38
   

People are saying some really ugly things here in Texas....

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 11:08 am
@cjhsa,
cjhsa wrote:

Texas barbecue tastes like they smoked a cow plop and called it brisket.


Well, I forgive your ignorance.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 11:26 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

What I don't understand is why this is coming out now. It's been apparent that Obama was going to win for a few weeks now. His lead in the polls has been consistent since the second debate. You would think that all the gnashing of teeth would have been over by now. CJ et al knew this day was coming for a while.


Many people never really believed it possible that a "black" man would be elected as president (at least, not in their lifetime). I noticed as election day drew closer and closer, the "ranting" became more and more desperate as people searched for reasons (other than skin color, i.e., lack of trust, etc.) to convince others to reject Obama. Yesterday, one person near and dear to me apologized for his ranting. He told me that his parents were prejudiced and he was born prejudiced. He admitted that he tried to fight off his prejudice, but he was afraid that electing a black man as our president meant that "black people" would be "in control" of our country. I reassured him that this was their country too--this country belongs to ALL Americans of every color. I don't know where the fear comes from, but this election is forcing people to face their irrational fears and, hopefully, to put them to rest.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 12:09 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

What I don't understand is why this is coming out now. It's been apparent that Obama was going to win for a few weeks now. His lead in the polls has been consistent since the second debate. You would think that all the gnashing of teeth would have been over by now. CJ et al knew this day was coming for a while.

T has been telling me that folks managed to supress their overt racism (mostly) during the race, but that a backlash is to be expected.

0 Replies
 
MagicBlackCat
 
  3  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 12:51 pm
I voted Obama but I am very surprised to see all the hype about him being the first black pres. I'd like to see the focus more on the record breaking voter turn out and his 'actions' that will make him a good pres. Actions speak. His skin color does not.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 12:54 pm
@MagicBlackCat,
Clinton claimed to be the first black president.

0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 12:55 pm
@MagicBlackCat,
Obama "actions": Guns - bad. Babies - bad. Taxes - good. Wealth transfer - good. Business - bad. Gubmint - good.... it goes on and on and on....

Clearly nobody voted the issues - they bused in thousands upon thousands of functionally illiterate people to vote for "the first black president!". But you say skin color doesn't matter.... I wish you truly believed that - I wish I could too.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 12:59 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:

One expects kooks on the Internet.
These are people I've had Thanksgiving dinner with.

Is there any POSSIBILITY however remote, that thay coud be right,
and that U are rong ?

Maybe in your family,
thay are always rong and u are always right.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 01:07 pm
@FreeDuck,
Quote:

DrewDad wrote:

One expects kooks on the Internet. These are people I've had Thanksgiving dinner with.


Quote:

Then maybe expressing your disappointment in them will have some effect?

It shoud have "some effect" if each of them chooses
to substitute DrewDad 's opinion, in exchange for his own judgment.
Maybe he shoud tell them to DO that, u think ?

0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 01:34 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
He wouldn't hurt a fly but he's an elderly redneck conservative who thinks Republicans are the scourge of the Earth and that only Democrats are fit to be in government. And, he is an old timer Texan too for whom the old racist language and mindset dies hard. So here we are with a black Democrat President, and I really wonder how he's dealing with that. Smile


really. that must be a very paradoxical emotional place for the guy. you might want to get over there with some comfort food, pronto. Wink
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 01:47 pm
@cjhsa,
cjhsa wrote:

Dow down 230 and 500 in two days since O-boy got the nod.

Suckers!!!!!


It's been up and down for the last 3 months you fuckwit. But anything that makes an asshole like you unhappy has got to be great. So lap it up LOSER.
Wilso
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 01:51 pm
Omsig is going to be so disappointed in six months when he can still get out of bed (at home, not in prison), and kiss his guns good morning. Wonder if he'll admit that he was wrong then, or find something else to whine about like a little bitch.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 01:53 pm
@squinney,
Quote:

I do avoid talking abut politics with certain family members.
Some will never change. Others are young. I hold out hope for them.
Mom... Well, she may come around and she may not.
I love her anyways. Politics isn't everything. Family can be.

Both of my parents were Roosevelt liberal Democrats,
but I brought them around, so that we all voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964,
but Oswald had already assassinated Goldwater 's Presidential career.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 02:12 pm
@Wilso,
Hey Wilso.... biggest drop ever after a new guy got elected.... they must love Obama on Wall Street! LOFL!!!!
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 02:27 pm
It isn't Obama's ethnicity that bothers me, but questions regarding his ability to protect and defend the nation and our Constitution. Unfortunately it will take more than a carefully honed image to steer the ship of state through the coming four years. Obama may even be as idealistic as his supporters, but that is a dangerous thing in my opinion. Our enemies, and they are many, apparently see in him an opportunity to advance their causes at our expense.

Those who believe that intentionally targeting and murdering innocent people regard moderation and diplomacy as nothing more a tool that can be cast aside without a second thought. The Left is quick to twist a President's words and policies into lies, but the real masters of deceit are the leaders of Radical Islam and what's left of the Communists. Will the open-minded and fair dealing President Obama be taken in, as Gov. Richardson has been, by Kim Jong-il, or the Presidents of Iran and Argentina? Will President Obama be able to "stomach" dealing with our allies when they fail to meet our high moral standards? One worries that he will be able to negotiate with a "virtuous" Islamic leader dedicated to the destruction of the United States, while spurning the necessity of supporting a "corrupt" dictator who may hold the key to containing the threat to our nation.

Prevention of wars and successful diplomacy is based on military strength, and the shadowy world of intelligence. Is Obama up to it, or will his dreams of transforming America into some semblance of his vision prevail? Will he try to transform the United States into an isolationist enclave, or will he aggressively meet the nation's enemies wherever and whenever possible. If another operation, like 9-11 or December 7th occurs in Obama's first hundred days, what will he do? If faced with a really hard, no-win situation, for the first time in his life, will he have the courage and strength to go forward even at the expense of his own ambitions, and popularity?

Obama was bountiful in his promises to improve the economic lives of every American ... so long as they have an income of under $250K. He promised better schools, more opportunities, secure jobs, and on and on. Now, no one in their right mind believes anything said during a hotly contested campaign, but newly elected Presidents do usually make some effort to deliver on their promises. How is Obama going to do that as the National Debt soars in our attempt to mitigate a major financial crisis? It would be nice to get a nice tax break, but I won't spend it until the check has been accepted by my bank.

Perhaps President Obama will be everything his supporters believe, but I doubt it greatly. Perhaps, he and his Congress will restore the mythical America that existed before us nasty Republicans wrested control from the saintly hands of President Carter, or the freewheeling days of Willi and his domineering wife. Perhaps. Only time will tell, but in the meantime, like many other conservatives, I'm expecting the worst.
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:00 pm
@Asherman,
Asherman wrote:

It isn't Obama's ethnicity that bothers me, but questions regarding his ability to protect and defend the nation and our Constitution. Unfortunately it will take more than a carefully honed image to steer the ship of state through the coming four years. Obama may even be as idealistic as his supporters, but that is a dangerous thing in my opinion. Our enemies, and they are many, apparently see in him an opportunity to advance their causes at our expense.



If the shrub was so good at "protecting and defending" the US, they why did 3000 people die and there's a big gap in the New York skyline. Seems to me that all that halfwit accomplished was to the shut the gate well after the horse had bolted.
Lambchop
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:27 pm
@Wilso,
There's no doubt that racism has really reared its ugly head during this election. It shocks me that so much racism still exists. It also scares me for Obama's safety.

The Secret Service is going to have to seriously be on their toes for the next four years.
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:31 pm
@Lambchop,
There's been plenty of Democrat presidents, and there's been plenty of Republican presidents. The only possible explanation for the sheer viciousness of the rhetoric from the right wing on this occasion, is the colour of the latest president's skin.
Asherman
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 04:41 pm
@Wilso,
Viciousness? Its pretty difficult to imagine anything more vicious than the Leftist rhetoric heaped on President Bush over the past eight years. Conservative doubts about President-elect Obama aren't related to his skin, but his youth, his lack of experience, his associations with bigots and others who make no secret of their hatred for America. So far it seems to me that conservative comment here has been generally supportive of the newly elected President, and hope that our misgivings about the man and what appear to be his policies are wrong. That's quiet a contrast to the invective, accusations, and unadulterated hatred shown by many Democrats after the 2000 and '04 elections.

After Obama's inauguration, I expect that most conservatives and Republicans will support the new President and will be just as upset when he is vilified by our enemies as when those attacks were made on Pres. Bush. Obama will have control over the Congress, so he and his administration will have no excuse if they fail. No one wishes for successful policies that improve American security, economic stability and growth, more than conservative Republicans. Over then next four years the Democrats will have a wonderful opportunity to show that they can do more than just "talk".
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 05:28 pm
@Wilso,
So, if a major terrorist attack is successful on American soil in 2009, that will be entirely President Obama's fault? Should we then construct conspiracy theories about how President Obama schemed with Bin Ladin to justify whatever unpalatable policies might seem needed in the aftermath of that attack? Of course not, and the same should apply to your suggestion that President Bush's administration was responsible for not preventing 9-11.

The modern Radical Islamic Movement goes back to WWI when they chose the wrong side, and Britain signed the Balfour Agreement. During WWII, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was one of the most important Islamic leaders, and he was a devoted follower of Adoph Hitler. Whoops, the chose the wrong side again and at the end of WWII a conscience stricken world created the State of Israel. The ink was hardly dry, when the Islamic nations mounted a war of annihilation against the Jews. They lost, even though the little Israeli State was outnumbered and outgunned by their enemies. Israel found friends in the West, and the Islamic States became clients of the Soviet Union. Dang, can't they ever choose the winning side? They tried and tried again and again to bury Israel without success, and finally some Arab leaders got tired of the effort and tried to bury the hatchet. The militants didn't approve of Peace, so they assassinated Islamic leader who didn't toe the line.

When the godless Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan, even those who hated the West most bitterly were happy to receive the arms and support of the US. Finally, they picked an ally who could win. Once the Soviets were expelled from Afghanistan, the country became one of the most repressive Islamic States imaginable. The Taliban destroyed priceless ancient statuary, and imposed a form of Islamic Law that reduced women to virtual slavery and penalized men if their beards didn't meet some test. The Taliban were so confident in their position that they didn't even make much effort to hide their support for Al Queda's plans to expand terrorist operations onto U.S. soil.

Terrorist attacks carried out by various Radical Islamic groups began to increase shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. Finally off the leash, terror bombings increased across southwestern Asia, around the Mediterranean Sea, and in Europe where large numbers of Arabic and Palestinian refugees had taken up residence. Aircraft and cruise ships were high-jacked by Islamic terrorists who murdered their hostages, and blew up their "prizes". Virtually from the moment that the Soviet Union fell, Intelligence agencies around the world began warning that Islamic terrorist organizations were going to become increasingly dangerous. The whole region was a tender box that led to the Iraq-Iranian War, followed by the invasion of Kuwait.

In the three to four years leading up to 2001, US Intelligence was warning Presidents and Congress that there was an increasing likelihood that a major terrorist operation would be attempted on American soil. That wasn't what the political leadership of the country wanted to hear, and was mostly ignored by Democrats and Republicans alike. Until it actually happened, no one wanted to believe that a successful terrorist attack inside the Continental US was possible. Even after several unsuccessful terrorist operations, the political leadership and the American public remained mostly complacent.

Given the history involved it was almost inevitable that a major attack would be successful, and it was. In the weeks after 9-11, otherwise sober people were calling for a nuclear response. Iraq had been assiduously painting a target on itself for years as it hedged and avoided compliance with the Cease Fire conditions that suspended the Gulf War. Saddam fostered the belief that he had, or would soon have weapons of mass destruction. He was openly calling for terrorist acts against Israel and the West. Iraq was a prime candidate as the covert sponsor of Al Queda. The other prime suspect was the Taliban in Afghanistan. Operations against Iraq were "easier" because of its geography and the fact that resumption of the Gulf War was justified by Saddam's actions. Operations against Fortress Afghanistan were harder, because of its remoteness and difficulty in putting sufficient military force on the ground to be effective. Pakistan gave us some very big help, and the newly liberated Soviet states north of Afghanistan let us insert small numbers of special forces through their borders. Overflights of Iran were discouraged, and that left Iraq as the nearest point where Afghanistan operations could be logistically supported.

President Bush didn't start this war with Radical Islam, they did. The Republican Party is no more responsible for the conditions that made 9-11, than the Democratic Party. Every administration going back to Wilson has some small share in it. And, all of them were doing the best they could. Past policies were sometimes strong, and other times week, but in the end its hard to see how things might have been different.

Now President-elect Obama will get his whack at the apple. Will he be strong and tough with the enemy, or will he dither and encourage them to probe for his weaknesses?
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 05:32 pm
Bush brought on all that hatred by his own actions and words and policies since the supreme court first gave him the presidency. For years we on the left have been slapped with words like being anti-American just for being against the policies of this administration. We no sooner got over the 2000 Florida thing when 9/11 happened and then we all came together for a brief while until Bush started with stripping away at civil liberties, pushing an unjustifiable war, and sanctioning torture and labeling everyone who disagreed as terrorist sympathizers. He deserved all he got in return and then some for bringing us to one unjustifiable war and one unfinished war and a legacy of financial disaster.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/29/2014 at 03:59:30