I am not sure if you are quite ready for the Internet. Post opposing data, prove my data is false or please, move along.

A pretty strong statement.

It is foolish for anyone to think that race had nothing to do with the election of the president. At the same time its not a good thing to assume people decisions or opposing opinions of the president are always based on race.

More and more I see when one's opposing political views etc about the presidents are backed into a corner, the race card is played. I see when any opposing opinion is formed against the president's actions, its called racists when color is never mentioned.

Its growing old and its wonderful that Obama is in office as the first African American president just so America can start to get over this, as well as other countries.

Im not picking a fight with you not even close. If you want one sided conversation talk to people who only agree with you. If you want a real discussion then step up. In no way did i pick a fight are you up set because i called you out on your misinformation? I would have done it to anyone and iv had it done to me. There is nothing wrong from learning.

Wow. I wanted the Olypics to come here. You could have a great career on Fox news someday.

Look on the bright side, there will be less debt in something we weren't able to afford in the first place.

You have no one else to blame but the Olympic council and the wonderful speeches presented.

Why because I called her on her BS? Amazing ignorance must be blissful. I respect people who actually add to the discussion even if our opinions differ. I'm sorry but this is not a playground get invovled in the discussion with facts instead of "yea" if not well there are plenty of I love pockey threads to go around.

I think it's ridiculous for a president who is currently overseeing two major unjustifiable wars and conducting covert overseas rendition/torture operations to win a peace prize of any kind.

Also, as tragic as the deaths of the 4,000+ US soldiers in Iraq and 800+ in Afghanistan are, you never hear about the real sick number. Over 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq since 2003 and 20,000 in Afghanistan. Not trained killers, not Ba'ath Party loyalists or Taliban fighters..innocent people..innocent men..women..children..people who never signed up to fight a war.

Think about that...a hundred thousand human beings. Anyone here ever attend a baseball game? The average stadium seats around forty thousand people. You could fill a stadium with dead bodies from Iraq from home plate all the way up the to nosebleed seats two times over and still have room left over for another 20,000 dead innocent people. Obama may have not started the wars, but by allowing them to go on while he is in office, and hell allowing even the torture to still take place, he is in a way validating the philosophies of Bush and Cheney.

Obama isn't change we can believe in. He's a generic milk & toast center-right democrat. If he was change we can believe in he would have immediately upon entering office said "I am going to end both these wars as quickly as I possibly can." Period.

Change I can believe in:

1) End all major US Conflicts overseas and withdraw all military forces from the middle east, saving countless innocent lives and trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. Then continue to conduct small special ops missions to contain terrorist threats. The "safe haven" argument for the Afghan war is retarded. Al Qaeda is everywhere. The 9/11 attacks were planned from an apartment building in Germany. Should we invade Germany? Hell, if they all hang out in Afghanistan, at least we know where they are. All the easier to kill. Better than them operating from Pakistan like they do now. We can't even fight them there.

2) End the global war on drugs. Alcohol Prohibition didn't work and this isn't any different. You can't legislate morality or human behavior. People are always going to to drugs. Making them illegal just forces the market underground, drives up the costs and makes murderous criminals billions of dollars. Legalizing and taxing a completely harmless drug like cannabis could eliminate the federal deficit in a matter of a few years and would give terminally ill patients safe access to helpful medicine.

3) Carry on the cause of the civil rights movement and eliminate unconstitutional laws that discriminate against the gay community.

4) Provide true universal health care and abolish the insurance industry. Making money off of sick people is evil beyond comprehension.

5) Reinstate FDR's strict financial regulations and stop the corruption on Wall Street.

6) Real Campaign Finance reform. Obama's top campaign contributor is Goldman Sachs. No wonder he's going soft on them.

the list goes on..

Thank you, Voyager! And Sinsetra: We are not ignorant. You are the one who is being ignorant. You ARE picking a fight. I mean c'mon the line: "Here we go again!" That only proves that you were trying to pick a fight. You're being very rude and critcal to the posters...un-necessarily rude, it is one thing to have a strong opinion, but to be RUDE is another. I was exasperated with you, that's my argument, but I think it's a bad rep for Obama on what his supporters look like. I might've changed my mind 'bout him were his supporters not so...so...arrogant

No there is nothing wrong with learning. I apologized when I shouldn't've anyway! There was no need for me to, YOU DO NOT WIN THE NOBEL PRIZE! You are AWARDED the Nobel Prize! You, Sinestra are being ignorant to those facts, ask anyone on here that knows about polictics, it is common knowledge.

And i said that was cool for you to say you were wrong and say you dont like Obama because of your personal beliefs. Like i said i can respect someone who opinion and beliefs are different than my own when they are sincere and not just spew out the common crap. You provided links as to why you do not like Obama i wholeheartedly disagree with you but those are you beliefs. I am not picking on you but you did post information that was not true and i called you on it thats it. You saying im ignorant when your being closed minded. The judges who are responsible for the Noble Peace Prize spoke out yet you are saying the very ones responsible for the whole process is wrong.

Present me with facts you saying anyone and everyone here agrees with you again false. You yourself said you do not have time to read through the all the pages which is why the comment to your post from MMM was "why should i respect your opinion then"

But very well lets agree to disagree because we are going in circles.

Be active in the discussion he was not active in any of the discussion going on. You are under the impression that agree with everything that Obama does, well i dont i myself am critical of him but not (UNFAIRLY) i dont stand to make money from bashing him like some of his critics do. Once you said your peace i said i respected it because you posted factual info. Iv got a laundry list of things i cant stand about politicians on both sides including independents its not hard to dig up dirt its not hard including whom you stated your pick for Prez was, its all relative. After Obama has run his time we all will be here again or on some other forum having the exact same arguments about the new president though the roles maybe reversed.

Im sorry im not going to listen to people who think they know more about the NPP than the actually judges who run it (see article i posted a few pages back). Which brings me back to my point. If you want to blame someone for him getting the NPP blame the ones who nominated him not Obama. Thats like me blaming the Japanese because the car that happen to hit that little boy walking across the street was a Honda.

I see, so if people say he won the presidency or won the Nobel Peace Prize because he is black, then that is OK, but if someone says there are people hate the president because of his race, then that is not OK?

You can't have it both ways.

Feel free to answer those other questions at your leisure.

Neither are okay. My point was race was involved, not that it is right.

I see your point though and its a good one.
I digress.

I think that was my point too.

I read your statement in a different light.
Definitely reading it in your light now...
Fair good point.

I agree with you...I believe race was involved...I've known it from the start, and like MMM said, I've tried to hold it, but *shakes head* I just can't any more! Yeah, I think it's great and all too that he's the first African-American President, but don't you think it's gone a little over-board?

I don't understand. What has gone overboard?

Mmm...the media and stuff, dattebayo? Yeah sure he's the first President that's African American, but don't you think the media has just pushed it a little too far? I mean, it's Obama this Obama that, it was fine when he first got elected, that was to be expected, but, now? A YEAR later? Isn't that a little much, or do I just not like him that much...lol...
~HonorarJapaneseGirl~

Can you show me clips in the media that can't stop gushing about how African American he is? Maybe we are watching different channels.

If I remember correctly President Bush was on the news just about every day, but I didn't say "Enough with showing stories about President Bush." He is the president, after all.

Eh...true...Give me some time to look them up, I have something to do first, but I'll see if I can get them to you...

Looking forward to it.

this is what i don't understand about our system... i don't care about his race when it's the policies he's passing that matter, but his race is extremely important for america.. his election upsets 200 years of black oppression. it means that finally, we might get some black leaders... you know at the time of his election he comprised 50% of the African american's in the senate..

america has a huge racial shift concerning standard of living... and it's all due to our political system... to get elected senator you need campaign financing which comes from corporate conglomerates who use it as leverage to get bills crushed or passed by their pawns- the politicians... so the businesses control the government, but guess who controls the majority of american businesses .. white guys...

this is especially troubling concerning our insurance companies. while many African american's live in destitute poverty, they aren't going to be given good insurance policies, or any at all- but, the corporations are sure as hell going to make sure the manufacturing jobs go overseas to the places where they can get basically slave labour..
thus, the only sector left for poor people in america is to work in the service industry.. fast food etc. but business can't afford to pay out more than it takes in, so there's no way anyone who's living under these conditions in the ghettos can possibly rise up and allow themselves or their good schooling which would have to be paid for due to americas terrible school system

and without schooling, there is no possibility for someone to become a senator... thus the vicious cycle.

this is why it's so important that america has broken the racial bridle concerning the presidency.:rheart:

there's actually a very good movie which i'd recommend called Bulworth..... it depicts the issues spot

I'm not saying it's bad that we have an African American president. What I mean is...I think that there was possible unfairness in the election, and that race had something to do with it. I think it's cool we have an African American president, it just depends on what you do with that. It has a strong influence on The People when you have someone of a new race and such in the Presidential Election, so how you use that influence is vital. I think he used it badly. Like I said, I think that there was something else going on in the election.
I mean, we (America) could've wound up like Iran when something went wrong in the election, I just thank God we didn't!

this is another thing i get furious with... I have had too many encounters with republican individuals who say that "Obama only won because all the black people voted for him"....
sure it's easy enough to say that, but then you tend to forget that there were probably equal numbers of racist white republican's who voted for McCain simply because he was white.

and i wouldn't bother trying to refute it otherwise i will link you to a video of one of his rallies in which his supporters chanted "kill him" among other things
or countless shameless interviews in which his supporters made anti-black remarks

anyway, got what i needed to say out of the way,... not looking to stir up a debate...please, if you do argue this make it sophisticated and calm eh?:rheart:

Honestly, most American's could prolly care less about the Olympics, wich can be dreadfully boreing at times. I mean really, it isn't the Superbowl here.

The Health care thing wouldn't be in the mess it is now if Government simply did the job it was supposed to do anyway, make sure you didn't have monopolies dominate things, and simplify tort reform. In fact, that's what they should still do, national health care as a government run idea is not only outragous, but down right unconstitutional.

I have read various parts of these bills and they are so convaluted they could mean pretty much anything.

Besides, I have one name to stop anyone thinking about Government run health care...Brown. Surely everyone remembers Katrina and "Your doing a heck of a good job Brownie Boy"? Does anyone honestly think a program that would run a 6th of the national economy wouldn't eventually end up with some croonie like Brown in charge of it? If you build it, croonies will come...

Really? What are you saying?

The newest one? The newest one may not even be posted for 72 hours for the public. Let alone there isn't enough for the people that need to read it to read it and vote.

It still scares and angers me.

This is not what I expect from a nobel peace prize winner.

government at its best:

Link:
A new idea for Congress: Read the bill, then vote -- baltimoresun.com

Too many people complain that the "system" opposes them as an excuse. Life is only as difficult as you allow it to be. Drop-out rates among minority high schools are above 50%, but students aren't "oppressed" into quitting. They quit because their parents don't care, not because someone forces them to leave school. Then when they grow up and find they can't get a job doing anything but flipping burgers or washing cars, they then say that "the system failed me".

Obama's father failed him. Fortunately he had a mother and grandmother who didn't. For those who don't know, Obama's grandmother (the white one) was an executive with at a bank (part of corporate America, where hard work and education are highly valued). Obama's grandmother paid for his private education, and set him on the path for success. Were it not for her caring about him and his education, Obama himself might have been a burger flipper or car washer.

People can only be oppressed if they allow themselves to be.

It is not the government's job to take care of people, but to create an environment where people can take care of themselves. People who are always taken care of lose the ability to take care of themselves.

Socialists have never been able to grasp that concept. They feel that it is the responsibility of the state to take care of people, and that all of a state's wealth should be spread around for everyone to use equally. The only problem with that idea is human beings aren't like farm animals or parts of a machine. Human beings find pleasure in creativity, work, and success. When the ability to do these things is taken away, they become unhappy or miserable, and don't bother to work hard. Why bother? Anything you make will get taken away and given to someone else. And even in socialist systems, they aren't truly socialist, there is always the ruling elite, who get to exercise their innate needs to create, work, and be successful.

When America was created, it was a most unusual experiment. People nowadays can't grasp the mentality of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The beliefs and virtues of the founders of America are pretty much forgotten now.

All of you have probably heard about the "Pilgrims" who arrived in America in the Early 17th century. The pilgrims were actually "Puritans", who fled the corruption and political strife in England to live lives of freedom in the New World. The Puritan spirit came into existence during the time of Queen Elizabeth, and reached it's peak during the Commonwealth period (after King Charles was executed, and Cromwell and the Parliament ran the country). When the monarchy was restored, Puritans were persecuted as enemies of the king and the Church of England.

Most people think of Puritans as religious fundamentalists, but that is not entirely true. Puritans were believers of "salvation through grace". That is, getting to heaven by living honest, virtuous lives. They were not followers or believers of organized religion. They believed in ultimate freedom, that those who lived properly, honestly, and with virtue had no need for organized religion or government.

This Puritan spirit was still alive and well when the founding fathers of America were around, and this spirit was used in the formation of the government. America was a "free country", a level playing field where all could work hard and succeed.

But, even in a free country, those who don't work hard will not succeed.

wow.. where to begin... first off, people group together to form a system of governance for the sole purpose of creating an environment in which everyone does a part to support the group and thus they are supported through eachother's actions.. so it is the sole job of government to make sure it's people are protected and given the best opportunities

second, the puritans were the biggest hypocrites in the world.. they came to the new land to escape oppression and immediately set about their conquest of the "lesser advanced" natives... raped the women and pillaged the land and stole whatever they could...america likes to believe it's a good, righteous country build on good values by good people... you sir have been fooled... group mentality at work there.

"The first thing the pilgrims did when they came to the new world was eat a few indians." -Denny Crane:rheart:

Very well said. Here are a couple of videos that I nearly posted before, but they tie in to what you're talking about.

YouTube - Klavan on culture

YouTube - Klavan on the Culture: Night of the Living Government

YouTube - Klavan On The Culture

The Puritans didn't rape native women or steal anybody's land, that is liberal propaganda designed to make people hate their own country. That jibberish they hand out in American history nowadays is full of half truths and out right lies, it's sickening. Puritans lived peacefully with the native people, in fact they survived the first winter with the natives help. Plus, several early colonial governments modled themselves on the Algonquin modle. The abuse started when the British took over colonial matters directly.

In other words, big government showed up and ruined everything, thus the revolution. "Give me liberty or give me death," they didn't say that, just to sound cool.

Yes, the colonials had problems, but they weren't freaked out, money grubbing, KKK relgious fanatics, out to kill every Native and enslave all of Africa. Most of the early settlers were trying to start over in a new land, AWAY from that sort of thing. The British Government began establishing thier own claim once money started comeing in, and that's where things started to go to hell. After all, Spain was getting rich off the America's..Britain and France wanted in on some of that "action" too.

It wasn't the colonials that were the monsters here, it was the European superpowers that were.

The atrocities commited against the Native Americans were carried out by people on both ends of the political spectrum, but they were always justified by fundamentalist Christian dogma. Whether the soldiers raping and executing children where fans of big government or not is beside the issue. The core of the atrocities is the early American's inability to view non-Christian non-white people as being anything but souless subhuman organisms, incapable of comprehending the will of the white man's wretched pathetic excuse for a god.

well said Voyager... thank you:rheart:

Puritans were not hypocrites. They were not religious fundamentalists in the sense that they are described now. They did not rape, kill, steal, or any of those things; you seem to forget that Puritans sought salvation through their good actions. They lived quite peacefully with the native peoples they found, and even intermarried among them (I have Native-American blood myself, and am a descendant of one of these couples). You yourself have been fooled, and are a part of the group mentality.

The raping, killing, and pillaging you mention didn't occur on any real scale until it became a government policy. This wasn't so much a Colonial British policy, you may or may not know that during the French and Indian Wars, the English settlers and Indians were allied against the French, living and fighting together.

Life between the Indians and Early-Americans was also mostly peaceful. George Washington himself signed treaties and legislation giving government recognition to the Indians claims on their home and hunting lands.

It wasn't until the 19th century that the Indians became seriously oppressed. This oppression was government sponsored, and had nothing to do with any kind of religion. The treaties signed be George Washington were reneged on by acts of Congress, and Native-Americans were forced to leave their homes and settle on reservations (where I happened to spend much of my time growing up).

why would Goerge Washington need to conjur up those treaties an declarations unless the homes and the way of life for the natives were under threat?

Again you are mis informed. The Puritans came to America in the 1600's, Washington's time was in the mid to late 1700's...100 years later, well after Britain had established dominance over the colonies. The so called atrocities were predominantly done by British colony types after 1715, and even then they weren't as prominant as much later, the French and Indian war was in the 1740's and both sides had multiple indian tribes fighting for them. Much of the so called tyranical abuse of Natives, in the 1600's ( When the Puritans where migrateing to the US) was from the Spanish and that was south of the border. American abuse of native tribes started up in the late 1700's and early 1800's, particularly with the Trail of Tears by the Florida Seminols and the subugation of eastern tribes that ended in the 1880's with the subugation of the plains indians/western tribes and the slaughter at Wounded Knee.

Don't believe those current historical accounts you read in modern schools, it's mostly bogus anti American tripe.

Are you a guy? Oh who cares, I'll mary you either way. Excellent post. You know I was at the fair a couple days ago, very depressing, especially after I came across this history project of George Washington by what sounded like an eight year old. It was basically glorifying his position in the Revolutionary War (btw, I think we should give it another name. People had been rebelling against corrupt governments and monarchs for years, it wasn't exactly an exception to a trend) and as our first president. I was like, wow, have we deemed it so unnecessary for children in our society to feel any pain at all, to the point that we brainwash them and put lies into their heads about "great" people when in fact its the other way around? I mean George Washinton was a dick, he owned slaves and he wanted the Iroquois culture and people not just destroyed but obliterated. I guess we just decided a while ago that history would be based on documents whose components had been twisted and manipulated to the point of no return.

Oh, and don't even get me started on Columbus and the conquistadors....

All excellent points made about Washington. It's ridiculous historical figures like him get a pass when it comes to atrocities like slave ownership.

Yeah I'm a guy :rheart: :D

Although I'm 22 and your profile says your 85 so there may be issue there..but who knows love knows no boundaries I always say :pandahurray:

Yeah, I know. I remember when I was still in middle school, one of my teachers tried telling me that Washington had owned "a" slave, but payed him and was nice to him.