Hopefully you and others like you learned something from this and next time you will make an educated vote and not a popular vote.
Thanks to you and others like you (read:white guilt) we are stuck with this douche bag and now in 3.5 years we have to start cleaning up the mess he will have put us in. at least YOU have the cajones to admit this and not continue to argue on the side a of a dead horse.

thanks alot.

Originally posted by cartmanrules
Hopefully you and others like you learned something from this and next time you will make an educated vote and not a popular vote.
Thanks to you and others like you (read:white guilt) we are stuck with this douche bag and now in 3.5 years we have to start cleaning up the mess he will have put us in. at least YOU have the cajones to admit this and not continue to argue on the side a of a dead horse.

thanks alot.

Thanks for the reply.

However, I didn't vote for him in the November election... I voted for him in the Primary election. Even if I didn't, the guy would've go on to go against McCain.

The Primary vote wasn't for a popular choice. I actually liked the guy and had hope i him, not because everyone else loved him .

[edit on 22-7-2009 by GorehoundLarry]

I'm sure (at least I hope) there's someone on here who agrees with me.

I sure do!I have trouble finding exactly what is wrong with obama and those who worship him(unjustly IMHO).I think you summed it up pretty well. we who disagree with obama's policies are not racist.it is you who voted for him not because of his policies but because he is black who are the real racists.

Originally posted by genius/idoit

I'm sure (at least I hope) there's someone on here who agrees with me.

I sure do!I have trouble finding exactly what is wrong with obama and those who worship him(unjustly IMHO).I think you summed it up pretty well. we who disagree with obama's policies are not racist.it is you who voted for him not because of his policies but because he is black who are the real racists.

I didn't vote for him because he was black..................maybe I mis-worded myself: I voted for the man because I had faith in him. He seemed like a good choice and a good leader. I didn't vote for him because he was African-American...

My point of the thread is that it is a form of racism to vote for Obama DUE to his skin color.

I repeat: I did not like him because he is black! lol

So stop saying because of racists like me (i'm not racist, btw but thanks!) this country is going to hell. If anything, I protested against our current president during the November election...and I continue to do so to this very day.

Did I learn from trusting a politician? You damn right I did.



[edit on 22-7-2009 by GorehoundLarry]

[edit on 22-7-2009 by GorehoundLarry]

I am one of the hippies you speak of, and I didn't vote for Obama. His skin color had nothing to do with. His policies had everything to do with it. He told us that he thought those of us who are doing well should help the guy behind us. I agree. But I want to make the choice. I don't want some boneheaded beaurocrat telling me who to help.
He told us exactly how he was going to screw us over, and by God, he's doing it even as we speak. Universal Health Care will break the country. It will lead to rationing of care, and eventually, euthanasia of anyone not productive enough to pull their own weight(.i.e. pay enough taxes to care for those who won't work.)
By the way, I don't think you are racist, but I do believe the majority of blacks in this country voted for him just because of his skin color. (I had 3 black doctors pretty much admit that's why they voted for him. I think they may be regretting it now.)

[edit on 22-7-2009 by kettlebellysmith]

I forgive you.

I really believe many voted for him because he was the latest fad. Others voted for him because they only vote the party. And many more voted for him because they were tired of Bush and the Republican party.

But nonetheless, he won. IMO, skin color played a limited role.

Good post, I couldn't agree more. I wonder if people in Britain made it as big a deal when Margaret Thatcher ran for prime minister?

Anyway your comment about Hippies and Anarchists got me thinking. They are supposed to be against the system and corporations, and that's why I found it odd that two Hippie friends of mine voted for Obama. I got criticized by many of my friends because I didn't vote for him. I found it so odd that so many of my friends concerned about the deficit, corporations, and taxes would vote this guy into office. I think they fell for the trick, they didn't listen to what he was really saying. They saw a black man talking of change, a chance to make history. Heh, well they made history alright, perhaps more than they wanted.

As a black american, I certainly agree with you and have stated almost in the same words that he is indeed an 'mtv' president. More accurately, he is a pop-culture president.

Did skin color play the biggest part in his being elected? Yes, absolutely without doubt if one is capable of being honest. And what isn't acknowledged as much as it should be is that it was in large part white liberal apologists that placed him in power. And although its a popular misconception that 'my people' were of one voice where Obama is concerned, it is just that: a misconception.

Unfortunately, now we all are going to pay the price as one people and may finally find that elusive 'unity' when we are all equally broke and downtrodden. Ironic,eh?

Originally posted by cartmanrules
Hopefully you and others like you learned something from this and next time you will make an educated vote and not a popular vote.
Thanks to you and others like you (read:white guilt) we are stuck with this douche bag and now in 3.5 years we have to start cleaning up the mess he will have put us in. at least YOU have the cajones to admit this and not continue to argue on the side a of a dead horse.

thanks alot.

Are there really people out there that think voting is what gets these folks "ELECTED".

Was I asleep or was their an actual process where people picked someone and not the Senate?

Let's just see what elect means, it also gives us the word "Elite".

Election
1270, from Anglo-Fr. eleccioun, from L. electionem, from stem of eligere "pick out, select," from ex- "out" + -ligere, comb. form of legere "to choose, read" (see lecture). Elect (v.) is first recorded 1494. Electioneer first attested 1789 in writing of Thomas Jefferson (probably on model of auctioneer, as the verb engineer was not yet in use). Elective, of school subjects studied at the student's choice, first recorded 1847.


Now, who did you guys elect? I didn't get to choose anyone. I was given two choices on a ballot, anyone else get something different?

vote (n.)
c.1460, from L. votum "a vow, wish, promise, dedication," noun use of neut. of votus, pp. of vovere "to promise, dedicate" (see vow). The verb in the modern sense is attested from 1552; earlier it meant "to vow" to do something (1533).
Some other good ones to know.

politics (n.) Look up politics at Dictionary.com
1529, "science of government," from politic (adj.), modeled on Aristotle's ta politika "affairs of state," the name of his book on governing and governments, which was in Eng. 1450 as "Polettiques."

"Politicks is the science of good sense, applied to public affairs, and, as those are forever changing, what is wisdom to-day would be folly and perhaps, ruin to-morrow. Politicks is not a science so properly as a business. It cannot have fixed principles (in other words...a constitution), from which a wise man would never swerve, unless the inconstancy of men's view of interest and the capriciousness of the tempers could be fixed." [Fisher Ames (1758–1808)]

Meaning "a person's political allegiances or opinions" is from 1769. Political animal transl. Gk. politikon zoon (Aristotle, Politics, I.ii.9) "an animal intended to live in a city; a social animal." Politically correct first attested 1970; abbreviation P.C. is from 1986.

liberal (adj.)
c.1375, from O.Fr. liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous," from L. liberalis "noble, generous," lit. "pertaining to a free man," from liber "free," from PIE base *leudheros (cf. Gk. eleutheros "free"), probably originally "belonging to the people" (though the precise semantic development is obscure), from *leudho- "people" (cf. O.C.S. ljudu, Lith. liaudis, O.E. leod, Ger. Leute "nation, people"). Earliest reference in Eng. is to the liberal arts (L. artes liberales; see art (n.)), the seven attainments directed to intellectual enlargement, not immediate practical purpose, and thus deemed worthy of a free man (the word in this sense was opposed to servile or mechanical). Sense of "free in bestowing" is from 1387. With a meaning "free from restraint in speech or action" (1490) liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88. Purely in ref. to political opinion, "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" it dates from c.1801, from Fr. libéral, originally applied in Eng. by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.

"Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others." [Ambrose Bierce, "Devil's Dictionary," 1911]

The noun meaning "member of the Liberal party of Great Britain" is from 1820. Liberalism is first attested 1819.

federal
1645, as a theological term, from L. foedus "covenant, league" (gen. foederis), related to fides "faith" (see faith). Meaning "pertaining to a treaty" (1660) led to political sense of "state formed by agreement among independent states" (1707), from phrases like federal union "union based on a treaty," popularized by formation of U.S.A. 1776-1787. Federation is first attested 1721, from L.L. foederationem, from L. foederare "league together." Federalism (1793) was coined by Burke. Federalist "member or supporter of the Federal party in U.S. politics" is from 1787. Fed slang for "officer of the FBI" is from 1916.

It's not the Governments fault if we don't know what things mean....it's ours.

edit: Almost forgot Ballot....

ballot Look up ballot at Dictionary.com
1549, from It. pallotte, dim. of palla "ball," for small balls used as counters in secret voting (see balloon). Earliest references are to Venice.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]

To answer the question simply, image is far more important than substance.

Politics is all about image, look good on TV, have a catchy line that means nothing (Hope, Change, Strong America) that plays on emotion and you are sure to do well. The candidates with the most money are almost always the ones that rise to the top, and how do they get that money, in almost all cases being slimy corrupt pathological liars.

The vast majority of people who vote don't know nearly enough about the candidates to make a wise choice, and don't even want to because they consider politics boring. Often when they think they are informed they are going off of the politicians words (often lies) and not their past actions.

With all that said, it wouldn't have mattered anyway, McCain would have been nearly if not just as bad. But if people are going to believe mainstream media that they only have two choices we will always end up with a well funded slimy corrupt pathological liar, the only type that can win a major party nomination. Basically with the system we have today, there is little to no hope of reforming our government through the vote, the major party candidates for senator, the president and to a lesser extent congress are almost all bad choices.

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
In 2008, I voted Obama against Hilary. Why? Because this guy was fresh, new, charming, and knew how to speak to a country.

So you voted for the man for personal reasons? Arent you yourself to blame for not voting for the candidate based on policies that suited your views? based on the issues? Im supported Obama based on his policies and thus far I am satisfied with what he done. Imagine I voted for McCain just because he was a war veteran? And the became disatisfied because of his policies? Whos blame here? mccain or myself? whos to blame here in your situation?

It is childish to assume every single individual voted in Obama for personal reasons. Given his more liberal policies and the campaign on universal healthcare and ending the Iraq war it shouldnt be a surprise to anybody why he won the elections. Some people like to "pretend" the reasoning of the OP was the only way Obama won, willfully ignoring howmuch of a disaster it was for the conservatives to vote in McCain and Palin as their nominees.

With Bush as president, anyone who knows how to speak sounds like a great candidate for a president.

Thats not a legitimate excuse for why Obama won in the first place against somebody who voted 95% of the time with Bush.

As a species, we all demand equality. Right? Aren't the liberals the ones who demand it most? Black means nothing. What matters is the color of our blood. We're all human. We're all equal.

Exactly, it shouldnt matter. Unfortunatly within american discrimmination still exists. Its not going to go away by some conservative merely "denying it exists". It still does, and we should acknowledge that fact. I dont support affirmative action programmes, but those individuals who outright deny the existence of discrimmination in our society are just making excuses for the ones who still discrimminate. By the way Obama didnt win merely because he was black, he won because of his policies. He the election race was between Hillary and McCain, or even Gravel and McCain you be making different excuses.

Basically the entire OP is based on you making a pi*s poor decision in choosing your candidate last year and somehow though, everybody is to blame right? Everybody was tricked into voting him in, there for "he never really won the presidency on good grounds". The excuses from you fellas are just unbelievable.

SG



[edit on 22-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]

I'm confused...do people seriously think McCain and Palin would be any better than Obama?

Republicans proved they aren't capable of governing. Last 8 years showed that. People wanted a change and voted the 'only' other option: democrat

Maybe now people will realize that too doesn't work and eventually we'll elect an independent.

Then again, that may not work either.

Originally posted by strum828
I'm confused...do people seriously think McCain and Palin would be any better than Obama?

Republicans proved they aren't capable of governing. Last 8 years showed that. People wanted a change and voted the 'only' other option: democrat

Maybe now people will realize that too doesn't work and eventually we'll elect an independent.

Then again, that may not work either.

The Republican Party is run and represented by bafoons. Bush was more of a Democrat when it came to spending. However, barely any Republicans seem to carry common sense or honesty...but yet, what politician does? The Democratic Party doesn't do anything...they should be the ones who are going to solve the climate crisis, protect the environment, end the war in Iraq...but..nothing is being done except for spending..spending...and..well, more spending.


We need a true independent president. Sadly, we won't get one.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by GorehoundLarry]

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry


The Republican Party is run and represented by bafoons. Bush was more of a Democrat when it came to spending. However, barely any Republicans seem to carry common sense or honesty...but yet, what politician does? The Democratic Party doesn't do anything...they should be the ones who are going to solve the climate crisis, protect the environment, end the war in Iraq...but..nothing is being done except for spending..spending...and..well, more spending.


We need a true independent president. Sadly, we won't get one.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by GorehoundLarry]

I'm holding on to the hope that sometime in the next 20 years we'll elect an independent. Its much more possible to elect an independent now than ever before. Election laws are changing across the states making ballot access and campaign finance much much easier for third party candidates. Hopefully the D/R debate can finally end and we stop switching back and forth every 4-8 years once one party pisses most Americans off...