my thoughts exactly. Shit look at his contributors, #1 spot was Goldman-Sachs. Look at his record. He's a fence sitter, only making a ruckus when it politcally suits him but a no show on other issues that matter like warrantless wiretapping. He voted yes on the bailout. The people he's considering for his administration are almost all corporate shills for their respective industries. I think what big business did was push the bush presidency as long as possible to force through as much deregulation and theft as possible, and then allow the whole system to collapse so that they can pull the bait and switch and give us some other guy that serves their interests but gives the people the impression that we're voting for a change. we're only voting for a change of face, not a change of whose interests are going to be served. Only time will really tell what is in store for usdysanfel wrote:I voted for Obama.
What scares me is that the very big businesses that are threatened by an Obama presidency did not support McCain with the money needed to beat Obama. If Obama plans a wind-fall tax on oil companies, force US automakers to make 150MPG cars, wants to give every American the same health care that senators get, then why did they not give more money to McCain? If you were Exxon wouldn't you give up millions to prevent the loss of hundreds of millions?
A cynic would say that there is no threat to change. Perhaps the 'Voice of Change' may just be that....a voice with no substance.
obama wins!!!!!!!
Since the election was stolen in 2000 and 2004, you cannot directly blame U.S. citizens as much as a corrupt system.forge wrote:I think most of the America bashing was a result of Dubbaya somehow managing to get in twice. That made Americans fair game. Today they made up for it.Emissary wrote:as long as america actually "changes" and its not all just empty rhetoric then yes. Unfortunately i fail see to one drop of evidence of this promised "change" can someone enlighten me?forge wrote: Yes. Yes it does.
Criticism of the U.S. is not going to stop until U.S. policy changes. The U.S. is still engaged in 2 immoral wars, still is murdering lots of people and attempting the overthrow of democratically elected governments, still has a military budget as big as the rest of the world combined, still is using the threat of first nuclear strike, still has by far the largest number of its citizens in prison, etc.
The U.S. has a history of destroying democratic peoples movements and the installing of dictators around the world that started long before Bush II.
Actually that is not true... Clinton bombed Iraq for 8 years. He passed NAFTA. He started a war based on lies in Yugoslavia. He greatly enhanced the security state that Bush II built on. He repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which is what opened the door for the current financial collapse.kb420 wrote:Emissary wrote:yes we can, we can change, change we can , yes change, let us change, what is change ? yes it was, can with change and yes and what and......brightonalex wrote:If you can change.. then I can change... we can all change!
so your going to bring the troops home from abroad obama?
so your going to abolish the federal reserve obama?
so your going to stop the cia running drugs obama?
so your going to stop poisoning your people obama?
so your going to stop centralisation of power obama?
so your going to reduce the national debt obama?
I guess you think that Rome was built in a day!?!?!?!?!?!?
Give the man a break. He hasn't even taken office yet.
For what it's worth, I as well as most Americans who voted, feel a lot better about the future than I would of if McCain had been elected.
The Republican party is responsible for just about everything on that list that you made. Most of those issues happened on their watch.
And in U.S. history, Democrats have started more wars than Republicans.
I agree that race is an issue, and I am glad that the racists got it shoved in their faces, and I am glad that the Republicans got the boot.smutek wrote:
The final nail in the coffin so to speak, for me, was race.
I know a lot of people are saying "race isn't an issue", but I work for some openly racist people and a conversation I heard the other day between a sales rep and one of my bosses convinced me more than ever that America needs a bi-racial president.
So, I think race is an issue, and considering the history of race relations in this country it very well should be, and we all should be proud to have elected Barak Obama.
So again, here's hoping that Obama will bring in the changes he's promised, not only here at home, but abroad as well. I'm skeptical on this point, but here's to hoping he will not be just another war president.
I do hope that the massive grassroots support for Obama does not see the job as done. If Obama brings substantive change, it will be because a movement of people demands it, stands for it, and works for it.
-
Machinesworking
- Posts: 11551
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Seattle
Only Obama info in that article.Angstrom wrote: Obama's first act, don't mess with the Bear.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6720153.stm
Not sure what you mean? Hopefully Obama listens to reason on this...President George W Bush will leave office in January 2009, and the incoming president could take a different line on the issue.
However, both candidates in November's presidential election - Republican Sen John McCain and Democrat Sen Barack Obama - have spoken of the threat posed by Iran.
I was in Grant Park here in Chicago and the feeling was indescribable.
I have never in my life seen so many people from so many different backgrounds and generations in one place so happy, respectable of each other's humanity and filled with exuberant hope for our collective future.
THANK YOU FOR ALL WHO VOTED ESPECIALLY YALL UNDER 30!
ABZyrd
I have never in my life seen so many people from so many different backgrounds and generations in one place so happy, respectable of each other's humanity and filled with exuberant hope for our collective future.
THANK YOU FOR ALL WHO VOTED ESPECIALLY YALL UNDER 30!
ABZyrd
HP Pavilion dv7 1.60GHz i7 Laptop, 4 gigs uh ram, 1.5TB external drive, M-Audio Ozonic.
well, the "missile defence" is obviously pointing at Russia, not Iran. It's supposed purpose is to shoot down missiles. Iran's longest range missiles are 1,200 mile, and even those are not up and running yet. Those missiles would hit the dirt before they even reached Poland. Therefore - the Poland missile ranges are not about Iran.If the Missiles were for Iran they would be sited in Israel .. because that is at least in range!Machinesworking wrote:Only Obama info in that article.Angstrom wrote: Obama's first act, don't mess with the Bear.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6720153.stm
Not sure what you mean? Hopefully Obama listens to reason on this...President George W Bush will leave office in January 2009, and the incoming president could take a different line on the issue.
However, both candidates in November's presidential election - Republican Sen John McCain and Democrat Sen Barack Obama - have spoken of the threat posed by Iran.
By "don't mess with the bear" I mean, he shouldn't needlessly fuck with them by pissing about siting missile silos on their border and pretending they are pointing at indonesia. America has been getting totally owned on these european issues, namely Georgia. That was yet another oil pipeline deal . The US fucked up big time on that one (arming and puppeting a group to act as US agents) and the Russians said "fucking no chance" and flattened the whole thing.
Obama should not mess about with the bear.
I've said it on page 5 or 6 of thread - but no one picked up... the guy has a really bad set of cards drawn for him already. He probably could have chnaged the world if he was elected at the LAST election - but there is alot out of his hands. The Americans on this forum have been so force fed with the advertising and marketing of this campaign - you guys believe the hype.. why not wait 6 months a year and see what happens. I'll take a bet - nothing changes... in fact i think things will get worse for you guys first. Obama has a very steep hill ahead of him.
jeskola wrote:Agreed... 'cause England doesn't have it's own prime minstercrumhorn wrote:I can't see England electing a Black prime minister any time soon.
The U.K does.
My bad!"The banjo is the perfect instrument for the antisocial."
(Allow me to plug my guitar scale visualiser thingy - www.fretlearner.com)
(Allow me to plug my guitar scale visualiser thingy - www.fretlearner.com)
one of the finest Onion articles I've ever read
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/na ... _enough_to
edit
this is interesting, this site
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
shows that yesterday's vote had the highest turnout rate since 1960 (no data from before 1960.)
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/na ... _enough_to
he's no progressive but wow that's cynical, love it!Another contributing factor to Obama's victory, political experts said, may have been the growing number of Americans who, faced with the complete collapse of their country, were at last able to abandon their preconceptions and cast their vote for a progressive African-American.
edit
this is interesting, this site
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
shows that yesterday's vote had the highest turnout rate since 1960 (no data from before 1960.)
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
even more so when you factor in the couple million who wanted to but were excluded via Republican shenanigans...Tone Deft wrote: this is interesting, this site
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
shows that yesterday's vote had the highest turnout rate since 1960 (no data from before 1960.)