Thread: So... Obama won. Feelings?

All through the campaign, I have to say I didn't care who won. I liked both candidates, and myself I'm not unhappy with the outcome.

I ultimately settled the question of which to vote for by voting for Ron Paul :-P

Some of my friends, however, had very strong feelings about the outcome, ranging from a fear that the USA would become socialist in 4 years, to believing the various terrorist organizations would start attacking on US soil again.

It surprised me, so I'm just curious how much of a vacuum I live in.

The most powerful man on Earth happens to be black.

That he just happens to be makes it so wonderfully liberating, for everybody.

"Yes, we can!"

Words to live by....... w ords to change by.............words to succeed by..........

Would your friends believe these things had the opposing ticket not campaigned on those messages?

I find it most interesting that there is a culture of fear that the US conservative party tries to tap into ... this time not so successfully. Tho it is interesting that your friends maintain the fear beliefs that were preached by S. Palin.

Do you suppose if McCain had taken a different tack, say he had kept to his argument that Obama is not experienced rather than that he is some sort of socialist (is there not an actual socialist party in the US of A?), would your friends have the fears they currently have?

It is a very good thing for the world that Obama won the election.

Relief - that we will begin to see pragmatism replace ideology as the basis for policy.

Apprehension - that the inherited mess is so dire that it will take more than one four year term to get the economy out of the ditch - and we will become impatient and deny Obama a second term.

Hope - that the election result indicates we are, en masse, able to tell propaganda from serious discussion of issues.

Satisfaction - that my first vote after becoming a US citizen had the result I hoped for.

Disappointment - in John McCain, a decent man corrupted.

Originally Posted by tritai

"Yes, we can!"

wasn't that Bob the Builder's tune ?

Originally Posted by Pong

The most powerful man on Earth happens to be black.

That he just happens to be makes it so wonderfully liberating, for everybody.

It's very sad that there are some who don't see it as liberating. I hope these incidents represent the death throes of racism, and not a resurgence.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10993398

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by tritai

"Yes, we can!"

wasn't that Bob the Builder's tune ?

nice, But Obama is the man, I think he'll be the best president for good'ol America so far Haha.

wasn't that Bob the Builder's tune ?

Maayyybeee.
But honestly, taken from bob the builder or not, this simple phrase was one of the biggest motivational phrases in the history of American oration.

Our class had to analyze Obama's victory speech, and we had to see how he integrated this useful phrase many times into his uplifting speech.

it may well become America's national creed, so to speak.

Actually I believe the Bob the builder thing was "Can we do it?... Yes we can!"

Nah, it was "Can we fix it?"
8)

Before Obama, "Yes, I can" was favoured by linguists and ESL teachers to drive home the American accent, for once the particular stresses are perfected, one basically "gets" the character of US speech. Canadian actors get voice coaching on this very phrase when they emigrate to California.

Changing "I" to "we" was genius. Absolutely resonant.

Changing "I" to "we" was genius. Absolutely resonant.

Of course.
The brilliance of it was its simplicity and inner meaning: how it greatly expressed american struggles over time....so many of which ended in success.

Originally Posted by tritai

Nah, it was "Can we fix it?"
8)

I was close enough :P, But the Yes, we can, is quite a powerful saying.

For the most part i have been indifferent toward Obama, however since his victory speech i have found myself slowly becoming part of the Obama fan club and i really hope he is the politician that everybody would want to have and not turn out to be a baby kissing, pretty boy, media loving twat (Sarkozy, Blair etc)

Originally Posted by Pong

The most powerful man on Earth happens to be black.

That he just happens to be makes it so wonderfully liberating, for everybody.

I just hope he hasn't become the most powerful man on earth because he was black. It would have been nice though for the most powerful man on earth to be woman, maybe next time.

Anyway let's not get too carried away, we still have a couple of months before monkey boy fucks off back to Texas.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

For the most part i have been indifferent toward Obama, however since his victory speech i have found myself slowly becoming part of the Obama fan club and i really hope he is the politician that everybody would want to have and not turn out to be a baby kissing, pretty boy, media loving twat (Sarkozy, Blair etc)

It's pretty sweet to have a leader who can win fans even *after* the election.

We've been getting too used to leaders that barely win by a thread, and then instruct their followers to try and persecute everyone who doesn't like them.

I mean that it's nice to have leader who continues to win people over even after he's already got victory in his hand. Maybe he'll actually do something our politicians usually don't: a good job.

I agree. If i was an American, and I'm presuming that you are, i would be walking around with my head held very high at the moment.

I knew for a fact he couldn't win. Had my plain and obvious reasons.

I hate to be reminded what an idiot I am. Again. (Never thought we'd murder Hussein either - wrong).

Personally (skip this, I'd would, I skip anything that starts with ‘personally’): I often attack ‘America’ for the way it throws it’s weight around in an unseemly manner (that would be my entry in the understatement of the century contest), causes “Brittany Spears” to be the top Google hit this month, nukes, invades, and sells Coke to - everybody that they don’t already have wearing baseball caps, on the IMF’s insistence.

But here’s my recent other thought: I was reading about a Right-wing smear that Obama is not actually an American citizen – he wasn’t born in the USA.

This turned out to be a baseless smear, but looking at Obama’s birth certificate (Online), I realised I’d forgotten:

1) Obama sounds an awful lot like Osama
2) Obama’s middle name is - Hussein!

Repeat. middle name is - Hussein!

3) He’s half-Black

He is the president.


America, there’s hope for you (and therefore us) yet.

My feelings on Obama


Will he overturn his vote on FISA and make police state wiretap recording on private US Citizen conversations illegal without a warrant?

Will he stop the use of torture and order that the US abide by Geneva conventions?

Will he restore the constitution, bills of rights, habeas corpus, and scrap the H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which open the door to police state repression of dissent?

Will he declassify and make available all the videos of the pentagon crash on 911, investigate the insider trading, the funding of 911 even if it leads to an ally(Saudi)?

Will he force the fed to make their trillions in giveaways transparent? (or abolish the fed and its "federal reserve notes" and have congress issue "united states notes"?)

Will he reintroduce the Glass-Steagall act which FDR put in place presicely to prevent the speculation that lead(among other factors) to the Great Depression, but which was scraped under Clinton by some of the people Obama's now putting in charge of the treasury?

Will he call to freeze any subsidizing of Israel until they stop colonizing and seizing land in the west bank, and say "tear down this wall"?

Will he push for a law that makes concealed government propaganda inside the US illegal(would be good outside too), either from the CIA (operation Mockingbird), bribes to the media, or through the use of pentagon shills?

Will he stop the insane nuclear holocaust russian roulette that Gates is playing with the Russians with anti-missile systems(which are seen as first strike preparations) that threaten the existance of billions of humans around the world? (He chose Gates so it doesnt look good)


So my feelings depends on what he does on important issuses more than what color of curtain he chooses for the whitehouse dinning room.

seriously america is so messed up at the moment all the rumours about 'Biraq Hussian Osama' are probably true, he probably is the devil in disguise and will open the doors of the US for the Taliban, the Jihad and anything else you care to name


that said, he is STILL better than mccain wanna know why? Mccain said in one interview, Our Enemies are Numerous and un-tiring, they never stop thinking of ways to kill our people and harm our county, and neither do we.
He also said "we WILL win this war with iraq, Even if it takes 100 years!"



So yeah I'm glad obama won, And if he happens to have been telling the truth and really does wanna help you guys, all the better

It's America's way of saying we hate terrorism, not Islam. I'm not sure how the rest of the world hears it, though.

I once read a book about Revelations that claimed that the man that will bring peace to the middle east would be the anti-Christ. Let's wait and see.

I was happy Obama was chosen as president.

Until he chose Israelis for the first 7 positions in his new administration, along with Joe "I am a Zionist" Biden for his Vice President.

Then I realized I had been played for a fool, and the same people that used Bush to control the USA and attack Iraq were using Obama to continue their control of the USA.

It will be interesting to see what Obama has to say about Israel slaughtering Palestinians for Christmas. Obama is all about hope, what is right, treating people as equals, and reaching out to muslims, but I have not seen him say a word about Israel blowing up women and children for Christmas.

I am guessing Obama will continue the Israeli policy of having the USA military killing muslims for Israel.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I once read a book about Revelations that claimed that the man that will bring peace to the middle east would be the anti-Christ. Let's wait and see.

Don't let's wait, KALSTER, open up your eyes and see. Obama IS the antichrist and the antichrist is joke. A sad, sad joke on a World divorced from reality.
Obama exemplifies the emptiness of Western Culture today. He is an empty suit, a childman who playacts his way through life. Good God, yall, he speaks nothing words using tired cliches and you people praise his profundity. The Obama is an innept clown who will bring this country to its knees by way of mindless socialism. Sad,yes, but sadder still is the worldwide bloodbath that will ensue after the United States is neutered.

Go buy yourself a ticket to Cuba, boys and girls, because there, boys and girls, you will see your future. May God help us all.

Yes, we can....WOW!

Originally Posted by milum

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I once read a book about Revelations that claimed that the man that will bring peace to the middle east would be the anti-Christ. Let's wait and see.

Don't let's wait, KALSTER, open up your eyes and see. Obama IS the antichrist and the antichrist is joke. A sad, sad joke on a World divorced from reality.
Obama exemplifies the emptiness of Western Culture today. He is an empty suit, a childman who playacts his way through life. Good God, yall, he speaks nothing words using tired cliches and you people praise his profundity. The Obama is an innept clown who will bring this country to its knees by way of mindless socialism. Sad,yes, but sadder still is the worldwide bloodbath that will ensue after the United States is neutered.

Go buy yourself a ticket to Cuba, boys and girls, because there, boys and girls, you will see your future. May God help us all.

Yes, we can....WOW!

Who is this milum? KALSTER, do you know the verse? Second I doubt Obama will bring peace to the middle east, indeed I doubt an American president could have that kind of influence, they're already burning his photos. They (some of them) believe secular society, even if dominated by religion, is evil, and Obama symbolizes this, but at least we can like him.

Originally Posted by Golkarian

Who is this milum? KALSTER, do you know the verse? Second I doubt Obama will bring peace to the middle east, indeed I doubt an American president could have that kind of influence, they're already burning his photos. They (some of them) believe secular society, even if dominated by religion, is evil, and Obama symbolizes this, but at least we can like him.

Why do you ask KALSTER, Golkarian? Why don't you ask me? (bye the bye, Golkarian, would it break your finger to capitalize my name?)

Second, do you not nuance? Of course the wild-eyed Muslims see Obama as evil. He is evil. It's just that ignorant people can see evil without knowing why.

Of course Obama doesn't see himself as evil. Even the devil likes to think that he is just a fun loving guy.

Remember Al Capone's mother? She always said that Alphonso was a very good boy.

Edit: Oops! Excuse me, Golkarian, it seems that I don't captialize my own name. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Booms

Mccain said in one interview, Our Enemies are Numerous and un-tiring, they never stop thinking of ways to kill our people and harm our county, and neither do we.

I think you will find that was George W. Bush. Such a basic error kind of discredits your thoughts on the matter. Yes?

Originally Posted by mbokohutu

I was happy Obama was chosen as president.

Until he chose Israelis for the first 7 positions in his new administration, along with Joe "I am a Zionist" Biden for his Vice President.

Then I realized I had been played for a fool, and the same people that used Bush to control the USA and attack Iraq were using Obama to continue their control of the USA.

It will be interesting to see what Obama has to say about Israel slaughtering Palestinians for Christmas. Obama is all about hope, what is right, treating people as equals, and reaching out to muslims, but I have not seen him say a word about Israel blowing up women and children for Christmas.

I am guessing Obama will continue the Israeli policy of having the USA military killing muslims for Israel.

Yeah, this is likely the unfortunate state of affairs. Israel controls our media by tapping into its ethnic ties to the people who own our media. (Who mostly just so happen to be of Jewish descent.)

If Obama opposed them, Mosad would probably kill him, and make it look like racist hillbilly's did it. Nobody would question it (or at least anyone who did question it wouldn't make it onto the evening news).

Which...... might be what they're planning to do anyway.

(I get a kick out of how the spell checker doesn't consider a "Obama" a correctly spelled word. Someone might want to fix that, since he is the president of the USA)

So much to pick apart, so little time. Obama may be a decent president, or he may be just a democrat. What many people fail to realize is that there's nothing new in Obama's campaigns. He advocates almost the exact same things as most democrats did before him, and I personally believe Hillary would have been a much better president.

That and, rest assured, Obama became president because he was black. The democratic party loved him (because he is black), the people love him (because he is black), Conservatives respect him (because he is black), black people all voted for him (because he is black). The more I see people going "yaaaaay! A black man is in office!" the more my opinion on this is validated. If race didn't matter, then you would never even be discussing the fact that he's in "in spite of" his color. Race still matters. Even those professing to be non-racist still bias their ideas heavily on race.

Who I wanted in? I wanted in Ron Paul. In fact I voted libertarian even though Ron Paul dropped out. Why? Because unlike the Democratic party, and unlike Obama's fancy speeches that never seem to actually explain WHAT he will change or HOW, and unlike how the media showered gold on everything Obama said, the libertarian party is out for something worth while. They're out to replace our ORIGINAL constitutional values. The same things Thomas Jefferson faught for durign his years in congress and his presidency, and the same thing almost everyone in congress opposes today.

Instead, look at what happened. Look at us. We're pathetic. We voted for someone based on popularity, not on ability to lead. Am I the only one that remembers how the media, baised as it is, refused to give Ron Paul any coverage IN SPITE OF his numerous record breaking drives AND recordbreaking grassroots popularity? The media contributed to this sham of an election, and you, the american people, happily fell right into it because Obama is black.

Originally Posted by Darius

and you, the american people, happily fell right into it because Obama is black.

An interesting speculation. Let's set aside the fact that Obama is also white.
He is the most intelligent presidential candidate to come along in a while. You don't think that could have been a factor?
He is the best orator in the presidential stakes since Kennedy. Could that have been a factor?
Though the objectives were ill defined he offered the prospect of a better way of doing things. Could that have been a factor?

Apparently not. It was just because he was black. (And also white.)

Hmmm.

"You don't think that could have been a factor?"

The black angle is marginal imo.

Obama is quite a good candidate, but you have to consider the elections are somewhat tilted, Obama and Clinton received much more coverage than Kucinich(who is imo the best candidate by far), and third parties got virtually no coverage at all in the media and the presidential debate plainly prevented any third party candidates which could put other issues on the table. On top of that, the debates themselves are the object of secret deals between the two main parties.

Originally Posted by John Galt

An interesting speculation.

And so begins the opening of what I just know is going to be riddled with Dogma and full of "you're wrong" responses that have no real basis in objective analysis whatsoever and everything to do with race (again!). Otherwise your next line wouldn't mention race at all. Guess whose racist? Not me!

Let's set aside the fact that Obama is also white.

Clearly race still matters in your view, or you wouldn't have just brought it up.

He is the most intelligent presidential candidate to come along in a while.

No. He's the most MEDIA SUPPORTED candidate in a while. Ron Paul offered real solutions to real problems and has the most congressional experience of any other candidate (even McCain). I personally back his proposed solutions because they're realistic and they don't promise miracles. Which, by the way, Barack Obama basically did throughout his campaign and is only NOW trying to slow down the shitstorm with "Woah! I'm not a messiah! Slow down people!"

You don't think that could have been a factor?

If it was, Ron Paul would have won.

He is the best orator in the presidential stakes since Kennedy. Could that have been a factor?

This is the only one I'll give him, but that's hardly a complement considering he used it to manipulate the public even further without EVER delivering on what he meant by most of his "change" dialog. Again, Ron Paul was an equally good speaker because he spoke his actual beliefs and his beliefs were realistic.

Though the objectives were ill defined he offered the prospect of a better way of doing things.

Ron Paul offered a realistic way of doing things better. I wonder why he wasn't elected? Oh right, beause the media consistently ignored him and focused entirely on their black savior. In fact MOST media stations practically had a field day labeling the election a "truely historic event" for when we elected our first black president and just kept going with the praise!

Apparently not. It was just because he was black. (And also white.)

Hmmm.

Sorry, no, you just failed at life.

I think is naiveity to think that race was not a factor in this election, but it is ignorance to think it was the only factor, the fact that there is a war, the media coverage of obama, the fact that he is seen as the Messiah by the media and, ya the fact that hes black helped.

Darn, Darius said it all before I did...

Originally Posted by Darius

Originally Posted by John Galt

An interesting speculation.

And so begins the opening of what I just know is going to be riddled with Dogma .

Well I could have said, "what a pile of piss saturated bollocks", but I thougt 'interesting speculation', was more polite.

You know it's going to be riddled with dogma, do you. How very open minded of you. I seek to be polite and you indulge in poorly conceived and inaccruate sarcasm.

Originally Posted by Darius

Otherwise your next line wouldn't mention race at all. Guess whose racist? Not me!

Let's set aside the fact that Obama is also white.

Clearly race still matters in your view, or you wouldn't have just brought it up.

Deliberate distortion, or inability to comprehend the written word. You would know best which it is. Do you understand what the word's 'set aside' mean. Apparently not.

Originally Posted by Darius

He is the most intelligent presidential candidate to come along in a while.

No. He's the most MEDIA SUPPORTED candidate in a while. ...waffle, waffle, waffle

All of which waffle does nothing to establish that Ron Paul is more intelligent than Obama.

Originally Posted by Darius

Again, Ron Paul was an equally good speaker because he spoke his actual beliefs and his beliefs were realistic.

I said orator, not speaker. You are smart enough to know the difference and your reply confirms that.

Originally Posted by Darius

Ron Paul offered a realistic way of doing things better.

Nice line. Now just get used to the fact that your man didn't make it to the finish and learn to deal with it. If it helps you pretend the sole reason (or as you would say, the soul reason) Obama won the election was that he was black, go ahead. Just don't expect me to believe your nonsense. Nj14 has expressed my view perfectly.

Originally Posted by Darius

Sorry, no, you just failed at life.

Oh, please. Get real. There is hyperbole and there is fatuous nonsense. You've demeaned the whole of your post with that frivolous line.

Originally Posted by John Galt

You know it's going to be riddled with dogma, do you. How very open minded of you. I seek to be polite and you indulge in poorly conceived and inaccruate sarcasm.

And it's automatically inaccurate. See! dogma! Har.

Deliberate distortion, or inability to comprehend the written word. You would know best which it is. Do you understand what the word's 'set aside' mean. Apparently not.

Yet it's perfectly okay for you to distort reality and say "Obama is white" when white is the majority race in the united states and therefore your point is meaningless. Funny how distorting reality works.

All of which waffle does nothing to establish that Ron Paul is more intelligent than Obama.

All of which /waffle/? Sorry, no, political terms (and bad grammar) don't get added to the dictionary. Either you pancake or you get the fuck out. The problem with proving Ron Paul to be more intelligent is that you need to have a proper criteria FOR intelligence. The problem with that is most people that have one are intelligent, leading me to believe you have to be intelligent to develop one.

So lets just hop over to WIKIPEDIA and educate ourselves on what Ron Paul stands for, as well as YOUTUBE to get a general glimpse of who Ron Paul is and what he tries to do in congress. Get to know the person before you formulate an opinion. I know Barack Obama well enough, but do you even know Ron Paul? I'm going to guess no.

I said orator, not speaker. You are smart enough to know the difference and your reply confirms that.

So as not to be ignorant I actually looked up the word "Orator" before I formulated my opinion and response. This url links to one of the better online dictionaries that defines "orator" as
"1. One who delivers an oration.
2. An eloquent and skilled public speaker."

Perhaps you could be more clear on what you mean?

Nice line. Now just get used to the fact that your man didn't make it to the finish and learn to deal with it. If it helps you pretend the sole reason (or as you would say, the soul reason) Obama won the election was that he was black, go ahead. Just don't expect me to believe your nonsense. Nj14 has expressed my view perfectly.

Sole reason? Lol no. Major reason? Most assuredly. At least from people I have seen so far. Of course, had you asked any questions at all, you would actually know my full stance on the matter. Which would save time. Which would allow proper arguments. Which would, in turn, not make you look like such an ass.

When the wrong person becomes a leader it bothers everyone, for the results are usually bad. More bailouts? This is one of the bad results.

Originally Posted by Darius

Yet it's perfectly okay for you to distort reality and say "Obama is white" when white is the majority race in the united states and therefore your point is meaningless. Funny how distorting reality works.
.

What???
Here's the thing. Obama has a white mother and a black father. Convention, not genetics, not biology, not common sense, not objective weighing of the facts, leads to us calling him black. I've always thought that convention was dumb. I have no problem with someone calling themselves white, or black, or chinese, or indian, even if this is a minor part of their ethnic background, if they have a strong identification with that background. I am simply amused that there is this powerful social drive to characterise someone as black, (often when that is their minority genetic status) while blithely ignoring the other aspects of their genetic heritage.
Since in my own mind it frankly doesn't make a blind bit of difference what colour they are then I'll continue to point out when 'blacks' are 'whites' and when 'whites' are 'asians', etc.
That is not distorting reality, that is reminding people of its actual character.

And I have no idea what your point is about the 'whites' being the majority race in the US.

Originally Posted by Darius

Either you pancake or you get the fuck out. .

??? Do you also post in English? (And the sentence All of which waffle does nothing to establish that Ron Paul is more intelligent than Obama is grammatically pristine. Perhaps you were unaware that waffle can be either a noun or a verb.)

2. An eloquent and skilled public speaker."

Perhaps you could be more clear on what you mean?

Orators are a sub-set of the class speaker.

Of course, had you asked any questions at all, you would actually know my full stance on the matter.

Your extensive posts emphasise the election of Obama because he was black, to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Not one post, but each post until this last one, when you come in with this nonsense. If you wished to communicate your full stance and it was important to the discussion - which it very clearly is - you should have done so at the outset.

Which would, in turn, not make you look like such an ass.

I do wish you would cease these foolish comments. In a discussion of this nature my view of you and your view of me are mired in the heat of the controversy. Only an objective outsider can meaningfully say which of us, if not both of us, is the ass.

Bottom line: you are coming across as a sour-puss who is upset that his man didn't make it. A less emotional presentation of that idea would have stood more chance of persuading the undecided. Avoiding the hyperbole of your claim that Obama was elected only be because he was black would have saved me the bother of debunking the idea.

I see little point in furthering the discussion. You think I'm an ass. I think you are emotional and have a surprising level of difficulty with English comprehension. Not much else to say. Let's just move on.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Here's the thing. Obama has a white mother and a black father. Convention, not genetics, not biology, not common sense, not objective weighing of the facts, leads to us calling him black. I've always thought that convention was dumb. I have no problem with someone calling themselves white, or black, or chinese, or indian, even if this is a minor part of their ethnic background, if they have a strong identification with that background. I am simply amused that there is this powerful social drive to characterise someone as black, (often when that is their minority genetic status) while blithely ignoring the other aspects of their genetic heritage.
Since in my own mind it frankly doesn't make a blind bit of difference what colour they are then I'll continue to point out when 'blacks' are 'whites' and when 'whites' are 'asians', etc.
That is not distorting reality, that is reminding people of its actual character.

This rant seemingly came out of nowhere and makes no contextual sense.

Your extensive posts emphasise the election of Obama because he was black, to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Where did I say "to the exclusion of all other possibilities"?

If you wished to communicate your full stance and it was important to the discussion - which it very clearly is - you should have done so at the outset.

I did.

Bottom line: you are coming across as a sour-puss who is upset that his man didn't make it.

Reread my post you seemingly glanced over (again).

[...]your claim that Obama was elected only be because he was black[..]

Put up or shut up. Where did I specifically say this?

Speaking of English comprehension, you apparently did not comprehend how I pointed out your hilarious grammar mistake.

All of which waffle does nothing to establish that Ron Paul is more intelligent than Obama.

First of all, "Waffles" do not flip. I find it amusing that Politicans should adopt such a verb to describe overturning your stance repeatedly. Second of all, "all of which waffle does nothing to establish" is improper. The correct sentence would be "none of which waffling establishes". Poor English comprehension indeed. To further how presumptuous you are: I consistently score 99th percentile in both reading and writing. Yeah. It's definitely me that's at fault here. yyyyyyyyyep.

And the winner of Ass of the Thread goes to: Darius! Congratulations! :wink:

Hey, I already know I'm an ass. The question is does he?

Although I hardly think calling him on his shit is really asshole behavior. I've made it simple: Put up or shut up. How assholeish is that? Would you prefer I throw in a bunch of niceities and waste everyones time?

Originally Posted by Darius

Hey, I already know I'm an ass. The question is does he?

Although I hardly think calling him on his shit is really asshole behavior. I've made it simple: Put up or shut up. How assholeish is that? Would you prefer I throw in a bunch of niceities and waste everyones time?

Ok, at the risk of going too far off topic, let me explain. You guys are talking past each other it seems. To be honest, I see much the same in your contributions to this thread as John did, but then you had to go and be rude instead of simply explaining yourself further. Why would you waist anyone's time by being civil? It is obvious now that some of what you said was somewhat ambiguous, which had the effect in this case that the most obvious interpretation for me and John was the one he related. It might be absolutely clear to you, subjectively, but it might not necessarily be to others, regardless of their comparative intellect. Perhaps you are used to being exasperated at other people not understanding what you are saying, but consider that in at least a few cases the fault lies with you or an ambiguous use of words.

Indeed.

Darius, as an external observer to your election system as well as your country's version of the English language, I admit that I may have some bias, but it seems clear that Mr. Galt has trounced you quite thoroughly in this discussion.

Mr. Paul was confrontational and antagonistic. It is not too diffiult to understand why he did not advance to the general election. Mr. Kucinich was in all likelihood simply too short, and sadly had very little stage presence. He does have the most fetching wife of the lot, however, and that alone would have been enough for my vote .

Clearly this is "Bring idiotic commentary to threads where it doesn't belong" day. Let me just create a frame of reference for your "I think you're rude!" or "I think you're wrong too!" opinions: Most people think God exists. Oh! Wow! See what I did there?

Originally Posted by free radical

Darius, as an external observer to your election system as well as your country's version of the English language, I admit that I may have some bias, but it seems clear that Mr. Galt has trounced you quite thoroughly in this discussion.

You're damn right you have bias. It's called "stupid goggles". Take them off. I'm not quite sure where I've been trounced. Where Galt repeatedly misread or seemingly DID NOT READ what I wrote, or where he got simple grammar wrong only to insist I am the one with the English comprehension issue, or where (after I made a post reclarifying my position) he continued to argue the same straw man points. So then I call him on it and suddenly I'm the bad guy that's wrong.

THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is SCIENCE! If science is a retarded child with a triple lobotomy that's busy eating his own ARM.

Mr. Paul was confrontational and antagonistic. It is not too diffiult to understand why he did not advance to the general election.

Now this is somewhat relevant to the discussion at hand. Why do you believe this?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

It is obvious now that some of what you said was somewhat ambiguous, which had the effect in this case that the most obvious interpretation for me and John was the one he related.

Really? Ambiguous? Maybe that's why there's a magical thing that exists called QUESTIONS. I'm not going to always deliver perfectly. Sometimes I realize I made a mistake or two. The fact is, John Galt did not ask questions (neither did you, sans that one which I am now viewing as a FLUKE), so he alone is responsible for the results.

It might be absolutely clear to you, subjectively, but it might not necessarily be to others, regardless of their comparative intellect. Perhaps you are used to being exasperated at other people not understanding what you are saying, but consider that in at least a few cases the fault lies with you or an ambiguous use of words.

Yes. Ambiguity. Certainly I was ambiguous when I clearly stated there are multiple reasons for Barack in office, but I view his being black as the main one. Certainly that is ambiguous. Why, I might mean something entirely different! It could mean aliens just anally probed Bill Gates and the year 08 is coming back to eat 09! Isn't it WONDERFUL how ambiguous English is? Of course none of what I'm saying matters because by the time it reaches your eyes it's probably going to read as "poopy poopy nanny shitty diaper coacoa spinach".

Mmm, I believe the lack of questions is an indication that you are not being taken particularly seriously...

... perhaps due to your style, which is confrontational and antagonistic.

Carry on good sir!!

Nevermind.

Indeed.

Darius: I fully expect you continue to indulge your self focused perspective. I don't mind. (I think it's important that someone love you.) But here's a couple of quick points for you.

If your audience don't understand clearly what you are saying, then you are not saying it clearly. That principle lies at the heart of all good communication.
I'm not going to waste my time dissecting your posts, but you may rest assured that there are at least three people (Kastler, free radical and myself) who found your posts ambiguous, with a strong implicit message that Obama was elected because he was black. The strength of that message was powerfully conveyed by the explicit emotive tone of your posts.
You might want to take that into account when you next try to get a message across. (Although I remain sadly confident you will not.)

Secondly, try to understand that there are people on the planet who speak English, not American English. These people are perfectly happy to use waffle as a noun, as am I.

Poor English comprehension indeed. To further how presumptuous you are: I consistently score 99th percentile in both reading and writing. Yeah. It's definitely me that's at fault here.

Bully for you!
Since I make my living through the application of written and spoken language you won't mind if I choose to ignore your take on correct usage.

Finally, a small piece of advice: quit while you are behind.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Darius: I fully expect you continue to indulge your self focused perspective. I don't mind. (I think it's important that someone love you.) But here's a couple of quick points for you.

I fully expect you to continue trolling. Let me restate my prior demand:

[...]your claim that Obama was elected only be because he was black[..]

Put up or shut up. Where did I specifically say this?

If your audience don't understand clearly what you are saying, then you are not saying it clearly. That principle lies at the heart of all good communication.

Often times it is ones dogma that seemingly rearranges words into incomprehensible patterns. It's a known fact that most people do not read sequentially, but instead scan and replace missing words with their preconceptions.

I'm not going to waste my time dissecting your posts, but you may rest assured that there are at least three people (Kastler, free radical and myself) who found your posts ambiguous, with a strong implicit message that Obama was elected because he was black. The strength of that message was powerfully conveyed by the explicit emotive tone of your posts.

It's good to know intelligence is based on democracy. I suppose the next time we have a crisis we should consult a consensus. Incidentally, Kalster does understand what I mean. Hence "Nevermind".

Secondly, try to understand that there are people on the planet who speak English, not American English. These people are perfectly happy to use waffle as a noun, as am I.

Yet you still don't understand my main complaint was with the improper use of a different tense entirely. This is hilarious.

I'll explain: You forgot to put -ing on "waffle" when using it to describe what I was supposedly doing (waffling!)

Where, you ask?

All of which waffle does nothing to establish that Ron Paul is more intelligent than Obama.

Take my advice: Quit while you're behind.

To All

I have decided to offer my opinion here.

From what I see, if he continues to promote the policy he has taken sofar, like equalizing the gender pay scales and slapping a cap on the CEO pay scaes to 500, 000 to those corporations that got government welfare, he could become the 'greatest US president in history.
He has shown that he IS representing the people as the C'N mandates, rather than
serving the overstuffed special interests.

Cosmo

Actually the idea that the President represents the will of the people isn't from the constitution so much as from Andrew Jackson. The constitution calls for the president to be elected by a college of representatives, after all. From a strictly constitutional standpoint, the President is the representative of the representatives of the people. Much like how senators were originally appointed by state legislatures.

It looks like 0bama is having a little trouble finding Democrats to fill his cabinet who actually pay their taxes. No wonder rich Democrats don't mind raising taxes. They don't have to pay them.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

To All

I have decided to offer my opinion here.

From what I see, if he continues to promote the policy he has taken sofar, like equalizing the gender pay scales and slapping a cap on the CEO pay scaes to 500, 000 to those corporations that got government welfare, he could become the 'greatest US president in history.
He has shown that he IS representing the people as the C'N mandates, rather than
serving the overstuffed special interests.

Cosmo

How lucky we are, Cosmo, for you to have decided to offer your opinions here.
Thank you. But...

Are you out to lunch? Do you not realize that yo mama, Obama, has already oked a 700 billion dollars transfer of hard-earned taxpayers dollars to special interests?

Don't you understand that the one trillion dollar so-called "Stimulus" package which yo Obama is promoting includes five-hundred billion dollars that pander to "overstuffed special interests"?

Unless you are a "true believer" please give this vast transfer of debt from us to your grandchildren some thought.

And if you ARE a "true believer" go to your room and stare at your navel and chant "I believe, I believe, I believe...ad nauseam".

Originally Posted by Darius

I'll explain: You forgot to put -ing on "waffle" when using it to describe what I was supposedly doing (waffling!)

Where, you ask?

All of which waffle does nothing to establish that Ron Paul is more intelligent than Obama.

.

This is meant to be about Obama, not your reading comprehension difficulties. But if you insist on looking like a fool then I'll play along.

Consider these sentences:
All of which nonsense does nothing to establish that Ron Paul is more intelligent than Obama.
All of which rubbish does nothing to establish that Ron Paul is more intelligent than Obama.
All of which ill conceived ignorance does nothing to establish that Ron Paul is more intelligent than Obama.
All of which foolishness (garbage, baloney, claptrap, drivel, gibberish) does nothing to establish that Ron Paul is more intelligent than Obama.

Notice the highlighted word is a noun, or noun phrase. Now substitute another noun: waffle. See, it still works. Now can we get back on track?

Originally Posted by Darius

Put up or shut up. Where did I specifically say this?

Your first post: "That and, rest assured, Obama became president because he was black."
And then the tenor of the rest of that and subsequent posts where the emotional invective used to convey your position implicitly establish Obama's 'blackness' as the key to his election.

That said, I am now withdrawing from this pointless discusion. I've stumbled across your posts on a couple of threads. It's clear we hold different world views and have nothing to learn from each other.

As for your first post: Ahahahahahaha. I'm sure you would argue it to your grave. Moving along.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Your first post: "That and, rest assured, Obama became president because he was black."
And(preposition) then the tenor of the rest of that(vague reference), and subsequent posts, where the emotional(needless descriptor) invective used to convey your position implicitly establish (missing verb form) Obama's 'blackness' as the key to his election. (RUN ON SENTENCE)

Tadaa. You just agreed with me. The rest of my first post AND subsequent posts were of the tone that it was a key to his election. Not the sole cause. Do you enjoy being stupid, or does it just come naturally? Perhaps we should quote what I actually said, rather than what was said in exaggeration (this should have clarified that)

If race didn't matter, then you would never even be discussing the fact that he's in "in spite of" his color. Race still matters. Even those professing to be non-racist still bias their ideas heavily on race.

aaaand WELCOME to my actual beef. But I suppose you were too busy looking for things that were supposedly wrong rather than my real ideas. I do give you points for actually FINDING what I asked for, but you lost them for failing to add ING yet again.

That said, I am now withdrawing from this pointless discusion. I've stumbled across your posts on a couple of threads. It's clear we hold different world views and have nothing to learn from each other.

Yes. I actually learn, you actually parrot.

Originally Posted by milum

Originally Posted by Cosmo

To All

I have decided to offer my opinion here.

From what I see, if he continues to promote the policy he has taken sofar, like equalizing the gender pay scales and slapping a cap on the CEO pay scaes to 500, 000 to those corporations that got government welfare, he could become the 'greatest US president in history.
He has shown that he IS representing the people as the C'N mandates, rather than
serving the overstuffed special interests.

Cosmo

How lucky we are, Cosmo, for you to have decided to offer your opinions here.
Thank you. But...

Are you out to lunch? Do you not realize that yo mama, Obama, has already oked a 700 billion dollars transfer of hard-earned taxpayers dollars to special interests?

Don't you understand that the one trillion dollar so-called "Stimulus" package which yo Obama is promoting includes five-hundred billion dollars that pander to "overstuffed special interests"?

Unless you are a "true believer" please give this vast transfer of debt from us to your grandchildren some thought.

And if you ARE a "true believer" go to your room and stare at your navel and chant "I believe, I believe, I believe...ad nauseam".

Wasn't that 700 billion doled out to the banks by Bush and party?

Cosmo

Originally Posted by John Galt

Your[Darius] first post: "That and, rest assured, Obama became president because he was black."
And then the tenor of the rest of that and subsequent posts where the emotional invective used to convey your position implicitly establish Obama's 'blackness' as the key to his election.

Yes! Johnny, Bush was most certainly instrumental in the Democrat's first attempt to enslave and therefore socialize the people of this great nation. But first let me address your disagreement with Darius about Obama's blackness being the reason for his 10% margin of victory in the presidential election.

"I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them."

Well?

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You really REALLY should provide a source on your quote. I'm intrigued, as even I did not think the percentage that high.

Originally Posted by Darius

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You really REALLY should provide a source on your quote. I'm intrigued, as even I did not think the percentage that high.

Damn Darius, you cry "source!" like a leader-worshipping liberal.
I wanted to wait until someone here called me a redneck racist but ...

Anne Wortham is Black, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University ‘s Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association. She has been a John M.Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer’s television series, “A World of Ideas.” The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas. Dr.Wortham is author of The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues. She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality. Recently, she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness. Shortly after an interview in 2004 she was awarded tenure.

I cry "source" because I always want to verify evidence presented to me. As I do with other topics such as Global Warming, and as should any sensible person even if it agrees with them. What you just provided isn't a source as much as it is a biography. I want the source to the raw numbers, if available. If not I suppose this will have to do, but anyone that disagrees likely won't think so.

Originally Posted by Darius

I cry "source" because I always want to verify evidence presented to me. As I do with other topics such as Global Warming, and as should any sensible person even if it agrees with them. What you just provided isn't a source as much as it is a biography. I want the source to the raw numbers, if available. If not I suppose this will have to do, but anyone that disagrees likely won't think so.

Gee, Darius, you shouldn't get so testy. You see, Darius, what you want is an authority figure; a source of information that meets your own criteron. Sure thing, goodbuddy, I'll find the stats, but your need to pandy-wandy with "studies" and " statistics" instead of intergrating new information with that which you have objectively percieved via living, is troubling.
In short, Darius, don't whine...THINK!

Be back soon with a whiney whiney source that will make you feel in the vogue.

I...I'm aghast! Yes, I DO like to bother with things like verifiable evidence and elimination of selection bias. What next? You're going to call me a fag and that I should stop that fag talk?! Idiocracy is upon us!

Even if something agrees with me (such as your 94% statistic) I want proof that such a statistic is valid, otherwise my worldview is based on lies and therefore unreliable.

Originally Posted by Darius

I...I'm aghast! Yes, I DO like to bother with things like verifiable evidence and elimination of selection bias. What next? You're going to call me a fag and that I should stop that fag talk?! Idiocracy is upon us!

Even if something agrees with me (such as your 94% statistic) I want proof that such a statistic is valid, otherwise my worldview is based on lies and therefore unreliable.

Now calm down, Darius, no one is going to call you a fag. I like fags, they are creative, not like pedants, who live thier lives by details.
Ok, my last shot, bourbon and research. So like it or not...good night!
__________________________________________________ ______________

HOW OBAMA WON
By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 11/5/08

Barack Obama, who will be the nation’s first African-American president, won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976 amid a backdrop of economic anxiety unseen in at least a quarter-century, according to exit polls by The Associated Press and the major television networks.

Obama became the first Democrat to also win a majority since Jimmy Carter with the near-unanimous backing of blacks and the overwhelming support of youth as well as significant inroads with white men and strong support among Hispanics and educated voters.

The Illinois senator won 43 percent of white voters, 4 percentage points below Carter’s performance in 1976 and equal to what Bill Clinton won in the three-man race of 1996. Republican John McCain won 55 percent of the white vote.

Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, black women turned out at a higher rate than black men.