Obama's Victory

Never fear, whether government works for you or works against you, it still works.

Produced me? :laughing:

HG[/quote]

And you sir get to automatically go past GO with payload.

Post of the year.

It was crazy here in Philadelphia. People were cheering their heads off. I was one of them :slight_smile:

Not only did Obama clobber McCain yesterday, the Republicans lost badly in the Senate and congressional races. The Republicans are going to reflect a lot on 1994, when they took control of Congress after years of Democratic misrule in Congress.

I’m confident that the Democrats are determined not to repeat the mistake that brought Republicans into power by a landslide in 1994. Since the Democrats have control of both the presidency and Congress, they must not pursue an agenda that is too liberal. The US is still a center-slightly to right nation.

The challenge for Obama is to rein in the liberal urges of Pelosi, Reid, and congressional/Senate Democrats without sacrificing the progressive agenda that made his campaign appealing at the grassroots level.

If Obama compromises too much with the Republicans, he risks alienating the left wing members of his party who want to pursue a more liberal agenda. But if he pursues their liberal urges too strongly, 1994 could repeat itself.

I think that’s exactly right. :beatnik:

I think that’s exactly right. :beatnik:[/quote]

But that makes Chewy right. OOOOOOOOOOOOO.

:wink:

We still lovin’ it! And dancing around. It is a new day tomorrow and in America it is a NEW DAY. :thumbsup:

Meet the new Boss - Same as the old Boss.

The pied piper has arrived.

The agenda continues.

Now implementing unwanted laws will be easier with the idiots who believe there is a second coming with Obama. He’ll get away with taxing the air we breath, implementing Marshall law, etc.

They’ll be spy brigades with his Hit…Youth Brigade, stepping up action in Pakistan, sending more troops to Afghanistan, new ecominic regulations that will give the banks even more power, as well as never fully pulling out of Iraq.

And when they’re done with Obama in 4-8 years, they’ll give you a republican and thus the same old shit.

If anyone thinks Obama is going to reverse what Bush has done - smell the salt.
Will illegal wiretaps be eradicated? - ha ha. He’ll repeal the patriot act? Get a grip. The phoney drug war is going to end? etc etc

The new CEO has been put in. He is a politician, it is guaranteed 100% he will drop bombs on innocent people for corporate interests.
He will do things that benefit his backers, NEVER the people.

What excuses will the Obama supporters have when he does something Bush would have done and they support it?

Obama will be running NOTHING. He’s a con man. The American Tony Bliar.

And from TainanCowboy’s postergirl:

[quote=“Huffington Post”]An emotional Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reveled Wednesday in Barack Obama’s election, calling it an “extraordinary step forward” for the nation.

A child of the segregated deep South who became the highest-ranking African-American woman ever in American government and was once considered a potential Republican presidential nominee, Rice called the Democratic president-elect “inspirational” and said his victory was proof of America’s promise.

“This was an exercise in American democracy of which Americans across the political spectrum are justifiably proud,” she said.

“As an African-American, I’m especially proud,” said Rice, her eyes glistening with emotion, “because this is a country that’s been through a long journey, in terms of overcoming wounds and making race” less of a factor in life. “That work is not done, but yesterday was obviously an extraordinary step forward.”[/quote]

Funny thing for someone with a “Bush flipping off the world” avatar to say.

Anyone get the feeling that somewhere out there is a Native American thinking: NEXT!

Or as some have lamely suggested, a blind, native-american, lesbian, crippled, hermaphrodite, based on the erroneous assumption that Obama was elected because he’s black – some sort of subconscious, affirmative action pity vote.

But of course that’s hogwash: he was elected because his wife’s a hottie. Now a crippled, transexual eskimo married to a hottie might have good chances in 2012. :discodance:

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Or as some have lamely suggested, a blind, native-American, lesbian, crippled, hermaphrodite, based on the erroneous assumption that Obama was elected because he’s black – some sort of subconscious, affirmative action pity vote.

But of course that’s hogwash: he was elected because his wife’s a hottie. Now a crippled, transexual eskimo married to a hottie might have good chances in 2012. :discodance:[/quote]

I better get started looking then…

Obama’s Jewish problem:

[quote]For all the ink and money spilled on McCain’s hopes of making inroads into the Jewish vote, exit polls suggest Obama won the demographic by a margin even higher than John Kerry’s, and like Al Gore’s and Bill Clinton’s.

The exits currently have it at 78 percent to 21 percent.[/quote]

politico.com/blogs/bensmith

What point are you trying to make by continually using Negro?[/quote]

I’m not making any particular point by using ‘Negro’. I thought that was the correct word to use. I’m fairly sure ‘nigger’, ‘coon’, and ‘darky’ aren’t appropriate these days, ‘blackamoor’, ‘mulatto’, and ‘quadroon’ are archaic, and I thought ‘black’ was considered derogatory because it identifies the person by their skin colour rather than their ethnicity (though my wife has no problem with it, or ‘Negro’). There’s always ‘African American’, but Obama isn’t an ‘African American’ any more than I am (last time I checked, he was born in Hawaii).

[quote=“Jack Burton”][quote=“Fortigurn”]
I agree with all of this. In contrast, I believe the opportunity for, and likelihood of, an Aboriginal Prime Minister in Australia is approximately equivalent to zero.[/quote]

That’s cuz your country sucks ass.[/quote]

Oh, I see now. That explains it. I thought it was because historically our country has provided little to no opportunities for the Advancement Of Coloured People, our electorate has been bigoted, and Anglo-Saxons outnumber Aboriginals by about 100,000 to one. But your explanation is much more rational.

Really? By what system of metrics?

Did it? Such as? The icecream cone? Biological weapons?

Aside from the fact that I’m not sure how you’re assessing what Australia has ‘actually done’, I really couldn’t care less what Australia has actually done. We killed a lot of blacks, does that count for anything?

Well at least I haven’t seen anyone here say that. I do know some Americans who did vote for Obama on the basis that he is black, but they didn’t see it as a pity vote, more an ‘empowerment’ vote.

I always thought African American meant an American of African decent.

Obama is of African descent, and last time I checked, Hawaii was part of the US.

What are you trying to say, Fortigurn? Do you have problems with black people?

He’s definitely African American. His dad’s from Africa, his mom from America. Seems clear to me. Why does that term bother you? Are you also bothered by Chinese-American, Mexican-American, etc.? If you don’t like the term “African American,” black is clearly the preferred term. “Negro” is from the 50’s/60’s. Surely you are aware of that aren’t you? What point are you trying to make?

Aside from the fact that I’m not sure how you’re assessing what Australia has ‘actually done’, I really couldn’t care less what Australia has actually done. We killed a lot of blacks, does that count for anything?[/quote]

Huh? :ponder:

A larger number of low melanin in their skin voters voted for Obama than for any democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. What that “proves” is that low melanin in their skin voters aren’t generally so racist that they would vote against a candidate because his father had a high level of melanin in his skin. Had both his mother and father had relatively high levels of melanin in their skin the situation may have proven different but as it stands the US now has a high melanin in his skin president. It is a glorious day for melanin. In fact it is a glorious day for the US. Obama has my wife’s smile and this is proof that he is a decent human being. Now, if nobody minds it appears this relatively high melanin in his skin individual has some important work to do. Perhaps it would be more productive to focus on that. What do you think?

Well said bob.

Incidentally, can anyone name another country populated by so many people with relatively little melanin in their skin that could conceivably elect as president a person with so much melanin in his/her skin? There must be very few, if any, other countries that would do so.

Just one day later and these bastards have started gloating already!

HG

I always thought African American meant an American of African decent.[/quote]

It does? I thought it meant someone born to African parents, either in Africa or in America, who is an American citizen.

This is what I really don’t get about Americans. Someone only has to refer to Negros, in any context whatsoever, and it’s assumed that they have ‘problems with black people’. You only have to use the word ‘black’ in a sentence, and the Thought Police are out in force. It’s just bizarre. Of course I don’t have problems with black people. I think everyone should have one. I’m married to a self-described ‘black’ or ‘Negro’. Or should that be ‘melanin enhanced person’?

I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware the term was used in that sense. My mistake.

It doesn’t bother me in the least. Why do you think it bothers me?

No.

This is a great example of what I mean. You’re going way off the deep end, speculating wildly. In a single post you’ve gone from ‘Why does that term bother you?’, to ‘If you don’t like the term “African-American”’, despite the fact that there was no evidence whatever that I am remotely bothered by the term, or that I dislike it. I don’t dislike the term ‘African American’. I have no feelings about it whatsoever. If it’s an accurate term to use, then I’ll use it. I just thought it wasn’t accurate in this case, because I thought it had a meaning which apparently it doesn’t.

Clearly? I’m sorry, that hasn’t been at all clear to me.

I’m fairly sure that ‘Negro’ predates the 50s/60s actually.

I have already explained myself. I am not trying to make any ‘point’ by means of the term ‘Negro’. This is just typical of how discussions with Americans go. One minute you think they’re finally over all that stupid race stuff, and the next minute they’re exploding in your face because they’re reading a century of their own history into everything you write. It’s simply weird. I don’t read Australian racism into your use of the term ‘black’, even though in Australia that’s the loaded term, so why would you read American racism into my use of the term ‘Negro’?

Believe me, I’m as confused as you are. I’m groping for something he would would consider sufficiently significant to count as being ‘actually done’.

How many countries are there populated by so many people with relatively little melanin in their skin which actually have a president as head of state?

Thank you.