|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted November 04, 2006 07:55 PM |
|
|
ROFL
You guys crack me up. Especially Consis.
-- Peacemaker, the deadbeat ex-hippie, who just spent two days in trial fighting to keep adulterated drugs off the streets....
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 04, 2006 07:57 PM |
|
|
BTW
(Returning to the purpose of this thread)
Does anybody remember me bringing up Barack Obama about two years ago?
My prediction:
He will run in 2008, but will lose only because of his lack of experience. But his campaign will project him into high visibility and position him for a victory in 2012.
This prediction might change depending on how things unfold in the next few days.
Oh, and Lith, in the United States one has to register first to vote.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted November 04, 2006 08:20 PM |
|
|
I am going to vote for CHarles barkley 
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted November 04, 2006 08:42 PM |
|
|
Peacemaker...
...i know one has to register to vote, i just fail to see any sort of logic behind it, so i was wondering if there is something i miss that makes this click
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 05, 2006 11:48 PM |
|
|
Hey Lith!
Well, the "logic" behind it was that, at some point, the waves of immigrants from various countries caused, each in its own right, a kind of racist backlash among the naturalized citizens and their descendants during the course of the twentieth century. There was a lot of jealousy and suspicion against the newly arrived by those who came before them (the U.S. has undergone many waves of millions of people coming in from all over the world, usually in large chunks from one specific location of the globe or another). The politics of this phenomenon led the United States Congress to pass increasingly stringent immigration laws, eventually to require a naturalization process before one could become a citizen (residency for a certain period was no longer sufficient). I dun really recall what year it was, but I believe it was sometime toward the early part of the Twentieth Century when immigrants started having to apply, take Engilsh classes, and be able to pass a basic civics test before being granted citizenship. We're currently undergoing a dialogue about the most recent wave coming from the South, as you might know.
One of the many citizenship acts that were passed during the last century was that one had to be a citizen before one could vote, and eventually, that one therefore had to register before one could vote, and that as a part of registration one had to prove both citizenship an residency before one could vote.
Anybody who's more up on the historical developments of this thing please feel free to chime in.
Lith (and anybody else who might question that our current dialogue about Mexican Immigrants being just the most recent of a long history of series after series of such events), go rent "Gangs of New York" and watch it. That's just for a start. Same thing happened to the Italians, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese and a whole slew of others who came in in large waves under various circumstances.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted November 06, 2006 07:36 PM |
|
|
hmmm...
while i have seen the movie and generally don't put much weight on what i see in movies (just take a few "historical" movies as example) your summary works and yeah, it does make sense... or rather, it did... even with the recent south wave as you put it, the whole system sounds outdated
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted November 06, 2006 07:57 PM |
|
|
This is kind of an ironic happening btw. Kerry was intending on running for president again in 2008. With a faux paus of this magnitude though he may just have cost himself any chance whatsoever of a repeat candidacy. This means more dollars and more resources towards the other candidates (Clinton and Obama).
I also think it's super ironic that Jeb Bush is thinking of running, considering the (never officially confirmed) deal that the Bush clan made with McCain in 2000.
EDIT:
Supposedly Hillary Clinton was furious when she found out that Kerry was planning on running again in '08. I can totally see her in my mind trying to suppress her joy at the recent events.
|
|
russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted November 06, 2006 10:33 PM |
|
Edited by russ at 17:08, 08 Nov 2006.
|
|
She'll never get elected. I can imagine some democrats voting for a conservative candidate just because they are not ready to see a woman as a president yet.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted November 06, 2006 10:40 PM |
|
|
CHARLES BARKLEY FOR PRESIDENT!!!
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 06, 2006 10:45 PM |
|
|
I Voted Today
And I'm very sorry to say that I didn't even read the information presented to me in my ballot. I was so incensed that I bubbled in every democrat that I could find. I want our soldiers to come home no matter what.
And . . . I'm fairly certain that I will not vote for Obama at this point. I have some concerns with his enthusiam for African Americans and Africans. It is a very good cause to feel compelled to help stop the African genocide wars. My problem lies with his ties to Oprah Winfrey. I believe a person who runs for president of our country should not be so focused on other countries. We have enough problems of our own. We have our own African American problems and that is only one of the many communities that make up our country. I would no more vote for Oprah to be president than I would vote for a person that was mostly focused on the Irish. An accurate American President should not represent only one community of its people. Neither should we have a person that mostly represents hispanics, native americans, asians, or even caucasian. I want a president who focuses on bridging the gaps between our ancestral differences.
In case anyone is wondering (unlikely). . . yes . . . I still believe Hillary should be president. I think she's doing a damn fine job in New York.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted November 08, 2006 07:22 AM |
|
|
It's been awhile but the democrats are taking over the house tonight.
We even got our first Speaker of the house Nancy Pelossi.
In 2008 were having a Democrat
CHARLES BARKLEY FOR PRESIDENT!!!
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 08, 2006 06:37 PM |
|
|
Don't get too excited
(-- or "The Audacity of Hope")
I must admit a certain degree of glee over the bloodbath in the Democrats' storming of the U.S. House last night. But strategically speaking, the blessing of this Democratic "victory" might be mixed at best. In the end it could prove quite hollow, and might just totally backfire against any Democratic hopes for the presidential election in 2008.
It's clear, to whomever listens to the raging wave of Republican defectors that call in and spew each morning on C-Span's Washington Journal, that this turning-of-the-tide is mainly about one thing: The war in Iraq.
Let's not forget what a mess things are in Iraq. Let's not forget that the incomprehensibly massive, ongoing screw-ups by the standing administration, the cause for the current Republican rage, have made a favorable outcome in that war nearly impossible.
And let's not forget how quickly the constituency forgets. By the time November of 2008 gets here, whoever's in charge of Congress will probably be held accountable for the then-current state of affairs, which by that time may have deteriorated to nothing short of World War III, or at least a widespread regional conflict in the Middle East teetering on such a global conflict, with Iran and Hesbollah hanging in the wings, Turkey's growing "nervousness" over an Independent Kurdistan breaking out of a disintegrating Iraq, and Syria, at the very best, "staying out of it" -- but certainly highly unlikely to help out.
So, who's fault will it be then? If history (and yesterday's Republican tantrum) is any clue as to how profoundly shallow the voting voice's reasoning can be, it will be whomever is in charge at the moment the 2008 presidential ballots are cast.
We hear the screaming angst of the Republican backlash -- "My party screwed this thing up so badly, I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it anymore!!!" But observe, listen closely, and you will hear the ominous unspoken undertone as the angry Republican mob points a trembling finger at the Dems. The implication is overwhelming: Now, YOU fix it, OR ELSE!!!
To make matters even worse, the Senate, at this minute, is hanging in the balance with a 49-49 split, with both the democratic candidates in the two remaining states -- Tester in Montana and Webb in Virginia -- apparently scraping leads of only a few thousand votes. As the hours press on during this morning-after, we sweaty-palmed, presumably pro-dem pseudo-pundits find ourselves in the awkward and totally unexpected posture of actually hoping at least one of them loses to the Republican incumbent.
Why? Many of you might ask, outraged at my alleged defection? Because, I will answer, I am a THINKING person. And I realize that a few thousand votes in Montana or Virginia could be the difference between whether the Democratic party gets held totally accountable for World War III on Election Day 2008, and therefore, whether any Democratic presidential candidate -- even Obama himself -- has any hope of overcoming the resulting mindless backlash by an apparently fickle Republican constituency.
By the way, Consis, I think you should consider the larger context of Obama's career instead of focusing on his "outing" by Oprah Winfrey. Sure, she loves him. But so do I, and I have racial issues too. She just happens to be more famous than I am. Look at his record in Congress, listen to his speeches (of which you can find many on both his website and C-Span's) and read his books. You might find that your initial impression is unduly narrow.
In fact, if you think about it, the timing and orchestration of the release of his latest book, and his appearance on one of the most popular TV programs in America, might just reveal him as his own Carl Rove, which means at least two good things: First, there will be no "Brain" behind Obama since he has one of his own. And second, he was smart enough to release his book and go on the speaking circuit just as things were heating up in the midseason election and everybody's minds were on politics. Three weeks ago practically nobody (except those of us who actually PAY ATTENTION) knew who he was. Now it's unlikely many will ever forget.
So if I were you, I would think twice before faulting him one of the most brilliant political moves I've seen by any Dem in about forty years. He talked about what Oprah cares about because she was the one interviewing him. But she's not the only one who's ever interviewed him. Perhaps you should look into a few of those other interviews as well.
Of course I did tell you all, about two years ago, that Obama was that good, and I did tell you that it was a virtual certainty he would be president by the year 2012. Now didn't I?
But then of course, three years ago I also assured all of you that if we invaded Iraq, within three years there would be a virtual certainty of civil war, eventuating by the end of this decade in a regional conflict of a kind more dangerous to the interests of global security than anything ever seen by modern humankind.
Let's just hope I'm wrong about that last part. Unfortunaly I 've been on the right track so far about both of the other two.
It's not looking good, folks.
There's at least one good thing to come out of yesterday's referendum on the War: The world community might just recognize that the American public should not be held accountable for the narcissistic disease currently occupying the White House and its international "policies." Perhaps they will be more forgiving if they realize the vast difference between the humans occupying this country, and its pathetic, increasingly reviled president.
Perhaps they will not hate us quite so much if they realize that, although a bit slow on the uptake, we finally figured it out.
Yours Independently --
PEACEMAKER
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted November 08, 2006 08:23 PM |
|
|
You just gave the many reasons why yourself.
I am not as worried as I would of been from the reasons you stated about the screw ups & our soldiers STILL in Iraq & the lies.
Publicly speaking of the president in such a way.
I am not worried that the democrats will take over.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 08, 2006 09:20 PM |
|
|
A minor example of why I love Obama :
In an interview on NPR.
Interviewer : Now, you're a pretty ambitious guy obviously, how do you balance your own ego with doing public service blah blah blah.
Correct answer (which Obama did not give) : Oh, being in public office is all about public service, this job is so hard nobody would do it for egotistical reasons (*interviewer and interviewee chuckle together knowingly*). If I was out for glory I would have been an actor or a musician or a businessman, hahaha. This is all for the public good.
What Obama said : That's something that I always have to be watching myself on. I try to always keep asking myself, "am I doing this out of vanity or out of desire to do good." etc. etc.
Anyway, that's a candid answer and one that's actually honest.
(I also like that he said "Of course I inhaled. That was the point.")
If the senate switches hands, it will improve both Obama's and Clinton's presidential bids since they will be able to point to legislation that they passed.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
the_gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted November 08, 2006 10:19 PM |
|
|
Dems win, bort posts, and Rumsfeld freaking resigns!? Woot!! Yay!! Zomg!!! Oh fortuitous day!!!
As for Obama, he's one of Illinois' finest. Fact is we've got two all star senators representing us(Dick Durbin being the other). Sucks to be the rest of you mere mortals. At best you might get 'one' decent senator.
In response to Peacemaker though, I read an article, probably from The New York Review of Books concerning why the Senate is not a successful breeding ground for aspiring presidents. The argument that was laid out was that senators screw themselves with all the compromises they have to make. Their voting record is always fodder for critics. Given a chance to think about it, I found it to be very credible.
Therefore, I think it would actually be a good idea for Obama to take a shot in '08. If he's ever going to consider running he needs to get out of the very Senate that would in fact sully his reputation the longer he's in.
Assuming the Dems don't mishandle this gift the Republicans gave them, you will have a bright and energetic leadership in both houses of Congress come '08; Pelosi in the House and I'm assuming Clinton in the Senate. Pelosi is a terrific leader in the Lyndon Johnson mold who has beaten a unity into the Dems that I can't remember ever happening before in my lifetime. The next two years will be telling and very interesting.
And as for Consis' feeling that a man from a multi-ethnic background is somehow less capable of bridging the racial divide than say, rich white descendants from the W.A.S.P.s that sailed over here, I have a question for you.
Head or gut?
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 09, 2006 05:04 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 05:06, 09 Nov 2006.
|
Well . . .
Mid-terms are over. There is a problem however . . . I relate it to the conversation I received shortly before the election with a campaign caller from the democratic party. It went some thing like this:
Democratic Caller: "We hope you decide to keep the Iraq war in mind when voting."
Me: "Look lady, it's all I can think about. Do you understand? I have neighbors and they have children. I have my own children. I don't want them to die in Iraq anymore than I do some of our finest soldiers that are there today."
Caller: "I understand sir."
Me: "I don't think you do understand so I'm going to tell you what I think." (She didn't hang up for some reason--I expected her to bolt at the first sign of ranting) "When Iraq happened I looked to the senate to stop it by resolute voting. When that didn't happened I felt there was nothing I could do. I sat around and began to stew and wallow in my own of frustration. Some years go by and I see some real idiots come forward to speak out against the war after they had already voted for it in the senate. Then I see some retarded mother who's son died in Iraq and went on to tell President Bush to his face that she had forgiven him. Then she becomes part of the group of morons protesting the war. One after another, as if recruited from the same foolish can of sardines as the likes of Michael Moore . . . people surface to speak out. I respect their right to express their opinion. But still I feel, as do many, like there isn't a darned thing I can do. Civilian contractors are being beheaded in Iraq. The military can't help them. Ordinary people can't help them. I want to help . . . but how? Hurricane Katrina hits New orleans and for the first time I see regular average everday Americans not taking orders from anyone simply uprooting and doing everything in their power to lend aid and support to our fellow Americans in need. As I watch the wholesale devastation and insurance frauds and government failure unfold on t.v. . . . I come to a decision in my mind. I have decided that maybe a person can do something. The government seems to be in an ivy league beehive of political web-weaving its own, off limits to a highschool graduate commoner like myself. Nobody cares what I think at this point. Well not anymore! I am so upset that I've decided to do something that is absolutely not a good idea. I'M GOING TO VOTE ANYTHING I CAN THAT SAYS DEMOCRAT WITHOUT READING A SINGLE LINE OF INFORMATION."
Caller: "That's wonderful! Good for you!"
Me: "No it's not good. It means I've been pushed and shoved into voting for my enemy: ignorance. Through this method I might actually vote for a completely negligent candidate and not know it. It means I've stopped thinking rationally. I want our boys to come home so bad that I just don't care anymore. I love my children, I love my neighbors' children, and we were never attacked."
The mid-term elections are over. Democrats seem to be winning. The problem with this is the democrats are thinking that they've done something right. Well I'm here to say that I'm a registered democrat and I don't think we've done things right. I simply voted for them because I want our soldiers home. We can work on deflating the democratic party's ego after our men and women return with honor.
Quote:
Consis, I think you should consider the larger context of Obama's career instead of focusing on his "outing" by Oprah Winfrey. Sure, she loves him. But so do I, and I have racial issues too. She just happens to be more famous than I am. Look at his record in Congress, listen to his speeches (of which you can find many on both his website and C-Span's) and read his books. You might find that your initial impression is unduly narrow.
In fact, if you think about it, the timing and orchestration of the release of his latest book, and his appearance on one of the most popular TV programs in America, might just reveal him as his own Carl Rove, which means at least two good things: First, there will be no "Brain" behind Obama since he has one of his own. And second, he was smart enough to release his book and go on the speaking circuit just as things were heating up in the midseason election and everybody's minds were on politics. Three weeks ago practically nobody (except those of us who actually PAY ATTENTION) knew who he was. Now it's unlikely many will ever forget.
So if I were you, I would think twice before faulting him one of the most brilliant political moves I've seen by any Dem in about forty years. He talked about what Oprah cares about because she was the one interviewing him. But she's not the only one who's ever interviewed him. Perhaps you should look into a few of those other interviews as well.
Perhaps you and bort are right. I don't know for certain. Perhaps America's future and greatness lies in what it can do in Africa. I am uncertain. I will continue to pay attention to Obama. Perhaps we can all find salvation in Darfur.
Quote:
Of course I did tell you all, about two years ago, that Obama was that good, and I did tell you that it was a virtual certainty he would be president by the year 2012. Now didn't I?
Actually, I believe that bragging right is reserved for bort. He said it first.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 09, 2006 06:12 PM |
|
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 09, 2006 07:47 PM |
|
|
Whoa There Nelly!
I may be the first to mention Obama at HC but bort was the first to mention his possible 2012 presidential bid. All I did was refer to his cool keynote speech at the 04' democratic convention. And it was pretty darn cool if I may say so. He is a skinny kid with a funny name. And . . . I do like him but what does it mean for everyone who isn't of African descent if he got elected President? If you're focused on breaking the invisible racial presidential barrier then that's fine but I'd still be more likely to vote for Colin Powell. I haven't seen him be partial to any specific ethnic group. I also felt like he truly is sorry for his speech to the U.N. I have since forgiven him on a personal level. I think he deserves a second chance. I don't know why people are so focused on breaking that racial barrier for president. I think it'll be broken in time, but I don't see Powell running for office right now. If I was gonna vote for a black man as president, Powell would be my first choice. He's a good man that doesn't seem to be blinded by a grandeur dream to save Africa.
Sure it's good to save Africa but I don't see those people trying hard enough. That's fine if we want to help but the change must ultimately come from within its own peoples' hearts. That's one of the things I love about our country. Nobody gave us any sort of silver spoon when we were a fledgling 13-colony nation. We fought and fought and fought for our survival. We didn't suddenly decide to wipe out the irish, english, or any other nordic-speaking peoples. Those African persons and organized factions need to take responsibility for their own choice to wage genocide upon their OWN FLESH AND BLOOD ANCESTRALLY BORN NEIGHBORS. I don't see it happening. All I see are refugee camps and marauding islamic fascist scum with minds as blunt and ugly as the machettis they wield in exacting their own form of repugnant infamous injustice.
Yes I'm more than willing to send them bags of food and supplies but that's all I'm willing to do.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 09, 2006 09:32 PM |
|
|
Obama is as black as he is white. He has 1 white parent and 1 black parent. It's interesting that that means he must be characterized as a black man rather than as "Barrack."
It's similar with Tiger Woods who if I remember correctly is actually a greater percentage Southeast Asian than Black. However, he's characterized as a black man rather than as "Tiger."
Sort of like how so few people realize that Bill Richardson is hispanic.
I'm mixed racial myself and get people identifying me as either white, asian, occasionally hispanic and very occasionally, mixed.
This is not a criticism of anyone in this thread, it's simply an observation on how our society defines race that interests me.
As far as what it would mean to anyone who is not African American if Obama was elected, best I can tell, Senator Obama has not instituted any "Kill Whitey" policies in Illinois either as State or as National Senator. (He may have been responsible for that "Kill the Inuit" bill, but since it was done by voice vote nobody can really track who did what on that one).
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted November 10, 2006 02:25 AM |
|
|
Yeah . . .
I've thought about it quite a bit. It has been on my mind constantly. I don't have any answers but I do have a theory that is best resigned to killing this thread. In a nutshell . . . I'm talking about what the significance of American perspectives of racism in regards to a global set of clear differences.
There's no point to me posting my theory here. I'm all too well versed and aware of my own ignominious thread-killing habits. I was simply recognizing a fear of mine for any presidential candidate who had seemed more focused on saving his/her racial ethnic ancestral homeland rather than the America that nurtured him/her into whom they are today.
THE THREAD MUST GO ON!
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
