Obama Promised Change, but Picks Insiders Instead

reply to post by marg6043

---

Sadly, you may be correct.

Check your U2U for further explanation on your above post.

Yes there are. When Obama screamed 'change change change' and he said that the people in Washington were all part of the problem - then he very strongly insinuated that he would be NOT using the same old problem people. He should NOT have said that the people were the problem if he intended to use them.


Wrong. (It's comical when people assume that they have figured out my interior motivatons. )

I didn't vote for McCain. I voted Constitution Party - which would have been REAL change - change back to the Constitution and what this country was founded on. (I didn't agree with the whole platform, but enough to vote for it) So I am not a 'sore loser' - I am not 'sour grapes' - I am not 'a spoiled brat' - I am not a racist - and mostly I am not 'scared of change' - those are all pathetic remarks made by obama followers. They simply aren't true. I knew Baldwin wouldn't win. If I wanted to vote for the winner - simply to be on the winning side - I would have voted for OBama - because the Bildebergers pre-ordained him to win. But I don't vote for someone based upon if they can win or not. I vote for who I think is best.

Pointing out when politicians do not live up to their campaign promises is NOT being a sore loser.

edited immediately to fix quote

[edit on 11/20/2008 by FlyersFan]

After all of that all I can add is that having worked in a variety of restaurants I have seen on a small scale how the owner/manager sets the tone and the rest of the staff follow... I have seen places turn around with the hiring of a good manager and seen places close because of a bad one.

Obama's three biggest strengths from what I can tell is that he is disciplined... he's intelligent and he has an even temperment, hard to ruffle as it were...

... the last thing we need in the oval office right now is a hot head with a hair trigger temper or another idiot.

reply to post by marg6043

---

Man .. somedays I sure wish we still had WATS.
Marg ... If there were any, you'd have one of my WATS today.

- it may be 'expected' to recycle - but that's not what he got elected on.

reply to post by FlyersFan

---

Thanks Flyer, and Centurion I got your U2 my friend.

Flyer I know that one of Obama's moto was "change, change and more change" and that sounded good during his campaign, he won because that is what people wanted "change" now that he got his vote and the Democrats got the hold in congress and the white house, what do you think is going to happen?

Is pay back time and is not pay back for anybody that gave that vote.

You know how long most of these recycled politicians has been waiting for their turn once again in the white house? is so funny I can not stop laughing at how pitiful politics has become in this nation.

We are facing the next great depression next year nobody will care anymore who is in the white house as long as The change will come and when that doesn't happen and promises are forgotten the people will never forget, I expect Obama and his recycle team to be a 4 year wonder.

reply to post by marg6043

---

Absolutely.

So, the liberals shouldn't fret so much about the criticism of Obama, since they're likely to only have to put up with 4 years of it at most.

And by all means, marg, keep your AR-15 in case the depression comes. And keep it handy.

Wouldn't you guys consider a CEO to have almost absolute power while a President has limited powers? A CEO can change his or her company budget, but Obama is dependent on Congress to change government's budget. A CEO doesn't have to worry about getting votes, Obama does. A CEO can fire anybody in his company, Obama can only fire the people he hire.

Basically, a CEO has more control over the company than Obama does over government.

In addition, Obama is more dependent on the people he appoints. Obama is not an expert on defense, economics, treasury, health and human services, foreign affairs. He will have to rely on the options his appointees offer in order to make decisions. And these appointees already have preconceived ideas how things should be. That isn't necessary a bad thing. However, what worked during the Clinton years could be a total failure in his administration due to the different set of circumstance we find ourselves in.

As far as change I don't see none coming from Congress. Of course, they have a reputation to uphold. I don't see any drastic change in the people he is appointing. However, I do feel you will see change later when he starts appointing judges. I think you will see change when he starts dealing with other countries. But just like any other President he will have his fair share of mistakes, bumps, and bruises. Change has a broad meaning and Obama was very clever in not narrowing the meaning of change. That is why so many of us debate what change really means.

reply to post by centurion1211

---

I will try if we don't lose the right to arms during the next 4 years, after all an armed angry nation is the biggest danger to the security of the ruling elite.

Yes what a crock the Obama supporters were fed,he promised no lobbyist in his cabinet,so what does he do? hires 5 hard core ones,I have a feeling he will make Bush and Cheney look like choir boys,what a hell of a 4 yrs we have comming,thanks a pad load Obamamites

What I find side splittingly funny is all of you who did not vote for Obama, would not vote for Obama and actively dislike the man to the point that you won't even give him a chance are carping about how he promised change and nothing has changed and he hasn't been sworn in yet.

That's exactly right grover, I find that hilarious myself.

Don't be ridiculous, grover. How long would you have us wait before expressing concern? How long did you wait?

You can't expect to usher in "change" with a group of people that don't seem to believe in it themselves.

Surely you've heard the phrase "handwriting on the wall" before. Look again, the writing is being done as we speak.

[edit on 11/20/2008 by centurion1211]

reply to post by grover

---

That is perhaps because some of the Appointees already have a track of been part of the problems in this nation rather than just bi standers.

That alone will dampen my hopes for change.

I swear I think that some of you are pathologically incapable of entertaining the notion that maybe, just maybe a liberal/moderate Democrat might end up doing a good job.

When you look at it... over the past 40 years we have had 12 years of Democratic presidents vs. 32 years of Republican presidents and look at the mess the country is in. As far as I am concerned the onus is on the Republicans to prove that they can govern at all.

As it is all they've done is give away the farm.

Also look at that same statistic... 12 years vs. 32 years. Consequently the Democratic pool to chose from then is obviously limited and like I said before if you want to actually do something then you need people on your team that know the ropes.

Besides that the only politician that is pristine is one who has never won an election.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by grover]

Or is it that obama supporters are pathologically incapable of understanding why dems have been president for "only 12 years" - the voters end up not liking them or their policies.

I think you missed my post where I pointed out that us liberals/progressives are far more critical than conservative/Republicans are.

You would have never heard the gungo ho choruses justifying Clinton if he had behaved like bush minor.

No, I saw it. Just don't agree. Why? The Zogby poll mentioned in my other thread says absolutely otherwise, for one.



Clinton behaved like a buffoon while in the White House, and before (I lived in Arkansas when he was governor). And there were no criticisms from the "critical" left, just rabid defense of clinton at all costs.

[edit on 11/20/2008 by centurion1211]

Forgive me if my terminology is wrong here, but, has anyone given any thought as to whom BO would pick as the Secretary of Energy..?

Would he choose Gore..?

(I'm not here to argue, just curious as to others opinions on this)

reply to post by centurion1211

---

Only people who want to pay attention to polls pay attention to polls.

You obviously never read the real liberal press as opposed to the mainstream media.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by grover]

Again, you need to understand that to many of us the "liberal press" and the MSM are one and the same. And so I do read CNN, MSNBC, LA Times, NY Times and others online to find out what the liberal press is saying.

Wait! Are you saying that you and the other obamaphiles are reading a liberal press that is even more far left than the ones I mentioned, and that's where you want obama to get his policy ideas from?

Now that's truly scary ...

[edit on 11/20/2008 by centurion1211]