President-elect of the United States: Barack Obama

[RationalInquirer]

It's been several days since Senator Obama won the 2008 election. My congratulations go to him. For this election was a defining moment in American history and a strong emblem for African Americans everywhere. Not only has the racial and political divide that permeated the United States up to now been severly weakened by the election of America's first black President, but the Democrats now hold sway over the parties long held by the Republicans. Americans have redeemed themselves (to a certain extent) in the international image by showing that-in the end the color of skin- did not really matter for the position of the highest office in the land. However, as everyone knows, there is still much to accomplish for America's new President. The global economic system is plunging into one of the largest recessions since the Great Depression, and the strife in the Middle East shows no sign of drawing to a responsible end.

Nevertheless, as a Canadian I, and everybody else I'm sure, hope for these issues to be resolved by President-elect Obama and the cooperation of other world leaders. The years are tough ahead for many people because of George Bush's reign (er-I meant Presidency). I am personally glad that Obama won. Although I if McCain was elected instead, he wouldn't probably be a terrible President, his appointment of the much uninformed and unready Sarah Palin as the candidate for Vice President was a fatal mistake for the Republican party and his campaign. This has caused the American people to doubt his judgement and proficiency in running the country. There are of course more factors than just Palin involved in McCain's lost: including his wavering focus on the economic crisis, personal attack ads against Obama regarding terrorist relations, and his comparison to George Bush's policies (voting with him 90% of the time and so on).

I wonder what the members of the forum have to respond about this election and about Obama, McCain, or Bush? What are your thoughts and opinions about the future(especially if you live in the US).

UPDATE: It has appeared that Faux News have found their scapegoat for the loss of the McCain campaign. They are throwing Sarah Palin under the bus without mercy. You can't help but feel a bit of sympathy for her (until you realiize that she doesn't know that Africa is a continent). Remember, although the accusations against her by the McCain campaign can be true. The media should not always be trusted-especially Fox Noise!. It's funny that they kept this information from us until AFTER the election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc (Fox News: Palin didn't know Africa was a continent video)

Incidentally, did anyone see this video? It's hilarious and well done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzyT9-9lUyE&feature=bz301

[Tatterdemalion]

Oh no, not politics.Not only has the racial and political divide that permeated the United States up to now been severly weakened by the election of America's first black President, but the Democrats now hold sway over the parties long held by the Republicans.
That's not a good thing. For any one (or even two) philosophies to hold power is to create a breeding ground for corruption, due not only to the unrestriction of authority, but because the lack of difference creates a lack of the ability of growth in ideas, and in turn growth in policy.Americans have redeemed themselves (to a certain extent) in the international image by showing that-in the end the color of skin- did not really matter for the position of the highest office in the land.
Which goes to show how fickle the international community is. We haven't done anything to redeem ourselves, we haven't changed in any way, we haven't suddenly made up for anything that America could be held responsible for. Don't praise America, we haven't done anything worthy of it.

I think that's all I'll say for now. If you'reinterested, some of my views on American politics are expressed in the Sarah Palin thread.

[OverMind]

Generally, I find the American election results interesting (heck, they would've been interesting regardless of which party won) and, like RationalInquirer, many Canadians are quite welcoming of Obama taking the presidency (we tend to lean a little bit more to the left here, not all mind you, just generally).

This is strange because from our own federal election, which occured just recently, we elected to keep the Conservative party (analogous to the Republican party) in power. It seems that whenever we've had a shift in conservative government here, Americans tend to have a liberal one (not that there's a correlation, it's just an odd coincidence I guess).Which goes to show how fickle the international community is. We haven't done anything to redeem ourselves, we haven't changed in any way, we haven't suddenly made up for anything that America could be held responsible for. Don't praise America, we haven't done anything worthy of it.
Well, I think that's being a little too overly pessimistic, no? Of course, I agree that one day (i.e. the day of the election) will do little to simply reverse the near-decade of Republican policy that has shaped America (and garnered disdain from the international community), but it's a start and that's why some praise is merited. And, of course, change needs to start somewhere and all of us non-Americans are hoping that it starts when Obama is officially in the White House.

I'm not predicting the future since, for all we know, Obama could be the worse thing to happen to the US. From what little I know about American history there have been great Presidents of which not much was expected of them, and then there have been Presidents with so much potential but somehow have failed to deliver. I guess we're all just holding out on hope which, if you think about it, really isn't anything.

But, this election did show that the United States, a country with overly right-wing policies and other peculiarities that distance it from others in the developed world, achieved something that we have yet to see in other developed countries; a minority president. Sure this seems like common fact but, take a step back and think about it, it's mind-boggling. As RationalInquirer mentioned, the racial divide that existed in the US is on the level not even approached by other developed countries, like Canada. Yet, somehow, there's now a black (or, if you want to be specific, bi-racial ... still a minority) President. A traditionally more liberal country like Canada has yet to elect an ethnic minority to the Prime Minister position.

This gives credence to the American Dream in that, if you work hard, anything is possible. No doubt Obama had to work hard in a system that is, arguably, far from perfect and he managed to succeed. It's things like this that, when you think about them, gives us faith that better times are coming.

[DarkWarrior]

I've just absolutely given up hope for America at this point. When people are willing to elect a socialist into a Democratic government, there is nothing good that can come from that. Especially when most of the people voting for him because of his race, and how the rest of the world will view us because we elected a member of a minority group into the presidency. Worse, that other people don't even know anything about what was going on, and only voted for him because celebrities have brainwashed people into believing that whatever the celebrities want is what is best for America.

Race played too much a role in this election. To such an extent that it swayed where the vote went. Guess what? We haven't succeeded in rising above racial prejudices and equal treatment for people of all races. Special treatment is not equal treatment, and anyone who says that this election is proof that America has moved away from racism is very very wrong.

[RationalInquirer]

Although I respect your opinions DarkWarrior, to echo OverMind, perhaps your being to pessimistic. I know that Obama will not be able to please everybody (impossible task for any politician) but the American people have given a long length of rope to the Republican party, and it is unfortunate that Bush and some of his predecessors have tarnished the reputation and original goal of the GOP. The Republicans have leaned far too much on the conservative right. And despite the mistake of invading Iraq, the American people re-elected that monkey into office. They gave Bush extra rope...and then he hung all of us with it <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley4.png'> . The citizens of the United States did not vote for Obama because of skin colour (well the majority didn't, otherwise he would have lost-many people would have prefered a white president in America it was tradition). I am assuming they voted for Obama because they gave this election more thought than they did previous ones. This is unfortunate because EVERY election, especially at the federal level should have more thought put into it. The voter turnout is expected to be higher than previous elections. Americans were probably are fed up with the Repulicans being in power for 8 incompetent years and screwing up under the Bush Administration. You can't forget Sarah Palin either. Her appointment disappointed many Republicans. They already disliked McCain a bit because of his 'maverick' policies and attitude. Palin was a double punch to the gut. Some Republican officials voted for Obama instead of McCain because of her. After the Katie Couric interviews and several others (ex. Lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine, Foreign and National Policy, Newspapers read, Being Excorcised by a witchdoctor, belief that the Vice President controls the Senate, Quebec prank call, shopping spree, able to see Russia from house, not knowing the countries in NAFTA, confusion over Africa as a continent, etc...). Let's face it, some weeks before the election, the McCain campaign targetted Obama for having ties with Bill Ayers-a domestic terrorist-when he was only 8 years old! This had nothing to do with the current economic crisis. Which Obama spent addressing for the rest of the weeks. Of course Obama took the attacks and did not really retaliate until much later when he began accusing McCain of being another George Bush. Obama may lack in experience compared to McCain in some areas, but in the case of Palin (who could be a 72 year old heartbeat away of the Presidency) Joe Biden at least has a broader knowledge and is ready to become Vice President.

[OverMind]

When people are willing to elect a socialist into a Democratic government, there is nothing good that can come from that.
I find this statement ... strange. Tell me, what's wrong with socialism? Is it bad even when implemented moderately? I find it funny how you emphasize "Democratic goverment" as if you are implying that socialism, at any level, is incompaitable with Democracy. Or maybe I'm just reading too much in-between the lines.Especially when most of the people voting for him because of his race, and how the rest of the world will view us because we elected a member of a minority group into the presidency.
Okay, fine, I'll buy the argument that some people may have voted for Obama by resorting to the race card. But, honestly, are you telling me that the majority of the citizens of the United States decided, on a whim, that the most important position in government should be given to an individual because he looks different and not necessarily because he's qualified for it? I'm sure that most voters are a little bit smarter than you give them credit for.Worse, that other people don't even know anything about what was going on, and only voted for him because celebrities have brainwashed people into believing that whatever the celebrities want is what is best for America.
I believe celebrities were endorsing candidates on both sides of the political field.Race played too much a role in this election. To such an extent that it swayed where the vote went. Guess what? We haven't succeeded in rising above racial prejudices and equal treatment for people of all races. Special treatment is not equal treatment, and anyone who says that this election is proof that America has moved away from racism is very very wrong.
So, wait, you're telling me that Obama got elected based on reverse discrimination instigated by the majority white population of the USA? OK, I honestly think you're looking too much into the race aspect of the .. er, race. If Obama had lost, I'm sure the race argument could be used in another way (i.e. Obama lost "just because he's black", etc.).

But, you are correct in that racism still exists in the US. But isn't electing a black President a great milestone in fixing the overall problem? Great progress has been made in mending the race problem and something like this is a clear sign that we're heading in the right direction.

[DarkWarrior]

Actually, I dispute some of these points. Some are valid, others are not.

#1) People were not angry that the Republicans leaned to the right. That they would do so was a given before they were elected. How they spent their term in office, and the fact that W. was president and a Republican was what did them in. The right-wing policies had nothing to do with that.

#2) In many discussions I've had with Obama supporters, many have said that "Even without all these differences in issues, I'd still vote Obama because he's black, and it would show I'm not racist." And that's with people who care about the issues. Now, throw in people who don't care about the issues, and then you have a whole other group who vote Obama for that reason. And when I can ask a person why they voted for Obama, and they respond saying that since Oprah liked him, he must then be a pretty good guy, that more than implies general celebrity brainwashing.

#3) Palin's appointment actually disappointed Republicans who are rather shaky at best, and tend to agree with the Democrats on a lot more of the issues than general right-wing Republicans. A lot of people actually liked her. However, the Republican party is so disorganized, that contentment was not widely known.

#4) The economic crisis was a big thing on people's minds. I'll grant this. But now look at what power the president holds over the economic situation. It's nonexistant. If people actually put real thought into it, they'd realize "Wait, Obama can't fix the economy as president. Nor can McCain." But no. People don't think beyond what benefits them, or what they perceive would benefit them.

All the arguments supplied here really just show what got the left-wing Democrats out there, and not the Republican base.

Also, as far as skepticism goes, the country is brainwashed by the media. When the media says that the US was united when the vote was about 52-53% in favor of Obama, and W. won out by only slightly less than that and the country was called divided, and now people are celebrating Obama's victory as if the entire country agreed it was a good thing, there's a problem.


EDIT:I find this statement ... strange. Tell me, what's wrong with socialism? Is it bad even when implemented moderately? I find it funny how you emphasize "Democratic goverment" as if you are implying that socialism, at any level, is incompaitable with Democracy. Or maybe I'm just reading too much in-between the lines.
Hmm, maybe I should have been a bit more specific. Democratic government and capitalist economy. Which socialism is very much in direct conflict with. Sure there are one or two areas where you could merge the two, but when you have a president who wishes (Though does not have the power to do so without Congress being involved) to implement his socialist ideals (You can not tell me his taxation of people with $150,000 made a year - yes, down from $250,000, see where this is heading now? - is not socialism. There is no way that this isn't.) into the actual economy, then we see a problem, and it directly contradicts what a democratic state with a capitalist economy is.Okay, fine, I'll buy the argument that some people may have voted for Obama by resorting to the race card. But, honestly, are you telling me that the majority of the citizens of the United States decided, on a whim, that the most important position in government should be given to an individual because he looks different and not necessarily because he's qualified for it? I'm sure that most voters are a little bit smarter than you give them credit for.
Frankly, no, I don't think that they deserve more credit than was given. I can't count the number of times that race was included as a reason to vote for him. It should never have been brought up on either side! As long as race is an issue, at all, then there's a certain degree of credibility that people lose. I honestly do not believe a lot of people knew what they were doing, and voted in the minority candidate simply because he was the minority.I believe celebrities were endorsing candidates on both sides of the political field.
I hate it either way. But which side got more coverage on that front?So, wait, you're telling me that Obama got elected based on reverse discrimination instigated by the majority white population of the USA? OK, I honestly think you're looking too much into the race aspect of the .. er, race. If Obama had lost, I'm sure the race argument could be used in another way (i.e. Obama lost "just because he's black", etc.).
Yes, in the reverse situation, it could be. And that's the problem. Race should not ever be an issue. Period.
But, you are correct in that racism still exists in the US. But isn't electing a black President a great milestone in fixing the overall problem? Great progress has been made in mending the race problem and something like this is a clear sign that we're heading in the right direction.
I'd disagree, because people voted for him based on what other people might view them as, and not because they honestly thought he would be a good president.


Frankly, I wish people would have stopped looking at his race, and actually read up on how a lot of popular socialists (and many other negative regimes, but I'm not here to compare the big names, just prove a point) got into power and corrupted their government. By sweet-talking and promises of wealth spreading and a glorious future where everyone had equal everything. And it never ever happened quite that way.

[Tatterdemalion]

When people are willing to elect a socialist into a Democratic government, there is nothing good that can come from that.
Yeah, because we all know that democracy and socialism directly conflict with one another. That's why there are no democratic governments in the world that have socialist tendencies, and policies like public welfare programs or socialized healthcare are never a product of popular support. Denmark is a dictatorship.

[RationalInquirer]

#2) In many discussions I've had with Obama supporters, many have said that "Even without all these differences in issues, I'd still vote Obama because he's black, and it would show I'm not racist." And that's with people who care about the issues. Now, throw in people who don't care about the issues, and then you have a whole other group who vote Obama for that reason. And when I can ask a person why they voted for Obama, and they respond saying that since Oprah liked him, he must then be a pretty good guy, that more than implies general celebrity brainwashing.
Yes I agree with you DarkWarrior on #2 the media has brainwashed the nation-a great deal of it anyways. I to have encountered people who voted for Obama just because some pundit or talk show host said so and that he was black. I have also met people who would not vote for Obama simply because he was black. The two sides of the sprectrum still exist strongly in America and they are fueled by the corporate media. As for Obama being a socialist, I will agree with you that his spread the wealth idea may displease many people in a democratic system like Canada or United States. However, I've met people from Sweden (one of the most well known socialist systems) who are very happy with their lives being more or less controlled by the government. They receive benefits like free healthcare and so forth. I'm not saying that socialism is the best system out there as it has many flaws of it's own including limited influence in managing institutions and trade from the citizens. It all depends in whether you were born and raised in a socialist country or a democratic country. The socialist systems will be very alien and unfamiliar to the point of distaste for the democratic citizen and the socialist citizen will feel the same way about democracy.

[metroid119]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh5bTtPa3aA
this answers it basically

[killshot]

I honestly do not believe a lot of people knew what they were doing, and voted in the minority candidate simply because he was the minority.
I think you are giving people too little credit. Obama may have received votes from blacks who don't usually participate in the election, but this alone wouldn't be enough to win the presidency. I think Obama's victory had more to do with people being fed up with Bush's policies and Obama's campaign did a great job of tying McCain to Bush. Frankly, I wish people would have stopped looking at his race, and actually read up on how a lot of popular socialists (and many other negative regimes, but I'm not here to compare the big names, just prove a point) got into power and corrupted their government. By sweet-talking and promises of wealth spreading and a glorious future where everyone had equal everything. And it never ever happened quite that way.
Obama is not a socialist. Even if he was, is that in itself a bad thing? One of McCain's major criticisms of Obama is that he wanted to "spread the wealth." Unless you are one of the richest people in America, this is a good thing. The current system is no longer working. The rich have profited from the poor for so long that the poor no longer have the money to support the wealthy.

Are you honestly saying that every socialist government is doomed to fail? If so, there are several European countries that would like a word with you.

[darkarcher]

The rich have profited from the poor for so long that the poor no longer have the money to support the wealthy.
Wut?

Let's discuss a bit of economic theory. The income tax system in America is progressive, meaning that people who make more pay more money in taxes on their personal income. These taxes in turn are used in governmental programs like schooling, poverty programs, and more, all of which benefit the lower percentages of America. When everything is balanced between what the government takes from people and the government gives to people, people in poverty actually receive more money in benefits than they pay in taxes. In this sense, the poor are not supporting the wealthy, in fact it is the exact opposite.

To sort of summarize my point, there's an economic policy used to evaluate the income gap called quintiles, where the entire population is divided into 5 blocks depending on personal wealth. In these quintiles, the most wealthy 20% of America pay more than half of the nation's income tax, whereas the net taxation of the lowest 40% of America is negative.

EDIT: Sorry to be nitpicky, but I just wanted to address that.

On-topic, I don't really care to talk about the election once it's over with, since all the theorizing in the world can't really tell you how things could have turned out if other things had gone differently.

[OverMind]

I think killshot was pointing out that, since the system is not perfect, there are loopholes that the rich can use to pay less taxes than they are "supposed to" which would then, effectively, make the burden fall onto the hands of the common people.

From Wikipedia (link here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett) under section "Public Stances"; it is citing an issue of Forbes Magazine), the entry states about Warren Buffet:Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes, while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less money
In this case, the mere 19% of income Buffet lost in taxes is a mere fraction of his overall total income while the 33% lost by his employees (i.e. common people) is more significant to them. Basically, after taxes, who has a bigger dent in their income?

I don't claim to know much about economics (in fact, I'd say it's something that I don't understand at all) and I can't provide a list of taxation loopholes that are being exploited. From what little I know, corporations (which are seen as entities, like people) are taxed less so would it not be surprising that some of America's elite are funneling their own money to take advantage of this? Of course, common people don't have this luxury.

So, yes, darkarcher I agree the system, ideally, should work the way you've stated. But, realistically, I think that at least some of the rich are getting a better deal at the cost of the average American taxpayer.

[lukeh]

Obama is going to get assassinated. Everyone knows it. But on the bright side, Joe Biden would be a good president.

[OverMind]

Obama is going to get assassinated. Everyone knows it.
That's strange. I did not know this. Did anyone else know this? I must have missed a meeting or something.

Tell me, how will this assassination take place? Who will be the perpetrators? And, most important of all, if everyone knows it's going to happen, won't the Secret Service take more precautions to avert it?

This is the US Government after all who, after facing four presidential assassinations, must know a thing or two about protecting their head of state.

[SilverFox]

I don't live in the US, but I'd like to say I'm relieved that other crazy old guy didn't win, that would have been so predictable.
Either Hillary or Obama would have been a win, they can soothe america's global public image back into the green.

[DarkWarrior]

How is McCain crazy? He was moderate in a lot of things.

Hillary is the crazy power-hungry one, and Obama is the socialist. I'd much quicker classify them as crazy.

Also, to hell with what the rest of the world thinks of the US. We should not vote in people because of how other people perceive us, but because that person would be best for the country, and people like Hillary and Obama are not good for this country.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Hillary is the crazy power-hungry one
It's true. I was not a fan. >.>
Also, to hell with what the rest of the world thinks of the US.
I agree with this too. I mean people are going to hate us regardless. I mean, maybe the rest of the world loved Obama, but if he screws up, they'll just go back to hating us. Really, the rest of the world will hate us whether we do or don't do anything. :/

[OverMind]

Whoa, okay.How is McCain crazy? He was moderate in a lot of things.

Hillary is the crazy power-hungry one, and Obama is the socialist. I'd much quicker classify them as crazy.
I gather that you don't like the Democratic party much. Also, you're throwing around the term "socialist" like it's an insult. I can understand the problems of extreme socialism (communism? I'm pretty sure Obama isn't a Communist), but moderate socialism?

Is all socialism really that bad?Also, to hell with what the rest of the world thinks of the US.
Fair enough. Though, as a counter-point, can you really blame the rest of the world for having opinions concerning the world's only superpower whose policies actually affect them in some way? For instance, the US is Canada's largest trading partner. Is that not enough reason for Canadians to comment on American politics?We should not vote in people because of how other people perceive us, but because that person would be best for the country, and people like Hillary and Obama are not good for this country.
Flawed statement. What if Obama is good for the United States? Apparently, the majority of Americans think so. That's why he was elected democratically in the first place, right? I mean people are going to hate us regardless. I mean, maybe the rest of the world loved Obama, but if he screws up, they'll just go back to hating us. Really, the rest of the world will hate us whether we do or don't do anything. :/
Well, you're probably right, the "rest of the world will hate" you guys if Obama screws up ... but what'd you expect? I think you guys are looking a little too close to home and forgetting that the US is very influential on the world stage. If the US "screws up", the hate derives from the international community getting "screwed over."

But, let's say this doesn't happen and Obama is a good president, are you telling me the rest of the world will still hate the US? That seems unjustified. What reason would they have?

[DarkWarrior]

I gather that you don't like the Democratic party much. Also, you're throwing around the term "socialist" like it's an insult. I can understand the problems of extreme socialism (communism? I'm pretty sure Obama isn't a Communist), but moderate socialism?
I do not trust a socialist to moderately apply the few good aspects socialism has. I would expect them to introduce more of it than is necessary. Plus, the few socialist programs we have (welfare immediately comes to mind), are being handled in such a terrible way, and are so broken, that they need fixing before we introduce more of it, and, honestly, I don't want to see anything beyond what is absolutely necessary.Fair enough. Though, as a counter-point, can you really blame the rest of the world for having opinions concerning the world's only superpower whose policies actually affect them in some way? For instance, the US is Canada's largest trading partner. Is that not enough reason for Canadians to comment on American politics?
If people actually cared, maybe, but most are following the "hate-Bush" bandwagon, and not really thinking things through.Flawed statement. What if Obama is good for the United States?
Socialism, sex-ed in kindergarten, Support for the "Freedom of choice act" (When abortion is already legal, but would effectively cut off such things as a parent's right to be notified of a dependent's going into surgery, among other things), and a "civillian police force" (secret police, essentially). No, that's not bad for the US at all.Apparently, the majority of Americans think so. That's why he was elected democratically in the first place, right?
Media brainwashing isn't democratically elected. I do not believe this was a fair election by any means, for reasons given previously.

[OverMind]

I do not trust a socialist to moderately apply the few good aspects socialism has. I would expect them to introduce more of it than is necessary. Plus, the few socialist programs we have (welfare immediately comes to mind), are being handled in such a terrible way, and are so broken, that they need fixing before we introduce more of it, and, honestly, I don't want to see anything beyond what is absolutely necessary.
I really think you're painting the Democratic party as being more left-wing than it really is. It's not as if they're going to turn the US into a Communist state. Okay, so, let's say a few social programs are "broken", does that mean the government should eliminate social programs altogether?If people actually cared, maybe, but most are following the "hate-Bush" bandwagon, and not really thinking things through.
An opinion's an opinion and it's valid even if it conflicts with yours. Granted, perhaps some aren't thinking it through and are in fact unjustly "hating Bush", but how many? Can you name me a percentage? You seem to arbitrarily painting the majority of those that are anti-Bush as ignorant.Socialism, sex-ed in kindergarten, Support for the "Freedom of choice act" (When abortion is already legal, but would effectively cut off such things as a parent's right to be notified of a dependent's going into surgery, among other things), and a "civillian police force" (secret police, essentially). No, that's not bad for the US at all.
These are just policies you disagree with. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate and say that I agree with them and that, in fact, they may actually benefit the US. And now we've arrived at an impasse.Media brainwashing isn't democratically elected. I do not believe this was a fair election by any means, for reasons given previously.
What would have made it more fair? If, indeed, the media is "brainwashing" everyone, are you suggesting that come election time, the media should be barred from presenting information pertaining to it?

[MrsSallyBakura]

Obama could always change his mind about certain policies...

I mean, I'm pretty sure he'll realize that he can't get all the soldiers out of Iraq within 16 months. I know people in the Military who say that it's a terrible strategy.

As for the Freedom of Choice Act, I hope he changes his mind about that too. There's an official petition going around it already has at least 100,000 signatures (probably a ton more since the last time I visited the site, which was over a week ago).

It may seem like he supports all these radically liberal policies, but president-elects don't always keep their promises. Reality hits and things change.

[SilverFox]

You do realise France and Russia had a deal with Saddam for Iraq's oil, and Bush screwed them over on purpose....

btw I for one don't hate America as such, I like it more than my own country in a majority of ways, but I dislike things like the way the government and media combine to manipulate people into buying stuff, they seem to be more into it than other countries. On another note, I prefer to buy imported products, purely because they are higher quality 95% of the time, and when I see 'Made in the USA' I know it's a going to last, like my pricey manual can opener ^.^

[KuroStarr]

You do realise France and Russia had a deal with Saddam for Iraq's oil, and Bush screwed them over on purpose....
Really?
Wow, it seems our government lies to us quite a bit.
. . .
Never trusted em' anyways...

I don't like really like Obama, some of his veiws I have to disagree with. He wants to move our soldiers to Pakistan....Which is a bad idea.
He also wants to take away gun rights, I heard.
But nothing in U.S.A government moves fast-so I hope in that he will reconsider in that time being.

[killshot]

He also wants to take away gun rights, I heard.
Obama has never mentioned anything of the sort. In fact, he has made several statements to the contrary.

[MrsSallyBakura]

People just assume that he's anti-gun because he's a liberal.

Liberals can have a conservative viewpoint or two... it doesn't, like, bend the crux of the universe or anything.

[Skarphedin]

I don't like really like Obama, some of his veiws I have to disagree with. He wants to move our soldiers to Pakistan....Which is a bad idea.
You're confusing Pakistan with Afghanistan.

Obama also seems to be much more moderate than I first gave him credit for.

[KuroStarr]

Obama has never mentioned anything of the sort. In fact, he has made several statements to the contrary.
Keyword is 'I heard'...You're confusing Pakistan with Afghanistan.

Nope. Pretty sure its Pakistan.

[Skarphedin]

So in addition to the two we're already a part of, Obama is intending to start a third conflict in the Middle East by occupying not just another sovereign country, but one with nuclear weapons? I certainly haven't heard this anywhere. What he has said is that he may consider continuing Bush's cross border strikes into Pakistan's tribal areas to root out terrorists though.

[KuroStarr]

What he has said is that he may consider continuing Bush's cross border strikes into Pakistan's tribal areas to root out ter.rorists though.
Thats what I meant. Many people believe that the t errorism is in Pakistan.

[I apologize for the 4-kids censoring...I'm at my aunt and uncles house and they have set the computer so that it is 'appropriate' for their children.]

[metroid119]

is there not a problem with obamas so called "marxist left" voting style he showed as a senetor?
or how bout his statement "my dughters shouldnt be punished with a baby"???
is there something wrong with turning the united states into a border line communist nation?
will there be change and will it be the change that we need?
did anybody really think about who barack obama really is of a person before they voted for them?

[Skarphedin]

First of all, Wall O' Textis there not a problem with obamas so called "marxist left" voting style he showed as a senetor?
Second, Marxism is a bit of an outdated term, so you need to at the very least back up what you say. Affixing labels to whomever you're talking about in order to attach shock value to your argument is simply demonizing them.or how bout his statement "my dughters shouldnt be punished with a baby"???
Third, the statement, "My daughters shouldn't be punished with a baby " should be taken in context. Barack Obama doesn't want his two daughters to be punished with responsibilities they aren't prepared to handle should they make a mistake. MISTAKE meaning having unprotected sex. He was talking about the necessity of a comprehensive Sex education program in addition to abstinence education.is there something wrong with turning the united states into a border line communist nation?
Fourth, yes, there is something wrong with turning the US into a borderline communist nation, but seeing how no one actually seems to know what those words mean, I see little danger of that happening. Plainly put, Obama isn't a communist. He isn't a socialist. He isn't a Marxist. He's a democrat.will there be change and will it be the change that we need?
Fifth, we'll see. The presidency is a job unlike any other in power and scope in this country, and there is no way of telling exactly how he'll do until he's actually in office for a few months.did anybody really think about who barack obama really is of a person before they voted for them?
Sixth, Of course. I tend to lean Libertarian centrist. I weighed all of the candidates before I actually made the decision in October to vote for Obama.

[RationalInquirer]

The Onion has apparently stopped doing satire:

Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/black_man_given_nations

Nation Finally Shitty Enough To Make Social Progress
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nation_finally_shitty_enough_to

How Did The Economy Go Bad?
http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/how_did_the_economy_go_bad

Barack Obama Defeats Barack Hussein Obama
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/barack_obama_defeats_barack

$700 Billion Bailout Celebrated With Lavish $800 Billion Executive Party
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/700_billion_bailout_celebrated

The Onion's 2008 In Review: The Economy
http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/the_onions_2008_in_review_the

I should probably stop posting articles on the Onion here. Otherwise, in due time, I may post their entire archive! <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley3.png'>

[NamikoNakamura]

You're my hero. :D