Happy Inauguration Day!

Originally Posted by PrBlahBlahtson

Offset by a large number of ignorant racists that voted for McCain because he wasn't black. Weak arguement.

The demographics argue otherwise. African-American voters polled in favor of Obama in the mid 80% range nationwide. Nearly all other racial demographics, including Caucasians, polled within 5% of an even race between the two. What made the defining difference was a combination of this and the record setting college turnout. While older age groups pulled marginally for McCain, at most reaching the low 60% range and had lower turnout, the college-age demographic swung in the high 70's and had high turnout. The latter speaks to a historical emphasis of liberal ideals in college environments, the aftereffect of the "rock the vote" children reaching voting age in large numbers, and the blind eagerness for change that youthful naivete brings and a campaign that effectively targeted that.

I had this same discussion on election night while several groups were reporting their exit poll results. I don't think it's right to call it 'racist' or 'reverse racist' to have voted for Obama simply to see the first non-white President, but there was definitely a trend along racial lines that favored him while no significant trend for McCain in the same manner. It isn't the sole reason he won, but it was an important conclusion that the data strongly implies.

Regardless of the reasons, he is our President now. I spoke in support of Bush, and I'll speak in support of Obama. Not because of who they are, but because an important aspect of our nation is entrusted in them. We chose them to lead, and as of today, it's time to stop playing armchair pundit and roll up our sleeves.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I spoke in support of Bush, and I'll speak in support of Obama. Not because of who they are, but because an important aspect of our nation is entrusted in them. We chose them to lead, and as of today, it's time to stop playing armchair pundit and roll up our sleeves.

Personally, I think there's no greater service you can perform for your leader than to lash him when he's screwing up. Friends don't let friends drive drunk and all that.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

I take real issue with the notion being patriotic is supporting your president. Being patriotic is doing what's right for your country. Encouraging any of Bush's policies over the last... seven years was not, in my opinion, patriotic.

[Vengeance1701]

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

- Edward Abbey

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

I take real issue with the notion being patriotic is supporting your president. Being patriotic is doing what's right for your country. Encouraging any of Bush's policies over the last... seven years was not, in my opinion, patriotic.

Funny thing, that. Some of us would have supported it even if it wasn't "patriotic". I'm thankful I live in a country where the people who think they know how things out to be run with little to no experience leading anything generally don't have the power to force their will on the rest of us.

There is a huge difference between supporting and being a sycophant. You can disagree with his actions all you want, but if your idea of "doing what's right" is to sit around all day calling your leader an idiot because of a southern accent and a few quotes sent around on blogs and email, half of which weren't even from him, then yes, that's where I would support him. When you complain "Oh my, he agrees with his party on hotbutton political issues, how horrible!", that's where I would support him. When he's being attacked for standing for all the things Europe, China and other nations hate about the US, that's where I would support him. And yes, when he makes a hard decision that the nation is divided on, then I sure as hell would support him.

We're not talking about unethical decisions. We're talking about things that you don't like because it doesn't suit your partisan viewpoint. Debate the action, press for change, press your agenda, but don't attack the President for simply disagreeing with you. That's not patriotic, unpatriotic or anything else but childish.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

So...it's childish when we disagree with our leaders but not when they disagree with us?

Okay...

[Vengeance1701]

I disagree with him because thanks to his asshanded handling of this nation's foreign policy, we're in massive debt and never before has being an American been such a bad thing worldwide.

I disagree with him for getting us involved in a war on terrorism which will have no end.

Other than that, he did a great job.

[TrunKated]

Originally Posted by Illun

Funny thing, that. Some of us would have supported it even if it wasn't "patriotic". I'm thankful I live in a country where the people who think they know how things out to be run with little to no experience leading anything generally don't have the power to force their will on the rest of us.

There is a huge difference between supporting and being a sycophant. You can disagree with his actions all you want, but if your idea of "doing what's right" is to sit around all day calling your leader an idiot because of a southern accent and a few quotes sent around on blogs and email, half of which weren't even from him, then yes, that's where I would support him. When you complain "Oh my, he agrees with his party on hotbutton political issues, how horrible!", that's where I would support him. When he's being attacked for standing for all the things Europe, China and other nations hate about the US, that's where I would support him. And yes, when he makes a hard decision that the nation is divided on, then I sure as hell would support him.

We're not talking about unethical decisions. We're talking about things that you don't like because it doesn't suit your partisan viewpoint. Debate the action, press for change, press your agenda, but don't attack the President for simply disagreeing with you. That's not patriotic, unpatriotic or anything else but childish.

Well, I think it's great you want to support your president no matter what as you suggested in your earlier post. Or do I? Well, I get your point that he has a hard time ahead and we should roll up our sleeves as you say.


But I think you fail to understand why a lot of people dislike W. It's not just because he's just an idiot with a southern accent or a few quotes sent around on blogs and email, which, in fact, WERE from him. (You are in major denial if you think they weren't. google "bushisms.") The major reason most people came to dislike him, (and this includes my far right republican relatives) is his incompetence, and, YES, his unethical decisions. Brimming over with unethical decisions. I think it is SUPREMELY unethical, immoral, and simply EVIL, to invade a country that was no threat to us based on cooked intel. This is simply MASS MURDER. What the heck is more unethical than mass murder? And I'm not even touching breaking the Geneva conventions or going against Constitutional protections.

[TrumanGrace]

Originally Posted by liveordie83

McCain lost the race all by himself. We needed a strong leader, and someone that doesn't try to get his votes out of sympathy. John McCain can act strong all that he wants, but after caving in to the party like he did and changing all of his view points over night I lost most of the respect I had for him. Now don't get me wrong he did a great service to our country, but he sold his soul to get the republican nomination. How much do you think he would have sold ours for?

The only way a Republican would have won would be if Hitler himself was the democratic nominee, and even then it would have been close. McCain was going to lose because Bush was extremely disliked for the majority of his presidency, once the grace period from 9/11 wore off.

Personally, I think expectations of Obama are so high that he's doomed to look bad. At this point, I think the only thing he could do to meet expectations is rise up to heaven on a burning chariot.

As for the debate on why he won, I think all those things had to do with it. It may seem superficial, but hey, America is a superficial country. The Kennedy/Nixon debates taught us that. There are many things that go into a person winning an election, and all those things have their part.

People love eloquent speakers. Obama is as eloquent as they come. I remember a poster that was hanging in my English class at school, it said the right voice at the right time saying the right things can change the world. If I remember right, the poster featured three people, JFK, MLK, and Hitler. All have that in common, they were eloquent speakers who said the right things to the right people, and thus people flocked to their cause. Obama had that as well.

People wanted change. Obama looked and preached the part. He was different from people's perception of Washington. He was young, black and good looking. Because of race and age, and he could capitalize on that. The Republicans saw a small bump when they went with the same strategy in Sarah Palin. It didn't last, of course, because Palin is more or less a nut, but people wanted to see something different and she had a different look. Now his choices for cabinet don't really espouse change that much, but he's in his grace period.

The media loved the guy. There was a study that showed it fairly well that the media gave him more positive coverage. He was presented better and people look at things like that.

He's of the opposing political party, which was his best weapon. The Republicans chose a guy who had a reputation of being a maverick, one that the Democrats were, for once, effectively able to squash. But it didn't matter who they chose, they had the least popular president in recent years in the White House. They were going to lose.

[ElastiGirl]

Uhoh!!!! Someone godwineed the thread!!!!

Really, though, I though Palin was really a reincarnation of Hitler!!!! Or was that Cheney??!? Well, Bush's grandad supported Hitler, right?!??!


HA HA HA

[TrumanGrace]

Palin was just a hokey woman with little experience and the inate ability to put her foot in her mouth.

Cheney, while not a reincarnation of Hitler, is among the most powerful and scariest men alive. And as soon as they master neckbolt technology, he'll be the scariest monster that used to be alive.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Originally Posted by Illun

Funny thing, that. Some of us would have supported it even if it wasn't "patriotic". I'm thankful I live in a country where the people who think they know how things out to be run with little to no experience leading anything generally don't have the power to force their will on the rest of us.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never suggested forcing my will on others. I encouraged people to speak out against the actions of their president when those actions aren't in the best interest of the country.

And doesn't Dubya fit that description; people who think they know how things "out" to be run with little to no experience leading anything? He did before me was elected in 2000 and it shows.

There is a huge difference between supporting and being a sycophant. You can disagree with his actions all you want, but if your idea of "doing what's right" is to sit around all day calling your leader an idiot because of a southern accent and a few quotes sent around on blogs and email, half of which weren't even from him, then yes, that's where I would support him. When you complain "Oh my, he agrees with his party on hotbutton political issues, how horrible!", that's where I would support him.

I haven't mentioned Bush's accent (though I did sleep with this one guy because he had a sexy southern accent) or "speech impairment" or that he agrees with his party on hotbutton issues. I take no issue with any of those things nor do I consider sitting around all day calling Bush an idiot is in the best interest of the nation. You're making a lot of negative assumptions about me which really isn't cohesive in courteous, civil discussion.

The Bush Administration did some legitimately evil shit over the last eight years. I encourage people to speak out against those actions. I don't encourage people to sit on their asses, smoking pot and giggling about Bush's gnarled English.

When he's being attacked for standing for all the things Europe, China and other nations hate about the US, that's where I would support him. And yes, when he makes a hard decision that the nation is divided on, then I sure as hell would support him.

Despite him making the wrong decision over and over and over and over and over again? That's not in the best interest of the nation. That's not patriotic. That's being a sycophant. That's blind faith. One must always think critically about the actions of their leader.

And why, pray tell, would you not question why Europe, China, Canada, New Zealand, the Middle East and more hate so many things about the US? Part of being a good leader is maintaining friendly relations and allies. Bush blew that all to hell; yet another failure on his part.

We're not talking about unethical decisions. We're talking about things that you don't like because it doesn't suit your partisan viewpoint. Debate the action, press for change, press your agenda, but don't attack the President for simply disagreeing with you. That's not patriotic, unpatriotic or anything else but childish.

Childish is supporting your president when he makes decisions that the entire nation and possibly others will suffer and in no way benefit from.

I was talking about unethical decisions but I guess it's beyond you to listen. Nice to see you feel it necessary to be presumptuous, patronising and condescending towards me without reason though.

There's nothing left for me to say that hasn't been said by someone else for me. You are in the wrong. You're worse than lampy.

/me blocks