Obama Won!

[mstuk]

I remember what it was like being 22 and thinking I knew everything and had all the answers. Well, fortunately I grew up started a family and had to begin worrying about their well being. So forgive me for "bashing" liberals who I sincerely believe stand between me and my families well being. It very easy to be liberal when you are young. Whats the saying "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."

It seems to me that under the Republican president of the last 8 years you family are worse off financially and live in a world that is far more dangerous for them so I consider your arguement to be rather specious I am afraid.

[Never3putt]

It seems to me that under the Republican president of the last 8 years you family are worse off financially and live in a world that is far more dangerous for them so I consider your arguement to be rather specious I am afraid.

While this was a good political talking point, when one did the actual research rather than rely on campaign rhetoric, these points are inaccurate. With the exception of the recent worldwide economic situation, people in the US are better off financially than they were before and the world is growing increasingly more dangerous regardless of who was or wasn't the US President. Obviously, there are exceptions and there are people who were worse off financially, but there are generally reasons other than US policy that mitigated those circumstances. It's easy to blame someone else for our own weaknesses.

[mstuk]

While this was a good political talking point, when one did the actual research rather than rely on campaign rhetoric, these points are inaccurate. With the exception of the recent worldwide economic situation, people in the US are better off financially than they were before and the world is growing increasingly more dangerous regardless of who was or wasn't the US President. Obviously, there are exceptions and there are people who were worse off financially, but there are generally reasons other than US policy that mitigated those circumstances. It's easy to blame someone else for our own weaknesses.

Well we can't overlook the current economic situation since it has been created by an almost total lack of regulation of the capital and derivatives markets in the USA allied with almost completely unrestrained lending also in the US.

As to your second point it should be clear even to the most patrotic of Americans that your foreign policy during the Bush years has made the world a much more dangerous place and indeed it could be argued had contributed more to this situation than anything else.

[Never3putt]

Well we can't overlook the current economic situation since it has been created by an almost total lack of regulation of the capital and derivatives markets in the USA allied with almost completely unrestrained lending also in the US.

But this isn't something that started during the current administration and isn't the cause of one man's actions. This has been an ongoing situation since the late 70's. The housing crisis was the direct result of relaxed regulations on lending, corporate greed (and downright dishonest practices), and a host of other issues that were not the policies of administration, but rather acts of legislation. There's plenty of blame to go around here from the current and past administrations, current and past legislative branches, the industry itself, and personal responsibilities. Again, it's easy to try to blame one party or one facet, but that falls short of accuracy.

As to your second point it should be clear even to the most patrotic of Americans that your foreign policy during the Bush years has made the world a much more dangerous place and indeed it could be argued had contributed more to this situation than anything else.

Terrorist groups have been striking out at other nations (US, UK, Israel) etc for a lot longer than 8 years. There were numerous instances of attacks by these groups, including attacks on embassies, a US ship, and others. Condemning these attacks and doing little else certainly didn't stop them. Had the US taken no action following the attacks of 9-11, would Al Quaeda have raised their arms in victory and struck no more? Would Iran and Korea have said "oh yeah, we don't really need nukes"? Would Iraq's monster of a dictator suddenly said "wow, I should really stop this genocide"? Somehow, I find it difficult to buy your argument that George Bush's policies on fighting terror caused more violence in this world. Had he done nothing, the violence would still exist and I'm fairly certain would have escalated further. Could Bush have handled things better? Certainly. But I just don't buy the "he caused it" argument.

I've already done much more political talk than I prefer to do, so I'm going to have to force myself to quit reading the comments here. I'd rather talk golf. Peace unto all.

[mstuk]

But this isn't something that started during the current administration and isn't the cause of one man's actions. This has been an ongoing situation since the late 70's. The housing crisis was the direct result of relaxed regulations on lending, corporate greed (and downright dishonest practices), and a host of other issues that were not the policies of administration, but rather acts of legislation. There's plenty of blame to go around here from the current and past administrations, current and past legislative branches, the industry itself, and personal responsibilities. Again, it's easy to try to blame one party or one facet, but that falls short of accuracy.

Living in London I am well aware of the acts of terrorism carried out by the IRA , apparently many of your counrtymen were not until 9/11 however given the amount of fund raising that went on in the US. As to your assertion that George Bush's policies have not caused more violence in the world well thats just plain laughable.

[Rusty2228]

Living in London I am well aware of the acts of terrorism carried out by the IRA , apparently many of your counrtymen were not until 9/11 however given the amount of fund raising that went on in the US. As to your assertion that George Bush's policies have not caused more violence in the world well thats just plain laughable.

I am actually disappointed in Obama. Today he is sitting down with a leader of a country that invaded another country without provocation without preconditions... He is headed to the white house to meet with Bush.

[Never3putt]

Living in London I am well aware of the acts of terrorism carried out by the IRA , apparently many of your counrtymen were not until 9/11 however given the amount of fund raising that went on in the US. As to your assertion that George Bush's policies have not caused more violence in the world well thats just plain laughable.

Actually, many of my countrymen were well aware of terrorism prior to 9/11, not only against our country, but yours and others, as well. A wider scope of vision might enable you to see beyond what you read in the papers. Newspapers sell sensationalism. To me, the media has done much more harm worldwide than they have good. They rarely report beyond the immediate appearance and generally invoke their own political agendas into their text, stating more opinion than fact. I am not defending the policies of this administration, nor of the US in general. I'm merely pointing out that things are never as black and white as they appear on the surface. To place the entire blame of the world's problems onto the shoulders of one man's policies is short sighted. The scope of the worlds violence is far reaching and well beyond George Bush's policies. I firmly believe that the violence will continue to escalate under the policies of the next US administration. Now, Obama has promised to change from Bush's policies. All well and good. I just don't see Hamas, Al Quaeda, Iran, and Korea, not to mention what Russia is doing to suddenly change their policies because Obama reverses any policies Bush had in play. Hopefully, I'm dead wrong and the world suddenly is at peace....somehow, I don't think that will be the case. And darn it! I said I was going to refrain from this type of discussion .... grrrrr ..... I'm going to the golf course....see ya!

[NM Golf]

I find it laughable that people want to blame George Bush for making it a dangerous world. You can go on forever blaming him but what about the terrorists themselves? Are they not to blame. They are extremists, and you can play nice to them all you want, put out your signs for peace, and hope for everyone to just get along, but at the end of the day all they want is you dead. You cannot negotiate with crazy. The muslim extremist factions like al Qaeda don't negotiate. They don't care one bit who is the president. They don't care that George Bush is leaving. They will still go on doing what they do, trying to find a way to take over the world and kill as many westerners in the process as they possibly can.

[pjsnyc]

Since when did this become a 'George Bush is the real terrorist' thread? Way to go guys - way to dump negativity in a thread with the subject line 'Obama Won!'

As for those who blame W. for making the world a more dangerous place - remember the original WTC bombings in the 90s?

On the other hand, I seem to recall W. invading a country that apparently HAD no ties to Al Qaeda. Emphasis on 'HAD'...Honestly, I don't know what to think anymore.

[mstuk]

Actually, many of my countrymen were well aware of terrorism prior to 9/11, not only against our country, but yours and others, as well. A wider scope of vision might enable you to see beyond what you read in the papers. Newspapers sell sensationalism. To me, the media has done much more harm worldwide than they have good. They rarely report beyond the immediate appearance and generally invoke their own political agendas into their text, stating more opinion than fact.

Sorry to drag you back in brother but that's in the nature of debate I guess . one point I would like to make to you given your several referances to my reading choices perhaps you should read the posts you reply to , at no pont did I agrue that the current world economic problems were caused only by George . W . Bush furthermore I never suggested that he was responsible for all the worlds violence. What I said in reply to a previous post was that I thought the gentlemen who felt his family would be safer and better off under a republican Government was making a specious arguement which ignored the evidence of the last eight years.So I am afraid to say that the only myopia appears to be yours .

Prior to when your country became the victim of an act of barbaric terrorism carried out in it's own borders there is no doubt that the vast majority of non state sponsored funding for the IRA came for the USA . It was clear that the IRA was veiwed by a number of Irish americans as a group of freedom fighters rather than terrorists and successive US goverments did little to curtail these fund raising activities. I am glad you mention Hammas I believe that the Bush administration refused to recognise democratically elected officials of hammas Not a great example of democracy in action . Your points regarding Iran and North Korea with regard to the use of atomic weapons whilst having some merit do overlook the fact that your counrty is the only one to have used these weapons . Regarding Al Quaeda I would agree with you entirely they are an organisation that utterly digsusts me and I fully support the actions of our goverments in Afghanistan however dont suggest to me for a minute that Iraq has anything to do with Al quaeda . Whilst I aslo would not argue that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who got what he desearved I am quite this was something that should have been undertaken during the first Gulf War , the second Gulf war was in my opinion motivated by a desire of US admistration to secure a more influential position in the middle east and to secure a future reliable oil supply. I will leave you to ponder a discussion that myself and a pal had the other day . We are both in our middle forties and can both remember when we were growing up the US was pehaps the most admired and respected country in the world , how did the US become one of the least respected and most disliked countries in the world in the space of 40 years ? To get back on track Barrack Obama gives me hope that the situation can be reversed and I pray to God that he can achieve this because that will make the world a better place for all of us .

[ganjagolfer]

as jubilant as some are about barack's victory, its sad, kay hagan, a godless atheist who doesn't believe in god was elected to the senate, from god-fearing north carolina no less

[Undr Par]

the ironic outcome of all this is, 95% African Americans voted for Obama, why is that? many of whom had never even voted before, was it his message/promises of the world, stars, moon etc.....hmm......or was it his color? that is a question well worth pondering imho......true many voted because they believed his theories, but more then not they voted simply because of race....slice it, cut it, fold it any way you would like but the truth remains this nation is still divided and will be when it come to race....sad thing is it's a part of life that seems not to be able to be removed....

[golf_junkie27]

the ironic outcome of all this is, 95% African Americans voted for Obama, why is that? many of whom had never even voted before, was it his message/promises of the world, stars, moon etc.....hmm......or was it his color? that is a question well worth pondering imho......true many voted because they believed his theories, but more then not they voted simply because of race....slice it, cut it, fold it any way you would like but the truth remains this nation is still divided and will be when it come to race....sad thing is it's a part of life that seems not to be able to be removed....

Maybe they voted for him because he holds two Ivy League degrees, is young and charismatic, is bi-racial, crosses cultural, racial and economic lines, is a product of divorce and a stereotype that he absolutely destroyed. He also represents the type of leadership that people of color have never seen before on a national level. Yeah, he has some issues, who does'nt. For all the talk about his 'terrorist" ties, it was McCain who gave a grant to a group led by a man with supposed ties to the PLO.. but I digress. Think about the history of African Americans in this country and then ask yourself why would they not vote for him ? No voting rights until the late 60s, lack of full integration until the same time period, having to deal with the stigma of Affirmative Action (how would you like to feel you're a token even when you have an MBA from an Ivy League institution?), etc. Look up how people of color voted, previously. George Bush put out his Latino nephew at the RNC and received nearly 50% of the Hispanic vote. Coincidence? Do hispanics vote conservatively? Or did they vote this way because of his nephew? Not likely, right? Perhaps, just perhaps, they voted for him not soley because he was black but because he represented better options and someone that they felt could provide true leadership for their community and their country. Unless, of course, you believe that the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Charles Rangel do so, already.

[Chilli Dipper]

the ironic outcome of all this is, 95% African Americans voted for Obama, why is that? many of whom had never even voted before, was it his message/promises of the world, stars, moon etc.....hmm......or was it his color? that is a question well worth pondering imho......true many voted because they believed his theories, but more then not they voted simply because of race....slice it, cut it, fold it any way you would like but the truth remains this nation is still divided and will be when it come to race....sad thing is it's a part of life that seems not to be able to be removed....

You do know that Al Gore and John Kerry won 90% and 88% of the black vote, respectively, in the last two elections, right? Obama's nomination may have brought formerly apathetic African-Americans to the polls, but the final figure is not at all inconsistent with the election results for any recent Democratic candidate. Republicans have been hopeless in their attempts to court black voters; the fact that McCain was the flag bearer for the opposition to institute Martin Luther King Day as a national holiday in the 1980s wasn't exactly going to change that perception this year.

[EquipmentJunkie]

As a half white and half black guy I tried to get two votes but the registrar just wouldn't have it.

[Undr Par]

Maybe they voted for him because he holds two Ivy League degrees, is young and charismatic, is bi-racial, crosses cultural, racial and economic lines,

I hope you realize that both of these comments of yours are a conflict of interest....

First, you state he has the qualifications of being the President of the United States with your above mentioned qualities that he has Secondly, you follow it up with the oppression of the black race in the 60's and what not and state, why would they not vote for him... you just proved my exact point with your response....thank you very much. oh and by the way, for the other poster who stated that Gore and Kerry received 90% and 88% of African American vote, your correct but my point was, IF YOU READ MY THREAD, that alot of Blacks who voted for Obama had never voted before until this election (funny isn't to say the least) ....and oh by the way, ask yourself this......"Didn't they have to vote for someone anyways in those elections?" ...

[golf_junkie27]

I hope you realize that both of these comments of yours are a conflict of interest....

Right, that was my point. He's someone who is more than qualified to hold that position. Furthermore, when you combine those attributes with someone who represents their race, someone who's overcome the same oppression and has risen above it, why would they not vote for him?

It's not solely race, it's what he represents. Furthermore, very few blacks vote Republican. What did you expect? For that to change?

[T.J.K.]

oh and by the way, for the other poster who stated that Gore and Kerry received 90% and 88% of African American vote, your correct but my point was, IF YOU READ MY THREAD, that alot of Blacks who voted for Obama had never voted before until this election (funny isn't to say the least) ....and oh by the way, ask yourself this......"Didn't they have to vote for someone anyways in those elections?" ...

Everything I have read has said that the African-American vote was only up from like 11% in 2004, to 14% in 2008. Not all that drastic.

Sure some people voted for him cause he is black. Some white hillbilly's probably voted for McCain cause he isn't black. It happens. Also, I like to think that more people voted because the democratic party finally had someone they could get excited about.