And on the 105th Day . . .

04SCTLS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
7
Location
Lockport
By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, May 5, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../05/04/AR2009050403233.html?hpid=sec-politics

Maybe Barack Obama really is The One.
Yesterday's news was good -- almost supernaturally so.

The economy? Recovering.

The markets? Rallying.

Swine flu? Abating.

Drought? Ending.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declared his confidence that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are well secured. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee declared his confidence that a massive health-care overhaul will be accomplished this year. Warren Buffett declared his confidence that the economy is "out of the quicksand." And the Supreme Court was confident enough about the state of the nation to turn its attention to Janet Jackson's breasts.
Call it good policy, as Democrats do, or beginner's luck, as the last remaining Republicans do, but you can practically hear the nation collectively exhaling.
The rapid improvement in the public's mood is without precedent in modern history. Last week's Washington Post poll found that 50 percent of Americans think things are generally going in the right direction, up from only 8 percent in early October. That's the quickest change in optimism since the question was first asked by The Post in 1980. Views of President Obama, in turn, were impossibly high: Ninety percent called him willing to listen to different views, and better than 70 percent called him a strong leader, honest and trustworthy, and understanding of people's problems.
And that was before happiness started busting out all over yesterday.
First came news from Mexico that swine flu cases were diminishing, and from U.S. authorities that the virus is, for now, less severe than feared. "The feeling from federal officials seems to be one of relief today," NBC's Matt Lauer said on the "Today" show.

"We're seeing encouraging signs," agreed Richard Besser, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Next item: The Commerce Department reported an increase in construction spending after five months of decline. And the National Association of Realtors reported a higher-than-expected increase in sales for the second straight month. That, and Buffett's out-of-the-quicksand remark at his Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, sent the Dow Jones industrial average up 214 points for the day. For those keeping score, that's a 6 percent increase since the market tanked on Inauguration Day.
The cable news chatterers shared their happy thoughts. "Nice to hear good news out of the housing market," said a CNBC anchor.
"There's some good news on the swine flu front," reported an MSNBC anchor.
Even bad news became good news on CNN, as weatherman Rob Marciano put a favorable spin on the endless rain on the East Coast. "The good news," he said, "is that the ongoing multiyear drought that the Southeast has been dealing with is pretty much over."
Obama may get some credit for the economy, and maybe even the response to swine flu and his orders for Navy snipers to shoot those Somali pirates. But he probably can't claim responsibility for the weather -- unless, that is, he has been sent here by a Higher Authority.
Perhaps he wasn't joking at last year's Al Smith dinner in New York when he said: "Contrary to the rumors you may have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father, Jor-El, to save the planet Earth."
Whatever the cause, the confidence was contagious. Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, gave a news conference and labeled himself "very satisfied" with Pakistan's efforts to keep its nuclear weapons away from terrorists. One of the reporters observed that Mullen seemed "much more optimistic than you've been" about Pakistan.

Also yesterday, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm was on television talking about her confidence that most of the remaining 54,000 jobs at Chrysler will be saved despite its bankruptcy filing. And Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, in a conference call, said that "all of us agree that the stars are maybe finally aligned this year compared with prior years for the passage of meaningful, comprehensive health-care reform."
The chairman was in such good spirits that he proposed to "give everybody my personal e-mail address," then directed them to an EarthLink address.
It seemed the only ones left out of the celebration were the Republicans, who continued to discuss their wounds. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican, was on TV talking about the party's setbacks, about how "we've certainly taken our licks" and how the party "needs to be more inclusive."
The newspaper industry was also left out of the good-cheer parade, because of the New York Times Co.'s threats to close the Boston Globe.
But White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, at his daily briefing, wasn't about to let this "sadness" ruin the festivities. He took the opportunity to tweak reporters for mocking Obama's plan to cut a mere $100 million from Cabinet agencies' budgets. "I wondered how you guys didn't think $100 million meant a lot a few weeks ago, but, looking at some of the balance sheets, $100 million seems to mean a lot," Gibbs taunted.
Gibbs should guard against getting too cocky: Even if his boss is The One, there's no guarantee the good news will continue.
Maybe that's why the government has scheduled the release of its "stress tests" of the nation's largest banks for Thursday -- the National Day of Prayer.


________________________________________________________________

It would seem that the fortunate candidate is becoming the fortunate president as events unfold.
 
Yesterday's news, or the coverage by the media?
This is less a story about what Obama has done, but how the media can work to shape perception.

For eight years we heard the economy was horrible, now- we hear that it's recovering and strong? This is much like the joke about how homeless people seem to disappear from the evening news once a Democrat is elected President. It just happens over night.
 
Yesterday's news, or the coverage by the media?
This is less a story about what Obama has done, but how the media can work to shape perception.

For eight years we heard the economy was horrible, now- we hear that it's recovering and strong? This is much like the joke about how homeless people seem to disappear from the evening news once a Democrat is elected President. It just happens over night.

Wow we actually get good news and still you find reason to be upset. Sheesh.

Just because it appeared in the MSM doesn't mean it's wrong. The article nicely presents metrics and statistics to back up the conclusions it makes. Perhaps you find some incorrect numbers that you'd like to dispute?

The better angle to attack this article would have been: how much of the good news is really Obama's doing? Gotta remember how little power the President actually has to get things accomplished. The markets stabilized largely on their own accord - the Free Market is very good ensuring there is money to be made somewhere. The Swine Flu reduction is primarily a matter of medical centers both here and in Mexico following SOP with regard to infectious disease outbreaks, policies that were put in place exactly for this reason and, when properly implemented, can help control the spread of such diseases - Obama had little to do with this. And the droughts, well that's just good luck and timing, but they do make light of it in a rather entertaining manner.

Kudos to the authors for finding good news, but credit undeserved for Obama should instead go to the businesses out there still plugging away and the medical personnel worldwide who worked tirelessly to keep Swine Flu under control.
 
The better angle to attack this article would have been: how much of the good news is really Obama's doing? Gotta remember how little power the President actually has to get things accomplished. The markets stabilized largely on their own accord - the Free Market is very good ensuring there is money to be made somewhere. Kudos to the authors for finding good news, but credit undeserved for Obama should instead go to the businesses out there still plugging away and the medical personnel worldwide who worked tirelessly to keep Swine Flu under control.

But, according to some on this site (check this thread) Obama was a reason the market failed (it actually appeared that he might be a 'major' cause) ... why wouldn't he be the impetuous of the recovery as well?

I am playing devil's advocate here - but, at the time when the market went down to 6,500 many here were anxious to point fingers at the administration. I personally feel it is way to early to start thinking that we are out of the woods on this one... unemployment is still way too high.
 
It's like in football.

The team wins, it's because the team did well together.

If they lose, it's the QB's fault.
Yesterday's news, or the coverage by the media?
This is less a story about what Obama has done, but how the media can work to shape perception.

For eight years we heard the economy was horrible, now- we hear that it's recovering and strong? This is much like the joke about how homeless people seem to disappear from the evening news once a Democrat is elected President. It just happens over night.
There's always going to be ignorance running a muck, but no need to catch feelings on other peoples good news.
 
There's always going to be ignorance running a muck, but no need to catch feelings on other peoples good news.

Are you really so ignorant that you have no clue how ignorant you are? Most everyone you try to smear and call ignorant is more informed then you multiple times over. In fact, considering the habitual willful ignorance you demonstrate, it is not an exaggeration to think that people like Cal have forgotten more then you have read on most any issue discussed in this forum. Maybe you should try looking past you ego for once. :rolleyes:
 
I'd actually be more interested in the size of the muck that's being run. Is it just a little muck, or is it a large muck? If it's very large it may be hard to stop it once it starts to run!!
KS
 
Wow we actually get good news and still you find reason to be upset. Sheesh.
If someone is pissing on you and I tell you it's just raining, will you keep smiling?

Just because it appeared in the MSM doesn't mean it's wrong. The article nicely presents metrics and statistics to back up the conclusions it makes. Perhaps you find some incorrect numbers that you'd like to dispute?
We have dozens of threads doing specifically that?
But if you want to look up in the sky and open your mouth right now and enjoy the rain... go right ahead.
I suggest you at least get an umbrella.

[quote\The better angle to attack this article would have been: how much of the good news is really Obama's doing?[/quote]
I don't need your help, but thanks.

Kudos to the authors for finding good news,
Good news....he stopped to have a big drink of something....

but credit undeserved for Obama should instead go to the businesses out there still plugging away and the medical personnel worldwide who worked tirelessly to keep Swine Flu under control.
The credit? There is no credit deserved yet.
This is merely a lull. Things aren't better, we're just waiting before they get worse. And we haven't experienced the consequences of the economic and political policies yet.
 
Fox - I agree, it is way too early, but unemployment will lag far behind the market recovery. Even if this does turn out to be the markets recovering (I'm not sold and I tend to think Cal is correct that it's just a lull, but that would be great), unemployment will likely remain high until well into next year. There's a lot of damage to be undone.

Cal, what are you like in person? Are you as pessimistic as you appear here? Do you look for the worst in every situation just so you have something to whine about? I don't mean that to be a personal attack, but I'm just making the observation that you (and most of the Right) currently has very little positive to offer... ever. Perhaps we should all just despair and give up hope because we're all so screwed, is that what we should be doing? We can all just mope around our daily lives knowing that nothing is worth doing because Obama ruined it all....
 
The media is completely biased and hardly ever reports what is really happening. Whats so diferent about the economy now from 4 months ago? The swine flu? Gimme a break. The market is always going up and down.
 
funny how now the president has little power to do things as you say but when bush was in office he was responsible for everything. im confused. the H1N1 virus is a joke. people die from the regular flu every year because most of the people dying are in countries with poor health care. its not even worth going into detail because you wouldn't understand.
 
Are you really so ignorant that you have no clue how ignorant you are? Most everyone you try to smear and call ignorant is more informed then you multiple times over. In fact, considering the habitual willful ignorance you demonstrate, it is not an exaggeration to think that people like Cal have forgotten more then you have read on most any issue discussed in this forum. Maybe you should try looking past you ego for once. :rolleyes:

Lol. Dude i almost care about what you say. Almost.

I'll tell you what though, i'll stop posting here if you can find me 2 replys to me (from you) where you dont start off by telling me how stupid i am.

But till then, lets talk about ego and ignorance. Lol
 
Are you really so ignorant that you have no clue how ignorant you are? Most everyone you try to smear and call ignorant is more informed then you multiple times over. In fact, considering the habitual willful ignorance you demonstrate, it is not an exaggeration to think that people like Cal have forgotten more then you have read on most any issue discussed in this forum. Maybe you should try looking past you ego for once. :rolleyes:

You know what is really going to scare you? The very people whom you refer to as willfully ignorant and not smart enough, or not informed enough, are representative of the vast, vast majority of American voters. You will have to face the fact that most Americans form their opinions based on a quick glance at the headlines, if that - and by yourself & company spending so much time delving into issues to uncover the real story you are placing yourselves in a very small minority.
Now here is the challenge I put forth to you and the Right: since, according to you, everybody else is a moron and you appear to have all the answers, I am interested in seeing what your approach is towards educating the People. Let me give you a hint - berating and insulting a few individuals on the Internet is not going to cut it, and if these antics continue I will safely predict the Republicans will gain very little in 2010 and possibly even lose the Presidency in 2012. So let's try a more future-oriented outlook: since your point of view is obviously the correct one, how do you think you can get it across to the American voters so that they can see the Light and keep us from going down the road to Egalitarianism?
Yes, I do mean this in all seriousness. If the country is in as much trouble as you guys seem to think, then instead of spending time telling everybody how bad Obama is, let's look forward as to how we're going to fix it. Failure to do so cost Kerry in 2004, McCain in 2008, and if things don't change, it will cost the Republicans again in 2012. I'd rather not see that happen, and I am sure we can all agree on that.
 
Cal, what are you like in person? Are you as pessimistic as you appear here? Do you look for the worst in every situation just so you have something to whine about? I don't mean that to be a personal attack, but I'm just making the observation that you (and most of the Right) currently has very little positive to offer... ever.
You're confusing being pessimistic with being realistic.
I'm not a pessimist at all, but I'm also not a polyanna.

Perhaps we should all just despair and give up hope because we're all so screwed, is that what we should be doing? We can all just mope around our daily lives knowing that nothing is worth doing because Obama ruined it all....
Perhaps we should sit silently and hope, for hopes sake, that the things going on right now will work, despite our better judgement. Despite historic examples. Is that what your saying?

Sit quietly and hope it works out.
Do you have any clue what is going on? Because I don't think you do. You're dismissing everything like it's some sort of doom and gloom negativism. It's not.

I opposed Obama during the election. I made arguments about how he was a radical leftist. About how he was a marxist and he'd been raised a marxist since childhood. His mother and father were marxists. His mentor, Frank Marshal Davis, through his professors, his PASTOR, his activities as a "community organizer," and his work WITH ACORN.

People with attitudes similar to yours were inclined to dismiss this as "scare tactics."

Right before the election, he was caught on tape espousing marxist views to "Joe the Plumber"- and then there's the interview where he's talking about the Warren Supreme Court not being activist enough because they didn't get into redistributive economic justice.

In the past three months finance, banking, and the auto industries have been taken over by the government using extremely heavy handed techniques of intimidation. But you're still smiling.

The other day, the administration just said it was going to go into the insurance industry.... And we have socialized medicine on the horizon.

And, the Pelosi/Reid Democrats are on the verge of a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate. That means it'll be damn near impossible to even put the breaks on all this "hope and change."

But keep smiling, that's just yellow rain your dancing in.
I call it like I see it.

The only "hope" I have is that the rate of this change is so quick that regular people suddenly notice what's going on and have time to unify, act, and stop it. So that we can give the next generations a country as great or even stronger that the one that was left to us.

But back to my original point-
I fought against Obama during the election- BUT AFTERWARDS- I was vocally in support of giving him a chance.
His deliberately vague, slickly marketed campaign left room for doubt, so I gave him that benefit. Maybe he was a radical, maybe he was just an opportunistic politician.
Maybe he was the thoughtful pragmatic leader that would make careful, thoughtful decisions. Maybe he wouldn't appoint radicals to his cabinet, as I feared, and instead pick the best men and women from both sides of the aisle. After the election I publicly said that he had my support and that I hoped that his Presidency strengthened the country. Maybe he would control spending and severe his ties with radical left organizations. I wasn't going to just oppose Obama, or the fact he had a D after his name. I'd give him a fair chance, a fresh start.

And EVER SINGLE CONCERN expressed during the campaign has come to fruition. Every single one of them were valid and cause of great concern, dismissed by casual citizens.

If I'm riding in a car that's about to crash into the wall, do I just hope the driver hits the brakes or turns the wheel, or do I at least say something about and either get some of the people riding with me to brace themselves, or make our way to the front and take the wheel? Or is that pessimistic? Maybe he'll brake late? Maybe he'll swerve.. Maybe we won't be crushed in the crash.
 
You know what is really going to scare you? The very people whom you refer to as willfully ignorant and not smart enough, or not informed enough, are representative of the vast, vast majority of American voters. You will have to face the fact that most Americans form their opinions based on a quick glance at the headlines, if that - and by yourself & company spending so much time delving into issues to uncover the real story you are placing yourselves in a very small minority.
I agree with you on this, but you state it as though it's something to be proud of. The form of government that we have in this country REQUIRES an involved and informed population. It is a great deal of responsibility. It frustrates me when people say that it's our responsibility to "get out and vote." That's not true. Voting is only the last step, the final pay off. Our responsibility is to understand the issues, understand what's going on, to be involved, most of all, understand how our government works, and the to make an INFORMED decision and vote. The culture put all the emphasis on voting yet doesn't focus on the responsibilities that precede it.

Now here is the challenge I put forth to you
Oh... you're issuing a challenge..... wonderful!!
If you want to have a discussion, please do. Don't offer "challenges," particularly when they are framed in a way that presumes you have the answer.

since your point of view is obviously the correct one, how do you think you can get it across to the American voters so that they can see the Light and keep us from going down the road to Egalitarianism?
We aren't simply on the road to egalitarianism. We should have political egalitarianism, everyone is created equal. It's just that we don't all have equal outcomes.

Yes, I do mean this in all seriousness. If the country is in as much trouble as you guys seem to think, then instead of spending time telling everybody how bad Obama is, let's look forward as to how we're going to fix it. Failure to do so cost Kerry in 2004, McCain in 2008, and if things don't change, it will cost the Republicans again in 2012. I'd rather not see that happen, and I am sure we can all agree on that.
So you want people to give solutions to problems before you'll even agree that a problem exists? Merely mentioning the problems and the inevitable ones on the horizon lead to people like you condemning the discussion for it's lack of optimism.

You say that failure to identify how they would "fix" these unstated problems led to McCain's defeat in 2008. Really? How did Obama prescribe to fix these things? Which ones can you remember. Any specifics? And which ones did you think would work and why?

By the way,the solutions to the problems were facing right now HAVE been laid out quite clearly. The problem is, we in the public are increasingly being taught that solutions have to come from Washington, D.C. That concept contradicts the founding principles of the country, but that's what we're taught now. The solutions to our problems ARE NOT IN D.C. Government response is NOT what we need.

Two simple things would solve most of the problems in this country-
liberty and transparency.

Less government, less intervention, less involvement in our lives. With that, more personal responsibility. Particularly on the federal level.
And transparency. Transparency in government. Transparency in the markets. Transparency in the public sector.

It's really that simple.
It seems radical when considered through our 20th (and now 21st) century perspective, but that's how the country was designed to operate.

Additional note, going back to voter responsibility-
when all the power shifts from the local level to D.C. voter apathy is an inevitable consequence.
 
We should have political egalitarianism, everyone is created equal.

:confused: I wouldn't expect that from you.

Egalitarianism (at least the examples I have read) goes well beyond recognizing that everyone is created equal to saying that everyone is equal. Those are two different things. One is concerned with your state of being when you first come into this world (and then, only in very specific ways), and one is making a claim about your moral (and societal) value throughout the course of your life.

Am I missing something here?
 
:confused: I wouldn't expect that from you.

Egalitarianism (at least the examples I have read) goes well beyond recognizing that everyone is created equal to saying that everyone is equal. Those are two different things. One is concerned with your state of being when you first come into this world (and then, only in very specific ways), and one is making a claim about your moral (and societal) value throughout the course of your life.

Am I missing something here?

Oh, I just have to throw this in - so Foss gets upset - first sentence - classic groupthink (just teasing - but, I just couldn't resist... it is futile in my case ;) . Plus - Star Trek opens tomorrow - yes, I am a geeky girl - and will be taking off work to see it in IMAX, woo hoo!!!!)

Well, back to egalitarianism - shag, you are looking at the 'and, and, and' form - it can also be 'or, or, or' You can have political egalitarianism, gender egalitarianism, racial egalitarianism, opportunity egalitarianism, all present (hopefully) today in America, without having capital egalitarianism. However, many times it gets defined as 'all things must be equal' which ventures into economic egalitarianism, societal egalitarianism, even Christian egalitarianism - then it wanders into more of a system, like your understanding in the paragraph above.
 
Oh, I just have to throw this in - so Foss gets upset - first sentence - classic groupthink (just teasing - but, I just couldn't resist... it is futile in my case ;) . Plus - Star Trek opens tomorrow - yes, I am a geeky girl - and will be taking off work to see it in IMAX, woo hoo!!!!)

Going to see Star Trek in 2 hours and 50 minutes! :D :D :D

Well, back to egalitarianism - shag, you are looking at the 'and, and, and' form - it can also be 'or, or, or' You can have political egalitarianism, gender egalitarianism, racial egalitarianism, opportunity egalitarianism, all present (hopefully) today in America, without having capital egalitarianism. However, many times it gets defined as 'all things must be equal' which ventures into economic egalitarianism, societal egalitarianism, even Christian egalitarianism - then it wanders into more of a system, like your understanding in the paragraph above.

Egalitarianism is a political philosophy. things like gender egalitarianism, racial egalitarianism, etc. tend to be representative of that ideology applied to those specific areas. But political egalitarianism doesn't fit that mold. How can people be equal in politics? I wanna know how he defines political egalitarianism because that suggests to me a subscription to an ideological point of view as a whole, not in a specific issue.

I think I might have an idea where he is coming from, but "political egalitarianism" might not be the best choice of words in that case.

Egalitarianism goes beyond equal recognition (which, in itself is only appropriate in certain areas) to attempting to make everyone equal. That is how you get affirmative action, quotas, longer maternity leave, etc. from racial and gender egalitarianism.

Frankly, this is an issue I would really love to get into an in depth conversation on (reading a couple good books on it at the moment; have a few others in my library), but unfortunately, I don't have the time to devote to it right now; next week is finals week and I am under the gun. But, after that week, I will be done with all the political science classes I have to take for the major!!!
 
I think most would view Egalitarianism as a protean philosophy - the definition sort of goes with the flow... when you get into a discussion of it, you might want to agree on a pretty tight definition before wandering down that path. Some see it as 'fundamental worth' while others see 'moral worth' still others as a sort of 'societal worth'. Some view it as a equaling the 'arbitrary nature' of opportunity - but not necessarily the equality of outcome.

I would imagine that how you have it defined involves equality of outcome, which runs into the problem then, that formal rights could be seen to have substantive inequalities. In the long run, it has been argued, that total Egalitarianism erodes freedom and liberties. Probably rightfully so... I think a total egalitarianism would lead to far fewer freedoms and liberties.

Have fun at Star Trek - but don't tell me anything!!!!

We need a good sci-fi forum here - ;)
 
I think most would view Egalitarianism as a protean philosophy - the definition sort of goes with the flow... when you get into a discussion of it, you might want to agree on a pretty tight definition before wandering down that path. Some see it as 'fundamental worth' while others see 'moral worth' still others as a sort of 'societal worth'. Some view it as a equaling the 'arbitrary nature' of opportunity - but not necessarily the equality of outcome.

Rawls and Dworkin are the predominate modern voices when it comes to egalitarian thought. While there are a number of different schools of thought in the ideology of egalitarianism (as you seem to be alluding to) there are a number of ideas that are rather consistent and/or predominate within the various views, and that overlap a great deal. Probably the simplest explanation of egalitarianism that I have heard is this:
all human beings should be treated with equal consideration unless there are good reasons against it.
But, as John Kekes points out:
Human beings differ in their characters, circumstances, talents and weaknesses, capacities and incapacities, virtues and vices; in their moral standing, political views, religious convictions, aesthetic preferences, and personal projects; in how reasonable or unreasonable they are, how well or badly they develop their native endowments, how much they benefit or harm others, how hardworking or disciplined they were in the past and are likely to be in the future; and so forth. Given these manifold differences, why should the initial presumption favor equal, rather than unequal, treatment?

The questions mount when it is asked, as it must be, what are the respects in which equal consideration is assumed to be warranted? Clearly, parents should not treat their own and other people's children with equal considerations; people do not owe equal consideration to friends and strangers; governments betray their most elementary responsibility if they treat citizens and foreigners with equal consideration; a society would be self-destructive if it treated its moral and immoral, law-abidng and criminal, prudent and imprudent members with equal consideration. the questions grow in number and urgency when it is asked, as it must again be, what reasons are supposed to be good enough to justify unequal consideration? What differences among people would count against the initial presumption in favor of equal consideration? If differences in morality, reasonability, legality, and and citizenship count, then very little remains of equal consideration, since there are great differences among people in these respects. And if these differences are not allowed to count, then how could it be justified to ignore them and treat people who differ in these respects with equal consideration?
In many ways, it comes down to where the initial burden of proof for or against equal treatment is placed and the justification (or lack thereof) in placing it there. Is it a natural place to put it? A reasonable exception in a specific area? Is it purely arbitrary?
 
Political egalitarianism in the sense that no group, no individual, no class of people have greater power or freedom than another.

Using the definition of egalitarianism to mean equality.
Not the broader, Marxist, definitions or interpretations.
 
Political egalitarianism in the sense that no group, no individual, no class of people have greater power or freedom than another.

Using the definition of egalitarianism to mean equality.
Not the broader, Marxist, definitions or interpretations.

Ok, that is what I figured you were talking about.
 
I'm just making the observation that you (and most of the Right) currently has very little positive to offer... ever. Perhaps we should all just despair and give up hope because we're all so screwed, is that what we should be doing? We can all just mope around our daily lives knowing that nothing is worth doing because Obama ruined it all....
Funny, I thought it was Obama that had nothing but despair to offer.

He's the one saying things are going to get worse before they get better, he's the one saying we need to cut down on our usage of electricity, he's the one saying we need to start driving the sail-powered cars, he's the one apologizing to the rest of the world for the evils that America has committed, he's the one attacking the tea partiers, he's the one attacking the hedge fund managers, he's the one taking over industry and forcing banks like Wells Fargo to take Fed money they don't want, he's the one threatening Chrysler creditors with thug tactics if they don't shut up, his administration is the one trumpeting the scare tactics over the swine flu.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top