To the rest of the planet...

[Omnis]

And you realize that you are now on verge on nearly posting a racist comment. You think highly of us because of the color of our president. That is borderline racism.


Except you think it's only historic because he's black, and nothing else.

TBH, I don't give a doo-doo that the world is glad we have a black president right now. At this moment, the US needs a President who can bring up our economy, not give black people the chance to start hootin' & hollerin' because there's a black man in the White House.

Why is it on the verge, nearly, and boderline racist? It's full blown racist, dude.

I feel really bad for all the gentlemen and women who dedicated their lives to abolishing the notion of skin-color race. Instead, their legacy was broken by racists trying to level the playing field.

 

[McLaren]

Why is it on the verge, nearly, and boderline racist? It's full blown racist, dude.

I guess, but I didn't want to make a post sound like I called Mag. a complete racist.

 

[Omnis]

I guess, but I didn't want to make a post sound like I called Mag. a complete racist.

But he just demonstrated that he is. Not a hateful one, but still one.

 

[McLaren]

But he just demonstrated that he is. Not a hateful one, but still one.

Well, I'm not gonna get into it with you about it past this. I guess, in honesty, I thought I would feel a little bad calling him one. I'm just too nice for my own good sometimes, but that's me.

 

[Famine]

Barrack Obama brings with him new thinking.

Sorry, but let's look at that for a second. Barack Obama, of the Democratic Party, brings "new thinking"? The Democratic Party wouldn't have put him forward as their nominee if he didn't represent their interests - just like his 7 predecessors since WW2 (with 9 being Republicans).

I don't understand how anyone from one of the two main political parties in the USA can bring "new thinking" when they're representing the same thing.

Is it not too much to hope that things may be different?

You can certainly hope that things may be different, but that doesn't engender hope itself - different can be much, much worse.

As I asked previously, what about Obama's policies give you hope?

One thing that I do like, is the prospect that Barrack Obama may be willing to negotiate with terrorists

That is an absolutely horrifying concept. Seriously. Committing criminal acts because you disagree with someone and getting rewarded for it?

I know that this is a controversial subject, but I personally think that it is the right course of action. In fact my great nation has proved that you CAN negotiate with terrorists - Look at Northern Ireland! After more than 30 years of insurgency, with thousands of people killed on both sides, numerous atrocities committed by both my government, its supporters, and the IRA, there is now peace in the province. Of course you already know this Famine.

You need to add at least a "1" to the beginning of your time frame, and of course that's not how it worked.

After years of refusing to negotiate with the terrorists - who, in the case of the IRA, wanted an Irish-ruled Northern Ireland - the terrorists set up political parties (though the parties in question would dispute the links, Sinn Fein are the IRA) and not only gave up their weapons, but didn't get what they want. The British Government gave up nothing.

Since Barrack Obama's stunning win, there has been plenty of soul searching over here as to why we (in the UK), have never elected a minority Prime Minister, or that we have had only three prominent minority cabinet ministers.

Jeremy Paxman asks whether the UK could learn a lesson from the success of a black candidate running for public office:

What can the UK learn from Barack Obama?

The UK elected a woman into the highest office nearly 30 years ago. She ran the country (whatever you may think of her methods when doing so) for just over 11 years, proving herself to be the right person for the job rather than some figurehead put into place to redress an unseen balance.


Why should any country, least of all two of the most powerful nations on Earth, elect as their political leader someone who is not the right person for the job just because they fit a certain demographic? It's almost an obscenity to suggest a black man should be President because it's about time a black man was President, and that we should follow suit.

 

[Vasco]

Different doesn't mean better. And it isn't really different. Barack wants to do (at least domestically) the same thing Bush wanted to.



There's a simple logical reason that you don't negotiate with terrorists. Here it is - if you negotiate with them you give them something for nothing. It doesn't cost terrorists anything to blow up a building or hold some people hostage. If they get anything in return for that, they've found a way to milk you dry.

You cannot give someone something for doing nothing - you'll end up giving them everything.

...and another way to look at it. When you pay (I use that term figuratively) someone to do something, you're encouraging them to do it.

I don't think it just comes down to negotiating with terrorists, it also has to do with dealing with potentially hostile regions in a diplomatic way so they can potentially be allies instead of joining the "I hate America" crew.

 

[magburner]

Different doesn't mean better. And it isn't really different. Barack wants to do (at least domestically) the same thing Bush wanted to.

I didn't say better, I said different.

There's a simple logical reason that you don't negotiate with terrorists. Here it is - if you negotiate with them you give them something for nothing. It doesn't cost terrorists anything to blow up a building or hold some people hostage. If they get anything in return for that, they've found a way to milk you dry.

I wasn't talking about giving them anything.

Negotiate ----with --terrorist?

Pls don't bomb us .

I will give you some virgins ?

WTF ???

are you insane ?

Didn't JFK do the same thing with Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Obviously, he wasn't offering virgins.

As well as that, didn't the US military not come to an agreement with Sunni insurgents in Iraq? I'm also sure that General Petreus didn't offer virgins then either.

Negotiation is not appeasement, here is a vid that explains the difference.

Be careful with your distinction between "terrorists" and states who disagree with the United States.

Obviously I was making a generalisation there, but can people see a difference between terrorists and rogue nations that sponsor terrorists, when they can't tell the difference between negotiation and appeasement?

Do you have any evidence it was white people who elected him in?

Surely they must of. If all minorities in the US voted 100% for Obama, then they would only of made up about 35% of the vote. Obama's winning percentage was around 54%. So yes white people definitely must of been the deciding factor! Unless you have evidence to the contrary (feel free to post it).

Who voted for Obama (BBC)

And you realize that you are now on verge on nearly posting a racist comment. You think highly of us because of the color of our president. That is borderline racism.[/url]

No, I think highly of your country because 40 years after segregation and the birth of the civil rights movement, there is a black man in the White House. There is nothing racist about that.

Except you think it's only historic because he's black, and nothing else.[/url]

In what other way was this election historic?

So a man with no experience feels you with hope?[/url]

Has any American president ever had any experience? Being state governor is not the same as running a super power with worldwide jurisdiction.

Obama certainly isn't a novice though - he just run the most most successful election campaign in US history. He's been under constant scrutiny for the past 21 months. Obviously there is a majority in your country that think he is up to the jpb, or they wouldn't of voted him in.

Wtf? I guess it's because you're not in the US, so you really aren't affected?[/url]

WTF!? Wake up, of course I'm affected! American foreign and economic policy have a direct effect on my life. It shouldn't, but globalisation has made sure of that!

Unlike you & many outside the US though, we don't need hope from a man with no experience. Electing a man with no experience & hoping he'll do fine is like giving an 8 year old an Uzi when he has no gun experience & hoping he won't kill himself.[/url]

Or a ten year old a 12-gauge shotgun?

When 10-year-old Austin Smith heard Barrack Obama had been elected president, he had one question: Does this mean I won't get a new gun for Christmas?

That brought his mom, Rachel Smith, to Bob Moates Sports Shop, where she was picking out that special 20-gauge shotgun - one of at least five guns she plans to buy before Obama takes office in January.[/url]

Barrack has gun nuts in buying frenzy (New York Post)

Sorry, but let's look at that for a second. Barack Obama, of the Democratic Party, brings "new thinking"? The Democratic Party wouldn't have put him forward as their nominee if he didn't represent their interests - just like his 7 predecessors since WW2 (with 9 being Republicans).

New thinking with respect to George Bush...

That is an absolutely horrifying concept. Seriously. Committing criminal acts because you disagree with someone and getting rewarded for it?

Who said anything about rewarding terrorism? You could say that entering negotiations legitimises their cause, but so does attacking them.

After years of refusing to negotiate with the terrorists - who, in the case of the IRA, wanted an Irish-ruled Northern Ireland - the terrorists set up political parties (though the parties in question would dispute the links, Sinn Fein are the IRA) and not only gave up their weapons, but didn't get what they want. The British Government gave up nothing.

I never suggested for a second that the UK gave up anything, only that we achieved peace in the province, which we have.

The UK elected a woman into the highest office nearly 30 years ago. She ran the country (whatever you may think of her methods when doing so) for just over 11 years, proving herself to be the right person for the job rather than some figurehead put into place to redress an unseen balance.

Was Barrack Obama elected to redress an unseen imbalance? It is also interesting that you stated that Margaret Thatcher proved herself to be the right person for the job after 11 years (see highlighted section), was she not the right person for the job before those 11 years in office? Why Can't Barrack Obama prove that he is the right person for the job?

Why should any country, least of all two of the most powerful nations on Earth, elect as their political leader someone who is not the right person for the job just because they fit a certain demographic? It's almost an obscenity to suggest a black man should be President because it's about time a black man was President, and that we should follow suit.

Again, I never suggested that we should elect a black President/Prime Minister. I did post comments regarding why we (the UK) hadn't. That's not the same.

I guess, but I didn't want to make a post sound like I called Mag. a complete racist.

Why am I a racist? Because I celebrated in the fact that your nation elected its first black President? that's ludicrous!

As I have said earlier, I am mixed race. That makes me half black and half white. Apart from my father and my sister, the rest of my family is white. I have lived my life exclusively in a white community, and except for one black friend, all my friends are white. How the hell can I be racist!?

I've brought into the American culture many times over. I wear the blue jeans, I have the Hollywood films, as do I have the music and books that have come from your country. The computer that I am using is American, and most of my favourite sports are American too. Would I even bother if I had any racist feelings towards your country? I'm sure you won't find the Commodores greatest hits the the music collection of a White Supremacist!

I'm going to retract my earlier statement that I thought highly of your country. Wait for it, I'm not FOR ONE SECOND saying that I think any less of you now.

Its just that my sincere congratulatory comments have been misconstrued and twisted to make me sound like a racist when in fact I am not.

It seems around here that I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

 

[Casio]

If it makes you feel any better magburner you're my favorite racist on the forum!

I did find it interesting that most news headlines over here were not "Obama new US President" but rather "US elects first Black President".

 

[Biggles]

I wouldn't even bother Mag. You will never get anywhere in trying to persuade the "Obama-haters". What you may not realize, is that in the States there is a full-time industry of right-wing haters - Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh etc. - who put out a continual barrage of propaganda & lies to "balance" the so-called "liberal" media. They even hated McCain because of his willingness (at least pre-nomination) to "reach out to the other side" & promote non-right wing causes like stem-cell research, & campaign finance reform.

People did not vote for Obama because they're "racists" but because he is clearly a man with exceptional ability - & a welcome change from the incompetent numbskulls who have mismanaged the country for the last 8 years, bringing us a pointless & destructive war, an un-precedented intrusion into civil liberties, flaunting of international agreements, the fiasco of the Katrina aftermath, & last, but not least, the international financial crisis.

To get back to the O.P. - yes, the rest of the world (& a significant proportion of the U.S. population), after being disillusioned & disgusted by years of the Bush administration, is ecstatic by the election of Obama, a clearly brilliant individual, who also happens to be black.

 

[Famine]

New thinking with respect to George Bush...

George Bush represented new thinking with respect to Bill Clinton. New != better.

Who said anything about rewarding terrorism? You could say that entering negotiations legitimises their cause, but so does attacking them.

Commit terrorist act -> Get what you want.

Negotiation involves compromise. If we compromise with someone who commits crimes to give them something they want of ours, we are rewarding their criminal acts.

I never suggested for a second that the UK gave up anything, only that we achieved peace in the province, which we have.

You suggested that negotiation with terrorists lead to this end. It didn't - the terrorists stopped being terrorists because no matter what they did, we wouldn't give them what they wanted. They became politicised.

Was Barrack Obama elected to redress an unseen imbalance? It is also interesting that you stated that Margaret Thatcher proved herself to be the right person for the job after 11 years (see highlighted section), was she not the right person for the job before those 11 years in office? Why Can't Barrack Obama prove that he is the right person for the job?

I'd think more highly of them if they'd voted the right person into the White House.

This remains to be seen.

I still wish to know what you know of Obama's policies and ideals that make him a beacon of hope for you.

Again, I never suggested that we should elect a black President/Prime Minister. I did post comments regarding why we (the UK) hadn't. That's not the same.

Hopefully the only reason is because the right person hasn't come along...

No, I think highly of your country because 40 years after segregation and the birth of the civil rights movement, there is a black man in the White House. There is nothing racist about that.

Would it have mattered if he hadn't been elected? Or if it were 44 years?

 

[Omnis]

Didn't JFK do the same thing with Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Obviously, he wasn't offering virgins.

As well as that, didn't the US military not come to an agreement with Sunni insurgents in Iraq? I'm also sure that General Petreus didn't offer virgins then either.

Krushchev was the leader of a country. Terror groups != States (although it could be the other way around). Those Sunni insurgents are Iraqis. Negotiation can only be had with groups concerned about their welfare. It would make no sense to negotiate with groups concerned only with killing or punishing something or someone else, even at the expense of their own existence.

Surely they must of. If all minorities in the US voted 100% for Obama, then they would only of made up about 35% of the vote. Obama's winning percentage was around 54%. So yes white people definitely must of been the deciding factor! Unless you have evidence to the contrary (feel free to post it).

And yet voter turnout remained the same.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...turnout-same-or-only-slightly-higher-than-04/

No, I think highly of your country because 40 years after segregation and the birth of the civil rights movement, there is a black man in the White House. There is nothing racist about that.

In what other way was this election historic?

Has any American president ever had any experience? Being state governor is not the same as running a super power with worldwide jurisdiction.

Obama certainly isn't a novice though - he just run the most most successful election campaign in US history. He's been under constant scrutiny for the past 21 months. Obviously there is a majority in your country that think he is up to the jpb, or they wouldn't of voted him in.

WTF!? Wake up, of course I'm affected! American foreign and economic policy have a direct effect on my life. It shouldn't, but globalisation has made sure of that!

Again, I never suggested that we should elect a black President/Prime Minister. I did post comments regarding why we (the UK) hadn't. That's not the same.

As I have said earlier, I am mixed race. That makes me half black and half white. Apart from my father and my sister, the rest of my family is white. I have lived my life exclusively in a white community, and except for one black friend, all my friends are white. How the hell can I be racist!?

I've brought into the American culture many times over. I wear the blue jeans, I have the Hollywood films, as do I have the music and books that have come from your country. The computer that I am using is American, and most of my favourite sports are American too. Would I even bother if I had any racist feelings towards your country? I'm sure you won't find the Commodores greatest hits the the music collection of a White Supremacist!

Why am I a racist? Because I celebrated in the fact that your nation elected its first black President? that's ludicrous!

Because, as quoted above, you subscribe to the notion of race. Like I said, you're not a hateful one so there's nothing to feel bad about. You can be a proud racist like Jesse Jackson and people can still love you.

Was Barrack Obama elected to redress an unseen imbalance? It is also interesting that you stated that Margaret Thatcher proved herself to be the right person for the job after 11 years (see highlighted section), was she not the right person for the job before those 11 years in office? Why Can't Barrack Obama prove that he is the right person for the job?

Because Barack spent two years convincing half the USA that he isn't and that the other half are idiots. More importantly, you have to realize that the change Barack represents is merely a change in management. The system is still flawed.

 

[magburner]

I wouldn't even bother Mag. You will never get anywhere in trying to persuade the "Obama-haters".

I think your right. I should of stuck to being anti-American, I never got this much agro! If I did get agro, then it was probably deserved but this... I have to laugh, its so damn pathetic!!! Ripped to pieces for making what now seems, a poorly worded compliment!

Think I'll stick to taking pictures in the GT4 galleries...

 

[McLaren]

Surely they must of. If all minorities in the US voted 100% for Obama, then they would only of made up about 35% of the vote. Obama's winning percentage was around 54%. So yes white people definitely must of been the deciding factor! Unless you have evidence to the contrary (feel free to post it).

Fine, you make a good point. But, why did you also post it as if being white made any difference with, "White people voted Barack, maybe they need to be reminded"? That's a pretty racial-like comment, you know. Why do we white people, need to be reminded?

No, I think highly of your country because 40 years after segregation and the birth of the civil rights movement, there is a black man in the White House. There is nothing racist about that.

That's still racist. You clearly think only highly of us now because we elected a black man. Your feelings for though, would not have changed if a white man was elected instead. That's the image your giving the rest of us.

In what other way was this election historic?

Perhaps the obvious? How about 2 women becoming huge factors in this election? One going for President, and one opting for Vice President. How about the fact 3rd parties were actually a pretty big factor this year, or that the nation's youth actually got out and voted.

But, your brain seems to be focused too much more on "Race=Election History" rather than the other events.

Has any American president ever had any experience? Being state governor is not the same as running a super power with worldwide jurisdiction.

I see you're trying to split hairs here, but former President Grover Cleveland would like to disagree.

Obama certainly isn't a novice though - he just run the most most successful election campaign in US history. He's been under constant scrutiny for the past 21 months. Obviously there is a majority in your country that think he is up to the jpb, or they wouldn't of voted him in.

Being good at running campaigns doesn't do any President any good. He's a novice, end of story. The only experience Obama has is being a Senator for a few years.

WTF!? Wake up, of course I'm affected! American foreign and economic policy have a direct effect on my life. It shouldn't, but globalisation has made sure of that!

Then why post that having a black man for president should be history for Americans while the world celebrates it?

A solid portion of us don't care that the world is glad we have a black president. We have more pressing issues at hand.

Or a ten year old a 12-gauge shotgun?

When 10-year-old Austin Smith heard Barrack Obama had been elected president, he had one question: Does this mean I won't get a new gun for Christmas?

That brought his mom, Rachel Smith, to Bob Moates Sports Shop, where she was picking out that special 20-gauge shotgun - one of at least five guns she plans to buy before Obama takes office in January.[/url]

Barrack has gun nuts in buying frenzy (New York Post)

I'm convinced you have missed the point. Unsurprised.

BTW, when quoting, [/ quote] goes on the end, not a URL.

I wouldn't even bother Mag. You will never get anywhere in trying to persuade the "Obama-haters". What you may not realize, is that in the States there is a full-time industry of right-wing haters - Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh etc. - who put out a continual barrage of propaganda & lies to "balance" the so-called "liberal" media. They even hated McCain because of his willingness (at least pre-nomination) to "reach out to the other side" & promote non-right wing causes like stem-cell research, & campaign finance reform.

That's a pretty big insult. Now that Mag & you seem to be out of an argument, you resort to us just being Obama haters?

I don't hate the man (I do dislike his spouse), but I do hate how he intends to run this country.

People did not vote for Obama because they're "racists" but because he is clearly a man with exceptional ability

4 years in the Senate is exceptional ability? Ok.

To get back to the O.P. - yes, the rest of the world (& a significant proportion of the U.S. population), after being disillusioned & disgusted by years of the Bush administration, is ecstatic by the election of Obama, a clearly brilliant individual, who also happens to be black.

See, I have no problem with folks who think that. What I don't like are folks who now think the US is suddenly a great nation just because Obama's black.

 

[YSSMAN]

Obviously I was making a generalisation there, but can people see a difference between terrorists and rogue nations that sponsor terrorists, when they can't tell the difference between negotiation and appeasement?

*Generalization* or not, its something that you have to be careful of when discussing situations like these. I understand that we both agree on our preferences towards President-Elect Obama, but you're digging a shallow grave with some of the stuff you're talking about. What I'm asking for is that you attempt to word your things a bit more carefully. I know you're not an American, and I know you're trying to do your best to engage in a constructive discussion, but you cannot make sweeping and otherwise incorrect distinctions such as these.

To your point, negotiation and appeasement are different things, and yes we do understand it. The problem is that to negotiate does not necessarily mean to appease, and to that end, that terrorists shall not be equated with rogue states. Keep in mind that terror groups, although defined and recognized as threats do not constitute a recognized civil government or nationalist interest group. Former terror groups like the PLO and Hamas have been legitimized by the people beneath them, and to that end, the governments around the world who have recognized them. They would be groups to negotiate with, not groups like Al Qaeda and the like.

RE: The Cuban Missile Crisis

Mag, I think your understanding of the event is a bit incorrect. I'd suggest reading up on the issue before using it as a point of discussion. Yes, the US managed to turn away the Soviet threat with some backroom dealing, but it was the full-frontal "Quarantine" that ended the ordeal, nothing else.

RE: Obama Haters & Other Opposing Viewpoints

Guys, it isn't about convincing anyone that one side is right or wrong, its about having a decent discussion. If you're going to engage, you need to be able to defend your point or discuss them in a different light, not resort to saying "you may as well give up..." etc. I know that there are people on here who preferred McCain, there are people here who preferred Barr or Nader, and then there are those of us who preferred Obama. I don't condemn them for their choice, I'd hope that they do not condemn me for mine, but that does not mean that I would refuse to discuss the issues because I may or may not disagree with them.

 

[Omnis]

Obama is El Dorado (not the cadillac) for collectivists around the world.

 

[McLaren]

RE: Obama Haters & Other Opposing Viewpoints

Guys, it isn't about convincing anyone that one side is right or wrong, its about having a decent discussion. If you're going to engage, you need to be able to defend your point or discuss them in a different light, not resort to saying "you may as well give up..." etc. I know that there are people on here who preferred McCain, there are people here who preferred Barr or Nader, and then there are those of us who preferred Obama. I don't condemn them for their choice, I'd hope that they do not condemn me for mine, but that does not mean that I would refuse to discuss the issues because I may or may not disagree with them.

I don't condemn anyone for voting for any party other than my candidate. Otherwise, my avatar would have changed very quickly. Many people on this forum though, I respect too much to suddenly avoid & ignore, or distaste just because we voted for different people.

It's why I don't talk politics in person though. A lot of people go to far, and I don't know who the person will be when I just decide to leave the debate.

 

[Famine]

I think your right. I should of stuck to being anti-American, I never got this much agro! If I did get agro, then it was probably deserved but this... I have to laugh, its so damn pathetic!!! Ripped to pieces for making what now seems, a poorly worded compliment!

You're drawing attention to a person's skin colour and marking them out differently. I suggest you have a read of danoff's "Am I Becoming a Racist?" thread.

 

[Sureboss]

I'd say it's important for history, but irrelevant for politics.

That is what I have been getting at all along.

In the context of the history of the plight of African Americans in America, all but 40 years ago, it is important, historically. There were big race riots in the 80s too iirc.

His race makes no difference what so ever in relation to his policies and politics, and it should never do. His policies should be what people consider when putting the X on the ballot paper. It'd be foolish to say that everyone does that, though. You could say it is a shambles if someone is voted purely because of their colour. Though I'd say he was a stronger candidate than McCain, if not the right man for the job.

After years of refusing to negotiate with the terrorists - who, in the case of the IRA, wanted an Irish-ruled Northern Ireland - the terrorists set up political parties (though the parties in question would dispute the links, Sinn Fein are the IRA) and not only gave up their weapons, but didn't get what they want. The British Government gave up nothing.

Wasn't the Good Friday Agreement a negotiation? Because they set free murderers in that.

 

[Famine]

In essence, they set tariffs for lifers - most lifers are set tariffs, but these ones weren't.

In fact in practice all that was achieved was an extra layer of civil service, between County level and Westminster, that the Northern Irish paid for. Wales and Scotland got something similar, without having to blow shopping centres up periodicially for a century.

 

[Sureboss]

Nah, Scotland just destroyed goalposts.

 

[YSSMAN]

I don't condemn anyone for voting for any party other than my candidate. Otherwise, my avatar would have changed very quickly. Many people on this forum though, I respect too much to suddenly avoid & ignore, or distaste just because we voted for different people.

No worries, just trying to combat the "hey, those guys won't ever listen" point going through here. I'll bat for both sides on occasion, and although I may heavily disagree with some of you on some things, its not the end of the world. People are people, and they're going to disagree.

 

[TheCracker]

I'll bat for both sides on occasion

That's got to be worth somebody's sig?

 

[Stevisiov]

Out of context quoting FTW!!

 

[Gil]

As far as the next president goes,
I truly don't feel that either candidate was the person for the job.
Obama just doesn't have a lot of experience dealing with the Capitol Hill BS.
McCain, though able to "reach across the aisle" is/was entirely too passionate to deal objectively with the middle east.

Obama may be a good man, with a bunch of good ideas.
But Jimmy Carter was also. and I remember the double digit inflation and the recession that ensued after he became the man in the big chair.

Carter was elected because no one trusted the republicans after Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he MAY have commited.
After all of the flap that was associated with Nixon's second term he was found by "history" to be a good president.

I kinda see history repeating itself.
No one trusts the Republicans after the war that Dubya, has waged in the middle east.
In comes Obama, who by all accounts is a pretty good man.
I'm just waiting for all hell to break loose when he tries to do what is right morally, (as Carter did), and we end up in the same place we were with Mr. Carter.
On the plus side Obama is smarter.
And if Reagan could do all the crap he promised to do with no seemingly visible means of support, perhaps Obama can also.

 

[Danoff]

And if Reagan could do all the crap he promised to do with no seemingly visible means of support, perhaps Obama can also.

...because... Obama is... as good as Reagan?

 

[Duke]

...because... Obama is... as good as Reagan?

[standard Democrat response] Ronald Reagan - you mean the B-movie actor? [/standard Democrat response]

 

[Gil]

You can say what you want about Ronald Reagan.
He was a pretty good governor.
He was a very good president. The country was prosperous, and our enemies were afraid to give us too much grief.

If the press ever gets over the fact that Obama is black, wait, that was last week, bi-racial, they might concentrate on the job he does once he gets in the big chair.

But you must admit, the last "good" democrat that occupied the oval office, before Clinton, was JFK.

There may be a reason that in the last 50 years, only 20 years have seen democrats in the big chair, and 4 of those 20 years were somewhat disastrous for the country in terms of economy, and international respect for the US.

I hope and pray that it's different this time. But I'm nervous about a freshman senator, that has spent half of his term campaining, graduating to the big chair...
He's never really learned to be a senator. In ten or twelve weeks he'll be president. Doesn't that make anyone else just a bit nervous?

 

[FoolKiller]

You can say what you want about Ronald Reagan.
He was a pretty good governor.
He was a very good president. The country was prosperous, and our enemies were afraid to give us too much grief.

Um, I believe they were saying that they like Reagan and Obama doesn't even come close.

But you must admit, the last "good" democrat that occupied the oval office, before Clinton, was JFK.

Fixed.

But I'm nervous about a freshman senator, that has spent half of his term campaining,

Don't forget that he still got paid to be a senator during that time. He has spent nearly as much time getting paid to not do his job as he has spent doing it.

Of course, it does not excuse McCain, Biden, or Palin from getting paid for jobs they ignored while campaigning either. If you told your boss you were taking a few weeks off to look for another job and you expect to get paid what would he/she say?

 

[Gil]

In point of fact, I was trying not to inflame the masses.
Both JFK and Clinton were philanderers.
JFK had the good sense to keep his dirt private, and he also had the good taste to choose Marilyn Monroe as his paramour, Not that skanky Ms Lewinsky.

I'm also not saying that Obama is qualified to carry water for the likes of Ronald Reagan.
I was a sailor during Reagan's administration, and I liked that noone gave us to much crap then, because they knew that our "boss" wouldn't be too put out if we had to kick someone's ass.
But Reagan made a bunch of promises that it seemed there was no way he could keep.
Yet he managed to keep most of them.

Obama has done much the same thing. It remains to be seen if he has the "chops" to do all the stuff he's said he'll do.

Personally, I STILL wish that Colin Powell had run, and won.

 

[YSSMAN]

Personally, I STILL wish that Colin Powell had run, and won.

Completely and wholeheartedly agree. McCain made the mistake of moving his positions further to the right, which I did not like, and obviously its not the way to win an election. A strong moderate Republican, like Powell, in much the same way that Eisenhower was before him, would have been a good choice in this election.

The question now becomes if the Republicans can bring back the minority votes, particularly the youth, who now have cast their first vote for a Democrat... A trend that is likely to repeat itself. Much like Reagan for my parent's generation, that President (Republican or Democrat) will likely determine your political outlook for the rest of your life, and to that extent, with the largest generation since the baby boom (ie, uses), we could see the emergence of something similar to the Reagan coalition from nearly 30 years ago.