According to the network, Barack Obama is now elected president of the US.
So has CNN and Fox News.
As did Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert; and they're the only ones that matter to me. :P
Seconded!!!
LET THE PARTY BEGIN!!!
I wonder what happens if he's assassinated before inauguration.
Thanks,
Hdier
Now we have to desperately hope that Obama isn't assassinated. He is seriously in danger of Bigots.
I wonder what happens if he's assassinated before inauguration.
Thanks,
Hdier
IIRC, the next highest vote getter will be President, so say "hi" to President McCain.
Faelar
According to the network, Barack Obama is now elected president of the US.
I know, it's awesome! I just exchanged a Hezbollah-style fist jab with my wife!
Faelar
Edit:
I know, it's awesome! I just exchanged a Hezbollah-style fist jab with my wife!
TERRORIST! Lulz.
Now we have to desperately hope that Obama isn't assassinated. He is seriously in danger of Bigots.
I wonder what happens if he's assassinated before inauguration.
Thanks,
Hdier
I wouldn't worry. If his publicity is true, he'll rise from the dead three days later.
- Alter_Boy, ecstatic for Americans and the world at large. Viva Obama!
TheSeventhStooge...
And, when he DOES rise from the dead, will we get to hunt for eggs laid by a rabbit?
Not just a win for America, but a win for the world!
seconded
But not as big of a win as it could have been.
McCain is the past; we all know he would not have been a good president.
But I don't think Obama will be a good president, either. He's going to be another Clinton - servicable, but not good enough. He has no balls.
He did his whole speech, but in the end, it is exactly as I've always said - he says change, but he doesn't really mean it. What about him is change? He's a white guy from Illinois. The fact that his skin is slightly darker than past presidents is irrelevant.
What about his stances are change? He's not going to allow gay marriage. He's not going to take us to Mars. He's not going to socialize healthcare.
The only really important thing he did was set it up for me in 2020. :P
The only really important thing he did was set it up for me in 2020. :P
Depending on how you do, either 2024 or 2028 is mine. :P
(Psst, Crimson, can I be your VP? I live a few hours from Canada, so I have foreign policy experience!)
Oh yeah! A big black middle finger to racism! In the eye!
W00T!
Show
I can be a gracious loser, yo.
Congratulations, Mr. Obama. You have indeed made history. I pray and hope for safety and good health for you and your VP. May you govern with wisdom and strength.ShowI can be a gracious loser, yo.
Bravo, Mr. President, Bravo McCain supporter, then? Ah, well; better luck in 2012, man.
I disagree. I hope for significantly worse luck.
I disagree. I hope for significantly worse luck.
Just trying to be a good sport, like Knights_Disciple was.
Show
Personally, I hope McCain is never President; same for Palin, but I was trying to be polite.
Just trying to be a good sport, like Knights_Disciple was.ShowPersonally, I hope McCain is never President; same for Palin, but I was trying to be polite.
(Psst, Crimson, can I be your VP? I live a few hours from Canada, so I have foreign policy experience!)
Hrm, the foreign policy experience is good, but there are other factors to consider. Are you sexy? If so, then what else could I ask for in a VP? :D
(Any perceived parallel between my post and actual events is purely meant as playful jest and parody. It is in no way meant to be ill-spirited. ;) )
Hrm, the foreign policy experience is good, but there are other factors to consider. Are you sexy? If so, then what else could I ask for in a VP? :D
(Any perceived parallel between my post and actual events is purely meant as playful jest and parody. It is in no way meant to be ill-spirited. ;) )
About that...
Why is it that only a small percentage of the world gets such a huge say in the matter? Even then, a fairly largish number of individuals choose not to exercise that power at all.
Also, Obama yay, he's scarily charismatic.
The only problem I had with the election was that since the American Presidency has such a huge effect on the rest of the world, why doesn't the rest of the world get a say?
Why is it that only a small percentage of the world gets such a huge say in the matter? Even then, a fairly largish number of individuals choose not to exercise that power at all.
Also, Obama yay, he's scarily charismatic.
Foreign powers have a say; if they don't like the path our nation takes, they can embargo, or even if they feel the need, declare war on us. That's the sole influence any nation has over the sovereignty of another nation.
Foreign powers have a say; if they don't like the path our nation takes, they can embargo, or even if they feel the need, declare war on us. That's the sole influence any nation has over the sovereignty of another nation.
This.
While America has a large amount of influence, the President's first and foremost job is to run this country. We'll select him based on our own criteria, thank you.
This.
While America has a large amount of influence, the President's first and foremost job is to run this country. We'll select him based on our own criteria, thank you.
I completly agree.
Just don't forget the other way around ;)
The only problem I had with the election was that since the American Presidency has such a huge effect on the rest of the world, why doesn't the rest of the world get a say?
Because you don't live in America :P
Such is the nature of superpowers. We don't get to choose your leaders, either. Mostly. Unless you happen to be in the Middle East, in which case, tough :P
Someday we'll have a world government of some sort, but that's a long ways off - a couple centuries, methinks, though I may be underestimating the EU's ability to unite the world.
But still, first step towards a proper world government would be giving all the people a say in the all the other countries. Or everyone voting in New World Order.
And John McCain just conceded, so we don't have to go on news channels calling it.
Oh. Good. *goes back to Cartoon Network*
Well, guess it's time I started...
MADDOX in '16
Still, I think there's a very proud and happy grandmother in Heaven.
It was honestly over around the time it was was clear that Pennsylvania and Ohio were going for Obama.
Still, I think there's a very proud and happy grandmother in Heaven.
I was convinced as soon as they confirmed that Indiana was neck and neck. If a Republican can't seal the deal on a stronghold, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the country.
Now lets see what the Dems do with their newfound power
That's easy just read everything that Titanium Dragon wrote on this site and that will give you an indication where this country is going. Enjoy;)
Congratulations, Mr. Obama. You have indeed made history. I pray and hope for safety and good health for you and your VP. May you govern with wisdom and strength.ShowI can be a gracious loser, yo.
Now lets see what the Dems do with their newfound power
If I had the Power? Turn the Senate floor into a ball-pit. I'd be a really, really bad senator...
If I had the Power? Turn the Senate floor into a ball-pit. I'd be a really, really bad senator...
EDIT: Darn, it came out really small for some reason:http://xkcd.com/498/
What can I say? His words... they don't impress me much.
Congratulations, Mr. Obama. You have indeed made history. I pray and hope for safety and good health for you and your VP. May you govern with wisdom and strength.ShowI can be a gracious loser, yo.
The only problem I had with the election was that since the American Presidency has such a huge effect on the rest of the world, why doesn't the rest of the world get a say?
Why is it that only a small percentage of the world gets such a huge say in the matter? Even then, a fairly largish number of individuals choose not to exercise that power at all.
Also, Obama yay, he's scarily charismatic.
Considering nearly any country's inhabitants but Israel's seem to have largely spoken themselves out for Obama, it's not like it would really matter this year, or the next four. ;)
-Joni
Relevant:
Seems someone was in that #us08 irc channel yesterday...
Or it's been reposted a lot already.
I was not your fan during the campaign. I did not agree with much of your stated agenda. I did not feel you had the experience and clout to handle the office. I feared you'd be like Kennedy when confronted with tough international leaders. I worried that your economic policies would worsen our current troubles, plunging us into deep depression. I am afraid of seeing personal liberties curtailed with the elimination of secret union ballets and the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
But you are now my president, and I sincerely hope that you will prove me wrong.
Prove me wrong by aptly handling aggressive foreign dictators who want to see America weaker. Prove me wrong by putting forth policies that allow the economy to recover rather than blocking it from succeeding. Prove me wrong by balancing our out-of-control budget. Prove me wrong by standing up to attempts to curtail liberties, even if that means allowing dissent to views you hold.
You have inherited a difficult time for America. Yours will be a historical presidency. Make it a celebrated presidency, not one marked as a downward turning point in American history.
Make me wish I had voted for you. Do not make me drone on "I told you so" to my fellow Americans for the next four years.
Sincerely,
One of your employers
I can just imagine this room full of documents marked "For the President's Eyes Only". Bush is sitting there in a chair and Obama walks in. Bush hands him a file and walks out.
Obama reads the first line of the file and...
I heard that you could see the DOW range inversely to his popularity polls.
They don't like having their money taken to be given to the poor.
And usually many people have to be laid off when they don't have money to pay their own... Taxing the rich... make economists sad.
But the earth isn't doomed, just people... mostly people with jobs who don't know how to work welfare.
That's easy just read everything that Titanium Dragon wrote on this site and that will give you an indication where this country is going. Enjoy
Because clearly, I'm a mainstream democrat. *rolls eyes*
The Democrats are much more conservative than I am.
I do hope that party get's it's act together and changes it's composition before it dies off. It also needs to change it's economics philosophy tremendously. The last thing we need is a one party system. (Having only two is corrupt enough)
I want the Republican party to die. Its current form is an aberration and never should have existed.
It should be replaced by a pro-business party, a libertarian party, and a conservative christian party - all three are "big enough" to be their own party and really have highly opposing agendas. The libertarians and pro-business would probably syphon off some Democrats as well, which would distill that party down a bit too.
I heard that you could see the DOW range inversely to his popularity polls.
This is untrue.
In reality, the Democrats winning this election will help the economy and the Dow Jones, simply because people don't trust Republicans to run anything at all right now.
Its current form is an aberration and never should have exited.
...I love using words I learned from D&D in everyday conversation. :D
I want the Republican party to die. Its current form is an aberration and never should have existed.
It should be replaced by a pro-business party, a libertarian party, and a conservative christian party - all three are "big enough" to be their own party and really have highly opposing agendas. The libertarians and pro-business would probably syphon off some Democrats as well, which would distill that party down a bit too.
As a former Republican and current Libertarian*, I can't agree more. It would benefit our glorious republic no end to have a dozen or more political parties on the national level. Divide the house and senate so heavily that the only way any law passes from those exalted halls is through the compromise of half a dozen parties. The two major parties would suffer, but the people would benefit.
*Yeah, I'm not so much a loyal Libertarian. I'm a bit less extreme than the party. And there was no way this side of the grave I was going to vote for Bob Barr. I mean c'mon, Bob Barr? There was a reason Ron Paul didn't run Libertarian, he didn't want to drag down a vote that needed to be a Democrat landslide.
I more mean European-style socialism, not "the workers will rise up!" socialism.
;) I know what you mean, that's my category
Because clearly, I'm a mainstream democrat. *rolls eyes*
The Democrats are much more conservative than I am.
I want the Republican party to die. Its current form is an aberration and never should have existed.
It should be replaced by a pro-business party, a libertarian party, and a conservative christian party - all three are "big enough" to be their own party and really have highly opposing agendas. The libertarians and pro-business would probably syphon off some Democrats as well, which would distill that party down a bit too.
This is untrue.
In reality, the Democrats winning this election will help the economy and the Dow Jones, simply because people don't trust Republicans to run anything at all right now.
Im just going to point out that historically the economy has done better under democrats, also yes the republican party needs to die, any party that nominates a convicted fellon for a senate seat (ted stevens of Alaska) is not a party I want in any office anywhere. That said Im pretty far left, I believe that the patriot act is an abomination, I believe that gays should have the right to get married, I believe in stem cell research and the seperation of church and state, oh and the enviornment. To me the republican party is a fossil that just refuses to change, or go away. Those that do not change die.
j/k.
[/lighthearted intermission]
Because clearly, I'm a mainstream democrat. *rolls eyes*
The Democrats are much more conservative than I am.
I want the Republican party to die. Its current form is an aberration and never should have existed.
It should be replaced by a pro-business party, a libertarian party, and a conservative christian party - all three are "big enough" to be their own party and really have highly opposing agendas. The libertarians and pro-business would probably syphon off some Democrats as well, which would distill that party down a bit too.
This is untrue.
In reality, the Democrats winning this election will help the economy and the Dow Jones, simply because people don't trust Republicans to run anything at all right now.
So going by your sentiments your a liberal fascist? Or am I being kind?
Aww, poor Cthulhu. I voted for your.
So going by your sentiments your a liberal fascist? Or am I being kind?
Where in there did you see fascism? Do you even know what fascism is?
Also, you inserted liberal in there as though it were a negative thing. :P :D ;)
Im just going to point out that historically the economy has done better under democrats, also yes the republican party needs to die, any party that nominates a convicted fellon for a senate seat (ted stevens of Alaska) is not a party I want in any office anywhere. That said Im pretty far left, I believe that the patriot act is an abomination, I believe that gays should have the right to get married, I believe in stem cell research and the seperation of church and state, oh and the enviornment. To me the republican party is a fossil that just refuses to change, or go away. Those that do not change die.
Most Democrats I know are pretty affable and don't see the Republicans as enemies, just different view points aiming for a common goal, you know a better America. You have a right to a veiw point, but that does not make your view point right.
Im just going to point out that historically the economy has done better under democrats, also yes the republican party needs to die, any party that nominates a convicted fellon for a senate seat (ted stevens of Alaska) is not a party I want in any office anywhere. That said Im pretty far left, I believe that the patriot act is an abomination, I believe that gays should have the right to get married, I believe in stem cell research and the seperation of church and state, oh and the enviornment. To me the republican party is a fossil that just refuses to change, or go away. Those that do not change die.
Thus why I said the party needs to change dramatically. It would either become two parties from itself. (libertarians, and the zealo.... I mean.... "good christian party") And their "moral compass" needs to be seriously rewired for things that are actually right or wrong, not some backwoods redneck inbred hillbilly's ignorant understanding of science, government, and civil rights being touted as morality. Or it would fix itself and actually study how economics -really- work, and how all the things they are so "morally" against -really- are and not be skewed by their self righteous inbred form of preconceptions.
Because it's okay to be a felon and commit serious crimes. But it's not okay to be gay. That's the republican philosophy. As it stands that party -will- die. Especially by the time we are as old as our parents are now. (we being the 18-30 crowd)
Regardless of who got it...we now have a president that can speak complete sentences!
I think Obama is the better choice. Still, his job doesn't get much easier - with all due respect he's going to inherit the US of A in a rather sorry state, and will have to spend quite some time, effort and popularity on getting the country back on its feet.
AND you got a VP who knows Africa is a continent!
I think Obama is the better choice. Still, his job doesn't get much easier - with all due respect he's going to inherit the US of A in a rather sorry state, and will have to spend quite some time, effort and popularity on getting the country back on its feet.
Yup unfortunatley almost every other president who has inherited problems of this magnitude has failed to get reelected, the exception being FDR. Time will tell if Obama can do a good job in office while keeping Americans happy enough to get reelected. Since some hard choices are going to have to be made I dont know how he will be able to do both.
But at least we can all agree he will be better than the guy currently in office.
I believe that the patriot act is an abomination
Its roots were in the Clinton presidency. Republicans resisted it until 9/11 and then-popular Republican President Bush pushed it.
I believe that gays should have the right to get married
Too bad the current Democrat disagrees with you.
I believe in stem cell research and the seperation of church and state
A significant number of Republicans are perfectly fine with stem cell research. They have a problem with tax money funding it -- if it's a good enough avenue to go down, let private research handle it.
The minority of Republicans who don't go so much for seperation of church and state (the hardcore fundamentalist wing) indeed needs to be removed. I support TD's idea of a separate party for those. It would pull in some Democrats, because that same wing also tends to support various government charities (welfare / socialist-type things).
oh and the enviornment
No one hates the environment. People have differing views on how significant various things actually impact the environment and whether various proposed solutions actually solve the problem in a way that doesn't plunge the world back into the tribal era.
Well its been falling anyways. Its everywhere.
Actually, it was rising again right up to the end of Tuesday EST.
Aww, poor Cthulhu. I voted for your.
Where in there did you see fascism? Do you even know what fascism is?
Also, you inserted liberal in there as though it were a negative thing. :P :D ;)
Um what?
I look at the cup half full...
Regardless of who got it...we now have a president that can speak complete sentences!
Yup, he he's dddarn gggood with a tele-prompter. Just don't ask any hard questions.
Actually, it was rising again right up to the end of Tuesday EST.
Yes, but the drop is likely more a response to a cross-party power exchange. We can't blame this on Obama until he's sworn in. More than anything, it's probably fueled by expectations that the Bush administration will clam up and become a lame-duck for the next two months. We'll see.
....
The minority of Republicans who don't go so much for seperation of church and state (the hardcore fundamentalist wing) indeed needs to be removed. I support TD's idea of a separate party for those. It would pull in some Democrats, because that same wing also tends to support various government charities (welfare / socialist-type things)...
Please find me the statement in the United States Constitution that states "separation of church and state".
I know about an amendment that says the US cannot make laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I've yet to hear any serious proposals for laws going out that make anything the "official religion of the US".
Or are we speaking of the letter from Thomas Jefferson, written to a particular denominational group in the US, assuring them that they werent' going to establish an official US denomination?
Yes, but the drop is likely more a response to a cross-party power exchange.
"Cross-party power exchange"?
Umm, no. The market is responding to the election results. Markets respond to what the future holds in the form of perceived policy. Nice try though.
Or are we speaking of the letter from Thomas Jefferson, written to a particular denominational group in the US, assuring them that they werent' going to establish an official US denomination?
IIRC, that was actually Washington, but my Presidential history is rusty.
Please find me the statement in the United States Constitution that states "separation of church and state".
Doesn't exist. Hence Obama's policy of expanding Bush's gov funded faith based initiatives.
"Cross-party power exchange"?
Umm, no. The market is responding to the election results. Markets respond to what the future holds in the form of perceived policy. Nice try though.
Which, if you read the rest of the post, is exactly what I said. Pleas don't be disingenuous with my quotes.
That is like me being here in Florida...and saying I have a stone that keeps tigers away. It works because when I am out and about I have never seen a tiger.
Um what?
He's right. You misused fascism in a horribly inaccurate manner. The Republican party is considerably (by many orders of magnitude) more fascist, when using that word's actual definition, not in a McCarthyite, Pavlovian manner. Psst, did you know which group was one of the actual fascists' most ardent enemies, who were killed along with the Jews, Roma, homosexuals, minorities, and so on? Liberals. You should really READ Mein Kampf if you want an accurate view into the mind of such evil, not listen to talking points. Calling someone a liberal fascist is total fail. Which, as was pointed out, is not a bad word. That too is a pathetic attempt by the far right to insert a meme where that word is demonized, just like socialism. On that note, liberal =/= socialist. To assert that, too, is a total fail. Obama is nowhere near fascist. Not even close. He's also nowhere near Communist, which is the implication when the word socialism is used with regards to him.
Yup, he he's dddarn gggood with a tele-prompter. Just don't ask any hard questions.
He writes a great many of his own speeches. So he has the occasional slight stuttering. And? Kennedy, uh, he was still, uh, a great speaker. That is simply pathetic. He is very eloquent, and better still, very knowledgable about a great many subjects, and when he isn't, he can admit it rather than cover it up. He also surrounds himself with advisors, even those he disagrees with, as opposed to sycophants. Have you watched Dubya? He can't speak in coherent sentences. Have you listened to and watched Palin when she isn't spewing talking points? She knows so little it is downright frightening she got so close to the Oval Office. South Africa is a part of the country of Africa, of course, you betcha?!? The Governor of ALASKA doesn't at least know that CANADA is a member of NAFTA?!?!?! Are you
serious? Bush Doctrine? Anytime she is asked a question, sure, she knows how to deliver a talking point. When asked follow-ups, she fails, completely and utterly. And then some.Which, if you read the rest of the post, is exactly what I said. Pleas don't be disingenuous with my quotes.
I did. It has nothing to do with Bush being a lame duck. The market is looking into the future of proposed cap gains tax & business tax increases. NOT the fact the gov will fail to pass laws regulating the market over the next 75 days.
Some of the markets raised with the result.
Which ones?
Asian raised with election results...
Yes, China has 0% cap gains tax. Obama wants to raise the US rate even higher. I have friends that are buying into the Chinese stock markets.
Yes, China has 0% cap gains tax. Obama wants to raise the US rate even higher. I have friends that are buying into the Chinese stock markets.
Neither Obama nor McCain were going to follow the Kennedy plan...which is a shame...
We will see how he adapts...but the sky is not falling...
It is just a rough time globally...regardless of where you are.
Neither Obama nor McCain were going to follow the Kennedy plan...which is a shame...
Exactly. And, Obama's stated plan is very similar to Hoovers when he took us from a recession and plunged us into depression. That is what the market is responding to. Some people haven't forgotten history. Unlike Obama, who won't take Kennedy's proven good advice...
Please find me the statement in the United States Constitution that states "separation of church and state".
I'm not talking about what is and isn't legal / constitutional here. I'm talking about what policies people support.
I don't think major wings of either party want churches making policy or governments controlling churches. I think the former is mostly limited to the extreme fundamentalists in both (stereotypical highly funamentalist Protestant churches on the Republican side and stereotypical black race churches on the Democrat side), and the latter is mostly limited to the fringe communist / anti-religion element of parties like the Greens.
Exactly. And, Obama's stated plan is very similar to Hoovers when he took us from a recession and plunged us into depression. That is what the market is responding to. Some people haven't forgotten history. Unlike Obama, who won't take Kennedy's proven good advice...
You would still be in the same boat with McCain who was not taking Kennedy's proven good advice.
I also feel it is too early to jump the gun. We still have to see who Obama surrounds himself with as well. Do not be so critical so early in the game. There is still a lot of room and numerous possibilities.
What is happening in the market right now is not because of Obama winning.
You would still be in the same boat with McCain who was not taking Kennedy's proven good advice.
No, but doing the opposite is a different matter which is why the market is reacting (correctly) to an Obama victory.
I'm not talking about what is and isn't legal / constitutional here. I'm talking about what policies people support.
I don't think major wings of either party want churches making policy or governments controlling churches. I think the former is mostly limited to the extreme fundamentalists in both (stereotypical highly funamentalist Protestant churches on the Republican side and stereotypical black race churches on the Democrat side), and the latter is mostly limited to the fringe communist / anti-religion element of parties like the Greens.
You're right, I suppose. And I was really responding to the quoted text that precipitated your paragraph that I quoted. Apologies.
I know of very very few who really, truly want churches making policy, and I'm what some might term a "fundie" per se. Now, many more might unconsciously be pressing for governmental policies that more closely align with their/our moral views, but...that's kind of what everyone does.
I just tend to be a, ah, strict constructionist. Outside the POTUS vote, I went Constitution party wherever I could. *Shrugs*
No, but doing the opposite is a different matter which is why the market is reacting (correctly) to an Obama victory.
Look at it globally too. With news of the victory some markets rose while some fell...
What is happening now in the Global Economy is due to more than just one man. Stop being so fatalistic and melodramatic about it, your better than that. There is a recession scare that is driving all the markets down currently.
With Obama we still have to see who he surrounds himself with before we can really draw more conclusions.
Look at it globally too. With news of the victory some markets rose while some fell...
Right, the Asian markets are happier as they will be more competitive in attracting capital from US markets after business & cap gains taxes get raised here.
With no industry base you have nothing but fumes. We've been running on fumes for a long time, and we're finally running out of those fumes.
The Bankers had their shot. They failed.
Time to regulate their ***
The Bankers had their shot. They failed.
Time to regulate their ***
It would be easier for Congress to just take back their Constitutional power. Then banks couldn't game the Fed Reserve system. Problem solved.
The Bankers had their shot. They failed.
Time to regulate their ***
Wait, what?
Fannie and Freddie, the sources of those soured loans, were pressured by government (which basically controlled them -- they're GSE's, and he who controls the money...) to make those loans. Barney Frank stated in 2003 that Fannie and Freddie's government privileges were directly related to their willingness "to make housing more affordable." The HUD (Housing and Urban Development Agency) directed Fannie and Freddie to send 42% of their mortgage financing to those below the median income for that area in 1996, and these percentages increased up until the explosion.
"... the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans... The action... will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough... Fannie Mae... 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. In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough for conventional loans... Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk... the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble... prompting a government rescue... the move is intended in part to increase the number of... home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings..."
Government had its shot. It failed.
Put banking decisions back into the hands of profit-motivated bankers. Not activist vote-buying politicians who don't know what they're doing.
The banking industry as a whole was -deregulated- in the 90s.
And we paid for it later.
The Subprime Mortgage Crisis is directly attributable to Fannie and Freddie, and their problems are directly due to their status as GSEs.
And the current economic slump is directly attributable to the SMC.
Right, the Asian markets are happier as they will be more competitive in attracting capital from US markets after business & cap gains taxes get raised here.
The Asian markets are down as are almost all the others now.
The Asian markets are down as are almost all the others now.
Hang Seng Index 14,840.16 455.82 ^
S&P/HKEx LargeCap 18,275.08 540.51 ^
S&P/HKEx GEM Index 390.89 5.02 ^
Total Market Turnover (HKD Mil.) 63,451
Hang Seng Index 14,840.16 455.82 ^
S&P/HKEx LargeCap 18,275.08 540.51 ^
S&P/HKEx GEM Index 390.89 5.02 ^
Total Market Turnover (HKD Mil.) 63,451
Hang Seng Index 13,790.16 -1050.12
HKL 17,053.95 -1221.13
Your info is out dated.
I did. It has nothing to do with Bush being a lame duck. The market is looking into the future of proposed cap gains tax & business tax increases. NOT the fact the gov will fail to pass laws regulating the market over the next 75 days.
This is maddening.
The drops in the market over the past couple of days are not due to Obama's being elected. Rather, something else has coincided with the election, which would be the release of sales reports by most of the major retailers for the month of October. Nearly all of them reported very low sales figures for October, which has everyone worried as we are now in the run-up to the Christmas shopping season, which, as everyone knows, is make or break time for the retailers.
Couple that with general fears of recession, and a bleak report by the Labor Department regarding unemployment claims, and that is what is causing the drops we're seeing.
What we're seeing today is that the Nekkei is down nearly 500 points, while the Hang Seng is down over 1,000.
We're experiencing a global bear market driven by recession fears and the ongoing credit crunch, not by who was elected on Tuesday.
Faelar
bah, got beat to the punch
So going by your sentiments your a liberal fascist? Or am I being kind?
I'm incredibly far away from fascism. Obviously you don't know what fascism is.
The party closest to fascism in the US is the Republican party, with their crony capitalism, which resembles fascism in some ways, as well as their dislike of the freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
I think Obama is the better choice. Still, his job doesn't get much easier - with all due respect he's going to inherit the US of A in a rather sorry state, and will have to spend quite some time, effort and popularity on getting the country back on its feet.
Indeed. He has inherited a mess, and I'm sure the Republicans will blame it on him, despite it being their fault.
Day 2. The DOW continues to fall on the election news after yesterdays record fall.
The dow is falling because (le gasp!) Obama has NO POWER WHATSOEVER.
So really, if you're claiming the Dow is falling due to politics, it is falling because Bush is still in charge.
Really though, its unrelated - the Dow is falling because the market is horrible. Electing Obama isn't going to make banks not fail in the next three months, as Obama has no power for the next three months.
Its roots were in the Clinton presidency. Republicans resisted it until 9/11 and then-popular Republican President Bush pushed it.
No. Its roots were in Bush. I'm sorry if you believe the Republicans disliked it, but your belief is in hilarious contradiction with the facts.
It was the Democrats who opposed it and who still oppose it.
The minority of Republicans who don't go so much for seperation of church and state (the hardcore fundamentalist wing) indeed needs to be removed. I support TD's idea of a separate party for those. It would pull in some Democrats, because that same wing also tends to support various government charities (welfare / socialist-type things).
Not really, no.
Please find me the statement in the United States Constitution that states "separation of church and state".
Please read the first amendment to the Constitution.
No, don't argue, you're wrong. Yes, the phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution. But guess what?
In the English language, there is more than one way to say the same thing.
Too bad the current Democrat disagrees with you.
Obama being as liberal as he is, I wouldn't be too sure. Being pro-gay-marriage is a very unpopular stance to take, unfortunately, and it may be best to... "mislead" the public about your position on that whole issue if you want to make if far in our government... I'm just saying, he wouldn't be the first politician to do that. :P
Um what?
What part of what I said did you not understand?
1) You obviously don't understand what fascism is, or else you wouldn't have referenced it then. Nothing that he said was fascist? What part of it did you think was fascist? Please, tell us so that we can correct you.
2) Liberalism is not bad, and your tone implied that you viewed it as negative. I say that because you paired it with fascism. I can, of course, make nice things sound bad by pairing it them with other words too. For example "evil rainbows" or "killer ponies" or "poisoned chocolate".
Please find me the statement in the United States Constitution that states "separation of church and state".
Uh, you already found it yourself.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
Doesn't exist.
That is patently false. Read your first amendment. ;)
No. Its roots were in Bush. I'm sorry if you believe the Republicans disliked it, but your belief is in hilarious contradiction with the facts.
Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995
Obama being as liberal as he is, I wouldn't be too sure. Being pro-gay-marriage is a very unpopular stance to take, unfortunately, and it may be best to... "mislead" the public about your position on that whole issue if you want to make if far in our government... I'm just saying, he wouldn't be the first politician to do that.
Actually, I agree with you. I think he's lying about it. That's why I'm making efforts to point out now that that's what he has said :p
Uh, you already found it yourself.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
That is patently false. Read your first amendment. ;)
Mainly it depends on what your definition of "separation of church and state" means. From my personal observations, it appears that the people who most advocate that phrase espouse the belief that the phrase should be interpreted as religion being made persona non grata in the public sphere, which is obviously not what was intended by the Framers of the Constitution.
Not endorsing laws establishing a national religion is a far cry from outlawing religious displays or conversation in the public square.
Faelar
Please read the first amendment to the Constitution.
No, don't argue, you're wrong. Yes, the phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution. But guess what?
In the English language, there is more than one way to say the same thing.
It's f***ing amazing how they constantly try to misconstrue the Establishment Clause, even with the enormous writing by the contemporaries involved that precisely describe the hows and whys of putting that there in the first place: To separate church policy and state policy, and keep the government itself completely secular in nature, albeit not its individuals, which would be ludicrous to attempt to quell or suppress.
Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995
The Patriot Act itself was a neocon baby, and is rather different than the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act, which apparently passed as "Antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996". Moreover, the Omnibus act itself states it is an outgrowth of some of Reagan's policies, particularly its most dubious section, the alien removal section. So even if we were to argue that this is the precursor to it, it would go back to Bush Sr. and Reagan, though I don't think it is quite the same thing, even though it includes some of the same provisions.
Looking through the summary (and at the bill itself):
The final form of the bill looks to have had hebeas corpus reform tacked onto it.
It basically creates a means of designating a group as a terrorist organization and apparently is reviewed every two years, gives them power to cut off funding to international groups so designated, probably contains an unconstitutional provision regarding judicial review of such designations (but does not prohibit congressional review; they can simply say "this is not a terrorist group" by passing a law), providing aid to such a group (a gray area of the law, argued by the law to be in line with a prior court ruling), basically putting an embargo on countries which support terrorism, adding harsher penalties for crimes, increasing US jurisdiction to prosecute, ect.
Its Title 4 is about the removal of aliens designated as terrorists. It basically creates a foreign terrorist deportation court, the use of which requires a public hearing and requires the DoJ to prove that the alien is in fact, a terrorist, and if classified materials are involved, unless the court can provide an unclassifed summary it isn't admissable. It also says that if you're a member of a known terrorist group they can deny you entry to the US. It seems to involve some random other immigration offenses.
It contains some WMD restrictions to prevent terrorists from using them.
It contains some provisions to increase funding for counterterroism training overseas.
At least in its final form, its resemblance to the PATRIOT act is dubious at best. They both concern terrorism, but beyond that, they really don't seem to have a whole lot in common and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 really doesn't seem to contain all that much in the way of dubious materials. The most dubious thing I found was claiming lack of jurisdiction by the courts regarding designation as a terrorist organization and some of the provisions having to do with association with terrorist groups in terms of giving them money (the latter being more likely to be legal than the former).
It does not contain the wiretapping or other illegal search and seizure provisions that are at the heart of the PATRIOT Act, at least not in its final, passed form.
Its very difficult to read some portions of the bill itself because it is confusing, as it modifies a bunch of other stuff.
It's f***ing amazing how they constantly try to misconstrue the Establishment Clause, even with the enormous writing by the contemporaries involved that precisely describe the hows and whys of putting that there in the first place: To separate church policy and state policy, and keep the government itself completely secular in nature, albeit not its individuals, which would be ludicrous to attempt to quell or suppress.
The entire point of it is to prevent the church from meddling in the state and vice-versa; in short, the government can't interfere in religion and religion cannot interfere in the government. Indeed, you'll note that elsewhere they make specific other provisions, such as preventing religious tests for office.
It IS very clear what they were up to. When Thomas Jefferson wrote "separation of church and state", that was a very apt description of it. That is indeed the purpose - to keep the church and state seperate.
It IS very clear what they were up to. When Thomas Jefferson wrote "separation of church and state", that was a very apt description of it. That is indeed the purpose - to keep the church and state seperate.
This was a case of Thomas Jefferson adding a "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's" clause to the Constitution. He was quite adamant about it in his later writings.
You should be happy, this is one of those things that lent itself to the priest/penitent privelege. It also protects the free expression of your religion and prohibits the government from passing laws that barr you from the practice of it. Imagine for a moment the House and Congress passing a law prohibiting the Christian Communion, would you be willing to obey that one?
In short, by giving the law the freedom to allow the things your religion prohibits, you gain a degree of leeway in the practice of your faith. Going back to the Communion example, If you were to give wine to a child on the street, you'd be prosecuted for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" and jailed for it. Are Christian churches forced to observe the minimum drinking age?
What about divorce? It's prohibited to the Catholic Church, would you think it's acceptable to force that on the rest of the country if a Catholic majority ever controlled the halls of government? Not to get too far off-topic, but isn't that just as bad as not allowing marriage rights to homosexuals?
Domestic abuse laws test the separation. I support the laws wholeheartedly, but there are passages in the Christian bible that would seem to support the routine beating of wives. Which has to give? The courts will support the law, because in the eyes of the law, your wife is protected equally. Hopefully no one ever thinks about that defense when they stand accused of domestic abuse, although the courts will rule that the right to be secure in her person takes precedence.
Sorry, long ramble on that one.....
What part of what I said did you not understand?
1) You obviously don't understand what fascism is, or else you wouldn't have referenced it then. Nothing that he said was fascist? What part of it did you think was fascist? Please, tell us so that we can correct you.
2) Liberalism is not bad, and your tone implied that you viewed it as negative. I say that because you paired it with fascism. I can, of course, make nice things sound bad by pairing it them with other words too. For example "evil rainbows" or "killer ponies" or "poisoned chocolate".
First I just wanted to point out how great you are to put me under your wing to show me the way. So, before I even attempt to answer such a deftly and politely asked question; why don’t you tell me? Since your so much the better then I and all.
What about divorce? It's prohibited to the Catholic Church, would you think it's acceptable to force that on the rest of the country if a Catholic majority ever controlled the halls of government? Not to get too far off-topic, but isn't that just as bad as allowing marriage rights to homosexuals?
That's a terrible analogy. If someone's religion prevents me from divorcing, I am being denied rights. If someone's belief in equality under the law allows gays to marry, no one is being denied rights.
Domestic abuse laws test the separation. I support the laws wholeheartedly, but there are passages in the Christian bible that would seem to support the routine beating of wives. Which has to give? The courts will support the law, because in the eyes of the law, your wife is protected equally. Hopefully no one ever thinks about that defense when they stand accused of domestic abuse, although the courts will rule that the right to be secure in her person takes precedence.
This already happens, though not so much in the US. Sharia law honor killings are sometimes defended on religious grounds in many countries. A judge in Germany stopped a woman from divorcing her husband on grounds of spousal abuse. The judge ruled that the Koran, like the Christian bible, allowed this abuse. I believe the decision was overturned, thank goodness, but the religious defense works for a lot of things nonetheless.
He's right. You misused fascism in a horribly inaccurate manner. The Republican party is considerably (by many orders of magnitude) more fascist, when using that word's actual definition, not in a McCarthyite, Pavlovian manner. Psst, did you know which group was one of the actual fascists' most ardent enemies, who were killed along with the Jews, Roma, homosexuals, minorities, and so on? Liberals. You should really READ Mein Kampf if you want an accurate view into the mind of such evil, not listen to talking points. Calling someone a liberal fascist is total fail. Which, as was pointed out, is not a bad word. That too is a pathetic attempt by the far right to insert a meme where that word is demonized, just like socialism. On that note, liberal =/= socialist. To assert that, too, is a total fail. Obama is nowhere near fascist. Not even close. He's also nowhere near Communist, which is the implication when the word socialism is used with regards to him
At present, most people think fascism is simply “the way the Nazis behaved.” While there is no question that the Nazis were fascists, it is quite easy to be at the opposite end of the traditional political spectrum and also be a hard core fascist. And so far as I can see, there are currently more fascists in North America at the leftward end of the political spectrum than the rightward end. That’s what Liberal Fascism is about.
Fascism is not a program in politics, it is a mood. It can be a mood of the right or the left.
It is the mood of an angry identity group. The group could be vegans, transgendered people, the losers in a war, members of an impoverished ethnic group …
In their view, they have been wronged - by members of another group. The government must make things right by giving them money, status, and power and punishing members of the evil group that has wronged them.
Typically, fascists thrive on crises. When they don’t have actual crises, they proclaim or even manufacture them in order to get what they want.
Fascism is a modern substitute for traditional religion. Fascists, right or left, relate to government as worshippers do to a god. They look to government not only to provide for them but to validate their lives, to proclaim that they are good, to say that they have a right to be proud of themselves.
The head of state is seen as a messiah who will usher in a new age - even in nature. By contrast, his political opponents are endlessly plotting evil conspirators who must be crushed.
The crises the fascist thrives on (or invents) are - of course - so serious that civil liberties and normal justice are unimportant, perhaps even offensive or dangerous.
Oh sorry I jumped the gun.
I'm incredibly far away from fascism. Obviously you don't know what fascism is.
The party closest to fascism in the US is the Republican party, with their crony capitalism, which resembles fascism in some ways, as well as their dislike of the freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
Your right after all the Republicans are also for the Fairness Doctrine and a civilian national security force. You have shown me the way.
That's a terrible analogy. If someone's religion prevents me from divorcing, I am being denied rights. If someone's belief in equality under the law allows gays to marry, no one is being denied rights.
You're right, it was horrible the way it was. I forgot the "not" in it. I'll edit the original post. Leave one bloody word out and the whole meaning changes. Thank you for pointing it out though.
He writes a great many of his own speeches. So he has the occasional slight stuttering. And? Kennedy, uh, he was still, uh, a great speaker. That is simply pathetic. He is very eloquent, and better still, very knowledgable about a great many subjects, and when he isn't, he can admit it rather than cover it up. He also surrounds himself with advisors, even those he disagrees with, as opposed to sycophants. Have you watched Dubya? He can't speak in coherent sentences. Have you listened to and watched Palin when she isn't spewing talking points? She knows so little it is downright frightening she got so close to the Oval Office. South Africa is a part of the country of Africa, of course, you betcha?!? The Governor of ALASKA doesn't at least know that CANADA is a member of NAFTA?!?!?! Are you f***ing serious? Bush Doctrine? Anytime she is asked a question, sure, she knows how to deliver a talking point. When asked follow-ups, she fails, completely and utterly. And then some.
What does JFK have to do with Obama? Umm uh nothing. Saying uh is not like stuttering due to an inablity to handle a questions asked for fear of a gaffe. Why do you think Obama rarley had town meetings? I have watched GWB and he has a very limited grasp of the english language but at least he talked to people and tried to answer questions I even respect Biden even though he's a gaffe factory. As for Sarah Palin why should I care?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0
The next year, months before the Oklahoma City bombing took place, Biden introduced another bill called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. It previewed the 2001 Patriot Act by allowing secret evidence to be used in prosecutions, expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and wiretap laws, creating a new federal crime of "terrorism" that could be invoked based on political beliefs, permitting the U.S. military to be used in civilian law enforcement, and allowing permanent detection of non-U.S. citizens without judicial review.
And that's on top of the list of other acts Biden pushed for along similar lines also mentioned in that article.
No matter how anybody looks at it, whenever one brings up fascism, Reductio as Hitlerum is never far behind.
Not really. Fannie and Freddie dominated the mortgage market (mostly because of inconsistent regulations between them and banks -- hello again GSE status -- that led to lower costs for all but the riskiest loans for Fannie and Freddie).
The Subprime Mortgage Crisis is directly attributable to Fannie and Freddie, and their problems are directly due to their status as GSEs.
And the current economic slump is directly attributable to the SMC.
To claim that Fannie and Freddie were the sole causes of this crisis is surprisingly misinformed. What about collateralized debt securities, secuitization of mortgages (both came with radid lobbying to remain completely unregulated, and they got their wish - see Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000)? What about the responsibility of House Flippers, and overeager builders saturating a market, or mortgage brokers selling loans illegally? How about the equating of buying stuff to being a patriot? The decline of real wages? Or the failure of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight to do its job, you know - provide government regulation of Fannie and Freddie? Or the repeal of so many laws designed to reign in excessive bank activities like Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or the Glass-Stegal act? Let us not forget that the decrease in the capital gains tax contributed as well.
No sir, Fannie and Freddie were but a small part of this mess. Certainly not the prime mover. And even if they were, it is still a huge stretch to claim that it was over regulation that allowed them to get into this state. The community reinvestment act has been around for 30 years, and in that time we have had two real estate collapses, and neither caused a global financial meltdown like this one? What has changed? Not that act. What did change was the lenders ability to ignore the consequences of making sketchy load - a direct result of turning loans into securities and then offering "insurance" on them, all brought to you by the repeal of several important acts and the lobbying by financial firms to keep the govt out of thie space.
Finally, the current slump is certainly not solely, nor directly attributable to the SMC. Quite frankly, we were due for a recession. Jobs and growth were already headed south before this whole debacle really kicked off. In fact it was the slow down in the economy that burst the housing bubble, which in turn magnified the recession. Recessions happen. They just don't need to be unmitigated disasters. Just like hurricanes happen, but they don't need to be unmitigated disasters. Just like wars must be fought, but they don't need to be unmitigated disasters. All these things - these natural and man made disasters - I do not expect my government to protect me from them. Far from it. But what has surprised me and disappointed me is the fact that the government has served to be a force for expanding and extending the disaster. And it is always under the auspices of decreasing government. I use to think that was the way to go, and I could almost go for it if it were accompanied by reigned in spending, and a balanced budget. But we don't even get that.
But lets sweep all that under the rug. It is not convenient to Solik's political model to look at all that. Never mind that we need to be honest with ourselves if we want to avoid these issues in the future. But Solik already knows the answer, he doesn't need facts. In fact he knew the answer before there was a problem - its the same answer that he will give to the next problem, whatever it may be. Ummm.... Lesse ... Less government! Right!
Just like Kursk, I really wonder if you believe this stuff. You both seem to be thoughtful folks, but you repeatedly omit facts in order to bolster a very weak argument. I can't tell if you mean it or if you just do it to try and fool folks into your way of thinking.
To claim that Fannie and Freddie were the sole causes of this crisis is surprisingly misinformed.
I absolutely agree with you. Luckily for me, this is not what I said. I disagreed with the comment that things wouldn't be so bad if it was just Fannie and Freddie. On the contrary -- things would still be pretty terrible.
That doesn't mean Fannie and Freddie are everything.
What about the responsibility of House Flippers, and overeager builders saturating a market
These things were made possible by the expansion of sub-prime mortgages. That one activity, made possible by GSE status, greatly increased demand for housing. That shot house prices through the roof, which encouraged builders to build more houses and provided opportunities for flippers to find homes that didn't have their selling price matching the new inflated value.
It's not just Fannie and Freddie failing that's the problem. It's the entire process that was initiated by their market-breaking procedures, empowered by government.
How about the equating of buying stuff to being a patriot?
This was a mistake. I agree with you here and have no problems putting blame on Bush for it.
Its only real effect, of course, was to push the economic crash back a few years. And that's always a bad idea, because it just makes it worse.
The decline of real wages?
This was a response to the growing subprime mortgage problem. The Fed kept pushing interest rates down, and the government kept printing money, trying to stave off what was coming a little bit longer (probably hoping some monumental event would happen in the world that magically helped things). It's another example of government taking a manifesting problem and "solving it," making it worse.
Rising energy prices also contributed to this, of course. I think that was actually the catalyst that knocked over the house of cards -- that's what initiated a lot of the defaults (which were pretty certain to come anyways).
Or the failure of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight to do its job, you know - provide government regulation of Fannie and Freddie?
How is this not a Fannie & Freddie problem? They were GSEs that didn't have the regulation that GSEs should have (note, GSEs basically shouldn't exist in the first place, but if they are going to, then they should certainly be regulated).Let us not forget that the decrease in the capital gains tax contributed as well.
Don't think I buy this one.
And even if they were, it is still a huge stretch to claim that it was over regulation that allowed them to get into this state.
It sure would be.
You let me know if you see somebody making a claim like this.
The community reinvestment act has been around for 30 years, and in that time we have had two real estate collapses, and neither caused a global financial meltdown like this one? What has changed? Not that act.
That's actually not true. The act was strengthened by Clinton. The jury's still out on the CRA's effects on all of this, of course.
What did change was the lenders ability to ignore the consequences of making sketchy load - a direct result of turning loans into securities and then offering "insurance" on them, all brought to you by the repeal of several important acts and the lobbying by financial firms to keep the govt out of thie space.
I agree with your effect, but not your cause. It was the government's backing of the loans that allowed the lenders to do this. The lenders would not have done this if they were actually the ones at risk from failed loans.
Finally, the current slump is certainly not solely, nor directly attributable to the SMC. Quite frankly, we were due for a recession.
I agree.
But lets sweep all that under the rug. It is not convenient to Solik's political model to look at all that. Never mind that we need to be honest with ourselves if we want to avoid these issues in the future. But Solik already knows the answer, he doesn't need facts. In fact he knew the answer before there was a problem - its the same answer that he will give to the next problem, whatever it may be. Ummm.... Lesse ... Less government! Right!
This kind of ad-hom bull is not appreciated nor warranted. I will thank you from refraining from this kind of behavior in your future posts.
The next year, months before the Oklahoma City bombing took place, Biden introduced another bill called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. It previewed the 2001 Patriot Act by allowing secret evidence to be used in prosecutions, expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and wiretap laws, creating a new federal crime of "terrorism" that could be invoked based on political beliefs, permitting the U.S. military to be used in civilian law enforcement, and allowing permanent detection of non-U.S. citizens without judicial review.
I don't care what the act called for, I care what actually got passed. Bad bills are proposed all the time by both parties. All of those were nuked from the bill which passed; the only thing which even sort of remained was "secret evidence", but even that was ONLY if it was classified and even then the defendent had to have access to a non-classified summary adequete for their defense otherwise it was not admissable evidence, and the hearing had to be public.
There's a difference between someone proposing something and what actually gets passed.
That said, Joe Biden is also an idiot, and he voted for the PATRIOT Act as well, though to be fair, apparently he changed his mind on wiretapping as he voted to remove those provisions from the act.
Remember, just because you're a Democrat, it doesn't mean you're liberal, smart, or pro-civil rights.
Fascism = Nazis
Fascism = Italians, actually.
You're right, it was horrible the way it was. I forgot the "not" in it. I'll edit the original post. Leave one bloody word out and the whole meaning changes. Thank you for pointing it out though.
Heh, that makes a lot more sense. I thought I had perhaps misunderstood your point of view elsewhere. Sorry if I pointed that out like a jerk.
Fascism = Italians, actually.
True. My point still stands though. You can't throw in Fascism into a debate and expect everyone to conveniently ignore all the negative connotations that go with it.
True. My point still stands though. You can't throw in Fascism into a debate and expect everyone to conveniently ignore all the negative connotations that go with it.
Sure, but on the other hand, its not illegitimate to bring it up when someone is actually advocating fascist policies. But people do throw around "fascist" far too often, to the point where I think most people have no clue what it actually means.
Incidentally, notice that the Republican-spread riot rumors obviously did not come to pass.
Well, in our dimension, Obama won, so...
Remember, these are crazy racists we're talking about, not reasonable human beings.
At least one of the rumors alleged that there would be rioting regardless, as they'd be free to riot and loot due to a black person winning.
Remember, these are crazy racists we're talking about, not reasonable human beings.
TD...there was also talk about riots if he lost.
lol riots either way...
Granted I would like to have seen the Soccer-Mom Riot of 08' go down in history
Granted I would like to have seen the Soccer-Mom Riot of 08' go down in history
Dude. They have minivans......
....... and cupcakes.
Yes...but you are forgetting they also have anti-depressants...
But they're mad, gosh darnit. Joe the plumber promised them he'd come over and snake their drain and gee golly if that ol' Putin didn't rear his head.
Incidentally, notice that the Republican-spread riot rumors obviously did not come to pass.
Because Obama won?
But, in CA there has been a little violence because of Prop 8 passing. Ironic, Obama said that he didn't want to see gay marriage.
Because Obama was running in the election, the black vote in CA was much higher than normal and that block voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8.
You have these religious people who say they are going to hell when they die...why not let them be in hell while they are alive...
I don't understand the whole "trying to ban" gay marriage thing...Let them suffer marriage
I know a few of gay couples. They have well paying jobs. They certainly aren't about to get married and have the IRS apply the marriage penalty to their income tax...
Please see the stickied post.
What about it?
Please see the stickied post.
I believe I know which thread you are speaking of , but it is not 'stickied', so I am not sure. (Not being smart, just wondering if the 'sticky' was forgotten.)
I believe I know which thread you are speaking of , but it is not 'stickied', so I am not sure. (Not being smart, just wondering if the 'sticky' was forgotten.)
Yes, I saw no sticky post either.
Because Obama was running in the election, the black vote in CA was much higher than normal and that block voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8.
I'm trying not to be bitter.