Thank God "Change" has finally come to Washington...
TMS
John Podesta
Rahm Emanuel
Tom Daschle
Eric Holder
Hillary Clinton?
Madeline Albright
Is this the definition of "change...we can believe in?"
- TMS
Chris Bellomy
I didn't see a single Bush administration name in that list. So
what's your question again?
cb
--
"Man, this is more important than politics!
This is football!" --Barack Obama
The Ikon That Can Still Go
When you "change" clothes, don't you frequently put on clothing you
have worn before? When you "change" the channel, don't you frequently
put on a station you have watched before? As long as it is not the
same exact item that is currently present, it is change. Dumbass.
Ahmed Johnson's Beer Belly v2.0
wrote:
He does have a point. Your Lord and Savior, campaigned on the "failed
policies of the past", but only brought up shit that has happend for
the last 8 years. We're meant to ignore anything that happened
prior. Our government fucked up a lot of shit in the 225 years before
W. But he wasn't talking about any of those failings.
AJBB (unless it can be traced to Reagan)
Jason Todd
wrote:
TMS just needs a hug. Ignore him.
Jason "Not volunteering, just sayin' " Todd
Huck Kennedy
> TMS wrote, On 11/19/08 3:46 PM:
>
> > Joe Biden
> > John Podesta
> > Rahm Emanuel
> > Tom Daschle
> > Eric Holder
> > Hillary Clinton?
> > Madeline Albright
>
> > Is this the definition of "change...we can believe in?"
>
> I didn't see a single Bush administration name in that list. So
> what's your question again?
Please don't feed the rspwer crosspoasts. Thanks!
RK
Lord Gow333, Jeff Jarrett's number 238823454 fan!
"The Ikon That Can Still Go" <crayz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:56a404f6-9a11-4069...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 4:46 pm, TMS <nwophoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe Biden
> John Podesta
> Rahm Emanuel
> Tom Daschle
> Eric Holder
> Hillary Clinton?
> Madeline Albright
>
> Is this the definition of "change...we can believe in?"
>
> - TMS
When you "change" clothes, don't you frequently put on clothing you
have worn before?
~~~~
Not if it's stained...
LG (oh yeah, went there)
--
Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently. - Henry Ford
Hoover
"TMS" <nwoph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:27450645-1704-423d...@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Lazarusburningin Hell
<e6fc3f9e-066d-4cf2...@u14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Ah, but a lot of what he needs to do is reversing a lot of the pure
shit that happened the past 8 years. To do that you need those who have
the know-how and inside connections to get it done and get it done fast.
From that point on, you can work to create a more perfect union.
--
Emm Oh Oh En. That spells RSPW.
TMS
wrote:
This is pretty much the worst metaphor ever.
- TMS
Lazarusburningin Hell
<2ab4414b-991c-418e...@t2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
TMS <nwoph...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yet that is exactly what it is.
The Ikon That Can Still Go
Do you even know what a metaphor is?
My point was to prove that you have no clue what change means - change
doesnt mean a switch to something that never was. Its a change from
something that currently is.
How is it not change by brining in individuals associated with the
last successful political regime in this country?
Why havent you killed yourself yet? Your only doing harm to future
generaions rasing a child an envornment filled with blind stupidity
and endless complaining.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Scott H
Where do you store so much bullshit?
Lazarusburningin Hell
Scott H <scotth...@gmail.com> wrote:
Please to be pointing out said "bullshit". It's pretty much a given
this is exactly what is going on.
wany...@gmail.com
But I thought he'd have marxists and communists in his cabinet?
Where are those extremely librul people that you were so askared off?
Seems like either way you'd be on here crying about Obama.
Clinton/Center types -> oh, thats not change.
Liberals/Democrat Activist types -> oh, he's a partisan hack that's
not interested in bipartisanship*.
*Bipartisanship is understood BTW. It does not mean not governing
from the right, or not governing from the left or holding such views.
It means not being an @ss, having a sense of perspective, being able
to view things from the other point of view even if you don't agree
with it, and having an independent brain with an ability to justify
why your position is better for *all*. That's what bipartisanship
is.
Lazarusburningin Hell
<9cb6eadd-c260-4baf...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
wany...@gmail.com wrote:
Bipartisanship also has another definition: silencing voices of the
non-represented.
Glen Heiman
"J. Hugh Sullivan" <Ea...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4924ca01...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
Mr. Obama: Rambo, Berger, & Stepanopolous are here for their meeting.
Heiman
>
> Hugh
the Bede
tofu...@gmail.com
Lazarusburningin Hell
"the Bede" <rspwsow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I can't believe eleven people Danced for this :(
It's only dancing if it's a troll. If the person really believes it
then it is pointing and laughing at the tard.
-duhdeedeederr
7C681B.004...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:
> In article <ns5Vk.67665$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> "the Bede" <rspwsow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't believe eleven people Danced for this :(
>
>
> It's only dancing if it's a troll. If the person really believes it
> then it is pointing and laughing at the tard.
>
But you're more retarded than the tard you laugh at.
Face it bitch boy, a very, very large amount of the people who voted for
Obama did so because they believed that his promise of "change" meant
something other than the same old faces. You know, like Madeline Albright
and Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Millions of people... scratch that,
millions of Obama supporters, thought that when Obama was talking about
change, he meant new blood and not the same politicos that America has
grown sick of. Period. That's a big reason why Obama beat Hillary to get
the nomination. Period. All the attempts by you, and every other leftwing
dumbshit in this thread, to make excuses, especially The Ikon That Can
Still Go's STUPID, stupid, stupid attempt to say that Obama really meant
changing into something old, are extremely sad and pathetic (not to mention
completely retarded).
Lazarusburningin Hell
"-duhdeedeederr" <duhhud...@youaarrree.ttteehssstupiodds> wrote:
> Lazarusburningin Hell <dsfh...@fghjjjjjjjjj.com> wrote in news:dsfhdshg-
> 7C681B.004...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:
>
> > In article <ns5Vk.67665$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> > "the Bede" <rspwsow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I can't believe eleven people Danced for this :(
> >
> >
> > It's only dancing if it's a troll. If the person really believes it
> > then it is pointing and laughing at the tard.
> >
>
> But you're more retarded than the tard you laugh at.
>
I agree. But not for this.
> Face it bitch boy, a very, very large amount of the people who voted for
> Obama did so because they believed that his promise of "change" meant
> something other than the same old faces. You know, like Madeline Albright
> and Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.
You use the familiar and experienced to get to where you want to go.
> Millions of people... scratch that,
> millions of Obama supporters, thought that when Obama was talking about
> change, he meant new blood and not the same politicos that America has
> grown sick of. Period.
Millions of McCain supporters thought the same thing and that's why
they voted for him. Also millions of McCain leaning voters thought the
same thing then picked Obama based on VP selections.
> That's a big reason why Obama beat Hillary to get
> the nomination. Period.
Actually it's because Hillary ran an awful campaign not even going
into every state and should have dropped our when the math was against
her. But YMMV.
> All the attempts by you, and every other leftwing
> dumbshit in this thread, to make excuses, especially The Ikon That Can
> Still Go's STUPID, stupid, stupid attempt to say that Obama really meant
> changing into something old, are extremely sad and pathetic (not to mention
> completely retarded).
Again, you use experience to undo damage. Behind the scenes you groom
others to replace them. There's been exactly one Democrat as President
in the last 25+ years. Only one. Some of the appointments made were o
make a more efficient transition to enact a plan within the 100 day
timetable -- something that killed Bill (Clinton) due to his awful
transitioning.
Take a close look at how he's positioning himself. He's getting
people in familiar roles who are know for being effective. He's tapped
Daschle to singularly write the healthcare proposal so that it will be
done sooner rather than later. He's building a team of expediency for
improving national and international standing. Look at the numbers. Our
government is seen as the worst in history right now. To quickly try to
undo that perception is in itself change.
Look, I've been saying all along that at worst Obama is nothing but
the usual politician. He's proving himself to be a very shrewd
politician right now. Do I agree with everything he's doing? Of course
not. But at the same time, freaking out because Rush and Hannity are
foaming at the mouth and right wing blogs are copy/pasting from each
other again about the current "is this change?" meme when HE ISN'T EVEN
PRESIDENT YET is just fucking lame and tarded.
gryph...@aol.com
wrote:
> In article <Xns9B5C15F3DEF9Arecsportprowrestl...@194.177.96.78>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "-duhdeedeederr" <duhhuddeed...@youaarrree.ttteehssstupiodds> wrote:
> > Lazarusburningin Hell <dsfhd...@fghjjjjjjjjj.com> wrote in news:dsfhdshg-
> > 7C681B.00492820112...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:
>
> > > In article <ns5Vk.67665$De7.46...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
The poit is that it is change from the useless and disgusting Bush-
Cheney regime, and any change from this is good. To bring back
qualified people from the Clinton regime can still work a real
change. It is too soon to see whether there will be enough change to
satisfy me.