Neowin.net

Considering everything he's got to 'change', he's not got much time to spare.

Looks like the site devs were working on this site for quite some time.
I wouldn't expect anyone to built a new site so quickly.
Some of the files on the site have 24 October as the last modified date.

Oh yeh, I'm sure they've been working on it for quite some time

Yes. Save us from the whiny crybabies like ispamforfood, please!

Nope, he ignored you for the last 8 years. Why mess with an improvement?

he ignores the ppl who vote for bush and mccain
those ppl that are stuck in the early 1900's

I see no whining or crying in this post, so maybe you should get your head out of your arse and mind your p's and q's

Because tracking a candidate/President in his efforts to meet the promises he made is somehow a bad idea, worthy of scorn and derision?

More tears? Go take a nap, you'll feel better.

Does every post that you make have to be padded with a thick level of self-stroking arrogance? You must have a real self-esteem problem if you can't have a discussion with someone without trying to belittle them.

Another disgruntled republican I guess.

The shag carpeting and black velvet paintings were being ordered for the "Big House" (renamed) as you were voting.

Is it hard going through life an ignorant hillbilly racist?

I'm not sticking up for rdburker, but calling others ignorant hillbillies is a slur. To criticize others as racists when your own comments reflect a deep form of bigotry is the basest form of hypocrisy.

Change feels wonderful, doesn't it? Having half our money stripped away to be wasted by the US Government. Allowing the slaughter of innocent babies. Removing freedom of speech for those who don't agree with you. Can't wait -- change we "need".

Heck, like I heard recently, September 11th was a pretty big change. It just wasn't a "good" change.

I'll always be proud I voted for McCain. I have a great feeling that those who voted for Obama will (eventually) see they've been sorely deceived by who this man says he is and the change he acts like he's bringing that's "good".

mccain and sarah palin sure are winners
i mean..palin didnt know africa was a country...cmon
incompetent team right there..if they cant communicate and run a campaign..how are they gonna run a country
and mccain..losing his temper and looking like hes gonna explode during that last debate..lol..yeah real good vote
no wonder he lost SO BAD

I agree with her. Africa is not a country (and never was a country)!

Despite what Neoauld said, she thought Africa is a country - she was unaware it is a continent.

Last edited by asmodeus on 07 Nov 2008 - 12:35

And Biden thought there were TVs and that FDR was President in 1929. He also told a person in a wheelchair to stand up...

Yea the conservatives vote for people "dumb like me" and people they can "have a beer with."

I hate to break it to you, but Africa IS NOT A COUNTRY. Africa IS A CONTINENT with many countries on it. If you don't know that, you should not be voting.

And he's going to try and fix it. This isn't another Bush here.

To lump Clinton and Obama, for example, with the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administrations over the past 40 years is to have missed the fundamental movements in American politics. To not know the difference makes it clear you haven't even read the book you are providing a link to.

So how about you stick to your always pro-Mac posts? You're WAY out of your depth in this pond.

Wait until the next elections to render your judgments.

Obama hasn't done anything yet. And one of his top advisers is the individual who wrote that book. Also, Rahm Emmanuel, one of Obama's top aides-to-be, is fairly militant in his views. I've love to see what this administration has to offer Palestine.

There have really been no "fundamental movements" in American Politics apart from what's been the standard fare for over 30 years. The attitudes are the same.

The United States invaded Iraq to gain control of one of the major sources of the world’s energy, right in the heart of the world’s energy producing regions, to create, if they can, a dependent client state, to have permanent military bases, and to gain what’s called “critical leverage” I’m quoting Zbigniew Brzezinski here, to gain "critical leverage over rivals", the European and Asian economies.

This sort of international adventurism is nothing new. And it would otherwise be really no cause for complete if we choose to remove the moral issues from the equation - except that the fruits of this adventurism end up costing American lives, burden American taxpayers, and actually create the very sort of terrorism that America is trying to fight.

If we take Brzezinski's ideas (and advice to the State) as a real roadmap of American policy, then we see that very little has changed with respect to the attitudes of political leaders in the US, and with respect to a general population that is very easily led.

Last edited by LTD on 07 Nov 2008 - 12:15

Chicago Politics will clean up Washington.....LOL

Didn't anybody watch the X-Files? The President doesn't run the Country anyway! That 39 Thieves called me an ignorant hillbilly racist! How dare he! LOL

LTD, you only show that you know as little about American politics as you do about computers. You are WAY out of your depth if you want to debate ME on the history of American politics.

Again, to lump Carter and Clinton's policies in with Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 is to miss the actual causes and effects of the problems you are citing.

And to put Obama in the same category as Bush is to compare "a great Canadian politician of your choice" with that moron Mulroney.

Fundamental change? Like being a member of the world, rather than a bully?

Stuff like that.

First off, how about you look at how much money and man-power our country spends on medical, financial, and physical aid around the world. Hardly a bully. And if you're referring to Iraq, the people there were being murdered by the hundreds of thousands by a dictatorship that we removed. Are you saying they would have been better off if we had left them alone?

Besides, changing diplomatic policy is a policy change, not a fundamental change to the country. Changing the US from a capitalist society to a socialist one - where more faith is put in the power of our country's government than the strength of its citizens - that's the kind of change I'm afraid Obama means.

I'm trying to be optimistic, but I'm just not sure how our country's problems can be fixed by turning it into an Obama-nation...

my bro just got another 40cal S&W, and trying to stock up on 15 size clips before they get banned. He was thinking of getting an AR-15 rifle before they get banned but doesn't want to drop $900 on it, lol.

I'm not surprised Obama won, not mad, just scared for the future.

Omg. I'm afraid too. What the hell am I gonna do without guns?!?

Living like any other person out there that don't have guns... Oh the horror! It must be almost as bad as living without Neowin

People are buying guns because prices will skyrocket, and those that will have them will be literally sitting on a goldmine. People want to gobble them up in case they are banned, that's the only 'fear' involved in any of this. But this will only be for the more typically restricted types of weapons, such as the AR-15 which was mentioned above. Get it?

yeah...there are Brave people who will fight for what they have..and then there are others that 'Sleep with the Enemy'

Florida residents, who understand that Barack Obama is against the second amendment, are buying guns before it becomes a crime under an Obama administration.
http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/...ama-presidency/

Get it?

And Mr. Pinkeye is such a reliable source for information...


http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/about/

I was a cop for 10 years so just keep denying the the gun issue 39. I'm not saying that we should adopt the wild west way again but you are safer with than without. No more posts on this topic for this ignorant hillbilly racist.

uh we are talking about Obama here lol. Its going to be worse than ever.

Lets hope not...

You do realize that Clinton created a surplus, right? Bush was the one that completely obliterated that surplus with his ridiculous spending.

Yep, and his father went on a spending spree before him. I don't see where people get the idea that Republicans are financially conservative. All they have done in the past 30yrs is spend money on going to war.

There are few things more expensive than going to war.

I forget the figures of how many Space Shuttles I read NASA could launch yearly for the cost of that.

uhhh? the shuttle does go up more than once a year.

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html

Personally, I feel Barack's young age mostly appealing. He wouldn't have got to this position this quickly if he didn't have the political skill to do so, so this is no worry to me. He even went against the grain, being black. Then I'm more negative about "family affairs", with e.g. George W Bush. These may or may not push good presidents, but Obama has no such precedent. So I can then only look at his young age as positive -- it's always biologically better to be young. I'm always worried that 70+ year old farts will have too much hampered mental capacity due to their old age. Sure, they have the experience as a plus, but it's undeniable that the brain suffers too.

His age has nothing to do with why people "are scared" as you say. People don't like him because of his unfair biases, his enormous spending plans, and his agenda to systematically strip people of their Constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights. I strongly dislike Obama, and comparing him to myself, he is more than twice my age, so to me his is old just like other politicians. I don't care about the age of politicians just as long as they share my values, which McCain was much closer to doing than Obama.

WOW... bigotry at its best (worst).

Care to elaborate? Probably not because you have nothing logical to add. I bet you didn't even listen to the recording did you?

Last edited by ermax on 07 Nov 2008 - 20:00

Not really bigotry, just ridiculous fear mongering.

Last edited by TRC on 08 Nov 2008 - 00:05

Sure, referring to "Kool Aid drinkers" is "code" for African Americans and therefore bigotry. Hope that's clear enough.

WTF, no it's not. Where did you come up with that nonsense?

Here, this is where the phrase originates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-Aid#.22D...the_Kool-Aid.22

/facepalm

I haven't heard that phrase used in that manner before. I don't think its too hard to understand why I thought he was being a bigot. If you can't see that then I pity you. I do apologize to the OP if he was using the term to refer to liberal democrats.

Oh, I see. You pity me because unlike you I didn't automatically think of something racist when someone mentions Kool-aid.

Yeah...I think I'll just walk away now.

Usually people just walk away and dont incite more responses by leaving another comment... but anyway given the topic and previous comments its not a stretch for someone to react like I did. Especially not being aware of the terms other usage. So yea sorry for the BS.

l8r

Anyone that follows politics knows the term "Kool-Aid drinkers". I am far from a bigot. Obama's race has nothing to do with why I don't agree with him.

Fear of what Obama stands for, yes. I didn't vote for McCain in the primarily. I would have rather voted for someone else but wasn't going to vote for someone with an incredibly short and messed up record and just "hope" he changes his direction. I tend to vote with my brain, not my heart.

It couldn't ever be because we disagreed with his policies. That's impossible.

I guess disagreement = fear?

I personally did not vote for Obama but now that it's over I'm relieved. I just think that people who are saying change is in the air are jumping the gun a bit. Only time will tell if he lives up to his word or not. In the end he's still a politician.

Yes, that's precisely what I mean. There is a fear that any action which does not maintain the status quo will have negative repercussions, without taking heed of the tremendously difficult problems we face at the moment, many of which have arisen due to the current adminsitration's follies. In dire times like this (also taking into account that the last Democratic administration left us with a budget surplus) it is my belief that seeking change, rather than similar policy, is the way forward.



In the 'primarily'? Interesting. In any event, I can't see how the alternative of McCain and Palin was much better. The previous lack of change aside, Sarah Palin's significantly short and shockingly poor track record as regards most policy (and simple geographic knowledge) didn't exactly inspire confidence.

In the end, the American people spoke, and I'm glad that many of them voted with their slightly more analytical brains, despite your attempts to belittle their reasoning.

Hahaha. I meant, primary. Must have been a typo that go fixed up by the spell checker.

Anyways, change can be good but the change Obama wants isn't. I am not just talking about his tax policies. You ether have difficulty thinking "analytically" or you haven't done the slightest bit of research. BTW, watching the boob tube isn't research. I guess you are saying the voting for "hope" is analytical?