Oh I thought she could see that much. LOL.

Sorry, I'm a little too literal sometimes...haha.

Thanks.

Will any of this pay my light bill?

Maybe but if not you can always stop clicking on this thread.

Explain to me how, because maybe I cannot see the light since I have actively made a choice to click on this thread to observe your logic?

Go on somewhere, ok?

Quit quoting anything I say on GC, and I will. Thank you...

OK. :)

I take that you choose to engage me. LOL.

Easily amused.

This is an old article/argument that bears revisiting because it largely fell on deaf ears: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...2/162434.shtml

lightsabers?

Exactly.

For some reason, the null hypothesis has become "the Democratic Party is the party best aligned with minority rights" when I would posit 'other' views (such as pandering and inaction) seem just as relevant to the discussion.

Which seems like, y'know, the opposite of burying my head in the sand.

Such critical analysis of the Democratic Party (and any type of liberalism and left wing stuff) is illegal in 50 states and that's part of the reason any critiques of Obama will be illegal in 50 states.

Here is what we are working with when we read this article...

Fall 2008 could mean prior to November 4th... All news media outlets thought one thing over another.

And you know more than I that the American historical memory is less than ~1-2 years, might I say <3 months... Whatever any {your favorite media} outlet says in popular at the time. Last I read, Rupert Murdock is losing money on his network...

As for this media outlet, Newsmax, their copyright date still says 2008. No media outlet has a laging website, it is just bad for business. And they do not have an "About Us" which causes me to question the legitimacy and integrity as an "informed reader" of their journalism, opposed to a Blog... Meaning they distort aspects of the truth.

But, I am not a journalist nor do I want to be, that is what my Soror Steel does as well as a few others. They can honestly give an assessment.

But it looks like the article is more fearmongering, during the time of the 2004 presidential election. So what there is a collective groupthink in the 2004 election and 2008 one for this matter.

Shit, should I be ashamed of my vote for Obama simply because he was Black? I don't give a shit, really. I made a choice, and I acted on it. So what? My candidate I wanted won. All else is haterade, in my book...

And if some {insert race here} kid tells me he voted for McLame 'cuz he's white, then hey, more power to them. They made a choice too, and his candidate lost.

Can we just move on please? If we disagree with President Obama's policies prior to voting on them, then that is one thing. But after the legal vote, we move forward to enact them into law, barring justice and constitutional issues... And President Obama's focus was Constitutional Law--so I seriously doubt he'd overtly ignore the US Constitution...

tl;dr

Can you go to hell please?

Your choice, not mine. Sorry you are too lazy to read it for the engagement of a post. I just chose to respond to you and you are lucky you even get that...

And I will take you with me...

I'm not one of your followers.

***********************************************

I was asked today how this election will shape party loyalty. I think it unfortunately solidified it.

so much for peace

Don't worry, I am NOT one of your admiring minions either who worship you...

Good.

To bring us back full circle, generally speaking, Obama will not be judged on performance alone but race probably will not have a main effect on that. It will be a combination of the aforementioned dynamics and additional factors.

That's how I feel. What it all boils down to is just plain haterade.

Are you talking specifically about the article posted above, or about any criticism of Obama or the Democrats?

A couple of things with this:

1) The concept of "moving on" would be brand new to this administration...I remember a lot of people not "moving on" during the last admininstration, and letting their views be known from the first day of Bush's presidency to the present day. For some people, "moving forward" means making their voices heard about things they disagree with in the new President's platform.

2) The President is indeed a Constitutional scholar, and no one is saying he's going to "ignore" the Constitution. What some people are saying, though, is that he'll find ways to expand or stretch certain parts of it.

Look, President Clinton was a Yale Law grad and a pretty brilliant guy himself...and he used those legal instincts to try to advocate for increased executive power in a bunch of instances. He wasn't ignoring the Constitution, but he was trying to find ways to stretch certain parts of it.

My early sense (based on the hires for his new administration from Clinton's Justice Department) is that President Obama will be attempting something similar. One can say it's to un-do many of the decisions made in the Bush presidency, but it will be interesting to see how it expands. I haven't liked some of the expansions of executive power over the past two administrations (Clinton and Bush), so I'd be wary of any other such increases in this administration.

But, this is all hypotheticals anyway, and I'll be watching to see how the next few months and years proceed.

ETA: I find some of the changes in attitude on the board really interesting. Some of the people who were quick to criticize Bush from day one are advocating for full, unquestioned support for President Obama. Some of the people who were asking to give Bush more leeway are jumping all over the new President. It's not that any of this is a great shock, as it happens every time there is a change in the Presidency, especially when it goes from one party to another party. It's just interesting to see how people's visions of the Presidency change when the people filling the role change.

It's really just a simplistic and hypocritical approach of "I'm happy so 'nuff said."

"I'm happy so 'nuff said" was never enough before this election and it isn't enough after this election.


But the complainers are happy now. End of discussion. Stop being a hater. :)

The funniest thing is that we were discussing social dynamics beyond Obama's performance. If people think Obama's swearing in was powerful enough to errode the relevance of social dynamics then I fear this society is even more clueless than I thought it was.

I notice that, too. Another reason why people need to stop being FANS of presidents and of political parties.

I know I'm kind of crashing here, but I've read this whole thread, and I just want to thank you so much for saying this! Why is it bad to have an intelligent discussion that reaches beyond the idea of "Obama was elected. Democrats won. End of story."?

Now I think I'll go get myself a big ol' glass of haterade!