Thank goodness it is almost over, and GyroMike, Todd Powell, please read this!!!

[ultracruiser41]

Oh Crap!

The elections over!

Should be an interresting few years!

Good luck to all!

[LuftCarl]

Obama wins. Congrats to him and Biden.

As you all, or is it y'all, or all y'all, probably figured out, I didn't vote for them. However, I live in and love this country. Consequently, I hope he truly does know what is best for this country. I believe McCain would have been better, but I hope Obama can walk on water like his supporters believe.

God bless Barack Obama and Joe Biden for all our sakes.

[Russ Hobbs]

Personally, I think were screwed and tattooed, But that's democracy at it's best. For what it's worth I think there's a good chance our friend Racer (Todd) will start building new parts and re-placement parts for those who need them.

[Mike484]

Ron,
All of the various threads just makes the forum more interesting. Yes, it should be generated towards flying and the machines themselves but it also provides a place where people can just hang out and "talk". For those not interested in other than the flying and machines don't need to go to the other threads. I too think that if all of us just stay on one or a few topics the forum would not be used near as much and would become quite boring because of the lack of new articles to read.

[Hognose]

I was going to make a comment but Tom already made it for me. Thanks, Tom.

Originally Posted by TomCarlisle

I am really partisian, I spent most of my life in the military, but whoever is elected will be MY president and we should all get behind him and get on with the business of America.

Ron is right -- I'm sick of the whole thing and glad it's over, and we won't have to do it again for two more years. I had a perfect score tonight -- nothing and nobody I voted for in my state won. The state voted to keep the income tax, ban dog racing, and legalize dope. That tells me there's pretty much nobody left anymore but government workers, welfare cases, and, well, whoever cares about the dog thing. (For what it's worth, a friend of mine adopted a dog from a racing kennel and thought the kennel people treated the dogs well, which is why I voted against that ban, even though I've never seen a dog race and seldom wager on anything).

As far as deleting the threads goes -- why bother? Nobody's gonna look at them again. The 2008 elections are now the concern of historians. The republic goes on (world's oldest running constitution, but that's only because the Brits used to keep theirs all in their heads).

Anyway, congratulations to the winners, and best wishes to you; condolences to the losers, and thanks to everybody who ran for making the effort and putting up with all the hostility to give us a choice. Millions of people around the world do not have that, which is something that those of us in stable and free countries tend to forget.

[lanichol]

Obama set the future standard by breaking his promise. Tonight will be remembered as the end of public financing for presidential candidates.

In the future the winner will be the person that can raise the greatest resources, and promise the most to the voters. As is the case of the Rose Parade, the next election starts tomorrow and will be a battle of dollars. Never again will candidates make the mistake of taking public financing.

So if Bush stole the election, did Obama buy the election?

And now it is time for businesses & financial markets to vote with their dollars on Obama's change.

[Heron]

. . .and of course this is a nation of dummies that can't vote right!
C'mon . . .let the people decide . . .
Now lets go find another subject to raise bruhaha and drive Ron A. even madder.
Congrats you all, you rock!
Heron

[Jazzenjohn]

It wouldn't bother me if all the election posts were deleted but I don't care much either way.

The thread I'd most like to see right now would be one about the plusses and minusses of different construction techniques for a tail section. Maybe even an open source tail. Some plans for tails people on the forum have built too.

I don't know about anybody else but the tail has been a sticking point for my gyro.

[Sir Real]

Larry, you're right, Obama originally promised to abide by the public funding rules, and just as soon as he relaized he'd get more money by refusing the financing & rules, he reversed himself. Not a good thing. Probably the worst thing he did in the campaign, and he did several things that were somewhat ignoble.

But he's not the first one to do it by a long shot. He's not the one who "Set the Standard", and goodness knows he's not the first, or the hundredth, or even the thousandth politician to win an election by lavish spending & making promises he can't keep.

Decry the situation, and I'm with you 100%. Claim that any current politician started it, or any living person, an I've gotta disagree.

[Timchick]

The FCC says the fairness doctrine could also extend to internet discussions so political discussion could be off limits here by the next election.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/prin...812160747.aspx

[PW_Plack]

The FCC says the fairness doctrine could also extend to internet discussions...

Tim, that's not an FCC position, just a lame attempt at a scare tactic from one commissioner who doesn't want the Fairness Doctrine back in effect.

Note the acknowledgement of same in the story:

"McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast..."

The premise for the Fairness Doctrine is that radio spectrum is a limited resource owned by the public. It has never applied to newspapers because anyone can start one - there's no limit on the number of newspapers which could exist at any given time.

The internet also comprises infrastructure owned by private companies, with no practical limit on how much bandwidth could eventually be created. Even within the existing bandwidth, adding more "voices" is always possible, with resulting slowdowns in distribution shared by everyone. The internet will enjoy the same exemption from the Fairness Doctrine as any other limitless private medium.

The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is a sham. When it was in effect, all a radio station had to do was invite the other side to appear. Those offers were very seldom accepted, because the other side didn't want to enter what was perceived as a hostile environment. Just as Sarah Palin shunned most major media outlets, and Obama wouldn't agree to come on with Barbara West or Sean Hannity. They were both invited, even though the Fairness Doctrine had been repealed years earlier.

What the FD did do was open radio and TV stations up to be blindsided way down the road if they didn't keep a paper trail of the invitations and responses, allowing special interest groups to challenge their licenses, even years after an alleged violation.

The reason it would kill Talk Radio is that the major hosts are syndicated, and each individual station would have to closely monitor the broadcasts and offer local opposing viewpoints equal time. Most radio stations running Rush or Hannity have computer automation with no one at the station actually listening, unless the sales department or receptionist happens to enjoy the show. Hundreds of stations would suddenly face duplicated efforts to track statements and contact someone with opposing views.

The FCC has no real way to regulate syndicated hosts, since they're not actually transmitting a radio signal, and don't need FCC licensing or approval to do what they do. The FCC would have to come after individual stations which actually emit the radio signals to punish anyone for content.

An attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine will be seen for what it is...an attempt by one point of view to muzzle the other.