Edwards' Delegates Follow Him to Obama Support

Obama only won South Carolina because of the black vote? Anyone who agrees with this is called a racist, and here you go calling West Virginians Racist for not voting Obama? How come people feel blacks are shielded from attacks of being racists?

Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course Obama was killed in West Virgnia. Have you ever been there? Redneck Country...many would never vote for a president outside their race. I'm sure none of you would be saying that there were some kind of "deals" being made if he had of endorsed Hillary. Just suck it up and get used to saying President Obama!!!

The Democratic National Convention will offer a glimpse of future life in America if Dems are able to impose their absurd yet increasingly repressive liberal fascism:

Fried foods are forbidden at the [Denver 2008 Host Committee's] 22 or so events, as is liquid served in individual plastic containers. Plates must be reusable, like china, recyclable or compostable. The food should be local, organic or both.
Denver is semi-arid and up in the mountains. Local produce consists of Coors and pine cones.

It gets even crazier:

And caterers must provide foods in "at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white," garnishes not included, according to a Request for Proposals, or RFP, distributed last week.
Why not? If Dems weren't pathologically obsessed with color, Obama wouldn't be on the ballot.

Justice wrote:

ALL YOU REDNECKS THAT IS AGAINST EDWARDS NOW ARE NOTHING BUT TURN COATS...MOST IF NOT ALL OF YOU RACIST IDIOTS ARE PROBABLY REPUBLICANS ANYWAY.
NOW, WHICH LEADS ME TO THIS....FOR YOU IDIOTS TO VOTE REPUBLICAN JUST SHOWS HOW STUPID YOU ARE.... YOU IDIOTS REALLY DON'T KNOW WHY YOU VOTE REPUBLICAN... THE ONLY ONE'S BENEFIT AS A REPUBLICAN IS THE RICH...YOU ALL ARE NOT BUT POOR TRASH.
AND THEN THERE IS THE RACE THING.... CHANCES ARE, YOU VOTE REPUBLICANS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATIC VOTING BASE IS BLACKS... SO YOU SEE DEM VS PUBS..........BLACKS VS WHITES.... HUGE DIFFERENCE, THE BLACKS ACTUALLY BENEFIT BY VOTING DEMOCRAT... YOU IDIOTS JUST KEEP MAKING THE RICH GET RCHER, WHILE YOU'RE THE FIRST ONE'S IN LINE FOR HAND-OUTS WHEN A DEMOCRAT IN IN THE HOUSE.
SOME RACIST IDIOT SAID THE OTHER DAY THAT "BLACKS ARE ONLY VOTING FOR SENATOR OBAMA BECAUSE HE IS BLACK"... WELL, YOU IDIOTS ONLY VOTE REPUBLICAN BECAUSE "OF" THE BLACK. STUUUUUUUUUUUUUPID!

Buddy, I think you have it wrong there. In no state did 90% of the Democratic white voters vote for a white person. However, 90% of the Democratic black voters voted for a black person. I think it is clear who is racists.

God Squad Member wrote:

<quoted text>
Jimmy Carter! You can trace the Iran problem back to him and most of the problems with the Middle East are from him and his do nothing actions.
And that is the leadership that we must have again!!!
Man I hope we get it.

You got it! Now they want to elect "PLEASE O BOMB US"

Justice wrote:

<quoted text>
GOOD. EJF... NOTHING IS WORSE THAN A RACIST THAT BEATS WOMEN, YOU KNOW. OR IS UPSET WITH THEM BECAUSE SHE LEFT HIM (MAYBE YOU) FOR ANOTHER WOMAN.

FYI: Blacks have the highest domestic violence rate of any race. Do you think the domestic violence laws were passed to punish the WHITE man. No, they were passed because it would be an easy law to use to imprison BLACK men.

What adds insult to injury to the BLACK man, is that it was a BLACK woman (Rep Gilda Cobb-Hunter) who sponsered the domestic violence bill. The WHITE REPUBLICANS jumped on board because the BLACK woman was not smart enought to realize how the domestic violence laws would hurt BLACKS so much. When will the BLACK race realize they are their own worst enemy.

EJF Member wrote:

<quoted text>
Buddy, I think you have it wrong there. In no state did 90% of the Democratic white voters vote for a white person. However, 90% of the Democratic black voters voted for a black person. I think it is clear who is racists.

Get your head out of your arse. Maybe not 90%, but a majority of West Virginia and Kentucky voted for Billery because they are uneducated, redneck and racist fools.This country is going to change and there is very little fools like you can do to stop it.

THE EQUALIZER wrote:

<quoted text>Get your head out of your arse. Maybe not 90%, but a majority of West Virginia and Kentucky voted for Billery because they are uneducated, redneck and racist fools.This country is going to change and there is very little fools like you can do to stop it.

It was less than 65%. Therefore, it is fools like you that refuse to label blacks as racist they are. Until MOST blacks stop being racist (and some whites) this country will never progress. Unfortunately, there will be NO CHANGE this election. Remember, in Presidential elections, the decision is made by electorial votes not the popular vote as our fore fathers intended.

Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course Obama was killed in West Virgnia. Have you ever been there? Redneck Country...many would never vote for a president outside their race. I'm sure none of you would be saying that there were some kind of "deals" being made if he had of endorsed Hillary. Just suck it up and get used to saying President Obama!!!

By the way I sure would say the same if he endorsed Hillary. I would also question his sanity. By the way President Obama may just be a stretch, how about presumtive Democratic candidate? I find it interesting that moron's believe that one must be either racist, pro Hillary or pro McCain when a comment is made questioning Obama, interestingly, none of the above apply to me (but of course you do not believe me, do you?)

Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course Obama was killed in West Virgnia. Have you ever been there? Redneck Country...many would never vote for a president outside their race. I'm sure none of you would be saying that there were some kind of "deals" being made if he had of endorsed Hillary. Just suck it up and get used to saying President Obama!!!

By the way would you categorize the South Side of Chacago as a racist black area whose inhabitants hate white people? I personally wouldn't, but since you are so outspoken and knowlegable about racists and where they reside I would highly value your expert opinion.

President Bush's speech to Israel's Knesset, where he equated "negotiat[ing] with the terrorists and radicals" to "the false comfort of appeasement," drew harsh criticism from Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders. They apparently thought the president was talking about them, and perhaps he was.
Wittingly or not, the president may well have created a defining moment in the 2008 campaign. And Mr. Obama stepped right into the vortex by saying he was willing to debate John McCain on national security "any time, any place." Mr. McCain should accept that challenge today.
The Obama view of negotiations as the alpha and the omega of U.S. foreign policy highlights a fundamental conceptual divide between the major parties and their putative presidential nominees. This divide also opened in 2004, when John Kerry insisted that our foreign policy pass a "global test" to be considered legitimate.
At first glance, the idea of sitting down with adversaries seems hard to quarrel with. In our daily lives, we meet with competitors, opponents and unpleasant people all the time. Mr. Obama hopes to characterize the debate about international negotiations as one between his reasonableness and the hard-line attitude of a group of unilateralist GOP cowboys.
The real debate is radically different. On one side are those who believe that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time. That is where I am, and where I think Mr. McCain is. On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time. It is the 100%-ers who suffer from an obsession that is naïve and dangerous.
Negotiation is not a policy. It is a technique. Saying that one favors negotiation with, say, Iran, has no more intellectual content than saying one favors using a spoon. For what? Under what circumstances? With what objectives? On these specifics, Mr. Obama has been consistently sketchy.
Like all human activity, negotiation has costs and benefits. If only benefits were involved, then it would be hard to quarrel with the "what can we lose?" mantra one hears so often. In fact, the costs and potential downsides are real, and not to be ignored.
When the U.S. negotiates with "terrorists and radicals," it gives them legitimacy, a precious and tangible political asset. Thus, even Mr. Obama criticized former President Jimmy Carter for his recent meetings with Hamas leaders. Meeting with leaders of state sponsors of terrorism such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il is also a mistake. State sponsors use others as surrogates, but they are just as much terrorists as those who actually carry out the dastardly acts. Legitimacy and international acceptability are qualities terrorists crave, and should therefore not be conferred casually, if at all.

Moreover, negotiations – especially those "without precondition" as Mr. Obama has specifically advocated – consume time, another precious asset that terrorists and rogue leaders prize. Here, President Bush's reference to Hitler was particularly apt: While the diplomats of European democracies played with their umbrellas, the Nazis were rearming and expanding their industrial power.
In today's world of weapons of mass destruction, time is again a precious asset, one almost invariably on the side of the would-be proliferators. Time allows them to perfect the complex science and technology necessary to sustain nuclear weapons and missile programs, and provides far greater opportunity for concealing their activities from our ability to detect and, if necessary, destroy them.
Iran has conclusively proven how to use negotiations to this end. After five years of negotiations with the Europeans, with the Bush administration's approbation throughout, the only result is that Iran is five years closer to having nuclear weapons. North Korea has also used the Six-Party Talks to gain time, testing its first nuclear weapon in 2006, all the while cloning its Yongbyon reactor in the Syrian desert.
Finally, negotiations entail opportunity costs, consuming scarce presidential time and attention. Those resources cannot be applied everywhere, and engaging in true discussions, as opposed to political charades, does divert time and attention from other priorities. No better example can be found than the Bush administration's pursuit of the Annapolis Process between Arabs and Israelis, which has gone and will go nowhere. While Annapolis has been burning up U.S. time and effort, Lebanon has been burning, as Hezbollah strengthens its position there. This is an opportunity cost for the U.S., and a tragedy for the people of Lebanon.
President Bush is not running this November, no matter how hard Mr. Obama wishes it were so. Mr. McCain will have the chance to set out his own views on when and where diplomacy is appropriate, and where more fortitude is required. In any event, from the American voter's perspective, this debate on the role of negotiations in foreign policy will be critically, perhaps mortally, important. Bring it on.