Obama Wins

[Octobox]

I do not agree with his politics nor McCains -- however, it will not be that hard for him to make a better America and world given the mess Bush has left.

IF - IF - IF

He "actually" brings troops home, cuts taxes (or does not raise them), and if he reduces gov't spending (or does not increase it).

If he brings troops home and closes foreign military bases or at least reduces the welfare to other nations (that go mostly to wealthy elite for guns and not food). He could say trillions in this act alone.

I hope he was "pretending" to be a "leftist" and becomes a pacifist-conservative-centrist.

Of course this would not be the type of gov't I'd like to see; my kind would be somewhere between a Minarchist / Anarchist.

Octobox

[Plagueround]

I didn't see anything in his campaign that could even be construed, "pretending" or otherwise, as being a leftist. Centrist-Clintonian democrat definitely, but not a leftist.

[Trystan]

He'll change fuck all in the long term. He's the new Tony Blair; full of wonderful rhetoric, youthful, makes a ton of promises he'll never deliver on . . .

Watch this space.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

His politics aside, it's great to see this country elect an African-American.

[IcarusAngel]

I enjoy watching the American far right upset their candidate lost:

bss6lTP8BJ8

They say this might be the start of a new series of progressive politics, which is good imo, I disagree with the "things must get worse before things get better" stalinists - weakening tyranny is almost always good.

[Rascolnikova]

His politics aside, it's great to see this country elect an African-American.

Seconded. It's about damn time.

[Jazzratt]

They say this might be the start of a new series of progressive politics, which is good imo, I disagree with the "things must get worse before things get better" stalinists - weakening tyranny is almost always good.

Tyranny isn't going to be any weaker. It's going to have a kinder, gentler face but it's going to be, more or less, the same. Don't get caught in the (very tempting) trap of thinking that bourgeois-flavoured "progressive" politics are in the interests of anyone but the ruling class.

In my country we elected a "left" party (by american standards they were practically red flag waving commies) years ago and things have just gone downhill since. Charisma and rhetoric does not a progressive government make.

[Octobox]

I'm Afro-Cuban and Irish (50/50, like Obama) and I'm glad we got the first-one out of the way. This was a typical presidency wherein the average person could not tell you their candidates actual voting record while in office.

Obama ran as the "peace" candidate for awhile, but that didn't match his actual war voting record; so then they settled on "change," which is what I call the "political Ken doll" position -- lacking junk (says nothing - no balls). Change for the sake of it, though his actual voting record does not support it.

I didn't want McCain to win either and if I had my druthers I would rather see Obama in there; at least if we get a "crook" he will be the better looking one AND we get rid of the "blacks are held back" rhetoric -- maybe even "retire" Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in one swoop. Wow, the latter would almost be worth it save Obama has already said he wants to move out of Iraq and in Afghanistan and Pakistan (a whole new theatre); but no one wants to discuss that one.

Bush has screwed up so much if he runs a fiscal conservative approach and avoids carpet bombing the middle east then he will be a great president in comparison.

'Nuff said

[Octobox]

Plagueround:

His policies are far more left than Clinton -- One of his top analysts was asking for income redistribution earlier today. They want the "fairness doctrine" in talk radio - Net Neutrality. They want universal health care (left of what Hillary was advocating anyway). Why is that not "leftist" in your book?

Maybe you think leftist are peace advocates and you might be right around the college campuses, but in office the leftists are war advocates -- you can't pay for a welfare state and maintain a voluntary nation or without perpetual revolution (re-termed the "war on terror"), smile. Which Barack supported once he was in the Senate.

But I will agree he is not a theoretical Marxist, but he's the closest thing since FDR (or he will be if he attempts to keep his promises).

Octobox

[Plagueround]

Plagueround:
His policies are far more left than Clinton -- One of his top analysts was asking for income redistribution earlier today. They want the "fairness doctrine" in talk radio - Net Neutrality. They want universal health care (left of what Hillary was advocating anyway). Why is that not "leftist" in your book?

Because the implementation and method of those policies you listed are far to the right of what the rest of the world considers left. Taking a leftist idea and distorting it to fit capitalism isn't being a leftist, that's being a liberal. Their ideas are still very much big time corporatist, they've just recognized the pockets of the consumers are drying up.


Maybe you think leftist are peace advocates and you might be right around the college campuses, but in office the leftists are war advocates -- you can't pay for a welfare state and maintain a voluntary nation or without perpetual revolution (re-termed the "war on terror"), smile. Which Barack supported once he was in the Senate.

Again, I suppose this applies to right wingers like Barack Obama and friends, but it does not bear any resemblance to what I or actual leftists believe. To comment on this would be akin to me grilling you on free marketeers supporting the financial bailout, even though you've made it clear that would not be fair to your political belief. I've spent my entire day fighting the assumption that I'm happy about this election...forgive me if I'm a bit frazzled.

[Octobox]

Okay point taken and I concede your definitions.

Hahahaha "frazzled" -- I know how you feel.

He's a Corporatist, no argument here.

Peace

[Forward Union]

His politics aside, it's great to see this country elect an African-American.

Why? Does it make anything better? no?

[Rascolnikova]

Why? Does it make anything better? no?

It's a reflection of the country being non-racist enough to put him in office. It's not much, but it's reassuring to those of us who have to interact with other Americans from time to time. :p

[bcbm]

Why? Does it make anything better? no?

I'd say it is a big deal to go from a country where, within many people's lifetime, black people couldn't sit in the same section of the bus, use the same water fountains, bathrooms or schools and people could get away with murdering them if they looked at a white woman wrong (or didn't) to having a black man as president. It speaks to some level of social progress, however small and while his presidency will amount to more of the same it doesn't change the pretty historic nature of all that.

[Dust Bunnies]

If Barack Obama turns out to be a decent president, it will be a victory for racial equality world wide, we can show those racists that IQ is not race dependent.


I thought the election was going to be closer though...

[Jazzratt]

Incenderism, please don't spam.

[Holden Caulfield]

He'll change fuck all in the long term. He's the new Tony Blair; full of wonderful rhetoric, youthful, makes a ton of promises he'll never deliver on . . .

Watch this space.true dat

[Bud Struggle]

His politics aside, it's great to see this country elect an African-American.

Yup. I think the fact that he is Black is more important than the political angle. I mean you can't really expect that the American people would elect a radical Socialist (no matter what the rhetoric on the Right says.)

He's not going to change American politics and economics directly--no one wants him to do that. He was elected to be a Democratic President in the traditional mold of Democratic Presidents.

But he'll change people consciousness--in a way that that's a much better way to change politics and economics.

[Killfacer]

I think even the revolutionary left cannot deny that this is a huge step forward for America and the way it is veiwed by the rest of the world.

[Dean]

Obama will expand presidential power, just like every previous president. He will expand corporate political control, just as he did in the senate. He has a harder conservative line on Israel than any past U.S. president. His healthcare plan is an all-around endorsement of corporate interests, a total rejection of the social heathcare idea. I fail to see how he is qualitatively leftist in any way that I should be concerned about?

[RebelDog]

New bottles, same old wine.

[Bud Struggle]

Obama will expand presidential power, just like every previous president. He will expand corporate political control, just as he did in the senate. He has a harder conservative line on Israel than any past U.S. president. His healthcare plan is an all-around endorsement of corporate interests, a total rejection of the social heathcare idea. I fail to see how he is qualitatively leftist in any way that I should be concerned about?

Ok Dean, lets say all of that is true and he does everything you say--the "myth" of the man, I think, will do greater things than his actions. He maybe could inspire some more Socialist Blacks and poor to get involved in the political discssion where they might not have before. In a way he sets up a whole new political agenda for African Americans and Africans in Africa. He may notr be the man to carry out the agenda, but he certainly has set it in motion.

He may not be personally an inspiration in his actual actions--but the symbolism of his acomplishment may do quite a lot. I see no reason not be be optimistic.

[Jazzratt]

New bottles, same old wine.


Your analogy doesn't work. Wine improves with age.

[Dean]

Ok Dean, lets say all of that is true and he does everything you say--the "myth" of the man, I think, will do greater things than his actions. He maybe could inspire some more Socialist Blacks and poor to get involved in the political discssion where they might not have before. In a way he sets up a whole new political agenda for African Americans and Africans in Africa. He may notr be the man to carry out the agenda, but he certainly has set it in motion.

He may not be personally an inspiration in his actual actions--but the symbolism of his acomplishment may do quite a lot. I see no reason not be be optimistic.

If he makes some positive change in that way, of course I'm not against that. But as I have demonstrated, he is a dangerous tyrant. Quite frankly, I am more disturbed by his violent foreign policy than I would be happy with whatever marginal revitalization of U.S. attitude that you predict. Smiling workers building cluster bombs don't make me very happy.

[RebelDog]

Your analogy doesn't work. Wine improves with age.

That was the analogy Chomsky used to describe Bill Clinton. I think it usefully applies here too. Not all wine improves with age. Its an old saying.

[Dr Mindbender]

perhaps 'new bottles same old piss' works better.

[Chapaev]

This is a negative development for the United States. The bourgeoisie has installed a biracial white man into the presidency in an effort to dismiss the fact that the United States is a fundamentally racist country. The message that the American bourgeoisie strives to send to the world with this 'election' is that racism does not exist in the United States.

Analyzing the politics of Obama, he is not substantially different from what we have seen before. The advisers that are directing Obama's foreign policy such as Brzezinski and Albright are only slightly less bloodthirsty than the neoconservatives. It was Albright, for example, who argued long before Bush, Cheney, and Rice on the need to overthrow the Iraqi Government. Obama's economic policy is a pathetic and desperate attempt to save the capitalist system from its inevitable destruction. His health care plan is a misleading gimmick that strives to expand the profits of pharmaceutical and insurance monopolies.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Why? Does it make anything better? no?

To be frank, most Europeans simply cannot understand the implications of electing an African-American, especially one by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Our country's history is wrought with racial issues that cross all different lines. Whereas in Britain slavery wasn't that regular of an occurrence and imperialism came as a foreign affair, the vilest of all institutions was the lifeblood of half our country. Slavery continued right up through the 1860s, and even past that ("illegal slavery" persisted into the 1930s). European countries tend be a lot less diversified. Imagine taking the Germans' issue with Turkish immigrants and expanding on the conflict tenfold, throwing all different races into the mix, or Italy's issue with African "illegals." Europeans sent warships to fight overseas in China and the Middle East. We fought at home between Asians, Catholics, Mormons, Africans, Mexicans, Italians, Russians, and natives.

It's a simple fact that the United States, out of all countries in the world, has been one of the most diverse. Unlike India, however, the people from the US have different histories, different cultures, different religions, and different politics. Look at the problems Africa faces when tribes are clumped together without any preconditions. The United States suffers from a similar, albeit less extreme, problem. We have a Romantic concept about uniting different people around the world, while at the same time trying to overcome the inevitable difficulties which arise - I think that's very inspirational as a Leftist. Although it would be slightly more extreme, imagine the EU becoming a true federal body of government. A French citizen sitting over Britons as their prime minister. How would that sit?

Even as late as the 1970s and 1980s racial prejudice was an acceptable practice for politicians and businesses. According to polls a majority of Americans didn't look favorably upon mixed-marriages until the 1990s.

Up until last night the country was holdings its breath trying to see if our country had gotten over one of the biggest hurdles in our country's history. It's not something to look down upon. Yes, it does make things better. At the very least it shows that the newer generations are becoming a post-racial society.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Most Europeans simply cannot understand the implications of electing an African-American, especially one by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Our country's history is wrought with racial issues that cross all different lines. Whereas in Britain slavery wasn't that regular of an occurrence, the vilest of all institutions was the lifeblood of the South, which continued up through the 1860s, and even past that ("illegal slavery" persisted into the 1930s). European countries tend be a lot less diversified. Imagine taking the Germans' issue with Turkish immigrants and expanding on the issue tenfold, throwing all different races into the mix, or Italy's issue with African "illegals."

It's a simple fact that the United States, out of almost all countries in the world, has been one of the most diverse. Unlike India, however, the people from the US have different histories, different culture, different religions, and different politics. Look at the problems Africa faces when tribes are clumped together without any preconditions. The United States suffers from a similar, albeit less extreme, problem. We have a fickle concept about uniting different people around the world, while at the same time trying to overcome the inevitable difficulties which arise - I think that's very inspirational as a Leftist.

Even as late as the 1970s and 1980s racial prejudice was an acceptable practice for politicians and businesses. The majority of Americans didn't look favorably upon mixed-marriages until the 1990s.

Up until last night the country was holdings its breath trying to see if our country had gotten over one of the biggest hurdles in our country's history. It's not something to look down upon. Yes, it does make things better. At the very least it shows that the newer generations are becoming a post-racial society.


Well said. :)

That being said, I don't think that Obama represents any kind of fundamental change in any issue unrelated to melanin.

[Algernon]

To be frank, most Europeans simply cannot understand the implications of electing an African-American, especially one by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Our country's history is wrought with racial issues that cross all different lines. Whereas in Britain slavery wasn't that regular of an occurrence and imperialism came as a foreign affair, the vilest of all institutions was the lifeblood of half our country. Slavery continued right up through the 1860s, and even past that ("illegal slavery" persisted into the 1930s). European countries tend be a lot less diversified. Imagine taking the Germans' issue with Turkish immigrants and expanding on the conflict tenfold, throwing all different races into the mix, or Italy's issue with African "illegals." Europeans sent warships to fight overseas in China and the Middle East. We fought at home between Asians, Catholics, Mormons, Africans, Mexicans, Italians, Russians, and natives.

It's a simple fact that the United States, out of all countries in the world, has been one of the most diverse. Unlike India, however, the people from the US have different histories, different cultures, different religions, and different politics. Look at the problems Africa faces when tribes are clumped together without any preconditions. The United States suffers from a similar, albeit less extreme, problem. We have a Romantic concept about uniting different people around the world, while at the same time trying to overcome the inevitable difficulties which arise - I think that's very inspirational as a Leftist. Although it would be slightly more extreme, imagine the EU becoming a true federal body of government. A French citizen sitting over Britons as their prime minister. How would that sit?

Even as late as the 1970s and 1980s racial prejudice was an acceptable practice for politicians and businesses. According to polls a majority of Americans didn't look favorably upon mixed-marriages until the 1990s.

Up until last night the country was holdings its breath trying to see if our country had gotten over one of the biggest hurdles in our country's history. It's not something to look down upon. Yes, it does make things better. At the very least it shows that the newer generations are becoming a post-racial society.


Well said that man!

Also... "Biracial White Man"? :confused:

[Phalanx]

This is a negative development for the United States. The bourgeoisie has installed a biracial white man into the presidency in an effort to dismiss the fact that the United States is a fundamentally racist country. The message that the American bourgeoisie strives to send to the world with this 'election' is that racism does not exist in the United States.

I don't think that's the case at all. Nobody said this would bring about the end of racism (except Jon Stewart). It's just part of a gradual forward movement. And last time I checked, nations like Italy were forcing members of the Roma community to register themselves. Aborigines in Australia live in a 'failed-state' status. The rest of the world has to look in their own backyards (and own histories) before they immediately attack America.

[Bud Struggle]

To be frank, most Europeans simply cannot understand the implications of electing an African-American, especially one by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Our country's history is wrought with racial issues that cross all different lines. Whereas in Britain slavery wasn't that regular of an occurrence and imperialism came as a foreign affair, the vilest of all institutions was the lifeblood of half our country. Slavery continued right up through the 1860s, and even past that ("illegal slavery" persisted into the 1930s). European countries tend be a lot less diversified. Imagine taking the Germans' issue with Turkish immigrants and expanding on the conflict tenfold, throwing all different races into the mix, or Italy's issue with African "illegals." Europeans sent warships to fight overseas in China and the Middle East. We fought at home between Asians, Catholics, Mormons, Africans, Mexicans, Italians, Russians, and natives.

It's a simple fact that the United States, out of all countries in the world, has been one of the most diverse. Unlike India, however, the people from the US have different histories, different cultures, different religions, and different politics. Look at the problems Africa faces when tribes are clumped together without any preconditions. The United States suffers from a similar, albeit less extreme, problem. We have a Romantic concept about uniting different people around the world, while at the same time trying to overcome the inevitable difficulties which arise - I think that's very inspirational as a Leftist. Although it would be slightly more extreme, imagine the EU becoming a true federal body of government. A French citizen sitting over Britons as their prime minister. How would that sit?

Even as late as the 1970s and 1980s racial prejudice was an acceptable practice for politicians and businesses. According to polls a majority of Americans didn't look favorably upon mixed-marriages until the 1990s.

Up until last night the country was holdings its breath trying to see if our country had gotten over one of the biggest hurdles in our country's history. It's not something to look down upon. Yes, it does make things better. At the very least it shows that the newer generations are becoming a post-racial society.


And they said you couldn't post about anything other than about those
Australians you keep going on and on about! :lol:

Great post, Gene. :thumbup: Hey you Commies--this should make Gene an Admrial in the Green Thingies Navy!

Sometimes RevLeft is a great place.

[Mindtoaster]

To be frank, most Europeans simply cannot understand the implications of electing an African-American, especially one by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Our country's history is wrought with racial issues that cross all different lines. Whereas in Britain slavery wasn't that regular of an occurrence and imperialism came as a foreign affair, the vilest of all institutions was the lifeblood of half our country. Slavery continued right up through the 1860s, and even past that ("illegal slavery" persisted into the 1930s). European countries tend be a lot less diversified. Imagine taking the Germans' issue with Turkish immigrants and expanding on the conflict tenfold, throwing all different races into the mix, or Italy's issue with African "illegals." Europeans sent warships to fight overseas in China and the Middle East. We fought at home between Asians, Catholics, Mormons, Africans, Mexicans, Italians, Russians, and natives.

It's a simple fact that the United States, out of all countries in the world, has been one of the most diverse. Unlike India, however, the people from the US have different histories, different cultures, different religions, and different politics. Look at the problems Africa faces when tribes are clumped together without any preconditions. The United States suffers from a similar, albeit less extreme, problem. We have a Romantic concept about uniting different people around the world, while at the same time trying to overcome the inevitable difficulties which arise - I think that's very inspirational as a Leftist. Although it would be slightly more extreme, imagine the EU becoming a true federal body of government. A French citizen sitting over Britons as their prime minister. How would that sit?

Even as late as the 1970s and 1980s racial prejudice was an acceptable practice for politicians and businesses. According to polls a majority of Americans didn't look favorably upon mixed-marriages until the 1990s.

Up until last night the country was holdings its breath trying to see if our country had gotten over one of the biggest hurdles in our country's history. It's not something to look down upon. Yes, it does make things better. At the very least it shows that the newer generations are becoming a post-racial society.


Awesome post.

I kept up my stubborn leftist cynicism going after Obama's victory was announced yesterday up until I saw Jesse Jackson crying as he looked out the crowd.

Then I cried myself. Obama represents no change in policy, but his election means so much to blacks. Living in the south, surrounded constantly by racism, I understand this.

Can you imagine what it must be like for older blacks? To have gone from being considered subhuman, to having one of your own elected president in your lifetime? To suddenly be able to tell your child that he or she could grow up to be president one day?

Do you know what this means to these people? To these people who live in unbearable conditions, who are tossed aside by society and labeled as "lazy" and as "leeches"? This has given them back their pride, given them hope. They feel truly happy and inspired, no matter how mislead they are.

Obama won't bring about change, but he will inspire hope for some of the most downtrodden people of America. I truly feel happiness for African-Americans, and you should too, no matter what you think of Obama.

[synthesis]

From an interview with Common:

"My daughter believe she can be the next black president. Right now she believes that. She told me that already. Two years ago, she wanted to be a dancer. Now she told me she could be the next president."

I think that quote, as much as anything, signifies the most conclusive change that occurred Tuesday night. The precedent has been set - that's something most people who have never lived here would not understand.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I'm shocked at the dismissive attitude people have towards this development. I'm not an American and I understand the significance, as do most people I know who have been following the election obsessively. The pride and energy this has given the black community is immense; that hit home for me when I saw Jesse Jackson crying on the news. It's a hell of a long way to come in a few decades.

Also, the thing about this election was that black and poor areas which usually have the lowest turnouts in the country, this time had the highest - up to 90% in some areas I hear. The disaffected really came out to vote for Obama - and it worked. It's shown them that their votes do count, and that will hopefully bring them out to the polls again and again, keeping the democrats in the White House for a long time.

Also, if Obama lasts this term and makes it to a second, we could see a liberal Supreme Court within a decade which would be awesome.

[Plagueround]

I'm shocked at the dismissive attitude people have towards this development. I'm not an American and I understand the significance, as do most people I know who have been following the election obsessively. The pride and energy this has given the black community is immense; that hit home for me when I saw Jesse Jackson crying on the news. It's a hell of a long way to come in a few decades.

Also, the thing about this election was that black and poor areas which usually have the lowest turnouts in the country, this time had the highest - up to 90% in some areas I hear. The disaffected really came out to vote for Obama - and it worked. It's shown them that their votes do count, and that will hopefully bring them out to the polls again and again, keeping the democrats in the White House for a long time.

Also, if Obama lasts this term and makes it to a second, we could see a liberal Supreme Court within a decade which would be awesome.

It is extremely significant in that regard. 40 years ago this man would have had to drink from a seperate water fountain and now he's president. We get that, and we understand the victory for "people of color" in the US (as a "person of some color" myself that term sounds clunky as hell, but eh).

The problem is he is now the president of a nation that does not represent the interests of the very people who rallied around him and who worked hard to get him elected.

Their tears last night were very moving and the shattering of another race barrier is amazingly powerful...but I can't help but feel all that "hope and change" is going to amount to a lot of hurt once Barack start representing the color he's actually been elected to work for. Green.

[Bud Struggle]

In case you Commies missed it--Obama is what a Revolution looks like. Maybe not YOUR Revolution, but a Revolution.

That's the real thing. You guys have to think pretty hard to pull something off as good half as that.

Good Luck.

[Drace]

Is TomK going to get more taxes now?

[Plagueround]

Is TomK going to get more taxes now?

For some reason this question made me laugh really hard. Not in a spiteful way at Tom either.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In case you Commies missed it--Obama is what a Revolution looks like. Maybe not YOUR Revolution, but a Revolution.

That's the real thing. You guys have to think pretty hard to pull something off as good half as that.

Good Luck.

We'll one up you by getting a black woman elected president.

Now, all we need to do is get Oprah on the Communist bandwagon...

[FreeFocus]

In case you Commies missed it--Obama is what a Revolution looks like. Maybe not YOUR Revolution, but a Revolution.

That's the real thing. You guys have to think pretty hard to pull something off as good half as that.

Good Luck.

If Obama is a revolution, count me as a fucking contra.

[RGacky3]

[/QUOTE]
Obama is what a Revolution looks like. Maybe not YOUR Revolution, but a Revolution.


People said George bush was a revolutoin, so was Ragen, no its not a revolution, nothing has changed, what a revolution looks like is a picket line.

I don't see why anyone should care that he's black, real racists, have lost power a long time ago, and have been loosing it consistantly every since the 60s. about 10% of America is black (Unlike in Bolivia where an Indian being elected is truely a big deal, or like South Africa), the fact that he's black is simbolic historically, but other than simbolism does'nt change much.

The best I can hope for is pulling the troops out of iraq (trust me though he'll leave bases), and some type of universal health care (its about damn time), I can also hope for better immigration laws and prison reform, although those 2 are a long shot.

Other than that there is NO reason to believe that he will not be on the side of the Capitalists, or that he even has a choice in the matter.

Everytime I see political people in tears I giggle inside, or I see them put hours and hours of work into getting involved in politics. To me its like watching people that are really really really into professional wrestling, I just want to grab them and say "Don't you know this is all fake? This is ALL fake."


Also, the thing about this election was that black and poor areas which usually have the lowest turnouts in the country, this time had the highest - up to 90% in some areas I hear. The disaffected really came out to vote for Obama - and it worked. It's shown them that their votes do count, and that will hopefully bring them out to the polls again and again, keeping the democrats in the White House for a long time.


Well soon enough they'll learn, they'll go back to their poor areas in 4 years and realize nothing changed. Hope is a powerfull tool, its used every 4 years, its the Same as the USSR who kept saying, "Its just around the corner, just a few more sacrifices and we're there."


The rest of the world has to look in their own backyards (and own histories) before they immediately attack America.

I compleatly agree, I'm sick to death of Europeans, and others attacking America as if their countries are so much better, as if, if their countries were super powers they would act so ethical.

I was talking to a Scandanavian recently, and she was talking about racism in America and how were all a bunch of dumb racist rednecks, RIGHT AFTER, she was talking about the pakistanis in her country ruining her country!

The united states is not exceptionally bad, its a imperialistic power, thats waht imperialistic powers do, thats what england did, france did, spain did (exceptionally brutally), the USSR did, China is doing.

There is nothing worse than a self righteous hipocrite.


The bourgeoisie has installed a biracial white man into the presidency in an effort to dismiss the fact that the United States is a fundamentally racist country.

I get it, the bourgeoisie are only racist against 100% blacks, but they are perfectly ok with maolettos? And they put one in to fool a couple of nuts like you that the united states is a FUNDEMENTALLY racist country.

That statement sounds a bit racist too me, he's not black enough for you?

[synthesis]

The bourgeoisie did not "install" Obama, they vetted him after they figured out that his political ambitions took precedence over his early-millennium radical sympathies.

He's not a change from bourgeois politics, he is a change in bourgeois politics. He's not going to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, but I genuinely believe that he has elevated political discourse in this country to a more mature and rational level than at any point in history - or at the very least, those are his intentions, and he has stayed true to them even while veering towards the center in terms of policy.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I'm glad he got elected, obviously. He'll be given a huge blank check and, probably, a pretty long honeymoon in office. However, with Democratic controlled Congress they're going to have to do something-quick-or else face a GOP comeback in a couple years. If they drop the ball on this one, they'll be back in minority status pretty quickly.

Also, if Obama doesn't use veto power on any bill which includes tax raises on people making less than $250k/year he'll be fucked. He needs to draw a line on that one, in my opinion.

Finally, of course Obama isn't a Marxist; anyone who posted "OMFG Obama is a Cappie not a Lefty!!!".....well, duh :lol: (of course, if FDR is left everyone is).

[redguard2009]

I'm very happy that America will see its first black president. but that's the only real difference his administration will have over any other.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I don't see why anyone should care that he's black, real racists, have lost power a long time ago, and have been loosing it consistantly every since the 60s.

Haven't been to the South I see...



I get it, the bourgeoisie are only racist against 100% blacks, but they are perfectly ok with maolettos? And they put one in to fool a couple of nuts like you that the united states is a FUNDEMENTALLY racist country.

That statement sounds a bit racist too me, he's not black enough for you?

He'll only be black enough if the Presidential limo becomes an Escalade :rolleyes:

[Rascolnikova]

From an interview with Common:

"My daughter believe she can be the next black president. Right now she believes that. She told me that already. Two years ago, she wanted to be a dancer. Now she told me she could be the next president."

I think that quote, as much as anything, signifies the most conclusive change that occurred Tuesday night. The precedent has been set - that's something most people who have never lived here would not understand.

I don't mean to suggest a linear progression, but half a century ago her success as a dancer (burlesque aside) would have been less likely than Obama's running for president.

The melanin related issues are worth fixing.

[Jazzratt]

Nothing really has changed in American culture. See Calafornia's recent attack on gay rights.

[Rascolnikova]

Nothing really has changed in American culture. See Calafornia's recent attack on gay rights.

Nothing really has changed?

I think that depends entirely on the time frame you refer to. See the fact that we have the phrase "gay rights."

[Jazzratt]

Nothing really has changed?

No, not really.


I think that depends entirely on the time frame you refer to. See the fact that we have the phrase "gay rights."

The phrase has been about for a long time. As I understand it there was even an openely gay senator at one point (who was later shot). This doesn't mean a lot when, having been called upon to vote on the issue, citizens of America have voted down gay marriage.

[Rascolnikova]

No, not really.

The phrase has been about for a long time. As I understand it there was even an openely gay senator at one point (who was later shot). This doesn't mean a lot when, having been called upon to vote on the issue, citizens of America have voted down gay marriage.


I still think it depends on the timeframe you're thinking of. It wasn't that long ago that not only was gay marriage not on the table, but it was not hard--as it is now--but rather, impossible, to be openly gay within the mainstream culture.

I'm not saying this excuses the current state of affairs, or that we shouldn't be outraged, but there's a serious quality of life improvement that's gone on for gays in the past 100 years--even the last 30 years. I don't see why we should say that's nothing.

[Jazzratt]

I still think it depends on the timeframe you're thinking of. It wasn't that long ago that not only was gay marriage not on the table, but it was not hard--as it is now--but rather, impossible, to be openly gay within the mainstream culture.

I'm not saying this excuses the current state of affairs, or that we shouldn't be outraged, but there's a serious quality of life improvement that's gone on for gays in the past 100 years--even the last 30 years. I don't see why we should say that's nothing.

I'm not denying that there has been gradual progress, that would be to deny the evidence of my own eyes, I'm trying to point out that there has been no real radical shift in american culture thanks to Obama and I doub there will be. Even in terms of improvements for black people in society I do not see Obama's election making as big a difference as it was hyped up to be - consider, after all, that despite Thatcher being allowed a reign of terror in the UK feminism still has a long way to go.

Perhaps saying "nothing has changed" is hyperbolic but I think it's accurate to say nothing important will change soon.

[Bud Struggle]

Nothing really has changed in American culture. See Calafornia's recent attack on gay rights.

I'd just like to point out that that attack wasn't made by the Ruling Elite but rather by the rank and file voter.

The same vote with the same results happened in Florida and Arazona. Though here at least in Florida the reason for the loss has been mainly attributed to Obama's winning of the Presidentcy. It seems that Black voters that turned out in record numbers to vote for Obama and are liberal in economic issues turned out to be very conservative when it comes to issues like gay marriage and they were the major factor in the "protection of Marriage" Amendment passing.

Win some loose some, I guess.

[Jazzratt]

I'd just like to point out that that attack wasn't made by the Ruling Elite but rather by the rank and file voter.

Which is my point. A lot of people talk about Obama's election as some sort of enormous paradigm shift in the American voting public but, as examples like the calafornian vote on proposition 8 reinforce, this isn't exactly true.

[Bud Struggle]

Which is my point. A lot of people talk about Obama's election as some sort of enormous paradigm shift in the American voting public but, as examples like the calafornian vote on proposition 8 reinforce, this isn't exactly true.

I agree, but if you had taken that vote 50 years ago (before the time of the civil rights movement) the vote would not have been 52% to 48%--it would have been 99% to 1%.

Things change--but slowly.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I loved the ads which came out of this race for Prop 8, specifically the ones which called supporters bigots. They are bigots and they should be exposed as such.

[RGacky3]

I loved the ads which came out of this race for Prop 8, specifically the ones which called supporters bigots. They are bigots and they should be exposed as such.


I REALLY do not understand the problem people have with gay marriage, you don't have to go to the weading, gay people do a ceremony and get tax benefits, you don't have to see them get married, it does'nt affect you AT ALL.

Ok so if you hate gay people, don't hang out with them, its as simple as that, its not like they are banging each other on your lawn or anything. There is NO reason anyone should be bothered by gay people getting married.

[graffic]

I REALLY do not understand the problem people have with gay marriage, you don't have to go to the weading, gay people do a ceremony and get tax benefits, you don't have to see them get married, it does'nt affect you AT ALL.

Ok so if you hate gay people, don't hang out with them, its as simple as that, its not like they are banging each other on your lawn or anything. There is NO reason anyone should be bothered by gay people getting married.

I don't care about them getting married (even though the word "marriage" means women + man)..

For the record I don't think they should adopt kids.. Speaking from a non-religous angle children should be brought up by a man and a women. Call me horribly traditional but in a few decades when we start to see the results of this social experiment people will agree with this view.

I have no problem with gays doing what they want to do, but bringing up children is something I disagree with. Would you want to have gay parents if you were heterosexual?

[graffic]

Best thing about Obama being elected is that it completely trumps islamisms crusade against the "evil west". The "evil" "christian" west being led by Barack Hussein Obama..:laugh:

[Killfacer]

I don't care about them getting married (even though the word "marriage" means women + man)..

For the record I don't think they should adopt kids.. Speaking from a non-religous angle children should be brought up by a man and a women. Call me horribly traditional but in a few decades when we start to see the results of this social experiment people will agree with this view.

I have no problem with gays doing what they want to do, but bringing up children is something I disagree with. Would you want to have gay parents if you were heterosexual?

I really couldn't give two fucks.

[graffic]

I think you would. Why live in an illusion and pretend to be something your not? Why pretend your completely cleansed of bad thoughts or human instinct.

As a heterosexual I find the thought of gay parents repugnant. Thats the reality if your really honest.

[Pirate Utopian]

Being closeminded aint natural, baby!

[Sankofa]

For the record I don't think they should adopt kids.. Speaking from a non-religous angle children should be brought up by a man and a women. Call me horribly traditional but in a few decades when we start to see the results of this social experiment people will agree with this view.


What results do you expect in a decade if same-sex marriage is legalized? It's the way the parents raise a child, not their genders that decide anything.

What about single mothers/fathers? Are children better off with one parent than two of the same sex?




I have no problem with gays doing what they want to do, but bringing up children is something I disagree with. Would you want to have gay parents if you were heterosexual?

:confused:
Why in the fuck would you care what your parents are doing sexually!? My parents are straight and what they did in the bed was the last thing on my mind.

I was more worried about them providing me with food, clothes, shelter, and a safe, healthy environment for me to develop in. All of which can be provided regardless of sexual preference.

Why don't you just admit you have a problem with homosexuals in general? If you didn't, I don't think you could argue that they can raise kids just as good or bad as a straight couple could.




As a heterosexual I find the thought of gay parents repugnant. Thats the reality if your really honest.

As a homosexual, I find the thought of your ignorance even more repugnant...but we're both going to have to learn how to deal with reality, eh? :closedeyes:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Nothing really has changed in American culture. See Calafornia's recent attack on gay rights.

That's what we get for allowing minorities to vote! :lol:

Just kidding, but, hey, most gay couples on the West Coast aren't...

And by the way, have you been to America? Or do you judge it by what MTV tells you?

Personally, I don't think it's a suprise Proposition 8 passed. You can't try and shove cultural revolution down the throats of the electorate, as Newsom did, and then expect the voters to support you. His idiotic political moves have clearly cost the LGBT movement, and now gay marriages are effectively banned as more litigation goes to work.

[graffic]

What results do you expect in a decade if same-sex marriage is legalized? It's the way the parents raise a child, not their genders that decide anything.

I think someone's gender determines a lot of things. We will see in a few decades whether the new social experiment being introduced will work. I hope I'm wrong.


What about single mothers/fathers? Are children better off with one parent than two of the same sex?

Children are better off with two parents.. Thats a basic rule of thumb in society. Of course people split up, thats life.



Why in the fuck would you care what your parents are doing sexually!? My parents are straight and what they did in the bed was the last thing on my mind.

Because sex is important is it not? Its why your here right now!

Of course I rarely think about my parents having sex. Would you not be slightly confused if you had two gay dads having sex and producing nothing.. Why are you even there in the first place?

Why live in an illusion? Why pretend to be completely cleansed and pure when your not?

Saying "I couldnt give a fuck" is attractive but its not true and you know you do "give a fuck". I know I do and you know you do so why create this illusion for the sake of petty political correctness?



If you didn't, I don't think you could argue that they can raise kids just as good or bad as a straight couple could.

What basis is that argument on anyway?

You have no evidence. Its a social experiment, like I said I hope I'm proved wrong but your argument is meaningless because there are no examples to back you up.

Your just assuming something which hasn't happened yet, thats what it boils down to.




As a homosexual, I find the thought of your ignorance even more repugnant...but we're both going to have to learn how to deal with reality, eh? :closedeyes:

Reality is for the past thousands of years society has been built on the structure of men + women + child, which works quite well.

[Sankofa]

I think someone's gender determines a lot of things. We will see in a few decades whether the new social experiment being introduced will work. I hope I'm wrong.



Gender of the parents determine what exactly?


Children are better off with two parents.. Thats a basic rule of thumb in society. Of course people split up, thats life.

You didn't answer the question. Are children better off with one parent rather than two of the same sex?



Because sex is important is it not? Its why your here right now!

Of course I rarely think about my parents having sex. Would you not be slightly confused if you had two gay dads having sex and producing nothing.. Why are you even there in the first place?

You're presenting yourself as if you have some knowledge of what children will or will not be confused about. Who says the child should be confused about anything? The parents are together because they love each other, but the child is a result of sex between a man/woman, which will be learned eventually when the child matures. What's so hard to understand about that?




Why live in an illusion? Why pretend to be completely cleansed and pure when your not?

Saying "I couldnt give a fuck" is attractive but its not true and you know you do "give a fuck". I know I do and you know you do so why create this illusion for the sake of petty political correctness?

What are you blabbering about here? You don't know anything about me. If two responsible adults who happen to be the same gender want to raise a child together...then really, who gives a fuck, besides religious nuts and insecure homophobes such as yourself?



What basis is that argument on anyway?

You have no evidence. Its a social experiment, like I said I hope I'm proved wrong but your argument is meaningless because there are no examples to back you up.

Your just assuming something which hasn't happened yet, thats what it boils down to.


My argument is based on simple logic and reasoning. Bad parents are bad parents, regardless of sexual preference...why would it make a difference? I don't need some silly study to justify common sense. :rolleyes:

Same-sex couples raising children isn't an "illusion" it's already happening in the world.

Since you're making the wild assumption that only straight parents can successively raise children, it's your argument that's meaningless. The burden of proof is on you.



Reality is for the past thousands of years society has been built on the structure of men + women + child, which works quite well.

Sure, and there has still been war, genocide, rape, murder, disease, famine, racism, and various other types of suffering. If two men or women sexually involved raise a child, you're saying the world's going to become more fucked than it already is?

[RGacky3]

As a heterosexual I find the thought of gay parents repugnant. Thats the reality if your really honest.

Then don't be a gay parent.

I find the thought of divorced parents fighting over children repugnant, but I'm not going to try ban divorce (even though that hurts children way mroe than having gay parents might).

[Plagueround]

For the record I don't think they should adopt kids.. Speaking from a non-religous angle children should be brought up by a man and a women. Call me horribly traditional but in a few decades when we start to see the results of this social experiment people will agree with this view.

I have no problem with gays doing what they want to do, but bringing up children is something I disagree with. Would you want to have gay parents if you were heterosexual?

A few decades you say? Would 3 be enough?



Actually, children thrive in same-sex families, concludes one Yale psychiatrist after reviewing more than 30 years' of research.

"Same-sex adoption does not generally have any significant detrimental effects on a child's development and can, in fact, add to a child's emotional and financial security," says Scott V. DiBartolo, MD, a researcher with the Yale University Child Study Center. He presented his findings at a recent meeting of child psychiatrists in New York.

DiBartolo's research included many aspects of same-sex parenting: effects on the child's peer relations; relations with adults of both sexes; gender identity; sexual orientation; and psychological, social, and moral development. He also looked at incidence of sexual abuse among gays and lesbians, and differences in emotional and financial security that come with being the adoptive child of one rather than two parents.

"Allowing for same-sex adoption would be in the best interest of the child," concludes DiBartolo.


Full article here (http://www.webmd.com/news/20001102/same-sex-adoptions-should-partners-have-legal-custody).

[Bud Struggle]

Then don't be a gay parent.

I find the thought of divorced parents fighting over children repugnant, but I'm not going to try ban divorce (even though that hurts children way mroe than having gay parents might).

Excellent point here. When my kids were younger divorced parent bickering was a real problem. We'd throw a birthday party--one parent calls us with "rules" for their kid than the "other" parent calls with different "rules" and the who would pick the kid up....the kid usually was a psycho. All dreadful.

[Killfacer]

I think you would. Why live in an illusion and pretend to be something your not? Why pretend your completely cleansed of bad thoughts or human instinct.

As a heterosexual I find the thought of gay parents repugnant. Thats the reality if your really honest.

You may me a homophobe, but i am not. Personally i think that most children would prefer any kind of relationship with a parental figure than either not being adopted at all or being looked after by crap parents.

[Rascolnikova]

For the record I don't think they should adopt kids.. Speaking from a non-religous angle children should be brought up by a man and a women. Call me horribly traditional but in a few decades when we start to see the results of this social experiment people will agree with this view.

How is that a non-religious angle? You're making a random moral/practical (I can't tell) assertion, backing it up with nothing, and following it with equally unsubstantiated but perfectly certain predictions of resultant damnation.



I have no problem with gays doing what they want to do, but bringing up children is something I disagree with. Would you want to have gay parents if you were heterosexual?

Unless they were abusive I would certainly take them over no parents, and I'm sure that a number of the foster kids I work with would agree. As for whether I'd take them over straight parents entirely depends on the individuals.



Perhaps saying "nothing has changed" is hyperbolic but I think it's accurate to say nothing important will change soon.

I definitely respect this view, but I think important things are changing, however slowly. I do think it's fair to say nothing is going to be fixed soon. :(

[bcbm]

Reality is for the past thousands of years society has been built on the structure of men + women + child, which works quite well.

Depends on the society, actually.

[Rascolnikova]

Reality is for the past thousands of years society has been built on the structure of men + women + child, which works quite well.Yeah. . . come to think of it, I'm sure those foster kids would disagree quite a bit with this statement as well.

[Dean]

I think you would. Why live in an illusion and pretend to be something your not? Why pretend your completely cleansed of bad thoughts or human instinct.

As a heterosexual I find the thought of gay parents repugnant. Thats the reality if your really honest.

As a homosexual I find the idea of straight parents repugnant. That's the reality if you're really honest.

Really. You're such a shitty, narrow-minded person.

[Forward Union]

I think someone's gender determines a lot of things. We will see in a few decades whether the new social experiment being introduced will work. I hope I'm wrong.

It's not that new. Studies have been done on children with gay parents for decades. And there has been no noticable trend or anomolies in comparason to children brought up by hetrosexual parents. Literally none. The science says they are no more likely to be gay, mentally ill or anything the conservative scare mongers lead you to believe.

Despite your hopes, this is actually established science. http://www.growingkids.co.uk/GayLesbianParents.html

The only noticable difference was an increase in Bullying at school. Presumably from people like you.


Children are better off with two parents..

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nQmAGBbOmas

[Bud Struggle]

Well, on that subject. I come from a traditional one man, one woman, children home and now live in a one man, one woman, children home. It works for me--maybe not you.

But from my life--I can say I like it. It's all worked out pretty nicely, by the Grace of God--but I guess that's another subject. ;)

[Sankofa]

<3 Penn and Teller! The subtle humor they add to their stories is really great.

"Healthy Man Love" haha! :lol:

[Patchd]

uoyu know what. im going for a shit.
My shit today is bilologically diffetrnet to the shit i did yesterday, but at the edn fo the day, its still shit.

pobama is the different biologiscally to sfucking bush, but at the en d of the day hes still fucking SHI|T>R

SHIT SHTIS SHIT:.

OI OI O I

[Dr Mindbender]

uoyu know what. im going for a shit.
My shit today is bilologically diffetrnet to the shit i did yesterday, but at the edn fo the day, its still shit.

pobama is the different biologiscally to sfucking bush, but at the en d of the day hes still fucking SHI|T>R

SHIT SHTIS SHIT:.

OI OI O I

time for you to head down here i think.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_04/kebabDM2001_468x373.jpg

[Qwerty Dvorak]

uoyu know what. im going for a shit.
My shit today is bilologically diffetrnet to the shit i did yesterday, but at the edn fo the day, its still shit.

pobama is the different biologiscally to sfucking bush, but at the en d of the day hes still fucking SHI|T>R

SHIT SHTIS SHIT:.

OI OI O I
Look everybody he's drunk how awesome is that.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well, on that subject. I come from a traditional one man, one woman, children home and now live in a one man, one woman, children home. It works for me--maybe not you.

But from my life--I can say I like it. It's all worked out pretty nicely, by the Grace of God--but I guess that's another subject. ;)
Do I need to tell you that children from one kind of family being happy doesn't make all other kinds of family evil?

[Forward Union]

Well, on that subject. I come from a traditional one man, one woman, children home and now live in a one man, one woman, children home. It works for me--maybe not you.

But from my life--I can say I like it. It's all worked out pretty nicely, by the Grace of God--but I guess that's another subject. ;)

Penn and Teller have single handedly abolished you're entire belief structure on this matter and all you can do is post stupid anecdotes.

[Killfacer]

It worked out pretty nicely? What the fuck are you on about you fucking moron? Thats just plain irrelevant. Ok, you were brought up well, but what bearing does that have on a gay couple having kids? Why did you even say it? Nobody knows. Do you even know? Probably not.

[Bud Struggle]

Penn and Teller have single handedly abolished you're entire belief structure on this matter and all you can do is post stupid anecdotes.

In a few decades Penn and teller will be dead and traditional belief structures will still go on and on.

Remember when Stalin asked how many divisions the Pope had? Well Stalin is long gone, the Soviet Union is long gone and the Pope still sits in Rome. Somethings just don't change, no mater wht people say about them. ;):)

[Bud Struggle]

Do I need to tell you that children from one kind of family being happy doesn't make all other kinds of family evil?

I NEVER said that. I just said what worked for me. What other people do to be happy is none of my business.

[Forward Union]

In a few decades Penn and teller will be dead and traditional belief structures will still go on and on.

Remember when Stalin asked how many divisions the Pope had? Well Stalin is long gone, the Soviet Union is long gone and the Pope still sits in Rome. Somethings just don't change, no mater wht people say about them. ;):)

Marriage fails more than 50% of the time in the US. Divorce and cohabitation rates have never been higher. And as I said before, for the vast majority of human history marriage never existed, nor did monogomy. So some things very much do change.

[Bud Struggle]

Marriage fails more than 50% of the time in the US. Divorce and cohabitation rates have never been higher. And as I said before, for the vast majority of human history marriage never existed, nor did monogomy. So some things very much do change.

There have always been trends. :)

[Forward Union]

There have always been trends. :)

That's right tom.

[Bud Struggle]

That's right tom.

Communism was one. Come and gone. Same with Unions. :(

Social Democracy looks something like a winner though, so that brief interlude when Communism interjected itself into the world wasn't entirely bad.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Communism was one. Come and gone. Same with Unions. :(

Social Democracy looks something like a winner though, so that brief interlude when Communism interjected itself into the world wasn't entirely bad.

You say it has 'worked', but you do no scholastic work to explain how these reforms were enacted within the framework of the private ownership of the productive forces.

As social spending continues to burst in the framework of the financial deregulation of national and global economies, 'liberals' continue to base their opinion of a party based on the image they project (i.e. "the party of the working class") rather than the actual policies that they embody, and the actual class forces they represent. You'll be stuck with your thumb in your mouth, hiding in a cupboard, wondering what has gone wrong when Obama (or some other Clintonian Democrat) cuts the Social Security budget thoroughly.

[Rascolnikova]

And as I said before, for the vast majority of human history marriage never existed, nor did monogomy.

Neither did writing, and yet we find it worth keeping around.

[Forward Union]

Ok, I'm no Nader supporter. I fundementally disagree with him. But this video is useful for Obama supporters, very cleverly done.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OZoxgZLX8JU

[Patchd]

Neither did writing, and yet we find it worth keeping around.
So whats so important about marriage that it just has to be kept?

Mind you, I don't advocate the removal of marriage, or civil partnerships as an institution in itself, although I wouldn't get one myself.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

So whats so important about marriage that it just has to be kept?

Mind you, I don't advocate the removal of marriage, or civil partnerships as an institution in itself, although I wouldn't get one myself.
Because it is a basic human right--in that it is something which humans are free to do, and do quite often, and it does not by itself harm anyone else--and basic human rights should be kept.