No, you racist moron. Blacks are voting for Obama just as they always vote for Democrats — because Democrats aren’t assholes, and so they are much better for black interests.

You are saying Black people will vote by race.

The conclusion that stands is that you’re a racist piece of shit. Actually, that insults shit.

You’re saying Black people are racist?

No, moron.

You’re saying Black people are racist?

Hope for McCain: Smarter People More Likely to Vote, Scientists Say

But, this is the hope for Obama: THE DUMBING DOWN OF DEMOCRATS

It tells me that Obama is gonna win, sucka, and that your hopes (”I hope, I REALLY hope, that there are similar heavy rains on election day”) will be dashed.

It tells me that about half of them never cared enough in the past to get to the polls.

Turnout is up across demographics, you racist git.

[Gack. I feel filthy responding to the slime. I should follow my own advice.]

You idiots. In that sentence, each group is a separate set, and is correctly intended and worded to indicate such.

I didn’t know that grammar and punctuation were so confusing to you that it would start a discussion. It must take years for you to finish a book and understand what it says.

Well “people who don’t have much commitment” are not necessarily the same set of people as “blacks” and “college students” in his sentence.

Then why would everyone know that the latter don’t turn out in bad weather?

And it’s not “the same set”, it’s a superset, according to that sentence.

So it might seem to someone who is both absurdly dishonest and doesn’t understand what the word “generally” is doing in that sentence.

But that aside, if in fact blacks statistically don’t usually turn out to vote when the weather is bad…well that’s just a fact

That’s ridiculous — there’s no debate about whether a hypothetical is true if it is in fact true. Rather, the point is that Woody states it as general fact about blacks, but only a racist could entertain the possibility that all blacks lack commitment.

Promiscuous use of the term “racism” renders it meaningless.

Nice question begging try, but my use was not in fact promiscuous.

A racist is someone who thinks Obama has more in common with Snopp Dogg or Al Sharpton than he does with Bill Clinton.

Such intellectual dishonesty. Aside from the fact that Woody thinks just that, anyone who thinks that all blacks don’t have much commitment definitely is a racist.

But that aside, if in fact blacks statistically don’t usually turn out to vote when the weather is bad…well that’s just a fact, and there are no such things as a “racist” facts, just correct or incorrect ones. I simply think he ignores the transcendent importance of this election to black America (and also young Obamaniacs of all races), thus drawing the wrong conclusion that they won’t vote if it rains, or snows, or hails.

Promiscuous use of the term “racism” renders it meaningless. A racist is someone who thinks Obama has more in common with Snopp Dogg or Al Sharpton than he does with Bill Clinton.

Woody’s beliefs don’t spring from external facts but rather from his internal prejudices.

Early voting already indicates a high black turnout.

Conventional wisdom (and at least one econometric study) holds that poor weather does indeed help the Republicans.

“does indeed”? Ahem. “help the Republicans” was not the claim — that could because, for instance, the elderly are less likely to turn out and more likely to vote Democratic. Here is the claim again:

“Everyone knows that blacks, college students, and people who don’t have much commitment generally don’t turn out to vote when the weather is bad.”

Breaking it down:
a) Everyone knows that people who don’t have much commitment generally don’t turn out to vote when the weather is bad — ok
b) college students don’t have much commitment — gross overgeneralization
c) blacks don’t have much commitment — blatant racism

Conventional wisdom (and at least one econometric study) holds that poor weather does indeed help the Republicans.

Also, if Ted Kennedy was the nominee, do you think that Republicans would be suggesting he’s a socialist? I doubt it. I think they would be saying that he was “ultra-liberal.” So the use of “socialist” is a bit fishy. It’s almost like another way of saying that he’s “beyond the pale.”

On Khalidi, as long as there is a bipartisan consensus that the America-first foreign policy that I support is “wicked” or “evil,” the USA will need to play some kind of peacemaking role in Middle East. Cultivating relationships with people like Khalidi, and other Palestinians who are pro-Palestinian, even pro-PLO, but not anti-Western, and open to accomodation with Israel, is an essential part of that process.

The latest guilt-by-association target that the McCain campaign is using to hit Barack Obama could carry some collateral damage for its own candidate.
…
In regards to Khalidi, however, the guilt-by-association game burns John McCain as well.

During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.

A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, “West Bank: CPRS” on page 14 of this PDF.)

The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi’s group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of “sociopolitical attitudes.”

Of course, there’s seemingly nothing objectionable with McCain’s organization helping a Palestinian group conduct research in the West Bank or Gaza. But it does suggest that McCain could have some of his own explaining to do as he tries to make hay out of Khalidi’s ties to Obama.