Thread: Barack Hussein Obama wins

Originally Posted by Lampada

Я - простой наблюдатель. Да, Обама мне пока представляется одним из немногих нормальных людей в верхах Вашингтона.

Блажен, кто верует. Я, однако же, ещё меньше, чем простой наблюдатель. (Слишком мало информации даже для простого наблюдения. ) Поэтому, настаивать не буду. Будем верить в хороший вариант развития событий.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

This is true. Anti-American sentiments prevail in the Russian media. But it's only natural, after all, considering the current relations between our countries.

I strongly suspect that the self-perception of a typical Russian has recently been elevated due to the so-called "independent" policy of Russia since Putin's government took over. I noticed that the overall motive has been somewhat close to: "So, before, Yeltzin and democrats have been doing exactly what the US wanted. However, the life was much worse than today. Now, when Russia is pursuing its own interests, the life is better. Therefore, it actually pays off to have independent policy. Have a look at what the US is doing - it's only doing what's the best for them. And ignores the others. So, now let's totally screw their opinion! We should ignore them too and we'll prosper."

Please correct me if you think I got that wrong.

If I got that right though, the tone wouldn't really be "natural", but rather very artificial.

I thing you've got cause and effect back to front. It's not 'having an independent policy pisses off the Americans and that makes us prosperous', but rather 'having an independent policy makes us prosperous and if that pisses off the Americans then that's just tough shit', which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Scotcher, Hmm, well you are right, no specific cities were mentioned, just "new targets in Europe."

Putin, 7/2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277492,00.html
http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/artic ... ld_war.htm

Gen. Solovtsov, 9/2008
“I can’t exclude that ... the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic and other such objects could be chosen as designated targets for some of our inter-continental ballistic missiles”
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news- ... -in-Europe

What the fact is with the American government? Should Russia settle its weapons somewhere in Peru or Mexico to prevent the bombing of Russia from the territory of Japan or Georgia? I am faithfull Russia should do it!

Now, now, all you Obama haters, don't be afraid, relax, we've been under the excellent management (hah!) of Bush junior for a while now, and what is the result? The world is a lot less stable, the planet hates America, the country is divided, the economy is in shambles, my house is worth $200k less than one year ago. I think we've reached rock bottom, fellows. It is time we let someone else steer this ship for the next 4 years!

For the Russians: in your eyes, as leof stated, he should be the lesser of the two evils. Obama has had much softer statements on Russian than McCain, especially when it came to the Georgian crisis. The democrats have been a lot more hesitant on the missile shield, but I doubt America will just turn in its tracks on that one... although one can only hope!

For the Reupblicans: At least Obama is including Republicans in his cabinet (latest: Robert Gates), being drastically more inclusive than the honorable Bush. Obama has a lot to live up to, the way the media has glorified him, and doubtless many will be disappointed, but compared to the previous administration, I think he'll do just fine!

Take a breather, America has made history, they eleceted an african-american president named Barack Hussein Obama!

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

It is time we let someone else steer this ship for the next 4 years!

Lucky people. Unfortunatelly, here in Russia we can't implement the same idea about our own presidents, in a case we're fed up with their styles of governing. That's the difference.

[quote=mishau_]

Originally Posted by "kalinka_vinnie":3pkbbufb

It is time we let someone else steer this ship for the next 4 years!

Lucky people. Unfortunatelly, here in Russia we can't implement the same idea about our own presidents, in a case we're fed up with their styles of governing. That's the difference.[/quote:3pkbbufb]
Об этом уже есть весёлая картинка:

Руководство России 2026

[quote=mishau_]

Originally Posted by "kalinka_vinnie":1wacso38

It is time we let someone else steer this ship for the next 4 years!

Lucky people. Unfortunatelly, here in Russia we can't implement the same idea about our own presidents, in a case we're fed up with their styles of governing. That's the difference.[/quote:1wacso38]
There is no real difference in the way Medvedev or Obama were "elected". Both were thrown upon the people by higher sources.

in what way do you mean Obama was thrown upon the people by higher sources? Do you mean that Obama was selected by Bush as his successor?

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

in what way do you mean Obama was thrown upon the people by higher sources? Do you mean that Obama was selected by Bush as his successor?

No, not by Bush, but by the Media who are heavily biased toward Liberal politics.

It did not help that McCain shot himself in the foot every chance he got to open his mouth, too! I found it hard to believe that the Republicans could find no better candidate than a second rate hack like McCain.

All in all, I doubt that USA Foreign Politics will be much different under Obama than Bush, anyway. Given the mess we are in, it will be difficult to extract ourselves out of Iraq at this point. Obama is now privy to certain military intelligence that he was not a few weeks ago.

So, what the average Americans expect from the new president? What's going to change in their life?

Originally Posted by Ramil

So, what the average Americans expect from the new president? What's going to change in their life?

1. Obama will take money from people who have high incomes and give it to people who have low incomes.

2. Higher taxes for all.

3. Expand government.

4. Kill freedom of speech.

5. Kill the right of self defence.

6. Legitimize same sex marriage.

7. Increase crime.

8. Destroy the cattle business.

9. Institute "Big Brother".

Interesting article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15674.html

Number 5 seems fine.
On the other hand if Americans prefer to shoot each other left and right it's their problem. Maybe Obama just should let them.

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

Number 5 seems fine.
On the other hand if Americans prefer to shoot each other left and right it's their problem. Maybe Obama just should let them.

It is not whether people "prefer to shoot each other" It's about the ability of the weak (ie an old man or a woman, someone who is alone, etc.) to prevent themselves from being harmed at the hands of any aggressor who is bigger or who has a weapon of any sort. The weak can not defend themselves without a weapon. Who are you (or anyone, the government, Obama, an activist group) to say that they should simply sacrifice themselves for a "principle"?
Especially a principle that Aggressors do not live by!

A government who fears it's people is a government that should be feared!

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by Ramil

So, what the average Americans expect from the new president? What's going to change in their life?

1. Obama will take money from people who have high incomes and give it to people who have low incomes.

2. Higher taxes for all.

3. Expand government.

4. Kill freedom of speech.

5. Kill the right of self defence.

6. Legitimize same sex marriage.

7. Increase crime.

8. Destroy the cattle business.

9. Institute "Big Brother".

Interesting article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15674.html

Some of DDTs suggestions baffle me, it sounds like someone has been the receiving end of Texan scare-tactics! "Big Brother" is here already, thanks to our current president and his friends!

1. End torture -- close guatanamo
2. Battle global warming
3. Raise fuel efficiency of cars
4. Separation of church from state (and I say this as a Christian)
5. A less agressive approach to diplomacy
6. A higher regard for America abroad
7. Turn the economy around (this one is going to be though)
8. Return of our soldiers in Iraq (probably not all)
9. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists all holding hands and singing Kumbaya My lord in Iran with Osama.

Originally Posted by DDT

It is not whether people "prefer to shoot each other" It's about the ability of the weak (ie an old man or a woman, someone who is alone, etc.) to prevent themselves from being harmed at the hands of any aggressor who is bigger or who has a weapon of any sort. The weak can not defend themselves without a weapon.

Говорят, двое поубивали друг друга (из огнестрельного оружия) на распродажах в черную пятницу. Место в очереди не поделили.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

7. Turn the economy around (this one is going to be though)

I guess you meant "tough" and not "though." Does this count as a глупая ошибка? :P

Yes, of course. It's not only going to be touf, but phoroly so!

Originally Posted by DDT

It's about the ability of the weak (ie an old man or a woman, someone who is alone, etc.) to prevent themselves from being harmed at the hands of any aggressor who is bigger or who has a weapon of any sort.

If you really believe in that, would you be able to give a reference to any kind of statistics that can support your point? Something of the sort: "here we issued permits to possess guns at home and the crime rate dropped by 10%?" You see, if you live alone in the forest, then I might agree with you. Otherwise, be assured that a typical "aggressor" would know their weapon much better than the "weak", so if you have an option of the professionals effectively defending the "weak", or the insurance company insuring the weak's property, don't even try to give the "weak" any serious weapon. Also, if you have a "weak" killing the "aggressor" with a home knife, or a baseball bat, the "weak" will still need to defend himself/herself in the court. So, what problem would permitting the guns really solve? That both the "weak" and the "aggressor" would have the guns? Do you see my point?