History was made yesterday - Obama wins US election

[Chaparral66]

As we come in to a possibly earth shaking historical event on Tuesday with worldwide implications, something happened earlier today that could have much the same effect, though not as much in the US. It happened in sports.

Lewis Hamilton of Great Britain won the Formula 1 World Championship today over Brazil's Philipe Massa who won today's Brazilian Grand Prix, with Hamilton coming in 4th place, getting just enough points to tip Massa by one.

Formula 1 is not that big here in the US despite efforts by many to change that. A new Formula 1 champ gets about as much press here as the US Girls' Lacrosse championship. So why am I making a big deal out of this? Is just me going on another one of my auto racing rants? No, not really. Lewis Hamilton is black. And while he is British and I am American, we share a racial background and a fierce passion for the sport. I am just as proud of him as I am of a Jackie Robinson (MLB breakthrough, 1947), Art Shell (first black coach in NFL), or Martin Luther King. All these folks faced incredible odds and overcame them, just like hundreds of other people the worlld over, regard of cultural, ethinic, or relgious background. But since I share several things with Lewis, I will also shre my pride in him. His success will hopefully make a bit easier for kids from ALL walks of life to follow their dreams, no matter what they are.

He is the first black racing driver to make it to the highest form of auto racing on the planet, Formula 1, much less win a race, much less win a championship. This would definitely not be on the radar screen of most people I know, but on the world sporting stage this is truly an historical moment, because Formula 1 goes around the world. It races on 4 continents, North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. While Hamilton's victory might get slight notice here, outside of the car enthusiast and racing magazines, the world over will be celebrating and appreciating the historic impact of this championship for a long time to come. Lewis Hamilton has changed forever the face of a sport that even just a few years ago never gave much though to integration like we've seen in other world sports like soccer, the Olympics, and recently, golf.

The legend that Tiger Woods has made for himself is a matter of record. He virtually overnight recreated the game of golf and gave it exposure it could only dream of before his arrival. He did that by developing an almost limitless talent to even more scary levels and developing such a mental toughness along the way with help from his father, that the harassment he saw occasionally when he first came on the scene is now virtually non-existent. Lewis is doing the same thing, developing his extraordinary talent and also his mental toughness to such a high level; it came through for him in today's 4th place finish in Brazil as he fought a hard challenge from another driver to get that 4th place finish to lock the F1 title (BTW, I should also acknowledge the success of James "Bubba" Stewart, who rocks the house in 250cc dirt bike racing here iun the USA).

The historic nature of this championship comes around full circle in a sport that once indirectly supported an oppressive social system by holding a race in South Africa in the heyday of apartheid, and now a black man sits atop the throne of the highest form of racing in the world. With the emergence of Tiger Woods in golf, and now Lewis Hamilton in Formula 1, two of the largest and most protected bastions of old school sporting mores have been shattered forever. Like Tiger Woods, Hamilton did it right, by being persistent and having a lot of support along the way to today's historic victory, but it was his incredible talent that was apparent from an early age that set the wheels in motion, literally. Luckily, Hamilton's family didn't get in the way of this development; unlike some, they didn't question his newfound passion but encouraged him to follow his dream and supported him. He was racing and winning kart races as just a tyke, and when we was old enough to meet McLaren Czar Ron Dennis, he was poised and confident enough to say to him that he wanted to drive for him in F1 one day. Dennis was struck by this and took an interest in him. To his credit, Dennis saw huge talent almost immediately and followed him as he advanced into leagues that challenged him, and eventually signed him with McLaren.

People of color are not new to F1, but no one has shaken the sport to its very foundations like Hamilton has, not even Juan Pablo Montoya, who raced with Michael Schumacher before coming back to the US and getting into NASCAR. Now, people the world over can look at Hamilton's championship face and now know their dreams of motorsports glory is not not as remote as it might have been. By this F1 World Championship, Lewis Hamilton has brought the world closer, much like Tiger Woods has done, and made what was once the sport of kings a bit more accessible.

This coming Tues., we have another opportunity to make history here in the USA that will absolutely have a huge impact on the world as it anxiously awaits the outcome. Obviously, the race for US President will have much farther implications for the world that Lewis Hamilton winning the F1 title or Tiger Woods winning the British Open, but in Barack Obama, we have a way to complete a huge trifecta, and abolish or seriously damage many ridiculously held onto notions of inferiority for blacks not only in the US but the world. Barack Obama by his very nature, coming from a mixed race background, is a uniting force, not a polarizer as has been the previous administration. Obama can reach out into the world and begin the process of healing the pains caused by the last aministration, with an ability that he developed in bringing together very divergent groups together and uniting for a common goal in the neighborhoods of Chicago. And there is every reason to believe that if Obama wins on Tuesday, he can rid the cynics of fear just as Woods has done in golf, that he can wipe away the ignorance of his prowess by consistently performing at a high level, just as Lewis Hamilton has done ever since he got into Formula 1. If Obama wins on Tuesday, this rare trifecta of black men will give testement to the world may be finally growing up. With the world facing issues and a future that will need a global community working together more than ever, this point in history couldn't have come at a better time.

To everyone in the USA and around the worl with your own elections: Go out and VOTE! Make your voice heard!

Chap66

[gloomyDAY]

I really liked what you wrote, but Hamilton finished 5th in order to seal the championship.

[Chaparral66]

I really liked what you wrote, but Hamilton finished 5th in order to seal the championship.

I believe you are right. I recall Bob Varsha kept saying 4th on the SPEED coverage, and that he needed 4th to be free and clear of Massa, but it you are right, Hamilton came in 5th. Congrats to him on a great season and an historic championship, but also to Massa for a great season as well with 6 wins. It must be killing him, like Hamilton last year, to come up one point short in front of his home crowd, but later on after the dust settles, he'll know he did everything he had to do but Hamilton did just a bit better. I am sure Massa will get his championship sooner than later.

[jso1985]

Nice writing :up:

One thing I do like about Hamilton, is that he never uses his race in an attempt to gain anyhting, ie, he's not searching for special treatment because he's black and that's really good :up:

[gloomyDAY]

History is being rewritten. Could this be the end of blacks being treated as second class citizens? Barack is proof that anyone with the right upbringing and guidance can achieve any dream (same as Woods and Hamilton).

Two years ago I remember telling my friend's that a black President would never reside in the White House. I'm very happy to eat those words since Obama is President-elect and send out some apologies. No, I'm not racist. Just remember hearing Tupac from the song Changes and stating that a black man would never be President. Never though I'd see the day...

[DonnieDarco]

Well done America! Not for voting in a black president, because I really do believe that race is not the point here. Well done for having the guts to vote for change and a new beginning for America.

[Chaparral66]

Thanks for responding folks, it's much appreciated. No question, Hamilton doesn't use his race as an excuse for anything or to promote himself in any dis-porportionate way. He lets his driving do the talking, and will let history make the final judgement, as all good athletes do. But while he also is well aware of the impact he is having, he perfers to concentrate on his racing and keep looking forward. Good for him.

We here in America have a new President to be. I understand the whole world was keeping close watch on this campaign, especially Europe. I am truly proud, but this is only the beginning, we have a lot of work to do. I really think that Barack Obama will truly engage our friends across the pond and work with them to solve some serious issues; not try to dominate them and force them into something. By nature of his background, Obama knows the world is a community, not the USA's playground. It will take a while to fix the mess George W. Bush got us into, but I believe Obama can fix it. Now if we can just get him to talk to Our Good Friend Bernie Eccelstone and bring back the US Grand Prix...

[pino]

Congrats to Obama, Congrats to America...great choice ! :up:

[leopard]

Whoever the winner, those are competing in the presidential candidacy are the best of American, Sarah Palin was without doubt.

We have an anecdote here that our president must be of Java, a requirement Obama has complied with...

[Mark]

Looks like America did the right thing! :cool:

[Dave B]

Is it over? I've got blurry vision and jetlag from staring at CNN, ABC and the BBC for most of last night :s :crazy:

Congratulations to Obama and the whole USA, let's hope this marks a new beginning.

[ArrowsFA1]

We here in America have a new President to be. I understand the whole world was keeping close watch on this campaign, especially Europe. I am truly proud, but this is only the beginning, we have a lot of work to do. I really think that Barack Obama will truly engage our friends across the pond and work with them to solve some serious issues; not try to dominate them and force them into something. By nature of his background, Obama knows the world is a community, not the USA's playground. It will take a while to fix the mess George W. Bush got us into, but I believe Obama can fix it.
Thanks to the American voters the world is a better place today. Good job :up:

[Daniel]

Lets hope this is a turning point. Methinks that things will be a little better but not what people are hoping for though. Obama is going to have to have to step on some feet to rebuild a country whose economy is in big trouble. Only time will tell

[Mark]

Now we just wait to see what crazy things Bush will do between now and January!

[Daniel]

Way to put a dampner on it dude :-p

[F1boat]

Congratulations, USA! Obama is great and deserved this victory right from the start! Well done!

[BDunnell]

While I'm a bit irritated at the way some of my British liberal friends have suspended their critical faculties when it comes to Obama, I think he was of course the right choice and gives America great hope for regaining its standing in the world.

By the way, excellent, gracious defeat speech by McCain, I must say.

[Tomi]

Lets hope this is a turning point. Methinks that things will be a little better but not what people are hoping for though. Obama is going to have to have to step on some feet to rebuild a country whose economy is in big trouble. Only time will tell

Yes lets hope, but I have doubts because of the economy, it will still become much worse, anyway I also think that they choosed the better guy this time.

[Tazio]

Thanks to the American voters the world is a better place today. Good job :up: Amen Brother :)

P.S. Your welcome!

[AndySpeed]

I have to say I was genuinely interested and stayed up to watch some of the elections coverage until 3am. If I had a vote it would have been for Obama too, so America has done something very good this week!

[DonnieDarco]

By the way, excellent, gracious defeat speech by McCain, I must say.

It was a good speech, although he did play the race card which annoyed me :D

I found this on Youtube, I apologise if we're not supposed to post links from there but it's a great clip and I thought people might like to see it.

If John McCain had behaved more like that, he might have won - so thank god he didn't :D

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AljrFHhSF28&feature=related

[gadjo_dilo]

Thanks to the American voters the world is a better place today. Good job :up:

Really? I haven't noticed any change yet.
But I still have hopes for tomorrow....... :laugh:

[anthonyvop]

For the 1st time I have a pessimistic feeling for America.

I was not fooled by Obamamania and his talks about a National Civilian Security Force and the Fairness Doctrine does not bode well for people who believe in the freedom of individuals.

In the past few days his Idea of Change and bi-partisanship has proven to mean he will be staffing his cabinet with Washington insiders, former Clinton Staffers and his Chief of Staff is considered by even the Democrats as the most "Partisan" member of congress.

So aside from raising Taxes, increasing the welfare rolls, quashing dissent and a foriegn policy that will make Jimmy Carter look like a Hawk, I guess things won't be that bad.

[Roamy]

the proof is in the pudding so lets all move forward and see what he does.

[anthonyvop]

the proof is in the pudding so lets all move forward and see what he does.


I bet somebody said that when Hitler beame Chancellor.

[donKey jote]

or when George W "became" President :dozey:

[Jag_Warrior]

Although many of Obama's economic ideas and social beliefs don't match my own, I'm still with that overwhelming majority of Americans who believe that we have been solidly on the wrong path for the past several years. Obama may not be right for the nation - we will see. Personally, I don't buy into much of the neocon propaganda about Obama, because much of it was based on Area 51 type rumors and fear mongering innuendo. Just sad, ignorant attempts to get the peasants lathered up by appealing to their base emotions. That's why the rednecks at Palin rallies made such a big deal about Obama's middle name being Hussein. The very same people who spread rumors in the 2000 Bush vs. McCain primaries, that McCain had a Black daughter out of wedlock (I think she's Indian... and she is adopted), are the ones who pushed the covert campaign that Obama was some sort of super secret Muslim terrorist sympathizer. And while there were some ignorant, cousin marrying rednecks who bought into it, most thinking idependents punished McCain/Palin (Virgil Goode and Elizabeth Dole) by voting against them. But there is no doubt now that the neocons were going to ruin this great nation beyond repair, had they been given another four years. Four more years of irresponsible, free spending fiscal policy that resembled Bush's, and we would probably be begging Bangladesh for loans in two or three years. :bones:

Obama is being advised by some of the sharpest minds in the world of business and economics: from Paul Volker to Warren Buffet, Jeff Liebman to Robert Rubin. McCain's economic team was much weaker by comparison. And poor McCain had someone, in Sarah Palin, who probably couldn't spell "fiscal" given three tries, out there talking about socialism. Why didn't Sarah Palin talk about eliminating the greatest socialist programs in America: Social Security, Medicaid and SSI? Why? Why didn't John McCain go to Ohio and talk about eliminating the unemployment insurance program? Why didn't he go to Florida and talk about eliminating the FDIC insurance program? Why did he propose a refinance scheme which would have used taxpayer funds to pay off defaulted mortgages in full, and reset them at lower values, thereby guaranteeing a loss for the taxpayers? That McCain proposal smacked of national socialism. He was apparently comfortable with privatising profits, while socializing losses.

Both candidates embraced socialism to varying degrees. And most Americans embrace socialism to varying degrees. We just don't want to admit it, because the use of the word offends our delicate sensibilities. But since the richest industrialist in the world, Warren Buffet, who I think has a little more skin in the game than I do, doesn't see a threat from Obama's economic beliefs, I don't think that my name is going to be called by the All Comrades Redistribution of Wealth Committee before his is.

I think he is far from some sort of savior. And I'm sure Obama and the Dems are going to mess a lot of things up. But Bush and the neocons set the bar pretty darn high in the FUBAR contest.

[Camelopard]

Although many of Obama's economic ideas and social beliefs don't match my own, I'm still with that overwhelming majority of Americans who believe that we have been solidly on the wrong path for the past several years. Obama may not be right for the nation - we will see. Personally, I don't buy into much of the neocon propaganda about Obama, because much of it was based on Area 51 type rumors and fear mongering innuendo. Just sad, ignorant attempts to get the peasants lathered up by appealing to their base emotions. That's why the rednecks at Palin rallies made such a big deal about Obama's middle name being Hussein. The very same people who spread rumors in the 2000 Bush vs. McCain primaries, that McCain had a Black daughter out of wedlock (I think she's Indian... and she is adopted), are the ones who pushed the covert campaign that Obama was some sort of super secret Muslim terrorist sympathizer. And while there were some ignorant, cousin marrying rednecks who bought into it, most thinking idependents punished McCain/Palin (Virgil Goode and Elizabeth Dole) by voting against them. But there is no doubt now that the neocons were going to ruin this great nation beyond repair, had they been given another four years. Four more years of irresponsible, free spending fiscal policy that resembled Bush's, and we would probably be begging Bangladesh for loans in two or three years. :bones:

Obama is being advised by some of the sharpest minds in the world of business and economics: from Paul Volker to Warren Buffet, Jeff Liebman to Robert Rubin. McCain's economic team was much weaker by comparison. And poor McCain had someone, in Sarah Palin, who probably couldn't spell "fiscal" given three tries, out there talking about socialism. Why didn't Sarah Palin talk about eliminating the greatest socialist programs in America: Social Security, Medicaid and SSI? Why? Why didn't John McCain go to Ohio and talk about eliminating the unemployment insurance program? Why didn't he go to Florida and talk about eliminating the FDIC insurance program? Why did he propose a refinance scheme which would have used taxpayer funds to pay off defaulted mortgages in full, and reset them at lower values, thereby guaranteeing a loss for the taxpayers? That McCain proposal smacked of national socialism. He was apparently comfortable with privatising profits, while socializing losses.

Both candidates embraced socialism to varying degrees. And most Americans embrace socialism to varying degrees. We just don't want to admit it, because the use of the word offends our delicate sensibilities. But since the richest industrialist in the world, Warren Buffet, who I think has a little more skin in the game than I do, doesn't see a threat from Obama's economic beliefs, I don't think that my name is going to be called by the All Comrades Redistribution of Wealth Committee before his is.

I think he is far from some sort of savior. And I'm sure Obama and the Dems are going to mess a lot of things up. But Bush and the neocons set the bar pretty darn high in the FUBAR contest.

Well said, what a good post!

[BDunnell]

Jag_Warrior, you continue to excel yourself with your posts. Excellent.

As for Sarah Palin, by rights her performance as the VP nominee ought to be casting serious doubts on her ability to run Alaska, yet she is being talked of in relation to 2012. Absolutely incredible. If anyone harbours any serious thoughts of her running for President in four years' time, they have learned nothing from what's just happened to the GOP.

[Roamy]

Jag_Warrior, you continue to excel yourself with your posts. Excellent.

As for Sarah Palin, by rights her performance as the VP nominee ought to be casting serious doubts on her ability to run Alaska, yet she is being talked of in relation to 2012. Absolutely incredible. If anyone harbours any serious thoughts of her running for President in four years' time, they have learned nothing from what's just happened to the GOP.

If OBama just does 50% right he will be a shoe in for 8 years. People are pissed and the repubs and they won't be able to rebuild in 4 years. You people are way to hard on Sarah and I expect her to run in 2016 - Romney will run and lose in 2012.

[Tomi]

You people are way to hard on Sarah and I expect her to run in 2016.

Is things really that bad, dont you have anything better an empty bottle or something?

[Dave B]

As for Sarah Palin, by rights her performance as the VP nominee ought to be casting serious doubts on her ability to run Alaska, yet she is being talked of in relation to 2012.
I wouldn't consider her to run a shoe shop, let alone the USA :s

[Eki]

So aside from raising Taxes, increasing the welfare rolls, quashing dissent and a foriegn policy that will make Jimmy Carter look like a Hawk, I guess things won't be that bad.
Of those, I find only quashing dissent a bad thing. Taxe rise could be a good or a bad thing depending on what they do with the tax money. I wish they'll put it on healthcare, education and building infrastructure instead of wasting it on the military and wars.

[BDunnell]

Again, the notion of Palin ever being a Presidential candidate goes to show that not everyone should be given the vote. Down with democracy, that's what I say.

[Jag_Warrior]

You people are way to hard on Sarah and I expect her to run in 2016 - Romney will run and lose in 2012.

I'm sorry. I'll lay off Sarah for a bit. From Hillary to the religious right, I heard charges that Obama was an "empty suit". All I'm asking is some sort of insight into how Sarah Palin is not an empty skirt.

BTW, if I was placing bets on rising stars in the GOP, I'd put some money on Bobby Jindal. Depending on who wins the coming civil war within the GOP, his race and social beliefs may or may not play against him. But he is more of a fiscal conservative, and very intelligent. Unless she can get into the Senate and do something, I look for Sarah Palin to go the way of Dan Quayle: a shooting star. Remember, he was a darling of the religious right and the neocons up to the mid 90's as well. More Indiana residents would recognize Jim Nabors than Dan Quayle these days. Elizabeth Dole is now politically dead - suicide is listed as the cause of death for her political career. Michelle Bachman is on life support - now listed as the only woman to ever shoot herself in the b#lls. The battle to climb over all the dead and wounded bodies and assume positions of power and leadership within the GOP is going to be an interesting one to watch over the next year or two. I just question how real Sarah Palin's chances are of ascending. I just see Huckabee or Romney cutting her deep and wide in a primary fight anytime around 2012. And by 2016, without a Senate seat, will she even still be on the radar?

Anyway, tell me something substantive and positive about Palin. Maybe I'll gain some respect for her. I can respect someone and still not like or agree with them. I mean, I respect Michael Schumacher. :p :

[Eki]

:laugh: Bush is always diplomatic and polite to the minute detail:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/09/bush-obama-meeting-hard-feelings-hand-sanitier/

President Bush and President-elect Barack Obama are probably hoping their meeting Monday goes better than their first get-together, which left a bad taste in the mouths of both men.

Four years ago, Obama and other newly elected members of the Senate were invited to the White House for a breakfast meeting with Bush, who pulled the young Chicagoan aside.

"Obama!" Bush exclaimed, according to Obama's account of the meeting in his second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope." "Come here and meet Laura. Laura, you remember Obama. We saw him on TV during election night. Beautiful family. And that wife of yours -- that's one impressive lady."

The two men shook hands and then, according to Obama, Bush turned to an aide, "who squirted a big dollop of hand sanitizer in the president's hand."

[anthonyvop]

Of those, I find only quashing dissent a bad thing. Taxe rise could be a good or a bad thing depending on what they do with the tax money. I wish they'll put it on healthcare, education and building infrastructure instead of wasting it on the military and wars.

That is why the US denied you a VISA.

[Eki]

That is why the US denied you a VISA.
I don't need a VISA. Finland belongs to the VISA waiver countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program

[A.F.F.]

Big changes are about to happen and big bucks are in danger... I hope Obama live to see his presidency :mark:

[TOgoFASTER]

That is why the US denied you a VISA.

"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat." Bullwinkle

[Tazio]

Abraham Lincoln is the American President that all latter Presidents at a time of crisis are measured against. Long before he was president, after an unusually brutal incineration of a black man by a mob he at the age of twenty-eight responded to the event with sobering speech before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois January 27, 1838, titled:

"The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions Address"

Here is an excerpt!

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide"

I hold this in stark contrast to G.W's. reaction to the fact that twenty-one Americans had been killed in Iraq after May 1st 2003 the end of "major hostilities", when he ejaculated "Bring them on". Since that infamous phrase was so arrogantly spewed from his lips over 3,000 American Serviceman, and women have died in Iraq. Not to mention the thousands that have been permanently disabled, or impaired.

That to me was the defining event. The crystallizing moment.
The fact that this lunatic was re-elected only a year later, displays to me how many Americans there are that are willing to destroy this county from within.
What a gullible breed!

[Roamy]

Tazio,

in 200 cities in our country you cannot walk down the street safely. We are giving our money away and people all over the world want us dead. Now is this just GW problem - I don't think so it has been here a long time. the violence in our country is a terrible disgrace. We should fix our own house before we worry about everyone else's

[Eki]

Tazio,

in 200 cities in our country you cannot walk down the street safely. We are giving our money away and people all over the world want us dead. Now is this just GW problem - I don't think so it has been here a long time. the violence in our country is a terrible disgrace. We should fix our own house before we worry about everyone else's
If you learned to cooperate with the World and sometimes compromised instead of stubbornly insisting to lead and doing everything your own way, a lot less people around the world would want you dead and you could concentrate on your own house.

[Tazio]

Tazio,

in 200 cities in our country you cannot walk down the street safely. We are giving our money away and people all over the world want us dead. Now is this just GW problem - I don't think so it has been here a long time. the violence in our country is a terrible disgrace. We should fix our own house before we worry about everyone else'sTo the point that is exactly what the passage I quoted from Lincoln's speech addessed!!

"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide"

As far as GW goes, yes every social issue in our country is not his faut or his doing!

That doesn't change the fact that he sent us into a senseless war!

[Roamy]

tazio - if he sent us to a senseless war don't you have questions for all the senators and congress who voted for the war.

[TOgoFASTER]

Violence has been an American way of life and not as a recent addition caused by a 'moral' decline seen from a sheltered view of it's history in the USA. That applies to the human race as a whole as well. It's just that some Americans reworked thought processes imply a peaceful Nirvana that never was.
The romantic 'blinder' view leaves out a lot of factual data.

It seems violence becomes a problem only when the victimizers become the victims.

"Violence, violence
It's the only thing that'll make you see sense"

[Tazio]

tazio - if he sent us to a senseless war don't you have questions for all the senators and congress who voted for the war.They believed the lies, and distortions that were presented them. Lies that were created by the Bush administration for war profiteering. They(the senstors, and Congressmen) were interested in their jobs. If not presented with a fabricated threat I doubt any would have lobbied for it!

Note....Our President Elect is not one of them! What a strange coincidence ;)

[Tazio]

It's just that some Americans reworked thought processes imply a peaceful Nirvana that never was."
Really? I don't know these people

The romantic 'blinder' view leaves out a lot of factual data." You are referring to the extremely naive or maybe the jingoistic (which we have an over-abundance of) Educated Americans should know, and remember our history. Like our British Colonist's, this country embraced slavery. Like the Spaniards, we almost annihilated the indigenous inhabitants. I could site fifty more examples of our violent past!
I live under no such illusion


It seems violence becomes a problem only when the victimizers become the victims That certainly can be said of a portion of many societies or nations!


"Violence, violence
It's the only thing that'll make you see sense" Who is you? If you are referring to Americans that is a little too broad of a statement for me to agree with.

[raphael_2]

I haven't read up through every thing. But does ANY one know a black american, who voted for McCain?

I would have personally voted myself for Obama, simply because McCain and Palin would scare me!! However after all the talk about a black man finally becoming President of America, I wonder if ANY black person voted for McCain?

Just a thought :S....

[BDunnell]

in 200 cities in our country you cannot walk down the street safely.

So it is literally impossible, in any of those cities, to walk down the street without being in danger? I suspect not, and that you really mean 'in certain areas of those cities you are in more danger than others'. If I'm wrong about that, I think you're overly insecure, just as many people are in the UK about crime, where fear of crime outweighs the actual risk.

[TOgoFASTER]

Fear the fear baby!

[TOgoFASTER]

Really? I don't know these people

I'm glad for you. There are plenty still in suburbia and rural areas that dream their peachy dreams in a peaceful illusion.


You are referring to the extremely naive or maybe the jingoistic (which we have an over-abundance of) Educated Americans should know, and remember our history. Like our British Colonist's, this country embraced slavery. Like the Spaniards, we almost annihilated the indigenous inhabitants. I could site fifty more examples of our violent past!

My point was the over-abudant numbers. Your catagories cover a lot of ground. To me these are within the same numbers as those you don't know of. Naive as a definition does fit in well.
Your points about slavery and genocide are a part of what I was referring to.
You are correct that knowing and remembering the true history is an important part of one's personal civics. I live by that without the sugar coating. ('B' Movies and any talk radio 'factoids' are nothing to base the history of a country on.)
Plus, I look to the continuing evolution of the great things that have come out of the grand experiment to this point.
Standing pat such as 'America right or wrong' is regression. Wrong is wrong and needs to be confronted in the USA or freedom in the USA becomes just a sad slogan.
The last eight years for the most part have been all about fear the fear, with us or against us and other sad slogans.
That simply is not the USA as it was meant to be.


That certainly can be said of a portion of many societies or nations!
To quote my last post. "That applies to the human race as a whole as well."


Who is you? If you are referring to Americans that is a little too broad of a statement for me to agree with.

The way I believe? No it's not. Pointed only at Americans? No it wasn't.
It was aimed at those with a narrow world view that want to fear the fear or feed the fear by choice, hold down the evolution of humanity and destroy that, that is different from their small part of the world and personal comfort zone. A caveman with a club is no different.

Lyrics are from a Mott The Hoople song. The way in which it is sung gives a clue. :)

I don't need or wear a lapel pin.

[TOgoFASTER]

I haven't read up through every thing. But does ANY one know a black american, who voted for McCain?

I would have personally voted myself for Obama, simply because McCain and Palin would scare me!! However after all the talk about a black man finally becoming President of America, I wonder if ANY black person voted for McCain?

Just a thought :S....

I'm pretty sure JC Watts and Alan Keyes, just to name two, voted their party line.
There was a lot more to the election than simple segragated lines of battle by race.

[Tazio]

My point was the over-abudant numbers. Your catagories cover a lot of ground. To me these are within the same numbers as those you don't know of. Naive as a definition does fit in well. Did I neglect to mention gullible?


I live by that without the sugar coating. ('B' Movies and any talk radio 'factoids' are nothing to base the history of a country on.)
Plus, I look to the continuing evolution of the great things that have come out of the grand experiment to this point. Preaching to the choir my man. ;)

Standing pat such as 'America right or wrong' is regression. Wrong is wrong and needs to be confronted in the USA or freedom in the USA becomes just a sad slogan.
The last eight years for the most part have been all about fear the fear, with us or against us and other sad slogans.
That simply is not the USA as it was meant to be.


To quote my last post. "That applies to the human race as a whole as well."



The way I believe? No it's not. Pointed only at Americans? No it wasn't.
It was aimed at those with a narrow world view that want to fear the fear or feed the fear by choice, hold down the evolution of humanity and destroy that, that is different from their small part of the world and personal comfort zone. A caveman with a club is no different.see "preaching to the choir" :rolleyes:


Lyrics are from a Mott The Hoople song. The way in which it is sung gives a clue. :) . I prefer Jackson Browne's "For Everyman" :)

[Jag_Warrior]

I'm pretty sure JC Watts and Alan Keyes, just to name two, voted their party line.
There was a lot more to the election than simple segragated lines of battle by race.

Much was made by the media of the so called Bradley Effect: where voters (usually White) claim that they're going to vote for the Black candidate during polling, and then vote for his White opponent.

In this election, it's claimed that Obama actually benefited from a reverse Bradley Effect, especially in the deep red states of the South. People who said they were not going to vote for him due to peer pressure, did.

I knew the McCain/Palin ticket was in trouble when they showed a pickup truck from North Carolina on TV with a bumper sticker that read, "Rednecks For Obama". Or the good ol' boy who, during an interview, said he was voting for Obama because while he liked his guns, he loved his job and his family. That spelled some seriously bad mojo for McCain. Elizabeth Dole's idiotic campaign against Hagan just finished him off and turned North Carolina light blue.

But let's not forget the man who really did everything he could these past eight years to make Obama's victory possible:

http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/alfredbush.jpg

Creepy, huh?

[Chaparral66]

Although many of Obama's economic ideas and social beliefs don't match my own, I'm still with that overwhelming majority of Americans who believe that we have been solidly on the wrong path for the past several years. Obama may not be right for the nation - we will see. Personally, I don't buy into much of the neocon propaganda about Obama, because much of it was based on Area 51 type rumors and fear mongering innuendo. Just sad, ignorant attempts to get the peasants lathered up by appealing to their base emotions. That's why the rednecks at Palin rallies made such a big deal about Obama's middle name being Hussein. The very same people who spread rumors in the 2000 Bush vs. McCain primaries, that McCain had a Black daughter out of wedlock (I think she's Indian... and she is adopted), are the ones who pushed the covert campaign that Obama was some sort of super secret Muslim terrorist sympathizer. And while there were some ignorant, cousin marrying rednecks who bought into it, most thinking idependents punished McCain/Palin (Virgil Goode and Elizabeth Dole) by voting against them. But there is no doubt now that the neocons were going to ruin this great nation beyond repair, had they been given another four years. Four more years of irresponsible, free spending fiscal policy that resembled Bush's, and we would probably be begging Bangladesh for loans in two or three years. :bones:

Obama is being advised by some of the sharpest minds in the world of business and economics: from Paul Volker to Warren Buffet, Jeff Liebman to Robert Rubin. McCain's economic team was much weaker by comparison. And poor McCain had someone, in Sarah Palin, who probably couldn't spell "fiscal" given three tries, out there talking about socialism. Why didn't Sarah Palin talk about eliminating the greatest socialist programs in America: Social Security, Medicaid and SSI? Why? Why didn't John McCain go to Ohio and talk about eliminating the unemployment insurance program? Why didn't he go to Florida and talk about eliminating the FDIC insurance program? Why did he propose a refinance scheme which would have used taxpayer funds to pay off defaulted mortgages in full, and reset them at lower values, thereby guaranteeing a loss for the taxpayers? That McCain proposal smacked of national socialism. He was apparently comfortable with privatising profits, while socializing losses.

Both candidates embraced socialism to varying degrees. And most Americans embrace socialism to varying degrees. We just don't want to admit it, because the use of the word offends our delicate sensibilities. But since the richest industrialist in the world, Warren Buffet, who I think has a little more skin in the game than I do, doesn't see a threat from Obama's economic beliefs, I don't think that my name is going to be called by the All Comrades Redistribution of Wealth Committee before his is.

I think he is far from some sort of savior. And I'm sure Obama and the Dems are going to mess a lot of things up. But Bush and the neocons set the bar pretty darn high in the FUBAR contest.

Very thoughtful post, Jag. My compliments. Obama is not, never was, and won't ever be, perfect. What I hope he will be is someone who has a clear and traditional view of what America has been and can be again, with the right vision for the future. He has a unique opportunity to take the enthusiastic anticipation of the world who see the promise of the USA coming to fruition and make the positve changes he has talked about, and once again putting this nation atop the pedestal of freedom as we once were. If he can halp changes for our weakened economy that can get us out of our current crisis, then the world's markets can once again have condidence to move forward. I wish him well.

[Chaparral66]

What, me worry?

[Tomi]

Fear the fear baby!

this is a really strange pheomena, the us people seem t be scare of what ever, any idea why is that?

[Chaparral66]

this is a really strange pheomena, the us people seem t be scare of what ever, any idea why is that?

How do you mean?

[ShiftingGears]

I haven't read up through every thing. But does ANY one know a black american, who voted for McCain?


There were a lot of black people voting for Obama because he's black, and a lot of women voting for Palin because she's a woman.

Most of these people that the media broadcast seemed to have little to no understanding of policies of these two people. Which is a little worrying.

[Tomi]

How do you mean?

For instance, monitoring private persons and companys money transactions, demand that all harbours around the world should be fenced, demands for armed security in planes etc.. all this are signs of fear I think.

[Chaparral66]

There were a lot of black people voting for Obama because he's black, and a lot of women voting for Palin because she's a woman.
Most of these people that the media broadcast seemed to have little to no understanding of policies of these two people. Which is a little worrying.

Don't kid yourself, theugsquirrel. That is a typically cynical statement completely lacking in any evidence to back it up, and assumes that blacks and other minorities are so simple minded that they are incapable of making a sound decision. Are you prepared to say most whites voted for John McCain because he's white? Black people have run for President before. Shirley Chisolm ran in 1972, Jesse Jackson in 1988. The Republicans had a candidate in 2000 if memory serves.

The common denominator between all these people is that they are black. but none of them garnered enough of the black vote to have a real chance. Chisolm was history in the making, but being both black and a woman went against her. Jackson was seen as the first "serious" candidate and got some respect, but while he was quite solid on US domestic issues, he was lacking in foreign policy experience, even though he was successful on a few missions where he negotiated the release of some political prisoners. The black Republican candidate who ran wasn't a serious threat because his conservative views ran contrary to the the more liberal views of most blacks and other minorities. What this means is that with each of these candidates, a close, thoughtful, and informed decision was made by most blacks regarding these folks, and the decision was that none of them in totality had enough going for them to be a viable choice.

Barack Obama is very different, and a great many people saw this a few years ago, including John Kerry of Massachusetts, who made Obama keynote speaker at the democartic convention in Boston in 2004. Obama high level of intellect precedes him and speaks for itself; but it is also his great command of the important issues, both foreign and domestic, enough to hold his own against a more experienced opponent like McCain, which left a hugely positve impression on the voters, both black and white. He was able to talk about economic issues with solid confidence that McCain lacked that made points with voters. His common sense view of the war in Iraq, in which he, early on, like most people here, believed we never should have entered into in the first place, feeling instead we should have concentrated on Afghanistan, which resonated with the voters. In other words, blacks, other minorities, as well as many whites in the US made a carefully considered and reasoned choice in Obama, not just because of the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. Sure, we take no less pride that an African-American made to the White House, but he will have enormous pressure as any other President to deliver the goods; in fact more so, because of the historical nature of his win. He knows there will be extra pressure on him, but as we have seen this past year, whenever confronted with a hostile or crisis situation, he has been very cool, calm, and collected, and reacted quickly while still making a very calculated and thoughtful decision.

Like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy before him, Obama could very well be the right man at the right time for this period in history. The color of his skin alone didn't make him that way.

[Tazio]

An incredibly intelligent idividual, who met his wife at Harvard!
She was a mentor there. His mentor! :eek:

[Roamy]

Don't kid yourself, theugsquirrel. That is a typically cynical statement completely lacking in any evidence to back it up, and assumes that blacks and other minorities are so simple minded that they are incapable of making a sound decision. Are you prepared to say most whites voted for John McCain because he's white? Black people have run for President before. Shirley Chisolm ran in 1972, Jesse Jackson in 1988. The Republicans had a candidate in 2000 if memory serves.

The common denominator between all these people is that they are black. but none of them garnered enough of the black vote to have a real chance. Chisolm was history in the making, but being both black and a woman went against her. Jackson was seen as the first "serious" candidate and got some respect, but while he was quite solid on US domestic issues, he was lacking in foreign policy experience, even though he was successful on a few missions where he negotiated the release of some political prisoners. The black Republican candidate who ran wasn't a serious threat because his conservative views ran contrary to the the more liberal views of most blacks and other minorities. What this means is that with each of these candidates, a close, thoughtful, and informed decision was made by most blacks regarding these folks, and the decision was that none of them in totality had enough going for them to be a viable choice.

Barack Obama is very different, and a great many people saw this a few years ago, including John Kerry of Massachusetts, who made Obama keynote speaker at the democartic convention in Boston in 2004. Obama high level of intellect precedes him and speaks for itself; but it is also his great command of the important issues, both foreign and domestic, enough to hold his own against a more experienced opponent like McCain, which left a hugely positve impression on the voters, both black and white. He was able to talk about economic issues with solid confidence that McCain lacked that made points with voters. His common sense view of the war in Iraq, in which he, early on, like most people here, believed we never should have entered into in the first place, feeling instead we should have concentrated on Afghanistan, which resonated with the voters. In other words, blacks, other minorities, as well as many whites in the US made a carefully considered and reasoned choice in Obama, not just because of the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. Sure, we take no less pride that an African-American made to the White House, but he will have enormous pressure as any other President to deliver the goods; in fact more so, because of the historical nature of his win. He knows there will be extra pressure on him, but as we have seen this past year, whenever confronted with a hostile or crisis situation, he has been very cool, calm, and collected, and reacted quickly while still making a very calculated and thoughtful decision.

Like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy before him, Obama could very well be the right man at the right time for this period in history. The color of his skin alone didn't make him that way.


look the rich screw the poor and the middle class. It may turn out that Iraq will not be that bad. We have not been even close to being attacked again. but what a price. But Bush and the Republicans created so much hate that hussin newman as easily elected. (just kidding about the name) But I can understand the feeling of the people and believe me I am pissed as well. So I actually like Biden better than Obama but what I am going to do is support the hell out of Obama and see what he can do. Our country voted to give him a chance and I am not going to sit here and spout crap without giving he and Biden a chance. Sh!t I don't know what they will do. I made a lot of money when clinton was pres. So right now I am american so I will support my country but also will have a opinion ( when have you known me not to have one) But the main thing is the election is over so lets rock and roll. we have a lot of work to do whichever direction we go.

[TOgoFASTER]

I prefer Jackson Browne's "For Everyman" :)

I'd go with "People Have the Power" by Patti Smith but it didn't fit to the likes of those I was posting about at the time. :)

[Tazio]

"People Have the Power" by Patti Smith ;)

[Garry Walker]

This coming Tues., we have another opportunity to make history here in the USA that will absolutely have a huge impact on the world as it anxiously awaits the outcome. Obviously, the race for US President will have much farther implications for the world that Lewis Hamilton winning the F1 title or Tiger Woods winning the British Open, but in Barack Obama, we have a way to complete a huge trifecta, and abolish or seriously damage many ridiculously held onto notions of inferiority for blacks not only in the US but the world. Barack Obama by his very nature, coming from a mixed race background, is a uniting force, not a polarizer as has been the previous administration. Obama can reach out into the world and begin the process of healing the pains caused by the last aministration, with an ability that he developed in bringing together very divergent groups together and uniting for a common goal in the neighborhoods of Chicago. And there is every reason to believe that if Obama wins on Tuesday, he can rid the cynics of fear just as Woods has done in golf, that he can wipe away the ignorance of his prowess by consistently performing at a high level, just as Lewis Hamilton has done ever since he got into Formula 1. If Obama wins on Tuesday, this rare trifecta of black men will give testement to the world may be finally growing up. With the world facing issues and a future that will need a global community working together more than ever, this point in history couldn't have come at a better time.

To everyone in the USA and around the worl with your own elections: Go out and VOTE! Make your voice heard!

Chap66
Did you orgasm when writing this once or more?


History is being rewritten. Could this be the end of blacks being treated as second class citizens? Barack is proof that anyone with the right upbringing and guidance can achieve any dream (same as Woods and Hamilton).
Do amuse me and tell me how blacks are treated as second class citizens in America?
Are you referring to the fact that blacks can get away with pretty much any racist language and not get called for it, whereas if any white says something wrong, his career is pretty much over?
Or are you referring to the nice quota systems in america, whereby lesser qualified blacks are given preference over more qualified whites?
Or is it something else?




So aside from raising Taxes, increasing the welfare rolls, quashing dissent and a foriegn policy that will make Jimmy Carter look like a Hawk, I guess things won't be that bad.
Obama is the saviour, you now longer have to worry about your mortgage or gas, as one obviously intelligent woman stated in a clip I saw.


Big changes are about to happen and big bucks are in danger... I hope Obama live to see his presidency :mark:
Why would he not live to see his presidency?


I haven't read up through every thing. But does ANY one know a black american, who voted for McCain?

I would have personally voted myself for Obama, simply because McCain and Palin would scare me!! However after all the talk about a black man finally becoming President of America, I wonder if ANY black person voted for McCain?


Yet the liberal media was blowing a load after another complaining and crying that "racism might hurt" obama. Seems it actually paid off for him.


Don't kid yourself, theugsquirrel. That is a typically cynical statement completely lacking in any evidence to back it up, and assumes that blacks and other minorities are so simple minded that they are incapable of making a sound decision. Are you prepared to say most whites voted for John McCain because he's white? Black people have run for President before. Shirley Chisolm ran in 1972, Jesse Jackson in 1988. The Republicans had a candidate in 2000 if memory serves. The names you bring up were not serious candidates and USA was not the messed up by that much political correctness yet as it is now.
Most blacks voted for Obama simply because of his colour. It is quite obvious by the way blacks turned on Hilary in the primaries. You could hardly be more black friendly as a white than Clintons have been and 95% of blacks voted for Obama. Yeah, keep saying it wasn`t because of race :rotflmao: . So there is your evidence.
If 95% of whites had voted McCain, you could be talking about racism, but votes amongst whites were about equal.

All in all, America had to vote between two really bad choices. Dumb and Dumber and I am not even sure which one was the dumber. I was hoping that after Bush we would finally see a guy one could respect as president of USA, but nope.

[ShiftingGears]

Don't kid yourself, theugsquirrel. That is a typically cynical statement completely lacking in any evidence to back it up, and assumes that blacks and other minorities are so simple minded that they are incapable of making a sound decision. Are you prepared to say most whites voted for John McCain because he's white? Black people have run for President before. Shirley Chisolm ran in 1972, Jesse Jackson in 1988. The Republicans had a candidate in 2000 if memory serves.

The common denominator between all these people is that they are black. but none of them garnered enough of the black vote to have a real chance. Chisolm was history in the making, but being both black and a woman went against her. Jackson was seen as the first "serious" candidate and got some respect, but while he was quite solid on US domestic issues, he was lacking in foreign policy experience, even though he was successful on a few missions where he negotiated the release of some political prisoners. The black Republican candidate who ran wasn't a serious threat because his conservative views ran contrary to the the more liberal views of most blacks and other minorities. What this means is that with each of these candidates, a close, thoughtful, and informed decision was made by most blacks regarding these folks, and the decision was that none of them in totality had enough going for them to be a viable choice.

Barack Obama is very different, and a great many people saw this a few years ago, including John Kerry of Massachusetts, who made Obama keynote speaker at the democartic convention in Boston in 2004. Obama high level of intellect precedes him and speaks for itself; but it is also his great command of the important issues, both foreign and domestic, enough to hold his own against a more experienced opponent like McCain, which left a hugely positve impression on the voters, both black and white. He was able to talk about economic issues with solid confidence that McCain lacked that made points with voters. His common sense view of the war in Iraq, in which he, early on, like most people here, believed we never should have entered into in the first place, feeling instead we should have concentrated on Afghanistan, which resonated with the voters. In other words, blacks, other minorities, as well as many whites in the US made a carefully considered and reasoned choice in Obama, not just because of the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. Sure, we take no less pride that an African-American made to the White House, but he will have enormous pressure as any other President to deliver the goods; in fact more so, because of the historical nature of his win. He knows there will be extra pressure on him, but as we have seen this past year, whenever confronted with a hostile or crisis situation, he has been very cool, calm, and collected, and reacted quickly while still making a very calculated and thoughtful decision.

Like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy before him, Obama could very well be the right man at the right time for this period in history. The color of his skin alone didn't make him that way.

I am not kidding myself. In most of the coverage of the election, most black people interviewed said that they were voting for Obama, the vast majority of these people did not give reasons beyond the fact that he is black, and they feel that it would be symbolic for racial equality should he become president. Rarely did they mention any policy. Likewise a lot of Hillary voters seemed to vote for her because they were women, and saw her political ascension as a symbol of removing the glass ceiling. Again, many (I did not say the majority for either of these groups) did not see policy as a primary motive for voting.

[Chaparral66]

Did you orgasm when writing this once or more?


Do amuse me and tell me how blacks are treated as second class citizens in America?
Are you referring to the fact that blacks can get away with pretty much any racist language and not get called for it, whereas if any white says something wrong, his career is pretty much over?
Or are you referring to the nice quota systems in america, whereby lesser qualified blacks are given preference over more qualified whites?
Or is it something else?


Obama is the saviour, you now longer have to worry about your mortgage or gas, as one obviously intelligent woman stated in a clip I saw.


Why would he not live to see his presidency?



Yet the liberal media was blowing a load after another complaining and crying that "racism might hurt" obama. Seems it actually paid off for him.

The names you bring up were not serious candidates and USA was not the messed up by that much political correctness yet as it is now.
Most blacks voted for Obama simply because of his colour. It is quite obvious by the way blacks turned on Hilary in the primaries. You could hardly be more black friendly as a white than Clintons have been and 95% of blacks voted for Obama. Yeah, keep saying it wasn`t because of race :rotflmao: . So there is your evidence.
If 95% of whites had voted McCain, you could be talking about racism, but votes amongst whites were about equal.

All in all, America had to vote between two really bad choices. Dumb and Dumber and I am not even sure which one was the dumber. I was hoping that after Bush we would finally see a guy one could respect as president of USA, but nope.


How do you define a serious candidate? And what "political correctness" are you referring to? All those candidates I mentioned got on the ballot and therefore deserved to be taken "seriously". The US Constitution is very clear on this, Mr. Walker. Any person born in the United States can run for President and be voted on by his/her peers. If you don't like that concept, you have your geographical options open to you in terms of where you might like to live.

I'd like you and everyone else looking in to look at this quote directly from what you wrote above.

"You could hardly be more black friendly as a white than Clintons have been and 95% of blacks voted for Obama."

1) That's not quite accurate, at least in the primaries. Hillary Clinton enjoyed a significant amount of black support in the primary race, which is what made it so close.

2) Your quote seems to suggest that because the Clintons were "black friendly" (whatever the hell that means), that blacks should stick with them no matter what, even when they see a better choice. You assume blacks have no right to make a choice, even though choice is a cherished American freedom; again, as if blacks are incapable of thinking for themselves. As if they are incapable of looking at both candidates, listening to them speak, looking at their resumes, and making a choice based on their qualifications. This is basically assuming that blacks should follow a prescribed pattern when a white candidate makes nice, and not break from it. In other words, blacks should know their place. As if blacks just ignore party lines and vote for any black candidate who runs. My point in mentioning the other candidates was perfectly valid; they didn't get enough votes from minorities because not all felt they were qualified enough. This was not the case with Barack Obama. He also was right in line with most Democratic party prinicples, which also made him more appealing to black voters than GOP candidate John McCain. Or didn't that reasoning come to you when you made your hasty conclusion?

3) Your quote assumes the same thing I talked about in a quote you drew from me. It's the quote where I talk about cynical statments like yours where you say blacks voted for Barack Obama because of his skin color. Blacks are not so thin skinned as to look at just skin as a reason for voting, conscience alone would skin them alive. And since Obama won by the skin of his teeth over Hillary Clinton, you can assume that many in the black community were conflicted over this choice. You grossly oversimplify this vote to reflect your own preconceived notions of a group of people you know hardly anything about, let alone care about.

4) Your quote also suggests that blacks are not sophisitacated enough to make an informed choice, even if that means changing their minds. Sort of they way the electorate changed their minds about incumbant George W. Bush in 1992 and elected Clinton. Was race involved in that decision too? No candidate has an automatic mandate to the nomination and eventual election; not even Hillary Clinton. Blacks are just like any other group of people; they vote for the best candidate available; when another comes along they feel is better, that's where their vote goes, just like anyone else. It's not for them to follow a predictable pattern to placate the convenience of someone else, Mr. Walker. That's not what freedom of choice is. The freedom of, and right to, vote in this country means anyone can use whatever criteria they wish when making a choice, and they are not accountable to anyone for how they make that choice. Again, if you don't like that concept, Mr. Walker, I'm sure you can find another country to take you. Word of advice, you might avoid South Africa. Apparently they have had an awakening to freedom in recent years, and apparently they like it. You can always try a country like Cuba or North Korea; I hear they think like you, in encouraging people to think and behave a certain way.

If you want the vote of anyone, particularly people of color, you have to get out and work for it, just as you would anyone else. That's what both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did, and they worked very hard. This time, Barack's message just reasonated a little bit better with the electorate as a whole, and not just blacks. I suggest you stop trying to find pat answers as to why Obama won and look for the real truth by talking to people.

You asked me to supply evidence to support my position. I didn't have to. You made my case for me. Your one quote revealed a lot, and why we still have a lot of work to do in ridding our country of racial ignorance. The funny thing is, by virtue of the reaction Barack Obama is getting from around the world, they have all beaten you to to it. Yet, you roll on the floor laughing your A$$ off at the notion that blacks voted for Obama just because of skin color. That is pretty sad :( . Is that why white people voted for John McCain?

Having said all that, it is quite legitimate for American Blacks to rejoice in Obama's election. Why not? Why can't blacks take the same ethinic pride in one of their own making it to the highest elected office in a country that once embraced slavery? Why can't blacks take this pride, much like Italians, Irish, Hispanics, Aisans, Native Americans or any other ethinic group would if the same thing happened? Mr. Walker, you need to deal with the reality. Obama's election was a great day for the country, where the promise of America has come through better than at anytime in our past. Everyone around the world gets that. When are you going to?

[Chaparral66]

I am not kidding myself. In most of the coverage of the election, most black people interviewed said that they were voting for Obama, the vast majority of these people did not give reasons beyond the fact that he is black, and they feel that it would be symbolic for racial equality should he become president. Rarely did they mention any policy. Likewise a lot of Hillary voters seemed to vote for her because they were women, and saw her political ascension as a symbol of removing the glass ceiling. Again, many (I did not say the majority for either of these groups) did not see policy as a primary motive for voting.

Sure, you're kidding yourself. You're downright dilussional. Do you really think that EVERYONE who voted for Obama or Clinton was so simple minded as to why they voted the way they did? That a crock of BS of the highest order. Hey, I can tell you a very oversimplified reason why many people said they were voting for McCain, because they felt Barack Obama was a radical Islamic terrorist. Even McCain (to his honorable credit) had to shoot that one down when a voter said that directly to him.

You want a reason why people voted for Obama? I'll give you a few. His stance on talking with hostile foreign nations. It may not be a popular approach, but to any with any experience in diplomacy, that is the proper approach, to avoid armed conflict. Settle the differences at the negotiating table than on the field of battle, whenever possible. That doesn't mean appeasing a known terrorist like Osama Bin Laden, but it does mean working our a deal with North Korea if it means avoiding a war on THREE fronts.

Obama's tax plan, where he insists that his proposal gives a net tax cut. On this he couldn't have been more clear. This is designed to give working class families a break, especially in these very troubled times.

His stance on the Iraq war, one we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place, one that is draining our money away faster than popped ballon. He wants to put our resources into Afghanistan, where they should be, to find Bin Laden and bring him to justice, or destroy him there.

Obama supports a woman's right to choose, McCain didn't.

Obama wants to encourage the development of new green energy sources, in order to create new jobs in the auto industry and elsewhere.

Obama wants to invest in rebuilding our nation's infastructure, not only for new jobs, but also for shoring up roads and bridges that have beeh neglected and are getting unsafe.

Obama wants to repair our Bush damaged reputation overseas, so we can once again present ourselves as the true beacon of liberty the world over.

Obama wants to stop the practice of torture immediately, and close the now dubious Gitmo.

I'm not saying you have to agree with these reasons, but that wasn't the issue. You wanted a list of reasons why people of all ethnic groups, particularly blacks, supported him. There you go.

[Chaparral66]

For instance, monitoring private persons and companys money transactions, demand that all harbours around the world should be fenced, demands for armed security in planes etc.. all this are signs of fear I think.

One would have to agree with you, Tomi. Just as some people, a few of which are on this very thread, are afraid of the unknown that is Barack Obama. Just as crazy.

[ShiftingGears]

Sure, you're kidding yourself. You're downright dilussional. Do you really think that EVERYONE who voted for Obama or Clinton was so simple minded as to why they voted the way they did?

No. I said a lot. Not the majority. What I said applies to Sarah Palin as well.

[Chaparral66]

No. I said a lot. Not the majority. What I said applies to Sarah Palin as well.

Doesn't matter if you meant everyone (literally, or figuratively as I meant), the majority, or even "a lot". That viewpoint is still a crock (even when it concerns Sarah Palin). It denies that those voters were capable of making an informed decision and that is wrong, because of course they are capable of that and did so. You're just in denial and are looking for some cynical excuse to acknowledge the Obama victory to make it seem more feasable to you, as oppose to allowing for the notion that a great many people listened to his message and found they liked what he was saying. Don't forget, a great many white people (as well as many young people) voted for him as well. Did they vote for him just because he is black? Don't bet on it...

[ShiftingGears]

Doesn't matter if you meant everyone (literally, or figuratively as I meant), or even the majority. That viewpoint is still a crock. It denies that those voters were capable of making an informed decision and that is wrong, because of course they are capable of that and did so.

I'm sorry, some people appeared to vote based on no understanding of policies whatsoever.


You're just in denial and are looking for some cynical excuse to acknowledge the Obama victory to make it seem more feasable to you.

Not at all.

[Chaparral66]

I'm sorry, some people appeared to vote based on no understanding of policies whatsoever.

OK, that's a bit more reasonable. But then how is this significant? How can you just cherry pick a few people in the Black community for this? There may be a small percentage from many different ethnic groups who may have used this approach in voting for Barack Obama. Logically, then, you'd have to assume the same for McCain voters as well (but that's silly, right?). Do you give them, including some whites, a pass, but criticize the few blacks who may have done it? That's at best, arbitrary, and at worst, ignorant. This is what happens when you make a broad conclusion on a group of people based on very little evidence.


Not at all.

Yes, you are. When you make the assertion that even some blacks voted for Obama just because he's black, that's like looking at an Aisan person and assuming he's proficient in martial arts, or meeting an Italian person and quickly assuming he's a member of the Mafia. The reality doesn't always fit a convenient myth.

[ShiftingGears]

Yes, you are. When you make the assertion that even some blacks voted for Obama just because he's black, that's like looking at an Aisan person and assuming he's proficient in martial arts, or meeting an Italian person and quickly assuming he's a member of the Mafia. The reality doesn't always fit a convenient myth.

No. It was pretty evident when they were asked why they voted for Obama.


I am saying what I saw on the numerous media reports of the election. Whether you like it or not.

I have not painted everyone with the same brush, like your hyperbolic statements make out. I said a lot. Not everyone. Not a majority. Unlike you.


Your accusation of political bias on my part is still totally unfounded, by the way.

[Chaparral66]

I'm sorry, some people appeared to vote based on no understanding of policies whatsoever.



Not at all.


No. It was pretty evident when they were asked why they voted for Obama.


I am saying what I saw on the numerous media reports of the election. Whether you like it or not.

I have not painted everyone with the same brush, like your hyperbolic statements make out. I said a lot. Not everyone. Not a majority. Unlike you.


Your accusation of political bias on my part is still totally unfounded, by the way.

It's not unfounded when you fail to apply the same voting rationale to McCain's support that you do to Obama's. Maybe you did see a few black people who weren't able to give a reason up to YOUR standards, but to assume that type of mindset even makes a dent in the American Black community as a whole is dilussional. As I said before, the black candidates who ran for office before did not enjoy the support that Obama does now because blacks as a whole didn't think they had enough of the qualifications to perform the job as President as needed. The same judgement went into decisions made by voters when it concerned Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater in 1964, Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford in 1976, and George Bush over John McCain in 2000. Picking Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton was the same thing. It's you who fails to recognize this similar approach, assuming that blacks were not capable of making such an intelligent decision about a black candidate, that the decision making process was superficial. That is wrong, and blatantly, obviously, and unapologetically, ignorant. For every person you may have noticed on TV giving the type of answer you describe, I can personally give you three black people who can articulate the reasons why they voted for Obama, much like the ones I detail in a few boxes above this one.

I don't have anything personally against you, and if you disagree with Obama's positions on matters, I'm OK with it. It's when you broadly catagorize on Americans from halfway around the world is when we here in the USA get a little annoyed. What you are basically questioning is whether or not blacks can make an informed choice. That is wrong. Not only can they do that, they did.

Whether you like it or not.

[A.F.F.]

Why would he not live to see his presidency?



Well, assisinated candidates usually won't see their presidency.

Like i said, huge money involved with Bush's politics. Barrack is going to make an end to that. Those who's pockets still need filling may think otherwise. All they need is a scapegoat, let's say an aryan idiot and voila. :mark: Like it haven't happened before ??

[BDunnell]

Chaparral66, I fear your excellent posts will go over the heads of some of those they are aimed at. The fact that a discussion of this nature has even come up says a lot, I think. They might not be prepared to admit it, but I think some people who like to think that they are 'not racist' are far more threatened by Obama because of his skin colour than they would be if he were a white man with exactly the same views.


How do you define a serious candidate? And what "political correctness" are you referring to?

I think it's the most common form of 'political correctness': that which exists only in the heads of people who miss being able to get away with being a bit racist, homophobic or whatever, not forgetting the fevered imaginations of right-wing journalists. Personally, I have never encountered it in reality.

[Firstgear]

I'm sure that there were some uninformed/racist blacks voting for Obama only because of the color of his skin. But I would add that there were likely just as many uninformed/racist whites that voted for McCain for the same reason, so it's a non-issue in terms of votes.

I don't know the stance of these two men on ALL of the issues, but my views are probably closer to McCain's than Obamas. Still, I'm happy that Obama won because of the signal of change (even if only percieved change) that it sends to the world, as well as the signal of hope and possibility it sends to minorities in the USA.

CHAP66, your list of greats (Tiger, Hamilton & Obama) is incomplete if you leave out Bob Marley.

[Garry Walker]

How do you define a serious candidate? And what "political correctness" are you referring to? All those candidates I mentioned got on the ballot and therefore deserved to be taken "seriously". The US Constitution is very clear on this, Mr. Walker. Any person born in the United States can run for President and be voted on by his/her peers. If you don't like that concept, you have your geographical options open to you in terms of where you might like to live.
Serious candidate is someone who has a chance of getting elected. Would you have described Tom Tancredo as a serious candidate for this years elections? Or even Mitt Romney? I doubt it.
To make things even funnier, Obama was not born in USA and more and more evidence to support that is coming out. Didn`t his own granny say he was born in Kenya. If he was denied presidency upon that, I would find it the funniest, albeit of course very deserved, thing ever. Only that would leave Biden as president and he is no improvement over Obama.

When I referred to political correctness, I was referring to the fact that he was allowed to get away by media with some very worrying connections with reverend wright and Bill ayers, the fact he got his opponents thrown off the ballot, his "typical white person" remark and such. Whilst liberal media is crazy anyway, then his colour made media even more reluctant to push those topics, being afraid of being seen as racist.
If John McCain was friends with a former klansman and had been for long time, would media have been reluctant to talk about it? Of course it got coverage, but not enough.
Why was Barack Obama spared of such treatment considering his connections with reverend wright?
Hell, what did Obama mean by redistributing the wealth?



I'd like you and everyone else looking in to look at this quote directly from what you wrote above.

"You could hardly be more black friendly as a white than Clintons have been and 95% of blacks voted for Obama."

1) That's not quite accurate, at least in the primaries. Hillary Clinton enjoyed a significant amount of black support in the primary race, which is what made it so close.
Obama was getting 90% of black votes compared to Hillary!! 90%!!
That would make sense of one of them was all for the minorities and affirmative action and such stupidity and the other quite conservative, but Hillary is very far from conservative. No matter how you try to twist it, Barack Obama if he was white against hillary, would not have had 90% of votes with his policies. Not even 50%. It was a vote based on race only by a huge amount of blacks.



2) Your quote seems to suggest that because the Clintons were "black
friendly" (whatever the hell that means), that blacks should stick with them no matter what, even when they see a better choice. The problem is that Obama was not an upgrade over Clinton at all. Obama has very little experience, a shoddy background. Clinton has far more experience, it is not even comparable. Added to that Clinton has always been very popular amongst blacks. But now that another black was a possibility, the votes switched at once. Nothing to do with policies, most people had little idea of Barack Obamas policies, especially back at the primaries. Obama gained the 90% black vote mostly because of his race, nothing else. If he was white, against Clinton, I doubt he would have even pulled in 50% of the black votes. No way.



You assume blacks have no right to make a choice, even though choice is a cherished American freedom; again, as if blacks are incapable of thinking for themselves. As if they are incapable of looking at both candidates, listening to them speak, looking at their resumes, and making a choice based on their qualifications. Truly hilarious reading.
You actually think all those blacks (and whites too) thought a lot, read all the material and listened to their speeches? I have heard interviews with blacks where they thought Palin was Obamas running mate and that Obama was against stem-cell research and they all thought that was wonderful and they will be voting for Obama.
I am pretty sure that a huge amount of voters had little idea of the actual policies by either McCain or Obama. In primaries, it was even worse.



3) Your quote assumes the same thing I talked about in a quote you drew from me. It's the quote where I talk about cynical statments like yours where you say blacks voted for Barack Obama because of his skin color. Blacks are not so thin skinned as to look at just skin as a reason for voting, conscience alone would skin them alive. Actually, I think they are that thin-skinned indeed, a lot of them. They wouldn`t be talking about victory for Blacks in america in such huge amounts if they weren`t. Now, in fact, I don`t even have a problem with blacks voting obama because of his colour, I have a problem with people denying the obvious.



And since Obama won by the skin of his teeth over Hillary Clinton, you can assume that many in the black community were conflicted over this choice. 90% of black votes went to Obama in primaries compared to Hilary, what conflict are you talking about.
I completely understand that 95% of blacks voted Obama against McCain (blacks are usually always for democrats), but 90% voting Obama against Hillary with whom they really are not that different at all and you say it wasn`t due to race. Don`t make me laugh.



4) Your quote also suggests that blacks are not sophisitacated enough to make an informed choice, even if that means changing their minds. Sort of they way the electorate changed their minds about incumbant George W. Bush in 1992 and elected Clinton. Was race involved in that decision too? No candidate has an automatic mandate to the nomination and eventual election; not even Hillary Clinton. Blacks are just like any other group of people; they vote for the best candidate available; when another comes along they feel is better, that's where their vote goes, just like anyone else. It's not for them to follow a predictable pattern to placate the convenience of someone else, Mr. Walker. That's not what freedom of choice is. The freedom of, and right to, vote in this country means anyone can use whatever criteria they wish when making a choice, and they are not accountable to anyone for how they make that choice.
Let me ask you a question. If a white guy, with exactly the same policies as Obama, had ran against Hillary in the primaries, do you think he would have gotten 90% of black vote.
Was there actually anything special about obama compared to the other candidates? Not really.

Again, if you don't like that concept, Mr. Walker, I'm sure you can find another country to take you. Word of advice, you might avoid South Africa. Apparently they have had an awakening to freedom in recent years, and apparently they like it. Don`t worry, I won`t be going to SA, whites are getting killed a bit too often there and the economy is ed.


Your one quote revealed a lot, and why we still have a lot of work to do in ridding our country of racial ignorance. Yeah, there is a lot of racial ignorance in America. Mostly by liberal whites.



The funny thing is, by virtue of the reaction Barack Obama is getting from around the world, they have all beaten you to to it. Yet, you roll on the floor laughing your A$$ off at the notion that blacks voted for Obama just because of skin color. That is pretty sad :( Is that why white people voted for John McCain?You are a fool or a troll, I am not sure which one.
Your claim about McCain would stand to litmus test, if it wasn`t for the fact that 90% of whites didn`t vote for McCain.




Having said all that, it is quite legitimate for American Blacks to rejoice in Obama's election. Why not? Why can't blacks take the same ethinic pride in one of their own making it to the highest elected office in a country that once embraced slavery? Why can't blacks take this pride, much like Italians, Irish, Hispanics, Aisans, Native Americans or any other ethinic group would if the same thing happened? Mr. Walker, you need to deal with the reality.
I don`t mind people taking pride in their background at all, I for one am very proud of my heritage. It is simply a shame that whenever your average white person wants to be proud of his heritage, accusations of racism and white supremacy often come up, whereas no one ever says that about blacks.
I will repeat, I don`t have a problem with blacks voting Obama because of his race, I have a problem with some people not wanting to admit that.



Obama's election was a great day for the country, where the promise of America has come through better than at anytime in our past. Everyone around the world gets that. When are you going to?Don`t pull the demagogy card on me, it might only work on your average liberal with an IQ of 65.

[Garry Walker]

His stance on talking with hostile foreign nations. It may not be a popular approach, but to any with any experience in diplomacy, that is the proper approach, to avoid armed conflict. Settle the differences at the negotiating table than on the field of battle, whenever possible. That doesn't mean appeasing a known terrorist like Osama Bin Laden, but it does mean working our a deal with North Korea if it means avoiding a war on THREE fronts.The problem is that with some countries, diplomacy does not work. Those with experience in diplomacy know that well enough. Hard stance is required at times. This does not mean war. I sided more with McCain in this issue.



Obama's tax plan, where he insists that his proposal gives a net tax cut. On this he couldn't have been more clear. This is designed to give working class families a break, especially in these very troubled times.Redistributing wealth, as Obama put it.
His tax plan will end up hurting small businesses.
Added to that, we still don`t know at which level his tax cuts will start. He has given different figures.
Also, I find it very hard to take his claims seriously, considering how much he spent for these elections compared to McCain.



His stance on the Iraq war, one we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place, one that is draining our money away faster than popped ballon. He wants to put our resources into Afghanistan, where they should be, to find Bin Laden and bring him to justice, or destroy him there.Once you are there, you have to do the job properly and finish it. Of course, Afghanistan should be the primary goal.
With regards to iraq, awful key errors made by the adminstration of Bush delayed this war far longer than it really should have gone on.



Obama supports a woman's right to choose, McCain didn't.

From what I know, McCain was against abortion in most cases, except a few (like rape and or danger to mothers health). Makes perfect sense to me, why shouldn`t an embryo be protected?



Obama wants to encourage the development of new green energy sources, in order to create new jobs in the auto industry and elsewhere.
I am against wind-energy and pro-nuclear.



Obama wants to invest in rebuilding our nation's infastructure, not only for new jobs, but also for shoring up roads and bridges that have beeh neglected and are getting unsafe. What an original idea!!! I bet McCain and Clinton never thought of that.



Obama wants to repair our Bush damaged reputation overseas, so we can once again present ourselves as the true beacon of liberty the world over.
I am sure McCain just wanted to see queen of Great Britain and tell her to herself. Indeed.



Obama wants to stop the practice of torture immediately, and close the now dubious Gitmo. Funnily, so does McCain.

I for one completely support the torturing of terrorists, if need be.



I'm not saying you have to agree with these reasons, but that wasn't the issue. You wanted a list of reasons why people of all ethnic groups, particularly blacks, supported him. There you go.
The list you showed actually proves his policies are nothing special, where is this big "change" idiots keep going on about?


Yes, you are. When you make the assertion that even some blacks voted for Obama just because he's black, that's like looking at an Aisan person and assuming he's proficient in martial arts, or meeting an Italian person and quickly assuming he's a member of the Mafia. The reality doesn't always fit a convenient myth.
What a truly idiotic comparison to make. You have been given facts, if you are too stupid or dishonest and cannot accept them, it is your fault, not anyone elses.


Well, assisinated candidates usually won't see their presidency.

Like i said, huge money involved with Bush's politics. Barrack is going to make an end to that. Those who's pockets still need filling may think otherwise. All they need is a scapegoat, let's say an aryan idiot and voila. :mark: Like it haven't happened before ??
Barack is going to make an end to it? hahahahahaha. The only "change" that will be coming is that the owners of the pockets will change, they will still get filled
Goldman Sachs didn`t make these donations without a reason.


Chaparral66, I fear your excellent posts will go over the heads of some of those they are aimed at. The fact that a discussion of this nature has even come up says a lot, I think. They might not be prepared to admit it, but I think some people who like to think that they are 'not racist' are far more threatened by Obama because of his skin colour than they would be if he were a white man with exactly the same views.

Ahh yes, the good old liberal race card has been pulled out again, when no other arguments can be made. Such a shame I laugh at such claims by liberal lunatics.

[Chaparral66]

Chaparral66, I fear your excellent posts will go over the heads of some of those they are aimed at. The fact that a discussion of this nature has even come up says a lot, I think. They might not be prepared to admit it, but I think some people who like to think that they are 'not racist' are far more threatened by Obama because of his skin colour than they would be if he were a white man with exactly the same views.



I think it's the most common form of 'political correctness': that which exists only in the heads of people who miss being able to get away with being a bit racist, homophobic or whatever, not forgetting the fevered imaginations of right-wing journalists. Personally, I have never encountered it in reality.

Very good points, BD. Imagine if a white man with Obama's views won the election, what would the conservatives be saying? Something along the lines of, "you Democrats only voted for him because of his liberal views"? Yikes...

[BDunnell]

Ahh yes, the good old liberal race card has been pulled out again, when no other arguments can be made. Such a shame I laugh at such claims by liberal lunatics.

And such a shame I laugh at the way in which reactionary figures such as yourself were well and truly outvoted, so I guess we're pretty even there.

[Chaparral66]

The problem is that with some countries, diplomacy does not work. Those with experience in diplomacy know that well enough. Hard stance is required at times. This does not mean war. I sided more with McCain in this issue.

You speak the obvious. Obama will use his judgement and that of his staff to make those determinations. His point was that Bush all but abandoned diplomacy and that we need to use it constructively once again.

Redistributing wealth, as Obama put it.
His tax plan will end up hurting small businesses.
Added to that, we still don`t know at which level his tax cuts will start. He has given different figures.
Also, I find it very hard to take his claims seriously, considering how much he spent for these elections compared to McCain.

Obama NEVER said "redistributing the wealth"; when he talked to Joe The Plumber, he said "spreading the wealth", and that was a figure of speach that right wingers tried desperately to make an issue, but failed. Most people knew exactly what Obama meant, which was creating new broad new opportunities for small business and the middle class for new jobs. What a colossal joke the "redistributing the wealth" gambit was.

And Obama doesn't need to apologize for his organization being that more efficient than McCain's or Hillary Clinton's for raising more money than both. He worked within the rules and did a better job. This doesn't seem to be an issue when Republicans raised more than Democrats in past campaigns.

Once you are there, you have to do the job properly and finish it. Of course, Afghanistan should be the primary goal.
With regards to iraq, awful key errors made by the adminstration of Bush delayed this war far longer than it really should have gone on.

OK, there is some common ground here. Obama is faced with the challenge of cleaning up Bush's mess, so there will some things he will have to do there while he puts more into Afghanistan.

From what I know, McCain was against abortion in most cases, except a few (like rape and or danger to mothers health). Makes perfect sense to me, why shouldn`t an embryo be protected?

You have your view, I have mine. Mine is that women need to the freedom to make a very difficult and heart wrenching choice, something far more complicated than a religous viewpoit allows for.

I am against wind-energy and pro-nuclear.

We can't to limit our options to just a couple. We have the minds and technology to come up with a variety of solutions, we'll need to take a look at all available options and choose what works best for this country. Nothing's off the table.

What an original idea!!! I bet McCain and Clinton never thought of that.

I'll bet Bush didn't either, which explains why the infastructure is getting worse by the day. My bet is on Obama that this issue will finally be addressed properly. But don't knock it, you asked for reason to support Obama, this is one of many. Nobody said it had to be a new idea, just a good one.

I am sure McCain just wanted to see queen of Great Britain and tell her to herself. Indeed.

Not sure what you mean by this, but obviously Europe is bigger than just Great Britain.

Funnily, so does McCain. And with good reason.

I for one completely support the torturing of terrorists, if need be.

Then you are doing what Bush did, and what McCain, to his credit, didn't do: spitting on the Constitution. The Constitution expressly forbids "cruel and unusual" punishment, a hugely prophetic vision by our nation's founding fathers. I guess they were radical left-wing communists too, huh? There is no excuse for torture. Much of the information gleaned from such practices is recognized by military leaders the world over (including the majority of our own) is unreliable. A truly civilized society has no business engaging in such neanderthal methods, no matter how tempting.

The list you showed actually proves his policies are nothing special, where is this big "change" idiots keep going on about?

Hey, I don't recall any requirement that you had to like or agree with any of these reasons, you made the challenge to list some. Mission accomplished. What you think of them is not a real issue for me, other than fodder to continue the discussion.


What a truly idiotic comparison to make. You have been given facts, if you are too stupid or dishonest and cannot accept them, it is your fault, not anyone elses.

That comparison was made in an excruciatingly simple way so even you could understand it in quick fashion. Mission accomplished here, as well. And what facts are you referring to? That a soundbite from one or two black people who lacked a proper education said that they voted for Obama because of his race? Ok, so that happened, so what? You going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that soundbite represents the whole of the black community? If you believe that, the idiocy is not with me, my friend...

Barack is going to make an end to it? hahahahahaha. The only "change" that will be coming is that the owners of the pockets will change, they will still get filled
Goldman Sachs didn`t make these donations without a reason.

Again, you should not be so judgemental about who donated to which candidate. McCain has his corporate backers too, they sure as hell weren't exclusive to Obama. As far as his economic policies, we'll just have to wait and see.


Ahh yes, the good old liberal race card has been pulled out again, when no other arguments can be made. Such a shame I laugh at such claims by liberal lunatics.

No arguments? This exchange has been filled with arguments. As you say, if you fail to see them, it's no one's fault but your own. As I said, you wanted reasons, I gave them to you. No one said you had had to agree with them. And yes, cynics like you "play the race card" every time you say something pathetically stupid like black voters voted for Obama because of his race. That was a factor, but not a large one, and certainly not the only one. Go back and read my past boxes and even you will see why. And yes, they are factual.

[Roamy]

I think we should permit money laundering to pay for our sins.. All funds for any reason allowed and tax the hell out them!!

[ShiftingGears]

It's not unfounded when you fail to apply the same voting rationale to McCain's support that you do to Obama's. Maybe you did see a few black people who weren't able to give a reason up to YOUR standards, but to assume that type of mindset even makes a dent in the American Black community as a whole is dilussional.

I said a lot, not a majority. But if 90% of the black vote for Obama in the primaries is correct, then I think that is proof about race being a primary motive in voting. If Obama was white, I don't think an orator of his standard would be able to pull close 90% of the black vote in the primaries.



If Palin was male, do you think she would have received as much support?

[ShiftingGears]

It's not unfounded when you fail to apply the same voting rationale to McCain's support that you do to Obama's.

That's because there would be nothing extraordinary (excluding policies) about having a white man voted in. Many blacks seemed to support Obama because they saw his election as a beacon of racial equality - having the first black president of the United States. Some saw voting for him as a way to have an aspirational figure for their child to look up to. Including several that grew up through the civil rights movement. Surely you can see that it was a factor.

There were people who voted for McCain because he is white. But that isn't something that can be supported by any demographics. It may have been a significant number, but from the coverage, the number of blacks voting for Obama was much greater. Part of the aim of selecting Palin was to pick up 'disaffected Hillary voters', who maybe see it as some end to the 'glass ceiling' for women.

[Chaparral66]

[quote="Garry Walker"]Serious candidate is someone who has a chance of getting elected. Would you have described Tom Tancredo as a serious candidate for this years elections? Or even Mitt Romney? I doubt it.
To make things even funnier, Obama was not born in USA and more and more evidence to support that is coming out. Didn`t his own granny say he was born in Kenya. If he was denied presidency upon that, I would find it the funniest, albeit of course very deserved, thing ever. Only that would leave Biden as president and he is no improvement over Obama.

Obama not born in this country? You buy into that BS? Talk about laughing my A$$ off...If that were true, genius, the US Government (make that George W. Bush's US Government) would have outed him the minute that was confirmed. One doesn't merely announce a candidacy and start raising money and make speeches. There are all kinds of applications and documents to fill out, all of which are checked and rechecked (and in Obama's case, probably quadruple checked) to confirm his natural born birthright in this country. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and raised overseas before settling in Kansas and later Chicago. The US Constitution expressly says anyone running for President must be born here. On that Obama qualifies, since Hawaii is our 50th state. John McCain was born in 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, according to Wikipedia.com, which is outside the United States. But, since we built the Panama canal and managed it for years, that was considered natural US territory and any child born to an American military family there was considered a natural born citizen with all the rights due to any mainland citizen, including the right to run for President (yikes, there's education thing propping up again, gotta do something about that...).

Your argument about what makes a serious candidate is as strong as a soaked piece of tissue paper. Our nation's history is loaded with examples of Presidential and other candidates who came out of nowhere, whom were dismissed at first, but caught the attention of the voters and went on to win the Presidency. Jimmy Carter is one, Barack Obama is another.

Who determines who the "serious candidates" are? Not just you or me, and certainly not the pundits or rest of the media. The voters, including you and me, determine that by pulling the lever in the voting booth. And that's what frustrates you and the rest of the radical right wing, isn't it? You all wanted to dismiss him, and he just wouldn't go away, no matter what scare tactics you used. His message got out anyway, and he won big time, with a mandate for change. Time for you to start dealing with it.

When I referred to political correctness, I was referring to the fact that he was allowed to get away by media with some very worrying connections with reverend wright and Bill ayers, the fact he got his opponents thrown off the ballot, his "typical white person" remark and such. Whilst liberal media is crazy anyway, then his colour made media even more reluctant to push those topics, being afraid of being seen as racist.
If John McCain was friends with a former klansman and had been for long time, would media have been reluctant to talk about it? Of course it got coverage, but not enough.
Why was Barack Obama spared of such treatment considering his connections with reverend wright?
Hell, what did Obama mean by redistributing the wealth?


There was some balance to the coverage. You had FOX News on the right, MSNBC on the left, and CNN as centrist. The media challenged both candidates. There was a lot of pressure on Obama about Wright until he rejected his views and made a policy speech talking directly about race that you can look up if you Google or YouTube it. The pressure died down because he rejected Wright's views, and the public accepted his explanation. The media also could have really gone after McCain for his involment for the Keating 5 scandal, but that didn't last long either, because like Obama with Wright, he addressed it and the public accepted it. The thing with Ayers was ridiculous and had no legs at all, as the public saw through this as yet another desperate attempt to slime Obama and it failed. It's a funny thing when you try to scare people all the time. Eventually they get tired of it and insulted.

As I said in a couple of boxes above, Obama NEVER said "redistributing the wealth", he said "spread the wealth" and it was a figure od speech. He was talking about giving small businesses and people out of work more opportunities to grow and become successful. Most people who saw his whole conversation with Joe The Plumber understood that right away, and could understand yet another right wing smear tactic when all the rest had failed.

Obama was getting 90% of black votes compared to Hillary!! 90%!!
That would make sense of one of them was all for the minorities and affirmative action and such stupidity and the other quite conservative, but Hillary is very far from conservative. No matter how you try to twist it, Barack Obama if he was white against Hillary, would not have had 90% of votes with his policies. Not even 50%. It was a vote based on race only by a huge amount of blacks.

You know, it amazes me when someone like you just can't concieve on Obama getting the majority of the vote simply because most people, including whites as well as blacks and hispanics, just thought he was the better qualified candidate. You obsessively attach some social conspiracy to it. That's sick.

The problem is that Obama was not an upgrade over Clinton at all. Obama has very little experience, a shoddy background. Clinton has far more experience, it is not even comparable. Added to that Clinton has always been very popular amongst blacks. But now that another black was a possibility, the votes switched at once. Nothing to do with policies, most people had little idea of Barack Obamas policies, especially back at the primaries. Obama gained the 90% black vote mostly because of his race, nothing else. If he was white, against Clinton, I doubt he would have even pulled in 50% of the black votes. No way.

From what I found, it was closer to 85%, but that's picking nits. You still don't get it. Other blacks have run before but didn't bring to the table what Obama does. You sit there and claim that blacks voted for him just because he is black. That's BS. It didn't happen that way for Shirley Chisolm, it didn't happen that way for Jesse Jackson, and it didn't happen for Alan Keyes. It was clear to most people, black, white, hispanic, aisan, native American, that Barack Obama was the real deal. It was an informed choice, given his background, his education, and his message. The entire combination was at a higher level than the other three black candidates. By saying that blacks voted for Obama just because of his race, you are denying their intellect. That is ignorant. That is wrong. And it also denies that Obama's message reasonated with voters all over the country. that's just stupid. Obama won. Start dealing with it.

[Chaparral66]

Truly hilarious reading.
You actually think all those blacks (and whites too) thought a lot, read all the material and listened to their speeches? I have heard interviews with blacks where they thought Palin was Obamas running mate and that Obama was against stem-cell research and they all thought that was wonderful and they will be voting for Obama.

The hilarious thing is that you heard what you wanted to hear. There is no way you heard a preponderance of black people saying that. Most said they admired his committment to public service, his intellect, and his vision of change for the country. You heard (or searched for) a few soundbites that justfied a pre-concieved notion you had, and can't deal with the fact that the majority of the country thinks your viewpoint is full of it. And trust me, hardly any people of any ethnic persuasion mistook Sarah Palin for Obama's running mate. That is a right winger's frustrated fantasy.

I am pretty sure that a huge amount of voters had little idea of the actual policies by either McCain or Obama. In primaries, it was even worse.

And you don't think that happened? So in other words, all those thousands of people (in some cases, hundreds of thousands or people) at Obama rallies just came to see the color of this man's skin? Why didn't that work for Chisolm, Jackson, and Keyes? They are black, right? And you say that black voters voted for Obama because he is black, right? Why didn't that approach work for the other three? What make you think this mindset worked for Obama, when it clearly did not work for the other three candidates? Why did millions of people peruse BarackObama.com and look through his website, and as a result, donate millions of dollars to his campaign? You think black people so easily part with their money for just any candidate? What world do you live in? (Actually, don't answer that.)

Actually, I think they are that thin-skinned indeed, a lot of them. They wouldn`t be talking about victory for Blacks in america in such huge amounts if they weren`t. Now, in fact, I don`t even have a problem with blacks voting obama because of his colour, I have a problem with people denying the obvious.

Which is what you're doing, actually. You are in complete denial that Obama won because he made a better case to the American public than Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Nither Clinton or McCain ran as organized or efficient a campaign as Obama did. Niether Clinton or McCain had a message that reached as many people and convinced them to vote for them like Obama's message convinced people to vote for him. You're wrong about why Obama got elected; you're wrong about his support in the black community and why they voted for him; you're wrong about it all. Just about everyone has access to the internet and all the information available. It is a pathetically easy matter to Goggle Obama's name and see what his positions are, almost as pathetic as your assertions are. You deny to yourself the obvious, and just can't see that the world has isolated you from what they see in our next President.

90% of black votes went to Obama in primaries compared to Hilary, what conflict are you talking about.
I completely understand that 95% of blacks voted Obama against McCain (blacks are usually always for democrats), but 90% voting Obama against Hillary with whom they really are not that different at all and you say it wasn`t due to race. Don`t make me laugh.

Don't laugh, it's not funny. I don't negate that it may have been a factor, I'm just saying it wasn't the sole factor. And just taking your argument at face value, if Obama's positions weren't that different from Clinton's, which I acknowledge, what are you saying, that the vote should automatically go to Clinton by default? That's not the way the country works. If that's the attitude, why have a race at all? Let's just go the communist route and have our candidates chosen for us, with a gun to our heads directing us who to vote for. The people made their choice, both whites and blacks, and everyone else, and used the information they had available (which was a motherload) on the internet, and Obama won because the people made an informed choice. That is what you simply refuse to get.



Let me ask you a question. If a white guy, with exactly the same policies as Obama, had ran against Hillary in the primaries, do you think he would have gotten 90% of black vote.

That is a fair question. And the answer is, it's already happened. Al Gore and John Kerry (90% plus) actually got a higher percentage of the black vote than Obama (85%). but the thing to remember here is that Obama's organization got a huge amount of people registered to vote, many young people, and some older folks who hadn't voted in years, so while Obama was les on percentage, he was actually larger in shear the shear numbers of blacks who voted. This is another reason you're not getting, since we've been talking just about race, although you do acknowledge this above to a degree, the black voters for Obama voted him primarily because he is a Democrat and he supports Democratic issues. In this light, did his being black HELP in his defeating Clinton? Yes, although again, it was not the sole reason. But this goes to answer this notion of your why blacks didn't go with Clinton since she was "friendly to blacks, and it's important to understand the perspective on this; blacks, like any other social group in this country, will support the one they feel is qualified for the job, and whom represents their interests at the highest level. That's the way the USA system of representative government works, it's in the Constitution. Familiar with that? Instead of being 3/5 of all other persons, blacks like everyone else, get to choose whom they want want to lead them. Like I told Garry Walker, if you don't like that very American system, there are other countries you can go and live in...

Chisolm, Jackson, and Keyes were not believed to be the ones who could deliver on that promise. Obama is. And apparently, much of white America believes the same thing. And the proof is in the pudding, Obama won big. Winners don't have to apologize, losers make all kinds of excuses.

Was there actually anything special about obama compared to the other candidates? Not really.

That is a matter of opinion, which you have every right to. It's just that America disagrees with you, and so does the rest of the world.

Don`t worry, I won`t be going to SA, whites are getting killed a bit too often there and the economy is ed.

Violence in South Africa is not a problem that is exclusive to one race of people.

Yeah, there is a lot of racial ignorance in America. Mostly by liberal whites.

And what is your excuse?

You are a fool or a troll, I am not sure which one.
Your claim about McCain would stand to litmus test, if it wasn`t for the fact that 90% of whites didn`t vote for McCain.

You still didn't answer the question. I answered yours. If you say blacks voted for Obama because he is black, did white voters vote for McCain because he is white? You should apply the same standard to both candidates.

I don`t mind people taking pride in their background at all, I for one am very proud of my heritage. It is simply a shame that whenever your average white person wants to be proud of his heritage, accusations of racism and white supremacy often come up, whereas no one ever says that about blacks.

You should proud of your background. No one questions that.

I will repeat, I don`t have a problem with blacks voting Obama because of his race, I have a problem with some people not wanting to admit that.

Why should people admit to something that's not true just to suit your pre-concieved notion? I have trouble with people who try to put a cynical haze over something as historical as this election.

Nobody has to justify to anyone why they voted a certain way, I just hope they vote. Instead of sitting from a far, why don't you go outside your social cricle and see for yourself? Then you might understand what I'm talking about.


Don`t pull the demagogy card on me, it might only work on your average liberal with an IQ of 65.[/QUOTE]

I don't give a damn what you call it, that's what I see in all of this. And no one is playing cards with you. How pathetic is that, opinions by people being reduced to "cards". And I'm not your average liberal, I'm much, much better than that, I'm an exceptional liberal :)

[Chaparral66]

I said a lot, not a majority. But if 90% of the black vote for Obama in the primaries is correct, then I think that is proof about race being a primary motive in voting. If Obama was white, I don't think an orator of his standard would be able to pull close 90% of the black vote in the primaries.

See below, but Al Gore and John kerry already did, in 2000, and 2004.

If Palin was male, do you think she would have received as much support?

Why not? That support was coming to any running mate McCain would have chosen, and probably would have recieved better support had the running mate been vetted better.

[Chaparral66]

That's because there would be nothing extraordinary (excluding policies) about having a white man voted in. Many blacks seemed to support Obama because they saw his election as a beacon of racial equality - having the first black president of the United States. Some saw voting for him as a way to have an aspirational figure for their child to look up to. Including several that grew up through the civil rights movement. Surely you can see that it was a factor.

As long as we talking about it being A FACTOR, I will agree. As I said, people are at liberty in this country to vote in their preferred choice to represent them. We really have no call to cast judgement on how they do that. But what I said still stands, the standard you place on Obama's support must also be applied to McCain, otherwise you reveal a racial bias. Many blacks may have indeed seen Obama as that beacon you spoke of, but there is no question they saw him as the right person to lead the country, as the one who could deliver on the promise and to help out our country in these times of dire straights. You have to allow for the large combination of factors that fueled his election win, not just a few.

There were people who voted for McCain because he is white. But that isn't something that can be supported by any demographics. It may have been a significant number, but from the coverage, the number of blacks voting for Obama was much greater. Part of the aim of selecting Palin was to pick up 'disaffected Hillary voters', who maybe see it as some end to the 'glass ceiling' for women.

Again, the same standard must apply to both candidates, otherwise you have no argument. You can't just give whites a pass for voting for McCain for being white while blasting black voters for voting for Obama because he is black. You can't have this both ways. You have to have some evidence to support the idea for one, and then the other, and so far, you haven't got any.

[Jag_Warrior]

I said a lot, not a majority. But if 90% of the black vote for Obama in the primaries is correct, then I think that is proof about race being a primary motive in voting. If Obama was white, I don't think an orator of his standard would be able to pull close 90% of the black vote in the primaries.

Clinton was actually doing prety well with the Black vote nationally as I recall. In some southern states, she was even leading in the polls early on. Then Bill made some odd comments about fairytales and such in South Carolina (I believe), and it was all down hill for Hillary from there. And then Hillary made comments suggesting that Obama should hand her the nomination (even though she was losing) and she might consider him for Vice-President. She followed up, I think after West Virginia or Pennsylvania, by playing the race card: working class Whites would not vote for Obama. Hillary sort of went all to hell and lost her way about then. Like McCain, when her original strategy stopped working, she didn't seem to have a Plan B. Luckily for her, she didn't have a Sarah Palin to take matters from bad to worse.

I think that a good deal of the attention paid to Obama was because of his race. And while I would say that many Blacks supported him primarily because he is Black, an overwhelming majority of Blacks tend to vote Democrat no matter what. The difference that I'd say Obama made was that a good deal more Blacks (Hispanics and younger Whites) registered to vote because of him. Whether that was primarily because of his race or not, I don't know. But a study prior to the election found that 40% of all White voters (and 30% of White Democrats) held negative views about Blacks. So one could argue that with some, his race played in his favor, while with others, it likely cost him votes. I have no idea how that net number would wash out. But a quick Google search reveals that Lyndon Johnson got about 94% of the Black vote in 1964.



If Palin was male, do you think she would have received as much support?

As someone else has suggested, Sarah Palin is the Danica Patrick of politics. If either was a male, no, I don't believe either of their names would come up in even general conversation... much less be spoken about as if they're something special. As for support, she (as a "he") would probably be pushing for Huckabee's base to some extent. But Huckabee has a MUCH deeper understanding and comprehension of foreign policy issues and economics (no make believe, undocumented "trade missions" on his foreign policy resume, as far as I know). As a "he", Sarah would be knocked out 5 seconds into Round 1 of the primaries by Mike Huckabee. As a female, she can play the gender angle and hang in there, I would say through most of the deep red, Confederate state primaries. Nationally, I would expect the exodus of educated, fiscal conservatives and independents to continue from the GOP. There might even be a legit third party formed if Palin got the nod from the neocons in the GOP in 2012. Fiscal conservatives, conservative libertarians and independents on one side and the Strauss neocons, Evangelicals and hillbillies on the other. But if such a thing happens, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Obama donates a few million to her campaign in 2012. He's probably already having wet dreams about being able to run against that village idiot in 2012.

All I know is everytime I ask one of the Palin fans on here to convince me of Palin's positives, all I get is, "she's not as dumb as you make her out to be!" Well, uh... not exactly a ringing endorsement from her fanbase, if you ask me. :D

[Chaparral66]

Clinton was actually doing prety well with the Black vote nationally as I recall. In some southern states, she was even leading in the polls early on. Then Bill made some odd comments about fairytales and such in South Carolina (I believe), and it was all down hill for Hillary from there. And then Hillary made comments suggesting that Obama should hand her the nomination (even though she was losing) and she might consider him for Vice-President. She followed up, I think after West Virginia or Pennsylvania, by playing the race card: working class Whites would not vote for Obama. Hillary sort of went all to hell and lost her way about then. Like McCain, when her original strategy stopped working, she didn't seem to have a Plan B. Luckily for her, she didn't have a Sarah Palin to take matters from bad to worse.

I think that a good deal of the attention paid to Obama was because of his race. And while I would say that many Blacks supported him primarily because he is Black, an overwhelming majority of Blacks tend to vote Democrat no matter what. The difference that I'd say Obama made was that a good deal more Blacks (Hispanics and younger Whites) registered to vote because of him. Whether that was primarily because of his race or not, I don't know. But a study prior to the election found that 40% of all White voters (and 30% of White Democrats) held negative views about Blacks. So one could argue that with some, his race played in his favor, while with others, it likely cost him votes. I have no idea how that net number would wash out. But a quick Google search reveals that Lyndon Johnson got about 94% of the Black vote in 1964.




As someone else has suggested, Sarah Palin is the Danica Patrick of politics. If either was a male, no, I don't believe either of their names would come up in even general conversation... much less be spoken about as if they're something special. As for support, she (as a "he") would probably be pushing for Huckabee's base to some extent. But Huckabee has a MUCH deeper understanding and comprehension of foreign policy issues and economics (no make believe, undocumented "trade missions" on his foreign policy resume, as far as I know). As a "he", Sarah would be knocked out 5 seconds into Round 1 of the primaries by Mike Huckabee. As a female, she can play the gender angle and hang in there, I would say through most of the deep red, Confederate state primaries. Nationally, I would expect the exodus of educated, fiscal conservatives and independents to continue from the GOP. There might even be a legit third party formed if Palin got the nod from the neocons in the GOP in 2012. Fiscal conservatives, conservative libertarians and independents on one side and the neocons, Evangelicals and hillbillies on the other. But if such a thing happens, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Obama donates a few million to her campaign in 2012. He's probably already having wet dreams about being able to run against that village idiot in 2012.

All I know is everytime I ask one of the Palin fans on here to convince me of Palin's positives, all I get is, "she's not as dumb as you make her out to be!" Well, uh... not exactly a ringing endorsement from her fanbase, if you ask me. :D

Yeah, but she sure knows her way around turkey preparation for Thanksgiving, and there is readily available visual evidence to support that... :D

[Jag_Warrior]

Yeah, but she sure knows her way around turkey preparation for Thanksgiving, and there is readily available visual evidence to support that... :D

Yeah, that was pretty funny. A bird brain "pardoning" a bird.

[BDunnell]

All I know is everytime I ask one of the Palin fans on here to convince me of Palin's positives, all I get is, "she's not as dumb as you make her out to be!" Well, uh... not exactly a ringing endorsement from her fanbase, if you ask me. :D

Nor is 'she can learn the policy stuff by 2012'. The fact that anyone has to say that proves why she is unfit for office. She should know now.

[ShiftingGears]

Why not? That support was coming to any running mate McCain would have chosen, and probably would have recieved better support had the running mate been vetted better.

The support for Palin would not have been in as great a magnitude if Palin was male. Do you agree?

[ShiftingGears]

Again, the same standard must apply to both candidates, otherwise you have no argument. You can't just give whites a pass for voting for McCain for being white while blasting black voters for voting for Obama because he is black. You can't have this both ways. You have to have some evidence to support the idea for one, and then the other, and so far, you haven't got any.

I wasn't arguing about the large number of factors that accounted for his election win. I was talking about that singular factor which appeared to be quite significant in influencing the votes of many in the minorities.

I saw little in comparison from white voters towards McCain. Race was certainly a lot more significant in determining votes in the black community than the white community, for the above reasons.

It definitely was not the only factor in determining who the electorate voted for. But I was certainly surprised by how significant factors like gender and race of the candidates appeared to be in persuading voters.

I hope I have clarified my position.

[Chaparral66]

The support for Palin would not have been in as great a magnitude if Palin was male. Do you agree?

My answer is a qualified yes, and the reason is that if Palin were a man but had that same personality, she wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes, or McCain wouldn't have picked "him" at all. Palin as a man would not be very manly, and even more people would have looked at McCain and wondered, "What was he thinking?"

Palin's personality and looks are what got her a lot of media attention (and that type of personality works better on a woman) when McCain introduced her and that gave his campaign a real shot in the arm. But when the campaign finally let her start doing interviews, people found out there was very little substance behind the Miss America looks.

I'll comment on your other stuff a little later.

[A.F.F.]

Barack is going to make an end to it? hahahahahaha. The only "change" that will be coming is that the owners of the pockets will change, they will still get filled
Goldman Sachs didn`t make these donations without a reason.



I don't want to argue with you on that one since you're probably right. That is also probably the reason he is still alive ;)

[markabilly]

[quote="theugsquirrel"]There were a lot of black people voting for Obama because he's black, and a lot of women voting for Palin because she's a woman.

quote]
in this election, that was the most and only intelligent basis to decide who to vote for, because all the rest was bullshot....


people thinking there was going to be change, weeeelll now the only change will be the change in whose pocket the bribes and kickbacks go,,, errre i mean campaign contributions and bailout... :imubash:

[markabilly]

There were a lot of black people voting for Obama because he's black, and a lot of women voting for Palin because she's a woman.

Most of these people that the media broadcast seemed to have little to no understanding of policies of these two people. Which is a little worrying.
in this election, that was the most and only intelligent basis to decide who to vote for, because all the rest was bullshot....


people thinking there was going to be change, weeeelll now the only change will be the change in whose pocket the bribes and kickbacks go,,, errre i mean campaign contributions and bailout... :imubash:


I don't want to argue with you on that one since you're probably right. That is also probably the reason he is still alive ;)

While the was in the senate, in a very brief career there, he got 5 times more money from wall street bankers than McCain and add in the other big corporate contributions, they already had a big time investment in him so he will be safe

Take a good look at the last three months of contributions, the number of small amounts per contribution to Macain compared to the mega bucks to Bama---

[Chaparral66]

I wasn't arguing about the large number of factors that accounted for his election win. I was talking about that singular factor which appeared to be quite significant in influencing the votes of many in the minorities.

First of all, there was no singular factor in the Black community that had an overwhelming impact on Obama's victory. Again, this ignores the Black community's quality judgement that looked at a broad list of issues in this and other past elections. I have already proved this inaccurate by pointing out past campaigns by black candidates such as Shirley Chisolm, Jesse Jackson, and Alan Keyes, who were not only unsuccessful with white voters, they were not as successful with minority voters as they needed to be, particularly with black voters. That is hard factual evidence that completely refutes your theory.

I saw little in comparison from white voters towards McCain. Race was certainly a lot more significant in determining votes in the black community than the white community, for the above reasons.

Again, you use a double standard when making these assertions on how both the white community and black community voted for each candidate. My question still stands which you have NOT answered yet. If you think blacks voted for Obama because of race, then why did whites vote for McCain? I continue to challenge you to answer this simple question.

It definitely was not the only factor in determining who the electorate voted for. But I was certainly surprised by how significant factors like gender and race of the candidates appeared to be in persuading voters.

You continue to exaggerate the significance of that cynical theory. You have offered no evidence to back it up. All you've done is speculate, based on pre-conceived notions you still carry. I can offer you some polls where both white and black voters felt Obama was stronger on domestic issues like the economy, while both camps felt McCain was a little stronger on foriegn policy. But since the economy is the dominant issue of the day, since the sad state of affairs affects us all no matter what ethnic background we have, that had a much more direct impact on Obama's winning the election, with support from all groups in the country. You continue to fail to realize this.

I hope I have clarified my position.

Not really. You have offered nothing to support your position.

[Chaparral66]

in this election, that was the most and only intelligent basis to decide who to vote for, because all the rest was bullshot....


people thinking there was going to be change, weeeelll now the only change will be the change in whose pocket the bribes and kickbacks go,,, errre i mean campaign contributions and bailout... :imubash:



While the was in the senate, in a very brief career there, he got 5 times more money from wall street bankers than McCain and add in the other big corporate contributions, they already had a big time investment in him so he will be safe

Take a good look at the last three months of contributions, the number of small amounts per contribution to Macain compared to the mega bucks to Bama---

Each candidate got some corporate backing, but most of Obama's donations came from the most organized and best executed grass roots campaign in history, where his staff used the internet and text messaging - using the same technology that the kids were using - to get his message across and that translated into donations. Obama doesn't have to apologize for doing a better job of fund raising.

[markabilly]

Each candidate got some corporate backing, but most of Obama's donations came from the most organized and best executed grass roots campaign in history, where his staff used the internet and text messaging - using the same technology that the kids were using - to get his message across and that translated into donations. Obama doesn't have to apologize for doing a better job of fund raising.

Initially that was true, then the big and I mean BIG $$$$$$$ started rolling in....Warren Buffet's millions and the more the merrier....Just look at his economic team, from the same group that made the current mess possible (not merely possible, but probable), that helped destroy the fundamentals for a strong self-sufficient economy while Bill Clinton was in office, sending jobs overseas.....whose absolute worst sin is mistaking paper money as wealth...the same folks making 50 million a year....

and economic bailouts would not have solved nor prevented the great depression, it was meaningful, productive jobs, and bailouts will not help us now, anymore than false hopes

Difference between Bush, Clinton and Bama is that these people advising and controlling things, all have different names and worked at different Wall Street firms, but beyond that........... :o

And so vote for McCain?? Why??? what would be the difference?????? Same folks, just different names and companies....might as well as voted based on race and sex as that was about the only actual difference

(well out side of the TV appearances and impressions as Bama comes across on TV in the very best manner since Ronald Reagan, and probably better since Ronnie was a bit old, to say the least--and Palin does as well, far better than any of the old leaders of the repubes and far better than Hilliary Clinton--which is why she is so despised by liberals and news groups---mind you I am NOT saying she would be a better or even equal president to Hilliary, only that when it comes to PR on TV, she clicks with those great numbers of people who do not know nothing about nothing, and that is where 90% of votes come from anyway)

[Garry Walker]

And such a shame I laugh at the way in which reactionary figures such as yourself were well and truly outvoted, so I guess we're pretty even there.

My political views were not represented by a candidate with a serious chance of getting voted in at the election. I despised McCain just as much as Obama.

As for liberals laughing, whenever they do that, I just think of how many of them are on welfare and that cheers me up immensly.

[Garry Walker]

Chaparral - Learn to quote properly, it is not that difficult, even for your average obama voter.


Obama NEVER said "redistributing the wealth"; when he talked to Joe The Plumber, he said "spreading the wealth", and that was a figure of speach that right wingers tried desperately to make an issue, but failed. Most people knew exactly what Obama meant, which was creating new broad new opportunities for small business and the middle class for new jobs. What a colossal joke the "redistributing the wealth" gambit was.
What opportunities is Obama giving small businesses? By taxing them more than before? How will this help them create new jobs?



You have your view, I have mine. Mine is that women need to the freedom to make a very difficult and heart wrenching choice, something far more complicated than a religous viewpoit allows for.I despise religion more than I despise Obama. But I stand 100% behind protecting innocent human life.
It is funny how liberals are so against Death Penalty being used on scum of the earth, but have no worries about having innocent life murdered.



I'll bet Bush didn't either, which explains why the infastructure is getting worse by the day. My bet is on Obama that this issue will finally be addressed properly. But don't knock it, you asked for reason to support Obama, this is one of many. Nobody said it had to be a new idea, just a good one.
For you to bring up such a thing, when it is obvious that both McCain and also hillary would have taken care of it, is quite mindboggling.



Not sure what you mean by this, but obviously Europe is bigger than just Great Britain.I live in Europe, I am pretty sure I know far more about Europe than you.
The forum removed the "f*ck" word from my post, so it didn`t make sense anymore :D



Then you are doing what Bush did, and what McCain, to his credit, didn't do: spitting on the Constitution. The Constitution expressly forbids "cruel and unusual" punishment, a hugely prophetic vision by our nation's founding fathers. Cruel is a very vague term used in connection with the terrorists.



Hey, I don't recall any requirement that you had to like or agree with any of these reasons, you made the challenge to list some. Mission accomplished. What you think of them is not a real issue for me, other than fodder to continue the discussion.What I wanted to see was what is this "change" about. Obama keeps rabbiting on about it, but I have seen nothing concrete yet. Nothing. His plans are nothing special. Yet it is still all about change change change. Change can be for better or for worse.



That comparison was made in an excruciatingly simple way so even you could understand it in quick fashion. The comparison you made was so stupid that a 4th grader would be embarrassed to make such a claim, yet you see it as sort of an intellectual victory for yourself. Well, you voted Obama, so I am not surprised.



Mission accomplished here, as well. And what facts are you referring to? That a soundbite from one or two black people who lacked a proper education said that they voted for Obama because of his race? Ok, so that happened, so what? You going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that soundbite represents the whole of the black community? If you believe that, the idiocy is not with me, my friend... More than 1-2, but anyway, yes, I do believe most blacks voted for Obama for only one reason. His race. Nothing else differentiated him for the other candidates.



Again, you should not be so judgemental about who donated to which candidate. McCain has his corporate backers too, they sure as hell weren't exclusive to Obama. As far as his economic policies, we'll just have to wait and see.
McCain was getting far less corporate support than Obama. But McCain, of course, is just as corrupt.





Obama not born in this country? You buy into that BS? Talk about laughing my A$$ off...If that were true, genius, the US Government (make that George W. Bush's US Government) would have outed him the minute that was confirmed. One doesn't merely announce a candidacy and start raising money and make speeches. There are all kinds of applications and documents to fill out, all of which are checked and rechecked (and in Obama's case, probably quadruple checked) to confirm his natural born birthright in this country. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and raised overseas before settling in Kansas and later Chicago. The US Constitution expressly says anyone running for President must be born here. On that Obama qualifies, since Hawaii is our 50th state. John McCain was born in 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, according to Wikipedia.com, which is outside the United States. But, since we built the Panama canal and managed it for years, that was considered natural US territory and any child born to an American military family there was considered a natural born citizen with all the rights due to any mainland citizen, including the right to run for President (yikes, there's education thing propping up again, gotta do something about that...).

Well, isn`t the supreme court gathering to discuss the Obama case in december?
So far we have support from his grandmother and kenyan ambassador that Obama was born in kenya and I believe his birth records from Hawaii have not been released.
That said, I expect nothing to come from it, the supreme court members would be shot in 1 day if they said Obama was not eligible for presidency and it doesn`t really matter to me as Biden is just as bad as Obama.



Your argument about what makes a serious candidate is as strong as a soaked piece of tissue paper. Our nation's history is loaded with examples of Presidential and other candidates who came out of nowhere, whom were dismissed at first, but caught the attention of the voters and went on to win the Presidency. Jimmy Carter is one, Barack Obama is another.
There were reasons why those two got voted in. In Carters case it was Watergate, in Obamas case his race played a key factor, which helped him to get attention in the primaries. If he had been a white politician, he simply would not have had the attention and Hilary would have gone on to get the nomination.




There was some balance to the coverage. You had FOX News on the right, MSNBC on the left, and CNN as centrist. The media challenged both candidates. There was a lot of pressure on Obama about Wright until he rejected his views and made a policy speech talking directly about race that you can look up if you Google or YouTube it. The pressure died down because he rejected Wright's views, and the public accepted his explanation. The media also could have really gone after McCain for his involment for the Keating 5 scandal, but that didn't last long either, because like Obama with Wright, he addressed it and the public accepted it. The thing with Ayers was ridiculous and had no legs at all, as the public saw through this as yet another desperate attempt to slime Obama and it failed. It's a funny thing when you try to scare people all the time. Eventually they get tired of it and insulted.


Reverend wright was a piece of racist and Obama was associated with him for a long period of time. I repeat, if John McCain was associated with a former KKK-member, would the media have been as forgiving? Or the public? Of course not.
Obama took forever to dismiss Wright and that, along with the fact that they were associates for a long period of time, makes me doubt how sincere obama was when he dismissed him.


You know, it amazes me when someone like you just can't concieve on Obama getting the majority of the vote simply because most people, including whites as well as blacks and hispanics, just thought he was the better qualified candidate. You obsessively attach some social conspiracy to it. That's sick.

The only sick thing we have here is your maintaining that when 90% of blacks voted for Obama over Clinton, it had little to with race, when the experience of the candidates spoke vastly in Hilarys favour


From what I found, it was closer to 85%, but that's picking nits. You still don't get it. Other blacks have run before but didn't bring to the table what Obama does. You sit there and claim that blacks voted for him just because he is black. That's BS. It didn't happen that way for Shirley Chisolm, it didn't happen that way for Jesse Jackson, and it didn't happen for Alan Keyes. It was clear to most people, black, white, hispanic, aisan, native American, that Barack Obama was the real deal. It was an informed choice, given his background, his education, and his message. The entire combination was at a higher level than the other three black candidates. By saying that blacks voted for Obama just because of his race, you are denying their intellect. That is ignorant. That is wrong. And it also denies that Obama's message reasonated with voters all over the country. that's just stupid. Obama won. Start dealing with it.Jesse Jackson actually got quite many votes, a lot of them black votes. But from that period of time it is impossible to find stats how many blacks voted for him.
Keyes was a republican and most blacks are not republican, therefor in primaries, he had little support from them. He was also too radical for mainstream success, so media never portrayed him as the "jesus", as they did with Obama.
For you to keep denying that a lot of black vote due to Obamas race, is of course hilarious.
What % range do you consider Obama got from blacks due to his race?

[Garry Walker]

The hilarious thing is that you heard what you wanted to hear. There is no way you heard a preponderance of black people saying that. Most said they admired his committment to public service, his intellect, and his vision of change for the country. You heard (or searched for) a few soundbites that justfied a pre-concieved notion you had, and can't deal with the fact that the majority of the country thinks your viewpoint is full of it. And trust me, hardly any people of any ethnic persuasion mistook Sarah Palin for Obama's running mate. That is a right winger's frustrated fantasy.What vision of change? Do you know what change is going to happen? He is going to raise taxes on those awful capitalist small businesses? The more I think about his policies, the worse they seem.


And you don't think that happened? So in other words, all those thousands of people (in some cases, hundreds of thousands or people) at Obama rallies just came to see the color of this man's skin?
Why didn't that work for Chisolm, Jackson, and Keyes? They are black, right? And you say that black voters voted for Obama because he is black, right? Why didn't that approach work for the other three? What make you think this mindset worked for Obama, when it clearly did not work for the other three candidates? Why did millions of people peruse BarackObama.com and look through his website, and as a result, donate millions of dollars to his campaign? You think black people so easily part with their money for just any candidate? What world do you live in? (Actually, don't answer that.)

I explained it about other candidates already.
As for people coming to Obamas rallies and giving him loads of money, the former reminded me a lot about the rallies in the nazi Germany. As for giving him money, same reason why hitler got voted in. Most public are sheep and with little intellect and pretty speeches with no real message, but just lots of rhetoric, will work on them.


You're wrong about why Obama got elected; you're wrong about his support in the black community and why they voted for him; you're wrong about it all. haha.Keep telling yourself that buddy.


Don't laugh, it's not funny. I don't negate that it may have been a factor, I'm just saying it wasn't the sole factor. Now we are getting somewhere. So you finally admit that Blacks voting for Obama had something to do with race afterall.



And just taking your argument at face value, if Obama's positions weren't that different from Clinton's, which I acknowledge, what are you saying, that the vote should automatically go to Clinton by default? It shouldn`t, but nor should they go by default to Obama. Now, consider Hilarys standing in black community and her experience. Logic dictates she should be getting at least half the black vote, but probably even quite a bit more. But what happened? Obama got 90% of black votes in primaries



That's not the way the country works. If that's the attitude, why have a race at all? Let's just go the communist route and have our candidates chosen for us, with a gun to our heads directing us who to vote for. The people made their choice, both whites and blacks, and everyone else, and used the information they had available (which was a motherload) on the internet, and Obama won because the people made an informed choice. That is what you simply refuse to get.People made a choice, but not an informed one. If they were informed, people would have stopped voting for Democrats/republicans long time ago and picked some other candidate.


[B]That is a fair question. And the answer is, it's already happened. Al Gore and John Kerry (90% plus) actually got a higher percentage of the black vote than Obama (85%). In primaries Obama got 90% of black vote, in real election, 95%.
Are your stats about primaries or real election?



but the thing to remember here is that Obama's organization got a huge amount of people registered to vote, many young people, and some older folks who hadn't voted in years, so while Obama was les on percentage, he was actually larger in shear the shear numbers of blacks who voted. The reason why so many blacks came to vote is not because Obamas policies or him being a sudden saviour of USA, it is because they finally saw the chance to get one of their "own" in. I have nothing against that.



Like I told Garry Walker, if you don't like that very American system, there are other countries you can go and live in...And I will repeat, I am not an american nor have I ever lived there.



Violence in South Africa is not a problem that is exclusive to one race of people. Unfortunately, as in America, blacks are far more likely to committ violent crimes than whites.


And I'm not your average liberal
So you don`t claim welfare. Good to know!




All I know is everytime I ask one of the Palin fans on here to convince me of Palin's positives, all I get is, "she's not as dumb as you make her out to be!" Well, uh... not exactly a ringing endorsement from her fanbase, if you ask me. :D
Palin is an idiot and clearly an awful choice for VP. That said, If media had been as forgiving to her as it was to Obama regarding some of his mistakes (57 states quote) and past actions, people would not know about her idiocy so much.

[OWFan19]

Garry,How do you know all of these small businesses will be effected? There is a difference between personal income and corporate income. Some of these businesses will need to change their status from an INC to an LLC. As a small business owner working with other small businesses, few if any are making more than 250,000 on their personal income. The amount of deductions makes that easy. How many whites voted for McCain because they wouldn't vote for a Black?Of course McCain was getting corporate support, didn't Walmart tell its employee's to not vote for Obama?As for comparing Obama supporters to those supporting the Nazi's, shame on you. Look at the morons up in Alaska that almost re-elected the convicted Felon, Ted Stevens. Talk about sheep. Republicans only care about the party, not the person. We do agree about Palin. She is a disaster for the Republican party. If the GOP thinks she is the future, the GOP is done in American politics. Her interview in front of the slaughtered turkey was just another showing of her stupidity. I lost all respect for McCain by allowing her a chance to possibly holding the highest office in the world. She would have made our country weaker than it already is. Obama is a breath of fresh air. When Bush should be out trying to contain an economy that he destroyed, he is no where to be seen. At least Obama brings some brains to the White House. You keep saying he gave no real message, then turn around and say that his policies are wrong. Which is it? How can he have no message, yet still convey what his policies will be? As for the policies, he couldn't start implementing them sooner.

[BDunnell]

As for people coming to Obamas rallies and giving him loads of money, the former reminded me a lot about the rallies in the nazi Germany. As for giving him money, same reason why hitler got voted in. Most public are sheep and with little intellect and pretty speeches with no real message, but just lots of rhetoric, will work on them.

I found the way in which people lapped up everything Obama had to say rather vomit-inducing, but would never go that far. The idea that you can accuse most other people of being 'sheep... with little intellect' having made a statement like that is at best highly ironic, as it hardly marks your own views out as being born of a lot of intellectual thought.

[Jag_Warrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior http://www.motorsportforum.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=558981#post558981)

All I know is everytime I ask one of the Palin fans on here to convince me of Palin's positives, all I get is, "she's not as dumb as you make her out to be!" Well, uh... not exactly a ringing endorsement from her fanbase, if you ask me. :D





Palin is an idiot and clearly an awful choice for VP. That said, If media had been as forgiving to her as it was to Obama regarding some of his mistakes (57 states quote) and past actions, people would not know about her idiocy so much.

Yet again...

If you can show me a picture of Palin with a gun pointed at her head, where she is being forced to stick her foot in her mouth while giving interviews, or discussing the French President's mating habits, I'll give you a gold star. Misspeaking about the number of states is one thing. Whether I agree with his policies and proposals or not, I have no doubt that someone who was editor of the Harvard Law Review knows how many states there are. While helping a gal-pal shop for a car a few months ago, I told the salesman that she was looking for an M5, when I meant M3. But I know my cars pretty well. In your mind, maybe it doesn't work that way. I don't know. But I have little faith in someone's intelligence when everything about them suggests they have NEVER been the cream of the crop. The media didn't do anything to her that she didn't do to herself. Always the "gotcha media" argument to cover up for the nitwit. She rose to the top in a state with the highest alcohol related mortality rate in the U.S. That says a lot, IMO.

I do think there are certain types of people to which Palin appeals though. Renting land for trailerpark spots is a good use of vacant land, so I am thankful that they exist.

[markabilly]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior http://www.motorsportforum.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=558981#post558981)

All I know is everytime I ask one of the Palin fans on here to convince me of Palin's positives, all I get is, "she's not as dumb as you make her out to be!" Well, uh... not exactly a ringing endorsement from her fanbase, if you ask me. :D


The media didn't do anything to her that she didn't do to herself. Always the "gotcha media" argument to cover up for the nitwit. .


The media clearly covered for Bama and took every shot they could at Palin.
The reason is that they are afraid of Palin, because she has a certain appeal to the intellectual level of the average voter--and you may not like it, but you can not deny it.

If she had been attending regular KKK meetings and spent 20 years of listening to her preacher rant and rave about white superiority, going to meetings to urge the release of people who were murders and terrorists of blacks, and on and on, we would have heard plenty about it.

yet I loved the look on Billy Clinton's face when he was asked about the difference between Wright and David Duke of the Klan, and all he could mumble was some none responsive answer when it was clear that what he wanted to say was, well one hates balcks because they are black and one hates whites because they are white...but we don't want to talk about that now do we?

And just where is that tape that the LA Times has of Obama going to that certain meeting...... the media built him up, and tried their best to screw her but in the end that changes nuthin

I firmly beleive that she will never be president, for reasons that have nothing to do with IQ---

as ole Kinky Freidman said, women do not really support other women as to why Hilliary lost, and then later said the same as to why Palin did not pull much support from women

many a great felony prosecutor knows when he wants to ship a woman to prison, load up the jury with women-not men--

[BDunnell]

The media clearly covered for Bama and took every shot they could at Palin.
The reason is that they are afraid of Palin, because she has a certain appeal to the intellectual level of the average voter--and you may not like it, but you can not deny it.

I don't deny that at all, but to suggest that there was some kind of media conspiracy against Palin is ridiculous. She brought it all on herself. No-one else committed all those gaffes — she did. It was quite right for the media to focus attention on them as long as they kept happening. It's her own fault that she became a figure of fun.

[markabilly]

I don't deny that at all, but to suggest that there was some kind of media conspiracy against Palin is ridiculous. She brought it all on herself. No-one else committed all those gaffes — she did. It was quite right for the media to focus attention on them as long as they kept happening. It's her own fault that she became a figure of fun.


You missed the point--she was NOT extended the same treatment as given Obama, the treatment of looking the other way, ignoring the gaffes.

Nobody else but Obama was attending all those sermons, nobody else but Bama was attending the meetings with terrorists, nobody else but Bama was changing his own political promises, nobody else but Bama had by far the least amount of administrative experience of all the candidates, the only person who Bama had the very same experience in international matters of the group of four candidates was Palin and she might well have had more, and if you can call his extremely limited time in Congress (add up those years, cause they ain't much, he had about 3 years in the Senate) experience in national matters, more than her

Then there was the story about being able to see russia from Alaska....like no way dude, but unfortunately, all too true, there are palces where one can get a very good view of russia.....

Point is my money says Obama had the same number or more of boo-boos, but you can be sure those NEVER EVER made it into the spotlight.....

besides, given the current stuation of talking heads, her experience as being a beauty queen candidate is far better training for running for national office nowadays then doing other things...all the worse for us all...

indeed much of her popularity came talking like she was still getting ready for the next event involving swimsuits.......

[BDunnell]

You missed the point

No, you are missing the point, but never mind. I'm beginning to find your posts increasingly confusing, if I'm honest.

[markabilly]

No, you are missing the point, but never mind. I'm beginning to find your posts increasingly confusing, if I'm honest.


That is because you like to put people in groups--Obama followers and worshippers; Palin worshippers; racists, liberals conservatives and so on.

I have no use for any of these folks who ran in the last election, but giving the devil his due, Bama got the highly favorable, cover up of all booboos, with max exposure of a positive upbeat news and Sarah scares the snot out of people like the bama worshipers and the media, so they twist and turn on her like 50 cent prostitutes jumping on a $1.00 john--not sure why, because as became clear with Hilliary, women have a tough time getting other women to support them, so they lose out where someone like a black man like Obama gains.....

sad thing is neither have any business in the white house and the absence of any real leadership willing to lead in making the sacrifices necessary is all too sad.

USA no more needs a hockey mom beauty queen as president than it does Obama, who is the true chameleon hypocrite, available to the highest bidder while so believingly mouthing all the words those demes love to hear while taking care of the fat cats of wall street while they screw this country just like they were doing while Bush has been president and no different than any repube... :(

All these promises of freebies, free health care, free houses, free bailouts and so on was the stuff that the old roman emperors said to keep themselves in office where rome began to rot from the inside out--the result will ultimately be no different

[Jag_Warrior]

The media clearly covered for Bama and took every shot they could at Palin.

Other than the tinfoil hat, wingnut conspiracy theories that continue to make their way around the innernut from fringe elements, how did "the media" conspire to "cover for Bama"? I'm far from being a media expert. So I ask simply to gain knowlege.



The reason is that they are afraid of Palin, because she has a certain appeal to the intellectual level of the average voter--and you may not like it, but you can not deny it.

Come on now. Do you really think anyone is afraid of Palin? And turkey birds don't count. But OK, I know some lifelong Republicans who are afraid of her. They're afraid that the neocons and Evangelical tongue speakers will get their way, prop her up in nomination like a wooden puppet... and cause them to stay out of power for the next 8 years (or more). But I'm not aware of anyone else being afraid of her.

I don't have data to say what the average voter's level of intelligence is. But if she truly appealed to the mean, then the mean would have voted for McCain/Palin and she would be ordering more clothes from Saks for the innauguration about now. Palin's main appeal seems to be with lower and lower middle class people, less well educated people in the south, Evangelicals and neocons... hardly the average voter, IMO. But if I'm wrong, show me the demographic data - and I'll admit it.



If she had been attending regular KKK meetings and spent 20 years of listening to her preacher rant and rave about white superiority, going to meetings to urge the release of people who were murders and terrorists of blacks, and on and on, we would have heard plenty about it.

I'm not sure that comparing Wright's church to the KKK is at all accurate. I don't know. But I've never seen pictures of a Klan rally with a Black (willingly) in attendance. There were Whites who attended Trinity though... or at least I saw Whites in the audience when the story broke.

Did Sarah get a bad wrap? Well, maybe if her husband had belonged to a seccessionist group that advocated her state leaving the union, by violent means if necessary: "My government is my worst enemy. I'm going to fight them with any means at hand." Or if she had attended a recent meeting of said group, while ending with: "Keep up the good work." Oh, wait a minute, those things did happen, and none of them got much, if any, major media coverage. Bad wrap or free pass?

I'm not sure what more people wanted to know about Wright. I'm not sure what more people expected the media to do than report the story, which all outlets that I'm aware of did do. It was a BIG story across the nation, as I recall. I'm not a Wright/Obama apologist by any means. I'm not that fond of either. It's just that I have NO use for Palin... or McCain, after he picked that fool as his running mate.

If anything, Palin and First Dude got a giant pass on their Alaska Independence Party goings on. Once it was established that Sarah wasn't herself a member, First Dude got a complete pass and I don't recall any legitimate news outlet (outside of something like MSNBC maybe) ever discussing the AIP again.

And as much as people say the media leaned on Sarah, I continue to ask, what exactly was done by the media to Sarah Palin that made her look bad? I mean before the election. And Saturday Night Live doesn't count - especially after she went on there and hammed it up even more. She made an ass of herself during the Couric interview. Should Katie have given her the questions (and answers) beforehand? She made an ass of herself by not taking the campaign's advice and doing an interview with the "President of France". Maybe it's just me, but if I hear from the President of France, and we're not friends beforehand, if he starts talking about how hot his freaky fashion model wife is in bed, I'm going to guess I'm being goofed. But maybe it's different where Sarah grew up.



yet I loved the look on Billy Clinton's face when he was asked about the difference between Wright and David Duke of the Klan, and all he could mumble was some none responsive answer when it was clear that what he wanted to say was, well one hates balcks because they are black and one hates whites because they are white...but we don't want to talk about that now do we?

Well, no doubt, the ice was already pretty thin under Slick's feet by that time - too bad he didn't fall through. But IMO, yes, Wright is as despicable as David Duke... or Joe Vogler. In fact, Vogler might be worse, because I don't believe either Wright or Duke have advocated violence... could be wrong, but not that I'm aware. Sarah's main man belonged(s?) to a group that apparently does advocate violence against the government of the United States of America. If you hate Blacks, that's your right. If you hate Whites, that's your right. But if you advocate the violent separation of a state from the U.S., that (IMO) deserves the Lee Roy Mercer Solution: 50 members of the 101st swoop in and whip your ass... Southern Style. If she's feeling particularly froggy, I invite Nitwit Palin to step to the front of that line and take hers first.



And just where is that tape that the LA Times has of Obama going to that certain meeting...... the media built him up, and tried their best to screw her but in the end that changes nuthin

That is a legitimate question, IMO. But if Fox News isn't still sniffing after that rabbit, I'd say the trail wasn't worth hunting anyway. Same with this citizenship thing; it has become a cause célèbre for the wingnuts and fringe players.




I firmly beleive that she will never be president, for reasons that have nothing to do with IQ---

as ole Kinky Freidman said, women do not really support other women as to why Hilliary lost, and then later said the same as to why Palin did not pull much support from women

many a great felony prosecutor knows when he wants to ship a woman to prison, load up the jury with women-not men--

Actually Hillary had a great number of female supporters. Obama isn't making her the next Secretary of State because he's overly fond of her. But a person who shares nothing more than common genitalia with other females isn't necessarly going to get a large percentage of the female vote. Your daughter got raped? Worried she might be pregnant? OK, let her buy the rape kit. And if she is pregnant, I guess she better plan on raising the kid... cause under NO circumstances is she going to get an abortion in Sarah's World. Jag_Warrior's feelings about abortion aside, a woman who believes such things is not going to get a big chunk of the female vote in the U.S. at this point in time. But if Hillary had gotten the nomination, I think she would have whooped Father Time and Moose Girl as well.

[BDunnell]

That is because you like to put people in groups--Obama followers and worshippers; Palin worshippers; racists, liberals conservatives and so on.

Rubbish. I just find your arguments totally lacking in substance no matter how long they go on for.

[markabilly]

Rubbish. I just find your arguments totally lacking in substance no matter how long they go on for.


Thank god, because had you agreed, I know I would be wrong, wong, wrong!!!

And gives me comfort, because when logic and facts fail, attack the person..

[markabilly]

Come on now. Do you really think anyone is afraid of Palin? And turkey birds don't count. But OK, I know some lifelong Republicans who are afraid of her. They're afraid that the neocons and Evangelical tongue speakers will get their way, prop her up in nomination like a wooden puppet... and cause them to stay out of power for the next 8 years (or more). But I'm not aware of anyone else being afraid of her.




Actually Hillary had a great number of female supporters. ......... But if Hillary had gotten the nomination, I think she would have whooped Father Time and Moose Girl as well.


A yellow dog could have beaten them as well.....but if the women of the demes had supported Hilliary the same as blacks supported Bama, she would be getting ready to move in, and Billy would be interviewing interns right now
and the secretary of state thing is simply pay-back to Hilliary for her support
.

There will always be some women power types who see supporting a woman to be the same as "supporting their views as women" (many of whom are lesbians and vocal feminists), but as a general rule, women do not support other women, and as demonstrated inside the McCain camp, a couple of repubes females were more than willing to stab Palin even if it meant pulling down mccain. Take away the feminists and lesbian voters--who have sufficient IQ to understand that Sarah ain't exactly supporting them and their views, leaves Palin with even less support

but palin has the touch with the great personality that comes across well through television which is why as you put it, "some lifelong Republicans who are afraid of her", and the only thing saving america is that palin is female and the attacks of the media

[BDunnell]

And gives me comfort, because when logic and facts fail, attack the person..

Not a bit of it. I would be perfectly happy to agree with you if I thought you were talking good sense.

[markabilly]

Not a bit of it. I would be perfectly happy to agree with you if I thought you were talking good sense.


I will ask Santa Claus to give you a tinfoil hat for christmas

[Jag_Warrior]

A yellow dog could have beaten them as well.....but if the women of the demes had supported Hilliary the same as blacks supported Bama, she would be getting ready to move in, and Billy would be interviewing interns right now

Your assertion is correct. Of course if 90% of all "women demes" had voted for Hillary, she would have won the nomination and probably the election thereafter. But you're mixing up the historical voting habits of two entirely different subgroup populations. First, Hillary had significant Black support. Only after she and Slick started dancing on thin ice did that support evaporate. The subgroup "women voters", or even "women demes", has NEVER voted for a party or candidate in that proportion. As you talk about "women voters/demes", I don't believe you realize that within that subgroup, there are many more subgroups: White, Black, Hispanic, Jewish... in addition to the ones that might also affect the subgroup "Black voters" (young, old, rich, poor, etc.). It's not realistic to believe that 90% of "women voters/demes" are going to vote for any candidate or party... short of some extraordinarily polarizing candidate making the scene. That subgroup is simply too fractured for that to happen.



and the secretary of state thing is simply pay-back to Hilliary for her support

Payback and reaching out to her base of support. It also may put a damper on the chance of a 2012 run by her. So he may take her off the table with this move. But I think this will prove to be his first major strategic error. We'll see.



but as a general rule, women do not support other women

Please show evidence or proof of this theory.



and as demonstrated inside the McCain camp, a couple of repubes females were more than willing to stab Palin even if it meant pulling down mccain.

Apparently there were more than a few women and men on McCain's campaign who had no use for Palin. Maybe it's the same thing that causes respectable people to look down on middle aged men who show up at important functions with silly-coned Vegas bimbos on their arms. Many of the initial McCain people were not neocons. But when the Rovites showed up, many of the reasonable people were shown the door. Palin, in addition to being nothing more than window dressing, probably received some scoffs because she was part of the move to take McCain to the extreme right.



Take away the feminists and lesbian voters--who have sufficient IQ to understand that Sarah ain't exactly supporting them and their views, leaves Palin with even less support

Agreed. And take away the women who are not radical feminists, but who do hold more liberal views, and she has even less support. On the right, take away the women who are not neocons or Evangelicals, and she has even less support. I maintain that her base is pretty much as I described it above.



but palin has the touch with the great personality that comes across well through television which is why as you put it, "some lifelong Republicans who are afraid of her", and the only thing saving america is that palin is female and the attacks of the media

In your opinion, she has a "great personality". In my opinion, she does not. I will give you that she is cute... "simply adorable", some say. But ones personality is judged differently by different people. Some people like her Gomer Pyle style of blowing off questions she doesn't know the answer to: "Oh man, I'm such an outsider!" I find that to be an incredibly annoying personality trait, for men or women.

The main thing "saving " America from Palin... is Palin.

[markabilly]

Please show evidence or proof of this theory.




.


All you do is look around you and watch women. Notice how they will be all cute and friendly with some other woman in a room, someone who appears to be a close friend, and as soon as she turns her back, they are talking the worst trash about her. Ask ole Kinky Freidman. Ask any really good prosecutor trying to slam some woman into prison--load the jury up with women--when it comes to responding to women on trial, the general rule is guys cry, women fry.

Not a bad thing for us guys, cause otherwise we'd all be in trouble.

bad enough, it is already, just imagine if they really were united instead of cat fighting all the time :eek:

[Jag_Warrior]

All you do is look around you and watch women.

Now we're tallking! So I just need to do more of what I do already. :s mokin:


Notice how they will be all cute and friendly with some other woman in a room, someone who appears to be a close friend, and as soon as she turns her back, they are talking the worst trash about her. Ask ole Kinky Freidman. Ask any really good prosecutor trying to slam some woman into prison--load the jury up with women--when it comes to responding to women on trial, the general rule is guys cry, women fry.

No offense, but anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean much. The women I'm watching might be (hopefully are!) single women on the prowl for a partner. And yeah, it's probably more likely that they'll knife each other under those circumstances. As far as court cases and jury make up, I don't know much about that. The last study that I read was when I was in school twenty some years ago. That one showed that women who commit the same crime as a man tend to draw a lighter sentence. My professor joked that if one wanted someone killed, and wanted to avoid having the killer go to jail, you would hire Christie Brinkley (this is back when she was young, happy and smokin' hot) to kill the person. His contention was that race, gender, social status or fame, wealth and physical attractiveness play major roles in conviction and sentencing.

But anecdotals aside (I'm still willing to watch girls in my spare time though... for the cause of politics and science, you understand ;) ), what I'm looking for is a study which shows that the average woman is (or is not) less likely to vote for a woman, even when the female candidate holds similar political views as the study subject.

Just as she showed at the recent Republican Governors Association meeting a couple of weeks ago, when it comes time to provide depth and substance, Sarah Palin comes up short. Even taking into account that some of her critics are also her future opponents for the big chair in the GOP, Sarah restricted herself to repetitive talking points... IMO, because that was all she had to offer. Somewhere within the Republican party, IMO, there is a female "Barack Obama": someone who can sufficiently satisfy the base, while reaching out beyond that base to win a national election. But in Sarah Palin, you have little more (maybe a little less) than a female Dan Quayle.

[Chaparral66]

[quote="Garry Walker"]Chaparral - Learn to quote properly, it is not that difficult, even for your average obama voter.

Take your own advice, Garry.

What opportunities is Obama giving small businesses? By taxing them more than before? How will this help them create new jobs?

When has he said he was taxing small businesses? He's been very clear that his intention is to give them a break. You need to quote him accurately. Not that difficult, even for your average conservative.

I despise religion more than I despise Obama. But I stand 100% behind protecting innocent human life.
It is funny how liberals are so against Death Penalty being used on scum of the earth, but have no worries about having innocent life murdered.

And it's funny how conservatives will torture and kill someone based on very little evidence as a purely punitive response. I support a woman's right to choose. It's a gut wrenching decision to make, but often in the long view, a humane one, not easily arrived at by people who take a very careful look at their circumstances.


For you to bring up such a thing, when it is obvious that both McCain and also hillary would have taken care of it, is quite mindboggling.

You said you wanted reasons why folks voted for Obama, and I gave them to you. I never said you had to agree with them, as I've said repeatedly. How you view those reasons is your business.

I live in Europe, I am pretty sure I know far more about Europe than you.
The forum removed the "f*ck" word from my post, so it didn`t make sense anymore :D

Well, good for you. You obviously anticipated my advice, assuming you were originally from the US. If not, stay where you are. You obviously wouldn't like it here.

Cruel is a very vague term used in connection with the terrorists.

"Cruel is vague term"? Now that is laughable. It's very clear in our US Constitution, which means torture is unacceptable, no matter who the enemy is.

What I wanted to see was what is this "change" about. Obama keeps rabbiting on about it, but I have seen nothing concrete yet. Nothing. His plans are nothing special. Yet it is still all about change change change. Change can be for better or for worse.

"Nothing?" He's not even been inaugerated yet, he's not in office until Jan. 20.
That's absolutely true, you can look it up if you don't believe me. I wouldn't lie to you about that. :) Having said that, Obama has had almost daily press conferences, announcing new staff members as well as his plans. I'd wait until he's in office and has had time to put them in place before being crtical. As for your quote, "change can be for better or for worse", I promise to write that down.

The comparison you made was so stupid that a 4th grader would be embarrassed to make such a claim, yet you see it as sort of an intellectual victory for yourself. Well, you voted Obama, so I am not surprised.

Well, congratulations. Looks like your 4th grade education paid off for you this once.

More than 1-2, but anyway, yes, I do believe most blacks voted for Obama for only one reason. His race. Nothing else differentiated him for the other candidates.

You believe all you want. I live here in the USA, so I'm pretty sure I know a lot more about the USA than you.

If blacks voted for Obama because he is black, then logically, whites voted for McCain because he is white. The same standard must apply to both. I believe niether is correct. But for you to believe one is true and not the other, indicates a strong racial bias on your part.

As I told JagWarrior, race was a factor, but the not the majority or deciding factor. Also, your speculation (which is ALL it is) ignores the fact that McCain is a Republican, while Obama is a Democrat. Of course, there is plenty to distinguish between the two on the issues. Having said that, it is perfectly reasonable for blacks, like ANY other ethinic group, to support a candidate who best reflects their point of view and interests.


McCain was getting far less corporate support than Obama. But McCain, of course, is just as corrupt.

That's arguable at best.

Well, isn`t the supreme court gathering to discuss the Obama case in december?

So what? Some reactionary individual like you is determined to make that happen, and that will probably be a quick procedural matter.

So far we have support from his grandmother and kenyan ambassador that Obama was born in kenya and I believe his birth records from Hawaii have not been released.

They have been seen on Snopes.com and Wikipedia, I believe, and fully authenticated.

[Chaparral66]

From Garry Walker:
That said, I expect nothing to come from it, the supreme court members would be shot in 1 day if they said Obama was not eligible for presidency and it doesn`t really matter to me as Biden is just as bad as Obama.

But you did think it mattered enough to mention it, didn't you? You seem to forget all the documantation politicians have to file on order to run, which are scrutinized by federal authorities. If there was something fishy about his citizenship, we'd have heard about it by now. If the government hasn't made that case as of yet, there's a reason.

There were reasons why those two got voted in. In Carters case it was Watergate, in Obamas case his race played a key factor, which helped him to get attention in the primaries. If he had been a white politician, he simply would not have had the attention and Hilary would have gone on to get the nomination.

Fact is both Carter and Obama won after the previous Republican adminstration either covered up criminal activity or abused the system throwing us into economic chaos and loss of stature on the world stage. Those facts were conveniently missing from your assessment.

Obama's race did get him some attention in the early primaries, if only for the media's insistance on saying it virtually every time, but certainly not more attention than Hillary Clinton, and not a lot more than the other candidates like John Edwards, or Joe Biden. Again, in case you haven't heard this before, black candidates have run for President before! But it was Obama's intellect, his carefully articulated positions, his overall message of change, and general charisma, plus a campaign that was superior in its organization than anyone else's, that were the major factors for him winning. This is a double edge sword coming from you, because you are indirectly assuming that blacks aren't smart to run an effective campaign that inspires people to come together and vote, and aren't smart enough to make an intelligent decision about a black candidate in comparison to other candidates.

You've got some real issues here, Garry.

Reverend wright was a piece of racist and Obama was associated with him for a long period of time. I repeat, if John McCain was associated with a former KKK-member, would the media have been as forgiving? Or the public? Of course not.

Really? And what excuse would you have made for McCain if in fact he was associated with the KKK? (He isn't, never has been)

Obama took forever to dismiss Wright and that, along with the fact that they were associates for a long period of time, makes me doubt how sincere obama was when he dismissed him.

Well, reject him he did, when it was clear he had the wrong idea about Wright, and when Wright wouldn't shut up. Wright was an important man in Obama's life, and when the truth come to light as to his ideas, I'm sure Obama found it difficult to turn him away. But Obama did the right thing and that's what you should be concerned about.

The only sick thing we have here is your maintaining that when 90% of blacks voted for Obama over Clinton, it had little to with race, when the experience of the candidates spoke vastly in Hilarys favour

That is a determination for each individual voter to make, and that is NOT subject to the judgement of anyone else. Here in the USA, we all have the freedom of choice, and we as citizens aren't dictated to by anyone to vote for particular person. And when Hillary didn't see the well organized campaign by Obama until too late, that no one's fault but Hillary Clinton's. As I have said, no one is entitled to a vote by default, it has to be earned. Obama simply worked harder for it. Start dealing with it.

Jesse Jackson actually got quite many votes, a lot of them black votes. But from that period of time it is impossible to find stats how many blacks voted for him.
Keyes was a republican and most blacks are not republican, therefor in primaries, he had little support from them. He was also too radical for mainstream success, so media never portrayed him as the "jesus", as they did with Obama.

Yeah, what's your point? I've already said numorous times why Jackson and Keyes didn't get enough votes. It's very simple. My point is that while those guys did run, they were not automatically inclined to get votes from the black community just because they were black. Obama is no Messiah. As you say, most most blacks are not Republican, so Keyes wasn't going to get a whole lot of the black vote. Jackson also wasn't going to get all the black vote, because while they liked him and his poltical views, they did not think he had all the qualifications needed to become President. Now hold it right here, what does that tell you? That blacks are, in fact, more than capable of looking at a candidates and their views of the issues and making an informed decision. Thanks for reinforcing my point for me.

What blacks (and the rest of America) found lacking in Shirley Chisolm, Jackson, and Keyes, they found in abundance in Barack Obama. You're just too stubborn and blind to admit it.

For you to keep denying that a lot of black vote due to Obamas race, is of course hilarious.

[B]What's hilarious is your ignorance, and the fact that you insist on this dillusion from Europe. You don't even live here, who the hell are you to be telling us how we in the USA voted?

What % range do you consider Obama got from blacks due to his race?[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's an issue. Why is it important? The important thing for me is that the country voted for the right man for the right reasons. What is important is that for the first time, the country as a whole forgot about petty differences such as skin color and ethinicity (something you fail to do), and concentrated on the issues that we face as a nation, and selected the one they felt was the best candidate because of where he stood on the issues. White, black, brown, yellow, or red, the sad state of the nation's and world's economy affect all of us in the USA, and the world as a whole. And yet, I am the last one to negate the historical significance of this election. Did the black candidate Barack Obama make history? Of course he did. Is that exciting to people? Of course it is, and if one is to believe the pictures and video streaming into the US media, your fellow Europeans feel the same way, as does the world. That is a reason to hope.

It's obvious that you don't feel the same way. OK, that's your perogative. But you are isolating yourself, along with the rest of the people who find it easy to hate. The world has embraced the man who won this election, despite whatever asinine and pitiful excuses you want to make. The bottom line is that Obama's view won, and yours lost. Time for you to stop acting like a loser.

[markabilly]

Now we're tallking! So I just need to do more of what I do already. :s mokin:



No offense, but anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean much. The women I'm watching might be (hopefully are!) single women on the prowl for a partner. And yeah, it's probably more likely that they'll knife each other under those circumstances. As far as court cases and jury make up, I don't know much about that. The last study that I read was when I was in school twenty some years ago. That one showed that women who commit the same crime as a man tend to draw a lighter sentence. My professor joked that if one wanted someone killed, and wanted to avoid having the killer go to jail, you would hire Christie Brinkley (this is back when she was young, happy and smokin' hot) to kill the person. His contention was that race, gender, social status or fame, wealth and physical attractiveness play major roles in conviction and sentencing.

But anecdotals aside (I'm still willing to watch girls in my spare time though... for the cause of politics and science, you understand ;) ), what I'm looking for is a study which shows that the average woman is (or is not) less likely to vote for a woman, even when the female candidate holds similar political views as the study subject.

.

Unless I get to share the cell with her, I would vote not guilty....

What the prof should have realized, if you wanted to fry Brinkley, get a jury of older women and NO men, and Christy would be crispy....

Worst problem with your study request, is that the actual political vote is taken in secret, and women in public will act differently towards women (esp. where the result would be meaningless as in the study) than when they act in private when the opportunity to inflict real pain presents itself.....then their little knives start stabbing.

Men are diffferent, inpublic they may well say all sorts of stuff abiout someone, but when in private and push comes to shove in private, they will always want to give mercy to litttle Christy

"The women I'm watching might be (hopefully are!) single women on the prowl for a partner. And yeah, it's probably more likely that they'll knife each other under those circumstances."

Probably??? You obviously have kept your distance and not be listening to those sweet girls....just ask your fav sweetie (if u got one use her for some other purpose.... well u know) what she thinks of about someone female while the other feamle is around to hear...."oh I just love your dress, you look so good" is what they say, but you will know how comfortable and confiding she is in you, when the other woman leaves, and you say something like, "best dress in the world will not help her look half as good as you in rags", and see the twinkle in her eye, assuming your eyes are not already rolling out of your head by her response, and that is assuming she does not beat you to it by saying something like, "that dress makes her look good cause it hides her fat butt so good...."

If she don't say it, then beware of what she be doing and with who when you ain't home..... :eek:

Palin still scares those lib demes and media types, because she comes across so everyday, sweet, hot soceer mom----thos old men may be laughing in public, but in private, they are lusting....all she really needed to do was smile at McCain and lick her lips, look into his eyes, and he wanted her--

that is why they r scared, but given her sex, she will never get enough of the actual female vote in private.....no matter how smart, how qualified or anything else......

Go ahead, be that way, and continue worrying and arguing over "depth and substance" as though that really matters to the average voter....and she will continue to give that "I am looking deep in your eyes" that she learned to do so well when she was running for beauty queen and scaring folks who ought to know better, making women jealous so that they never actually vote for her

[Tazio]

Palin still scares those lib demes and media types, because she comes across so everyday, sweet, hot soceer mom----thos old men may be laughing in public, but in private, they are lusting I am a middle aged male registered Democrat. I have been (Democrat, not middle aged)
since I was eligible to vote in 1972. My posture has has always been liberal!
Having said that, without a doubt I would thoroughly enjoy bustin’ a crate of eggs on that cute pouty mug sarah sports. ;)
However the prospect of having her as my President/ Commander in Chief gives me nightmares.
Not wet dreams! :laugh:

[markabilly]

I am a middle aged male registered Democrat. I have been (Democrat, not middle aged)
since I was eligible to vote in 1972. My posture has has always been liberal!
Having said that, without a doubt I would thoroughly enjoy bustin’ a crate of eggs on that cute pouty mug sarah sports. ;)
However the prospect of having her as my President/ Commander in Chief gives me nightmares.
Not wet dreams! :laugh:

Yeah right, when it came time for the private moment of voting, I bet you got off by yourself and pulled the lever for that little sweetie ............(all puns intended)

Actually seriously,
sounds like a waste of good eggs to me.......but thanks for sharing
besides we all know your wet dreams are red in color.....

what is wrong here??? None of you get it!!!

None of you got the IQ of the typical voter....till you start sniffing glue and get off the kool aid, then if you hold your breath for about an hour, you just might get there......maybe

[Chaparral66]

Below is a link to the short form copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate. Long form is held by the state of Hawaii due to state laws designed to protect an individual's privacy.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirthHawaii.jp g

[donKey jote]

OT but here gp a few late night donkey questions anyhow...

you enter "race" on a birth certificate in the US ? :crazy:

so what is the next president, black, caucasian or black-caucasian ?

what would I be presuming both my parents were Spanish, hispanic ? :p

is there no "mixed race" or "mongrel" I could tick ?

Good night :)

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[Mark]

Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. I think that's a very smart move.

[Chaparral66]

Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. I think that's a very smart move.

I agree. It's a very smart move on several levels. first, the Clintons enjoy a sterling reputation around the world, and she would be recieved well in most places. Obama obviously knows she is no shrinking violet and while her charm and charisma will carry her far, she can also be tough as nails and will be a formidable negotiator.

By having Hillary working for him, Obama also gets Bill Clinton, and he could see some work on Obama's behalf as a rovong envoy to places Hillary can't get to, and his charisma will be of good service as well. By having both Clintons, he will have some control over their actions and have an easier time monitoring their activities.

This move is also a political masterstroke. By Hillary accepting Sec'y of State, he has effecctively removed his closest rival in the Democratic primary in 2012, since it is highly unlikely she will challenge a President she just served. If Obama is merely competent, I doubt anyone in the Democratic party would challenge him in 2012, except maybe Hillary. That chance has now been removed. Hillary had to know that any opportunity to run again is gone until at least 2016, assuming she would be up to it. But by being Sec'y of State, she can have a voice in how the US rebuilds its stature in the world and show her grit in times of crisis. I agree she will be a very good Sec'y of State.

[Chaparral66]

Garry Walker:
Well, isn`t the supreme court gathering to discuss the Obama case in december?

So what? Some reactionary individual like you is determined to make that happen, and that will probably be a quick procedural matter.

And so it was. Word has just come down that the Supreme Court has turned away the case, not want to waste the taxpayers' time and money with an issue that has already been resolved in the eyes of most people. Brack Obama will officially and completely legally be our 44th President of The United States of America on Jan. 20, 2009.

[Roamy]

Well they have the birth cert handled fake or not. So lets see what he can do.
time to band together and kill some more terrorists and print more money. Cut these houses to half price and get some good looking bitches over for a barbeque!! Approve a mort for anyone with a job and we will be rockin!!

[Dave B]

time to band together and kill some more terrorists and print more money.
That's the main reason America's in the mess it currently finds itself.


Approve a mort for anyone with a job and we will be rockin!!
Sorry, that's the main reason America is in such a mess.

[Roamy]

oh oh what to we do
no money no mortgage no credit card yikes I may as well move to Finland.

Ok lets really shake it up. Print new money and everyone has to turn in your old money. Catch is you have to be a citizen to cash in you old money.
Get that border fence built and probably should think of one along the Canadian border. Would be like many many jobs if you have a degree in fence building. Scrap all foreign aid completely. Close all military bases world wide outside the US. Open a disposable grave stone factory for Jewish head stones that don't melt. Create OFECR "Old Farmers for Effective
Capital Retention. This insure food exports are tied to the price of Oil. Bail out the US car manufactures by 100% tax on every import whether or not the car is manufactured here. Move the UN to Brussels. Install minimum import tax of 30% on everything coming into the country.
Now who does this sound like????

[Chaparral66]

oh oh what to we do
no money no mortgage no credit card yikes I may as well move to Finland.

Ok lets really shake it up. Print new money and everyone has to turn in your old money. Catch is you have to be a citizen to cash in you old money.
Get that border fence built and probably should think of one along the Canadian border. Would be like many many jobs if you have a degree in fence building. Scrap all foreign aid completely. Close all military bases world wide outside the US. Open a disposable grave stone factory for Jewish head stones that don't melt. Create OFECR "Old Farmers for Effective
Capital Retention. This insure food exports are tied to the price of Oil. Bail out the US car manufactures by 100% tax on every import whether or not the car is manufactured here. Move the UN to Brussels. Install minimum import tax of 30% on everything coming into the country.
Now who does this sound like????

I know there is a point here, help us out a bit fousto, what's up?

[Roamy]

Well Chap there are many points.
We can't continue to bail the world out - we freaking went broke. Every time the politicians get in a bind they say Oh we will just build some fuching bridges. I don't think that will get it this time around. We have been foolish and now it is time for us to pay. We have to start doing business on a equal basis not free imports for you and 30% for us. We have many complete self serving idiots running this country. Which is why I always say we need a real viable 3rd party. Our sh!t is warn out with everyone just voting against the other. Next we have designated ourselves as protector of Israel. Ok I will buy that - Pack them up and move them to South Dakota. Those who won't come are on their own. We need to quit spending this ridicules amount money running around the world selling democracy. Screw it we are broke. We are one nation far away from the members of the UN - get it out of here. Move it to Brussels where it belongs. I think "global economy" is just a crock of crap. You make stuff and sell it. Nothing real global unless it is sold to other countries. We don't make anything here anymore because WOW its a global economy. How about it is a global exploitation.

Our congress is out of control - out of touch and massively confused.
so lets go build some bridges - oh and by the way maybe sell obama's old seat to Jackson's kid. - when is enough enough. Hell we have a straw snorting coke stuck so far into Mexico that we would start another "Global" recession if we handled our drug problem. Our congress is so inbred it won't matter who is running the country. Change will only come when we toss all the s out. Look at the Euros - did they give a sh!t about Georgia - Hell no - so here we are spending more money and scolding the Russians who are just laughing. - totally out of control we are. Now we are going to fight another war in Iran. If our so called partners won't help us in Iran then screw it. they will be a long time getting a missile over here. I could go on for days about this crap but I have to go spend billions in Poland installing missile banks - Sh!t pass the bong I am going to bed.

[markabilly]

Well Chap there are many points.
We can't continue to bail the world out - we freaking went broke. Every time the politicians get in a bind they say Oh we will just build some fuching bridges. I don't think that will get it this time around. We have been foolish and now it is time for us to pay. We have to start doing business on a equal basis not free imports for you and 30% for us. We have many complete self serving idiots running this country. Which is why I always say we need a real viable 3rd party. Our sh!t is warn out with everyone just voting against the other. Next we have designated ourselves as protector of Israel. Ok I will buy that - Pack them up and move them to South Dakota. Those who won't come are on their own. We need to quit spending this ridicules amount money running around the world selling democracy. Screw it we are broke. We are one nation far away from the members of the UN - get it out of here. Move it to Brussels where it belongs. I think "global economy" is just a crock of crap. You make stuff and sell it. Nothing real global unless it is sold to other countries. We don't make anything here anymore because WOW its a global economy. How about it is a global exploitation.

Our congress is out of control - out of touch and massively confused.
so lets go build some bridges - oh and by the way maybe sell obama's old seat to Jackson's kid. - when is enough enough. Hell we have a straw snorting coke stuck so far into Mexico that we would start another "Global" recession if we handled our drug problem. Our congress is so inbred it won't matter who is running the country. Change will only come when we toss all the s out. Look at the Euros - did they give a sh!t about Georgia - Hell no - so here we are spending more money and scolding the Russians who are just laughing. - totally out of control we are. Now we are going to fight another war in Iran. If our so called partners won't help us in Iran then screw it. they will be a long time getting a missile over here. I could go on for days about this crap but I have to go spend billions in Poland installing missile banks - Sh!t pass the bong I am going to bed.


Well all you folks celerbrating the price of oil ain't figured out that all the current bail-out ain't jack shyt, cause all those oil countries need somewhere like 70 to 90 a barrell of oil, or they will be heading down the road to being no-pays just like all those deadbeat, worthless, scuzzy, trashy people who got mortgages they can not pay cause they got no job but got a house they can not sell.......

But we should be glad, cause soon we will have ten anti-missiles missiles in PoleLand and those missiles are great, they have a record of hitting their target almost 20% of the time when we are talking scuds that bust apart half the time all on their own...

and could not hit a cruise missile unless it happen to be accidentally right in the wrong place when the anti-missile was launched, like flying a few feet right overhead of the anti-missile when the anti-missile was fired

But then ruskies better be scared cause that would mean they can not make gay paris glow in the dark unless they add another thousand or so to the missiles they got all ready...

Dude, don't bogart that joint my friend, pass it over here....I think I will have another one.....

[Roamy]

Hey look at this sh!t - Hey Israel after you country is freaking glowing for 10 years and all you people are freaking dead - we promise to blow the sh!t out of Iran. - Oh this is so great lets just legalize all drugs so we can get higher that a fuching kite while we listen to this crap.

President-elect Barack Obama will offer Israel a strategic pact designed to fend off any nuclear attack on the Jewish state by Iran, an Israeli newspaper reported on Thursday.

Haaretz, quoting an unnamed source, said the Obama administration would pledge under the proposed "nuclear umbrella" to respond to any Iranian strike on Israel with a "devastating U.S. nuclear response."

Granting Israel a nuclear guarantee would essentially suggest the U.S. is willing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran, the paper reported.

According to the paper's source, Obama's nuclear guarantee would be backed by a new and improved Israeli anti-ballistic missile system. The Bush administration took the first step by deploying an early-warning radar system, which enhances the ability to detect Iranian ballistic missiles.

[markabilly]

Sounds like WWI all over....we got nuke treaties with all these countries.....one spark and we will blow the world away. Why not stop it before millions die....errr sorry, I suddenly realized I might be making sense

what idiots do not get, is when your terrorist are already sending young women and children to get blowed up for Allah and take a few innocent women and children with them, you think that little response AFTER the fact is gonna make much difference----esp to the dead already toasted----Especially since my money says they will not be using a missile, just some truck or a small plane----

sounds like the Hillary Dumb-but Bunnny is already hopping around-but influence is already there with Dumb Bama, as they dance away to the afterglow of a nuke explosion

YESIR get old hilliary and Billy to be advising and setting american foriegn policy..............

After all NEVER forget that it was Billy and Hillary who let Oslob Obama leave that certain country and escape to Afganacan where they plotted 911 and other shyt.....


then BOOM

[markabilly]

Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. I think that's a very smart move.


I agree. It's a very smart move on several levels. first, the Clintons enjoy a sterling reputation around the world, and she would be recieved well in most places. Obama obviously knows she is no shrinking violet and while her charm and charisma will carry her far, she can also be tough as nails and will be a formidable negotiator.

By having Hillary working for him, Obama also gets Bill Clinton, and he could see some work on Obama's behalf as a rovong envoy to places Hillary can't get to, and his charisma will be of good service as well. By having both Clintons, he will have some control over their actions and have an easier time monitoring their activities.

This move is also a political masterstroke. By Hillary accepting Sec'y of State, he has effecctively removed his closest rival in the Democratic primary in 2012, since it is highly unlikely she will challenge a President she just served. If Obama is merely competent, I doubt anyone in the Democratic party would challenge him in 2012, except maybe Hillary. That chance has now been removed. Hillary had to know that any opportunity to run again is gone until at least 2016, assuming she would be up to it. But by being Sec'y of State, she can have a voice in how the US rebuilds its stature in the world and show her grit in times of crisis. I agree she will be a very good Sec'y of State.


About as good as the sweet pair of dumbbuts who let Bin Ladin run off to Afganistan and sat on their ass during blackhawk down, and so created the stage for 911, Iraq and all this other nonsense.....Opps, that was Billy and Hillary!!!

I bet the terrorists of this world must be shytting their panties, dancing and singing, oh happy days are here again..... :rotflmao: :wave:

Gee, the only thing dumber would be putting that bunch in charge of economic recovery, since they were the ones who signed off on that bank bill that was enacted after the great collapse of banks and designed (and WORKED great) for 75 years......and then about ten years later, what happenns but the same ole stuff all over again.....

Yeah the only ones dumber than Hill and Bill are the ones thinking that was a real brilliant move..... :bonce:

oh happy days, when obama walked, oh happy days

[markabilly]

Sounds like WWI all over....we got nuke treaties with all these countries.....one spark and we will blow the world away. Why not stop it before millions die....errr sorry, I suddenly realized I might be making sense

what idiots do not get, is when your terrorist are already sending young women and children to get blowed up for Allah and take a few innocent women and children with them, you think that little response AFTER the fact is gonna make much difference----esp to the dead already toasted----Especially since my money says they will not be using a missile, just some truck or a small plane----

sounds like the Hillary Dumb-but Bunnny is already hopping around-but influence is already there with Dumb Bama, as they dance away to the afterglow of a nuke explosion

YESIR get old hilliary and Billy to be advising and setting american foriegn policy..............

After all NEVER forget that it was Billy and Hillary who let Oslob Obama leave that certain country and escape to Afganacan where they plotted 911 and other shyt.....


then BOOM


I forgot to add that the whole idea of terrorism is to provoke a response, not to avoid a response;

So all we done is to promise what they want, which is a response....a nuke response...

yeah absolutely brilliant ---give them their desired response and martydom

Did I mention the small children and babies that were on those planes on 911...

Someone really dumb person might think that gee, it might be smarter not to give them nuke toys to play with in the first place, then to respond by nuking a bunch of cities, women and children in revenge for the death of other children of a different religious faith (actually given nuke blasts, there are a lot of others besides Jews that will be smoked-----), they are more than willing to kill fellow moslems to quarrantee them a place in heaven who will be also dying in the terrorist blast, so the threat of killing more moslems is gonna make a difference??? yeah right :grenade:

No that would be a really dumb idea, thank god for Hilly and Billy---otherwise 911 might never have happenned, then no Iraq war Afgan and so on.....yeah praise God and Allah

Thanks to Hilly and Billy we might get to dust off those nukes that have been laying around going un-used all these years and show the world just what great humantarians we really are in protecting the world from a terrorist with a nuke.....

[rah]

So let me get this straight, Bill Clinton is the cause of 911, Afganistan and Iraq? I think you might need more sleep, or are the FBI reading your brain when you sleep?

911 wasn't even the cause of Iraq, how are you pinning it on Bill?

Bill tried to get Osama and failed, George invaded the whole freakin country and still failed to find him, what would you suggest that Bill could have done more?

Thank you for reminding us that some civillian people died in 911, pretty sure we all knew though. I have heard that there have been a few civillian casualties in Iraq and Afganistan as well. Civillian are always victims in war, the only difference is that modern technology allows us to be able to kill civillians much more efficiently.

[Hawkmoon]

So let me get this straight, Bill Clinton is the cause of 911, Afganistan and Iraq? I think you might need more sleep, or are the FBI reading your brain when you sleep?

911 wasn't even the cause of Iraq, how are you pinning it on Bill?

Bill tried to get Osama and failed, George invaded the whole freakin country and still failed to find him, what would you suggest that Bill could have done more?

Thank you for reminding us that some civillian people died in 911, pretty sure we all knew though. I have heard that there have been a few civillian casualties in Iraq and Afganistan as well. Civillian are always victims in war, the only difference is that modern technology allows us to be able to kill civillians much more efficiently.

The Clinton Administration is partly to blame for 9/11. Clinton showed himself and the US to be weak-willed when it came to terrorism as best shown by his spathetic efforts in Somalia in the early to mid 90's. Clinton pulled out most of the US forces in Somalia. They went from something like 25,000 to 1200. Don't forget, the US entered Somalia at the behest of the UN not of their own accord. This was a UN-led peace keeping mission, not a US invaison.

When things didn't go as well as Clinton hoped he dithered and worried more about his image back home then he did about getting the job done in Somalia. After the "Blackhawk Down" events Clinton completely caved in and pulled out of Somalia all together. This demonstrated that all you had to do was kill a few Americans and the US would turn and run. Osama Bin Laden said as much at the time. He used America's indecisiveness as fuel for his rhetoric.

The Battle of Mogadishu cost 18 (I think) American lives and this, combined with images of American pilots being paraded through the streets, was enough for Clinton to panic and pull the troops out. I realise that it would suck to be one of those 18 but any engagement where you complete your objectives and lose 18 men to the cost of hundreds of the enemy is a success. The media turned it into a failure and Clinton wasn't strong enough to ignore the stupid media and get the job done.

Instead of smashing the militia when they had the chance they fostered the belief that the US didn't have the courage to get the job done. Somalia is now fertile ground for Islamic fundamentalism. Clinton could have put a little fear into the likes of Bin Laden if he had smashed the Somali militia, as he was tasked to do by the UN. Instead he emboldended them and groups like them all around the world.

[rah]

Heres a possible scenario, maybe clinto pulled out of Somalia because he sould see that his military was not capable of doing the job. Would 25,000 troops have done the job? I say whatever the reason for pulling out it may have been the best one. Look at Baghdad or any other city based conflict. How long would the US military have been in Somalia?

I don't like to make excuses for Bill, because he has many bad points, like any other US president, but blaming 911 on him is a stretch as far as I am concerned.

[Hawkmoon]

Of course the blame for 9/11 doesn't solely rest with Clinton. He did however, contribute to the conditions that prevailed in 2001 that made 9/11 more likely. This is the benefit of hindsight, it's always 20/20 vision.

I think the Somali situation could have been a success. The Battle of Mogadishu demonstrated the the US military was entirely capable of of wiping the floor with the Somali militants. The operation that lead to the battle was a success in that the Americans had captured two dozen leaders of the militia. Given the proper support I think the UN mission in Somalia would have removed the problem and Somalia would probably be in a much better state than it is today.

[markabilly]

Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. I think that's a very smart move.


I agree. It's a very smart move on several levels. first, the Clintons enjoy a sterling reputation around the world, and she would be recieved well in most places. Obama obviously knows she is no shrinking violet and while her charm and charisma will carry her far, she can also be tough as nails and will be a formidable negotiator.



But by being Sec'y of State, she can have a voice in how the US rebuilds its stature in the world and show her grit in times of crisis. I agree she will be a very good Sec'y of State.




Bill tried to get Osama and failed, George invaded the whole freakin country and still failed to find him, what would you suggest that Bill could have done more?

.


Hate to bore you children with the facts as to the "grit" of hilly and billy and the nonsense of billy boy trying to get bib laden......

in 1995, bin laden had worn out his welcome in the Sudan. The Sudan government offerred to hand him over to Hilly and Billy, but we would not take him!!! So the "grit" of hilly and Billy sent him where????Afgan!!!

Literally.

The first world trade center bombings occurred in 1998 at the express direction of bin laden, and Billy and Hilly did NOTHING...less than three years later, 911 occurred

And the terrorists trained in America on how to fly while Billy was still prez and a mere 7 months or so after Bush became prez, 911 went down...

and w/o 911, Bush never could have gathered support for invading Iraq or Afgan

Yeah that is what you call true grit, dudes and a brilliant choice!!!!!!right, sure, the terrorists are all shyting their pants, as singing "oh happy days, when bin laden walked, oh happy days......"

[Roamy]

So let me get this straight, Bill Clinton is the cause of 911, Afganistan and Iraq? I think you might need more sleep, or are the FBI reading your brain when you sleep?

911 wasn't even the cause of Iraq, how are you pinning it on Bill?

Bill tried to get Osama and failed, George invaded the whole freakin country and still failed to find him, what would you suggest that Bill could have done more?

Thank you for reminding us that some civillian people died in 911, pretty sure we all knew though. I have heard that there have been a few civillian casualties in Iraq and Afganistan as well. Civillian are always victims in war, the only difference is that modern technology allows us to be able to kill civillians much more efficiently.

Actually RAH
Clinton had Obama in the crosshairs with a finger on the trigger and let him live.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Lets just say turning the other cheek as Clinton did and walking away from a fight that was put upon the US in Somaila and by Osama in the first WTC bombing just showed the terrorists and those who would join that the US is scared to fight and scared to lose a few people to defend their way of life. We all know that the US ISNT likely to fail if the public and press support the President but as we have seen in the last 7 years, the President better damned well win big and quickly and everyone can go back to their milk and cookies.

This fallacy of US public opinon is pushed by the media who like to move on to the next thing. What did Bushie say in the months after the WTC fell? The Western world will be fighting and HAS been fighting a war vs extremist terrorists that may not end for 2 generations or more. Judging by the Israeli/Arab conflict, it may never end. There are those in the Arab world who can generate and percolate so much hate towards their fellow man that they can order children to strap bombs to themselves and detonate their way to a "paradise" that is promised. When you are fighting cowards like this on the streets of Baghdad, Jeruslam, Mumbai, or Kandahar, it is clear that no US president or world leader can really win in reality. If you ignore the problem like Clinton tried to (and as many on the left have opined) then you embolden them. If you fight them as Bush has tried, you take heat for the collateral damage and the cost in lives and finances. It is a no win.

Good luck Barack...you wanted this job. Now lets see how easy it is. Just promise me that in your so far myopic world view there is still some room for a little Old Testament revenge eh? Lets face the reality. Killing and disrupting terrorist networks is still a better option than ignoring them or trying to try them in a civilian US court. At least Obama hasn't advocated any full nation invasions yet...

[BDunnell]

Lets just say turning the other cheek as Clinton did and walking away from a fight that was put upon the US in Somaila and by Osama in the first WTC bombing just showed the terrorists and those who would join that the US is scared to fight and scared to lose a few people to defend their way of life. We all know that the US ISNT likely to fail if the public and press support the President but as we have seen in the last 7 years, the President better damned well win big and quickly and everyone can go back to their milk and cookies.

This fallacy of US public opinon is pushed by the media who like to move on to the next thing. What did Bushie say in the months after the WTC fell? The Western world will be fighting and HAS been fighting a war vs extremist terrorists that may not end for 2 generations or more. Judging by the Israeli/Arab conflict, it may never end.

In which case, what is the point? Moral superiority and revenge/retribution are not good reasons to go to war. They may even be counter-productive. I think we are seeing that now. Such things as the torture of terror suspects hardly reinforces the superiority of the way of life that the Bush administration's foreign policy has attempted to reinforce.


Lets face the reality. Killing and disrupting terrorist networks is still a better option than ignoring them or trying to try them in a civilian US court. At least Obama hasn't advocated any full nation invasions yet...

But this ignores the fact that current actions are doing nothing to reverse the inflammation of anti-US feelings, stirred up by the belligerent Bush years. This must at least be a concern. 'Everybody hates us but we don't care' isn't a good starting point for foreign policy, is it?

[Mark in Oshawa]

In which case, what is the point? Moral superiority and revenge/retribution are not good reasons to go to war. They may even be counter-productive. I think we are seeing that now. Such things as the torture of terror suspects hardly reinforces the superiority of the way of life that the Bush administration's foreign policy has attempted to reinforce.



But this ignores the fact that current actions are doing nothing to reverse the inflammation of anti-US feelings, stirred up by the belligerent Bush years. This must at least be a concern. 'Everybody hates us but we don't care' isn't a good starting point for foreign policy, is it?

Perhaps you are right. Let me ask you this. If the US pulled out of the arab world and let everyone fend for themselves, would this stop terrorism? REALLY? Heck..most of this crap predates their involvement in this part of the world. My point was there are not a lot of good options no matter what course is charted.

[BDunnell]

Perhaps you are right. Let me ask you this. If the US pulled out of the arab world and let everyone fend for themselves, would this stop terrorism? REALLY? Heck..most of this crap predates their involvement in this part of the world. My point was there are not a lot of good options no matter what course is charted.

Of course it wouldn't stop terrorism, which is rather my point. Alas, we have to accept the fact that it exists, that people will be killed, and that one example in particular — Northern Ireland, where terrorism was funded for so many years by successive US administrations — shows that the best way forward is through negotiation, as unpalatable as this may often be.

Agree totally with your last sentence there, by the way.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The only difference is I think to an extent, you must still fight at some level against it. Negotiation only works if there is someone on the other side willing to talk, and with the extreme views of Islamic terrorists, there is much evidence that any rationale they give for their actions are really just hiding the fact they want to do what they do.

[Roamy]

we need to just keep building the fence and let the entire other world deal with problems for a while. No foreign aid no intervention - As I said give the Jews one opportunity to move and they you are on your own. I see where the arab countries are now getting nervous about iran. the light has just came on that iran would blow the out of them just as well as the jews. Oh did you think radiation would stop at the israeli border??

[Tomi]

Oh did you think radiation would stop at the israeli border??

Maybe you should build somekind of shield around your home, then you dont have to be so scare all the time.

[Roamy]

i have one infrared and a 12 gauge - why don't you stop by at 3.00am

[Chaparral66]

The only difference is I think to an extent, you must still fight at some level against it. Negotiation only works if there is someone on the other side willing to talk, and with the extreme views of Islamic terrorists, there is much evidence that any rationale they give for their actions are really just hiding the fact they want to do what they do.

I think, Mark, that when Obama talks about negotiating with hostile groups, he means other countries who have issues with us, be it North Korea, Iran, or Pakistan. He's not referring to isolated radical terrorist group who hide from one country to another. He wants to negotiate with theose countries to stop sheltering them, so he can root them out and eliminate them as much as possible. You're never going to get rid of terrorists completely, there's always going to be breeding grounds for them. But working with other countries to limit their movements can help a great deal. Like Bush and other past presidents, Obama has never advocated dealing directly with terrorists.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chap...that wasn't quite the feeling I was getting back during the primaries. I agree with you that likely is the course he is going to take but Obama has been friends with a terrorist of sorts in William Ayers and see's no problem in THAT so I sort of question his politics on issues like this.

Listen. I like Obama as a man. I think he is a pretty bright guy whose politics I don't agree with all the time but that is ok by itself. However, you have to wonder about some of his ideas when he almost defends actions that are almost undefendable by people who he has done business with or is friends with....

[rah]

Chap...that wasn't quite the feeling I was getting back during the primaries. I agree with you that likely is the course he is going to take but Obama has been friends with a terrorist of sorts in William Ayers and see's no problem in THAT so I sort of question his politics on issues like this.

Listen. I like Obama as a man. I think he is a pretty bright guy whose politics I don't agree with all the time but that is ok by itself. However, you have to wonder about some of his ideas when he almost defends actions that are almost undefendable by people who he has done business with or is friends with....
But there is no proof that he has ever been friends with Ayers. And it is not as if Ayers is the same person he was in the 70's.

[Chaparral66]

But there is no proof that he has ever been friends with Ayers. And it is not as if Ayers is the same person he was in the 70's.

This is true. Obama and Ayers served on a few city committees together and had some meetings at Ayers' house a couple of time, but there is no indication that they went out and had a beer together or some such. This is like when townsfolk particpate in town meetings but once the meeting is over everybody goes to their own home. They knew each other enough to say hello on the street and chat a bit, but nothing more than that. Try not to buy into the hype of cynics trying to destroy someone by rumor and innuendo. Very often a mild bit of research will trump whatever slimy slander some hate filled person or group is trying to throw onto someone like Obama.

[Jag_Warrior]

Prior to the election, I read as much as I could stomach about Ayers, Obama and the Annenberg Challenge. It would have been easier to create a link between the Annenberg project being tied to terrorist support than it would Obama, based on what I read.

What was really funny about the whole Ayers/Obama thing was the person who made the biggest deal about it during the election (palin' with Palin) had the most skeletons in her closet. Sarah Palin had close ties to the anti-American, secessionist Alaska Independence Party (her husband was a member and she spoke at their gatherings). But for whatever reason, she was given a complete and total pass by the media (IMO).

I strongly disagree with Obama's pick of Solis as Labor Secretary. And I'm not happy about having Hillary (and Brother Bill) as Secretary of State - though I understand politically why he took her off the table for 2012. But like most Americans (and one who voted for W. Bush in 2000), I am quite happy that Obama won. McCain's pick of Palin said to me that this man cannot be allowed to occupy the highest office in this great land. We already appear to be on the same road as the declining Roman Empire. The prospect of a President Palin (should McCain have died during his term) would have been the icing on the cake. Who could imagine that learning disabled nitwit governing in a time of economic and political crisis?

Obama hasn't yet shown himself to be the wild & crazy radical leftie that the neocons tried to portray him as during the election. His economic beliefs are probably to the left of my own. But much of what I have been taught is right has proven to be wrong fairly recently. So I'm willing to give this fellow a chance to do it another way.

[Roamy]

Jag,
There is no way in hell the republican ticket was going to win the election. I am ok with that one as I didn't think McCain should have run in the first place.
But i want to see a total ass cleaning is the white house from top to bottom or I think we will head further down the road towards the roman empire. But maybe Obama and old Mama will pull it off. I still think we are too inbred in congress to accomplish much.

[Chaparral66]

Prior to the election, I read as much as I could stomach about Ayers, Obama and the Annenberg Challenge. It would have been easier to create a link between the Annenberg project being tied to terrorist support than it would Obama, based on what I read.

What was really funny about the whole Ayers/Obama thing was the person who made the biggest deal about it during the election (palin' with Palin) had the most skeletons in her closet. Sarah Palin had close ties to the anti-American, secessionist Alaska Independence Party (her husband was a member and she spoke at their gatherings). But for whatever reason, she was given a complete and total pass by the media (IMO).

I strongly disagree with Obama's pick of Solis as Labor Secretary. And I'm not happy about having Hillary (and Brother Bill) as Secretary of State - though I understand politically why he took her off the table for 2012. But like most Americans (and one who voted for W. Bush in 2000), I am quite happy that Obama won. McCain's pick of Palin said to me that this man cannot be allowed to occupy the highest office in this great land. We already appear to be on the same road as the declining Roman Empire. The prospect of a President Palin (should McCain have died during his term) would have been the icing on the cake. Who could imagine that learning disabled nitwit governing in a time of economic and political crisis?

Obama hasn't yet shown himself to be the wild & crazy radical leftie that the neocons tried to portray him as during the election. His economic beliefs are probably to the left of my own. But much of what I have been taught is right has proven to be wrong fairly recently. So I'm willing to give this fellow a chance to do it another way.

Talk about skeletons in the closet: it's just come out that Sarah's daughter's fiance's mother (Whew!) just got arrested on 6 felony counts of drug possession and distribution. What's that about? Sarah Palin is palling around with drug dealers???

That is certainly what the right wing radicals would throw Obama's way. I bet Palin didn't know about what her future son-in-law's mom alledgedly did, so trying to put her in that would be silly. This is why guilt by association is such a slippery slope. When you hear rumors like this, do what Jag did, do the research and find the out the truth. Cheers to you, Jag.

[markabilly]

Talk about skeletons in the closet: it's just come out that Sarah's daughter's fiance's mother (Whew!) just got arrested on 6 felony counts of drug possession and distribution. What's that about? Sarah Palin is palling around with drug dealers???

.

SO???

Capitalism at work. Supply and demand. At least Palin was not palling around with some deadbeat living off welfare or some nut case like Ayers, blowing up banks ....

[Jag_Warrior]

Fousto,

In addition to being a Republican at the worst possible time since Herbert Hoover (or maybe Richard Nixon), McCain ran a poorly executed campaign. He never found a message, that meant anything to the American people, that he could stick with for more than a weekend. The pick of Palin, and cozying up to the neocons and Evangelicals, was just the glaring mistake that chased away people like me, and many other fiscal conservatives/social libertarians.

Obama is already showing signs that he is not the hero of the left that many liberals hoped he'd be... and many conservatives feared. He's obviously an extremely bright guy. It appears that he is going to rule more from the center than either extreme. But I don't see him doing anything radical to clean up government or reform any particular agency. I might be wrong, but I expect big doses of Keynesianism, plently of pork to keep the masses relatively content and the unraveling of some of the Bush/Cheney policies that a lot of people hated anyway. I look for Congress to make decisions with their hearts in the right place and their heads up their #sses - the same things that got us into the mess that we're in now. I look for the American people to continue to act like sheep as they try to figure out who is selling them down the river. I look for the rich to continue getting richer, the poor to get a break under Obama and the middle class to continue shrinking as time goes on. I look for foreign firms and countries to have an even bigger ownership stake in and influence over the U.S. as time goes on. I'm just trying to figure out when the empire splits and whether it will be safer and better (this time) to live in the Eastern Empire or the Western Empire. I'm trying to figure out if Mexico represents the Vandals or the Visigoths. Are the Muslims the Huns? Does Israel represent the Barbarians from within the gates? As Arsenio used to say, things that make you go, Hmm... :dozey:

But if the neocons get their way and run the balance of moderates, fiscal conservatives and conservative/moderate social libertarians away from the GOP, there probably will be a Palin 2012 campaign. And... Obama will be President until 2016, in an even bigger landslide vs. the Alaska Airhead - and the neocons and Evangelical snake handlers will be shocked, just shocked that she doesn't win!

God help us all...

[Jag_Warrior]

Talk about skeletons in the closet: it's just come out that Sarah's daughter's fiance's mother (Whew!) just got arrested on 6 felony counts of drug possession and distribution. What's that about? Sarah Palin is palling around with drug dealers???

That is certainly what the right wing radicals would throw Obama's way. I bet Palin didn't know about what her future son-in-law's mom alledgedly did, so trying to put her in that would be silly. This is why guilt by association is such a slippery slope. When you hear rumors like this, do what Jag did, do the research and find the out the truth. Cheers to you, Jag.

Given my opinion that Sarah knows so little about so much, it's probably fair to assume that she didn't know this woman was a drug addict. From his MySpace page, it seems that Bristol's Baby Daddy was a weedhead hick - assuming he really is the Baby Daddy. Sarah probably didn't know that either. She probably didn't even know that her little Evangelical princess was out having unprotected sex (before marriage!). I mean, in Sarah's "church", aren't harlots forced to kiss rattlesnakes to prove their faith, or get beaten with rocks and sticks? The only thing that's clear to me is that when one of the McCain staffers referred to the Palin clan as The Wasilla Hillbillies, it was quite apparently a very accurate assessment.

From a social standpoint, Alaska is a trainwreck of a state, with the highest alcoholism and illicit drug use rate in the U.S. (according to a 2005 SAMHSA National Survey on Drug Use and Health). Its only saving grace is that it is blessed with rich natural resources and oil deposits. As Geico might say, even a caveman could run that state... and Sarah seems almost as bright as a Neanderthal.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind... given the available options, the right choice was made by the American people on November 4, 2008! I was going to vote for Barr up until the last minute. But I changed my mind the night before, after watching a friend of mine lose a debate with his wife (she was strong for Obama, he was weak for McCain and I was prepared to take the safe way out: Barr). We're all independents, with no party affiliations. But in the end, we all agreed that Obama was the only logical choice that would move us away from the ruinous years of the traitorous neocons (which all three of us hate with a purple pasion).

And if things don't work the way we hoped, Mexico just announced that it is raising the minimum wage to $4.18/day. Maybe time to head south. :D

[Jag_Warrior]

Oh yeah, my proudest moment of this election season was that the good people of Central Virginia (my home in my heart) kicked Virgil Goode to the curb. The recount is complete and the election results have been certified.

Goode is gone... good!!!

Goode was also a Hilljack. And even though I don't live there any longer, Goode is not the sort of person that should be representing a district that includes my alma mater. Wahoo Wah!!! Get yourself back to the hills, Goode! :s mokin:

May Tom Perriello do the area proud.

[Chaparral66]

SO???

Capitalism at work. Supply and demand. At least Palin was not palling around with some deadbeat living off welfare or some nut case like Ayers, blowing up banks ....

So what's your point?

[BDunnell]

To focus for a moment on the great scandal of the day, the Rod Blagojevich governorship sale in Illinois, I must share with you the magnificent radio ad which helped him storm to victory in 2002:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hPIyfQvSelY

[Jag_Warrior]

So what's your point?

Pablo Escobar was the greatest champion of capitalism of our time?

Hey, it was worth a shot. :D

[markabilly]

Rod Blagojevich is truly un-american and not transparent....he should have just posted the job on ebay and once again, let capitalism work its magic...

[markabilly]

So what's your point?


If you got to ask, you will never get it... :s mokin:

[markabilly]

Pablo Escobar was the greatest champion of capitalism of our time?

Hey, it was worth a shot. :D

Not really, as he did not believe in true competition in a free market but in elimination of competition, so as a champion, probably not.........but as a practioner, well a great example perhaps....

[Jag_Warrior]

Not really, as he did not believe in true competition in a free market but in elimination of competition, so as a champion, probably not.........but as a practioner, well a great example perhaps....

Well, I wasn't being serious. But I suppose one could argue that the former Medellín Cartel jefe was some sort of b#stardized laissez-faire capitalist.

[markabilly]

Well, I wasn't being serious. But I suppose one could argue that the former Medellín Cartel jefe was some sort of b#stardized laissez-faire capitalist.


But of course...the true capitalist in pursuit of maxing max profits will always seek to "eliminate" the competiton, by whatever means.....


champions of capitialism have come to recognize this is a fundemental problems and the need for regulation, as a practical matter

[markabilly]

An intersting article that has come out, reflecting my views on the current problems and why Bama's plan may not work well at all...http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/weekinreview/21uchitelle.html?ref=us


And then we have the bank exs who were bailed out, being on the receiving end of 1.6 BILLION....http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International_Business/Top_executives_of_bailed-out_banks_get_16_bn/rssarticleshow/3870816.cms
,,

[Roamy]

I stumbled across the following. Now this pisses me off regardless of which party it is.

"SNOPES" VALIDATES THE BELOW

FACTS:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home district includes San Francisco .

Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district.

Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi.

Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.

Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock.

In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.

Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an 'economic development credit in American Samoa '.

Pelosi has called the Bush Administration "CORRUPT" ? ?

How do you spell "HYPOCRISY" ? ?

[Roamy]

Pablo Escobar was the greatest champion of capitalism of our time?

Hey, it was worth a shot. :D

Hell Pablo created a whole new economy - which we can't afford to get rid off.
Actually a whole regional economy. I hope they quit kidnapping people. We obviously can't stop the influx.
I just wish they would let the Colombians invest in American Real Estate.

[markabilly]

I stumbled across the following. Now this pisses me off regardless of which party it is.

"SNOPES" VALIDATES THE BELOW

FACTS:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home district includes San Francisco .

Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district.

Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi.

Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.

Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock.

In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.

Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an 'economic development credit in American Samoa '.

Pelosi has called the Bush Administration "CORRUPT" ? ?

How do you spell "HYPOCRISY" ? ?


As I said several months ago, in a post on this very forum, the difference between repubes and demes, is that the repubes are far more open (or more stupid) about taking their business through the front door, while the demes do it even more than repubes, but they just sneak in the back door....

In getting into the senate, Bama was raising more money from fat cats on wall street than McCain ever did....and was a trend that continued in the presidential race...

Barney Franks did his best to block regulation and investigation into Fannie Maw and Freddie Mac...the fact that he had his boyfreind lover working at one never influenced him....and then there is the chairman in the senate of the banking committee who got all those free extras from commonwealth, never influenced him either.....
Meet the new boss, same as the old bosss

[Mark in Oshawa]

Markabilly...let me tell you that as an outsider who watches US politics from the north, I never am shocked by how low the Dem's can go while painting the Republicans with a wide brush. Another observation? Republicans, when caught with someone on their side doing something wrong usually kick the guy to the curb or turn on him. Democrats, usually elect these people leaders or at the very least, often say VERY little publically. They write this off as the price of doing business.

Every nation has its corrupt politicians but it is only in the US that so much is said about but openess and transparency while covering up a mulititude of sins.

Nancy Pelosi is the true antichrist IMO.....