America needs change.
Can anyone spare any change?
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
He seems to be a sincere fellow. I hope he is not a showpony. I don’t think he is just a showpony I think he realises that talk of hope and change is needed to win the election, and tough action (that people would never vote for) is needed to fix things. People don’t want to hear that the boom times they are used to were a complete fantasy, living off credit that has to be repaid, and will never come again. Never. That they borrowed from their children and grandchildren to party it up. Nobody would vote for someone who said that. Nobody wants the truth, they want more fantasy.
[/quote]
It sounds like he is a sincere communist, at least from what he’s saying in this radio interview- http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=obama+radio+interview+wealth+redistribution&aq=f
on a bit of a tangent, it’s certainly refreshing (to a humble Canadian, anyhow) to know that in spite of all the issues surrounding recent days, your President is judged by the content of his character, and his wife, by her fashion sense.
lol
[quote]MaddyD wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
MaddyD wrote:
forlife wrote:
I voted for Obama because I considered him the most capable candidate, not because of the color of his skin.
That said, you have to admit it is historically significant having a black president. There was a time in our history when a black man couldn’t even vote, let alone become the most powerful leader in the world, irrespective of his actual qualifications to lead.
and think about it, the building he will be working out of was built for the most part by slaves,
so to have a black man Run the place that black men died at the crack of a whip to build,is kind of a big deal
The way I understand it theY exploited a lot of cheap white immigrant labor too. If only one day we can see a Scottish, Italian, or Irish president.
Not that I don’t understand the irony and ultimate justice of the situation, but you are being a little dramatic.
irish pres was JFK ya?
but what I have read was they tried to employ European labor but no one wanted to accept the bid.
so for being between Virgina and Maryland 2 slave states that meant most the labor came from slaves in the area.
the cheap white labor was craftsmen that came over to oversee the work done by the laborers. not to do the work themselves.
but ya Im not trying to be dramatic about it just saying lets not downplay the importance of this step that we are taking as a country.
Especially when there are still people from past generation ( my grandmother) who knows nothing of the issues and admittedly does not care about the issues or the direction the country may go in,she will vote for someone because she and her own words “does not want a damned negro in office”
“when they get in office and ruin the country they will do what they can to enslave the whites to get back at us”
this is the ignorance that people had and still have today, its what was pounded in to children heads from way back and the fact that people will get past that even in the last 40 years or so is a huge step in the right direction.
[/quote]
No, the workers were immigrants, and as such were and still are inelegible to hold the title of presedent. No immegant can ever become presedent.
And yes whites did a lot of the manual labor:
Much of the other work on the house was performed by immigrants, many not yet with citizenship. The sandstone walls were erected by Scottish immigrants, employed by Hoban,[10] as were the high relief rose and garland decorations above the north entrance and the “fish scale” pattern beneath the pediments of the window hoods. Much of the brick and plaster work was produced by Irish and Italian immigrants.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Why is it historical?
I don’t understand this ‘historical’ stuff they are spouting in the media.
Either it is historical because there finally is a black man who is qualified to be the president, or historical because instead of voting for someone because they are white everyone voted for someone because they were black.
Either way is bogus IMO. So historical? I think not.
The best man was elected and that is all there is to it.
You honestly don’t understand how any of this is historical? You aren’t serious are you? I know that I have given you shit in the past, but by making this statement, it says way more about you than anything anyone could say. You can’t possibly be this clueless.
[/quote]
You just admitted that you are a racist.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
I think the speech kicked off the new millenium.
…and it should have been kicked off the television. Notice the small and polite applause, the audience being shocked that their Messiah couldn’t give a decent speech, one with an actual theme, instead of rambling bits the guy thought up while taking a hot bath or taking a shit.
Most important speech of the guy’s life, and he rambles around with a pieced together piece of crap like that!
This just goes to show you the difference between watching this event on TV and actually being there. The small polite applause that you described was the editing job done by whatever network you were watching. I was there and the applause was anything BUT small and polite. It was thunderous. Much like the boos that Bush and Cheney received when they were introduced. Many things were edited out or toned down for the TV audience.
As far as your opinion about the speech, and anything else for that matter, the source of the opinion will be taken under consideration before commenting.[/quote]
I watched the speech live, with my students. Within 5 minutes, I was yawning. One of my black students put in his ipod, another started reading a book (these are seniors too). When the black kids start tuning the guy out, that says something. Most of the students were just bored beyond belief.
They (the audience) wanted FDR or Churchill. They got Barack the lawyer reading a laundry list. SSSSNNNNNNNNNOOOOOORRRRRRREEEEEEEEEE…
[quote]pat wrote:
I hope that we can soon have conversations about Obama’s actions and policies with out suffering a race discussion every time. Race has zero to do with why I do not like him. It is his professed support for policies I detest and abhor. If he does not act on him, I will not dislike him.
This policy goes for most democrats, not Obama specifically. The tenets of the party, pro big government, socialistic approaches, and moral depravity when it comes to the helpless…Unless the democratic party renounces such things I will never be able to vote for them. [/quote]
I would even go one step further. If he dumps money into building infrastructure and infrastructure gets built I would consider that a success (bigger gov’t or no). Of the long list of promises he’s made, if he achieves half the 1/10th of them that I like, I’ll consider his presidency as a whole success. Unfortunately, he’s giving money to NASA to investigate global warming as part of an economic stimulus package. An idea that can’t, in any way, succeed.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
I think the speech kicked off the new millenium.
…and it should have been kicked off the television. Notice the small and polite applause, the audience being shocked that their Messiah couldn’t give a decent speech, one with an actual theme, instead of rambling bits the guy thought up while taking a hot bath or taking a shit.
Most important speech of the guy’s life, and he rambles around with a pieced together piece of crap like that!
This just goes to show you the difference between watching this event on TV and actually being there. The small polite applause that you described was the editing job done by whatever network you were watching. I was there and the applause was anything BUT small and polite. It was thunderous. Much like the boos that Bush and Cheney received when they were introduced. Many things were edited out or toned down for the TV audience.
As far as your opinion about the speech, and anything else for that matter, the source of the opinion will be taken under consideration before commenting.
I watched the speech live, with my students. Within 5 minutes, I was yawning. One of my black students put in his ipod, another started reading a book (these are seniors too). When the black kids start tuning the guy out, that says something. Most of the students were just bored beyond belief.
They (the audience) wanted FDR or Churchill. They got Barack the lawyer reading a laundry list. SSSSNNNNNNNNNOOOOOORRRRRRREEEEEEEEEE…
[/quote]
Again, you missed the point. But that’s ok, I didn’t expect you to get it anyway.
Dear God. Some of the comments in this thread are a fucking joke. Apparently, noting that this was a “historical occasion” makes you racist.
If Hillary had won, one can only assume that noting she was the first woman president would have been “sexist”.
If anyone really thinks like this, just keep your mouth closed in public situations. It is amazing how I never hear any of this crap stated face to face.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
I think the speech kicked off the new millenium.
…and it should have been kicked off the television. Notice the small and polite applause, the audience being shocked that their Messiah couldn’t give a decent speech, one with an actual theme, instead of rambling bits the guy thought up while taking a hot bath or taking a shit.
Most important speech of the guy’s life, and he rambles around with a pieced together piece of crap like that!
This just goes to show you the difference between watching this event on TV and actually being there. The small polite applause that you described was the editing job done by whatever network you were watching. I was there and the applause was anything BUT small and polite. It was thunderous. Much like the boos that Bush and Cheney received when they were introduced. Many things were edited out or toned down for the TV audience.
As far as your opinion about the speech, and anything else for that matter, the source of the opinion will be taken under consideration before commenting.
I watched the speech live, with my students. Within 5 minutes, I was yawning. One of my black students put in his ipod, another started reading a book (these are seniors too). When the black kids start tuning the guy out, that says something. Most of the students were just bored beyond belief.
They (the audience) wanted FDR or Churchill. They got Barack the lawyer reading a laundry list. SSSSNNNNNNNNNOOOOOORRRRRRREEEEEEEEEE…
Again, you missed the point. But that’s ok, I didn’t expect you to get it anyway. [/quote]
Do you think ABC deliberately made it appear as if the cheers and crowd mood was subdued? Really?
all elections are historic
I like Obama’s speech
I didn’t vote for him
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dear God. Some of the comments in this thread are a fucking joke. Apparently, noting that this was a “historical occasion” makes you racist.
If Hillary had won, one can only assume that noting she was the first woman president would have been “sexist”.
If anyone really thinks like this, just keep your mouth closed in public situations. It is amazing how I never hear any of this crap stated face to face.[/quote]
Gotta agree with you on this. I didn’t vote for the guy, and don’t agree with his politics. However, downplaying this event is like telling a new dad that the birth of his kid isn’t really a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
It’s in poor taste.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I would even go one step further. If he dumps money into building infrastructure and infrastructure gets built I would consider that a success (bigger gov’t or no). [/quote]
On the issue of infrastructure, the title of Robert Reich (BO’s Secretary of Labor) January 8, 2009 blog - The Stimulus: How to Create Jobs Without Them All Going to Skilled Professionals and White Male Construction Workers".
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/stimulus-how-to-create-jobs-without.html
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
lucasa wrote:
I would even go one step further. If he dumps money into building infrastructure and infrastructure gets built I would consider that a success (bigger gov’t or no).
On the issue of infrastructure, the title of Robert Reich (BO’s Secretary of Labor) January 8, 2009 blog - The Stimulus: How to Create Jobs Without Them All Going to Skilled Professionals and White Male Construction Workers".
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/stimulus-how-to-create-jobs-without.html
[/quote]
What planet is Reich living on?
[quote]And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most – women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed – will be shut out.
[/quote]
Has he ever driven by a construction site? Construction wages haven’t gone up in California in 20 years thanks to illegal immigration, which has driven all of these perfidious “white males” out of the trades.
[quote]
What to do? There’s no easy solution to either dilemma. But there’s no reason to think about “green jobs” as simply high-tech. Many low-income and low-skilled workers – women as well as men – could be put directly to work providing homes and businesses with more efficient and renewable heating, lighting, cooling, and refrigeration systems; installing solar panels and efficient photovoltaic systems; rehabilitating and renovating old properties, and improving recycling systems. “Green Jobs Corps” teams could be trained to evaluate and advise homeowners and businesses on these and other means of conserving energy.[/quote]
Great, another FDR-style “Civilian Conservation Corps.” I can’t wait to see all of the three letter acronyms that are sure to pop up in our new command economy along with the recession-prolonging programs they represent. He wants women to do practical wiring and environmental control installation? What a kook! Where are women signing up for these jobs?
What a surprise, he’s a Klinton apparatchik:
http://www.robertreich.org/reich/biography.asp
[quote]forlife wrote:
I like Obama, but the thing I’m most excited about is getting rid of Bush once and for all.
This is a historic day, very cool that I lived to see a black man become President of the U.S.[/quote]
Why is he the fist black president? Shouldn’t he be the first bi-racial president. His black half didn’t even stick around to raise him. I would say that makes him more white than black.
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Dear God. Some of the comments in this thread are a fucking joke. Apparently, noting that this was a “historical occasion” makes you racist.
If Hillary had won, one can only assume that noting she was the first woman president would have been “sexist”.
If anyone really thinks like this, just keep your mouth closed in public situations. It is amazing how I never hear any of this crap stated face to face.
Gotta agree with you on this. I didn’t vote for the guy, and don’t agree with his politics. However, downplaying this event is like telling a new dad that the birth of his kid isn’t really a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
It’s in poor taste.
[/quote]
They voted for him because of his race. They trumpet that its ‘historical’ because of his race. They want him to succeed because of his race. They’ll ‘cut him some slack’ because of his race.
And we (conservatives) are racists. ROFLMAO!!!
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Gotta agree with you on this. I didn’t vote for the guy, and don’t agree with his politics. However, downplaying this event is like telling a new dad that the birth of his kid isn’t really a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
It’s in poor taste.
[/quote]
Seriously? If a Dad spent three times as much celebrating the birth of one kid over another, that’s not biased? If a Dad spent more on a kid born in a recession than one born immediately prior, that’s not askew? If all the other kids one man fathered were largely closed-door affairs except for this one, that wouldn’t be slanted?
FDR served cold chicken and poundcake at his inaugural dinner, Wilson said such parties would be undignified.
I can recall a time when we heard nothing except about how Bush spent the first X of Y days in office on vacation (88 out of 100, I think). I see no reason not to criticize the next President for excessive celebration.
BTW- The analogy is also very poor.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
Gotta agree with you on this. I didn’t vote for the guy, and don’t agree with his politics. However, downplaying this event is like telling a new dad that the birth of his kid isn’t really a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
It’s in poor taste.
Seriously? If a Dad spent three times as much celebrating the birth of one kid over another, that’s not biased? If a Dad spent more on a kid born in a recession than one born immediately prior, that’s not askew? If all the other kids one man fathered were largely closed-door affairs except for this one, that wouldn’t be slanted?
[/quote]
Gee, if that same father thought he could never have kids yet ends up having one, I am sure he would be much happier than if the act of having kids had never been denied to him.
This is my last post in this thread because the stupidity here is too deep to even worry about.
If it were perceived that blacks could have always been president, this would not be a “historical event” to many. That is not the case. No matter what, this fact can’t be denied.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dear God. Some of the comments in this thread are a fucking joke. Apparently, noting that this was a “historical occasion” makes you racist.
If Hillary had won, one can only assume that noting she was the first woman president would have been “sexist”.
If anyone really thinks like this, just keep your mouth closed in public situations. It is amazing how I never hear any of this crap stated face to face.[/quote]
It depends on whose ‘historical occasion’ and ‘sexist’ you’re quoting and why.
And it’s funny that you tell people to be quiet about their thoughts and opinions, it made me realize that I talk about this shit in public (in Chicago no less) all the time. It’s amazing how nobody steps up to tell me to keep my mouth shut.