American Politics

Even bigger than P Diddy and Russell Simmons??

DW, entertainers are just that. What exactly doesn't JayZ stand for? Making $? Big deal. The real people who make a difference are those who leave the world a better place from when they came in. It's a hard knock life.

[QUOTE=Cruiser D]DW, entertainers are just that. What exactly doesn't JayZ stand for? Making $? Big deal. The real people who make a difference are those who leave the world a better place from when they came in. It's a hard knock life.[/QUOTE]
Despite not being able to carry a tune Jay Z has made millions from his music but he is much more than just an entertainer. He is a humanitarian who has made a difference with his scholarship fund and work in Africa; he did an interview with 60 minutes a while ago that was real telling about who he is, a man of action rather than words.

[url]http://scartersf.org/#[/url]

[url]http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/entertainment/JayZ-57865.html[/url]

[url]http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1458927/20021127/jay_z.jhtml[/url]

"Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer will not be charged with any crime for patronizing a high-priced prostitution ring, federal prosecutors announced on Thursday."

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/nyregion/07spitzer.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url]

[QUOTE=DirkDingy]"break" in the context of electoral politics means that 51% or more of the group voted in a certain direction. therefore my comments are correct and deployed in a manner which buttresses my argument. wink wink.

frequent, or rather inopportune, dancing signals to some excessive emotiveness and an underdeveloped verbal aptitude...not really to me, but to too many people. i took a class on southern political history and part of the supremiscist ideology was, to paraphrase: "look at those darkies dancing, singin, shuckin', and jivin because they are too simple to express their thoughts in other ways."

and, what the fuck does it mean to let black people be black people? Apparently now it means to go excel academically, go to an ivy league college, go to an ivy league law school and become potus.

thank god that obama is defining blackness as something other dunking a basketball or rapping about bitches, hoez, and the dope game.

obama's election should increase my capacity to get fsu slavic pussy[/QUOTE]

I agree with proper "acting", doing the "jig" isn't always appropriate.

But his election does mean more than Watermelon, Fried Chicken, Collar Greens, making new slang words and only excelling in sports... Including F1 I might add ;)

I'm just saying in Celebration however this isn't the time to be "serious"

There plenty of time and days to get serious because much work is needed on all sides.

[QUOTE=Jelly Donut]"Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer will not be charged with any crime for patronizing a high-priced prostitution ring, federal prosecutors announced on Thursday."

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/nyregion/07spitzer.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url][/QUOTE]

I saw that yesterday, he gave up his office too soon.. Unlike Stevens who is guilty as charged and might still win his seat.... Can't knock the hustle...

Run, an article of JayZ humanitarian efforts from 2002, eh? I don't think Mother Theresa or Bill Gates for the matter will be too worried about the competition. Mr Z has taken a lot and hasn't given back all that much. Not that he has to, it just doesn't make him a humanitarian .

I remember reading about the Steven's case. Convicted felons can't be put on a ballot in Alaska. He got on it before he got convicted. Even if he does win it will be his last race. He might spend most of his term in jail. He might get expelled from the Senate. I'm guessing all three will happen. He'll be the first convicted felon re elected to the Senate. Nice state that Alaska, too bad Palin didn't make the cut. She would have been a fine VP. McCain would have been better off running with RR's corpse.

Part of the implied deal for Spitzer was that he had to resign. john's rarely get charged (or exposed) in cases like this. However Spitzer's holier then tho attitude and all the toes he stepped on his way up put a big target on his back.

[QUOTE=DJ FourMoney]I saw that yesterday, he gave up his office too soon.. Unlike Stevens who is guilty as charged and might still win his seat.... Can't knock the hustle...[/QUOTE]
Spitzer was responsible for bring at least one significant prostitution case against international sex tourists. Not a lot of tears lost here.

The reason the government did not prosecute him in this case is that this is the long-standing policy of the DoJ. Effectively, Spitzer broke whatever laws apply to prostitution in the District of Columbia and that is a matter for the local police there. Read the pdf hanging off that article.

I don't think anyone in the mainstream is suggesting the FBI or DoJ were not doing there job here or were being selective or political. My impression is an even hand. Stevens. Spitzer. They both broke laws and broke the public trust. Can't really gloss it over.

Don't know much about Jay Z. I think he knifed some guy and then wrote "Jigga that Nigga" about it? Most everyday people are way better than that. I don't expect he's going to pull down a Presidential Medal of Freedom anytime soon.

[QUOTE=Cruiser D]Run, an article of JayZ humanitarian efforts from 2002, eh? I don't think Mother Theresa or Bill Gates for the matter will be too worried about the competition. Mr Z has taken a lot and hasn't given back all that much. Not that he has to, it just doesn't make him a humanitarian .
[/QUOTE]
Cruiser, the date of 2002 shows he has been engaged in this type of work for some time now. Try to be objective, you neglected to acknowledge his very valuable scholarship foundation which has helped many who are less fortunate than him and him being honored by the UN for his work in Africa. You asked what he stood for which was what I replied to. He is a humanitarian to those he has helped and he is also much more than some one who only makes $ as you claimed he was.

Getting back to politics, how exactly is Obama going to restore America's "status in the world". This is something I am seriously wondering about. How is he going to do it? As in restoring the unipolar moment that existed since the Soviet Union collapsed? I seriously doubt it, in many ways American dominance in many areas will be contested and challenged, even the World Bank predicts China will have a larger economy than the US in real exchange rate terms not PPP by the year 2020. Small third world countries like North Korea are now nuclear capable and more will follow, such as Iran. Its unlikely that Obama is going to lead the world by pointing a gun at the planet, he will have to lead by example, and setting one thats better than his predecessor.

[quote=cbgbconnisur]getting back to politics, how exactly is obama going to restore america's "status in the world". this is something i am seriously wondering about. how is he going to do it? as in restoring the unipolar moment that existed since the soviet union collapsed? i seriously doubt it, in many ways american dominance in many areas will be contested and challenged, even the world bank predicts china will have a larger economy than the us in real exchange rate terms not ppp by the year 2020. small third world countries like north korea are now nuclear capable and more will follow, such as iran. its unlikely that obama is going to lead the world by pointing a gun at the planet, he will have to lead by example, and setting one that's better than his predecessor.[/quote]

100% and we'll start by pulling out of iraq and surprise afghanistan! i'm sure you watched martin walker on dateline (the aussie version, not that sensationalized version in the us) that when obama goes to nato/un for more troop support for the "good" war, the eu will say "no way jose" and he'll have to "rethink" america's position which would go into "humanitarian" mode, where will start to rebuild afghanistan via the army corps of engineers.

wishful thinking?

nope, if he wants to keep his promises, he has to cut funding someplace and while mccain wanted to cut funding everywhere but on the wars, why not start with the wars since they are largely unpopular the world over, not just in the us. it would automatically put a happy face on the stars and stripes.

my best friend from high school works construction and lements the credit freeze which has state's cutting back budgets and considering layoffs since all states have to have balanced budgets by law (at least california does). he think the economy will get worst before it gets better and i agree, the bottom hasn't dropped from housing and unless this next stimulus package directly addresses foreclosures and public works projects it will last alot longer.

but the stimulus will fly pass the house and we'll see how adding 5 more senate seats effects its speed in getting out for obama to sign it. i don't see much hold up from the republicans that are left and risk further lost of seats in the mid-terms in 2010.

this action on the ground can not be lost just because he's been elected, we must continue to bug congress. when we didn't want the original bailout, we called (in fact) hammered on congress and it fell. but then cnbc and others kept telling people that it would be good and help the frozen credit issues, which hasn't largely happen...

then when the revision came down, it was fit (not really) to past and now we know it didn't have enough restrictions on it, but at least only 150 billion got released and we've largely seen where that has gone -
[url]http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106195/wall_street_fat_cats_are_trying_to_pocket_billions_in_bailout_cash/[/url]

even though wall st. invested heavily into obama, i think some extra restrictions are coming down.... no they didn't want it but hey they asked for the axe to come down.

it will be interesting to see what happens and if my opinions turn out correct.

A large number of voters who were and are anti war voted for Obama. If he does not make good on that promise he will probably lose those voters or just discourage them. I do think US foreign policy will change radically under Obama, especially with regards to military matters.

The power vacuum in Iraq has been filled and there is seemingly now a dominant faction. The US won't be leaving Iraq for a long time, unless the situation goes Vietnam. There will be a draw down of combat forces in Iraq and an increase in Afghanistan. It took 4 years and another president but it looks like the real war on terror, Afghanistan will finally be addressed.

I can assure you that not every state is forced to have a balanced budget by law. And how can the CA budget be balanced if the credit crunch and the inability to borrow is forcing them toward bankruptcy. Or is this some kind of special government economics where balancing your budget doesn’t mean paying your bills with the money you make but the money you borrow.

[QUOTE=CBGBConnisur]A large number of voters who were and are anti war voted for Obama. If he does not make good on that promise he will probably lose those voters or just discourage them. I do think US foreign policy will change radically under Obama, especially with regards to military matters.[/QUOTE]As long as he doesn't try to rip the balls off the military like Carter did, OK.

Main issues for me aren't even the wars, it's the self-serving corruption involved in weapons appropriation... where the decision to buy which weapons and equipment is more about jobs, egos and profit than providing our soldiers with the best equipment to get the job done.

clinton did not exactly support the military either, back in those days people joked that you had a better chance of being anal raped than dying in battle unlike today where the military is taken very seriously. i seriously doubt the us will continue to have large military presence overseas, the military is already cutting staff in europe, a few years ago rhein main was shut for good, and smaller forces will be deployed overseas. i recall the military wanted to place soldiers in georgia, that did not happen. pointing a gun at other countries and expecting them to dance will not work anymore, especially since those other countries will have guns too, actually nukes. countries like india, pakistan, and nk have them, just about any country can. i bet brazil will go nuclear too, it almost did in the past. the mad principle mainly applies among relations between china, russia, and the us but it will gradually apply to more countries.

the military will be less people based and more automated in the coming decades, sounds like something out of a terminator movie, but self aware computer systems and robots will actually be reality in about 15 years.

certain key allies will continue to shift away from america, japan will be the most notable one, they are pretty much in china's pocket. in fact, japanese companies are aggressively trying to penetrate the growing chinese market which will actually be larger than the us in 12 years or so.