Obama is President

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

That comes across to me as an implication that Japan is our enemy, which I disagree with - but in any case I think you are generally correct in stating that our real enemies are emboldened.

No, the news story came out of Tokyo. If you read the article, then you will see that a lot of America's actual enemies think it is great that Obama will effectively not get in their way of being enemies of freedom.

[Clawg]

I guess people think that the difference is that these countries "couldn't help it" while the US is rich and powerful - by accident of course.

[Maximus]

I guess people think that the difference is that these countries "couldn't help it" while the US is rich and powerful - by accident of course.

Of course. Hard work had nothing to do with it. Wealth falls out of the sky 'ya know.

[Clawg]

Of course. Hard work had nothing to do with it. Wealth falls out of the sky 'ya know.

If hard work had anything to do with wealth then everyone could be wealthy, that's impossible, just think of the children! Besides... work is inhuman.

[Akosiwa]

If hard work had anything to do with wealth then everyone could be wealthy, that's impossible, just think of the children! Besides... work is inhuman.

Some of you all act arrogant about african americans and slavery. It's troublesome too me. Michael Moore's whole point was that the wealth from the US came from slaves working unjustly. The US was built on the backs of slaves and that is where the US's wealth came from.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Akosiwa

[Capitalism Forever]

Some people here act like Obama is going to get sworn in and immediately march over to the National Archives where he will proceed to tear up the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the thunderous roar of a crowd millions.

He doesn't need to tear it up. He'll just ignore it, as if it never existed (like Presidents have been doing since at least FDR).

Whatever his agenda is, you can be sure it is not a pro-American one. And what keeps him from implementing it? The House will support him, the Senate will support him, the Supreme Court will (eventually) support him--and most importantly, the media will support him. The only limit I see to his power is that the military might oppose him in some way if he tries to go too far, or that he may face armed resistance from the American people--but unless and until these groups seriously assert their readiness to oppose him, I don't think he will see any reason to hold back.

Most people still seem to think that Obama is basically a nice guy; that he wants the good of America, only he's mistaken about what is the right means of achieving it. While I hope they turn out to be right and I turn out to be wrong, what I have seen from Obama does not inspire me with any hope. It is clear to me that his dominant emotion is the hatred of the good for being the good and his main motive is to destroy. The good of America is the LAST thing he wants.

[Clawg]

Some of you all act arrogant about african americans and slavery. It's troublesome too me. Michael Moore's whole point was that the wealth from the US came from slaves working unjustly. The US was built on the backs of slaves and that is where the US's wealth came from.

So were other countries. But the US did much better. Why?

[Maximus]

Some of you all act arrogant about african americans and slavery. It's troublesome too me. Michael Moore's whole point was that the wealth from the US came from slaves working unjustly. The US was built on the backs of slaves and that is where the US's wealth came from.

Horseturds!

America became weathly because our system of govenment enshrined the values that allowed people to innovate, and keep the fruits of thier labors. Until Woodrow Wilson and his Bolshevik friends started our slide toward socialism.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Maximus

[gags]

Some of you all act arrogant about african americans and slavery. It's troublesome too me. Michael Moore's whole point was that the wealth from the US came from slaves working unjustly. The US was built on the backs of slaves and that is where the US's wealth came from.

That is a massive distortion of history and displays your complete misunderstanding of how wealth is actually created.

[Mammon]

I think there is WAY too much Chicken Little "The sky is falling". Some people here act like Obama is going to get sworn in and immediately march over to the National Archives where he will proceed to tear up the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the thunderous roar of a crowd millions. I'm not saying it's anything to be happy about, and mammon I think is just plain off his rocker.

Why? Because I'm saying the same thing you are?

[Mammon]

Our enemies are already emboldened.

Why?

We've got the rest of the world eating from our hands and this somehow means we are more vunerable? Read the article you posted. People are cheering about Obama because they hated Bush and their glad we didn't elect another Bush.

If, hypothetically, Iran attacked us when Bush was in office the world might say "Well they are justified because Bush is evil" but if they do with Obama in office then it's going to be "Obama isn't bad like Bush, they are wrong for doing this"

We've got a lot of people on our side now.

[Mammon]

The problem with Obama is that his (implicit, if not explicit) goal is to destroy Western Civilization. Iran can stop working on their nuclear program now; they've got their man in the White House.

is the fact that he's not going to prevent Iran from getting nukes, while McCain at least might have tried.

The man said it's utter unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear arsenal and he would make sure it didn't happen. He also said he would never take the military option off the table.

He also said he would meet Ahmenjihed to tell him face-to-face that he wouldn't tolerate Iranian aggression.

But, all of this means that he's not going to do anything about Iran, and that he is "their man"?

[DavidOdden]

Some of you all act arrogant about african americans and slavery. It's troublesome too me. Michael Moore's whole point was that the wealth from the US came from slaves working unjustly. The US was built on the backs of slaves and that is where the US's wealth came from.

Everybody here recognises that there were historical violations of rights in the US. Michael Moore is the one who's acting arrogantly, in completely ignoring that such historical rights violations were pandemic. A more intelligent way of understanding and evaluating actions would be to pay some attention to context. Look at the fact that slavery was ubiquitous in the world at that time; look at the fact that slavery was wide-spread in Africa up to the modern era, and that it still persists there. We understand that slavery is wrong: so what? It has no relevant consequences for the modern era, and entails nothing regarding what we as a nation or as individuals should be doing, except possibly working to end slavery in Sudan, Somalia, Mauritania, Benin, Togo....

[Clawg]

@Mammon:

Yes, because people expect the US to compromise.

So it is *safe* for the moment.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Clawg

[Zip]

We've got a lot of people on our side now.

Yes, a lot of people that like to see a weaker America with weak foreign policy and wishy washy leadership. An America without the guts and honest self reliance to go it alone when the need arises. An America that will abandon the cause of freedom to "negotiate" with people who execute women for the crime of having been raped and stone homosexuals to death for their sexual orientation.

As the saying goes, With friends like that... Who needs enemies?

[Thales]

I'll repost what I posted in The Forum.

This could be good news. Think of it this way, the media has lied to us about who Obama is for about two years straight. If Obama tries to implement his agenda there is a good chance people will be shocked by what he wants to do and if that happens there could be a revolt. Furthermore, Obama is not a capitalist, and so if he ruins the economy even more it will be on the heads of the leftists where it belongs. Another neat thing is that the religious right has been rejected. Isn't it great to finally get rid of them?

One final note, we now have a black (or half black) president. This means we will no longer be haunted by white guilt, where people vote for a black guy because he's black. It's been done. That's water under the bridge. I really think that was a big reason Obama was elected.

Listen, I’m happy this election is over. There is a lot to build on, so let’s build on it.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Furthermore, Obama is not a capitalist, and so if he ruins the economy even more it will be on the heads of the leftists where it belongs.

Wrong. Capitalism will get the blame because there is still some remnant existing. "Oh, Industry Z is still unregulated after we've nationalized A-Y? That's why the system doesn't work, we need to nationalize it as well!"

[KevinDW78]

Why? Because I'm saying the same thing you are?

....

You must have me confused with someone else, mammon. We are not saying ANYTHING the same. (I would ask you to give me an example, but we've all seen how you evade, evade, evade, whenever someone puts you on the spot to back up your assertions.)

Edited November 5, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Mammon]

I'm posting this on this thread because it's pretty popular at the moment. I think the point being made in the video is a great one -- If Obama is this super-socialist/marxist/communist... why is he not the Socialist candidate for President?

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-r...t---brian-moore

Edit: P.S. I think Obama is going to "govern more from the center then the left."

Edited November 5, 2008 by Mammon

[Jake_Ellison]

Some of you all act arrogant about african americans and slavery. It's troublesome too me. Michael Moore's whole point was that the wealth from the US came from slaves working unjustly. The US was built on the backs of slaves and that is where the US's wealth came from.

Please, name some specific wealth some specific person owns, today, that was created by a slave: 'm sure there is something, but definitely very little, and I doubt you can name even a single concrete thing.

As far as "the wealth came from slaves working", that's very easy for anyone to refute: I just have to name one thing that constitutes wealth, that did not come form that source, and I can choose from everything that was created since 1865, and most of what was created before by people who did not own slaves. I think I'll go with the Empire State Building.

As far as acting arrogant about slavery, how exactly am I doing that? I think it was a horrible thing, but I am not responsible for it in any way, nor have I ever benefited from it in any way. That is a true statement, how is it arrogant?

[JJJJ]

What Finland doesn't have is community organizers, unfair union and labor laws and ridiculous regulations in all areas of business-

Well, that is excactly what Finland has. I dont know many other "capitalistic" countries than Finland and Sweden, where the unions are as powerful, and it is borderline impossible to get elected without the unions support. Our left wing parties, making up around 40-50 % of the votes, are borderline married with the labour unions.

And about ridiculous regulations in all areas of business: Only small grocery stores allowed to be open during sunday, no licqour allowed to be sold privately(state monopoly), Affirmative action(immigrants) and gender quotas in hiring. Almost no possibility to negotiate your terms with your employer, as almost everything, from pay to hours is regulated by a collective bargaining agreement. The Heritage foundation falsely has claimed that Finland has no minimum wage, but in reality that is not true, as the collective bargaining agreement has its own "minimum wages" for every profession. You are not allowed to work or hire someone for less than that, and even if its not called a minimum wage, in reality it is just that.

The thing that makes Finland relatively free, is the strength in the rule of law, and the fact that property rights are generally respected here. Low corruption also plays a part.

But the thing that continues to impress me about america, and in this case Obama, is that someone can actually win an election by "inspiring" people, and trying to preach hope. If Obama actually meant what he said in his rhetoric, he would be one of the best presidents ever, as his messages of individual liberty, opportunity and hope is perfect. Too bad he doesnt implement that in his policies.

This is why i think america will always prevail, despite the shifts in economic policies. It is much more important that the people that the nation is made of, is made of energetic people, trying to make a life for themselves, and i would much rather live in a socialist country with american citizens, than in a capitalist country with finnish citizens. In Finland it is about jealousy, hatred of the good for being the good, and sticking it to the rich. Obviously im no expert on the psyche of all of america, but the ones i've come across in "real life" here in Finland(most of them democrats), have all had a much better outlook on life than most finns, no matter what party they belong to.

For an objectivist trying to make a life for himself, i would say it is much more important what the character of the people in your area is, rather than what economic policies the area has. Obviously there comes a tipping point when this isnt true, but Obama is not even close to that. There really are few countries where you can openly state "i want to succeed, i want to be rich, i want to be happy" without being considered a total fool, and if peoples outlook on life is one of suffering, cynicism, and reliance on others, then it doesnt matter what kind of low taxes a country has.

[Thales]

Wrong. Capitalism will get the blame because there is still some remnant existing. "Oh, Industry Z is still unregulated after we've nationalized A-Y? That's why the system doesn't work, we need to nationalize it as well!"

I don't think they'll be able to. Remember, we used to have two enemies: the religious right and the anti-capitalist left. We now have only one front to wage a battle against. That makes things a whole lot easier.

[KevinDW78]

Remember, we used to have two enemies: the religious right and the anti-capitalist left. We now have only one front to wage a battle against.

That's an interesting point I hadn't realized.

[Jake_Ellison]

The man said it's utter unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear arsenal and he would make sure it didn't happen. He also said he would never take the military option off the table.

He also said he would meet Ahmenjihed to tell him face-to-face that he wouldn't tolerate Iranian aggression.

But, all of this means that he's not going to do anything about Iran, and that he is "their man"?

I didn't say he is "their man", and I think it is dishonest of you to suggest that I did.

I said he's not gonna stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. It is my opinion that the only way to stop Iran from building such weapons at this point is by attacking them. Sure, in the past a credible threat of force would have been enough to stop them, but such a threat is no longer going to work, because their program is far too advanced for the current leadership to shut it down and remain in power. Even if it did work, Obama would never be taken seriously, issuing such a threat.

How exactly would Obama make sure Iran didn't build nukes? Does he have some kind of superpower that allows him to operate inside Iran and shut down their reactors?

What exactly does Obama mean by "iranian aggression"?

Does open support for Hezbollah count as aggression? If it does, he should be calling for war right now, instead of "leaving the option on the table".

Is their support for Iraqi militias aggression? If it is, then respond to it: saying that a "military option is on the table" is an empty slogan, unless backed up by immediate action once the enemy did what you are supposed to attack them for.

The question isn't whether he would respond militarily to an Iranian nuclear attack on Los Angeles, the question is wether he is willing to attack Iran just for this one reason: they are building a nuclear weapons .

If the answer is yes, then prove it and attack them now, because they are right now building such a weapon. Has Obama called for such an attack? If he made it clear that such an attack is an option, why aren't the Iranians issuing a statement right now that they believe him, and that they are shutting everything down?

How is a face to face meeting going to cause them to come to their senses?

[turboimpala]

That's an interesting point I hadn't realized.

Pope congratulates Obama

Agence France-Presse

First Posted 22:41:00 11/05/2008

ROME—Pope Benedict XVI sent a telegram of congratulations Wednesday to Barack Obama to hail the "historic occasion" of his election as US president, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said.

The Roman Catholic pontiff expressed to Obama "his blessing so that God will support him and the American people, and that all people of goodwill can work to build a world of peace, solidarity and justice," Lombardi said.

The text of the telegram, sent to Obama via the US ambassador to the Holy See, is not being made public "because it is a personal message," the spokesman added.

Edited November 5, 2008 by turboimpala