|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 6, 2008 12:28:29 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. Good point, I can agree with this, Skilly. Have to disagree on this one, though, mate. The Federal Tory juggernaut was already spiraling out of control by the time Campbell was appointed. She was simply the 'fall girl' if you will. Now, don't get me wrong, she didn't help herself any with the campaign she ran. That, there, was probably the single-most significant thing to her losing in her own riding. But, being exposed as a poor leader after a two-month tenure? The one who should have stayed and took his lumps was Mulroney, but he saw where his party was going. If anyone, it should be he who is fingered for his party's dimise. Campbell didn't have enough time to prove anything other than not being able to run a campaign. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 6, 2008 12:33:02 GMT -5
II 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. Did I say everyone vote for him was a heart vote? Maybe - I don't have time to go back and look. I meant, however, that it seems a lot of people were swept up by Obama-mainia. That, hungry for a change, a few people labeled him as the next great president. And then more and more people jumped on the bandwagon, until he became president. It's like Leaf's fans here in the city. If the Leafs win a game, even in this dark dismal season, there are a few people who start planning the parade route. Then more and more get on board, until the city is finally disappointed when the Leafs miss the final playoff spot by two points. They believe this can be the team that will break decade of futility. But belief means nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 6, 2008 13:42:37 GMT -5
II 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. Did I say everyone vote for him was a heart vote? Maybe - I don't have time to go back and look. I meant, however, that it seems a lot of people were swept up by Obama-mainia. That, hungry for a change, a few people labeled him as the next great president. And then more and more people jumped on the bandwagon, until he became president. But this is where I guess I get confused ... if people wanted change, and felt that Obama was the best change possible (I am assuming here you mean the media's labels of him) and they voted for change.... how is that a bad thing (you said you didnt like it). McCain wasnt exactly "change". In Canada's election Harper (and the media) demonized Dion, made him out to be a crackerjack leader with no leadership skills. That's politics. McCain tried the same tactic on Obama, but the Americans weren't buying it .... People voted, people had their say ... and it was their say, politics is the art of influencing people to vote for you so I don't buy the "all hype" argument ... that's what a democracy is. I didn't like how we in Canada let the Tories and the media characterize Dion (and I am not exactly a Liberal either) and made Harper be all "soft and cuddly" .... how is that any different from how they "built up Obama"? In the end, the majority spoke in both countries. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 6, 2008 15:40:33 GMT -5
Did I say everyone vote for him was a heart vote? Maybe - I don't have time to go back and look. I meant, however, that it seems a lot of people were swept up by Obama-mainia. That, hungry for a change, a few people labeled him as the next great president. And then more and more people jumped on the bandwagon, until he became president. But this is where I guess I get confused ... if people wanted change, and felt that Obama was the best change possible (I am assuming here you mean the media's labels of him) and they voted for change.... how is that a bad thing (you said you didnt like it). McCain wasnt exactly "change". In Canada's election Harper (and the media) demonized Dion, made him out to be a crackerjack leader with no leadership skills. That's politics. McCain tried the same tactic on Obama, but the Americans weren't buying it .... People voted, people had their say ... and it was their say, politics is the art of influencing people to vote for you so I don't buy the "all hype" argument ... that's what a democracy is. I didn't like how we in Canada let the Tories and the media characterize Dion (and I am not exactly a Liberal either) and made Harper be all "soft and cuddly" .... how is that any different from how they "built up Obama"? In the end, the majority spoke in both countries. Was on my way out of the office ... until I read this ... This is what really miffed me about the press in the last election. They do it all the time. Dion tried portraying himself as a people's kind of guy; fishing in the Ottawa River (don't know what he was going to catch ... Blinky the 3-eyed fish maybe) and snowshoing briskly through the snow. However, most of the media idolized Harper. MacLean's Magazine portrayed him on the front cover with a banner saying, "Harper's master plan." Everything was pointing to Harper. Yet, it wasn't that, that force Mrs Dis and I not to give him our vote. It was his smugness. Dion didn't get it either, Skilly. We're eating ... rooster these days. There was no way in hell we were going to be part of giving Harper a majority. He's good in a minority and I don't mind a Tory minority government, but that arogance he showed during the campaign really turned us off. Dion never had it from the get-go. It didn't take the press to point it out to me. But, they sure tried. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 6, 2008 16:11:52 GMT -5
The media picks their golden boy [or girl] and runs with it.
Remember a couple of years ago when the press kept showing Harper in the too-small vest?
otoh, I'm surprised they gave him an easy ride this election, as he more or less refused to talk with them while he was in office.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Nov 6, 2008 16:30:57 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. Black people were bigots? You mean they acted with intolerance, prejudice, hatred? They hated McCain so they voted for Obama? Absolutely incorrect use of the term. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 6, 2008 16:55:37 GMT -5
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. Black people were bigots? You mean they acted with intolerance, prejudice, hatred? They hated McCain so they voted for Obama? Absolutely incorrect use of the term. Have to be careful here. Not all black people. I did observe countless interviews where black people said they were proud to be voting for a black candidate in this momentous historical event. If I saw a white person saying he was proud to be voting for a white person against a black person, I would consider him bigoted too. I'm not so naieve to believe there isn't a racially motivated segment of the population on both sides. What irks me is that it's acceptable for blacks to openly say they are proud to be voting for a black candidate and it's herasey for a white person to be voting for a white candidate based on his race. As I said and I repeat, Obama is articulate, intelligent, liberal, dilligent and has great leadership qualities. McCain has experience, devotion, honesty, conservative values and bipartisan qualities. I supported McCain because I valued the qualities he had and I support his principles. My sister voted for Obama for her good and valid reasons. My objection is to the people that voted for one candidate over the other based upon race. Each person chooses their value system. You can choose: a) the more intelligent candidate b) the more honest candidate c) the candidate who most closely matches your views d) the candidate who would be best for you or your riding e) the candidate who would be best for your country f) the candidate who is best for the world g) the candidate who matches the issue you consider most important (abortion, war, economy, sexual orientation) Nobody can tell you which issue is most important or how you should choose. I reiterate that if you choose a candidate based upon his race (or gender) you are acting in a bigoted manner. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 6, 2008 17:09:02 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. 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. Hillary Clinton saw and learned much watching Bill Clinton when he was President. She attended many dinners, took many flights and saw many international leaders. She discussed many issues with her husband. She was not present when Bill needed privavcy in the oval office for some of his staff meetings. While Hillary has more experience than Barak, I trust the Obama's more than the Clintons. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 6, 2008 17:16:10 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. McCain would have had an easier time running for GM of the Hab's supporting Rejean Houle's record and decisions. I don't blame "W" for everything that has happened, but there is no question that he shares some responsibility for the decisions and is accountable for the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 6, 2008 21:17:26 GMT -5
Obama the Messiah is going to save the world.....
But appparently the stock market is not buying one iota of this. In two days it lost 10% of it's value. I guess the Messiah never figured that his tax and spend spouting is going to make companies react with layoffs. Nope. I guess he was too busy reading a TelePrompter. Wait, Bush did it......
Here is something you wil be talking about in February....
The Messiah and his cronies want to to finance GM to buy Chrysler and stay afloat BUT with the caveat that GM spends the money solely on American plants. NOT Mexican, NOT Cnadian, but ONLY American plants. That means that Ontario and Quebec are going to get pi$$ed on BIG TIME by the Messiah.
It gets bettter....
Harper already knows this and so does McGuinty. The trick is that if we want to keep the plants in Canada, we have to fork out BILLIONS to help GM/Chrysler and "save" those elite union jobs. So McGuinty is trying to figure out how to put Harper on the spot and blame him if the Canada does not fork out that money. Harper needs Ontario/Quebec in case there yet another stupid election so as much as he REALLY, REALLY hates puting out that money, he has no option. And of course, we are going to go into a deficit. If he rusn a deficit, the Liberals will blame him in the next election. If he doesn't buy those jobs, the Liberals are going to blame him for it.
So....
We have a Obamanation socialist solution. If you want the taxpayers money, you can only spend on American jobs. In essance, American taxpayers are buying those elite UNION JOBS. If we want Canadian plants, we also have to buy those ELITE UNION JOBS. And this will be the model of MORE finincial help with "strings" attached. Hello Chavez!
All those who are outside Ontario/Quebec, how are you going to feel about that? Skilly? I hope you like paying BIG TIME for Ontario/Quebec jobs.
I think the vast majority of people in Canada AND the US have no idea what is in store.....
.....but hey.......
.......don't let me stop the Obama love in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 6, 2008 21:31:08 GMT -5
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? Partially? Yes. Strongly? Absolutely not. Again, let's stick to the basics. There are housing bubbles in 20 odd countries. US, Canada, Israel, Spain, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, Poland, Italy and many more that I can not think off right now. Why? Because every one of these countries kept lowering interest rates to keep their economies going. Borrow and Spend. Basis of almost every economy in the last 2 dacades. Example..... I was in Greece a couple of months ago. Greece was and is mostly a cash economy. Twenty, thirty years ago it was absolutely unheard off that people would borrow money from the bank to buy cars or houses. Every year or two, I go there and almost like clockwork, I have seen a systematic change in peoples use of money. Where they use to buy a building lot (or inherit one) then piece by piece, they would build their house as they could afford it. My parent are actually a text book example of this. Now, it's changed completly around. People borrow to build their house. For an economy that has no industry and declining tourism, this is a recipe for absolute disaster. And yet, try asking them what will happen if they lose their jobs. Absolute, complete and AGGRESSIVE denial that the bank can actually take THEIR house from them. Is it their fault? Every single minute of the day, some bank or other advertises great rates, particularly short term discounted rates. But, are the banks forcing anybody to borrow? As far as they are concerned, they are conducting their business as banks. It's not their fault if a lot of people are greedy morons. Will it be their fault if the housing market collapses and takes the economy along with it? Greece is NOT the only place saw this. I have been to England, Spain, Italy and Turkey with-in the last four years. Same thing. While I have no direct "sequential" experience like I have in Greece, the same "borrow and spend" virus has conquered the world. The US sub prime fiasco was simply the pin the busted the balloon. Did Bush cause it? No. But he didn't take enough steps to prevent it so ultimately he has to get some blame. Of course one needs to go back to Carters Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks to lend money, ACORN's attack on banks both in court and publically calling them "racists" if they didn't lend money to their dirt poor constituents, Clinton's further push to lower the bar. All of that has to be taken into consideration before one distill everything to "Bush Did It". Then there is Fredie and Fanny. He should of reregulated the banks and called for that (twice I believe) but that would of caused screaming from the left. Okay, uncontrolled screaming from the left. Besides, by the time that it looked dangerously overstretched, it was too late to reign it in without consequenes. Let's not forget that NOBODY blamed Buch for the economy when the DOW was hitting 14,000. NOBODY blamed him for the economy when people where borrowing money like crazy to buy that next mansion. That was LESS then two short years ago, but now? Bush did it..... I feel kind of odd defending Bush BUT the guy is getting a pile-on. Let's string him for what he DID did do rather then blame him for every pimple. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 6, 2008 22:35:43 GMT -5
The market just dropped 800 points since Obama was elected.
It's not Obama's fault. He hasn't started.
It's not Bush's fault. He hasn't done anything.
As much as I have to admit it, it's not Pelosi's fault either.
Not McCain, not Palin (she can't see Wall Street from her front porch).
One expert says the market is headed to 6000 and another says it's on it's way up to 12,000. (I use the term expert loosly. At the end of the day they tell you why it did what it did, but at the start of the day they haven't a clue).
As Edgar Allen Poe observed, the pendulem swings one way and then the other. Good, bad, yin, yang, up down, conservativce liberal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 6, 2008 22:50:55 GMT -5
The market just dropped 800 points since Obama was elected. Check history. There is usually a market bounce if the market sees the new president favorably. Obama's welcome was a 10% decline...... |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Nov 6, 2008 23:14:34 GMT -5
The market just dropped 800 points since Obama was elected. Check history. There is usually a market bounce if the market sees the new president favorably. Obama's welcome was a 10% decline...... Though such reactions don't indicate anything. There was also the largest election day rally in history this year, for whatever reason. Interesting that the 2nd largest drop on the day after the election was when FDR was elected the first time in 1932. |
|
|
|
Post by gy on Nov 7, 2008 0:05:38 GMT -5
Then again, I'm just one of the young, naive people who have been inspired by him. Sadly, I'm neither inspired nor young. Here is the reality sucks for his "Change". How is the bailout going to be paid? GM is going to buy Chrysler with public money. Who is going to pay for that? New MASSIVE social programs on the agenda. Old social programs (pensions, etc) need massive, massive funding as people get older. We are talking about 10+ trillions of dollars of public debt. 14+ trillion of private debt. It's a massive financial minefield. You can't spend oneself out of debt. You can't tax because that will slow the already dwindling economy. You can't "redistribute" wealth from companies in significant enough numbers because it will cause massive unemployment. You can't keep printing dollar without collapsing into hyper inflation. The economic path is oily, dirty incline into a deep recession and the cliff to depression. (I am using the word "massive" far too many times) Here are some economic "options". 1. Recession. 2. Deep recession. 3. Depression. 4. Stagflation 5. Inflation. 6. Hyper inflation. No amount of rhetoric is going to make the debts disappear. Countries that hold massive amount of American debt or cash (trillions) are either their economic competitor (China/Japan) or depend on the US for support (Middle East). Any mistep and they can react, which means the Octomber that we just went through will lool like a picnic. I wish he was a fiscal conservative and I would kiss his feet as my Messiah. As a "progressive" re, socialist bent tax and spender, CHANGE are six letters that can lead to economic hell. Sadly, there is no shelter from the napalm. Obama is is very professsional and is getting down to business very quickly. McCain is so unorganized he couldn't run a Boy Scout meeting, much less a campaign or an administration. |
|
|
|
Post by gy on Nov 7, 2008 0:10:08 GMT -5
Obama the Messiah is going to save the world..... But appparently the stock market is not buying one iota of this. In two days it lost 10% of it's value. I guess the Messiah never figured that his tax and spend spouting is going to make companies react with layoffs. Nope. I guess he was too busy reading a TelePrompter. Wait, Bush did it...... Here is something you wil be talking about in February.... The Messiah and his cronies want to to finance GM to buy Chrysler and stay afloat BUT with the caveat that GM spends the money solely on American plants. NOT Mexican, NOT Cnadian, but ONLY American plants. That means that Ontario and Quebec are going to get pi$$ed on BIG TIME by the Messiah. It gets bettter.... Harper already knows this and so does McGuinty. The trick is that if we want to keep the plants in Canada, we have to fork out BILLIONS to help GM/Chrysler and "save" those elite union jobs. So McGuinty is trying to figure out how to put Harper on the spot and blame him if the Canada does not fork out that money. Harper needs Ontario/Quebec in case there yet another stupid election so as much as he REALLY, REALLY hates puting out that money, he has no option. And of course, we are going to go into a deficit. If he rusn a deficit, the Liberals will blame him in the next election. If he doesn't buy those jobs, the Liberals are going to blame him for it. So.... We have a Obamanation socialist solution. If you want the taxpayers money, you can only spend on American jobs. In essance, American taxpayers are buying those elite UNION JOBS. If we want Canadian plants, we also have to buy those ELITE UNION JOBS. And this will be the model of MORE finincial help with "strings" attached. Hello Chavez! All those who are outside Ontario/Quebec, how are you going to feel about that? Skilly? I hope you like paying BIG TIME for Ontario/Quebec jobs. I think the vast majority of people in Canada AND the US have no idea what is in store..... .....but hey....... .......don't let me stop the Obama love in. Wall Street knows what it's doing? The plunge started before the US election. IMO it should logically have started years ago with that Texas moron in charge. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 7, 2008 0:24:04 GMT -5
However, most of the media idolized Harper. MacLean's Magazine portrayed him on the front cover with a banner saying, "Harper's master plan." Everything was pointing to Harper. Simple answer Dis, is that the private media in Canada would rather have a Conservative in power than a Liberal. Global, for example, is up there with Attila the Hun and HA the Addict on the right wing of the spectrum. If you're a journalist and you want to go anywhere in the business quickly, you have to pay attention to the bosses cues. Posted by HabsAddict on Today at 7:17pm
Obama the Messiah is going to save the world.....
But appparently the stock market is not buying one iota of this. In two days it lost 10% of it's value. C'mon, HA. That's just the old adage, buy on rumour, sell on news. The market the days before the election were all up. I told my wife on Monday that the Wed markets wouldn't be up. The amount (10%)? That's just the range of volatility today. Markets in the first year of a new Democratic president are usually up over 20%. Less than half that for Republican presidents, according to the Globe & Mail. I find those trivial facts interesting. Anyway, as gy says, the markets don't know what the hell they're doing much of the time. The professionals are often just as affected emotionally as the rest of us. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 7, 2008 2:51:03 GMT -5
C'mon, HA. That's just the old adage, buy on rumour, sell on news. The market the days before the election were all up. I told my wife on Monday that the Wed markets wouldn't be up. The amount (10%)? That's just the range of volatility today. Markets in the first year of a new Democratic president are usually up over 20%. Less than half that for Republican presidents, according to the Globe & Mail. I find those trivial facts interesting. Anyway, as gy says, the markets don't know what the hell they're doing much of the time. The professionals are often just as affected emotionally as the rest of us. Et tu, Brutus? If they go down, it's "normal" or the market "don't know what they are doing". Had it gone up, headlines news across the planet how the Messiah is saving the planet market. Okay. Bush did it........ |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 7, 2008 3:29:59 GMT -5
IMO it should logically have started years ago with that Texas moron in charge. Logically? Care to provide any economic back-up or reasoning to your one line insight? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 7, 2008 7:00:35 GMT -5
However, most of the media idolized Harper. MacLean's Magazine portrayed him on the front cover with a banner saying, "Harper's master plan." Everything was pointing to Harper. Simple answer Dis, is that the private media in Canada would rather have a Conservative in power than a Liberal. Global, for example, is up there with Attila the Hun and HA the Addict on the right wing of the spectrum. Ah, so that's why the CBC is pro-left . . . for balance! It was interesting, though . . . the Asper family is anything but Conservative, and in fact a coupla years ago an editor was fired let go for his pro-conservative [small "c"]/anti Liberal [large "L"] pieces . . . and the thought was that "if you want to work for the chain be careful what if you think. yup |
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Nov 7, 2008 8:32:58 GMT -5
Black people were bigots? You mean they acted with intolerance, prejudice, hatred? They hated McCain so they voted for Obama? Absolutely incorrect use of the term. Have to be careful here. Not all black people. I did observe countless interviews where black people said they were proud to be voting for a black candidate in this momentous historical event. If I saw a white person saying he was proud to be voting for a white person against a black person, I would consider him bigoted too. I'm not so naieve to believe there isn't a racially motivated segment of the population on both sides. What irks me is that it's acceptable for blacks to openly say they are proud to be voting for a black candidate and it's herasey for a white person to be voting for a white candidate based on his race. As I said and I repeat, Obama is articulate, intelligent, liberal, dilligent and has great leadership qualities. McCain has experience, devotion, honesty, conservative values and bipartisan qualities. I supported McCain because I valued the qualities he had and I support his principles. My sister voted for Obama for her good and valid reasons. My objection is to the people that voted for one candidate over the other based upon race. Each person chooses their value system. You can choose: a) the more intelligent candidate b) the more honest candidate c) the candidate who most closely matches your views d) the candidate who would be best for you or your riding e) the candidate who would be best for your country f) the candidate who is best for the world g) the candidate who matches the issue you consider most important (abortion, war, economy, sexual orientation) Nobody can tell you which issue is most important or how you should choose. I reiterate that if you choose a candidate based upon his race (or gender) you are acting in a bigoted manner. I would be willing to take a wild guess that there was probably as many people that didn't vote for Obama because he was black than people that voted for him because he was. In fact, I wouldn't be surprise if there was more of the first group.... but obviously, they were not too outspoken about it... I understand what you mean with the "double standards" regarding what people can and cannot say, but in reality, if the history of white people had been what the history of black was, I'm sure the roles would be exactly the same but in reverse. |
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Nov 7, 2008 8:36:15 GMT -5
The market just dropped 800 points since Obama was elected. Check history. There is usually a market bounce if the market sees the new president favorably. Obama's welcome was a 10% decline...... Might have gone down 20% with McCain.....  |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Nov 7, 2008 8:58:16 GMT -5
I understand what you mean with the "double standards" regarding what people can and cannot say, but in reality, if the history of white people had been what the history of black was, I'm sure the roles would be exactly the same but in reverse. Tell that to the Jews!! |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 7, 2008 10:03:06 GMT -5
But this is where I guess I get confused ... if people wanted change, and felt that Obama was the best change possible (I am assuming here you mean the media's labels of him) and they voted for change.... how is that a bad thing (you said you didnt like it). McCain wasnt exactly "change". Well see, and there's the thing. If this new guy walked into your living room and said "I'm going to change your life for the better" would you believe him? No (well, maybe you might. I wouldn't). But skilled con-men come into a situation where people are hungry for something, and they become that. People in the USA were tired of GWB. The economy was failing. The War in the Middle East had dragged on for far to long. They were tired of being afraid. And Obama came in and made himself appear as the balm for the weariness of the people. Now, I'm not saying Obama did this with malicious intent. I'm not saying that he's not all these things. I'm saying, in my mind, to get that kind of support to swing around behind him so quickly there's something more there. Who knows. Maybe he'll be the great leader everyone wants him to be. But I think more likely he's an average president with a bright smile who tells people what they want to hear, and that his legion of supporters are just along not because Obama is good/great/the best candidate, but because they've been sold a dream that cannot be. Again, I don't hate Obama. He just makes me uneasy. Like a snake oil salesman. Or evangelical types. In Canada's election Harper (and the media) demonized Dion, made him out to be a crackerjack leader with no leadership skills. That's politics. McCain tried the same tactic on Obama, but the Americans weren't buying it .... To be fair, the street has run both ways in the past (who can forget the ad implying all of Canada would be under martial law if Harper won). I didn't follow this past election too closely because I had pretty much already made up my mind (anybody but conservative), and my TIVO has made television ads a thing of the past. But each side demonizes the other. It happened in the American campaign as well (although on the whole it was a much cleaner presidential campaign than in years past People voted, people had their say ... and it was their say, politics is the art of influencing people to vote for you so I don't buy the "all hype" argument ... that's what a democracy is. True. And in the end the people have spoken. That's why I didn't say "he stole the election" or "he's an undeserving president". I've said he makes me uneasy. I didn't like how we in Canada let the Tories and the media characterize Dion (and I am not exactly a Liberal either) and made Harper be all "soft and cuddly" .... how is that any different from how they "built up Obama"? In the end, the majority spoke in both countries. Because it's not totally unrealistic to believe that Harper is actually, you know, a human-being (or at the very least a close facsimile of one) beneath his stone cold political demeanor. It is very unrealistic to place messianic-like hope in one person, simply because he repeats the word "change" a lot. And again, Harper didn't have the ground-swell of support behind him Obama had. I think if you ask the American populace where they think Obama will end up in the hall of presidents they will probably say in the vicinity of Washington and Lincoln. That's a lot of hope to place in someone... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 7, 2008 10:16:34 GMT -5
Like a snake oil salesman. Or evangelical types. Excuse me? Explanation, please and for the record, I'm not a salesman |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 7, 2008 10:20:19 GMT -5
Maybe a better example is needed to show that both parties benefited from "over hype". I did observe countless interviews where black people said they were proud to be voting for a black candidate in this momentous historical event. If I saw a white person saying he was proud to be voting for a white person against a black person, I would consider him bigoted too. I'm not so naieve to believe there isn't a racially motivated segment of the population on both sides. What irks me is that it's acceptable for blacks to openly say they are proud to be voting for a black candidate and it's herasey for a white person to be voting for a white candidate based on his race. As I said and I repeat, Obama is articulate, intelligent, liberal, dilligent and has great leadership qualities. McCain has experience, devotion, honesty, conservative values and bipartisan qualities. I supported McCain because I valued the qualities he had and I support his principles. My sister voted for Obama for her good and valid reasons. My objection is to the people that voted for one candidate over the other based upon race.
My objection is to the people that voted for one candidate over the other based upon sex.Obama had to face this on three sides. A huge demographic of voters (both white and black) were voting for Hiliary just because she was a woman (and not based on any "head" vote). But it was ok for them to go on national TV and debate with Obama supporters using phrases like "if he was white ... " or "its the black vote" ... I saw this way too many times on CNN. Then when he won the nomination he had to face this "exodus of democrat women" who refused to vote for a man that defeated a woman. It was this group that was so up in arms over Michigan and Florida ... the smokescreen they used to justify the gender based vote. Finally, he faced it once again when McCain (thinking he was clever) gave the nod to Sarah Palin on his ticket. Time and time again the news shows showed disgruntled women voters who vowed to switch to Republican .... one group in Colorado was getting air time out their ears .... It appeared to me that certain media outlets were doing their darnest to make sure "Hiliary's Girls" were heard. Is this not an attempt to sway voting based on nothing more than gender? And if Hiliary won the DNC, how many votes would have been only because she was a woman..... .... one thing is very clear to me. If Sarah Palin was just half-adequate at fielding questions on-the-fly the GOP would have won this election, just based on women wanting to see a woman in power. (I saw an interview of her last night when she got off the plane in Alaska. The reporter asked her if she was gearing up for 2012. Her reply "I haven't given that ...ahhm.. notion much time in the context ... uhmm....of giving it any thought" ..... It's that sort of muddle circular answers that women shied away from IMO ... thankfully too. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 7, 2008 10:23:01 GMT -5
Again, I don't hate Obama. He just makes me uneasy. Like a snake oil salesman. Or evangelical types. They all use it, TNG.  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 7, 2008 10:25:00 GMT -5
All those who are outside Ontario/Quebec, how are you going to feel about that? Skilly? I hope you like paying BIG TIME for Ontario/Quebec jobs. You say that like it is something new ...... during the whole "Newfoundland doesn't deserve offshore accord money" dealings a few years back, one of Newfoundland's argument's with Paul Martin (which by the way he listed as a reason in his new book why he sided with Newfoundland) was that Ontario jobs and Quebec jobs were getting basically the same deals for the Automotive and Aerospace industries. Government subsidies to Ontario and Quebec are nothing new in Canada .... |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 7, 2008 11:12:12 GMT -5
Like a snake oil salesman. Or evangelical types. Excuse me? Explanation, please and for the record, I'm not a salesmanI dislike snakes, okay? I'm from Newfoundland, pristine country of wonders and NO snakes (or Porcupine, or Skunks....) As for evangelical types, I dislike people who come to me and tell me how to believe in God. Especially when their hands are out for my money. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 7, 2008 12:47:28 GMT -5
Excuse me? Explanation, please and for the record, I'm not a salesmanAs for evangelical types, I dislike people who come to me and tell me how to believe in God. Especially when their hands are out for my money. Thought that's what you meant. Just bothers me [well known by those who have been here for a while] that the caricature of evangelicals [I'm one, for the record] is that of dull-witted non-thinking knuckle-dragging money-grubbing neanderthals [did I cover everything ] Non-evangelicals -- non-religious people -- can be just as greedy. As for people telling you how to believe in God . . . sometimes that's a matter of perception [though granted, there are many who are over the top] . . . but discussion is always good. Heck, I'll even discuss hockey with a Leaf fan [not that they know much about it ;D] |
|
;D
