So...

[Yonivore]

...I read somewhere that Obama has reneged on the promise sign a windfall profit tax bill when elected.

Starting to sound more like President Emily Litella, if you ask me.

"Nevermind"

[Viva Las Espuelas]

it reads, violins.

[ChumpDumper]

So.....

You guys are unhappy about that too?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

it reads, violins.exactly how does this translate into unhappiness. what an idiot. you don't even know what i'm referring to.

[ChumpDumper]

So...

You guys unhappy about that too?

[Oh, Gee!!]

exactly how does this translate into unhappiness. what an idiot. you don't even know what i'm referring to.


did you quote and respond to yourself? weird!

[FromWayDowntown]

Politicians Should Never Change Their Minds or Reassess Situations forum

[Bigzax]

i think everyone can stop pretending that the voters based their vote on any campaign promises...from either candidate frankly...

Obama is a dem. he's black. he's wellspoken. he's not bush.

that's why he was elected.

none of that has changed.

[DarrinS]

Obama is a dem. he's black. he's wellspoken. he's not bush.

that's why he was elected.


There's a lot of truth to that.

[Yonivore]

There's a lot of truth to that.
Yeah, and the poll Zogby refused to do proves Obama voters were less informed of the issues than were McCain voters.

Dupes. Rubes. Call 'em what you will. Idiots none-the-less.

Tell me Obama voters. Which of his principle campaign promises are you most looking forward to?

[clambake]

all doubt about his promises vanished with the palin pick.

[FromWayDowntown]

I voted for Obama primarily because I believe his selections to the Supreme Court will be in line with my philosophical views about rights and liberties, because I think he has the proper domestic policy objectives (regarding healthcare, education, and the economy), and because I agree with the fundamental foreign policy points that Obama has championed.

If the particulars of his tax plans have changed, it doesn't alter any part of the analysis that led me to vote for him. If anything, his willingness to be pragmatically flexible on those issues strikes me as all the more indicative of his worthiness to be President.

[Oh, Gee!!]

so he's gonna let some tax-breaks sunset instead of cutting the lights out on them. much ado bout nothing IMO.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, and the poll Zogby refused to do proves Obama voters were less informed of the issues than were McCain voters.:lmao A poll that doesn't exist proves something?


Dupes. Rubes. Call 'em what you will. Idiots none-the-less.Yep, those terms fit the board Republibots to a T.


Tell me Obama voters. Which of his principle campaign promises are you most looking forward to?Tell me, are you against the abandonment of the windfall profits tax?

[Drachen]

Yeah, and the poll Zogby refused to do proves Obama voters were less informed of the issues than were McCain voters.

Dupes. Rubes. Call 'em what you will. Idiots none-the-less.

Tell me Obama voters. Which of his principle campaign promises are you most looking forward to?

I liked his promises to get us out of Iraq in 16 months so that we could quit spending all our money recruiting for Al Qaeda (sp?) and actually go to Afghanistan and start irradicating it.

I liked his promises to restore diplomatic relations with the world.

I liked his promises to negotiate, and not dictate.

I also thought that his extremely simple but very powerful idea to provide a $4k grant per year for college students provided they volunteer for 100 hours of community service each year. Shoot, I would even have no problem if they made the entire Pell grant based on this kind of a program.

I also completely agree with every word of FWDT's post. Eeeegads! a person in a seat of power who constantly looks at relevant data and reassesses a situation instead of making a decision and "staying the course."
WHAT AN ELITIST! An elite person in the oval office is exactly what I want.

[Yonivore]

I liked his promises to get us out of Iraq in 16 months so that we could quit spending all our money recruiting for Al Qaeda (sp?) and actually go to Afghanistan and start irradicating it.
Ooops...

He's already betrayed your #1 promise! I Blame President Bush and that Monday meeting when he threw back the curtain for President-elect Obama.

Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04military.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1228493074-EnADFszAKba5cBEBQ/wV6g)

What I want to know, though is, now that their president will be prosecuting an illegal war of choice, will the chickenhawks on the left sign up to fight en masse?


On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.
But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

Publicly at least, Mr. Obama has not set a firm number for that “residual force,” a phrase certain to become central to the debate on the way ahead in Iraq, though one of his national security advisers, Richard Danzig, said during the campaign that it could amount to 30,000 to 55,000 troops. Nor has Mr. Obama laid out any timetable beyond 16 months for troop drawdowns, or suggested when he believes a time might come for a declaration that the war is over.

In the meantime, military planners are drawing up tentative schedules aimed at meeting both Mr. Obama’s goal for withdrawing combat troops, with a target of May 2010, and the Dec. 31, 2011, date for sending the rest of American troops home that is spelled out in the new agreement between the United States and the Iraqi government.

That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 — and some say as high as 70,000 — for a substantial time even beyond 2011.
It's astonishing to me that a political party and the entire media could so dishonestly and recklessly campaign against winning a vital war. I'm not shocked by their current position; I'm dumbfounded by their old one.

How does the media begin to walk back its insistent demands we deliberately lose the war just to humiliate George Bush and the Republican Party?

How does Keith Olbermann (and his ilk) begin to spin this?

Do they dare admit they were wrong all along?

:lmao Sometimes I crack myself up. I'm sure they'll figure out some way to spin it.


I liked his promises to restore diplomatic relations with the world.
Yeah, how is he going to do that? Our diplomatic relations with our allies are as good as they've ever been. And, who gives a rat's ass with diplomatic relations with our enemies?


I liked his promises to negotiate, and not dictate.
Because negotiating with our enemies has worked so well in the past.


I also thought that his extremely simple but very powerful idea to provide a $4k grant per year for college students provided they volunteer for 100 hours of community service each year. Shoot, I would even have no problem if they made the entire Pell grant based on this kind of a program.

I also completely agree with every word of FWDT's post. Eeeegads! a person in a seat of power who constantly looks at relevant data and reassesses a situation instead of making a decision and "staying the course."
WHAT AN ELITIST! An elite person in the oval office is exactly what I want.
Another ineffectual, politically expediant Clinton administration. Cool.

Nice job liberal voters.

[clambake]

:lol poor yoni. are you pulling your hair out, too?

[Yonivore]

:lol poor yoni. are you pulling your hair out, too?

No, why would I?

[Drachen]

Ooops...

He's already betrayed your #1 promise! I Blame President Bush and that Monday meeting when he threw back the curtain for President-elect Obama.

Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04military.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1228493074-EnADFszAKba5cBEBQ/wV6g)

What I want to know, though is, now that their president will be prosecuting an illegal war of choice, will the chickenhawks on the left sign up to fight en masse?


Wow to get back at me you post a link to an article that says that BO confirmed the promise that he made on the campaign trail? I guess I got Burned here??? (yes I realize that the way I worded it was "get out of Iraq" that was my mistake, but Obama is consistant here even if my wording wasn't). I won't lie, 30k troops is a little higher than I anticipated for a residual force (I was thinking it would take more like 15k-20k) , but once again the direction is correct. You said Bush threw back the curtain? That is probably a true statement. Barack Obama saw the realities and although some minor adjustments have to be made, he is keeping his overall campaign promise.



It's astonishing to me that a political party and the entire media could so dishonestly and recklessly campaign against winning a vital war. I'm not shocked by their current position; I'm dumbfounded by their old one.

How does the media begin to walk back its insistent demands we deliberately lose the war just to humiliate George Bush and the Republican Party?

How does Keith Olbermann (and his ilk) begin to spin this?

Do they dare admit they were wrong all along?

:lmao Sometimes I crack myself up. I'm sure they'll figure out some way to spin it.


Why was this war vital? As far as Keith Obermann, I know that he works for CNN, I assume he is a leftist (from various posts on here), further than that I have no idea how he spins stuff etc. I generally don't watch TV news. My info is gleaned (mostly) from CNN.com, foxnews.com, and BBC.com. If a specific story from those sites catches more than just my passing interest I will go to google.com to find out more. I don't really have time to listen to guys yelling at eachother on TV. Although, I do want to see this guy Shep Smith (I think that's his name) on Fox News because I hear that he lays the smack down on anyone (left or right). I wouldn't really watch this for news value, more for entertainment value.




Yeah, how is he going to do that? Our diplomatic relations with our allies are as good as they've ever been. And, who gives a rat's ass with diplomatic relations with our enemies?

Because negotiating with our enemies has worked so well in the past.



This is just silly and you have to know it because your posts seem to be at least intelligently worded even if I don't agree with them. Our status in the world is at an all time low (even amongst our allies). Our policy with the world over the last 8 years has been "it is easier to do, then apologize, than to ask for permission." I mean when we were attacked, everyone was ready to go along with us to go get the guys who attacked us IN AFGHANISTAN, we didn't even really have to ask. Iraq on the other hand had nothing to do with it. Was Saddam bad? YES. Should he have been disposed of? YES. Unfortunately going to war for regime change purposes is illegal. It makes us look like we can't be trusted since we can't obey laws that we signed off on.
Iraq was unnecessary, not vital, and now the loss of Iran's counterbalance has caused instability in the region. We might as well have just tipped our king right at the beginning of the game, because I don't see a way that this could possibly have been more of a disaster of an idea.

As for negotiating with our enemies, go to that website that I mentioned before called google.com and type in "cold war" and hit search.



Another ineffectual, politically expediant Clinton administration. Cool.

Nice job liberal voters.

Ineffectual administrations don't turn an enormous budget deficit to a surplus. Ineffectual administrations don't increase the standard of living for the country across the board (in real dollars no less). Ineffectual administrations don't increase our standing in the world even on the heels of the previous two administrations who had themselves increased it. I also think it is funny that you think it is politically expedient to require college students to work for their grants. Do you think it would be more unpopular if it was just decided that the grants would be given to them? But whatever. If you decided that Clinton was ineffectual that means that Bush must be effective, thus you and I will never agree on this.

[Yonivore]

...(yes I realize that the way I worded it was "get out of Iraq" that was my mistake,...
I don't think the much of the liberal base thought that way. Getting out of Iraq -- regardless of how Obama nuanced it on the campaign -- was what much of his voters believed would happen.

And, you're disappointed at the troop level? Why not be disillusioned that it is apparent he intends to continue the current strategy in Iraq? The Bush strategy. Hell, he's even keeping on the SecDef.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy Obama can grasp reality. It's encouraging.

[Drachen]

I don't think the much of the liberal base thought that way. Getting out of Iraq -- regardless of how Obama nuanced it on the campaign -- was what much of his voters believed would happen.

And, you're disappointed at the troop level? Why not be disillusioned that it is apparent he intends to continue the current strategy in Iraq? The Bush strategy. Hell, he's even keeping on the SecDef.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy Obama can grasp reality. It's encouraging.

I listen to the words that people say. He said that there would be a residual force. There have been past wars where we left a residual force, they havent been 100 people strong, they have been in the 1000's, that is why I anticipated that. I didn't say I was disappointed with the troop level, just that I anticipated it to be smaller, que cera, I wasn't hired to be CIC. As far as continuing the current strategy, he was talking about the 16 month timeframe before the Bush admin started negotiating with the Iraqi's about the 16 month time. Was this in the works before he started talking about it? Maybe. I don't see it as a continuation because that wasn't (or at least didn't seem to be) the focus of the Bush admin until BO started talking about it. Call it spin or whatever, but it is just how I see it. I can admit that it is nice that Bush finally started listening to his commanders, rather than his (former) Sec of Def, among others. I can even go so far as to say that Bush has performed admirably over the last 6 mos to a year as president (stupid quotes aside). I think that if he would have either had a steel intellect with some major testicular fortitude, or surrounded himself with the right group of people from the beginning, he would have been at least decent. Unfortunately he did not have the former, and just started getting the latter around the beginning of last year. Thusly, he is going down as one of the worst presidents in history

[Yonivore]

If, prior to November, liberals had been told that Barack Obama's foreign policy and national security appointments would draw praise from Henry Kissinger--a public servant of rare accomplishment whom many liberals (on this board and elsewhere) denounce as a "war criminal"--their heads likely would have exploded. Yet that is what happened today in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120402863.html). Kissinger writes:


President-elect Barack Obama has appointed an extraordinary team for national security policy. ...

No one can question the [Secretary of State-designate's] leadership potential for breaking through encrusted patterns or her formidable presence in a negotiation. ...

No one has ever been appointed national security adviser who had the command experience of retired Gen. James L. Jones, the former head of the Marine Corps and NATO commander. Inevitably, the facilitating function of the security adviser will be accompanied by a role in policymaking based on a vast, almost unique, experience. ...

The continuation in office of Robert Gates as secretary of defense is an important balancing element in that process. ... The incoming administration must have appointed him with the awareness that he would not reverse his previous convictions. He must make the difficult adjustment from one administration to another -- a tribute to the nonpartisan nature of the conduct of his office in the Bush administration.
It remains to be seen whether Obama will, in the end, double-cross the leftists who made him their party's nominee. At this point, however, they can only be dismayed to see their hero praised by Richard Nixon's Secretary of State.

[ChumpDumper]

Don't get me wrong, I'm happyThen quit crying.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Then quit crying.

what's he gonna be like when Obama actually takes office. poor guy.

[Yonivore]

what's he gonna be like when Obama actually takes office. poor guy.

Whose crying? I'm actually liking the way much of Obama's policy is shaping up...silly "Office of the President-elect" signs and all. He may turn out to be a more conservative President than was George W. Bush. Although, I'm not hopeful on the domestic front, his abandonment of the economy-killing windfall profit tax is a good start.

I'm just pointing out this is not what a good portion of his voters thought they were getting. If you can't admit that, you're just arguing because I'm Yonivore.

Have fun with that.

[Wild Cobra]

Tell me Obama voters. Which of his principle campaign promises are you most looking forward to?
Wouldn't that make a good thread title?

[Yonivore]

Wouldn't that make a good thread title?

I'm not sure there are many left he hasn't already reneged on and his inauguration is still weeks away.

[ChumpDumper]

Whose crying?You.


I'm just pointing out this is not what a good portion of his voters thought they were getting.They are getting a guy with sound judgment who isn't an idiot. That's pretty much a home run after these past eight years.


If you can't admit that, you're just arguing because I'm Yonivore.Yeah, the windfall profits tax was the #1 burning issue of our time.


Have fun with that.I'm having fun watching you support Obama now. There's room on the bandwagon.

[DarkReign]

I'm having fun watching you support Obama now. There's room on the bandwagon.

Game.
Set.

[Yonivore]

Game.
Set.
Yeah, good luck with that.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

idito.
i'll say

[ChumpDumper]

i'll sayThanks. That actually sounds like it could be a word. Urban Dictionary has an entry.

[Nbadan]

idito
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/04/16/pope_bush_narrowweb__300x433,0.jpg

[Drachen]

so that kinda sucks, I was kinda waiting for yoni's response to my last post as it seemed like Yoni and I were finding some middle ground. Then WC and CD decided to take this thread to a different place. I hate it when that happens. I don't think that we could have agreed on a lot, but we may have been able to have a discussion. Now it seems that Yoni has been spurred back to the usual nonproductive partisanship. I am not the person that was going to convince him that the left is the place to be, but I think I would have enjoyed a good conversation between "adversaries." Oh well I guess I will have to settle for all the poker I won tonight.

[Cry Havoc]

Yeah, good luck with that.

God forbid you would actually want the best for our country, i.e. our President to succeed during his term in the White House.

You might be a decent poster if you were so much less of a partisan hack. But that would cut about 95% of the stuff you post out of the political forum.

[Ya Vez]

wouldn't surprise me if that evil KBR get some of these contracts... because I don't see too many liberal lefties picking up shovels and mixing concrete for the sake of the messiah... lol.. man this getting fun to watch....

CHICAGO – President-elect Barack Obama said Saturday he's asked his economic team for a recovery plan that saves or creates more than 2 million jobs, makes public buildings more energy-efficient and invests in the country's roads and schools.

"We won't just throw money at the problem," Obama said in his weekly radio address and Internet video. "We'll measure progress by the reforms we make and the results we achieve — by the jobs we create, by the energy we save, by whether America is more competitive in the world."

Obama's remarks come after the Labor Department announced Friday that employers cut 533,000 jobs in November, the most in 34 years.

Obama said his plan would put millions of people to work by "making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s."

He also wants to install energy-saving light bulbs and replace old heating systems in federal buildings to cut costs and create jobs.

School buildings would get an upgrade, too. "Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools," Obama said.

As a part of the plan, Obama said he wants to expand Internet access in communities. Hospitals also should be connected to each other online.

"Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online," he said.

Obama said he would announce other details of the economic recovery plan in the coming weeks. He said he'd work with Congress to pass the initiative when lawmakers reconvene in January.

[Yonivore]

God forbid you would actually want the best for our country, i.e. our President to succeed during his term in the White House.
Depends on what you mean by success.

I don't want him to succeed in turning this nation into a socialist country. So, if that's your idea of success, you're right, I hope he fails miserably.


You might be a decent poster if you were so much less of a partisan hack. But that would cut about 95% of the stuff you post out of the political forum.
If, by partisan, you mean I have certain ideals that, if someone else's are counter to that I oppose them, yeah, I confess. Going along to get along isn't my idea of non-partisanship.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, and the poll Zogby refused to do proves Obama voters were less informed of the issues than were McCain voters.

Dupes. Rubes. Call 'em what you will. Idiots none-the-less.

Tell me Obama voters. Which of his principle campaign promises are you most looking forward to?

The 'not being an idiot' one.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm an idiot!

Well it's nice to see Yoni telling the truth... :D

Also, didn't some guy named Nixon go to China? Must be the terrorist-loving Nixon who would never dare show weakness and talk to any enemy. Not the President one.

[Yonivore]

Now, even die-hard lib...err, progressives, are singing the WTF tune... :lmao

David Corn: This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Pictured (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/05/AR2008120502602.html).

Ah yes, our moral and intellectual superiors are surprised that President Obama is not going to adopt Kumbaya as his foreign policy.

That’s because he does not want to be Jimmy Carter.

Corn has a nice I’m-shocked piece in the Washington Post:


“The more things change, the more they stay . . . well, you know. And looking at President-elect Barack Obama’s top appointments, it’s easy to wonder whether convention has triumphed over change — and centrists over progressives. “
Thankfully, common sense has triumphed over stupidity.

Obama wisely rejected the lefty argument that everything Bush did must be reversed.


“It’s no surprise that many progressives are — depending on whom you ask — disappointed, irritated or fit to be tied. Sure, Obama’s appointments do represent change — that is, change from the widely unpopular Bush-Cheney status quo. But do these appointments amount to the kind of change that progressives, who were an essential part of Obama’s political base during the campaign, can really believe in?”
Maybe, Corn wrote, Obama is trying “stealth liberalism.”

If so, that would be an even more damning indictment of the political impracticality of the ideas of the left.

Let's review, the man was elected with the highest percentage of votes for any Democrat in 44 years. He has wide margins in each house of Congress.

And he still must do “stealth liberalism”?

Corn’s “stealth liberalism,” if he's correct, is an admission that even under the best of circumstances, being a liberal is toxic in politics. Note his use of progressive rather than liberal.

His column is basically go-along-to-get-along advice that ends with, “If strong progressive voices are not included in Obama’s wild and woolly free-for-alls at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., they will have little choice but to find outlets on the outside (remember the Internet?) — and become their own agents of change.”

Yes, a few fiery posts at Daily Kos will bring the world to its knees.

The left is his old girlfriend. Nice. Pretty. But not the kind one marries.

Obama has a pattern of tossing supporters under the bus at the earliest convenience. Corn might want to consider that.

[Last Comic Standing]

Yoni is the ........................


http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/images/puppet_master.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni just became the biggest Obama supporter on this board.

I can see why he is upset.

[Yonivore]

And, the buyer's remorse deepens....

Liberals voice concerns about Obama (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16292.html)


Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.
Freakin' hilarious. :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Hooray, Obama!

[Bender]

it reads, violins
exactly how does this translate into unhappiness. what an idiot. you don't even know what i'm referring to.

joke about the Emily Litella editorial where she was condemning "No violins in school...", when the actual story was "violence in school" ??

[MannyIsGod]

And, the buyer's remorse deepens....

Liberals voice concerns about Obama (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16292.html)


Freakin' hilarious. :lmao

You expected everyone to be happy?

[ChumpDumper]

joke about the Emily Litella editorial where she was condemning "No violins in school...", when the actual story was "violence in school" ??Thanks for the reminder, but I was talking about Yoni and WC, etc.

[Bender]

Thanks for the reminder, but I was talking about Yoni and WC, etc.
yeah, I know. I was commenting on Viva's comment on his own "violins" comment that nobody knew what he was referring to with it...

I didn't read this thread, I just stopped in and saw the "emily litella" and "violins" and was reminded of the old skits.

ok I'll leave now :lol

[DarkReign]

I am trying to understand what Yoni is criticizing.

Are you laughing at Obama-supporters/liberals for thinking Obama was more liberal/socialist than they thought he was?

Or are you trying to criticize Obama for essentialy being a centrist, in direct contrast (so far) to what you have have tried to portray him as in previous posts?

That seems an odd contradiction you find yourself in, Yoni. Maybe CD is on to something here...

[Yonivore]

I am trying to understand what Yoni is criticizing.

Are you laughing at Obama-supporters/liberals for thinking Obama was more liberal/socialist than they thought he was?
Yes. Well who thought he'd govern more to the left than reality is going to allow him to do.


Or are you trying to criticize Obama for essentialy being a centrist, in direct contrast (so far) to what you have have tried to portray him as in previous posts?
Only on foreign affairs and the economy -- and, it appears he may actually come up a bit right of center on those two.

But, with his massive spending proposal on domestic issues, I think we'll see the true socialist emerge in due time.

What I find amusing is that the MoveOn.org and Code Pink and organized labor idiots are who put him in over Hillary and they're basically getting thrown under the bus with Wright, Ayers, et. al. and they're pissed.

It's amusing. Pardon me for being amused.


That seems an odd contradiction you find yourself in, Yoni. Maybe CD is on to something here...
Not at all and CD has been "on to" anything in his life.

[Yonivore]

Cracks appear in Obama foreign policy team (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94UUG982&show_article=1)

:corn:

[Yonivore]

EXCLUSIVE: Obama's Web presence loses its luster (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/09/obamas-web-presence-loses-its-luster/)

:corn:

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

Yoni couldn't be more of an idiot. He cheered on all the Bush disasters of the past eight years and now he thinks YouTube stats of a president who has yet to take office are big news.

[Yonivore]

Details Of Complaint Against Blagojevich (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/rod.blagojevich.charged.2.883170.html)
:corn: :corn: :corn:

[RandomGuy]

Now, even die-hard lib...err, progressives, are singing the WTF tune... :lmao

David Corn: This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Pictured (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/05/AR2008120502602.html).

Ah yes, our moral and intellectual superiors are surprised that President Obama is not going to adopt Kumbaya as his foreign policy.

Puh-lease.

You f***ers swore up and down that the "most liberal senator" was going to make the country outright marxist.

I knew better, and said as much. The guy is a centrist, and for the right in this country, that means he is a marxist, because the right is really really out there on that end of the spectrum.

Now that he is not it simply yet another case of you being wrong.

"Bush is a great president" wrong.

"Iraq will be over in a few months" wrong.

But hey, why get out of the habit of being wrong now...? :lol

Keep it up, conservatards. :tu

[Yonivore]

Puh-lease.

You f***ers swore up and down that the "most liberal senator" was going to make the country outright marxist.
Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007 (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/)


I knew better, and said as much. The guy is a centrist, and for the right in this country, that means he is a marxist, because the right is really really out there on that end of the spectrum.
You may be right but, if you did, it wasn't based on his Congressional Voting Record.


Now that he is not it simply yet another case of you being wrong.
I said what I believed he is based on his voting record and past associations. Besides, he's not in office yet and already he's making noises about nationalizing a whole bunch of the free market.


"Bush is a great president" wrong.
Nope, he is.


"Iraq will be over in a few months" wrong.
Actually, the Ba'athist Regime of Saddam Hussein was over in less than a month.

I never said the War on Terror would be over in a few months.


But hey, why get out of the habit of being wrong now...? :lol

Keep it up, conservatards. :tu
Yeah, alright.

[clambake]

and i thought whottt was delusional.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, the Ba'athist Regime of Saddam Hussein was over in less than a month.

I never said the War on Terror would be over in a few months.


Did you think I wouldn't notice that you didn't say:

"I never said that we would be out of Iraq in a few months."

I would be willing to bet a good solid $200 that if I could find your postings on this message board from 2002-2003, you parroted the Bush administration line that we would be out of Iraq within a few months after toppling the regime.

[Yonivore]

Did you think I wouldn't notice that you didn't say:

"I never said that we would be out of Iraq in a few months."

I would be willing to bet a good solid $200 that if I could find your postings on this message board from 2002-2003, you parroted the Bush administration line that we would be out of Iraq within a few months after toppling the regime.
Go for it!

[Yonivore]

I knew better, and said as much. The guy i[Obama] s a centrist,...
I think Charles Krauthammer responds to this observation nicely.

The Real Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/11/AR2008121102951.html)


Barack Obama has garnered praise from center to right -- and has highly irritated the left -- with the centrism of his major appointments. Because Obama's own beliefs remain largely opaque, his appointments have led to the conclusion that he intends to govern from the center.

Obama the centrist? I'm not so sure. Take the foreign policy team: Hillary Clinton, James Jones and Bush holdover Robert Gates. As centrist as you can get. But the choice was far less ideological than practical. Obama has no intention of being a foreign policy president. Unlike, say, Nixon or Reagan, he does not have aspirations abroad. He simply wants quiet on his eastern and western fronts so that he can proceed with what he really cares about -- his domestic agenda.

...

Don't be fooled by Bob Gates staying on. Obama didn't get elected to manage Afghanistan. He intends to transform America. And he has the money, the mandate and the moxie to go for it.
I think he makes some very good points.

[Yonivore]

Jeremiah Wright was Barack Obama's long-time pastor at the Trinity United Church. Obama admired his wit and wisdom, citing one of his sermons as a turning point in his life in Dreams From My Father and drawing the title of The Audacity of Hope from the same sermon. He had a long and close relationship with him until earlier this year when it became politically inconvenient.

Wright is liberal with his hatred toward America. Who can forget "God damn America," "chickens coming home to roost" and "the U.S. of KKKA"? Wright also peddled (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59044) one of the stupid old canards about Pearl Harbor: "The government lied about Pearl Harbor. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Government's lied."

These were among the highlights of the sermons that provided the occasion for Obama's "More Perfect Union (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords/)" speech vindicating his long relationship with Wright this past March 18. Obama instructed us in the speech: "He is a man who...has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country."

Obama's speech was hailed as the greatest since the Sermon on the Mount by luminaries of the left-wing punditocracy including Andrew Sullivan (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/03/18/on_obamas_speech.html), Joe Klein (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1723960,00.html) and Garry Wills (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21290). When Wright reemerged in May to reiterate his views, Obama called a press conference (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_on_quitting_trinity_unit.html) to repudiate Wright and announce his withdrawal from Trinity United Church.

This past Sunday returned to the pulpit of Trinity United Church in honor of its forty-seventh anniversary (video here). Wright commented on the historical significance of the date:


"Today is December 7, the day that this government killed over 80000 Japanese civilians at Hiroshima in 1941, two days before giving an additional. 64000 Japanese civilians at Nagasaki by dropping nuclear bombs on innocent people."
TigerHawk (http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2008/12/wright-stuff.html) asks: "Why did Barack Obama spend twenty years listening to a man whose command of history is such that he thinks that December 7 commemorates the day the United States bombed Hiroshima?" As Scott Johnson tried to point out in "The Kennedy-Khruschchev conference for dummies (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/149gqohu.asp)," however, Obama's knowledge of history is somewhat less than expert. Maybe he didn't know any better.

We learn from Wright's sermon that in addition to hating the United States, he is an ignoramus. TigerHawk asks: "Forget the fact that the Obamas listened to this clown. The exigencies of national politics have rescued them from Wright's silliness. What about all the other people who still do?"

[ChumpDumper]

Wow, that plagiarized powerline blog from today will surely put McCain over the top a month ago.

You idiots still don't understand that Wright is and always has been irrelevant.

That's why McCain and Palin lost so badly. They were idiots and so were you for buying their irrelevant bullshit.

Now you are the ones who are irrelevant.