Barack Obama for President 2008

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by AlbertP

I guess it's fair so long as your view wins?

I think we're witnessing a generational shift in tide, away from darkness and toward light, away from hatred and toward love, away from divisiveness and toward unity, away from racism and toward inclusion, away from cynicism and toward hope, away from meanness and toward kindness, away from selfishness and toward compassion, away from fear and toward courage.

It will be interesting to see if it is indeed "inclusion" and "unity" vs the opposite. I've seen nothing but polarization from the front runner while McCain has a record of crossing the aisle quite a bit.

And I'm quoting this to keep the record here. I'll be revisiting these threads in the future to find out how much "hope" and "change" really work once reality sets in. He's already pulling back from his grandiose "I can make your world better" promises. His last few speeches drifted from the "you'll be better in four years" theme to "it's going to be a long hard road and won't happen overnight".

It's all about scaling expectations.

[Paul Shields]

Certainly whoever wins will have a poisoned chalice. The whole world economy is teetering at the moment...

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

Certainly whoever wins will have a poisoned chalice. The whole world economy is teetering at the moment...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. These aren't the words we've been hearing for the last six months. This is no time to start pulling back the goals here.

[wedweb]

Originally Posted by AlbertP

I guess it's fair so long as your view wins?

Your words, not mine. I am all for a fair election, either way the cookie crumbles.

Originally Posted by AlbertP

I think we're witnessing a generational shift in tide, away from darkness and toward light, away from hatred and toward love, away from divisiveness and toward unity, away from racism and toward inclusion, away from cynicism and toward hope, away from meanness and toward kindness, away from selfishness and toward compassion, away from fear and toward courage.

I wouldn't call a generational shift a 50/50 tie. Sounds pretty much down the middle. Though I do see many in the D category moving far left and some moving center. As well as some in the R category moving center and many wanting to move back to conservative values but too scared to venture out and let it possibly allow the far left a road in. I think that this is a fair statement.

Obama has come a long way since he started the campaign. It is a long journey from the far left to almost right of center.

I have heard of a few R's thinking more along the lines of the old R way.....Reagan. And I have no doubt that Reagan R's from the 80's would be horrified to see where the R party has let things go and likewise the Kennedy D's would be locking every current national D up for being a "red". Don't be too harsh on these statements as I am only looking at history and where we have come from and where we are possibly going.

Sorry if I offended anyone.......

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

Whoa, whoa, whoa. These aren't the words we've been hearing for the last six months. This is no time to start pulling back the goals here.

Well you can't blame the future incumbent for past failings Brian . I think Obama has made some comments about the current economic difficulties so it's not like he's ignoring the issue. John McCain however - hmm, what did he say on the day of Bearing's collapse? Something along the lines of the economy is fundamentally strong. I guess he's just referring to his own economic position .

The whole sub-prime mortgage disaster is affecting all major economies - some even more so than in the US. It's a global problem and will take a while to sort out. I doubt if bank institutions will be allowed to be so lax with their lendings in the future.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

Well you can't blame the future incumbent for past failings Brian . I think Obama has made some comments about the current economic difficulties so it's not like he's ignoring the issue.

Sounds like a subtle nudge to not "hope" for too much in the next few years, imo.

John McCain however - hmm, what did he say on the day of Bearing's collapse? Something along the lines of the economy is fundamentally strong. I guess he's just referring to his own economic position .

Bear Stearns, you mean? I actually agree with him, even today. Fundamentally, the economy still IS strong. Yes, we're in the beginnings of what will be a fairly rough recession. But everyone keeps forgetting that each time we've done this (and despite the media's attempt at doom/gloom, this is a fairly regular cyclical pattern that we've endured before) we've come out stronger and more economically active than ever before. It's not because of the government. It's because of the way the US economy is designed.

The whole sub-prime mortgage disaster is affecting all major economies - some even more so than in the US. It's a global problem and will take a while to sort out. I doubt if bank institutions will be allowed to be so lax with their lendings in the future.

The bailout is an election year scam, imo. The banks should take it in the shorts, just like any other investor who makes bad decisions. This planet is overdue for some economic corrections and the more we keep propping it up, the worse it's going to be when it finally does come crashing down. No politician is going to fix that.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

Bear Stearns, you mean?

Yeah, that one too . Far too many banks going under these days.

The bailout is an election year scam, imo. The banks should take it in the shorts, just like any other investor who makes bad decisions. This planet is overdue for some economic corrections and the more we keep propping it up, the worse it's going to be when it finally does come crashing down. No politician is going to fix that.

Wow - we agree on something . Personally I'd let the banks go under too. I know that's probably cutting off your nose to spite your face, but the current 'solution' of just giving them endless lines of credit sickens me. What are the US proposals for this now? Are they going to take shares as collateral for any investments, or is it just a case of 'here's a load of money. Now don't do it again' ?

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

Yeah, that one too . Far too many banks going under these days.



Wow - we agree on something . Personally I'd let the banks go under too. I know that's probably cutting off your nose to spite your face, but the current 'solution' of just giving them endless lines of credit sickens me. What are the US proposals for this now? Are they going to take shares as collateral for any investments, or is it just a case of 'here's a load of money. Now don't do it again' ?

What they did is buy the bad debt with the plan to sell it and make (hopefully) a profit off it. Thing is, its now a buyers market. So the properties wont sell for full value. So its doubtful they will make back what they spent, let alone make a profit.

And until the economy gets going again, then those properties are just going to sit vacant.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Douglas

What they did is buy the bad debt with the plan to sell it and make (hopefully) a profit off it. Thing is, its now a buyers market. So the properties wont sell for full value. So its doubtful they will make back what they spent, let alone make a profit.

And until the economy gets going again, then those properties are just going to sit vacant.

The intent behind the plan was for the government to hold the properties for a while anyway. It does two things:

1. Keeps them off of the market, increasing the likelihood that other properties will sell for higher prices (supply lower = higher costs).
2. Allows the market to stabilize and the government to recover the money later when the value of the property is higher. Longer always = better in real estate appreciation.

One of my biggest concerns with this is that the more you mix money with bureaucracy, the more likely it is you'll see corruption. It's going to be awfully tempting for a GS-10 managing some properties to see an opportunity to increase his current $60K/year salary into some significant $$.

[AlbertP]

It's now official:

President Barack Obama

Yes, we can.

Yes, we did.

[PetersenPhotography]

I may be poking a huge hornet's nest, but here I go....

I hope that he doesn't think that he's going to get a free pass as the first African-American president. His achievement is remarkable and historic for sure, and I for one am glad to see that a minority candidate has won the presidency, but if he rests on that for any length of time, then it will backfire.

I hope that we, as a country, can put aside all notions of race (whether it be a negaitve reaction to him as a president, or an overly idealistic one) as we move into the presidency of Barak Obama.

[jhawk1000]

You are totally correct. Why should anyone expect more or less than to be accountable as a President no matter what his race. No free passes for anyone in this job.

Mel

[PetersenPhotography]

Neither should anyone else think that he should get a free pass!

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by PetersenPhotography

I may be poking a huge hornet's nest, but here I go....

I hope that he doesn't think that he's going to get a free pass as the first African-American president. His achievement is remarkable and historic for sure, and I for one am glad to see that a minority candidate has won the presidency, but if he rests on that for any length of time, then it will backfire.

I hope that we, as a country, can put aside all notions of race (whether it be a negaitve reaction to him as a president, or an overly idealistic reaction) as we move into the presidency of Barak Obama.

So do I...because I've already been called a racist for disagreeing with his principles. It's going to be an interesting four years. My personal opinion is that it's either going to truly unite or polarize the heck out of the country.

Oh, to the idiot commentator on NBC who my sister quoted as saying that it was truly a great moment when the descendant of slaves can be President of the United States: his father was a native Kenyan and his mother was a white American....who's ancestors were actually slave OWNERS. A new twist to an intriguing family history -- baltimoresun.com

I was more impressed with Mandela's rise to presidency after enduring years in South African prisons. Now THAT was worthy of world notice.

[PetersenPhotography]

Mandela's achievement was truly remarkable! And it is nice to have an eloquent speaker back in the "bully pulpit".

I have a feeling that we'll hear a lot of "You disagree with him? You racist!" in the coming months. And my immediate reponse will be "Sorry, that doesn't apply any to the presidency. If he indeed will be my president too (as he promised to be), then I get to criticize him just as vociferously as I would criticize any other president."

Hopefully we'll all calm down between now and the inauguration!

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

So do I...because I've already been called a racist for disagreeing with his principles. It's going to be an interesting four years. My personal opinion is that it's either going to truly unite or polarize the heck out of the country.

Oh, to the idiot commentator on NBC who my sister quoted as saying that it was truly a great moment when the descendant of slaves can be President of the United States: his father was a native Kenyan and his mother was a white American....who's ancestors were actually slave OWNERS. A new twist to an intriguing family history -- baltimoresun.com

I really don't think that his white, American great great great great grandfather owned slaves has any relevance at all. What point are you trying to make? There were lots of white slave owners in those days. Most white Americans who have ancestors going back that far in the US could probably find something similar in their family tree. No doubt if you traced the likes of Bush and McCain's family tree you would find that too.

In some ways Obama is a descendant of slaves - in the figurative sense that the slaves in America were black and so is he.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

I really don't think that his white, American great great great great grandfather owned slaves has any relevance at all. What point are you trying to make? There were lots of white slave owners in those days. Most white Americans who have ancestors going back that far in the US could probably find something similar in their family tree. No doubt if you traced the likes of Bush and McCain's family tree you would find that too.

Because it's a perfect example of how little people really know about our next President.

In some ways Obama is a descendant of slaves - in the figurative sense that the slaves in America were black and so is he.

Figuratively speaking, then you're the descendant of peasants and I'm the descendant of indentured slaves as well. That's a reach.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

Because it's a perfect example of how little people really know about our next President.

No, it's an example of how little people really know about his great great great great grandfather.

Figuratively speaking, then you're the descendant of peasants and I'm the descendant of indentured slaves as well. That's a reach.

I may well be, or my great great great great grandmother was Mary Queen of Scots (she shares the same surname as my mother). Either way, it is of no significance whatsoever as to who I am. Straws and clutching come to mind in your recent posts on this subject Brian.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

No, it's an example of how little people really know about his great great great great grandfather.

Except the reference was to HIM, not the old relatives.

I may well be, or my great great great great grandmother was Mary Queen of Scots (she shares the same surname as my mother). Either way, it is of no significance whatsoever as to who I am. Straws and clutching come to mind in your recent posts on this subject Brian.

Then why would a commentator bring it up? If it's of no significance, why say "it's a great day when the descendant of slaves becomes president"? Because (a) it's wrong, he's not a descendant of slaves and (b) it's irrelevant.

My point is that a year from now, the reality of exactly who is sitting in the Oval Office will start to sink in. He's a man, just like anyone else. Tell that to any Obama supporter and you'd think it was no different than calling him a Muslim, terrorist, or anything short of a Messiah.

It's scary. Truly, utterly scary. This and the Election Thread have merely shown me what I've felt all along: liberals can't debate facts and ideas. They argue from an emotional base that is less about reality and more about a Utopia that is only attainable if you join their cause and give up all you feel is right. Conservatives have moved closer and closer to center over the years, including during the Bush Administration. Liberals haven't. Their version of compromise is give up and do what we want.

Every time I've presented facts and asked for rebuttal, I've been lambasted personally, including being labeled as a racist. Why is that? Why is it not okay for McCain to have attacked Obama's past relationships but it is okay to label me with something that has no evidence backing it?

Different standards, once again.

[Paul Shields]

I don't see anything racist in the current thread, but yeah it will be something that could be a watchword for both racists and those who accuse others of racism. Ignorance knows no political lines.

Anyway, on the point of the commentator stating that it is 'truly a great moment when the descendant of slaves can be President of the United States'. Barack Obama is black (remember the old 'One-drop rule' ? One-drop rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It would have been nigh on impossible for a black person to be president until this time, descendant of slaves or not. The commentator isn't referring to Obama directly - just making the point that now anyone regardless of color of skin or past ancestry can be president.

That's why Obama can be seen as transformational, at least in that respect. If those who don't like him because of his color can also be transformational then there should be no reason for any discussions of his race or color. A pretty tall order I would expect, but often what seems impossible today is possible tomorrow...