OMG Obama won! Take THAT republicans!

<p>
[quote]
I'm curious. Who actually researched the candidates before voting? Or was the voting done over race or party?

[/quote]

Obviously no one here is going to admit to voting due to race or party.</p>

<p>In general, I think those who voted without researching the policies and voted for:</p>

<p>...Obama voted because they thought McCain was:
- out of touch; unaware of how to handle the economy
- too militarily-minded
- a continuation of ineffective policies
- prone to further hurt perception of America abroad</p>

<p>...Obama voted because they thought Palin was:
- facilitating a conservative Christian theocracy
- unconditionally against abortion
- absolutely clueless about foreign policy
- anti-intellectual and didn't read the news
- a campaign gimmick</p>

<p>McCain because they thought Obama was:
- a socialist/communist/Marxist
- a Muslim/Arab/terrorist
- too much of a cult of personality
- elitist/overly intellectual
- anti-religion
- anti-"right-to-bear-arms"
- a pacifist
- inexperienced
- a black power radical
- the Antichrist
- anti-American/non-American</p>

<p>...I don't think anyone voted for McCain due to Biden.</p>

<p>I, personally, researched the policies of all four individuals, thank you very much. Your question just reeks of arrogance. ;)</p>

<p>
[quote]

  1. Perhaps we need to take a broader quantum view and consider the very real possibility that life never actually begins or ends. From that perspective, how then do we not simply ban abortion (and send them all underground, as they are in the rural South) but build a society that has no demand for abortion and is comprehensively pro-life? (protecting the ecosystems that sustain all life, ending useless wars, ending pesticide use that kills us, ending the death penalty).</p>

<ol>
<li>Dr. Horse, you're being a little cynical and focused on money. The excitement of the world had nothing to do with "Oh good, we're getting money from the U.S." Bush gave billions to Africa and, as stated above, the Middle East. The excitement was on a more visceral level - on a level that reestablished the brilliance of the American political philosophy for advancing human development for which all humans long.</li>
</ol>

<p>Obama is one generation removed from a Kenyan dirt farm and deservedly rose to the most powerful position (meaning, agree with him or not, he earned it and wasn't plucked out of Alaska as a political stunt to get votes for an underrepresented segment of society)</p>

<p>Tuesday night was an achievement of mankind that was being celebrated around the world, not a money grab.</p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>BS, it was a money grab. achievement my ass, only for those who uphold racism and fall for white guilt.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Dr.Horse, you argue that change which goes against the ideals America was founded with is a bad thing. I dunno about you, but personally, I don't care what America was meant to be 200 years ago; I care about what it is now. The ideas of the founding fathers, like any other ideas, should be examined, evaluated, and either kept if sound or discarded if found wanting.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you think that way, then freedom as it is now will continue to become more and more absent, until its gone. Nothing has changed from 200 years ago, the ideals of government are still the same. Its a lot easier to keep America then recreate it. To be honest, it could not be recreated because people are just to dumb today. We don't have humans with the intelligence of the founding fathers anymore. Its easy to be fiscally nonconservative, its hard to be fiscally conservative. Our country was founded on the idea to be fiscally conservative to protect the both the states and the citizenry. If we choose to be nonconservative, we will and possibly have lost the protection.</p>

<p>
[quote]
BS, it was a money grab. achievement my ass, only for those who uphold racism and fall for white guilt.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I feel deep sorrow for your peception of the world and your interpretation of the motivations of others.</p>

<p>You are blinded by ideology. Perhaps when you are older you will understand that this isn't about money.</p>

<p>I'm older then you, I think you need to grow up and stop living in a dream world. At least I am realistic and realize the malice and hate all humans and I mean every one holds. Nobody does anything unless they gain from it, they may make you believe they have good intentions, but they are simply a facade.</p>

<p>Looks like Dr.Horse didn't get enough love as a child. Take it easy on him; he has a fragile psyche.</p>

<p>Yawn, I researched the candidates, and had Ron Paul made it through the Primaries, I'd have voted for him. But he didn't so I didn't and now's he's not.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm older then you, I think you need to grow up and stop living in a dream world. At least I am realistic and realize the malice and hate all humans and I mean every one holds. Nobody does anything unless they gain from it, they may make you believe they have good intentions, but they are simply a facade.

[/quote]

Despite all the rationality that may back this theoretical life maxim, one should test theories before declaring sweeping atrocity as a permanent characteristic of man. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the most dominant (and simultaneously, society-based) species on the planet just managed to evolve a mentality of helpfulness, but the studies below suggest that people are inclined to be more helpful than expected, and that helping others delivers a 'high'.</p>

<p>Longest</a> Running Study Shows Helping Others Makes Us Happy</p>

<p>Studies</a> show people underestimate the willingness of others to help them out</p>

<p>PS: Please bookmark these links. I found them in obscure reading, and while I am aware that there are other studies on happiness infections, these sites do not rank well on Google.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yawn, I researched the candidates, and had Ron Paul made it through the Primaries, I'd have voted for him. But he didn't so I didn't and now's he's not.

[/quote]

Ditto. Had it been a race between Ron Paul and Obama, I would have been completely relaxed the entire election. Even though they have <em>completely</em> different beliefs regarding implementation of policy, I'd still have been extremely happy with either as president.</p>

<p>I'm sure Ron Paul would have never picked a Sarah Palin. -_-</p>

<p>Most of the time studies like the ones you posted, those being studied usually lie, as they feel bad for what they really believe. Are there people who actually do like to help people, yes, but they only do so after they are settled. if they are not settled they are just like the majority.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm sure Ron Paul would have never picked a Sarah Palin. -_-

[/quote]

In fairness to McCain, he didn't pick Sarah Palin. McCain would have picked Lieberman most likely. It was the GOP and party pressure that forced Sarah Palin.</p>

<p>^
True. If McCain would have stuck to his guns he might have won - picking a moderate VP, opposing the bailout for all the pork in it, running a campaign with the maturity and confidence that he delivered his concession speech. He caved to radical conservatives and rightfully lost.</p>

<p>What a great ticket Obama and VP Ron Paul would have made. Talk about effective bi-partisanship.</p>

<p>Dr. Horse - you don't seem to understand that people look to the U.S. as more than a piggy bank. We're not "that" U.S. anymore. Actually, we owe countries a lot of money.</p>

<p>After 8 years of a cowboy president and criminal atrocities committed in our name, the world has grown very upset with the U.S. The first ever global war protests errupted before invading Iraq. That had nothing to do with money. It had to do with protecting the decency of life. </p>

<p>During Clinton's years the world loved the U.S. as well - not because he gave them money but because he embraced them and aligned with their worldview. We are going back to that. Nothing to do with money. Sorry.</p>

<p>Dr. Horse - </p>

<p>Here's an article you might want to consider when pontificating about the "malice and hate all humans hold". </p>

<p>In all the tears and enthusiasm for Obama, this article attests that it is far more a celebration of advancing a universal human ideal rooted in American Democracy than it is in money. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/opinion/06kristof.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/opinion/06kristof.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Dr. Horse I don't see how the republican party has been for preserving constitutional rights. The patriot act was a clear violation of citizen's rights to privacy. Theoretically, you could say it breaches the second amendment because the government is able to force themselves into our homes. The only useful thing you said that relates to the founding fathers is that people should be critical of their government. This does not mean take all power away from the government, simply don't sit back idly as your freedom is stolen.</p>

<p>On your point about humans only acting out of self-interest. The idea that kindness has genetic roots is that because humans who were able to work together had a higher survival rate. So yes the idea all comes back to saving one's self, but that does not mean that kindness is non-existent. The cynical cold view of the world is what leads to war and bigotry. Think about what you say and how your voice can sound extremely ignorant and cold just because you want to sound cultured or intelligent. Age does not make wisdom, being able to express your ideas calmly without making broad b.s. generalizations is wisdom.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm sure Ron Paul would have never picked a Sarah Palin.

[/quote]

I'm sure he never saw her in biker leathers with an AK-47, either. :)</p>

<p>Seriously, she has the qualifications. I would pick her for VP over any of the VP candidates. Paul/Palin would have been the best mix.</p>

<p>^
You're joking, right? I'll assume you are. </p>

<p>The interviews Palin's done since being unmuzzled prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that she was just a small town / small state girl mesmerized by the big city lights. </p>

<p>Her blaming the media and sexism on her profound incompetence is childish to say the least, especially since most (myself included) thought Hillary was more than capable of being president. But Palin doesn't even know enough to know how much she doesn't know, so one really can't blame her. </p>

<p>People say she has more executive experience, but there's an intangible regarding intelligence, worldview, education, and overall capacity that Obama proved he had and she proved she didn't. I'm still wondering if it was just a slip up or a true lack of knowledge when she said something like, "Of course I know the difference between the continent and the nation of Africa". Oh my...</p>

<p>
[quote]
</p>

<p>Dr. Horse - you don't seem to understand that people look to the U.S. as more than a piggy bank. We're not "that" U.S. anymore. Actually, we owe countries a lot of money.</p>

<p>After 8 years of a cowboy president and criminal atrocities committed in our name, the world has grown very upset with the U.S. The first ever global war protests erupted before invading Iraq. That had nothing to do with money. It had to do with protecting the decency of life.</p>

<p>During Clinton's years the world loved the U.S. as well - not because he gave them money but because he embraced them and aligned with their worldview. We are going back to that. Nothing to do with money. Sorry.</p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Explain to me then what they look to us for? Id love to hear it and dont include anything that includes money. A few examples of these would include other countries needing US protection or using the US as an allie by way of force or show thereof, these again all include money. The example you gave takes money to do, if it didnt they could do it themselves.</p>

<p>You mention that under Clinton the world loved the U.S, as the U.S aligned itself with the world view. I cant see how this is a good thing. Id rather be against the world view than for it, because the view of the world is simply the average of all the different views, and all the views are simply there, because they stemmed from some motive of getting something done. Such as the view of Africa would be to cure Aids, its their view because it directly effects them. Every other view is the exact same way, and in the end the U.S.A has no view, as they are looked upon to solve the root problems which stemmed to the view. All which require money. </p>

<p>The U.S should do what's best for it, and its citizenry. Its not the job of America to police the world, spread democracy and be a charity. It has zero obligation to any other nation or human other then itself and its citizenry.</p>

<p>
[quote]
</p>

<p>Dr. Horse -</p>

<p>Here's an article you might want to consider when pontificating about the "malice and hate all humans hold".</p>

<p>In all the tears and enthusiasm for Obama, this article attests that it is far more a celebration of advancing a universal human ideal rooted in American Democracy than it is in money.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/op...hp&oref=slogin%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/op...hp&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I have said before, it is only a shock that Obama is president if you embrace or have embraced racism and prejudice. I don't consider it a big step for democracy or a big step for universal human ideals. The only reason its a big shock is because people accept it. I don't consider the idea of a black president unexpected, I have always expected it and to me its nothing special.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Dr. Horse I don't see how the republican party has been for preserving constitutional rights. The patriot act was a clear violation of citizen's rights to privacy. Theoretically, you could say it breaches the second amendment because the government is able to force themselves into our homes. The only useful thing you said that relates to the founding fathers is that people should be critical of their government. This does not mean take all power away from the government, simply don't sit back idly as your freedom is stolen.</p>

<p>On your point about humans only acting out of self-interest. The idea that kindness has genetic roots is that because humans who were able to work together had a higher survival rate. So yes the idea all comes back to saving one's self, but that does not mean that kindness is non-existent. The cynical cold view of the world is what leads to war and bigotry. Think about what you say and how your voice can sound extremely ignorant and cold just because you want to sound cultured or intelligent. Age does not make wisdom, being able to express your ideas calmly without making broad b.s. generalizations is wisdom.</p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why do people keep telling me that I don't understand or keep calling me a Republican. I have never said that I am a republican. While I am in line with the ideals of republicanism, I am a conservative with a Libertarian core and quite close to a anarcho capitalist, though I can realize the need for a minimalist federal government. </p>

<p>Id call wisdom being able to realize how the world really work and not living in a dream world. There are nothing wrong with generalizations as long as they are true. To many on this forum I always sound ignornant, simply because I have different views, and the unwise cant realize these different views, so they pass them off as ignorant and wrong and dont consider them. I did not wake up one day deciding to be a conservative. After many years of research, debating, lots of books read and switching my beliefs I chose conservatism because it was the most sound political theory. I can usually beat just about anybody in my age group in a debate, but if I debate political theories other than conservatism, I will have to lie to win the debate, because the foundation of these theories is not as strong as classical conservatism. I can then fully debate and argue the idea of conservatism and win, because the ideas are sound. if there was a possible way, for leftist and centrist ideologies to actually function, I would adopt them. But they cannot and they are prone to failure.</p>

<p>Did the world celebrate with tears when the Berlin Wall fell because they saw more trade opportunities? </p>

<p>Did the world cry and cheer when apartheid fell and Nelson Mandela was freed because it meant more potential customers? </p>

<p>To answer for you, no. Not everybody focuses on money like you do. There are moments when we as a global civilization recognize a significant achievement in humankind. </p>

<p>To say that an African American rising to the most powerful position in the world is "only a shock if you embrace or have embraced racism and prejudice" is insulting and demeaning in a way that words simply cannot contain. Don't EVER call me a bigot. </p>

<p>You accuse others of living in a dream world, yet you bury your head from our reality of hundreds of years in which black people were not even considered human. Another hundred years in which they were subjugated to second or third class citizenry. </p>

<p>Did I vote because he was black? Nope. But that's the point. We have a man who rose on his own merits to earn the position.</p>

<p>I don't know who burned you in your life - whether a lover or a parent - but your perception that everybody is full of malice and hate is just sad. </p>

<p>I wish you well on your journey to seeing the beauty in life.</p>

<p>Sorry guy but your a bigot.</p>

<p>as for Obama rising on his own. I'm sorry but no, he got the to where is is today do to AA and white guilt, no other reason.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure Barack Obama is the President-elect today because he's an extremely shrewd politician who is very aware of what his constituency wants to hear, and who has gotten extremely lucky in terms of current events outside his control (the economy crashing under a Republican, the wars that are becoming increasingly unpopular, and the fact that his opponent was extremely old).</p>

<p>And because of white guilt. I'm not denying that it was involved, but I think that it did not factor as much into it as you believe.</p>

<p>Dr Horse -</p>

<p>I can't fathom how you can say that. You certainly wouldn't it say it to my face, so I guess you should enjoy the protection of anonymity from which to spew your hate. </p>

<p>Do you just selectively ignore the blatant racism that has afflicted our country for the past 230 years? By your call, someone who recognizes the existence of racism in others is a bigot. It's an assanine argument. On that same note, women must have always had equal opportunity to rise to power. It's just those of us who are sexist that perceive women were beaten in the 1910s for a right to vote as humans or who today are paid far less than men for the same work (verified by fact) or are disproporationately underrepresented in realms of power.</p>

<p>God forbid people recognize an imbalance of opportunity that keeps us from being a "more perfect union". No, no no. We must all be bigots. </p>

<p>I can assure you Barack is not our president-elect simply because of his race and "white guilt". He is there because he convinced enough people he is best for the job. Several black people have run in the past and garnered minimal support from whites and blacks. He was by far the most intellectual, competent, level-headed, and educated candidate who proposed solutions to the chaos created over the past 8 years. </p>

<p>The world is black and white to you - one way or the other, and a thin layer of intellectual facade goes a long way to make it seem like there is more. </p>

<p>I am finished. You called me a bigot. You reinforced your charge when you had an opportunity to retract it. Do NOT respond or you will be reported for slander.</p>