Victory
ibsham...@hotmail.com
since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Congratulations to everyone who has supported his campaign.
It took eight years of bad governance to convince America that
politics matter. The 63 million votes that Obama got was by far the
most any candidate ever received.
We are witnessing a sea change for the better. Now, it becomes
sensible to work toward a future that does not end anytime soon.
I hope many people make the same decision and do what it takes to make
the world a place worth living in, for those currently living and
those yet to live.
Ilya Shambat
http://bettermillenium.blogspot.com
Antares
> It took eight years of bad governance to convince America that
> politics matter. The 63 million votes that Obama got was by far the
> most any candidate ever received.
While Obama's victory is indeed a good thing, "The largest number of
<x> was done this year" is a typically stupid pattern, since the
growing population practically ensures we'll break records every
single year. Unless you are impressed by the sheer majesty of an ever-
increasing population, absolute metrics that increase every year (or
every 4 years) tell you very little.
Also, Bush got 62 million in 2004. So "by far" is a bit of an
exaggeration.
Mr Van Wau Wau
Despite the numbers, Remember the hard part starts now., It is
going to take all of us to maKe meaningful changes.
signed
Mr Van Wau Waui
Dr. BeBop
the counting is over.now the hard work.
Nil
Goodluck for the new President. Hard work on the go now.
Nil
Clothahump
> Obama's victory has been the greatest thing that happened in the world
> since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
You keep telling yourself that while he drives our country into the
ground with his Marxist policies.
saavik
In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans just *nationalized* the US
financial systems with a 700 trillion buy-out. And you are worried about
*Obama* being Marxist?
What a load of nonsense.
Furthermore, I really think certain elements of the USA ought to read a
book or three so they won't sound like Sarah Palin every time they open
their mouths.
Margo
Tonnie
wrote:
>Furthermore, I really think certain elements of the USA ought to read a
>book or three so they won't sound like Sarah Palin every time they open
>their mouths.
>
Suggestion: start with geography, so that you all know that Africa is
not a country but a continent.
--
"carpe diem quam minimum credula postero".
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
> Also, Bush got 62 million in 2004. So "by far" is a bit of an
> exaggeration.
Reagan's 54.4 million in 1984, when the adult population was quite a
bit smaller than it is now, is probably the highest percentage we will
ever see.
saavik
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:26:59 -0500, saavik <saa...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Furthermore, I really think certain elements of the USA ought to read a
>> book or three so they won't sound like Sarah Palin every time they open
>> their mouths.
>>
>>
> Suggestion: start with geography, so that you all know that Africa is
> not a country but a continent.
>
>
Where I come from, Geography and History were mandatory from grade 7 to
grade 12. Before grade 12, we got "Social Studies" that included
everything from North American life to life in Lapland.
Our history went from pre-Egyptian ( Gilgamesh, Hammourabi,
Zoroaster...) all the way up to WWll., British, American, European.
Geography also included World Geography, some places in great detail. In
fact, how many of us Canucks out there in Ontario-land of my generation
remember the details of life in the Outback at Trillby Station?
Specialization was for University, but you could not get into a History
or Geography programme if you did not take those subjects in Grade 13
(yes there was still a Gr. 13 when I was in highschool {;>D)
It astounded me that Palin could have a degree in journalism and remain
so ignorant of both these subjects.
Margo
David
<hookk...@yahoo.com> typed:
Seems to me that it is the last few years which have been responsible
for driving your country into the ground. I'll take anyone whose
policies are more realistic.
--
David
No email replies please.
An avocado-tone refrigerator would look good on your resume.
Moira
> In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans just *nationalized* the US
> financial systems with a 700 trillion buy-out. And you are worried about
> *Obama* being Marxist?
> What a load of nonsense.
> Furthermore, I really think certain elements of the USA ought to read a
> book or three so they won't sound like Sarah Palin every time they open
> their mouths.
>
> Margo
I have a different understanding of the bail-out and the problems
leading up to it.
I understand that the Republicans were uninterested in regulating the
free market and of course greed became the daily dietary intake. At
the same time the Democrats were pushing and encouraging a wealth
redistribution concept that included getting people into homes - even
if they could not afford them, and even if it meant using predatory
lending to obtain this goal. They gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a
directive to increase the number of sub-prime loans to a very large
percentage.. Putting both these areas in the same room so to speak -
was a disaster waiting to happen. When the Republicans tried to get
some regulation etc.. it was too late at that point and the ball was
rollling down the hill...no stopping it in 2005.
So as for the Republicans being blamed for the bail-out - this is not
a honest statement.. Everyone took a bite of this "shit" sandwich and
all were smeared.. In addition the Democrats have really jumped on the
bail-out idea and want even more - even as us little Americans still
have not had a good accounting of where the money is going (it's like
Los Angeles spending and lack of accountability - but on a national
level - ugh)
Moira
saavik
lot of other loans out there to businesses as well. The subprime
balooning after the initial low rate terms are not the entire problem
either. The trouble was that because of deregulation, all these loans
were turned into saleable contracts that were shopped around between
lending and investment institutions on an enormous scale. So when the
higher payments came due, or when someone defaulted on a loan, whoever
was left holding the contract was left holding the bag, and whoever
invested their money with the institutions who held a whole bunch of
defaulted loans lost all their money too.
It's a little like the old home siding sales scams where the homeowner
signed a contract for payment at x interest rate over y months, but the
sales company immediately sold the contract to collection agancies who
then demanded payment in full *right* now. A lot of people lost their
homes over that until it was declared fraud and illegal.
And no, none of this was due to any Democratic 'redistribution efforts';
it was due to the greed of unregulated (and de-regulated and
self-regulated) financial institutions looking to make huge profits and
to hell with the consequences. Even Bernanke ( or maybe Paulsen?)
admitted that their trusting the industry to regulate itself was a
mistake. And I don't think either of them are Democrats. It was the
Rebublicans with their laisé-faire ideology who allowed this to happen
over the Bush years.
Margo
Matthew Russotto
saavik <saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans just *nationalized* the US
>financial systems with a 700 trillion buy-out.
Technically, they're in the process of nationalizing the financial
systems with a 700 billion dollar buy out. They haven't actually
managed to do so yet, even in a crisis these things take some time.
Love the way they pushed the bailout as a way to take certain "toxic"
securities off the market, then proceeded to do something entirely
different with the money once they got it.
>And you are worried about *Obama* being Marxist?
Sure. What the Republicans are doing isn't Marxist; it's Fascist.
The difference being the heads of the nationalized institutions keep
their jobs... and their heads.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
saavik
understand that Obama is neither Marxist, nor Fascist. As for
'socialist', well that term has such a broad scope that it is really
rather meaningless. For example, to a Libertarian, any form of taxation,
for roads, schools, hospitals, armies, etc., might could be considered
'socialist'. {;>)
Margo
Jette
ROTFLMAO!!!
Oh boy! You need to do some serious reading up on Marxism - Obama
doesn't even count as "slightly socialist"!
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Rowan Hawthorn
I'll tell you what, old son - if he does any better job of driving it
into the ground than the current Clusterfuck-In-Chief has, he's going to
have to work 36-hour days and ten-day weeks. And I'd love to see what
your definition of "in the ground" is, if this doesn't meet it.
On second thought, scratch that - if this doesn't meet your definition
of "in the ground", I hope to *hell* I'm dead before we get there.
And I'm leaving in the cross-posting so everybody gets to see my reply.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Rowan Hawthorn
> Clothahump wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 8:49 pm, ibshambat2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Obama's victory has been the greatest thing that happened in the world
>>> since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
>> --------------
>> You keep telling yourself that while he drives our country into the
>> ground with his Marxist policies.
>>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> Oh boy! You need to do some serious reading up on Marxism - Obama
> doesn't even count as "slightly socialist"!
>
Sure he does, can't you tell? He's not Republican...
David
<moi...@abraxasgroup.net> typed:
>
>> In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans just *nationalized* the US
>> financial systems with a 700 trillion buy-out. And you are worried about
>> *Obama* being Marxist?
>> What a load of nonsense.
>> Furthermore, I really think certain elements of the USA ought to read a
>> book or three so they won't sound like Sarah Palin every time they open
>> their mouths.
>>
>> Margo
>
>I have a different understanding of the bail-out and the problems
>leading up to it.
>I understand that the Republicans were uninterested in regulating the
>free market and of course greed became the daily dietary intake. At
>the same time the Democrats were pushing and encouraging a wealth
>redistribution concept that included getting people into homes - even
>if they could not afford them, and even if it meant using predatory
>lending to obtain this goal. They gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a
>directive to increase the number of sub-prime loans to a very large
>percentage..
Are you trying to claim that it was the Democrats who pushed those two
companies to proffer sub-prime loans and that the Democrats were
behind all of the losses that occurred? What happened to your
statement about greed ruling the market precisely because it was
unregulated. I thought the Democrats were in favour of regulation.
>Putting both these areas in the same room so to speak -
>was a disaster waiting to happen. When the Republicans tried to get
>some regulation etc.. it was too late at that point and the ball was
>rollling down the hill...no stopping it in 2005.
>
>So as for the Republicans being blamed for the bail-out - this is not
>a honest statement.. Everyone took a bite of this "shit" sandwich and
>all were smeared.. In addition the Democrats have really jumped on the
>bail-out idea and want even more - even as us little Americans still
>have not had a good accounting of where the money is going (it's like
>Los Angeles spending and lack of accountability - but on a national
>level - ugh)
>
>Moira
So you would prefer that no bail out happened, that the companies go
bust, that investors lose their money and mortgagees lose their
houses. Without the bailout everybody would be losers.
[Cross-posting removed, Now it doesn't have to be angry.]
--
David
No email replies please.
Things will be bright in P.M. A cop will shine a light in your face.
Wes Struebing
(posted to ONLY this group - PEOPLE, SNIP THE OTHER GRPUPS IF YOU'RE
GONNA POST HERE!!!!!)
Cites, dear tortoise?
(and if you quote that "to each according to his..." claptrap then
I'll KNOW you're not listening to reality)
(but, then, I suspect that you'd consider the John Birch Society a bed
of Bolsheviks - and, no that wasn't meant humorously)
--
Wes Struebing
Jan. 20, 2009 - the end of an error
Wes Struebing
(purposely posting to ALL groups here)
Nope. Try again. Johnson in 1964 over 61%, compared to Reagan's 58%
(even Nixon, and, I believe FDR beat him, percentage-wise)
(that's why I'm cross-posting - a practice I normally abhor)
David McMillan
Indeed. STRATFOR has a broad outline of the foreign-policy challenges
lining up for the near future, and the tally is sobering.
MargW
Cross posting snipped.
You have no idea of what a real Marxist is. If you actually take the
time to read his views and positions, Obama would be considered well
right of center in most western European countries. It is only because
so many American have a weird and strange idea of socialism that he
would even be considered left. Well, maybe left of McCain but not by a
whole lot.
MargW
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
All those regulations were put in place during the administration of
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to block bank failures from ruining people,
which were a major factor in The Great Depression. And why were
certain regs, such as 'banks are limited to one state only,' in place?
Bloody simple--so they'd never become "too big to be allowed to fail."
Gee. Lookie wha' hoppen.
As for Moira's twaddle--I think she may have enough understanding of
economics to buy a loaf of bread at the corner store. Beyond that?
hah. Does she really think all those subprime loans were issued by
banks following Democrats' directives?
WHAT directive did the Democrats give Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
Moira? Please--if it actually was given, it's on the internet. Find
it. Link to it.
-denny-
--
"...our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and
welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be
secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism:
'Our country--when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put
right.'" - Carl Schurz, in 1899
Tonnie
wrote:
>You have no idea of what a real Marxist is. If you actually take the
>time to read his views and positions, Obama would be considered well
>right of center in most western European countries. It is only because
>so many American have a weird and strange idea of socialism that he
>would even be considered left. Well, maybe left of McCain but not by a
>whole lot.
True that. Obama would rather fit in our Liberal Party I think.
Btw we do have two socialist parties here, even used to have a
communist party. We are soooooo bad ;o)))
We also have GreenLeft and the Party for Animals. Can you imagine? ;o)
--
Gezond verstand is de collectie vooroordelen die je verzameld
hebt voordat je achttien was. Albert Einstein
Barry Gold
>> On Nov 5, 8:49 pm, ibshambat2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Obama's victory has been the greatest thing that happened in the world
>>> since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
>> --------------
>> You keep telling yourself that while he drives our country into the
>> ground with his Marxist policies.
MargW <mwhi...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>You have no idea of what a real Marxist is. If you actually take the
>time to read his views and positions, Obama would be considered well
>right of center in most western European countries. It is only because
>so many American have a weird and strange idea of socialism that he
>would even be considered left. Well, maybe left of McCain but not by a
>whole lot.
Well, there are two factors at work here.
1. While it's certainly true that Obama is right of center compared to
most of Europe, the US has _also_ been traditionally way to right of
Europe. And our ideals, to a large extent, have been even further to
the right. Jefferson, in particular, would probably be viewed as a
Libertarian by today's standards. Never mind that our reality hasn't
been that way since _at least_ Wilson, if not Lincoln.
2. The Republican party has managed to convince itself that the
country's center is somewhere in between Reagan (seen as just barely
right enough to be acceptable) and Jerry Falwell. For some reason,
all of the people who live on or near the Atlantic and Pacific coasts
or in major port cities (like Chicago) aren't part of America in that
calculation. "Real America" is people like Sarah Palin. Never mind
that the vast majority of Americans live in major cities and not in
the rural parts of Alaska.
2.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Alarums & Excursions, Xenofilkia: http://places.to/xeno
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.: http://www.lasfsinc.org
MajorOz
> >Clothahump wrote:
> >> On Nov 5, 8:49 pm, ibshambat2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> Obama's victory has been the greatest thing that happened in the world
> >>> since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
> >> --------------
> >> You keep telling yourself that while he drives our country into the
> >> ground with his Marxist policies.
> >You have no idea of what a real Marxist is. If you actually take the
> >time to read his views and positions, Obama would be considered well
> >right of center in most western European countries. It is only because
> >so many American have a weird and strange idea of socialism that he
> >would even be considered left. Well, maybe left of McCain but not by a
> >whole lot.
>
> Well, there are two factors at work here.
>
> 1. While it's certainly true that Obama is right of center compared to
> most of Europe, the US has _also_ been traditionally way to right of
> Europe. And our ideals, to a large extent, have been even further to
> the right. Jefferson, in particular, would probably be viewed as a
> Libertarian by today's standards. Never mind that our reality hasn't
> been that way since _at least_ Wilson, if not Lincoln.
>
> 2. The Republican party has managed to convince itself that the
> country's center is somewhere in between Reagan (seen as just barely
> right enough to be acceptable) and Jerry Falwell. For some reason,
> all of the people who live on or near the Atlantic and Pacific coasts
> or in major port cities (like Chicago) aren't part of America in that
> calculation. "Real America" is people like Sarah Palin. Never mind
> that the vast majority of Americans live in major cities and not in
> the rural parts of Alaska.
Given only those two alternatives, one must agree.
However, if the alternatives are:
1. In major cities
2. Other than in major cities,
I would have to opt for #2. Of course, you could weasel-word it by
defining "major" to suit your purpose -- as have I.
cheers
oz, whose closest "city" is four miles away and has a population of
eleven -- but the store has one item of everything you might need.
MajorOz
> 1. While it's certainly true that Obama is right of center compared to
> most of Europe, the US has _also_ been traditionally way to right of
> Europe. And our ideals, to a large extent, have been even further to
> the right. Jefferson, in particular, would probably be viewed as a
> Libertarian by today's standards. Never mind that our reality hasn't
> been that way since _at least_ Wilson, if not Lincoln.
>
> 2. The Republican party has managed to convince itself that the
> country's center is somewhere in between Reagan (seen as just barely
> right enough to be acceptable) and Jerry Falwell.
Seems like a good time to observe that, in the media and in most
discussions -- as herein -- labels like "liberal", "conservative",
"socialist", etc. are usually defined by those OTHER than those
purported to occupy that category.
In other words, I define (the generic) you as <fitb>, but hardly ever
do I define (the generic) me.
It is my opinion -- ONLY opinion -- that this is done largely because
we wish to create a strawman in the "other" so we can be comfortable
being against it.
I see it in much of the hostile views of the new president (and, of
course, the old one), of Gov. Palin, and almost anyone that someone
wishes to disagree with or denigrate for some ego building reason.
cheers
oz, who would never, ever do such a dastardly thing
Denny Wheeler
Based on the numbers I'm looking at, somewhere around 100 million
Americans live in, or in the urban areas of, the 32 largest cities.
Those 32 are the ones estimated to have had at least 500,000
population in the core city as of 7/1/2005.
That totals just over 38 million. Based on the top 10 cities and
their urban areas (24.8 million/69.3 million), there are at least 100
million people in those 32 urban areas.
There are another 18 cities with 362,000 or more, just in the top 50.
I'd say that at least half the US population lives in what can be
termed 'major cities'; looks to me like we can't say 'vast majority'
about either of the two classes Oz postulated. (Barry's dichotomy of
course is a quite different matter)
It's certainly clear that any view of "real Americans" which doesn't
include city-dwellers is rather...illusionary, at best.
Sources:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html for the 'Top 50'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
for the 10 biggest cities/urban area numbers.
Canth
Latest Encyc. Britt. Year book (2008) states that USA is 80.8% Urban.
That's 4:1, which I'd say is getting close to vast majority (define
your % for Vast majority?).
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>Latest Encyc. Britt. Year book (2008) states that USA is 80.8% Urban.
>That's 4:1, which I'd say is getting close to vast majority (define
>your % for Vast majority?).
I'd like to see a breakdown of their numbers, if such is available.
But the particular statement not only involved 'vast majority' but
also 'major cities'.
Just in Washington state, I can think of--and name, if you
like--several areas which, while urban, are not part of, nor centered
on, a major city. I live in Everett, which has a population of
100,000. Now, it's probably fair to say that Everett is part of the
Seattle urban area, though it's about 20 miles from one to the other.
But--another 50 or so miles north of me is Mount Vernon. another 40
or so north of that is Bellingham. Going south, skipping through the
Seattle/Tacoma/Olympia megaplex, we get to Centralia/Chehalis, Kelso,
and one or two other rather urban areas before we get to Vancouver,
WA, which is part of the Portland urban area. And that's just on the
Interstate 5 corridor. There are several urban areas east of the
Cascade Range, only one of which (Spokane) could remotely be
considered a major city.
A lot of the US is like that. However, I'd agree that 80% living in
urban areas is--or is bloody close to--'vast majority'.