Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Uh-huh. And did 90% of white businessmen vote for the last white guy to run? I don't think so. THAT'S why it's interesting, because it's so far outside the expected norm.

Is it? Black voters go overwhelmingly for D Presidential candidates regardless of the color of their skin. Obama certainly helped with turnout, but I wouldn't call it anything outside of the expected norm. Hillary probably would have gotten a similar bump in female votes, as well.

So, basically, that woman had a nice rant about her values and how others don't share them - and nothing else. I'm not sure what her point was.

 

[Bill]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Anti-Democratic biotching is interesting? If your take is that it's because she's black, that's no more interesting than a white, male who is successful in business not buying what the current crop of Republicans in DC are selling.

You can try and trivialize it all you want, but there's a lot more to the article than just "anti-Democratic biotching".

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Is it? Black voters go overwhelmingly for D Presidential candidates regardless of the color of their skin. Obama certainly helped with turnout, but I wouldn't call it anything outside of the expected norm. Hillary probably would have gotten a similar bump in female votes, as well.

No - the fact that Obama got 90% of the black vote was not outside the expected norm. The fact that a female African-American academic disagreed with the majority of black voters is the part that was unexpected. At least for me - maybe you would have predicted that?

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

No - the fact that Obama got 90% of the black vote was not outside the expected norm. The fact that a female African-American academic disagreed with the majority of black voters is the part that was unexpected. At least for me - maybe you would have predicted that?

No, but I don't find the fact that she's a black female academic to be all that illuminating. When she mentions how she voted for Ron Paul, then it all makes a lot of sense, actually.

You can try and trivialize it all you want, but there's a lot more to the article than just "anti-Democratic biotching".

Such as? I see a libertarian who's ascribing motives to all blacks who voted for Obama (saying they did so only because he's black, despite heavy margins for white D candidates for years) and doing so with her personal biases. I see her denigrate "progressive whites" who also voted for Obama, since apparently the only reason they did so was because he's black (nevermind the fact that I think Hillary still wins against McCain).

I see an outpouring of her feelings, not exactly rigorous analysis. Trivial is a good word to describe it, actually.

 

[streaker]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

And which plan would that be, pray tell?

you see that 4th quarter economic growth? 5.7%? Too bad Obama hasn't done anything to get the economy moving again. At least, that's the word from the wingnuts.

Which is why the market dumped 600 points in three days after coinciding with the election in Massachusetts and the further intrusion of government on the financial markets. I like that kind of stimulation, especially when it is backed by more scolding talk and less bi-partisan walk when addressing the nation.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

No - the fact that Obama got 90% of the black vote was not outside the expected norm. The fact that a female African-American academic disagreed with the majority of black voters is the part that was unexpected. At least for me - maybe you would have predicted that?

So now you guys give a crap what liberal elitists have to say? Amazing.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Which is why the market dumped 600 points in three days after coinciding with the election in Massachusetts and the further intrusion of government on the financial markets. I like that kind of stimulation, especially when it is backed by more scolding talk and less bi-partisan walk when addressing the nation.

The market dumped 600 points in three days because the banks know regulations will reduce profits in the financial sector. Since the banks have proven by their actions that they can't handle an unregulated marketplace, I guess I don't see why it's a problem. If they're too big to fail, then regulate them so they can't fail. They'll deal with it.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

The market dumped 600 points in three days because the banks know regulations will reduce profits in the financial sector. Since the banks have proven by their actions that they can't handle an unregulated marketplace, I guess I don't see why it's a problem. If they're too big to fail, then regulate them so they can't fail. They'll deal with it.

And the banks will stay quite profitable, since it makes more sense to trade on 2-3 point spreads between the Fed Window rate and T-Bonds than lending money to consumers and business in a risky, overregulated environment. Moreover, any additional taxes or compliance costs are going to be passed to bank customers. Their employees and shareholders won't eat them.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

So now you guys give a crap what liberal elitists have to say? Amazing.

Not at all - but their blather does create a lovely background hum so that when a lucid thought does come across, there's a very nice contrast.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Not at all - but their blather does create a lovely background hum so that when a lucid thought does come across, there's a very nice contrast.

There was nothing lucid (or let's go with illuminating if you will) about what she said, regardless of her color. It was simply typical regurgitated rhetoric.

You can try and trivialize it all you want, but there's a lot more to the article than just "anti-Democratic biotching".

I'm not falling for the banana in the tailpipe.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I would think more that the markets fell that much because everybody else depends on the banks and that most of the current market is still high since they didn't deleverage all that much. Hence bank regs means a chance of unintended system shock.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Well the last 24 hours have really turned up the heat for the argument on whether to repeal Dont Ask, Dont Tell.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704022804575041101835826096.html

Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates come out hard for repealing the law.

An Op-ed against that I dont agree with but found to be rather interesting and not bigoted:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703389004575033601528093416.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Now I never served (and I am not gay) so I am sure some will say I don't deserve the right to have an opinion on this and I can accept that. I just don't see the point to keeping the law around. There are gay people in the military now, everyone knows that and it doesn't seem to be hurting anyone. With the strict code of conduct in the military it isnt like you are going to have it be like Mardi Gras or something the homosexuals will have to live by the same code that the heterosexuals do so what is the problem?

I am not attacking people who disagree btw I understand issues like this cut pretty deep and the divisiveness is strong...I just happen to think it is time for this to get put by the wayside. I am not saying repeal it tomorrow but I think I agree with the generals on the Joint Chiefs who say to do it after we end the wars (lets just leave out whether we think that will be on the timetable they say) giving the military time to adjust.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

To steal an argument made by someone else, open homosexuality in the military also creates a situation of dual allegiances, to take that op-ed argument further. If you have two homosexual lovers in the same unit, and a situation arises where an order comes about that could create a direct peril for one of the lovers while protecting the unit as a whole, you have another member of the unit who may have enough motive to disobey an order.

The same situation could present itself between hetero couples, but not likely. The reason for that is we can easily discriminate service assignments between men and women, not placing them both in close combat together. Unless a homosexual couple announces themselves (In an office setting even, what coworkers are likely to announce themselves as couples to the rest of the department?), there is no simple way to separate lovers from serving within the same combat unit.

If you did allow for open homosexuality, you could simply assign known/open homosexuals to ensure that only one homosexual serves in a unit at one time, but then that opens the door for more problems, perhaps even more complex.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Is it? Black voters go overwhelmingly for D Presidential candidates regardless of the color of their skin. Obama certainly helped with turnout, but I wouldn't call it anything outside of the expected norm. Hillary probably would have gotten a similar bump in female votes, as well.

So, basically, that woman had a nice rant about her values and how others don't share them - and nothing else. I'm not sure what her point was.

Funny, it was considered a huge thing for Colin Powell and Tiger Woods to back Obama. And it was a big deal when the black owner of BET backed Hillary. But when a noted black female sociologist and philsopher comes out against Obama, it's no big deal......she's just a "woman with a nice rant".

That seems backwards. So goes the liberal mindset, I guess.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

To steal an argument made by someone else, open homosexuality in the military also creates a situation of dual allegiances, to take that op-ed argument further. If you have two homosexual lovers in the same unit, and a situation arises where an order comes about that could create a direct peril for one of the lovers while protecting the unit as a whole, you have another member of the unit who may have enough motive to disobey an order.

The same situation could present itself between hetero couples, but not likely. The reason for that is we can easily discriminate service assignments between men and women, not placing them both in close combat together. Unless a homosexual couple announces themselves (In an office setting even, what coworkers are likely to announce themselves as couples to the rest of the department?), there is no simple way to separate lovers from serving within the same combat unit.

If you did allow for open homosexuality, you could simply assign known/open homosexuals to ensure that only one homosexual serves in a unit at one time, but then that opens the door for more problems, perhaps even more complex.

Doesnt the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibit relationships like that anyways in some capacity for just those reasons? I just tend to think that is a strawman argument because if heterosexuals arent allowed to be in relationships like that I would guess the same rules would apply to homosexuals.

I would think if two men (or women) in a unit became a couple one would be forced to transfer in some way. I don't know though.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

The same situation could present itself between hetero couples, but not likely. The reason for that is we can easily discriminate service assignments between men and women, not placing them both in close combat together. Unless a homosexual couple announces themselves (In an office setting even, what coworkers are likely to announce themselves as couples to the rest of the department?), there is no simple way to separate lovers from serving within the same combat unit.

Umm, this happens all the time. Unlikely my ***.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Doesnt the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibit relationships like that anyways in some capacity for just those reasons? I just tend to think that is a strawman argument because if heterosexuals arent allowed to be in relationships like that I would guess the same rules would apply to homosexuals.

I would think if two men (or women) in a unit became a couple one would be forced to transfer in some way. I don't know though.

I don't know the UCMJ to any great extent by any means, but I know it doesn't outright prohibit relationships between personnel. My oldest brother was a sergeant at the time he married another sergeant. While they were both serving in the 134th Airlift Wing, they had no duty interactions on base.

Again, in a combat situation, we do not currently allow men and women in the trenches with one another. Not only is this a likely result of old-fashioned chivalry, but also to keep relations between soldiers in the trench from happening. That comes back to the problem of two openly gay men serving within the same combat unit. What happens if a relationship sparks up? What happens if one doesn't, but others in the unit think there may be one? What's to stop a bigoted member of a unit (or a cadre of bigots) from having an "accident" during a battle?

There are so many potential complications, why introduce so many unfavorable possibilities just to appear "fair?"

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Umm, this happens all the time. Unlikely my ***.

And it's technically against regulations. Those soldiers and seamen are supposed to be charged when serving in the same unit. In fact, the commanding general in Iraq made a formal declaration that he was going to start enforcing that portion of the code because it immediately removes women soldiers from combat zones - they're sent out of country - when they get pregnant. It removes a soldier from the ranks, depleting our forces. He since rescinded the order due to public outcry/political pressure.

We're costing our military its effectiveness already because of politics. Why add to it?

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

We're costing our military its effectiveness already because of politics. Why add to it?

Exactly, we added to it by letting go hundreds if not thousands of interpreters when we needed them most, because they were gay.

If that's not costing our military its effectiveness because of politics, I don't know what does.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

There are so many potential complications, why introduce so many unfavorable possibilities just to appear "fair?"

Because doesn't it seem wrong that someone who wants to serve their country has to hide who they are? Why is sexual orientation any different than anything else? I mean having a Muslim in your unit could cause conflicts too considering the nature of the wars we are fighting...should the be forced to hide who they are also?

Plus I just dont buy that if Private A and Private C are both gay and in the same unit they will be fall in love and cause issue. That is a doomsday scenario, the worst case outcome.

I guess my real problem with the law is that admitting you are gay means you are discharged no matter your record of service. That seems to go against everything this country stands for. Shouldn't soldiers (and others in general) be judged by merit not by some arbitrary standard? What if the Admiral came out tomorrow...would that diminish his service to the point he should be forced to resign? (which is what the standard is now)