5150 Lego wrote:I have to say i am very surprised with the content of the responses to this thread. I guess thats a sign of the media putting in its 2 cents.
Starwars4J wrote:??? The media has had nothing but an extremely strong learn towards Obama
Well, to be honest, i screwed up. I actually had writen somthing else, but had edited it as i wanted to keep this deabte going, and what i had originally writen could have been seen as a personal attack and cause the thread to be closed. What i meant by the content such as "America's not ready for a black president", and "he doesn't put his hand over his heart during the national anthem." Its there were the media(Attually, the McCain campain really) that put in it 2 cents.
Starwars4J wrote:I have news for you, Obama's still gonna pour money into the war. We can't just pull out overnight you know. We'll still probably have a presence there when Obama leaves office in 8 years.
Your right, he will poor some money in the war, but i don't seen 10 billion a month like G.W.B. did. Of course it wil take time to leave. Obama siad that the coure will take somewere inthe nieghborhood of 16 months.
Your also right about the U.S. having some presence in Iraq in after he leaves office. We had troops there since the gulf warback in the early 90's.
Starwars4J wrote:Whether or not Obama would do well in Europe was not his main point though...
well thats what i was getting from his post. if you got somthing different than great!
What does that have to do with Clinton or Bush though? Who is president has absolutely nothing
to do with how the economy goes. There are natural ups and downs, you can't attribute the rise in gas prices or the crashing of the banks on Bush, it's not like anything happened recently that he did that hasn't been going on for years. Similarly Clinton while many consider a great President, did not give us the surplus. Trust me on this, I went to college with several econ majors who are currently working in D.C. They do know what they're talking about, and they have said that really the President has little effect on the economy. I mean after all the hooting over Obama winning...the market dropped over 500 points. Does that mean it was Obama's fault? Or even Bush? Not at all. Don't get me wrong I'm not defending Bush, but maybe we should stick to blaming him for things he actually did...there's more than enough of that
You do make a good point about the preident and how they affect the ecomeny. No, they aren't pur say directly responsible for for the econemy, but it is there job to step in when signs of it going hill start to arise. Some may argue that it isn't there job, but if thats the case, why did the U.S. goverment just pass the 700 billion (or was it trillion) dollor bail out? And while i don't directly blame bush or his administration for raising gas prises, the war in Iraq surely didn't help. I'll be honest when i say i'm not the best when it comes to political debates, but one thing is for sure, bush and his administration really didn't do to much to help this country in the past 8yrs.
Starwars4J wrote:Actually no matter who became President the market would gradually bottom out and then raise again. This isn't the first time this has happened, just the first time you're aware of it.
Of course it has happened before, as it will happen again, just like raising gas prices. But has it been this bad before? Not since the great depression.
Starwars4J wrote:[And giving tax increases to the wealthy just makes things worse. Why? The wealthy are in charge usually. They get taxed more, they increase the price of their services. This has been tried before and has always caused MAJOR inflation, something we desperately don't need right now.
Cause the ones who will be taxed can easily afford it. Look, i'm not saying that his plan is perfect. It has flaws, just like McCain's did. To be honest, i don't nessasarly believe that it is there responsiblitly to in a sence "share the wealth" so to speak. I just feel that this is the better of the two.
One other thing...there was no landslide victory
Obama won by a tiny margin. Looking at the popular vote, at the time McCain conceded there was a difference of only 3% of the national vote. Statistically insignificant. Why did he concede then? The electoral college system, the same screwed up system that allowed Bush into office in the first place. Just clearing up that but of myth
Buy the next day it was around 6 or 8% of the national vote. Aparently they consider that a landslide. He also came inot the election with a 7 points ahead in the polls (i know that really doesn't matter, but it showed he was the favorite) Either way he won.
Starwars4J wrote:To be fair you have absolutely no idea how McCain would have done. He was very respectable in his concession and I would appreciate if people would be respectable towards him. Yes he ran smear campaigns against Obama, but there were also smears by the Obama campaign against him (linking him with Bush was a very, very effective one though). Let's face it, they're both politicians and they both know how to play dirty to get votes. It's the game they all play.
First, let me say that i don't believe at any point did i ever slander McCain. Your right that technicly we don't know how he would have done, but concidering his policies and were he stood on the war effort, i don't feel that he would have done anything great either. Yes he was respectable towards Obama in his concession speech, that seemed to be the only time.
Though both parties smeared each other at one point or another, McCain was alittle too dirty. McCain as well as Palin constantly tried to attack Obama's character. I remember at one Palin rally she got the crowd so fired up,that people started calling Obama a terrorist, and she made no atempt to correct them. If you saw the Political debates thats all McCain/Palin did. And trying to tarnish someones 85yr old grandmother to gain in a political race is down right wrong.
Being that McCain served in the military and had recieved a number of metals, i do have respct for him, and thank him for his servies to our great country. I just don't feel that he was the right choice for President of the United States of America.
VBBN wrote:My honest mistake.
What I was meaning to say, was that some Americans just might not be ready for an African-American president. They are the people who think they are better than everyone else, and who don't really think of others. I really don't mind, as it shows that anyone can follow their dream. I was simplly saying, that their might be some people, who just are racist, and will not like him. I do dislike of this, and shall they forever hold their peace.
But on the other hand, you are absolutly right. He was voted in because he was better than McCain, and proved that he would be a good President.
Hope this clears things up.
Your right, some might not be, but it seems the majority are. There will always be some sort of racisim in the U.S., as well as the rest of the world. thats a fact of life i'm afraid. If he messes up in office, then i'm sure some will blame it because of the color of his skin. Sad, but i think this proves just how far wev'e come!
Weather or not he will be a good president has yet to be seen. I'm bettingthat he will be (and not because of the color of his skin), but because i feel he can bring forth the change this country really needs.
OK, I have one thing to say. Someone, 5150 Lego I think, said that Barack not putting his hand over his heart was a complete lie. I BEG to differ. Look at this link and look at the third selection. There you can see (fatball)Bill Richardson and(her thighness)Hillary Clinton covering their hearts during the anthem and Obama not.
The video was removed because of(I'd like to say the left wing media ) something at Youtube but that's all I have to say.
By the way, Obama isn't black. He's Caucasian. He's only %3 black.
You know Louis Farrakhan? He called Barack the messiah.
Though the video isn't there, i do remeber seeing one exactly of what your discribing. It was removed because it was found to be a frauded video. Anyways, i remeber years back president bush was scene without his hand over his heart one time during the national anthem, and people made a fus over that. It was somthing made up to try and deminish his (Obama's) Character. He does put his hand over his heart, he is not Muslim, and he was sworn in as a senater by the bible.
As far as him being only 3% black, i don't know about that. His father was born and rasied in Kenya, and it was said that he was (his Father) the first of his family to come to the U.S. I don't see him only being 3% black. Even if he was, it dosen't matter. The people of the United States of America, a place were it was once ileagal for people of color to sit in the front of a bus, use the same water fountains as caucasian people, go to the same school as caucasion people, were it was once leagal to own slaves (predomently african) has just voted in a man of African American heratage, with an African American name to the most powerfull postion in the United States goverment. While i'd like to say that it doesn't matter and it really shouldn't matter, it really does. It goes to show just how far this country has come! While i don't believe that racsisim is completely gone, nor do i believe that it will ever intirely be ridden of, weather you'd like to admit it or not, this is a huge, huge step in overcoming it!