When anyone takes the time to do a little research....
 

and then makes an informed decision, they are absolutely entitled to their beliefs and opinions. It does not matter whether right or wrong if that is what they believe. My commentary is when people ONLY parrot the media with no other basis.
My previous post surely can be viewed as negative if that is the way it is taken. However, if being negative means I am not in line with one or anothers thinking...and speaking to the contrary then that is ones choice to categorize that way. Also when I challenge, it does not necessarily have to be negative...if I am challenging what another believes, it is only negative to the one being challenged....if my challenge is not in line with their belief.

I am not a negative person. I am however a show me person. Results is what is important to me...I don't care who the party....their color...their religion....whatever. I view myself as a constructive non conformist.

My harranging of Bush bashing is there are some who cannot address an issue without putting it in some form of what Bush did, didn't or what ever. And I am not referring to the occasional bash...I am referring to those that can not even say good day with a link to a Bush comment....talk about negative.

I do believe there is more than normal categorizing on this forum that if one is not for what the other is in favor of then it is automatically negative.
That is exactly why I usually refer to Nancy Pelosi's comment during an interview BEFORE she became spealer of the house....she blatantly said her positions are easy....if it is from the ooposition she is against it.

And I do have a problem with those who are unhappy with Bush's performance, but have tolerance and patience and support for a Congress that has a significantly lower rating than Bush. And I do not accept the ongoing reelecting the dregs who are National disgraces.
I believe in minority reports (not race) having learned long ago to listen to the only one in the room who may not agree with what is being espoused....because it has been shown....at times they are they only one right and willing to stand and be conted.

I do not make oblique or indirect inuendo....if I didn't spell it out, I didn't intend it. Speculation and interpretation are in the eye/ear of the beholder, eh?

BTK

Just Curious.
 

BTK, I'm just curious as to why you think no one other than youself does any research? I find that very strange. :shrug:

Chelsea that's not what I said.....
 

My comments were intended for those who don't....PERIOD!

BTK:sigh:

My own meager attempt to make some sense of all of this......

1) The World, according to the media, is showing itself being overjoyed at the election of Mr. Obama to be the next US President. While it is comforting that the media, being the objective sort they are (no fainting, please), are reporting this planetary euphoria, what the reasons for such bliss are remain a mystery to me. For most of the World, watching what happens in the US is like folks in the US watching a World Cup soccer match between Sweden and Norway - it may be big there, but no great shakes here.

2) The US goes through this political metamorphasis every 4 years - just as often as there is a World Cup tournament. If there is any real interest or surprise elsewhere in the World, it is more in the sense that both still occur with regularity.

3) Perhaps the most eyebrow-raising factor outside the US was the fact that a person of color (am I still 'politically correct" in using this term?) in what keeps being insinuated as a racist society was elected President and had to capture votes from a majority of Caucasean citizens in order to succeed. The last equivalent upset in the Western political structure was Mrs. Thatcher becoming the UK's Prime Minister. Yes, the "melting-pot" concept does indeed work!

4) Do politicians make promises they don't keep? This is a no-brainer! If Mr. Obama keeps all (or even most) of his campaign promises and does not play semantic games on the intent versus the definition (as any decent lawyer knows how to do), he will be the first ever to do so - Party affiliation notwithstanding. So, those who desire to reserve high praise and accolation until there is performance on-the-job which can be measured/compared to the campaign promises (sort of like in baseball where a hitter's batting average is computed at hits-actually-made performance versus times-at-bat promises), are simply being pragmatic.

We're all in this together, and it's a safe bet to say all want this President-elect, the next Congress, and the American people themselves to succeed. We may not all agree on selected portions of any Governmental action, but that does not mean we don't all want overall success. The best and most successfull hitter in baseball did not get a hit 59.4% of the time during his best year (Ted Williams, Boston Red Sox, .406 batting average, 1941).

Even baseball's best hitter was boo'd when he played in opposing teams' ballparks and heard catcalls when he struck out at Fenway Park or made an error in the field. Mr. Obama and the current Congress should not expect any better treatment when they "strike out" in the promises made/kept ratio or drop the ball at any time.