Lonan3 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Loved the line from the Daily Mash: "Obama last night faced an immediate challenge as a New York Times poll revealed that more than 75% of Americans were too chubby to applaud his inauguration speech." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 its common knowledge that the americans have a LARGE electorate.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I wish they would stop going on about him being the first black president, Yes, a quick look at the history books puts him at about number 8 for black and mixed race president. For example, why do you think Obama and MLK's idol is Abe Lincoln? I do wish also that the issue of him being black is repeated over and again in the specific respect that because it is about the Presidency it shows that some sense of equality. If you adopt the values, norms, and culture of the dominant white class then you can become President. But Obama will be no more a stepping stone in the end of racism than Thatcher was to feminism. Nevertheless, it does show how far the country has come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I do wish also that the issue of him being black is repeated over and again in the specific respect that because it is about the Presidency it shows that some sense of equality. If you adopt the values, norms, and culture of the dominant white class then you can become President. Would you think he had more authenticity as a black man if he dressed like Mr T and put a big set of chrome rims on Airforce One? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don fugazi Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I like the nifty ad campaign that Veet ran in Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 George W Bush was a fantastic president. He presided over a highly successful economy and made it better. He reacted strongly and fairly when his country was attacked and quickly detained people who were obviously guilty (you only have to look at them and we know they're bad men). He successfully overthrew and quickly brought democracy to Iraq and now the name 'George' is the 2nd most popular christian name in Iraq (number 1 is 'Tony'). He opposed stem cell research and rightly denied possible cures for many sick people across the USA. So many positive things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 This isn't meant to be a leading question but did we ever find out what the 'W' stood for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 It's Walker. Wish it was something better though but it is quite close to the most appropriate title for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 George W Bush was a fantastic president. He presided over a highly successful economy and made it better. He reacted strongly and fairly when his country was attacked and quickly detained people who were obviously guilty (you only have to look at them and we know they're bad men). He successfully overthrew and quickly brought democracy to Iraq and now the name 'George' is the 2nd most popular christian name in Iraq (number 1 is 'Tony'). He opposed stem cell research and rightly denied possible cures for many sick people across the USA. So many positive things. I know what you mean about 'those who looked guilty'. People were detained after the bombings, A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE DETAINED, simply because they were Arab regardless of whether there was any evidence to show that they had a connection. A large number were detained for 150 days without any convictions, and a smaller number were held for some years without being allowed to contact their families and with no convictions having been made. (Nonetheless, Britain's response to terrorism is even more drastic and draconian) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 George W Bush was a fantastic president. He presided over a highly successful economy and made it better. He reacted strongly and fairly when his country was attacked and quickly detained people who were obviously guilty (you only have to look at them and we know they're bad men). He successfully overthrew and quickly brought democracy to Iraq and now the name 'George' is the 2nd most popular christian name in Iraq (number 1 is 'Tony'). He opposed stem cell research and rightly denied possible cures for many sick people across the USA. So many positive things. I know what you mean about 'those who looked guilty'. People were detained after the bombings, A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE DETAINED, simply because they were Arab regardless of whether there was any evidence to show that they had a connection. A large number were detained for 150 days without any convictions, and a smaller number were held for some years without being allowed to contact their families and with no convictions having been made. (Nonetheless, Britain's response to terrorism is even more drastic and draconian) No! Say it ain't so! If that were true then the news media would be full of stories confirming what you say and forum posters just wouldn't bother responding to such a blindingly obvious and patronizing post. Surely you must be wrong, surely the War on Terror is very, very important, because if everyone has been privy to the same information as you, next thing you know they'd be wanting to oust the politicians responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 No! Say it ain't so! If that were true then the news media would be full of stories confirming what you say and forum posters just wouldn't bother responding to such a blindingly obvious and patronizing post. Surely you must be wrong, surely the War on Terror is very, very important, because if everyone has been privy to the same information as you, next thing you know they'd be wanting to oust the politicians responsible. Sorry Freggyragh, not sure how much of your post was sarcasm there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 No! Say it ain't so! If that were true then the news media would be full of stories confirming what you say and forum posters just wouldn't bother responding to such a blindingly obvious and patronizing post. Surely you must be wrong, surely the War on Terror is very, very important, because if everyone has been privy to the same information as you, next thing you know they'd be wanting to oust the politicians responsible. Sorry Freggyragh, not sure how much of your post was sarcasm there. 200% S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 No! Say it ain't so! If that were true then the news media would be full of stories confirming what you say and forum posters just wouldn't bother responding to such a blindingly obvious and patronizing post. Surely you must be wrong, surely the War on Terror is very, very important, because if everyone has been privy to the same information as you, next thing you know they'd be wanting to oust the politicians responsible. Sorry Freggyragh, not sure how much of your post was sarcasm there. 200% S Fair enough, just don't see how it was patronising post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.