PDA

View Full Version : Truly Historic!



T-Bird76
06-04-2008, 06:14 PM
So as it stands today Barrack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for his party. This is truly a historic moment for our country and one that I strongly believe is what our country is about and what we have strived to become. The fact that an African American has a very strong chance of becoming the next leader of our nation is truly remarkable. It also goes without saying that Hillary's strong showing as a female contender proves our nation is no longer content with the ways of the past. We've come to the point in our existence as a free Republic that I believe we are finally becoming tolerant of the differences between us, yes we still have issues but America is speaking loudly and the old ways are beginning to move aside and must in order for us to remain a strong and vibrant nation well into the 21st century and beyond!

Now before you flame me...remember that it was our founding fathers that by all standards of the Mid 1700s were considered extremists, traitors to the British Crown, militants, and in today’s terms one might even call them insurgents! Their ideas for a country ruled by the people we more outlandish then any ideas either of the Democratic candidates have proposed and yet they succeeded. Our country must embrace change, even if that change hasn't been tired before or even if it scares some of us! If we don't we'll never know what we could have accomplished... Ask yourself this? If the Colonists of the 1700s didn't embrace the extreme ideas of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, and the others whose name might not be as historic but helped to bring about the birth of this nation, where would we be today? This November I will proudly cast my vote for someone I consider represents the new face of this nation and its future! I'm casting my vote for Barrack Obama!

nwafan20
06-04-2008, 10:17 PM
Why should it matter what color his skin is? Why even bother talking about it? Shouldn't we look past that and say "Hey, this guy shares my beliefs, i'm going to vote for him!" (I don't agree with Obama, just an example).

Thats what I don't get, who cares if an African American was nominated, or a women was nominated???? What matters are his opinions, which are very questionable.

PhilDernerJr
06-05-2008, 12:36 AM
It's impressive that he was able to do it. I think the real test will be when we see how he fares on the final election. Can he do ok in the South? I hope so.

These ARE trying times for our nation. I do hope we can pull through as a people.

Midnight Mike
06-05-2008, 07:22 AM
Well, for me, I am getting tired of hearing how Obama is the first African American that has can be president or the first African American President that has gotten this far.

I do not care what his skin color is, I only care if he can be a good leader, & that, I find Obama wanting....

Aside from giving a good speech, I have seen nothing that would give me the impression that Obama could be a good leader.

Still laughing that Obama was toooo scared to attend debates sponsored by Fox news because of the pressure from groups such as the dailykos.com & moveon.org. If Obama is scared of these groups, would hate to see how he feels about rogue nations such as North Korea & Iran :mrgreen:

Matt Molnar
06-05-2008, 08:46 AM
So as it stands today Barrack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for his party...
Obama would be a substantial change from the current way of doing business with the White House, definitely more so than McCain, but in terms of the nation's politics as a whole, he's not going to change much. He just hired a Kennedy to find him a VP and John Kerry is lobbying for the secretary of state spot...sounds like lots of old school influences will be in play, and not a lot of room for novel ideas. I see a presidency essentially like Clinton II with Gabrielle Union (http://images.google.com/images?q=gabrielle+union&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1) under the desk instead of Monica. :borat:

There's a slight difference between today and John Adams' time...back then, everyone had guns, and politicians had a certain fear of their constituents, not the other way around like today.

I probably will vote for Obama, not because I particularly like his policies (so far I haven't seen anything I dislike), but because I think it will help our image in the eyes of the world...whether the world's disdain is justified or not, Team America needs some good PR.

mirrodie
06-05-2008, 10:50 AM
Well, for me, I am getting tired of hearing how Obama is the first African American that has can be president or the first African American President that has gotten this far.



Why should it matter what color his skin is? Why even bother talking about it?

What concerns me is that non-whites will never understand the significance. I respectully find your views as sheltered.

Racism is still alive and well in the US. Thus a president of color is huge and very influential to many of color.


Even in cosmopolitan NY, I find racism today.

Several months ago, while I was in the exam rooms seeing patients, a patient who had not been in our office in 5 years came to the front desk:

He asked "I hear there is a new doctor. what color is he?"

my shocked front desk person, a Jew married to Catholic, replies "Why? What difference does that make?"

he says, "Oh no reason, I hear he's good but what color is he?"

She replies, "He's french carribean." With that, he left. I never saw him nor do I ever need to.

Another recent example:

When NY got its first blind black gov, I overheard ppl at the gym saying, "what's a blind black gov gonna do for me?" And here I was thinking, "he's blind and got through all that schooling. You are white and sighted and what are you doing with your life?"


So while I thank you for being educated enough to see past color, perhaps your views are sheltered in thinking this is not huge.

I agree with Matt 100%. Our current administration burnt a few bridges these past few years. It's incredibly ****ing juvenile and embarrassing when your elected officials start to call a french fry a "freedom fry" in relataliation for not sharing the same view and joining in the war.

We call ourselves a democracy and yet chided another democracy for not sharing the same view as ours. And it was done in a way a 6th grader would. I wonder why they stopped at FREEDOM fries. I cringe to think what was next, calling the french Frogheads? Am I being silly, perhaps, but freedom fries was silly enough.

American WAS once the nation most looked up to and we've lost that over the last 8 years. We need that back.

I never liked Hillary especially this week. But I am open to hearing McCain and Obama. And I would find the Obama Clinton ticket well thought out.

Matt Molnar
06-05-2008, 11:15 AM
I think an Obama/Clinton ticket would be doom for Obama...literally. Clinton would find a way to put the 25th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) to use one way or the other.

I'm rooting for Obama/Bloomberg. :borat:

mirrodie
06-05-2008, 11:23 AM
Matt is addicted to Wikipedia.

And Gabrielle Union? I'd still rec. Mariah Carey :borat: :borat:

Midnight Mike
06-05-2008, 02:36 PM
Well, for me, I am getting tired of hearing how Obama is the first African American that has can be president or the first African American President that has gotten this far.



Why should it matter what color his skin is? Why even bother talking about it?

What concerns me is that non-whites will never understand the significance. I respectully find your views as sheltered.

Racism is still alive and well in the US. Thus a president of color is huge and very influential to many of color.


Even in cosmopolitan NY, I find racism today.

.

Of course there is racism in this country, on all sides, but, as long as people keep talking about the First Black President, or the First Female President, how are we expected to treat each other as equals when we keep talking about our differences.

I really wish Obama would start correcting people, as he is not a black person running in the presidential election, he is an American that happens to be black.

Other things that are getting in the way of making us all equal

Black History month
NAACP
Black magazines
Black channels

mirrodie
06-05-2008, 07:52 PM
We are a nation of mutts and should celebrate our differences. Equals can certainly be different Mike.

:arrow: I really wish Obama would start correcting people, ... he is an American that happens to be black.

Never happen. The hype is what churns the American media machine. :wink:

However, I do feel Black hi. month, black magazines and channels are a joke and I loathe them. They do a good job to segregate.

wunaladreamin
06-06-2008, 07:17 AM
We are a nation of mutts and should celebrate our differences. Equals can certainly be different Mike.
Amen bro.


:arrow: I really wish Obama would start correcting people, ... he is an American that happens to be black.That will never happen. Iffin I'm not mistaken, he's half white too, or some kind of mix and he wouldn't dare alienate caucasians now, though he did before. Stakes are too high.


However, I do feel Black hi. month, black magazines and channels are a joke and I loathe them. They do a good job to segregate.
Amen again, when it's announced at the BET awards, "We don't need no white people watchin...", I gladly changed the channel.

For me, the decision is clear and easy. I have a severe problem with electing someone to head the military who has himself never served. It'd be like a garbage man being hired to be the boss of your optometry office. Something there just wouldn't work. Combine that with the democrats open loathing of LEO's and military personnel...

mirrodie
06-06-2008, 08:10 AM
For me, the decision is clear and easy. I have a severe problem with electing someone to head the military who has himself never served. It'd be like a garbage man being hired to be the boss of your optometry office. Something there just wouldn't work. Combine that with the democrats open loathing of LEO's and military personnel...


The office of President goes far beyond acting as head of the military. Further, even the current president has military advisors, clearly showing that one man cannot decide alone.

Lastly, I hope you might agree, to some percentage, that our current president had some influence on how badly our nation is doing right now. His military experience has helped us to zero degree.

wunaladreamin
06-06-2008, 08:34 AM
Lastly, I hope you might agree, to some percentage, that our current president had some influence on how badly our nation is doing right now. His military experience has helped us to zero degree.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. What disturbs me is that the liberal media and the general public would prefer to believe the words of our enemies and put a politically correct spin on it to fry our own nation not only in our own eyes, but abroad. That's just what they did to Reagan, and now widely he's recognized as one of the greats. If the word of evidence of WMD's came out, mum would be the word. Face it, if it was a democrat in office under the exact same circumstances, using the exact same measures, most of us would still be pissing and moaning. I think W decades from now will be mentioned in the same sentences as Reagan. Just my $.02.

adam613
06-06-2008, 08:42 AM
I'd rather have a president who openly admits to having had no military experience than one who pretends to have had military experience yet is more anti-military than any Democratic president we've had thus far...

Fortunately, Obama isn't running against Bush, so we won't have to make that decision...

T-Bird76
06-06-2008, 09:37 AM
I don't think Bush will ever be regarded as a great President. The fact is he just isn't. If you purely study him from a Management point of view his management ability is very poor. He's tried surrounding himself with "Yes man" rather then people who will offer their insight. The only one that did was Powell and he was forced out. His appointments proved he wanted to take the easy way out rather then truly selecting people for their talents. His Supreme Court and Press Secretary choices were further evidence of continued cronyism.

Bush's approach on the economy has been terrible. the economic stimulus checks was not the right move and the while he doesn't control the Fed directly the continued cut in interest rates has weakened the dollar and is on of the reasons the price of oil has been sky high. If we had a strong dollar we wouldn't be getting rapped at the pump.

adam613
06-06-2008, 10:11 AM
I'm not sure I can agree with that. What disturbs me is that the liberal media and the general public would prefer to believe the words of our enemies and put a politically correct spin on it to fry our own nation not only in our own eyes, but abroad. That's just what they did to Reagan, and now widely he's recognized as one of the greats. If the word of evidence of WMD's came out, mum would be the word. Face it, if it was a democrat in office under the exact same circumstances, using the exact same measures, most of us would still be pissing and moaning. I think W decades from now will be mentioned in the same sentences as Reagan. Just my $.02.

Bush is already being mentioned in the same sentences as Reagan. By the people who have an even more visceral reaction to Reagan than a lot of Republicans have towards Hillary Clinton. And Republican presidents have an inherent disadvantage when it comes to history remembering them, because history is probably the single most left-leaning academic discipline in existence.

I always take great interest in statements like yours about the liberal media, Kenny. Because I spend a lot of time hearing about how the liberal media needs to grow some balls and stop bowing to pressure from the Bush administration to paint an overly rosy picture of the situation in Iraq.

But both sides are wrong. The people who say the liberal media needs to grow some balls were right about four years ago, but continuing to repeat it just makes them look like ignorant Bush-bashers. And the people who say the liberal media is tarnishing our image abroad need to look at the sequence of events...our actions in Iraq were deplored worldwide long before the liberal media stopped kowtowing to the Bush administration.

I'm not convinced there's such a thing as "if word of evidence of WMDs came out". Generally, the media (both liberal and conservative) knows a lot more than it can print...In hindsight, I don't get the impression that the media was taking any sort of risk when they questioned the existence of WMDs.

And there would never be a Democrat in office under the same circumstances. If a Democrat (or McCain) had been elected in 2000, we wouldn't be in Iraq at all.

mirrodie
06-06-2008, 01:22 PM
I think W decades from now will be mentioned in the same sentences as Reagan. Just my $.02.

Let's bet a Brewhouse amber on that and re-assess the bet in 15 years.

PhilDernerJr
06-06-2008, 01:58 PM
Reagan is praised in many ways. I think that down the road, there will be little positive to be said about him. In fact, I think Bush will have lost his post-9/11 leadership that he was at first applauded for....I think that role will leave Rudy remembered first.

mirrodie
06-06-2008, 02:58 PM
And Reagan was praised rightfully so. One can argue his politics, but he was at the least an honorable man and did great things for world affairs. He was looked up to by many heads of state.

Bush? Don't even get me started. I just have consistently found that he is dishonorable and not in the same class as W.

I am usually reserved in my political opinions but beyond politics comes intergrity, honor and the good of your constituents. This man cares not for his constituents but for his pride and that alone.

And I knew he would find any way he could to get back into the middle East and Iraq, guns ablaze, to pick up where dad left off.

And where are we now?

PhilDernerJr
06-06-2008, 04:39 PM
I think W and his father, in regards to Iraq, were very different. Desert Storm was a massive multinational (26 nations if I recall) defending a country that Iraq invaded. We STOPPED before Baghdad, because that was beyond our goal. We did exactly what we needed to do.

As a PERSON, I love W. I like his sense of humor, his mannerisms, and I think he means well. Unfortunately, things didn't turn out the way he had hoped.

Mario, I would HIGHLY recommend reading "Bush At War". Great insight into W's thoughts and actions during and after 9/11, written by a left-leaning author.

moose135
06-06-2008, 10:08 PM
Mario, I would HIGHLY recommend reading "Bush At War". Great insight into W's thoughts and actions during and after 9/11, written by a left-leaning author.
I'm about 1/4 of the way through that book - interesting doesn't begin to describe it. I found it especially insightful to see that as early as Sept. 12, 2001, Bush and his advisers were already discussing how they could use the attacks as a way to go after Iraq.

Recently I read some statements by a member of Papa Bush's team (the name escapes me at the moment) He said something to the effect that all those people who complained that they should have invaded Iraq and "finished the job" in 1991 are strangely silent now :wink:

mirrodie
06-06-2008, 10:18 PM
Mario, I would HIGHLY recommend reading "Bush At War". Great insight into W's thoughts and actions during and after 9/11, written by a left-leaning author.
I'm about 1/4 of the way through that book - interesting doesn't begin to describe it. I found it especially insightful to see that as early as Sept. 12, 2001, Bush and his advisers were already discussing how they could use the attacks as a way to go after Iraq.

mirrodie
06-06-2008, 10:21 PM
Mario, I would HIGHLY recommend reading "Bush At War". Great insight into W's thoughts and actions during and after 9/11, written by a left-leaning author.
I'm about 1/4 of the way through that book - interesting doesn't begin to describe it. I found it especially insightful to see that as early as Sept. 12, 2001, Bush and his advisers were already discussing how they could use the attacks as a way to go after Iraq.


THanks Phil but I must pass. If I read what Moose said correctly, it confirms my thoughts. Somehow I knew, prior to W's election, he'd find a way to go back to Iraq. Just an instinct that proved right.

Tom_Turner
06-07-2008, 08:41 PM
Thinking of the Bushes, it makes me wonder how the world might look today if a couple of European oil companies had not been cross drilling Iraqi oil from across the Kuwaiti border and then if Bush's US Ambassador to Iraq had not taken a de facto "we have no position" on Iraqi/Kuwait disputes when queried by Sadam's Regime prior to invading Kuwait.... what would it be like now? No 1st Gulf War? No abundance of US Air Bases in Saudi Arabia? Possibly (maybe) no 911?

And Iraq intact to keep Iran worrying about them?

Would the dollar be any better? Oil prices any lower with Iraqi oil pumping at normal capacity? The Iranian-Chavez. Iranian-Syrian alliances weaker...

Hindsight ought to be perfect..but yeah, those Bushes... Just a Great job....

Of course Pakistani nuke know-how would be proliferating unchecked, and who knows what sick misdeeds the Taliban would be up to by now....

T