Ne jucăm de-a votarea pînă luni 3 noiembrie, inclusiv. Marţi are loc votul adevărat.
Sfatul meu? Votaţi devreme şi des, adică votaţi Obama… altfel o să curgă sînge pe străzi.
Pe cine ai vota? (preşedintele SUA 2008 -2012)
- Barack Obama (52%, 31 voturi)
- John McCain (48%, 29 voturi)
Număr total de voturi: 60
Loading …
31 Comments
Francesco
30 October 2008emil,
Buna idee sa votam si noi. Apoi, este excelent link-ul pe care l-ai dat. Erica Jong este apocaliptica, iata ce spune in Corriere della Sera, citez fragmentar:
Imperialistu'
30 October 2008Ati fi uimiti cati cred lucrurile astea. Oricum, sper sa voteze cat mai multi, indiferent votul lor. ????
costin
30 October 2008vezi Vlade? ti-am zis ca iese McCain?? ????
Stalker
30 October 2008Lupta Obama!
costin
30 October 2008Toti democratii de bine il urasc de moarte pe Bush, acel Bush care a dus terorismul american in Irak, care a ucis oameni nevinovati pentru petrol. Aproape la fel de mult, tot din ratiuni pacifiste, il urasc si pe McCain.
Dar ce ar zice acei democrati despre asta:
Daca irakienii ar putea vota, ar vota pt McCain
emil
30 October 2008Stalker, Obama lupta din greu, ca altceva nu stie. Dar lupta adevarata o sa inceapa abia dupa ce devine presedinte. Cea mai importanta transformare, cu cele mai mari consecinte asupra Americii, o va suferi Curtea Suprema. Dupa 4 ani de Obama, Constitutia americana are toate sansele sa devina un fel de constitutie a RSR. Nu prin modificari in text, ci prin interpretare.
Obama and the Supreme Court
PS
Sper ca nu trebuie sa traduc RSR.
Imperialistu'
30 October 2008Republica Socialista Romania. Pe vremea aia eram si noi progresisti
. Acum ne zbatem intre anarhie, progresism si normalitate.
emil
30 October 2008Leonardo di Caprio si alte genii din Hollywood se adreseaza alegatorilor:
Alegatorii raspund:
costin
30 October 2008da ce ai cu ei emil? isi fac datoria. se simt datori sa deschida ochii oamenilor. vor sa faca ceva pentru lumea in care traiesc, eventual sa o salveze. sa lupe pt drepturile femeilor (nu stiam ca femeile nu au drepturi), homosexualilor(nu stiam ca homosexualii nu au drepturilor), impotriva incalzirii globala (parca deja nu mai era la moda incalzirea globala, temperaturile scazusera si linia de atac era „global change”), si mai subtil si pt drepturile palestinienilor (de cind a devenit acceptabila in Holywood esarfa palestiniana?), impotriva razboiului de orice fel, pentru ceaiuri intre Obama, Hamas si Ahmadinejad si pt multe alte lucruri importante (inchipuite sau nu). De ce te legi de faptul ca nu sint genii? Nu vezi ce bine arata? esti culmea!
Imperialistu'
30 October 2008McCain a revenit destul de puternic in ultimele zile. Indiana acum inclina spre McCain, ca si Montana. Diferentele dintre el si Obama s-au redus considerabil in North Carolina si Missouri. A castigat cateva puncte si in Ohio. Din pacate, distanta ramane aceeasi in Florida.
Adineaori l-am vazut pe Arnold Schwarzenegger, guvernatorul republican din California, tinand un discurs simpatic in Ohio. Republicanii au adus tot ce au putut pentru a-i convinge pe independenti: guvernatorul republican al celui mai populat stat american.
Imperialistu'
30 October 2008Mai, sper ca nu voteaza careva de doua ori. ????
israelianca
30 October 2008Imperialistule, nu se poate vota de doua ori. Crezi ca n-am incercat? (Wink, wink!)
Imperialistu'
30 October 2008Foarte rau ???? . Se poate vota de mai multe ori, daca ai IP dinamic, asa ca fac apel la fair play. ????
Israelianca
30 October 2008Se poate vota de mai multe ori, daca ai IP dinamic…
Si nu ne duce pe noi in ispita!
Panseluta
30 October 2008Erica Jong zice:
„…voi cere tuturor americanilor sa-si ia aparatul de fotografiat la votare pentru a imortaliza ecranul aparatelor electorale care te fac sa-i votezi pe McCain-Palin, chiar daca ai apasat tasta de pe Obama-Biden ( subl.mea). Sa va asteptati la o maree de recursuri care vor ajunge pana la Curtea Suprema. Care este prea de dreapta, din pacate.”
Obama e cel care, de fapt, a gasit o cale smechera de a incalca legea electorala, consfiintita de Curtea Suprema, si adoptata de majoritatea statelor SUA, conform careia nu ai voie sa influentezi/intimidezi alegatorii la punctele de votare cu plancarde, pichete, sloganuri, etc. Tipul a recurs la cell phones si text-messages (Ceva la modul: Voteaza-l pe Obama! El e speranta!) la votul primar din New Hampshire, cel putin, din cite se stie pina cum:
„Letter to Illinois State Board of Elections: Election Day Text Messages May Violate Law against Electioneering in Polling Places
Washington, DC — October 30, 2008
Illinois State Law Prohibits Political Speech „within any polling place”
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has issued a request to the Illinois State Board of Elections to investigate whether the Obama campaign’s planned Election Day text messages would violate a state law that prevents electioneering in polling places. Judicial Watch plans to issue similar requests to election officials in other states.
According to media reports, Senator Obama’s campaign sent text messages to voters on primary day in New Hampshire encouraging them to vote for Senator Obama. The Obama campaign apparently intends to conduct a similar text message campaign on Election Day. Given that these messages will likely be received and read by voters on their cell phones inside polling places, and perhaps inside voting booths, the messages may violate an Illinois state law against electioneering within polling places.
Illinois law specifically states: „No…person shall, at any primary or election, do any electioneering or soliciting of votes or engage in any political discussion within any polling place.” [10 ILCS 5/17-29 (a)]
According to the Judicial Watch letter, dated October 28, 2008:
„Even if an individual is planning on voting for Senator Obama on Election Day, a voter should be able to enter a polling place and cast his or her vote without being subjected to yet more electioneering. Secrecy, privacy, and freedom from outside influence in the polling place are fundamental to ensuring a fair election process. The people of Illinois must be free to cast their votes without electioneering text messages inside Illinois polling places. Illinois law requires no less.”
„There is no difference between a text message received on a cell phone in a polling station and a campaign sign. The effect is to influence citizens as they cast votes. This electioneering is prohibited not only by Illinois state law, but the by the laws of other states as well. We expect that responsible government authorities will ask Senator Obama to abandon his planned Election Day text message campaign. Our letter to Illinois is a first step, as we’re working now to alert other states about this matter,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.”
Ce face un pusti care voteaza pentru prima data si care se trezeste cu un mesaj pe mobil de la o asa de importanta persoana ca Obama, care condescinde sa-i trimta lui, un neica-nimeni, un mesaj in timp ce se afla la sectia de votare?? Face pipi in pantaloni de emotie, si uita de constiinta, si-si zice in sine „The dude’s cool”, si voteaza Obama.
Cit despre Erica Jong, ce sa spun, imbatrineste greu si urit….
Cind ti-ai construit o viata si o cariera pe „eliberarea sexuala”, ura de barbati si ceva charmuri tineresti, cind n-ai talent si „Fear of Flying” s-a dovedit a fi un succes de moment, si n-ai mai produs nimic altceva de substanta, ce-ti mai ramine la peste 60 de ani decit sa atragi atentia mediilor cu afimatii isterice de „progresista” ultragiata?
Panseluta
30 October 2008Imperialistu:
Batalia pare sa se dispute in final la mine acasa, in Virginia, miine.
McCain va avea raliuri in sudul statului, Obama in nord, in cele mai bogate comunitati din tara din cauza exploziei de corporatii si businessuri in IT si in domeniul stiintific (bio-tehnologie, genetica, etc) care par sa-l favorizeze.
Statul asta, care i-a dat pe Washington si Jefferson si pe extraordinarul James Madison, „parintele Constitutiei americane”, e pe cale de a vota un om care crede ca Constitutia nu include drepturi „afirmative” ale statului asupra individului, ci restringe statul la ce nu poate face impotriva individului.
Intr-un interviu radio din 2001, Obama spune clar ca Constitutia SUA da prea mare libertate individului, si prea putina statului:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ho…..guest.html
Panseluta
30 October 2008Imperialistu’:
Cacofoniile din postarea mea anterioara au fost inerente.
costin
30 October 2008McCAIN TAKES LEAD OVER OBAMA!!!!
Panseluta
30 October 2008costin:
Pumnii strinsi. America pare sa se trezeasca.
Daca Obama pierde, va fi din cauza ca Joe the Plumber si Tito the Builder, care reprezinta categoria de americani mijlocii, productivi si independenti, pe care Obama vrea s-o stoarca, cum au facut comunistii, au vorbit:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008…..the-house/
Stalker
30 October 2008Ma bucur ca sunteti fericiti pentru ca McCain l-a intrecut pe Obama in pollul Zogby.
Si acum…
„Obama has consolidated his lead over McCain. His single day lead today was back to 52%-42%. He leads by 10 among independents and has solidified his base. He leads among Hispanics by38 points, African Americans by 88, 18-24 year olds by 36, 18-29 year olds by 25, 25-34 year olds by 16, women by 8, and men by 3. He has a 17 point lead among those who have already voted, 22 by those who have registered to vote in the past 6 months, Moderates by 34, Catholics by 10. He even receives 21% support among Conservatives.”
Sursa : „Acelasi poll Zogby” .
Stalker
30 October 2008Ah …era sa uit :
„Remember, as I said yesterday, one day does not make a trend. This is a three-day rolling average and no changes have been tectonic. A special note to blogger friends: calm it down. Lay off the cable television noise and look at your baseball cards in your spare time. It is better for your (and everyone else’s) health.”
Dinny
30 October 2008„Si nu ne duce pe noi in ispita!”
Sau daca ne duci, lasa-ne acolo :))
emil
30 October 2008Stalker, apropo de sondaje de opinie. Stii care sondaj a dat cea mai exacta predictie acum 4 ani (Bush – Kerry)? IBD/TIPP.
IBD = Investor’s Bussiness Daily
TIPP = TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics
In urma cu 4 ani, sondajul lor a fost cel mai aproape de rezultatul final al votului de atunci: au estimat victoria lui Bush la trei zecimi de procent fata de rezultatul real.
Pentru ziua de azi, 2 noiembrie ’08, IBD/TIPP prezinta urmatoarea situatie:
Obama – 46.7%
McCain – 44.6%
Evident, e bine sa privesti cu o doza de scepticism toate sondajele de opinie. Urmaresc totusi cu atentie acest sondaj datorita performantei de acum patru ani. Ce spune acest sondaj? Competitia este mai strinsa decit pare si alegerile de marti nu vor fi o formalitate. Acest lucru il stie si campania Obama, vezi programul foarte sustinut de convingere a votantilor din aceste ultime zile.
Day 21: IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll
PS
Sondajul IBD/TIPP il are pe Obama in avans cu 2.1%.
Sondajul nostru il are (in acest moment) pe Obama in avans cu 4%.
Chiar asa ad-hoc si simplist cum e sondajul nostru, se apropie mai degraba de imaginea propusa de IBD/TIPP. Sint curios cit de aproape sau departe va fi rezultatul real.
Panseluta
30 October 2008Postez un articol interesant al lui Fouad Ajami din Wall Street Journal despre „mase” si „charisma” lui Obama, cu o observatie: fenomenul nu e nou, cum crede Ajami. Isteria „Mintuitorului” national charismatic, placut la vedere, cu vorba dulce si promisiuni de marea cu sarea, a inceput cu Bobby Kennedy, in era televiziunii. Ce tempereaza zelul idolatru in America e partea sceptica si individualista a cetatenilor americani, care se uita strimb la orice cult al persoanei umane.
Obama and the Politics of Crowds
The masses greeting the candidate on the trail are a sign of great unease.By FOUAD AJAMI
There is something odd — and dare I say novel — in American politics about the crowds that have been greeting Barack Obama on his campaign trail. Hitherto, crowds have not been a prominent feature of American politics. We associate them with the temper of Third World societies. We think of places like Argentina and Egypt and Iran, of multitudes brought together by their zeal for a Peron or a Nasser or a Khomeini. In these kinds of societies, the crowd comes forth to affirm its faith in a redeemer: a man who would set the world right.
Martin KozlowskiAs the late Nobel laureate Elias Canetti observes in his great book, „Crowds and Power” (first published in 1960), the crowd is based on an illusion of equality: Its quest is for that moment when „distinctions are thrown off and all become equal. It is for the sake of this blessed moment, when no one is greater or better than another, that people become a crowd.” These crowds, in the tens of thousands, who have been turning out for the Democratic standard-bearer in St. Louis and Denver and Portland, are a measure of American distress.
On the face of it, there is nothing overwhelmingly stirring about Sen. Obama. There is a cerebral quality to him, and an air of detachment. He has eloquence, but within bounds. After nearly two years on the trail, the audience can pretty much anticipate and recite his lines. The political genius of the man is that he is a blank slate. The devotees can project onto him what they wish. The coalition that has propelled his quest — African-Americans and affluent white liberals — has no economic coherence. But for the moment, there is the illusion of a common undertaking — Canetti’s feeling of equality within the crowd. The day after, the crowd will of course discover its own fissures. The affluent will have to pay for the programs promised the poor. The redistribution agenda that runs through Mr. Obama’s vision is anathema to the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and the hedge-fund managers now smitten with him. Their ethos is one of competition and the justice of the rewards that come with risk and effort. All this is shelved, as the devotees sustain the candidacy of a man whose public career has been a steady advocacy of reining in the market and organizing those who believe in entitlement and redistribution.
A creature of universities and churches and nonprofit institutions, the Illinois senator, with the blessing and acquiescence of his upscale supporters, has glided past these hard distinctions. On the face of it, it must be surmised that his affluent devotees are ready to foot the bill for the new order, or are convinced that after victory the old ways will endure, and that Mr. Obama will govern from the center. Ambiguity has been a powerful weapon of this gifted candidate: He has been different things to different people, and he was under no obligation to tell this coalition of a thousand discontents, and a thousand visions, the details of his political programs: redistribution for the poor, postracial absolution and „modernity” for the upper end of the scale.
It was no accident that the white working class was the last segment of the population to sign up for the Obama journey. Their hesitancy was not about race. They were men and women of practicality; they distrusted oratory, they could see through the falseness of the solidarity offered by this campaign. They did not have much, but believed in the legitimacy of what little they had acquired. They valued work and its rewards. They knew and heard of staggering wealth made by the Masters of the Universe, but held onto their faith in the outcomes that economic life decreed. The economic hurricane that struck America some weeks ago shook them to the core. They now seek protection, the shelter of the state, and the promise of social repair. The bonuses of the wizards who ran the great corporate entities had not bothered them. It was the spectacle of the work of the wizards melting before our eyes that unsettled them.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late Democratic senator from New York, once set the difference between American capitalism and the older European version by observing that America was the party of liberty, whereas Europe was the party of equality. Just in the nick of time for the Obama candidacy, the American faith in liberty began to crack. The preachers of America’s decline in the global pecking order had added to the panic. Our best days were behind us, the declinists prophesied. The sun was setting on our imperium, and rising in other lands.
A younger man, „cool” and collected, carrying within his own biography the strands of the world beyond America’s shores, was put forth as a herald of the change upon us. The crowd would risk the experiment. There was grudge and a desire for retribution in the crowd to begin with. Akin to the passions that have shaped and driven highly polarized societies, this election has at its core a desire to settle the unfinished account of the presidential election eight years ago. George W. Bush’s presidency remained, for his countless critics and detractors, a tale of usurpation. He had gotten what was not his due; more galling still, he had been bold and unabashed, and taken his time at the helm as an opportunity to assert an ambitious doctrine of American power abroad. He had waged a war of choice in Iraq.
This election is the rematch that John Kerry had not delivered on. In the fashion of the crowd that seeks and sees the justice of retribution, Mr. Obama’s supporters have been willing to overlook his means. So a candidate pledged to good government and to ending the role of money in our political life opts out of public financing of presidential campaigns. What of it? The end justifies the means.
Save in times of national peril, Americans have been sober, really minimalist, in what they expected out of national elections, out of politics itself. The outcomes that mattered were decided in the push and pull of daily life, by the inventors and the entrepreneurs, and the captains of industry and finance. To be sure, there was a measure of willfulness in this national vision, for politics and wars guided the destiny of this republic. But that American sobriety and skepticism about politics — and leaders — set this republic apart from political cultures that saw redemption lurking around every corner.
My boyhood, and the Arab political culture I have been chronicling for well over three decades, are anchored in the Arab world. And the tragedy of Arab political culture has been the unending expectation of the crowd — the street, we call it — in the redeemer who will put an end to the decline, who will restore faded splendor and greatness. When I came into my own, in the late 1950s and ’60s, those hopes were invested in the Egyptian Gamal Abdul Nasser. He faltered, and broke the hearts of generations of Arabs. But the faith in the Awaited One lives on, and it would forever circle the Arab world looking for the next redeemer.
America is a different land, for me exceptional in all the ways that matter. In recent days, those vast Obama crowds, though, have recalled for me the politics of charisma that wrecked Arab and Muslim societies. A leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession — its imagination.
From Elias Canetti again: „But the crowd, as such, disintegrates. It has a presentiment of this and fears it. . . . Only the growth of the crowd prevents those who belong to it from creeping back under their private burdens.”
The morning after the election, the disappointment will begin to settle upon the Obama crowd. Defeat — by now unthinkable to the devotees — will bring heartbreak. Victory will steadily deliver the sobering verdict that our troubles won’t be solved by a leader’s magic.
Mr. Ajami is professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, and an adjunct research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
Panseluta
30 October 2008Stevie Nicks cu „I Need to Know”:
http://www.youtube.com/results…..arch_type=
costin
30 October 2008Obama a promis lui Abbas divizarea Ierusalimului
israelianca> stii ceva mai multe?
israelianca
30 October 2008costin,
nu stiu mai mult. Toate retelele de presa au publicat cam acelasi lucru – un ziar libanez, promisiuni facute privately, adica in privata. Numai ca Abbas si Fayyad sint doi pacalici pe care Israelul i-a salvat cind Hamasul a dat lovitura de stat in Gaza. Ce n-a reusit Israelul, sa distruga organizatia terorista a lui Arafat, a reusit Hamas. Abbas si Fayyad au acelasi statut ca si Suha Arafat, dar mult, mult mai putini bani – regina vaduva, Queen Dowager, pusi pe linie moarta.
Interesanta intrebarea ta, pentru ca pe la prinz cind a inceput sa circule stirea asta in Israel, ma gindeam la T-shirturile care se pot cumpara in Israel – bugsy, unde esti? le-ai vazut si tu? – T-shirturi pe care scrie: „America, don’t worry. Israel is behind you.” http://www.thejerusalemgiftsho…..cts_id/381
Nu stiu cum sa- i spun Obamei, dar daca se amesteca prea mult in treburile noastre interne o sa scoatem T-shirturi cu emblema: „America, you’re on your own. Start worrying!”
Acuma, lasind gluma deoparte, o sa fie foarte neplacut daca Obama/America o sa incerce sa forteze mina Israelului. Israelul este singurul aliat onest al Americii in zona. Siria deja a reinnoit accesul navelor rusesti in porturile ei. In Egipt mocneste si dospeste ura impotriva Americii. Chiar daca, sa presupunem, guvernul israelian ar accepta, publicul n-ar mai accepta inca o galusca. Sa nu uitam insa ca daca se alege, Obama va fi inaugurat abia in ianuarie. Alegerile la noi sint programate pentru 10 Februarie. Deci oricum mai avem de asteptat 4-5 luni. La noi guvernul in functie este interim, pentru ca Olmert a demisionat iar Livni nu a fost in stare sa inchege o coalitie. Nici un guvern de tranzitie nu a luat si nu poate lua hotariri de asemenea amploare. Pur si simplu nu au mandat. Oricum, asteptam pina miine sa vedem cine iese. Acum opt ani, presa il incoronase bine de tot pe Gorica. La fel si la noi, acum nu stiu citi ani (poate Dan isi aminteste), ne-am dus la culcare cu Peres, care a si tinut discursul triumfal, si ne-am trezit cu Bibi Netanyahu.
bugsy
30 October 2008@Israelianca,
acum sunt in Romania (spre sfarsitul lui noiembrie voi fi, probabil, in Israel), deci nu am vazut tricouriled e care spui tu.
Iata, in schimb, ce articol intersant am primit, via e/mail, de la Haaretz:
„Concerned about Barack Obama? You should be.
Many Americans have questions about Barack Obama and whether his views are good for the United States and Israel. And for good reason.
Most concerning is Sen. Barack Obama’s naive grasp of the threats against the United States and Israel.
Obama has surrounded himself with anti-Israel advisors like General Tony McPeak, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley and Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Sen. Obama told a Jewish group he supports an undivided Jerusalem, only to flip-flop the very next day. Another time, Obama called his support for an undivided Jerusalem a „poor phrasing” of words.
From his opposition to legislation labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization to his willingness to meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad without any preconditions, Sen. Barack Obama has raised real questions about his judgment and experience.
Barack Obama has not shown the commitment to stand up to the people who would do us harm. ” In continuare si link/ul unde poate fi vazut un clip:http://us.mc624.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage.
si un articol pe acceasi tema, Obama si Israel, in HAARETZ
Is Obama a danger to Israel after all?
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent
Every Israeli who has lectured to a Jewish-American audience in the past year knows the drill. Immediately after leaving the stage he is taken aside by a few worried Jews. „We know you can’t publicly interfere in our our business,” they whisper into his air. „But tell the truth: Is Obama a danger to Israel?”
According to the polls, most Jews say „no” to this question despite such concern among some Jews. Despite the negative campaign about Barack Obama’s „connections” with Israel and the hoopla over his middle name (Hussein), the overwhelming majority of Jews will apparently maintain their historical loyalty to the Democratic Party. But the nagging doubt won’t go away.
The standard Israeli answer is that Obama apparently is not a danger to Israel. The American system is stronger than the individual. Barring an extreme crisis, it’s hard to see how a single president could put a serious anti-Israel spin on U.S. Middle East policy. That kind of change takes years, and Obama, anyway, is talking about changes in other areas.
Support for Israel is rooted deep in the heart of the Washington establishment. And, of course, we can’t scoff at the declarations of the candidate himself, who has reiterated his commitment to Israel.
But there is one unknown in Obama’s foreign-policy equation: his attitude toward Iran. Officials in Jerusalem won’t say it out loud, but Obama’s support for renewing the dialogue with Tehran is making them very uncomfortable. True, President George W. Bush plans to establish a U.S. interests office in Tehran. But Bush overall has demonstrated determination against Iran, while to Israeli ears Obama’s tone regarding that country’s nuclear program sounds slightly appeasing. It could, of course, go the other way: A failure of diplomatic contacts with Iran could stiffen President Obama’s attitude to Iran. In addition, he is well aware of the suspicions against him in this area. Nevertheless, when it comes to Iran, it would appear that Israel would be more comfortable with President John McCain.
It’s hard to ask Israelis to look at the wider picture with the threat of an Iranian bomb floating overhead, but an Obama victory would have a plethora of positive implications that don’t necessarily have any connection to the Middle East, such as for interracial relations in the U.S. and America’s image around the world.
Even more important: Obama is poised to become president of a country where just 50 years ago in some states a black man risked being hung on the nearest tree merely for looking at a white woman; a place where just 45 years ago Jewish civil rights activists were murdered, their bodies thrown into a Mississippi delta swamp for registering and encouraging black voters; where Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered by a white racist for daring to argue that blacks deserved equal rights.
One of the unofficial songs of Obama’s campaign has a special significance: „Yes, We Can,” written and performed by two natives of New Orleans, Lee Dorsey and Allen Toussaint. New Orleans is the city that the Bush administration left to die in Hurricane Katrina.
„Yes, We Can,” like most of the great anthems of the civil rights movement, was written in the 1960s. In 1964, when Obama was 3, Sam Cooke wrote „A Change Is Gonna Come.” On Tuesday, if Obama wins, radio stations in the U.S. will be playing this song, whose third verse „I go to the movie and I go downtown, somebody keep telling me don’t hang around” was once too blunt for radio play.
An Obama victory will be no less important than King’s March on Washington, and nearly as important as the Civil Rights Act signed by then president Lyndon Johnson.
On Tuesday morning a black man – even if he is not the direct descendant of slaves (his father came to America from Africa 90 years after the abolition of slavery) – is expected to be elected to the most important job in the world. Somewhere, Sam Cooke must be smiling. ”
In fine, eu as vota McCain.
De asemenea, cred ca ptr Israel, cel mai bun locatar la WH ar fi McCain.
Anyway, indiferent cine vine la Casa Alba, ISRAEL ISREAL!!!!
israelianca
30 October 2008bugsy, multumesc! Israel is real and is forever. Intr-un fel sau altul, Israelul, ca popor si religie (chiar daca de multe ori in pragul disparitiei) a supravietiuit tuturor marilor imperii. Bunica-mea avea o vorba: „Ne-au omorit, ne-am prasit” (parca am fi fost animale de prasila). „Iar ne-au omorit, iar ne-am prasit.” Dar i-am supravietuit pe toti cei care au vrut sa ne distruga. Cineva acolo sus ne iubeste.
Sper din toata inima sa nu fim nevoiti sa spunem acelasi lucru despre America, pentru ca stii probabil ca Israelul iubeste sincer America. Dincolo de interese, exista o afectiune sincera – evreii vad in americani pe cei care si-au dat viata ca sa ne scape (nu numai pe noi, pe intreaga omenire) de nazism, au tinut piept comunismului, un model de democratie, bunastare, cu tehnologie si medicina de prim rang (desi la noi medical care e mai accesibil cetateanului de rind). Cind sufeream in Romania pe vremea lui Ceausescu susoteam intre noi, las’ca vin americanii si ne scapa. America, if you’re listening, Israel loves you!
bugsy, daca ajungi in Ierusalim, te invit la un humus, ce zici?
Si daca tot te-am prins aici, stii unde nu se maninca bine in Israel? La cofetarie. Nu tu jofra, mascota, cataif sau diplomat, nu tu negresa sau profiterol. Savarina e total neinspirata. Iar la arabi, baclavaua n-are nici un haz (unde sint baclavalele si sarailiile de de Mamaia, pline de nuci si sirop? cu foetaj crocant si rumen… ah, amintirile), au ceva care arata bine – knafe, dar cind gusti ti se strepezeste gura de la brinza de capra. Ce mai, humus – yes, prajituri – NO!
costin
30 October 2008ARAFAT AND OBAMA …JIHAD ICONS
From Maan News – a shop window in Ramallah shows a mug with a picture of Barack Obama above and next to mugs with pictures of former „Rais” Yasser Arafat.
If one picture is worth a thousand words, how many words are all these pictures worth? Earlier, Maan had announced that Barack Obama had promised East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. This rumor was quickly denied.
bugsy
30 October 2008@Israelianca,
multumesc pentru invitatie. Sper sa pot ajunge in Israel la sfarsitul lunii noiembrie ai atunci, poate, mancam un humus la Ierusalim.
Am retinut si unde nu se mananca bine in Israel! Ca atare, voi evita cofetaria. TODA RABA!
ISRAEL ISREAL! Forever