Fallout Studios Forums

It's still funny how people emphasize his name as if there is some inherent evil in it. As the old saying goes 'a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet'.

CodeCat, on 5 Nov 2008, 14:01, said:

I'd rather call that sad. Even more saddening is what certain people will actually believe of him because of his name .

Or his skin colour tbh. A sad world we still live in.

Although I don't like to say this, had he been caucasian I am not 100% sure the result would be the same. Perhaps he would still be president, but by the same margin?

I haven't been following the campaign trail completely, but after seeing Obama give his victory speech my heart warmed to him instantly. This marks the beginning of a new era for Americans and I hope we see a return to form for the country that was seen during the Clinton years. The world was a better place back then.

Personally Bush's Administration smeared the image I held of the United States being a beacon of light to the rest of the world.

After this victory, I have high hopes for the United States again. There is no shadow of a doubt in my mind that the right thing has been done by electing this man.

Comr4de, on 5 Nov 2008, 5:07, said:

A little piece of me has died.

Soul, on 4 Nov 2008, 19:46, said:

Unfortunately people assume that the name Hussein qualifies Obama for being a Muslim and were using it as a smear on his campaign. It is saddening to see the term Muslim being used in a derogatory sense. I have to ask what difference would it have made what faith he follows? I think the US will face a bigger change once it gets a non-Christian leader if you ask me.

CNN said:

Lolwut? Bad wording? Also what will happen to Bush now? Will he become the laughing stock in the history of US presidents?

Scope, on 5 Nov 2008, 21:15, said:

Heh, let's not rush things . And unfortunately I think it would've made a great difference if he'd been a non-Christian - small chance of him being elected. Religiously the USA is one of the most zealous Christian countries in the world.

Scope, on 5 Nov 2008, 21:15, said:

More like hating stock if you ask me.

Chyros, on 5 Nov 2008, 14:30, said:

Exactly. I meant that the US voting for a non-Christian leader would be far more groundbreaking than a man (or woman) of color IMO given their rather strong conservatism.

I'm glad Obama won. He was my preferred candidate to begin with, although I wouldn't mind either of them as president. What really turned me against the Republican campaign was Palin's appointment to VP nominee. Throughout the campaign she proved herself totally unfitting to such a high office, if you ask me.

While Barack Obama won in the elections with some great numbers, the apparent absence of McCain supporters (save our ever-present objectivist) furthermore indicates that while Bush may be despised in his own country, beyond the frontiers of the US, he is despised even more.

Aftershock, on 8 Nov 2008, 10:53, said:

I'm not sure despised is appropriate. Just because vocal liberals can make a lot of noise doesn't mean most people agree with them.

*watches Fox*

Maybe I should replace 'despise' with something alongt the lines of 'disfavor'....

Still my point stands. 8 years of Bush administration may have damaged international viewpoints more than internal.
Edited by Aftershock, 08 November 2008 - 10:45.

Scope, on 5 Nov 2008, 14:50, said:

You would have thought it was the end of the world when Kennedy was elected, and he was Catholic. Now I realize that Catholicism is under the Christian umbrella, but because he was the first, people in the '60's made a huge stink about it. Fast forward to today. Obama, and because his name SOUNDS like he's from the middle-east, I'm not surprised that there are people out there that hate him. Sad fact, but it's true. Just consider what happened to the US on 9-11-01 and you'll see where I'm getting this.

However, it should be noted that apparently, Barack Obama changed religions, from Muslim to "Christianity". Why would he do this? Perhaps to keep the nation from suspecting the worst of the man they were about to elect into office? Who knows, but if he did do this, what else is he hiding?

Everyone is hiding something, so there's no need to think about it unless you want to become completely paranoid. Having secrets is just a fact of life. Let's not judge a person by his beliefs, and instead judge by his actions.

Warboss Nooka, on 8 Nov 2008, 20:15, said:

I'm more worried about the stuff he isn't hiding, but who knows? After spending 20 years in Jeremiah Wright's church, I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be a radical black liberationist.

I do think Barack Obama stands above listening to controversial comments of a preacher. If he was this easily influenced I really doubt he would have come this far. Of course we can't take anything granted by his denouncing of Jeremiah Wright's words because he did it in promotional speeches and as we all know, every single word in such speeches is 80% meant to convince the electorate.

And what exactly do you mean with the stuffs he isn't hiding. What aside from the Jeremiah Wright issue is bothering you...

Aftershock, on 8 Nov 2008, 21:19, said:

It's not wther he would be swayed by Wright, but why would he stay in his congregation for 20 years and not agree with him?

Aftershock, on 8 Nov 2008, 21:19, said:

TAXES!

Don't forget the TRILLION dollars in new government spending. So the government forks over, what $40 billion to "bail-out" big businesses, and now Obama PROMISES to spend another trillion?! So right, let's just spend another trillion, it's not like our national debt is getting any larg........

Warboss Nooka, on 9 Nov 2008, 1:53, said:

MASSIF IMAEG
Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 09 November 2008 - 01:04.

Dr. Strangelove, on 9 Nov 2008, 0:06, said:

Because he has stated that those recent quotes of Jeremiah Wright weren't of the nature that he knew him for those 20 years long, and thus is the reason our President-elect distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright.

You can argue that this statement is not based on truth because it is something the electorate wants to hear, but I can also argue that you cannot prove it wrong, or can you?

Dr. Strangelove, on 9 Nov 2008, 0:06, said:

Ah, the bane of all americans....

Obama won't be able to sell a big tax increase in this economic weather but he will, and he will have to, revert the major unnecessary nonsensical - electorate promise because I had to get more votes - Bush tax cuts. He can't do that in the middle of the crisis but he will and he will have to. 239 billion, 10 percent, budget shortage needs to be fixed.

CONFRONTING IMAGE

Now who's gotta always be there to fix the problems. Yeah, exactly. As you can see, Bush Senior and his son really liked to spend money. They like war, too.
Edited by Aftershock, 09 November 2008 - 09:03.

Aftershock, on 9 Nov 2008, 9:54, said:

Or we could cut spending.

Hell, if we got rid of all these stupid programs and agencies we don't need like the Department of Education, FDA, EPA, Welfare, Social Security, Subsidies, and the like, we could build a 99.999% effective missile shield, Build a habitable colony on Mars, utterly obliterate terrorism, and have a net surplus in one year!
Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 09 November 2008 - 09:24.

lol

If there is one place to cut spending then it is the Department of Defense...

Aftershock, on 9 Nov 2008, 19:47, said:

Why extend the budget if there is nothing to defend from, right? The same reason applies why NATO should not expand its borders.

Topic:
Eventhough I am not an American citizen, the recent winners of the recently concluded elections were expected to perform quite highly not only be me but many others as well (in fact, the Russian government is optimistic on Obama's presidency).

All is not bliss however. In our case, a statement made previously by Obama (Connecticut rally?) that call centers would be "returned to where it should really belong". Ninety percent (90%) of the so-called "call centers","contact centers", or "business process outsourcing" in the Third World countries comprise of American-owned corporations such as Accenture (although based in Bermuda) and Sykes Enterprises (in Tampa, Florida), where the host country (such as the Philippines) benefit from it by providing employment to thousands of college graduates.

To give you a partial demographics in the call center industry here, 80% of college graduates here look for Accenture etc. to get a job regardless whether he/she is a graduate of nursing or business administration, or worse, engineering (in fact, most of the engineering graduates I know were in the contact centers like, "Good morning. This is <name of a contact center> business process outsourcing. How can I help you?" Seems highly different, right?

Obama stated that "American citizens should benefit from American companies such as providing employment". If that's the case, then contact centers shall gradually removed from our shores (and from other host nations as well).

If that would happen, where would the newly-graduates go? Officially unemployed?

Barack Obama indeed has a lot of work to be done.

Isn't that system wrong to begin with. Multinationals moving into your borders because the employees are cheaper and the unemployment is apparently so high that engineers and the like need to get in a call center to find a job.

If your country had a good economic situation then those people would be able to find a real job instead of clinging to a call center and then cry when Obama takes them away. Maybe the inclusion of the callcenters there has created a façade of employment in your country, while in reality all those employees cannot find the job they were meant to do. What is the reason those people can't find a job in their own workfield?

Not only Obama has a lot to do, but your own goverment too, in fixing that 'illusion of employment'.

Aftershock, on 10 Nov 2008, 17:35, said:

Maybe I worded it too simply, but yes, it is implied that our government has a lot more to do than Obama shall. I am only stating that most of us citizens here are worried that someday, he'll take away those much-needed employment, most especially if a majority of the populace lived on less than $1.00 per day. Most countries are usually hesitant to invest here (despite the fact that there are MNC's.) So, I don't blame the fellows if they thought it that way.

Optimism and criticism all at the same time. Quite ironic, isn't it?

In a nutshell, it was conceived here that the Obama administration shall be progressive enough to trade more and do business with our country, not unlike the previous Bush administration where all he could do business were "dole-outs" and mostly joint military exercises in Mindanao (remember Bush's War on Terror?), which were not really helping much with our economy.

Aftershock, on 10 Nov 2008, 17:35, said:

Well, not a reason, but a multitude of reasons. Some are as follows:

1. Corruption (a heavily-corrupt country will make any investor think twice...)
2. Lack of discipline on everyone else, including yours truly. (The cat's out of the bag!)
3. Lack of opportunites
4. Colonial mentality (Yes, we have this negative trait in almost all of us. The history of this will just distress any foreigner, most especially an American. No further reason to explain. Another cat is out of the bag!)
4. Too many to mention (Which if I did, I shall only expose the "bad side" of my country. Just ask any expatriate Filipino you can see.)

P.S. However, do try living in a backwater country like mine and you'll see what I mean. Live there not as a foreigner but as a citizen.

P.P.S. I'd rather die from hunger as a Filipino than a hypocrite living in splendor.

Edit: spelling
Edited by The Wandering Jew, 10 November 2008 - 10:11.