Thoughts on Obama's inaugural address.
MagicRat
01-20-2009, 01:52 PM
If you missed his presentation, the text can be found here. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_obama_text)
I think most politicians' speeches are just so much fluff to rally the loyal troops and persuade the naive.
But this one is different, since it was listened to by so many around the world and obviously is a neat declaration of intent by his administration.
Frankly it had something for just about everyone, since he touched on so many basic issues.
However, I am sure many people will feel excluded or feel he overlooked some issues.
At least people like me were included... ungraciously called 'non-believers' though. :mad:
So, what is your thought/complaint about the address?
I think most politicians' speeches are just so much fluff to rally the loyal troops and persuade the naive.
But this one is different, since it was listened to by so many around the world and obviously is a neat declaration of intent by his administration.
Frankly it had something for just about everyone, since he touched on so many basic issues.
However, I am sure many people will feel excluded or feel he overlooked some issues.
At least people like me were included... ungraciously called 'non-believers' though. :mad:
So, what is your thought/complaint about the address?
fredjacksonsan
01-20-2009, 09:18 PM
There's been a need for change in Washington for some time. Hopefully this is the start of it.
HotZ28
01-20-2009, 10:10 PM
At least people like me were included... ungraciously called 'non-believers' though. :mad:
So, what is your thought/complaint about the address?
Well, he mentioned the “non-believers” once, and God 5-times, so that should either offend you, or give you a reason to consider an alternative to nothing. BTW, what is a “non-believer,” do you just rely on the Big Bang or Chaos Theory, 0+0=0? Have you ever wondered how nobody + nothing can equal everything?
Anyway, this speech was nothing unusual, or different from the last nine inaugural speeches I’ve witnessed; they all had good speechwriters! Just a lot of bullshit served up as burgers. I feel bad knowing a lot of false hope was given to many people that the America Goverment will work hard to help them overcome their hardships & suffering. As of today, the American people & Government are $10,628,881,485,510.23 in debt!
Government control & spending is not the solution to our problem, unless we plan a closed society where corruption is institutionalized by the State and dissent is disallowed! 350-billion tax dollars recently vanished and I have not seen any improvement in our economy; in fact, it continues to decline and only the balance sheets at the banks have improved. The rest was totally wasted bailing out Wall Street and the big three! It is a simple mathematical fact, if you spend more money than you have, your financial future will continue on a downward spiral. Yeah, it might look good on the surface; however, that’s the same picture Enron, Madoff, and 47 failed US banks painted! Obviously, this guy can Talk the Talk, but only time will tell if he can Walk the Walk! :2cents:
So, what is your thought/complaint about the address?
Well, he mentioned the “non-believers” once, and God 5-times, so that should either offend you, or give you a reason to consider an alternative to nothing. BTW, what is a “non-believer,” do you just rely on the Big Bang or Chaos Theory, 0+0=0? Have you ever wondered how nobody + nothing can equal everything?
Anyway, this speech was nothing unusual, or different from the last nine inaugural speeches I’ve witnessed; they all had good speechwriters! Just a lot of bullshit served up as burgers. I feel bad knowing a lot of false hope was given to many people that the America Goverment will work hard to help them overcome their hardships & suffering. As of today, the American people & Government are $10,628,881,485,510.23 in debt!
Government control & spending is not the solution to our problem, unless we plan a closed society where corruption is institutionalized by the State and dissent is disallowed! 350-billion tax dollars recently vanished and I have not seen any improvement in our economy; in fact, it continues to decline and only the balance sheets at the banks have improved. The rest was totally wasted bailing out Wall Street and the big three! It is a simple mathematical fact, if you spend more money than you have, your financial future will continue on a downward spiral. Yeah, it might look good on the surface; however, that’s the same picture Enron, Madoff, and 47 failed US banks painted! Obviously, this guy can Talk the Talk, but only time will tell if he can Walk the Walk! :2cents:
MagicRat
01-21-2009, 08:15 AM
Well, he mentioned the “non-believers” once, and God 5-times, so that should either offend you, or give you a reason to consider an alternative to nothing. BTW, what is a “non-believer,” do you just rely on the Big Bang or Chaos Theory, 0+0=0? Have you ever wondered how nobody + nothing can equal everything?
My point was somewhat satirical. The speech was a pretty good one if all I can nit-pick is just two words. :)
However, that speech was largely symbolic and for that reason, I believe it was poor judgment to label the 60 million Americans who describe themselves as having 'no religion' as "non-believers".
That term is dismissive and inaccurate. Frankly everyone is a "non-believer" because none of us believe in all religions at the same time. It's impossible to do so because religions are so often contradictory in their content.
FWIW I do agree with your point about continued deficit spending in the US. It is harmful to the nation in the long run and there has been zero leadership displayed by anyone about how it can be resolved.
My point was somewhat satirical. The speech was a pretty good one if all I can nit-pick is just two words. :)
However, that speech was largely symbolic and for that reason, I believe it was poor judgment to label the 60 million Americans who describe themselves as having 'no religion' as "non-believers".
That term is dismissive and inaccurate. Frankly everyone is a "non-believer" because none of us believe in all religions at the same time. It's impossible to do so because religions are so often contradictory in their content.
FWIW I do agree with your point about continued deficit spending in the US. It is harmful to the nation in the long run and there has been zero leadership displayed by anyone about how it can be resolved.
'97ventureowner
01-21-2009, 08:43 AM
At least people like me were included... ungraciously called 'non-believers' though. :mad:
Call me ignorant, but I read and re-read the text from the link you provided and could not find the term "non-believer." ( I even did a search of that page for the word with no results.) From reading that address I found the following passage ( link supplied in MagicRat's OP) that I think has more to do with the term "non-believer":
"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. "
If one can use the term "non-believer" I think it has to do more with those that question the abilities or ambition of the President rather than using the term in a religious perspective,it has more to do with the "nay-sayers".:2cents:
Call me ignorant, but I read and re-read the text from the link you provided and could not find the term "non-believer." ( I even did a search of that page for the word with no results.) From reading that address I found the following passage ( link supplied in MagicRat's OP) that I think has more to do with the term "non-believer":
"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. "
If one can use the term "non-believer" I think it has to do more with those that question the abilities or ambition of the President rather than using the term in a religious perspective,it has more to do with the "nay-sayers".:2cents:
BNaylor
01-21-2009, 08:51 AM
Call me ignorant, but I read and re-read the text from the link you provided and could not find the term "non-believer."
:confused:
Are you sure?
"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers." - Barack H. Obama
I feel bad knowing a lot of false hope was given to many people that America will work hard to help them overcome their hardships & suffering.
Too many people drinking kool-aid. :rolleyes:
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg44/telefriend/false-hope.jpg
:confused:
Are you sure?
"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers." - Barack H. Obama
I feel bad knowing a lot of false hope was given to many people that America will work hard to help them overcome their hardships & suffering.
Too many people drinking kool-aid. :rolleyes:
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg44/telefriend/false-hope.jpg
MagicRat
01-21-2009, 10:30 AM
imo Obama as 'false hope' says much more about people's overblown expectations of him and the capabilities of the office than anything Obama has actually said or done.
At present, I can only criticize Obama for being an opportunist, like almost any politician.
Also, imho he has not fully stated the difficulty of the long-term economic tasks that should (but probably won't) be done, like deficit reduction.
Frankly, it would be politically difficult for him to do so. The electorate would not want to hear it. Also, the short sound bites afforded him by the media is not condusive to the discussion of complicated fiscal policy.
At present, I can only criticize Obama for being an opportunist, like almost any politician.
Also, imho he has not fully stated the difficulty of the long-term economic tasks that should (but probably won't) be done, like deficit reduction.
Frankly, it would be politically difficult for him to do so. The electorate would not want to hear it. Also, the short sound bites afforded him by the media is not condusive to the discussion of complicated fiscal policy.
thegladhatter
01-21-2009, 10:49 AM
We shall see what we shall see. A speech doth not a president make.
The innauguration was so badly over hyped it was nauseating. The crowd's response to GWB was disgusting.
I fear we are living in the period of a new Dr Zhivago. The commies have taken the capitol!
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31CF6JHYC7L._SL500_AA140_.gif
The innauguration was so badly over hyped it was nauseating. The crowd's response to GWB was disgusting.
I fear we are living in the period of a new Dr Zhivago. The commies have taken the capitol!
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31CF6JHYC7L._SL500_AA140_.gif
'97ventureowner
01-21-2009, 01:10 PM
:confused:
Are you sure?
"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers." - Barack H. Obama
Okay, NOW I found it on my next attempt. Too much too read while multitasking at the same time :frown: When you put the text up with those words, it was easier to find. I wonder why the search turned up no results when I ran it, I even typed other variations of the word. I was beginning to think that link in the OP was a condensed version of the speech. My bad.
There has been much discussion in my local area between those that hope for the changes that Obama proposes, and there are those, which he outlines in his speech to which I quoted in my above post that are cynics. I had thought, originally, by reading this thread that the discussion had taken on a more "national" appeal concerning the opposing groups, and it wasn't just this area where it was highly debated. So without going off topic further, I'll let you get back to the original discussion.
Are you sure?
"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers." - Barack H. Obama
Okay, NOW I found it on my next attempt. Too much too read while multitasking at the same time :frown: When you put the text up with those words, it was easier to find. I wonder why the search turned up no results when I ran it, I even typed other variations of the word. I was beginning to think that link in the OP was a condensed version of the speech. My bad.
There has been much discussion in my local area between those that hope for the changes that Obama proposes, and there are those, which he outlines in his speech to which I quoted in my above post that are cynics. I had thought, originally, by reading this thread that the discussion had taken on a more "national" appeal concerning the opposing groups, and it wasn't just this area where it was highly debated. So without going off topic further, I'll let you get back to the original discussion.
Gohan Ryu
01-21-2009, 01:52 PM
Here's GWB's first inaugural address from 8 years ago. It inspires hope and confidence in his administration, doesn't it? He talks about reforming education and saving us all from terrorism and paving the pathway democracy etc...pretty much the same thing EVERY new president talks about in his inauguration speech. BTW it's not really worth reading, my point is a speech is a just speech blah blah blah...
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres66.html
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres66.html
VR43000GT
01-21-2009, 03:17 PM
Here's GWB's first inaugural address from 8 years ago. It inspires hope and confidence in his administration, doesn't it? He talks about reforming education and saving us all from terrorism and paving the pathway democracy etc...pretty much the same thing EVERY new president talks about in his inauguration speech. BTW it's not really worth reading, my point is a speech is a just speech blah blah blah...
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres66.html
Didn't he also follow through with those things? There hasn't been another attack on US soil since 9/11/2001. I would say that must mean he did something right to prevent further attacks no?
As far as education, Bush(to name a few things):
1) Signed the No Child Left Behind Act which increased the standards of our schools. (which even now is still highly favored amongst US citizens) This also funded for new materials and general educational funding.
2) Required annual reading and math tests on grades 3-8.
3) Est. a $2.4 billion fund to states to implement teacher accountability
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres66.html
Didn't he also follow through with those things? There hasn't been another attack on US soil since 9/11/2001. I would say that must mean he did something right to prevent further attacks no?
As far as education, Bush(to name a few things):
1) Signed the No Child Left Behind Act which increased the standards of our schools. (which even now is still highly favored amongst US citizens) This also funded for new materials and general educational funding.
2) Required annual reading and math tests on grades 3-8.
3) Est. a $2.4 billion fund to states to implement teacher accountability
Gohan Ryu
01-21-2009, 06:09 PM
Didn't he also follow through with those things? There hasn't been another attack on US soil since 9/11/2001. I would say that must mean he did something right to prevent further attacks no?
9/11 didn't happen until after GWB was elected, so when he said that he was simply repeating what his writer told him to say, and what Clinton's writer told him to say 4 years previous, etc... And since 9/11 was the only attack on American soil since the WW2, he can't be credited with 'protecting us' from any foreign attacks. If anything we should be saying the only attack on American soil in over 70 years happened during Bush's administration. Bush said the same thing in his 2nd inaugural speech and Obama said the same thing in his inaugural speech.
As far as education, Bush(to name a few things):
1) Signed the No Child Left Behind Act which increased the standards of our schools. (which even now is still highly favored amongst US citizens) This also funded for new materials and general educational funding.
2) Required annual reading and math tests on grades 3-8.
3) Est. a $2.4 billion fund to states to implement teacher accountability
I'll just take your word for it that he did all these things. Apparently they didn't help. Why is education still an issue that needs to be addressed by Obama's administration? I mean, we can all make gestures and attempts at fulfilling promises, but can Bush claim to have actually fulfilled anything significant he promised in his inaugural speech? Can any president we've elected claim to have fulfilled even half of their campaign promises (rhetoric question for those who take everything literally).
9/11 didn't happen until after GWB was elected, so when he said that he was simply repeating what his writer told him to say, and what Clinton's writer told him to say 4 years previous, etc... And since 9/11 was the only attack on American soil since the WW2, he can't be credited with 'protecting us' from any foreign attacks. If anything we should be saying the only attack on American soil in over 70 years happened during Bush's administration. Bush said the same thing in his 2nd inaugural speech and Obama said the same thing in his inaugural speech.
As far as education, Bush(to name a few things):
1) Signed the No Child Left Behind Act which increased the standards of our schools. (which even now is still highly favored amongst US citizens) This also funded for new materials and general educational funding.
2) Required annual reading and math tests on grades 3-8.
3) Est. a $2.4 billion fund to states to implement teacher accountability
I'll just take your word for it that he did all these things. Apparently they didn't help. Why is education still an issue that needs to be addressed by Obama's administration? I mean, we can all make gestures and attempts at fulfilling promises, but can Bush claim to have actually fulfilled anything significant he promised in his inaugural speech? Can any president we've elected claim to have fulfilled even half of their campaign promises (rhetoric question for those who take everything literally).
CL8
01-21-2009, 06:41 PM
Obamas speech was eloquent, unfortuately, it was only from his mouth, not from his heart.
HotZ28
01-21-2009, 08:10 PM
Can any president we've elected claim to have fulfilled even half of their campaign promises Funny that you would mention that, I have listened to many campaign promises & inaugural speeches in the last 60-years and they all sound the same to me; like I said before, just a lot of bullshit served up as a steak burger.
I will admit, this particular ceremony did put the icing on the cake! It was an inaugural exhibition that Hollywood would have been proud to produce. This one looked more like a theatrical presentation than a swearing in ceremony! Just seeing all the money wasted at this event, made my stomach turn! Viewing this from around the world, the people would never imagine that we are over 10-trillion in debt and thousands are losing their jobs every day! So much for the glamour, now show us how to cut spending and downsize government, starting with the IRS! I wonder if Obama has even heard of the Fair Tax proposal? I suppose not, gluttony-101 is one of Harvard’s most respected subjects! :iceslolan Hot off the press--Obama just put a salary freeze on the White House staff making over 100K. There will be some unhappy cooks and maids there tomorrow! :rofl:
I will admit, this particular ceremony did put the icing on the cake! It was an inaugural exhibition that Hollywood would have been proud to produce. This one looked more like a theatrical presentation than a swearing in ceremony! Just seeing all the money wasted at this event, made my stomach turn! Viewing this from around the world, the people would never imagine that we are over 10-trillion in debt and thousands are losing their jobs every day! So much for the glamour, now show us how to cut spending and downsize government, starting with the IRS! I wonder if Obama has even heard of the Fair Tax proposal? I suppose not, gluttony-101 is one of Harvard’s most respected subjects! :iceslolan Hot off the press--Obama just put a salary freeze on the White House staff making over 100K. There will be some unhappy cooks and maids there tomorrow! :rofl:
03cavPA
01-22-2009, 04:49 AM
However, that speech was largely symbolic and for that reason, I believe it was poor judgment to label the 60 million Americans who describe themselves as having 'no religion' as "non-believers".
That term is dismissive and inaccurate. Frankly everyone is a "non-believer" because none of us believe in all religions at the same time. It's impossible to do so because religions are so often contradictory in their content.
It just looked to me like he was trying to be inclusive. He could have said, "and those who don't believe in any of those things," but it was easier to say "non-believers".
:dunno:
FWIW I do agree with your point about continued deficit spending in the US. It is harmful to the nation in the long run and there has been zero leadership displayed by anyone about how it can be resolved.
I doubt we'll see any from this administration, either.
As for the inauguration, it was over-hyped and far too expensive. The speech was a speech, much like many others given by politicians. It sounds nice. Unfortunately, we do have some legitimate reasons to view our government in DC with cynicism, and it started long before GW.
I'll reserve judgment until I see the man perform some of the miracles his followers want to attribute to him. Let's see what kind of follow-through we get for our money.
That term is dismissive and inaccurate. Frankly everyone is a "non-believer" because none of us believe in all religions at the same time. It's impossible to do so because religions are so often contradictory in their content.
It just looked to me like he was trying to be inclusive. He could have said, "and those who don't believe in any of those things," but it was easier to say "non-believers".
:dunno:
FWIW I do agree with your point about continued deficit spending in the US. It is harmful to the nation in the long run and there has been zero leadership displayed by anyone about how it can be resolved.
I doubt we'll see any from this administration, either.
As for the inauguration, it was over-hyped and far too expensive. The speech was a speech, much like many others given by politicians. It sounds nice. Unfortunately, we do have some legitimate reasons to view our government in DC with cynicism, and it started long before GW.
I'll reserve judgment until I see the man perform some of the miracles his followers want to attribute to him. Let's see what kind of follow-through we get for our money.
BNaylor
01-22-2009, 07:24 AM
As for the inauguration, it was over-hyped and far too expensive. The speech was a speech, much like many others given by politicians. It sounds nice.
:werd:
I don't care what anybody says but the speech itself was nothing but hyperbole and fluff. But it is no surprise. Inaugural speeches regardless of President are just like the State of the Union speeches, boring and meaningless.
The part that got me was all the B.S. Instead of the inauguration being mostly about the man, Obama himself it sounded more like a referendum on black Americans. The theme was based on Abraham Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, Martin Luther King, and the civil rights movement of the 60s to include the has beens of that era that just won't seem to go away. Another in your face race card issue.
The interesting part is Obama is not a full black as far as race. His mother was white. So he is mixed race or a half breed. In his books he tell stories about how he was shunned by other kids due to his mixed race. Yet he is being touted as being the first black American President. :screwy:....:runaround:
:werd:
I don't care what anybody says but the speech itself was nothing but hyperbole and fluff. But it is no surprise. Inaugural speeches regardless of President are just like the State of the Union speeches, boring and meaningless.
The part that got me was all the B.S. Instead of the inauguration being mostly about the man, Obama himself it sounded more like a referendum on black Americans. The theme was based on Abraham Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, Martin Luther King, and the civil rights movement of the 60s to include the has beens of that era that just won't seem to go away. Another in your face race card issue.
The interesting part is Obama is not a full black as far as race. His mother was white. So he is mixed race or a half breed. In his books he tell stories about how he was shunned by other kids due to his mixed race. Yet he is being touted as being the first black American President. :screwy:....:runaround:
MagicRat
01-22-2009, 08:33 AM
It just looked to me like he was trying to be inclusive. He could have said, "and those who don't believe in any of those things," but it was easier to say "non-believers".
Yes, he was being inclusive, and I am nit-picking, but the correct words are "atheist" and "agnostic". Use of the term 'non-believers' is disingenuous because it is descriptive in a religious context.
Obama used the correct names 'Christian' and 'Muslim'. He did not use descriptive terms like 'Cross-worshipper', 'God botherer' or 'Mecca finder'.
:)
The interesting part is Obama is not a full black as far as race. His mother was white. So he is mixed race or a half breed. In his books he tell stories about how he was shunned by other kids due to his mixed race. Yet he is being touted as being the first black American President. :screwy:....:runaround:
I would agree that racial classification in society is pretty ridiculous and is becoming progressively more meaningless. However, I do agree with many people that the election is historic, on racial grounds.
Obviously many millions of blacks in the US are of mixed heritage, but are treated as being 'black', with all the historic discrimination and judgement that goes along with that.
If Obama was in the south 60 years ago, I'm pretty sure society would place him at the back of the bus. Mixed heritage means little in the eyes of those who judge others in racial terms.
So, for good or bad, society sees him as 'black' despite his background and, imo are correct for celebrating Obama's accomplishment as first black president.
I would prefer a society that is indifferent to a person's racial background. It's tough, but we are getting there.
Yes, he was being inclusive, and I am nit-picking, but the correct words are "atheist" and "agnostic". Use of the term 'non-believers' is disingenuous because it is descriptive in a religious context.
Obama used the correct names 'Christian' and 'Muslim'. He did not use descriptive terms like 'Cross-worshipper', 'God botherer' or 'Mecca finder'.
:)
The interesting part is Obama is not a full black as far as race. His mother was white. So he is mixed race or a half breed. In his books he tell stories about how he was shunned by other kids due to his mixed race. Yet he is being touted as being the first black American President. :screwy:....:runaround:
I would agree that racial classification in society is pretty ridiculous and is becoming progressively more meaningless. However, I do agree with many people that the election is historic, on racial grounds.
Obviously many millions of blacks in the US are of mixed heritage, but are treated as being 'black', with all the historic discrimination and judgement that goes along with that.
If Obama was in the south 60 years ago, I'm pretty sure society would place him at the back of the bus. Mixed heritage means little in the eyes of those who judge others in racial terms.
So, for good or bad, society sees him as 'black' despite his background and, imo are correct for celebrating Obama's accomplishment as first black president.
I would prefer a society that is indifferent to a person's racial background. It's tough, but we are getting there.
BNaylor
01-22-2009, 09:23 AM
I would agree that racial classification in society is pretty ridiculous and is becoming progressively more meaningless. However, I do agree with many people that the election is historic, on racial grounds.
Obviously many millions of blacks in the US are of mixed heritage, but are treated as being 'black', with all the historic discrimination and judgement that goes along with that.
If Obama was in the south 60 years ago, I'm pretty sure society would place him at the back of the bus. Mixed heritage means little in the eyes of those who judge others in racial terms.
So, for good or bad, society sees him as 'black' despite his background and, imo are correct for celebrating Obama's accomplishment as first black president.
I would prefer a society that is indifferent to a person's racial background. It's tough, but we are getting there.
Obviously his election is historic and being packaged in a light we have never seen in the U.S. Race is one of the major issues why this country is so divided and even to this day not meaningless. While race, heritage, or ethnicity (your roots) doesn't mean much to people or groups that have an agenda which includes political it does mean a lot to the individual, nonetheless.
How would you know for sure other than speculating? Are you black? Or of mixed race? :biggrin:....:lol:
With historic precedent being set by the U.S. I am looking forward to the day when countries like Canada and our other so called allies and other democracies elect their first black President or Prime Minister. :grinyes:
Obviously many millions of blacks in the US are of mixed heritage, but are treated as being 'black', with all the historic discrimination and judgement that goes along with that.
If Obama was in the south 60 years ago, I'm pretty sure society would place him at the back of the bus. Mixed heritage means little in the eyes of those who judge others in racial terms.
So, for good or bad, society sees him as 'black' despite his background and, imo are correct for celebrating Obama's accomplishment as first black president.
I would prefer a society that is indifferent to a person's racial background. It's tough, but we are getting there.
Obviously his election is historic and being packaged in a light we have never seen in the U.S. Race is one of the major issues why this country is so divided and even to this day not meaningless. While race, heritage, or ethnicity (your roots) doesn't mean much to people or groups that have an agenda which includes political it does mean a lot to the individual, nonetheless.
How would you know for sure other than speculating? Are you black? Or of mixed race? :biggrin:....:lol:
With historic precedent being set by the U.S. I am looking forward to the day when countries like Canada and our other so called allies and other democracies elect their first black President or Prime Minister. :grinyes:
MagicRat
01-22-2009, 09:52 AM
With historic precedent being set by the U.S. I am looking forward to the day when countries like Canada and our other so called allies and other democracies elect their first black President or Prime Minister. :grinyes:
Uh, Bob, this sign of progress that you seek already happened in Canada some years ago.
Like most parliamentary democracies, the head of state in Canada is not the Prime Minister (he is just one of 308 elected Members of Parliament (MP's)).
(BTW the voters do not elect a Prime Minister. We elect out MP's only. They decide which MP will be Prime Minister.)
Canada's head of state is the Governor General (acting as the Queen's representative). For the last 3.5 years, that post has been held by Michaelle Jean, a black woman who grew up in Haiti.
Her predecessor was a Chinese woman from Hong Kong (Adrienne Clarkson) who held the post for 6 years.
Few people in Canada really made any issue of the gender or race of their politicians, which, imo is a sign of progress.
When the US gains an immigrant visible-minority woman president, then we'll talk. :)
Uh, Bob, this sign of progress that you seek already happened in Canada some years ago.
Like most parliamentary democracies, the head of state in Canada is not the Prime Minister (he is just one of 308 elected Members of Parliament (MP's)).
(BTW the voters do not elect a Prime Minister. We elect out MP's only. They decide which MP will be Prime Minister.)
Canada's head of state is the Governor General (acting as the Queen's representative). For the last 3.5 years, that post has been held by Michaelle Jean, a black woman who grew up in Haiti.
Her predecessor was a Chinese woman from Hong Kong (Adrienne Clarkson) who held the post for 6 years.
Few people in Canada really made any issue of the gender or race of their politicians, which, imo is a sign of progress.
When the US gains an immigrant visible-minority woman president, then we'll talk. :)
BNaylor
01-22-2009, 10:23 AM
Uh, Bob, this sign of progress that you seek already happened in Canada some years ago.
Like most parliamentary democracies, the head of state in Canada is not the Prime Minister (he is just one of 308 elected members of Parliament)
Canada's head of state is the Governor General (acting as the Queen's representative). For the last 3.5 years, that post has been held by Michaelle Jean, a black woman who grew up in Haiti.
Her predecessor was a Chinese woman from Hong Kong (Adrienne Clarkson) who held the post for 6 years.
Few people in Canada really made any issue of the gender or race of their politicians, which, imo is a sign of progress.
When the US gains an immigrant visible-minority woman president, then we'll talk. :)
The problem is talk is cheap. You are comparing apples to oranges. Nice try but she (Michaelle Jean) was appointed by Queen Elizabeth II and not duly elected by the people in an official election. Basically it is a token position. Remember our President runs the Executive branch of government and is the Commander in Chief. Hardly a token position and duly elected into office. The progress you claim in your country and that of our allies is really insignificant.
Also, we are divided into 50 states that form the Union. We have duly elected many females including minority into governmental positions which includes municipal, county and state.
And what is this about a Prime Minister not having any power in Canada or other similar countries with a parliamentary system and not really running the country or being the head of government? :screwy:
And you failed to answer my question which is relevant since you purport or seem to know the plight of black Americans in the U.S.. :rolleyes: Are you black or of any mixed race?
Like most parliamentary democracies, the head of state in Canada is not the Prime Minister (he is just one of 308 elected members of Parliament)
Canada's head of state is the Governor General (acting as the Queen's representative). For the last 3.5 years, that post has been held by Michaelle Jean, a black woman who grew up in Haiti.
Her predecessor was a Chinese woman from Hong Kong (Adrienne Clarkson) who held the post for 6 years.
Few people in Canada really made any issue of the gender or race of their politicians, which, imo is a sign of progress.
When the US gains an immigrant visible-minority woman president, then we'll talk. :)
The problem is talk is cheap. You are comparing apples to oranges. Nice try but she (Michaelle Jean) was appointed by Queen Elizabeth II and not duly elected by the people in an official election. Basically it is a token position. Remember our President runs the Executive branch of government and is the Commander in Chief. Hardly a token position and duly elected into office. The progress you claim in your country and that of our allies is really insignificant.
Also, we are divided into 50 states that form the Union. We have duly elected many females including minority into governmental positions which includes municipal, county and state.
And what is this about a Prime Minister not having any power in Canada or other similar countries with a parliamentary system and not really running the country or being the head of government? :screwy:
And you failed to answer my question which is relevant since you purport or seem to know the plight of black Americans in the U.S.. :rolleyes: Are you black or of any mixed race?
MagicRat
01-22-2009, 04:06 PM
Also, we are divided into 50 states that form the Union. We have duly elected many females including minority into governmental positions which includes municipal, county and state.
So what?
I never accused your country of not being progressive so your above comment is redundant.
With historic precedent being set by the U.S. I am looking forward to the day when countries like Canada and our other so called allies and other democracies elect their first black President or Prime Minister. :grinyes:
Imho this is misinformed, condescending and misleading, insinuating the comparative lack of social progress in other countries. I was pointing out some errors in your logic.
Also, I find it odd you trumpet the progressiveness of an Obama election since you object to him being "touted as the first black president".
IMO you should not have it both ways. You are either proud of his racial achievement or you should not make such comments.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Nice try but she (Michaelle Jean) was appointed by Queen Elizabeth II and not duly elected by the people in an official election. Basically it is a token position.
Incorrect. The Governer General (GG) is appointed by the Cabinet, not the Queen. The GG is the diplomatic face to the world and projects the policies and image that the elected members of Parliament wish to project in diplomatic terms.
Furthermore, the GG must be an expert in the Constitution and the function of government, since the GG has the responsibility of having the final say in terms of legislative and parliamentary procedure.[/QUOTE]
The progress you claim in your country and that of our allies is really insignificant.
You miss the point here. The GG's are appointed for their abilities, not their race or gender. The real sign of progress here, as I stated before is that nobody here makes a big issue of their race or gender.
It is the lack of reaction by the Canadian people that is the significance. We don't have to crow about the 'progress' in the press or in public. The upward mobility of disadvantaged, female visible minorities (and others) is a common, accepted part of our culture.
And what is this about a Prime Minister not having any power in Canada or other similar countries with a parliamentary system and not really running the country or being the head of government? :screwy:
The Prime Minister's power and authority flow from the elected MP's of the house. It is strong, but limited. He is not much like a President at all and certainly is NOT the head of government.
After an election, a group of MP's (as orgainized by one or more political partys) petition the GG to form a government.
The Prime Minister is simply the 'general manager' or that governing group of MP's. He or she has a considerable influence over the creation and development of legislative policy, but the actual governing is a group effort of all the members of the House.
BTW that prime minister can be removed if a majority of MP's say so. If/when that happens, typically the political party(s) that make up the government will be removed as well. When that happens, the GG either calls a new election or (rarely) asks another group of MP's to form a new government.
And you failed to answer my question which is relevant since you purport or seem to know the plight of black Americans in the U.S.. :rolleyes: Are you black or of any mixed race?
:disappoin
I cannot believe that you asked this! What does my racial background have to do with my arguments or opinions?
Seriously, such a question demonstrates a racial bias which is outdated and antiquated thinking. It has no place in a thoughtful and informed discussion such as this.
So what?
I never accused your country of not being progressive so your above comment is redundant.
With historic precedent being set by the U.S. I am looking forward to the day when countries like Canada and our other so called allies and other democracies elect their first black President or Prime Minister. :grinyes:
Imho this is misinformed, condescending and misleading, insinuating the comparative lack of social progress in other countries. I was pointing out some errors in your logic.
Also, I find it odd you trumpet the progressiveness of an Obama election since you object to him being "touted as the first black president".
IMO you should not have it both ways. You are either proud of his racial achievement or you should not make such comments.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Nice try but she (Michaelle Jean) was appointed by Queen Elizabeth II and not duly elected by the people in an official election. Basically it is a token position.
Incorrect. The Governer General (GG) is appointed by the Cabinet, not the Queen. The GG is the diplomatic face to the world and projects the policies and image that the elected members of Parliament wish to project in diplomatic terms.
Furthermore, the GG must be an expert in the Constitution and the function of government, since the GG has the responsibility of having the final say in terms of legislative and parliamentary procedure.[/QUOTE]
The progress you claim in your country and that of our allies is really insignificant.
You miss the point here. The GG's are appointed for their abilities, not their race or gender. The real sign of progress here, as I stated before is that nobody here makes a big issue of their race or gender.
It is the lack of reaction by the Canadian people that is the significance. We don't have to crow about the 'progress' in the press or in public. The upward mobility of disadvantaged, female visible minorities (and others) is a common, accepted part of our culture.
And what is this about a Prime Minister not having any power in Canada or other similar countries with a parliamentary system and not really running the country or being the head of government? :screwy:
The Prime Minister's power and authority flow from the elected MP's of the house. It is strong, but limited. He is not much like a President at all and certainly is NOT the head of government.
After an election, a group of MP's (as orgainized by one or more political partys) petition the GG to form a government.
The Prime Minister is simply the 'general manager' or that governing group of MP's. He or she has a considerable influence over the creation and development of legislative policy, but the actual governing is a group effort of all the members of the House.
BTW that prime minister can be removed if a majority of MP's say so. If/when that happens, typically the political party(s) that make up the government will be removed as well. When that happens, the GG either calls a new election or (rarely) asks another group of MP's to form a new government.
And you failed to answer my question which is relevant since you purport or seem to know the plight of black Americans in the U.S.. :rolleyes: Are you black or of any mixed race?
:disappoin
I cannot believe that you asked this! What does my racial background have to do with my arguments or opinions?
Seriously, such a question demonstrates a racial bias which is outdated and antiquated thinking. It has no place in a thoughtful and informed discussion such as this.
old_master
01-22-2009, 04:57 PM
Well, you can't say he hasn't done anything anymore... Top priority on HIS list was to issue an Executive Order to "close Gitmo within one year". What about our National Security? Give the terrorists that were responsible for helping to plan 911, the same rights our citizens have??? HELLO... they're enemy combatants, wake up! How do you think the victims families feel about that? Now we know for certain where his priorities are. And this is only the beginning. God help us.
drunken monkey
01-22-2009, 05:13 PM
Give the terrorists that were responsible for helping to plan 911, the same rights our citizens have??? HELLO... they're enemy combatants, wake up!
how many of those people held there have been charged with anything?
how many were released without charge years after their detention?
what has Guantanamo Bay achieved besides reformation of laws regarding how prisoners were treated by your country?
how many of those people held there have been charged with anything?
how many were released without charge years after their detention?
what has Guantanamo Bay achieved besides reformation of laws regarding how prisoners were treated by your country?
BNaylor
01-22-2009, 07:02 PM
So what?
I never accused your country of not being progressive so your above comment is redundant.
The implication was there and it sure sounded condescending to me. You missed my point which was pointing out you were comparing apples to oranges and you continue to do that. There is no comparison between the POTUS and the Governor General of Canada to include what happened in our 2008 General Presidential election. The main point I was making is the POTUS is elected by the people not appointed by the Queen or the Prime Minister or whoever does the appointment. Therefore contrary to your belief it does not indicate whether Canada or other countries like the U.K, Australia, Germany, France, etc. are truly socially progressive when it comes to race and racial equality. Like I said earlier I will believe it when I see it and regardless of your beliefs or opinion you guys have a long ways to go. In reality a figurehead position such as the Governor General who you embellished on doesn't count no matter what you may believe and obviously you are downplaying the importance of the Prime Minister to advance your opinions in which I disagree with. Come on.......we are not as stupid as you think. :grinno:
Imho this is misinformed, condescending and misleading, insinuating the comparative lack of social progress in other countries. I was pointing out some errors in your logic.
Nothing wrong with my logic. Historic precedence is historic precedence no matter how you slice the pie or parse it. The lack of social progress relative to race and racial equality in your country and others is very obvious so lets not be misleading about it. When you can get together as a people in the form of elections and duly elect a high official to lead your country that is black or of another race other than white then we'll talk turkey about it.
IMO you should not have it both ways. You are either proud of his racial achievement or you should not make such comments.
Racial achievement? Thats a good one. :rolleyes: His achievement of getting elected and becoming the 44th U.S. President had nothing to do about race. It was the will of people based on a clear majority.
Incorrect. The Governer General (GG) is appointed by the Cabinet, not the Queen. The GG is the diplomatic face to the world and projects the policies and image that the elected members of Parliament wish to project in diplomatic terms.
Furthermore, the GG must be an expert in the Constitution and the function of government, since the GG has the responsibility of having the final say in terms of legislative and parliamentary procedure.
:confused:
Either you are wrong or misinformed about your own government but I double checked in the appropriate resources available to include encyclopedias and on-line. Based on those references appointed by the Queen and represents/serves the Queen. Recommended by the Prime Minister. Therefore if I am incorrect show me in writing. Plus the Governor General has a budget that is nothing or not even worth mentioning. Primarily ceremonial duties. :eek: See link below.
I forget in reality Canada is nothing but a British Colony. :uhoh:....:biggrin:
Source: CBCNEWS
Click here (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/governorgeneral/)
You miss the point here. The GG's are appointed for their abilities, not their race or gender. The real sign of progress here, as I stated before is that nobody here makes a big issue of their race or gender.
It is the lack of reaction by the Canadian people that is the significance. We don't have to crow about the 'progress' in the press or in public. The upward mobility of disadvantaged, female visible minorities (and others) is a common, accepted part of our culture.
No you missed the point. Our Presidents are duly elected based on their party's nomination, campaign promises and popularity and not appointed. An appointment is a political decision that can be based on many factors to include making it look like there is racial equality or fairness when there really isn't. Until such time you actually elect a black person that is qualified to hold high office other than a figurehead position you don't have much to boast about. All just a facade and to believe otherwise is delusional.
So are you saying "the upward mobility of disadvantaged, female visible minorities (and others) is a common, accepted part of our culture" is not an accepted part of American culture and society in general? Last time I checked that has been around for decades and the majority of Americans have no issue with it.
And what is this about a Prime Minister not having any power in Canada or other similar countries with a parliamentary system and not really running the country or being the head of government? :screwy:
The Prime Minister's power and authority flow from the elected MP's of the house. It is strong, but limited. He is not much like a President at all and certainly is NOT the head of government.
After an election, a group of MP's (as orgainized by one or more political partys) petition the GG to form a government.
The Prime Minister is simply the 'general manager' or that governing group of MP's. He or she has a considerable influence over the creation and development of legislative policy, but the actual governing is a group effort of all the members of the House.
:confused:
General Manager? :lol: Thats a good laugh! He is the real head of government period! Downplaying the importance of the Prime Minister who is an elected official to advance your misplaced argument about the figurehead/appointed position of Governor General and any comparisons to the POTUS. Thats sad! :shakehead
Source: About: Canada Online
The prime minister is the head of government in Canada. The Canadian prime minister is usually the leader of the political party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons in a general election. The prime minister may lead a majority government or a minority government. Although the role of prime minister in Canada is not defined by any law or constitutional document, it is the most powerful role in Canadian politics.
Click here (http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/primeminister/a/pmrole.htm)
I cannot believe that you asked this! What does my racial background have to do with my arguments or opinions?
Seriously, such a question demonstrates a racial bias which is outdated and antiquated thinking. It has no place in a thoughtful and informed discussion such as this.
Why not? IMO fair question considering the discussion. I disagree and it is relative. You opened the door. Whatever you posted which was misplaced opinion or speculation was not supported by any factual data in the form of reference material or credible links to so I am assuming it must be based on personal firsthand experience. So I am going to assume you are not black but white and not of mixed race. :sly:
I never accused your country of not being progressive so your above comment is redundant.
The implication was there and it sure sounded condescending to me. You missed my point which was pointing out you were comparing apples to oranges and you continue to do that. There is no comparison between the POTUS and the Governor General of Canada to include what happened in our 2008 General Presidential election. The main point I was making is the POTUS is elected by the people not appointed by the Queen or the Prime Minister or whoever does the appointment. Therefore contrary to your belief it does not indicate whether Canada or other countries like the U.K, Australia, Germany, France, etc. are truly socially progressive when it comes to race and racial equality. Like I said earlier I will believe it when I see it and regardless of your beliefs or opinion you guys have a long ways to go. In reality a figurehead position such as the Governor General who you embellished on doesn't count no matter what you may believe and obviously you are downplaying the importance of the Prime Minister to advance your opinions in which I disagree with. Come on.......we are not as stupid as you think. :grinno:
Imho this is misinformed, condescending and misleading, insinuating the comparative lack of social progress in other countries. I was pointing out some errors in your logic.
Nothing wrong with my logic. Historic precedence is historic precedence no matter how you slice the pie or parse it. The lack of social progress relative to race and racial equality in your country and others is very obvious so lets not be misleading about it. When you can get together as a people in the form of elections and duly elect a high official to lead your country that is black or of another race other than white then we'll talk turkey about it.
IMO you should not have it both ways. You are either proud of his racial achievement or you should not make such comments.
Racial achievement? Thats a good one. :rolleyes: His achievement of getting elected and becoming the 44th U.S. President had nothing to do about race. It was the will of people based on a clear majority.
Incorrect. The Governer General (GG) is appointed by the Cabinet, not the Queen. The GG is the diplomatic face to the world and projects the policies and image that the elected members of Parliament wish to project in diplomatic terms.
Furthermore, the GG must be an expert in the Constitution and the function of government, since the GG has the responsibility of having the final say in terms of legislative and parliamentary procedure.
:confused:
Either you are wrong or misinformed about your own government but I double checked in the appropriate resources available to include encyclopedias and on-line. Based on those references appointed by the Queen and represents/serves the Queen. Recommended by the Prime Minister. Therefore if I am incorrect show me in writing. Plus the Governor General has a budget that is nothing or not even worth mentioning. Primarily ceremonial duties. :eek: See link below.
I forget in reality Canada is nothing but a British Colony. :uhoh:....:biggrin:
Source: CBCNEWS
Click here (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/governorgeneral/)
You miss the point here. The GG's are appointed for their abilities, not their race or gender. The real sign of progress here, as I stated before is that nobody here makes a big issue of their race or gender.
It is the lack of reaction by the Canadian people that is the significance. We don't have to crow about the 'progress' in the press or in public. The upward mobility of disadvantaged, female visible minorities (and others) is a common, accepted part of our culture.
No you missed the point. Our Presidents are duly elected based on their party's nomination, campaign promises and popularity and not appointed. An appointment is a political decision that can be based on many factors to include making it look like there is racial equality or fairness when there really isn't. Until such time you actually elect a black person that is qualified to hold high office other than a figurehead position you don't have much to boast about. All just a facade and to believe otherwise is delusional.
So are you saying "the upward mobility of disadvantaged, female visible minorities (and others) is a common, accepted part of our culture" is not an accepted part of American culture and society in general? Last time I checked that has been around for decades and the majority of Americans have no issue with it.
And what is this about a Prime Minister not having any power in Canada or other similar countries with a parliamentary system and not really running the country or being the head of government? :screwy:
The Prime Minister's power and authority flow from the elected MP's of the house. It is strong, but limited. He is not much like a President at all and certainly is NOT the head of government.
After an election, a group of MP's (as orgainized by one or more political partys) petition the GG to form a government.
The Prime Minister is simply the 'general manager' or that governing group of MP's. He or she has a considerable influence over the creation and development of legislative policy, but the actual governing is a group effort of all the members of the House.
:confused:
General Manager? :lol: Thats a good laugh! He is the real head of government period! Downplaying the importance of the Prime Minister who is an elected official to advance your misplaced argument about the figurehead/appointed position of Governor General and any comparisons to the POTUS. Thats sad! :shakehead
Source: About: Canada Online
The prime minister is the head of government in Canada. The Canadian prime minister is usually the leader of the political party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons in a general election. The prime minister may lead a majority government or a minority government. Although the role of prime minister in Canada is not defined by any law or constitutional document, it is the most powerful role in Canadian politics.
Click here (http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/primeminister/a/pmrole.htm)
I cannot believe that you asked this! What does my racial background have to do with my arguments or opinions?
Seriously, such a question demonstrates a racial bias which is outdated and antiquated thinking. It has no place in a thoughtful and informed discussion such as this.
Why not? IMO fair question considering the discussion. I disagree and it is relative. You opened the door. Whatever you posted which was misplaced opinion or speculation was not supported by any factual data in the form of reference material or credible links to so I am assuming it must be based on personal firsthand experience. So I am going to assume you are not black but white and not of mixed race. :sly:
drunken monkey
01-22-2009, 07:04 PM
but even if he were and did have first hand experience, could that not be simply taken as anecdotal anyway?
BNaylor
01-22-2009, 07:23 PM
but even if he were and did have first hand experience, could that not be simply taken as anecdotal anyway?
Come on DM? This is the Politics forum. When asked back your opinion, assertion or argument with fact which was my point.
IMO nothing wrong with anecdotal if it is based on real life experiences and factual.
Come on DM? This is the Politics forum. When asked back your opinion, assertion or argument with fact which was my point.
IMO nothing wrong with anecdotal if it is based on real life experiences and factual.
CL8
01-24-2009, 01:34 AM
With all the the discussion about Obamas race here, do any of you realize he has Irish in him??? I am of an Irish background, so if I celebrate his "race" I will celebrate that he is Irish like me.:iceslolan
Listen to the way this Irish band celebrates him:
http://www.oneeyedparrot.org/obama.html
Listen to the way this Irish band celebrates him:
http://www.oneeyedparrot.org/obama.html
thegladhatter
01-24-2009, 11:05 AM
He's every bit as Irish as Idi Amin.
Oh...I forgot he was the King of Scotland.
Oh...I forgot he was the King of Scotland.
old_master
01-24-2009, 06:37 PM
I'd be willing to bet the only Irish he has in him is a cup of Irish coffee. Who knows, he may have been born there for all we know.
ericn1300
01-24-2009, 06:57 PM
My wife is Irish and has three mulattoes on her side of the family including her cousin Jason Kidd. Obama does have some Irish in him, which is where he got the gift of gab, and why he can't dance. Nigerians don't consider him black. To them he's white.
With all the the discussion about Obamas race here, do any of you realize he has Irish in him??? I am of an Irish background, so if I celebrate his "race" I will celebrate that he is Irish like me.:iceslolan
Listen to the way this Irish band celebrates him:
http://www.oneeyedparrot.org/obama.html
That was the studio version, check out the live version here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EADUQWKoVek
With all the the discussion about Obamas race here, do any of you realize he has Irish in him??? I am of an Irish background, so if I celebrate his "race" I will celebrate that he is Irish like me.:iceslolan
Listen to the way this Irish band celebrates him:
http://www.oneeyedparrot.org/obama.html
That was the studio version, check out the live version here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EADUQWKoVek
CL8
01-25-2009, 01:46 AM
I'd be willing to bet the only Irish he has in him is a cup of Irish coffee. Who knows, he may have been born there for all we know.
He's every bit as Irish as Idi Amin.
you guys may very well be right, But I love the limerick.
He's every bit as Irish as Idi Amin.
you guys may very well be right, But I love the limerick.
HotZ28
01-25-2009, 10:00 PM
At Washington Dulles airport, up to 600 private jets landed in the days leading up to the inauguration.
That number shatters the old record of 300 private planes that the airport accommodated for President George W. Bush’s second inaugural in 2004, Bloomberg reported.
“Of course, flying private to a celebration of a populist, pro-environment president is a bit like the Detroit execs jetting to Washington for bailout money,” Robert Frank observed in the Wall Street Journal.
“How do you call for social responsibility after touching down in a $40 million, gas-guzzling Gulfstream?”
Obama’s inauguration was the most expensive in history. ABC News estimated the cost at upwards of $170 million, four times what Bush’s inauguration cost four years ago.
That number shatters the old record of 300 private planes that the airport accommodated for President George W. Bush’s second inaugural in 2004, Bloomberg reported.
“Of course, flying private to a celebration of a populist, pro-environment president is a bit like the Detroit execs jetting to Washington for bailout money,” Robert Frank observed in the Wall Street Journal.
“How do you call for social responsibility after touching down in a $40 million, gas-guzzling Gulfstream?”
Obama’s inauguration was the most expensive in history. ABC News estimated the cost at upwards of $170 million, four times what Bush’s inauguration cost four years ago.
CL8
01-25-2009, 10:28 PM
Obama’s inauguration was the most expensive in history. ABC News estimated the cost at upwards of $170 million, four times what Bush’s inauguration cost four years ago.
And to think he plans on spening TRILLIONS more $ the U.S. doesn't even have, to bail out bankrupt businesses and people.:shakehead
And to think he plans on spening TRILLIONS more $ the U.S. doesn't even have, to bail out bankrupt businesses and people.:shakehead
HotZ28
01-26-2009, 10:53 AM
I Heard . . . that Dr. Martin Luther King predicted the U.S. would have a black president within 40 years.
During an interview with the BBC’s Bob McKenzie in 1964, McKenzie pointed out to Dr. King that Robert Kennedy had said he could “imagine the possibility of a Negro president of the United States within perhaps 40 years,” and asked: “Do you think this is at all realistic?”
King responded: “I am very optimistic about the future. Frankly, I have seen certain changes in the United States over the last two years that surprised me. I have seen levels of compliance with the Civil Rights bill and changes that have been most surprising. So on the basis of this I think we may be able to get a Negro president in less than 40 years.”
And 44-years later, Barack H. Obama was so eloquently sworn in.
During an interview with the BBC’s Bob McKenzie in 1964, McKenzie pointed out to Dr. King that Robert Kennedy had said he could “imagine the possibility of a Negro president of the United States within perhaps 40 years,” and asked: “Do you think this is at all realistic?”
King responded: “I am very optimistic about the future. Frankly, I have seen certain changes in the United States over the last two years that surprised me. I have seen levels of compliance with the Civil Rights bill and changes that have been most surprising. So on the basis of this I think we may be able to get a Negro president in less than 40 years.”
And 44-years later, Barack H. Obama was so eloquently sworn in.
thrasher
01-26-2009, 04:05 PM
And to think he plans on spening TRILLIONS more $ the U.S. doesn't even have, to bail out bankrupt businesses and people.:shakehead
What do you suggest? Make the Bush tax cuts permanent and hope that does it?
Maybe we should launch another trillion dollar war on a sovereign nation with money that we borrowed from the Chinese :uhoh:
What do you suggest? Make the Bush tax cuts permanent and hope that does it?
Maybe we should launch another trillion dollar war on a sovereign nation with money that we borrowed from the Chinese :uhoh:
CL8
01-27-2009, 01:17 AM
What do you suggest? Make the Bush tax cuts permanent and hope that does it?
Maybe we should launch another trillion dollar war on a sovereign nation with money that we borrowed from the Chinese :uhoh:
When we are attacked by terrorists, we have no choice to save our lives but to fight back.
We DO have a choice on letting businesses find their own way out of financial trouble.
And Hotz28, Remember, Obama is not fully negro. He has caucasion and even Irish in him.:)
Now if someone like Michael Steele would run for president and win, that would be an actual, full "negro" as president, with convictions similar to the founders of the U.S.
Maybe we should launch another trillion dollar war on a sovereign nation with money that we borrowed from the Chinese :uhoh:
When we are attacked by terrorists, we have no choice to save our lives but to fight back.
We DO have a choice on letting businesses find their own way out of financial trouble.
And Hotz28, Remember, Obama is not fully negro. He has caucasion and even Irish in him.:)
Now if someone like Michael Steele would run for president and win, that would be an actual, full "negro" as president, with convictions similar to the founders of the U.S.
BNaylor
01-27-2009, 02:11 PM
Well,..... just the change we have been looking for. :rolleyes: Obama's choice for Treasury Secretary and running the IRS finally made it through and he spent his first day on the job. Some moron by the name of Timothy Geithner. This guy failed to pay over $34K in self-employment taxes from 2001 - 2004. He claims it was an unintentional mistake and eventually paid it back with penalties and interest. Sure it was! (said facetiously) I mean how crazy is that? :screwy:
I don't care how knowledgeable they claim he is there is an issue of character, integrity and honesty. The last person you would want running the U.S. Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service and managing all that bailout money. :shakehead
Source: AP
Link to Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/treasury_secretary)
I don't care how knowledgeable they claim he is there is an issue of character, integrity and honesty. The last person you would want running the U.S. Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service and managing all that bailout money. :shakehead
Source: AP
Link to Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/treasury_secretary)
MagicRat
01-27-2009, 06:47 PM
moron
For a moron, he has a hell of a resume. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner) Very impressive imo.
I don't care how knowledgeable they claim he is there is an issue of character, integrity and honesty. The last person you would want running the U.S. Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service and managing all that bailout money. :shakehead[/i]
Nah. Honest guys are not creative! To truly get the most out of the money, you need a real crook who knows the ins and outs of the system! :)
I am more concerned that he got caught than anything else.
For a moron, he has a hell of a resume. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner) Very impressive imo.
I don't care how knowledgeable they claim he is there is an issue of character, integrity and honesty. The last person you would want running the U.S. Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service and managing all that bailout money. :shakehead[/i]
Nah. Honest guys are not creative! To truly get the most out of the money, you need a real crook who knows the ins and outs of the system! :)
I am more concerned that he got caught than anything else.
BNaylor
01-27-2009, 07:04 PM
For a moron, he has a hell of a resume. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner) Very impressive imo.
:rolleyes:
So he is a moron with an impressive resume. :lol: Big deal and it doesn't mean shit. You missed the point.
At least 34 of the U.S. Senators that voted against his nomination had good judgment and a conscience. My hats off to them. :thumbsup:
FYI.
Also, I would recommend caution using Wikipedia as a credible and reliable source in this forum.
:rolleyes:
So he is a moron with an impressive resume. :lol: Big deal and it doesn't mean shit. You missed the point.
At least 34 of the U.S. Senators that voted against his nomination had good judgment and a conscience. My hats off to them. :thumbsup:
FYI.
Also, I would recommend caution using Wikipedia as a credible and reliable source in this forum.
ericn1300
01-27-2009, 07:13 PM
At least 34 of the U.S. Senators that voted against his nomination had good judgment and a conscience. My hats off to them.
This issue has been used by Republicans to throw a little noise into the nomination process and appear not to be rubber stamping the Presidents choices while knowing it's much ado about nothing.
By the way, what does this have to do with the inauguration? This really should have been a new thread.
This issue has been used by Republicans to throw a little noise into the nomination process and appear not to be rubber stamping the Presidents choices while knowing it's much ado about nothing.
By the way, what does this have to do with the inauguration? This really should have been a new thread.
BNaylor
01-27-2009, 07:16 PM
By the way, what does this have to do with the inauguration? This really should have been a new thread.
By the way not necessarily and the Moderating staff will be the judge of that.
By the way not necessarily and the Moderating staff will be the judge of that.
MagicRat
01-27-2009, 07:21 PM
:rolleyes:
So he is a moron with an impressive resume. :lol: Big deal and it doesn't mean shit. You missed the point.
<sigh> You missed the point. The use of the term "moron" is disingenuous. I am sure you can come up with a more appropriate epithet.
BTW in public service, appropriate work experience and education (aka resume) means a great deal. To say it means "shit" is ridiculous. Try getting a decent job without one.
Sure he needs to be honest and hard-working. But if he really was without integrity, it would have negatively affected his previous work experience... and his resume.
At least 34 of the U.S. Senators that voted against his nomination had good judgment and a conscience. My hats off to them. :thumbsup:
Senators with a conscience? hahhahahahahaha :)
Seriously, the opposing senators imo were doing their job. Unanimous voting is disturbing. Any significant decision requires that it be opposed in some measure. But, when balancing the issues at hand, a tax error is not sufficient reason to deny him the job, if he is otherwise qualified.
From Wikipedia:
At the Senate confirmation hearings, it was revealed through documentary evidence that Geithner had not paid $35,000 self-employment taxes for several years,[25] even though he had acknowledged his obligation to do so, and had filed a request for, and received, a payment for half the taxes owed. The failure to pay self-employment taxes was noted during a 2006 audit by the Internal Revenue Service, in which Geithner was assessed additional taxes of $14,847 for the 2003 and 2004 tax years. Geithner failed to pay, or to admit his failure to pay, the self-employment taxes for the 2001 and 2002 tax years until after President-elect Obama expressed his intent to nominate Geithner to be Secretary of Treasury.
This is a pre-existing issue, known to both parties involved and not hidden. It was on its way to being rectified. If his actions were of a criminal nature, he would/should have been charged back in 2006. The IRS has assigned the appropriate penalties which have been addressed.
It is unreasonable to deny the Treasury Secretary office skilled talent for a relatively minor reason.
Imo you are biased over your dislike of Obama. If we were to apply your logic, George W Bush should not have been on the ticket for his drunk driving conviction and drug use. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy)
FWIW I do not think those issues should have kept W out of the office. IMO eliminating the Electoral college system should have done that... but that's for another thread.
Edit: Yeah I know it's Wikipedia but it's cited to other sources. :)
If it's not true then W can sue Wikipedia and you can correct me.
So he is a moron with an impressive resume. :lol: Big deal and it doesn't mean shit. You missed the point.
<sigh> You missed the point. The use of the term "moron" is disingenuous. I am sure you can come up with a more appropriate epithet.
BTW in public service, appropriate work experience and education (aka resume) means a great deal. To say it means "shit" is ridiculous. Try getting a decent job without one.
Sure he needs to be honest and hard-working. But if he really was without integrity, it would have negatively affected his previous work experience... and his resume.
At least 34 of the U.S. Senators that voted against his nomination had good judgment and a conscience. My hats off to them. :thumbsup:
Senators with a conscience? hahhahahahahaha :)
Seriously, the opposing senators imo were doing their job. Unanimous voting is disturbing. Any significant decision requires that it be opposed in some measure. But, when balancing the issues at hand, a tax error is not sufficient reason to deny him the job, if he is otherwise qualified.
From Wikipedia:
At the Senate confirmation hearings, it was revealed through documentary evidence that Geithner had not paid $35,000 self-employment taxes for several years,[25] even though he had acknowledged his obligation to do so, and had filed a request for, and received, a payment for half the taxes owed. The failure to pay self-employment taxes was noted during a 2006 audit by the Internal Revenue Service, in which Geithner was assessed additional taxes of $14,847 for the 2003 and 2004 tax years. Geithner failed to pay, or to admit his failure to pay, the self-employment taxes for the 2001 and 2002 tax years until after President-elect Obama expressed his intent to nominate Geithner to be Secretary of Treasury.
This is a pre-existing issue, known to both parties involved and not hidden. It was on its way to being rectified. If his actions were of a criminal nature, he would/should have been charged back in 2006. The IRS has assigned the appropriate penalties which have been addressed.
It is unreasonable to deny the Treasury Secretary office skilled talent for a relatively minor reason.
Imo you are biased over your dislike of Obama. If we were to apply your logic, George W Bush should not have been on the ticket for his drunk driving conviction and drug use. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy)
FWIW I do not think those issues should have kept W out of the office. IMO eliminating the Electoral college system should have done that... but that's for another thread.
Edit: Yeah I know it's Wikipedia but it's cited to other sources. :)
If it's not true then W can sue Wikipedia and you can correct me.
MagicRat
01-27-2009, 07:26 PM
By the way not necessarily and the Moderating staff will be the judge of that.
Yup. BNaylor and I are having WAY too much fun arguing.
OT discussions are kept lively and interesting by heading off in unplanned directions, as this one is.
Yup. BNaylor and I are having WAY too much fun arguing.
OT discussions are kept lively and interesting by heading off in unplanned directions, as this one is.
BNaylor
01-27-2009, 07:42 PM
<sigh> You missed the point. The use of the term "moron" is disingenuous. I am sure you can come up with a more appropriate epithet.
I can assure you it was not disingenuous. :grinyes: And I'll use what ever name as long as it does not violate AF Guidelines whether you like it or not.
Senators with a conscience? hahhahahahahaha :)
the opposing senators imo were doing their job. Unanimous voting is disturbing. Any significant decision requires that it be opposed in some measure. A tax error is not sufficient reason to deny him the job, if he is otherwise qualified. <---:screwy:
You're entitled to your opinion for what it is worth and you can laugh all you want but thats baloney. You failed to read the article from a credible source other than Wikipedia. This guy would not even qualify for a real security clearance.
Source: AP
The Senate voted 60-34 to put Geithner in charge of the administration's economic team. Those who opposed the nomination said they could not accept Geithner's explanation that his failure to pay $34,023 in self-employment taxes from 2001 to 2004 when he worked at the International Monetary Fund was an unintentional error.
Imo you are biased over your dislike of Obama. If we were to apply your logic, George W Bush should not have been on the ticket for his drunk driving conviction and drug use. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy)
That is your logic and not mine. I'm entitled to be biased. :wink:
I can assure you it was not disingenuous. :grinyes: And I'll use what ever name as long as it does not violate AF Guidelines whether you like it or not.
Senators with a conscience? hahhahahahahaha :)
the opposing senators imo were doing their job. Unanimous voting is disturbing. Any significant decision requires that it be opposed in some measure. A tax error is not sufficient reason to deny him the job, if he is otherwise qualified. <---:screwy:
You're entitled to your opinion for what it is worth and you can laugh all you want but thats baloney. You failed to read the article from a credible source other than Wikipedia. This guy would not even qualify for a real security clearance.
Source: AP
The Senate voted 60-34 to put Geithner in charge of the administration's economic team. Those who opposed the nomination said they could not accept Geithner's explanation that his failure to pay $34,023 in self-employment taxes from 2001 to 2004 when he worked at the International Monetary Fund was an unintentional error.
Imo you are biased over your dislike of Obama. If we were to apply your logic, George W Bush should not have been on the ticket for his drunk driving conviction and drug use. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy)
That is your logic and not mine. I'm entitled to be biased. :wink:
BNaylor
01-27-2009, 07:47 PM
Yup. BNaylor and I are having WAY too much fun arguing.
OT discussions are kept lively and interesting by heading off in unplanned directions, as this one is.
Speak for yourself. I don't argue I debate and at least put up credible sources as part of it. This thread went off topic way before my replies.
BTW - We don't want to get too heavy handed on what is on or off topic otherwise that would cause a chilling effect and drop activity at this forum significantly. Probably to zero levels. :grinno:
OT discussions are kept lively and interesting by heading off in unplanned directions, as this one is.
Speak for yourself. I don't argue I debate and at least put up credible sources as part of it. This thread went off topic way before my replies.
BTW - We don't want to get too heavy handed on what is on or off topic otherwise that would cause a chilling effect and drop activity at this forum significantly. Probably to zero levels. :grinno:
MagicRat
01-27-2009, 08:02 PM
Speak for yourself. I don't argue I debate and at least put up credible sources as part of it.
Christ, if I said that water was wet you would take issue.
You argue. This is not a pejorative term, and is synonymous with 'debate.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argue
And I'll use what ever name as long as it does not violate AF Guidelines whether you like it or not.
Um, now that you claim to follow the Guidelines, I am going to hold you to that standard, in this thread at least.
Your repeated demand to know my racial origin earlier in this thread was a violation of said Guidelines.
We encourage you to keep personal information personal.
Similarly, do not ask for personal information from others. Discussion forum posts that request members to submit personal information to another party will be removed. Information that should be considered personal includes but is not limited to your home phone number, name, and age.
Care to take corrective action?
Christ, if I said that water was wet you would take issue.
You argue. This is not a pejorative term, and is synonymous with 'debate.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argue
And I'll use what ever name as long as it does not violate AF Guidelines whether you like it or not.
Um, now that you claim to follow the Guidelines, I am going to hold you to that standard, in this thread at least.
Your repeated demand to know my racial origin earlier in this thread was a violation of said Guidelines.
We encourage you to keep personal information personal.
Similarly, do not ask for personal information from others. Discussion forum posts that request members to submit personal information to another party will be removed. Information that should be considered personal includes but is not limited to your home phone number, name, and age.
Care to take corrective action?
BNaylor
01-27-2009, 08:15 PM
Christ, if I said that water was wet you would take issue.
I probably would less mentioning the "C" word. :uhoh:..... :lol:
You argue. This is not a pejorative term, and is synonymous with 'debate.
Synonymous may be so but the two can be distinguished. Check out "debate" from your source. :wink:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/debate
I probably would less mentioning the "C" word. :uhoh:..... :lol:
You argue. This is not a pejorative term, and is synonymous with 'debate.
Synonymous may be so but the two can be distinguished. Check out "debate" from your source. :wink:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/debate
MagicRat
01-27-2009, 08:20 PM
I edited my above post while you were posting.
Let me repeat the relevant part.
And I'll use what ever name as long as it does not violate AF Guidelines whether you like it or not.
I let this issue pass a few days ago, but now that you claim to follow the Guidelines, I am going to hold you to that standard, in this thread at least.
Your repeated demand to know my racial origin earlier in this thread was a violation of said Guidelines, as shown here:
We encourage you to keep personal information personal.
Similarly, do not ask for personal information from others. Discussion forum posts that request members to submit personal information to another party will be removed. Information that should be considered personal includes but is not limited to your home phone number, name, and age.
It is entirely reasonable to add 'race' to that list. Care to take corrective action?
Since this thread has now gone WAY off topic, you should PM me with a response if you are not going to do some self -editing. I've had enough for now.
Let me repeat the relevant part.
And I'll use what ever name as long as it does not violate AF Guidelines whether you like it or not.
I let this issue pass a few days ago, but now that you claim to follow the Guidelines, I am going to hold you to that standard, in this thread at least.
Your repeated demand to know my racial origin earlier in this thread was a violation of said Guidelines, as shown here:
We encourage you to keep personal information personal.
Similarly, do not ask for personal information from others. Discussion forum posts that request members to submit personal information to another party will be removed. Information that should be considered personal includes but is not limited to your home phone number, name, and age.
It is entirely reasonable to add 'race' to that list. Care to take corrective action?
Since this thread has now gone WAY off topic, you should PM me with a response if you are not going to do some self -editing. I've had enough for now.
ericn1300
01-27-2009, 08:58 PM
Um, now that you claim to follow the Guidelines, I am going to hold you to that standard, in this thread at least.
Your repeated demand to know my racial origin earlier in this thread was a violation of said Guidelines.
We encourage you to keep personal information personal.
Similarly, do not ask for personal information from others. Discussion forum posts that request members to submit personal information to another party will be removed. Information that should be considered personal includes but is not limited to your home phone number, name, and age.
Care to take corrective action?
I don't think he will. Biased is a synonym for prejudiced and that's what he has a right to in is own mind.
I'm entitled to be biased.
biased: exhibiting or characterized by bias ; especially : prejudiced
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biased
Your repeated demand to know my racial origin earlier in this thread was a violation of said Guidelines.
We encourage you to keep personal information personal.
Similarly, do not ask for personal information from others. Discussion forum posts that request members to submit personal information to another party will be removed. Information that should be considered personal includes but is not limited to your home phone number, name, and age.
Care to take corrective action?
I don't think he will. Biased is a synonym for prejudiced and that's what he has a right to in is own mind.
I'm entitled to be biased.
biased: exhibiting or characterized by bias ; especially : prejudiced
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biased
BNaylor
01-27-2009, 09:08 PM
I edited my above post while you were posting.
Let me repeat the relevant part.
I let this issue pass a few days ago, but now that you claim to follow the Guidelines, I am going to hold you to that standard, in this thread at least.
Your repeated demand to know my racial origin earlier in this thread was a violation of said Guidelines.
We encourage you to keep personal information personal.
Similarly, do not ask for personal information from others. Discussion forum posts that request members to submit personal information to another party will be removed. Information that should be considered personal includes but is not limited to your home phone number, name, and age.
It is entirely reasonable to add 'race' to that list. Care to take corrective action?
Anyways this thread has now gone WAY off topic. PM me with a response if you are not going to do some self -editing. I've had enough for now.
:confused:
Now there you go speculating again and advancing a poor straw man argument. I believe you are misinterpreting the rules as intended. No violation. :grinno: Moot issue since I already have assumed what your race is which was a valid question based on your ridiculous replies concerning black Americans. Remember you opened the door. If you would like to know mine I'll be glad to post that information since it has nothing to to with identity theft and real privacy issues.
As for doing any editing of a post I see no reason for it. Once you ring the bell hard to unring it.
Let me repeat the relevant part.
I let this issue pass a few days ago, but now that you claim to follow the Guidelines, I am going to hold you to that standard, in this thread at least.
Your repeated demand to know my racial origin earlier in this thread was a violation of said Guidelines.
We encourage you to keep personal information personal.
Similarly, do not ask for personal information from others. Discussion forum posts that request members to submit personal information to another party will be removed. Information that should be considered personal includes but is not limited to your home phone number, name, and age.
It is entirely reasonable to add 'race' to that list. Care to take corrective action?
Anyways this thread has now gone WAY off topic. PM me with a response if you are not going to do some self -editing. I've had enough for now.
:confused:
Now there you go speculating again and advancing a poor straw man argument. I believe you are misinterpreting the rules as intended. No violation. :grinno: Moot issue since I already have assumed what your race is which was a valid question based on your ridiculous replies concerning black Americans. Remember you opened the door. If you would like to know mine I'll be glad to post that information since it has nothing to to with identity theft and real privacy issues.
As for doing any editing of a post I see no reason for it. Once you ring the bell hard to unring it.
CL8
01-28-2009, 03:24 AM
Sure he needs to be honest and hard-working. But if he really was without integrity, it would have negatively affected his previous work experience... and his resume. MR, here are the definitions of integrity from dictionary.com, notice #3 states a "perfect condition" (meaning no flaws) now that he has been caught knowingly not paying taxes, he has a great flaw.
What you're saying is, we must drink from a glass that has a crack or a chip in it.
NO WAY,we may be forced to do that, but it is wrong and insulting to American citizens
1.adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2.the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
3.a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull.
a tax error wrong it's a tax CRIME, any of us would be in jail or paying hefty fines for that kind of "error" is not sufficient reason to deny him the job, if he is otherwise qualified. So you are saying you would be ok with a mechanic who steals parts out of cars working in your auto shop, or working on your car!!???
What you're saying is, we must drink from a glass that has a crack or a chip in it.
NO WAY,we may be forced to do that, but it is wrong and insulting to American citizens
1.adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2.the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
3.a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull.
a tax error wrong it's a tax CRIME, any of us would be in jail or paying hefty fines for that kind of "error" is not sufficient reason to deny him the job, if he is otherwise qualified. So you are saying you would be ok with a mechanic who steals parts out of cars working in your auto shop, or working on your car!!???
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025