The USA presidential election 2008

[MrNice]

Are Keith Olbermann, and the like, being investigated because of suspected terrorism?

Clearly they're not pro-Bush or pro-government and if your statment were true, Keith would be in Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

clearly we are not there YET - but that is the inevitable destination of these policies

also you completely ignore the circumstances under which things happen with childish analogies
even under strict dictatorship, those in power can not just do anything they please at any time
for example it is much more difficult to put olberman in guantanamo then to put naptaq into guantanamo

[MrNice]

I disagree. I think the world would fall apart if it wasn't for the religious people, who are benificial to the world. It's just the way it is.

Every religion seems to have it's own version of "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Which is a very good thing and a positive influence

I disagree
I think the world would be a much better place if it wasn't for all the religious people who are harmful to the world - its just the way it is

every religion suppresses freedom and tries to limit progress.

Any love thy neighbor policies are obviously ignored at the earliest convenience, which makes the policy useless and not an influence at all

The people that dare to challenge the religious authority are the ones we should be thanking for all the benefits

[Naptaq]

[Farouche]

Naptaq ------------------
Only the Diety knows if my views on politics are 'Fail', 'Major fail' or 'Epic Fail'

Being an atheist, I don’t have to wait on God before I make judgments.

Here we go again....

Naptaq -----------------
Wait, what laws has he violated?

Already addressed these implications in detail. You can reread the earlier post and ask specific questions if you like. Otherwise... fail.

Naptaq -----------------
Joking or not joking: He's right. The media does not only respesent people's views, but also majorly influences it.

No. The job of the media is to present the truth on both sides. That’s it. If the facts influence people, I think that’s a good thing.

Naptaq ------------------
They're politicians! They all try to 'sell themselfs' and strech the truth. Obama does this with comparing McCain to Bush, and talking about 'failed policies' while disregarding Barney Frank's failed loan policies

Nope. Obama comparing McCain to a party member that he has publicly sided with is in no way equivalent to calling Obama a socialist or a terrorist-sympathizer.

Naptaq ------------------
Yeah he was one of the first to report on it.

Good. You’re on the record as saying O’Reilly instigated the Ayers smear.

Naptaq ------------------
What is this, the fariness doctrine?

Another misuse of a stale far right talking point.You’re insane if you think a private citizen encouraging you to watch something other than your favorite right-wing pundits has anything to do with the fairness doctrine.

Naptaq -------------------
The Ayers story was a legit story. What do you want him to do? Not report it?

Fail. The Ayers story was a ridiculous smear that claimed:
-Obama was close friends with Ayers: false.
-Obama misrepresented his relationship with Ayers by calling him an acquaintance and business associate: stupid, and almost certainly false.
-Obama supported Ayers’ terrorist activities: very false.
-Obama should not have associated with Ayers, and since he did, he owes the nation an apology: just plain crazy, especially considering Ayers associates with plenty of respectable people, including Republicans, among them the ones that run the charity board on which he met Obama.

Also, pretty nobody but far right loonies thinks the Ayers thing is a problem, and they weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway. And again, nobody blasted McCain for the Keating Five or for being friends with convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy. The Dems didn’t really have to.

Naptaq -------------------
I don't know. I know that O'Reilly has been accused, by his viewer, of being an 'Obama apologist'.

So he has viewers that are more rabidly far right than he is. That’s hardly surprising. O’Reilly is to the left of Rush Limbaugh, for instance, but then so is pretty much everybody.

Naptaq -------------------
haha.. well the point was to show that many liberals watch Tha Factor every night. But since his ratings are 200% higher than Olbermann's, that means that the others are conservative, yes.

Fail. You still don’t understand how comparing percentages works.

Naptaq -------------------
Fox News Channel is Fair and Balanced, certified.

Nothing is sweeter than when your own source discredits you. A quote from the article: “[...]MSNBC and Fox offered rough mirror images of each other[...]” So which is it? Is MSNBC then “fair and balanced” just like Fox, or do you maybe want to admit that they’re both biased: MSNBC toward the left, and Fox toward the right?

Notice also that CNN came out as MORE balanced than Fox news, and carried significantly more negative Obama coverage than the media average, and only slightly more negative McCain coverage than average.

Thanks for posting that link! ;D

Naptaq -----------------
Well "And nearly all of them are steadfastly ignorant, superstitious dittoheads" implied bigotry

I referred specifically to people who think the way you do, and just spit out talking points to support their gut feel, without understanding what they’re saying. I wasn’t talking about conservatives in general.

Bigotry is a separate, albeit related factor, and much of the time a condescending attitude toward women (check!) and minorities goes hand-in-hand with ignorance. Many people just haven’t learned better. For instance, West Virginia looks to be voting Republican for the first time in pretty much forever, and the consensus—even among people who live there—is that it’s because West Virginians aren’t comfortable voting for a black man. It’s a land of small towns, very few minorities, and generations of coal miners who didn’t need to go to college. These are not bad people; a lot of them just lack a certain worldly education. To their credit, many of them say they would have voted for the woman candidate.

Naptaq -------------------
the book I linked, talked about.

Fail for even linking to that piece of hysterical right wing propaganda for a second time.

Naptaq -------------------
Nearly all of them? How can you make a judgment about this large portion of your fellow citizens?

This, coming from a foreign dude who keeps insisting that “most” Americans agree with his nutty assertions, even though he lives thousands of miles away from the country whose interests he claims to know so intimately? Good use of irony, but... no. Ignorance and a lack of interest in education are quite big problems in some parts of America.

Naptaq -------------------
I guess the 'superstitous comment' was your view of their religion, Christianity.

It is my view of the kind of Christianity that makes people believe God hates gays, loves guns, and wants them to vote Republican. I know plenty of well-educated and thoughtful people who are Christians; they are not included in the “superstitious” assessment.

Naptaq -------------------
And the dittoheads comment was probably directed at the right wing, middle America.. or just about anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh?

Lol, yes to that last one. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh for anything but a good laugh, you’re probably not exactly the thoughtful, well-educated breed of conservtive. Limbaugh is one of the most bigoted people on radio, and it speaks volumes about parts of this country that he continues to be so popular (sorry, hick gramma! I love you still!).

And my comments aren't directed at mere fiscal conservatives or anything like that; I'm talking about a particular segment of the right wing.

Naptaq ------------------
I didn't imply that.

Then what you said was irrelevant.

Naptaq ------------------
It would be inapropriate in time of peace.

Then you admit those actions are a violation of rights. You just claim that context changes whether it is permissible.

Again I will tell you this: throughout our history, we have been at war MOST of the time, with only a few small and short-lived breaks. That means if we don’t have certain rights during wartime, then we don’t have those rights except for *occasionally* when we happen not to be at war.

Naptaq ------------------
The number of people affected is minimal.

You still don’t understand that the number of people affected is not at issue here. Whether it’s two people or two million, it should not be happening, period.

Naptaq ------------------
"The report says between the Sept. 11 attacks and May 5, Justice Department terrorism investigations led to charges against 310 people, of whom 179 were convicted or pleaded guilty. The Patriot Act, it says, was instrumental in many of these cases."

So only about 60% of those people were convicted of being terrorists. They brought charges against 310 people—how many do you suppose they listened in on and did not find cause to bring up on charges of terrorism?

Naptaq ---------------
I already did, with the ACLU, that you defend.

FAIL. Huge fail. You argued that the ACLU is too liberal, and that it lets too many people get away with things. You cannot use that as an argument that the left is too tolerant AND that it is too intolerant. That would be nsane.

Now, try again to list the ways liberalism is intolerant.

Naptaq -------------------
It's pointless to go round and round in circles.

And yet here I am.

Naptaq -------------------
Traditional values of America now, not in the 18th century.

LOL! Fail. Do you know what the word “tradition” means? Let’s see how the dictionary defines “tradition.” Here are the first four entries:
1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation
2. something that is handed down
3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting
4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.

Now, if “tradition” is “long-established” and handed down “from generation to generation,” the trick would be for you to explain where the “traditional values of America” came from, if not from the previous several generations of traditional values and beliefs.

Naptaq -------------------
There you go again with throwing bombs.

There you go again tossing around empty Republican rhetoric.

Naptaq ------------------
So what? That doesn't mean they're stupid or uneducated.

It doesn’t mean they’re stupid. It DOES means they are likely uneducated and superstitious. Those 40% are not scientists with divergent scientific theories about the way life developed; they’re religious people who believe that God created the heaven and the earth and Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago, and they base that on a very old book that they choose to interpret literally, even though many many Christians have made the leap to viewing the Bible figuratively, not literally.

Naptaq -------------------
Ok, not forcing, but being intolerant of pro-lifers, for some reason.

Yeah, I happen to be a little intolerant of people FORCING THEIR BELIEFS ON EVERYONE ELSE and telling everyone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Pro-Choice: everyone gets to decide whether to carry their fetus to term. Each person decides what happens to their own body.
Anti-Choice: anti-choicers get to decide for everyone that they HAVE TO carry the fetus to term. Anti-choicers get to decide what other people do with their bodies.

Is that clear enough yet??

Naptaq -----------------
I know.

You keep demonstrating that you don’t.

Naptaq -------------------
Yes, but most people, by the time they're 18, reach their own conclusions about it. Some turn atheist or agnostic while others don't.

Like I said, parents can teach their kids pretty much whatever they want. In my opinion they should be careful they teach their kids that it’s good to ask questions, whatever else they may want them to learn.

Naptaq -------------------
I disagree. I think the world would fall apart if it wasn't for the religious people, who are benificial to the world. It's just the way it is.

“It’s just the way it is?” What a pointless thing to say. The world would keep on spinning without religion, I guarantee it. People would not be any less moral or commit any more petty crimes or murders. There are at least a couple of countries in Europe where the people are mostly atheists and agnostics, and their crime rates are among the lowest in the world; their GDP and reported levels of satisfaction with life are among the highest in the world.

Naptaq -----------------
Every religion seems to have it's own version of "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Atheists believe in the golden rule, too, and at least as many atheists as Christians actually heed what it says. Empathy is a civilized human thing, not a religion thing.

[Naptaq]

Nov 4, 2008 17:48:07 GMT -5 Farouche said:

The job of the media is to present the truth on both sides. That’s it. If the facts influence people, I think that’s a good thing.

If media were dishing out only facts that wouldn't be the problem, would it?

Olbermann, Maddow and co. are half-truth distorters. That's why they're dangerous.

Good. You’re on the record as saying O’Reilly instigated the Ayers smear.

It was a legit news story. As was the Jeremiah Wright story.

If you don't like legit stories on Obama, that happen to hurt him, that's your problem. Fox news was doing it's job.

Obama was close friends with Ayers: false.

He knew him for a number of years and they worked together on a bill. It's no too paranoid to think Obama at least knew what Ayers was about, if not more.

Obama supported Ayers’ terrorist activities: very false.

Right.

Obama should not have associated with Ayers, and since he did, he owes the nation an apology: just plain crazy, especially considering Ayers associates with plenty of respectable people

Crazy to you.

including Republicans, among them the ones that run the charity board on which he met Obama.

They didn't commit any bombings, as Ayers did, and they're not running for President.

So he has viewers that are more rabidly far right than he is. That’s hardly surprising. O’Reilly is to the left of Rush Limbaugh, for instance, but then so is pretty much everybody.

lol.. oh yes I'm a rabid right winger! ;D

I'm currently reading a book called 'How to be a rabid right winger 101'

Nothing is sweeter than when your own source discredits you. A quote from the article: “[...]MSNBC and Fox offered rough mirror images of each other[...]” So which is it? Is MSNBC then “fair and balanced” just like Fox, or do you maybe want to admit that they’re both biased: MSNBC toward the left, and Fox toward the right?

Good point.

However, that's not all there is to it. I'll copy the facts of the study:

FNC's tone coverage of McCain (40% negative, 22% positive)
MSNBC's coverage tone of McCain (73% negative, 10% positive)
MSNCB's coverage tone of Obama (14% negative, 43% positve)
FNC's coverage tone of Obama (40% negative, 25% positive)

Wow, even Fox New Channel was slightly more positive towards Obama. That's an outrage! ;D

MSNBC was a lot more positive towards Obama, hammered McCain, while giving Obama an easy pass. FNC, on the other hand, was even in the negative department. Sounds fair and balanced to me.

Notice also that CNN came out as MORE balanced than Fox news

On CNN, McCain got significantly more negative coverage (61%) than Obama (39%). Fox News was 40-40.

Thanks for posting that link! ;D

You are welcome.

It is my view of the kind of Christianity that makes people believe God hates gays, loves guns, and wants them to vote Republican.

The 'God hates gays' downide is unfortunate

I know plenty of well-educated and thoughtful people who are Christians; they are not included in the “superstitious” assessment.

Okay.

And my comments aren't directed at mere fiscal conservatives or anything like that; I'm talking about a particular segment of the right wing.

Right.

Again I will tell you this: throughout our history, we have been at war MOST of the time, with only a few small and short-lived breaks. That means if we don’t have certain rights during wartime, then we don’t have those rights except for *occasionally* when we happen not to be at war.

You have all your rights, just security on airports is tighter. And you probably can't go to Iran. Other than that you're good.

You still don’t understand that the number of people affected is not at issue here. Whether it’s two people or two million, it should not be happening, period.

Because you feel like that, that doesn't mean that it "shouldn't be happening". Very, very, few people are directly affected by the Patriot Act, and you don't care.

how many do you suppose they listened in on and did not find cause to bring up on charges of terrorism?

They learned a few cooking recepies. ;D jk

And yet here I am.

We have too much time on our hands.. ;D

It DOES means they are likely uneducated and superstitious.

Even though I'm not a creationists myself, it sems to me that lot of intelligent design people are actually educated, agree with them or not.

Yeah, I happen to be a little intolerant of people FORCING THEIR BELIEFS ON EVERYONE ELSE and telling everyone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Okay.

There are at least a couple of countries in Europe where the people are mostly atheists and agnostics, and their crime rates are among the lowest in the world; their GDP and reported levels of satisfaction with life are among the highest in the world.

Right.

Empathy is a civilized human thing, not a religion thing.

It is now, curtesy of religions throughout human history, saints, mystics and Avatars like Buddha, Krishna and Jesus.

[Farouche]

Naptaq ------------------
If media were dishing out only facts that wouldn't be the problem, would it?

You said it was a problem. You said the news should not just report the facts; you said they should even out the coverage so they don't influence people.

Defend your assertion, or abandon it.

Naptaq ------------------
Olbermann, Maddow and co. are half-truth distorters. That's why they're dangerous.

Prove it. I'll need clips and analyses, of course.

O'Reilly distorts the truth more than just about anyone. Just like he distorted the Ayers business relationships into a dark alliance between Obama and a terrorist.

Naptaq -------------------
It was a legit news story.

False. It wasn't even newsworthy except that the Republicans were so interested in it; to me it's as stupid as the "OMG he went to some sort of Muslim school thing when he was seven!!" hysteria.

If McCain were friends with a person who bombed abortions forty years ago and McCain had publicly condemned the clinic bombings, personally, I really can't see caring. I wouldn't vote for an abortion clinic bomber, but a guy who knew a former abortion clinic bomber? Why the hell not? I have friends and acquaintances who harbor what I think are crazy views. I can interact with them in a friendly manner, without having to believe in the same crazy things that they do or might have once. I can think for myself; McCain can think for himself; Obama can think for himself.

Naptaq ------------------
As was the Jeremiah Wright story.

Oh please. Did Fox report on Palin's pastor who blessed her against witchcraft, and who said Christians need to take control of banks away from the Jews, and that terrorist attacks on Israel were the result of judgment of God upon the Jews for not accepting Christ?

Naptaq -----------------
If you don't like legit stories on Obama, that happen to hurt him, that's your problem. Fox news was doing it's job.

Exactly. Fox News was doing its job of being a right wing news station. That's the point.

Naptaq -----------------
He knew him for a number of years and they worked together on a bill. It's no too paranoid to think Obama at least knew what Ayers was about, if not more.

They worked together, and at some point he became aware of Ayers' past. So what? Ayers is a free man. He is now a pillar of his community. And only right wing, concern trolling nutcases see Obama's acquaintanceship with this man as a black mark on Obama's record.

Other news organizations carried the Ayers story, investigated the claim, reported on it, and dropped it when it proved to be a complete non-issue. Fox, however, turned it into a huge, ongoing question as to Obama's integrity with the assumption that finding no wrongdoing just meant Obama was being really really sneaky about hiding his secret delight with Ayers' bombing days.

Naptaq -------------------
Crazy to you.

It is crazy. Either you don't really don't believe the Ayers thing is a big deal and you just want to smear Obama with anything you can find because you believe the ends (scaring people away from voting Obama) justify the means, OR you think everyone who meets Ayers, who again, is now a pillar of his community, should shun this man.

Naptaq -----------------
they're not running for President.

If you believe that a president should not EVER work with anyone who has not been a saint all his life, you should be demanding an apology from McCain for associating with Keating or G. Gordon Liddy, who tampered with our democracy. But you're not. Fancy that.

Let's hear the exact text of the apology you believe Obama owes you for daring to associate with Ayers.

Naptaq ----------------
lol.. oh yes I'm a rabid right winger! ;D

You lean that way. You don't have to be. And O'Reilly's show IS rabid right-winging 101. Limbaugh is the graduate course.

Seriously, what if you try an experiment? For one or two months, or more if you can stand it, watch *any* channel other than Fox, and *only* a non-Fox channel, for your news. Either your views will move closer to the center, OR you will understand the other side of the issues well enough that you'll be able to argue your viewpoint much more effectively than if you just listen to O'Reilly's "traditionalist" arguments. Or you'll just miss O'Reilly and appreciate him even more afterward. You win no matter what.

That's my open challenge to you, if you feel like taking it.

Naptaq ---------------
However, that's not all there is to it.

YES it is. Even ignoring that site's own assessment of its data...... McCain has run a more negative campaign. That's just the way it is. Whoever is losing--which is negative--tends to start slinging mud, be they Democrat or Republican. That Fox is reporting as though both candidates are being almost EQUALLY positive and negative is the bias showing.

Again, if person A does 70% positive things and 30% negative things, the coverage should be 70% positive, 30% negative. If person B does 30% positive things and 70% negative, their coverage should be 30% positive, 70% negative. It is a lie that FAVORS person B to act as though both person A and person B are doing 50% positive and 50% negative things. It is not fair to the person who is being more positive if he only gets as much positive coverage as the negative guy. Geddit?

Naptaq ------------------
The 'God hates gays' downide is unfortunate

Yes, unfortunately, bigotry of that kind is often a side effect of that mindset.

Naptaq -----------------
You have all your rights, just security on airports is tighter. And you probably can't go to Iran. Other than that you're good.

We were just talking about the right to expect privacy in one's phone calls. I do not have that right. The government can tap my phone, without a court order, anytime it wants, as long as it says--to itself, mind you--"she seems like she might be suspicious or she talks to someone who might be suspicious."

Naptaq ------------------
Because you feel like that, that doesn't mean that it "shouldn't be happening". Very, very, few people are directly affected by the Patriot Act, and you don't care.

That is an utterly ridiculous argument.

If "very very few people" are murdered by a serial killer, should the police shrug their shoulders and ignore the problem because "very very few" people are affected? DUH, no. The number of people affected does not change whether something is right or wrong or worth worrying about or not. Just accept it.

Naptaq -------------------
They learned a few cooking recepies. ;D jk

It's not a game, and I really think you're being an ass about this issue.

If you don't care about the government eavesdropping on your phone calls, that's your prerogative. But you have no right to be so flippant and dismissive of other people's privacy concerns. Perhaps you would enjoy living in a glass fish bowl if it meant you would be safe from harm forever, but most people would rather not.

Naptaq ----------------
We have too much time on our hands.. ;D

100% agree, lol.

Naptaq -----------------
Even though I'm not a creationists myself, it sems to me that lot of intelligent design people are actually educated, agree with them or not.

SOME are. Most are not particularly so. A creationist biologist, for instance, is a rare beast, and the few that exist are the darlings of their movement for that very reason. They don't tend to produce a lot of verifiable research, however.

Naptaq ------------------
It is now, curtesy of religions throughout human history, saints, mystics and Avatars like Buddha, Krishna and Jesus.

When you look back through history at all the religious wars versus all the religious reforms, you realize that religion really is not the deciding factor. Humans, religious or not, can get very crazy and evil as a group, or very good. It's more the way the social wind blows than anything.

I'll point out that most of those important religious figures like Christ and Buddha seemed to be quite rational leaders who questioned the status quo and suggested big changes in the way people lived their lives and treated one another. They may have cited God or elevated spirituality as the foundation of their doctrine of "love thy neighbor," but what they proposed was very rational from a social standpoint. They advocated more tolerance, freedom, compassion, peace, and understanding, not less. As people often point out, Christ was quite the hippie for his time. If he were alive today, he'd probably be far more liberal than I am. He'd be completely anti-war: "turn the other cheek." He'd walk among the welfare mothers and tell them the meek shall inherit the earth. He'd shake his head at the wealthy and remind them that a camel can easier fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man get into heaven. But he likely would not vote for Obama; Obama would be much too conservative for him. This is a guy who had his disciples give up all their possessions and wander around treating everyone as equals. Christ would probably be nearer to a socialist than a Republican, lol. But in general I don't think he'd be interested in politics.


[*Watching election coverage.......*]

[Farouche]

It looks like Obama has won... he's at 297 electoral votes.

Heeeeeee.

[Scotty]

Nov 4, 2008 23:03:07 GMT -5 Farouche said:

It looks like Obama has won... he's at 297 electoral votes.

Heeeeeee.

Yay! Obama! ;D

And the icing on the cake for me is that Florida voted Blue. WOO!

[Astroruss]

Nov 4, 2008 23:20:52 GMT -5 Scotty said:

Nov 4, 2008 23:03:07 GMT -5 Farouche said:

It looks like Obama has won... he's at 297 electoral votes.

Heeeeeee.

Yay! Obama! ;D

And the icing on the cake for me is that Florida voted Blue. WOO!

Yep, Obama won. Good for him.

However, now I have to hear all kinds of angry cursing and rambling from my father for four years, and God knows how many people at work. ;D

[Sweet Pea]

Nov 4, 2008 23:48:53 GMT -5 Astroruss said:

Nov 4, 2008 23:20:52 GMT -5 Scotty said:

Yay! Obama! ;D

And the icing on the cake for me is that Florida voted Blue. WOO!

Yep, Obama won. Good for him.

However, now I have to hear all kinds of angry cursing and rambling from my father for four years, and God knows how many people at work. ;D

hey, it's their turn to cuss! ;D

[Sweet Pea]

i just got home from work and found out that for the first time in the history of our country we won't have a white male leader. (only a half white male leader, lol ) it's going to be interesting to see what obama's difference in perspective brings to the country's leadership. as a man who has lived in non-white skin, he has to understand what it means to NOT be one of the privileged class. and that has to mean more empathy towards the underprivileged in general (i hope). this is a very exciting time in history to be alive.

[skyhint]

Nov 5, 2008 1:06:22 GMT -5 Sweet Pea said:

i just got home from work and found out that for the first time in the history of our country we won't have a white male leader. (only a half white male leader, lol ) it's going to be interesting to see what obama's difference in perspective brings to the country's leadership. as a man who has lived in non-white skin, he has to understand what it means to NOT be one of the privileged class. and that has to mean more empathy towards the underprivileged in general (i hope). this is a very exciting time in history to be alive.

Giggle
That almost sounds sarcastic.

[Sweet Pea]

Nov 5, 2008 1:40:04 GMT -5 skyhint said:

Nov 5, 2008 1:06:22 GMT -5 Sweet Pea said:

i just got home from work and found out that for the first time in the history of our country we won't have a white male leader. (only a half white male leader, lol ) it's going to be interesting to see what obama's difference in perspective brings to the country's leadership. as a man who has lived in non-white skin, he has to understand what it means to NOT be one of the privileged class. and that has to mean more empathy towards the underprivileged in general (i hope). this is a very exciting time in history to be alive.

Giggle
That almost sounds sarcastic.

actually, no. i tend to be a hardened cynic when it comes to politics, but right now i feel cautiously optimistic. i haven't felt proud of my country in a long, long time. it feels good. and like farouche said, it's a huge relief. if mccain would have won i would have wanted to crawl under a rock and stayed there for the rest of my life. whew! ;D

[strawberrysweetie]

Nov 5, 2008 1:06:22 GMT -5 Sweet Pea said:

i just got home from work and found out that for the first time in the history of our country we won't have a white male leader. (only a half white male leader, lol ) it's going to be interesting to see what obama's difference in perspective brings to the country's leadership. as a man who has lived in non-white skin, he has to understand what it means to NOT be one of the privileged class. and that has to mean more empathy towards the underprivileged in general (i hope). this is a very exciting time in history to be alive.

I agree! This is pretty cool. This is definitely proof that we've come a long way. I sure hope this will further breakdown the racial divide. And that the country, as a whole, can come together.

The next four years will be very interesting. Winning the race was probably the easy part. It'll be interesting to see how he actually handles issues, especially since we're in such hard times as of late.

But anyway...I, too, am very glad he won. We were in dire need of a change.

[Sweet Pea]

Nov 5, 2008 2:33:14 GMT -5 @strawberrysweetie said:

Nov 5, 2008 1:06:22 GMT -5 Sweet Pea said:

i just got home from work and found out that for the first time in the history of our country we won't have a white male leader. (only a half white male leader, lol ) it's going to be interesting to see what obama's difference in perspective brings to the country's leadership. as a man who has lived in non-white skin, he has to understand what it means to NOT be one of the privileged class. and that has to mean more empathy towards the underprivileged in general (i hope). this is a very exciting time in history to be alive.

I agree! This is pretty cool. This is definitely proof that we've come a long way. I sure hope this will further breakdown the racial divide. And that the country, as a whole, can come together.

The next four years will be very interesting. Winning the race was probably the easy part. It'll be interesting to see how he actually handles issues, especially since we're in such hard times as of late.

But anyway...I, too, am very glad he won. We were in dire need of a change.

that's for sure. four more years of what we've had for the last eight and i prolly would have wanted to...well, i don't like to think about it.

obama is really too conservative for my taste, but he's one helluva lot better than the alternative...to put it mildly. we've broken the race barrier, now hopefully we'll move on to break the gender barrier too. and eventually put all those tired old stereotypes to rest permanently.

i feel like dancing! ;D