PDA

View Full Version : I'm damn proud to be an American tonight


Pages : [1] 2

Ray
01-03-2008, 10:27 PM
I don't want to get into an overtly political discussion, but I'm enormously proud of the overwhelmingly white voters of Iowa tonight, who voted for a black man in a caucus that was settled over any number of issues, with race not being significant among them. This stuff is starting to happen more and more often in smaller races around the country and seeing it in a presidential caucus is HUGE. I don't care what your politics are or whether you like Obama or don't, but you gotta be pleased to know this is finally possible in the America of 2007.

-Ray

jmeloy
01-03-2008, 10:28 PM
+1!

Louis
01-03-2008, 10:30 PM
Ray, I fully agree. We're not where we need to be on that score, but we're getting closer, and this is another sign.

avalonracing
01-03-2008, 10:34 PM
But in the end people will always vote for the guy with the best hair.

shanerpvt
01-03-2008, 10:37 PM
But in the end people will always vote for the guy with the best hair.


the best..........yes, but not perfect........everyone knows you can't trust a person with PERFECT hair.

shaner

Grant McLean
01-03-2008, 10:42 PM
Is that Chuck Norris on stage with Mike Huckabee?
Never would have called that one in a million years...

-g

rwsaunders
01-03-2008, 10:45 PM
Is that Chuck Norris on stage with Mike Huckabee?
Never would have called that one in a million years...

-g

Obama has Oprah
Huckabee has Chuck Norris
Hillary has Bumble Bee Dave? :rolleyes:

Viper
01-03-2008, 10:47 PM
I was very, very happy at the results tonight. Chuck Norris' wife is hot atmo.

Props out to Mr. Obama. It's not a matter now of whether I will or will not vote for you, it's about the fact that you did something today which was assuredly not possible just a short time ago. Your win was not based on decals, color schemes or marketing, but on the integrity of your own framework atmo.

KeithS
01-03-2008, 10:48 PM
Don't get too carried away on the significance of the IA caucus, remember Howard Dean a few short years ago. Blew his wad in IA so to speak, that was his one hit..

Huck and Chuck. Gonna be an interesting election cycle.

Viper
01-03-2008, 10:50 PM
Don't get too carried away on the significance of the IA caucus, remember Howard Dean a few short years ago. Blew his wad in IA so to speak, that was his one hit..

Huck and Chuck. Gonna be an interesting election cycle.

Dean had too much coffee that night ATMO ATMO ATMO WHEW YAH!!!!!!!!!!

Ray
01-03-2008, 10:51 PM
Don't get too carried away on the significance of the IA caucus, remember Howard Dean a few short years ago. Blew his wad in IA so to speak, that was his one hit..

Huck and Chuck. Gonna be an interesting election cycle.
Yeah, but Dean LOST in Iowa - finished third IIRC. He led in the polls up until the last week or two, but he lost in in the caucus. Kerry came, seemingly from out of nowhere, and won. And went on to the nomination. With Edwards second. Not saying Obama will, but he's gotta be the favorite for the Democratic nomination at this point.

-Ray

coopdog
01-03-2008, 10:56 PM
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but my personal experience is that there is as much, if not more, racism in the North. It's just comes packaged in a more subtle, demeaning form. I predict Clinton will carry the entire Northeast. And I wouldn't be surprised if Obama makes a strong showing in the South.

Viper
01-03-2008, 10:57 PM
It's the first stage in a spring classic race atmo. Losing tonight is not the end, but winning tonight offers the 'big mo' (momentum).

Momentum = Peete's coffee
Losing tonight = a cup of Earl Grey tea

girlie
01-03-2008, 10:58 PM
But in the end people will always vote for the guy with the best hair.
.

Viper
01-03-2008, 10:58 PM
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but my personal experience is that there is as much, if not more, racism in the North. It's just comes packaged in a more subtle, demeaning form. I predict Clinton will carry the entire Northeast. And I wouldn't be surprised if Obama makes a strong showing in the South.

Oddly, everything you offered could wind up to be a complete 180*.

(you forgot what the North fought for from 1860-1865 atmo).

Viper
01-03-2008, 10:59 PM
.

Jeebus. You post pics of dudes wearing slinky spandex and now this. I have nightmares from these pics you post! :D

girlie
01-03-2008, 11:05 PM
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but my personal experience is that there is as much, if not more, racism in the North. It's just comes packaged in a more subtle, demeaning form. I predict Clinton will carry the entire Northeast. And I wouldn't be surprised if Obama makes a strong showing in the South.

I am not sure but are you saying to vote for Ms. Hillary is and can only be a racist act.......be vary vary careful.

Though I will not disagree about the North hiding.....

bcm119
01-03-2008, 11:05 PM
I don't want to get into an overtly political discussion, but I'm enormously proud of the overwhelmingly white voters of Iowa tonight, who voted for a black man in a caucus that was settled over any number of issues, with race not being significant among them. This stuff is starting to happen more and more often in smaller races around the country and seeing it in a presidential caucus is HUGE. I don't care what your politics are or whether you like Obama or don't, but you gotta be pleased to know this is finally possible in the America of 2007.

-Ray
+1.

But Huckabee seems an even bigger story to me. Fear is the strongest emotion.

Louis
01-03-2008, 11:07 PM
my personal experience is that there is as much, if not more, racism in the North. It's just comes packaged in a more subtle, demeaning form

I don't have enough of a historical or personal perspective on this to say for sure, but I sure hope that it's not true. In my experience, divisions these days are driven more by class and $ than by race, but I have no empirical data to prove that. (I hope that response is not a "flame.")

I predict Clinton will carry the entire Northeast. And I wouldn't be surprised if Obama makes a strong showing in the South.

I very much doubt that things will play out in this manner, especially what you say about the NE. We'll see.

Louis

KeithS
01-03-2008, 11:08 PM
Thanks Ray, I should do my fact checking before I reply. I googled some coverage and got a good chuckle out of the geography lesson he gave us and the scream..

Watching the coverage now, boy does Chuck have pretty teeth too. Mitt may need a fork, he outspent Huckabee 7 to 1 and got beat by (estimated) 9 points.

avalonracing
01-03-2008, 11:12 PM
It's one thing to nominate and vote for the person you want... but you have to take into account how much they will unify and motivate all those who don't want that person. I know of two Democratic candidates who have the power to motivate a lot of people.

If you thought that Ralph Nader could ruin an election...

I fear that a lot of good intentioned people are going to give us another four years of Republicans. :crap:

scrooge
01-03-2008, 11:20 PM
Is that Chuck Norris on stage with Mike Huckabee?
Never would have called that one in a million years...

-g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8

I like a guy who doesn't take himself too seriously. But then again, maybe a president should...

dave thompson
01-03-2008, 11:22 PM
An interesting year. Where we hear nothing of race or gender but of plenty of words about religion.

I would love nothing better than to see a strong third party emerge with a slightly libertarian/populist/green bent to keep the Dems and 'Pubs straight and to keep a interesting, invigorating and diverse discourse in our ears. We need more than two alternatives.

shanerpvt
01-03-2008, 11:23 PM
I would love nothing better than to see a strong third party emerge with a slightly libertarian/populist/green bent to keep the Dems and 'Pubs straight and to keep a interesting, invigorating and diverse discourse in our ears. We need more than two alternatives.

+1

shaner

Louis
01-03-2008, 11:25 PM
I would love nothing better than to see a strong third party emerge with a slightly libertarian/populist/green bent to keep the Dems and 'Pubs straight and to keep a interesting, invigorating and diverse discourse in our ears. We need more than two alternatives.

Bloomberg?

rwsaunders
01-03-2008, 11:26 PM
I guess the part that irks me is that all of the candidates are full-time elected officials of the US Government. Exactly how much attention you can devote to your "day job" when you are running for office, escapes me. If any of us elected to run for such a position, would your employer continue to compensate you for your absence?

Check the benefits package below. It's not about winning at the next level, it's about staying just under the radar and remaining an incumbent.

Senators are entitled to prefix "The Honorable" to their names. The annual salary of each senator, as of 2006, was $165,200;[5] the President pro tempore and party leaders receive $183,500.[6] Analysis of financial disclosure forms by CNN in June 2003 revealed that at least 40 of the then senators were millionaires.[7] In addition to their salaries, after serving less than one term (5 years) senators are eligible for lifetime benefits, including a sizable federal pension, health benefits, and social security benefits.[8] In general, senators are regarded as more important political figures than members of the House of Representatives because there are fewer of them, and because they serve for longer terms, represent larger constituencies (except for House at-large districts, which also comprise entire states), sit on more committees, and have more staffers. The prestige commonly associated with the Senate is reflected by the background of presidents and presidential candidates; far more sitting senators have been nominees for the presidency than sitting representatives.

gomez308
01-03-2008, 11:28 PM
I don't want to get into an overtly political discussion, but I'm enormously proud of the overwhelmingly white voters of Iowa tonight, who voted for a black man in a caucus that was settled over any number of issues, with race not being significant among them. This stuff is starting to happen more and more often in smaller races around the country and seeing it in a presidential caucus is HUGE. I don't care what your politics are or whether you like Obama or don't, but you gotta be pleased to know this is finally possible in the America of 2007.

-Ray

IMHO This is a wrong way to think.

You are happy that folks voted for a black man. You should be happy that they voted for someone with beliefs similiar to their's irregardless of race. Voting for someone only because they are black is just as bad as not voting for someone because they are black.

michael white
01-03-2008, 11:28 PM
An interesting year. Where we hear nothing of race or gender but of plenty of words about religion.

I would love nothing better than to see a strong third party emerge with a slightly libertarian/populist/green bent to keep the Dems and 'Pubs straight and to keep a interesting, invigorating and diverse discourse in our ears. We need more than two alternatives.


agreed. the whole electoral college is stalled in a holding pattern.

Ahneida Ride
01-03-2008, 11:28 PM
I only care about the candidate views and platform.
AND will that platform be vigorously promoted?

Hair, sex, skin color is irrelavent.

Ray
01-03-2008, 11:30 PM
There's gonna be PLENTY of time in this election cycle to have the discussions that are starting to crop up. Plenty of ***** to be upset about, cynical about, whatever. But just for tonight can we, regardless of party, views, or preferences celebrate this one great moment? I'm a middle aged guy who when I was a little kid thought I'd see a day like this and then over the years became convinced it wouldn't happen in my lifetime. Well, it did. Lets just take that as a victory and a moment of triumph for all of us. And tomorrow continue the debate....

It feels historic as hell to me.

-Ray

fiamme red
01-03-2008, 11:32 PM
Bloomberg?I pray that Bloomberg runs for President. It will keep him from making mischief here in NYC.

dave thompson
01-03-2008, 11:32 PM
IMHO This is a wrong way to think.

You are happy that folks voted for a black man. You should be happy that they voted for someone with beliefs similiar to their's irregardless of race. Voting for someone only because they are black is just as bad as not voting for someone because they are black.
I think that was Ray's point; that we're to a point where folks are voting for the candidate they think is best, Obama in this particular instance, regardless of his ethnicity.

Ray
01-03-2008, 11:33 PM
IMHO This is a wrong way to think.

You are happy that folks voted for a black man. You should be happy that they voted for someone with beliefs similiar to their's irregardless of race. Voting for someone only because they are black is just as bad as not voting for someone because they are black.
No, you got me wrong, or I didn't communicate clearly. I'm glad they were able to vote for a man who happens to be black because they agreed with his beliefs, ideas, and intended actions and that his being black DIDN'T GET IN THE WAY of that. That's what's new. I think when people voted for Jesse Jackson in '84 and '88, it was largely because he was black. I think tonight people voted for Barack Obama because they like what they've seen and heard of Barack Obama.

So, I think we're in violent agreement.

-Ray

gomez308
01-03-2008, 11:38 PM
No, you got me wrong, or I didn't communicate clearly. I'm glad they were able to vote for a man who happens to be black because they agreed with his beliefs, ideas, and intended actions and that his being black DIDN'T GET IN THE WAY of that. That's what's new. I think when people voted for Jesse Jackson in '84 and '88, it was largely because he was black. I think tonight people voted for Barack Obama because they like what they've seen and heard of Barack Obama.

So, I think we're in violent agreement.

-Ray


Darn it. I was hoping to get in a good fight over this and you went and spoiled it for everyone.

ti_boi
01-03-2008, 11:43 PM
Perhaps....but the real story actually might be Edwards leap into a close second--to Hillary.... :beer:

Oh, and Chuck Norris as Secretary of Da-Fence.....Yo. Din't he meet his current wife when she sent him racy photos of herself???

Louis
01-03-2008, 11:43 PM
Darn it. I was hoping to get in a good fight over this and you went and spoiled it for everyone.

Ok, I can play that game:

Whomever you're for, Ron Paul is going to whup his/her @ss.

Oh, you're a Ron Paul fan? In that case you're a Libertarian Loon, and no matter how much money he's raised on the 'net, he's still a kook... ;)

Louis

dave thompson
01-03-2008, 11:45 PM
Bloomberg?
Maybe, he's making noises.

I would like to see a third party, whoever it may be, as a mechanism of change. Both in the way politics are done and the way the politicians are run. There's no earthly reason for spending the obscene amount of money and time just trying to achieve their party's nomination. I think politics is dominated not by the politicians but by their hired guns who tell them what to say, to whom and when to say it. As much as I dislike Huckabee (I'm a very firm believer in keeping religion from running politics. See the examples in the Middle East to see why) I admire him for speaking his mind in what I perceive to be rare honesty. I would be more likely to support him than I would some mealy-mouth that only parrots what they think we want to hear.

But in all of this political hoo-hah of the past months, I see no *leaders* emerge. No one with a flag shouting "Follow me!" I hear the word 'change' but sadly it appears only politics as usual.

ti_boi
01-03-2008, 11:47 PM
Huckabee has enough glib regular guy platitudes to make him dangerous....people around the US eat that crap up with a spoon.

Viper
01-04-2008, 12:05 AM
Bloomberg is powdered milk for a job that requires whole milk or even cream, he's a bag o' wind. Once a Democrat, turncoated to a Republican in order to be able to run for Mayor and now dropped all party associations, is neutral etc.

He's 5'1" tall, really hard on the eyes, really hard on the ears, but has four pockets full of money. He bought the Mayorship, he can't buy anything beyond (although if one views Governing NY an upgrade).

The Democratic Party will not allow Bloomberg to run, he'd steal votes for their party and they've had enough of that from Ralph Nader. Republicans would love to see Bloomberg throw his wallet, I mean hat, into the ring atmo.

ti_boi
01-04-2008, 12:09 AM
Bloomberg is powdered milk for a job that requires whole milk or even cream, he's a bag o' wind. Once a Democrat, turncoated to a Republican in order to be able to run for Mayor and now dropped all party associations, is neutral etc.

He's 5'1" tall, really hard on the eyes, really hard on the ears, but has four pockets full of money. He bought the Mayorship, he can't buy anything beyond (although if one views Governing NY an upgrade).

The Democratic Party will not allow Bloomberg to run, he'd steal votes for their party and they've had enough of that from Ralph Nader. Republicans would love to see Bloomberg throw his wallet, I mean hat, into the ring atmo.


you mean you don't like Mike's whiny @ss rambling monotone? GEEZ! :p

almost as horrible as listening to Hillary's nothern Illinois whiny @ss rambling monotone.................................

Viper
01-04-2008, 12:57 AM
Very

m
o
n
o
t
o
n
e

atmo. It's the mind killer. Dune, narrated by 'her' would give me a stroke. If I got a dime for every time she said, "Uhh" or "Umm" I could retire. Listen to 'her'.

Avispa
01-04-2008, 02:45 AM
I don't want to get into an overtly political discussion, but I'm enormously proud of the overwhelmingly white voters of Iowa tonight, who voted for a black man in a caucus that was settled over any number of issues, with race not being significant among them. This stuff is starting to happen more and more often in smaller races around the country and seeing it in a presidential caucus is HUGE. I don't care what your politics are or whether you like Obama or don't, but you gotta be pleased to know this is finally possible in the America of 2007.

Agree! Can't wait to see what impact this will have in the elections ahead...

..A..

soulspinner
01-04-2008, 05:30 AM
My wife is an attorney active in the Democratic party and she and I have a bet. Because black men got the vote 50 years before any woman in this country, I claimed America will vote in a black man before any woman. Gender biased is still quietly condoned but if the word racist is used, its a serious accusation. Ladies?

William
01-04-2008, 05:34 AM
It's still early. Doesn't always mean a lot at this point in the race.







William

Climb01742
01-04-2008, 06:06 AM
i would look forward to a obama vs mccain race. both seem like people of substance. who would debate ideas, not attack each other.

a fascinating question is: if obama gets nominated, who would he chose as VP? would he play the "balance" game by picking an older, experienced person (biden?) or just say, screw it, and pick a woman or someone young (harold ford jr?) or someone like bill richardson? fascinating choice.

as ray said, last night was a good night for america.

1centaur
01-04-2008, 06:19 AM
Massachusetts, often perceived as full of closet racists, elected a black man as governor in a landslide on the basis of a non-threatening demeanor and the a ridiculous campaign slogan: "Together we can." America's into voting based on gut feelings more than analysis these days, and Obama fits the mold as a bright, young guy who communicates with some level of authenticity - he provides people with the hope that he is admirable and principled, which is not how we perceive most politicians.

Huckabee is also affable, actually funny, and apparently principled. Personally, I think there's a veil covering a much less pleasant human being and he would be weak nationally, but he's well designed for Iowa.

A well-respected Wall Sreet strategist (Byron Wien) recently predicted Obama would beat Romney in a landslide for the Presidency. I think that's completely credible because I don't think white America is anti-black, I think it's anti-angry and accusing black, and in a turn of irony is so relieved when a black man appears non-angry that they reflexively want to give him/her a chance.

thwart
01-04-2008, 06:29 AM
Most juice in an election campaign since 1968.

Let's hope we don't have any crazies with guns out there... :crap:

soulspinner
01-04-2008, 06:37 AM
Massachusetts, often perceived as full of closet racists, elected a black man as governor in a landslide on the basis of a non-threatening demeanor and the a ridiculous campaign slogan: "Together we can." America's into voting based on gut feelings more than analysis these days, and Obama fits the mold as a bright, young guy who communicates with some level of authenticity - he provides people with the hope that he is admirable and principled, which is not how we perceive most politicians.

Huckabee is also affable, actually funny, and apparently principled. Personally, I think there's a veil covering a much less pleasant human being and he would be weak nationally, but he's well designed for Iowa.

A well-respected Wall Sreet strategist (Byron Wien) recently predicted Obama would beat Romney in a landslide for the Presidency. I think that's completely credible because I don't think white America is anti-black, I think it's anti-angry and accusing black, and in a turn of irony is so relieved when a black man appears non-angry that they reflexively want to give him/her a chance.

Interesting thoughts...

Too Tall
01-04-2008, 07:07 AM
I heart Iowa for their involvment and strong opinions. THAT makes for an enduring democracy. Times like these I will re-read both sides of the Lincoln Memorial and not forget how Andrew Jackson delt with the Union. I'm most interested in leaders who honor where we come from using our strong constitution and represent the people. "Politics" make me ill.

saab2000
01-04-2008, 07:13 AM
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but my personal experience is that there is as much, if not more, racism in the North. It's just comes packaged in a more subtle, demeaning form. I predict Clinton will carry the entire Northeast. And I wouldn't be surprised if Obama makes a strong showing in the South.

I am pissed off that you would think that. Why is it that many folks think of us Midwesterners as a bunch of ignorant, bigoted hayseeds? Tell me. Please.

Vague statements proclaiming us to be a bunch of racists is without base and offensive.

And being proud that a bunch of Midwesterners would be so bold as to vote for a black man is patronising. They voted for the candidate they thought best qualified to lead this nation.

Can we please move beyond the color of the man's skin? Or the gender of one of his opponents?

This is 2008 folks. We won't move past it until we finally move past it.

Besides, nobody got up in arms when George Bush had an African American as SecDef or an African American woman as Secratary of State? These are not token positions.

saab2000
01-04-2008, 07:20 AM
or someone like bill richardson? fascinating choice.



Gov./Ambassador Richardson has been my choice all along. But I think he is gunning for the VP job, not the presidency. Yet. We need someone with his foreign policy experience to help undo the embarrasing mess of the past 7 years.

IMHO.

BumbleBeeDave
01-04-2008, 07:35 AM
Obama has Oprah
Huckabee has Chuck Norris
Hillary has Bumble Bee Dave? :rolleyes:

. . . at this point in time of any of those aforementioned events.

Of course, it also depends on your definition of "of" . . . :rolleyes:

BBD

sspielman
01-04-2008, 07:39 AM
Massachusetts, often perceived as full of closet racists, elected a black man as governor in a landslide on the basis of a non-threatening demeanor and the a ridiculous campaign slogan: "Together we can." America's into voting based on gut feelings more than analysis these days, and Obama fits the mold as a bright, young guy who communicates with some level of authenticity - he provides people with the hope that he is admirable and principled, which is not how we perceive most politicians.

Huckabee is also affable, actually funny, and apparently principled. Personally, I think there's a veil covering a much less pleasant human being and he would be weak nationally, but he's well designed for Iowa.

A well-respected Wall Sreet strategist (Byron Wien) recently predicted Obama would beat Romney in a landslide for the Presidency. I think that's completely credible because I don't think white America is anti-black, I think it's anti-angry and accusing black, and in a turn of irony is so relieved when a black man appears non-angry that they reflexively want to give him/her a chance.

Excellent thoughts...as usual....

Huckabee was a real wildcard....two months ago, a victory would have been unheard of......A memo leaked from Dem inner circles opined that they should hope for a Huckabee nomination as he had a "glass jaw" for the general election....Since ALL of the candidates this time have big negatives, I wonder which one it was?
I think that your assessment of Obama is spot on as well. My only concern about him as a candidate is is inexperience. I think we he is an A-level candidate with limited experience. The negative nature of the media and politics can really harm an individual who has not yet been battle hardened...

sspielman
01-04-2008, 07:40 AM
I heart Iowa for their involvment and strong opinions. THAT makes for an enduring democracy. Times like these I will re-read both sides of the Lincoln Memorial and not forget how Andrew Jackson delt with the Union. I'm most interested in leaders who honor where we come from using our strong constitution and represent the people. "Politics" make me ill.


...sounds like a ringing endorsement for Ron Paul!

rwsaunders
01-04-2008, 07:43 AM
Besides, nobody got up in arms when George Bush had an African American as SecDef or an African American woman as Secratary of State? These are not token positions.

SAAB, don't you know that if an African American is associated with the Republican party; Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas....they are not considered to be African American. If Clinton had made these appointments, it would be considered a landmark decision.

J.Greene
01-04-2008, 07:45 AM
My only concern about him as a candidate is is inexperience. I think we he is an A-level candidate with limited experience. ..

This puzzles me.

Did the Gov's of Georgia, California, Arkansas and TX have any real experience in the challenges they actually faced? Obama has had good commitee asignments and knows quite a bit about how our Govenment operates. Most of our ex presidents in recent history have come from states with weak Governors. I'm not an Obama supporter, but the sentiment that he is inexperienced seems off the mark to me.

JG

sspielman
01-04-2008, 07:52 AM
This puzzles me.

Did the Gov's of Georgia, California, Arkansas and TX have any real experience in the challenges they actually faced? Obama has had good commitee asignments and knows quite a bit about how our Govenment operates. Most of our ex presidents in recent history have come from states with weak Governors. I'm not an Obama supporter, but the sentiment that he is inexperienced seems off the mark to me.

JG

With respect to the fact thatthey were battle hardened politicians, yes....

Also, a state governor has experience as a chief executive......which is excellent training for the presidency.....better training than being a legislator, in my opinion.....

sspielman
01-04-2008, 07:59 AM
I would like to make another point about Obama as well......
His politics differs greatly from my own...However, he has a HUGE positive in my view. That is, he is one of the LEAST polarizing of all of the candidates (on either side). As a nation, we are largely divided on big issues. We could greatly benefit from strong leadership that could unite us and let us move forward on some the huge issues that we face...

J.Greene
01-04-2008, 08:06 AM
Also, a state governor has experience as a chief executive......which is excellent training for the presidency.....better training than being a legislator, in my opinion.....

This is the myth I was reffering to, in my opinion too of course.

JG

Too Tall
01-04-2008, 08:11 AM
...sounds like a ringing endorsement for Ron Paul!
ROTFLMAO

Ray
01-04-2008, 08:36 AM
Can we please move beyond the color of the man's skin? Or the gender of one of his opponents?

This is 2008 folks. We won't move past it until we finally move past it.

The point I was trying to make last night is that it seems that we finally ARE moving past it. Yeah, it seems waaaaaay overdue. But last night I don't think race had much to do with Obama's win or gender to do with Hilary's loss. It was their qualities as candidates. Nothing wrong with taking note of a milestone, even if it should have happened years ago.


Besides, nobody got up in arms when George Bush had an African American as SecDef or an African American woman as Secratary of State? These are not token positions.
They're also not ELECTED positions.

-Ray

saab2000
01-04-2008, 08:41 AM
They're also not ELECTED positions.

-Ray

That is correct. But it goes to show that even an unloved politician like our current president, in a party that has historically been pretty white, can see past race. I am the biggest supporter of whomever is against Bush, but I still can't find it in me to think he is racist. And the fact that he has these high-level cabinet members who are minorities has essentially been a non-issue from day one is also good news.

You are right that the results were about the candidates and their policies and not about race or gender. It is a step forward and a long overdue one at that.

BTW, I still like Bill Richardson..... :banana:

ti_boi
01-04-2008, 08:57 AM
That is correct. But it goes to show that even an unloved politician like our current president, in a party that has historically been pretty white, can see past race. I am the biggest supporter of whomever is against Bush, but I still can't find it in me to think he is racist. And the fact that he has these high-level cabinet members who are minorities has essentially been a non-issue from day one is also good news.

You are right that the results were about the candidates and their policies and not about race or gender. It is a step forward and a long overdue one at that.

BTW, I still like Bill Richardson..... :banana:

Richardson is a great candidate.....I see McCain getting the whole enchilada....but then I am nuts. But holy cow...................the line of the year has to be direct at Romney from Huckabee:

"People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off."

Peggy Noonan nails it here:


http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110011083

J.Greene
01-04-2008, 09:16 AM
Richardson is a great candidate..

I think he'll be the VP nominee. He's got all the right attributes.

JG

Len J
01-04-2008, 09:19 AM
+1.

But Huckabee seems an even bigger story to me. Fear is the strongest emotion.

+1 on that.

He and what he represents is scary IMO

Len

EDS
01-04-2008, 09:25 AM
No, you got me wrong, or I didn't communicate clearly. I'm glad they were able to vote for a man who happens to be black because they agreed with his beliefs, ideas, and intended actions and that his being black DIDN'T GET IN THE WAY of that. That's what's new. I think when people voted for Jesse Jackson in '84 and '88, it was largely because he was black. I think tonight people voted for Barack Obama because they like what they've seen and heard of Barack Obama.

So, I think we're in violent agreement.

-Ray

I thought they voted for Obama because he isn't Hillary.

It also appears that Obama's chances increase if more younger voters participate.

sg8357
01-04-2008, 09:30 AM
Obama Richardson would be great, Richardson has the Foreign Policy chops Obama lacks.
Obama benefits greatly from Bush/Clinton fatigue, the Presidency should not be a hereditary office.

Good news for Romney, he won the Plutocrat vote, the $100k+ a year people.

Of course if Hillary wins, Bill will be in charge of VP selection, he'll
pull a Cheney and pick himself. :beer:

Ron Paul = Republican Ralph Nader
John McCain = Mr. Smith

Scott G.

Fixed
01-04-2008, 09:31 AM
i would look forward to a obama vs mccain race. both seem like people of substance. who would debate ideas, not attack each other.

a fascinating question is: if obama gets nominated, who would he chose as VP? would he play the "balance" game by picking an older, experienced person (biden?) or just say, screw it, and pick a woman or someone young (harold ford jr?) or someone like bill richardson? fascinating choice.

as ray said, last night was a good night for america.
+1

avalonracing
01-04-2008, 09:35 AM
SAAB, don't you know that if an African American is associated with the Republican party; Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas....they are not considered to be African American. If Clinton had made these appointments, it would be considered a landmark decision.

Their race didn't matter at all... As long as they towed the party line... Which they loyally have.
Of course Powell has changed his tune since then but by then the damage had been done. I wonder if he can sleep at night?

Ray
01-04-2008, 09:41 AM
Richardson is a great candidate
I think Richardson's problem is that he's NOT a great candidate. He's been a creidble governor, congressman (I think?), ambassador, cabinet member, etc, etc, etc. But he STUNK as a candidate. He has plenty of great credentials and very credible positions but he can't communicate in a way that you have to if you're gonna be president. I think for all of their plusses and minuses, the big three democrats and Biden, and probably five of the Republicans running have those communication skills. Richardson doesn't. These kind of campaigns are useful because they expose that. I liked Richardson a lot going in. Now I see he doesn't have the right stuff. Clinton and Edwards are good, Obama is getting better and better.

I think the best VP choice for Obama, if he gets nominated, would be Jim Webb of Virginia. Another Vietnam war hero who would NOT be swift boated, a former secretary of the Navy, and a very strong and credible voice on the war and the military. And a white southerner which shouldn't matter but might anyway. And, btw, a tough SOB.

-Ray

Climb01742
01-04-2008, 09:48 AM
i'd pick ethics and issues over experience any day. where has all the "experience" in the bush administration gotten us? give me a candidate who has his/her heart and head in the right place. experience you can gain. a soul you can't.

look at abe lincoln. what experience did he have that prepared him to lead a civil war? yet he did. because of his inner strength, wisdom and moral/ethical compass.

tch
01-04-2008, 10:27 AM
I would like to make another point about Obama as well...... he is one of the LEAST polarizing of all of the candidates (on either side). As a nation, we are largely divided on big issues. We could greatly benefit from strong leadership that could unite us and let us move forward on some the huge issues that we face...
If you heard echoes of MLK, you weren't alone. And, if you listened and focused where he wanted you to, he is playing to America's desire to see itself through its best traits. It's a winning tone.

As an interesting bookend to the evening, I heard an interview with Merle Haggard earlier in the day (Yes, that "Okie from Muskogee" Merle Haggard). He talked about how America can't afford another 8 years like this -- where we alienate our friends, engage in torture of political prisoners, and toady up to multi-national corporations. He said, "That's not the America I wanna live in". Pretty interesting material for a self-professed redneck.

Viper
01-04-2008, 10:29 AM
I think he'll be the VP nominee. He's got all the right attributes.

JG

Richardson is staring at a wall, imo. Whichever Democrat wins, Hillary (most likely), Obama (long shot) or Edwards...they will need a yang to their ying and Richardson doesn't offer the mojo, the juice...

In other words, Hillary will need somone who is:

a). Good looking
b). Will get her the Christian vote
c). Evan Bayh would be her choice atmo or someone like this. Longshot would be Edwards. I believe Senator Evan Bayh is waiting in the wings, he's endorsed Hillary and he's made himself 'available' atmo:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=80380535

d). Help her win Florida and lock down that state.



If Obama wins, he needs someone who is:

a). Not a minority (being blunt here, but this is a topic in their camp atmo).
b). Battle-tested/strong/experienced.


If Edwards wins, he needs someone who is:

a). Not John Kerry.
b). Manly with testosterone, maybe even bald.
c). Battle-tested or strong with military/foreign affairs.
d). Someone who could help win Florida.
e). Someone who never was involved in Vietnam or fast aluminum-hulled boats.

Michael Bloomberg could help someone win Florida (Gore chose Lieberman for the Jewish vote in Florida) but Bloomberg is going nowhere fast atmo.

sspielman
01-04-2008, 10:39 AM
If you heard echoes of MLK, you weren't alone. And, if you listened and focused where he wanted you to, he is playing to America's desire to see itself through its best traits. It's a winning tone.

As an interesting bookend to the evening, I heard an interview with Merle Haggard earlier in the day (Yes, that "Okie from Muskogee" Merle Haggard). He talked about how America can't afford another 8 years like this -- where we alienate our friends, engage in torture of political prisoners, and toady up to multi-national corporations. He said, "That's not the America I wanna live in". Pretty interesting material for a self-professed redneck.




Merle Haggard is a national treasure, ATMO.....

William
01-04-2008, 10:44 AM
Merle Haggard is a national treasure, ATMO.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDPoQa1Ptt0






William

samtaylor1
01-04-2008, 10:47 AM
Ray,

I have throught that senator webb would be a great VP for any of the choices. The question of who will be VP is harder for either Obama or Hillary. I don't think Obama could pick a white women, e.g. Senator Feinstein, as it would be too easy to screw him like they did to Congressmen Ford this last election. Picking Richardson won't work, as there would be too much color or the ticket. Even picking a white man to run behind Obama is difficult, as it sends the reverse image to people then we are used to (a white man working for a black man), which is not good in politics. However, Webb's military credentials would allow most people to look past these points. All these same arguements I believe are true of hilary as well.





I think Richardson's problem is that he's NOT a great candidate. He's been a creidble governor, congressman (I think?), ambassador, cabinet member, etc, etc, etc. But he STUNK as a candidate. He has plenty of great credentials and very credible positions but he can't communicate in a way that you have to if you're gonna be president. I think for all of their plusses and minuses, the big three democrats and Biden, and probably five of the Republicans running have those communication skills. Richardson doesn't. These kind of campaigns are useful because they expose that. I liked Richardson a lot going in. Now I see he doesn't have the right stuff. Clinton and Edwards are good, Obama is getting better and better.

I think the best VP choice for Obama, if he gets nominated, would be Jim Webb of Virginia. Another Vietnam war hero who would NOT be swift boated, a former secretary of the Navy, and a very strong and credible voice on the war and the military. And a white southerner which shouldn't matter but might anyway. And, btw, a tough SOB.

-Ray

Viper
01-04-2008, 11:19 AM
Ray,

I have throught that senator webb would be a great VP for any of the choices. The question of who will be VP is harder for either Obama or Hillary. I don't think Obama could pick a white women, e.g. Senator Feinstein, as it would be too easy to screw him like they did to Congressmen Ford this last election.

Senator Dianne Feinstein??? She's going no further than where she currently resides.

If the Democrats win, they may throw her a bone, some position, but she's not Cabinet material and certainly not VP. She's 74 years old, a San Francisco politican (hard lefty). Money got her a position in 1969 as Woman Parole Board chica for CA. She ran for mayor of SF twice, lost both times. Shockingly (and very strangely) in 1978, the Mayor of San Francisco (Moscone) AND the Supervisor (Milk) were assassinated...because Feinstein was on the Board of Supervisors she ascended to Mayorship! In 1990 she ran for Governorship of CA and lost. Still a loser. Then...strangely...in 1990, when Pete Wilson won Governor of CA, his Senate seat became available AND Feinstein won a special election to fill the vacant seat.

In summary, Feinstein is a loser, always has been. She's brief, terse and nasty, it's her schtick and makes her appear powerful atmo. I'd debate her tonight on CNN and take her Senate seat within 24 hours. She's a bag of wind, her name has never been mentioned for Veep positions. Walter Mondale thought of it back in the day, he chose Ferraro (trainwreck of an idea) instead.

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

Dekonick
01-04-2008, 11:19 AM
An interesting year. Where we hear nothing of race or gender but of plenty of words about religion.

I would love nothing better than to see a strong third party emerge with a slightly libertarian/populist/green bent to keep the Dems and 'Pubs straight and to keep a interesting, invigorating and diverse discourse in our ears. We need more than two alternatives.

+1,000,000,000,000

Climb01742
01-04-2008, 11:25 AM
He talked about how America can't afford another 8 years like this -- where we alienate our friends, engage in torture of political prisoners, and toady up to multi-national corporations. He said, "That's not the America I wanna live in".

+1
the best platform anyone could run on is the constitution.

fiamme red
01-04-2008, 11:30 AM
An interesting year. Where we hear nothing of race or gender but of plenty of words about religion.I think that Americans are ready for a black or woman president. But I'm sure that I'm not going to see an avowed atheist as president in my lifetime. Religious prejudices are much harder to shake off than those of sex or race.

sspielman
01-04-2008, 11:30 AM
+1
the best platform anyone could run on is the constitution.

yet another ringing endorsement for Ron Paul.....

J.Greene
01-04-2008, 11:36 AM
[QUOTE=ViperIn summary, Feinstein is a loser, always has been. She's brief, terse and nasty, it's her schtick and makes her appear powerful atmo. I'd debate her tonight on CNN and take her Senate seat within 24 hours. She's a bag of wind, her name has never been mentioned for Veep positions.
[/QUOTE]

Viper pal,

Ironically, I have been privately defending you reputation against these same accusations. :D :beer: :D

JG

Climb01742
01-04-2008, 11:43 AM
yet another ringing endorsement for Ron Paul.....

i like a lot of what he stands for. sadly, he seems a bit flaky. many of his ideas seem right but he doesn't seem to have thought through how to make them real. like with taxes. i agree with him that our present income tax/loophole system is broken, but he doesn't have an answer for what to replace it with. tim russert couldn't get him to say...flat tax? national sales tax? what? i applaud his instincts but his sketchy execution scares me.

Viper
01-04-2008, 11:43 AM
Viper pal,

Ironically, I have been privately defending you reputation against these same accusations. :D :beer: :D

JG

Viper for President, 2020 dude.

Grant McLean
01-04-2008, 11:54 AM
If you heard echoes of MLK, you weren't alone. And, if you listened and focused where he wanted you to, he is playing to America's desire to see itself through its best traits. It's a winning tone.

As an interesting bookend to the evening, I heard an interview with Merle Haggard earlier in the day (Yes, that "Okie from Muskogee" Merle Haggard). He talked about how America can't afford another 8 years like this -- where we alienate our friends, engage in torture of political prisoners, and toady up to multi-national corporations. He said, "That's not the America I wanna live in". Pretty interesting material for a self-professed redneck.

Obama also said he was going to end America's dependence on oil, and
a bunch of other stuff that's not going to happen.

I'm no Obama hater, geeze the guy has an amazing presence.
Serious question: what makes people consider him actually qualified to be president?

Set aside the issues of politics, and what makes him any more competent than Bush?

(flame suit on...)

-g

dirtdigger88
01-04-2008, 11:55 AM
Obama also said he was going to end America's dependence on oil, and
a bunch of other stuff that's not going to happen.

I'm no Obama hater, geeze the guy has an amazing presence, but what makes
people consider him seriously qualified to be president? Set aside the issues
of politics, and what makes him any more competent than Bush?

(flame suit on...)

-g

+1

Jason

sspielman
01-04-2008, 11:57 AM
i like a lot of what he stands for. sadly, he seems a bit flaky. many of his ideas seem right but he doesn't seem to have thought through how to make them real. like with taxes. i agree with him that our present income tax/loophole system is broken, but he doesn't have an answer for what to replace it with. tim russert couldn't get him to say...flat tax? national sales tax? what? i applaud his instincts but his sketchy execution scares me.
Each of the past three elections has included a HUGE scare for the existing power structure.
Steve Forbes' proposed flat tax pointed a dagger straight at the heart of the tax code-that is spoils system- that the power structure uses to grant favors to the huge/multinational corporations that hold the real influence in America. It scared the he11 out of them.
Howard Dean was the next to cause the System heart palpitations. He was able to go straight to the grassroots to gain support via the internet. Once again, big corporate interests had to make an emergency trip to the restroom. Luckily for them, the candidacy imploded after the great "yell"...
Ron Paul is the latest candidate to give the system a scare. His message of limited, constitutional based government is striking a chord at the grassroots level (what a radical concept!) As you have noted, the candidtae lacks charisma....just wait until the field narrow at the top and he is recognised as a threat....they will job him just like they did Pat Buchanan. The differerence is that Ron Paul recignises that he is running a little-hope campaign....but it is the MESSAGE that is resonating....and he is banking on the message outliving him as a candidate and returning in future elections (Unlike the Ross Perot movement that died with the candidate)

Nick H.
01-04-2008, 12:02 PM
My prediction is that McCain will get the Republican nomination because he's so presidential. A little further down the line nobody is going to be taking the mormon or the preacher seriously.

Billary will get the Democratic nomination by throwing money at it.

McCain will win the election because hatred of Billary will ensure a record turnout of Republican voters. Democrats will stay at home because they'll be miserable, confused, ashamed and wondering where it all went wrong. Again.

MassBiker
01-04-2008, 12:05 PM
I bet there are a lot of happy ILLEGAL immigrants in America today!

Grant McLean
01-04-2008, 12:06 PM
i'd pick ethics and issues over experience any day. where has all the "experience" in the bush administration gotten us? give me a candidate who has his/her heart and head in the right place. experience you can gain. a soul you can't.

look at abe lincoln. what experience did he have that prepared him to lead a civil war? yet he did. because of his inner strength, wisdom and moral/ethical compass.

Experience vs competence

Some of the 25+ year employees here are the worst.
I'll pick qualifications over experience, but sometimes you need both.

-g

Fixed
01-04-2008, 12:07 PM
+1

Jason
bro i like the cat and he can give a great speech but ...
white men when it comes down to the real vote
for pres and the choice is between b.o. and some cat like john mccain
I can't see them pullin for b.o. but maybe i'm wrong

cheers :beer: imho

Louis
01-04-2008, 12:08 PM
I bet there are a lot of happy ILLEGAL immigrants in America today!

Actually, they are probably too busy out harvesting the food you will be eating next week to worry about it.

Viper
01-04-2008, 12:11 PM
Actually, they are probably too busy out harvesting the food you will be eating next week to worry about it.

Every time I eat I feel like turning myself in for eating illegally processed food. atmo.

dirtdigger88
01-04-2008, 12:13 PM
bro i like the cat and he can give a great speech but ...
white men when it comes down to the real vote
for pres and the choice is between b.o. and some cat like john mccain
I can't see them pullin for b.o. but maybe i'm wrong

cheers :beer: imho

fixed- for me its not race

I have much respect for B.O. (my family lives in Illinois- Ive watched his career)

for me it is just what Grant said- B.O. is great to listen to- he has wonderful ideas- THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN-

thats all

Jason

MassBiker
01-04-2008, 12:15 PM
They are out harvesting my hot dogs???????

handsomerob
01-04-2008, 12:15 PM
i would look forward to a obama vs mccain race. both seem like people of substance. who would debate ideas, not attack each other.

a fascinating question is: if obama gets nominated, who would he chose as VP? would he play the "balance" game by picking an older, experienced person (biden?) or just say, screw it, and pick a woman or someone young (harold ford jr?) or someone like bill richardson? fascinating choice.

as ray said, last night was a good night for america.


I live in Memphis, so I have seen Harold Ford Jr. speak on a number of occasions. He is very charismatic and seems to be doing a pretty good job, but you would not believe the level of corruption in his family, especially his uncle John Ford (the uber-corupt shotgun wielding maniac). Unfortunately for him, I think that it is bad enough to keep him from being a national candidate for anything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/us/10ford.html

dawgie
01-04-2008, 12:25 PM
A more cynical person might observe that the most qualified and experienced Democratic candidate came in third because she's not a man. A cynic might also observe that the leading Republican candidate won because he's a fundamentalist who believes that god created the Earth 10,000 years ago and evolution is a hoax. A cynic might also predict that the fundamentalist will eventually win the November election because this is the same country that voted for the idiot -- twice.

ti_boi
01-04-2008, 12:28 PM
A more cynical person might observe that the most qualified and experienced Democratic candidate came in third because she's not a man. A cynic might also observe that the leading Republican candidate won because he's a fundamentalist who believes that god created the Earth 10,000 years ago and evolution is a hoax. A cynic might also predict that the fundamentalist will eventually win the November election because this is the same country that voted for the idiot -- twice.


Troof.

SBash
01-04-2008, 12:50 PM
Obama has a good shot now. People want change and someone fresh. Many are tired of this family (Bush, Clinton) BS and corporate power.
Also, look at the turnout in Iowa, almost 2 to 1 (225,000 to 120,000) went to the Dems, many independents, even some republicans, and this looks very bad for any republican. So, IMO, won't be a Rebublican this time, not after Shrubs administration. We will most likely see a Dem president for atleast 16 years.

All this being said, I agree with Dave T, would be very interesting to see a strong 3rd party, to possibly bring congess together. Congress is a failure, so partisan, corporate corruption, and out of touch with we the people, that we need a big change. I really think we need term limits, but that will never happen. Many think a 3rd party candidate, has no chance; Well that depends on who that might be. People, in general are fed-up with the status Quo.

Now, just maybe Obama, can reach to both sides for the Isle. BUT, until congress becomes bi-partisan, nothing will really change.

Viper
01-04-2008, 01:10 PM
a fascinating question is: if obama gets nominated, who would he chose as VP? would he play the "balance" game by picking an older, experienced person (biden?) or just say, screw it, and pick a woman or someone young (harold ford jr?) or someone like bill richardson? fascinating choice.

Should Obama get the nod, he cannot choose Biden (a used paper salesman who plagiarizes, some of us recall the 1988 debacle). He cannot choose a female if he wants to win (his ticket would be ground-breaking as it is, no need to make it more extreme/radical etc. It'd be like Hillary choosing a female VP atmo). Harold Ford? The dude's career is done. Plus, it goes back to point A for Obama: wanna win? choose a running mate who does not rock the boat, stir up the water, cause controversy...choose a mate that helps, not hurts.

Obama gained what they call the 'Big mo' in politics, m o m e n t u m. He has a few more steep hills (pun intended) to climb atmo.

"Public figures commonly use anonymous speech writers. If a speech uses copied material, however, it is the public figure who will be embarrassed. Delaware Senator Joe Biden was forced out of the 1988 US Presidential race (but remained in the US Senate) when it was discovered that parts of his campaign speeches were plagiarized from speeches by British Labour party leader Neil Kinnock and Robert Kennedy."

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:j-TOjHKpspMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism+plagiarize+joe+biden&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

J.Greene
01-04-2008, 01:19 PM
Viper for President, 2020 dude.

Anybody who has posted here more than about 20 times has disqualified themselves from EVER holding public office.

I shutter to think what a rival campaign would do with my cached virtual writings.

JG

Ray
01-04-2008, 01:23 PM
bro i like the cat and he can give a great speech but ...
white men when it comes down to the real vote
for pres and the choice is between b.o. and some cat like john mccain
I can't see them pullin for b.o. but maybe i'm wrong
Fixed,

That's historically been the case and I was concerned that was gonna be the case last night too. But the Ford race in Tennessee was the only place that seemed to happen in the 2006 elections and it DIDN'T happen last night. There doesn't appear to be racism or sexism involved in last night's results. Blacks obviously didn't tip the balance for Obama because there are roughly none of you in Iowa. Men didn't take it away from Hilary because she's a woman either - Obama beat her convincingly among women too, except for the oldest women. There are people who wouldn't vote for Obama for president because he's black, but those people weren't going to vote for any Democrat for president anyway. I don't think there are many left who would have voted for him if he was white but won't because he's black. I think that's what last night showed (or 2006 showed and last night confirmed) and I think it's incredibly encouraging.

Set aside the issues of politics, and what makes him any more competent than Bush? (flame suit on...)

Well, last night I asked folks to just appreciate his win for what it said about us as a nation, politics and preferences aside. But TODAY the gloves are obviously off, so I'll tell you what makes him more competent than Bush - he's not a frickin' IDIOT, that's what! ATMO, IMHO, etc etc etc. (flame suit on...).

OK, I'm kidding, sort of. Obama strikes me as a brilliant guy who 'gets it' on a lot of levels. He has views that I mostly agree with, but so do Hilary and Edwards. The difference is the way I think he'd go about getting stuff done. I think its true that he has a lot of appeal to lots of independents and even Republicans. I'm not sure why, but I know 2-3 people that just HATED Bill Clinton - I mean PASSIONATELY - who really like Obama. His history is one of always building consensus and bringing opposing players together and not just running power plays to roll over those who disagree with him (Bush's specialty). Yeah, Congress is still pretty polarized, but politicians tend to be pretty smart people (probably even Shrub, dammit) and they tend to hear what voters are telling them. If Obama runs a campaign that's premised on bringing people together and not polarizing them and if he gets elected with more than 51-52% of the vote, I suspect enough congressional seats will change hands along with him and enough moderate Republicans (yeah, there are still a few left) will come along to give him a governing majority. There are a lot of IFs there and its waaaay to early to assume that any of it will happen.

But my primary concern with the guy was my doubting his ability to actually win elections. A chunk of that fear went away last night. He won a big one by a convincing margin. If Edwards doesn't win something quick, I think a lot of his people start going to Obama rather than Hilary and then its all over. Then again, if Hilary wins big in New Hampshire (not gonna happen, but I've been wrong before), the whole story changes.

We'll see,

-Ray

Viper
01-04-2008, 01:24 PM
Anybody who has posted here more than about 20 times has disqualified themselves from EVER holding public office.

I shutter to think what a rival campaign would do with my cached virtual writings.

JG

This dude did it and he did it with the dude who invented the internet. If these dudes can do it, Viper can do it, he can! :D

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

Sasha18
01-04-2008, 01:28 PM
They are out harvesting my hot dogs???????

Sort of... they are shoveling the ears, lips, and snouts off the processing floor.

I think we underestimate the role race plays/will play in the election and Obama. News stories about his previous drug use, his connection to mid-east "fundamentalist" schools, questions about his experience have already gotten a lot of attention. These are not explicitly about race, but they do play to deep-seated cultural stereotypes about African Americans. Racism in the 21st century is alive and well, rarely blurted out, but quietly spoken in public discourse.

Viper
01-04-2008, 01:39 PM
Sort of... they are shoveling the ears, lips, and snouts off the processing floor.

I think we underestimate the role race plays/will play in the election and Obama. News stories about his previous drug use, his connection to mid-east "fundamentalist" schools, questions about his experience have already gotten a lot of attention. These are not explicitly about race, but they do play to deep-seated cultural stereotypes about African Americans. Racism in the 21st century is alive and well, rarely blurted out, but quietly spoken in public discourse.

This election is about:

1). Iraq
2). America's foreign policies (aka Wars) were hijacked by a little country in the Middle East. We want Our Boys home.
3). The money you want in your wallet (we think the President can somehow put more money in our wallets).
4). The leader(s) we believe will keep our country, family, cats and dogs safe.
5). The new Thundercats movie we await:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-sOaUAgbB4

Choose 4 of the above atmo.


.

fiamme red
01-04-2008, 01:43 PM
If these dudes can do it, Viper can do it, he can!Forget it. You'd be hounded out of your candidacy by the Society for the Suppression of (Miami) Vice. :D

Viper
01-04-2008, 01:56 PM
Forget it. You'd be hounded out of your candidacy by the Society for the Suppression of (Miami) Vice. :D

Are you joshing me? Don Johnson will be my Secretary of Transportation! The dude drove the hottest cars during the 80's. Rico? Isn't he a minister at this point? He ran the Psychic Reader's Network for years, "From Miami Vice to world advice"...this cat can be the official White House minister.

I did not see the recent re-make...but THIS is how the movie should've been:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhybPYaX2iw

Instead, they fed you this cr*p:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4xSA7_aEtI





.





.

SBash
01-04-2008, 01:59 PM
Sort of... they are shoveling the ears, lips, and snouts off the processing floor.

I think we underestimate the role race plays/will play in the election and Obama. News stories about his previous drug use, his connection to mid-east "fundamentalist" schools, questions about his experience have already gotten a lot of attention. These are not explicitly about race, but they do play to deep-seated cultural stereotypes about African Americans. Racism in the 21st century is alive and well, rarely blurted out, but quietly spoken in public discourse.

What happened in Iowa, 95% white, and many independents, some republicans, went with Obama. AND his mother was white. What, smoked some dope in his teens/20's, thats not going to cut it. Bush was a drunk, snorted coke, had 2 terms. Fundamenalist shools, NO! He went to grade school for 2 years in Indonesia, not the middle east, AND went to a Catholic elementary school for 2 years. The middle east fundamentalist thingy, was all drumed up by the Clintons.
IOWA shows this is not working.

Climb01742
01-04-2008, 02:03 PM
+1

Jason

i agree that hope and promises alone won't change things. but today, politics is so full of haters...

let's hate illegal immigrants...
let's hate gays...
let's hate liberals...
let's hate corporations...
let's hate free trade...
let's hate muslims...
let's hate anyone and anything we don't know, understand or doesn't look like us...

to have a positive message seems like a good, and necessary, first step. it's not sufficient but it is necessary.

i'll take a hoper over a hater any day.

paczki
01-04-2008, 02:06 PM
i agree that hope and promises alone won't change things. but today, politics is so full of haters...

let's hate illegal immigrants...
let's hate gays...
let's hate liberals...
let's hate corporations...
let's hate free trade...
let's hate muslims...
let's hate anyone and anything we don't know, understand or doesn't look like us...

to have a positive message seems like a good, and necessary, first step. it's not sufficient but it is necessary.

i'll take a hoper over a hater any day.

Let's hate Mormons. I'm no Romney fan, far from it, but I find the bigoted tactics used against him appalling.
I just want a president who doesn't want to unilaterally invade Iran. Oh yeah, and who knows that creationism isn't science. That's enough.

MassBiker
01-04-2008, 02:10 PM
That word in front of immigrants sticks out to me:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
il·le·gal /ɪˈligəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-lee-guhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.
–noun 3. Informal. illegal alien.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1620–30; < ML illégālis. See il-2, legal]

Grant McLean
01-04-2008, 02:13 PM
Obama ...
The difference is the way I think he'd go about getting stuff done. I think its true that he has a lot of appeal to lots of independents and even Republicans. I'm not sure why, but I know 2-3 people that just HATED Bill Clinton - I mean PASSIONATELY - who really like Obama. His history is one of always building consensus and bringing opposing players together and not just running power plays to roll over those who disagree with him
-Ray

That's exactly what people said about Bush before he came in...

I'm playing the contrarian role here slightly... I mean, I really admire Obama,
and I think the best skill he may have is projecting hope, and the chance to actually
attract people who know what the heck they're talking about to work for him,
and in governement.

The thing that stikes me most, is that the Bush goverment was ineffective at
getting done what they wanted. By constantly underestimating the difficulty
of challenges, and putting totally unqualified people in charge of important
stuff, they have seriously undermined the credibility of government institutions.


My concern for electing governments is about knowing what you're going to get.
Bush had no real track record, and people seemed to fill in the blanks however
they felt about the guy personally. I'm less swayed by 'character' than some
folks who can get the job done, if you know what i mean... let's not head down
the same path again.

-g

Sasha18
01-04-2008, 02:14 PM
That word in front of immigrants sticks out to me:


Therein lies the distinction between the terms "undocumented" and "illegal."

Climb01742
01-04-2008, 02:17 PM
That word in front of immigrants sticks out to me:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
il·le·gal /ɪˈligəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-lee-guhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.
–noun 3. Informal. illegal alien.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1620–30; < ML illégālis. See il-2, legal]

the immigration issue is more complex than 99% of the political "debate" makes it out to be. on my mother's side of the family, we came to america to georgia, when georgia was a british penal colony. so i'm the last dude to throw any stones. beyond that, unless sitting bull is somewhere in your family tree, every american is descended from immigrants. to start pointing fingers and hating now may torture any logic or sense of fairness. yes, immigration reform is needed but demonizing human beings ain't the path to honoring america's immigrant history.

rwsaunders
01-04-2008, 02:21 PM
You won't find a more down to earth, honest individual than Hillary Clinton. Just ask her.

gt6267a
01-04-2008, 02:23 PM
Are any of these votes for candidates instead of against their opponents? Not certain it is even possible to account for anti-votes, but did Obama get all those votes positively or did he just get the anti-Hilary vote?

Did anyone vote for W positively in the last election or did the idea of Kerry’s incompetence have people running to the polls? Did Kerry get one positive vote or did a bunch of people pull a lever / push a button and say, “Go home W, we can’t take another 4 of ya’, ya’ douche”

I will admit to not being the most politically driven person, but none of these people are compelling and worthy of a vote. The past two elections and the one coming up are people running away from what makes them most scared.

ti_boi
01-04-2008, 02:25 PM
This election is about:

3). The money you want in your wallet (we think the President can somehow put more money in our wallets).


Choose 4 of the above atmo.


.

The President can take money out of your wallet through taxation....failure to revise tax codes (see: marriage penalty), dumping money into programs and wars that will inevitably cost our children's children....programs like NAFTA which gut US manufacturing.....rewarding Corporations with huge tax breaks that move their operations off-shore.....and on an on an on.....

MassBiker
01-04-2008, 02:25 PM
Comprehensive solution includes employers & borders. (Nov 2007)
Undocumented workers come here to work, not to drive. (Nov 2007)
Support granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Lightning IS likelier than employer prosecution. (Nov 2007)
Illegal immigrants' lack of ID is a public safety concern. (Oct 2007)
Immigration system is broken for legal immigrants. (Sep 2007)
Reform must include more border security, and border wall. (Sep 2007)
Sanctuary cities show that feds are not enforcing law. (Sep 2007)
Pathway to citizenship, but people have to earn it. (Aug 2007) Let's be a nation of laws AND a nation of immigrants. (Aug 2007)
Do a better job patrolling the Canadian and Mexican borders. (Jun 2007)
Give immigrants who are here a rigorous path to citizenship. (Jun 2007)
Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007) Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006) Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)

I am all for immigration reform but you can only tax the system so much.
...and I am not a hater by any means!

Try and get into this country legally and see how long and how much it costs.

sspielman
01-04-2008, 02:32 PM
You won't find a more down to earth, honest individual than Hillary Clinton. Just ask her.

...she's not taking questions....

Dan Le foot
01-04-2008, 02:34 PM
With respect to the fact thatthey were battle hardened politicians, yes....

Also, a state governor has experience as a chief executive......which is excellent training for the presidency.....better training than being a legislator, in my opinion.....

I agree. I like smart. But I also like someone to be around the block 2 or 3 times before being the leader of the free world. I think a guy like McCain is less likely to make "the big mistake" than someone with little experience.
Dan

Climb01742
01-04-2008, 02:39 PM
Experience vs competence

experience you can judge before someone takes the job.
competence can only really be judged once someone is in the job.
in all honesty, we won't know if obama is "competent" to be prez until/if he gets there. luckily for him, the bar for presidential competence has been drastically lowered in the last 7 years. looks like up from here. :D

fiamme red
01-04-2008, 02:39 PM
...she's not taking questions....Except softball questions.

"Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?"
"I like them both."

sspielman
01-04-2008, 02:44 PM
Are any of these votes for candidates instead of against their opponents? Not certain it is even possible to account for anti-votes, but did Obama get all those votes positively or did he just get the anti-Hilary vote?

Did anyone vote for W positively in the last election or did the idea of Kerry’s incompetence have people running to the polls? Did Kerry get one positive vote or did a bunch of people pull a lever / push a button and say, “Go home W, we can’t take another 4 of ya’, ya’ douche”

I will admit to not being the most politically driven person, but none of these people are compelling and worthy of a vote. The past two elections and the one coming up are people running away from what makes them most scared.

You bring up an excellent point. The past 10 presidential elections have shown a general downturn in voter participation. It is easy to beat the drum and chant slogans like "get out to vote"...."citizen responsibility" etc....BUT, it is clear that more and more Americans can't be bothered to vote. Presumably, it is because they simply are not enthused by the choices that they are offered....many times a choice between Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Dumber....There is a school of thought-and not by ignorant people- that the best way out of this mess is to NOT VOTE! The sheer number of available, uncast votes will provide the impetus for the formation of a VIABLE third party...After holding my nose in every election in which I have been able to participate, I vowed last time to NEVER vote for another candidate simply because he was the lesser of two evils (or as in the last Pres. race the choice was between the evils of two lessors)...

LegendRider
01-04-2008, 02:45 PM
i agree that hope and promises alone won't change things. but today, politics is so full of haters...

let's hate illegal immigrants...
let's hate gays...
let's hate liberals...
let's hate corporations...
let's hate free trade...
let's hate muslims...
let's hate anyone and anything we don't know, understand or doesn't look like us...

to have a positive message seems like a good, and necessary, first step. it's not sufficient but it is necessary.

i'll take a hoper over a hater any day.

You forgot:

let's hate Christian conservatives
let's hate Catholics

anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the elites.

gdw
01-04-2008, 02:52 PM
"There are people who wouldn't vote for Obama for president because he's black, but those people weren't going to vote for any Democrat for president anyway. "

BS. Generalizations like that are BS. Racial prejudice unfortunately still exists in our country and isn't confined to any political party.

gdw
01-04-2008, 02:52 PM
Double post.

jimcav
01-04-2008, 02:59 PM
.... Once again, big corporate interests had to make an emergency trip to the restroom. Luckily for them, the candidacy imploded after the great "yell"...)

I thought after the primary, there was evidence the recording of his yell had been isolated and increased relative to the background noise to make it look/sound so bad? can't remember where i read that--i don't have time to read much, so i'd guess the new yorker.
oh well, just curious.
jim.

sspielman
01-04-2008, 03:01 PM
I thought after the primary, there was evidence the recording of his yell had been isolated and increased relative to the background noise to make it look/sound so bad? can't remember where i read that--i don't have time to read much, so i'd guess the new yorker.
oh well, just curious.
jim.

Oh yeah....and the film was also manipulated and framed to make him look maniacal.....but that was just a small part of him getting jobbed....

LegendRider
01-04-2008, 03:05 PM
Racial prejudice unfortunately still exists in our country and isn't confined to any political party.

Nor is it confined to whites.

jimcav
01-04-2008, 03:12 PM
...The thing that stikes me most, is that the Bush goverment was ineffective at getting done what they wanted. -g

some would say that a small and select group have benefited remarkably from administration efforts. I don't think the President planned it, but I think he sorrounded himself with people who do--and allowed it. Clear skies act and other misnomered acts (patriot?), oil, defense contracts, there are a host of areas where what was done was not in short or long term best interests of the nation, but really worked to the advantage of some.

10 years ago I would have thought the movie V for vendetta was just absurd, now it is just a bit of hyperbole.

i will hope for better days, but am surrounded by all sorts of folks who routinely show me that fear trumps hope.

jim

sspielman
01-04-2008, 03:24 PM
i agree that hope and promises alone won't change things. but today, politics is so full of haters...

let's hate illegal immigrants...
let's hate gays...
let's hate liberals...
let's hate corporations...
let's hate free trade...
let's hate muslims...
let's hate anyone and anything we don't know, understand or doesn't look like us...

to have a positive message seems like a good, and necessary, first step. it's not sufficient but it is necessary.

i'll take a hoper over a hater any day.

I have to take exception with you, Climb pal.....

I think we need to refrain from the "h" word in this context....

I prefer to think that I am not a hater....because I don't wish any ill to anyone with whom I may disagree,

BUT, I am against almost everything you list above!
*Illegal Immigrants- By crossing our border ILLEGALLY (key word here), these people are FELONS. Furthermore, our nation as we know it will cease to exist if the current pace of illegal immigration continues unchecked. It is wonderful to welcome people to the melting pot, but our first responsibility is to maintain the integrity of said melting pot...
*Gays- I could care less about anyone's sexual orientation...I want the government out of my life as much as possible...and that certainly includes getting them out of my underpants. Now, if being "anti-gay" is now defined as being against special rights and privilages for that orientation, I reserve the right to modify my stance....
*Liberals- I find common ground with liberals in some areas....especially populist ones
*Corporations-There is nothing inherently evil about a corporation. BUT I think that the average American RESENTS the amount of influence these rich entities have over our government while at the same time they recognise that the average citizen is COMPLETELY politically disenfranchised....AND many corporations are multinational with NO ALLEGIANCE whatsoever to the United States...
*Free Trade- To the average American "free trade" is a code term for increasing the speed limit on the highway that is carrying wealth creating jobs out of this country
*Muslims- I have nothing against any religion....but there is a radical fringe of Islam that is recognizably dangerous to freedom and the free world. It is to the everlasting shame of the rest of the religion that they refuse to speak out against the lunatic fringe. Our allies in Israel told us a long time ago that after they finished going after the saturday people they were going after the sunday ones....

SBash
01-04-2008, 03:27 PM
some would say that a small and select group have benefited remarkably from administration efforts. I don't think the President planned it, but I think he sorrounded himself with people who do--and allowed it. Clear skies act and other misnomered acts (patriot?), oil, defense contracts, there are a host of areas where what was done was not in short or long term best interests of the nation, but really worked to the advantage of some.

10 years ago I would have thought the movie V for vendetta was just absurd, now it is just a bit of hyperbole.

i will hope for better days, but am surrounded by all sorts of folks who routinely show me that fear trumps hope.

jim


Shrub and his administration, probably our worst president that was MOST successful at everything he wanted. For this, I blame CONGRESS. The FEAR and RELIGION thingy has been used to the hilt. AND that is why, it will not be another Republican.

Grant McLean
01-04-2008, 03:28 PM
some would say that a small and select group have benefited remarkably from administration efforts.
jim

yes, that's a good point.
I also could have framed it more clearly. I do think the Bush admin got it's way,
but I also feel that lots of unintended things happened under his watch, some
that went against them, some that went for them... mostly, it's scares the
crap out of me that these guys take such bold actions when they honestly
have no way of knowing what's going to be the result. A major overhaul of
programs like healthcare or education could have all kinds of problems with
the implementation, even if the policies are what people want.



-g

manet
01-04-2008, 03:46 PM
hillary will pull off a houdini if this goes to the wire. she's gonna need to start taking to wearing a pearl necklace if she has any chance... take a clue from that elephant barbara, maybe even punch a donkey, has she done that already?

avalonracing
01-04-2008, 03:52 PM
some would say that a small and select group have benefited remarkably from administration efforts.
jim

Oil men and "Fear-Based Entrepreneurs"

Viper
01-04-2008, 03:57 PM
some would say that a small and select group have benefited remarkably from administration efforts. I don't think the President planned it, but I think he sorrounded himself with people who do--and allowed it. Clear skies act and other misnomered acts (patriot?), oil, defense contracts, there are a host of areas where what was done was not in short or long term best interests of the nation, but really worked to the advantage of some.

10 years ago I would have thought the movie V for vendetta was just absurd, now it is just a bit of hyperbole.

i will hope for better days, but am surrounded by all sorts of folks who routinely show me that fear trumps hope.

jim

Jim,

I wrote an Op-ed a few years ago, effectively slamming the door shut on President Eisenhower's use of the infamous hyperbole known as, "Military industrial (Congressional) complex."

After reading Geoffrey Perret's biography of Ike, 'Eisenhower' (a 608 page Bible of a book) I learned a great deal about Ike, it was my intent to use his actions and facts to defeat his own, now infamous term. I did.

From my August 28, 2003 Op-ed:

"In 1962 President Dwight D. Eisenhower understood local economies and military financial impact. When he learned of the Studebaker Corporation's probable filing for bankruptcy, the former President called President John F. Kennedy and told him he had a plan. Ike's plan would avoid this economic disaster as he told Kennedy, "Unless Studebaker can get that tank (military) contract, South Bend (Indiana, location of plant) is going to be a disaster." Just a few days passed and Studebaker received the tank bid, a major defense contract."

Jim, I'd enjoy a debate on CNN with President Eisenhower.

As President Eisenhower also offered the incoming President Kennedy, "We can only combat Communism in the long term if our economy is healthy." He then reminded the younger Kennedy, "You have an invaluable asset in Polaris (the multi-billion dollar nuclear program created under Ike's cabinet) it is invulnerable."

So, in summary, President Eisenhower's grouping of words which he whipped up in his final address to Congress (he omitted the term 'Congressional' at the last second as he felt it would offend Congress too greatly) have been used, abused and tattooed; the term, "Military Industrial Complex" is imo, a joke. Worth noting, which I did in the Op-ed, Ike was referring to Vietnam, a War which the Democrats started and a Republican ended.

We did not go to Iraq for oil, for Cheney's oil friends...oil is more expensive than ever; we went to Iraq, imo, for the sovereignty, the safety of our friends, Israel. Rudy Guilani is going to lose and so will any other Republican Hawk who wants to War with Iran and why? Americans have seen enough, heard enough of War; it seems Americans want a President who will focus on the economy, borders, healthcare (while keeping their finger near a trigger which can and will destroy any group or nation that needs an arse-kicking should the proper need arise). Ironically, the next President will have another unique situation on their hands if America is attacked again; the anty always goes up, the next time we are attacked, I can imagine what our response will be, there are no more gloves, they're off.

While AIPAC and Israel are begging us to wage war with Iran, I only hope our politicians are more like Ron Paul in this sense, listening to our Constitution, not the voices of AIPAC. 'America first' would be my slogan.

-Viper

davids
01-04-2008, 04:15 PM
...Worth noting, which I did in the Op-ed, Ike was referring to Vietnam, a War which the Democrats started and a Republican ended.

...While AIPAC and Israel are begging us to wage war with Iran, I only hope our politicians are more like Ron Paul in this sense, listening to our Constitution, not the voices of AIPAC.

-Viper
Eisenhower delivered the address you refer to as he left his presidency on 1/17/61. How do you figure he was talking about the Vietnam War, which hadn't started yet?

And regarding your last comment - You're once again letting your antisemitism show. "AIPAC and Israel" vs. "our Constititution"? This is rhetorical gibberish.

Viper
01-04-2008, 04:22 PM
Eisenhower delivered the address you refer to as he left his presidency on 1/17/61. How do you figure he was talking about the Vietnam War, which hadn't started yet?

And regarding your last comment - You're once again letting your antisemitism show. "AIPAC and Israel" vs. "our Constititution"? This is rhetorical gibberish.

David,

It is you who is allowing his hubris to disallow somone from having...an opinion. STOP calling me or anyone else names because you disagree with...their opinion. I side with President Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Tutu, two Nobel Peace Prize winners. I side with Ron Paul's opinions on the Middle East and our hijacked foreign policies. I side with the United Nations, the World Court and my own mind and heart when it comes to Palestine. I side with a Jewish genius in this field, Noam Chomsky. I am not a Zion, so beat it. If you are, that is your choice and you are allowed to be. Just don't think you can throw your air pump into my spokes here David, you cannot.

Play fairly here or walk away from the thread. Don't you ever call me an anti-semite.

-Viper

J.Greene
01-04-2008, 04:25 PM
Vipe Pal,

I feel ya here man. But...you gotta tone it down a bit if your running for prez in 2020. This stuff is cached. That is a post that will live in infamy.


JG

David,

It is you who is allowing his hubris to disallow somone from having...an opinion. STOP calling me or anyone else names because you disagree with...their opinion. I side with President Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Tutu, two Nobel Peace Prize winners. I side with Ron Paul's opinions on the Middle East and our hijacked foreign policies. I side with the United Nations, the World Court and my own mind and heart when it comes to Palestine. I am not a Zion, so beat it. If you are, that is your choice and you are allowed to be. Just don't think you can throw your air pump into my spokes here David, you cannot.

Play fairly here or walk away from the thread. Don't you ever call me an anti-semite.

-Viper

jimcav
01-04-2008, 04:28 PM
...We did not go to Iraq for oil, for Cheney's oil friends...oil is more expensive than ever; we went to Iraq, imo, for the sovereignty, the safety of our friends, Israel.

-Viper[/QUOTE]

But I meant there are big business interests aligned with, driving, or benefitting obscenely from Executive policies. Having oil cost a fortune benefits some here, not just OPEC. I would agree with some of your points, but think we went to Iraq not for sovereignty (whose--not respect of obviously) but out of opportunism and arrogance (go play back cheney-isms on how we'd be welcomed etc, and how quickly we'd do x,y,z). As a General a friend knows told me the DAY we invaded, "Iraq just became the 51st state".
I did not buy the reasons we went, but there was an opportunity there--and as soon as i saw the CNN picks of unprotected weapons depots and looting as we moved through, i knew we were in trouble. As Custer before, this operation will be taught at West Point to show what not to do.

There was so much incompetence in many areas of administration actions that it makes me give credit to what would otherwise be a stretch of conspiracy theory--but when you look at who is making money off environmental acts, "war" efforts, etc, then it seems possible (to me).

What really bugs me, is that the voices calling for accountability (ie phone companies just opening their data etc) are quickly quashed by the counter of "the terrorists will win." I am part of the fight and I am tired of it. I can think of 10 easy terror things to do domestically with no serious technology or mass weapons, and i think "they" want the USA out of their backyard, period. but the opportunity to do that nicely has passed, and now it is all about escalation and fear. Because the corruption of the tribal and sectarian society we unleashed via incompetence and arrogance in the early days has a terrible cycle to go through.

In the end, I may never know why such incompetence was allowed, but i can certainly recognize incompetence in civilian/military planning. I hope in the future for competence--and for that you need to see who is behind the candidates (in terms of appointments and advisors) and often you don't know that fully until it is too late.

great advancements in TBI and prosthetics--that's the upside.
jim

paczki
01-04-2008, 04:30 PM
011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101

goonster
01-04-2008, 04:33 PM
Viper, dude, just put your tinfoil hat on. Everything will be OK. :beer:

Viper
01-04-2008, 04:33 PM
Vipe Pal,

I feel ya here man. But...you gotta tone it down a bit if your running for prez in 2020. This stuff is cached. That is a post that will live in infamy.


JG

I hear you, I sent DavidS a PM. Let him take if off-line.

And J.Greene, I am Ron Paul in terms of the Middle East, US Foreign Policy and my <3 of both the Preamble and The Constitution (but I have the looks of Kennedy and the charm of Reagan, alas, a major reason why Paul cannot win). LOL. :D

For you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_TXJRZ4CFc

For ATMO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfPEvKsme-c






.

William
01-04-2008, 04:37 PM
Eisenhower delivered the address you refer to as he left his presidency on 1/17/61. How do you figure he was talking about the Vietnam War, which hadn't started yet?

.

David,

If you haven't read it, "The Elephant & The Tiger" by Albert Marrin lays out in great detail all the events that led up to our physical involvment in the war. Eisenhower was talking about Vietnam, and the French involvement (and as I remember it)... We were involved some what behind the scenes but he was afraid of expanded involvement. It's a very good read.

http://www.amazon.com/America-Vietnam-Elephant-Albert-Marrin/dp/1893103080



William

Grant McLean
01-04-2008, 04:37 PM
1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101011010100 01110 1010 1101

are you in on the rules of the game?

http://nickciske.com/tools/binary.php

-g

paczki
01-04-2008, 04:39 PM
are you in on the rules of the game?

http://nickciske.com/tools/binary.php

-g

I prefer nonsense.

Grant McLean
01-04-2008, 04:41 PM
I prefer nonsense.

lots of that in this thread :)

-g

davids
01-04-2008, 04:42 PM
David,

If you haven't read it, "The Elephant & The Tiger" by Albert Marrin lays out in great detail all the events that led up to our physical involvment in the war. Eisenhower was talking about Vietnam, and the French involvement (and as I remember it)... We were involved some what behind the scenes but he was afraid of expanded involvement. It's a very good read.

http://www.amazon.com/America-Vietnam-Elephant-Albert-Marrin/dp/1893103080


WilliamThanks for the book reference. I've read a bit about the events leading to Vietnam, but that was a long time ago. I was reacting more to the timeline implied by the "Democrats started it" statement.

paczki
01-04-2008, 04:43 PM
lots of that in this thread :)

-g

01001110001110!

dave thompson
01-04-2008, 05:17 PM
Thanks for the book reference. I've read a bit about the events leading to Vietnam, but that was a long time ago. I was reacting more to the timeline implied by the "Democrats started it" statement.
Viet Nam, for us, really started in late '62 or early '63. I was in the Air Force stationed at Hickam AFB in Hawaii at that time, and there was more than a little activity going on regarding 'Nam then.

I vividly recall in 1962 witnessing a nuclear device set off in space, about 350 miles above Earth. It was labeled a test to see if a nuclear device could be used as an anti-missile weapon but the scuttlebutt on base was that it was a direct warning to Russia and China regarding their potential intrusions into Viet Nam.

We also had a squadron of very specially modified C-130s that were called 'capsule catchers' that flew out and snagged our returning spy satellites as they came down on their parachutes after re-entry. Those guys were always busy!

ti_boi
01-04-2008, 05:25 PM
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

53-11
01-04-2008, 05:36 PM
You forgot:

let's hate Christian conservatives
let's hate Catholics

anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the elites.


Who are the "elites" ????

J.Greene
01-04-2008, 05:45 PM
but I have the looks of Kennedy and the charm of Reagan.


I heard your hung like Hilary too!

JG

LegendRider
01-04-2008, 05:48 PM
Who are the "elites" ????

academia, op-ed pages of major newspapers, etc.

53-11
01-04-2008, 06:17 PM
academia, op-ed pages of major newspapers, etc.

Wall Street Journal, etc. ?

capybaras
01-04-2008, 06:49 PM
academia, op-ed pages of major newspapers, etc.

AND anyone who reads these shady publications

goonster
01-04-2008, 06:53 PM
Wall Street Journal?

Exempt since Aug. 1, 2007, doncha know?

capybaras
01-04-2008, 07:07 PM
Exempt since Aug. 1, 2007, doncha know?

I didn't know that - but I don't read newspapers - I leave that and other book larning to the elites.

manet
01-04-2008, 07:39 PM
I have the looks of Kennedy and the charm of Reagan




that rules out kissinger

ti_boi
01-04-2008, 07:41 PM
Who are the "elites" ????


Those damn hand made bicycle riders!

stevep
01-04-2008, 07:42 PM
to commemorate the caucus roman meal changed his name to huckleberry meal.

seriously.

Fixed
01-04-2008, 07:51 PM
bro obama went to harvard law i hope he can do well in a debate ..how is he at that ? who is the best debater? just wondering if you went to harvard law would you be a great debater isn't that important for a pres . in dealing with the world that fast on your feet thinking ..just askin
cheers

capybaras
01-04-2008, 07:54 PM
bro obama went to harvard law i hope he can do well in a debate ..how is he at that ? who is the best debater? just wondering if you went to harvard law would you be a great debater isn't that important for a pres . in dealing with the world that fast on your feet thinking ..just askin
cheers

Bush managed without

stevep
01-04-2008, 07:55 PM
bro obama went to harvard law i hope he can do well in a debate ..how is he at that ? who is the best debater? just wondering if you went to harvard law would you be a great debater isn't that important for a pres . in dealing with the world that fast on your feet thinking ..just askin
cheers

hes a very very bright guy.
he headed the law review at harvard..this is basicly the highest honor available to law students. one of if not the top student in his law class. top talent, brilliant student.

i am sure he can debate with the best of them, i am also sure he loses arguments with his wife every day.

chuckroast
01-04-2008, 07:58 PM
This is an interesting thread...seems like last night was the first play of what will be a very long game.

Here's a question, if the Dems can't win this one, given the table that has set for them, do they continue to be regarded as a credible national party?

Fixed
01-04-2008, 08:00 PM
Bush managed without
hhe went to yale with c s and stayed away from the law
cheers

1centaur
01-04-2008, 08:01 PM
I thought Obama was notably bad in the debates; he seemed callow, unsure and a step slow compared to the other Dems. That would not be good in a national race. However, I agree with Climb that he seems to be learning quickly.

To your earlier point, I agree with the counterpoint that the vast majority of anybody who would vote against a black because of race would never vote for a Democrat. That level of racism won't matter if Obama wins the usual Democrat base, plus more young people vote, plus more black people vote, plus soccer moms vote for him because he's not as threatening as Giuliani or as crotchety as McCain or as slicky smooth as (they would see) Romney (to be). That's the arithmetic for a landslide, but he'll need to be better in debates if he gets that far, because lack of experience is his weak point and poor debating skills bring that home emotionally.

As of today, I would expect Romney to be the Republican nominee. He's a very good debater because he makes his points well without seeming mean. Giuliani would be far more entertaining to watch, however.

barry1021
01-04-2008, 08:02 PM
I don't want to get into an overtly political discussion, but I'm enormously proud of the overwhelmingly white voters of Iowa tonight, who voted for a black man in a caucus that was settled over any number of issues, with race not being significant among them. This stuff is starting to happen more and more often in smaller races around the country and seeing it in a presidential caucus is HUGE. I don't care what your politics are or whether you like Obama or don't, but you gotta be pleased to know this is finally possible in the America of 2007.

-Ray

white, black, black lab, muslim, klingon, that had credentials to be prez. I sure don't see it in the winners in IA.

b21

stevep
01-04-2008, 08:06 PM
As of today, I would expect Romney to be the Republican nominee. He's a very good debater because he makes his points well without seeming mean. Giuliani would be far more entertaining to watch, however.

put me down for $.10 on mccain.
come on centaur , take a risk.

romney is too obviously a fraud.

LegendRider
01-04-2008, 08:09 PM
hhe went to yale with c s and stayed away from the law
cheers

Bush went to Phillips Academy (prep school), Yale (undergrad) and Harvard (MBA).

Fixed
01-04-2008, 08:16 PM
sorry i'm dumb but no law
cheers

bro he scored 26 on the pilot test and got in anyway the first time a cat had been a pilot in the air nat gaurd without be a pilot in the reg. forces first

ada@prorider.or
01-04-2008, 09:02 PM
politics ,on serotta

well if the people only did what they say and promise




:no:

dave thompson
01-04-2008, 09:12 PM
politics ,on serotta

well if the people only did what they say and promise




:no:
This thread, by and large, has been a very civilized discussion of our politics. Disagreement, yes, but generally in the confines of gentlemanly conversations. An occasional outburst or rant and a sputtering flame rarely.

Actually it's been pretty neat and more than a little educational to read all the posts.

tch
01-04-2008, 09:30 PM
That's exactly what people said about Bush before he came in...

The thing that stikes me most, is that the Bush goverment was ineffective at
getting done what they wanted. By constantly underestimating the difficulty
of challenges, and putting totally unqualified people in charge of important
stuff, they have seriously undermined the credibility of government institutions.


My concern for electing governments is about knowing what you're going to get. Bush had no real track record, and people seemed to fill in the blanks however they felt about the guy personally. I'm less swayed by 'character' than some folks who can get the job done, if you know what i mean... let's not head down the same path again.
-g
One big issue with Bush's approach was his lack of respect and appreciation for the professionalism and work that career politicians and civil servants often provide. It's an arrogance that Americans often give in to when regarding their government. It's easy to focus on incompetence when you're standing in line at the DMV or watching the news about Larry Craig -- but the fact is that a lot of government employees know their jobs and are committed to doing them well. Bush and his cronies arrogantly dismissed career employees and their ideas and ended up f**king up a lot of things. Look at his total dismissal of the bushel of professional intelligence which ran counter to his theories about Iraq.

He and his ilk remind me of the homeowner plumbers who decide "anyone can fix a toilet"..... and then end up calling a professional while they're standing knee-deep in sh**. You have to balance innovation with respect for what does work.

I may be wrong, but I sense Obama's not a professional hater.

MarleyMon
01-04-2008, 10:59 PM
... I'm enormously proud of the overwhelmingly white voters of Iowa tonight, who voted for a black man in a caucus that was settled over any number of issues, with race not being significant among them.

-Ray
How do you know it wasn't significant?
Maybe its white guilt, giving back to the oppressed race, in its most acceptable, presentable form: a tall, handsome, "well spoken" and well educated (and 1/2 white) figure. Thats a racist mindset, I'd say.
I grew up in Iowa and never saw a black person until I was 12, and I lived in a college town (Ames). Racial issues were completely hypothetical. It was easy to be pro civil rights. We couldn't understand how whites could beat and terrorize blacks in "the South". I was in agony when MLK was murdered.
In 1969 I moved to South Bend, IN where, within 6 months I was attacked by 4 adult black men who threw rocks and bricks at me during a "race riot" as I rode my bike through the "wrong neighborhood" to football practice. Evidently they could not tell by looking that I was not their oppressor. One teammates reaction wass "Dummass don't you know enough to stay out of that neighborhood? Don't go that way, go around it." It was the end of innocence and ignorance for me. Since then I have provoked many an interesting discussion by asking people, black and white, if they have ever been a victim of racial violence. Have you?
Now I live a few blocks from a memorial to Robert Kennedy, who was campaigning in Indianapolis on the night King was murdered. He broke the news to a largely black crowd and his speech of forgiveness and reconciliation that night was credited with sparing Indy the rioting that disrupted so many cities and destroyed many black neighborhoods (Lawndale in Chicago is still virtually empty).
Maybe Obama won cuz all the farmers thought they would get rich by patriotically selling corn for ethanol, to "free us from dependence on foreign oil", but maybe some of those young voters wanted to prove they aren't racist.
One concern with Obama is that not long ago he couldn't beat Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther, in a Chicago Congressional race. A strong machine can be tough to beat. Maybe his speeches are better now, but I don't see much substance, just a lot of "look at me, I literally EMBODY the reconcilliation of antagonisms". If that works for you, OK. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Would Hegel recognize the Spirit of History in Obama? Our presidency is only partly symbolic, though, and Obama's appeal is entirely so.

jemoryl
01-04-2008, 11:01 PM
Not everyone black is down with Obama. Glen Ford has a lot of interesting things to say, for instance: www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=251&Itemid=34

avalonracing
01-05-2008, 12:14 AM
Bush went to Phillips Academy (prep school), Yale (undergrad) and Harvard (MBA).


Yet he still thinks that human evolution is a theory...

Viper
01-05-2008, 12:42 AM
Yet he still thinks that human evolution is a theory...

According to Bono, 'J33:3' is known as God's telephone number (local calls in Ireland). I won't post what Jeremiah 33:3 denotes, but it's essentially God's voicemail (he never truly picks up the calls). On the cover of their hit album, 'All That You Can't Leave Behind', the photo is taken in a French airport (CDG in Paris). Bono had the photographer photo-shop 'J33:3' into the picture, above his head, while he's on his cell phone making the call.

'Contact' is one of my favorite movies, science versus faith, facts versus beliefs, fantastic movie (and there was no need for the role of shaggy, aka Matthew McConaughey)

I defend the rights of man, in this age of reason (Thomas Paine big props) to believe in creation or evolution.

I <3 Jodi Foster, "I had an experience .... I can't prove... I cant even explain it. But everything that I know as a human being, everything I am tells me that it was real. I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever. A vision of the universe, that tells us undeniably how tiny and insignificant and how rare and precious we all are. A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater than ourselves that we are not, that none of us are alone. I wish.. I could share that.. I wish that everyone if even for one moment could feel that awe and humility and hope. But -- that continues to be my wish."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2bLlGUKlwU

Ray
01-05-2008, 02:30 AM
How do you know it wasn't significant?
Maybe its white guilt, giving back to the oppressed race, in its most acceptable, presentable form: a tall, handsome, "well spoken" and well educated (and 1/2 white) figure. Thats a racist mindset, I'd say.
I'm sure there is SOME of that. Race is never entirely out of the discussion, whether conscious or subconscious. But the bottom line is it was a watershed moment and signified a significant break from the past. To the extent that race was involved, 20 years ago it would have precluded him from winning that caucus. This time, it didn't prevent it and may or may not have helped. I think these breakthroughs are significant - I obviously thought it was worth pointing out.

Obama's ultimate strength as a candidate is not yet known. Its sure to be tested now though. At a certain point, voting for president is always a leap of faith. No matter how good someone's been at other jobs they've held, it doesn't mean they're gonna be good at being president. That's a rather large job with pressures unlike anything else out there. With Bush, he'd failed at most of the stuff he'd tried until he got elected Governor. Based on credentials I'd have bet (and did) that Carter would have been a much better president than Reagan. I agreed with Carter to a much greater extent than I ever agreed with Reagan, but I have to acknowledge that Reagan was a much more effective president and even, in retrospect, did some very good things (along with a lot of damage). I had a very bad feeling about Bush the younger and was right about him (in contrast to his old man, who wasn't too bad except for those Willi Horton ads, which were despicable and the last time race was used so obviously in a presidential election). So, we don't know. But the people in Iowa had a chance to probe and question and debate and see these folks up close and take the first shot at this process. And he convinced them he's got the stuff. Now we'll get a better idea and, if he get's elected, we'll REALLY find out. But this stuff never comes with guarantees. I have a real good feeling about Obama, but you're right - at this point its largely symbolic and only time will tell if its more than that.

And, for what its worth, I've been caught in the middle of plenty of non-lethal racial violence and I can't honestly say I know who instigated it. I went to a high school where busing started my freshman year. We had a hell of a mix of black, Mexican, cowboy/redneck, and suburban white kids at our school and you could never really tell who was starting what with who, but there were a lot of fights between these groups. I played football with all of these folks and the guys on the football team managed to work it out pretty well. But we couldn't stop what was going on in the rest of the school population. It actually worked itself out pretty well over time. By the time I graduated, the same mix of kids was getting along a LOT better. There was still the occasional fight, but nothing like when everyone first got thrown in together. So, busing sort of worked in that particular place and time.

-Ray

stevep
01-05-2008, 06:54 AM
Bush went to Phillips Academy (prep school), Yale (undergrad) and Harvard (MBA).

if his name was george w smith he would be a high school drop out and would aspire to be the assistant manager of a car wash.

ada@prorider.or
01-05-2008, 07:41 AM
" I'm damn proud to be an American tonight "


so who is a amerrican ??????????

people who live in the usa ?
people who has a usa pasport?
people who born in usa?
people who where the orginal inhabitans of usa?

so all of those can be the president of the USA?
or............

or are there people who we can call american but in reallive they are not because they can not be president

just asking how does is function in the world of money?

LegendRider
01-05-2008, 07:45 AM
if his name was george w smith he would be a high school drop out and would aspire to be the assistant manager of a car wash.

While I agree that his name was instrumental for him gaining admission to elite schools, he's not as dumb as some people think:

Here is what we also know from New Yorker Magazine and UPI in articles from January of 2004.

-- Bush's SAT scores are higher than Bill Bradley's, Paul Wellstone's, and John Kerry's.

-- Bush scored a 1206 on his SAT, 566 of 800 on verbal and 640 of 800 on math. [Since the SAT's scale has since been "recentered," Bush's score is more like a 1300 today.]

-- Bush's verbal score would place him between the 84th and 92nd percentile of college-bound students, or the 93rd to 97th percentile of ALL high-school seniors taking the exams, the percentile usually used.

-- His math score would also place him between the 84th and 92nd percentile of college-bound students, or the 94th to 98th percentile of ALL high-school seniors taking the exams, the percentile usually used.

-- Using one method to extract IQ's from these SAT scores, Bush's IQ would be somewhere between 124 and 137. Hardly a dunce, that's at least in the top six percent of Americans.

-- We all hear of Bush's supposed college mediocrity, but in reality his "worst" courses were two C-minus scores. Accounting for grade inflation, Bush's worst grades are around today's B-minuses.

stevep
01-05-2008, 07:46 AM
to be pres you have to be born in the usa.
as george w demonstrates well...there are no other talents or qualifications necessary.

means arnold cannot run. and you cannot run cees.


" I'm damn proud to be an American tonight "


so who is a amerrican ??????????

people who live in the usa ?
people who has a usa pasport?
people who born in usa?
people who where the orginal inhabitans of usa?

so all of those can be the president of the USA?
or............

or are there people who we can call american but in reallive they are not because they can not be president

just asking how does is function in the world of money?

ada@prorider.or
01-05-2008, 07:50 AM
to be pres you have to be born in the usa.
as george w demonstrates well...there are no other talents or qualifications necessary.

means arnold cannot run. and you cannot run cees.

so arnold is not a american?

sort of spare american?
and not all americans who has a usa pasport are americans? since they not born in the usa?! :confused:

and people who born in the usa and there parents and still have other pasports? like many also here cannot run for president since they have no usa pasport but they born there? so who are then the real americans
i know several people who have other pasports then usa
and still born in the usa
and they pay taxes i assume and the can vote .but still they not americans?
:confused:

coopdog
01-05-2008, 08:20 AM
I take it you do not live in the US. So I'll explain it to you. I think most people consider anyone with US citizenship to be an "American". You do not have to be born in the US to earn citizenship. I think you have to be a US citizen to have a US passport. To be President of the United States, in addition to being a US Citizen, you must have been born in the US. So yes, not all "Americans" can be President. It is a bit strange when you think about it. It's written in our Constitution I believe.

Lastly, "American" is a bit of a misnomer sense technically speaking Canadians, Mexicans, Venezuelans are all Americans too, but people just don't use the term in that context.




so arnold is not a american?

sort of spare american?
and not all americans who has a usa pasport are americans? since they not born in the usa?! :confused:

and people who born in the usa and there parents and still have other pasports? like many also here cannot run for president since they have no usa pasport but they born there? so who are then the real americans
i know several people who have other pasports then usa
and still born in the usa
and they pay taxes i assume and the can vote .but still they not americans?
:confused:

ada@prorider.or
01-05-2008, 09:04 AM
that leave´s the question when can you vote?

when you live in USA
or...............
when some one live in usa and let say he is canadian can he vote?

if yes why can he be not one of the candidate´s?
becuase he can vote ,but can not be part of the system
since he cannot be president

i guess its confusing to be a american
you can say something .but on otherhand it does not say anything......

is there seperate rule for indians must they live in reservate to become a president?
can they be president?
after all they are the orginal usa citizens

politics .....................

dirtdigger88
01-05-2008, 09:08 AM
read here (http://www.presidentsusa.net/qualifications.html) for qualifications for president-

the canadian is not a natural BORN citizen- so no he can not be president - he could hold other offices though- think Arnold

if he is a naturalized citizen - then he can vote

Jason

ada@prorider.or
01-05-2008, 09:13 AM
read here (http://www.presidentsusa.net/qualifications.html) for qualifications for president-

the canadian is not a natural BORN citizen- so no he can not be president - he could hold other offices though- think Arnold

if he is a naturalized citizen - then he can vote

Jason

so by this rule
there can be some one who has a finnish pasport or from irak
and born in usa become president since he also live´s in USA and is a citizen of USA

goonster
01-05-2008, 09:17 AM
so arnold is not a american?


Arnold is something much, much better.

He is an Austrian-American. :banana:

goonster
01-05-2008, 09:31 AM
so by this rule
there can be some one who has a finnish pasport or from irak
and born in usa become president since he also live´s in USA and is a citizen of USA

If you were born in the U.S. you are automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship. Yes, even if your parents were here illegally, or just on vacation.

If you were born in the U.S., and are currently a U.S. citizen, then it doesn't matter if you held any other passports during your lifetime. As far as the Constitution is concerned, you can become President.

Interestingly, John McCain was not born in the U.S. He was born in the Panama Canal zone, which was not a state or incorporated territory, but merely U.S.-controlled. Very suspicious, if you ask me. ;)

GregL
01-05-2008, 09:32 AM
To vote in the United States, you must be a United States citizen. You can become a citizen by (a) being born in the US, (b) legally entering the US and applying for citizenship (naturalization), or (c) being born to US citizen(s) who are abroad at the time of your birth. I know that (c) is often used by US military personnel who are stationed outside the US. I have a second cousin who was born in Germany while her parents were stationed there while serving in the US Air Force. Please note that there are examples in US history of "special cases" within the naturalization process that were specially authorized through the US Government, but it would require more research to show examples.

To be President or Vice President of the US, a person must be a natural-born citizen. That is, they must have been born as a US citizen, not acquire citizenship through naturalization. This is spelled out in article 2 of the US Constitution. Thus, Arnold can be the "Governator" of CA, but not the President of the US (except in the Simpsons movie...).

Regards,
Greg

1centaur
01-05-2008, 09:34 AM
Maybe its white guilt, giving back to the oppressed race, in its most acceptable, presentable form: a tall, handsome, "well spoken" and well educated (and 1/2 white) figure. Thats a racist mindset, I'd say.

If Obama was short, ugly, inarticulate and a high school drop out he would not have won regardless of race. And BTW, I don't think white guilt reflects personal racism but some kind of shame at the actions of ancestors. Playing on white guilt is a tactic to get stuff, but it's such a well worn tactic it's grown tiresome to the majority (vast) who are not themselves racist.

Speaking of inarticulate and high school drop outs, it is a lie the left tell themselves that Bush junior is dumb, as LegendRider pointed out, since his stats have been out there enough that everyone should know he compares well to Kerry and Gore, neither of whom is viewed as dumb. That said, it is VERY tempting to view him as dumb because of the way he expresses himself - I often think it's inconceivable that he's not dumb on that basis, yet the facts are the facts. Back to Obama, he communicates exceptionally well. That skill may be overrewarded in politics.

MarleyMon is correct that Obama represents hope. There's a lot of projecting going on, much of which will prove to be unfounded, I believe. I clearly think much of that hopeful feeling was behind Deval Patrick's ascendancy to be our governor (with heavy Clinton support BTW, which he repaid by supporting Obama in New Hampshire), and so far we have very little to show for that hope.

michael white
01-05-2008, 10:00 AM
If Obama was short, ugly, inarticulate and a high school drop out he would not have won regardless of race. And BTW, I don't think white guilt reflects personal racism but some kind of shame at the actions of ancestors. Playing on white guilt is a tactic to get stuff, but it's such a well worn tactic it's grown tiresome to the majority (vast) who are not themselves racist.

Speaking of inarticulate and high school drop outs, it is a lie the left tell themselves that Bush junior is dumb, as LegendRider pointed out, since his stats have been out there enough that everyone should know he compares well to Kerry and Gore, neither of whom is viewed as dumb. That said, it is VERY tempting to view him as dumb because of the way he expresses himself - I often think it's inconceivable that he's not dumb on that basis, yet the facts are the facts. Back to Obama, he communicates exceptionally well. That skill may be overrewarded in politics.

MarleyMon is correct that Obama represents hope. There's a lot of projecting going on, much of which will prove to be unfounded, I believe. I clearly think much of that hopeful feeling was behind Deval Patrick's ascendancy to be our governor (with heavy Clinton support BTW, which he repaid by supporting Obama in New Hampshire), and so far we have very little to show for that hope.

As a professional educator, what I can say about traditional methods of assessing intelligence and aptitude is that they are good at measuring cultural bias, mostly. In fact, when I'm reading grad applications to our program, I hardly even glance at scores. I read the work carefully. Scores are terrible predictors, almost completely meaniingless. They reflect almost nothing that matters. This attitude is common.

Some people in power squander their native gifts by not reading, not thinking etc.--they tend to end up seeming rather illiterate because they are. Others win Nobel Prizes.

Bush is now, as always, a big, wretched, and fully exposed, mistake.

MarleyMon
01-05-2008, 11:00 AM
I'm sure there is SOME of that. Race is never entirely out of the discussion, whether conscious or subconscious. But the bottom line is it was a watershed moment and signified a significant break from the past. To the extent that race was involved, 20 years ago it would have precluded him from winning that caucus. This time, it didn't prevent it and may or may not have helped. I think these breakthroughs are significant - I obviously thought it was worth pointing out...

-Ray
Agreed - I was feeling polemical last night. I will give every voter the benefit of the doubt that they voted for the candidate that would best represent them and they each have their reasons.
No doubt, Obama's victory is an important first.
Iowa has one of the highest literacy rates in the US and I am excited about the relatively high level of participation in this election. Its great that so many get excited about politics, and his ability to generate that excitement is one of Obama's strengths.

Trivia - which presidential candidate was born outside the US?
A- John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone of US citizens, so is "natural born".
I was born in the Philippines of US citizens, and my SAT scores were equal to Bush, I wasn't in Skull and Bones, but I was a Dead Head - does that mean I have the credentials to be a Republican presidential candidate? :rolleyes:
Never mind - I'm too short. Isn't that the most statistically significant predictor in a two-way race?

Ray
01-05-2008, 12:09 PM
Speaking of inarticulate and high school drop outs, it is a lie the left tell themselves that Bush junior is dumb, as LegendRider pointed out, since his stats have been out there enough that everyone should know he compares well to Kerry and Gore, neither of whom is viewed as dumb. That said, it is VERY tempting to view him as dumb because of the way he expresses himself - I often think it's inconceivable that he's not dumb on that basis, yet the facts are the facts. Back to Obama, he communicates exceptionally well. That skill may be overrewarded in politics.

When I said Bush was a frickin idiot, I didn't mean he was dumb :cool: I really don't think ANYone who ascends to the presidency lacks some pretty serious brains, no matter how good the evil genius running the campaign is. But even if you have some brains, if you're always convinced you're right and incurious about ideas that differ from your own and never admit a mistake and if you're almost always WRONG, I think that qualifies as idiotic. So I stand by my statement. Qualified as it may be and as much as it may not meet the Websters definition. Hey, if he can make ***** up, so can I. I actually think Bush is smart enough to put on a serious Texas twang and country affect in order to appeal to some of the base of his party.

What I think he primarily lacks is curiosity, perspective, and wisdom. My gut tells me Obama has those things. If he gets elected, I really hope I'm right. Because the next president has a mutha of a job facing him or her.

-Ray

dbrk
01-05-2008, 12:25 PM
Never mind - I'm too short. Isn't that the most statistically significant predictor in a two-way race?

You can't get elected unless you ride a frame larger than 56cm imhoatmo. As for Bush's intellectual prowess, I can hardly think of a more amusing subject. Having attended at least one of the same University's as GW, I think I'd feel better had I gone to Princeton. But I'm not as smart as Seth and we alllll know that!

dbrk

1centaur
01-05-2008, 12:26 PM
As a professional educator, what I can say about traditional methods of assessing intelligence and aptitude is that they are good at measuring cultural bias, mostly. In fact, when I'm reading grad applications to our program, I hardly even glance at scores. I read the work carefully. Scores are terrible predictors, almost completely meaniingless. They reflect almost nothing that matters. This attitude is common.

Some people in power squander their native gifts by not reading, not thinking etc.--they tend to end up seeming rather illiterate because they are. Others win Nobel Prizes.

Bush is now, as always, a big, wretched, and fully exposed, mistake.

While I agree on Bush to a large extent, I don't agree on tests. I realize that many admissions folks say those words, but the SATs have years of data backing them up (and years of trying to eliminate cultural bias) and an overwhelming use rate at colleges because they do give a common way to predict at least first year success. I have never known anyone who got over 700 on his SATs to be other than very smart. I have never heard of anyone getting under 450 on SATs being a run of the mill success at intellectually based endeavors. There are greater problems with predictivity in the middle (Bush country, if you will). And of course Bush did get decent grades at very good colleges. Whether he used his native horsepower well is another question.

IQ tests also are not mere indicators of cultural bias. I actually went to a school in another country where the only entrance exam was an IQ test (Stanford-Binet, administered individually by a very experienced person who did it for a living). There were a few weird (mentally messed up) people with very high IQs (185-90ish) there, but nobody was dumb/incapable of understanding the material (bio/physics/chem at age 12?).

I also went to graduate school, where the standard test to get in was the GMAT. Again, the average GMAT score was very high and again, the people who got in were very capable of doing the work, which was at a relatively high level. All the top business schools, even those who these days shun the SAT, had very high average GMATs. I doubt those admissions types are clueless sheep.

Grant McLean
01-05-2008, 12:28 PM
I <3 Jodi Foster, "I had an experience .... I can't prove... I cant even explain it. But everything that I know as a human being, everything I am tells me that it was real. I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever. A vision of the universe, that tells us undeniably how tiny and insignificant and how rare and precious we all are. A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater than ourselves that we are not, that none of us are alone. I wish.. I could share that.. I wish that everyone if even for one moment could feel that awe and humility and hope. But -- that continues to be my wish."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DxtxQQLkJ0&feature=related


-g

Fat Robert
01-05-2008, 12:33 PM
-- Bush scored a 1206 on his SAT, 566 of 800 on verbal and 640 of 800 on math. [Since the SAT's scale has since been "recentered," Bush's score is more like a 1300 today.]

-- Bush's verbal score would place him between the 84th and 92nd percentile of college-bound students, or the 93rd to 97th percentile of ALL high-school seniors taking the exams, the percentile usually used.


-- Using one method to extract IQ's from these SAT scores, Bush's IQ would be somewhere between 124 and 137. Hardly a dunce, that's at least in the top six percent of Americans.

.


(pointless post warning)

ok, by one set of dubious standards (SAT and IQ) i can claim to be smarter than the president

however, i can't even run a classroom of 17-year olds, let alone a country

i don't dig on W, but I'd rather have W in the white house than me

i would make sure everybody had a lugged frame, then ignore the rest

sachs gets rich on gov contracts, the rest of the nation goes to hell....

97CSI
01-06-2008, 08:56 AM
IMHO This is a wrong way to think.

You are happy that folks voted for a black man. You should be happy that they voted for someone with beliefs similiar to their's irregardless of race. Voting for someone only because they are black is just as bad as not voting for someone because they are black.Believe the meaning was that the folks in IA voted for Obama without regard to his race, not because of it.

ti_boi
01-06-2008, 11:12 AM
I am always proud to be an American! Just think about the huge contributions we make to the world on a daily basis!

DukeHorn
01-07-2008, 06:17 PM
I don't know how anyone can qualify gentlemen's Cs as "decent grades". Yale and Harvard are not going to flunk out a Philips Academy grad from an established family. The surprising thing was that Bush allegedly got dinged when he applied to UT Law. With a 175 (48 on the old scale) LSAT and a middling GPA, I was an auto acceptance at UT so it was my safety law school, so Bush's grades had to be pretty poor not to get in.

1centaur
01-07-2008, 06:47 PM
I don't know how anyone can qualify gentlemen's Cs as "decent grades".

I was just being kind to Kerry and Gore. Can't find Obama's quickly enough, but betting they're better.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:T7HHQrprXpAJ:www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm+Bush%27s+college+grades&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:8UbjMQykaOcJ:www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html+Bush%27s+college+grades&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

ti_boi
01-15-2008, 09:49 PM
Anyone listening to the debates? The candidates don't sound too bad.....ATMO :D

avalonracing
01-15-2008, 10:36 PM
(pointless post warning)

ok, by one set of dubious standards (SAT and IQ) i can claim to be smarter than the president

however, i can't even run a classroom of 17-year olds, let alone a country

i don't dig on W, but I'd rather have W in the white house than me



I don't know you but I'd rather have you, Fat Robert.
The world would be a better place if only the Supreme Court would have appointed you instead.

Louis
06-05-2008, 12:09 AM
Doing this may get this thread locked, but I think it bears repeating:

Thanks again, Iowa.

It's a long road, and many miles are left to go, but we've already come farther than many thought possible.

Louis

Elefantino
06-05-2008, 12:56 AM
I will be damn prouder to be an American when we don't have to be damn proud that a minority (or a woman) succeeds on the national political scene.

I will be damn prouder to be an American when the content of a person's character is all anyone notices.

I will be damn prouder to be an American when we don't feel the need to demonize those who look, act or think differently than we do.

I will be damn prouder to be an American when we remember that a government and its branches exist to protect the rights of the minority, not enforce the will of the majority.

I don't think I'll be damn prouder to be an American anytime soon.

Dekonick
06-05-2008, 01:15 AM
An interesting year. Where we hear nothing of race or gender but of plenty of words about religion.

I would love nothing better than to see a strong third party emerge with a slightly libertarian/populist/green bent to keep the Dems and 'Pubs straight and to keep a interesting, invigorating and diverse discourse in our ears. We need more than two alternatives.

+1

THANK YOU!

make that +9^99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999....................

M.Sommers
06-05-2008, 01:20 AM
"If"

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!

Ray
06-05-2008, 06:17 AM
I will be damn prouder to be an American when we don't have to be damn proud that a minority (or a woman) succeeds on the national political scene.

I will be damn prouder to be an American when the content of a person's character is all anyone notices.

Me too, but I think history shows you have to go through very tough battles to get past this stuff - you can't just wish it away. We're in the middle of it now and it can get nasty. Battles are being won. Although things got nasty and ugly (both in the campaign and on the forum) between Iowa and now, I think this is a huge, historically critical step.

When I think that in my relatively short lifetime, we've gone from a time when black folks in the south had to use separate water fountains, bath rooms, sections of movie theaters and buses, schools, etc, and now we're at a point where a black man can be the nominee of one of our major parties for PRESIDENT of the US, I'm DAMN proud. And a woman could have been too if she was just a little bit better candidate (or if he was just a little bit worse). We're still far from perfect, but we're a few steps closer. And those steps matter.

Hey, in 1960, Kennedy had to break through the barrier of being Catholic - now its a non-issue. Someday being Mormon or Muslim or Jewish may be a non-issue too. Or being an atheist. Or being gay. Right now, Obama and our society are fighting through the process of making it a non-issue to be black. Given our history, that's not small or unimportant. Or easy.

-Ray

Fixed
06-05-2008, 06:51 AM
40 years ago today america lost some of it's hope ..pray it does not happen again ever imho
cheers

BumbleBeeDave
06-05-2008, 07:48 AM
Doing this may get this thread locked, but I think it bears repeating:

Thanks again, Iowa.

It's a long road, and many miles are left to go, but we've already come farther than many thought possible.

Louis

The problem some months ago was that noone seemed to be able to discuss this election without the thread QUICKLY devolving into personal attacks. Keep it civil and on the issues rather than forum personalities and I bet you will be OK.

BBD

Fixed
06-05-2008, 08:03 AM
we have done something no other country in the world has done.. again
we are an open minded country ..
imho cheers

Kevan
06-05-2008, 08:15 AM
being proud again.

gomez308
06-05-2008, 09:14 AM
we have done something no other country in the world has done.. again
we are an open minded country ..
imho cheers

And what would that be?

soulspinner
06-05-2008, 09:24 AM
Me too, but I think history shows you have to go through very tough battles to get past this stuff - you can't just wish it away. We're in the middle of it now and it can get nasty. Battles are being won. Although things got nasty and ugly (both in the campaign and on the forum) between Iowa and now, I think this is a huge, historically critical step.

When I think that in my relatively short lifetime, we've gone from a time when black folks in the south had to use separate water fountains, bath rooms, sections of movie theaters and buses, schools, etc, and now we're at a point where a black man can be the nominee of one of our major parties for PRESIDENT of the US, I'm DAMN proud. And a woman could have been too if she was just a little bit better candidate (or if he was just a little bit worse). We're still far from perfect, but we're a few steps closer. And those steps matter.

Hey, in 1960, Kennedy had to break through the barrier of being Catholic - now its a non-issue. Someday being Mormon or Muslim or Jewish may be a non-issue too. Or being an atheist. Or being gay. Right now, Obama and our society are fighting through the process of making it a non-issue to be black. Given our history, that's not small or unimportant. Or easy.

-Ray

Thank you for your post. Very thoughtful and positive.


Dennis

ti_boi
06-05-2008, 09:26 AM
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world: indeed it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead

Ahneida Ride
06-05-2008, 09:30 AM
Another Black American ran four years ago ....
He received minimal press and was not massaged into a quasi deity.
He was just as articulate as the current candidate.

I have to ask why?

Race/gender is irrelevant ... What are his Policies? and will he implement them. That's all I care about.

93legendti
06-05-2008, 09:45 AM
Another Black American ran four years ago ....
He received minimal press and was not massaged into a quasi deity.
He was just as articulate as the current candidate.

I have to ask why?

Race/gender is irrelevant ... What are his Policies? and will he implement them. That's all I care about.
I agree. I stated this sentiment in the past and jerk got very upset, but I stand by your assessment.

Clinton and Obama's records and policies are nearly identical. So are their promises to fix EVERY THING that's wrong in America, merely by raising taxes on the "rich".

Ray
06-05-2008, 09:56 AM
Another Black American ran four years ago ....
He received minimal press and was not massaged into a quasi deity.
He was just as articulate as the current candidate.

I have to ask why?

Race/gender is irrelevant ... What are his Policies? and will he implement them. That's all I care about.
Actually he ran 8 years ago. And 12. Being articulate is just one part of being a good candidate and he just wasn't a very good candidate or one that many people agreed with. You might have, but you'd have been in a small minority.

If you'll recall, the same guy then moved his residence to take on Obama in his run for the senate from Illinois. To say he got trounced would be the understatement of many decades. They were both black but one was a left of center candidate with a successful decade in the state legislature and a clear ability to move people and get elected. The other was a conservative talk-radio host who'd never been elected to anything (despite failed attempts - a couple for the senate from Maryland and a couple for President). He'd been a low-level ambassador to a sub-agency of the UN under Reagan and that was it. That election clearly wasn't about race - the better candidate won. By a mile. Or perhaps it was a light-year.

Here's to merit!

-Ray

M.Sommers
06-05-2008, 09:59 AM
Another Black American ran four years ago ....
He received minimal press and was not massaged into a quasi deity.
He was just as articulate as the current candidate.

Alan Keyes was back in 2000? Or Al Sharpton in 2004? The man didn't graduate college, was a roadie for James Brown, became an ordained Minister at age 12, was busted by the FBI tagged with drug sales, doesn't seem to pay his taxes and is trailed by the IRS, was the key cog in the Tawana Brawley libelous disaster and suffers from foot-in-mouth disease as a reckless blowhard. In my best Lloyd Bentsen...I didn't know Mr. Al Sharpton, he wasn't a friend of mine and I don't know Mr. Barack Obama. But I do know that Al Sharpton is no Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is precisely where he is today because he's Barack Obama, not Al Sharpton. A TREK and a Sachs are both bikes, but they're not the same atmo.

:beer:

LegendRider
06-05-2008, 12:06 PM
A TREK and a Sachs are both bikes, but they're not the same atmo.



So very true. One brand has won the Tour seven times plus other Grand Tours and the other is a status symbol among a very small group cycling aficionados. ;)

Fixed
06-05-2008, 02:32 PM
And what would that be?
we are considered a mainly northern european country all of our presidents have been no other country has done what we have and said a minority( a person of color) person can lead or might have the chance to ..imho what is there not to be proud in that ?
cheers
:He was just as articulate as the current candidate. : = all bikes are the same
I beg to differ study them both before you make comparison ..I am out of this I am to much involved I love the cat ..
cheers

93legendti
06-05-2008, 02:37 PM
we are considered a mainly northern european country all of our presidents have been no other country has done what we have and said a minority( a person of color) person can lead or might have the chance to ..imho what is there not to be proud in that ?
cheers

Yes, a minority can lead our country. But that has been true for a long time.
I can think of other countries that have a minority as a leader. For one, Jordan's Kings have always been Hashemites and they make up only 10% of the population of Jordan. FWIW, I can't say I am proud of Jordan because of that.

harlond
06-05-2008, 02:41 PM
we are considered a mainly northern european country all of our presidents have been no other country has done what we have and said a minority( a person of color) person can lead or might have the chance to ..imho what is there not to be proud in that ?
cheers
:He was just as articulate as the current candidate. : = all bikes are the same
I beg to differ study them both before you make comparison ..I am out of this I am to much involved I love the cat ..
cheersCount me in the Obama camp, but what about Peru?

93legendti
06-05-2008, 02:58 PM
Count me in the Obama camp, but what about Peru?

What about when Joe Lieberman was the running mate to Al Gore in 2000? There are less than 10 million Jews in America...weren't people damn proud of their country because a minority ran for VP in 2000?

Fixed
06-05-2008, 03:02 PM
What about when Joe Lieberman was the running mate to Al Gore in 2000? There are less than 10 million Jews in America...weren't people damn proud of their country because a minority ran for VP in 2000?


i was
cheers

93legendti
06-05-2008, 03:03 PM
i was
cheers

I knew you were... :)

Ray
06-05-2008, 03:06 PM
What about when Joe Lieberman was the running mate to Al Gore in 2000? There are less than 10 million Jews in America...weren't people damn proud of their country because a minority ran for VP in 2000?
Sure, and when Ferraro was the VP nominee in '84 (although I'd throw either or both of them in the damn ocean at this point - just sayin'). To be fair, though, VP isn't the same, because they didn't get voted on for the highest office in the land - they were chosen by a candidate and sort of annointed. Obama had to earn this one vote by vote. If I'd been old enough to appreciate it, probably when Kennedy was the first Catholic in '60 was a similar breakthrough, but its hard for me to imagine. Nothing about this denigrates other breakthroughs. Except I think that given the history of slavery and race in America, this hurdle was a LOT bigger. That's just my opinion and we could argue about it all day (as the issue of race vs gender was a hot debate during this primary), but this one feels bigger to me.

-Ray

fiamme red
06-05-2008, 03:10 PM
Sure, and when Ferraro was the VP nominee in '84 (although I'd throw either or both of them in the damn ocean at this point - just sayin'). To be fair, though, VP isn't the same, because they didn't get voted on for the highest office in the land - they were chosen by a candidate and sort of annointed. Obama had to earn this one vote by vote. If I'd been old enough to appreciate it, probably when Kennedy was the first Catholic in '60 was a similar breakthrough, but its hard for me to imagine. Nothing about this denigrates other breakthroughs. Except I think that given the history of slavery and race in America, this hurdle was a LOT bigger. That's just my opinion and we could argue about it all day (as the issue of race vs gender was a hot debate during this primary), but this one feels bigger to me.

-RayI doubt that I'll see a Democratic or Republican presidential candidate who is an avowed atheist or agnostic in my lifetime. The hurdle of religion is much higher than those of sex or race.

93legendti
06-05-2008, 03:14 PM
Sure, and when Ferraro was the VP nominee in '84 (although I'd throw either or both of them in the damn ocean at this point - just sayin'). To be fair, though, VP isn't the same, because they didn't get voted on for the highest office in the land - they were chosen by a candidate and sort of annointed. Obama had to earn this one vote by vote. If I'd been old enough to appreciate it, probably when Kennedy was the first Catholic in '60 was a similar breakthrough, but its hard for me to imagine. Nothing about this denigrates other breakthroughs. Except I think that given the history of slavery and race in America, this hurdle was a LOT bigger. That's just my opinion and we could argue about it all day (as the issue of race vs gender was a hot debate during this primary), but this one feels bigger to me.

-Ray
I understand and respect your point.

I thought of Pres. Kennedy as well. I have not heard others talking about the prior breakthroughs and it would be a shame if they got "lost" in the mix. In some way they probably all helped pave the way for 2008.

That said, I don't get caught up much in "firsts" and I think it does a disservice to the candidate. Are they qualified? Do their positions square with mine? Those are the questions I tend to ask.

I see minorities in all positions in our Country, political and otherwise, so Obama's nomination does not make me any more proud. Then again, I have always been proud of our country.

I voted for Mondale/Ferraro, but not Gore/Lieberman.

goonster
06-05-2008, 03:16 PM
weren't people damn proud of their country because a minority ran for VP in 2000?

He didn't run. He was an also-ran, atmo.

HSG Racer
06-05-2008, 03:53 PM
What about when Joe Lieberman was the running mate to Al Gore in 2000? There are less than 10 million Jews in America...weren't people damn proud of their country because a minority ran for VP in 2000?


That action more than any other probably lost Gore the race in 2000. As you may recall, Gore didn't take a single state in the entire South, not even his home state of Tennessee. Many political pundits blamed it on his VP choice.

It's also worth noting that Obama won the right to be on the ticket by accumulating 18 million votes during the primaries. Leiberman didn't get a single vote in the 2000 primaries. He got on the ticket because he was picked by Gore. It was a bad and costly decision.

RPS
06-05-2008, 03:53 PM
Obama had to earn this one vote by vote.Ray, I don't follow politics as much as many of you, so I'll ask a question. Didn't Hillary win more popular votes? I'm not sure but seems that was reported in the news.

If that's the case it's interesting that the Dem party has such a complicated election process -- particularly after the Bush/Gore popular-vote debates that followed that election -- that would allow the person with the fewer votes to win.

ti_boi
06-05-2008, 03:57 PM
What about when Joe Lieberman was the running mate to Al Gore in 2000? There are less than 10 million Jews in America...weren't people damn proud of their country because a minority ran for VP in 2000?


Joe is kind of a putz....and his whole B.S. pious routine....2nd wife and all was a turn-off. Oy.

HSG Racer
06-05-2008, 04:18 PM
Being a first on a presidential party ticket is exciting. But it doesn’t mean anything if you don’t win in November. The Democratic primaries split the party into separate identity factions. I have never seen the Democrats so fractured as they are today. Obama has a huge job ahead of him trying to unite his party together for November. I’m not a Democrat. But even if I were, I wouldn’t start celebrating just yet.

93legendti
06-05-2008, 04:39 PM
Joe is kind of a putz....and his whole B.S. pious routine....2nd wife and all was a turn-off. Oy.

Joe's my hero...has been for the last few years.

jimcav
06-05-2008, 04:43 PM
think he mis-read a few. i know lots of folks were trying to see my bubble sheet.

the worst part of this Pres, and to me any, is no one paid much attention to his inner circle during the process of voting. They are selfish and arrogant, and he is stubborn, not analytical, not thoughtful.

The reason i am least proud to be an american (speaking about the political process) is that i am sorrounded by people who don't think, they vote based on "feelings" and are led around by sound bites about "Values" and personality. rather than positions, ability, demonstrated competence. This was true in the 1980s when most of my classmate's folks were blue collar workers at firestone, yet voted republican by rote, and true now when some propaganda buzzword on an issue of high emotion but almost zero daily life impact makes them vote one side or the other.

I know some folks who are dead and maimed because of how folks voted in 2004 believing terror alert BS, and who, in the words of one, "did not want to change horses mid-stream".

the reason i am most proud is that despite this, many of us struggle onward to serve, in many and varied ways, the hordes that do very little to deserve it.

Usually it serves my interest (wallet) to vote republican. I tend to vote based on the competence of the candidate and those around him (and now her) and the policies i think are good long term for the USA, a country i love and took a vow to serve back in 1988.

the branch of gov't where i live, is full of problems--funding, manning, inertia, red-tape, etc, but it also recognizes and encourages competence--because it is the only way to overcome the hurdles of the funding, manning, etc. And there is defined responsibility and accountability.

i hope to see the same thing at the very top.

jim

goonster
06-05-2008, 04:49 PM
Didn't Hillary win more popular votes?

No. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html)

Tobias
06-05-2008, 04:50 PM
If you'll recall, the same guy then moved his residence to take on Obama in his run for the senate from Illinois.
......snipped..........
Here's to merit!

-RayOn that basis, how do we explain Obama being unsuccessful just a few years ago in his bid for the US House in 2000? Going from being defeated for a low-level job to best man to run the country is one heck of a leap, isn't?

I was watching a TV program that asked people to write in who they thought would be best for the economy and why. After a few minutes they had to remind people not to express why they didn't like the other guy -- it seems everyone was focused on the negative instead of the positive.

I'm not against Obama personally, but expect that much of his following is due to hate for Bush, not because of what Obama has demonstrated he can accomplishment. Although I'll have to give him credit for best speeches. ;)

Tobias
06-05-2008, 05:01 PM
No. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html)Close enough to make it a good race. Photo finish by any count.
They both did a good job.

M.Sommers
06-05-2008, 05:38 PM
What about when Joe Lieberman was the running mate to Al Gore in 2000? There are less than 10 million Jews in America...weren't people damn proud of their country because a minority ran for VP in 2000?

Albert Gore chose Joseph Lieberman with the end-goal to win Florida. Whereas Jews make up say, 10 percent of all America, Florida is very different in terms of percentage. We know what happened in 2000 with the chads. Regardless, Albert Gore's pick of Lieberman for VP was viewed by many as a cheap, transparent choice, politcal pandering to sway the vote in one individual state, which didn't pan out. I think it's important to be honest and factual about Lieberman (who has left his party) as Gore's choice, in terms of your math above. It was a no-brainer for Gore, even though it failed.

M.Sommers
06-05-2008, 05:44 PM
Joe's my hero...has been for the last few years.

For what particualar reason? Has he done anything incredible for the state of Connecticut? Why is he your hero?

Tobias
06-05-2008, 05:54 PM
Albert Gore chose Joseph Lieberman with the end-goal to win Florida.Mostly that -- and also to balance the ticket.
Gore was left/liberal and Lieberman the opposite within the party.

M.Sommers
06-05-2008, 06:04 PM
I will be damn prouder to be an American when we remember that a government and its branches exist to protect the rights of the minority, not enforce the will of the majority.

I'm pumped, excited for a good race this summer and fall. But I have to ask you as you offer that our government exists, "To protect the rights of the minority, not enforce the will of the majority." We are a nation 'Of the people, by the people' and the terms 'minority' and 'majority' refer to numerical data, numbers when we vote, not skin color. I believe government's responsibility is simply to protect the people, this country and I know that if four people in your family want pizza for dinner, but you want Chinese take-out, you're having pizza. :) So it is true for our elected officials; they serve to adhere to the majority will, majority vote. I believe government, law and logic should protect all equally not simply numerical minority.

The will of the majority...is what this country is all about atmo. Spock vulcanized, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" to which Captain Kirk added, "Or the one."



:beer:

Ray
06-05-2008, 06:18 PM
The point of this thread waaaaay back when and the point of my comments this time were not to get into a debate about the relative merits of the candidates. I'm a strong Obama supporter as is patently obvious. But I'm not trying to convince you that you should be and I really don't want to get into a big debate on the issues here. I don't think its the place and it makes it a lot tougher to stay civil. For what its worth, I really like both candidates this year - that hasn't happened in a loooooonnnngggg time. I disagree with the 2008 version of McCain on too much to vote for him (I possibly could have in 2000), but I like the guy a lot.

The point was not that anyone should vote for Obama BECAUSE he's part black - rather I was noting my pride that, for the first time, our nation, or at least one major party, has voted for a guy who is black and that wasn't enough to kill his campaign. This is a big first. I didn't have to like Colin Powell or Condy Rice to be pleased to see them break through the glass ceiling in Bush's administration either. To me, its a sign of progress, that's all. If you don't agree with Obama or don't like him or don't trust him or whatever, you definitely should not vote for him. But you can still take pride in the fact that this was able to happen. I know a lot of Republicans who are not planning to vote for him who were extremely happy to see this happen (and not because they think he'll be the easier candidate to run against - that's a whole nother thread for some other web site).

Regarding the popular vote, the Clintons have come up with ways to count it that gives it to her. Most impartial observers give it to him. But it's so close as to be pretty meaningless either way. Essentially a tie. The bottom line is that there are rules about how you win delegates, Obama played by them and won more delegates, and then the super-delegates ratified that decision. Unfortunately (for the Democrats), when a race is this close, the losing side can always feel like they were cheated (as in 2000 in Florida), and that has the potential to cost the party the election despite widespread agreement on the issues. I hope it won't, but I have to acknowledge the possibility that it could.

-Ray

harlond
06-05-2008, 06:21 PM
I'm not against Obama personally, but expect that much of his following is due to hate for Bush . . . Well, that's perfectly legitimate, right? After all, one didn't hear wingnuts denigrating hate as a factor in voting when Bill Clinton was running for re-election. The Atwater/Rove school of campaigning is built on hatred and fear.

97CSI
06-05-2008, 06:34 PM
Originally Posted by Ahneida Ride
Another Black American ran four years ago ....
He received minimal press and was not massaged into a quasi deity.
He was just as articulate as the current candidate.

I have to ask why?

Race/gender is irrelevant ... What are his Policies? and will he implement them. That's all I care about.
I agree. I stated this sentiment in the past and jerk got very upset, but I stand by your assessment.

Clinton and Obama's records and policies are nearly identical. So are their promises to fix EVERY THING that's wrong in America, merely by raising taxes on the "rich".If you are talking about that crackpot whose name starts with a 'K' (for Krackpot thinking), then he was laughed at by 99.99+% of the people because his thinking is laughable.

Taxing the rich will not cure all. But, it is a step in the right direction that the rich should be forced to pay their fair share.

And, I don't recall a single candidate in this past year telling us that they would fix EVERYTHING (which is one word).

keno
06-05-2008, 06:47 PM
[QUOTE=97CSI]

Taxing the rich will not cure all. But, it is a step in the right direction that the rich should be forced to pay their fair share.

QUOTE]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

keno

97CSI
06-05-2008, 06:51 PM
Nothing new there. Still need the rich to pay their fair share. Especially the idle rich who do nothing other than inherit well. Need to reestablish the 'work ethic' for all. [QUOTE=97CSI]

Taxing the rich will not cure all. But, it is a step in the right direction that the rich should be forced to pay their fair share.

QUOTE]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

keno