pbmax wrote:

it appears that "open mindedness" today means that i must agree with the opposing view point.

Nope - this board is the best example for it as it's never ever been about agreement or mass-hugging each other.

An overwhelmingly large number of your posts are made on purpose to manipulate people. A manipulative person is the opposite of an open minded person since it even disallows open mindedness to others.

This said I'd like to stress that either your or my point of view could be equally wrong, depending on who you ask.

some of my posts may have been over the top, but i hope obviously so.

for example, stuff like "stock market crashes day after obama elected!! how can this be!!!!!!" is meant to be tongue-in-cheek because a lot of people that voted for him have unrealistic expectations. even the obama campaign near the end admitted things got a little out of hand and they tried to down play what people can expect from him in his first term.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081110/pl ... 1110000105

pbmax wrote:

but i try to keep an open mind. ...just because i have my convictions does not mean i'm not willing to listen to another's view point. i always listen...

*Ahem* Time to call bullshit.

pbmax wrote:

You need to get over what other countries think of us. Its fairly irreverent. America is unique and a national power.

pbmax wrote:

Honestly, I don't really care what other countries think of the US. When other countries don't agree with us, its usually a sign that we are doing the right thing.

pbmax wrote:

And, yes, other political attitudes can be inferior such as socialism, Marxism and fascism. Other countries can be inferior.

pbmax wrote:

breakerfall wrote:

1. Why are they angry?
2. Why do they feel they need to resort to such measures?
3. You have to know why and stop it.
4. You can't kill every terrorist in the world. You just can't.
5. Believe me when I say, they don't hate our freedom and liberties.

1. i don't care.
2. i don't care.
3. no i don't.
4. we don't have to kill everyone of them.
5. then what it is they hate exactly. tall buildings? subways? trains? airplanes?

pbmax wrote:

bittoman wrote:

right now the moral feeling for murder is that it's wrong and shouldn't happen but in the world of animals murder means survival, an animal killing a predator in it's territory is not wrong nor is an animal killing another for food, even canabalistic animals killing it's own kind.

first, this is completely laughable. however, i'll let it go so far as islamic fascists are indeed animals.

Quote Bittoman:
...in the view of extremist militant muslims killing the enemy is not morally wrong but in fact what you're supposed to do (at least that's what they're brainwashed into thinking) however we see it as wrong because our society says that killing someone else outside of self defense is unjustifiable.

murder is wrong. i don't care what you believe, what your religion is, where you live or how you were raised. give me a break. in fact you are contradicting yourself by admitting that islamic militants think killing is ok only because they have been brainwashed.

Quote Bittoman:
In order to understand another culture you first must learn about them and what makes them tick, it's not possible to apply your own culture's values to judge their motives because they will not understand nor will they care and quite likely they'll be insulted.

bullsh*t. what more do you need to learn about a culture that encourages young men, women and even children to blow themselves up and kill as many civilians as possible? my need for "understanding" stops right there.

pbmax wrote:

i'm an american, and i don't care what other nations think of us. ...i really don't care what france, germany, russia, canada or the u.n. think.

pbmax wrote:

i don't care what the terrorists claim their reason is- it doesn't frickin' matter! there is NO justifiable reason to commit these acts of terror, death and destruction against civilians.

By the way, the Iraqi civilian body count is now over 100,000... would you care to try to justify our acts of terror, death and destruction against them, pbmax?

Let's rewrite your statement to flip the script, shall we?

pbmax wrote:

I don't care what the U.S. claims their reason is--it doesn't frickin' matter! There is NO justifiable reason to commit these acts of terror, death and destruction against civilians.

pbmax wrote:

but i try to keep an open mind.

Even though McCain supporters continue to boo on cue of hearing Obama's name, McCain's concession speech revealed the kind of candidate that I admire, and one that I personally feel would have probably made the campaign a far more close race.

Obama will not be a silver bullet to slay all of the boogymen that loom in the closet. Obama will probably not be able to solve a number of the issues he hopes to tackle. He still takes advice from those who are very friendly with the likes of Wal-Mart and who consider the company to be the "victim" rather than the millions of workers who get paid sub-standard wages, work beyond their hours for zero pay, and who lack any sort of useful benefits or job security. Obama still embraces the Monroe Doctrine-esque views regarding Latin America and Cuba... views responsible for the worst terrorism and violence committed in the 1980s and early 1990s. He still seems to be willing to blindly support Israel despite the terrorism that our surrogate carries out against civilians, let alone the always-alleged "militants."

However, I do believe Obama will set us moving in a direction that better embraces the ideals espoused in both the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Tonight's election results alone speak to the beginning of that transformation. I hope we are at an end of hyper-divisive politics. I hope we find a way to advance political change without needing to belittle the other or tap into fear or lock people down according to artificial boundaries and arbitrary wedges and instead examine a person and their ideas, dreams and goals on their own merit.

As for economics, wealth and the pursuit of the "American Dream," since the economy will likely be the premier challenge facing this presidency, I believe the "welfare, subsidies and tax cuts for the rich" approach that ignores or expects a "trickle down" effect to somehow keep the financial cogs turning has been proven both in theory and in practice to be a disaster and in the meantime, the people of the country have paid in blood and tears as they are evicted from their homes, have lost their jobs, have had their pensions torn out from under them after putting in the time and service to earn them, and have seen the "opportunities for wealth creation" that neo-cons parade so devoutly shrivel up or be shipped overseas due to tax breaks and further welfare handouts by the government to corporations. Trickle-down economics and deregulation DO NOT WORK. You can't look at the surplus we started with 8 years ago, the policies that were passed in the meantime and then the huge mess we're in now and say anything else. Now, will Obama's policies work better? I guess we'll see. I doubt he'll be able to make any real changes, however, I hope that he'll actually stop some of the blatant corruption that has run so rampant during Bush's terms.

But let's get back to tonight:

Barack Obama does speak of hope in a time when we need it dearly. His victory is a real opportunity for the children of United States who, until now, have always looked at the portraits of American presidents and never saw their own race represented. He does represent calmness and clarity and a willingness to listen... qualities that have been so damagingly absent during the Bush II era. We have a lot of work to do in order to recover our standing the world... but at least we won't thumb our noses at the global community anymore and we might save a few lives by not calling out cowboy remarks like "bring it on" as our valiant soldiers fight and die in other lands. Obama represents a return to civility and respect that has been slim or entirely missing in our national discourse.

I guess we'll see how things go... but I'm glad I'm not having to pack for Canada tonight.

The ignorance shown throughout your post is mind boggling. It's amazing how many things you really don't get. You just guzzle down whatever they feed you.

Good post Greased.

I've been up all night watching it as it happened on BBC live stream. Must admit it felt like I was taking part in witnessing an important historical event.

Quote:

The ignorance shown throughout your post is mind boggling. It's amazing how many things you really don't get.

Please enlighten me then. Please list off some facts that counter my view... or, hell, at least reference one specific thing so I have a clue as to what you're disagreeing with. Otherwise, troll elsewhere.

goliathvt wrote:

Please enlighten me then. Please list off some facts that counter my view... or, hell, at least reference one specific thing so I have a clue as to what you're disagreeing with. Otherwise, troll elsewhere.

Fine, I'll be a little less lazy.

Your example of his "friendly relations" is Walmart and not the psycho nut jobs he has always been surrounded by.

He'll move towards his parties views on the constitution which is radically different than half the countries.

The only drop in divisive politics will be the media licking his balls and failing to inform you of his failures and silencing opposing views.

"neo-con" makes you sound just as crazy as the mythical group you complain about.

Democrats and people/things Obama supports are also massively responsible for the economy.

The democrats method of "fighting corruption" is ignoring their own party and bringing anyone else into court. Destroying innocent people by implying they might be guilty. And it's all ignored by the media once it's obvious the person is innocent.

Hope is nothing. Hope is thinking things will be good. It's not planning. It's not doing. It's shit.

Caring that he is black (good or bad) is racist. I'd dislike him no matter what color he was. His record and ideas are horrible. He gets special (racist) treatment by many people who would never have let a white man with his history into office. I see that as a failure in equality.

"calmness and clarity and a willingness to listen"
He listens to his advisers great. Now that he's elected he'll keep listening to them as their goals are radically shift. The democrat control of everything will allow them to ignore the other half of the country wonderfully.

Most of the global community hates us. The easiest way to gain their support is to sabotage ourselves.

I had similar feelings in 2004 but I got over it. Good luck with that.

Quote:

Most of the global community hates us. The easiest way to gain their support is to sabotage ourselves.

Personally, I'd say that most of the global community hates your current administration, not you. There are differences. The US is an important partner to pretty much everyone on the planet and people don't want to see it tank. I find it funny that people say that when the rest of the world expects a guy to win in the US, it's because they want the US to get screwed. In reality, it's quite the contrary; they want the US to continue to be a major partner, to be well administered. And if it's a guy without the holier-than-thou, with-us-or-against-us attitude like Bush had, all the better.

Okay, I'm gonna need more clarification because I don't understand some of your points.

stabinbac wrote:

Your example of his "friendly relations" is Walmart and not the psycho nut jobs he has always been surrounded by.

Is this a feeble attempt at yet another Bill Ayers link?

stabinbac wrote:

He'll move towards his parties views on the constitution which is radically different than half the countries.

Please be specific here... what views? Are you alluding to the whole gay marriage thing? Well, if we had even the most modest sense of morality and honesty on the subject and agreed that the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually should provide equality to everyone, not just straight people, we would see the issue as an equal marriage issue where people's rights are currently denied, and not a gay marriage issue where the supposed "good" battle is to continue suppressing those rights. Don't worry though... Obama will keep your precious marriage institution separate and not equal.

stabinbac wrote:

The only drop in divisive politics will be the media licking his balls and failing to inform you of his failures and silencing opposing views.

Are you sure on that? Bush simply fired or pushed out anyone that disagreed with him. Remember Richard Clarke? Remember the financial advisers that said the war(s) would be expensive? Remember the folks that tried to say we'd get stuck in Baghdad for years? Remember when scientists tried to tell Bush that global warming was real and scientifically sound and was a looming problem? Remember the people that said there were no WMDs in Iraq? Remember the headline in the NY Times saying the only major opponent to the Iraq war was "global opinion?" Remember national security advisers that said if we occupied Afghanistan for very long or went into Iraq unilaterally we'd be helping to increase Al Qaeda recruitment and strengthen and validate its claims against us? Remember the financial analysts that said deregulating Wall Street would lead to a huge problem?

They were all laughed at, hung out to dry, fired, or otherwise drown out by divisive chest-beating and ideology. Bush cocooned himself in a sea of "yes-men" and never allowed dissenting voices to be heard. Yet every one of these simple things that anyone with half a brain could see to be true has come true or remained to be true, despite Bush's efforts to cover his ears and yell "la la la la la!" And now that these things have been ignored for years, we are where we are now... stuck fighting wars in 2 countries, haven't found any WMDs, we're paying billions for Iraq--taxpayer dollars that we haven't even begun to pay for yet... our grandchildren will have that "honor," we haven't dealt with Al Qaeda other than to increase its ranks 10-fold, 8 years behind on a move towards clean energy and ecological sustainability, we've pissed off or soured most of our relationships in the world and we're viewed as the biggest threat to world peace around the entire globe, and we're sitting on the brink of an economic depression.

I don't think Obama will shut his ears and surround himself with "yes-men" the same way Bush did... he seems skilled at diplomacy, which means he will at least hear what the other side has to say. It's not much, I know... but it's a start.

Quote:

"neo-con" makes you sound just as crazy as the mythical group you complain about.

Wait... are you seriously saying you don't believe there are people that identify themselves as neo-conservatives? Do you know what a neo-con is? Take a look at Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld or Carl Rove for examples.

stabinbac wrote:

Democrats and people/things Obama supports are also massively responsible for the economy.

Yes, there is definitely shared blame to go around. However, analysts pinpoint the reasons for the economic crisis quite clearly:

- Lack of and blatant removal of oversight and regulation measures

- Fighting 2 wars AND cutting taxes for the wealthy (the hope was that the tax cuts would "trickle down" to the rest of us, but as usual, those darn wealthy guys and corporations just horded the money and slashed jobs, reduced pensions, lowered wages and shipped jobs overseas... making the hit on the economy doubly hard because that money wasn't being circulated back into the economy.)

- Ignoring signs of a recession despite many analysts clear and well-researched assessments, and instead of tightening the purse strings, the Bush admin calling on the Fed to pump more money into the system and lower interest rates. Again, think of the "hands-over-ears-'la la la la!'" approach.

These were all tenets of the George W. Bush administration that were followed blindly, despite efforts by republicans and democrats alike to try to do something about the problems they foresaw.

Quote:

The democrats method of "fighting corruption" is ignoring their own party and bringing anyone else into court. Destroying innocent people by implying they might be guilty.

Maybe... you'll need to reference something specific here as an example. However, getting half of the bad guys would be better than none of them, right? Bush's policies created more loopholes for the criminals to escape unnoticed, so for every scandal that was uncovered (more than any other administration that I can recall in my lifetime), there were probably more that never got caught. At least Dems "say" they want to regulate things and we might close a few loopholes in the process. Maybe. I tend to agree with you on this one though... the Dems aren't much better at self-policing.

Quote:

Hope is nothing. Hope is thinking things will be good. It's not planning. It's not doing. It's shit.

Very true. However, every great idea begins with the hope of something better. And, unlike Bush/Cheney and McCain/Palin, the Obama/Biden pair seems to be able to plan and do some things quite well. A gander at who's just won the election is a good example. Notice that they didn't need to suppress voters to win it. Notice that they didn't need the election to be decided by the supreme court. Notice that they won by a landslide, didn't take "big money" yet raised more money than any other campaign in history, relied on a "by and for the people" approach to politics and it paid off. Liberal or conservative alike, you have to at least acknowledge the beauty of that... where more people than ever before actually stood up and said, "I want my voice to be counted." Yay democracy.

Quote:

He gets special (racist) treatment by many people who would never have let a white man with his history into office.

Really? So you're honestly saying that being black has "helped" him? You do understand what racism is, right? There were a number of people who did not vote for Obama last night simply because of the color of his skin. I guess that's "special treatment," but it's hardly the kind you imagine. Or are you that much of a racist to say that Obama won the presidency on some sort of "affirmative action" program? If so, I "LOL" at you, sir.

Either way, just take a look at the guy that's running things now. Talk about special treatment... all of his life he can give thanks to the color of his skin for helping him to get into schools he didn't deserve to be in, jobs he didn't deserve, second, third and forth chances after running several companies into the ground, and then obtaining political office not through the power of his ideas but through the unearned power and wealth of his family name. No, unlike Bush, Obama has made opportunities for himself. He's earned what he has gained... and in a white racist U.S. America, he did so despite the color of his skin.

Quote:

He listens to his advisers great. Now that he's elected he'll keep listening to them as their goals are radically shift. The democrat control of everything will allow them to ignore the other half of the country wonderfully.

Maybe. This is why I didn't want the Dems to get a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate. On the other hand, most of the advisers that Obama surrounded himself with aren't clueless, stuck 20 years in the past with regards to their foreign policy understandings and aren't fearful of outside ideas or at least hearing what others have to say.

Quote:

Most of the global community hates us.

Yeah... thank Bush for making that 10x worse over the last 8 years by ignoring or mocking anyone that disagreed with him. A fresh start like Obama might improve that a bit.

Look, one thing is really cool about Obama: he's not beholden to the old-style Democratic party. He's not in their pocket. He's surrounded himself with new, fresh people that have proven to have good ideas. These are people from "both sides of the aisle." They aren't ideologues... and that fact alone gives me real hope that all voices of America, including yours, might be heard during his administration.

goliathvt wrote:

McCain's concession speech revealed the kind of candidate that I admire, and one that I personally feel would have probably made the campaign a far more close race.

That doesn't surprise me a bit as McCain is a moderate- Republican in name only.

Quote:

He still seems to be willing to blindly support Israel despite the terrorism that our surrogate carries out against civilians, let alone the always-alleged "militants."

Huh? Obama is VERY friendly with the PLO. But he doesn't want anyone to know that. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Quote:

However, I do believe Obama will set us moving in a direction that better embraces the ideals espoused in both the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Completely laughable, goliath. Obama wants to take us further away from our country's original roots.

Quote:

Tonight's election results alone speak to the beginning of that transformation.

What tranformation? Obama is already lining up former Cintonites to fill his administration.

Quote:

I hope we are at an end of hyper-divisive politics.

I don't (unless everyone becomes a conservative & a constitutionalist).

Quote:

I hope we find a way to advance political change without needing to belittle the other or tap into fear or lock people down according to artificial boundaries and arbitrary wedges and instead examine a person and their ideas, dreams and goals on their own merit.

Again, its laughable that you think Obama shares this ideal. Where does class envy fit into this? Where does Obama's tax plan & redistribution of wealth fit into this? $250,000 a year sounds like an artificial boundry to me. If this was true, Obama would be for a flat income tax rate across the board. Obama doesn't see ONE America, he sees several depending on your race, political views and social status.

Quote:

I doubt he'll be able to make any real changes, however, I hope that he'll actually stop some of the blatant corruption that has run so rampant during Bush's terms.

Where do you place the democrat run Senate & Congress? Do they get a free pass?

Quote:

Barack Obama does speak of hope in a time when we need it dearly.

Hope! Change! The Messiah is here!

Quote:

His victory is a real opportunity for the children of United States who, until now, have always looked at the portraits of American presidents and never saw their own race represented.

You seem to focus on race quite a bit. I thought we were to move past skin color and look at the character of a man's heart? The real racism in this country is on the left, not the right.

Quote:

He does represent calmness and clarity and a willingness to listen... qualities that have been so damagingly absent during the Bush II era. We have a lot of work to do in order to recover our standing the world...

You need to get over what other countries think of us. Its fairly irreverent. America is unique and a national power. Most countries will naturally not see eye to eye with us.

Quote:

but at least we won't thumb our noses at the global community anymore and we might save a few lives by not calling out cowboy remarks like "bring it on" as our valiant soldiers fight and die in other lands.

Seems like some revisionist history here...

You, like millions of others, have been sold a false bill of goods. Obama is not who you think he is. You have become enamored with his personality. Essentially, Obama is a blank slate to which each supporter can project his or her hopes and dreams upon. He's for CHANGE! He's for HOPE!

Now that he is elected, I can only hope that his Presidency is so disastrous that people will long remember that socialism & liberalism is not right for America.

There IS only one way for America- equal opportunity, strict adherence to the Constitution and the values of our Founding Fathers, free markets, limited government, state's rights, individual accountability & freedom and defense of freedom across the globe.

Quote:

There IS only one way for America- equal opportunity, strict adherence to the Constitution and the values of our Founding Fathers, free markets, limited government, state's rights, individual accountability & freedom and defense of freedom across the globe.

Equal opportunity = A white republican Chrisitian? Since Liberals/Socialist people of a different ethnicity who has a connection in some form or another to people who don't believe in the christian God obviously don't fall into this catagory. But yes, equal all around.

Strict adherence to the Constitution is also as ridiculous as strict adherence to the Bible. People should not strictly adhere to a parchment of laws set in place 200 years ago. Thats why there are amendments and such. Things get outdated as time progresses....key word is progress and move forward. Keep in mind the base and build on top of it.

Our Quest to defend freedom across the globe has also panned out to be the best decision on how to utilize our troops, money, and power. People want limited government and state's rights for Americans, but its OK to reach our government over another country.

oboma wants to raise taxes in a town where the mean income is ~$30k a year. Love this guy! I happened to find a site that has a "oboma as president" postcard generator. It's pretty cool!
http://planetfallout.gamespy.com/pages/postcard

goliathvt wrote:

Okay, I'm gonna need more clarification because I don't understand some of your points.

stabinbac wrote:

Your example of his "friendly relations" is Walmart and not the psycho nut jobs he has always been surrounded by.

Is this a feeble attempt at yet another Bill Ayers link?

stabinbac wrote:

He'll move towards his parties views on the constitution which is radically different than half the countries.

Please be specific here... what views? Are you alluding to the whole gay marriage thing? Well, if we had even the most modest sense of morality and honesty on the subject and agreed that the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually should provide equality to everyone, not just straight people, we would see the issue as an equal marriage issue where people's rights are currently denied, and not a gay marriage issue where the supposed "good" battle is to continue suppressing those rights. Don't worry though... Obama will keep your precious marriage institution separate and not equal.

stabinbac wrote:

The only drop in divisive politics will be the media licking his balls and failing to inform you of his failures and silencing opposing views.

Are you sure on that? Bush simply fired or pushed out anyone that disagreed with him. Remember Richard Clarke? Remember the financial advisers that said the war(s) would be expensive? Remember the folks that tried to say we'd get stuck in Baghdad for years? Remember when scientists tried to tell Bush that global warming was real and scientifically sound and was a looming problem? Remember the people that said there were no WMDs in Iraq? Remember the headline in the NY Times saying the only major opponent to the Iraq war was "global opinion?" Remember national security advisers that said if we occupied Afghanistan for very long or went into Iraq unilaterally we'd be helping to increase Al Qaeda recruitment and strengthen and validate its claims against us? Remember the financial analysts that said deregulating Wall Street would lead to a huge problem?

They were all laughed at, hung out to dry, fired, or otherwise drown out by divisive chest-beating and ideology. Bush cocooned himself in a sea of "yes-men" and never allowed dissenting voices to be heard. Yet every one of these simple things that anyone with half a brain could see to be true has come true or remained to be true, despite Bush's efforts to cover his ears and yell "la la la la la!" And now that these things have been ignored for years, we are where we are now... stuck fighting wars in 2 countries, haven't found any WMDs, we're paying billions for Iraq--taxpayer dollars that we haven't even begun to pay for yet... our grandchildren will have that "honor," we haven't dealt with Al Qaeda other than to increase its ranks 10-fold, 8 years behind on a move towards clean energy and ecological sustainability, we've pissed off or soured most of our relationships in the world and we're viewed as the biggest threat to world peace around the entire globe, and we're sitting on the brink of an economic depression.

I don't think Obama will shut his ears and surround himself with "yes-men" the same way Bush did... he seems skilled at diplomacy, which means he will at least hear what the other side has to say. It's not much, I know... but it's a start.

Quote:

"neo-con" makes you sound just as crazy as the mythical group you complain about.

Wait... are you seriously saying you don't believe there are people that identify themselves as neo-conservatives? Do you know what a neo-con is? Take a look at Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld or Carl Rove for examples.

stabinbac wrote:

Democrats and people/things Obama supports are also massively responsible for the economy.

Yes, there is definitely shared blame to go around. However, analysts pinpoint the reasons for the economic crisis quite clearly:

- Lack of and blatant removal of oversight and regulation measures

- Fighting 2 wars AND cutting taxes for the wealthy (the hope was that the tax cuts would "trickle down" to the rest of us, but as usual, those darn wealthy guys and corporations just horded the money and slashed jobs, reduced pensions, lowered wages and shipped jobs overseas... making the hit on the economy doubly hard because that money wasn't being circulated back into the economy.)

- Ignoring signs of a recession despite many analysts clear and well-researched assessments, and instead of tightening the purse strings, the Bush admin calling on the Fed to pump more money into the system and lower interest rates. Again, think of the "hands-over-ears-'la la la la!'" approach.

These were all tenets of the George W. Bush administration that were followed blindly, despite efforts by republicans and democrats alike to try to do something about the problems they foresaw.

Quote:

The democrats method of "fighting corruption" is ignoring their own party and bringing anyone else into court. Destroying innocent people by implying they might be guilty.

Maybe... you'll need to reference something specific here as an example. However, getting half of the bad guys would be better than none of them, right? Bush's policies created more loopholes for the criminals to escape unnoticed, so for every scandal that was uncovered (more than any other administration that I can recall in my lifetime), there were probably more that never got caught. At least Dems "say" they want to regulate things and we might close a few loopholes in the process. Maybe. I tend to agree with you on this one though... the Dems aren't much better at self-policing.

Quote:

Hope is nothing. Hope is thinking things will be good. It's not planning. It's not doing. It's shit.

Very true. However, every great idea begins with the hope of something better. And, unlike Bush/Cheney and McCain/Palin, the Obama/Biden pair seems to be able to plan and do some things quite well. A gander at who's just won the election is a good example. Notice that they didn't need to suppress voters to win it. Notice that they didn't need the election to be decided by the supreme court. Notice that they won by a landslide, didn't take "big money" yet raised more money than any other campaign in history, relied on a "by and for the people" approach to politics and it paid off. Liberal or conservative alike, you have to at least acknowledge the beauty of that... where more people than ever before actually stood up and said, "I want my voice to be counted." Yay democracy.

Quote:

He gets special (racist) treatment by many people who would never have let a white man with his history into office.

Really? So you're honestly saying that being black has "helped" him? You do understand what racism is, right? There were a number of people who did not vote for Obama last night simply because of the color of his skin. I guess that's "special treatment," but it's hardly the kind you imagine. Or are you that much of a racist to say that Obama won the presidency on some sort of "affirmative action" program? If so, I "LOL" at you, sir.

Either way, just take a look at the guy that's running things now. Talk about special treatment... all of his life he can give thanks to the color of his skin for helping him to get into schools he didn't deserve to be in, jobs he didn't deserve, second, third and forth chances after running several companies into the ground, and then obtaining political office not through the power of his ideas but through the unearned power and wealth of his family name. No, unlike Bush, Obama has made opportunities for himself. He's earned what he has gained... and in a white racist U.S. America, he did so despite the color of his skin.

Quote:

He listens to his advisers great. Now that he's elected he'll keep listening to them as their goals are radically shift. The democrat control of everything will allow them to ignore the other half of the country wonderfully.

Maybe. This is why I didn't want the Dems to get a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate. On the other hand, most of the advisers that Obama surrounded himself with aren't clueless, stuck 20 years in the past with regards to their foreign policy understandings and aren't fearful of outside ideas or at least hearing what others have to say.

Quote:

Most of the global community hates us.

Yeah... thank Bush for making that 10x worse over the last 8 years by ignoring or mocking anyone that disagreed with him. A fresh start like Obama might improve that a bit.

Look, one thing is really cool about Obama: he's not beholden to the old-style Democratic party. He's not in their pocket. He's surrounded himself with new, fresh people that have proven to have good ideas. These are people from "both sides of the aisle." They aren't ideologues... and that fact alone gives me real hope that all voices of America, including yours, might be heard during his administration.

goliathvtfor president!

goliathvt wrote:

Look, one thing is really cool about Obama: he's not beholden to the old-style Democratic party. He's not in their pocket. He's surrounded himself with new, fresh people that have proven to have good ideas. These are people from "both sides of the aisle." They aren't ideologues... and that fact alone gives me real hope that all voices of America, including yours, might be heard during his administration.

Are you freakin' serious!?!?!?! Goliath, you need to re-think your Obama infatuation.

Just today Obama tapped Rahm Emanuel for his chief of staff. Rahm is a career Clintonite since Bill's presidential primary campaign way back in 1991. Rahm is not a fresh face!

Joe Biden? Is this guy a fresh face in the democrat party?

John D. Podestra?

How about John Kerry lobbying for secretary of state?

The bottom line, goliath, is that his whole staff will be filled with career democrats and former Clintonites. Is this the CHANGE you were hoping for?

CHANGE! HOPE!

THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING ABOUT POLITICS. It's extremely rare you will change someone's view on something with just your opinion.

I'm Canadian, so forgive me if I completely mis-understand everything. But even though obama won a lot more electorial votes than McCain, the vote percentage were still extremely close (nearly 50/50). In my opinion it wasn't a major defeat, and it was an extremely close battle.

Quote:

Now that he is elected, I can only hope that his Presidency is so disastrous that people will long remember that socialism & liberalism is not right for America.

But what if it works out? Now what are you going to do? Still complain?

pbmax wrote:

What tranformation? Obama is already lining up former Cintonites to fill his administration.

Um, no not entirely. Interestingly he's talking about pulling an Abraham Lincoln and inviting republicans and democrats into his cabinet. That would be a great move if he sticks to it.

pbmax wrote:

You need to get over what other countries think of us. Its fairly irreverent. America is unique and a national power.

Irreverent? As in "disrespectful"???? You're saying it's disrespectful to take world opinion into consideration (esp. with regard to foreign policy)????

Are you really that far up Bush's/Cheney's, etc. ass to not see how ignoring world opinion has cost hundreds of thousands of lives needlessly? Are you so blind to see that unilaterally invading another country has made us far less safe than on 9/11? Now, instead of Al Qaeda being a small rag-tag collection of terrorist pockets, it's a world-wide organization that is expanding its membership daily. Are you really that clueless to this reality... simple cause and effect that is the 100% pure fault of the moron currently at the helm.

pbmax wrote:

goliathvt wrote:

but at least we won't thumb our noses at the global community anymore and we might save a few lives by not calling out cowboy remarks like "bring it on" as our valiant soldiers fight and die in other lands.

Seems like some revisionist history here...

Oh really? Your highly selective and deficient memory lives up to its norm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKdbZWNqF00

Bush apologizes for it later:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUCJlV6s0dU

pbmax wrote:

Now that he is elected, I can only hope that his Presidency is so disastrous that people will long remember that socialism & liberalism is not right for America.

Let me fix that for you:

pbmax wrote:

Since Bush was elected, we can clearly see that his Presidency was so disastrous that people will long remember that neo-conservatism, unilateralism & close-mindedness is not right for America... except for people like pbmax

I mean really... your guy has been a DISASTER. He hasn't gotten one thing right since he took power. He failed on 9/11. He failed on Iraq. He failed in Afghanistan (catching Osama). He failed on the economy (deregulation and tax cuts to the rich). He failed on education (No child left behind is a joke). He failed to protect civil liberties. He failed to prevent torture and actually encouraged it. Torture, of all things! He failed on health care (premiums and medicine costs are up 78% since 2001, less meds are covered, etc.).

HE IS A FAILURE.

The sad thing is, unlike your failures to read and inform yourself that only impact your own narrow-minded worldview and provide laughter to people like me who get to read your nonsense, Bush's failures have cost 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives, about 4200 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, and who knows how many in Afghanistan for both our side and the civilians we've bombed to hell. He's expanded government... bloated its bureaucracy beyond anything I've ever seen in my lifetime... yet supposedly he values "small government." I mean, seriously, what has he done right, well or has had a positive outcome?

Bush's failures have also set the country on the path to an economic depression.

HIS IDEAS ARE FAILURES. HIS POLICIES ARE FAILURES. Unfortunately, people are paying the price for his incompetence with their very homes, jobs, pensions and lives. He gets to head back to Texas to his cushy ranch while thousands of Americans lose their homes not because of having a bad loan, but because Bush drove our economy into the ground. Our nation is going bankrupt and he and his policies (not the Dems, I'm afraid... they're part of the picture, sure, but he and his admin who had total control of the government for years are the master artists of this horrible tapestry.

Are you unable to acknowledge how deeply into the shitter he has taken the country? Are you that blind and clueless?

Quote:

There IS only one way for America- equal opportunity, strict adherence to the Constitution and the values of our Founding Fathers, free markets, limited government, state's rights, individual accountability & freedom and defense of freedom across the globe.

Okay, fine... but then honestly grade Bush according to those tenets and values. HE FAILS each and every one of them.

In the end, Obama may not do everything he hopes to do, and yes, I'm sure a lot of what he plans will be shaped by the "powers that be" in Washington. However, at least he's man enough to take questions on his policies, he's able to reason through simple arguments and can make calm rational decisions. Bush FAILED at that, too.

But go on... cry your tears of anguish that the world's dumbest president has finally reached an end to his disasterous reign. Keep cheering utter stupidity even when you have real facts and consequences of that stupidity making front-page news (economy tanked, Iraq failures, etc.). Continue to fear any idea that isn't part of your narrow-minded, exclusive, racist, sexist, classist and heterosexist ideology. It must be sad living your life in fear of intelligence, reason and open-mindedness.

"I don't like Obama" does not equal "I like Bush".

Breaking news!

Stocks Fall as Investors Ponder Obama Presidency
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081105/wall_street.html

How is this even possible? Obama is the HOPE & CHANGE president. He was to rescue the nation from this current economic crisis and failed Bush policies. The stock market should be up at least 500 points just based on the HOPE & CHANGE that Obama will bring us.

Last night my wife called me from her work at about midnight and told me Obama had won, then at around 4:00 AM my 13 year old had gotten up and was watching TV, he told me the television said that Mccain was the winner. I got scared, I thought Mccain was trying to "filibuster" his way into the presidency the way Bush did. Then this morning I heard from others that Obama is the undisputed new President, I was glad the 8 year reign of bombs and poverty is finally at an end. I don't think Obama will fix everything, but I'm hopeful he'll get us on the right track again, but only time will tell how well he does, I have my fingers crossed.

pbmax wrote:

Now that he is elected, I can only hope that his Presidency is so disastrous that people will long remember that socialism & liberalism is not right for America.

pbmax, are you seriously proposing that your fellow countrymen suffer disastrous consequences for the next four years just to prove if a political ideology is right or wrong? You want unemployment, iliteracy, child mortality, crime, the racial divide, illegal immigration, terrorist attacks on American soil, etc. to rise, just so you're able to say you were right and all the people who voted for Obama were wrong? If you really want that to happen... sorry but it's hard to put into words how disappointed I am.

I, like many other conservatives, am disappointed by this election. I bet there were a lot of people who voted for Obama for the stupidest of reasons like "Oh, he's African American and I want there to be a African American president in the White House" or "Oprah supports him, he must be a great candidate" or "He's for hope and change" and I doubt they knew what he really stood for. The reason I say that voting for Obama just to get an African American into the White House is stupid is because that is voting solely based on race and not on policies, so please, don't take that the wrong way.

There are a group of students in my Pre-Cal class from Venezuela that are unhappy about Obama being elected because they say he sounds exactly like Chavez when he was running for president. Basically they said if you translate Chavez's speeches that he made when he was running for president into English, they sound just like Obama's speeches. I certainly hope that Obama doesn't have aspirations to become the socialist dictator of America because from what the Venezuelans in my Pre-Cal class have told me Chavez has made Venezuela a living hell plagued with crime and corruption. There is rarely milk in the supermarkets and a packet of meat costs like 30 dollars and there is no longer a middle class there any more. Just the rich and the poor. Yeah, so much for socialism. I bet there are a lot of Venezuelans looking at the US right now and saying "Wow America, you're really foolish."

So now we have four years to look forward to. Four years of higher taxes and less opportunity to achieve success. Why work hard to earn more money when the government is just going to punish you for it? If we earn wealth, aren't we entitled to it if we have worked our butts off for it? Well, according to Jim Moran, congressman of Virginia, we are not entitled to our money, our property that we have worked so hard for. I guess the right to property is infact an alienable right.

One of my fears about Obama being elected is that I don't know if he will be able to handle a world crisis should it arise. Hell, he's a freshmen senator who hasn't even served a full term in the senate. He has little experience. What is he going to do if Russia should pull another stunt like when they invaded Georgia? What is he going to do if Iran attacks Israel or vice versa. Above all, what is he going to do if there is another terrorist attack on American soil? Sit down and talk with the terrorists that did it? Give them our own constitutional rights? Have the UN issue another useless warning?

john_doe2 wrote:

I, like many other conservatives, am disappointed by this election. I bet there were a lot of people who voted for Obama for the stupidest of reasons like "Oh, he's African American and I want there to be a African American president in the White House"

Yes, it couldn't possibly be that people have seen what a terrible job Bush has done and want something new. It couldn't possibly be that people actually agree with his policies. It must be because he's black!

(Psst... such assumptions make you look like a racist asshole.)

Quote:

There are a group of students in my Pre-Cal class from Venezuela that are unhappy about Obama being elected because they say he sounds exactly like Chavez when he was running for president. Basically they said if you translate Chavez's speeches that he made when he was running for president into English, they sound just like Obama's speeches. I certainly hope that Obama doesn't have aspirations to become the socialist dictator of America because from what the Venezuelans in my Pre-Cal class have told me Chavez has made Venezuela a living hell plagued with crime and corruption.

This is partially true. Venezuela is hardly a "living hell" but it is plagued with crime and corruption. Unfortunately, the U.S. supports and sustains the crime syndicates in order to destabilize the Venezuelan government, spends huge sums of cash to inject propaganda into the country and consistently reports lies and spins numbers as much as possible to give the impression that Venezuela is a "living hell" and that Chavez is the devil incarnate.

Quote:

There is rarely milk in the supermarkets and a packet of meat costs like 30 dollars

Source?

Here's a dose of truth and analysis to counter your fearmongering bullshit:

Quote:

The household poverty rate declined sharply from 55.6 percent in the beginning of 1997, as a result of the relatively strong growth (6.4 percent) of that year. It continued to decline, as the economy slowed to a standstill in 1998, and reached 42.8 percent in the first half of 1999, when President Chavez took office. There was some further decline in the poverty rate to 39 percent in 2001. But in 2002 poverty began to rise, surging to a peak of 55.1 percent for the second half of 2003. This was driven overwhelmingly by the oil strike (December 2002 – February 2003), which crippled the economy and caused a sharp downturn. Capital flight and political instability prior to the oil strike, including an unsuccessful military coup in April of 2002, also contributed to a severe recession that saw GDP decline by 28.1 percent from the fourth quarter of 2001 to the first quarter of 2003.

The economy then began to recover and grew very rapidly– 17.9 percent in 2004, and 9.3 percent in 2005. As a result of this recovery, the poverty rate dropped to 37.9 percent for the second half of 2005, the latest data available.

Thus if we compare the latest available data to the start of the present government, the household poverty rate fell nearly 5 percentage points – from 42.8 percent in the beginning of 1999 to 37.9 percent in the second half of 2005. The household poverty rate was thus reduced by 12.9 percent. Measuring individuals instead of households, the poverty rate decreased by 6.3 percentage points –from 50 percent of the population to 43.7 percent. That was a 14.4 percent reduction in poverty. Since the economy has continued to grow rapidly this year (first quarter growth came in at 9.4 percent), the poverty rate is almost certainly significantly lower today.

How then have so many people reached a different conclusion? The most common mistake has been to use the data from the first half of 2004, which was gathered in the first quarter of that year. The household poverty rate at that time was 53.1 percent, which is of course up enormously from 1999. There are several things wrong with using this measure. Most importantly, this poverty rate is measuring the impact of the oil strike and recession of 2002-2003.

Poverty rates are very sensitive to expansion and downturns in the economy, so to compare 1999 with the first quarter of 2004, leaving off the subsequent recovery, is meaningless and misleading. As noted above, the Venezuelan economy grew by 17.9 percent in 2004, and by 9.3 percent in 2005. We would expect and, in fact, did see a massive reduction in poverty from an economic recovery of this magnitude. So most of the news reports and articles alleging an increase in poverty under the Chávez administration are analogous to comparing winter temperatures to spring temperatures, and concluding on that basis that there is no global warming.

http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/ceprpov.htm
http://www.cepr.net/publications/venezu ... .htm#_ftn5

Oh noes! Venezuela is successful! Those dummies need to learn from Bush how to run their economy into the ground like good little free market capitalists, the only TRUE system that could ever work. EVER!

(sigh)

Look, I'm fine if you want to criticize Chavez or if you want to laud the tenets of capitalism, but at least do so with good information, not propagandized bullshit.

Quote:

Four years of higher taxes and less opportunity to achieve success. Why work hard to earn more money when the government is just going to punish you for it? If we earn wealth, aren't we entitled to it if we have worked our butts off for it? Well, according to Jim Moran, congressman of Virginia, we are not entitled to our money, our property that we have worked so hard for. I guess the right to property is in fact an alienable right.

Source?

Quote:

One of my fears about Obama being elected is that I don't know if he will be able to handle a world crisis should it arise. Hell, he's a freshmen senator who hasn't even served a full term in the senate. He has little experience. What is he going to do if Russia should pull another stunt like when they invaded Georgia? What is he going to do if Iran attacks Israel or vice versa. Above all, what is he going to do if there is another terrorist attack on American soil? Sit down and talk with the terrorists that did it? Give them our own constitutional rights? Have the UN issue another useless warning?

I realize you're scared. That's fine. But do you really think Bush has made us safer? His own advisers and last years' National Intelligence Estimate say that he's made the threat of Al Qaeda worse. Much worse.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ ... 071707.pdf

But, hey, you can believe that the cowboy was a god and that he did the U.S. and the world a great service by endangering lives needlessly, reacting poorly to crises and threats and treating the start of wars like games where he could taunt the bad guy and look cool on TV.

Nevermind the enormous amounts of lives lost. Never mind the economic shambles in which he's left our country. Nevermind the crimes he's committed, like condoning torture, wiretapping Americans and selling our freedoms of speech and rights to privacy out to telecoms, protecting companies that ship jobs overseas, giving positions in his administration to under-qualified folks and just smile and shrug his shoulders when people die as a result (Katrina).

If you're not ready to trust someone new in the office, that's fine... but at least give the guy a chance before you write him off. Don't assume the worst until it actually starts happening. Well, okay, it is currently happening, but that's thanks to the other guy, not Obama.

goliathvt wrote:

john_doe2 wrote:

I, like many other conservatives, am disappointed by this election. I bet there were a lot of people who voted for Obama for the stupidest of reasons like "Oh, he's African American and I want there to be a African American president in the White House"

Yes, it couldn't possibly be that people have seen what a terrible job Bush has done and want something new. It couldn't possibly be that people actually agree with his policies. It must be because he's black!

(Psst... such assumptions make you look like a racist asshole.)

Quote:

There are a group of students in my Pre-Cal class from Venezuela that are unhappy about Obama being elected because they say he sounds exactly like Chavez when he was running for president. Basically they said if you translate Chavez's speeches that he made when he was running for president into English, they sound just like Obama's speeches. I certainly hope that Obama doesn't have aspirations to become the socialist dictator of America because from what the Venezuelans in my Pre-Cal class have told me Chavez has made Venezuela a living hell plagued with crime and corruption.

This is partially true. Venezuela is hardly a "living hell" but it is plagued with crime and corruption. Unfortunately, the U.S. supports and sustains the crime syndicates in order to destabilize the Venezuelan government, spends huge sums of cash to inject propaganda into the country and consistently reports lies and spins numbers as much as possible to give the impression that Venezuela is a "living hell" and that Chavez is the devil incarnate.

Quote:

There is rarely milk in the supermarkets and a packet of meat costs like 30 dollars

Source?

Here's a dose of truth and analysis to counter your fearmongering bullshit:

Quote:

The household poverty rate declined sharply from 55.6 percent in the beginning of 1997, as a result of the relatively strong growth (6.4 percent) of that year. It continued to decline, as the economy slowed to a standstill in 1998, and reached 42.8 percent in the first half of 1999, when President Chavez took office. There was some further decline in the poverty rate to 39 percent in 2001. But in 2002 poverty began to rise, surging to a peak of 55.1 percent for the second half of 2003. This was driven overwhelmingly by the oil strike (December 2002 – February 2003), which crippled the economy and caused a sharp downturn. Capital flight and political instability prior to the oil strike, including an unsuccessful military coup in April of 2002, also contributed to a severe recession that saw GDP decline by 28.1 percent from the fourth quarter of 2001 to the first quarter of 2003.

The economy then began to recover and grew very rapidly– 17.9 percent in 2004, and 9.3 percent in 2005. As a result of this recovery, the poverty rate dropped to 37.9 percent for the second half of 2005, the latest data available.

Thus if we compare the latest available data to the start of the present government, the household poverty rate fell nearly 5 percentage points – from 42.8 percent in the beginning of 1999 to 37.9 percent in the second half of 2005. The household poverty rate was thus reduced by 12.9 percent. Measuring individuals instead of households, the poverty rate decreased by 6.3 percentage points –from 50 percent of the population to 43.7 percent. That was a 14.4 percent reduction in poverty. Since the economy has continued to grow rapidly this year (first quarter growth came in at 9.4 percent), the poverty rate is almost certainly significantly lower today.

How then have so many people reached a different conclusion? The most common mistake has been to use the data from the first half of 2004, which was gathered in the first quarter of that year. The household poverty rate at that time was 53.1 percent, which is of course up enormously from 1999. There are several things wrong with using this measure. Most importantly, this poverty rate is measuring the impact of the oil strike and recession of 2002-2003.

Poverty rates are very sensitive to expansion and downturns in the economy, so to compare 1999 with the first quarter of 2004, leaving off the subsequent recovery, is meaningless and misleading. As noted above, the Venezuelan economy grew by 17.9 percent in 2004, and by 9.3 percent in 2005. We would expect and, in fact, did see a massive reduction in poverty from an economic recovery of this magnitude. So most of the news reports and articles alleging an increase in poverty under the Chávez administration are analogous to comparing winter temperatures to spring temperatures, and concluding on that basis that there is no global warming.

http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/ceprpov.htm
http://www.cepr.net/publications/venezu ... .htm#_ftn5

Oh noes! Venezuela is successful! Those dummies need to learn from Bush how to run their economy into the ground like good little free market capitalists, the only TRUE system that could ever work. EVER!

(sigh)

Look, I'm fine if you want to criticize Chavez or if you want to laud the tenets of capitalism, but at least do so with good information, not propagandized bullshit.

Quote:

Four years of higher taxes and less opportunity to achieve success. Why work hard to earn more money when the government is just going to punish you for it? If we earn wealth, aren't we entitled to it if we have worked our butts off for it? Well, according to Jim Moran, congressman of Virginia, we are not entitled to our money, our property that we have worked so hard for. I guess the right to property is in fact an alienable right.

Source?

Quote:

One of my fears about Obama being elected is that I don't know if he will be able to handle a world crisis should it arise. Hell, he's a freshmen senator who hasn't even served a full term in the senate. He has little experience. What is he going to do if Russia should pull another stunt like when they invaded Georgia? What is he going to do if Iran attacks Israel or vice versa. Above all, what is he going to do if there is another terrorist attack on American soil? Sit down and talk with the terrorists that did it? Give them our own constitutional rights? Have the UN issue another useless warning?

I realize you're scared. That's fine. But do you really think Bush has made us safer? His own advisers and last years' National Intelligence Estimate say that he's made the threat of Al Qaeda worse. Much worse.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ ... 071707.pdf

But, hey, you can believe that the cowboy was a god and that he did the U.S. and the world a great service by endangering lives needlessly, reacting poorly to crises and threats and treating the start of wars like games where he could taunt the bad guy and look cool on TV.

Nevermind the enormous amounts of lives lost. Never mind the economic shambles in which he's left our country. Nevermind the crimes he's committed, like condoning torture, wiretapping Americans and selling our freedoms of speech and rights to privacy out to telecoms, protecting companies that ship jobs overseas, giving positions in his administration to under-qualified folks and just smile and shrug his shoulders when people die as a result (Katrina).

If you're not ready to trust someone new in the office, that's fine... but at least give the guy a chance before you write him off. Don't assume the worst until it actually starts happening. Well, okay, it is currently happening, but that's thanks to the other guy, not Obama.

So I'm a racist asshole for assuming that people voted for Obama soley because of his race? Hell, I don't even have to assume. Just listen to this audio of a reporter interviewing Obama supporters in Harlem. Shit these people don't even know what he supports.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxXY6VscPnQ

So I guess we hilly billy redneck conservatives are the stupid ignorant ones huh? Sure.

And what's my source about how awful it is in Venezuela. Uhhhhh, how about a girl named Andrea Yones who's a native Venezuelan that acutally lived in Venezuela and moved away because your buddy Chavez screwed it up so much. What I wrote about the 30 dollar packets of meat and milk not being available in the supermarkets is her own account. She's not the only one either, there are many other native Venezuelans that I personally know who moved away because Chavez is such an asshole. Yeah, you may have some bullshit studies probably written by some liberal think tank. I have first hand accounts. FUCK your studies and your statistics.

EDIT: Oh, and here's a video of that dick Jim Moran telling us how our hard earned money doesn't belong to us.

http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2 ... o-keep-it/

So you think it's right that a CEO can earn a multi-million dollar paycheck per year while slashing hard-earned pensions and jobs on a whim because it helps the bottom line? Did the CEOs deserve their self-appointed pay raises? Probably not. Did they earn the right to destroy the lives of their workers? Definitely not. But they're doing it anyway because of people like you. Part of me wants to be an asshole and say that I hope you get a taste of this medicine some day. Granted, I would also hope you bounce back because I'm not a total asshole.

But I do wonder if you are so dense you need to lose your job and have a horrible accident or something before you realize the type of system that is in play here. Do you have any medical bills? Do you have insurance? Have you seen the job market lately? I wonder if you'd be singing the same tune if your job got "cut back" and all of a sudden you had a medical bill to pay. Unfortunately, that's a reality for a lot of Americans... who aren't looking for a handout. But they do deserve their fair share of the "windfall profits" that corporations have been stealing for the last 20 years or so.

All Moran was trying to say is that CEOs have plundered companies, passing out huge profits to upper management but not offering any of that increased income to the workers who actually produced the items or services that have sold so well. In other words, the "cut" for the worker has stagnated or declined at a time when the portion of cash payed out to the managers has skyrocketed. And, he correctly points out, that you can't do that for too long because you end up with a fubar'd economy, just like the one we have now.

You talk a lot about how "sharing the wealth" is so terrible... well, frankly, I think "stealing the wealth" is worse, but that's exactly what you're saying is okay when you don't even bother to examine what has been going on in the corporate world for the last few decades. Apparently you like getting ripped off and will defend those doing the stealing. Kudos to you.

As for the Venezuela stuff... gee, lemme guess... your friends are probably fairly wealthy and don't like the fact that Chavez is using tax dollars to improve the lives of the entire nation instead of paying out welfare to the extremely rich, like we do in this country. To your fearmongering bullshit and cries of "socialism" I may as well reply and call you a "Welfare lover! Welfare lover!" Of course, in this case, you love welfare for rich people. They didn't earn their tax breaks and subsidies. Yet it's okay to give them a handout on top of the millions in profits they're hoarding (while sending their labor force below the poverty line).

Clearly we have a difference of opinion... you favor welfare and condone criminal activity for the extremely rich and rail against the idea of properly paying wages in accordance with some sort of profit ratio. I, on the other hand, believe that if workers help to make an amazing product, ALL employees, from CEO to janitor, deserve to see benefits from their work.

Your version clearly doesn't work... forces people out of their homes en mass, slashes pensions, raises unemployment and increases the number of people living in poverty. If you're actually going to challenge any of this, then I give you "exhibit A," today's U.S. and global economy.

My version... well, honestly, mine probably won't even be tried, as Obama's plans are far too limited in this regard.

To each his own, I guess. Though I'm not sure why you'd support a system that sends people who work hard to the poorhouse while making a few extremely rich for being tied to the same product or service.

Actually, please answer why you think that is okay. Why is that a good system?

Thats awesome that he won!!! The first black president. He' 's probably going to get shot. I hope not though.

john_doe2 wrote:

... Yeah, you may have some bullshit studies probably written by some liberal think tank. I have first hand accounts. FUCK your studies and your statistics./

Yes, because hearsay clearly is more reliable than studies and statistics...

I'm the smartest person on Doom3world.org
http://superobamaworld.com/
Play this and shut your yaps!

First off, do you realize that the majority of Venezuelans could not afford meat as part of their normal diet before Chavez arrived on the scene? Farmers and businesses would gouge their prices so that only the fairly well-off could afford them. And it's important to note that before Chavez came into power, from 1985 to 1995, poverty levels--under a capitalist-loving, U.S. investment-friendly leader--went from 18% to 65%. That more than three times the number of people in poverty over a span of 15 years. Yay capitalism!

Now let's take a look at your $30 package of meat story. There are a few instances where there were shortages of food and there were indeed spikes in prices. However, the reasons for those shortages are important. The reason why meat rose to such high prices is because businesses were trying to gouge and cheat their customers like they had been doing for decades before Chavez took power. In response, Chavez imposed price controls to bring meat back down to a normal price.

Farmers and businesses then refused to sell their meat and dairy products at proper market prices and went on strike. To make matters worse, some were caught dumping raw milk into rivers just so the products could never reach the demanding market. Businesses sabotaged the market further by gouging their prices anyway (there's your $30 package of meat) and selling goods on the black market. They made their profits but did so at the expense of the populace. Essentially, they were trying to starve the population and/or gouge prices while manipulating and exaggerating the effects of a supplies shortage in the hopes that the populace would turn on Chavez.

Of course, for the most part it didn't work because Chavez's government had put into place one of the best-run, most efficient and surprisingly robust local food operations. He also counterbalanced what was lacking in terms of supply (that is, what was being withheld by agri-corporations) with imports.

Now, aside from the crap that gets posted here in the U.S., analysts have studied these food shortage instances and trace the causes NOT to "socialism" or any decisions by the government, but instead their investigations lead them back to corporate corruption, attempts to swindle the people and gouge prices, and further manipulating the market (purposefully skewing demand by refusing to sell goods) to try to collapse the system.

What's more impressive than actually having a successful and robust agricultural and food market is that when the populace started buying into the bullshit and propaganda and felt the government rather than the corporations were at fault, Chavez heard their concerns and removed price controls on nearly everything. Wow... a government that listens to the people? That's nuts! What a tyrannical dictator!

So, yeah... Chavez isn't a saint. He's done a lot of fucked up things and should be criticized for them... but buying into the propaganda peddled by the U.S. media isn't helpful if you have any interest in the truth.

goliathvt wrote:

john_doe2 wrote:

I, like many other conservatives, am disappointed by this election. I bet there were a lot of people who voted for Obama for the stupidest of reasons like "Oh, he's African American and I want there to be a African American president in the White House"

Yes, it couldn't possibly be that people have seen what a terrible job Bush has done and want something new. It couldn't possibly be that people actually agree with his policies. It must be because he's black!

(Psst... such assumptions make you look like a racist asshole.)

It appears to me that you have a problem with race.

There is nothing wrong or racist with what he said. There WERE people that voted for Obama because he's black. That's not an assumption, and its not racist to say so.

You need to relax a little and stop looking for racism where it isn't.

He said, "I bet there were a lot of people who...". This is an assumption of motives of those who voted for Obama and its operative factor is race. Hence my statement about racism. And note that I didn't call him racist, but I did point out that his assumptions give that impression.

Reading comprehension, pbmax.

goliathvt wrote:

He said, "I bet there were a lot of people who...". This is an assumption of motives of those who voted for Obama and its operative factor is race. Hence my statement about racism. And note that I didn't call him racist, but I did point out that his assumptions give that impression.

Reading comprehension, pbmax.

Oh, I see. Its ok for you say he looks like a racist as long as you don't say that he is a racist.

I love how liberals operate.

Don't be fooled. Republicans operate in similar fashion, along with most of society.

Just google "miserable failiure" and see what you get...

aardwolf wrote:

Just google "miserable failiure" and see what you get...

I get:

Did you mean: miserable failure :mrgreen:

Dow Jones Industrial Average down 930 points since Obama elected as President.

HOPE has arrived! CHANGE is coming!

Wednesday's drop was the largest percentage drop the day after an election IN HISTORY. A bigger drop than any post election day during the Great Depression.

HOPE has arrived! CHANGE is coming!

Reddey up yer pitchfokh Cletus. We gut us an presidant tah lynch, hyuk.

LOL pbmax. Yes, let's try to blame Obama who hasn't been president yet for one day for Bush's 8 years-long royal fuckup. GG right there. Way to think clearly!

Although I do imagine some criminals on Wallstreet are probably worried because that whole oversight and regulation thing may force them to obey the law sometime soon.

goliathvt wrote:

Clearly we have a difference of opinion... you favor welfare and condone criminal activity for the extremely rich and rail against the idea of properly paying wages in accordance with some sort of profit ratio. I, on the other hand, believe that if workers help to make an amazing product, ALL employees, from CEO to janitor, deserve to see benefits from their work.

Yes, we do have differences in opinion. And no, I don't favor welfare and criminal activity. I favor opportunity. I favor the American dream. I believe that when someone works hard to achieve their dreams they shouldn't have the government penalize them for it. I believe that entrepreneurs and small business owners and people with big ideas are what make this country so great and are the reason we have been so materially blessed. You favor opportunity being squelched. You favor punishing success. You favor individuals who take advantage of the system. You favor the destruction of the American dream. The big mean evil corporations that you hate and despise are the backbone of our economy. Even a semester of Economics has shown me that taxing the shit out of our corporations and regulating them up the ass doesn't spur economic growth.

Granted, there has to be some regulations to make sure that employees are protected and not abused and that the consumer is being protected also. However, these laws are already in place. Why do you think unions have been on such a decline for the past century? Because employee's basic rights and protections have been put in place by government laws that have been passed over the years. Unions have become less and less popular because of corruption and simply because employee's don't need them or even want them.

Now, Goliath, I may not be as good as you are when it comes to debating and pulling studies and statistics out of my ass to prove some political policy, hell I have respect for your debating skills, but when an autistic Venezuelan tells me that he hates Chavez and thinks he's a punk, that tells me something about what Chavez has done to Venezuela. And no, my friends from Venezuela, like Andrea Yones, where not wealthy. They were simply middle class Venezuelans who lived comfortable lives. Andrea has told me that the middle class no longer exists there. Only the rich and the poor. That is once again her own account. Her own words.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/season/12/

pbmax wrote:

Dow Jones Industrial Average down 930 points since Obama elected as President.

HOPE has arrived! CHANGE is coming!

Wednesday's drop was the largest percentage drop the day after an election IN HISTORY. A bigger drop than any post election day during the Great Depression.

HOPE has arrived! CHANGE is coming!

This post alone reveals that your sole motivation is to manipulate people at all cost.

Especially you with your Wall Street history and your MBA should jump in here and say exactly this:

"look people, the rally up on Wall Street the day Obama got elected was the greatest gain ever on an election day, but don't be misled - we're in a deep recession and it's normal the market refocuses on the quarterly earning reports and economy readings now. All of them are disastrous and what's even worse, they reflect the past - the future outlook by all companies is cut to light speed deterioration mode. Like BNA! has said here a month ago - a DOW above 7500 is unsustainable when based on earnings, which is what the stock market is really about - trading shares of companies and earnings, not of ideologies and false claims. In reality the stock market has always done best under Democrats presidency, and the very best when a Democrat was president and the house was GOP. There is also a proven correlation of sunburst intensity and who had won the football super bowl. For proof I also want to add that on any dramatic up- or downswing day the sun did rise in the morning and bicycle fell over in China."

I admit the 7500 points DOW is debatable, a further reduction may be needed after all financial secrets of an 8 years long insufficiently communicating administration got revealed. So much about crusades without back to back financing from the population as it's supposed to and thereby lulling them into happy dappy mode in an alternative reality. It's also the succeeding administration which will inherit all the veteran spendings which go on for decades.

Oh, by the way, I was a strong McCain supporter till he let screaming and scratching Sarah Palin out of the bag. Obama will be a president good for many things and bad for other things, but in general he'll be a respectable person and good enough to put the train called "USA" back on track after the supposed fundamentalists, neo-cons, chicken-hawks and my-way-or-the-highway arm-chair Rambos very sufficiently derailed him. I really don't like Messiah like politicians (some Germans still are suspicious about politicians able to gather hundreds of thousands of people in the public for a speech) but I take a Messiah like mass hypnotizing magician any day over a fundamentalist willing to lead the world even further back to stone age.

Now, that all is over I am very impressed by John McCain and shocked by what his team did and how his followers behave. If this trend continues it wont be long till a misled fanatic considers to commit a horrible crime in the name of "the good cause" or "god" or something equally silly to weaken the presidency of Obama.

After going backwards for years it'll take the US at least an equal amount of time only to get back to zero. But I'm confident this country will make it, if not the US no one can. Recover is clearly in sight, but not in reach yet.

And as far as you are concerned pbmax: The DOW will drop further, I've said so before and continue to say it. I hope you'll be as eager to post when we see huge upswings 18 months from now as you are now in your attempt to manipulate and carry on a smear campaign.

iceheart wrote:

john_doe2 wrote:

... Yeah, you may have some bullshit studies probably written by some liberal think tank. I have first hand accounts. FUCK your studies and your statistics./

Yes, because hearsay clearly is more reliable than studies and statistics...

It's always been.

Quote:

You favor punishing success. You favor individuals who take advantage of the system.

No, let me say it again:

"I believe that if workers help to make an amazing product, ALL employees, from CEO to janitor, deserve to see benefits from their work."

How is that "punishing success" or "favoring the destruction of the American Dream?"

It's a very simple question. Please answer it.

goliathvt wrote:

But they do deserve their fair share of the "windfall profits" that corporations have been stealing for the last 20 years or so.

Clearly we have a difference of opinion... you favor welfare and condone criminal activity for the extremely rich and rail against the idea of properly paying wages in accordance with some sort of profit ratio. I, on the other hand, believe that if workers help to make an amazing product, ALL employees, from CEO to janitor, deserve to see benefits from their work.

To each his own, I guess. Though I'm not sure why you'd support a system that sends people who work hard to the poorhouse while making a few extremely rich for being tied to the same product or service.

I probably won't have time to follow this thread as much as I would like, and certainly not enough to participate well, but would be interested to hear a few details about some of these issues that some of our members have apparently given a great deal of thought. I apologize in advance that some of these questions may be too deep or diverse for the thread. If you have to separate this out, please give a thoughtful name to the new thread.

What kind of formulas or ratios are you thinking about when you mention all of the workers seeing benefits? I don't think you're saying the guy that works hard to move the garbage cans during the day and then goes home and plays with his kids would get the same financial reward as the designer / inventor / manager who spends most of his waking and sleeping hours designing and perfecting the system and has little time for anything else. I'm assuming you're wanting a little more leaning away from extreme disparity, but not sure what degree or specifics you would be talking about.

Another part I'm wondering about. Let's say that income tax breaks were cut by perhaps 50% or more. What range of income taxes would you like to see for specific ranges of family income, and what would you like to see for businesses?

While typing this, another idea comes to mind. To what degree should society give money and other benefits to those who don't work, or to their dependents, for how long, and what documentation would be appropriate to explain why they should receive those benefits at the time? Included in this could be a question about enforced consequences to teenagers or other fathers who don't fully support their new families. As another thought on financial responsibility, to what degree should those who recklessly gamble on their mortgages and other credit be absolved of their responsibility, and what should be required before they are again entrusted with significant financial rights?

As I read this thread I am reminded of many of the above questions which I hear frequently discussed. Thanks in advance for thoughtful replies.

MBolus wrote:

While typing this, another idea comes to mind. To what degree should society give money and other benefits to those who don't work, or to their dependents, for how long, and what documentation would be appropriate to explain why they should receive those benefits at the time? Included in this could be a question about enforced consequences to teenagers or other fathers who don't fully support their new families. As another thought on financial responsibility, to what degree should those who recklessly gamble on their mortgages and other credit be absolved of their responsibility, and what should be required before they are again entrusted with significant financial rights?

While not directly addressed by you I'd like to throw in my 2€ as well.

Unless somebody cannot work because of handicaps the society should give him money for going to work on lower payment. I am aware about all the implications of subsidized work, but I think it is better for all parties involved to subsidize work instead of unemployment. Being out and in touch with other co-workers is better than staying at home to watch TV.

Those who gamble on their mortgages should be responsible in the US as they are in other countries. That means full collateralization of all their belongings and future incomes rather than limiting mortgage payments on the house. Why do people seldom gamble on mortgages in Germany? Because if you fail you're on the hook for a long time. Even after an insolvency procedure (which will free you of any debt after 7 years - you'll have to surrender everything during that time frame and can keep enough to keep your head above water) your credit history will be devastated. People with a bad credit history cannot get a loan, often not even a cell phone in Germany (unless they turn to foreign "Easy Credit" banks operating here).

Fear to fall through the net keeps many but not all people from gambling their financial future. Ironically most gamble it away long before they reach "mortgage" territory (on mobile phone contracts, credit cards, online shopping...).

I think in this case banks should also get held responsible for making bad loans. A lawsuit against a bank would have a real chance of success in Germany if it's proven the bank did make a loan while knowing the debtor wouldn't be able to pay back with his sustainable income.

MBolus wrote:

What kind of formulas or ratios are you thinking about when you mention all of the workers seeing benefits? I don't think you're saying the guy that works hard to move the garbage cans during the day and then goes home and plays with his kids would get the same financial reward as the designer / inventor / manager who spends most of his waking and sleeping hours designing and perfecting the system and has little time for anything else.

Correct. The janitor shouldn't see a huge pay raise just because the company makes a huge success out of a product if their job duties stay the same. On the other hand, if the company moves into a new, larger building or something and the duties of that worker change, their pay should be matched according to their work contribution.

I do think any companies turning a profit have a responsibility to keep the wages they pay in line with the cost of living of the area in which they operate. This includes the wages of the janitor, staff member or CEO. Conversely, if the company hits hard times or falls behind in productivity, this cost of living increase may not happen, but that's understandable.

For example, VA Tech works this way... we usually get annual cost of living increases. However, when the state budget goes into the shitter (like this year), we will see half of (2004) or sometimes none of (2008) our usual salary increase. It sucks, but it makes sense, to an extent. Fortunately, the up-side to this is that there is a lot of motivation to keep spending efficient and the staff rests assured that the budget issues will be temporary (we did get cost of living increases for 2005-2007).

If I boil it down, this is essentially what I believe: Workers should be paid a living wage that corresponds to the cost of living of the town in which they live. Once that is paid out to every employee, then profits beyond that should be distributed according to one's level of contribution to the success of the company. A person's level of effort and sacrifice should be part of the equation when defining their salary.

What this means:

If you work your ass off 16 hours a day trying to make an amazing product succeed, you should be paid accordingly because your effort is high and you're giving up rest and relaxation when most everyone else goes home after 8 hours.

If you work in a factory, mine or other environment that damages your health in order to produce something society needs, you should be rewarded for that sacrifice. Similarly, if you're doing a job that everyone hates to do, the willingness to do that shit job should be acknowledged in pay. You're sacrificing your comfort to get the job done and it should be recognized.

If you work in an air conditioned office and don't produce much, your planning meetings don't bear fruit and you go home every day without putting in any extra time on the job, then you shouldn't be paid a huge salary. In this case, you're not sacrificing a lot, so you should be paid accordingly. Now, if you single-handedly come up with the next-best product that sweeps the market, you should indeed see a share of profits that matches your contribution.

Again, pay should be matched with ones contribution to product or service as well as the measure of sacrifice they endure in order to get the job done.

Quote:

Another part I'm wondering about. Let's say that income tax breaks were cut by perhaps 50% or more. What range of income taxes would you like to see for specific ranges of family income, and what would you like to see for businesses?

I doubt I'm the best person to offer any numbers for these things. I don't care much about the percentages of profits... instead, I care about whether or not ALL employees are paid in a way that somehow matches their contributions. If corporations in our capitalist system actually paid workers some increased value (I don't know who gets to decide this) whenever their profits increased, then I probably wouldn't be so opposed to the system as a whole. Unfortunately, what happens in reality is huge profits are made, in part thanks to the hard work of employees, but those profits aren't paid out to the entire company. Instead, a small fraction of the workers (upper management and shareholders) decide to keep the profits and essentially cheat the rest of the workers out of their earned pay. Now, this practice is actually anti-capitalist in its theoretic sense: What incentive do workers have to produce better, faster or more efficiently if they never see the fruits of their labor?

Quote:

To what degree should society give money and other benefits to those who don't work, or to their dependents, for how long, and what documentation would be appropriate to explain why they should receive those benefits at the time?

This is a tough question. I'll have to think about it a while as I've never decided for myself exactly where I stand on it. I do think that people who are disabled or who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work need to be cared for in some way. A man who works 30 years in a car factory who gets his hand cut off in an accident or something doesn't deserve to be removed from society, left penniless or whatever just because he can no longer perform his job. Still, that only answers a small part of your question. I'll see if I can organize my thoughts on it and reply a bit later.

Quote:

If you work in an air conditioned office and don't produce much, your planning meetings don't bear fruit and you go home every day without putting in any extra time on the job, then you shouldn't be paid a huge salary. In this case, you're not sacrificing a lot, so you should be paid accordingly. Now, if you single-handedly come up with the next-best product that sweeps the market, you should indeed see a share of profits that matches your contribution.

And what if you worked your ass off your whole life to get to this position? When moving up the ladder this just kinda of comes with it.

Here Israeli analyst provides a detailed comparison of Obama to Michael Jackson: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/michael-j ... sident.htm

tranquill wrote:

Here Israeli analyst provides a detailed comparison of Obama to Michael Jackson: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/michael-j ... sident.htm

That is a wonderful site - I didn't know it still exists.

You have to fall in love with this instantly:

Quote:

Whether or not Hussein Obama is elected American president, the fact of him coming close to it is disturbing. Even if Obama fails now as voters take racial issues and common sense into account at the last moment, they are getting used to the idea of being ruled by a demagogue alien. Voting for Obama includes a break with several core cognitive patterns: the racial one (and don’t tell me you would like your daughter to marry a decent African), the religious one (Protestants and atheists voting for Muslim-turned-radical Christian), and one from the enemy crowd (America is at war with two Muslim states).

The most significant part of Obama’s success is that it formalizes the parting with American values. The country no longer insists on its cultural identity. But societies are formed around cultural values and broken around their absence. The post-Obama America will be different from the previous one. After Obama, the discussion on illegal immigration loses its sense: with the alien president, America can as well admit tens of millions of aliens who swarm it like the barbarians encroached upon the Roman Empire. From the right of settlement to subsidies to ruling the country, modern barbarians are taking over the United States.

I was wondering, have the Ku-Klux-Clan and the Brazilian Nazi Brotherhood already published their well balanced assessment too? I haven't received my breaking news email alert from Fox yet. We need more reliable sources - now!

Quote:

Whether or not Hussein Obama is elected American president, the fact of him coming close to it is disturbing. Even if Obama fails now as voters take racial issues and common sense into account at the last moment, they are getting used to the idea of being ruled by a demagogue alien. Voting for Obama includes a break with several core cognitive patterns: the racial one (and don’t tell me you would like your daughter to marry a decent African), the religious one (Protestants and atheists voting for Muslim-turned-radical Christian), and one from the enemy crowd (America is at war with two Muslim states).

The most significant part of Obama’s success is that it formalizes the parting with American values. The country no longer insists on its cultural identity. But societies are formed around cultural values and broken around their absence. The post-Obama America will be different from the previous one. After Obama, the discussion on illegal immigration loses its sense: with the alien president, America can as well admit tens of millions of aliens who swarm it like the barbarians encroached upon the Roman Empire. From the right of settlement to subsidies to ruling the country, modern barbarians are taking over the United States.

Surely that statement is made in jest, no?

iceheart wrote:

Surely that statement is made in jest, no?

No, but it qualifies - follow the link and you'll be surprised by the comments of the readers. High comedy for me, deep down serious Torah quoting for others.

I think my crazy meter exploded while reading just the article and then had a full-blown melt-down when reading the comments.

What misguided trash. One of my criticisms of Obama is that he's very, very pro-Israel to the extent that I doubt he will be at all critical of the war crimes and aggression the IDF carries out during his administration.

From what the author states, he seems to equate "pro-Israel" with "must help us bomb/fight Iran."

That ain't pro-Israel, that's nucking futs.

goliathvt wrote:

I think my crazy meter exploded...

You're here in the fun thread where we make fun out of whackos - don't forget about that.

ROBIN HOOD, ROBIN HOOD, RIDING THROUGH THE GLEN.

Wow, there's some real crap being written in this thread and guess where it's coming from.

It's scary to think that despite Bush throwing his weight around, acting like a brain-dead cowboy with an itchy trigger finger + the economy + a completely unjust war + Obama mania + Palin on the other side + everything that's happened in the last eight years, the democrats still only gets 52% of the popular vote. The poison has run very deep. McCain might have won if he hadn't picked Palin as his running mate. I think he did that because he wasn't comfortable saying some of the ridiculous and embarrassing things that were thrown at Obama, and Palin's a stupid heartless bitch who doesn't care what she says.

Does the far right republican part of the US even understand the concept of freedom? I know it doesn't respect democracy if some of the things said about the 2000 election are true. It CERTAINLY doesn't believe in peace. Are you starting to see the roots of the animosity towards the US yet? The hypocrisy of way America pretends to be a shining light of liberty and equality is sickening when you see and hear some of the republican attitudes. These people even take pride in their beliefs and actions when they should feel shame. George Bush should hung and buried with Sadam for his actions in office, like rigging an election, practicing torture and lying to the world, yet he gets to live, and retire back to his huge house.

Pbmax: If you want to sabotage yourselves as you put it then your lot should keep up that attitude, see where it gets your country. And guzzling down whatever crap you're fed you is under the proud ownership of the right more than the left. Anyone who thinks that McCain is a moderate, or thinks that being moderate is bad in the first place has serious problems and should worry less about things they obviously can't grasp, and worry more about their own mental health. The markets were bound to fall if Obama was elected, in anticipation of tighter regulations. Wanting your country to suffer is a tad unpatriotic don't you think? Or does your patriotism only apply if your government acts as a tribute party to the middle ages? Defence of freedom across the globe? Oh dear, I fear you may never wake up.

Obama can't wave a magic wand and make everything all better despite the media hyping him as the modern messiah. Hope may be completely without substance but it's a bloody good start. Politicians are just puppets saying exactly what they're told to say, but Obama does seem different. He's an idealist who seems to believe in what he says when he talks about change. It's not as if things have suddenly become all better now that he's won, but at least they didn't just get a shit load worse. I think most of the planet just dodged a bullet. Thank you people of the US. It’s good to know that the majority of your country doesn't think like pbmax. Obamas hands are tied though in some respects due to him being part of a broken system. Corporate America (others as well, but centralised in the US due to it having the biggest economy) is the real problem. That's why we're in Iraq, that's why there's so much corruption and that's the real underlying problem that needs to be addressed imo. They've bought people of low moral fibre within he American government. Guess which party. All you've got to do is look at Bush over the last eight years. He absolutely reeks of a corporate puppet.

Mordenkainen wrote:

pbmax wrote:

Now that he is elected, I can only hope that his Presidency is so disastrous that people will long remember that socialism & liberalism is not right for America.

pbmax, are you seriously proposing that your fellow countrymen suffer disastrous consequences for the next four years just to prove if a political ideology is right or wrong? You want unemployment, iliteracy, child mortality, crime, the racial divide, illegal immigration, terrorist attacks on American soil, etc. to rise, just so you're able to say you were right and all the people who voted for Obama were wrong? If you really want that to happen... sorry but it's hard to put into words how disappointed I am.

You really surprised? I think it's obvious that his loyalties lie only to himself and people who think the in same way. Typical neoChristian.

The Happy Friar wrote:

oboma wants to raise taxes in a town where the mean income is ~$30k a year. Love this guy! I happened to find a site that has a "oboma as president" postcard generator. It's pretty cool!
http://planetfallout.gamespy.com/pages/postcard

I hope that was an accidental spelling error, twice. I'm surprised you don't just call him aboma.

john_doe2 wrote:

So I guess we hilly billy redneck conservatives are the stupid ignorant ones huh? Sure.

One coin dude! And I know which one I'd want to be if I had to choose.

pbmax wrote:

You need to get over what other countries think of us. Its fairly irreverent. America is unique and a national power. Most countries will naturally not see eye to eye with us.

Yes, that's exactly why lots of other countries look down on the US :roll:

Where do you think that attitude will get the country? More terrorist attacks, more animosity due to disproportionate action and more hatred towards you leading to more terrorist attacks, and so on.

pbmax wrote:

I don't (unless everyone becomes a conservative & a constitutionalist).

Not everyone's that stupid.

pbmax wrote:

You seem to focus on race quite a bit. I thought we were to move past skin color and look at the character of a man's heart? The real racism in this country is on the left, not the right.

Completely laughable pbmax. Words fail me. Wait, here they come… Racism can and does work both ways. At the risk of being LOLed at; I actually do think that being black helped him gain some votes because it helped his whole image of change, it lost him votes as well. Although probably not that many due to the fact that the vast majority of people who are racist enough to not vote for someone due soley to the colour of there skin are going to be neoconservative republican filth that would never vote democrat anyway. So yes, it probably did help that he's brown but that's not his fault, get over it. But the right is phenomenally more racist than the left. Any lingering hope I had for you to one day make an acquaintance of reality have just gone out the window.

pbmax wrote:

socialism & liberalism is not right for America

Fine. Just mind your own business and keep out of other countries affairs, and oil fields you arrogant close minded right wing God worshiping republican neanderthals.

Kristus wrote:

Reddey up yer pitchfokh Cletus. We gut us an presidant tah lynch, hyuk.

Most people don't give a flying fuck about America or it's politics until it imposes itself onto others, showing themselves to be a backwards imperialistic country plagued by lots of low IQ, war loving arseholes. I'm bored stiff of American politics now. You know what, I give up. Praise God. Down with freedom, common sense, minorities and gays. Go republicans.

Hold still democrat non true believer while I try to string together enough coherent sentences to wordslap you.

I'd prefer if the discussion would be less full-frontal-in-your-face-aggressive-personal and more about the ideologies rather than the messengers.

Quote:

pbmax wrote:
You need to get over what other countries think of us. Its fairly irreverent. America is unique and a national power. Most countries will naturally not see eye to eye with us.

Yes, that's exactly why lots of other countries look down on the US :roll:

Where do you think that attitude will get the country? More terrorist attacks, more animosity due to disproportionate action and more hatred towards you leading to more terrorist attacks, and so on.

Despite all of the other statements it's important for you to remember one thing. What the US government does is rarely what the public wants, evidence of Bush's reelection 4 years ago is an accent to this point as he was not voted by popular vote but reelected strictly by his peers in the Electoral College.

Also, it is a well known fact that the one perceived as the most powerful no matter how benevolent and good they try to be is always the one to receive the most scorn. I'd be willing to bet that the many countries we have helped (legitimately and I don't mean by overthrowing a government or "occupation" whichever you wish to assume I mean) that have bitched and moaned about us being "nosy" would be equally upset with us if we stopped giving them money and protection and food, etc. I doubt anyone would ever find an argument against this fact because it has happened in the past. Korea still wants us in their country and we've been trying to get out for 40+ years. Iraq and Afghanistan will likely be the same way. You have to realize that if we refused to help anyone we would be equally scorned as cruel and not a "team player" in world social issues.

BNA! wrote:

I'd prefer if the discussion would be less full-frontal-in-your-face-aggressive-personal and more about the ideologies rather than the messengers.

Noted. I get angrier and angrier as I get going. That was the revised version. I think the original would have got me banned, arrested and maybe even shot.

Bittoman wrote:

Quote:

pbmax wrote:
You need to get over what other countries think of us. Its fairly irreverent. America is unique and a national power. Most countries will naturally not see eye to eye with us.

Yes, that's exactly why lots of other countries look down on the US :roll:

Where do you think that attitude will get the country? More terrorist attacks, more animosity due to disproportionate action and more hatred towards you leading to more terrorist attacks, and so on.

Despite all of the other statements it's important for you to remember one thing. What the US government does is rarely what the public wants, evidence of Bush's reelection 4 years ago is an accent to this point as he was not voted by popular vote but reelected strictly by his peers in the Electoral College.

Also, it is a well known fact that the one perceived as the most powerful no matter how benevolent and good they try to be is always the one to receive the most scorn. I'd be willing to bet that the many countries we have helped (legitimately and I don't mean by overthrowing a government or "occupation" whichever you wish to assume I mean) that have bitched and moaned about us being "nosy" would be equally upset with us if we stopped giving them money and protection and food, etc. I doubt anyone would ever find an argument against this fact because it has happened in the past. Korea still wants us in their country and we've been trying to get out for 40+ years. Iraq and Afghanistan will likely be the same way. You have to realize that if we refused to help anyone we would be equally scorned as cruel and not a "team player" in world social issues.

It wasn't directed at anyone other than the neos. Iraq and Afghanistan have every right to expect that given the circumstances.

Mordenkainen wrote:

pbmax wrote:

Now that he is elected, I can only hope that his Presidency is so disastrous that people will long remember that socialism & liberalism is not right for America.

pbmax, are you seriously proposing that your fellow countrymen suffer disastrous consequences for the next four years just to prove if a political ideology is right or wrong? You want unemployment, iliteracy, child mortality, crime, the racial divide, illegal immigration, terrorist attacks on American soil, etc. to rise, just so you're able to say you were right and all the people who voted for Obama were wrong?

Um, not quite. Its not a matter of me being able to say "I was right, and you were wrong". Its more about people learning from their mistakes.

If Obama goes as far left as he's capable of (especially with a democrat Congress), then he will harm America in ways that can't even be measured. And I hope those that voted for him will understand their mistake.

Its no different than the $1 billion (and counting) bailout. I'm 100% against this. Sometimes systems need to fail. Its part of a natural process. Artificially keeping the system a float with band-aids, fingers in the dike and moral hazard inducing bailouts will only make the next failure larger and more devastating. We all know this to be true.

People need to be accountable. People need to pay the price of mistakes made whether its in the private sector, the markets or in government. This bailout gives everyone responsible a free pass which means the same mistakes will happen again.

I don't want to see Americans suffer right now. But I'm looking at the big picture- beyond my life time even.

The current American body politic needs to fail and fail bigtime. Its the only way REAL change will happen...

Quote:

Um, not quite. Its not a matter of me being able to say "I was right, and you were wrong". Its more about people learning from their mistakes.

And if the end results, both short and long term, happen to be the best thing this country has ever seen..........would you learn from your own mistakes and beliefs???

Deadite4 wrote:

Quote:

Um, not quite. Its not a matter of me being able to say "I was right, and you were wrong". Its more about people learning from their mistakes.

And if the end results, both short and long term, happen to be the best thing this country has ever seen..........would you learn from your own mistakes and beliefs???

i don't see it happening.

but i try to keep an open mind. its just going to take quite a bit to change it.

pbmax wrote:

Deadite4 wrote:

Quote:

Um, not quite. Its not a matter of me being able to say "I was right, and you were wrong". Its more about people learning from their mistakes.

And if the end results, both short and long term, happen to be the best thing this country has ever seen..........would you learn from your own mistakes and beliefs???

i don't see it happening.

but i try to keep an open mind. its just going to take quite a bit to change it.

And that the same, I would assume, with most of the country. If what Obama does fails, those who supported will be difficult to change their minds and would have excuses as to what went wrong. If what Obama does succeeds, those who opposed will have a difficult time changing their beliefs and ideas even though the country came out better.

Until the country as a whole can put aside such strong feelings of their beliefs and disdain for the beliefs that aren't theirs, we are going to stay a mess. Political beliefs are the number 2 reason for war and death right behind religion IMO. Everybody on both sides are too extreme, and in the end almost never willing to work together.

pbmax wrote:

but i try to keep an open mind

BNA! wrote:

pbmax wrote:

but i try to keep an open mind

no, really!

just because i have my convictions does not mean i'm not willing to listen to another's view point. i always listen, but i might not always change my mind.

it appears that "open mindedness" today means that i must agree with the opposing view point.

pbmax wrote:

it appears that "open mindedness" today means that i must agree with the opposing view point.

Nope - this board is the best example for it as it's never ever been about agreement or mass-hugging each other.

An overwhelmingly large number of your posts are made on purpose to manipulate people. A manipulative person is the opposite of an open minded person since it even disallows open mindedness to others.

This said I'd like to stress that either your or my point of view could be equally wrong, depending on who you ask.

some of my posts may have been over the top, but i hope obviously so.

for example, stuff like "stock market crashes day after obama elected!! how can this be!!!!!!" is meant to be tongue-in-cheek because a lot of people that voted for him have unrealistic expectations. even the obama campaign near the end admitted things got a little out of hand and they tried to down play what people can expect from him in his first term.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081110/pl ... 1110000105

pbmax wrote:

but i try to keep an open mind. ...just because i have my convictions does not mean i'm not willing to listen to another's view point. i always listen...

*Ahem* Time to call bullshit.

pbmax wrote:

You need to get over what other countries think of us. Its fairly irreverent. America is unique and a national power.

pbmax wrote:

Honestly, I don't really care what other countries think of the US. When other countries don't agree with us, its usually a sign that we are doing the right thing.

pbmax wrote:

And, yes, other political attitudes can be inferior such as socialism, Marxism and fascism. Other countries can be inferior.

pbmax wrote:

breakerfall wrote:

1. Why are they angry?
2. Why do they feel they need to resort to such measures?
3. You have to know why and stop it.
4. You can't kill every terrorist in the world. You just can't.
5. Believe me when I say, they don't hate our freedom and liberties.

1. i don't care.
2. i don't care.
3. no i don't.
4. we don't have to kill everyone of them.
5. then what it is they hate exactly. tall buildings? subways? trains? airplanes?

pbmax wrote:

bittoman wrote:

right now the moral feeling for murder is that it's wrong and shouldn't happen but in the world of animals murder means survival, an animal killing a predator in it's territory is not wrong nor is an animal killing another for food, even canabalistic animals killing it's own kind.

first, this is completely laughable. however, i'll let it go so far as islamic fascists are indeed animals.

Quote Bittoman:
...in the view of extremist militant muslims killing the enemy is not morally wrong but in fact what you're supposed to do (at least that's what they're brainwashed into thinking) however we see it as wrong because our society says that killing someone else outside of self defense is unjustifiable.

murder is wrong. i don't care what you believe, what your religion is, where you live or how you were raised. give me a break. in fact you are contradicting yourself by admitting that islamic militants think killing is ok only because they have been brainwashed.

Quote Bittoman:
In order to understand another culture you first must learn about them and what makes them tick, it's not possible to apply your own culture's values to judge their motives because they will not understand nor will they care and quite likely they'll be insulted.

bullsh*t. what more do you need to learn about a culture that encourages young men, women and even children to blow themselves up and kill as many civilians as possible? my need for "understanding" stops right there.

pbmax wrote:

i'm an american, and i don't care what other nations think of us. ...i really don't care what france, germany, russia, canada or the u.n. think.

pbmax wrote:

i don't care what the terrorists claim their reason is- it doesn't frickin' matter! there is NO justifiable reason to commit these acts of terror, death and destruction against civilians.

By the way, the Iraqi civilian body count is now over 100,000... would you care to try to justify our acts of terror, death and destruction against them, pbmax?

Let's rewrite your statement to flip the script, shall we?

pbmax wrote:

I don't care what the U.S. claims their reason is--it doesn't frickin' matter! There is NO justifiable reason to commit these acts of terror, death and destruction against civilians.

pbmax wrote:

but i try to keep an open mind.