Why can't I just ask a question about the new president elect, Obama, without all the Americans getting mad?

We can all see with our eyes that he is of an African American culture. Why is asking how the Americans will react to that so upsetting? I mean, just asking the question made so many people think of ME as a racist.

I am so happy that he's been elected. I can't express that enough.

I would like to understand what is making everyone so pissed. I thought I can ask anything here on this site. Asking about the American "fall out" to a black president just about shot the roof off!

I mean, what's the defensiveness about?

Why can't I just ask a question about the new president elect, Obama, without all the Americans getting mad? It's not all the americans Dee, it's just a few here who hate all things liberal/democrat. That's all they do, they subscribe to pro-republican websites that look for every mistep by a liberal and post it here. They are always negative. If you spend time here you'll just have to get used to it I'm afraid.

I think it was the insinuation that racism is "rampant" that got the backs up. Are there people who would be considered racisit?. Sure, you'll find that anywhere, but I think the vast majority of Americans will go with the flow.
Many wanted change... more so to be away from what they felt the Bush administration represented and Obama smartly focused in on that.

Yea, maybe I should have found a softer word for "rampant", eh?

To put this posting in proper context here is a quote from the posting in question :


Imagine how all the haters are going to react in a country filled with so many racists... :eek: As I said before... I wish the Obama family well. I hope they have a ton MORE body guarding scenarios available...I mean, assassinations are probably something that the racists are already conjuring up...



This was posted on the Current Events Board the day after the election and was posted as some pretense as a congratulations to America.

I leave it to you to wonder why some Americans would get pissed at that back handed complement .

I agree with tom :eek:, the post was strongly worded and would definitely set americans on the defensive.

Didn't mean for it to come off as a back handed compliment. Sorry for that. HONESTLY.

I was really just asking a question. I realize now how harsh it seemed to you Americans. Which is why I posted THIS question. I do want to know why I am pissing people off w/ a question that seems legit.

I should have candy coated and sugar coated and all that bull crap that we often do in real life... but I just wanted to ask MY REAL QUESTION which a lot of us here in Canada are talking about.

"Omg, the Americans now have a black president!"

Or how about: "How long will it be till they try
and assissinate that new pres-
ident?"

Or: "The racism in the U.S. is gonna explode"

Or how about this one that I'm hearing a lot: "All the black people came out of the wood work whom have never voted a day in their lives to bring in this black president".

People are really talking... I just put it into words and brought it here to this site. I just really wanted to hear from you guys.

Why can't I just ask a question about the new president elect, Obama, without all the Americans getting mad?

It wasn't the question. As has been pointed out it was the insinuations that arrounsed other people's ire.



I thought I can ask anything here on this site.

You CAN ask anything here (as long as you keep within the rules). But you have to understand that what you post may get a reaction and maybe want you don't like or expect. No one said you can't ask, but if you can't stand the heat...

Finally as to those remarks you posted. Sure you are going to hear those things from ignorant people. And yes there are may be some racist out there who will be sent over the wall by the election. But that's the Secret Service's worry.

Two of the most selfless politicians we ever had (JFKand RFK) were assassinated so there are nutcases everywhere.

Did more blacks "come out of the wood work" to vote because he is black? Probably... but one might also assume then that more whites voted for McCain because of the same thing, or more women voted for Hillary initially because she is female. You will always have that, just as you will have those who always vote their party line no matter who is running.

Just as a matter of interest, however, the majority of voters for Obama were white.

Lets put this in prospective here.
obama did not win by a landslide. He won by a scant majority of the popular vote. People are not so much mad about his election, as they are worried about the direction him and the democratic controlled congress will take this country. This country was founded on Christian values and was established so that the people could exercise their religious freedoms. Politicians has forgotten those priciples in their quest for ultimate power. What the Democrats who now control both houses of congress and the presidency want to do is make this a socialist country. They want to take away our second amendment right to keep and bear arms. They want to increase the welfare state by giving "refundable tax credits" to people who pay no taxes. In other words give more of my hard earned money to people that do not want to work. They want medical for all. And while a lofty goal is not practical, Too many governments around the world have tried that and it has failed miserably. There has never been a government that can do anything better than the private sector except maybe provide a standing military.
I personally could care less about who is in the presidency or the color of his skin or even their gender. What I an many others get so worked up about is the president and congress stomping on our rights as given to us by the Constitution and bill of rights. By demanding that we give our hard earned money to support people who refuse to work. And by trying to take away our freedom that I and so many have fought in foreign wars to preserve. War is hell, the last person on the earth that wants to go to war is a soldier. But when we are attached we have two choices, berry our heads in the sand and pretend it did not happen or retaliate. We did not start WWI or WWII or Korea, or Vietnam, or the first Gulf war or the second gulf war. We were attacked. The President does not have the power or the authority to declare war on another nation. That is Congress. So to those of you that claim it is President Bush's war you are dead wrong. The war was authorized by congress after hearing the same information that President Bush heard, If you want to blame someone for the Iraq war, blame Mr Clinton. It was his presidency that gutted the intelligence community. It was his presidency that failed to understand that we were at war with an enemy that has no regard for human life and will do anything to destroy our way of life.
Every day of my life I get down on my knees and thank GOD that I was born in the greatest country on the earth today. That I have the freedom to express my thoughts and ideas without the fear of reprisal. That I have the freedom to work hard and earn the money. To worship my GOD and not some idol that some monster demands that I bow down to. And especially that there are men and women out there protecting my freedoms from those that would prefer me dead.

Lets put this in prospective here.

I have to laugh at this. This isn't putting things in perspective, its simply spouting conservative propaganda. There is so little factual support for this diatribe, I won't even waste my time refuting it.

Please try!
What exactly is NOT factual?
That we did not start this war? Or that clinton stuck his head in the sand and refused to acknowledge the fact that we had been attacked by a foreign power?
Like everyone else on here it is MY opinion. It is also the opinion of many many others in this country, so give us your opinion.

First Clinton did not exactly stick his head in the sand. Though his reaction to the Cole incident and others might have been more forceful. But Clinton's approach was to try and use diplomacy rather than risk additional lives. But there is no evidence that Iraq was responsible for any of those attacks.

Nor is it factual that the democrats want to turn the US into a Socialist country. In fact, the most socialist legislation ever passed was the recent stimulus package proposed by Bush. Part of that package is government ownership of several financial services firms. And that's what defines socialism, not taxing the wealthy to aid the poor.

Also your characterization of welfare is just more propaganda. Sure there are welfare abuses and cheats, but at lot has been done to curb them. The fact is that the vast majority of people getting public assistance are not doing so because they want to, but because they have to. Would you prefer these people starve?

And finally, your claim that because the Congress supported the Iraq war that it wasn't Bush's war is ludicrous. The congress was Republican controlled at the time and the public opinion and political climate supported it. But there was no neccessity for it.

And yes, many millions of people believe this propaganda despite all the factual evidence to the contrary.

450donn, THANK YOU. For taking the time and sharing your feelings and opinions. Very interesting.

All I can say is GOD BLESS AMERICA and the American people!

I agree with so much of what you said and I learned from you. Thank you so much.

Your post is what I have been waiting for!

First Clinton did not exactly stick his head in the sand. Though his reaction to the Cole incident and others might have been more forceful. But Clinton's approach was to try and use diplomacy rather than risk additional lives. But there is no evidence that Iraq was responsible for any of those attackwhich failed given the type of enemy that we face in the world today. Spain for instance cowtowed to the demands of the terrorists and look what it has gotten them. More killings of their people.

Nor is it factual that the democrats want to turn the US into a Socialist country. In fact, the most socialist legislation ever passed was the recent stimulus package proposed by Bush. Part of that package is government ownership of several financial services firms. And that's what defines socialism, not taxing the wealthy to aid the poor.
OK how many of the poor actually pay any taxes? Zero, zip nada. But our futire leader wants to give them refundable tax credits. Refundable means more welfare payments.

Also your characterization of welfare is just more propaganda. Sure there are welfare abuses and cheats, but at lot has been done to curb them. TGhe fact is that the vast majority of people getting public assistance are not doing so because they want to, but because they have to. Would you prefer these people starve? What happened to the poor before the government took over? There were far less poor and those that were families took care of. Think that might be a better silution?

And finally, your claim that because the Congress supported the Iraq war that it wasn't Bush's war is ludicrous. The congress was Republican controlled at the time and the public opinion and political climate supported it. But there was no neccessity for it.No matter who controlled it it was voted on and accepted by congress. So the blame needs to be spread to the entire congress. Yes I agree 100% with that. President Bush reacted in his best judgement based on the information supplied by the ontelligence community and in response to Iraq's leaders refusal to adhere to the UN mandates. The UN is so full of talk and no action except to rape the people they are suppose to protect. Think Bosnia, think anywhere in Africa they have been sent.

And yes, many millions of people believe this propaganda despite all the factual evidence to the contrary.
It is sad that people younger than me who have never served in the military are so biased against the judicial use of force to protect our citizens and our way of life. Has this country made mistakes? Sure we have. Has President Bush made mistakes? Sure he has. But congress is right ther and is at least 50% to blame for where we are today. Will Mr Obama make mistakes? Yes he will! I like the old adage, walk softly and carry a big stick. Despite our differences this country since 1945 has experienced one of the greatest periods of prosperity and safety know to mankind. We will continue to differ in our opinions and that is our God given right. All we can do is wait and see what obama does when the next world crisis hits him squarely in the face. Then we will see who is right and who was mistaken. All I can do is pray that he will have the strength to stand up to the bullies of the world who want nothing more than to destroy us.

All I can do is pray that he will have the strength to stand up to the bullies of the world who want nothing more than to destroy us.Why do bullies want to destroy you?

Sweet Dee, political talk always leads to debate. Everyone has different opinions, different choices, and it is their right to express them.

My father always said, there are three things you should never discuss; Politics, religion and sex. Bad me, I didn't listen, I do discuss relgion, and sex, and now, here I am talking politics.

Oh well, at least I tried. ;)

Alten,
It's much easier to do all three in the anonymity of an internet discussion board. There is an expression for it: 'keyboard courage'. Like you I very rarely bring up politics and religion in face to face discussions in real life (sex I'm OK with :))

Why do bullies want to destroy you?


You are free to pick a reason. Your religion, the color of your skin, where you went to school, the personal freedom we here in the USA have, the freedom to speak against our elected leaders without fear of being killed. Pick one!

Why do bullies want to destroy you?


I would hazard to guess that the reference has to do with the fact that a democracy, or even the semblance of one, will put some leaders out of power and that obviously would not be something they desire to have happen. If the people were to have more freedoms, they would no longer have quite the hold over them. The west is a major influence to those types of freedoms. This is why some leaders will censor television, internet access, radio broadcasts, travel, and so on. Some people have a very limited knowledge of things outside of what their government wants them to be exposed to.

As the world continues to get smaller in terms of the vast network of communication, these types of exposures become even more of a threat. How do you deal with a threat? You do what is necessary to eliminate it.

You are free to pick a reason. Your religion, the color of your skin, where you went to school, the personal freedom we here in the USA have, the freedom to speak against our elected leaders without fear of being killed. Pick one!
Well that's not really an answer is it. There are many countries that meet that criteria but they don't seem to fear being wiped off the earth.

It is sad that people younger than me who have never served in the military are so biased against the judicial use of force to protect our citizens and our way of life. .... All I can do is pray that he will have the strength to stand up to the bullies of the world who want nothing more than to destroy us.

Excuse me? I have no idea how old you are or whether you are older than I or not. But you make a big mistake in assuming or suggesting that I am against the judicious (I think you meant) use of force. As someone who was in 2 WTC on 9/11, I fully and completely supported the action in Afghanistan. That was fully justified. Iraq was not and I was just as fully against it from the get go. I was proven right and so many others were proven wrong.

Why? The afgan people did not attack us. We were attacked by a people hell bent on our destruction as a race, and as a nation. They just happen to land in a country that because of our actions and inabilities was left with nothing, no global support after the Russians left after a 10 year blood bath. Most of the killers of the WTC attack were who? Saudies am I right? We are fighting for our very survival as a race in many places in the world. Was it correct to go into Iraq when we did? I don't honestly know. Was Hussein an evil person? Yes, by anybodies standards and he needed to be removed from office. Again the UN because they are a bunch of wussies did nothing for how many years? 10?20? While he systimitacally killed those that were of a different religious background then him. To place the blame on one person President Bush is simply wrong. He was given bad information from the intelligence community, and with the approval of congress and the UN he went ahead with the UN mandate to remove Hussein from power. To leave a void after that like happened in Afganstan was simply out of the question. See I tend to think he learned from the mistakes of the past. This debate can go on for ever and will solve nothing. Like I said, he is now our President elect. All I can hope and pray for now is that he surrounds himself with level headed people who will make decisions based on the best interest of this country and not as has happened in the past who he owes favors to. Wrong decisions will kill millions, Right decisions will create a strong stable country that will be able to move foreword for another 250 years.

We are fighting for our very survival as a race in many places in the world. Could you expand on that? What 'race' are you referring to? How do you come to that conclusion?

To place the blame on one person President Bush is simply wrong. He was given bad information from the intelligence community, and with the approval of congress and the UN he went ahead with the UN mandate to remove Hussein from power.

Sorry donn, but your views are apologist. Bush rammed through the attack on Iraq. Since Hussein got his nose bloodied from Kuwait, he did nothing but saber rattling. There was no credible proof that he presented a threat. There was only circumstantial evidence. I do agree that Bush isn't totally to blame. Blame can be spread around to those who followed him. But there is no question that he led the way. Was he duped or did he lie? Well that's a matter for debate. However, either way reflects badly on him.

But I don't now, nor have I ever seen any justification for committing Amercian lives to remove Hussein.

So, basically what you are telling me is that you approve of genocide? I knew New yorkers were liberal, but I did not know you were that Liberal!

How you get that from what I've said is beyond me. But if you are going to just make up things I see no point in continuing this.

>>>>Was he duped or did he lie? Well that's a matter for debate.

Keep in mind, it was not just the Bush administration that believed there was enough evidence to take action... hence resolution 1441. Even many of Hussien's top advisors and military generals believed this to be true. In reality it was true when you consider that CWs fall under the umbrella of WMDs... and it is well known how those were used on the Kurds and others. To this day, there are those in his previous administration that either still believe or have actually testified that they had them.

Whether we like it or not, America will always be looked upon to police others, but will have to walk a thin line.

America is damned if they do step in by those who dislike it's involvement in the issues of other countries, and damned if they don't by those who feel it doesn't step in and do enough to help those in need.

If the work can be done neat and tidy, people tend to be pleased. If it gets messy or prolonged, people tend to start objecting.

Some people feel America should just focus on it's own internal issues and let the rest of the world deal with their own issues to avoid having to walk that line. While this might appease some, it would only serve to allow others to fall even further into the grip of despair and hopelessness.

The question becomes what is right for mankind and I think, overall, most Americans would opt for what is right and just even when it may cost them some dislike in the eyes of others. The adage, "you can't please everyone" comes to mind.

So, basically what you are telling me is that you approve of genocide? I knew New yorkers were liberal, but I did not know you were that Liberal!


Must admit Donn that I have no idea where you're coming from -