OBAMA WINS!

[ishkabibble]

Eventually, I came to realize that "greed" isn't the problem. . .

Jesda Shrugged.

[marlin29311]

Change sucks, paper money is so much better. I hate having change in my pockets...its like damn Disney world where they give you the friggin gold dollars ba....

...o wait. We're talking politics. Hmm. I don't really care who the president is so long as I still take home my same paycheck, I can go to the doctor without waiting for 3 hours/days, and I don't have to pay a boatload for gas.

Lol, alright, it's a little more techincal than that.....I'm up for giving everyone a fair chance. If Obama can get the country running well and attempt to lower conflicts around the nation, than more power to him. Good luck!

[CakeDaddy]

Im so grateful! Great job Obama/Biden!! Hopefully, some of these extreme right wing haters on this forum (you know who you are) can go back into hiding or go back to car topics and pretend you know what you are talking about. I wish you all the best and good luck to you

[wingFeather]

Obama will destroy this country. All who voted for him should be ashamed.

[Vista Sucks!]

Obama will destroy this country. All who voted for him should be ashamed.

Are you serious?

[HashiriyaS14]

Are you serious?

Unfortunately he is serious.

It's okay though, because he's also nuts.

What he will learn in the months and years ahead is that the GOP isn't going to have a place for him anymore. The radical fringe MUST lose influence for the party to remain viable, and that includes our buddy Wingfeather here.

He doesn't need to take my word for it now. He'll find out soon enough.

He can either pick moderate Republicans in the future or he can lose elections, at least national ones.

[yotik]

I respect how you feel, and how you choose to feel a sense of accomplishment is your choice/right. So let me ask you this, why did you choose to say "if I had a Billion dollars" as stipulation for investing in the nation? Surely at over 5k/month income, your federal withholding was substantial enough to generate that feeling of accomplishment. Yes that's sarcasm, but I do that to make a point. You are in essence saying, that because YOU would feel a sense of accomplishment for not taking any tax breaks if you were a billionaire, you feel the government should step in (on your behalf, having not asked the billionaire how he/she feels about it), and force higher taxes upon that individual so that they may also feel this sense of accomplishment. Am I right? You're okay with tax breaks for lower-income families/individuals, but not for the very-wealthy? Do you feel those who have obtained great wealth should be penalized for the betterment of those who do not have as much (yet had the same opportunities to do so)?

Have you ever paid for a friends meal because he was tight on money? Most of us have... no big deal right? Now go to Walmart and invite everyone there who makes less than you, to a nice restaurant you might go to when you were making 5k/month, and pay for their meals. Then do it everyday, or expect large fines with the possibility of jail time. What? Not fair? But they should be able to live like you do. It's not their fault they can't afford to eat out everyday, and instead get their meals out of a box. If they can't live like you, then the government needs to step in and make sure you're spreading your wealth (and yes, at 5k/month you were making much more than the "average middle income"... so there were many "under" you).

Sorry, but to quote our own government on the definition of Democracy...

So the government exists to serve the people. It's not a business entity created to provide goods and services for "unfortunates". If it was a business entity for that purpose, it would certainly be a non-profit, and it would certainly have to obtain funds through donation or other business outlets. It could not come to your door to demand your "donation (amount varies based on income level)" every month, that would be illegal. If someone chooses a path in life that brings them hardship, don't force me to pay for it. I may not want to. Personally, I donate every month to an organization (Metropolitan Ministries) that helps break the cycle of poverty by helping only those who choose to help themselves. They do the typical meals for the homeless, but they also provide temporary housing to those who need (and want) help getting back into a self-sustaining livelihood.

By the way, what is "minority assistance"? Is that some kind of additional government financial assistance extended out only to minorities? Do you mean that if I'm ever unexpectedly out of work and require a short-term assistance from the government (like unemployment), I wouldn't be eligible for it due to the fact I'm not a minority (even if my $0 income is the same as the minority's $0 income)? I sure hope our new president steps up and gets rid of racist, one-sided programs like that. It's just not fair.

In complete seriousness, we all have the same rights, abilities, and opportunities after all.

First of all..............

My view is not of communism, or free handouts for those below poverty level. My view is that we should live in a society of equality. Meaning that the wealthy and unwealthy have the same opportunities. Our country is more equal then ever before and this is great. Now with that said let me ask you a question:

If you were in poverty (which based on your response suggests otherwise), grew up in an environment engulfed with drugs, crime and oppression, would you have arrived at your success as easily?

Probably not. You cannot see your opportunity clearly in this environment. I was there and I had to get out to find success. So what does this mean? It means that individuals of all color who are in poverty are at a great disadvantage. This is why there is affirmative action and reform programs like the one you spoke of at the Metropolitan Church.

Let me give an example:

My liability insurance at one point was $240 (what a coincidence ).Your first thought would be "he must be a bad driver. stupid kid lol". Incorrect. My liability was so high because where i lived at the insurance company said the roads arent as safe to drive on. If i had lived in a wealthier neighborhood it would have been much lower. You call that fair? If your wealthy you get better insurance? The only tickets ive ever had are driving with no insurance, suspension;

BECAUSE I COULDNT AFFORD INSURANCE!!!!

*****NEVER DRIVE WITH NO INSURANCE!!!! ******

In short, i am more of a democrat than someone who believes in free reign of biggotry and corporate governing. A major problem with our economy clearly points to poor lending practices that were not properly regulated. Again our government should not be run by democrats alone, we need republicans at the table.

Oh minority assistance is welfare, housing assistance, workforce development programs etc. If everyone was rich these programs wouldnt exist.

[yotik]

My gut response is to wonder what communist bootcamp you were trained at, until I remember that I, at one time, was a staunch Democrat. I spent my time praising Clinton and criticizing Gingrich before I knew better. I used to complain about those who "take and take from society" and "give nothing back". Those were my exact words in 1996. I clearly remember the time and place that I said it.

Eventually, I came to realize that "greed" isn't the problem. So-called greed drives us to succeed, compete, and innovate. As used by liberals, greed is nothing more than an emoti-knee-jerk word that falsely mischaracterizes profit motive. Wealthy conservatives are more inclined to give to charity than wealthy liberals, statistically. The difference is that liberals believe everyone ELSE should give, at gunpoint, to whatever groups they deem deserving. There is no charity in government, only compulsion.

I give a small portion of my profits to The Special Olympics. I donate and give away many of my unwanted clothing and electronics to Goodwill, Catholic thrift stores, and The Salvation Army. I consider myself generous when I can be, and feel no desire to force you or anyone else to do the same.

Real "greed", as classically defined, is a product of overly hungry short term planning. It's what happens when you bet the entire farm on a football game instead of investing in equipment and growing more corn. That's greed. Making a living and being successful, in and of itself, is NOT greed.

And "by the people for the people" is a phrase that refers to the need for a representative form of government. It originated in a protest to unauthorized taxation by the British [irony alert]. It has NOTHING to do with "by the poor people, to take from rich people".

I respect your view. I like to think of my view as passing the buck. You spend with me, i spend with you, everybodys happy! You stop investing in me, i stop investing in you, the wheel stops turning and we go into depression.

There is wealth in minorities why not tap into it? United we stand right?

You have an interesting view though.

[marlin29311]

My liability insurance at one point was $240 (what a coincidence ).Your first thought would be "he must be a bad driver. stupid kid lol". Incorrect. My liability was so high because where i lived at the insurance company said the roads arent as safe to drive on. If i had lived in a wealthier neighborhood it would have been much lower. You call that fair? If your wealthy you get better insurance? The only tickets ive ever had are driving with no insurance, suspension;

BECAUSE I COULDNT AFFORD INSURANCE!!!!

Bad example. There are numerous wealthy neighborhoods that have very high territorial rates. I understand your point, but this isn't exactly the best way to articulate it.

[skylndrftr]

Obama will destroy this country. All who voted for him should be ashamed.

Damn right!

He can only see Canada from his house that is Canada is our neighbor and ally. What good is watching them?

No seeing RUSSIA from your house... THAT is watching your neighbor enemies which is more important. YAYA cold war!

[Encryptshun]

Obama will destroy this country. All who voted for him should be ashamed.

And unfortunately it will be someone very much like you who makes Joe Biden our 45th President.

[HashiriyaS14]

And unfortunately it will be someone very much like you who makes Joe Biden our 45th President.

Na, somehow I doubt he'd run after two terms as veep. He'll be how old by then?

I'm not sure who would be a 2016 Democratic Candidate...that's a long ways off.

I'd like to think that my Congressman, Chris Van Hollen, could do it, but I'm just not sure. He might get the Democratic Caucus Chair job if Emanuel goes to the WH, and then maybe a bid for Senator (likely successful) if Cardin or Mikulski step down.

The real question is who will be a VIABLE 2012 Republican candidate? Surely not Sarah Palin, despite all the posturing. She'll win, but she'll never make it through the primaries unless GOP voters totally ignore elect-ability.

I think Bobby Jindal, but he'll only run if it's a political environment conducive to a GOP Presidential victory. If he was going to run in a loser year, he'd have done it this year.

Any thoughts?

[heliochrome85]

hash, you missed his point. his point was that nutcases would assasinate obama, making biden the prez. speaking of which, did you notice the amount of bulletproof glass around the podium last night when obama spoke? ive never seen that before. the SS is taking threats very seriously.

[heliochrome85]

i

Na, somehow I doubt he'd run after two terms as veep. He'll be how old by then?

I'm not sure who would be a 2016 Democratic Candidate...that's a long ways off.

I'd like to think that my Congressman, Chris Van Hollen, could do it, but I'm just not sure. He might get the Democratic Caucus Chair job if Emanuel goes to the WH, and then maybe a bid for Senator (likely successful) if Cardin or Mikulski step down.

The real question is who will be a VIABLE 2012 Republican candidate? Surely not Sarah Palin, despite all the posturing. She'll win, but she'll never make it through the primaries unless GOP voters totally ignore elect-ability.

I think Bobby Jindal, but he'll only run if it's a political environment conducive to a GOP Presidential victory. If he was going to run in a loser year, he'd have done it this year.

Any thoughts?

i think jindal will go for it in 2012. palin is a ways away from it. He gave one of the key notes this RNC. Obama did the same 4 years ago, and look where he is now.

[Encryptshun]

Na, somehow I doubt he'd run after two terms as veep. He'll be how old by then?

I'm not sure who would be a 2016 Democratic Candidate...that's a long ways off.

I'd like to think that my Congressman, Chris Van Hollen, could do it, but I'm just not sure. He might get the Democratic Caucus Chair job if Emanuel goes to the WH, and then maybe a bid for Senator (likely successful) if Cardin or Mikulski step down.

EDIT* thanks for the clarification BoG

The real question is who will be a VIABLE 2012 Republican candidate? Surely not Sarah Palin, despite all the posturing. She'll win, but she'll never make it through the primaries unless GOP voters totally ignore elect-ability.

I think Bobby Jindal, but he'll only run if it's a political environment conducive to a GOP Presidential victory. If he was going to run in a loser year, he'd have done it this year.

Any thoughts?

Um, kinda not what I meant, Hash.

EDIT* Thanks, helio.

[Bawkchicken]

...If you were in poverty (which based on your response suggests otherwise), grew up in an environment engulfed with drugs, crime and oppression, would you have arrived at your success as easily?

Probably not. You cannot see your opportunity clearly in this environment. I was there and I had to get out to find success. So what does this mean? It means that individuals of all color who are in poverty are at a great disadvantage. This is why there is affirmative action and reform programs like the one you spoke of at the Metropolitan Church.

Let me give an example:

My liability insurance at one point was $240 (what a coincidence ).Your first thought would be "he must be a bad driver. stupid kid lol". Incorrect. My liability was so high because where i lived at the insurance company said the roads arent as safe to drive on. If i had lived in a wealthier neighborhood it would have been much lower. You call that fair? If your wealthy you get better insurance? The only tickets ive ever had are driving with no insurance, suspension;

BECAUSE I COULDNT AFFORD INSURANCE!!!!

*****NEVER DRIVE WITH NO INSURANCE!!!! ******

In short, i am more of a democrat than someone who believes in free reign of biggotry and corporate governing. A major problem with our economy clearly points to poor lending practices that were not properly regulated. Again our government should not be run by democrats alone, we need republicans at the table.

Oh minority assistance is welfare, housing assistance, workforce development programs etc. If everyone was rich these programs wouldnt exist.

Well, I know where you're coming from. I grew up in a lower-income neighborhood of Tampa, of what I would call an even mix of all races. Some were on full government assistance, and others worked for their income. There was drugs, there was crime (my neighbor was paralyzed from a stray bullet that struck him while we was working on his car... on a separate occasion, a stray bullet missed me by about 4ft when I was outside playing), but I'm not sure about oppression. Perhaps because my family is white, we had different opportunities than our neighbors, I'll never know I guess. I do know that there were a lot worse neighborhoods around, so I don't want to give the impression I grew up in the worst possible situation like you seem to be describing. But growing up in that environment (until I was 15) allowed me to see that we're all equal, and all capable of doing the same things... and that there are some who choose to go through life blaming everyone else for their problems, and having pity-parties for themselves. I learned to not judge anybody by appearance, only by their actions. Me, I started my first business in high school after going to the public library to research how it's done (state laws/requirements, and generally speaking). I have pursued all of my endeavors since, with the same mentality... self-reliance.

Now about your insurance analogy, it really doesn't make any sense when you say "If your wealthy you get better insurance?". Think about it, and take a step back to view it in terms of business sense in the eyes of the insurance company (who is there as a business entity to make money). If you live/drive in a high-risk area, chances are you will file more claims than if you were in a low-risk area. You pay based on risk assessment. Here in FL, the "rich people" that live on the beach pay more for their home insurance, than the people like me that live inland (Orlando). Their risk is higher, so they pay more, plain and simple. I guarantee my insurance is higher here in FL, then yours is in NE. Do you feel that you should pay more to help offset my state's risk assessment and equalize our payments?

I think we've both made valid points along the way here. We've really touched on why it's so hard to stand behind just one train of thought. There's just too many variables to make a simple decision that covers everyone's interests. Having slept on it, I'm cautiously enthusiastic for the next four years. I truly believe we need to stand behind our government leadership in order for things to move into positive directions. It disgusts me to hear people expect ill-will of our leadership and country, it solves nothing. Let's all move forward and support our new President. If you don't like how things work out after four years, make your voice heard, and points valid.

[HashiriyaS14]

Um, kinda not what I meant, Hash.

EDIT* Thanks, helio.

LOL, I get it now. I'm a dummy.

My question on likely GOP 2012 candidates still stands though. I'm curious as to what people think.

[heliochrome85]

we havent seen the end of palin yet, but that being said, its doubtful she can run her own ticket. maybe in 8 years, not in 4. its Jindals time in 4. Bet on it.

[Encryptshun]

My question on likely GOP 2012 candidates still stands though. I'm curious as to what people think.

I think that Obama, in collusion with Maria Schriver, will push a Constitutional amendment repealing the "natural born citizen" requirement for POTUS, thereby allowing Schwarzenegger to run in 2012.

You ah one liberahl muddafukka. Now get to zee aih foace one!!

[heliochrome85]

put down the crack pipe and walk away from the computer for a while.

[barrigas14]

we havent seen the end of palin yet, but that being said, its doubtful she can run her own ticket. maybe in 8 years, not in 4. its Jindals time in 4. Bet on it.

If that ever becomes a day when she runs, I will vote for the other guy no matter what. Palin is the reason I completely turned away from McCain.

[Encryptshun]

What would be the fun in that?

And like I was serious. Jeez, man.

[Jesda]

If that ever becomes a day when she runs, I will vote for the other guy no matter what. Palin is the reason I completely turned away from McCain.

Opposite for me. McCain is the reason I didnt vote for Palin.

[szh]

u dont even live here?

Don't assume. He is an American citizen living in another country. And can still vote in US elections.

Z

[numbnuts240]

i didn't notice any comments on it, but did anyone else notice just how much that chick butchered the national anthem? holy hell, i was laughing because that's the only reaction i could muster. the look on some of the faces in the audience was priceless, and to be honest, i, as a proud american, was quite embarrassed that for such a monumental event, they decided to have someone sing our national anthem and not know the correct words

[wingFeather]

It's okay though, because he's also nuts.

I am not nuts & don't appreciate this personal attack...

[Jesda]

LOL, I get it now. I'm a dummy.

QUOTED! Just messing with you Chris.

[Jesda]

I am not nuts & don't appreciate this personal attack...

You're an idealogue. Its a form of fanatical insanity.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

LOL, I get it now. I'm a dummy.

My question on likely GOP 2012 candidates still stands though. I'm curious as to what people think.

I can't decide if David Petraeus is too honorable to run for president.

However, I think he's in an excellent position to make some waves.

[yotik]

Now about your insurance analogy, it really doesn't make any sense when you say "If your wealthy you get better insurance?". Think about it, and take a step back to view it in terms of business sense in the eyes of the insurance company (who is there as a business entity to make money). If you live/drive in a high-risk area, chances are you will file more claims than if you were in a low-risk area. You pay based on risk assessment. Here in FL, the "rich people" that live on the beach pay more for their home insurance, than the people like me that live inland (Orlando). Their risk is higher, so they pay more, plain and simple. I guarantee my insurance is higher here in FL, then yours is in NE. Do you feel that you should pay more to help offset my state's risk assessment and equalize our payments?

Point taken. And thats where the state comes in.

Me, I started my first business in high school after going to the public library to research how it's done (state laws/requirements, and generally speaking). I have pursued all of my endeavors since, with the same mentality... self-reliance.

I started my first at 21 but none the less:

finally we have something in common