Obamaphiles in crisis mode.

[Midnight Marauder]

Sorta. You had me up until "THIS administration."

Isn't it the only one that matters right now? The only one relevant, the only one in power?

 

[Truthmatters]

It's just a replay of "B-b-b-b-b-but CLINTON!" that we heard from shallow brained conservatives 8 years ago.

The difference is, Boooosh didn't run on a platform of "change" and didn't keep repeating, "we won't embrace the failed policies of the past" and such.

See?

you seem to misunderstand wht you yourself have written

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It's just a replay of "B-b-b-b-b-but CLINTON!" that we heard from shallow brained conservatives 8 years ago.

The difference is, Boooosh didn't run on a platform of "change" and didn't keep repeating, "we won't embrace the failed policies of the past" and such.

See?

you seem to misunderstand wht you yourself have written

Hardly. Read it again.

 

[Zoom-boing]

There's NEVER been any real change, and there won't be.

I disagree. Obama is trying to fundamentally change this country as we speak. Look at his past, his ideals, his beliefs (Marxist), who he is putting in charge (radical czars), the power grab that has already occurred (banks, auto) and the power grab that he is trying to get (public option in HC, cap n tax) . . . . . change is coming unless it's stopped.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

There's NEVER been any real change, and there won't be.

I disagree. Obama is trying to fundamentally change this country as we speak. Look at his past, his ideals, his beliefs (Marxist), who he is putting in charge (radical czars), the power grab that has already occurred (banks, auto) and the power grab that he is trying to get (public option in HC, cap n tax) . . . . . change is coming unless it's stopped.

There's no change there, really. These are things the far-left establishment has had on their wish list for years and years. And now, they know they MUST pass this crap within a year, or they may not get a chance again for awhile.

Again, embracing the failed policies of the past -- which you have named off so well, isn't change. It's more of the same, from the same bunch.

 

[Truthmatters]

What part of failed do you not understand MM?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

What part of failed do you not understand MM?

It is YOU who do not understand it. Unless you can think of ONE of Obama's or the far-left's policies that isn't a failure.

Actually, if you can give me just ONE idea even, that is Obama's and not just recycled old garbage I'll give you a brownie point. You can't, because there aren't ANY original ideas coming out of this menstruation.

On another note, Van Jones plays the Palin, "They smeared me" card and isn't called on it or called a "quitter" by the far-left. Hypocrisy.

 

[Oddball]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Midnight Marauder again.

 

[del]

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_GUq51v5tJM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_GUq51v5tJM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hKUBTX9kKEo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hKUBTX9kKEo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

'I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging of the future but by the past."
Edward Gibbon

 

[amrchaos]

One should take care on using a partisan's rule for sucess and failure of an administration.

Sucess is when the partisan's party is in power and they pass laws that supports their ideas

Failure is when the opposing party does thisfor their side.

For instance, Reagan is considered a success for his marked deregulation of the economy and tax cuts. Yet, none of the right wing partisans wll point out that it took 3 years for any improvement of the economy to be seen(with an economic relapse, of course)

Yet it takes less than a year for them to measure the current presidentcy in all of its horrendous ideas, and failed policies. It took less than six months during the Clinton administration as well. This whole arguement about failed presidentcy and the like is political BS.

The only judgement that can be made now is the assesment of the economic mess that Bush left behind(yes, this is still Bush recession, regardless how the propagandists on the right wish to reframe it as Obama's recession) and speculation on whether the policies implemented to resolve the economy will wotk. True assesment of sucess or failure will require several years of results before one can HONESTLY make a decision on it.

 

[Oddball]

One should take care on using a partisan's rule for sucess and failure of an administration.

Sucess is when the partisan's party is in power and they pass laws that supports their ideas

Failure is when the opposing party does thisfor their side.

The why isn't the Shrub considered a success by dummycrats??

After all, he ushered in so many leftist policies that he was practically indistinguishable from LBJ.

Well, there was the slight issue of him carrying that (R) by his name.......

 

[amrchaos]

One should take care on using a partisan's rule for sucess and failure of an administration.

Sucess is when the partisan's party is in power and they pass laws that supports their ideas

Failure is when the opposing party does thisfor their side.

The why isn't the Shrub considered a success by dummycrats??

After all, he ushered in so many leftist policies that he was practically indistinguishable from LBJ.

Well, there was the slight issue of him carrying that (R) by his name.......

I always find that this declaration interesting--what liberal policies did Bush introduce.

Careful--because it is not conservative does not make it liberal..

 

[Oddball]

NCLB....Written primarily by Ted Kennedy.

Medicare Part C was stolen practically word-for-word from the dummycrats, who'd been whining about for years.

USAPATRIOT act was almost a 100% collection of Bubba and Reno's police state wish lists.

Department of Fatherland Security and TSA...There's nothing remotely "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) about creating two entirely new bureaucracies.

There's more, but if you don't get the point by now, you're beyond any kind of rationality anyways.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

One should take care on using a partisan's rule for sucess and failure of an administration.

For THIS exersise, it's crystal clear and it's not partisan. President A has one of his appointed guys resign under fire. PARTISANS for President A say, "So what, look at all the times it happened under Bbbbbbbbbbbbb."

The comparison is, President A embraced a "failed policy of the past" by either not vetting his nominated guy, or by applying the "what me worry" approach when nominating guys. Just like President B.

Since the comparison and the argument is valid, President A -- who promised hope, change, fundamental change -- has failed to deliver it. And PARTISANS of President A have made that argument better than any of the opposition could, with their "Mom, the other kid did it too" defense.

Do you and truthmattersnot understand now, that I wasn't talking about "failed policies" in broad terms, but rather specifically related to THIS exercise?