a flower in hell on 30/8/2008 at 00:07
Pot: Hey Kettle! Guess what?
Kettle: What?
Pot: YOU'RE BLACK!
june gloom on 30/8/2008 at 00:08
Quote Posted by BEAR
And you expect better from whom? I also love how you make sweeping generalizations like they are fact, its precious. Who would you want if you could have anyone? Would you even vote for that person if they ran or would you just shit on them? How can you
know that anyone else would do better? People act like Obama has no substance, but how can you really quantify that during the election, you never really
know what anyone is going to do so you kind of have to go by their tone and their speeches (in which Obama is regarded as HISTORY MAKING). What the fuck more do you want?
I think that some people won't feel you have experience unless you've been president of another world superpower before. I also think most Christians would call jesus the antichrist if he did come back, you just cant please some people.
The man doesn't have any substance beyond his speeches. We have no real idea who the fuck this guy is. Sure,
he likes to tell us, but why hasn't anyone
else vouched for him? The Church of Obama (as I've called it since people started fainting at his rallies) is all caught up in his admittedly great speeches, but he's multitalented with nothing to back that talent up. Nobody worthwhile stood up for him at the DNC and said "hey you fucks, I know this guy, he's cool." Besides his wife, and she hardly counts- of course she's going to vouch for him. Look at Kerry- when he accepted the nomination in 2004 a whole bunch of his war buddies showed up to vouch for him. Nobody did that for Obama. He has no colleagues from his past, no old friends coming up and telling us how awesome he is. The only ones telling us how awesome he is consist of himself, his immediate family, the DNP on the basis of unity, and the people who he's told he is awesome and they believe it.
We know precious little about the man that
actually matters. He's a total blank. The height of his experience was to vote "yes" on mom and apple pie. Blasting Sarah Palin for her inexperience yet lauding Obama is just stupid and hypocritical- listen to yourselves, and seriously think about what you're saying.
In the end, his inexperience is going to be his biggest flaw. Do you seriously believe that he's
not going to be congress' little puppet? Especially if they continue to be dominated by the Democratic party?
No, I don't like McCain either, and this pick of Sarah Palin was out of left fucking field (though she's cute in a milfy librarian kinda way), but I just think people should
stop and think before they vote. I'm going to be doing a lot of that between here and November, and I'm sure we're going to hear a lot more about Obama that just
might not come from his fanclub (or his anti-fanclub)- you know, something
valuable. The problem is that I'm 100% sure that no matter who wins, a lot of us are going to be waking up the next day with a splitting headache, wondering where our pants are and why Acapulco is outside our windows.
demagogue on 30/8/2008 at 00:08
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
My reaction exactly!
It reminds me of all these lackluster, petty people that Republicans keep giving great responsibility to -- Katherine Harris, Monica Goodling, Michael Brown, Harriet Miers -- where "out of their league" is being charitable at best. They get in and waste no time embarrassing themselves and us with what would be laughable antics if so much weren't at stake. And Republicans KEEP doing it! There are too many great people out there to keep scraping the barrel for the biggest jobs.
This is a kind of insanity that makes me think it's like McCain really doesn't care about running a nation of 300 million people. It's just a game he's playing to go through the perfunctory motions, but not a serious campaign.
Edit:
Quote Posted by dethtoll
We know precious little about the man that
actually matters. He's a total blank.
I wouldn't go so far as to say Obama is a total blank, but he's certainly relatively untested on the big stage of national politics, and I would have expected him to at least serve one full term in the Senate before making the jump. And his experience before that is in state gov't, which also has the petty wiff of small potato.
His background undeniably has a lot of symbolic value, and his rhetoric is always spot-on in terms of hitting chords that resonate with people. I don't completely dismiss that as something I want our President to have. I want a President that doesn't embarrass the country when he speaks in public.
And certain things immediately strike a person as un-fake-able credibility ... Nobody becomes EditorIC of the Harvard Law Review or teaches at Chicago Law School unless they are astronomically intelligent and driven. They are the most competitive positions at the most competitive places in the most competitive profession there is. Why he went from that into a less-than-stellar firm and State politics when he could have flown straight to the top right off is a little curious to me. I get that he cares about the less fortunate and found that that was the best way to contribute, but then that's just it. It's a kind of statement that that's what he cares about, so why is he making the jump to the big leagues now? It's a big country and he chose a smaller road when he didn't have to. I would feel more comfortable if his ambition had kicked in earlier, and would have been more tested by now. But it's certainly kicked in now.
Scots Taffer on 30/8/2008 at 00:16
Interestingly, as Obama gave his acceptance speech I was doing a business lunch in Sydney and caught a cab to the airport with a New Yowkah who'd moved over 20 odd years ago and we had a really fun chat about the elections and America at the moment. Obama is by far and away the pick of anyone who is not a crusty old rich person or redneck Christian fuckwit it seems, though whether or not that translates to a voting majority is something else entirely.
I really like the comparison to JFK though must admit the proximity to assassination don't sit too comfortably with me. There was a Democrat who was a charmisatic speaker, who led people by winning hearts and minds, which is precisely what Obama is doing. People seem to overlook the power of leadership and the feeling that can inspire - sure, if when the time comes to lay policy details on the table and Obama is found to be extremely lacking (which I doubt, the man is nothing if a cagey and cunningly intelligent politician and knows how to win people as well as win a battle, yet his unwillingness to sling mud no matter what also shows a level of personal integrity and idealism not commonly found in the game) then feel free to crush his Presidential hopes. However, if we're honestly going to start trying to wear this guy down based on the fact that he's an exceptional orator and crowd-worker, suggesting it's
just that - fuck, even if it
was "just words", words can change minds, changed minds can change the future and the future is what looks so uncertain for America right now.
All of this said as a clearly uninformed outsider, of course.
On a side note, one has to think if Obama is close to winning or does win and is (God forbid) assassinated that it would tear the country apart. I mean seriously. I'm talking civil war type disruption. You'd basically be taking Rodney King to the
nth power and suggesting to every black person in America that "you better not rise above your station, boy, or you'll get put down" and I think in the precarious situation America is in, both financially and their perception in the international community, it'd be about the worst thing that could ever happen.
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Inexperienced leader surrounded by a bunch of old guys who claim to know what they're doing? I've
seen this movie, and so has
everyone else.
No idea what you're talking about, sorry.
Stitch on 30/8/2008 at 00:20
Quote Posted by dethtoll
TWe know precious little about the man that
actually matters. He's a total blank. The height of his experience was to vote "yes" on mom and apple pie.
This is, of course, ludicrous. His history is available in stark detail if you're so inclined to look.
a flower in hell on 30/8/2008 at 00:33
There's a perfectly good Communist country for you all to move to. It's called China. Perhaps you've heard of it?
SubJeff on 30/8/2008 at 00:35
Quote Posted by Stitch
Eh, this angle will get a lot of press but it isn't going to happen. Palin is the opposite of Hillary on the social issues Hillary's supporters care about.
The media play-up of this has amazed me. People in the US can't vote for a party on the basis of the candidate's gender or race, surely.
This is one massive difference between the UK and the US - here we really focus on the party and the policies. It's only when a leader is especially useless or awesome that they come into play and that hasn't happened for the past 15 years or so.
Why they hell is the US focusing on the candidate alone? Does anyone even care about policies? Do black female-candidate lovers vote for white female KKK members? (crude example to illustrate point only)
WTF?
heretic on 30/8/2008 at 00:45
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
..Obama is by far and away the pick of anyone who is not a crusty old rich person or redneck Christian fuckwit it seems.
On a side note, one has to think if Obama is close to winning or does win and is (God forbid) assassinated that it would tear the country apart. I mean seriously. I'm talking civil war type disruption. You'd basically be taking Rodney King to the
nth power and suggesting to every black person in America that "you better not rise above your station, boy, or you'll get put down" and I think in the precarious situation America is in, both financially and their perception in the international community, it'd be about the worst thing that could ever happen.
That first bit regarding picks is so wrong that I wouldn't even know where to begin, it was pretty funny though.
On the civil-concerns:
Face it, even if Obama were to fairly lose the election (and it's his to lose) there are going to be big problems regarding racial tension and boil-ups in urban areas.
june gloom on 30/8/2008 at 00:46
Yeah we have too many fucks who base their votes and opinions purely on the basis of party, gender or race. That's part of why the country's in such a state that it is.
I wish people would stop getting their opinions from talk radio and moveon.org.
SubJeff on 30/8/2008 at 00:55
I don't think basing it on party is such a bad thing though since left wing policies tend to be left wing and so on (unless you are Nu Laybore).
