|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 5, 2008 16:24:12 GMT -5
Truly a historic event; the first black President in US history. As Georges Laraque said, how can anyone play the race card now? When 98% of black voters vote for the black candidate over the white candidate, it's reasonable for whites to play the race card. Some of the voters have legitimate reasons for choosing Obama, economy, war, Bush's record, climate, market, Katrina; but when 98% vote along racial lines they are bigoted! White voters were fairly evenly split in an election where the popular vote was within a couple of points while many black voters were bigots. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 5, 2008 16:31:55 GMT -5
The historical significance of Obama's election isn't lost on me....the first African-American President. The jubilation is more than justified....but I think it begins and ends there, because that alone won't clean up, as BC has outlined above, the several steaming piles left on the White House lawn. Here's a huge opportunity for the USA to prove they are the Land of the Free. Cheers. "Land of the Free" refers to the amount of down payment the banks required a $35,000 a year unlicensed plumber needed to buy a small three bedroom house in LA valued at $1.2 million. If we thought the housing market collapsed, watch what happens to Washington property values after the Obama's move in. On a serious note, Obama is articulate, well educated and hard working, This will be a refreshing change. He plans to spend and tax and is the most liberal candidate to ever be elected president, not good! Hope for the best and prepare for the worst. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 5, 2008 16:36:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by roke on Nov 5, 2008 17:35:51 GMT -5
Truly a historic event; the first black President in US history. As Georges Laraque said, how can anyone play the race card now? When 98% of black voters vote for the black candidate over the white candidate, it's reasonable for whites to play the race card. Some of the voters have legitimate reasons for choosing Obama, economy, war, Bush's record, climate, market, Katrina; but when 98% vote along racial lines they are bigoted! White voters were fairly evenly split in an election where the popular vote was within a couple of points while many black voters were bigots. I've read that Kerry and Gore both received over 90% of the African-American vote in the last two elections. The higher turnout of African Americans is determined in a large way by Obama being a black candidate, but, at least recently form what I've read, African Americans tend to vote Democrat in overwhelming numbers. If you want I can try to dig up the data. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 5, 2008 20:11:33 GMT -5
There is a vast difference how Obama and McCain are perceived and the probable action they would take. One is a devout hawk that would have no problem deal with the issue in a hard manner and the other is a neophyte that Russia perceives as weak and inexpereineced.
Let's look at history.....
The Cuban missile crisis was a result of the Russian perceiving Kennedy as weak and inexperienced. While it ended without mushroom clouds, it was close. In the end, the Russians did take out the missiles....and the US took out their missiles from Turkey. The Russians got what they wanted even though to this day, Kennedy is held up as the "winner".
History is repeating itself....and hopefully, it has the same ending.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 5, 2008 20:14:16 GMT -5
Fully agree with TNG in regards to Obama's out-of-nowhere rise to power. I don't ... What would you rather have? A guy who could pass away in office and leave the reigns to someone with no experience at anything and can be made to look like a fool with easy questions .... or a guy with no experience who makes himself look intelligent with every word he utters? Both candidates in the election had the "inexperience" factor against them..... ... this is akin to Hiliary getting on her soapbox saying she had way more experience than Obama because she served tea and crumpets in the White House! She had four more years in the Senate I believe .... whoopie. The guy rose quickly to power, if anything, is an indication on how hard he is willing to work, how organized he is , and how damn good he is ... he deserves credit, not flack, for that! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 5, 2008 20:17:58 GMT -5
There is a vast difference how Obama and McCain are perceived and the probable action they would take. One is a devout hawk that would have no problem deal with the issue in a hard manner and the other is a neophyte that Russia perceives as weak and inexpereineced. Let's look at history..... The Cuban missile crisis was a result of the Russian perceiving Kennedy as weak and inexperienced. While it ended without mushroom clouds, it was close. In the end, the Russians did take out the missiles....and the US took out their missiles from Turkey. The Russians got what they wanted even though to this day, Kennedy is held up as the "winner". History is repeating itself....and hopefully, it has the same ending. What has McCain done to prove he would deal with the manner in a hard manner .... and hopefully Obama never has to deal with anything in "a hard manner", but that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. One shoots first and asks questions later (*cough* Saddam *cough*) .. the other is willing to make sure the information is correct before jumping the "gun" (ohhhh Skilly made a pun ...  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Nov 5, 2008 20:34:46 GMT -5
It seems funny to me that millions of Americans were willing to trust Bush with his experience (the experience of booze, coke, whores, and bankrupting companies), for a second mandate even, but are skeptical of trusting Obama because he is inexperienced, and may be weak and powerless on the world stage, even though he sounds smart?
Obama doesn’t strike me as the type to sit on his hands over the next 4 years and blame Bush for every single problem America currently faces, and site this as an excuse for inaction. But lets face it, removing any bias, even if Obama fell into a coma tomorrow and for the next four years, essentially ran the country through involuntary nudges of his nose to make decisions, he would still be better than Bush.
And yes, Bush CAN be partially and strongly blamed for the current state of the economy through his fiscal (mis)management. How can a government borrow trillions of dollars to fund an illegitimate war (and by borrowing, I am implying that the Federal Reserve simply prints more money at the request of Congress), and it not have an effect on the money supply, the value of money, and the wealth of the country?
Yes the Bush government did as little as previous governments to regain some of the power bestowed on the Federal Reserve to control money, after the FR hoodwinked Congress into granting it ultimate authority over money decades ago and allowing banks to essentially regulate themselves, but the Banks did what they could with worthless paper to fuel their own greed: they lent it out to whomever asked for it. Remember, the Federal Reserve is not a central bank in the traditional sense. It is not a government agency. It is controlled by bankers. There is a reason interest rates in the US were as low as they ever were in recent history, and Bush’s fiscal policy has everything to do with it. When they are so low, and money is as worthless as it is, it will give way to reckless lending/re-financing like it was earlier this decade, especially in the absence of any type of real banking regulation.
That is why I laugh at the rhetoric being thrown about regarding Obama’s plan to increase taxation for higher earners. I’d rather be taxed by some telling me directly to my face that I’m going to be taxed, rather than through the hidden tax of inflation caused by increasing the money supply without the wealth of a growing economy to back it up by simply printing more money. Especially, if I know it is going towards something positive and just like a national health care plan. Ask someone who has had to foreclose, or is now in an upside down mortgage (currently 1 in 5 Americans with a mortgage), if they knew they were actually being taxed by buying property that was over-inflated in value because of excessive and easy access to cheap money, now that home values have deflated to adjust to the correct amount of wealth in the economy? They'd feel pretty crappy, I bet. They’d see their doctor for their anxiety and stress, only they can’t afford it without any health insurance.
I love America, and a lot about it. We enjoy much of our wealth because of our relationship to them. It sickened me to see the self-induced damage created to it over the last 8 years. Probably, the worst 8 years ever in its great history. They have some serious fundamental problems that need to be fixed because of the damage. What most Americans now seem to understand is the formula where ideologues rule over pragmatists doesn’t work on any level. This is not a Democrat/Republican reference either as there are many Republicans who feel the same way. That is that everything about Bush over the last 8 years has been far removed from the typical values that most non-religious conservative Republicans take to heart. i.e. fiscal responsibility, less government… And the country is far worse off because of it.
Obama is faced with the challenge of making the nation better off 4 years from now, than it currently is (how can it conceivably get any worse?) It is going to take a thinker and someone with a little imagination and vision (and courage to try something new). Given everything he says and stands for and from where he is starting from, he deserves the chance before some commit him to failure before he even starts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 5, 2008 20:44:14 GMT -5
You might be right and only time will tell,... but I think it's time the Americans try to take a different approach towards the rest of the world, at the risk that Russia doesn't buy the "ideologie"..... It seems obvious that the Bush / McCain ideologie didn't do too much good as far as maintaining good relationships with the rest of the world....It doesn't seem like Bush was a very good "listener"... which is never a good quality when you try to negotiate any sort of peace... If Russia isn't cooperating but the rest of the free world (and maybe beyond) gets on board, I say the USA will be in better shape. I don't think more Bush scaring tactics is what the world needs right now.... I still don't understand how the fact McCain was a military guy give him such a gigantic advantage. Although the president has the final say, I'm sure they must consult with a multitude of experts and generals etc...... before they make that call. How would Obama not understand just as much ? ..... he will be well surrounded ? He seems like a very smart men ? How many President were war heroes ? Like you said, I really think there is a LOT more to be president than being the commander in chief. With all due respect, the views that you are expressing now is EXACTLY the reason why they did this. This has nothing to do with generals and military might. This has to do with Obama's endlessly repeated mantra about talking to ones enemies and the lefts anti war stand. How does Obama take a hard stance against whatever the Russian want to do after claiming that he wants to "talk things out". So they talk....and talk....and maybe, just maybe things don't go to hell. Obama "won" in many eyes. But..... China invades Taiwan and the US just wants to talk them out of it. Iran finally declares that it has nuclear weapons and Obama wants to talk about it. Meanwhile Israel prepares nuclear armageddon. For Israel, talk is beyond cheap when annihilation is a few missiles away. Pakistan and India are a skirmish away from hell. US weakness, or the lack of will to use the bully's overwhelming military power creates an atmoshpere of "every man for himself". All of these scenarios are far too likely for anyone to dismiss. How this missile crisis is handled, or mishandled, will send a very clear message to Iran, China, Russia and Israel. Lastly.... In geopolitics, power vacuums, perceived or real, create opportunity, instability and adventurerism. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 5, 2008 20:58:09 GMT -5
It seems funny to me that millions of Americans were willing to trust Bush with his experience (the experience of booze, coke, whores, and bankrupting companies), for a second mandate even, but are skeptical of trusting Obama because he is inexperienced, and may be weak and powerless on the world stage, even though he sounds smart? Obama doesn’t strike me as the type to sit on his hands over the next 4 years and blame Bush for every single problem America currently faces, and site this as an excuse for inaction. But lets face it, removing any bias, even if Obama fell into a coma tomorrow and for the next four years, essentially ran the country through involuntary nudges of his nose to make decisions, he would still be better than Bush. And yes, Bush CAN be partially and strongly blamed for the current state of the economy through his fiscal (mis)management. How can a government borrow trillions of dollars to fund an illegitimate war (and by borrowing, I am implying that the Federal Reserve simply prints more money at the request of Congress), and it not have an effect on the money supply, the value of money, and the wealth of the country? Yes the Bush government did as little as previous governments to regain some of the power bestowed on the Federal Reserve to control money, after the FR hoodwinked Congress into granting it ultimate authority over money decades ago and allowing banks to essentially regulate themselves, but the Banks did what they could with worthless paper to fuel their own greed: they lent it out to whomever asked for it. Remember, the Federal Reserve is not a central bank in the traditional sense. It is not a government agency. It is controlled by bankers. There is a reason interest rates in the US were as low as they ever were in recent history, and Bush’s fiscal policy has everything to do with it. When they are so low, and money is as worthless as it is, it will give way to reckless lending/re-financing like it was earlier this decade, especially in the absence of any type of real banking regulation. That is why I laugh at the rhetoric being thrown about regarding Obama’s plan to increase taxation for higher earners. I’d rather be taxed by some telling me directly to my face that I’m going to be taxed, rather than through the hidden tax of inflation caused by increasing the money supply without the wealth of a growing economy to back it up by simply printing more money. Especially, if I know it is going towards something positive and just like a national health care plan. Ask someone who has had to foreclose, or is now in an upside down mortgage (currently 1 in 5 Americans with a mortgage), if they knew they were actually being taxed by buying property that was over-inflated in value because of excessive and easy access to cheap money, now that home values have deflated to adjust to the correct amount of wealth in the economy? They'd feel pretty crappy, I bet. They’d see their doctor for their anxiety and stress, only they can’t afford it without any health insurance. I love America, and a lot about it. We enjoy much of our wealth because of our relationship to them. It sickened me to see the self-induced damage created to it over the last 8 years. Probably, the worst 8 years ever in its great history. They have some serious fundamental problems that need to be fixed because of the damage. What most Americans now seem to understand is the formula where ideologues rule over pragmatists doesn’t work on any level. This is not a Democrat/Republican reference either as there are many Republicans who feel the same way. That is that everything about Bush over the last 8 years has been far removed from the typical values that most non-religious conservative Republicans take to heart. i.e. fiscal responsibility, less government… And the country is far worse off because of it. Obama is faced with the challenge of making the nation better off 4 years from now, than it currently is (how can it conceivably get any worse?) It is going to take a thinker and someone with a little imagination and vision (and courage to try something new). Given everything he says and stands for and from where he is starting from, he deserves the chance before some commit him to failure before he even starts. Bush cause the economic problems? Really? And who caused Britains problem? Irelands? Icelands? Germanys? Greece? Shall I go on? The root cause of EVERYBODYs problem is the reduction of interest rates to feul their economies. Every Western country including ours kept decreasing interest rates as the cheapest way to create constant growth and employment. The economic crash was coming regardless of anything else. Canadians are in the same boat and we can talk about that in February. As for the war, the US has about 24 trillion in government and personal debt. Even if the war cost a trillion dollar over five years, it's irrelevant in the big scheme of crazy borrowing. I am no fan of Bush but this "Bush did it" has become totally reflexive. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 5, 2008 21:16:39 GMT -5
There is a vast difference how Obama and McCain are perceived and the probable action they would take. One is a devout hawk that would have no problem deal with the issue in a hard manner and the other is a neophyte that Russia perceives as weak and inexpereineced. Let's look at history..... The Cuban missile crisis was a result of the Russian perceiving Kennedy as weak and inexperienced. While it ended without mushroom clouds, it was close. In the end, the Russians did take out the missiles....and the US took out their missiles from Turkey. The Russians got what they wanted even though to this day, Kennedy is held up as the "winner". History is repeating itself....and hopefully, it has the same ending. What has McCain done to prove he would deal with the manner in a hard manner .... and hopefully Obama never has to deal with anything in "a hard manner", but that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. One shoots first and asks questions later (*cough* Saddam *cough*) .. the other is willing to make sure the information is correct before jumping the "gun" (ohhhh Skilly made a pun ... ) That is irrelevnt in geopolitics, in fact, it's a weakness. What and how we want things to be done is a weapon that is used against us. |
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Nov 5, 2008 22:09:19 GMT -5
It seems funny to me that millions of Americans were willing to trust Bush with his experience (the experience of booze, coke, whores, and bankrupting companies), for a second mandate even, but are skeptical of trusting Obama because he is inexperienced, and may be weak and powerless on the world stage, even though he sounds smart? Obama doesn’t strike me as the type to sit on his hands over the next 4 years and blame Bush for every single problem America currently faces, and site this as an excuse for inaction. But lets face it, removing any bias, even if Obama fell into a coma tomorrow and for the next four years, essentially ran the country through involuntary nudges of his nose to make decisions, he would still be better than Bush. And yes, Bush CAN be partially and strongly blamed for the current state of the economy through his fiscal (mis)management. How can a government borrow trillions of dollars to fund an illegitimate war (and by borrowing, I am implying that the Federal Reserve simply prints more money at the request of Congress), and it not have an effect on the money supply, the value of money, and the wealth of the country? Yes the Bush government did as little as previous governments to regain some of the power bestowed on the Federal Reserve to control money, after the FR hoodwinked Congress into granting it ultimate authority over money decades ago and allowing banks to essentially regulate themselves, but the Banks did what they could with worthless paper to fuel their own greed: they lent it out to whomever asked for it. Remember, the Federal Reserve is not a central bank in the traditional sense. It is not a government agency. It is controlled by bankers. There is a reason interest rates in the US were as low as they ever were in recent history, and Bush’s fiscal policy has everything to do with it. When they are so low, and money is as worthless as it is, it will give way to reckless lending/re-financing like it was earlier this decade, especially in the absence of any type of real banking regulation. That is why I laugh at the rhetoric being thrown about regarding Obama’s plan to increase taxation for higher earners. I’d rather be taxed by some telling me directly to my face that I’m going to be taxed, rather than through the hidden tax of inflation caused by increasing the money supply without the wealth of a growing economy to back it up by simply printing more money. Especially, if I know it is going towards something positive and just like a national health care plan. Ask someone who has had to foreclose, or is now in an upside down mortgage (currently 1 in 5 Americans with a mortgage), if they knew they were actually being taxed by buying property that was over-inflated in value because of excessive and easy access to cheap money, now that home values have deflated to adjust to the correct amount of wealth in the economy? They'd feel pretty crappy, I bet. They’d see their doctor for their anxiety and stress, only they can’t afford it without any health insurance. I love America, and a lot about it. We enjoy much of our wealth because of our relationship to them. It sickened me to see the self-induced damage created to it over the last 8 years. Probably, the worst 8 years ever in its great history. They have some serious fundamental problems that need to be fixed because of the damage. What most Americans now seem to understand is the formula where ideologues rule over pragmatists doesn’t work on any level. This is not a Democrat/Republican reference either as there are many Republicans who feel the same way. That is that everything about Bush over the last 8 years has been far removed from the typical values that most non-religious conservative Republicans take to heart. i.e. fiscal responsibility, less government… And the country is far worse off because of it. Obama is faced with the challenge of making the nation better off 4 years from now, than it currently is (how can it conceivably get any worse?) It is going to take a thinker and someone with a little imagination and vision (and courage to try something new). Given everything he says and stands for and from where he is starting from, he deserves the chance before some commit him to failure before he even starts. Bush cause the economic problems? Really? And who caused Britains problem? Irelands? Icelands? Germanys? Greece? Shall I go on? The root cause of EVERYBODYs problem is the reduction of interest rates to feul their economies. Every Western country including ours kept decreasing interest rates as the cheapest way to create constant growth and employment. The economic crash was coming regardless of anything else. Canadians are in the same boat and we can talk about that in February. As for the war, the US has about 24 trillion in government and personal debt. Even if the war cost a trillion dollar over five years, it's irrelevant in the big scheme of crazy borrowing. I am no fan of Bush but this "Bush did it" has become totally reflexive. I said "partially and strongly" to blame. US Government debt reached 10 trillion this year, and the real cost of the war is about to reach 2 trillion. That is excessive money growth in a contracting economy and enough to seriously erode the value of the US dollar, as we have seen. Other nation's problems were inextricably tied to the US through the inexperience of dealing with risky debt instruments tied to sub-prime mortgages out of the US. You don't need reserves if you issue sub-prime mortgages and package them away in some new fangled debt instruments, and you didn't need to hold reserves if you hold the same sub-prime debt instruments. It seemed like genius to bankers all over the world at the time, but who knew? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 5, 2008 22:49:29 GMT -5
Fully agree with TNG in regards to Obama's out-of-nowhere rise to power. I don't ... What would you rather have? A guy who could pass away in office and leave the reigns to someone with no experience at anything and can be made to look like a fool with easy questions .... or a guy with no experience who makes himself look intelligent with every word he utters? Both candidates in the election had the "inexperience" factor against them..... ... this is akin to Hiliary getting on her soapbox saying she had way more experience than Obama because she served tea and crumpets in the White House! She had four more years in the Senate I believe .... whoopie. The guy rose quickly to power, if anything, is an indication on how hard he is willing to work, how organized he is , and how damn good he is ... he deserves credit, not flack, for that! Where did I say I would rather have McCain-Palin in power? I said I agreed that Obama rose to power quickly....and I offered something I heard today from a man who lived in Chicago for the past few years. Driven, ambitious, determined, motivated, articulate, intelligent.....awesome. But you have to admit that it was a rocket shot to to the top boosted by George W. Bush Legacy thrusters. I think his greatest victory was stopping the Clinton machine. Obama had quite the campaign team, and he gave them full credit last night. I also said I enjoy hearing all sides. For the record, I would have voted Obama in this one. I wish him well. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 6, 2008 0:13:15 GMT -5
I don't ... What would you rather have? A guy who could pass away in office and leave the reigns to someone with no experience at anything and can be made to look like a fool with easy questions .... or a guy with no experience who makes himself look intelligent with every word he utters? Both candidates in the election had the "inexperience" factor against them..... That wasn't quite entirely my point. It's not the lack of political experience, although that is mildly frightening, but the meteoric rise to power. Three years ago no one had heard of Barack Obama. Today he's being recast as a messianic saviour of the "American Way" or what have you. That tells me that people are voting not with their heads, but with their hearts. And frankly, people are stupid enough when they think about what they're doing. When you can convince them to stop thinking and hop on the Obama-train, you wind up with the equivalent of Leaf fans. The experience issue is another thing. And while I believe such experience to be important, it's not what leaves me feeling uneasy about Obama. It's just one of his (many) flaws (and yes, McCain and Palin and Biden all have many flaws too) A thought though - you seem to take a lot of credit away from Palin. She's a bright girl. Her public speaking skills are not up to snuff - but I've already touched on flaws haven't I. She was also given some tough material to work with - she was trying to cast herself as Joe Average (she's not) and speak to the common man. That's not always that easy. It's like the people who thought George Bush Jr. was dumb. He's not. He's just not great at talking off the cuff, which is sadly something he seems to think he's good at. ... this is akin to Hiliary getting on her soapbox saying she had way more experience than Obama because she served tea and crumpets in the White House! She had four more years in the Senate I believe .... whoopie. The First Lady, while holding no official power, is often involved on the edge of the Washington political scene. Besides attending official ceremonies and functions of the states (and thereby being discussing political matters with Presidential counterparts from other nations), HRC in particular was actually employed by the Clinton Administration during her tenure as First Lady in examining reforms to the health care system. She led policy proposals on various domestic issues, traveled abroad as a representative of the State Department, and advised the President while keeping West Wing offices for herself and her staff. Not just tea and crumpets... The guy rose quickly to power, if anything, is an indication on how hard he is willing to work, how organized he is , and how damn good he is ... he deserves credit, not flack, for that! Or it's a sign of how easy it is to convince a man dying of thirst in the desert to follow you when you say you know where water is. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 6, 2008 1:27:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure how Bush's presidency will actually be recorded by the history books. Sometimes, even the good guys cover up previous gaffes because it is considered harmful to the state. Personally, I think the mans ineptitude, his greed and his cronyism have hurt the US to a tremendous degree. While I'm not an expert on US history, I recall reading or hearing somewhere that part of Lincoln's greatness is that he had to clean up the mess caused by two pathetic prior presidents.
Can anyone provide me with an example of something good that happened during the Bush presidency? Let's see....a terrorist attack, probably encouraged by the weakness seen by his enemies; fewer jobs at the end of his presidency than at the start, a historical first; not one but two stock market crashes; a criminal reaction to the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina; a senseless war; taking over 800 days of vacation during his terms (though in hindsight, maybe he should have taken more time off); I'm sure you could add more, but I think those are sufficiently high lowlights.
What a pathetic man and what a travesty by the American people, nearly voting him in twice. You get what you pay for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 6, 2008 2:06:41 GMT -5
I'm not sure how Bush's presidency will actually be recorded by the history books. Sometimes, even the good guys cover up previous gaffes because it is considered harmful to the state. Personally, I think the mans ineptitude, his greed and his cronyism have hurt the US to a tremendous degree. While I'm not an expert on US history, I recall reading or hearing somewhere that part of Lincoln's greatness is that he had to clean up the mess caused by two pathetic prior presidents. Can anyone provide me with an example of something good that happened during the Bush presidency? Let's see....a terrorist attack, probably encouraged by the weakness seen by his enemies; fewer jobs at the end of his presidency than at the start, a historical first; not one but two stock market crashes; a criminal reaction to the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina; a senseless war; taking over 800 days of vacation during his terms (though in hindsight, maybe he should have taken more time off); I'm sure you could add more, but I think those are sufficiently high lowlights. What a pathetic man and what a travesty by the American people, nearly voting him in twice. You get what you pay for. Despite the attack on the World Trade Centers, he remained calm, persevered and completed his reading to the schoolchildren in Florida. He ran a swift war and defeated the Iraqi army with a minimum of casualties before declaring "Mission Accomplished". The economy flourished for the first four years of his presidency despite a war. Property values rose to stratospheric levels and everyone was able to buy a house. Interest rates were brought down. (If he is guilty of becoming dependent on arabs for $147 a barrel oil, he gets credit for oil coming down to $65 a barrel.) He provided David Letterman, Jay Leno and Saturday Night Live with great material. He did more than Oprah and Streisand combined to help get Obama elected.  I'm thinking?? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 6, 2008 7:59:01 GMT -5
That wasn't quite entirely my point. It's not the lack of political experience, although that is mildly frightening, but the meteoric rise to power. Three years ago no one had heard of Barack Obama. Barack is not alone in this ... 3 months ago no one heard of Sarah Palin. And as CH said, Obama's greatest victory was defeating the Clinton's who assumed that it was their right to rule. I may be wrong in this thinking, but I think Obama's rise has more to due with the American people being fed up with the dirty politics of the Bush's and Clinton's .... and the negative campaign of McCain from day 1 (even though Obama did go negative the last 2 weeks). Not a saviour ... just something different. It would be like Canada voting NDP. Not exactly a saviour, but at least they have a clean record. (relative to the other options) So would you consider voting for GWB a head vote or a heart vote? Alot of good to great Presidents were voted in because of heart-strings and people felt moved..... Maybe I expect alot from our leaders .... but IMO, a president or a vice-president should never answer a question (a direct question) with a nudge and a wink and "I'll have to get back to you on that" .... she opens her mouth and says stuff and thinks it won't be questioned. I mean come on ... how smart to you have to be to know that when you say "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business" that the very next question posed will be "How?" ..... Sounds more to me like a conflict of interest and government gouging by the Clintons (and yes other presidents) .... So let's review. She was First Lady for 8 years, and in the senate for 8 years .... and in those 16 years how many changes to the health care system did she get passed in Congress? None - and she held the president's ear every night at the supper table? Maybe it was time to stop "examining reforms" and actually "reform" .... IMO ... people say her as "all talk - no action while you had some power". *nudge-wink* I'll get back to you on that one ... |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 6, 2008 9:13:25 GMT -5
On Larry King LIVE last night, Bill Maher said something I agree with.
Paraphrased:
"I hope everyone realizes that when we make jokes about Obama, it won't make us racists. He's the President...and it comes with the territory."
--------------------------------------------------------
I read an on-line forum complaining that Leno and Letterman had very few to zero Obama jokes in their monologues, while McCain and especially Palin were lampooned relentlessly.
Granted, most of show business usually leans left...(unless the subject is Bill Clinton and the jokes write themselves).....and it is harder to write jokes about young, articulate politicians who haven't screwed up yet. Even SNL has trouble satirizing Obama for big laughs. Fred Armisen does a solid job, but the writers need more of a hook...and there isn't one, yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 6, 2008 10:14:24 GMT -5
Barack is not alone in this ... 3 months ago no one heard of Sarah Palin. And Palin hardly had the groundswell of support behind her that Obama did. "Obama-mania" came out of nowhere in such a short amount of time. Palin? Palin was appointed by Republican strategists who saw Obama basking in the adoration of the multitudes and thought "we need to get us some of that". And so they picked a young, fresh, unknown and female (yes, that was a factor, to counter Obama's racial heritage) candidate to be McCain's running mate (because really, they can spin to the cows come home - McCain aint going to get any younger). And as CH said, Obama's greatest victory was defeating the Clinton's who assumed that it was their right to rule. I may be wrong in this thinking, but I think Obama's rise has more to due with the American people being fed up with the dirty politics of the Bush's and Clinton's .... and the negative campaign of McCain from day 1 (even though Obama did go negative the last 2 weeks). I won't touch upon the subject of negative campaigning because I think there's more there than meet the eye - and frankly I don't want to wander that far off topic. I tend to agree with you that Obama's rise to power is the result of an electorate who is fed up with the existing regime (maybe HFiLA can elaborate more on this) but that doesn't mean it's a particularily smart thing to do. The people of Germany wanted change in the 1930's too - look what it got them. Not a saviour ... just something different. It would be like Canada voting NDP. Not exactly a saviour, but at least they have a clean record. (relative to the other options) The Obama-Man (or Super-Obama or whatever) t-shirts that are being advertised in this very thread disagree with you Skilly. So would you consider voting for GWB a head vote or a heart vote? Alot of good to great Presidents were voted in because of heart-strings and people felt moved..... Bush was a head vote. Remember how I said how dumb people were to begin with? Yeah - you just called up a good example. The people that voted for GWB did so because he was a man of faith and strong convictions. Because he was against gay marriage (which the majority of even a true blue state like California still disapprove of). Because he wanted to win the war in Iraq. Because he wanted to win the war on terror. And because John Kerry was perceived to be a horrible flip-flop. They pretty much ignored all of Bush's flaws, but they still went with Bush because they felt he was the better candidate for them. I get the feeling that a lot of people voted for Obama not because of Obama, but because everyone wanted to be a part of this change he was preaching about. Everyone wanted to be able to say "I voted for Obama" and "I was a part of this." There's an old WWI propaganda poster that has two children playing with toy soliders, and their father sitting in a chair reading a newspaper, smoking a pipe etc. One of the children is asking the father "Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?" and the father is disturbed by this because obviously, he didn't do anything. The message in that is obvious - get on board, join thew armed forces, serve your country. Be a part of this. Be something your children can be proud of. Obama's campaign seems to feel a lot like that. Get onboard the Obama-train. Be a part of history! I don't like it. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 6, 2008 10:20:53 GMT -5
"Land of the Free" refers to the amount of down payment the banks required a $35,000 a year unlicensed plumber needed to buy a small three bedroom house in LA valued at $1.2 million. And we complained about the Trudeau years ...  ;D This is the thing, HFLA. The US public really does want a change. I honestly believe anyone following the current presidential impersonator would look great. Having said that, I think Obama would really have to totally botch things badly in order to look worse than George W. IMO, he has to be very careful how he handles this Russian missile situation. It's one thing to negotiate a compromise, but he has to do it a way that doesn't allow his country to lose face in the international community, or more importantly, allow everyone to think Russia has won. This is where I think his diplomatic skills will be put to the test. Anyway, he's got his work cut out for him. Another Cold War is something he really doesn't need but it may be thrust into his face just the same. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 6, 2008 10:21:44 GMT -5
Obama's rise to power is the result of an electorate who is fed up with the existing regime (maybe HFiLA can elaborate more on this) but that doesn't mean it's a particularily smart thing to do. I get the feeling that a lot of people voted for Obama not because of Obama, but because everyone wanted to be a part of this change he was preaching about. Everyone wanted to be able to say "I voted for Obama" and "I was a part of this." Not that I'm cynical [no not I ;D] but . . . change. Two questions. When Obama can't make changes [or the ones he wants to -- Pelosi might see to that!] because of the entrenched bureaucracy will he be vilified for not fulfilling his mandate? OR When Obama does make changes will he be vilified for doing so? I have come to learn that people like the idea of changes a whole lot more than they like the changes!!! |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 6, 2008 10:46:05 GMT -5
Regardless, there was no way Obama was going to lose this.
Not with the Bush legacy....
-----------------------
Roy Innis (National Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality in the U.S.), a 74-year-old African-American who's been involved in civil rights since the mid-60s, was on the John Oakley Show this morning. (Innis has also been criticized by other black leaders for his conservative leanings...you can search that if you wish.)
In light of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "content of character", Innis said Obama's character was seldom to never brought into question by the mainstream media (he listed MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, and the Washington Post). "Cheerleading" was the word he used.
Bottom line: Innis is elated that Obama is the President. But he would have liked it much better if he'd had his character examined during the campaign. He thinks Obama still would have won...and it would have made the victory much sweeter.
One caller said that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk did more than their share to examine/discredit Obama's character.
Just throwin' it out there....
|
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Nov 6, 2008 10:54:40 GMT -5
My thoughts?
Come January, there won't be a twit sitting in the oval office. I'm thankful to the youth of America for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 6, 2008 11:00:23 GMT -5
And Palin hardly had the groundswell of support behind her that Obama did. "Obama-mania" came out of nowhere in such a short amount of time. Palin? Palin was appointed by Republican strategists who saw Obama basking in the adoration of the multitudes and thought "we need to get us some of that". And so they picked a young, fresh, unknown and female (yes, that was a factor, to counter Obama's racial heritage) candidate to be McCain's running mate (because really, they can spin to the cows come home - McCain aint going to get any younger). Sounds a bit like the Kim Campbell situation a few years back. As soon as the press knew she was in the leadership hunt, they put her on a pedistal while Mulrooney ran for cover. No other Tory leadership hopeful had a chance after that. But, just the same, it was almost like what you're saying above: "Be-part-of-history-and-lets-elect-our-first-female-PM." Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 6, 2008 11:13:46 GMT -5
But, just the same, it was almost like what you're saying above: "Be-part-of-history-and-lets-elect-our-first-female-PM." Cheers. Not the same Dis .... Campbell wasn't elected. She won the leadership nod for the Tories and therefore became PM... that was entirely the party and not the electorate. When the electorate had their say, Campbell was exposed for what she was - pretty much worthless to the task of governing and the electorate sent her a resounding blow - the worst defeat in the Tories history (I believe they even had their party status taken from them ?) |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 6, 2008 11:15:57 GMT -5
Sounds a bit like the Kim Campbell situation a few years back. As soon as the press knew she was in the leadership hunt, they put her on a pedistal while Mulrooney ran for cover. No other Tory leadership hopeful had a chance after that. But, just the same, it was almost like what you're saying above: "Be-part-of-history-and-lets-elect-our-first-female-PM." Cheers. Not to betray my age (or yours) but I wasn't really old enough to have seen that much of the run up to Kim Campbell's short lived leadership. I can imagine though it would be much the same though. Even today Kim is recognized as Canada's first female Prime Minister and is feted as a minor celebrity, despite the fact that she never won an election and reigned for only a handful of month (all the while presiding over the PC party as it finished its fall into smoking ruins). |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 6, 2008 11:18:17 GMT -5
If Bush was a head vote ... then it was high time the American public used their hearts. I also think it highly presumptuous of you to characterize any vote for Obama as a "heart vote" .... millions of people voted for him and no one thought he was the best man? The just used their hearts and gave the minority a little slack because they were swept up in a cause? C'mon. You may not like it ... But, IMO, I think you wouldn't have liked it a whole lot more if McCain was the president. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 6, 2008 11:26:19 GMT -5
The Obama-Man (or Super-Obama or whatever) t-shirts that are being advertised in this very thread disagree with you Skilly. People will use the president like that for profit. For all we know the company and employees who made those shirts could be republican ... stranger things have happened you know. But even if this was some marketing campaign by Obama to "sway the masses" ... well he just did that job better, or more aptly his people did (he after all had more cash to work with). But McCain tried the same tactics when he saw them working ....  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 6, 2008 11:48:46 GMT -5
My thoughts? Come January, there won't be a twit sitting in the oval office. I'm thankful to the youth of America for this. Mixed reactions around the globe but here's one quote that stood out for me. “Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place,” Nelson Mandela Then, of course, the Russians deploy their missiles. Sigh! |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 6, 2008 12:27:14 GMT -5
People will use the president like that for profit. For all we know the company and employees who made those shirts could be republican ... stranger things have happened you know. But even if this was some marketing campaign by Obama to "sway the masses" ... well he just did that job better, or more aptly his people did (he after all had more cash to work with). But McCain tried the same tactics when he saw them working .... I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply that Obama was necessarily recasting himself as "Obama-Man" (although he most certainly has benefited from it) just that he was being recast - by the media and the country at large - as some kind of mythic hero. |
|
)
;D