[ROUNDandHEAVY]

Quote:
notty said:P.S. I'm not a man.

No, rather an attractive woman.

[pedonbio]

Quote:
notty said:

Quote:
pedonbio said:

Quote:
notty said:
I wasn't planning on posting in this thread after the election, but it seems I can't help myself. I'm sure my mood will improve after the inauguration, but right now I just want to scream, "I didn't vote for Obama! I don't give a shit about this 'historic event!' Go fuck yourself! In the ear!"

*takes a deep breath*

Nonetheless,

When I offer up criticisms of the man, they'll be based on his actions or lack thereof. My personal feelings will only season the dish, not provide the main ingredient.

*smiles sweetly*

Notty, usually I'm as bored with "historic event" crap as you are, but this time it's right. We white folks have gone a long, long way toward getting our souls back. In 1961 when Obama was born, his parents were prohibited by the laws of 26 states from marrying. In 11 states (The Old Confederacy) even if his father had acquired U.S. citizenship, he couldn't have voted in primary elections because his grandfather had not been eligible to vote in those states. More likely, his father would have been arrested for trying to register.

We old white farts have indeed come a long way, Baby!

Oh, PB. I'm happy you were able to assuage your guilt by voting for Obama. I'm happy your soul is on the mend. I guess it is a historic event for some people. But for me, I have no soul, and I feel no guilt, so...it's Tuesday.  

Edit: I just wanted to clarify that I'm not being flippant. I *am* happy for you. I'm happy for my parents. I'm happy for all the people who thought they would never see this in their lifetime. I suppose in that sense, it is a special day.

I wasn't assuaging any guilt. It is one of those feelings that comes from having lived through a time, and it's much more in the details. For example, in 1965 three civil rights workers, who were registering Black voters, were killed in Greenwood, Mississippi. Two of them had parents who were influential in New York State, so the FBI undertook to investigate. Some part of that story is told in the movie "Mississippi Burning". But now few folks remember what else was going on. For example, searchers found several other bodies of Black men, but that wasn't all that newsworthy. THAT was the norm, nothing unusual for that time and place. I recall two bodies were found wired together, floating in a river. At first it was thought one was one of the civil rights workers, but he wasn't. IIRC, a few years ago there was finally a conviction in his murder.

Terrrorism wasn't called that in those days, because it was home-grown.

Much less significant, but closer to me, was a strange incident with my bank in 1965. Among other things, I was a member of SNCC, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. I paid my dues by check. A few weeks later, I got a call to come into my bank. The branch manager asked if I had written the check. I said I had. He asked if I wanted to stop payment. I said I did not. He said okay, and I left. Two weeks later the bank closed my account.

I hope that stuff like that doesn't happen any more.

[Q_BE]

Quote:
ROUNDandHEAVY said:

Quote:
notty said:P.S. I'm not a man.

No, a rather attractive woman.

Fixed.

Q-"Either way, she sounds hot"-BE

[Real]

Quote:
notty said:

Quote:
Real said:
lol

of course many americans arent ready to do a tumble roll down the middle of the streets at the prospect of ridding themselves of one of the most vile leaders in your history.

i mean 47% of you voted for a ticket with freaking sarah palin on it.  no wonder you scare the shit out of the rest of the world...

What's your point?

If you're saying I should be happy Bush is gone, well, I am happy. But I knew this day would come 48 months ago, so the novelty has worn off a bit.

If you're saying I should be relieved Sarah Palin wasn't voted VP, come now my northern friend, we both know the outcome of this contest was never in doubt.

If you're saying I should embrace Obama because he is an improvement over Dubya, I'm afraid I must decline. You see, I hold the President to a higher standard than your George W. Bush litmus test.

my point is you have to be either a right wing republican or the ultimate cynic to feign not being able to logically connect with the palpable excitement surrounding the prospect of a leader who for starters believes in science and not fairy tale magic.  someone who's concerned about the middle as well as the upper class.  someone who is going to end the illegal occupation of a country that was invaded on a lie.  someonw who might not look to charactyer assasinate anyone who disagrees with him.  someone who claims he will and just might govern in the interest of common sense instead of academic political theory.  someone who understands that ecological preservation is an important infrastructure that will keep our [censored] from being flat broke.  someone who didnt wipe their ass with your constitution.  and on and on.  i mean you can hold your president to whatever standard you want, but you really think its so snicker worthy that folks might be excited?  

the outcome of this contest was never in doubt was it?  i dont know, it took two george w terms, a horrid mccain campaign and a vp candidate who actually seemed retarded and got a pass because she was a woman for obama to get his 3 point "landslide".  george bush got a second term.  anyone with a pulse who believes in jesus has a chance.

what is it youre looking for in a leader that would have been so much less scoff-worthy?...

[notty]

Quote:
Open letter to Senator Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama:

In your nearly two-year presidential campaign, the words "hope and change," "change and hope" have been your trademark declarations. Yet there is an asymmetry between those objectives and your political character that succumbs to contrary centers of power that want not "hope and change" but the continuation of the power-entrenched status quo.

Far more than Senator McCain, you have received enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man?

To advance change and hope, the presidential persona requires character, courage, integrity— not expediency, accommodation and short-range opportunism. Take, for example, your transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights in Chicago before your run for the U.S. Senate to an acolyte, a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby, which bolsters the militaristic oppression, occupation, blockage, colonization and land-water seizures over the years of the Palestinian peoples and their shrunken territories in the West Bank and Gaza. Eric Alterman summarized numerous polls in a December 2007 issue of The Nation magazine showing that AIPAC policies are opposed by a majority of Jewish-Americans.

You know quite well that only when the U.S. Government supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, that years ago worked out a detailed two-state solution (which is supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians), will there be a chance for a peaceful resolution of this 60-year plus conflict. Yet you align yourself with the hard-liners, so much so that in your infamous, demeaning speech to the AIPAC convention right after you gained the nomination of the Democratic Party, you supported an "undivided Jerusalem," and opposed negotiations with Hamas— the elected government in Gaza. Once again, you ignored the will of the Israeli people who, in a March 1, 2008 poll by the respected newspaper Haaretz, showed that 64% of Israelis favored "direct negotiations with Hamas." Siding with the AIPAC hard-liners is what one of the many leading Palestinians advocating dialogue and peace with the Israeli people was describing when he wrote "Anti-semitism today is the persecution of Palestinian society by the Israeli state."

During your visit to Israel this summer, you scheduled a mere 45 minutes of your time for Palestinians with no news conference, and no visit to Palestinian refugee camps that would have focused the media on the brutalization of the Palestinians. Your trip supported the illegal, cruel blockade of Gaza in defiance of international law and the United Nations charter. You focused on southern Israeli casualties which during the past year have totaled one civilian casualty to every 400 Palestinian casualties on the Gaza side. Instead of a statesmanship that decried all violence and its replacement with acceptance of the Arab League’s 2002 proposal to permit a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in return for full economic and diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel, you played the role of a cheap politician, leaving the area and Palestinians with the feeling of much shock and little awe.

David Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, described your trip succinctly: "There was almost a willful display of indifference to the fact that there are two narratives here. This could serve him well as a candidate, but not as a President."

Palestinian American commentator, Ali Abunimah, noted that Obama did not utter a single criticism of Israel, "of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians. …Even the Bush administration recently criticized Israeli’s use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians [see www.atfl.org for elaboration]. But Obama defended Israeli’s assault on Lebanon as an exercise of its ‘legitimate right to defend itself.’"

In numerous columns Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz, strongly criticized the Israeli government’s assault on civilians in Gaza, including attacks on "the heart of a crowded refugee camp… with horrible bloodshed" in early 2008.

Israeli writer and peace advocate— Uri Avnery— described Obama’s appearance before AIPAC as one that "broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning, adding that Obama "is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future— if and when he is elected president.," he said, adding, "Of one thing I am certain: Obama’s declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people."

A further illustration of your deficiency of character is the way you turned your back on the Muslim-Americans in this country. You refused to send surrogates to speak to voters at their events. Having visited numerous churches and synagogues, you refused to visit a single Mosque in America. Even George W. Bush visited the Grand Mosque in Washington D.C. after 9/11 to express proper sentiments of tolerance before a frightened major religious group of innocents.

Although the New York Times published a major article on June 24, 2008 titled "Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama" (by Andrea Elliott), citing examples of your aversion to these Americans who come from all walks of life, who serve in the armed forces and who work to live the American dream. Three days earlier the International Herald Tribune published an article by Roger Cohen titled "Why Obama Should Visit a Mosque." None of these comments and reports change your political bigotry against Muslim-Americans— even though your father was a Muslim from Kenya.

Perhaps nothing illustrated your utter lack of political courage or even the mildest version of this trait than your surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention. This is a tradition for former presidents and one accorded in prime time to Bill Clinton this year.

Here was a President who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, but his recent book pressing the dominant Israeli superpower to avoid Apartheid of the Palestinians and make peace was all that it took to sideline him. Instead of an important address to the nation by Jimmy Carter on this critical international problem, he was relegated to a stroll across the stage to "tumultuous applause," following a showing of a film about the Carter Center’s post-Katrina work. Shame on you, Barack Obama!

But then your shameful behavior has extended to many other areas of American life. (See the factual analysis by my running mate, Matt Gonzalez, on www.votenader.org). You have turned your back on the 100-million poor Americans composed of poor whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. You always mention helping the "middle class" but you omit, repeatedly, mention of the "poor" in America.

Should you be elected President, it must be more than an unprecedented upward career move following a brilliantly unprincipled campaign that spoke "change" yet demonstrated actual obeisance to the concentration power of the "corporate supremacists." It must be about shifting the power from the few to the many. It must be a White House presided over by a black man who does not turn his back on the downtrodden here and abroad but challenges the forces of greed, dictatorial control of labor, consumers and taxpayers, and the militarization of foreign policy. It must be a White House that is transforming of American politics— opening it up to the public funding of elections (through voluntary approaches)— and allowing smaller candidates to have a chance to be heard on debates and in the fullness of their now restricted civil liberties. Call it a competitive democracy.

Your presidential campaign again and again has demonstrated cowardly stands. "Hope" some say springs eternal." But not when "reality" consumes it daily.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader

[3deroticer]

US Bank called me in for a $1500 withdrawel to a man in Washington, as a follow up on homeland security procedure for purchasing a used moped. I am not with that bank anymore. I found another bank that didn't ask me 20 homeland security question. Personally, I don't think its the bank goddamn business what I do with my money, and I made the withdrawal in person.

I would like to see the homeland security policy relax a bit.

BTW Obama did meet with Muslim leaders today in America. I think that if he did that before the election it would have cost him the votes as the same for many of things he failed to do before the election. As anyone knows you know you need corporates ass kissing to get the votes, and even them McCain got 47% of the votes regardless that 2 million people showed up for the inauguration. I think Obama made all the right move to get where he is, now I'm waiting if he'll make the honest move from here on out.

[BarnacleBill]

To notty:  

NADER SUCKS DONKEY DICK.  Please do not idolize that little bastard.  He has done some good stuff.  But seriously, he sucks.  He screwed Gore in 2000 in Florida.

And that letter is bullshit.  

The true faith of Islam is evil.  

Everybody knows this.  Islam is based on killing nonbelievers.  Where is the "moderate" Islamic outrage when Hamas UNPROVOKEDLY fires rockets into Israel?

Ralph Nader is an egomaniac, who thinks his shit don't stink.

Well, guess what, Nader, it does!

[mofoapoo]

Quote:
BarnacleBill said:
Muslims are evil.  

stopped listening there.

[Starscream]

I saw something on the news about Obama re-taking the oath of office "just to be safe"

[notty]

Quote:
BarnacleBill said:
To notty:  

NADER SUCKS DONKEY DICK.  Please do not idolize that little bastard.  He has done some good stuff.  But seriously, he sucks.  He screwed Gore in 2000 in Florida.

And that letter is bullshit.  

The true faith of Islam is evil.  

Everybody knows this.  Islam is based on killing nonbelievers.  Where is the "moderate" Islamic outrage when Hamas UNPROVOKEDLY fires rockets into Israel?

Ralph Nader is an egomaniac, who thinks his shit don't stink.

Well, guess what, Nader, it does!

My dearest BB,

I don't idolize Nader, but I respect him because he operates outside the entrenched political framework. And I'm sorry, but Nader didn't cost Gore anything. Gore cost Gore a safe margin of victory with his uninspired campaign and utter lack of charisma (although, he seems to have acquired a bit of that in recent years). I love the guy, but back then, he was limp. I can't think of any way else to say it.

As for Islam, I'm not a big fan. The treatment of Muslim women is often deplorable. But, I strive not to stereotype all Muslims based on the actions of a few. Sure, there are some mad-dog killers out there who want to rid the world of infidels. However, I'd be willing to bet most Muslims are not much different from you and me. I'd wager they want the same things we want: peace, prosperity, and a better world for our children.

[pedonbio]

Quote:
notty said:

I don't idolize Nader, but I respect him because he operates outside the entrenched political framework.  

So does David Duke.

[notty]

Quote:
Real said:
my point is you have to be either a right wing republican or the ultimate cynic to feign not being able to logically connect with the palpable excitement surrounding the prospect of a leader who for starters believes in science and not fairy tale magic.  someone who's concerned about the middle as well as the upper class.  someone who is going to end the illegal occupation of a country that was invaded on a lie.  someonw who might not look to charactyer assasinate anyone who disagrees with him.  someone who claims he will and just might govern in the interest of common sense instead of academic political theory.  someone who understands that ecological preservation is an important infrastructure that will keep our [censored] from being flat broke.  someone who didnt wipe their ass with your constitution.  and on and on.  i mean you can hold your president to whatever standard you want, but you really think its so snicker worthy that folks might be excited?  

the outcome of this contest was never in doubt was it?  i dont know, it took two george w terms, a horrid mccain campaign and a vp candidate who actually seemed retarded and got a pass because she was a woman for obama to get his 3 point "landslide".  george bush got a second term.  anyone with a pulse who believes in jesus has a chance.

what is it youre looking for in a leader that would have been so much less scoff-worthy?...

Hmm, what do I do with this mess? I know, let's open it up to the forumites! Time for Question Game:

Am I a right-wing Republican? If I am, what makes me a right-wing Republican?

Am I the ultimate cynic? If I am, what makes me the ultimate cynic?

Do I fail to understand "the palpable excitement surrounding the prospect of a leader who for starters believes in science and not fairy tale magic?" Or is it that I understand, but find this behavior irresponsible? If it is the former, why do I fail to understand? If it is the later, why do I find it irresponsible?

Why am I not excited about some who cares about the middle class? Is it that I care more about the upper class? Or is that I care more about the invisible class, being those people near, at, or below the poverty level? Or none of the above? If so, why?

Do I fail to understand the excitement about potentially ending the occupation of Iraq? Or do I not care about Iraq? If so, why? Or did I realize a couple years ago that whichever Democratic candidate made it into office would withdraw the troops, making Iraq a bit of a non-factor?

Will Obama attack someone's character at any point during his term(s)? If not, why not?

Will Obama govern from common sense instead of theory? If so, why? How does that fit with his reputation as an intellectual? And what have you to say about his professorship at a university long known for its concentration on the theory of law rather than its practice?

Is Obama a champion of the environment? If he is, why does he support construction of additional coal and nuclear plants? Why does he support offshore drilling?

Did George W. Bush in fact wipe his ass with the Constitution? If so, how did he get it out of the display case? Do you think he watched National Treasure for some tips and tricks? Or, do you think the techniques used in National Treasure are not applicable to the theft the Constitution? Or do you think the techniques used in National Treasure are not applicable to anything? If so, why?

Do you think I think it's snicker-worthy that people would be excited about Obama? If so, why? Or do you think I think that people sometimes sacrifice their rationality to their enthusiasm? If so, do you think I might not want this to happen to my good friends in the forum? Or, am I just the party pooper? If so, why?

In the United States, are presidential candidates elected by popular vote? (hint: no) According to the polling data, did John McCain reach 270 electoral votes at any point during the campaign? What was Obama's margin of victory in the electoral college? Was it greater than 3%? If so, how much greater? Was McCain's campaign badly run? If so, why? If so, could it have been improved? If so, how could it have been improved? Could McCain have won the election with a better campaign? Was John McCain's choice of vice presidential candidate detrimental to his campaign? If so, why? Would he have received a larger portion of the electoral vote with a different vice presidential candidate? If so, why?

Weeeeeeeee!! I like Question Game!

[notty]

Quote:
pedonbio said:

Quote:
notty said:

I don't idolize Nader, but I respect him because he operates outside the entrenched political framework.  

So does David Duke.

You're comparing Ralph Nader to David Duke? Don't tell David Duke that.

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
Starscream said:
I saw something on the news about Obama re-taking the oath of office "just to be safe"

Yes, he did. This is a man who dots his Is and crosses his Ts. Of course, it's not stopping some loonie bin bloggers from trying to say that he isn't president because he didn't swear on a Bible...obviously reading comprehension is a thing unknown to them, since Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution makes no mention of the necessity of swearing on a Bible. When he and the other members of the Illinois state senate were sworn in, none of them swore on Bibles either...and of course we all know people who've sworn on a stack of Bibles and still were found to be lying through their adulterous teeth.

And Chief Justice John Roberts is a poopyhead.

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
BarnacleBill:
To notty:  

NADER SUCKS DONKEY DICK.  Please do not idolize that little bastard.  He has done some good stuff.  But seriously, he sucks.  He screwed Gore in 2000 in Florida.

Nader is to Gore what Alan Keyes is to Obama. If he were a country, he'd be a failed nation-state. He did do some mighty fine work in the now-distant past, but his presidential campaign no doubt helped to undermine Gore's attempt to hold the office. But let's not put the blame on him. It wasn't Nader who refused to fight to the bitter end when the Florida Supreme Court put a kibosh on the recount of the ballots in the 2000 election. And besides, if Gore couldn't even get people from his own state of Tennessee to vote for him, well.