OBAMA WINS!

[nianfong]

graham, be a man and just apologize to chris for any offense.

let's all just shake hands peeps. jeez.

[GrahamB]

I apologise for any offence caused.

Now make Dmitri apologise for calling me English. OK, ok, I'm just kidding.

[Chris McKinley]

After having been called racist and being belittled, I no longer had any reason to offer civility in return. With me, you get what you're willing to give. I've always been pretty fair that way. It's not my responsibility not to take offense at what is inherently offensive language. It's the responsibility of the poster. That works in reverse as well. You seem to be offering a goodwill retraction in your own way, so in turn I apologize for my remarks. As to today being about change, you should be aware that President-Elect Obama's version of change is not something I would want creeping around in my heart.

I'm not the remotest bit angry about Obama's winning. Disappointed? Yes. It's not the end of the world, and he's not the devil. I just have to hope my guy wins next time, that's it. My only anger is at being associated with something which I have risked my life in opposing. That's not something everyone here can say, so perhaps you or others might not be able to understand why something like that strikes such a personal cord with me, or perhaps you can. I don't know.

And being a Welshman, I can understand that you'd find being called English irksome....if only for the cuisine if not for the fact that your forebears are a major reason why the British Isles aren't speaking Nordic dialects today.

[Ben]

[youtube]What makes a lawyer or constitutional scholar think they know the document better and that their interpretations of it are more correct than the people who wrote it?[/youtube]

Imo, they "think" that amendments need to be interpreted. But, more important, there is a Supreme Court, with "Justices", and it was designed to be the arbiter of what (amendment) was Constitutional or whether the document was being interpreted correctly. That's part of the essential "division of powers." Now, if what you say would be true, then the Justices wouldn't need to be Constitutional scholars, would they? I was a carpenter, so I won't jump on Joe the Plumber. Actually, lots of the guys I've worked with in construction were really smart and well-read. But, I don't think many were better equipped to interpret the Constitution than the average lawyer (no offense Walter). That's not just because of the language; it's because there are histories and precedents to most of these decisions. Shucks, how many people have simply read the entire Constitution?

I mean, yeah, we could strike down the amendment that gave women the right to vote. The founders didn't intend it, but so what? It took many petitions and cases before, finally, the Court saw that such laws were unjust to citizens. The "citizen" of 1788 is not the same "citizen" of 2008. The beauty of the document is that it can adjust, as long as changes refer back to the Preamble.

I had written a long reply and then lost it.
Let me sum it up by saying that its true the document can adjust the problem is that it hasn't been adjusted, its been ignored. Thats my problem and why I haven't been able to get behind almost any politician I've ever heard of in the past 50 or 60 years.

[qiphlow]

our country as a whole would be much better off if we worked toward actually BEING what we say we are. i hope that the election of obama will provide the impetus for that to happen.

[zenshiite]

After having been called racist and being belittled, I no longer had any reason to offer civility in return. With me, you get what you're willing to give. I've always been pretty fair that way. It's not my responsibility not to take offense at what is inherently offensive language. It's the responsibility of the poster. That works in reverse as well. You seem to be offering a goodwill retraction in your own way, so in turn I apologize for my remarks. As to today being about change, you should be aware that President-Elect Obama's version of change is not something I would want creeping around in my heart.

I'm not the remotest bit angry about Obama's winning. Disappointed? Yes. It's not the end of the world, and he's not the devil. I just have to hope my guy wins next time, that's it. My only anger is at being associated with something which I have risked my life in opposing. That's not something everyone here can say, so perhaps you or others might not be able to understand why something like that strikes such a personal cord with me, or perhaps you can. I don't know.

And being a Welshman, I can understand that you'd find being called English irksome....if only for the cuisine if not for the fact that your forebears are a major reason why the British Isles aren't speaking Nordic dialects today.

I think the implication of the post that set you off in the first place was the political campaign strategies of the McCain campaign. Which were, without a doubt, aiming at the lowest of the Republican right wing supporters constituents. The whole pointless deal about William Ayers, emphasis on Barack's middle name Hussein(which should be considered a positive thing in light of the fact that he's going to have to deal with Iran and the name Hussein is probably equally popular to name kids with as Muhammad and Ali) and appeals to the stuff dealing with Rev Wright that some non-McCain groups started latching onto again.

When I read it I didn't see a blanket statement saying all Republican voters or conservatives are racists, just that the tactics of race-bating fear-mongering bit the Repulican party and McCain campaign in the ass.

As Bill Shakespeare once wrote "me thinks the lady doth protest too much."

[Chris McKinley]

Ya know, zenshiite, almost all of your post was at least reasonable on some level, if still erroneous. The McCain campaign political strategies were not what set me off; they made me laugh at their incompetence. You really don't have to guess with me. I explicitly specified what set me off, and C Hopkins already apologized. However, the very last reference in your post was a bit concerning. Are you suggesting in any way that I am "protest[ing] too much" in my distaste for being associated with racism? Or further, that such protestations actually hide what are in truth a preference for racist sentiments?

If not, would you mind explaining what you meant by including that specific reference?

[Chanchu]

I don't like Obama's ideas did not vote for him. Bush and the Republicans made so many mistakes that no Republican/ conservative could win- Libertarians have no chance..

I hope Obama will do a good job I hope he will get the very best military and world affairs advisors possible and listen to them. I hope he will keep Gates as Sec Def. I hope he does not let USAF General retired M. Mcpeak anywhere near the Air Force chain of command..

No hard feelings- best of luck...

[Michael]

I'm putting brains above experience when it comes to the current political situation, but I see your point about it. A year or so ago I was more interested in a more experienced candidate - Bill Richardson, but he didn't seem to have the heart for the job. We have loads of experienced idiots filling our political posts. He also is fairly new and doesn't have the stink of DC politics on him (yet) - easier to make the clean break we need with business as usual. Also I think he's an actual orator and definitely is using the styles of great black orators who built on the styles and candences of preaching. It might not be your taste or very familiar to you but should be recognizable when you hear an MLK Jr. speech.

BTW - can you show me of an example of a credible politician or leader who doesn't use rhetoric and persuasive speech (which you guys like to call NLP or hypnosis like we're all gullible and stupid)? I'm genuinely interested to see this.

Bär, I gave this a lot of thought and I did come up with something. I'm going to start another thread to discuss this. Thanks for your reply. BTW, I did make a joking reference to "Obama's NLP" on one of these threads (maybe even Test No Topic), but I didn't mean it as any slight to people who like him.

[internalenthusiast]

for those interested:

an opinion on the current situation.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... spx?page=1

Jeffrey Sachs is a director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University. He's also a professor of sustainable development and health policy and management at the school, and is a special adviser to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

i don't know mr. sachs, or the secretary general.
but it seemed pertinent to the present situation. worth a read, even if you disagree....

best to everyone...

[GrahamB]

BTW, I did make a joking reference to "Obama's NLP" on one of these threads (maybe even Test No Topic), but I didn't mean it as any slight to people who like him.

Damn right! You slight them boy and you slight ME and then we got a PROBLEM and I'm gonna GET YOU for that... damn... hiding behind your computer screen like a damn PUSSY! DAMN YOU!

[meeks]

To the money thing, if we stop warmongering but we enact vast social policies we're not really saving any money.
I guess I just don't see where the saving is coming from.

that's the point though - it's not about 'saving' money. it's about utilizing it to its best potential. Stop spending to kill people 1/2 way around the world because you want their oil claims, and use that money to house the poor, provide medical and higher education standards for your citizens? Sounds like a plan. In fact, sounds like a lot of other countries with free medical from the government. I think people that use the term "social medicine is for commies" think the US was 'fighting communism' in Vietnam instead of simply killing for profit.

[Ben]

To the money thing, if we stop warmongering but we enact vast social policies we're not really saving any money.
I guess I just don't see where the saving is coming from.

that's the point though - it's not about 'saving' money. it's about utilizing it to its best potential. Stop spending to kill people 1/2 way around the world because you want their oil claims, and use that money to house the poor, provide medical and higher education standards for your citizens? Sounds like a plan. In fact, sounds like a lot of other countries with free medical from the government. I think people that use the term "social medicine is for commies" think the US was 'fighting communism' in Vietnam instead of simply killing for profit.

Thats all find and dandy but what about the fact that we don't have the money to begin with. I'm making the point that govt spending out of control to the point that if it continues the dollar will collapse. Thats bad for us. 1.4 billion dollars a day in interest. Spending money we don't have on healthcare instead of killing people is better in one sense but a solution it is not. Its more of the cart leading the horse.

[kreese]

American needs to start developing its 'internal'.

[Steve James]

The important thing is that it shows that the system works, in spite of issue of race. There are Repub and Dem bigots, and there may always be. There are still plenty who have preconceptions about "primitive" peoples and immigrants, particularly Latinos.

Tell you one thing, though, I'd love to hear the POTUS apologize to Native Americans on behalf of the nation (i.e., Everybody else who has contributed to or benefitted from what happened to them).

It's interesting that the only post-election violence is taking place in CA, where gays are protesting the reversal of their right to legally-sanctioned marriages. The US Constitution said nothing about sexual-orientation, afaik.