d the[QUOTE="NZgamer007"] I guess you have been there or maybe you just believe every single thing you read from media outlets just trying to sell papers. Plus prove they are not terrorists. I would rather be safe then sorry.chrisrooR
Those last two sentences are very dumb. Imagine you were near a group of people in your home town and a fight broke out. One guy got killed. The cops arrest you and the rest of the group, saying "He may have participated. Better safe than sorry". They don't have any eveidence though, so they just hold you indefinately. You ask when you would be let go, and they say "When you can prove you didn't kill him".
You would hate that, wouldn't you? If you were traveling in another country when it happened, you would expect The U.S. to fight for your release, right?
The only difference would be that in reality, in Guantanamo Bay, the "cops" wouldn't allow you to ask questions. They wouldn't allow proof, even if it exists. They would just simply assume you're a big bad terrorist and torture you. Hmm really so you guys think that they actually chuck people in there for no reason what-so-ever. Mis-informed is what I would call it.
[QUOTE="NZgamer007"]Do people in this thread care about their safety? People in Guatanamo Bay have done something to be put there they don't just get chucked in there for looking like they are terriosts, little more logic please people.Ninja-Hippo
Little more knowing what you're talking about? A british citizen (i forget his name) was quite literally chucked in there for looking like a terrorist. He was held for years and eventually released thanks to Amnesty International. He has a nice house and a family in london and had literally done nothing wrong whatsoever. He looked like somebody on the CIA's watch list, was arrested without trial and sent to Guantanamo. And you believe everything you read/hear about?
Do people in this thread care about their safety? People in Guatanamo Bay have done something to be put there they don't just get chucked in there for looking like they are terriosts, little more logic please people.
[QUOTE="NZgamer007"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] And why do you say that? Let's look beyond race and gender for a second. Why did the majority of black South Carolina democrats vote for Obama? Well for starters he ran a better campaign and is arguably a better politician than Hillary.
Now lets explore other possible reasons why they voted for Obama. Obama began his career in the public eye as a community organizer, and worked in the inner-cities of the South side of Chicago. Now let's look at the black community of South Carolina. It is no secret that a significant portion of the black community lives in poverty. It is also no secret that the poverty rate in South Carolina is higher than the national average.
So why should the black voters of South Carolina vote for Hillary, an upper-class senator from New York, over a Obama, a man who has dedicated a significant portion of his life to the inner-cities of Chicago?
chessmaster1989
Yes but I am saying that a majority of these voters don't know this - they may presume this - but they mostly don't know it for a fact. Really no matter how good your policies are you don't ever get 90% of the vote of one demographic because of them, you need an "outside factor" and in this case it was the fact that he was black. If Obama was not black Clinton would of won (The SC primary) based on the reputation the Clintons had/have with blacks,
If you don't get 90% of the vote because of policies, how do Democrats keep winning 90% of the black vote every election:|.
Unless... your suggesting that John Kerry and Al Gore were both secretly black :o.
Gosh are you reading what I am saying! Clinton and Obama are from the same party. That means there policies are similar. Regardless of who won the nomination they would of got around 90% of the black vote because of the party they are in. But in the Democrats primaries Obama somehow still got 90% even though another Democrat was in the primary aswell with similar policies. This means that there is another reason for why he got 90% of the vote. Is that enough?
My opinion is in the title.... My point on the SC voting patterns is that only like 5% of black americans voted for Hilliary so most only really voted for Obama based on the colour of his skin not his beliefs/policies.
-Sun_Tzu-
And why do you say that? Let's look beyond race and gender for a second. Why did the majority of black South Carolina democrats vote for Obama? Well for starters he ran a better campaign and is arguably a better politician than Hillary.
Now lets explore other possible reasons why they voted for Obama. Obama began his career in the public eye as a community organizer, and worked in the inner-cities of the South side of Chicago. Now let's look at the black community of South Carolina. It is no secret that a significant portion of the black community lives in poverty. It is also no secret that the poverty rate in South Carolina is higher than the national average.
So why should the black voters of South Carolina vote for Hillary, an upper-class senator from New York, over a Obama, a man who has dedicated a significant portion of his life to the inner-cities of Chicago?
Yes but I am saying that a majority of these voters don't know this - they may presume this - but they mostly don't know it for a fact. Really no matter how good your policies are you don't ever get 90% of the vote of one demographic because of them, you need an "outside factor" and in this case it was the fact that he was black. If Obama was not black Clinton would of won (The SC primary) based on the reputation the Clintons had/have with blacks,
My opinion is in the title.... My point on the SC voting patterns is that only like 5% of black americans voted for Hilliary so most only really voted for Obama based on the colour of his skin not his beliefs/policies.
naydaslayer
I would say that percent is voted democrat every four years anyway. They expect a handout when they vote liberal.
Well both Hilliary and Obama are both Democrat so I don't seem to see your point. It is strange that between two democrat has votes hugely in favour of one who just happens to be black. Conclusion; a majority voted for Obama because of the colour of his skin.
My opinion is in the title.... My point on the SC voting patterns is that only like 5% of black americans voted for Hilliary so most only really voted for Obama based on the colour of his skin not his beliefs/policies.
It's funny how people are saying "get over it, he won", yet those are most likely the people that whined about Bush for 8 years.naydaslayer
Yes how typical my I say. Inop if no one cared about my opinion they wouldn't of responded to this thread if they agree or disagree they still care about my opinion.
[QUOTE="NZgamer007"]Well only 1% of Obama supporters could name his policies they just vote for him for three reason; the colour of his skin, how he speaks, America wanting change.chessmaster1989
:lol: I love how you just pulled that number out of your ass and act like it's a valid statistic.
Let me give it a try: Well you know, only .5% of Hillary supporters voted for her because of her policies. The rest just voted for two reasons: because of her last name and because she's a woman.
:lol: yeah seriously, you people need to stop making up statistics (directed at NZ, not at Sun). I mean, come on, Sun has a point-if you want to argue that people voted for Obama because he's black, you could quite easily argue that people voted for Clinton because she's a woman. An example: my grandma usually votes Republican, but she voted for Hillary during the primaries because she's a woman.
I can't be bothered looking for the stats but you will find that around 60-70% of women the the primaries voted for Clinton, over 20% less.
Log in to comment