Originally posted by Irish M1ck
Seriously? You are saying that Obama is no better of a speaker than Bush?
Seriously. There are tons of threads here on it. The guy can't string together two sentences without uh-uh-oh-um-uh unless he's on a teleprompter.
Bush is a lousy speaker. So is obama - off teleprompter.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What complaints would they have about Obama then?
You really need to get over yourself.
Obama ran on 'CHANGE' and he said change everything.
He's filling his positions with lobbyists and Clintonistas.
He lied. You bought it. You still do.
Amazing.
There is plenty to complain about Obama - from his lies at claiming 'change', to his 'spread the wealth', to his disarming of America, to his
stand on taxes, to his stand in the culture-of-death, to his flip flops, to his problems with the 2nd Amendment, to his severe lack of experience, to
his narcassistic self-messianic rhetoric. etc etc
He is not change. He said he was. He has already shown that he's not.
Dragging in the old guard. The old ways. Hiring those who 'were the problem' - lobbyists and the old corruption machines.
If he planned on doing that to counter his severe lack of experience then he shouldn't have promised change and he shouldn't have promised not to
hire lobbyists.
No change. No hope. No unity. Just more of the same old politics. And no, that's not because I hope it will be that way (how pathetic of you to
claim that), it's because that's just the truth of the situation.
ON TOPIC -
ERIC HOLDER - he approved of the Marc Rich pardon during the Clinton pardon-gate problems. Holder's official stand was, to quote him, "neutral
leaning toward approval".
Rich's ex-wife bought the pardon through donations to the Clinton Library and yet this fella, Holder, approved of
the pardon (or at the very least didn't condemn it)
Lovely.
Yeah .. this appointment is a real 'change' from the old way Washington does things.
