Slashdot Mirror


Barack Obama Wins US Presidency

Last night, around 11pm, all the major networks announced that Senator Barack Obama had won the election. Soon after, Senator McCain conceded. There were no crazy partisan court hearings, just a simple election. This is your chance to talk about it and what it means for the future of our nation.

3,709 comments

  1. Two words by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Thank God.

    1. Re:Two words by GigaHurtsMyRobot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's hope

    2. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a european citizen, thank USA!

    3. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why? Did he vote?

    4. Re:Two words by neoform · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole world agrees with those sentiments.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    5. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Democrats believe in God?

    6. Re:Two words by s0litaire · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yup! he voted for his son, Obama... :D

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    7. Re:Two words by molog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why? Is Obama really that much better than McCain? Would McCain have been worse than Bush? I just saw two complete liars campaigning. Obama just got away with telling bigger lies. The only thing I can hope for is that the Republicans can filibuster the Democrats' bills. Not so much to push a Republican agenda, but to keep either party from screwing us any more than they currently do.

      Molog

      --
      So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
      The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
    8. Re:Two words by matthardcast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The democrats now control the house, senate, and the presidency. I think "dear god" might be more appropriate.

    9. Re:Two words by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where have you been the past 8 years?

      Anyway, I can't say Obama would be significantly better (or worse) than McCain, McCain just too much risk of Palin becoming president. I think she would have made us look back on the "golden years of Bush"

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    10. Re:Two words by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have never seen such hysteria for a candidate in my life. With the type of overwrought messianic expectations that he faces, there is no way to go for Obama but down.

      I'm not saying that he deserves it, but when these pie-in-the-sky types realize that he is human like the rest, and that he won't be able to wipe the tear from every eye, his approval rating will take a serious hit.

    11. Re:Two words by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole world agrees with those sentiments

      Because, just like US voters, they have no idea what's just been done. Voting for ambigious, platitudinous "change" is nothing more than making a blank canvas out of a guy that it's soothing to vote for because electing him has the sidebar benefit of taking a bit of race resentment off the table. If you listened to his speech last night (even if you've missed so many others), you heard one thing: he was about the campaign, and about the process of being elected. That's what he was most proud of, not some mandate or vision (since neither has been clearly expressed, nor promised). His supporters are in for the same rude awakening he is, when it comes to the reality of him getting his first ever real job.

      There are, though, two silver linings. First, at least the senate isn't a supermajority rubber stamp. Second, when he runs for re-election next time, it can finally involve looking at some sort of actual record of his - and a whole lot of people who were caught up the historical significance of skin color can come back to their senses and realize they're hiring someone for an actual executive job, not trying to win a high school debate on style points.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:Two words by WynterNyght · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Emigration may be in order (if you're a U.S. subject--er, citizen).

    13. Re:Two words by Remloc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why? Is Obama really that much better than McCain?

      Yes. McCain wanted to tax the poor to pay the wealthy. McCain was two footsteps from the grave with a ditzy anti-choice, creationist VP.

      Would McCain have been worse than Bush?

      I don't think that's possible. ANYONE but Clinton is better than Bush. That doesn't mean we can't do better than McCain.

      I just saw two complete liars campaigning. Obama just got away with telling bigger lies. The only thing I can hope for is that the Republicans can filibuster the Democrats' bills. Not so much to push a Republican agenda, but to keep either party from screwing us any more than they currently do.

      Molog

      If I ruled the world, my agenda for the Obama presidency: - Fix Bush's financial mess. - Re-establish our Constitutional rights (like, ban the PATRIOT act). - Pull us out of Iraq ASAP. - Go after Bin Laden where he really might be.

    14. Re:Two words by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have never seen such hysteria for a candidate in my life. With the type of overwrought messianic expectations that he faces, there is no way to go for Obama but down.

      I'm not saying that he deserves it, but when these pie-in-the-sky types realize that he is human like the rest, and that he won't be able to wipe the tear from every eye, his approval rating will take a serious hit.

      As far as a good part of the rest of the world...we don't think you elected a messiah. We're just glad you didn't elect the 3rd incarnation of the fucking antichrist.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    15. Re:Two words by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why? Is Obama really that much better than McCain? Would McCain have been worse than Bush?

      No, however you would have had to put up with a lot of the status quo since even the most honest of Republicans would find it difficult to remove the most corrupt or incompetant entrenched in various nooks and crannies. The same could apply if there had been a corrupt Democrat administration but it would take a few years with nobody really watching before that could happen while some of the current crooks have should have rap sheets dating back to Nixon's administration.

      One thing I've noticed from being in a place that had a far more corrupt government is that the replacements make an effort to try to be squeaky clean even if is against their nature. Also the Republicans now have a chance to purge criminal elements which they would not have if they had won, so I think it's better for them and the USA than if they had won. The bizzare shift to Monarchy within the Republican party and the rest of the odd neocon agenda has hopefully been laid to rest with this election if it wasn't already.

    16. Re:Two words by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the thank god was in reference to the no recount. I could be wrong, but that is what my 'Thank God' reaction was aimed at.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    17. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Emigration may be in order (if you're a U.S. subject--er, citizen).

      And where the hell are we supposed to emigrate to?

      We are completely fucked.

      Thanks comrades.

    18. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you're a right wing nutjob who, like bush, likes nothing more than a completely wrecked america.. yes, this is going suck really badly

    19. Re:Two words by MMC+Monster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Absolutely. Let's give the guy some room to see what a Democratic president with Democratic congress can do for four years.

      There's always the '12 elections. If things are still bad then, the Republicans will have a (relatively) easy time.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    20. Re:Two words by Ztream · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny, I was watching the same speech, and I thought he went out of his way to stress that this goes beyond the campaign. I guess I'm just retarded.

      Regarding his concrete plans, he's a *politician*. None of the candidates have provided much in the way of concrete plans, much to my frustration. There is no doubt that Obama can fail to live up expectations -- hell, I don't see how he *can* -- but that goes for any new president, and America wouldn't have a separate presidential election if it was all about the issues as opposed to the person.

      This will certainly be interesting.

    21. Re:Two words by kosty · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I don't wanna' get all "tit-for-tat" here with that "love it or leave it" crap *I've* had to listen to for far too long. Oh, wait. Yes I do.

      Think GW Bu$h ever DREAMED he'd be THIS much of a uniter? Mwahahahahahahahaha!

      --
      "Democracy." It's just a slogan.
    22. Re:Two words by sosofo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      One thing I've noticed from being in a place that had a far more corrupt government

      Hello to Nigeria

    23. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Early and often, as is the Democratic method.

      Made sure them Black Panthers were keeping others away too.

    24. Re:Two words by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, there was no chance of that either way. We did, however, elect a bad president... but we were going to do that no matter what.

      Obama, contrary to popular belief, is yet another power-hungry, self-serving politician. He proved this to anyone who pays attention when he cast his vote for telecom immunity (in other words: you can break the law, as long as the president says it's OK to do so). With a loose regard for the law like he showed he has, I do not look forward to seeing what new abuses of presidential power this man will perpetrate.

      It's funny, though... Obama is quite possibly the biggest con man I've ever seen. I have great admiration for his skills at deceiving people, even as I'm disgusted with my fellow countrymen for being taken in by a swindler so easily. Truly an exemplary politician, even if he is a bad statesman.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    25. Re:Two words by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why would we begin the prayer after it has been answered?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    26. Re:Two words by Windows_NT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With all respect,
      Your going to eat those words in a year.
      Good bye George, and god bless barrack!

      --
      Go go Gadget Nailgun!
    27. Re:Two words by bheer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      McCain isn't the antichrist. Not by a long shot. And I said this as an Obama supporter. He's served this country (more honorably than many senators) for a long time.

      When will you get it into your head that your your political opponent isn't automatically evil incarnate? That may work for vi-vs-emacs and Apple-vs-MS wars on /., but it's just juvenile in the real world.

    28. Re:Two words by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      It's called Neural Linguistic Programming.

      Very effective in the right hands (I have gotten jobs through using it.)

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    29. Re:Two words by bonehead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where have you been the past 8 years?

      You think things were bad under Bush?

      You ain't seen nothing yet.

    30. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, as in, "Dear God, Thank You."

    31. Re:Two words by kosty · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, well as for not getting the "red carpet treatment" from the rest of the world if you want to emigrate *NOW*? You can think your beloved NeoCon, "conservative", white, Republican pricks currently in charge.

      Ain't that a bitch?

      --
      "Democracy." It's just a slogan.
    32. Re:Two words by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "Let's hope"

      Ok...he won.

      Now...honestly, what do you think is really going to change?

      Do you think he'll get the Dems to undo the Patriot Act?

      Do you think he'll get to the bottom of and stop the Wiretaps on US Citizens?

      Do you think he'll have us 100% out of Iraq in the next week? Month? Year? Decade?

      Will he magically fix the economy? If so, how long? What exactly is he going to do?

      Will he walk on water?

      Ok...the last one was a joke, but, seriously, everyone that seems to be treating his election as the 'second coming', what exactly do you think has changed, or what to you see as the time table to be looking for all this "change"?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    33. Re:Two words by Veretax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      McCain would tax the Poor?? really? If you really believe that then McCain's campaign has failed even worse than I'd imagined. Not once has he said he'd raise taxes on the Poor. Good Grief!

    34. Re:Two words by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Why? Is Obama really that much better than McCain?"

      Karma preserve man!

      "I just saw two complete liars campaigning. "

      Right. It is called an election; that is the definition.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    35. Re:Two words by deniable · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More importantly, a vote for McCain was a vote for Rove and friends. Rewarding them with another four years would have been interesting in a Chinese curse kind of way.

    36. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny, though... Obama is quite possibly the biggest con man I've ever seen. I have great admiration for his skills at deceiving people, even as I'm disgusted with my fellow countrymen for being taken in by a swindler so easily. Truly an exemplary politician, even if he is a bad statesman.

      Why would you be surprised? Weren't we taken by Clinton just as easily in the 90's?

    37. Re:Two words by eggnoglatte · · Score: 1

      Because, just like US voters, they have no idea what's just been done.

      What's just been done, is that the lying, thieving, war-mongering, and incompetent people in charge for the mess over the past 8 years have been thoroughly ousted.

      I am sure people will point out that McCain!= Bush, and I will admit that McCain himself seems to be a man of integrity. However, much of the republican leadership is not. Palin serves as a perfect example. By putting unflinching loyalty over competence in her Alaskan kingdom, she shows exactly the same kind of cronyism as the Bush administration. Having McCain lead that kind of team would have been like gold-plating a turd.

      It is true that the the new guys still have to prove they are any good, but we know the old guys were not, so at least there is a chance of improvement now.

    38. Re:Two words by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      I hope I'm wrong. I really, really do. I mean, you don't think I want to have a bad president who abuses his power, do you? If I eat my words in 4 years, I will be delighted to do so... I just fear that it's Obama's supporters who will be eating their words.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    39. Re:Two words by Missing_dc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, we may have just elected the 3rd incarnation of the antichrist.
      (first 2 being Napoleon and Hitler)
      That is of course if Maitreya is not the antichrist.

      It all depends on if we are the new Babylon or if Iraq is the new incarnation of Babylon. According to most conjecture on the timeline of this subject, we should know by fall of next year if Obama is the latest incarnation of the antichrist. Lets see if he ends up with control of the world.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    40. Re:Two words by bheer · · Score: 1

      > Voting for ambigious, platitudinous "change" is nothing
      > more than making a blank canvas out of a guy that it's
      > soothing to vote for ...especially given that the guy in question can deliver impressive, lofty speeches.

      However, Obama has shown a lot of discipline and organizational skill in conducting his campaign. That counts for something. And I (and I guess many others) were just not ready to reward the Republicans with a 3rd term after (especially) the last two years.

    41. Re:Two words by deniable · · Score: 1

      Think of the candidates like an iceberg. It's the rest of it that you don't see that's important. Bush's crew left and became McCain's crew. The man isn't the Anti-Christ, he just hired his minions.

    42. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      In the same vein:

      Congratulations USA on your recent election. The world watched this very carefully, and we are generally happy with the choice you have made.

      You've made the first step. Don't fuck this up. You're still on notice.

    43. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like you've been watching Fox "News". Shortly after Obama made his speech last night, I tuned in to see what they were saying, and pretty much heard *exactly* what you just typed.

      No, he's not going to do any of those things in the first week, month, or most likely even first year he's in office. The shit Bush & Co. has done will take far longer to unravel, but he can start the process.

      Quit being so damned bitter and actually start helping your fellow countrymen instead of being an asshole because your guy didn't win.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    44. Re:Two words by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As far as a good part of the rest of the world...we don't think you elected a messiah. We're just glad you didn't elect the 3rd incarnation of the fucking antichrist.

      Dumbest thing I've read today and that applies double for whoever modded that informative/insightful. I didn't vote for McCain. I don't think he'd make as good an executive as he does a Senator, and if I'm being honest, I don't think he's as sharp mentally as he used to be.

      But his record is really that of a centrist, who works with people across party lines. He's done a lot to reform campaign finance (which ironically didn't help him, since his opponent decided rules are for other people). Relating McCain to the "antichrist" somehow is representative of the blind, untargeted ultra-liberal rage that seems to have consumed quite a few people these days. Yes, Bush is a terrible president. But to assume that he and McCain are the same man, let alone to come to the conclusion that he's representative of Satan himself, requires one to be drinking directly from the Obama campaign Kool-Aid tap.

      In other words, stop letting other people write your cue cards for you, think for yourself.

    45. Re:Two words by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We're just glad you didn't elect the 3rd incarnation of the fucking antichrist."

      Even though I voted Obama and am VERY glad he won, I think that's overly harsh on McCain. Every impression I got was that he was more intelligent and sane than the Texas Village Idiot.

      The problem is that McCain and Palin ran on a platform that catered to the same uneducated religious nutjobs that Bush appealed to. That platform backfired on them, when their "This is Real America" small-town speeches pissed off the (according to them) educated "Fake Americans" living in suburbs and cities. I may live in a small town now, but I grew up in the suburbs and many of their speeches implied that I was not a "Real American", which I found quite insulting.

      Signed,
      "Fake American" (aka educated ex-suburban-resident)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    46. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Perfectly appropriate choice of alias, O'Riley! I look forward to you FUCKING IT, AND DOING IT LIVE! while you berate and bash more of your guests while you proclaim on every show how the sky is falling...

      *sniffle* Gotta' love 'em.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    47. Re:Two words by bonehead · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Let's give the guy some room to see what a Democratic president with Democratic congress can do for four years.

      I can think of very few things that frighten me more.

    48. Re:Two words by LVSlushdat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      yeah... Am seriously thinking about that.. but the ever-dwindling shortlist of places that *arent* totally screwed up already is woefully short.. no, actually its pretty much non-existant..

      UK? nope...
      Canada? nope...
      Australia? nope..

      What to do.. What to do..

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    49. Re:Two words by alderion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      just because you heard it on fox news doesn't mean it's incorrect. the gp is entirely correct. i don't think anything will change in washington. that said, i hope i'm wrong.

    50. Re:Two words by dhermann · · Score: 1

      The only thing I can hope for is that the Republicans can filibuster the Democrats' bills.

      You forgot "then attack the legislative branch because it can't get anything done".

    51. Re:Two words by Vexorian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why? Is Obama really that much better than McCain? Would McCain have been worse than Bush?

      Yes

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    52. Re:Two words by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, I had the same reaction as cayenne8 AND I voted for Obama. Go figure. But maybe I'm just old and bitter.

    53. Re:Two words by alcmaeon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have never seen such hysteria for a candidate in my life. With the type of overwrought messianic expectations that he faces, there is no way to go for Obama but down.

      I take it you were born after the 1984 Reagan-Mondale election.

    54. Re:Two words by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      Does 'missing_dc' refer to you having skipped a few sessions of electroconvulsive therapy?

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    55. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      just because you heard it on fox news doesn't mean it's incorrect.

      Yes, it does.

    56. Re:Two words by Oloryn · · Score: 1

      hypocritically judge our fellow man, be hateful of everyone not like oneself, etc.

      Based on what I've seen the last few years, anymore the democrats do this just as much as the republicans. The party that used to decry hate now proudly and loudly proclaims their hate for those who differ from them politically. Disdainful ridicule of those who don't agree with them is par for the course(examples of which you can see plenty of places on /.), and Bulverism reigns even more supreme in political discourse (the whole "If you don't vote for Obama, it must be because you're racist" bit is classic Bulverism). While proclaiming "tolerance", they are increasingly intolerant of those who don't accept their worldview, and the term "fundamentalist liberal" is likely to become more and more relevant and descriptive in the times to come. Take the blinders off.

    57. Re:Two words by mcneely.mike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that the USA is the next Britain and that the next "SUPER POWER" is going to be China.
      And Microsoft is going to be the next IBM.
      And that Linux is going to be the next Microsoft... done the correct way of course.
      And Barack Obama will be the next Kim Campbell. (Yes, you will have to probably google her if you are not Canadian.)

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    58. Re:Two words by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I doubt he's likely to make things worse - and for most people, that's enough on its own. Damning with faint praise, or just a reflection of how bad King George Bush II was? I heard dubya was 6 points lower in the approval ratings than Nixon was - after he was indicted.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    59. Re:Two words by v1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      My favorite thing to hear on Fox was a discussion going on to do with the state of the economy, and how "we are only now seeing the full effects of the Clinton presidency". I about fell out of my chair.

      I do realize that change cannot be immediate, but there are limits. Considering how long we've had a Bush for president, continuing to blame the past just flies in the face of all reason.

      Now it still concerns me to stand by and watch just how much more damage the Lame Duck can do before the clean-up crew moves in.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    60. Re:Two words by cayenne8 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      "Congratulations USA on your recent election. The world watched this very carefully, and we are generally happy with the choice you have made.

      You've made the first step. Don't fuck this up. You're still on notice."

      Like we give a shit.

      On notice?? I don't get it....a country always acts out for its own interests above all others, that's what a country is there for.

      Cooperation is a great thing, and should be sought whenever possible, but, when it comes down to you or me....I gotta go with 'me'.

      It is nice you are happy with who is elected, but, irrelevant if you are not a US citizen. It isn't like we really care who you elect in your country.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    61. Re:Two words by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you honestly believe that the only reason so many people voted fro him was race? How sad.

      It may also surprise you that, in retrospect, experience is not correlated to being a good president, and in fact some of the the most inexperienced presidents have been some of the most successful.

      Compare it to the alternative McCain, who's political convictions apparently run so shallow that nearly all of them did a complete 180 in the four years since his last attempt at the oval office. His campaign was run by anyone but him and the choosing of Palin should shake even the most stalwart GOP supporter's confidence in that man's executive capabilities.

      I'll take "confident and inspirational" over "schizophrenic and incompetent" any day, even if "experience" is lacking.
      =Smidge=

    62. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's not entirely true. I can only speak from experience regarding Puerto Rico. There is a (political) party that wishes to become a U.S. State, a party that wishes to be removed from U.S. control, and a pretty overwhelming sentiment that things are just peachy-keen the way they are.

      I wouldn't expect a revolution from Puerto Rico. I'm not saying that they couldn't do it, because by all means they can--and an amazing number of puertorriquenos have served in our military--but I believe they rank somewhere up near "the happiest nation in the world".

    63. Re:Two words by ChameleonDave · · Score: 0, Troll

      your your political opponent isn't automatically evil incarnate? That may work for vi-vs-emacs and Apple-vs-MS wars on /., but it's just juvenile in the real world.

      You have it backward.

      It is juvenile to think someone is evil because they use a different text editor. It is just clarity to see evil in someone who will bring suffering to millions of people.

    64. Re:Two words by evanjfraser · · Score: 1

      McCain isn't the anti-christ, Palin is.

    65. Re:Two words by altoz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sadly, a vote for Obama was also a vote for the nutroots. We've already rewarded their despicable behavior and we'll have to live with that for the next four years.

    66. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You saw correctly. FISA, Second Amendment, Wall Street Bail Out.

      The difference is, Obama keeps his lies straight. I'll take intelligent evil over dumb evil any day.

      Plus, Obama's not palling around with Palin. Thanks, but I've had enough religious lunacy over the past eight years to last me a lifetime.

    67. Re:Two words by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 1

      Whatever it is you've been reading, you've been reading too much of it.

      --
      Would you like a slice of toast?
    68. Re:Two words by rfunches · · Score: 1

      If you propose to make tax cuts targeting the wealthy permanent, and the government needs to raise lots of money to bail out the financial system, there are two places to get that money:

      1. Raise taxes on those you didn't give tax cuts too, i.e. the lower and middle class
      2. Cut other government spending

      Any candidate would say he'd do the second choice, but which do you think is more likely to raise hundreds of billions of dollars quickly?

    69. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I wouldn't go as far as "anti-christ", however, he has turned out to be a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE human being.

      He only started slinging the mud as thickly as he did at Obama because Obama changed his mind on the town hall meetings? How old is McCain, 3?

      He's talking about how we're going to "win the war in Iraq" if he becomes president? Perhaps the old man forgot that "the war" was won within a few days (weeks?) of us heading over there and that, now, we're an occupying force and no longer in war? Hell, he was in at *least* one war -- he should know you can't "win" an occupation.

      He wanted to take 300 billion of the 700 billion and buy up a whole bunch of mortgages, re-negotiate them with lower interest rates and at the *current* value of the houses, and OBAMA is the socialist?!

      My friends, that's only the beginning of what a terrible man McCain is. Combine him (with his poor health) with Sarah "We're on a mission from god in Iraq" Palin, and we'd have been fucked like we never imagined with Bush in office.

      Is Obama perfect? No, he's human like the rest of us, but we're *FAR* better off with him than freakin' McCain/Palin...

      --
      bork bork bork!
    70. Re:Two words by kosty · · Score: 1

      think = thank. Damn...

      --
      "Democracy." It's just a slogan.
    71. Re:Two words by Danathar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Blaming Bush will only work for so long. If Voters took account of who was responsible for problems they would of tossed out Dems and Republicans in congress since the Democratic congress does hold some responsibility for their actions over the last two years, but the fact of the matter is that whomever is in the White house defines which party is responsible regardless of who is REALLY responsible.

      Complaining about trains not running on time and management is FAR different than making the trains run on time and BEING management.

    72. Re:Two words by LVSlushdat · · Score: 0, Troll

      If I'm still around here in 2 years or so, I'll check back in and see how all you Obama-lovers feel then... I'll bet you'll have changed your tune.. Obama by himself would be bad enough, but with socialist majority in Congress, it can't get much worse...

      You people think Bush did a bad job, then you are REALLY gonna hate Obama, after the honeymoon is over... Or ... maybe thats what you guys actually want.. A socialist state lead by Obama, that will trash industry, bring unemployment higher than its ever been. and tax you till you bleed.. Yes.. I know, he's only gonna increase taxes on incomes over 250K/yr.. yeah, right.. if you believe that, I have a bridge in NY I'll sell you cheap... He's gonna tell you WHATEVER it takes to get elected, and now that he's elected, gloves are off...

      Mark my words.. In two years (or less) all you Obama-lovers will be singing a different tune.. Along with the rest of us who've been singing it all along....

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    73. Re:Two words by clary · · Score: 1

      Does a person below the poverty level even pay income tax? (Yes, I know they pay sales tax and payroll tax if they are on a payroll.)

      If not, then how was McCain going to get money from the poor to pay the wealthy? I would honestly like an explanation of that from the GP poster.

      --

      "Rub her feet." -- L.L.

    74. Re:Two words by solafide · · Score: 1
      Argentina and Chile were democratic, but recently Chile elected a president just as liberal as Obama, and Argentina elected the wife of a previous president to evade term limits. Israel is decent politically, but when it comes to hate, more of the world hates Israel than ever hated the USA, and the USA will reduce its aid to Israel under Obama, thus making it less secure.

      Let me know if you find anywhere.

    75. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I thought Obama was the antichrist?

      "someone who will come out of nowhere into the world of politics in the guise of change and peace"

      We'll find out when the world ends in 2012 after his re-election.

    76. Re:Two words by Kozz · · Score: 1

      Is Obama really that much better than McCain? Would McCain have been worse than Bush? I just saw two complete liars campaigning. Obama just got away with telling bigger lies.

      You know, I typically think of myself as the most cynical sonofabitch I know... but even I hadn't cast such disparaging eyes at both candidates.

      Frankly, my candidate won the presidency last night, and even I felt a wave of emotion as Obama delivered his speech to the hundred-thousand folks in Grant Park.

      Yes, Obama is better than McCain for his humility and ability to gather people around him and rally for a cause, find solutions. The McCain/Palin ticket frightened the bejeezus out of me solely for the "one heartbeat" factor. I could go on about all of the GOP ticket's flaws... Palin is(was) a post turtle, McCain's intermittent visible symptoms of dementia, war-mongering ("bomb, bomb Iran"???)...

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    77. Re:Two words by altoz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >No, he's not going to do any of those things in the first week, month, or most likely even first year
      > he's in office.

      Are you campaigning for his re-election already? By your standard, we have no way of telling whether he's succeeded in doing what he promised because it'll take too long. Fact is, he's like any other politician. He has to start doing some of the things he promised or he'll face the consequences.

    78. Re:Two words by RancidMilk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bravo. Mod Parent.

    79. Re:Two words by bheer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > It is juvenile to think someone is evil because they use a
      > different text editor.

      Most folk on /. know it's juvenile. Those who accuse their political opponents of being evil usually don't. Hint: if your political opponent was truly evil, you probably wouldn't be around. Just ask some Zimbabweans who dared oppose Mugabe and were found in a ditch with their limbs torn off.

      > It is just clarity to see evil in someone who will bring
      > suffering to millions of people.

      By that measure FDR would qualify as "evil" - his policies (including the US' insistence on the gold standard long after other nations abandoned it) extended the Depression for the US for at least 6 years and caused suffering to millions of people.

      "Evil" is a loaded word. Sending people to Siberia to starve and die is evil. Sending jews and gays to bake in Polish camp ovens is evil.

      If you think McCain is evil, you're deluded _and_ are cheapening the meaning of the word.

    80. Re:Two words by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      There are, though, two silver linings. First, at least the senate isn't a supermajority rubber stamp. Second, when he runs for re-election next time, it can finally involve looking at some sort of actual record of his - and a whole lot of people who were caught up the historical significance of skin color can come back to their senses and realize they're hiring someone for an actual executive job, not trying to win a high school debate on style points.

      All I can say is "THANK GOD FOR THAT!!".. After his first term, I'll bet with my last dollar that even his supporters will be so fed up with him, that he'll be more reviled than Bush is now....
      I just hope he, and the Congress hasn't ruined this wonderful country beyond repair....

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    81. Re:Two words by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "If I ruled the world, my agenda for the Obama presidency: - Fix Bush's financial mess. - Re-establish our Constitutional rights (like, ban the PATRIOT act). - Pull us out of Iraq ASAP. - Go after Bin Laden where he really might be."

      Do you actually believe he will do ANY of this?

      Repeal the Patriot Act...? He actually voted on that last re-do of the FISA laws, giving more power to the feds, and immunity to the telcos on the wiretapping thing.

      Pull out of Iraq ASAP? If you were listening to him in the debates and stump speeches...he sounded pretty much like McCain. THey'll only pull out as can be safe as recommended by the generals on the ground over there.

      Bin Laden? Maybe...but, hard to do with so many troops in Iraq. (See previous comment above)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    82. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 1

      Are you really that stupid, or just that brainwashed by Fox? If he doesn't want to "tax the poor", then what is the tax he wanted to charge on our health care benefits?

      Ohh, that's right. Poor people don't HAVE health benefits. Right, right, carry on then...

      McCain would tax the Poor?? really? If you really believe that then McCain's campaign has failed even worse than I'd imagined. Not once has he said he'd raise taxes on the Poor. Good Grief!

      --
      bork bork bork!
    83. Re:Two words by peterhoeg · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      But I thought the republicans had the christian god on their side - that's at least the way they made it sound. So what's the deal here - omnipotent or impotent?

      I know this is flame bait, but still; it amuses me when the people who claim to have a god on their side lose something.

      Like when going on a plane full of nuns - if you fall down you either know there is no god or that (s)he has a wicked sense of humour. Both are good to me (apart from the actual plane crashing part of course).

    84. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well as for not getting the "red carpet treatment" from the rest of the world if you want to emigrate *NOW*? You can think your beloved NeoCon, "conservative", white, Republican pricks currently in charge.

      Ain't that a bitch?

      You know, I can't stand W. He is without a doubt one of the worst presidents this country has ever had to suffer through. However, Obama scares the shit out of me. The house and senate majority also scares the shit out of me. That is the only reason I voted for McCain as at least he'd have a slightly amount of resistance when it comes destroying our republic.

      As for what I said about where the hell could we go, I mean where the hell can we go where can be Free? Where? America was one of the last few places where at least there is a hope of not being under a massive government that micromanages every aspect of your life. Where there hell can I emigrate to?

      Here is the motto I live by:

      "That government is best which governs least."
      (Thomas Paine)

    85. Re:Two words by neoform · · Score: 2, Informative

      You say that now, but once he walks on water and converts water into wine, you'll eat your works, oh yes.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    86. Re:Two words by jambox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The hope is that he won't make things any worse. That, at least, makes me and many other people both inside and outside the US feel a lot safer. Perhaps he'll go the way of Jimmy Carter, but even if he does, at least we can be fairly sure there won't be another pointless war or needless reduction of civil liberties.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    87. Re:Two words by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Clinton left office with the economy is great shape.
      And he did go after terrorists.
      What's your beef with Bill? ( Ok, aside from lousy taste in interns )

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    88. Re:Two words by Stile+65 · · Score: 1

      Double-slit experiment gone wrong?

      --
      I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    89. Re:Two words by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A coworker of mine described his vote very simply: "My fear with McCain is that he will do as he says. My fear with Obama is that he won't."

      My response to those concerns is very simple: if he does half of what he says he'll do, that's still a big win.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    90. Re:Two words by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      I'm waitin on my rainbow and leprechaun, but I won't hold my breath till they get here.

    91. Re:Two words by bheer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Is Obama perfect? No, he's human like the rest of us, but
      > we're *FAR* better off with him than freakin' McCain/Palin...

      Oh yeah. I totally agree. But what gets me is this urge -- on both sides -- to call the other guy names: 'evil' or 'traitor' or 'communist' or 'socialist' or whatever. That really, really pisses me off.

      I don't know about you, but I like some civility in my politics. Maybe I'm being naive, but then I voted for a guy who sort of shares my beliefs, and gave a classy shout-out to his losing opponent (and the Republican party, incidentally, by reminding them of what they once stood for) today.

      Now if only more of his fans on Slashdot show the same civility ...

    92. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here! here! It's nice to see sanity.

    93. Re:Two words by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Quit being so damned bitter and actually start helping your fellow countrymen instead of being an asshole because your guy didn't win

      You mean like the Democrats did in 2000 and 2004?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    94. Re:Two words by Veretax · · Score: 1

      News Flash, McCain said that he wanted to freeze spending, and cut the budget in some places where they can. He was on record as such. If you don't realize that, then you haven't been paying attention. Not that it matters, McCain didn't win. But to say that holding taxes in place, is a raise of taxes on poor people just doesn't hold water.

      Now, where you might see an un-passed tax, is if spending so goes through the roof that inflation through monetary policy causes our dollar to be worth less. That would be a defacto tax on all of us, but would probably hit the poor more than the rich.

    95. Re:Two words by ArcherB · · Score: 2

      As a european citizen, thank USA!

      I'm glad to hear you guys are excited. However, as I kept hearing all throughout this election cycle what other countries wanted, I had to wonder:

      Do these countries want what's in America's best interest, or do they put the interest of their own countries above the USA's?

      I sincerely hope it's the latter for your sake, but it does kinda put a value on opinions of those from other countries. Which makes me wonder, why would the press even bring it up?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    96. Re:Two words by jambox · · Score: 1

      Just say, "You see, deficits do matter after all."

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    97. Re:Two words by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      just because you heard it on fox news doesn't mean it's incorrect.

      I just want to say again, Yes it does!

      "Fox News" is not news. It is a commentator show. It is hard to even find a "news" show any longer. Everyone has to inject their opinions and interpretations of the carefully selected facts presented. That's commentating and editorializing -- not reporting and not news.

      We need truth in labelling in everything, it seems, and not just on foods and drugs.

    98. Re:Two words by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      McCain just too much risk of Palin becoming president

      Honest question: Why is that so bad? I've heard people go on and on ad nauseam about how she's supposedly some horrible right-wing nutjob, but what exactly makes her so terrible or rather, what makes her worse that the others?

    99. Re:Two words by eln · · Score: 1

      I think McCain's Rovian tactics coupled with the Palin selection did him in. He was going against an orator with the power to inspire people with his words like no one has in a generation, and he countered it with nothing but relentlessly negative attacks.

      I was a McCain supporter in 2000, and the way this campaign was run was incredibly disappointing for me. I could not see myself electing someone who drowned out whatever positive message he may have had in almost constant smears against his opponent.

    100. Re:Two words by EchaniDrgn · · Score: 1

      That may work for vi-vs-emacs and Apple-vs-MS wars on /.

      It is just clarity to see evil in someone who will bring suffering to millions of people.

      So, at the end there, you're talking about Apple-vs-MS?

    101. Re:Two words by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear.

      These boneheads complaining about big government now have no clue what's in store for us with a Liberal Majority and no check in place.

      We're screwed. Let the morality-based legislation (and the tax increases to fund it) roll in.

    102. Re:Two words by stormguard2099 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I have to chime in here. Anyone who has read the bible obviously knows why Bush cannot and will never be the antichrist. It says that when the antichrist comes he will be popular

      I'd say that wipes away any doubt I could ever have about Bush being the dark one.

      He's probably just some pissant underling :)

      --
      http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
    103. Re:Two words by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It didn't help that McCain picked an airhead ultra-fundamentalist nutjob as his running mate. That probably turned off lots of people, and was probably mainly done to get the evangelical vote. The problem is, he didn't need to pick her to get the evangelicals; they're going to vote Republican no matter what.

      McCain might have won if he had picked a moderate as his running mate.

    104. Re:Two words by Ullteppe · · Score: 1

      Compared to what Bush/Cheney have "accomplished" in the last 8, it should be a walk in the park...

    105. Re:Two words by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      The BS train has been in full swing for some time now. You do realize that the huge majority of voters don't have a *clue* as to what's going on, or what actually *lead* to the issues the country currently faces, don't you?

    106. Re:Two words by nomadic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You've made the first step. Don't fuck this up. You're still on notice.

      As an internationalist, socially leftist Obama supporter who believes it is vital to repair our reputation overseas,and is beyond thrilled that Obama won, let me just say: Back off. We are still the most powerful country in the world, and we chose Obama because he was the best choice for us, not for you. We are not coming to you hat in hand asking for your forgiveness, and you have no ability to put us on "notice."

    107. Re:Two words by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      'Anti-choice' VP? Nice wording. You say pro-life like it's a bad thing.

    108. Re:Two words by mpeskett · · Score: 0, Troll

      Of course they do, they just elected him.

    109. Re:Two words by jambox · · Score: 1

      I think we've seen the worst president in history already. Please tell me how Obama could be any worse! That's not sarcasm - it really is hard to imagine.

      I mean since Clinton left we've now got 2 unwinnable wars, perhaps a million dead, the economy is utterly boned, the rest of the world hates the USA, the government can wiretap or even imprison anyone it likes without reason... I could go on.

      So do, please, tell me how it could possibly be worse.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    110. Re:Two words by Don_dumb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am sure people will point out that McCain!= Bush, and I will admit that McCain himself seems to be a man of integrity. However, much of the republican leadership is not. Palin serves as a perfect example.

      As a European who has paid an interested attention to this election, it seems to me that the McCain who gave the concession speech and sat 'debating' next to John Stewart (essentially the enemy) was a man of integrity and I was impressed that he was willing to give his views to an audience that disagreed. Unfortunately the McCain on the campaign trail, the stupid negative namecalling (when Obama wasn't there), putting a 'below-Bush-intellect' Palin on the ticket, the whole 'small-towns' thing was not a man of integrity, it was a man who let too many Bush advisors on his team.
      A shame because he would have had better chance without them.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    111. Re:Two words by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now it still concerns me to stand by and watch just how much more damage the Lame Duck can do before the clean-up crew moves in.

      I have this image in my mind of Dubya, on January 19th, starting "police actions" in about 20 countries, and saying, "Let's see him fix this!"

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    112. Re:Two words by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Compare it to the alternative McCain, who's political convictions apparently run so shallow that nearly all of them did a complete 180 in the four years since his last attempt at the oval office.

      People always say this, but what has he changed his stance on, exactly? I don't know, but I'm genuinely curious!

    113. Re:Two words by ricosalomar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For me, as a person born in the Southern US in the 1960s, this event is a very, very big deal. I've seen people do things that should never be done, and get away with it, and I never though that a black man could ever be president.

      I'm very cynical about politics, but not about people. And for the first time in my life, I am truly proud to be an American.

      No one expects miracles, but it feels good to put that chapter in our history at least partially to rest.

    114. Re:Two words by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Funny

      God? God had nothing to do with it. Thank Bush.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    115. Re:Two words by Mr.+Mikey · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's funny, though... Obama is quite possibly the biggest con man I've ever seen. I have great admiration for his skills at deceiving people, even as I'm disgusted with my fellow countrymen for being taken in by a swindler so easily. Truly an exemplary politician, even if he is a bad statesman.

      Why would you be surprised? Weren't we taken by Clinton just as easily in the 90's?

      Yeah, and look how bad the Clinton years were for this country...

      Oh, wait...

      --
      wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
    116. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ayn Rand should be taught in our Socialist Edumacrat System.

      Another book that should ALSO be required reading prior to High School exit is "The Magic of Thinking Big."

      Both tend to unscrew that imposed PC thought processes.

    117. Re:Two words by jargon82 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A sadly unusual point of view. The president might be whom folks think of when presented with the term "US government" but he is not the US government. I know locally at least, almost all the incumbent members of congress went back for another term. Why is this, when approval ratings are so low?

    118. Re:Two words by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, the "Bush is not my president" and "Somewhere in Texas a village lost its idiot" T-shirts and all of the /. posts about "KKKarl Rove stole the election" and "the chimp" things the Democrats did after 2000 and 2004 absolutely helped their fellow countrymen and weren't asshole things to do.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    119. Re:Two words by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I wouldn't say the American people were "taken" in any election. In every one, the choices have been pretty lame. When Clinton won in '92, he was running against "Read my lips: no new taxes" Bush (who then broke his biggest campaign promise and raised taxes). When W. won in '04, he was running against Kerry, who was lame too. This year, their choice was between Obama (who sucks IMO), and McCain, who has one foot in the grave, and an airhead fundamentalist religious nutjob as his VP pick.

      The only thing I'm disappointed in Americans is that they keep voting for Dems and Reps, instead of voting for other candidates or parties.

    120. Re:Two words by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

      I have never seen such hysteria for a candidate in my life. With the type of overwrought messianic expectations that he faces, there is no way to go for Obama but down.

      I take it you were born after the 1984 Reagan-Mondale election.

      Actually, I'm old enough to have voted in that election, and I don't remember the worldwide celebration that is happening now.

      I get it that everyone wants to bask in the glow, but at some point, reality is going to come crashing in.

    121. Re:Two words by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Emigration may be in order (if you're a U.S. subject--er, citizen).

      Don't let the door hitcha on the way out, wink, wink.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    122. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McCain was two footsteps from the grave with a ditzy anti-choice, creationist VP.

      I know abortion has been an issue for a while now in elections. Is her credibility worsened by being a creationist?

    123. Re:Two words by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You can't even spell his name? With all respect, I mean...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    124. Re:Two words by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually these things can take a long time to happen. The best analysis of this crisis that I've seen so far made the case that the cause was de-regulation of banking under Reagan. It took a few years for the banks to start taking risks, it took a few more years for mass uptake of the products, etc, etc and finally 20-odd years later, we have the sub-prime crisis.

      --
      Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
    125. Re:Two words by jcr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Do you think he'll get the Dems to undo the Patriot Act?

      Not likely. The democrats like to wring their hands about abuses of power by the other guy, but they never act to reduce the power when their own guy is in the big chair.

      Do you think he'll get to the bottom of and stop the Wiretaps on US Citizens?

      Maybe, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I'm just glad that Hillary didn't get the chance to wield the power that Bush seized.

      Do you think he'll have us 100% out of Iraq in the next week? Month? Year? Decade?

      Decade, maybe. The war is the biggest corporate welfare program going at the moment, and bought-and-paid-for politicians like Obama are unlikely to rock that boat.

      Will he magically fix the economy? If so, how long? What exactly is he going to do?

      He's going to worsen the depression about as badly as McCain would have, but the blame will land entirely on Bush, since the crash that started it happened on Bush's watch.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    126. Re:Two words by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Obama just got away with telling bigger lies

      Makes me wonder how the election would have turned out if McCain would have been the one who keep shouting HOPE and CHANGE and other bullshit phrases that don't mean anything just to get elected. Apparently, it was a good tactic.

    127. Re:Two words by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

      I hear Taiwan is a nice place and is less socialist than the United States. Their tax rates are a hell of a lot lower too. They top out at about 20% according to a friend who had spent some time there.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    128. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think he was talking about McCain? He's alright, but the other part of that ticket was well fucked up.

    129. Re:Two words by cecille · · Score: 1

      Does it have to be one or the other? Can't things be good for both? We've clearly seen there's such a thing as a lose-lose situation for countries, what about a win-win? Not only that, but what about measures that are good for people in general?

      Like it or not the US does have a lot of power and sway over other countries. If there's something the president feels strongly about, how long until the rest of the world is also encouraged to go along? US citizen or no, it's better to have someone you like in Washington, both because you hope they will do well for the US and because it is also likely to be of a benefit to your own country not to fundamentally disagree with US policy and to have to oppose them.

      --
      ...no two people are not on fire.
    130. Re:Two words by strikeleader · · Score: 1

      Let the excuses start.

    131. Re:Two words by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      Does 'missing_dc' refer to you having skipped a few sessions of electroconvulsive therapy?

      Cute, but no, it is a reference to Washington DC.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    132. Re:Two words by ThreeE · · Score: 1, Funny

      Iron my shirt.

    133. Re:Two words by ashtophoenix · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of people do understand that we are in crisis mode right now and that things need to be repaired. Expectations are high from Obama to fix things but I don't think anyone realistically expects him to change the world. I think the smooth and exceptionally well-strategized execution of his campaign is one point in favor of believing that he will do a good job.

      --
      Life is about being a Phoenix!
    134. Re:Two words by AceCoolie · · Score: 0

      How about "Oh Crap".

    135. Re:Two words by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      I understand the "historically" bad part of a democratic sweep instead of just democratic president, but maybe they (hopefully) won't be stupid enough to continue with that historically part like we've dealt with the last 8 years.

      Sides, some things were just going to happen at some point. Having a republican rep lose to a democratic in some areas has been necessary and vice versa...bad people get elected out hopefully.

    136. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More his interns tasting him.

    137. Re:Two words by jcr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Blaming Bush will only work for so long.

      Want to bet?

      Blaming Hoover worked for FDR's entire reign.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    138. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We're just glad you didn't elect the 3rd incarnation of the fucking antichrist."

      Even though I voted Obama and am VERY glad he won, I think that's overly harsh on McCain. Every impression I got was that he was more intelligent and sane than the Texas Village Idiot.

      The problem is that McCain and Palin ran on a platform that catered to the same uneducated religious nutjobs that Bush appealed to. That platform backfired on them, when their "This is Real America" small-town speeches pissed off the (according to them) educated "Fake Americans" living in suburbs and cities. I may live in a small town now, but I grew up in the suburbs and many of their speeches implied that I was not a "Real American", which I found quite insulting.

      Signed,
      "Fake American" (aka educated ex-suburban-resident)

      I voted McCain, although I saw pros and cons to both candidates. I completely agree with McCain's campaign focusing way too much on the small-town "redneck" types that were voting for him anyways, instead of trying to appeal to a more moderate crowd that he mostly lost to Obama.

    139. Re:Two words by sorak · · Score: 1

      If you don't think the president matters, then I hope that you didn't vote. After all, why expend all the time and energy to even pay attention to politics. Just let us silly liberals run everything and tell yourself that it doesn't matter who is in charge.

    140. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You guys are missing one of the biggest things this election means. He may not be able to fix the economy, the war, the erosion of our rights, but it is a great first step to fixing something that has plagued our country since its inception. Him being elected will not fix racism but it is a big step in the right direction. I just hope it continues and we as Americans can come together and be just that. Americans, and not white or black America. If we can solve that large issue and move forward, then I believe all the other problems can be fixed in time as well.

    141. Re:Two words by ubergoober · · Score: 1

      So... the soon to be ex-president managed to fark things up sooo completely, Obama won't be able to fix it immediately. Why is that a poor reflection on him?

      At least with Obama I figure we're less likely to end up with another laundry list of "Ha ha, I farked your country" items at the next election.

      --
      * Making waffles just so I have something to Twitter *
    142. Re:Two words by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      The way healthcare would get taxed, indeed, would presume otherwise than what you think about Mccain. See, he said it exactly how it is. He won't tax the poor directly. He Will tax the poor indirectly.

      Meanwhile, the whole thing is hubbub until we see something being done about our current situation.

    143. Re:Two words by WK2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does a person below the poverty level even pay income tax?

      Yes.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    144. Re:Two words by Mantrid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As opposed to the other completely neutral news organizations..right.

    145. Re:Two words by mewshi_nya · · Score: 1

      Of course he won't say it! No one wants to hear that. You have to do your own research on his site to find that stuff out.

    146. Re:Two words by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      That was a cheap shot. I apologise.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    147. Re:Two words by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      The 3rd please. The 1st wasn't president, but he was George Prescott Bush, making GWB a "3rd" :D

    148. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, on the other side of that coin, Obama wants to tax anyone thats motivated and successful, to give free money to the lazy and ignorant.

    149. Re:Two words by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      McCain would tax the Poor?? really? If you really believe that then McCain's campaign has failed even worse than I'd imagined. Not once has he said he'd raise taxes on the Poor. Good Grief!

      But he has a long and proud record of voting for it.

      To the GGP, Barack Obama is the first presidential candidate in my lifetime (extending back to the beginning of Reagan's first term) who is a decent, thoughtful human being. If you opposed Obama, at least be happy that he's uniquely concerned with hearing your voice as well as that of his supporters.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    150. Re:Two words by sorak · · Score: 1

      Fifteen years ago, I really tried to find God. Now I know he was in Kenya.

    151. Re:Two words by terraformer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Those with power don't relinquish power without a fight. They won't roll it back. They will just claim that since they are responsible, they won't abuse that power the way their predecessors did. Faux News or not, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    152. Re:Two words by NewbieV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Level Headed,

      Does every wrong need to be met with another wrong?

      Or can we draw a line, and say "enough - time to fix the problems and reclaim the American Dream for our children and ourselves"?

      --


      "For every right, an equal responsibility..."
    153. Re:Two words by jalefkowit · · Score: 1

      None of the candidates have provided much in the way of concrete plans, much to my frustration.

      You mean like this? Or is 83 pages of specific proposals in small type not concrete enough for you?

    154. Re:Two words by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honest question: Why is that so bad? I've heard people go on and on ad nauseam about how she's supposedly some horrible right-wing nutjob, but what exactly makes her so terrible or rather, what makes her worse that the others?

      Even putting aside the religious fundamentalism, she is very similar to Bush in that she seems to believe one doesn't have to think about issues, but rather can just make gut decisions and govern from some sort of pseudofolksy wisdom. Bush thought, and still thinks, he's a natural leader who always makes the right decisions just because it's in his nature. I got that feeling from Palin's actions as well. I mean, at the beginning of the campaign she stated that she had never really thought about the Iraq war enough to come up with a viewpoint on it. That's frightening behavior from an adult American, let alone a candidate for a major office.

    155. Re:Two words by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about the collective interests of the entire world, not just the interests of any one single country?

      --
      Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
    156. Re:Two words by CountBrass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given his lying, two-faced behaviour and U-turns when convenient during his election campaign it seems to me the USA has got it's own version of Tony Blair, just as the UK is getting rid of the original.

      I suspect you've already seen his greatest achievement as president: to get elected.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    157. Re:Two words by bokmann · · Score: 1

      When you find yourself in a ditch, the first thing you should do is stop digging.

      Last night we did. It will take some time to fill in the ditch.

    158. Re:Two words by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Actually, I just read the same thing (the gist of it) on the Washington Post.

      I don;t think it is bitterness - I think it is reality.

      FTR I voted for Obama.... but I don't see change coming nearly as fast or nearly as much as everyone likes to say.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    159. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 1

      Now if only more of his fans on Slashdot show the same civility ...

      We could only hope, however, for the most part I'm not seeing that today.. :(

      --
      bork bork bork!
    160. Re:Two words by viridari · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself.

    161. Re:Two words by Darby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know locally at least, almost all the incumbent members of congress went back for another term. Why is this, when approval ratings are so low?

      Well, in the case of my district, the incumbent just got elected President ;-)

    162. Re:Two words by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      There are some things that were repercussions of the Clinton era. Not that I think the proposal originated with Clinton, but he did go along with proposition that the gov't should twist the arm of banks to give out loans to people that had no reasonable expectation that they could pay them back.

      Some bad decisions sleep for years.... Boiling under the surface, and as far as Ponzi schemes go, this one lasted a while.

    163. Re:Two words by Loibisch · · Score: 1

      Well, at least this time your president is going to be voted into office backed by the majority of the voters. Must feel nice for a change...

    164. Re:Two words by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the apology!

      We all get a little irrational when people discuss things we are passionate about and there tends to be collateral damage. My office has been practically electrified and on edge all day (co-workers) and I keep expecting fights to break out. It's rather funny, because since I am not all riled up, they think something is wrong with me, not them.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    165. Re:Two words by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If we don't care who runs other countries, then why do we keep invading them?

    166. Re:Two words by spaghettimonster · · Score: 1

      You are very welcome.

    167. Re:Two words by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      It was my hopes he would be elected not for him, but for everyone who follows him. He's an icon, a paradigm. What he does is hardly relevant as long as he doesn't go sleeping around or calling China and saying they better shape up or he'll nuke them.

      It's the actions of the people who wanted him there, the belief that this really is a free nation where people can work towards goals and it'll be less of a gamble that it'll be attained.

      It's the ego stroking of millions of people that voted or wanted to vote for him, and I know today I'll try a little harder knowing this nation has finally matured enough to accept a young, black president.

      It doesn't matter why people vote for a certain candidate, what reasoning they use. Well, it does but there's no reasoning that's better than another. If people had chosen to not vote for Obama because he was black, that's okay. If people had chosen to not vote for McCain because his running mate was a woman, that's okay.

      All that matters is that the result, who gets elected, reflects the minds, the decisions, the mentality of the average of the nation, and the people have interpreted their desires, and Obama is what we have gotten.

      Obama really is Joe Anyone as has been statistically selected.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    168. Re:Two words by Loibisch · · Score: 1

      Incompetence.

    169. Re:Two words by Tenek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems even the internationalist, socially leftist Obama supporters hold close to their hearts the proud American tradition of fuck all y'all. (Yeah, yeah, -1 Troll)

    170. Re:Two words by jambox · · Score: 1

      Obama, contrary to popular belief, is yet another power-hungry, self-serving politician. He proved this to anyone who pays attention when he cast his vote for telecom immunity

      All due respect to the telecoms industry but that's hardly the same as invading another country and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths!

      You don't have to like the guy but let's try to keep a sense of perspective here...

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    171. Re:Two words by viridari · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have never seen such hysteria for a candidate in my life. With the type of overwrought messianic expectations that he faces, there is no way to go for Obama but down.

      I have.

      I'm hesitant to elaborate, though, for fear of invoking Godwin's Law.

      Obama's proposed "Civilian National Security Force" should wear brown shirts just to eliminate any ambiguity about where he got the idea from.

    172. Re:Two words by Benfea · · Score: 1

      Please do! If the right wing extremists leave this country, the country will become a better place!

      Since you guys seem so keen on living in a theocracy, might I suggest moving to Iran? I think they still execute gay people over there, I'm sure you'd like that.

    173. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I just saw two complete liars campaigning. Obama just got away with telling bigger lies."

      Where do you get your weed? I want to get fired from my job and I think what you're smoking will do the job.

      Gosh....

    174. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      As a halfway-isolationist (that is, wait until Iraq says 'okay, we're good', leave, and stop messing around out in the world), socially-rightist McCain supporter who could care less what the rest of the world thinks, I'm shocked to say "I agree completely."

    175. Re:Two words by Tenek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not directly, no, but cutting taxes for the rich and running an even bigger deficit means that at some point you'll have to cut social programs to pay for it. That's the part where the poor pay for it.

    176. Re:Two words by mopower70 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow. Way to get the ball rolling. I'm sure your comment assuages all kinds of stereotypes about American arrogance.

    177. Re:Two words by WonkoS · · Score: 1

      My favorite thing to hear on Fox was a discussion going on to do with the state of the economy, and how "we are only now seeing the full effects of the Clinton presidency". I about fell out of my chair.

      It's been pointed out that Clinton was the one who relaxed the regulation around banking that in part lead to the bad loans, etc....

      Presidents usually don't have that much to do with the state of the economy, but they can certainly use it to get elected, as has been demonstrated here and previously.

    178. Re:Two words by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: We cannot recover from our deficit without increasing taxes somewhere. At 14-digit national debt, how do you suppose we continue to function as a country with decreased taxes and "cutting the budget in some places where they can". This while maintaining the war in Iraq "until we are victorious" (read: forever).

    179. Re:Two words by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      She kept pushing vicious attacks against Obama based on loose associations with people of questionable or even despicable past (pasts which Obama also disapproved of). She stated that these casual or business associations made them Chummy.

      She kept trying to put a wedge between the "intellectual crowd" and "normal people", never mind that the two groups have surprisingly little difference.

      She was complaining about socialism, and 'spreading the wealth', in her state where they tax oil companies who drill there, and cut a check to all the citizens with that money.

      She overall seemed way to hateful and spiteful. More so than any other candidate that I've seen. McCain made some of the most human and respectful gestures in the campaign, and Obama wasn't a slouch in the respect either. Biden seemed like a virtual non-entity, but Palin... seemed to have no sense to 'be nice' occasionally.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    180. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats cause all this Housing market and Stock market was Clinton removing safeguards that were put in back during the Great Depression. I am not saying Bush was blameless just didnt pay attention. But Clinton removed the safeguards and appointed the heads of Freddi and Fanni.

    181. Re:Two words by cjhanson · · Score: 1

      If he does ONLY one thing, my hope is that it will be changing the system such that a group of greedy political criminals (or anyone for that matter) will no longer be able to change the fundamentals our country is based on.. i.e. the wiretaps, patriot act, etc, essentially restoring the checks and balances that were suppose to be immutable.

    182. Re:Two words by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      You betcha.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    183. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And it should put a stop to all those people who insist they can't succeed just because they're black, too. :)

    184. Re:Two words by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

      Every wrong does not need to be met with another wrong, but the parent poster I replied to was wrong and I pointed that out.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    185. Re:Two words by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      From payroll tax tax? Anyways, the point is he is decreasing the taxes on the rich at the expense of the poor (lowering taxes for one group means all other groups are now paying for a higher portion of public goods).

    186. Re:Two words by AlanS2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an internationalist, socially leftist Obama supporter who believes it is vital to repair our reputation overseas,and is beyond thrilled that Obama won, let me just say: Back off. We are still the most powerful country in the world, and we chose Obama because he was the best choice for us, not for you. We are not coming to you hat in hand asking for your forgiveness, and you have no ability to put us on "notice."

      As someone from the rest of the world who has seen the consequences of you bunch electing a bad president. Yeah, you elected Obama for you. However think about someone else for a change.

      --
      Not all conservatives are stupid,
      but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
      - Hume
    187. Re:Two words by bbhack · · Score: 1

      The hope is that he won't make things any worse. That, at least, makes me and many other people both inside and outside the US feel a lot safer. Perhaps he'll go the way of Jimmy Carter, but even if he does, at least we can be fairly sure there won't be another pointless war or needless reduction of civil liberties.

      Gas lines and hostages in Iran? The fact that Carter is allowed in public shows how generous we are.

      --
      The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
    188. Re:Two words by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      It's easy to say ok, lets stop being partisan when your party is in control isn't it. That's the same thing every partisan says on both sides when they get in control. It's funny, because it's like punching someone in the face, and then saying, hey two wrongs don't make a right, so lets just stop the fight right now and agree that I'm right.

      This country was built on partisanship, has run on partisanship, and hopefully will go another thousand years on partisanship. Partisanship = debate. Why is it so many people think that governance by consensus is a good thing, when we all know that management by consensus is a one way trip to bankruptcy for a company, and if I managed my family by consensus it would be pandemonium in the household, and rotten kids.

    189. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because who we elect in 'our' country doesn't directly affect every other nation on the planet in a fairly direct and overbearing way. Partly because there aren't many nations who have permanent bases for their military installed all over other people's nations. Some of the European nations still have a few bases abroad (a legacy of Imperialism), but none quite so widespread as the US. The US does not just have a 'me first, screw everyone else' attitude to foreign policy, it acts with impunity in some of the grandest crimes against humanity whilst reciting the mantras of 'freedom', 'democracy' or 'our values' (whatever they are!?) in true Orwellian doublespeak. It's true Empire building of the classic design, taking strategies straight out of the brutal British playbook. So, you see, the choice of US President is VERY relevant, if not more so if you're NOT a US citizen, because you're more likely to feel the imposed will of that administration on your nation and economy.

    190. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Back off. We are still the most powerful country in the world

      This is exactly what the OP is talking about. When everyone has nukes there is no such thing as a 'most powerful country' everyone has the ability to annihilate their opponents completely.

      Secondly, the US hegemony is over. These are the days of united European dominance.

    191. Re:Two words by BluenoseJake · · Score: 3, Informative

      Being Canadian, We are too close, geographically and economically, to not want what is in your best interests, as they are generally intertwined and interdependent with our best interests. As our largest trading partner, if you are in economic trouble, the odds are, so are we. Now if we only had the balls and the foresight to know what is in OUR best interests, then we would be getting somewhere

    192. Re:Two words by prgrmr · · Score: 1

      Will he walk on water?

      If it's cold enough, yes, he will!

    193. Re:Two words by ca111a · · Score: 2, Informative

      McCain wanted to freeze min wage, cut taxes further for super riches and had nothing solid on reducing spending. Remember that debt number, which did not fit the screen? Could it be possible that inflation with frozen paycheck is actually making people more poor?

    194. Re:Two words by nschubach · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm tired of helping my fellow countrymen. I've been helping them for about 15 years now by paying taxes that get "returned" to someone else who had kids or wrote off their car as a business expense. I've been paying taxes to pay for some kids schooling that they aren't even really getting anymore because no kid can fail. I've been paying taxes to help support social security that I might not even see. I've been paying taxes to support a failing medicare/medicaid program that will somehow be magically replaced with an even more comprehensive and magically cheaper system...

      When can I STOP "helping" my fellow countrymen from being so lazy and get them to work for themselves?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    195. Re:Two words by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Pro women dying due to state-enforced delivery of babies that, due to compromised medical condition, should have been aborted for the mother's safety? Pro murder of doctors who perform abortions?

    196. Re:Two words by nutshell42 · · Score: 1

      McCain isn't the antichrist.

      Palin is.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    197. Re:Two words by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 4, Funny

      Cool, who is it? ;)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    198. Re:Two words by Avatar8 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      I think you mean "Praise Allah."

      I'm dreading what the next few years will hold and how our country will change. I simply hope the media tears into him just as they've done every other president and we get the truth exposed somewhere in between journalistic sensationalism.

      I predict an assassination attempt within a year. I certainly hope it does not succeed because then he'll be considered a martyr and things will just get worse.

      I pray to God I'm proven wrong.

    199. Re:Two words by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That argument doesn't work anymore. Just because Fox News is a right wing tabloid doesn't mean they all have a bias. If the truth doesn't support your reality and the other news organizations won't bend their coverage to support your viewpoint, that doesn't make them biased.

      The Fox News view of the world got crushed last night. It's an old, angry, failed philosophy and good riddance.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    200. Re:Two words by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Is Obama really that much better than McCain?

      The American people seem to think he is. I certainly have to say that his tax plan sounds better to me than McCain's did... And his VP didn't want to secede from the union, and isn't a creationist... And Obama isn't as anti-choice... And he hasn't been agreeing with W on almost everything over the last few years...

      Would McCain have been worse than Bush?

      I dunno... I'm not sure that anyone could be worse than W. But I'll tell you that Palin really made me nervous, especially given McCain's age and health.

      The only thing I can hope for is that the Republicans can filibuster the Democrats' bills. Not so much to push a Republican agenda, but to keep either party from screwing us any more than they currently do.

      Unfortunately, I think I'm going to have to agree with you. There are certainly some changes that I'd love to see happen... But Washington does best when there's a near-deadlock. When nobody can just push their agenda through.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    201. Re:Two words by jebrew · · Score: 2, Informative
      He did say

      It is hard to even find a "news" show any longer

    202. Re:Two words by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      BBC?

      (This is where someone says they don't like the BBC because they have a British slant.)

    203. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Is Obama really that much better than McCain?

      Yes. McCain wanted to tax the poor to pay the wealthy. McCain was two footsteps from the grave with a ditzy anti-choice, creationist VP.

      I dislike the VP choice as well, but taxing the poor? Where do you get that nonsense?

      ANYONE but Clinton is better than Bush. That doesn't mean we can't do better than McCain.

      Funny. I'd rather have Clinton than Obama (better the one you know than the one you don't).

      If I ruled the world, my agenda for the Obama presidency:

      - Fix Bush's financial mess.
      - Re-establish our Constitutional rights (like, ban the PATRIOT act).
      - Pull us out of Iraq ASAP.
      - Go after Bin Laden where he really might be.

      I'm with you on the PATRIOT act, but over all, you need to pull your head out of the sand. You want Bush to get us even more hated in the middle east by completely ignoring borders? The Democrats (Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer and Christopher Dodd were the most vocal, but they had plenty of help) had as much to do with it as the Republicans:

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html

      http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print :
      ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

      In fact, Bush, McCain, and others were pushing for more transparency and regulation (imagine that... republicans calling for regulation!) since at least 2003.

    204. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nod, McCain intended to cut taxes for everyone, except proportionally much less for the poor. Starve the beast all the way to the ground, libertarian anarchy, etc.

    205. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love this. Everybody prepare for the excuse now. No matter what happens for at least the next 10 years, if its good, its thanks to Obama's "change". If its bad, its just because its taking so long to "unravel Bush & Co.".

    206. Re:Two words by Skizmo · · Score: 0

      There is one change already. There will be a president that can actually think.

    207. Re:Two words by nschubach · · Score: 1

      The American dream is one of Self Reliance, not of Codependency. I just want to clarify and yes... that's my dream.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    208. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back off. We are still the most powerful country in the world, and we chose Obama because he was the best choice for us, not for you. We are not coming to you hat in hand asking for your forgiveness, and you have no ability to put us on "notice."

      Sheesh... you must be american.

    209. Re:Two words by SerpentMage · · Score: 0

      I am going to be blunt about Fox News...

      I live in Europe and I watched it. Then I decided to some statistical sampling (namely randomly watch it).

      Guess what I found out....

      These guys are Aryan nation kind of folks... I am dead serious here. Check out the number of women that are blond. You can't get away from it. Kind of scary actually...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    210. Re:Two words by jambox · · Score: 1

      Well that's as good as saying "well we don't need a government since all they do is screw us anyway - let's go with anarchy". Or have I missed something? Countries in Europe with dodgy proportional representation systems usually stagnate if no-one can get a majority or at lease put together a sensible coalition. You don't really want that.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    211. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps God sees to the future and answers prayers in advance ;)

    212. Re:Two words by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "It's been pointed out that Clinton was the one who relaxed the regulation around banking that in part lead to the bad loans, etc...."

      I assume he signed it into law...but, Clinton himself didn't relax regulations. That requires legistlation from congress.....the executive makes no laws, only congress.

      That's part of why I don't see Obama doing all that much. He as president simply does not have the power to carry through with his promises along the campaign trail. The president makes NO laws.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    213. Re:Two words by Darby · · Score: 1

      It's funny, though... Obama is quite possibly the biggest con man I've ever seen.

      You must be pretty young then if you never saw Reagan.
      Largest growth of the US government since FDR and until Bush and still the saint of "conservatism". That's a far more extreme con than you'll likely ever see again.

    214. Re:Two words by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      We need truth in labelling in everything, it seems, and not just on foods and drugs.

      Although, it would be pretty cool to get it working on food and drugs again, too.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    215. Re:Two words by MarcoG42 · · Score: 1

      I would rather take my chances with someone who *might* work to better our present situation than someone who I *know* will keep taking us down our current path.

      --
      If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
    216. Re:Two words by lysdexia · · Score: 1

      I'm going to be interested to see if the man can translate the skills of a "community organizer" ( ...oooh. I bet that has a bitter, ashy taste on some tongues this morning ... ) to "leader".

      To enumerate:

      1. Clever and focused use of limited financial resources.
      2. Good rhetoric with a kind heart that keeps people focused when things suck.
      3. A brain in his big, old Erkel-looking head.

      Now, to counter the comments that will come:

      1. Yes, and look how well he used a shitload of money.
      2. Think "It's morning in America" that doesn't mean "Spend yourself rich, and keep hating everyone who doesn't look like you, it's okay! Look how far it took Grandpaw!"
      3. Jimmy Carter predicted just about every fucking proplem we are having in the so-called "National Malaise" speech. Jimmy Carter is a born-again christian who has proven (at least once) he can do Tensor Calculus with a pencil. Suck it.
    217. Re:Two words by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Strawman both. Yeah, mothers can die without an abortion, but that is the extreme minority of cases, and the ration of those to unnecessary abortions makes them more or less negligible, and certainly not a talking point. Ditto with the killing of 'doctors.'

    218. Re:Two words by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      McCain just too much risk of Palin becoming president. I think she would have made us look back on the "golden years of Bush"

      Palin really worried me. My biggest fear wasn't that McCain would get elected, it was that something would happen and we'd wind up with Palin as president. Not because of a lack of experience, but because she honestly seemed a little unhinged to me.

      Claiming that being Governor of Alaska makes you an expert on energy and foreign relations... Being so rabidly anti-choice... Attributing much of your success to a genuine witch hunter... Creationism...

      Certainly not someone I'd want as President.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    219. Re:Two words by Dmala · · Score: 1

      It didn't help that McCain picked an airhead ultra-fundamentalist nutjob as his running mate. That probably turned off lots of people, and was probably mainly done to get the evangelical vote. The problem is, he didn't need to pick her to get the evangelicals; they're going to vote Republican no matter what.

      My impression was that it was, at least partly, an attempt to win over disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters. Right at that moment, when there was a lot of disappointment that Clinton didn't win, it might have seemed like a good idea. Any resentment from the Clinton camp dissipated very quickly, though, and McCain had to know pretty early on that he was in trouble.

      Also, keep in mind that while the evangelicals vote Republican no matter what, McCain had to do something to get them to vote at all. He is viewed as too liberal for the tastes of the ultra-right-wing set. I definitely agree, though, that a more credible and moderate running mate would have made this a much closer election.

    220. Re:Two words by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      All I know is, the excuse that it's the Republican's faults won't fly in 4 years if things are still a mess. And I don't want to hear the crap about how "It will take longer than 4 years to clean up GWB's mess." You said you will deliver us change, now is put up or shut up time.

    221. Re:Two words by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not the same, but it shows that Obama doesn't respect the rule of law we hold dear. After 8 years of a president with similar views on the law, this should set off huge fucking warning bells in everyone's head.

      Instead, people got so caught up in the rhetoric that they refuse to examine the man objectively, and apologize for, and try to rationalize, everything he does. He doesn't even need PR staff!

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    222. Re:Two words by giemer · · Score: 0

      Well ... its more or less true.

      Clinton administration did the failed trade agreements, NAFTA and China. Resulting in the slow off-shoring of most industrial, and now light technology work.

      Clinton reduced regulations on financial houses to encourage sub-prime style lending to improve lower income family status ... by letting them go even further into debt... without any oversight to prevent this massive implosion we see before us.

      Of course, the first Bush put us in a position where those agreements could be sighted, but he wasn't around to sign them, iirc.

      And of course, knowing this, and seeing it happen ... the more recent Bush did nothing to stop it.

      Presidents in general have little power outside of the veto. It takes the legislature to really screw up a country. The fact that any incumbents won this time around ... really makes me even more disillusioned ... we're running our own country in to the ground ... and its almost like we are applauding it ... wtf.

      I blame new-media. Too many retards believe the 90% bullshit they say ...

      I also blame education in this country ... too many retards in general are voting. Seriously, I hate European anything, but why in gods green earth is their citizenry more educated.

      I also blame everyone under 35, because we are retarded, biased, and easily persuaded by off the cuff-pseudo-facts, without care to actually find the truth for ourselves.

      I also blame our campaign process. It forces the pseudo-two-party system with the illusion of multiple candidates. It'll take a lot of reform, that no one in government would support, to actually make the process more "fair". More people running for office, the more real issues to be discussed. Sporadic third party candidates ... they are only crazy because no one in their right mind would run against the big two and expect to win these days. Of course, this is all at fault from the 70's and 80's elections, when both parties went and expelled half their basis to defined the parties as they are today. (Conservative big government spenders, with either ultra conservative(R), or near-ultra conservative(D) social values.)

    223. Re:Two words by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      He has plenty of plans. They're on his damn web site.

      The fact that McCain made this election about imaginary issues is not his fault.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    224. Re:Two words by NewbieV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Debate - open, honest, frank and passionate, is definitely something this nation was founded on.

      I agree with you - there is absolutely nothing wrong with being partisan, and the tension between the two major parties is what produces progress for the country as a whole.

      But mudslinging, blind partisanship and unfounded accusation are the wrongs I'm referring to. We can do better than that.

      --


      "For every right, an equal responsibility..."
    225. Re:Two words by Bandman · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't think that the interests of the US and the interests of the world are mutually exclusive.

    226. Re:Two words by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Wow. Way to get the ball rolling. I'm sure your comment assuages all kinds of stereotypes about American arrogance.

      And the "you are on notice" comment I was responding to didn't reinforce the arrogance of its presumably European poster?

      "You are on notice" implies a relationship that doesn't exist.

    227. Re:Two words by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Obama and McCain, we *know* will keep taking us down our current path. They have both shown this by their actions in the past. Our only hope in this election was to elect someone who wasn't one of those two, but due to the stupidity of the American people with respect to third parties, it was never going to happen. We had a shot that someone good would make it through the primaries, and our shot failed. Ever since then, we the people were doomed.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    228. Re:Two words by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I'm a divider, you insensitive clod!

    229. Re:Two words by SleepingWaterBear · · Score: 1

      When will you get it into your head that your your political opponent isn't automatically evil incarnate?

      To be fair, your political opponent is almost always a politician, so he may not be evil incarnate, but it's a safe bet that he's a corrupt, opportunistic liar. I'm glad McCain didn't win the election, I'm not sure how happy I am that Obama did.

    230. Re:Two words by Andr+T. · · Score: 1

      I don't. There are atheists and agnostics in other parts of the world, you know.

      --

      Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    231. Re:Two words by muckracer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > almost all the incumbent members of congress went back for another term.
      > Why is this, when approval ratings are so low?

      Because of the lack of viable 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. party candidates. By viable I don't meant the candidates themselves as they have at least as much to offer as anybody else on the ballots but the representation of them. The almost complete lack of coverage of them to the point of people being surprised to see other names they never heard of on the ballots besides the two D/R candidates. This is IMHO a true shame for the nation as a whole and the media in particular. I would welcome alternative views and more than two parties of importance since I believe that the views of well over 100 million voters can not possibly be properly represented by 2 parties.

    232. Re:Two words by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "irrelevant if you are not a US citizen"

      This is utter and utter bullcrap, since the US is a big influence on other countries, mine included, it is damn relevant.
      So it IS in our interest to have you on notice, do NOT screw it up.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    233. Re:Two words by lysdexia · · Score: 1

      :s/Jimmy Carter/The last geeky, outsider president we had, Jimmy Carter,

      Sorry, got in a hurry, my daughter wanted pancakes.

    234. Re:Two words by geminidomino · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Two flaws with your logic, actually. In the case of Kings, "The second/third/etc..." refers to the reigns, not the names. He is the 2nd George Bush to be president, so Hognoxious has that right.

      The other is that name suffixes (Junior/II/III) are only correctly used if grandfather/father/son etc.. have the EXACT same name, so George H. W. Bush was not "George Bush Junior" and W was not "George Bush III"

    235. Re:Two words by blamanj · · Score: 3, Informative

      1) Assembly of God fundamentalist. No separation of church and state for them, they'd like the biblical version of sharia law.

      2) Shows no sign of intellectual curiousity. Like Bush, she accused of being stupid, but isn't. Just ignorant. Ignorance can be cured, but I'd like a leader who curious enough to have looked into the kinds of questions she's been asked on her own.

    236. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not about whats going to change. It's not even that Obama is that awesome of a guy. It's about the glaring and awful alternative that would probably have brought us closer to the end of the known world and complete nuclear wasteland.

      So forgive us a little if we celebrate Obama's win, because some of us are just celebrating Palin's loss. You may think this to be a little cynical, and you may ask, "Has it really come to this?" The answer is yes, yes it has. We sigh a collective sigh of relief that we don't have the Christian version of Ahmadinejad representing our country.

    237. Re:Two words by Cowmonaut · · Score: 1

      Actually, he did mention that its hard to find ANY real news outlet these days. That said, FOX is a cesspool. I can't think of anything positive to say about them.

    238. Re:Two words by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      I am, in fact, pretty young. I was born in '85. I'll accept that Reagan was a bigger con on the benefit of the doubt, but even then, one still has to give credit to Obama for his "achievement". ;)

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    239. Re:Two words by Bandman · · Score: 1

      We had the good sense to elect someone who wants what's best for the United States and realizes that it doesn't have to come at the expense of everyone else.

      As other people said, we're getting there. This wasn't an overwhelming crushing defeat. About half of the people here voted the other way. It's going to be a while before more people get onboard.

    240. Re:Two words by AmericanGladiator · · Score: 1
      Going on a bit of a tangent here. It seems like Slashdotters are always bringing up phone tapping. I thought I'd relay this conversation I heard at the Embedded Systems Conference in Boston a week ago.

      Martin Cooper (considered the father of the cell phone) was asked what he thought about the perceived loss of privacy when going from analog to digital calls. (i.e. These calls can be stored for eternity, what are the implications, etc).

      His response was a bit surprising. He said that there have been providers that have offered services that could guarantee privacy for an extra cost. He said that the demand for these types of products has been so low that the providers stopped offering them. He also said that he didn't feel he had anything to hide and wasn't concerned about his own privacy.

      Not a troll, just thought people would find it interesting.

    241. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he did say "It is hard to even find a "news" show any longer". I think that means... wow, it's hard to find *any* neutral news stations. Go figure.

    242. Re:Two words by orbdep · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just as a heads up, those of us who have worked and studied world economy. it takes roughly 8-10 years to see the full effect of federal economic decisions in a capitalist environment. Yes, this is Clinton's mess. Yes Bush made it worse. and no Obama is not going to be able to clean it up in the near future, but the MARKET will stabilize and reach equilibrium. It will do so sooner the less we screw with it, which means we may have a bit of trouble yet ahead of us. This is the nature of a free market economy, there are mountains and valleys, some artificially imposed due to poor policy(most recently the Clinton started/bush worsened housing policy) so while Fox news may be crazy right wing, they are not inaccurate in this, 10 years later we are at the end of what Clinton did to the nation, and the middle of what bush has done respectively. The next decade could be troubling.

    243. Re:Two words by hemna · · Score: 0

      --Do you think he'll get to the bottom of and stop the Wiretaps on US Citizens?

      What makes you think he will stop this program? Obama voted FOR it!

      America got hoodwinked into electing a Marxist into office. We'll see how far he takes it the first few years. All hail Komrade Hussain Obama!

    244. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just realized that I was responding about the wrong Clinton. Hilary was so far from my mind, that I somehow assumed you were comparing Bush with Bill Clinton. I agree that Hilary Clinton would have been a horrible choice.

      Also, it probably isn't clear that I switched topics on my last section. Starting with "The Democrats (..." is in reference to the financial mess.

    245. Re:Two words by ChameleonDave · · Score: 1

      Is there something particularly evil about Siberia versus elsewhere, or about starving versus being being killed otherwise?

    246. Re:Two words by nomadic · · Score: 1

      It seems even the internationalist, socially leftist Obama supporters hold close to their hearts the proud American tradition of fuck all y'all. (Yeah, yeah, -1 Troll)

      Every country places its own interests above the interests of others. Including yours. The only difference is the US is expected not to.

      As bad as you think we are, let me ask this; do you think if China or Russia became the most powerful country in the world, they would treat the rest of the world kindly?

      The attitude I've seen in the responses is exactly what makes the job harder for those of us in the US who are trying to advocate international peace and cooperation, because the hegemony-supporters in the US will seize upon anti-US sentiment and arrogance like this and use it to elect another Bush.

    247. Re:Two words by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Smidge - I agree with you - race had nothing to do with this. America has come a long way. It will be up to Obama to deliver the goods.

      There is one thing you have wrong: McCain was on the out and was sinking faster than a torpedoed, burning oil tanker when he selected Palin. McCain was losing his own party at the time and her selection actually prevented McCain from becoming Bob Dole II. In four or eight years, I suspect we'll see Palin again, except with a much better resume.

      --
      -- $G
    248. Re:Two words by Bandman · · Score: 1

      > Think GW Bush ever DREAMED he'd be THIS much of a uniter?

      Ha! That's hilarious. I'm stealing that

    249. Re:Two words by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Obama's favorite quote of mine was this "Change doesn't come from Washington, Change goes to Washington".. This makes me chuckle for two reasons. First of all, he was a part of Washington before he ran for President. Secondly.. is he saying that once he got elected, there would be no more change?

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    250. Re:Two words by Frigga's+Ring · · Score: 1

      Let's just make sure we're out of the ditch before we fill it.

    251. Re:Two words by HBI · · Score: 1

      Like the Brits did in 1812? 1914? Forget the rest of Europe...

      You ask for things you were not willing to do yourselves...

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    252. Re:Two words by Bandman · · Score: 1

      You're really more afraid of Obama in the White House than you are of an Islamic terrorist? Really?

      Can I ask why?

    253. Re:Two words by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Fix Bush's financial mess? So I guess Barney Frank, the Democratic controlled Congress over the last two years, and general massive corporate greed that the Bush Admin tried to warn Congress about in '03 had nothing to do with it. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid. The mess was certainly a bipartisan affair, and anyone who thinks otherwise either is ignorant to all of the facts or just delude themselves to thinking that this was just "Dumb ole Bush at his old tricks again."

    254. Re:Two words by lysdexia · · Score: 1

      My lovely spouse called it "Frosting on a Dog Turd". (We split the ticket in our house, she voted for McCain anyway, hoping he could fix the schmucks. Hope was everywhere.) I think your simile is a better indicator of the cost. Hats off.

    255. Re:Two words by viridari · · Score: 1

      The idea of McCain dying early and Palin becoming president is the only thing that comforted some of us. Inexperienced as she may be (she is in fact more experienced than Barry Soetoro), she has a firmer grasp on the values of the America outside of the latte belt than any other major party candidate I've seen in a general election in a long long time.

      Like it or not, once you get outside of New York City, San Fransisco, Chicago, etc. there is a big country out there with values and traditions that are deeply rooted and not generally compatible with the agenda of the smug liberals that hang out in places like this. The so-called "party of tolerance" has no tolerance for the broad swath of America outside of the small urban enclaves.

    256. Re:Two words by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Personally it's a bit of both.
      1. a LOT of US citizens suffered under Bush and this is a step forward
      2. I like our economy, but because of the crisis in the US ours has taken a big hit, I'd like that to be fixed as well (as well as the US economy)

      I think the press brought it up a lot because under the Bush regime, the international relations have soured a lot.

      And on a different, but still very important note, there's finally an african-american president. That alone deserves congratulations.

      Keep up the good work there, these will be some interesting years.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    257. Re:Two words by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Secondly, the US hegemony is over. These are the days of united European dominance.

      Then exercise it. Start forcing your high ideals on other countries instead of doing what america tells you to (with imaginary property, e.g.). Use your dominance to improve things.

      Otherwise, stow it.

    258. Re:Two words by Bandman · · Score: 1

      What signs will you be watching for?

    259. Re:Two words by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Plenty of corrupt politicians on both sides that still have a say so in Washington. Personally I'm all for making mandatory term limits for every single person who serves as an elected official in Washington.

    260. Re:Two words by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      hat exactly do you think has changed, or what to you see as the time table to be looking for all this "change"?

      I think we'll actually have a centrist, bipartisan president. Which is what we would have had under McCain. Gore/Bush was a very important election, a lot of differences between the candidates. Kerry/Bush was important as well. Obama/McCain was the definition of low-impact. Both are Senators who want bipartisan solutions. However, once you look at their VPs, it's similar to the past two elections. I doubt either will die in the next four years, so it hardly matters.

      And bipartisanship is why I disliked Obama. After 8 years of ultra-right-wing partisanship, balancing left-wing-partisanship is called for.

      I imagine that he will stop the wiretaps on US Citizens, although I doubt he will expose what happened in the past. I think that he will decline to push for a new Patriot Act when this one expires. I think he'll pull us out of Iraq in the next two years by a significant amount, in time for the midterm elections. And I think the economy has been fixed already. It was a bubble. It burst. It will rebound in a bit. You cannot hurry it. The "economy being broken" was the bubble, not the popping of it.

      And all of that is what I expect McCain to have done, with the exception of Iraq.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    261. Re:Two words by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Funny

      More importantly, a vote for McCain was a vote for Rove and friends. Rewarding them with another four years would have been interesting in a Chinese curse kind of way.

      Oh son of a bitch, I can't believe this shit. Now we're even outsourcing our curses?!

    262. Re:Two words by m50d · · Score: 1

      2000 was a bit different given the electoral irregularities. And there was a lot less whining in 2004.

      --
      I am trolling
    263. Re:Two words by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So do, please, tell me how it could possibly be worse.

      Teh GAZYORZ could GET MARREED!!!

      Gods, I hate too many people in this country...

    264. Re:Two words by Darby · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I like some civility in my politics. Maybe I'm being naive, but then I voted for a guy who sort of shares my beliefs, and gave a classy shout-out to his losing opponent

      If you were honest about wanting civility in politics then you would not have voted Republican since their whole MO is screeching hatred and epithets. "Your either with us or against us". I'm very sorry that a massive police state government is what you believe in, but thankfully more Americans decided to reject fascism, ignorance and blind hatred.

      It was good of McCain to act like a decent human being in his speech, but since his campaign offered nothing but "Obama is a Muslim Socialist who's going to destroy America" and "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran", it didn't magically transform him into a decent human being.

      Now if only more of his fans on Slashdot show the same civility ...

      It's a reasonable reaction to 30 years of Republican hate mongering and lies. You might want to look at the Republican fans whose lack of civility dwarfs anything Obama's supporters did. Oh, wait that would involve personal responsibility, so I'm mot betting it will ever happen.

    265. Re:Two words by Bandman · · Score: 1

      You're right! Progressive liberals in charge! This country might stop regressing back into the dark ages. Here's to hoping.

    266. Re:Two words by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      There's always BBC news, they have lots of US National stories.

    267. Re:Two words by robinsonne · · Score: 1

      You make an interesting point about people in other countries. I think what a lot of people forget here in America, and in Europe, and everywhere else...is that what is in America's best interests is not necessarily in the best interests of Europe, or Asia, etc. and vice versa.

      I think everyone naturally tends to look at one's own country's needs before anyone else's.

    268. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that he got elected at all is a huge change in itself. America has finally said "Black people are no different than white people" and while "equality" has been preaced for the last 40 years, it really hasn't been embraced on a national scale up until now. Sure there are still those redneck idiots in the south who don't want a negro president, but most of the rest of the country, who have decided to rely on their intellect to vote, have clearly sent a message out the rest of the world that they are capable of change. Obama has won no matter what his administration does or doesn't do. And let's face it. There is NO WAY he could ever be as bad as the shaved monkey that's been eating peanuts and crapping on the rugs in the whitehouse for the last 8 years!

    269. Re:Two words by mrchaotica · · Score: 0

      My favorite thing to hear on Fox was a discussion going on to do with the state of the economy, and how "we are only now seeing the full effects of the Clinton presidency". I about fell out of my chair.

      To an extent, it's true: the financial problems are due in part to the Community Reinvestment Act, which they claim was modified during the Clinton administration in such a way that it forced banks to make riskier loans.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    270. Re:Two words by Andr+T. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...but I grew up in the suburbs and many of their speeches implied that I was not a "Real American", which I found quite insulting.)

      For me, Real Americans = aztecs, siouxies, etc. I'm South American and I can say I'm an American too, or at least I should be able to.

      I think this is just another type of Ad-Hominem fallacy. Americans do something -> This shouldn't be done by Americans -> They are not "real" Americans.

      --

      Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    271. Re:Two words by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was actually watching the election coverage mostly on BBC World News last night. It was kinda refreshing. They were a lot more lighthearted than the American commentators, I found... except for that blowhard John Bolton, but they got rid of him eventually (a bit after he attacked one of the Beeb's own reporters). Two of them basically called it unofficially for Obama way early on ;^)

      But yeah, they had Ted Koppel and John Bolton on there, as well as a few other Americans I believe... it can hardly be said that they were giving it a "British slant". The roundtable discussion method of presenting it was quite effective, I found.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    272. Re:Two words by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, he probably will walk on water. We have now gutted the right wing, skinned them, deboned them and tossed them on the griddle. With the left now occupying both houses and the executive branch America now has a chance to survive and prosper.
                  And to all my non friends on the right I TOLD YOU SO!

    273. Re:Two words by tacarat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Daily Show

      --
      "Common sense will be the death of us all"
    274. Re:Two words by lysdexia · · Score: 1

      Hopefully Obama will sit back and ponder the dangers of a government that is run along the lines of his excellent campaign.

      Mr. President Elect, I hereby suggest you and your transition team (hopefully re)read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction" and (more importantly) Frank Herbert's "BuSab" stories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Sabotage

      Okay, probably not, but a guy can hope, can't he?

    275. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do you think he'll have us 100% out of Iraq in the next week? Month? Year? Decade?

      Invade a country (on unproven claims), and overthrow the government. Chaos ensues, a few thousand Americans and a hundred thousand natives die. Figure out it is too expensive, and that there can be no victory in Iraq.

      Withdraw and leave a country in total disarray, in a state much worse than what was there in the first place..

      I hate tyrants like Saddam, but what you did America was shameful.

    276. Re:Two words by ZigMonty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      LOL, you sound like yet another arrogant american to me. You want to repair America's reputation overseas and you rely on military threat as an argument? How very internationalist of you. Besides, with 2 failed wars and your supposed allies in eastern europe crushed by the Russians, who are you trying to kid? Do you honestly believe many countries are militarily afraid of the US at this point?

      Here's a little hint for you, what do you think would happen to the US if the chinese flooded the market with all the US IOUs they've been stashing away? ICBMs and aircraft carriers are so 20th century. The real big red button these days is in Beijing and is labelled SELL (err... in chinese).

      Having said that, i agree with you that you, as americans, elected an american president and you are justified in being offended by people in other countries not so subtly suggesting who you should vote for. I know i'd be angry if americans tried to interfere in Australian domestic politics like that.

      Obama is the president elect of the United States, not the leader of the free world. America lost that title some time ago.

    277. Re:Two words by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Actually O'Reilly has been more fair and accurate in terms of his coverage of Obama than almost anyone on the news. Stop reading from the Liberal Talking Points and learn to think for yourself for five fucking seconds.

    278. Re:Two words by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the other completely neutral news organizations..right.

      Correct, they're not neutral. As they're all owned by conglomerates, they lean corporatist.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    279. Re:Two words by m50d · · Score: 1

      Because like it or not, no country is an island. Well, mine is, in a purely literal sense, but not metaphorically. With more-or-less worldwide peace and a tightly interlinked global economy, what's good for one country is, mostly, good for all.

      --
      I am trolling
    280. Re:Two words by AlanS2002 · · Score: 1

      Like the Brits did in 1812? 1914? Forget the rest of Europe...

      You ask for things you were not willing to do yourselves...

      Who said I was a Brit?

      --
      Not all conservatives are stupid,
      but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
      - Hume
    281. Re:Two words by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Yup, and Obama's will likely be just about the same ratio of depression:war.

      I only hope that it isn't as long (as that would mean that he has about as much respect for the constitution as his predecessor).

      This election was a choice between socialism and national socialism. I'm glad it was Obama over McCain, but it's still bodes poorly for our future. I can only hope that he is the messiah all the liberals seem to think he is, but I doubt it.

    282. Re:Two words by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True, but it's the people who perpetuate the problem over time that really help it happen. Those who bought into Reaganomics are the ones who kept the problem moving along. Others over time could have reversed the trend, but chose not to.

    283. Re:Two words by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why [do the incumbents get reelected], when approval ratings are so low?

      Because their districts are gerrymandered such that their opponent (if they even have one) has no chance of winning.

      For most districts, the real election happens in the primary.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    284. Re:Two words by tacarat · · Score: 4, Funny

      These guys are Aryan nation kind of folks... I am dead serious here. Check out the number of women that are blond. You can't get away from it. Kind of scary actually...

      Oh shit! 99% of my porn collection is white supremacist?

      --
      "Common sense will be the death of us all"
    285. Re:Two words by chill · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You, sir, are delusional if you think China or the EU is even close in military or political power to the U.S. And the economies of both are just a fragile as that of the U.S.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    286. Re:Two words by AKAImBatman · · Score: 0, Troll

      let me just say: Back off.

      Let me just back this up with an "Amen". I am sick and tired of Europe thinking they can tell America what it should do with its own goddamn country! Just yesterday I had a German telling me that his vote counts more than American votes, and that the American election system is old and outdated. Save for the fact that Germans don't elect their President (their representatives do) and EU residents can't elect that President either (they vote for a party).

      Now here I see some know-nothing here on Slashdot telling us that "America is on notice"? The arrogance! Just who the hell do you think you are? This is our country and we will fix it as we see fit. If you don't like it, worry about divorcing your own country from ours. If we drive it into the ground (which I very much doubt), it will be ours to drive into the ground. Not yours.

      So BACK OFF.

    287. Re:Two words by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "This is utter and utter bullcrap, since the US is a big influence on other countries, mine included, it is damn relevant.

      So it IS in our interest to have you on notice, do NOT screw it up."

      Look you live in a sovereign country. If you don't want to be influenced so much by the 'big bad USA'...then vote yourself in some leaders with some balls, to keep from being influenced.

      |A country's government is there to look out for the interests of its own people above all others. Sounds like your country's government might not being doing that? Blame it on them, not us.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    288. Re:Two words by DrLang21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No it won't. Obama is technically interracial. It should quell the interracial people from insisting they can't succeed, but it will do nothing for people insisting they can't succeed because they are black. You don't give people enough credit for finding ways to pass blame to things they are not in control of.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    289. Re:Two words by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Well then for the sake of ending racism, I hope you will all join me in not giving a shit what colour he is. The rhetoric that's been spewing out of some people's mouths when they can't talk for more than a minute about his actual stated policies is really starting to get nauseating. Some people are going to get one Hell of a shock from this.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    290. Re:Two words by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Firstly: directly causing the death of US citizens is directly causing the death of US citizens, regardless of how small a portion it is. Saying "Don't worry, this bill will only kill 1/1000 people affected" does nothing for the fact that it is unconscionable, immoral, and unconstitutional.

      Secondly: Google the story about McCain 'fraternizing' with a women who had just murdered abortion doctors. And, they are doctors not 'doctors'. They went through nearly a decade of school and serve people with highly skilled medical services. Essentially all abortionists also practice another area of medicine (you don't get a degree in zygoticide).

    291. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he didn't say he'd increase taxes, but he was planning on making your taxes go up by increasing your reported income by including your employer's contributions to your health insurance as part of your income.

    292. Re:Two words by alderion · · Score: 1

      you mistook my comment as support for fox news. that is not the case. i agree with you that there is no unbiased news to be found but at least i know the truth when i see it. you seem to disregard the truth just because it came from somewhere you dislike.

    293. Re:Two words by truthsearch · · Score: 1

      It's quite clear these days that the president can almost make law by having a congress that's always willing to play along. With the same party in control of the Congress it's not as hard for the president to have laws written to his liking.

    294. Re:Two words by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      You mean like the Democrats did in 2000 and 2004?

      Now that you mention it, it would be nice to see the Republicans bend over for the Dems the way the Dems have the last 8 years. Come on, it's reach around time!

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    295. Re:Two words by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Melodramatic much?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    296. Re:Two words by pod · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well, correct, but misleading.

      The economic effects we are seeing today are in a large part caused by the radically inflationary policies employed by Greenspan, who reigned during the Clinton presidency. The housing bubble can be easily traced to the US Central Bank policies, and some critical changes to banking and investment regulations also took place during that time.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    297. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he won't make things worse. The press for the next 4 (or God help us 8 years) will refuse to spin any bad information as "bad".

      When Clinton took us into a recession as the tech bubble burst (and he did), the press said it was a minor hiccup and the only reason it was happening was because Clinton was too busy defending himself from impeachment.

      But now we start to enter a recession and it's OMG THE GREAT DEPRESSION HOW CAN BUSH SCREW US ANYMORE!!!

      So yeah... He won't be perceived as making things worse, because nobody will tell the Emper.... Messiah he's naked.

    298. Re:Two words by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Why should we? You guys never do.

      Or was there a "Rest of the World" military force stopping the carnage in Darfur that I never heard about?

      That said, I think America needs to get it's fat ass out of the rest of the world's affairs. Stop playing policeman, and bring our troops home (from everywhere, not just Iraq and Afghanistan). We've got enough problems at home. We don't need to be preaching democracy while slaughtering soldiers and innocents alike, especially with the state Bush II has left our own democracy in.

    299. Re:Two words by nuttycom · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that. Personally, I think that subsistence farming sucks, but hey, maybe that's just me.

    300. Re:Two words by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You aint the most powerful country any more. China is already more powerful than America and so is the EU.
      Really? You'd better rethink that little statement since China hasn't done jack squat but host the olympics and the EU isn't a country last time I checked. Btw my smug little friend winter is coming and Putin has your natural gas supplies, so I wouldn't get too proud quite yet.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    301. Re:Two words by tprox · · Score: 1

      I think that people tend to like their congress rep and senator and blame all the others. I can see that's why people are re-elected.

    302. Re:Two words by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      I can't think of anything positive to say about them.

      I can think of one, but that's it: they have the hottest women on TV news, and Murdoch insists that they wear skirts.

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    303. Re:Two words by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Seriously, I hate European anything, but why in gods green earth is their citizenry more educated.

      I had a conversation with a midget once. He told me that to him, everyone looks like a giant.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    304. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Now...honestly, what do you think is really going to change?

      Lots of things.

      >> Do you think he'll get the Dems to undo the Patriot Act?

      Perhaps, although that's hardly a priority.

      >> Do you think he'll get to the bottom of and stop the Wiretaps on US Citizens?

      Also a possibility.

      >> Do you think he'll have us 100% out of Iraq in the next week? Month? Year? Decade?

      Probably 50-80% within a year (of Jan 09), and certainly 99% by a decade. Iraq is a lost cause, there is no way it can be won, the only thing to do is get out before it ruins the country. Reputation takes a hit, but that's already at the bottom anyway.

      >> Will he magically fix the economy?

      There is no magic way to fix the economy. It's in such awful shape that it's probably going to take 15 years to get back on track (and a very different track), but at least he'll start moving towards that recovery instead of continuing to pour more and more money into foreign wars and bankrupting the US further.

      >> If so, how long?

      No one can possibly predict that.

      >> Ok...the last one was a joke, but, seriously, everyone that seems to be treating his election as the 'second coming', what exactly do you think has changed

      Attitude has changed. The realization from high up that the last 8 years of legislation and leadership has been a disaster in just about every way, and trying to move in the opposite direction.

      Right now we're in free fall, so I'm sure that it will continue to get worse before it gets better, but at least someone is trying to turn the ship around instead of going full steam ahead and hoping for the best.

    305. Re:Two words by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (This is where someone says they don't like the BBC because they have a British slant.)

      Actually, I live in Britain and have seen the BBC's impartiality take some serious damage over the last few years. Ever since the Hutton report and the subsequent purge of the upper ranks by the Labour government, it's been much less aggressive in its coverage. The Independent is good as a paper generally, but seem to have admitted a quite blatant bias toward the Democrats in the last few days. If you want real truth in your news (or at least as close as you'll get), you have to go those journalistic services that target the financial sector, e.g. paid services such as Stratfor. The public might get fed a line, but business leaders like to get told the truth.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    306. Re:Two words by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about the collective interests of the entire world, not just the interests of any one single country?

      That's all well and good, but the job of the US president is to be the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, not the world. If you want a world president, have your country's leader propose the idea to the UN or whoever. But for now, the POTUS's primary concern should be the well being of the USA. The rest of the world is important, but not first.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    307. Re:Two words by Orii · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope things will change and that we aren't doomed to repeat history, but I'm not very optimistic about it. When the Republicans got the presidency and Congress, they ended up going against their "small government" plans and voted in a ton of special-interest appropriations. It seems unlikely that in the same situation, the "larger government" party would do anything different.

      I think Obama will try to curb excesses, but I have little doubt Congress will be pushing for them. Someone needs to tell them they were elected to make the best choices for the nation, not to get the most money for their state or the best boost for their reelection hopes.

    308. Re:Two words by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Actually, he did mention that its hard to find ANY real news outlet these days. That said, FOX is a cesspool. I can't think of anything positive to say about them."

      Well, they do have the best looking news-chicks!!

      Megyn Kelly yowza!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    309. Re:Two words by midnightkiller · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're not supposed to be talking like this... but I'm glad you are.

    310. Re:Two words by Anivair · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact, I do. I expect the wire taps to stop now easily. two reasons. 1) the Democrats were against them from the beginning and I see no reason for him to continue it. 2) it was always illegal and if he does it the republicans will raise hell and stop it. I expect that he'll have most of our troops out of iraq in 16-18 months as he said. I don't expect they will be 100% out of Iraq in his presidency if ever, but I expect that it will be the same size of a deployment that we have any place else we've ever fought a war. I'm okay with those numbers. And I certainly expect him to turn the economy around. Clinton did, why can't he? Same situation, same plan, same party.

    311. Re:Two words by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Wow, wait , I'll have to check my Mayan translation again.

      You know, I found out, among other things, that where it says "rock" it actually means "stargate" so there you have it...

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    312. Re:Two words by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I never said you couldn't voluntarily trade services for food. As it is now, you are forced to trade money for services you probably don't even use.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    313. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, Americans have finally figured out that they can vote themselves welfare.

      R.I.P. America, 1776-2008.

    314. Re:Two words by Anivair · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      it really does. A broken clock is right twice a day, but fox news is most like a semi-broken clock. Occasionally they state facts, but so does Spider Man. Doesn't make it reality.

    315. Re:Two words by cgenman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The federal budget is a fixed size, which currently has a massive deficit and a huge debt. McCain proposed funding drops of 10-20 million dollars, which is a drop in the bucket of our overall deficit. Additionally, with his comments towards Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan we can be pretty sure that we wouldn't be out of any of those expenditures any time soon, with the potential added fiscal bonus of an Iranian invasion.

      Hence, when he wants to extend the temporary Bush tax cuts on the very rich, (which were initially proposed as a trickle-down stimulus package, and proved ineffective), he is effectively shifting the fixed-pie tax burden from the rich to the poor. Reducing tax rates doesn't magically reduce expenditures, it simply time-shifts the tax burden. In this case, permanently implementing Bush's tax cut for the wealthy simply ensures that they are going to shoulder less of the burden long-term, and that will fall upon the shoulders of the middle and lower classes.

      So yes, beware of anyone who says they're going to lower taxes during a time of severe budget deficits, without telling you how. It's a shell game. Remember that 500 dollar "economic stimulus" check? That bill came out to more than 150 billion dollars, of which each of us will probably pay an extra 25 dollars in taxes per year *indefinitely* to pay interst on.

      8 years ago, your personal share of the National Debt was 15,000 dollars. Now, it is up to 35,000 dollars. Assuming you have a wife and two kids, your family owes 140,000 dollars. Between 1,400 and 3,000 of your last year's federal taxes went JUST to servicing the debt.

      Now is not the time to be pooping around with tax breaks on those who can pay in a shell game that shortchanges middle and lower classes. The fact that they didn't get us out of the 80's recession or the current one just proves again that trickle-down economics doesn't work.

    316. Re:Two words by filterban · · Score: 1

      Even though I voted Obama and am VERY glad he won, I think that's overly harsh on McCain. Every impression I got was that he was more intelligent and sane than the Texas Village Idiot.

      Nice backhanded compliment!

      The problem is that McCain and Palin ran on a platform that catered to the same uneducated religious nutjobs that Bush appealed to.

      They were trying to get elected, and since it worked for Bush, they figured it was their best shot. Unfortunately, it seems that McCain sold out everything that he did over the past thirty years and listened to his Karl Rove-esque advisers too much. Every time I saw McCain speak over the last couple of months, I have come away with the feeling that he wasn't happy about what he was saying.

      For example, in the debate, when he never looked at Obama... and in all of the slanderous and patently outright ridiculous TV advertisements and speeches... and even at the RNC when he made his acceptance speech... it just seemed like you are watching someone who doesn't like what he's been doing.

      McCain's acceptance speech, when he was again freed from the confines of his (obviously terrible) campaign advisors, showed me the McCain of last year... the one who has honor and integrity and is not afraid to say what he thinks (most of the time).

      --
      rm -rf /
    317. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McCain isn't the antichrist.

      No, she was his running mate.

      The McCain of 2000, which we saw a glimpse of at last night's concession speech, I would have been happy with as American president. The McCain of the 2008 campaign, the McCain who pandered to the religious wingnuts with a creationist demagogue of a running mate, the McCain who attacked Obama with relentlessly negative campaigning, the McCain who held up Joe the Unlicensed Plumber as some kind of economic expert, that McCain was not fit to lead your great country.

    318. Re:Two words by Zephyr14z · · Score: 1

      No(not a US citizen), but he's a large shareholder in diebold.

    319. Re:Two words by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Even though I voted Obama and am VERY glad he won, I think that's overly harsh on McCain. Every impression I got was that he was more intelligent and sane than the Texas Village Idiot.

      Seriously... could you set the bar ANY lower?

    320. Re:Two words by Theoboley · · Score: 1

      With that being said, I pity Alaska. I pity them with her in office as senator or whatever she was up there, because she's... as a previous post put it... a Ditz. I did vote for McCain however, due to the fact that Obama is african american, and the Dave Chappelle put it best in a skit he liked to call "Reparations 2003"

      Taxes will rise, and Obama will give it back to the African American community. not that i see anything wrong with that, but what happened to the ancestors of said African American community did not happen to them today. That was my prediction even before he won the democratic nominee.

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    321. Re:Two words by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      I can - a Republican President with a Republican congress for six years.

    322. Re:Two words by tmosley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I seem to remember something about the antichrist being a "false prophet", where people seem to think of Obama as a "messiah".

      Now, I don't put much stock in religion, but Obama certainly fits the criteria for an antichrist much moreso than McCain (not to say that McRage isn't a crazy asshole, made bitter by his 2000 loss, who would lead us into Tehran guns ablazing).

      In four years, everyone here is going to wish they had voted for Ron Paul. Obama can't fix the economy while maintaining the status quo, which is the corporate backed mandate he and any other mainstream candidate has. It'll just get worse and worse and worse, just like it did under FDR. They'll still call him a "great" president, I'm sure.

      If Ron Paul had made it, he would have struck at the root of the issue, which is the stranglehold that the central bank has on this nation, and the problems that arise from their arrogant central planning.

      Oh well. Maybe there will be a chance in 2012 for some REAL change.

    323. Re:Two words by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      Thank God someone realizes this. All these people blaming Bush for the current economic climate are crazy. It takes years for this garbage to build up. First sub-prime mortgages are made legal. Then banks finally start actually giving them out. Then builders, realtors, and lenders start figuring out how to game the system to make piles of money. Years down the road you've got millions of people in houses they can't afford on loans whose interest rates are set to explode in 5 years when they go variable.

      I'm not saying Bush couldn't have tried to preemptively stem the tide of this crap... but he certainly didn't start it.

      The left has gotten just as bad as the right. It's become so fashionable to just blame everything on Bush that no one even thinks twice.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    324. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, republicans in alaska hate palin because she was NOT loyal to the long lasting currupt republican machine up there. That being said, I still hate her.

    325. Re:Two words by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      >

      We're screwed. Let the morality-based legislation (and the tax increases to fund it) roll in.

      You're joking, right? Morality-based legislation is a purely democrat trait?

      I hope Obama is pro-legalizing drugs, because I would LOVE some of whatever you're smoking.

    326. Re:Two words by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1, Troll

      Now...honestly, what do you think is really going to change?

      Everything. For one, in a few months we will no longer have a functionally retarded president.

      Do you think he'll get the Dems to undo the Patriot Act?

      Probably not all at once, but yes, I have no doubt at all the Patriot Act will be dismantled.

      Do you think he'll get to the bottom of and stop the Wiretaps on US Citizens?

      No doubt at all in my mind that this nonsense ends with the Bush Nightmare.

      Do you think he'll have us 100% out of Iraq in the next week? Month? Year? Decade?

      He's always been for a withdrawl, but he's not going to risk American lives (or Iraqi lives) for it. Given that Iraq wants us OUT before the start of the year, and given that Iraq has used us as an excuse to not do the things they need to do, I am fairly certain our time in Iraq will be over sooner than the Republicans would like. (Read: While they still have oil.)

      Will he magically fix the economy? If so, how long? What exactly is he going to do?

      Regulation, Regulation, Regulation. The age of faux conservatism and market speculation is over. If we're REALLY lucky we'll also get to see some frog marched wall street execs.

    327. Re:Two words by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I suggest China, while communist in principle, their attitude and politics very heavily favor republican-style capitalists.

    328. Re:Two words by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      You mean like this? Or is 83 pages of specific proposals in small type not concrete enough for you?

      It's not written in crayon with lots of pictures. Can't expect Americans to read it.

    329. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "everyone that seems to be treating his election as the 'second coming'

      Well. Simply because now for the first time in 8 years, brain is coming again to the White House.
      I have the firm belief, that educated people are better at finding solutions for complicated problems, than uneducated religious nutjobs. And thus I hope Obama will find solutions for some of the problems ahead. Maybe not perfect solutions, but his CHANCES are highter than those of his predecessor.

    330. Re:Two words by cjb658 · · Score: 1

      All I know is, the excuse that it's the Republican's faults won't fly in 4 years if things are still a mess. And I don't want to hear the crap about how "It will take longer than 4 years to clean up GWB's mess." You said you will deliver us change, now is put up or shut up time.

      He won't

    331. Re:Two words by TheGeniusIsOut · · Score: 1

      I am not looking forward to the next 4 years, I may lose my job, or be outsourced, if my CEO gets his taxes increased, and the terrorists know they have now won.

      --
      Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
    332. Re:Two words by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I just hope he, and the Congress hasn't ruined this wonderful country beyond repair....

      No worries. That part is already done.

    333. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start forcing your high ideals on other countries instead of doing what america tells you to (with imaginary property, e.g.)

      Ah, but the largest economy in Europe (Britain), is a member of the RIAA and forking loves draconian copyright law. As for software patents: it's a complex issue, and the fact that Europe has had debate on it -- instead of blindly following what the US wants -- is a sign that Europe is not doing what America tells it to.

      As for Europe forcing their ideals on other countries, this is not the European way. We learnt from colonialism, and America's mistakes, that bending people to your will is best achieved by diplomacy and tact, not by the barrel of a gun.

    334. Re:Two words by cabjf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually I think this reinforces minority racism. Yeah he got a lot of the white vote, but when 90-something percent of blacks voted for him (at least in the primaries and I think I saw some general election polls reporting the same), that sure looks a lot like racism to me. Think about it another way, what if 90-something percent of white people voted for McCain?

    335. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheney is evil incarnate. So is Karl Rove.

      At least Cheney is on his way out, voting for McCain would be continuing to give power to Rove.

    336. Re:Two words by cjb658 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Mod parent up

    337. Re:Two words by midnightkiller · · Score: 1

      You know, I am starting to agree with the idea of bringing our troops home from everywhere (and I am not a liberal weeny). Why don't we just isolate ourselves and press missile buttons every ten years when the rest of the world realizes their inaction caused too big of a problem to solve without us.

    338. Re:Two words by homesnatch · · Score: 1

      For those that think this thing started during the Bush era... The NYTimes predicted this bail-out in an article written in 1999. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Is there anyone that thinks giving mortgages to people that shouldn't qualify was a Republican agenda? You can try to blame the Republicans for not putting an end to it (which they tried to), but I find it extremely stupid to blame them for it.

    339. Re:Two words by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Don't forget there is now an increased risk of aviation accidents as the democrats have been pushing to empower and the FAA - getting them out from under Congress' oversight and placing them in bed with the airlines. A chance air travel costs will increase; increasing airline profits without requiring them to operate responsibly. A chance lead bullets will be out lawed. A chance the cost of gun ownership will go through the roof. The last two of which are end runs around the US Constitution despite a recent, clear and common sense interpretation (as any child can read) of the 2nd Amendment.

      Don't forget, the fall of the US economy is actually not Bush's fault. Ya, I'm sure that will get me modded down despite it being historical fact. Subprime lending has been in place long before Bush came into power. If you must blame someone, point a finger at all the idiots that bought homes they couldn't afford. They are squarely to blame. Go ahead, kick them in the ass. Subprime lending was on the rise and well established when Clinton was in office. So if you really need to point a finger beyond your idiot neighbour, point a finger at Bush Senior or Reagan - or maybe even before them. But of course, just because they started the practise, doesn't mean they are ultimately to blame. Many other people have sat in the Whitehouse and failed to act. To be clear, the economy in of it self is not the national debt (which is currently war driven) though it does affect the value of the US dollar.

    340. Re:Two words by bheer · · Score: 1

      >> I don't know about you, but I like some
      >> civility in my politics. Maybe I'm being naive,
      >> but then I voted for a guy who sort of shares my
      >> beliefs, and gave a classy shout-out to his losing opponent
      >> (and the Republican party, incidentally,
      >> by reminding them of what they once stood for) today.

      > If you were honest about wanting civility in politics
      > then you would not have voted Republican since their whole
      > MO is screeching hatred and epithets. "Your either with us
      > or against us".

      Geez, is everyone here stuck in a 2000/2004 time-warp?

      Quick, re-read what I posted and then tell me whom I voted for.

      Hint:

      I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. ... Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity.

    341. Re:Two words by cjb658 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and look how bad the Clinton years were for this country...

      Oh, wait...

      Yeah, back then we had a Republican congress.

    342. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently not even them... Otherwise they'd have pointed out the fiasco that's currently plaguing the world economy months before it happened.

      There is no such thing as "unbiased"- only less and moreso.

    343. Re:Two words by wolfemi1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How, exactly, is Carter to blame for either of those? The gas lines were due to OPEC's manipulation of the market, and the hostages were out of his control. He sent special forces in, but they failed to accomplish their objective. Unless he was there on the ground with them, I fail to see how the blame for that can be laid on him.

    344. Re:Two words by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Save for the fact that Germans don't elect their President (their representatives do)

      Ummmm...neither do you guys? Or have you forgotten a little thing called the electoral college?

      The Electoral College consists of the popularly elected representatives who formally select the President

    345. Re:Two words by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Now it still concerns me to stand by and watch just how much more damage the Lame Duck can do before the clean-up crew moves in.

      I have this image in my mind of Dubya, on January 19th, starting "police actions" in about 20 countries, and saying, "Let's see him fix this!"

      I'm more worried about him deregulating EVERYTHING right before he leaves and leaving a few political time bombs for Palin and Fox News to rally the base on.

    346. Re:Two words by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is juvenile to think someone is evil because they use a different text editor

      Even if they use notepad?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    347. Re:Two words by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Is her credibility worsened by being a creationist?

      Only in the eyes of people with at least one functional synapse.

    348. Re:Two words by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

      Complaining about trains not running on time and management is FAR different than making the trains run on time and BEING management.

      What? No car analogy?

      --
      Reply to That ||
    349. Re:Two words by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Dear oh dear, such trolling...

      tax the upper and upper middle class to death to make sure they don't become as powerful as the ones in charge (obama)

      Let's say someone makes 5 million a year. Now, let's say there's some really strict things in place to stop them dodging taxes (which most rich people are actually really good at). They get taxed at 50% of their income. They now make 2.5 million a year. Do you really think they're "less powerful" than they would have been at 3, 4 or even just under 5 million?

      put forth the fairness doctrine so people can not speak their mind without being punshed for it. (liberals, you will suffer too, again, this is to keep the powerful, powerful)

      "Fairness" does not advocate the removal of free speech.

      destroy our right to carry weapons (so we will never have the change to have a violent revolution)

      You couldn't have a violent revolution right now... Besides, I don't think Obama's planning on even trying to outlaw guns in the general public, just place some sensible restrictions on them.

      KEEP DOWN the poor by making them dependant on welfare (oh, if you make more than $X, we're not giving you free money any longer)

      Generally, welfare systems are designed so that if you make less working than you would on welfare, you get a "top up" in the form of welfare. This encourages people to work and make more money rather than making more by not working. Take a look at civilised western countries that have welfare systems in place (even ones that give quite a lot of money, such as Germany's system where for a while you make a reasonable percentage of what you made in your last job) amd you won't necessarily find countries rife with unemployed people taking handouts - instead you'll find countries where people aren't constantly living in mortal fear of job loss. A little peace of mind goes a long way towards a more stable and strong society.

      pass ANY liberal agenda that they want, like the recent desires to allow abortion soon AFTER birth, as if partial birth wasn't enough.

      PURE flamebait here... not worth a response (and if you think it is, you really are deluded)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    350. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank God.

      As a Darwinist, should I thank cotton instead?

    351. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      She has daddy issues.

      You can tell this because her name is Megyn.

      Obviously her parents are left wing nutjobs with little to no respect for spelling, and something happened to form a huge rift between her and her parents.

      This is why she now is a spokesperson for a political philosophy which wants to know why she isn't in the kitchen making me a sammich.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    352. Re:Two words by Whorhay · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You represent the World do you? Well you can take your notice and shove it up your anus. If you don't like the way we do things then maybe you should have fixed it before we felt we had to. We wouldn't be acting as the world police if the rest of the world had a spine.

      What are you going to do if we screw it up, fire us? How exactly does that work? I'll bet whatever country your in we can still lay it to waste in no time. Put up or shut up.

    353. Re:Two words by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      I also blame everyone under 35, because we are retarded, biased, and easily persuaded by off the cuff-pseudo-facts, without care to actually find the truth for ourselves.

      I also blame everyone over 35, because they are retarded, biased, and easily persuaded by off the cuff-pseudo-facts, without care to actually find the truth for themselves.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    354. Re:Two words by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      So he's not black enough, now?

      That's nice. Why don't you tell him that?

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    355. Re:Two words by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As another European, I'd agree. McCain in 2000 was someone I could respect, even though I disagreed with most of his policies. McCain in 2008 was not.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    356. Re:Two words by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now...honestly, what do you think is really going to change?

      1. For the first time in 8 years, we have a president who can speak publicly. McCain would have done a fine job, too - but Barack is really a terrific speaker.
      2. We've managed to go from segregation to president in about 40 years. More white people voted for Obama than Kerry. That is monumental. The best part is that since Obama is both black and white, he really can see and convey both perspectives of America. We're all going to talk about race a lot more than we used to, and that's a good thing.
      3. We don't have to hear nonsense about the government banning stem cell research, blatantly muzzling dissenting scientists, and other such shenanigans that should have any self-respecting geek up in arms.
      4. We'll gain some respect back from our allies. This is more than just a point of pride... we're going to need their help. Our army is exhausted and we all need to work together on the financial situation.
      5. While I think all of the "Yes, we can," stuff is corny as hell, he does seem to be a pretty good leader. And a leader is what people are looking for right now. People were willing to put up with partisan hacks and leave Washington to fester when times were good, but now people want Washington to be a help and not a hindrance. The first step is to get them to stop acting like spoiled 2-year-olds. Barack is one of those politicians that does not sound like a spoiled 2-year-old.

      Personally, I think John McCain could have done a pretty good job on that list as well, but the way his campaign was run in the last 2 or 3 months worried me greatly.

      It didn't really hit me that things had changed until I saw the first family up there after the victory speech, and damn if it wasn't a black family. Cue "white house" jokes. :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    357. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a European.

      The US is on notice in the sense that several lapses in the past several years have severely impacted international relations. A brief study of history will quickly see parallels between the past eight years and fascism. A bit of a look further back in history will show that the cost of a socio-economic failure in the current global system would have truly catastrophic effects.

      The US is on notice in the following sense: if you wish to maintain your status within the current economy, you must play nice. You were very -very- close to being actively censored from the global market.

      To draw an analogy, the US is the legs of the proverbial global body. You're extremely important, however if necessary you'll be cut off to prevent the death of the entire body. It would suck, it would hurt, but its better than the alternative.

      From my perspective, countries were starting to look actively for alternatives. Iran, for example, wants to start trading Oil in Euros. I wonder why the US and Iranian relations are so tense right now.....

    358. Re:Two words by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      If he's a good con man, it's because he's paying attention to what we think is really wrong. That's how he won. He may turn out to be a fuck-up, he may be a self-serving bastard, we never know until he takes over...but he was at least paying attention.

      We win, because unless he's a total disaster the republicans are now forced to start running more moderate...clued in...candidates. In the long run this means concessions on big business and their religious wacko-freak types responsible for Palin. I'm happy about that, I'm not a democrat fan, but I'm willing to use them as a tool to shape republicans.

      We've already won to some degree, republican politics had become so unrelated to my every day life, and their words alienated them from me so much, that as someone who makes 6 figures, I don't know who they're talking about. I listen to McCain and I think "Are you for real? On what planet?". That's why he lost.

    359. Re:Two words by querist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your reference to the "Chinese curse" (there's some debate on the real origins of it) "May you live in interesting times." is actually more "interesting" than you may think.

      The phrase in Chinese that is most commonly translated as "interesting" is made of two words (three characters): you3 yi4 si. I won't try to imbed Chinese characters here.

      you3 means "to have", as in "I have a car".
      yi4 si means "significance" or "meaning", for example, it is used to ask what a word means.

      So, a slightly more literal translation would be "May you live in significant times."

      To me, that's more frightening than "interesting times".

    360. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just Clinton or Bush. It's the both of them and Congress itself who we need to blame for the lot of this.

      Much of this is due to LAWS that Congress passed votes on that were then signed into law by a President. In at least some of the instances, the Bush administration stated there was something rotten in Demark with the financial sector but was poo-pooed by the Dems. Keep in mind, a Democratic Congress passed the bills that unlocked this mess to begin with, signed by a Dem President. This was further compounded by bad decisions made by a Republican Congress, signed into law by first a Democratic President followed by a Republican one.

      I'm concerned about how much damage the Lame Duck can do, followed up by how much damage 2-4 years of the same old crap that brought us this debacle will bring us. And, if they repeat what was done over the last 16 years, we won't be sitting very pretty at all.

    361. Re:Two words by nomadic · · Score: 1

      You were very -very- close to being actively censored from the global market.

      No, we weren't. Our markets are too interconnected with the rest of the world, there is no way we could have been censored from the global market.

    362. Re:Two words by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      Yeah well, welcome to payback time. We've had to put up with all the Bush/republican bashing (even though the democrat congress numbers were ALSO in the toilet after they took over!) So don't expect me to *embrace* the new president after having put up with hearing 8 years of (mostly) undeserved crap from the day Bush entered office. You want change, you've got it and you can have it. We've got a liberal president and a liberal congress and while some of you may get a check in the mail, you better hold onto your wallet because the money is going to bleeding out the other end.

      Oh and don't forget Biden promised us Obama will be tested in the first six months. Those of you overseas who are happy Obama won: You'd better hope that test doesn't involved your country because we won't be there. He's going to cut the military, remember? But he'll sit down to tea with your enemy for you and negotiate the surrender. Oh and while he's gutting the military, he wants to have a civilian national security force built up. (Hmmm, where in history have we seen a civilian national security force before....)

      I just don't want to hear any whining from Obama supporters about inflation, job loss, etc. in the next 4 years because according you and the media, we've have just been given utopia.

      Quotes to remember:
      July 2, 2008 in Colorado Springs (Obama):
      "We cannot continue to only rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

      From You-Tube Video, undated (Obama):
      "...I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.

      Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

      I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.

      And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

      Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."

      October 19, 2008 - Seatte (Joe Biden)
      "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

      "I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

      October 30, 2007 Democrat Debate:
      Brian Williams: What would make it crystal clear in your mind that the United States should attack Iran?

      SEN. OBAMA: "I don't think we should be talking about attacking Iran at this point, for some of the reasons that Chris and Joe just talked about. Look, we have been seeing, during the Republican debates, the drumbeat of war. The president has been talking about World War III. That is a continuation of the kinds of foreign policy that rejects diplomacy and sees military action as the only tool available to us to influence the region. And what we should be doing is reaching out aggressively to our allies b

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    363. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just heard on Fox News: "Everything we say is a lie". !!!

    364. Re:Two words by dintech · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think you over-estimate the naivity of the banks and mortgage salesmen in relation to the credit crisis. It was nothing but greedy profiteering and has very little to do with encouragement from any recent adminsistration.

      Here are some of the key points to remember:

      1) Mortgage salesmen got a commision for each mortgage sold, regardless of whether it was stable or would be paid to completion.

      2) Alarm bells should have been ringing down at the local bank branch but they weren't. Why? Because they were selling the loans (and inherent risk) on to larger invesment banks who repacked them.

      3) The investment banks repackaged these loans together with the flawed reasoning that only a certain percentage would default based on projected market conditions. Those conditions turned out to be wrong.

      4) The producers and packagers of asset backed swaps were further laying off and reselling the risk to hedge funds and banks that didn't necessarily have the capital behind them to pay up in the event of a default. It's illegal for insurance companies to take on obligations that they can't pay for but not for banks to jiggle risk around like this. This is criminal negligence in my view and people should have been in court by now.

      5) No one really knows who is exposed to what risk because these leveraged products have been resold and unwound between multiple counterparties. The banks don't know how badly affected their peers are so they've stopped lending to others in case they disappear (like Lehman) or they need the cash themselves for their own write-downs which they don't really know the scale of for the reasons mentioned. This is the real credit crisis, not the mortgages themselves. That was just the catalyst.

      Put it this way, you won't find anyone in the finance industry saying that they sold all those dodgy mortgages "because the government made us do it". It was greed, pure and simple.

      DISCLAIMER: I worked in credit derivitives many years ago.

    365. Re:Two words by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      The members of the Electoral College are duty-bound to vote for the candidate their constituents told them to vote for. So while there is a layer between the voter and the true election, the people's votes count.

      Germany doesn't have a Presidential election. Only their representation (sort of a combination between what we would think of as the House of Representatives and the individual State Senates) gets a vote.

      EU has a Presidential election in so much that they choose a party. The actual individual is chosen by the Commission from the winning party. Bassrao (the current EU President) is famous for stating that the EU Presidency lacks legitimacy.

    366. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      AssholeAmerican #4,967,304

    367. Re:Two words by tylerni7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This nation wasn't founded on partisanship at all. Everyone knows that out founding fathers didn't initially plan a partisan system, but partisanship is a result of how our government and our psychology works.
      I think it would be much better to have a non-partisan system, where there aren't only two opinions to choose from. Wouldn't it make much more sense if one could select from, say, 10 candidates with different ideas on things, rather than choosing either Democrat or Republican?

      If we have a more limited number of options, the race becomes much more about choosing "the lesser of two evils" than choosing the best person possible to become the president.

    368. Re:Two words by noc007 · · Score: 1

      If you want an example of something that Clinton did that we are starting to feel the effects of years later, look up the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (passed in 1999) which repeals a key piece of the Glass-Steagall Act (passed in 1933/during the Great Depression). If that key piece wasn't repealed, we wouldn't have the issues we have with the housing market and mortgage failures that had a major influence in the big problems with the financial industry as of late.

      There are changes that are made that take a long time to actually have an impact. One can not discount this. The $700 billion bailout has not fixed isht overnight; it will take some time. Somethings that are passed do have noticeable effects soon after and some do not have noticeable effects until much later.

      Both are true and both Clinton and Bush have made mistakes.

    369. Re:Two words by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Quite. Although abroad most of us foreigners aren't familiar with him, it's fairly easy to find relatively straightforward documentation that he seems to be a decent enough guy (he actually considered switching sides at one point).
      There was, however, the Palin issue. She is clearly a raving lunatic and shouldn't be allowed to hold any kind of political office. It's bad enough that's she's allowed to raise children. I don't know who convinced him to get her as a co-candidate but it lost him the election for good.

      Regarding Obama, we'll see. If he's a scheming politician, well, lots of US presidents have been, and if he isn't maybe the US will get lucky for a change.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    370. Re:Two words by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Amen. McCain could have gotten my vote, I'm not a worshipper of Obama, particularly after his telecom immunity waffle.

      But McCain continued to alienate himself, and then he chose Palin. I ignored the election after that, my mind was made up.

    371. Re:Two words by ahankinson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But you are on notice. You may be the most powerful *single* country in the world (and I think China might have something to say about that), but the aggregate of the countries that are watching you is much, much larger and has much more to lose. No president would ever invite conflict on American soil, but they have consistently had no problem doing it in other countries. Obama's presidency will either be a turning point or an epic fail. However, I think he has two things going for him that a president absolutely needs: the ability to inspire and get people to push together, and the ability to pick talented people to get the jobs done.

    372. Re:Two words by Blappo · · Score: 0

      He asked several very important questions and your response was "stop watching Fox news and shut up" with nothing resembling an answer.

      You mods who modded that flamebait up need to grow up, there was nothin interesting or insightful about it.

      --
      Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
    373. Re:Two words by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      Pro-life is a bad thing, if your niece is pregnant because your brother raped her.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    374. Re:Two words by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Fine, then outvote Britain and tell the US corporates to shove it, and I'll be impressed, because despite the software patents argument, it sure seems like you guys are tilting rather steeply that way.

      I'd love to see it, honestly. I've just lost sufficient faith in humanity to think I ever will.

    375. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 1

      pass ANY liberal agenda that they want, like the recent desires to allow abortion soon AFTER birth, as if partial birth wasn't enough.

      PURE flamebait here... not worth a response (and if you think it is, you really are deluded)

      But, that was my FAVORITE part! Abortion AFTER birth! I don't think abortion means what this flaming moron thinks it means...

      --
      bork bork bork!
    376. Re:Two words by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      his approval rating will take a serious hit.

      Fixing the economic problems of this country is incredibly complex and difficult. To fix it, he'll have to fix big corporate business in America. After all, they are ultimately a large part (in hand with their accomplices who bought homes they knoew they couldn't afford) of the root cause of our failing economy. Given that big business was the vast majority of Obama contributors, I don't see how he can possibly fix the cancer that is big business in America today. Big business and especially the financial industry saw this coming years ago and decided they would let this country fail and the government would be forced (FDIC assurances) to bail them out. They are all singing all the way to the bank. What they did is almost as bad as war profiteering; which is also likely going on today.

      Beyond that, it takes lots of time to turn around an economy the size of the US'. Even if he is able to turn things for the right direction, it likely won't be observed during his term, unless he's able to grab a second term. Which frankly, isn't likely unless the Republicans put forth something like a "Kerry" in the next election.

      Long story short, unless Obama immediately starts hearings and places several thousand of America's richest in prison for the rest of their lives, it's impossible for hom to not only right the wrongs, but to fix the root failings of the economy. Unless those are fixed and heads roll, we are doomed for this to happen again.

      Ultimately, any fix must included at least one more official party - if not two or three more.

    377. Re:Two words by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Do these countries want what's in America's best interest, or do they put the interest of their own countries above the USA's?

      Obviously we want what is in our interest. Would you expect otherwise? The question is whether what is in our interest is in your interests too. I believe that the USA providing an example to the rest of the world as a free democratic republic and mediating peace, rather than provoking war, is good for us. I believe that a USA focussed on international co-operation with other democratic countries is good for us. Is it in your best interests too?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    378. Re:Two words by k4mp3r · · Score: 1

      I gave up on American "news" a long time ago. Use the BBC, besides, they have had the best coverage on the LHC.

    379. Re:Two words by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      The "Christian Right" has become the "Victimized Left" over the last several years.

      Hilary Clinton was the champion of quite a bit of "Save the Children" BS.

    380. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, I remember my grandfather telling me stories about how FDR gave rousing speeches about how we had to go over to Europe and liberate the people from Hoover. And I remember his famous speech where he said " December 7th 1941, A day that shall live in infamy! The Empire of Herbert Hoover..."

    381. Re:Two words by zaphle · · Score: 1

      Now...honestly, what do you think is really going to change?

      Here's one word: Trust! Obama is clearly someone who has gained the trust of the world, or to say the least, far more trust than Bush has. You can already see this immediately in the exchange rate of the dollar vs euro to name one. There will be a positive effect that will spread out. I also suspect that aggression against American troops will decline because of this, which means fewer troops will be needed, which means lower tax expenses, etc. In short: the fact that the American people chose Obama is a major boost for the karma of all America that will be felt on every level, be it diplomatic relations, business, international trade... Investors all over the world believe America is in good hands. And he's not even started ruling!

      --
      And what if there's nothing behind the door until it is being opened?
    382. Re:Two words by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      That argument doesn't work anymore. Just because Fox News is a right wing tabloid doesn't mean they all have a bias. If the truth doesn't support your reality and the other news organizations won't bend their coverage to support your viewpoint, that doesn't make them biased.

      And yet... they ARE.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    383. Re:Two words by E++99 · · Score: 1

      You're really more afraid of Obama in the White House than you are of an Islamic terrorist? Really?
      Can I ask why?

      Er... because one more lunatic Supreme Court Justice will do more damage and more lasting damage to America than all the world's chemical and biological weapons put together?

    384. Re:Two words by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      No he started slinging crap because the media doesn't cover anything political that doesn't involve an attack. No attacks = no coverage. It's not exciting enough to grab ratings. Obama and Hillary got free nonstop coverage because they were different from the status quo and were by their very nature "ratings magnets".

      McCain didn't run the campaign he wanted to run, he got screwed because no one covered anything he did when he ran a quiet state-to-state local campaign where he just discussed the issues.

      I believe that Palin falls under the same category. He got forced into picking her in a sad grab at some of Hillary's voters. I can't imagine he would have picked her on his own - he didn't even know her.

      And no, I didn't vote McCain.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    385. Re:Two words by clary · · Score: 4, Informative

      Got a source on this? I just went to http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_calculators/index.html and plugged in the poverty level for both a single taxpayer and married filing jointly with 2 kids, and in both cases the result was a refund via earned income tax credit.

      --

      "Rub her feet." -- L.L.

    386. Re:Two words by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're missing two points:

      1. There's no "technically" anything when it comes to race. Race is a fiction with no scientific basis. You can't take a cell sample from somebody and pop it in an analyzer and come back and say "this person is 93% black and 7% white".
      2. The vast majority of "black" people in the US are actually interracial to one degree or another. There has been a great deal of mixing in the centuries since they've been here. Obama is not even slightly special in this regard.
      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    387. Re:Two words by Cristofori42 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand your logic. You seem to be claiming that the fact that they have a bias (which everyone does to at least some degree) they are suddenly excluded from ever having a valid point or opinion.

      Your argument that they are more of an opinion network than a news network seems unrelated to me.

      This whole idea that people who don't share your same political view points are all idiots, liars and baby eaters is what has really turned me (and I suspect a lot of other people) off from trying to have reasonable political discussions with people.

      --
      "Is that dad? Either that or Batman's really let himself go."
    388. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an outside observer, I've believed from the beginning that simply having Barack Obama in the presidency would be good for America.

      The problems with the markets right now stem in part from a lack of confidence in the US internationally.

      Frankly, we think you're a bunch of ignorant, violent dicks who managed to actually try to argue that torture is a good thing.

      By having someone who isn't saying these things as the ignorant violent dicks in power, I could see international investments slowly building back up, resulting in a more prosperous planet as a whole.

      (Seriously. Did you guys really think that arguing about whether torture was really bad would end up well for you?)

      --
      It's been a long time.
    389. Re:Two words by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fox news is the least serious of any of the major national news
      outlets or publications. They are the sort of people that make
      you wish old man Buckley was still around so that he could show
      them how it should be done.

      They have a tabloid style. They are more sensationalist and
      well for the lack of a better way of putting it... they
      elevate unqualified kook nobodies to the role of pundit.

      A genuine party rag from an earlier era was a more respectable news source.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    390. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget, racism is a two way street.
      It works both ways.

      Affirmative Action was a way to battle nepotism, but now, years later, they're merging as the biggest threat to hiring people based solely on their qualifications. You've got some minorities who where hired strictly because of their race, and now their (unqualified) sons and daughters are hired out of AA/nepotism.
      Despite my qualifications, I had to endure 3 interviews over a year to land my job; a year later, a load of unqualified minorities were hired, via AA and nepotism, nearly on the spot, to positions higher than mine. Hardly fair. It's the curse of the white male.
      I've worked, with no problem, with very competent minorities who were absolutely qualified, but I've also suffered many of those who weren't, and they drag the entire enterprise down as a liability.

      I worry that this problem is only going to get a lot worse under Obama.

    391. Re:Two words by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      If we're talking economics, much of economic policy takes time to have an appreciable effect. Often measured in years. In seriousness, if Obama tries to make economic changes first and foremost, and his ideas get through and into law, then you'll want to look at what direction the economy is moving sometime around 2010, if not later (depending on the kinds of changes we're talking about). The current state of the economy can be blamed at least partly on Bush, however, since he's had plenty of opportunity to correct problems, and most types of policy he could have enacted early on should have some appreciable effect by now.

    392. Re:Two words by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To most black folks, he's black. His daddy was black. His wife is black. His kids are black. He's a Democrat. He attends a black church.

      You are right that there is a big difference between being black or white and being mixed-race. A mixed-race guy like Obama truly understands the perspective of a black person and of a white person. He's heard it all from both sides and has had his whole life to think about these things. This is why he can talk to white people and address their concerns and also talk to black people and address their concerns.

      A typical black person (or white person) will most likely not have this insight, and I hope that blacks don't get too attached to hopes that Obama will act strictly as a black advocate. This will lead to profound disappointment.

      While he is the first black president, he's also the 44th white president.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    393. Re:Two words by mayordont · · Score: 1

      Probably the most neutral coverage of the US election that I have seen was this morning when Al Jazeera asked their man in the street in Congo how they felt about Obama's victory. The reporter admitted that even though most people in the Congo don't at the moment have the luxury to follow the American election, they would probably still enjoy the fact that a black man had been elected.

    394. Re:Two words by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      I don't think this does much to fix racism. It's more a confirmation of what people have suspected for some time. The nation has changed. Yes, we still have racism but it's not as pervasive as it used to be. There are still people around that push it as their main agenda, but most people have moved past that. The candidacy of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are just confirmation that the nation has changed over time.

    395. Re:Two words by ogminlo · · Score: 1

      Congress' approval ratings on the whole are always low, but within each district the local rep always has much higher approval ratings. Basically the people always think its everyone else's rep that is screwing everything up.

    396. Re:Two words by hasdikarlsam · · Score: 1

      But these days, such an assumption is naive.

      The problems we face are global, and must be solved globally; there's no way for any single country to solve global warming, to mention just one. I, personally, don't want to go back to the days when what one country did rarely affected another.. it wasn't a nice time to live.

    397. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well....

      Foxnews is on which side of the spectrum? Is Porn on any side of the spectrum?

    398. Re:Two words by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Pretty simple really. While people might disapprove of "Congress", they rarely disapprove of "their congress-person" as a result. "Congress" is 535 people... It's relatively easy for voters to disapprove of what those people are doing as a group while still feeling that the one or two people that are actually being voted for are doing a reasonable job. The greatest number of Congress-critters that any one person will be voting for at any one time is three (one rep and two senators), and even that is an exceptional circumstance... most of the time a state's two senators don't come up for re-election in the same year. One or two is the norm. It's much easier to like one or two people than it is to like the policies of a body with 535 members.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    399. Re:Two words by deniable · · Score: 1

      Yeah, as in there are good and bad ways to make it into the history books. I guess we'll have to wait a generation or three to see what Bush's legacy will look like. One thing is certain, it will be 'significant.'

    400. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has changed is that 8 years of BUllSHit is over, and there is hope for a better tomorrow. This also is a huge step to realizing the American Dream that seemed to have been lost due to republican presidency, appointing of unqualified political buddies to high positions as evidenced by the Catrina, etc.

    401. Re:Two words by BotnetZombie · · Score: 1

      Good points. But what about something like tortures in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib? I'd put those acts in the evil category, and then it's debatable about how evil the parties in the responsibility chain are for not doing anything real about it. If I remember correctly, McCain wasn't too terribly opposed to those. I don't see him as evil, but some probably could.

    402. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 1

      HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
      (this goes on for a while -- stupid "that's an awful long string of letters there" filter)

      *breath*

      HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
      (again, this goes on for a wile -- damned filters!)

      That was a good one. No, seriously. I'll bet you had to replace your monitor and keyboard on that one. It's a good thing I wasn't drinking/eating anything at the time..

      Heheheeheh.. O'Reily... "more fair and accurate".. haahahah.. I'm gunna need to go see a doctor to get my sides stitched. At least with Obama my pre-tax contribution for my portion of my health coverage won't be taxed in the process..

      haahhaah

      Actually O'Reilly has been more fair and accurate in terms of his coverage of Obama than almost anyone on the news. Stop reading from the Liberal Talking Points and learn to think for yourself for five fucking seconds.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    403. Re:Two words by wolfemi1 · · Score: 1
      As an internationalist, socially leftist Obama supporter who believes it is vital to repair our reputation overseas,and is beyond thrilled that Obama won, let me just say: I utterly disagree with the GP poster, and am thrilled that our relations with other countries will hopefully be repaired.

      In as much as it was my fault for not being politically active enough to prevent Bush from getting and maintaining power, I apologize for his actions, and hope that my efforts to make Obama president will go to some good effect for both the US and the international community.

    404. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It certainly wasn't irrelevant to the Iraqis that Bush won the 2000 election.

    405. Re:Two words by sxpert · · Score: 1

      hah, thanks for the explanation ;)
      finally someone states the truth

    406. Re:Two words by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Informative

      So?

      68% of the young vote went to Obama.
      68% of the hispanic vote went to Obama.
      68% of the "first election" vote went to Obama.
      68% of the "previously gave up on elections" vote went to Obama.

      This wasn't just a landslide in the black community.

      Blacks can't relate to a geezer WASP and fundie nutbag from Alaska. Imagine that.

      The Palin nomination pretty much killed his appeal to anyone outside of the Republican neocon base (which doesn't include blacks).

      Blacks not voting for Palin/McCain is like blacks not voting for David Duke (no big surprise)

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    407. Re:Two words by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't speak for Germany, but I believe they're similar to the system we have here in Canada. We don't have a Presidential ("Prime-ministerial"?) election either, but the results are the same. We're well aware of who the leader of the country will be when we vote, and the PM simply doesn't change between elections barring extraordinary circumstances.

      Theoretically, the party could switch leaders immediately after the election, but it simply doesn't happen - any more than US state electors cast their presidential vote against the will of their own state.

      Assuming this is in any way similar to Germany, I think it's disingenuous to claim that "they don't elect their president" based on the fact that their underlying mechanisms are a bit different from yours.

    408. Re:Two words by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      Blaming the subprime borrowers seems kind of silly--after all, me, Joe Six-pack, defaulting on my mortgage isn't going to kill a bank. However when you've got one of those mortgage mills that churns out bad loans for a percentage, and banks that buy up those mortgages as assets and employ feable risk mitigation...well, they're the ones I'd blame. An individual bad loan is an oily rag. A financial institution packaging them and using them securities is like an idiot stuffing a trashcan full of oily rags.

    409. Re:Two words by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Economics lesson:

      When the largest banks and insurance companies in the world start to topple like a house of cards over a matter of days, that is NOT a "starting to enter into a recession."

    410. Re:Two words by Darby · · Score: 1

      Yeesh, mea culpa.
      Once upon a time I got good scores in reading comprehension. I guess it's time for a refresher course.

    411. Re:Two words by YttriumOxide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You essentially had the choice (in my eyes) between: "Someone who says he'll do bad things, and might", and "Someone who says he'll do good things, but might not". Not the best of choices, but it's clear which one is the better of the two. I'm glad the right choice was made for once.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    412. Re:Two words by steelfood · · Score: 1

      No, but Sarah Palin would've been disastrous, and McCain isn't getting any healthier.

      The amusing thing is, some Republicans are trotting out Sarah Palin for 2012. After 8 years of Bush/Cheney, it might be decades before the country's ready for another ultra-conservative idiot president again.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    413. Re:Two words by Zephyrmation · · Score: 1

      I'm not expecting a miracle, and I hope there aren't too many people out there that think the crises facing this nation will disappear just because Obama was elected. But any candidate that stands for change in a time like this has my support.

    414. Re:Two words by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      We are still the most powerful country in the world

      I don't know if you have been following the elections closely, but Obama was made president-elect of The United States of America, not The People's Republic of China.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    415. Re:Two words by jcmb · · Score: 1

      You people are completely idiotic! Remember the last time a black President was elected? Giant meteors from outer space, that's what!

    416. Re:Two words by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      I know. Good thing people vote based on the tones of speeches versus actual policy, huh? I'm resigned..I mean hopeful about Obama. But the cult of personality that has arisen around him is a joke. Morons crying in the street when if you asked them what his policies were and how it would directly impact them they couldn't tell you jack shit. Seriously. Jesus Christ.

    417. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the Anti Christ is supposed to be charming.

    418. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people in Europe think (hope!) that USA becomes again the inspiring leader of the West, interested in the opinions of his allies, no the arrogant cowboy looking only for his interests. It's not US interests against Europe interests. It can be a really win-win situation. Obama is the man!

    419. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      change is slow, but look at how much changed with Bush over the past 8 years. War, drove economy into the ground, added 6 trillion in new debt.

      I have an optimistic outlook imagining that if we were able to do that, we can do the opposite in the next 8 years.

      Shame on you for trying to drive peoples expectations of our newly elected leader to that level of mediocrity.

    420. Re:Two words by Daimaou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He or she is saying that people who don't succeed will find any loophole that enables them to blame their inability to succeed on others. He or she is absolutely correct.

    421. Re:Two words by Krusso88 · · Score: 1

      That is not funny at all. Comparing Obama to Jesus Christ is absolute blasphemy.

    422. Re:Two words by RazorBlade99 · · Score: 1

      It's called term limit. The president has it, why shouldn't the congress and the senate? These people are in office forever it's like the ole boys club. It would certainly help if they can only serve a couple of terms and get some new people in there. How old are some of these people? Seriously!

    423. Re:Two words by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The "Christian Right" has become the "Victimized Left" over the last several years.

      Hilary Clinton was the champion of quite a bit of "Save the Children" BS.

      Hardly the only one, or are you forgetting all the anti-sex pro-censorship republicans?

    424. Re:Two words by clary · · Score: 1

      Payroll tax is to fund social security benefits. Most people who live long enough to collect social security withdraws more than they paid. So I fail to see how anyone can make the argument that FICA transfers money from the poor to the rich. (It does transfer money from one generation to another, which I also think is a bad idea.)

      Anyways, the point is he is decreasing the taxes on the rich at the expense of the poor (lowering taxes for one group means all other groups are now paying for a higher portion of public goods).

      No, the original poster quite clearly said that McCain wanted to "tax the poor to pay the wealthy." If that doesn't mean transferring money from the poor to the wealthy, then I guess I need remedial English lessons. According to my quick check at http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_calculators/index.html, those under the poverty level are paying a 0% portion of the public goods that come from federal income tax. So again I ask, just how is that taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich?

      The poor do have to pay things like sales tax, gasoline tax, etc. I would be open to proposals to exempt those under the poverty line from such taxes.

      --

      "Rub her feet." -- L.L.

    425. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Three words for you:

      "My pet goat"

      Respect isn't given, it's earned. We'll see if Obama earns people's respect or their derision through his actions.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    426. Re:Two words by Windows_NT · · Score: 1

      I really think Barack (there i fixed it ;) ) will do a good job, although im not a very active political person, his personality comes off as being a good person. I think most Americans have the fear of another bad president. Bush put us in shit and now we are so deep our shovels wont help .. ( The car tire is flat, and all we have is duct-tape) .. I know im not the only to think our goverment is corrupt. But as much power as i have to change things (my vote?) i will have faith in him and hope that we can turn our economy around and put us (USA) back as a world [economy] power.
      Sad but true, in the world of metallica "All the justice painted green, money darkens"
      I feel Obama want office because he wants 'us' to succeed. If he stuffs his pockets like every other politician, WE ARE FUCKED.

      --
      Go go Gadget Nailgun!
    427. Re:Two words by TheGeniusIsOut · · Score: 1

      If I ruled the world, my agenda for the Obama presidency: - Fix Bush's financial mess.

      The President is not responsible for the economy, if you had paid attention in civics, you would know that the congress and senate have much more impact on economic matters. The President can only propose plans, and veto them, it is up to the legislature to make the laws.

      - Re-establish our Constitutional rights (like, ban the PATRIOT act).

      You cannot be 100% Free and 100% Secure, you have to make compromises between the two extremes. I would rather be more secure giving up some privacy that I didn't really have to begin with and allow the government to legally make use of the data they have been gathering for decades. If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to be afraid of? Do you seriously think we will devolve into a totalitarian police state?

      - Pull us out of Iraq ASAP.

      You have no understanding of military matters. An unconditional withdrawal without insuring continued stability in the region is tantamount to tossing your hands in the air and saying, "I give up!". Then we wait for the first warlord/Imam/local dictator to wrest control and begin attacking our intrests, maybe even our soil, forcing us to go back in to defend ourselves. When will people get it through their heads that the Islamic extremists hate us because we do not believe as they do, and one of the founding principals of our country was the right to believe whatever you want, which is in direct opposition to their established viewpoints.

      - Go after Bin Laden where he really might be.

      Bin Laden has not been seen in over 3 years, and then it was debatable if the video was recent. Getting Bin Laden will not stop Al-Quaeda, it is a terrorist organization, not something with a single, defined control center. They are designed to operate independantly, in isolation, waiting for the proper time to execute their plans.

      --
      Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
    428. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because god exists outside of entropy and therefore has no sense of time?

    429. Re:Two words by nuttycom · · Score: 1

      Capitalism and barter are fundamentally co-dependent systems; you depend upon the well-being of the people who grow your food, and they depend on your ability to buy it from them. I guess all that I'm trying to say is that recognizing our interdependence is as important as recognizing our individualism.

      Self-reliance is critically important, but when the ideology of self-reliance warps into cynical greed and refusal to help others, I don't think it does anyone any good.

    430. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 1

      Again, not a good excuse, whether you voted for McCain or not. If his message wasn't good enough to grab headlines, then he wasn't the right man for the job.

      Every time that man got up on stage, he told us how our economy was doin' great, how we could stop buying oil (or as much oil) if we just ruined our own waters for the pittance that *might* exist, how we need to "cut taxes" as our national debt rises at unprecedented rates, and how he'll "veto pork spending and make sure their names are famous" despite all the bills he voted for that were chalk FULL of such spending.

      All around McCain was the wrong man. He should have known this if, as you say, he "only slung mud to get coverage". I didn't see Barak slinging mud to get coverage. What he did have was a message people wanted to hear, and that is what caused his speeches to get covered. McCain didn't.

      As I've said before, Obama isn't perfect either, but I think we'll be *far* better off with him than McCain.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    431. Re:Two words by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      He had no chance. George Bush fucked McCain twice - in the 2000 election and by being the worst president in history and a Republican. McCain could have picked Colin Powell or Jesus Christ as his running mate and run a perfect campaign with a $5 billion budget and he would have lost. He might have lost by less, but he would have lost. You don't elect someone from the same party as the worst president in history immediately after said worst president in history's term.

    432. Re:Two words by anagama · · Score: 1

      Excellent comment. A virtual +1 from me.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    433. Re:Two words by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Why either/or? My experience is that Europeans (and those of other countries) want a stable, prosperous US which continues to be the powerhouse of the world economy, continues to keep the peace, continues to put out fires around the world through military or humanitarian efforts, and continues to drive a lot of technological and scientific progress.

      Oddly enough, this is pretty much what I want too!

      Think about it: if you were examining the candidates for, say, President of France, and chose the one who would be best for you and your country, is it not likely that this would also be the one best for them and their country? Same deal here.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    434. Re:Two words by Onan · · Score: 1

      Your straw man, it is so... strawy.

      The fact that there are no _perfectly_ unbiased news sources does not mean that there are not varying degrees of bias, or that unbiased reporting is something we should stop demanding and striving for.

      Just because other organizations only get 98% of the way there rather than Fox's 4%, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears, shout "everyone's biased!" and declare it a non-issue.

    435. Re:Two words by TheLostSamurai · · Score: 1

      It isn't like we really care who you elect in your country.

      That's because the majority of other countries don't usually fuck up the rest of the world like we do.

      --
      I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
    436. Re:Two words by isorox · · Score: 1

      McCain isn't the antichrist. Not by a long shot. And I said this as an Obama supporter.

      His supporters (maybe it's an American thing) were pretty bad though, booing him whenever he said "Actually Obama's a pretty good guy, and I agree with him a hell of a lot more than you rednecks"

      No problem with McCain, the problem that many of the independent observers in my office had was Palin, coupled with the chance of Palin being in charge. Perhaps a McCain/Obama bid would have been a good idea.

    437. Re:Two words by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

      What I observe is that you people in the US seem to follow along with your President no matter what, it's like a fashion trend that good or bad people will follow just because it's the in thing to do.

        I've even noticed people acting like the President, I remember when Bill Clinton became President he had this odd habit of pointing with his thumb and pretty soon everyone seemed to do it. People picked up on his mannerisms, maybe since he was popular that is why people did it, unconsciously. I wonder if stammering will become a new unconscious habit since Obama seems to do that a lot, maybe just the stress of the election but it'll be interesting to see.

        Maybe with Obama people will be more open to new ideas, such as Government Healthcare, just because he is President. It's like the three minute mile race, once someone actually does it people will wonder why no one has ever done it before since it was as hard as we thought it would be.

    438. Re:Two words by plasmoidia · · Score: 1

      Him being elected will not fix racism but it is a big step in the right direction.

      Really? I wonder about that. I might even say it's possible he got elected *because* of racism. How many black people voted for him simply because he has dark skin? (Of course you always have the flip-side of "How many white people voted against him for the same reason?") Don't get me wrong, many people (including myself) voted based on the issues. But the day we vote and race isn't even mentioned, when it doesn't matter at all, is when the turning point will be. Maybe it had to be this way because it is a first, but it still makes me sick to know his race was that big an issue.

    439. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've made the first step. Don't fuck this up. You're still on notice.

      Dear citizen of a terrorist state:

      Congratulations on being tagged a radical terrorist. Men in black suits and sunglasses are on their way over to take you vacationing in cuba. We sincerely hope you enjoy the stay.

      You have made the first step to recovery. Do not fuck this up. You are still on notice.

    440. Re:Two words by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Just had someone at work bitch about America's first Arabic president. That's like calling someone who's dad is from Norway "Roman", when you mean Lutheran.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    441. Re:Two words by Krusso88 · · Score: 1

      1-20-09: The beginning of a new error... God HELP America

    442. Re:Two words by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      He got no more of the black vote than Clinton.

      "Minority Racism"? Something that only real racists worry about.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    443. Re:Two words by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

      > Bull sh!t! Ever hear of the "Fairness Doctrine"? Might want to read up on that.

    444. Re:Two words by Permutation+Citizen · · Score: 1

      Restoring a good relationship with foreign partners is USA's best interest.

    445. Re:Two words by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      call the other guy names: 'evil' or 'traitor' or 'communist' or 'socialist' or whatever

      Whenever I see 'socialist' used as an insult, I am reminded of the following exchange from the South Park movie:

      Cartman: Kyle, all those times I said you were a dumb, stupid Jew, well, I was wrong, you're not a Jew.
      Kyle: Cartman, I *am* Jewish!
      Cartman: There, there, don't be hard on yourself, Kyle.

      I *am* socialist, and will almost always reflect that in my vote. How anyone can think that's a bad thing is beyond my comprehension.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    446. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where there hell can I emigrate to?

      Maybe to Haiti, not too far away and I heard they have a pretty small government.

    447. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as it takes for narrow minded people like you to change your poor attitude and make change happen in this world.

    448. Re:Two words by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Actually, they should not be expressing ANY points or opinions. It is NEWS. They are supposed to report and uncover the facts.

      When I got home yesterday, CNN was on the TV and one of the first things I heard was a comment that something was not right in some of the reporting because the two percentages in a particular state did not add up to 100%. There *ARE* other parties and they are popular enough to have gained greater than 1% voter turnout. They seem to do everything they can to ignore other parties pretending there are just two... excluding other parties from debates and all that.

      The Libertarian candidate made it on 45 state presidential ballots this time around. There's here! They're Queer! Get used to it!

    449. Re:Two words by illumin8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It may also surprise you that, in retrospect, experience is not correlated to being a good president, and in fact some of the the most inexperienced presidents have been some of the most successful.

      Speaking of experience: I'll take a constitutional law professor over a career politician any day when it comes to protecting my rights. Unlike Bush, Obama knows the constitution is more than a "piece of paper" and when he swears to protect and uphold it, I believe his words have credibility and meaning.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    450. Re:Two words by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...yes, it was all of that lending to "the wrong people".

      It had nothing to do with the fact that these days banks
      don't care about "bad loans" because they've gotten into
      the habit of reselling them and quickly become "someone
      else's problem".

      It had nothing to do with predatory ARMs that anyone with
      a solid grounding in match could see were a ticking timebomb.

      It had nothing to do with making loans to people without
      verifying any means to pay.

      It had nothing to do with ignoring people's debt to income ratio.

      It had nothing to do with allowing people to get a mortgage
      without any sort of down payment and having "no skin in the game".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    451. Re:Two words by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Not really.
      I am not a fan of racism and I hope Obama has a very successful term or two in office.
      But every African American that voted for him just because he is African American is just as racist as every none African American that didn't vote for him just because he was African American.

      Heck I didn't support him because of his policy on nuclear fuel recycling and nuclear power in general.
      But he is going to president and all I can say is I hope he is a great one.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    452. Re:Two words by plasmoidia · · Score: 2, Informative

      News organizations are run by people. *That* means they all have a bias.

    453. Re:Two words by RCL · · Score: 1

      Does he run Linux?

    454. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My impression was that it was, at least partly, an attempt to win over disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters.

      If that was the strategy behind the Palin choice, then McCain is very possibly the most sexist man in politics. Palin is very possibly the closest thing out there to an anti-Hillary, and choosing a young-earth fundamentalist, radical right-to-life, subservient-to-husband woman on the basis that any woman will satisfy disappointed Clinton supporters implies a terrible dismissal of those people's ability to think.

    455. Re:Two words by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually on Fox News this morning they where being very up beat on Obama. They said he ran a great race and other compliments. So I guess that is a lie as well?
      Heck I really hate Fox News and most other news services to be honest but they did seem to be supportive this morning.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    456. Re:Two words by drik00 · · Score: 1

      All of the Patriot Act, Wiretapping, whatever is pointless and moot if we're poor as hell and forced into a full-blown socialism "to save the country."

      Simply listening to what the guy says he wants to do to the economy has me terrified...
      + 12% increase in income tax for any business making over $250K. How many small businesses do you know that employ more than 1-2 people are out there that make less than $250K? JOBS WILL BE LOST ON A MASSIVE SCALE.

      + Nearly double the capital gains tax: Stocks plummetting = Retirement funds plummetting

      + By his own admission, he wants energy prices to "skyrocket" and he wants to "bankrupt" anyone who wants to build a coal plant. (quotes are used because they are his words, not mine)

      The USA just elected a guy who says he is not a socialist, but uses all the words and ideas of a socialist.

      You can mod me however you want, I don't care. I've lost hope for the Slashdot community (after 8 years)... everyone on here seems incapable of thinking beyond their own nose. What good is it to have free speech on the interwebs but have no real opportunity in RL? We're screwed.

      "A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson.

      --
      Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
    457. Re:Two words by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      He won't "change the world" in the way you're implying, but honestly, he did change the world in one sense. By being voted to be the next President of the United States, the general opinion of the US in the rest of the world rose dramatically in a matter of minutes. Everyone knows there's no real change until things actually start happening, but the fact that the first wheel has been put in motion (competent President) has really improved people's opinions of you. (whether that's right/wrong, good/bad, sensible/crazy, I won't state in this post)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    458. Re:Two words by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Blaming the subprime borrowers seems kind of silly--after all, me, Joe Six-pack, defaulting on my mortgage isn't going to kill a bank.

      Then we can safely assume you're pro-insurance fraud too. After all, one fraudulent claim isn't going to kill an insurance company either. ;)

      The people who bought homes, who knew they couldn't afford it, are as much to blame as the banks/mortgage companies themselves. If you want to split hairs, fine - 40/60% blame. Whatever. Regardless, it took two to create this economic crisis and these people willingly and and fraudulently played their part. Don't forget, a huge chunk of these people fraudulently claimed income they knew they didn't have. Likewise, a huge chuck of loan agents fraudulently changed the application after it submitted to them. It takes two.

      Ironically, many of these same people blame Bush for this country's economy when they really should take a long hard look in the mirror.

    459. Re:Two words by tmosley · · Score: 1

      I think you would be surprised at how many fewer wars there would be without CIA operations constantly pushing for them.

      Pulling the troops home doesn't imply withdrawing from the international stage, it just means we are holstering our guns. We should continue to interact and trade. We already know the pen is mightier than the sword, we need to recognize this and stop spending untold billions (trillions?) of dollars just to threaten people we don't like.

    460. Re:Two words by Five+Bucks! · · Score: 1

      That's wonderfully elitist. No wonder the disenfranchised and impoverished populous has just elected Barack Obama.

      Interestingly, it's that same sort of rhetoric that Republicans claim the self-rightous, hippy, academics use to disparage Republicans.

      From my very distant and generally disinterested perch here in Canada, I generally don't see a huge difference between the two parties.

      In Tommy Douglas's Mouseland speech, he describes a civilisation wherein a black cat and a white cat alternately represent the interest of the mice in mouseland; claiming that each cat has superior policies and a stronger will to look after the mice.

      Of course they are both cats and desire not much more to control and eat the mice. The same happens over there in the United States.

      --
      52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
    461. Re:Two words by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      My impression was that it was, at least partly, an attempt to win over disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters. Right at that moment, when there was a lot of disappointment that Clinton didn't win, it might have seemed like a good idea. Any resentment from the Clinton camp dissipated very quickly, though, and McCain had to know pretty early on that he was in trouble.

      That's probably true, but it's pretty silly. Just because Palin and Hillary both have vaginas doesn't mean Hillary supporters are suddenly going to support someone who speaks in tongues in church (not to mention all the other ways she's diametrically opposed to Hillary's viewpoints).

      Also, keep in mind that while the evangelicals vote Republican no matter what, McCain had to do something to get them to vote at all. He is viewed as too liberal for the tastes of the ultra-right-wing set. I definitely agree, though, that a more credible and moderate running mate would have made this a much closer election.

      While evangelicals not bothering to show up is a valid worry, I think the prospect of an Obama presidency should have been enough to get most of them to vote for McCain. All he had to do was talk about their favorite pet topics, like abortion, and point out that Obama was extremely liberal (which he is).

      There had to be far better choices, even female ones, than Palin. I'm still shocked he made such a horrible pick. Texas had a female republican governor a while back that probably would have been a decent pick.

      Of course, Republicans in general have only themselves to blame for all of this: they had lots of better choices during the Primaries than McCain: Huckabee, Thompson, Romney, etc. The way I see it, they managed to pick the worst possible candidate out of the whole bunch with McCain. (I similarly think that the Democrats managed to pick the worst possible candidate in their primaries too. Any of the other guys (or girl) would have been better than Obama IMO.)

    462. Re:Two words by nomad63 · · Score: 1

      Thank God.



      should have been 3 words and read more like :

      <b>Help us god !</b>

      and I am not religious by any means. But only god can prevent this a$$hole from dipping into my wallet now that he is elected.
      --

      __________
      The more I know people, the more I love animals
    463. Re:Two words by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      This is a symptom, not a cause. Having Obama as president will not cause America to "fix racism". It is, perhaps, a sign that racism is no longer nearly the problem it was in the past.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    464. Re:Two words by Joren · · Score: 1

      just because you heard it on fox news doesn't mean it's incorrect.

      I just want to say again, Yes it does!

      So when Fox News reports that Obama won the election, does that mean that in reality McCain won?

      --
      -- Joren
    465. Re:Two words by Tenek · · Score: 1
      But you can broaden the definition of "us". Wasilla places its interests above Anchorage's. Alaska places its interests above Oregon's. America places its interests above Japan's. So why can't the lands of the free place their interests above China's?

      You are not required to sacrifice your country for the sake of France but you could at least try to play nice with your only available allies when it comes to stopping Russia and China from taking over.

    466. Re:Two words by all_the_names_are_ta · · Score: 1

      As one of the few foreigners who is still positive about the US as the sole superpower, let me point out that going it alone went really well for you in the past eight years. You are facing challenges to your position far greater than you have in the past (ie China). Pissing goodwill up against the wall isn't going to help you maintain preeminence.

    467. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "now" you mean, "in January"...

      I think they'll still have a hard time getting things done without compromise. There will still be a Republican presence, and not all of the races have been called but it sounds like their Senate majority won't be fillibuster proof. Plus, the Dems aren't as good as Republicans at voting like a bloc; there are too many moderate and conservative dems for that to happen.

      So, if you're a conservative (disclaimer: I am not.), I don't think you have to be as "worried" as certain elements of the righty press would have you believe.

    468. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear god

      The war in Irak might just end.
      Foreign stupid republican policy might just end
      Rich people might just get what they deserve
      Mid class citizen just might get a break
      Fair juste might be IN again
      The US just might get it,s good old reputation back.

      for all those reason

    469. Re:Two words by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (Seriously, did you really think most of us actually bought that shit?)

      The guy never had better than a 50-50 approval rating and by the time the the torture stuff really hit the fan it was a lot lower. Had the 2004 election happened in 2006 Kerry would have won in a landslide, but sadly in 2004 W. still had enough people fooled to squeak by. Seriously, Americans are not a monolithic group think over here. We have different opinions on all kind of issues. I would think, given your 6 digit UID, that you've been reading /. long enough to get an idea for how "Americans" are no more in agreement on any one issue than any other large group on the face of the Earth.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    470. Re:Two words by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      The German system has several major differences. For one, the election for President is held every five years. The Federal Assembly actually votes on who will be the President. While they usually vote along party lines (giving it a semblance of similarity to the Canadian system), there is no requirement that the members of the Assembly do so.

      While it is certainly true that members of both Canada and Germany can be somewhat confident that the representative they choose will affect the outcome of the President/Prime Minister election in an expected manner, it is the height of arrogance to suggest that American votes count less than German votes. If anything, German votes count for far less because there is no requirement that the representative carry out the party affiliation (or elect the desired member of the party) as the American system allows. Worse yet, it is not possible in the Canadian system nor feasible in the German system to intentionally set the head of state in opposition to the representatives.

      In result, Germans don't have a vote for their President. At best they get to play a game of musical chairs in selecting a faceless party to hold all the power.

    471. Re:Two words by TexVex · · Score: 1

      I watched a bit of BBC's coverage last night and it was just as slanted as everything else.

      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    472. Re:Two words by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It had everything to do with all of those things. All of which were not allowed prior to banking de-regulation in the 80's.

      --
      Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
    473. Re:Two words by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      So by that logic Obama is not the new president, as they said he was last night. Due to Heisenberg's uncertainty clause there is a non zero probability of them stating a true fact or having a valid opinion.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    474. Re:Two words by anagama · · Score: 1

      As long as oil exists in Iraq, we will be there. The Iraqi supply is too important in an energy dependent world where Americans cry like babies when gas hits $4.50. Won't make a difference ultimately as the surplus energy of the last century fueled our wealth, and 100:1 power returns just aren't laying around anymore. But still, we'll be in Iraq till the oil runs dry.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    475. Re:Two words by JoeZeppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most people who think Fox News is an arm of the GOP, are comfortable getting their news from multiple sources, CNN, BBC, CBS, NBC, etcetera, EXCEPT for Fox News.

      while most people who think Fox News is Fair and Balanced(tm) are of the opinion that all other mainstream media are "in the tank" for whomever they are hating that week, and are NOT to be trusted. this magnifies the echo chamber effect, since they are unable or unwilling to consider opposing viewpoints.

      What's worse, is they incorrectly assume that everyone else must think like they do, and all other news outlets are as shrill and partisan as Fox is, because they have nothing to compare to.

    476. Re:Two words by JoeZeppy · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the other completely neutral news organizations..right.

      See my post above. Point proven

    477. Re:Two words by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      McCain isn't the antichrist. Not by a long shot.

      Absolutely true. But he's part of a Republican machine that, over the past 8 years, has made itself into a party of the ignorant and idiotic, the religious right being the base of that, and as the world has seen, they are dangerous. McCain is more central, smarter, better than today's Republican party. I might have voted for him (not over Obama), if he were bringing a different party with him.

    478. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure the democrats had some rough times. But that's only because they show up after the republicans mess things up. I mean sometimes being a good party means making tough decisions. And yes, this means that A lot of people will be unhappy. And economically speaking, a politician has the choice to concentrate on the short run (on being re-elected) or concentrate on the Long-run. And sometimes concentrating on the long-run means people suffer in the short run.

      For example, it might be beneficial to increase Monetary supply in order to increase job creation in the short run. But in the long run, these jobs disappear, unemployment goes back to what it was but inflation has increased significantly.

    479. Re:Two words by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 1

      But the United States is a part of the world and has an agenda that extends beyond its own borders. If you want to be insular and not worry about anybody else, then you're North Korea.

      --
      Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
    480. Re:Two words by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      Blaming the CRA for the current mess is yesterdays lie.

      http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081015/A_BIZ0202/810150320/-1/A_BIZ04

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    481. Re:Two words by milimetric · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's the thing, and I'm sure others have said it:

      He won as a beacon of hope. He's not going to take the world on his shoulder Atlas style, give it a good shaking and make all of us rich, healthy and happy. We have to do that for ourselves, with his help. His approval rating will hopefully follow the average of individual self-approval ratings across the globe. And that's the very Best thing we can hope for in a politician.

      Here's to a renewed effort!

    482. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Ask Iran how well "vot[ing] yourself in some leaders with some balls, to keep from being influenced" works.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    483. Re:Two words by tmosley · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would tend to agree with most of your statement, but I would say that the problem with the economy (not just the markets) is our hideously bloated credit-card culture, which was promoted so much by Bush and Co (remember him telling us to go out and spend so the "terrorists don't win"?).

      Both the government and individuals are up to their ears in debt, and the only way we can even continue to pay the interest is to borrow more. The government has really good credit, but that doesn't mean spit when there isn't enough money to pay the bills, and the only way out is to print more money (or default). One way leads to hyperinflation, Weimar style, and the other leads to nasty, mutually destructive trade wars, and a flight from dollars (which also causes hyperinflation as all the trillions of dollars sitting in government reserves flood the market, bidding up prices on EVERYTHING priced in dollars).

    484. Re:Two words by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      No, it's easy to say stop being partisan when the two opposing party leaders both say cut it out.

      Partisanship doesn't require being an ass. Although this is something that
      the neocon faction of the Republican party has been fixating on lately. This
      is why McCain's selection of Palin sunk his campaign.

      When the last president wins by margins not good enough for a gallup poll
      and then basically goes "neener neener, who's the stud & who's the weiner"
      there tends to be a lot of animosity created.

      You reap what you sow.

      More necon bible-thumpers should read their bibles more...

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    485. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself

      Some of us think that neither candidate represented anything resembling hope.

      On one hand, redistribution of wealth....on the other, spending it on more foreign conflict. Both candidates voted for the hugely unpopular bail-out. Neither candidate would venture into muddy water (Ayers and Keeting relationships)

      There was no real choice in this election, and there is no real hope in the result.

    486. Re:Two words by evilbessie · · Score: 1

      He HAS to do things in his first year, being as 2010 is a right off because of the midterms, then he's running again. So really the first year is the time when the president can actually get something done...

    487. Re:Two words by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Whoever modded my post Troll does not understand what the term "Troll" means. Worse off, (s)he is responsible for an egregious bout of "Troll Moderating" himself. Thanks for proving why Americans are so upset at Europeans.

    488. Re:Two words by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      (This is where someone says they don't like the BBC because they have a British slant.)

      Correction: (This is where someone says they don't like the BBC because they have a liberal slant.)

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    489. Re:Two words by globaljustin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You mean like the Democrats did in 2000 and 2004?

      Gore won in 2000. He won Broward Co., he won Florida, and he won the popular vote. Re-thugs stole the election by not allowing the re-counts. That is a completely different scenario than the landslide that happened this year. No one can dispute Obama's victory.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    490. Re:Two words by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Yes, let us give thanks to the Tyrant, the Divided God, Shaitan and Shai-Hulud.

      I've often wondered if the entire Bush presidency was a Leto-II-esque, magnificent-bastard gambit to manipulate the United States into choosing someone like Obama.

    491. Re:Two words by retchdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      in re: 1., yes you can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_DNA_test#Biogeographical_ancestry. Of course, whether race means something apart from where you or your ancestors happened to come from, that is still open (*). But make no mistake, there absolutely is a technical concept of "biogeographical ancestry" which is very analogous to what is called race, and incorporating it into a model can increase the power and accuracy of clinical trials and disease screens. I would call this scientific.

      *: Of course, to see as much between-group genetic variation as there is, and straight-facedly claim a priori that race has no statistical effect on anything, is just a bit silly. It's just one of those things you have to entertain for society's benefit.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    492. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      And the "presumably Eurpoean" comment being responded to didn't reinforce the ignorance of an American poster?

      (Protip: There are places in the world that aren't either Europe or the USA!)

      --
      It's been a long time.
    493. Re:Two words by ogminlo · · Score: 1

      You give McCain too much credit, which is a testament to his very successful self-branding efforts.

      He might be more intellectually curious than GWB (so is the average bacterium), but he has some fatal flaws I would not want to see in a President. He prides himself on making visceral snap judgements rather than informed ones (see his Veep pick). About the nicest thing you can say about his military service is that he was tortured nearly to death in Hanoi, which no doubt left an indelible mark on his mental well-being. He has a reputation for a very short and volatile temper. PTSD, a proclivity for snap-judgements, and a short fuse are a potentially fatal cocktail for the guy with the big red button. Thus, his nasty Rovian campaign and his Faustian shift to red-meat GOP base rhetoric are not the only reason to reject him for this gig.

      Conversely, Obama is a cerebral Constitutional scholar known for his unflappable cool temper, his knack for cooperation, and undeniable charisma. Maybe a lot of people voted for him for the "wrong" reasons, but we're so much better off with him that I couldn't care less. Indeed, some of the fearful right wing might be pleasantly surprised at just how radical and scary Obama isn't. But then maybe they are the same people who still approve of the job Bush is doing, and are therefore hopeless ideologues who cannot be reasoned with.

      I'm glad you made the right choice! I grew up in both "real" and "fake" America, so I was also disgusted with that desperate last gasp from that doomed campaign of fear and division.

    494. Re:Two words by realisticradical · · Score: 1

      That argument doesn't work anymore. Just because Fox News is a right wing tabloid doesn't mean they all have a bias.

      Err, what? That's exactly what it means.

    495. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What God does is look down, shake his head, and continue waiting for the day when human beings evolve past the primitive, animal-like desire to hold power (a special "right" to employ coercion) over other human beings.

    496. Re:Two words by jcr · · Score: 1

      The problems with the markets right now stem in part from a lack of confidence in the US internationally

      I'd say it has a bit more to do with rampant inflation for the last couple of decades, while the Federal Reserve and the government steadily lied about it.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    497. Re:Two words by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

      That platform backfired on them, when their "This is Real America" small-town speeches pissed off the (according to them) educated "Fake Americans" living in suburbs and cities.

      Hey. It pissed off this religious nutjob, too.


      -- A right-wing, pro-gun, pro-life-without-exception, evangelical, biblical-inerrantist Christian.

    498. Re:Two words by k4mp3r · · Score: 1

      Now that you mention it, you're right. The entire world (with a few exceptions) was pretty much rooting for Obama. I can normally deal with it but this year it was bad. I saw this quote from Orson Scott Card (writer of Enders Game) and I thought it was kind of creepy... "America is at the end of its republic. Just as the Roman Senate and consuls became incapable of ruling their widespread holdings and fighting off their enemies, so America's antiquated Constitution is a joke. Bureaucrats and courts make most of the decisions, while the press decides which Presidents will have enough public support to govern."

    499. Re:Two words by nomadic · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point; of course going it alone is a horrible way to act. My problem was with the sneering comment that we were "on notice." Working together requires mutual respect; remember how angry it made you at the lack of respect Bush showed for the rest of the world? Well when you tell us we are "on notice" it does the same thing over here. We need mutual respect, not condescension.

    500. Re:Two words by jdmetz · · Score: 1

      It's because we all disapprove of Congressional action in the abstract. Apparently most of us are quite satisfied with our own Senators and Representatives (just not all the others). :(

    501. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you tell me, please, what your credentials are? You have, I presume, studied macroeconomics extensively, as you're so sure of your opinions as to ridicule opposing claims in that arena. I'm just curious when, where, and how much.

    502. Re:Two words by quax · · Score: 1

      Nicely said. Apologies accepted - now let's move on on make the world a better place shall we?

    503. Re:Two words by Darby · · Score: 1

      Blacks not voting for Palin/McCain is like blacks not voting for David Duke (no big surprise)

      While I don't know about David Duke specifically, it's pretty amusing that even some of his fellow Nazis were for Obama.

      Just goes to show, while they may be pinheaded racist redneck pieces of shit even they're not stupid enough to vote McCain ;-)
      Really says something about those who were.

       

    504. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I agree totally with your post, and I've been saying that for years and years. People act like I'm a nut for saying debt isn't the be-all end-all of human existence.

      The PR boost should help a bit elsewhere though. :)

      --
      It's been a long time.
    505. Re:Two words by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      If it's got a British slant, doesn't that in fact mean it's biased from a British point of view?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    506. Re:Two words by FXHenry · · Score: 1

      I'm an American, veteran of the war in Iraq and the GWOT, and I vote Democratic. I cannot believe an adult would imply that John McCain is the Antichrist. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. Grow up.

      Francis Henry
      New York, NY

    507. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You miss that the BBC are profoundly anti-American. Not in the way you imagine from that word's more recent usage, but rather in a sneering, post-colonial kind of way. This has been especially evident during the Obama campaign where for 21 months we've been told that the US "may not be ready" for a "black president" as if the US was some sort of petulant, mentally unstable child that had to be babied through the steps of civilisation, all while neatly ignoring the fact that the UK has never had a black/minority prime minister, or to my knowledge a black/minority member of the cabinate (they have a number of minority MPs).

      This type of hypocrisy is common on the BBC, of course. The US has made greater steps to equality in 232 years than the UK has in its entire multi-millenium history.

    508. Re:Two words by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Barak Obama is not the new president.

      He has yet to be sworn in. There is a REASON he was behind bullet-proof glass giving speeches. And if you think for a moment that bad things won't happen to Obama, then I'd say you haven't been paying attention. Only great measures and careful prevention will keep Obama safe and I hope he stays safe -- in fact I hope I'm completely wrong. But Obama is not yet president... not yet.

      The word is President-elect.

    509. Re:Two words by bheer · · Score: 1

      > How anyone can think that's a bad thing is beyond my comprehension.

      If he was a socialist, it wouldn't be a bad thing. But Obama isn't, by any reasonable definition, and attempts to describe him as one are a smear tactic.

    510. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Quit being so damned bitter and actually start helping your fellow countrymen instead of being an asshole because your guy didn't win."

      You mean you want the repubs to act the opposite of the dems for the last eight years?

    511. Re:Two words by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      It was built on partisanship for better or worse. Washington saw it, and hated it. Washington wouldn't have been so adamantly opposed to it if it didn't exist.

    512. Re:Two words by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Under more scrutiny,what will change if we keep electing Republicrats and pretending there is a two party system?
                Absolutely nothing will ever change except freedom dwindling further and further away. We keep electing from the same two parties whose philosophies are close enough together that any difference doesn't make a difference.
                The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. This election and elections previous are proof of that. Nothing changes except to get worse. That is our repetitive results.
                It's time to trash it all, quit trusting those with the same old agenda and try something different no matter how much disarray it causes in the economy , society, and government. Continuing as we are is a steep slope downhill with a rocky end.
                Maybe it's time to look into the Libertarians, the Reform party, and even the other odd, non politically correct agendas.
                Wanna get rid of modern problems? Time to go back to the constitution and jettison the liberal interpretations of it's intent. Repeal bad laws (most of them) and get the government back to the job it was allotted.(hint: not sticking it's nose into social welfare and not democracy)

       

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    513. Re:Two words by hipifreq · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I've got to call bullshit on your interpretation that the mortgages are not the real problem.
      You explained the credit crisis very well, but you've dismissed the REAL root cause of the tight credit markets. What's causing the worries is that investors just don't know how many of the mortgages they own will actually be able to pay up. If they could trust that people will actually be able to repay their mortgages, then the money would be a sure thing again. With the investment secure again it becomes worth something on the open market, and they can start to record a value on the books.

      If my car runs out of fuel I wouldn't blame it on my engine for not being able to turn over anymore.

    514. Re:Two words by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Insightful

      understands the perspective of a black person

      Entire racial groups have a perspective now? When I lived in the USA, I met a Morrocan student who told me the most annoying thing in the USA were all the people who told him that they were "African." They all had more in common with their white countrymen than they did with him. There's no supportable reason a black person can't see things from a white person's perspective and vice versa. But the black person can't see things from white people's perspective and a white person can't see things from black people's perspective, because there is no such united view. There isn't even enough cultural unity to talk in generalities. If you were white, would it make sense for someone to ask you what white people thought of a particular topic. Outside of the most contrived examples, it would not.

      What we should be discussing here is Obama's policies and intentions. Not pages and pages of discussion about his ethnicity. The fact that we are not is the clearest sign of a problem to me, although I think it is one that is being worked out.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    515. Re:Two words by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I remember reading very similar sentiments about the impending bubble two or three years ago.

      Supposedly the only people not reading The Economist were the economists.

      Lack of foresight was definitely not the problem here. As you say, greed, and I would add lack of balls to say "enough!"

      Can anyone think of any financial leader that actually did something appropriate in the face of the evidence of impending collapse ?

      --
      Nullius in verba
    516. Re:Two words by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      Partisanship doesn't require being an ass.

      More necon bible-thumpers should read their bibles more...

      It doesn't require it, but it seems you have installed that module anyways :).

    517. Re:Two words by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 1

      I too come from a rather... rural environment, and I found it shocking that (for the most part) Obama's race never really came into the discussion in a major way. I know plenty of bigoted assholes, and most of them actually managed to look at the issues.

      That part, at least, is encouraging.

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
    518. Re:Two words by Darby · · Score: 1

      The best analysis of this crisis that I've seen so far made the case that the cause was de-regulation of banking under Reagan.

      Well, that plus his record setting spending of money that hadn't even been made yet.

    519. Re:Two words by ogminlo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's give the guy some room to see what a Democratic president with Democratic congress can do for four years.

      I can think of very few things that frighten me more.

      You mean like a GOP stranglehold on the entire federal government for four years? We had that from 2002-2006 and look what happened. The GOP owned the House, Senate, Executive, and the SCOTUS during that time. What did they do with it? They took unprecedented steps to marginalize the opposition and completely mismanaged the country to the point that for two straight elections the electorate has roundly turned them out on their asses.

      I seriously doubt the Democrats will immediately forget what happens to a party that thinks it has just attained "permanent majority" and runs roughshod over the country.

      At least, I hope so.

    520. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, maybe the African Americans will shut the fuck up now. Now they are no longer oppressed, no longer minority status, so let us move on. Oh and I voted for Obama, just because I like him, reminds me of JFK, great orator. He may not be able to do much in his term(s), but he will restore faith and that is what we need right now.

    521. Re:Two words by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      My favorite thing to hear on Fox was a discussion going on to do with the state of the economy, and how "we are only now seeing the full effects of the Clinton presidency".

      What the fuck are these people smoking? Well they don't have to be smoking anything. We just need to ignore people like that. They just don't want to admit that Bush is a failure. He'll go down as one of the most unpopular presidents in American history and they want to shift the blame on any one but their favorite monkey.

      I don't think that Clinton was the best president we have had but I will admit one thing. He knew how to delegate. He also was smart enough to surround himself with people who knew what they where doing. That is what made the Clinton presidency so successful.

      I didn't vote for O'bama. I voted straight independent across the board. I didn't think any of them would win but I voted for what I though was right. I was positive that O'bama had this election in the bag and the republicans can thank one man, Bush.

      I'm still not sure if O'bama will make a good president. I'm still thinking he is a 4 year Lame Duck. But I will admit that I liked that speech he gave last night, almost sold me. I'm willing to give him a chance.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    522. Re:Two words by flyneye · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yay, we've elected a lame duck who won't fix anything and will continue the Republicrat agenda of worsening everything on our descent to ruin.
      But, by golly we're Americans, equal in blame for choosing the government we deserve and the apathy we display at trading our freedom for percieved protection from danger.
                Your mod of insightful only proves that most people are thoughtless idiots and deserve the screwing over they're getting.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    523. Re:Two words by m50d · · Score: 1

      Evil doesn't have to be the big stuff; I'd say deliberately doing actively bad things to others for the sake of one's own gain is enough to qualify. Yes, most politicians are evil by this measure; are you saying it isn't so?

      --
      I am trolling
    524. Re:Two words by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      The word elect is unessential in this context. Correcting me does not inform anyone of anything they shouldn't have already known. If you want to get extremely technical he's not even the president elect. Not a single electoral vote has been cast for him. We just elected a bunch of people who said they will vote for him.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    525. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that you even had that conversation is insane. The fact that until now, the majority of the electorate was on the side of those people is even more insane.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    526. Re:Two words by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      It is my opinion that if a candidate is on the ballot of enough states to get 270 electoral votes they should participate in the debates. That would go a long way to breaking up the two party lock down we currently suffer from.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    527. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      That's a large part of the problem, but more confidence in US markets would still help a lot. The market is a psychological force, not a mathematical one. People bought flowers for incredible prices at one time because flowers were seen as a good investment. Aluminium was once so expensive that Napoleon had aluminium plates for state guests. The value of these things is percieved, not real.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    528. Re:Two words by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Informative

      He's not white. He's not really "half-white." He's black. He's also half of African descent and half of European descent.

      Being black is like being red-haired or left-handed. It's a constellation of physical characteristics that have been lumped into the idea of a "race" by a few hundred years of domination. The same is true of being white. These races are historical inventions which used certain physical features for their rationale. Now these inventions have a certain cultural reality to them, which is why we talk about "African Americans," as a shorthand for describing the communities of people whose ancestors were brought into the US by slavery and who share a cluster of cultural experiences. Obama, of course, was not born into that community - he was raised by a white grandmother, his father came from Kenya. etc. - but by virtue of being black, he was associated with that community.

      Yes, it's complicated. But you can work it out. It is important to not think of being white as the same as being Irish, and more like being red-haired.

    529. Re:Two words by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      Very well put and agreed. The problems created by bush & co can be corrected but will take some time, one thing @ a time

      Our divisions over color are not just black and white but also red and blue. All these divisions need to be overcome and put behind us if we are to correct the errors of the past and move on to healing the nation.

      The U.S. cannot be a world leader if our own house is in disarray.

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    530. Re:Two words by JoshJ · · Score: 1

      I'd blame the GOP's race-baiting tactics for that, not "minority racism".

    531. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but the largest economy in Europe (Britain), is a member of the RIAA and forking loves draconian copyright law

      Yes, the BPI backing DRM-free MP3 downloads and stating that even though it is not covered by law, no-one will be sued for ripping bought CDs to MP3. Yup, Draco would be proud.

    532. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean he sucked?

    533. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean Thank Allah, but we will see.

    534. Re:Two words by morgauo · · Score: 1

      McCain is a vi junkie...

    535. Re:Two words by phlinn · · Score: 1

      Because socialism inherently requires the initiation of coercive force to maintain it, and is therefore incompatible with equal rights. Big government or compassionate conservatism isn't any better. Small government conservatism is marginally better, but is only a little more successful at winning elections than the various strains of libertarianism are.

      And yes, the initiation of coercive force is evil. Defensive force isn't. I don't attempt to control urban locations, but they sure as hell do their best to control me.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    536. Re:Two words by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't believe Obama will fix anything "magically", because I don't believe in magic. However, there is reason for everybody here to hope, even Republicans.

      Democracy does not consistently select good leaders. No system can do that, which is why democracy is important: democracy works by making throwing out bad leaders easier. You don't have to take to the streets with Molotov cocktails or worry about your relatives disappearing into some secret police dungeon to get regime change.

      Competition improves the breed, and so a spot of extinction pressure is a hopeful thing. It means the system is still working on some level.

      It's just like the free market. The market doesn't mean you are consistently satisfied with your purchases. No economic system could do that. It means that it is easy to switch vendors, which keeps the vendors working hard to satisfy you and redress your grievances.

      Our system is designed to prevent overnight changes. 2008 is the continuation of a process that started in 2006, of throwing out the Republican party. Republicans should be glad in the long term of this, just as Democrats should be glad that they can lose most of their gains in the next election. Just as competition improves the breed, complacency ruins it. The Democrats, for now, are aware the country has just thrown out the old regime, and that come January there will be no more excuses. As long as they are mindful of this, they will at least try to do better.

      Republicans will of course be looking at the mistakes that the Democrats will make. If they're smart, they'll look at the mistakes they themselves made. There are those in the party who say the answer is to become more like the party that got thrown out in 2006. I think the Republicans have a good shot of convincing the American people the Democrats have overreached if they deemphasize the ultra socially conservative southern wing and turn to the fiscally conservative, socially moderate and libertarian leaning Republicans of the West and Northeast.

      I hope they do, I hope they put together and honest, credible attack on the Democrats by 2012. And I'm a Democrat. No party that thinks itself unassailable, as the Republicans did in 2005, can be trusted.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    537. Re:Two words by alta · · Score: 1

      I know exactly what abortion means... And what they have suggested passing under an abortion is currently called homicide. That's their point. They want to be able to murder a child AFTER it's born, but not be held responsible for homicide. They are looking to cover there ass for the children that survive the partial birth abortion and labor induced abortion. Right now, the doctors can get a malpractice suit for a botched abortion.

      http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS242US242&q=post+birth+abortion

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    538. Re:Two words by PalmKiller · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most blacks in the US are interracial. African-American in the truest sense of the word. You see the slave owners liked to mess around with the slaves, and this happened much more often than anyone would admit. Most male slave owners liked to add a little white to their slave blood line, thought it would make their slaves better stock. Sometimes the slave owners wife would end up having a half black child, and the owners would either give them to a slave to raise or sell them...normally a male slave got sold or shot at that point also for some odd reason.

    539. Re:Two words by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Those with power don't relinquish power without a fight. They won't roll it back. They will just claim that since they are responsible, they won't abuse that power the way their predecessors did. Faux News or not, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

      Exactly right. In fact I would go a step further and point out that the Democrats in congress, even after they had a majority, didn't challenge all that executive expansion of power precisely because they were looking forward to having a Democratic president in the office that could wield those powers.

      It's really telling that many of the people that complained about the executive power-grab didn't have a problem with it in principal, but were only opposed to the party doing the grabbing. Personally, I would much rather see the checks and balances and rule of law supported no matter who is in office. That would be much better than assuming anybody will somehow resist being corrupted by the power.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    540. Re:Two words by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I think it's pretty obvious that race means something aside from where you or your ancestors come from.

      For example, South Africa during Apartheid tried to define race to fall along neat boundaries. It was not uncommon for different people in the same family to get defined as different races!

      Race is a social concept. That it may be somewhat related to certain scientific concepts is interesting, but the fact that those scientific concepts exist does not automatically lend any credibility to the social construct.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    541. Re:Two words by hey! · · Score: 1

      One of the ways propaganda works is by erasing fine, but important distinctions in the minds of the public. One of the most important distinctions is between bias (which everybody has) and propaganda.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    542. Re:Two words by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      In 2000 and 2004, there was actually a question as to whether the election was stolen. Not "stolen" as in "swiftboated", but "stolen" as in "diebolded".

      This time, at current count, he's got 349 electoral college votes, more than double McCain's 163. By one count, he's won the popular vote by seven million people.

      Another fun statistic -- if World of Warcraft characters could vote, and they all voted for McCain, Obama would still have won the popular vote. Unless you give WoW 186 electoral college votes, Obama would still have the presidency.

      And another: The District of Columbia was 92.9% for Obama.

      In other words: This time, he won. It was an absolute landslide. There is no question that if you're going to be an asshole, you're the minority.

      McCain isn't. Watch his concession speech.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    543. Re:Two words by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      He does pass the paper bag test.

    544. Re:Two words by anyGould · · Score: 1

      I'd say the BBC has more of a "World" slant than a "British" one. (Speaking as a Canadian, who gets exposed to American, Canadian, and BBC)

      If CBC, BBC, and ABC tell me different things, I'd believe the BBC before the other two.

    545. Re:Two words by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      If you don't think the president matters, then I hope that you didn't vote. After all, why expend all the time and energy to even pay attention to politics. Just let us silly liberals run everything and tell yourself that it doesn't matter who is in charge.

      But you guys give waaay too much credit or blame to the POTUS. It simply doesn't have the level of effect on everything you claim the office does. You tend to completely ignore Congress, but maybe that's a partisan issue - if the Congress were a Republican majority, it might be different.
      Or maybe it's just your socialist idea of government, you think a single man should or could have that much power over the government.
      But now that it's a total Democratic sweep, you won't be able to blame Republicans for everything much longer, and that should be interesting and refreshing.
      The Patriot Act isn't going away, for one thing, and I hope you enjoy paying higher taxes because it's not the "rich" that's gonna get it - it's all of us - it always is.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    546. Re:Two words by Cornflake917 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No thanks. I'll give a shit what color he is mainly because it's a pretty damn good gauge of how far America has come along in terms of overcoming some nasty racism. That doesn't mean I will use the color of his skin to judge his abilities as his president, human being, etc. You act like the rhetoric spewing is coming from one side. I bet you I can find the same amount of people who can't really get past the words "socialist" and "Muslim" when talking about Obama's policies.

    547. Re:Two words by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      If it frightens you that much, there are other options:

      1. Suicide (or murder-suicide, to make sure no one you care about has to deal with it as well).
      2. Leave the country.
      3. Join a group that will create a civil war in the near future.

      Frankly, waiting and seeing what happens seems like a good option to me.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    548. Re:Two words by triathlon4life · · Score: 1

      Oh lord. Let the hating begin. Any change is going to take time. I hope everyone realizes that. That goes for the haters and the supporters.

    549. Re:Two words by wastedlife · · Score: 1

      Was watching it too until Bolton freaked out at the reporter. I can see where he took offense, but he needed to calm the fuck down. Still though, that was easily the least biased reporting on TV last night.

      Afterwards I turned on the Daily Show coverage and laughed my way through the rest of the night. Though I still think they called some states a bit prematurely, one state was called with "0%" of polling places having reported their numbers? Typo maybe?

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    550. Re:Two words by D'Sphitz · · Score: 1

      Well duh, good things that happen are the result of the hard work of the last republican president. Bad things are the result of the last democratic president. If Clinton had been a republican they'd be blaming the state of the economy on Carter.

      Actually, if Clinton had been republican it would mark the only time in recent history that a republican president didn't post record breaking deficits.

    551. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The victim mentality has been promulgated too long and
      is too deeply ingrained in some people's minds of all
      colors in this country.

      We have had black senators, black generals, black CEOs,
      and 4 black governors.

      Most of the big money sports stars are minorities now as well.

      Minorities have a more difficult time of getting success
      in these endeavors, but it is doable.

      Keep in mind, I am American Indian.

      A black president will not cure the victim crutch ppl of their
      self debilitation it will have to be by their own determination.

    552. Re:Two words by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      "Will he magically fix the economy? If so, how long? What exactly is he going to do?"

      See, that's the only small upside to him getting elected. His economic policy is SO bad that he's going to take this bad economy and make it worse. I say that most of the white people who thought he actually was going to make things better go "wtf?!" and don't vote to re-elect him.

      Would McCain be a great president? Probably not, he'd most likely be ok. His policies are decent overall but the man himself is an ass. However, we just signed the death sentence of the American Dream here. Goodbye being rewarded for your work!

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    553. Re:Two words by phlinn · · Score: 1

      There is no actual evidence that Bush ever called the constitution just a "piece of paper". Every single cite resorts back to Capitol Hill Blue, which in turn relies on unnamed sources.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    554. Re:Two words by quantaman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Blaming Bush will only work for so long.

      Want to bet?

      Blaming Hoover worked for FDR's entire reign.

      -jcr

      And the republicans are still blaming FDR!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    555. Re:Two words by Sinbios · · Score: 1

      You could be very Free in one of those African countries with defunct governments. Sure, nobody's going to provide you with clean drinking water, but at least you don't have to pay taxes!

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    556. Re:Two words by cybrangl · · Score: 1

      So, you are saying we should have elected someone else and let these issues get worse? If you can't fix it all, and instantly, we might as well give up. Many of us know reality and know the first part of getting a plan together is getting the proper people. No, these types of issues will take some time. IT is easier to mess everything up than to fix it. So, are you going to be part of the problem or the solution?

    557. Re:Two words by AmaDaden · · Score: 1

      I just picture that the White House currently has all the paper shredders going at full speed ever since 11pm last night along side screams of "Oh crap he actually won!"

    558. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K

    559. Re:Two words by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      Good points. But what about something like tortures in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib? I'd put those acts in the evil category, and then it's debatable about how evil the parties in the responsibility chain are for not doing anything real about it. If I remember correctly, McCain wasn't too terribly opposed to those. I don't see him as evil, but some probably could.

      You do not remember correctly.

      McCain is emphatically opposed to torture. He formed this opinion while being subjected to it for several years.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    560. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.

      I love your sig, that's so funny!!

    561. Re:Two words by Albert+Sandberg · · Score: 1

      ... if that's the case you will be in serious trouble when bush's administration effects will kick in.

    562. Re:Two words by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      Obviously, there are RINO's that support such legislation, and a few straggling christian hardliners that haven't jumped on the "victim" bandwagon yet.

      Conservatism, however, the republican platform (or what used to be), has no room for such a largess of government involvement. If it does not present a clear and present danger, government shall make no law...

    563. Re:Two words by s0litaire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny, I thought we were ALL gods Children.....:D

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    564. Re:Two words by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Bush had 8 years and lots of help to mangle lots of things..

          It's easy to break something. It's a lot harder to fix it. Corruption is very hard to clean up. Your list is of some of the finest points of the f***ups done by the Bush administration. I'll hit some of your points though.

      > Do you think he'll get the Dems to undo the Patriot Act?

          I suspect this will be cleaned up and corrected to restore our rights as citizens.

      > Do you think he'll get to the bottom of and stop the Wiretaps on US Citizens?

          The "bottom of" was pretty clear. They were authorized from the top, and made their way down to listen on every person in the US. Stopping it should be easier with a new executive order superseding the last. Of course, he'll have to be careful and evaluate why, what, and what good they have done. There may be issues outside of what has made it to mainstream media that have been resolved.

      > Do you think he'll have us 100% out of Iraq in the next week? Month? Year? Decade?

          Obama has a 16 month plan. The standing Iraqi government demanded an 18 month pullout. Even still, I doubt it will be "100%" out. Consider previous conflicts. The US maintains bases in countries that it previously occupied. Vietnam may be the only exception to this. I can't think of any bases there offhand. We would likely be out of the daily combat against citizens of Iraq, but we'll likely maintain a presence in the area.

      > Will he magically fix the economy? If so, how long? What exactly is he going to do?

          Did the current administration magically destroy the economy in days? weeks? months? No. They overlooked an obvious problem, which allowed the rich who could invest in huge tracts of homes and sell them at an outragous profit. They overlooked offshoring American jobs to help large corporations increase their profit margins, as the US economy suffered. Nothing was done to mitigate this, such as increasing international trade tariffs, and limiting the low quality and proven dangerous products coming into our country. Lead tainted childrens toys and melamine tainted foods are two excellent examples of how the government has failed to protect it's people, at the advantage of large corporations.

      > Will he walk on water?

          He'll likely at least stay afloat, rather than sinking as his roll model George W Bush provided. As of March 2008, George W Bush took 879 vacation days at his ranch. With so many issues to attend to, any good leader (like, good, not even great or excellent) would be working to resolve things, not ignoring them. Will President Elect Obama actually work, rather than giving speeches full of blatent lies to pacify people into believing there's nothing wrong? I doubt it. He seems like the type of man who will actually be honest with the people. If he does, it would be like walking on water in contrast to Mr. Bush's "leadership" over the last 8 years.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    565. Re:Two words by popmaker · · Score: 1

      Fox news is the least serious of any of the major national news outlets or publications.

      You're forgetting The Onion.

    566. Re:Two words by Millennium · · Score: 1

      What's moronic about refusing to judge someone by such meaningless things as the color of their skin?

    567. Re:Two words by jcr · · Score: 1

      the republicans are still blaming FDR!

      It's not just the Republicans, and there's certainly a lot to blame him for.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    568. Re:Two words by Kent+Recal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's no "technically" anything when it comes to race. Race is a fiction with no scientific basis. You can't take a cell sample from somebody and pop it in an analyzer and come back and say "this person is 93% black and 7% white".

      To paraphrase obama: Yes, you can. The different skin-colors stem from genetic differences and those can be detected. I'm not saying that distinguishing between skin-colors or "races" makes any sense - but technically it's possible to determine someone's skin-color from a DNA-sample, with increasing accuracy.

    569. Re:Two words by Rycross · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points, but you summed up my thoughts exactly.

    570. Re:Two words by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, geneticists have shown there is African ancestry (recent as in the last couple of thousands of years) in many European populations. I wouldn't be surprised if much of it spread through Muslim Spain and the Ottoman empire, but we also know that Mediterranean trade missions went as far afield as Britain during the Bronze Age, and where people swap goods, they also have a tendency of leaving genes behind as well. Think about it: Nubia to Egypt; Egypt to Phoenicia; Phoenicia to Celtic lands and so on.

      Genes exist to be spread. There are certain Y chromosome markers that are only found in two places: an Indian tribe in the US Midwest, and in Finland. Nobody knows how this happened... well we know how it happened obviously, but the precise history of how this particular Y chromosome spread is unknown.

      Likewise, take some historical figure like Alexander the Great. The statistical operation of gene transfer means that after well over a thousand years, either (a) he has no descendants or (b) practically everybody in the world is his descendant.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    571. Re:Two words by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      that hasn't been the republican platform for 20 years or more. (That's as far back as my memory of politics goes)

    572. Re:Two words by famebait · · Score: 1

      I honestly believe he'll be able to avoid doing most of the really monumentally stupid shit.

      That's a quite lot of change.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    573. Re:Two words by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Entire racial groups have a perspective now?

      Obviously not, but in the US there is a strong correlation between color and perspective. Surely you don't deny this?

      There's no supportable reason a black person can't see things from a white person's perspective and vice versa.

      That is true, but only if there is more than superficial interaction. Much of the US is still self-segregated.

      There isn't even enough cultural unity to talk in generalities

      This is demonstrably false. Black people of all backgrounds were partying hard last night - almost universally happy. Even before this election, about 90% of the black vote would consistently go to the democrats. There is less cohesion among whites.

      If you were white, would it make sense for someone to ask you what white people thought of a particular topic.

      I am white, and it quite depends on the topic that you are going to ask me about. As an example whites, in general, do not understand how blacks can sympathize with rioters. Just look at how divided by color everyone was over the OJ trial.

      What we should be discussing here is Obama's policies and intentions. Not pages and pages of discussion about his ethnicity.

      Why the hell not? It's an important part of who he is, and it's one of the biggest long-term issues that faces the US.

      The fact that we are not is the clearest sign of a problem to me, although I think it is one that is being worked out.

      Well, considering that a majority-white country just elected a guy with a black father to the highest office makes it very hard to disagree with you :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    574. Re:Two words by hierophanta · · Score: 1

      Now...honestly, what do you think is really going to change?

      it seems clear that the change has already started. change from controlling the american public with fear uncertainty and doubt, to an american public that believes in hope and a desire to do well. a public that is not being controlled but are being convinced.

    575. Re:Two words by hey! · · Score: 1

      The rhetoric that's been spewing out of some people's mouths when they can't talk for more than a minute about his actual stated policies is really starting to get nauseating.

      <irony>I wonder how that happens.</irony>

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    576. Re:Two words by prash_n_rao · · Score: 1

      Race is a fiction with no scientific basis.

      Tell that to the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2005/505_BiDil.html I could give examples of tens of drugs more. I can talk about diseases that certain races are more prone to than others. But I think I have made my point.

      --
      This is not my sig.
    577. Re:Two words by shawse · · Score: 1

      The president makes NO laws.

      True, but the president's powers do include acting as the gate keeper for laws Congress tries to make. The policies he declared on the trail are indication of what bills might pass or be vetoed (if he follows through on them). Also importantly, the president (if popular) can be a guiding figure for the party he represents which now controls both the House and Senate. His priorities will likely influence theirs. In addition, he is the Command in Chief and he does have the power to pull troops out of Iraq and fulfill the promises me made on that account.

    578. Re:Two words by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Fix racism? He should have tried to fix it in his church before he tried to fix it in his country. He apparently didn't mind believing inherently racist theology, why should I believe he will mind believing inherently racist politics? (e.g., affirmative action, etc).

    579. Re:Two words by dc29A · · Score: 1

      Daily Show

      Why was this modded funny? How many "reputable" news organizations ask questions like the Daily Show does? How many of them point out the utter hypocrisy in politicians? Shows like Daily Show, Colbert Report and Real Time with Bill Maher are light years ahead of any other news show.

    580. Re:Two words by blincoln · · Score: 1

      But every African American that voted for him just because he is African American is just as racist as every none African American that didn't vote for him just because he was African American.

      Well, I conceded that if their *sole* reason was his race, then yes, you are correct.

      I would argue that using it as a contributing factor isn't racism. A non-white person growing up in the US (even today) is going to have a very different perspective than a white person. I like the idea of bringing people with different perspectives into office. Not wholesale replacing every white man with someone who isn't a white man, but mixing things up a bit to help introduce new ideas and approaches.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    581. Re:Two words by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      If your primary concern is Russia, then America just bet on the wrong horse. Big time.

      America elected Obama because Russia is not our primary concern at the moment.

    582. Re:Two words by retchdog · · Score: 1

      So you think race means something, and yet it is a "fiction with no scientific basis". Interesting; what exactly does it mean, then?

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    583. Re:Two words by CyBlue · · Score: 1

      For a change? A president elected without a majority of the popular vote has only happened 4 times in over 200 years. You make it sound like it's common.

    584. Re:Two words by penix1 · · Score: 1

      Plus you have to admit that Obama is a charismatic individual with enormous powers of persuasion at his disposal. He is an extraordinary speaker, unlike Bush or McCain. His speeches give hope instead of despair and tend to unite and charge his supporters. I too hope he can have the same powers with Congress but we will have to wait and see. His first year in office will be telling.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    585. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh FDR, the original american socialist.

    586. Re:Two words by blindd0t · · Score: 1

      Having said that, i agree with you that you, as americans, elected an american president and you are justified in being offended by people in other countries not so subtly suggesting who you should vote for.

      Sometimes when we are having a difficult time in a relationship that you can simply get out of quickly and painlessly, we look to others for an outside opinion. How much the outside opinion weighs on my opinions and actions varies on a number of circumstances, of course. Similarly, as an American, I valued (and still value) the outside opinions of foreigners. I certainly understand that when the world does better, the America does better. This is especially true with the economy, and that's obviously a rather pressing matter presently. Having said that, I feel too many Americans are overly egocentric, and that's something I would like to see change, even within our own society. The "Me me me, mine mine mine" mentality has clearly done more harm than good.

    587. Re:Two words by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      And that would do the trick if race were only about skin color, but it is not.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    588. Re:Two words by speroni · · Score: 1

      It boggles the mind how different people can all look at the same facts and draw completely different conclusions from them...

      I mean I've got my opinions which are obviously the correct ones, but there are so many other opinions too...

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
    589. Re:Two words by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He IS half-white. I have a daughter who is mixed, and there is a difference between a black person (my wife), a white person (me), and a mixed person (my daughter). A white or black person can (and usually does) self-segregate in terms of friends and family. Sure, you may have co-workers and such that are a different race, but you rarely have to get into deep, meaningful discussions with them that lead to understanding one another on a fundamental level.

      A mixed kid, on the other hand, has no opportunity to self-segregate. They are stuck with their mixed family at the very least. This is a very different way to grow up. In Obama's case, he was largely treated as a black guy by society in general and yet raised by white people. He truly has a perspective that is unique from a typical "black" person.

      That said, I am fully aware that Obama (and for that matter, my daughter) is considered "black" by society at large. The first paragraph of my original post stated this as a rebuff to the guy above me who claimed that blacks will say that he's mixed. But I had to point out that an interracial guy is not going to have a purely "black" perspective - if such a thing still exists.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    590. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "(This is where someone says they don't like the BBC because they have a British slant.)"

      The BBC is not unbiased, period. They have an inherent bias because they don't have infinite resources to tease the truth out of the hurricane of lies and spin coming at them.

    591. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well alot of ppl cherry pick one specific policy and then
      can't vote for that person.

      I think you have to look at the big picture and average
      in all the policies.

      I think his alternative energy policies are better for
      the USA as a whole.

      With Ocean Currents, Wind, Thermal-Solar we do not need Nuclear and
      the dangers it has brought in the past.

      Wind is not 100% reliable, but it can provide offset to take
      other equipment offline for service when the wind is up.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#Lists_of_accidents

      I agree that nuclear power has matured, but I think the waste
      is something that can get into groundwater, etc etc.

      For transportation we can move to bio fuels that do not use
      crop land like Valcent Technologies has achieved.

      10% of new mexico's desert could replace all Middle East oil.

      It could be done in short order with an Apollo project level
      of commitment, and would put trillions back into the US
      economy instead of sending it to build indoor ski resorts
      in the middle east.

    592. Re:Two words by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Reagan is primarily to blame. Greenspan is to blame. Their form of free-market economics simply doesn't work. All corporate socialism does is consolidate wealth and power in the hands of a few. It doesn't create jobs, it doesn't raise the GDP.

      We are seeing the fallout of this failed economic theory. Yes, Bush's incompetence didn't help the problem. But housing prices started going up during the tech boom while Clinton was in office. If the Democrats were running the show for the past 8 years, things might have been different. But in reality, the only assured difference between that alternate reality and this reality is that a few investment banks failing probably wouldn't have hit the world as hard.

      So Bush Jr. and Clinton share the same amount of blame. Remember that Clinton kept Greenspan. While Clinton didn't champion corporate socialism, he certainly wasn't against free-market economics.

      What we should learn from this turn of events is that Reaganomics is a farce, and that the Republicans no longer have a viable economic policy to run upon. Don't even start about the libertarian view of economics.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    593. Re:Two words by homer_ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many black people voted for him simply because he has dark skin?

      Very few. The Democrats have a lock on the black vote already. Any other Democrat would've done about as well. Instead of blaming the other side, maybe you should look at what the Republican party did to turn off those voters, like maybe race-baiting attacks from their media proxies, i.e. Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc.

    594. Re:Two words by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Hey two wrongs don't make a right,

      No, but three lefts do....

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    595. Re:Two words by Mr.+Mikey · · Score: 1

      What motivates you... a concern for the well-being of this nation, and the world, or a desire for "payback"? Does the undeserved bad treatment you feel was directed at Bush justify undeserved bad treatment of Obama?

      Just what do you value?

      --
      wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
    596. Re:Two words by tacarat · · Score: 1

      It's funny because it's true. I highly respect that the Daily Show takes the time to research political contradictions made by the various candidates, then dig up the appropriate clips. I don't always agree with what they put up, but their context is generally more correct than CNBC or Fox. In a lot of ways they've become the court jesters that can speak freely about these things without losing their heads in the process.

      --
      "Common sense will be the death of us all"
    597. Re:Two words by Brian.Kirby · · Score: 1

      All news networks are biased in somebody's view. It is up to the individual to decide what is "true".

    598. Re:Two words by eh2o · · Score: 1

      A lot of this risk-taking activity was encouraged by an unspoken assumption that if it all went bad, the US gov't would bail them out, even though there was no such official guarantee. "Too big to fail". Turns out they were right.

      The bailout is no less than criminal theft from the US taxpayers.

    599. Re:Two words by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Fox News isn't neutral at all. It was run by Roger Ailes, and frequently acts as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party.

    600. Re:Two words by sjs132 · · Score: 2

      Actually, it doesn't matter about the black / white things... I want the truth about ALIENS in AREA 51 released!

      --
      --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
    601. Re:Two words by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      For a large part, I agree with you. Still better than the primary alternative though...unless you jump to the non-primary parties.

    602. Re:Two words by fishingmachine · · Score: 1

      so you are telling me you think this is a step against racism simply because of the color of this man's skin? do you really think having a black president because hes black is going to make racists say hmm maybe black people arent so bad? or is it only going to reinforce their beliefs in "reverse racism"?

    603. Re:Two words by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Racism?

      Highest paid sports star : "Black"
      Highest paid TV person: "Black"
      Highest paid Movie actor: "Black"
      Every government body has "Black" people
      Every org in industry has "Black" people

      Really, institution racism is pretty much gone. Are there still some assholes that are racist? sure, and there always will be until we as a race have a different 'them'. But we US has come a long way in the last 200 years.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    604. Re:Two words by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, where did I say anything of the sort?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    605. Re:Two words by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      In other words, stop letting other people write your cue cards for you, think for yourself.

      http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vote.jpg

      Apologies for my crummy artistry. I'm not much of an artist and it's hard to draw with a mouse anyway.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    606. Re:Two words by Millennium · · Score: 1

      In the same vein:

      Congratulations USA on your recent election. The world watched this very carefully, and we are generally happy with the choice you have made.

      Because you think Obama will do whatever you want? Perhaps. I have to admit, my hopes are not high. But perhaps in time he will remember that a head of state's first duty is to his own constituency, and all else is secondary.

    607. Re:Two words by famebait · · Score: 2, Informative

      "all the words and ideas"? The only thing you mention that has anything remotely to do with socialism is taxes. But accepting the need for taxes does not make one a socialist, any more than building freeways makes you a nazi.

      US taxes are at a historically low level. Returning to a level a bit more like what you had 70 years ago or more will not make you any more of a socialist country than you were back then.

      Fear mongering of your type is always trite, but your attempt was particularly uninspired and sleep-inducing.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    608. Re:Two words by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      The best part is that since Obama is both black and white, he really can see and convey both perspectives of America.

      Allow me to chime in here. And as one who isn't tainted by the US oppression etc. of african americans for whatever ... all that stuff.

      He may have a white mother and an african father, but that does not make him white. It still makes him black. One look at his skin colour will tell you that. No white person will ever say "oh, Obama. Yeah, he's a white guy" and be taken serious.

      Even if/though (not entirely certain) he was raised in an all white neighbourhood with all white friends and went to an all white school, he'll still be seen as black. Why? Again, look at his skin colour.

      Sure, call me a racist or whatever if that makes you feel more comfortable about it. While I don't have black parrents (both of mine are caucasian), I have two cousins whose father is white and whose mother is black (from Sri Lanka). And while I've always considered them family, it's kinda hard NOT to think of the two black guys in the family photos as "white". And I'm pretty sure that if it ever came up, they'd also say that they aren't white. They're Danish, but you'd have to be more than just a little bit apologetic to claim that they're white.

    609. Re:Two words by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
      Will he walk on water?

      If he does, I'm sure Fox News will immediately issue a headline report stating "Obama can't swim!"

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    610. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! You meant the god of this world, satan! I get it! Yeah, I am pretty sure he voted for him.

    611. Re:Two words by spun · · Score: 1

      Every place in the world has a liberal slant compared to America.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    612. Re:Two words by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Well, we *still* don't know how deep the damage goes, because, thanks to deregulation, the banks are not required to actually audit and asses their assets. We have already started to bailout, but it could easily take another trillion dollars to recover. We just don't know. In fact, the bailout is the completely wrong approach, what we need is a system-wide audit and to close the doors of every insolvent operation. The ones left standing will be known economically sound.

      To extend the analogy, we know the car is unexpectedly low on gas, so we are refilling the tank... but we haven't bothered first to check for leaks.

    613. Re:Two words by steelfood · · Score: 1

      No, he's black. The fact that his mom is white doesn't mean squat to black people. The fact that his skin color is not white is all that counts.

      My hope is that inner city kids will look to Obama as inspiration. And inner city parents will realize that they're not stuck in the hole they're born in if they work hard enough, and that their kids can become President of the United States with the right encouragement and upbringing. At the very least, minority children won't look at the past presidents and be discouraged by the lack of anyone not white. They won't think, "the white man is keeping me down, there's nothing I can do about it," and instead think, "if Barak Obama can do it, so can I" and seriously work towards the same goal.

      A lot of minorities living in inner city ghettos and slums are the way they are because they've lost hope, because they don't think they can break out of their mold. Obama's rise to presidency completely changes that mentality. And that is a change that has happened.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    614. Re:Two words by DadLeopard · · Score: 1

      Hopefully he can close Guantanamo and send the prisoners to trial and get that behind us!

    615. Re:Two words by alta · · Score: 1

      Let's say someone makes 5 million a year. Now, let's say there's some really strict things in place to stop them dodging taxes (which most rich people are actually really good at). They get taxed at 50% of their income. They now make 2.5 million a year. Do you really think they're "less powerful" than they would have been at 3, 4 or even just under 5 million?

      Lets say that my family makes 250k/year. I think that's acheiveable in my lifetime, although I'm currently not even at 1/3rd of that. I can expect to be taxed MORE than what people at 250k are already taxed at. Frankly, working harder to be taxed more doesn't seem very attractive, but working less to get something for nothing DOES seem attractive. This goes along with keeping the poor, poor. Give hand outs to people, and they'll keep voting for you.

      "Fairness" does not advocate the removal of free speech.

      Learn what the fairness doctrine is and come back when you can have an educated conversation. And what's being proposed is not the soft rules of '49-'85. The new proposals are much stronger. There's nothing "fair" about it. It violates your 1st amendment rights. Think of it like this... If it was reinstated and inforced, the owners of this site would have to make sure that there would be no more liberal posts than there are conservative posts. We all know that there's probably a 80/20 split here... That would be eliminating quite a few peoples' 1st amendment rights.

      just place some sensible restrictions on them.

      Yeah, like restrict them from being made? http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=03FA375F-3048-5C12-00CC7D33B6E8E59E http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347690,00.html And do you know he's already said he wanted to ban all semi-automatic weapons? That's just about every pistol sold today. If he got his way, the only guns allowed would be black powder muskets and single shot rifles. Good luck defending yourself from a carjacker with one of those. Even pistols of the 1800's were 'semi-automatic'

      And as far as welfare... The more people get it, the more depend on it. People who decide to work to get off welfare do it because they want a better standard of living than what they can have on welfare. By increasing the amount of welfare people get, you increase that standard of living thereby increasing the amount of people who are content to stay there. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators06/ch1.htm

      Welfare should be supplemental, it should not be something people can depend on. It should be given as a factor of what they are acheiving themselves, and it should reduce as time goes on to give an incentive to get off. When a woman see having babies as getting a raise, and by giving extra benifits to stay unmarried the system is fucked. They should get the same benefits if they are married right now. The current system is a disincentive to marraige.

      PURE flamebait here

      PURE speculation there. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Please forgive my misuse of blockquote, I am not as proficient as you.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    616. Re:Two words by bnenning · · Score: 0

      It didn't help that McCain picked an airhead ultra-fundamentalist nutjob as his running mate.

      Fundamentalist? She's religious and some people associated with her church have said nutty things. If that were disqualifying, then we wouldn't be talking about President Obama today. As governor Palin has made no attempts to impose her religious beliefs, she's much more focused on economic issues and energy in particular.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    617. Re:Two words by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      Fox is no more of a right wing chanel, than the rest of the major news chanels are left wing. The majority of people that pursue careers in the news are liberal, and their unconcious bias shifts the news ever so slightly to the right. That hardly makes them "Right Wing". However, when you hold up Fox News which has made a habit of hiring those few individuals with conservative predispositions that pursue a career in the news, they look biased by comparison because their slight unconcious bias is in the oppsite direction, and people naturally believe the Majority to be Normal.

      Now, are their conservative blow hards on Fox? YES! But, their are also Liberal blow hards on all the major news chanels including Fox.

      Their is no such thing as the "Fox News view of the world" to have gotten crushed. The Republicans got crushed, but I flipped between the major news outlets as well as the local chanels last night and the only bias I saw was CNN taking over an hour longer than the rest of the chanels to project Texas for McCain.

      I voted for McCain and as a result I'm disapointed that he lost, but my attention is now on seeing whether or not I got behind the wrong candidate. The only way for that to happen is for Obama to live up to the hype, and for America, I hope he does.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    618. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you remember? He's not the son of God, but of Jor-El. So that should be:

      Thank Jor-El.

      FTFY.

    619. Re:Two words by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      What changed? The neo-con mobsters are out. Don't act as if that won't have enormous favorable consequences.

    620. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful? My ass.
      Fox is, if anything, less biased than almost every other "news" organization you can name. They just happen to be right-leaning while all of the others are left-leaning. Yes, Fox presents a relatively Conservative view of the world. But ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS, and on and on and on present a very Liberal view of the world. If you want to be truly insightful, get some perspective. People who disagree with you are not all evil liars. Recognize that the truth is usually somewhere in between what various people tell you. You may even want to consider the possibility that your personal view of the world is wrong.

      And while we're on the subject of perspective... Don't buy into what the Democrats are going to be trumpeting now. There has been no major shift in what Americans want. 51-48 is not a landslide, it is a narrow win based more on an exaggerated perception of George W. Bush's weaknesses than on any true philosophical change. Obama and the Democrats are going to claim that they have a mandate to lead the country down the socialist road. There is no such mandate and most of us actually have no interest in following that path. What has happened is that frustration, and to a certain extent panic, has allowed some frighteningly naive people to temporarily grasp the reins of power. It won't last. The New Left Order will be blamed for whatever the next crisis is, the pendulum will swing again and, chances are, some not particularly competent people from the Right will be put in their place. The farce goes on.

    621. Re:Two words by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Have you not been paying attention? those issues have been addressed.

      He will change our foreign affairs.
      He will work with other cuontries instead of against them.
      No more My way or the Highway crap.

      WIll they undo the patriot act? I don't know why don't you contact your representitves and ask? I know I will.

      Wiretaps? I bet they will drop dramatically. I am assuming you mean illegal massive wiretaps and not specific court ordered wiretaps.

      100% out of Iraq? maybe by the end of the term, maybe it will take longer. But a goal to turn over Iraq needs to be implemented.
      Your question really is open ended. We will ahve emabassies, and possible a base there like we do in other friendly countries.
      Do you mean are soldiers stop fighting? yeah I can see that in the first term.

      They will NEED to start the economy on the road to health, their next term depends on it. Even if it is fixed, the republicans will take credit for it.

      I saw him walk on water..of course wet pavement isn't very deep.

      Of course, if you addressed the issue of change they did, then you wuld be more relevant.

      Change in health care, creation of a new electrical infrastructure, and the economy.

      These are the changes he was talking about. Sadly, these are the issue right now and to most people they are more important the the Patriot Act, wiretapping, and illegal detainment.

      Everyone should start writing letters to the President Elect right now, as well as the incoming congress and house.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    622. Re:Two words by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Race is still a fiction. The fiction is based on selecting certain superficial features that have a genetic basis, and so there will be a loose correlation with other genetic traits in populations. The fiction is that one takes a handful of genetically-determined characteristics - skin color, hair color, facial features - and and treating it as a category.

    623. Re:Two words by Rei · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Talk about being bitter and not getting along with your fellow Americans.

      Does he cling to his mouse and his keyboard, too?

      (sorry, I have to joke to try to cheer up; 52% of California voters just annulled my marriage yesterday)

      --
      Mr. Wizard... why is this place called the Cave of Hopelessness?
    624. Re:Two words by DadLeopard · · Score: 1

      More like "We are only now seeing the full effects of the Reagan Administration"

    625. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt he'll get *something* done... Just not everything he's promised. He even said in his speech last night that all he wishes to do will take time and cooperation (something most Republican's don't seem to grasp).

      He HAS to do things in his first year, being as 2010 is a right off because of the midterms, then he's running again. So really the first year is the time when the president can actually get something done...

      --
      bork bork bork!
    626. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama cares nothing about the 3rd party voters, he said nothing in his speech to include us. My guess by his lack of inclusion tells me that he will do everything to snuff us out, or find a way to filter our blogs, or concerns. He will do what they did at his convention, jail reporters who report the concerns of the other "WE THE PEOPLE". As a reminder Mr. Obama, we are also part of America, you can choose to exclude us, but we will continue to raise our voice, because this is America, and it is our right. You can try to hush us, jail us, pass laws that will not allow us to speak, but in the end, we will not stop. You can put us on your watch lists, make our life a living hell, but we are still "WE THE PEOPLE" and we still have the right to be heard. You are to represent us, hear from us, acknowledge us, and treat us with respect as Americans with a different point of view. You have so far, refused to extend the olive branch, you want change... but only with your people, not with the 3rd party voters that are still part of "WE THE PEOPLE". Thanks, but now I see, you are not willing to be my President.

      Faith McGary,

      Bethlehem, PA

    627. Re:Two words by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Correction:

      "He or she is saying that people who aren't motivated to succeed will find any loophole that enables them to blame their inability to succeed on others."

      Motivated people who 'fail' understand that failure will happens and continue moving towards their goal.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    628. Re:Two words by popmaker · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, America has a TREMENDOUS influence on the world. Your pesident is a valid issue for us (Icelandic here). We want what's in America's best interest, simply because stability over there meams stability over here.

      You have no idea how badly we were hit by the economic crisis. Part of it, I think, was beacause we went along with American market policies.

      We have a right of having an opinion about YOUR president, because America has an incredible effect on US.

    629. Re:Two words by Cornflake917 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know what I think (and hope) will change? This election has proven that the status-quo of Republican smear tactics are no longer successful (or at least not AS successful). Facing this disastrous defeat, I hope that the Republicans take a step back and realize that such divisiveness is not good for a country. I think it's great that Kay Hagan got elected despite the despicable attacks made from her opponent. Furthermore, maybe they will return to their roots as a truly conservative party and quit trying to pander so much to the religious zealots and disgustingly rich. It's not about what Barack Obama will do create change, it's about what changes the Republicans will be forced to make in order to seem like a viable party again.

    630. Re:Two words by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      He may have a white mother and an african father, but that does not make him white. It still makes him black. One look at his skin colour will tell you that. No white person will ever say "oh, Obama. Yeah, he's a white guy" and be taken serious.

      Even if/though (not entirely certain) he was raised in an all white neighbourhood with all white friends and went to an all white school, he'll still be seen as black. Why? Again, look at his skin colour.

      You are fixating on a minor use of a label in my post. All of what you said is perfectly valid, but does not take away from my point that Barack does in fact have a unique perspective on racial issues due to his mixed-race background.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    631. Re:Two words by brkello · · Score: 1

      We aren't all arrogant. Part of the appeal of Obama to me is that he would be looked upon more favorably by the world and wouldn't do things with military might (unless it was a last resort). There are a lot of aggressive idiots in this country...this was a big loss for them and their fear-mongering, war encouraging philosophies. I hope they don't ever come back in to style.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    632. Re:Two words by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      I love the BBC becasue the women have British accents..mmmm I'll believe anything they say.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    633. Re:Two words by spun · · Score: 1

      The CRA is completely voluntary. Loans given under the CRA have a lower default rate. Banks operating under the CRA repackage and resell the mortgages less often. Clinton's actions helped prevent this crisis from being much worse than it is.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    634. Re:Two words by steelfood · · Score: 1

      But mudslinging, blind partisanship and unfounded accusation are the wrongs I'm referring to. We can do better than that.

      The first step to fixing that is proper education. If people can't even spell the name of the person they want in office correctly, what chance do they have of being represented?

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    635. Re:Two words by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I don't think you understand the role of an executive. Presidents and CEOs don't do actual work in the sense of directly performing the organization's production of goods and services. Their role is to 1) make sure everything that is needed for production is available (both financial and material), 2) shielding the people doing the production from distractions and obstacles, 3) making sure the organization avoids liability and threats to its smooth functioning, and often most importantly 4) casting stars in the organization members' eyes to keep them inspired, motivated, focused, and productive.

      I don't see anything lacking in Obama. The Bush years were divisive, destructive, and monumentally depressing. McCain was set to traverse that same road, rallying some of the least educated and thoughtful of our fellow citizens as did Bush before him. I for one am glad we avoided that this time.

    636. Re:Two words by bnenning · · Score: 1

      Clinton left office with the economy is great shape. And he did go after terrorists.

      Really. So the tech bubble and Enron's accounting and Al Qaeda's 9/11 plans all came into existence in February 2001?

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    637. Re:Two words by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      The 3rd please. The 1st wasn't president, but he was George Prescott Bush, making GWB a "3rd" :D

      I know of no "George Prescott Bush". I know of a Prescott Sheldon Bush, father of George Herbert Walker Bush; George Herbert Walker Bush was, in turn, father of George Walker Bush.

    638. Re:Two words by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      (Read: While they still have oil.) Where are you people getting this from? We haven't gotten ANYTHING out of their oil, and I for one wish we had, we might not have such a fucked economy if we had. However, we are Americans, and as a whole we all try to do the right thing, and an OVERWHELMING majority of us thought we were doing the right thing when the confrontation started. The only reason Obama was against the war was because he was in one of the only places in America that that particular stance actually benefited him politically at the time.

      If gas was still 5 bucks a gallon we still wouldn't steal Iraq's gas, because as a society we are honest, caring, and forthright no matter how evil a brush you paint us with. At the very most we might provide pressure that Iraq pay for it's secularizing forces with resources that they sell on the open market, but that hasn't happened either.

    639. Re:Two words by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      Almost everyone here has completely missed my point. Certainly many youth will look to Obama as an inspiration. That does not mean that a black man becoming President of the US will stop people from insisting that they can't succeed "because they are black". Those who refuse to place blame regardless on themselves for a failure to meet challenges will always find some reason to lay blame elsewhere. That goes for people of all shapes, color, and size. I guarantee there will be those who point to Obama and say "Well he's not as black as I am", just as there are people who blame being born to non-wealthy parents as the cause of their failure.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    640. Re:Two words by jcr · · Score: 1

      FDR, the original american socialist.

      No, just the first one who got a serious amount of power.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    641. Re:Two words by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      Jeez would you people stop giving half the picture already? Why were the banks able to resell the loans? Because there was a buyer. Who was that buyer? FM&FM, privileged lenders. Where did FM&FM come from? The government. You interfere with the free market, force banks to make loans to people who clearly can't afford it just so they can meet some loans-to-minorities quota, and this is what you get.

      Buffet and others (WSJ wrote articles about this) saw this coming way way back in 2001 and 2002 when interest rates were at a historic low. The cost of owning a home was breaking away from the cost of renting, a sure sign of a bubble.

      The government already protected the people who were "gamed" into accepting these "predatory" (read: stupid if you take them) loans way back when they taught them Algebra through the state-funded public education. Surprise! Math is important! These are real life lessons in compound interest, and people were too stupid to see there was no way they could afford a $200K mortgage on a 10th of that/year. Others knew the risk of flipping, took it anyways. The economy cannot function without a risk/reward balance.

      This is why your type make me sick. No personal responsibility. Never an advocate of accountability. You do the human race a disservice to say people are too stupid to be able to apply high school (not rocket science!) algebra to everyday life. "No, they were taken advantage of! Lied to!" This is the world. You've grown up now. Life is rough and unfair. Tough. Realize there will always be people seeking to take advantage of you, or suffer. But wait, why would you do that if you can just cry when things turn sour and get mommy-government to come make it all better?

      This is the economy, society you get when people can't think for themselves, can't be bothered to learn, to live within their means, to take responsibility for their own lives. Government is the problem. The people are the problem. Government is run by problem-plagued people. Adding more government to the problem will just add more problems. If there are never any consequences, people will never learn. It's why you discipline children. So we don't end up like Lord of the Flies.

      Some people didn't discipline their children. Didn't make them pay attention in school, so they could learn their compound interest formulas and learn how to calculate a monthly payment. This is what happens when you do not discipline your children. Spare the rod, spoil the child. Now reality, the a-moral parent, has reached for the paddle. But you want to protect them from the consequences, again. Don't! Otherwise the children will never learn, and people will just repeat this same mistake-- thinking they don't have to think, the government will rescue them if they screw up. They're right, if people like you have their way.

    642. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what exactly do you think has changed

      Well, for one, he's not G.W.Bush, and that's a major plus. Then again, there are over 6 billion other people on this planet who also aren't G.W.Bush---thank God for that!

    643. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya. It's not fair at all to the poor guy.

      Obama actually exists. The other guy is from a poorly written fairy tale.

    644. Re:Two words by brkello · · Score: 1

      Oh, give me a break. His policy explanations were far better than McCain. He ran on a platform of unity rather than divisiveness. McCain ran on the platform of change and fear and division. He was proud of the American people to see through the awful tactics of his opponents threw at him. He isn't even in office yet and he has already increased our international standing and helped the healing of the racial divide. Just by electing him we have already done more for this country than John McCain would be able to do in his whole 4 years.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    645. Re:Two words by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      No recount, no litigation, no riots, no foaming-at-the-mouth partisan drama queens threatening civil war if their candidate doesn't win.

    646. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the same vein:

      Congratulations USA on your recent election. The world watched this very carefully, and we are generally happy with the choice you have made.

      You've made the first step. Don't fuck this up. You're still on notice.

      See, that's always a bad sign.
      Like, who the fuck are you to judge America? Get over your arrogant self.
      You're just another outsider who wants to see America get it's comeuppance because your own country is past it's heyday.

      And don't come crying to us when China, Iran, Pakistan, or Russia decide they want to take over the world. We'll have been put in "our place", remember?

    647. Re:Two words by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
      Would McCain have been worse than Bush?

      McCain would have been a much better president than Bush. It's not that difficult to be a better president than the worst president ever. One of McCain's problems was that Palin managed to combine all the worst aspects of Bush and Cheney, leading me to believe that Palin is one of the very few people around that had a chance of becoming a worse president than Bush.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    648. Re:Two words by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      No, that was willful ignorance because their paycheck depends on selling advertising. If we (meaning the US Consumer) stops buying stuff, TV stations can't sell ads. It was pretty clear even at the time that we could only buy so much stuff because we were borrowing against the real estate bubble.

    649. Re:Two words by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Please do.

      But then again, if I managed to stick around for 8 years of Bush, you can manage for however many years of Obama, it can't be worse, we can only go up hill.

      As for me, I'm happy I can display my American flag again, since I'm no longer ashamed of my country. We might not be the evil cackling Skeletor of the world anymore.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    650. Re:Two words by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Well, to people that are racist, he's just black. Doesn't matter if he has a white ancestor somewhere, to them, that's all they see.

      I don't think I ever heard anyone say "well, he's not too black, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt." Stop.

    651. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My girlfriend is multiracial, and she (and many other multiracial people) is pissed that Obama calls himself black and rarely multiracial. Multiracial kids usually have the disadvantage of being rejected by both groups - as I'm sure Obama has felt when Jackson wanted to neuter him, and others questioned if he was "black enough."

      Consider if Michelle Obama was white. Then white people would have seen him as a black man taking a white woman, and blacks would have seen him as a a black man rejecting his blackness. People might have seen him as a white man with some black heritage. He wouldn't have been elected.

    652. Re:Two words by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Not being from the US, I guess I can answer that. We wan't the best for ourselfs, that is, we don't want to lose a very important commercial partner just because it chooses to bankrupt itself, nor we want you to send your people to die and kill out of your borders.

      I'd think those are also on your interest, but sadly, history makes that a risky bet.

    653. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank God.

      I think you have to thank God's former second-in-command for this one.

    654. Re:Two words by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Lets say that my family makes 250k/year. I think that's acheiveable in my lifetime, although I'm currently not even at 1/3rd of that. I can expect to be taxed MORE than what people at 250k are already taxed at.

      This is true...

      Frankly, working harder to be taxed more doesn't seem very attractive...

      When stated like that, no it doesn't... but if you earn $250k before tax, you still make more than someone earning $249k before tax - just because the tax is higher, it doesn't mean a payrise makes you earn less - just less per dollar over that limit (and still not so much that it's "not worth it")

      ...but working less to get something for nothing DOES seem attractive.

      Does it HONESTLY seem attractive to you to make something below minimum wage for not working than it does to make minimum wage or higher for working? I COULD quit my job and live on social handouts, but I'd rather work, pay my taxes and have more money in my pocket as well as a better society around me.

      Learn what the fairness doctrine is and come back when you can have an educated conversation ...
      If it was reinstated and inforced, the owners of this site would have to make sure that ...

      Just from the Wikipedia page, it says '...required the holders of broadcast licenses to...' - this website does not have or require a broadcast license. Beyond that, the point is rather moot anyway since the wikipedia page also clearly points out 'President-elect Barack Obama's campaign says that he "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,"'

      (sorry for only citing Wikipedia there - it's late and I want to go home from work - just typing this while some code compiles (yes, really, it's not just a bad xkcd excuse!) then I'm heading home...

      And do you know he's already said he wanted to ban all semi-automatic weapons? That's just about every pistol sold today. If he got his way, the only guns allowed would be black powder muskets and single shot rifles. Good luck defending yourself from a carjacker with one of those

      If your country was governed well with a good set of social programs then the chance of being carjacked would be so extra-ordinarily low that you wouldn't even consider the possibility or want to have a gun to defend yourself from such a thing. Currently, yes I'm aware it's a problem, and you really do want to have something to defend yourself, so I'd concede the point but only to the limit that other policies (such as drastically lowering crime by increasing quality of life for everyone) are implemented successfully first.

      People who decide to work to get off welfare do it because they want a better standard of living than what they can have on welfare...

      Correct...

      By increasing the amount of welfare people get, you increase that standard of living thereby increasing the amount of people who are content to stay there

      Only after a certain limit... as long as it's very uncomfortable to be on welfare and easy to get a job that is required (by law) to treat you relatively well, there'll be very few who would opt to sit on welfare for their whole lives. I doubt anyone (including Obama) would want welfare to be some kind of government sponsored paradise lifestyle. It's not supposed to be easy, but it also does NEED to be enough that people aren't going out and committing horrendous violent crimes (such as violent carjackings) to supplement their income.

      Welfare should be supplemental, it should not be something people can depend on. It should be given as a factor of what they are acheiving themselves, and it should reduce as time goes on to give an incentive to get off.

      In most of the "socialist democracies" of the world, this is exactly how it works.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    655. Re:Two words by sam0vi · · Score: 1

      A quick remark to your "he's technically interracial" comment: The One Drop Rule. I guess you know what that is (or not)

      --
      When my Karma level reaches 0 I feel in piece with the Universe
    656. Re:Two words by retchdog · · Score: 1

      In your two previous posts...

      "I think it's pretty obvious that race means something aside from where you or your ancestors come from."

      "Race is a fiction with no scientific basis."

      Although now I gather you meant to write the opposite of what you wrote, in the first quote. In which case, I suppose that I should go get genetically screened for sickle cell anemia (even though I'm not black) and tay-sachs disease (even though I'm not an ashkenazi). After all, race doesn't mean anything...

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    657. Re:Two words by g0at · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank God.

      Uh, no. How about thank the American voters.

    658. Re:Two words by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      Did "God" vote?

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    659. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the assholes who were bitter because they lost think the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen.

      Nobody ever came up with any proof. Even that bitch on the so-called Human Rights commission who "investigated" FL couldn't come up with anything.

      So STFU about being an asshole because you and your crowd have made that into a science.

    660. Re:Two words by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Informative

      And your use of "latte belt" shows you have no clue of the large portion of the countries population in urban areas.

      Both groups have very strong opinions and ideas. Both groups have their histories and values. And both groups have a vast majority of people who CANNOT see the world from the point of view of the other side, or even grant that point of view validity, which it does have. I've been around both sides, and they aren't nearly as different as they'd like to think, it's typical 'us against them' that people do to make themselves feel more unified as a group.

      Palin would have increased that schism and animosity. Obama won't help, but he won't do as much to hurt it either. McCain probably would have been the best middle ground in that respect, of the for P/VP options.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    661. Re:Two words by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Power isn't just about military might. Economics, among other things, is a big player. You sound pretty arrogant yourself.
      So many (not all) Europeans seem to want to see America reduced to a satellite country, one who asks for "forgiveness" or "permission" from the EU. NO country would allow itself to slip like that, yours included. Why should we?
      You think the EU is ready to stand up and replace the US as world leader? Go for it. Your history is far more bloody than ours...should be interesting.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    662. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I absolutely commend a blank man for winning favor of the American voters for the highest office in the United States. But does he deserve the position simply because he's black? The fact remains that many people voted for him simply because he is black. That, in and of itself, is very racist, but in this world of double-standards, it's OK. Should someone ever claim that he voted for McCain simply because he's white, that person would be immediately labeled a racist. How is this any different?

    663. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well , i'm happy for him.
      Indeed , the road will be long and hard , and it will probably backfire if he doesn't succeed in doing what he promised. So he will have to prove himself.

      On the other side , i really loved Mccain's speech.He accepted his loss with dignity and honor, which is something he really deserves respect for.

    664. Re:Two words by Anpheus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe the election coverage was more positive for Obama than McCain because McCain halfway through the campaign decided to take off the gloves and go so stinking filthy dirty with his ads and rallies that it turned off anyone watching and the journalists writing about it.

      Maybe truly horrendous campaigning leads to negative press, whodathunk?

    665. Re:Two words by TheGeneration · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I spent the last 5 days in Sun Valley, Nevada talking to people of all colors, knocking on their doors and asking them to vote. The feeling on the ground in this battleground state was HOPE. Real HOPE that we can get past the petty divisions that have kept this nation from progressing past Reagan.

      All of us need to forgive the Republicans and invite them to JOIN us in creating the future America in which every American will have a stronger stake in our economy, socialized medicine, and equality for everybody. Because these things benefit the Republicans as much as they benefit us. It isn't us against them, it's us AND them. That has ALWAYS been the real message of the Obama campaign.

      Today conservatives will try to shove the wedge between us again. We must tell their followers that their differing opinions have value while showing them our own values.

      The era of gotcha politics has finally come to an end. If we want to move forward all of us have to forgive the Republican supporters. They still have a place in this country and we want them at our side. They can join us, or they can rally against us, but we're going to keep moving forward as a nation. Like I said, the things we want benefit them as well. We just have to show them how.

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    666. Re:Two words by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      He as president simply does not have the power to carry through with his promises along the campaign trail. The president makes NO laws.

      While that's true, the power of the President can be exercised in other effective ways. He could end the war(s) tomorrow with just a signature (for example). He has the power to NOT enforce laws enacted by Congress. He can control some actions of the Federal government by decree (ban off-shore drilling).

      I agree that not all of the candidate's promises (any candidate) are achievable without suport of the Congress, but some goals can be accomplished in other ways.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    667. Re:Two words by rfunches · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing with you on the "freeze spending" and "cut the budget" statement. (The second option I gave was "cut other government spending.") What I'm saying is that those types of cost-cutting measures are unlikely to raise the hundreds of billions that Treasury has and will continue to give out, i.e. money that has not been "replaced" by attempting to balance it out within the budget. Given the enormous figure, it makes sense that you'd have to raise taxes on the non-wealthy if you've promised to not raise taxes on the wealthy, and the only other revenue option is rein in government spending. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that, but we can't continue to run up the deficit.

    668. Re:Two words by Dekortage · · Score: 1

      Don't forget this (possibly NSFW).

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    669. Re:Two words by jdinkel · · Score: 1

      If you're a liberal weiner who likes nothing more than a completely wrecked America, then this should be a pretty good time.

    670. Re:Two words by bberens · · Score: 1

      NAFTA

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    671. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And monkeys might fly out of my butt!

    672. Re:Two words by Killer+Orca · · Score: 1

      Old and angry, yes; failed? only recently. Republicans have lately been very good at sticking together and watching out for one another. That is why Fox is such a blessing/curse to the party. Fox will espouse the current Republican policies continually and vilify opposition to it and that has been working for a good while. If the Democrats can't hold themselves together Fox will use what has worked before to chip away at them again.

    673. Re:Two words by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I still don't understand what you're saying. I wrote what I meant. Race does not mean where you or your ancestors came from. It means whatever the society you're in says it means. In Apartheid South Africa, people in the same family (with the same ancestry!) would often be assigned different races. Here in the US, "black" is generally used to describe people with some ancestry as African slaves, even though most of their ancestry may be from somewhere completely different.

      Regarding sickle-cell anemia, take a look at the distribution of that particular trait and ponder the race of the people living in those areas.

      Despite having a distinct genetic makeup, Ashkenazi Jews are not generally considered to be a different race (although this depends on who you talk to...) which should further show to go how the societal concept of "race" is not very related to genetics.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    674. Re:Two words by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Yeah but it does mean there's a pretty good chance it's bullshit or at the least the truth stretched further than it ever should be.

    675. Re:Two words by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      He quit his church when, earlier this year, he discovered his pastor was a racist. He no longer attends a church, though he may start again now that his campaign is over.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    676. Re:Two words by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Yes, a candidate who received > 90% of the votes from his racial demographic clearly shows that racism is on the way out.

      Oh, you just mean racism against black people, not the other way around.

      I think it'd be a bigger step if we stopped mentioning that he's black every five minutes, just as I don't remember anyone talking about the McCain is part Irish, or interviewing five Irish guys right after his nomination.

      I mean, great for Barak Obama, and I don't care personally whether he's black, but this race has shown that although some views have changed (and for the better) racism is alive and well.

    677. Re:Two words by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      The shit Bush & Co. has done will take far longer to unravel, but he can start the process.

      Thus the excuse-making begins. Hey, even though we control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, we won't be able to get anything meaningful done because of those darned Republicans! Change we can believe in!

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    678. Re:Two words by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      Did God vote?

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    679. Re:Two words by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Well, it depends. I think the norm for black people is to vote Democratic, and with those percentages. If that's the case, it's not racism them.. it's just the norm.

    680. Re:Two words by Tangential · · Score: 1

      He pretty clearly demonstrated how not to end a depression (government jobs and handouts) and how to end one (find a way into a war you have no vested interest in by pissing off one of the combatants enough.)

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
    681. Re:Two words by paimin · · Score: 1

      BS, he's black. We're all interracial.

      --
      Facebook is the new AOL
    682. Re:Two words by treeves · · Score: 1

      Blacks not voting for Palin/McCain is like blacks not voting for David Duke. Tell that to Walter Williams, Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell et al. I'm sure they'd rather you didn't speak for all black people. That's what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton tried to do, and where did it get them?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    683. Re:Two words by CorporateSuit · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can't take a cell sample from somebody and pop it in an analyzer and come back and say "this person is 93% black and 7% white".

      Not in those certain terms, no, but close.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    684. Re:Two words by Poltras · · Score: 1

      Well, your attitude won't change for sure. *zing*

    685. Re:Two words by Tangential · · Score: 1

      We've already seen Nancy Pelosi demonstrate grace, statesmanship and a sense of bipartisan fair play during the credit crisis legislation. She was following the trail followed by the Republicans before here and the Democrats before them.

      Term limits would solve a lot of this

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
    686. Re:Two words by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      He won the election with over 95% of black Americans voting for him. If he had 51% of the black vote like he had overall, I would agree with you. As it stands: No. This will do absolutely nothing to fix the racism issue in America.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    687. Re:Two words by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Highest paid sports star : "Black"
      Highest paid TV person: "Black"
      Highest paid Movie actor: "Black"

      Who would those be?

    688. Re:Two words by steelfood · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Obama would've won so handily if at all if Palin hadn't been McCain's VP pick. At the very least, it would've been a much tighter race.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    689. Re:Two words by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Yeah and I'm guessing you aren't a regular viewer of his show or regular listener of his radio show. Show me something that indicates his heavy hate for Obama or shut the fuck up. I want to see facts, not your personal bias. Yeah, thought so...

    690. Re:Two words by nilbog · · Score: 1

      This is exactly the right answer, although the parent didn't realize it. The first several years of Obama's presidency will be spent accomplishing nothing and blaming Bush for it. There's no way he can deliver the Utopia he has promised, and everyone will give him a free pass because they hate Bush so much.

      There is no better time to be elected president.

      --
      or else!
    691. Re:Two words by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yup, I remember it well. I'm sure he'll pick out a church in DC... all of the politicians do.

      I didn't mention it in my post because I was simply making a point and the details weren't relevant.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    692. Re:Two words by AtariKee · · Score: 1

      "I hate tyrants like Saddam, but what you did America was shameful."

      WE as a people didn't want to invade Iraq. We didn't get to vote on it.

      Make time in your schedule to read about The Project for a New American Century if you haven't already. This will explain a lot about why we invaded Iraq and deposed Hussein, as well as the Neoconservative philosophy of complete world dominance. It's some scary shit. And just so you don't think that the page I linked is some wacko leftist whining, you can visit the Project's website.

      --
      "You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
      "Thank you, Master Control"
      -Sark and the MCP
    693. Re:Two words by sjs132 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Who will you people (Dems, not Blacks) blame after Obamma and the dems have complete control for the next 4 years? Keep stretching for the Bush blame game, but eventually your own roosters are gonna come home, and you won't have a evil white man or stolen elections to hang them on. How fast (oops, it already happened) before they say that things will take more than 4 years to fix "everything" that Dems view as broken.... Sounds like CYA to me...

      --
      --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
    694. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we just ignore the opinions of morons instead?

      I'll start with myself.

      Fixed it for you

    695. Re:Two words by Alomex · · Score: 1

      They aren't even on the same league. Fox news will straight out lie just to drive a point. Examples? they kept on reporting that Obama had attended a Madrasa long after it had been disproven.

      Other news organizations, while somewhat biased, at least try to stick to a slant on the facts, as opposed to fabricating them wholesale.

      Just a month ago I sat down for an hour of Fox News with a notepad. I counted four straight out-and-out lies put forth by their commentators to make a political point. I'm talking about straight uncontestable facts here, not subjective opinions.

    696. Re:Two words by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Can we thank god for Bush then? Wait...oh...oh nooooo!

      *HEAD ASSPLODES*

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    697. Re:Two words by jcr · · Score: 1

      The idea that WW2 ended the depression is a myth. The recovery didn't really get underway until 1946, when the new deal and wartime production board regulations were lifted.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    698. Re:Two words by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      socialized medicine, and equality for everybody.

      I see those two statements as being at odds. I work hard to make a life better for myself. You take part of my labor and give it to someone that chose not to work as hard. You have made me their slave. They are now more 'equal' than I.

      Equality does not mean that we all have the same level of misery. Well...maybe it does now.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    699. Re:Two words by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      That the administration that led us down this horrible path has finally been replaced?

    700. Re:Two words by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The president makes NO laws.

      However, the leader of the party that dominates congress does make laws.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    701. Re:Two words by steelfood · · Score: 1

      A blank slate is better than one already carved up by Washington. A blank slate means that maybe, just maybe, we the little people will be able to contribute a little something to his policies, instead of only the special interests and other politicians. That is hope.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    702. Re:Two words by armanox · · Score: 1

      Yes. McCain wanted to tax the poor to pay the wealthy. McCain was two footsteps from the grave with a ditzy anti-choice, creationist VP.

      And I thought I've heard some insane things. Where do you come up with this stuff?

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    703. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 1

      Thus the excuse-making begins. Hey, even though we control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, we won't be able to get anything meaningful done because of those darned Republicans! Change we can believe in!

      You still think that, because the Democrats have more seats in congress, they'll be able to push whatever they want through, eh?

      Now ignorant you are. They need a specific number of seats in both the House and Senate in order to have a filibusterer proof majority, and right now they don't have that. The Republican members of both sections can still provide the checks/balances our government needs.

      But, by all means, continue to be pissed off that "dem democrats are gunna rune' err count'ry!" instead of being pissed off that the level of corruption/hate/etc in your side of the house has caused you to lose the seats you did. We can take it. We have big shoulders. When you're finished crying over your spilt milk, we'll be here waiting to work together with you.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    704. Re:Two words by HangingChad · · Score: 1

      Now, are their conservative blow hards on Fox? YES! But, their are also Liberal blow hards on all the major news chanels including Fox.

      Which one of the other major news channels coordinates their daily talking points from the party and campaign leadership? Fox does that. Here, here, and the documentary OutFoxed goes into the relationship in a lot more detail. Scott McClellan confirmed the White House coordinated their talking points with Fox. OutFoxed has a lot more detail that substantiates the relationship was much deeper.

      That's not a news media, that's a political tool. Everyone manipulates the media...or tries to...but which media outlets are coordinating talking point memos from campaign sources? Name one and be sure and provide the links that back it up (even if they're partisan). Not just the usual emesis about mainstream media.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    705. Re:Two words by wzzzzrd · · Score: 1

      I've been watching this election closely from europe, and for me and a lot of people i know it is enough that finally a black (or coloured, or afro-american, pc my ass ;) ) person is president. No really, it's an achievement, and everyone who thinks it is not because we live in "modern times": it *really is* an achievement. And by that I mean no offense to you americans, the western world, including europe, is still a quite racist world. The important thing is he did not win because he is black but because he is a frigging good and smart politician. That's enough "change" for the moment, really. The rest is a bonus.

      --
      On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
    706. Re:Two words by TheGeneration · · Score: 1

      In the end it saves you money to have socialized medicine. You can either choose to pay for standard health care or you can pay much much more through your taxes for catastrophic care through ER visits for preventable conditions.

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    707. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never seen such hysteria for a candidate in my life. With the type of overwrought dooms day expectations that he faces, there is no way to go for Obama but up.

      There I fixed that for you.

    708. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, we'll never know.

      I can tell you that, no matter who his VP pick was, he had already lost my vote when he started acting like a 3 year old.

      "Whaaa.. Obama won't play with meeee! I wanna *sniffle* have *sniffle sniffle* a Town Hall *SNIFF* meeting, but he won't play! WHAAA!"

      At that point, as I said, it didn't matter what was coming out of his mouth. He could have told me he could shit rainbows and that homosexuals would, from the day he took office onward, would have all the same rights heterosexuals did. I deal enough with children all day long (family/college kids where I work), I don't need to deal with that at a federal level, too.

      I wonder if Obama would've won so handily if at all if Palin hadn't been McCain's VP pick. At the very least, it would've been a much tighter race.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    709. Re:Two words by steelfood · · Score: 1

      If the US hiccups, the rest of the world feels it. If the US farts, the rest of the world faints. That's how important the US is.

      See the current economic crisis? Stocks have fallen by about 40% in the US. They've fallen by about 60% in most other places. Entire countries have gone bankrupt. That's how powerful the influence of the US is.

      So they should be apprehensive, and they should feel relief if the candidate they want wins. But outsiders don't have any say in the process, just as it also should be.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    710. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope your predictions are right. (An excellent way to start would be to reach across the aisle for important cabinet posts.)
      My cynicism prevents me from believing that this will happen, but that cynicism has been dead wrong on Obama for almost a year now.

    711. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 1

      His pastor was not a racist. I don't have a lot of respect for that decision. There are folks out there who have harsh, legitimate, criticisms of America. A lot of them are true, even if sometimes one exaggerates them in the heat of a moment, or a sermon. To abandon a pastor he's had for years for political reasons, and for statements that I even agree with... that's a little shameful.

    712. Re:Two words by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Do you have a cite for that, because I would find it funny, if it weren't so ridiculous.

      http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-are-big-losers-in-election-2008/

      Not that you would read anything from someone that disagreed with you.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    713. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know Republicans for whom Palin was the line they could not cross. I think the line should be drawn a lot earlier than that, but hey, it is what it is.

    714. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 1

      OK, Troll. It works both ways. Show me where he's treated an Obama staffer with dignity and/or respect (not yelling at/over them, cutting off their microphones, etc), or said something positive about Obama during the campaign in one breath without twisting it into a typical "Fox-ism" and bashing him in the next. Yeah, thought so...

      Wow. This is easy! Do you *ever* come out on top of a debate with this tactic?

      Yeah and I'm guessing you aren't a regular viewer of his show or regular listener of his radio show. Show me something that indicates his heavy hate for Obama or shut the fuck up. I want to see facts, not your personal bias. Yeah, thought so...

      --
      bork bork bork!
    715. Re:Two words by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Blackness is a dominant trait. Barack Obama self-identifies as black. Anyone who looks at him without prior knowledge will label him as black. He has to deal with all the racism a black person in America does. That should be plenty good enough.

      One of the funniest parts of last night was when they cut to a black guy for commentary, I think it was on NBC. He said "Only in America could this happen." That made me wonder, what exactly could happen only in America? After all, there are plenty of black leaders in Africa. Maybe he meant "Only in America could an African-American become president", but that's practically tautological.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    716. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right. It's time to realize that racism is what has really divided our country, not political ideology. Perhaps now we can finally come together as a nation and agree on a plan to kick out the filthy Mexicans.

    717. Re:Two words by steelfood · · Score: 1

      If what you say is indeed a part of the curse, it would be better translated as "May you live in meaningful times."

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    718. Re:Two words by Lijemo · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, he's not.

    719. Re:Two words by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Of course the scientific ideas don't line up perfectly with the social ones. This is the case with almost any science, and I think that the science should inform the social discourse. Saying things like "race is fiction" is lying, and does the opposite; as sickle-cell shows, race is informative for real traits. Saying things like "almost no-one is of `pure' descent, and it's hard to even say what that means," on the other hand, is true and good.

      One of my great joys on the internet is watching white supremacists try to wriggle out from under the cold hard fact that Asians and Ashkenazim beat the "master race" at their favorite measure: IQ. Oh, the excuses they come up with: "Yes but Jews are over-specialized, and only excel in verbal intelligence because it helps them lie." Saying race is a fiction is a cop-out; it's (too) easy to say, but I suspect hardly anyone actually believes it.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    720. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 1

      I don't think he'll manage to accomplish *nothing*. It's hard for me to put it into words, but I'll try. I think it will take time for Congress to work out appropriate bills, and then approve them, to get anything done. I think that at least a few of the Republicans will attempt to delay and hinder everything they can so that they can say "See?! Obama didn't get ANYTHING done!!!11!1!eleven!1one!" when 2012 comes around.

      When Clinton came into office, did he fix the previous administrations messes the first year? No. Did he have the budget balanced the first year? No. By the time he left, we were in far better shape than when he started, though, and I don't think it will be any different here.

      The only way I think anything will get done is if McCain does what he said he'd do. If he reaches out to his fellow Congress-critters and talks them into making progress instead of acting like little children because they didn't get their way. I'm doubting it, but I'm at least keeping an open mind about it, which is more than I can say for several people who have replied to my messages in this thread...

      --
      bork bork bork!
    721. Re:Two words by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I don't see anything lacking in Obama

      Except that he fails the very list you just ran down. He bought himself the few extra percentages needed to win the election by promising the people who don't think they have enough that he will tax other people, and give it to them. That's not production. That's not inspiration. That doesn't create anything. It exactly gets in the way of creativity and production, and punishes those who take risks and manage to succeed. You want educated, thoughtful, productive people hustling out there to grow the economy? Why say over and over again that you're going to punish them for succeeding? Why promise to tax them even harder when they insightfully see a place to invest their money, and grow jobs... and are proven right in their risk taking?

      some of the least educated

      You mean, like people who think that the word "rebate" applies when talking about a check they get against taxes they don't pay? Uneducated people who fall for that sort of thing, you mean? For whom "credit" and "rebate" are words with no meaning other than as a euphamism for welfare? Have you not seen the well-rallied, crying people who when interviewed are relieved to know that Obama will get them each some gasoline and pay their mortgage? You're going to have to do better than suggesting that there aren't huge ranks of very uneducated people who just made the difference in voting him into office. Just Oprah Winfrey's messiah-talk alone was enough to move enough shut-ins and soccer moms to act, regardless of actual merit. The same woman who helped make "The Secret" a best seller on how to get what you want... and the parallels are appalling. In my polling location yesterday, I could hardly believe the stuff I was hearing people in line talking about. There wasn't a hint of unifcation, creation, or uplifting-ness in what I heard from dozens of Obama supporters whooping it up in line. It was about financial revenge against the upper middle class, and about entitlements. That was it. Over, and over, and over. And Obama stoked that in every stump speech he gave.

      There's going to be a lot of buyer's remorse when people find they still have to pay for their house, their gas, and that at some point the beasts of burden out of whom they want to suck more taxes will start passing those costs right back to the people that buy what they provide. Of course, educated voters would have seen that coming, wouldn't they?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    722. Re:Two words by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      Whether or not it actually saves any money--and I don't agree that it does--is irrelevant. I don't want you or anyone else to tell me what is best for me, or society as a whole. Why are you so certain that you know how to solve everyone's problems better than they do? That's pretty arrogant.

      Do you know what you're buying with your taxes? Simply this: the right for one year not to have men with guns come into your house and throw you in prison. It's not any different from extortion. It doesn't matter what the taxes go to pay for. I would rather pay more for my own health care and be happy with what I'm getting than have my money taken from me by force and be unable to get health care that I'm satisfied with.

    723. Re:Two words by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      but sadly in 2004 W. still had enough people fooled to squeak by

      That's what the GP was saying.

      Seriously, Americans are not a monolithic group think over here. We have different opinions on all kind of issues.

      Sure. There are nutjobs everywhere, but what's so troubling is the number of people who actually agrees with the nutjob views. I don't care whether it's 49% or even 20%. Having 20% of the people in a country who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old is pretty scary.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    724. Re:Two words by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      ICBMs and aircraft carriers are so 20th century. The real big red button these days is in Beijing and is labelled SELL (err... in chinese).

      No, that button is labeled MAD as in Mutually Assured Destruction. China would be fucked back to the cultural revolution if they killed the economic resources of their largest trading partner.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    725. Re:Two words by linzeal · · Score: 1

      No, but mindlessly parroting what you hear on a scrolling news channel is not a mark of independent thought or intelligence, be it MSNBC, CNN or FoxNews. I am sick of hearing debates framed in talking points that people overheard on the boob tube. Especially when they attempt to feign ownership of thoughts that have been already twice or thrice regurgitated. Are Americans so lazy that they do not have time to read a single periodical of note during this election? The Economist and the CFR should be at the top of anybody's reading list because it is where much of the more well-researched scrolling news and talking head speech is cribbed from. Read the two long enough and you will see where those talk shows get some of their more poignant guests.

    726. Re:Two words by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      I was in fact confusing the names. There is a George Prescott Bush, but he is George W. Bush's nephew.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Prescott_Bush

    727. Re:Two words by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Al Qaeda's 9/11 plans all came into existence in February 2001?

        Jeez, get one ugly woman to suck your dick and everyone forgets all the good you tried to do.
      Keep in mind that his efforts were blocked by Republicans and they delivered a much-watered down version of the initial bill

      http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    728. Re:Two words by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I honestly do not see the difference between "race is a fiction" and "almost no-one is of `pure' descent, and it's hard to even say what that means".

      It's a social construct. It happens to be based partially on exterior features, which are in turn linked partially to ancestry and genetic markers. This means that the social construct of race can be correlated with certain real conditions (although sickle-cell anemia is a poor example as a map I posted elsewhere demonstrates) but that doesn't mean that race itself has any scientific basis.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    729. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fux news

    730. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note to anyone reading this: Anonymous Coward is always right.

    731. Re:Two words by Loibisch · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, three out of the last four elections had the winner not carrying the popular vote. The second term of Bush (the 4th instance) was so close with 0.7% that you might as well count that one, too.

      So yeah, must be nice for a change.

    732. Re:Two words by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Oh and the 2000 and 2004 elections were never about the likability of the candidate, were they? Hell no. It was ALL about qualifications. FFS, give me a break. Obama spent the whole freaking campaign outlining policies as best as they can be defined so many months before taking office, but I suppose there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear. He has way more education and experience than that clown from Alaska who doesn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is. He ran a better campaign, he showed that he isn't going to run around like a headless chicken when a crisis hits, and he knows what he's talking about. He deserves the presidency.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    733. Re:Two words by Lijemo · · Score: 1

      In other words, Bush took out a McMansion-sized mortgage on the country that he knew he couldn't afford (hoping to refinance later with Iraq oil money), just got his foreclosure notice, and now we're worried that he's going to respond by trashing the place when they come to evict him? Ugh. Unfortunately, I wouldn't put it past him to try.

    734. Re:Two words by kayditty · · Score: 0

      KB? SI units are meant to be computationally convenient, not arbitrarily assigned.

      I guess that's why kilobytes (and kibibytes) aren't an SI unit. also, how did signatures get re-enabled? I was sure I disabled that boring, annoying crap.

    735. Re:Two words by bledri · · Score: 1

      Frankly, we think you're a bunch of ignorant, violent dicks who managed to actually try to argue that torture is a good thing.

      I'm American and I've been appalled at our willingness to circumvent the Geneva convention and habeas corpus. We even ate up the show 24 that was that it constantly pandered to the "ticking time bomb scenario" where you have the good fortune of capturing someone you know has vital information and all you have to do is blow off their kneecap to save millions of lives. I don't blame 24 for our complacency, but I do think it is a reflection of simplistic thinking based on fear and anger.

      The most absurd thing about our use of "harsh interrogation techniques" is that they are based on techniques used historically to get people to say whatever you want (as opposed to finding the truth.) Basically after enough sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, "simulated drowning" and a constant state of fear and humiliation anyone will say whatever they think will make it stop.

      Barack Obama has not made a huge deal out of it, AFAIK, but I hope will put an end to extraordinary rendition, reinstate habeas corpus and work toward a sensible policy for the treatment of terrorism suspects and combatants so that we can get good intel and look ourselves in the mirror.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    736. Re:Two words by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      There is no actual evidence that Bush ever called the constitution just a "piece of paper".

      Actions speak louder than words.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    737. Re:Two words by Kismet · · Score: 1

      No I don't think any of those things will happen, but I do think that Obama will be thoughtful and listen to people. For the record, I didn't vote for either of the big candidates.

      Presidents can give direction and leadership, they can stick to principles and get things going, they can avoid corruption and be honorable men, but it often falls to the masses of "regular people" to make the real changes.

      The fanatics and extremists come up with lists like yours and expect a worshipful leader to establish their unique vision of Utopia within the first 100 days. It takes a tyrant to effect that kind of change.

      I think the kind of change that Obama had in mind was one of direction.

    738. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure he strongly supports affirmative action.

      You have to realize there are still folks around here who grew up in school systems with one room for the entire primary school which were essentially a holding tank to keep them off the streets... really no formal education. Some of those people are only 60 years old. Is affirmative action the right solution? I don't know... but how do we actually make things right for people who got shafted so badly by our public education system?

    739. Re:Two words by alta · · Score: 1

      I'm going to give up on the quoting at this point. I think we both agree that there should be a form of welfare, and that it should give incentives to get off, but welfare in the states does not do that. It's a drug. Our country has reached a point where people know how to abuse the welfare system and have made welfare their profession. Obama is not running on a platform of fixing welfare, he's said he's going to give more welfare. Additionally he said he was going to give tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes anyway. Well, that's also welfare. And yes, our country is to a point where carjacking is a serious issue. And I'm suspect to believe it's done by the same people who are on welfare to begin with. Being on welfare doesn't cause it, but being in a situation where you are destitute does cause more of these crimes. They aren't seriously punished here because our jails or overcrouded with illegal immigrants. Yes, if their quality of living was improved, they would not be involved in crimes such as these. Welfare HERE is bringing people down, not up. WHat country are you from where it's done better, I'd rather live there.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    740. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Those are not the average person. Racism is still very real in the real/non-Hollywood world.

    741. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I've been hearing that's not what will happen, but I realize that doesn't make life very easy for you. Good luck!

    742. Re:Two words by kayditty · · Score: 0

      probably tiger woods, oprah, and will smith.

    743. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Venezuela - it seems like a decent progressive nation focussed on the betterment of it's citizens for a brighter tomorrow.

    744. Re:Two words by Carch · · Score: 1

      And yet... they ARE.

      Hmm, a study from an organization primarily funded by conservative concerns finds a liberal bias in the media. Why am I not surprised?

      "Media Transparency documents that between 1986 and 2005 CMPA received 55 grants totaling $2,960,916 (unadjusted for inflation).[6] The data reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations."

      --
      _/\ - Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crud.
    745. Re:Two words by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Picking Biden was his first decent act. Out of all the people he *could* have chosen from the party...

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    746. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 1

      No, that's not correct. That's the biggest lie about Fox News -- the fact that they go out of their way to brainwash you that they're balanced. Look at their liberal on Hannity and Colmes. That's the best example they can come up with? He's not even really terribly liberal.

      What other channel spends so much time finding the conservative spin on everything and then claims that they are the only fair news source and the other side must be biased the other way. Does anyone honestly believe that O'Reilly is independent? Say you're a republican and maybe you won't take so much shit for the bias.

    747. Re:Two words by hhlost · · Score: 1

      just because you heard it on fox news doesn't mean it's incorrect.

      Yes, it does.

      Uh, no it doesn't.

      True, it doesn't mean it's incorrect, just that it's very likely incorrect. Check this out: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086

    748. Re:Two words by pcolaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Watch the massive interview that O'Reilly had with Obama. He even asked Obama at the end if he thought he had been even and fair with him, and Obama concurred that he had.

    749. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Nope. I would say the majority of states I saw called last night were called with 0%. Who knows what the hell they were basing that on.

      MSNBC I believe incorrectly called Virginia for McCain earlier on.

    750. Re:Two words by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "I agree that nuclear power has matured, but I think the waste
      is something that can get into groundwater, etc etc."
      That is why you reprocess the waste like France, the UK, and Japan does.
      Also solar thermal is very location specific, ocean currents very unproven, wind as you pointed out has issues.
      I am all for research into those but if you want to build a very low carbon foot print power plant in the many mega watt range right now you have one choice.
      I also don't like Obama's space policy, and several other policies but unlike a lot of people I am actually pulling for him to do a good job.
      Heck if he sucks we just kick him out in four years.
      If he is good then it is a win for everybody.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    751. Re:Two words by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Actually Clinton WAS horrible for this country. Clinton specifically made it so that Fannie and Freddie had to legally lend to people who were not qualified or face fines. He also sold off much of the military's assets during his years. That's how he balanced the budget. Then Democrat's came whining about how Bush didn't send enough troops to Iraq and we all wonder why. Well I don't wonder. I know it was Clinton's fault.

    752. Re:Two words by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      The world is excited that the Americans have got to their senses and not to elect a president who, through sheer incompetence or otherwise, trashes his own country and pulls everyone else together into the hole.

      Look, I really have no interest in whether your country is prosperous or not, it might well turn into a living hell and I wouldn't care, as long as the problems don't get carried over the border. Yet in reality, as many others have mentioned, America has tremendous influence on the world, and "domestic" problems in America will inevitably spread to all parts of the world.

      For the past eight years the rest of the world had been watching with incredulity as your country elected a totally incompetent guy who wages war basically because "God told me to get the bad guys" -- twice. It really was a relief that you didn't do that again.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    753. Re:Two words by roggg · · Score: 1

      Blaming Bush will only work for so long.

      Why should that be? Without finger pointing, or assigning blame, one thing that is clear to me is that there is no magic bullet to fix the current mess. It's going to get worse before it gets better, and it's going to take time to move things in the right direction. Even if Obama does all the right things, whoever is to blame for the current mess SHOULD remain on the hook for some time to come.

    754. Re:Two words by Necrotica · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't already "fixed" he wouldn't have been elected President.

    755. Re:Two words by M-RES · · Score: 1

      I think you're right. I think many of the proverbial 'undecided' voted for who they perceived as the 'lesser of two evils', after being brainwashed by the media into believing that a vote for a third candidate is wasted. In reality, the only real wasted vote is one cast for either of the two 'big' parties - it's just the same old shit with a different PR company. Now you've got a supposed 'populist' leader who'll be less scrutinised by the parts of society who were always watching Bush's dodgy antics closely, but thanks to Bush and those dodgy antics he's left with all the same unconstitutional powers his predecessor awarded himself. Time for the US people to reign that power back (if they still can) for the good of the country and the world, no matter what your political point of view. I can see this being an easy one for Republicans bearing a grudge, but the Dems need to take a realistic approach too - it's just that the coin of unquestioning support has flipped to the other half of the country now. I dunno, the US political system is a f*cked up place - probably even worse than the UK's. At least we have a third party of a size large enough to cause some disruptions to the status quo from time to time and do the job of the official opposition when the actual official opposition just follow the establishment line. It's not good enough, mind, and there needs to be FAR more independent MP's in our Parliament, but it's better than slap in the face with a rotting fish I suppose.

    756. Re:Two words by rgviza · · Score: 1

      > Now...honestly, what do you think is really going to change?

      Not much, at least from my POV. _NONE_ of the MD representatives got voted out of the house, well none except for Gilchrist who is retiring.

      Same old politics...

      Hint: for real change, you need to get rid of the people that have been writing the laws. The prez just decides whether or not to veto them.

      Oh well there's always the next election. People talk about change this, change that, but from where I sit, nobody's walking the walk.

      Nobody is changing stuff with their votes. We still have a democratic senate and house with the same old democrats in office. We got rid of 17 republicans. Whoopdeedoo. Electing Barak is no great change, despite the historical significance of his racial makeup. Either way we'd be getting change, by default, in the oval office.

      We should have 435 new people in the house of R. THAT is change. We have failed ourselves as voters.

      Nothing will change because nothing has changed except that which was changing whether or not we like it. How little we've learned...

      Enjoy the buzz of Barak winning, then get ready for more of the same old thing, from the same old house, same old senate, and the same old lobbyists.

      -Viz

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    757. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I can't stand FOX News and I am thinking the exact same things. I hope the answer to most of those questions is "yes." If so, no harm done, but I am very skeptical. I do have to be careful to tell people "no, I didn't vote for Obama because he's not liberal enough." I have seen people sigh in relief when I say that, assuming that I mean I'm voting for McCain. I actually sorta wonder how many people assume, because I'm white, that I would not vote for Obama.

    758. Re:Two words by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Frankly if race has any bearing it is discrimination. It is always going to happen to one degree or another people tend to be comfortable with people like themselves. My guess it is genetic to be honest. The thing is that over 95% of African Americans voted for Obama. So yes I would say that race had a big part in it.
      Racism is a human problem. It is not limited to a single race.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    759. Re:Two words by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      The good thing about that comment is that you could hhave perfectly well used it if the result had been the opposite.

      I hereby salute your ability to emit comments which do not provide any information!

    760. Re:Two words by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If you think that the election of Obama is "a great first step" in fixing racism you are both ignorant of history and a dupe.

      Immense steps have already been taken to reduce racism, as the increased integration in the US and the improved financial status of ambitious non-whites both amply demonstrate.

      Obama's history is that of encouraging hatred of America among blacks and promoting government dependence. Both of those make life worse for blacks (or anyone who believes them). The idea that he will stop fostering those ideas is preposterous. The lives of those who follow those ideas will worsen, and they'll blame racism instead of their beliefs. And they'll vote the same way next time, which is what Obama wants.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    761. Re:Two words by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      There is really no need to give highschoolers examples of badly written literature for wannabe-yuppies that wish they had been born for the grand 80s...

    762. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve Jobs, baby, Steve Jobs.

    763. Re:Two words by SoupGuru · · Score: 1

      Is this one of those studies where they tabulate how many positive things are said abotu each side and if it's anything other than even-steven it's evidence of bias?

      "On the broadcast network newscasts, evaluations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden have been over twice as favorable as evaluations of John McCain and Sarah Palinâ" 65% positive versus 35% negative for the Democratic ticket compared to 31% positive verus 69% negative evaluations of the Republican ticket."

      What if the Democrats have a better platform and better ideas than the Republicans? Should the networks still say just as many bad things about both sides as they do good things? Should we start asking our journalists to approach politics like they do science - any opposing viewpoint regardless of merit gets equal time? I know slashdotters love how science gets reported on the news...

      Maybe there are more negative things said about McCain because he deserves them.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    764. Re:Two words by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      How do we decide what's slanted?

      No seriously. What is the appropriate measure? If Al Sharpton were running for President, I would say he was an unworthy hack to even be considered. Is that slanted? Or is it the truth?

      My opinion is that of the two news channels I watched most, MSNBC and Fox, that MSNBC was by far the most slanted. It was probably because the little time I devoted to it fell in Olberman's timeslot. But, heh, I saw what I saw. O'Reilly would at least let someone that didn't agree with the lead commentator speak for a few seconds. Olberman just 'interviewed' people that agreed with him, while making stupid faces.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    765. Re:Two words by 0p7imu5_P2im3 · · Score: 1

      I'm strictly a no-party ticket voter, and I say let them have their fun. It's the Reds turn to make fun of a Jack-Ass President.

      I say to the Reds, stop complaining about the fact that the Jack-Asses took their opportunity to complain, and start taking your opportunity to complain. I'd avoid the monkey comparisons with this president, though, for reasons of historical racism... instead, compare him to a jack-ass. Seeing as he is a member of the party with the Jack-Ass logo, it would be hard to pull the racism card against it.

      --
      Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
    766. Re:Two words by spicate · · Score: 1

      By that measure FDR would qualify as "evil" - his policies (including the US' insistence on the gold standard long after other nations abandoned it) extended the Depression for the US for at least 6 years and caused suffering to millions of people.

      I agree with your sentiment, but I have to say that your "facts" about FDR are a little off. First, most people say that FDR took the US off the gold standard.

      Second, the claim that he "extended the Depression" is based, from what I can tell, entirely on work by Cole and Ohanian that is not exactly universally accepted by economists. It assumes that neoclassical growth theory is correct and then tries to explain why it fails to account for the slow recovery from the Great Depression.

      They only 'prove' that FDR's policies were at fault if you assume that their theory correctly accounts for the growth that didn't actually occur. Yes, sounds pretty convoluted - that's the great part about the social sciences. You can make claims about causes based on data that doesn't exist.

    767. Re:Two words by jo42 · · Score: 1

      1) Bushtards & ilk (mostly) out of power.
      2) Magick waving of hands and new polices.
      3) Profit$ !!!

    768. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank the American people. God had nothing to do with it.

    769. Re:Two words by adisakp · · Score: 1

      All the problems listed in the GP were caused by Bush over 8 years. If a mere 8 years of Bush is enough to completely destroy the US forever, we don't deserve to remain as a world "superpower".

      Barack Obama can merely guide us on taking the correct steps to undo the Bush era but my guess is it would take 20-30 years of fiscal responsibility to undo the 6-7 trillion of debt from Bush alone.

    770. Re:Two words by et764 · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, where would you go? Is there really anywhere you'd like the politics of better than the US, even with a Democrat-controlled House, Senate and Presidency?

    771. Re:Two words by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      Of course he will not fix everything. He can't because the definition of "fix" means different things to different people.

      But even if he fixes nothing all he has to do to make me happy is just end the rampant destruction of the current administration. The current administration has the worst record on civil rights, the environment and foreign policy. Just doing no harm will be such an improvment

      I do suspect he will get more done then bush did simply because he will not have to fight with congress as much

    772. Re:Two words by lowvato · · Score: 1

      Your cynicism just totally sucks. What I take issue with is all the references to things that are bad BECAUSE of voting for the wrong president for the wrong reasons. The last 8 years show that it DOES matter and now we get a chance to get back on track with someone who is not a divisional asshole. So, shove it up your ass.

    773. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The democrats now control the house, senate, and the presidency. I think "dear god" might be more appropriate.

      You're right, "dear god," we might invade and occupy a middle eastern nation to the detriment of our own economy, we might engineer a financial meltdown, pass tax breaks to companies and individuals who will hoard the money due to said meltdown, or even pass a act to rob individuals of inalienable rights!

      Oh wait, that was the republicans. Suck it monkey.

    774. Re:Two words by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      How about doing a random sampling of "The View."

      While you're doing your random sampling, have a look at what murders get national attention by the news media. The code phase is "blond-haired, blue-eyed girl". The closer it matches that, and the younger the girl, the more attention it gets.

      Or random sampling simply proves that Fox understands how to raise their ratings among the US populace.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    775. Re:Two words by et764 · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I'm not terribly thrilled by the outcome of this election. Not that I was all that enamored by McCain either, but I did like him better than Obama. One thing I am happy about though is that all the elections I've been watching seem to have been pretty clearly decided, even if not in my favor. I'm glad we don't have to go through months of charges of fraud, recounts, court cases, hanging chads, people who can't spell, etc. While it's important to address the wrongs when they happen, they last several elections have damaged my faith in American Democracy. I'm glad that in this case, at the very least, the result was clear.

    776. Re:Two words by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      WHat country are you from where it's done better, I'd rather live there.

      I currently live in Germany, but before here I've lived in New Zealand, Tonga, Australia and the Netherlands. I can recommend any of them except Tonga and Australia, neither of which are anything like what I've described in my previous post.

      New Zealand is certainly the most beautiful (if you like natural scenery), and has the advantage (for native English speakers) of being English speaking, but unfortunately may be slowly steering away from the ideals it used to have (I hate saying that, as I'm a "proud kiwi" in a lot of ways).

      If you want "quality of life", I'd recommend the Netherlands (I also hear the Scandanavian countries are even better from that perspective, but I've never lived in them, only visited, so can't say from my own experience).

      As for Germany, where I live at the moment - great as far as seeing the results of social benefits goes, and the quality of life is pretty good overall, but in a side-by-side comparison with the Netherlands, I'll take NL any day just for the feeling of "personal liberty" that living there bestows at the same time as having excellent social programs and clear evidence of exactly where your tax money is going (primarily positive rather than negative things of course as well - they aren't big fans of throwing millions of Euro in to pointless middle eastern wars for example). The only downside of the Netherlands is that so few locals actually understand how great they've got it - the Dutch are the most pessimistic people about their own country that I've ever met.

      I can also categorically say that if you were to move to any of the countries I've listed, the chance of you being car-jacked is significantly lower than the chance of you being struck by lightning on a clear day.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    777. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once upon a time I got good scores in reading comprehension. Once upon a time I got good scores in reading comprehension. I guess it's time for a refresher course.

      You don't need a refresher, you need to calm down. Instead of trolling around slashdot looking for someone to spew your venom on, why not try to add some good to the world?

      Here's a hint: everyone who who doesn't happen to be you is not necessarily evil. Every Republican and every Democrat is not evil. I'm sure that you have a personality disorder and it's probably difficult for you, but please, please, please, try to see through the haze of your dysfunction and recognize that the rest of us are not the source of your problems.

    778. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Chinese I can say your statement is simply wrong.

      Economy-wise China's economy is still much smaller than the US, the military is untested, but much less trusted than the American troops. America can pull off a stunt to invade a country on the other side of the Earth with many countries assisting in the operation, yet once China's army steps outside its borders the rest of the world would be screaming in outrage. The "made in China" brand whether for physical products or abstract ideas, is still doubted by the world (including Chinese). The internal problems, eg. poverty, pollution, instability of the current political system are still significant, and probably won't be solved in a decade or two at least.

      China isn't the most powerful country in the world. More like USA has been dropping the ball for the past eight years (or more) and making it trivial for some runner up to take it. If you don't count the EU as a "country", China has a good chance of becoming the "most powerful country in the world" if the USA continues trashing itself, but that's just because the other potential contenders (eg. Russia? Japan?) have problems of their own and are struggling to solve them.

      Besides, it's not like "the most powerful country in the world" really matters. When the rest of the world is against you, it doesn't matter whether you're the world's superpower.

    779. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in the hell does socialism have to do with race or religion?

    780. Re:Two words by brkello · · Score: 1

      Yes, mainly racists.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    781. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the black person can't see things from white people's perspective and a white person can't see things from black people's perspective, because there is no such united view.

      95% of the Black vote going to Obama says you're mostly wrong about at least one of those. Clearly there is a "black people's perspective" about specific issues so that they voted in a very united fashion for this one person. True, it may never happen again - Obama is an out-of-the-ordinary individual no matter what his skin color but he's going to have a very hard time satisfying the hopes he's raised. But it certainly did happen this once.

    782. Re:Two words by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      You might want to think really hard before bragging that your candidate was supported by Nazis and Black Panthers.

      There were at least two socialist parties that would (supposedly) be more in line with their views, but they still decided to vote for Obama. Just something to think about.

      Disclaimer: I didn't vote for Obama or McCain.

    783. Re:Two words by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Well: do you think that holding a belief against all evidence, against the best judgement of all experts on the matter, simply because an old book told you, with consequences which go way beyond your personal beliefs (because it involves actual, real life policy, as education and what not) detracts or adds to the credibility of a VP candidate?

    784. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less than 2%! Not too shabby!

    785. Re:Two words by redlynx · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct. And the way to break the system is to start voting for independent and third party candidates. And it all starts with you! I convinced my brother-in-law to vote independent, he convinced his friend to vote independent and I voted independent.

    786. Re:Two words by TheGeneration · · Score: 1

      I know that providing a basic standard of health care for everybody is something that we can afford as a nation, and something that we should do because it is simply the right thing to do.

      I pay taxes not because I don't want the IRS to come after me, I pay them because I know I'm getting a bargain for my money in terms of roadways, police, fire, etc... It's cheaper to have a government bureaucracy than to have a corporate profit machine funneling undeserved millions into the pockets of fallible executives who neither serve their customers or their shareholders with their greed.

      And as a personal note Guido.... I help my neighbors when they are in need, even when it might inconvenience me. I'm sorry that basic value was never instilled in you by the community and family you grew up in. Despite your greed if there comes a day when you've lost your job, or your business, I'll be happy that my tax dollars are providing you and your children with health care. I'll be happy that the other social safety nets we're going to build will be in place to catch you so that you can get back to whatever life you had before you fell. Even if you hated others for having needed that same safety net at some point in their lives. Even if you cursed them from taking a small percentage more of your income to fund these services. I'll be happy to have the IRS taking my small percentage to cover you while you can't cover yourself. I care for my fellow Americans that much.

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    787. Re:Two words by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      sadly in 2004 W. still had enough people fooled to squeak by.

      That overlooks the substantial number of us who picked Bush as the lesser evil. I wasn't pro-Bush in the slightest, but thought (and still think) he was a less-bad option than Kerry. How that guy won the primaries is still beyond me.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    788. Re:Two words by gfody · · Score: 1

      Mod up the sanity!

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
    789. Re:Two words by tonekids · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points...

    790. Re:Two words by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      McCain was an honorable candidate coming in and he lost all of his honor in my eyes with the type of campaign he ran. If McCain stuck to his values, I would have considered voting for him, but after all the negative ads, the "us vs. them" mentality that his campaign team threw together, the Palin pick, the robocalls, the blaming of his negative campaign on Obama not doing town-hall meetings, the never backing down and admitting any error even after the gaffe where he said he wouldn't sit down with the President of Spain, and the break down of the "Straight Talk Express.". As Colbert said (paraphrased because I can't find the clip) - If you want a candidate for Change, vote McCain because he changed into everything he hated.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    791. Re:Two words by knails · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded of a similar saying: "The winds of change are changing." I just hope that he will have the strength of character and influence to actually change things.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" -Voltaire
    792. Re:Two words by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The woman has claimed she speaks in tongues. That makes her a nutcase.

    793. Re:Two words by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Just to add to my point, an article detailing a meeting between Obama and Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes and also Owner Rupert Murdoch regarding what Obama felt at the time was unfair treatment by Fox News. This story was written by a writer for the Washington Post, which endorsed Obama for President, so I doubt that they'd do anything to try to make Fox News look good and Obama look bad, and the writer told it like it was. Both sides cleared the air, Obama at that point agreed to come on O'Reilly's show, and Aires told him to give him a call if he felt he was getting a bad rap from Fox News. Note that there are zero stories of that call ever taking place, and Obama staffers have many times cited that since that point, Fox News has been nothing but fair to him. Hell, Fox has hardly talked about anything but Obama since he won, other than of course about Michael Crichton passing away, which is a truly sad story considering he was always one of my favorite writers. Furthermore, O'Reilly never insists that his show is anything but a pundit show, and distinguishes that from the position he had while working in Denver where he was a news reporter, not a pundit. There is a distinct difference and the requirements for each job are different. O'Reilly has been called unfair by both liberals and conservatives, which I think is hilarious. In reality he is fair to everyone but doesn't put up with people trying to spin their way out of answering or trying to put out bs answers. Yeah, he's a bit of a jerk, but that doesn't make him in the tank for anyone. And to further my point even more, once it was put out there that no weapons of mass destruction were likely to be found and that some of the intelligence regarding the whole matter was invented, O'Reilly blasted Bush pretty harshly for it and pretty much said that he had no further use for President Bush.

    794. Re:Two words by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1
      Y'know, Rush Limbaugh once said that it's impossible to present the news without being influenced by your personal opinions. He says that what sets him apart from the reporters on CNN, NBC, etc is that he is upfront about the fact that he injects his opinion into his presentation of facts.

      Personally, I would be thrilled to see more liberal commentators do what Rush is doing, but from a different point of view.

      Say what you want about the man, but he became successful by presenting news and opinions in a format that people find informative and entertaining.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    795. Re:Two words by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Here's a little hint for you, what do you think would happen to the US if the chinese flooded the market with all the US IOUs they've been stashing away?

      Once China finished devaluing their investment and jerking the rug out from under their biggest customer, I imagine they'd start looking for less pleasant sources of revenue.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    796. Re:Two words by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Oh, to even further destroy your argument, just yesterday on the O'Reilly Radio Factor, there was a caller who was basically asking O'Reilly if he thought that people should be afraid of a hard left liberal agenda being pushed through now that the Democrats had control of the White House along with a good majority of both the Senate and the House. His response (don't remember verbatim) was basically that based on his interview with Obama and what he's seen of Obama's other interviews and public speeches, that he felt that Obama was very pragmatic and a realist by nature and that he felt that Obama had to steer left to rally his base but that Obama would most likely govern from near the center. That's not verbatim, like I said, and I don't have a membership to O'Reilly's website so if the transcript is there I have no access to it, but it's pretty close to what he said. I do not blame you for not knowing this, you sound like someone who has probably ever listened to his radio show or watched his TV show, but don't attempt to speak intelligently on a subject that you know nothing about. It just makes you look even more idiotic to everyone but the complete morons.

    797. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That government is best which governs least."
      (Gangster,Tax evader and other NeoCon artist)

    798. Re:Two words by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      I think he was talking about Dick 'Antichrist' Cheney and Sarah 'Barracuda' Palin. However, I'm not sure where your 'Kool-Aid' cult-suicide reference comes from. Obama doesn't claim god talks to him. He doesn't even test his people's loyalty like Barracuda does. It's the true zealouts, from the left or from the right, that you have to worry about.

    799. Re:Two words by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      There's no "technically" anything when it comes to race. Race is a fiction with no scientific basis.

      The classification of individuals into races is always fuzzy, but just because there's no sharp line doesn't mean that there isn't a spectrum with clearly definable lines.

      Subsaharan Africans have different AIDS-resistance properties than Caucasians. Is that not a racial feature?

      Go to www.theskepticsguide.org, listen to all the episodes. The hosts have talked about races at some point, and they're probably what influences what I say the most on this matter (i.e. they're my source; they're a good one but I reference them poorly). Or try Evolution 101 [google.com].

      You can't take a cell sample from somebody and pop it in an analyzer and come back and say "this person is 93% black and 7% white".

      There's no test that will say you're "93% Autistic". That doesn't make it meaningless to talk about autism and an autistic spectrum.

      If you're denying the entire field of psychiatry, take migraine headaches instead. They're diagnosed by the clinical picture they produce (i.e. what patients complain about) and not pathophysiology (i.e. the very kryptonite-rich cluster of nerve cells in your parietal lobe or the iron bar rammed through your orbitofrontal cortex). There's no test. But you can medicate away symptoms, much to the enjoyment of patients.

      Are migraines without scientific basis?

      Requiring an arbitrary test, that's not how science works. Unless you only have your own arguments, please cite your sources who say there is no such thing as race.

      Also, what does it even mean "there is no such thing as race"? If I drew a bunch of stick figures on a blackboard, then drew circles around the clusters, would you claim the circles aren't real? How are races different?

    800. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever notice how only the winners want to make peace and move forward?

      As long as we have a two party system, we are doomed to repeat this cycle.

    801. Re:Two words by caluml · · Score: 1

      It's hard to say he wasn't successful the day after he won an election massively. They'd look foolish doing so.

    802. Re:Two words by Hatta · · Score: 1

      They may not have been classy, but they were correct. In fact, they didn't go far enough. Few in 2000 would have argued that Bush would be the worst president in history, but here we are.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    803. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NLP is bullshit. Return your Tony Robbins tapes.

    804. Re:Two words by TheGeneration · · Score: 1

      >You mean like the Democrats did in 2000 and 2004?

      You forget that the politics of the Bush Administration was to deny liberals a role in government entirely. They stated outright that liberal ideas had no value and had no place in the Republican administrative or legislative agenda.

      The Obama Democrats are in fact looking for the best ideas, regardless of whether they come from progressives or conservatives. Labor and Capital have to work together to find a WORKING solution, not an ideology based solution to fixing the economy so it works for all Americans.

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    805. Re:Two words by ClassMyAss · · Score: 1

      All the things you mention are spot on, but it's also important to realize that the reason banks could ignore all those problems with the loans they were making was that they could "hedge" the risk with CDSes and other derivatives which would theoretically make their positions neutral w.r.t. defaults. Unfortunately the people that really effed up were the ones selling these derivatives, since they did a lot more of that than they could actually afford.

      The lesson: don't make million dollar bets with people that can't pay you if you win. You'd think that would be common sense, but these factors are frightfully underrepresented in the risk analyses that are commonly used (to be fair, it's tough to factor them in, since the risk of default, the correlation between defaults, and pretty much all the other relevant factors in determining counterparty risk in these types of trades are completely unknown and unmeasurable quantities that are hard to even guess at).

    806. Re:Two words by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      I'm Chinese (and I'm a user of the language).

      Reading from Wikipedia and a quick Google search seems to indicate that there was no such "Chinese saying". It could have been some gross translation error, a phrase made up by some foreigner, or perhaps some really really obscure saying.

      Linguistically the original Chinese phrase (if one existed!) is rather unlikely to be "you3 yi4 si". It sounds too "modern" to be ancient Chinese. And for "you3 yi4 si", a direct translation of "interesting" is quite accurate on most levels, given that "interesting" in English can mean a number of things.

      Of course I could be wrong (I'm no expert on the subject), so I'm interested in where you got your sources.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    807. Re:Two words by AtariKee · · Score: 1

      Rush? Is that you?

      The black and white, broad-brush, "it's values or NOTHING" nature of ultra-conservatives will never cease to provide me with entertainment.

      Well, you see where so-called "values" got us over the past eight years.

      Preaching values and using specific issues (so-called "wedge" issues) as a means to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate is a political tactic as old as the hills. Yet people keep falling for it.

      Until last night, that is.

      Right now, we've got more important things to worry about than the pseudo-values of an obviously minority electorate, as proven by last night's victory of Obama.

      --
      "You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
      "Thank you, Master Control"
      -Sark and the MCP
    808. Re:Two words by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Why is such intolerant vitriol modded at +5.

      I just wonder why Sj0 doesn't let us know what sort of backwater hell-hole he crawled out of.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    809. Re:Two words by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      [Citation Needed]

      Can you list the people you're referencing here please?

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    810. Re:Two words by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

      ...but the fact that the first wheel has been put in motion (competent President)...

      Not to burst your bubble, but I think the jury is still out on that one. He hasn't even been sworn into office and his record as a Senator is really quite limited. He may indeed turn out to be competent, and I certainly hope that he does, but you're jumping the gun.

    811. Re:Two words by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1
      Obvious troll, but what the hell...

      Yes. McCain wanted to tax the poor to pay the wealthy. McCain was two footsteps from the grave with a ditzy anti-choice, creationist VP.

      a) Say what? You've really bought into the Obama propaganda hook, line, and sinker haven't you?

      b) Creationist? See previous comment. The only supporting "evidence" for that statement are blogs where people make the same statement.

      Take a look at factcheck.org, it's highly enlightening on both sides of the fence.

    812. Re:Two words by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      O'Reilly never claimed to be non-biased. He's always made it plain that he's a conservative. However, he has maintained his independence and demonstrated it by calling the Bush administration and other Republicans to task when he thinks they are not toeing the conservative line.

      I saw similar criticism as an undergraduate at UMass Amherst. The primary campus paper had a string of fairly liberal editorial page articles that were criticized for being passed off as neutral by the conservative paper on campus. The next 4 months consisted of the supposedly neutral paper attacking the openly conservative paper for being... Conservative!

      you need to separate the political pundits that get paid for presenting a specific view point from the anchors and newsmen.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    813. Re:Two words by michrech · · Score: 1

      The fact you are defending O'Reilly shows what kind of a brainwashed individual you are. You come up with ONE.. *ONE*.. point in his life where he wasn't a 100% asshole and that somehow "destroys my argument"? Looks like you have some growing up to do, there.

      This entire interview that YOU dragged up to show how "good guy" O'Rilley is, so far, is biting you in the ass. The first three parts of the interview (I'm half way through the third part now), all Bill has done has hurl half-truth after lie after half-truth at Obama, causing Obama to have to correct him. Hell, O'Rilley just appologized for being unfair to Obama while he was trying to create a budy-budy-chum-chum relationship between Ayers and Obama!

      So much for your argument.

      Have a nice life...

      --
      bork bork bork!
    814. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton ADMITTED he had a hand in it as he signed the 2 pieces of legislation that CREATED the problem. Greenspan ADMITTED he had a hand in it. I am sorry you can ignore that all you want. They put it into motion then it was ignored by Bush and the 1998-2008 congress.

      Congress covered their eyes to it. Obamas financial adviser said 'there is nothing wrong with fredie and fannie' in 2004!!!. Congress SAW there was something wrong and did nothing. In 2006 the dems were going to 'enact a change that matters'. There was still time to head off this disaster they helped create.

      Congress gets to decide who gets the money and where it is spent. The presidential branch is usually the one spending it.

      The ONLY change that is happening is who is warming the seats. There will be no real change other than taxes going up and more money spent. It is all both sides are any good at.

    815. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes!
      But no-McCain would have been a big step ahead... forward...to change....comparing to what has been!
      Congratulations, world!

      (Anonymous cow from sweden)

    816. Re:Two words by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      almost all the incumbent members of congress went back for another term.
      > Why is this, when approval ratings are so low?

      Because of the lack of viable 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. party candidates. By viable I don't meant the candidates themselves as they have at least as much to offer as anybody else on the ballots but the representation of them. The almost complete lack of coverage of them to the point of people being surprised to see other names they never heard of on the ballots besides the two D/R candidates.

      And the blame for that lack of coverage goes to the "3rd, 4th, 5th etc" parties themselves - because they only show up on the ballot for races at the Congressional level and above. They marginalize themselves by only being (barely) visible when the lenses and notepads of the national media are pointed vaguely in their direction. (When they aren't marginalizing themselves by running on single-issue tickets or unrealistic platforms.)
       
      I've said it before, and I'll say it again - viable third parties will emerge on the national scene once they get their heads out of their collective asses and establish themselves on the local (city, county) levels.

    817. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent's name is fitting. If a fact is presented on Fox News it doesn't make the fact any less true, and no matter how much you hate Fox News you simply can't say that everything they report is a lie.

    818. Re:Two words by yttrstein · · Score: 1

      What has changed is that the United States has become not only capable of electing a black president, but electing that black president on a landslide.

      If that's not enough for you even one day into his "president elect" status, then you must have no brain or heart.

    819. Re:Two words by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      I'll reply in the spirit of constructive discussion and I hope it's taken as such rather than the usual /. IAMRIGHT tone. :)

      Obviously not, but in the US there is a strong correlation between color and perspective. Surely you don't deny this?

      First off, that's a re-phrasing of what I said. I talked about race in general and by narrowing it down to just the US you have already massively changed the sample group. But even within the US, I still take issue with most references to a racial perspective. You mention that you are white, but there are so many different perspectives within this group that it would be meaningless for me to make any sort of comment about what white people think on a subject. To use your own words, surely you don't deny this? Can you think of any but the most contrived examples of something you could say that was representative of a white point of view? Something that would cross all the massively more significant (imo) demographic barriers of wealth, home State, age and gender? If not, I have to wonder why you think black people should be any more narrow in their range of perspectives. Certainly there are cultural groups that are aligned with race and perhaps this is what you meant. You get such groups in black and white and other ethnic groups - a certain gangster image is popular amongst many young black people, a certain emo sort of look is popular primarily amongst white youth. But whilst these are highly visible (due primarily to the media industry trying to create a market) you can't say the common perspectives of such groups (such as there are) represent a racial view. Many black people of the last generation or two abhor the black "gangster" image that is sold by the music industry. Nazism is almost exclusive to white people (at least under that name), but you can't call it a white perspective (well, the Nation of Islam did, but that's another non-representative group). So I guess, really, I do deny what you are saying. There are perspectives, or at least cultural groups, that are represented predominantly amongst certain racial groups, but I deny that (a) these can therefore be taken as race-based perspectives and (b) that any such group is so prevalent in its racial demographic that it is useful to make generalisations. And there are always exceptions. The world's best rapper is white (imo), the world's best golfer defines himself as black (I'm told). If you want to convince me that it's possible to talk about a race having a particular perspective then you're going to have to give me a couple of examples of what "black people think" and see if it's both prevalent enough and well-defined enough to have meaning.

      There's no supportable reason a black person can't see things from a white person's perspective and vice versa.

      That is true, but only if there is more than superficial interaction. Much of the US is still self-segregated.

      Note that I said "a" person. I'm saying that there is no supportable reason why someone must belong to the same ethnic group as someone else to share their perspective (and interests). I think you'd agree with me on that. What you're saying (as I understand it) is that there is still a great deal of segregation between ethnic groups in the USA and that this inhibits seeing each others point of view. This I would kind of agree with, but I think the dividing line is not race, but affluence. That brings us onto another point which I'll address at the same time:

      This is demonstrably false. Black people of all backgrounds were partying hard last night - almost universally happy. Even before this election, about 90% of the black vote would consistently go to the democrats. There is less cohesion among whites.

      I don't know enough of the people of the USA to comment on the veracity of whether black people of all backgrounds were partying la

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    820. Re:Two words by yttrstein · · Score: 1

      All humans alive are interracial to one degree or another, and yet through your apparently logical argument, your will to dilute the importance of this event is painfully clear.

      Why are you doing that?

    821. Re:Two words by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely correct - except in the most simple minded and childish analysis, it had to do with none of things. Because none of things would have happened without banking deregulation in the 80's and housing credit deregulation in the 90's. What do you think made banks investing in each others mortgage securities legal? What do you think made such risky loans attractive?

    822. Re:Two words by ppanon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last night, after it had been announced that Barack was President-Elect, Jesse Jackson was bawling his eyes out. I don't think it was because Jackson was thinking "That should have been me!", I think it was because Jackson was thinking "I used to think I would never live to see a day with a black president".

      There were a lot of people in the US who still refused to vote for a black man. But now that it's happened and that Obama, who is a lot more mainstream than the Republicans painted him out to be, will show that most of those fears were as much utter rubbish as the Iraqi WMD, those kinds of attacks will be a lot harder to make stick on the next go round. When you repeatedly lie and are shown to have lied, your credibility takes a dive, even with the notoriously easily-distracted US electorate.

      Obama would never have made it if Bush/Cheney incompetency and malevolence hadn't been so rampant that it so badly damaged the Republican brand. If you believe in an interventionist god, there were a lot of unusual circumstances (like the credit crisis and stock market crash) that were very timely in helping put him over the top. If fundamentalist Christians actually believe what they claim, they should be doing some heavy soul-searching today about whether the unlikelihood of the timing of those events isn't miraculous.

      Not that I believe in some kind of supernatural intervention; the deregulation & supply side economics house of cards was bound to tumble down at some point in time. But I can't hold any respect for people who can't even stay consistent in the fantasies they expound to everyone else.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    823. Re:Two words by ZigMonty · · Score: 1

      Well, i made it pretty obvious i was an australian, so i don't get why you're bringing the EU up (unless you think australia is part of the EU? lol). And I never said you should ask for our permission, in fact i clearly said your politics are your own business. I'll judge america on its actions not on its internal decision making.

      I do think it's a bit funny you think economics is an area where america excels. Sorry, the illusion of your prosperity has been largely created by cheap credit, which was the point of my second paragraph. America's prosperity will end when people think you're no longer good for the money. Sadly, my country isn't in much better a situation.

      Finally, why do we need a world leader? I'm sorry, but i have no interest in an unelected world leader claiming to represent the interests of the free world but allowing the world no say in its actions. Did it occur to you we're fine without a beacon on the hill top?

    824. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox is as valid as CNN

      LOL!!

    825. Re:Two words by AtariKee · · Score: 1

      "I'm not sure how happy I am that Obama did [win the election]."

      Me neither. Time will tell, however. But I sure will be glad to see the Bush regime hit the road. I just hope they'll do it without damaging anything on their way out.

      --
      "You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
      "Thank you, Master Control"
      -Sark and the MCP
    826. Re:Two words by slap20 · · Score: 1

      So it took that long to determine his pastor was racist? And that just happens to coincide with his run for presidency? Not a likely coincidence in my opinion, but he's pres now, so might as well make due with current issues at hand. Hopefully he turns out to be great.

      --
      ~Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder~
    827. Re:Two words by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Reasonable. I've pretty definitely traced the patent mess back to Reagan's attempt to turn the PTO into a profit center. Not to claim that it wasn't already pretty bad, but it was once reasonable to accept a PTO patent as evidence that an invention was novel, and that at least nobody had filed for a patent on it before in the US. (They were always quite peculiar as to what they would accept as evidence. I don't think that's actually gotten any worse despite the Neem tree patent...you can find equivalent abuse all the way back to the founding. It may have been designed in intentionally.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    828. Re:Two words by Damek · · Score: 1

      Well, there's a distinct difference there - Republicans put forth a President who himself did very little, if anything, to help his fellow countrymen, before or after his election, so... you could argue, we were just uniting with him in those efforts ;)

      Now we've got a President coming up who will actually behave, well, like a President, and do the helpful, uniting things you usually expect a President to do, so I think the ball's back in the right wing's court to see if they can get over the Gingrich-y Limbaugh-esque past and start behaving like Americans again.

    829. Re:Two words by driftingwalrus · · Score: 1

      I would be satisfied with him halting the decay.

      --
      Paul Anderson
      "I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
    830. Re:Two words by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Counting positive and negative references by the media to candidates might not be a very good way to evaluate bias.

      After all, those references might be based on some inherent qualities of the candidates. Unless, of course, you happen to believe that all candidates are inherently equally good?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    831. Re:Two words by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      I was going to try to refute this, but my the colour of my eyebrows is slightly different than that of my hair, so there is no way I would succeed.

    832. Re:Two words by brkello · · Score: 1

      I was flipping between CNN and Fox News last night for amusement. When CNN was talking poll numbers and showing off all their new reporting toys, Fox News was talking about exit polls. The attractive woman was saying something like, "In New Mexico, exit polls show that 75% of voters thought that McCain was negative while 53% thought Obama was negative. Of course, independent studies have said the exact opposite of that". That's not news, that is bias.

      Next, when CNN was talking about how historic it was that Obama was elected president, I flipped to Fox News and the guy on the screen was talking about Jeremiah Wright still! I mean, give me a break. If you think Fox News is credible, it destroys all of YOUR credibility.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    833. Re:Two words by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I also remember that Clinton was kept pretty busy towards the end, and really couldn't get very much done against rather intense opposition. Ostensibly over something very trivial.

      Sorry, Clinton isn't really on the hook for this one, though I admit that there's no proof that he would have fixed things if he'd had the time.

      To me the attacks on Clinton seemed orchestrated specifically to prevent him from cleaning up certain areas of government. Whether this is true or not, they certainly had that effect. Whether this is an area that he would have addressed isn't clear. Whitewater makes it clear that he was informed about this kind of problem, but doesn't demonstrate whether he would have cleaned the problem up if he had been able. (After all, Chester A. Arthur cleaned up the "spoils system", and removed a lot of corruption from the federal government.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    834. Re:Two words by ClassMyAss · · Score: 1

      Put it this way, you won't find anyone in the finance industry saying that they sold all those dodgy mortgages "because the government made us do it". It was greed, pure and simple.

      While that is to some extent true, I think it's a bit unfair to present "greed" as such a terrible thing in the financial industry; I mean, everything is done with the intent of maximizing payout, and a lot of it works just fine.

      The trick is to regulate things just enough so that "greed" can't turn into "stupid greed." This is a little difficult when the individuals that make the decisions have huge upside potential and pretty much zero downside risk (if their firm goes under, they move on to the next one or just sit on the pile of cash they've accumulated; if they do well, they get multi-million dollar bonuses).

      As an example, consider the following hypothetical bet, which you can play as many times as you want: you have a 99.9% chance of winning $100, and a .1% chance of losing $1,000,000. The expected value of such a bet is extremely negative (999 wins * $100 = $99,900, which is a lot less than you'd lose from the one loss every thousand plays). No rational entity should be willing to take this bet.

      But now suppose we add a new rule: you can only play once a day, you're playing with your employer's money, and if you're up at the end of a year, you get 10% of your gains as a bonus; if you lose, you're out of a job. Now it makes a lot more sense to take this bet. Say you do it 100 times a year - chances are (around 90%) you'll walk away having won every time over the year, so you've now personally got a 90% chance of making $1000 and a 10% chance of losing your job and killing off your company. Since you can always move on to another company, your upside is looking much better now, and it makes more sense to take these types of risks.

      Now, multiply the gains/losses by a few factors of ten, making it so that if you "get away" with your scheme for five or six years (which is reasonably likely) you'll be able to squirrel away enough money to retire. And add to that the fact that everyone else in your industry is taking these risks, too, and things look even better. If you lose, you don't even really have the downside of being seen as that asshole that ruined the company; if shit happens, it's going to be perceived as a systemic problem, not an individual one.

      The numbers in reality aren't the same as my example, but the problem is there - every once in a while you see instances of traders doing fantastically for three or four years by playing with derivative bundles that have decent stable payoffs unless "something extreme" happens (selling short straddles out the ass, for instance, gets you a good payoff unless there's a market move, and sometimes people see it as "easy money" when they're in a pinch; there are ways to spread a straddle even wider, too, which further distorts the risk profile in favor of making losses rarer but bigger); there are many ways to achieve this with bundles of options. Of course, the price for those steady payouts is that you've taken on a lot of risk, and eventually it bites you, or at least it bites someone, which is what's important to a company with hundreds of traders. You (the trader) just have to hope that you do well enough to get a few year end bonuses before your epic fail, and unfortunately, a lot of them are able to.

      So the "fix" requires a frank realization that the system of trading that most institutions use causes a degree of risk blindness past the one year threshold, and traders are sometimes prone to look at the median return over that period rather than the mean return overall (which is not all that unreasonable or irrational from an individual POV, btw, a fact that most statistical analyses miss altogether!). I don't have a solution to the problem, since even most regulations are easy to work around (regulations are in place at most companies to avoid blatant risk shifting like this, but all it takes to avoid them is a little inventiveness with the derivatives that you play with), but we desperately need one or else we're just going to continue to see these things unfold.

    835. Re:Two words by ClassMyAss · · Score: 1

      Just as a heads up, those of us who have worked and studied world economy. it takes roughly 8-10 years to see the full effect of federal economic decisions in a capitalist environment.

      Not to doubt you or anything, but I was not aware that there was anything approaching a consensus on this sort of thing. Do you have any references or studies you can point to on this?

    836. Re:Two words by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      How about this: Will Roe vs Wade get to stand? Yes. Will more Americans have (private) health care available to them? Yes. Will we have to pay taxes on health benefits? No. Will the rights of gays, minorities, city dwellers, non-Christians, and other real Americans that the Republicans seem to exclude be better protected? Absolutely. All sounds pretty good to me...

    837. Re:Two words by sydb · · Score: 1

      O'bama

      I know he's got Irish blood but I don't think he uses an apostrophe.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    838. Re:Two words by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "He has the power to NOT enforce laws enacted by Congress."

      Not sure what you mean here. If you are talking about his Veto of Congressional bills...ok, but, if he vetos is, it is not a law.

      He is, however, as part of his oath...bound to enforce the laws of the land. The ones that are on the books, and the ones he signs into law, he is indeed compelled to enforce them. He has no choice on that.

      It may just be a question of semantics on what you meant....but he has to enforce laws enacted by congress and signed into law, that's what makes them laws.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    839. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      When did we suddenly need to become tolerant of needless violence and torture?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    840. Re:Two words by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

      Walking on water would be an important step forward in military technology. I expect it more of a Republican than a Democrat. Other than that, he seems to be facing a near identical set of challenges as Kevin Rudd (Australian Prime Minister). People expect both of them to just wave a magic wand and fix everything overnight, but it's a fucking huge job.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    841. Re:Two words by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The hubris of the successful is often equally as unjustified. I think it's pathetic to look down on your common man because he failed in significantly different circumstances from those in which you succeeded.

    842. Re:Two words by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      The difference between race and your other examples is that everybody pretty much agrees on the definitions to use for your other examples, whereas different societies have widely different ideas of what defines any given race or even what races exist.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    843. Re:Two words by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Ask Iran how well "vot[ing] yourself in some leaders with some balls, to keep from being influenced" works."

      Iran?

      I think their leaders, the mullahs, suck...but, I hardly think they're being influenced much at this time by the US...now, if they go nuclear, well...that may be a different story. That is best left to a different thread.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    844. Re:Two words by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that all humans are "interracial" is a big reason why the whole concept of "race" is illogical.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    845. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is just another type of Ad-Hominem fallacy. Americans do something -> This shouldn't be done by Americans -> They are not "real" Americans.

      That's the "real scotsman" fallacy, not ad-hominem.

    846. Re:Two words by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      Whoops, s/common/fellow/ ... it's hard to type Slashdot comments and feed breakfast to your 8 month old son at the same time!

    847. Re:Two words by cranky_slacker · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except Bush wasn't interested in unifying the country. For the past 8 (long) years, Bush has been consistent in his belief that "either you're with us or against us". Those aren't the words or thoughts of a man interested in unity.

    848. Re:Two words by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Blaming Bush isn't a solution, but he has been aggressively attempting to destroy the country. There may have been some actions that he took that weren't intended as destructive to the country, but I would need to have them pointed out, and I'm afraid that with his track record I can't give him any benefit of the doubt. I expect him to relocate to a country with no extradition treaty some time before January 20th. (Well, that's a slight exaggeration. Expect is to strong a term. But he has been making preparations.)

      Blaming Bush is no solution, but getting rid of him is the first step towards a solution. Blaming Chaney might be more reasonable, but that's not a solution either. Getting rid of every law and administrative decision made by either of them would be a reasonable first step towards a solution. I'm not aware of ANY that should be kept (though I acknowledge that such may exist). As a first cut, though, get rid of all of them. That can be done reasonably quickly. Then if any are desirable, they can be re-instituted on an "as justified" basis. But each one would need lots of justification and examination for booby-traps.

      <RANT>
      Now clearly I don't expect this to happen, even though I'm of the opinion that that's the proper action. And I remember that Obama voted for FISA. So my expectations are rather low. But at least he hasn't yet given evidence that his main goal is to destroy the country. (Were it possible, I think that Bush & Cheney should both be charged with and convicted of treason. I think that they WERE the primary enemies of the country during the last 8 years...and that they gave themselves lots of aid and comfort and armed assistance.) And there are a lot of both Democrats and Republicans that deserve similar handling. Unfortunately, many of them are currently in office, so I can't imagine the Justice Department handling the case...and I'm not certain that it should. (Separation of Powers.) I personally consider both Feinstein and Pelosi to be traitors, but evidence for intentional treason is a bit lacking. Possibly they could argue that they didn't intend to betray the country.
      </Rant>

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    849. Re:Two words by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      "Race is a social concept"

      rubbish. it's got it's roots in genetic's. this idea you are pushing that race doesn't exist and that it's all in our head is dribble i've heard before, from people who don't want to face our differences and work past them.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    850. Re:Two words by arjay-tea · · Score: 1

      For that matter, how many jailed cannabis smokers and other political prisoners will be set free?

    851. Re:Two words by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Here in the US, "black" is generally used to describe people with some ancestry as African slaves, even though most of their ancestry may be from somewhere completely different."

      Funny...I thought describing someone as "black" had to do with them having black colored skin, and the other physical traits associated with a black person (hair, nose, lips, etc....).

      Usually in the US, a person is white if they are white or Caucasian looking...a black person is black, or dark colored...but, distinct from someone with darker skin, but, different traits, like Indian or Hispanic, etc.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    852. Re:Two words by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      And the republicans are still blaming FDR!

      And ironically, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of FDRs policies said, "We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started." And that too is ironic since FDR's running mate, Garner charged that Hoover was "leading the country down the path of socialism." Just like today, both sides were to blame for turning a short recession into a long depression.

    853. Re:Two words by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      It remains to be seen how much he can change in terms of laws and policy. Hopefully he will be effective.

      What he can change right away is to speak to Americans honestly, to improve our relationships with foreign countries, and to not make me cringe when I see the president speak on TV. That's a good start.

    854. Re:Two words by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      If race has its roots in genetics, why do different societies disagree on the definitions so much, and why was race a concept in people's heads long before anybody knew about genetics?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    855. Re:Two words by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      But accepting the need for taxes does not make one a socialist, any more than building freeways makes you a nazi.

      Apparently, that depends upon whom you ask.

      US taxes are at a historically low level. Returning to a level a bit more like what you had 70 years ago or more will not make you any more of a socialist country than you were back then.

      Actually, unless we brought back all of the new deal agencies too it would probably still be less. However, I think that both of you are missing an even more interesting question and that is why should taxes go up? If we are going to give the government more of our national income then I think the burden of explaining why we need to do that belongs with those who advocate higher taxes OR are taxes to be used not merely as an instrument of government funding but also as an instrument of punishment (i.e. the hair shirt position)?

      IMHO, the people of the United States need to take a closer look at how much of the national income the government is spending AND what they are spending it on. It is not enough to say that we should raise taxes to pay off existing debts without taking another look at how and why those debts were incurred and what our policies will be going forward to ensure that the taxes we already collect are being well spent AND that our tax policies are not counter-productive.

    856. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is juvenile to think someone is evil because they use a different text editor.

      People that use vi like to stroke their anuses with their thumbs. When they get aroused they pick Snickers from their anuses and lick their anus-Snickers.

      So I agree with you. It's juvenile to lick anus-Snickers and then claim that emacs is inferior when you are just an anus-Snicker-licker.

      Personally I prefer Mounds, but not of the anus variety.

    857. Re:Two words by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Comedy Central

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    858. Re:Two words by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "He quit his church when, earlier this year, he discovered his pastor was a racist. He no longer attends a church, though he may start again now that his campaign is over."

      I still find it amazing that he regularly attended that church for like 20 years, yet never found the preacher to be a racist, till those films of him in action got out.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    859. Re:Two words by HiThere · · Score: 1

      And there are no viable 3rd etc. party candidates because of the either imbecilic or corrupt voting practice summed up as "winner take all". Practically every other voting method produces better results, but no other method as reliably produces "most powerful wins". Instant Runoff is pretty good. I prefer Condorcet, but Instant Runoff is easier to explain to people, and lets people vote for their true choice without sacrificing their vote to "the lesser of two evils" because their candidate probably doesn't have a chance. (As does Condorcet, of course.)

      Most decent systems allow voters to rank their preference for candidates, and then proceed from there. Almost all ways of proceeding from their produce results that more voters find satisfactory. But they don't as strongly support the entrenched power structure, and they make it easier for new parties to arise and accumulate influence. (And even allow for occasional candidates to win without ANY party support.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    860. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Look back, look waaaaay back, to 1956, when we deposed the democratically elected leaders of Iran who had "some balls".

      Oh, and today we're funding opposition groups, judging from interviews with Condi Rice from a while back.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    861. Re:Two words by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      You're really more afraid of Obama in the White House than you are of an Islamic terrorist? Really?

      Let us imagine a genie had come to me four years ago and offered me a choice. Either Osama bin Laden could be captured and his terrorist career ended. Or George W Bush could lose the 2004 election.

      I would have gone for the election option without a moment's hesitation.

      A terrorist out to kill all he can, can't really kill all that many. His resources are very limited. And if you take him out there'll be another terrorist along soon enough, just as bad as he. A rogue president on the other hand can bring about carnage on a global scale, for he has access to vast budgets and manpower and endless military supplies. The worst mayhem bin Laden ever engineered doesn't come close to the horrors the Bush regime inflicted upon the world. Defeat a president at an election, and there's at least a decent chance he won't be immediately replaced by a monster from the same mould.

      So I have no problem with the idea that someone from the reactionary end of the scale might well view Obama in the same light as I saw Bush. Osama bin Laden is still a minor threat - a villain with big dreams, but wholly incapable of ever being more than a minor nuisance in the grand scheme of things. He wants to do all sorts of things you wouldn't like, but he probably won't be able to. If the President wants to do things you wouldn't like, who's going to stop him?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    862. Re:Two words by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Actually Clinton WAS horrible for this country. Clinton specifically made it so that Fannie and Freddie had to legally lend to people who were not qualified or face fines. He also sold off much of the military's assets during his years. That's how he balanced the budget. Then Democrat's came whining about how Bush didn't send enough troops to Iraq and we all wonder why. Well I don't wonder. I know it was Clinton's fault.

      Keep on spewing this obvious propaganda, even though it's been debunked over and over and over and over again.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    863. Re:Two words by m0rtadelo · · Score: 1

      > almost all the incumbent members of congress went back for another term.
      > Why is this, when approval ratings are so low?

      Because of the lack of viable 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. party candidates. By viable I don't meant the candidates themselves as they have at least as much to offer as anybody else on the ballots but the representation of them. The almost complete lack of coverage of them to the point of people being surprised to see other names they never heard of on the ballots besides the two D/R candidates. This is IMHO a true shame for the nation as a whole and the media in particular. I would welcome alternative views and more than two parties of importance since I believe that the views of well over 100 million voters can not possibly be properly represented by 2 parties.

      We usually desire what we lack. In Spain it is just the opposite. There are so many parties that it is rather difficult to build up a strong government, and pacts are almost always mandatory after a presidential election.

      What is more dramatic is that the parties involved in these pacts are usually small sized nationalist parties that do not precisely look for the general interest of the country but just the opposite, to weaken it so their demands be more feasible.

    864. Re:Two words by tbannist · · Score: 2, Informative

      You interfere with the free market, force banks to make loans to people who clearly can't afford it just so they can meet some loans-to-minorities quota, and this is what you get.

      False.

      75% of the sub prime loans your are referring to were under no obligation, federal or otherwise to do so. They were made by unregulated organizations that resold the mortgages for a quick profit.

      In fact, the limited regulation that required these loans be made tended to make the borrowers less like to go bankrupt because the oversight prevented extortionate interest rates.

      This was a free market problem, not a government regulation problem (unless you want to argue that there wasn't enough government regulation).

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    865. Re:Two words by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      I read that article. Basically it says that some networks are biased towards the Democratic candidate because they presented significantly more positive coverage of that candidate than they did the Republican. They point out that only Fox News gave more positive coverage to the Republican. None of this probably comes as a surprise to anyone.

      However, does this have to be interpreted as bias? The Republican ticket made many, many more gaffes than the Democratic one this election. The Republican ticket ran a significantly more negative campaign than the Democratic one. It just seems to me that many more positive things were said and done by the Democratic ticket than the Republican one this election. I don't see how reporting things as they happened, when positive things tended to happen to and come out of the Democratic side, and negative things tended to happen to and come out of the Republican side, is necessarily biased.

      That being said, it seems impossible to me to believe that any news organization can be completely without bias. Humans are not infallable machines, they will always bring their own slant to what they say and do, if not consciously then subconsciously. However, I honestly try to be as objective as I can be when evaluating such things, and it really seems to me that the so-called "liberal media" bias is very minor. Fox News' "conservative" bias seems much stronger. However, if you consider that there are more "liberal media" organizations that "conservative" organizations, then I guess the bias maybe balances out all things said and done. It's unfortunate that Fox News has to go so far to the right in order to balance out the weight of so many slightly left-leaning organizations. And it really sucks that these things both perpetuate and are perpetuated by close minded individuals in our country ("liberal" and "conservative" alike).

    866. Re:Two words by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I'm confused... what's their hair colour got to do with their reporting?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    867. Re:Two words by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Insane, yes. But probably no more so than your repeated insistence that "he fact that until now, the majority of the electorate was on the side of those people".

      I don't know anyone who was on the side of that. Even most Bush supporters didn't ever support torture. Most of them are still in denial about it happening. (Well, I don't know a large enough number of Bush supporters to make a valid sample, even if it weren't non-random, but such is my experience.)

      OTOH, I agree that most people don't weigh human rights violations seriously enough. (And I'm not *just* referring to torture, but to the multitudinous human rights violations that have become the practice during the last 8 years...and also to the ones I was occasionally aware of earlier.)

      A more cogent point would be the insanity of the way the US supports dictatorships. This is something we *should* find abhorrent, but which we have done since our start as a country. It's as if our government has no morals at all, and as if our people don't expect it to display any morals. Merely obedience to rules. (That's insanely foolish, I'll admit, but it's not the insanity that you were talking about.) If you don't expect the government to display morality, then why would you expect it to obey the rules?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    868. Re:Two words by lordmage · · Score: 1

      /* Oblig flamewar starter */

      no. only if they use VI!!

      emacs forever!!

      --
      I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
    869. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really think it will change? Obama is nothing more than a popstar. Consider what Martin Luther King said in his dream speech:

      I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

      but that didn't happen. Blacks voted for Obama because he is black. Last night I watch the returns flipping through various networks. They all detailed their various exit poll questions. You saw categories like:

      • White evangelicals
      • White catholics
      • Whites with out a college degree
      • Clinton supporters

      and not once did they have a category concerning blacks. Why? Because the response rate there would likely have been 100%.

      Obama's character was never investigated, the MSM was totally in his pocket. So this does not fulfill the dream of MLK, it just goes to show what can happen when you have a popstar candidate that the media likes and who has access to massive amounts of cash.

      I wouldn't worry too much about Obama screwing the country though, if his track record is any indication. He'll merely be present in the Oval office for the next couple of years, after which he'll start running for his next office, probably as Secretary General of the UN. He's never actually done anything of note in any other post he's held, they've all been stepping stones to the next.

      If I'm wrong, though, and he thinks he really can change America to his liking, then instead of seeing the election of the 44th President of the USA, we may be looking at the election of the 1st President of the USSA - United Socialist States of America.

      Yes I'm bitter, bitter that the entire election was so one-sided as far as the coverage was concerned. Bitter that people didn't really vote the issues, they voted for the image. Bitter that I fully expect to get slammed with new government regulations and taxes. Bitter that the Republicans are just as much to blame for Obama's election as the mindless masses that fawn over him.

      But time to move on.

    870. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have hit the nail on the head. McCain was not true to himself, else he might have won.

      A Texan that voted for Obama.

    871. Re:Two words by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 1

      Yea, wait until you see what it is replaced with. Often, what is believed to be better is much worse. Besides, anything the U.S. government gets involved in that wasn't in the constitution over 200 years ago, get screwed up worse.

      --

      Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    872. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who are 60 aren't being helped by affirmative action. I'm not saying it didn't do good things or should never have happened, but its something that also needs an end date or it will just reverse the disadvantage.

    873. Re:Two words by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Those messages you may have found inflamatory, but I'm afraid that I have considered Bush a traitor for many years. Probably since shortly after 9/11. And I have no respect for anyone who supports him or his actions.

      But my despising of Bush was based on his known actions. And the actions of Karl Rove were enough that he should be in prison at the moment, based on his known actions. (I'll admit the "village idiot" was merely inflamatory...Bush was a willing puppet, but he was aware of what he was doing...which is one of the things that makes it harder to forgive him than Regan.)

      And I consider that anything that was done which made it more difficult for Bush to govern needs evidence before I will consider it less than a positive good. Direct evidence that proves that it does more harm to the country than the good which is accomplished by making it more difficult for Bush to govern.

      Politicians always talk about bringing unification and peace, but one needs to understand what they're saying. They're saying "We won, so grin and bear it." Often it's not an important enough matter, so that's a rational approach. Perhaps even usually. Bush has been an exception. He's not just of different convictions, he seems evil. He seems destructive for the sake of being destructive. If there are two choices in a situation, he can be relied upon to choose the more evil (though not always the more destructive).

      Did you ever read or see "The Manchurian Candidate"? I've wondered about Bush. I still do, but I now feel that there is more agreement of purpose than that model would imply.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    874. Re:Two words by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

      Just to show it can work the other way as well: I remember watching Fox about 3 months after dubya was elected - it was right in the midst of the dot com crash and there was a minor (like 1 - 2%) dead cat bounce rally in the market. They devoted a whole hour segment to what they coined "the Bush recovery" - he had been in office for 1 month!

    875. Re:Two words by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 1

      Besides, The Onion claims to be a news *source*, which I've always thought was clever.

    876. Re:Two words by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      "George Bush fucked up so bad he made it difficult for a white guy to become president."
      -Chris Rock

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    877. Re:Two words by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Firstly: directly causing the death of US citizens is directly causing the death of US citizens

      Need I remind you that any child born in the US to American citizens is by birth a US citizen?

      If you kill a "fetus", you directly cause the death of the US citizen the fetus would become — even if we allow the claim that it isn't a baby yet.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    878. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i help my neighbors too, but only when *i* determine they deserve it. im not greedy. i am responsible and i expect that everybody else should be as well. your socialist programs do nothing to encourage responsibility or hard work. in fact, they encourage laziness.

    879. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind, I am American Indian.

      Thank you for not calling yourself an Native American. That just bugs the crap out of me, everyone born in the US is a Native, <duck>and even some people born in Kenya or Panama are as well</duck>.

    880. Re:Two words by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>I heard dubya was 6 points lower in the approval ratings than Nixon was - after he was indicted.

      But did you hear that congress' approval rating was HALF that of Bush's?

      Obama was part of congress, but naturally that never got reported.

    881. Re:Two words by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

      Amen brotha.

    882. Re:Two words by ClassMyAss · · Score: 1

      McCain would tax the Poor?? really? If you really believe that then McCain's campaign has failed even worse than I'd imagined. Not once has he said he'd raise taxes on the Poor. Good Grief!

      McCain would "tax" the poor in the same sense that Obama would "give" them money; it's not that it's actually happening as such, but that the balance of overall tax burden is being shifted. As long as it's not too severe (and neither of the candidates tax plans is very radical), a net increase or decrease in overall tax level is almost completely irrelevant (modulo second order effects on the economy, which are highly disputed from both sides) because we end up paying for everything one way or another, whether we pay for it now as a tax or later as inflation.

    883. Re:Two words by andphi · · Score: 1

      Quoth the poster: Despite your greed if there comes a day when you've lost your job, or your business, I'll be happy that my tax dollars are providing you and your children with health care. I'll be happy that the other social safety nets we're going to build will be in place to catch you so that you can get back to whatever life you had before you fell. Even if you hated others for having needed that same safety net at some point in their lives. Even if you cursed them from taking a small percentage more of your income to fund these services. I'll be happy to have the IRS taking my small percentage to cover you while you can't cover yourself.

      And what if some of us -don't want- the government's safety net or want to be able to choose -with great precision- where and to whom our charitable dollars go? I don't begrudge the money to the individuals who receive government social services funded by my tax dollars. I begrudge that money to the local churches and charities who aren't doing their jobs correctly. My problem with social services specifically and government taxation in general is that I don't know to whom MY money is going or even that it is going where the tax lines on my paystub say its going.

      I am of the opinion that I and my wife are most qualified people in the world to decide on the wise uses of OUR money, and also that our families and our church are the most qualified communities in the world to decide when we really need their help and when we just need to buckle down, work harder, and take more responsibility for our own welfare. If I want to hire a guy with three teeth who walks up to my door and asks if he can mow my lawn, I will do so. (And I have). If he reeks of alcohol addiction and I decide I can't trust him not to use the money to get drunk again, that's also MY choice. I will point him the direction of the Salvation Army or the nearest church. Either way, the choice is mine and has remained mine.

      I don't want a government reaching into my pocket, taking money out, and giving me only a "Trust me, it's worth it" in return. That approach only works for Defense spending. I realize that the government can't tell me "This dollar will go to the avionics on a new generation of multi-role, stealth, combat aircraft" without blowing the lid off. But when the government says, "Trust me, this money is going to meet a valid need, but I can't or won't tell you where" that's when things get dicey for me. My choice has been taken away. I have been required to buy something sight-unseen which I may never use, may not have wanted in the first place, and might even find legally, ethically, or morally objectionable. Did that dollar of my paycheck buy a WIC voucher for a loaf of bread for a hungry family? I don't have any problem with that, but I would rather do it myself. Or did it buy part of an abortion in a public clinic for a girl whose parents may never know?

      I would feel profoundly ashamed of myself, and frustrated with those around me, if I should ever NEED Medicaid, or Unemployment Insurance, or Social Security in order to make ends meet. It would mean that I had failed myself and my family in preparing those of us who can work for the job market and for retirement after our working lives have ended. It would mean that I hadn't worked hard enough to find private help for those times that I just couldn't provide for myself. It would mean that the local churches were all too poor or too busy to help me or that I was too blind and narrow-minded to be picky about where I got the help I needed. A great many things would be wrong if I ever came into those straits. None of those wrongs, however, can be properly amended by government intervention.

      It is not the function of the government - federal, state, or local - to provide equal outcomes for all citizens. It is the job of the government to provide the bare minimum in terms of public order, safety, and infrastructure and then to get the heck out of the people's way. If people go hungry, remain homeless for more than a few days at

    884. Re:Two words by rirugrat · · Score: 1

      Yea, but they definitely have the hottest newsbabes! I'd rather see Megyn Kelly decipher the electoral college maps than those ugly guys on MSNBC and CNN.

      I just make sure to have the TV on Mute.

    885. Re:Two words by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      This is something I tell many people when it comes to every election and it's something they just don't want to hear. Really, you know what today is? The same as it was yesterday and a month ago. Had it not been my day off I still would've went to work this morning, divorce rates are as they were, there will be more violence in schools, the Dow fell again, and more houses were foreclosed on today.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    886. Re:Two words by lennier · · Score: 1

      "That overlooks the substantial number of us who picked Bush as the lesser evil. I wasn't pro-Bush in the slightest, but thought (and still think) he was a less-bad option than Kerry."

      *Less*-bad?

      Sadly, even being a 'reluctant' Bush voter still counts as being really really dumb, not to mention xenophobic and willingly ignorant of recent 20th century history.

      Kerry was a Vietnam vet who protested Vietnam, and that's a good thing! You remember Vietnam, don't you? The bad war? The really bad one? The one you guys *shouldn't* have been in, that didn't work out well for anyone, that killed thousands of US guys but *millions* of Vietnamese? That took kids fresh out of college, fucked up their minds with war and hate and death, then dumped them onto society where they'd gravitate to crime and drugs?

      That war? That was wrong, yes? We can all agree, history has judged it to be a bad war, right? And Kerry protested it, yes? Which means he was right?

      Of course, Kerry himself did his darndest in 2004 to run *against* himself, with all that militaristic 'reporting for duty' crap... and he'd lost enough of his antiwar credentials to have voted *for* the Iraq moral disaster... but still. Even so, anyone who had the slightest awareness of history could tell he was at least a *little* better than Bush.

      I mean, what the. Vietnam was only in the 1970s, you know? Have you guys *already* forgotten it?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    887. Re:Two words by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      I dunno, my black neighbor says since his mom is white the black community has only one foot in the door of the White House.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    888. Re:Two words by giorgist · · Score: 1

      How about "Somewhere in Texas a village is getting it's idiot back"

    889. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's no "technically" anything when it comes to race. Race is a fiction with no scientific basis. You can't take a cell sample from somebody and pop it in an analyzer and come back and say "this person is 93% black and 7% white".

      Ridiculous. Go tell someone in the medical field that "race is a fiction with no scientific basis". Go tell a geneticist that they can't determine what ethnic groups a person belongs to.

      Just because something is convenient for your political views doesn't make it true, no matter how "good" those views are.

    890. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy never had better than a 50-50 approval rating and by the time the the torture stuff really hit the fan it was a lot lower.

      No, Bush's approval rating went up to 90%

    891. Re:Two words by lennier · · Score: 1

      "This nation wasn't founded on partisanship at all."

      Unless you supported the monarchy, in which case, Canada.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    892. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Living up to your name eh, BONEHEAD?

    893. Re:Two words by lennier · · Score: 1

      "Gas lines and hostages in Iran? The fact that Carter is allowed in public shows how generous we are."

      Good lord. You believe Carter was a *failure*?

      Carter was the first president smart enough to talk honestly about the oil crisis facing the world -- which, if you're paying attention, hasn't gone away, but is back with friends -- and tell you straight up that the system was broken and needed fixed. And he almost did it, too.

      And you crucified him for it, and elected that smooth-talking snake-oil salesman Reagan who did nothing but toss a carpet over the hole in your economy and nearly brought the world to WWIII. If not for Gorbachev, we might be in a nuclear wasteland right now.

      May the USA be smart enough to elect many more Carters.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    894. Re:Two words by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      He is, however, as part of his oath...bound to enforce the laws of the land. The ones that are on the books, and the ones he signs into law, he is indeed compelled to enforce them. He has no choice on that.

      That's not technically true. The Presidential Oath is this:

      I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

      The Constitution says nothing about the President enforcing any laws. See Article 2. Constitutional topics discuss the President's duty to "ensures all laws are carried out", but this is not mentioned in the Constitution.

      As a current practical matter, see Signing Statement.

      Presidential signing statements maintain particular potency with federal executive agencies, since these agencies are often responsible for the administration and enforcement of federal laws.

      In addition, the President can pardon anyone for any reason, so he can prevent someone from being prosecuted for an infraction - making a law technically unenforced.

      The President can also direct funding (or not) to impact the implementation of a law, like No Child Left Behind which has never been fully funded by the Bush Administration, eventhough they championed the bill:

      Organizations have particularly criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to fully fund the act. Noting that appropriations bills always originate in the House of Representatives, it is true that neither the Senate nor the White House has even requested federal funding up to the authorized levels for several of the act's main provisions. For example, President Bush requested only $13.3 of a possible $22.75 billion in 2006.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    895. Re:Two words by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      Do you think he'll get the Dems to undo the Patriot Act?

      No, they will just start using it against Republicans and conservative "domestic terrorists" like gun owners.

      Do you think he'll get to the bottom of and stop the Wiretaps on US Citizens?

      Of course not. He voted in favor of the Telecom immunity bill.

      Will he magically fix the economy? If so, how long? What exactly is he going to do?

      Now this I believe he will be able to do, right after he walks on water. I like his plan of taxing us to prosperity. I mean, I like his plan of taxing 5% of us so the other 95% can live in prosperity.

    896. Re:Two words by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      I bet you I can find the same amount of people who can't really get past the words "socialist" and "Muslim" when talking about Obama's policies.

      Some of us can't get past the words "socialist" because Obama is a socialist.

    897. Re:Two words by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      Lots of things get "pointed out," but this one happens to be mostly bullshit. The major deregulation in the banking industry happened during the Reagan administration, and just before it. This current crisis has almost nothing to do with the fact that banks have been giving out slightly more questionable loans than usual. The real explanation is a little involved, but the short version is that banks essentially were repackaging "bad" loans and selling the debt to other banks as "better" loans, which were in turn repackaged them as "great" loans and sold them again. Sounds crazy, but it's what happened. The credit crisis wasn't because people were suddenly not paying off their loans en masse, but because the banks all realize they have no liquidity, and as such aren't able to loan out as much (On the simplified basis that if a bank has $1 million in assets, it's allowed to loan out, say, $4 million, because statistically it won't all be called in at once. But when your $1 million becomes $800k overnight, suddenly you're overdrawn on your loans and everything freezes, no more inter-bank institutional loans, our entire credit-based economy freezes).

      In short, this problem was absolutely not caused by Clinton allowing poorer people to take out loans.

    898. Re:Two words by Starayo · · Score: 1

      (sorry, I have to joke to try to cheer up; 52% of California voters just annulled my marriage yesterday)

      Allow me to offer you my sympathies and my assurance that once I do, in fact, rule the world with an iron fist, idiotic occurances like this will not happen.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    899. Re:Two words by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Plus you have to admit that Obama is a charismatic individual with enormous powers of persuasion at his disposal.

      And there you have the key difference between a manager and a leader. People want to work in the direction pointed to by a persuasive lead, and will work against leaders who do not persuade. Don't face the mule when you want him to move. If the top office is occupied by a good manager with no leadership qualities, do not expect magnetic alignment of the particles of populace; without a clear and believable direction people will work against the flow. Considering the motivation for change that now exists, we can only hope the new President will continue to embrace the noble and inclusive ideals he espoused during the campaign. He's got energy and IQ and the ability to lead, so I remain hopeful.

      Remember, all good leaders throughout history were persuasive orators. You just have to hope the direction is running toward the right star on the horizon.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    900. Re:Two words by Xonstantine · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      All of us need to forgive the Republicans and invite them to JOIN us in creating the future America in which every American will have a stronger stake in our economy, socialized medicine, and equality for everybody.

      Hell no, it's payback time. All those innocent Democrats arrested and put in gulags by the Bu$h administration will be wanting their revenge on their Republican neighbors. I say we start passing out the machetes now.

    901. Re:Two words by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      It is juvenile to think someone is evil because they use a different text editor. It is just clarity to see evil in someone who will bring suffering to millions of people.

      When you're the leader of a nation of 300 million people, your slightest mistake can bring suffering to millions of people. Good decisions may even bring suffering to millions of people.

      So, please give your definition of "evil" and explain why McCain fits it. I expect that you're either deluded about McCain, or have a laughable definition of the word.

    902. Re:Two words by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I'm about to start calling our current economic situation Obama's recession, just like the Dems did when Bush took over in 2001.

    903. Re:Two words by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      Because of the lack of viable 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. party candidates

      No, it's because everyone is always unhappy with Congress, but always happy with their Congressman. They want to eliminate Congressional pork, unless it comes to their district. The people have finally discovered that they can vote themselves money, so the end of the Republic is now just a matter of time not a matter of it happening.

    904. Re:Two words by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Sadly, even being a 'reluctant' Bush voter still counts as being really really dumb, not to mention xenophobic and willingly ignorant of recent 20th century history.

      Or maybe it was that John Kerry:

      • Thought "No Child Gets Ahead" was a great idea
      • Strongly favored gun control
      • Favored mandatory indentured servitude, I mean, community service for graduating high school students
      • Wanted universal health care
      • Was hugely pro-union

      The fact you assumed I was against him because of his Vietnam record says a lot more about you than me. Hint: even though it's easy to dismiss people who disagree with you as stupid, it's a lot more rewarding to find out why they actually disagree with you.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    905. Re:Two words by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      Does a person below the poverty level even pay income tax?

      Yes.

      Actually, no. It's called the EITC. Under Obama, the bottom approximately 54% of workers will pay no income tax.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    906. Re:Two words by j79zlr · · Score: 1

      Show me one instance of McCain race baiting Obama, oh wait you can't. McCain wouldn't nail him on Jeremiah Wright, even though it would have worked. The only candidate who mentioned race was Obama.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
    907. Re:Two words by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      The guy never had better than a 50-50 approval rating

      Sorry, but you're just making shit up. His approval rating was fine (88% right after 9/11, in fact) until mid-2003, the start of the Iraq War, and then it took a nose-dive and never recovered.

      There is enough evidence of how unsuccessful W's presidency was without having to fabricate stuff.

    908. Re:Two words by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      Correction: I double-checked Article 2, Section 3 and it does say, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", (sorry) though this is vague as how much care is not specified. I think history demonstrates that the amount of care has varied over the years and Signing Statements are being used to indicate the President's intentions in that respect.

      For example, a quick Google search reveals many hits where people have complained that the Bush administration hasn't been enforcing various laws (I'm sure examples can be found for Clinton, etc...).

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    909. Re:Two words by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      The fact that you blindly attack O'Reilly for anything he does shows your bias. Your arguments have no basis as they are just hurled insults instead of any facts whatsoever. Go enjoy whatever show on MSNBC that you prefer, and leave reality to the rest of us.

    910. Re:Two words by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      Correction: I double-checked Article 2, Section 3 and it does say, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", (sorry) though this is vague as how much care is not specified. I think history demonstrates that the amount of care has varied over the years and Signing Statements are being used to indicate the President's intentions in that respect.

      For example, a quick Google search reveals many hits where people have complained that the Bush administration hasn't been enforcing various laws (I'm sure examples can be found for Clinton, etc...).

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    911. Re:Two words by ultranova · · Score: 1

      He or she is saying that people who don't succeed will find any loophole that enables them to blame their inability to succeed on others.

      They'll try to find a loophole but won't have much success there. And it's your fault they'll fail, since you exposed their plot, you oppressive bastard.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    912. Re:Two words by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Wright was completely racist. Just listen to what he says. If I were to say that I love all people but hate Black America wouldn't I still be a racist?

      Having legitimate criticisms of America does not entitle you to preach hate.

    913. Re:Two words by master_p · · Score: 1

      And also stop calling some Americans African-Americans. Most of them have no relationship to Africa whatsoever.

    914. Re:Two words by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Race does not mean where you or your ancestors came from. It means whatever the society you're in says it means.

      That is true for all words and terms.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    915. Re:Two words by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Obama would truly be an example of progress on racism if white people had voted for him in greater numbers than blacks. As it is, he's proved nothing other than that racism is alive and well in the form of affirmative action.

    916. Re:Two words by Tenebrarum · · Score: 1

      The democrats now control the house, senate, and the presidency. I think "dear god" might be more appropriate.

      More reason to thank Bush for doing such a wonderful job.

    917. Re:Two words by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      As an outside observer, statistically it's very likely that you're from a significantly more homogeneous population than the States. While every country has their political disagreements, the disparity between, say, the US coastal regions and the deep south is something that, in my experience, no other country can duplicate internally.

      Which is all by way of saying, it's even more inappropriate to lump all Americans in together than it is with any other nationality I have ever had first-hand experience with, and by a large degree at that. You should also probably remember that the actual majority of us voted against Bush on his second term--many of us because we thought he was evil incarnate. We were hardly trying to "slip one by" you all.

    918. Re:Two words by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      You have to realize there are still folks around here who grew up in school systems with one room for the entire primary school which were essentially a holding tank to keep them off the streets

      Other than the one room thing that describes most public schools in the US.

      how do we actually make things right for people who got shafted so badly by our public education system?

      By giving the black ones preference over the white ones? Not racist at all.

    919. Re:Two words by zanyterp · · Score: 1

      well...you are assuming we still have a country in 4 years to be able to vote in. whether that be due to the loss of our right to vote or we will have been destroyed by some faction or another is yet to be seen. i hope that we will have a place to vote and that we will still have that right in 4 years, but i have my doubts. here's to hoping for the best.

    920. Re:Two words by TheGeneration · · Score: 1

      Then I say "grow the F2#$ up."

      A lot of kids don't want to eat their vegetables either. If a tax payer wants to act like a selfish greedy child they should be treated like one.

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    921. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has changed is that 8 years of BUllSHit is over, and there is hope for a better tomorrow. This also is a huge step to realizing the American Dream that seemed to have been lost due to republican presidency, appointing of unqualified political buddies to high positions as evidenced by the Catrina, etc.

      Katrina?

      And New Orleans was told in the 1960s that it needed to rebuild the levees THEN. Multiple reports said that the levees would not stop a major hurricane back in the 1960s. What did New Orleans do? Kept on parting. Was FEMA poorly run, yes. But isn't it the state's or city's job to take care of their own infrastructure? They had over 30 years to fix the levees and did nothing.

    922. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those that worry that The democrats now control the house, senate, and the presidency just imagine for a moment what would be if that was the republicans:(
      now...., sometimes reality feels better, isn't

    923. Re:Two words by TheGeneration · · Score: 1

      Have you considered that perhaps it's better to let the lazy do what they do best (not work) where they aren't costing unwitting employers money?

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    924. Re:Two words by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      So if Obama does stuff that countries do not like we screwed up?

      Do we (the people of the US) tell you (the people of other countries) to not screw up when you change your leaders?

    925. Re:Two words by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      I'm curious for the details as well, but my impression is that McCain supported nearly every decision and action made by Bush. Right away, this suggests he has poor judgment. When this Bush link became a liability, he decided to reinvent himself by denouncing the policies he previously supported and attitudes he previously held. This suggests his convictions and his politics revolve around his desire for the presidency, and not the other way around. I am deeply suspicious of anyone willing to "reinvent himself" (or deceive others into thinking that's what he's doing) to get elected. This is someone that's in it for the power.

    926. Re:Two words by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      One of my friends is blond and blue-eyed and looks like she just walked out of a pub in Islington. She was born in Soweto, Johannesburg, and gleefully fills in "African-American" on every census and employment form she fills out.
      Another friend has brown skin, black hair, and is a fourth-generation American, even though most of her great-great-grandparents were Thai and Chinese. She tends to put 'other' when she fills in forms that ask her ethnicity.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    927. Re:Two words by ChameleonDave · · Score: 0, Troll

      When you're the leader of a nation of 300 million people, your slightest mistake can bring suffering to millions of people. Good decisions may even bring suffering to millions of people.

      By your reasoning, the previously-mentioned Siberia stuff is no longer evil, because a good decision could lead to it.

    928. Re:Two words by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      As I recall, there was never a majority for Bush in any of the elections. They were all under 50%.

      And if you are wondering why people bought into Bush, you have to understand what the alternative was.

      It may seem to you that a Kerry, Gore, or Obama would be a slam dunk, but that's because we've been run by a President who couldn't find diplomacy if it was stapled to his ass.

      However, internally, the presidential candidates are actually proxies for policies. Few voted for Bush (or even McCain) because they thought he was awesome, he was voted in because the voters didn't want socialized medicine, or gun control or to have to pay for abortion or to leave Iraq early. And in those ways, he fulfilled his promises. In other ways, like cutting spending and government, he failed miserably.

      It would be nice to be able to elect anyone you want because you think they are a better person. I think both McCain and Obama would have made a better president on a personal level. The problem is that you can't escape the policies they would put into practice if you elect them.

      I can tell you that nothing would have made me happier than being able to vote for America's first black president, but I don't vote for or against people based on anything but their intended policies.

    929. Re:Two words by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      No, like the Republicans did in 1992 and 1996. Yes, Bill Clinton eventually lied under oath. After being badgered and badgered by the Republicans over something that, while repugnant, was not a national issue, unlike all the crap that Bush has pulled since day one of his presidency.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    930. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Even as a proxy for policies, Bush is horrible.

      A shift to a more authoritarian rule, a shift to greater government, a shift to higher spending...

      You know, if I were an American, and I saw that one political party spent less of my money and one spent way way more, I know who I'd be voting for, even if the party that spent less did so by providing services instead of blowing up camels.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    931. Re:Two words by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      >I think the Republicans have a good shot of convincing the American people the Democrats have overreached if they deemphasize the ultra socially conservative southern wing

      So the question I've been asking people lately is: can they *do* that? The wing you're talking about isn't just southern: it constitutes about 20% of the whole US, more or less. You can't ignore that, and given that we can roughly apportion the electorate as 40% D, 40% R, 20% independent, the Republicans *can't* afford to lose close to half their base by deemphasizing them. This is the most passionate, highest-contributing (save corporations) and highest-voting group in the US. I think the Republicans are inextricably tied to the evangelical vote, and the question is how far they can move from that base while still getting its support.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    932. Re:Two words by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1

      When I saw the title of the post and where it was on the page, I was expecting to see the words "First Post"

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    933. Re:Two words by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      No one has ever accused the Democrats of spending less money. Its just that Bush made even them look fiscally conservative.

      That said, running wars is something that the government was brought into existence to carry out. If all of our representatives voted to actually have a war, I would hope that they would actually spend the money to fight it properly, whether it was a good idea or not to get into it in the first place.

      I didn't see a place in the Constitution that talked about medical coverage. Not even in the Bill of Rights. I'm not saying its a bad idea, but its one thing to spend money on something you are intended to, and another thing entirely to come up with new programs just to make people happy to elect you.

    934. Re:Two words by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Exit polls.

      0% of the votes counted but they already had a mass of data from asking people for whom they voted as they exited the polls.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    935. Re:Two words by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Except for those who don't. There are plenty of "unsuccessful" people who are happy to accept it.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    936. Re:Two words by TheGeneration · · Score: 1

      I was grumpy. Sorry.

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    937. Re:Two words by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      What joke? I have the misfortune of living in Obama's senatorial district. People here actually seem to think Obama *can* walk on water, if only they believe as much as he does that it's possible!

      Seriously, I've never seen more sheep in my life. I feel bad when I crush the hopes and dreams of friends and family, but in the case of Obama voters, I think I am actually going to enjoy the next 4 years of seeing their dreams -- fantasies, really -- written on the blank slate-wall of Obama, torn-down by reality.

      Just like I would've enjoyed seeing the same among Bush's gang of neocons -- if only their actions didn't have such a negative impact on hundreds of millions (or more) of people...

    938. Re:Two words by NewbieV · · Score: 1

      Self-reliance is definitely a virtue, but it's not exclusive to the American Dream.

      And the Common Good is also a part of the American Dream.

      It's "a little looking out for the other fella", as Mr. Smith said so eloquently.

      --


      "For every right, an equal responsibility..."
    939. Re:Two words by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Him being elected will not fix racism but it is a big step in the right direction.

      One of my coworkers is black, and had a pretty funny cynical view of it. He said "Now we [blacks] can't complain about being lorded over by another rich old white guy, but have to just complain about him being another ass politician, like everyone else."

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    940. Re:Two words by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      I give everyone a default respect level of one. They go up or down based on my interactions with them. I simply don't understand why some people seem to give a default of zero... it just seems mean.

      Put another way, I make no negative assumptions about anyone without evidence.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    941. Re:Two words by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      even though it's been debunked over and over and over and over again.

      Where and by who? Remember I was alive during Clinton's Presidency. I actually remember what happened so don't try to re-write history on me.

      The NYT can spin it as much as they want but the facts are all here... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1D71630F933A25754C0A963958260 And here is the New York Times again on the mortgage lending rules I was talking about. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1DE163AF93AA35751C1A965958260

    942. Re:Two words by dangitman · · Score: 1

      You take part of my labor and give it to someone that chose not to work as hard. You have made me their slave. They are now more 'equal' than I.

      But what about all the people who work *harder* than you, and subsidize your welfare? Are you making them your slaves?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    943. Re:Two words by mattboston · · Score: 1

      Level Headed,

      Does every wrong need to be met with another wrong?

      Or can we draw a line, and say "enough - time to fix the problems and reclaim the American Dream for our children and ourselves"?

      I love how people keep saying that we all deserve this "American Dream" like there is some rule saying that everyone is entitled or going to have it. Has anyone seen the movie "The Pursuit of Happyness". Christopher Gardner: It was right then that I started thinking about Thomas Jefferson on the Declaration of Independence and the part about our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I remember thinking how did he know to put the pursuit part in there? That maybe happiness is something that we can only pursue and maybe we can actually never have it. No matter what. How did he know that? There is nothing guaranteed in this country. But you are given a chance to try and achieve it. It will not be handed to you on a silver platter and you are not entitled to other peoples money, you need to get off your fat ass and earn it for yourself.

    944. Re:Two words by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      McCain's campaign failed because he was weak.

      I always thought this and it was confirmed after the debates.

      Every time Obama would call him out on something, he just smiled and took it.

      It made it appear that even he didn't believe in what he was saying (asides from earmarks.)

      As a conservative, I am not surprised he lost.

      I keep hearing that this is the signal for the end of conservatism. To me, it's a signal for the opposite.

      Conservatives want a real conservative, not one that plays one on the campaign trail.

      Obama won because liberals had someone to be excited about and they voted in record numbers. Conservatives were taken for granted this election and as a result weren't there when the Republicans needed them.

    945. Re:Two words by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1
      ...promising the people who don't think they have enough that he will tax other people, and give it to them

      You know full well that isn't rue. There is no promise to transfer money, just to restore a previous tax rate to a relatively high tax bracket without doing the same to lower ones. I'm at work and not inclined to a flame war, but frankly you are just repeating talking points.

      As to who had the most uneducated base, that is perhaps up in the air. Certainly the tenor of Palin's gatherings would at least seem to tip the balance towards the GOP. I'll grant it may be mainly appearance. Sadly, everyone is in it for a handout, whether welfare, a tax break, a "bailout," a juicy military contract, artificially inflated petroleum prices, agricultural subsidies, tax rebates that add to the national debt, and so on. Regardless of who would have or could have won, those people will still pressure politicians and all too often will succeed. That problem has not been solved, and really not even adequately addressed.

    946. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      W was popular, and he did change the world in the guise of peace, in the name of god.

      It also talks about the whore of babylon being stripped of all her clothes and exposed, hmmmmm, financial crisis

    947. Re:Two words by hobbit · · Score: 1

      Um... if you can write with your left hand or your right hand equally easily, you're ambidextrous. Not right-handed. Nor left-handed. So Obama isn't black. Like most people, he's of mixed descent.

      (Now admittedly there are more shades of red hair than there are hands on the human body...)

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    948. Re:Two words by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Hopefully what has been laid to rest is the word neocon.

      It's as stupid as neolib

    949. Re:Two words by andphi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a difference between a child deciding not to eat his vegetables and a taxpayer distrusting the motives and competence of a bureaucracy (or favoring a strictly limited role for that bureaucracy).

      The government should not stand in loco parentis. As soon as it does, it has usurped the rights of its citizens and of its constituent states. Through it, the citizens have diminished themselves by requiring of themselves as individuals less than they should require.

      Let me say that again: Government agencies are not parents. The courts are not parents. The legislatures are not parents. They have no rights as parents nor any parental responsibilities to their citizens. They have no right to decide who will eat and who will not. They have no right to decide who will be healthy and who will not. Make no mistake. There are not enough tax dollars nor enough bureaucrats to provide everyone with the standard of living they should have. Private citizens can meet these needs - locally and specifically - but government overhead will lead to waste and to inequity in the meeting of the peoples' needs. That is not just, nor right, nor good.

      If my child does not eat her vegetables, she does not get dessert or TV after dinner. She loses the opportunity to do something she would enjoy doing. Or she gets to chance to eat them again the next night. There is some direct consequence. That is parenting.

      If I do not pay my taxes, I get thrown in jail. If I do not like the way my tax dollars are spent, I can lobby my representatives to have government spending changed. That is appropriate government of a free people. If, however, the government decides that it will use my money any way it wants and that it no longer needs to listen when I object, that is tyranny.

      If the government takes my money and uses it for something I don't want it used for, that is a problem. If it takes my money and gives me something less valuable in return, that is theft. I as the citizen am the final arbiter of the value of my dollars. I would not tolerate that behavior from a fellow citizen, from an employer, or from a business. I cannot see why I should have to tolerate it from the government.

      Let me be clear on something else. I pay my taxes. I have put money into the system. If I wanted to, I could probably find a way to dodge those taxes or to shelter my income. I don't. I obey the laws. I fund the government and I vote in elections, so I have every right to an opinion on how that money should be spent. Every year when the US Federal government gives citizens their tax refunds, it tacitly admits that our money is still ours even when Congress and the Executive branch control it and that it already takes more than is lawful from some citizens.

      If my preference for individual liberty, charity, and responsibility makes me greedy and selfish, then I am most assuredly and very proudly selfish and greedy, but I am not under any circumstances, a child. The very insinuation is condescending, insulting, slanderous, and absurd.

      I would be very grateful if the government did not insist on trying to be the parent I as an adult no longer need.

    950. Re:Two words by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      You know, I love the Daily Show, I lean fairly liberal, and I love Bill Maher's standup.

      But I take issue with lumping in the flamebait that is Real Time with Stewart and Colbert's shows. All I ever see him doing is interviewing people simply because they have an opinion--musicians, comedians, etc--and they're always one breath away from a huge circle jerk. Or he invites on a capital-c conservative to see how quickly they can make him cry.

      That said, he's a smart guy and I have seen good Real Time segments. But that's always something cherry-picked on a website. Whenever I tune I get to witness him saying things that rely on huge assumptions or plain bad reasoning.

      Example: last month he let Janeane Garofalo say that Democrats are literally better human beings. I was in PA for "Deadheads for Obama" and I still wanted to puke when I heard that. The left does not need any Bill O'Reilly style programming, but sadly, from what I have seen of Maher he is more than deserving of the comparison.

    951. Re:Two words by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      When you're the leader of a nation of 300 million people, your slightest mistake can bring suffering to millions of people. Good decisions may even bring suffering to millions of people.

      By your reasoning, the previously-mentioned Siberia stuff is no longer evil, because a good decision could lead to it.

      I said "Good decisions may bring suffering to millions of people", not "Decisions that bring suffering to millions of people are good".

      As an example: Was Allied involvement in World War II evil because it brought suffering (death, even) to millions of people? The generally accepted answer is NO, because it was in response to an attack and prevented something far worse.

    952. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, see "How Real is Race: Using Anthropology to Make Sense of Human Diversity" by Carol Mukhopadhyay and Rosemary C. Henze:

      http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JSGJTqyvqK0MkqkQqNyLCtPcgrTLCBXt4kpdR1Cm8fV2LcNh4TMN!-1286553209?docId=5006361869

    953. Re:Two words by 3.14159265 · · Score: 1

      "No system can do that, which is why democracy is important: democracy works by making throwing out bad leaders easier."

      True enough, but when you have a system that gives you effectively only 2 to choose from, then you're not making it easy for democracy.

    954. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Zero isn't negative.

      That said, I'd say most people who hate Bush didn't give a crap about him in 2000.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    955. Re:Two words by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Strawman: taking an extreme case, and arguing against that instead of the actual issue.

    956. Re:Two words by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, when did Obama promise a "utopia"? I must have missed that campaign promise. Or maybe you just made it up?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    957. Re:Two words by Darby · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I didn't vote for Obama or McCain.

      Neither did I, so he's not my candidate. It is quite telling that rabid racists would pick a black man because the white guy is such a fringe loon.

    958. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more like "about time"

    959. Re:Two words by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Nobody ever came up with any proof.

      There's some pretty strong evidence. Diebold execs were Republican. The thing was insecure enough that a 12-year-old could crack it -- so what makes you think that no one with the appropriate access would've done this? And the discrepancy between exit polls and actual results is another indicator...

      Then there's the things which actually happened, like the actual 'swiftboating'.

      Point is: You didn't have to be bitter to suspect something in 2000 and 2004. But this one, bitter or not, Obama won.

      So STFU about being an asshole because you and your crowd have made that into a science.

      You know nothing about "my crowd".

      I am not a crowd. I think and speak for myself. If you have a problem with me, you have a problem with me. And I don't think you know me well enough for that.

      If you have a problem with "my crowd", you are bigoted against... something, you haven't said what. If it's "Democrats", you really don't know me very well.

      There were other positions to vote for yesterday, and I didn't vote blue on all of them.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    960. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I have repeatedly spoken about how Republicans outspend and outdebt the Democrats as long as most of us have been alife. Since Ford, they've consistently increased inflation adjusted spending at a much greater rate than Democrats.

      Ford increased the federal debt at a rate unseen in the 20th century. Reagan increased spending and debt at a greater inflation adjusted rate than any president before him! Carter actually reduced the debt and Clinton managed to nearly balance the budget. Bush 1 followed Reagan's trend and Bush 2 made Reagan the insane debt and spending monster look like fiscally conservative.

      If you're a fiscal conservative in the 21st century, you vote Democrat. Sure you might get some entitlement programs you disagree with, but the Republicans are de facto worse.

      The ideal would be someone like Ron Paul, but we've seen how well having a consistent and principled, constitutional approach works.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    961. Re:Two words by geoffaus · · Score: 2, Informative

      democratic socialist is a good thing - look at sweden, norway, finland & denmark - They have the highest living standards in the world.

      --
      As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Godwin's Law approaches 1
    962. Re:Two words by RedBear · · Score: 1

      The fact that you even had that conversation is insane. The fact that until now, the majority of the electorate was on the side of those people is even more insane.

      I am an American and I agree completely. It is really frightening that anyone ever thought in a modern day society that torture could be an acceptable practice, although I'm even more upset about the fact that people are ignorant enough to still believe it actually produces any valid, reliable results in terms of military intelligence. Profound ignorance makes baby Jesus cry.

      But, I don't think America can claim a monopoly on people who think that way. Everywhere you go such people exist in various percentages throughout any society and rear their ugly heads in times of conflict. People in some parts of Africa, the Baltic states and various other parts of the world have been routinely massacring each other from time to time for thousands of years on up to the present day. A lot of different kinds of people have gone around massacring specific cultural groups like the Jews every now and then for thousands of years. It has been a fairly common practice everywhere on this planet if you look through the time line of history.

      It varies by culture but there is something in the human brain that allows us to treat the group of people "over there" as if they aren't even human beings, unlike the group of people "over here". I'm sure any evolutionary anthropologist would quickly point out that it is probably a strong survival trait that has let many groups win out over others. It's only the interconnectedness of modern societies and the mixing of cultural influences that has slightly reduced the occurrence of this behavior in modern times.

      There is definitely a culture of acceptance of stupidity, ignorance, arrogance, racism and religious fanaticism that has permeated this country from the beginning. That's nothing new. It just happened to gain the upper hand for a while this past decade. First there was the mild backlash against Democrats because Clinton was not well-liked at the end of his presidency, then there was 9/11. That single day froze the thinking processes of millions of not-quite-idiots, turning them into full-fledged la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you idiots who just wanted to feel safe again and helped the Republican party run rampant.

      Fortunately the Republicans got so extreme with their stupidity that even most of the scared idiots seem to have noticed that something is really wrong with the way things have been done the last 8 years. The estimate now is that Obama, despite being black in a country that's still full of millions of racist idiots and staunch Republican supporters (funny how many isolated rural areas of the country, the strongholds of ignorance and religion, voted Republican), has won the popular vote by about 6%. Almost 53% of this country was smart enough to realize that voting for the Republican would not help the country. The Democrats were also given solid majorities in both the Senate and the House.

      There is a chance, a small chance mind you, that good things will actually come of this and the next generation will be slightly less ignorant.

    963. Re:Two words by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      As I recall, there was never a majority for Bush in any of the elections. They were all under 50%.

      Point of fact. Bush won over 50% in 2004 (First one to do so since 1988)but he did loose the popular vote in 2000 even though he won the Electoral College (which is what really matters).

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    964. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, I was interpreting your statement to mean winning the popular vote, but losing the electoral college. 52% isn't much of a significance.

    965. Re:Two words by salemnic · · Score: 1

      3. We don't have to hear nonsense about the government banning stem cell research, blatantly muzzling dissenting scientists, and other such shenanigans that should have any self-respecting geek up in arms.

      What nonsense. You are still going to see lots of things you don't agree with. I'm a self-respecting geek and I absolutely support the banning of some kinds of stem cell research. And all governments muzzle dissenting scientists.

      Don't go overboard.

    966. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Quit being so damned bitter and actually start helping your fellow countrymen instead of being an asshole because your guy didn't win.

      Your tone indicates you didn't follow your own advice for the past 8 years.

    967. Re:Two words by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      How, exactly, is Carter to blame for either of those? The gas lines were due to OPEC's manipulation of the market, and the hostages were out of his control. He sent special forces in, but they failed to accomplish their objective. Unless he was there on the ground with them, I fail to see how the blame for that can be laid on him.

      Carter didn't inherit a good situation(Nixon was the modern day Hoover style economic interventionist) but he didn't do anything to make things better. Windfall profits taxes just made the oil companies import more oil.

      The Iranians made sure to release the hostages before Reagen got the chance to bomb em to the stone age. They bought into the hype that he was a warmonger.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    968. Re:Two words by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm not about to look down on somebody who failed for reasons beyond his or her control, but there are people who do look for excuses to fail. Moreover, Obama's victory is likely to inspire some African-Americans by showing what somebody can accomplish, even with that skin color. I like to imagine people thinking "If he can be elected President, I sure can....".

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    969. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note the margins in parenthesis in the Wikipedia article you posted and that will show you the 4 elections I was talking about.

    970. Re:Two words by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      Compare the electoral and popular votes in this election with those of the 2000 election. There was reason to contest that election. There is no reason to contest this election.

    971. Re:Two words by salemnic · · Score: 1

      That is actually not true - there are lots of ways to pay down debt without increasing taxes.

      Like allow inflation to go up somewhat and allow revenues to increase with inflation (which a lot of poorer countries do)

      And buy foreign currency in very large amounts, and then devalue the dollar all to hell. Then convert the currency back. When you have some control over the dollar, that can work too.

      Of course, both of these have impacts on the economy, but so do taxes and government spending. It's just a matter of finding the best way to do it.

    972. Re:Two words by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Look, I agree with the sentiment being expressed there. They are however, oversimplifying; contradicting themselves; and even outright lying. For example, look at this following excerpted sentence, which does not even make sense as it's written (!); and even when "decoded" is actually wrong. Remarkably enough, they even manage to use the term "interbreeding" which presupposes race-type distinctions in the first place!

      "As a result of recent evolution and constant interbreeding between groups of humans, two individuals from different `races' are just as likely to be more similar to one another genetically than two individuals from the same `race.' This being so, race-as-biology has no predictive value."

      Their claim over-all is that race has no predictive value and no scientific meaning at all.

      The truth is, that race has relatively little predictive value except in the likelihood of certain congenital diseases (where it's extremely informative though not perfect!), and has scientific meaning as the result of a long process of human diversification.

      This is truly a unique time in human history; the world is smaller than its ever been, and believe-it-or-not racism is on a global decline. This should be exciting for anyone, whether you're optimistic or terrified! But some people don't even want to see that this is happening, even in a positive light (as I do), simply out of fear of being associated with racism. That's just sad.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    973. Re:Two words by crossmr · · Score: 1

      please put a few more cliches in what you wrote..

    974. Re:Two words by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      You mean the rules against "red-lining"?

      Those have nothing to do with compelling loans to bad credit risks, what they DO require is that banks evaluate people based on their credit rating rather than their neighborhood.

      As a single, young person, I'd be really REALLY pissed if clinton didn't pass that law, because I want to actively seek out "sketchy" areas in order to avoid paying unnecessarily high rent for things I don't need.. like school districts.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    975. Re:Two words by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit, or at least "Citation needed". How can siblings have such vast differences in skin colour then?

    976. Re:Two words by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How about Federal payroll taxes? The Social Security stuff amounts to 15% of the pay, it doesn't apply to income past a certain point, and that's what people generally forget about when talking about Federal taxes.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    977. Re:Two words by ChameleonDave · · Score: 0, Troll

      By your reasoning, the previously-mentioned Siberia stuff is no longer evil, because a good decision could lead to it.

      I said "Good decisions may bring suffering to millions of people", not "Decisions that bring suffering to millions of people are good".

      As an example: Was Allied involvement in World War II evil because it brought suffering (death, even) to millions of people? The generally accepted answer is NO, because it was in response to an attack and prevented something far worse.

      You're now setting up straw men through sheer cluelessness. What you're saying cannot be seen to have a clear relation to what I said.

    978. Re:Two words by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      It's just like the free market.

      There's a free market? When last I checked the market was walled off by anti-competitive special interest legislation, and by de-regulation allowing them to erect even MORE walls to keep out competition.

      It means that it is easy to switch vendors

      Uhuh, i'll find that other cable provider besides comcast.

      If you try to switch medical insurance providers with any pre-existing condition you'll wait a year before you actually receive service, of course that also happens to be the point at which they jack up the rates.

      Where is that alternative network provider for the iphone again?

      patents pretty much sew up most of the other points of entry into "the free market".

      which keeps the vendors working hard to pass or repeal legislation so they can safely ignore you and your grievances..

      .. fixed

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    979. Re:Two words by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      because of the genetic traits of a persons race, they end up looking different. anything different makes you a target in any culture. thats the key your not understanding, race is never going away, it's only the social issues that can be changed.

      i think racial issues are only going to get a lot worse under obama, he'll be a trigger for it. I'm hoping he never mentions it again in any offical speeches or tries to play the race card. race shouldn't be an issue and the only way to get there is to treat it as a none issue.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    980. Re:Two words by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      So you are saying, completely destroy our currency and pay off what little debt we can before our debtors refuse our dollar as worthless, causing the collapse of our economy? Like Germany tried after WWI? Great idea. Creating currency to pay off debts never has worked and never will, that is just weaseling out of the argument with known bad solutions.

    981. Re:Two words by dangitman · · Score: 1

      For a disgruntled Republican? I'm sure there are plenty of places where the style of government suits their ideology. Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Indonesia or Bhutan perhaps?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    982. Re:Two words by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      I'll concede that the status of a fetus, in moral terms, is somewhat debatable. But if you concede that point for the sake of argument (that it isn't a baby), then your argument could be extended to the preventing of anything that would lead to a child: preventing sperm from reaching ovum with contraceptive, pulling out, vasectomies, etc. Spermicide could be said to "kill it before it is a baby".

      From a moral standpoint, preventing impregnation is not killing a baby, stopping a pregnancy from becoming a baby is equivalent.

      If we allow for a fetus to be considered as a baby, it comes down to triage, in which case we must way the worths of the two parties. A huge amount of energy and resources has already gone in to the development of the mother, and if the mother is at risk the child is likely to be worse of because of it. In this case the mother is the clear choice as well.

    983. Re:Two words by dangitman · · Score: 1

      McCain is emphatically opposed to torture. He formed this opinion while being subjected to it for several years.

      But it turns out he doesn't really stand by that. He started carrying water for the Bush Pro-torture regime in recent years. If it's such an important principle to him, why did he turn around on it when it was politically expedient? One example here. He also voted for a pro-torture bill.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    984. Re:Two words by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Losing is losing. 7 million votes or 7. the Dems were bitter assholes then and evidently still are now. They have no business telling anyone how to behave.

      Only seriously disturbed people think the 2K and 2004 elections were stolen. The Democrats RAN the elections that were "contested". They designed the ballots. They ran the polls. They only thing the supremes stopped was the efforts of the dems to invent more votes in selected counties.

      Maybe you should take a clue from the morons at moveon.org and move the fuck on.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    985. Re:Two words by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      Google "Human genome project" or pretty much any source about basic genetics.
      What do you think causes one of your siblings to develop a different skin color? Right, her genes. And we get better at decoding these every day.

    986. Re:Two words by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I think he meant...

      It would be like a japanese guy or an irish guy being selected as leader of an african country by the populace.

      In theory, you should get the best person as leader- but in reality, most cultures around the world are very insular.

      America is uniquely open to possibilities that do not exist elsewhere.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    987. Re:Two words by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      Oh NOW we must put aside our differences and come together? That's so hypocritical! What happened eight years ago? Bush/Cheney didn't even get a chance to be sworn in and the left started screaming bloody murder and the name calling. And no, I didn't agree with everything Bush did, but I thanked God he was elected instead of Gore when we were attacked in 2001. And what about the thinking of the country first before calling American soldiers cold-blooded killers (Murtha) and the anti-war rhetoric. Way to support our enemies.

      Frankly I don't think it will be undeserved, but I will have at least the decency to let him create some bad policies before I criticize them. Obama has already told us what he's going to do. But his supporters just don't believe THEY'LL be directly affected. They think they'll all be on the receiving end of the goodies and some bad old rich person is going to pay for all this. Pelosi can't wait to start pushing the party's liberal agenda. He'll have no excuse that he can't get his agenda through.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    988. Re:Two words by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Well, torture is the most striking. It went from something he was absolutely opposed to, to something that "could be justified" and had a place in legislation he voted for.

      He also claimed to be against pork and redistribution of wealth, then voted for the massive bail-out of banks. Also he chose Palin as a running-mate, somebody with a deep appetite for pork.

      Then there was stuff about alternative energy and the environment, which later turned into "Drill Here, Drill Now!" and him encouraging hundreds of Harley riders at a motorcycle convention to wastefully rev their throttles just to make a loud noise.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    989. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Which I find pretty peculiar, honestly... calling an election based on what people feel like telling you on the way out of the booth.

    990. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 1

      No, it really doesn't -- I got a decent education in my school, and if you live in a middle-class area, you probably got one in yours too (if you attended). We aren't talking about the same thing -- we're talking about education more becoming of a real third-world country... and this is Louisiana just 50 years ago.

      Well, we give white ones preference over black ones in many other ways (take my city, Newark, where it's gotta be hard to get ahead if you grew up here), so how is evening it out any less fair? I realize two wrongs don't make a right, but the other wrong is a little harder to fix.

    991. Re:Two words by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      There is no promise to transfer money

      "A tax cut for 95% of American workers."

      40% of whom pay no income tax. His plan calls for cutting them credits and "rebate" checks. A rebate against income taxes they do not pay. This isn't really up for discussion - he's specifically, deliberately calling for exactly that. If there are talking points involved, they are his. His campaign harped on that message for weeks on end right up until the end.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    992. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 1
    993. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, like Slashdot...

    994. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I agree with you -- I just don't think we're even close to that date at this point.

    995. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Does FOX even HAVE any of the latter anymore?

      O'Reilly claims to be an independent while registered Republican.

      And lastly, the editorial pages are not the news. (which you say in your last line, essentially)... so I don't see the connection with the Amherst thing.

    996. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the shoe was on the other foot and 95% of the white vote went to McCain there would be an absolute media shit storm today.

    997. Re:Two words by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Why not? You guys have been proponents of murdering babies for the convenience of the mother, and that works for you.

      People are all about convenience.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    998. Re:Two words by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      You're correct in that they weren't forced to make the loans. You're incorrect in that the free market caused the problem. When Fannie and Freddie stepped in and said we'll buy bad loans, people made them and sold them. This interference caused this problem.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    999. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't assume you have power you don't have, that's the very definition of arrogance and an attitude that lead to nothing but trouble. Doesn't matter who or where you are, being the loudest monkey at the waterhole is so last geological epoch.

    1000. Re:Two words by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      I know that providing a basic standard of health care for everybody is something that we can afford as a nation, and something that we should do because it is simply the right thing to do.

      And I say you're wrong. It's not something we can afford to do, and it's not something we should do. We already have the best health care system in the world. There is simply no better place to get well than in the United States. And nobody here goes without health care. Most people who want it can afford it. Given the choice, I'd rather pay for the ER visits of the tiny fraction of people who can't than have to fund a system that gives everyone coverage, whether they are capable of providing for themselves or not.

      I pay taxes not because I don't want the IRS to come after me, I pay them because I know I'm getting a bargain for my money in terms of roadways, police, fire, etc... It's cheaper to have a government bureaucracy than to have a corporate profit machine funneling undeserved millions into the pockets of fallible executives who neither serve their customers or their shareholders with their greed.

      You mean like the $700 billion bailout to line the pockets of fallible executives who neither served their customers or their shareholders with their greed? Or the hundreds of billions of dollars being pumped into the war machine? Or the untold sums of money being wasted at every level of government on unnecessary programs and pork barrel projects? That's where the majority of your tax money is going.

      And as a personal note Guido.... I help my neighbors when they are in need, even when it might inconvenience me. I'm sorry that basic value was never instilled in you by the community and family you grew up in.

      Do you see what you've done there? You assume that because I don't support letting the government take care of people, I don't support taking care of people at all--as if there's no other way to accomplish these goals and anyone who disagrees with you is motivated out of greed and selfishness. If you think these programs are so great, why don't you pay extra taxes to fund them so I don't have to? Or would you not be okay with funding them if I weren't also required to do so against my will? That's pretty greedy and selfish of you, to make me pay for a program you want and I don't, and you may use but I never will.

      In fact, I believe that private citizens can and will support those around them given the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, they will be able to do so much more efficiently and for much less money than bringing the government in. You may not have faith in the free market's ability to solve social ills, but I do and so do many others. Although it may seem illogical to you, it is insane to us to believe the government can and will solve these problems, given its miserable track record in the past.

      It would be terrifying to me if the government were to involve itself in providing health care for Americans. I have a cousin (in a foreign, first world country) who is expected to die shortly because the government simply will not approve further treatment for his illness. The treatment, while excellent if it works, doesn't have a terribly high success rate, and the government has decided it will not pay for it because it's a bad value for them in the long run. It would be covered by insurance were he in the US, but since he's not it is prohibitively expensive for him to come to this country and receive a treatment that could quite possibly save his life. He is essentially a victim of the sort of bureaucracy that you're championing. And before you ask why we as his family don't help pay for his treatment, it is because he won't allow us to, not because we wouldn't do it if asked.

      Despite your greed if there comes a day when you've lost your job, or your business, I'll be happy that my tax dollars are providing you and your children with health care. I'l

    1001. Re:Two words by gormanbud · · Score: 1

      WE ARE!

    1002. Re:Two words by oddfox · · Score: 1

      You mean O'Reilly has the capacity to tone down his asshole nature from time to time? I, for one, am amazed. It doesn't change the fact that he's one of the most bull-headed talking heads out there.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    1003. Re:Two words by gormanbud · · Score: 1

      There was only one president whose first language was not English. He did not turn out to be such a great president. Hope Obama does better being the first biracial president. Wonder when we will get the first brain dead president---oh I think we have had one.

    1004. Re:Two words by lavaface · · Score: 1

      You get a refund but you pay taxes throughout the year. I can say with some authority (being below the poverty level for much of my adult life) that I pay taxes. generally, if you make over ~$8K you pay taxes. You will probably get a refund, but you still have taxes withheld from your paychecks.

    1005. Re:Two words by oddfox · · Score: 1

      So you voted against a black man because you hold the unwavering belief that Obama would raise taxes just to pour it back into the black community? That's probably the most woefully ignorant racist sentiment I've ever heard. If he were half-latino, would you expect him to raise taxes merely to help other latinos? You probably don't realize that your line of thinking leads one to the conclusion that McCain would harm other groups so that he could funnel it to more of his whities?

      Obama has never and will never support reparations, same as any serious political candidate, and it's disingenuous to imply that because he's black and should understand black problems and hardships that blacks are inevitably the only people he will look out for. It doesn't matter if that was your prediction before he won the nomination of his party, what matters is that you assume he wants to jilt everyone but blacks just because he's half-black, and that's intellectually dishonest.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    1006. Re:Two words by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, while most of the other talking heads out there just put on the kid gloves when talking to anyone that normally scoffs at the press. I mean come the fuck on, it was like national news when Katie Couric asked a few hardball questions, because well, she never does. Most of the news people out there have been cheerleaders for Obama and figure he could do no wrong. Kudos to O'Reilly for not treating anyone this way. I'd rather someone who was brash and a little bit of a jerk rather than someone who practically asks if it's ok for them to jerk off during the interview.

    1007. Re:Two words by gormanbud · · Score: 1

      Only in America could this happen. Since an American black individual would eventually be elected I think the writer could have been referring to the election of an individual from a very, very modest background going from the bottom to the top in one lifetime without the use of armed insurrection.

    1008. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back off. We are still the most powerful country in the world, and we chose Obama because he was the best choice for us, not for you.

      So, by your own admission, as a country you have incredible power over the rest of the world, yet you feel no responsability whatsoever to think about how your decision will affect anyone else but you.
      Thought everyone on Slashdot had read Spider-Man at least once.

      You can fuck up your own country as much as you want, but until YOU back off and stop acting as the police of the world, you have no right to have that attitude.

    1009. Re:Two words by andphi · · Score: 1

      Not a problem. Grumpy happens.

    1010. Re:Two words by andphi · · Score: 1

      I in turn should apologize for getting a little heated at the end of my second post. I thought you had called me a child and reacted badly. However, nothing you said was slanderous, as that requires knowledge of the truth and then deliberate character defamation using known falsehoods. I should have thought of that. For not being more careful in my word choice and for accusing you of slander, I apologize. I was wrong. For that I am sorry.

    1011. Re:Two words by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Well looking at your history, when you don't like a leader, you (try to) take him/her out.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    1012. Re:Two words by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      Not a strawman at all, a strawman argument is one where a person takes a position on an issue and distorts it and then attacks the distortion. The pro-life position is that no abortion should be allowed ever in any situation. You are right that my example it is an extreme case, but it is the type of situation that actually happens. However, in the pro-life view abortion is still not allowed in this case, which is what is extreme.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    1013. Re:Two words by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There's no "technically" anything when it comes to race. Race is a fiction with no scientific basis. You can't take a cell sample from somebody and pop it in an analyzer and come back and say "this person is 93% black and 7% white".

      While the traditional "black" and "white" labels are certainly fictitious, the differences are there. Just ask the biochemists who design new drugs.

    1014. Re:Two words by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      That's sort of a strawman characterization of the incident. He didn't all of a sudden realize his pastor is a racist. He realized that it was no longer possible for him to differentiate his views from his pastor's views. He thus broke off their relationship.

      After the tapes came out, he repudiated what Wright said and pointed out that he doesn't agree with everything that comes out of Wright's mouth in the same way that TheoMurpse does not believe the papacy is the antichrist while his church's stated position is that the papacy is the antichrist. (Interestingly enough, many protestant denominations believe this, which means that Obama cannot be the antichrist, thus meaning that any relevant protestant who makes that assertion is either a moron, a liar, or doesn't actually know what his church believes.)

      Only after Wright went on national TV singing racist songs about how white people clap a certain way and dancing around, and in general making a racist ass out of himself.

      Now, you may view Obama's actions in a few ways.

      1. Obama chose this church and converted to Christianity purely for political reasons in the hope that he may run for public office one day (from what I understand, Obama converted while a community organizer). Then, recently, he said, "Oh crap, I really want to be President. There's no way I can with this baggage. I'd better destroy this." I don't think this works because Obama first distanced himself rather than immediately taking the most politically expedient course, which would be to "throw Wright under the bus."

      2. He tried to preserve his relationship with his church leader (whom he was not required to agree with 100% of the time), but realized it was futile because his preacher was acting like an inconsiderate asshole on national TV. Being a pragmatist, Obama realized that he would not be able to do good things for America if he allowed himself to be connected to such intolerant, bigoted, and stupid acts. Obama thus acted. I think this is what happened, and I think this demonstrates Obama's true quality: pragmatism. I know people who know him, and he's supposedly a strong pragmatist, not a blind idealogue.

      I'm sure there are others but it's 2am and I need to go to bed. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves. Also, how is "God damn America!" a racist statement? The racist statements made by Wright were not pre-recorded sermons. He made borderline anti-American statements (which I don't think are anti-American in spirit, but rather were high-flying rhetoric that white America simply doesn't understand is a very good method of inspiration to work for the betterment of the community--recall that black worship in this country was an integral part of slave life a couple centuries ago, and the modern black church is often a direct descendant of that atmosphere).

    1015. Re:Two words by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      They are also tiny countries with homogeneous protestant cultures. You might as well compare those countries to Connecticut, since it's about as valid.

      The "democratic socialist" countries you mentioned, by the way, are busy spending the capital accumulated prior to their adoption of socialism. The principal problem with socialism and/or European liberalism (as opposed to classical American liberalism) is the expansion of the concept of "rights" which become onerous obligations for other people to provide for. And since this is ever expanding, the system will inevitably collapse under it's own weight. Not to worry though, the US is no less socialist and we're collapsing under our own weight too. And more socialism won't fix that.

    1016. Re:Two words by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Do you think he'll get the Dems to undo the Patriot Act?

      No idea.

      Do you think he'll get to the bottom of and stop the Wiretaps on US Citizens?

      No idea.

      Given the choice, I would say it's far more important to ensure the wiretapping stops, and doesn't start again, than to point fingers. But I was pissed off at the wiretapping immunity bill, too.

      Do you think he'll have us 100% out of Iraq in the next week? Month? Year? Decade?

      Decade, yes. Year, probably not.

      I would guess something dramatic will happen in the next term, at least, otherwise he's going to have a bitch of a time come re-election.

      Will he magically fix the economy? If so, how long? What exactly is he going to do?

      That's all pretty much been spelled out. Watch the debates.

      The only part that confuses me is how he intends to ensure that these new jobs from alternative energy "can never be outsourced."

      Will he walk on water?

      I find your lack of faith disturbing.

      Ok... the last one was a joke, but, seriously, I didn't vote for him because I think he's The Savior. I didn't vote for him because of empty words like "Hope" and "Change".

      I voted for him because he actually seems to understand technology, and has been promising a more open government -- and he's in favor of net neutrality. I voted for him because he surrounds himself with people who are competent -- his tech adviser was an MIT professor; McCain's tech adviser was an MPAA exec. In the same vein, I voted for him because there is no fucking way I want Sarah Palin to be President, ever.

      And for many other reasons, which basically add up to: I actually agree with almost everything he had to say. Can't say I even trust McCain.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1017. Re:Two words by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I am white, and it quite depends on the topic that you are going to ask me about. As an example whites, in general, do not understand how blacks can sympathize with rioters.

      Was it just whites? Could e.g. Asians understand how blacks can sympathize with rioters?

      It seems that it's more about which group is more self-segregating, and more tolerant to "we don't care if he's a bastard so long as he's our bastart" line of thinking.

    1018. Re:Two words by sornord · · Score: 1

      Dave Matthews and Charlize Theron are "African" too - both born in South Africa - but can you imagine the hoo-ha if they went around promoting themselves African or African-Americans? (I don't know either are naturalized US citizens.) To claim oneself AFRICAN-American is the current, "PC" synonym for black, and is technically innaccurate and as meaningless as myself saying I'm Scots/Irish-American. Naming a kid Jamal, Shaniqua, Taniqua, Chandral, or whatever will not make them one bit more African. Neither would naming my kids Sean, Ian, Seamus, or whatever make them a Scot or Irish. Unless severely inbred, in the US we're all essentially mongrels after a few generations and could claim lineage from any number of places. AMERICAN is the operative word, or SHOULD be. The part before the hyphen is, simply a flag of your favorite heritage, but usually it's an affected one with only a remote genealogical connection.

      And, by the way, the same logic of African-American terminology legitimizes people from anywhere in the Western Hemisphere call themselves Americans.

    1019. Re:Two words by TheSync · · Score: 1

      The gas lines were due to OPEC's manipulation of the market

      No, the gas lines were because of oil price controls, first put into place by Nixon, and not fully removed until Ronald Reagan came into office.

      You rarely see true shortages in free market economies unless there are price controls (or implicit price controls because of fear of "price gouging" laws).

    1020. Re:Two words by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Truman ended his Presidential terms with a 22% approval rating, well below that of President Bush. And Democrats don't seem to have a problem holding him up as a shining example of a good President...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1021. Re:Two words by TheSync · · Score: 1

      we are only now seeing the full effects of the Clinton presidency

      It may be true that the reduction on capital gains taxes on sales of houses during the Clinton administration may have been a part of the real-estate bubble, but there is so much other blame to go around between bad risk models in private institutions and other bipartisan support for "affordable housing".

    1022. Re:Two words by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      Thank the voters, not God. ;)

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
    1023. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well put. Ten points for Gryffindor!

    1024. Re:Two words by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Whether you agree with the stem cell ban or not, the scientific community in general is very unhappy with Bush's policies regarding science and that change will be a "Good Thing". I'm sure that I will disagree with many, many policy decisions that Obama makes - but that doesn't mean this specific area won't get better.

      By the way, what exactly do you think a stem cell ban accomplishes except handing Europe and Asia all of the talent in the field? It's not like the US stopping funding will end development in the field.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1025. Re:Two words by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      When it's a letter to the editor that's one thing, but when it is a letter from the editorial staff, and that letter claims to be an unbiased representation of the facts, I take offense no matter the slant. When they go on to attack the critics, an openly conservative paper, for being exactly what it says it is, I find that disingenuous at the very least. When the whole thing gets kicked off because the openly biased agency is pointing to some inconsistencies in the reporting of the agency claiming to be nonpartisan results in attacks on the accuser instead of addressing the issues raised, I find that reprehensible.

      If I remember correctly, the issue at hand was the use of student fee's to pay for an alcohol fueled, week long party on the Cape, thrown by the student body president for his friends. The "Non-partisan" paper's editorial staff were friends with the student body president and tried to gloss over the incident, and tried to paint the issue as a witch hunt. They even went so far as to completely fail to mention it when the President struck one of the senators during a senate meeting (he pushed him into is seat once and punched him in the face when he stood back up). The criticism of the papers conduct was legitimate.

      However, instead of addressing those issues, they went on the offensive and tried to shoot the messenger. The general thrust of the argument on those responses implied that there was something some how wrong with being a Conservative and even worse about being a Republican, as though it's allowed but shouldn't be.

      As to the connection between the 2 points, in both cases you had someone being attacked for being partisan despite having made no attempt to claim otherwise, and in fact making that partisanship a self-advertised, defining characteristic .

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    1026. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Wait. Social libertarians and fiscal conservatives advocate baby murder?

      Sorry, I totally missed the memo on that one.

      (Oh, I'm sorry, you must think I fall into your quaint "two absolute truths" political system. No, I don't)

      --
      It's been a long time.
    1027. Re:Two words by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Van Buren? How in the world is being bi-racial analogous to speaking a different language?

      Factoid: Van Buren was the first president born in the USA. All before were former British subjects.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1028. Re:Two words by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Was it just whites? Could e.g. Asians understand how blacks can sympathize with rioters?

      I have no idea :) I'm familiar with white issues and black issues. Even Hispanics are beyond my knowledge base... I imagine we'll have similar issues with Hispanics if we (as a nation) keep treating them like cockroaches.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1029. Re:Two words by Teancum · · Score: 1

      If this attitude does happen, it would be an amazing accomplishment.

      For years and years in American society, the person a great many people looked at was Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, and several other people who achieved the U.S. Presidency that genuinely arose from near poverty and very meager circumstances to ultimately attain this highest political office in the country... and everything associated with that kind of achievement.

      Giving rise to some genuine hope and providing some inspiration to some kids to try and do something beyond joining a gang and partying up a storm is certainly a good thing. Obama certainly isn't the only person to look at as a role model and leader (I can name Colin Powell, Bill Cosby, Martin Luther King Jr., and a great many others) but this is a seminal achievement worthy of note.

      What is rough about the American black community (as opposed to recent immigrants from Africa... a wholly different ethnic community entirely even if they share the same skin color) is how they have had an incredibly tough time becoming a part of the American mainstream. Irish, Italian, Polish, and even German immigrants all have had tough times trying to fit in and having to live in inner city slums and ghettos... as have a great many other large ethnic groups.

      There are no easy answers here, but on the whole what this has done is to be able to let the black community be able to say "we have arrived" to the rest of America, just as having JFK become president in 1961 was able to let American Catholics be able to feel like they were a part of mainstream America as well.

    1030. Re:Two words by Teancum · · Score: 1

      As far as what will happen with Obama over the next four years (before the 2012 election), all I hope is that the concerns and even out right fears are proven to be unfounded. I genuinely hope that Obama is going to prove himself to be a moderate (perhaps slightly more liberal than typical) and not really do too much that is massively radical in terms of changing key U.S. foreign policy platforms.

      BTW, be careful for what you wish for here as well, if you think that Bush is so awful that Obama incompetency and malevolence isn't going to be just as bad for the Democrats.

      I think Obama is going to flush a bunch of hard won victories against terrorism down the toilet and lead to direct attacks against America on American soil by these terrorist groups. I pray that I'm wrong, and only time will tell. In this sense, I am praying to God to intervene into the Obama presidency and help him and the rest of our country to actually succeed in this job he has talked the rest of the country into giving to him. I don't wish Obama any problem, and if he is able to keep America strong over the next four years, he will legitimately deserve another term in office.

      But now, Obama has to put up or shut up.

    1031. Re:Two words by torstenvl · · Score: 1

      GP said

      Yes. McCain wanted to tax the poor to pay the wealthy. McCain was two footsteps from the grave with a ditzy anti-choice, creationist VP.

      You said

      Not once has he said he'd raise taxes on the Poor. Good Grief!

      Please point out for me in the GP's post where he said McCain would raise taxes on the poor? That point is not in contention.

      However, it is inarguable that Obama's tax plan would reduce taxes for most low-income workers, while McCain would keep those taxes the same. So under McCain's tax plan, the poor would be taxed more than they would be under Obama's tax plan. This is not in dispute by anyone, and is a perfectly sound basis for saying that "McCain wanted to tax the poor [more than Obama]." The whole thing about paying the wealthy is less defensible, but outside the scope of this response, since you didn't take issue with that part of GP's post.

    1032. Re:Two words by Theoboley · · Score: 1

      It was half meant as a joke. I've also made the statement that I was going to vote Satan for president, because he's the lesser of the three evils. Now... Do you ACTUALLY Think I voted for Satan?

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    1033. Re:Two words by gormanbud · · Score: 1

      Just that what seems important today may be an obscure, meaningless factoid 100 years from now. Other then a feel-good pat on the back just how does being biracial insure that this man with a very, very thin resume will guide us through these difficult times? Seems a reckless bet just to "make history." I can think of many black individuals who would have been a better choice but the people have spoken and that is how things work. Good Luck Mr. President!

    1034. Re:Two words by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Spermicide could be said to "kill it before it is a baby".

      No, because it wouldn't at that point become a baby. There has to be a woman involved (insert meme about slashdot users here). A fetus, if left alone, will barring unfortunate accidents.

      If we allow for a fetus to be considered as a baby, it comes down to triage, in which case we must way the worths of the two parties. A huge amount of energy and resources has already gone in to the development of the mother, and if the mother is at risk the child is likely to be worse of because of it. In this case the mother is the clear choice as well.

      That's a false dichotomy in almost all cases. It is extremely rare to have to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the child.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    1035. Re:Two words by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just that what seems important today may be an obscure, meaningless factoid 100 years from now.

      You think that the fact that blacks have gone from a subclass to part of the ruling class in just 40 years is going to be a meaningless factoid?

      Other then a feel-good pat on the back just how does being biracial insure that this man with a very, very thin resume will guide us through these difficult times?

      I never claimed that, did I? I'm claiming that his racial background gives him a unique understanding about racial issues, and no more. I'm pretty sure that Obama or McCain would have been perfectly adequate to get us through the economic crisis, and it is ultimately a short-term problem anyway. Race, on the other hand, is a long-term problem that has scarred our country since it's founding. It's great to have an individual in the Presidency who can - just by existing - force us to confront some of our issues. It's even better that he can express our racial problems so eloquently.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1036. Re:Two words by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      I'm an American, veteran of the war in Iraq and the GWOT, and I vote Democratic. I cannot believe an adult would imply that John McCain is the Antichrist. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. Grow up.

      Francis Henry
      New York, NY

      I'm a European atheist, so for me the term antichrist does not evoke the same kind of emotional it might do for others. However, the fact that over here in almost all countries over 90% was in favor of Obama should tell you something about how the Republican party, Bush and the way they've been dealing with foreign relations is viewed.

      McCain is , as far as I can tell, just a poor old guy who, as his campaign progressed, seemed to become less and less happy about the crap he had to spout to appeal to a certain part of the electorate. My referral to the antichrist was aimed at the organization he was representing and his pick for VP, not so much the poor sap himself.

      Nevertheless, watching his principles fold under the strain of the campaign does make me very glad he didn't get elected. I have no qualm with a politician saying things I disagree with, so long as I'm convinced said politician truly believes in them. McCain never managed to convince me of that, and it only got worse with time.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    1037. Re:Two words by sorak · · Score: 1

      It's not just liberals, but conservatives as well. Why do you think the GOP spent eight years rabidly attacking Clinton? But as for the president, his power is not in control of the government. I've said elsewhere that the President is an over glorified salesman. He decides what issue will dominate the media next, and promotes one specific stance. Republicans have had plenty of politicians who were good at putting on their cowboy suit and promoting one stance or another, but democrats have usually been to verbose and uninspiring to promote their views. Obama is different in that he has good ideas and is able to make convincing arguments for them (and without dressing like a cowboy).

      As for "not being able to blame republicans for everything", well, it will be great to not have republicans screwing everything up. It's a fair trade.

      As for the notion of one man having to much power, no we believe strongly in checks and balances, which republicans have spent the last eight years trying to erode. In my life time, republicans have always been the party that believed that abuse of power is not a bad thing, and that "accountability", or placing more power in the hands of one guy, and hoping he's honest, is the best way to run the government.

      Also, as for the patriot act, that was passed by a republican president and a republican congress. It may not dissapear any time soon, especially with republicans fighting tooth and nail to keep it around, but how is that Obama's fault?

      As for taxes, well, McCain is going to make health insurance illegal. There, I said it. If republicans get to claim that Obama is going to raise taxes on the middle class, based on no evidence, and on his constant claims to the contrary, then we should be allowed to make similar claims about John McCain. After all, you have dropped the bar so low that you can now just make shit up, so it should apply on both sides of the table.

    1038. Re:Two words by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First let me state that I know full well that my restricting the discussion to the US narrows it by quite a bit... since we were discussing the US election I thought it was reasonable to restrict the discussion. While race is not a problem unique to the US, the US problem does have some unique aspects to it.

      You mention that you are white, but there are so many different perspectives within this group that it would be meaningless for me to make any sort of comment about what white people think on a subject.

      Whites are not so easily lumped together - I mean obviously at least 43% of the US white population is comfortable enough with a black man to elect him as president. And obviously there will be many, many overlapping opinions between blacks and whites... but the fact is that blacks 40 years ago did not have full civil rights. That scars one's psychology. And it's not as if the racism vaporized, so the scarring continues to this day. As a white man, racism rarely affects me. I encounter it quite often, but since only about 14% of people are black, the loss of opportunity there doesn't really affect me. As a result, I grew up not particularly sensitive to racism. Had I been black, my opportunities might have been far more restricted and my opinions would be far more shaped by racism.

      This is something that _most_ blacks in the US have in common and _most_ whites in the US have in common, and it is constantly reflected in polls when they ask questions like "are racial conditions improving in the US". It's improving, but this is the current situation.

      Can you think of any but the most contrived examples of something you could say that was representative of a white point of view?

      Trust of police. White people generally trust police and see them as a good presence. Blacks tend to be more wary of police. Please note that I'm not saying that all blacks fear the police... it's just a tendency that correlates with race. There are many of these tendencies that together make up what I'm calling a "black point of view".

      Another example would be slurs. You can drop the word "nigger" and it will almost universally cause a very unpleasant response among black people. Many (most?) whites won't like it, either - but it will really stir up some deep feelings among blacks. Compare this to whites... can you think of a single word that would get whites almost universally riled up? This is something that is shared by other minority groups which have been traditionally oppressed.

      Another example is when some big heinous crime is reported, one of the first things through many (most?) black folks' minds is, "Oh, please don't be black." This simply doesn't happen in the white "community" - probably because we don't view ourselves as a community and from our perspective the actions of one of us do not reflect on the rest of us. However, what we don't consider is that this is not true from the perspective of other people/groups.

      I'm saying that there is no supportable reason why someone must belong to the same ethnic group as someone else to share their perspective (and interests).

      Oh, I would never claim that. I'm claiming to have an "in" on the black perspective and I'm white. I have this perspective because I'm married to a black woman and we had many, many really tough fights that were rooted in not understanding one another's perspective. Without months of really deep, contentious discussions with someone who I cared for deeply, I seriously doubt that I would have come to understand.

      Election night was a different experience for me than for most white people. My wife first of all did not believe that a black man could win in the US. Even as they were calling states for Obama, she remained skeptical and kept asking me procedural ques

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1039. Re:Two words by Evtim · · Score: 1

      The only downside of the Netherlands is that so few locals actually understand how great they've got it - the Dutch are the most pessimistic people about their own country that I've ever met.

      That is not exactly true. The Dutch are very proud of their country but at the same time it is in their culture that a:) you should complain about everything and b:) never really go "Wow, this is superb", because everything can be made better. Part of this comes from the Calvinism, part from history.

      As for the personal freedom I agree with you 100%. During my first visit to the US I traveled in the bussines class (as a reward of being delayed due to overbooking) and spoke with a wealthy American. He asked me about the liberties in Holland and I listed them for him (abortion, prostitution, euthanasia, gay marriages and light drugs), pointing out that no other country in the whole world has the whole package. He was quite shocked and asked me "Why did you choose to live there then?" and I replied "Exactly because they have them".

      BTW, speaking about the elections allow me to congratulate all americans for the right choice (in my opinion). I do not think that much will change, because the ideas in people's heads do not change so easily and quickly. Change in may opinion always starts from bottom up - the politicians are just taking the ride once the wave is formed. But at least the international image of USA will improve. Bush really managed to make the whole world to dislike(or even hate)America.

      Funny fact: I was born and grew up in a communist country and I remember distinctly a history lesson I was thought in the last year of primary school. The teacher was discussing the political system in the US and said "It does not matter which party takes the power, they still push their militaristic imperialistic agenda". Of course all of the students decided that this was bullshit communist propaganda (at least they have two parties, we thought, not only one like us). However, I found out later in my life that the teacher was right! As it turned out, part of the communist propaganda was true! I am still recovering from the shock:)

    1040. Re:Two words by 0p7imu5_P2im3 · · Score: 1

      I've been saying the same since the FISA bill, as well. I kept telling everyone that they are both liars so don't vote for either of them. They kept saying "lesser of two evils" and then I'd say, "So you're knowingly voting for evil then?" and I'd get crickets and fly catchers (silence and dropped jaws).

      Try as I might, though, I could not convince anyone, not even my own wife, that the two-party system is the problem. I voted for Nader myself. Last I checked he was the only truly "independent" candidate (thank God he was on the Alabama ballot, though I'm all but certain that was another "tactic" by the Reds).

      The first president of this country gave a heart felt speech as he left the office which focused almost entirely on the flaws of parties, and that unity is necessary to survive. But you wouldn't know it from the degeneration we've experienced over the last 28 years, let alone since day 2 of Jefferson's Presidency.

      --
      Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
    1041. Re:Two words by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      Reread my first post and your reponse to it.

      By your reasoning, the previously-mentioned Siberia stuff is no longer evil, because a good decision could lead to it.

      This made no sense in response to what I said. Saying that even good decisions can make people suffer doesn't mean "Siberia stuff is no longer evil".

      The last part was simply an example of a decision causing suffering, and still being good.

      Incidentally, you never answered the question from the first post.

    1042. Re:Two words by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Him being elected will not fix racism but it is a big step in the right direction.

      What would really be a big step in the right direction, is if he turned out to be a brilliant president. If it turns out he's crap, the racists will be shouting: I told you so!

      Personally I think the chance he'll be brilliant is bigger than the chance he'll be crap. He seems intelligent and thoughtful, keeps his cool and can think on his feet. And I've been told he really listens to people, which you'll have to admit is quite rare for a politician. I think he'll do quite well.

    1043. Re:Two words by mcvos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      in re: 1., yes you can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_DNA_test#Biogeographical_ancestry. Of course, whether race means something apart from where you or your ancestors happened to come from, that is still open (*). But make no mistake, there absolutely is a technical concept of "biogeographical ancestry" which is very analogous to what is called race, and incorporating it into a model can increase the power and accuracy of clinical trials and disease screens. I would call this scientific.

      But if you want too go that route, then Obama is definitely not of the same race as most Afro-Americans. As far as I know, the American slave population came mostly from western Africa, whereas Obama's dad is from Kenya. And I probably don't have to tell you that genetic diversity within Africa is much bigger than in the rest of the world put together.

      So chances are the only "race"-related DNA sequences that Obama has in common with most other black Americans are the ones that passed through Europe.

    1044. Re:Two words by riondluz · · Score: 1

      Forgive the hasty construction of this wordy reply, but
      you know, I share a lot of your feelings with regard to the importance of constitutional values,
      which should include domestic spying, posse comitatus, habeous corpus the right to legal counsel before being
      extraordinarily rended, etc..

      I also feel that there were 3rd party candidates who stood on better principals than BObama.

      That said, and after seeing him speak tues night, i realized a number of things:
      =>None of the 3rd party candidates have the stature and gravitas that BObama has; which, among
      other things, is what it takes to be electable.

      =>Though I share your anger and disappointment regarding his position on
      the telecom immunity vote, the issue did not hold enough mainstream interest to make it a core
      issue upon which to do battle. BObama probably made the correct decision:
      which was to leave open future legal recourse and move on to getting elected.

      Now that he's actually in office, i can only hope that he'll to do an "LBJ",
      which is basically thwarting the special interests of those that put you into power.
      In the case of LBJ, it was his vision of civil rights and the 'great society', which was anathema
      to the texans that supported and endorsed him. In the case of BObama, it will be the
      corporations and lobbyists that funded his war-chest. If wishes were fishes...

      Also, as i stated in an earlier post related to the dems not persuing criminal charges against
      those in the executive who believed themselves to be above the law; my hope is that they correctly
      knew that the house was too-divided and their strategy in not persuing impeachment then
      will now give them the opportunity to do so.

      Impeachment proceedings would have been a major distraction and in all probability have failed.
      Letting history be the judge, waiting for GWB to leave office (pardons and all), then
      going after the corrupt was the saner option. I can only hope it's still on the table.

      --
      resist propaganda
    1045. Re:Two words by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Daily Show

      I was really disappointed by their election coverage.

    1046. Re:Two words by riondluz · · Score: 1

      Despite McCains' myth being waaay larger than the man, the fact that he crashed almost every plane he ever
      flew, purportedly blocked investigations into MIA's, his involvement in the S-n-L scandals, etc..
      I still really have some regard for this man.

      I just suspect that, despite being a pol for as long as he has, McCain in 2008 suffered from the perfect
      storm of a) trusting poor advice and b) his own weaknesses for not standing on his own principals but those
      of party loyality.

      Toward the end, I just don't think his heart was in this and he was just going through the motions.
      It was most apparent on SNL and I think he will find that his loyalty makes a scape-goat for his party in the end. I just don't think it was un-bridled ambition that drove him to take and flip-flop on all his
      positions; though i could be wrong.

      That said, I'm really glad he lost.

      --
      resist propaganda
    1047. Re:Two words by jcr · · Score: 1

      Just like today, both sides were to blame for turning a short recession into a long depression.

      And since that time, the former Republican and Democratic parties have converged, and now are merely wings of the Ruling Party, which don't differ on any substantial policy issues. Obama and McCain both demonstrated their complete incompetence w/r/t economic matters by voting for the bailout, as well as their contempt for the constitution.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1048. Re:Two words by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Cowardly moderators,
      you couldn't resist, could you? This is flamebait or trolling how? exactly?
      How about claiming an official news source "makes up" stories? Now that's flamebait and trolling. All I did was challenge that accusation.

      I never said Fox wasn't biased, but the news stories they report are still valid and true - regardless of spin - they don't "make up" stuff, and that's what I was responding to.

      They spin stuff to balance out the spin from Ted Turner. You really think Ted Turner is neutral?? He's the left equivalent of Rupert Murdoch. Every newspaper and cable news network is biased one way or another. Newspapers actually endorse candidates, which I think is ludicrous, no matter which guy they go for. Ultimately, the media should just report.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1049. Re:Two words by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      That is not exactly true. The Dutch are very proud of their country but at the same time it is in their culture that a:) you should complain about everything and b:) never really go "Wow, this is superb", because everything can be made better.

      Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm half Dutch by birth, and I lived there for a while (as mentioned), which I really loved, but I did find that the people who respected the way of life the most were those who have been familiar with other ways of life. I do think that sadly, there's somewhat of a case of people just not knowing how good they've got it because they've never had to live any other way. There are Dutch people that do realise and do love it of course, but I'm pretty sure they're the minority and that there really are a large number of them who just don't get it. I'd be happy if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am...

      He was quite shocked and asked me "Why did you choose to live there then?" and I replied "Exactly because they have them".

      Absolutely... even if you don't visit prostitutes, don't take any drugs, are not gay, would never get an abortion or desire euthanasia, the simple fact that all of those things CAN be done (and more... that's an incomplete list!) is one of the things that makes the country so great.

      As it turned out, part of the communist propaganda was true!

      Hah, the majority of old communist propaganda was true - it was just a careful framing of the truth. If you get good at this (which they did), you can say pretty much anything you like without it being a lie. (yes, "the sky is red" is a true statement... I never said WHERE the sky is red, and besides, "red" just means there's more of one particular wavelength than another, and I'm sure you can find wavelengths there's less of in the sky than that which produces red...)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    1050. Re:Two words by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I didn't see the part about "Australian politics". No, I don't think Oz land is part of the EU! lol

      Personally, I don't think the world is ready yet not have a democratic country that tends to lead, for the simple reason that nature abhors a vacuum. If the US "steps down", someone will step in to take that spot - but who? Better us than Russia or China.
      Believe me, most Americans don't want to play "policemen of the world", but at this particular time in history, if someone doesn't at least take a strong lead, someone else will, and chances are they'll be a whole lot worse than us. History is full of examples - those who don't learn from it are doomed to repeat it. I consider us the lesser of necessary evils. ;-)

      Let me ask a hypothetical question:
      If the USA disappeared off the face of the Earth overnight, which would happen?
      A) Peace, tranquility and self-governance would settle over the world, and they lived happily ever after.
      B) Wars would break out everywhere, and several dictators would attempt (and possibly succeed) to reign over free countries.*
      C) No difference.


      Russia seems to be heading in that direction already

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1051. Re:Two words by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Do these countries want what's in America's best interest, or do they put the interest of their own countries above the USA's?

      According to some Dut6ch media, McCain would actually have been better for us, because he supports free trade much more than Obama does. And McCain apparently really liked Europe, whereas likes the US and then the entire world, with no special consideration for Europe that I've noticed.

      And yet you'll have a hard time finding McCain supporters here. Even among conservatives. Everybody loves Obama.

      Why? Well, personally, I think Obama will be better for the US and better for the rest of the world. What happens in the US affects everybody, and especially Europe, and what happens in the rest of the world also affects us.

      Europe does fine, and doesn't need any special consideration at this time. Fix your own country, and stop fucking up the rest of the world, and we'll be perfectly happy with you.

      Besides, there was a time when the US was a shining city on a hill (as I've heard so many people put it), that the rest of the world loves to see and aspire to. Well, that city has been in decline for decades, and has been thoroughly buried by George Bush, but we still love the idea, and wouldn't mind seeing it back again.

      And now: one election, and there it is again! Well, it requires some work, but somehow it's a magical idea.

      For some reason, a lot of people love to love America, and hate to have to hate it. And for those people, the world suddenly got a lot brighter.

    1052. Re:Two words by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      It isn't like we really care who you elect in your country.*

      * Provided it's not Iraq. Or Palestine. Or one of those other countries over there.

    1053. Re:Two words by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Actually, we may have just elected the 3rd incarnation of the antichrist.
      (first 2 being Napoleon and Hitler)
      That is of course if Maitreya is not the antichrist.

      It all depends on if we are the new Babylon or if Iraq is the new incarnation of Babylon. According to most conjecture on the timeline of this subject, we should know by fall of next year if Obama is the latest incarnation of the antichrist. Lets see if he ends up with control of the world.

      Ooh, that's a good point! Don't those Rapture types believe that the antichrist will be a really charismatic peace maker?

    1054. Re:Two words by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I agree with what you're saying here regarding the tabloid style and sensationalism - though all media outlets are sensationalist, really- my beef is the claim that they "make up" stories.

      Can anyone cite any validated reference of any time Fox actually fabricated a news story?

      Spin or partisanship is one thing, but outright fraud is another. In that sense, I find them as valid.
      Equally invalidating to a news organization is the suppression of news stories when it hurts their preferred candidate. I've seen Fox cover negative stories of Republicans (and those who claim they don't aren't really watching!) but also negative stories on the other side that other sources tend to ignore, like when Gore's kid got a DUI or DWI. CNN didn't consider that newsworthy, but if it had been a Republican's kid, you bet it'd would've been one of their top stories.
      And I watch both Fox and CNN. MSNBC, meh, not so much.


      Oh - and Fox babes rock! Can't argue with that! ;-)

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1055. Re:Two words by wastedlife · · Score: 1

      Which I find pretty peculiar, honestly... calling an election based on what people feel like telling you on the way out of the booth.

      Especially considering the possibility of something like the "Bradley Effect", where the theory is that hidden racist tendencies in whites will force them to not vote for a black guy while claiming they have. I'm not sure if this really exists, but its certainly a possibility that could skew the results. That and the myriad of other problems with polls. Gotta love America, where the media's desire to have quick results is more important than accuracy.

      Disclaimer: I voted for Obama this year, but still think it was called a bit early.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    1056. Re:Two words by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Hey asshats, that was flamebait, not offtopic.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1057. Re:Two words by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      what do you think would happen to the WORLD if the chinese flooded the market with all the US IOUs they've been stashing away?

    1058. Re:Two words by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Re-read the article. It says that you cannot discriminate against low-income neighborhoods when giving out loans. In all actuality the bank doesn't care where you are from, they just want to see income. This change essentially created a quota for banks to lend to certain areas. Well guess what? Lending to low-income people is a really dumb idea. This is why they traditionally rent. Because when they don't pay the rent you kick them out and you lost only 1 month of rent. With a loan you might lose 1/2 of the value of the home.

    1059. Re:Two words by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Why? Is Obama really that much better than McCain? Would McCain have been worse than Bush?

      Yes

      Interesting idea, actually. (Although some Americans here claim the US is not a democracy but a republic, so would it even qualify?)

      But does this idea make him so much worse than Bush? Sounds like international cooperation at least, instead of starting wars on his own.

    1060. Re:Two words by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Would McCain have been worse than Bush?

      I don't think that's possible. ANYONE but Clinton is better than Bush. That doesn't mean we can't do better than McCain.

      Clinton? I was thinking Palin. I think she really could end up being worse than Bush. Didn't she say Iraq was a task from God?

      If I ruled the world, my agenda for the Obama presidency:

      - Fix Bush's financial mess.
      - Re-establish our Constitutional rights (like, ban the PATRIOT act).
      - Pull us out of Iraq ASAP.
      - Go after Bin Laden where he really might be.

      Fully agreed there.

      Although I don't place the blame for the financial mess entirely with Bush. He's responsible for the out-of-control national debt, but the financial crisis is a bit more complicated than that (though probably not unrelated either).

    1061. Re:Two words by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      I'm making a commonsense point about error margins, not kicking your puppy. Of course the past is past; there's no need to be angrily partisan about it. I wasn't even the one who brought up the 2000 election; you were. My only point was that, at the time, you didn't need to be a whiny sore loser to be skeptical. It was a simple matter of, "the error bars overlapped."

      If it helps you to understand what I'm saying, you should know that I am no rabid Obama supporter. The world is not just good Republicans and nasty Democrats out to get them. Some people don't have a kneejerk party affiliation. There's plenty about Obama about which I'm skeptical. Just not the fact that he got more popular and electoral votes than McCain.

    1062. Re:Two words by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      Your point is taken--I guess I just assumed most of the folks who are in default are so not because they entered the loan with fraudulent intentions, but because they took loans which were really too large for their repayment potential and simply couldn't manage the economic downturn. I guess I need to be more cynical when it comes to people.

    1063. Re:Two words by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I haven't a clue of who you might be speaking, but if such a person did not get compensated the agreed upon wage for his work, then, yes, I would have made them my slave.

      Maybe you're talking about the "working poor". I know a few of those people. They did everything they could to not pay any attention to their lessons throughout school. When they finally graduated, or got old enough not to be forced to show up anymore, they bounce from entry-level position in one company after another. They now have a standard of living that a large portion of the people in third-world countries would kill for.

      "The poor will always be with you," Jesus said. Jesus said a lot of wise things. This one was a tautology. The problem is that 'poor' is defined as "having less than the rich". Living smack-dab in the middle of the "Land of Opportunity", we have plenty of people that won't get of their duffs to lift a finger for themselves.

      They are NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY.

      I prefer to funnel my charity dollars to people that I see trying to help themselves, people who's struggle could succeed or could be stymied by problems I would consider small. I prefer to offer opportunity, not handouts. I prefer to see people progress to the point where they turn around and help someone else, and thus no longer need me.

      Obama will do absolutely NOTHING to reduce the welfare rolls. Every program he gets his Democratic Congress to fund will expand the rolls, as more people find it easier to let the government take care of them. No matter where you draw the line, there will be someone that has to make the decision of whether it makes more sense to work or live off the government dole.

      What's worse is Obama knows this. The Dems are the party of poverty-pimps, and this year they bought the election for the princely sum of $1000/vote. They give handouts, and claim that they're working for the common man. But that handout is money taken from someone that would have given that common man a job. They have to keep the handouts going, because that is the base of their power. They don't want to help anyone. They want to appear like they're trying to help.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    1064. Re:Two words by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Well, duh. Of course you haven't gotten anything out of their oil. Exxon, Chevron and Haliburton have. According to doctrine, that is even better!

    1065. Re:Two words by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      But thats exactly the case I'm talking about. McCain supports absolutely no allowance for those cases. He is, very specifically, against abortion in cases where the mother's health is at risk. I wouldn't call that pro-life.

    1066. Re:Two words by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1
      For the record, 1) I don't think anyone or any organization should get tax cuts or rebates, and 2) the higher tax bracket referred to by the Obama campaign should have its rate rolled back from 36% to 39%. Evidently I was mistaken about the tax cut. The Bush tax cuts should be repealed or allowed to expire, whichever is pertinent. Economic stimulus should be through a wide range of domestic infrastructure and technology projects, including but by no means limited to WPA-like construction. Federal grants (NOT loans) to develop green technologies, robotics, widespread higher bandwidth broadband access, public urban micro-farming (coin the terms and invent the concepts if necessary), expand urban subway systems, and many other things should be considered. This will create jobs in the short term and lasting wealth in the long term.

      I feel like I'm standing on a street corner, babbling to myself while people rush by with averted gazes. Oh well...

    1067. Re:Two words by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      McCain might have won if he had picked a moderate as his running mate.

      I doubt it. He could have chosen Joe Liebermann, and he would have gotten many centralist votes off of Obama. He probably would have gotten quite a few Hillary-is-the-Messiah votes as well, just out of spite. However, he would still have lost, as with such a ticket, the Republican base would just have stayed at home. He needed Palin to get them to vote.

      In other words, he didn't have a chance.

    1068. Re:Two words by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      There is always a reasonable danger to the mother in any pregnancy, no matter how healthy the mother, and it's always possible to find a doctor who will claim that justifies an abortion (assuming the right money is involved). This is a critical loophole and the only way is to strike that allowance altogether. The extremely rare cases where the mother's life is truly jeopardized would better addressed by attempting to save the life of both the mother and the child and then at some point making the decision between the two.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    1069. Re:Two words by Copid · · Score: 1

      You're correct in that they weren't forced to make the loans. You're incorrect in that the free market caused the problem. When Fannie and Freddie stepped in and said we'll buy bad loans, people made them and sold them. This interference caused this problem.

      Despite the fact that FM and FM's portfolios did not underperform relative to the rest of the market and that during the worst parts of the sub-prime lending fiasco, they were losing market share to "non-bank entities" that were securitizing mortgages? Really? Are we still stuck blaming the canaries for the mine explosion?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    1070. Re:Two words by Copid · · Score: 1

      To an extent, it's true: the financial problems are due in part to the Community Reinvestment Act [wikipedia.org], which they claim was modified during the Clinton administration in such a way that it forced banks to make riskier loans.

      If that was the actual cause, you'd expect loans made under the CRA to have a high default rate, yes? What would happen to that argument if the data showed that CRA loans don't default at a higher rate than other loans?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    1071. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the fuck were you 4 and 8 years ago?

    1072. Re:Two words by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      You and the post above you are correct. I should have said he never had more than a 50-50 election result. That's what I was thinking, but I wrote approval rating, which totally distorted my meaning. Sorry.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    1073. Re:Two words by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's the point. GP wondered if the Germans who criticize the electoral college as "old and outdated" (his words) realized that Germany's system isn't fully democratic either.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    1074. Re:Two words by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      Coming from a country with such a dodgy proportional representation system, I would like to clear up one thing. In the history of my country, it has never happened that a party had an absolute majority, and could govern without having at least one other party in power. This is the rule in proportional representation, not the exception. This works fine. You don't get massive changes, and you don't get incumbent parties such as the Republicrats that require nothing short of a revolution to get rid of. You could simply marginalize them until they clean up their act.

      In a proportional system (and the US congress seems to be a good one to do proportionally. Not the senate), Ron Paul could start up a party and get a few seats. Nader could start up one to get some legislation going. So would the libertarians and the Greens. It is in my eyes unimaginable that movements with so much support do not get any form of representation in the government.

      Not having proportional representation anywhere in the system is plainly a flaw in the US system. It's not accidental that the German system (written for a large part with aid and supervision by the US) is for a large part proportional. It's a feature, not a bug.

    1075. Re:Two words by Copid · · Score: 1

      Re-read the article. It says that you cannot discriminate against low-income neighborhoods when giving out loans. In all actuality the bank doesn't care where you are from, they just want to see income. This change essentially created a quota for banks to lend to certain areas. Well guess what? Lending to low-income people is a really dumb idea.

      Let's see your numbers. The numbers I've seen indicate that the portfolios of institutions subject to those sorts of regulations did not underperform, and their portfolios contained significantly less sub-prime paper than those of "non-bank" entities that weren't regulated like that. Basically, unless there's some serious data behind it, I'm going to have to take Janet Yellen's word over yours.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    1076. Re:Two words by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The "Republican base" thinks Obama is a flaming socialist (which probably isn't far off the mark IMO), and the religious ones think he's the antichrist. Why exactly did they need Palin to get them to vote? All they needed was the fear of an Obama presidency; anything the Republicans offered up would have been preferable to them.

      You may disagree, but even though many right-wing Republicans didn't like McCain that much (though Republican voters as a group obviously liked him enough to elect him in the Primaries over other, more conservative types like Huckabee and Thompson), I still think they would have gone to the polls to elect him when faced with the possibility of Obama as President. I don't think he needed bimbo Palin at all.

      Of course, now that we're finding out that Palin thinks Africa is a country, not a continent, many people are probably even more relieved she wasn't elected.

    1077. Re:Two words by Theoboley · · Score: 1

      And besides, Obama is 2 things. 1. A human being. Humans have this little thing called choice. He has the power to change his mind at any point during his presidency and turn this country into a socialist state.

      And 2. He's a Politician. 99.999% of all politicians have their own hidden agenda, who's to say he's any different??

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    1078. Re:Two words by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      Germany doesn't have a presidential election simply because the president of Germany does not wield any power. He simply represents the state towards foreign nations, much like a European monarch. The true power is with the chancellor, who is a chosen member of parliament. Maybe it's better to state that the President of Germany doesn't wield power because he is not elected.

      The EU doesn't have a Presidential election, simply because there's no EU president. There is a President of the Commission, but he's not presiding the EU. His name is Barroso, btw. He is more akin to the highest civil servant. In the EU, the true power is wielded by the council of ministers, members of the (elected) governments of the individual nations. What they say, goes. The commission will implement. In effect, the leaders of Germany and France wield significantly more power than Barroso. I, for one, am vehemently opposed to anything resembling an EU president. I only have to look at the other side of the Atlantic to see how rotten ever higher levels of government can become.

      The EU is not a federation, such as the US. Most European countries don't have a president/monarch that matters, but rather a prime minister, elected out of parliament. The exception being France. It's quite important to grasp these differences if you want to make statements about the democratic legitimacy of foreign governments.

    1079. Re:Two words by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      The true power is with the chancellor, who is a chosen member of parliament.

      The Chancellor's position uses practically the same process as the German Presidential election. (Just different actors.) How in the world does that make the individual voters vote "count" more than an American voter's vote? You still can't directly vote for a Chancellor!

      The EU doesn't have a Presidential election, simply because there's no EU president. There is a President of the Commission, but he's not presiding the EU.

      The President of the Commission is who I was referring to. He's the closest analog to the United States President. At least, the closest elected official.

      In the EU, the true power is wielded by the council of ministers, members of the (elected) governments of the individual nations.

      And yet, (to the best of my understanding) the Council is not actually elected by the people. So their vote doesn't "count" there either, because they don't get a vote.

      His name is Barroso, btw.

      I never would have guessed. (*ahem* "Bassrao (the current EU President) is famous for stating that the EU Presidency lacks legitimacy" --AKAImBatman)

      It's quite important to grasp these differences if you want to make statements about the democratic legitimacy of foreign governments.

      I am not making statements about the legitimacy of the German or EU government. They may govern as they wish. I am questioning the legitimacy of the statement that "German votes votes count more than American voters votes". Such a statement is the height of arrogance when the closest analogs of the US President are not electable by the public! The system may work fine for Germany and the EU, but the average German or EU voter's ability to elect a specific individual to an analogous post is far, far, far less than the average American's ability.

    1080. Re:Two words by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      You could be right, but then again, he, or at least his campaigners, apparently didn't think that this part of the Republican base would come out if they distrusted McCain as much as they did Obama. I also think that he was elected in the Primaries simply because any sane Republican could sense that a conservative like Huckabee would be identified too much with Bush, and therefore be slaughtered by anything the Democrats would put against him. McCain at least had a chance.

      But then they fucked that tactic up with Palin. Maybe they decided they didn't want to win this time.

      This is just my view from another country, where Obama would qualify as a social-liberal, and therefore center right.

    1081. Re:Two words by QuietObserver · · Score: 1

      Well stated. It's nice to read a well reasoned, politely stated comment, particularly one that does not ridicule another statement that is well meaning, but not quite as carefully crafted.

    1082. Re:Two words by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Saying there is a loophole because a doctor can be bribed is like claiming there is a tax loophole because you can bribe IRS officials (assuming the right money is involved).

      If that is a loophole, then you might as well call coat hangers are a critical loophole in abortion law, because they allow for late term abortions.

    1083. Re:Two words by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      That article gave me some good ideas. See she talks about how Credit Card Companies have started extending credit to everyone but making credit for sub-prime borrowers more expensive. Coupling this with a low limit means the cc companies have a low risk. If a borrower defaults the loss is small and it is more then made up for with other sub-prime borrowers paying exorbitantly rates.

      The problem with mortgages is that just by the very virtue that sub-prime mortgages are more expensive means that they cannot be afforded. Especially negatively amortizing loans quickly became too expensive because the payments adjust even if the interest rate stays the same.

      Also all lenders fell under the same rules. All Lenders have to be a part of the equal housing act and faced even tougher rules if they wanted to be licensed with HUD. All lenders (especially big ones) faced scrutiny if they didn't have a certain percentage of their portfolio with under qualified borrowers. Now you are right that it was also greed. Nobody told New Century to be in the ONLY Sub-Prime business. Nobody told Washington Mutual to basically stop underwriting it's own loans and just approve whatever came it's way. The banks and brokers and other lenders all came together and made a giant mess out of the market by assuming way more risk then they could afford to cover.

    1084. Re:Two words by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      The Chancellor's position uses practically the same process as the German Presidential election. (Just different actors.) How in the world does that make the individual voters vote "count" more than an American voter's vote? You still can't directly vote for a Chancellor!

      I'm not arguing that individual voters "count" more than an American vote. That's silly and I missed the GP that said that. However, the German Chancellor is simply a member of parliament, but happens to be leader of the biggest party that forms the government. In American terms, much like Pelosi, but with the difference that German chancellor is voted using either a district vote or a proportional vote (the German system is mixed). She is indeed not elected as a Chancellor, just like Pelosi is not elected as the head of Congress. It works this way in most European democracies. Blair was never elected as prime minister, neither was Brown, nor Merkel, nor Berlusconi, nor countless others. France being the exception. Prime ministers simply head the largest party, and are primus inter pares, first amongst their equals. This is a different system, not really comparable to a presidential system. It is democratic through and through though.

      The President of the Commission is who I was referring to. He's the closest analog to the United States President. At least, the closest elected official.

      The point I'm trying to make is that the EU doesn't have such a thing as a close analog to the US President. In power, the closest analog to the US President is either the French president or the German chancellor. As you point out, Barroso is not even elected, so how can he be the closest elected official? Barroso is more like the highest civil servant. Who would that be in the US?

      And yet, (to the best of my understanding) the Council is not actually elected by the people. So their vote doesn't "count" there either, because they don't get a vote.

      The council is formed by the actual governments of the nations in the EU. These are all democratically elected by their nations in all of their own peculiar ways. The council of prime ministers could be compared with a hypothetical council of all 51 governers of all the US states, dictating policy. No again, they are not elected for that particular job, it's part of their real job, being an elected representative of their country. Is the American president elected as commander-in-chief? Yes and no, it's part of his job, but there was no separate election for the US commander-in-chief.

      I'm now seeing what you reply to, and again, I do not agree with the statement that a German vote counts more than an American vote. I personally think that it's a bit outdated in a globalised world that almost every state in the US casts all their votes for only one candidate, but that doesn't change the fact that the vote counts. Even if you vote D in an R state, or vice-versa. However, I disagree with your statement that the EU commissioner is the closest analog to the EU president. It's an analog, but not close, let alone the closest. Given his influence of last year, the closest analog of the US president in Europe has been the French president Sarkozy, with Barroso as his yelping lapdog. Next year it might be Merkel. The EU does not have a president, nothing even close.

    1085. Re:Two words by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even require bribing a doctor, just paying for a second opinion.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    1086. Re:Two words by Copid · · Score: 1

      The problem with mortgages is that just by the very virtue that sub-prime mortgages are more expensive means that they cannot be afforded. Especially negatively amortizing loans quickly became too expensive because the payments adjust even if the interest rate stays the same.

      The problem with your explanation is that you're conflating things like sub-prime, negative amortization loans with loans made under CRA and other regulations that encouraged lending in poorer communities. Yellen explicitly demarcates between them because they're different. The paper deals explicitly with the CRA, because that's the most common scapegoat right now. The reality is that loans made under that program *did not* underperform on average, so there's no reason to blame that sort of regulation for this mess.

      Also all lenders fell under the same rules.

      This is simply false. Different rules applied to different lenders. For example, the CRA rules did not restrict small non-bank lenders that pumped out low quality mortgages and securitized them.

      All Lenders have to be a part of the equal housing act and faced even tougher rules if they wanted to be licensed with HUD.

      Specifically, which requirements are you referring to? That claim is very vague.

      All lenders (especially big ones) faced scrutiny if they didn't have a certain percentage of their portfolio with under qualified borrowers.

      I really don't think that you understand the regulations in question. How are you defining "under-qualified" and what was the regulation that imposed the rule you're talking about? Because the rules everybody seems to want to blame are designed not to force banks to loan to "underqualified" people but rather to make loans in the neighborhoods where they take deposits.

      Further, the idea that banks had their arms twisted into making these loans is absolute nonsense. Let's do a thought experiment. The government orders you to make a certain number of loans that you wouldn't have otherwise made because you know that they'll be unprofitable. Do you:

      1) Do the bare minimum and complain about the liberals in Congress.
      2) Leverage yourself like crazy and make shitloads of them.

      Because if I saw those loans as dangerous and unprofitable, I certainly wouldn't be doing (2). At least, not unless I could bundle those loans all into a pile, take out some unregulated insurance on them, and sell them as a high grade security to somebody else. And if that was the case, I wouldn't need the government pushing me to do it.

      Now you are right that it was also greed. Nobody told New Century to be in the ONLY Sub-Prime business. Nobody told Washington Mutual to basically stop underwriting it's own loans and just approve whatever came it's way. The banks and brokers and other lenders all came together and made a giant mess out of the market by assuming way more risk then they could afford to cover.

      If I was to blame two driving forces behind this, they would be:

      1) Long term low interest rates by the Federal Reserve.
      2) New financial instruments that allowed unwise and unscrupulous financial players to funnel all the extra money caused by (1) into something with an artificially high yield.
      I would put "banks being forced by the government to make loans" just slightly ahead of "the communists and their pollution of our precious bodily fluids." The data doesn't bear out that explanation and there's a perfectly good economic explanation that seems to be popular among the financial experts, if not among partisan hacks.

      For the record, I don't blame this purely on Republicans. Clinton's SEC chairman warned about speculation on credit default swaps years ago, and he was roundly shut down by members of both parties. Likewise, the looser and looser regulation that enabled this was largely applauded by both parties. Where I differ is on the idea that somehow too much regulation was a major (or even significant) player in this disaster. That idea is both ridiculous and dangerous.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    1087. Re:Two words by JoeZeppy · · Score: 1
      Let me just say this about that:

      Ha ha ah ha ha ha ah ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Media

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Accuracy_in_Media

      http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/25/173/40630

      Because it's widely known that Walter Cronkite was a Soviet dupe, and Richard Mellon Scaife and Joe McCarthy are/were upstanding heroic Americans.

    1088. Re:Two words by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I'm glad we at least understand each other now. And I'd like to thank you for taking the time to add insight to the European systems. Your response is possibly the most informed comparison I've seen in the last few days. And for that, I'm grateful. Thank you. :-)

    1089. Re:Two words by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I haven't a clue of who you might be speaking, but if such a person did not get compensated the agreed upon wage for his work, then, yes, I would have made them my slave.

      I was talking about people who pay more taxes than you. Unless you pay more taxes than everybody else in the country, there is somebody else paying a higher share, and that benefits you.

      For example, you get to drive on roads maintained by the taxes of those more wealthy than you. Why is it fair that they subsidize you? Likewise, you benefit from the police force, fire department, etc.

      Maybe you're talking about the "working poor". I know a few of those people. They did everything they could to not pay any attention to their lessons throughout school. When they finally graduated, or got old enough not to be forced to show up anymore, they bounce from entry-level position in one company after another.

      You make it sound like they deliberately wanted to be in that position. I very much doubt that's the case.

      Also, your original post seems to have a fallacy about hard work. There's probably plenty of people working twice as hard as you do, who earn minimum wage. There's not really any correlation between income and how hard you work. Plenty of people pull down millions of dollars per year, and have barely worked a day in their lives.

      The premise is faulty. Those who pay the most taxes are not necessarily the hardest workers.

      The problem is that 'poor' is defined as "having less than the rich".

      Only if you define it that way. That doesn't make any sense as a definition to me. Being poor should be defined by the opportunities one has, lifestyle, ability to survive, etc.

      There's no reason that America could have zero people living in poverty. Defining poor simply as "earning less than somebody else" is nonsensical. Middle Class people earn a lot less than the wealthy. Does that make them poor? Of course not.

      Living smack-dab in the middle of the "Land of Opportunity", we have plenty of people that won't get of their duffs to lift a finger for themselves.

      And there are also plenty that try very hard to raise themselves, but keep running into barriers put in place by society.

      Obama will do absolutely NOTHING to reduce the welfare rolls. Every program he gets his Democratic Congress to fund will expand the rolls, as more people find it easier to let the government take care of them.

      That's pretty silly. Would you give up your job to go on welfare, because it is easier? I don;t think so. Anybody who thinks it is easy living on welfare is kidding themselves. The idea of welfare, when used properly, is to give people opportunities to live with dignity, and take steps to improve their situation.

      What's your solution - just have people dying in the streets? Have crime run rampant and people need to steal to afford to live?

      They give handouts, and claim that they're working for the common man. But that handout is money taken from someone that would have given that common man a job.

      Yeah right - everybody who is not on welfare is in a position to give somebody a job, if it wasn't for taxes? That's amazingly delusional. I really don't think you have a grip on reality.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    1090. Re:Two words by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Competition in humanity. Race is a means by which you can eliminate large groups from competing for access for to the same resources, it create arbitrary race guidelines and 'your' group work together to undermine the 'other' group from competing upon an equal basis. The more competitive and aggressive a society, the greater the significance of failure in the denial of access to needed resources, the more pronounced the racism becomes.

      Secondly another big driver of 'race' identity is guilt, guilt at unfairly applying racism and prejudice against other people for your advantage, the deep guilt of dehumanising other human beings, of treating them worse than you would a pet, the kind of guilt that really eats at you conscience and alters you behaviour and attitudes into quite appalling and sick patterns in order to protect yourself from it.

      Thirdly is fear. The fear of becoming one of 'them', of being treated as you have treated 'them', of 'them' gaining power and forcing you into that position where you held 'them'.

      So an unhealthy society with an excess of competition for resources where losing does mean dying, where burdens of guilt build up for willingness to see fellow humans suffer and die while you live in luxury and the fear of being punished for your greed and 'unchristian' (please supplant your religion of choice) behaviour, not only in this life but the one following. P) So race, it's nothing but a very primitive shared excuse, for being an arse hole ;).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1091. Re:Two words by ZigMonty · · Score: 1

      Not sure i agree. Pax americana has hardly been peaceful. Frankly i don't think the chinese are all that interested in world domination by military force, they're accomplishing much the same goal economically anyway. And the russians... they're like the middle east, get the world off oil and they're impotent.

      I certainly don't think america should just disappear off the face of the earth, and it's a bit of a strawman argument. I think the backlash is more directed at the american trend to constantly pat yourselves on the back and proclaim yourselves the greatest country on earth. Whatever happened to speaking softly and carrying a big stick?

      Great countries don't have to constantly remind everyone how great they are. In fact, that's a strong sign of an empire in decline.

    1092. Re:Two words by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Not sure i agree. Pax americana has hardly been peaceful. Frankly i don't think the chinese are all that interested in world domination by military force, they're accomplishing much the same goal economically anyway. And the russians... they're like the middle east, get the world off oil and they're impotent.

      That would make Russia all the more dangerous, I think, and I worry that China's surge in economics is just "phase one".
      They want to be a super power in every sense of the word.
      Anyhoo, I wasn't making a strawman argument that you guys necessarily want the US to dry up and disappear (though I think some do), I just trying to illustrate the point that we're a placeholder of sorts. (Before us, it was Great Britain, and so on).
      Had it not been for 9-11, things would be very different today.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1093. Re:Two words by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      Obama is technically interracial.

      They have even more to worry about.

      They're not "white", so they're not accepted by "white" racist.
      They're not "black", so they're not accepted by "black" racist.

      This goes for anyone who lack a pure ethnic belonging. Intolerant, retarded people of that group will not accept anyone who is of another or mixed ethnic belonging.
      In the eyes of these kind of people, mixed belongings can even be worse, since this often is regarded as a kind of betrayal to their "people".

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    1094. Re:Two words by ChameleonDave · · Score: 0, Troll

      Saying that even good decisions can make people suffer doesn't mean "Siberia stuff is no longer evil".

      The last part was simply an example of a decision causing suffering, and still being good.

      It is so tiresome to have to explain this. It reminds me of why I now only tutor motivated private students instead of annoying brats who don't want to learn.

      The example of evil that Bheer gave was about people being sent to Siberia to die. I presume that he places it in the evil category due to the suffering caused (I did ask whether there was a more specific reason, and got no reply). I presume that you agree with him (I detect no disagreement).

      You then try to make excuses for terrible actions of US presidents by saying that good decision can cause great suffering. This is a tautology: by definition, a good decision cannot cause great suffering (decisions that seemed good at the time are covered under the topic of mistakes). If I pluck a splinter from my finger, then I have reduced my suffering, not increased it. In the same way, x + 2 - 4 gives me a number which is lower than x. It is meaningless to describe it as an increase. The reverse is also true: if I remove a splinter with a machete, then I have increased my suffering, in the same way that x + 4 - 2 gives me a number higher than x.

      Why, then, would you say "good, splinter-removing decisions sometimes cause suffering" when I object to machete-wielding presidents? It can only be that you think that x + 4 - 2 is an improved level of suffering, that you are being disingenuous, or that the + 4 made up of foreigners' blood just doesn't count for you.

      In answer to your disingenuous (or clueless) question about what I consider evil, I must direct you back to my very first post. I clearly stated that bringing suffering to millions of people is evil. A demand for greater precision than that can only be interpreted as a bigoted belief in the idea that it depends who those people are.

      If you want examples of suffering being caused, one only has to look at the rape of Iraq, which has claimed a million Iraqi lives, and done huge damage to the USA. The splinter removed is tiny in comparison, and put there by the US in the first place. McCain is an enthusiastic supporter of this adventure, and is fanatically opposed to negotiations that might prevent the same happening in Iran.

    1095. Re:Two words by brownsteve · · Score: 1
      "Faux News"

      There. Fixed that for you.

    1096. Re:Two words by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      This is Obama reading an excerpt from the very first sermon he heard Jeremiah Wright give, and the one he credits with bringing him to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. Directly from his book, "The Audacity of Hope" which is named after the very same sermon.

      That Jeremiah Wright racist is only a question if you redefine racism to an absurd extent. Maybe it would throw the quote into starker relief for you if it were a more familiar kind of racism. Imagine defending someone who claimed "Jew folks' greed runs a world in need" as not a racist. This is absurd on it's face.

      So is the claim that he is anything other than anti-American. Though I understand his anti-American views are not far outside the mainstream in this day and age, the discussion shouldn't be about whether he's racist or anti-American, but whether those are bad things. I submit that they are, and that America and even "white folks" have plenty to be proud of, especially today and in our recent history, when he was still giving these sermons.

      The man gives his "Audacity of Hope" sermon all the time. Sometimes he leaves in the white folks' greed line, sometimes not. This, to me, indicates that he knows well how inflammatory and, yes, racist that charge is.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    1097. Re:Two words by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      >> O'bama

      Ginger: You think you could Irish up this coffee for me?

      Ned: Oops, watch the swears, honey bear. We don't use the I-word in this house.

      Sweet like sugar; smooth like butta

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    1098. Re:Two words by JoshJ · · Score: 1

      I didn't say McCain, I said GOP. There was a ton of race-baiting coming from lower-down party members, and party hacks that call themselves "journalists".

    1099. Re:Two words by salemnic · · Score: 1

      Oh, I never said to do those - and you're right, they are very bad ideas. I was just saying that there are more than two options.

      However, the USA has been doing that for the last couple of years. Why do you think Bush stopped propping up the dollar?

    1100. Re:Two words by salemnic · · Score: 1

      I am quite uncomfortable with Embryonic stem cell research and the requirement to destroy a human embryo to get those stem cells, or to start a clone. That is not an invitation to start a debate on abortion, it's only a statement of my comfort.

      I have no issues with adult stem cell research, and was very happy when it was discovered that embryonic-like stem cells could be created from adult stem cells. I also have no issues with umbilical cord research.

      As far as what a stem cell ban accomplishes - it fits inside my beliefs and concerns. I don't think it should be allowed in Europe or Asia either.

    1101. Re:Two words by Veretax · · Score: 1

      His assertion was that McCain wanted to increase taxes on the poor to pay the rich, that's the point I was disagreeing with.

      However, I take exception to Obama saying he would cut taxes. He has had a few years in the senate, and not ONCE has he proposed any thing in the Senate. In fact twice in the last year he voted for a tax increase, one time it was on people earning 48K or more. So I will remain skeptical of this "tax cut" until I see action on it. I'm sure there are many still waiting on Bill Clinton's tax cut in 1992 as well.

    1102. Re:Two words by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Your opinion is totally valid, but I just want to point out that so far, the embryonic cells used were going to be destroyed anyway. They were leftovers from fertility clinics, which destroy extras as a side-effect of the implantation procedure. In fact, if too many fetuses survive, they have to abort some of them to increase viability of the others.

      Personally, I don't have a problem with this since NONE of those fetuses would exist without the procedure in the first place.

      But all that aside, stem cell research is only one example that I used, and probably not even a good one at that - since as you point out, there are legitimate ethical concerns.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1103. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it wasn't. You apparently can't read. He said "tax the poor to pay the rich." He didn't say "tax the poor more than we are now to pay the rich."

    1104. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome! Guess we don't need Affirmative Action anymore...

    1105. Re:Two words by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it exists either. If I were a racist, would I care what I said to the person doing the polling? Maybe if the person knew I was a democrat and suddenly couldn't vote for this one... but I don't know who does exit polling. Probably someone they've never met.

      Forget about the Bradley effect, what if a whole bunch of people just say "let's see what happens" and all give the opposite answer to the people polling them? You certainly aren't obligated to tell the truth in an exit poll.

    1106. Re:Two words by shanen · · Score: 1

      Please designateme as your foe. Too many morons to remember.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1107. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, The Onion claims to be a news *source*, which I've always thought was clever.

      I never caught that before-- they're not "reporting" anything, they're the original "source" of what they're publishing. Yet it sounds so legitimate. Clever, indeed.

      (Interesting how the guy defending Fox news also referred to Fox as a source, rather than an outlet.)

    1108. Re:Two words by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      You still think that, because the Democrats have more seats in congress, they'll be able to push whatever they want through, eh?

      Like I said, let the excuse-making begin! If Obama succeeds, you'll say it was because he had superior positions on the arguments. If he fails, you'll blame Republican obstructionism. It's heads-you-win, tails-I-lose. But that's OK. We're used to dealing with liberal double standards. It's the only way you guys can make sense to yourselves.

      And it's not crying over spilt milk. You guys wanted to run the country, fine. It's yours. Have at it. I expect a perfect worker's paradise in eight years. And while you're at it, pay for the gas to fill up my car and pay for my mortgage. Pay pay pay! Pay it all. Pay everything that I want because I think I deserve it. Steal it from someone who has more than me and give it to me! Mine mine mine! Gosh, it sure is fun being a liberal Democrat! I can live a responsibility-free, consequence-free, freeloading lifestyle, all on someone else's dime! Why didn't I switch parties sooner?

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    1109. Re:Two words by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      If you're a fiscal conservative in the 21st century, you vote Democrat. Sure you might get some entitlement programs you disagree with, but the Republicans are de facto worse.

      You don't make a statement about how bad a party was at their stated goals by voting for the party with stated goals that are the opposite of your own goals. Its completely illogical.

      Yeah, the Republicans are a bunch of fuck ups, but there are actually people in the party who believe that government should be *smaller*, not just *better run*.

      You're confused by the Democrats being better at paying for the crap that they keep adding to the government.

      I'm not saying that the Democrats are stupid, I'm just saying that I believe their policies going in the wrong direction. I believe that McCain would have done a much better job than Bush at the Republican party's stated objectives. If I didn't believe he was more capable, I don't know who I would have voted for, but I know I wouldn't have voted for a Democrat.

    1110. Re:Two words by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Talk is cheap. Actions are what matters.

      For 30 years, the Republicans have been the party of bigger government, bigger spending, more recklessness than the Democrats. Until they wake up and start nominating people who actually give a crap about real conservatism, the Democrats are the better bet.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    1111. Re:Two words by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      88% of blacks voted for Kerry in 2004. Kerry was, well, pretty darned white.

      Most blacks are Democrats.

      As for Hillary, she blew it because blacks favored her at first. Her performance among blacks steadily deteriorated as the primaries wore on.

      Mind you, I'm not arguing that there aren't racist blacks... there most certainly are. I'm just pointing out that the situation isn't as (ahem) black and white as you seem to indicate.

      Sorry for the late reply, by the way... just stumbled upon your comment in a random fashion :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1112. Re:Two words by jambox · · Score: 1

      Look at the state of Italy though - that's usually brought up when we debate PR in the UK. There are other examples. You can end up with such a deadlock that even sensible reforms are impossible to get through. That situation can last decades.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
  2. Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    2000 comments total.

    1. Re:Prediction by Spritzer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's one to add to your count. My biggest fear (even as a right-leaning centrist) is that some redneck is going to assassinate Obama. While I'd personally rather see Biden in office the ramifications of our first black President being assassinated would rip this country to shreds. I love my redneck neighbors, but I pray that they all have enough sense to wait 4 years and vote the idiot out.

    2. Re:Prediction by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate the Secret Service. These guys are elite-trained for the job.

      I personally hope they try while he's on TV. I'd love to watch Jethro get curb-stomped with his hood tied around his neck.

    3. Re:Prediction by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think most "Rednecks" are a lot smarter and better tempered than you give them credit for. Unfortunately, it only takes one loony to commit such an act, but then we shouldn't call him a Redneck. We would call him a "loony," "criminal," or "murderer."

    4. Re:Prediction by deniable · · Score: 1

      How many presidents have the Secret Service lost? They're good, but there's a lot of nut-jobs out there.

      Anybody remember the L.A. riots after the Rodney King affair. Obama getting shot would make that look like a tea party.

    5. Re:Prediction by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      How many presidents have the Secret Service lost?

      [foil hat mode] Accidentally, you mean? None. *taps nose* [/fhm]

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Prediction by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      How many presidents have the Secret Service lost? They're good, but there's a lot of nut-jobs out there.

      One. (The Secret Service did not do presidential protection prior to 1901.)

    7. Re:Prediction by deniable · · Score: 1

      OK, how about 'protectees' then? Do we count Bobby Kennedy? Reagan was a close call too. McKinley was obviously the catalyst and we still have three months to see if the Curse of Tippecanoe was truly beaten by Reagan.

      I guess my point is that the Secret Service aren't perfect and a determined assassin will get through.

      Then again, I'm an Australian and when we lose a Prime Minister, we do it properly.

    8. Re:Prediction by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      No one said they were perfect. But they're a damn sight better trained and probably far more determined than some white trash redneck klansman.

    9. Re:Prediction by deniable · · Score: 1

      Oh, absolutely. It's just that you seem to have an abundance of white trash redneck klansmen. I guess it will come down to quality versus quantity.

    10. Re:Prediction by Spritzer · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate the Secret Service. These guys are elite-trained for the job.

      Don't underestimate crazy people. The President is the hardest man in the world (excluding Bin Laden) to get to. However, what keeps the President truly safe is the average person's fear of reprisal for an assassination attempt. One crazy idiot who feels he/she has nothing to lose or that they have a responsibility to the world could pull it off. No one will ever getting away with a Presidential assassination (CIA excluded), but pulling one off is possible. Our troops in IRAQ are a highly trained bunch. Does that stop suicidal idiots from killing them and thousands of Iraqis? NO.

      Don't get me wrong. I would NEVER advocate such an act, but I fear that the likelihood of an attempt is high. The effects would stretch well beyond the inevitable race riots and would devastate this nation. Barack Obama may do everything in his power to ruin the US in the name of socialism, but nothing he could do would be as horrible as the effects of his assassination.

    11. Re:Prediction by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it. I live in Florida. =\

    12. Re:Prediction by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      2000 comments total.

      Your prediction is a little on the low side - 2550 and counting at the time I posted this!)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    13. Re:Prediction by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      WAY off now... 3614 comments, and it's probably not done yet.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  3. I'll Tell You What It Means by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It means the Democrats finally have a chance to screw everything up. By my count there are 56 D to 40 R in the Senate and 251 D to 173 R in the House. While there's still a few undecided yet, that's Democratic control of the Legislative and Executive Branches. Normally I like to see these things divided between the two parties so nobody gets too far away from lagom.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everything is already screwed up about as bad as it can get. There is some serious "left" listing that needs to happen to put us back on course.

    2. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by falcon5768 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First off, we haven't had a divided government since 06. And JUST because the Dems control the government doesn't mean its in any way a clean slate. Obama is not a normal Dem, he is a moderate in many ways (even though the Repugs tried to claim he was this super liberal which is more what his running mate is) And they are on notice. The Dems didnt get the magic 60, they WANT that filibuster proof margin and before they get it they have to cater to at least the fiscally conservative republicans to get them on their side. We dont have a Carter administration here, we have a whole different setup.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    3. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm just glad that it's finally time for the Dems to put up or shut up. Fix it or GTFO. No excuses now. The wild and unrestrained rhetoric from the left has been sickening, and I'm glad they finally get the chance to see that they won't do any better.

      Of course, it won't be portrayed that way. The press will never jump on Obama's every misspoken word, or call out every contradiction in his policy. No, I expect that the press will go right on supporting this guy through thick and thin because they're married to him now.

      Expect the same for the Slashdot community members who were so eager to get him elected. When they find out what they really bought, I don't expect them to admit they were wrong. I expect them to somehow blame Republicans anyway, or simply deny that anything is wrong to begin with.

      Unfortunately, the effects of a given policy aren't immediate, and they'll just manage to mess things up for the next president or Congress to take the blame.

    4. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well I guess it is there time...
      The republicans screwed it up back in 2004, when they got the majority. If the Democrats (and they probably will) screw it up this time around then it will probably go back to a more even split where the government can't do anything. Which is good because they can't do anything.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Cerberus7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wish I could mod that up, because that's exactly why I voted the way I did this election. I voted D straight down the list for the first time ever. No mix and match, no attempt at balance. Straight Democrat. I feel a little dirty, but it needed to be done, and for the first time since I've been able to vote, I actually have hope that maybe this time it will be different. I was well on my way to becoming disillusioned and apathetic, but this time I care, and I'm hopeful.

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    6. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theM_xl · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Dems may actually get 60. They're at 56 now and there's still 4 seats in the "too close to tell right now" territory.

    7. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Moryath · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Obama is not a normal Dem, he is a moderate in many ways

      Uhm... are you insane or just clueless?

      The Dems didnt get the magic 60, they WANT that filibuster proof margin and before they get it they have to cater to at least the fiscally conservative republicans to get them on their side.

      Actually, all the Dems need is a few RINOs (that's "Republican In Name Only") to break a filibuster on their pet issues and there are still plenty out there. For example, John McCain's Senate seat (which he didn't bother to resign) isn't up for reelection for another two years, so that counts as at least one RINO right there.

    8. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >> I like to see these things divided between the two parties so nobody gets too far away from lagom.

      That didn't stop the retardo "Patriot" Act after 9/11.

    9. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by falcon5768 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not insane or clueless, just dont read neo-con trash mags like Drudge, Fox News, and the National Journal. You hardly prove your point by posting links to known ultra-conservative sites. You could have posted a link to Stormfront for all that matters to try to prove your point.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    10. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by aliquis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lagom? lol, first time ever I've seen the word spread outside of Sweden :D

      It's finally happening! After hundreds of years borrowing english, latin, german and french words our time has come! If only we built some new castles to! (On that topic, how nice to know we are shutting down all our military really fast nowadays while the russians are mobilising (though probably not to invade us :D))

      Somewhat off-topic I know, but I can handle the negative moderation for spreading this awesome news about how we'll take over the world thru lagom!

    11. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Moryath · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm not "insane" or "clueless" and I read both sides of the issues.

      Obama is a leftist, bordering on marxist (in fact, if you had read his autobiography, you'd know he sought out marxist friends quite frequently).

      But since you can't be bothered to pay attention to facts, here's a few more places on his record:

      Votesmart
      Washington Post

      Also, you attack National Journal without ever bothering to pay attention to facts (in fact, I doubt you've ever read it). IF you'd bothered to even look it up, you'd find it's nothing like you portray it as.

    12. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by BOFslime · · Score: 1

      The world did not end in 2004 when the President, Senate, House, and Supreme court were all majorly held by the Republicans. Then again, there is that whole financial crisis thing...

    13. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Sique · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course, it won't be portrayed that way. The press will never jump on Obama's every misspoken word, or call out every contradiction in his policy. No, I expect that the press will go right on supporting this guy through thick and thin because they're married to him now.

      And that is different to the Bush presidency between 2001 and 2006 exactly how?

      I was hoping for a Bush win in 2004 for a simple reason: I wanted him to be president when the whole shit was stinking even up the noses of the big media. I wanted him to be president when it became clear to even the last and hardboiled conservative that President Bush was a failure. I wanted an actual reporting in the daily news how bad a president was in power.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    14. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Well I guess it is there time..."

      Where time?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    15. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few people are speculating that the Democrats may invoke the Republicans' "nuclear option" in the Senate to eliminate the filibuster. The aforementioned option does not require 60 votes to pass as it's merely a procedural change. (It's already happened once, to reduce the number of votes required for cloture -- i.e., ending a filibuster -- from 67 to 60.)

      Personally, I'm a McCain supporter and I hope the Democrats do get either a filibuster-proof majority or abolish filibusters entirely. I'm tired of being made into the villain: "Everything in this country would be so much better if people like you hadn't voted for a Republican!" Give them their two or four years of having absolutely no one to blame (except, possibly, themselves) for the world's ills. And we get to enjoy our two or four years of saying, every time something goes wrong, that things would be better if we were in charge.

      It's the way of things. And let's be honest here: things really just don't change all that much, and there's nothing this President and Congress can do that can't be undone by the next ones.

    16. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an atheist with christian friends. You gonna question my disbelief in God?

    17. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they have to cater to at least the fiscally conservative republicans

      Whyever do you think that the Democrats are in favour of fiscal conservatism? Remember all those big deficits in the Reagan years? Those budgets were passed by a Democratic controlled Congress who declared each of Reagan's proposed budgets "dead on arrival" before they proceeded to spend like drunken sailors.

      Most likely, since the Republicans have never been the monolithic bloc described by the Democrats (both Parties are pretty much the same as far as it goes - 80-90% vote with the Party, 10-20% vote against the Party when their own next reelection might be jeopardized by joining the Party), the Republican swing votes (average 3-5 per vote, a different 3-5 depending on subject, of course) will be enough to make the Senate filibuster-proof.

      Given, of course, that the Democrats can keep their own people in line.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    18. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      RINOs means any Republican that would rather vote logically than toe the party line. It's bullshit like that that tears everything and everyone down. Instead of whining (And yes, Republicans have done a TON of whining lately) why not actually encourage some rational, critical thought?

      Seriously, you act as if no Liberal could ever have a good idea.

      And if you honestly believe that then you have truly lost all capability of having a rational and sane thought process.

    19. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      It means the Democrats finally have a chance to screw everything up

      You sound as if the republicans didn't successfully use theirs...

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    20. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by CDogberry · · Score: 1

      Hey, all I know is that all of us welfare recepticles now have a voice in the White House. And what a voice we have... I'll let him speak for me and you better let him speak for you too, especially if you aggregate with what he's saying. Now, we just need to do something about all of those illegitimate guns out there and give them to the government so we can all be safe. Yeah, verily, the devine wind has come and it is Barak Osama.

    21. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by dosius · · Score: 1

      I know, eh? I'm not even a bleeding-heart liberal and my ballot was a straight line.

      'course I got in a fight with someone because he thought Obama was the devil himself, but eh. I vote as an American first, as a Christian second.

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    22. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "It's the way of things. And let's be honest here: things really just don't change all that much, and there's nothing this President and Congress can do that can't be undone by the next ones."

      I dunno...

      I've yet to see a government program truly get canceled. Once instantiated, they are like zombies, and you just can't seem to kill them off...they just keep coming back for more money.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but at least 3 of those four are leaning republican. I don't think they'll get the supermajority this time around.

    24. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think falcon got it right to be honest.

      Both of the non-partisan links you point to show a senator who generally either votes with his party or doesn't bother to vote. The National Journal's claim that Obama is the "most liberal senator" follows a great tradition of claiming that every Democratic nominee is the most liberal, and was widely ridiculed when it came out, even in the MSM which was largely in the tank for McCain last year.

      Obama doesn't have much of a voting record. His expressed viewpoints seem fairly moderate to me, certainly in line with most of the country. And your ridiculous claims about "having seeked out marxists and leftists" make you look like a kook.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    25. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by deniable · · Score: 1

      Didn't the Republicans have both Legislature and Executive then? Add to that the whole UnAmerican / Supports the Terrorists spin that any opposition to the party line was getting and I don't see how it couldn't have passed.

      But then again, I could be wrong. Someone will be along shortly to let me know.

    26. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One of those is in Oregon and it has been entertaining listening to the local talking heads calling it. Including the on the same broadcast, within minutes of each other, when the "LIVE!" reporters from the respective campaign headquarters each called in the favor of the party on which they were reporting. Good times!

      On a side note, <pinkyinmouth>$28 million dollars</pinkyinmouth> was spent on the Senatorial campaign here. The bulk of which was coming from out of state to try and avoid giving the Dems the 60 seats. Regardless of who wins, I can safely speak on behalf of all Oregonians when I say, "Thank God those ads are over!"

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    27. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Lagom, Schmagom... as long as you keep exporting your meatballs.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    28. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      It's the way of things. And let's be honest here: things really just don't change all that much, and there's nothing this President and Congress can do that can't be undone by the next ones.

      You are so wrong. While it would be easy to eliminate higher taxes on achievement, it would be nearly impossible to eliminate new entitlements and social programs. I sometimes happens but never in a really meaningful way.

      As far as getting rid of the Filibuster, it would be incredibly stupid and I don't think they would do it. Once it's gone, it's gone forever and there would be no mercy on them once they eventually loose control.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    29. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by kosty · · Score: 1

      Fix it or GTFO. No excuses now.

      Well, THIS comes as no surprise from a NeoCon fanboy. Sure. Let us get that for ya'. Can we pay your friggin' bar tab and bad bets too? We're all just pleased as punch to clean up this big friggin' disaster for you. And, of course, we expect 100% of the blame NOT ONLY for not managing to "fix it" but I'm sure you'll credit us with having "broken it" to begin with. But, hey, maybe I can look forward to the day when I can stop hearing "Clinton did it!" [only to hear "Obama did it" ad infinitum...]

      --
      "Democracy." It's just a slogan.
    30. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by altoz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      As bad as it can get? Really? Have you looked at some other countries around the world? If you think this is as bad as it can get, you're not paying attention to countries like Zimbabwe or Myanmar.

      Fact is, things can be A LOT more screwed up. Our hope should be at the very least that Obama doesn't make things any worse.

    31. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by ratdaddy1999 · · Score: 1

      It proves that the majority of americans are ignorant and cannot take care of them selves, so they support socialism, which means they want more govt control, the answer is not bigger govt, its less govt

    32. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh?! Redistribution of wealth is a Marxist ideal - where's the bias in that?

    33. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Well if President Obama did get a supermajority (60+ votes) in the Senate, otherwise the Democrats would be unstoppable, and we'd soon be as socialist as China. - Or maybe Australia (with a firewall, "breath test" to search for porn addicts, filtering of content, and so on).

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    34. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Pedrito · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As long as the senate can still filibuster, nothing too crazy will get through. If a party ever got 60 senators though, God help us!

      Normally, I might agree with you, but a lot of those Republicans are coming up for election in 2010, and most of them are actually smart enough to read the writing on the wall. Filibustering every issue will not bode well for their chances for re-election, and they know it. I think Obama is going to be able to get a lot more done than some people think.

    35. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      English is by far the master of adopting useful words from other languages. There are only about 5 words that are native to English. The rest came from somewhere else.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    36. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry - us Finns still shield you from the Russian bear.

    37. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Then you are a moron and in 4 years, I will still be laughing at you when you try to blame Bush for the problems the country still has.

      Only the most shallowest and partisan hack can look at the problems we are in and claim that the republicans are the reason. And for that, you will forever end up disillusioned and eventual apathetic. You have extremes in both parties that are just as bad as the other and you have mediocre people in the middle who are basically lapdogs for them. Get ready to pay out your ass for things you probably already have been complaining about like energy costs and so on. If Obama keeps any of his early campaign promises because you enabled them with your straight democrat BS, I suspect a lot of people will be buckling in no time just as they did when energy skyrocketed after the dems took congress in 2006.

      For some reason, people have been conditioned to blame congress's inaction on energy policy on Bush and completely forget that energy prices doubled after 2006 causing most of the strain that forced the banking collapse. Of course the most notable thing that happened there was the dems controlling congress and doing nothing about it.

    38. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I voted straight Republican, because I think they are unfairly being blamed (by folks like you) for the current mess, which properly lies on the head of ONE man (Bush). Also the Democrats were equally-complicit, since BOTH parties supported legislation that helped created the current crisis. And finally the Democrats held Congress for two years; did anything improve? Nope.

      So to place all the blame on the Republicans is foolish IMHO; the blame lies mostly on Bush, with a remainder being spread-evenly across both sides of the Congress. Both R's and D's acted poorly these last two decades.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    39. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you think the word Marxist there makes the grandparent statement biased indicates that you've probably never read the Manifesto of the Communist Party.

    40. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, considering most of the Republicans in Congress are Neo-Cons, it seems there are quite a few RINOs.

    41. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by bonehead · · Score: 1

      Oh, I have no doubt that things will be different now.

      I just don't think that it's going to be the type of different that everyone was hoping for.

      This is a sad, sad day for our country.

    42. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Danathar · · Score: 1

      As opposed to reading the NYTimes, Newsweek and watching MSNBC.

      You'd do best not to read those as well.

    43. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by mattMad · · Score: 1

      For everyone who - like me - does not live in a country where 'filibustering' is used in politics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

    44. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Dave+Tucker+Online · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. And as Boortz likes to say, the point where 50% of the county no longer pays income taxes will be a tipping point. (We are at about 43% right now.) At that point, there is no going back. You'll never get a majority of the people to agree to raise their own taxes. The majority will take more and more from the minority, and there will be nothing they can do but leave the country.

      Just watch. In the next 4 to 8 years, you will see the numbers of those who don't pay income taxes rise from 43% to 50%. At the point, this country is Democrat controlled forever. (Unless the communists can convince people that the

    45. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. I would call purposely ignoring relevant information in order to keep your beliefs as insane.

      Now, if there is something wrong with the methodology or facts or something, you would be right in not considering it. But you would also find sites discounting the information too. So basically, your doing the equivalent of suffering through an illness because you don't like the tone of the article printing the cure to that illness. Lets just hope the illness isn't fatal in your case.

    46. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that we don't really know what Obama thinks. He's avoided most of the tough issues and done his best to not take any firm stances on anything. Frontline had a show on the other night about Obama and McCain. They had Obama's own strategist who said that not taking a stance on anything was their actual strategy. That way he would never have to defend it later. It allowed him to enter into a campaign with near zero baggage. They bet right that experience and really knowing where someone stood on an issue wouldn't matter as long as you talked about change and vague promises of giving stuff to people.

      The best I can hope for is that Obama does what he did while running the law review - get the best people to do the job and not just those who agree with his ideology.

    47. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you even used the word "Marxist" there means you're way more biased than you probably realize.

      The fact that you would bother to type this out means that you don't know what the word "Marxist" means. Words have actual definitions. Applying the correct word to describe a political philosophy is not bias, it is simply accurate labelling. Calling them "Progressive" would reveal bias, as this is a nonsensical marketing term invented to disguise the true philosophy described by the terms Marxist, Socialist, Communist, etc. This from a capital "L" Liberal. And you socialists can get off my Liberal lawn! You are bringing the property values down.

    48. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Yes Bush was lousy.

      It's a shame more people don't realize how equally-lousy Clinton was. He's responsible for a whole mess of things, like the dot-com crash of 2000, the failure to increase U.S. border security to prevent 9/11, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that brought-down multiple banks.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    49. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there have been plenty of "left" listing going on for the past 16 years. The Republicans in charge did not run a Conservative Republican government. Taxes were not reduced, spending was not reduced, getting the government out of everyones lives was not effected.

    50. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by fodder69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you don't think deregulation (a republican rallying cry) had anything to do with energy prices going up? Or deregulation of the financial sector? Or deregulation of the mortgage market? Or that Bush's energy policy (yes the president does have SOME influence) emphasizing rewarding campaign contributors over alternative sources had anything to do with it?

      I guess it all just "happened" and no one had any influence on it.

    51. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by michrech · · Score: 1

      I don't think it will happen, but even if it did, you've got to believe Leiberman (I think that's the right guy) will either switch on his own, or be kicked out of the party once the new congress comes into session.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    52. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by KeithJM · · Score: 1

      And what ever happened to your bikini team?

    53. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

      First off, we haven't had a divided government since 06.

      How is a Republican president and a Democratic congress not a divided government?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    54. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Cerberus7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Thank you for your thoughtful, and non-insulting reply. I agree that the blame mostly lies with Bush, but McCain's campaign clearly illustrated to me that the neocons who brought us Bush were still in charge of the Republican party. Until those idiots are no longer running that party, I will not vote for them. That sucks for the good Republicans, but they've got a lot of cleaning up to do. I wish them well.

      I have hope that McCain will leave that crowd behind and do some good for what remains of his political career. His concession speech was nothing short of beautiful. His audience's reaction was atrocious, but I don't fault McCain for that.

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    55. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by rfunches · · Score: 1

      "may actually get 60" == must run the table, and in some cases force and win a December runoff. That's a lot of cards that have to fall the Dems' way. They made an impressive push this year, but I don't see them pulling off the ultimate upset.

    56. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Here is some home work for you.. Look up the term Con artist and then read a few short stories (of your choice) regarding them.

      I'm not saying that Obama is a con artist, but I think something is happening for so many people to have so many opinions over his viewpoints. I know people who claimed they were voting for him because of his liberal views, I them who did the same because he is moderate, I know people who claimed he was a conservative and more so then McCain. Anyways, you don't get people supporting him across the board with such different impressions of his viewpoints unless those viewpoints have been shrouded a little.

      It's too much like he is everything to everybody even when those positions conflict with each other. It's like Obama's claim on coal at the beginning of the year where he says the coal industry will go bankrupt trying to build new power plants and then later during the campaign trail where he corrects Biden on Clean coal and eventually sided with McCain claiming that clean coal is vital to the nation's future. It's hard to say what his real position is or will be. It will be just as hard trying to determine his viewpoints on Nuclear power, offshore drilling, solar, wind, tidal, hydrogen and so on.

    57. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by KovaaK · · Score: 1

      Whyever do you think that the Democrats are in favour of fiscal conservatism?

      Mainly because I (and presumably the parent) have seen a number of graphs that look like this.

    58. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by geeper · · Score: 0

      I disagree about Bush. I don't think he could find his way out of a paper bag. He's only a puppet of the party. I do think both parties are to blame though.

      --
      Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
    59. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by garglblaster · · Score: 1

      'lagom' is just one of the best words to be found in other languages! it's in the list of my all-time favourites. no I'm not swedish.

      --

      perl -e 'printf("%x!\n",49153)'

    60. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Sique · · Score: 1

      It is probably a thing of contrast: Compared with the Bush before him and the Bush after him, 1992-2000 was a good time for the U.S.

      As they say: Between blinds, the one-eyed is king.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    61. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by OzoneLad · · Score: 1

      When they find out what they really bought, I don't expect them to admit they were wrong. I expect them to somehow blame Republicans anyway, or simply deny that anything is wrong to begin with

      Gee, sounds a lot like what the Republican supporters have been doing for the last 8 years: refusing to see the problems and blaming any that can't be avoided on the Clinton administration.

    62. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      Carter wasn't bad - he inherited an oil crisis that would have crushed even Ronald Raygun.

      If we had listened to Jimmy Carter we would be driving vehicles with 35mpg as a bare minimum by now. We had trucks back then that hit 35mpg. Heck, had we listened to Jimmy Carter, we might not even depend on oil right now.

      Don't forget how Carter was succeeded by a guy who drove us SIX TRILLION DOLLARS into debt...

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    63. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Mr3vil · · Score: 1

      And a 700B bailout for banks that were too preoccupied with their Scrooge McDuck fantasies to exercise some sound judgement in how much mortgage subprime borrowers were getting approved for isn't socialism......Just saying. And before you reiterate the Rush Limbaugh rhetoric pinning all of this on Clinton. While yes, there was a mandate from Washington to increase home-ownership especially among lower income people. They weren't mandating the banks write a $300,000 mortgage to people that couldn't even afford $150,000. They also weren't mandating the banks write real-estate speculators no money down mortgages on properties they weren't even going to live in. I'd get into the borrowers inability to realize what ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE means, but I've taken up enough space. But not every group's hands are clean in all this.

    64. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, in advance.

    65. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by assert(0) · · Score: 0
      --
      (founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera)
    66. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm not "insane" or "clueless" and I read both sides of the issues.

      That's your first mistake. There are more than two sides. Stay away from the right wing-nuts and the left wing-nuts. I agree that the National Journal is not a nutty rag, though.

      Notice that you are comparing him to other Senators, which on the whole tend to be pretty centrist compared with the House.

      But mainly, the problem is with the word "liberal". To some, it means a tax-and-spend type with no fiscal self-control. To others, it means a rainbow pride parade in the Castro. Some see a red commie. Others see it as a compassionate position, despite the negative connotation it has taken on in recent years. Well, Obama certainly isn't the gay rights champion. He isn't a bitter partisan like Pelosi. He certainly isn't a socialist in the European sense.

      So what exactly does it mean to say that he has ranged from the "most liberal" to the "16th most liberal" in the Senate since he was elected? What would you label me - a fiscal conservative, civil libertarian, and social liberal? Am I a conservaliberalterian?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    67. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by aikodude · · Score: 1

      one of the best and quickest ways to judge a man's character is to hand him a blank check and see what he does with it. that's what full control of the executive and (a filibuster/veto proof) legislative branch would bring.

      personally, i'd hate to be tempted like that as i'd probably fail miserably.

      pax, aikodude

    68. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      No, a RINO is a "republican" who does not vote as a true Conservative. Fiscal Conservatism, Social Conservatism, limited government.

      Any Repub who raises taxes for social programs? RINO.

      Any repub who votes for morality-based legislation? RINO.

      Voting for more government power? RINO.

      Get the picture?

    69. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Do be sure to read the DailyKoS or Huffington Post in abundance, though.

    70. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      Which was put in motion during the Clinton years to prop up a failing housing market...

      I know, I know...no-one here can see beyond the last 30 seconds. It's OK, though. The "Bail-Out" included new legislation that will very likely lead to the very same issues 10-15 years down the road.

      If you missed it last time, you'll get a replay.

    71. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Tenek · · Score: 1

      ... not taking a stance on anything was their actual strategy. That way he would never have to defend it later.

      And the voters have vindicated it. Expect more of this in 2012 and beyond.

    72. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I like how you stopped Bush's reign in 2006. Is that because the dems took congress? The underlying factors that caused the economy to collapse was energy costs and that didn't double until after the dems took office in 2006.

      People don't understand how energy costs effect things. Lets take gasoline for instance. Suppose a family has two cars that average 20 MPG. Now lets suppose that both parents work and they drive 20 miles one way to get there. That is just about anyone living in the suburbs or quite a few people in cities close to large cities. Now, just to get to and from work with Idea conditions, that family is going to be driving 40 miles round trip each or 80 miles total. This comes to 4 gallons of gas per day. Take that 4 gallons, multiply is by 5 days a week and your looking at 20 gallons just to get to work. In 2005, gas prices were between $2.00 and $2.40 per gallon. That means that family would spend about $40-$48 dollar a week just to get to and from work before trips to the store, taking kids to the day care or soccer or whatever. Now here comes $4.00 per gallon gas. In some areas it was a little more but lets stay with $4, That amount being spent a week goes from $40 to around $80. Doesn't sound like much does it? Now consider that on a monthly basis, $160 at 4 weeks per month to $320 in the same times span. Now, consider how much gas it takes to visit the relatives, to buy groceries (which went up around 35% in price because of the energy costs of getting them to you,), taking care of the kids and all the other stuff that regular families do. Now you can stretch that extra $160 per month into $200 or $250 or more.

      So think about that. Then consider that you have all these people who could barely afford their mortgage because of predatory lending, sub prime loans, CRA, or whatever. Now take an easy $200+ a month out of their budget that they pretty much can't cut or change their behavior over.

      Anyways, I'm barking too far off what you said. But the problems we saw were enabled under a democrat congress. People were complaining but not losing their homes and having the financial demorats they had or on the scale it was seen until the democrats took over in 2006.

    73. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      neo-con [...] ultra-conservative

      Get your terminology straight. You can't even invoke Godwin's law properly.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    74. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's what I did too. I'm very disappointed in McCain.

      They've been saying this election really matters, that this time there is a huge difference between the 2 choices. I grant the difference. What I don't grant is that there were 2 good choices.

      "If you're not a democrat when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a republican when you're old, you have no brain." -- Churchill. That's not true anymore. The Republicans gave up on the brains. W. is a dummy. The Republicans should have gone back to core philosophical differences, and McCain could have but he did not and that's why I'm so disappointed in him. They were the party of fiscal prudence, of standing on your own feet and not being a welfare deadbeat, of standing up to enemies and not wimping out, of eliminating bureaucratic red tape and heavy handed, clumsy government interference and intervention. Whether these are the best approaches has always been debatable, and that's what the Republicans and McCain should have stood for.

      Instead, the Republicans continued standing for things that are not debatable because we know those things are wrong. Intelligent Design? Come on! The fundamentals of our economy are sound and we need more deregulation and more tax cuts for the wealthy, even as the market was collapsing thanks to all the lying in the absence of policing having finally strained things to the point that it couldn't be sustained anymore? Any city could save a pile of money up front if they dismissed their entire police force, and let citizens police themselves. But cities know better than that. A pity the Republicans couldn't grasp that this applies to markets too. Next, it doesn't matter what caused Global Warming?? Answering the question of whether the vice-presidency is part of the executive branch is pointless??? Stupid, stupid, stupid! Now, Republicans, as you sojourn in the wilderness, and may it last 40 years if need be, see if you can learn something. Don't bother trying to come back until you find some brains.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    75. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the senate can still filibuster, nothing too crazy will get through. If a party ever got 60 senators though, God help us!

      So agree. I dont think anything craz by Obama will get through because even the Dems in the Senate have a brain.

    76. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Mainly because I (and presumably the parent) have seen a number of graphs that look like this

      Ahh, because you're ignorant! I hadn't realized you didn't know that budgets were voted by the Congress, and originated in the House. Note that, as a single example, during the Reagan years, the House had a solid Democratic majority.

      Hate to burst your bubbles, but the House has more to do with the budget than the President ever will. As Obama will be finding out next summer, to his dismay. All the President can do is ask nicely (and, frequently, be told, as Reagan was, that his budget was "dead on arrival").

      Note further that that graph was not corrected for inflation. Which tends to increase the apparent size of deficits today, and discount older ones.

      Note that this is not meant to imply that Republicans are necessarily fiscally conservative. Many of them aren't. But there isn't much evidence that Democrats are fiscally conservative as a rule, either. Pay especial attention to the budget debates in the House if you want to find out how "fiscally conservative" anyone is - it won't be pretty.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    77. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I like that word... now I just need to get on a computer with speakers so I'll know how to pronounce it correctly.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    78. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by nog_lorp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Go on, I'm riveted.

    79. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      Censorship tends to be more popular with the neoconservatives than the Democrats. As far a socialism goes, that talking point will never come true. Hell, even flat out first generation socialism would be better than Bushism.

    80. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 1

      McCain is more Democrat than Republican. I've often wondered why he didn't switch parties, and he's certainly no puppet of the neocons. Which is why I voted for him; he's a uniter not a divider.

      Don't be surprised if, in three years, you hear people saying, "McCain voted with President Obama 90% of the time." McCain likes to ride the middle of the aisle & work with the opposite party to get things done. I don't know if the same can be said of President Obama.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    81. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Atheose · · Score: 1

      Actually news just broke of Al Franken losing in Minnesota, so the Republicans have 41 now. No supermajority this year.

    82. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      The 'Patriot Act' was actually pretty tame compared to Bush's repeated wiretapping felonies.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    83. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Daswolfen · · Score: 1

      Point being, tax breaks do not redistribute wealth. Obama is not taking money from the Rich and giving it to the poor, he is simply taking more from the rich and *keeping it* for running the government. Saying that is marxist clearly shows you have a very poor understanding about what both Marx and Obama support.

      No, Sir. You fail at understanding Obama's plan. He is going to take more money from those making 250K a year (or 200k, or 150K or 120K, depending on the day). He claims that 95% of the people will get a tax break. But the dot people like you fail to connect is that 40% of those 95%, don't pay any taxes in the first place. Since he has said it is a rebate, that means if you don't pay taxes, you will get a check every year. That is redistribution of wealth, a cornerstone of the Marxist Ideal.

      Now.. lets look at his health care. Giving everyone else health care that can not 'afford' it is another form of wealth redistribution. He is taking more of those taxes and paying for those who he just gave the rebate checks to. And where do you think the money will come from? Oh.. out of the pocket of those of us who pay for our insurance, so the tax bracket who Obama says will pay more taxes will not be 250k or even 150k. It will be those all the way down to 40k-50k. People like me.

      So do /. a favor and get a clue.

      --
      Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
    84. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like the Spanish-American War Tax that was applied to telephones in the 1890s. That tax continued sucking money for one hundred years until it was finally stopped.

      When Congress passes laws, they should include a 25-year-sunset (the span of one generation), so the laws don't live forever. Same should apply to State laws.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    85. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the truth. Anything that will go wrong after Jan. ( and we all know there will be) it will be blamed on the previous administration. Now we all get to watch if this change really happens or we go back to TAX and SPEND era that we left a little over 8 years ago. Sometimes change is not a good thing. I really doubt much will because he has alot of former Clinton era advisors around him.

      For the people outside of the US. The voters of this country could really give two dumps in the toilet what you think. The US is the best country in the world to live in. Always has been. Will it be in the next 4 years only time will tell. If it means less handouts to foreign countries then I am all for it. It is time to take care of our own and lets all hope Obama sticks to that promise most of all.

    86. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      And have you? As someone who has, I can tell you redistribution of wealth is not Marxist. Ending Capitalism is the goal - and these things are not the same. Read Das Kapital to see the difference.

    87. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      You sir, are the wisest poster on Slashdot today.

      --
      -- $G
    88. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Offhand, Project Blue Book?

    89. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um no...it could get much much worse. We aren't even close to the bottom.

      I did not vote for Obama but he won and I hope the Demoncrats don't screw it up and us along with it.

    90. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Kool+Moe · · Score: 1

      Largely, that was a Bunch of Crap.
      Agreed, Dems now have the opportunity to fix things. I sure hope they do. I'm skeptical considering the lack of progress over the last two years.

      The press, however, will report a story if it means viewership. They're not 'married' to anyone...they are possibly the LEAST loyal of any group.

      Bush was loved after 9/11 and had a free pass for YEARS on his mismanagement. The press finally caught on that this would make a good story...let the 'bashing' begin.

      Obama will have no sort of free pass...and considering the expectations, I expect exactly the opposite.

      What will be interesting is how the Daily Show handles the evolution!
      KM

      --
      Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
    91. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by pcfixup4ua · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't place the blame just on Bush. If it weren't for the fundamentalist Christian, White Supremacist types that are common in the south and midwest, Neither Bush would have ever been president. The white aristocracy that has run this country for most of its history has kept its power by manipulating lower class whites with fear either of communism or homosexuals or Islam.

    92. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Put up or shut up"? I'm guessing you were not born yet when Clinton was paying down the debt.

      As for the rest of the endlessly repeated Republican rhetoric your post contains.... It has never been true and it doesn't matter how many time it is parroted it doesn't become true through repetition.

      The "liberal" media has been stupidly friendly to Bush. Seriously whit what he has done the Liberal media has done enough damage control for the man there there is not rioting in the streets. Now compare to how the Liberal media treated Clinton and a blue dress. The Liberal media is just as liberal as their conservative owners.

    93. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by HiVizDiver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a little disheartening how angry the ultra right-wing is about all this. They couldn't be more pissed about what happened last night, and a lot of them showed their true colors last night when they booed at Senator McCain's gracious speech, where he (along with Obama in his) tried to heal the divide in this country. That is the ONLY way we will successfully move forward.

      The fact that 8 years of a Republican powerhouse has led us to where we are is apparent to everyone but the hardcore right, and so they take their aggression out on the people who have been clamoring for change. The "wild and unrestrained rhetoric from the left", I can assure you, was the only way to balance the wild and unrestrained spending and bombing from the right. The Republican party, as it stands today, can no longer use the mantra of "fiscal conservatives". Modern Republicans don't even seem to understand their own party's basic foundations anymore.

      While I hope that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike can come together to try and solve the problems of our great nation, I fear that as the last few cards in the old house fall, the few of the old guard left are going to be more interested in pointing fingers and trying to shift blame, so sure they were right all along.

      Is Barack Obama the messiah? No, that's ridiculous. Is he going to solve every problem? No, and I said that months ago, before I even decided to vote for him. I don't see how anyone, even with a Congressional and Senatorial majority (and we've seen how those presidencies go) can fix all these issues. Some of them, including the 1 TRILLION dollar debt, are going to take generations to fix. So sadly, I do believe that there is little hope that in terms of effectiveness, Barack Obama will be seen as anything more than mediocre, at best. In this day and age of people needing instant gratification, when the economic crisis isn't solve in a month or a year or one term, he'll be tarred and feathered, the right will crow triumphantly and say "See! We told you so!", the left will go back to worrying, wringing their hands, and running around like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off, and once again, ordinary tax-paying citizens (I'm not talking about you, Joe the Plumber, you just keep taking your family handouts and not paying your taxes) will get stuck with the check.

    94. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great attitude man.

      So the republicans get to do whatever they want and to ruin everything, which is pretty easy.

      Then out of frustration, democrats win the election and now damn better put everything right what the republicans f'ed up.

      But hey, who said it would be a fair fight ?

    95. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by pcolaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are a lot of sore losers in the Republican camp at the moment, but can you blame them? The same would've happened on the Obama side had McCain won. I think one of the most important things that Obama can and should do first is to try and bring the nation back together. The partisanship in this country has created a vicious divide between Liberals and Conservatives.

    96. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Daswolfen · · Score: 1

      On that topic, how nice to know we are shutting down all our military really fast nowadays while the russians are mobilising(though probably not to invade us :D))

      I guess you missed the part where there is a nuclear Russian fleet parked down in Venezuela. Red Dawn anyone?

      --
      Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
    97. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by pcfixup4ua · · Score: 0

      The Republican Party needs to purge itself of the southern/midwestern white supremacist/fundamentalist Christian portion. This election is the greatest mandate since 1932. The "second great depression" combined with the failure of the "great fundamentalist Christan crusade" in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with the exposures of hypocrisy (Foley, Craig, Haggard et. al.) This is the beginning of the end of :

      * Foreign Policy soley based on White American Interests.
      * Opposition to Abortion/Gay Rights
      * Unconditional support for Israel
      * Cutting off of public education funding /school choice

    98. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Informative

      Barack Obama's stance on just about everything. I hear this argument a lot that he's just saying "change" without any concrete ideas for how to do so, but it's simply incorrect. The campaign's series of YouTube videos starting with "Blueprint for Change" also details what he'll actually do as president: You can watch the Obama campaign's videos here.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    99. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by kwendakabisaa · · Score: 1

      Look guys no need to fret about what he will do or what the republicans should have done. This presidential campaign was looong! Here in Kenya Thursday has been declared a public holiday...like Obama is our president...and in one city beer was sold out by midday today. I for one will just enjoy the moment as long as it lasts!

    100. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      The best I can hope for is that Obama does what he did while running the law review - get the best people to do the job and not just those who agree with his ideology.

      This is my hope as well.

      If his campaign is any indication, then things will, at least, go smoothly. There wasn't any back stabbing, 'rogue' behavior, or massively underhanded tactics by the campaign. It is, I'm really hoping, a return to meritocracy, a return to competence. There seems to be (IMHO) way too much emphasis by the Republicans on brain-dead "loyalty" over a simple ability to get the day-to-day work done. Combined with a sheer anti-intellectualism by much of the right-wing base, it's just scary.

      It seemed to me that on the campaign trail Obama was level-headed, thoughtful, and restrained. Here's hoping that his presidency is the same.

      All hail simple competence!

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    101. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 1

      1. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) wins reelection, despite his bribery convictions.
      2. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) cannot carry out the duties of his office, due to his bribery conviction.
      3. A new election is held in Alaska in February 2009.
      4. Gov. Sarah Palin (who still has Alaska approval ratings in the 60-70% range) wins in a landslide.
      5. Sen. Sarah Palin (R-AK) can be as outspoken and partisan as she wants, since Senators in the minority party have a lot more power than Representatives in the minority party.
      6. Sen. Sarah Palin runs against President Barack Obama in 2012.
      7. ???
      8. Profit!

      --
      The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    102. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, but, I thought Republicans hated the filibuster? Don't tell me they've changed their minds on that?!

    103. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha yes very funny. That vast scary liberal media will protect Obama.

      Bullshit.

      Obama wasn't criticized because he didn't say stupid shit. Bush was a joke at the beginning. He couldn't speak and didn't know much about the world and was rightly ridiculed for it (and he got better during his terms). Obama doesn't mess up and doesn't get criticized for it, that's not surprising or indicative of any media bias.

      Of course, things aren't going to get magically better overnight. The US is sliding down a steep slope, and they're going to keep sliding for a while (probably at least a year). But at least someone is trying to stop the slide instead of continuing on with the policies that got them there.

    104. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      Didn't I see you on Digg? Sounds like the same clueless trash.

    105. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything is already screwed up about as bad as it can get. There is some serious "left" listing that needs to happen to put us back on course.

      This is not "left listing". Obama has started out a Socialist, and remains that way to this day. America did vote for change and has come a long way from it's core set of values. The population was blinded by race, which is never anything to vote for or against, and now we have 4 years of "The Peoples Republic of America"

      Never before have I been ashamed to be a US citizen or a patriot. I was proud of what my country stood for and what historically we have done. Now I am ashamed to be a citizen, I'm not proud that we elected a president who's values are the diametric opposite of what this country was founded on.

    106. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think that will do? They were given control of the Hill last time around and did nothing.

    107. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, bitter much??

    108. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by jambox · · Score: 1

      When they find out what they really bought, I don't expect them to admit they were wrong.

      Listen, if he turns out to be as bad as Dubya, I'll not only eat my hat I'll even eat a pair of Dodgy Dick Cheney's dirty socks.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    109. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So by that logic wouldn't that mean that any problems the Dems have during this term will be the result of Bush's policies? If the effects aren't immediate?

    110. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by BearRanger · · Score: 1

      Correction. We've had divided government since '07. The election was in '06, but Congress wasn't seated until '07. As a percentage of time of the Bush administration it was actually quite short.

    111. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The press will never jump on Obama's every misspoken word

      You might want to try this station called "Fox News". I gather they cater for people of your viewpoint.

    112. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Expect the same for the Slashdot community members who were so eager to get him elected. When they find out what they really bought, I don't expect them to admit they were wrong. I expect them to somehow blame Republicans anyway, or simply deny that anything is wrong to begin with.

      You mean like the Republicans who claimed that 9/11 was actually Clinton's fault despite happening nine months into W's term, or the Republicans who claimed that the Clinton era economy was due to Bush, Sr., or the Republicans who blamed the failure to succeed in Iraq on the liberal mainstream media?

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    113. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by filterban · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't look now, but you are officially an author of the most concise and rational explanation of why the Republican party is in shambles.

      The crazy thing is that McCain and Palin's "maverick" reputations still weren't enough to quell the insanity of the clowns that are in charge of that party. McCain's concession speech was indeed a beautiful thing, and you could see the "real" John McCain, freed from the irrational fear-mongering that the Republican party has been flinging at us for the past eight years.

      --
      rm -rf /
    114. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just glad that it's finally time for the Dems to put up or shut up. Fix it or GTFO. No excuses now. The wild and unrestrained rhetoric from the left has been sickening, and I'm glad they finally get the chance to see that they won't do any better.

      If they could just avoid pointless wars they would do WAY better than the Bush administration. Unfortunately we are currently in the middle of a difficult occupation that resulted from a pointless war. The Dems inherited the mess the Bush administration made, now lets see if they can clean it up.

      I think it will be hard to do worse than the Bush admin. We'll see. We know what would happen if we had 4 more years of Republican administration -- it would only get worse.

    115. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      I'm just glad that it's finally time for the Dems to put up or shut up. Fix it or GTFO.

      Thanks for fucking things up in the first place. Now get out of the way.

    116. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lost, get over it.

    117. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is Bush didn't do it alone. Most Republicans strongly supported Bush and his agenda for most of the last eight years. One exception was John McCain. He was willing to stand up to Bush up until this year (for example: opposing torture, questioning tax cuts for the rich, calling attention to the fact that we were losing the war in Iraq). As a moderate Democrat, I would have voted for that John McCain.

      During the primaries McCain took several turns to support Bush. That helped him get the support of the Republican base, but I think it cost him the general election.

      McCain failed to communicate how his administration would be different from Bush's, so most people who blame Bush for messing up the country voted against him.

    118. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Flying+Scotsman · · Score: 1

      The local news outlets are reporting that the margin of victory for the Republican candidate (Norm Coleman) is so narrow (a few hundred votes, I believe) that a recount is required by law. It might be some time before we figure out who our senator will be.

    119. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in your argument you bash the potential of the Dem's to fix anything, than go on to say if they mess up we wont see it until the next president or congress? I think there may be a flaw in your reasoning. At the end of the day I agree with you Dem-Rep same party same game different name. Nothing too big will change. It can't our economy is being held hostage by the large corporations and the government is unable to stop it. (Bailout anyone?)

    120. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      And all it takes is one vote for someone to get labeled a RINO regardless of the merit of the vote.

      Get the picture?

    121. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      That didnt happen till 06. For 6 years prior we had a republican president and congress

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    122. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by zehaeva · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why we are all worried about this whole socialist charge. We as a nation have been implementing socialist changes very steadily. My taxes, and everyone else's pay for medicare and medicaid and social security and welfare and foodstamps, etc. etc. etc. There are people out there that abuse the system just to get the state to pay their way. We honestly don't have far to go before this is a socialist nation, hell we maybe already. We certainly are not a nation where everyone just takes personal responsibility for them selves. Granted a lot of people do, but so too do a lot of people think, "The government will help me out". This nation ran for more than a century with out income taxes, with out social security, with out medicare, with out any of this.

      Do we need it now? I have no idea personally. Maybe we do. France, the UK, Canada and many other nations do well with socialized health care. Maybe there is something to it all. Who knows?

      I'm all for getting rid of all of our welfare programs, getting rid of SS and the rest of it. I should say that I'm young enough that I will never see SS pay me a dime. I make enough money that I do not qualify for any assistance programs. So really getting rid of all of that would be doing me a favor, I'd have more money by the end of every year. I'd be able to afford my own health care then and provide for my own retirement too. It's kinda hard to do so for myself and my family as well as doling out a chunk to everyone else out there too.

      ~z

    123. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      The problem with comparing previous cars to current is the fact that safety and environmental systems are what really drove down the MPG on newer cars. They where heavier and because of that required more powerful engines that tend to be less efficient.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    124. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      And in the meantime, we get to listen to the right talking their wild and unrestrained rhetoric.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    125. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't remember lots of Republicans admitting that they were wrong for electing Bush TWO times. Do you?

    126. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by zehaeva · · Score: 1

      tbh I hope the media treats him just the same as bush for messing up and examine him like they did with clinton as well. It'd be fun to watch Olbermann going "WTH is wrong with you?!" Though, I dont hold out a great hope for seeing that.

    127. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      I voted straight Republican, because I think they are unfairly being blamed (by folks like you) for the current mess, which properly lies on the head of ONE man (Bush).

      The problem with your argument is that it just doesn't hold water. Bush was not a lone "cowboy" enforcing his will on the US. The fact is that he dictated policy to the Republican controlled congress and they just wrote whatever crazy idea he had into law, which he would then sign. It's truly bizarre for you to go ahead and blame all of the problems of our country on one man, Bush, when he had to have the complete cooperation of the House and Senate to even write all of the crazy laws that were passed in the last 8 years.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    128. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Expect the same for the Slashdot community members who were so eager to get him elected. When they find out what they really bought, I don't expect them to admit they were wrong. I expect them to somehow blame Republicans anyway, or simply deny that anything is wrong to begin with.

      I can say that I didn't vote this nut into office. My family voted against him. Of course, we really didn't like any of our options.

      I'm starting to wish some one would make a script that would pick a random place within the US and the nearest person to that spot gets selected. You could fill most elected offices that way. Give them 3 months in office and then let us vote to kick them out or keep them for the rest of the year, and randomly pick some one else if they happen to loose the vote. It couldn't be worse than what we've currently got.

    129. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by illumin8 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is that we don't really know what Obama thinks. He's avoided most of the tough issues and done his best to not take any firm stances on anything.

      I don't think that's accurate at all. Obama has had clear and easy to read information on his website for months now stating his policy on the Iraq war, the Economy, Healthcare, and other major issues. He came right out and had the most no-nonsense tax policy ever, and he clearly beat McCain on taxes.

      At least with Obama, he was up front and said "if you make more than $250,000 you might see a tax increase." McCain doesn't even tell you that the $5,000 tax credit you get back for medical insurance probably won't cover the average family of 4's insurance premiums, costing the middle class more. McCain hid a middle class tax hike by not being truthful with the American people. Obama was up front that we'd all have to make sacrifices, and you know what? It paid off. Obama got a higher percentage of the voters that even make $200,000 or more! It goes to show that even affluent, educated Americans in the higher tax brackets don't mind making a few sacrifices instead of borrowing against our children's future.

      As soon as the Republicans move away from the slash-and-burn, anything for a quick buck, overspend and hope our kids will bail us out economic policies of the neocons, then they can finally start rebuilding their party.

      Where are all the so-called "conservative" Republicans, and what did the religious wackos and crazy spending neocons do with them?

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    130. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Not insane or clueless, just dont read neo-con trash mags like Drudge, Fox News, and the National Journal. You hardly prove your point by posting links to known ultra-conservative sites. You could have posted a link to Stormfront for all that matters to try to prove your point.

      You mean slashdot, wired, gizmodo, and fark aren't ultra-neocon? Damn, I'm going to have to change my bookmarks. Well, at least I get to keep my webcomics like http://edgeknight.comicgenesis.com/

    131. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      It's pretty funny, really. Leftists think that the media has a conservative bias. Rightists think that the media has a liberal bias. Must mean they're doing a pretty good job of telling the truth! Everybody hates the boy who says the emperor has no clothes, after all. I'm no fan of the media but the fact that they're hated by fanatics on both sides is a very good thing.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    132. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      Japanese is good at it too, they even take it one step further and adopt/add on other alphabets.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    133. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Had the John McCain running for President this year been the John McCain that existed 2 years ago, the John McCain that we saw a glimmer of in his concession speech last night, I might have seriously considered voting for him. Instead we got an angry old man looking buffoonish trying to please the party's hard-line conservative base while still claiming to be a maverick. I can't understand what he was thinking.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    134. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      you should learn to use wait() properly.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    135. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Remember the lesson of the 90's, the decade in which Bill Clinton gave this country what no Republican President ever really could: A Republican Congress. Does anyone have a good chart of changes in the House and Senate graphed against changes in the White House? I wanted to make one when I got to work this morning, and then forgot, but now I remembered. Save me the effort if you've already done it. =)

    136. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by YttriumOxide · · Score: 2, Informative

      China is communist, not socialist - please look up the difference.

      Australia is conservative, not socialist - believe it or not, both are capable of limiting rights to an uncomfortable level - usually just for different (spoken) reasons. Many countries that lean strongly towards conservatism (such as Australia) limit the citizens rights uncomfortably, and many countries with a more socialist leanings (such as the Netherlands) do not. That's not to say that there aren't socialist countries that do and conservative countries that don't, just that it's not as black and white as you make out.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    137. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Right, so we have had a divided government since '06.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    138. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      Riiight.

      Merit...

      Sorry. "Because it's good for the people" is subjective and changes radically from one day to the next.

      Things like limited government, fiscal conservatism, and social conservatism do not.

      Someone labeled a RINO jumped off the conservative bandwagon to get votes, approval, or money, *not* for the good of the people.

    139. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Or also possible, fewer and fewer people will end up paying income taxes and the "temporary" income tax will finally be killed. (Wishful thinking, I know.)

    140. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      So... Virtually every Republican in Congress is a RINO? And things like the Texas State Republican Platform are just badly misnamed? Whew! That's a relief...

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    141. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Darby · · Score: 1

      collapse. Of course the most notable thing that happened there was the dems controlling congress and doing nothing about it.

      And therefore merely allowing the Republican agenda to continue unimpeded?

      And yet you say:

      Only the most shallowest and partisan hack can look at the problems we are in and claim that the republicans are the reason.

      So you'd have to be dumb to blame the Republicans for their decisions while a paragon of intelligence like yourself knows that the Democrats are to blame because they went along with the Republican's agenda. So blaming the driving force behind something is stupid while blaming those who merely went along with stupid ideas is perfectly cool?

      Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

    142. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      It's also, sadly, the truth.

      Actual Conservative republicans are extremely rare nowadays.

      Sucks, don't it?

      Apparently, as a society, we've outgrown things like individual rights and protections and instead decided for dependence over independence.

    143. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least with Obama, he was up front and said "if you make more than $250,000 you might see a tax increase." McCain doesn't even tell you that the $5,000 tax credit you get back for medical insurance probably won't cover the average family of 4's insurance premiums, costing the middle class more. McCain hid a middle class tax hike by not being truthful with the American people.

      You're wrong about McCain's plan. The tax credit isn't supposed to pay the entire premium. It's meant to help defray some of the cost.

      Furthermore, it really isn't a middle class tax hike, no matter what Obama claimed. For employer-provided health insurance in 2008, the average premium for a family of four is $12,680. [source] Any increase in taxes would come because McCain's plan would remove the tax exemption for employer-provided health benefits. But if a $13,000 benefit were taxed at 35% (the highest marginal rate of federal income tax), then this is still only an penalty of $4,550... which is easily made up for by the $5,000 tax credit. And for those people who don't have a full health benefit from their employer, a $5,000 tax credit would help greatly.

      I think that McCain's plan had some good elements, and I hope that Obama and the Congress will consider using some of its ideas in their own efforts.

      Obama was up front that we'd all have to make sacrifices, and you know what? It paid off. Obama got a higher percentage of the voters that even make $200,000 or more! It goes to show that even affluent, educated Americans in the higher tax brackets don't mind making a few sacrifices instead of borrowing against our children's future.

      I heard Obama say that we'd have to make sacrifices, but I don't understand what that has to do with his policies. He said that 95% of working families would see a tax cut. That's not what I'd call a sacrifice. Perhaps he was referring to budget-tightening measures, but almost all of his proposals increase the budget rather than decreasing it. The only exception I can think of is his Iraq policy, and even there he was talking about a timetable of 18 months or more -- i.e., mid-2010. And even there, a major goal is to redeploy the troops to Afghanistan. It's a good idea, but it doesn't help with the already-bloated budget.

      Where are all the so-called "conservative" Republicans, and what did the religious wackos and crazy spending neocons do with them?

      One of the main differences between the Bush-Kerry and Obama-McCain contests was that Obama did much better than Kerry among white evangelicals. That Obama can appeal to 'religious wackos' is a great strength. If you ever go out and talk in mixed company, you might want to guard your words concerning them.

    144. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Any repub who votes for morality-based legislation? RINO.

      Shhh... don't tell that to the "Republican" fundamentalist Christians out there who are screaming "think of the children" far louder than anyone else. The problem with BOTH parties is that, as parties, neither of them follow what the party is supposed to stand for. That's one of the reasons I think Obama was a good choice in that he doesn't necessarily toe the party line, but instead has been talking about issues as issues and offering up his plans for how those issues may be resolved. Certainly, the potential resolutions offered are "closer" to the Democratic party line than the Republican party line, but to me at least, it seems the party line could go jump for all he really cares, as long as the issues get considered and resolved with thought and insight by all those involved.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    145. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Darby · · Score: 1

      What would you label me - a fiscal conservative, civil libertarian, and social liberal? Am I a conservaliberalterian?

      You are a Liberal. Well at least given what that word meant when America was explicitly founded on the principles of Liberalism.

      Unfortunately, as you point out, there isn't any longer a word in American English to describe the philosophy upon which it's founded.

    146. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I suggest you look up Neo-Con. You don't seem to know what it means.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    147. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Darby · · Score: 1

      Where are all the so-called "conservative" Republicans, and what did the religious wackos and crazy spending neocons do with them?

      They left the Republican party back in the 50s to form the Libertarian Party due to the religious wackos and big spending fascists taking over the party.

    148. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Khisanth+Magus · · Score: 1

      You mean like the entire republican party?

    149. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by jazzduck · · Score: 1

      That is, in fact, why I respect Obama more than any other politician in my lifetime. Politicians would love for us to believe that every issue facing our country is black-and-white. Stay in Iraq forever or pull out tomorrow. Ban all abortions or kill babies in the streets. Bomb innocent foreigners or "let the terrorists win." Ban gay marriages or have beastiality in the streets. Politicians, of all people, should know that no issue is that clear-cut, because their job is to make hard decisions about how to balance the resources of our country to apply to different sides of these issues. Unlike many liberals, Obama freely admits that most issues are a nuanced and tangled gray area. Unlike other Democrats, he has demonstrated a willingness to work WITH his opponents instead of blindly opposing their every move. Unlike the Republicans, he actually listens to viewpoints that oppose his own, instead of smacking that tired old "un-American" label on any dissenter. Unlike the conservatives, he has shown willingness to admit when he makes mistakes and genuinely attempt to fix them. Unlike politicians of all flavors, he actually understands that to dissent IS to be American; as Americans it is not only our right to question our leaders and their positions, it's our responsibility. And in his speech last night he freely admitted that he does not have all the answers, that he will make mistakes, but more importantly that he will fix them and keep going. He has shown himself to believe not in positions but in philosophies, not in directives but in directions. This makes him infinitely more adaptable to changing domestic and foreign situations than any other candidate I've ever seen. It's why I respect him -- which is something I never thought I'd say about a politician -- and it's why he earned my vote.

      --
      A cat is no trade for integrity!
    150. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 1

      China is communist, not socialist - please look up the difference.

      No China is definitely NOT communist. It's socialist. Perhaps YOU should "look up the difference"?

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    151. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama is not a normal Dem, he is a moderate in many ways (even though the Repugs tried to claim he was this super liberal which is more what his running mate is) And they are on notice.

      I don't understand comments like this when people say Obama is a moderate. He may govern as a moderate but his voting record has been noted as the "most liberal" of 2007. Now if he is really more of a moderate but voting liberal, does that make him one to just follow the crowd (for his own gain) and not vote along his principles?

      http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

      also an important link

      http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/methodology.htm

    152. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      Like Hilary Clinton?

      Oh, wait...

      The fundamentalist Christians are leaning ever farther left and becoming the "Victimized Left". Where have you been?

    153. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>Bush, when he had to have the complete cooperation of the House and Senate to even write all of the crazy laws that were passed in the last 8 years.
      >>>

      As I said: "The Democrats were equally-complicit, since BOTH parties supported legislation that helped created the current crisis."

      And: "The Democrats held Congress for two years; [they could have stopped Bush in his tracks but] did anything improve? Nope."

      And: "Both R's and D's acted poorly these last two decades." (Like passing laws to force banks to accept people who couldn't afford a house (1994), and repealing the Glass-Stauley Act which protected banks from risky stock investments (1999).)

      BOTH parties deserve blame.
      The people are unfairly blaming
      just the Republicans (imho).

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    154. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction. We've had divided government since '07. The election was in '06, but Congress wasn't seated until '07. As a percentage of time of the Bush administration it was actually quite short.

      Quite short? The Congress meets for two years (January 2007 - January 2009) so it will have been almost exactly 25% of Bush's presidency.

      Also note that the partisan control of the Senate changed during the summer of 2001, so actually over 40% of Bush's presidency took place under divided government.

      Not that you'd know it from the laws that are passed. They seem pretty much the same in any case...

    155. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama got elected for all the wrong reason.....

    156. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1
      Holly shit,

      get the best people to do the job and not just those who agree with his ideology.

      That would really be some noticeable Change right away. Except he would have to leave Washington. Greenspan, Bernake, Paulson, are all very wise people who didn't really stop the financial crisis from happening. In order to stop it you'd have to go outside the box and conventions of right left, and generally leave the group -think behind. A few presidents have done this, and they are usually in the top ten lists of greatest presidents.

    157. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HUAC

    158. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      The problem with the National Journal report is that they don't actually measure liberal -vs- conservative votes. Instead, they measure Democrat -vs- Republican votes. IMHO, this is one of the problems going on today. People assume that anything the Republican party stands for us conservative, even though that is often far from the case.

      For some examples, take a look at their 2007 Vote Ratings.

      309/S1927 Renew FISA which allows wire tapping
      The FISA is an example of an extreme liberal position. It increases government powers and bypasses constitutional protections. Yet the National Journal says voting against that is liberal.

      77/SConRes20 Funding for US troops
      An example of a liberal foreign policy would be nation building and preeminent attacks (Ironically, in 2000 Bush commented about how nation building is a terrible mistake and the US needs to get out of it). Yet in modern society people assume that anything military = Republican = conservative. But that isn't true. A defensive volunteer-only military is conservative. An aggressive military that invades other nations and rebuilds them is liberal. Yet the National Journal thinks that any vote that is in favor of bigger military = conservative.

      In today's society, party affiliation trumps philosophy. Most people pick their party, then follow it no matter what it does. In order to break out of that people need to understand different philosophies without the context of a party. Check out sites like The Political Compass and skim Wikipedia articles on Socialism, Communism, Conservative, Liberal, etc. for details on what these ideas really mean.

    159. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      More like 80's but a few also went over to the Democrats. There are still a few moderate republicans who are fiscal conservatives (and McCain before he sold out to get the vote was very much one of them and I would have voted for him in 2000), but the overwhelming majority of the party are wackos and unfortunately a lot of people who support them dont realize this fact.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    160. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      IIRC, wasn't 2000 the year we got a republican controlleg leg. and exec.?

    161. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Mordac · · Score: 1

      So you're saying all those hundreds of Republicans and 50+ Republican Senators that did everything Bush wanted, and then some for 6 years.

      Those people, they had nothing to do with how they voted?

      Good to know that.

      By the way, the strongest Bush supporters are all thats left in Congress and Senate now. The moderate Republicans have been kicked out of the party.

    162. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      which has been only 2 years, I dont see your point. The republican party had run unchecked for 6 years and we SAW what happened. While he seeds where sewn in the Clinton era, again your talking about a Republican veto proof majority for a decent length of Clintons career. For all purposes the nations been continually ran by republicans since Carter except for 2 years here or there.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    163. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Mordac · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they'll ignore that. Reality and its liberal bias means they have to ignore any hard fact put in front of them.

      The 2 laws of Republican Thinking

      1. Ignore reality
      2. Accuse your opponent of your own malfeasance

    164. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a little disheartening how angry the ultra right-wing is about all this. They couldn't be more pissed about what happened last night, and a lot of them showed their true colors last night when they booed at Senator McCain's gracious speech, where he (along with Obama in his) tried to heal the divide in this country. That is the ONLY way we will successfully move forward.

      Sen. Kerry's supporters booed his concession speech in 2004.

      To heal the divide in this country, we must first realize that it is not one-sided.

      You complain about the "8 years of a Republican powerhouse". Certainly people deserve credit or blame for what they have done, but to blame the people in power for everything bad that happens, simply because they have been in power, is unfair and unjust.

      In four years, we will probably have had four years of a 'Democratic powerhouse', and one that is much more close to being a actual powerhouse -- remember, Democrats controlled the Senate during 2001 and 2002, and both houses of Congress in 2007 and 2008. During the next two years at least, the Democrats will have a much wider majority in Congress then anyone has had in many years. In 2012, it will be wrong to blame every problem in the world on the Democrats. Why can't you see that you are doing the same thing to the Republicans today?

      Also -- if you are interested in healing the divide, I suggest you avoid inflammatory remarks like "ultra right wing", "showed their true colors", and so on. It really doesn't help.

    165. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by aliquis · · Score: 1

      The current swedish champions in volleyball practise in the same building of and at the same gym as me, hurray my gym! :D

      Not in bikinis though, hot pants/tights all the way.

    166. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means that there will now only be positive upbeat news about and for the goverment from the Neo-Pravda ministries of ignorance: ABC, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR etc. etc. etc. I love Big Bro!

    167. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      Are you fucking serious? You haven't seen screwed up yet boy! I'm not saying any side is more inept then the other but you need to think before you speak. Just the fact that some one would threaten an industry that supplies over 50% of the electricity in this country with bankruptcy when it would take DECADES to replace it scarce me to the bone.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    168. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by aliquis · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Lagom is best", is translated as "Enough is as good as a feast"

      To get the actual meaning I'd say "an adequate but not excessive amount works the best."

      As in:
      To get lagom drunk.
      The foods spicing was lagom.
      The bath temperature was lagom.

    169. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Don't bother trying to come back until you find some brains.

      What are you, the zombie king or something?

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    170. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US debt is actually 10 TRILLION dollars now..

    171. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by brkello · · Score: 1

      What could the Dems do with the 2 years in Congress? Everything was either vetoed or filibustered. I think it is ridiculous to blame the Dems since everything they tried to do was blocked by the Republicans.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    172. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I love when you morons bitch about tax and spend. News flash, chief: all your guy did was spend and spend. How is that better than tax and spend?

    173. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by ryanov · · Score: 1

      They have been making fun of Obama/Biden a little bit lately. Unfortunately, those two are not quite as funny as the rest... but whatcha gonna do. I suppose they'll go back to interviewing the average buffoon rather than politicians. :)

    174. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I know 5 or 6 of them, and to their credit, yes they have admitted how stupid they were. All of those that I know voted Obama this time.

    175. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Lijemo · · Score: 1

      I voted straight Republican, because I think they are unfairly being blamed (by folks like you) for the current mess, which properly lies on the head of ONE man (Bush).

      And how would Bush managed to do all that he did, if the Republican Echo Chamber (tm), far from calling him on his bullshit, was ACTIVELY working to suppress and shout down every and all voices of decent?Bush did not, and could not, operate in a vacuum.

      Why do you hate America?

    176. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Lijemo · · Score: 1

      I should add:

      Both R's and D's acted poorly these last two decades.

      That I do agree with this.

    177. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and "schön" (although I get it confused with "geil" sometimes...)

    178. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Do you REALLY believe you would be "soon as socialist as China"? I mean, do you *REALLY*?!

    179. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Ooooo. He sought out marxists friends! In bold! Oooo. That's so scary. Ooooo.

    180. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by knails · · Score: 1

      Right, he isn't a normal dem. He significantly further left. The democratic party isn't a liberal party, they're a moderate party. Him being a more liberal dem is a great thing for the nation. He may actually be able and willing to foster change.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" -Voltaire
    181. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so answer this question: By all accounts, Obama is adding $300 to $400B in expenses each year in new programs.

      He claims he will only increase taxes on those making over $250K, or the top 5%. Which is it? 15% of households make $250K. These are the questions the press has not pinned him down on. the last time the press failed to ask hard questions was Iraq. And look how that turned out.

      If it's the top 5%, then that's 5.8M households that will need to absorb $300B in additional spending. Spread evenly across teh top 5%, that's $55K per household, when their pretax income is $500K. That's quite a jump.

      You might counter "yeah, but they can afford it"

      Well, the bottom 20% in the US can afford a massive increase too when you consider their standard of living relative to the rest of the world. The bottom 20% in the US has more cars, larger houses, more TVs, cell phone, cable, is overweight, etc, that most of the middle class in the EU.

      So, why not tax the bottom 20% in the US heavily and send that money ot the EU? See what a slippery slope this is?

    182. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by CFTM · · Score: 1

      You sir, are not being a myopic American! Why, I ask you why!?!?! Every message board I go to seems to be full of people proclaiming the changes that will come to pass under the "Supreme Ultimate Leader Barrack Obama". I hope these people are right, as things are in dire straits, but the truth of the matter is that the world is no different today than it was yesterday. Oh maybe there's more hope, maybe the playing field became a bit more level but our economy is still in shambles, racism has not died in this country, our planet is being ravaged and none of these issues can be fixed by one man.

      I voted for Barrack, and I think what he really brings to the country is the ability to reach across the isle and work with others to bring about change; this is the only way out of the forest and it seems like this entire country is ready to celebrate like we're already out when there are miles and miles and miles of torment to endure before we are done. The economy is only getting worse, unemployment will be at 10% a year from now and all of these things are outside Barrack's area of influence.

    183. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by aztektum · · Score: 1

      I've long held a similar position. Laws should include sunset provisions, especially shit like PATRIOT Act or DMCA, FISA... but I think 25 years is too long. 10-15 years would be more ideal.

      If nothing else, this keeps them busy and unable to create as much NEW bullshit.

      Plus: Congressional term limits. Can you tell me that, by the end of his run, Strom Thurmond truly understood todays social structure and way of life? I don't doubt he was still a smart guy, but he was primarily born/raised/educated in a completely different era. Ted "The Internet is a series of tubes" Stevens. Nuff said.

      In a time when the Fed is giving itself broader influence and control over all of us, we need to be able to rotate people in more regularly.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    184. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Kattspya · · Score: 1

      Where did you pick up the word lagom?

    185. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucktards vote down the party line. Way to think on your own asshole

    186. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by nuttycom · · Score: 1

      With respect to paying for health care, you're already suffering from redistribution of wealth; it's just that right now it's the insurance companies and the hospitals that are doing the redistributing instead of the government.

      Every time somebody goes to the emergency room who can't afford to pay, the hospital ends up eating the cost. Of course, they don't really eat it; they just pass it on to their paying patients and consequently the insurance companies.

      The idea with universal health care is that it's a lot more efficient for people to have preventative care, or to be able to go to the doctor before things get so serious that they end up in the hospital. You're already paying for the treatment of the uninsured through your premiums; if anything, if we can reduce the need for emergency services it should *lower* your premiums.

    187. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's finally happening! After hundreds of years borrowing english, latin, german and french words our time has come!

      Well, during the Middle English Period (100-1500) there were lots of Scandinavian loan words introduced to English:

      anger, blight, by-law, cake, call, clumsy, doze, egg, fellow, gear,
      get, give, hale, hit, husband, kick, kill, kilt, kindle, law, low,
      lump, rag, raise, root, scathe, scorch, score, scowl, scrape, scrub,
      seat, skill, skin, skirt, sky, sly, take, they, them, their, thrall,
      thrust, ugly, want, window, wing

      Place name suffixes:
      -by, -thorpe, -gate

      Though in modern times I guess smorgasbord and ombudsman are the only ones from Swedish.

    188. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by CFTM · · Score: 1

      The 2 laws of Political Thinking

      1. Ignore reality
      2. Accuse your opponent of your own malfeasance

      Made a slight revision; let's not get myopic just because we've endured the past eight years of the GoP. The Democrats do it just as readily and have constituencies that hold sway over them the same way that the Republicans do. I maintain that we haven't had a President worth his salt since Dwight D. Eisenhower...here's to hoping that Obama makes me rethink this point of view.

      Oh and before any one starts spouting off about how I'm angry over the results of the election, I voted for Obama. But I guess I am upset, over the fact that there are enough yahoos in California to Pass Prop 8.

    189. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by localman · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the president have veto power over the budget? If they really don't want to approve that spending they don't have to. Governor Arnold just went through a bitter battle in California using his veto power to force passage of a decent balanced budget. It was painful to watch and it cost him some friends, but he pulled it off in the end. That is financial leadership.

      Sorry, but while you're right that the Dems don't get a pat on the back for great spending policy, Reagan had the final say and he went along with it. So did Bush and Bush.

      Cheers.

    190. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here is some home work for you.. Look up the term Con artist[...]I'm not saying that Obama is a con artist,but[...]

      And that sort of disingenuous statement is why a lot of the outside world sees many republicans as being liars, and not even any good at lying. You would have done better to stick to the issues (e.g. clean coal).

    191. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      If a party ever got 60 senators though, God help us!

      Well they do have 56, they only need 4 republicans to break ranks. While they do not have a filibuster proof majority, they do have a SOLID majority that will render almost any republican bill dead. To even have a chance to pass any legislation, there had better be some cooperation because you can only filibuster so much before the public starts to blame you for gridlock.

    192. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a member of the party that elects the candidates and then has no voice in the gov't. I'm a registered Independent. My dream config is Dem. House, Rep. Senate, alternate the president every 4 years. I don't call it gridlock, I call it keeping them from hurting us.

      However, this time the Rep. screwed up so bad, there was nothing else to do but teach them a lesson they won't soon forget. I'm hoping the Dem. learned that lesson in '94.

      But it doesn't matter what party you are for right now. The economy is so bad, we need to pay close attention to what the gov't is doing and make a lot of noise if it sounds stupid.

      Later . . . Jim

    193. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by dwarg · · Score: 1

      While 50% is an interesting number to watch for, what's more important is how we get there.

      The fact that our presidential elections are popularity contests where contestants pander to the populous with tax cuts, is one way.

      The false logic behind trickle down economics which has lead to a growing disparity in income earned, is another. Look at the numbers, since Reagan and the rich have gotten much richer while the poor have gotten much poorer. Thus pushing more people below the level where they need to pay taxes.

      While I don't agree with the stereotype, for brevities sake, I'll use the tax and spend liberal label that defines one side, while our only other option currently is the borrow and spend conservative on the other.

      The majority will take more and more from the minority, and there will be nothing they can do but leave the country.

      Where are you proposing they should go?

      Atlas very well may shrug at some point in the near future, but it's more likely to be the high earning liberal elitists that will leave the country if there is a strong conservative backlash after this Democratic majority isn't able to fix all the worlds problems in the next 4 years. They are, after all, the ones unafraid of the socialist nanny states that provide the kind of society Americans are accustomed to.

      As for the wealthy moving their businesses over seas, they're already doing that.

    194. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      The problem is that we don't really know what Obama thinks. He's avoided most of the tough issues and done his best to not take any firm stances on anything. Frontline had a show on the other night about Obama and McCain. They had Obama's own strategist who said that not taking a stance on anything was their actual strategy. That way he would never have to defend it later. It allowed him to enter into a campaign with near zero baggage. They bet right that experience and really knowing where someone stood on an issue wouldn't matter as long as you talked about change and vague promises of giving stuff to people.

      I'm glad that someone else in America noticed that Obama didn't make a single concrete statement about anything until the last month of the campaign, when he came up with a vague "tax cuts for 90% of Americans" plan.

      My guess is only a democrat could run a Seinfeld campaign (a campaign about nothing)... you need a free pass from the media to get away with a plan like that.

    195. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by winwar · · Score: 1

      "...the point where 50% of the county no longer pays income taxes will be a tipping point."

      I hate to break this to you, but income taxes already are insignificant to many people. My payroll taxes are greater than my income tax. As payroll taxes are used to fund programs, there is little difference between them and income taxes.

    196. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      I love it. So the Republicans didn't spend 8 years fucking things up, and the Democrats are going to fuck things up in the future? You people live on a diet of denial and refusal to face reality as it is. You had 8 years to prove what you were made of. You blew it, and now you've been punished. Take your beating like a man and STFU.

      Pardon me for gloating, but I've waited a long time for this moment and I intend to savour it.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    197. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by ShakaUVM · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's a little disheartening how angry the ultra right-wing is about all this. They couldn't be more pissed about what happened last night, and a lot of them showed their true colors last night when they booed at Senator McCain's gracious speech, where he (along with Obama in his) tried to heal the divide in this country.

      Just booing??

      I recall two elections in a row of the left being such sore losers they filed lawsuits over the results.

      Give me a little booing any day.

      I'm still disappointed Bob Barr didn't get any states. ;)

    198. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think were screwed up now.

      Obama wants to destroy capitalism because it "doesn't work". Capitalism always has worked in the past. It's when the government tries to control the financial system has when we've had economic hardships.

      He wants to "bankrupt the coal industry" but has no plans for other efficient energy sources. Pushing ethanol will cause a food shortage. The manufacturing of solar cells creates more chemical waste than nuclear, but yet, nuclear power is not an option with Obama. We'll see fuel and energy costs skyrocket, sending us into a worse recession than we're in.

      He wants to create a "civilian national security force" which is the same thing as the Nazi S.S., just under a different name. You say something bad about the government, your neighbor can turn you in. It's a grassroots gestapo! And you though warrant-less wiretaps were as bad as it gets!

      He wants to create nationalized health insurance that will force everyone to participate and the load placed on our health care system will cause it to collapse.

      He wants to meet with terrorist leaders. What some forget is that we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, well before W started his crusade in the middle east. The world doesn't hate us because of Bush, they hated us before him and they will afterwards. The world celebrates because they have a president they will be able to push around and walk over.

      Obama has stated his support for infanticide. He says children are our future, but supports the killing of the children. It's sad to think we're killing the children that could one day grow up and find a cure for cancer, eliminate poverty or discover a cheap fuel source.

      With Obama as our leader, we'll be going down hill.

    199. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by owski · · Score: 0

      I've thought about this, but it would never work. Each congress would just vote on an omnibus bill at the beginning of their session extending everything that was sunset.

      For example, the constitution has a sunset provision for a standing army, and every couple of years it's automatically voted for extension. That's all that would happen.

    200. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

      That will soon be replaced with disillusioned apathy again. In matters of politics, hope always turns to disillusioned apathy. Or maybe I'm just permanently disillusioned and apathetic, and can no-longer see a Good Thing for what it is. Of course, my disillusioned apathy would turn to flabbergasted outrage if McCain had won. That would have been a Bad Thing - In that case, we'd have to consider that either the election was rigged and democracy is a sham (I'm not entirely dissuaded from that, already...), or that every US voter with half a brain was out on a cruise of the Caribbean (funded by the Republican party).

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    201. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by dwarg · · Score: 1

      I voted straight Republican, because I think they are unfairly being blamed (by folks like you) for the current mess, which properly lies on the head of ONE man (Bush).

      So George Bush Jr. is really a brilliant mastermind that was able to corral his entire party and remold them into his personal vision then march them blindly off a cliff? That's absurd. He was put into power by Republican stalwarts like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the Republican machine. Four of his cabinet members were convicted felons pardoned by Reagan and Bush Sr. after the Iran-Contra hearings.

      W. and the Neo-Con movement are a direct extension of the vision set out by Ronald Reagan. Perhaps the movement has been caricaturized a bit over time, especially by ideologues like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, etc. pushing the right ever farther to the fringe, but it's still the same blue print.

      1. Cut taxes

      2. Spend like mad

      3. Use war to whip up patriotic fervor

      4. Profit

      And finally the Democrats held Congress for two years; did anything improve? Nope.

      You underestimate just how ineffective at governing the Democrats are. First of all they had a very slim majority in congress but were still unable to get anything past "Mastermind Bush" and his bully pulpit. They're still going to be incompetent as long as Pelosi and Reed are at the cameral helms in congress.

      Until citizens can stop being blinded by partisan stupidity and start trying to hold the people they vote for accountable, regardless of party, our government is going to be defined by these wild swings in power as we blame parties for not solving our problems. The first thing we need is a move toward the center and to drive away the extremist influences of the right and left.

    202. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      I've thought about this, but it would never work. Each congress would just vote on an omnibus bill at the beginning of their session extending everything that was sunset.

      Another limitation that is worked around is the requirement that all Tax bills originate in the house. The recent 700Billion bailout (included tax provisions) bill failed in the house but the Senate simply took another bill the house had passed (A mental health bill of some sort) then simply stripped all the prior language out and put in the language for the bailout so it technically originated in the House.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    203. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And you don't think deregulation (a republican rallying cry) had anything to do with energy prices going up?

      Do you mean deregulation of the energy futures investment that happened back in 1999 which was very much a republican and democrat thing? In the 1970's, as a response to the oil embargo, Carter took us off the international oil markets in an attempt to limit the damage from the lack of oil. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough back then but we stayed off the market until the mid early to mid 90's (before the republicans took office) and then we deregulated the futures exchange in it by removing the last of the Carter era restrictions (very much a democrat thing as well as a republican move). The results were that people who had no capabilities of taking possesion of oil were buying futures and locking them out of reach from the companies and people using them. Then in order for those companies that did use them to secure a supply, they had to purchase the futures off of these investors at inflated costs. This is how the futures price surpassed the spot price and no one was loosing money. To see the effect this ended up with in the market, look at the bank failings where money was too tight to throw into the oil markets (that Saudi already attempted but failed to lower prices of by increasing supply) and all the sudden the cost of oil drop in half and has fallen since. All that money and artificial demand was the direct result of both democrat and republican policy.

      Or deregulation of the financial sector?

      The deregulation of the finacial sector or the key components that exaggerated the failures were very much the result of democrat policies. Yes, the republicans went along for the ride too and instead of looking at what was going on, they championed the moves so no, I'm not clearing them of any responsability either. The failures in the financial markets come from two key components of deregulation that the democrats championed though. The first one was with when the Glass-Steagall reforms were repealed in 1999. This single act allowed the banks to invest in other banks which is the basis of the lateral trading schemes that compounded the entire problem. The second was the complete rejection of reforms and oversight purposed on the GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 when Bush requested them after the attempts to satisfy the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002 and more regulation to boot) showed billions of dollars missing on the books of one of the GSEs and caused the chairman to step down in a scandal. Now, I'm not saying that Bush's plan would have fixed anything but they didn't even bother looking at it or changing it and the democrats on the comity overseeing the two entities decided it wasn't important and wouldn't even entertain the possibility of reforms. Before you say but the republicans were in control in 2003, there was no calls for reform or oversight by the democrats in 2003 or subsequent years, Barney Frank actually stated that there was nothing wrong there and even up to the meltdown, maintained that the GSEs were a well established place of investment. Now, none of the democrats wanted to regulate this stuff because they saw it as the means to putting poor people into housing that they championed. McCain also purposed regulations in 2005 and again in the 2007 sessions which one of them actually had democrats in control of congress and again, both times, no attempts from democrats came forward and the same democrat players who buried Bush's plan also buried McCain's plan. Note also that the other republicans were perfectly fine with what was going on do again, they don't get a pass either.

      Or deregulation of the mortgage market?

      I'm going to stop showing you thing you should already know. It is clear that your just repeating campaign slogans so instead, I'm going to put you on a path of personal discovery. What deregulation of the mortgage m

    204. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by aliquis · · Score: 1

      (Still off-topic)

      If you really wanna learn swedish (or at least hear how it sounds) this is a good place to start:
      http://www.slayradio.org/mastering_swedish.php

      Or well, scrap good, but it's a funny one :D

    205. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Obama is not a normal Dem, he is a moderate in many way

      I think that is being a normal Dem. Find me a liberal Democrat who votes where his mouth is. There's Denice Kucinich. There's probably a few others. The Democratic party is NOT liberal, it's just good at getting liberals to vote for them.

      --
      Property is theft.
    206. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "If you're not a democrat when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a republican when you're old, you have no brain." -- Churchill.

      Strange terms for a British politician to use; a democrat is someone who thinks that the government should be elected by the population at large, and a republican is either someone who thinks that the monarchy should be replaced with an elected head of state, or someone who thinks the British should get the hell out of the north of Ireland.

      I think Churchill used the terms 'Socialist' and 'conservative'. And he should know; he changed sides between the Tories and the Labour Party. Twice.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    207. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by jlowery · · Score: 2, Informative

      Original quote:

      Francois Guisot (1787-1874): "Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."

      Churchill said something similar, but he was probably paraphrasing Guisot.

      --
      If you post it, they will read.
    208. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by giorgist · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they will not tax you just raise the cost of borrowing, petrol, social security, dunkin dohnuts, transport, cost of education ...
      In th eend you will pay the goverment and the middlemen

      G

    209. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      Obama is not a normal Dem, he is a moderate in many ways

      Many ways? I challenge you to name one.

    210. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are aware that the correct way to vote for change was to vote for a REPUBLICAN congress, right?

      Yes, only in America can people who "want change" fall for increasing the Senate majority from 51% to 55% and the House majority from 54% to 58%. Go figure.

      Clearly changing the skin color was important to many people, which seems so racist to me.

      But hey, it is what it is. I truly hope the Dems succeed, and don't screw us up too badly. And by succeed, I mean "fail to push through their socialist income redistribution agenda".

    211. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My issue is that it's very easy to SAY you are for something, when you have no track record of VOTING for it. I actually liked Obama's rhetoric... reading things like "Obama stands for this, while McCain voted against this". Then I started asking myself why those in the Obama camp never said "Obama VOTED FOR this".

      The reason is simple. His voting record does not support his rhetoric. Not being critical - it was a beautiful strategy. Have no voting record, and no one can pick you apart. (and yes, I examined Obama's voting record).

      The problem is... when the rubber meets the road, you have to vote YEA or NAY (or DNV as Obama did many many times). And every bill that comes up has something that can look bad for you. You voted against the PATRIOT ACT? What are you, unpatriotic? You voted against money for education? What do you have against Kindergarteners?

      But Obama's only been a Senator since 2002. And he's been literally positioning himself for running for President since 2003. Seriously, look at his voting record.

      It was clearly a brilliant strategy. I didn't fall for it myself, but many did.

    212. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      We'll see in about 4 years if it's time to move to Galt's Gulch, CO. And because the vast majority of people here are in the "productive" half of the doers/looters division, I look forward to seeing you there.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    213. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by mattytee · · Score: 1

      the good Republicans

      And *another* great band name shows up in the Slashdot comments!

    214. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Are you insane?

      Your website link claims that Obama is " Most Liberal Senator In 2007 " when he serves with Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, who openly declares himself to be a socialist ?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    215. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Mitreya · · Score: 1
      And finally the Democrats held Congress for two years; did anything improve? Nope.

      You might recall that Democrats did not actually hold Congress majority. They had a majority in the House and they essentially had nothing on Congress (50+1 indep is NOT majority). My impression was that republicans were able to stop just about everything Democrats tried pretty easily, because they had a bare majority assuming not a single person defected.
      Not that I am defending Democrats, but I've seen some attempts to improve things which were easily blocked.

    216. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real unspoken issue is the "yellow dog" subparty within the Democratic party; they're highly conservative and typically vote more like members of the GOP than the Democratic party. Due to their large segment within the party, the Democrats won't really have that undivided government unless they obtain around 80 seats.

      So, the fear is really for naught. Counting the yellow dogs, conservatives still have a handy senate majority.

    217. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by webagogue · · Score: 1

      Thanks to you (and others above) for stating how I feel about John McCain. I've voted Republican in every election since I could vote (1992). Not this time. I knew (and know) that McCain is a good man and very deserving of the maverick moniker.

      --

      Knowledge is valuable. Ignorance is dangerous. Censorship is unacceptable. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10
    218. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Obama is a leftist, bordering on marxist.

      He's definitely a leftist, and definitely not a marxist. He follows the "Third Way" in Western politics.

      And even if he used to be a Marxist, though he definitely was NOT, so what? Lots of prominent conservatives used to be Marxists, like Irving Kristol and Michael Ledeen.

      Past associations are not normally the best judge of a candidate. If that were the case, McCain must have lost due to his long history of corruption (and associating with corrupt figures) and hanging out with nutcases like John Hagee. Or maybe it was his association with George W. Bush.

      Hey, you might be on to something here. :-)

    219. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Ha, they wish! Bush anticipated that the democrats would do this eventually and so to prevent them screwing everything up, he has been certain to screw up everything himself. With the financial meltdown there is now nothing at all that has not been utterly fucked up the the maximum degree and so Americans can rest easy in their beds knowing things definitely can't get any worse.

    220. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His point is that you said "First off, we haven't had a divided government since 06."

    221. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And therefore merely allowing the Republican agenda to continue unimpeded?

      And what exactly was the "republican agenda"? I mean seriously, the dems were in control at that time. So why didn't they stop the agenda? Of course the answer is because they didn't know about any agenda, you don't either. At best, you will repeat a bunch of unsupported allegations that is little more then campaign rhetoric.

      So you'd have to be dumb to blame the Republicans for their decisions while a paragon of intelligence like yourself knows that the Democrats are to blame because they went along with the Republican's agenda.

      I can see why the country is so fucked up with brilient minds like yours. What I said, if you must paraphrase it, was that you would have to be dumb to only blame is on republicans. Both parties took part in fucking things up. I'm not sure why you can't graps that, it isn't a situation where one is the saving grace and the other pure evil. As I pointed out, neither cared enough to do anything until it blew up even after they had control of congress and the agenda. Don't substitute my words with what you want reality to resemble.

      So blaming the driving force behind something is stupid while blaming those who merely went along with stupid ideas is perfectly cool?

      Go back and reread what I said. Where did I say that the republicans were innocent? Hmm? Where? I didn't. Lets examine what I said... "You have extremes in both parties that are just as bad as the other and you have mediocre people in the middle who are basically lapdogs for them". Well, that looks like I blames both parties and yes, both parties are behind the mess we are in today. Not blaming the democrats as well will cause you to forever end up disillusioned and eventually apathetic. The post I was replying to said for the first time, he voted a straight party line ticket instead of picking the best person for the job. That makes him a moron if he expects anything to be different.

    222. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by rtechie · · Score: 1

      He is going to take more money from those making 250K a year (or 200k, or 150K or 120K, depending on the day).

      No he's not, he's going to TAX INCOME.

      That is redistribution of wealth...

      INCOME TAX IS NOT AND CANNOT BE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!

      I'm getting a little pissed at conservatives not understanding what the term "wealth" means. You would think they would know that.

      The term "wealth" refers to an individuals combined assets: homes, businesses, personal property, etc.

      "Redistributing wealth" is literally taking assets, like land or cash, and distributing it to others.

      The classic example is "land reform". Wealthy landowners who have large holdings who lease the land to poor farmers are instead forced by legislation to break up their holdings and GIVE them to the poor farmers, the wealthy landowner is not compensated.

      The concept is similar to "eminent domain" except that people are not compensated for the government seizing their assets.

      Barack Obama is not going to seize your house and give it to poor people. If you can find any record anywhere where he claims to want to seize assets and I'll give you a cookie.

      What you're talking about is called "progressive income tax" and is intended to be a EQUITABLE system.

      You and I pay literally thousands of separate taxes. Sales tax, gas tax, utility taxes, alcohol taxes, tobacco taxes, property taxes, etc. Fees and fines count as taxes too, so all those parking tickets, speeding tickets, registration fees, permits, etc. are also taxes.

      All of this combined represents your "total tax burden". Now most of the taxes above are fairly flat, everyone pays the same registration fees, individuals use about the same amount of gasoline and energy, etc. So if you take into account all the consumption and other taxes, AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME, poor people pay a far higher PERCENTAGE in all of these fees and taxes than rich people.

      So to make taxation FAIR, as in everyone is taxed at the same PERCENTAGE, income tax must be progressive to compensate for the higher percentage of their income "use taxes" and consumption taxes represent. This is why at the very low end poor people pay no income tax at all. Technically, this means that REALLY poor people (less than $15,000 per year) are OVERTAXED. They pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than anyone.

      I'd also like to point out here that conservatives rarely talk about cutting consumption taxes like sales taxes because they're in the tank for the rich. They care about cutting taxes, but ONLY the taxes that affect rich people the most: income tax, inheritance tax ("death tax"), property tax, capital gains tax. The only tax benefit for the poor I've hear conservatives discuss recently was the gas tax "holiday", not a permanent cut. And they want to INCREASE sales taxes and fees on everything.

      If you make less that $250,000 per year the Republicans WILL raise your taxes. The won't raise our income tax, but they'll raise your fees and consumption taxes.

      Giving everyone else health care that can not 'afford' it is another form of wealth redistribution.

      So what's your proposal? Concentration camps?

      RIGHT NOW WE HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!

      It's called your local emergency room. By law, they can't toss sick people into the street. Instead the HOSPITAL is forced to pay out of pocket for the care they give to people in the emergency room who can't pay, which forces them to raise fees to the insurance company, which forces you to pay higher premiums and out of pocket costs. So you're going to pay for the health care of poor individuals NO MATTER WHAT.

      The issue is simply how efficent we want our universal health care system to be. As I said, not having one isn't an option unless you plan to build death camps. I believe that preventative treatment, dentistry, prenatal care, checkups, etc. are a lot cheaper in the long term than sendin

    223. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by lessthan · · Score: 1

      I do blame them for their reaction. It was tasteless. McCain was trying to concede gracefully and his supporters acted like toddlers. That has more to do with the state of our society than it does with the Republicans though.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    224. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hope!!!! Change!!!!!

      Can mi B presdent nuw?

    225. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Sorry, your entire argument hinges on so many assumptions that I can't give a real reply.

      By which accounts?

      You said yourself that he will increase taxes on "those" making over $250K, and then quoted a number on how many *households* make $250K.

      You then make a jump to $500K for some reason when creating your numbers (seemingly snatched from midair).

      And then you're suddenly suggesting that liberals equate additional spending with sending money overseas...?

      Yeah, you've melted my brain. Congratulations.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    226. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by magarity · · Score: 1

      McCain doesn't even tell you that the $5,000 tax credit you get back for medical insurance probably won't cover the average family of 4's insurance premiums
       
      And I have here a flyer from Kaiser Permanente offering "whole family" insurance for just under $300 per month. Last I checked, 300 * 12 5,000. The myth of unaffordable insurance marches on towards socialized medical care. You're going to pay a lot more than 5,000 in taxes to support a national system if the wonderfully streamlined and efficient Medicare/Medicaid are the examples.

    227. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Eskarel · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you want to know what happened to the Republican party, have a listen to McCain's concession speech.

      McCain shows integrity, dignity, and all the things which made me want to vote for him in 2000(not that I got a chance) left winger though I might be.

      If you listen to his supporters though, you don't hear any of that, you hear boos, and hootin and hollerin, you hear the essence of what the republican party has become.

      The Republican party has become not a party of fiscal conservatism, not a party of small government, but a party of fear, hatred, intolerance and greed.

      I'm thrilled that Obama won the presidency, but watching that concession speech made me sad because the John McCain who ran in 2000 and the John McCain in that speech showed a level of reason and dignity that reaches accross party lines. That John McCain would have made a good president, but he didn't run that campaign, he didn't choose that VP, and he didn't cater to those voters.

      Instead he ran a dirty campaign, chose Sarah Palin, and catered to the ignorant and bigotted.

      There are in this world genuine supporters of the ideals of the republican party, and I can understand their view points, even if I don't always agree with them. Unfortunately the party has sold itself to a group of people I cannot and never will find common political ground with.

      The religious right is destroying America.

    228. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Yeah but it was a pretty small sampling of the entire pie. Don't take the tasteless reaction of a few thousand people over an entire half of a nation. I'm one of those losers as I voted for McCain, but I think they're just acting like babies. However, that doesn't mean that all supporters of McCain feel that way. I am disappointed he lost, but the world isn't about to end.

    229. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Danse · · Score: 1

      And finally the Democrats held Congress for two years; did anything improve? Nope.

      They were basically tied, but had a 1 vote advantage if they were completely united, but they also had a president that threatened to veto anything they wanted to do, so it's not like they were going to be able to get anything done anyway, let alone fix the the aftermath of the previous 6 years of neocons run amok.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    230. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ...and you could see the "real" John McCain...

      As an independent who mostly votes Democratic, this is the true tragedy for me. The 2008 version of John McCain was someone I just couldn't see myself voting for. It feels like he made the conscious decision to compromise his integrity because he knew that was the only way his party would allow him to become their candidate. And I don't doubt that that concession was hard for him.

      But the 2000 version of John McCain was someone I was really looking forward to voting for. He was principled and I agreed with a lot of what he said about what needed to be done to clean up the corruption in Washington. And even though I lean far more left than he does on social issues, I will always prefer an elected leader who follows what he truly believes over one who makes decisions based on polling data and party lines. And I truly believe that McCain was that kind of politician back in 2000.

      And I can't help but think that we'd be in a much better situation today if McCain had been president these last 8 years. His response to 9/11 would have been much more measured and thought out. And, if this financial crisis had eventually arrived, we would be in a much better position to deal with it having not spent trillions of dollars fighting a war that didn't need to be fought.

      But instead, we got Bush, got screwed and now we needed to elect Obama to send the signal that we need radical change to dig our way out of this mess. And so it's hard for me not to feel sorry for McCain. The man gave more of himself to this country than any other candidate we've had to choose from in years. And he deserved to be president at a time when he could have been what the country needed. But he missed his window and both he and the country are worse off for it.

    231. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good god, he learned something and changed his stance? deplorable.

    232. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Ummm.. www.barackobama.com had a lot of the information you are looking for. Much of it is probably still up there....

      Click on "issues". :)

    233. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Artista42 · · Score: 1

      I sure hope that would mean the laws get put back on the table after 25 years... there are some important ones that shouldn't just be tossed out.

    234. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      It's a shame more people don't realize how equally-lousy Clinton was. He's responsible for a whole mess of things, like the dot-com crash of 2000, the failure to increase U.S. border security to prevent 9/11, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that brought-down multiple banks.

      The dot-com crash was only Clinton's responsibility in the sense that Clinton didn't fire Greenspan. Greenspan caused the dot-com boom/bust when he cut rates to inflate his way out of the 1980's S&L scandal and the subsequent 1991 recession. Monetarism — the idea that the government should price-fix credit by artificially limiting interest rates — was thoroughly embraced by Republicans, then and now, and Greenspan's adherence to it was the very reason Reagan appointed him. Clinton's work toward balancing the budget and paying down the deficit probably limited the growth rate of the bubble and helped prevent the crash from being a bigger mess than it could've been. (Not that Clinton was consciously embracing Austrian economics or the like. But he had the common sense that it's a bad thing to spend money you don't have, which both the Keynesians and the Monetarists have repeatedly refused to learn. Of course, Republican contrariness helped a lot — I doubt that Clinton would've had that kind of fiscal discipline if both the House and Senate had been Democrat-controlled.)

      On border security... the 9/11 hijackers all entered the US under their own names, with genuine Saudi Arabian passports, and had been granted genuine US visas to live here legally. Either they should have been spotted and stopped during the visa approval phase, or the FBI and other agencies should've caught and arrested them after they had incriminated themselves within US borders (as the agencies came painfully close to doing). Customs agents at an airport aren't in a position to single people out and accuse them of having long-term terroristic intentions. Nor are they equipped to deal with the subtle passport fraud employed by the hijackers to hide which countries they'd visited recently. Border guards are even more irrelevant to terrorism — the 9/11 hijackers didn't enter the US through Canada or Mexico, and no amount of added security on the Canadian and Mexican borders would've stopped them since they didn't even pass through those borders.

      Regarding the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act... the Act had Republican fingerprints all over it. Gramm, Leach, and Bliley were all Republicans; it was passed along partisan lines (Senate Republicans: 53-0, Senate Democrats: 1-44; House: uncounted voice vote, which the Democrat minority didn't feel a need to contest); and Bill Clinton signed it for... actually, I don't know why Bill Clinton signed it, but the bastard signed the Defense of Marriage Act, too, so it's not like "Bill Clinton signed a piece of legislature" means that the piece of legislature was actually supported by Democrats.

      More than all that, Clinton didn't get us into any conflicts until there was an international outcry for intervention, and he generally conducted foreign policy in a way that was, at worst, adequate. He kept an eye on Iraq without engaging in any of GWB's blustery rhetoric and sabre-rattling, much less actually invading it with ground troops, and he put CIA attention on Al-Qaeda and bin Laden even before the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, then stepped up scrutiny afterward.

      All in all, I can't understand why Clinton is so reviled by Republicans. The Monica thing was unfortunate, but nothing worse than the (then unknown) adulterous peccadilloes of the very Republican congressmen who were so keen on having Clinton's head. The Republican uproar over Bosnia, and their shouts of "wag the dog", seem quaint

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    235. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by RickRussellTX · · Score: 1

      > 1 TRILLION dollar debt

      Off by an order of magnitude. That's a 1 trillion dollar deficit, a 10 trillion dollar accumulated debt.

    236. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by dangitman · · Score: 1

      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid your neighbors' wallets and give you their money.

      Wait, that is the purpose of my father? Who knew?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    237. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    238. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this dont' even go back to clinton, the truth is these title and sales companies got paid when the sale was made, it didnt' matter if the home was forclosed, my best friend was sold a house he never should have been approved for. the point is obama is wrong and it makes me sick how people back him like he's the second coming, its true what they say about ignorance being bliss, as most americans are truely bliss tonight.

    239. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      It's certainly not communist, but it sure doesn't look socialist to me. Western Europe is socialist. The US is somewhat socialist. China, a mix of dictatorship and capitalism.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    240. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      He probably does.

      The saddest thing about contemporary politics is that we have arrived at a point where everybody is polarized into two virtually identical camps, each one thinking that the other camp's opinions are so insane that only an idiot or a villain could hold them. As such, absolutely no useful discussion can take place anymore.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    241. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      If the law is still needed then it can be renewed by simply passing a new one with the same wording.

      The nice thing is that this effectively limits the maximum size of the body of law, since at some point the lawmakers spend 100% of their time renewing existing laws instead of making new ones. I think that we have way too many laws already and so see this as a very good thing.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    242. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Only the most shallowest and partisan hack can look at the problems we are in and claim that the republicans are the reason.

      This is simply false. Take me, for example. Shallow and hack I would dispute but this is obviously something I am not impartial about. However I am very much non-partisan, and yet I still hold the opinion you mention.

      This kind of bullshit pisses me off to no end. To paint everyone who holds a popular opinion with such a broad brush is pure ignorance. All it does is serve to alienate all those people from possibly listening to you. Here's a newsflash for you: it is possible to have all the facts, be politically neutral, and still come to a different conclusion.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    243. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Sure, the President could simply shut down the entire government until he either gets what he wants or 2/3rds of Congress agree to go against him. But such a President will discover that it has become impossible to secure the cooperation of Congress in any other matters, that he has made his party deeply unpopular, and if it's his first term he will discover that it has become impossible to secure a second one.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    244. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Of course, they could have fixed it.

      It was blindingly obvious as early as two years ago that the problem of subprime mortgages was undermining our financial system and that the day of reckoning was only a matter of time. I cannot comprehend why nobody in government and nobody in finance thought to do anything about it until this autumn, after it had already imploded.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    245. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by localman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think that's pretty much what Schwarzenegger did. And oddly by sticking to such important principles he has seemingly come out alright. We'll see if he gets re-elected, though. My point stands: if you think it's important you can stick to your convictions. Maybe you'll go down in flames but perhaps that's better than saying "okay, let's do something awful".

      Cheers.

    246. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

      ...everybody is polarized into two virtually identical camps, each one thinking that the other camp's opinions are so insane that only an idiot or a villain could hold them. As such, absolutely no useful discussion can take place anymore.

      Then, what, you're just practicing your typing skills here?

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
    247. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

      Normally I like to see these things divided between the two parties so nobody gets too far away from lagom.

      "Normally I like" countries that go to war only in legitimate self-defense, not outright lies about suitcase nukes, substantiated only by a source known as "curveball."

      George Walker Bush and Dick Cheney are traitors and their GOP accomplices in the Congress do not deserve the trust "normally" extended to the Legislative Branch, to keep the Executive in check.

      If the Republican Party's main competitor were the International Communist Party, would you want balanced representation by both in the House and Senate? Well, I, and many other voters, don't want a Congress with a balanced composition of democrats and the fascists who today call themselves "Republicans." In a republic, the elected represent the people instead of the people deciding everything by referendum, in a democracy. The GOP is not Republican, it represents big business first, people only by happenstance. Fascists, QED.

      Ron Paul 2012

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
    248. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Sique · · Score: 1

      I took 2006 because that was the point in time when the media started to really question the legacy of George W. Bush. After three years of Iraq war and no real achievement there (overthrowing Saddam Hussein was no achievement, it would have happened anyway, because he was no longer able to feed his inner party circle and became more and more detached), people got nervous, and this showed up in the media, leading to the big offset in the 2006 elections.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    249. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've also exported smorgasbord, ombudsman and knight (knÃkt)

    250. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 1

      The Democrats controlled the Congress almost-continuously from 1932 with the sole exceptions of the 1946 and 1954 elections. So the Democrats had dominated Congress for 58 out of 62 years (three generations of Democrat Congress). It was during these 62 years that most of the New Deal initiatives of FDR, JFK, and LBJ were put into effect.

      Then in 1994 the Democrats lost their dominance when there was a voter backlash against Bill & Hillary Clinton, and the Republicans took over. The Republicans dominated for twelve years - an event that hasn't happened since the 1920s.

      And now we're back to a Democrat-dominated Congress, and it will probably remain that way for quite a while.

       

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    251. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by mcvos · · Score: 1

      It's the way of things. And let's be honest here: things really just don't change all that much, and there's nothing this President and Congress can do that can't be undone by the next ones.

      Really? Do you think the invasion of Iraq can be undone? I think Bush proved that governments can screw up quite a lot that can't be easily undone.

    252. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, McCain's been in power for a long time, and it's obvious he has a grasp of how the internet works given how effectively he used it for campaigning. He didn't raise as much money as Obama, but McCain still collected more cash than any other Republican candidate, mainly because of his internet canvassing.

      I wouldn't want to see McCain (who sits in the middle of the aisle - a moderate) pulled out of office just because he's been there too long. That decision should lie with the people he represents in Arizona and/or the Arizona Legislature.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    253. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 1

      That's fine. Maybe they would have realized the Spanish-American War Tax no longer applies, and decided not to include it in the omnibus bill, rather than let it continue on forever.

      Thomas Jefferson often said there should be a new Constitution every 25 years, to more-accurately reflect THIS generation of the People, rather than the 1790s generation. That obviously never happened, but I think the idea still has merit and should be applied to Congressional laws. I'm sure having the Spanish-American War Tax was a great idea for those people who lived in the 1890s, but they're dead. The law should die with them.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    254. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>That has more to do with the state of our society than it does with the Republicans though.

      Precisely. It's a flaw on both sides. Recall that the Democrats did not act very mature in 2000 or 2004 either. I can understand why they were upset in 2000, because it was a mess in Florida, but in 2004? There's absolutely no cause to still be making false accusations that 2004 was stolen from Kerry. None at all.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    255. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      The official socioeconomic system in the People's Republic of China is "socialism with Chinese characteristics", not communism.

      On the whole, politologists seem to agree that it is really just another name for authoritarian nationalist capitalism.

    256. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 1

      It only took 90 days for the Republicans to pass their "Contract with America" in 1995. After the Democrats won dominance in 2006, they had eight times as long to offer changes and repeal bad laws. Plus: If you look at the actual votes, you'll see that the Democrats voted with the Republicans almost every single time since 1994. They were Democrats acting like Republicans.

      That's what I consider BOTH parties to blame for these last ~15 years. (Including the terrorist attacks on various targets throughout the 90s, the dot-com 1999 crash, the 2007 housing crash, and rampant bank failures.)

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    257. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 1

      You know... it helps if you read the WHOLE post instead of just the first sentence. Let me quote the part you missed:

      "The blame lies mostly on Bush, with a remainder being spread-evenly across both sides of the Congress. Both R's and D's acted poorly these last two decades."

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    258. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Gotta disagree. I think Bush Senior was a far better president than Clinton. I voted to reelect him to four more years, and if I could turn back the clock, I'd do exactly the same thing.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    259. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by theaveng · · Score: 1

      That's a good summary, but I think it boils down to this:

      - What if we would have had Clinton for another 4 years (2000-2004). If my view his sterling image would have faded as people became disillusioned with the failing economy, the attack on 9/11, and Clinton's poor handling of foreign affairs.

      - Clinton still signed that awful Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act... although one could argue he had no choice since it passed with HUGE support from his own Democratic party: "The final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57"

      - Which brings the blame around to the Democrats for the bank failures, not just the Republicans as so many are falsely claiming.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    260. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Not insane or clueless, just dont read neo-con trash mags like Drudge, Fox News, and the National Journal. You hardly prove your point by posting links to known ultra-conservative sites. You could have posted a link to Stormfront for all that matters to try to prove your point.

      Is National Journal really that bad? I'd never heard of it, but looking around I found this glowing analysis of Obama that compares him to Roosevelt and Lincoln and explains why he has what it takes to be a brilliant president.

    261. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Barack Obama's stance on just about everything.

      Bloody, hell, that;s the most informative site on political ideas I've seen in a while. It's definitely not vague about what the problems are and how he intends to solve them. The page on ethics in particular doesn't pull any punches.

      His tax ideas nearly made me want to travel back in time and emigrate to the US just so I could vote for him. The world looks like a much brighter place now that I've read that site.

      (I worry a bit about the euphoria I'm suddenly feeling. What the hell was in my breakfast?)

    262. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Obama is a leftist, bordering on marxist

      For extremely meaningless definitions of "marxist", perhaps. He is less marxist than many 20th century presidents, including Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt.

      Washington Post

      Boy, he did miss a lot of votes. I'm not going to check everything he voted on, though. He usually votes with the party, he very rarely votes with the Republicans against the Democrats, and for some earmarking issue I don't pretend to understand he voted against both parties.

      From his voting pattern, he doesn't come across as a dangerous nutcase. Apart from his regular absence.

    263. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I was hoping for a Bush win in 2004 for a simple reason: I wanted him to be president when the whole shit was stinking even up the noses of the big media. I wanted him to be president when it became clear to even the last and hardboiled conservative that President Bush was a failure. I wanted an actual reporting in the daily news how bad a president was in power.

      You knowingly voted for a president that you knew was bad?

    264. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Read my sig.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    265. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Which was put in motion during the Clinton years to prop up a failing housing market...

      Liar.

    266. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Danse · · Score: 1

      You complain about the "8 years of a Republican powerhouse". Certainly people deserve credit or blame for what they have done, but to blame the people in power for everything bad that happens, simply because they have been in power, is unfair and unjust.

      In four years, we will probably have had four years of a 'Democratic powerhouse', and one that is much more close to being a actual powerhouse -- remember, Democrats controlled the Senate during 2001 and 2002, and both houses of Congress in 2007 and 2008.

      Not exactly. They controlled it for maybe a year and a half, and even then it's kind of hard to call it control with the numbers so close and one being an independent former republican. Also, 9/11 happened during this time-frame, and democrats basically went along with everything Bush wanted for the sake of keeping things as calm as possible rather than creating the appearance of infighting and panic. Can't really say they were in control during that time. Bush was in control and Congress was a rubber stamp. I can't really fault either side for that in the months following the attack. Only when they started beating the drums to attack Iraq did I draw the line. Unfortunately most of Congress didn't.

      During the next two years at least, the Democrats will have a much wider majority in Congress then anyone has had in many years. In 2012, it will be wrong to blame every problem in the world on the Democrats. Why can't you see that you are doing the same thing to the Republicans today?

      I don't think we can blame every problem on the Bush administration. We can certainly blame them for Iraq though. They also were a major cause of the financial crisis (deregulating credit default swaps was a HUGE mistake that allowed the banks to rack up so many bad loans with no oversight). We can blame them for most of the bad laws passed during the last 8 years, and the fact that our national debt has skyrocketed during that period. So, no, can't blame them for everything, but there is a lot that they are responsible for.

      Also -- if you are interested in healing the divide, I suggest you avoid inflammatory remarks like "ultra right wing", "showed their true colors", and so on. It really doesn't help.

      It's true though. There are some real asshats on both the far right and far left. The kinds of douchebags that would boo during a speech like that. Of course neither candidate was really part of the extremes. They are both more centrist than a lot of their backers would like.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    267. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It's pretty funny, really.

      Yes, false equivalencies are a riot.

      Leftists think that the media has a conservative bias. Rightists think that the media has a liberal bias.

      Problem: one is a talking point that never had any basis in reality, and the other has a mountain of evidence to support it. But I can skip the mountain and prove it right now:

      Remember Gary Condit and Chandra Levy? The media obsessed for months over her disappearance, the possibility that Condit had an affair with her (which he later confessed to), and that he might have had something to do with her disappearance.

      Contrast that to Joe Scarborough, who was also a representative in the House. An intern turned dead, in his office, of blunt force trauma to the head, just a few months after the Condit/Levy scandal. Dead. In his office. Of BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA to the HEAD.

      Not only did the media not give a shit, Scarborough got a big fat contract on MSNBC to be a pundit.

    268. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by PhearoX · · Score: 1

      Obama is not taking money from the Rich and giving it to the poor, he is simply taking more from the rich and *keeping it* for running the government. Saying that is marxist clearly shows you have a very poor understanding about what both Marx and Obama support.

      Should I link to a youtube of Obama actually speaking the phrase, "When you spread the wealth around, I think it's good for everybody."?

      It's silly to think Obama is 'keeping' the money to run the government. It's crystal-clear he plans to 'spread it around', in perfect alignment with the aforementioned Marxist ideal. It's certainly a terrible idea in principle, but I've never seen it done on such a grand scale as Obama proposes, so I can't really argue how good or bad it will actually be. It might move so much money to the poor and raise prices charged by big businesses so much, it would be a complete wash.

      Everyone is always worried that the big business makes too much money and the poor aren't receiving what they are entitled to simply by gracing us with their presence, so tax credits (not cuts, but credits, aka mass welfare) will continue to put free money in the pockets of the poor, while the middle class just gets a partial refund of what they already paid, and big business raises their prices to cover the tax increase. In the end, the middle class will always foot the bill. Redistribution simply moves the middle class into the poor class. Big business will always either make the money they want, or leave the country. It's a plain and simple fact.

      When the guy who keeps picking up the tab stops coming to happy hour, who's going to pay now? Uh oh...

    269. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      No-one wanted to admit it. Priorities were all hosed.

      Election timing was horrible.

      Bad planning...

      The whole nine yards. Of course, once they did something about it, they made damned sure we'd get to repeat the process 15 years down the road.

    270. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      *laughing*

      Ooh! That cut me to the quick. I'm still reeling from the dizzying display of intellect you've launched.

      Care to elaborate and back up your accusations, or shall we just judge them based on the plethora of useful and telling information you've already supplied?

      Right...

    271. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I mean. Your bias leads you to find cases where the media obsessed over something that's beneficial to the other side, and ignored something that's beneficial to yours. Meanwhile the other side is using opposite examples to make their case.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    272. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by brkello · · Score: 1

      You are just changing your argument to fit your own idea of what you want to be true. You said what did the Dems do in the past 2 years and I explained they couldn't do anything since the Republicans blocked them more than any other time in history.

      Are both parties to blame? Sure. But this tactic of saying "well, yeah, but Dems did bad things too" doesn't really hold water since it is a difference in degree. Who is responsible for this mess? The Republicans have pushed so hard for deregulation in every single industry. This is the major factor that allowed this to happen. Did the Dems want to fight a war in Iraq? No, but the Republicans in power lied to everyone to make their case. It's fine to see where the Dems failed, but if you want to blame everyone equally then you are probably a Fox News watcher.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    273. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      "You'll never get a majority of the people to agree to raise their own taxes. "

      That's what I thought, until the idiots here in L.A. county passed a 1/2 cent sales tax increase by a 2/3 MAJORITY! For road improvements we will never see. I am totally stunned, and wish I could see/hear the commercials I must have missed that somehow presented this as a good idea.

    274. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This is simply false. Take me, for example. Shallow and hack I would dispute but this is obviously something I am not impartial about. However I am very much non-partisan, and yet I still hold the opinion you mention.

      So are you willing to admit that the democrats had just as much to do with the current mess as the republicans did? Outside of that, you would be a partisan hack just like the guy I was responding to.

      This kind of bullshit pisses me off to no end. To paint everyone who holds a popular opinion with such a broad brush is pure ignorance. All it does is serve to alienate all those people from possibly listening to you. Here's a newsflash for you: it is possible to have all the facts, be politically neutral, and still come to a different conclusion.

      I think your going to be pissed off a lot in your life. The only way you can legitimately make a claim that I was painting everyone is if your willingly ignoring relevant facts to maintain your claims and views. Here is a news flash for you, read all of what i said and you will see that I was politically neutral and complaining about a partisan hack which you are demonstrating yourself to be. What's that word I used, oh yes, MORON.

      Oh.. here is another news flash for you. getting your panties in a knot because something was said about your political affiliations doesn't make you neutral by any means.

    275. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      SO your agreeing with me then, 2006 was the end of Bush's free ride and the democrats took over.

      You may not realize that you are a willing participant in what I said. It's ok though because I wasn't criticizing your pick of 2006, I was showing what changed in Bush's effectiveness at that time. An effect that happened when the democrats took over congress was that energy prices doubled which was one of the biggest factors to the financial meltdown because it exposed all the bad debt when people struggling to hang on couldn't any more.

    276. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I can see there's no reasoning with you. The fact of the matter is that I am not affiliated with any political party, don't even like them, and this excludes me from being a partisan hack by definition. And yet I still think that the Republicans are to blame. Therefore your original statement was wrong, period, end of story.

      I am not pissed off because you said something about my political affiliations. I am pissed off at the assumption, all too common these days, that anyone who holds a different opinion must be either stupid or evil. It is possible to disagree simply because of different opinions or priorities, but people like you refuse to acknowledge this. The result is two sides of the political spectrum which are nearly indistinguishable and which simultaneously each think that the other side is the devil.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    277. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I mean.

      Whoosh. Name a single contrary example that's on the same planet, much less the same page, as the media's obsession/dismissal of Condit's/Scarborough's intern.

      Meanwhile the other side is using opposite examples to make their case.

      That's the point: they don't have any. Cruise on over to Media Research Council where their top entry is a complaint over how popular Obama is internationally. Yawn.

      So do, please, give the false equivalency a rest already.

    278. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Democrats will point to how the press rolled over and let the Bush administration simply scratch their belly for the last few years instead of asking hard questions about Iraq and other such things.

      Honestly I can't even remember who Condit or Levy were, much less Scarborough, and I really don't feel like doing the research on it. Listen to Democrats complain about the media and they'll come up with examples just like yours except the other way around.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    279. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      What if we would have had Clinton for another 4 years (2000-2004). If my view his sterling image would have faded as people became disillusioned with the failing economy

      Yes, it would have been fun watching the free market Republicans whine about how Clinton didn't stop the .com crash. You know they would have done it, too.

      the attack on 9/11

      911 was completely preventable. Al Queda was the #1 concern of Clinton's national security team. If Clinton had been warned point-blank that Al Queda was determined to attack the United States and that he might use planes to do it, I doubt his response would have been "now you've covered your ass". I also doubt he would have kept reading a children's book as planes were flying into buildings.

      and Clinton's poor handling of foreign affairs.

      Which ones, exactly.

      Clinton still signed that awful Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act...

      Yes, he did. But that doesn't change the fact that Republicans authored and pushed the bill. While Clinton deserves blame for this, you can't argue that Republicans don't own the majority of the blame.

      Which brings the blame around to the Democrats for the bank failures, not just the Republicans as so many are falsely claiming.

      No dice. Republicans own this lock, stock and barrel. The SEC and the Fed under Bush could have stepped in a long time ago to combat subprime loans and risky investments. They didn't.

    280. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Honestly I can't even remember who Condit or Levy were, much less Scarborough, and I really don't feel like doing the research on it.

      Sure, sure. Why not try and compare a few articles from Media Matters, here's a good one, to Media Research Council, the right wing's attempt at showing media bias. Or just skim MRC and then try watching this clip - still think media bias is a matter of he said/she said with no way to determine who's right?

    281. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      You are misrepresenting my position. I do not "think media bias is a matter of he said/she said with no way to determine who's right". Rather, I think that the media is relatively politically unbiased on average, with the proof of this being that both sides think the media is in the pocket of the other side. Unless I've misunderstood, your links seem to be supporting that idea.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    282. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want everybody, right now, to bookmark the above comment and check back
      in 4 - no, 2 years. And when everything's even more fscked up than it is now,
      you'll know who to thank for voting "D straight down the list". Unreal.

    283. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      Clinton still signed that awful Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act... although one could argue he had no choice since it passed with HUGE support from his own Democratic party: "The final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57"

      That was after they'd managed to coat it in Democrat-friendly concessions. The first vote, on the bill itself sans riders, is the vote that actually reveals what the Democrats felt about it.

      (While coating bad-tasting legislation in candied earmarks is a time-"honored" US tradition, it's not fixable so long as we're using a voting system vulnerable to Duverger's Law. Two parties is not enough competition to stop riders.)

      Which brings the blame around to the Democrats for the bank failures, not just the Republicans as so many are falsely claiming.

      I'll be the first to admit that the Republicans don't deserve all the blame here. The Democrats were quite gung ho for leaving Fannie and Freddie unfettered by oversight, which put them in the no-mans land of being government-sponsored yet largely unregulated — a recipe for abuse. In particular, Barney Frank's refusal to face reality and admit his mistakes has been an embarrassment to me — as a gay man, a Democrat, and an American.

      That said, The Republicans held absolute control over the House for a solid 12-year stretch from 1995 to 2007, and they ran the Senate for the same period minus a two-year gap (2001-2003) when they were merely tied. From the Netscape IPO to the Paulson bailout, the last two economic crises happened on their watch. Also, while the Republicans love pointing to Democratic support for the CRA, the CRA is largely a non-issue — institutions subject to CRA rules have had lower default rates than the rest of the mortgage industry, and it's high time the Republicans stopped crying about it and quit trying to punt their share of blame. While it's not all their fault, they did seek and accept the power, and with the power comes the responsibility — and thus the blame when things go wrong.

      There's no need to blame the Democrats for the dot-com or housing crises. Now that they hold the power, I'm sure that the popularity of neo-Keynesian ideas among the Democrats will brew up a shiny new crisis that properly belongs to them. (Which is probably going to be even more spectacular than the current one: the next one will probably include hyperinflation and the total collapse of the US dollar, especially if the Democrats go through with their plan for a second stimulus package but fail to raise taxes to pay for it. The Republicans ought to be happy that they've stepped aside, because they're dodging a bullet on this one.)

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    284. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by pugugly · · Score: 1

      In the neither here nor there range, I actually looked up the National Journal Vote Ratings awhile back.

      It's kinda funny, because you have the vote-ratings "OmiGod Barack is more liberal than Ted Stevens!!!!", and then you have, quietly to the side, the actual 'issues' that they decided Barack Obama voted 'liberal' on.

      Now, to be fair, some of these votes were pretty definite conservative/liberal issues.

      But there were a lot of votes that it was so obvious that they looked at where he voted, and then worked backwards from there to make it a 'liberal' vote. Balancing the Budget is now a liberal issue! So is searching cargo at ports! So is requiring Mexican Trucks to meet U.S. standards driving inside the U.S.!

      It was about half pathetic, as often as that thing got quoted, how obviously it had been rigged to change Obama from 'left of center' to 'Oh my God, he's a Radical!!!'

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    285. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      I don't like Obama's healthcare plan, so I do agree with you there.

      Because you don't agree with Obama's healthcare plan, it is wealth redistribution, thus Marxist, thus wrong? Boy, when do you Americans grow up and stop arguing practical matters along ideological lines. Dogmatic free market thinking is about as practical as communism.

      Your country is currently facing a big problem with health care in that a large proportion of the population is uninsured because of the cost, people being held hostage by their employers because they are afraid to lose that insurance, people dying because insurance companies refusing to pony up, and emergency rooms clogging up with preventable emergencies, and you are whining about the finer points of plans to tackle this of being ideologically correct? It must be very gratifying to have a successful life while your society starts to resemble a third world nation. Congrats, you are not socialist, you are just destructive.

    286. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      I'm all for getting rid of all of our welfare programs, getting rid of SS and the rest of it. I should say that I'm young enough that I will never see SS pay me a dime. I make enough money that I do not qualify for any assistance programs. So really getting rid of all of that would be doing me a favor, I'd have more money by the end of every year. I'd be able to afford my own health care then and provide for my own retirement too. It's kinda hard to do so for myself and my family as well as doling out a chunk to everyone else out there too.

      Well, do consider that if you get rid of all welfare programs, you will have to start paying for your gated community, for the guards, and for the police that will need to expand to keep the starving masses from simply taking what they don't have. In the end, you might be paying more.

    287. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by zehaeva · · Score: 1

      So the answer is to keep the welfare coming? just to sate the everyone who can't support themselves and keep them from crime? Bribe the poor unwashed masses? that's the answer? I can not believe that welfare alone would throw the country into such lawlessness that we might as well be living in the wild west. If that is true then we as a country and the whole world at large must have been very lucky to make it so far.

    288. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Darby · · Score: 1

      More like 80's but a few also went over to the Democrats.

      No, it was the 50's and that is where the Libertarian party came from.
      The 80's was the second major wave. That was the slow ones who caught on once Goldwater lost to Reagan.

      and McCain before he sold out to get the vote was very much one of them and I would have voted for him in 2000

      I wouldn't have, but that's because I understand that the person is largely meaningless. You're voting for a party, not a person and while this true of both parties, it's far more true of the Republicans with their "RINOs" and such.

      but the overwhelming majority of the party are wackos and unfortunately a lot of people who support them dont realize this fact.

      Which given that there have already been 2 waves, one of the smart ones and one of the slow ones, it's hard to imagine what's wrong with those people who still haven't clued in.

    289. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I can see there's no reasoning with you. The fact of the matter is that I am not affiliated with any political party, don't even like them, and this excludes me from being a partisan hack by definition. And yet I still think that the Republicans are to blame. Therefore your original statement was wrong, period, end of story.

      Well, no, it doesn't exclude you from being a partisan hack. Not is you support the same position that the op was who started this thread and I originally replied to. If you still insist on blaming one party for what is clearly the fault of two, you are a partisan hack even if you claim no party affiliation.

      BTW, reasoning means that you would have something valid to say about the situation. To date, you only ignoring the situation.

      I am not pissed off because you said something about my political affiliations. I am pissed off at the assumption, all too common these days, that anyone who holds a different opinion must be either stupid or evil. It is possible to disagree simply because of different opinions or priorities, but people like you refuse to acknowledge this. The result is two sides of the political spectrum which are nearly indistinguishable and which simultaneously each think that the other side is the devil.

      The problems are that your opinion or disagreement is with fact, not someone else's opinion. You can't look at gravity and claim it only works some of the time, it works all the time. You can't throw an airplane into the picture as proof to your fact. As a matter of fact, you have not even went that far, you have simply refused to accept that the democrats took part in making the current mess we are in. That makes you partisan, and it makes you a hack whether you want to believe it or not. It has nothing to do with disagreeing over party policy or anything that makes you stupid (evil was your word), it is your ignoring what they have done and ignoring how that in combination with republican policy, has both parties behind the current mess that we are in.

    290. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      I thought it was labor unions.

      When did that story change?

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    291. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by xethair · · Score: 1

      His audience's reaction was atrocious, but I don't fault McCain for that.

      I do fault McCain for that. He ran his campaign and he created a clearly sick and destructive level of division against a candidate and party he should have known he was hard up to really defeat. The attitudes he fostered were outright disgraceful, and the fact that he didn't stand up and show some actual balls to stop it, even if at the cost of being elected, even after not being elected (yeah, said some nice things, but nothing that took responsibility for or really called for change with the hate), both leave us in a rather dangerous place and prove that we dodged a bullet on him being elected. His campaign was pathetic and desperate, and I'm concerned how many Americans accepted that from him (ie voted McCain).

    292. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      The fact that nobody can agree on whose fault the mess is should tell you that it is not, in fact, a matter of fact, but of opinion.

      Don't elevate your opinion to a higher status than it deserves.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    293. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The only people who can't agree on who fault the mess was/is are the partisan hacks who are attempting to see political gain by accusing the other side. If you listen to most economist who present their piece in political neutral tones, you will clearly see that the mess was caused by high energy prices combines with policies dating back to the Clinton administration and following through the bush administration. These policies where championed by both parties and were gimmicks that should have ended before confounding into the mess we have. Of course the one policy (CRA)was started under Carter and a democrat controlled congress but it wasn't much of an issue until the 90's when it was changed under Clinton and the republicans and the risk requirements were raised.

      Don't elevate your opinion to a higher status than it deserves.

      The partisan hacks is my opinion and yes, it deserves to be used. As for the causes of the problems, that isn't my opinion, it is the opinion of some very sound people who looked at the situation very closely. Just because your not willing to see past the hyperbole and rhetoric that the campaigns threw at us isn't my fault at all.

      BTW, if the dems are blaming the republicans and the republicans are blaming the dems, and it wasn't some unknown problem in the making, then why would you think that only one side was the problem? TO boil it down as bluntly as possible, the cause was improper manipulation from one side with the lack of oversight by the other. But both needed to be taken care of in order to have avoided it all together, patching one or the other would have only changed the amount of damage slightly because the trigger was sky high energy costs that took every last dime from people struggling already. You can pick and choose who was behind what- Both parties are to blame.

    294. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Balance by single person votes? Don't feel little dirty, you can console yourself by the fact that your individual vote didn't matter.

    295. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by doom · · Score: 1

      In re: the "young liberal/old conservative" business, my understanding is that we're actually seeing the opposite phenomena these days. Kids start out with libertarian master-of-industry fantasies, and move leftward as they get older.

    296. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by doom · · Score: 1

      When is a divided government not a divided government? When one party is intent on being a bunch of spineless rubber-stamps so that they won't be blamed for anything that goes wrong.

      But it's not like I'm bitter, or anything.

    297. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by doom · · Score: 1

      "Take your beating like a man --" I wish they had received a beating. Losing by 6 percent of the popular vote is better than they deserve, even with the continued loss of seats in the House.

      Myself, I'd like to see the lame ducks impeached immediately before they do more damage.

    298. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im a Darwinist. Let them die.

  4. Drunk wisdom by carbon+68k · · Score: 5, Funny

    A fellow bar patron put it best:

    "BLUE TEAM WINS"

    1. Re:Drunk wisdom by cgenman · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Red Warrior needs food... Badly"

    2. Re:Drunk wisdom by CDogberry · · Score: 0, Troll

      All of us welfare recepticles now have a voice in the White House. And what a voice we have... I'll let him speak for me and you better let him speak for you too, especially if you aggregate with what he's saying. Now, we just need to do something about all of those illegitimate guns out there and give them to the government so we can all be safe. Yeah, verily, the devine wind has come and it is Barak Osama.

    3. Re:Drunk wisdom by NoisySplatter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Green Elf shot the food!

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    4. Re:Drunk wisdom by kungfugleek · · Score: 1

      I had it: "Baracka wins! Fatality!"

    5. Re:Drunk wisdom by CDMA_Demo · · Score: 1

      I had it: "Baracka wins! Fatality!"

      This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quan_Chi vs. The One: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraka_(Mortal_Kombat)

    6. Re:Drunk wisdom by dada21 · · Score: 1

      I've always wished that voting totals also included the amount of registered voters who decided not to vote. To me, this number is just as important as how many voted for the winner or the losers.

      I belong to a different team, the team that repudiates the prejudice act called voting.

    7. Re:Drunk wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This changes nothing about ACTA or DMCA Laws. In fact it may have made it worse. Bill Clinton's government introduced the DMCA. Don't be fooled into thinking this fixes most of the core technology issues that affect us. I am glad that he won, but I am not fooled by a romantic notion that this will magically make the world perfect in every way.

    8. Re:Drunk wisdom by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gold Five: Stay off topic.

      Gold Leader: It's too close!

      Gold Five: Stay off topic!

      Gold Leader: Loosen up!

      Gold Five: Gold Five to Red Leader, lost House, lost Senate.

    9. Re:Drunk wisdom by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Ha! Not this time, Nader!

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    10. Re:Drunk wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOP Wizard is about to die!

    11. Re:Drunk wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we have Tucker and Caboose instead of Sarge and Donut?

    12. Re:Drunk wisdom by CrkHead · · Score: 1

      "Better dead than red"

    13. Re:Drunk wisdom by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Red Warrior is about to die!

    14. Re:Drunk wisdom by dave_is_god · · Score: 1

      If this is the case can i flashbang the team?

    15. Re:Drunk wisdom by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1
    16. Re:Drunk wisdom by zaivala · · Score: 1

      I tend to think of it as the Green Team... with the elephantines as the Brown Team. Sort of symbolizes what these parties claim to be for in terms of our environment.

    17. Re:Drunk wisdom by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      I was making a joke. I likely would have voted Nader in 2004 were I American.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    18. Re:Drunk wisdom by ryanov · · Score: 1

      So many people that I know buy it, I at least have to point it out. :)

    19. Re:Drunk wisdom by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Then it'd be hugely skewed by the registered voters who didn't vote because they were dead, fictitious, or had four legs.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  5. First thing I thought about... by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rev. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream".

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:First thing I thought about... by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rev. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream".
      Me too, especially when everybody started talking about the color of the president elect's skin. As such I am hereby starting a new internet meme, "DKDI" pronounced decay-dee-eye which stands for Dr. King's dream indeed. Use this phrase anytime someone mentions the color of Obama's skin, if the person you say this to is intelligent, they might stop to think about how far we still have to go, if they're stupid they'll merely assume you agree with their particular wonder at the most recent election.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    2. Re:First thing I thought about... by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or maybe you shouldn't be using a dead person's hypothetical opinions to promote your own agenda.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

      Skim MLK?

    4. Re:First thing I thought about... by VJ42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I voted for Obama, but he's not even close to MLK.

      I think that the GP meant that MLK's famous dream has been fulfilled, not that Obama is somehow as great as Dr King.

      My own opinion chimes with that of one of our most famous leaders: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." - Winston Chirchill. After the world suffering eight years of GWB, the quote somehow seemed appropriate.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    5. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      As such I am hereby starting a new internet meme

      Memes do not work that way.

    6. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      When 96% of the black vote goes to one candidate, it's pretty clear we have a long way to go.

    7. Re:First thing I thought about... by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Troll

      First thing I thought about ... Rev. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream".

      I wonder what Dr. King would have thought about this line from Obama:

      "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a Civilian National Security Force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

      As a guy who spent a lot of time not being very pleased with civilian security forces, I do wonder what he'd think about a giant, powerful new one with a huge new bureaucracy slurping up gajillions of new dollars, operating inside the borders. Huge bureacracies and giant new security forces tend to look for something to do, and someone to do it to.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:First thing I thought about... by joyfeather · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the 1970's there were still parts of the beach in Daytona where blacks were not allowed to go. In the 1980's, the police routinely were called when a group of blacks went to the beach "because they might be planning a riot or something." In the 1990's, there were still restaurants where, if I took a black friend, we could not enjoy our meal because we would be stared at the entire time. There are parts of Florida (and I am sure elsewhere) where the KKK still has power. And last night, Florida, as well as the rest of the United States, elected an African American as President. We may have a long way to go, but we are getting there.

    9. Re:First thing I thought about... by Noryungi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, my goodness! Finally someone who took the time to try and understand what I was trying to say.

      Thank you.

      And, I might add (as a Frenchman) that that Churchill quote you wrote about was also a close second... :-)

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    10. Re:First thing I thought about... by readin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      McCain has a multi-racial family. Obama is yet another example in our long line of presidents with mono-racial families. McCain followed Dr. King's dream and didn't asked to be judge on the color of his skin or of his children's skin color. Obama race-baited early in the campaign and talked about how he didn't look like previous presidents - as if his color were something you should consider while voting. McCain was the real follower of Dr. King's dream. To bad we're still not ready for it.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    11. Re:First thing I thought about... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Makes me wonder if we can finally do away with race based affirmative action now. I personally can't wait to watch people stop saying 'Obama raised himself up from nothing' and start saying 'Obama was actually privileged all along, so we still need it.'

    12. Re:First thing I thought about... by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you look here they do.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    13. Re:First thing I thought about... by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      I wish I had a mod point to throw your way, I laughed.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    14. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer semi-skimmed MLK.

    15. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up blackie. Obama is JFK wannabe. Suck on my dick.

    16. Re:First thing I thought about... by ketilwaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As far as I can tell, there's a history of white people voting close to 100% white in presidential elections. (Take it as a lame joke, or acknowledge the point)

      African-american people voting for an african-american candidate is not necessarily a problem. My view: It is a natural thing, stemming from years and years of oppression. If this is still the case in 200 years, we (or should I say they, as I'll bed dead then) might have a problem.

    17. Re:First thing I thought about... by Theolojin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rev. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream".

      (I didn't vote for Senator Obama.) I told my three children this morning (11, 7, & 5) about this historic occasion. When I pointed out that when Senator Obama was a young boy, black folk had to use different drinking fountains than white folk and had to use different bathrooms and go to different schools, they were stunned (especially the 11-year-old) that segregation was so recent. In a couple months we will have an African-American as president of the United States. How far we've come.

      God bless America.

      --
      Life is short; think quickly.
    18. Re:First thing I thought about... by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      Given that we're making a big deal out of black man running for president and getting the presidency, I'm not so sure we're as on target a you think. If we were where MLK wanted, it wouldn't have been a big deal to have a black man there, because he'd just be another person.

      I think this is the first big step in a long time to getting there rather than a sign that we are there.

    19. Re:First thing I thought about... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Wow, somebody stating exactly what I've been trying to tell people for ages now. :-)

      The day racism is well and truly behind us is the day that we no longer feel it necessary to draw attention to the colour of someone's skin. Until then, racism is still with us, even if it's just as a legacy (it's not even that yet).

    20. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To use american stlye:
      Thank god, Obama one is not a priest like MLK.

    21. Re:First thing I thought about... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      The AC is right. If you've ever read anything about/from MLK, you'd know that he's the very definition of a peaceful Christian, and I'd bet my left nut that he'd have a beef with anyone who said 'God damn America.' MLK got more ass kickings and put up with more racist crap for standing up for what's right than Wright ever has, and yet who was foaming at the mouth about the ebil white man? If you think Dr. King would have gone for that, all I can say is go read a book.

    22. Re:First thing I thought about... by aaron+alderman · · Score: 1

      Southern Redneck: "This is a nightmare"

    23. Re:First thing I thought about... by Kgosi+Makwati · · Score: 1

      Here in South Africa we have a saying: USA has finally got their Mandela moment!

      When I saw Obama speaking today, I was remended of Nelson Mandela's speech at the Union building.

    24. Re:First thing I thought about... by Noryungi · · Score: 1

      Err...

      Sorry, in the immortal words of Lewis Black " I had to remind myself to breathe " after reading your comment.

      I mean, "mono-racial"? Caucasian mother and grand-parents, African father? Indonesian step-father? Indonesian/Caucasian half-brothers and sisters? "Mono"-racial?

      Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

      Oh, and just so you know, most geneticist estimate there is only one human race, and that we all come from, you know, somewhere in Africa. So we all are "mono-racial" in a certain way, right? Like, we are all the same inside? Ebony and Ivory? Kumbaya, Oh Lord, Kumbaya?

      *slaps forehead*

      Oh wait! I forgot: you probably wearn white sheets with holes over the eyes and burn crosses at night as a past-time, right?

      Sorry, never mind me. Carry on.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    25. Re:First thing I thought about... by Krabbs · · Score: 1

      He didn't say Obama was MLK. He said Obama was MLKs dream come true.

    26. Re:First thing I thought about... by cain · · Score: 1

      He's promoting an agenda? I think you're showing your own bias.

    27. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't that go both ways?

    28. Re:First thing I thought about... by smug_lisp_weenie · · Score: 1

      Obama wasn't part of MLK's dream...

      ...but for us to have a country that could elect someone like Obama probably was.

    29. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      erm...he wasnt a trial lawyer. As far as I know, he never worked in a courtroom. i think youre thinking of edwards.

      and the "i'm not bush" platform was mccains. what election did you watch?

    30. Re:First thing I thought about... by MoreDruid · · Score: 1
      I know this is flamebait, but why "God bless America" when the segregation was allowed until so recently?

      Yes, I know that since then a lot has changed, but don't be too proud and go around saying that African Americans (or whatever the current politically correct term it is now) are now at equal foot with other ethnic groups (including "white"), because that is simply not true (not implying that you said that though, I just read that between the lines). Although it must be refreshing to have a black man positively on TV news instead of crimewatch or whatever.

      --
      The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.
    31. Re:First thing I thought about... by cain · · Score: 1

      Oops. My mistake. I didn't correctly see who you were responding to. My bad.

    32. Re:First thing I thought about... by Number6.2 · · Score: 1

      Golly, what would Jebus say about that?! He'd be mad as Heck, I'm sure!

      --
      "If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
    33. Re:First thing I thought about... by readin · · Score: 1

      I mean, "mono-racial"? Caucasian mother and grand-parents, African father? Indonesian step-father? Indonesian/Caucasian half-brothers and sisters? "Mono"-racial?

      Then why does Obama keep calling himself "black" instead of "bi-racial" or "multi-racial" or sometimes saying "black" and sometimes saying "white". It seems to me he purposefully chose a mono-racial identity.

      As for McCain, I don't know what he calls his family. While Obama made an issue of his race, McCain never made an issue of his opponent's race or tried to score points with his family's race. McCain really followed Dr. King's dream and left race out of the picture.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    34. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Or maybe you shouldn't be using a dead person's hypothetical opinions to promote your own agenda.

      Christians did that already very successfully and profitably... :-)

    35. Re:First thing I thought about... by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>the day we no longer feel it necessary to draw attention to the colour of someone's skin

      I would be perfectly happy to forget the color of your skin.

      So why do you keep bringing it up? I don't care if you're white, black, brown, or pink with yellow pokadots. You all look like humans to me! For example I don't look at William Powell as anything other than an American citizen who served his country with distinction. The only reason color is an issue is because YOU (and expecially the media) won't let it go: "Hey buddy, Mr. Powell is black." Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn what color he is. All I see is an American citizen; that's it.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    36. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      (I didn't vote for Senator Obama.) I told my three children this morning (11, 7, & 5) about this historic occasion. When I pointed out that when Senator Obama was a young boy, black folk had to use different drinking fountains than white folk and had to use different bathrooms and go to different schools, they were stunned (especially the 11-year-old) that segregation was so recent. In a couple months we will have an African-American as president of the United States. How far we've come.

      And yet, now the next president has been elected, the only thing anyone seems to say about him is that he's black. How far you've still got to go...

    37. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's black? Huh, never noticed and still don't care.

    38. Re:First thing I thought about... by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama Speech was good but not quite at the same level.
      BHO speech is to MLK speech
      as
      Windows is to OS X

      A nice try not quite the same as well its focus was different a bit too.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    39. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McCain has a multi-racial family. Obama is yet another example in our long line of presidents with mono-racial families.

      Mono-racial? Black father. White mother. How exactly does that qualify as a mono-racial family?

    40. Re:First thing I thought about... by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 1

      Yeah, MLK didn't say that God will damn America, MLK merely said that if America doesn't changes its ways then God will rise up and break the backbone of America's power, and will place in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know God's name.

      Wait a sec, that sounds exactly like God damning America... True, MLK was much more eloquent than Wright was in describing the exact way that God will damn America.

    41. Re:First thing I thought about... by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Eh. Monoracial family. White mother, black father. relatives from Kansas and Kenya. I'll take it you meant multi-racial.

      About the race baiting, to their credit, both McCain and Obama shied away from discussing race. It still came up, a lot, but by and large it didn't influence the outcome of the election. Obama needed to carry very large percentage of the white vote. If he had split the country along racial lines, he would have lost, handily.

    42. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." - Winston Chirchill. After the world suffering eight years of GWB, the quote somehow seemed appropriate.

      So when do Americans do the right thing? Tried bush...trying obama...who do they try next? When is it the right thing?

    43. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we've come a long way. But, judging by the racism and ignorance I've been reading here and elsewhere, we've still got a long way to go.

    44. Re:First thing I thought about... by chrb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      when Senator Obama was a young boy, black folk had to use different drinking fountains than white folk and had to use different bathrooms and go to different schools

      When Senator Obama was a young boy, the mixed-race marriage of his parents was illegal in many states.

    45. Re:First thing I thought about... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You're really grasping at straws there

      Well, OK then. As long as you're only fussing about the semantics, and not about the creation of a gigantic new domestic security force.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    46. Re:First thing I thought about... by theaveng · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to exit polls (not actual votes), 95% of blacks voted for Obama. 5% actually voted for McCain, so yeah, they decided to make history and put into power the first black president. The exit polls show that ~65% of Asians/Latinos supported for Obama. Only 43% of whites supported for Obama. If this has been a whites-only election, McCain would now be president.

      AGE: The results indicate that older voters are more conservative, with support for McCain gradually increasing from 32% (median age 23) to 44% (median age 34) up to 53% (65 or older). People become less liberal and more conservative as they advance in years.

      Any theories why that might be? Perhaps they are trying to protect their lifelong-accumulated wealth from Democrat redistribution?

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    47. Re:First thing I thought about... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Trying to find something good about the election.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    48. Re:First thing I thought about... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Here's the difference: America didn't have institutionalized racism when Wright said it, and it can be argued that MLK would have been right had America not changed (racism is very un-capitalist). I think there's a bit of a difference between saying 'your sin will find you out' and jumping up and down screaming that 'God's gonna git you' for something that hasn't happened in decades.

    49. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left some stuff out.

      will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

      Sounds like King's dream still hasn't materialized. The racists of America elected the most unqualified candidate to ever run for president, just because of the color of his skin. Blacks won, but America and the rest of the free world lost. How sad that America will be an Obama-nation for the next 4 years.

    50. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not even close...I mean the comparision. In many ways, Obama responded to the situation he faced, while MLK responded to a different condition. Two different men put in two different circumstances.

      Looking back, Obama ran a shrewd 2 year long campaign with rarely a glitch...worthy of being being called a genius!

    51. Re:First thing I thought about... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This all depends on what happens to affirmative action now. Either:

      1) Obama worked his way to become president under his own will and affirmative action is no longer necessary.
      or
      2) Obama has been elected president due (at least in part) to the color of his skin and not the content of his character.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    52. Re:First thing I thought about... by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>while he was getting arrested for drinking from white-only water fountains

      That's *precisely* why Mr. King would be against a strong "army like" security force. Instead of merely being arrested, he'd probably be drug-off to some offshore military base to be tortured & quietly disappeared.

      BTW a strong internal Army is how the Roman Republic (and Senate) was overthrown 2000 years ago, and the general made himself into a dictator. Do we really want to see the same thing happen to the American Republic? Do we want some future president in command of an "army-like" force that he can use to push-aside the Congress & turn himself into a dictator?

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    53. Re:First thing I thought about... by the+phantom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The thing is, I don't think that MLK's dream has been fulfilled. Yes, a black man has been elected as our next president, and that is an incredible thing, and goes some distance towards showing how much things have changed since the 60s. On the other hand, minorities are still disproportionately poor; the criminal system still disproportionately punishes people of color; minorities still do not have a proportionate number of people in power in state and local governments or in the the upper echelons of private industry; and, oddly enough, there are a good number of people who voted for a "nigger" only because they were so tired of Bush that any alternative, even if it is someone they hate, would be better than McCain. Additionally, MLK talked of a time when people would not be judged on the basis of skin color. Throughout the entire race, Obama's skin color has been an issue. Both campaigns tried to downplay it, but it was still an issue. Listen to the comments made by audience members at several of the McCain and Palin rallies, for instance, and the lack of admonishment from either of those politicians. We still have a long way to go. Don't get me wrong, the election of Obama is a fantastic step in terms of civil rights, but don't think for a second that it is the fulfillment of MLK's dream.

    54. Re:First thing I thought about... by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>Obama is yet another example in our long line of presidents with mono-racial families.

      Dear Student:

      You may not have heard but he is actually the result of a MIXED black-white marriage. You probably would have known that if you bothered to do even a slight amount of reseach.

      F.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    55. Re:First thing I thought about... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Don't know what TV news network you're watching, but all the ones I've watched are saying a HELLUVA lot more than that.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    56. Re:First thing I thought about... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder if we can finally do away with race based affirmative action now.

      Probably not, at least under one reasonable interpretation of Obama's win.

      The first election I voted in was the Kennedy/Nixon one. Back then, lots of people said that Kennedy couldn't win, because there were too many Americans who would never vote for a Catholic. In the analysis afterward, people figured out that this was true; there were millions of Americans who didn't vote for him because he was Catholic. But those were mostly people who would never vote for a Democrat, so in fact being Catholic didn't hurt him.

      We've already heard a few political analysts say this about Obama. It's probably true that millions of Americans wouldn't vote for him because he's black. But those people would mostly never vote for a Democrat, so it didn't matter.

      In both cases, what's really going on is that most Americans will vote for a Catholic, or a black man, or a woman, etc. For example, here in Massachusetts we have a black governor, and there was little sign that his skin color was a problem for most white voters. The real problem has been that the two major parties that have a (media-supported) lock on the election process have refused to nominate such candidates. When the Democrats finally nominated a Catholic, he won. When they finally nominated a black man, he won. When they finally nominate a woman, she will likely win; being female won't hurt here any more than being black hurt Obama or being Catholic hurt Kennedy.

      If you think about this, it's actually fairly similar to employment discrimination. In both elections and hiring, the general population has little input into the decision of who to hire/nominate. That decision is made in great part by top management. If the people who make the hiring decisions "know" that a black man (or a Catholic or a woman) can't do the job, it doesn't matter what the general population thinks; no such person is offered the job. Jobs can usually only be done by the people who are hired for the job, and elections can usually only be won by the people nominated for the office.

      Having a black man (with a "foreign" name) as president won't have much affect at all on hiring decisions in most companies. Or in most government agencies, for that matter. The people in charge of the hiring decisions will still decide based on the same prejudices, and many capable people will never be hired as a result. Or they may be hired, for low-level position, but never promoted to positions of more responsibility.

      Denying this is simply ignoring facts that are fairly obvious to anyone who has ever been involved in the hiring process. And one political party finally deciding to offer the top job to a black man won't affect the general problem very much. Most of us white Americans would have voted for a black (or female or ...) president decades ago, if one had ever been nominated. But there have always been powerful forces in the party structures that prevented such nominations. Just as there are powerful forces in most companies that restrict hiring and/or promotions to the "right kind of people".

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    57. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      winston was my favorite president

    58. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but if you follow the Exodus analogy, Obama is a pretty good Josuha to King's Moses. Heck, it's even been 40 years since King was murdered.

      (I also think Obama's platform was far from "I'm not Bush". Kerry's platform was "I'm not Bush" and it failed miserably. But I'd rather not argue right now. I'm too giddy.)

    59. Re:First thing I thought about... by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Strictly-speaking, the racist reverend was correct. If you believe the Bible is the literal word of Yahweh (the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god), then about 90% of us ARE damned (to hades). Virtually any other, honest preacher will tell you the same, albeit with better tact than Mr. Wright.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    60. Re:First thing I thought about... by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 2, Informative

      Utter nonsense. MLK wasn't even referring to racism when he said these words: he was referring to Vietnam and America acting as "the policeman of the world".

      Here's the context:
      Don't let anybody make you think God chose America as his divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems I can hear God saying to America "you are too arrogant, and if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name."

      Do you think that MLK living today wouldn't speak the exact same words about Iraq as he spoke back then about Vietnam?

    61. Re:First thing I thought about... by Avatar8 · · Score: 1

      I don't think Obama has as much honor or virtue in his whole body as Dr. King had in his pinky finger.

    62. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right on brother, it is categorically wrong to look to statements by historical figures conducive to ones own views

    63. Re:First thing I thought about... by goldspider · · Score: 1

      MLK's dream wasn't that a black man be elected president, but that "my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

      Obama's election did not fulfill the dream; it proves that the dream had already been fulfilled.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    64. Re:First thing I thought about... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I can't begin to describe how funny that was. Amazing. I'll be borrowing that.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    65. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing the parent wasn't comparing the two as much as referring to the content of the Lincoln Memorial speech.

    66. Re:First thing I thought about... by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am hereby starting a new internet meme, [...] if the person you say this to is intelligent,

      Memes definitely do not work that way.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    67. Re:First thing I thought about... by sydb · · Score: 1

      How can you tell he's an American citizen just by looking at him?

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    68. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MLK's dream was that a man be judged by the content of his character, not the color of his skin. With 90% of African American's voting for Obama, do think that's what happened in this election?

    69. Re:First thing I thought about... by jackbird · · Score: 1
      Leave us Jews out of it. The old testament says next to nothing about an afterlife, and our liturgy doesn't really harp on it much. We tend to concentrate more on repairing this world rather than getting to the next one, although different factions have wildly different ideas about what such repair might consist of.

      There's some non-binding talmudic stuff about having to roll on your side to Jerusalem before meeting the messiah if you didn't live a good life, and a set of seven commandments non-jews need to follow to be redeemed ("don't eat the flesh of a live animal" is the only one I can remember), but that's mostly regarded as trivia.

    70. Re:First thing I thought about... by HardCase · · Score: 1

      Now maybe we can all start getting along. I didn't vote for Obama, but I'm taking a hint from McCain's concession speech and supporting him. I suspect that I won't agree with a lot of Obama's proposals, but that's just the nature of the ideological differences between a liberal and a conservative.

      As one of the winners in my (extremely red) state's congressional race said, "Obama is going to be my president. There will be a lot of things that we won't agree on, so it will be my job to try to change his mind."

      Everybody here should read the transcript of Senator McCain's concession speech. It was a piece of political inspiration. And you should all take it to heart.

    71. Re:First thing I thought about... by a4r6 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he didn't mean that Obama and MLK are similar, but that Obama's presidency is one part of the realization of MLK's dream...

    72. Re:First thing I thought about... by Ngarrang · · Score: 0, Troll

      Rev. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream".

      Martin wanted us all to get along. Obama used racial tension to divide and install anger, mobilizing the blacks to vote for him because he was black and promised to give them free money. He consistently played the race card while McCain avoided the topic. Obama used past generations of racism to his advantage.

      And at his acceptance speech, he began to back-peddle on all of his promises. 52% of the nation was played for fools.

      King would be appalled at Obama's actions. Obama has create a division that could tear this country apart.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    73. Re:First thing I thought about... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Their children will be stunned when they'll tell that when they were young, gay marriage was forbidden, smoking pot could send you to jail and that creationism still had adepts.

      God bless America.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    74. Re:First thing I thought about... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      I think that the GP meant that MLK's famous dream has been fulfilled, not that Obama is somehow as great as Dr King.

      Um, no it hasn't. Well maybe his dream did come true as I haven't ever really paid attention to the details. I've always assumed that it really meant that folks wouldn't even blink at color/gender/religion when making choices and just choose whoever. I say no it hasn't because there is far, far too much yeah we've got a "black" guy running for a president and now, you'll see all this yeah we aren't racist because we voted for the "black" democrat.

      It'd be fulfilled when "color/gender/religion" doesn't come up once during the pre-election fighting. To many people on both sides have made this election about "color/race/gender" so no we aren't really any where near "the dream." O.k. if "the dream" was only to have a "black male" elected due to a large black electorate, then sure "the dream" has come true. I'd actually say that there was as much or more excitement about the white females running. That alone right there should have told you that we aren't anywhere near treating males/females the same. There wouldn't have been any excitement that a female/black/non-certain religion person got elected if we were there yet.

    75. Re:First thing I thought about... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and just so you know, most geneticist estimate there is only one human race, and that we all come from, you know, somewhere in Africa. So we all are "mono-racial" in a certain way, right? Like, we are all the same inside? Ebony and Ivory? Kumbaya, Oh Lord, Kumbaya?

      Close, but the terminology could be adjusted a bit. We are all one species, with a number of subspecies. As usual, the subspecies interbreed at nearly every opportunity, and hybrids are common when subspecies intermingle. The term "race" isn't much used in biologist circles, but when it is, it's understood as a synonym for "subspecies". Horticulturalists tend to use "variety" for the same concept.

      Actually, humans are one of the many species in which there isn't much real genetic difference between subspecies. Thus, in our closest relatives, the chimps, there is more genetic variation in the million or so that survive than there is in the 6 billion humans. A few human subspecies can be distinguished genetically, but they just barely qualify as subspecies, and the differences are rather superficial.

      It's also common to point out that there is more genetic variability between African groups than there is between "Africans" and the "Caucasian", "Asiatic" and "Australian" subspecies. Those three are really just minor of within the greater African tree, genetically speaking. Modern white people are the descendants of a group of north Africans ("Cro-Magnons") who migrated to Europe around 40,000 years ago, plus later mixing with an influx of east Africans about 2000 years ago via the Romans' slave trading. The pale skin is a straightforward adaptation to Europe's cool, cloudy climate.

      My favorite bit of silliness about "race" is that here in the US, one of the common terms in a list of racial groups is "Hispanic". That illustrates pretty clearly how nonsensical the whole concept is. But it doesn't really discredit the idea that there are human subspecies; it just says that the popular conception is all screwed up and doesn't match the genetic facts.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    76. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And one is a Democrat and one was a Republican.

      http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why%20MLK%20was%20a%20Republican

    77. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Winston Chirchill was not our leader.

    78. Re:First thing I thought about... by melstav · · Score: 1

      To quote from the text of Dr. King's speech

      I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

      Regardless of whether or not he would have agreed with Obama's politics, I think he would be proud to see that the citizens of the United States have shown themselves willing to accept a non-white man as President.

      If he's able to truly make a difference and help the country turn around, I think he'd be prouder still.

    79. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were to take a minute to look at Obama's website, and read his speeches, his campaign wasn't just "I'm not Bush". Yes, it helped him that his opponent DID match up with Bush, and they did use that to his advantage, but that was not by a longshot his entire platform.

    80. Re:First thing I thought about... by readin · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of Obama, his wife, and his kids.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    81. Re:First thing I thought about... by readin · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of Obama, his wife, and his kids.

      he is actually the result of a MIXED black-white marriage

      You would never know that from hearing him talk. He calls him self "black" not "bi-racia" or "multi-racial". Nor does he sometimes call himself "black" and other times "white".

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    82. Re:First thing I thought about... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      No problem. That's what the Parent button is for.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    83. Re:First thing I thought about... by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      My wife asked me what I thought that MLK would say to Obama if King was still alive. I said "Duck!". She hit me.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    84. Re:First thing I thought about... by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      I really get tired of this implication that world opinion should affect the US election. I'm picking on you, I know; but the endorsements of foreign papers and the comments here about how one candidate or the other would be best for the world... that is not what this election is about. The election is about what is best for the US. There is overlap, but it is NOT the same. There's a reason you have to be a citizen to vote.

    85. Re:First thing I thought about... by swb · · Score: 1

      You mean he did worse than cheat on his wife and plagiarize his thesis?

    86. Re:First thing I thought about... by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      How can Obama be a trial lawyer if he never tried a case?

    87. Re:First thing I thought about... by Tritoch · · Score: 1

      The AC makes a good point...not to mention the other sharp racial divides we saw with almost all races among voters for both candidates. I'm not saying it should be 50/50 divide even in an perfect world, but this is just another step (albeit a huge one) on a long road we still have to travel.

    88. Re:First thing I thought about... by jambox · · Score: 1

      a dead person's hypothetical opinions

      I've never heard anyone refer to that most famous of speeches in such terms! I'm guessing it doesn't mean much to you personally.

      I would argue it's an awful lot more than a dead guy's hypothetical opinions, that most people would agree with that and that the parallels with last night's events are undeniable.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    89. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people, such as Noryungi, see Obama as a black person. They voted for him because he's black. They see MLK and they say, "Oh look, they're both black!"

    90. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife told me there was a 109 year old woman who is the daughter of a former slave who was able to vote for Obama.
      I think this is the story (Austin-American Statesman).

    91. Re:First thing I thought about... by jambox · · Score: 1

      "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

      Further evidenced by Dubya's intention to retire.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    92. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I know this is flamebait, but why "God bless America" when the segregation was allowed until so recently?" Well, I think that's what they call "spin", my friend: Positive - "We've come so far so quickly" Negative - "We had problems up to so recently in our history" That said, I agree - we do have a long way to go. But still, I'm glad we have come as far as we have.

    93. Re:First thing I thought about... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Oh, like the dept of homeland security? ;)

      I'm not talking about re-arranging customs, immigration, airport security, etc, into one agency that can actually allow those existing and necessary entities to talk to each other and operate more seamlessly. I'm talking about the tone-deafness of a new C-in-C who thought, given the audience he was preaching to at the time, that muttering something about a colossal new internal security force seemed like the right thing to say. This goes to his sensibilities, naivete, and general Nanny-Statedeness. It also reminds of the vague pandering that got him elected. Watching him actually have to talk people back down from crazy talk like that is going to be painful for everybody. Or, watching him actually try to implement it because he said it - that will be even worse.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    94. Re:First thing I thought about... by yore · · Score: 1

      Obama was a lawyer, but not a trial lawyer. Saying otherwise is like calling MLK a cult leader rather than a minister.

    95. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you see Jessie "shakedown" Jackson during Obama's speach? He looked sad... like "damn, the scam is over".

      Who you going to blame for Race & Social problems now?

      Can the President vote "present" on legislation?

    96. Re:First thing I thought about... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      First, you don't start memes by announcing your intent to start one, and second, the site you're looking for is 4chan and that's on the other side of the internet.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    97. Re:First thing I thought about... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The racists of America

      Yea, how are you guys doing right now?

    98. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I'm a huge fan of affirmative action (I waffle on the matter), but just because one person managed to claw his way up to some definition of "the top" doesn't indicate anything about fairness towards a group that person belongs to as a whole.

      If you set the bar of "reasonable" according to what the most talented/driven/lucky/etc. can do, you get some pretty absurd things being "reasonable".

    99. Re:First thing I thought about... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Yes he was, I'm British.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    100. Re:First thing I thought about... by Larryish · · Score: 1

      I do not think it memes what you think it memes.

    101. Re:First thing I thought about... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      I really get tired of this implication that world opinion should affect the US election. I'm picking on you, I know; but the endorsements of foreign papers and the comments here about how one candidate or the other would be best for the world... that is not what this election is about. The election is about what is best for the US. There is overlap, but it is NOT the same. There's a reason you have to be a citizen to vote.

      I know we can't vote, but we are allowed an opinion, and if you believe your own constitution we also have freedom of speech. If I am of the opinion that Barrak Obama was the better of the two candidates I may wish to express that opinion. If some US citizens are swayed by my arguments, then what's wrong with that? I'm probably better informed of the policies of Both major candidates than many of those who did vote (I'm quite a political junkie).

      As it happens I largely kept out of the election discussion before the result, as I know that many Americans respond negatively to what can be perceived as "interference" and well, us Brits messed it up in 2004 (note: I predicted that that would happen).

      On the broader issue of who should have the right to vote, I have a friend in the US who permanent residence; she not allowed to vote despite paying taxes over there. What happened to the cry of "no taxation without representation"?

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    102. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      African-American? He is not from africa. He is an American who happens to be MIXED. He is black and white. Everyone seems to forget that. Blacks have everything and more they need in this nation to succeed. Sadly many like to use the race card anyway and say that have it bad. This nation is equal for all, if anything it is white men who get the shaft now.

      God help America

    103. Re:First thing I thought about... by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      Their children will be stunned when they'll tell that when they were young, gay marriage was forbidden,

      civil partnerships, does that count?

        smoking pot could send you to jail

      Might get it confiscated, but won't go any further unless you're selling.

        and that creationism still had adepts

      Fortunately, I don't get to meet them.

      cheers,

        UK resident

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    104. Re:First thing I thought about... by Darby · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of Obama, his wife, and his kids.

      You're right, they should have decided to have one white and one asian baby. Shame on them for marrying the person they love and then producing kids without using unknown genetic engineering technologies.
      The horror.

       

    105. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Senator Obama was a young boy, the mixed-race marriage of his parents was illegal in many states.

      Including, my favorite, Virginia.

      The Land of Lovers

    106. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You deserve some kind of award

    107. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that King's dream was that people would look past the color of man's skin and see the man himself. That didn't happen here - record turn out among minority voters for the first time EVER - you think they were all of a sudden interested in the issues? No, this election was racist and anyone that says otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

    108. Re:First thing I thought about... by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      I didn't say you aren't allowed to have or express your opinion. I am objecting to the attitude that people outside the US have that their opinion should mean anything to Americans when they vote. It's arrogant. We are not voting for your interests, we are voting for US interests. I don't care if you're informed, because you are forming your opinion based on non-US interests. Like I said, I am picking on your comment not because it was outrageous, but because it has an undercurrent that reminded me of issue in general.

      As to your friend, is she a citizen of this country? If not, she does not have the right to influence the country's government. To your argument about taxation, I can't really comment because I consider income tax immoral. But if you consume in this country, you will be taxed on that consumption, just like most other countries.

    109. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First thing I thought was, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

      If you don't recognize it, look it up. We're in for a lot of it.

    110. Re:First thing I thought about... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      he is actually the result of a MIXED black-white marriage

      You would never know that from hearing him talk. He calls him self "black" not "bi-racia" or "multi-racial". Nor does he sometimes call himself "black" and other times "white".

      For American black people, it would be pointless to point out that he has both African and European ancestors, because this it true for almost all American black people. Of course, he is a bit unusual, because his black+white ancestors actually were married. More often, the ancestral black+white pair was a white man who owned the black woman. This is sufficiently well understood by most Americans that there's no need to mention it.

      But I did read an interesting take on it recently: Someone pointed out that, for obvious statistical reasons, black Americans usually have close white relatives, while most white Americans don't have close black relatives. This was presented as an explanation of why white Americans tend to both stereotype and fear black Americans, while black Americans tend to view white people as "just people" who are highly varied. You're a lot less likely to stereotype or fear a group of people if you've grown up close to a bunch of them.

      In any case, because dark pigmentation is genetically dominant over light, people who have both dark- and light-skinned ancestors are usually on the dark side. In the US, "black" means having visibly dark skin. So most people of mixed ancestry tend to be considered "black", and any white ancestry is dismissed.

      In the US, if you assume that a black person has white ancestors and relatives, you'll usually be right. Barrack Obama isn't the least bit unusual in that regard. What's unusual is that he's an "F1 hybrid".

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    111. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The results indicate that older voters are more conservative, with support for McCain gradually increasing from 32% (median age 23) to 44% (median age 34) up to 53% (65 or older). People become less liberal and more conservative as they advance in years.

      You're totally ignoring that McCain is much older that Obama and it's not just that he's conservative, but he talks like someone stuck in 1960. I'm sick of 60s politics. "No, you're a godless communist" Enough!

    112. Re:First thing I thought about... by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      The people who are still racist that I meet are mostly old white people. They mostly vote republican. So when a black person decided to run as a democrat, he wasn't really alienating the voter base he would draw from.

      Of the old racist white people I have to encounter it seems the election was between the black socialist who wants to take their money, and the guy who helped destroy their 401k.

      To me this election was significant, because it seems to be the passing of the torch from the boomers. Obama was elected by minorities and young people.

      I was pretty sure Obama was going to win after I watched a McCain rally where he was on stage with 2 dozen old, balding, wealthy, white men, all spitting venom about the young twerps, lazy poor, and "minorities." Thats not how you run a campaign to heal America, thats how you alienate everyone but the angry white people.

      We have seen how these old, angry, self righteous, people run a country, lets see how a more level headed centrist who doesn't grunt during debates handles it.

    113. Re:First thing I thought about... by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      I wonder if fifty years from now, children will be shocked when they're told that as recently as 2008, in most states any marriages other than mixed-sex ones were illegal.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    114. Re:First thing I thought about... by salsus444 · · Score: 1

      When do we get to stop bitching about race and start talking about ideas?

    115. Re:First thing I thought about... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      If we are so much better now, why is the color of the man's skin of any importance at all?

    116. Re:First thing I thought about... by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Did Wright say what he said in a different America, or are you honestly saying there is no more institutional racism in America?

    117. Re:First thing I thought about... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      First thing I thought about: Rev. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream".

      Same her, because share his dream of a day when a man is not judged by the color of his skin and because today is an awful betrayal of that dream. Today is a shameful day in American history because the President Elect is being hailed not for the quality of his character...
       
      But because of the color of his skin.

    118. Re:First thing I thought about... by jon077 · · Score: 1

      Obama's greatness is yet to come. Judge him in four years.

    119. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago is hardly a trial lawyer.

    120. Re:First thing I thought about... by salsus444 · · Score: 1

      Except that now we have a better perspective. When there was actually a choice, there was a much more realistic split of the votes amongst white voters than there was amongst African-American voters. It kinda makes it look as though there is more racism amongst African-Americans than whites.

    121. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a non-american I think the colour of his skin is amazing. I had written off america as a bunch of imbred racist fundy christians; I never expected that you'd actually vote for a black guy. with a black man as president I now see america as a bunch of imbred fundy christians. the worlds view of you guys is improving

    122. Re:First thing I thought about... by hguorbray · · Score: 1

      African-American? He is not from africa.

      Actually, in this particular case you are incorrect

      Obama's father was Kenyan, which makes him an ACTUAL African-American

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.

      and I notice in the Obama wikipedia article that the term they are using, which has undoubtedly been debated to death by the PC powers that be, is 'black american'

      -I'm just sayin'

    123. Re:First thing I thought about... by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the guy who called America "The Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World Today" would be appalled by the "chickens coming home to roost" comment.

      --
      Property is theft.
    124. Re:First thing I thought about... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      If we are so much better now, why is the color of the man's skin of any importance at all?

      Because he's the first black president, and that's noteworthy; not so long ago it would have been unthinkable. In time it will be entirely unremarkable; example, off the top of your head, who was the fifth man on the moon?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    125. Re:First thing I thought about... by giorgist · · Score: 1

      Come on guys, give this guy a chance. He is not bad, he has just started.
      "MLK" did not start famous ...

    126. Re:First thing I thought about... by readin · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with his wife and kids being black too. I just don't understand people refusing to vote for someone with multi-racial kids like John McCain.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    127. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe they were referring to "that one day my 4 little daughters will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character..."

      After listening to the speech, it sound to me as if Obama used the speech as a guiding principle for his campaign.

      Close to MLK? History will be the judge, but their messages are very similar...

    128. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might not be the same person but they are having the same effect. They give people hope, pride, and joy, when before they had none. We don't know anything about policies, realities, the future, or his legacy. But that charisma alone puts him in the same league as great transformers of our time like MLK and JFK.

    129. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With vitamin R

    130. Re:First thing I thought about... by noc007 · · Score: 1

      This.

      I could care less of what a candidate's genetic heritage is. I'm more interested in the candidate not being full of shit, not be an embarrassment, share similar political views as me, do the damn job right, and not fuck up things further.

      Don't get me wrong though. I am very happy about the voter turnout and am glad to see someone with significant African descent elected and us further move away from this racial and prejudice stupidity.

    131. Re:First thing I thought about... by Annoying · · Score: 1

      I know that it may be completely incomprehensible to you but try this thought. Maybe Obama isn't the wrong thing. I can't say he's the right thing, but he hasn't even had an opportunity to do anything yet. At least give him until January 21st before you declare him the wrong thing.

    132. Re:First thing I thought about... by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      Let's all not forget that MLK Jr. was a Republican, though also an anti-war one.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    133. Re:First thing I thought about... by haut · · Score: 1

      I live in Jacksonville, FL and learned a lot about the deep-harbored hate that some here have. A friend (white woman) was waving a sign from a sidewalk yesterday with 2 other Obama supporters (a black woman and another white woman). More than once, cars yelled the n-word at them. Others flipped them off and yelled other obscenities. Now I don't know if they were yelling about Obama (most likely) or about the black woman in the group, but either way it is deeply disturbing. I noticed that my neighbor's Obama sign was missing, then noticed that there were not any in our area of town. My friend told me that she saw at least three instances of white males in pickup trucks removing Obama signs or putting McCain signs directly in front or behind them.
      Jacksonville is at the edge of the south, but it still has some remnants from the south of old. Areas of town are mostly not integrated and when they start to become so, they usually just swap races. The predominantly white area that declined started getting more black residents and then the "white flight" began. One largely black area started undergoing "gentrification" and many blacks are leaving.
      We have a long way to go yet in the south.

    134. Re:First thing I thought about... by Jorophose · · Score: 1

      I think he meant, look at us, we elected a man (or at least cheered him on) based on the colour of his skin.

      Is that not as disgusting as hating them for that trait?

      Should we not be seen for what we stand on, who we are?

      Should he not be seen for the typical politcal crook, who he is? (and they all are. the only non-crooked politician I've ever met might be McGuinty (your pick), and even then Dalton seemed to have had a blunder at one point, and David is just too quiet to be crooked.)

    135. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      watch now as affirmative action spreads further and whites are oppressed. will there be no end to the suffering.

    136. Re:First thing I thought about... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Dr. King was a great person. It makes him no less dead.

      I wouldn't care who the person was; you shouldn't be claiming to know what a dead person would think in order to promote your own agenda. You are not God, and you are not that person.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    137. Re:First thing I thought about... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Well, besides affirmative action, no. Can you cite any actual modern institutional racism?

    138. Re:First thing I thought about... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Do you think that MLK living today wouldn't speak the exact same words about Iraq as he spoke back then about Vietnam?

      Yeah, MLK probably would (and look at our economy/foreign relations, he'd be right). But again, there's a big difference between saying doing bad things will hurt us and 'God damn America!!!!1!' for something that already happened/isn't currently happening.

    139. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe the OP was comparing Obama to MLK, but I assumed the OP was referring to Martin Luther King's vision in his famous "I have a dream" speech.

      Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

      ...

      We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.

      ...

      I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

      I wouldn't say it was the first thing I thought about when it was announced Obama had won, but when I do I am filled with pride for the progress our great nation has made.

    140. Re:First thing I thought about... by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 1

      Does the criminal system disproportionately punish people of colour, or just people of low socio-economic status? (Since you've already pointed out that minorities are over-represented there).

      I would be completely unsurprised if almost all the coloured/punishment correlation derives from the poor/punishment correlation.

    141. Re:First thing I thought about... by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I suppose that depends on what you call institutional. You could certainly call the fact that the school systems and public services in poor areas are in a shambles (in my area, they certainly are) a form of institutional racism. Or the fact that minorities (and women, for that matter) make less than whites... or the fact that somehow we have a majority of blacks in jail when they're a minority of the population (though you could call that a symptom)... etc.

      They're not written on paper, but they're certainly institutionalized.

    142. Re:First thing I thought about... by Nurgled · · Score: 1

      I sure hope so.

    143. Re:First thing I thought about... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      I would argue that your first point is confusing classism for racism. De facto classism is definitely a problem in America, and one that has a tendency to hit minorities, but, though still bad, it is not racism. As for the second, I've heard varying numbers on that one, some supporting and some rejecting, so I admit you may have a point there, or it could be a symptom of classist schools, or it could be more bad statistics. That's a complex issue I for one don't know enough about to comment on.

    144. Re:First thing I thought about... by BZ · · Score: 1

      I sure hope that in 50 years people will be amazed that the government was in any way involved with the marriage-as-romantic-involvement business at all. Involvement in setting up an economic unit for the purpose of raising children is a different issue entirely, of course, but that one need not have any romantic overtones.

      That is, have a civil setup for raising kids and a whatever-the-heck-you-want-to-do-privately setup for romantic commitment.

    145. Re:First thing I thought about... by BZ · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they're gaining life experience? ;)

      That said, a lot of the things young liberals push for are seen as "weird" by older folks, more or less for inertia reasons. That probably contributes to the effect you see.

    146. Re:First thing I thought about... by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      I agree.
      We should realize that there was only a few percentage difference between the two candidates.

      Seeing as how the McCain voters acted during the campaign it is still a country divided and will be for a long time.

      Maybe some of the swing voters would have voted differently had Obama been 'really' black. (as he is half white and raised by whites).

      Or maybe not, I don't know.

      Is Obama the next MLK? I do not know yet. We have seen with what grace he has carried himself through these hard times of the campaign, when the racist monster reared it's ugly head.

      Even in the face of all this his speeches reminded me of those of MLK.

      The next few years will not be easy ones and if Obama really is the man we have seen up until now, I could become the next MLK.

      Sadly, we are not yet 'free at last'.

      Side note:

      While I was watching tv last night they showed all blacks that had been elected into certain positions and among them was Powell and Rice.
      I nearly had to throw up. Powell is a sell-out (who blocked the My-Lay massacre investigation f.i.) and a 'war hero' and Rice is deeply embedded in the Oil-Barony.

      Not to mention they were appointed, not elected.

      They were no Rosy Parks or MLKs.

    147. Re:First thing I thought about... by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      IIRC African-Americans are predominantly Democratic voters.

      Thus again voted for the Democrats has nothing to do with the Democratic candidate being African-American.

      As the USA has not yet had a non-white presidential candidate in the final round it is futile to discuss how who would vote / voted how.

    148. Re:First thing I thought about... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say you aren't allowed to have or express your opinion. I am objecting to the attitude that people outside the US have that their opinion should mean anything to Americans when they vote.

      I agree, my opinion shouldn't mean any more than the next random person you meet on the web; however, if I can make a good, rational argument about why you should vote one way or another e.g. I could try and make the case about why Barrak Obama would be better for net neutrality it shouldn't be worth any less than any other random slashdotter.

      It's arrogant. We are not voting for your interests, we are voting for US interests. I don't care if you're informed, because you are forming your opinion based on non-US interests.

      The two are not mutually exclusive, hell I hope the US economy recovers as fast as possible because, it's collapse brought down that of my country; it's in my interest (and indeed that of most western countries) for the US to do well. You've probably heard the saying, "when America sneezes, the world catches a cold" by the same token, the rest of the world does well when you guys do. It is for this reason that the rest of the world has a stake in American elections far more than say, British ones (though I wish I could find well informed non-Brits as I would like to hear opinions that have no emotional stake in our elections)

      Like I said, I am picking on your comment not because it was outrageous, but because it has an undercurrent that reminded me of issue in general.

      I quite understand, and it is for that reason I stayed as clear as possible from "interfering" before the election; only now the result has been decided have I commented on my preferred choice.

      As to your friend, is she a citizen of this country? If not, she does not have the right to influence the country's government. To your argument about taxation, I can't really comment because I consider income tax immoral. But if you consume in this country, you will be taxed on that consumption, just like most other countries

      Fair enough, it was income taxes that I had in mind when I made that comment, as it happens she (and her husband) have "permanent residence" meaning that they will be eligible to apply for citizenship in a few years time. However, I am of the opinion that anyone who pays income tax should have the right to vote (this is obviously an issue not limited to the USA), that would include people with all sorts of work visas, green cards and other immigration statuses that allow them to live an work in a country.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    149. Re:First thing I thought about... by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Perhaps.

      Or maybe it's like Churchill said: "When you're young, you vote based upon emotions and lean liberal. When you're old, you vote based upon your logic and lean conservative." (Or something like that.) I know I was more liberal when I was younger, mainly because I didn't understand how the world worked.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    150. Re:First thing I thought about... by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      Dr. King's dream is dead. Have you ever listened to the speech? "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." The ENTIRE NATION is judging this man by the color of his skin.

      "Fulfilled" indeed, you stupid fucks.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    151. Re:First thing I thought about... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I think he meant, look at us, we elected a man (or at least cheered him on) based on the colour of his skin.

      [Citation needed], racist.

    152. Re:First thing I thought about... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Me too, especially when everybody started talking about the color of the president elect's skin. As such I am hereby starting a new internet meme, "DKDI" pronounced decay-dee-eye which stands for Dr. King's dream indeed.

      You might start with a mirror. The point of King's dream wasn't that we'd have a complete change overnight. The election of Obama doesn't mean the U.S. has moved passed racial issues, anymore than Jackie Robinson getting on a white baseball team did.

    153. Re:First thing I thought about... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The ENTIRE NATION is judging this man by the color of his skin.

      [Citation needed]

    154. Re:First thing I thought about... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      The flip side is that if America is the word police, the world would like a say in how we're policed around.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    155. Re:First thing I thought about... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      When you're young, you vote based on what you've learned. When you're old, you vote based on what you've refused to learn.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    156. Re:First thing I thought about... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      He calls himself black because that's what he identifies with. It's not up to you to decide what group he belongs to based on his skin colour and other people close to him.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    157. Re:First thing I thought about... by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Again, it is hard to comment, because I think the US's actions in that area are immoral. But, again, we are not policing the world because it is in the world's best interest. We foolishly believe it is in our best interest.

    158. Re:First thing I thought about... by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Curious... should they be able to vote in their home country as well as their resident country?

    159. Re:First thing I thought about... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying you don't believe in an afterlife, or merely saying you don't know much about it?

      Explain please how Samuel's spirit could visit Saul when he consulted the medium if there is no afterlife. (1 Samuel 28)

      For that matter, what does it mean when it says Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:11)? Where did he go?

      Anyway, the Old Testament law isn't designed to give a complete picture of the afterlife (neither is the New Testament, for that matter, because we probably can't begin to comprehend it). The Old Testament is simply intended to point to the Messiah, who must fulfill all the prophecies from the Old Testament and logically if he tells us things about the afterlife we ought to believe him. I suppose you don't believe the Messiah has come yet, and in that we differ.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    160. Re:First thing I thought about... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It'd be fulfilled when "color/gender/religion" doesn't come up once during the pre-election fighting. To many people on both sides have made this election about "color/race/gender" so no we aren't really any where near "the dream." O.k. if "the dream" was only to have a "black male" elected due to a large black electorate, then sure "the dream" has come true.

      Obama: Skim MLK.

      (Not original, but too funny to let it die.)

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    161. Re:First thing I thought about... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! Never again will this country elect a person solely based on the colour of his or her skin, and to prove it, we've elected a black president! /irony

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    162. Re:First thing I thought about... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Curious... should they be able to vote in their home country as well as their resident country?

      IMO it depends on if their "home" country taxes them. For example their are British citizens who have retired to the South of Spain. They pay no UK taxes, so I don't believe that they should get to vote in UK elections, however I know that there are some US citizens living and working here in the UK and pay tax both here and to the US government. They should be able to vote for both governments. The same applies if they could be called up for national service to a country. If a government has the ability to send you to war, you should be able to vote for it (this is also why I support lowering of the voting age to 16 here in the UK).

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    163. Re:First thing I thought about... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Only 43% of whites supported for Obama.If this has been a whites-only election, McCain would now be president.

      If it were a "whites-only election" it would have been an even bigger blowout in favor of the Democrats.

      In 2000 there was a state ballot issue where 40 FUCKING percent voted against gay marriage.... ooops.... I mean voted against interracial marriage. And just two year 38 percent voted the save way in another state. There are still millions and millions of racists, some wildly racist and some merely "mildly" uncomfortable generically distrustful of anyone with medium or dark complexion.

      People become less liberal and more conservative as they advance in years.
      Any theories why that might be?

      It's simple. Youth are more open to progress, they have no emotional attachments to the errors and prejudices of the past. People generally become set in their ways in their old age, especially when it comes to racism and other discrimination.

      This effect is particularly visible in the interracial and gay marriage issues. Both are playing out in the identical manner, except the gay marriage social shift is actually happening about twice as fast as the interracial marriage shift. In both cases it's a generational shift, the younger generation open to change, the younger generation saying that the law should not be looking at the race gender or religion of people to grant or deny civil treatment under the law. If the law does not examine the race gender or religion of marriage applicants, then the law granting civil marriage licenses has no means available to deny such civil law marriage licenses to interracial couples or to gay couples or to mixed faith couples.

      In both cases it's the old conservatives that resist social and legal change, the old conservatives that want to keep the comfortable old race-based and gender-based discrimination in the law.

      Public opinion on gay marriage is in exactly the same place interracial marriage was in the late 60's when the courts handed down their identical rulings "legislating from the bench" to impose interracial marriage. In both cases it is/was the younger generation overwhelmingly accepting, and in both cases it's the older generation that was and still is overwhelmingly opposed.

      The biggest difference is that social views on interracial marriage shifted by about 1% per year in polling results, while on gay marriage the shift is happening at about double the rate, about 2% shift in polling results per year.

      The gay marriage war is over.
      Most people just don't realize it yet.

      The most powerful force in the universe is a generational shift. Nothing can stand against it. Sooner or later the the younger generation will win, even if it means they have to bury the older generation to do it.

      Not all people fall into the trap of becoming so set in their old "traditional" ways as to conservatively-wage-war-against-change, but yeah, many people do.

      I'm in my late 30's. I don't imaging the world is perfect, I don't imagine I am right and perfect about everything. I wonder what irrational or unjust "social traditions" I implicitly accept simply because I grew up with them. I wonder what social advancement the next wave of youth will notice and "liberally" embrace. And I hope/believe I will be open enough to see that truth and flexible enough to un-conservatively shed my old ideas and embrace that change. Not everyone becomes resistant to new ideas as they get older. Not everyone conservatively resists change as they age. Not everyone in the older generation fought interracial marriage, not all of the older generation is freaking out against gay marriage.

      But yeah, as people age they usually become increasingly conservative in preserving social traditions, less adaptable to new ideas

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    164. Re:First thing I thought about... by 10e6Steve · · Score: 1

      Yes, come Inauguration Day Obama will be sworn in at one end of the National Mall where on the other end of the mall King spoke of that dream.

    165. Re:First thing I thought about... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Hell, during the 2000 election 40% of voters in Alabama voted in favor of interracial marriage being illegal. In '98 38% in South Carolina voted the same. Your eldest child was 3 and your middle child was hanging around inside mom at the time.

      We've made huge progress, but you should tell your kids that there are still places in this country where millions of people still think this way.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    166. Re:First thing I thought about... by Jorophose · · Score: 1

      Heh, I'm no racist. But electing a man and pointing out he's of a certain race is not equality. Maybe it's not the kind of equality you were looking for, but what did you expect?

    167. Re:First thing I thought about... by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the world is uniform and the same everywhere, and is composed of black-white dualities.

      If a Bi-racial Chicago politician can be elected by appealing to the black vote, the rust belt, and urban populations, then surely any poor black person growing up in rural Alabama will never suffer the stifling limitations of a racial society.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    168. Re:First thing I thought about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listening to a speech week prior to election that, among other buzzwords, mentioned "one people, one country", I was thinking more along the lines of "one Fuhrer" :]

    169. Re:First thing I thought about... by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I'll admit that I don't really either, but think about it... you can say that it's classism, which it is... but it would have to be an awfully large coincidence that classism tends to very disproportionately affect minorities. Could that really happen by accident? If it's classism that falls essentially along racial lines, I think it's defacto racism.

  6. Fallout from the election by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think Washington D.C. will become a radioactive wasteland and the survivors will spend their waking hours hunting mutant ants in collapsed subways.

    Oh, wait. My copy of Fallout 3 arrived yesterday and that's all I can think about.

    1. Re:Fallout from the election by hitmark · · Score: 1

      i have seen scorpions, mole rats, ghouls, raiders, super mutants, but no ants so far.

      i even bumped into a centaur or something, ones...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    2. Re:Fallout from the election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Fire Ants are a pain in the butt (and a non-mainline quest in one of the citie of Grayditch between Megatpn and D.C.).

      Of course seeing D.C. in ruins made this a very appropriate game for this time of year :)

    3. Re:Fallout from the election by PolyDwarf · · Score: 1

      You clearly haven't meant the AntAgonizer.

      And no... I'm not joking.

    4. Re:Fallout from the election by Robyrt · · Score: 1

      When will America be ready to end its long national nightmare and elect a Ghoul for president? Martin Luther King Jr. would be ashamed!

    5. Re:Fallout from the election by ianare · · Score: 1

      beware the fire ants !!

    6. Re:Fallout from the election by Fex303 · · Score: 1

      I think Washington D.C. will become a radioactive wasteland and the survivors will spend their waking hours hunting mutant ants in collapsed subways.

      So business as usual then...

    7. Re:Fallout from the election by Arnos · · Score: 1

      Crud now that "the Other guy" won, that means Fallout 3 can't happen.
      Darn *throws Vault tickets away*

    8. Re:Fallout from the election by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, a little fire will show those mutants who's in charge!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Fallout from the election by MeepMeep · · Score: 1

      I think once you wander through Grayditch, you'll notice some ants...

    10. Re:Fallout from the election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought D.C. WAS a radioactive wasteland -- how else can you explain Congress?

      Damn mutants!

    11. Re:Fallout from the election by kabocox · · Score: 1

      I think Washington D.C. will become a radioactive wasteland and the survivors will spend their waking hours hunting mutant ants in collapsed subways.

      So you think that the rest of the US is going to have some urban renewal in the DC metro area for the good of the nation? If it got rid of all the politicians, some one might consider it worth it.

      I don't think we'd be that extreme though. If we really wanted to get rid of folks in the DC metro area or higher government officals, we'd just have a reign of terror.

    12. Re:Fallout from the election by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      I saw a raging giant supermutant, at least 20ft tall. My first thought was: "Damn, Dick Cheney seems pissed off!"

    13. Re:Fallout from the election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution to the recession is to convert to a fiat bottle cap currency system.

    14. Re:Fallout from the election by cparker15 · · Score: 1

      Before you mentioned Fallout 3, I thought you were referring to Systematic Chaos (Dream Theater album).

      --
      Have you driven a fnord... lately?

      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

    15. Re:Fallout from the election by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      You, Sir are on the right site and we are honored to be on it with you. Leave this kind if "real world" irrelevancy to niche sites like bbc.co.uk.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    16. Re:Fallout from the election by Rebelgecko · · Score: 1

      Judging from your username and ID, you've been thinking about Fallout since a long time before yesterday :)

      --
      CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
    17. Re:Fallout from the election by zanyterp · · Score: 1

      probably a good example of what is to come, but not just localized to D.C.

  7. Deck chairs on the Titanic by bugeaterr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thoroughly, and decisively, re-arranged.

    1. Re:Deck chairs on the Titanic by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      So who's the captain in this analogy? Who is supervising the offloading? Who is in charge of the telegraph?

      Are you implying that there is a secret cabal in power that is trying to keep the ship afloat/manage the evacuation? Awesome!

    2. Re:Deck chairs on the Titanic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Correction: the deck chairs on the Hindenburg. /colbert

    3. Re:Deck chairs on the Titanic by nizo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At least the Captain who kept steering us into icebergs will be replaced soon, though possibly not soon enough.

    4. Re:Deck chairs on the Titanic by theaceoffire · · Score: 1

      "Deck chairs on the Titanic thoroughly and decisively re-arranged"

      Into a life raft.

      --
      I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
    5. Re:Deck chairs on the Titanic by bugeaterr · · Score: 1

      Correction: the deck chairs on the Hindenburg. /colbert

      That's why Colbert get's paid big bucks and I'm trolling for Funny points on slashdot.

    6. Re:Deck chairs on the Titanic by geeper · · Score: 0

      For some reason I can only picture the rats running for safer ground.

      --
      Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
  8. W00t! Welfare for all! by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I've always wondered what it would feel like to life in a welfare state. Hard work is penalized, and laziness will be rewarded. I for one welcome our socialist overlord. Spread the wealth baby!

    More government! More Welfare! Punish Success!

    Yeeeeaaaahhhhh!

  9. Happy for you! by emanem · · Score: 1

    I'm happy for you Americans. Cheers,

    1. Re:Happy for you! by SebaSOFT · · Score: 0

      I'm happy for you, fellow US citizens. This election took more than 18 months of constant advertising and reputation struggle. Obama would be my choice if I were from the US too, but just glad for you so people can start caring about things that matter.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER! by Kenoli · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Re:C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER! by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Funny

      For some reason that picture makes me hungry for some KFC.

    2. Re:C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER! by SebaSOFT · · Score: 0

      Hopefully the "Killer Instinct" will also stop...

    3. Re:C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason that picture makes me hungry for some KFC.

      Of course it does, those people love fried chicken

    4. Re:C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER! by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      The KFC is closed, but the Popeye's is open!

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    5. Re:C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER! by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I actually laughed out loud. High-pitched, "I'm a one shot character on Hee Haw" laugh that had people looking at me weird. It owned.

    6. Re:C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RACIST.

    7. Re:C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahahahhaha

  12. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh, there was an election?

    1. Re:What? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      Oh, there was an election?

      Yep. Went to the polling place first thing this morning. No lines. I just have to laugh at all the suckers who waited for hours yesterday...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, right? I totally wish someone had reminded us Coloradans to vote!

    3. Re:What? by Loibisch · · Score: 1

      Nothing important, go back to your porn.

    4. Re:What? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      You're a World of Warcraft player, aren't you?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:What? by dword · · Score: 1

      You should spend more time reading Slashdot, you've missed a lot in the past few months!

    6. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, you haven't missed it. Last night was just choosing the electors. The election to choose the President is in about a month.

    7. Re:What? by morgauo · · Score: 1

      Wait, there are results already? But the flier i got says Democrats don't vote until today!!

  13. Birth pangs of our great socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    So this is how liberty dies, to the sound of thunderous applause.

            A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

            Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

    Congratulations socialists.

    1. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 2, Funny

      Congratulations socialists.

      You're most welcome.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    2. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can sit on the sidelines, complaining your way to complete misery. Or you can get on board with Obama and his supporters, and do what needs to be done to get this nation back on track.

      Seriously, dude, Obama is not a socialist, and Bush put an end to more liberties than Obama would ever have any inclination to end. Your views are seriously out of line with reality. On second thought, maybe it is best if you stay on the sidelines.

    3. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by techsoldaten · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Go slouch towards Gommorah somewhere else. Just because you think you are right doesn't mean other people are not. I mean, jeez, it's going to take 20 years to clean up after W before anyone could even talk about really changing society in any meaningful way.

      Calling Obama a socialist after 8 years of Bush growing the government, giving titanic bailout packages to Wall Street, keeping companies alive on corporate welfare, propping up economic figures by ignoring the excesses of an industry, giving companies incentives to send jobs overseas, fighting wars that benefit no one, and all the other garbage that has been kicked up since 2000 is plain nuts. We are emerging from a form of socialism directed solely at the top 1% of Americans and it is time to move on.

      M

    4. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      So this is how liberty dies, to the sound of thunderous applause.

      Well, after being brutalized non-stop for years, it was only a matter of time before her system gave out.

      The sad thing is that people are still dumb enough to think that anything wrapped in this clusterfuck system would have been good for "liberty"

    5. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      Alexander Tytler, is that you?

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    6. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by WedgeTalon · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I don't recall hearing that Brian Moore won?

    7. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by clary · · Score: 1

      You insult the AC, but your post basically agrees with him. No major successful political figure today truly represents liberty, including GWB.

      --

      "Rub her feet." -- L.L.

    8. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by deniable · · Score: 1

      Incorrect on the wars benefiting noone. They're just another part of the corporate welfare. Somebody's making money from Iraq.

    9. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

      'Basically agrees'? He's saying Obama is going to create a socialist society in the US, and I am saying he already lives in one. I guess that's not really true, it's socialism directed towards corporations and the top 1%, which is really nationalism, but the point remains the same.

      Dunno what the point about liberty means. We could argue about definitions, but any time you live in a society you give up certain rights in exchange for the benefits. Where you draw the line about who is growing liberty versus taking it away is a matter of perspective. Personally, I believe true liberty is realized when people are free from the ravages of nature.

      M

    10. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, dude, Obama is not a socialist, and Bush put an end to more liberties than Obama would ever have any inclination to end.

      News flash... socialism has little to do with liberties. I think the word you're looking for is communist, and to the best of my knowledge that one hasn't been flung around since the height of the cold war.

    11. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by clary · · Score: 1

      Ah...maybe I interpreted the AC a little loosely. I agree with you that we already live in a society with many socialist aspects. And I agree with AC that Obama will introduce more socialism.

      If I were "drawing the line" as you say, I would draw it at the minimum amount of government intervention we could get away with. And I would limit (federal) government intervention to those things that are clearly common goods: national defense, court system, maybe interstate highways, etc. Direct transfers of wealth from one group to another (in whatever direction) would not make my list.

      It sounds like your definition of true liberty is "positive liberty" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty. When I say liberty, I mean negative liberty as it is discussed in that article. I consider the concept of positive liberty to be rhetorical lipstick to make patronizing collectivism more palatable. Yuck.

      On the other hand, I do want people to be "free from the ravages of nature." And I try to do my small part of making that happen. But I do it with my own resources...I don't use other people's time and money against their will.

      --

      "Rub her feet." -- L.L.

    12. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
      ...fighting wars that benefit no one...

      "No one"?!? Haliburton and Blackwater are doing quite well right now, thank you very much! Much more accurate to say the Bush administration valued cronyism over competence, and put in place policies designed to benefit an elite few at a huge cost to many others. Also, socialism is when you redistribute resources to the poor and needy. Redistributing wealth to the already rich and powerful is more akin to fascism.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    13. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberty dies because the democrats win an election? Sooo.... liberty would only be alive if the republicans always win? Seriously, you need help.

    14. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by drachir555 · · Score: 1

      Brilliantly put. I am a Canadian Permanent Resident in the United States, who has been very excited about this election ever since it begin. I hate GWB and his administration so much that in my mind - ANYONE would have been an improvement. However, I quickly caught Obama Fever, and have been backing him all through his presidential campaign. That's right, even though I can't vote yet, I have been helping him with his campaign via the internet, and with small donations. You are right. Obama and his new team need to dig America out of a VERY deep hole. Finally the end of the corrupt Bush Oligarchy is in sight, and America can once again re-attain its greatness - eventually. Let's just hope that Barrack Obama is the first of many new administrations that will serve to cause the fatal mistakes of GWB and his cronies to fade away into the history books.

    15. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I agree completely. But if you think Obama represents a change for the better you're in for a rude awakening.

      Our debt, trade deficits, entitlements are going to bankrupt us. There is no question of whether this will happen, the only question is when. The ridiculous bailouts and printing of money by the Federal Reserve have guaranteed inflation that should easily exceed the highest level in the 80's.

      We have the most serious issues in the history of our country at our doorstep, and what do our candidates talk about? Universal health care, tax breaks, and confrontations with Russia and Iran. More reckless spending, more debt and more inflation. The very things that got us into this mess, and will only make it worse.

    16. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by forceman130 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, dude, Obama is not a socialist, and Bush put an end to more liberties than Obama would ever have any inclination to end.

      Maybe, but it's not like people on Nov 5, 2000 were saying, oh shit, this Bush guy is going to take away all our liberties. Obama hasn't yet taken away any liberties, but he also hasn't taken office yet. Hopefully things will be all good, but it is a little premature to divine Obama's inclination.

      --
      Wow, a 7 digit ID - let that be a lesson in the perils of procrastination.
    17. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

      Happy to find out what it will be like. NOTHING could be as bad as the current administration.

      M

    18. Re:Birth pangs of our great socialism by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

      I don't really care for the continential view of the term offered by this article, and don't see liberty in terms of being some mean between two extremes. Really, this idea of a lack of government intervention being an ideal relationship between man and the state is really a way of distancing people from the mechaniations of the state itself. It looks to me more like a form of divide and conquer, and a way for the state to operate unmolested by oversight on behalf of it's citizens.

      Liberty can be expressed solely in terms of the relationship between man and the state, and this is a perfectly valid way of defining the term. The way I look at it, liberty is a broader concept, and one which is not limited to the form of government under which we live. Man has liberated himself from the ebb and flow and flow of nature through the pursuit of science, the unrestrained pursuit of our interests through codes of ethics, and the cultivation of our uniquely human nature through the arts. Saying that there is something special about the state, that our liberty comes from gradually eliminating it from our lives, is conceptually incompatible with these other uses of the word.

      Perhaps the best expression of the word is the pursuit of a perfect union, and idea we are fond of in US politics. This is by no means meant to refer strictly to states in the union, but between its people, too. Participating in a democracy may be the highest expression of liberty, because by your very actions you are exercizing your rights as a citizen. I don't really know the answer, I just know it's hard to look at libertarian ideas and really say that the word fits.

      M

  14. The UK perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just watched Obama's victory speech on the BBC, he namechecked Lincoln and derided Wall Street. If this is anything other than empty rhetoric he's not going to last a year. To paraphrase Ian Hislop on last weeks HIGNFY (popular UK satire quiz), "They're expecting a landslide and if that doesn't get him, the CIA will have to find some other way".

    1. Re:The UK perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubbish. He takes office in January and will be there in four years time regardless of what happens in Iraq and the fscked up economy.

    2. Re:The UK perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubbish. He takes office in January and will be there in four years time regardless of what happens in Iraq and the fscked up economy.

      If he dare challenge certain powerful interests, he will be ousted. America has been successful in doing this to democratically elected leaders all around the world.

      My initial post, while hasty, was not "rubbish". It's one thing for Obama to say the things he's saying, quite another to actually attempt them and expect to remain in office.

    3. Re:The UK perspective by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      If he dare challenge certain powerful interests, he will be ousted.

      Loosen your tinfoil hat, it's clearly impeding the blood flow to your brain.

    4. Re:The UK perspective by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      You might want to do a historical study on how many of their own presidents Americans have assassinated, and how many foreign governments have been replaced or empowered by the CIA and buddies.

      I'm pretty sure those who do not understand this are the conspiracy theorists, many of these ops are no longer classified and really very embarrassing to read.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    5. Re:The UK perspective by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      To be clear this is what he said:

      Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers. In this country, we rise or fall as one nation -- as one people.

      My interpretation is that he didn't fault deride Wall Street. He said that one of our problems is that the US as a nation has often focused too much attention on Wall Street and the financial institutions and not enough on the local prosperity of people and their economic well-being. They both need attention because they are linked.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:The UK perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loosen your tinfoil hat, it's clearly impeding the blood flow to your brain.

      In the face of such a compelling argument, I hereby concede I was wrong. The whole world's a Disney movie, historical record and pesky facts be damned.

    7. Re:The UK perspective by Eil · · Score: 1

      Just watched Obama's victory speech on the BBC, he namechecked Lincoln and derided Wall Street. If this is anything other than empty rhetoric he's not going to last a year

      You're quire correct sir, our constitution gives him at least four.

    8. Re:The UK perspective by Eil · · Score: 1

      "quite"

      Even used the Preview button!

      Bah.

    9. Re:The UK perspective by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Just watched Obama's victory speech on the BBC, he namechecked Lincoln and derided Wall Street. If this is anything other than empty rhetoric he's not going to last a year.

      Yes, his, "if we learned anything from the financial crisis, it's that wall street cannot thrive while main street suffers" left me more than a little concerned... Okay, I guess he didn't learn anything from the financial crisis. But as a Republican, I very much appreciated his repeated references and quotes of Lincoln, who after all played a larger role in moving the country towards being able to have a black president than anyone since. I've heard blacks many times express their belief that there would never be a black president, at least in their lifetimes, and I've always known they were wrong. And seeing their reaction today, I'm happy for them that now they know better. I can't help wonder, though, what the reaction would be if a black Republican had been first. The normal response is, "oh, he's not really black, he's a Republican."

      I'm scared now, as I was when Clinton was elected, but it is much different -- Obama is no Clinton. To all appearances at least, Obama is a man of character. The danger isn't in the public getting hoodwinked and subverted; the danger is in him doing the things he promised to do. That's a better kind of danger, I guess. I will be cautiously optimistic that his talk of compromise and reconciliation is not empty words. But most of all I will place my hope in the Republican minority, that they will stand ready to filibuster their butts off to prevent another LBJ administration. They know that, while the American people voted for Obama for a number of reasons, a desire for socialism, more handouts to the poor, and more penalizing the rich, were not among them. I know the American people well enough to know that if they find the Republican minority to be the last line of defense between themselves and significantly increased socialism or government meddling in their economic lives, 2010 will be another 1994.

    10. Re:The UK perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Derided?" He said that we can't prop Wall Street up and leave Main Street to fail. That doesn't sound like derision; it sounds like common sense.

      And his mention of Lincoln was in the context of pointing out that the Republican party is great and their ideals are important as well.

    11. Re:The UK perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he gets 4 years, barring any illegal activity.

    12. Re:The UK perspective by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      He was referring to Obama being removed somehow, forcefully, either by some sham impeachment or an assasination, whatever.

    13. Re:The UK perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Derided?" He said that we can't prop Wall Street up and leave Main Street to fail. That doesn't sound like derision; it sounds like common sense.

      To you perhaps. How do you think it sounds to the banks who control the money supply?

      And his mention of Lincoln was in the context of pointing out that the Republican party is great and their ideals are important as well.

      Lincolns ideals were ..?

    14. Re:The UK perspective by demachina · · Score: 1

      I wager the people who work at the CIA probably have 401K's or are invested in the stock market one way or antoher. If they are looking to whack anyone right now its probably the asshats on Wall Street and not Obama.

      Deriding Wall Street is shooting fish a barrel a this point. They, like George Bush and the Republican party, are getting what they deserve. Well they don't deserve the $700 billion handout, their obscene bonuses while their firms are cratering and the golden parachutes when they all do us a favor and quit.

      --
      @de_machina
    15. Re:The UK perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguably, the acceptance speech is the most appropriate time for rhetoric. C'mon, what did you want him to do, say "Thank you for electing me. I will now read to you the tax plan figures for the next four years"

    16. Re:The UK perspective by BelaHedgehog · · Score: 1

      I couldn't help but think the same as you while watching that speech.

      Ever hear "The Ballad of Peter Pumpkinhead" by XTC?

      "but he made too many enemies
      of the people who would keep us on our knees."

    17. Re:The UK perspective by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      They know that, while the American people voted for Obama for a number of reasons, a desire for socialism, more handouts to the poor, and more penalizing the rich, were not among them

      I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but do you really have any evidence that this isn't exactly why they voted for him? That the majority of people really do want a more socialised system?

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    18. Re:The UK perspective by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      If he dare challenge certain powerful interests, he will be ousted. America has been successful in doing this to democratically elected leaders all around the world.

      But not to our own leaders. No American president have ever been "ousted," except Nixon who resigned and the four who were assassinated.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    19. Re:The UK perspective by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Deriding Wall Street is shooting fish a barrel a this point. They, like George Bush and the Republican party, are getting what they deserve.

      Really? Name a single banker or executive who will be serving time as a result of this fiasco? Can you even name one who had to return his bonus?

      We've been screwed, and our response has been to write the guys who screwed us a big fat check.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    20. Re:The UK perspective by demachina · · Score: 1

      Dude, my post was a joke......... get it?

      --
      @de_machina
  15. Reputation by radius1214 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I firmly believe that Barack Obama is going to bring the change we need to alter the way the world see us. We need to earn back a little of our reputation that the eight previous years have lost us. We need to talk, discuss, and use diplomacy instead of force. I'm very glad that Obama won. I sincerely hope that he can keep all his promises he made to the American people, and with control of the house and senate, it looks likely that he won't have any trouble passing bills.

    --
    --"Forget the nectar of the Gods, just give me some Mountain Dew."
    1. Re:Reputation by Kamokazi · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why do you care how we look to the rest of the world? Let's worry about the problems in our country. I really don't give two shits about how some snoppy European views our country.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    2. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I sincerely hope he can keep all of his promises..".

      Let's see, would that start with his promise on campaign funding?? Oh, he already broke that one.

      I quote Joe The Plumber - "I am afraid for this country".

    3. Re:Reputation by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do you care how we look to the rest of the world? Let's worry about the problems in our country. I really don't give two shits about how some snoppy European views our country.

      Great! Recall the troops from Afghanistan guys! The Yanks can handle it by themselves.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    4. Re:Reputation by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We need to talk, discuss, and use diplomacy instead of force.

      Yes, because when a lunatic leader sees he can make insane threats and then get a roundtable with the leaders of the world, everbody wins!

      I sincerely hope that he can keep all his promises he made to the American people, and with control of the house and senate, it looks likely that he won't have any trouble passing bills.

      I also hope he passes everything he promised. Then maybe people will stop blaming "deregulation" (which in reality turns out to be more regulation) and start blaming the real problem.

    5. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately in order for Obama to keep, well really any of his promises, he's going to have to abolish the Constitution.

      You see, the Constitution doesn't list ANY of his programs and ideas as things that fall withint he purview of the federal goverment. That means he's either not going to keep his promises, or he's going to immediately violate his oath of office.

      That being said, most of McCain's promises are the same way. It's a simple thing really. People vote for the person who promises to give them the most free stuff. I'm quite certain I'll never get any of that stuff, so I end up voting for the candidate that wants to take away the least from me.

      Ultimately that's a pretty shitty choice.

    6. Re:Reputation by tftp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do you care how we look to the rest of the world? Let's worry about the problems in our country.

      Those two issues are related.

    7. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      His promises:
      - Increase Capitol Gains Tax
      - Let the Bush Tax cuts expire in 2010
      - Raise our Taxes
      - Pass the unconstitutional "Fairness Doctrine"
      - Remove the ability for union's to have secret ballots
      - Expand welfare instead of trying to make people self-sustaining and get them off of it

      Yeah... those are some *great* things to look forward to.

    8. Re:Reputation by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do you care how we look to the rest of the world? Let's worry about the problems in our country. I really don't give two shits about how some snoppy European views our country.

      Yeah, I mean, it's not like foreign policy really has any effect at all on the way our country is run or anything.

    9. Re:Reputation by debatem1 · · Score: 1

      I hope he'll begin incorporating his huge campaign machine into the transition government as soon as possible. If he can begin moving his most active supporters into the various CCC-esque programs he has been touting *before* he enters office, it might give him enough support to substantially alter the balance of power before the political machinery can get into gear. Otherwise, I don't see how he'll be able to implement programs of that size.

    10. Re:Reputation by McDutchie · · Score: 2, Informative

      I firmly believe that Barack Obama is going to bring the change we need to alter the way the world see us. We need to earn back a little of our reputation that the eight previous years have lost us.

      We hate to burst your bubble, but the reputation of the USA has been steadily going down the tubes starting with the war in Vietnam. George W. Bush was merely the final product of a climate that grew since about that time. Bill Clinton was no peacemaker either, and don't forget that Billary cheerfully threatened to totally obliterate Iran if she were to become president.

      We have seen nothing to convince us, so far, that Barack Obama is anything more than a smooth-talking exponent of the same war- and fearmongering system, and that he won't do what he is told by the corporate fascist establishment like every good puppet before him. Before Bush; the USA's reputation in the world was gravely damaged; after Bush; it's simply destroyed. It's going to take more than electing a biracial candiate to start rebuilding it from scratch. It will take a generation or two at least, if it's going to happen at all.

      Sincerely,

      The rest of the world

    11. Re:Reputation by Genevish · · Score: 1

      Life is much easier if you try to get along with your neighbor. -Scott

    12. Re:Reputation by squizzar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because if the rest of the world likes you, they might stop thinking up ways to blow you up. When you say please don't build any Nuclear missiles they might actually listen. Hell there's a chance that people won't take the whole 'giving people democracy thing' as such a bad joke if you actually came across as well meaning and decent. It's not just the Europeans you need to consider, but if you did, then next time you decide to start a war you might get help from someone other than the Brits.

      And if you're going to throw out insults (the OP never mentioned by whom or where that reputation might be held btw.) they could at least be real insults. That said kudos for coming up with a word that isn't in the urban dictionary.

    13. Re:Reputation by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Prepare to have your bubble burst. Swiftly.

      You won't even have to leave this thread to see that people outside the US who looked upon us poorly will simply start harping on the next way we should change to suit them rather than giving us any respect for our new decision.

    14. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to talk, discuss, and use diplomacy instead of force.

      "Death to all infidels"
      -Al'Qaeda

    15. Re:Reputation by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, EUA do not have anymore enougth Mana/Power/Karma/Energon/magik/energy cells/experience points to rule the world. Maybe is better to north-americans thinking on how to be a nicer guys.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    16. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be afraid for this country, too, with all the nonlicenced plumbers running around.

    17. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only hope everyone gets what they intended to vote in, as they expected ...

    18. Re:Reputation by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Why do you care how we look to the rest of the world?

      Because you're near broke and can't fight any more wars. Also, outsourcing means that your economy is dependent on factories and people who are located in other countries.

      I really don't give two shits about how some snoppy European views our country.

      But you'd better care how the Chinese view your country, since they own it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    19. Re:Reputation by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      "we will fight these evil ones, and we will win."

      - GWB

    20. Re:Reputation by dhermann · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I mean, it's not like foreign policy really has any effect at all on the way our country is run or anything.

      Be quiet and eat your freedom fries.

    21. Re:Reputation by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Canada?

    22. Re:Reputation by cgenman · · Score: 1, Informative

      The world's opinion of us effects:

      1. The value of our money, which has been plummeting as other countries diversified out of it. This has contributed greatly to the economic dip which started in 2006 / 2007.
      2. Our ability to set international agendas to our benefit.
      3. Which leads into our now-gone ability to enter into foreign entangelements without footing the entire bill.
      4. Our ability to sell domestic goods at a high price and import foreign goods at a low one.
      5. Our ability to attract tourist dollars and command a premium for "Made In America" goods.
      6. General civic pride: Let's not be the laughing stock of the Nucular countries, shall we?

      As a small example, in the past 8 years we've seen the emergence of a euro-traded (instead of dollar-traded) international oil market. This exposes the US economy to more of the reprocussions of regular international currency fluctuations, and is a contributing factor in why gas pushed over 120 dollars per barrel this past year.

    23. Re:Reputation by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, those European views save American lives and American dollars.

      It matters When those Europeans have to decide if they want to cover our backs in Iraq, or turn tail and run. It matters when we are nation-building in the Middle East: the European, Asian, and Middle-Eastern neighbors can either support us, or send in armed freedom fighters to stir things up. It matters when OPEC decides that perhaps selling oil in Euros instead of Dollars is more stable. (FYI - If that makes no sense, we are essentially on an oil-backed dollar rather these days). It matters when the FBI contacts another European nation and asks them to freeze the bank account of a suspected terrorist - and they have to decide to comply or not.

      We depend on the world very much. Our reputation determines how much cooperation we get. We need Europe because we need allies and friends. We need Asia because we need manufacturing. We need South America for food and wage workers. We need the Middle East for oil.

    24. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you care how we look to the rest of the world? Let's worry about the problems in our country. I really don't give two shits about how some snoppy European views our country.

      well that is reason 4200 out of 4500 combat casualties carried an American passport (http://icasualties.org/oif/). If you'd elected a president earlier that could take smoother, you'd be looking at fewer US deaths and more dead coalition troops.

      That is exactly the reason I'd rather have McCain than Obama. Their policies wouldn't differ that much anyway but Obama will give us Europeans a warm and fussy feeling and make us fight your useless wars in the east.

      BTW, them snoppy Europeans were right about the non-existing danger from Iraq before you started that war, but hey insult us all you want if it floats your boat.

    25. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your response is typical of small minded America. Yes you should worry about problems in your own country, but you also need to look at how the world views and treats your country. Don't forget the USA has intervened/meddled in other countries' problems for a long time - purely for the benefit of the US might I add - and the USA's standing in the international community has taken a severe battering in the last 8 years due to your outgoing administrations total disregard for anyone else on the international stage, which has fostered much resentment and has ultimately brought about the terrorism which has been threatening you.

      Oh and by the way, terrorism is not some new thing to happen since 9/11, the UK has had it since at least the IRA and the majority of funding for the IRA came from guess where ..... the USA.

      So yes, you should worry about how you look to the rest of the world and regardless whether Obama makes a good president or not, to the rest of the world he represents a breath of fresh air and the potential for change which is what is needed in your country before it is too late.

      Land of the free, home of the brave? Who the fuck are you kidding.

    26. Re:Reputation by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      I firmly believe that Barack Obama is going to bring the change we need to alter the way the world see us. We need to earn back a little of our reputation that the eight previous years have lost us. We need to talk, discuss, and use diplomacy instead of force.

      I'm very glad that Obama won. I sincerely hope that he can keep all his promises he made to the American people, and with control of the house and senate, it looks likely that he won't have any trouble passing bills.

      It's tough to discuss problems with groups who's first statement is "Kill all Westerners."

      And by "won't have any trouble passing bills" I assume your happy that he'll be able to raise taxes.

      Please don't believe the hype of "I'll only tax the rich" since there are so many things wrong with that statement.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    27. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to talk, discuss, and use diplomacy instead of force.

      Amen.

    28. Re:Reputation by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Why do you care how we look to the rest of the world? Let's worry about the problems in our country. I really don't give two shits about how some snoppy European views our country.

      The United States does not exist in a vacuum. We cannot ignore the world around us.

      Our economy is dependent on other economies all over the world. We're constantly importing and exporting goods. How we are viewed by the rest of the world, and how the rest of the world is willing to do business with us, dramatically impacts our own economy.

      We're at war in two countries. We have enemies in other countries. If we can improve how the rest of the world views us we might not have so many enemies out there. At the very least some of our friends might be more willing to support us against those enemies.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    29. Re:Reputation by deniable · · Score: 1

      Of course they can. They're going it alone just like they did in Iraq and Vietnam.

    30. Re:Reputation by icebrain · · Score: 1

      I agree we could have done much better on the diplomacy front, but talking only works if you have the force (and the will to use it if necessary) to back it up. You can talk all you want, but if your opponent knows you won't do anything to back up your words, he isn't going to care much.

      I really don't like Obama, but I hope he sticks to the issues he ran on and doesn't start trying to sneak through other things that never came up. Like I stated earlier, this election wasn't a complete blowout in the popular vote, and hopefully the democrats realize that a win by a few percent doesn't give them license to go hog-wild on every single platform issue. Moderation on all issues, but especially non-campaign ones, will be a much more beneficial to everyone.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    31. Re:Reputation by deniable · · Score: 1

      Yes, because when a lunatic leader sees he can make insane threats and then get a roundtable with the leaders of the world, everbody wins!

      He won't be a problem after January 20.

    32. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they not teach civics in school any more? The president has nothing, aside from arm twisting and promising things he can't deliver, to do with passing bills. Only the House and the Senate pass bills and it is still going to go by party lines and not what is best for American public.

      Hell, I don't think that there has been an American government in the last 50 years that has done what is best or right for the American public

    33. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous to not undo moderation.

      The greatest Mexican president once said:

      "Among individuals, as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace."

    34. Re:Reputation by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Well, that lunatic leader will be gone, but the nutjob in Iran will only get more power and a bigger pulpit if we resort to diplomacy.

    35. Re:Reputation by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      Excellent news.

      Good luck prosecuting any new wars on your own - we'll just keep our boys at home.

      Oh, and extraordinary rendition? Sorry, but we're not playing any more.

      Fuck off, you parochial, colonial twat.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    36. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and with control of the house and senate, it looks likely that he won't have any trouble passing bills.

      And THAT blanket piece of power scares me. If he rolls back most of the Patriot Act I might feel this was in general a good thing. For the most part, the "Everybody is a terrorist" mantra of the Republicans is mainly what did those idiots in. I just home the new pack of idiots do a better job.

    37. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it has an effect, but the point you seem to miss is that the European leftists(not to mention Iranians and Russians) who welcome the election of Mr. Obama want an America that is weak, both economically and militarily. This will not stop the same Europeans from expecting us to come save their sorry butts when the Russians decide to expand back to their old Soviet borders, they just want us to thank them for the privilige of doing so. As for domestically, get ready for "That 70's Show" as Obama, Reid and Pelosi drive capital and jobs to more business friendly locales. Tech jobs which are easy to relocate will be one of the hardest hit, while service sector unions will run the country.

    38. Re:Reputation by angelwolf71885 · · Score: 0

      hope for change in one had shit in the other see witch one fills up first lets not forget the 180 trillion in new spending without and real budget cuts o joy depression here we come

    39. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont understand why people are so afraid of talking to other countries, are you afraid our president will catch the crazy of the lunatic leader? People didn't seem so up in arms with the whole round table talks with North Korea and their clearly insane leader.

      Your second point sees just a few steps from lunacy. deregulation = more regulation? So the problem was that banks were able to give out crap loans because they were regulated too much? I have to ask, are you stoned?

    40. Re:Reputation by deniable · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because talking is one of the worst things he could be doing. Talk is cheap. In other words, it costs us nothing. Now, if we start giving him things for free, that's a problem.

      Quick question, what is the first response for noisy neighbors? Talk to them, or go over and burn their house down?

      While you're at it, you may want to look at who's responsible for the whole Iran thing.

    41. Re:Reputation by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      So long as America doesn't need German engineering or Asian production or European money for their goods, so long as America doesn't care if its citizens randomly get arrested in foreign countries, so long as America finds it acceptable that some of its political elite from previous administrations may be arrested on sight for war crimes while on vacation, America doesn't need to care what anyone thinks.

      On the other hand, you could get your head out of the sand and realize the USA is not in fact an island in the world.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    42. Re:Reputation by chrb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course they can. They're going it alone just like they did in Iraq and Vietnam.

      Maybe you'd like to tell the families of the 120 British casualties (versus 607 US casualties) from Afghanistan that the Yanks have been "going it alone" for all this time?

    43. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 year to a nuclear Iran, 2 years to a nuclear strike inside the Middle East

      So long as it's Tel Aviv that gets it, I'm all for it.

      Seriously, though - the only Middle Eastern country that would be likely to use nuclear weapons is Israel, and an Obama presidency is likely to be less aligned to the Neocon Likudnik agenda that has formed the basis for the Bush foreign policy, which can only be a good thing for all of us (though not for Israeli 'settlers' - it's time that resolution 242 was reintroduced with teeth).

    44. Re:Reputation by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because talking is one of the worst things he could be doing. Talk is cheap. In other words, it costs us nothing.

      Alright, fantasy land is over. Back to reality. By talking with someone who threatens to destroy you once they are capable of doing so, you sanction their beliefs and their threats. You make their lunacy seem all the more mainstream. They gain followers and you lose followers.

      Quick question, what is the first response for noisy neighbors? Talk to them, or go over and burn their house down?

      If they're playing music loud, I ask them to turn it down. If they're shouting for my destruction, I call the police. See the difference?

      While you're at it, you may want to look at who's responsible for the whole Iran thing.

      Ahh, so when it's convenient for your position, suddenly Iranians are not responsible for their own actions. They have no free will, no choice of their own. Back in reality, every second they choose to keep him as their representative to the world, they invite harm upon themselves.

    45. Re:Reputation by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Not burning their house down will only embolden them.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    46. Re:Reputation by jasmusic · · Score: 1

      That's right, because the U.S. was always a helpless little child for 200 years that constantly worried what the world thought of it and always asked the world for permission to wipe its own ass before doing so. Words of a fucking submissive sheep, grow some balls. Wait till the novelty of a black president wears off and you really see what a liberal monster you've unleashed, that's when there'll be gnashing of teeth and wailing in the night.

    47. Re:Reputation by deniable · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'll flag the sarcasm better next time.

    48. Re:Reputation by footNipple · · Score: 1

      Dear McDutchie,

      Go pound sand ;-)

      Sincerely,
      The United States of America

    49. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politician keeping promises? What planet do you live on? I want to move there.

    50. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah the rest of the world will like you as soon as you become a Muslim and are OK with genocide of those who aren't.

    51. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See:
      http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1019121&cid=25641579

    52. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sincerely hope that he can keep all his promises he made to the American people

      Dude, where do you get your weed?

      I hope he'll keep his promise to consult the people who didn't vote for him.

    53. Re:Reputation by AhtirTano · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You forgot Poland.

    54. Re:Reputation by deniable · · Score: 1

      Alright, fantasy land is over. Back to reality. By talking with someone who threatens to destroy you once they are capable of doing so, you sanction their beliefs and their threats. You make their lunacy seem all the more mainstream. They gain followers and you lose followers.

      How many countries has Bush threatened so far? You think those people should stop talking and start killing Americans then?

      If they're playing music loud, I ask them to turn it down. If they're shouting for my destruction, I call the police. See the difference?

      Exactly, you don't just get the best armed guy on the block to start shouting back and shooting at people do you?

      While you're at it, you may want to look at who's responsible for the whole Iran thing.

      Ahh, so when it's convenient for your position, suddenly Iranians are not responsible for their own actions. They have no free will, no choice of their own. Back in reality, every second they choose to keep him as their representative to the world, they invite harm upon themselves.

      No, I'm just pointing out that the Americans have played with Iranian politics already and did a smashing job the last time. I'm sure they'll do an equally stellar job this time.

    55. Re:Reputation by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Great! Recall the troops from Afghanistan guys! The Yanks can handle it by themselves.

      If we got out of Iraq, we sure as hell could handle Afghanistan ourselves. Let's focus more resources on the country that actually likes having us there, yes?

    56. Re:Reputation by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      How many countries has Bush threatened so far?

      Unprovoked threats, no matter who makes them, are unjustifiable. Would you care to specify which countries you're talking about?

      Exactly, you don't just get the best armed guy on the block to start shouting back and shooting at people do you?

      Again, I call the police. What you're trying to say, I'm not sure. You should be more clear in your analogies.

      No, I'm just pointing out that the Americans have played with Iranian politics already and did a smashing job the last time.

      Would you care to be specific about what you're talking about, and how it directly relates to the current Iranian leader's threats against Israel and the US?

    57. Re:Reputation by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      You're right. But how's he going to pay for it?

      See also http://www.iousathemovie.com/

    58. Re:Reputation by arse+maker · · Score: 1

      Yah, creating the Mujahedeen, installing Saddam Hussein in Iraq were choices that never had any domestic repercussions at all.

      If you want to be an insular country at least do it by being insular, not trying to run the world then saying you donâ(TM)t care about it and you are only interested in yourselves. Cause you know what... the people you try to rule care.. flying into buildings care.

      Just picture a few hundred thousand Middle East troops in America, im sure things would be very quiet and calm then. Everyone wants people who oppose their way of life sending an army in to fix it.

    59. Re:Reputation by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Bill Clinton was no peacemaker either

      And how many countries did he unilaterally invade?

      I have given nothing to convince you, so far, that I, McDushie, am anything more than a smooth-talking concern troll exponent of the same war- and fearmongering system

      Fixed that up a bit for you.

    60. Re:Reputation by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Unprovoked threats, no matter who makes them, are unjustifiable. Would you care to specify which countries you're talking about?

      His threats against Iran. Pay attention much?

      Would you care to be specific about what you're talking about, and how it directly relates to the current Iranian leader's threats against Israel and the US?

      He's made zero threats against the US or Israel. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The only thing he has promised is to retaliate if Iran is attacked, but don't let facts interfere with your wingnut religion.

      And the point of mentioning Operation Ajax is the fact that Iran had a peaceful, stable, secular democracy - until it was destroyed by the United States. If you want to rant about Iran's theocracy, start with the nearest mirror.

    61. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's "snoppy"?

    62. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "please don't build nuclear missiles"?? LOL!!!!!!! I can't wait to see that mindset in action.

      Yeah for Carter v2.0

    63. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am ordering my pray rug now. Which way is east??

      it looks likely that he won't have any trouble passing bills.

      And all taxes will rise.
       
      Bush lied.
      Bush is a politician.
      Barack Hussein Obama is a politician.
      Ergo, Hussein lied.
       
      Now that is C H A N G E

    64. Re: Reputation by authority69 · · Score: 1

      We need to talk, discuss, and use diplomacy instead of force.

      Not "instead of force", rather before force. When diplomacy fails, use force. Which has been the policy of the Bush Administration whether you are willing to accept it or not.
      Force can never be taken off the table, as unpleasant as it is. If you can't back up your words with anything meaningful, your words are meaningless. Economic sanctions and other means of non-violent coercion only go so far with irrational people.

    65. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Control of the House and Senate, yup. 'Cause I hear single party rule works so well in Venezuela, Mexico, and Russia.

      It worked for Bush Jr. pretty well too...had a rubber-stamp Republican majority for six years, with a spineless Democratic opposition. (Even with the Democrat majority, they still couldn't stop the Patriot Act...what was up with that?)

      But I'm sure now that we've thrown it to the other party, it'll be so much better. I mean, he's going to stop and discuss the opposition's complaints, rather than blindly follow ideology, right?

      Sigh. All we've done is traded Republican ideology for Democratic ideology. Don't expect rational, civil debate anytime soon. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

    66. Re:Reputation by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1
      "I sincerely hope that he can keep all his promises he made"

      You do realize that you are talking about a politician here right?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    67. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if the rest of the world likes you, they might stop thinking up ways to blow you up. When you say please don't build any Nuclear missiles they might actually listen. Hell there's a chance that people won't take the whole 'giving people democracy thing' as such a bad joke if you actually came across as well meaning and decent.

      I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I am glad he isn't anywhere near as stupid as most of his supporters...

    68. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems you missed some years...

    69. Re:Reputation by Arathrael · · Score: 1
      Spot on. And the Brits will be happier about helping out too I reckon.

      Bill Bailey (British comedian) described how it was from the British perspective:

      "I don't know why we're hanging out with America, it's embarrassing, we're like some nerdy kid hanging around with this sort of lummocking great bully. It's just really embarrassing. America's like the bully of the world, going up to countries going, "Give us your sweets or I'll smash your face in!" and Britain leans round the back and goes, "Yeah!"

      I'm optimistic we won't have to be embarrassed about hanging out with America in the future. Or at least, not as much. :-)

    70. Re:Reputation by Bossk-Office · · Score: 0

      I firmly believe that Barack Obama is going to bring the change we need to alter the way the world see us. We need to earn back a little of our reputation that the eight previous years have lost us.

      Guys, you just did. All of it. I'm serious; from here on you can sit back and eat donuts.

    71. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you around for Carter?

      It indeed will be interesting to see what happens. If Obama goes far left like Carter, then he's toast. We'll again see double digit inflation and home interest rates at 15%

      If he stays towards the middle, like Clinton, he can survive and even thrive. But since the press didn't challenge the guy on anything, there was never a chance for his most enthusiastic supporters to really know what this guy is about. As it stands, he's everything to everyone. Someone is going to be very, very bothered over the next year because they didn't get their pet project.

    72. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      (Posting anon to preserve moderations)

      Well, to be fair, in the video you linked to, Clinton said that "If Iron lanched a nuclear strike on Israel, then the U.S. would totally obliterate them". That is quite a far cry from immediately doing a pre-emptive strike on them the second she becomes President.

      As a Canadian, I hope that Obama will be able to do what many people feel he is able to do. I feel that it is still to early to tell, but hope that things will start changing for the better.

      Cheers

    73. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just the Europeans you need to consider, but if you did, then next time you decide to start a war you might get help from someone other than the Brits.

      Europeans are not against war. They have a great record at starting wars including two of the most devastating wars on this planet. They even made special ovens to put people in! Europeans are just against wars that they do not CONTROL.

      In no way do I consider Europeans my moral superior and laugh at the fact that they try to portray themselves as such.

      And Europeans, good luck with Russia. As an American I will never vote for a politician that will go to war with Russia to save Europeans.

      Let them eat cake.

    74. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When someone is aiming missles, guns, nukes, or (insert weapon of choice) at you - you mean to tell me your naive enough to think diplomacy actually works? I love how all the talking with Iran has gotten them to back down their stance on nuke tech. I also love how all the talking has brought peace to the middle east. Diplomacy is only going to work if like Roovevelt said, "Walk softly and caryy a big stick!". Good luck with that line of thinking. Also, just as an extra dish of sarcasm - I can see how well the world views us (like during the Sunami that hit Asia) when we brought supplies and pledged 2 Billion dollars to only be called selfish and How everyone in the world rushed to Darfor to stop that mass genocide.

      Ignorant - it finds it way even to /.

    75. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if the rest of the world likes you, they might stop thinking up ways to blow you up. When you say please don't build any Nuclear missiles they might actually listen. Hell there's a chance that people won't take the whole 'giving people democracy thing' as such a bad joke if you actually came across as well meaning and decent. It's not just the Europeans you need to consider, but if you did, then next time you decide to start a war you might get help from someone other than the Brits.

      I see how well that has worked for Europe - Tube bombings, Muslim Riots in France, Train Bombings in Spain, - need I go on? Don't take a patronizing tone because your countries refuse to actually stand up for anything. Complaining that the US only gave 2 Billion in aid, as well as, supplies during the Asian tsunami crisis and being called stingy? Looking at us and whining about Darfor genocide asking, "So what are you going to do about it?" You have some balls to look at our country and say it's reputation is impugned when even during a fark up like the Iraq War we still seem to help others out, yet we take the criticism in general stoic pride and not respond. I say at least man up or shut up because frankly I am tired of hearing the Euro whine. At least Britain man's up, wish the rest of Europe would.

    76. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is wrong with that? The USA is always trying to force their values on other countries, make them change to suit us. I think it's only fair that the USA also change to suit other countries.

    77. Re:Reputation by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
      I sincerely hope that he can keep all his promises he made to the American people...

      Can you cite ANY president that has kept every promise he made? I voted for Obama, and he is certainly a huge improvement over Bush, but I'm not expecting him to work miracles.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    78. Re:Reputation by jonock14 · · Score: 1

      They only say "Kill all Westerners" because we haven't ever done anything to change their minds. I'm sure it would be like talking to a wall when dealing with the extremists, but as far as the moderates driven to extremes, talk and discussions may be more effective. And if it doesn't work, what's the harm in trying?

    79. Re:Reputation by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Diplomacy does not preclude use of force.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    80. Re:Reputation by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Actually, the problem with the nuclear missile thing was simply a miscommunication: they didn't have any "nucular" missiles, so they didn't think they had to do anything differently.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    81. Re: Reputation by jonock14 · · Score: 1

      Agree with most of what you said, except this: "Which has been the policy of the Bush Administration whether you are willing to accept it or not." A token "see, 1 month of sanctions didn't work, screw it, we're bombing Iraq" doesn't count as diplomacy. Refusing to sit with Iran to discuss alternative means of getting cheap, safe means of power, nuclear or otherwise, doesn't count either. Going off in a press conference, giving three unfriendly nations a cool comic book nickname "Axis of Evil" doesn't count, especially when once Bush gave in to the UN suggestions of multi-lateral talks with N. Korea, they stopped their nuclear program. The fact is, reasonable attempts at diplomacy include the ability to consider the other side, even if it is insane.

    82. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having all branches of the government part of the same party isn't really a good thing. We want the president to have trouble passing bills because we want them to be thoroughly looked at.

    83. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but he'll have a LOT of trouble paying for them.

      You guys are in hock - mostly to China - for $3 trillion to pay for the Iraq War.

      Ain't gonna be money for anything else for a generation.

      Good luck - you're going to need it.

    84. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahaha, you are an idiot. The only reason a large portion of the world "liked" the US way back when, was that we either pretended not to see what they were doing, ehem France, Germany, Russia, China, or we paid them off, ie most of the third world. They stopped liking us once we started calling them on their bullshit or started cutting them off from the feeding trough.

      Obama was a good win, even though I think he's an asshat, the concervatives have gone way off the reservation and need to be shown the error of their ways, but to think Obama will be able to accomplish much with sunshine and happy happy thoughts, is well...thank god they only get 4 years to make a mess of things.

    85. Re:Reputation by jc42 · · Score: 1

      How many countries has Bush threatened so far?

      All of them, actually, back in 2003.

      Remember when, just before the invasion of Iraq, and the media had published extensive debunking of all the excuses that Bush's people were using for the attack, so they finally settled on a new tactic that couldn't be refuted: We had to attack Iraq because they were capable of doing stuff to us in the future. This was quickly labeled "the Bush Doctrine", and was understood to mean that unless you were blind, deaf and quadriplegic, you were capable of attacking the US, so the US was justified in a preemptive attack on you. During the shocked silence that followed the public announcement of this doctrine, the US in fact did attack another country that had done nothing to the US. That was widely understood as meaning the Bush Doctrine was for real, and everyone in the world was being implicitly threatened.

      You think those people should stop talking and start killing Americans then?

      So far they seem to have kept talking, perhaps out of respect for things like the US's nuclear (or nucular) arsenal. Some have perhaps been a bit reluctant to talk too much, out of worry about how the Bush administration might interpret some offhand comment. Once Obama is in office, they might be willing to do a lot more talking, as he appears more amenable to talking that his predecessor.

      But we should assume that people in many parts of the world have spent the past 5 years considering and preparing what they might do in case the US government's attention happens to fall on them at some time in the future. Whether any of this will result in physical actions against the US is something we don't know (yet). But things like the US's "extraordinary rendition" program can be expected to produce a desire for revenge, so we may have that to look forward to.

      Stay tuned. The End of History was announced a bit prematurely.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    86. Re:Reputation by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Bill Clinton was no peacemaker either, and don't forget that Billary cheerfully threatened to totally obliterate Iran [youtube.com] if she were to become president.

      If Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, I can't see what choice a US president would have other than to do that. You would have an extremely unstable state throwing extremely destructive weapons around, and frankly by far the best solution would seem to be to obliterate them as quickly as possible.

      That said, it's a very hypothetical question but I don't think it's fair to attack Hillary for saying that.

    87. Re:Reputation by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      If I'd just had my family gassed and my wife and daughters raped by US Armed Forces, I might welcome an army of foreign heavily armed Iranians in my land.

    88. Re:Reputation by Darby · · Score: 1

      Like I stated earlier, this election wasn't a complete blowout in the popular vote, and hopefully the democrats realize that a win by a few percent doesn't give them license to go hog-wild on every single platform issue.

      So you're saying that you hope he's nothing at all like a Republican?

      I could not agree more.

    89. Re:Reputation by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>When you say please don't build any Nuclear missiles they might actually listen.

      Damn, really?

      If we'd only have given Kim Jong Il a basketball signed by Michael Jordan, then maybe he'd have been willing to listen to us as well oh wait

    90. Re:Reputation by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      I've been half-watching the news in England, and earlier on tonight there was a collection of EU diplomats quoted who could all be paraphrased as "Thank fuck for that, maybe now we can work with America again". I gather that a large number of countries are willing to consider that maybe the 'good old America' is back again, and as long as Obama plays along with that I think the future of America's international relations is very rosy.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    91. Re:Reputation by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't passing judgment. I was describing reality.

      What is wrong is making decisions about your own future based on what other think, rather than based on your own morals and beliefs. This is especially true when it turns out you're wrong about how your decision is going to effect other's opinions of you.

      This is one of the biggest reasons that fewer and fewer people use that particular criteria when choosing a candidate to vote for as they get older.

    92. Re:Reputation by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Because if the rest of the world likes you, they might stop thinking up ways to blow you up. When you say please don't build any Nuclear missiles they might actually listen. Hell there's a chance that people won't take the whole 'giving people democracy thing' as such a bad joke if you actually came across as well meaning and decent.

      [[citation needed]]

      Translation: You're fooling yourself.

    93. Re:Reputation by Krishnoid · · Score: 1
      Fry: What do we care? We live in the United States.
      Leela: The United States is part of the world.
      Fry: Wow! I have been gone a long time.

      From this episode, which incidentally features one of the voting problems that the Schulze Condorcet voting method protects against -- just curious, because I've been looking into it recently, thinking about voting and the election and all.

    94. Re:Reputation by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      If you're not going to go back 50 years and not count Truman, Kennedy, or Johnson, you'd have to go back 89 years, actually.

    95. Re:Reputation by giorgist · · Score: 1

      How about we give'em all their money back :-) Here take your $, we don't need them any more

    96. Re:Reputation by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Because if the rest of the world likes you, they might stop thinking up ways to blow you up.

      My guess is that they will just think of other reasons to dislike you.

      From what I have seen, people can dislike you for their own reasons. There's no need for you to actually do anything to them except exist. Blundering around and finding some way to give offense is usually just icing on the cake.

    97. Re:Reputation by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Please provide citations - within official documents released by Barack Obama or a representative there-of - NOT media spin or speculation about his statements.
      I'm aware you probably CAN cite the tax related items, but I see nothing wrong with those... I'd be interested in seeing citations for the others.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    98. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama cannot keep all of his promises because he lied to the American people - he made promises that he cannot keep.

      That being said, now we have a groovy AA president who can bring us into the modern era - MARXISM!

    99. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is not a dictatorship so "HE" cannot bring you any change on his own. Things are going to change but only slowly. The change will come from the Democratic party policies but under his leadership...

    100. Re:Reputation by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Yes, because clearly the entirety of the rest of the world are radical Muslims.

      The rest of the world looks at people like you and sees intolerance and hate. What response do you expect?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    101. Re:Reputation by BZ · · Score: 1

      It's a good trade. You do that, the U.S. pulls out of Germany and drops this missile shield in Poland boondoggle. And pulls out of South Korea too.

      Oh, wait, some of those folks keep wanting the U.S. to stay, and people here keep muttering about treaty commitments.

      It's nice to have it both ways: get someone else to spend money on your defense and shit on them at the same time. Too bad the U.S. lets people get away with this.

    102. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Poland.

    103. Re:Reputation by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I firmly believe that Barack Obama is going to bring the change we need to alter the way the world see us.

      The world will hate the US again soon enough - they'd prefer to blame their own problems on us.

    104. Re:Reputation by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      As for domestically, get ready for "That 70's Show" as Obama, Reid and Pelosi drive capital and jobs to more business friendly locales.

      What, like China? So the new Republican platform is to bring the US economically closer to China (deregulate the hell out of anything etc) to stop businesses from leaving?

    105. Re:Reputation by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Increase Capitol Gains Tax

      Well, you obviously need some more money spent on education in the US, so he's got to find the funds somewhere...

    106. Re:Reputation by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Because if the rest of the world likes you, they might stop thinking up ways to blow you up. When you say please don't build any Nuclear missiles they might actually listen. Hell there's a chance that people won't take the whole 'giving people democracy thing' as such a bad joke if you actually came across as well meaning and decent. It's not just the Europeans you need to consider,

      The Europeans are the least of your concerns. When the shit hits the fan, the EU and the US are in bed together no matter what idiots are in power in the various countries. What really matters is the US' relationship with the rest of the world. Large parts of the world see the US as a bunch of violent, evil, oppressive racists, and not without reason. The election of Barack Obama goes quite a long way towards shattering that world view. Following it up with some good and serious diplomacy rather than posturing with weapons, just might open some doors that had been thoroughly nailed shut from both sides.

    107. Re:Reputation by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      I really don't give two shits about how some snoppy European views our country.

      That is why you fail.

    108. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He just appointed a Jew to be his Chief of Staff. That's going to go over really well in the Middle East!!

    109. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kamokazi. You don't give two shits about what other thinks about your country, but I can bet you do give a lot about what they can provide to your country. You seem like a very selfish person, that takes what it needs without caring what others thinks. Yeah, why not, let's invade that country, kill some people and get what we need.

    110. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can stick your darned missile shield where the sun don't shine; besides the fact that it won't work, we don't need it, because no one wants to shoot missiles at us.
      Oh, wait, they do NOW that we have it, thank you so much.

  16. Strange no one has mentioned this but.. by s0litaire · · Score: 5, Funny

    This Scot, for one, welcomes our Democraticly elected African-American overlord :D

    --
    Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    1. Re:Strange no one has mentioned this but.. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      African-American

      What do you guys call black people in Africa? African-Africans? And are white people in Africa just called Africans?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  17. The party of big government by bugeaterr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The party of big government soundly defeated the other party of big government.

    Too bad for those of us who think the government is getting dangerously big.
    15 million people are employed by, and have a vested interest in an the size and power of, the federal government, let alone state and local.

    1. Re:The party of big government by Iridium_Hack · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I couldn't agree with you more. I ended out voting libertarian, though knew they couldn't win. The two main parties are sort of like chocolate and strawberry milk - two flavors of the same thing (though not as tasty). I think there are a few Republicans in the House that have some respect for balancing the budget. At least they (initially) opposed the buyout. But other than that, I'm not so sure

      Be careful of your thoughts; they could become words and deeds at any minute.

    2. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      15 million people are employed by, and have a vested interest in an the size and power of, the federal government, let alone state and local.

      What's funny (or sad depending on how you look at it) is that about half of them (a whole lot more if you count the military) claim to want smaller government. Yet they have no problem taking a paycheck from the gubmint as long as it suits their needs. Talk about standing up for your principles!

    3. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being alienated from the fact that US government works the way it does will not help you, nor others.

      be glad a younger candidate with a US moderate position will lead the country into the future.

      and that Bush is soon gone and not replaced with anything like Bush.

    4. Re:The party of big government by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a state government employee, kick ass! Time for another coffee break!

    5. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who works for a defense contractor and who espouses smaller government, I can tell you that somebody is going to get the job, and basically it was the first decent paying one that came along.

      That being said, if we could shrink the government back to something resembling the size it should be, I would happily find a job more firmly located in the private sector.

    6. Re:The party of big government by jesdynf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've voted Libertarian in the two elections prior to this one; I live in Texas, so it's not like non-Republican votes count anyways.

      This year? The best way to advance the libertarian agenda? I voted for the Democrat. Straight ticket, in fact.

      Torture? Indefinite detention? This is how we do things in America, is it?

      Here's the whole thing in a nutshell -- I can win an argument about money. I can't win an argument about what God told you to do, and I'm mad that I have to even try. "God says it's the right thing to do" caused all this garbage. The proper response to 9/11 was $500 in cabin door locks and a *memo to the pilots* explaining how certain critical assumptions we made were flawed. Everything else is exactly what the American-educated bin Laden expected and in fact desired. Mission accomplished, O spiritual warrior. And the Republican party as a whole gets tarred with this brush because they didn't step up to defend the Constitution of our nation.

      I've deliberately done what I can to force the Republican Party to fracture and squeeze out either the godnuts or the socially liberal. Then maybe I can vote for economic conservatism without lumping it in with votes for totemic spirits. I'll deal with four or eight years of bad financial decisions because even if the far right wingnuts are correct, I'd STILL rather starve than torture and kill for Jesus.

      (So far I've been (apparently) banned on RedState and been banned on FreeRepublic. You'd think they'd be more sensitive to Constitutional issues, especially among people historically voting libertarian.)

      --
      Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
    7. Re:The party of big government by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a state government employee, kick ass! Time for another coffee break!

      I am a surly state employee and I am been on "break" since I got to work.

      I call it leaning in the virtual shovel.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    8. Re:The party of big government by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I think there are a few Republicans in the House that have some respect for balancing the budget. At least they (initially) opposed the buyout.

      So, I guess you wouldn't have minded losing your savings and plunging into undoubtedly the worst recession the country would ever have faced, then, when the banking system inevitably collapsed? I agree that you should generally let business that deserve to fail, fail. Banking, however, is a special sector because of its vital importance to the economy, and so it can't really be allowed to fail. Yeah, it shouldn't have been allowed to get to the stage it got to, and it did thanks to people like Greenspan and the neo-cons' idea of deregulation being good. However, we were where we were, and the bailout was the best option in the circumstances. The solution is next to setup much tighter regulation of what is a very special industry, and never again let neoconservative-cum-greedybastards convince those in power that deregulation is ALWAYS a good thing, again.

    9. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your rationale is "Somebody was going to take the paycheck, so it may as well be me." Again, kudos for being principled. It just further proves that you don't actually care about what you espouse, you just want the money. There are plenty of other jobs out there.

    10. Re:The party of big government by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Too bad for those of us who think the government is getting dangerously big.

      But great for those of us who think a strong Federal government can be a good thing, or realize that before federal social programs began under FDR the country lurched from depression to depression, with the vast majority of Americans living in poverty.

      Fortunately there's more of us than there are of you, and we live in a democracy.

    11. Re:The party of big government by aaron+alderman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What can you do about the government when it gets too big and restricts your 2nd amendment rights?

    12. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it makes you feel better, you can denigrate me online as much as you want, but the truth of the matter is I work for a "Private Company" that does contracts with the government.

      Like it or not, most people aren't privy to the details of every single contract and/or product of a particular company before they start working there.

      And believe it or not, there are times when I genuinely feel bad about it, but finding work has always been very difficult for me, so I have to take what I can get.

    13. Re:The party of big government by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

      You know, the snark has got to stop. It sounds witty, but there's nothing behind it and it still manages to pass for insightful commentary.

      The fact is that people go to work to make money. They aren't going to quit or not work in government because they want smaller government. Why? Because they've got to work somewhere, and if there's a gov't position open, someone's going to take it anyway. Refusing to take it on principle only hurts the prospective employee, and does NOTHING to constrain the size of government.

      What needs to happen is the strategic elimination of high-level groups and programs. That absolutely cannot be done by Joe the IT Worker or Sally the Secretary, and their decision to take that paycheck while its available is totally reasonable.

    14. Re:The party of big government by aaron+alderman · · Score: 1
      Did you see Rudi Giuliani rip into Ron Paul at the Republican debates?

      He effectively told Ron Paul he was in the wrong party because he dared suggest that Republicans actually stand for non-intervention in foreign policy.

      Just shows how much the neo-cons have infiltrated the Republicans with the religious right cheering them on from the side lines.

      By the way, your vote DOES COUNT - because if you can start grassroots campaigns now, and more votes turn blue or third party, then in 8, 12, 20 years time Texas can be a swing state as the momentum grows and the candidates start to believe its "in play".

    15. Re:The party of big government by theM_xl · · Score: 1

      Could someone tell me what this "economic conservatism" thing means? Looking at the national debt it's not tied to a balanced budget, I know that much...

    16. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Wonder Obama is asking for change. They need it to pay for programs.

    17. Re:The party of big government by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the Democrats will be any better. The Patriot Act was passed with overwhelming Democratic support. Barack Obama voted to continue Bush's warrantless wiretap program, and gave immunity to the telecoms that participated in it. I hope you're right, but I don't expect it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:The party of big government by jesdynf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't say I expected them to be better. I've got *hopes* -- Obama might well be able to deliver. I'd be delighted if it happens. But I talked about changing the *Republican* party to better suit me.

      --
      Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
    19. Re:The party of big government by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      As a liberal my position is this:

      Economics and ideology don't mix, it often depends on the situation what is the right course of action to keep the market healthy, and I am comfortable with being 'checked' by people who disagree with me here.

      On civil rights though we can not waver, as the opposition scares the crap out of me.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    20. Re:The party of big government by mordred99 · · Score: 1

      Great .. we have a younger candidate. However moderate views? Moderate means more toward the middle. He is as far left as FDR. If he gets the Senate w/ 60 or more, we are in for New Deal 2.0. He want the government to tax everything and redistribute the wealth so everyone is the same.

      As for the size of the government, people need to put their money where their mouth is. If you don't like social programs, then don't use them. If you are laid off, don't claim unemployment. If you are poor, don't claim food stamps. If you have a disabled child, don't claim FICA.

      Oh wait. Everyone wants a handout. (full disclosure, I did take unemployment when I was laid off, and why not? To quote TLC - I ain't too proud to beg).

    21. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, your fine. Obama just plans to make government bigger and more powerful. You should be feeling safe in no time.

    22. Re:The party of big government by Iridium_Hack · · Score: 1

      Some of the root causes as to why the banking system flopped and even got into the sub-prime market go back into the nineties. After the great depression, laws were written that were suppposed to protect against it happening again. The first put barriers in place against inter-locking directorates in banks. Banks were no longer permitted to have decision making directors who were also company directors in the investment industry. I forget the exact name of the law. But it was repealed in 1998 I believe. Both parties had to be involved for the vote to carry as the congress had a Republican majority. But the sponsor and a main part of its support was from the Democrat Party. A second law put in place was to protect money in accounts up to $100,000. That was so people didn't rush to get their money out when banks started collapsing. That law was still in effect and worked. So NO, no one would have lost their money, just because a bank went out. Instead, the banks that were smart and stayed out of the sub-prime would have made a killing. Good for them.

    23. Re:The party of big government by BytePusher · · Score: 1

      Since I can't mod this insightful consider this a +1 "Preach It Brother."

      Here's the problem: We only have two parties to choose from, because if we vote outside of the two blessed parties, we're throwing away our vote.

      I think the constitutional method of voting for electorates was intended to accomplish something other than tallying votes and seeing who comes out on top. The way our current voting scheme works, if there are more than two parties it is possible for a very devoted minority to win an election. However, if the electoral college did their job, they would consider voter intent.

      For example, suppose there are three parties, "Conservatives," "Liberals" and "Let's take down the bourgeoisie!" Conservatives get 32.5% of the vote, Liberals get 32.5% of the vote, but the "let's destroy them all" group get's 35% of the vote. It's safe to say, 65% of the country does not hate the bourgeoisie and would gladly, desperately wish for any other party to win, but in the US system the intent of the people is not judged, just numbers tallied. So, the Marxists win.

      The result is that people are afraid to support a party which best represents their wishes, but does not have enough political momentum to win an election by raw numbers. Thus, third parties will never gain enough momentum to become viable.

      The problem with the electoral college is that at this point, if they did not vote purely based on the raw numbers there would be cries of "Not fair, not fair!" by whatever party lost due to the electoral college judging voter intent. So, what we actually need is a way for voters to directly express their intent. There are a number of ways to do this, but in the end, voters need to be able to show their support for multiple candidates. For example, this could be done by prioritizing preference for the candidates, or simply voting for as many candidates as they would like, but giving one candidate a preferential vote in the case of very close elections. Whatever method chosen, reinstating electorate sovereignty or a more sophisticated method of voting, almost any system which considered voter intent would be better and would result in greater voter satisfaction than the current system.

    24. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit right we reject a police state this is the mandate.

    25. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I have to point out that the moderates and fiscal conservatives are the ones being culled from the Republican party. They just lost four of them in the Senate and goodness knows how many in the House. The ones remaining are far more likely to be wingnuts.

    26. Re:The party of big government by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I've deliberately done what I can to force the Republican Party to fracture and squeeze out either the godnuts or the socially liberal. Then maybe I can vote for economic conservatism without lumping it in with votes for totemic spirits. I'll deal with four or eight years of bad financial decisions because even if the far right wingnuts are correct, I'd STILL rather starve than torture and kill for Jesus.

      I wish more Libertarians thought like you.

      Look, I'm a Progressive. I oppose you guys on quite a lot of issues, and think you're mostly dupes of business interests.

      OTOH, at least you aren't fucking torturing people. Or detaining them indefinitely. Or attempting 'regime change', which sounds like a really good way to convince other countries that invading places is acceptable.

      If the election had, instead, been between the Republicans and Libertarians, with the Democratic party as the third party without a chance of winning, I hope I would have behaved like you and voted Libertarian.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    27. Re:The party of big government by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Too bad for those of us who think the government is getting dangerously big.

      No, actually it's incredibly lucky for you... Getting everything you want would have turned horribly ugly in short order.

      Libertarianism is the antithesis of all economic theory, developed over the past 300+ years of human history. It is based in ignorance of all well-known economic forces.

      Libertarians say that with competition, companies will all do the right thing, but after a few batches of Melamine show up in your food, you'll start having to rethink that lovely theory. The most pathetic thing in the world was watching Ron Paul hand-wave away Fox News' decision to refuse him airtime, and claim that even less regulation and complete self-rule would have made them decide differently...

      Of course the other fundamental belief of Libertarianism is that, without regulations, companies will spring up, left and right, and out-compete the big existing corporations. The problem is, things like economies of scale are such a HUGE force in business, that a small startup can't possibly manage to get prices anywhere near as low as a big company... There's no government regulations requiring small shops to go bankrupt when Wal-Mart moves in next door, it's simple economics that a large company can be cheaper. And when you get rid of all regulations, they're going to start buying out all competitors in short order, and quickly become international monopolies, stronger than any government, able to fix prices, single-handedly driving countries or the world into recession, and each interested only in finding a way to make more money, with no regulations at all to stop them.

      The Republicans have been taking us down the road of deregulation for the past two decades, and look where we are now... Rolling power outages in California (eg. Enron), Sub-prime mortgages, Largest bank failures in history, lending grinding to a halt, a global recession looming, etc.

      But that won't stop the mass delusion of Libertarianism... No. It can all be chalked up to having not gone FAR enough. If banks were given even MORE freedom, then surely they wouldn't have screwed up as badly as they did with the relatively little freedom they did have, right? Be careful what you ask for.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    28. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that, my friend, was fucking brilliant. you are a credit to the image of your state and country.

    29. Re:The party of big government by LatencyKills · · Score: 1

      McCain, at least initially running as the "independent maverick" was the closest thing the R's had to a moderate voice. Now that he's blown his wad, I fully expect the R's to be completely consumed by the nutjobs and moonbats. I voted independent in the last two elections and I voted independent in this one as well. So what that a total of about 110 votes in 4000 cast in my town went to the "other" column (which included Barr, Nader, and a couple of others) - I vote for the candidate that I believe in. The fact that they can't possibly win makes me feel worse about my country, not my vote.

      --
      Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
    30. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way to shrink government is by making it more efficient and less wasteful. One way to accomplish that is through the use of technology. Sen. Obama is an advocate of using technology to improve efficiency. I predict he will shrink the size of the federal government by 15-20% and the federal budget by 10-20% by the end of his first term through the use of technology, systems overhaul and elimination of unnecessary redundancy.

    31. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that if even your number was correct(I don't know where you get your source from) thats still only 4.9% of the current population(compared to the world census results of the US)

      I'm pretty sure that it takes alot of people to run a country and the U.S. is one of the biggest with a fairly large population. It's going to need more representation from different parts unlike countries like England and Germany.

      You tell me what size should it be? What positions should be cut out, and why. I expect at least 500 words by the end of the day.

    32. Re:The party of big government by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Wanting a small government for the sake of a small government is as asinine as wanting a big government for the sake of a big government. The question should be, what is the right amount of government for the issue. If that means no regulation, fine. If it means socialism, also fine.

    33. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fully agree with everything you've just stated. As a theory, I absolutely love the idea of Libertarianism. However, the one thing that it seems to leave out of the equation is human nature. Toss that in there and it completely falls apart.

    34. Re:The party of big government by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The banking system wouldn't have failed. There were lots of people with surplus capital in Saudi Arabia who would be more than happy to have bailed out the banks in exchange for a controlling interest in the US banking system. I am surprised by how many people consider this to be a better option than having their government invest in the banks on their behalf.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    35. Re:The party of big government by galego · · Score: 1

      >>15 million people are employed by, and have a vested interest in an the size and power of, the federal government, let alone state and local. Indeed ... probably not what was intended by "Government of, by and for the people", eh?

      --

      Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas

      [May God give you double that which you wish for me]

    36. Re:The party of big government by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      The Democrats didn't start getting all pro-liberties until they weren't in power. Let's not have a short memory, now. Now they're in power of the legislative and executive branches. If they don't fix a lot of that stuff fast, then I'm going to have to call bullshit.

      Very few politicians want to take a lot of effort to limit their own power.

    37. Re:The party of big government by milimetric · · Score: 1

      I agree with this. I think big government is bad. But we can't make a transition from big government to no government in the present state. Consider doing this:

      Follow us in this big government so that education and health care once again restores a level playing field among the citizens of the world. After that, we can once again attempt to co-exist peacefully without government meddling with these matters. But it would be unfair to embark on that journey now when 90% of us aren't wearing any clothes.

    38. Re:The party of big government by DrWho520 · · Score: 1

      I would think Texas to be prime real estate to start a grass roots Libertarian movement. The biggest barrier? The words "Libertarian" and "Liberal" sound way to similar.

      --
      The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
    39. Re:The party of big government by seek3r · · Score: 1

      Very well said.

    40. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's about 5% of the estimated 2008 population of 305,579,000 (as noted on wikipedia). How small should it be? How small could it be and still function with all its branches, arms and (noodly) appendages? Or are you a proponent of lopping off as many branches as possible, and letting people pave their own roads?

    41. Re:The party of big government by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      He want the government to tax everything and redistribute the wealth so everyone is the same.

      He does not. Why the hyperbole? You are only defeating yourself by spewing nonsense like that.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    42. Re:The party of big government by robbadler · · Score: 1

      Bob Barr in Oregon FTW? No, not in this RedBlue state. But my vote at least changed the demographic for my district. The next time local policies come up, I (tried to) help shift the direction.

    43. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, obviously giving corporations tax cuts and accumulating trillions of debt was not the right way to fix "big" government...

    44. Re:The party of big government by Khisanth+Magus · · Score: 1

      My mom is a manager at a bank. Her bank was smart and stayed out of the sub-prime mortgage thing. The recent problems effected them not at all.

    45. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Going by what he's stated while running for election, Obama's programs will add at least another $320+ billion each year to US Federal spending. That's on top of all the current BS which is what? $300-400 billion more than it takes in. Assuming that he pulls out of Iraq by 2010 (and it goes to hell soon after) and dedicates what was being spent there to his domestic programs still gives about $200 billion unaccounted for. Where's that going to come from? Getting rid of govt waste? not likely. Wave a magic wand and remove the Medicaid/Medicare spending that is attributed to fraud (about 31% of their budget)? that would be great, but still not likely. So that brings us back to: raise taxes and damage the economy ever more, cut the hell out of the defense budget like Carter & Clinton did (very dangerous at this point in time), or more deficit spending that makes Bush look thrifty. None of these are good ideas. So unless he really wants to sink the US economy, his domestic plans will have to be rolled back radically. I wonder how long it will take for those that voted for him to realize that they've been sold the biggest load of bullshit in the last 40 years.

      Honestly, this notion that the Federal Govt can spend it's way out of problems has got to end immediately. Federal spending has to be pared back drastically and the surplus allocated to debt reduction. Things aren't as bad as they were when Carter was in the WH. We don't have double digit inflation, interest rates, and unemployment. Yet. I fear that if his policies are implemented as stated, that will become a reality.

    46. Re:The party of big government by beauzo · · Score: 1

      You mean I'll also have to deal with Patty and Selma at the Department of Health Care? D'oh!

    47. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means cutting spending and taxes. Not just cutting taxes like the current retarded GOP. How can you cut income and yet raise spending? It's stupid.

      Economic conservatives want to *shrink* the size of the federal government. From my view, prime targets for elimination are Dept of Edu., Dept of Ag., probably 1/2 of the military.

      I think we should keep some regulatory depts (FDA, FCC), but most of the federal gov can go, and then we can get closer to abolishing the federal income tax.

    48. Re:The party of big government by Iridium_Hack · · Score: 1

      Excellent! Good to hear. I know that quite a few of the large US banks played in the sub-prime market and got beat up. Some of the other mid-size or small banks didn't and are doing fine. I believe one of them that has its home in North Carolina bought up Merrill Lynch but I'm not sure. An interesting link to some of the causes is at: http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1209999600.php/

    49. Re:The party of big government by naddington · · Score: 1

      So far I've been (apparently) banned on RedState and been banned on FreeRepublic.

      And I have the death sentence in twelve systems.

    50. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey - at least the newly voted in party of big government won't put you on a terrorist watch list for saying 'the government is getting to big.'

      Right now the Bush administration is trying to find creative ways to protect the secrets made during the last 8 years. I can't wait till some of those things get exposed.

    51. Re:The party of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen! .... ummm.., I mean, RIGHT ON! ;-)

    52. Re:The party of big government by aztektum · · Score: 1

      To say nothing of corporations that work strictly from government contracts, most of the time from the military.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    53. Re:The party of big government by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      And when you get rid of all regulations, they're going to start buying out all competitors in short order, and quickly become international monopolies, stronger than any government, able to fix prices,

      I was following you up to this point. Now you are contradicting yourself. If they raise prices then they lose their advantage of economies of scale. Any mom and pop business could compete with them. Anyway, what laws are on the books now that prevent your scenario from occuring? As far as I can see what you are talking about has already happened except for the part about Walmart and other mega retailers jacking up their prices. After all they have to compete against other mega retailers (Target etc).

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    54. Re:The party of big government by evilviper · · Score: 1

      If they raise prices then they lose their advantage of economies of scale.

      No, they don't.

      If they can make widgets for $5 in large quantities, but it costs $20 in small quantities, then they can charge $19 and still make tremendous profit, without making it possible for any other company to get a foothold.

      And that's not the only circumstance by a long shot... Just the quickest way to explain how a free market, by nature, heavily discourages competition, and all manner of other relatively minor public-service burdens.

      As far as I can see what you are talking about has already happened except for the part about Walmart and other mega retailers jacking up their prices. After all they have to compete against other mega retailers (Target etc).

      Wal-Mart could collude with, merge with, and/or outright buy-out (eg.) Target, if not for government regulation preventing monopolization of industries.

      In fact, just search for "anti-competitive behavior". I'm sure you'll find a list of almost everything companies have tried, but have been shot down by the government.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    55. Re:The party of big government by mcvos · · Score: 1

      (So far I've been (apparently) banned on RedState and been banned on FreeRepublic. You'd think they'd be more sensitive to Constitutional issues, especially among people historically voting libertarian.)

      FreeRepublic? I wasn't aware of that site until yesterday, but from what I've seen there since then, I get the impression it's a bunch of dangerously ignorant loonies. Besides, they seem to be ultra-conservative rather than libertarian anyway.

      My advice: find a real (and sane) libertarian forum.

    56. Re:The party of big government by jesdynf · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not that I'm unwilling to do so, and your assessment of FreeRepublic is both correct and not news to me, but I just... don't know where to find one.

      I'm pretty sure Slashdot itself has the highest percentage of non-insane libertarians on the web.

      --
      Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
    57. Re:The party of big government by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      There's a word these days for moderate Republicans: Democrats. If you're in the GOP and you aren't a big enough asshole, you'll find yourself primaried in the next election by Focus on the Family or the Club for Growth.

    58. Re:The party of big government by Copid · · Score: 1

      My mom is a manager at a bank. Her bank was smart and stayed out of the sub-prime mortgage thing. The recent problems effected them not at all.

      So, they had no problems getting short term funding on the commercial paper market? Overnight loans? None of that stuff?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  18. It's not over yet by laptop006 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Save the good booze for January 20th, until then, who knows, maybe the GOP has a larger then expected "October surprise" that's running a little late.

    --
    /* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
    1. Re:It's not over yet by Rogerborg · · Score: 1, Troll

      Pop quiz: who just got his feet under the Big Desk at USCENTCOM?

      That's right, it's General Smithers - sorry, Petraeus.

      War were declared in 5... 4... 3...

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:It's not over yet by mach1980 · · Score: 1

      In soviet russia october surprise republic! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_revolution

      Putin takes Medvedev to a restaurant and orders a steak. "What about the vegetable?" the waiter asks. Putin looks at Medvedev and says, "The vegetable will have steak, too.

      --
      Break the sound barrier - bring the noise.
  19. Change has arrived. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I may not be an American,but to me,Barack has been the most inspiring person in this day and age.From his roots in Hawaii to where he is now,he epitomises change and the belief that democracy is still alive within the world.He said that people have the power and I applaud the American Public as they have proven that.This is a big booster to all of us around the world,sick and tired with the current politics we have,may it be from Malaysia or Thailand to Europe.The old system is now down and what we have in hope,inspiration and the glimmer that tommorow may not be as shitty as today.Thank you America for choosing the right person.

    PS Now whether he can deliver the goods,we may not know but time will tell.

  20. Change has come to America by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Now lie back and take it.

  21. Thank God by taxtropel · · Score: 0, Troll

    Please I hope "God"had nothing to do with it. Can we please get past this religion drug? Anyhow, now that the troll bait is out of the way. Congratulations to Mr.Obama, friends, & cow-orkers.

    1. Re:Thank God by bytethese · · Score: 1

      Hmm, if I had known that Obama was close with cow orkers, I'm not sure I would have voted for him! :)

    2. Re:Thank God by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmm, I thought cow orkers tended toward the Republicans more?

    3. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please I hope "God"had nothing to do with it. Can we please get past this religion drug?

      Anyhow, now that the troll bait is out of the way.

      Congratulations to Mr.Obama, friends, & cow-orkers.

      Cow... orkers? I think its time for me to slip away and don my tinfoil hat. Something doesn't seem right...

    4. Re:Thank God by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Please I hope "God"had nothing to do with it. Can we please get past this religion drug? Anyhow, now that the troll bait is out of the way. Congratulations to Mr.Obama, friends, & cow-orkers.

      I assume you'll be fair and tell people they should stop using the Lord's name in vain when they say "Oh my God" all the time, especially on TV. By the way, some drugs are useful and not illegal so calling religion a drug isn't a bad thing, nor is religion itself bad. Religion isn't the problem. The lack thereof causes the problems as well as those people who have something against religion. Didn't anyone ever teach you diversity?

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    5. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moooobama?

    6. Re:Thank God by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      Religion is a bad thing when you get zealots bent on using legislation to force their beliefs on others. The Republicans have been hitching their wagon to that pony since the 80s. It came back to bite them in the ass this time. Instead of talking about issues and coming up with plans to help people, they decided to talk about abortion, gays, and Israel instead. Hopefully they will learn a lesson from this years vote and reevaluate their priorities.

    7. Re:Thank God by dukeofurl01 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I thought cow orkers tended toward the Republicans more?

      Hmm, would that involve bovines that look like elephants?

      "Milk maids for securing our borders!"
      "Beef. It's what's for dinner... and the patriot act."

    8. Re:Thank God by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Religion is a bad thing when you get zealots bent on using legislation to force their beliefs on others. The Republicans have been hitching their wagon to that pony since the 80s. It came back to bite them in the ass this time. Instead of talking about issues and coming up with plans to help people, they decided to talk about abortion, gays, and Israel instead. Hopefully they will learn a lesson from this years vote and reevaluate their priorities.

      Bias against religion means you easily mistake someone trying to force their beliefs upon you for just trying to uphold the ability for them to freely exercise their own beliefs in public. That includes upholding societal standards of morals and ethics. Don't confuse their goal. Besides, it isn't always about helping people. Some, not all, people just need to step up and be responsible by helping themselves instead of always saying "oh woe is me" and expecting someone to bail them out all thet time. I hardly would say that the Republicans lost because of abortion, gays, and Israel.

      In fact, California, Arizona, and Florida all had the majority of the population vote *against* homosexual marriage thereby overturning the state Supreme Court decision (in California) which allows same-sex marriage. That says in at least those 3 states that societal standards lean toward traditional values and we all know how liberal "California" is. I put that in quotes because there are only a few hotspots in CA that are really liberal. The rest of the state is just like most other states which have conservative people. The current map of blues and reds spell that out with the West and NE displaying the majority of the blue but the majority of the country is red.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  22. Re:United States Socialist Republic by antiaktiv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't tell if this is a joke or not, but people all over the world are laughing at the notion of Obama being a socialist. As in the 90s, at least we can rejoice over the lesser of two evils winning.

  23. Our new Presidente by prezpwns · · Score: 1

    Obama promises not to raise taxes, not to raise the deficit, but he will promise to RAISE THE ROOF!! HOLLA

  24. As a Canadian, let me say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well done, America. You've taken your first step toward re-establishing your international credibility by voting out the Republicans, who have played a large part in engineering the current state of international affairs. We recognize that your country is in a pretty deep hole left by the last administration, but we trust you'll do your best.

    1. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by paragon1 · · Score: 1

      We're not that deep in the hole, our money is worth more than yours again.

    2. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      We're not that deep in the hole, our money is worth more than yours again.

      You know you're in trouble when you have to use the Canadian dollar as a comparison to make you look good.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *cough* Kennedy (Vietnam) *cough* Johnson (Vietnam) *cough* Clinton (pissed off al-queda by declaring war) *cough*

      Get real BOTH 'sides' had a large helping hand in that. To say 'only the republicans did this' ignores history.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events

      We shall see if they are the party of 'change' they OWNED the congress for the past ~2 years and did nothing but follow party line. Some change. They have shown themselves to be the other big government group. For example the DMCA (a subject near and dear to Slashdot crowd) you can thank the democratic party for that.

      I say it here right now in 4 years we will be discussing the same things.

      The ONLY way he can change the system is to make it even worse than it was. You know more laws to enforce his way of thinking...

    4. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barack Obama together with his False Prophet Jeremiah Wright, will force everyone to get a mark on thier right hand and forehead, and no one will be able to buy or sell unless they have that mark.
      Dont be fooled, Barack only distanced himself from Wright only to win the election.
      If you take the mark, his mark you will be eternally lost. I suspect that most secular, pagan and sodomite liberals will take this mark anyway because the either do not believe in the true God or disagree with most of the commands of the Bible anyway. I think that Barack will make a peace treaty with Israel and will break it at the end of 3 and a half years of his presidency.

    5. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the Democrats were all soooo against our intervention in Iraq. But wait, how do you explain this: Live Leak ?

    6. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by midnightkiller · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wow. Like we give a crap about establishing our top spot in the Miss Congeniality pageant. Almost all of the American-hate (or phony praise) is jealousy or is spawned from disappointed self-interest of other nations. It must really suck for Canada to have to be in a massive shadow. It pains me to hear the red-headed step child cry for mommy's attention in the form of congratulating us on our path to blunting our world influence.

    7. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but remember that for a while, Canadian Tire money was worth more than the US dollar.

      At least when shopping at Canadian Tire, eh?

    8. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by Sinbios · · Score: 1

      ...What the hell?

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    9. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Canada. The Democratic Party is designed by lies, thievery, and communistic principles. They have a distinct fear of anyone successful. I fear for my hard-earned paycheck now that every cock sucking liberal is in power. Maybe I'll take the coward's way out and shoot myself in the head before this mess gets everyone killed.

    10. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I support this position and I guess most Europeans will agree with me that there now hope for the US. Just imagine what he could accomplish by talking instead of shooting. We all feel relieved that Obama won.

      Congratulations

    11. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Again, why do I care that Canada approves of our selection for president? It's not about you and it's not about the rest of the world. We are selecting the candidate who is best for the US, and the only reason your opinion matters is because we trade with you and defend against you. I really get tired of people from other countries patting us on the head and saying "good boy, America." I understand this impacts you, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a US election, not a world election. You don't get a vote for a very good reason.

    12. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by ari_j · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As an American, speaking to a Canadian, let me say that I hope that Obama's healthcare plan works as well as he hopes without the adverse effects that many foresee, especially those who have Canadian friends who come to the US to see doctors without having to wait. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot longer trip, Mr. Canadian, to get to a doctor. As with every new President in my lifetime, I hope for the best but expect much less.

    13. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what gives you, "a canadian" the right to speak in such a patronizing tone about the country of power and integrity you will NEVER have?

    14. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea except now WE are the conservative country..

      oh how times have/are changing. I guess we'll all be moving south to escape our right wing overlords.

    15. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by ObiWanKenblowme · · Score: 1

      I'm not excusing them for anything, but you can hardly say they "owned' Congress the last 2 years. The Dems had the slimmest of majorities - and that's if you counted the independent who usually caucused with them - and they had a sitting president ready to veto anything they tried to push through that he didn't personally agree with.

      --
      Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
    16. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations on such a well-thought and reasoned position. Idiot.

    17. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing "Republicans" with "a select group of high-level Neoconservatives who, though their intentions were quite admirable and their expectations reasonable, have been causing a significant amount of socio-political turmoil in the Middle East from the 1990s to the present". This is a common mistake. When commenting on foreign politics, and especially when placing blame on 50% or more of the body politic in what is (arguably) the singular world superpower, please be sure that they are, in fact, the culprit.

      I'm glad that you've taken interest in politics outside of your own granfaloon, but please understand that "the Republicans" is an mark of identification, not a sinister cabal akin to the Boogeyman.

    18. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its good to see that even the election has had some effect on boosting American credibility on the international scene.

    19. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      We recognize that your country is in a pretty deep hole left by the last administration, but we trust you'll do your best.

      No we won't, what kind of loser nerds do you think we are?

    20. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by celle · · Score: 1

      Oh god, we're screwed!!!

    21. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by mrfriendly · · Score: 1

      As an American let me say, take your arrogant half ass Canadian opinion and blow it out your ass.

    22. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by artson · · Score: 1

      Welcome back. I'm personally very happy to see you all on the road to recovery after this long illness. While I found much to admire in John McCain and his administration would likely have been better for Canada, who can disagree that the whole world was pulling for Obama? And just think, it's a two'fer. You get Michelle Obama as well. Sounds like a bargain to me.

      --
      In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
    23. Re:As a Canadian, let me say... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Are Canadian Tires like American Tires, but only cured, not smoked?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  25. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Il128 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Under Bush we all got "Stimulus checks" redistribution of wealth, we "nationalized banks", we "nationalized insurance companies", we "nationalized brokerage houses", and we gave trillions in welfare to Iraq...

    And now you're worried about socialism? Welcome to last year.

    --
    Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
  26. meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He will only be doing what his benovolent overlords allow him to do as fast as they let him do it

  27. Re:Obligatory! by Goffee71 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nak, you should be welcoming your new "hey-buddy-just-the-same-as-you-lord", I thought that was his stand, anyway I don't see any death-laser-eyeballs or fists of fury that Palin was packing.

    --
    If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
  28. Assassination by PincusJr · · Score: 1, Troll

    I wonder if an angry republican supporter will attempt to kill Obama.

    1. Re:Assassination by Shikaku · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    2. Re:Assassination by jesdynf · · Score: 1

      The keyboard commandos at FreeRepublic are trying to psych each other into doing it right now.

      Lots of whining about Marxism and how "they" are coming for us, with a liberal dash of racism and lots of allusions to the "tree of liberty" and those fluids most favorable to its growth.

      --
      Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
    3. Re:Assassination by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      I've been wondering things similar to that myself. Not just republican supporters, but I'm thinking of the delightful racist communities scattered throughout the States. I do not look forward to hearing about foiled assassination attempts every other week on the news.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    4. Re:Assassination by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      If you were watching closely last night, you might have noticed that Obama was entirely behind bulletproof glass. The Secret Service has been keeping very tight security around him since very early on in his campaign.

      Is it a real fear? Absolutely. But props should definitely go to the security around him.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:Assassination by Oloryn · · Score: 1

      Please go answer that knock on your door. The Secret Service appear to want to have a little talk with you.

    6. Re:Assassination by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      Oops? Posting something that has occurred is flamebait?

      Linux home desktop adoption is low!

    7. Re:Assassination by Avatar8 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you have to focus on angry republicans. There are dozens if not hundreds of groups that would and may attempt it. As someone stated in chat last night, "They'd have to knock on alot of doors." In other words, if he was killed, I doubt that as many people that voted for him would be mourning. I'd just hate to see him turned into a martyr.

    8. Re:Assassination by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Looked to me like the glass was only on the sides. Was there some in front as well?

      As for the possibility of assassination, I can't help but think about it every time I see the guy speak. I've resigned myself to always expecting to see history made--in a bad way--every single time I watch him live on TV in the next 4-8 years.

  29. Off the Rails by Electrawn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An off the rails presidency and party received a swift rebuke to restore the core values enshrined in the constitution.

    Meanwhile, the China Credit Card bill needs payment and the global economy is entering a bad recession.

    The political shift in the country is probably a game changer for the Democratic party for the next two decades.

    1. Re:Off the Rails by BarefootClown · · Score: 1

      An off the rails presidency and party received a swift rebuke to restore the core values enshrined in the constitution.

      Yes...values like gun control, a national police force, federal assistance for private home purchases, punitive taxes on entities that do too well ("windfall profits tax"), and dictating the terms under which private parties may contract with each other for a variety of goods and services.

      Tell me, where did you get all of those out of Article I, Section 8?

      I'm not suggesting that Bush (or McCain) was anything close to the Constitution--far from it--but suggesting that Obama's policies somehow resemble the Constitution is, well, horsesqueeze.

      --

      "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
      --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

    2. Re:Off the Rails by Danathar · · Score: 1

      The Core Values of the constitution died after the Civil war, 17th amendment and income tax.

      Larger government = less individual liberty

      Smaller government = more individual liberty

      If you disagree with me than fine, you disagree with Thomas Jefferson.

      Alexander Hamilton would be proud of our country as it is today. Jefferson is probably mourning.

    3. Re:Off the Rails by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      An off the rails presidency and party received a swift rebuke to restore the core values enshrined in the constitution.

      Yes, because as we all know, the Democratic party is the party dedicated to the return to the Constitution as the basis of law. They would never re-institute the Fairness doctrine or institute a de facto ban on the individual right to keep and bear arms.

  30. Thanks, American voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sure I'll be modded out, but as an Australian... can I just say, THANK YOU America for making the right decision.

    Your country has a huge influence on us and I am so glad you are taking a positive step forward into what I hope will be a new era for us all.

    1. Re:Thanks, American voters. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The important things wasn't who wins the election, but to get Bush out of the White House. The rest is just semantics. (I am an Obama supporter, who could have easily gone for McCain if it wasn't for Palin being on the ticket.)

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    2. Re:Thanks, American voters. by swarsron · · Score: 1

      same here from Germany. McCain by himself wouldn't have been to bad, but since he lost his spine and acted as a puppet for the right wing of the republican party pretty much everyone i know here hoped that Barack wins. 2000 was seen as a mistake, 2004 startled people here. Another win for the republican party after the last 8 years would have made the damage to the american image permanent

    3. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's the crime rate? Feel any Safer?
      Republic of Texas Citizen

    4. Re:Thanks, American voters. by deniable · · Score: 1

      As someone said on Australian TV today, who is Kev going to hang out with at the economic summit in Washington in a couple of weeks? Bush or Obama?

    5. Re:Thanks, American voters. by aaron+alderman · · Score: 1

      The world (except for Macedonia) thanks the US for their correct decision!

    6. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't thank them yet... We still have to find a way to get earth back on the original orbit. It changed from the planets collective sigh of having gotten rid of one of the biggest d***h***s in history (buseus cephalopenis maximus :-) )

    7. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your country has a huge influence on us and I am so glad you are taking a positive step forward into what I hope will be a new era for us all.

      As a French... I just say: Another great leap for mankind.

    8. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they're definitely making up for electing Bush by this I'd say ;)

      Let's hope mr Obama can actually fulfill his promises!
      Congratulations to the American democracy!

      Ps:
      If you'd like, you can send your congratulation photos to congratsdemocrats.com ! (think sorryeverybody.com but then the other way around ;))

    9. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Latin American, first generation of europeans (in case all this matters) from the southernmost tip of the continent, I can only say THANKS AMERICA.
      I, my fellow coworkers, friends, family, we all in the whole region are happy of the outcome of this elections, and have far better expectatives regarding the current status of the world (Irak war, terrorism paranoia, economic crisis and everything).

      THANKS YOU !!!

    10. Re:Thanks, American voters. by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      Why would you be modded out? Supporting Barack Obama is one of the sure ways to get good karma around here. Yeah, people moderate based on emotion, just like people vote based on emotion. Logic, qualifications, sound arguments... not so important if karma (or the presidency) is your goal.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    11. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Thank you Australia for voting out Howard (both from PM and his local office).

      There's a long way to go before we kick out all of the corrupted ones who have run the wealth our entire world into the hands of the few wealthy.

    12. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who's lived in different countries, I just want to say, that Europe and Australia are pretty racist compared to the US. East Asia is racist towards those with darker skin (not just blacks, anyone with darker skin), although many countries don't really have immigrants or groups to be racist toward.

      I would say that the US has its problems, but the large number of immigrants and the intellectual tradition arising from the struggle against racism put the US in a somewhat unique position.

    13. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a French... I just say: Another great leap for mankind.

      As an American, I'll just say, "Isn't there a wheel of cheese somewhere that you should be surrendering to?"

    14. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      Your welcome. I look forward to when Obama abandons our forward strategy in the Pacific and abandons people like you to the depredations of your bigger neighbors like China and Indonesia. It will be a new era for us all, but one you won't like so much I think.

    15. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're welcome.

      For many of us this is like finally getting rid of an unwanted house guest who's overstayed his welcome by 8 years...

    16. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment makes no sense. It's not like Bush could have had a third term.

    17. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Spittles · · Score: 1

      Yes thank you American voters. As you appear that you can be trusted with democracy, we shall no longer invade. Also, we shall let you use the metal cutlery again.

    18. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure I'll be modded out, but as an Australian... can I just say, THANK YOU America for making the right decision.

      You must be new here.

    19. Re:Thanks, American voters. by Danse · · Score: 1

      (I am an Obama supporter, who could have easily gone for McCain if it wasn't for Palin being on the ticket.)

      The fact that the Republicans put her on the ticket, and that most of them were so gung-ho and happy about it says a lot about the party. That's why I can't vote for them. I want a fiscally conservative party in power. I also want a socially liberal party in power. Why don't we have a party that is both? The closest we have is the Democrats, who have been more fiscally conservative than Republicans for a long time now.

      I just want them to run the military, balance the budget, and leave me the hell alone. They have no business trying to control every aspect of our lives, as both parties have tried to do for generations now. What's worse is that they do it by using our own tax dollars against us. Do what they want, or they cut funding to your state. It's completely ridiculous.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  31. Nothing will happen in the next 4 years by bugeaterr · · Score: 1

    That the Democrats do not wish for.
    True, they didn't quite get to the 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate, but it shouldn't be any problem swaying a few Republicans with Bridges To Nowhere and seats on the really cool committees.

  32. Congratulations on making a historic event happen by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Watching on CNN the sea of people in Chicago cheering for President Elect Obama and his victory speech convinced me that this was one of those unique moments, the kind that people decades from now will remember and ask each other "Do you remember where you were when Obama was elected?" Truly a great moment.

  33. More than your nation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This means a lot to more than just USA.

    There are probably more non-US citizens affected by this than there are US citizens.

  34. Hope and fear by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hope because the idiots that have been running the country for nearly a decade are gone, fear that the new bunch of idiots aren't any better.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:Hope and fear by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

      I *assure* you that they're no better. Transferring control of government from one party to the other will only illustrate this. Mark my words: Obama will be "buying" votes with new entitlement programs. What's worse is that Bush set the stage for this with his so-called "economic stimulus package" that had Uncle Sam send out checks to Americans.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    2. Re:Hope and fear by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Hope because the idiots that have been running the country for nearly a decade are gone, fear that the new bunch of idiots aren't any better.

      That's really my major fear. Sure, it all sounded pretty good while he was campaigning... All kinds of wonderful change and all that... But I'm really wondering how much of it will materialize.

      I know most campaign promises never really show up. And I understand that there's a real limit to what the President can accomplish on his own. But neither of those is really what I'm worried about...

      The hundreds of politicians in Washington have been doing business as usual for decades. Sure, a few red seats turned blue... But they're pretty much the same kind of people that were there before. And a lot of the Democrats in the House and Senate have been there for a couple years now. Why should I believe that just because we've got a new President we're going to see an end to all the "business as usual" politics?

      And then there's the damage that W did to the notions of oversight and transparency... W proved that his administration could do pretty much whatever they felt like with absolutely no repercussions. If you can do what you want, and get away with it, why wouldn't you? With that kind of obvious evidence in front of him, what's to keep Obama from running the same kind of administration?

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    3. Re:Hope and fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hope because the idiots that have been running the country for nearly a decade are gone, fear that the new bunch of idiots aren't any better.

      or might even be worse.

    4. Re:Hope and fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hope for change in one had shit in the other see witch one fills up first lets not forget the 180 trillion in new spending without and real budget cuts o joy depression here we come lets just pray the dems don't git a filibusterer proof majority then we would be truly screwed

    5. Re:Hope and fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America just pulled the equivalent of voting for the kid who promises that if you elect him for student council he'll make Kool-Aid come out of the water fountains.

    6. Re:Hope and fear by grangerg · · Score: 1

      Hope because the idiots that have been running the country for nearly a decade are gone...

      Nope. The majority of Congress kept their seats. And if you believe that party matters (and most do), the party that lead us to where we are now has actually increased their control.

    7. Re:Hope and fear by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      No they aren't gone. They are STILL THERE. The Dems hold just as much responsibility as the republicans.

      --

      Gorkman

    8. Re:Hope and fear by kharchenko · · Score: 1

      >Uncle Sam send out checks to Americans
      Are you venting about the $152b economic stimulus package after just witnessing the trillion dollar financial industry bailout? Is this some kind of a denial thing?
      Politicians are there to serve the people, and while giving handouts to general populace may not be a wise economic move, it is infinitely closer to the true intent than giving money to narrow circles of corrupt businessmen. It amazes me how people who get worked up about spending on social programs somehow overlook the money being given out to commercial interest groups, even if the amount is ten times as large.

    9. Re:Hope and fear by milimetric · · Score: 1

      This new idiot is running the country by saying that we should all get up off our asses and run the country. So the fear is that *we* are the idiots, not them.

    10. Re:Hope and fear by Syrente · · Score: 1

      Well, that assumes they're idiots - personally I've found Biden a scarily intelligent man to observe. Barack himself purely seems to radiate intellect. Anyone who claims Dubya "radiates" anything other than the Miasma of Stupid needs to pay more attention 'fore they injure themselves by walking in front of a bus or something.

    11. Re:Hope and fear by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1
      I don't approve of the financial bailout, either. The stimulus package comes to mind because it sets a precedent of handouts to individuals on a very large scale. In effect, I believe that this is like buying votes.

      Barack Obama's speeches about a tax cut for 95% of Americans combined with the fact that many Americans don't pay taxes suggest that he intends to send tax rebates to Americans who don't pay taxes. Many recipients will get used to having these checks and refuse to vote for a leader who doesn't promise them more checks. This is very unsettling, indeed!

      However, do not interpret my words as indicating approval for the financial bailout!

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    12. Re:Hope and fear by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Hope because the idiots that have been running the country for nearly a decade are gone, fear that the new bunch of idiots aren't any better.

      No, we still have most of the same Congress.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  35. All I can say now is... by bbroerman · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hold on to your butts.... Now that Obama won, I'll bet we'll see a regrouping of the extreme islamists, a great boost of their morale, and a redoubling of their efforts. They know that he'll let them get away with everything they've done. He doesn't want to fight them, he wants to "talk to them". Fat lot of good that'll do... Didn't work last time... One we pull out of (read abandon) Iraq and Afghanistan, we'll see the crumbling of their current governments, ethnic clensing of everyone not Muslim, executions of anyone who helped the US, and a return of the Taliban and Al-Quieda. The people that we abandon there will hate us even more than they do now. We throw them into chaos, give so many a taste of freedom, and now that the clean-up and rebuilding are getting uncomfortable (thanks to mostly foreign extremists) we're just going to wash our hands of it...

    --
    Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
  36. Ron Paul by hansamurai · · Score: 5, Funny

    This was easily the best election I ever participated in. Mostly because of Ron Paul. He opened my eyes to real liberty and true freedoms, and I've been a changed person man ever since. I'm not going to take crap from the two parties sitting down anymore, and I have real hope for this country, that someday we all might really be free from the federal government. I was also exposed to Ayn Rand and read her fiction, and really enjoyed it.

    I wrote Ron Paul in, and I was beyond happy the rest of the day. It honestly felt awesome to vote for someone that I honestly believe in, an opportunity I've never taken before.

    1. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also wrote in Ron Paul. Now it's time to re-read Atlas Shrugged and her other books.

    2. Re:Ron Paul by orzetto · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was also exposed to Ayn Rand

      Please report immediately to decontamination area 4. Remember to burn all your clothes. Exposed items you wish to decontaminate must be collected in a sealed, transparent plastic bag and handed in to the paramedical personnel at your decontamination area.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    3. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did the same too. Following his campaign really opened my eyes to the point that it didn't matter much whether McCain or Obama won so I wrote in Ron Paul.
      Neither of them are ready for what is coming.
      Iceberg has been struck, those in the know, know about it and have locked the coach passengers in and have already begun lightly loading the limited life boats with the elite. All the while rearranging the deck chairs and telling everyone everything will be ok.

    4. Re:Ron Paul by Beyond+Opinion · · Score: 1

      I live in Louisiana, and Ron Paul was actually on the ballot. He was running under the Louisiana Taxpayers Party, the point of which is to offer a choice besides the two main parties. I was so thrilled when I found that out, since I had cheered him on in the primaries. I had been trying to figure out which third party to vote for, until I found that out; he was the obvious choice.

    5. Re:Ron Paul by visualight · · Score: 1

      Hated her writing, not because of her politics, because the characters were so unbelievable. I read all of Atlas Shrugged but I spent the entire book distracted by retarded everyone was.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    6. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Absolutely. I like his "freedom of choice" stance on abortion rights. That's real freedom from government intrusion.

      Oh, that's right, he doesn't support that freedom. My bad.

    7. Re:Ron Paul by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      This was easily the best election I ever participated in. Mostly because of Ron Paul. He opened my eyes to real liberty and true freedoms, and I've been a changed person man ever since. I'm not going to take crap from the two parties sitting down anymore, and I have real hope for this country, that someday we all might really be free from the federal government. I was also exposed to Ayn Rand and read her fiction, and really enjoyed it.

      I wrote Ron Paul in, and I was beyond happy the rest of the day. It honestly felt awesome to vote for someone that I honestly believe in, an opportunity I've never taken before.

      The head of the KKK in my state seems more bitter about Ron Paul's loss than happy to have been a leader in his campaign. I congratulate you on not having the same response he did.

      As for Rand, I urge you to keep reading and not to be afraid to keep reading serious literature and thinking of the world in nuanced terms. When the world stops being black and white, I think you'll find that Rand loses a little luster. This also applies to some extent to Ron Paul.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    8. Re:Ron Paul by Xest · · Score: 1

      What is it that people love about Ron Paul?

      I was looking into something rather unrelated a few months ago, the Srebrenica masacre/genocide in former Yugoslavia back in the 90s. It turns out that when the US came to put forward a motion condemning the masacres every single US politician voted for it, bar one.

      That one was Ron Paul. I've been trying to find out why he voted against it but have not been able to find anything out. I wonder if perhaps he was making some kind of point but it seems rather inappropriate to use real recent genocide to make a point.

      This is my only real experience of the guy and it's a rather sickening experience. So what is it that redeems him?

    9. Re:Ron Paul by fprintf · · Score: 1

      I am reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time. I agree about the distraction of the characters, really unbelievable and they tend to go into these multi-paragraph philosophical rants when looking at a person's face, or before responding to a question/statement. I realize she was trying to make a point and this was how she chose to do it through her characters.

      Conceptually, however, the book seems to make a lot of sense in some areas, e.g. you can't tax your way to happiness, societal unity and fairness. Where it breaks down for me is the assumption that everything can be done via a capitalistic, pay-as-you-go system. For example, using a Rand point of view, roadways would be built by industrialists and then folks would be charged to use them... what a patchwork of tolls, long lines, anti-competition, and ultimately environmental damage would we have with a multi-company operated roadway approach?

      Get ready for the anti-Rand approach to Government. You will see the Balph Eubanks, Jim Taggarts and Wesley Mouches all coming out from the woodwork now, hat in hand for the "needy" people.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    10. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh god. If you're just being exposed to Ayn Rand now, I hope you're under 18. Research shows that people who read Rand for the first time after college never manage to actually grow up and get adult political views. Look at Alan Greenspan; guy's like 120 and still believes in that ridiculous, juvenile poison.

      Ron Paul is a great man, and I would be happy to have him as my president even though I disagree with many of his viewpoints; he's honest and intelligent. Rand is intelligent but was never even CLOSE to honest. Ditch Atlas Shrugged (and ESPECIALLY the Fountainhead) and pay attention to the real world.

    11. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It felt great to throw away your vote childishly, by throwing a tantrum like a child?
       
      "If I can't have what I want, I'll try as hard as I can do to it anyways. Screw reason, and screw logic, and screw reality. Screw EVERYONE else", because that's the sad truth.
       
      You had two candidates to choose from when it comes down to reality, and you decided to forfeit your choice.

    12. Re:Ron Paul by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > It felt great to throw away your vote childishly

      In a true election no vote is wasted as each one makes up the whole. Therefore your opinion is, in all respect, the childish one by belittling and reprimanding a citizen to have the audacity to participate in the affairs of his country according to his own wishes and convictions.

      > You had two candidates to choose from when it comes down to reality, and you decided to forfeit your choice.

      Your "reality" is absolutely sad and limited in scope. He did not forfeit anything. The only way you can forfeit your vote is by *not* voting at all. Please wake up to the principles of this country, which happens to include the notion, that *everybody* is entitled to voice his opinion. An election is not to confirm the "reality" of the existing Status Quo, but to put before the citizens the true choice of a future representation, whoever they decide should do so.

    13. Re:Ron Paul by jmknsd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      because the only oath a person takes when becoming a congressman or president is to uphold the constitution. Condemning bad things isn't in there, so he votes against it. A similar example, a vote to give an award of some sort to Rosa Parks, he voted against it, and then offered to pay for it himself. Because buying awards for nice people isn't in the constitution, and if you follow his economics, you will understand that he is opposed to spending other peoples money on things that are not explicitly stated in the constitution.

    14. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be young, still. Don't worry, your enthusiasm will be squashed eventually.

      Ron Paul 2012

    15. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this funny? I have respect for this guy even though I voted for the winner.

    16. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wrote Ron Paul in, and I was beyond happy the rest of the day. It honestly felt awesome to vote for someone that I honestly believe in, an opportunity I've never taken before.

      Funny. . . I felt exactly the same way when I voted for Barack Obama.

    17. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if you were just joking or referring to an idiotic meme, but either way, Ron Paul would've done a hell of a lot better than either Obama or McCain, who are both nothing more than sockpuppets.

    18. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ron Paul is my candidate, but you know what mate? He's not a valid candidate for the presidency of the united states of america in 2008. You fail.

      If you paid attention then you would know this. Even Ron Paul himself urged others to support him locally, even move to his district and vote for him, but to not write his name in for the presidency. The write-in vote for Ron Paul will not be counted. His (financially sound) appearance at the liberty convention provides us with the no-bullshit approach to limiting govt: Don't be a dumbass. Get involved. Live within your means. For the love of country, vote sensibly!

      I'm AC because I will say who I voted for. I voted Obama. It was a split between Obama and Bob Barr. I too have seen the light that Ron Paul brings to the political table, and hope to vote conservatively in the future. For now I am at peace that I cast my vote in favor of supporters who cheer the opposition, and a candidate that inspires people to get off their asses to vote.

      Obama is not the point. People taking action is the point.

    19. Re:Ron Paul by T3hD0gg · · Score: 2, Funny
      Why is this modded as funny?

      This is what people should be doing. I doubt anyone here can honestly say they trust Barack Obama as much as this guy can trust Ron Paul.

    20. Re:Ron Paul by tfoss · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if the +5, Funny is a result of a well perpetrated ironic ron paul troll, or due to the moderators laughing at a serious ron paul supporter.

      Or maybe it's just funny that someone actually buys into Ayn Rand.

      -Ted

      --
      -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
    21. Re:Ron Paul by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

      [quote] ...and I have real hope for this country, that someday we all might really be free from the federal government [/quote] Yeah, because local and state governments are so much more wonderful!

      --
      Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    22. Re:Ron Paul by ari_j · · Score: 1

      This election was different from the last for me because I didn't feel dirty voting for the candidate I voted for, and I would not have felt dirty voting for the other one. In 2004, I didn't vote in the Presidential election because I would have felt dirty voting for either one.

    23. Re:Ron Paul by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > He's not a valid candidate for the presidency of the united states of america in 2008. You fail.

      Actually you fail, I am afraid. The whole point of a write-in is to offer the option of *every citizen* being a valid choice if so desired by the voter(s).

      > The write-in vote for Ron Paul will not be counted.

      Nonsense. Counted it will be as any other valid vote and write-in. Whether it matters statistically is an entirely different question.
      I congratulate the GP for his choice of voting his conscience.

    24. Re:Ron Paul by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep in mind the dispute over abortion comes down to whether unborn children are considered humans with civil rights. A libertarian opposed to abortion isn't really any more inconsistent than a libertarian opposed to lynchings. Libertarians aren't anarchists - they do believe that it is the proper purpose of government to establish and enforce criminal law. Murder clearly ought to be illegal, so the question becomes whether stuff like abortion, euthenasia, assisted-suicide, etc is murder.

    25. Re:Ron Paul by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Single quart-sized baggie, please!

    26. Re:Ron Paul by cptnapalm · · Score: 1

      Really? I don't remember seeing him on my Louisiana ballot... I may have simply missed it. :(

    27. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was also exposed to Ayn Rand and read her fiction, and really enjoyed it.

      Read Rand. Enjoy her fiction (despite her ham-handed prose). But, never, ever, for even one tiny moment, start to believe it. It's fiction. People don't function that way.

    28. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was easily the best election I ever participated in. Mostly because of Ron Paul. He opened my eyes to real liberty and true freedoms, and I've been a changed person man ever since. I'm not going to take crap from the two parties sitting down anymore, and I have real hope for this country, that someday we all might really be free from the federal government. I was also exposed to Ayn Rand and read her fiction, and really enjoyed it.

      I wrote Ron Paul in, and I was beyond happy the rest of the day. It honestly felt awesome to vote for someone that I honestly believe in, an opportunity I've never taken before.

      Why is this modded funny?

    29. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One has to somehow redefine self in relation to a sitcom, video game or hip-hop album to be elected president in neo-America. Ron Paul did none of these things. He also missed every opportunity to orate pandering speeches to the dulled minds of the masses. Ron Paul would have been excellent in the early days of American where politics was only necessary, sense reigned and self-sacrifice was the norm. Today we need a rock-star to verify our ignorance and ratify the new bigotry.

    30. Re:Ron Paul by xhrit · · Score: 1

      >I was also exposed to Ayn Rand and read her fiction, and really enjoyed it.

      playing bioshock doesn't count.

    31. Re:Ron Paul by Beyond+Opinion · · Score: 1

      Yes, in fact nearly 20,000 people voted for him, according to http://election.cbsnews.com/election2008/president.shtml

    32. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, Ron Paul opened your eyes and you just discovered Ayn Rand. Congratulations! If you think *those* were life-changing events, just wait until you hit puberty!

      Seriously though, Ron Paul is an extremist and if you stop to consider in a rational and adult way what the country would look like under Ron Paul, it is a scary thought. A few examples:

      Complete deregulation of the economy? Anyone who's paid attention during the last 12 months realizes that market forces alone are grossly insufficient to cause financial institutions to act responsibly. Strict "state's rights"? That means that if we'd had leaders like Paul for the past 50 years we'd still have a segregated South and probably worse. Never mind that Paul's goals to have the state eliminate womens' reproductive rights are deeply hypocritical with respect to his alleged beliefs in personal freedoms. The list goes on.

      In short: no offense intended, but grow up. People who support Ron Paul either don't realize what he represents, or have a deeply fucked-up and dystopian view of what constitutes progress.

    33. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both Senator McCain and President-elect Obama are sock-puppets? How do you figure?

    34. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this moderated funny? I hope it wasn't intended to be a joke, because I feel the exact same way. He was the only candidate to speak the truth and talk about the real issues.

      http://www.campaignforliberty.com

      Check it out yourself.

    35. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why was this modded funny?
      It sounds like this man (or woman) is being serious. I, as well, was awakened from my blindness as to what 3rd parties are all about. To the best of my knowledge the only reason Ron Paul, "former" Libertarian party member, ran as a Republican was to get more of a following. I resent the funny mod of the parent post...

    36. Re:Ron Paul by lytithwyn · · Score: 0

      I'm not alone! Finally, someone who won't try to tell me I wasted my vote. A clear conscience was worth it. I told my boss I wanted to have a bumper sticker made that says "Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul" ;)

    37. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i wrote him in too

      i agree with him on the issues about 75+% versus my like 5% with obama and 10% mccain

      2 party system is fail
      2 party = opposite ends of 1 dimension

      but politics is a 2d system (in a perfect world 4 parties, 1 choice for each of the 4 ends)

      but alas, we get douche, and turd sandwich
      and slow change and slow progress

    38. Re:Ron Paul by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      Isn't Ron Paul that kook who was talking about a collapse of the economy last year? Oh wait... Ahh, who needs money when you have hope and change that you can believe in?

    39. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've wanted to vote Libertarian for years. Every time I get to the voting booth, I'm stuck voting against the person I really don't want in office. To do that, you have to vote for the other half of this falsely bi-partisan nation. There are tons of other parties: Communist, Anarchist, Green, the afore mentioned Libertarian, and others. Nader and Badnarik tried to go to the debates last election and were escorted out because there were "not invited". What the hell is up with that?!

    40. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, brother. While Paul wasn't on my ticket, I still voted Libertarian. My discontent with the two party system is finally voiced. I will not longer compromise my ideals and principles in favor of choosing a 'lesser of two evils'. Multiparty FTW.

    41. Re:Ron Paul by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      because the only oath a person takes when becoming a congressman or president is to uphold the constitution. Condemning bad things isn't in there, so he votes against it.

      The declaration would have no force of law, so there is no reason to oppose it on Constitutional grounds. Which means Paul is still a tool.

    42. Re:Ron Paul by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Please, you're rationalizing his hypocrisy. If Ron Paul votes against resolutions commemorating the anniversary of genocide because there is no Constitutional basis for it, what exactly is his Constitutional basis for deciding when a clump of cells becomes a human? He could make a states rights argument, but then what is he doing introducing federal legislation then?

    43. Re:Ron Paul by jmknsd · · Score: 1

      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." He's real big on the 10th amendment, as well as the other 26.

    44. Re:Ron Paul by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough - if you're of the opinion that congress should be limited to precisely the roles spelled out in Article I, then I suppose murder ought not to be against federal law (along with kidnapping and about 95% of the other laws on the books). You could argue that any use of federal or state money to fund abortions could fall under the jurisdiction of the 5th ammendment (a deprivation of life/liberty/property). I don't believe the 5th ammendment on its own would otherwise give grounds to make murder illegal at the federal level.

      However, to be consistent you really need to accept one or the other. If federal government makes it illegal to murder somebody, then they need to define what murder is, and if the definition uses words like "person" then you need to define what a person is. The problem is that with modern medicine and biology we're stretching common words like that all the time. I'm sure it is only a matter of time before we have apes walking around with human brains, and the first time one gets hit by a car you have a question of how to charge the driver.

    45. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ayn Rand's writings are the selfish rants of a narcissistic crazy lady wrapped up in pseudo intellectual bullshit.

      "Epistemology -- reason", my ass. No human is wired that way, and thank god. We need to bring all of our mental factors to bear when we make decisions, and reason is only one of those factors.

      The world, reality, does not care about our feeble mental representations, which only approximate reality. We don't need to use our reason more, we each need to tune our minds to correctly perceive reality directly.

      If Ayn Rand had tried to do that instead of trying to act like a selfish child she would have realized that we are all in this together, and that we need to help each other out.

      It has never been the case that humanity (or even all life on earth) will be able to move forward without caring for one another.

      This is not just a peacenik rant (sometimes 'caring' may mean bashing in someone's head, though rarely.)

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. Finally! by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Finally we can tax ourselves into prosperity!

    Who wants to take bets on:

    Us not withdrawing from Iraq?

    Whether most slashdotters with decent IT careers end up paying more taxes?

    Don't take this wrong, McCain sucks too. I just wish people would stop drinking from either coolaid.

    1. Re:Finally! by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well honestly what can you expect, when the last band of idiots was allowed to run up a 7 trillion dollar deficit? SOMEONE is going to have to pay that off.

    2. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 1, Interesting

      there is nothing wrong with paying taxes, when you can already afford a roof, transportation and food on your table.
      If I was an american earning 100k a year, I wouldn't mind paying 50% of my salary in taxes, if that was used to pay for proper healthcare for people doing the less honorable and underpayed jobs around me, like the janitor and the parking attendants...

    3. Re:Finally! by wikki · · Score: 1

      Who wants to take bets on:
      Us not withdrawing from Iraq?

      It won't happen. Well maybe it will, because they are already talking about it, but Obama isn't just going to bring the boys home in Feb.

      Whether most slashdotters with decent IT careers end up paying more taxes?

      That will most certainly happen. If they let Bush's Tax cuts expire a lot of people are going to get caught up in it.

      Don't take this wrong, McCain sucks too. I just wish people would stop drinking from either coolaid.

      Amen Brother

    4. Re:Finally! by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I don't know very much IT careers that pay more than $200,000 (at least not in my neck of the woods). You would have to be a C*O in a very big company to have that kind of salary here in upstate NY.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re:Finally! by east+coast · · Score: 0

      I would like to think I could expect honesty. I could expect that the candidates get up in front of the nation in their debates and on their websites and say "Hey, things are looking dire. I'm not going to bullshit you, you're going to go through some rough times if things are going to be rectified..."

      Is that too much to ask? Instead we've been offered hope and Joe Sixpack bought it up. Even if Obama does relatively well he's going to have a hard time holding office in 4 years because, frankly, he lied to the American people. Last night was the first time I've heard the man talk sacrifice. Sacrifice should have been his catch word all along. This is going to be used against him in his next run and even if the Republican, that will be likely to be elected, has our best intentions in mind it's going to slow progress as all transitions of that nature do.

      No. We've been lead astray by both of the big party candidates. We should have been looked in the eye and told that even in the best case scenario there was going to be hell to pay. Instead we have a nation of people expecting the skies to open up and manna to rain from the heavens on January 21st 2009. They're in for some tough times...

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    6. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking an American who makes > $100k, I sure as hell would mind paying 50% taxes.

      Let's face it, after income tax (fed + state), property tax, sales tax, it's quite possible that 50% is already going into taxes. Some states (CA) take up to 10% for income tax. Are you saying that if you made $200k you'd really feel ok about only seeing $40k of it?

      Give me a break.

    7. Re:Finally! by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

      Atomic Punk, I would bet you any amount of money that the national debt will increase significantly under the guidance of President Obama. I'm also worried about the plan by congressional liberals to roll 401k retirement plans into the Social Security Administration, as if it doesn't already suck up enough of our money.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    8. Re:Finally! by brian0918 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      there is nothing wrong with paying taxes, when you can already afford a roof, transportation and food on your table.

      So you're fine with discarding others' individual rights when you deem it convenient to do so? How did you ever get that gig?

      If I was an american earning 100k a year, I wouldn't mind paying 50% of my salary in taxes

      That's fine. How about those who would rather invest their money in innovative companies that build jobs? Oh, too bad, they have to give it to the government as a handout to the unproductive, who will remain unproductive as long as they're sucking on mama's teat.

    9. Re:Finally! by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right. Thing is, Obama's tax increases wouldn't hit you because they'll only apply to people who make over about $250k/year. I think it's a very good thing, and I'd like to see tax rates close to 100% for people with more than, say, 10 million dollars. The distortion of wealth distribution in the US has reaches such absurd levels that a drastic correction is needed. Redistribute these absurd quantities of money to the middle and lower classes, fast.

    10. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bodog will take that bet

    11. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 2, Informative

      well, see over here, as a state employee in .fr, I make less than 30k net a year.
      out of that, I pay about 3k in income tax, and another 1.5k in local taxes.
      thing is, I don't have to worry about things like health insurance... when I go to the doctor, I present my state health insurance agency card, and off I go. same when I go to the pharmacy to pick up the goods... add to this, that my mother, who just came out from a double breast cancer also didn't have to pay a cent to be properly treated (including 4 or 5 surgeries)...
      now, try to beat that with the current fucked up healthcare system you have in the US...

    12. Re:Finally! by bigmouth_strikes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's with the obsession with taxes? The difference in taxation of the last 30 years worth of budgets with their tax breaks and tax hikes are comparatively small with regards to your consuming power as it relates to other economic effects and measures.

      Take the last 8 years for instance, GW Bush has effectively wiped out any tax-break by a) running up the deficit b) running up the inflation c) spending trillions of your tax money on a phony war and d) financial crisis.

      So a 3-5% tax break on a $100,000 income is pointless with a 4-5% inflation and mortgage rates almost doubling the last few years.

      Looking strictly at what ends up in your pocket after the taxes are paid and not what you get for your taxes or the overall economic situation is a simple reaction to a simplified issue from a simple person.

      --
      Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
    13. Re:Finally! by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

      News flash ... the party is over ... if McCain won he would have to raise taxes as well. That's just a cold hard fact. My hope, as a very liberal democrat is that Obama significantly cuts spending in all areas so we can balance the budget, but that's a pie in the sky dream. At the end of the day, I'd rather we tax and spend opposed to tax-cut and spend. I can't cite this fact, but I read that the Iraq war was the only American war where taxes were not raised to pay for the bloody thing. Think of it. We put it on the god damn credit card. Foreign debt is just as serious to national security as terrorism. If I ran my finances like the government, I'd be in the clink by now.

    14. Re:Finally! by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      In some areas of the country, $100k is lower middle class. That means that at $100k you can afford a house, and your bills, and your insurance, but not much else.

      You think you wouldn't mind, but if you lived in an area of the US where you could have a six figure salary, you would mind if the government took half of it.

    15. Re:Finally! by east+coast · · Score: 1

      if that was used to pay for proper healthcare for people doing the less honorable and underpayed jobs around me, like the janitor and the parking attendants...

      I work in a company that employs a few hundred high school graduate level people, works every one of them full time and offers health care benefits. The work is by no means hard, the majority of them sit at a computer all day in a clean healthy environment. We also offer tuition reimbursement and flexible scheduling. You know what? It's a fucking revolving door.

      I'm sick of hearing that there isn't opportunities of this nature when I'm neck deep in one and I see people treating their opportunity with all the seriousness of a teenager with his first burger flipping job. My company is bleeding opportunity and it's being wasted. Don't tell me that there are people on the street who *can't* do for themselves. If this was true there would be an ass in every seat at my place of employment. Instead we have to hold job fairs, advertise endlessly and offer up incentive plans to get people through the doors.

      I simply can not buy into the bullshit that people don't have the opportunities. They simply don't care to do what is needed to be done to keep them. It's a workplace people, not a school playground.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    16. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's fine. How about those who would rather invest their money in innovative companies that build jobs? Oh, too bad, they have to give it to the government as a handout to the unproductive, who will remain unproductive as long as they're sucking on mama's teat.

      hmm, well... last I checked, companies in question were designing things in india, producing in china, and selling the shit in the US, all in the name of giving the pension funds their annual 20% profits... I don't see no US jobs in there
      so no, it doesn't make any sense to do what you're advocating

    17. Re:Finally! by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet you that despite Obama's campaign promises, taxes get raised on the top three brackets, and not just the top one. That's $78k/year and up. It's the platform of the congressional Democrats and it has been for years. The $250k number that Obama kept spouting was purely campaign bullshit. He doesn't pass or write the laws, he just signs them. So he has cover from being called a liar when it goes down.

    18. Re:Finally! by Acron · · Score: 1

      Actually I believe most of that band of idiots are still there and we just elected one of them as president. Not that we had any real choice, the two main candidates for the post were both members.

    19. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 1

      either the job is not that interesting, akin to flipping burgers, or your competitor across the street is paying double what you're offering. get over it and pay up ;)

    20. Re:Finally! by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      hmm, well... last I checked, companies in question were designing things in india, producing in china, and selling the shit in the US

      Who said I was arguing for the status quo? The reason jobs went overseas is government manipulation of the economy. I won't pretend (unlike others) that the situation can be fixed without undoing the damage that has been done. The only way it can be undone, though, is by overturning the legislation that caused the problem. Then shipping costs will be unappealing and jobs will come back home. Until then, don't hate companies for surviving and trying to give you the lowest-priced product possible despite government manipulation.

    21. Re:Finally! by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      I just wish people would stop drinking from either coolaid.

      Kool-Aid is all that's on offer, and it's compulsory.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    22. Re:Finally! by icebrain · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you're so generous with other people's money. $100k gets eaten up real fast with mortgage payments, student loan payments, insurance, food, and children.

      If all of the "rich" types that support high taxes and big entitlement programs would stick their money where their pieholes are, and start giving away huge chunks of cash, maybe they might be taken more seriously.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    23. Re:Finally! by east+coast · · Score: 1

      You've missed the point, the jobs with the health care are there. Nearly anybody can fill these positions. If people are really wanting health care and a fair shake we're offering it. People are not taking it. That means that people don't want to work to get what they supposedly want. It's going to sicken me to see that I'm paying for deadbeats to have health care when I know they could be having a perfectly acceptable job.

      But don't you worry, Obama is magically going to fix everything for everyone.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    24. Re:Finally! by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Instead we have a nation of people expecting the skies to open up and manna to rain from the heavens on January 21st 2009. They're in for some tough times...

      I'm a rogue, you insensitive clod! I expect it to rain energy - not manna!

    25. Re:Finally! by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that $100k household income isn't that hard to get to. Say you have one person working in IT or engineering pulling in about $60k, and the other a teacher, nurse, or small business type making $40k. That's not unreasonable by any means in a small to moderate-sized city.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    26. Re:Finally! by BRSloth · · Score: 1

      You say that 'cause you're not getting that 100k. If you did, you'd think "Heck, I worked my ass to get 100k per year and this ingrate, which I pay a house and health, keeps complaining about his job!"

      I'm not saying that you *should* think like that. I'm saying this 'cause it's a fact. Most people with a lot of money don't care about the ones who couldn't have the luck of having so much money.

    27. Re:Finally! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Well honestly what can you expect, when the last band of idiots was allowed to run up a 7 trillion dollar deficit

      Definitions:

      deficit: the amount that the money spent in any given year exceeds the revenues.

      Debt: the total amount of money owed to creditors.

      Note that you used deficit where you no doubt meant debt.

      Note further that as of two months ago, the Bush administration had run up a FOUR trillion dollar debt, not seven.

      Note, finally, that the national debt, as a fraction of GDP (which essentially adjusts for inflation and economic growth), is higher than it's been since Eisenhower was in office. And considerably lower than it was when Truman and Roosevelt (good Democrats both) were in office.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    28. Re:Finally! by tftp · · Score: 1

      If I was an american earning 100k a year, I wouldn't mind paying 50% of my salary in taxes, if that was used to pay for proper healthcare for people doing the less honorable and underpayed jobs around me, like the janitor and the parking attendants

      Your proposal is quite similar to what Soviet Union used to do. People worked all day long but, at the end of the day they were paid only a pittance. Most of their labor's value was instantly sucked up into the coffers of The State. Which, of course, paid for the healthcare (sometimes even a proper one, but usually not) and subsidized your housing so that you can afford it with your 150 roubles that you were given as a salary every month.

      This removed the power of money from the hands of the people. The people still could buy their daily bread and butter, but not much more. Cars were out of question for most people (if you earn R$ 150/mo and a Lada model 1 was R$ 6,000 how many months you need to save to buy one?) And of course they could not buy a house or a condo without a long (25 years) mortgage. And of course they could not invest, especially because any such thing was illegal to begin with.

      So your proposal can be summarized this way: "let the workers work, and let the government to spend their earnings."

    29. Re:Finally! by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      I would LOVE to be earning 100K a year and paying 50% in taxes. That's still more than I currently earn BEFORE taxes.

      I never understood how people can honestly present the argument that taxing the rich would make people not want to be rich.

      =Smidge=

    30. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 1

      bzzt, wrong, thanks for playing.
      The reason jobs went overseas was to increase the part of profit in business, so as to give all the profit money to the companies shareholders, who happened to be the pension funds.
      You can also add the trillions of bullshit derived financial products that just crapped out ;)

    31. Re:Finally! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and I'd like to see tax rates close to 100% for people with more than, say, 10 million dollars.

      This pretty much describes the pre-Kennedy tax environment. Note that Kennedy called for the largest tax cut in American history. Note that Kennedy's tax cuts pretty much helped the wealthiest Americans. Note that the economy pretty much boomed as a result. Note that tax revenues increased dramatically as well.

      Note that Reagan called for the second-largest tax cut in history. With the same results.

      Note finally that the wealthy paid a HIGHER portion of income taxes after the Bush tax-cut than they did in the Clinton years.

      Want to bet that after the Obama tax increases on the wealthy that the wealthy end up paying a smaller fraction of the income taxes than they do now?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    32. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 1

      that's because they got their actual funding from the private bankers (who sucked said riches into their own coffers, just like the current US economy)

    33. Re:Finally! by Lyttek · · Score: 1

      Have you not heard of bankruptcy? Just because it's a government doesn't mean it can't happen... they just use a different word for it: Revolution.

    34. Re:Finally! by devolutionist · · Score: 1

      As another American making >100K, I can also tell you that 50% taxes will destroy my household. My wife is TRYING to remain a stay-at-home mom for our 3 kids, but it's getting to be increasingly difficult to maintain that goal that we set for ourselves when we got married. BTW, we don't live in a huge house in a huge neighborhood, drive new cars, and we do not have a credit card aside from my American Express. We save-to-buy and while it's difficult, it's also rewarding that we're not part of the problem in our country's economy. If I had to pay 50% in taxes, that would not be the case. My point is that by letting me keep my money, I'm better able to take care of my household.

    35. Re:Finally! by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

      Tell you what? Why don't we create an IRS account for "voluntary taxes," and all you guys with extra money to throw around can send in your checks. Hell, we'll even make it tax deductible! Whether or not you ever write that first check, or less likely, the second, please stop volunteering the rest of us just because because of your misplaced altruism.

    36. Re:Finally! by Poorcku · · Score: 1

      redistribute so that they can invest and create jobs? i almost lol'ed.

      --
      I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
    37. Re:Finally! by dlaudel · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are absolutely sick. You want other people to have all their money taken from them to fund government programs that benefit you, and have their money given directly to you? Just because they have more money? What. the. fuck? And once they are the poor, are you going to willingly have your income forcibly taken and redistributed back to them? Redistribution is not economic justice. It is the opposite of justice. It is theft. Remember that.

    38. Re:Finally! by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      I worked at GEICO for several years in their claims dept, ity was pretty much as Easty described his environment, and we were a revolving door too. I figured out it had a lot more to do with being treated as a disposable peon, with rediculous demands put on your time and efforts and a lot of accompanying stress. than anything else. That job drove more people to drink or abuse drugs than any other job I have ever seen.

      (LOL @ the Obama magical fix)

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    39. Re:Finally! by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Invest it in innovative companies? You mean, like in subprime funds? Great.

      If you don't spend some money helping the poor, you will have to spend in guards, fences and alarms.

      If you don't spend it in guards, fences and alarms, the poor will eventually mug you and steal it.

      So, pay your taxes and make sure they'll be spent doing the right thing.

    40. Re:Finally! by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Invest it in innovative companies? You mean, like in subprime funds? Great.

      Dear god, what are you on about?! Banks never would have considered such ridiculous loan schemes if they were not forced through government manipulation to loan to risky individuals, all under the banner of "providing affordable housing".

      If you don't spend it in guards, fences and alarms, the poor will eventually mug you and steal it.

      False dichotomy. With more money for investments, and without the regulations that send jobs overseas, more jobs would be created in this country, and unemployment would go down. Best of all, individual rights would not be violated.

    41. Re:Finally! by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
      -George Bernard Shaw

      We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
      -Winston Churchill

      To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
      -Thomas Jefferson

      A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
      -Thomas Jefferson

      I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other menâ(TM)s rights.
      -Abraham Lincoln

      A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
      -Barry Goldwater

      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
      -C. S. Lewis

      Thereâ(TM)s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there arenâ(TM)t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.
      -Ayn Rand

      Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
      -Daniel Webster

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    42. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 1

      nah, theft is actually what those super rich people are doing to society by keeping all the money they stole from you by enslaving all those chinese people to manufacture crap they can then sell you 100* the price it actually cost to build

    43. Re:Finally! by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Finally we can tax ourselves into prosperity!

      Actually, that's almost exactly what has to happen. We've run up one hell of a debt over the last few years... Billions and billions of dollars... Someone has to pay for it eventually. And the only way the US government can come up with cash is by taxing people.

      Us not withdrawing from Iraq?

      We will. Mostly... Kinda... Eventually...

      I don't believe for a moment that we'll be pulling out in the next six months or so, but even W was working on a plan to get out of Iraq. The Iraqi government doesn't want us there anymore, and the American people don't want us there anymore. We're on our way out.

      But I'm sure we'll have some kind of a presence there for decades. Some kind of ginormous embassy, or a permanent military base, or advisers of some sort.

      Whether most slashdotters with decent IT careers end up paying more taxes?

      Depends on what you mean by "decent IT career." If you're making a couple hundred thousand dollars a year, I'd expect to pay more taxes. If you aren't making that much, I'd expect to pay less. If you're somewhere in the middle, I wouldn't expect much change.

      Everyone talks about Obama's tax plan as if they've never heard of a progressive tax... Democrats have always talked about taxing the wealthy and helping out the poor. That's one of the defining characteristics of the Democratic party. Kerry had a similar plan, as did Gore, as did Clinton. It's nothing new.

      Don't take this wrong, McCain sucks too. I just wish people would stop drinking from either coolaid.

      Actually... Despite the fact that I voted for Obama... I don't think I'd claim that "McCain sucks too." He's given an awful lot to this country, made tons of sacrifices. And he really is trying to make America a better place - I just disagree with him on the mechanics.

      As for the coolaid... Unfortunately we seem to be stuck with this two-party system. Lots of entrenched politicians who don't seem all that interested in really accomplishing a whole lot. I sincerely doubt Obama's ability to deliver on much of the change he talked about. Not because I think he's a bad politician or ineffective or anything like that, but because I think it's unlikely a single person will be able to affect decades of momentum very much.

      But Obama did get a hell of a lot of support from regular people... Huge voter turnout, lots of small donations... He doesn't seem to be as deeply tied to the lobbyists as some other politicians are... And he does seem to be making some efforts at bipartisanship... So we might get some change...

      And maybe this election cycle will start us in the right direction. Ron Paul actually looked halfway viable for a while there. I disagree with him on mechanics too, but seeing more viable candidates with interesting ideas is certainly better than seeing the same two candidates year after year.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    44. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 1

      over here, you don't really need a student loan... for starters, tuition is about 900â a year or so, then, getting a very cheap student room is pretty easy (about 200â/month)

    45. Re:Finally! by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. In Boston, New York, or the San Francisco areas, a young couple who both work are probably pulling in $100k right out of school... And struggling to get by since they're up to their necks in debt (student loans), and priced out of even a down housing market.

      But if they move somewhere cheaper, they're probably unemployed.

    46. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 1

      those 50% in taxes would include healthcare for everyone in your household, which you can then remove from your expenses... how does it look now ?

    47. Re:Finally! by dlaudel · · Score: 1

      So every person with a few million dollars or more got it by enslaving the Chinese? Gotcha. Well, I guess that's okay to take their money then.

    48. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 1

      equal housing lending doesn't mean "mortgage the house so as to get spending money to buy the latest home cinema"...
      it means "lend money so that family blah can buy it's roof"...
      then, of course, you don't offer uncapped variable rates to those people either, you are *sensible* in your offers, with respect to the family income...

    49. Re:Finally! by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      The reason jobs went overseas was to increase the part of profit in business

      And how can you increase profits if your product costs more than your competitor's? Nobody will buy from you. Once government-backed economic manipulation made it more profitable to incur overseas-shipping costs than to hire workers locally (what a feat the government performed there!), some companies had to go overseas to remain profitable. Their success drove their competitors to follow them overseas in order to remain competitive. The only way jobs will ever come back is to undo the laws that made it this way.

      You can't mold reality to fit your belief system - reality will remain the same.

    50. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we now have a bigger idiot than ever to do the driving, and a new cadre of morons up on the hill. All praise the changey change of change to get some changes around here, whatever that is going to mean. The only real change I can see ahead is a new sign, "Welcome to the Socialist Republic of America."

      For those who disliked a president who was willing to stand up to the new round of bullies, welcome the new Neville Chamberlain. He should be just what you asked for.

    51. Re:Finally! by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Even with a flat tax rate, those who earn more pay more taxes. If I earned $10,000,000 a year, and paid tax at say, 30%, and so did everyone, I would certainly be paying more than someone who earned $50,000. But I would almost certainly not be using $3,000,000 worth of services provided by government.

      So what's a fair tax? One could argue that the only fair tax is the one where everyone pays exactly the same amount, say, $8,450 per person, which, in the USA, would mean about 2.8 trillion dollars in revenues.

      But I am sure most people have no problem with the wealthy paying more tax in absolute terms, which is what matters.

      It is in the interests of the wealthy anyway to have a functional society, even if it means they pay more for it in relative terms. They have most to lose. It's economics 101. Not that it will happen in America, but a look at Russia in the early 20th century will show you what happens when the gap between rich and poor grows too large.

    52. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you upset because proposition 8 was rejected, so you have to write this pathetic BS here? See, election is over. I had to deal with 8 years of this pathetic BS about taxes, big government, and else, for like 8 years. Now it is over. Not only because the LEFT of the Liberal Democrats won the presidency, but because the LEFT also won at least 53 seats in Senate, and around 210 seats in the House. So, now we will really become a Social-Democracy on the European style. I am tired of the socialism only for the AIG executives. I am tired of finance their 500 grand SPA with my taxpayers money. I want my taxpayers money to fund PUBLIC schools, PUBLIC FREE healthcare, PUBLIC FREE transport, PUBLIC FREE college education, PUBLIC FREE housing for the poor.
      And let me tell you, I am the average white conservative, I was the political support base of the Reagan years, and now I am just tired of being manipulated by some pathetic RIGHT wing Republican trying to scare me with this big state, more taxes preaching!
      That is why I went there and voted the candidate with biggest LEFT voting record in the history of the US Senate, because I REALLY want a BIG, HUGE, HUMONGOUS STATE, like the ones they have in Europe. And if I have to pay more taxes to see not one, but millions of black, medium class, kids from Hawaii, going to Harvard on a government funded grant, and becoming the President of the United States, to see poor black and Latino people getting the proper medical-care, the proper education, then I will GLADLY pay more taxes!
      I am not trying to be ironic here! I am really an average Joe, and that is why I GAVE MY VOTE TO THE LEFT! That is why I voted Obama!
      So, if one of you pathetic whining, sore loser, Republicans, try to scare me with this talk of yours again, I even got a SOVIET rifle now, fully loaded and ready to fulfill my second Amendment rights straight into your head!
      We average people REALLY want a socialist America! We just don't want as it is right now with Republicans: where the AIG executives "socialize" my taxpayers money, and the poor people of our country is dying without healthcare. We want to socialize AIG executives money, so everybody can have healthcare, schools and housing. That is the kind of socialism "spread the wealth" means, and I hope Obama and the democrats don't fail me and all the average Joes and Janes and implement that FAST!

    53. Re:Finally! by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Care to talk in specifics, or are you fine with wallowing in ambiguity? Here are some specifics (written 8 years ago, yet it predicted this whole crisis)

    54. Re:Finally! by TechnicalPenguin · · Score: 1

      Finally we can tax ourselves into prosperity!

      Our current financial crisis is due, in large part, to our attempts to borrow our way into prosperity. Too many bills came due and there wasn't enough money to pay them all. That money needs to come from somewhere and, for the government, that money comes from taxes.

      Our economy is failing and no one can stop that. All these bailout plans are really just trying to cushion the fall. There are tough times ahead. Slowing down this economic crash and rebuilding our economy will take some strategic investments. Those investments will take money and raising that money means raising taxes, cutting spending in other areas, or both. Frankly, the specter of higher taxes makes a heck of a lot more sense right now than any rhetoric about cutting taxes for anyone at any income level.

      Who wants to take bets on:

      Us not withdrawing from Iraq?

      We have created a huge mess in Iraq and it will be difficult, at best, to get ourselves out of it. But, both McCain and the current administration seemed a little too comfortable with this ongoing occupation. While I agree that the US will not be able to withdraw our troops any time soon, I believe that Obama is more likely to move us in that direction and get us closer to achieving that goal.

      Whether most slashdotters with decent IT careers end up paying more taxes?

      As the economy melts down, taxes are likely to go up. This was going to happen no matter who won. Personally, it seems that when anyone from any party starts talking about tax cuts, my taxes are likely to go up. I make too much money for the poor-people-need-money cuts, I don't have kids for the save-the-children cuts, and I don't make enough for the rich-people-create-jobs cuts. I'm just glad that I haven't been hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax yet.

      Don't take this wrong, McCain sucks too. I just wish people would stop drinking from either coolaid.

      McCain just sucks more. :-) Seriously, though, off the two, I honestly feel that Obama is better suited for the difficult job ahead. I just hope I'm right.

    55. Re:Finally! by Sinbios · · Score: 1

      Yeah but that's SOCIALISM (which is evil, by the way. For everyone who's currently enjoying the benefits of a country that takes care of its citizens.)

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    56. Re:Finally! by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      Don't you have a VAT built into everything you buy making it more expensive than anything I buy in the US (Except perhaps things imported from france)? Don't foreigners have to go through paperwork to get this money back?

    57. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well over here as a corporate employee in .us I make less than 25k gross a year.
      out of that I pay about "no idea" in income tax, and another "who cares" in local taxes
      thing is, i don't have to worry about things like health insurance since my employer isn't an asshole and pays it all for me. when i go to the doctor i do the same thing you do and off i go. same when i go to the pharmacy
      i think i beat you.

    58. Re:Finally! by DavidTC · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Screw income tax. I want to see fucking asset tax. You have over 200 million, you lose 1% of it a year.

      Just kidding, but, seriously, at some point we have to look at the money the rich have already collected.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    59. Re:Finally! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Really? I'd take that bet if I trusted you in the least.

      I predict that Obama's first year budget will slightly increase the debt. (And by first year I, of course, mean 2010, as the 2009 budget is already done.)

      I don't know about his second, but I bet his third and fourth will decrease it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    60. Re:Finally! by DavidTC · · Score: 0

      More to the point, what's the obsession with taxes at all?

      On an individual level, health care and housing prices and energy prices are just as important as taxes, and those have risen horribly because of things that either can traced to Bush, or at least nothing done anything about them by Bush.

      And, on a national level, talking about the total amount of taxes is stupid. Taxes must match spending. There is no amount of 'taxes' independent of spending, despite what several Republican presidents have decided.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    61. Re:Finally! by devolutionist · · Score: 1

      50% in taxes is about $60K to me. That sounds like extremely expensive heathcare. I already have healthcare for everyone in my household that costs me about $4500/yr. I prefer not to buy coverage for your family as well, which is what it sounds like you are proposing. No thanks, I'd rather keep the extra money and put it in my 401K like I do now.

    62. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 1

      don't you have a VAT, called sales tax, that gets slapped on every purchase in most states ?
      aren't you supposed to pay said sales tax to your local state when you order something from out of state ?
      same thing dude...

    63. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 1

      well, see, pretty similar here. I don't have to care about what I would owe to either the doc or the phamacist. it gets all paid for by the state

    64. Re:Finally! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see tax rates close to 100% for people with more than, say, 10 million dollars.

      What's the point of them working, then? And who's going to fund all the government programs if the rich people stop making money and paying income taxes?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    65. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 1

      Once government-backed economic manipulation made it more profitable to incur overseas-shipping costs than to hire workers locally (what a feat the government performed there!), some companies had to go overseas to remain profitable.

      You're right. last I checked, nixon was responsible for creating the totally fucked up healthcare and retirement system in the US...

      remind me which party this idiot was from ?

    66. Re:Finally! by grangerg · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: The last band of idiots is still in there. We just changed our lightning rod.

    67. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 1

      well, over here, banks use something similar to your credit report to refuse loans when those go over about 35% of your income... hence, no frigging subprimes.

    68. Re:Finally! by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      What's the point of them working, then?

      The same point of them working before they get taxed a lot: none. They have 10 million, so they can choose whether or not to work. They may want to work because they like the business in which they work, but don't get the idea that they're working now because they need more money.

    69. Re:Finally! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's not enough to just look at taxes; to really fix things would require at least three separate initiatives:

      1. A Constitutional mandate to maintain a balanced budget, to end deficit spending.
      2. The establishment of a commodity currency, to end inflation.
      3. Constitutional caps on overall tax rates as a percentage of an individual's income.

      By "commodity currency" I mean that the Treasury actually holds a specific commodity -- probably gold, though there are other options -- and is required to offer and accept it in exchange for paper, coins, and electronic currency at a fixed rate and in the smallest practical increments. I do not refer to bimetallism, or to the more recent scam where exchange is only open to foreign governments at unrealistic rates.

      The tax cap, and the ban on deficit spending, could be lifted during times of emergency. However, such states of emergency -- indicated by separate supermajorities in the House and the Senate -- must lapse after a short time unless renewed. I would suggest no more than 10 or 15% for the normal peacetime limit.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    70. Re:Finally! by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      You want other people to have all their money taken from them to fund government programs that benefit you, and have their money given directly to you?

      As long as the other people are very rich, hell yes.

      And once they are the poor

      This is probably a troll, but what the heck. No, they don't get 'poor' because of this system because if they were somehow to get below $250k/year they wouldn't pay the high taxes anymore. Get it?

      It is theft.

      Theft is the *unlawful* taking of someone else's property. This is lawful. It IS wealth redistribution, and it is sorely needed in the US, pretty much more than anywhere else in the world.

    71. Re:Finally! by dlaudel · · Score: 1

      The "once they are poor thing", you wanted to tax them at "near 100%" rates. I guarantee when you take, for example, 95-100% of someone's money, they will quickly find themselves with very little money. And how is taking money that someone earned right? Since when does the government own everything I do? You have been brainwashed if you truly believe they should be allowed to take whatever they choose from you.

    72. Re:Finally! by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Well honestly what can you expect, when the last band of idiots was allowed to run up a 7 trillion dollar deficit? SOMEONE is going to have to pay that off.

      I've got news for you. The idiots who ran up a 7 trillion dollar deficit are still in power.

    73. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, except most of those idiots are still in power. The president is just one guy, there are still plenty of the same idiots in congress.

    74. Re:Finally! by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      I would like to think I could expect honesty. I could expect that the candidates get up in front of the nation in their debates and on their websites and say "Hey, things are looking dire. I'm not going to bullshit you, you're going to go through some rough times if things are going to be rectified..."

      Is that too much to ask? Instead we've been offered hope and Joe Sixpack bought it up. Even if Obama does relatively well he's going to have a hard time holding office in 4 years because, frankly, he lied to the American people. Last night was the first time I've heard the man talk sacrifice. Sacrifice should have been his catch word all along. This is going to be used against him in his next run and even if the Republican, that will be likely to be elected, has our best intentions in mind it's going to slow progress as all transitions of that nature do.

      No. We've been lead astray by both of the big party candidates. We should have been looked in the eye and told that even in the best case scenario there was going to be hell to pay. Instead we have a nation of people expecting the skies to open up and manna to rain from the heavens on January 21st 2009. They're in for some tough times...

      Both of the candidates have said, on multiple occasions, that things are going to be difficult, while trying to maintain a positive attitude. From the victory speech last night:

      "For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how theyll make the mortgage, or pay their doctors bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

      The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

      There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who wont agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government cant solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way its been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand."

      Yes, we are in rough times, they are going to be bad for a while, but at least we've decided to stop digging ourselves deeper.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    75. Re:Finally! by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Citations, evidence, citations...

    76. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you make it sound so simple

    77. Re:Finally! by sxpert · · Score: 1

      hmm, check your 401K again... how much is it worth nowadays ? pennies ?
      remember, it was invested mostly into those subprime mortages that crapped out ;)

    78. Re:Finally! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Next time you meet a millionaire, ask them if they have enough money.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    79. Re:Finally! by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I guarantee when you take, for example, 95-100% of someone's money, they will quickly find themselves with very little money

      They get to keep the money they already have (10 million). They may get slowly weaned down from that if, despite earning over 250k/year and getting to keep 10% of it (25k) they spend over 25k/yr, fine. Tough shit. They can still live a lifetime off their 10 million. They will not get poor quickly. They will get slightly less rich slowly.

    80. Re:Finally! by clone53421 · · Score: 1
      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    81. Re:Finally! by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · · Score: 1

      Oh, you could... spend your own money and pay the people doing less honorable and underpayed jobs around you for services rendered. That also has the added benefit that 47% of that 50% you talked about isn't getting sucked into the governmental void.

    82. Re:Finally! by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · · Score: 1

      The purpose of taxes are to fund the running of a government for general societal benefit, not to redistribute wealth.

    83. Re:Finally! by Tritoch · · Score: 1

      You'd like to see a tax rate close to 100% for people with more than $10 million dollars? That would just discourage those people from building on that wealth (why bother making the effort when you'll just hand it over to the government anywya?), likely eliminating thousands of jobs nationwide in the process, right? It'd also hurt our already slumping markets when those people decided to just sit on their money rather than reinvest it.

    84. Re:Finally! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Try checking the IRS figures. I go over their published numbers every year or three, just for laughs. Use Google, it works for me.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    85. Re:Finally! by devolutionist · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to convince me that it's better to pay more taxes than invest in my 401K? I sure hope that's not where you're going with this. BTW, I'm not worried about my 401K right now - I've got 25 more years of investing to do there.

    86. Re:Finally! by Gary · · Score: 1

      Easy, I make over $100k a year. I want to pay as little as I can get away with to the US government, and I work for them! I find it hard to believe that people want the government to make decisions for them. You're actually happy you can't shop around for an insurance plan that suits you best? For example when I was younger and without children I had a minimal plan. It basically covered me in the case of a catastrophic illness and left me to pay for anything else. It was cheap and I got to keep more of the money I worked for. Now that I'm in my forties and have a couple of small children and a wife to look after I have the most extensive plan my company offers. It's more expensive but the health of my children is worth it and I'm less risk adverse with their well being at stake. Now I don't think it's perfect, I wish I knew the root cause of health-care costs rising so dramatically, but it's certainly better than some giant government bureaucracy mandating "Thou shalt use this health plan"!

      BTW, my mother also had breast cancer and didn't pay anything but a small deductible, and within a week or two at most of being diagnosed she was in surgery and on her way to recovery.

      Plus, I can take a shower every day over here! :)

    87. Re:Finally! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I never understood how people can honestly present the argument that taxing the rich would make people not want to be rich.

      No, people would still want to be rich. What you're missing, however, is that you'll never move from less than $50k to over $100k (2008 dollars) while continuing to perform the same work. Each increment of time and effort, and other resources, devoted to earning that extra income costs you more than the last. At the same time the marginal value of the extra income decreases as your most urgent needs and wants are met. (see also: law of diminishing returns)

      In the end there is a balance, which varies per individual, between the degree of effort expended and the resulting level of income. Income taxes don't inhibit people's desire for greater income, which is naturally unlimited, but do affect the balance point by decreasing the reward for any given amount of additional effort.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    88. Re:Finally! by Gary · · Score: 1

      People with this attitude have always puzzled me... Honestly, what do you think people that make a lot of money do with that money? Do they squirrel it away in a mattress? If not then that money is generally creating jobs and wealth for others. They either spend it, my preferred form of "wealth redistribution", or they invest it in other enterprises that create jobs, and yes, make them more money in the process. That's how a free market is supposed to work!

      And what do you think they do when they have to pay more taxes? Do they go out and hire more people so that they can increase their income by doing more of whatever it is they did to make that money in the first place, and thus make up for the loss they've taken because of the tax? Not generally. More likely they'll try to reduce their income, or even better these days, move to another country that doesn't have such a tax burden. And that helps us how?

    89. Re:Finally! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Yeah fine, YOU wouldn't mind giving away your money. I get that. Why the fuck do you think it's alright to mandate that everyone else do the same though? If your feeling generous, donate to charity, don't tax the rest of us.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    90. Re:Finally! by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Just because the work is different does not automatically mean the work is harder, more hazardous, or more time-consuming than a job that pays far less. While your "law of diminishing returns" may apply to some scenarios, I think you would have great difficulty proving it for the general case.

      By your argument, anyone earning a living wage would be awash in leisure time while the executives earning 7 digits a year would be toiling 24/7 with only federal holidays off. The exact opposite seems to be the case.
      =Smidge=

    91. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, you've made your point, but let's look at it another one. The inflation is here to stay.

      Take that same 4-5% inflation on $100,000 and instead of a 3-5% tax break, make it a 3-5% tax increase. That's a swing of 6-10% on that same $100,000.

      Which one would you want? Which party gives tax breaks? Republicans. Which party increases taxes? Democrats.

      Do we really need a tax increase at a time when inflation is already kicking our butt?

      This is why I fear a Democratic controlled Congress and Presidency.

    92. Re:Finally! by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      In fact, we'd be paying 16.3% less taxes today if we hadn't elected Reagan to create the debt. It doesn't have to be paid off, but the interest has to be serviced, and when that takes up 16% of your budget you have a problem.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    93. Re:Finally! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The law of diminishing returns is a well-accepted economic principle. It's the basis for the law of supply and demand. If you think there's something wrong with it "in the general case" you have more than just me to argue with.

      By your argument, anyone earning a living wage would be awash in leisure time while the executives earning 7 digits a year would be toiling 24/7 with only federal holidays off.

      That does not follow from my argument. For one thing, I never said that ratio of cost to pay was constant across different individuals. Obviously there are many things, including natural abilities, learned skills, experience, luck, status, family connections, etc., which can lead to one person earning more than another for the same task. Most people have less chance of ever becoming the CEO of a large company than of winning the lottery, but that doesn't have anything to do with marginal utility, which is a strictly intrapersonal concept.

      If you think that you, personally, could move from a $50k job to a $100k job without giving anything up, why haven't you done so? Unless one is already at a bare subsistence standard of living -- no leisure time, no hedges against risk, no resources of any kind allocated to anything but production -- there is always a path available to higher income for those willing to make the necessary trade-offs. The fact that people choose not to make those trade-offs proves that there is a balance between income and other factors, which is all I need to make my point. If you tax away even part of that marginal income then those other factors are going to look more valuable by comparison, and fewer people will choose to give them up for increasingly limited returns.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    94. Re:Finally! by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight.

      The law of diminishing returns is a well-accepted economic principle. I agree with that.

      You applied The law of diminishing returns to incomes: "Each increment of time and effort, and other resources, devoted to earning that extra income costs you more than the last." I call bullshit, at least when it comes to personal time and effort. There is definitely a tipping point at which diminishing returns crumbles.

      You then go to reinforce your original point by saying there is nothing wrong with the law of diminishing returns... which I agree with, except as it applies to personal income brackets "in the general case." (ie: for nearly everyone)

      Then you completely contradict that by saying you "never said that ratio of cost to pay was constant across different individuals."

      I guess that means it doesn't work for the general case then, does it?

      Perhaps you can take us through the daily activities of the average 100+k gross income individual for us?

      As to why haven't *I* moved to a higher paying job? Still building the requisites. It has little or nothing to do with my ability or willingness to spend more time or effort in what I do - some things you can't rush (like, say, licensing requiring X years experience) and that's all there is to it. What's your excuse?
      =Smidge=

    95. Re:Finally! by Beefaroni · · Score: 1

      well pony up your own money instead using the gov't gun to rob me

    96. Re:Finally! by Kattspya · · Score: 1

      What legislation would that be?

    97. Re:Finally! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand the law of diminishing returns. You're still trying to apply it to different individuals' utility, which doesn't make any sense.

      All that the law of diminishing returns says is that if you currently have 20 units of something, the use of each of which is independent of the others, then the value of the 21st unit is less than the individual values of the 1st through 20th units. The first unit you get goes toward the most urgent use, the second unit goes to the next most urgent use, etc. From the opposite point of view, the value of the marginal unit goes up as units are expended; going from five units to four costs you more than going from twenty to nineteen, because that fifth unit would have fulfilled a more urgent want than the 20th. Whether or not there are "tipping points" when units are interdependent is a matter of perspective -- I prefer to consider such cases as alternate, simultaneous orderings rather than a single unordered sequence -- but either way I don't think there are many such points relevant to this argument. Feel free to bring up a specific example if you disagree.

      In the context of a job, then, going from 40 hours per week to 45 (giving up five hours of leisure) is not as costly as going from 60 to 65. You're giving up the same amount of leisure, but in the second case you have fewer leisure hours left, and the ones you give up would have gone to (subjectively) more valuable uses. Regarding income, an extra $100 to someone making $20k is a much bigger deal than the same $100 to someone making $60k. All else being equal, at some point the value of the additional money is less than the value of the leisure time sacrificed to get it, and no further hours will be traded away. The point where this occurs is specific to the individual, and can change over time.

      As to why haven't *I* moved to a higher paying job? Still building the requisites. It has little or nothing to do with my ability or willingness to spend more time or effort in what I do - some things you can't rush (like, say, licensing requiring X years experience) and that's all there is to it.

      You're focusing on one specific job. That's not uncommon, but it isn't the only option. You could trade leisure time for a second job, for example. There are plenty available which do not require significant prior experience. You could probably increase your prospective income by moving to another area. You could cut unnecessary expenditures, sell your possessions, and lend the resulting money out at interest, or trade in the market, or invest in human capital: higher education, networking, anything which would help you get ahead. As I said, there are many paths to higher income for those above subsistence standards of living. Even under a seniority system there are fewer managers at each tier as you progress up the ladder, and they aren't chosen at random. Those who make the most trade-offs in favor of their career stand the best chance of being picked for advancement.

      Note that I'm not saying that you should do these things, only that they are available. You questioned why people who could make more would choose to stay in lower-paying job(s) as a result of taxes; I gave you the answer. Simply put, taxes decrease the payoff of moving to the higher-paying job(s), without making the job(s) any easier to get or to keep. Same effort + less reward = fewer people making the trade.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    98. Re:Finally! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      But once the $10Mers are taxed down to sub-$100k levels, who is going to pay the wages for those NOT making $10M ???

      Oh, did someone forget about that? Seems you've got to be making money before you can afford to pay someone else to work for you. How 'bout that!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    99. Re:Finally! by online-shopper · · Score: 1

      Not everybody can work for the system.

    100. Re:Finally! by Darby · · Score: 1

      I could expect that the candidates get up in front of the nation in their debates and on their websites and say "Hey, things are looking dire. I'm not going to bullshit you, you're going to go through some rough times if things are going to be rectified..."

      Is that too much to ask?

      Yes, it's too much to ask. Carter did that and was fucking crucified for it. That's a good way of describing it since he was the last Christian in the White House.

    101. Re:Finally! by Darby · · Score: 1

      I wish I knew the root cause of health-care costs rising so dramatically, but it's certainly better than some giant government bureaucracy mandating "Thou shalt use this health plan"!

      It's largely to due with the pharma industry lobbying the government to prevent collective bargaining on health care, and to prevent a national health care plan which would be far less costly.

      If it gets passed, though, they'll just bribe their way back to excessive profits (yes, excessive if they can sell the same drugs to Canada and we can buy the drugs from Canada cheaper by *adding* a middleman we're being fleeced)
       

    102. Re:Finally! by nfras · · Score: 1

      Who said I was arguing for the status quo? The reason jobs went overseas is government manipulation of the economy. I won't pretend (unlike others) that the situation can be fixed without undoing the damage that has been done. The only way it can be undone, though, is by overturning the legislation that caused the problem. Then shipping costs will be unappealing and jobs will come back home. Until then, don't hate companies for surviving and trying to give you the lowest-priced product possible despite government manipulation.

      Care to tell us what "government manipulation" of the economy there was? The reason jobs went overseas was that companies can make more profit if they have a lower cost base.
      Henry Ford had a very smart aphorism - There is one rule for industrialists and that is: make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.
      What has happened in the past decade is that companies have made the worst quality products that they can, at the lowest cost, playing the lowest wages. How is this the fault of the government?

      --
      You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
    103. Re:Finally! by east+coast · · Score: 1

      On multiple occasions? Come on now, you're quoting the same thing I'm talking about. Can't you reach back and find this honesty elsewhere? What he talked about last night wasn't the same banter he ran for office on, it was the rosy side of what the future holds. What he spoke of last night is a best case scenario. This is the same speech he should have been giving all along but it didn't come about until he already had clinched the office.

      If anything you're only confirming what I've already said but you're trying to make it seem like he's been this honest with us all along and he simply wasn't.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    104. Re:Finally! by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      That 7 trillion dollar deficit is dwarfed by the 100 trillion dollar deficit that is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Don't see Democrats cutting them any time soon.

    105. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, too bad, they have to give it to the government as a handout to the unproductive, who will remain unproductive as long as they're dishing flamebait on slashdot

      fixed that for u...now back to work...

    106. Re:Finally! by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      Thing is, Obama's tax increases wouldn't hit you because they'll only apply to people who make over about $250k/year.

      Do you really believe that line? How old were you before you stopped believing in Santa Claus?

      I think it's a very good thing, and I'd like to see tax rates close to 100% for people with more than, say, 10 million dollars.

      Oh wait, you still believe in Santa Claus, only his real name is Uncle Sam. Do you understand what will happen if you raise taxes to 100%? That money won't suddenly find itself in the hands of the US government to spend on all the poor folks. It will simply disappear. People work hard and accumulate wealth for themselves and their family, not to provide welfare benefits to the rest of society. Raise my marginal tax rate about 50% and I simply won't work those marginal hours. Poof, bye-bye extra productivity, bye-bye extra taxes. I'm not going to burn my quality of life slaving away so that some welfare bum can benefit.

    107. Re:Finally! by Darby · · Score: 1

      1. A Constitutional mandate to maintain a balanced budget, to end deficit spending.
            2. The establishment of a commodity currency, to end inflation.
            3. Constitutional caps on overall tax rates as a percentage of an individual's income.

      Can we add:
        4. No state shall receive more in federal spending than they pay in taxes unless all of that state's representatives make a convincing argument for it humbly on their knees hands outstretched.

      *That* would do more to cut pork spending and government waste than anything.
      Also, the look on all the Republicans faces as they realized that it's always their state reps begging for welfare and that the "real America" is a black hole of Socialist leeches. Of course, getting an apology for all their hate mongering and theft would be nice, but we can't really expect that. If they had any integrity, they either wouldn't be welfare leeches in the first place or they would at least call themselves socialists.

    108. Re:Finally! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I don't entirely disagree, but your point #4 isn't all that different in effect from my point #3. A hard limit on federal tax rates would make it much more difficult to divert limited federal revenues toward wealth redistribution and away from items of common interest, like nation defense. As a bonus, the less the feds can take in taxes the less opportunity they have to bribe states with their own citizens' money.

      Strictly speaking, if no state could ever receive more than its share of services relative to the taxes paid by its citizens there would be no point at all in even having the tax; the state could just implement the services itself. I'm not opposed to that at all, but it's a much harder position to gather support for. People in general seem hard-wired (or perhaps just indoctrinated?) to see government as necessary, even though it doesn't do anything that couldn't be done privately -- anything, for that matter, that hasn't been done privately in the past.

      Certainly any of our states could easily operate as an independent, sovereign nation; numerous smaller ones exist elsewhere in the world without any difficulty.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    109. Re:Finally! by rtechie · · Score: 1

      You know what? It's a fucking revolving door.

      What kind of job are we talking about?

      I suspect the job your talking about is either very boring and repetitive (encoding), very stressful (sales), or both (telemarketing). That's why you're seeing the burnout rate that you are.

      You're also probably overworking people. You offer "tuition reimbursement". That tells me you're looking for young people. Most companies typically believe they can work young people like dogs, largely because they're not smart enough to figure out they're being exploited.

    110. Re:Finally! by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Health care in the US is crappy even if you have insurance. I've lived in California all my life, but when I spent some time in Texas I was shocked at how horrible the insurance plans offered were. Not even 50% of medication was covered, there was a $100 co-pay on everything, and that's if you could GET insurance. Literally NOBODY I met in Austin or Dallas had "real" medical insurance, they were all denied based on "prexisting conditions" like ALLERGIES and EYEGLASSES. I met numerous people who had lost their homes to pay medical bills. The #1 cause of bankruptcy in America is medical bills.

      Nobody working the job you describe can afford to pay $100,000s in medical bills, and in many states you'll pay that whether you have insurance or not.

      As I've said before: We have universal health care RIGHT NOW. It's called "sending everyone to the emergency room". I'd like us to have something more efficient.

    111. Re:Finally! by mewshi_nya · · Score: 1

      Yeah, damn those Straight-A students with drug-addict fathers! They're so god-damn unproductive! How dare we try to make sure they can better themselves with a college education, which they can't afford without help! How DARE we!!!

      Point is, not everyone who's poor is unproductive.

      The best way to deal with poverty is to break the cycle. And the best way to break the cycle is to give people the proper tools to do it.

    112. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont forget to ask McCain... He know how to get Osama, he said so

    113. Re:Finally! by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      But vat in france is like 20%, sales tax is by the state, and is 5% locally and free in some places.

    114. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So any job that can be done by unskilled labor on a computer is automatically a high burnout rate? What? Get real.

      Only in the whining new America is this considered overworking. Get a real job and I'll show you what overworking is.

      If flipping burgers isn't repetitive and overworking than there is no way in hell that this job is.

    115. Re:Finally! by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      "Kennedy's tax cuts pretty much helped the wealthiest Americans. Note that the economy pretty much boomed as a result"

      What was that saying that covers this? Ah yes, "correlation does not mean causation"

      Or does that not apply in this case?

    116. Re:Finally! by dangitman · · Score: 1

      A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

      Ron Paul?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    117. Re:Finally! by BZ · · Score: 1

      Really? Say that's true. You make 100k a year and have a family of 4. You're like to have a 3-bedroom residence for said family (so each of the kids can have a separate room). You live in the Boston area.

      You have 50k after taxes. Your rent, electricity, gas, heat, water add up to $2500 a month (not at all unreasonable in the non-crime-ridden parts of the Boston area for a 3-bedroom apartment). Your phone+cable+internet is about $100 per month. Your food expenses are $500 a month (at current food prices, that need not involve any eating out). You drive, most likely, and almost certainly so does your spouse. Figuring 150 miles per week (which is a low estimate for most commutes, and assumes your wife isn't spending on gas), and assuming you get 50 miles per gallon, you're looking at $10 or so a week, or $500 or the year. You're probably looking at $2000 year or more for car insurance. You're probably also looking at some amount of time actually buying and maintaining said cars; let's say you buy slightly used (not new) at a decent price every 7 years, and do no maintenance, for about $1000 a year.

      Let's total it up:
      $30,000 housing and utilities
      $6000 food
      $1200 phone+internet+cable
      $2000 car insurance
      $500 gas
      $1000 car purchasing

      Total: $40,700

      Things we didn't include here: saving for retirement, saving for college for the kids, saving to buy a house if you rent, purchasing clothing (if you buy kids clothes new figure at least another $1000 or more a year, since they grow out of it), health insurance (easily another several grand a year for employer-subsidized plans; 10+ grand if you pay it all yourself), visiting grandparents (plane flight for four is $1000+; driving is cheaper, of course), any sort of vacations, any sort of music lessons for the kids or the like. I assumed no medical bills, no dental bills, no orthodontia for the kids. No furniture purchases. No daycare for the kids, if they're young. No presents you buy. No church/synagogue/whatever dues.

      $100k is great if you're single, but there are already parts of the country where it's pretty hard to maintain a middle-class lifestyle on that sort of household income even now, with taxes being closer to 30% effective (20% federal, 7% FICA, some state/local) than your 50% number.

      Of course if your housing is not insane (equivalent housing in other parts of the country could easily run 10k a year instead of 30k), things are a lot better...

    118. Re:Finally! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      1. A Constitutional mandate to maintain a balanced budget, to end deficit spending.
      2. The establishment of a commodity currency, to end inflation.
      3. Constitutional caps on overall tax rates as a percentage of an individual's income.

      1 & 2: do you also drink Drano when you get indigestion? We got out of the Great Depression by massive deficit spending and imposing massive tax increases on the rich - your amendments would have kept us in it.

      Getting out of this crisis would be similarity easy: bring back the 91% marginal tax rates, pass universal health care, and spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure. We'd have better health care, we wouldn't have to worry about bridges collapsing, and the middle class would actually have some money in it's pocket for a change.

    119. Re:Finally! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Well honestly what can you expect, when the last band of idiots was allowed to run up a 7 trillion dollar deficit? SOMEONE is going to have to pay that off.

      With all the tax cuts he's proposing, I'm actually wondering how Obama is planning to do that. I don't disagree with his tax plans -- they seem very well thought out -- but the Bush Debt (I propose calling it that from now on) still needs to be paid off somehow.

    120. Re:Finally! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      First, I did mention a "state of emergency" exception, which would fully address your concerns.

      Second, World War II is what got us out of the Great Depression, by diverting resources away from the massively wasteful government programs that created the Great Depression in the first place.

      The economic conditions leading up to the GD weren't any worse than we'd experienced previously, but the GD was the first time the government got seriously involved in trying to put off the correction process (made necessary by significant inflationary policies from 1921-1929). As a result, instead of the painful-but-quick corrections of the past we spent a number of long, miserable years attempting to avoid the inevitable effects of prior interventions.

      Lack of consumer spending doesn't cause depressions, and stubbornly continuing to waste resources can't get us out of one.

      See also: America's Great Depression.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    121. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be happy if Obama can just undo this mess that GWB has got us into...

    122. Re:Finally! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Second, World War II is what got us out of the Great Depression

      Yes, through massive deficit spending, like I said. Only instead of building battleships and tanks, we'd be building new bridges and Internet connections.

      by diverting resources away from the massively wasteful government programs that created the Great Depression in the first place.

      Say what? The Great Depression was caused by Wall Street over-leveraging risky investments with too little regulation from the government. Hmm, why does this sound familiar?

    123. Re:Finally! by rtechie · · Score: 1

      If flipping burgers isn't repetitive and overworking than there is no way in hell that this job is.

      Of course, it is. The burnout rate for fast food staff is almost as bad as telemarketers. Telemarketing is the worst because it's a job that involves calling people all day 95% of which will scream and swear at you and tell you to go to hell. Expect a death threat every 3rd call.

      But you're right, I'm sure being a agricultural worker in Guatemala or a child soldier in the Congo or an oil worker in Nigeria is tougher. That's why anyone with half a brain leaves these countries as soon as possible.

  39. Say goodbye to your rights by brian0918 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Those "certain inalienable rights" you may have heard of - they went out the window as soon as Obama and McCain became the two choices. Combine Obama's win with the Democratic majorities, and we're ripe to see our individual rights replaced with others' rights to the fruits of our labor - a right to a car, to gas, to healthcare, to other people's property, their privacy, their services, with no choice or input from them. Got a problem with it? Move to another country!

    1. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by DragonTHC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Typical neoconservative.

      In case you haven't noticed, the fruits were already redistributed, from our wallets to a vault owned by some millionaire-turned-billionaire.

      People like you always try to act like democrats want to take what you've earned and give it to poor people.

      You're wrong and you probably will never realize it. They want to take from the obscenely rich and give it to poor people.

      It's pretty fair to say that there's nothing a man can do, who earns a few million dollars a year, to justify that as his fair share. What can a man do to rightfully earn that much over a man who works harder and longer that earns peanuts? Let's not discuss education or intelligence. They don't matter here. I want to know how you, who probably doesn't even make $100k a year can stick up for people who have systematically pillaged both the American Treasury and picked the pockets of Americans for over a generation.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    2. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't even bother to log in to reply to this, but that sounds a lot like right wing propaganda to me...

    3. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure I have said goodbye to my rights already. Habius Corpus: Suspended for the 'war on terror'. 5th amendment: we'll water-board it out of you.

      Yeah, I am sorry but I'll take socialism before this fricken military despotism.

    4. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that after Bush won the last election and started thumping is chest and bellowing something about spending the political capital that he earned. Then he ordered the telecom industry to wiretap everyone's phone and then signed of on systematic torture. Does calling the constitution "just a piece of paper" and spitting on human rights not count as "saying goodbye to your rights"? Let's not forget the borrow and spend policies of the Republicans that got us into a war that had absolutely nothing to do with terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. Maybe if we actually were taxed to pay for this war the people who proudly carried Bush's banner would have paused for a few minutes to think things over.

    5. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately the Republicans weren't doing such a great job safe guarding our rights and reducing the size of the federal government. I'm sure either way it went, the government would have gotten bigger. At least this way Palin can't be in the drivers seat.

      Ron Paul on the other hand may have changed things. But if he isn't a choice I'm picking a good speaker with an experienced VP, or an old guy, with an eager idiot as a VP? Really wasn't much of a choice at all.

    6. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Why is he an old guy instead of an experienced guy? Why did Biden get such a fine adjective by McCain was slagged? Let's face it, your bias is as clear as day. It's this bias that keeps America chasing it's own tale.

      And if you would vote for Ron Paul why not vote for Bob Barr? Granted, the man didn't have a chance to win but it would be nice to see a third party finally get some of the federal funding instead of the same old game next election.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    7. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by Bucko · · Score: 1

      They want to take it *from you*, Dragon.

      Say goodbye to your second amendment rights. They're as good as gone.
      Say goodbye to your first amendment rights. The "fairness doctrine" will take care of freedom of the press. And if you don't happen to listen to radio, then the taxing of our charitable contributions (at least those given to Churches) will demolish what's left of freedom of religion.
      Forget you right to a secret ballot. Card check is on the fast track.
      Your children will be given no choice but to attend government ("public") schools. No vouchers.
      Like socialized medicine? Good for you. It's coming. I suggest you take a look at Great Britain to see how well it works.
      But hey - rejoice. Youp son will be able to marry the same sex partner of your choice, and your daughter will be able to abort your grandchild at will.

    8. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      It would have been no different with McCain, except the split branches would have saved us from the Dems and Reps bad ideas.

    9. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I would like it very much if most of the religious right, which has been suggesting that democrats move to another country if they don't like the Bush Doctrine, eat their own dog food now.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    10. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that after Bush won the last election and started thumping is chest and bellowing something about spending the political capital that he earned. Then he ordered the telecom industry to wiretap everyone's phone and then signed of on systematic torture. Does calling the constitution "just a piece of paper" and spitting on human rights not count as "saying goodbye to your rights"?

      Who said I would ever support the Republican Party, or Bush for that matter? Bush violated rights. McCain would have too. Obama will too, but with a Dem majority in Congress we're likely to see more damage than we would under a split system.

    11. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      I'm an atheist. I'd also be very surprised if the statist left, like the statist right before them, doesn't make the same suggestion as the Religious (statist) Right that you despise (as I do too).

    12. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called relevance. McCain can have all the experience in the world and if he did and left Palin in charge - well, I would have been one of the first rats off the ship.

      As for Bob Barr, some of us prefer to vote for candidates we believe in even if they do not have a chance in office. Bob Barr wasn't that candidate for me and apparently wasn't for the GP either. I wrote in Ron Paul.

      If the LP wants federal funding they're going to have to run someone people can get behind. I, for one, am not willing to sell my vote for a few federal dollars so the LP can run someone else I don't like in 2012.

    13. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by L33tGreg · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. If an man works hard, save his money, and starts generating large volumes of income off his investments, he earned. He wasn't out there buying flashy cars, big screen TVs and large houses he couldn't afford, he was saving. The Democrats don't understand that taxing the wealthy even more will just lead to the wealthy taking smaller taxable incomes and they'll put there money else where. It won't change anything. Promoting spending instead of savings....now that will help the poor. Go Dems!!!

    14. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by RiffRafff · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I am sorry but I'll take socialism before this fricken military despotism.

      Be careful what you wish for.

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    15. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by east+coast · · Score: 1

      If you're seriously that interested maybe you should take an active role in the party instead of them expecting you to be a mind reader. Do you honestly think they would have rejected Ron Paul if they could have got him? That would have been huge for the party.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    16. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by mrfriendly · · Score: 1

      If we take from obscenely rich and give to the poor, who will want to work hard and become rich? Let me rephrase, why would I earn 100 trillion and have 99 trillion taxed from me and given to the poor, when I can simply earn 2 trillion, and keep 1 trillion. So, the poor will receive less anyway. Or the rich will find a way around paying taxes. Laws to redistribute wealth do not stimulate the economy.

    17. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say goodbye to your second amendment rights.

      And that would be a damn good thing for your country.

      "freedom of the press"

      By which you mean "freedom of rich media owners to present totally unbalnced propaganda for their rich friends", leading to the economy going down the tube, an stupid war and upprecedented loss of civil liberties.

      There are a lot of people in a lot of countries who are happy with their public health care, and guess what-they pay less for it then you spend in your public system already!

      Gawd I am enjoying whatching the right wing loonies running around like chicken little screaming "The sky is falling"

      LMAO!

    18. Re:Say goodbye to your rights by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Those "certain inalienable rights" you may have heard of - they went out the window as soon as Obama and McCain became the two choices.

      They've been out the window for a number of years already. I'm hoping Obama will restore them again.

  40. Time to tax and spend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Save your money, youre going to need it to pay those higher taxes

    1. Re:Time to tax and spend by cloakable · · Score: 1

      If you're getting higher taxes under Obama, you don't NEED to save anything :P

      Oh no, you won't be able to buy a Jaguar every week. Poor you.

      --
      No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
    2. Re:Time to tax and spend by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, somehow I don't think people making more than a quarter million are gonna have to do a whole lot of scrimping and saving.

    3. Re:Time to tax and spend by endemoniada · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hey, yank, quit your damn whining! Paying taxes won't kill you, and seriously, who did you expect would pay that huge debt to China, pay for the war or help rebuild the economy? Money may just be ink printed on paper, but it still has to come from somewhere. That somewhere has been YOUR POCKETS for the last eight years.

      It's just that no one told you until now.

      So grow up, start living responsibly and quit whining

      --
      Blog -
    4. Re:Time to tax and spend by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Oh, no, you don't have to save. They'll take it right out of your paycheck before it ever gets into your hands.

      Lets hear it for withholding provisions!

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  41. I recorded.. by DanWS6 · · Score: 5, Funny

    all of the campaign ads so I can slowly wean myself off instead of going cold turkey.

    1. Re:I recorded.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      instead of going cold turkey

      You might not have to! In some markets, it is actually cheaper to buy advertising in large blocks, rather like buying in bulk at a warehouse store.

      Therefore, in some areas, it is not unusual to see campaign ads extend beyond election day because it was actually cheaper for the candidate to buy additional airtime past the election date.

      Usually, this stuff gets delegated to early early morning and late late night when no one is watching, but if you are up at those times, you might get lucky and see one or two.

    2. Re:I recorded.. by ari_j · · Score: 1

      There is, of course, an xkcd on point.

    3. Re:I recorded.. by Darby · · Score: 1

      all of the campaign ads so I can slowly wean myself off instead of going cold turkey.

      Holy shit, do you have a PhD in black comedy?

  42. Hurray! We won! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    See you guys at the dance.
    Oh wait, this isn't high school. We just got another president filled with empty promises, but at least he is better than that other guy.... Right guys?

    Right?

    1. Re:Hurray! We won! by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Yes, he is.

      He's probably the most moral man we've had in the White House since Jimmy Carter, but unlike Carter he also is an extremely skilled political operator who can get things done. I think he's going to do a fantastic job.

  43. Re:FP by dspolleke · · Score: 1, Interesting

    the first black US president.. The rest of the world is ok with coloured people in office for centuries now.. A dutch Poet / commedian said this morning: Africa congratualtes America with their first black president.. The have had many black presidents.. now all they need is food.. But ot react to what it will mean for the nation.. I say "what nation" My country is not really affected. McCains and Obama's foreign policy will not be very different from each other.. I hope Obama understands that with great power comes great responsibillity.. And as the president of the most infoluencial country in the world he should know that his responsibility does not end at the border OR at the Oil wells...

  44. where are mod points where you need them by pimpimpim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nicely put!

    As far as the new president is concerned: the guy has a lot of shit to clean up now, and we don't even know what's still coming. He will have to take a lot of unpopular measures, and I really wonder if he can keep a high popularity for long.

    --
    molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    1. Re:where are mod points where you need them by brian0918 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with cleaning it up is that he has proposed - like McCain - to make it worse rather than better. You can't fix government interference in the economy with increased interference.

    2. Re:where are mod points where you need them by antibryce · · Score: 1

      That is my biggest concern about Obama. He's incapable of taking politically damaging measures. He's like Clinton, but with less of a spine.

    3. Re:where are mod points where you need them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and when he's taking those unpopular measures like Biden warned us, I'm sure you'll stick behind him, even if he's putting us even further down that road.

      After all, y'all fought so hard for the guy, you have to stick by him when he's doing "unpopular" things. I know you'd give the same consideration to a President in other parties, so I know you're not being two-faced or anything.

    4. Re:where are mod points where you need them by o'reor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like, economy running unchecked is fully able to stand on its legs, without nuking itself (and us) in the process... (doh !)

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    5. Re:where are mod points where you need them by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like, economy running unchecked is fully able to stand on its legs, without nuking itself (and us) in the process... (doh !)

      Can you give an example of true laissez-faire capitalism in action ever? Or an argument for why it wouldn't work? (also be sure to include what you mean by "work")

    6. Re:where are mod points where you need them by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      You can hope that Obama isn't in it for the popularity, and that he'll burn through popularity in 4 years to set things right.
      Then again, that risks a swing-back election for Palin in 2012.

    7. Re:where are mod points where you need them by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      Back in 1992, Democrats won both wing of congress and the white house. 2 years after that they lost the congress.

    8. Re:where are mod points where you need them by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Barack Obama ran on a ticket of raising taxes while his opponent ran on a ticket of cutting taxes. Obama still won in a dominating fashion. I'm sure he'll have some leeway because everyone understands that the last eight years have really put the United States behind the eight ball. As long as he's seen as doing a competent job of undoing the fuckups of the last eight years, he'll do fine.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    9. Re:where are mod points where you need them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicely put!

      Now that the executive branch controls the budget and purchased the banks...

      oh wait. Its the democratic congress that purchased the banks.

      GG.

    10. Re:where are mod points where you need them by Khisanth+Magus · · Score: 1

      Microsoft, because they can afford to pay for the government to stay out of their business. Worked out well, don't ya think?

    11. Re:where are mod points where you need them by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If you hadn't noticed, the current economic crisis was brought on by too little regulation, not too much.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:where are mod points where you need them by owski · · Score: 0

      "pay for the government to stay out of their business."

      That denotes the government didn't stay out of everyone else's business. Hardly an example of "no government interference."

    13. Re:where are mod points where you need them by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 1

      You can't fix government interference in the economy with increased interference.

      You also can't fight fire with fire... oh wait...

    14. Re:where are mod points where you need them by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      No, but you can fix it with changing the interference to the correct kind. Many economic markets are what are termed "market failures". This does not mean the kind of failure like we saw with the banks last month; it means a market that, when completely unfettered, does not allocate resources efficiently. All markets are market failures to some degree (simply because of human nature and the laws of physics, no market can be perfectly efficient), but some markets are much closer to a true market failure than others. Transportation, utilities, and telecommunications are some of the more severe market failures, which is why they tend to be heavily regulated.

      Many markets don't need any regulation beyond straightforward fraud and antitrust abuse prevention. Everything else is just details.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    15. Re:where are mod points where you need them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't fix government interference in the economy with increased interference.

      You argument is flawed, in that not all "government interference" is equal. Monopoly regulation, enforcement of truth in advertising, subsidies and tariffs are all government interference in the market, but have very different effects.

      However, an important interference I think you should get rid of, is the selling of gasoline at way below international market prices to citizens. This is no way to reward people who try to rely less on transportation (personal or goods).

    16. Re:where are mod points where you need them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    17. Re:where are mod points where you need them by Jorophose · · Score: 1

      The problem is you pretty much have to "interfere".

      The crooks in wallstreet need to be sent off to prison, the US gvt needs to step in and re-regulate the markets, and ultimately stick its hands in to push the waters forwards. I'm just hoping that by Year 4 you have a good economy, no enemies, and the ability to chop your gvt's hands off if they get too close. (I'm a fan of small gvt too)

    18. Re:where are mod points where you need them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... are you talking about Obama or Chavez?

  45. Re:All I can say now is... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 2, Funny

    This argument that "The terrorists will attack because Obama is inexperienced" never fails to remind me of the Robot Chicken episode where the arab terrorists attack an elementary school because a little boy said "Fart" during the pledge to the flag. "He said FART! They are weak! We must attack!"

  46. yeah by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds great, I think. Finally, no more lunatic right wing ideology running the country.

    1. Re:yeah by aaron+alderman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah! Now we have lunatic left wing ideology running the country.

    2. Re:yeah by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ha.

      I love how completely distorted the placement of the Overton window in the US really is.

    3. Re:yeah by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Yep, I just got my marching orders from the Hippie Gestapo. We're on our way to your house with tofu, solar panels, and one of those thingies that makes your shower use less water.

      Try to lock us out, and we'll sit on your front porch smoking grass and singing kum-bai-ya and make your property values plummet.

      RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  47. Re:God didn't by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, I know many of use who belive in God who voted Obama.

    And if people were truely sick of being treated like shit, there would be 3rd party candidates in the house and senate, enough of them were up for election!

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  48. Regrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just watched Obama's acceptance speech, which moved me to tears. What a moment for our country. We've elected a black man named Barack Hussein Obama to be President. To all the pundits who said we were too racist and xenophobic to make that happen: fuck you. We are better than that.

    And then I watched McCain's acceptance speech, and I was moved to tears again. I wanted to be torn in this election - I had dreamed of this matchup for four years, to finally have to choose between two men worthy of my admiration instead of choosing the better of two evils. As much as I am moved by our victory over racism, I grieve over the loss of a chance to see a campaign between two truly great men.

    Thanks, fellow Americans. As an expat, it's wonderful beyond belief to know that, at least for the next for years, I don't have to pretend to be Canadian any more.

    1. Re:Regrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just watched Obama's acceptance speech, which moved me to tears. What a moment for our country. We've elected a black man named Barack Hussein Obama to be President. To all the pundits who said we were too racist and xenophobic to make that happen: fuck you. We are better than that.

      Take a minute and come to reason. All of the civilized world who criticises the USA does so because economic influences. And to do that they blame the average joe on the base that he is a ignorant and stupid person, basically an idiot. Xenofobia and Racism are additional qualities labelled onto the average guy by arrogant lefty radical chic pussies who never had to work and can afford to ink the pages of some magazines...

      Taken that into account:
      * Who would vote for a man who bears the name of TWO of the sworn enemies of his country (Osama Bin Laden & Saddam Hussein)?
      * Who would vote for a man who was going to win abusing democracy by RELYING ON THE RACIST VOTES OF THE BLACKS?

      Yes, dear average american. You finally proven that are not racist or xenofobic to the commonist over here that depicted you in such a way. But you've also proven to be an idiot to the rest of us.

      I can imagine the Arabs laughting at the victory of the N_gger president (Arabs are known to be the most racist tribe on this planet, just take a trip to saudi arabia and take a look at the important positions that africans reach). The same goes for asians.

      Look there:
      http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/voices/index.ssf/2008/09/barack_obamas_black_support_li.html
      http://community.mccainspace.com/kickapps/_Proof-that-95-of-blacks-will-vote-Obama-based-on-color-only/audio/220916/41158.html?b= BTW those blacks sound retarded...

  49. BARAKA WINS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  50. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is interesting that guns and religion are often brought up in the same sentence, don't you think?

  51. The future's so bright... by bytethese · · Score: 1

    I gotta wear shades.

  52. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was writing joystick handling code on a Ubuntu install running under VMware. Truly, a momentous occasion.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  53. I voted differently however.. by mschoolbus · · Score: 1

    Lets just hope everyone can Unite

    ...and stop bitching and whining about everything!

    1. Re:I voted differently however.. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      No, they're going to unite in their CONSTANT bitching and whining.

  54. Look on the brightside McCain supporters by bugeaterr · · Score: 0, Troll

    I voted against Obama.
    But now I do take solace in the silver-lining:
    Racial healing.
    May forever more, the words of racists like Reverend Jeremiah Wright ring hollow to black youth, and the youth of every other race.
    May the coming generation now see that, whatever vestiges of institutional may racism remain, YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING IN AMERICA.

    Truly this is a testament to the greatness of this country. Has there ever been a society in the history of the earth, where a once slave class later produced an elected leader?

    A bright silver-lining indeed!

    1. Re:Look on the brightside McCain supporters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a white guy that is married to a black girl I can say this: Black people are bigger racists than most white people in most developed parts of the country. They're the ones that are ghetto-forming themselves. There is no reason black people have it worse than white (or other) people other than their own bigotry and thinking that everything from 'the man' belongs to them now because of their race being oppressed 40 years ago.

      Examples:
      Debt - they will go in debt and default or go into bankruptcy just because they can and banks are ran by 'the man'. One of our friends had their car hit by someone else. They got the insurance money to repair it and blew it all on stuff. Now their car door is rusting all the way out and it will be much more expensive to repair.
      Products: - they will spend a lot on overpriced stuff like hair products (Dr. Miracle - is there ANY scientific evidence that hair grows faster with anything?), food (Aunt Sylvia - 3x more expensive than other cans), OTC drugs and other things just because there is a black person on the label or because it is sold in a shop run/geared toward black people. There is no reason other, cheaper products would not work, usually they are even the same product inside the box. I've lived poor, I know what it is to make sure you have the cheapest product in the store.
      Ghetto forming: Recently a new store opened in the 'ghetto' of our town which provided the same product but much cheaper than the other store who was until then the only one in the neighborhood. My wife told it to her friend who is struggling paying her mortgage. She asked, is it ran by black people? No. She didn't even want to go. She made similar remarks when a store botched up an order.
      Disbelief in their own capabilities: None of the black people I talked to believed "they" would ever let a black man in office. That's also the reason they themselves are still in the same job. I don't have any degree whatsoever and I am an IT manager at 23? Some of my friends have been in the same position for 20 years and never pushed any higher.

      And it's not like these are just a few isolated people. I can tell you it is the majority (75%) of black people I meet. Of course a combination of the above also causes a lot of criminal activity with the younger generation which in it's turn results in higher incarceration rates and police profiling. A vicious circle.

    2. Re:Look on the brightside McCain supporters by evilandi · · Score: 1

      Has there ever been a society in the history of the earth, where a once slave class later produced an elected leader?

      I realise that you Yanks aren't really up on history, but did you not even watch the film Gladiator?

      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    3. Re:Look on the brightside McCain supporters by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I would hope it wouldn't be lost on these generations of black youth that it was predominantly *white* people who voted for him. Every black person in the country could have voted for him and he still wouldn't have won if racism and oppression was as rampant as many people claim.

      Racial healing? Reality check? The removal of an excuse? All of those things, I'd hope.

    4. Re:Look on the brightside McCain supporters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You never heard of Nelson Mandela I take...

    5. Re:Look on the brightside McCain supporters by eiapoce · · Score: 1

      Has there ever been a society in the history of the earth, where a once slave class later produced an elected leader?

      Roman Empire. And It didn't last long afterwards.

    6. Re:Look on the brightside McCain supporters by bugeaterr · · Score: 1

      McCain voter points out that electing the first black president will be positive for race relations and gets modded Troll????
      Riiiiiight.

  55. Change I believe in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that the only change I will be having from now on is the change in my pocket after Obama is done taxing us... and anyone who says otherwise has NO idea what this guy is all about.

    1. Re:Change I believe in... by WedgeTalon · · Score: 1

      Well, on the bright side, at least we aren't stealing the money from our childrens' piggy banks (eg, borrow it from places like China) like the Republicans do, right?

      Sigh, why we can't just cut spending AND taxes, I don't know.

  56. The Real Surprise is in Alaska by shma · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Obama's win was widely predicted, although most people underestimated his support (right now, it looks like he will take 364 electoral votes).

    The biggest surprise of the night is in Alaska, where against all odds, they elected a convicted criminal to the US senate.

    --
    I came here for a good argument
    1. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by maz2331 · · Score: 4, Informative

      They know he'll be expelled, but that the Governor (
      Palin) will appoint his successor to serve out the rest of the term.

      It was basically a choice of "yes" or "no" to giving a Republican seat to the Democrats.

      Everyone knows Stevens is going to prison. His reelection just serves as a placeholder for the person who's actually going to take the Senate seat in his stead.

      I don't believe that the Governor can appoint herself to the post, so at least the Democrats don't have to worry about hearing the words "Senator Palin".

    2. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy was king of bringing special interests to Alaska, why wouldn't they want him back?

    3. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by shma · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They know he'll be expelled, but that the Governor ( Palin) will appoint his successor to serve out the rest of the term....I don't believe that the Governor can appoint herself to the post, so at least the Democrats don't have to worry about hearing the words "Senator Palin".

      Actually, it's a little more complicated than that, even if he is kicked out of the senate, which requires a 2/3 majority senate vote that is not guaranteed (Stevens wasn't even supposed to be elected, so I'm not making ANY assumptions here).

      In Alaska, the governor doesn't have the power to appoint senators. If he is kicked out, Palin will have to call a special election. And I don't believe that there's any law forbidding her from running. So 'Senator Palin' is most certainly a possibility.

      And regardless of their intent, over 106,000 Alaskans still put down a vote for a convicted criminal. The extreme partisanship required to do that is beyond comprehension.

      --
      I came here for a good argument
    4. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't a surprise by far. For every dollar an Alaskan is taxed, the federal government gives back two dollars. And it's mostly thanks to Ted Stevens, so they don't really care about how corrupt he is; He brings the pork home.
      Makes the Alaskan Independence Party look like a joke.

    5. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by DebianDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude...

      - Everyone receives government handouts from oil revenues
      - Alcoholism is rampant
      - Rape is one of the highest rates in the U.S.
      - Palin is the Governor

      WTF did you expect?

    6. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by aaron+alderman · · Score: 1

      where against all odds

      Dude, this is Sarah Palin country!

    7. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by chihowa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And regardless of their intent, over 106,000 Alaskans still put down a vote for a convicted criminal. The extreme partisanship required to do that is beyond comprehension.

      His wasn't just convicted of any old crime, either. It's a corruption conviction relating to his service in the position he was re-elected to.

      Electing someone convicted of a crime unrelated to their office is one thing, but electing someone convicted of corruption in that office is an entirely different beast.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    8. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      In all fairness though. He wasn't just corrupt on his own behalf, he was much more corrupt on Alaska's behalf. I think they are rewarding him for his corrupt ways that has racked in billions for Alaskans.

    9. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DC reelected Marion Barry Mayor after being convicted on drug charges if I recall, hardly the first time that sanity lost out to incumbency.

    10. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      On the bright side, having Sarah Palin in the Senate would certainly be a huge boost to Tina Fey's career!

    11. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      although most people underestimated his support

      The popular vote was 52 to 48%.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    12. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by argee · · Score: 1

      From an Alaskan:
      - gimme my damn check!
      - I'll drink to that!
      - Girls gotta learn to say no
      - She's back to being just governor. Signed,
      A dude.

    13. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was surprised too, because the strongholds of the other party have NEVER blindly reelected any convicted criminals, racists, or blatantly corrupt assholes. Oh, wait.

    14. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows Stevens is going to prison. His reelection just serves as a placeholder for the person who's actually going to take the Senate seat in his stead.

      Not so fast. It turns out the juror who left DURING DELIBERATIONS because her dad was dying--turned out she just wanted to bet on the ponies. If that doesn't call for a retrial, I don't know what would!

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    15. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      And DC re-elected a convicted drug user years ago. It explains a lot about the city.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    16. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by morgauo · · Score: 1

      I know! A convicted criminal, as opposed to the non-convicted ones the rest of us elect. Alaska is sooo backwards!

    17. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      Stranger things have happened....
      At least the elected official was alive this time.

    18. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They know that he will be pardonned by Bush.

    19. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Azaril · · Score: 1

      Not technically, but i believe in situations like this, the governor resigns on the understanding that the lieutenant governor gets promoted and then gives the ex-governor the senate seat. So I wouldn't bet against a Senator Palin soon.

    20. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      How is this a surprise? There's still 2 months left for Bush to pardon him. And Alaskans want someone who can get them more federal tax dollars while claiming to hate government spending in general.

    21. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Their thinking is pretty clear from the suddent poll shift (Stevens was losing by 20 points a few days ago): they realized the senate will kick Stevens out, but they want Governor Palin to get to appoint a republican replacement, so they can't vote in the democrat.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    22. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      Careful now . . . the blue states have reelected their share of "winners" too, up to and including the Hero of Chappaquiddick. You don't really want people to start pointing out government handouts, substance abuse, and violent crime rates in the inner cities, do you? There's plenty of this on both sides of the aisle -- no reason to make it a partisan issue.

    23. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by dfm3 · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows Stevens is going to prison. His reelection just serves as a placeholder for the person who's actually going to take the Senate seat in his stead.

      ...until he gets a full pardon from Bush just before he leaves office. Mark my words, it'll happen...

    24. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by esmrg · · Score: 1

      Ted Stevens plans on escaping prison through a series of underground tunnels, or "tubes".

    25. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      And regardless of their intent, over 106,000 Alaskans still put down a vote for a convicted criminal. The extreme partisanship required to do that is beyond comprehension.

      Missouri elected a dead man after the governor promised to appoint his widow. There are plenty of partisan idiots everywhere.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    26. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dems elected a corrupt official in Florida. http://www.lsureveille.com/1.749920

      Also the actual results were much closer than the polls showed obamas win. Most polls had obama up by 7% at the end and there was a bunch of states he barely won.

    27. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I don't know who he was running against, but it's possible that in the eyes of the average Alaskan, the alternative candidate(s) was worse.

      Also, never underestimate the power of name recognition. That's what all those lawn signs and posters and such are really about -- name recognition. People who aren't sure why the candidates differ will vote for a name they recognise (or think they do) rather than for an unfamiliar name.

      Partisanship need not enter into it at all.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    28. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      So 'Senator Palin' is most certainly a possibility.

      But if she wants to run for President isnt she better off being a Governor?

    29. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      And regardless of their intent, over 106,000 Alaskans still put down a vote for a convicted criminal. The extreme partisanship required to do that is beyond comprehension.

      It doesn't matter if he was convicted or not. In fact it probably made it easier. Alaska didn't want to simply have a Democrat by default, and I don't blame them.

      Everyone knows Stevens isn't going to be the Senator after the election. He's either going to get expelled or resign and they'll elect a non-convicted Republican.

      It may seem wrong, but the reality is that by voting for a felon, they really voted for an opportunity for a real choice. The Democratic candidate can run in the special election as well, so all this did was deprive him of a victory by default.

    30. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      Hey, thanks to Ted Stevens ./ has one of its biggest memos (the one about tubes). You can't discard THAT achievement because of some minor insignificant gift-accepting felony. That guy has to stay in charge forever!

    31. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Darby · · Score: 1

      For every dollar an Alaskan is taxed, the federal government gives back two dollars.

      That's why they call Alaska the queen of the welfare states.

      That's the real America according to McCain/Palin and the Republicans. A bunch of fucking leeches.

    32. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Darby · · Score: 1

      You don't really want people to start pointing out government handouts, substance abuse, and violent crime rates in the inner cities, do you? There's plenty of this on both sides of the aisle -- no reason to make it a partisan issue.

      It is entirely a partisan issue. Republican states are consistently overwhelmingly the welfare states. The money going to the inner cities is coming from the blue states. The money going to red state leeches is *also* coming from the blue states.

      Please, oh fucking please, let's make that equitable and watch almost all of the red states go fucking broke and personal wealth soar in the blue states.
      I am so fucking behind that.

      So for all the talk about "real America" and "free markets" by lying sack of shit Republicans, when are they going to start voting against their own welfare payments? Until they start calling themselves Socialists or quit being the most socialist shitholes in the country, it will continue to be a partisan issue.

      Just look at the bailout (which I disagreed with from the start) The Republicans refused to vote for it because there wasn't enough pork in it. They held out for an extra 150Billion and then slopped it up. Their color is red for a reason, god damned communist scum.

    33. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      She can appoint herself to the post. It is totally within her power. She won't. No matter what happens, there has to be a special election within 90 days of the appointment of a new Senator. Whoever she appoints will not serve out the remainder of the term.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    34. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      That's only because instead of selling the land to those who want to get the oil out of it, the Alaskan government instead is obligated to handle the oil rights in the best interests of the Alaskan people, as they, in fact, actually own all that oil. So if by government handout, you mean an equal portion of something that is partially owned by the residents of the state, then I guess you're right.

      As far as the alcoholism and rape, that messed up. But Palin has a great record as a governor, and she replaced someone who was largely viewed as corrupt because he appointed his own daughter to fill the senate seat he had previously held. In Alaska, she returned put the government back firmly on the side of the people.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    35. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      A lot of us would indeed like to make it equitable by doing away with ALL welfare, bailouts, and earmarks, regardless of who gets them -- rich, poor, or middle class. Unfortunately, there's no viable third party which represents such an ideal. My blue state wallet can't handle things the way they are much longer, and I may soon have to move back to a red state to lessen my tax burden (taxes in MD are a real bitch, and will only get worse as the state continues to find endless ways to spend our money).

      Anyway, it sounds like they've got you duped into thinking one side is better than the other, huh? Don't make that mistake. The bad news is that you'll eventually figure out there's very little difference between the two major parties, and the whole system is rigged to keep the public passionately divided (sounds like they've succeeded with you) so that a very small majority of people can stay in power indefinitely while we all fight against one another. For all his talk about "change," I seriously doubt Obama can to deliver on any of the major issues upon which he campaigned. There are too many greedy people in charge who won't give up their power -- regardless of party affiliation.

    36. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by rebel_cdn · · Score: 1

      at least the Democrats don't have to worry about hearing the words "Senator Palin".

      ...unless she appoints her husband.

    37. Re:The Real Surprise is in Alaska by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      And regardless of their intent, over 106,000 Alaskans still put down a vote for a convicted criminal. The extreme partisanship required to do that is beyond comprehension.

      Nah, DC comprehended that 14 years ago when they reelected Democrat Marion Barry as Mayor.

  57. question by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

    How old are you?

    It's a serious question, I'm not trolling, and I'm not gonna mock you for it - just curious.

    1. Re:question by hansamurai · · Score: 2, Funny

      24

      Like Jack Bauer.

    2. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not trolling, but obviously attempting to perpetuate the stereotype of freedom-minded people as "immature" and "adolescent". Says more about you than it does the libertarian.

    3. Re:question by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Why are you asking this question to a RP fan I've seen BO fans spew the same equivalent rhetoric and no one seem to care.

    4. Re:question by mevets · · Score: 1

      maybe he's curious about the Rand thing. It is an odd combination to be young and yet a fan of such an "cranky old person" philosophy.

    5. Re:question by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Or maybe I just wanted to know how old he is, cause I'm curious about trends in political attitudes for various age cohorts.

      That you read what you did into it speaks volumes about you, however, and some apparent feelings of inadequacy.

    6. Re:question by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      One person does not a trend make. If you really want to see trends, head to Google and look at the voting demographics for this election.

    7. Re:question by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it probably had more to do with the mention of Ayn Rand than Ron Paul. At least, that's the part that I find more intriguing.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    8. Re:question by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, I'm aware that anecdote is not the singular of data.

      What's with you people getting all nuts about Idle curiosity?

    9. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were truly only curious, then I apologize for snapping. In today's age where the business of centralized power is richer, more concentrated and more ubiquitous than ever before in history, the rare freedom-minded individual is mocked and derided, written off as the "immature radical", never taken seriously and considered a "real" member of society.

    10. Re:question by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      I've actually found it to be the exact opposite. Rand's philosophy appeals to young males particularly strongly. Most grow out of it.

    11. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but a trend-bucking individual is a curiosity worthy of investigation.

    12. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you base your judgement of Ayn Rand on the typical ignorant slashdotter, it's all about selfishness, lack of concern for others, and getting rich by screwing other people over.

      However, if you actually take the time to study her philosophy or read her novels, you will find that it all comes down to one thing: coercion, and why it's immoral and counter-productive to society.

      It takes an open mind to accept that government is founded on coercion, no matter how they spin it, and depends on coercion for every single thing government does. What Rand tries to get us to realize is that it is coercion, not freedom, which is used to achieve all of those bad things the average slashdotter tries to pin on Rand (selfishness, getting rich by screwing over your neighbor, etc) -- indeed, that coercion is the true root of all evil.

    13. Re:question by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm 24 too. Don't worry, you'll get over the Ron Paul phase. Took me about a week - ended around the time I read some of the things he actually said, instead of the lofty philosophies his fans assigned to him.

    14. Re:question by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      I suppose that shows a bit about my age then

  58. Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's his name again? Sadam Hussain Obama Bin Laden or something. Now if that ain't a Muslim name I don't know what is. America is meant to be a Christian country. It says so right there in the First Amendment, and it was that way back when we were founded by Jey-sus in 0AD. And now he's goin' to make an Oath on the Koran, change us all into Muslims and move the US to the middle east and we'll all have to join Al Quaeda and blow ourselves up. I don't know what I'm gonna do.

    1. Re:Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      I don't know what I'm gonna do.

      Can I suggest a little sarcasm? I hear it's all the rage.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    2. Re:Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by BRSloth · · Score: 1

      Silly, move to Canada!

    3. Re:Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by Loibisch · · Score: 1

      I don't know what I'm gonna do.

      Stop hitting that bong would be a good start.

    4. Re:Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As comedian Chris Rock would say thier is a difference between blacks and n*****s,
      and the n*****s voted for Obama, most of the educated rich blacks and middle class blacks actually
      do not share Obamas âoesocialistâ agenda, that true for even some blacks in major proffessional leagues!. Hard to believe, but it is because they make âoeRepublican moneyâ and dont want to pay higher taxes.

    5. Re:Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      that is the most ignorant bullsh*t i have ever read, you sir are a pathetic moron. i dont care if your being sarcastic, people like you make me sick.
      i have a great idea what you could do, but id get banned or something. i surely hope karma smacks your little d*ck in the dirt.

    6. Re:Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now he's goin' to make an Oath on the Korean, or whatever it's called

      There, fixed that for you. ;)

    7. Re:Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that he's going to use the money he saps from the rich to build a time machine, go back in time, and blow up the World Trade Center himself. He sure does associate with those terrorist types.

    8. Re:Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by Sinbios · · Score: 1

      Christ, get a sense of humour.

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    9. Re:Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by shot151 · · Score: 1

      Hilarious... This reminded me, I wonder how worried the secret service is about our own homegrown extremists trying to attack Obama.

    10. Re:Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I don't think there's a lot to worry about. Cranks who want to kill the president tend to be acting alone. White supremacists and other hate groups make a lot of noise but I don't think they care quite enough to die for their cause.

    11. Re:Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep BS'ing?

    12. Re:Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by craiglarry · · Score: 1

      You don't know what you're going to do? Try not forgetting to take you meds.

    13. Re:Oh goshdarnit! That other guy git in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda funny, but not funny.

  59. Time for Change... by Earl+The+Squirrel · · Score: 0, Troll

    Remember that, cause all we're going to have left is "change" after he's done with spending...

  60. Re:United States Socialist Republic by falcon5768 · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are laughing at the fact the republicans THOUGHT he was. There was nothing socialist he was proposing that we are not already doing, and nearly half our friends we terms a "democracy" are truthfully socialist democracies. The socialist claim was truly one of the STUPIDEST moves the neocons could have pulled, especially when their darling base polarizing vise prez nominee actually PRACTICED socialism by redirecting oil drilling profits to state residence.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  61. Funny... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    Me... I had "O Fortuna" playing in my head.

    1. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had Sam Cookes "Its been a long time coming" playing in my head vere since I heard the speech.

      Wow, just wow. brilliant.

      Well done USA, this will hopefully return you to the position of great respect the world had for you
      as a nation of fairness and opportunity.

  62. Congratulations from Europe by Ztream · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think I'm actually proud of you, America. Not just for electing Obama over McCain; but for producing *two* sensible candidates and then choosing the one who makes history. I'm glad I stayed up to watch it live.

    1. Re:Congratulations from Europe by Tenek · · Score: 2

      Two for four ain't bad indeed.

  63. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    This is not flamebait.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  64. Mod down, common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  65. Linux Everywhere by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

    An Obama presidency means we are going to be seeing Linux everywhere. Cars with onboard navigation systems, embedded in devices ranging from ATM machines to cell phones, operating behaind the scenes at supermarket checkout counters, claw machines at the mall, ticket booths for parking garages, desktop machines being sold at Best Buy, on PDAs for squirrels, traffic light cameras, the list is endless.

    I mean, come on, Microsoft must have bought off everyone in the GOP to still be around after Vista.

    M

    1. Re:Linux Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, obama knows what linux is.

    2. Re:Linux Everywhere by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have to. Microsoft is just going to have a lot more trouble 'gaining influence' with Democrats, and it's all downhill from there.

      M

    3. Re:Linux Everywhere by TypoNAM · · Score: 1

      Realistically based off of history. This means that a lot worse copyright laws like the DMCA will get passed that the media Mafia has been pushing for and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. One prediction is that in the next four years by downloading that MP3 you've gotten yourself a speedy pass to possible two to ten year prison sentence because 'copyright infringement is far worse than bank robbery or killing somebody!'

      How about the patent system? That'll get gamed too just like the copyright will continue to be and we could possibly see something along the lines of: Oh, so you infriged on so&so's patent. We'll take your home, car, and even your dog as punishment and just several months of jail time. That'll be enough for now until we find more cases of infrigement. Have a good day!

      In all seriousness, its going to get a lot more stressful and almost dangerous for us open source and fair rights exercising citizens in the coming few years. Land of the free with reserved parking for the VIPs!

      --
      This space is not for rent.
    4. Re:Linux Everywhere by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      Cats and dogs living together! The dead rising from the grave! Real "wrath of God" type stuff! ;-)

    5. Re:Linux Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all seriousness, its going to get a lot more stressful and almost dangerous for us open source and fair rights exercising citizens in the coming few years. Land of the free with reserved parking for the VIPs!

      With all due respect, it's a fair use DEFENSE, not a fair use RIGHT.

      Regrettably.

  66. Re:FP by naylor83 · · Score: 1

    Not so much

  67. Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Nazlfrag · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did Puerto Rico vote? American Samoa? Marshall islanders? You crazy cats have taxation without representation, have colonies without a vote. I recall that sort of nonsense stirred a revolution once before...

    1. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by sxpert · · Score: 1

      aren't these islands only composed of a large military base ?

    2. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      they actualy dont pay taxes there.

    3. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by will_die · · Score: 1

      Add Guam then try updating your knowledge it has been stale since 1986.
      First the Republic of the Marshall Islands is a indepentant country. American Samoa considers itself to be indepentant and is try to get itself off the list of non-indepentant countries as listed by the UN.
      Guam and Puero Rico(also American Samoa) have had multiple votes of what they want to do with themselves(commonwealth, independant, or become a state) and refuse to have the vote, the last time over 50% of Puerto Ricans voted Other.
      The only chance of revolution would be if US Federal government were to set a deadline and say vote or you are out.

    4. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puerto Rico has voted against statehood several times. Not our fault.

    5. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by nycguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Residents of Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Marshall Islands do not pay federal income tax. They do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes but they are also eligible for benefits from those programs. To have representation in Congress (relevant to "taxation without representation"), those territories would need to petition for statehood. Puerto Rico, in particular, has consistently voted not to do so.

    6. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You crazy cats have taxation without representation, have colonies without a vote.

      Uhh obviously you're a bit confused. You mean the people of Puerto Rico have representation WITHOUT taxation. They do get to vote and no, they don't have to pay Federal taxes.

    7. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      Hey now, Puerto Rico at least, votes on statehood every so often. They always vote 'no' though. I wonder why that is? Perhaps they enjoy the freedoms and free money from the US but don't want to pay income tax? I suspect that is the case elsewhere as well.

      http://www.essortment.com/all/puertoricansta_rdla.htm

      Currently, Puerto Rico receives the protection of the United States in time of war. They also receive the benefits of being U.S. citizens without having to pay taxes to the U.S. government.

    8. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Only states can vote for the presidency.

      As a result, since once in a while we do actually remember our history, only residents of states are required to pay federal income tax.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    9. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      No, those colonies have neither taxation nor representation. They are offered the option of representation, but only if they pay taxes. The fact that they have no representation shows their priorities.

    10. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't states so they can't vote. They vote to become states every year but they have so far chosen to not become states.

    11. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that the territories don't pay federal taxes, and have had chances to become full states but declined.

    12. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puerto Rico is hardly a colony, it's a commonwealth, and it isn't a state, only states + District of Columbia have electoral votes. American Samoa is a territory, and not a state as well.

      Marshall Island isn't part of the United States, it's a sovereign nation which associates with the United States through Compact of Free Association

    13. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Did Puerto Rico vote? American Samoa? Marshall islanders? You crazy cats have taxation without representation, have colonies without a vote. I recall that sort of nonsense stirred a revolution once before...

      Every couple of years we propose that Puerto Rico either become a State or become independent. They keep insisting that they don't want to do either. Alas, you can't force people to rebel when they like things they way they are.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    14. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they do not want to be states, therefore they do not get the same power as states. They are allowed in the primaries though. look it up.

    15. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saipan: recently the largest importer, due to there being no import duties, of "Made in America" textile products. Also, coincidentally, as a commonwealth entity not bound by American legal protections, the largest collection of sweatshop labor on American soil.

    16. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Actually, the only US 'colony' that pays taxes and doesn't have a vote is the District of Columbia. They have been trying to get a real representative in Congress for years but the Republicans have been blocking it since they would probably be a Democratic representative.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    17. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      Washington DC does though.

    18. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The States elect the president not the people. Puerto Rico chose its territory status by electing not to become a State. If it wants 3 votes it can initiate the statehood process. Pretty much the same goes for the rest of our territories.

    19. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most residents of the places you mention do not, in fact, pay any federal income tax.

      Now, washington, d.c. on the other hand does have have 3 electoral votes, but no representation in congress. yet d.c. residents pay full federal taxes.

    20. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Puerto Rico rejects the vote to avoid federal taxes.

      The other areas are too small to qualify for statehood and representation, but do not pay federal taxes either.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    21. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by CFTM · · Score: 1

      I could totally be wrong on this, as I don't pretend to be any kind of expert, but I was under the impression that they had "representation" in that there was a representative for them in the US Government but they had no actual voting rights.

    22. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Did Puerto Rico vote? American Samoa? Marshall islanders? You crazy cats have taxation without representation, have colonies without a vote. I recall that sort of nonsense stirred a revolution once before...

      Indeed. We need to either cut them free or turn them into real states. Empires are out of style.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    23. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there is no taxation without representation.

      Except for FICA, which funds social security and medicare, both of which are available to people in those areas. No income tax though.

    24. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but those territories did send delegates to the party conventions; they aren't quite out of the political process altogether.

    25. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by fprintf · · Score: 1

      Given the new power structure it should be a very quick move for the Democrats to unblock the Republicans and give Washington D.C. the representatives they deserve.

      *crickets*

      Exactly. They couldn't get it done during the Carter administration nor during the first Bill Clinton term, both instances of Democrat control of congress with a Democrat President. So I really doubt it is solely the Republicans blocking it.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    26. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those islands are treated fairly. Puerto Rico is the only one with a significant civilian population and they voted to not become a state. A democratic choice to not be represented. If you want to complain about taxation without representation, look at Washington DC.

    27. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Residents of Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Marshall Islands do not pay federal income tax. They do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes but they are also eligible for benefits from those programs. To have representation in Congress (relevant to "taxation without representation"), those territories would need to petition for statehood. Puerto Rico, in particular, has consistently voted not to do so.

      Moreover, if they wanted independence, all they have to do is vote for it. By their own decision Puerto Rico is under the US criminal law system and military protection, but under their own independent civil law system.

    28. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puerto Rico has had several opportunities to become a state. Their people have decided against it each time.

    29. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't get to vote for President and they don't pay federal income tax. They do get to vote for their local government, and also get to decide if they want to become a state, become an independent country, or stay just the way they are.

      They are US citizens, and we are not holding them down. They just happen to like having most of the benefits of being part of the US and not having a lot of the drawbacks.

    30. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the

      they dont get federally taxed and rely heavily on federal aid

    31. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may not have representation, but they don't have taxation.

    32. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Atheose · · Score: 1

      They actually get all of the benefits of being a state (federal-funding for projects, use of our currency, trade rights, etc) without having to pay taxes. Most of the politicians in Puerto Rico are vehemently against requesting statehood for those reasons.

    33. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by mspohr · · Score: 1
      I think the operative phrase here is 'filibuster proof' majority which the democrats haven't had.

      DC license plate motto 'Taxation without Representation'. (BTW, to add insult to injury, federal workers in DC don't have to pay tax to DC.)

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    34. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did Puerto Rico vote? American Samoa? Marshall islanders? You crazy cats have taxation without representation, have colonies without a vote. I recall that sort of nonsense stirred a revolution once before...

      they choose not to become a full state of the united states. Its no ones fault but there own

    35. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by trampel · · Score: 1

      You touch a valid point, but to my knowledge Puerto Rico does not pay federal taxes.

    36. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because receiving the majority of benefits of taxation, without the majority of the taxing parts is a big issue. That and the whole Marshall Islands being independent from the US, and not under US taxes...

    37. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by zehaeva · · Score: 1

      I thought we offered statehood to Puerto Rico and they refused it?

    38. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by ricegf · · Score: 1

      They vote in the primaries (which are not mentioned in the constitution), but not in the presidential election (which is). The District of Columbia had the same problem, and we had to amend the constitution to give'em their 3 electoral votes (and they went >90% Obama).

      Like most citizens, I'd be happy for Puerto Rico to become a state of the USA, or an independent country, whichever they prefer. Unfortunately, polls show no clear consensus among Puerto Ricans as to whether they want to be a state, nation or commonwealth.

      But at least it gives people something to complain about. :-)

    39. Re:Anyone know about the rest of the US? by 3p1ph4ny · · Score: 1

      Puerto Rico has voted twice against becoming a state.

  68. Obligitory Simpsons by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kent Brockman: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.

  69. Obama's message by bugeaterr · · Score: 1

    A man is *not* entitled to the sweat of his brow.

    (I need to lay off the Bioshock) ;)

  70. Bribing the public with the public's money by vincecate · · Score: 1

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835, Democracy in America, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America

    1. Re:Bribing the public with the public's money by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      Errr...you mean the tax rebates that Bush used to buy up everyone's votes?

    2. Re:Bribing the public with the public's money by vincecate · · Score: 1

      I don't really have a date that Congress/Presidents/candidates started bribing the public, but I think they have all discovered this.

    3. Re:Bribing the public with the public's money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship" -- Sir Alex Fraser Tytler

  71. Re:The socialists are coming by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1

    run for your liiiiiiives!

  72. Yup yup yup! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

    Nothing worth seeing here folks!

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
  73. Democrats and Republicans represent the same ideal by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A person who lived through the collapse of the soviet union once pointed out that in America, the only relevant political parties are the Capitalist party and the Capitalist party. Democrats and Republicans disagree on a handful of very minor issues, despite all the media trumpeting about one being "left" and one being "right." The Democrats will still pass legislation that favours big businesses, just a different group of businesses. No president since the 1950s has served an entire term without engaging America in some foreign conflict. The use of signals intelligence operations to spy on foreign businesses and pass along their trade secrets to US businesses has occurred during both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and during both Democrat and Republican control of Congress.

    If America wanted serious change, change that was not just superficial, then one of the third party candidates would have one.

    At the very least, it is a good thing that the neoconservative movement appears to have weakened a bit in this election. Do not confuse neoconservative and Republican -- while most neocons are Republicans, most Republicans are not neoconservative and many Republicans found the neoconservatives to be embarrassing.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  74. Congratulations, USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Congratulations, a smart move.

    ~ Canada ~

    1. Re:Congratulations, USA by bytethese · · Score: 1

      I think you are thanking us because your population won't increase as drastically in the next year...

    2. Re:Congratulations, USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree

      ~ México ~

  75. Re:All I can say now is... by bigmouth_strikes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's going to take a lot of hard work to undo the backward progress and bad decisions that the Bush gov't lied and cheated the American people into. But it's a serious job for grown-ups who are not afraid let reason and long-term strategy prevail, instead of fighting fire with fire 'til the house is burnt down. Luckily, there will soon be a responsible adult in the White House.

    --
    Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
  76. Hope by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    I'm hopeful that he's up to the challenge. I didn't support him but this country really needs for him to succeed. I know a lot of people are resentful but the fact is that for the next 4 years he's going to be the man in charge. If he fails to properly handle the problems we have now the country will suffer gravely for it. We need to pray for God to give him wisdom and guidance.

  77. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by will_die · · Score: 1

    Hopfully Binden will stick with his word and under Obama they will switch to a new system something not seen under Bush and which Obama/Binden followers will not understand which has to be conservatism.

  78. Well... A "uniter" after all. by kosty · · Score: 1

    But I gotta' wonder if George W. Bu$h ever dreamed he'd be THIS much of a "uniter."

    --
    "Democracy." It's just a slogan.
  79. probably not break 175 by fermion · · Score: 1, Troll
    What is interesting is that McCain won't get more than 175 electoral votes. Last spring I looked at states based on race and income and figured that he McCain could clear close 200 electoral votes based solely on those factors, while obama might be able to get 100. This meant that they would be fighting over maybe 250 votes, of which McCain would only need around 70, or less than a third. I expected it be much closer than around 65% win for Obama.

    I sort of felt this thing might happen when Palin was selected. She was a women trying to reach a very conservative male base that has been steeped in two years of bashing Hilary Clinton and Pelosi. She brought he unwed pregnant daughter with the baby's daddy like they were the holy couple, and by the way have never announced a wedding date, again in a party that has characterized pregnant teens as future welfare moms. This probably cost McCain crucial states in the east that lead to disaster in the west. It is pretty bad when you have less than 10 votes, and your opponent is approaching 100.

    In any case I think we can look on the bright side. Instead of MBA graduate who whined his way into the program on a legacy, we have a Harvard graduate that has consistently advanced on his merits.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:probably not break 175 by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can call any man who was tortured for 5 1/2 years and is left with a permanent disability a whiner.

      Either way, I think the difference we saw in electoral votes between those two time periods had more to do with pissed off Hillary supporters more than Palin haters.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    2. Re:probably not break 175 by Dave+Tucker+Online · · Score: 1

      we have a Harvard graduate that has consistently advanced on his merits

      You mean "merit". Public speaking.

      I hope that we can look forward to a future where we all change and come together in the spirit of unity and fairness for the good of this great nation.

      Can I be president now too? Please? How about I throw in some tax credits?

    3. Re:probably not break 175 by Hillgiant · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow. Racism, sexism, class warfare, and teen parenthood. All in two and a half paragraphs.

      You are some kind of trolling GOD.

      --
      -
    4. Re:probably not break 175 by ricegf · · Score: 1

      You're seriously misreading conservatives. If you've ever made the effort to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, and you should if only to understand those you hate, you'd know that conservatives adore Ms. Palin; it's McCain they can't stand.

      In any event, the popular vote was 52% to 47% - relatively close, and rather comparable to the 2004 election. Obama's much stronger electoral vote showing in 2008 than Bush's in 2004 is a testament to Obama's skills as a campaigner (and perhaps a little luck) - he managed to carry virtually every battleground state by a slim margin, without losing any of his expected-to-win states. Masterfully played, indeed.

    5. Re:probably not break 175 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We all listen to these people. We all know that they love palin, other wise they would talk about the Joe the Terrorist(Vogler), her best friend. But love is not votes, which is the basis of the Bradley effect. No one is going to admit they are misogynistic and won't elect a woman, but in the privacy of the polls...

      And these crackpots stated in 2000 and 2004, the margins are not the issue. The mandate is not the issue. Winning is. Stacking the courts, forcing women to carry the child to death, tapping phones, and fighting muslims are the issues. Of course they now changing their tune now that Obama has the power to tap any of their phone calls without a warrant, thank to Bush. Complaining about lack of mandates, margins, etc. This is what we call hypocrisy.

    6. Re:probably not break 175 by internic · · Score: 1

      In any event, the popular vote was 52% to 47% - relatively close, and rather comparable to the 2004 election.

      Currently the Washington Post has it at about 53% to 47% (looking at the actual vote totals, they've rounded each down by one percent for some reason). That makes it a 6% margin, which is double the margin of Bush's victory in 2004. That would probably put it in the category of considerably more decisive, but not a blowout. It could be argued, for example, that it's closer to the margin of, say, George H. W. Bush over Dukakis than that of George W. Bush over Kerry. But it's also nothing like a Reagan over Mondale victory.

      Obama's much stronger electoral vote showing in 2008 than Bush's in 2004 is a testament to Obama's skills as a campaigner (and perhaps a little luck)

      I think it probably says more about the distorting effects of the electoral college and the "first past the pole" system, actually. It'd be interesting to see what statistical distribution of the possible electoral margins would look like for other probable scenarios consistent with the observed popular vote, but I would guess that in most cases a 6% lead would translate into a relatively large electoral lead because of the aforementioned distorting effects. I guess something to look at is the electoral vote prediction histogram on Fivethirtyeight.com, which suggests that the vast majority of scenarios had Obama winning a considerably larger EV total than GWB.

      he managed to carry virtually every battleground state by a slim margin, without losing any of his expected-to-win states.

      It looks to me (from glancing at Fivethirtyeight.com and Electoral-vote.com that his performance was fairly consistent with the polls in a manner that's not all that shocking.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    7. Re:probably not break 175 by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      What a pity the republicans here cannot emulate the grace and nobility of Mc Cain acceptance of defeat.

      I am no fan of republican poilitics, but I reckon McCain would have maed a very good president. What a pity it was Bush not McCain who won in 2000.

      For 8 years the world has been under a black cloud.

      For the first time it seems to be lifting.

    8. Re:probably not break 175 by ricegf · · Score: 1

      Or you can examine the race against historical precedent. Here's the difference in popular and electoral vote percentages the last 7 elections (that is, the first number is the difference between the higher and lower percentage of popular votes, the second the difference between the higher and lower percentage electoral votes):

      18.3 95.2 1984
      07.8 58.7 1988
      05.3 37.6 1992
      08.5 40.9 1996
      -0.5 00.0 2000
      02.4 06.3 2004
      06.2 36.3 2008

      Obama's two numbers are fairly consistent with the electoral college "distortion" you mention above, and also shows this election was a return to normalcity (to coin a phrase) after two very anomalous elections.

    9. Re:probably not break 175 by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Wow. Racism, sexism, class warfare, and teen parenthood.

      Damn. Slashdot just got me pregnant! Gee, thanks guys.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    10. Re:probably not break 175 by internic · · Score: 1

      Right. Although 1992 and 1996 turn out to be somewhat anomalous too, because there was a third party candidate who actually got a significant amount of the vote (particularly in 1992). I was really interested to look at the electoral college maps for Reagan vs. Mondale and Nixon vs. McGovern to see the "distortion" at work. In each case I think the losers got only one state, despite having still something like 40% of the popular vote.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    11. Re:probably not break 175 by doom · · Score: 1

      Political scientists were predicting that with the current economic conditions there was no way that the incumbent party could stay in power -- and they were saying that before the melt-down and bail-out.

  80. Didn't The Who say it best? by negative3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Come meet the new boss, same as the old boss... I'd prefer neither party have clear control of the legislative branch, then they would have to work together and couldn't push their own agenda through. Neither side has the right or total answer to any problem.

    --
    "Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation." - Richard Feynman
    1. Re:Didn't The Who say it best? by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      Actually, they get to push both of their pandering agendas through on the subject of compromise without doing anything substantial.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    2. Re:Didn't The Who say it best? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer neither party have clear control of the legislative branch, then they would have to work together and couldn't push their own agenda through.

      Fine and dandy when government action needs to be prevented, like the Iraq war, the Military Commissions Act, or telecom immunity. Not so great when action needs to be taken and the minority party is breaking all filibuster records.

  81. Unfortunate day for the United States by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 0, Troll

    We've discovered something about ourselves, style matters over substance today. A man with little to no political accomplishments in his career was able to win the presidency by reading speaches written by others and looking more attractive than his opponent.

    I took one look at his voting record in the Senate and made up my mind immediately. He has by far the most radical political history of any candidate of a major party, and he was able to hide this for over 2 years successfully.

    At this point we can all just hope his voting record was a fluke. I doubt it.

    1. Re:Unfortunate day for the United States by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      What? You're surprised? Surely you remember Clinton? Fortunately with Clinton he was too busy laying sausage to spend time screwing up the country. I can only hope that, like Clinton, Obama will keep himself busy continuing to campaign even though he has already won and won't have time to fulfill the promises he made. Promises which the populace seems to be excited about, but frankly scared the hell out of me.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:Unfortunate day for the United States by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

      Why don't you make things interesting and cite some of the things that make your hair turn white? People here might be able to provide context or insight regarding those choices, or maybe they'll justify your fears. Either way, there's no point repeating talking points (Democratic or Republican). They waste everyone's time.

    3. Re:Unfortunate day for the United States by Gary · · Score: 1

      I have similar feelings, although I'm hopeful that Obama honors the platform he ran on and stays just slightly left of center. Clinton did this. He was pretty liberal, but definitely ran the Presidency just slightly left of center. Of course Clinton had a GOP congress to keep him in check. No such luck with Obama.

      It actually scares me more to have a one-party system than it does to have a liberal president. Thank all that's holy the Senate Repubs still have enough to filibuster anything that's too far left, like a national police force.

      I see this as more a failure of the republican party than anything else. Bush was/is not very conservative as far as I can tell and while I believe it was the right thing to do to go in to Iraq, Bush's reasons were extremely flawed, whether outright lies or just honest bad intelligence. Also the repubs put up some lousy candidates given the climate. They needed someone young and dynamic, like Obama, but instead we got old stiff business men that you could practically see reading their speeches word for word off their teleprompters. Of course they all do that, but Obama makes it look natural.

  82. Where'd all the support go? by sydney+troz · · Score: 0

    Interesting -- at the time I posted this, most of the most emphatic congratulations were coming from outside the USA -- given past stories on Obama, I would have expected more support. Meh, maybe his demographic just hasn't woken up yet.

    While I'm at it, congrats from a Canadian :D

    1. Re:Where'd all the support go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have to get up. Their redistribution checks came on the first of the month.

  83. I was worried, even after they called it by LordKronos · · Score: 2, Funny

    At the time they called Obama as the president, there was still a lot to be counted. Between the 11 PM call and when I went to bed at 12:30, the entire time all of Obama's important leads were shrinking. 10%...8%...6%...5%, some even down to 2%-3%. I was honestly worried about a premature call, and wondering what would happen if I woke up and things had flipped. McCain: "yeah....ummmm....about that concession..."

    1. Re:I was worried, even after they called it by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I just watched the Daily Show coverage and was amazed that they were 'calling' states while the small print in the corner said things like '19% of precincts reported'. Is this really enough to make the call? It reminded me of an Asimov short story. The premise was that, over the years, election prediction became more and more sophisticated until eventually the machine only needed to know the choice of one voter to be able to call the election.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:I was worried, even after they called it by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      This is a specific situation, however, where we already know most of the votes beforehand. there are districts, even states, that will not change color under any circumstances. Essentially, because these states are not battleground states, they don't have a vote. This is a problem that'll have to be fixed at some point in the future.

      As of right now, the election isn't decided by party lines but by how close one candidate has to get to the other party to steal the most votes he can. In this case, McCain distanced himself too far from the democratic voters (like he could have won them anyway) and lost. You might say he intended to. Seeing him have to defend Obama against the accusations that he was a terrorist and an "Arab" was at the same time depressing and rewarding. It's sad that there's so much fearmongering out there that people would believe that, and nice to see that McCain was not evil enough to take advantage of their fear for his own gain.

      In any event, politics is mostly decided ahead of time, and I'd love to see the day that the whole country decides to change their minds. But there are far too many old people out there who don't understand that they get to choose, that it isn't an "us versus them" game.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    3. Re:I was worried, even after they called it by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Exit polls, good sir, exit polls. They have 19% of the precincts actually reporting numbers, but they can get a much better idea by asking people as they exit the polls.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    4. Re:I was worried, even after they called it by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      My wife had tangential question last night - why is it that Ohio and Florida tend to decide the election.

      There's no nefariousness here, just simple demographics. There's no "fix" actually needed, unless you believe that the election should be a simple popular vote.

      In many states, the majority of voters hold values which align closely with one party or another. In these cases, it is a forgone conclusion that the state will end up with a majority for a particular party. Often, the states have areas which lean in opposite directions. Depending on which districts come in first, the vote may seem skewed opposite of the prediction. Mark Warner (D), in Virginia, for example was declared the winner within an hour of the polls closing. The right-leaning south and western portions of the state had him in the lead before the left-leaning north had turned in any results. If he won in the "enemy" territory, he was basically a shoe-in.

      Ohio, Florida, and the other "battleground" states are fairly well balanced left-right, and as such their electoral votes are in play because of the uniform demographic mix. It doesn't make California, Texas, or Washington D.C. any less necessary, but nobody every worries about those states having the majority switch.

      Also, if the exit polls are significantly lopsided, they will call the election just after the polls close. That's a change from the past, when they would start calling states before the polls closed based on the exits. That tended to skew the results because people for the winner didn't bother to vote, and people for the loser were emboldened to falsify the prediction. Once the polls close there's no fear of affecting the outcome.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:I was worried, even after they called it by m50d · · Score: 1

      They will have applied statistics before calling. Which means they'll only be wrong 5% of the time.

      --
      I am trolling
    6. Re:I was worried, even after they called it by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      well The west coast was for him as sure as shit. All they really needed was to be sure he'd made 200 on the east and the rest was in the bag.

    7. Re:I was worried, even after they called it by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You needn't worry about it. You're thinking of Florida, and that did happen, but for the most part, the voting patterns of various states and counties is well known. People really don't change their mind very much about these things.

      Basically, an election like this, especially with an electoral college means that you only need certain states to win, and inside those states there are only certain places where you are liable to have any "unknowns" of any number.

      In Virginia, for instance, everyone knew that most of Northern Virginia was going to be for Obama and the more rural areas were owned by McCain. However, due to the changing demographics and characteristics of a place like Prince William county, you could pretty much call the election based on who won there. Obama won there, and as a result he was going to take the state. And he did.

      Exit polling and statistics work very well. In Florida in 2004 they failed mostly because the race was very, very tight, well within the margin of error. This year, there was never really any risk of getting it substantially wrong.

      Although we see an Obama landslide in Electoral votes, it masks the fact that he only won by a few percent of the popular vote. Better than most recent presidents, to be sure, but it shows just how decisive a very small portion of the electorate can be. And given that you only really have to worry about that small sample of undecideds, its not hard to call the elections based on small reporting samples and exit polls.

  84. NOW FIX SOMETHING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or we'll work as hard to kick your ass out in 4 years as we did to put you in.

    1. Re:NOW FIX SOMETHING by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Obama is not going to fix anything. His campaign promised to put in policies which will actually make things much worse. That's why I voted against him. I voted for mcCain not because I was excited about him, but because I was terrified of Obama's policies, promises and voting records.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:NOW FIX SOMETHING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you're a right-wing moron.

    3. Re:NOW FIX SOMETHING by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      And like those who didn't vote, you are an anonymous coward, so you're opinion doesn't count. Besides you are not allowed to hold an opinion that is wrong.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:NOW FIX SOMETHING by cl0s · · Score: 1

      And Palin doesn't scare you!? McCain has a few heartbeats left, and I just don't see Palin really making her own decisions, she'll get played more than Bush. Believe me I'm more conservative in normal circumstances, when it comes to any type of regulation, size of government, taxes, etc. But neo-conservative is not the same as conservative. I guess you could see voting for a 3rd party is the same as throwing a vote away, but if that was the case voting against Obama was pretty much a waste of time as well. He had this won months ago.

      Whoever ran as a Democrat had this won months ago.

      Also, 2008 has 2 months left and that's all Bush.

    5. Re:NOW FIX SOMETHING by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Palin doesn't scare me because congress is predominantly democrat. If McCain had won, then very few bills would be able to get through. I see this as a positive thing.
      What really scares me is this morning I heard our (Oklahoma) senator speaking about how congress wants to tax 401k in our state and Texas $3,000 because of our energy consumption. Apparently, congress has forgotten that Texas and Oklahoma are energy producing states.
      I'm also worried about the increased tax on the wealthy. You know, the people who earn more than $300k, uh $250k, that is $200k, I mean $150k, yes $97k. Not that I make that much, but it doesn't take a genius to see that this number is soon going to slide even further. My guess is it will stop at about $35k. So I am going to be taxed more heavily and I will have to take on a fourth job in order to maintain the same standard of living.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  85. Election results coverage by sjonke · · Score: 1

    I worried, while watching the results unfold, that we were witnessing another 2000. Thankfully that wasn't the case, but I still have to ask - how can you declare a winner in a given state when only 5% or some other small percent of the vote has been tallied? Exit polls are what they went on in 2000 and resulted in that results reporting fiasco. I guess the networks have decided that 8 years is enough time to pass and now they can go back to their irresponsible ways. This time it didn't bite them, but next?

    --
    --- What?
    1. Re:Election results coverage by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

      They had the results a month ago, provided by ACORN and Ohio Secretary of State, Frau Brunner (cue horse whinnying sound effect).

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    2. Re:Election results coverage by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered that too, but bear in mind that a properly done statistical sample of 500 or 1000 people can be surprisingly accurate in predicting how millions will react. Not that I'm claiming there were doing proper statistics, or not doing them....

      What really amused me was that some states, with zero returns, were thrown (by CNN) to Obama, while others showing a 60/40 split were listed as 'undecided.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    3. Re:Election results coverage by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      What amuses me is that Missouri is currently listed as undetermined with a 0.2% difference between McCain and Obama. It sort of makes me feel like my vote, which I cast for someone who wasn't McCain or Obama, was more valuable.

      Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, and Ralph Nader each got more votes – individually – than it would have taken to swing the lead the other way.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:Election results coverage by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      This morning, I went to check if Al Franken won the senate seat he was after. As of, oh, 10 am this morning or so, he was losing. By 570 votes. 1.2 million votes for him and for the encumbant. That's a close race.

      I said this eight years ago (when some blue folk were bitching about Gore winning the popular vote, but Bush winning the EC) that the EC made sense when the US of A really were the United States, rather than what it is now, which is a single country called America. Get rid of the EC, standardize voting methods and so on. OR, get the federal gov't out of the day to day lives of state citizens, the way it was originally intended.

      Also, I said eight years ago, and I still say, switch to some from of Condorcet voting.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    5. Re:Election results coverage by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Exit polls: You go around asking people how they voted. Your margin of error is related to your sample size. If you ask enough people, and the spread between the candidates is large enough, you can be pretty sure of who will win.

  86. 8 years of Bush by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

    In the newspapers here (in Holland) i read a lot of comments from US citizens who are "glad 8 years of Bush are over". I find this funny and interesting because there's a good chance that some of these commenters played a part in the re-election of Bush. It just takes them another 4 years to see how bad things were in the first 4 years?

    1. Re:8 years of Bush by PK+Tech+Guy · · Score: 1

      You forget Bush's victories were both very close. The 2000 election had to be decided by the Supreme Court and for 2004, in percentage terms it was the closest popular margin ever for a victorious sitting president. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004

    2. Re:8 years of Bush by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      After 2004, it seemed that there were only two possibilities:
      1. America was no longer a democratic republic - people voted, but enough were ignored that it didn't make a difference, and the outcome was decided by some shadowy oligarchy.
      2. Americans really were that stupid.

      Of the two, I wasn't sure which was more worrying. The second seemed more likely, with the BBC running interviews with red state voters saying that they thought Bush was well-respected on an international level and were glad that he'd signed the Kyoto accord.

      Having watched some of Obama's longer presentations and read some of his writings, I'm glad he won, but I can't help feeling that he won for the wrong reason. The cult of personality following him around give him a lot more personal power than any recent politician I can think of outside some real socialist states. How he will use that power remains to be seen.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:8 years of Bush by PRMan · · Score: 1

      It's simple.

      Bush wasn't that bad in the first 4 years, and Kerry was worse.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:8 years of Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, on my part, I can state that I didn't vote for him either time.

    5. Re:8 years of Bush by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

      That's really bad, having to vote for the lesser of two evils (i think this is the expression, sorry if i'm wrong). It's also scary to think anyone running for president and almost winning could do a worse job than Bush.

      Well, i really hope you now have a competent president with Obama.

  87. News for nerds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stuff that matters?

    1. Re:News for nerds. by bytethese · · Score: 1

      Are you saying nerds don't vote? If so, that's a shame. :)

  88. This is an excellent day by bheer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FWIW, my 2c are that the better candidate won. But this is not a landslide by any means -- despite massive turnout, 47% chose McCain. It's great that Obama acknowledged these people and and said he's going to be their president, too. Quite a change from the divisiveness of the past.

    Science-fiction writer John Scalzi had an excellent reality check about an Obama administration I urge all Obama supporters to read. If you're realistic about the man, great. If you're hoping for the moon -- well, this might just save you a lot of disappointment later.

    1. Re:This is an excellent day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's great that Obama acknowledged these people and and said he's going to be their president, too. ...and if they don't like it, they can get the FUCK out! :-)

  89. Too bad it's over by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

    No more SNL sketches about Palin :(

    1. Re:Too bad it's over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but "Nailin' Palin" will live on forever in the video collections of /.ers.

    2. Re:Too bad it's over by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      she'll be back - probably with arnie as VP for the next election.... ;)

    3. Re:Too bad it's over by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      Wait until 2011. You will get more sketches about Palin. Far more than you probably want.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  90. Did you hear his speech? by spectrokid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did you listen to the same speech as I did? Of course he thanked his campaign team, these people just busted their ass for the last 6 months. But he also clearly pointed out the problems lying ahead. What did you want him to say? Make a list of all his plans again? A majority of americans just APPROVED those plans! He clearly stated that this election by itself did not constitute change, that the promessed change was only now starting and would not be possible without the hard work of all americans.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:Did you hear his speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Platitudinally chanting about change in direction and about plans? What plans? Fucking up the conomy? Wealth redistribution? Taxes? Socialized Medicine and waiting in line because doctors make too much under the new O'bama administration (killing incentive to become a Doctor much like Medicare has already done with it's shitty payments)? Yeah! Im all in you moon eyed does! Just goes to prove Eduma cation and critical thinking haven't really been taught well - Indoctrination 101 on the other hand and learning to hate your country 102? - Right on track

    2. Re:Did you hear his speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He clearly stated that this election by itself did not constitute change, that the promessed change was only now starting and would not be possible without the hard work of all americans.

      If he let that "hard work" part slip any earlier, it may have cost him a few votes.

    3. Re:Did you hear his speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A majority of americans, including Obama, have no idea what those plans are.

      You have another joker as a president. Probably as stupid as the previous bozo, who you idiots reelected!

    4. Re:Did you hear his speech? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      People just aren't paying attention. I agree with Obama that a lot of work and sacrifice will be necessary. The yapping puppy dogs among our fellow citizens may not have grasped that quite yet. It will very likely and unfortunately get worse before it gets better, and yet we all have to work together and get through to the other side. Many, many people will not take this very well.

  91. Re:Don't worry by dbIII · · Score: 1

    You'll feel better after we impose Sharia

    No, the Republicans lost and while giving lip service to various exteme Christian fundamentalists that would like some sort of Biblical law they would never have gone that far either. Some don't think Church and State should be different but most do.

    However it looks like education requires a bit of work if people actually get things so badly mixed up.

  92. BAD NEWS FOR SLASHDOTTERS by drsmack1 · · Score: 1

    We will now have to sharply limit complaining about privacy issues and everything else that has been complained about for the last eight years. We can expect to lose fully 85% of total post content as any criticism of government could be seen as criticism of our great leader.

    We will now be ignoring all of the things that we have been so noisy about; just like when Clinton was in office. Now we go back to the pre-Bush slashdot; where the stealing of FBI files to be used for purely political purposes barely registers.

    All of the issues that we have superficially held fast to will have to be discarded as they can no longer be used to bludgeon our political opponents.

    I for one welcome our new unaccountable overlords!

  93. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Newsflash: Obama voted for all of that in the Senate.

  94. Re:A Good Day by TheCrazyMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Honestly I could care less what whether our next president is white or black. I tend to be more concerned with things that will actually effect the future of myself and the country. What does concern me is people voting for a president based on the color of his skin. They have word for that, it's called racism.

  95. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under Bush we all got "Stimulus checks" redistribution of wealth, we "nationalized banks", we "nationalized insurance companies", we "nationalized brokerage houses", and we gave trillions in welfare to Iraq...

    And now you're worried about socialism?

    Welcome to last year.

    Wow, out of all the posts this guy was the biggest dumb ass. Congratulations !

  96. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or as Putin likes to put it: Welcome to last century, dudes!

  97. As an Englishman by cloakable · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let me say this:

    THANK FUCK.

    --
    No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
  98. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

    Well, I can guarantee you that I know where I was at the election of any President of the United States during my conscious life: waking up in my bed listening to the announcement on the radio alarm clock ;-)

  99. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by techsoldaten · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No joke. Plus the suspension of basic civil rights, undercutting the posse comitatus act, widespread government surveilance of civilians, launching wars that benefit noone. GOP socialism is the worst kind of socialism anyone could ever think of.

    M

  100. From a Canadian by Hierophant7 · · Score: 1

    Last night I was at a Smashing Pumpkins concert in Toronto, and when the band took the stage again for the encore, Billy Corgan informed us of the presidential results, and the theatre burst into cheering and applause. Just thought you yanks would like to know you've got our support from the North!

  101. Re:All I can say now is... by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

    Yeah that inexperienced thing is patently retarded. He has about the same level of experience as Kennedy and more importantly, he's intelligent enought to surround himself with good advisors rather than sycophants and criminals.

  102. Mod parent insightful, but ... by querist · · Score: 1

    I agree with your assessment of the situation and I sincerely hope you are correct.

    As a US Citizen, however, it concerns me that President Elect Obama received around 97% of the African American vote. I find it difficult to believe that 97% of African Americans agree on critical policies. In other words, it appears that many people voted based on race, not on policy.

    While Mr. Obama's election may indeed help improve things as you have said, I feel that it is a sad state of affairs when the candidate's race was the deciding factor for a large number of voters. I fully realize that there are many people who voted against Mr. Obama for the exact same reason, but the difference here is that about 97% of African American voters voted for Obama. The split of non-African American voters for each candidate is about what one would expect based on policies.

    Yes, Mr. Obama's election is indications of movement forward on many fronts, but it is only a small step, not a radical shift. We (the USA) have a long way to go.

    I find it particularly interesting that the CAPTCHA for this post is "harmony".

    1. Re:Mod parent insightful, but ... by bugeaterr · · Score: 1

      it concerns me that President Elect Obama received around 97% of the African American vote

      Blacks voted solely on race in this election and I don't blame them.
      However, it *will* concern me if he gets that number in the *next* election.
      97% reflects the desire to bring on this euphoric milestone of a post-racial society.
      I was watching Fox News when they called it for Obama last night.
      I teared up with Juan Williams as he emoted about what this meant to him and this country.
      Now that this threshold has been crossed, I'm hoping blacks will feel free to vote issues *not* race in future elections.
      We will see.

    2. Re:Mod parent insightful, but ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      As a US Citizen, however, it concerns me that President Elect Obama received around 97% of the African American vote

      Out of interest, how do you know this? I thought you had secret ballots, and couldn't find out how someone voted. Or do you have to enter your both your candidate and your skin colour on the new ballots?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Mod parent insightful, but ... by querist · · Score: 1

      Your question is valid, and I hope that I will be able to answer it adequately.

      You are correct. We have a secret ballot system here in the USA and except under very specific circumstances (disability and absentee ballots), no-one should be able to know how any other individual voted unless the voter volunteers the information.

      Given that, however, there are way to obtain fairly reliable (within a small margin of error, statistically speaking) estimates of such matters.

      The first is that many, if not all, states require race information on voter registration. This is intended to aid in proper identification at polling places. Date of birth and address are included at least on my state's registration card, so these data can be cross-checked with a photo ID such as a driver's license.

      Given that voter race information is available to the voter registration board for individuals, aggregate information (x% white, y% African American, z% Hispanic, etc) is made available to the media for analysis based on each precinct.

      There are many precincts that are mostly African American.

      By examining precinct-by-precinct results it is possible to obtain a broad estimate when there are precincts that are largly one race or another.

      That, in and of itself, does not give the 97% figure.

      The 97% figure is based on exit polls and is supported by the by-precinct results when compared with the racial demographics of the precincts.

      Yes, people can lie on exit polls. Yes, people can refuse to answer. However, this is the best we can do.

      So, you are correct, I do not KNOW. However, there is a preponderance of evidence, also supported by the fact that the media are pushing these numbers, that support the 97% figure, give or take a few percentage points.

    4. Re:Mod parent insightful, but ... by carnalforge · · Score: 1

      Well, probably when it wont be an "uncommon" thing to have a black president anymore African Americans will start choosing what to vote based on critical polices.

      --
      :wq!
    5. Re:Mod parent insightful, but ... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      As a US Citizen, however, it concerns me that President Elect Obama received around 97% of the African American vote. I find it difficult to believe that 97% of African Americans agree on critical policies. In other words, it appears that many people voted based on race, not on policy.

      Quick, someone gag him!

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    6. Re:Mod parent insightful, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much of the African American vote did previous Democratic presidents receive? I don't know the answer, but I do know that traditionally, Americans of African ancestry tend to support democrats more than republicans.

      Cheers

    7. Re:Mod parent insightful, but ... by mewshi_nya · · Score: 1

      just so you know, Kerry got like 85% of the black vote. It's a party thing, not a race thing.

    8. Re:Mod parent insightful, but ... by TheNumberSix · · Score: 1

      It figures that in this hideous thread with a jillion partisans beating up each other, I find an **actually informative** post that is hate-free, and I got no mod points. Blearg!

      --
      Never confuse feeling with thinking.
    9. Re:Mod parent insightful, but ... by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that they don't think their own best interests and that of their community is going to be best served by Obama? African Americans in the large majority already vote Democrat.

      More importantly, why do you assume that it was the race of Obama alone that lead African Americans to vote for him? Hispanic Americans also turned out for Obama in the majority.

      Maybe it's partly because McCain, yet another silver spoon fed Washington insider who war hero or not was still given a golden ticket before and after the war because of who his daddy was and Palin related to those groups of people incredibly poorly. What policies or attempts to relate to the African Americans or Hispanic Americans did they make?

  103. McCain's Real Problem by ricegf · · Score: 1

    The Republicans will quickly realize that McCain lost because he didn't start his campaign early enough. They'll correct that problem by starting NOW... campaigning for the election of 2016.

    (Congrats to Obama. He's one of the best campaigners I've seen in more years than I'll admit to surviving.)

  104. Oh... one more question by bbroerman · · Score: 0, Troll

    Was there any rebuttal to the accusation that when Obama's mother married Lolo Soetoro, from Malaysia, and a young Obama entered school there, that his parents would have had to have taken Malaysian citizenship, renounced their US citizenship, and that Obama would have had to have been naturalized to regain it? There was "proof" shown that Obama's step father did "acknowledge" him as his son, thus making Obama a naturalized Malaysian citizen, and as the US does not allow dual citizenship, Obama would have lost his. There are school records showing that his citizenship at that time was listed as Malaysian, and his religion as islam (as non-islamics were not allowed schooling at the time). Just wondering if this has been resolved, or swept under the carpet...

    --
    Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
    1. Re:Oh... one more question by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

      It's been effectively swept under the carpet by the Obama Press Corps - namely, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. If you mention that stuff now, you are a tin-foil-hat-wearing nutjob, and agents from the Department of Mental Hygiene will be along shortly to escort you to a re-education center where you will be taught true love for your messiah and saviour, Barry O.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    2. Re:Oh... one more question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case you haven't heard, there's a guy running for president named Barack Hussein Osama Nobama. This Nobama was born outside America and secretly schooled in Islamic terrorism at a Wahhabi madrassa. He then moved to the United States to take up the radical '60s teachings of the Weather Underground's Bill Ayers, while also organizing for ACORN, a subprime-lending, voter fraud-committing collective of affirmative-action welfare queens. All this happened before he became an elitist celebrity advocate of socialism, infanticide, the sexual abuse of children and treason.

    3. Re:Oh... one more question by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      Does anyone apart from dumb fuck rednecks like you care?

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    4. Re:Oh... one more question by bbroerman · · Score: 1

      Ok, can you make an argument or comment rather than being profane and belligerent? This was a serious question. If there IS a problem that has been swept under the rug, this is a BIG constitutional issue. Or, does anyone apart from us rednecks care about the Constitution of the US? Seriously.

      --
      Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
    5. Re:Oh... one more question by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      All right, I'll bite - Obama's citizenship is a minor constitutional issue compared to the excesses perpetrated by Bush for the last 8 years - warrantless wiretapping, the effective suspension of habeus corpus, etc.

      If you're really that concerned about your constitution, you should be refreshing the tree of liberty with whatever you find available - Bush has around 8 pints, IIRC.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    6. Re:Oh... one more question by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 1

      It's all just a lot of red-tape bullcrap though, don't you think?

      --
      Would you like a slice of toast?
    7. Re:Oh... one more question by bbroerman · · Score: 1

      I agree. Bush's excesses should be investigated. As well as the members of the Congress and the Supreme Court who allowed it to happen. I strongly disagree with his domestic policies. I strongly disagree with the Congress and Supreme Court that let it happen. The reason we have 3 branches of government is so that things like this don't happen, and ALL 3 BRANCHES were responsible for this. We can't place 100% of this on Bush. He overreacted (as did most of us right after 9/11). But, his primary job is national security. He gets much less blame in my book than Congress and the Supreme Court whose jobs it is to look out for the Constitution and Law.

      --
      Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
    8. Re:Oh... one more question by bbroerman · · Score: 1

      What is? verifying that the president of the US is a natural born citizen? Ok class, what is the historical purpose of this provision of the US Constitution? What were the Founding Fathers thinking when putting this document together?

      --
      Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
    9. Re:Oh... one more question by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 1

      This would be like disqualifying him because his mother didn't tick the exact right box when registering his birth, or something stupid like that. Who cares?

      --
      Would you like a slice of toast?
    10. Re:Oh... one more question by bbroerman · · Score: 1

      Well, considering that this is the highest and most powerful position in the country, I would think that making doubly sure to "dot all the i's and cross all the t's" as it were, would be of utmost importance. For this job, at least, can we afford to be careless?

      --
      Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
    11. Re:Oh... one more question by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 1

      Dot them all from when he became politically responsible and accountable, yes, but I just can't see how the silly citizenship hurdles his parents had to go through just to send him to school has any relevance.

      Does it in any way make him fitter or weaker for the job of president? Is it really anything to do with him at all?

      --
      Would you like a slice of toast?
    12. Re:Oh... one more question by phlinn · · Score: 1

      The US does in fact allow Dual Citzenship

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    13. Re:Oh... one more question by bbroerman · · Score: 1

      One last point to ponder... If he is willing to side-step this Constitutional mandate, and hide it... what other laws is he willing and eager to avoid? For someone who will swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, shouldn't he be willing to follow it?

      --
      Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
    14. Re:Oh... one more question by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 1

      Well, hiding the matter would be a different thing entirely. A straight-out admission of whatever the facts maybe, and then doing whatever needs to be done, is obviously the proper course of action.

      If this would make his presidency unconstitutional then the constitution is silly and needs to be changed.

      --
      Would you like a slice of toast?
    15. Re:Oh... one more question by bbroerman · · Score: 1

      Well, there is a long standing method to update and modify the Constitution. Perhaps he should pursue this.

      Hell, I'd love to see Arnold as president! Lol...

      --
      Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
    16. Re:Oh... one more question by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 1

      No, no, it's Stephen Fry you want.

      --
      Would you like a slice of toast?
  105. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by grub · · Score: 2, Funny


    Hard work is penalized, and laziness will be rewarded.

    For hard working citizens such as yourself this cloud has a silver lining!

    Take the next 4 years off, don't work, drink beer all day. You'll be better off than if you had a job! That is, if you really believe what you just wrote.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  106. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    Wellfare to all is a reality on Brazil at long time. Is not perfect of course, but is better than nothing

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  107. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  108. Agreed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I voted for Barr - even though I was rooting for Obama.

    Why didn't I vote for Obama? Because I'm so disgusted with BOTH the Democratic and Republican parties that I,at least, wanted to send a message that, regardless of their candidate, I do not approve of their policies and direction.

    As far as I'm concerned, the Bill of Rights, all of them, are cast in stone. We can't pick and choose which ones to keep.

    Every square millimeter of the US is a Free Speech Zone.

    We have the right to bare arms. PERIOD. That means if I want a magazine that holds 50+ rounds, I can have it. If I want a machine gun, so be it. Handgun -you bet - and NO license if I want to carry.

    There is a separation between church and state. Religion has no business in government.

    1. Re:Agreed. by fprintf · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you have a right to bare arms, but I have no desire to see all that flabby elbow fat jiggling around.

      All joking aside, the purpose of guns was so that the populace could hold the government accountable to the people, and that if they got out of line the people would have an opportunity to rebel again. Unfortunately it is somewhat anacronistic to believe that personal handgun rights, or any of the things that you mention, would have any effect against a modern day government since they now have tanks, helicopter gunships, battleships and any number of arms that you cannot purchase. Basically you are owned and it seems we have slipped too far down a slippery slope to ever recover to the place where we could hope to defend ourselves against our government.

      It is unfortunate. And yet I am doing everything I can to afford a few newer guns soon, so that when the new government inevitably comes calling for all "registered" guns, I can have a few unregistered ones in reserve. I am originally from England and my family still over there had to surrender all their guns because they no longer had the land to privately shoot on nor belonged to a shooting club to shoot them at. So they had to sell them including my great-grandfather's shotgun that he used to shoot rabbits for dinner in the Welsh countryside. A shame that I hope does not repeat itself over here.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    2. Re:Agreed. by Xest · · Score: 1, Troll

      "We have the right to bare arms. PERIOD. That means if I want a magazine that holds 50+ rounds, I can have it. If I want a machine gun, so be it. Handgun -you bet - and NO license if I want to carry."

      But this is the problem with sticking so vigorously to your bill of rights. It was conceived in a day when machine guns simply didn't exist as they do today. When guns weren't something that could lead to a massacre of innocent people.

      You're assuming that when this was written into the bill of rights that it was written in with the knowledge that it was going to continue to be adhered to indefinitely regardless of how deadly weapons get. Do you feel it should even stretch as far as nuclear arms for example? if not why not?

      If you don't believe everyone and anyone should have the right to nuclear weaponry then you accept that a line has to be drawn somewhere and this is the problem with your view- you're drawing your own line and suggesting that the line set by your government is incorrect. The reality is neither of you are more correct than the other if both of you agree that the bill of rights shouldn't extend indefinitely to cover all possible eventualities covered by the vagueness of some parts of it. Americans are brought up to believe the constitution, the bill of rights are infallible, that they should be adhered to at all costs but as with many things in life, something that remains static and defies change is extremely prone to becoming obsolete or at least partially obsolete and this is the problem with the bill of rights. Instead of the bill of rights it's better to have rules that are flexible that can be voted upon and changed as required- well that's basically what laws are so the constitutions usefulness is actually questionable, particularly when many nations get by just as well, or in some cases better in terms of personal happiness and freedoms without one. As the Bush administration has demonstrated, the problem is ensuring laws are enacted fairly, the Bush administration has pushed unfair laws through in contradiction of the constitution anyway, fix that problem and you'll find you don't need the constitution if the process of pushing through legislation is fair.

      Many Americans still of course cite that the right to bear arms is important so that people can rise up against government but this is simply an excuse to argue against gun controls and is an impractical reason in reality. The scenario posed has the following results-

      1) Civilians armed with weapons they can afford aren't going to stand a chance against a well trained, well equipped military

      2) The military are citizens too anyway, even if the government does need to be overthrown the military will be on your side to do it because it consists of your sons, daughters, cousins, friends and so on.

      In result 1, you're screwed either way. You're not going to be able to defeat the military. If guns were completely banned, you'd still be able to rise up and perform guerilla warfare if that's the path you REALLY wanted to take because in these situations illegal arms are easy to acquire anyway. In result 2, you still don't need guns, because the military has them and will do the job for you.

      Result 2 is the most realistic scenario because it's happened and does still happen, not in the US but elsewhere in the world. Lebanon and Turkey are good examples, their armies have stood up against governments to overthrow them and protect the nations against governments trying to destroy their secular constitutions.

      The argument for being able to carry guns to protect the constitution simply doesn't match up with reality. It does however result in an absolutely massive increase in murder rates and other related crime and gun related accidents. To put it another way, the right to bear arms actually takes away many other people's legitimate right to life than it ever saves and I know which I think is much more important.

      Finally I'll not I'm not entirely against guns, I enjoy shooting, in fact, I reall

    3. Re:Agreed. by rugatero · · Score: 4, Funny

      We have the right to bare arms. I don't think anyone is trying to infringe on your right to wear a short-sleeved shirt.

      --
      This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
    4. Re:Agreed. by Gary · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and your message was heard loud and clear! While watching CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc., last night all the play the third-party candidates got was just overwhelming! Umm, oh, wait a minute....

      Seriously, it's not wise to vote for third-parties at the national level at present. Your vote is wasted and doesn't send any message except in your own head. I lean more libertarian myself but I would never waste my vote in the present environment on a third-party candidate in a national election. Choose the best candidate for you that has a snow ball's chance.

      If you want to send a message the place to do it is at the local level where your vote MAY not get lost in the noise. The abolition of the Dems or GOP will only take place if we take a bottom up approach (Uggh, now I sound like a democrat!).

    5. Re:Agreed. by ajmilton · · Score: 0

      We have the right to bare arms. PERIOD. That means if I want a magazine that holds 50+ rounds, I can have it. If I want a machine gun, so be it. Handgun -you bet - and NO license if I want to carry. Wear a tank top? No problems.

    6. Re:Agreed. by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was going to read your entire post, but got stuck right here:

      When guns weren't something that could lead to a massacre of innocent people.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres

      Ancient Greece, dude. Ancient Fucking Greece.

      This is what people mean when they say 'guns dont kill people, people do'...

      You may have a valid point, or you may not, I didn't read it. But I suggest you try and grasp that people have killed one another in droves since they realized they had the power to do so. Wholesale slaughter isn't some magical 20th century invention.

    7. Re:Agreed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "well-regulated" do you not understand?

    8. Re:Agreed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not really sure where I stand on the issue of right to bear arms. Obviously, people should be allowed to own handguns, and (IMHO) everything up to a semi-automatic.

      But I'm not so sure I want to see people running around with miniguns, flak cannons or tactical nukes. While I'd like people to be able to overthrow their government, I think the collateral damage is just too great. Where do you draw the line?

    9. Re:Agreed. by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      As Penn and Teller said (well, Penn, at least), if every woman in America was issued a gun, who would be so fucking stupid to try to rape a woman?

    10. Re:Agreed. by Khurath · · Score: 1

      I think it was pretty clear from the context that he means the Constitution was written in the time before one armed individual could cause a massacre, not that massacres didn't exist prior to the invention of the machine gun.

    11. Re:Agreed. by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Right, but the 'one individual' argument doesn't really factor in when that individual is, say, Sitting Bull, Nero, or Napoleon.

      Again, people will FIND a way.

    12. Re:Agreed. by nfras · · Score: 1

      We have the right to bare arms. PERIOD.

      Look, if you feel that strongly about wearing short sleeves I'm sure we can reword the constitution.

      --
      You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
    13. Re:Agreed. by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

      If you voted for a party other than democrat or repupblic I salute you. You have more guts and more smarts than 99% of the people in this country that are still are subjecting themselfs to a two party system that is corrupt beyond belief.

    14. Re:Agreed. by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      That means if I want a magazine that holds 50+ rounds, I can have it. If I want a machine gun, so be it. Handgun -you bet - and NO license if I want to carry.

      I can barely shoot. However I have some training in Physics. My weapon of choice is a 100Megaton nuclear bomb. Shouldn't I be allowed? If not why not?

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    15. Re:Agreed. by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      We have the right to bare arms. PERIOD. That means if I want a magazine that holds 50+ rounds, I can have it. If I want a machine gun, so be it. Handgun -you bet - and NO license if I want to carry

      Are you allowed to bear your own bombs, tanks, and fighter planes? Missile launchers? RPG launchers? Fertilizer truck bombs? IEDs?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    16. Re:Agreed. by mattytee · · Score: 1

      We have the right to bare arms. PERIOD

      So put on your tank top already and stop complaining.

    17. Re:Agreed. by CaptSaltyJack · · Score: 1

      We have the right to bare arms. PERIOD. That means if I want a magazine that holds 50+ rounds, I can have it. If I want a machine gun, so be it. Handgun -you bet - and NO license if I want to carry.

      What? Wow! Imagine if every nutjob who wanted a machine gun, could have one. Sorry, but the right to bear arms was different back in the day of Jefferson. They didn't have kids going into school with a musket and blowing everyone away. Times have changed. The founding fathers couldn't have possibly fathomed where we would be today as a society.

      That being said, I think legal concealed carry would reduce crime (criminals will be less confident trying to mug someone who's packing a Glock), but gun-carriers would have to pass a regiment of psychological profiles, emotional intelligence tests, and whatnot. And sorry to say, but you, my friend, would probably not pass those tests.

    18. Re:Agreed. by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstood him.

      But I also am against that 'right' as it it is unusually cruel to animals.

    19. Re:Agreed. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Yes, because rapists wear uniforms to make their intentions clear, giving women more than enough time to dig a gun out of a purse, cock it and turn of the safety. Ditto for muggers. /rolls eyes

    20. Re:Agreed. by mcvos · · Score: 1

      We have the right to bare arms.

      I don't think anyone is trying to infringe on your right to wear a short-sleeved shirt.

      You'd be surprised at the dress codes at some companies.

    21. Re:Agreed. by hargrand · · Score: 0

      Very well said, but I'd like to add to your comment:

      "There is a separation between church and state. Religion has no business in government."

      Likewise, government has no business in religion, such as forcing the religion of secular humanism on its citizens.

    22. Re:Agreed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have the right to bare arms. PERIOD.

      I could care less about baring arms. Baring breasts, on the other hand...

    23. Re:Agreed. by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      If you were a rapist or mugger, would you really bet that you wouldn't get shot?

    24. Re:Agreed. by novakyu · · Score: 1

      I don't care so much about the right to bare arms as much as I do about the right (and duty!) to bare breasts.

      Just imagine: a blond beauty baring breasts bearing a sniper rifle. Is there a more beautiful sight?

  109. Obligatory Simpsons Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new democratic overlords!

  110. I voted for Bob Barr by awpoopy · · Score: 1

    Libertarian Party - The other right meat.

    --
    I say things which affects my Karma negatively. (and I don't care) For instance; All religion is false.
  111. Sigh by readin · · Score: 0, Troll

    What does it say about our country when so many Americans are unwilling to vote for a physically-challenged candidate with a multi-racial family?

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  112. New president. by IllGetYouAToe · · Score: 1

    I. for one. welcome our new negro overlord.

  113. OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Will change mean that I am not called a racist if I disagree with Obama?

    Will change mean that slavery is now something that can finally be put to bed 145 years after it ended?

    Will change mean that people can have a rabid hatred of Obama as people had of Bush and still be free?

    Will change mean that people with little money will have more money?

    With change my conservative values will that make me a target of hate?

    Will change mean the majority be sensitive to my beliefs and values?

    Will change mean nothing has really changed but people are now happy Europe is not mad at us any more?

    Will change mean that our troops will be not be forgotten.

    Will change mean that government will not take over our 401k, healthcare, car payments, house payments, freedom?

    Will change mean that Obama will campaign for change in 2012?

    Change is all well and good but what does change mean. It can mean a lot of things to a lot of people but now the work has to begin words are not enough by any person any where. While people disagree with any election we still have the only country in the world that can transition peaceably from power to power every 4 years if need be. We still have a document that no other country in the world dares to implement because it gives the freedom to the people and not those that run the government.

    We are free because we choose so do not let anyone of any party take any of that freedom in the name of change. Support the good and denounce the bad with out fear of retaliation or hate.



    We are free because we are American's we are American's because we are free.

    1. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Now go back to your 47 channels of American Gladiators America. Go back to sleep America. You are free because we tell you that you are free.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    2. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Change? More like Chains.

    3. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Will your concern trolling stop when Obama takes office and your world doesn't end?

    4. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post would hold more weight without the grammatical errors. This is why spelling/grammar are important. When you do eventually say something insightful, even if through shear luck, you don't want those who would disagree with you to be able to dismiss your points by thinking you are "dumb" because you failed to proof read.

      Love,
      The Grammar Police

    5. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      All of your worst nightmares will come true. Go join a survivalist group and leave the rest of us alone.

    6. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by icepick72 · · Score: 1
      We are free because we are American's we are American's because we are free.

      You're also Americans because you coined the term "Freedom Fries" and do weird shit with the word "free".

    7. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such a load of self-satisfied crap.

      Many countries have peaceful government changes each X years and most countries have MUCH better individual freedom than the US where all the real power is held by money.

      Having Obama will maybe not mean much that WILL change inside the USA, but it is a very welcome change of pace for every other nations.

    8. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      All of your questions are highly opinionated, leading questions that seem to suggest that Obama is evil without even outright saying it. You're a victim of groupthink. You need to actually read up on your President from a trustworthy news source. Anything other than Fox News.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    9. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright there passive agressive conservative.. Relax.

      >> Will change mean that I am not called a racist if I disagree with Obama?

      Don't attribute the actions of a few to many. Of course that shouldn't happen.

      >> Will change mean that people can have a rabid hatred of Obama as people had of Bush and still be free?

      Of course. Duh..

      >> Will change mean that people with little money will have more money?

      Depends.

      >> With change my conservative values will that make me a target of hate?

      Probably not, although I'm sure there is always someone that will hate you. But I prefer target of ridicule, not hate.

      >> Will change mean the majority be sensitive to my beliefs and values?

      To a point. It's high time that we stop being so sensitive to extreme religious values though and treat them like the batshit crazy ideas they are (not impeding other's belief, but also not giving them any more credibility than the crazy guy on the corner shouting about the end of the world).

      >> Will change mean that our troops will be not be forgotten.

      They wont be. In fact our troops will be glad to hear that there is some hope that the pointless war they're risking their lives in will have an end soon.

      >> Will change mean that government will not take over our 401k, healthcare, car payments, house payments, freedom?

      That just makes no sense whatsoever.

      >> Will change mean that Obama will campaign for change in 2012?

      I suspect he will campaign to continue his work, yes.

      >> While people disagree with any election we still have the only country in the world that can transition peaceably from power to power every 4 years if need be.

      Wow, do you seriously believe that?? Talk about US-centric view of the world. Have you forgotten Canada and most of Europe for a start? That is just the height of ignorance and/or arrogance to think the US is the only free country on this planet.

    10. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Change can mean whatever you want it to, so why bother asking what it means? I'm English, I live in WI, and for me, change would be making the roads better during winter, making my bank and Mastercard cut charges back a bit, making tax a little bit less per pay check..

      ".. we still have the only country in the world that can transition peaceably from power to power every 4 years if need be."

      Not quite true, stating that the United States of America is the only country in the world that can hold elections without any form of violence is quite possibly the biggest pile of cr*p I've ever read.

      The United Kingdom, while not holding your "sacred document", still holds peaceable elections every 4 years, or less, depending circumstances and in the most recent case, because our prime minister resigned.

      New Zealand still holds peaceful elections regularly, as does Australia, Germany, Austria, Sweden, and countless more western countries. Don't even mention France, as we all know they like to burn things and throw tantrums anyway. ^-^

      In fact the only countries I can think of who don't hold peaceful elections are run by despots or dictators. North Korea?

      You are free because you think you are free. You are free because your government wants you to think you are free. No more, no less.

    11. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Wow, do you seriously believe that?? Talk about US-centric view of the world. Have you forgotten Canada and most of Europe for a start? That is just the height of ignorance and/or arrogance to think the US is the only free country on this planet.

      I am an American why should I care about what other countries think? I thought this was talking about the American election and my American views?

    12. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      Will change mean that I am not called a racist if I disagree with Obama?
      Yes. Although if you use a racial slur when disagreeing wiht Obama you will still be regarded as a racist.

      Will change mean that slavery is now something that can finally be put to bed 145 years after it ended?
      Yes. There will always be some people who will complain, but for the majority of Americans slavery already had been put to bed.

      Will change mean that people can have a rabid hatred of Obama as people had of Bush and still be free?
      Yes.

      Will change mean that people with little money will have more money?
      Dunno. Hopefully.

      With change my conservative values will that make me a target of hate?
      I have no clue why people would hate you more than they used to. Maybe less since they won't necessarily immediately equate your with Bush.

      Will change mean the majority be sensitive to my beliefs and values?
      Yes. Because they're Democrats. This is part of our platform. We're a bit more like Jesus in that we do our best to turn the other cheek and overcome pettiness. We don't always achieve that, but we try. Even after decades of Republicans doing everything in their power to take away our rights and diminish our beliefs, we still don't believe in doing that to others.
      But I'll be honest. If your beliefs include the belief that you have the right to discriminate against others, there may be laws passed that you disagree with.

      Will change mean nothing has really changed but people are now happy Europe is not mad at us any more?
      Obama will be a great diplomatic force in that he can speak to people in a way that brings them together. Bush divided, and Obama's victory last night seems to proove that he can unite. That said Obama is still a fairly right-wing politician by European standards so I doubt they'll suddenly be happy with everything we do. Most Americans realize that how the rest of the world views us has a direct impact on people wanting to blow us up and so it behooves us to play nice.

      Will change mean that our troops will be not be forgotten.
      I can guarantee it.

      Will change mean that government will not take over our 401k, healthcare, car payments, house payments, freedom?
      401k - no. this is a very popular program.

      healthcare - potentially, but it already is the biggest insurer in the country, and this is where our country is going. This was a massive issue in this election.

      car payments - I have never heard a Democrat mention anything about car payments.

      house payments - hopefully they'll have the stomach for real change, rather than bailing out homeowners but I don't know if that's possible. Politicians are beholden to their constituents. I think Republican or Democrat you can't have your constituents loosing their homes.

      freedom - I'm hoping that most of Bush's egregious stomping on the constitution will be rolled back, but I worry about this too. I didn't want Bush to have that power not just because Bush was a religious zealot with an almost uncanny ability to make the wrong decision. I didn't want the President to have that power because I knew that once the door was opened it would be very hard to roll back. That said, I think you can rest assured that Obama will not restrict our freedom more than Bush has already done. That speaks more to Bush than to any faith I have in Obama, however.

      I think that Obama has more than enough to do in trying to fix our financial markets, slow global warming, and fix our health care system. I doubt he'll have time for some of your personal nightmares.

    13. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Now go back to your 47 channels of American Gladiators America. Go back to sleep America. You are free because we tell you that you are free.

      I would but there is a Sponge Bob Marathon on

    14. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Will change mean that slavery is now something that can finally be put to bed 145 years after it ended?

      It is up to the people out there who even today, "145 years after slavery" (TM) are more willing to hire a white ex-con than a black candidate with a clean slate (you can read the study in any of the major newspapers where it was summarized).

    15. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Will your concern trolling stop when Obama takes office and your world doesn't end?

      Never said my world would end I am just wondering what change will mean

    16. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      You need to actually read up on your President from a trustworthy news source. Anything other than Fox News.

      And CNN, MSNBC, ABC et al is better??? I read several news sources but they do not sway my core beliefs and values.

    17. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by curri · · Score: 1

      Will change mean that I am not called a racist if I disagree with Obama?
      No, you already had that. Now you may still be called racist and may actually be racist, but just disagreeing with Obama has never been a sure sign.

      Will change mean that slavery is now something that can finally be put to bed 145 years after it ended?
      Sorta :) Problem is legal discrimination ended just 40 years ago or so, so many people are still feeling its effects.

      Will change mean that people can have a rabid hatred of Obama as people had of Bush and still be free?
      Sure; but you had that before.

      Will change mean that people with little money will have more money?
      Yes, some.

      With change my conservative values will that make me a target of hate?
      No, just derision :) but it depends on what you mean by conservative values.

      Will change mean the majority be sensitive to my beliefs and values?
      Maybe ... what beliefs and values ? what do you mean by sensitive ?

      Will change mean nothing has really changed but people are now happy Europe is not mad at us any more?
      No and yes ? :)

      Will change mean that our troops will be not be forgotten.
      When have they been ?

      Will change mean that government will not take over our 401k, healthcare, car payments, house payments, freedom?
      Sorta. works for 401L, payments; govt will probably (hopefully? :) be more involved with healthcare; government, by definition impinges on freedom, but we will probably regain some of our freedoms.

      Will change mean that Obama will campaign for change in 2012? :)

    18. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Such a load of self-satisfied crap.

      Many countries have peaceful government changes each X years and most countries have MUCH better individual freedom than the US where all the real power is held by money.

      Having Obama will maybe not mean much that WILL change inside the USA, but it is a very welcome change of pace for every other nations.

      And your post is not self-satisfied? The comment about every 4 years refers to our nothing having a government system that can have the ruling party voted out with a no confidence vote at any time.

    19. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, it doesn't mean that people know how to type correctly. I don't even know what you are implying by half of those statements, because typos and lack of punctuation obscure the intended meaning.

    20. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by midnightkiller · · Score: 0

      Good speech. This one is good too. Remarks by John McCain November 5, 2008 Thank you. Thank you, my friends. Thank you for coming here on this beautiful Arizona evening. My friends, we have -- we have come to the end of a long journey. The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly. A little while ago, I had the honor of calling Senator Barack Obama to congratulate him on being elected the next president of the country that we both love. In a contest as long and difficult as this campaign has been, his success alone commands my respect for his ability and perseverance. But that he managed to do so by inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election of an American president is something I deeply admire and commend him for achieving. This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight. I've always believed that America offers opportunities to all who have the industry and will to seize it. Senator Obama believes that, too. But we both recognize that though we have come a long way from the old injustices that once stained our nation's reputation and denied some Americans the full blessings of American citizenship, the memory of them still had the power to wound. A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt's invitation of Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage in many quarters. America today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the election of an African American to the presidency of the United States. Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth. Senator Obama has achieved a great thing for himself and for his country. I applaud him for it, and offer in my sincere sympathy that his beloved grandmother did not live to see this day, though our faith assures us she is at rest in the presence of her creator and so very proud of the good man she helped raise. Senator Obama and I have had and argued our differences, and he has prevailed. No doubt many of those differences remain. These are difficult times for our country, and I pledge to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face. I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises, to bridge our differences, and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited. Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that. It is natural tonight to feel some disappointment, but tomorrow we must move beyond it and work together to get our country moving again. We fought as hard as we could. And though we fell short, the failure is mine, not yours. I am so deeply grateful to all of you for the great honor of your support and for all you have done for me. I wish the outcome had been different, my friends. The road was a difficult one from the outset. But your support and friendship never wavered. I cannot adequately express how deeply indebted I am to you. I am especially grateful to my wife, Cindy, my children, my dear mother and all my family and to the many old and dear friends who have stood by my side through the many ups and downs of this long campaign. I have always been a fortunate man, and never more so for the love and encouragement you have given me. You know, campaigns are often harder on a candidate's family than on the candidate, and that's been true in this campaign. All I can offer in compensation is my love and gratitude, and the promise of more peaceful years ahead. I am also, o

    21. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will freedom mean I can make up complete bullshit about being the only country in the world that can change power peacefully and still get modded +5 interesting? Honestly mods, did you even read the entire post?

    22. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      I think that Obama has more than enough to do in trying to fix our financial markets, slow global warming, and fix our health care system. I doubt he'll have time for some of your personal nightmares.

      But isn't that what Obama ran on giving ME hope?? Why is your fears more important than mine I thought we were all the same with Obama?

    23. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      No. As much as people tried to pretend that Obama was just running on "hope" and rhetoric, he has specific policy goals that he keeps outlining. Here's where he reiterated them again in last night's acceptance speech:

      "You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair."

      Those are his policy priorities that he's been reiterating. If your nightmares line up with those, congratulations! If not, sorry that your nightmare fixing guy didn't win. I'd recommend helping Obama achieve those goals and win again, then maybe next term he can work on your nightmares.

    24. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Funny all of his signs say "Hope" but even the quote you provided he just states what he sees. What is the plan? How can I have hope or help anyone when he only tells me what he thinks are bad things going on? How does he plan to achieve the goal for his view of planet in peril?

      How does he plan to address his view of the "worst financial crisis"?

      How does he plan to help the "mothers and fathers who lie awake"?



      All he has ever stated is words and more words what is his plan? What is his plan? All I know for certain he will raise taxes across the board he stated that more than one and that is nothing anyone, no matter how hard you honestly try, can say to deny it. I know someone will post they deny it and be all smug and laugh to themselves and it really does not matter.



      There is no sharing of ideas just people pointing fingers. And yes people will say the same thing to me and my point will be made again and again and again.



      If you say I am to help then what are the plans and what if I don't agree with them did everyone here for Obama help Bush? Why should I agree with something I do not agree with?

    25. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      When Bush asked for help, he told us to shop. And the majority of Americans did so. Outside of that, I can't think of a single thing Bush asked us to do.

      Do all the finger pointing you want. Here are links to specific policy initiatives on Obama's website. It will be easier for you to keep saying that Obama has no plans if you don't read them, however.

      The Economy:
      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/index.php

      Education:
      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/index.php

      Energy:
      http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

      Ethics:
      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/index.php

      Foreign Policy:
      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/index.php

      Etc, etc. I'm bored of copying and pasting links. You can find the rest here:
      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

      I see more than enough specific policy initiates to keep he and the Democratic congress working for at least 4 years.

    26. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will change mean that I am not called a racist if I disagree with Obama?

      Exit polling showed race wasn't a major factor. Age was, not that ageism is any better. In fact, I think it was more age + a questionable VP pick. Yes, you won't be racist for disagreeing with Obama. If you listened to his speech, he wants to hear your disagreements.

      Will change mean that slavery is now something that can finally be put to bed 145 years after it ended?

      I hope so. Let's hear it for a meritocracy

      Will change mean that people can have a rabid hatred of Obama as people had of Bush and still be free?

      Yes. As long as you keep it civil.

      Will change mean that people with little money will have more money?

      If the progressive tax plan goes into effect, people will probably have more money which could mean the difference between making rent/mortgage payment and feeding the family. If America is in fact a consumer-driven economy, it certainly helps to insure that consumers keep more of their money to spend. Personally, I wish people would balance saving and spending.

      With change my conservative values will that make me a target of hate?

      It depends. Are we talking about the theocratic onslaught from the far-right that forward exclusionary initiatives and limit freedoms? Or are we talking about the idea of fiscal responsibility, of actually raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere to finance new initiatives rather than borrowing money?

      Will change mean the majority be sensitive to my beliefs and values?

      Not as long as your beliefs and values do not infringe on the freedoms of others.

      Will change mean nothing has really changed but people are now happy Europe is not mad at us any more?

      If that were the only change to occur, that is still a net gain, but talk about setting the bar low.

      Will change mean that our troops will be not be forgotten.

      I don't recall troops being forgotten. I don't know of anyone who doesn't support the troops even those who have protested the wars.

      Will change mean that government will not take over our 401k, healthcare, car payments, house payments, freedom?

      All FUD.

      Will change mean that Obama will campaign for change in 2012?

      Depends on how good he is over the next four years whether or not he'll run for re-election.

    27. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Ok let's just take this one

      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/index.php#diplomacy



      Ok the problem is defined by him so we can for go that now line by line



      "Talk" What is he going to talk about? How will he rally the world behind America? Sanctions? Deals? Arms reduction? Just says we have to talk.



      "Israeli" How will they make a sustained push? Threats? Attacks? Money? Last time I looked people have been pushing those two to be at peace for a couple of thousand years



      "Expand" Open more consulates but do we do that in countries we do not formally recognize? How about the ones that are openly hostile to America? How much will the cost in terms of real money since we will have to staff this sites and provide protection. What will the expanded foreign service mean?



      "Fight" Cut poverty by half in which countries? Does this include Americans? How can we quantify half by 2015? 10,000/yr in a poor country is not a one to relationship to 10,000/yr in a prosperous country what are the guidelines?



      "Strength" Rally which NATO countries? To do what? and where he wants to pull us out of Afghanistan and Iraq? Are we moving forces to other countries are the NATO commands going to have supervision over US troops? Who is going to streamline what decision-making process? Attacking? Aid? Retreating? "Seek" What type of framework? Money? Will this include trade? and if so how will bring more Asian products into the American economy affect us? How will he promote stability? Military? Money? People?



      Again all that is stated is ideas of what he thinks is wrong. Where is the plan to get from A to B? Increase military spending? Taxing? More trips to other countries to buy their products? All I ask it what is he going to do and you post links and even then you say your bored of pasting links. There is nothing of substance in any of the links you have provided just talk.



      I will get up each day and work to make my workplace a better place to work.

      I will work toward bringing happiness to others in my area and down the hall by pushing hard for this happiness.

      I will spend time everyday giving my supervisors more flexibility with assignments.



      Nothing of substance just words not how I will accomplish this nothing.

    28. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Never said my world would end I am just wondering what change will mean

      So am I. I'm wondering if you'll change, or continue being a concern troll.

    29. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      Yup, I thought you were a troll. I could explain to you how our government works. I could explain to you how diplomacy works. But what's the point.

      "Nothing of substance just words not how I will accomplish this nothing."

      Indeed.

    30. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Funny I make a Freudian slip in my last line and that is all you remark on.

    31. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      No. I also called you a troll. You seem to want a chronological timeline of what Obama will do in advance of his presidency, with legislation included. I can't debate the future with you. I'm not a psychic. You should also take a gander at John McCain's issue site:

      http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

      I think you'll find that it is written at the same depth (I would contend it actually explains less, but that might be my political leanings). Here's Ron Paul's website for the sake of completeness:

      http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/

    32. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by brkello · · Score: 1

      Yes, no, yes, yes, poorly formed question, maybe, no, yes, yes, no....respectively. Any other questions?

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    33. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

    34. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Ah so change means name calling because I ask for clear information but you keep just linking information. And this has nothing to do with McCain I asked what does change really mean. I am only dealing with Obama and I am not doing a compare and contrast.

      And yes I want a chronological time line of what Obama wants to do. Those are typically called plans, guides, steps, or work flows. Something that shows progress with goals and measurable results.

      I held the same standard to Bush I wanted time lines, goal setting, measurable results and many times he did not deliver. Rare times he did.

      Accepting what Obama says at face value is crazy if you are going to lead have a plan, share it, explain how to get from A to B. As a builder to build a house and he can tell you all day long how to do it but without a plan it will never be built.

    35. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you're not free of apostrophe's.

    36. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      we still have the only country in the world that can transition peaceably from power to power every 4 years if need be.

      To press the point, you think this is a fact?

      I'll excuse you if you think USA = "the world", but even so it's not a very meaningful statement given that there's only one country in "the world"...

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    37. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Well thank goodness you gave me hope about my typing skills or lack there of. Golly! my heart is all a flutter. The magnitude of your comments give us all hope that change to my poor grammar and spelling will someday rise above that to someday reach out and touch the stars and fly with the wind.

      "To dream the impossible dream!"

      My nipples explode with delight!

    38. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      USA is my world why would I look at it any different? I don't pay taxes , vote, live, work in other countries. Again we are talking about the American elections why would I concern myself with the other countries of the world?

    39. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Will change mean that people can have a rabid hatred of Obama as people had of Bush and still be free?

      Yes. As long as you keep it civil.

      Why do I have to keep it civil many people I met that were against Bush would almost foam at the mouth. I agree civil is something we should be to all people all the time but why do you have to tell me?

    40. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Why should I change? Obama is the one promising change

    41. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      So what is wrong with being a survivalist? Are they evil or something?

    42. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Sure apostrophe's are free here have on me! '

    43. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree with you on health care. I think Health care should be put into hands that don't have financial profits at stake. I think health care could be run by the government as long as we can keep it accountable. I know deregulating it has made it worse. When health decisions are made on a profit or loss mentality, something is seriously screwed up.

    44. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      You said it, not me.

    45. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Obviously but you didn't answer the question either. You win!

    46. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Not quite true, stating that the United States of America is the only country in the world that can hold elections without any form of violence is quite possibly the biggest pile of cr*p I've ever read.

      The United Kingdom, while not holding your "sacred document", still holds peaceable elections every 4 years, or less, depending circumstances and in the most recent case, because our prime minister resigned.

      New Zealand still holds peaceful elections regularly, as does Australia, Germany, Austria, Sweden, and countless more western countries. Don't even mention France, as we all know they like to burn things and throw tantrums anyway. ^-^

      In fact the only countries I can think of who don't hold peaceful elections are run by despots or dictators. North Korea?

      You are free because you think you are free. You are free because your government wants you to think you are free. No more, no less.

      Never said anything about violence and you stated my point of the matter the other countries can have their government voted out with a vote of no confidence. We have them every 4 years while most countries do follow the same practice many do not make full terms of their governments all the time. Again the point being the no confidence vote which dissolves the government we do not have that.

    47. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't people profit from any industry? Health is not a freedom you have the right to pursue it but it is not a right

    48. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Will change mean that I am not called a racist if I disagree with Obama?

      No. The same people who throw that language around rarely change when their party is in power. Having said that, I don't feel like the Obama campaign implied I was a racist for disagreeing with Obama.

      To some people, you will always be a racist simply for disagreeing with them.

      Will change mean that slavery is now something that can finally be put to bed 145 years after it ended?

      No.

      Will change mean that people can have a rabid hatred of Obama as people had of Bush and still be free?

      Probably.

      Will change mean that people with little money will have more money?

      No. The government can't fix poverty, and it never will be able to until we cease being bound by limits to our resources and differences in temperament and ambition.

      With change my conservative values will that make me a target of hate?

      No more so now than before. They will have to think of new jokes now once the Bush ones start to get stale.

      Will change mean the majority be sensitive to my beliefs and values?

      Absolutely not.

      Will change mean nothing has really changed but people are now happy Europe is not mad at us any more?

      I'll be more happy that Europe isn't mad at us, but mostly because I think Bush handled Europe atrociously. Note I said "handled", I don't think Europe gets to veto American military action should we decide its necessary, I just thought we could have told them how it was going to be a little more diplomatically.

      Will change mean that our troops will be not be forgotten.

      No one will be able to forget about those folks. The problem is that we may be quite inclined to bring every single one of them home... too early.

      Will change mean that government will not take over our 401k, healthcare, car payments, house payments, freedom?

      I doubt much will change, at least immediately. The damage a Democratic government would create would be more long term. If they decide to go for the easy answers and ignore the long term, we'll have a bright shiny new set of programs which will be great until we're ready to dispense with them, but we find out that they aren't ready to be dispensed with.

      But then again, that could have happened under McCain too.

      There's nothing wrong with trying new things. The problem is that when the government tries them, they never end. So, you better hope they get it right.

      Will change mean that Obama will campaign for change in 2012?

      The nice thing about change is that there is always something to change. Particularly when you're being nebulous about what you plan on changing.

      Mexico was ruled for 70 years by a party called the Institutional Revolutionary Party, a party based on the premise that they were changing stuff radically while at the same time being an entrenched single party government that relied on special interests to stay in power.

      In reality "Change" means to most Americans: Not a Republican. If Obama does halfway decent in the next four years, he can say that it would be a "change" to have a democratic president for 8 years, instead of a Republican one again.

      And yes, as you point out, changes don't mean that they will make things better.

      I find that since I have no choice now but to wait for the next election, I might as well sit back and see what it will be.

    49. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      While you're here, how about Slashdot. Since the site is very heavily Libertarian, you're bound to see a balanced view of Republicans and Democrats. we all hate 'em both. But even then, there's an immense feeling of respect towards Barack Obama here because he actually is a decent guy. There's not much more you could ask from a candidate.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    50. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

      If you dont see the problem with profit motivies in critical things like health care, communications, and utlitiies, I dont know what to tell you.

    51. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure that people who work in those fields that you just mentioned would like to know what exactly you want to take their jobs

    52. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      I sense much fear in you.



      <p>While some of your concerns are a little reasonable, and some will likely come true (i.e. there will be some strong left leaning types who will call you racist if you disagree with him), some are ridiculous.</p>

      <p>Most of the country voted for this guy. So the people you worry about treating you this way, have been here all along, and are not going to suddenly start treating you differently. If anything, people of the left will probably end up being a little less vitriolic as "their side" is now holding the reigns.</p>

      <p>And why would you need a rabid hatred of Obama? PLanning ahead, just in case?</p>
    53. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

      God you sound like that red neck in South Park "dey tik our jobbs!"

    54. Re:OK so what does Change really mean? by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      Better than sounding like an idiot like you

  114. You just made his point by Quila · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Patriot Act was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president.

    1. Re:You just made his point by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      98 Senators voted for the Patriot Act. Only one voted against. The Republicans weren't alone in passing it.

      357 Representatives voted for the Patriot Act. Only 55 voted against. Again, the Republicans weren't alone in passing it.

      Note that the political climate of the time was such that if the Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress, odds are it would have been passed by similar majorities.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:You just made his point by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      odds are it would have been a more moderate version too.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    3. Re:You just made his point by Nimey · · Score: 1

      However, pretty much all the Democrats voted for it too.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    4. Re:You just made his point by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Unlikely in the extreme. Easy to look back and say it was terrible legislation, much harder to see in the heat of the moment.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:You just made his point by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      I thought Vermont's Jeffords switched to some sort of weird Demo-pendant status, effectivly giving the Democrats control of the Senate. No?

    6. Re:You just made his point by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Agreed, that was a major failure by nearly every one of our legislators.

    7. Re:You just made his point by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      LOL - If you think for a minute that Democrats will protect your personal freedoms better than Republicans, I think you are in for a lesson:

      Republicans generally favor protecting the state at a Federal level over protecting your rights. See patriot act, etc...

      Democrats generally favor protecting the state at a local level over protecting your rights. Eminent domain, gun ownership bans and limits, etc...

      None of these parties really cares that much other than to use personal liberty as a tool to get votes from the tools that actually believe them.

      --
      -- $G
    8. Re:You just made his point by morgauo · · Score: 1

      And voted for by plenty of Democrats too!

    9. Re:You just made his point by Khisanth+Magus · · Score: 1

      No, I do think a lot of us knew it was horrible back then as well.

    10. Re:You just made his point by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      A lot of you weren't in the House and Senate then.

      It's the difference between being the driver and the backseat driver. Or the quarterback and the guy watching the game on TV.

      There's a fundamental difference between someone sitting in Starbucks grousing and someone who knows (or thinks) that if he makes the wrong decision, people die.

      Even worse, if he makes the wrong decision, people die and he gets blamed....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:You just made his point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything you haven't read is much harder to see, and as I understand it, the vast majority of senators and representatives had not. Now, the way it was written has something to do with it (it's entirely edits to other documents if I'm correct, not coherent phrasing), but that's no excuse for the entire legislative branch falling down on their faces because of public fear/anxiety.

    12. Re:You just made his point by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And if the Democrats are *really* against the Patriot act -- well, here comes their chance to repeal it, with at most token opposition.

      If they fail to repeal it first thing after Obama takes office, then we'll know they were lying about being against it, won't we...

      Bah. I went to bed a citizen, and woke up a komrade.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:You just made his point by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't doubt there was an element of political cowardice, but that's not the whole story. People were anxious to do something, and it's not as if every idea in the Patriot Act is bad. There's a lot of stuff that could be useful in there.

      The Act is a typical case of a product rushed out the door without a sufficient requirements analysis.

      For example, it has muddled priorities. A lot of the more objectionable features are built around the assumption that responding to a ticking time bomb is the highest priority. If, indeed, it comes to that, it certainly will be the highest priority, but the highest priority before it comes to that is keeping it from coming to that.

      Even so, stipulating what can be done in such scenarios is probably a good idea, but those stipulations should be carefully bounded. That's the kind of talk that would go over like a lead balloon back in 2002, but it's true.

      This leads us to another sign of a rush job: inattention to unintended consequences.

      Probably every new investigatory power in the act would be justifiable in some highly specific circumstances. Just like bashing in somebody's front door is justifiable in certain high specific circumstances. But that shouldn't amount to carte blanche for door bashing. The powers granted should come with accountability for their use, and this is where the Patriot Act fails.

      A serious minded civil libertarian could go over the Act and find better ways to accomplish everything the Act is supposed to do. The real problem was that the administration wanted -- had always wanted really -- a completely free hand unfettered by any kind of oversight.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    14. Re:You just made his point by Eskarel · · Score: 1
      Whenever I read that stat I have to give a little cheer for Russ Feingold, Senator for Wisconsin and the only senator to vote against that thing, even if he only did so because he thought they ought to read it first. I lived in Wisconsin when this was going on, and he made me proud to have done so. Only politician I've ever written anything to, and it was a congratulations.

      He sells out a bit to the gun nuts(has to in a hunting state), but otherwise a great man.

    15. Re:You just made his point by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      This is the whole reason why principles exist!

      You have principles like "it is wrong to kill people except in self defense" so that, when the heat of the moment arrives, you make the correct decision even though your brain is all screwed up.

      In the case of Congress, the principles they should have (and clearly lack) are that this country is based around freedom and is fundamentally ruled by the Constitution, and protecting freedom and following the Constitution should always be done no matter what. That way, even when presented with a situation where people! will! die! they can still make the correct decision.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    16. Re:You just made his point by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      protecting freedom and following the Constitution should always be done no matter what.

      Much as I am an admirer of the Constitution, I feel I must point out that if ALL politicians throughout US history had followed that principle, there would be a USA and a CSA (and possibly other nations) where now there is only a USA. And that slavery would probably still be legal in the CSA, and possibly in the USA as well (the impetus to ban slavery would probably not have existed post-secession, since the USA had few slaves to free).

      Given the USA's position in WW2 (the Soviet Union might have defeated the Germans by themselves, but it's by no means certain, but the UK certainly would have been forced to surrender absent aid from the USA), a significantly weakened USA (no South means no signifcant national oil production, if nothing else), hampered by a Constitution which would have prevented almost the entirety of the New Deal, would have been disastrous for what passes for civilization in the world today.

      Yes, I can already hear people saying "the world would be better off if the USA weren't the 800 pound gorilla in the world today. Perhaps. But most, if not all, of Europe would be worse off for a Soviet conquest of same in 1945-46. A Australia and NZ would prolly be worse off for a Japanese conquest in the early 40's - remember that the US's interest in the Pacific was a side effect of the Spanish-American War, which might not have worked out the same way if the USA were permanently split into two countries in 1861.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  115. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our Black American overlord.

  116. As an european... by Nuffsaid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a male white Italian with no involvement into USA elections, I have to admit that this morning I cried and laughed hearing what just happened in a big nation far far away. This changes everything. The politics of fear will end. Black people won't be seen "out of place" in any place from now on. Things won't go worse all the time, like last years made us think! A big thank you to the US people. This affects us all.

    --
    Nuffsaid
    ________

    Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
    1. Re:As an european... by mk2mark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yea and windows 7 won't be bloated, expensive and unreliable.

      Not that that's what I'm saying, but I don't think speculation and newfounded faith in utopian America is going to make it happen.

    2. Re:As an european... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This changes everything. The politics of fear will end. Black people won't be seen "out of place" in any place from now on. Things won't go worse all the time, like last years made us think! A big thank you to the US people. This affects us all.

      Could you explain why or how any of that will happen?

    3. Re:As an european... by iknowcss · · Score: 1

      You think that just because we've elected a president of black descent suddenly all forms of racism against blacks will stop? Can I please have some of what this guy is smoking?

      --
      Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
    4. Re:As an european... by Cytotoxic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a male white Italian with no involvement .... Black people won't be seen "out of place" in any place from now on.

      Thank you for that... it is interesting to see how perception can become reality. As a white american man who spent the 80's and 90's with my (now ex) african-american wife, I can tell you that there have not been many places where black people are seen as out of place in the USA in that time. In fact, during our time together we never once had white people make us feel unwelcome, despite living in and travelling throughout the southern US, frequenting redneck bars and backwoods haunts. The only places we were ever made to feel unwelcome were in the minority community, and that was relatively rare. For the most part white America grew up and moved on during the seventies, put those attitudes behind us in the 80's and long before now became mostly color-blind. Hopefully this election will help those who are still clinging to old prejudices and fears let go and grow up.

    5. Re:As an european... by goldspider · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "This changes everything. The politics of fear will end. Black people won't be seen 'out of place' in any place from now on."

      You might think so, but I assure you that the industry of racial divisiveness is still alive and well. This won't make the Jesse Jacksons or Al Sharptons go away. Just wait for the reaction when people start criticizing President Obama.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    6. Re:As an european... by malkien · · Score: 1

      now all we have to do is make the same change happen here in Italy.
      unfortunately the very opposite is true.
      the neocon nightmare Americans are waking up from is now consolidating here.
      at least, given our international relevance, the rest of the world won't have to suffer because of it.

    7. Re:As an european... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I cried....

      I'm sure there were more than a few people crying, especially in the Republican party...

    8. Re:As an european... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The politics of fear will end

      This was what pleased me most about the election. Every McCain ad I saw was telling you to be frightened, and every Obama ad was telling you to hope. I'd much rather see people acting out of irrational hope than irrational fear - they can both be powerful forces, but one is usually a lot more constructive than the other.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:As an european... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prego! from a male white italian american.

    10. Re:As an european... by TV-SET · · Score: 1

      Can I please have some of what this guy is smoking?

      You need to go to Europe ;)

      --
      Leonid Mamtchenkov ...i don't need your civil war...
    11. Re:As an european... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      "This changes everything. The politics of fear will end. Black people won't be seen 'out of place' in any place from now on."

      You might think so, but I assure you that the industry of racial divisiveness is still alive and well. This won't make the Jesse Jacksons or Al Sharptons go away. Just wait for the reaction when people start criticizing President Obama.

      Oh hell yes. This moment has been a wet dream of Rev Jackon and Rev Sharpton for years - not because it represents the culmination of MLK's dream (it doesn't, far from it), but because it represents the apex of their political power and influence. Based on their record - I have little hope they'll use it for good.

    12. Re:As an european... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      That's going to be a problem, all right, especially if what's being criticized are policies perceived as unfairly preferential to blacks or other minorities. No one will hear the "unfairly preferential" part of such arguments; they'll be too busy screaming "racist!"

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:As an european... by Arterion · · Score: 1

      Cultural differences correlate along racial lines. That doesn't mean they're racial differences. "Racism" has become a dishonest term used to force acceptance of willful, culturally-motivated actions under the guise of inherent qualities once cannot avoid, such as skin color.

      Don't fall into the trap.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    14. Re:As an european... by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      Racist.

  117. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If America wanted serious change, change that was not just superficial, then one of the third party candidates would have one."

    "... would have one." or "won."? *sigh* I was thinking your post was a serious post until I read that line. Yes, I must be new here.

  118. That's uncalled for. by Veretax · · Score: 1

    I'm a republican, who did not vote for Obama, but even suggesting that kind of nonsense is irritating to me. Like it or not he is our President and to even hint or suggest that could happen is just plain Ignorant.

    1. Re:That's uncalled for. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      I'm a republican, who did not vote for Obama, but even suggesting that kind of nonsense is irritating to me. Like it or not he is our President and to even hint or suggest that could happen is just plain Ignorant.

      How is it ignorant to wonder how this is going to turn out? They already arrested some neo-nazi asshole who planed on it. I personally don't believe in that whole shtick about white people not voting Obama because we're all closet racists, but there still are, in fact, crazy racist fringe groups floating around, and I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of one of them taking a crack at Obama.

    2. Re:That's uncalled for. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      How is it ignorant to wonder how this is going to turn out? They already arrested some neo-nazi asshole who planed on it.

      They arrested Hillary?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  119. History, sacrifice, hope and gaps by gsn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not American and couldn't vote but I've spent all my adult life here and the last eight years have affected my life in much the same ways it affected yours. I'm very glad there were record turnouts, whoever you voted for.

    I think its good to recognize this as a historic and important moment. I stayed up all night working and listening to the coverage. It is a night I'll remember and I'm admittedly quite happy. Certainly, there is hope, a word I haven't heard much off since 2001. I'm very glad that he acknowledged that the real work lies ahead and that it will take a spirit of service and sacrifice and both of them talked about coming together and bridging the gaps that have cut this nation.

    Bridging gaps is a hugely critical message today. There is an interesting discordant note between all the commentators speaking about how this marks the end of slavery and the fruition of the civil rights movement and the change of a generation, and what looks like a yes vote on Proposition 8 in California. When the dust has settled, there is going to be much talk about the way different demographics voted and the gaps that represents. I hope it will not take 40 years for all of us to recognize that in the end, beyond nationality, skin colour, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or background, we are all just human beings.

    --
    Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
    1. Re:History, sacrifice, hope and gaps by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      I'm not American and couldn't vote but I've spent all my adult life here and the last eight years have affected my life in much the same ways it affected yours.

      You should've moved to Ohio, and then you could've voted as many times as you wanted.

    2. Re:History, sacrifice, hope and gaps by Roman+Coder · · Score: 1

      There is an interesting discordant note between all the commentators speaking about how this marks the end of slavery and the fruition of the civil rights movement and the change of a generation, and what looks like a yes vote on Proposition 8 in California. When the dust has settled, there is going to be much talk about the way different demographics voted and the gaps that represents. I hope it will not take 40 years for all of us to recognize that in the end, beyond nationality, skin colour, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or background, we are all just human beings.

      If anything, the prop 8 passage in California says we have a long way to go to end tribal warfare, unfortunately.

      As a Californian who voted against prop 8, I could not understand how some could vote for Obama and for the welfare of consumable animals, but yet deny the same rights that the rest of society has to a certain segment of society. Seems so very racist to me. /shakes head

      --
      "The future can only affect the present if there is room to write its influence off as a mistake." - Yakir Aharonov
  120. I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our new democratic overlord.

  121. You have the power by GuyfromTrinidad · · Score: 1

    I know that many of you are Republican supporters and fundamentally oppose many of the things that Obama and the Democratic party represents but one thing I believe this election has done is to make US citizens more involved in the electoral process. Obama will not be able to get away with some things that Bush was able to. Regardless of how you feel you are at a point in history. Many persons in the south objected to the civil rights movement and felt that giving African Americans basic rights would lead to the death of America as they knew it. That did not happen. Let history judge Obama, but you have your role to play, you have the power to take your nation to higher heights.

    --
    End of line
  122. Mod AC parent up... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    As I pressed 'submit,' I noticed that...and unfortunately, the form data was posted before I could fix the error. Should have hit 'preview...'

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  123. Re:God didn't by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

    I voted Obama, but Greens for about everything else.

  124. Don't thank god by 2.7182 · · Score: 1

    Thank the gravitational pull of the moon!

  125. Follow the Democrats Lead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start hating and ridiculing him now.

    Of course, the economy will be his fault on Jan 21. Nice how that works eh?

    And if anyone expects the left to become more civil, forget it.

  126. Why? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Do you honestly believe that he was elected BASED on his skin color? I am hopeful that he was elected based on his ability to lead.

    Personally, I was going to vote Libertarian, but I watched the election. He was WAY behind nearly all the other dems. And while HRC BLEW everything that she had up front, he spent evenly. More importantly, he took advantage of tech. He became the eventual winner. Then came Obama vs. McCain. I watched Obama act coolly when McCain wanted to attack Russia. It told me that McCain was a total disaster, since we are already in a disaster war in Iraq in part because of McCain. And with the economy, well, we all know how McCain acted; BOTH extremes.

    Simply put, I voted for Obama because he appears to be a leader, but with a minimal record.
    Exactly why did you vote for him? Did you put skin color first?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Why? by astrodoom · · Score: 1

      I can't say whether he was elected based on skin color or not (and I certainly hope not), but I can say that exit polls showed 98% of black voters voted for Obama...now, I realize people like the guy, but that's a REALLY high percentage.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racism is ignored when it's in favor of the minority. They just call it reparations.

    3. Re:Why? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Black voters have been voting overwhelmingly democrat for decades. I'm not saying that some didn't vote based on colour, but it's not that far off the general trend.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    4. Re:Why? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I can't say whether he was elected based on skin color or not (and I certainly hope not), but I can say that exit polls showed 98% of black voters voted for Obama...now, I realize people like the guy, but that's a REALLY high percentage.

      Southern Strategy. The GOP has stayed in power for the last few decades by taking advantage of the backlash to the civil rights movement - once the GOP stops demonizing minorities, they'll stop driving them into the Democratic Party.

    5. Re:Why? by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Simply put, I voted for Obama because he appears to be a leader, but with a minimal record.

      I'm still puzzled how libertarians can vote for him. Sure he can lead, and the country might prosper, but it won't be in the direction I want. I would rather pay for mediocre healthcare and drive a Corolla, then drive a Corvette that runs on my own urine to a government funded healthcare center.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    6. Re:Why? by Darby · · Score: 2

      I'm still puzzled how libertarians can vote for him. Sure he can lead, and the country might prosper, but it won't be in the direction I want.

      Libertarians can vote him if they're of the mindset that they'd rather vote for the major party that is closest to their ideals than the one farthest away (and of course if they don't want to vote for a third party).

      The Republicans took over the mantle of biggest big government supporters long ago. So now we have two major big government parties. The Democrats who believe in some restraint in government spending and the Republicans who believe in no restraint in increasing the size of the government.

      It's not like this isn't obvious (go look at the numbers) and it's not recent (Reagan was the big government king until Bush. Reagan took that mantle from FDR).

      However, Republicans are Fascists which is the extreme right wing, so any movement to the left *is* towards Classical Liberalism, which is more or less the position of libertarians. You have to go past that and keep going to even hit the left side of the board.

      So, it's pretty sad to see a libertarian as stupid as you must be to have fallen for such silly Republican propaganda. I mean a few minutes of thought and a little bit of knowledge would make these things obvious to you.

    7. Re:Why? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      The direction that we went over the last 8 years is NOT what I want. I want a president who is responsible with the budget. In light of McCain picking Palin, I do not believe that McCain/Palin would do it. Hopefully, this time, when the budget is balanced, a balanced budget amendment (anti-neo-con amendment?) will be passed.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  127. Just another 4 years.... by gosand · · Score: 1

    ... of incessant, smug, loony bitching and ranting by the Libertarians.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  128. Re:God didn't by Meneth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And if people were truely sick of being treated like shit, there would be 3rd party candidates in the house and senate, enough of them were up for election!

    There won't be any third parties in the US until they start having proportional elections.

    According to the latest numbers, Obama got 68% of the electors, but only 52% of the votes. That's a good marker of the error in the current Plurality voting system.

    It's in the House of Representatives we might see the first real change, if third parties gain enough votes to control the balance of power.

  129. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  130. Back to when intelligence matters... by RootWind · · Score: 1

    This was what it came down to for me. I didn't quite agree with everything Obama was proposing, but it came down to the strive for knowledge. It seemed at every turn the Republicans seemed so proud of their own ignorance. Higher education made you an "elitist." Sure, McCain may not necessarily have been one of them, but he surrounded himself with them (Palin is a great example), and it is the people that make up your administration that really point the direction of the country.

    1. Re:Back to when intelligence matters... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Higher education made you an "elitist."

      No, Ivy League education makes you sound elitist. The vast majority of ivy students get in on money, so it is not unreasonable to associate a Harvard degree with elitism.

  131. How do conservatives come back? by bugeaterr · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else see a path back to power for conservatives?
    I don't
    Democrats have:
    *Almost total control of all 3 branches

    *Socialism is addictive
    This time Obama promised $1,000, in other people's money, to tens of millions of Americans.
    How does any conservative run on undoing that?
    Those millions will vote for Obama again when he promises to *two* thousand dollars in 2012.

    *The Media
    Fox News, you say?
    I say ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR and nearly every newspaper.
    Talk Radio you say? The Fairness Doctrine will silence dissenting voices in talk radio.

    *Control of the floodgates of illegal immigrants, who vote 2 to 1 Democrat.
    Yes, they vote. and Democrats oppose the "draconian" requirement of an ID card to vote.

    *Labor Unions. They support Card Check which eliminates secret ballot voting in unions.

    *Total control of teachers unions. (think social studies)

    *15,000,000 federal employees and counting.
    How does a conservative run on cutting government when such a huge portion of the population will fear for their jobs and vote against them.

    1. Re:How do conservatives come back? by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  132. The thing that absolutely amazes me... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...is the international reaction to Obama's win. I knew that the reputation of America and Americans had been battered over the past few years, but I never suspected that it was as bad as it was. I watched the results last night, said a little "huzzah!" when Obama was declared, listened as McCain gave a warm, dignified, and gentlemanly concession speech, and then went to bed thinking I'd seen it all. I woke up at about 4:45 this morning and I've been flipping between news stations ever since. I got a little emotional last night during the speeches, but I'm absolutely devastated by the number of non-Americans who are dancing in the streets over Obama's win. I never thought I'd see video of a few hundred Chinese people jumping around and chanting "Obama! Obama!" A reporter in France walked up to a woman and simply said "Obama?" Her face lit up and she simply said "C'est formidable!" Kenyans are throwing feasts in his honor. Arab and Persian states are happy. Israel is happy. Pakistan is happy. Australians are losing their damned minds over it. Russia is... well, they're kinda grumpy, but they're not having a good year. And all morning I've been hitting my usual haunts (/., Fark, CNN, BBC, & more) and I keep seeing messages posted by people from a zillion different countries congratulating us and thanking us for "making the right choice." Before you ask, yes I voted for him, no, I don't think he's the messiah, and yes, I'm still pissed at him for breaking his promise over campaign financing. But even with all that, I still can't shake the feeling that something *seriously* important happened last night. I'm almost 40, so I've seen a few elections, but never in my life have I seen or felt the kind of excitement that's in the air right now. It seems like all sorts of barriers have just... vanished. Racial, political, international, interpersonal, it just all seems different now. I know that part of it is just the morning-after buzz of having your candidate win, but there's something special about having a friend email you and tell you how they got hugged twice in Germany while wearing an Obama t-shirt and walking to the bakery on the corner, then reading a post that says "The Netherlands are happy for you!" The world stood up and took notice of us this morning. I hope he doesn't let us down.

    Thus endeth my waxing philosophical.

    1. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Informative

      and yes, I'm still pissed at him for breaking his promise over campaign financing.

      Then you're pissed over nothing, as he never promised to take public financing. He promised he'd be willing to work on it with the Republican candidate - big difference. If you need to hold something against him, there's always his FISA flip flop.

    2. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why this international reaction surprises you. Barack Obama is a liberal man, and liberalism in American generally means that America should be more like Europe and less like America.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    3. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by argStyopa · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Despite my voting for McCain, I'm not unpleased at the results of the 2008 presidential election.

      No, I don't expect Obama will be able to accomplish any significant change - I believe as a neophyte he's going to be circumscribed by the cavalcade of Democratic hangers-on "cannonballing exuberantly into Washington like the caddies into the pool in Caddyshack" (credit National Review with that imagery), or if he doesn't toe the line in handouts, he'll be checkmated and rendered impotent by the Kennedy's, Pelosi's, and Frank's of that town.

      But something I recognize as a staunch Republican: Bush's presidency was a series of colossal blunders, the worst was not the war(s) specifically, but the squandering of the ephemeral but not insignificant moral high-ground that the US really did occupy on-and-off for the last 50 years. If we insist that the US is somehow 'special' (and I indeed do) then we can't simply do what other countries might do. We're better than that, and I think we need to remember it. Does it mean that we are sometimes handicapped in our response? Yep. But regardless of 'advantage', there's something to being able to hold one's head up from day to day.

      There is no question that the election of a half-Arab, half-Black child of a broken home to the Presidency of the United States *says* something to the world and to history about us as a country, as an ideal, that can never, ever, be taken away.

      His presidency may be the "Return to Camelot" that some naive voters seem to priapistically expect, which I doubt. (Even Kennedy's 'Camelot' days weren't quite as rose-colored as they are remembered...) His presidency may be a catastrophe that ends the Republic, even less likely.

      In reality, his presidency will find a middle course, with some successes, some failures, and we will be back in 2016* once again exercising our democratic will in a way that is intrinsically, basically, American.

      *2012 is the next election, sure, but barring a cataclysmic blunder, most presidents now serve 8 years with the middle election merely being little more than a referendum on the presidency.

      Congratulations to President-Elect Obama, I didn't vote for you, but as an American citizen, I wish you all the success in the world. You will be my president.

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by elmartinos · · Score: 1

      Here in austria we had live commentatory on TV and on online newspapers. Many people stayed up from until 5 o'clock in the morning (your election was in the middle of the night for us here) To watch this event happening. It was a huge thing, congratulations!

    5. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by trawg · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's great, but at the same time I think the reasons behind it are sort of sad. The rest of the world doesn't want to see the US invading other countries for bullshit reasons, pissing away its potential for greatness in a never-ending, pointless, money-wasting war on terror that is unpopular both at home and internationally.

      We're also sad about seeing attacks on the US, 9/11, American troops dying overseas, and the constant and growing hatred of the US not just amongst the Middle East but amongst the population of other "allied" nations.

      International people are interested not really for the well-being of the USA and the well-being of Americans - but because the USA is one of the few countries that can royally fuck things up for a lot of people everywhere else around the world.

      The thing that saddens and frustrates me more than anything else is the amazing achievements that have come from the USA - things like being the first country to put a man on the moon. I can't help but wonder where humanity might be if the last 8 years had gone a different way and all those trillions of dollars had been pumped into something other than a black hole. I'm sure the citizens of the USA would be better off and I feel that the rest of the planet would be as well.

      I would have voted for Obama if I was a US citizen and I'm glad he got in. Like most of the non-US people I have hope for the first time since 9/11 that things might just have a small chance of getting better.

    6. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by bjourne · · Score: 1

      Well put. There's no denying in him being black is part of it. Ten years ago 2pac wrote Changes, and thruthfully, I don't think anyone until recently would have expected a black president. It disproves the belief that the US is a Racist country. Though I am a fan of hip-hop, it takes away most of the authenticity in their whining about how black people are discriminated. If Obama could, then so can you and so can I! This is truly a great day.

      God bless America!

    7. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
      His presidency may be the "Return to Camelot" that some naive voters seem to priapistically expect...

      Priapistic? You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    8. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      If we insist that the US is somehow 'special' (and I indeed do) then we can't simply do what other countries might do. We're better than that, and I think we need to remember it.

      As an outsider I find this troubling. It's that mentality that got you into this mess, and you still think America is "special", "better" than all other countries?

      There's nothing wrong with patriotism IMHO, but when it changes from "my country is great", to "my country is better than yours", it's just a recipe for disaster.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    9. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      There is no question that the election of a half-Irish, half-Black child of a broken home to the Presidency of the United States *says* something to the world and to history about us as a country, as an ideal, that can never, ever, be taken away.

      There... fixed that for you.

    10. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by steelfood · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obama is half black (African-Kenyan) and half white (European-Irish/English). His father was a Muslim and later atheist, his mother agnostic Christian and maybe atheist.

      Sorry, but the Arabs can't take any credit for him.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    11. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by jbabco · · Score: 1

      The thing I don't understand is why folks seem disappointed with Obama's victory because things won't (or can't) change on the level he's proposing. Do they feel that McCain would be able to bring about this (or some equivalent amount of) change, and somehow Obama cannot? If the landscape for the next term is more or less fixed for either candidate, then why the disappointment? Isn't it enough to have a President who can inspire the populace (even with empty rhetoric) and accomplish little, rather than one who does not inspire and also accomplish little?

    12. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Met any Obama supporters lately?

      It's PRECISELY the word I meant to use.

      --
      -Styopa
    13. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

      If only we could not look at people as black or white, but look at people as just people trying to do the best they can. I think that would be a great start to helping people feel connected. I think we spent too much time labeling people which creates the feeling of sepretness. Im not attacking what the poster said, im just noticing that people seem to be making distinctions based on color and that causes people to miss the point.

    14. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      I hope he doesn't let us down.

      Given the messiah-like, up-on-a-pedestal worship you're seeing right now, how could you expect that there wouldn't be a let down? The world is in bad shape and everyone has decided to pin all their hopes on one unknown man. Even if Obama were the second coming, I'd be unnerved by the cult of personality thing he's got going on.

    15. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by duckInferno · · Score: 1

      Obama would be considered right-wing in most western countries.

      As for McCain... well, he belongs in pre-war Afghanistan.

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    16. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by Roman+Coder · · Score: 1

      Thus endeth my waxing philosophical.

      Don't you mean...

      Wax off.

      To get serious for a moment, it does feel good to see the World being happy for us. They are treating us better than we deserve, based on our actions these last eight years.

      Makes me feel there's hope still for the human race.

      --
      "The future can only affect the present if there is room to write its influence off as a mistake." - Yakir Aharonov
    17. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It disproves the belief that the US is a Racist country.

      I thought that was already disproved when Teddy Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to the White House. /rolls eyes

    18. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Firstly, there are other countries besides European ones that are happy about this.

      Secondly, your statement is complete bullshit. America was founded on very liberal values. The US Constitution enshrines them. Being liberal has nothing to do with being less American. If anything, it's a return to being more American after years of authoritarian rule and loss of freedom.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    19. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by Jason-NZ · · Score: 1

      Yes, the rest of the world is pretty much on your back door step thanks to globilisation and the media. The US creates world news and world history when it makes foreign policy decisions.

      This may sounds lame but thanks from New Zealand too! All the radio stations / media here were buzzing about it the whole day. Everyone is happy Bush is out and Americans have shown they really want to head in a different direction. Truly a momentous occasion. Good luck!

    20. Re:The thing that absolutely amazes me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um yeah.. the countries to which you refer have democracies way younger than that of the US (if any democracy at all). While the peoples of said countries have lived in those countries way longer than people have lived in the US; the societies have been greatly influenced by centuries of monarchies, feudalism, and central control. The mindset of 2 centuries of democracy and freedom have probably slighted the US.

      As a superior-ist AH, I would suggest that once all the counties in the world are free from supression of 'the people' and are subject to being 'of the people, by the people, for the people' , then we can start in depth on how other democracies conduct their foreign policy.

      As for the US government suppressing 'the people' under Bush, I would ask how many people were 'taken away' for speaking out against Bush, et al. ?? The Newspapers (NYTimes, LA Times, Chicago Tribune) were never shut down (except by the intarwebs) after publishing vitrol and hatred for Bush. The TV stations lambasted the republicans to the point that the conservative blogosphere and talk radio adopted the term 'Elite Liberal Media' and they are still running.
      With Obama at the helm will the print and TV media let up a little on the conservatives as backwards and uneducated? I would like to think so, and I hope that they do not show me up and make the attacks even worse. In all, freedom of speech is thriving .

      Since liberal should mean 'accepting of all types (especially those who need help and education the most)' and the current atmosphere results in "liberals" only accepting predefined thoughts/speech and shutting down the speech of the "conservatives" via shoutdowns and filling up service channels as well as shutting out any dissent, I will have to associate the following forensic device with US Democrats.

      I have heard of stories of US Democrats falling back to the 'racism card' when one comes up against logical arguments that they had not anticipated. To me, not a big deal. I like being challenged to new ideas during a debate. For others, it can be a fearful experience. All of a sudden being on unfamiliar ground gets weird and the fight or flight response is an 'ism card.

      But I digress, I would like to invoke the "ism card". By people calling the Iraq War as "a bad, idea" I counter with, "Then you must be a racist. You hate different colored people enough to think that they should be allowed to keep killing each other. You obviously think that while the suppression and killing of _their_ women and children is deplorable, it is _their_ concern"

      Flame away :\

  133. I for one... by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Funny

    welcome our new overlord.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  134. Got what they wanted. by gmac63 · · Score: 1

    Yep. Hollywood and the media got what they wanted.

    In general, the American people will believe what they see and hear on the o'l boob tube. Just look at CNBC. I watch that all the time and mostly hear "gloom and doom". Mind you, things are not great, but when the masses hear and see what the media pushes, they react in kind.

    Truly we are sheep.

    --

    INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
  135. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by WedgeTalon · · Score: 1

    Exactly! This is what I've been trying to tell people the whole election - Republicans AREN'T Republican anymore. They have as a group become very Authoritarian/Centrist.

    I would have voted Republican this year if there had been one running. The last candidate to run on a real Republican platform was Bush. The trouble with that was it was all a lie. He ran on a platform mostly opposite of what he did. Twice. I still can't believe people believed him the second time around.

  136. Barack Obama Steals US Presidency by Daswolfen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Fixed that for you. Seriously. How did this empty suit get elected? Oh.. I know. Rampant Voter Fraud, A Main Stream Media who anointed him Messiah, and hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable campaign funds from untraceable sources.

    God Bless America
    1776-2008

    Rest In Peace because we will be in pieces before this is all over.

    --
    Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
    1. Re:Barack Obama Steals US Presidency by OutSourcingIsTreason · · Score: 1

      You lost, get over it.

      --
      "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
  137. Congratulations, America by jandersen · · Score: 1

    What a lot of bizarre, whining comments I see on this list and elsewhere. This is democracy - sometimes your party wins, sometimes not; but you are expected to accept it with good grace and make the best of it. At least you can't say that this was not won fair and square. Well, I suppose those on the losing side are entitled to feel a bit sore - I'm sure you will get over it.

    Let us look a bit on what has happened here: For one thing, Obama and his team have organized a brilliant and effective campaign; that shows he has determination, organisation skills and leadership. So, he is actually qualified for the job. Another thing we have seen is that he raised a staggering amount of campaign money, much of it in the form of small individual contributions - to me that says that a lot of ordinary people really wanted what he has to offer, not just rich corporations. All in all, this really is the people of America that has spoken, loudly and clearly. And what is he actually suggesting? As I hear it, he talks about solving problems by talking to people rather than ripping out the biggest gun you've got and start blasting away; he talks about being responsible in money matters and about not giving taxpayers money to those least in need: rich people. What is wrong with that?

    But I don't think that is the most important thing that has happened, really. What has really happened is that people have thrown off the fear and insecurity that the NeoCons and the religious right have used to keep them down. Yes, it is hugely important that he is the first non-white president, but the really important thing is that people have chosen not to cower in fear any longer, but instead stand up and face it. And I think it is also remarkable that they have chosen what looks like an entirely unknown new direction - that is how much they didn't like the old ways.

  138. As it was foretold: by overshoot · · Score: 1
    No surprise. We were told this would happen:

    I'm going to know, at the end of the day, putting this in God's hands, that the right thing for America will be done at the end of the day on Nov. 4.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  139. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad I slept through it

  140. One foot on rigth way by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    Well done north-americans (i'm american too, but not from EUA. America is not ony north-america). Now, You have to learn to be more nice with the rest of the world, we (the rest of world) do not like much of people who try to impose by force.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  141. Who's a neocon? by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    Typical neoconservative.

    Who is? Neocons are just as bad as socialists, maybe worse, because they speak of capitalism but invoke statism - they hope to get the benefits of capitalism through government manipulation of the economy, and as always, they fail.

    In case you haven't noticed, the fruits were already redistributed, from our wallets to a vault owned by some millionaire-turned-billionaire.

    Who are you talking about? Care to give any context to your statement, or are you fine with wallowing in ambiguity?

    They want to take from the obscenely rich and give it to poor people.

    And what right do they have to take someone's property and give it to someone else?

    It's pretty fair to say that there's nothing a man can do, who earns a few million dollars a year, to justify that as his fair share.

    It's quite easy if he got that money through voluntary trade. You invent a product, I buy it, and everyone else buys it. Now you're rich. Do you suddenly not have a right to your earnings? Was anyone forced to buy your product?

    What can a man do to rightfully earn that much over a man who works harder and longer that earns peanuts?

    He agreed to those peanuts when he agreed to the job. If he and everyone else would hold out for more, they would get more (that's what a union does). Whose fault is it but his own for not improving his skill set?

    I want to know how you, who probably doesn't even make $100k a year can stick up for people who have systematically pillaged both the American Treasury and picked the pockets of Americans for over a generation.

    I am not sticking up for politicians, nor for corrupt companies who bribe politicians into getting favorable tax breaks. I am sticking up for companies and businessmen who have made my life better. Everything I have I owe to them - my car, my home, my computer, my job, everything I buy, all the choices I have. That's what made (past tense) America great. A scientist or programmer alone doesn't make a product successful, unless he also becomes the businessman by increasing efficiency of production and user-base.

    1. Re:Who's a neocon? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Who are you talking about? Care to give any context to your statement, or are you fine with wallowing in ambiguity?

      700 million dollar bailout.

      Tax cuts to corporations and the crazy wealthy.

      'Stimulus' cheques.

      Decrying Kerry as a 'tax and spend liberal' while adding trillions to the national debt by being a 'spend and spend' conservative. Oh, and destroying the balanced budget that 'tax and spend' liberal Clinton managed. You know, in any other context, any other context AT ALL, 'bring x money in, spend x money out' is called sound financial planning.

      No-bid contracts to companies like Haliburton.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Who's a neocon? by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      In case you haven't noticed, the fruits were already redistributed, from our wallets to a vault owned by some millionaire-turned-billionaire.

      Who are you talking about? Care to give any context to your statement, or are you fine with wallowing in ambiguity?

      700 million dollar bailout.

      You mean the bailout money that successful banks didn't want, and that they were forced to accept? You mean the bailout that was passed by the government thanks to vast amounts of pork? (search "wooden arrows for children", for example)

      Tax cuts to corporations and the crazy wealthy.

      Those same tax cuts should go to the crazy unwealthy.

      'Stimulus' cheques.

      Who's supporting those?

      Your original attack was on the rich, but your list seems to consist of government-backed extortions. Do you not see your contradiction? Or were you only talking about the rich who became rich through political pull and manipulation?

    3. Re:Who's a neocon? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Not my original attack; I'm just inserting myself.

      You mean the bailout money that successful banks didn't want, and that they were forced to accept? You mean the bailout that was passed by the government thanks to vast amounts of pork? (search "wooden arrows for children", for example)

      Yeah, that one.

      Those same tax cuts should go to the crazy unwealthy.

      Yeah, they should, and my understanding is that Obama's platform is just that. Hell, close all the various tax loopholes, shelters and exemptions, and you could probably lower taxes to corporations and 'obscenely' wealthy folks, too, and still bring in more money.

      Who's supporting those?

      Well, I seem to recall them being Bush's idea, but who's supporting them? Everybody who cashed them.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:Who's a neocon? by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      Tax cuts to corporations and the crazy wealthy.

      Sorry, but cutting taxes is not a form of wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich.

  142. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your friend, as he struggles to pick tubers by the light of his fungal-oil lamp, grumbles, "Basking in the victory of our once-messiah, on the surface somewhere."

  143. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by jez9999 · · Score: 1

    the kind that people decades from now will remember and ask each other "Do you remember where you were when Obama was elected?"

    In bed, getting some Z's, as I was on the other side of the world and I'm damned if I'm staying up to see some states turn blue and red instead of just hearing the result tomorrow. :-D

  144. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > A dutch Poet / commedian said this morning: Africa
    > congratualtes America with their first black president..
    > The have had many black presidents.. now all they
    > need is food..

    Africa has had many black presidents. Now all it needs is a *competent* black president.

    (only (half) kidding, for all the mods here who can't take a joke.)

  145. Re:All I can say now is... by nomadic · · Score: 1

    They know that he'll let them get away with everything they've done. He doesn't want to fight them, he wants to "talk to them".

    That's a lie. Always dangerous when people start believing their own propaganda, you might want to be careful.

  146. Re:I'll Tell You What It Means: filipino girls by lapinmalin · · Score: 0

    While I seriously doubt Obama is a filipino, do you guys think that filipinas are better girlfriends than caucasian? If not, why not vote for an asian girl at the next presidential election? -- "White nerd males should bred with good looking asian girls and make an Ãoeberrace"

  147. Re:United States Socialist Republic by WedgeTalon · · Score: 1

    Many people thought we were getting the lesser of two evils when Bush was elected over Gore.

    Not trying to say McCain would be better.

    Just saying that when you choose between two evils, you still end up with evil.

  148. Re:Election? by MosX · · Score: 1

    You're so clever! I haven't seen this question asked today yet.

  149. Let me be the first to day that, I for one... by alcmaeon · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...welcome our new black, arab, muslim, atheist, socialist, communist, not-born-in-america, terrorist, redistributionist-in-chief overlord.

    LOL!

    Seriously, from all of us in fake America to all of you in real America, thanks for the laughs...and the winks. Let's not forget the winks.

    Go Obama!

    1. Re:Let me be the first to day that, I for one... by M-RES · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heh, you forgot to add a line about his old pastor (in his Arab Christian Muslim Terrorist Churchmosque)... "God Damn America!" hehehe

    2. Re:Let me be the first to day that, I for one... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Thank you. That was my first response last night watching the results roll in (besides quaffing almost a whole fifth of bourbon in relief/disbelief). Fake America is now Real America, take that you "dividing and conquering" morons. The McCain rhetoric machine might still destroy us, I fear. He's managed to make all of middle America feel disenfranchised in the last couple weeks, so I expect the wacko right (of the Moral Majority stripe) to start rebuilding, which is bad for us as a country, real or fake.

      Partisanship should die.

      That said, shame on Arizona and California.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    3. Re:Let me be the first to day that, I for one... by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 1

      Stop the spears! He's only half black! (I keed, I keed...)

  150. Meh; another election come and gone. by Millennium · · Score: 1

    All the election really decided is in which direction the downward spiral will continue to spin for the next four years. It seems that it will spin left instead of right. Neither candidate gave me high hopes for it turning upward; not when the right has forgotten mercy, the left has forgotten justice, and the middle has forgotten willpower.

    Still, congratulations on a campaign well-fought and well-won.

  151. Re:More than Two words by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I just hope that when he doesn't solve the economic crisis and "all of the worlds problems" that they don't blame him, the 'first black president' (or the first white-ish president)...
    I hope the American people are smart enough to realize that Bush has buried them deeeep into the sh*t hole and that it will take a while to dig out of it.
    As a Canadian, i am wondering if he would even have been into the Race for President if he had been a BLACK man instead of a "white guy with a tan".
    This is not intended to be flaming... just a question. My father remembers walking into a restaurant in the states to go to the washroom and seeing an "out of order" sign on the door was told by the owner that that was just to keep the "negroes" out.
    Just a question.

    --
    soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
  152. Grow up people. by certain+death · · Score: 1

    Al-Queda, WAR!, Economy, BLACK PEOPLE, FAIL!, etc.. Fear mongering and idiot remarks about how Obama is going to fail because he is either black, leftist and what ever else you bunch of asshats are saying is worse than any lies either candidate told during the campaign. Stop being such a bunch of douchebag negative shit packers and realize that Obama has given HOPE back to a once great nation. I for one am very pleased that we have cleared the crap from the white house and will have someone who will focus on domestic affairs. Everyone, whether or not they will admit it, will benefit from a Democrat being elected. Now I am going back over to Digg to celebrate with some people who I can mod down for not seeing things my way! :o)

    --
    "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
  153. Yep, it'll be a giant world of SUCK. by PontifexMaximus · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for the 'change' he so consisently promises to be nothing more of the same of shit just with a slightly darker skin tone. He's a complete moron who BARELY ever registered a vote in the Senate that was something other than 'PRESENT' and his VP is a bootlicking scumbag. Well done, USA! We've managed to pick the biggest fucking loser of all time to run this country at a time when we need a JFK, or a Lincoln to run, what do we get? Herbert bloody Hoover or Chester Arthur.

    I cannot understand how, with the Dems having a majority of the last 2 years AND HAD A LOWER APPROVAL RATING THAN BUSH can get an even clearer majority. Obviously the majority of American people are STUPID and FUCKING LAZY and refuse to be anything other than the damn victim.

    All who voted for this dipshit are a disgrace to the country and the flag.

    --
    Pax Vobiscum
    1. Re:Yep, it'll be a giant world of SUCK. by Diomedes01 · · Score: 1

      Please, stop holding back - how do you really feel?

      Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them 'a disgrace to this country'. I doubt that the brainwashed old man and his religious zealot sidekick would have been a better choice for the country. I used to have respect for John McCain, but lost it all when he sold out to the extreme wing of his party. We see how well this country has done with ultra-conservative Republican leadership. Even if I don't agree 100% with Obama's policies, it was necessary to elect him, if only to shake the Republicans' tree and make them realize that this country doesn't want any more of the batshit crazy wing of their party. I am all about small government, low taxes, and personal responsibility, but that isn't what the Republican party is about anymore.

      --
      "To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
  154. end of days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama together with his False Prophet Jeremiah Wright will make Darth Vader and Palpatine look like teachers pets. Dont be fooled, Obama only distanced himself from Wright to win the election.
    I predict that Rev. Wright will be top associate to the Obama admin within weeks if not days after inauguration.

    1. Re:end of days by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      want to lay $100 on that, or are you just full of shit?

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  155. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

    Well, to be honest, that was with a democratic majority in the legislative side of things.

    To the gp:

    Not that a nominal amount of redistribution of wealth is a bad thing. It's called a progressive tax and is a generally accepted (especially as it was in play for the greater part of the establishment known as the United States government). The progressive tax is more obvious in the times of warfare during World War II and all previous wars. Guess what - it doesn't inconvenience the economy. Lower income families are better able to afford necessities and higher income families and corporations aren't much affected, unless they are already completely fiscally irresponsible.

    --
    "Little is much when little you need."
  156. -1: idiot by ionix5891 · · Score: 1

    wheres the -1: idiot moderator tag?

    anyways I wish to say, congratulations to our friends across the ocean outside my house here in Ireland, a step in the right direction your country took after 8 years of ....

    i actually cant find a word to describe the disgust at the bush administration and the far right lunatics that took your country and the world on a tangent :(

  157. All hail President Pelosi! by ShadowWraith · · Score: 1

    It's not Obama that's the winner here, but Nancy Pelosi. Now she can pass her most insane proposals without being vetoed.

  158. I, for one, welcome our new presidential overlord! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I voted Libertarian. I wasn't happy Obamma won, but I was also happy McCain didn't.

    --edfardos

    Bob Barr 2012!

  159. The Fairness Doctrine in Play: He won, he won! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    OK, so you got to make fun of McCain supporters. Here's the otherside in all fairness.

    Oh ... my ... gosh! Did you hear, like, he really won! Obama .. the One ... He won!

    I can't believe it. Obama's going take care of my mortgage, my car, my credit cards, my kids school lunches, my cable bill, my trips to Whole Foods, my hair care bill, my ... my ... my ... OOOOOOOHOOHOOHOHO! (Pant, pant). The Big O just gave me a Big O!

    1. Re:The Fairness Doctrine in Play: He won, he won! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      To be honest, the Obama campaign reminds me of a Cheers episode where Frasier had Woody run for City Council. Frasier's campaign policy was to use the word "change" a lot.

  160. age of assassination by idigitallDotCom · · Score: 1

    If the american people believe so strongly in their candidates, why haven't they "taken him out"? Has the age of assassination been sniper'd?

    --
    blog.idigitall.com
  161. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  162. Needs to do more in just 2 years. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    my hopes from Obama during the next 2 years: 1) restore integrity to the white house; To be honest, it really can not get much worse. He MUST push for a full investigation of the W admin (spying on Americans; haliburton; email switcheroo; etc). He must also allow the reagan and now Poppa bush papers to be seen. W blocked it by allowing the family to block what ever they wanted to. What a joke that was. 2) restore integrity in other countries views of AMerica. Again, it can not get much worse. He will have a SHORT time for this, but it will be there. He will need a VERY GOOD secretary of State. I pray that he brings back Powell (sans rice). In addition, he should keep Gates as well as Petraus. The top intel ppl MUST go. They have been far more detrimental to the intel community than is generally known. Negroponte was horrible, and McConnell is not much better. They both have been trying to force out numerous ppl who were well thought of and replace them with idiots; Imagine moving rumsfeld into a number of top spots. DHS has been a total joke from the git-go. It was loaded with idiots who must have been related to rumsfeld or cheney. They forced the group to go on Windows even though it is LOADED with so many security issues. Even now, those ppl have not been able to lock down their own computers let along systems elsewhere. 3) restore jobs here. While reagan and W put us deep in debt, we still have plenty of money to build our economy back. That means killing the taxcuts that encourage job movement overseas. In addition, it may mean tax cuts as well as RD in new areas; namely green energy (which is what he speaks of). 4) Start the big move off imported OIL. Drilling will not work. Since the majority of oil goes to our cars, he will have to focus on moving cars off oil. 5) Due to global warming (real or just perceived), we MUST cut our CO2 production. The majority comes from 2 items; Coal and Transportation. By moving our cars to Electrical, it will solve the above issues nicely. 6) GET US OUT OF IRAQ. If he does not have us withdrawing out of Iraq by 2010 (or gone), then dems will be finished. IDEALLY, we will have won the war against AQ. If it was retreat along the lines of when reagan showed his yellow belly in lebanon, then it will mean more future attacks against us. And yes, the pubs, and I suspect voters, would destroy dems in the polls.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Needs to do more in just 2 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding your first point, I think there are better options. Yes, W was a big-time presidential bust. However, investigating him and every Republican president to serve in the last 20 years is totally counterproductive. That's the past. Obama needs to look to the future and try to get us out of the mess that we're in. This is no time for pointing fingers.

    2. Re:Needs to do more in just 2 years. by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reason why Nixon, reagan, and W all broke the law so much is because there is NO real penalty. W and his admin MUST be investigated.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Needs to do more in just 2 years. by Darby · · Score: 1

      1) restore integrity to the white house;

      I pray that he brings back Powell

      Let me guess, you're tall and short. You have one leg and you have two legs. You think 1=2.

      In short you directly contradicted yourself right there.

      You can't "restore integrity" by bringing back a scumbag whose complete lack of integrity helped get us into the fucking mess in the first place.

    4. Re:Needs to do more in just 2 years. by Darby · · Score: 1

      The reason why Nixon, reagan, and W all broke the law so much is because there is NO real penalty. W and his admin MUST be investigated.

      I like to call it "Ford's Folly" that got us into this mess. Nixon could have gotten away with some trivial slap on the wrist as long as it was done.
      Due to that failure Reagan knew he could get away with far more severe crimes and he and his entire administration needed to do years of hard time. Since we once again failed to hold our rulers accountable, Bush and co pulled shit that they need to hang for. Anything less will send the same damn message that the President is above the law.

    5. Re:Needs to do more in just 2 years. by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      He's kept the press at arms length for his entire campaign. On NPR today, I heard the LA Times correspondent that traveled with the Obama campaign describe him as the "most continuously on-message candidate in memorable history". He described how uncomfortable (or suddenly unavailable) Obama became whenever reporters tried to talk to him in a casual manner, or about off-topic subjects...

      Integrity starts with candid, honest communications. You elected a carefully packaged product. It's going to be fun when people start learning what's behind the wrapper.

    6. Re:Needs to do more in just 2 years. by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      No president has ever voluntarily relinquished powers taken on by previous administrations. If you expect any president, Obama or otherwise, to do so in the future, you clearly still have some hard lessons to learn about the nature of man and power.

      There will be no investigation initiated from the executive branch into the Bush administration. Congressional investigations will be a sideshow at best. The Obama administration will not undertake any actions that would potentially lead to a reduction in executive powers. He didn't even promise to do so, but had he you would have found his view changed when he reached the top.

      Regardless, for political reasons he isn't going to want to be distracted from the task at hand by a media circus.

    7. Re:Needs to do more in just 2 years. by Darby · · Score: 1

      No president has ever voluntarily relinquished powers taken on by previous administrations. If you expect any president, Obama or otherwise, to do so in the future, you clearly still have some hard lessons to learn about the nature of man and power.

      Where you got the idea that I think any president would act to reduce his power is beyond me. My point is that without the President being held accountable for his actions, the power of the office and the crimes committed by its holder will increase.

      I'm aware that the pack of scum running this country won't do anything to help it without helping themselves first and foremost. I was pointing out that that is a major problem and addressed the roots of its current rapid acceleration.

  163. As an European by Meshugga · · Score: 1

    I need say: You guys earned it.

    You went through a lot the last years, and I daresay, not all of you who supported Bush had a good feeling in their belly all of the time.

    To us Europeans, the result is almost as important as for you. Why?

    We live in a more or less socialised economy, which means, that we try to spend the prosperity and good luck we received through economic upturn and scientific/industrial progress on as many people as possible. Sure, some say this is redistribution of wealth, and this tastes like communism. Let me tell you, it is _not_.

    We do follow the principles of economy and free market as you do, but we try to make sure that economic success, which we are all working on, is shared even in hard times for the individual. This leads to more happy faces in the streets, more money in the economy (since the "poor" can spend money too, and don't drop out as a workforce) and altogether a better feeling. Less poverty, almost no slums (we actually don't use this word for places in our own countries, because we have nothing alike) and social stability are the result.

    Well, but we can not barricade ourself in europe, no economy can. We need to exchange goods and money with the rest of the world, we need to take part in a worldwide economy.

    As you do, dear americans. But what if you went on with this (neocon) way (AND had lasting success with it, which you clearly didn't ...) - we would have had to compete with that, sooner or later. I don't doubt that it would've been a requirement due to a inferior economy (seriously, we have a great economy, and so did you), but I think, sooner or later the model of thinking would have spilled over to us, and we would have had to abide.

    So, what's going to happen now?

    You will learn (those of you who don't already believe in it) that state-funded social security and healthcare makes those things cheaper and better for everyone.

    You will learn, that social stability is more worth than 2% more income.

    You will learn, that less poverty and hopelessness yields less crime.

    You will learn, that working together yields more profit for all - instead of the GET OF MY LAWN attitude, which will eventually leads to hardship and anger for a significant part of society.

    As one quite rich Austrian (Peter Haselsteiner, CEO of one of the biggest construction companies here) said prior to an election in Austria

    "I shall be grateful for being able to go on a drink with my Porsche and coming back to my car which isn't vandalised. I shall understand that social stability is worth more than money." (he too was in favour of raising taxes for the rich)

    Social stability is a good that provides better quality of life for everyone, not just for those who receive welfare.

    1. Re:As an European by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but you came across as unbelievably condescending in your post. The United States is one of the oldest and most stable democracies in the world, we've had to bail Europe out twice both militarily and financially in the last century, and we don't need your guidance. Considering European countries lurch from crisis to crisis, the same as us, I don't think you've proved your point that socialism is always good--and I'm in favor of a lot of socialist programs.

      Your comments regarding crime are also strange, considering the crime rate in the United States is lower than that in Europe.

      I think the fundamental problem is Europeans don't really understand America. I'm sure at a fundamental level we don't understand Europe either, but at least we don't assume that we do, which I think is your mistake.

    2. Re:As an European by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Your comments regarding crime are also strange, considering the crime rate in the United States is lower than that in Europe.

      [citation needed]

      And possibly also clarification of which countries belong to "Europe", since that depends on whether "Europe" means the continent, or the EU including its newest member, or what's usually considered "Western Europe".

    3. Re:As an European by nomadic · · Score: 1

      http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics35.htm And Europe is Europe. If you're going to proclaim the superiority of Europe to the US then you shouldn't exclude those less-developed European countries to make your side look better.

    4. Re:As an European by Meshugga · · Score: 1

      You are right, when I re-read my comment, there is a dose of arrogance which I too can'T ignore =)

      And part of what you are saying is absolutely true: You are the oldest democracy, and we learned *an awful lot* from you, no doubt about it.

      You might call it bailout, I would call it brotherly caring. Thats what I was out for - that feeling of actually caring.

      I would also need to correct myself to "capital crime rate" - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate for more information. (though I'd like to learn more if you have better sources.)

      And no, socialist free market (what we call what you call "socialism") is not the ultima ratio. But it is a better approximation than just leaving the market and foremost the people completely to themselves.

      I really am sorry for my condescending words, it sure as hell wasn't meant that way.

      It is more like, you went ahead so much more than we did in two centuries, now that everything settles down a little and we all know that democracy sucks less, we can try and fine tune.

      But some opinion leaders in the US still compare socialist regulations of the market "communism" - which is just straightforward stupid. But how better to understand that it actually works and does more good than evil than implementing (hopefully well implementing) it yourself?

      "thus you will learn" - not because we taught you (who would think that, european countries themselves struggle a lot to make the system work better), but because you eventually will arrive at at least similar conclusions like we did.

      It will only hurt a little, I promise ;)

      btw: I don't think I understand the US, but I think I have a good idea what freedom means to you. And i truly, truly hope you arrive where you came from (sic!), thus showing the rest of the world how it can be done - with social security AND _true_ freedom.

    5. Re:As an European by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I think everything goes in cycles. During the 30's and 40's the majority of Americans were supporters of European socialism. During the 60's and early 70's there was a resurgence of that. I'm sure we're seeing the same thing now, but eventually the tide will turn again, unfortunately.

      I believe the US really should move towards more European-style socialism, I just don't think it's unprecedented here, or that if it happens it will be permanent. The people who shriek "communism" are a problem, but the best way to get rid of them is to slowly phase in a socialist yet fiscally prudent system, and let them die out naturally.

    6. Re:As an European by Meshugga · · Score: 1

      Again, you are right. Those cycles are there, and I daresay, we have them too.

      But after some time with social healthcare, nobody will ever touch it again, people will just go berserk if you even propose to get rid of it.

      Not because they are all a bunch of freeloaders, but because it is incredibly cheap to implement, and once you are there, you will see that medicine itself doesn't get compromised. Sure there are always possibilities to optimise things, but our top-income premium for healthcare (including medication, dental and accident-insurance) is 320EUR/month. If you earn more than 4000EUR/month, you don't pay more than that. If you earn much less, you pay much less. But you *have* to pay it (thats why it is so cheap). And almost nobody has a problem with that, because people are *experiencing* that it is high quality medicine (except the occassional malpractice, which happens everywhere).

      Such things, if they work (that of course is implementation specific), survive the cycles for the most part.

      I for one like Obamas plan of offering non-profit healthcare to everyone. It could be a very lean midway to what we have.

      (although I never understood why anyone should have to call his insurance company for approval in case of an accident - i hope you guys get rid of that too as soon as the state is a competitor in the market.)

    7. Re:As an European by nomadic · · Score: 1

      While I would prefer a national health care system, private insurance can work if it's done right. For example, I pay about $200 a month for a pretty good plan; unfortunately you can't get that in a lot of states, and fortunately I am relatively healthy so had no pre-existing conditions. The problem in the US is healthcare in general is so expensive, with an emphasis on expensive drugs, equipment and tests, and I think unless it's changed how medicine is actually practiced even national healthcare will be too expensive. As for calling an insurance company after an accident, unless you're talking about a minor issue hospitals are required by law to treat you in their emergency rooms. While you're there, if you're conscious, the medical billing people will try to get your insurance information from you, but the actual treatment is being given with no need for approval.

    8. Re:As an European by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics35.htm

      That's a somewhat dated bit of statistics, the graph shows only burglaries, and they consider (England+Wales) and Scotland separately. How about we look at something that's a bit more comprehensive and current?

      Burglaries:

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

      Car thefts:

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the_percap-crime-car-thefts-per-capita

      Robberies:

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita

      Assaults:

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita

      Rapes:

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

      Murders:

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

      And Europe is Europe.

      And that means ... the continent? Comparing a country to a continent is comparing apples to oranges. Even the EU isn't a country, but the comparison is a little more valid.

      If you're going to proclaim the superiority of Europe to the US then you shouldn't exclude those less-developed European countries to make your side look better.

      If we're comparing continents, then it's Europe vs. North America. I'm sure that throwing, say, the statistics of Mexico into the mix might make things interesting.

    9. Re:As an European by Meshugga · · Score: 1

      ok, but who pays the emergency treatment then?

    10. Re:As an European by nomadic · · Score: 1

      If you have insurance, they'll go after that. If you don't they'll send you a bill. If you can't afford it they'll get a court judgment against you. If you can't pay it they can maybe garnish your paycheck but not much more than that. And the next time you're in an accident you can go to the same hospital and they're still obligated to treat you. Costs are ultimately born by the hospital and the actual paying customers.

  164. Where did this idea coming from? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Where did the idea that Democrats would have reacted differently to the September 11 attacks come from? Allow me to repeat it from a previous post: No president since the 1950s, from either party, has served an entire term without engaging America in some foreign military conflict. No president has reduced the size or power of the military. No president has cut defense spending. Both parties have voted in favor of increased globalization, and the use of signals intelligence to spy on foreign businesses and pass their trade secrets to US businesses has occurred during periods of control from both parties. Involvement with foreign nations has only happened in those nations that appear to have strategic or economic value to the US (so do not go around expecting the US to intervene in Congo or Sudan), regardless of which party is in office.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Where did this idea coming from? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Where did the idea that Democrats would have reacted differently to the September 11 attacks come from?

      They probably wouldn't have reacted to the September 11th attacks differently. And good thing, too, as Afghanistan was/is clearly an issue, something the entire international communities agreed on, which is why everyone had America's back on that one.

      Iraq, on the other hand...

    2. Re:Where did this idea coming from? by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Yup, I'm completely against the war in Iraq, but I absolutely think that the war in Afghanistan was justified and necessary: a signifncant strike on our soil demanded a counter-attack. Even if the international community had not been supportive I would have still felt justified in the attack.

      If Bush has simply handled Afghanistan without getting a hard-on for war with Iraq, his presidency wouldn't have been so vilified. We should have concentrated on one enenmy, and finished the job.

      The saddest fact is, the distraction in Iraq means that zero progress has been made in Afghanistan in the last five years. Hopefully, we can slowly drop the Iraq issue, and make Afghanistan a priority.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    3. Re:Where did this idea coming from? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian, I can only hope you're right. Our nation has had to take on a very large burden in the war in Afghanistan, and while I absolutely believe that we should be there, we need help. Lots of it. Here's hoping the US can begin pulling more weight, there.

  165. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    and many Republicans found the neoconservatives to be embarrassing.

    And that's a reason why many former Republicans are not Republicans any longer. I voted Republican in the past. This year I voted Libertarian. Naturally I didn't have any delusions that Barr would win, but it was a vote with my conscience.

    Over on another, heavily Republican (and I'm talking the whacko variety where they believe that the Illuminati and NWO are behind everything bad that happens) discussion forum, I was threatened with a forum ban for discussing the merits of a third party. God help any actual Democrat that wanted to speak there.

    I'll admit: there's so many things that I don't like about Democrat positions that it's not funny. That said, the huffing and puffing, and the "Agree with me or get the hell out of my sight!" attitude of so many Republicans has turned too many off from the party.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  166. Greetings from Europe by Plammox · · Score: 1

    Good to have you guys back.
    We missed you.

    1. Re:Greetings from Europe by Meshugga · · Score: 1

      seconded.

    2. Re:Greetings from Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off and die, Euroscum.

    3. Re:Greetings from Europe by Plammox · · Score: 1

      *Mmmmm*
      Yup, democracy sucks if you're on the losing team.

      (I'm sure Al Gore thought that in 2000)

  167. I think.... by tkrotchko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Based on the "hopes" of a lot of people, the poor guy is going to disappoint a lot of people.

    His supporters who think he'll change everything.

    His detractors who think he'll change everything.

    Take a look at a list of presidents for the past 40 years and you'll see no one president fundamentally changes everything. Can't be done. A president doesn't have that sort of power.

    As I tell everyone, whoever gets elected you hope he/she does well for our country, because then everyone wins.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:I think.... by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 1

      One of the big differences here is that Obama has a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate. If he can work well with his party the only barrier he'll have is SCOTUS.

      --
      Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
    2. Re:I think.... by mopower70 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's black. He's President. He's already changed everything.

    3. Re:I think.... by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not just that, but look at the international effect it has had already?
      People are positive about the US again, that can only help you guys over there.

      (Dutchman here)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    4. Re:I think.... by mrjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He ran his campaign based on a large part by individual donations over the Internet. It's a remarkable thing -- Obama doesn't owe any favors to companies or even to his own party.

      He knows he can simply raise any money he needs on his own. That's why all of his speeches are "we", "our" and he's talking about "you" all the time. He owes the people, not the interests.

      Of all of our modern presidents, he does have the best hope of actually accomplishing change.

    5. Re:I think.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While "change everything" is fairly subjective I think it's safe to say that, for better or worse, the current administration dramatically increased the power of the Executive branch. It'll be interesting to see if the Obama presidency carries that forward.

    6. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Racist much?

      I thought race didn't matter in a non-racist world. Being pro race is also Racist.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    7. Re:I think.... by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      I agree that the president can't change everything, but they can damn sure steer the country. Even though republicans were the main backers of the civil rights act in the houses, LBJ got the credit because he ramrodded the democrat party to pass it, and had the balls to enforce it.

      I need to get back to work or I'd give you a laundry list of major turns the U.S. has made based on presidential steering. The bully pulpit of the U.S. Presidency is not to be under estimated. I would wager that the main problem Bush has had was his inability to use the bully pulpit to get things done because he is not a great communicator, and doesn't speak on a level with the populace.

    8. Re:I think.... by Oswald · · Score: 0

      Quite right. And having 95% of African-Americans vote for Obama is a long way from a color-blind society. But, given how downtrodden blacks in America feel, I think having a black president is a necessary step towards healing the country.

      We'll know we've fixed things right if we ever get to the point where African-Americans are ready to vote against the black candidate if they think the white one is better qualified.

    9. Re:I think.... by Viking+Coder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Advocating on behalf of a group that has lower than average educational achievement, lifetime salaries, and for that matter life expectancy, is not racism.

      Heralding the achievements of a symbolic leader of that group, and hoping that it has a motivational impact on the rest of the group, is also not racist.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    10. Re:I think.... by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      Why is he considered black?

      His mother is white, his father is black. Seems like he is as much white as he is black.

      Or is the 'lesser' race more important?

      To me, he is ... American.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    11. Re:I think.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, there's a lot of racism in the US. Hell, there's overt racists in every country on the planet. You're not racist, and I'm not racist, but racists and racism are unfortunate facts of life.

      The election of a black man to President means the population of racists in the US has gotten small enough not to dominate a national election. That's a pretty big change.

    12. Re:I think.... by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      FDR would have changed everything, if it weren't for the judiaciary and the seperation of powers. He probably came closest, though.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    13. Re:I think.... by Skrynesaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed, while remarks about villages missing their idiot may have been partisan, the civilised world was horrified with the re-election of Bush, and with the (in my opinion foolish) exception of Britain you lost all international co-operation.

      May I be among the first to welcome you back from the neo-con wasteland and hope that we can all proceed from where Clinton left off, in a spirit of international co-operation
      (Irishman here)

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
    14. Re:I think.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More white people voted for Obama than voted for Kerry and Gore combined.

    15. Re:I think.... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I thought race didn't matter in a non-racist world.

      What world is this? Can I move there?

      Race is very important in the US. The ideal is that it shouldn't matter and that should be our guiding principle - but we aren't there yet. This was a huge step... more white people voted for Obama than for Kerry.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re:I think.... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Racist much?

      I thought race didn't matter in a non-racist world. Being pro race is also Racist. /facepalm

      No, recognizing a historic landmark in the conquest of racism is not racist; that's ridiculous. Historical context is not racist. Understanding the significance of events is not racist. Not operating under the amazingly naive belief that we live in a non-racist world, yesterday or today, is not racist. I guess you think memorializing Martin Luther King Jr is racist, too?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:I think.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's black. He's President. He's already changed everything.

      Good point. Since the most powerful position in the free World will soon be filled by a black man, I think we can officially tell the NAACP to STFU.

      Besides, with all the redistribution of wealth(coming soon to a wallet near you), they'll be plenty of money to go around for all those too lazy to work for it.

    18. Re:I think.... by hasdikarlsam · · Score: 1

      No, we aren't. We're cautiously optimistic at best.

      It'll take a lot of time and non-horribleness to undo the damage Bush did to your reputation.

    19. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you're telling me that Racism is blind as long as the race that is being highlighted makes less money? Or do you still blame the poor education system on a cranky white guy who hates blacks and not the neighborhood full of racist blacks who scare out white teachers by threatening their life and claiming that they are trying to take over the neighborhood? Are you telling me that if an accomplished white doctor decided to live in a predominately black neighborhood and work at the hospital there, that he'd feel safe walking home at night?

      I think you have a skewed view on what racism is. It has no gray areas. It doesn't only apply to the majority of a country. It applies to everyone. Just because black America has pushed out everything in the name of "keeping their culture" (or whatever other excuses are used) doesn't make it right because they are the minority.

      There should be no continuation of race based programs, organizations, or policies. In order to remove racism, you have to treat everyone the same and stop promoting based on race alone. Racism will not vanish overnight, but it will vanish over time.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    20. Re:I think.... by Oswald · · Score: 1

      absolutely irrelevant even if it were true

    21. Re:I think.... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Being racist is believing differently about people based on race. Being a simple realist and stating a fact is not racist. For example, "black people are stupid" is racist. "Asians are good with math" is racist. But "black people make up a disproportionate amount of the jail population" is not.

      OP's statement falls into the latter category.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    22. Re:I think.... by tylerni7 · · Score: 1

      Please, he didn't even say if having a black President was a good or bad thing.

      It's also hard to say that having a black President doesn't change things considering, oh I dunno, maybe that we have never had a black President before?
      Being pro-integration is not being racist.

    23. Re:I think.... by StreetStealth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obama doesn't owe any favors to companies or even to his own party.

      Let's not be too hasty here: It's not like Obama didn't also receive major support from industry donors. So while we shouldn't discount that part of this victory is owed to our corporate overlords, we still, as you say, shouldn't discount that part is due to the folks in your neighborhood.

      Money talks; let's hope the unprecedented small donations from individuals this time talked loudly enough.

      I'm cautiously optimistic.

      --
      Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
    24. Re:I think.... by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      His power base is rooted firmly in the internet, and all the interlocking blogs and "friendship" groups that raised such a huge war chest through tiny contributions. These people are not going to be satisfied with a "Mission Accomplished" pat on the head, and "We'll see you in four years".

      Obama has to meet the expectation of several million connected and political active young Americans that he will somehow make the Federal Government more open and responsive to them. He is the first Internet Candidate the USA has ever seen, and if he fails to be the first Internet President, there will be hell to pay. The antiracial and antiwar riots of the 1960s will look tame by comparison to the damage that this demographic could inflict, if it were provoked.

      There will be changes.

    25. Re:I think.... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Ummm....
      Actually the vast majority of Obama's money came from big donors.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    26. Re:I think.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll know we've fixed things right if we ever get to the point where African-Americans are ready to vote against the black candidate if they think the white one is better qualified.

      That will never, ever, happen.
      Just look at Mayor Marion Barry.

    27. Re:I think.... by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      FDR would have changed everything, if it weren't for the judiaciary and the seperation of powers. He probably came closest, though.

      And thank god there were at least some checks and balances.

      Two other things FDR did:

      1) Suspended habeas corpus. Justice sure is swift when you don't have due process getting in the way, but it's also wrong a lot more often.

      2) Embarked on the largest unlawful imprisonment based purely on ethnicity we've seen in the entire history of the US. Today's equivalent would be to round up every person of middle-eastern descent and send them to Gitmo. Every single one. Go back to item 1 on my list, and you have no recourse to this imprisonment. Maybe in 50 years the government will write you a small check.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    28. Re:I think.... by Net_fiend · · Score: 1

      Hey I'm up for drinking beer and being merrie.

      --
      "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
    29. Re:I think.... by Net_fiend · · Score: 1

      How much time? Its been a flippin 200 years!

      I have no issues with black people what so ever. What I do have issues with is when people regardless of what race vote BECAUSE of the race of the person they voted for. Hell this goes for WVA who obviously voted for McCain because of his race. That is ignorance and ignorant people have no place to be voting because it screws up the system. Regardless of who wins. Hell I voted for the other guy, but if Obama proves himself he may get my vote in 4yrs if he were to re-run. However I also know that no president has major changes take place in their first term.

      This economy isn't due to Bush or to Congress. Its due to greed as previously stated and anyone who knows how to read would know this already. The thing is most poor people (white and black) don't know this. They only know what the box with a glow coming from it tells them. They're sheep and all sheep follow the flock. I live in VA and to see it vote the other way in the first 40yrs is incredible. Everyone here seems to believe what Obama has stated. Then again I know people came out of the woodwork who almost never vote because they've probably been affected in some shape or form from what has been going on which has NOTHING to do with the President. Other than that the biggest thing would be brining the troops. Boo who. If Johnny wants to come home and he's off in the military then he probably shouldn't have joined the military in the first place. Its not summer camp and anyone with any sense knows this. I have the utmost respect for the military, but some people are just stupid in respects to what they expect when joining the military. That is why you READ before joining.

      --
      "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
    30. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      No, as a matter of fact, I don't. However... MLK Jr. was for equal treatment, not special treatment. Celebrating the holiday is possibly against his teachings. What worries me about the holiday though is what would happen if the population of Black America becomes the majority. It's slowly moving that way. Just a quick question for you: Would it become a racist holiday if whites became the minority? When does it stop being a celebration of the fight for equality and turn into a celebration of the beginning of black supremacy? Do you think they deserve their time on top as some previous notable figures do? (...and yes, I realize the moderators are having a field day with my posts. Are they afraid to talk openly about this stuff? I'm being completely honest here. When does celebrating a figure based on race become taboo? When they are the majority?)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    31. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      So then, why did he say it? There's a definite underlying meaning to his post. Singling out a person based on race for an accomplishment held by 43 people before him is hardly being innocent.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    32. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what this is about though? People ARE believing differently about [Barack] based on race. Because he's black, he's changed everything... how is that exactly?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    33. Re:I think.... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Would it become a racist holiday if whites became the minority? ... When does celebrating a figure based on race become taboo?

      No, it would become no more racist than celebrating the birth of the slave-owning nation of the U.S.A. on July 4th is racist.

      And we don't celebrate MLK "based on race", but based on his actions, and his actions to promote freedom will never, in retrospect, be changed.

      If as you so obviously fear a black majority begins to oppress white people, and white people need a civil rights leader to protect them, then both that leader and MLK Jr. will properly be remembered as champions for freedom and equality. Please understand this.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    34. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Sure, I can agree with you on that. I grew up in a total (100%) white community and now there are more black families than I care to count living there. (I don't want, nor need to count... don't read into that statement.)

      My issue with this is that is the population of racists were low enough to change the election then it shouldn't be "rubbed in the face" of those that are racist. It's like punishing a kid. If you take candy away from one of your kids and give it to the other, then you turn around and mock the other kid... he's only going to retaliate. If we want full equality in America, we have to stop placing people on pedestals based on race.

      Congrats, he won the Presidency. Now we get back to work. What's so hard about that?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    35. Re:I think.... by Millennium · · Score: 1

      Advocating on behalf of a group that has lower than average educational achievement, lifetime salaries, and for that matter life expectancy, is not racism.

      If that group is defined by its race, then yes, it is. You've set up a double standard here.

      Heralding the achievements of a symbolic leader of that group, and hoping that it has a motivational impact on the rest of the group, is also not racist.

      There are a lot of people, even among those who subscribe to the idea that hating a powerful group is somehow different and more acceptable than hating a less powerful one, who would disagree. Your very quote states that, to paraphrase, "those people need motivation." Is that not a racist statement?

      If people are to be treated equally -as they should- then they must be treated equally. Stopping racial bias will not happen just by switching the scapegoat around; it is the scapegoating itself which must end.

    36. Re:I think.... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      That's not a belief about Obama's inherent nature, that's a belief about society.

      If a black man does something against the implicit rules of a racist society and thereby disrupts that society, discussing this fact does not make the person discussing it racist.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    37. Re:I think.... by neomunk · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you calling someone a racist and then following up with a missive about how dangerous black neighborhoods are to white people?

      *applause* You, sir (loose usage of term) are an inspiration to those who suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance.

      Oh, and just to give you a little indication of how much a scared little racist you really are, everyone who lives in my household (all white, with the exception of my half-Mexican nephew) feels perfectly safe walking around my (predominantly black) neighborhood at night. Maybe it's because we know the PEOPLE (wow, didn't even need the modifier black, how about that) that live around us, and deal with them as *gasp* PEOPLE.

    38. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      200 years is only 3-4 (maybe 5) generations of people. With every generation that dies, so does the racist teachings they were told. With every generation of kid growing up, they learn that maybe everything their parents told them might not be totally true. We are talking about grandparents today who witnessed the ugliest race wars in recent history. They have grudges for certain events and hate... yes, hate... for the other race because of some event. How can people expect then to forget that event and move on? This is on both sides of the fence. These grandparents have warned their kids, scaring them into being untrusting, and some of that has gone to their kids... but not all of it.

      200 years is really not THAT long. If we keep propagating the hatred through special treatment, we only prolong the hate.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    39. Re:I think.... by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      There should be no continuation of race based programs, organizations, or policies. In order to remove racism, you have to treat everyone the same and stop promoting based on race alone. Racism will not vanish overnight, but it will vanish over time.

      Mod parent up. Every time I try to bring up this point to anybody who I think would be like minded I get looked at like I'm a racist for trying to hurt someones "culture". The same ruling should be used with religion. I don't care about your holiday, religious paraphernalia, god, or the fact that you think the rapture is tomorrow so I should sign up for your newsletter or donate to your organization, I'm just trying to go to the ATM, so stop blocking the sidewalk.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    40. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Not everyone in the history of our founding was a slave owner. I think you're throwing a straw man in the ring here. I also never stated that we celebrate it simply because he's black. I stated that he taught equal treatment. I never said we celebrate his day based on race. You did when you brought it into the conversation. MLK day is a celebration of civil liberties. It happens to be for a particular race, but I don't see it as a celebration of black civil rights. I see it as a celebration of minority civil rights. This includes Black, Latin, Korean, etc. Hopefully you see it as the same and not a special holiday for ONLY black minorities.

      And no, I don't think it's some kind of "obvious fear of black majority". You are placing those words. I'm simply asking the questions.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    41. Re:I think.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he is mostly Arab. /shrug

    42. Re:I think.... by tylerni7 · · Score: 1

      Well, if we define "everything" in terms of past Presidents, we can assume it means all the past Presidents and their traits. Now we have a President with a new trait, he is black. Therefore, "everything" has changed.
      You do have a valid point, that in a completely "color-free" world, this wouldn't change a thing, but the fact that he will be the first black President really changes things, much like JFK changed things as the first Catholic President.

      Racism would be saying that simply because he is black he will be a better or worse president. The parent is just saying that he is black and others have not been.

    43. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      It's called a counter example. I suggest you stop placing meaning where it doesn't belong. There are definitely neighborhoods that are very dangerous for people of different race. I could probably drudge up about 5-10 videos of places in New York and LA where gangs of minorities feel that they need to retaliate to gain power. I could also find videos of "white trash" hicks that seek to blame blacks for one of many things.

      It happens on both sides. I just happen to be talking about it. (According to the mods, it's a taboo subject.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    44. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      While I admit that their are racist people in society, I cannot agree that we are a racist society.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    45. Re:I think.... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      That everybody is making such a big deal over the First Black President ought to be proof enough.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    46. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I think we just went in one big circle... Are we (society) racist because we celebrate a black President? If so, then you agree with me and we are back at my original post.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    47. Re:I think.... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      You're right that the talk of racism in the US is rather hypocritical. It is fine if a black person says that white people are always putting black people down, but it's racist if a white person says black people are violent. Both are racist statements but somehow, only one gets any attention. But at the same time, I don't think that's GP's point.

      I think GP is saying that that Obama has been elected President of the United States will motivate people who identify with him based on skin color, people who otherwise may not have been motivated if Barak Obama hadn't been elected president. And I think GP is saying that feeling good about this fact is not racism.

      It is good to help the poor and needy, regardless of their skin color. I think it just so happens that most of the poor and needy are minorities.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    48. Re:I think.... by msuzio · · Score: 1

      Yes, thank you, I don't know why people can't get that. All he needs to do is make an honest effort to be a reasonably good president, and his legacy is assured.

    49. Re:I think.... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Well no. You accused a specific poster, mopower70, of being racist because he thinks that a black President changes everything. My point is that you don't need to be a racist to think that, you merely need to believe that society is racist. If you think that society is racist, then "a black President changes everything" is a simple statement of fact.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    50. Re:I think.... by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      Wow - you've got a lot of hate going on there.

      If I pick a measure that I care about - like educational achievement - and I see that there's a gap in how different people who identify themselves as belonging to ANY group are performing, then I pay attention to it. I advocate on behalf of that group. I listen to their and other's ideas about how to close the gap. I'm even willing to vote for increased taxes to pay for social programs that hope to have an impact on their performance. I get excited when I think there's progress, and I herald it when a symbolic leader of that group focuses attention on the same issue that I care about.

      I don't care if that group calls themselves African-American, gay, female, child of a single parent, latch-key, short, overweight, or from Alabama, or whatever.

      Should I focus on one group to the exclusion of all others? Of course not.

      There's an argument to be made that we all should vote to make the government infinitely attentive to the educational needs of each individual child - regardless of any groups that child identifies with. And I think that's a fine *ideal*. But in practical terms, I think you'll agree that it's *cheaper* to look for generalizations - ANY generalizations - and to work within those confines as long as it's productive. So, if you want lower taxes, accept some generalizations. If you want to stamp out the shortcut of people looking at generalizations to do the best they can to help as many people as they can, then advocate your ass off for better funding. Until that day, either accept low performance, or accept targeted programs to address it.

      If girls are behind in science, then focus on that. If overweight kids aren't doing their homework, then focus on that. If African-Americans are behind on reading skills, then focus on that. If kids from Alabama are having a hard time getting to school, then focus on that.

      It's not racist, or sexist, or *-ist to look at how someone self-identifies, and see if they fall in a group that has, in a generic sense, different needs.

      How you then REACT to those different needs can indeed be racist, or sexist, or whatever.

      But all I initially said was "advocating," "heralding," and "hoping" and then you went off on an angry rant, along with a bunch of other people.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    51. Re:I think.... by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      When did I mention a single scapegoat? When did I mention blame? When did I mention hate? I didn't. You've got a whole lot of vitriol in your post.

      Your very quote states that, to paraphrase, "those people need motivation." Is that not a racist statement?

      If people identify themselves as belonging to a group - any kind of group - that it turns out are under-performing in an important area, then I don't think anyone should have any problem with saying "they need motivation", or asking "geez - what's going on?"

      The discrimination, or racism, or sexism, comes in from PRESUMING that an individual person - or the group as a whole - is incapable of improving, is inherently flawed, is under-performing because they're bad, or wrong, or deserve it.

      If you show me a group that's under-performing on educational achievement, then I want to address it. All groups. Any groups. And if there's enough funding for it, the size of groups that we pay attention to will get smaller and smaller and smaller until there's only one person in the group, and we've got the funding to do what we can to improve the educational achievements of that one child.

      Intentionally IGNORING the groups that people self-identify as being members of, even when there's a measurable statistical difference in how they're performing - is a ridiculous extreme of "anti-racist racism."

      How do you ADDRESS the problems of those groups? Ah, now that's a different discussion. Do you pay more attention to that group? Give them more funding? I agree that that can have unintended consequences - even exacerbating the problem. But I was initially saying that I *HOPE* that the achievements of a symbolic leader has a motivational impact on the group, so your labeling of that as racist is absurd.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    52. Re:I think.... by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying FDR was good, I'm just saying he was probably the strongest president. A strong president isn't necessarily a good thing.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    53. Re:I think.... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I've read your other posts. You think you're being subtle, but you're not. Sorry, but I'm in too good a mood celebrating yesterday's historic event to continue to have this discussion the way that you insist on framing it. You either appreciate this step towards the equality you claim MLK Day is all about to you, or you don't. Peace.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    54. Re:I think.... by 0p7imu5_P2im3 · · Score: 1

      I second the "cautiously optimistic" sentiment. I hope all goes well, but if something happens to Obama, and Biden becomes President. We've then gone from a President influenced by the people to a President funded by the corporations.

      I don't hand out accusations of corporate influence lightly, either. Biden's voting record calls him a corporate puppet louder than I could.

      --
      Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
    55. Re:I think.... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      There should be no continuation of race based programs, organizations, or policies.

      Nebraska's Initiative 424 for the win.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    56. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I still don't understand why you need to identify it as all the "fat kids are having poor math performance," so let's make a law giving fat kids the benefit. You should give all kids with poor math performance. It doesn't matter if they are fat, skinny, white, black, poor, rich, boy, girl, fruit or vegetable. You are categorizing the person based on a trait rather than a skill or skill deficiency. You are focusing your attention on an item that has literally no bearing on the item being questioned and doing a similar form of minority exclusion. If you focus your study on fat kids that are poor at math, you alienate all the skinny kids that are poor at math, and now all the skinny kids are mad at the fat kids for getting more attention.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    57. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      If you show me a group that's under-performing on educational achievement, then I want to address it. All groups. Any groups. And if there's enough funding for it, the size of groups that we pay attention to will get smaller and smaller and smaller until there's only one person in the group, and we've got the funding to do what we can to improve the educational achievements of that one child.

      You just stated the same thing above, and in stating it, you've proven that you focus your attention on the majority based on a trait of that group that has no relevance to the problem. Now, by focusing on a specific group of kids having educational problems, you alienate (discriminate) against the other groups.

      How do you ADDRESS the problems of those groups?

      You don't. You treat each person individually irregardless of color, weight or hair length.

      I'm eagerly waiting for your response to my other post.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    58. Re:I think.... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Money talks; let's hope the unprecedented small donations from individuals this time talked loudly enough.

      At their loudest, those voices of those small donations will be drowned out by the shouts of the big corporate donations to Congresscritters.

    59. Re:I think.... by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything about making a law. And we didn't just make a law - we elected a new President. You are conflating every issue you can think of.

      If you want to have a conversation, that's fine - but lay out your arguments, and defend them when they are criticized.

      It is NOT an affront to skinny kids to be "pro fat kid." (This is an analogy with your statement that "Being pro race is also Racist.")

      Chanting "Let Rudy Play" doesn't diminish the lives of all of the big, tall, muscular players on the football team. Cheering for Rudy doesn't mean you're booing for everyone else. Cheering at the Special Olympics doesn't mean you think Michael Phelps is a jerk. Applauding the accomplishment of our next President, that of being the first African-American president, and hoping that African-Americans are inspired to believe in their dreams, do more, hope more, accomplish more, is NOT booing all of the previous white Presidents, or his white opponents in the race for President. Hell, I hope kids from ILLINOIS are inspired. I hope AMERICANS are inspired. I hope all minorities are inspired. I hope everyone with a single parent is inspired. I hope everyone with an immigrant or non-American parent is inspired. I hope everyone who sees a part of Obama in them self, or sees a part of them self in Obama is inspired.

      Hoping people are inspired to do better for themselves is a good thing. Don't call it racism because we happen to be talking about a racial group being inspired. They have every right to be proud of their own. Just as people have the right to be proud of their sports team. Just as Americans have the right to be proud of their soldiers. Just as a neighborhood has a right to be proud of the students in their community.

      So, sure, when I talk about laws, feel free to criticize, because there's legitimate debate about their effectiveness. But that's not what we're talking about today.

      We are talking about the historic election of an African-American as President of the United States. And if African-Americans are motivated by it, then thank God.

      So please, shut up about it, because your "anti-racism" is driving you to conflate EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF RACE RELATIONS, on a day when there's only one thing the rest of us are talking about - the election of a President, and how we hope that inspires people who identify with him. Not at the expense of anyone else, but to the benefit of all of us.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    60. Re:I think.... by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      One guy with the backing of all the supposed checks and balances means that "1 guy" now has a blank check to pursue his agenda in government. The only thing that will slow him down is the possibility of republican filibusters in the Senate. Now, however, the dems are the ones with the nuclear option. If they employ it, the government will be Obama's to do with whatever he pleases.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    61. Re:I think.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Get back to your pub, stinking Irishman!

      (American here)

    62. Re:I think.... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Feeling good about ones heritage is not racist.

      Feeling like you are better than others because of your heritage, while not always racist, is always some kind of -ist.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    63. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Apparently I hit a nerve somewhere. I mistakenly(?) used law when it could have been rule, or special circumstance. It all falls in the same boat here. There should be no reason to treat someone more favorably for any reason other than the accomplishment they achieved.

      Yeah! A person became President. Period.

      Not a fat person, not a black person, not a square headed person. A person. Elevating that person to a pedestal based on race is racism against another race, just as demeaning him (as a black man) for doing something bad is racism against his race. There's no difference.

      If it inspires people of the same race, we have a long way to truly becoming a non-racist community. Think of it like a balancing scale. If you elevate one side, you have to lower the other (or the rest.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    64. Re:I think.... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Don't be too quick. Obama may not be Bush, but his voting record is enough to cause qualms. Remember he voted for FISA. He voted for the Bush bailout. And lots of other rather peculiar things.

      I voted for Obama because he wasn't McCain. Not because I have any particularly nice feelings about him. I'm cautiously optimistic that he won't make things worse. He might make things better, but he's voted for extending the war every time (I think).

      I don't think that Obama actually hates people the way that Bush does. That may in and of itself be the main advantage...and McCain might have had that same advantage, though I don't think that Palin did. But both McCain and Palin seemed to be suffering from reality disconnect aggravated by advanced cases of Future Shock. (So do many of their supporters.)

      So don't expect too much, and certainly don't expect ANY improvement before Jan. 20.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    65. Re:I think.... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I thought race didn't matter in a non-racist world.

      Why the fuck would you think that, unless you are ignorant?

      Being non-racist doesn't mean pretending race doesn't exist. In fact, pretending it's not there is racist in itself. See, for example, Stephen Colbert where he pretends he can't tell if one of his guests is white or black because he "doesn't see race".

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    66. Re:I think.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What bollocks - you're Irish, not part of the civilised world

    67. Re:I think.... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Apparently I hit a nerve somewhere. I mistakenly(?) used law when it could have been rule, or special circumstance. It all falls in the same boat here. There should be no reason to treat someone more favorably for any reason other than the accomplishment they achieved.

      Who said anything about favoritism? You really don't seem to get it, do you? How is encouraging people to do better discriminatory or playing favorites? How is looking at possible causes of problems a bad thing?

      Not a fat person, not a black person, not a square headed person. A person.

      Because a black person is elected president, they suddenly aren't black any more? Would electing John McCain have made him any less of an old person? Would electing somebody fat make them any less overweight?

      Your notion is pure BS. people are black, people are women, people are fat. They aren't just generic people.

      Think of it like a balancing scale. If you elevate one side, you have to lower the other (or the rest.)

      Of course, this is more bullshit. If you heal somebody who is sick, does that make everybody else less healthy? If you give an unemployed person a job, does that make everybody else less employed? Your logic simply makes no sense.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    68. Re:I think.... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      you've proven that you focus your attention on the majority based on a trait of that group that has no relevance to the problem.

      But why do you say it has no relevance? Perhaps it does have relevance to the problem. But you just state it has nothing to do with it, without even wanting to research. If statistically, a certain group is having a much harder time than others - then that's a clue that maybe something is going on within that group which is causing the problem.

      you've proven that you focus your attention on the majority based on a trait of that group that has no relevance to the problem.

      So, we should have individual school classes, with one teacher per student? I don't think that's really economically viable. I also don't see where the other poster was arguing that we shouldn't also address students' needs on an individual basis where appropriate.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    69. Re:I think.... by alta · · Score: 1

      I find it funny that everyone says he's black. He's only half black, the other half is white. I've seen no one claim that he's white. Why is it that having one black parent makes everything think it's OK just to say he's black. I've been guilty of it as well, but it's technically not accurate.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    70. Re:I think.... by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're using Zero-Sum thinking, and it's false.

      If 20 million Americans have poor eyesight, and it turns out that 80% of them are African-American - it makes sense to have programs that hand out recycled glasses in predominantly African-American areas. Doing so does not hurt anyone else.

      Yes, if you see yourself as being IN COMPETITION with black people, or poor people, or men, or whatever else, then celebrating the victory of President-Elect Obama on the basis of, well, cripes - ANYTHING - makes you feel bad.

      But you're foolish to see it that way. If 1% more of African-Americans stay in school this year, it's a huge victory for them, for me, for you, for America. To see it as anything else is really selfish, and immature, and insulting to the idea that we're all in this together, and that we should all wish for each other what we wish for ourselves (ie, Golden Rule, etc.)

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    71. Re:I think.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you telling me that if an accomplished white doctor decided to live in a predominately black neighborhood and work at the hospital there, that he'd feel safe walking home at night?

      You just successfully described my father, congratulations.

    72. Re:I think.... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      If 20 million Americans have poor eyesight, and it turns out that 80% of them are African-American - it makes sense to have programs that hand out recycled glasses in predominantly African-American areas. Doing so does not hurt anyone else.

      So what about the neighborhoods that are not getting glasses? What makes them any less special? Why play favorites to a specific neighborhood. I don't understand that thinking. You keep saying this.

      But you're foolish to see it that way. If 1% more of African-Americans stay in school this year, it's a huge victory for them, for me, for you, for America. To see it as anything else is really selfish, and immature, and insulting to the idea that we're all in this together, and that we should all wish for each other what we wish for ourselves (ie, Golden Rule, etc.)

      If 1% more of every American stay in school this year, it's a huge victory for everybody as well. In fact, I could argue that it's even more of a victory because I didn't discriminate against any one person and more people benefit. I don't understand why you keep trying to pin me as a person that says: "No support for anyone." You keep trying to categorize me as some sort of racist because I think everyone should be treated equal and nobody should be treated any more. I say equal support for everyone and no special treatment based on race. I never said, "No special treatment because they are this specific race." You are trying to twist my words.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    73. Re:I think.... by Copid · · Score: 1

      . And having 95% of African-Americans vote for Obama is a long way from a color-blind society.

      Kerry got 88% of the black vote. Obama turned out a lot of voters who haven't voted in past elections, so he got a higher percentage of most demographics than Kerry did. It doesn't take an appeal to widespread racism to explain that result. Republicans just don't get votes from that demographic. It's nothing new.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  168. That was not suprising by jonnyredbeard · · Score: 0

    That someone who raised a billion dollars won an election. That kind of bank roll from donations obviously a popular guy. Now we just wait to see what happens. Will it be good fortune or bad fortune for Obama. The blaim always lays with the executive.

  169. "YES YOU CAN" USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IANA ( I Ain't No American ) but, I was deeply moved by the speech Obama made yersterday. His selflessness, honesty and global vision of the challenges ahead seemed truly genuine. I am always impressed by the unity and patriotism of americans in general, but in the end, that unity needs to be focused on the right things. I do not think Obama ( or any politicial party ) can fix USA, but last night I saw a man who seemed able touch and unite a whole country. Will he be the one that ignites the passion within the american people to make this world a better place for all? It never seemed more possible than now! So stop bickering and get to it!

  170. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Kintanon · · Score: 1

    I was loading guns....

    --
    Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  171. This is America at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As Obama said himself, I don't think his history would have been possible in many (if any) other countries.

  172. Messiah by Prien715 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the world in financial crisis, two wars, and our civil liberties gone down the tubes, isn't it time for a charismatic leader with dreams rather than Joe from accounting?

    When did we become so cynical that we believed nothing would change? I suppose there were people said the same thing when FDR was elected.

    When did we become a nation of "that's too hard" instead of "yes we can"?

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:Messiah by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      With the world in financial crisis, two wars, and our civil liberties gone down the tubes, isn't it time for a charismatic leader

      That's exactly what they said in Germany in the '30s. No, I don't think Obama has much in common with Hitler, but voting for someone because they are a charismatic leader generally hasn't ended well when it's been tried in the past. And when did we start electing leaders instead of representatives?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Messiah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the world in financial crisis, two wars, and our civil liberties gone down the tubes, isn't it time for a charismatic leader with dreams rather than Joe from accounting?

      Sounds like an analysis of Germany in the 1930's.

    3. Re:Messiah by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      What did change with FDR?

      Oh right, the worst war the world has ever known, the creation of nuclear weapons, and the build-up of the military-industrial complex.

      Yay FDR!

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    4. Re:Messiah by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 1

      When did we become so cynical that we believed nothing would change

      When Bush got re-elected. Though I wouldn't have voted for Kerry either, that campaign convinced me that politics is a pointless formality. I stopped caring, and stopped voting.

      Now I'm cynical enough that the only coverage I watched on election day came from the Onion.

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
    5. Re:Messiah by Prien715 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Theodore Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, FDR, George Washington.

      Charisma on its own is a horrible ideal, just like pursuing wealth for its own sake. But democratic ideals combined with charisma is a great combination...just like a great job with great pay.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    6. Re:Messiah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize that FDR was your president from 1914-1918....

    7. Re:Messiah by LordActon · · Score: 1

      Is it possible you believe that? Do you suppose any president could have stayed out of WW II after Pearl Harbor? That the US shouldn't have entered it? That FDR caused it?

    8. Re:Messiah by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about "after Pearl Harbor"? In case you somehow were unaware, FDR became President in 1933 and Pearl Harbor was in 1941.

      I also said nothing about cause. Merely that FDR was President as these things happened, and that as far as I can see the changes he presided over (even if he did not influence them in any way, which seems a bit of a stretch) were just about universally negative.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    9. Re:Messiah by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      When did we become so cynical that we believed nothing would change?

      When the DMCA passed.

      the "tick" of cynicism buried itself deeper and deeper as:

      The DMCA was exported with ausfta and cafta.

      The EUCD was passed

      The swedish passed the DMCA in spite of massive public demonstrations

      ACTA continues to go on in secret despite the obvious economic and civil harm the DMCA has perpetrated on every nation which has it enacted.

      The french and british are threatening to cut off a required utility of everyday life on the mere accusation of performing an activity as every-day as a trip to the bar for a beer.

      "for the people" my ass. democracy has failed, can we go back to monarchies again?

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    10. Re:Messiah by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I didn't realize that FDR was your president from 1914-1918...

      That war doesn't even come close. Perhaps twenty million people were killed. The second war claimed at least three times that; the Soviet Union alone lost as many lives as the entire death toll of WWI.

      Just because Britain and America got off amazingly lightly doesn't mean that WWII was anything other than worst in human history.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    11. Re:Messiah by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....but voting for someone because they are a charismatic leader generally hasn't ended well ...

      The Germans did not elect Hitler because he was a charismatic leader, but he campaigned on a platform of change. One of his campaign promises was " when I get done with Germany, it will not be recognizable". Indeed, he made good on that promise, though not in the way that anybody thought at the time. Only 12 years later the world had changed forever and Germany was not recognizable, being a smoking heap of ruins.

      I hope that the change Obama succeeds in making will not disappoint those that voted for him, in the same way that many are sorely disappointed in Bush even though they voted for him initially.

      --
      All theory is gray
  173. Re:United States Socialist Republic by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

    It's a meme started by Obama. It means nothing more than that.

  174. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

    Cool! Obama can copy Brazil then and give everyone a free tin shack to live in!

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  175. Would it not be interesting... by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 1

    if the runner-up were appointed as the Vice President?

    That might be the first step to breaking the obsession with party affiliation. The two major candidates seemed to be reasonable men, popular with most of the electorate, so why throw one on the scrapheap just because he is a member of a party infinitesimally different in doctrine to the other?

    Just a comment on your system from an outsider.

    1. Re:Would it not be interesting... by Diomedes01 · · Score: 1

      Until the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment to our constitution in 1804, after the Jefferson/Burr deadlock, this is exactly what happened. The winner was president, and the runner up was VP.

      --
      "To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
    2. Re:Would it not be interesting... by PRMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was originally that way until the 12th Amendment in 1804. Apparently the practice ended because people were worried that the Vice President's party would murder the President to take power:

      In addition, it was becoming increasingly apparent that a situation in which the Vice President had been a defeated electoral opponent of the President impeded the ability of the two to effectively work together, and could provide motivation, at least in theory, for a coup d'état (since the Vice President would succeed to the office of the President upon the removal or death of the President). The Twelfth Amendment, in having the President and Vice President elected as a ticket, eliminated this possibility.

      Wikipedia

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  176. Our country? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    Again you think 100% of readers are from USA.
    I'd suggest the next right poll about nationality.
    Maybe you'll find something new!

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    1. Re:Our country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd suggest the next right poll about nationality.

      They don't need to make a poll, they can just look at the web server logs.

      The vast majority of Slashdot's visitors are from the USA. The site is hosted in the USA. All of the editors live in the USA. The stories on the site are USA-centric. If one of the editors saying "our nation" bothers you that much, maybe you're the one who needs to step back and think about where you are.

    2. Re:Our country? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Again you think 100% of readers are from USA.

      It's written from an American perspective because the site is...gasp...in America. You don't find people going to times.co.uk and whine about how it focuses on the UK. Get over it.

    3. Re:Our country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which logs? I don't see any stats out there!

    4. Re:Our country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As it's not slashdot.us it'd be hard to guess the USA centricity!
      The same way kernel.org is not Finland centric!
      Moreover, I can read the bottom line about link without any such evidence.

    5. Re:Our country? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Most coms are in the U.S. First come, first served and all that. Now if you find a violins.com that's based in Austria and send me their smallest violin, I promise to play you a lovely song...

    6. Re:Our country? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Why would they need a poll when they have IP logs?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:Our country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I'm Mexican working in the USA.

  177. One Man One Vote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever happened to One Man, One Vote. End all this electoral college crap and get back to basics!

  178. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  179. Wow, troll??? by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    Seriously folks, is the moderating system this biased? I stick up for what I believe, for the rights of everyone, and I'm a troll??? You aren't going to force reality to change by ignoring what you don't like?

    1. Re:Wow, troll??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Seriously folks, is the moderating system this insightful."

      Fixed that for ya.

    2. Re:Wow, troll??? by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Seriously folks, is the moderating system this biased?

      No, it's completely unfair that you were moderated "Flamebait". It should have been "damn fool" but there isn't an option for that.

  180. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by BarefootClown · · Score: 1

    Under Bush we all got "Stimulus checks" redistribution of wealth, we "nationalized banks", we "nationalized insurance companies", we "nationalized brokerage houses", and we gave trillions in welfare to Iraq...

    And now you're worried about socialism?

    Welcome to last year.

    No, no, you've got it all wrong. Socialism is when you nationalize successful industries!

    --

    "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
    --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

  181. I was in Grant Park. . . by Limburgher · · Score: 1

    . . .and it was one of the most electrifying nights of my life. Thanks to all to helped make it possible. Glad I took the kids, my son's too young, but my daughter will never forget last night.

    --

    You are not the customer.

  182. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by fprintf · · Score: 1

    I was laying in bed fighting Combine in my dreams/nightmare, plus those nasty head crabs that jump out when you least expect them.

    I watched the speech on cnn.com this morning from work, checked into the results of my local races (all won by Democrats), and really came away with a feeling that there is a ton of work that needs to be done, and not all of it can be done by one man in a short period of time. The other thing I did was look online at some guns because I know at some point there will be a tragedy involving a nutcase with a gun (ala VT or Columbine) and they'll be coming for my guns next.

    --
    This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
  183. So my opinion on Obama by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    I'll just start out by admitting that I my politics don't match Obama's at all. (Fiscially conservative, socially liberatarian. Not that I liked McCain either.) Also will get off my chest that the vast majority of people voting for Obama are basically just a bunch of cult members. However I really hope Barry does a good job as president because if he doesn't the person that will pay for his mistakes won't be him, it'll be people like me.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    1. Re:So my opinion on Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're a dumbass then?

  184. Oblig. Simpsons by aaron+alderman · · Score: 1
    Chinese Man: You pay now! Now! [pounds fist on table]

    Bart: What happened to you, China? You used to be cool.

    Chinese Man: Hey, China is still cool. You pay later. Later! [pounds fist on table]

    Bart: Solid. The rest of you go on home, and look in your mailboxes, cause I totally remember sending checks out. [murmuring, the creditor nations' representatives leave]

  185. Don't blame me by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

    I voted McCain! Maybe we should all get together in 2012 and write in Kodos, just to see what happens.

  186. Re:God didn't by ruin20 · · Score: 1

    That will never happen until we switch to consecutive run-off balloting. The election system being divided into districts and divisions will always favor a two party system until people are free to vote for a third party without "wasting" their vote. And yes, I voted Nader.

    --
    Oh honey look... How cute... an angry slashdotter!
  187. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  188. One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perestroika

  189. Re:Good luck America by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

    If you hadn't noticed, their economy is doing better than ours.

    --
    "Little is much when little you need."
  190. Re:More than Two words by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope the American people are smart enough to realize that Bush has buried them deeeep into the sh*t hole and that it will take a while to dig out of it.

    I would have hoped that the American people would be smart enough to know that the crisis was a bi-partisan failure. From Credit Default Swaps passing the Senate as a rider 98-0, to the Bush Administration sounding the alarm in 2003 but being ignored, to Barney Frank famously telling the House Republicans that there is nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and getting the backing of House Democrats), to the Republicans blocking the Fannie/Freddie bill once it reached the Senate, there is plenty of blame to spread around.

    The truth is that the economic crisis happened because the financial markets found new ways to be greedy that no one understood. When the powers that be looked at the balance sheets, they'd see these odd financial instruments and mortgage-backed securities and just shrug and say, "We trust that you guys are educated and know what you're doing. Besides, it seems to be working." Only now that they're falling apart is it clear to everyone how underhanded and vile these various financial instruments were. It's all crystal clear in 20/20 hindsight.

    That being said, McCain didn't help himself any by appointing Grahm and Fiorna as his advisors. Having the guy responsible for CDSes and the most hated CEO in history (at least, that hasn't been prosecuted) didn't exactly endear him to the American public.

  191. Uninformed Sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're all nuts - America has just been given away!

    About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

    A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.ÃFrom that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

    The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence.

    From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage;ÃFrom courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance;ÃFrom abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy;ÃFrom apathy to dependence;ÃFrom dependence back into bondage.Ã

    Seems we are now entering the "Dependence" Phase!

    1. Re:Uninformed Sheep by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Totally not the reply you're looking for, but when I first saw your subject line I thought it said "uniformed sheep", and, well, that made me giggle.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    2. Re:Uninformed Sheep by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      depends on who you ask. Seems most on the left will tell you we just left the Bondage phase and are well on our way to a new spiritual faith with their messiah.

  192. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Do you remember where you were when Obama was elected?"

    I was in bed, sleeping. But then, I'm in Europe anyway.

  193. Barrack vs. Obama? Yeah + it's Palin vs. Biden by noundi · · Score: 1

    The critisism on Palin has been very, VERY subtle. I'm dead sure that a lot of people fear that voting for grandpa McCain might actually become a vote on Palin. And when the analysists and the experts say "if something happens to McCain, will she be ready to step into his shoes?", they're actually saying "if McCain goes twelve feet under, will Palin shapeshift to her true form as Belsebub and suck the blood of a thousand virgins?".

    I'm serious, I've seen the picture of Lucifer on earth, and often he's displayed with boobs suspiciously similair to those of Palins.

    --
    I am the lawn!
  194. I recommend you find another country... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    That's what conservatives have been telling progressives to do for the last 8 years. The "real America" has, apparently, chosen the direction they want to go. If you don't like it, leave.

    Sounds very petty, doesn't it. It's a good time to realize that empathy for those who disagree with you is not a weakness.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  195. I have but one problem by PHPNerd · · Score: 1

    I was watching CNN last night on AC360, and Soledad O'brien said "96% of African Americans voted for Obama". That trend disturbs me quite a bit. I understand just how far African American have come since the Emancipation Proclamation. I get that. I'm also proud that we're at a point in our nation where we can elect someone who is black. That's great. What really bothers me is that somehow 96% of African Americans found the qualifier for President of the United States to be in a man's color of skin, and not his promised policies. I'm sure there were a hefty group who also believed in his policies, but I know that not all African Americans are hardcore democrats, or even independents. So there was a rather large (aka: not small) group that voted for Mr. Obama because of the color of his skin, despite differences of opinion on the way the country should go. That, is what disturbs me. And yes, I also realize there are voters in every election who vote for someone because they're white. Duh. But you'll never see 96% of white voters voting for the white candidate in an election between a white man and a black man. That obviously didn't happen yesterday. Race should never be a reason to vote for anyone - I don't care if they're purple.

    1. Re:I have but one problem by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Yes, that explains why Jesse Jackson won in 84, 88, and Alan Keyes rocked the black vote when he ran for office in 88, 92, 96, 00, 04 and 08.

      Not.

      So you're asking the wrong question. It's not "why do blacks vote for a black guy", but "what did Republicans do to turn off 96% of the black voting population", which is an easy question to answer. The modern conservative movement is based on two things: elitist opposition to the New Deal, and a backlash to the civil rights movement. Once Republicans stop hating on minorities - their xenophobia drove the receptive latino vote (socially conservative) to the Democrats - you wont see those high margins anymore.

      During the primaries, Hillary had overwhelming support from the black community - blacks were actually among the last of the Democratic constituencies to come on board. That didn't change until Obama proved he could win.

      Maybe you should try asking white Republicans why they haven't moved past Jim Crow.

    2. Re:I have but one problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashtard reasoning..."The modern conservative movement is based on two things: elitist opposition to the New Deal, and a backlash to the civil rights movement."

      Shut the fuck up slashtard, your a fucking liar and your take on modern conservatism is as stupid as it gets from the left. Modern conservatism is about a true return to limited govt in many aspects of our lives and especially economics. We dont need your leftist elitism telling us we need to redistribute our hard earned prosperity to implement your agenda and thats the main difference. Conservatives want to put the money back into the hands of its citizens who will then fuel the economic growth needed. Elitist Leftist Liberal Socialist if not Marxist Democrats think the Govt can make better decisions in regard to our economic future and in addition are forcing the taxpayer to subsidize this socialist agenda of which the centerpiece of our times is the Fannie and Freddie disaster of which the Obama, the DNC and the Media blamed the GOP for when the real blame belongs to socialist democrats.

      With a President Obama expect an expansion of more socialist economics tinged with income redistribution, growth of the welfare state and simply lip service in regard to security and energy.

      Its going to be a long and painful 4 years

  196. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

    I can't tell if this is a joke or not, but people all over the world are laughing at the notion of Obama being a socialist. As in the 90s, at least we can rejoice over the lesser of two evils winning

    Sigh, I checked, but Cthulhu was not on my ballot.

    --
    How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
  197. Re:United States Socialist Republic by extremescholar · · Score: 1

    The United States was founded on Guns and Religion. It was Religion that sent people to the colonies. It was Guns that kept that Religion from being oppressed.

    --
    Using the Freedom of Speech while I still have it.
  198. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was coaching my oldest daughter's soccer team (U9) for our last game of the season.

  199. my belief by conark · · Score: 1

    i feel that what this means is that America (and maybe even the world) has given the Democrats, more or less, a slate to work on. The ball is in their court and the people and the world have massive expectations. But to ensure that this slate isn't written on with invisible ink, the people in the US and the world must constantly remind the government that we've given them a job to do, not a right, but something that supports us, rather than just a few interest groups. If it's true that this administration wants to hear from us or dissenting voices, we have to write in and tell them constantly the direction that the country should head towards. This time it's not going to be just a party matter, but the matter of the entire American politics and the perception of America as a world leader. The government cannot slowly reveal hidden agendas along the way because it'll simply imply that the two party system is wrong and that everyone there is corrupt. I know the party isn't going to make things perfect. But I'd love to see *SOME* progress (money well spent, programs that clearly show improvements in scores, higher wages without inflation or taxes, money/credit given to green companies, money invested into research, universal health care, a meaningful social security system, punishing those crooks on Wall Street, etc). Even three of the items above would mean more than anything to me just to demonstrate something was done.

  200. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You only got a stimulus check if you payed Federal Taxes. That's not redistribution of wealth, it's a rebate. Obama will give checks to people who DO NOT pay federal taxes. That is a redistribution. How hard is that to understand?

  201. Dear label-happy US-ians by Don_dumb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's so bad about socialism?
    Do you honestly think that voting in Obama is going to turn the states into some sort of Soviet Russia just because SOME of his plans are similar to those in Western Europe?

    Wake up and realise that it doesn't matter what the idealogical principle is. All that matters is that you do the correct action for the situation. Sometimes that action is one that reflects libertarianism, sometimes conservatism, sometimes socialism, sometimes environmentalism, sometimes etc.

    Your healthcare system NEEDS drastic change, perhaps socialism. No one is suggesting a British style NHS (certainly not the British). But quite simply, whether you are proud of you country or not (and when did that matter to anything) you should be ashamed of your healthcare system.

    Regards

    Person-bored-with-meaningless-election-fearmongering-but-honestly-impressed-with-the-US-people.

    --
    If this were really happening, what would you think?
    1. Re:Dear label-happy US-ians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia socialism socializes you.

    2. Re:Dear label-happy US-ians by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Of course not, because in Soviet Russia, presidents elect YOU!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Dear label-happy US-ians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Person-bored-with-meaningless-election-fearmongering-but-honestly-impressed-with-the-US-people

      Right, you're "impressed" with them because they voted for the guy you agreed with so obviously they must be smart people who voted for all the right reasons.

      If they voted the other way - they would have been total retards who voted for all the wrong reasons.

      Isn't bias great? I just wish people on slashdot could realize how biased they are in their thinking on this stuff.

      Sorry to single out your post - everyone is doing it - this was just the "last straw" post.

    4. Re:Dear label-happy US-ians by AtariKee · · Score: 1

      "Sometimes that action is one that reflects libertarianism, sometimes conservatism, sometimes socialism, sometimes environmentalism, sometimes etc."

      Remember the type of people you're talking to. The all-or-nothing, fear and loathing conservatives.

      Their rhetoric no longer works in this day and age, but yet they keep trying.

      Last night's victory of Obama is all the proof you need of that.

      --
      "You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
      "Thank you, Master Control"
      -Sark and the MCP
    5. Re:Dear label-happy US-ians by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      All that matters is that you do the correct action for the situation.

      Wow. ...

      Wow.

      I wish I could mod you +10 Insightful.

      Too many people in this world are making decisions based on their "ideology" and not on merits. That means, one would look at a proposed solution and think "that's what a Socialist would do.... I'm not a Socialist!" and ban the proposal.

      If only people would start using their brains to figure out what the correct thing to do is. Admittedly it's actually somewhat hard, and to most people it's easier to make convenient labels like 'liberal', 'socialist', 'communist', 'capitalist' etc. and simply pick the one which adheres to the ideology that you've decided to follow. If only there existed an ideology based on doing the "right thing".

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    6. Re:Dear label-happy US-ians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you should say that. I am American, a Texan in fact, and I believe that its truly shameful that we don't have some kind of universal health care. I believe it will come, but perhaps not in my lifetime. Too many vested interests.

      JET

    7. Re:Dear label-happy US-ians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Wow... where to take THAT comment.

      First, socialism is theft. Steal from one class to give to another. Theft, by default, is wrong. So the burden of proof lies with you, not me, to tell me why THIS theft is better than regular theft.

      Second, socialism failed. We won that war. Remember? Go cross between East and West Berlin (or at least when I did in 1994) and you'll see what I mean.

      Third, tell me again what is wrong with our healthcare system? Is it that 44 million citizens don't have insurance, AND YET ARE TREATED WITH THE WORLD'S FINEST HEALTHCARE ANYWAY?

      I keep hearing that this healthcare system is broken, and the only reason I hear is that people don't have insurance. I know people who don't have insurance. For MANY it's not for lack of availability!

      Or that meds are cheaper in other countries. Are we going to import their tariffs and cost controls now? That's absurd. We can set our own laws, and they have nothing to do with the cost controls of other misguided non-free market countries.

      Sorry, I am not buying that "your healthcare system NEEDS drastic change" (since I USE our healthcare system and you apparently don't, and provided no supportive evidence to your statement. I employ a dozen people and pay for their healthcare. Go ahead and increase the employer's healthcare burden, and watch it go from 12 to ten people. Great strategy.

    8. Re:Dear label-happy US-ians by Don_dumb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thanks, it is just something that annoys me more lately than ever.

      Essentially everyone tries to align themselves either side of an imaginary line. The idea that the principles that are the one side of that line are the thing to do always in every situation is just absurd.
      It's the reason that the ideologies fall apart is because they can't cover everything. For instance, capitalism is 'right' or 'left', capitalism tells you that it is often better to make/employ foreign goods/staff which neither the right or left like. Both the right and left want to censor just different things but censorship is supposedly against the principles of both, one because of freedom the other liberty.

      This is probably difficult to follow (we had some fireworks in Britain to celebrate and I have had a drink!) but that's because the whole polar opposites in an imaginary world is plain silly.
      It gets a lot worse when people get 'loyal', to a concept.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    9. Re:Dear label-happy US-ians by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced that the fundamentalist rhetoric of fear is entirely dead as a powerful tactic. But it didn't work this time and I am genuinely impressed with the US that it didn't.
      The beeb commentator (I think it was) said that it was the victory of hope over fear. That might be empty rhetoric to a cynic like me but it is somehow heartwarming.

      The best bit about the victory is that it pisses off exactly the people I want to see pissed off. (Those all-or-nothing, fear and loathing 'conservatives' who hate everything socialist so much that they are the red party?)

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    10. Re:Dear label-happy US-ians by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      I'm impressed that the US has voted in a guy intelligent enough to actually look like he could be in high office - "My god he can speak in public!". I didn't mind McCain pre-election but during the election he couldn't string a sentence together and Palin simply is an embarrassment.
      Europe couldn't believe Bush was even in any official office let alone The Oval office. We can believe Obama can take that job, we feared a Palin presidency. Crazy old-worldians that we are we actually want someone in the most important job in the world to be smart.

      If you actually read my post, then you could see that I was impressed that the Americans have voted for the person with a positive message not the one trying to namecall and making ridiculous links between his opponent and terrorism or some 'evil ideology' (but not to his face.)

      Oh dear I think I missed the sign that told me not to feel the troll.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    11. Re:Dear label-happy US-ians by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Third, tell me again what is wrong with our healthcare system? Is it that 44 million citizens don't have insurance, AND YET ARE TREATED WITH THE WORLD'S FINEST HEALTHCARE ANYWAY?

      Wow, where to take that comment.
      Citation please.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
  202. Changes by coreyjkelly · · Score: 1

    "Although it seems heaven-sent, we ain't ready to see a black president." -Tupac Shakur, 1992

  203. I Voted Republican by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    When do I have to report for re-education camp?

    --
    What?
  204. Our hope is restored by Yaddoshi · · Score: 1

    Have you ever watched one of those movies where everyone is doomed, they're all gonna die, but they're okay with that because they've got a good leader they can depend on?

    That's pretty much how I feel this morning. Not that we're all gonna die...duh...but the planet is changing, the world is changing, the seasons are changing, the economy is borked, catastrophes are occuring with greater frequency, more evil is committed by our brothers and sisters each day and chaos is descending upon the world.

    I feel better knowing we will be lead by someone who will not depend on the use of fear to keep order. I feel comforted by the fact that the ant hill will not get stirred from up above. I am finally looking forward to the great changes that are upon us, whatever they may bring.

    This morning, I am at peace in my mind.

  205. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least you weren't posting on Slashdot.

  206. As far as I'm concerned... by Xeth · · Score: 1

    The election means nothing. We have to wait for January for the interesting times to begin.

    --
    If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
  207. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am pretty sure Obama and McCain BOTH voted to buy out the banks and insurance companies. Before you go blaming Bush for everything you need to realize Obama voted for that as well. Check your information next time.

  208. new on the hof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bump white house lied

  209. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by dlaudel · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think I was wandering around Vault 106, searching for any valuable items that may have been left behind by the survivors of Vault-Tec's experiments. Turns out, I didn't find anything particularly useful.

  210. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by cowscows · · Score: 1

    The two parties are certainly similar in more ways than they'd like to admit, but that's not to say that things would play out the same regardless of who is chosen, or that it's an irrelevant choice.

    Do you really think that we'd have invaded Iraq if Gore had won?

    Anyways, there's too many people and too many issues for it to be possible for a candidate to have the "right" policies across the board. In elections, just like almost everything else in this world, we have imperfect choices. But that doesn't mean that one choice isn't significantly better than the others. All of the third party candidates have some serious flaws as well. Even Ron Paul.

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  211. Re:All I can say now is... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Yup, talking to terrorists is never the right answer. Look at Northern Ireland. Clearly much worse since the two sides started talking.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  212. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's one thing in your post that really stuck out to me...

    The use of signals intelligence to spy on foreign businesses and pass along their trade secrets to US businesses has occurred during both the Clinting and Bush administrators

    Actually, the use of sigint to do this has been going on for as long as there have been signals. And every country with modern technology does it. Every single one. What makes you think this could ever change?

  213. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

    That was just a little taste of what Comrade Obama and his socialist pals in Congress have in store for you in the next four years...

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
  214. Re:Election? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, there was. The Americans elected a load of electors... the proper election is happening in about a month.

  215. Re:More than Two words by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just hope that when he doesn't solve the economic crisis and "all of the worlds problems" that they don't blame him,

    Obama has the good fortune that the crash didn't happen on his watch, so whatever he does to worsen the depression will be blamed on Bush by most people. They'll gloss over the fact that Obama voted in favor of Bush and Paulson's $850B robbery.

    Hell, even today, most people think FDR ended the first great depression.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  216. Re:All I can say now is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What proof of this is there? The only thing anyone can say is that we elected the guy who "is not Bush" I'm on the fences honestly but one can say with certainty that no one knows what this will bring. Leading community groups and a campaign gives NO insight into ones abilities to lead a nation.

  217. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

    Quick and extreme change scares the bejesus out of people and creates reactionary movements. It is usually avoided.

    Change that lasts is always made slowly.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  218. The rest of the world is also excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm from the Netherlands, and I believe that I speak for all my fellow countrymen that we are just incredibly relieved that the American people made the right (in our eyes) decision. Congratulations!

    McCain seems to be a good man and a capable leader, but Obama promises a much needed new approach to US (international) politics. I'm not sure if the American people realize this, but our public news channels (in Europe in general) are almost exclusively broadcasting news bulletins and talkshows discussing just how important the election of really Obama is. Not just for the Americans themselves, but also for us - the rest of the world.

    I'm hopeful that this marks the beginning of a new era in the history of the western world.

  219. *sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now watch you get punished if you achieve the American dream. WOOT more taxes and lets rejoice to see the Middle class Bush tax cuts expire.

  220. HISTORIC by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    This election is unlike any other because:
    - it ends the disastrous legacy of eight years of Bush
    - it shows the triumph of Hope and Looking Forwards (how Obama campaigned) over of Fear and Divisiveness (how McCain/Palin campaigned.

    But most importantly:
    - it shows just how far America's gone towards MLK's "Dream". ANYONE can become president. Think about it; how many people, in THEIR OWN COUNTRIES can imagine themselves (or more importantly, their children) becoming the leader if they are not from the right clan/tribe/race/ethincity/social class. (Obama, the product of a Kenyan muslim father, lived in Indonesia, grew up in Hawaii and, as raised by his single mother, was most definitely out of the American Power structure).

    THAT IS WHAT HAS/WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT - THE FREEDOM TO ACHIEVE WHATEVER YOU ARE CAPABLE. NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE. No other country comes close I think, think about all the barriers that would prevent most people, short of revolution, from assuming the presidency in their country.

    As a minority from America this, more than anything else, makes me feel like America is truly my home. Honestly it would be easier to be a success in America with all of its "racism" than in my ancestral homeland.

    (It is just like how, in the movie "Ratatouille" that we realize that the phrase "Anyone Can Cook" means not that anyone can be a master chef but that a master chef can come from anywhere, even from the most unlikely of backgrounds. ;)

    1. Re:HISTORIC by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      As a minority from America ...

      So, you're White Anglo-Saxon Protestant ?



      Seriously, though; it'll be interesting to see if this will mark an end to the victim/entitlement mentality amoung blacks, and other persistantly underperforming segments of society.

      My guess, no chance.

    2. Re:HISTORIC by wisebabo · · Score: 1

      Don't know, (I'm not in one of the underperforming minorities). However hopefully this will help put an end to the bigotry of low expectations (from others and themselves).

    3. Re:HISTORIC by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      You know, the sort of things our ancestors did to that race have ripple effects. They were systematically discriminated against all the way up through the better part of the 1900's. You should look into the racial discrimination of the Federal Housing Administration in the 1930's (they wouldn't give the new cheap mortgages, the FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED, hand-out style mortgages, to any minorities). Then you should ask yourself why the average white family has more equity and assets than the average black family (it couldn't be history, right?), and THEN realize that having a lot of assets, say equity in your home, makes it easier to send your children to college if they weren't whiz-bang good enough to get a full-ride in scholarships and grants.

      To call them a "persistantly" underperforming segment of society without realizing why they are the way they are, is simply ignorance and self-righteousness.

      Speaking of persistently underperforming, you should use a spellchecker.

    4. Re:HISTORIC by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm quite familiar with many details of our historic, systemic racial discrimination.
      I'm also quite aware that discrimination, be it racial, sexual, or otherwise, is a (unpleasant) fact of life.

      I agree with the premise that some form of reparation for my government's/society's past transgressions is justified.
      I agree with federal legislation to ensure that all people are treated equally.

      I very much disagree that that the predominantly black underclass is somehow entitled to even more hand-outs, preferential treatment, or other entitlements simply because they are black.

      Any black person under the age of , say 40, has no significant claim to reparation of any form, with the possible exception of those unfortunate enough to have been born and raised in backwards-ass states like Alabama, or Mississippi - especially Mississippi (which has an entrenched cultural bias to black victimization/entitlement mentality). The younger they are, the weaker their claim is, until the age of about 20, at which point, I say there is no reparation due at all (again with the caveat of the aforementioned states)

      Obama has proven that, and he's 47(?)

      The figures speak for themselves, compare federal entitlement per capita spending, by race, over the past 40 years , and see who makes the most of what they're given.

      I am just slightly younger than Obama, and I have lived in many very depressed areas of the country, from the poorer areas around Chicago, to the frightening areas in Manhattan, to the gangster areas around L.A. The theme is the same. Nihilism amongst the young is endemic in these areas, not through lack of government handouts, but in fact , I think, the opposite. These are groups of people who are constantly told they're being treated wrong - when they no longer are - and that they should magically be made successful, and prosperous, without any effort on their part.

      That's what I've seen with my own adult eyes in the last 25 years.

    5. Re:HISTORIC by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I agree, but at some point you have to move on. This is going to sound racist, but I'm going to say it anyway - though it's only a single data point. I used to live near, DC, and I've also lived near LA. On average, I found African Americans to be, um, less motivated than those of Latin American descent. This is not some statistical survey, and doesn't represent everyone of course, but I was far more impressed with the work ethic of those in LA. This was, I should also say, in the jobs for people who could not afford to attend higher education, and represented a generally lower socioeconomic stratum, and these were all people born after 1960. If you were to ignore the emotional baggage of their parents and beyond, they would be considered on relatively equal footing.

      A lot of the problems start with bad personal image and poor work ethics at home. I have no doubt that there would be inequity, but I believe that two generations of positive attitude and work ethic can eliminate all barriers up to the top few percent of society. The last couple percent will take centuries to fix, but the only place to start is today.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:HISTORIC by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      We never gave them any handout. When we freed the slaves circa 1880, we gave them nothing, no payment for their forced labor whatsoever. With no ability to get a job, many of them turned to sharecropping, essentially making them wage slaves.

      The Time Value of Money

      If you're wondering why people in those gang-ridden areas are poor and uneducated and angry at the police, consider history, consider what their parents remember about racial conflict (parents born in the 1960's most likely), and what they were likely taught as children about history.

      I wouldn't argue or vote for reparation payments myself, either, but I get the impression that lots of white people say "they're poor because they're lazy," which isn't exactly true. We have deliberately fucked their people sideways for hundreds of years; you think that doesn't affect the present? Institutionalized racial discrimination only ended maybe 50 years ago; believe it or not, things that affected your grandparents have a ripple effect on you. Just consider the Hilton sisters; they are multi-millionaires due to the actions of their grandfather, the founder of Hilton hotels who was born in 1887. Did blacks have the opportunity to found a hotel chain in 1887? That sort of power and investment is worth way, way more than the welfare payments over the past 40 years. In 1887, most blacks were illiterate, and that's because slaveowners deliberately kept them from learning to read or write.

      Also, word to the wise: nihilism is rampant in modern-day society as a whole. It's just that those nihilists are more visible than others because for some reason they think it's profitable to tote guns around and deal (wrongfully) illegal drugs; it's not.

    7. Re:HISTORIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Obama, the product of a Kenyan muslim fathe

      Ummmm... I''m pretty certain his Kenyan father was NOT muslim (not that there's anything wrong with being muslim, just that the claim is incorrect).

      His stepfather was Indonesian muslim.

  221. Re:Obligitory Simpsons, but true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A democracy ... can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship" -- Sir Alex Fraser Tytler

  222. Will they assassinate Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "The shit Bush & Co. has done will take far longer to unravel..."

    Whoever controls the Bush administration has killed more than a million Iraqis to make oil and weapons profits. Killing doesn't bother them, for them it is only a way to make money.

    A lot of people are saying that they will assassinate Obama.

    1. Re:Will they assassinate Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah? And make Biden president? It would be a horrible day for America to lose a visionary such as Obama. But Biden would be a good president.

    2. Re:Will they assassinate Obama? by LordGlenn · · Score: 1

      Yeah 'cause Bush and co. are such huge Joe Biden fans.

    3. Re:Will they assassinate Obama? by Onan · · Score: 1

      I couldn't be less a fan of the Bush administration, but suggesting that they'll assassinate Obama is purest nonsense.

      Even if we grant that they'd have no moral qualms about doing so or fear of getting caught, what exactly would that accomplish for them? Turning Obama into a martyr and Biden into President? Or if they decided they didn't like Biden either and got him at the same time, anointing Pelosi? Who exactly do you think simultaneously has that much hatred for Obama and feels that either of those options would be sufficiently better?

      Or are you suggesting that they're just going to stage an armed overthrow of the entire government, and march Bush back into the Oval Office by way of force? Again, even if you believe they'd be in favor of the idea, it's not implementable in practice.

      There are plenty of damning things to say about the Bush administration that are actually true. Let's stick to those, okay?

  223. Whither the GOP? by overshoot · · Score: 1
    The question I've been posing the last few days is, "what happens to the Republican Party?"

    The knives were already sharpening before the election, and you can bet that they're going to be sliding between ribs and across throats in the next several months. The teams I call "the Goldwater conservatives" and the "theocrats" are tooling up for a showdown, and I'm loading up the popcorn machine.

    The theocrats seem to be able to deliver about 25% of the vote nationally, and they can be counted on to show up for their hot-button issues. Trouble is, that's enough to make a primary win impossible without them and not enough to deliver a national win. Which we've just seen: McCain had to kiss Falwell's ring to get a shot at the nomination, and that's a big part of what cost the election last night.

    So -- will team Goldwater leave the party? Quite a few Libertarian-leaning former Republicans voted for Obama over civil liberties. Strange to see the Democrats becoming the party of small government; I can't see that as stable. Will team Falwell bolt to form the Jeebus Party? They could stand for secret police, wiretapping, and the full might of the State to pass judgment on our sex lives.

    In the too-unlikely-to-take-seriously department: what if a critical mass of leaders in Team Goldwater decided to bolt en masse for the Libertarians? They'd have the numbers to take over an existing party structure, and they'd have what the Libertarians never had: actual power in Congress. The USA would have a viable third party for the first time in more than a century.

    Popcorn. That and a fridge full of beer.

    This is going to be fun to watch.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  224. Plus ça change, plus c'est (presque) la m by seyyah · · Score: 1

    ... well at least until I see otherwise.

  225. Funny to look at the ballots... by British · · Score: 1

    ..most notably, the other candidates for president you never hear about. Aside from Nader, McCain & Obama are the candidates I never heard of, nor the general public cares about. They are probably there every election, yet nobody notices.

    I'm glad I participated in this election. The important part of the electoral process is getting that sought after "I voted" sticker. No more stickers? That's a problem.

  226. Re:United States Socialist Republic by antiaktiv · · Score: 1

    So, what's better than the lesser of two evils? Why, of course, the lessest of three evils!

  227. Any conspiracy theories? by Doug52392 · · Score: 1

    Any wild and crazy conspiracy theories on this election? Or will this be the first election in 8 years where it seems that the winner won fairly...

    1. Re:Any conspiracy theories? by jimwelch · · Score: 1

      You obviously do not read slashdot - The election machines had the problems predicted.

      --
      Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
    2. Re:Any conspiracy theories? by jimwelch · · Score: 1

      So here is a link to problems for those who can't find the news.

      --
      Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
    3. Re:Any conspiracy theories? by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      While not widespread, some absentee ballots (about 50) meant for my county (which always votes about 70% Republican) were stolen from a post office in a normally Democrat county. A co-worker of mine never got his and that's what the post office told him. Knowing the area, I guess it would be easy for a post office worker to "lose" absentee ballots destined for an area you know typically votes the other party.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  228. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by smashr · · Score: 1

    Hard work is penalized, and laziness will be rewarded.

    For hard working citizens such as yourself this cloud has a silver lining!

    Take the next 4 years off, don't work, drink beer all day. You'll be better off than if you had a job! That is, if you really believe what you just wrote.

    Regarding such things, this video shows my favorite Obama supporter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

    It just boggles the mind.

  229. Re:All I can say now is... by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

    As you know ethnic cleansing was going pretty strong under the Taliban (ie, executions and rape for those Muslims and non-Muslim who did not practice strict Islamic law) before we invaded. The true tragedy is that while we focused on Iraq, those human right abuses continue in Afghanistan under our watchful eyes and the Taliban once routed into the borderlands of Pakistan have reorganized to the point where Karzai (the top Afghan CIA liason in the 80's ... ie, a Bush Buddy)is currently negotiating with them to bring about a cease fire. And they still tried to assassinate him. If you want to get a ground's eye view of the Afghanistan situation, check out rawa.org and check out the latest news. You'll want to vomit.

    You claim that ethnic cleansing will restart once Bush leaves office, but you'll be shocked to know that ethnic cleansing has continued under his watch with troops on the ground. Oh, and the reason the hate us so much is because we tend to kill friend and foe alike as well as kidnap and torture in off-the-books prisons.

  230. Re:Obama by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    If McCain of the election cycle was anything like McCain of the past, I would have voted for him. I like McCain. I like the fact that he seems willing to actually TALK to people "on the other side", and has in the past shown that he can express himself well. The "even when I don't agree with him, it looks like he believes it and his point seems rational" factor was quite refreshing.

    I haven't seen that in at least ten months.

    Election reform is the last thing on any winner's mind, though.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  231. Re:A Good Day by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

    Why is it that we need to either like him and think he's a "MASSIVE step forward," or we're racist and should die in a fire? Because of his skin color we can't have ideological differences?

    Sounds like you're the racist to me, friend. I saw past his skin color and disliked him for his politics and policies.

  232. Plus ça change, plus c'est (presque) la m by seyyah · · Score: 1

    So sorry about the accents.

  233. My kingdom for a mod point! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Absolutely - every time I hear people complain about welfare, I think they should give it a shot. It's not as easy as it would appear, and the life is not nearly as glamorous as these oppressed "working class" people would believe it to be. Further, most of these people don't pay any significant fraction of their income in federal income taxes.

    The most I've ever paid in federal income taxes is about 12% of my gross income, and that was before my wife and I had kids and we both worked in LA and rented (i.e. two professional incomes and no deductions). On average, I think we pay between 6% and 9% of our gross income as federal income tax, and we're certainly above median income in my area. I pay more for sales tax when we go out to eat.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  234. My take on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Here's my take on all of this, and you can bash it all you like.

    I am a 35 year old, college edumacated agnostic white male, with a white collar job in Detroit (ouch), 2 kids, wonderful wife who works outside the home, nice house...the only thing missing is the picket fence. I save for retirement, I live within my means, I feed the economy with my money, I waste gas and drive a big-assed truck, but I also recycle.

    I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal: pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, pro-gay "union" (don't care if it is marraige or not), 2nd amendment advocate, screw the mortgage and banking bailout - other stronger companies will suck up their assets and move on - I will hold the politicians responsible for that farking mess forever, let's end the war and use those resources to protect our borders and infrastructure (hell, the terrorists couldn't even take Jersey from the greasers), I'm a flat-tax advocate, fan of alternate fuels like wind/solar/hydro, drill in ANWAR and the Shelf, recycle, build more nuke plants, and yet I like long run on sentences because they're wasteful.

    What I'm trying to say is that I'm not unique. I am all parties - I am both charitable and greedy, giving and needy and that these character traits ebb and flow within each of us through our lives. I doubt any of us toe down one line or the other completely, and probably not all the time. This balance is something we all share, like it or not - it makes us similar, regardless of our many differences.

    I thought Bush was going to do great things 8 years ago. Now I cannot stand to hear one more word come from his gaping slack-jawed hilbilly maw. He disgusts me with every word and act. It flowed - then it ebbed (more like a tsunami). Yet I still voted for McCain because I believe he had the biggest chance to truly stand against the political machine and make true change. Perhaps I am wrong, but I'm not too big to admit it. And now that it is over I hope I am proven wrong in a big way.

    Yesterday we elected our new President, our new Commander-In-Chief, our new "Leader of the Free World". When I checked CNN this morning and saw it was Obama, something stirred inside me. I felt different in some way I can't yet get a finger on - partly ill at first, partly hopeful for tomorrow and our country. Maybe I'm getting pulled into this vast movement of "hope" and "change" that has been swirling in our youth with such fervor of late. Is that a bad thing? Even if it doesn't shake out as much we wish, is hope for lasting change in and of itself a bad thing, considering the past decade we have labored through? Should we instead be dragged into the future kicking and screaming without putting our support behind our elected leadership? If that's the case, we should scrap the whole thing and start over with a new government...who's with me? Yeah, didn't think so. As long as the masses have roofs over their head, food in their belly, this will never happen. It is not until life truly becomes unbearable that "real" change happens in the form of armed revolution. So we must do what we can with what we have to try to ensure the best future for ourselves and our children.

    I have made a promise to myself that I will give this man my support and will try to make the U.S. a better place over the next four years. If only a few hundred million others could do the same, perhaps we could reunite together and make the U.S. a better place for ourselves, our children, and our grand-children.

    Disclaimer: I'm pretty sure all politicians are criminals in their own rite - most of which deserve to have their heads put on pikes in the town square. They have their own agendas, which should be constantly monitored and reported on by watchdog groups. We should ban all lobbyists from Washington immediately, and anyone taking a sweetheart deal before, during, or after serving as a senator or representative should be prosecuted for treason. You are not representing the people of this country in order to get rich or

    1. Re:My take on this... by fprintf · · Score: 1

      Your positions are exactly the same as mine, a mixture between the two main parties. I like how you described it. I also voted for McCain and had similar feelings when waking up this morning - mixture of fear and hope. Thanks for sharing.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    2. Re:My take on this... by sxpert · · Score: 1

      too bad I don't have any moderating points...
      +1 insightful (particularly the last few paragraphs)

    3. Re:My take on this... by Diomedes01 · · Score: 1

      I fit into your description quite well, except no kids yet, and I am an atheist instead of an agnostic. Perhaps that's why I simply could not bring myself to vote for the man who bowed to the will of the extreme wing of his party and chose a religious zealot as his running mate. I could have voted for John McCain 2000, but John McCain 2008 lost my respect. His concession speech last night makes it clear that the "real" John McCain is still in there, but for whatever reason, was not allowed out into the open this election cycle. Pity.

      --
      "To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
    4. Re:My take on this... by kuzb · · Score: 1

      ....

      Anonymous Coward for president in 2012!

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  235. The only bad moment from last night by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    Let me be the first to point out (as an Obama supporter) that John McCain decided to take what may well be his final bow on the national political stage with class, decency, and style. That he would get up there and say "I wish godspeed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my president" suggests that he might well have listened to the better angels of his own heart.

    But I was saddened to hear booing from the audience when McCain started complimenting Obama. I understand why it happened, but it was really the only moment of ugliness all night.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:The only bad moment from last night by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      "But I was saddened to hear booing from the audience when McCain started complimenting Obama"

      I was noticeable that when Obama mentioned McCain in his speech, there was applause. seems a certain parties followers are very poor losers.

      I supported Obama, but I really wish McCain had been in the 2000 elections, I am sure he would have reacted differently to the current idiot in chief. He seems a damn good man. I would love to see him as the next secretary of defence!

  236. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "we gave trillions in welfare to Iraq... "

    Oh, is that what you call them bullets, bombs and torture apparatus these days? If not, there's not much in Iraq besides burned and bombed down places, so somebody else must have pocketed the money.

  237. A Sad day in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grab your guns, stockpile ammo, hide your bibles and children. Prepare for a very ugly 4 years.
    We can hope that he gets shot, but I fear that since he has control of congress and he has pulled the wool over the eyes of our young and impressionable new voters, "Him" will try making us allies with Hamas, Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

    1. Re:A Sad day in America... by mattrumpus · · Score: 1


      Hahahahahaha, wow. People like you are really out there. Amazing.

      Or are you trolling, gotta be, surely....

      --
      Who's with me?! I SAID... WHO'S WITH ME!!??
  238. Unrealistic expectations by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    Frankly, I think that the expectation that Obama and the Democrats are somehow going to do things any differently from Bush and his crew is naive. And the belief that somehow Obama is inherently better for civil liberties is equally naive, if not more so.

    I never could fathom the logic behind people who believe so strongly in preserving civil liberties but at the same time support the notion of a much larger government which would control our healthcare, wealth and security. How will be able to preserve our freedoms when the government knows every little thing about us, even more thoroughly than they do now.

    Well, only time will tell how things turn out. I expect one of two things will happen. Obama will make a big mess of things or not much of anything at all will change. And given the absurdly high expectations of some people I think they're going to be sorely disappointed.

    I will concede one thing, however. This is a historic event. Obama being elected demonstrates that racism in this country, as an institution, is dead. And anyone, regardless of background and race, can become truly successful. I hope people remember that when they start pushing for socialism.

  239. What the...? by jalefkowit · · Score: 1

    There were no crazy partisan court hearings, just a simple election.

    What's up with that? I thought this was America!

  240. Would ****HAVE**** tossed by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also, :

    - They were there for less than two years
    - They are not in charge of the executive; by definition the legislative's impact is less imediate than the executive's
    - Repugs fillibustered (or threatened to) almost everything the democrats tried to pass in the Senate
    - Bush vetoed almost anything the democrats passed

    1. Re:Would ****HAVE**** tossed by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately you missed that it takes a bit of time to get into the mess we're currently in- and a hell of a lot more than just the President can actually manage to screw up.

      It's one that several Congress' and several Presidents, with both parties presiding over the fiasco, took to bring about. Approximately 10-12 years, in fact, to get us where we are.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    2. Re:Would ****HAVE**** tossed by roccomaglio · · Score: 1

      The argument that the republican stopped the democrats from doing anything during the last two years contradicts your blaming the republicans for everything that happened before. The democrats could have stopped everything by filibuster. You cannot have it both ways. The democrats also controlled the senate from 2001 to 2002. So add that to your two of the last eight years.

    3. Re:Would ****HAVE**** tossed by Sj0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's just partisan bollocks. Extend the problem just far enough to blame Clinton? This crisis has a long history, I'd argue one stemming all the way back to the end of the Breton woods system under Nixon, followed by the irresponsible fiscal attitudes of Ford, Reagan and the two Bushes, accompanied by Carter and Clinton's attempts to force equal access to credit for people who shouldn't be able to afford credit.

      We've had an attitude towards debt for decades that has been dangerous and irresponsible. This crisis is just some blowback from those policies.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    4. Re:Would ****HAVE**** tossed by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Republicans have had much tighter party control. It's almost
      resembled the communist party in some ways. That's why McCain
      was in such a good position to market himself as a Maverick and
      someone who could bring change in Washington despite being from
      the ruling party.

      The rank and file republican hasn't had any Cajones lately.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:Would ****HAVE**** tossed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    6. Re:Would ****HAVE**** tossed by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You left out the actions of Pelosi and Feinstein. Feinstein, at least, is nearly as guilty as Bush, and Pelosi was as guilty as she was capable of. And she just got re-elected.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Would ****HAVE**** tossed by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Wow, two years. You sure have low expectations.

      How many decades will it take for the Democrats to do something useful?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    8. Re:Would ****HAVE**** tossed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't say as I agree with your second point. People tend to want to blame one person but that doesn't make it so. The United States Congress holds considerable power; quite arguably more than the President. If the Democratic party is truly the agent of change to get this country out of a mess, where the fsck have they been since taking over? Blame for the problems we face should be laid at the door of both parties. It's just the amount of blame to be allocated to each group that's debatable.

      As for your fourth point, if it's true, the Democratic congress sure hasn't done much of anything since winning a majority. President Bush has only vetoed 12 bills since assuming the presidency. I think characterizing this as vetoing "almost anything the democrats passed" is just asinine.

    9. Re:Would ****HAVE**** tossed by GaryZ · · Score: 1

      Correct...read this: New York Times - Clinton Adminstration Pressured Fannie Mae September 30, 1999 In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

  241. Gun ownership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was good while it lasted.

    1. Re:Gun ownership by valhallaprime · · Score: 1

      What a stupid post. Oh I guess you believed the rhetoric that when Obama's elected, people are gonna come and collect all your guns up and melt them down. I guess he's a closet Muslim too, right? Why don't you read his official stance on gun ownership and sportsmanship. Or did you already have Sean Hannity read it to you?

    2. Re:Gun ownership by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      Why don't you read his official stance on gun ownership and sportsmanship.

      His "official stance", which no doubt contradicts his past official stances, means nothing. The only thing that matters is his legislative record.

  242. School Election Over by billjlewis · · Score: 1

    Looks like the popularity contest is over. I met very few people who could actually "tell" me why they were voting for Obama, besides "He's Black", or the catchphrase "Hope" or "Change". I respect you if you stand on issues but this, like most Elections was a purchased popularity contest.

    1. Re:School Election Over by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Weird, most people I talk to have a lot of very good reasons as to why they voted for Obama. I have good reasons myself.

      I think maybe you're not talking to the right people.

    2. Re:School Election Over by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      That's an unfortunate symptom of our two-party tradition. In the two-party system, you aren't forced to figure out who you really want to vote in as president; you can simply decide who you don't want and vote for the other alligator.

      Obama might have gotten votes due to racism, but he also got votes just because McCain sang "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"

    3. Re:School Election Over by ProppaT · · Score: 1

      Well, if it's any consolation, I haven't found anyone who has given me any reason for voting for McCain except for "Obama's going to outlaw assault riffles," "McCain is pro-life," "Obama is going to take all of my money," or "my family votes republican."

      Face it, the masses vote for stupid reasons. If you threw out the sector that is uneducated on issues and threw out the radical extremists, we might be able to have intelligent conversation and get somewhere with the real issues. The problem is, all someone has to do is mention abortion, gun control, or global warming and it instantly pulls 80% of the country one way or the other. The real issues become moot because of the overwhelming feelings about a few core differences in values.

      This is why, in large, there should be a total separation of church and state. We've never going to agree on abortion, stem cell research, etc. Guess what, you're not going to eliminate it from the world. Have a feeling of national pride but realize, in a country such as America with people from all over the world, that not everyone is going to feel as you and you shouldn't try to force your values on others. You're definitely living in the wrong place if you're a xenaphobe. We're all from different places and the "I was here first" deal doesn't cut it. It sure didn't for the Native Americans.

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    4. Re:School Election Over by billjlewis · · Score: 1

      Those first two (abortion and gun rights) are real "issues" in our government. While I have no problem outlawing assault rifles, I do believe that every american citizen has a "right to bear arms". As for abortion, this is a very dividing issue. But you must see both sides. In my eyes this is murder, the same as birthing your baby and throwing it in a dumpster. Others may disagree and that is the great thing about this country, but do not dismiss these as non-issues. The "issues" you think are important may not be what I think is important. I disagree with him on abortion and homosexuality, which are religious convictions (but no less important than any moral convictions you may have about the Iraq war or foreign aid). On a secular level, I also disagreed with him on socialized medicine and free enterprise. I do not feel that this is the correct response to the issue. While health care should be affordable and convenient, it should not be freely passed out to everyone. If you choose to sit on the couch, eating McDonalds with a cigarette and a beer, I should not be forced to foot the bill for your health care. I also strongly believe in free enterprise. Over-taxing our national businesses causes them to be less competitive on a global level. And the taxes just get pushed down to us consumers/employees anyway. Don't think the CEO is going to take a pay cut to pay the taxes. The lower employees will, or the company just raises prices. I did not vote for Obama, but I will support and pray for him as an American citizen. That is my duty.

  243. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Limburgher · · Score: 1

    I had the honor of being in that sea of people with my wife and two kids.

    --

    You are not the customer.

  244. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under Bush, everyone got stimulus checks because the democrats in Congress demanded it, and passed a bill that provided for it. Bush opposed giving stimulus checks to people who don't pay taxes.

    The democratic Congress nationalized the banks and insurance companies.

    Bush had little to do with any of that, and really, the democrats wouldn't let him because they wanted all the credit of "success" to help with the election.

    People are worried about socialism now, because there are few left to oppose the dems REAL agenda. The policies you cite are a result of people being stupid enough to put dems in the majority in Congress in the first place.

    Congratulations America. I hope you get exactly what you deserve.

  245. I don't know why this is voted "funny" by fadir · · Score: 1

    I'm totally serious when my thoughts are exactly the same "Thank God!"

    After the catastrophic last 8 years it needs something like a "messiah" to fix all the shit that Bush has piled up. Of course Obama will not be able to undo it with a wave of his hand but at least he is the one that CAN bring a change.
    No matter how much McCain was stating that he is not Bush: he was on Bush's side almost all the way and is still supporting most of his crap.

    If there was a chance: Obama is it and I'm damn glad that the Americans finally replaced that retard of a president with a proper person and didn't vote for McBush.

  246. My turn!!! by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

    This is great!!! Now I get to spend the next four years providing no value, whining and complaining, and pointing out every little fault in every decision Obama makes without providing any real alternative. I get to occasionally support a decision, and then if it turns out bad, complain that I never really supported it.

    Just like the liberals have done for the last eight creating one of the most divisive countries in the world and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by ripping everything apart without contributing a thing.

    This is going to be fun. I've had 8 years to study the democraps tactics and can be good at it starting ... today!!!!

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    1. Re:My turn!!! by triathlon4life · · Score: 1

      LoL. Yea, Bush was the best thing for Big Oil and Big Contracting firms. Why do conservatives just hate on everything that isn't from their so called belief bag?? I mean give me a break, Big Bush has been Big Government since he got into office. Hmmm, sounds like a 'liberal democrat idea' to me.... The only difference is, his big government has contributed to him being one of the worst presidents of all time. He will go down in history for being a complete disaster.

    2. Re:My turn!!! by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      "Worst" is fortunately an opinion which changes over time. Harry Truman had the highest and lowest approval ratings of any President before him and overcame dramatic hardships during his years in office. George W. has had higher approval ratings, but not as low as Truman did.

      Of course, the liberal left will never point out that the House and Senate have approval ratings even lower than GW. And that GW can't pass laws or budgets, only the House and Senate.

      So, before you go hating on GW, remind yourself that for the last two years, liberals have been in charge and haven't done shit.

      I guess they were practicing for the next 4 years.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    3. Re:My turn!!! by triathlon4life · · Score: 1

      See that is what I am saying. A very near sighted comment and here is why.

      1. You state that congress has been controlled for the past 2 years by liberals. So what happens with that? Well, it puts a cowboy (GW) and the liberal congress at odds. It is what is called a dead lock. Anything that came out of congress was vetoed, threatened to be vetoed, or otherwise changed so much that any bill/law/change didn't stand a chance. That is what happens with a cowboy in office who thinks they are above the system.

      2. GW had a rubber stamp congress for SIX years!! Why does everyone forget this???????? We are paying for the 6 years of rubber stamps right now! GW had it his way for six years and left us in a terrible mess. So a rubber stamp congress, or "political capital" was the exact term he used, has lead us to where we are today.

      3. GW approval ratings were higher and lower than Mr. Truman. GW has swung much further in both directions. GW approval has plummeted over the last couple years. I wonder why?

      I'm not hating, i am saying GW had his chance and he F'd up. Plain and simple. He was a bad bad choice for a president. A president who squandered all "political capital" and has left us where we are at. You can blame the congress for the last two years, but that doesn't change the facts. Stop hating and give someone else a chance. At this point Chucky Cheese is a better candidate over anyone from the Bush regime.

    4. Re:My turn!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is great!!! Now I get to spend the next four years providing no value, whining and complaining, and pointing out every little fault in every decision Obama makes without providing any real alternative. I get to occasionally support a decision, and then if it turns out bad, complain that I never really supported it.

      Just like the liberals have done for the last eight creating one of the most divisive countries in the world and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by ripping everything apart without contributing a thing.

      This is going to be fun. I've had 8 years to study the democraps tactics and can be good at it starting ... today!!!!

      Except that more than a few of us liberals didn't vote for dubya EITHER time.

    5. Re:My turn!!! by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      We are paying for the mistakes of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton creating a system where people with poor credit could buy houses with no equity and interest only loans. And creating a financial powerhouse with no outside oversight or responsibility.

      We are paying for the greed of bankers who took advantage of the greed of stupid people who agreed for such loans. We are doing that so people like me who weren't greedy and stupid don't see our house values plummet or our retirement plans disappear. (I just split mine up three ways to make sure I was covered in case anyone went under. What a pain in the ass that was.)

      GW approval ratings were not lower than Mr. Trumans, I must not have made that part clear. His approval has plummeted because of the lack of support and the public lack of respect the liberal media has shown him.

      No one mentions that since 9/11 there has not been any successful terrorist attacks on this country, but there were several before then. Some by our own citizens. No one mentions all the people arrested for plotting such things, not only in the US but all around the world.

      No one remembers the Iraqi people pulling down statues and tearing down murals. The media fails to note that Iraqi citizens are now turning in the same insurgents they used to be terrified of. Or that soldiers are leaving Iraq early in some places because it has become safe enough. Or the millions of dollars the US people have poured into that country in things like books, toys, clothes, medical supplies and how the Iraqi people have welcomed our soldiers delivering these items. Good news doesn't sell newspapers I guess. Oh, they'll drag out the few that disparage the Iraqi war. But not the ones that have reenlisted to go back to help people who need us.

      No one remembers all the Democrats gleefully agreeing to attack Iraq, or mentions how they quickly turned tail when it was no longer a fun war.

      No one points out the divisive atmosphere the liberals have been piling on GW for the last 6 years.

      He was a great president who overcame terrible conditions to keep this country together. Through it all, he was constantly attacked for doing the right thing, yet maintained his composure instead of just saying fuck all of us and going back to Texas. All that for $240K/year?? Ain't worth it.

      Let those who think they could have done any better stand up and just try that job for one day. The rest should all just sit down and STFU.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    6. Re:My turn!!! by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      And more than a few of us conservatives didn't vote for the one either. No landslide yesterday, only a 6% difference in the popular vote. Which means it won't take much to change the minds of 3% of his sheep once they find out how hollow a shell he is, and how far up his ass Nancy Pelosi will get her hand to move his lips.

      Just keep drinking the kool-aid, it will soon be all better.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  247. Neither candidate addressed the real issue... by Trip6 · · Score: 1

    ...that we have borrowed and spent the next generation's money. We will need massive inflation to get the money to pay off the 10 trillion national debt, or even to service it. Nonetheless, better Obama than McCain.

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
  248. Re:All I can say now is... by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

    Last time we talked to whom? The Vietnamese?

    When we pull out, North Vietnam will take south Vietnam and the world will suddenly become a lot more dangerous (after all there were lots of terrorists in Vietnam before we became involved).

    Fast Forward to current fictional times:

    The last time we talked with anyone over in that area, we were unwilling to make even any decent compromise. Why? Because our "cowboy president" doesn't negotiate.

    Also, let us take time to remember the fallen Taliban and Al-Qaedan governments in Iraq.

    Yes, I am a sarcastic asshole, but I make a point.

    As an aside that isn't sarcastic, Obama stated that he intends to remove bin Laden. That's what we should have been doing in the first place.

    --
    "Little is much when little you need."
  249. Chicago by azazrael · · Score: 0

    We have elected a Chicago machine politician who livws in a home pruchased with the aid of a crooked builder and approved of by Mayor Daley, and given him a majority in congress This will be the best administration money can buy

  250. "All Clear" by viruswatts · · Score: 1

    We're getting news reports now that the political war grounds are dying out, and the "All Clear" signal has been givin. Apparently in the early morning hours of November 4, a treaty was being signed to cease propaganda as of the fifth. Leaks of the treaty lasting three years have been confirmed. It isn't entirely known yet if General Palin will honor the treaty.

    Remember, remember the Fifth of November.

  251. Canada-analog for Republicans? by redelm · · Score: 1

    In the past, Democrats who have been very displeased with Republican presidential victories have threatened to move to Canada. And perhaps actually done it.

    Where is the escape hatch for Republicans who might be similarly displeased with the Democrat victory?

    1. Re:Canada-analog for Republicans? by xant · · Score: 1

      Be nice to see them all move to Mexico, I guess. And fitting, since they wall they wanted built will be there to keep them from coming back.

      --
      It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    2. Re:Canada-analog for Republicans? by ptbarnett · · Score: 1
      Where is the escape hatch for Republicans who might be similarly displeased with the Democrat victory?

      They all went back to work this morning and got on with their lives.

  252. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least the stimulus checks went to people who actually paid taxes last time.

  253. Redshirt? by CDMA_Demo · · Score: 1

    I vaguely remember something happens to a redshirts in star trek episodes...

  254. Re:A Good Day by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

    Read my post again. You're welcome to disagree with him as a politician. You're welcome to vote against him based on those policies. That's your right. I figured "Sure, you may disagree with Obama's policies and wish McCain won..." made that clear. But, even if you disagree with him, you should be happy that he was elected because of what it represents for the country - it represents the beginning of the end of racism. That is a very good thing.

  255. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by darknb · · Score: 1

    I am afraid I must share in parent's melancholy over this election. Barack Obama was not really much a Change.

    Obama voted to renew the patriot act, voted to fund the Iraq war, voted in support of the FISA reform bill, doesn't support universal single-payer healthcare, and voted in favor of the bailout. His corporate campaign funding was massive and he has made it pretty well clear that he will not be making any efforts to upset the current capitalist status quo.

    On diplomacy Obama supports the continued occupation of Iraq and a much increased presence Afganistan. He is also hawkish on relationships with Iran, Pakistan, and Russia. He has the same exact pro-Israel stance as his opponent.

    Many people here on Slashdot expected the Dems to vote back our civil liberties and end the Iraq war. In fact they did nothing of the sort (the republicans voted against the bailout for chrissakes!) and maybe that was because they still didn't have the oval office, but with Obama's record I highly doubt there is much change.

    Now I know i sound very bitter at this point, but really its more a feeling of bittersweet caution. I am deeply consoled by the fact that Obama is our first Black President! and that so many in the intl. community look upon this as a good change. Just be wary: make sure the Dems give you the change you voted for, and if they don't, give them the same treatment you gave the Neo-Cons and Evangelicals.

    Full Disclosure: I Voted Nader b/c I support a more Socialist America

  256. Didn't vote for either... by achaios · · Score: 1

    I voted, but not for Obama or McCain. I finally realized, due to the incessant telemarketing (especially those damned robo-calls!), that neither cared any more about my privacy than the current bozo. It demonstrated to me that both were same stuff as the past, different packages.

    The people who came to my door to tout their candidate were irritating, but understandable. I look upon telemarketing as conversion of something I pay for into their marketing resource, and not as a freedom-of-speach issue. I don't care how much junk mail they send me, as they are paying for that, and I can use it for scratch paper.

    The fact that Obama's mailing list was UNCONFIRMED opt-in (allowing me, if I was so inclined, to sign up anyone from coworkers to 419-ers) showed either an ignorance or lack of care about privacy, or at least polite internet practices. When I got the first of my calls from McCain's telewhores, I sent a message to McCain's web site describing what I thought of his practices, and telling him that I wanted neither e-mail or phone calls from anymore (that worked about as well as you would have thought). I didn't get any spam from McCain until 11/4, when I received a spam from him, and I figured it was because he was desperate and the account was going to be useless on 11/5 anyway. I also sent a message to Obama's web site telling him, politely, my thoughts on campaign telemarketing and spam, and politely requested that he not follow in McCain's footsteps and please not to call or e-mail me. That message was read by noone past the ethernet jack, and I was added to the "spam-this-guy-to-death" list. I did get one more spam several hours after I requested to be removed from the list.

    Despite my disagreements with him on a couple of issues, I would have voted for Obama IF he hadn't incessantly telemarketed me with both volunteers and robo-calls (I received 3 calls, 2 volunteers + 1 robo-call in the space of 15 minutes while I was working on my ham radio setup one Saturday). McCain wasn't an option because he did the same thing. I think the only reason I got fewer McCain calls was he didn't have as much money to spend. As I said before, the telemarketing showed me that "change" probably wasn't happening...

    YMMV -- you all have the right to your opinions. I can hope that a change for the better occurs, but I'm not too confident right now.

    -- Tom

    --
    OTR rocks!
  257. Re:More than Two words by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually what alienated him from the american public was choosing an undeducated-appearing woman with no experience for a vice president. You have no idea how many times I heard "I'd vote for McCain, but he might die, and I do NOT want Palin as president."

  258. Now get back to work! by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

    Millions of Obama voters are counting on your paycheck to subsidize them!

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  259. In Soviet Russia... by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

    ...the presidency wins Barack Obama

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  260. Thoughts on the CHANGE mantra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will be cautiously optimistic and remain to the right of center.

    I also am not meaning this to be flamebait, however, I feel I should make a few predictions:

    Prediction 1: Taxes will go up and the deficit is going to skyrocket.

    This prediction is made based on that, you cannot tax one set of people for to long to push through wealth re-distribution and socialized health care without digging in deeper. The pockets at the top are only so deepand once tapped you will have to pay for it.

    Prediction 2: The US will lose the world bank.

    The world bank started by the US is chartered to go to the nation with the strongest economy. I hate to say but if all the plans Obama has promised go through - the dollar should fall faster than a meteor streaking to earth. With less value comes higher prices for materials which translates into higher costs. Again, can't be sustained over the long haul.

    Prediction 3: We will see our first human clone

    See Dolly the Sheep to see how that turned out

    Prediction 4: Welcome to Social Fascism - Part Deux

    This is where those who achieve any success will be severely punished and political views (if they don't agree with the party in charge) will be silenced. Effectively discord / disagreement with those in charge will be punished swiftly and severely.

    Prdecition 5: Hello Mega Government and Goodbye Bill of Rights

    All you have to do is look up Obama's views on the Bill of rights, he thinks they limit government too much - Of course FDR said the same thing - but hey Change is great right? Also here comes the new regulations - we all love regulations here (see DMCA, Patriot Act, etc..) so people who bitched before - like The WHO summed up nicely (paraphrased):

    "We'll be fighting in the streets
    With our children at our feet
    And the morals that they worship will be gone
    And the men who spurred us on
    Sit in judgement of all wrong
    They decide and the shotgun sings the song

    I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
    Take a bow for the new revolution
    Smile and grin at the change all around me
    Pick up my guitar and play
    Just like yesterday
    Then I'll get on my knees and pray
    We don't get fooled again

    The change, it had to come
    We knew it all along
    We were liberated from the foe, that's all
    And the world looks just the same
    And history ain't changed
    'Cause the banners, they all flown in the next war

    I'll move myself and my family aside
    If we happen to be left half alive
    I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
    For I know that the hypnotized never lie

    Do ya?

    Meet the new boss
    Same as the old boss""

    Last prediction: Rascism - is it dead and are Jesse Jackson and the Sharpton's out of business finally? - Answer: no

    I think last night I saw that a lot of people match up with my philosophy that skin color doesn't matter and that ignorant people are just that. It was spoken loud and clear - so for the love of BEER - let's quit hearing the whining about how we have second class citizens. Obama's win really means that people who work hard will get what they want and deserve because THEY PUT IN THE EFFORT TO GET IT - not because it should be handed to anyone. Of course, I doubt it will change much for the Jackson's and Sharpton's of this world who make a living on keeping 'minorities' as second class citizens.

    Lastly, with the democratic penchance for PC and Welfarism (along with the O'bama agenda)- I see a whole new class of citizen in the US coming - The LEECH. Wealth redistrubtion (aka Euro Style Socialism) produces these citizens who find no motivation for success and are very happy living off the fruits of others labors (aka the Government handout). Ask those in Europe about the influx of the muslims from Northern Africa who now live in ghettos in France (see riots in many newspapers) and the poorer eastern parts of the EU who move further west. Economies in Europe buckle under these kinds of people and cause super high inflation and taxes.

    Welcome to the new US Nation!

    1. Re:Thoughts on the CHANGE mantra by sxpert · · Score: 1

      Prdecition 5: Hello Mega Government and Goodbye Bill of Rights

      Bzzt, that has been done by bush & his goons
      sorry, try again, you troll !

    2. Re:Thoughts on the CHANGE mantra by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That's you being cautiously optimistic? Good God, I'd hate to see you when you're depressed.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  261. In short... by xstonedogx · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:In short... by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Just wow.

  262. Peak Tina Fey by Leuf · · Score: 1

    While we as a country cannot agree on many things, we finally came together on this one. The amount of Tina Fey in the world is limited. While the experts cannot agree whether Peak Tina Fey has already been reached, with movies, tv, and commercials we must be close. In this election a vote for McCain was a vote for four years of Fey only doing Palin impersonations. Now some say we could clone our way out of the problem, but putting aside the moral questions even if we could clone her today it would be twenty years or more before the clones began producing anything and we don't have that kind of time. So Americans spoke and said no to squandering our limited Tina Fey resources.

  263. Re:God didn't by japhering · · Score: 1

    Sorry to say, but I truly doubt that there will ever be any threat to the Reps or Dems from third parties, as they control the entire game. From the rules on establishing a 3rd party to drawing the district lines every thing is gear to keeping the big 2 in power and every decade it gets slanted to keeping in power the side that was in power during the census.

    For example, Texas officially had 15 candidates for president on the ballot, the catch is 13 of those you had to write in (oh by the way, you can't write in anyone not on the official list).

    So at best in Texas, we see Republicans, Democrats and occasionally, Liberterians and Independents.

  264. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oil companies were using land leased from the government. That's why you can have the argument that a portion of their earnings should have gone to the public. Because part of their wealth was based on usage of resources that belonged "to the people".

  265. We bought this bigger handbasket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now more of us can go to hell

  266. The leader of the Socialist Party... by istartedi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The leader of the Socialist Party in the US was interviewed at some point during the 20th century. He was asked why he had quit running for President. His answer? The two major parties had embraced most of his ideals, so he thought it was no longer necessary. The story may or may not be true; but it certainly rings true. I always remember that when I was learning about these things in my teens, being taught that neither the USSR nor the US is pure in their ideology. There was some minor capitalism allowed in the USSR (private garden plots were allowed, in particular) but the real shocker was being taught that the US actually has a "mixed socialist-capitalist economy". To hear the S-word associated with us just seemed bizarre; but when you broke it down intellectually it was obviously true. We had social security, food stamps, etc. and this was even after the deregulation. Prior to that, the airlines, for example, were regulated down to what kind of food they could serve! I don't think anyone, even Obama, will take us back to that kind of regulation. People wouldn't put up with it, and at that point in history the Right had a point about excessive regulation--it's just that they ran too far with some things.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:The leader of the Socialist Party... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      The leader of the current US Socialist Party was actually on Colbert a week or so ago, and basically said that he didn't get the whole "socialist" name-calling at Obama... he just doesn't represent socialism at all.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:The leader of the Socialist Party... by dcam · · Score: 1

      The leader of the Socialist Party in the US was interviewed at some point during the 20th century. He was asked why he had quit running for President. His answer? The two major parties had embraced most of his ideals, so he thought it was no longer necessary. The story may or may not be true; but it certainly rings true.

      I honestly have not idea why Americans think they have socialism on their political spectrum. On a world spectrum all your candidates are either right or far right. That alone might go some way towards explaining why being called socialist is an insult.

      --
      meh
  267. From that far left, I suppose they do. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    A person who lived through the collapse of the soviet union once pointed out that in America, the only relevant political parties are the Capitalist party and the Capitalist party.

    It's called consensus. You might as well say that it's a choice between the anti-slavery party and the other anti-slavery party, or between the pro-Social Security party and the other pro-Social Security party. If you're far, far down the spectrum in either direction, you'll see the two parties to be interchangeable; libertarians think they're both statist, racists think they're both for the destruction of the sweet sweet white race, fundies think they're both secularists, and so on.

    If America wanted serious change, change that was not just superficial, then one of the third party candidates would have one.

    It's a plurality-wins system. Third parties cannot gain power on a one-axis political spectrum, because if a constituency is split, it loses. Spoiler candidates, Nader in 2000, that sort of thing, remember? It's a structural problem with the system of government.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  268. Nope. He hasn't been reading *enough*... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... of it.

    1. Re:Nope. He hasn't been reading *enough*... by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 1

      The Bible, you say? Is that the one with the dysfunctional family who live atop a mountain, or the one with the zombie carpenter? I get them mixed up sometimes.

      --
      Would you like a slice of toast?
  269. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There were more the two choices, and until the general populous gets that through their thick skull we will always be stuck with dumbass or dushbag.

  270. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by cgenman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to think that way, and helped with the Nader campaign in 2000. When Bush won, my thought was "This guy is going to be just like Clinton, or pretty close anyway."

    Damn was I wrong. Apparently the Republican administration viewed every international issue as a problem to be solved by bomb-bomb-bombing. Clinton generally avoided international confligrations. I was furious when Clinton compromised down to Don't Ask - Don't Tell, but Bush's push for a homophobic constitution has that beat. Don't get me started on relative deficit levels, the Axis-of-evil and amazing bungling of international relations, and two major crisis which he had been warned about and failed to act upon. Also, having to jam shampoo into 3oz containers to get onto a plane is weak and pointless.

    To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure any 3rd party candidate is right for now. A Libertarian "hands off" approach would simply facilitate the economy imploding further. A Green Party candidate would never be able to stomach the smoke stacks required to get us moving again. And things aren't yet bad enough to start setting fire to buildings.

  271. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

    You could have just done a write in.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  272. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under Bush we all got "Stimulus checks" redistribution of wealth...
    Ah-ah-ah. Most of your points are right, but the stimulus checks only went to those who paid it in taxes in the first place.

  273. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was beating off to tubgirl, again I couldn't have celebrated in a better way.

  274. yes he is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't question someone on what he is or did in the past but what he does or is planning to do. And anyone who plans on continueing the illegal occupation of Iraq and the invasion in Afghanistan is in my book evil, or at the very least doing evil deeds.

  275. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by clang_jangle · · Score: 0

    Disingenuous crap like what you're spouting is pretty ugly. And BTW I'm sure not a lot of Jews voted for Hitler, either, genius.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  276. Food & Water by scienc3000 · · Score: 1

    All I can say is it's time to stock up on non-perishables and start learning how to grow your own food and obtain clean water. It won't be long now. I won't mention the other items you should stock up on in order to maintain your supply of the items mentioned.

  277. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

    That "agree with me or else" attitude is by no means unique to the 'pubs. It's a characteristic of almost anyone with a "party" affiliation IME>

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  278. the company line by Garganus · · Score: 1

    I actually dislike twisted applications of peoples' faith and politics, and furthermore want no part of this discussion, heh. But I know the logical response when any theistic system is confronted with your reduction to "omnipotent or impotent?". That question assumes that their deity is only motivated to make everything perfect. It usually boils down to the God or gods or whatever not wanting a world of 'mindless robot people' and, accordingly, leaving us free to screw it up (even by very circuitous or elaborate means like drunk airline pilots and corrupt politicians).

  279. Quite unsurprising - for Alaskans by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    Stevens has done well by Alaska. It reminds me of when the Mayor of Nice had taken an emergency flight to Paraguay ahead of the fraud police, and I was talking about it to a taxi driver on my way in from the airport. He said "C'est un vieil escroc, mais c'est notre vieil escroc a nous" ("He's an old crook, but he's our old crook." Same with Stevens. If you keep supplying people with pork, people won't worry if some of it falls into your barrel as well.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Quite unsurprising - for Alaskans by horza · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking the same thing about the Mayor of Nice. Jacques Medecin was racist, wanted to have abortion reclassified as manslaughter, tried to reinstate the death penalty, supported the apartheid government in South Africa, and embezzled money like there was no tomorrow. But the Nicois love him because of all the grand public projects he put in place which have made Nice what it is today. He got re-elected 5 times and was mayor for 37 years. Then fled the country, was eventually extradited back, and received four jail sentences before getting back to South America.

      Phillip.

  280. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by wanderingknight · · Score: 1

    God, I wish I could mod you up over fucking 9000.

  281. Reason, Discussion by volts · · Score: 1

    Hopefully the new administration won't have the hubris to confuse "morally justified" with "good idea" as frequently as the previous.

    I've formed the impression that President-elect Obama is willing to reason about hard problems with others before locking in the policy. This is an important stylistic difference from GB, who developed an international reputation for pushing predetermined outcomes.

    1. Re:Reason, Discussion by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      > I've formed the impression that President-elect Obama is willing to reason about hard problems...

      How did you form that impression?
      Based on his voting record in the Senate, or in the Illinois legislature?

  282. wow by kingsteve612 · · Score: 0

    What could you people possibly have left to say? hasnt all of this been discussed twice already on slashdot? obama won, get over it.

  283. History has been made by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

    People can, and will, say what they want. I couldn't bring myself to vote for either of those sons of bitches. But, politics aside, to see a black man elected to the presidency of the United States is a major historic milestone that hasn't been seen since the first Apollo moon landing. It's that big, and if you think otherwise, you are a fool. Children from this point will just read about it in history books, but we saw it happen. Too bad it didn't happen with someone that I believe would be good for the country, and that makes it somewhat bitter sweet.

  284. TWO WORDS by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "PEPSI" "CHALLENGE"

    Now, where's my Hendrick's with a shake of Bitters?

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  285. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was handling my joystick.

  286. This election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reminds me of a poster on thinkgeek.com

    here

  287. Homophobic bigots from Utah amend CA constitution by xant · · Score: 1

    Prop 8 is passing. As we mark one positive change in civil rights, we throw another one down the well. It'll be another generation before enough homophobes die out to make civil rights something that applies to sexual orientation as well as race and gender.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  288. Liberty Fries. by ze_jua · · Score: 1

    Here in France, McCain is a well known brand of fried potatoes... :)

    For this (and for some other more-real reasons), we enjoy your choice guys.

    Vive l'Amérique.

  289. US slavery ended in the 1940s by ODBOL · · Score: 1

    > Will change mean that slavery is now something
    > that can finally be put to bed 145 years after
    > it ended?

    Slavery became unconstitutional in the USA in 1865 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).
    Hereditary chattel slavery was pretty well abolished in the USA at that time.

    Government-supported slavery of a very brutal sort, involving tens of thousands of people, almost all of them black men, in chains doing hard and often fatal work, particularly in coal mines, continued until the 1940s, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. At that point the federal government, which had deliberately ignored the practice for decades, decided that the Germans and Japanese would use it in propaganda, and therefore it must end. Check out Slavery by Another Name (http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/), by Douglas Blackmon, Atlanta Bureau Chief of the Wall Street Journal.

    --
    Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
  290. The DOW Confirms by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 1

    Change is BAD!

    DJIA is down this morning, so Obama must be ruining the economy, clearly.

    1. Re:The DOW Confirms by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1
      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    2. Re:The DOW Confirms by brkello · · Score: 1

      No, Bush is still in office. Change hasn't happened yet.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
  291. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the stimulus checks are not an example of redistribution since everyone got a check. The equivalent of a tax cut for everyone....
    The rest I agree with...

  292. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it pull to the left?

  293. He was quite the strong critic. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Oh, please. King scared the hell out of white people because he questioned the assumption that we lived in a just and fair nation. White folks said the same things about King when he was alive that they're saying about Wright now, and for the same reasons--because they're offensive to the assumptions that white people are privileged enough to hold.

    There's something especially grotesque about King's corpse being exhumed by his critics and paraded around as though he'd support them. The man was a socialist, for crying out loud.

    "Ebil", though, that's... wow. Stay classy, there.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  294. Anonymous Coward. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess we now know exactly how much the Presidency cost, about $600 Million Dollars.

  295. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay you! Third time is a charm, right? Right? Oh and thanks for getting us involved in wars in places with too much sand and too little stability in the first place... Now please fix the global economy and stop dragging us down with you! Oh and find Osama, pin a medal on him for "best at hide-and-seek, like, ever", lock him up and throw away the key and declare a win for yourself in the 'war on terror', reinstate the US constitution and get this whole thing over with.

    Good luck, mr. Obama, you're going to need it, cleaning up the mess ol' George W. made. But what a -charismatic- character ol' Georgie is, yessirree. Gotta love 'im.

    Now maybe we can have a US president who doesn't believe in drm or prosecuting illegal downloads but stimulates the introduction of new technologies, not in the last place with regard to renewable energy sources. Fusion power? How about that? Sounds good right? Right?


    Sorry for the rant, but after waiting eight years for a US president with a clue, there are some frustrations I need to vent. Good luck mr. President-elect! Go and get 'em!

  296. Re:All I can say now is... by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

    What an arse you are.

    Your sort created the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan - a situation that isn't sustainable without the presence of foreign troops, ever.

    I bet you like Israel too, you twat - it's the terrorist cancer eating the life out of the region, but 'islamists' are obviously far more scary in your mind than expansionist terrorist Zionists.

    --
    One swallow does not a fellatrix make
  297. Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Communism...duh!

  298. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LordKronos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, but you are also forgetting one thing? How much HIGHER would Obama's percentages be among white voters had he not been black, or supposedly muslim? Tons of white folks voted AGAINST him for no reason but skin color or perceived religion

    Furthermore, you can't necessarily say it's racism. Maybe black people just really felt that Obama identified with their needs? You can find that type of pattern in many other things. For instance, look how much higher Obama's support was in major urban/suburban areas? In Florida, he barely took the vote, but in Miami, Tampa and Orlando he dominated, . North Carolina is essentially a tie, but in Raleigh, Winston-Salem, and Charlotte he dominated. Does that mean that city folk are reverse racists against white? Or that country folk are racist against blacks?

  299. Uhoh. by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

    Did you know, that once FDR took office, he used the War Powers Act as a reason to confiscate all gold in the USA?

    Economic crisis + War in Iraqistan = ?? Confiscation of gold?

    --
  300. Her husband could also become Senator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't discount her husband. He might become Senator Palin too.

  301. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

    Prejudice is not race-ISM. Race-ISM is an institutionalized and systematic suppression and dis-enfranchisement of a specific racial/ethnic community - usually backed with state sanction, but not always so.

    State support of racism is usually needed when the oppressed are in the majority - Like Aparthied South Africa or contemporary Israel. The need for state sponsorship of institutionalized racism was strong in the American south at the time of reconstruction.

    As the US has internalized most of its racism in other, more subtle, cultural and psychological manifestations, the need for a racist state has receded. Racism is rampant, nonetheless - as is reckless racial prejudice.

    It's all bullshit. You love everyone, or you are in some degree a devil on legs.

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  302. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Until Obama won the Iowa caucus, all the black people were backing Hillary Clinton anyway. They're not racists, they're just Democrats.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  303. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness by mgichoga · · Score: 1

    I hope Obama does good. The biggest burden on him right now is that alot of people are looking up to him to change things immediately. When he fails to accomplish this gargantuan task then people will dub him as 'failed'. In actuality becoming the first African American president is an achievement itself. On a lighter note I wonder how long it will take for Firefox spell checker to acknowledge Obama not as a mistype.

  304. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by ikkonoishi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah years from now someone needs to ask Obama what he was doing when Rogerborg was writing joystick handling code on a Ubuntu install running under VMware.

  305. Cheap gas? by DodgeRules · · Score: 1

    Well if we are moving to the middle east, do we get cheap gas?

  306. Ron Paul wasn't running. by Explodicle · · Score: 1

    Why didn't you vote for one of the candidates he endorsed?

  307. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Zironic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You could argue that a lot of the white voters voted for McCain because he's white.

  308. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by koehn · · Score: 1

    Your comment is so ill-conceived it's hard to know where to start.

    What about the white voters who voted against Obama because of his race? If they had voted with their demographic on other issues, Obama still wins.

  309. how about his name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that this Hussein is better than the other one. :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

  310. Ahh dammit.. "Generic Political Candiate #2" won! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping pulling for "Generic Political Candiate #5".

    Oh well.. maybe next election in 2012.. right after I buy my flying car.

  311. To energize the Republican base by HBI · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Hearing what the French think could be worth a point or two to the Republican candidate.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  312. Actually there is one thing Barry could do by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    Yes, there is something off the top of my head that Barry could do to get my respect for his presidency. When it comes time to pick his press secretary select any of the following Don Rickles Jackie Mason Triumph the Insult Comic Dog

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  313. Re:A Good Day by eiapoce · · Score: 1

    According to various sources 95% of the american blacks vote for obama.

    95% is a percentage similar to those you can archieve in "free" elections in CUBA, CHINA, Saddam's IRAQ and several other democratic nations.

    Is this a step forward for america?

  314. A Vote for Obama is a Vote for Biden by WebmasterNeal · · Score: 0

    eom

    --
    "During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
  315. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by truthsearch · · Score: 1

    Uh, the election isn't decided by popular vote. So you'd have to take your numbers and determine how it would have affected each state.

    Even if you're right about the popular vote I think Obama would have still won the electoral college.

    You also fail to compensate for the white people who voted for McCain based on race.

  316. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

    "Do you remember where you were when Obama was elected?"

    In the basement on the couch in my boxers drinking a beer.

    Truly a great moment.

    Erm...

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
  317. There's no stoppin' what can't be stopped... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    No killin' what can't be killed... You can't see the eyes of the demon...until he come callin'

  318. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by NixieBunny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Try crunching those numbers by income instead of skin color and see what comes out.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
  319. Worst case scenario. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worst case scenario if McCain had won:
    McCain dying from a Heart Attack -> Palin President
    Worst case scenario with Obama:
    Obama accidentally dying -> Joseph Biden President
    It's not that both doesn't sound terrifying,
    but the first was a scenario very likely to happen.

    1. Re:Worst case scenario. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst case scenario is if Obama doesn't die.
      I prefer Biden to the Marxist.

  320. Re:More than Two words by mattrumpus · · Score: 1


    You're dead right, it is a bi-partisan failure, and its even deeper than simply "underhand and vile financial instruments". Looking at just the subprime issue, how did this came about? Why did this lending happen? The surface reason is that the banks were able to make money by making those mortgage deals and offload the risks (supposedly) through securitisation. the underhand instruments you mention. Perhaps this would have worked if house prices kept going up...

    This is only half the story though, the deeper one being, what are unemployed and poor people doing taking out mortgages in the first place? Had there been some kind of provision of adequate social housing to those people, directly from the state or some other mechanism, there would have been no need for them to be buying houses. More broadly, what the privitisation of essential services, housing, medicine, education is doing is giving people no option but to make use of the credit system. Not to be entrepreneurial, take risks and freely enter into business, which is the upside of capitalism, but simply to support a decent standard of living. I don't know the figures but 700 billion would have provided a lot of social housing, big boost to the economy too, you can't offshore a roofer. Instead we're spending it to prop up the system and ideology that drove us to this point. Sad.

    Matt

    --
    Who's with me?! I SAID... WHO'S WITH ME!!??
  321. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Avatar8 · · Score: 1

    I was playing WoW and trying to ignore all the political clap-trap. Big surprise there.

  322. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by Jiyunatori · · Score: 1

    Indeed, and if Ron Paul was a major candidate, the US would have the choice between the capitalist party, the capitalist party, and the capitalist party. oh wait ...

  323. OK... Affirmative action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, so now that a black guy has won the presidency when can we eject affirmative action and all of the other special privileges for minority groups?

  324. Re:Musical Choices... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Parent post is hilarious.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  325. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by salesgeek · · Score: 1

    Great point this is:

    The Democrats will still pass legislation that favours big businesses, just a different group of businesses.

    And even greater is this:

    most Republicans are not neoconservative and many Republicans found the neoconservatives to be embarrassing.

    I would upgrade from embarrassing to annoyingly evil.

    --
    -- $G
  326. News source by nategoose · · Score: 1

    I'm glad I read slashdot so I can learn about things like this.

  327. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Grimmreaper74 · · Score: 0

    I completely agree!!! It was pretty sad to see two 18yr olds in line at the poles and hearing them say I'm voting for Obama cause he's my Ni***. I'm not racist. But the percentages speak for themselves... Here in NC you look at the %'s 100% of black women voted for him and 97% of black men voted for him. If you look at the age and race Stats 100% of 18-29 blacks voted for him cause he's their "Ni***" Pigmentation doesn't make a good Pres. people....And I didn't only hear something like this yesterday I also heard something along the lines on Super Tues. So it wasn't an isolated incident...So everyone out there that's going to slash,crucify, tar and feather me for what I just said and try and tell me that one person isn't the opinion of everyone it was two separate incidents with two completely different people... And further more once again the percentages speak for themselves... And the reason I used the word "Ni***" Is cause I quoting two people that said that. Once again I'm not being a racist by using that word, I'm just trying to get my point across based on the observation I made yesterday at the poles...I'm quoting what 2 people said.

    --
    Live life to the fullest, you only get one chance at it.
  328. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by earlymon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    John McCain should have won the election.

    If John McCain should have won the election, John McCain would have won the election.

    My question would be, why didn't 95% of whites vote for Obama?

    Anti-black racism in the white American community is ugly.

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  329. Voting democrat isn't voting for change by OldHorton · · Score: 1

    If people really wanted change they wouldn't have fallen into the same old two party system. Having an independent in the office would've been true change. However, I guess charisma and popularity wins out over rationalism and logic any day when the full mass of people is concerned.

    1. Re:Voting democrat isn't voting for change by cjb658 · · Score: 1

      If people really wanted change they wouldn't have fallen into the same old two party system. Having an independent in the office would've been true change. However, I guess charisma and popularity wins out over rationalism and logic any day when the full mass of people is concerned.

      Exactly. In politics, what you say is all that matters. Nobody cares what you do.

  330. Why is liberty modded "funny"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is having a third or fourth choice considered funny?

    1. Re:Why is liberty modded "funny"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is having a third or fourth choice considered funny?

      Because the people moderating are the same people who have spent their entire lives under the rule of huge, expensive, insanely powerful government. Can you blame them? They simply can't imagine a society where government is limited in power, let alone a society where no special right to employ coercion exists at all. They know it's "impossible", but they can't quite put their finger on why.

      If you notice, this happens quite often on slashdot regarding minority views. Why think when you can simply dismiss the opposing view as "laughable"? It's an act of self-defense more than anything -- they feel threatened by people who think, believe, and behave differently, because just maybe, those people might be right.

      Think about what type of world we live in when a person who advocates freedom is considered a fringe lunatic.

  331. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Kingrames · · Score: 1

    Details man, details. what programming language?

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  332. Fallacy by Andr+T. · · Score: 1

    I found it. It's an Ad-Hoc fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

    --

    Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

  333. ... or could it be ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that McCain is the rasist here?

  334. Joe the Plumber? by BigAssRat · · Score: 1

    With the world in financial crisis, two wars, and our civil liberties gone down the tubes, isn't it time for a charismatic leader with dreams rather than Joe from accounting?

    So long as it isn't "Joe the Plumber" where Obama would simply want to squash your dreams and redistribute your wealth once you have worked hard enough to make it that far. Then, to top it off because you questioned him, investigate you to no end and try to ruin your life...

    1. Re:Joe the Plumber? by phlinn · · Score: 1

      It's really not fair to hang Obama (or McCain for that matter) with the actions of their subgroup of supporters who happen to be idiots.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    2. Re:Joe the Plumber? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      o long as it isn't "Joe the Plumber" where Obama would simply want to squash your dreams and redistribute your wealth once you have worked hard enough to make it

      because you'll really notice an extra 2000 in taxes when you're making 250,000 plus. (as if half the jobs that earn that or more aren't nepotistic sinecures)

      Then, to top it off because you questioned him, investigate you to no end and try to ruin your life...

      He wasn't licensed to practice the trade he professed, and its plainly obvious he's a deluded right-wing wing-nut.

      This is not the fault of investigators, this is his fault.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  335. Congrats to americans on a number of things : by unity100 · · Score: 1

    1 - congrats on winning your country back from extremism

    2 - congrats on proving that the so called 'american dream' is real, and possible

    3 - congrats on seeing through all the mudslinging and dirty politics that was employed by a party, and select the better of the candidates

    4 - congrats on shattering the race barrier

    5 - congrats on making your choice for being an equal member of the nations of earth, instead of the arrogance of the last 8 years

    And welcome back to the world.

    1. Re:Congrats to americans on a number of things : by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      You're the arrogant one. Just because Obama is in office right now doesn't mean America has changed; do you think everybody here voted for Bush? That we all liked his foreign policy?

      And everybody didn't vote for Obama, either. Lots of old folks who have always voted Republican voted McCain; the margins of our elections here are only about 5% or so of the majority.

      I'm pissed at everybody in the foreign world for assuming that the president of the USA is somehow a representation and reflection of USA's citizens; mostly because, if somebody decides to lynch mob America, I don't want to be blamed for some dolt of a president we happen to have and all of the senile old geezers that voted him in out of racism, paranoia and selfishness.

      Jesus christ. At least what I figured would happen, happened - the rest of the world will forgive all past transgressions, just because we have a black-skinned, diplomatically competent president now. Nevermind that all of the dolts who voted in Bush are still very much alive and still hold all the same backwards ideas.

    2. Re:Congrats to americans on a number of things : by pease1 · · Score: 1

      congrats on seeing through all the mudslinging and dirty politics that was employed by a party

      As if the Obama/Dem's didn't sling any mud? Oh, that's right, the drive by/world media never covered that mud, only Republican mud.

    3. Re:Congrats to americans on a number of things : by unity100 · · Score: 1

      yes, america has changed. it started changing yesterday, and it will keep changing in the next 6 months. first, obama administration will purge the shit gop has placed in every rank of american administration. a good example is DOJ, and how a bitch in it used 'political filtering software' to weed out applicants FIFTY times so that only the most hardliner neocons would get accepted into positions in doj.

      yes america has changed. but you are not aware of it.

    4. Re:Congrats to americans on a number of things : by unity100 · · Score: 1

      obama/dems didnt sling any mud.

      mudslinging is done with stuff that is not too vital in terms of ideologies, but irrelevant stuff. like the ayers thing. like the wright thing.

      what dems did was pointing out stuff RELEVANT to the ideas gop was putting out, CONTRADICTIONS.

      for example they didnt talk anything about palin kid's pregnancy, yet they talked about how palin spent $150 k on clothes despite saying she was an ordinary hockey mom (new reports say its over 250 k, and she apparently used gop campaign aides' credit cards to buy stuff, it came out when aides requested reimbursement from gop).

      thats not mudslinging.

    5. Re:Congrats to americans on a number of things : by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      You goddamn asshole. America is made of it's citizenry, not it's administration. The administration is changing, and that's good, but the political views of Americans all remain rather constant.

      Stop bringing every American to task over what the administration does. For every American that likes the current president, I can find you one who loathes him. It's always that way.

    6. Re:Congrats to americans on a number of things : by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      congrats on making your choice for being an equal member of the nations of earth, instead of the arrogance of the last 8 years

      That's what pisses me off. It was the arrogance of our warhawk representatives that caused that, and some number of short-sighted, bloodthirsty "patriots" who supported them.

      There have been plenty, PLENTY of Americans who were horrified by the war on day one; don't take them to task over what Bush did. Don't accuse them of arrogance and not wanting to be an "equal member of the nations of earth."

      Backlash from the war and the voting preferences of the next generation (many people who voted in 2008 were too young to vote in 2004) skewed the margins in Obama's favor, but he still only won by about 5%.

      And all of us who voted for him were just as disappointed in Bush as the rest of the world was.

      So no, America hasn't changed, and it's fucking self-righteous of you to welcome us "back to the world." I'm sorry, but fuck you. I get the feeling that if America is ever on the losing end of a really big war, against an unforgiving invader, 45% of the population is going to be punished for the actions of one man that 55% of the population supports.

  336. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

    Anti-white racism in the African-American community is ugly.

    Maybe. But it sure is delicious!

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  337. Digression continues? by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    Half the country standing in direct contrast to the other. We're no more united than ever and Obama hardly waged a campaign on unity.

    1. Re:Digression continues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you are going to post my comments go fuck yourselves. FUCK slashdot!

    2. Re:Digression continues? by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Well if you are going to post my comments go fuck yourselves. FUCK slashdot!

      Isn't the idea that they BE posted?

  338. Re:More than Two words by gambino21 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The truth is that the economic crisis happened because the financial markets found new ways to be greedy that no one understood.

    It wasn't even a new way to be greedy, we just forgot what was learned in the great depression: that it's a bad idea to allow commercial banks to underwrite securities. There were many contributors that helped cause the current economic troubles, but certainly one of the most important was the gradual erosion of Glass-Steagal.

  339. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "GET OVER IT."

    And look at it this way. If you are sick of Anti-white racism in the African-American community, then I say you just won a tremendous victory!

    The fact is, Obama is more or less the picture perfect image of a black man that white people don't fear. He maintains most all of his cultural identity and yet he is respectful, respectable, speaks well, is very intelligent and doesn't speak in rhymes. Obama is no dumb-ass.

    And why is this a tremendous victory for you? Simple. What you likely hate the most is the rhetoric and the guilt and shame imposed on you because you were born a white male. Well guess what, now that we elected a black man for president, there is a LOT less they can say... there is a black man in the highest office. What else do they have to complain about that could be valid? When Obama fails to dish out the welfare, what are they going to say now? "Sell-out?" (maybe...)

  340. From the definition police by ODBOL · · Score: 2, Funny

    through shear luck



    I think you mean, "sheer luck."
    --
    Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
  341. First thing that comes to mind... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

    KILL WHITEY!
    -Black Sheep

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  342. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by bdonalds · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ummm....African-Americans have been voting Democrat at about a 90% clip in recent history. Kerry and Gore are fairly white, if I recall correctly.

    --
    The most important thing to do in your life is to not interfere with somebody else's life. -FZ
  343. Re:God didn't by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    Uh the entire Black community (99.5%) are Christians. The entire Catholic community are Democrats. You can tell because the ban on Gay marriage came back in California.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  344. Well This is why he won..... by Grimmreaper74 · · Score: 0

    Reason he won is pigmentation... It was pretty sad to see two 18yr olds in line at the poles and hearing them say I'm voting for Obama cause he's my Ni***. I'm not racist. But the percentages speak for themselves... Here in NC you look at the %'s 100% of black women voted for him and 97% of black men voted for him. If you look at the age and race Stats 100% of 18-29 blacks voted for him cause he's their "Ni***" Pigmentation doesn't make a good Pres. people....And I didn't only hear something like this yesterday I also heard something along the lines on Super Tues. So it wasn't an isolated incident...So everyone out there that's going to slash,crucify, tar and feather me for what I just said and try and tell me that one person isn't the opinion of everyone it was two separate incidents with two completely different people... And further more once again the percentages speak for themselves... And the reason I used the word "Ni***" Is cause I quoting two people that said that. Once again I'm not being a racist by using that word, I'm just trying to get my point across based on the observation I made yesterday at the poles...I'm quoting what 2 people said.

    --
    Live life to the fullest, you only get one chance at it.
    1. Re:Well This is why he won..... by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      Reason he won is pigmentation...

      We in the rest of the world sympathise deeply with the plight of the white minority who are regularly oppressed by the rich, powerful black oligarchs.

      Where's -1 Fruit Loop when you need it?

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  345. Palin, not McCain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The OP referred to Sarah "Bible Spice" Palin, me thinks.

  346. 1up by Terrorwrist · · Score: 1

    Obama Wins. Flawless Victory!!!

  347. Re:All I can say now is... by deniable · · Score: 1

    Yep, and they didn't attack in 2001 because GWB had so much more experience than Clinton or Obama. The reason they haven't attacked again is because they don't have to. American has done enough damage to itself and its economy that Al Queda can sit back laughing their asses off and phoning in a few threats each year while the US has most of its forces in the wrong damn country.

    As for throwing Iraq into chaos, do you know who the most effective leader at keeping Al Queda out of Iraq was? Saddam Hussein. The man was such an evil prick that bin Laden stayed away from him. We executed the right man there. Mission Accomplished!

  348. regarding the Bush admin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    regarding the Bush admin

    Unfortunately, the effects of a given policy aren't immediate, and they'll just manage to mess things up for the next president or Congress to take the blame.

  349. McCain's concession speech by brasscount · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought McCain was eloquent, conciliatory, and most importantly classy in his concession. The man showed a depth of character that I recalled from the 2000 elections, and that unfortunately had not really been displayed through this campaign season. Makes me wonder, if he had displayed the same insight and eloquence prior to last night, could he have won? (Disregarding Palin, party-line, and the other albatross he hung around his neck, of course.)

    --
    Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability: without Availability the other two are assured, as is Bankruptcy.
  350. They were racist in 2004 too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh my god you're right! I looked it up and those racist Anti-White, African-Americans voted 88% for John Kerry, who was clearly more black than Geoerge W. Bush.

    I think from these statistics we can clearly see that African-Americans are fully 7% more racist than 4 years ago. If this keeps up in 4 years they'll be 102% racist and Helter-Skelter will begin.

    Thank you for pointing out such startling facts.

  351. Re:Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and they're putting a jar of taffy in every room.

    </obscureReferenceToTheOnion>

  352. Re:Don't worry by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

    Funny notion:

    If the majority of the US citizens want Sharia law, a true democracy will implement it :)

    --
    This is the sig that says NI (again)
  353. Re:More than Two words by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Glass-Steagall (spell it right, people!) is a scapegoat. The situation is far more complex than that. Did weakening that bill have an impact? Absolutely. But it was only part of the problem. The real problem was the excessive greed and risk aversion in the financial market that lead to the creation of new financial instruments to sneakily make risk everyone else's problem. CDSes would have happened regardless of Glass-Steagall, and banks would have found alternative methods of making their financial risks someone else's problem.

    There's a fairly good take on this issue here: http://www.bapcha.com/?p=53

    The Glass-Steagall act probably should be reinstated, but moreover we should kick the greedy bastards out of Wall Street and replace them with the more conservative financial leaders who were slowly pushed out by the instant-gratification morons.

  354. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by b3m87 · · Score: 0

    didn't realize mccain slaughtered blacks

  355. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  356. You're fucking hilarious bro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, Obama must fix everything the `pubs have screwed up IMMEDIATELY or he's a failure, right? Things take time, you fucking retard. You want the Republicans to have a 3rd chance, but you only want to give the Dems one shot? Who the fuck are you, so I can come a slap you in the face until I break my hand?

  357. Can't wait by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 1

    To see what things are like for the US a year from now, when everyone comes back to reality and realizes Obama was just another man and couldn't, realistically, make the changes he hinted at, after all the expectations are way to high for him. Either way he will be the most watch president and will have to walk such a fine line.

    1. Re:Can't wait by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      I know he can't man up on all of his big welfare and medical plan promises. But that's okay - I didn't want that shit anyway. I hope he's smart enough to get into office, see the financial problems, and instead of wasting all the money, honestly admit what he can and can't do.

      I will be happy if we just bring our troops home. And Obama has a more enlightened and strategic approach to international diplomacy than Bush; not to mention that his skin color is closer to the worldwide average, which will make him a better diplomat for entirely superficial reasons as well.

    2. Re:Can't wait by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 1

      I will be happy if we just bring our troops home. And Obama has a more enlightened and strategic approach to international diplomacy than Bush; not to mention that his skin color is closer to the worldwide average, which will make him a better diplomat for entirely superficial reasons as well.

      Maybe he does have an 'enlightened' approach, I don't know yet. My greatest fear is he will just lay down and let the US be a doormat as was the policy from previous offices. I sure hope you guys are right about him, if he isn't there will be trouble.

    3. Re:Can't wait by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Obama is willing to sit down with our worst enemies and talk to them. That's the first step. Our foreign policy is usually to make demands; we often tell countries that we won't even enter diplomatic talks with them unless they agree to some up-front demands, like dismantling their entire nuclear program (N. Korea).

      If I say "give me your gun, then we can talk" and the other guy says "no," do you think continuing to repeat "give me your gun, then we can talk" is going to get a different response? No; it's a deliberate attempt to avoid diplomacy. It's what the police would do - yell at a suspect to put down their weapon, and loudly, several times, so that nobody can call the cop a murderer when he shoots the guy.

      That's fine for police work - but when we're talking about an international war, I think that's the wrong approach. We need to be willing to at least talk with other nations.

  358. His Grandmother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first thing I though about was I wished his grandmother would've lived for just a couple more days to see him win before she passed away from cancer.

    1. Re:His Grandmother by Nick+Driver · · Score: 1

      My thoughts too. Would've been really special for her to have known for certain that he won the presidency.

  359. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by pcfixup4ua · · Score: 0

    The necons had been in charge for the most part since Reagan unified catholic whites and Jews under the WASP banner of anti-communism. Clinton, found come chinks in the armor, but the neo-cons just bided their time until GWB could be brought to power.

  360. Re:All I can say now is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody needs to tell that to Joe Biden. Better yet, muzzle him.

  361. Reputation is well earned by Burning1 · · Score: 1

    I have been in London on business over the past two weeks. As a man with a very California look, and a very American accent, I clearly stand out. For the most part, everyone I've talked to has been very comfortable, and very friendly with me.

    I did though, have a chance to speak to an English customs officer as I attempted to re-enter the country aboard the Eurostar. After requesting that I filled out another of the European visitors, I had a chance to ask her what she thought of Americans. I said that I heard we had a bad reputation, but that I was trying to do my part to improve it.

    Her response was: "Well, the reputation is well earned." She smiled. "And you are doing your part. You seem really nice."

    You're talking about a lady who sees Americans coming back and forth every day across the boarder.

    Fact is, it's easy to write off other people's attitudes towards yourself. But usually, if you have a bad reputation, you've done something to earn it. And ultimately, it's well and good to believe we're the strongest nation on earth, but we aren't. And right now, our position in the world is rapidly declining. When you need the help of friends, it's good to have them.

  362. On what the election means on 11-5-2008. . . by managerialslime · · Score: 1

    Before we get hysterical boasting or blaming from either camp (after all, this is /.)....

    McCain and Obama each represented competent, thoughtful, but philosophically different choices for the US voter.

    Each is human and each made some errors. (For example, McCain in his choice of Palin and association in the Keating 5 Scandal and Obama in some of his past associations.) In general, most voters in both parties surveyed dismissed focusing on these mistakes as silliness.

    Each presented sufficient life experiences and public interpretation of those experiences to convince more than half of the country that either would be at least a decent president. (That is why in the US, supporters of losing candidates rarely leave the country or react with violence of any kind.)

    However, each represented very different approaches to resolving domestic issues. This at a when many voters felt their retirement accounts decimated; the income of those employed flat for a decade; and the job opportunities for the unemployed to be bleak.

    John McCain has a long and honorable career of representing the school of thought that in the long run, less government intervention will increase prosperity for all. Considering Katrina and the retirement account melt-down, Obama represents the old FDR response to the 1930's Great Depression that "people don't eat in the long run," and so must have faith in the net good of government aid, government intervention, and taxes to fund such an approach.

    There are some conservatives who will argue that too MUCH regulation caused the current financial crisis by laws mandating "community lending" to those who couldn't afford to borrow, resulting in massive defaults and systemic risk. Whether or not this proves to be true, not enough voters were convinced that even less regulation (and less taxes) are the solution.

    During my lifetime, I have seen some politicians who after careers of vocal viciousness retired from politics to practice law with their opponents. (New York's Senator Al D'Amato (wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator_Pothole) is my favorite example.) Don't be surprised if John McCain winds up either in a multi-party law firm or runs Veterans' Affairs in an Obama administration. (In either case the extreme vitriol of partisans from either party look silly in the long run.)

    At the same time, expecting Obama to succeed in addressing every situation is a recipe for failure. George Bush did not anticipate 9/11 or Katrina or the financial system meltdown. He did the best he could with the tools he had. Who knows what campaign promises Obama will have to break when walking into an administration where troops are fatigued and the budget deficit is almost beyond comprehension?

    It is time to return to topics of the most impact to Slash Dot readers such as Net Neutrality and the next release of Duke Nukem. (Time for an Open Source browser-based version?)

    --
    Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
    1. Re:On what the election means on 11-5-2008. . . by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Whether or not this proves to be true, not enough voters were convinced that even less regulation (and less taxes) are the solution.

      A lot of people voted based on the war, not the economy. The Republicans have fucked up by acting like war hawks; even people like me, who would have loved to vote for Ron Paul over Obama, voted Obama just to keep "bomb Iran man" out of the white house.

      We need to bring our troops home and repair our international image. Voting in a total welfare queen is worth that to me.

    2. Re:On what the election means on 11-5-2008. . . by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      "There are some conservatives who will argue that too MUCH regulation caused the current financial crisis by laws mandating "community lending" to those who couldn't afford to borrow"

      Some conservatives are idiots.

      Forcing banks to write out bad loans is not a good idea, but in a market which can recognize bad loans as such it wouldn't have been a problem for anyone but the banks giving them out. On the other hand if you can write out a bad loan and shift off the default risk to a sucker why wouldn't you do it? No one needed their arms twisted to create this situation, the market did it on it's own. The ratings agencies and the trust placed in them were by far the biggest cause of the mess.

      The invisible hand gave the financial market a circle jerk and we are left to clean up the results.

  363. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please learn some history. Hitler didn't run on a genocide platform; his "final solution" came near the end of his reign. He was elected by mobs very much resembling the McCain supporters' rallies.

  364. Re:More than Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It passed as a rider because the legislature doesn't understand finance. Ever watch a news feed of the proceedings? It's almost as if the legislators are in detention: sleeping, texting, checking email. Once in a while an "issue" comes up and they vote, huff around self-importantly... If it's an issue that they have some passing familiarity with they may make some grandiose speech. Otherwise you can almost see their brains shutting off, their eyes start to close.

    Ever given a technical discussion to non-technical folks?? It's the same thing. The people who don't understand just sort of zone out. Unfortunately, many legislators don't understand.

    Easiest proof is to look at the voting record of the candidates. Many don't even vote.

    And yes, it's Democrat and Republican alike.

    But it's time to change it. With a re-invigorated legislature I think more will be scrutinized (at least until the old guard hawks twist the new folks into the way it's always been).

  365. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Notegg+Nornoggin · · Score: 0

    When Obama fails to dish out the welfare, what are they going to say now? "Sell-out?" (maybe...)

    Word in the hood is the term is oreo

  366. Predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the media's favorite talking points regarding this election has been the youth vote. How young people are turning out in droves for Obama. From an external perspective, I think it's fascinating to observe an entire generation being disillusioned.

    When they realize that the change that they bought is not the change that they sought.

  367. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

    You would be correct about the Jews not voting for Hitler. However, not much of anyone voted for Hitler. He was appointed Vice Chancellor and seized power when President Hindenburg died in office by cleverly manipulating the elections of parliamentary members to ensure a NSDAP stronghold. He then got the parliament to pass a law giving the cabinet legislative powers.

    --
    I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
  368. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  369. Only in the US by Nicopa · · Score: 3, Funny

    The US is so right-wing-conservative that a self called "internationalist, socially leftist" can be so to the right! I hope Obama is a step towards fixing that for them...

  370. Re:United States Socialist Republic by imamac · · Score: 1

    Um. Last I knew forced wealth redistribution by the government actually IS socialist.

  371. Re:Homophobic bigots from Utah amend CA constituti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Civil rights? Any man in this country has as much right to marry another man as I do--zero. Giving people with homosexual preferences the right to marry another of the same gender is giving them rights that currently do not exist--even for heterosexuals. There is nothing in common between true civil rights and same-gender marriage.

  372. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    the kind that people decades from now will remember and ask each other "Do you remember where you were when Obama was elected?"

    I was sitting on my couch, pecking away at my laptop. While watching the polls, I wrote an Android app that displays The Bill of Rights. I'll be adding The Declaration, The Constitution, and the remaining amendments. It's under apps/reference, called "We The People", and it will always be free.

    It felt really good. I don't think I've ever been happier with such a tiny bit of code. :)

  373. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

    You could argue that a lot of the white voters voted for McCain because he's white.

    GASP! How dare you play the race card! Only Republicans are allowed to do that!

  374. Nothing important will change by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

    i thought about writing more, but what difference would it make now , we have him 4 years, for better or worse.

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  375. 16% inflation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The M3 money supply grew 16% this year SO FAR!

    Real inflation really is double digit.

  376. Obamas First 100 days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May include-

    Tea Parties with his friends Wright, Ayers and Farrakhan and that dick Dean
    Fireside chats with Chavez and Ahmineddinedick, Castro tied to a chair, maybe Putin hawking his judo video
    Legislation titled "Spread Em Wide"
    Michelle Obama framing her college thesis to hang in the Oval Office
    Bankrupting the coal industry and them implementation of the obama firewood redistribution progrom
    Banning drilling for oil while increasing foreign crude importation from his new Saudi-Africa based company, HusseinyCO Oil
    Disolving of the US Armed Forces and formation of the "Citizens Forces", broom sticks forthcoming.

    Obama continuing to insist his Birth Certificate is not of Kenyan origin

    The burning of Joe the Plumber in Effigy in the Rose Garden

    Congratulations Obama, you now have the keys, straigh ahead to the cliff

  377. Obama I can see, but Congress? by MillenneumMan · · Score: 1

    I can definitely understand the will of the people putting Obama into the White House...they voted for change. But what blows me away is that once again an overwhelming majority of Congress was returned to office even though they have something like a dismal nine percent approval rating as a group.

  378. Half and Half by iconic999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He's only HALF black. He's also half WHITE. The proper term for BHO is "multiracial."

  379. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by kabocox · · Score: 1

    Watching on CNN the sea of people in Chicago cheering for President Elect Obama and his victory speech convinced me that this was one of those unique moments, the kind that people decades from now will remember and ask each other "Do you remember where you were when Obama was elected?" Truly a great moment.

    Heck, if we can vote in Reagan, Clinton, both sets of Bushs and actually consider Clinton's wife, why the heck couldn't this guy get 8 years? We are that stupid. My wife utterly hates Obama. I can understand it on her views of the issues. I didn't want either set of the crazies to win, but it was far too late for that.

    I'm sorry, but I really hope that his 8 years are boring and non-interesting. I want Obama to have the most forgettable 8 years possible in office when viewed from 50 years down the line.

  380. Re:Don't worry by imamac · · Score: 1

    Fortunately, the US is not a democracy, which is nothing more than mob rule.

  381. You already are begging by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Begging for a helping hand with your financial aid. Begging for aid in your wars. Get used to it, even Bush has had to change his tune in the last year as the financial crisis hit harder then the neo-cons ever thought possible.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  382. Re:More than Two words by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    I thought an MBS is similar to an insurance policy. The bank purchases an MBS, if the mortgage the bank has fails, the seller of the MBS pays the bank money. True, maybe after the banks started having large numbers of foreclosures, they could no longer find people who wanted to do an MBS with them, and as well CDOs. CDOs basically bundled up some mortgage debt and sold them off to third parties. This would mean banks end up with cash which they can then loan out. After the mortgages began foreclosing, people no longer wanted to buy CDOs. They got burned, the rating system was messed up (mark to market) and valued CDOs at far more than they were worth, and it backfired. banks could no longer sell them so they were no longer able to obtain money from selling them. This contributed to the banks financial mess. It was not that CDOs or MBSs were necessarily bad, but that the underlying mortgages were bad and the real estate market is overvalued, thus it was destined to collapse. CDOs are not really THAT hard to understand. I think its a problem that the media for some reason does not even TRY to explain them and that there is no transparency in the banks so we can see and scrutinise what these institutions are doing.

    Fix things so banks are more transparent and that there are stronger rules who to give loans to. We have to find a way to shore up banks and homeowners while home prices fall like a rock. If we implement policies that cause an bubble of home prices again, we will end up with housing people cant afford, bad mortgages or homelessness, a wrecked economy, right back where started. Letting housing prices skyrocket and encourage banks to subsidise this, giving bad mortgages to people who cant afford them supporting the overblown market is really stupid. Letting house prices fall will prevent another round of bad mortgages and at the same time solve the affordability problem. We just have to figure out a way to let them drop, but shore up banks and help homeowners, working things out in a way that revitalises our economy. Really we always hear about how terrible it is that housing prices are low. WTH? In regard to most things, gas, food, etc, if the price goes up, its a bad thing, it means you have a harder time affording things and it hurts the economy since it locks up more money in certain places and pulls money out of other areas of the economy. When will we realise that high cost of housing led to this crisis, high mortgages people couldnt afford, then foreclosures, and people spending so much on housing it is killing the rest of the economy. Republicans and democrats are both responsible, Republicans for lax regulation, democrats for encouraging fannie may and banks to encourage dangerous subprime loaning.

  383. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  384. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

    He was defeated in the 1932 election, but a lot of people did vote for him. If "not much of anyone" had voted for him, we'd probably have never heard of him. It was his broad base of popular support that made him a threat and allowed him to finally seize power.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  385. Welcome, comrads by too2late · · Score: 1

    to the United Socialist States of America

    --
    My rights don't end where your feelings begin.
  386. Let me show you the past seven years. by Sabz5150 · · Score: 1

    Will change mean that I am not called a racist if I disagree with Obama?

    Of course not! We'll just call you a terrorist.

    Will change mean that slavery is now something that can finally be put to bed 145 years after it ended?

    Oh hell no! We'll hold a candlelight vigil every year and use it as the platform for our next campaign!

    Will change mean that people can have a rabid hatred of Obama as people had of Bush and still be free?

    Absolutely, you unamerican, traitorous, bastard!

    Will change mean that people with little money will have more money?

    You want MONEY?! Get out there and earn it! How dare you just expect money!

    With change my conservative values will that make me a target of hate?

    America. Love it or leave it!!!

    Will change mean the majority be sensitive to my beliefs and values?

    You're not a godless babykiller are you?

    Will change mean nothing has really changed but people are now happy Europe is not mad at us any more?

    Screw those arrogant bastards, we don't need them!

    Will change mean that our troops will be not be forgotten.

    NEVER! They make for great campaign fodder and magnetic ribbons! We'll make a meme out of it that secretly means "Support us or you're not a real American!"

    Will change mean that government will not take over our 401k, healthcare, car payments, house payments, freedom?

    Freedom? You have plenty of that! As long as we can tap your phone lines and tell you who you can and cannot marry.

    Will change mean that Obama will campaign for change in 2012?

    Nope. We'll "Stay the Course!"

    Change is all well and good but what does change mean. It can mean a lot of things to a lot of people but now the work has to begin words are not enough by any person any where. While people disagree with any election we still have the only country in the world that can transition peaceably from power to power every 4 years if need be. We still have a document that no other country in the world dares to implement because it gives the freedom to the people and not those that run the government.

    Change means that everything I just stated above was in jest.

    --
    "Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
    1. Re:Let me show you the past seven years. by sparhawktn · · Score: 1

      LOL I had a good laugh thanks

  387. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by Trashman · · Score: 1

    Can you put up a Seriously worthy third-party candidate? I can't. And neither can the Green or independent parties.

    --
    Do not read this .sig
  388. The best change of all will be ... by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

    Slashdot will stop running political articles. That is about the unnerdliest topic I can think of and so out of place on slashdot. I'm sick of seeing them when I want to read about technical news.

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    1. Re:The best change of all will be ... by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      News for nerds, stuff that matters

      There's an ambiguity on whether the intended conjunction operator is "AND" or "OR" (probably not "XOR"), but this is definitely stuff that matters.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    2. Re:The best change of all will be ... by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      yeah, but that kind of news I can find ANYWHERE, I wouldn't mind some discussions on tech involved in the elections, but on /. it is just a waist of my bandwidth because I have other ways of filtering for that news.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  389. Tovarisch President Obamarx by ibm1130 · · Score: 1

    About the only positive thing I see coming out of this is that the Dhimmicreeps now get to clean up the economic mess they largely created and don't give me any Glass-Steagall BS as a root cause. And-uh they'll have to do it without a super majority in the Senate.

  390. Mark my words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, a democratic president, who campaigned on hope and change, a democratic Congress, and lots of cheering /.ers. When inflation is skyrocketing, we've been hit by terrorists on local soil a few times, our health care system is in shambles and the economy in the toilet two or three years from now, will all of you that are cheering now admit that electing Obama was a mistake? Or will you try to blame it on Bush.

    1. Re:Mark my words by triathlon4life · · Score: 1

      Wow, Isn't that pretty much what happened when Bush came into office? I'm taking my chances on the new guy.

  391. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Schadrach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not voting Obama does not necessarily indicate racism. Where I work, I could have told you at least 5 of my coworkers were going to vote Republican before the primaries started, regardless if "the black guy", "the white guy", or "the manly chick" had won the Democrats primary.

    I *did* however vote Obama (but my views are a lot more left-leaning than about half the people I wokr with [the Democratic party's tendency to push gun control makes them not well received by this group]).

    Do you consider any black person who didn't vote for McCain to be racist, or any man that didn't vote for McCain to be sexist (due to Palin)?

  392. Socialist? by Burning1 · · Score: 1

    Every time I hear people throw out the 'S' word, I cry a little inside. The democrats are NOT liberal. They are at best moderate. Opposing one of the most conservative parties in the country would only make them liberal in a monochrome world.

    Democrats and Obama are the party of the center.

    Go to England, France, or pretty much any other socially progressive country for a comparison. Ask where they place him in the scheme of things, and you're likely to hear "he's a moderate." Then compare that country to a socialist nation, such as it existed in communist Russia, (where government service socializes YOU.)

    Seriously.

  393. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    Newsflash: He didn't say obama didn't do that stuff. He said your marvelous republicans did the same too.

    Why does it seem that every time someone tries to point out hypocrisy someone always has to jump in and say "Obama did the same...blah blah blah". THAT'S NOT THE FUCKING POINT!!!!

    We've seen this type of thing over and over again. Like the bridge too nowhere. McCain made this big case about how him and Palin proved they'll cut out the fat. Then someone point out "ummm...Palin....Bridge to Nowhere???" and everyone was "oh, but Obama voted for it too". Don't you get it? Obama wasn't the one running around talking himself up about how voted against all these pork barrel projects.

    I am not without sin. I fully admit that. When someone else goes around talking about how sin-free they are, and I call them on their BS, telling me "but you are a sinner too" is NOT a valid defense.

  394. A gracious concession [Re:The only bad moment...] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Let me be the first to point out (as an Obama supporter) that John McCain decided to take what may well be his final bow on the national political stage with class, decency, and style. That he would get up there and say "I wish godspeed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my president" suggests that he might well have listened to the better angels of his own heart.

    Yes, I thought it was a very gracious concession speech.

    It reminded me of the old McCain, the one before he abandoned his dignity in order to get the nomination.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  395. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

    If I had mod points, I'd totally mod the parent flamebait just to spite him.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  396. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by tambo · · Score: 1

    I was sitting on my couch, playing through the second quest of Legend of Zelda on an NES emulator, while waiting for my laundry to finish.

    (...with my "Yes, I Voted Today!" sticker on my lapel, and in between refreshes of reddit for election news.)

    - David Stein

    --
    Computer over. Virus = very yes.
  397. haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it not be totally cool now if he spoke in the round with this Samuel L Jackson, Denzel Washington and Dave Chappelle -ish style cocking his head in that ever so soft reasoning voice..."Well well well...guess whose the head N* now!" With like 20 gigantic brothers behind him all flaunting leather and medallion.

  398. Obama, real hope for USA and other countries by MrJones · · Score: 1

    President Obama can give real Hope to all Americans and for other countries too!

    Just imagine what will be like NOT to have a Bush like president in the office.

    I hope for more peace, economic stability and low prices in Oil.

    What do you hope for?

    --
    Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
    1. Re:Obama, real hope for USA and other countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations to all you faith-based voters.
      You have Hope in some undefined Change that Obama will bring.

      Meanwhile, you have ignored the empirical evidence of Obama's record of public activism (marxist) and political accomplishments (nil).

      Yes, everybody please tell us what Change you are Hoping for, and why you think Obama can -- or whether he will even try to -- deliver it.
      It remains to be seen whether The One will be a leader, or whether he will just allow himself to be led around by the extreme leftists in his party.

  399. Re:More than Two words by pz · · Score: 1

    I would have hoped that the American people would be smart enough to know that the crisis was a bi-partisan failure. From Credit Default Swaps passing the Senate as a rider 98-0, to the Bush Administration sounding the alarm in 2003 but being ignored, to Barney Frank famously telling the House Republicans that there is nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and getting the backing of House Democrats), to the Republicans blocking the Fannie/Freddie bill once it reached the Senate, there is plenty of blame to spread around.

    This is exactly why I voted against every incumbent in every race. In uncontested races, I wrote in an alternate. The present government is incompetent, and no matter who was running against the incumbents, they couldn't be worse than what we have now.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  400. Fox and credibility [Re:Two words] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    just because you heard it on fox news doesn't mean it's incorrect.

    That's true. What it means is that you shouldn't believe it until you hear it confirmed from a reliable source.

    I'm still waiting for Fox to apologize for their "we never landed on the moon! It's all a hoax" TV show, and their "Here's a film of how the Army autopsied a dead space alien in Roswell NM" show.

    When they apologize for those, I'll think about paying attention to them.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  401. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One surprising result of the election, on the social side, may be the replacement of the phrase "crying like a little girl" with "crying like the Rev. Jesse Jackson".

  402. Mod down, shithead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  403. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by frieko · · Score: 1

    Actually more people said McCain's age was a factor than said Obama's race was a factor.

  404. Awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to the new world. I just don't understand how MOST of America elected someone who burns American flags. If this is the change that America wants, then I am moving to Iceland.

  405. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

    Until Obama won the Iowa caucus, all the black people were backing Hillary Clinton anyway. They're not racists, they're just Democrats.

    Excellent point. I'm not sure how accurate it is as stated, but its converse is definitely true:

    There is something wrong about the Republican Party that it has so little support among blacks and other ethnic groups.

  406. It's nice by bogie · · Score: 1

    To finally have hope again. 8 years is a long time to watch your country fall to pieces. It is such a weight off to be able to have someone I can put my faith into again.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  407. As a Canadian... by gravyface · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've always looked towards the US as Canada's big brother -- the glamorous one that's great at sports, has a better salary, but a bit arrogant too. However, over the last eight years, it's like finding out your older brother has a gambling problem, cheats on his girlfriend, and bullies kids around at school.

    Now I know things aren't going to change overnight, but you've made a huge step in the right direction, America, and it's good to see you come around.

    --
    body massage!
    1. Re:As a Canadian... by pease1 · · Score: 1
      lets see, as your big brother, we'll borrow more from a country that wants to own us, tax the middle class further into poverty (how quick everyone forgets that Clinton ran on cutting taxes, but ended up raising them on the middle class), continue to ship more of our money to guys who want to kill us (that includes you, BTW) in the interest of keeping our backyard clean, further dumb down the education of our youth though unionized public schools, impose restrictions on speech, murder millions of more children, remove secret ballots in union elections, destroy the best health care system in the world along with much of the best medical research in the world, and forcefully disarm the population from ever being able to revolt again.

      Yeah. Change. If I were you, I would disown this big brother and consider building a fence.

  408. Money well spent by riccati · · Score: 2, Funny

    I see that Hugo Chavez's investment paid off.

  409. Don't worry.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, Nader. You'll get 'em next time!

  410. When... by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

    Only when Ron Paul drops out will I believe this election is over.

  411. Re:More than Two words by gambino21 · · Score: 1

    I didn't say Glass-Steagall was the only cause, but it did contribute to the problems so calling it a scapegoat is misleading. So you want to remove the greedy people from wall street? Good luck with that! If there are ways to make money and avoid risk without breaking the law, people will find them. Everyone is greedy to a certain point, that's what makes the free market work. But it also has to be restricted to prevent some people from messing it up for everyone else.

  412. wish that were funny by mckwant · · Score: 1

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/opinion/04tue1.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

    NYT editorial, so take grains of salt depending on your political slant, but...

    Yeesh.

    --
    ceci n'est pas un sig.
  413. Re:More than Two words by Tyrus+Perises · · Score: 1

    That was the case with me certainly, I didn't really have anything against McCain, but the thought of Palin in any position of power is about as scary as I could imagine.

  414. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by mblase · · Score: 1

    the kind that people decades from now will remember and ask each other "Do you remember where you were when Obama was elected?"

    I had been watching TV for over an hour, waiting to see if Obama would get those last electoral votes, not realizing that both parties had already assumed he'd take California.

    So it's rather appropriate that when someone asks me, "What were you doing when Obama was elected?" I can answer that I, just like the entire Democratic party, got tired of listening to FOX News and went to take out the trash.

  415. Re:More than Two words by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

    You can't blame systemic failure on individuals. If the system stays the same, sooner or later other like-minded individuals will abuse it again.

    You can punish individuals who abused the system, but you also need to rejig the system, lest it be abused again.

    So you should revamp the system, and, maybe also punish whoever designed it the first time around, if not for criminal conducted, at least for incompetence.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  416. Re:United States Socialist Republic by LordKronos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And by the same token, don't the rich people make their wealth based on the infrastructure of our country? Don't they need the roads, rails, or airlines to transport their good that they sell to make themselves rich? Don't they use our communications infrastructure to make their business deals? Don't they use our patent system to file their patents, and then our court systems when their competitors violate said patents? Don't they use our law enforcement and military to ensure the security of their possessions from people (both domestic and international) who would be more than happy to take it (or destory it) if it were unprotected?

  417. Re:More than Two words by geeper · · Score: 0

    I would suggest that Saturday Night Live running her into the ground (portrayed by Tina Fey) did more to hurt her than most people think. I'm not sure of her true intelligence but SNL sure made her look like an idiot and she was probably seen by more people on there (and via you-tube) than all news clips and debate coverage combined. Very funny though!

    --
    Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
  418. Re:More than Two words by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think you have it backwards. Mortgage Backed Securities are securities that are composed of Mortgages. They reduce risk carried by banks because they make the failure of Mortgages someone else's problem in the same way that selling stocks makes the fluctuating value of those stocks someone else's problem. The only difference is that the value of Mortgage Backed Securities fluctuates based on the payment of the mortgages rather than the strength of a company. Obviously a bank makes less money off of MBSes than holding the mortgages directly, but they also are exposed to less risk.

    Credit Default Swaps/Options (CDS/CDO) are a financial instrument that act as an insurance policy that is not technically an insurance policy. If my securities fail for whatever reason, the swaps will cover the cost of the "default".

    What's messed up about CDS/CDO instruments is that you don't need to own any actual securities to obtain the instrument. I owned nothing from Lehman Brothers, but I could still take out a CDS on that company. (Ostensibly to protect indirect assets like a fail on a lease due to tough financial circumstances.) That made them very dangerous. The fact that they were basically unregulated insurance policies made them even more dangerous. The fact that CDSes were not reevaluated after being sold (thus making them ripe for resale at a higher rate) made them near-deadly. The fact that many sub-prime mortgages were being rated as AAA securities while banks took out CDS instruments to protect against the possible failure of MBSes made CDSes the perfect storm necessary to collapse the financial market.

    And that's STILL a simplified view of what happened. :-/

    P.S. Guess which three letter insurance company all those CDSes folded up to? If you said "AIG", you win.

  419. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

    You could have just done a write in.

    The voting machine did not like the squigley lines.

    --
    How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
  420. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    Your comment is so ill-conceived it's hard to know where to start.

    What about the white voters who voted against Obama because of his race? If they had voted with their demographic on other issues, Obama still wins.

    There doesn't seem to be any evidence of that. According to PBS's exit polls, the people that sited race as a factor in their voting decision leaned toward Obama. So, if anything, the few white voters that may have voted against Obama because he was black was more than offset by the number of white voters siding *with* Obama because he was black.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  421. Rebound by River+of+Souls · · Score: 1

    I love these rebound elections. Just because the last candidate sucked, everyone runs to the opposite side regardless. The next one will likely be similar, if they allow us to vote from the political re-education camps that is. -ROS

  422. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by nullspace · · Score: 1

    My question would be, why didn't 95% of whites vote for Obama?

    Anti-black racism in the white American community is ugly.

    The African-American population has traditionally voted 85%-90% with the Democrats. Clinton, Gore and Kerry carried similar numbers. In the primaries, Obama was initially losing to Clinton 60-40 with this group.

    There may an insignificant number of people voting for him because of his race, just as there are people who voted against him for the opposite reason.

  423. Re:More than Two words by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

    Bingo! This was, in fact, the reason which convinced me to vote Obama instead of third party. Obama/McCain are more similar than different. Obama's main distinguishing trait is that he speaks well and differently. But Palin is dangerously incompetent and naive and should not be allowed anywhere near the national seat of power. People are talking about her being a strong force in Republican national politics for years to come and this is just plain scary.

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  424. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So anyone that didn't vote for Obama is racist? Hmm, does that apply to any African American that didn't vote for Obama or only for Caucasions that didn't vote for him?

  425. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by aimbdd · · Score: 1

    If 95% of whites didn't vote for Obama he would have lost.

  426. Obama promised his kids a puppy... by tehIvyn · · Score: 1

    I bet you its a pit bull and her name is Sarah :)

  427. It is the one thing people can grasp by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Economy is complex especially when it involves goverment spending.

    For instance, the US has no national healthcare because that is expensive. Therefor the US lets the market run healthcare because market forces will keep prices down. Right?

    Well, no. In holland 8-9% of the countries total earnings go to healthcare, in the US it is 15-16%. On the whole the US is considered to provide inferior care, despite twice the cost and despite the fact that effectively medical care is denied to those to poor to pay the high insurance premiums.

    The problem, and the US is hardly alone is in this, is that explaining how things that benefit everyone, benefit you, is hard. Saying, you are getting 300 bucks in a tax cut is easy. Never mind that the 300 bucks end up being spend in increased bills, people understand cash, they don't understand long term economic planning.

    The simple fact is that taxes matter very little in the long run. That 300 bucks is not going to change your life for longer then the week in which you use it to pay your credit card bill. But no free healthcare for the rest of your life is seriously going to bite you, if not you, then your family members who did NOT make it rich and might be coming to you for help.

    Ideally, taxes should be seen as the rent you pay for living in a country. Few people would be so stupid as to simply look at the amount of rent when deciding where to life. What you GET for that rent is what matters. If you were asked to spend 10% of your income on a hole in the road or 20% on a palace, what would you pick?

    But sadly, this is hard to get people to understand and the neo-con's have every reason to confuse the issue where ever they can. Joe the Plumber anyone?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  428. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Yeah... sure. Nevermind that whole "blueprint" thing that he wrote while he was in jail after the Beirhall Putsch.

    Genocide of multiple groups was on his agenda from day one.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  429. Most blacks in the US are interracial by Quila · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They just don't identify as such, and the public doesn't either. I can see this in my own family. Also look at Tiger Woods, only one-quarter black yet the black community sees him as black.

    It seems that many blacks themselves have adopted the Jim Crow "one drop of blood" rule, at least when it's convenient.

  430. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Riddler+Sensei · · Score: 1

    I was in the middle of killing M'uru when we heard the guild leader's wife over Vent tell him to stop playing that stupid game and come watch Obama's victory speech.

  431. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by jbuck · · Score: 1
    "...I'm quoting what 2 people said."

    Exactly. That's all you are doing. And we appreciate you sharing that anecdote. As a follow up, I would encourage you now to ponder what it is about John McCain that leaves him weak in connecting with these demographic groups you mention. 18-29 year olds? Do you realize John McCain was 18-29 in 1954-1965?? Rock music wasn't even invented yet when McCain was working hard toward finishing at the bottom of his naval academy class. Black people? McCain is a 72 year old white guy and you are wondering why southern blacks don't feel a strong connection to him? Really? Really?

    And to calm your nerves, I'd encourage you to look into the colloquial connotation of the phrase "He's my nigga"- it's much more innocuous than you think; more akin to "That's my Man!" than it is to "I will give this person my vote based solely on the fact that he's black." Matter o' fact, when your presumed interpretation is actually verbalized, it sounds almost silly, doesn't it? Trust me, it's more an off-the-cuff expression of enthusiasm than it is a statement of philosophical underpinnings. I hope you can rest easier now.

    --
    -whoa, I'm jones'ing for a sig right about now...
  432. Re:United States Socialist Republic by faraway · · Score: 1

    I think the key word is "social democracies" not "socialist democracies". There's a difference.

  433. My tears will fill an ocean by Tiber · · Score: 1

    Well, aside of being severely disappointed in America with fad voting, I wasn't surprised to learn that 80% of the "obama votes" said race was a factor via CNN.

    The good news is that after Obama being the far left candidate, it would be hard for Hillary, Gore, or Kerry to make another run on the Presidency. Next election the Dems will have to run chairman mao.

    1. Re:My tears will fill an ocean by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what you get for not nominating Ron Paul. I don't think anyone wanted to vote "bomb Iran man" into the White House after a horrific 8-year war.

    2. Re:My tears will fill an ocean by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 0

      The Iraq war sucks and all, but.. "Horrific"? Name a war which is more-tame than Iraq and actually qualifies as a "war" (not a one-sided bombing campaign)

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    3. Re:My tears will fill an ocean by justinlee37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Over 4,000 American soldiers have died, and that death tally doesn't even include the other side. When we respond to the murder of 3,000 of our citizens by getting that many soldiers killed again, and killing 30,000 or more in retaliation, yeah, it's horrific.

      I don't think we should measure the horror of war relative to other wars; it is all a tragedy.

    4. Re:My tears will fill an ocean by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      The Iraq war sucks and all, but.. "Horrific"?

      Wow...what a clueless tool you are.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    5. Re:My tears will fill an ocean by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      > what a clueless tool you are

      Wow. Your argumentation is impressive.

    6. Re:My tears will fill an ocean by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      You're confused.
      The war in Iraq wasn't in response to 9/11.

    7. Re:My tears will fill an ocean by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Hey, we can only work with what we're given. Try harder.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    8. Re:My tears will fill an ocean by Tiber · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you're confusing "horrific" with "justified".

      In the words of the Wu Tang Clan - DON'T BRING NONE AND THERE WON'T BE NONE. Wu Tang is hardcore, they are using the word "none" to replace "murder" to avoid Carnivore.

    9. Re:My tears will fill an ocean by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you're mistaken in thinking that "horrific" and "justified" are mutually exclusive propositions. It might have been "justified" if we had decided to draw-and-quarter Adolf Hitler, but that wouldn't mean that watching it wouldn't be horrific.

      And that's besides the whole argument of whether or not the war really was "justified." Even if it was "justified," (and I am an agnostic, amoral nihilist, so that word means nothing to me), it was still a piss-poor decision. We would have been better off if we'd spent that money on research grants. Any kind of research grant.

      What if we took $200 billion dollars, and instead of waging war with Iraq, decided to design an electrically-powered Gauss tank? Wouldn't we be way, way ahead of where we are now?

      Opportunity cost, man. Opportunity cost. Don't let your bloodlust overwhelm your reason. We need to kill those sand-niggers efficiently, and throwing tanks at them today isn't as efficient as investing the money domestically in order to widen the technology gap tomorrow.

      Everybody's so worried about dependence on fossil fuels; so why aren't we hard at work designing a tank that doesn't use gasoline and oil?

    10. Re:My tears will fill an ocean by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      I have more to say about this but I have to go to work. Expect a lengthy follow-up reply. You're a fool if you think of Saddam's soldiers as anything but people. They all joined up for different reasons. Maybe they were forced to, maybe they needed money to feed their family, maybe they were living on the street, who knows. Do you think that the American soldiers who killed villagers in Vietnam were evil? No. And every soldier is somebody's husband, son, brother, and father. It only took about 20-100 pissed off, irrational people to perpetrate the CRIMINAL ATTACK (not declaration of war) that was 9/11. If we go and kill a few tens of thousands of enemy soldiers, what do you think the likelihood is that we create 20-100 irrational, pissed off young adults who want to do 9/11 all over again? Again, I don't give a fuck about those sand niggers, but the war was inefficient, both in terms of resources and in terms of diplomatic favor lost. If we don't stop killing aimlessly in retaliation, the cycle of violence will continue. And I don't want a cycle of violence. I would rather spend the money here, educating our young people, developing technologies, and putting ourselves in a position to hire all of those backwards sand niggers to work in piss-poor conditions for $1/hour. Wouldn't that be more efficient?

      In summary, people opposing the war on moral grounds are self-righteous moralists, and people supporting the war on moral grounds are short-sighted idiots. I oppose the war because we should have had a better strategy for victory. "Mission Accomplished" my ass. What a fucking loser our president is (was).

  434. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I had a hand on my joystick too. I mean, er, what?

  435. Fox is not balanced by Quila · · Score: 1, Troll

    By being right-leaning, Fox IS the balance.

    But it is still one right-leaning network to several left-leaning ones, so you can rest secure that your leftist propaganda will be pushed on TV more than the rightist propaganda.

    1. Re:Fox is not balanced by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we gotta have some lies to balance out the truth.

    2. Re:Fox is not balanced by RemoWilliams84 · · Score: 1

      Sorry you got modded a troll. I learned a while back that you don't go against the liberal slashdot crowd or you are modded down to obscurity. Just like this post of me backing you up will be. But you are correct. Fox is the only right leaning in all the left leaning tv news outlets. It's just to bad there isn't a more balanced network.

      --
      "I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
    3. Re:Fox is not balanced by salemnic · · Score: 1

      Excatly. Fox is no more biased than CNN, just the other way.

      Ouch! Ouch! \modded to oblivion\

  436. Where are we going? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We were once a Republic but seem to renounce that with each election as we give away those freedoms and responsibilities for a place at the government teat. Yeah, Bush blew it. However, Obama only offers to spread entitlements in a different direction and hasn't shown any leadership.

  437. uhm, I think you missed the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The gp was alluding to that whole CIA had JFK killed mythology...

    Geeze, when did we let all these amateur political junkies into the room? ;^)

    1. Re:uhm, I think you missed the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gp was alluding to that whole CIA had JFK killed mythology...

      Nice strawman, it's Guy Fawkes night here so I'll just throw it on the bonfire.

      Geeze, when did we let all these amateur political junkies into the room? ;^)

      Dunno, did you let yourself in?

  438. The Magic Word by BearRanger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Sacrifice". Obama said it in his victory speech, and I believe McCain also said it in his concession speech. The problems of this country are so massive they can't be solved without each of us giving something to the cause. I'm not talking taxes, although I'm sure that will figure into it. If Obama is going to be successful--and by extension, make the country successful--we're all going to have to embrace the notion of personal sacrifice and service to the country. Think about that before you reflexively complain about what's bound to be unpleasant for many of us. In the words of John McCain: "It's time to put the country first."

    Prepare yourselves for four years of austerity. We can't continue as a country where the only people who actively sacrifice for it are the members of the military and their families.

    1. Re:The Magic Word by dwiget001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about the slack arsed non-working, bitching-moaning-and-whining sluggards to pick themselves up by they bootstraps and *them* contributing to making things better, huh?

      I have worked my arse off for over 28 years *and* volunteer to worthwhile causes *and* donate money to such also.

      Why should *I* do more? Why not others *doing more* that have not been paying their own freight?

    2. Re:The Magic Word by martinw89 · · Score: 1

      In the words of John McCain: "It's time to put the country first."

      Socialist! Marxist!!

      I'm so sorry, I couldn't help it.

    3. Re:The Magic Word by brkello · · Score: 1

      Crap. Does that mean working harder and less posting on Slashdot? What have we done????

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    4. Re:The Magic Word by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      Why am I always asked to make sacrifices on behalf of rich people? I don't take anything from the government/banks yet they just keep taking more and more from me and then, after they fuck up, they expect even more to bail them out even when I didn't vote them in to begin with. I'm tired of being "sacrificed" for other people's agendas.

      As for the military, I'm not asking for them to "sacrifice." I don't want to pay for it and I don't want to bomb people in foreign countries who are no threat to me. American's are well-armed enough to defend against any invasion without the need for a standing military, especially given the lack of any true enemies. If anything, we've all sacrificed to give them a career and benefits.

    5. Re:The Magic Word by dangitman · · Score: 1

      In other words: Waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  439. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Ok, I already like you 'cos of your name, but now you get a little green blob.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  440. I wonder!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he will bring Madalyn Albright back to head the foreign relations area in his office. Back in the 90's the middle east not only respected her but did what she said. (And to do that where a woman is 5th class or less says a lot)

  441. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bush did this all buy himself???

    Let us hope that Obama has the power that Bush had. I missed the disembowelment of Congress somewhen.

  442. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by thewiz · · Score: 1

    I am among the "whites" that did vote for Obama because he was a better choice than the GOPs representative. We're tired of the shit-slinging both parties have been engaging in for a very long time. Obama campaigned on a platform of making America BETTER for everyone and not just a select few cronies.

    As for the color of his skin, I could care less. Show me someone who wants a better tomorrow and is willing to let everyone participate and I will vote for them.

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  443. Greedy short-sighted voters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeap, all those hand outs Barak promised you 50 million or so that got Barak elected, well done!

    Now, when it comes time to pay the piper for all these promised things, *do not*, I repeat, *do not* forget, when taxes are raised once, possibly twice, *across the boards* to pay for these giveaways, violating every promise that Barak made about who was getting a tax cut, suck it up, do not go off crying like a baby.

    Either that, or do not be surprised when your company goes out of business, leaving you jobless with no hope of gainful employment for a while, due to the U.s. borrowing HUGE amounts of dollars from the Fed, inflating the dollar by astronomical proportions and, thereby, pushing the economy further into the hole is in.

    Great frickin' job, you bunch of addled brained nitwits! I salute you! 3-

  444. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Zephyrmation · · Score: 1

    Are you sure it wasn't because CNN told you that this would be one of those unique moments, the kind that people decades from now will remember and ask each other "Do you remember where you were when Obama was elected?"

    I watched it too (and CNN did say that). But I will remember :)

  445. Re:More than Two words by aimbdd · · Score: 1

    I concur with that. That was a big reason why i didn't vote for him myself. A good vice president is important too.

  446. Thats what happens.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when a republican loses. Admit, concedes and give your best wishes. Unlike Democrats that whine, bitch and moan and then accuse they were robbed.

    1. Re:Thats what happens.... by triathlon4life · · Score: 1

      HAHAHAHAA Are you Crazy??!?!?!? Did you even watch the speeches last night?? Well it went something like this:

      McCain Speech:
      McCain mentions obama and everyone BOOOOSS!! McCain mentions support our new president and lets move on work together and everyone booooos/heckles and says NOWAY!!

      Obama Speech:
      Obama mentions McCain, great respect, time to move on and work together. Time to move forward and nothing but admiration for McCain. Everyone claps. Wow...

      It seems as if you have a very biased point of view. There are plenty of places for haters such as yourself to move. I recommend the moon.

  447. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by plasmoidia · · Score: 1

    My question would be, why didn't 95% of whites vote for Obama?

    Because some of them disagreed with his politics?

  448. Inspiration Matters by molotovjester · · Score: 1

    For those who have been caught up in the inspirational speeches and promises from President Obama, and for those who recognize the fact that inspiring individuals hasn't solved any problems:

    Keep in mind that if he can inspire you and I, it is likely that he can inspire and influence the people around him to make good decisions.

    Its the ability to instill confidence and trust in people that lends this position of leadership with any sort of authority and power. Unlike the previous Presidents, whose victories were won with difference in the popular and electoral vote; Obama has been clearly chosen, both popularly and electorally.

  449. Re: All I can say now is... by bbroerman · · Score: 1

    I don't think we should have been in Iraq, BUT now that we screwed up the country, shouldn't we FIX IT. I.E. make it a viable self-sustaining country that can take care of itself and it's people? Or, should we just wash our hands of the whole thing, and tell the people of Iraq to just piss off and take care of themselves? I personally would have liked it if we stayed ONLY in Afghanistan until everyone who had a part in 9/11 was found, and tried in an international court. Then, we can go around and see who else is threatening world peace. My preference is to try diplomacy and sanctions, and escalate those as necessary until the offending country chokes or gives up and complies. This should continue until ALL trade, humanitarian aid, finances, banking, etc. are completely cut off by the US and its true allies. Active military action should only be taken if we are attacked, or one of our allies are attacked. Then God help the attackers and their backers. I really like the old saying of "walk softly and carry a big stick". I don't like to start a fight, but I will finish one. Also, I would really like it if the US cut off ALL TRADE AND SUPPORT of ANY kind to any country that is openly wishing our destruction. Why would we support them if they hate us so much? Why would they want our products, food, medicines, etc. anyway? Really, though, Iraq aside, it would be very nice if the US would enter into a stage of isolationism, like before WW I. We should close ALL overseas military bases, and bring ALL US troops home. This includes Europe, Asia, Middle East, etc. They don't want us there, or the extra money our people bring to their economies, or the jobs that the bases provide, so why stay? We should also but back on trade. Our economy is so weak that we need to focus inwards and rebuild, instead of focusing outwards and lowering trade barriers, tariffs, etc. We have the natural resources and labor pool to pull it off.

    --
    Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
  450. A New Day Has Dawned by Gurthang99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On November 4, 2008, America overcame 221 years of division and another barrier came down. America has elected its first African-American president. Born to a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya, Barrack Obama overcame numerous obstacles just to be nominated to lead our great nation. I come from a racist family. Many are shaking their heads and wondering how a black man could possibly be trusted with the ultimate office. I am praying for President-Elect Obama. The easy part is done. Now the heavy lifting up and healing of this bruised and battered nation must be accomplished. How could any man fulfill such high expectations that the electorate of this great country have invested upon him? No, I did not vote for him. I have not voted for a main party candidate for President since Ronald Reagan. But I swore an oath when I become an Army Officer to defend the constitution. That oath has no expiration date. It is my solemn duty to support our President. And so I look upon this dawning of a new day... A new era for America, with hope that some good may come from all of the troubles that we now face. May God bless the President and the People of the United States of America and of the world.

    1. Re:A New Day Has Dawned by Grimmreaper74 · · Score: 0

      HOOAH Sir!!!

      --
      Live life to the fullest, you only get one chance at it.
    2. Re:A New Day Has Dawned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Army Officer, Sir, then you may recall this:

      Your oath, and the President's, I might add, is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Period.

      You might want to re-examine that and the Constitution while you are at it.

    3. Re:A New Day Has Dawned by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      On November 4, 2008, America overcame 221 years of division and another barrier came down. America has elected its first African-American president. Born to a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya, Barrack Obama overcame numerous obstacles just to be nominated to lead our great nation. I come from a racist family.

      And you live up to family heritage by being just as racist as they are. You are judging a man not by his accomplishments or character - but on the color of his skin.

  451. huh? by slew · · Score: 1

    Because if the rest of the world likes you, they might stop thinking up ways to blow you up.

    I don't know what kind of world you live in, but it isn't like the Spainiards and the Francos are trying to blow us up (at least I don't think so)... And if you think who we elect as president will change the opinion of those that actually are thinking about ways of blowing us up, well, I think that teardrop at the bottom of your empty latte cup doesn't qualify as it being half full...

    Of course it's always better to have more friends, but no matter what you do, your enemies are usually still your enemies...

  452. Uncle Tom by Quila · · Score: 1

    It's what they say to disown any black person who has distinguished him or herself, like Powell and Rice. This way they can still claim oppressed status even with blacks achieving some of the highest offices in the country. Meanwhile, those Uncle Toms are out there achieving the American dream just as any of them could have.

    I think I get it: They hate success.

    1. Re:Uncle Tom by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that is wrong. They fear failure... which doesn't make "them" any different from "us."

      Being afraid of failure is the number one thing preventing success for most people of all divisions and classifications.

    2. Re:Uncle Tom by Shotgun · · Score: 0

      I think I get it: They hate success.

      No. They hate working for it.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  453. OMG! OMG! OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing to see.

    Move along.

  454. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    "What you likely hate the most is the rhetoric and the guilt and shame imposed on you because you were born a white male."

    Shame? Guilt?

    Now, exactly what am I supposed to be feeling guilt or shame for because I was born a white guy? I have no guilt or shame about anything.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  455. Re:All I can say now is... by horza · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They started talking since the Irish economy took off and the IRA figured they could make more money through real-estate by paying off councilors than through running arms and drugs. It wasn't through some hippy breakthrough with government and terrorists smoking a joint together and proclaiming world peace. At the end of the day money talks. As it did with the US economy providing a radical shift towards Obama, as it did with prudish America not caring about Clinton's indiscretions as long as he kept improving the economy and increasing people's paychecks.

    Phillip.

  456. FINALLY, racism had ended! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :)

  457. 'Cause one party has most of the racists? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps black folks would vote Republican if the Republican party exorcised its racism. Like it or not, they're the party of white dudes scared as hell that they might not be better than some black dude. While that does well for the scared white dude vote, it doesn't do well for the black vote.

    You might consider that black people tend to be surprisingly socially conservative. They'd probably lean Republican, if it weren't for the racism.

    You might also consider that Latinos were a solidly Republican constituency in 2004, but were solidly Democratic in 2008, despite being generally socially conservative. (Consider the D/R split in California compared to the split over Prop 8.) You can thank Tom Tancredo, Michelle Malkin and their ilk for that.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:'Cause one party has most of the racists? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      white dudes scared as hell that they might not be better than some black dude

      They are not scared might not be better than some black dude, they assume that they are better than some black dude.

      There are multiple aspects to racism, but one of the main ones is when some black dude is their boss or becomes president or otherwise achieves better than them, they angrily resent the "injustice" of those things that "rightfully" belong to whites - because they "know" whites are inherently better. I'd say it psychologically precludes a fear of not being better, such a thing is almost literally unthinkable.

      It is an intense form of ancient tribalism, those people you define as being within your social group are presumptively good and are automatically allies to be defended, and anyone outside your defined group is to be arationally(*) hated and distrusted and battled. Anyone outside the group is implicitly inferior or even sub-human. It's a particularly virulent form of "us vs them" psychology.

      (*) Hmmm... "arationally" only shows 415 hits on google, to be safe I better clarify. I mean "completely lacking in reason" as opposed to "irrational" which more means "contrary to reason".

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:'Cause one party has most of the racists? by novakyu · · Score: 1

      You might consider that black people tend to be surprisingly socially conservative. They'd probably lean Republican, if it weren't for the racism.

      When people vote for a candidate, the most pressing issue is not how socially conservative they are. The most pressing issue is MONEY.

      I suppose it's a fun past time these days to call anyone who doesn't praise minorities and "people of color" all the time racist, but name one provable racist thing about the conservatives---chances are, you can't do much beyond the name calling. There have been black Republicans (even well known ones like Collin Powell, before he turned turncoat). The Bradley effect you have been hearing about? Bradley was a black Republican.

      What the conservatives (traditionally, anyway, before the neocons) do stand for is individual liberty when it comes to money. Conservatives stand for the idea that the government should tax less and spend less (again, I'm excluding neocons, I do acknowledge that the Republican party hasn't been doing this, especially not in the past 8 years). Conservatives stand for the idea that one should actually earn the money he earns, not have wealth spread to them from those who earn more.

      And, some people just don't like the idea of not getting free money from those who had to work harder to earn that money. They are not all African Americans (I'm sure there are whites, Asians, Latinos, and what-not who prefer free money from the government over their personal financial liberty). But if there has to be one thing that should explain 96-4 split in the black vote, it has to be MONEY issues, not the non-existent racism (or rather, imbalance of racism, since everyone is a little racist) in one party. Remember that Bradley was a Republican and it was the closet racists in the Democratic party that kept him from the gubernatorial office.

  458. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "GET OVER IT."

    That's rich. How long did Democrats whine about the election when Gore and Kerry lost?

    And look at it this way. If you are sick of Anti-white racism in the African-American community, then I say you just won a tremendous victory!

    The fact is, Obama is more or less the picture perfect image of a black man that white people don't fear. He maintains most all of his cultural identity and yet he is respectful, respectable, speaks well, is very intelligent and doesn't speak in rhymes. Obama is no dumb-ass.

    And why is this a tremendous victory for you? Simple. What you likely hate the most is the rhetoric and the guilt and shame imposed on you because you were born a white male. Well guess what, now that we elected a black man for president, there is a LOT less they can say... there is a black man in the highest office. What else do they have to complain about that could be valid? When Obama fails to dish out the welfare, what are they going to say now? "Sell-out?" (maybe...)

    Not much is really known about Obama.
    And besides, once you have the victim mentality, you never lose it. Some blacks will still see "racism" everywhere they look, regardless. Yes, many will still complain and whine, or call him a sellout. Yes, it will happen.

    I think you're all in for a surprise, honestly. Obama is a master of saying what you want to hear, but will he really deliver on any of it? Can he, even? There's more to leading than having a silver tongue.
    How can we have Universal Health Care if the economy is in "crisis", as dems are so fond of saying. What about social security? Let's fix that first.

    Time will tell. I hope he's true to his word.

  459. Welcome to: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to:

    1. Higher Taxes (and the reduced motivation)
    2. Government Health Insurance (I'm sure that will go well)
    3. Businesses cutting jobs, more outsourcing, and less investment (due to higher corporate taxes)
    4. A prolonged recession (due to the above)

    On the upside, we'll be liked internationally more. Yeah, that's worth the trade off.

    1. Re:Welcome to: by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      Anyone elected (for president, congress, senate, whatever) right now who _WOULDN'T_ raise taxes is not fit for the job. You don't get to keep spending "free money" unless you want to either
        a) Cause a severe global recession.
      or
        b) continue one already caused by such practices.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    2. Re:Welcome to: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cut spending then.

    3. Re:Welcome to: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a return to Truman's 94% income tax bracket for anyone making more than $200,000 a year would be a nice start. We can also extend social security taxes past the 90K cutoff, which would help fund social security. The government's coming for your money, and there isn't a thing you can do about it. :)

  460. Re:Musical Choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Captain, the singing?"

    "Let them shing."

  461. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

    You could have just done a squigley in.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  462. A US administration that acts rationally ... by quax · · Score: 1

    ... and in the long term best interest of the US of A would be a refreshing change. Two years of Bush weakened the USA considerably. Unfortunately this also had severe negative effects outside the US. Otherwise who'd care.

  463. It was a cumulative effect over time by Quila · · Score: 1

    What you and others mentioned, but go back to Carter to lay the groundwork by ordering banks to make loans to people who would not normally get loans because they are poor or financially irresponsible. After that every administration, and every congress, built on it with its own mistakes.

    Couple it with corporate greed and ACORN pressuring for bad loans even harder, you have a perfect storm that took 30 years to build.

    1. Re:It was a cumulative effect over time by AmaDaden · · Score: 1

      Don't kid your self, It was all of those things. BOTH parties messed up.

      The left wanted to help the poor so they pushed banks to make bad loans to people who could not afford them. The banks realized that they could make a lot of money off these loans if they just sold them off. After seeing there was money in it the banks requested less and less restrictions. The left was happy to give loans to the poor and the right is happy to make the banks happy. The system looked good and healthy because people were aloud to do things like take out second loans (under these easy loan giving restrictions that did not check their other debts) so they could have money to make payments on the first loan and the banks based the health of the system on how well loans from previous decades (that were not built on ground anywhere near this shaky) were doing.

      Both sides were stupid and both sides will pay for it.

  464. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

    Anti-white racism in the African-American community is ugly.

    Yes, but your forgetting something. According to several university policies and many many black in America, Blacks can't be racist. There is no such thing as Black on White racism because they can can't be that way. Only the evil white man can be racist, not black people.

    Sarcastic, yes it is but there are people out there that believe that black people can't be racist. So since a majority of the black people voted for O'bama that doesn't make it racist. Bullshit, but there are actually people that believe that.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  465. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

    My question would be, why didn't 95% of whites vote for Obama?

    Anti-black racism in the white American community is ugly.

    I didn't vote for Obama because (1) I don't agree with his Iraq policy... what he has of one, anyway and (2) I'm not looking forward to the tax hike I'll take paying for all the government programs he ran his campaign on.

    I realize most of the country disagrees with my assessment. I'm ok with that, and we'll all find out together whether or not he'll be a good President. But labeling me a racist just because I didn't get on the Obama hope/change bandwagon?

    This election set an historic precedent, but it wasn't about race. For me, anyway. Apparently it was for you.

    http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/19/8-barack-obama/

    --

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  466. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Azghoul · · Score: 1

    "Tons of white folks voted AGAINST him for no reason but skin color or perceived religion"

    Citation or just shut up. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

  467. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by illumin8 · · Score: 0, Troll

    A person who lived through the collapse of the soviet union once pointed out that in America, the only relevant political parties are the Capitalist party and the Capitalist party. Democrats and Republicans disagree on a handful of very minor issues, despite all the media trumpeting about one being "left" and one being "right." The Democrats will still pass legislation that favours big businesses, just a different group of businesses. No president since the 1950s has served an entire term without engaging America in some foreign conflict. The use of signals intelligence operations to spy on foreign businesses and pass along their trade secrets to US businesses has occurred during both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and during both Democrat and Republican control of Congress.

    I don't know if you understand the significance of this election, so let me spell it out for you:

    Barack Obama promised to refuse lobbyist and PAC money, and he kept his promise.

    His entire campaign was financed by individual donors.

    If you don't understand the significance of this, and why it means a change from the politics of the past, I can't really help you. You might start by avoiding the right-wing media which seems to have brainwashed you into believing you don't have a choice.

    We do have a choice, and we chose Obama because he is different. Wait and see what happens; it will be awesome.

    --
    "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
  468. Bush did try by Quila · · Score: 1

    Congress, both under Republican and Democratic control, didn't care.

  469. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by milimetric · · Score: 1

    nice dude! Here's to four years of uninterrupted prosperity in the area of writing software in virtual machines :)

  470. I'll stand behind Obama by Quila · · Score: 1

    Biden said he'll be tested and will have to make some tough decisions, and we'll have to trust him because that he's right won't be immediately apparent.

    So I'll stand behind him at least as well as Biden and other Democrats stood behind Bush with his tough decisions.

  471. is there any way to short SNL? by slew · · Score: 1

    Seriously.

    Pretty soon we'll hear about a proposed bailout package for political comedian/satirists. What comedian would want to touch BO and risk naacp, aclu, and 18-29 oprah watcher back-lash? I don't see a comedy script treatment entitled "That's my BO!" making the rounds anytime soon ;^)

    1. Re:is there any way to short SNL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should watch comedy central tonight...

  472. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was fucking my girlfriend.

  473. Move to Somalia, dude. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    You're apparently a libertarian. Good on you. If you want to live in a place where the government doesn't take the fruits of your labors, there are plenty of government-free zones around the world. They also tend to be Mad Max-esque nightmares that everyone is desperately trying to escape from, but I'm sure that's a fantastic chance for you to prove that your individual right to bear arms will outgun the local mafia. Bon voyage!

    On a slightly less sarcastic note, I find it fucking hilarious that the difference between rugged individualism and the heavy yoke of baleful commie servitude is a four point six percent rise in the marginal tax rate. Oh, hell, I'll just let Ruben Bolling mock you.

    Finally, it's funny-sad-but mostly funny that taxes are whined about when they're paid, not when the expenses are incurred. If you have a problem with our finances, your beef is with the guys who just pissed roughly a trillion bucks away halfway 'round the world, not with the killjoy who points out that we all have to pay for that mess now.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Move to Somalia, dude. by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      On a slightly less sarcastic note, I find it fucking hilarious that the difference between rugged individualism and the heavy yoke of baleful commie servitude is a four point six percent rise in the marginal tax rate. Oh, hell, I'll just let Ruben Bolling mock you.

      Nobody who believes in liberty has made such a distinction. Your argument is a strawman.

  474. Re:More than Two words by JustNilt · · Score: 1

    I would suggest that Saturday Night Live running her into the ground (portrayed by Tina Fey) did more to hurt her than most people think. I'm not sure of her true intelligence but SNL sure made her look like an idiot and she was probably seen by more people on there (and via you-tube) than all news clips and debate coverage combined. Very funny though!

    Rather accurate, from what I've seen. It's positively frightening to me how many people I spoke to brought up quotes from NSL as though Palin herself had said them. I'm one of the first to admit that Tina Fey nailed the impression but, I think, it was almost too good when I consider the sheer lack of fact checking done by the average American citizen.

    --
    You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
  475. Re:Color or Character? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    As usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint (and in this case, a highly racist wingnut) and you have reality.

  476. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by avandesande · · Score: 1

    You need to pick your battles- What a pointless hypothetical argument.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  477. Pshaw. He's a *libertarian*. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Those rights aren't important to him. The only important right to this kind of fellow is the right not to pay taxes while he pretends not to benefit from the infrastructure, from the civilization he resides in. Torture and disappearances happen to other people.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Pshaw. He's a *libertarian*. by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      Those rights aren't important to him. The only important right to this kind of fellow is the right not to pay taxes while he pretends not to benefit from the infrastructure,

      If everyone only had to pay for the physical infrastructure they used, taxes would be a small fraction of what they are now.

      from the civilization he resides in.

      Most libertarians I know enjoy civilization, and pay good money to use its services.

  478. racist by Uberbah · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Obama used racial tension to divide and install anger

    [Citation needed]

    mobilizing the blacks to vote for him because he was black

    [Citation needed]

    and promised to give them free money

    [Citation needed]

    He consistently played the race card while McCain avoided the topic

    [Citation needed]

    Obama used past generations of racism to his advantage

    [Citation needed]

    And at his acceptance speech, he began to back-peddle on all of his promise

    [Citation needed]

    King would be appalled at Obama's actions. Obama has create a division that could tear this country apart.

    [Citation needed]

    Question: does that hood make it harder for you to type?

  479. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by milimetric · · Score: 1

    wish i could mod this up - well said

  480. Not happy. by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

    I'm not American. but if I was, I would have voted for McCain. It's sad to see how your great nation has fallen for bits of leftist propaganda (And yes, I'm talking about "spreading the wealth around", can't take these words back) and unsupported promises of change.

    --
    US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  481. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by mattwarden · · Score: 1

    I was on the phone putting more of my savings into gold.

  482. Re:Changes by markbark · · Score: 1

    You forgot to add that he's gonna take his legions of Black Panther/ACORN/Bill Ayers stromtroopers and use them to round up ignorant crackers such as yourself and ship them all off to Gitmo.

    He's Black.
    He's President (Elect).
    Get Over It.

  483. Why surprised? by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

    In the "Real America" graft is what it is all about. You should be immediately, and summarily, beaten with a "Clue Stick"!

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  484. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    OK, well why aren't you calling for the AC's citation about how racist blacks are? Are you just accepting his CNN statistics that black people voted more for Obama? Ok, then from the same page:

    White 43% Obama
    African-American: 95% Obama
    Latino: 66% Obama
    Asian: 61% Obams
    Other Races: 65% Obama

    I don't know about you, but I see an outlying statistic on both extremes.

  485. A Question For Bush-Haters in the U.S. by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    Now that your man has won and you control both houses of Congress, will you apologize for the hateful invective you've been spewing for the past eight years against your country and fellow countrymen who didn't agree with you? Will you acknowledge that your predictions of a draft, martial law, a war for oil, etc, were all wrong?

    I didn't think so. Enjoy the next four years - it might be another eight after that before you get to the keys to the car again.

    --
    What?
  486. I for one welcome our new socialist Overlord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new socialist overlord:

    Hail Obama!

  487. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    Try crunching race numbers by income and see what comes out. Or is pointing out statistics still racist?

  488. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by aronschatz · · Score: 1

    You're the type of liberal that brings this country down.

    Not voting for Obama because I'm white doesn't make me racist, I don't agree with his socioeconomic views.

    So I guess all white people should have voted for Obama (democracy be damned!) to show they aren't racist?

    I'm sorry, that's a bit bigoted...

  489. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was in Winterspring collecting Winterfall Spirit Beads and trying to become exalted with Timbermaw Hold.

  490. Re: All I can say now is... by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    Let's see... Iraq was under sanctions for over 10 years and the sanctions where leaking badly. Because not everone believed in them or the UN's authority to impose them. Similarly, the UN issued hollow resolution after resolution condemming what was happening in Iraq until it was clear that the UN wasn't going to do anything except issue condemnations.

    The entry into Iraq by the US was after years upon years of violations of various agreements. Finally, Iraq ejected the arms inspectors, sending a clear message that they were not going to be showing the UN what else they were doing. All the while the "Oil for Food" program was funnelling millions of dollars into the top leadership in Iraq and not the civilians as was intended. What was possible with all that money, aside from building ornate palaces? Who knows. Certainly there was enough money to buy virtually anything, including banned weapons.

    As for isolationism, today we have closed most of the factories in the US because of excessive labor costs. Excessive when compared with third-world countries. The differential is so great that it is cheaper to make stuff halfway around the world and ship it here than it is to make it here. Deciding that we no longer wanted to do that would (a) raise prices on everything sold in the US overnight and (b) violate many international agreements about "open trade" and such. Nope, we're unlikely to do any of that.

  491. I 3 false dichotomies by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    So, are you

    1) a crazy racist

    or

    2) completely ignorant of history?

    1. Re:I 3 false dichotomies by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I must pick #2 then. Please let me in on your version of history.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:I 3 false dichotomies by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Please let me in on your version of history.

      "My verison"? What are you, a "balance" fanboy?

      But why, exactly, does Obama's win mean we're no longer a racist country? Why wasn't it Jackie Robinson making it onto a white man's baseball team? Why not the desegregation of the military? Why wasn't it Booker T. Washington's invitation to the White House? Why wasn't it the passage of the 14th Amendment? The Emancipation Proclamation?

    3. Re:I 3 false dichotomies by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      At no point did I say it means we are no longer a racist society. What I did say is that it either no longer maters, or that affirmative action is working better than ever expected. If a group of people who was once considered unable to succeed without special privileges is now able to obtain the highest position in government it can only mean one of two things. He was given the opportunity and didn't earn it, or he wasn't given the opportunity because it is no longer needed.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  492. What's up with your sig? by boxless · · Score: 1

    I'm not usually politically correct, but that sig is pretty tasteless, isn't it?

  493. We need a REAL change by bhires · · Score: 1

    My only hope is that this election makes the Republican party (and eventually Democratic party) wake up and realize we need to make some REAL changes in our approach to politics and the role of government. RON PAUL for president in 2012 !!!

  494. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Syrente · · Score: 1

    That speech was incredibly powerful; as a British man I cannot say I've had a Prime Minister's speech have the profound effect that President-Elect Barack Obama's had on me. Heck, if someone like myself can shed a tear for the strength of American ideals, then I consider that a powerful speech.

  495. Try -- Catch by Punk+CPA · · Score: 1

    Once again, the US has demonstrated its simple trick for success. We aren't the smartest people on the planet, but we have the best error-handling routine ever devised. All we need is a reliable method for determining that an error in leadership has occurred. We don't have to figure out the error, just remove the faulty leader unit and hot-swap a new one in. Brilliant! The genius of democracy is not that the people are always right, just that they recognize mistakes.

    I didn't support Obama, but I think the system worked perfectly.

  496. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by ifwm · · Score: 0

    "I don't know about you, but I see an outlying statistic on both extremes."

    I don't. I see numbers which closely represent political ideology, apart from the blacks.

    Thanks for supporting the AC's point with statistics, it's a shame you had to refute your own argument in the process.

  497. From Italy, with envy by KingofGnG · · Score: 1

    Well, the American elections are a very important fact here in Italy too. As for myself, I'm looking with envy to the President the Americans have chosen, and I feel particularly angry for the disastrous state of things in my country in comparison. I'll be blogging about that after my first guitar self-lesson :-P

  498. Re:More than Two words by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    The Glass-Steagall act probably should be reinstated, but moreover we should kick the greedy bastards out of Wall Street and replace them with the more conservative financial leaders who were slowly pushed out by the instant-gratification morons.

    And repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley. It has been proven not to work, as AGI, Bears-Sterns, Goldman-Sachs, et.al. were in compliance but there was still no significant warning that these corporations were so near to collapse. Instead, it provides a multi-million dollar barrier to IPO for any company with a good business plan but in need of capital. We need to encourage new start-ups, not put huge hurtles in their path that serve no useful purpose.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  499. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    OK, I have a better citation for you. I didn't notice those CNN stats had multiple pages. On page 6:
    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p6

    Was Race of Candidates an Important Factor to You?
    9% said yes, and of those 9%, 46% voted for McCain.

    Furthermore, 2% said race was the MOST important factor, and 41% of that 2% voted for McCain. That means, of the 112 million people that voted, nearly 1 million voted for McCain primarily because of race. 1.2 million voted for Obama for the same reason. I hardly see that as a significant difference among the overall vote.

  500. Republicans still haven't voted yet guys!!! by need4mospd · · Score: 1

    Just wait til all their votes are counted from today's Republican only voting day.

  501. He can't do half of what he said. by Petersko · · Score: 1

    The USA can't afford half of his promises. If you want the US government to lend you a dollar for a coffee, they'll have to print it or borrow it. And if you want to find out just how much of his campaign rhetoric will be paid any kind of lip service, just watch how fast he gets on doing nothing about NAFTA.

    He knows NAFTA is a net gain to the country. It was just politically expedient to badmouth it in towns with failed manufacturing industries.

    He's a politician, through and through.

  502. Propositions by dlevitan · · Score: 1

    Obama may be the Messiah and all (but I personally doubt he's going to be able to do anything, not that McCain would have), but I'm a lot more worried about propositions. As a relatively new resident of California, I got my first taste of proposition fever, where stupid people vote on complicated issues like spending billions of tax dollars on emotional issues. It's rather sad in my opinion.

    But specifically, I think there's two propositions that are more important and, in fact, belong on the ballot since they're either asking a fundamental question or doing something the legislature would never in a million years do. First, there's prop 8 which is, amazingly enough, passing and will ban gay marriage. Not totally unexpected, but not not really expected either.

    Second, there's prop 11, which would have moved redistricting from the state legislature to a separate, bi-partisan, non-political committee and is supported by just about every newspaper in the state and most politicians except Nancy Pelosi and many, but not all, other Democrats. The solution is not perfect, but I finally found out last night why people are against it. And the reason is that Democrats believe that they will lose seats in the state government and in the House. Now, I am a libertarian and registered Republican, but I support such measures in all states, including California and Texas. The fact that Democrats are essentially being anti-democratic on this is simply pathetic, and I still have hopes that it will pass (it's leading by 1% currently). If you want to see what it'll prevent, see Wikipedia's entry on Gerrymandering.

  503. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by morgauo · · Score: 1

    Careful!

    I remember where I was when Bush was elected... Don't you?
    I'd be happy if he's at least good enough that I don't remember...

  504. It's called CHANGE. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    I know this is flamebait, but why "God bless America" when the segregation was allowed until so recently?

    God bless America, because it changed, and we've come so far so quickly!

    That's what this is about, the promise of America, which is that it aims for the highest of ideals which have never been reality, yet the change towards those ideals is real.

    You can compare to other nations who didn't have these problems. You can complain that the change did not happen miraculously overnight, but instead took place in small, slow, reasonable increments over several centuries. You can say that we merely elected a man, a man who cannot and will not change everything, and who by his mere election doesn't resolve all the racial problems in our country.

    That's all true, yet doesn't alter the fact that change has happened, in the past, and today, and will certainly happen in the future.

    God bless America.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  505. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    Stop the bullshit. Very few people did not vote for Barack because he is Black. I for one didn't vote for him because of all his wealth redistribution rhetoric and the fact that his policies will ruin the economy which is already hurting. Notice the stock market this morning?

  506. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by ifwm · · Score: 0

    "is an institutionalized and systematic suppression and dis-enfranchisement of a specific racial/ethnic community - usually backed with state sanction, but not always so."

    What the hell?

    No.

    If I call a black person a "stupid nigger", that's racist, and there's nothing institutionalized or systematic about it.

    Stop making up your own definitions, especially when they're so easily shown to be wrong.

  507. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Riiight so anyone who isn't a Republican is a Communist.

    Nice try Grandad but get off my computer already.

  508. Did you notice how bare the popular margin was? by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

    He practically squeaked by at 51 odd percent. Not to detract from his achievement; I think it was a brilliantly planned and executed campaign. It is still disheartening to me, as a non-American, that such a candidate could command so small a majority of his countrymen's support.

    1. Re:Did you notice how bare the popular margin was? by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ahh, but we're not a Democracy, we're a Representative Republic. There may be some shortcomings, but over-all, I think we've got a decent system which generally avoids a "Tyranny of the Majority".

      As an American I fervently hope that President Elect Obama will move forward on his campaign promises to get us out of the war in Iraq and will work to rebuild our relations with the rest of the world.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
    2. Re:Did you notice how bare the popular margin was? by owyn999 · · Score: 1

      As an American as well I truly hope that Obama doesn't get us out of Iraq before they already have us signed on for... which is 2011... oh that's right you probably hadn't heard that... want proof http://www.poligazette.com/2008/10/16/us-troops-to-stay-in-iraq-until-2011/ ok well now time for me to get my flaming... oh well

      --
      Where's that cap to the Decanter of Endless water???
    3. Re:Did you notice how bare the popular margin was? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buried for being a dick about trying to makee your point

  509. Re: All I can say now is... by bbroerman · · Score: 1

    As for Iraq, Yes. These are the conditions that really led to this, and I agree that something had to be done. We should have finished Afghanistan first, though, and we should have made sure that the rest of the world was "With Us" before we went into Iraq. We *should not* be the police force of the world. We shouldn't be the *only ones* who actually do something when others are suffering. Finally, we can't do it alone while the rest of the world hates us for doing it. For the isolationist argument, I agree it's unlikely, but really, we need to do something... We can't pay or bills if we can't work. We can't work if we cost more than anyone else, and we can't afford to work at the pay rates of these other countries and still have a lifestyle that even closely resembles a modern country. Not to mention that many of these countries also don't have the regulations we have when it comes to environmental safety, worker safety, etc. How can we openly and freely compete? Anyone have a sensible solution?

    --
    Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
  510. Re:More than Two words by Larryish · · Score: 1

    Oh yes, a deducated Vice-President is much better.

  511. Can't help it...nerdiness too strong...must post.. by killstead · · Score: 1
  512. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Damastus+the+WizLiz · · Score: 1

    I was getting laid by my fiancee

    --
    I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
  513. Really? You seem to be fabricating information by Blappo · · Score: 0

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

    Read that, so you can realize that your claim "all the black people were backing Hillary Clinton anyway" is completely refuted by reality.

    What's the point of making shit up that can be so easily disproven?

    --
    Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
  514. Re:More than Two words by Millennium · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of what SNL did was just quote her straight-up, which is the truly scary part: SNL didn't even need to write most of its own jokes. Palin is just that much of a twit, and the worst part is that she knew just enough to twist this to her advantage in the debates. Someone capable of this is not someone who belongs within 5000 miles of the most powerful office in the US (and, arguably, the world).

    Palin is not the first person whose greatest attack ads were simply her own words played back at her. Sadly, she will probably not be the last either. But when they do spring up, there is good reason to fear them.

    It's a shame about McCain. It really is. He's a strong statesman, a good politician, and he probably would have been at least as good for the country (if in different ways) than Obama. But Palin had to be stopped, and fortunately, she was. You might even say that she won the election; she just won it for the opposing side.

  515. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    Oh, so when the black vote differs significantly it's racism, but when the white vote differs significantly, it's just political ideology? LOL. OK, whatever.

    Oh, and by the way, be sure to see my other comment with additional stats from the same poll, this time specifically addressing race:
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1019121&cid=25645163

    Refusing my own argument, huh?

  516. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

    Chocolate Jesus is a forced meme...

    --
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
  517. You've missed the point by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    At least now we have someone in the office who actually does wish to change those things.

    Wanting is the first step. So we've moved from a condition of "no hope for any change whatsoever" to "some hope for some change".

    It's sort of like playing the lottery. If you buy a ticket, your odds are infinitesimal. But if you don't buy one, your odds are zero. If you buy a ticket you move from the land of "absolutely not" to the land of "maybe so".

    So yeah, I doubt Mr. Obama will be able to do a tenth of what he says. He will be blocked by The Powers That Be at every single turn. Just watch the lobbying Exxon does in the next four years to keep him from pursuing his biofuels initiative, for example. It's gonna make your head spin.

    But at least he wants to try to fix things rather than make them worse, and 10% is better than nothing. Hell, if all he does is sit in the oval office and play XBox for the next four years we'll be better off than the active malevolence of the W administration. Just a moratorium on undermining the Bill of Rights will be worth it, IMO.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  518. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...the only relevant political parties are the Capitalist party and the Capitalist party."

    "The Democrats will still pass legislation that favours big businesses, just a different group of businesses."

    This pisses me off to no end. People need to understand what the word "capitalism" means before you criticize it.

    A legislated economy is not capitalism. In capitalism, there should be little to no legislation over economic issues. A truly capitalistic party would de-regulate just about every segment of the economy.

    Now, criticize THAT if you wish, but don't call an overly legislated economy a "capitalist" economy because it just isn't so.

  519. What? No GNAA Trolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sort of disappointed.

  520. No on Gay Marriage, a crucial time in America. by dogdick · · Score: 0

    What we really need to do is thank God for stopping faggots and dykes from getting married. Seriously, this IS the United States. Now that we finally got rid of this whole 'equality' bullshit, there are a lot of other rights that need to be taken away.

    For instance, I saw a bunch of black people on CNN talking about voting, and I heard that some women are even going to college. This is ludicrous, this isn't Africa or some goddamned amazonian dyke tribe, this is the USA. Oh, and the new president is half black!? When did half black people get the right to be president. As far as I am concerned he has half a right, but I round down.

    And don't even get me started on religion. You know how many Jews I see around Los Angeles with their Jew beards and Stars of David? I see muslims and those Arabs all the time. This is the US, you have no right to be Jewish or Middle Eastern in public.

    I think there needs to be a Special Election immediately to amend the constitution so ALL of the lesser people (not just the lesser Gays) in America have their rights revoked.

    Sincerely,
    Sarcasm & disappointment.

    PS: I hope all of you that voted against gay marriage because you didn't want it taught to your children in school are OK with your children being taught about how ignorant and hateful you and the rest of America was way back in 2008.

  521. Get over it by reeljerc · · Score: 1

    As President-elect Obama made clear in his acceptance speech last night, this is an opportunity for change. Lead, follow or get out of the way. Time to move on.

  522. We rejected cynicism by spun · · Score: 1

    Sorry, America is full of hope now, and your tired old cynicism does nothing except make you look like a poor loser.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  523. Triumph over discrimination by quantaman · · Score: 1

    It really is astounding how Obama triumphed despite discrimination.

    I know his group has a lot of bad sterotypes, and there's a lot of talk about how harmful they are to themselves and others. I have to admit I have stronger negative feelings about his group than most and I never imagined in this modern day that one of them would be elected president. But then, against all odds and sterotypes, it happened.

    A smoker was elected President!

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Triumph over discrimination by Grimmreaper74 · · Score: 0

      lol

      --
      Live life to the fullest, you only get one chance at it.
  524. undeducated is NOT a word by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    Considering "undeducated" is not a word you really should not be talking.

    1. Re:undeducated is NOT a word by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Oh God, you're right! I accidentally hit the D key, and now my education is worth nothing! The horror, the HORROR! What will I do now, that somebody on Slashdot has pointed out that I misspelled a single word? I guess you win the presidential debates! You have truly shown me that Palin was the right choice.

  525. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Brian.Kirby · · Score: 1

    Just because someone didn't win an election doesn't mean that they should not have.

  526. Lackluster election results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big surprise that Obama won, the entire country knew he would months ago. But to mask to real important news, the media has to hype the race and have endless commentary about it.

    Thank God for the Internet. I can get my news and actually see _real_ opposing viewpoints debated. You're not going to get that in traditional media. The TV news channels are so overtly biased.

    It's not even liberal vs. conservative anymore. It's Democrat vs. Republican. I, for one am sick of the two main parties. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama or McCain.

    The lesser of two evils is still evil.

  527. Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Giving money back to everyone in itself does not constitute socialism. Taking more money from a group that has more and giving more to the group that has less is socialism. It is a balancing act that seeks to redistribute wealth in a manner that pushes everyone to the middle. A far cry from what happens in Alaska, where all residents receive benefits from oil drilling, and from what happened with the stimulus checks last year, where everyone who paid taxes got a refund. In fact, people who had paid more taxes in general got the higher refund. We have yet to see what Obama will do as president, but to anyone insisting that all these policies are the same, its about how the money is given back, not simply that it is given back.

    1. Re:Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah ? .. Alaskan that paid more tax get a bigger part of the oil profit ?

      I thought it wasnt 'spreading the the wealth" but simply participating in the profit as 'all alaskan' are owner of the ressource...

      Now you tell me that those that pay more tax, own more of the ressource ? rich wellfare indeed!

  528. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well said... I couldn't put it any better myself.

  529. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    Guess what? Whites are no longer a majority in this country. (IE: Less than 50% of the population). The U.S. is more of a melting pot than ever. It won't be long before 'whites' are not even the LARGEST of the many 'groups' that this country is made of. Not that dividing the US into 'groups' was ever a good idea. We are ALL Americans, QED.

  530. Here is me by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The last eight years have been the most prosperous of my life. My parents kicked me to the curb when I was 18. I made my way through life by working hard and getting educated. Now I own a house in one of the most expensive cities in the US. I have 10 years of living expenses in the bank. Other than a $180K mortgage, I have no debt. No one handed it to me. I earned it.

    Should things get worse for me in the future, I will not blame Obama. I never attributed my success to Bush, I never blamed Clinton when my net worth tanked with the dot com bubble. My house is my house. It was worth $600K two years ago, now maybe $450. So what? I don't have an ARM. It doesn't take too many IQ points to understand that when interest rates wwere at historic lows trying to shave 1 or 2% off your rate at the risk of higher rates in the future was a fool's errand. I have been poor. But I never had a credit card balance or any other debt I couldn't pay. Why? Because I will go without before running up debt.

    If you blame the politicians for your lot in life, maybe you should reexamine. Your life is what you make of it. In the end, the leadership of this country has very little to do with it.

    Take a break from your hand wringing about how you are being oppressed by the RIAA or patents and examine your life. It's not all about free music, movies and linux. It's about what you do personally to make your life better. Don't blame the government if your life sucks. The blame lies with you.

    1. Re:Here is me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame the government if your life sucks. The blame lies with you.

      I'm more than willing to accept responsibility, but please tell me what I did wrong to get a medical condition. I'm not sure where I went wrong there -- perhaps I chose some bad genetic code during my re-birth?

      Are you sure that you would have gotten where you are today if you had something that prevented you from doing all that hard work? Hard to hold down a job when you can't keep the hours, and hard to start a business when you don't have the funds.

  531. Re: Helping you Hope by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Things will absolutely change. So the good news, is "you're wrong, just as you hoped".

    The first category of changes he will make will be Holding The Line rather than making things worse. This is the easiest to slide by politcally without getting irrational interest groups riled.

    Then he'll chip away at some truly ridiculous things, quietly. He has to be effective yet under the flashpoint. He has to let the temporal time pass so we all can realize how duped we were, and how truly awful the Bush Disaster really was.

    About a year in, maybe more, maybe less, look for a couple of signature policies.

    We're shellshocked right now, and he actually tapped that to win like he deserves. Expect a round of really ugly trolling about the 2-4 month mark, maybe more. We have an absolutely DEVASTATING undercurrent of civil rights to solve. During the campaign race was a "campaign issue". Now that he is President, there's some really ugly fallout on the way.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  532. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can thank Clinton for the bank mess that Bush was forced to clean up. Check this link out from 1999.. .to bad people didn't listen back then.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

  533. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by spun · · Score: 1

    But you haven't shown anything. Look at arrest statistics, employment statistics, educational statistics: everywhere you look, you will see institutionalized racism in America, unless you are deliberately blind.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  534. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    John McCain should have won the election.

    If John McCain should have won the election, John McCain would have won the election.

    My question would be, why didn't 95% of whites vote for Obama?

    Anti-black racism in the white American community is ugly.

    In my corner of the white American community I saw the following happen.

    If Obama was a woman my mother would have voted for him. Instead she voted for Sarah Palin. My father and I voted for Obama. My mother told me she didn't like Obama or McCain at all and thought Mrs. Palin wouldn't take crap from men in office.

    Now you can debate it was all about race, but right or wrong, based on my mothers actions and feelings. I'm willing to bet she wasn't alone in voting for McCain for the reasons she did. If Obama would have picked Hillary over Biden then there might have been a MUCH larger victory for Obama. I'm not saying that's a fact, I'm just saying that's what I feel based off what I've seen.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  535. No... and yes. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    This changes everything. The politics of fear will end. Black people won't be seen "out of place" in any place from now on.

    No... and yes. Racism isn't over; racism wasn't over when slavery ended, when the military was integrated or when Jim Crow was abolished. But each of those was a watershed, and things were a little bit different, a little bit better.

    I wonder if folks who were around for the civil rights movement of the 60s thought they'd live to see this day.

    I saw a reporter speaking from Times Square, or maybe it was Grant Park, last night, saying that his father had always told him that this country would never elect a black man president. He said that the country had finally proved his old man wrong. From a practical standpoint, it's not that big a deal. From a symbolic one, its importance can't be overstated.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  536. Yay for now, but let's wait and see by MadLad · · Score: 1

    It's great that Obama is president, but I'm skeptical of the true interests behind the progressive, benign image. To achieve a meaningful, positive change in the USA and the world he has to face down a corporate/military system of great wealth and power. If he doesn't, it'll be more of the same: a devious and rapacious foreign policy, strategic falsehoods, strife and inequity with the aim of US hegemony. There's never been a better character for the job, but it's a hell of a tough job.

  537. Two more words by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

    Hear, hear!

  538. Thank you everybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, thank you US voters! We were fearing another Bush.

    Signed: the rest of the world.

  539. SOrry for the follow up post but by geekoid · · Score: 1

    it occurs to me that I may need to explain why I put black in quotes.
    This is becasue I don't believe in race in that sense, and we know that we are the same race just with different skin pigmentation.
    I hate using race as a border/political division. It's ignorant, stupid, and pointless.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  540. No on Gay Marriage, A crucial time in US History by dogdick · · Score: 0

    I'd first like to say thank God for stopping those faggots and dykes from marrying. I think now that we, the American People, have no problem with throwing this 'equality' bullshit out the window, we need to eliminate the rights of some of these other Lesser Americans.

    For instance, last night on CNN there was a large group of BLACK PEOPLE at a college talking about how they voted, and there were even WOMEN on the campus. WTF, this is the USA, not Africa or some goddamned amazonian dyke tribe where do these people get off thinking they have the right to do these things!?

    And hello, our new president is Half Black! When did half blacks get the right to be President. As far as I am concerned, he has half a right, but I round down, if you know what I mean.

    And don't even get me started on people flaunting their 'religious rights.' Do you know that Ive seen Jews and Muslims walking around the same streets here in LA. Jews with their Jewy beards and Stars of David. This ain't Jewrusalem, this is the USA, and the 'U' stands for United under God, not Allah or Jewgod.

    There needs to be an immediate Special Poll to amend the constitution and take the rights away of these Lesser Americans who are damaging American Culture and Our Value System.

    Sincerely,
    Sarcasm & Disappointment.

    PS: All of you who voted to Eliminate Rights in the name of protecting your children from learning about Gay Marriage, I hope you are OK with them learning in their history classes about how hateful and oppressive their parents were way back in 2008.

  541. Echo chamber FAIL by spun · · Score: 1

    Nobody ordered the banks to do anything. The CRA is completely voluntary.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  542. who is teh winnar?! by ju1ce.au · · Score: 1
    1. Re:who is teh winnar?! by Cocoa+Radix · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see the typo...they meant to put "Black to work..."

  543. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

    If by "He was defeated" you mean "His party drew the most support and won the most seats".

  544. Democracy just died by gjgowey · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And it's not because the Democrats control everything. It's because one party controls everything. There's a big difference between the two and I feel sorry for those who can't figure it out.

    Debates on issues no longer have to occur because bills can go through completely unopposed and be approved regardless of content. We're finished as a country because we elected a dictatorship. We've adopted the political system that Iraq used to have under Saddam. And this is how people receive it: with celebrations. Freedom died to an applause.

    I railed against this concept in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper a few months ago. We need more than two parties in this country if debates on ideas are going to occur. Now we don't even have that. Our rights to protest any content that is going to be put through congress in the next 4 years have officially become null and void. If we even have the right to vote in 4 years after this I'm going to be amazed because there's nothing stopping anyone from changing the rules forever now.

    As of this moment Iraq now has more freedom than we do. Every freedom loving American now needs to find a new home. Will the last one please bring the flag with you when you leave? Now excuse me while I play Taps.

    1. Re:Democracy just died by triathlon4life · · Score: 1

      Wow, sounds like the rubber stamp Bush had in his first 6 years.

    2. Re:Democracy just died by gjgowey · · Score: 1

      Not even close. Try seeing: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/ Now compare to: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#S and http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#val=H The avalanche that just happened is way bigger than the 2000 election.

    3. Re:Democracy just died by RiffRafff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There ARE more than two parties. They're just not allowed to participate in the debates. Rectify that, and you'll see real change. The Republocrats are just two peas in the same pod, with very little to differentiate themselves from each other.

      If third parties are on the majority of states' ballots, they should be automatically invited to the televised debates, period. If the two major parties have all the answers, then they should have nothing to fear.

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    4. Re:Democracy just died by gjgowey · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is that this current election is the end result of a prolonged phase out of the perceived choicer that voters had. First third parties got ignored and silenced by the media limiting the attention span of people to selecting one of two parties. Now we have just elected one to take control over everything without giving the only other "dominant" party enough votes for any push back power.

      This is what has me freaked and why I'm saying that we just became a dictatorship. People became lazy on selecting based on ideas so it became a horse race and now there isn't any diversity because people just threw up their hands and said let one party solve it all. "Just make us fat and happy" became the cry of the people.

    5. Re:Democracy just died by gjgowey · · Score: 0

      Whoever flagged this as Flamebait has obviously not read the whole comment or my replies. I'm not baiting. I'm watching a whole country transition to a single party controls all system in the hopes of "fixing problems" rather than working with in the original framework that it was founded under (read: opinions of many during the process). This is a dangerous path because we're setting aside our liberties for expediency.

    6. Re:Democracy just died by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No, you were quite correctly modded flamebait. After a period of Republican control of both houses and the Presidency, you predict the end of democracy because the Democrats are going to get it. If we survived the Republicans, we'll survive the Democrats.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  545. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please learn some history. Hitler didn't run on a genocide platform; his "final solution" came near the end of his reign. He was elected by mobs very much resembling the McCain supporters' rallies.

    You do know that 'mobs' could also be used to describe the crowds of people for Obama as well, right?

    I see that McCain is a rather homely looking guy, but I do find it odd that on CNN, and most of the news sits Obama has a good picture wile McCain looks off the wall. The pics on FOX had them both looking sort of the same.

    I am waiting to 2010 to see how much has changed. Then we all will see if the best choice was made.

  546. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Nobody knows and nobody can know. Stupid question.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  547. Re:Can't help it...nerdiness too strong...must pos by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

    Very funny, thanks for the link.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  548. Speaking of holes, here's an A: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only Canadians hadn't just allowed the neo-con idiot harper more time to destroy Canada. For the first time I can recall, I'd rather have the American president-elect (you're not gonna catch me on that one) as our Prime Minister. Ow! Canada ...

    Let's hope that the decisive Democrat win is a sign of the death of neo-con sleeze politics and Canada will just have to wait a few years (as usual) to echo the American and return to sanity.

  549. Republicans have no one to blame... by pottymouth · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...but themselves..

    As to what to expect. Hahahahahahahaha! You hope and change harpies are in for a real shocker... The economy is in shambles (and you can blame Chris Dodd and Barney "Bang me in the ass" Franks for that) and you think the government is gonna fix it? Good luck folks. See ya in four years. It's going to be interesting to say the least....

  550. Yay. Now repeal of the Equal Opportunity Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The white man is no longer "keeping the black man down." So there's no legitimate reason for the Equal Opportunity Act to exist. It hardly makes for a level playing field.

    No more excuses.

  551. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Net_fiend · · Score: 1

    The fact is, its not the duty of the public to pay for other's poor/bad decisions in life. You deal with the cards you're dealt. There are plenty of opportunities and other options other than food stamps and government handouts.

    --
    "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
  552. Re:More than Two words by anyGould · · Score: 1

    Well, it's all well and good to have an ultra-religious, right-wing woman as a running mate. But there were plenty of *smart* Republicans who fit the bill just as well, and wouldn't have looked quite so... calculated?

  553. I did say by Quila · · Score: 1

    All administrations and all congresses. The problem is somehow the blame in the public mind got shifted solely to the Republicans no matter how dirty Democratic hands were.

    1. Re:I did say by AmaDaden · · Score: 1

      It's because they were in power at the time it all fell apart. If this happened during a Democratic president it would have been blamed on lower class hand outs or something else like that.

  554. Re:More than Two words by steelfood · · Score: 1

    That's an unrealistic expectation. People are greedy. Just as ambitious people gravitate towards positions of power, greedy people gravitate towards positions of wealth.

    Just as the government is regulated by a complex series of checks and balances, so too much companies be regulated. A good first step to restoring order is to eliminate the state of anarchy.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  555. Re:More than Two words by Phurge · · Score: 1

    I wonder what went on in the backroom that led to McCain choosing Palin? Certainly after the Couric interview to me at least it didn't feel like she had McCain's full support, sure he said nice words about her but it never rang true to me.

    Was choosing her a simple cynical play to grab the small town christian vote or was he backed into it by a party who couldn't take the leap of faith to choose Joe Lieberman? If the former, well McCain deserves what he got. If the latter, the Republicans deserve what they got. I dare-say the race would have been a whole lot closer.

    Perhaps that's the problem with being a "maverick" within your own party - sometimes you have to make choices which ultimately satisfy no-one.

    --
    I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
  556. Beam me up... by alien_tracking_devic · · Score: 1

    President elect Tuvok! I'm ready to return to Rigel VII!

  557. Re:Two words - more taxes by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 1

    Hold onto your wallet. He will try to dig in deeper and redistribute your money to those who don't contribute to the financial well being of society. Yes, I mean that the middle class will get robbed of their hard earned income too. Just wait and watch...it's coming. We are on the fast track from the USA to the SSA (Socialist States of America).

    --

    Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
  558. The big red button labelled "SELL" by Petersko · · Score: 1

    "Here's a little hint for you, what do you think would happen to the US if the chinese flooded the market with all the US IOUs they've been stashing away? ICBMs and aircraft carriers are so 20th century. The real big red button these days is in Beijing and is labelled SELL (err... in chinese)."

    Once the point is reached where nobody will continue to fund U.S. deficits, they'll do what other countries have done before them.

    They'll default.

    And if you think, "No they won't!", remember Stein's Law. If something can't go on forever, it'll stop on it's own.

    1. Re:The big red button labelled "SELL" by ZigMonty · · Score: 1

      Default or hyperinflate, which amounts to the same thing, yep. That only helps if you think america's underlying economy is sound and without the debt servicing burden, you'd be fine. I'd argue without the spending that results from cheap credit, you'd be in for one heck of a painful correction. IMHO, the sudden inability to borrow money will hurt much more than you'll be helped by not needing to service the debt.

  559. Re:All I can say now is... by TechnicalPenguin · · Score: 1

    He doesn't want to fight them, he wants to "talk to them".

    Or, he wants to re-add diplomacy as one of the tools in our arsenal.

    Or, he wants to ask questions, then shoot if needed instead of shooting first and refusing to allow anyone to ask questions later.

    One we pull out of (read abandon) Iraq and Afghanistan ...

    A heartlessly abrupt end to our long-standing occupation might lead to the sorts of problems you describe. But, stay there forever and run away immediately are not the only two answers. I fully expect that we will remain in Iraq for quite some time as we figure out how to leave without causing that whole laundry list of problems when we do.

  560. Four more years of slashdot. by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    2237 posts and counting. A sight rarely seen here and is a testimony to the previous failures and people's hope for the next four years.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  561. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Outside the US we think of social as "the strong helping the weak".

  562. Re:Ron Paul - "Free from Federals" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nearly 1/2 of the US tried to get free of a strong Federal government in the '60s, but all it got was a much stronger Federal Government, massive shift in power, money, etc. to the other 1/2, and 100 years of oppression for the losers (war for Southern Independence, 1860-65).

  563. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

    Right. But the mechanism is subtler, more internalized, than 'Jim Crow' laws, or Plessey vs. Ferguson cases.

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  564. He's not Satan, but McCain lost my vote in 2010. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > When will you get it into your head that your your political opponent isn't automatically evil incarnate?

    I don't think that McCain is evil incarnate, however I find myself hating his guts due to the ugly campaign he waged. He was out there fanning the flames of hatred, something very dangerous given all the nutjobs who may now go after Obama. I mean, haven't we already been through at least THREE plots to kill Obama, even though the poor guy hasn't yet been elected!? That's harsh!

    And I say that as someone who has always, until now, voted for McCain as his Senator. While I once thought John McCain was a decent man, I will never vote for him again. And I do not say that merely because he "pandered to the base" because I am, or was, a part of that base! I voted for Obama because he's the more Christian candidate.

  565. I don't get to blame my failure on Whitey by Quila · · Score: 1

    I have to suck it up and admit I failed myself.

  566. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's just geek speak for masturbating, isn't it?

  567. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

    Ah, I see your problem: you don't speak Jive! ;)

    Before you take their statements out of context, allow me to translate..."

    "Obama is the candidate I believe best supports my interests." would be the best way to read the statements of the two you heard in line.

    Nothing to see here, move along!

    --
    Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
  568. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by jazzduck · · Score: 1

    Do not confuse neoconservative and Republican -- while most neocons are Republicans, most Republicans are not neoconservative and many Republicans found the neoconservatives to be embarrassing.

    If so many Republicans find them embarassing, then by all means, those "many" Republicans should feel free to take control of their party and eject the neocons. Then it would be less embarassing to call oneself a Republican. As long as the Republicans give safe harbor to the neocons, they are implicitly endorsing their (ludicrous, damaging) beliefs.

    --
    A cat is no trade for integrity!
  569. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by greeze · · Score: 1

    I was on my sofa with a beer on the coffee table, switching back and forth between CNN and my VATS targeting system.

  570. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Tangential · · Score: 1

    John McCain should have won the election.

    If John McCain should have won the election, John McCain would have won the election.

    Based on that logic, Bush should have won the last 2 elections.

    My question would be, why didn't 95% of whites vote for Obama?

    Anti-black racism in the white American community is ugly.

    In a racially divided election (as this apparently was shaped into) for any candidate to draw 95% of a specific race indicates that the voters from that demographic are clearly racists.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
  571. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Florida, he barely took the vote, but in Miami, Tampa and Orlando he dominated.

    [citation needed]

    As a resident of Tampa, allow me to point out that Obama eeked out a win by less than 2% in Hillsborough county.

    Miami was a bit more "dominated" at ~17% in Miami-Dade county.

    As was Orlando at ~18% in Orange County.

  572. Lies vs. Truth by Quila · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and Dan Rather still thinks the forged memos are authentic. CBS flat-out lied that the documents had been authenticated and that the source was unimpeachable. Just a little lie to help Kerry in the 2004 election. But they got caught.

    Did you know that in today's poll, 51% believe the media was in the tank for Obama, only 7% for McCain, only about 30% said they were unbiased? Remember, this is just after the same public voted Obama into office by over 50%, so you do have Obama voters admitting the media was biased for their candidate.

    That 7% was probably looking at Fox, but the 51% was looking at the left-leaning media that you think always tells you the unbiased truth.

    1. Re:Lies vs. Truth by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      And did you happen to tune in to the election eve SNL special? Even they made fun of how deeply the leftist media was in that tank.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    2. Re:Lies vs. Truth by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I've got some news for you -- there are not two sides to everything. There are occasions where one thing is genuinely better than the other.

      The idea that the media is left-leaning is asinine. They are corporate, through and through, and that means whatever it happens to mean today.

    3. Re:Lies vs. Truth by EmperorKagato · · Score: 1

      Did you know that in today's poll, 51% believe the media was in the tank for Obama, only 7% for McCain, only about 30% said they were unbiased? Remember, this is just after the same public voted Obama into office by over 50%, so you do have Obama voters admitting the media was biased for their candidate.

      The numbers don't match and they probably targeted a specific group of people instead of the actual voters.

      --
      ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
  573. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My question would be, why didn't 95% of whites vote for Obama?
    Anti-black racism in the white American community is ugly.

    Sorry, but as a white American, I can say with 100% accuracy that his race and religion had absolutely nothing to do with my choice for president. It was a matter of moral issues: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research. These are issues that fundamentally define a country. The economy will eventually right itself. The U.S. will eventually be out of Iraq. But a country that willfully accepts killing of its unborn is doomed to fail.

  574. Reputation == waste of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two things:

    1. Improve our reputation

    Why should we? I could care less how the world views us. I'd rather just do the right thing. Concern about how people view you is a losing proposition (you can't control it) and an unhelpful waste of energy.

    2. Keeping promises with political majorities

    So, when things get screwed up you have no one to blame other than the democrats and their operating philosophy. Oh, I'm sure people will try to find excuses, but hey, the prevailing attitude is to blame others, so I don't expect anything different.

  575. Where was I when Obama was elected...?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was having a really good fuck......just like the rest of this country now - WE ARE FUCKED!

  576. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 1

    It's called "Mein Kampf" AKA "My Struggle". Read it before commenting on it please. It's rambling, anti-semitic, and hardly organized enough to be considered a ""blueprint"" for the Holocaust. It's rabble rousing at its most basic, kind of like the McCain/Palin rallies turned into by the end of the campaign. That kind of thing is dangerous because eventually the nut-jobs in the audience eventually want to do something about all the hate that's encouraged.

  577. Dear Rest of the World, by gatkinso · · Score: 4, Funny

    See? We aren't ALL cross burning rednecks!

    However if you think we are going to start using less oil, stop polluting, pay off our credit cards, learn French, and stop bombing smaller nations, think again.

    Oh yeah, we could use about $700,000,000,000 right about now.... I won't bother to convert that figure to yen or euro.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Dear Rest of the World, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See? We aren't ALL cross burning rednecks!

      Yeah, but 47% of you are. Methinks that's a worryingly big number indeed.

  578. Never been too sure of much.. by Corxeaus · · Score: 1

    What's a president?

  579. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! - WRONG! by gabrieltss · · Score: 1

    Wrong! We didn't nationalize banks, insurance companies, and prokerage hosues we more coropratized them! The Federal Reserve has the control of those entities. The Federal Reserve is a PRIAVTE COMMERCIAL entity - it is NOT, I repeat NOT part of the federal government. This by itself is unconstitutional! If you don't beleive me reserach it for yourself. And guess what BOTH McCain and Obama BOTH voted for the bailout bill that gave the Federal Reserve the power of a FOURTH branch of government! Read the bailout bill and see what kind of unlimited power the Federal Reserve just got!

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
  580. This is, of course, nonsense by jopet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is nonsense because luck plays a big role in personal success, no matter what you do. Luck can make you rich and luck can make you poor and luck can make you need a wheelchair. And it is nonsense because society (especially US society) does not give same opportunities to everyone. People do not have equal chances at all.

    It has always been the politics of the conservative parties to keep up the myth you are spreading here and do as much as possible to not let solidarity happen: that what a really civilized society should be based on: to also let people live in dignity even if they had no luck and no oportunities.
    Instead the republicans have pumped millions and billions into wars banks and into the task of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians all over the worlds, while letting their own people hunger and go without even basic medical care.

    I won't keep you from going on with jerking off to your own success, but doing someting about one's own life might be necessary but certainly is not sufficient to make one's life better or even worth to be called human.

    Go around, open your eyes and talk to people and maybe, just maybe, you will start to understand.

    1. Re:This is, of course, nonsense by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 1

      Okay. Luck caused me to work hard. Luck caused me to be poor for a decade. Luck told me to eat cheap hot dogs and potatoes. Luck worked a shit, demeaning job 40 hours a week in addition to a full class schedule. Luck advised me that while my profession was honorable (a decade in life sciences) if I wanted to advance my lot in life, I needed to take initiative. Luck told me to save for a rainy day, even if it was only a few dollars a week - in fact - Luck advised me not to go to the movies or buy a playsation. Luck told me not to over extend myself. It's all Luck. Just last week, Luck also advised me not to upgrade my 7 year old computer even though I could easily afford it.

      No. Luck, if anything, has not made me sick. I'll give you that. But very few people are truly sick to the point where they cannot work. You whine about health care? Most people run to the doctor for sniffles. Why do you need to go if you have a cold or the flu? I can't count the number of people I know that are on multiple prescriptions for bullshit ailments. Type 2 diabetes? Change your fucking diet. Fat? Stop shoving Big Macs in your snack hole and get some exercise. Got the flu or a cold? Suck it up, it'll be over in a few days. Seriously. Sore throat? Yeah, you really need $300 dollars worth of medical care to tell you that it will be gone in two days. Oh, by the way, here's some advil @ 3$ a tab. Health care is expensive for that reason. Take charge of your life.

      Yeah Luck has spared me of cancer so far. Thanks.

  581. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad the popular vote is not what determines the president.

  582. and as a Canadian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you sure have a lot to boast about. Canada is great and all, but you really need to look to your own house before commenting on others.

  583. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Khisanth+Magus · · Score: 1

    That is what write ins are for. I'm still hoping for Cthulhu for 2012.

  584. Don't blame me! by crhylove · · Score: 1

    I voted for Nader. Again. Look, Ralph Nader is the reason we have clean water, seatbelts in cars, and a variety of other things that keep American consumers healthy and happy. Obama is just another stuffed shirt, partisan hack.

    I want to hope, I want to believe. I want to chant, "Yes we can!" and cry with Oprah.

    But there is no way the 5 major media corporations that run every magazine, TV station, radio station, news paper, and movie publishing house (AOL/Time, Viacom, News Corp, Bertelsmann, Disney) will allow a real representative of the people ANY time on their media outlets. This is why Ron Paul is not a "realistic" candidate. This is why Kucinich had no chance, and this is why nobody even knew Nader was running..... AGAIN!

    I'm glad McCain lost. He represented a worse deal for American citizens over all. I'm also glad a black guy won. Good for morale and all that. But I think by June of next year, Americans, even the black ones, will realize, that we've "elected" another corporate whore, an empty suit who does whatever the party and the corporations who control it tell him to do. There will still be rampant poverty, horrendous usury, debt slavery, unjust wars and occupations, a media blackout on 9/11, JFK, and UFOs, corporate monopolism that makes it impossible for American citizens to compete with Starbucks, Wal Mart, Best Buy, and Exxon, and an economy based on printed paper, rather than the gold standard and the constitution.

    Stop taking prescription meds and watching TV people! These corporations are programmed by design to destroy all living things for the most money possible while subsequently impoverishing culture, education, and families. Obama is not going to do shit to fix it, he's a corporate democrat!

    Ralph Nader or Ron Paul would have maybe, but they weren't "realistic" because the giant media corporations that both parties are beholden to said so, and they are the only source of "information" Americans and the world gets, false, evil, and wrong as it generally is.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  585. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by MrMarket · · Score: 4, Informative

    Guess what? Whites are no longer a majority in this country. (IE: Less than 50% of the population).

    Whites make up 74% of the US population according to the Census Bureau .

  586. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    You deal with the cards you're dealt.

    What if you weren't born in the US but in some shithole country? Just bad luck of the draw? Enjoy your failure, McCain.

  587. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the correlation of wealth of the parents and wealth of the children somehow disturbing?
    Shouldn't a relatively wealthy country like the USA take care that all children born in it have at least remotely the same chances of living a decent life?

  588. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by earlymon · · Score: 1

    Jesus - read the grandparent.

    I satirized his remark with opposites to make the point that the grandparent was possibly drawing bigotet conclusions.

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  589. Re:I, for one, welcome our new presidential overlo by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    At first I was going to vote like Obama. (Not for Obama, like Obama. You know... check "Write In" and write "Present".)

    Then I was going to vote like McCain (vote the way Bush would have on 90% of the items).

    I finally ended up voting for change: I wrote in someone else and then found ten cents on the sidewalk as I left. That's all the "change" I expect to get from this election.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  590. Re:Homophobic bigots from Utah amend CA constituti by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

    "Homophobes"

    LOL.

  591. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by earlymon · · Score: 1

    Jesus - read the grandparent.

    I satirized his remark with opposites to make the point that the grandparent was possibly drawing bigoted conclusions.

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  592. Oh how I wish Obama were a Marxist! by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

    Obama is clearly not even close to Marxism, that you suggest he is means you have no clue as to what Marxism is. A Marxist would have no place running for POTUSA as a Marxist is primarily concerned with class struggle. That means organising working people within the working class.

    So yes, you're clueless.

    --
    Nick
  593. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

    In response to GP.

    In reality, blacks in America (I refuse to use african-american ever since I heard a commentator call a Jamacian man african-american) have voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat's candidate in every election since I can remember. Black turnout was actually very comparable this year to what it was four and eight years ago. To say that race was the turning point in this campaign might make sense, but the truth is we have to look outside the black community to see any deviation from historical trends.

    As it stands, I think it's VERY hard to say to what extent Obama's race helped or hurt him, as polling about racial issues is very heavily fraught with personal/social implications that may make poll respondents less than truthful. But the numbers of the white voters he got lends itself much more easily to the idea that race-conscious whites voted for him as a show of racial transcendence than it does to the idea that race-conscious whites voted for McCain out of racial rejection.

    --
    My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
  594. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    My question would be, why didn't 95% of whites vote for Obama?

    Obama got a couple of percentage points more votes among whites than the last 3 or 4 democratic presidential candidates did.
    In other words, he did better among white voters than the last 3 or 4 white guys did.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  595. Re:All I can say now is... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  596. Quite the night. by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    I registered and cast an early vote For Barack Obama over the weekend.

    Election night was spent playing EVE-Online with some friends, with IRC on another monitor, and CNN's election coverage on another. My father and I were following the election very closely. When they announced Obama had California, Oregon, and Washington we knew it was pretty much over. Apparently someone got the idea to ring the church bells to celebrate the news, nice touch.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  597. Here is my prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During the reign of the chosen one, we will see these items happen...

    Unemployment in the double digits....
    Inflation in the double digits...
    Gas will be 10$ per gallon, if you can get it...
    There will be no exploration for anything, the left wing tree huggers will see to that, your elec bill will triple....
    The quality of students coming from our Public education system will drop...
    If you make more that 5000$ per year, your taxes will go up...
    There will be another attack in the US, nothing will be done in response, we do not want to upset the French...

    This may sound a bit extreme, but I see the writing on the wall, there is one positive thing, the DOW can not drop below Zero...

    The next 4 years need a person of moral fiber who will make unpopular choices, which are for the best of the country, who could have done that....

    It has been said that Obama has a spine of steel, this is very true, but it is a very thin piece of spring steel, so that he can bend with the current polls...

    Yes there were at least 8 million people who wanted change, they drank the Koolaid, welcome to the USSA .... do not think about anything, we'll do it all for you....

    1. Re:Here is my prediction by mattsqz · · Score: 1

      you..wow. you think obama will end america? put the whiskey down, get off the tractor, and read a book.

  598. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by spun · · Score: 1

    Which is why it is easy for people to overlook or deny. There is always a semi-plausible alternative explanation.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  599. Republican Election Protection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In some areas it means that the Republicans will now focus on election protection issues gearing up to protect their vote in 2012 while the Democrats who have been concerned for this election will drop away. And those of us who fit into neither camp will continue.

  600. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

    If Obama fails to dish out the welfare, (doubtful, as he opposed even the immensely popular, reasonable, and humane welfare reform under Gingrich/Clinton) I think the charge of sellout is almost guaranteed. Not that it will hurt him in the voter turnout next election.

    --
    My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
  601. Multi-Layered victory and future expectations. by guidryp · · Score: 1

    What the world is applauding now is the historic and symbolic victory. These are real things that create goodwill from others in the world. It demonstrates that American democracy is a powerful idea that can deliver on its ideals. That no man possessing the talent, will be held back by race alone. Along with Obamas message of hope, inclusion, and interaction, it helps to reverse Americas sinking reputation abroad.

    It helps race relations at home, it helps leave behind a slave mentality for African Americans. Now when a single mother tells her minority child that if he works hard he could be President some day, she is speaking truth and she can point to a real example.

    These things are accomplished merely by the win. People are swept in part by the symbolic win he is already delivered, that is pretty much guaranteed to pay dividends.

    But the next layer is the quality of the individual. President Elect Obama is a win for Intelligence and Ability. This is refreshing change. This grueling race has shown a calm, reasoned, well read, thinking man. Does anyone doubt the shaper mind won here?

    Expectations on the challenges ahead. It will be interesting to see how President Obama manages Washington. In the end I expect there will be much disappointment all around. I expect those that voted against him will be unhappy with too much change, those that voted for him unhappy with to little. He has a fine line to walk and he is facing and economic disaster and like upheavals in the middle east following an Iraq withdrawal. Challenges everywhere. I don't think he is some kind of miracle worker, but my gut says this is the best man for the job. Intelligent, willing to listen, organized, disciplined.

    Best of luck President Elect Obama.

     

  602. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    No president since the 1950s has served an entire term without engaging America in some foreign conflict.

    Which president in the entire 20th century has served an entire term without engaging America in some foreign conflict?

    --
    What?
  603. Buy your guns while you still can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... there's not much time left for the defeneders of the Constitution. But, at leas thte rest of the world says we'll return to diplomacy, which has worked fucking well with North Korea and Iran. Fortunately, the threat of violence worked very well with Libya, and they've turned a real corner.

  604. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by earlymon · · Score: 1

    Jesus, ladies and gentlemen - read the grandparent.

    I satirized his remark with exact opposites and counterpoint to make the point that the grandparent was possibly drawing bigoted conclusions.

    And for those of you who fail to the logic to this remark:

    If John McCain should have won the election, John McCain would have won the election.

    ... then I urge you to really study what Dr. Deming was all about. Failing that - allow me to be pedantic for those that simply must find fault: I am responding to posted word that no, I will not take lying down, that McCain should have won, despite the fact that he lost - all because blacks voted notoriously - as anti-white racists.

    Such bullshit is exactly the same thing as trying to get away with this equivalent: "McCain shoulda won, but them darkies didn't do as they was supposed to" - and I'm not fucking having it.

    It strains credulity that semantics with the word "should" can become this obtuse.

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  605. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

    Under Bush we all got "Stimulus checks" redistribution of wealth, we "nationalized banks", we "nationalized insurance companies", we "nationalized brokerage houses", and we gave trillions in welfare to Iraq...

    Stimulus checks that weren't from a tax hike and from a President that specifically didn't say that he wanted to spread the wealth.

    "Nationalized banks" that have SEVERE penalties for the banks if they don't pay back the loan within a few years.

    "Nationalized insurance companies" unfortunately, yes. But that had to be done.

    "trillions in welfare to iraq" Uh, no. Billions to Iraq sure. But you realize that were are in a war right? You do understand that we still are defending Japan and Germany right? You understand we paid for the Berlin airlift right? You understand we rebuilt the entire Axis' economy after we defeated them, right? Or would you have preferred we had let them fail?

    Oh, and don't forget that Obama threatened to bankrupt our nation's most plentiful supply of power; coal.

  606. Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Thank you for your thoughtful, and non-insulting reply.

    And this, right there, is change already beginning.

    I don't know how to put it into more vibrant words, but: thank you, guys. Thank you, both of you.

  607. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  608. F.. the reputation, debt is The Problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    F... the reputation - that's not a real problem. And I don't see much can be done with it... US were evil for many (Russia,muslims)
    years before GWB .. and will be after Obama is gone...

    The Real Problem is debt and the real bad news is that Obama has no idea how to solve this...
    Though I have to admit neither McCain has nor Bush had...

  609. what will he change? by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 1

    I don't know, but we might see in 20 years, when the schoolchildren of today get inspired and work harder.

    We might see it in church and neighbourhood groups as they are given hope to change their communities.

    There is a lot more to a President than just being Commander in Chief and signing or vetoing laws.

  610. Half Arab???? by hellfire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no question that the election of a half-Arab, half-Black child of a broken home to the Presidency of the United States *says* something to the world and to history about us as a country, as an ideal, that can never, ever, be taken away.

    I think idiotic statements like are what defined what the rest of the world thought of the US before this election, don't keep it up. You almost made a good point until you detracted from your entire statement with this nonsense.

    Obama's mother is from Wichita, Kansas, and is quite caucasian. His biological father is from Kenya, and was ethnically called a Luo, a subsaharan African ethnic group. His adopted father, while in fact a muslim, was ethnically indonesian. Not all muslims are arabs.

    Arab is an ethnic term, and there is no evidence that Obama is in any way Arab (just like there's no evidence he's muslim). I can't fathom why you said this, other than the fact that you might be thinking arab=muslim. If that was the case, then that's just plain idiotic, and is yet another reason why the world hates us, because if we can't get that right, we can't get foreign policy right.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Half Arab???? by indiechild · · Score: 1

      I think "ignorant" is the word you're looking for, not "idiotic". There's no need to be insulting someone for an honest mistake.

  611. Wow..... Just wow by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

    First thing I thought about ... Rev. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream". I wonder what Dr. King would have thought about this line from Obama: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a Civilian National Security Force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." As a guy who spent a lot of time not being very pleased with civilian security forces, I do wonder what he'd think about a giant, powerful new one with a huge new bureaucracy slurping up gajillions of new dollars, operating inside the borders. Huge bureacracies and giant new security forces tend to look for something to do, and someone to do it to.

    I knew he was socialist, but that is a blatant request to have government REALLY in people's business.

  612. I can't help but think... by deepthoughtless · · Score: 0

    Living in Seattle, there was a lot of hype built up around the Vice Presidential Debate, but when it happened, it was pretty boring and uneventful. Despite my pleasure at the outcome of this election, I can't help but feel like this will be the same thing. Obama can't just wave his magic hand and fix everything. Like other posters have said, it's still big government, and he'll be abiding by those rules like any other.

  613. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by slysithesuperspy · · Score: 1

    "all the black people"

    "they're" (x2)

    The irony.

  614. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by IronChef · · Score: 1

    Tons of white folks voted AGAINST him for no reason but skin color or perceived religion

    The fact that he won, and by a good margin, means that there can't be "tons" of those people.

    Even one is too many, but... his election shows that people aren't as bad as you think they are.

  615. how come every post has a score of 5? by Boigaz · · Score: 1

    am i missing something?

  616. Easy by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

    well, see over here, as a state employee in .fr, I make less than 30k net a year. out of that, I pay about 3k in income tax, and another 1.5k in local taxes. thing is, I don't have to worry about things like health insurance... when I go to the doctor, I present my state health insurance agency card, and off I go. same when I go to the pharmacy to pick up the goods... add to this, that my mother, who just came out from a double breast cancer also didn't have to pay a cent to be properly treated (including 4 or 5 surgeries)... now, try to beat that with the current fucked up healthcare system you have in the US...

    she would have had 1 maybe 2 surgeries, and it would have been spotted sooner. Free is not better. Especially when it comes to medicine.

  617. Re:Let's Hope - Now What?? by stanltaaf · · Score: 1

    Agree on the thought of Hope.
     
    This was the largest turnout in history since 1906 (on a percentage basis I heard?) of registered voters. I don't think that government has really changed here. But, the outcome reflects that we changed!
     
    The one thing that our representatives expect is that we'll go home and expect them to work out the details. Let's remember they are supposed to represent us, meaning make sure your voice is heard.
     
    I readily divulge, I didn't vote for the winner. Nevertheless, I'm ready to embrace supporting the winner. Let's get to the getting along and make our home united in the hope of shared prosperity!

  618. I love Big Bro and the Ministries of Ignorance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You won't hear about it though. All you will from the Neo-Pravda/Ministries of Ignorance is up beat, postitive news for and about the government. I love Big Bro and the Neo-Pravda Min-Igs: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR etc etc etc.

  619. I am worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think we will see the wonderful "spreading of the wealth" (Remember Hoover promising a chicken in every pot?). The President has little to do with economics, unless they're bad, then they get blamed. The finger pointing is to be expected I guess.

    I worry about his plans for "universal" healthcare, and his pro-choice stance. Will abortion fall under "medical care" and be paid for by federal (mine and your) tax money? Why did neither candidate address the real problem in health care? It's the ballooning price of medical services that have made insurance unaffordable. If you devise a way to pay for medical care without limits, why would anyone lower their prices? If a federal program will be a guaranteed source of income, why not exploit it? Think Medicare. Please, explain the difference between "gay marriage" and "civil unions" (except their names)? Won't "taxing big business" just be passed on to the consumers in the form of higher prices? Why won't the expense mandating huge cuts in carbon emissions just cause higher electricity bills? Do you suppose the HIGHER taxes placed on coal companies will go to a welfare type fund to help "poor" people pay for their higher electricity bills. If so, what will do to the real "middle class" that won't qualify for any help? People with millions probably won't care if their electric bill goes up.

    I didn't like McCain. I think he wavered on many issues over the years, just like John Kerry did. But Obama downright scares me.

    I pray for our children and their children. I pray that Obama does deliver on his promises. I pray I am wrong!

    1. Re:I am worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pray for your children too, and I'm an atheist.

  620. Voted Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once I realized choosing between the lesser of two evils is still evil, I could quit agonizing and vote with my principles.

    The defeats are less agonizing if you never expected to win, too.

  621. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Or unless one group is to dumb to hold a job...
    Causation's relation to correlation, and all that.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  622. Re:Homophobic bigots from Utah amend CA constituti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the stupidest thing I have seen written today.

  623. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Reagan/Bush presidencies were all about the redistribution of wealth...from the poor and especially the middle class to the wealthy.

  624. ....and by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

    corporate executives already make 250K or less actual salary in many cases. Do you think this is sheer coincidence? Stocks, perks, etc do not count as salary. Wow. Obama sure is saving the middle class. If, by middle class you mean 200K/yr salary, and 1 million+in perks, stocks, and benefits not counting directly to income. This is why Obama got elected. Promise something that is completely easy to never actually deliver on. Something so vague in definition that you didn't ass fuck the nation, that condom you wore did. In fact, accuse the condom of raping you while you're at it. I don't think Obama has ever connected with the common man on any level, ever. Campaigning to the bulk of America, while catering (via senate votes and campaign donations received) to the wealthy and elite was a very tough trick to pull off. Props for appearing to understand what middle class people want, and working to deliver it.

  625. Re:More than Two words by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

    for a more complete understanding , watch this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3G_gViM9OU

    --
    Wanted : A Signature.
  626. Re:More than Two words by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    you mean like when Colin Powell said that?

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  627. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25361792

    Hillsbourough was only a slight lead for Obama, but Pinellas (which is part of the Tampa area) shows 9%.

    If you look at that map, with only a few exceptions, when Obama won a county, he won it big time. And those counties are all where the biggest cities are. Obama won the counties of 8 or the 10 largest cities in Florida:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Florida

    Perfect correlation? No. But I think it's a strong enough example to reasonably prove my point that you come up will all kinds of silly theories if you look at the data different ways. I wasn't suggest to prove that city folk hate white...just that black didn't necessarily vote for him because he's black.

  628. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    I'd encourage you to look into the colloquial connotation of the phrase "He's my nigga"- it's much more innocuous than you think; more akin to "That's my Man!" than it is to "I will give this person my vote based solely on the fact that he's black." Matter o' fact, when your presumed interpretation is actually verbalized, it sounds almost silly, doesn't it? Trust me, it's more an off-the-cuff expression of enthusiasm than it is a statement of philosophical underpinnings. I hope you can rest easier now.

    Really?! Then why was my son suspended for using the term?

    As a non-white that attended a predominantly black college, and has watched a lot of BET, it is very clear to anyone that racism is alive and well in these United States. You are free, or even ENCOURAGED, to express it...as long as you're not white.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  629. Delusional egomania. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    I did well also, but I also got to see the public purse not just mis-spent, but turned inside out and thrown into debt. All arguments aside, the difference is this: Spend public money on A) War profiteers with no return on the investment, or B) Schools, Health Care and Clean Energy. Seems like a clear choice to me.

    As for the whole, "Blame only yourself for your failures", well, that's fine to a point. . , but how successful would you have been if you'd had abusive, drug-using parents, had suffered from an improperly developed brain due to childhood malnourishment, had been sent to school in a poor neighborhood which couldn't afford books, and had been told by everybody around that you were worthless? Do you REALLY think that you would be where you are today if you had all of that piled on you?

    -FL

    1. Re:Delusional egomania. by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 1

      Do you REALLY think that you would be where you are today if you had all of that piled on you?

      4 out of 5 (thankfully the only brain damage is self inflicted.) And yes, I am where I am because I had that shit piled on me in childhood.

      Also, plenty of people come to this country without a dime in their pocket, unable to speak English and make it (despite the color of their skin and the rampant bias against them). If they can do it, anyone can.

  630. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Are you white? If so, please walk speaking "jive" for a while on a south Chicago street corner, or anywhere in the Smith Homes community in Greensboro. If you survive, let us know how that works for you.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  631. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    In one of my other posts, I mentioned that those CNN stats show on page 6 that 2% of voters said race was their primary concern, and thus 2.2 million people voted for their candidate primary based on race. I'd say that's a ton.

  632. Ya those F*CKING Neo Nazis by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

    Oh, wait, you meant conservatives. I guess that play on words worked! You should maybe reconsider throwing that useless half baked "new" word around. You really aren't superior or more educated, or even automatically more thoughtful by invoking images of hate mongerers when discussing someone else's political views. Shouldn't you be out attending a socialist celebration somewhere?

  633. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Haoie · · Score: 1

    It really was a momentous occasion.

    Too bad I missed all the live events, I was commuting, haha.

    --
    If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
  634. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 1

    Under Bush we all got "Stimulus checks" redistribution of wealth, we...

    And now you're worried about socialism?

    Welcome to last year.

    With Obama's plan, we'll now be getting 8 stimulus checks each year instead of one.

    Now, you can be sure that if a republican would have been pushing to expand on Bush's ideas, he would have been crucified for it, but if it is Obama, it's considered "change".

    --
    Free unix account: freeshell.org
  635. Polish camp ovens?... by sznupi · · Score: 1

    GERMAN camps... (if you insist on using only the nationality). Or, even better, Nazi German camps/etc. Eventually, with the addition "in Poland" (though a) not all were there b) technically this wasn't Polish territory back then)

    Sure, you might know the difference. You might know what you're talking about. But a lot of people reading your post might get really silly ideas.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
    1. Re:Polish camp ovens?... by bheer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right, sorry. I said Polish because I saw them in Poland.

  636. Congratulations! by FornaxChemica · · Score: 1

    So many comments have been posted (2492!?) that some script goes buggy on Firefox (2).

    Anyway, I was thrilled today to learn Obama won the election. This is fantastic! Congratulations to the United States for making this choice, congratulations also for electing your first black president. Somehow, after all what black Americans have been through, this feels like a beautiful historical moment.

  637. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am mourning the loss of the United States of America and weeping the birth of the United States Socialist Republic.

    I'll be clinging to my guns and religion until 2012.

    May God have mercy on this country.

    Get in line pal. I've been mourning the death of the United States ever since it was replaced by the Corporate States of America.

    Somebody once said "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

    I wish he had been right. Somebody is being bribed alright, but it sure isn't the public.

  638. K-K-K-KARMA WHORE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Multiple K's not intended.

  639. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Darby · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered what it would feel like to life in a welfare state.

    Just move to almost any one of the red states. They like to screech like mad about taxes, but they don't actually pay any and in fact receive large welfare payments. This hypocritical delusion is critical to their world view, which explains their inability to deal with reality as if they were rational adults.

  640. MOD PARENT UP (insightful) by shentino · · Score: 1

    And take away the flamebait modder's silly juice.

  641. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Darby · · Score: 1

    GOP socialism is the worst kind of socialism anyone could ever think of.

    That's because it's not Socialism, it's Fascism. Far other end of the political spectrum, Dude.

  642. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    Tons of white folks voted AGAINST him for no reason but skin color or perceived religion

    My father-in-law is from New York and has said (to my face) that anyone from the South or Midwest is lazy and uneducated because we don't have work ethics or good schools.

    I voted for Barr because I like his social policies. My father-in-law voted against Obama because he's black. And yet, next time he visits, he'll patiently explain why I'm an ignorant redneck.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  643. I too drank the Obama KoolAid by mishelley · · Score: 1

    Yep, I did. It washed out some of the bitterness left behind after 8yrs of Texas dirt.

    --
    success often occurs in private, failure in full view
  644. I have nothing to say, just a picture. by Khyber · · Score: 1
    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  645. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Darby · · Score: 1

    the stimulus checks are not an example of redistribution since everyone got a check.

    Bullshit. I pay plenty of taxes and have yet to see one of those fucking checks. I am, however, still paying the interest on the loan that was taken out to send them to the rest of you.

  646. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  647. Re:All I can say now is... by bbroerman · · Score: 1

    I do agree to a timeline of sorts, but we should make sure that the Iraqi government is fully capable of taking care of themselves, and the damage we caused to their infrastructure is repaired as much as possible given the current issues. I just don't want Obama to pull out immediately, as he was want to do early on. Most US citizens favor an immediate pullout as well. I think it would be disastrous. I also don't want those "groups" and countries out there chanting for our destruction to think that we're going to go soft on them now. Diplomacy is one thing, rolling over and taking it is another.

    --
    Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
  648. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    My question would be, why didn't 95% of whites vote for Obama?

    Because more than 5% of us disliked his policies? I didn't vote for McCain, either.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  649. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Darby · · Score: 1

    Many people thought we were getting the lesser of two evils when Bush was elected over Gore.

    Those people weren't exactly what you'd call smart. In fact, they're generally the bottom of the barrel of our society. I mean imagine being *that* fucking stupid. I wonder if it's like being a bug or something.

  650. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

    The African-American population has traditionally voted 85%-90% with the Democrats.

    You can start being more racially sensitive by not calling black people "African-American".

    --
    BD Phone Home!

    Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

  651. The long process of Reconstruction... by Delusion_ · · Score: 1

    ...finally comes to an end. Welcome back to the Unio

  652. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by ckaminski · · Score: 1

    I cry bullshit.

    http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/544_federal_funds_summary_distribution_by_state.html

    It's 10 year old data, but the % of fluctuation per capita is +/- 15% except for some exceptional outliers (Alaska, Virginia)

    There's welfare everywhere. 10% of the Federal Budget goes to California, with 10% of the population... makes sense, no?

  653. Re: Helping you Hope by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    The real change will come in about 3.5yrs.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  654. Mod Parent Up. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    This guy beat me to it.

    I'm getting so sick and tired of people getting +5 just because they have a link in their post.

    News Flash: the presence of a web page doesn't make it accurate.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  655. International hope too by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The last 8 years have seen a dramatic erosion of the international good will that USA built up. Something that Obama can fix almost immediately is working towards rebuilding that good will. This is reflected in how the world has welcomed the change.

    Changing the USA mindset from fear mongering to hope is a huge thing in itself and is the first step towards rebuilding US as a nation and an international player.

    While the "first black president" thing might be an historic moment for black civil rights, that is not what Obama is about.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  656. Concession speech by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

    I have to say that McCain's concession speech was really very graceful. Just thought it should be noted.

    --
    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
  657. ALT and TITLE by Max_W · · Score: 1

    I hope President Obama will be able to force IE and FF to handle ALT and TITLE tags in a standardized manner.

    I am not against a market and innovation, but why such a simple thing could not be standardized?

  658. Re:All I can say now is... by bbroerman · · Score: 1

    Additionally, the IRA did not want to destroy England, or protetantism. They wanted England out of their country.
    Big difference...
    These people want the whole world to embrace their version of islam or die.
    They want the western world destroyed. And they are more than willing to kill anyone and everyone, including themselves, to accomplish this.
    Can one really reason with this type of person?

    --
    Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
  659. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by ryanov · · Score: 1

    Same here on all counts. I was a little disappointed to see Nader get a paltry 0.53 percent at the last count I saw. :-\

  660. What I fear the most... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is that someone might shoot him. The only thing worse for this country than President Obama would be President Biden.

  661. Hello Fairness Doctrine by pease1 · · Score: 1

    I ponder if /. will cover the return of the fairness doctrine 1-3 years from now, or will it wait until term 2 when it is amended through net neutrality "needs" to impact this very discussion?

  662. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you!

  663. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by ryanov · · Score: 1

    We don't need smokestacks to get moving, we can build a lot of windmills.

    Incidentally, what drugs were you on when you thought Bush was going to be the same as Clinton?

  664. hmm racisim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    let's see....election results....98% (or was it 95%) of blacks in this country voted for the black guy The split of who voted for the black guy among the whites seems to have gone more or less down party lines. Yep, racism is alive and well in this country, that is fairly obvious. Methinks you are wrong about just who the racists are, however.

  665. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by ryanov · · Score: 1

    What is the criteria for "worthy?" I can put up at least two.

  666. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would help if Americans actually understood the words "socialism" and "communism" for what these ideologies actually stand for, in stead of the perverted dictatorships that called themselves so.
    From a European point of view, american politics take place in a narrow band between extreme right wing neoliberalism and extreme right wing neoliberalism-light

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by Max_W · · Score: 1

      In Europe the national-socialism is also still alive. Especially in Western Europe. It was defeated in general but the idea is still alive.

  667. gimme a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can sit on the sidelines, complaining your way to complete misery.

    Ah, so what dems have been doing for the last 8 years?

    It's easy to tell people to "get onboard" after your guy has won.

    The biases people have and how they don't realize it is completely ridiculous.

  668. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by ClassMyAss · · Score: 1

    If African-Americans did not vote on the basis of race, their percentage of support for Obama would have been 66%, at most. Asian and Hispanic support for Obama hovered around 64%. Neither Asians nor Hispanics used skin color in choosing a candidate. If 66% of African-Americans supported Obama, then McCain would have received 49.6% of the popular vote, 48.4%

    Your calculation assumes both that black turnout would have been the same if the Democratic candidate was not black, and that white people did not vote against Obama at all because of race. Replace Obama with a white candidate and black turnout would be down, hurting the dems, but white support for that candidate would be up, helping them. If you account for both those extra variables, I think you'd discover that whether McCain "should" or "should not" have won the election is pretty much a toss-up.

    In any case, he got creamed, there's no argument about that. And frankly, I think it had more to do with Palin alienating the centrists that might otherwise have liked McCain than the race issue. Obama really should have thanked her and Bush in his acceptance speech, as without the pair he would have had a much tougher fight.

  669. "burden of global citizenship" by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

    The New World Order would like to thank all the US sleepwalkers for their support.

  670. Re:All I can say now is... by bbroerman · · Score: 1

    Iraq: Previous administrations tried to negotiate. Again and again. Hussein snubbed his nose at the US, the UN, and the international community repeatedly. During that time he committed acts of genocide against his own citizens, and other atrocities. At some point, enough is enough! Afghanistan: The Taliban aided and supported Bin Laden. They harbored, sheltered, and shielded him. Currently, they openly and routinely target civilian populations. They openly and purposefully murder innocents. People who just want to have a say in their lives, and live their own religion in peace. Yes, I know our forces have killed civilians as well, and that is a terrible shame. We DON'T specifically target civilians, and we try to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. They DO specifically target civilians, and DON'T CARE who gets killed in their "holy war".

    --
    Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
  671. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    But that saying "He's my..." can only be said if you are black. If you are white you will be beaten (at best). While it is true that race and gender should not have played a part in the election. Those two things did play a part in the election. Which is sad, really really sad.

    Did anyone else hear that some someone went into Harlem. Asked people if who they were voting for and if they said Obama: used McCain's talking points and said to people do you agree. They said yes. They also did the reverse, if the person said McCain, Obama's talking points were used. And again, they agreed with the talking points. It proves the point that not everyone (more likely most) have no idea what Obama or McCain stand for. Which again falls under the sad category.

  672. Re:No on Gay Marriage, A crucial time in US Histor by narcc · · Score: 1

    I noticed this as well. I guess we just needed a new minority group to oppress.

  673. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't tell if this is a joke or not, but people all over the world are laughing at the notion of Obama being a socialist.

    As in the 90s, at least we can rejoice over the lesser of two evils winning.

    Yup, that pretty much sums it up.

    IÂm Portuguese (just in case anyone in here doesnÂt know, were members of the European Union and you can locate us in the map bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the west and south and by Spain to the north and east) , and supporter of the Portuguese socialist party (currently the most influential party in the country).

    And Obama let me say is as socialist as Bush is in favor of personal weapons ban.

  674. No need for sarcasm, realism suffices by jopet · · Score: 1

    > Okay. Luck caused me to work hard. ...
    I repeat -- in your case, that might have caused you success. If you are not blind you will see that a lot of people work hard, maybe harder than you ever did and cannot even make ends meet or pay the operation of their kids. Maybe hard work is necessary (though I doubt it when I look at some of the rich people and how they earned their millions) but it certainly is not sufficient.
    I never said that your wealth or success is based on luck. I say, however, that in many cases it can be based on luck and in even more (99%) of the cases, NOT getting wealthy or successful is based on bad luck rather than a lack of willingness to work. I am honestly sick and tired of assholes who add insult to injury by supposing that those who did not manage to be successful are only responsible for their failures themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Your response shows me that obviously, you prefer to tick it off as your achievement that circumstances made it possible for your hard work to actually let you achieve you a little bit. Fine. If it makes you feel nice and comfy to remain in your little bubble of cluelessness (that you so evidently proved to all of us by the nonsense you wrote about diabetes), be my guest.

    But spare us the insulting idiocy of generalizing to others in that utterly idiotic and completely insight-free way, will you?

    1. Re:No need for sarcasm, realism suffices by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 1

      If it makes you feel nice and comfy to remain in your little bubble of cluelessness (that you so evidently proved to all of us by the nonsense you wrote about diabetes)

      My cluelessness about diabetes? More like yours. Type 2, otherwise known as adult onset, is overwhelmingly caused by poor diet and lack of exercise. 80 to 90%. Changing those things is pretty much the only cure. In nearly every case, adult onset diabetes is a self-inflicted disease. I give about as much pity to someone with type 2 diabetes as to someone with lung cancer due to smoking.

  675. Allied perceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4. We'll gain some respect back from our allies. This is more than just a point of pride... we're going to need their help. Our army is exhausted and we all need to work together on the financial situation.

    I will comment on the flip side of the "allies" issue, as a civilian executive at the MND in Canada. The CF works closely with the U.S. all the time; I even have a U.S. Major's position permanently on loan to facilitate interoperation. Canada is frequently in the position of being a facilitor between the European side of NATO and the U.S.A. In casual conversation with colleagues from non-DND government departments, I often have to defend the CF presence in Afghanistan, which is not popular in Canada precisely because Afghanistan is (wrongly) perceived as a "GW Bush" war, and the current U.S. President is very poorly perceived by the majority of the populace and all the opposition parties. With Senator Obama arriving, a lot of that resentment will disappear not only in Canada but within the other NATO countries, and I believe renewed contribution to the War on Terror effort will be more politically palatable. Not to mention, from our perspective, additional U.S. military presence in Afghanistan will be well-appreciated by those allies like Canada who do not have a large military capacity and are spread too thin to be as effective in stabilizing the country as we would like.

  676. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am among the "whites" that did vote for Obama because he was a better choice than the GOPs representative. We're tired of the shit-slinging both parties have been engaging in for a very long time. Obama campaigned on a platform of making America BETTER for everyone and not just a select few cronies.

    You might want to remember that last sentence. In 2010, 2011, 2012 take a look and see who is better off. I did (and still have not seen) anything that will stop the handouts from being given. Taking from the uppermost 1% and handing it out to the lowest class if all fine but those that are getting the free handouts have to be bettering themselves. If they do not the free ride has to end. Otherwise there is no incentive for them to better themselves. Why would they, they are being paid to stay where they are.

  677. Re:Homophobic bigots from Utah amend CA constituti by ArtDent · · Score: 1

    Civil rights? Any man in this country has as much right to marry a woman of a different race as I do-zero. Giving people with inter-race preferences the right to marry another of a different race is giving them rights that currently do not exist--even for white people. There is nothing in common between true civil rights and interracial marriage.

    Do you feel dumb yet? You will in 40 years...

  678. wasn't so for the dems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Filibustering everything and leaving massive vacancies in the federal court system due to partisan bullshit didn't seem to hurt dems.

    Sauce for goose, etc.

    It's easy to preach "healing" and "bridging the divide" when your party wins. There was no such thing when it was the other way around. I am not a huge conservative - but this massive hypocrisy is what makes me hate liberals.

    1. Re:wasn't so for the dems by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      In this new day, from now on, everyone is required to use fully descriptive terms when using the word "Liberal".

      Do you hate legal liberals (People who want to make lots of new laws), economic liberals (People who throw lots of money at things, like bankster bailouts), or social liberals (Live and let live types)? Or some other kind of format("{0} liberals", [Descriptor])?

      Liberal alone means nothing to most of us. In the words of Elisa: "Come, Come. Elucidate."

  679. suddenoutbreakofcommonsense - Tag by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    My foot it is.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  680. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Pointing out statistics isn't racist. The interpretation that you put on them may well be. But without an interpretation they don't mean anything.

    J.C. once said (as translated) "The poor you will always have with you". This could be read as a statistical statement about the distribution of incomes, but usually people put some interpretation on those words that isn't, strictly speaking, found within the text.

    An old saying went "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.", and it was largely based on the fact that statistics don't tell you why something happened, but they sure make it easy for your prejudices to convince you that you know.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  681. 15th August 1971 by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    The US dollar is backed by oil, no longer gold. Everyone needs dollars to buy oil so America gets to export it's inflation to the developed and developing world. This is a bonanza for the government and banks. Growth (Credit expansion) without end... Woohoo...

    Of course to continue the growth (credit expansion) you have to continually expand the number of people who have access to credit. Eventually you are stopping people in the street and giving it away...

    But, like all exponential functions, you hit a limit, run out of some resource... Like people able to pay.
     

    --
    Deleted
  682. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is at true as it gets. Please read up on Socialism before arguing that an American politician is a socialist.

  683. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by YttriumOxide · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You do understand that we still are defending Japan and Germany right?

    Interesting wording... you're still here, but who exactly are you 'defending' us FROM?

    If you pull out your military now, we promise we won't start any more wars, and we're quite sure we'll be fine without you here 'defending' us.

    Don't get me wrong, most countries are pretty thankful for some of the things the US has done in the past (e.g. the Berlin airlift that you mentioned), but it's a bit much to expect eternal and undying gratitude for just those few events, especially since the "rebuilding" you did was mostly because you bombed the cities to oblivion first (think of it this way: if yo hadn't bombed it, you wouldn't have had to pay to fix it...)

    --
    My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
    Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  684. Celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We celebrated immediately with a big bucket of KFC and watermelon.

  685. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

    Personally I LIKE not stepping over homeless people in the street, not getting mugged if I take the train at 3am, and not having to deal with extra-ordinarily stupid people on a daily basis. All of these are a direct result of that fact that I, and everyone else in the country I live in, pay quite a lot of our salary in taxes to the government to make sure that the society we live in is strong, prosperous and pleasant.

    --
    My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
    Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  686. Joystick handling code by apparently · · Score: 1
    I was writing joystick handling code on a Ubuntu install running under VMware. Truly, a momentous occasion.

    wget http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html

    is not code.

  687. I never thought I'd say this but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't mind being American now.

    While the rest of the world breathes collectively a "PHEW! The world is saved (kinda)". Since 9/10ths of everyone around me in my country was supporting Obama, despite the fact we're days away from our own election that NOBODY is interested in here. We have a Lame Duck female prime minister and a Weasly fat turkey (who is ahead in the polls) for our two horse race.

    The reaction in the US is interesting: This from Xeni Jardin on boingboing.net:

    "What an incredible night to be an American. As I type this in a hotel in San Francisco, I can still hear people screaming and honking car horns out in the streets. I just left a diner with friends, and periodically the joint erupted in spontaneous cheering. Never in my life have I seen anything like this."

    We simply don't have this kind of politics here. Our politics is boring and our politicians drippy snoozy moderate layabouts. Give me airy fairy hug-a-tree progressives and pathologically crazy neo-cons anyday!

  688. Comon, Nasa finished painting the moon before this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    8:30 AM?
    I saw the news article painted on the moon by 5:00 AM.

    Comon, seriously, 30 minutes before this Fox reshaped an outer galaxy to say "Winner: Barack Obama", and the Hercules constellation has been officially renamed to Obamaus Barackaus.

  689. Re:More than Two words by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    so whatever he does to worsen the depression

    Sounds like you've made your mind up already!

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  690. An essay inspired by suddenoutbreak tag by caxis0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    'America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.'

    This was a triumph. I'm making a note here: huge success. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction . . .

    For a few precious minutes last night, it truly felt as if there had been a sudden outbreak of common sense--that we had finally done something meaningful and right. For a moment, I honestly could not understand what I was feeling. It was pride. Pride in my country. How corny is that? Or more to the point: What does it say about us and our recent history that for many people my age and younger, patriotism and being 'proud to be an american' has fallen so completely out of fashion? Is it not significant that my feeling of pride for our nation was immediately accompanied by the initial disbelief and surprise that I was feeling it at all?

    This wave of euphoria that accompanies being witness to history unfortunately breaks upon even a cursory inspection of comments posted by Joe the Alledged Everyman on any given blog or message board. Ubiquitous are the comments crafted of outlandish allegations about our President Elect and our future that are almost as unbelievable as the sad truth that anyone actually believes them. The hatred is palpable in a way that unfortunately guarantees the conclusion of euphoria and predicates a swift return to planet Earth.

    I don't like people who think hating the opposition is a criterion for supporting their candidate. My stomach tightened up as McCain was giving his extremely gracious concession speech and the crowd actually started booing at the mention of his opponent's name. It was hard to watch.

    I really quite admire John McCain. I have for a very long time. It's no secret that he has often been referred to as the 'democrats favorite republican,' and true to this aphorism, he is my favorite as well.

    I agree with McCain on a number of issues. I agree with him about building more nuclear power plants, I agree with him about preserving gun rights, I agree him about the troop surge, about school vouchers, and about ear marks. I deeply admire his service to this country and am thankful for his willingness to reach across the isle to get things done. I think he is a man of great character--he is no more Bush III than Obama is a marxist terrorist. McCain would have never been a puppet for Cheney like our current president. McCain doesn't subscribe to cronyism, McCain puts country before party. McCain is a great man.

    So why did I vote for Obama?

    Because universal healthcare is of great importance to me, but even more important is my belief that our leader should have a socially progressive agenda. I am in favor of gay rights. I believe they should be able to marry, I believe they should be able to adopt, and I believe that they should have the same protections that we would afford any other minority. I believe in a woman's right to choose. In the next term, it is likely that the president will be called upon to appoint two new supreme court justices and I am loathe to risk putting the court in an even larger conservative strangle hold.

    However, I share many ideas with those same conservatives, but socially I am a liberal and it is regrettable that in order to pursue the realization of certain political ideals I share with the right that I would have to also be in league with people who I find almost as repulsive morally as I find their self righteousness in being so.

    Obama is an intellectual. He is thoughtful, he is deliberate. I like that. His demeanor was another significant reason that I favored his candidacy. I'm not sure when this country started looking down on people with a high level of education. We are the most powerful and wealthy nation on the planet, the idea that we should eschew the educated man is simply ridiculous. I think our leader should be of the highest intelligence available. My mind still recoils every time I think that we elected a C a

    1. Re:An essay inspired by suddenoutbreak tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure used a lot of words to show that you brainless twit.

    2. Re:An essay inspired by suddenoutbreak tag by caxis0 · · Score: 1

      "You sure used a lot of words to show that you brainless twit."

      . . .

  691. And now the stopwatch begins... by PaprKut · · Score: 1

    Israel has no confidence in Obama. They will move first. They gain nothing from waiting. I hope I am wrong, but history says I'm not. One day people will (again) realize that the economy is not the most important thing in their life. How much is a 401(k) worth when the world is at war? The *two* founding responsibilities of the Federal Gov't are to provide for the defense of the Nation and to regulate interstate commerce. Let me know if you find out where it says it is the Gov't responsibility to provide the *means* and not just the *environment* for the pursuit of happiness. With Obama and an increasing democrat control in Congress we will sink into an ever increasing welfare-driven society. There is no self responsibility left. And personal success is beaten down as a disease. Do your self a favor and actually look at his record and read about his rise to power. Its not a point of view issue. He is statistically one of the most partisan and liberal senators. His relationships would bar him from gaining any level of security clearance. He has never run any organization in his life. The only experience he has is as a pep rally leader and spending other people's money.

  692. mccain supporters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got to say thanks to all the mccain supporters. your lack of action when it comes to voting meant the better man won, and now we get to laugh as you all throw hissyfits and try and act like obama will be worse then bush. you're so deluded it's hilarious. thank science the old man and his bible thumping fundy running mate didnt win

  693. Re:More than Two words by Maltheus · · Score: 1

    Hell, even today, most people think FDR ended the first great depression.

    He most certainly did. He ended it by dying.

  694. Amazing number of postings by jmcwork · · Score: 1

    I think the importance of this event is indicated by the number of postings and discussions it has generated here on /. It has to be a truly significant topic to draw thousands of responses! (Oh, by the way, I just read that they have proof that C++ is better than Java - discuss!)

  695. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

    Under Bush we all got "Stimulus checks" redistribution of wealth

    Oh, and President Bush sent checks to taxpayers where Obama's plan is to send checks to everyone. Since almost 50% of the people receiving the checks DON'T pay Federal income tax, it would be welfare.

  696. Even more impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would be a Muslim... or even a *gasp* atheist.

  697. Swept under the carpet by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

    Just like his voting record, questionable birth record, clear marxist ties, and tie ins with the Savings and Loan industry and numerous other things. Clinton perjured himself, shredded Whitewater documents, and several other things. I just wonder why anyone votes for either major party's candidates at all anymore.

  698. Re:All I can say now is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who are not afraid let reason and long-term strategy prevail

    FYI - This strategy also lets brown people in other parts of the world keep on killing other brown people. This causes me a lot of concern and there is no easy answer. It reminds me of the Atomic bomb argument. Drop it now and only X amount of people die. Wait out the problem and X^2 die. Just sayin....

    and no, I did not read the article, just the immediate response :)

  699. Two party system. by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

    I appreciate that it seems like Barrack Obmaha's heart is in the right place. I dont see anything changing anytime soon since he has no interest in changing the system. We still have a corrupt financial system We have questions about the 9/11 attacks that are not being answered , We have the FISA bill that is most likley being used to spy on political dissidents, We have a 100 mile Constitution Free zone where you can be stopped and asked to prove your citizenship and have your belongings searched without due process, We have a debate that troops might be stationed in the US to be mobilized for planned civil unrest, If any of you are on the change movement my suggestion would be to press our government to address these issues. Lets see how far Obhama is really willing to go. so far he has supported the FISA bill and then some how suggested that he was always for it when he was against it in the beginning of his running. People need to stop playing the two party game and force independence in this country. Both Democrats and Republicans are part of the same coin and money rules this country instead of people.

  700. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

    As I recall, Bush in 2000 ran on a platform that seemed like he had stolen many ideas from the democrats. There was lots of talk with regards to his education successes in Texas and not much about getting involved overseas.

    Of course 9/11 happened and people don't really remember much about Bush's goals prior to that point, but I can see where someone might think that Bush might run things in a Clinton like way.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  701. "...socialism directed solely at the top 1%..." by sznupi · · Score: 1

    Just like the soviet version...

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  702. a link by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54556-2004Sep1.html

    He would overhaul Medicare, Social Security and public education; cut taxes; reinvigorate the military; restore civility to the political system; and help the poor with tax credits for health insurance, assistance buying homes and charitable-giving incentives. "We will use these good times for great goals," he said. "We will confront the hard issues."

    Four years ago, Republican nominee George W. Bush rehearsed an acceptance speech containing a menu of ambitious campaign promises. (Bill O'leary -- The Washington Post)

    Thursday night, President Bush will accept the party's nomination for a second term here with a mixed record on those hard issues. On some -- tax cuts and education -- he made enormous progress toward his goals. On others -- Medicare, the military and his "compassion" agenda -- he made partial progress. And on the rest -- Social Security and attempting to "change the tone" of Washington -- nothing much has changed.

    Bush's 2000 acceptance speech was widely seen as having successfully introduced the nation to a leader with strong principles, clear policies and a determination to return dignity to the Oval Office after President Bill Clinton's scandals. The speech's main refrain -- "They had their chance. They have not led. We will." -- neatly encapsulated Bush's message to the largest audience the relatively little-known Texas governor had ever faced.

    But the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, made the Bush presidency largely unrecognizable from the one he outlined in Philadelphia. He did not even mention terrorism in that speech, and the speech reflected the country's inward-looking priorities. After promising a "humble" foreign policy on the stump, his main non-domestic proposal that night was for a missile defense system first debated two decades earlier.

    Sept. 11, said Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot, "redefined the planet." And it would be impossible to assess Bush's work toward his campaign promises without considering the way the attacks necessitated an entirely new agenda for his presidency: a Department of Homeland Security, the USA Patriot Act, and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and against al Qaeda.

    Even so, a look at Bush's record on his original promises shows that he was more successful at achieving specific policies such as tax cuts and changes in federal education support than he was at translating into specific achievement the broader promises he used in 2000 to present himself as "a different kind of Republican" -- a promise of bipartisan cooperation and help for the poor and disadvantaged.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  703. "Did OBAMA Buy The Election" ad on this page... by Doug52392 · · Score: 1

    So the advertising system on Slashdot, which (I would assume) displays ads in context to the text on the page, is showing me ads saying "Dis OBAMA Buy The Election? Make your voice heard!"... Is this trying to tell me something?

    1. Re:"Did OBAMA Buy The Election" ad on this page... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the truth. He outspend his opponent 3x by accepting donations like mickey mouse and doodad pro.

      http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/rnc-to-demand-f.html

  704. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think in answer to "where were you when Obama was elected", I unfortunately may arguably have the worst possible response to that:

    I was reading a book about the history of satanism in black metal that I bought not long ago.

    I think for my own best interests, should I be asked this question face to face with someone, I'll make something up :P.

  705. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by mqduck · · Score: 1

    The Democrats will still pass legislation that favours big businesses, just a different group of businesses.

    If you look at campaign donations, that's not really true. I don't think that's it. What makes the difference between the two parties is the way in which they serve businesses. Republicans cut taxes on businesses and the rich, Democrats try to stabilize the economy and are the ones who take the role of keeping the masses content with medicare, civil rights bills, etc.. They both have their purpose, perhaps none more important than the shared purpose of keeping people voting for one against the other.

    --
    Property is theft.
  706. Racism? We just pass the hate along elsewhere by IdahoEv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No thanks. I'll give a shit what color he is mainly because it's a pretty damn good gauge of how far America has come along in terms of overcoming some nasty racism.

    We have come a long way in reducing racism. We've passed the hate to the next down the line.

    Here's a vastly oversimplified view of the line:

    1830: Americans hate and persecute the Irish immigrants.

    1890: Americans (now including the Irish) persecute the Polish and other Eastern European immigrants.

    All along: American whites (including Irish and Polish) persecute blacks.

    20th century: American whites (and many blacks!) fear and persecute latino immigrants.

    Yesterday, on the day the USA first elects a black president, three states passed constitutional amendments making gays second-class citizens with fewer rights. In California, nearly 70% of blacks and hispanics voted for Proposition 8.

    Yes, we just pass the fear and hate on down the line. Human mass psychology seems incapable of producing happiness without having an "outsider" group to loathe and persecute.

    Honestly, I'm fucking thrilled about Obama, but I'm starting to see the "moving past racism" thing as just another turn of the hate wheel.

    Right now the arrow is pointing at Gays and Muslims and atheists. I wonder who will be the target(s) in 2030?

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
    1. Re:Racism? We just pass the hate along elsewhere by superdave80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      three states passed constitutional amendments making gays second-class citizens with fewer rights.

      Incorrect. Gays have the exact same marriage rights as everyone else. They can still marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays wanted a new right, i.e., marrying someone of the same sex. Now, I have no problem with gay marriage, but this argument that I've heard non-stop for months on TV is asinine.

      And before someone tries to respond with a 'But they can't marry the person they want!', just realize that everyone has the exact same restrictions. Since I can't marry a 2nd wife, does that mean that polygamist are the new '2nd class citizen'?

      Angry responses in 3... 2... 1...

    2. Re:Racism? We just pass the hate along elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrific point. Living in San Francisco, I was amazed at the reaction last night. Ebbing waves of hoots from people and cars honking or hours enervated the night air, and various streets were closed for spontaneous celebrations), but things Proposition 8 - the anti-gay marriage law - loomed over my head and eventually my friends figured it was probably passing.

      How does a state which, as a recent transplant, I consider in many ways ridiculous in its expression of liberalism, manage to pass such a blatant piece of bigotry? I wonder if this is how people who knew to allow women's suffrage felt when their efforts failed? How do you remain civil towards people who have such terribly misguided biases against certain groups? Do you blame it on their upbringing and try to absolve them of personal responsibility for their desire to restrict the rights of people different than them?

    3. Re:Racism? We just pass the hate along elsewhere by renoX · · Score: 1

      Bah, that's just nitpicking, they lost the right to marry their loved one which the heterosexuals still have.

      Polygamist or polyandrist cannot marry all their loved ones, true, so yes from a legal point of view they are also second citizen..

    4. Re:Racism? We just pass the hate along elsewhere by gormanbud · · Score: 1

      Rights don't just appear in society out of nowhere. Gay marriage was unthinkable 30 years ago. Now as we evolve this situation is slowly being righted. People who it effects (a small number) want it here and how. Well if you can find a magical way to change generations of minds and alter points of view in an instant your truly a wizard. If a social change is right it will prevail --just not at the pace many would like. Slavery, the most obliviously evil and vile institution was around for centuries, and still is, before it was abolished. Gay marriage if it is to be integrated into our culture will be approved and ACCEPTED over the normal course of time. That time appears to be within our generation.

    5. Re:Racism? We just pass the hate along elsewhere by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      You forgot: 1600s-present time: wealthy whites persecute poor whites and convince poor whites to persecute black (slaves) to distract the poor whites from the fact that (1) the poor whites and poor blacks together vastly outnumber the wealthy whites and (2) the wealthy are royally screwing them.

    6. Re:Racism? We just pass the hate along elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So did the furries, they can't marry their loved ones either.

    7. Re:Racism? We just pass the hate along elsewhere by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Right now the arrow is pointing at Gays and Muslims and atheists. I wonder who will be the target(s) in 2030?

      One word:

      Chinese

      If there were as many Chinese immigrants proportionally to their mother country's population as there are Mexican immigrants, Latino illegal immigrants wouldn't even be a blip on the American political scene at all.

      Certainly the hispanic labor unions don't want a bunch of Chinese illegals coming in and stealing their jobs and speaking an unintelligible language (to them) with strange cultural and religious customs.

      If given half a chance, there would be several times more illegal Chinese immigrants than Mexican and Latino immigrants as well. The only thing stopping it at the moment is a small body of water called the Pacific Ocean. It is happening anyway, but at the moment it is relatively small time problems and not something commanding the national media attention.

      You don't have to like this, but this will be the next major ethnic group for Americans to have to work with and deal with. It will also make Latinos seem very mainstream American by comparison.

    8. Re:Racism? We just pass the hate along elsewhere by ChameleonDave · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I consider myself ultra-left, and I find it depressing that so many good people waste so much energy arguing for extra rights for gays. They deserve the same rights as everyone else.

      Marriage is not even a "right" anyway. It is a cultural custom involving a man and a woman from different families forming a long-term sexual union.

      State recognition for gay marriage is silly. Even recognition for normal marriage should probably be done away with. If it is convenient for the calculation of taxes and suchlike to consider two people to have a legal bond between them, then the government ought to recognise civil unions, free of cultural baggage, that can be signed between any two adults.

      We lefties should be fully satisfied that absolutely everyone has the same legal rights, and there would be nothing sexually deviant for conservatives to be outraged by.

      Unfortunately, most people seem more set on being pro- or anti-gay than they are on finding compromises that make the world a better place for us all.

  707. As an American voter let me say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, but let me be the first to say that I didn't do it for your benefit nor your approval.

    I have little concern about reestablishing credit with you and the rest of the world. The Republican party losts its way a long time back and deserved to be sent home.

    This may the right move for America and hopefully it plays out that way. In any case, a change was called for and by all appearances, thats exactly what we got.

  708. Re:As an aussie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is unfortunate that so many of you are negative about this result.

    Even in far away Adelaide, where we normally could not care less for politics, people are inspired by this result, and the amazing speech. For the first time in my life I am inspired by a politician.

    The whole world just took a huge step forward.

    WOW!

  709. Re:More than Two words by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, what I'm afraid of right now is that the Republican party, in the reorientation and retrospection that's bound to happen, will come to the conclusion that McCain lost the election rather than Palin. There's going to be a nasty battle for the party come the primaries next year... I see a number of champions for a return of the neo-cons and the religious right with Palin, Huckabee, and Romney. Bobby Jindal, I can see him becoming a big player but I'm not sure where he'll end up. But I dont see any strong leaders from the pragmatic, small government, strong but restrained military branch that I wish the party was... although the fact that McCain did win the primary gives me some hope.

  710. KKK says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Burn down his home, oh wait...

  711. Re:More than Two words by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

    I think that's a very interesting question. I'd love to know the thought process that ended up choosing Palin. The Republicans are smart, and yet they made a very dumb choice for VP on their ticket. I can only think of these reasons that they might have chosen Palin:

    - She's a woman. Perhaps they thought that they could capitalize on what they thought was simmering discontent within the Democratic party at having not chosen a woman presidential candidate? Maybe they really thought that if Palin was appealing enough to women, a significant number of female Democratic votes would switch to McCain over Obama? I think they were very wrong on this count - or maybe the concept was good but Palin was the wrong woman for the job?

    - She's an unknown. So naturally there's going to be hightened interest as people try to figure out what this unknown is all about. I think they succeeded on this point - Palin definitely attracted alot of attention. Everyone knows that Palin and Obama were the two big headline generators of this event, with McCain and Biden being less focused on to some degree.

    - Probably they thought she was 'cute' and 'likeable' enough to be able to hold significantly negative, attack-dog positions, and yet still remain appealing? I can see the Republicans wanting a vice president who could attack Obama with impugnity and remain squeaky-clean looking herself. If they had a regular, lifetime politician type as VP candidate, and that person acted as a vicious attack dog, this could definitely backfire in a big way as people form a negative image of the ticket based on the actions of the attack dog. But someone who has a certain buffer of cuteness, as Palin did, might be able to deliver these attacks while remaining likeable. I think that may have been the idea. I don't think it worked that well.

    - Being from such a far-out place and having such a far-out governing record would add to the "maverick" quality of the ticket. That was probably a consideration.

    - Being good-looking always helps.

    - Being young helps to make the ticket not seem as old as it might with McCain and another older statesman/stateswoman.

    - Palin's conservative social viewpoints helped to solidify the ticket's appeal among the religious and other social conservatives for whom McCain might not have seemed socially conservative enough.

    It was a gamble, no doubt. I can see the validity of many of the above reasons for choosing Palin, and there are certainly more. But in the end, they ignored Palin's greatest liability - her lack of intelligence, experience, and grace under the pressure of intense media scrutiny. And those ended up having a greater negative impact for the ticket than the positives she had.

  712. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think that socialist label fits well.

    Obama may be for increased control and regulation of the private sector, but he doesn't strike me as the government-ownership type (gov't sponsored healthcare aside).

    Capitalist, no... Socialist, no... he falls in-between (just at the other end of the economic spectrum as his predecessor). Label it what you will.

    Is this whats good for America? Time will tell.

  713. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    Interesting wording... you're still here, but who exactly are you 'defending' us FROM?

    well...it WAS the USSR. Now that they've gone down the tubes, you'll notice there was quite a large drop in the number of US troops and equipment in Europe.

    (think of it this way: if yo hadn't bombed it, you wouldn't have had to pay to fix it...)

    Unfortunately, if the allies hadn't bombed those cities...WWII would have ended much, much differently. Or maybe not ended at all.

  714. Re:More than Two words by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but the human condition is something that the laws need to be written to presume. One must presume that those controlling lots of money for a short time will be motivated to gain as much from it as the can safely do. And to not worry about the long term effects unless those directly effect them, personally. (Even then, evidence shows that long-term effects tend to be severely discounted.)

    Therefore the laws must be written to control that in the known environment of humans. Greedy bastards are the ones most interested in money, so that's what you'll find where lots of money is accessible to control. These are standard environmental conditions. You don't get more conservative financial leaders unless the laws DEMAND that that's who you get. (And even then there will be exceptions...so you need to watch carefully.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  715. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by IronChef · · Score: 1

    If only 2% of voters are that kind of loser, I believe that we are doing well. I think 2% is cause to celebrate. I would like to see how our 2% compares to other cultures.

    Less than 2% would be even better. We'll get there in time.

  716. Re:Good luck America by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

    And quality of life. Honestly, most of us over here in Europe are shocked when we hear about families with both parents working "just to pay the mortgage". How a country can get to that point for a small but significant percentage of its population and still have some other citizens consider the country to be "doing well" is really quite beyond our collective understanding...

    --
    My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
    Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  717. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With Obama's plan, we'll now be getting 8 stimulus checks each year instead of one.

    Ooooh! Tax cuts measured in whopping tens of dollars. Don't spend it all in one place now.

    Shit, now that the election is over, big oil can relax and fuck that "refund" right out of you 30x over at $3/gallon.

    Work hard now and earn the big money. Millions of lazy fucks are depending on your redistribution.

  718. Yes it can: was Re:Nothing important will change by Squeedle · · Score: 1
    Something important has already changed, to wit:

    A black man has been elected President of the United States of America, and that alone is extremely important. You can debate all you want about the semantics, but that's how America and the world see it, and that's how I see it. The fact of the matter is, when the President of the United States of America stands up in front of the nation and the world, we will see a brown face for the first time ever, and that means a hell of a lot to me and millions of others.

    The American people have finally decided to do something about their feeling that the country was going in the wrong direction - without bloodshed, without a coup, and by following the laws that were designed to make this happen in a civil and stable way.

    I for one am sick and tired of people's excessive cynicism and pessimism. It's just as irrational as excessive optimism. People live down to expectations, and if you don't demand better, you won't get it. Just because we don't often see instant results, it doesn't mean our efforts are wasted.

    Often it's just an excuse for not being an activist. Other times I think it's to avoid being disappointed when one's hopes aren't fulfilled, but really what you're doing is conditioning yourself against recognizing all possibilities. This conditions people against hope, and it is debilitating.

    The bottom line is, this man is living proof that you don't have to let the odds stop you from doing anything great, especially not here in America. I'm going to fly my flag, and I won't let anyone tell me I shouldn't be proud today; I am going to feel the joy for a little while longer, then roll up my sleeves and get back to work trying to make the world a better place.

    --
    Love, Squeedle
  719. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not that we're simply worried about socialism... we're worried about even wider reaching and even more expensive socialism.

    I hereby nominate Cowboy Neal for president in 2012 as a figment of our collective imagination is going to be more effective at maintaining prosperity in the US than anyone from either of the two major political cesspools... i mean parties.

  720. He's the fulfillment of MLK's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > One is a trial lawyer turned politician who ran on a platform of "I'm not Bush"

    Look, I know that's what got passed around a lot (and it did count for a lot), but it's not really fair to reduce him to that.

    Had you listened to his stump speeches (not just the generic ones on TV), or read his website, you'd see that he has huge PDFs with lots of policy details.

    The people who think he doesn't have any substance usually haven't even read them. Heck, there was an article on Slashdot with people whining about some details being moved into the PDF. I know PDFs are annoying, but really? There are TONS of details in there.

    And I don't think you can show me many candidates that have put out more information, except maybe Ron Paul (whose ideals could fit on a note card, even though they allow you to predict his vote on almost any issue).

  721. taxes vs. inflation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    under Bush, we got tax cuts but we also had some serious inflation because of all the debt he created.

    under Oblahblah, we may have higher taxes but the inflation problem won't be so bad because our buying power with the USD will improve.

    Of course, the only economic experience i have is from an economics class I had to take in college :p

  722. Not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First americas got talent, and now the american presidency, what next for these 50/50s.

  723. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, WE didn't ALL get rebate checks.

    My family is in the top 3% and weren't eligible.

    And we voted for Obama. Taxes aren't evil and
    paying at the highest rate is a GOOD thing. I am lucky and privileged to live in the greatest country on earth and have benefited greatly from its resources (public schools, public roads, the internet, and on and on).

    To "Joe the plumber" -- I paid more taxes then you
    grossed -- and I paid them ontime. If you're gonna complain about paying taxes at too high a rate, you should at least pay them! F*#&*()! deadbeat.

  724. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    Depending on what you mean by "whites," you may be reading those numbers wrong. The US Census Bureau classifies along two independent criteria:

    1. Are you Hispanic of any race?
    2. What race(s) are you?

    The page you linked estimates that 73.9% of the US population is "white." However, Non-Hispanic White is 66%, actually.

  725. if you're talking about chocolate news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like that show mostly pokes fun at black stereotypes.
    I haven't seen anyone on that show mock Obama himself... yet...

  726. People's wish for a good knight is infinite by pavlo · · Score: 1

    Some social worker from outside the current establishment easily wins presidency. Most of the earnest citizens believe him, his new hope, his new leadership, his new... Against him was a 70 yo grandpa and a silly chick to replace him if he dies. What kind of race is it? There's a big economic tsunami coming, this country financed demand with debt and printed money for too long, and the wave will crash on the heads of whoever's in charge, besides all of us simple mortals. I think that in about a year the new hope and new leadership will be down the toilet, people will be trying to climb from underneath the wreckage and few will remember these eloquent speeches. I guess for Americans black president means something ...

  727. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

    You could argue that a lot of the white voters voted for McCain because he's white.

    You could argue that, except that the exit polling indicates otherwise. Which is to say that the people who indicated that race was important broke for Obama, not for McCain. Whites as well as blacks.

  728. You mean like the left did with Bush in 2000? by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    Quit being so damned bitter and actually start helping your fellow countrymen instead of being an asshole because your guy didn't win.

    Funny you should say this, as this reminds me of something my friend's dad said recently. He's the kind of rich, Orange Country CA, Christian conservative who will be eviscerated by the upcoming Democrat-dominated government. However, he told his son recently, "I of course hope Obama doesn't win, but if he does, I'm going to give him a chance, unlike the left did with Bush."

    I think conservatives have a right to be smarting this morning, especially after that coronation by the US media (you can look at this elections coverage by the mainstream media and FOX News is the problem? Really? The other media was fair and balanced? You have got to be kidding), and the fact that McCain was negatively affected by the housing disaster when he was one of the few people in government who tried to do something about it (other than "send a letter").

    But unlike the left, conservatives do believe that there is more than one world view and in majority rule, so they will be the loyal opposition to their president (and Congress), instead of whining about this election for 4 (or 8) years. There will be no Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:You mean like the left did with Bush in 2000? by shanen · · Score: 1

      Please designate me as your foe. There are too many morons around here for me to remember to ignore you individually.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  729. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by BlueCollarCamel · · Score: 1

    I was in my small bed in my small dorm room. Nothing but joy.

    --
    1&1 - Cheap domain and web hosting.
  730. Well, you're the only one by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    That doesn't mean I will use the color of his skin to judge his abilities as his president

    Well if you voted for Obama, you are one of the few. A white, 47-year-old noobie senator with no resume wouldn't have had a chance in this election. And awful lot of people voted for Barack Obama because he is black, or that was a huge part of their reasoning, and you know it.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:Well, you're the only one by dangitman · · Score: 1

      A white, 47-year-old noobie senator with no resume wouldn't have had a chance in this election.

      What? Agains McCain/Palin? He'd have plenty of chances. A 20-year-old high-school dropout would probably have a decent chance of meeting McCain. It's pretty hard to vote for a guy going senile right in front of the nation, and his bimbo friend from Alaska.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:Well, you're the only one by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      In 2000, we (sorta) elected a man with tons of executive experience. He governed over a much larger population than any of the presidential and vice presidential candidates this year. Because of this mans dismal failure, I think people fortunately realized that it's not experience that's important, it's intelligence! I think the experience argument is pretty weak because every single president has absolutely no experience being president when they step into the white house for the first time.

      And awful lot of people voted for Barack Obama because he is black, or that was a huge part of their reasoning, and you know it.

      An awful lot? It's obvious you're just speculating. I can speculate too: I bet you even more people voted for the other guy because of the color of Obama's skin. Seriously though, with the economy so bad right now, you really think that many people would vote based on such a stupid reason. I find your lack of faith disturbing.

    3. Re:Well, you're the only one by brkello · · Score: 1

      My friends, all who are well paid and intelligent, both Democrats and Republicans, all voted for Obama. We are mostly white, some Indian, and one African American. Maybe you are surrounded by racists and bigots and so that is why you have your opinion. But the people I am around all agreed that Obama would be better for the economy and international relations. Race, age, looks, etc played absolutely no part in this decision. Obama's plan are superior, they help the majority of Americans who need it as opposed to the minority of people who don't. He is well-spoken, articulate, extremely intelligent, calm facing the most nasty lies about him, and a genuinely good human being. But if you want to make yourself feel better and say we voted for him because he is black...feel free. But it makes you look like a sad, small-minded individual.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
  731. God's will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > If fundamentalist Christians actually believe what they claim, they should be doing some heavy soul-searching today about whether the unlikelihood of the timing of those events isn't miraculous.

    I don't need to do any soul-searching; I'm convinced that God gave him a couple of nudges. Probably the one that sticks most in my mind was that "joke" about praying that Obama got rained out for that speech. Only to see the Republican convention rained out by a hurricane...

    Anyhow, as one of those Christians, and I voted for Obama because I believe he is the candidate who acted in the most Christian manner. And actions, not words, is the standard the Bible tells me to judge by.

    1. Re:God's will... by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Please accept my regards for your self-honesty and self-consistency. Your actions demonstrate that your faith informs your mind and actions rather than governing them blindly. While we may disagree on religion, we can at least do so respectfully.

      I hope my GP statement above was sufficiently clear that it refers to the more blinkered fundamentalist individuals who still express ill-informed and venomous sentiments on comment forums across the Internet.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    2. Re:God's will... by ppanon · · Score: 1

      P.S. regarding the rained-out speech joke, I've always liked the following exchange from Spider Robinson's 1977 story God is an Iron:

      "God is an iron," I said. "Did you know that?"

      I turned to look at her and she was staring. She laughed experimentally, stopped when I failed to join in. "And I'm a pair of pants with a hole scorched through the ass?"

      "If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron."

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  732. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, Antarctica.

    We all watched our Intranet and got updates over Iridium satellites.

    It's very flat, icy and cold here.

  733. Uh... by raehl · · Score: 1

    I doubt the people pulling down over $250,000 a year do much sweating.

    It's more a man is not necessarily entitled to massive profits from the sweat of other men's brows.

  734. "Fix Racism"? WTF? by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    Him being elected will not fix racism but it is a big step in the right direction.

    America just elected a black man as president with the largest popular vote in history (63M+). Seems to me the US has just proven that perhaps Democrats (like Bill Clinton, who called Obama "unelectable," a veiled reference to his race) are simply wrong about how racist America is.

    I am so sick of hearing how the US is so racist. The US is the most racially sensitive country on earth, but we can't stop beating ourselves up about slavery and segregation, so we look for racism under every rock. We can't even discuss race honestly without people tiptoeing around things, afraid of being branded the worst thing an American can be called - a racist (it's even worse than child molester or rapist, if Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski tell us anything). Obama was shielded from so much criticism because of this hyper-sensitivity, it made both Hillary's and McCain's jobs impossible. Every criticism was "racist," even things Obama had freely admitted to, like drug use.

    You want racial progress? Let's all exhale and say that honest discussions of race - like examining the pathologies of inner city blacks, instead of just dropping money out of helicopters to them - are not racist. Then and only then will we see some racial progress.

    Show me some other western democracies who have had black presidents or even SecStates, or have governors and mayors who are black all around the country - in a county with roughly 11% of the population being black. But most Americans do not travel enough, so they don't see who the real racial progressives are.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:"Fix Racism"? WTF? by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      The US is the most racially sensitive country on earth [... But y]ou want racial progress? Let's all exhale and say that honest discussions of race [...] are not racist.

      My girlfriend is Polish, and she laughs at the American penchant for walking on eggshells -- on race, on gender, on sexuality. But I bring up the race part of this because it goes directly to your point.

      Conversely, I, who was hypersensitized to this crap in college, and who try to be "sensitive" in conversations, just end up being awkward. Whereas it's she who actually ends up making friends with people.

      "Racial sensitivity" can get everyone to be polite to each other, but it gets in the way of actual meaningful relationships.

  735. Kill those who tagged this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who tagged the election of a socialist tyrant a "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" all need to be killed, preferably after being tortured.

    If they voted for Hussein, they are not Americans. They deserve to be killed in a terrorist attack.

  736. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    I wish what you were saying was true.

    However, the rhetoric is not based on facts and hasn't been for years. There are constituencies that rely on all whites remaining racists. The only question is whether they ignore Obama or turn on him.

    Although they are wrong, they do have a valid argument. If there is still racism, it will take a lot more than a black man in the White House to change it.

  737. And Kerry got 90% of the black vote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    > When 96% of the black vote goes to one candidate, it's pretty clear we have a long way to go.

    John Kerry won 90% of that same black vote. The reason they vote Democrat is because the Democrats were the ones to put an end to segregation.

    Yes, a very long time ago Lincoln helped them, too. But the Republicans were fighting for segregation and "states rights" was a code word for racism because it was expressing the opinion that the federal government shouldn't have the power to force the states to treat everyone equally. While there are libertarians nowadays who are not racists and who believe that for other reasons, they have good reason to be worried because there are still people out there who hate them for no other reason than the color of their skin.

    Even if they do everything right, there are people who assume they're on welfare or that they're lazy, or that they are promiscuous and judge them without knowing them. So they get sensitive about it, and that rubs white people the right way when they accidentally offend someone. But hopefully those days are ending. They're not gone yet, not by a long shot, but Obama won a majority of young white people. We're a new generation and we want to put the bad old days behind us.

    They call it the "black experience" now, because many "black" people have mixed ancestries. They call it that because it's the way you get treated, even if you're half-white (like Obama). And racism is still harsh because there's no way to hide the fact that you're black and there's no way to turn it off when you'd rather not deal with the consequences. You have to face it down, each and every day. That's hard sometimes!

    But hopefully. Just maybe. We can all face it together.

  738. Exactly by Quila · · Score: 1

    But Fox is outnumbered by CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC.

  739. Predictable by Quila · · Score: 1

    Ostrich. If you don't like the numbers, they must be lying.

    Specifically, it was 51% of unaffiliated voters who said they were biased to Obama. Only half of Democratic voters said they were unbiased.

  740. Correction (Re:Anti-White Racism ...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I apologize for the typo. The preceding article should be the following.

    John McCain should have won the election. He was defeated by the racist voting pattern of the African-American community. Look at the CNN statistics.

    95% of African-Americans voted for Obama.

    If African-Americans did not vote on the basis of race, their percentage of support for Obama would have been 66%, at most. Asian and Hispanic support for Obama hovered around 64%. Neither Asians nor Hispanics used skin color in choosing a candidate. If 66% of African-Americans supported Obama, then McCain would have received 49.6% of the popular vote, and Obama would have received 48.4% of the popular vote. In other words, Obama would have lost.

    Anti-white racism in the African-American community is ugly.

    By the way, I am Hispanic.

  741. Re:Congratulations on making a historic event happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [...] the kind that people decades from now will remember and ask each other "Do you remember where you were when Obama was elected?"

    And most people will reply "On the couch."

  742. Strangest Thing by foxylad · · Score: 1

    If you look at the total votes for each candidate, the last election was split almost exactly 50/50, if my memory serves me right - or 49/49/2 if you include Nader. This time it was 52/46/2, which means only 3% changed their vote - or even less if you consider the new voters who disproportionatly supported Obama.

    So despite fielding a young, inspirational candidate against an old one tarred with the same brush as the lame-duck incumbent; and a steady experienced running mate against - how can I say this kindly? - an extremely naive one; and the embarrassment that was Bush's presidency; and involvement in a war that has cost the country over 4000 people and it's prosperity; and spending 2.6 billion on their campaigns - less than 3% changed their vote.

    Does this mean that most Americans simply vote they way they always have, regardless of what's happening around them? Maybe someone who actually lives in the place could explain this strangeness.

    --
    Do as you would be done to.
    1. Re:Strangest Thing by petrus4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does this mean that most Americans simply vote they way they always have, regardless of what's happening around them?

      No. It means your country's electoral process is rigged. There is no way in Hell that that was a tied election, in any way shape or form, whatsoever. Bush lost both of the elections which put him in power, and anyone with a brain was able to see it.

      It's just that the Republican Party (and it's supporters) are so tenacious and gifted when it comes to electoral fraud, that the 3% who appeared to have changed their vote, are simply another 3% of the Democratic vote that was actually able to get through in order to be legitimately counted. Every possible dirty trick that can be used by the GOP to invalidate potential Democratic votes is used; from telling people the wrong day for the election, (as I read about being tried in a previous thread here) to making sure that absentee/disabled votes get diverted to /dev/null, to creating intimidation and holdups in voting queues. I've been reading about all of it happening.

      The Republican Party needs to be destroyed, and another opposition party created which has both oversight and strict ethical rules for the conducting of elections.

  743. USA slides into third world by hessian · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    When nations lack shared values, they collapse, and in the chaos tyrants and oligarchs prevail, reducing them to failed third world states.

    Toynbee, Spengler and Plato agree on this.

    America is now at a stop point:

    Most white people voted for McCain, showing their values.

    All but 5% of black people voted for Obama, showing their values.

    ( http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 )

    These values are incompatible, and it is oppression to both groups to have the values of one group picked to rule us all.

    Pluralism does not work. Historically, it has not, and the only examples we have of it are from dying states.

    America will have to end pluralism, and either fragment or find a dominant ideology, or it will become a failed state.

  744. Re:More than Two words by Phurge · · Score: 1

    It was a gamble, no doubt. I can see the validity of many of the above reasons for choosing Palin, and there are certainly more. But in the end, they ignored Palin's greatest liability - her lack of intelligence, experience, and grace under the pressure of intense media scrutiny. And those ended up having a greater negative impact for the ticket than the positives she had

    I was going to type something to say perhaps JMC was cornered into choosing Palin, perhaps that is true, perhaps he chose to take the the gamble. Really what we expect of a president is that the buck stops there. Whatever the motivation, I think the choice was very rash.

    --
    I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
  745. Re:More than Two words by skam240 · · Score: 1

    I think that's exactly what we're going to see happen. Fortunately for me, I'm a pretty solid Democrat so this just means more victories for us as I don't think the Republican's have much hope pushing a far right agenda. I do honestly feel for the Republican moderates though, who I do have quite a bit of respect for. It was a shame to see McCain's campaign sell itself to the far right.

    But I dont see any strong leaders from the pragmatic, small government, strong but restrained military branch that I wish the party was...

    If the Republican party had way more of this and way less of the religious right I'd probably vote Republican about 50 percent of the time. As it stands right now, that party is way to scary for me to even consider giving power to on the national level.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  746. I'm not absolving them by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    They're bad; but the Bush team has been consistently evil.

  747. net neutrality and DMCA issues by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

    I wonder what this will mean for net neutrality. Obama says he's for it. Is Comcast and company worried? Also Biden is known to be in bed with the RIAA and MPAA. If Obama gets shot be some white supremacist group, which seems likely, will it be like having Jack Valenti as president?

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  748. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are laughing because they have been where we are heading. And while we are trying to nationalize everything they will be opening up their economies to free enterprise and laughing all the way to the bank.

  749. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by dangitman · · Score: 1

    Not voting Obama does not necessarily indicate racism.

    No, but voting Republican does indicate stupidity.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  750. You know... by dr00g911 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...after reading through all three thousand plus posts on this topic, admittedly with a filter of +2, I feel compelled to come in and toss away all my mod points to say "thanks" to the /.'ers here and abroad for having actual, real, intelligent discourse about this. The signal to noise ratio was one of the best I've seen on a thread here in years.

    I'd been firmly in the Obama camp since he came out against lobbyists in an incredibly direct zero-tolerance fashion (for Washington, at least). None in my ground crew, none in my cabinet, not a dime from them. So, that made the sale for me personally very early in the primary season. Voting for someone who's been a civil rights lawyer, and is incredibly well-spoken... well, that's just a bonus. How cool would it be to have a quotable president in your lifetime? All those speeches you memorize in school? What if you were there for a speech your kids memorize?

    I'm not at all proud of what my government, and by association, my country has turned into in the last decade. And as cheesy as it might sound to some people, I really do think we need constructive, positive dialog to move forward. Race, international relations, financial markets... everything. We've gotten in the habit of painting the world in stark shades of idealogical black and white -- on both sides.

    Growing up in the US, we're taught to believe in a very idealized, edited version of American history, and America as a symbol -- it's the history that we really wished could be. Down to the specifics of the Lincoln presidency and on, very complex issues are taught to us in a very binary, black and white fashion that loses nuance completely. But it's part of who we are. And for the most part, it's who we want to be. It might be borderline fiction, but it's a noble aspiration.

    Something struck me during one of the debates. Obama said "We need to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable." -- which sounds juvenile on the surface, but is a consummate truth at its core and sums up a major issue with the "you're either with me or against me" macho cowboy politic crap we've had to endure.

    We've been stuck in gridlock, incapable of positive change for so long that I think we've forgotten how to affect it.

    I must say that if the John McCain who made the incredibly eloquent, heartfelt concession speech last night had been the same man who had been campaigning, I think things would have been a lot closer. Well, and ditched his trainwreck running mate, but I didn't log in to burn the neocons in effigy.

    If Obama can achieve even a fraction of what he's set about, it'll be positive change for this country and world in my very honest opinion. It's arrogant as an American to believe that my vote affects the entire world, but looking over the last eight years in particular, it's incredibly naïve to believe it doesn't. We're a conflicted people.

    McCain may very well have been capable of leading us out of this incredibly dark, deep hole that we're in, but the Republican party as a whole (down to my state and local levels -- I'm in North Florida) has lost any shred of credibility in regard to the term "conservative" where it applies to fiscal and legislative issues, and has taken the moral "conservative" tack -- ie, let's roll back the clock and stand in the way of social progress to regard to people who aren't just like us. You want polarization? Base your politics about making people scared of folks who aren't just like you, and spend your time telling other adults how to live their lives.

    The world isn't like that, the country isn't like that... shit, my block isn't like that. So how did we get in this place?

    The core of my personal moral compass is that there's nothing on this planet more offensive than a closed mind.

    The more we talk, the more we begin to understand each other. And that's a start, isn't it?

    1. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama a civil rights lawyer?

          Wow, I know he claimed he was 8 during Ayers glory days but what was he in 64, oh thats right he was 3, I was 2.

            You voted for perhaps the biggest lieing and hypocritical angry 1/2 black man in a suit ever in history with questionable associations and ideological beliefs that remain questionable as to how he may govern. In addition his mere 143 days in the US Senate stand as the most telling evidence to support my words below.

      Affrimative action is alive and well

    2. Re:You know... by ilctoh · · Score: 1

      Very well stated.

      --
      How many slashes would a slashdot dot, if a slashdot could dot slashes?
  751. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

    What percentage of the total US population does that census cover, though? It won't be 100%.

  752. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by dangitman · · Score: 1

    Now, exactly what am I supposed to be feeling guilt or shame for because I was born a white guy? I have no guilt or shame about anything.

    So, what's your problem, then? Were you the AC that "erroneus" was replying to?

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  753. Freedom Country... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in New Zealand one of the TV presenters said something along the lines of "the new president of the freedom country". Freedom country? The US? What load of bollocks.

  754. And yet by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    just last night a (half) black man was elected last night, a first. So, it shows that things change. Hopefully, it will be for the better.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  755. They baked a cake for my sister by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My sister has spent the last couple of months in Sudan teaching English classes voluntarily. She called me today and said that the other residents of the convent that she is staying in baked her a cake with "Obama 44" and presented it to her this morning with a bottle of wine.

    If this isn't a sign of jubilation from people overseas then I don't know what is.

  756. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you really don't believe he is for a more socialist country? i would give you a list, however it seems that you would not believe that information provided. time will teach us all.
    "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
    "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." - George Bernard Shaw
    HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools. - Ambrose Bierce

           

  757. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by Eskarel · · Score: 1
    I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you want third parties in power in the federal government(and not just independents who are essentially members of one of the existing parties) then you need to campaign not for the third party of your choice, but for run off voting(instant or otherwise).

    Without this you're pretty much never going to see a third party get into power without a massive shift in viewpoint amongst the voting population.

    Right now, unless the vast majority of people switch with you(which doesn't happen for third parties without a massive shift in society) voting for a third party is essentially voting for the majority party on the opposite side of the fence. A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.

    It shouldn't be that way, but in the current system it is and always will be.

    With run off voting(ie a system where someone must get greater than 50% and people get to select their second, third, fourth choices(or the party they voted for negotiates for concessions if they haven't selected a preference) you still end up with two parties in the end, but you can vote your conscience without getting the opposite of what you want.

    With instant run off voting you could have voted Nader and given your second preference to Gore(presuming that's who your second preference actually was) or on the other side of the fence voted for Buchanan and given your second preference to Bush Sr in 1992.

    You would probably still not have gotten your third party candidate in, because tbh third party candidates are usually too extreme to get 50% or more of the vote, but you wouldn't have ended up with Bush Jr or Clinton instead of the major party closest to what you actually believe(unless that's what you wanted).

    You may say "what's the point if third parties still won't get in", and the answer is that gradual political shift becomes possible. You can vote for libertarian, green, or whatever other third party you choose and still get the lesser of two evils. So an everyone else, and so your third party will get more votes, eventually possibly enough to actually win. You can also show your second choice where the political winds are blowing. Both the Democrats and the Republicans could see where the voter base actually is and shift their policies accordingly.

    Without run off voting, this cannot happen, and will not happen without a massive shift in society. People have to be sure that voting their conscience isn't going to get them the 4-8 years of the exact opposite of what they want(as happened with both Clinton and Dubya when people voted third party) before the sensible ones will vote third party.

    I never voted third party in the US, and I never will, but since moving to a country(of which I'm also a citizen) which has run off voting, I've never voted for a major. I can do this because I know that voting for what I believe won't end up giving me the opposite of what I want.

  758. What the End Times, more like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://users.cybertime.net/~ajgood/rev13.html

    It's from Revelations. Revelations also describes the Antichrist as someone who will gain a position of power through popular support (elections?). He will stay in power for 7 years, the first half of which will be blissful, while the other half the exact opposite - his true colors will be shown then. After that, Jesus will come back and sort his ass out. This is also known as End Times.

    Oddly enough, End Times does not mean the end of the world - just the end of this chapter between God and Man.

  759. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Darby · · Score: 1

    There's welfare everywhere. 10% of the Federal Budget goes to California, with 10% of the population... makes sense, no?

    No, makes no sense at all.
    California pays a disproportionate amount of money into the pool and gets back far less. That money goes to the welfare states. Population is a complete red herring.

    Your chart makes no mention of where the money comes from which is a critical point.

  760. Welcome to the beginning of the end.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to Germany; circa 1938. If you can't take the thought of comparing this to a drug addicted, megalomaniac, who killed thousands .... how about Rome; circa 476 A.D. This is generally agreed upon to be the approximate time of the fall of the Roman Empire.

  761. 3207 comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should be going into the Hall of Fame, beating 3201 comments. And on the first day too. If the volume of comments is any indicator, this is one of the most important events of the third millennium.

  762. Re:More than Two words by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    You are indeed correct. I had MBS and CDS confused. i find the whole issue to be very interesting since I do prefer and strive to undersrtand the mechanics of this disaster. Only with such understanding can we hope to understand causes and thus solutions. Would you happen to know of any good explanations and sources of information on these topics?

  763. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, "socialism" means actually paying for those thing. That is the part people have qualms about.

  764. This Country Is Over by open+swords · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I agree with Spengler. Social loci rise, flourish, degenerate and die organically. There never has been, nor will there ever be, a successful heterogeneous social loci. Anyone who says otherwise suffers from a utopian psychosis. Greece and Rome were strong as long as they thought of themselves as Greeks and Romans. Once they became multicultural, they died. Period. There is no other glue except race and culture and the two are inextricably wedded. Read Thomas Sowell's "Race and Culture." Educate a black man long enough, and he'll eventually assert black inferiority. The only reason that Blacks and Whites in America don't try to exterminate each other is because they can avoid each other in a wide-ranging geography. Ever heard of White Flight? The Blacks move in; the Whites move out. HUMAN BEINGS ARE SELF-SEGREGATING AT A SUB-RACIAL LEVEL. If that were not true, then Europe would simply be an undifferentiated caucasian mass. Instead we have clearly differentiated sub-racial loci: Germans, Swedes, English, etc. If there is ever a complete social breakdown in America, you'll see what Blacks and Whites *really* think of each other. That's why Osama Obama wants a Civil Defense Force. Down deep he knows that the remaining unfeminized white males don't like him and, clearly, he doesn't like Whites. Ask the good Reverend Wright. Consider: "All men are created equal." The man who said that owned negroes. So either he was lying or he didn't think negroes are men. The bottom line: if blood is thicker than water, it's certainly thicker than paper. Ask the Chinese or the Japanese what they think about multiracialism. Hell, ask Africans. As we speak some of them are slaughtering each other with an unrelenting, absolutely Olympian, barbarity. Oh, and it's called "ethnic tension." Ethnic? Can you see any visual difference between the slaughterers and the slaughterees? I can't. And to those of you who will read this and howl with indignation, crying RACIST, let me simply say: of course I am. I'm healthy. Take this to the bank: the Chinese are destined to rule the planet because they are smart, industrious and, best of all, racially homogeneous; they are Chinese, not a mongrel loci ruled by feminized utopian psychotics.

  765. Lots of posts to read through by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm just reading through all these posts to find out who my friends are, and who my enemies may be. :)

    1. Re:Lots of posts to read through by Intrinsic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Having a friends and enemies mentality is a reflection of what is really wrong with this country.
      Its an illusion to make you think you are seperate from people. Dont buy into it. We are all connected one way or another.

    2. Re:Lots of posts to read through by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Psycho-babble.

  766. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by vivek7006 · · Score: 1

    Your argument is too complicated. Too many NOT and NAND gates. Tautology error..........

  767. I am not sure where you've been for the last 8 by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    years, but the world is already at war.

  768. Re:More than Two words by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

    Primarily I've been listening to NPR. A lot. :-P

    If you go to NPR, you can hear their old Money Talk programs as podcasts. The hosts are struggling just as much as us to understand the crisis, so the result is fairly easy for the layman to understand. Also, a peer of your post posted a link to the "Long Johns" gags. Surprisingly, they are very much on the money. Which is probably what makes them so funny!

  769. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, he was endorsed by the Communist Party of the United States.

  770. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!

    thank you for stating the abundantly ignored and obvious truth.

    For those of you out there who are misinformed
    A. Obama is a citizen. You can not run for president and not be.

    B. Obama is not affiliated with terrorists. He was a senator for Christ sake, you cant be a senator and not have a security clearance with a full background check.

    C. He is NOT A MUSLIM. just like there are Christians with Jewish relatives and atheists with parents who are preachers.

    Why is it that everyone believes the picture box?

    Lets put everything behind us now and support our commander and chief. He is going to need all the support he can get to fix the sh%t we are in now.

    Signed
    Anonymous Coward(yeah i didn't sign up yet, what of it?!)

  771. Re:United States Socialist Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no problem with free will giving to the poor and the strong helping the week. I don't believe it's the goverment's responsibility to make force people to do so.

  772. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by zanyterp · · Score: 1

    except that it won't work...there won't be anyone with money to pay for us all. good book about what we just did to ourselves, or potentially did: atlas shrugged.

  773. Re:Obligatory! by zanyterp · · Score: 1

    but at least those death-laser-eyeballs & fists of fury would have guaranteed, or at least had a chance, that we would still have a country in 4 years and rights left.

  774. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ayn Rand's ideas are thoroughly discredited. How old are you, ~25?

  775. Don't panic... by akayani · · Score: 1

    Anyone know a bookie taking odds on how long it will be before he is shot? America is just too stupid to appreciate the value of social welfare. Such concepts as a pension at 65, health care without bankruptcy or taking responsibility for unemployment are beyond the US imagination. Nor is any world concern for a tax system which distorts international taxation. (IE why do you think Murdock left Australia... better weather?) But don't worry when push comes to shove the US has plenty of guns in circulation to deal with those who have a social conscious. I suggest moving to a gated community in fantasy land and simplifying the issue to "the problem with this country is that black women have too many babies." Yani

  776. So Glad by Moe1975 · · Score: 1

    The US Federal Government's decisions have a direct impact on my life, here where I live. There is hope yet.

    --
    SARAVA!
  777. here's what I see at top of this article page by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | (10) | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141

    That's right 140 pages, supposedly [right...], of this article.

    Note to slashdot: For Christ's sake, could you please knock this shit the fuck off? Just use a simple "Next" and "Previous" okay? what do you say?

    I know it's an effective way for people, like me, who buy ad-free pages, to burn through their accounts, but really, guys, come on... It's not about 'money' it's about being a pain in the ass.

  778. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    I'll second that. Talked to a Russian once that absolutely saw no difference between Dem & Rep. Similar to ideas I've seen before as to how aliens would see the human race...pretty much all the same w/ a few insignificant differences.

    mp

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  779. Obligatory automotive metaphor by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

    Many economic markets are what are termed "market failures". This does not mean the kind of failure like we saw with the banks last month; it means a market that, when completely unfettered, does not allocate resources efficiently.

    Sort of like a car engine without a flywheel or RPM limiter and a deaf fool at the throttle.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  780. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

    If 95% of white's had voted for McCain, you wouldn't be shouting racism?

    --
    You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
  781. The only change will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..the dick fucking you from Washington will now be black.

    Otherwise...nothing will be different. Same bullshit politician...somewhat different color...business as usual...we get screwed.

  782. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by earlymon · · Score: 1
    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  783. Re:All I can say now is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeh amd it got much worse when the USA FINALLY stopped their Expat Irish from funding the IRA.

  784. Re:More than Two words by ErikZ · · Score: 1

    Actually, that's what gave him a huge boost in popularity with the Conservative crowd.

    They were hoping he WOULD die and then we'd have Palin as President.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  785. 460 words by lpq · · Score: 1

    Now...honestly, what do you think is really going to change?
    Do you think he'll get the Dems to undo the Patriot Act?
    Do you think he'll get to the bottom of and stop the Wiretaps on US Citizens?
    Do you think he'll have us 100% out of Iraq in the next week? Month? Year? Decade?

    His power is very limited as long as the GOP holds the filibuster-weapon over the senate's head. Something doesn't pass the senate, it doesn't get to Obama's desk for a signature. Everything can be frozen -- including Supreme Court Nominees. Given that up to 25% of respondents questioned (probably by FOX) felt "very afraid" *AFTER* Obama's win was confirmed, it doesn't take a genius to see that 25% of the population acting irrational stubborn -- not even considering irrationally violent actions over the course of the next 2-4 years and one can see that the nation could be headed for far worse social problems than we've ever encountered. All those right-wing "christianist" survivalist, nuke-collecting groups could find themselves aligning with the other "religious" extremists (islamic)... How about a holy-war of monotheist-cultural control-freaks who only care to sow chaos?"

    I don't THINK this will happen, but mental-psychological distance between a right-wing militant christinist and a right-wing 'terrorist' (another word for an active> militant) islamist is pretty small if you think about it from an atheist, Confucius, or Buddhist or just "secularist" point of view.

    Will he magically fix the economy? If so, how long? What exactly is he going to do?

    It took us 28 years to get to this point of America being __barely__ willing to turn away from the direction we've been following since Reagan. He took us from negligible federal debt, where "personal debt" was only, just barely, not considered something from bad luck or bad morals, to over 3T$-Federal Debt and credit-card solicitation mania. I remember looking at the loan market before Reagan worked his VouDon (voodoo) -- credit was VERY tight -- I remember thinking, at the time, only those who didn't NEED credit (or a loan) could obtain it.

    Credit market? in the past few years? Sure I'll loan you 125% the value of your overvalued house...*cough*. And Federal Debt? At the end of September we passed 10.1T$. I don't believe that included the bailout costs which are conservatively projected at 1T$, it __appeared__ that Bush&Co, Inc. were trying for one last meta-heist on the treasury before being kicked out of office -- you know how it works -- you hand Freddy and Fanny ( .3T$ ea, and when you get out, you get a job with an outrageous salary, 150B$ signing bonus, and a 150B$ golden parachute so when they are replaced by the next administration, they are cush'ed for life.

    With or without severe measures, it will take longer than 1 presidential term to 'fix' the economy. Remember, the top tax rates before Reagan for multi-millionaires were, I believe, somewhere around 72-73% (or was that before Nixon?). Still, quite a bit above the rates in effect now OR those in effect before Bush-II, only a minimal economic triage which Obama has suggested as a first step in "fixing" our economy.

    -l

  786. translation by doom · · Score: 1

    This is your chance to talk about it and what it means for the future of our nation.

    This thread is for you to chatter and rant inanely about all the crap that everyone has gotten sick of hearing, in the hopes that you will get it out of your system, and not infect all of the other discussions with it. Enjoy yourselves, shouting into the void.

    1. Re:translation by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      Enjoy yourselves, shouting into the void.

      Slashdot *IS* the void!

      Btw I'm just posting here because this is the biggest discussion on slashdot and I want to be a part of it.

      And a special hello to people of the future who just came here to read this because I became famous.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  787. Military Might and Vertical Integration by Jaazaniah · · Score: 1

    You're right about the US military. While armed conflict is something to avoid, the US lost position as major power when they started keeping manned bases in previous enemy states like Japan. Lots of things got people galvanized to join the volunteer force over the years, but their resources are still spread. Sure, the US could draw in all those forces to redirect priorities, but considering lots of places could have an eye on force movement (including any state that can reach orbit), the 'secret' consolidation wouldn't remain that way for long. While the armed forces do have procedures to try and dodge such surveillance, no method is immune to being seen through.

    You're right about the Chinese holding IOUs...What's to stop a newly capitalist China from wrapping up national debt from the USA into a collateral package to sell to a 3rd party for favors, influence, or labor? We might see more money flowing to African countries in the future without anything in return (because we already got something for it) if those IOUs are used and cashed in this manner. It's what caused a collapse in the housing sector, but international officers aren't likely to accept "we're broke" as an answer from a major commerce power.

  788. Re:More than Two words by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

    Thankfully, the conservative crowd is not the majority. It alienated the middle while mobilizing the extreme, which ended up being a mistake.

  789. Re:Homophobic bigots from Utah amend CA constituti by xant · · Score: 1
    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  790. At least bush is gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter who won, we all win. Bush is gone. No more mumbled speeches. No more half-witted phrases. No more 'whoops, went to war against the wrong country, do I get a re-do on that one?'. No more hanging chads and electoral fraud (at least not enough to stem the tide). They couldn't keep the machines screwed up for a whole week. No more 'the whole world is our enemy, lets killem all', no more 'condition yellow, CONDITION RED! CONDITION RED!'. And then the welfare for big business, lets not forget the 5 Trillion. He inherited a booming economy. He left a wasteland. He inherited a country with allies around the world. He left broken relations (worldwide). He fuched his country over, he fuched the world over. He left a few cronies richer. Unbridled power in the hands of an idiot, much like giving a 9 year old their own real working tank, along with a few dozen RPG's, lots of extra ammo, and positive feedback about the destruction. How could you do this badly without intending to do so? So was it malice or incompetence? Still can't tell. At least people are asking him to be sure the door doesn't smack him in the butt on the way out. I still don't know why in the hell so many people voted for him twice. No idea at all.

  791. Thank you, Americans by faragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hard times are coming for the world, but working hard, with joy and passion, we can build a great world to live in.

    Kudos, american people, and thank you.

  792. Of course it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It is NOT an affront to skinny kids to be "pro fat kid."

    Of course it is.

    You don't look for equality of result, you look at equality of opportunity. If the opportunity is the same, then the results are the results. I had the same opportunity to be a great football player as Payton Manning. The fact that I'm not is *my fault*. It may be genetics, it may be the fact that I'm lazy, it may be the fact that I'm scared to play football. But the fact that I don't achieve is my fault.

    Now, equal opportunity doesn't even mean that everybody starts in the same place. It means that there is simply no legal obstacle to prevent me from becoming an NFL QB. Peyton Manning's father obviously had genetic traits to help him to become a QB. He also was able to train his son(s) to help them become great NFL QB's. He clearly started out with a lot of advantages over me.

    Here's where your not grasping thing....

    IT'S OKAY THAT PEYTON MANNING STARTED OUT WITH BETTER GENETICS AND BETTER TRAINING THAN ME. I HAD THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO BE AN NFL QB. IF I DON'T MAKE IT AS AN NFL QB, IT MEANS I SIMPLY WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH, NOT THAT IT WASN'T FAIR OR THAT THE OPPORTUNITY WASN'T THE SAME.

    You seem to want to look at the result after the fact and then draw a conclusion about whether things were unfair or fair. Life doesn't work that way. Short people can't play in the NBA, skinny people can't play in the NFL, people who are tone deaf don't get to be professional musicians, and average people don't get to be nuclear scientists.

    None of that is fair in some cosmic sense that you're seeking nor should it be.

  793. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but you are also forgetting one thing? How much HIGHER would McCain's percentages be among black voters had he not been white, or supposedly the reincarnation of Bush? Tons of black folks voted AGAINST him for no reason but the skin color of Obama.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  794. Re:More than Two words by TheSync · · Score: 1

    The Glass-Steagall act probably should be reinstated,

    Except there isn't any evidence that "unified banks" are any riskier than split banks, infact they have proven to be less riskier (to date), and were so even during the Great Depression. Glass-Steagall was a New Deal political gift to a particular business family.

  795. Re:Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get it. Was that supposed to be some sort of weird racist joke?

  796. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    Ummmm.....yeah.....welcome to the conversation. That was exactly how this all started, and is what we've been discussing this. Thanks for adding absolutely nothing new to the conversation. Let me know when you are ready to start paying attention.

  797. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by mcvos · · Score: 1

    A person who lived through the collapse of the soviet union once pointed out that in America, the only relevant political parties are the Capitalist party and the Capitalist party. Democrats and Republicans disagree on a handful of very minor issues, despite all the media trumpeting about one being "left" and one being "right."

    Putin seems to have learned that lesson too. While wanting to go back to the glory of the Soviet and Tsarist days, he also wants Russia to seem democratic. So he created two parties who are free to disagree on all sorts of minor issues, as long as they obey his doctrine in the big stuff. Real alternatives (like Kasparov's movement) get persecuted.

  798. Re:FP by torstenvl · · Score: 1

    Uh. Right. Since the Dutch have so much experience with positive African relations. I think Nelson Mandela might have a problem with the Dutch deigning to give any advice in this area whatsoever.

  799. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    "So, what's your problem, then? Were you the AC that "erroneus" was replying to?"

    No...it is just such an amazing thing that someone should think that just because someone is born a white man today, that they should implicitly have some sort of shame or guilt about anything. In this case, he was implying that a white man should have some guilt or shame associated with race relations...and could relieve it by voting for a black man.

    I was just wondering why ANYONE today would have shame or guilt for anything like slavery that happened so long ago that anyone associated with it is dead.

    It just struck me as a strange premise to begin with...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  800. God you're pathetic by Blappo · · Score: 0

    "How about we just ignore the opinions of morons instead?

    I'll start with myself.

    Fixed it for you"

    I agree Harmony, if we are ignoring the opinions of morons, you should start with yourself.

    Especially since you were so stupid you thought you could log out and troll AC like you did there.

    --
    Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
  801. Re:Two words(party leader?) by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    "However, the leader of the party that dominates congress does make laws."

    You're saying Howard Dean makes laws!??!

    Geez...why did they go through all that money and trouble to elect Obama then?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  802. Re:All I can say now is... by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

    You completely missed my point about the Taliban. I think we should have decimated the Taliban. If we were going to really do something about Al-Qaeda, we should have done it properly. We didn't.

    As far as Hussein goes: why did we target him? Think carefully on that, because Hussein was not the worst offender out there and never has been.

    --
    "Little is much when little you need."
  803. I was wrong by Quila · · Score: 1

    See here. The analysis says Fox was more for McCain than the other networks. That's obvious from the numbers. MSNBC had 7 negative stories for every positive one for McCain, but four positives for every negative for Obama. There is no way to explain that away as not being left-leaning. Meanwhile, Fox's numbers weren't quite so lopsided.

    But Fox, when comparing its own coverage of the candidates, was itself slightly biased towards Obama with the same negative coverage, but more positive and neutral coverage for Obama. In other words, Fox wasn't right-leaning, Fox was only less left-leaning than the other networks.

    So I was wrong: Fox doesn't provide a balance. The whole thing is tilted to the left.

    1. Re:I was wrong by ryanov · · Score: 1

      That doesn't negate what I said necessarily. Let's say candidate A does 10 bad things and 2 good things while candidate B does 10 good and 5 bad.

      Network A covers both good things candidate A does and 2 of the bad things. Fair and balanced, right?

      Network B covers 8 of the bad things about candidate A and both of the good ones.

      Let's move to candidate B. Let's say network A covers 5 and 5. Fair and balanced again, eh? Meanwhile, Network B covers every good and bad thing. Looks like a slant.

      My point is, the news itself can be biased. If you're covering an asshole, he might turn out to look like an asshole. Going out of your way to create coverage to make him look like a person with his good and bad points when they aren't really there is not more fair and balanced. The news should be covering the truth, no matter who it favors. McCain was arguably the worse candidate. Is Obama a great one? Not in my opinion. Neither news network, I bet you, covered how biased the candidates are toward corporate money. Newscorp and GE certainly are not interested in exposing the evils of corporate money in campaigns.

  804. Re:All I can say now is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Luckily, there will soon be a responsible adult in the White House.

    Yes, but remember the child still residing there has yet a few more months to do his dirty work.

  805. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    What, you're complaining about my subject/verb agreement? "All" is collective, and therefore plural, so "[All] are" is correct.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  806. false equivilancey by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Sen. Kerry's supporters booed his concession speech in 2004.

    Because he ignored the problems in Ohio.

    To heal the divide in this country, we must first realize that it is not one-sided.

    Oh? And where are the Democratic equivalents to Ann Coulter? Tom Delay? Dick Cheney? The US Attorney scandal? The Don Seigleman prosecution? Torture?

    No, the first step to healing this country is in prosecuting criminal Republicans, and driving the hard right into irrelevancy.

  807. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by MrMarket · · Score: 1

    Of course. This is a fuzzy area of demography and survey research. The range would be between 59% (if all self-identified Hispanic or Latino considered themselves white in the interviews) and 74% (if none of self-identified Hispanic or Latino considered themselves white) Nonetheless, 66% is still more than the "majority" cited by the GP.

  808. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by mcvos · · Score: 1

    John McCain should have won the election. He was defeated by the racist voting pattern of the African-American community. Look at the CNN statistics.

    95% of African-Americans voted for Obama.

    You mean 95% of African-Americans voted for a guy who's half white? That's terrible!

  809. Re:Two words(party leader?) by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    Chairman of Democratic National Committee != leader of Democratic Party
    Doh.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  810. Re:More than Two words by jcr · · Score: 1

    He voted for the bailout. QED.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  811. Re:More than Two words by jcr · · Score: 1

    Well, not quite. It continued for a short while further under Truman.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  812. Re:Racism? an obvious reminder by shrubya · · Score: 1

    Gays have the exact same marriage rights as everyone else. They can still marry someone of the opposite sex.

    50 years ago, most US states had laws against interracial marriage. Your exact argument was made then: no one is being discriminated against, because everyone has the same right to marry someone ... of their own ethnicity.

    50 years from now, opposition to gay marriage will look just as bigoted as our forebears' views look today. You know this is true.

  813. Re:All I can say now is... by bbroerman · · Score: 1

    Easier target than the others, probably. Why does the cop ticket the speeder at the back of the pack, who is going 11 over the limit, instead of the guy in the front going 20 over?

    I doubt W. is stupid enough to just go after him because of the 1st Gulf War, or some sort of ego trip to please his daddy... He may play stupid very well, but don't let his act fool you.

    --
    Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
  814. I'm used to it by Quila · · Score: 1

    And I can keep doing it with so much karma to burn.

  815. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by mcvos · · Score: 1

    Under Bush we all got "Stimulus checks" redistribution of wealth, we "nationalized banks", we "nationalized insurance companies", we "nationalized brokerage houses", and we gave trillions in welfare to Iraq...

    And now you're worried about socialism?

    Welcome to last year.

    Except that in Bush' case, it's not the people who benefit from it, but the corporations. And that, according to Mussolini at least, amounts to fascism, not socialism.

  816. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by Schadrach · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I have people at -1 filtered out, so I literally didn't see the post you were responding to, and only the "John McCain should have won the election." part was quoted, so I missed th joke.

  817. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

    Interesting wording... you're still here, but who exactly are you 'defending' us FROM?

    Communism? Soviet Union for 50 years and then Russia? China?

    Believe me, few things would make me happier than pulling our troops out of Europe and Asia, but it will never happen. Nor, no matter what percentage of their populace says, do their governments want us to.

    If you pull out your military now, we promise we won't start any more wars, and we're quite sure we'll be fine without you here 'defending' us.

    Not worried about you starting wars. Worried about you being steamrolled like Georgia.

    Honestly, if the US pulled out of Europe and Asia, how long do you think South Korea, Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Taiwan, UAE, and another dozen European counties would stay sovereign?

    Apparently you have forgotten NATO as well.

    Don't get me wrong, most countries are pretty thankful for some of the things the US has done in the past (e.g. the Berlin airlift that you mentioned), but it's a bit much to expect eternal and undying gratitude for just those few events

    First of all, I don't want, nor am I the person to accept your "undying gratitude" for those few events like saving and returning your country. No idea how we got on this point, but my point was that we are still in Germany, South Korea, Japan after those wars and those countries are prospering specifically because of what we did after the wars that we didn't start.

    , especially since the "rebuilding" you did was mostly because you bombed the cities to oblivion first (think of it this way: if yo hadn't bombed it, you wouldn't have had to pay to fix it...)

    Well, someone had to stop that nasty Jew killing habit of Germany.

    If you think that America didn't stop the spread of Communism throughout Europe and Asia, except GB (maybe), then you are fooling yourself.

    BTW, they started it.

  818. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  819. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  820. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by earlymon · · Score: 1

    Thanks, no problem - at the time I'd posted, the post in question was at or 4 or 5 fer cryin' out loud!

    Teaches me to maybe quote the parent in entirety sometimes.

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  821. shear luck by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    n/t.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  822. Re:Homophobic bigots from Utah amend CA constituti by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Marriage means, and always has meant, a man and a woman. Nothing has changed. Gays can still live together and fuck all they want.

    Hint: if religious fundamentalists got their way, they wouldn't make gay marriage illegal. They'd make all sex out of wedlock illegal.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  823. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Because your post made no sense... We see a majority of whites voted for Obama, yet we see 95% of all blacks voted for Obama. And it's the whites who were racially motivated in their voting patterns?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  824. Re:Racism? an obvious reminder by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    no one is being discriminated against, because everyone has the same right to marry someone ... of their own ethnicity.

    But in that case, a black woman is treated differently (can marry black man/can't marry white man) than a white woman (can marry white man/can't marry black man). A gay man can marry the same type of person (woman) that I can, and we are both restricted from the same type of person (men). In what way have we been treated differently?

    50 years from now, opposition to gay marriage will look just as bigoted as our forebears' views look today. You know this is true.

    I'm sure future generations will wonder what the hell the big deal was. This generation is much more comfortable with gays than previous generations. In the course of just eight years, California has already gone from 61% opposed to gay marriage (proposition 22 in 2000) to 52% opposed (proposition 8, 2008). And I'm sure the next generation will be even more wiling to allow gay marriage.

    I think the gay rights group has taken the wrong track with screaming that it is a civil rights issue and that people against it are just a bunch of bigoted homophobes. All I saw were ads that used the words 'discrimination', 'wrong', and other inflammatory words. I think a better track would have been to show pictures of the happy newly married couples, and talk about how great an institution marriage is, and that we should encourage as many people as possible to try it.

    And Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown abusing their powers trying to shove it down everyone's throats isn't helping there cause one damn bit. Most polls showed the 'No' vote winning until the video of Newsom smugly saying "Whether you like it or not, it's gonna happen!"

  825. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    My post made no sense? We were sitting here discussing how the vote statistics were affected by the blacks voting according to race, then I mention how that was offset by the whites also voting according to race. Then along you come and happily remind us to consider the effects of blacks voting according to race. Thanks, we hadn't thought of that.

  826. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    Oh, yeah. I almost forgot:

    We see a majority of whites voted for Obama

    White Men = 41% Obama, 57% McCain
    White Women = 46% Obama, 53% McCain

    You might want to double-check the definition of majority. And I'm the one whose post doesn't make sense?

  827. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by dangitman · · Score: 1

    In this case, he was implying that a white man should have some guilt or shame associated with race relations...and could relieve it by voting for a black man.

    I don't think so, he was responding to somebody who obviously had some kind of guilt or complex about race. Acknowledging it is the starting point to working through it.

    What I find odd is that rather than acknowledge that some white people feel this way, you react in this defensive fashion, proclaiming your lack of guilt.

    I was just wondering why ANYONE today would have shame or guilt for anything like slavery that happened so long ago that anyone associated with it is dead.

    What's so hard to understand about it? People who share the same social grouping and ancestry as ourselves committed atrocities. It's sort of like - what if somebody in your family murdered someone - would you not feel slightly embarrassed about having a name and bloodline in common with that person?

    Or what about when when a redneck spouts ignorant racist rhetoric, or commits violence against other races? Don't you feel like some of that negative perception affects you, even if you didn't partake in the racism?

    Then there's the fact that much of what white people have today (status, power, wealth) still derives from the slave-holding era, and the ongoing inequality that followed it. How can you not feel a little uneasy about that idea? If you were born black, you likely wouldn't have had the same chances. Humans are social creatures with cultures and shared experiences that go well beyond our own lifetimes.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  828. Re:More than Two words by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

    He voted for the bailout. QED.

    So you think if McCain won, he would also have worsened the depression.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  829. Re:More than Two words by jcr · · Score: 1

    So you think if McCain won, he would also have worsened the depression.

    Yes, definitely.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  830. Re:More than Two words by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

    Out of curiosity - is there anyone you think could improve the situation?

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  831. Re:More than Two words by boarder8925 · · Score: 1

    Ron Paul.

  832. Yet another ad hominem attack from a lefty by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    Once, just once in my life, I'd like to find an intellectually honest liberal who didn't reflexively jump to ad hominem attacks when their precious little worldviews are challenged. You lefties claim to like dissent, but I guess it is only when it is you doing it. Otherwise, said dissenters are "small minded."

    No, I think the "small minded" were the people who said before the election that only racism could explain an Obama loss. As opposed to the fact that a guy who is an empty suit with no resume to speak of, and *zero* legislative accomplishments as a senator might not be qualified to be leader of the free world. POTUS is not supposed to be an entry-level job. I'd like to see some experience first, and his backers actually point to some accomplishments other than "wow, he's so cool!" It's scary, like some fucking cult, seeing these glassy-eyed Obamites looking at him like he is the messiah. And why? What exactly has the guy done, other than be an (admittedly) articulate black man?

    So please excuse my "small mind" if I suspect, after hearing so many people talking about the "historic election of a black man as president," that said historic nature of his candidacy might have factored in to some of the Obama voters' minds. Please.

    I'm sorry if your scientific sample of your circle friends (who say that raising taxes is good for the economy and bending over and doing what other countries want us to do is best for our foreign policy) tells you otherwise, but IMO, this was the ultimate affirmative action hire, the ultimate leap of faith, about a guy we know nothing about, who has no accomplishments to speak of other than running for office, and hasn't run so much as a taco stand, let alone a city or a state.

    Wow, "well-spoken, articulate, extremely intelligent, calm facing the most nasty lies about him, and a genuinely good human being." Sounds like my grandma. Maybe we should make her president!

    LOL, I guess you have seen his IQ test and SATs, and have known him personally for years to know all of these things about his character. But wait, I thought character was off limits! We can't talk about the fact that he launched his career at the house of a terrorist, sat in the pew of a racist, America-hating lunatic preacher (his spiritual mentor) for 20 years, and had financial dealings and a personal friendship with a corrupt slumlord. But he's so cool!

    Now, go back to your personality cult worship until January 20th, when we will all see how this magical "change" occurs

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  833. Wait, what? by isBandGeek() · · Score: 1

    What election?

  834. Re:More than Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ron Paul's a crank.

    The US would be up shit creek if he was in charge!

  835. Re:W00t! Welfare for all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under Bush we all got "Stimulus checks" redistribution of wealth, we "nationalized banks", we "nationalized insurance companies", we "nationalized brokerage houses", and we gave trillions in welfare to Iraq...

    And now you're worried about socialism?

    Welcome to last year.

    I have to completely agree with your statement. The philosophy behind much of the last 30 years has been that of cutting taxes and then increasing spending of the military, and foreign projects. A truly conservative approach to government and foreign policy would that of modesty in government, and a decrease in spending. Government is no more efficient in foreign statecraft than it is in its domestic projects.

    The idea that we're currently moving towards socialism as defined by the Republican campaign and popular media really then has to be applied to the history of American policy. If our nation is socialist because of taxation, then we have been for a very long time. We're not a socialist system, but a capitalist welfare state.

    We must quit with the current approach to foreign policy as it is neither efficient, pragmatic, or moral. Imagine what those billions could have been used to achieve either through the market or through domestic projects (as inefficient as they are).

  836. Re:More than Two words by jcr · · Score: 1

    Sure, thousands of people.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  837. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
    OK, fine, I was wrong the breakout.

    .
    So 44% of whites voting for the black candidate is racist; 5% of blacks voting for the white candidate is not racist.

    Just want to make sure I understand how this works...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  838. Re:More than Two words by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

    Wow! I'm convinced! Sounds like a just the person I'd trust to the job!

    Awesome! Can you tell me more about this new political force? I'm going to try to become a US citizen by 2012, just so I can vote for "Thousands of people"

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  839. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
    Oh one thing I forgot to add...

    .
    In 2004, 40% of whites voted for John Kerry; in 2008, 43% of whites voted for Obama. So, while a small change, more whites voted for Obama - percentagewise - than voted for Kerry. They've voted more for the black Democrat candidate than a previous white Democrat candidate.

    Of course, the black votes were 11% for Bush in 2004, and 5% for McCain in 2008, showing a pretty dramatic change - in absolute AND relative measures - in the racial bias of this election.

    So white guys increasing their vote by 10% for the black Democrat candidate as compared to the previous white candidate is racist. Blacks dropping their vote by 50% for the current white Republican as compared to 4 years ago is not racist.

    Got it.

    Source for stats: CNN 2004 election results.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  840. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    No, I don't think you understand. You must be too ignorant. I wasn't saying any portion was or was not racists. I was saying that IF you want too conclude that 30% over the non-white, non-black average is racists, then you should also conclude that 20% under that same average is also racist in the opposite direction. Then I went on to emphasize that there are other factors that can explain the difference than race, but that if you really want to try to peg it on something, there are some other silly things that explain it equally well.

    I can't beleive I have to sit here and summarize this entire conversation for you? First you are too lazy (or stupid?) to read it, so you come in proposing something that was the entire basis of the start of the conversation, and now you are making claims that don't even fit with what's been said up to this point. Really, if you can't keep up with the adult conversation, do yourself a favor and go play in the sandbox.

  841. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    Sigh....You aren't even worth the time. You can't even seem to understand how many factors there are here that influence things. You appear to want to peg this all onto a single issue like race, and are making all these arguments. Gee, have you bothered to consider things like how much higher turnout was this time, how many people were discouraged from voting in the past that voted this time, etc?

    Lower income people were more impacted under bush than were higher income. They are also the ones that will see a larger benefit under Obama than McCain, which means voting for Obama would be in their financial interest (at least short term, which is what most people think about). Lets see...what race typically has the lower income jobs. So there are a couple factors there, and it only took me a minute to think of them. Imagine what you could do with your mind if you actually used it to think for a minute, instead of just propagating racist agenda.

    But I understand. You want to blame everything on racism, so you appear to be racist yourself. Why don't you just come out and say it: "McCain lost this election because those damn niggers are racist".

    Got it.

  842. Re:More than Two words by jcr · · Score: 1

    You didn't ask for a particular recommendation, smart ass.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  843. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

    >> J.C. once said (as translated) "The poor you will always have with you".

    Yea, I remember reading that in his catalogue as a kid.

    --
    Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
  844. Oh, of course you don't mean that. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    If everyone only had to pay for the physical infrastructure they used, taxes would be a small fraction of what they are now.

    Oh, pardon me. I was referring to things other than roads and bridges and such; I was referring to food that's not full of mushed-up rats, drugs that actually do what they say they do, streets that aren't full of starving old people, and all the other things which separate us from a neofeudal nightmare.

    Most libertarians I know enjoy civilization, and pay good money to use its services.

    Yes. Because they don't take their batshit ideas seriously.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Oh, of course you don't mean that. by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      Oh, pardon me. I was referring to things other than roads and bridges and such; I was referring to food that's not full of mushed-up rats, drugs that actually do what they say they do, streets that aren't full of starving old people, and all the other things which separate us from a neofeudal nightmare.

      None of that is infrastructure, it's government regulation and welfare. There's no reason why the market cannot take care of all of those things. Who wants to put mushed-up rats into the food they sell? The government isn't preventing snake oil from being sold, basic foods are cheap and widely available, and the only places where homelessness is a problem are those places with strict rent-control and "anti-slumlord" laws.

  845. I have facts. You have bluster. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Nobody who believes in liberty has made such a distinction. Your argument is a strawman.

    My argument is a strawman? Obama's tax plan has been widely publicized; the only taxes he's raising are on the ridiculously wealthy, which will be brought up to Clintonian levels. McCain's would not have. That's the difference--as I said, 4.6% on the top marginal tax rate. For this, Obama is apparently a socialist. If there's some other portion of his actual stated tax policy which reeks to you of socialism, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

    'Course, all of this apparently means that America chooses socialism. I'll be hailing our new commissars any moment now, I'm sure.

    I can't tell what you mean by your particular iteration of No-True-Scotsman, as I doubt you could find anyone who doesn't "believe in liberty". Try a little harder to not speak in libertarian code words. (No, I don't think "liberty" is a dirty word; I just have a sense that you're using it to mean something very specific.) I know that libertarianism does some horrific things to language, but try not to do them, just for a few moments here.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:I have facts. You have bluster. by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      the only taxes he's raising are on the ridiculously wealthy

      An income of $250,000 per year does not make one "ridiculously wealthy".

      That's the difference--as I said, 4.6% on the top marginal tax rate. For this, Obama is apparently a socialist.

      Obama was called a socialist based on his comment about "spread(ing) the wealth around". Who believes that a 35% tax rate on income over 300 some odd thousand dollars is "rugged individualism"?

  846. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Your tolerance is amazing! Thanks for your stunning display of unity and coming together... Only five ad hominem attacks in two paragraphs. I'm sure Obama would be proud!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  847. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    A) I never ran on a campaign of coming together with others, so I'm not sure what you are trying to get me on there.

    B) I have no interest in coming together with people who clearly have racist principals (as you appear to, with your "Obama won because blacks are racist" stance). Yes, racists are just ignorant people who need to be educated, but educating them is not my job, nor do I desire it to be (I prefer spending my time doing things that aren't virtually certain to fail).

  848. Re:More than Two words by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

    Learn some social skills. Then, rather than being a pedantic pain in the ass, you'll be able to understand the implied as well as explicit content of people's statements.

    Read the above several times - it will help you in your social life as well as on slashdot.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  849. Re:More than Two words by jcr · · Score: 1

    Learn some social skills.

    That's advice you would do well to take, troll.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  850. "The news should be covering the truth" by Quila · · Score: 1

    Correct, but that did not happen here. There is simply no way Obama had a 28:1 ratio of good to bad in reality compared to McCain. That sounds like straight-up guy vs. a criminal.

    The businesses rely on some sort of disconnect when it comes to their money. AT&T emblazoned their logo on bags for the Democratic convention around the time the Democratic-run Congress passed the telecom amnesty. Nobody seemed to care. It's like people care in general, but nobody goes after a specific company for doing it unless that company later does something bad, like Enron.

    And even then people don't necessarily care. Obama was able to lay blame for Fannie May and Freddie Mac on the Republicans, yet he is the second-highest recipient of their money in only a couple years in office, ahead of senators who have been taking their money for decades. Nobody seemed to care.

    It's all in the selling, not in the facts. Obama was just a better salesman, with the help of his press corps, uh, I mean the media.

    1. Re:"The news should be covering the truth" by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Agreed there -- neither of them is any good on issues related to corporate influence. This is where America lost even if they think their party won. People don't understand the way the system works now, though. Lots of parts of this economic criss are not well understood by the general public and I think that's muting some of the outrage.

      I doubt it's 28:1 (curious if any group has done any real statistics), but when you choose a running mate who can't name the three countries involved in NAFTA and doesn't know that Africa isn't a country (all reported by Republican staffers), you're bound to take some shit in the press.

    2. Re:"The news should be covering the truth" by Quila · · Score: 1

      I doubt it's 28:1

      7 positive for every negative, and 4 negative for every positive. Obama has a 7:1, McCain 1:4, the ratio between is 28:1.

      when you choose a running mate who can't name the three countries involved in NAFTA and doesn't know that Africa isn't a country (all reported by Republican staffers)

      And later debunked.

  851. Re:More than Two words by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

    That's advice you would do well to take, troll.

    As they say... "takes one to know one". Troll.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  852. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    "What's so hard to understand about it? People who share the same social grouping and ancestry as ourselves committed atrocities. It's sort of like - what if somebody in your family murdered someone - would you not feel slightly embarrassed about having a name and bloodline in common with that person?

    Or what about when when a redneck spouts ignorant racist rhetoric, or commits violence against other races? Don't you feel like some of that negative perception affects you, even if you didn't partake in the racism?"

    Nope....not at all.

    "Then there's the fact that much of what white people have today (status, power, wealth) still derives from the slave-holding era, and the ongoing inequality that followed it. How can you not feel a little uneasy about that idea?"

    Again....it was a LONG time ago, it is time to get over it, and move on. How long exactly should we wallow in the past. I think it is time to get over it, and that anyone that uses that today is using it as a crutch. Time to get out of the pity party, and move on with life and today's opportunities.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  853. Re:Yes it can: was Re:Nothing important will chang by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

    well, i guess that depends on what you mean by important. To me his race never mattered I suppose to many people it does, but I was never raised that way. If you support him primarily because of his race that is just as wrong and racist and voting agianst him because of it.

    From my prespective this election was between two candidates , one who is inherently immoral in his thought process and one who was incompitent. The immoral candidate won, because people voted thier pocket book and now millions of people will pay with thier lives , because he will ensure legalized abortion continues.

    Personally I would have rather Alley Keys been the first black president. He would have been better then either of the candidates who were run by the two major parties.

    I consider his election a defeat for America , he will make change all right. The wrong kind.

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  854. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by dangitman · · Score: 1

    Nope....not at all.

    Then I'm guessing you lack empathy, perhaps some sort of Asperger's like condition?

    Again....it was a LONG time ago, it is time to get over it, and move on.

    No, it wasn't a long time ago, and racism has continued to this day. You really think that when slavery ended, race relations were just hunky-dory? Again, it's likely that as a white person, even today, your lifestyle and status has benefited from a racist society.

    How long exactly should we wallow in the past.

    I never said anything about wallowing. But we also shouldn't sweep it under the rug, which is what you appear to be doing. We still need to deal with racial issues, not pretend they don't exist.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  855. Infrastructure, schminfrastructure. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    None of that is infrastructure, it's government regulation and welfare.

    They're vital components of the civilization you live in. They're things that everyone benefits from, whether or not they paid for them individually.

    There's no reason why the market cannot take care of all of those things.

    Except that it's been tried, and failed miserably. The unexpected tragedy-farce of an era in which these problems no longer exist is that we apparently forget why the solutions we put in place were created.

    Who wants to put mushed-up rats into the food they sell?

    If it's cheaper to fire the ratcatcher, they will. They did, in the early 20th century. This is why we have the FDA and the USDA. (Both of which have been cut back so far that they can't reasonably inspect this country's food supply at this point.)

    The government isn't preventing snake oil from being sold, basic foods are cheap and widely available, and the only places where homelessness is a problem are those places with strict rent-control and "anti-slumlord" laws.

    Try and sell laudanum as a cure for cancer, and see how far you get. (I suppose the DEA would get you before the FDA did, but they'd both want a piece.) Basic foods are cheap and widely available largely because of programs like WIC and we don't have massive shantytowns because of Section 8.

    If you're attempting to make an argument for libertarianism by pointing out the problems that we don't currently have, you're doing a terrible job of it.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Infrastructure, schminfrastructure. by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      They're vital components of the civilization you live in. They're things that everyone benefits from, whether or not they paid for them individually.

      Civilization existed for thousands of years before the modern regulatory and welfare state.

      Except that it's been tried, and failed miserably. The unexpected tragedy-farce of an era in which these problems no longer exist is that we apparently forget why the solutions we put in place were created.

      The market did not "fail miserably". What problems there were with meatpacking, for example, were well on their way to being remedied when the Pure Food and Drug Act came about. The only thing the Pure Food and Drug Act did was limit competition at the behest of big meatpacking firms, representatives of such firms being the ones who wrote and oversaw the regulations.

      If it's cheaper to fire the ratcatcher, they will. They did, in the early 20th century. This is why we have the FDA and the USDA. (Both of which have been cut back so far that they can't reasonably inspect this country's food supply at this point.)

      So where are all the rats?

      Try and sell laudanum as a cure for cancer, and see how far you get. (I suppose the DEA would get you before the FDA did, but they'd both want a piece.)

      But there are still people selling snake oil. Yet most people see through their scams.

      Basic foods are cheap and widely available largely because of programs like WIC

      Rice and beans and other basic foods are cheap and widely available, and would continue to be if WIC were eliminated. WIC exerts no downward pressure on their prices. What the US government does do however, is exert upward pressure on food prices through tariffs and agricultural policy.

      and we don't have massive shantytowns because of Section 8.

      If capitalism causes shanty towns, we should expect to see more shanty towns in more capitalist places, instead of less capitalist places. We do not in fact see that.

  856. McCain *is* apparently a socialist. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    An income of $250,000 per year does not make one "ridiculously wealthy".

    According to the Current Population Survey, less than two percent of households make over a quarter million per year. That's less than one in fifty. (Note that this is households, not individuals, as well.) It's a tiny, tiny slice. These people are the few, the elite, and it's insane to hold our nation hostage to their whims.

    Obama was called a socialist based on his comment about "spread(ing) the wealth around".

    Here, I'll quote McCain in 2000, arguing that people who make more should pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes, which is by definition a leveling of income.

    McCain: So, look, here's what I really believe, that when you are -- reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

    Ooh, looks like we dodged a socialist bullet there.

    Who believes that a 35% tax rate on income over 300 some odd thousand dollars is "rugged individualism"?

    Wasn't Bush an avatar of rugged individualism, an incarnation of the free market itself?

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:McCain *is* apparently a socialist. by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      According to the Current Population Survey, less than two percent of households make over a quarter million per year. That's less than one in fifty. (Note that this is households, not individuals, as well.) It's a tiny, tiny slice. These people are the few, the elite, and it's insane to hold our nation hostage to their whims.

      $250,000 per year does not make you "ridiculously wealthy". Far more than two percent of the population can expect to make such an income at some point in their lives, and the number of people in that category is always shifting.

      Wasn't Bush an avatar of rugged individualism, an incarnation of the free market itself?

      No.

  857. Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community by ifwm · · Score: 0

    The white vote DID NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY, which is the point you seem too stupid to get.

    And said point makes your entire whiny diatribe irrelevant.

    Fuck off now before you say something else wrong and stupid.

  858. Re:Democrats and Republicans represent the same id by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They aren't capitalist parties. Capitalism requires free, competitive markets not burdened by regulation which only top 500 companies have the resources to comply with. Corporatism is more like it.

  859. You're making my point for me. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Civilization existed for thousands of years before the modern regulatory and welfare state.

    Yes, and it was, where larger than a simple tribal band, pyramid-shaped, with a wealthy few atop masses of exploited laborers.

    The market did not "fail miserably". What problems there were with meatpacking, for example, were well on their way to being remedied when the Pure Food and Drug Act came about. The only thing the Pure Food and Drug Act did was limit competition at the behest of big meatpacking firms, representatives of such firms being the ones who wrote and oversaw the regulations.

    That's quite an assertion. Care to back it up?

    So where are all the rats?

    Well, there's been a sharp uptick in meat recalls due to contamination--that's "shit in the meat", in the vernacular--recently. Please do explain how there's not actually shit in the meat, though; I'd like to hear this.

    But there are still people selling snake oil. Yet most people see through their scams.

    There are laws regulating how these things can be labeled and what they can contain, which is why people aren't overdosing their kids on unlabeled laudanum.

    Rice and beans and other basic foods are cheap and widely available, and would continue to be if WIC were eliminated. WIC exerts no downward pressure on their prices. What the US government does do however, is exert upward pressure on food prices through tariffs and agricultural policy.

    Wait, you're pointing to US agricultural subsidies as something which makes basic staple foods expensive? How?

    If capitalism causes shanty towns, we should expect to see more shanty towns in more capitalist places, instead of less capitalist places. We do not in fact see that.

    Please, please tell that to the inhabitants of those things-which-are-not-shanty-towns outside any major city where globalization has taken hold.

    And, again, I'm pointing out that Section 8 and the like are keeping people out of shantytowns, and you're responding that we don't have shantytowns here in the United States. Do you think you're arguing against my point?

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca