Change You Can Believe In

Now that Bush signed the agreement to have us out in 3 years it says we'll be gone before Obama's reelection. That is a win/win for Obama and his promise.

The moaning is from the far left. That is why Ken keeps saying is appear to be going to have a center administration and not the far left he keeps getting accused of.

 

And has nothing to do with Obama and his so called promise.

 

True, but had everything to do with what Bro Curtis said;

 

Why?.........................

 

That was my same question, WHY did you comment on my post being off topic and not his?

Obama promise was change. Let's face it, if he doesn't deliver then we're all in trouble because we are headed in the wrong direction. Wars on two fronts, economy in the tank with record unemployment etc... If he doesn't change our direction, in 4 years, we'll be really bad off... :laugh: :thumbs:

It's a shame to say but 100K jobs lost would be an appreciated change from yesterdays news...

EDITED to ADD... I think in the end, those who voted for him wanted change from the past administration more than delivery of campaign promises. I more hope he does what right and best for the nation than what he promised.

 

You did not answer my question. What does :

Have to do with:

 

Because what Obama promised was a time line. Remember, the time line is what he said he would do and every one called him foolish for the thought? 3 years is a time line just like Obama said he would do. He doesn't have to make a time line because Bush gave him one that will expire before his reelection in 4 years. What a Christmas gift he got from Bush...

 

First the time line was just a Democratic ploy to try to force an immediate exit.It was a poor attempt to gain votes. There is no evidence that any Democrat actually meant it. Add to that it is most likely a response to appease certain factions in Iraq. However, the time line is most likely tentative whether characterized that way or not.

 

The time line was Obama campaign promise. You can say it was said for whatever reason but that was the promise. Now you can put words in his mouth and say he meant this or that but that facts are that was the promise.

And it couldn't be a poor attempt to gain votes if he won.

 

Pastor Larry is right. When you run on the idea of "Change" and bringing fresh people to Washington, then all you do is keep a Def Sec who was part of the war machine, reenlist some of the most partisan people to ever grace Washington, and bring Daley and Clinton types back into the beltway, how can anyone say with a straight face that this man is anything but another typical Washington insider with nothing but typical Washington as usual practices? We'll see how he governs when he governs, but I know many supporters who are dismayed at his choices. The others? Well, they believe (like the ones on here) in the Impeccability of Obama - he cannot sin. It's not that he hasn't - he cannot.

 

Gates was appointed after Rumsfield left in shame. He has done a pretty good job and so Obama has decided to keep him. It seems like you conservatives would rejoice at this news, after all, aren't you the ones who say not to change leadership in time of war?

Obama has brought the most experienced democrats to work in his administration. If he had chosen new people, right-wingers would be griping about total inexperience and how dangerous that could be. Face it Tom, regardless of who Obama chooses, many republicans will find fault. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't according to many conservatives here on the BB.

 

No matter who he chooses for what position, he can't change his "spots".

Obama is a radical liberal leftist with a deeply rooted belief in socialism.

The recession is playing right into his socialist hands. The government will come out of this, eventually , with more control and power over our lives than ever before, the goal of every socialist.

All you have to do is watch the spending patterns. They'll tell the tale and his recommendations have already given us a forecast of the government's grab for power he craves.

 

Rumsfeld left in shame ?

I'm one of the ones saying leave now, and stop using the troops as a way to gain votes.

You shouldn't try and squirm out of the fact that there will be no change, and not use negative speculation.

Sounds like the last eight years, eh ?

 

Whether or not Rumsfeld left in shame is solely dependent on how he felt not how libs worked to characterize him based on their hate.

 

I don't recall him saying he would bring "fresh people to Washington". Do you have a clip or quote of him saying that? The choice of his VP, a 36 year Washington veteran would have been the first clue that wasn't the case. The only Washington outside int he contest was Palin.

I thought the change he campaigned on was a different type of government. One that represents the people and is transparent. So far he has created the vehicle to put all meeting with lobbyist on line, he as a website where he is begging for American's ideas on health care which includes an area for you to send your vision of Government. This was also the first time I can remember Governors being brought in to give input on Federal policy.

You are right here, he has the far left and organized labor feeling cheated since he's yet to pick people they see good for their causes. I would think you would find that a good thing but I guess anything to criticize...

 

If Obama pulls the troops out right away and things heat up in the area and we end up going back, will you continue to say you supported the decision to pull out?

Obama has always and to this day says he will "RESPONSIBLY" end the war. He has NEVER said he would just bring the troops home. The soonest he gave was his 16 month time line which is still left to be seen. He hasn't had a day in office so the 16 months hasn't began.

How is it a FACT there will be no change when he hasn't assumed office? It only becomes a FACT in four years if there was no change.

 

I would, and would be against going back.

There is no way to end this war responsibly. We either stay there forever, or we leave.

Part of his rhetoric about change surrounded DC insider bashing. He didn't like them when he ran, now he can't seem to remember what he said. A lot like the campaign finance promise he broke, which if I remember correctly, you admired.....

 

I agree with you, there will be a civil war in the middle east when we leave no doubt about it. Our only interest is the oil and Israel.

I don't recall his using this platform. I know many other people said this because he had only been two years on the hill but I don't recall Obama making this part of this platform of change.

 

WHOA! Where did I post this?

What are you talking about? I was just relaying what my Obama-supporting friends are saying and an obsevation about those who claim he can do no wrong. You deny this occurs? Would you deny there are GOP folks who think Bush isn't capapble of wrong?

No question the far left is upset with some of his choices. However, most of the Dem party folks I know and far lefters are happy they got their guy, despite their other frustrations with him. the union leaders I know believe Obama will eventually give them carte blanche.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/?tie...type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2008/11/26/Obama-promises-fresh-voices/1227716067.html

The others I've seen are ancedotal, speeches I've personally watched, etc.

Obama adressed the NGA, did he not, at their regular winter session, as I recall. I may be wrong.

Some reporters thought they had a scoop when Biden was seen talking at length with Sarah Palin. Just came to mind, that's all.

 

Well, there is that loyal 20% who maintains his approval rating.

I think Biden explained this, he said it was the only way he could get any press. His ticket won yet the press follows her every move. :laugh: