You can rationalize your opinion any way you like. If Bush said those words, you'd be upset. But, since Obama said them you are fine. If Bush stayed in Iraq, you'd be upset. But, since, Obama will stay there you'll be fine. It has nothing to do with the tactics, it has to do with the R and the D.
LOL...dude, that's totally unfair. I don't usually like to get in the middle, but c'mon. You don't know that he thinks like that. Get real.
It's only going to get worse as the similarities between Obama's policy and Bush's policy become more and more apparent.
I agree, and it's good to try to educate people on that...but telling them "oh you're just one of these pro-Obama fools who all think alike" is not gonna open their ears up to what you have to say. If your goal is to help people get a clearer picture on this stuff, you're gonna fail with these kinds of posts. At least judge the guy on what he says, not what you think he thinks.
If Bush said this... half of you that said "I see nothing wrong with that" would be bitching. Now that he says it, it's cool. Either way, I think it's good stuff.
At one time, this board had a fair amount of Bush supporters...over the years, they've slowly disappeared, changed names or post less frequently. I can't help but wonder what things will be like around here in three years...
No, our US expenses that we spend to uphold our strong military, that doesn't effect you at all. As a Canadian you should feel good that we are here to protect you Canadians and are willing to carry that burden.
How we utilize our military throughout the world is different - this is just talking about maintaining a strong military with or without two wars going on currently.
Why would anyone attack Canada? Even without an ultra powerful military (of our own, or to the South), it would be crazy to do so...look at how vast our country is. Talk about a quagmire. One winter and the invaders will would be near broken Not to mention those damn oceans in the way...not exactly an easy mobilization for most countries.
That said...if the US would stop making so many enemies and making us guilty by association, I wouldn't see any reason for anyone to attack us...I'm more worried about US soldiers in Canada down the road than any other country...if we're talking turrist attacks, a strong military does nothing to stop that...
Do you really think that the US 'protecting' Canada (from what?) is just a burden youre carrying out of the kindness of your hearts? The only difference between your 'protection' of us and that of any other trade partner is that you NEED us to play along with your games in order to keep the continent safe from all your boogeymen...you also NEED our resources. We owe you nothing.
At one time, this board had a fair amount of Bush supporters...over the years, they've slowly disappeared, changed names or post less frequently. I can't help but wonder what things will be like around here in three years...
Why would anyone attack Canada? Even without an ultra powerful military (of our own, or to the South), it would be crazy to do so...look at how vast our country is. Talk about a quagmire. One winter and the invaders will would be near broken Not to mention those damn oceans in the way...not exactly an easy mobilization for most countries.
That said...if the US would stop making so many enemies and making us guilty by association, I wouldn't see any reason for anyone to attack us...I'm more worried about US soldiers in Canada down the road than any other country...if we're talking turrist attacks, a strong military does nothing to stop that...
Do you really think that the US 'protecting' Canada (from what?) is just a burden youre carrying out of the kindness of your hearts? The only difference between your 'protection' of us and that of any other trade partner is that you NEED us to play along with your games in order to keep the continent safe from all your boogeymen...you also NEED our resources. We owe you nothing.
Don't be silly...the turrrists, will eventually figure out how to genetically breed water camels and swim across the Atlantic.
We need a huge continent-wide super uber-duber military death force to counter this ever present danger.
Camels are mean sob's, especially when they're cold, wet, and grumpy.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Why would anyone attack Canada? Even without an ultra powerful military (of our own, or to the South), it would be crazy to do so...look at how vast our country is. Talk about a quagmire. One winter and the invaders will would be near broken Not to mention those damn oceans in the way...not exactly an easy mobilization for most countries.
That said...if the US would stop making so many enemies and making us guilty by association, I wouldn't see any reason for anyone to attack us...I'm more worried about US soldiers in Canada down the road than any other country...if we're talking turrist attacks, a strong military does nothing to stop that...
Do you really think that the US 'protecting' Canada (from what?) is just a burden youre carrying out of the kindness of your hearts? The only difference between your 'protection' of us and that of any other trade partner is that you NEED us to play along with your games in order to keep the continent safe from all your boogeymen...you also NEED our resources. We owe you nothing.
I apologize; I said that in jest about us protecting Canada to Roland. I love Canada and would hope that no one ever provokes Canada. If they did, we would always be there for them, just as they are for us. That said, Canada doesn't piss nearly the amount of people off around the world like we do. So yeah, no one has any current plans that I am aware o to attack Canada. And i agree that we need to mend our foreign relations that have been strained over the last 7 plus years. No, we don;t carry the burden of protecting Canada in our hearts, being that we as a country as too vulnerable ourselves at this point to worry about the Canadian nation in that same manner. Rest assured, I love Canada the the Canadians. i visity as often as i can and couldn't be more pleased to have them as a neighbor to the north.
I'm not sure what the problem is. Teddy Roosevelt said walk softly but carry a big stick. If Obama did not assert the need to maintain a strong military, I'm sure there is a segment that would call him 'weak on defense'. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
I apologize; I said that in jest about us protecting Canada to Roland. I love Canada and would hope that no one ever provokes Canada. If they did, we would always be there for them, just as they are for us. That said, Canada doesn't piss nearly the amount of people off around the world like we do. So yeah, no one has any current plans that I am aware o to attack Canada. And i agree that we need to mend our foreign relations that have been strained over the last 7 plus years. No, we don;t carry the burden of protecting Canada in our hearts, being that we as a country as too vulnerable ourselves at this point to worry about the Canadian nation in that same manner. Rest assured, I love Canada the the Canadians. i visity as often as i can and couldn't be more pleased to have them as a neighbor to the north.
holy shit! an apology on the train? appreciated.
Still, I wish you had a more peaceful view of mending foreign policy...keeping military spending anywhere near the levels it's at under Bush sends the wrong message to the world IMO.
(ah, Roland, what a visual...a fleet of shivering camels swimming past the rock....camels: wtf? brrrrr newfies: wtf'in lard tunder )
My opinion, that I'm sure makes no difference, is: Obama's gotta play these factions while accomplishing some bit of progress BECAUSE it's ALL about 2012 and has been. Any respectable change will only come in 2nd term.
No?
He never mentioned any war or country explicitly. All he said was military, and trying to make it stronger. He didn't say presence or he is putting more troops places. He said stronger, which implies to me that he wants to spend money on items like armor, better vehicles, recruitment, more R&D, not once are the words Iraq, Afghanistan, war or terrorism mentioned. He has a timetable set up in Iraq that he is going to go over with the generals when they meet, he is not keeping us there.
He is focusing the war on terrorism on Afghanistan because that's where it should be fought! I don't mind going after these people, they did a horrific thing to our country, I just want to be sure we are going after the right people and not wasting our money or 5(!) years on a war that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the WTC.
He said that he would fiercely continue the war on terror, try to get out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I'm not sure what the problem is. Teddy Roosevelt said walk softly but carry a big stick. If Obama did not assert the need to maintain a strong military, I'm sure there is a segment that would call him 'weak on defense'. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The problem is America doesn't walk softly. Our military presence is felt all over the world, and it's scary to other nations. So it just adds to that fear when our president says stuff like that...it increases tensions worldwide. It's bad.
There's no need for Obama to say we need to be the strongest force "on the planet". Really, why should it matter if some segment calls him weak on defense? Lots of big segments criticized and hated TR...it's just political bs that he doesn't need to play.
You can rationalize your opinion any way you like. If Bush said those words, you'd be upset. But, since Obama said them you are fine. If Bush stayed in Iraq, you'd be upset. But, since, Obama will stay there you'll be fine. It has nothing to do with the tactics, it has to do with the R and the D.
It's only going to get worse as the similarities between Obama's policy and Bush's policy become more and more apparent. You're going to have to really think about what you really value now. And maybe even,,, (OMG is he really going to say what I think he's going to say?).... part ways with Obama on some issues. (OMG,,... he did say it)
I'm feeling really left out here guys.
Can someone please show me how i can cross the streams. I totally need to get to that magical mysterious place where you have this amazing ability to be able to know how someone thinks... I wanna play too. Thanks a bunch.
Whoa, i am sick and tired of mother fuckers telling me what I think and why I think things, completely disregarding what I said. It is really starting to piss me off.
I didn't rationalize any fucking thing. I agreed with you and was telling you WHY I THINK THAT WAY. But you have your head too far up your own ass to read or understand that.
No, it has nothing to do with a D or an R as you so wish it would. It has EVERYTHING to do with the man at the helm, regardless of his party affiliation. Do you really honestly think that the only reason people do not like the current president is because of his party affiliation? If you really believe that (which you have insinuated that you do), then I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you because you are a fool. George Walker Bush has lost the trust of the American people to hold the keys to the military after the GRAVE fuck ups that are the Iraq war. He has proven that HE cannot be trusted with the young lives of our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers and mother who sign up to defend this great nation.
Gates and Obama together will work out a plan to draw down our troops in Iraq in a responsible manner and hand control back to Iraq. I am not a fucking idiot - I do not expect that to happen over night on Jan 20th. It does take time and planning. However, I trust Obama's planning at this point a whole helluva a lot more than GW's, because GW has lost my trust a long fucking time ago. Obama has yet to ruin that trust. If he does, you better believe I will be calling for his head.
I don't have to think about my values, dude. I do not change them that easily at all. They have held stead fast this long, why would they change? Are you that far up one of the political parties ass that you cannot think for yourself, hence why you are trying to project that mentality onto me?
I am already parted ways with Obama on a few issues, from the get go. But he still has my support on the majority of the grave issues facing our nation and world. And between he and McCain, Obama held more of my morals and values, not all of them, but most of them. But, I don't know him personally and will have no issue at all rallying against him if he does something that i strongly disagree with. Just like when GW fucked up, that is when I started rallying against him. there was a short time that I was very glad that GW was my president. He quickly ruined that when he invaded a country that had nothi8ng to do with those who attacked us. But that is neither here nor there. We are where we are where GW has placed us and we as a nation need to work together in a bipartisan way to resolve these issues for the future generations of this great country. I believe thus far that Obama has shown the wherewithal to get that done.
No offense, but I've seen your posts, and I've formed an opinion about you. Maybe a bit harsh, may even be untrue.... if so, I apologize.
My point here was the "words" he said, not the past actions. So, let's look at it another way.
My opinion is that if Bush just started in office, IMHO you (and many other Obama supporters here) would NOT be ok with him saying these things. Since Obama will start soon in office, it's totally cool. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.
Bottom line: Democratic platform is to LIMIT national defense. Not GROW it. Republican platform is to GROW national defense. What Obama said is contradictory of his own platform, yet he has a bunch of robots running around saying "Change". He's not changing jack.
My opinion is that if Bush just started in office, IMHO you (and many other Obama supporters here) would NOT be ok with him saying these things.
Bottom line: Democratic platform is to LIMIT national defense. Not GROW it. Republican platform is to GROW national defense. What Obama said is contradictory of his own platform, yet he has a bunch of robots running around saying "Change". He's not changing jack.
Your powers of observation are strong my friend....or normal, but you know what I'm saying.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
No offense, but I've seen your posts, and I've formed an opinion about you. Maybe a bit harsh, may even be untrue.... if so, I apologize.
My point here was the "words" he said, not the past actions. So, let's look at it another way.
My opinion is that if Bush just started in office, IMHO you (and many other Obama supporters here) would NOT be ok with him saying these things. Since Obama will start soon in office, it's totally cool. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.
Bottom line: Democratic platform is to LIMIT national defense. Not GROW it. Republican platform is to GROW national defense. What Obama said is contradictory of his own platform, yet he has a bunch of robots running around saying "Change". He's not changing jack.
Apology accepted, thanks.
I do not go down the party line and I don't want a president who does either. I personally am in favor of a strong military...especially in today's times (Don't confuse that with me being for the Iraq war. And don't take me being against the Iraq war as being anti-war). That is my personal belief. I am sorry if you do not believe in a strong military or if you sole point is the false assumption that you think you know what I would think if Republican announced the same thing.
A president who is willing to challenge his own parties "platform" and attempt to govern from a more centered (bipartisan) stand point, in my opinion, is exactly what this country needs. I don't want a radical Democrat in office any more than I want a radical Republican.
I do not go down the party line and I don't want a president who does either. I personally am in favor of a strong military...especially in today's times (Don't confuse that with me being for the Iraq war. And don't take me being against the Iraq war as being anti-war). That is my personal belief. I am sorry if you do not believe in a strong military or if you sole point is the false assumption that you think you know what I would think if Republican announced the same thing.
A president who is willing to challenge his own parties "platform" and attempt to govern from a more centered (bipartisan) stand point, in my opinion, is exactly what this country needs. I don't want a radical Democrat in office any more than I want a radical Republican.
someone who shares views from both parties...yeah the perfect one party system. There is supposed to be a point to the vote, to put in a different mentality. To vote and see the new party support basically the same policies as the old regime is really disheartening. I was expecting change, foolishly, but so far we've been given no hope that there will be any actual change.
Well, if you throw in the things Obama says, some of his views (Russia,Israel,Iran, some of his politics...Then add his recent choices to his admin who are very familiar with war and invasions.
What other conclusion can one come up with?
Take this for example, if I start to become friends, or pick friends who are thugs, thiefs...liars and so on. What direction do you think i'm going in? A good one?
I don't know what direction you would be going in...should I assume that you automatically become a "thug, thief or a liar" or should I assume that you will continue to make your own choices...?
I suppose if I were a chicken little type, I'd choose the former...on the other hand, it's tough to predict the future, therefore, I'd probably go with the latter...
perhaps Obama is a big ol' dick for saying the US Military should be the strongest on the planet...perhaps he should have said..."well, um, we're going to scale back, and, um, drop out of the top ten in Military Might, um, who cares if we have a strong military..."
I don't know what direction you would be going in...should I assume that you automatically become a "thug, thief or a liar" or should I assume that you will continue to make your own choices...?
I suppose if I were a chicken little type, I'd choose the former...on the other hand, it's tough to predict the future, therefore, I'd probably go with the latter...
perhaps Obama is a big ol' dick for saying the US Military should be the strongest on the planet...perhaps he should have said..."well, um, we're going to scale back, and, um, drop out of the top ten in Military Might, um, who cares if we have a strong military..."
I suppose that would be best....
Well what if you have those friends control certain parts of the business. Like you have a theif control the money, a warmonger control the policy. You see where i'm going with this?
I'm talking more of the general direction Obama seems to be going, he mainly is picking people around him that do not have the best of records.
Then he's talking about these things like that. His views on certain issues. See what i'm saying?
Strongest military.............................aside from the Chinese!
www.myspace.com/rockmastergeneral
To break down borders and realise that we are one species and then the true patriotism comes from pride and love of the human race, not from the tribes of which we currently are divided, open your eyes your mind will see! - ME
Well what if you have those friends control certain parts of the business. Like you have a theif control the money, a warmonger control the policy. You see where i'm going with this?
I'm talking more of the general direction Obama seems to be going, he mainly is picking people around him that do not have the best of records.
Then he's talking about these things like that. His views on certain issues. See what i'm saying?
yeah, I see what you're saying...I happen to subscribe to the adage..
If if were a fifth, we'd all be drunk...
I think Obama is damned if he does and damned if he don't...if he had chosen people without any "record", people would be complaining....and now that he he has chosen people with a "record"....people can dissect the records and complain...
"To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet," Obama said as he unveiled a heavyweight national security team to serve when he takes office on January 20.
"We also agree the strength of our military has to be combined with the wisdom and force of diplomacy, and that we are going to be committed to rebuilding and restrengthening alliances around the world to advance American interests and American security," he said.
A president who is willing to challenge his own parties "platform" and attempt to govern from a more centered (bipartisan) stand point, in my opinion, is exactly what this country needs. I don't want a radical Democrat in office any more than I want a radical Republican.
I think this view of the line is warped:
Democrat<
bipartisan
>Republican
IMO, it's really more like this:
95% of the population<
Democrat---bipartisan--->Republican
In other words, "bipartisan" doesn't mean much to me at all if we're talking compromise between Democrats and Republicans.
I think Obama is damned if he does and damned if he don't...if he had chosen people without any "record", people would be complaining....and now that he he has chosen people with a "record"....people can dissect the records and complain...
who's saying to pick people without any 'record'? Just rather not people a record of war voting and poor policy choices and grasp on issues.
Really, the people he has picked, you dont need to dissect. They wear stupidity on their sleeves.
This 'damned if he does and damed if he don't' thing makes no sense, I hear it being used too often with regards to Obama. To be honest, Obama is only catering to one side. and it seems to be the side of the last 8 years.
who's saying to pick people without any 'record'? Just rather not people a record of war voting and poor policy choices and grasp on issues.
Really, the people he has picked, you dont need to dissect. They wear stupidity on their sleeves.
This 'damned if he does and damed if he don't' thing makes no sense, I hear it being used too often with regards to Obama. To be honest, Obama is only catering to one side. and it seems to be the side of the last 8 years.
is this thread about who Obama picked or is it about his statement about "strongest military on the planet"....?
I get confused sometimes...
I suppose all that looking into the crystal ball tends to do that to me....
Won't happen until Obama eats his/her children in front of his/her face...or thereabouts
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
someone who shares views from both parties...yeah the perfect one party system. There is supposed to be a point to the vote, to put in a different mentality. To vote and see the new party support basically the same policies as the old regime is really disheartening. I was expecting change, foolishly, but so far we've been given no hope that there will be any actual change.
True about the checks and balances of a two party system.
But with regards to change, I guess it depends on what you equate as change. If he had a bunch of noobies in his cabinet he would be chastised as have a too inexperienced cabinet (to the right wingers and anti-Obama folks, I believe he would be damned if he did and damned if he didn't). I personally never thought change meant to competely reinvent how government works. I took it as change from the currently ran GOP commander and chief. If you think he will steer the country the same direction that GW has been, I respectfully think you are wrong and will be surprised.
I think drawing up a plan to withdrawl from Iraq, planning on the stinulous package that creates jobs and helps strengthen our national roads and highways. By having a plan to fix the health care situaton in the country. By investing into science, by having a cabinet made up of members from both sides of the aisle. All of those things are a sign of change from the last 7 plus years. But, if you really though he would put a bunch of noobs in there, I think you were wrong.
95% of the population<
Democrat---bipartisan--->Republican
In other words, "bipartisan" doesn't mean much to me at all if we're talking compromise between Democrats and Republicans.
So, are you against Obama having members from both sides of the political aisle in his cabinet? Or, do you not believe they will able top accomplish or agree on an ything?
True about the checks and balances of a two party system.
But with regards to change, I guess it depends on what you equate as change. If he had a bunch of noobies in his cabinet he would be chastised as have a too inexperienced cabinet (to the right wingers and anti-Obama folks, I believe he would be damned if he did and damned if he didn't). I personally never thought change meant to competely reinvent how government works. I took it as change from the currently ran GOP commander and chief. If you think he will steer the country the same direction that GW has been, I respectfully think you are wrong and will be surprised.
I think drawing up a plan to withdrawl from Iraq, planning on the stinulous package that creates jobs and helps strengthen our national roads and highways. By having a plan to fix the health care situaton in the country. By investing into science, by having a cabinet made up of members from both sides of the aisle. All of those things are a sign of change from the last 7 plus years. But, if you really though he would put a bunch of noobs in there, I think you were wrong.
Not so much expecting noobs as I was expecting non-criminals. A lot of his economic team served in companies responsible for some very shady deals, even illegal accounting practices.
Comments
Why would anyone attack Canada? Even without an ultra powerful military (of our own, or to the South), it would be crazy to do so...look at how vast our country is. Talk about a quagmire. One winter and the invaders will would be near broken
That said...if the US would stop making so many enemies and making us guilty by association, I wouldn't see any reason for anyone to attack us...I'm more worried about US soldiers in Canada down the road than any other country...if we're talking turrist attacks, a strong military does nothing to stop that...
Do you really think that the US 'protecting' Canada (from what?) is just a burden youre carrying out of the kindness of your hearts? The only difference between your 'protection' of us and that of any other trade partner is that you NEED us to play along with your games in order to keep the continent safe from all your boogeymen...you also NEED our resources. We owe you nothing.
Don't be silly...the turrrists, will eventually figure out how to genetically breed water camels and swim across the Atlantic.
We need a huge continent-wide super uber-duber military death force to counter this ever present danger.
Camels are mean sob's, especially when they're cold, wet, and grumpy.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
holy shit! an apology on the train? appreciated.
Still, I wish you had a more peaceful view of mending foreign policy...keeping military spending anywhere near the levels it's at under Bush sends the wrong message to the world IMO.
(ah, Roland, what a visual...a fleet of shivering camels swimming past the rock....camels: wtf? brrrrr newfies: wtf'in lard tunder
No?
Radicalized camels no douibt!
He said that he would fiercely continue the war on terror, try to get out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
naděje umírá poslední
There's no need for Obama to say we need to be the strongest force "on the planet". Really, why should it matter if some segment calls him weak on defense? Lots of big segments criticized and hated TR...it's just political bs that he doesn't need to play.
I'm feeling really left out here guys.
Can someone please show me how i can cross the streams. I totally need to get to that magical mysterious place where you have this amazing ability to be able to know how someone thinks... I wanna play too. Thanks a bunch.
No offense, but I've seen your posts, and I've formed an opinion about you. Maybe a bit harsh, may even be untrue.... if so, I apologize.
My point here was the "words" he said, not the past actions. So, let's look at it another way.
My opinion is that if Bush just started in office, IMHO you (and many other Obama supporters here) would NOT be ok with him saying these things. Since Obama will start soon in office, it's totally cool. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.
Bottom line: Democratic platform is to LIMIT national defense. Not GROW it. Republican platform is to GROW national defense. What Obama said is contradictory of his own platform, yet he has a bunch of robots running around saying "Change". He's not changing jack.
Your powers of observation are strong my friend....or normal, but you know what I'm saying.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I do not go down the party line and I don't want a president who does either. I personally am in favor of a strong military...especially in today's times (Don't confuse that with me being for the Iraq war. And don't take me being against the Iraq war as being anti-war). That is my personal belief. I am sorry if you do not believe in a strong military or if you sole point is the false assumption that you think you know what I would think if Republican announced the same thing.
A president who is willing to challenge his own parties "platform" and attempt to govern from a more centered (bipartisan) stand point, in my opinion, is exactly what this country needs. I don't want a radical Democrat in office any more than I want a radical Republican.
I don't know what direction you would be going in...should I assume that you automatically become a "thug, thief or a liar" or should I assume that you will continue to make your own choices...?
I suppose if I were a chicken little type, I'd choose the former...on the other hand, it's tough to predict the future, therefore, I'd probably go with the latter...
perhaps Obama is a big ol' dick for saying the US Military should be the strongest on the planet...perhaps he should have said..."well, um, we're going to scale back, and, um, drop out of the top ten in Military Might, um, who cares if we have a strong military..."
I suppose that would be best....
Well what if you have those friends control certain parts of the business. Like you have a theif control the money, a warmonger control the policy. You see where i'm going with this?
I'm talking more of the general direction Obama seems to be going, he mainly is picking people around him that do not have the best of records.
Then he's talking about these things like that. His views on certain issues. See what i'm saying?
To break down borders and realise that we are one species and then the true patriotism comes from pride and love of the human race, not from the tribes of which we currently are divided, open your eyes your mind will see! - ME
yeah, I see what you're saying...I happen to subscribe to the adage..
If if were a fifth, we'd all be drunk...
I think Obama is damned if he does and damned if he don't...if he had chosen people without any "record", people would be complaining....and now that he he has chosen people with a "record"....people can dissect the records and complain...
all the man said was...
which makes a lot of sense to me....
Democrat<
bipartisan
>Republican
IMO, it's really more like this:
95% of the population<
Democrat---bipartisan--->Republican
In other words, "bipartisan" doesn't mean much to me at all if we're talking compromise between Democrats and Republicans.
who's saying to pick people without any 'record'? Just rather not people a record of war voting and poor policy choices and grasp on issues.
Really, the people he has picked, you dont need to dissect. They wear stupidity on their sleeves.
This 'damned if he does and damed if he don't' thing makes no sense, I hear it being used too often with regards to Obama. To be honest, Obama is only catering to one side. and it seems to be the side of the last 8 years.
is this thread about who Obama picked or is it about his statement about "strongest military on the planet"....?
I get confused sometimes...
I suppose all that looking into the crystal ball tends to do that to me....
Won't happen until Obama eats his/her children in front of his/her face...or thereabouts
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
But with regards to change, I guess it depends on what you equate as change. If he had a bunch of noobies in his cabinet he would be chastised as have a too inexperienced cabinet (to the right wingers and anti-Obama folks, I believe he would be damned if he did and damned if he didn't). I personally never thought change meant to competely reinvent how government works. I took it as change from the currently ran GOP commander and chief. If you think he will steer the country the same direction that GW has been, I respectfully think you are wrong and will be surprised.
I think drawing up a plan to withdrawl from Iraq, planning on the stinulous package that creates jobs and helps strengthen our national roads and highways. By having a plan to fix the health care situaton in the country. By investing into science, by having a cabinet made up of members from both sides of the aisle. All of those things are a sign of change from the last 7 plus years. But, if you really though he would put a bunch of noobs in there, I think you were wrong.
Not so much expecting noobs as I was expecting non-criminals. A lot of his economic team served in companies responsible for some very shady deals, even illegal accounting practices.
Read the thread again I guess. post #1...Obama says "we" meaning his team, so it's for sure also about his picks.