Mueen Nawaz escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> I'm optimistic.  He won't cure cancer, but has a much needed cool new
>> vibe around him.  I hope he knows where his towel is. :)
> 
> 	You're not suggesting that he's an alien, and the Earth is about to be
> destroyed by Vogons, and he plans to just abandon us, do you?

I liken that expression to mean he knows what he's doing.  But being 
prepared for the worst can't be bad, anyway... :P

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
> Bush may have been the worst President in my lifetime.  Nixon screwed up, 
> was paranoid, etc.  Carter just didn't seem to know what to do.  But Bush 
> seemed to do whatever the **** he wanted, and never bothered to explain why 
> to anyone, least of all the American people.

  If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?

  Sounds to me like at least half of the voters didn't agree with you.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:497637ca@news.povray.org...
>  If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?
>
>  Sounds to me like at least half of the voters didn't agree with you.

I voted for him.  Twice.  The first time, I thought he was a better choice. 
The second time, I felt that we had a choice between two idiots.  I voted 
for the one we already knew (the known quantity).  Yes, I use the term 
"idiot" loosely.  But certainly, John Kerry was about as good of a candidate 
as Michael Dukakis.  Obama, on the other hand, was the ideal candidate.  The 
only problem there is that no one really knows anything about him.  In 
politics, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but once the election's over, 
it leaves some of us quite uncomfortable.

I supported Bush for at least 3 years.  By the second election, I had strong 
doubts, but believing that Republicans were more in-touch with my beliefs, I 
went and voted for him again.  Republicans later proved that no one in 
government shares my beliefs, save a small few, like Ron Paul.  They seemed 
to think that they could pass some worthless legislation to impress the 
Religious Right, instead of passing legislation that really speaks to the 
core values of those of us who are more Libertarian than Republican (limited 
government/taxation, and basically a "just stay out of my way" attitude). 
The Republicans, largely under Bush's guidance, completely lost touch with 
that segment of the American Public, and it was largely those people that 
voted them into office in 1994.  So, we made sure to vote them out in 2006. 
At this point in my life, I no longer feel a strong party affiliation.  I 
find myself agreeing with Barney Frank (a far left gay congressman from 
Massachusettes), than I do with just about any of the Republicans currently 
in office.

I consider myself a religious person to some extent, and I've certainly made 
posts here which coincide with that.  But the "Religious Right" has 
completely ruined the Republican party that I used to believe in. 
Certainly, some issues (abortion) can have moral overtones, but it's almost 
as if the entire party chose that single issue, and any time they needed 
votes, they just beat the religious drums.  That sickens me.  Religion 
should have no place in politics.  In fact, I wrote to my Congressman 
concerning legislation that was passed in 2006 which attemped to (and 
partially succeeded) ban Internet poker.  As someone who plays frequently, 
and enjoys the game, I wrote a well-thought out letter.  His response said 
things like Internet poker funnels money to terrorists, causes gambling 
addiction, and more to the point, was already illegal. (Yet no one was ever 
convicted.  Why is that?)  The terrorist argument infuriated me.  That's 
like claiming that drinking beer supports Al Qaeda.  The other arguments had 
some merit, but gee, smoking and drinking and a whole host of other 
activities are also bad for a few.

Poor John McCain got associated with Bush, and yet he was the one Republican 
to actually stand up against the President and the rest of his party when he 
felt it was necessary.  No, he wasn't 180 degrees different, but perhaps 30. 
LOL.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-Jan-09 18:25, Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> Does this mean that the rest of the world will stop hating us (the USA) now?

Not immediately. In most allied countries (like mine) the great majority 
is happy and anticipating a less short term selfish style of US 
government. But we didn't hate the US to begin with.
The Israeli government is probably not so certain about him or they 
would not have used the last days of GW Bush to attack. My estimate is 
that Obama would not have approved of this attempt to increase the 
violence in the region for the years to come. OTOH they could use the 
change of power in the US as a sign that things are changing.
In Palestine you may partly expect more positive voices, but in the 
great majority of arab countries I expect a more cautious reaction. They 
first will want to see if he is really different. If the number of 
suicide attacks increases over the next few months it'll look good.*
What the asian countries think about him I wouldn't know. The people 
will be just as happy as everybody else, but what do the governments of 
Japan or China think?
Putin will not be happy, because it will complicated his strategies to 
stay in power.

Obama (or actually we) is lucky to be elected during this crisis, 
because it will greatly hamper the irresponsible among the rich to 
frustrate the government.

I particularly like the fact that he said that there is no mismatch 
between moral and safety (or some like that). Before GW Bush the world 
seemed to be heading towards a view that universal human right should 
take precedence over the interest of the happy few. Both within 
countries and among countries. With Bush that changed. American interest 
  seemed to be the only thing he was thinking about. With American 
interest defined by the people and companies with money and an attention 
span of less than a presidential term. With Obama everybody hopes that 
there will be someone in the whitehouse again that understands that 
short term gain may have to be paid back several times over later.

*) Because that would mean that some 'religious' leaders see their 
influence diminishing and will want to correct that by introducing some 
instability

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
> I voted for him.  Twice.  The first time, I thought he was a better choice. 
> The second time, I felt that we had a choice between two idiots.  I voted 
> for the one we already knew (the known quantity).  Yes, I use the term 
> "idiot" loosely.  But certainly, John Kerry was about as good of a candidate 
> as Michael Dukakis.  Obama, on the other hand, was the ideal candidate.  The 
> only problem there is that no one really knows anything about him.  In 
> politics, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but once the election's over, 
> it leaves some of us quite uncomfortable.

> I supported Bush for at least 3 years.  By the second election, I had strong 
> doubts, but believing that Republicans were more in-touch with my beliefs, I 
> went and voted for him again.  Republicans later proved that no one in 
> government shares my beliefs, save a small few, like Ron Paul.  They seemed 
> to think that they could pass some worthless legislation to impress the 
> Religious Right, instead of passing legislation that really speaks to the 
> core values of those of us who are more Libertarian than Republican (limited 
> government/taxation, and basically a "just stay out of my way" attitude). 
> The Republicans, largely under Bush's guidance, completely lost touch with 
> that segment of the American Public, and it was largely those people that 
> voted them into office in 1994.  So, we made sure to vote them out in 2006. 
> At this point in my life, I no longer feel a strong party affiliation.  I 
> find myself agreeing with Barney Frank (a far left gay congressman from 
> Massachusettes), than I do with just about any of the Republicans currently 
> in office.

> I consider myself a religious person to some extent, and I've certainly made 
> posts here which coincide with that.  But the "Religious Right" has 
> completely ruined the Republican party that I used to believe in. 
> Certainly, some issues (abortion) can have moral overtones, but it's almost 
> as if the entire party chose that single issue, and any time they needed 
> votes, they just beat the religious drums.  That sickens me.  Religion 
> should have no place in politics.  In fact, I wrote to my Congressman 
> concerning legislation that was passed in 2006 which attemped to (and 
> partially succeeded) ban Internet poker.  As someone who plays frequently, 
> and enjoys the game, I wrote a well-thought out letter.  His response said 
> things like Internet poker funnels money to terrorists, causes gambling 
> addiction, and more to the point, was already illegal. (Yet no one was ever 
> convicted.  Why is that?)  The terrorist argument infuriated me.  That's 
> like claiming that drinking beer supports Al Qaeda.  The other arguments had 
> some merit, but gee, smoking and drinking and a whole host of other 
> activities are also bad for a few.

> Poor John McCain got associated with Bush, and yet he was the one Republican 
> to actually stand up against the President and the rest of his party when he 
> felt it was necessary.  No, he wasn't 180 degrees different, but perhaps 30. 
> LOL. 

  I must admit this is the best argumented post I have read in a long
time about politics. I can't object to anything (especially because I'm
not American).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:56:40 +0000, St. wrote:

>    I can't see that relationship working well. I think Hillary will see
> Barak as the 'new boy on the block', and will want to advise 'too' much.

One could argue that her being Secretary of State means that she'll be 
traveling a lot and thus not around to "advise" him in ways that are 
unwelcome.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:44:59 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?

Both times Bush was elected it was controversial.  I'm still angry with 
Gore for not fighting harder for the Florida recount the first time 
around.

But as for why he was elected either time:  Karl Rove.  He's a bastard, 
but a smart bastard, and he knows how to say what people want to hear.

>   Sounds to me like at least half of the voters didn't agree with you.

The presidential election isn't a popular vote, it's a representative 
vote.  That means you can lose the popular vote and still win.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:497### [at] hotmailcom...

> The Israeli government is probably not so certain about him or they would 
> not have used the last days of GW Bush to attack.

  Oh, wow. I thought the very same thing. Why did they do what they did when 
they did and why did they pull out just before the next President was going 
to be in power. Apparently, this is a cease-fire for about a week. Will 
Isreal continue?

Is this to see what Obama says about it all? (As far as I know, he hasn't 
said anything yet about it, but I think he may have something up his sleeve 
in some way).

    ~Steve~ (Who hates politics).

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> Does this mean that the rest of the world will stop hating us (the USA)
> now?

Right now I hate it because I'm already tired of EVERYONE IN THE PLANET
TALKING ABOUT THE SAME DAMN THING. If my country's presidential house was
on fire, it would be in the news tomorrow, because today everyone is too
busy with Obama.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:44:59 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>   If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?
> 
> Both times Bush was elected it was controversial.  I'm still angry with 

	That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.

	Roughly half of the voters voted for him.

-- 
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message