The Inauguration

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
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.

Cut the crap and personal attacks and explain why you think it is historical?

Why don’t you cut the crap little boy?. Do you have any concept of the history of this country, or are you normally this obtuse and contrary?

Why don’t YOU explain that likely you are probably the ONLY one in the entire world (with very few exceptions) that doesn’t understand that this is a historical event? Your own statement above just illustrates how ignorant you are about the whole event and really seems more like a troll job than anything else.

I do not have the time nor the interest in explaining the history of this country or defining what history is to you. If you don’t get it, it’s your loss.

However, Barack Hussein Obama is the first african-american president of the USA, which 40-50 years ago wouldn’t have even been thought of as being possible. There is nothing that any hate-filled person on here or in this country can do about it. It’s done! Like you and the other idiots told us in 2000 and 2004: Get over it and move on!

Amazing, a brand new year and you still are playing the troll.[/quote]

You know Al, you are right (not about your childish comments), but about it being historical based on US history. So I officially take that back.

But I would also like to say why I think it is historic:

  1. The majority of non-blacks voted for a black man based on who he is and not his skin color

  2. A black man was qualified to run for president

  3. The black man who ran for president did not focus on race in his campaign

  4. Institutional racism is official dead as a black man has achieved the highest office/position in the world

  5. The era of blacks being able to blame racism for their own failures is over

322

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

Also, how do you know that a black was not elected in the past because whites were voting based on skin color? Ever think that it might have been because there has not been a qualified black with the right temperament that ran for the office?

Wow, you truly have NO idea how things have been in this country when it comes to race and politics, do you? [/quote]

It is a fair question raised.

Part of the problem of deciding “racism” as a cause of something is failing to rule out plausible alternatives.

That is not to say the plausible alternatives are the right answer - it’s that those crying “racism!” rarely even consider them.

It won’t do to presume racism until proven otherwise - not with the changes we have seen since the 1950s.

323

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

What’s so ironic is that he really only shows up in this part of the forum to incite this sort of thing.

I posted this three times in the Off Topic forum. I even pm’d the mod’s to keep it out of this forum. They stuck it here anyway.
[/quote]
Are you going to go back to the intellegencia on the Off Topic forum now?

You mean the ones that don’t agree with you? Or the ones that actually put a bit of thought into their posts?

It take a real mental weakling to call anyone that doesn’t agree with you a racist. I can assure you that those you beleive to be racist put less importance on race than you do. Maybe that’s why we haven’t had a black president before now? Always the victim. You think Barry has the same attitude? Do you think he would have gotten to where he is now if he did?

I really feel sorry for you. I can’t imagine what it would feel like to go through life with the irrational fear that the white man is out to get you.

[quote]
Take your accusations elsewhere.[/quote]
Why don’t you do the same.

324

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Think about that for a minute bro. You are assuming that the reason a black was not elected in the past was due to whites not ‘moving past race’. Yet nearly all blacks voted for him purely because he is black. So what is that?

Also, how do you know that a black was not elected in the past because whites were voting based on skin color? Ever think that it might have been because there has not been a qualified black with the right temperament that ran for the office?

Wow, you truly have NO idea how things have been in this country when it comes to race and politics, do you?

The fact is that Hispanics/Latino’s are the largest group next to whites in the US. So statistically the next group that should have representation in the White House would be Hispanics, not be blacks.

When the first Hispanic gets in the White House, I will celebrate that too. However, it is just within the last 10-20 years that Hispanics/Latinos have been the largest group next to whites. Before then, it was black people.

Also, the history of Hispanics/Latinos in this country is much different than what blacks in this country have faced. So there is a feeling involved in this event that a relative few, like yourself, will not understand nor appreciate.

Good post. I doubt that, regardless of the credentials, any black man would have made it into office before at least 1985-1990 due to the stigma attached to race in this country. Things seemed to take a much larger turn for the better in the early 90’s as far as race relations.
[/quote]

Or maybe it’s becuase there is a smaller pool of black people in this country. If you just looked at the statistical probability, it probably would not be that abnormal. Have we had a romanian american as president? How about an italian american? How about a redhead? I have no idea but I assume there are a few ethnic groups that have not been represented in the office of the POTUS.

[quote]
The sad thing is that this has to be explained. I guess in 40 years, guys in their 20’s will be acting like slavery was a myth and that everyone was happy and considered equal since the 1860’s.[/quote]

Slavery will have to explained no more than any other atrocity perpetrated on many ethnic or religious groups. Atrocities including and much worse than slavery. The difference is that the rest of us remember it for what it was and don’t dwell on it. What happened to my ancestors does not define who I am today.

325

[quote]The Mage wrote:
The Mage wrote:
It would also be good if people actually had another reason to have voted for him other then the color of his skin.

valiance. wrote:
I like how the assumption is that everyone voting for Obama was voting solely on the basis of skin color. I’m sure everyone voting for McCain had solid ideological reasons for it. Oh no, those voters could not be voting based on color at all. If I was rolling my eyes any harder they’d fly out of my head.

Prior to the election, there was a poll of both Obama supporters, and McCain supporters. 8% stated they were voting for McCain because he was white, and 20% stated they were voting for Obama because he was black.

And because this was only people willing to admit their reason, I would assume the numbers were actually higher. But it is the dramatic difference that matters here.

“The first black president” theme was overwhelming. Ok, he is black… what else does he have? Hope… Change. Oh yeah, change and hope. Where was the substance?

The whole idea that this was an “historic” day shows exactly how people were thinking, and why they voted the way they did.

The Mage wrote:
Personally I would have preferred our first black president to have a successful term in office, and I just do not see that happening. (Admittedly McCain wasn’t much better.)

valiance. wrote:
I disagree emphatically. My politics are similar to the president’s, I believe he’s intelligent and pragmatic, and he’s already (3 days in) fulfilling campaign promises and working on executive orders to get rid of the detritus of the last 8 years.

Well Bush is gone, so people can quit hating him.

Anyway the most disastrous things Bush did were quite liberal. Had he been a Democrat, people would have been cheering for what he did. Expanding the government, and social programs.

If it was supposed to have been so bad, why do more of the same?

The Mage wrote:
As I have stated before, (and I assume others have pointed out,) regardless of the propaganda out there, this is not the realization of King’s dream. He is, and was judged based on the color of his skin, and that is the travesty here that some just do not get.

valiance. wrote:
You gotta start somewhere. Maybe 3 or 4 Black Presidents from now it won’t be a big deal. But guess what? The first Black President was always going to have race as a huge part of his campaign and candidacy, and Obama handled it with a deftness that I think he’s not being given enough credit for.

This sure hand accounts for his popularity among Black and Whites alike.

It’s a mistake to paint Obama as some Bobby Rush or Eldridge Cleaver type because of the church he went to. If you do you’re missing what he actually he is because you want to paint him as a racist.

You want to believe in anti-White racism way worse than any Leftists who believe in discrimination against Black and other minorities.

You went off into some weird tangent there. Not sure what church or “anti-white” racism has to do with anything.

I am simply asking where is the substance, and pointing out the hypocrisy.

(Do I get points for voting for the only black female on the ballot?)[/quote]

The substance is right there but idiots like parroting back media messages as if it makes them smart. “All Obama is is Hope and Change he has no real policies” Nice. Way for a progressive ( I assume you are since you voted for McKinney) to absorb and spew back Conservative talking points.

Try ontheissues.org or Tracking politicians' promises | PolitiFact if you’re curious to see Obama’s positions on issues and to what extent he’s fulfilled campaign promises. There’s also his old website and you know anything released about him ever.

326

[quote]valiance. wrote:

The substance is right there but idiots like parroting back media messages as if it makes them smart. “All Obama is is Hope and Change he has no real policies” Nice. Way for a progressive ( I assume you are since you voted for McKinney) to absorb and spew back Conservative talking points. [/quote]

No I am not a progressive. My vote was more of a protest vote then anything.

And as far as the Hope and Change comment, that was his entire campaign. The purpose was to have the people fill in their own idea as to what it meant. And it worked.

And this is not a talking point, this was what a keynote speaker for the democrats actually suggested prior to the primaries. (I wish I remembered his name.) His message was that if the Democrats wanted to win the White House, they had to avoid discussing the issues.

And yes I do know Obama has an agenda, and policies. I am only saying that a lot of people who voted for him do not even know what they were. (Sad state of politics.)[quote]

Try ontheissues.org or Tracking politicians' promises | PolitiFact if you’re curious to see Obama’s positions on issues and to what extent he’s fulfilled campaign promises. There’s also his old website and you know anything released about him ever.[/quote]

Well the truth-o-meter seems interesting. But really I am afraid that he is going to follow through on those promises of a socialistic utopia. (Like it ever worked all the other places it has been tried.)

327

I didn’t watch the inauguration, but a guy I train at my gym said that Obama blasted Bush and Bush walked out in the middle of the speech and got in his helicopter and flew away. I can’t find a single reference to this ever happening, although this was coming from a guy who up to the election thought and probably still thinks that Obama is a Muslim.

Anybody heard of this or know where this rumor came from?

328

Can’t believe the Obama public relations team (I mean the mainstream media) ignored this comparison…wonder why?

Headlines 4 years ago:

“Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees”

“Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times”

“Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft”

Headlines last week:
“Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million”

“Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party”

“Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate”

“Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration”

329

[quote]hedo wrote:
Can’t believe the Obama public relations team (I mean the mainstream media) ignored this comparison…wonder why?

Headlines 4 years ago:

“Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees”

“Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times”

“Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft”

Headlines last week:
“Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million”

“Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party”

“Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate”

“Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration”
[/quote]

The only thing I fond hard to believe from all those headlines is the citibank execs giving 8 million. Did they just tell Obama to give them $5,992,000,000 instead of $6 billion.

Shouldn’t be hijacking this thread. Although I don’t think Obama is the messiah nor do I agree with alot of his platform. People need to support whoever the President is and allow him and congress to attempt to fix what is wrong.

Honestly if he can reign in all our foreign overextension and strengthen us domesticly with out killing our military or killing my paycheck I’d be more than willing to admit I was wrong about him.

Lastly, I will state I am willing to give him more slack than most liberals ever gave GW.

330


Welcome, Barack…