Obama and change

[FFPCogs 863]

For all his talk of change, change, change it appears that Mr. Obama is filling his cabinet with a bunch of Clintonites. I guess a return to a past administration is a change, I'm just not sure it's the right one. The Clinton era was not all roses and cupcakes by any means. The appointment of many of good ole Bill's pals smells alot like more of the same, not the earth shattering change we were promised. And frankly Hillary as Sec. of State, wow that is troubling. Her hubby and by default her are bought and paid for by a cabal of Saudi's, the Emir of Dubai and the petty dictator of Kyrgyzistan. Now you can call it sour grapes, but putting in a bunch of old faces, using old policy ideas that feed the Washington money train is NOT change. C'mon Barak live up to your promises.

Any thoughts?

Cogs

[INIT915 1,119]

Cabinet Members do not set policy, they carry out the President's policy. I think we all have to wait and see. Maybe a little positivism would be good for all of us.

[Guest pentax02839]

im going to give him a chance.But with all these clintonites filling cabinet postions makes me wonder.even if the president is the one to have the final say.His cabinet still has a big influence on him.

[gamewell45 258]

For all his talk of change, change, change it appears that Mr. Obama is filling his cabinet with a bunch of Clintonites. I guess a return to a past administration is a change, I'm just not sure it's the right one. The Clinton era was not all roses and cupcakes by any means. The appointment of many of good ole Bill's pals smells alot like more of the same, not the earth shattering change we were promised. And frankly Hillary as Sec. of State, wow that is troubling. Her hubby and by default her are bought and paid for by a cabal of Saudi's, the Emir of Dubai and the petty dictator of Kyrgyzistan. Now you can call it sour grapes, but putting in a bunch of old faces, using old policy ideas that feed the Washington money train is NOT change. C'mon Barak live up to your promises.

Any thoughts?

Cogs

While in my opinion, I think both Obama and McCain are nothing more then a bunch of crooks in business suits, President-Elect Obama won and since i respect the office of the President, i'm willing to give him a chance to see what he does (or doesn't do). Besides, I don't things can get any worse then they are now.

[Guest TFD125]

I'm willing to give him a chance but to be honest his change smells a lot like the same crap we had during Clinton. All I know is that terrorism has hit us a number of times during the Clinton "military downsizing" era. Cant think of one during bush other than 9/11 which was basically overflow from the Clinton administration.

I would love to live in a world of candycanes and gumdrops but the sad reality is we don't live in that world. Freedom is not free and people tend to forget that. I'm not saying we should just go and attack everyone, but we cant sit around and wait for people to attack us all of the time. "Speak softly and carry a big stick"

As far as the economy, that is chalked up to everyone wanting to do just what Obama wants to do. Give people that can not afford something, something for free. The crash of the mortgage industry came from Fanny May and Freddie Mac giving out loans to people not qualified to pay them back. Congress knew about this and was warned just this exact thing would happen and turned a blind eye to it. The American dream is not for everyone to be given something for free because they deserve it. "The American Dream is belief in the freedom that allows all citizens and residents of the United States to pursue their goals in life through hard work and free choice". (Thats actually from Wikipedia)

Nobody wants to earn their living anymore. People would just love for money to fall in their lap and if it doesnt blame rich people for it. Not to mention I love to listen to the elite/rich people sitting in congress and running for president making wealthy business owners sound evil because they have a lot of money. We should not punish people for making money but instead embrace them. They are the company owners that employ americans and pay our salaries. Yes I do know that there are corrupt business owners that screw over employees too, I am not nieve. However if the US embraced American businesses and didnt tax/regulate the crap out of them you might find less of it going over seas or out of business.

Also if 40% or so of my paycheck is already going to taxes and now I have to support more of these social programs which have proven to fail in the past how is it that I am supposed invest money and spend money to help the economy? Lower taxes means more money in American pockets = more money spent by americans. More money spent/invested by americans = better economy.

I am not by any means rich, but I do know that the top 25% of Americans income wise pay 90% of the taxes. I agree that we all pay too much in taxes, but how is the burden on the middle class?

I know that the eagle eyes of EMTBravo will probably chew me up for this because there is always an exception and more detail to the rule. I am not looking for a fight because bottom line is we are stuck with what we have for the next 4 years and to be honest I dont think McCain was a great choice either. However in a simplified view this does not seem too hard to understand. Government telling me they know how to spend my money better and giving it to someone that may not work as hard for it as I do is absurd. Dont forget when a business is having financial problems they are forced to cut spending lay off employees etc etc. When Government has financial problems they increase taxes!!! Government is not evil and has its place, but also needs to be kept small and not to overstep its boundaries. They tend to forget that we the people are actually in charge!

I am going to get off my soapbox now haha.

Edited November 24, 2008 by TFD125

[FFPCogs 863]

Just a quick answer to the question that has been asked a few times already.

"Can things get any worse"? You bet your a** they can!!!

We may be down but there are miles to go before we hit bottom folks. History lesson time again, the FULL impact of the Wall St. crash of 1929 wasn't felt until 1932. And we never really "recovered" from the Great depression on our own. It took a world war to get the economy moving full swing again, even with ALL of FDRs New Deal. Fact is there are many pitfalls awaiting the President-elect, and to me only truly revolutionary action i.e. the promised changes, will allow him to navigate them to pull us all up.

I know also that the Cabinet carries out Presidential policy but by his own admission he intends to rely on those Cabinet members and advisers to determine that policy.

I too support Mr. Obama in as much as he will be the President, but if his initial choices are a look at what's to come, well then I fear we got a whole heap of trouble a comin'.

On a side note maybe throwing money at the problem isn't the answer either, not that I have them. Just a thought.

Cogs

[Guest TFD125]

"Can things get any worse"? You bet your a** they can!!!

Well spoken!! History only repeats itself because we never seem to learn from past mistakes.

[INIT915 1,119]

I'm willing to give him a chance but to be honest his change smells a lot like the same crap we had during Clinton. All I know is that terrorism has hit us a number of times during the Clinton "military downsizing" era. Cant think of one during bush other than 9/11 which was basically overflow from the Clinton administration.

I would love to live in a world of candycanes and gumdrops but the sad reality is we don't live in that world. Freedom is not free and people tend to forget that. I'm not saying we should just go and attack everyone, but we cant sit around and wait for people to attack us all of the time. "Speak softly and carry a big stick"

As far as the economy, that is chalked up to everyone wanting to do just what Obama wants to do. Give people that can not afford something, something for free. The crash of the mortgage industry came from Fanny May and Freddie Mac giving out loans to people not qualified to pay them back. Congress knew about this and was warned just this exact thing would happen and turned a blind eye to it. The American dream is not for everyone to be given something for free because they deserve it. "The American Dream is belief in the freedom that allows all citizens and residents of the United States to pursue their goals in life through hard work and free choice". (Thats actually from Wikipedia)

Nobody wants to earn their living anymore. People would just love for money to fall in their lap and if it doesnt blame rich people for it. Not to mention I love to listen to the elite/rich people sitting in congress and running for president making wealthy business owners sound evil because they have a lot of money. We should not punish people for making money but instead embrace them. They are the company owners that employ americans and pay our salaries. Yes I do know that there are corrupt business owners that screw over employees too, I am not nieve. However if the US embraced American businesses and didnt tax/regulate the crap out of them you might find less of it going over seas or out of business.

Also if 40% or so of my paycheck is already going to taxes and now I have to support more of these social programs which have proven to fail in the past how is it that I am supposed invest money and spend money to help the economy? Lower taxes means more money in American pockets = more money spent by americans. More money spent/invested by americans = better economy.

I am not by any means rich, but I do know that the top 25% of Americans income wise pay 90% of the taxes. I agree that we all pay too much in taxes, but how is the burden on the middle class?

I know that the eagle eyes of EMTBravo will probably chew me up for this because there is always an exception and more detail to the rule. I am not looking for a fight because bottom line is we are stuck with what we have for the next 4 years and to be honest I dont think McCain was a great choice either. However in a simplified view this does not seem too hard to understand. Government telling me they know how to spend my money better and giving it to someone that may not work as hard for it as I do is absurd. Dont forget when a business is having financial problems they are forced to cut spending lay off employees etc etc. When Government has financial problems they increase taxes!!! Government is not evil and has its place, but also needs to be kept small and not to overstep its boundaries. They tend to forget that we the people are actually in charge!

I am going to get off my soapbox now haha.

Just a few notes on your "soap-box rant".

Anyone here who knows me, I am a huge proponent of citing independant, reliable sources, and doing research before making points. With that said, here is a little on the 'Clinton military issue.'

From the Council on Foreign Relations, in their publication, Foreign Affairs. (If you don't subscribe to it, let me recommend it to you.)

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101faes...nse-legacy.html

Summary: Conventional wisdom holds that Bill Clinton presided over a disastrous downsizing of the U.S. military. But this claim is wrong. In fact, Clinton's Pentagon maintained high levels of readiness and enacted a bold military modernization program that bore fruit in Bosnia and Kosovo -- and in Afghanistan and Iraq.

About the Council:

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an American nonpartisan foreign policy membership organization founded in 1921 and based at 58 East 68th Street (at Park Avenue) in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C. Some international journalists and American paleoconservatives believe it to be the most powerful private organization to influence United States foreign policy.[1][2][3][4][5] It publishes the bi-monthly journal Foreign Affairs. It has an extensive website, featuring links to its think tank, The David Rockefeller Studies Program, other programs and projects, publications, history, biographies of notable directors and other board members, corporate members, and press releases.[6]

So while your view on this is probably guided by your ideology, this is just a credible and independant look at the issue.

[Guest TFD125]

Init915

I appreciate the educated response and will definately take a look at the article. No one is ever hurt by researching the other side of the coin.

[Stepjam 118]

I'll admit, I'm less than thrilled at the results of this past election. However, Obama is the President-elect of the United States, and so I will be respectful of the office.

That said, I came across this entertaining op-ed piece from the Daily Mail (UK), which is often unusually far-right, at least for a British newspaper. While a quarter of a million Germans may be thronging for a glimpse of the new Global President, not everyone in the European media is so enamored with him, apparently. I think this captures the feelings of many, and there is much in it that I couldn't have said better myself. True, this is only one man's opinion, but I found it to be very well written.

The night we waved goodbye to America: How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

Daily Mail Online (UK)-by Peter Hitchens

November 10th 2008

Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts

It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama’s victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn’t yet a children’s picture version of his story, there soon will be.

Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.

If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn’t believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he’d promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.

He needn’t worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America’s Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton’s stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.

Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a ‘new dawn’, and a ‘timeless creed’ (which was ‘yes, we can’). He proclaimed that ‘change has come’. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn’t know what ‘enormity’ means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don’t try this at home).

I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.

And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – ‘Yes, we can’. They were supposed to thunder ‘Yes, we can!’ back at him, but they just wouldn’t join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He’d have been better off bursting into ‘I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony’ which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

If Mr Obama’s election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn’t. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.

If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn’t get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.

And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn’t vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.

I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America’s beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.

As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

[INIT915 1,119]

Op-Ed = Opinion

How's the old saying go, opinions are like... well you know how it ends.

There is no shortage of either.

[Stepjam 118]

Op-Ed = Opinion

How's the old saying go, opinions are like... well you know how it ends.

There is no shortage of either.

That's absolutely correct, and I made note of that.

In this case, the writer's opinion and mine are almost exactly the same. Since he and I are not Siamese twins, the rest of "old saying" doesn't apply.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Stepjam

[Guest TFD125]

The Facts About Military Readiness - Heritage Foundation (A reputable source)

About the Heritage Foundation

I would love to copy the entire article but I urge everyone read the article. It has supporting references, facts and arguements for each item listed below. I also suggest everyone subscribes.

U.S. military readiness cannot be gauged by comparing America's armed forces with other nations' militaries. Instead, the capability of U.S. forces to support America's national security requirements should be the measure of U.S. military readiness. Such a standard is necessary because America may confront threats from many different nations at once.

The Facts about Military Readiness

The reduction in forces of the U.S. armed forces began in the early 1990s. After the end of the Cold War, the Bush Administration began to reduce the size of the military so that it would be consistent with post-Cold War threats. 12 Under the Clinton Administration, however, that reduction in forces escalated too rapidly at the same time that U.S. forces were deployed too often with too little funding. The result was decreased readiness as personnel, equipment, training, and location suffered.

Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. military has been deployed on over 50 peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations. 13 Yet the resources available to fund these missions have steadily decreased: The number of total active personnel has decreased nearly 30 percent, and funding for the armed services has decreased 16 percent. The strain on the armed forces shows clearly now as the reduced forces deploy for too long with insufficient and antiquated equipment. The result is indisputable: Readiness is in decline.

Because the security of the United States is at stake, it is imperative to present the facts about military readiness:

FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade.

FACT #2. Military deployments have increased dramatically throughout the 1990s.

FACT #3. America's military is aging rapidly.

FACT #4. Morale is on the decline in the U.S. armed forces.

CONCLUSION

The Clinton Administration has damaged the U.S military with a dangerous combination of reduced budgets, diminished forces, and increased missions. The result has been a steep decline in readiness and an overall decline in U.S. military strength. Nearly a decade of misdirected policy coupled with a myopic modernization strategy has rendered America's armed forces years away from top form.

To deny that the United States military has readiness problems is to deny the men and women in uniform the respect they deserve. America's military prowess can be restored. To do so, America's leaders must first admit there is a problem. Only then can the President reestablish America's military readiness.

Edited November 24, 2008 by TFD125

[steve shryock 0]

Wasn't the Fannie Mae/Frannie Mac pressured into lowering standards for loan receipiants in 99 from the Clinton Administration? And Fannie/Freddie warned them of the ecomomic sideeffects that would occur in about 10 years from then?

Scares the shi* out of me.

[Guest]

Yes they were warned then, but one must go back to the Carter administration to find the beginnings of the mortgage mess. If anyone wishes to know more about that feel free to pm me.

[ladderthebuilding 2]

For all his talk of change, change, change it appears that Mr. Obama is filling his cabinet with a bunch of Clintonites. I guess a return to a past administration is a change, I'm just not sure it's the right one. The Clinton era was not all roses and cupcakes by any means. The appointment of many of good ole Bill's pals smells alot like more of the same, not the earth shattering change we were promised. And frankly Hillary as Sec. of State, wow that is troubling. Her hubby and by default her are bought and paid for by a cabal of Saudi's, the Emir of Dubai and the petty dictator of Kyrgyzistan. Now you can call it sour grapes, but putting in a bunch of old faces, using old policy ideas that feed the Washington money train is NOT change. C'mon Barak live up to your promises.

Any thoughts?

Cogs

"That's Change You Can Belive In" LOL

BTW... For all that think it can't get worse........We are in for another "Stimulus" Package on Jan 20th.....

Chuck Schumer, a leading Democratic senator, predicted it could be as much as $500bn-$700bn. “It’s a little like having a new New Deal, but you have to do it before the Depression. Not after,” he told ABC’s This Week.

More Spending On The Way

[FFPCogs 863]

As I said prior to the election the Dem strategy is to take from the military while raising taxes to support all of the "Grand" social ideas. What we will end up with is another costlier war than anything we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. He who carries the biggest stick and knows when and where to use it wins..ours will be steadily shrinking and with it our National defense. Especially with Hillary the yapper as Sec of State who will blindly follow Obama's plan to "talk" to our sworn enemies.

Can things get any worse? Whoa we ain't seen nothin' yet.

Cogs

[INIT915 1,119]

The Facts About Military Readiness - Heritage Foundation (A reputable source)

About the Heritage Foundation

I would love to copy the entire article but I urge everyone read the article. It has supporting references, facts and arguements for each item listed below. I also suggest everyone subscribes.

Your right, the Heritage Foundation is well known, they have been around since the early 70's. However, the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think-tank. The example I used earlier from the Concil on Foreign Relations is a non-partisan organization. I, personally do not give much credence to left or right leaning organizations. I strive for the truly independant. Heritage's own motto literally defines them as conservatives. Not that there is anything wrong with that, they are a respectable group, just not non-partisan.

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.

The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.[1] Heritage has since continued to play a significant role in U.S. public policy debate and is widely considered to be one of the most influential research organizations in the United States.[2]

Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."[3]

[Guest TFD125]

I think the search for a non-partisan organization/source is up with the search for the fountain of youth. The organization itself may be presented as non partisan, and may be, but the bottom line is the author has a view on the topic and will absolutely put that view into his writing. We have seen this with the media and "non-partisan" organizations like moveon.org for a long time now. The media, in general, was in bed with Obama and absolutely took his side on situations or just all together let him dance around an answer when that would not suffice for another candidate. Moveon.org funded by George Soros placed an add in the NYTimes insulting the credability of a highly decorated General Petraeus because it was in their "non-partisan" interest to make the war on terror fail. We have seen this trend from many people and organizations in the past years. I personally have never heard so many people wanting America to lose a war. Not to mention publishing false and unbelievably biased information and not calling out politicians on blatent lies. Many will agree that non-biased or minimally biased journalism has died.

I can not speak on behalf of the Council of Foreign Relations, but the author Michael O'Hanlon is a known Democratic Defense Strategist/analyst w/e you want to call it. I am not going to go after his credability because I do not know all to much about him. However I do know that quite a few have turned on him and thrown him down the stairs for coming out and stating that the Surge is helping security and the state of the war in Iraq. He had critique on the war as well which is to be expected.

Long story short I am a firm believer that in order to make an educated decision you need to look into the statistics, voting history and things that can not be spun. I personally like when they throw the different point of views in one room and let them duke it out.

[INIT915 1,119]

I think the search for a non-partisan organization/source is up with the search for the fountain of youth. The organization itself may be presented as non partisan, and may be, but the bottom line is the author has a view on the topic and will absolutely put that view into his writing. We have seen this with the media and "non-partisan" organizations like moveon.org for a long time now. The media, in general, was in bed with Obama and absolutely took his side on situations or just all together let him dance around an answer when that would not suffice for another candidate. Moveon.org funded by George Soros placed an add in the NYTimes insulting the credability of a highly decorated General Petraeus because it was in their "non-partisan" interest to make the war on terror fail. We have seen this trend from many people and organizations in the past years. I personally have never heard so many people wanting America to lose a war. Not to mention publishing false and unbelievably biased information and not calling out politicians on blatent lies. Many will agree that non-biased or minimally biased journalism has died.

I can not speak on behalf of the Council of Foreign Relations, but the author Michael O'Hanlon is a known Democratic Defense Strategist/analyst w/e you want to call it. I am not going to go after his credability because I do not know all to much about him. However I do know that quite a few have turned on him and thrown him down the stairs for coming out and stating that the Surge is helping security and the state of the war in Iraq. He had critique on the war as well which is to be expected.

Long story short I am a firm believer that in order to make an educated decision you need to look into the statistics, voting history and things that can not be spun. I personally like when they throw the different point of views in one room and let them duke it out.

I can say I agree with you 100%. And I also agree, no one in their right mind would take moveon.org as anything other then ultra-liberal.

I'm not sure how anyone can look at general media reporting and state that they are "in bed' with one candidate or the other. Most can agree that Fox generally supports the conservative line, while MSNBC generally supports the more liberal point of view.

This has just been an interesting election season to say the least.

[Guest TFD125]

Definately interesting.

[FFPCogs 863]

Interesting yes, but overwhelmingly biased towards Obama. The Big 3 (NBC CBS ABC) as well as CNN were unabashedly pro Obama. That McCain got 46.6% of the vote is what is truly unbelievable considering Bushes 24% approval rating and the "tsunami" (per Chris Shays R-CT) that did the Republicans in. Maybe rightfully so.

The point here is that for all the talk of "change" it is apparent that Washington will be business as usual and it is we the middle class of America who will suffer. I feel truly sorry for any voter who thought that Mr. Obama will change the world. He was/is nothing more than a consummate Chicago politician. A politician backed by a party machine that went to any length and hundreds of millions of dollars to get the White House. A machine that he will have to pay back, or should I say we will.

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Cogs

Edited November 25, 2008 by FFPCogs

[Guest TFD125]

American Idol Politics. No substance, just seemed like a popularity contest.

[gamewell45 258]

My goodness, the way everyone in here appears to be worrying, their all going to develop ulcers if they are not careful. lol

[FFPCogs 863]

I've been stocking up on the Maalox and Pepsid........

[INIT915 1,119]

Interesting yes, but overwhelmingly biased towards Obama. The Big 3 (NBC CBS ABC) as well as CNN were unabashedly pro Obama. That McCain got 46.6% of the vote is what is truly unbelievable considering Bushes 24% approval rating and the "tsunami" (per Chris Shays R-CT) that did the Republicans in. Maybe rightfully so.

The point here is that for all the talk of "change" it is apparent that Washington will be business as usual and it is we the middle class of America who will suffer. I feel truly sorry for any voter who thought that Mr. Obama will change the world. He was/is nothing more than a consummate Chicago politician. A politician backed by a party machine that went to any length and hundreds of millions of dollars to get the White House. A machine that he will have to pay back, or should I say we will.

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Cogs

Well, we might have to just disagree on the role of the media. But, and it might be a novel idea, I am going to wait and see what Obama actually does. Then we will all see if we were right or wrong.

[ckroll 101]

What's in a word? I voted for the 'change' guy, and we've got change already. He's picking really smart people for key positions. I wanted change from the current, 'no regulation for business or banking and let's see what happens' attitude. Alan Greenspan [served under republicans and democrats] had the gall to so say that the problem wasn't deregulation, but that bankers did not behave honorably...Who could have seen that coming? The current administration has screwed things up. I wanted some change from that [and maybe the occasional head on a pike in the town square to keep bankers and CEOs from trying it again.]

I specifically didn't want a new president to trot out people I had never heard of who had never worked in government and turn over the government to them. Former President Clinton, for all his faults, did a masterful job on the economy and I for one am happy to see some of the people who got it done right before are back in the game.

An ethics panel of Clintonites might leave me a little uneasy, but right now I'm looking for economists...preferably with advanced degrees and a record of success.

Give the new administration 100 days. There will still be plenty of tie left to pick it apart.

[FFPCogs 863]

I had to take this thread out of mothballs based on Pres-elect Obama's choice for CIA director. Now Leon Panetta may be a great guy..and a paisan to boot, but by ALL accounts he is at best a novice when it comes to intelligence matters. What the **** is Obama doing nominating him as CIA Directior...and what in God's name is Panetta thinking by accepting. He says he will "rely" on his subordinates to "help" him. Is this what we are going to be forced to rely on when it comes to our national security....a NOVICE CIA director with by his own admission NO experience, answering and reporting to a NOVICE President who wants to gut the military.

Thank you 53.4% of Americans for putting us all at risk.

Stay Safe...or as safe as you can from now on

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

What's in a word? I voted for the 'change' guy, and we've got change already. He's picking really smart people for key positions.

Not this time he didn't!!!

[INIT915 1,119]

I had to take this thread out of mothballs based on Pres-elect Obama's choice for CIA director. Now Leon Panetta may be a great guy..and a paisan to boot, but by ALL accounts he is at best a novice when it comes to intelligence matters. What the **** is Obama doing nominating him as CIA Directior...and what in God's name is Panetta thinking by accepting. He says he will "rely" on his subordinates to "help" him. Is this what we are going to be forced to rely on when it comes to our national security....a NOVICE CIA director with by his own admission NO experience, answering and reporting to a NOVICE President who wants to gut the military.

Thank you 53.4% of Americans for putting us all at risk.

Stay Safe...or as safe as you can from now on

Cogs

Your ongoing distaste with all things Obama is duly noted.