Now that its all over, what is one thing you will remember about the 2008 election

[RichardE]

I think Obamas race speech was the most memorable, just amazing that was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...2tHaDo&feature=related

 

[Farang]

I had just moved from Thailand to a place that at night got to -5, I was snowed in and watching the Iowa primaries and saw Obama's victory speech there. It was very reminiscent of RFK to me, though I wasn't around back then, and I became a supporter of his from then on.

 

[Eeezee]

That girl who traced a B in her face with her own fingernail and claimed that some Obama supporter mugged her and did it with a knife. Come on, the B was backwards, you clearly did it in the mirror! At least she admitted to it later.

But still, that was hilarious.

 

[CanOWorms]

I'll always remember the wild accusations against Bill Clinton. It just shows how enslaved some people are to their candidate.

 

[First]

The undeniable fact that a country built on the back of black slaves has come so far so fast, especially since the Civil Rights movement. Wonderful progress.

 

[Ryan]

When I was phonebanking for Obama, all the people who told me they "ain't putting a ***** in the White House".

It's that kind of response that made me a little happy inside yesterday, to know that the people who believe in that bullshit are truly relics of the past, and history has finally shut the book on them

 

[Excelsior]

The bolded statement is completely false.

The nation was not built on slave labor. Slaves worked only in the south and at the time of the civil war the south accounted for only about 10% of the nations wealth, despite having 25% of its population.

*bzzzt* Wrong.

 

[JJChicken]

Hmmm..I think the Iowa Primaries was pretty special to me - it was the first time I took BHO seriously

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

The bolded statement is completely false.

The nation was not built on slave labor. Slaves worked only in the south and at the time of the civil war the south accounted for only about 10% of the nations wealth, despite having 25% of its population.

*bzzzt* Wrong.

ProfJohn just makes thing up.

 

[Red Dawn]

Palin embarrassing herself and the Republican Party

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Excelsior

The bolded statement is completely false.

The nation was not built on slave labor. Slaves worked only in the south and at the time of the civil war the south accounted for only about 10% of the nations wealth, despite having 25% of its population.

*bzzzt* Wrong.

ProfJohn just makes thing up.

Pot meet kettle

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Palin embarrassing herself and the Republican Party

She just embarrassed herself. I mean how can claiming foreign policy experience because you can see Russia from Alaska reflect on anybody but herself?

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I can't really think of ONE moment that stands out.

Perhaps the Palin speech at the convention. Love her or hate her you have to admit that she is a damn good speaker and can hold a crowds attention. Perhaps second was the Obama speech in Denver with all those people, wow.

don'tchaknow.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Palin embarrassing herself and the Republican Party

She just embarrassed herself. I mean how can claiming foreign policy experience because you can see Russia from Alaska reflect on anybody but herself?

It does reflects on the GOP.

GOP picka McCain. Lack of good judgement.

McCain picked Palin. Lack of good judgement.

Need I remind anyone that the GOP picked and funded GWB twice. Criminal lack of good judgement.

 

[SP33Demon]

The absolute trainwreck that was Palin. The inspirational speeches by Obama.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Sarah Palin; probably one of the most shocking VP picks of my lifetime (3rd party whack job VPs don't count) Tina Fey made it all the more memorable
Obama on O'Reily factor - This was huge. He didn't get compative with O'Reiley or get into a shouting match. But he stood his ground. He handled him like a pro, and all liberals should take note
Phonebanking for Obama (PA) - A woman told me that she was pro life but voting for Obama anyway. An old man told me that he had voted Republican all his life, but now his pension checks and Social Security weren't paying the bills and he was scared. He was going to vote for Obama.

But the biggest one was about 2 to 3 weeks ago, when it became really clear that Obama was going to win. It hit me that a nation that was built on slavery, and had institutionalized racism less than 50 year ago was about to elect a black man president. It is truly staggering.

The bolded statement is completely false.

The nation was not built on slave labor. Slaves worked only in the south and at the time of the civil war the south accounted for only about 10% of the nations wealth, despite having 25% of its population.

You could actually say that slave labor hurt the nations productivity and wealth. By the 1830s the north was industrializing, but south with its slave labor economy was not and thus as the north got richer the south stayed relatively the same.

Had there been no slaves in the south it is quite likely that it would have industrialized at a rate similar to the north and thus would have grown richer than it did.

PJ, you have a very bad habit of finding some partisan bad info and carelessly quoting it to 'prove your point'.

The US's economic strength was largely 'built on the back of slaves', in contradiction to your claim otherwise.

I tire of correcting your doing this, but from the Wiki slavery page links:

"The slave trade and the products created by slaves' labor, particularly cotton, provided the basis for America's wealth as a nation. Such wealth provided some of the capital for the country's industrial revolution and enabled the United States to project its power into the rest of the world."

In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton provided over half of all U.S. export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured good that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers.

And correcting your claim about slavery's drag on the South:

Was the abolitionist crusade against slavery the product of a belief that slavery was an impediment to economic development? Not in any simple sense. Williams was wrong to think that by the mid-nineteenth century slavery was a declining institution. Slavery was an economically efficient system of production, adaptable to tasks ranging from agriculture to mining, construction, and factory work. Furthermore, slavery was capable of producing enormous amounts of wealth. On the eve of the Civil War, the slave South had achieved a level of per capita wealth not matched by Spain or Italy until the eve of World War II or by Mexico or India until 1960. As late as the 1850s, the slave system in the United States was expanding and slave owners were confident about the future.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Palin embarrassing herself and the Republican Party

She just embarrassed herself. I mean how can claiming foreign policy experience because you can see Russia from Alaska reflect on anybody but herself?

It does reflects on the GOP.

GOP picka McCain. Lack of good judgement.

McCain picked Palin. Lack of good judgement.

Need I remind anyone that the GOP picked and funded GWB twice. Criminal lack of good judgement.

OK then, so the stock market taking a nose dive yesterday reflects on the nation's confidence in it's new president elect.

See how easy that is?

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Sarah Palin; probably one of the most shocking VP picks of my lifetime (3rd party whack job VPs don't count) Tina Fey made it all the more memorable
Obama on O'Reily factor - This was huge. He didn't get compative with O'Reiley or get into a shouting match. But he stood his ground. He handled him like a pro, and all liberals should take note
Phonebanking for Obama (PA) - A woman told me that she was pro life but voting for Obama anyway. An old man told me that he had voted Republican all his life, but now his pension checks and Social Security weren't paying the bills and he was scared. He was going to vote for Obama.

But the biggest one was about 2 to 3 weeks ago, when it became really clear that Obama was going to win. It hit me that a nation that was built on slavery, and had institutionalized racism less than 50 year ago was about to elect a black man president. It is truly staggering.

The bolded statement is completely false.

The nation was not built on slave labor. Slaves worked only in the south and at the time of the civil war the south accounted for only about 10% of the nations wealth, despite having 25% of its population.

You could actually say that slave labor hurt the nations productivity and wealth. By the 1830s the north was industrializing, but south with its slave labor economy was not and thus as the north got richer the south stayed relatively the same.

Had there been no slaves in the south it is quite likely that it would have industrialized at a rate similar to the north and thus would have grown richer than it did.

http://www.history.iastate.edu/agprimer/Page28.html

"By 1801, the
annual production of cotton had increased to 48 million pounds, in 1860, it
stood at a phenomenal 1,650 million pounds. As early as the 1830s the United
States produced more cotton than all other countries combined, and the
value of cotton exports exceeded the value of all other American exports put
together."

Cotton, which was based solely on slave labor, was indisputably the biggest part of America's economy as it developed into a world power. I'm not sure what your interest is in re-writing history, but it fails.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The US's economic strength was largely 'built on the back of slaves', in contradiction to your claim otherwise.

I tire of correcting your doing this, but from the Wiki slavery page links:

"The slave trade and the products created by slaves' labor, particularly cotton, provided the basis for America's wealth as a nation. Such wealth provided some of the capital for the country's industrial revolution and enabled the United States to project its power into the rest of the world."

Scholarly citation? Wikipedia does not count.

Originally posted by: Craig234

In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton provided over half of all U.S. export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured good that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers.

Over 50% of the US export earnings. Sounds impressive, but how much did the US export in total? Given that the US was a highly insular nation during the 19th century and tended not to involve itself in great amounts of trade, I would be curious to know how much (in raw numbers, not percentages) the total US exports were at the time. Also, the claim that the South's income from cotton provided the fuel for the Northern industrial growth is, at most, only partially true. While some of the money from Southern plantation owners undoubtedly did find its way into Northern hands, the sheer volume of industry that developed in the North is not explainable simply as a service industry to the South. The industrial might of the North provided just as well for the generally smaller and typically family farms of many of the Northern states and to claim that the majority of the capital fuel for the North came from Southern Cotton is specious at best.

Originally posted by: Craig234
And correcting your claim about slavery's drag on the South:

Was the abolitionist crusade against slavery the product of a belief that slavery was an impediment to economic development? Not in any simple sense. Williams was wrong to think that by the mid-nineteenth century slavery was a declining institution. Slavery was an economically efficient system of production, adaptable to tasks ranging from agriculture to mining, construction, and factory work. Furthermore, slavery was capable of producing enormous amounts of wealth. On the eve of the Civil War, the slave South had achieved a level of per capita wealth not matched by Spain or Italy until the eve of World War II or by Mexico or India until 1960. As late as the 1850s, the slave system in the United States was expanding and slave owners were confident about the future.

Very conspicuously, a discussion of what the per-capita wealth of the North was at the same time is omitted. They also omit whether they are including the slave population in the calculation of per-capita wealth of the South. Both of these could easily be statistically telling.

I don't fully agree with ProfJohn, I want that to be clear. My only point is that the counterpoints you offer have some serious gaps.

As with anything, there is no simplistic answer here. While slavery did not form the entire foundation for this country, neither did it have no impact whatsoever. It was a contributing factor to be sure, but perhaps not the main factor and possibly not even a key factor, though arguments can be made either way, especially on the latter.

ZV

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I can't really think of ONE moment that stands out.

Perhaps the Palin speech at the convention. Love her or hate her you have to admit that she is a damn good speaker and can hold a crowds attention. Perhaps second was the Obama speech in Denver with all those people, wow.

Looks like the rnc wants their clothes back.

http://www.latimes.com/news/pr...8nov06,0,5597211.story

Reporting from Phoenix -- Sarah Palin left the national stage Wednesday, but the controversy over her role on the ticket flared as aides to John McCain disclosed new details about her expensive wardrobe purchases and revealed that a Republican Party lawyer would be dispatched to Alaska to inventory and retrieve the clothes still in her possession.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Palin embarrassing herself and the Republican Party

She just embarrassed herself. I mean how can claiming foreign policy experience because you can see Russia from Alaska reflect on anybody but herself?

It does reflects on the GOP.

GOP picka McCain. Lack of good judgement.

McCain picked Palin. Lack of good judgement.

Need I remind anyone that the GOP picked and funded GWB twice. Criminal lack of good judgement.

OK then, so the stock market taking a nose dive yesterday reflects on the nation's confidence in it's new president elect.

See how easy that is?

What did it do the two weeks before?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Palin embarrassing herself and the Republican Party

She just embarrassed herself. I mean how can claiming foreign policy experience because you can see Russia from Alaska reflect on anybody but herself?

It does reflects on the GOP.

GOP picka McCain. Lack of good judgement.

McCain picked Palin. Lack of good judgement.

Need I remind anyone that the GOP picked and funded GWB twice. Criminal lack of good judgement.

OK then, so the stock market taking a nose dive yesterday reflects on the nation's confidence in it's new president elect.

See how easy that is?

What did it do the two weeks before?

What did it do today??

 

[OrByte]

The one thing I will remember is Sarah 'Caribou Barbie' Palin.

jeeeezzzus what a mistake!!

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Palin embarrassing herself and the Republican Party

She just embarrassed herself. I mean how can claiming foreign policy experience because you can see Russia from Alaska reflect on anybody but herself?

It does reflects on the GOP.

GOP picka McCain. Lack of good judgement.

McCain picked Palin. Lack of good judgement.

Need I remind anyone that the GOP picked and funded GWB twice. Criminal lack of good judgement.

OK then, so the stock market taking a nose dive yesterday reflects on the nation's confidence in it's new president elect.

See how easy that is?

What did it do the two weeks before?

What did it do today??

It's currently down today almost as much as it was yesterday. It could be heading down to test the low of 8175 on 10/27. If it breaks that weak support level, look out below. If it bounces off, it could be good tidings since weak holders may have been flushed out. If it drops below 7500, start gathering firewood.

Research on the phrase "sell the news" may be in order.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Palin embarrassing herself and the Republican Party

She just embarrassed herself. I mean how can claiming foreign policy experience because you can see Russia from Alaska reflect on anybody but herself?

It does reflects on the GOP.

GOP picka McCain. Lack of good judgement.

McCain picked Palin. Lack of good judgement.

Need I remind anyone that the GOP picked and funded GWB twice. Criminal lack of good judgement.

OK then, so the stock market taking a nose dive yesterday reflects on the nation's confidence in it's new president elect.

See how easy that is?

What did it do the two weeks before?

What did it do today??

It's currently down today almost as much as it was yesterday. It could be heading down to test the low of 8175 on 10/27. If it breaks that weak support level, look out below. If it bounces off, it could be good tidings since weak holders may have been flushed out. If it drops below 7500, start gathering firewood.

Research on the phrase "sell the news" may be in order.

I always heard it called "buy the rumor. sell the fact".

http://www.dailymarkets.com/st...e-rumor-sell-the-fact/

Oh dear. The expected feel-good rally ran into a juddering halt, and instead morphed into a ?sell the fact? on the Obama victory. Of course, pundits being what they are, they could obviously claim that yesterday?s sell-off was ?always? going to happen. The market rallies? An obvious result of the Obama feel-good factor! The market tanks? Having bought the rumour of an Obama victory (and its presumed beneficent impact on consumer confidence), markets were always going to sell the fact once he was elected.

Of course, such Harry Hindsight analysis is utterly useless, particularly when you?re running risk. Your P/L tells you whether you had the right call. <snip>