3DNN

Been waiting for a few days but it seems no one in here is kinda excited enough about the new president elect.

So i thought i make a nice thread since the whole thing is kinda special .

_________________
Opera best browser made by mankind! Linux 2.6.27.7-9-x86_64 SUSE LINUX 11.1KDE: 4.1.3

This was actually an exciting race. I don't really like Obama and some of the people around him but it's nice that the U.S. upped the ante against the "enlightened" Europeans.

But will this REALLY change anything in the long run? I highly doubt it.

Giant Douche or Turd Sammich. What's the difference? Totally just kidding. I'm a supporter, just don't care too much about politics.

Jim

_________________

"I do not say offensive things, people simply take offense to the things I say." Keith Valdez 1996

I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, but then, the things I don't like about him are the things I don't like about a lot of politicians. But, I do think it's great that on January 20th, we will have a black president. If nothing else, for the precedent it sets.

It is nice to see that the majority of this country can finally look past race in the highest office. This couldn't have happened 20-30 years ago.

Next, we'll have a jewish mexican lesbian president, or something like that.

It's a shame that racism in our country won't completely end in my lifetime, but let's hope as different races interbreed, this becomes less of an issue with time going on. The unfortunate part about living in a state that's 97% white is that you will get a few racist assholes who voted against him ENTIRELY because of the amount of melanin in his skin. That's just fucked up if you asked me. Yes, I voted against him, but it had nothing to do with skin color. It had to do with certain thoughts I had about how he will perform in office. I hope that I am wrong and he performs wonderfully, as that would be very nice, I think.

_________________
This space for rent.

Even though I didn't vote for Barack (I wrote in Ron Paul), I still think he was a better choice than John McCain. By shutting out Ron Paul, the GOP put establishment politics ahead of principle. Had Dr. Paul been the Republican candidate, there would've been a much closer election than what we saw. So-called "conservatives" never realized that the very man they called a "kook" was the only candidate who truly represented the traditional conservative Republican platform of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and rigid constitutionalism, and backed it up with his votes in Congress.

Now I'm seeing all kinds of fear mongering from the wingnuts about Obama being a Marxist who will bring unprecedented socialism to the US, but they so easily forget that their hero Dubya's administration and their lapdog Congressional Republicans brought us the largest expansion of the federal government in the history of this nation. I'm also hearing how Obama will make things seemingly worse, even though the policies of BushCo over the last 8 years have further weakened us economically, alienated us from the rest of the world, concentrated more of our nation's wealth into fewer hands, and created levels of division in our society not seen since the Civil War.

We have surely witnessed an historical event, not only in the color of our new president's skin, but also by way of an important pivot point in the future of the USA. It's time to look inward and clean up our own house instead of going around the world looking for enemies to conquer in order to hide our problems at home.

Barack Obama is a statesman, not a former CEO, not a retired career military guy, but a constitutional scholar. From being Harvard's first black (well, half-black) president of its Law Review publication, to teaching constitutional law for 10 years at University of Chicago Law School, to community organizer, to US senator, I think he has all the experience he will ever need to be our president. Besides, doesn't the president swear an oath on Inauguration Day to uphold and defend our Constitution? How can he do that if he doesn't even know what's contained in it, or considers it "just a god damned piece of paper"? At least with Obama, he already knows what government's limitations are. He's studied it for most of his adult life.

Here's a question: when in the history of our nation has the rest of the citizens of the world so jubilantly celebrated the election of our next president? Regardless, we must remain vigilant and hold him in check, and I think that's precisely the lesson that 8 years of BushCo has taught us.

I think that everybody is happy due to Bush leaving. There will not be an easy time this is ever so clear.

Most of the people with comments about the social agenda is just trying to show their ignorance.
Undoing what Bush did might be way to hard even, but without a doubt this guy can take care of things and knows where to prioritize without the obvious "have to please all of these big contributing companies" attitude.

In 4 years i hope that America moved forward by more then we think is possible today.

And i dont mean that his speeches just gets better.

_________________
Opera best browser made by mankind! Linux 2.6.27.7-9-x86_64 SUSE LINUX 11.1KDE: 4.1.3

As bad as GW Bush was, the democrats in legislation are largely to blame for the financial crisis we're currently weathering.

This fact is lost on most people. I'm also concerned that the extremists in the party will have as big of a voice as Cheney & crew did for the past 8 years, leading to either a Clinton-style deadlock--he really tried to be moderate until his own party undercut him-- or the liberal version of GW Bush.

You mean excessive lending and making loans to people who arent supposed to get those in the 1st place is something that they can be blamed for ?

Or the financial products that been sold which were shaky to say the best ?

The mistake's were made when they killed oversight on the financial markets.

The war(s) also heavily burdens the load.

Sadly the worst is yet to come as i have heard.

_________________
Opera best browser made by mankind! Linux 2.6.27.7-9-x86_64 SUSE LINUX 11.1KDE: 4.1.3

Banks over-leveraging themselves with buying each other's debt is what caused the banks to collapse. The existing laws to regulate the banks were adequate, it's just that there wasn't any oversight to make sure the banks weren't breaking the rules. These banks weren't forced by law to give loans to people whose means to repay them were questionable. The mortgage crisis was nothing more than yet another speculative bubble to prop up the economy. Debt, in this case, had been treated as a commodity, and people gamed it just like they would any other market. Our manufacturing had been gutted, so there really is no other means to build wealth than to create one bubble after another to give the illusion that everything was ok.

I really don't see how one can blame 2 years of Democrat majority in Congress for this mess while ignoring the 12-year Republican majority that preceded it. Half of that time included a complete Republican control across all 3 branches of government.

Easy enough to answer: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... st=nyt&rss

The floodgates opened during the Clinton administration via Democrat pressure. It was basically a BAD move because they didn't put in any sort of protection for the consumer.

During the heydays from 2004-2006, mortgage brokers (go-betweens between borrowers and lenders) were writing up some creative and very shady loans, most of which eventually made their way to hedge funds and investment banks like Bear Stearns.

These mortgage brokers were NOT acting in the consumers interest and were happy to LIE--saying one thing while writing another in the fine print. For example, borrowers who were told they were getting FIXED RATE mortgages were sold ARMs anyway, and when things went south...guess what happened to their mortgage? Legislators in both parties realized that this was disaster in the making two or three years back but it was the Republicans who nixed the a bill.

And that's where they screwed up: They were happy to ride the bubble that the Clinton administration effectively created and they couldn't imagine that the real estate market was a bubble. Thus, they ate all of the blame.

Sorry Stony, but the Democrats have a very large hand in the current credit crisis.

By the way, check the date on the article. I'd say it displayed remarkable foresight.

"Pressuring" the President is subjective. Show me something substantive like legislation that forced, by law, relaxed lending by the banks. Let's be real. Banks were chomping at the bit for this deregulation. They provided no objections as far as I saw. Everyone was making a mint from the relaxed oversight, that is until the merry-go-round stopped and the margin calls came.

Speculative bubbles do not create new wealth. It's just a redistribution racket. Markets are artificially inflated, then the big fish privy to insider information cash out leaving the rest fighting for the last scraps of whats left of the rapidly declining values of their investments. Since our manufacturing had been gutted, the only recourse to prevent a total market collapse was to create one speculative bubble after another. We're all seeing how well that's working for us.

Wow! Times sure have changed!

Stony and I supporting the same President-elect? You betcha!

The Dems should thank McShame for making this election a no-brainer...literally!

Here's hoping Obama is one of the best ever...

I've not read your article, but I have already heard this started under Clinton. Given the Republicans control of the government for 6 years, I would figure they should share the blame for not fixing the problem? If it happened in 2001, that'd be different.

Glad Obama got in. McCain is a good guy, but his policies were a bit off and so was his VP choice. I've heard a lot of Americans say they'd have voted for McCain in 2000 against Gore.

Of course the Republicans share blame. That's exactly what I've said above.

However, the democrats have bigger changes on their agenda and if left to their own devices, they will bankrupt the country.