "f*** this thread" the post I wanted to make looked something like this, but I didn't/don't have enough patience with saying the same things again... and again... and again. I always end up getting irritated and that is doubly true today, which has been a pretty s***ty day from the start for me.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 03:03 PM) I do not think you are coming off as an asshole. So historically, the south has been in favor of those laws. And in this elected, support dropped from Kerry to Obama. The connotation, as I am understanding it, is white voters, in areas that historically have not been stellar examples of racial tolerance, voted along racial lines for McCain. Therefor drawing a subtle and not so subtle accusation of racism. Yes, I am actually saying there are plenty of racist voters in certain parts of the South. Yes. Absolutely. Frankly I don't know why it's such a point of contention either since this is something I always thought was commonly accepted, in fact it's pretty in-your-face if you go to the wrong town. I didn't explicitly say it because I felt like I'd be saying the sky is blue. Does this apply to ALL white voters in the South that didn't vote for Obama? No. Of course not, only a percentage. The numbers don't lie and it didn't happen anywhere else in the country.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 02:54 PM) Not to interrupt the solo debat that's going on but... I guess my point was that if you were to ask me why I voted for McCain and I listed off 3-4 things I liked, and then added "and also because he's white, and I feel he has my interests in mind and would do more for me," I'd be labeled as a racist or someone stuck in the 50's way of thinking. If a black person says the same thing, even if race was one of many factors, it would be fine, because it's expected and understood. And maybe racist is a strong word, but certainly I'd be looked down upon for using his whiteness as a factor in voting for him. # of white presidents: 43 # of black presidents: 1 # of "other" presidents: 0 The situations really aren't that comparable, first of all, it's kind of a false/strawman argument to begin with unless one is to believe that race was high up on the list of a majority of black people that voted for him. It's really as simple as people (not just black people really) being proud to see America taking a major step forward socially that was long overdue.

I said the historical connotation is obvious. Historical, meaning slavery, Jim Crow, white supremacist movements, racial violence, etc. many things that I thought didn't need to be mentioned which is why I chose the word "obvious" and then made a comment about refunding tax dollars because their education system failed them if they didn't know those things. The legacy of those things still lives, I'd assumed that's virtually common knowledge, so I didn't even mention it. If I'm coming off like an asshole I apologize.

lol, WTF does that post have to do with "a vote for McCain is a vote for racism?" Christ.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 02:22 PM) Some don't believe there has been any connotations. But setting that aside. If I was living in one of those states I would be painted with that same brush and that just isn't fair. It happens. This is a country of 300 million people.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 02:22 PM) Some don't believe there has been any connotations. I would kindly ask them to do one of 2 things in that case 1. explain what they mean by that or 2. promptly refund all of the tax dollars spent on their obviously failed education.