|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
03-09-2009, 01:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And when they finally DO take over the failing banks then he will come out and say that he didnt want to do it but he HAD to. Ok I will start the list with a couple of simple ones. 1. I am not running for president (he did) 2. I will immediately withdraw the troops from Iraq (he didnt) 3. I will act in a bipartisan manner and reach across the aisle (he hasnt) 4. I will reverse the Bush administration's policies on executive power (he wont) 5 Earmarks (LOL) 
|
|
#2
03-09-2009, 07:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The first is silly. He is withdrawing the troops from Iraq and has given a timetable. I don't know where he ever said "immediately" - only that he would immediately address it. Which he did. He has in fact acted in a very bipartisan manner. I sure don't see how you can say this. So you have to throw out the first three. We will see on 4 & 5. He has already kept multiple campaign promises - shall we list those?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#3
03-09-2009, 08:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
the list is long, some of the big ones that come to mind are:
Obama vowed to go line by line through the budget, and would not except wasteful earmarks. that was during the campaign. now he says he will sign this current budget that contains 9000 earmarks because "we need to move forward" during the campaign he made a huge deal how he would not hire lobbyists and that he would have none in his Whitehouse. the fact is at last count he has made 19 exceptions to this ironclad promise. the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is the one the Petraeus outlined some time back under Bush. Obama has added nothing to this matter other than make a big press conference and announce it pubicly and take credit for keeping his campaign pledge, which he didn't. he did at one point advocate a much faster timetable. he made a big deal recently announcing that he was redirecting a particular strike force, that had been training for missions in Iraq for months, to Afghanistan. this was supposedly another campaign promise kept, to pull out of Iraq and re-focus on Afghanistan. a week later and quite quietly it has been discovered that another identical strike squad will be sent to Iraq in order to replace the one that was redirected to Afghanistan. so, the bottom line is that he played a shell game to make it look like he was drawing down in Iraq.
|
|
#4
03-09-2009, 08:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
He said on more than one occasion that he would immediately withdraw the troops from Iraq usually followed up by wild cheering and him taking bows. I guess his version of immediate changed once the reality of the situation hit him. You think he has acted bipartisan? Exactly what has he done that would be considered remotely bipartisan? Even the most liberal of liberals would have a hard time keeping a straight face on that one. What do you mean we will see on #4 and #5? Do you ever actually read a paper other than the USA today? He has already taken the same stance as the Bush administration has on Executive power through his Justice Dept. And earmarks? LOL I suppose that you missed the budget last week.....Yeah he'll get bipartisan tough on those....yeah sure he will
|
|
#5
03-09-2009, 08:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Do you ever listen to anything other than Fox News?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#6
03-09-2009, 09:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Sure I listen to all sorts of things. Why is that anyone that refuses to follow along the liberal path is considered Rush Limbaugh or Fox News junkies? Do you read the Economist?. Or the Wall Street Journal? Or Financial Times or Money or Inc or Kiplingers or watch CNN or Cnbc or Fox business or a million other shows that are both liberal and conservative? Hell come to the table with something other than the typical liberal rhetoric about Fox news. next thing you'll tell me that the mainstream media isnt left leaning...
|
|
#7
03-09-2009, 09:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Do you see everyone that doesn't agree with you as a liberal? I don't see it as black and white as you seem to. Yes, I read WSJ almost daily, and hit on Money or Inc when I can. I watch CNN, CNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC. I sometimes even look at Huffington Post and Fox News (there's two extremes). Yes, I think the general media leans more left than right. I consider Fox News a completely crappy, laughable and factually unreliable "news" organization. They are a 24-hour ultra-conservative politically-motived blog. I would no more get my "news" from Fox than I would Huff Post. Yes, I find them both useful for editorial content views.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#8
03-09-2009, 09:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I dont how anyone could read the Wall Street Journal daily and still come up with your viewpoint which seem to be far closer to the general media than anything found in the WSJ. I dont call everyone that doesnt agree with me a liberal. I call liberal thinking and actions liberal. Because NBC says something is objective doesnt mean it is.
|
|
#9
03-10-2009, 07:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Tax, Spend, Tax, Spend, Tax, Spend, Give Terrorists rights, allow stem cells (the one good thing) Did I get it right?
__________________
Quote:
|
Hybrid Mode
