Obama sucks as a candidate to be president-the why

[ivan]

Uh, ok other than the unfortunate end to Lincoln's Presidency, can you tell me "what happened"?

 

660,000 troops killed in an unnecessary war--along with an unknown number of southern civilians. Cities burned to the ground by a marauding general. Habeas Corpus suspended. Newspapers closed at gunpoint. Editors arrested. Slavery abolished? Yea right--in all but 4 northern states. Federal troops massacring civilians by the hundreds on the streets of New York. And even through all of this...still time for his troops to annihilate native Americans out west.

but he did wear a very cool hat

 

and the beard! seriously, is it possible to have a sweet beard like lincoln's and still be an asshole?

 

i like the historical what-if game that goes along w/ allowing the south to suceed - how do ww1 and 2 go, w/ the south likely allied w/ britian and the north w/ germany? how does the whole shit-storm of the 20th century get shittier. isn't it strange that, by doing the hypothetically right thing, the whole world could end up worse off?

[glassgowkiss]

Hugh. I'm going to ask nice--once. Knock that kind of shit off.

truth hurts fucko'

[tvashtarkatena]

I haven't consulted with my attorney Ivan on this historical fact, but I believe that the battle over Ft. Sumter ignited an issue that had been simmering already; the refusal of the South to relinquish what the North believed to be its military property and equipment.

 

All war is probably unnecessary, depending on what you can live with (or without), but there has been no greater threat to national security, by definition, than the establishment of the Confederacy. If there was ever a time to go to war to save the integrity of the United States, that was it.

 

Unfortunately for Lincoln, those crackers could really shoot.

Edited October 20, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[el jefe]

i think the complaint that obama's resume lacks heft is just a publicly acceptable way for white men to say that they can't bring themselves to vote for the dark-skinned candidate. if anything, ron paul's resume is significantly less impressive than obama's (i.e., he is just a congressman from hicksville, texas, has never been a governor or even run a large family farm), yet that fact doesn't seem to disqualify him like it does the democrat with the funny-sounding name.

 

 

[glassgowkiss]

Now, now, you know FW likes to call names, but he does not like to be called names.

 

Racist isn't name-calling. It's an accusation.

it's not accusation- it's just simply stating the obvious. if you openly supported pieces of shit like jessie helm, that makes you also the racist.

[prole]

It's also important to note Obama's comments regarding trade with Colombia during the last debate. FARC and their prime benefactor, Chavez, are going to be partying in the jungle on inauguration night and the good people of Colombia will get to look forward to another 70,000 dead in the name of "justice".

 

It's been hilarious watching the GOP and talk-radio lead you around by the balls from talking point to talking point. This is a case in point. McCain pulls out trade with Colombia (Who Gives A Flying Fuck?!) at the last debate, you post about it here. McCain resurrects Ayers, you post about it here. Rezco pulled from deep-freeze? You're on it. That you're so easily blown from non-issue to non-issue provides an easy answer to the question so many of us ask when watching these used-car salesmen turned politicians and pundits: Who's dumb enough to actually believe this horseshit? Mystery solved.

 

 

[el jefe]

i think the idea would be to have let the south "secede" ("suceed" is almost freudian for "succeed").

 

in any event, my opinion is that if the south had been allowed to secede, then they'd have been a 3rd rate banana republic with a backward agrarian economy and no one would have cared whose side they chose during ww1 or ww2. even today the southern state receive more money from the federal government than they contribute in terms of federal tax revenues. that part of the country is a liability.

[Crux]

anyway, there is a sign "pigs for sale" visible from a bridge on h-wy 2 towards I-5.

YA CAN'T PUT A BUCKET OVER A PIG'S HEAD -- IT'LL JUST MAKE HIM SKITTISH!

[tvashtarkatena]

Not true. I once had a boss who raised pigs on his ranch. To move a hog around, you just cut the bottom out of a large steamer trunk, lower it on top of the animal, and walk around normally as if you're just carrying luggage around. The blinded pig will go wherever the trunk does, no questions asked.

 

Fascinating, I know, but that's the kind of riveting information you can expect here at cc.com.

Edited October 20, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

i think the idea would be to have let the south "secede" ("suceed" is almost freudian for "succeed").

 

in any event, my opinion is that if the south had been allowed to secede, then they'd have been a 3rd rate banana republic with a backward agrarian economy and no one would have cared whose side they chose during ww1 or ww2. even today the southern state receive more money from the federal government than they contribute in terms of federal tax revenues. that part of the country is a liability.

um - texas and the shit-ton of oil in the gulf of mexico? - america bankrolled the allies for oil during ww2 - also, the north and south likely would have warred w/ each other as a result of the cascading violence associated w/ the alliance system in europe - trenchlines in maryland beyotches!

[tvashtarkatena]

And whole fryers. Don't forget those.

[prole]

Things Get Ugly During Obama's Trip To The South

 

McCain's divisive and crypto-racist strategy seems to be working for some of these fine citizens. I take heart from the fact that their diet insures that they'll be taking their "ideas" with them to the grave sooner rather than later.

 

"Cape Fear BBQ" no less. Ha.

Edited October 20, 2008 by prole

[el jefe]

the south had no industry and its only resource was cotton, so it would have required foreign investment (probably from the north) in order to develop the oil in texas. this would have probably worked better for the north anyway since the south would have become one of the banana republics on the state dept payroll -- that way the yankees could control the south but not let the rednecks have the vote.

[Crux]

Not true. I once had a boss who raised pigs on his ranch. To move a hog around, you just cut the bottom out of a large steamer trunk, lower it on top of the animal, and walk around normally as if you're just carrying luggage around. The blinded pig will go wherever the trunk does, no questions asked.

 

Fascinating, I know, but that's the kind of riveting information you can expect here at cc.com.

OK then. Mystery solved.

[ivan]

the south had no industry and its only resource was cotton, so it would have required foreign investment (probably from the north) in order to develop the oil in texas. this would have probably worked better for the north anyway since the south would have become one of the banana republics on the state dept payroll -- that way the yankees could control the south but not let the rednecks have the vote.

i disagree - hostilities between the n and s after secession would have been inevitable (how to divide up the west? return of usa property? navigation on the mississippi?), so the south's most natural industrial ally would have been britian, which already relied heavily on the south for cotton and would have been happy to have developed texas oil-fields too

 

also, it's unlikely the south would have stayed in its borders - there was a very strong desire in the csa to conquer mexico and further south, but the war precluded this - undoubtedly they would have taken mexico (and even more oil - maybe venezuela too?) if they hadn't have had to fight w/ the north

 

how woudl ww1 have turned out again? the usa would NOT have ridden to the rescue in 1917 and trench warfare would have happend in north america (hell, the end of civil war was pretty much already like 1915 france!) would blacks in the south have turned to communism to acquire their freedom?

[glassgowkiss]

trade with communist china (in millions $): export 65,236.1, import 321,442.9. During the same year (2007) export o Colombia 8,557.7 import 9,433.6

I call FW's statement about Colombia a complete bullshit.

[ivan]

trade with communist china (in millions $): export 65,236.1, import 321,442.9. During the same year (2007) export o Colombia 8,557.7 import 9,433.6

I call FW's statement about Colombia a complete bullshit.

wonder if that takes into account our importing of columbian coke?

[glassgowkiss]

don't forget trafficking guns from the US

[el jefe]

nice one! but i thought the british decided against siding with the south because they quickly discovered they could replace southern cotton with cotton from india? even if secession had occurred "peacefully", bad feelings would have persisted between the usa and csa, probably forcing the british to choose anyway and there's no reason to think they would have chosen differently than they did. i still see the south living under the shadow of bigger cousin up north, just like the rest of central and south america ended up...

[tvashtarkatena]

A friend of mine just got back from Louisiana. Woah. The shit she heard down there about Obama was bizarre.

 

The whole 'terrorist/arab/muslim' thing is just a barely coded racist campaign from the RNC. Nothing to worry about; only the hardest crackers buy into it (it give them a chance to indulge in their natural tendency towards racism by equating it with patriotism), but they wouldn't vote Democrat even if the GOP started putting inbred folk in concentration camps.

 

This verbal lynch party has completely repulsed moderates, so it's been great for Obama. All he has to do is sit back with a wry smile and watch his poll float heavenward. McCain doesn't seem to give a shit about moderates; he doesn't even give them a nod. Bizarre.

[dmuja]

yep, can't judge the rest of the country (specially the deep back water south) by any northern city standards.

 

I could tell you some stories about hitch hiking through the south in the early '80s. Most people wouldn't believe that there were still "slave camps" then but yes, there were (1980s btw). If you ever run accross a book called "American Pictures" from that era have a look. Your jaw will drop. Katrena was just a glimpse of America's doormats.

[prole]

As we head into the final days of this campaign, I don't think any of us would mind a few extra resources put in the hands of the Secret Service. Given a lot of barely contained racial hatred, the McCain campaign's inflammatory about Obama's links to terrorism and the vigilantism being incited at his rallies, I'm sure there are more than a couple nuts out there ready to do their "patriotic duty".

[tvashtarkatena]

I'ts not clear just how much racial hatred there is out there. If you're a rabid racist, and there's a local GOP rally preaching racism (palin' around with terrorists, B. HUSSEIN, etc), you're going to make sure you go. You might wind up on YouTube. Kooks always have something to say and they tend to say it loudly. You'll be seen by millions.

 

But you're still just one kook.

 

Sure, they're out there, but American attitudes regarding race have softened substantially. Obama's popularity is obvious, but the more you talk with younger folks the more you realize just how fundamental this change is. They just don't give a shit about race, and they don't see why anyone should.

 

There remains tremendous social and financial inequality along race lines, and that's a huge problem, but the era of hard core Southern Man style racism is drawing to a close and will probably end with the generation just now reaching adulthood.

Edited October 20, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

 

Next up: Nationalism.

[prole]

I think you're right that overt prejudice is on its way out, eradicating institutionalized racism however will require more than a change in attitudes. The "sharpening" of McCain and Palin's rhetoric at this point in the campaign is somewhat disturbing as it is likely to compound any frustrations of losing by giving it a racial and terror dimension. In the mind of groups already pissed about a Republican loss, the claims that Obama is a Socialist, terrorist, al-Queda sleeper, etc. might be enough to incite someone to act...