₦airaland Forum

Lmao,

tpia, make we give Olaolufred some schnapps and kolanut make him for take send the deceased into her journey into heaven. Abi him want slaughter goat put for the wake-keeping? This is funny

Don't set yourself up for dissapointment. If an election is this close you need to be open minded and pray, do not assume a win from polls alone. I keep telling you guys, popular votes is a filter and not the qualifier for the Presidency. The electoral college was predictive in the past but in 2008 we are in a historical election in which for the first time in the history of US a black man is competing against a white war veteran at the electoral college.

You all chill and just take it as it comes and not go into a frenzy and endager your heart. You want to hear the result on earth, not in heaven, right?

May her soul rest in Peace. I hope he wins this for her.

If Davis is truly Barack's biological father then this has definitely earned him more credits. All those rumors about he is Muslim, he is not a citizen, he is foreigner will all be discredited. When God decrees for you to have something, no one can deny it to you. This is Obama's Presidency, period!

Frank Marshall Davis or Barack Obama Snr ? Look at these pictures.

It took you a while, but we're happy to have you in our camp! Welcome to the light!

Richy,

I saw the light years ago about who Obama was. I lost interest in him after he strayed off course and my support for him now is on account of the movement. But anyway, thanks!

Rothschild once said (paraphrase) 'Give me control of the nation's economy and I care not who makes its laws.'

He said this because once he controls the economic system then he will automatically control its political policy.

No doubt, Rothschild did as chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. Here is that connection to the tale of Jewish control of US money currency.

Nonetheless, GsUp, get up and vote. You are correct the two parties are the same and the candidates have not distinctly qualified why their policies are different but of the two, Obama has laid a foundation that in years to come will be a benefit, whether or not he will execute it is not clear. We cannot abandon that foundation, never know when that opportunity may come around again, if it did anytime soon.

You and your conspiracy theories. . . . whether it comes to electoral votes or employment, you have a conspiracy theory for everything

Lmao at conspiracy theories.

It is innovative to let your imaginations run wild, very adventurous. Did you see Manchurian Candidate? Did you read Robert Ludlum? Do you watch James Bond? Million maker novels and movies based on political conspiracies. Siddon there, I shall be a millionaire soon.

As for the China and Russia example, you know, I lose interest when ideology enters a debate.

Thanks, this closes the discussion.

I always judge an economy by real GDP and no of jobs created. Full stop.

Ibime,

I know this is adressed to someone else and I really should not respond, however I could not help asking you about something that caught my eyes.

In labor statistics, how is "no of jobs created" defined? There is suspicion on the unemployment report and forecast by labor departments for this very reason.

Ayres, Wright, ACORN etc. Even when it was shown that all of these associations were overstated

You mean understated?

Followers of Obama have a blindfold over their eyes, they are duped, bamboozled and scammed into thinking that Obama is innocent of these associations or that they were mere circumstantial meetings. To the contrary, Obama was actively connected with these people and organizations in an ideological imprint. I continue to say this, I am on Tayo's side on the issues of Obama's associations with radicalism. The difference is you can see radicalism as a problem or you can see it as an asset. I see it as an asset and when I look at Obama in terms of these associations he earns my respect, without them he is irrelevant in my eyes.

America stopped imprisoning people for political conscience and so you dont see political prisoners in America. Its because they serve as galvanizing points for grassroot movements. That tactic has proven successful. People refuse to believe in Obama's radicalism and that helps the establishment to isolate him and dilute the convergence which otherwise would have resulted if he was indeed crowned as a radical. Stop the denial and accept that he is radical. Obama has a future beyond Nov 4th, if he wins on grounds that he is not radical then it becomes impossible for him to run as a radical President. Attempting to do just that might then cost him his life. fbi and cia can decapitate their own leader just as they can that of a foreign country.

Over the past few months we have all been engaged heatedly about the US elections, taking sides and becoming virtual surrogates for the candidates. Our passion is transformed, some of us see the unfolding events objectively for what they are, most of us see things in the same manner we fervently adore football teams; with blind worship. Whichever way we regard the candidates we all know where the goal line is and the ultimate is to see our candidate score points against the opponent and be declared the winner of the election. The adrenaline is pumping and anxiety is high. If you are registered to vote and you have not yet voted but will be voting tomorrow then I need you to read this in its entirety.

You should vote for Barack Obama. Here is why. . .

I said many weeks ago that the Republican establishment has a tighter rein on its administrations than Democrats do. Each Republican administration is a cumulative growth expansion on the last one in power. A building block of ideologies designed for the end purpose of securing and monopolizing total global access and control for America and to which any opposition is considered a deadly adversary and a threat to American interests and securities. To the untrained ears this will sound ideal and desirable until you begin to analyze the true definition of "American interests and securities". Who is covered under those ideals?

Under a Republican administration corporate interests are heavily protected. The forces of capitalism and free market is much more monumental than most people have awareness to the extent that consumers, unknowingly, often act as agents for these producers and against self-interest simply in their trends of purchases. For example, in its push to protect private capitalism and expand production which invariably increases profit and wealth for a narrow population in the corporate establishment, the Bush administration, after 9/11, ushered Americans to go out and shop and travel and spend. A call that many equated with acts of patriotism. Unless you are stupid, I don't know how buying yourself into debt becomes an act of patriotism.

In another instance, product liability lawsuits were capped by the administration, making it very difficult to sue and get fair compensation for harmful effects on the consumer by a defect product that failed to meet standards or for which the producer failed to make adequate steps to guarantee safety. The outcome is producers took liberty of the protection to cut cost on safety and quality, thus increasing margin of profit at the expense of consumer health and well being. If you took a pain killer that resulted in adverse effect and you start haemorraghing in your ears and you took the case to court, because of this Bush law, the drug manufacturer stand a better chance of winning the lawsuit. If they lose and the Judge has to award damages, there is a formula and a cap on how much you can get and the amount may not even be sufficient to cover half your medical cost for treatment. Painful isn't it?

The next Republican administration that come in after Bush will also serve to protect private capitalism, although some of the wacky Bush laws may be revoked and new laws put in their place but ultimately, expect to see protectionist leanings in favor of private wealth. That's in line with conservative ideals for Americans. Which Americans? I'll let you figure that out.

You might ask. . . well, what's wrong with having private capitalism? Follow with me as I explain Obama's position and the one you should adopt as well.

What is our biggest grievance in Nigeria? We have a government that protects private wealth in the hands of few at the expense of many hard working and struggling citizens. It is so deplorable that voicing opposition to that structure is viewed as a hardline criticism of the government and acquiescing and going with the flow is viewed as acts of support and patriotism. The government wants its citizens to see the seat of government as the only rightful owner and access to wealth and power. The truth of the matter is by way of natural endowment we are living in a country superbly rich in mineral & agricultural resources, those resources are held in a trust by the Federation and the Federal Government is accountable and responsible for dispensing the earnings from the profits of these reqources in equitable developments that seek new growths and expansion for more profit and you can only accomplish that by investing in the people and the localities where these reources are mined or harvested. Instead, the earned profits are shared amongst few hands who sit on the government. Ordinary citizens have thus come to conclusion that to live well and enjoy the goodies in life you ascend to governmental power and you stay there by eliminating others from getting there. This is private capitalism in a Nigerian context. This is not to say that there are no corporations and businesses in private hands, there are but they are treated as competition to the government. To limit their power and control the heads of such businesses are forced to pay homage to government and give unconditional support. To that extent where they have no independent voice, then they are an extension of the government.

Obama, at the outset of his Presidential bid was intent on installing a consciousness and nothing more than that. He did not believe he will carry as far as he has come today in the election battle. His role was simple - make community organizing an establishment, a caucus, of the political electoral system and give it a voice that the electorate can recognize today, next four years, eight years and subsequent American Presidential elections; make it a household name and get a movement going. Why is there need for a movement in America? There has always been movements in America. Civil rights was a movement. In the history of the world, whenever a ruling class battles with a movement, the movement always win. Obama belongs in a movement, he believes in the movement and he champions the cause of the movement and there is no shame in these claims, rather, he should be proud of those labels of radicalism.

There are multi party system in American politics but only the two top ones are relevant. The two share in the ideology concerning American relations in a global context but they have differences in how the ideology should be deployed. Democrats, like Republicans, believe in private capitalism but only so far that the extremities of capitalist principles does not end up crushing the consumer upon which the roots of private wealth subsists.

The counter-ideology to private capitalism and "American" private wealth is the one that Obama is advocating. That the American dream is not a true dream if the ceiling to that ideal is exclusively reserved for a protected segment of the American people. He believes the guardians are not going to open the gates voluntarily, therefore the people must forcibly crush the gates open and they do this by systemically increasing their own access and relevance in the constituional mandates of power - Executive, Judicial and Legislative. When people have fair representation in the Presidency, the Courts and Congress, then the penetrating influence of corporate lobbyists and marketing interest groups can be mitigated and a fair balance instituted via legislation that seek safety guidelines and protection of consumer rights against the predatory greed of private capitalism to cut cost and amass private wealth immorally and through unethical practices. This does not oppose the need for private capitalism or the creation of wealth but it does open opportunity for those who otherwise might not have had the opportunity to now consolidate resource for investments and entrepreneurship, thus expanding access and fairness of opportunity for vertical advancement to crash the ceiling of the American dream. When this happens, people have practical investment in their own neighborhoods and by protecting their investments they invariably protect their neighborhoods and spur growth and development thus enabling self-sufficiency and less dependence on government handouts. This vision is true for all the sub cultures of the American people regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and background.

Because he did not come in to win but instead to setup a foundation stone for the movement, Obama has not managed his winnings well. This is why if you look back you must wonder why with all the winds behind him and the clear sky above him has Obama not solidly sealed the fate of the election. It's because at each new turn in his victory he is thrown into a new whorl in which the spinning axis exerts a centripetal force that sucks him into the precepts of the very ideology he came in to counter and forces to enthrone him as a guardian of that ideology of exclusive rights; he is caught in between. He still believes he is going to the Oval office to protect consumers but he will soon find out, regrettably, that when he disowned Jeremy Wright he was suckered in beyond a point of return. Just as disowning Wright has not cost him the Presidency, maintaining his ties with the Pastor would not have made any difference in his popularity and followership and in that case his legitimacy as a consumer rights President will not even be in question. A consumer rights President will not vote for a bailout of Wall street with tax payers money.

What must we do now? Agreeably, he has succeeded in laying the foundation, although he might no longer have the wherewithall to lead us in that forcible crash into the gates but we can take it from here. If you believe in consumer rights, if you believe it is unfair not to prosecute a drug manufacturer who sells products with knowledge of its danger and hazardous risks to consumers, if you believe it is unfair to distribute debt from Wall street and block prosperity to Main street, if you believe that consumers are unfairly targeted in marketing practices and with consumption beyond what is fairly affordable by their pocket, if you believe that consumers need a counter representation that protect their interests against the gluttony of corporate greed, then there is only one way to vote - [size=14pt]vote for the movement; vote OBAMA[/size]!

Where in Obama's personal life has he practiced "spread the wealth"? Is it in his charitable giving or in regards to family members

This is where ACORN comes in. Annenberg Foundation and the Woods Fund were charitable organizations funding non-profit community organizations. While on their board, Obama was one of those responsible for identifying and disbursing grants for need programs. There were many beneficiaries of the grants, primary amongst them was ACORN. So yes he has managed charities and community outreach programs.

What he did not give of his own personal money he gave in time, service and commitments both as a community center advisor and mentor as well as board member, and ultimately the Chairman of the board on those two foundations. He deserved credit for his selflessness back then. I know you will say it was a calculated vision for his political aspirations. I will agree with that opinion but to the extent that you view him as a plant - as one link in a chain of political operatives intended by the radical left to transform the ownership of wealth in America. Much as he dispells it as false labelling, Obama is an ideologue. If he wins radicalism wins, I just don't know to what extent they will succeed in implementing the Change he has earnestly vowed to bring.

4Play, you should vote for Obama.

Ibime,

I didn't think it will be productive to respond to you with what I thought of your remarks but I want to be kind and share an article with you. I don't know how much personal money you have in investments in America but please take time to read Ms Klein's article. I hope you begin to see this bailout issue as a calamity and respond with such gravity of conscience as to show sympathy rather than a dismissive and cold remark that gives it justification on account of traditional cycles. There is nothing traditional about this at all and in terms of human experience this is actually a violation of peoples rights, one that the US would have championed valiantly so were it happening in Russia or China instead of its own soil.

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/10/bailout-profiteers

I have listened to Rush a number of times. Most recently when Obama's AD accused him of racism against the Hispanics. That got my attention. However, on listening to him defend himself, I realise that Obama actually twisted his words to not only demonize the guy but to win votes. My impression of Obama got worse through that episode, and I kind of respected Rush even more.

Unrepentant Conservative no doubt! As a talk show jockey he has to push agendas and provoke the left wing but at whose expense? He derides minorities in ways that even his fellow Republicans sometimes disown him. But let's leave Rush alone, I'm glad you know him enough. There is something else that concerns me - your view of Obama. Please tell me the highlighted part was an impulsive remark and you did not mean that.

I distinctly categorize the Obama followers here in NL - those who follow Obama politics and have known and studied him before he declared to run for Presidency; and those who follow Obama Presidency and just recently fell in love with his style and finesse after he became a candidate. In my observation you seem to be a follower of his politics. I am in the bucket of those who followed his politics after he made the keynote speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004. I liked him ever since after discovering his social vision, I still adore the guy. I will not regret not voting for him, if I come to that conclusion on Nov 4th. I want to know your view and understanding of him, who you think he is as a person and where you place his social conscience. No doubt the Obama we see now is different from the Obama of past years but your statement above gave me a deep concern and quite honestly I am startled by it and this is why I ask you this question.

To my mind, people who complain about that are just selfish and have no compassion at all for their fellow man.
This ingrained mentality that it doesn't matter how you earn your money, you can screw anyone, once you've got it there's no payback is all that's wrong with the US today.

Good talk my friend! Great!!

In Africa and most other places on the globe people have conscience in the way they make money. In America, money and morals do not mix at all.

White Americans see Jesus as part of Capitalism. Hence other religious beliefes are viewed with suspicion as a threat on their way of life and quality of living. They sum it up by saying communism and socialism are evils.

Black Americans see Jesus as part of their conscience. Hence they view everyone as one brotherhood of mankind and are tolerant and easy to forgive unexcusable violations of their safety and well being, socially and financially. They sum it up by saying "if it's meant to be mine, God will give it to me".

Tayo,

Rush is nothing but a bag of bigotry and racism. He does not outright act or project racism but the undertone of his programmes is no doubt a clear and conclusion on where his conscience is - the supremacy of the white race as the sole determiner and pathfinder for the rest of humanity.

Of course one video might not be sufficient guage of his racial rhetorics but I guarantee you if you listen to rush for an entire week you will come out convinced about his loyalty and leanings, as well as beliefs.

You are right on BigB, he is a die hard supporter of Obama for Presidency but his temperament is very close to McCain's - he starts off cool and collected, persuasive but then ends up rabid and discredited.

Who is that saying Obama is not linked to ACORN?

Obama is linked to ACORN. There is nothing bad or shameful about being an ACORN ally, unless you don't want it to be known by mainstream America that you advocate for the rights of the masses and the underpriviledged American. In that case you can distance yourself from ACORN. If you are willing and ready to take mainstream head-on, then you should be proud of your past associations with ACORN.

Is Obama ready to battle with the mainstream establishment, or is the taste of Presidency too sweet that he will abandon and distance himself from his old allies? Who is he fighting for, the little guy or the affluent mainstream guy?

@Post,

The Aunt's status as legal or illegal is a personal family issue that Obama need to attend to now that he is aware of it.  She should not be seeking asylum status in US.  Her intent to stay in US should be on a more and better tenable cause than escaping persecution at home in Kenya.  Nonetheless, I don't see any news worthiness in the issue.  Let it be and get away from this one, Obama will take care of her if she is that relevant enough in his life that she was worth a mention in his life memoirs, then she has earned enough credit for him to step in and give her a legal status - all he has to do is petition for her as the only paternal blood line he has in America, on grounds of heritage.

On other issues relating to tax and job creation - Tayo, I'm on your side.  Capitalism is the social order in America.  Capitalism is private ownership of the means to create productivity.  

Our problem is compounded by greed for consumption.  We are constantly spending to acquire and sorround ourselves with material objects. Outward image and the petty mind to give the impression of power and intimidation has overtaken the inner spirit's desire for healthy living.  The adverse impact is the presence of obesity from gluttony - eat, eat, eat! In addition to that we also have excess burden of debts - financed car, financed furniture, financed clothes, financed homes, financed computer, financed appliances, financed everything. . . . everytime you spend your credit card you accumulate debt in finance charges. . .  buy, buy, buy!  

Everytime you eat eat eat, you are taxed, taxed and taxed!  Everytime you buy buy buy, you are taxed, taxed and taxed!  You worked 40hrs and grossed $2,000.  You are taxed before you get your pay check, you are taxed when you buy grocery, you are taxed by utility companies, you are taxed when use toll roads, you are taxed when you see a doctor, you are taxed when you buy prescription medicine, you are taxed when you fly airline, . .  true, government is responsible for some of our troubles but overwhelmingly we are irresponsible and undisciplined about money management and fail to see that raw cash has more value than credit card, long term.  We have become a flock for consumer marketing industries, we are not the decision makers in what we want and where we go, they herd us in the direction they want us to go and in which manner they want us to respond to their products.  

We can tranform the relationship without upsetting the social system.  Capitalism and means of production can continue to rest in private hands but then the people who consume the production ought to have representation in form of a movement or a coalition that educates them and serve as their lobbyist for congressional legislations on consumer products and services.  This grassroot solution will deliver a redistributive balance in social opportunities and wealth.  This was Obama's position in his intent to run for Presidency and I supported it as it was in the original context.  I don't believe that is possible anymore even if he wins and become the President.  His White House staffers are overwhelmingly affluent whites and they will block his attempts to expand private ownership of means of production into minority hands.  

Minorities are an integral part of the consumption class, not of the financing class, period!

American Presidents do not actually make their own decisions once in power - they are dictated to by the corporations who backed their campaigns (i.e. the highest bidder(s)). Look at how Halliburton benefitted from Bush's reign of terror

True, it does not matter if Obama or McCain win, the Presidency is sorrounded by a labyrinth of staff -

- White House,
- Departments
- Agencies & Bureaus
- Commissions and Boards

White House alone has over 50 staffers whose primary role is to serve the President directly and they take orders from no one else but him. Each of those staffer is in turn staffed with assistants and deputies who interface downstream with a pool of general staff that perform push-button administrative and real time liaison duties and errands. Below them you have the itinerary and housekeeping staff - who attend to the secretarial and appointments and refreshments and stuffs. You add these together and you have close to 200 headcount. Each of whom is a privilege access to get the President's attention and influence his opinion and executive power. Lobbyists go through staffers to get to the President and so there is no President, regardless of his campaign vows that is truly insulated from the influence of money bags.

This campaign season has demonstrated that to us vividly. The millions of dollars they are spending on ads, they are coming around to pay it back as favors to interest groups that their campaign benefited from during the general elections. There is no Change but you can expect more of the same.

Midas, Nice job.  Big applause for you, well written and thought out!! Nice job!

Obama is not black. He's 50% white, 50% black.

What should people of that mix breed be called, mullato?

Open racists and closet racists mostly!!

On Point! Is mullato not racist?

This is from post # 16 on this thread, written on October 1st.

. . . . . Let us assume that Wall street and Banks are bailed out for credit solvency. What would happen if next week the Telecomms companies cry that they are in financial problem? You definitely cannot let telecomms go belly up can you? What happens if airlines come the upper week and say they are in financial problem and are ready to pack it in? What happens if the food supply industry or the hospitals say they are in financial problems?

. . . the auto manufacturers are asking for bailout from the treasury. Looks like the government has started a cycle that eventually will bankrupt the treasury either way you look at it - upfront by paying bailouts and keeping jobs or backdoor by allowing companies to fail and then cushioning the laid off workers with unemployment insurance and other social services.

Any input . . .?

So you're quite right I'm very interested in who Obama is. But that's where it ends.

Lmao. . .

Whether he wins the Presidency or not, he is not dissapearing from global political landscape and you are going to run into him again. You should do some study on who he will become, as a President and far beyond that, as a world citizen.

Maedan,
You said in an earlier post that if becoming President will earn him historical greatness at the expense of a greater cosmic purpose, then you'd rather not see him succeed. You are the first person I have witnessed to demonstrate a genuine compassion for Senator Obama. None of his followers I have encountered have been so generous and kind to weigh the outcomes of his future as a global statesman. People often misplace Presidency with Statesmanship.

All successes in life are preceded first by a failure. Success does not open the door to achievements, failures do.

. . . .Evidently

I think Obama will be fairer to the whites than all the minorities, just to prove that he's not a "Black" president

You know Madean, to sum up a person in how they may behave in any current or future situation you have to look at many facets of their past and study the behavioral patterns that they exhibited under similar situations, and even with that the odds that you could come out with an accurate prediction for their temperament is a broad shot.  You seem very interested in Obama and who he is.

Obama was a member of New Party.  To give an idea of what New Party is you have to go back to the 60s in America when Black Panther came up as a community orgarnizer to replace the role of government for their constituencies and become self-dependent (not autonomous, but self-dependent) and establish local council for administrative and social distribution of resources and manpower.  Black Panther had militants and local ideologues but it lacked political influence, academic credence and judicial representation.  New Party on the other hand has all that, plus the idologues minus the militants.

Barack's vision is a merge between what MLK had planned to achieve with non-violence and what Malcolm X envisioned with community self-sufficiency and direct confrontation with the government on its own turf - in the court room and in congress.  A total coalition and convergence of a movement rising up from the grassroot to demand and obtain full democracy, regardless of racial background or political affiliation or religion.  

Barack is bigger than US, the guy is a world figure.  He does not need the American Presidency to rule the world.  MLK ruled the world and he was never voted into any office.  Ghandi ruled the world and was never a member of Indian Parliament.  Nelson Mandela was already a world leader before he became a leader of his country.  Barack may be his own enemy.  In his desire to ascend the Presidency he is disowning principal ideologues with whom he founded the movement of coalitions - Wright, Ayers, Kashidi, and so on and so forth.  This is why in another post or might have been in here somewhere, I said that he has abandoned his vision and took on party slogans.  When you associate with party establishments you can kiss your movement ideology goodbye.

I never hated Barack. Never! I criticized him yes! . . . but hate him, never! I think critically and ask penetrating questions. If Barack make a statement that ought to be critiqued, then so be it. Thats not hate!

I think this is a stupid reason not to vote for Obama, but that's just my opinion.

Seun,

No, I am not in any way saying that people should cower away from voting Obama for fear of attack.  I agree it will be stupid for one to shy away from a belief or convinction for fear of attack.  My response there was in isolation and a discourse on what to expect after the fact.   To be honest with you, at the current tempo of events I believe his - Obama - safety is better guaranteed when he wins than if he loses.  So if for nothing else, he should be voted in so he can remain safely behind the curtain of security protocols.  If he loses they gonna kill him.  I believe in Obama as a person but as I have said many times, I am not a party card carrying member, I remain flexible to move to the platform that best addresses my needs.  I went past Obama and McCain and read the party platforms and compared their effectiveness with past implementations and outcomes and I decided on Republican.  

There are three ways I can go on Nov 4th - Vote Obama; Vote McCain; Don't cast a Vote.  As at today, the options are still open, I don't know what will happen tomorrow.  If anybody else but Barack was on the Democratic ticket, I would have voted already for McCain and told Dems to kiss my beeeep

Im holding on to vote for Barack but Dems are pushing me away from him.

James, Thank you! I'm glad you took time to read and appreciate it.

Ibime,

I disagree. What did Reagan call his social policy? What Reagan did or anyone else has done in years past is a administrative policy that, sought to look at averages in dispensing social resources. This is why there are so many statistical data that are far off from people's reality. When a low income person go to the social welfare office for assistance they are told that if you make within this bracket or have this many people in your household then you make too much or you are outside the band of coverage, in other words, in a standard deviation plot, you are an outlier. They never make attempt to review your case based on individual circumstance. The statistics of average may have overlooked or even never considered your bracket despite that your reality demands an immediate support to save you from caving under. They never use variation.

What Obama is saying is we should use variation based principles and in addition to that, as a secular issue removed from the arguments of capitalism, the wealthy owe it as a moral and social duty anyway to support the poor. To secure that definition on behalf of the poor he is proposing a constitutional right that is enforceable from the legislative bench. Do you know what this means? When you start talking about legislative bench, you cannot underestimate the influence of the President to effect dramatic broadbrush judicial makeover, starting with the US Circuit Court of Appeals and then with Supreme Court. I give it to Obama men! You have to listen to that audio clip and get the concrete meaning of what this guy was already thinking about 7 years ago. You see, Obama speak the white man language of political coding, he speaks it and he understands it very well, . thats why he could put some shyt like this out and no one attacked him. They underestimated his intelligence based on color of skin and dimissed his aptitude. This is the Barack I loved, serious!

Sorry Richy, I don't love the "Change We Can", Barack.

he intends to have obama impeached and pelosi VP

No, you have it wrong - The VP cannot impeach anybody but he can resign from his own office if he so chooses. Like I said I wont go into the full details of that now.

. . . there are two classes of political audience in America -

First Type - those that decode and can interprete the intent in a political statement or remark and prepare themselves proactively for the consequence
Second Type - those that take the statement for its face value. They miss the intent and wait reactively for the consequence to flood them.

Darfur, public relations have a craft when dealing with the public. You sandwich your damage as an insert of few words in a page length of dribbles that are composed to throw your target off mark and unaware untill the damage has taken root and it was too late to reverse the effect.

Politicians are salesmen aided by public relations specialists, they are there to help disseminate his/her crap with maximum outbound effectiveness but lessen the impact to him of the rebound reaction and responses that the crap generated.

As far as full quote of what he said, they are dribbles and I leave it for the second type audience to ponder while they wait in their two year inertia to discover what Biden is rapping.

Darfur, you don kolo. Where is BigB make he forward your message to Michelle.

This is someone who comes in contact with millions each day. Just how much security could ever be enough, especially for someone who's NOT yet the president? I really hope he makes it to the White House. It's not the time to say "I told you so," it's been obvious that Obama will always have a security threat. Not just to himself, but to his black supporters. The two "Nazis" credited with the assasination attempt also threatened to kill 102 Blacks as well. Will America be a safe place for the triumphant Afro-Americans if Obama wins? Who knows.

Maedan,

hmmm, interesting! Expect to see aggression and outright violence with lawlessness as well as increase in police brutality against blacks if Obama wins. It will be a statement from whites expressing a crushed ego for defeat at the polls. They have always held it as a birthright and so when they are dispossed of the oval office their tantrum kicks in. Its like taking a toy from a posessive child and giving it to a visiting child to play with, pretty soon you will see the possesive child exhibits animosity and anger towards the visiting child and that anger is sometimes accompanied with shoves or punches. Same situation here, Obama wins, you can bet its going to happen especially in rural counties.

I like the refreshness you bring in the way in which you ask questions or make inferrence in your statements. I am going to put your last inferrence in another way - what happens to safety if Obama does not win? I will leave this question open to anyone interested in answering it.

Karma, she is Capricorn like you, January 17th.

Bawo, please fix your gaze upward to the face, the angle you need to see is above the waist level. Look at her like she is already in White House, with adoration befitting a First Lady.

Will you all please repeating news spin and sound bites of conspiratorial anchors?

He is known for making gaffes , . he is known for making gaffes. . . he is known for making gaffes. . . . you all sound like parrots!

This is what he said

I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, “Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?” We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.

To those who cannot distinguish, this is called PREDICTION, not a BLUNDER or a GAFFE! The guy promised that after they get in office the public opinion of their administration will not be favorable. What is it they are planning to do that warrants a warning; why does he feel he needs to soften the blow that will be forthcoming when they are inaugurated?

If you are still maintaining that this is a gaffe, then should you not be asking yourself if you want a VP in office who is notorious for making blundering and embarassing remarks.