A new day In America And I am Proud.

[Dabus1952]

First of all for the record I am 56 years old and a white Male.Today I am proud of the American people.133million people voted in the elections yesterday(a record ).The people of America are so proud that every newspaper in America sold out this AM .They had to print more. People were lined up in the Streets of New York times square last night estimated to be in the thousands.In Chicago estimates today came in at 240,000 people filled the parks. People were celabrating thru out the world today.Me personalyI am very proud of President elect Obama as I lived in Chicago 40 years before moving to Wi. 16 years ago.He has a lot of hard work ahead of him trying to be everyones President ,Even all the Anti Black Good old boys from the red states.It is sad to read these and other posting and find how much ignorance, and fear still exsist in America today.

I guess That I was blessed to grow up not a hater, and treat folks how I wanted to be treated.It opened many doors were I was able to share in various traditions(holidays, birthdays ) I was also blessed to not see color but the person. I rasied my children the same.They both were given good educations, something I could not get growing up .We lived in different times then. My children done us proud One in the medical feild one a school teacher.
My wife migrated to the USA from Poland in 1978. She was a legal resident for many years until 2001 when She passed her citizen ship test,That to was a proud day to be In Milwaukee Wi and see the 100s of people who migrated here and were so proud.there ages were 16 to an 86 year old man.Most like my wife came here to escape dictaorship or poverty.Not because they are handed welfare ( another myth ) But knowing In the American Dream you can become anything you want to be.Four years ago I stood next to my wife and children and watched as she Voted in her first election with us her family. Yesterday was another proud day when we all voted for President elect Obama.We voted for change, We voted for a educated, family man .A man who worked hard to get to were he is. A man who will work hard for The Unitied States Of America.Like i once said before you judge him . Give him the same chance you gave George Bush and all of his good ole boy networth.I know its hard for some to except change,they have fears that are fueled by out and out lies.I dont sit here and cast stones at you, I sit here hoping that you may try to give our new President the chance to prove himself.Is that much to ask?God bless America and like I said in my heading I am proud to be an American.

 

[LDB]

Oh yes, a family man of values. Jeremiah Wright values. Twenty years worth. I have no idea how hard he worked or didn't work although he's never worked a day in his life. He's been on the dole since graduation. (That means sucking up public payroll in one form or another vs. working a real job at a real revenue producing profit seeking entity). Don't get too teary eyed yet. He hasn't done a thing so far to deserve a smile, much less getting weepy over. Yes, we have to give him his chance because we have no choice in the matter. We don't have to look at it as the dawn of a bright new era. The market certainly didn't, with the worst loss in history after learning who won an election. Tears may be warranted, but that will be after he's had a while to work his magic on us, not today.

 

[spudhead911]

I think Obama used a whole lot of smoke and mirrors to sway the voting public. I'm am not being a racist, color was not an issue for me in this election. Both Obama and Biden are both anti -second ammendment, and want to take our personal righ to keep and bear arms away, through what they both call "common sense regulations" banning guns and ammunition they feel "we the people" should not have. Both their records on voting on gun control legislation, and intrducing and supporting anti-gun bills speaks for itself.

I believe Obama told the people what they wanted to hear, not what he will do once he is sworn in. He was a first term senator, who spent the majority of that first term running for president. He has no experience to speak of to deal with domestic or international economics. The best we can hope for is that he is smart enough to surround himself with people who do have the experience, to advise him.

I strongly believe that the black community turned out to vote for Obama solely because of his color, not for the issues. That combined with the eight years under the poor leadership of President Bush led a whole lot of people to vote against the Republican ticket.

I believe Obama's whole persona is and was a sham, he fooled a lot of people of all races.

Instead of saying God Bless America, we now need to say God Help America.

 

[arrbsthw]

Yes we certainly will need all the help we can get.
During Obama's speech he said right off that he may not be
able to do the things he promised in the 1st 4 yrs. It may
take a second term.. Back pedaling before he takes office?

But I fear for the safety of the USA. You just think back to this time in 4 years and let's see how proud you are of him and all his accomplishments them.

 

[Bob and Hooligan]

Dabus,

Good post. I agree.

Road Hooligan

 

[SHARP327]

I agree 100% with you Dabus!

I read all this negative crap post after post and it makes me sick!

They call Obama a terroist, socialist, and the ruin of the United States of America and can't prove anything...beleive me if it were true McCain would have used it in his campain along with everyone else who ran against him....the reason they call him all these names is because they don't have the nerve to say niger

I'm a white male and an honorably discharged from the Corps and I served 2 1/2 years in
Nam and I love this country and always will and that's why I voted for Obama...you don't have to tote a gun to support this country!

Go ahead and ramble on!...I had my vote...And had my say

Good night!

 

[Turtle]

Well, I call him a Socialist because he is, and his record proves that he his, not to mention he admits that he is. How many times does he have to mention the "redistribution of wealth" before you believe him, since that's exactly what Socialism is?

Socialism can work in this country, just as long as you don't take it that one step too far, and if it's implemented in such as way that it works for the people and not against them. That's the trick. He thinks he's got it figured out. We'll see.

 

[LDB]

I have no problem saying Niger, or any of the other African nations names for that matter. Obama isn't a terrorist but he does have direct ties to terrorists. He isn't the ruin of our nation but he has the potential to be. He isn't a socialist per se but he has many of the same beliefs and certainly is closer to one than anyone else ever elected president. I didn't have the privilege of serving due to inability to pass the physical. I love my country as much as anyone who did serve though. That's why I did the only possible thing and voted against Obama.

 

[Turtle]

I have no problem saying Niger, or any of the other African nations names for that matter.

I have difficulty with a few of them. Djibouti is a tough one (and my favorite name for a country). I could pronounce the Ivory Coast real easy, until they changed the name to the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire.

 

[Dispatched]

I agree 100% with you Dabus!

I read all this negative crap post after post and it makes me sick!

RIGHT ON !!!!!!!

Obama scores an Electoral College landslide. Smashes the Republicans to the surface. They can talk all this whacky
right winged stuff all day. Guess the "stories" didn't quite
work out for them.

A great day to be an American. A great day for America.

 

[SHARP327]

Trickle down was a hit for sure!

Experience got us into this mess!

He won the election so lets give him a chance.

If McCain had won...I would have supported him just as much.

It's time to reclaim our country and we'll need everyones help
it won't be easy and I doubt any one could undo this crime in one term!

hope everyones doing well!

Later

 

[SHARP327]

Oh I forgot to mention that Bin Ladins family are close friends with the Bush family,so does that make the Bushs terroist?....that could explain a lot if true.

 

[Rabbit]

I believe, due to Obama's extreme leftist policies, that this election marks the worst day for human freedom since the fall of China to the Communists in 1948. John Edwards would've been even worse, and Hillary Clinton just as bad.

All human freedom begins with property rights, so that every time property rights are eroded, freedom is eroded. America is as much the ideological child of Adam Smith as she is of John Locke. The New Left has no grasp of this essential truth. That's why this is such a dark, dark time.

 

[hdxpedx]

obumer and pelousy have EXPERIENCE in ______________ ??????

 

[Turtle]

obumer and pelousy have EXPERIENCE in ______________ ??????

Public Speaking

​

​

All human freedom begins with property rights, so that every time property rights are eroded, freedom is eroded.

Uhm, if you think about that for even a few seconds, you'll realize how silly that sounds. Sure, every time property rights are eroded, freedom is also eroded, that much is true.

But to state that "all human freedom begins with property rights," well, that's just, I'm sorry, that's just an asinine statement. That's saying that in order to have any freedom at all, you must own property, and if you don't own property you cannot have freedom, and that's just as asinine. Human freedom (a.k.a., liberty), was in place, endowed by the Creator or an inalienable right (however you choose to phrase it), long before the concept of property ownership and property rights was invented. The Native American Indians, for example, had no concept of the ownership of land. None. Yet no one would doubt that their human freedoms were brutally and acutely eroded.

Human freedom is the unquestioned right to do as one chooses with the freedom from outside coercion or outside compulsion, and in a modern society, that means the individual has that freedom provided his actions do not limit the freedoms of others.

Property rights are merely a subset of rights, formed as a result of modern society, out of the much larger notion of freedom itself. Liberty and human freedom says that you should be able to do whatever you want to with, or on, your own property, to the extent that the liberties of others are not infringed, but property ownership is not a requisite for securing your inherit freedom.

If only ya hadn't used the word "all".

 

[BillChaffey]

Since we have, Layover Lounge, Loading Dock, General Expediters Forum among others. Why not a separate place just for INSULTING members we don't agree with. A place for insinuations, name calling, out right ignorance & prejudice behaviour.
Just a thought.

 

[Turtle]

Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates. Candidate #1 had 6 years in the Pennsylvania state legislature, 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, 4 years as ambassador to Russia, 10 years in the Senate, 4 years as Secretary of State, and 4 years as Ambassador to England. Candidate #2 had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President?

If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln.

Buchanan was easily the most experienced president we've ever had, and by most accounts, the worst. Johnson and Ford are a close second and third in experience, with mixed results on how good they were. A lot of this information can be found here: Historical Rankings of the US Presidents but doesn't really get into experience as much as it does all the various rankings that are used.

Here is a PDF that lists the presidents in order of "greatness" and shows their levels of experience. Two pages, short. It's got some interesting notes.
Notes on Presidential Experience

Here is a most excellent Excel file that has the same listings, except they are listed in order of most experience to least experience, and are color coded to show the rankings of the best 25%, 2nd percentile, 3rd percentile, and the bottom 25% percentile. It's fascinating, largely due to there being no correlation whatsoever to experience and how well they perform in the job. The experience levels are randomly scattered throughout the performance rankings. If you're a budding data analyst, you can weight the columns any way you like and come up with your own conclusions.
A Color-Coded Cornucopia of Presidential Experience


And here's a scatterplot of the spreadsheet. Pretty interesting stuff. If experience coincides with making you a better President, the dots should fall somewhere very near the blue theoretical curve, as experience and performance will meet right there. (The two Bushes and Clinton are not a part of the date here since it is much too early to draw historical judgments on them.) The Presidents furthest under the line might be regarded as overperformers, as they didn't have much experience going into office, but did pretty well once there. The ones further above the line had lots of experience but were not good Presidents. It lets you see pretty easily that there isn't any relation between experience and greatness.

Common sense says you want someone with executive experience to be the top executive in the nation, but apparently the job of President of the United States is so unique that executive experience truly doesn't matter. Something else, unquestionably, is the major factor with that job. So, when someone goes nuts about Obama's lack of experience, just tell 'em, newp, sorry, doesn't matter. Their feelings on the matter are quite literally irrational, as the rationality is right there in the charted data. If Obama fails, or succeeds, it won't be because of his experience, it will be because of something else.

Most experience is towards the right, best presidents are towards the bottom.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I have a problem with your graph, Turtle. Is that based on popularity? Who decided who the best presidents were? I would contend FDR was a crappy policy president; but one who kept the masses placated by treating the symptoms, rather than the illness that was the Great Depression. Nixon's only blemish was his fall from grace during Watergate; tho Jimmy Carter was, by far, one of the worst presidents. Grant is near the top (worst) presidents. Why? Because he was a drunk? Wilson is close to the bottom (best); while Reagan is towards the middle.

This graph is nothing but someone's opinion of who the best presidents are. Means two things - jack and shiite. Anyone can make a graph saying what they want it to read.

The inexperience game was played both ways. Obama had no EXECUTIVE experience, while Palin was deemed too inexperienced to be VICE PRESIDENT, although she had been mayor and governor.

Even Lincoln is questionable in his actions during the Civil War - suspending Habeus Corpus, ignoring states rights, freeing Southern slaves in the Emancipation Doctrination, while turning his head while some Northern states still practiced it (although it was a good tactic meant to create revolts in the South). The Northerners were very unhappy with him by the end of the war, while the Southerners would've just assumed he be killed. (sound familiar, all you W. haters?) His lack of diplomatic skills showed. Tho, in the end, the South (particularly Joe Johnson, while negotiating peace with Sherman) understood that Lincoln was THE one who could heal the South. Lincoln may or may not have been the best president for the time. That we would never know. Again, ultimately, it's an opinion-based theory.

I agree with you, in that presidents are as good as the ppl advising them. But that's the main reason I don't like Obama... he learned from the best... Marxists, that is.

 

[chefdennis]

I have 1 question. Those of you that are 'proud of America", that think the election of obmand was a great thing, is that because he is what for the most part and considered by most of the world to be a black man?

 

[Rabbit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit View Post
All human freedom begins with property rights, so that every time property rights are eroded, freedom is eroded.
Uhm, if you think about that for even a few seconds, you'll realize how silly that sounds. Sure, every time property rights are eroded, freedom is also eroded, that much is true.

But to state that "all human freedom begins with property rights," well, that's just, I'm sorry, that's just an asinine statement. That's saying that in order to have any freedom at all, you must own property, and if you don't own property you cannot have freedom, and that's just as asinine. Human freedom (a.k.a., liberty), was in place, endowed by the Creator or an inalienable right (however you choose to phrase it), long before the concept of property ownership and property rights was invented. The Native American Indians, for example, had no concept of the ownership of land. None. Yet no one would doubt that their human freedoms were brutally and acutely eroded.

Human freedom is the unquestioned right to do as one chooses with the freedom from outside coercion or outside compulsion, and in a modern society, that means the individual has that freedom provided his actions do not limit the freedoms of others.

Property rights are merely a subset of rights, formed as a result of modern society, out of the much larger notion of freedom itself. Liberty and human freedom says that you should be able to do whatever you want to with, or on, your own property, to the extent that the liberties of others are not infringed, but property ownership is not a requisite for securing your inherit freedom.

If only ya hadn't used the word "all".



I respectfully beg to differ. There may be a right or two that has a different root-origin, but if you look at the overall history of human rights as the general populace emerged from serfdom in Europe, you'll see a definite correlation. The great rights are _deeply_ rooted in the right to own and control possessions. For example, early tort law and associated principles of justice arose out of land and other valuable-property ownership. Even the Magna Carta itself was precipitated by high taxation, which is a form of assault on property rights. I first learned this, by the way, from the reading the books of the great economist and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman. I recommend his "Free to Choose", which all about economics, property rights and freedom, very highly. It was one of the great influences on my life, as it has been on many others.