Obama says "CHANGE" and "YES WE CAN"
acoustic guy
Posts: 3,770
Change what???
Yes we can what??? I have still yet to hear anything solid from this tool.
And at what cost to the American people?
A lot of you are forgetting that all this "change" is going to cost big bucks.
Your Big Bucks.
The question is how much of it, and can we afford it with the way the economy is right now.
Think about this before you stick up for yor precious Obama.
Yes we can what??? I have still yet to hear anything solid from this tool.
And at what cost to the American people?
A lot of you are forgetting that all this "change" is going to cost big bucks.
Your Big Bucks.
The question is how much of it, and can we afford it with the way the economy is right now.
Think about this before you stick up for yor precious Obama.
Get em a Body Bag Yeeeeeaaaaa!
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Tax & spend (Obama) >>>>>>>>> borrow & spend (McCain) >>>>>>>>>>> just spend and cut taxes to your friends (Bush).
That said, this "yes we can" mantra is a bit disturbing. I suppose it sprouted from the underdog image his candidacy was built upon. However, it also seems like a frightening response to those who might have certain moral views vis a vis the State. As in, "you can't simply do whatever you want in the name of a vague concept called 'common good' or 'hope'"..."oh, yes we can". I've already seen this silly statement invoked by an Obama supporter demanding that everyone in my town be forced to use solar water heaters.
don't vote for him
perhaps Change will cost less than what we've done for the last 8 years.
We CAN CHANGE by NOT DOING what we have been doing wrong, why would that cost more money
The same thing is going on with Obama... you can read about any issue on his website, and what is said in his stump speeches and debate what he says or whatever, but I guess it's easier to just repeat over and over again that he isn't saying anything.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Its pretty obvious that his words refer to repairing the damage that the current administration has done.
Have you ever seen our country in worse shape?
Wouldn't it cost less? Then maybe you could use that crack money for whores and booze.
But if you are asking for a detailed plan then maybe I just gave it to you.
Also he's going to have a voodoo priestess on his cabinet, and we'll all have to stand facing the west in the morning
Boogie Boogie
so obama, being the first black american to run for presidency, has taken this motto to gain the hearts of hispanics/mexican americans and also prove that yes it is possible for a black man to be the president of the us of a.
seriously? I heard he kicks puppies. so sad.
wow that is very dead on. nice post.
The country was in far worse shape from about 1975-1981. There was a huge recession and not only was oil expensive there was a shortage. Anyone old enough can surely remember waiting in huge lines for limited amounts of gas. The country was also still reeling from it's defeat in Vietnam and the hostage crisis in Iran was causing extremely low morale. And although I wasn't around for it, I'm sure that from 1929-1939 (Great Depression) were far worse conditions than we'll ever know.
I also like how you claim that Obama knows about economics. That's funny. I guess one of the examples of his expertise in economics is the windfall profits tax on oil companies, something which is apparently supposed to make the price of gas go down?? Increasing the expenses of an industry is gonna make them lower their prices?? [sarcasm]Of course, that makes total sense! Even though their profit margin is lower than Google's or Microsoft's, they're perpetrating a horrible scam on the American people! It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact that a new refinery hasn't been built in 20 years because of all the regulations we continue to impose on them, and that, additionally, the refineries that do exist are extremely inefficient and out-of-date, also as a result of our regulations. Oh, by the way, did I mention we need more regulations?[/sarcasm].
You people are sheep X 1,000. Baaaaah.
Obama has served only 1 term in the US Senate, and 1 term in State Senate. In years past, a candidate this inexperienced would've been the first one out of the primaries. It's not his place to even think about running for President.
Maybe he'll get a nobel prize, too, for being such a great father and loving husband.
-Reagan
And I doubt you know exactly how Bush has 'totally ruined the country like [we] claim'... but maybe you can get that shovel in your shed and go dig up the 1,200,000 dead Iraqis and ask them? maybe you can talk to the doctors who deal with all the injured Iraqis? maybe you can talk to all the different governments of Syria, Sweden, and many other countries who have had to deal with the 3,000,000 Iraqi refugees? this is a strong argument.
Now suddenly we care about the Iraqis? You guys are the ones who want to just leave Iraq and abandon them, not me. Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein have killed WAY more Iraqis than we have. And, yes, in war there is always collateral damage, and it's very horrible and very sad. But we're there, and leaving will only cause more chaos. We;re the only thing keeping the country relatively stable right now. It was a mistake to go in, but it would be a much BIGGER mistake to leave.
-Reagan
Apparently it's good enough for Eddie.
-Reagan
how do I even respond to that? oh really? where did I say that? and, tell me, who is 'you guys'? proof? more than 1.2 million people? doubt it. "collateral damage"? fuck that, these civilians were killed deliberately. don't downplay the deaths of 1.2 million people by saying 'there is always collateral damage'. pathetic argument with no backup to prove it. you think taking a military presence out would cause less stability?
Where's your proof hotshot?
If you view it as downplaying that's all you. It's the truth, there is always collateral damage in every conflict.
-Reagan
proof please
because I believe you are wrong
It's called Haditha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings
read about it
Ok, that's 24 people. This proves that 1.2 million were DELIBERATELY killed?
EDIT: Want to mention of course, that the Haditha killings were horrible and mostly unjustified. I fully acknowledge that.
-Reagan
Where's the 1.2 million?
-Reagan
plus, the term 'collateral damage' is one of the biggest pieces of shit term I've ever heard in my life. if I were ever president, I would ban it from use. you can't step into a war and say "it's ok if civilians die, that's how war is."
fuck that.
we all know that if any SINGLE country in the world DARED to bomb the U.S. and killed anyone - military or civilian - it would not be considered 'collateral damage' it would be murder, let alone killings like Haditha and Nisoor Square.
and to say the killings were 'mostly unjustified'? what the fuck does that mean?
From their website:
- IBC records solely violent deaths.
The 1.2 million figure is done by studies that show who died as a result of the U.S.' invasion and occupation of Iraq.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/counterexplanation.html
Surely, eh?
-Reagan
So does the one you posted.
"Since researchers at Johns Hopkins estimated that 601,000 violent Iraqi deaths were attributable to the U.S.-led invasion as of July 2006, it necessarily does not include Iraqis who have been killed since then. We would like to update this number both to provide a more relevant day-to-day estimate of the Iraqi dead and to emphasize that the human tragedy mounts each day this brutal war continues."
One group's word against another.
And IBC is actual documented deaths, not estimates. The data is collected from all different sources with the purpose of being as accurate as possible.
-Reagan
oh, but 'since when did we care about the Iraqi people'
this estimate is bodies recovered intact,
but they still have over estimated million heads arms and legs unidentifiable in a big pile outside bagdad j/k
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
but there are all these unidentified that haven't been "officially" counted