| re: Obama's first 100 Days | |
|
Posted by: |
junior 05:15 am UTC 04/30/09 |
| In reply to: | re: Obama's first 100 Days - JimmyG 04:12 am UTC 04/30/09 |
> With the exception that Thatcher, Pinochet, and Chavez didn't blow up buildings in their own respective countries and state that they wished more buildings were blown up. There is a way to protest peacefully and not endanger the public who are innocently in the area. > Reagan was "palling around" with Thatcher who was "palling > around" with Pinochet, who killed thousands of people in > the political opposition in Chile but Reagan and Thatcher > are still heroes for conservatives... > > If you're going to be anti-dictatorship and > anti-terrorism, you should be it across the board - not > only when it doesn't occur on your end of the political > spectrum. > > And don't get so bloody upset about Obama smiling at > Chavez....if he invites him over for a tea party at the > White House (like Reagan did with Thatcher) then there > might be a reason for concern... > > /Jimmy G. > > > > > Leesa, > > > > And what's you're opinion of Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and > > Father Flager; if you know who they are... > > > > > Yeah, BUT we're still moving in a better more sensible > > > direction. No politician is ever completely clean--it's > > > the irony about being a good one. But be a smart, > > > open-minded, far-sighted person with at least a smattering > > > of integrity, a sense of priorities, the ability to play > > > well with others, (not seducing pages or hanging out in > > > airport bathrooms and having it all over the news), and a > > > ton of charisma to sell it, and things that need to get > > > done might actually happen. And hopefully we'll see a > > > decent economy similar to what we had 9 years ago before > > > Bush drove it off the rails. > > > Of course they all lie and orchestrate to a point--but it > > > was the blatent outrageousness of the former > > > administration that assumed we were all idiots and they > > > were above the law that was so galling and embarrassing > > > after a while. This disinfranchisement of so many people > > > was truly a sad day for the US. That is one aspect that > > > seems over for the time. > > > A 3rd party wouldn't be a bad idea, but don't expect > > > miracles from that either when it comes to > > > politics--they're all the same animal, like it or not. > > > Cheers! > > > Leesa J > > > > > > > Were that it were true, Leesa but all we have is a > > > > different idiots spewing different lies. I am hoping a > > > > Genuine new third party emerges from the catasrophe we > > > > have in Washington. I'd name it the Sentient party and > > > > would bar anyone with an IQ lower than their shoe size. > > > > Granted, it would be a small party...:>) > > > > > > > > > I think it's a collective shock from not hearing stupid > > > > > crap and lies come out of a president's mouth after 8 > > > > > years. The administration's not going to turn everything > > > > > around for some time, but at least we're not going down > > > > > the path McCain and Palin would have drove us under with. > > > > > It's nice not to have idiots and liars in charge for a > > > > > change. > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > Leesa J > > > > > > > > > > > Is it just me or does anyone else think that the news > > > > > > media (CNN, FoxNews etc etc) has a 'touch of the downs' by > > > > > > creaming their pants over Obama's first 100 days in > > > > > > office. Wolf Blitzer needs to get himself a couple of good > > > > > > porn movies (Jacqui Smith's husband could probably > > > > > > recommend a couple) instead of salivating on CNN. > > > > > > > > > > > > It takes longer than 100 days to brew some decent beer, > > > > > > fixing the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, healthcare, > > > > > > unemployment and all the other shit piled on top that will > > > > > > take a bit longer I'm sure. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Obama's first 100 Days - JimmyG 04:12 am UTC 04/30/09 |
| Next: | re: Obama's first 100 Days - junior 05:18 am UTC 04/30/09 |
| Thread: |
|