Your right, there will be many liberals who are going to be disappointed as well. But unlike conservatives, they won't have seen it forthcoming.Originally Posted by Codename V
Like that fat black woman who things she won't have to pay her mortgage anymore.
Boy is reality going to hit her like a ton of bricks tomorrow morning, or what?
You know, I bet he would if you asked him.
He doesn't have many others to pick.
Lyndon B. Johnson- the man who wiretapped MLK
Jimmy Carter- LMFAO
Bill Clinton- major integrity flaws
Whats your point you racist fuck? lol.. Again you can throw out random shit and believe you just said something online, but you can't legitimately defend what you say by pointing to someone irrelevant.
She'll get a rude a awakening, black people won't. And furthermore you dont pay your bills or mortgage, so the subject is above your status as a supposed adult.
^
Stalked by a Mod who gives 1 percent credence.
WTF? Thats your answer? You're an embarrassment to the party you claim. Just having an opinion Willy is one thing. Having no legit defense of it is where you ned to rethink a lot of this dumb shit you say.
^
Stalked by a Mod who gives 1 percent credence.
Textbook? That's an odd choice of words. It's more correct to say that Reagan rewrote the textbook. In the case of pre-Reagan modern conservatism, there really WAS a textbook -- Barry Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative". Some aspects to the Reagan era were textbook Goldwater, but much was new to Reagan. Reagan talked "limited government" talk better than anyone. But, one big Reagan legacy was big government, deficit spending, trade imbalances, hoping future generations () were trickled down enough to work it out.
I don't buy that, on some fronts.
One big difference has been that Obama's gotten a LOT of folks who know the wheels of federal government in. Apart from foreign affairs, the Clinton, Reagan, Dubya, and Carter first draft cabinets were littered with players from assorted state political machines that weren't cut out for prime time. It really IS change to see a lot of cabinet appointees, especially domestic ones, with serious experience in federal government.
Of course, it's not necessarily clear that big experience in federal government is a GOOD thing. Consider the flameouts of Dubya's experienced cabinet, that Obama's biggest cabinet misstep thus far had tons of federal experience. But this notion of having Washington insiders involved is different than what we have seen historically, a function of having a president who spent some time in Washington beforehand.
We'll see how this all works out.
Agreed. The change isn't about WHO constitutes the cabinet, the change is HOW they do business. The experience is about hitting the ground running, with very little catch-up time as domestic issues grow worse.
W.'s cabinet was built for war and little else, based around the Wolfowitz Doctrine. On the flip side, Obama's cabinet is built for domestic affairs.Of course, it's not necessarily clear that big experience in federal government is a GOOD thing. Consider the flameouts of Dubya's experienced cabinet, that Obama's biggest cabinet misstep thus far had tons of federal experience
Obama's ratings did well, but fell short of #1.
http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/01/barac...n-ratings.html
You know I had to get that one in, guys.Nielsen Media Research says 37.8 million TV viewers watched Tuesday's coverage -- the largest inaugural audience in decades.
Obama's viewership is bigger than any presidential inauguration in 28 years. It's 27% higher than Bill Clinton's in 1993 and 30% larger than George Bush's in 2001. Ronald Reagan's first inauguration in 1981 drew a larger tally, however, with 41.8 million.
Thats surprising to me.
Players meeting my ASS!
Posting Permissions
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
View Blog Entries
View Articles
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks