|
|
Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States, as the country chose him as its first African American chief executive.
Share your thoughts on this historic election.
|
Posts:
2,149
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(24849 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 8:10 PM
|
s2g,
That was VERY MUCH APPRECIATED!
VERY good stuff!
Among (MANY!) other things, it was entirely lost on the American public that DumbAss XLIII was, well, infact a dumbass.
Not sure what that says about dumbass XLIII, but I'm pretty sure what that says about the American public.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
2,149
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(24848 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 7:45 PM
|
monkeypaw,
All due,
Keep that shit up and you run the SERIOUS risk of being taken seriously, or WORSE yet; openly sniped against on this and/or other internet opinion boards.
Fortunately for you, I think you're probably up to it.
monkeypaw, indeed!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
131
Registered:
6/21/09
|
|
(24847 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 7:13 PM
|
freespeechguy
> I'm a new kid on the block when it comes to
> the"boards. I disagree with most people who post
> here. I think thou that most people on the site are
> sincere, caring individuals. Maybe Cyn goes a little
> overboard. He comes across as one bitter MF. I was
> completely against healthcare reform. Then I thought
> of the "working poor". This is a group of people who
> are doing the right thing-working and paying their
> share, and they cannot get affordable care. I have
> stated over and over that it's both parties who are
> at fault. DaN and Jared seem to realize that this may
> be the case and maybe even see that the president is
> also at fault. I think if they really cared the
> congress could come up with a workable system of both
> private and government. Finally I come to conclusion
> that people will believe what they want to believe. I
> think Rainykincaid is a caring compassionate person,
> but when she said she believed that Al Gore would
> have continued the intense scrutiny of the Clinton
> admin. against Al Queada, it amazed me the split in
> this country is unbelievable To me that is pure
> unadulterated BS- Apologies Ms. Kincaid!. "
This is the 1st post I've read of your's, that I recall, well at least you don't sound like a sniper, like 99% of the anti-liberals that post here. There is nothing more annoying (thank God for the "ignore" function) than snipers, tea-baggers, Beck-bots, birthers and juveniles, that logon just to annoy.
Now let me take exception to your post - both parties are at fault is obvious. The reasons for the fault deserve some scrutiny. One side is loaded with the - I hope He Fails crowd or "what's wrong with being ranked 35th in health outcomes among industrial nations while out spending them all" crowd, and last but not least - I've got mine, fuck you! And the conservative politicians are pandering to these constituents like a grand wizard at a KKK rally. At least conservative voters are getting what they voted for.
Now on the dems' side you have voters who expected healthcare reform. However, congress is loaded with special interest money from conservative corporate donors that make them act more Blue Dogs and republicans than democrats and liberals on the healthcare debate. Most progressives like myself felt like losers before the summer debate even started.
The fact that this debate hasn't occured for over 15 years, much of that with conservative majority and the WH, should be another indicator that the conservatives think laissez-faire or the highway on HC. Am I right? Now look at any stats on healthcare cost and healthcare results and tell me why this hasn't been a a serious issue for the ruling party over the past 15 years.
While I have a fair amount of contempt for many of the dems on this issue, what the leadership is attempting is the political equivalent to separating Siamese twins. What the repubs are attempting is mooning 35 million people at the margins of healthcare, for the purpose of creating Obama's Waterloo.
--
As far as singling out the Al-Kiyeahduh quote to make you point on Gore v. W national security, that's quite a stretch to highlight as indicative of the chasm in this country - Bush was the one who got the "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" PDB a month before the attacks. I doubt it came with a map marking the exact coordinates and a secret decoder ring, but anyone who is serious about honest dialog and debate looks rather silly trying to defend the "Decider" when it comes to national security. Although he did look impressive standing on a pile of rubble, blowing hot air out of a bullhorn. Sure you can make one of many Giuliani-auto-response claims "no attacks since 9/11", but I would argue that has more to do with the planning of Al Qaeda, than the competence of the Bush admin, or the Obama admin from now on. There are so many ways to hit us it's just a matter of when, how big, and how frequent. I don't care how many stings they use to catch/create homegrown terrorist.
You could even make the argument that the terrorist have a lot more discipline than we give credit - allowing us to destroy ourselves is the most efficient way to get-er done, and W has done a lot more damage than any terrorist organization could ever accomplish in a thousand attacks.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,050
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24846 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 6:49 PM
|
|
I guess it depends a lot on what one considers to be a "justification," and that is always a subjective judgment.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,637
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(24845 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 6:32 PM
|
Thanks Don.
I am a trekkie, but probably only at the Tenderfoot Level, compared to you. 
I take this question almost verbatim from a Colombian legislator, female type, in her statement that the deaths of the future DO NOT justify the deaths of the past, with the implied requirement that whatever on earth the mission is, it is futile. She was speaking of the drug war, knowing like any rational adult does that the drug war which has failed for 100 years WILL fail for 100 years and the rest of time, as long as humans populate this earth.
So I propose the same question relative to either or both of our present military fiascos in the Middle East. And elsewhere for that matter.
Roddenberry would understand, and I suspect you do too.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,050
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24844 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 6:21 PM
|
In a sense, they can. If from the number of future deaths, it can be reasonably inferred or concluded that the number would be much higher if not for the past deaths that already happened... then those past deaths might be justified.
I don't know if you're a trekkie, Jet. But if you are or were, and you watched the TNG episode called, "Yesterday's Enterprise," you'll understand.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,223
Registered:
5/22/07
|
|
|
Posts:
8,637
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(24842 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 5:57 PM
|
|
Would that be kinda like what the meaning of "is" is?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,223
Registered:
5/22/07
|
|
(24841 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 5:52 PM
|
> I guess the Common Wisdom, a sort of oxymoron these
> days, has it that the deaths of the future DO INDEED
> justify the deaths of the past.
>
> Or is it vice-versa?
====================================
I think this depends on what "deaths" signifies.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,637
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(24840 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 5:37 PM
|
I guess the Common Wisdom, a sort of oxymoron these days, has it that the deaths of the future DO INDEED justify the deaths of the past.
Or is it vice-versa?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,223
Registered:
5/22/07
|
|
(24839 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 5:33 PM
|
Just a Coincidence?
I was flipping through cable channels today when nicktoons caught my interest. The station is running a "Wolverine, X-Men" marathon. I noticed how closely the situation in the stories coincide with the current situation in Washington, D.C.
In the program a "Senator Kelly" is leading an Anti-Mutant movement against everything he considers a threat to the U.S. simply because mutants are different.
Senator Boehner is leading an Anti-Obama movement against every Legislation he considers a threat to the U.S. simply because the proposals serve different races, creeds and religions.
I guess in this world President Obama is Professor X, The GOP are Sentinels (they're programmed to follow orders without minds of their own) and Rush Limbaugh is the "Master Mold" Sentinel.
Obama's followers are therefore X-Men. 
Kind of amusing when fact is stranger than fiction.
BTW, I got dibbs on the "Wolverine". 
|
|
|
Posts:
4,311
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(24838 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 4:30 PM
|
There are two points of view on constitutional interpretation. One says the words are the words and you follow them. The other says you have to understand why those words were chosen and their intent.
The time limit was intended to give electors time to get to the vote. How many do you think used horse and sail to get there in 2000?
Even from a strict reading, a federal panel is not allowed to designate a state's electors. That goes against every principle a republic is founded upon. There is precedence if a state's proper delegates are delayed. In no way should the S.C. been involved by precedent, a reading of intent or a strict reading. Further, conflicts are required to be settled by Congress.
The supreme court exceeded their powers.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,311
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(24837 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 4:21 PM
|
> Ok, so the Gore thing happened, and I didn't like it
> one bit. BUT, looking back, had it not happened,
> chances are highly likely that we'd now be living the
> nightmare of a Bush Presidency. At least that's
> behind us instead of in front of us.
No. Cheney and Bush both had a history of incompetence and jumping offices just before everything came crashing down. Their timing was just a bit off this last time. If there had been a bit more delay, they couldn't have been viable candidates. Meanwhile we would have avoided massive cultural damage, have a cleaner more productive country, with friendlier foreign policies, likely no bullshit wars of aggression, and maybe done something about energy independence.
That is not the silver lining you are looking for.
--
Edited by JaredP at 11/29/2009 1:31 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
2,936
Registered:
6/8/09
|
|
(24836 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 3:36 PM
|
> >
> > No, just quitters. Gore conceded to prevent a
> > constitutional challenge.
> >
Don:
> I don't see how it would have been a Constitutional
> challenge. Gore conceded because in not asking for a
> statewide manual recount from the beginning, his team
> had made a fatal miscalculation. They'd also
> forgotten the clock, and it had run out.
----------
Yeah, there was really no way for Gore to proceed after the USSC ruled that a recount was illegal because it violated Bush's right to be declared the President (I know it was more complicated than that but that is what it amounted to).
But, if the USSC butted out even the Florida Republicans wouldn't have had the gall to ignore the voters so outrageously if the recount gave Gore the victory. The scenario that the EC doesn't count Florida wouldn't have happened either. Bush's goal was to play out the clock, and with the help of Poppy's crooked friends he did just that.
Now, if the Democrats had the majority in Congress then they could have refused to certify the election results and order a recount on their own- in effect telling the USSC to mind their own business. But, since the Dems were the minority Gore had nowhere to go.
The same thing that happened to Gore would have happened to Kerry in 2004. The Ohio Secretary of State was a rabid, and crooked, Republican who was going to hold a recount over his dead body. And, the USSC was standing by to make sure once again.
The only other option would have been to take to the streets and hold a revolution. Not likely.
|
|
|
Posts:
29,945
Registered:
8/1/05
|
|
(24835 of 25104)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 29, 2009 1:39 PM
|
|
Ok, so the Gore thing happened, and I didn't like it one bit. BUT, looking back, had it not happened, chances are highly likely that we'd now be living the nightmare of a Bush Presidency. At least that's behind us instead of in front of us.
|
|
|
|
|
