lostfan

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 02:07 PM) They really can't cover everything, it's up to the news rooms to decide which stories are going to get the most press. Of course news organizations such as FOX and MSNBC will often vary to a great extent as to which news stories are considered most worthy of coverage. Clearly you get it, but why the conspiracy theories? Unless it's a character thing you like to slip in and out of like Kap.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 01:48 PM) It's always "other people" but I am trying to put a face on other people. I'm a white male who switched from Kerry to McCain. Sounds like the group they are talking about. Maybe, if you oversimplify. But you pretty clearly had non-superficial reasons to do that, you've even laid them out in this forum multiple times. People do this every election cycle, finding a candidate from the party they don't usually vote for more appealing one year. In this case, it just so happens that one of the candidates was black, and the majority of vote-flippers are concentrated in one geographic region where the historical connotations are pretty obvious.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 01:43 PM) I heard on the news story after story after story about people who haven't voted for 20, 30, 40 years only to vote in this election for solely one purpose. Because Mr. Obama was black. It's a small sample size, and quite honestly, I don't really care that they did, because at least they were in the process. Having said that, it's a damn good question. What did Kerry pull both in pure number of votes, and as a percentage? Both numbers mean something this time around. It's an interesting question, but it's sure as hell isn't one to get worked up over. The facts are, Obama's the president. I think a VERY small part of it is due to race, but 97% is because of the political climate we're in. It's just a question. I find it hard not to get worked up over actually even though I know it doesn't even apply to me (I know I'm kind of jumping on Tex for doing that a bit). You know how I interpret it, and why I get all pissed off, to be honest? It sounds like "blacks don't know anything about politics, they just voted for him because he's black." I know there are some dumbasses who did that, and that's whatever, but virtually all of the "he's black" stuff comes from pride in actually seeing a black man get elected - I honestly can't think of a single black person I know that voted for him based on skin color, especially considering if the 2008 Democratic nominee was another white man, they'd have voted for him just the same, percentage-wise.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 01:43 PM) The dozens and dozens of posts that have inferred this since Obama announced he was running. The posts aren't about you, they're pretty obviously about other people (and nobody even says it in that many words, either). I think it requires a massive leap of logic to assume that people, who otherwise know you relatively well, are calling you a racist.

I don't have the energy to do this again.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 01:34 PM) Yeah, there was no other issues besides race. The economy, homeland security, immigration, border fence, balanced budgets, taxes, all that stuff had nothing to do with anyone's vote who voted for McCain. I voted for McCain because I'm a racist. That's the conclusion that people want to draw and it's 100% bull f***ing s*** and it pisses me off every time there is an attempt to label me, and those that switched to the GOP this election, as such. That is a strong accusation, that attacks my very character. Who says that even remotely applies to you? It applies to a certain percentage of the country (and anybody who pretends otherwise is just lying to themselves and everyone else), but why assume people are including you in that group when they're not? I actually get just as pissed off whenever people say things like "most black people voted for Obama because he's black." Uh, no, most black people voted for him because he was a Democrat, a few voted for him because he's black.

Guys, with the kind of day I'm having today, I'll just f***ing lock this thread for a few hours until everybody can play nice if you get out of hand. Today is not the day.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 12:20 PM) its an odd trend, that only affected these 5 states. So the question, is why these 5? As for the black voting for black, versus white voting for white, that's a great point. However, did the black population vote with Kerry at say 90% or so back in 2004? So if Obama got 93-94%, that wouldn't have been that different. Why is the bolded part glossed over like it's statistical noise whenever someone says it as the answer to the "double standard" question?

Ugh, f*** this thread now. Nevermind.

It would still be Reid. There is already historical precedent for these kinds of situations and I think the rules are already written too.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 12:45 PM) oh that evil matt drudge. i hope you guys can figure out a way to shut him down, he's just downright not pro-democrat enough. i wish the media was only pro-democrat infomercials like MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, and Dailykos. a perfect world. You asked "I wonder why" and he told you, his answer was 100% accurate. It became a story when Matt Drudge made it a story, before that it was just local news. What Democrats feel about Drudge has 0 relevance here.

Edited thread title to remove some of the WTF factor.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 09:52 AM) How so? He explained it already

I have a similar thread to this on another forum. Basically the whole country shifted blue except for a swath from Oklahoma to about West Virginia that shifted red.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 09:46 AM) You are talking like the everyday worker is not part of the problem. These Fu**tards that run the unions knew full well what they were doing, as did the fu**tards that head the big three. This needs to sting on both ends. If the unions won't budge, bankruptcy will come calling and quick. And the pain from that will be far greater than giving now. Remember the Steel cos. How did they do? Why wouldn't you give in on healthcare premiums, co-pays etc. This is one area where huge savings could be made in short order. Union boss =/= guy who just wants a job to pay mortgage/buy food/etc.

It's a moot point for me, I'm stuck with my GM warranty anyway or what's left of it. lol.

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Nov 17, 2008 -> 04:10 PM) The Dodgers don't even make the playoffs if it's not for Manny. Also, did you not see his stats from his time in LA? They were still stats for like 2 months.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 17, 2008 -> 04:14 PM) This automaker bailout is complete fail. It fixes nothing, they aren't competitive in the world market. They need major restructuring. Their union deals are bad, their product line direction has been horrible, and another 26 billion will just hold them over until they come back for more bailout money. Unfortunately, they will eventually get their bailout, as the labor unions paid about 80 million in bribes to the Democrats this past election. I'm starting to believe more and more that bankruptcy is the best for GM's long-term viability but that would f*** the workers over in the short term. They (GM) need to be slapped around a bit, it's just that it's everyday people who'd have to pay the price.

Ramirez didn't even play half a season in the NL, how could he get votes for the NL MVP?

If it was based on career numbers wouldn't Thomas, Griffey, or Thome be in the top 5?

That too.

If there was a politician molded after SS2K5, I'd vote for him.

POTUS2K9 meets Alpha Dog. Hilarity ensues.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Nov 17, 2008 -> 11:23 AM) I saw that the Chargers had a decent pass rush for the 1st time all season also, but then again, Ben's the QB who argubly holds onto the ball longer than anyone else. The Steelers' offensive line is actually pretty atrocious.

There is no one group of people who flushed the economy down the toilet, so it's actually kind of a silly argument.