A.I.G....unfreakinreal

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama's agenda (education, health care, etc) is why he was elected.

do you seriously believe this? Maybe my memory is faulty but I don't remember Education being a critical issue in the last election and Health care was hardly mentioned though McCain's plan that was scoffed at by Obama is actually the one they are attempting to adopt.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759906029901559.html

And the idea that Govs are turning down federal stimulus money related to infrastructure is unfounded. Most have said that they dont want the money that will change permanently state laws regarding unemployement ins and other state social programs. The Federal money will drastically expand these programs which the state will be on the hook for in 2 years when the money runs out. It is a bad longterm deal for states and will dramatically increase the size of their expenditures without a real revenue source which to fund them. Basically it is like the govt making a downpayment on your new Mercedes (which you cant afford) but then leaving you to make the payments (which you cant afford). This way the Congressional Democrats and Obama administration can claim credit for helping the needy yet put the individual states on the hook for failing to maintain them. Only in politics can you get money for nothing but the reality is that the Federal govt's money always comes with strings.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759827524401409.html

[Riot]

do you seriously believe this?

Yeah. I believe alot of crap you don't.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah. I believe alot of crap you don't.

I just have a hard time thinking that the reason Obama won wasn't almost entirely due to the mess in Iraq, McCain's age and running mate selection, Obama's public speaking skills and George Bush.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I just have a hard time thinking that the reason Obama won wasn't almost entirely due to the mess in Iraq, McCain's age and running mate selection, Obama's public speaking skills and George Bush.

i don't think any but the selection of palin made more than marginal differences.

outside of missouri, i don't know what competitive state you could argue she may have helped him win. on balance she was clearly a negative where the election could have swung.

people's minds were made up about iraq and bush long before the election. those weren't issues that changed meaningful votes.

i think the election was over when the economy tipped over in september. palin was just a bonus.

Republicans were whining about where is this change...

Change this change that, he aint gonna change nothin.
Constantly ridiculing Obama...
I remember this very clearly during the campaign.

Surprise.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Republicans were whining about where is this change...

Change this change that, he aint gonna change nothin.
Constantly ridiculing Obama...
I remember this very clearly during the campaign.

Surprise.

i remember it differently. Republicans weren't whining about where is the change. Republicans ridiculed people for not looking at the details, for getting caught up in a cult, for not looking at his marxist history, not looking at his total lack of experience. Republicans did this not because they thought he wouldn't change anything as president, but because they feared the changes he might make as president.

So far we've been 100% correct. These first two months have been nothing short of a disaster. A person hell bent on destroying the country would not have been worse.

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

i remember it differently. Republicans weren't whining about where is the change. Republicans ridiculed people for not looking at the details, for getting caught up in a cult, for not looking at his marxist history, not looking at his total lack of experience. Republicans did this not because they thought he wouldn't change anything as president, but because they feared the changes he might make as president.

So far we've been 100% correct. These first two months have been nothing short of a disaster. A person hell bent on destroying the country would not have been worse.

Oh because he stepped into a hell hole.

Who in God's name would have made the first two months
better on a ship that was already going down? No one in
their right mind would have expected to be on the Love Boat
two months after it had already hit an iceberg.


There is no quick fix. Obama's fix may well be the wrong one.
But based on what has happened so far, it is impossible to
say at this time his plan is a failure as of right now.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Oh because he stepped into a hell hole.

Who in God's name would have made the first two months
better on a ship that was already going down? No one in
their right mind would have expected to be on the Love Boat
two months after it had already hit an iceberg.


There is no quick fix. Obama's fix may well be the wrong one.
But based on what has happened so far, it is impossible to
say at this time his plan is a failure as of right now.

his domestic proposals have created utter chaos when what we needed was some stability. his proposals and spending plans are off the charts stupid, and will be trimmed back significantly by his own party.

his foreign policy seems to be based on sending appeasing videos or letters to every country that has threatened us or Israel, while at the same time snubbing countries that are vital allies.

meanwhile he continues with his perpetual campaign and messiah tour, townhall rallies, Leno, 60 Minutes, ESPN, weekly parties, etc.

even his adoring press are starting to see through the facade. he was royally ripped apart in the New York Times this weekend. that should tell you something.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

meanwhile he continues with his perpetual campaign and messiah tour, townhall rallies, Leno, 60 Minutes, ESPN, weekly parties, etc.

even his adoring press are starting to see through the facade. he was royally ripped apart in the New York Times this weekend. that should tell you something.

its so ridiculous how often President Obama is on tv... Leno, 60 min, ESPN... he's acting like he has no work to do. I feel its actually insulting.. I'm sure others feel different. He's on these shows laughing and joking around while the country he runs is a total mess. Its like he forgot he actually won and still wants to campaign.

Can you please post a link to the Times story over the weekend? I'd like to read it.

Thanks!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

He's on his ranch laughing and joking around and clearing brush while the country he runs is a total mess.

FTFY....the '01-'08 version.

So really, conservatives keep saying that we should stop talking about Bush because he's in the past, but we'd probably have a much better chance of actually having to come up with another rebuttal if they'd stop making it so freakin' easy with the manufactured outrage over the same stuff their boy did for nearly the last decade. BFD.

[Riot]

Can you please post a link to the Times story over the weekend? I'd like to read it. Thanks!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/op...rsch.html?_r=1

[Smooth Operator]

The only confirmed "disaster" at this point was the Bush presidency.

[Smooth Operator]

Lol ... cons conveniently forgetting about all the vacations their guy took over the last eight years.

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Republicans were whining about where is this change...

Change this change that, he aint gonna change nothin.
Constantly ridiculing Obama...
I remember this very clearly during the campaign.

Surprise.

can you give and example of a Republican complaining about there being no change?

If you mean that he is another corrupt politician from Chicago
yes
there is no change

do you mean that the change he wants is socialism and some people still believe in America?

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."



~~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

can you give and example of a Republican complaining about there being no change?

If you mean that he is another corrupt politician from Chicago
yes
there is no change

do you mean that the change he wants is socialism and some people still believe in America?

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."



~~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

awesome.

you finally found a spot where your quote makes sense. congrats.

and you guys keep at that socialism angle.

it's bound to work one of these days.

[Danzig]

a plan for another trillion in spending to be unveiled tomorrow.

hey, a trillion here, a trillion there...no problem. anyone remember when a million was a lot? or when people gasped at a billion? chump change.

[Riot]

If you mean that he is another corrupt politician from Chicago
yes
there is no change

I must have missed that - where has Obama been shown to have been a corrupt politician?

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by Riot

I must have missed that - where has Obama been shown to have been a corrupt politician?

how can Rezko go to jail for his dealing with Blogo but not for his dealing with Barackovich

[Riot]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

how can Rezko go to jail for his dealing with Blogo but not for his dealing with Barackovich

I must have missed that - where has Obama been shown to have been a corrupt politician?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I must have missed that - where has Obama been shown to have been a corrupt politician?

Arent all Illinois politicians corrupt? Or does it just seem that way?