Our time has come!

Do we need to add a J.D. to your plate to keep you in line?

 

Not if it means being inline with "them"...see you got me.

 

Bill,

I have always agreed with your views on issues that are unrelated to politics. You have always displayed unparalleled acuity in whatever issue that is being discussed on this forum and elsewhere either as Bill or H.G. You are truly a philosopher. I am sure that you know that in politics and religion, there are always intelligent and compelling arguments on all sides of the divide. I may not always share your viewpoints on politics and religion but the truth is that I always view the logic behind your argument with great respect.

I have never for one moment believed that everyone will embrace Obama's policy or jubilate for his election victory. However, if what I have read and heard is true, it appears that many Americans, including people who didn't vote for him, like Condoleezza Rice, Michael Bloomberg, and President Bush are happy about the unprecedented outcome of the election. They are happy because of the giant stride that Americans have made by electing a black man to take control of the most powerful office in the world. Honestly speaking, I believe that kudos should go to all Americans, irrespective of whether they voted for him or not.

Oh…Yes, regarding what I said about older folks, I beg to disagree with your verdict because I can't be prejudiced against myself. I am not exactly a young man. Perhaps, I am older than you. Finally, I hope that Obama will have a positive presidency that impact all Americans and the world at large and that will certainly invalidate your worries.

 

Why the sudden change of heart? I think people are simply tired, and just want this country to prosper and be the best it can be. Bad things were said about W, but let's not forget the ugliness directed at those who dared disagree with him. Disagreeing with W or his associates called for terms like anti American, unpatriotic, shrill, cowards, immoral, terrorists, etc. Let alone the tactics used to quash differing opinions by threatening media outlets, and boycotting people's music. I am a proud moderate Dem, and I will tell you, I will not stand for anyone calling me anti American. I had those terms used on me pretty regularly. So what happened? I engaged in hundreds on political arguments and discussions on this board, and others. Someone would attack my patriotism, and I would respond in kind. Many of the exchanges were not civil. I don't mind admitting that I probably said some pretty harsh, mean comments. I am merely a flawed human, like the rest of us. I do not wish to infer Dems are completely innocent either.

In summation. Folks, lets wake up and rally around the ideas of Dems, Republicans, martians, Karatekas, pitbulls, etc. At this point, I doesn't matter. I am confident, Obama will consider the ideas of all, and give people the chance to disagree with him. This is something we have not seen the last eight years. Bill Dayson/HG, calm down. The world is not going to end as you know it.

Just my two centavos! I wonder if some day we can have a Hispanic President? I can dream can't I?

Abner


Abner

 

I have a better explaination;

Hypocrisy.

 

His films are interesting. Not everyone agrees with what he says but I never saw anything he made that did not provoke though on important subjects.

 

That was a little before my time. Sorry...

 

That was a little before my time. Sorry...


Ignorance is no excuse. Educate yourself.

And then go back and read the posts that prompted a re-tellling of this important part of U.S. history.

basrsu

 

Moore was a documentarian way before he made 911. After 911, there has been a right wing attempt to paint him as a whacko. I think his films have always been thought provoking. I am sure my conservative friends here will promptly disagree.

Abner

P.S. As I think back to the last election, I do not see a lot of gloating on the winning side. I vividly remember in the last election, even the slightest negative comment regarding W in this forum resulted in "SORE LOSER", or "WHAT a WHINER". It is early still though, who knows, I may have the opportunity to drag out one of these blast from the past neo con terms. I must figure how to inject SHRILL into everything as well. I guess the right wing talking heads overused the term, I hardly hear it now, thank God!

Abner

 

Lighten up basrsu, he was joking!

Abner

 

Yes I get your point, you can lose the popular vote but win an election, like JFK did.

All the same its odd that Bush Jr. got elected by winning a state where his brother was Governor and by virtue of a supreme court comprised mostly of Republican appointees.

 

Yes I get your point, you can lose the popular vote but win an election, like JFK did.


Uh...no, again, check your history. Albeit by a slim margin, John F. Kennedy won the popular vote--and the Electoral College vote--in the 1960 election over Richard M. Nixon.

basrsu

 

Lighten up basrsu, he was joking!


Dear friend, I am "lightened up." I do prefer to have a learned discussion, however; thus, I would hope that historical facts are not so easily dismissed or their importance diminished.

basrsu

 

There's a school of thought that believes if Nixon had contested the Illinois results, with their cartoonishly corrupt voting, the 1960 election would have been much different.

I believe that Rutherford Hayes is the only US President that lost the popular vote while winning the Electoral College. I don't care enough to check.

 

There's probably a few more examples than that one. But in addition to Rutherford Birchard Hayes (formerly Colonel of the 23rd Ohio and eventually Brevet Major General in the Civil War) in 1876, there was also Benjamin Harrison (formerly Colonel of the 70th Indiana and eventually Brevet Brigadier General in the Civil War) in 1888. In 1824, none of the four candidates got a majority of the popular vote. Andy Jackson got the most votes (but not a majority) in the Electoral College but the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams for president (some think he built a coalition - or made a "corrupt bargain" - with other candidates). Clinton in 1992 was elected with 43% of the popular vote (to 38% for Bush and 19% for Perot). I'm thinking that Lincoln, one of four candidates in the Election of 1860, did not have a majority of popular vote but I'm not sure. I can't think of the other examples, but the Rutherford Birchard Hayes Presidential Center in Fremont, Ohio (one county away from me) has a display on presidents that lost the popular vote but won the presidency.

 

Besides GWB? WHH, too, along with Hayes.

 

Besides GWB? WHH, too, along with Hayes.


You mean William Henry Harrison? If you do, check again...

In the election of 1840, he defeated the incumbent Martin Van Buren, but he won both the popular AND electoral votes. In the election of 1836, Van Buren won the Presidency AND the electoral vote over WHH.

Hayes and our current president are the only men who won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.

basrsu

 

Are you sure you meant to say this?

 

Hey TT,

I like your sweet new sig line!

Abner

 

basrsu:

Hayes and our current president are the only men who won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.


Ted:

Are you sure you meant to say this?

basrsu:

Ooops...duh: "Hayes and our current president are the only men who won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote."