rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 11:03 am
@H2O MAN,
If we can survive 8 years of bush we can survive even 4 years of a water man type which hopefully Obama is not.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 11:04 am
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/stevetheq/isurvivedbush.jpg
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 11:15 am
@Bi-Polar Bear,



Funny shirt, but it does not address this democrat cult of corruption that is about to take full charge of our Republic.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 12:28 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:





Can our Republic survive 4 years of the democrat cult of corruption under Barack Hussein Obama?

Change we can believe in 2 years from now, I hope, in the next congressional election. Get the brooms out!!!!!
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 12:30 pm
@okie,
I think that O can't go wrong. After Bush, anything or anybody would look good.
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 12:34 pm
@okie,
Obama says no more pork (earmarks), but what about hundreds of billions of pure pork in his so called stimulus package!!!! Is this man sane?
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 12:36 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Obama says no more pork (earmarks), but what about hundreds of billions of pure pork in his so called stimulus package!!!! Is this man sane?


'Pork' is money sent to your own home constituency or state, usually inserted by representatives of that state. It's not pork when the President decides to spend money on the whole country at once; it's just a decision that you disagree with, Okie. As far as I can tell, Obama will make a lot of those.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 12:36 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

I think that O can't go wrong. After Bush, anything or anybody would look good.

Bush will be viewed as a saint after 4 years of Obama learning on the job, Chicago street organizer taking over Washington.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 12:38 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Obama says no more pork (earmarks), but what about hundreds of billions of pure pork in his so called stimulus package!!!! Is this man sane?


'Pork' is money sent to your own home constituency or state, usually inserted by representatives of that state. It's not pork when the President decides to spend money on the whole country at once; it's just a decision that you disagree with, Okie. As far as I can tell, Obama will make a lot of those.

Cycloptichorn

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 01:01 pm
@okie,
What are you laughing about? Your misuse of the terminology is clear.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 01:19 pm
@FreeDuck,
Ezra Klein argues that "Gupta's hire is good for health reform, even if it's not good for pundit accountability." The latter being a reference to Gupta's spat with Michael Moore. See his latest post responding to Krugman's reference to the Moore thing, and his previous post on Gupta's appointment.

But (per Kevin Drum's blog), "Over at Kos, DrSteveB writes the brief for the opposition. The main problem is that Gupta has a long string of connections with various pharma and healthcare companies."
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 01:25 pm
@okie,
Okie, Cyclo's right. You may fairly estimate that much of the stimulus program to come will be wasted money - that's a question of opinion and, of course, waiting and seeing. But while all pork is arguably government waste, not all wasteful spending is "pork". It means something more specific than that, and yeah, is the domain of members of Congress, because it's all about steering government spending to your own district or state. Don't see how Obama can be accused of that.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 02:32 pm
@Bi-Polar Bear,
It should be "We" survived... LOL
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 04:24 pm


GW will be gone in just a few days, it's all on O boy after that and every single thing that goes
south after his coronation will be blamed on O boy and the dumbmasses that voted for him.

The democrat cult of corruption that is entrenched in Washington has the potential to ruin this Republic
with O boy in charge. I know we will survive Obama's reign of corruption, but the immediate future is bleak.






FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 04:39 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

The main problem is that Gupta has a long string of connections with various pharma and healthcare companies."

Yeah, that's my biggest beef.
0 Replies
 
Gargamel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 04:41 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



GW will be gone in just a few days, it's all on O boy after that and every single thing that goes
south after his coronation will be blamed on O boy and the dumbmasses that voted for him.

The democrat cult of corruption that is entrenched in Washington has the potential to ruin this Republic
with O boy in charge. I know we will survive Obama's reign of corruption, but the immediate future is bleak.









Amen, brother. I don't know what frightens me more, his Water Softener Tax proposal or Gun Owner Castration platform. Soft water and guns--the foundation upon which our great nation was built.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 05:21 pm
@Advocate,
So if Obama decides to get us involved in a war you dont like, you would still say he is better then Bush?
What about if the economy totally tanks and we have another major depression under his watch?
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 06:03 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O, Yes our immediate future is bleak, and that is because the reigns of W and Reagan. The "dumbmasses" (your term) are clearly those morons (my term) who have been duped into thinking that the republicans have had their interests at heart. Amazing our the economic elitists have convinced so many working-class people that they, W and Reagan, are common folk or cowboys. They morons would have elected John Wayne for the same dumb-ass reason
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 06:12 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

What about if the economy totally tanks and we have another major depression under his watch?

We already know the economy is going to totally tank and we'll have a major depression. Biggest since the thirties. That's been clear for a couple of months now and is getting ever clearer, just look at what all the economists are saying.

So yeah, although it's sure to happen "on Obama's watch", it'll be a little hard to blame him for it (though I have no doubt they will try).

What counts now is how successfully he can at least mitigate the effects and reduce the length of the depression.

Of course, there'll be no objective way to measure his success, because it all depends on how large you estimate the depression would become without the actions he will take against it.

So basically, conservatives will bitch that he's only made it worse, and progressives will argue that it would have been much worse otherwise.
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 07:45 pm
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Ah Bear........ you know they would still tear into Hillary like there was no tomorrow! Even though the public knows everything about her except perhaps, her underwear size, people like our rabid right friends in this forum would still want to vet Hillary for the next 4 or 8 yrs!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1131
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 09/26/2020 at 02:26:45