Expectations For The New Obama Democrat Government

Nice allusion to Hitler there, petro. This assumes that all children have the same political/ideological identification as their parents.I wouldn't count on the dems making the same mistake they did in 92 now. But then again, we're in much deeper shit this time. In 92 we had fought Iraq to succesful conclusion and the economic downturn was a piece of cake.If you look at the popular vote, Clinton also only got 43%. Obama got 53%. And currently leads Bush's second term vote by 2 million votes and 2%. Which means, unlike Clinton, more people have voted for Obama (in absolute and relative terms) than anyone else ever (total votes) or since Bush the elder (percentage of total vote). He also has a greater total vote spread (7.5 million more voted for Obama than McCain) than Bush vs. Dukakis (7 million). We are looking at the greatest "mandate" in a generation, and Bush claimed a "mandate" in 2004 under a much less comanding win.The question is, when Obama actually carries through and is a good president will you accept it? Or are you in the crowd of knee-jerk rabid conservatism? The branch that refuses to even contemplate anything to your left for fear of communism?ABE:
I should add: should Obama seriously fail in his promises (not from Washington procedures, but things like honesty, transparency, partisanship, etc) I will not be happy. I will hold his feet to the fire--he deserves no blind loyalty, no blissfully unaware obedience. Do the republicans think the same of their elected officials? Or is party-stripe enough for support?Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

According to the Yahoo Dashboard, Obama has just over 65 million votes to McCains ~57,150,000 votes. We're still getting in a lot of absentee and other ballots, so the total number keeps on rising for both, but Obama now has a 7,859,841 lead over McCain (greater than his earlier ~7.7 million lead).That's the greatest absolute margin since Clinton's '96 victory over Dole and Reagan's victories over Carter and Mondale. All three had a greater total spread than Obama right now.Percentage wise, he has the greatest percentage since Bush the Elder, but Reagan and Clinton had greater margins of victory.All in all, an impressive, commanding victory by Obama that seems to grow with time as more votes are counted.

Hey Buz, did you spew this invective against the previous democratic presidents in your lifetime? I'm assuming that would be FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton.Or have you simply become more spiteful, more hate-filled, more fear-mongering over time?

Well, seems good 'ole Buz is right about this one. He's going to, gasp!, require students to do community service! Perish the thought that people actually work to give back to the community!serve.JPG (image)
From this wonderful little blog:
Page not foundIt's not the service that gets this guy. It's that it won't be churches doing it. Which I guess is bad, because then churches won't be able to "indoctrinate" it's young volunteers. How ridiculous.I suppose the commentators would also have a problem with the draft (as they bring up the 13th amendment, which prohibits slavery, which they link to required community service, which is little different than required military service except you stand a lesser chance of getting killed)? Or is a draft a good thing? You know, indocrtinate all those young people with discipline and respect for tradition? Or is that indocrtination okay?Will conservatives please grow up? You guys still make me sick.

Speaking of which, most of Europe is pretty estactic, and not just the leaders.I was at an election night party with 15-20 exchange students in Uppsala and we stayed up long enough to watch the acceptance speech. Our party was but one of dozens.Of course, since Sweden is socialist, that means its an enemy of the States.Buz seems to belong to this funny school of international relations called Americn Unilateralism, which states that America can do fuck all it wants without regard for anybody else, and whoever disagrees should just roll over.Empires have never been able to successfully act unilaterally--when they try they are cut down. The best way to ensure American dominance is to not exercise American dominance.

So Al-Qaeda never endorsed McCain, but Obama, I guess.Or wait:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../21/AR2008102102477_pf.htmlThe Washington Post is not the "liberal rag" called the NYTimes. The WP reports that Al-Qaeda endorsed McCain.I guess that means McCain is not a bona fide christian, although I can't blame you for coming to that consideration given that he called Falwell and ilk "agents of intolerance".Though since you most likely supported McCain, would Al-Qaeda's endorsement make you question whether McCain is a christian and lead you to support Barr, perhaps?Quit being silly Buz.

quote:

---

Do you find conspiracy in everything {democratic/liberal}?
  —bluescat

---

There, fixed it for you.And I would say he does. I for one would love to hear from Buz how the community service Obama wants to push forward is unconstitutional (13th amendment). I would then ask Buz is the draft/selective service is unconstitutional, and watch him twist their own logic to support a draft as constitutional but not community service.

Out of curiosity, are you an american citizen? If not, you can't contribute. I'd recommend a better promise to Buz, one that you can carry out legally.

Now I see why Buz is upset. Obama's black halve will float above his white halve. The muslim thing is just a distraction from his real dislike--Obama doesn't embrace his white side, or something like that.Wait, what?I will be so glad when we finally rid ourselves of the KKK* and it's legacies, and we may just be on the verge of this. A successful black president may just take the sail out of their winds. Granted, they'll just find something new to be bigoted about, although homophobia could simply be the latest iteration.*KKK is used for emphatic effect. I am, naturally, talking about racists/bigots of any stripe. So if you're reading this buz, I am not calling you a member of the KKK, just an intolerant ass.

Not to be a dick, but when you say that Nosyned is , isn't that a moral judgement you are making about him?If so, what qualifies you to make that judgement?Hypocrisy, much?

I see you decided to evade my question.You say Ned is not qualified to make moral judgements. You proceed to make a moral judgement about Ned.What makes you qualified to make moral judgements about Ned (or anyone)?Since you claim Ned is unqualified, you should have an acceptable answer for why you are qualified as you can apparently discern the required conditions for making justifiable moral judgements.This also means you should have ready an objective measure of qualification for moral judging.So, what makes you qualified to make moral judgements about Ned (or anyone)?

That's an interesting position to take. This suggests that any moral judgement, then, is incapable of being rendered. How can you judge morality without morals?If amorality is the requirement to pass judgement, then your judgement about Ned (that he is as least as ignorant, fearful, and hateful as Buz) is unjustifiable, as it is a moral judgement.

well, there's anothing thing we should mention.Obama is asking us to help with the california wildfires. On his website, change.gov, he directs willing volunteers to californiavolunteers.org.Imagine that. He is saying in effect, do not ask what your government can do for you, but what you can do to help others in need. Paraphrasing JFK's line, of course.What has hero Bush asked of us?
"Now people here in this part of the world are wondering, is there a number they can call to get help? And here's the number: 1-800-621-FEMA. You want to find out whether or not you qualify for help, federal help, just call 1-800-621-FEMA or go to the website FEMA.gov"
Briefing Room - The White HouseHe does thank the volunteers, but where's the call to arms? All I see is "we'll pray for you, FEMA will {screw you over}, and Ah-nuld is a great leader"Yeah, Obama's going to destroy this country because he's asking us to help one another.

Or it could show the world that the US cares about the rule of law. That the US is not the great satan. Gitmo is propaganda to terrorists: "look how those infidel bastards lock us up!". No gitmo, no percieved abuses of human decency, no dismissal of basic human rights, no effective propaganda to enlist a young suicide bomber to fight against the US. Do you remember that joke from the RNC about McCain's torture? That he gave the starting line-up of the green bay packers as the names of his comrades? Torture is notoriously unreliable. The victim gives you the answer they think you want to hear or any plausible answer to stop the torture. Torture can be used to obtain false confessions. Torture should not be used to gather information to save lives because such information could easily be wrong (and often is). And then its unethical. Read up on Beccaria. Evidence? I don't think you have any. Why? Because they don't belong to a state army? Perhaps Geneva needs revisions?

That, or we're sick and tired of fighting a war that ended a generation ago.That, or we've learned the lesson from your generations mistakes. And are determined to not repeat them.By the way, after WWII, Europe has experienced effectively no wars. Sure, there was Iceland v UK, UK v Argentina, Franco, and finally in the 90s the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and a couple of wars there.Europe has had peace and freedom for 60+ years. That is unheard of in European history.After WWII, the EEC was created, leading to the EU, leading to one of the great experiments in intra-government. Never before has Europe been so tightly bound to the rest of Europe (though these binds compare not to the US states and federal gov't). The EEC and EU has seen the emergence of a new economic zone with a strong currency and a major player on the world stage.Yes, having peace, economic prosperity, and freedom is a really, really bad thing.