WWTBAM Bored

"I thought that Dick Cheney's advice was good," Barack Obama, This Week w/George Stephanopoulos, 1/11/08.

Thousandaire wrote:"I thought that Dick Cheney's advice was good," Barack Obama, This Week w/George Stephanopoulos, 1/11/08.

Hey, it did wonders for Plaxico Burriss.....

lb13

I don't know what you meant by that post, but here is the transcript of the question put to Obama by Stephanopoulos.......

This Week with George Stephanopoulos transcript 1/11/09

Stephanopoulos: Vice President Cheney has been giving a series of exit interviews and he told Mark Nolan of CBS that the Bush Counter-terrorism policies have definitely made the United States safer. And he added this piece of advice for you....

(Begin Audio Clip)

Cheney: Before you start to implement your campaign rhetoric you need to sit down and find out precisely what it is we did and how we did it. Because it is going to be vital to keeping the nation safe and secure in the years ahead and it would be a tragedy if they threw over those policies simply because they've campaigned against them.

(End of Audio Clip)

Stephanopoulos: Are you going to take it?

Obama: I think that was pretty good advice, which is I should know what's going on before we make judgments and that we shouldn't be making judgments on the basis of incomplete information or campaign rhetoric. So, I've got no quibble with that particular quote. I think if Vice President Cheney were here he and I would have some significant disagreements on some things that we know happened.

My point is, nothing is going to change under Obama. What's the last thing Bush did? Spend $700 billion to save the economy. What's the first thing Obama is going to do? Spend $1 trillion to save the economy. Obama wants to double the number of troops in Afghanistan, trading one stupid war for another.

Thousandaire wrote:My point is, nothing is going to change under Obama. What's the last thing Bush did? Spend $700 billion to save the economy. What's the first thing Obama is going to do? Spend $1 trillion to save the economy. Obama wants to double the number of troops in Afghanistan, trading one stupid war for another.

citing a meaningless example is a good way to prove your point

It's not a meaningless example.

Thousandaire is exactly right.

The office decor changes...the policies do not...not in any meaningful way.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly naive.

Thousandaire wrote:"I thought that Dick Cheney's advice was good," Barack Obama, This Week w/George Stephanopoulos, 1/11/08.

A more complete version of the quote speaks volumes.

Barack Obama wrote:I think that was pretty good advice, which is I should know what's going on before we make judgments and that we shouldn't be making judgments on the basis of incomplete information or campaign rhetoric. So I've got no quibble with that particular quote.

What are the chances Obama thinks the Bush Administration actually followed this particular piece of advice? --Bob

We hear what we want to hear, see what we want to see and conclude whatever fits out already there perception.

Thousandaire wrote:"I thought that Dick Cheney's advice was good," Barack Obama, This Week w/George Stephanopoulos, 1/11/08.

Doesn't putting something in quotes indicate that the person actually said that?

In looking at the actual quote that others provided, it sounds like he was taking the piss more than anything else. Which makes me like him more.

WheresFanny wrote:

Thousandaire wrote:"I thought that Dick Cheney's advice was good," Barack Obama, This Week w/George Stephanopoulos, 1/11/08.

Doesn't putting something in quotes indicate that the person actually said that?

In looking at the actual quote that others provided, it sounds like he was taking the piss more than anything else. Which makes me like him more.

LOL - proving my point.

peacock2121 wrote:

WheresFanny wrote:

Thousandaire wrote:"I thought that Dick Cheney's advice was good," Barack Obama, This Week w/George Stephanopoulos, 1/11/08.

Doesn't putting something in quotes indicate that the person actually said that?

In looking at the actual quote that others provided, it sounds like he was taking the piss more than anything else. Which makes me like him more.

LOL - proving my point.

On the contrary, I've never had the feeling that Obama had any smartassitude in him at all (although I don't pay a whole lot of attention to anything that any politician says or does, so he could be sassing it up all over the place and I wouldn't know about it).

So this changes my perception (for the better) rather than reinforcing one I already had.

WheresFanny wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:

WheresFanny wrote: Doesn't putting something in quotes indicate that the person actually said that?

In looking at the actual quote that others provided, it sounds like he was taking the piss more than anything else. Which makes me like him more.

LOL - proving my point.

On the contrary, I've never had the feeling that Obama had any smartassitude in him at all (although I don't pay a whole lot of attention to anything that any politician says or does, so he could be sassing it up all over the place and I wouldn't know about it).

So this changes my perception (for the better) rather than reinforcing one I already had.

You proved my point to me - I saw what I always see in you by your answer.

I liked it and like that part of you.

peacock2121 wrote:

WheresFanny wrote:

peacock2121 wrote: LOL - proving my point.

On the contrary, I've never had the feeling that Obama had any smartassitude in him at all (although I don't pay a whole lot of attention to anything that any politician says or does, so he could be sassing it up all over the place and I wouldn't know about it).

So this changes my perception (for the better) rather than reinforcing one I already had.

You proved my point to me - I saw what I always see in you by your answer.

I liked it and like that part of you.

That I'm always looking for the smartass in things or that I feel the need to challenge what somebody's saying when they're doing it just to be a buttwipe?

Either way, ha!

WheresFanny wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:

WheresFanny wrote: On the contrary, I've never had the feeling that Obama had any smartassitude in him at all (although I don't pay a whole lot of attention to anything that any politician says or does, so he could be sassing it up all over the place and I wouldn't know about it).

So this changes my perception (for the better) rather than reinforcing one I already had.

You proved my point to me - I saw what I always see in you by your answer.

I liked it and like that part of you.

That I'm always looking for the smartass in things or that I feel the need to challenge what somebody's saying when they're doing it just to be a buttwipe?

Either way, ha!

Huh, huh, huh! Huh, huh, huh! Huh, huh, huh!

Fanny said buttwipe!

Huh, huh, huh! Huh, huh, huh! Huh, huh, huh!

Jeemie wrote:It's not a meaningless example.

Thousandaire is exactly right.

The office decor changes...the policies do not...not in any meaningful way.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly naive.

i think otherwise, and i am not hopelessly naive.

Used to be, wealthy landowners, including President Jefferson, also owned slaves. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, some women had to put up with sexual innuendo and sometimes, behavior that was next door to rape to keep a job. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, folkses in wheelchairs were barred from some jobs and access to some public facilities. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, companies could dump lead into the air from gasoline anti-knock compounds, hydrogen sulfide into the air from factory waste, and untreated chemical waste into streams and back yards. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

I could go on.

SportsFan68 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:It's not a meaningless example.

Thousandaire is exactly right.

The office decor changes...the policies do not...not in any meaningful way.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly naive.

i think otherwise, and i am not hopelessly naive.

Used to be, wealthy landowners, including President Jefferson, also owned slaves. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, some women had to put up with sexual innuendo and sometimes, behavior that was next door to rape to keep a job. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, folkses in wheelchairs were barred from some jobs and access to some public facilities. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, companies could dump lead into the air from gasoline anti-knock compounds, hydrogen sulfide into the air from factory waste, and untreated chemical waste into streams and back yards. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

I could go on.

i dont know how you can argue against a misquote taken out of context about a theory describing the future.

SportsFan68 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:It's not a meaningless example.

Thousandaire is exactly right.

The office decor changes...the policies do not...not in any meaningful way.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly naive.

i think otherwise, and i am not hopelessly naive.

Used to be, wealthy landowners, including President Jefferson, also owned slaves. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, some women had to put up with sexual innuendo and sometimes, behavior that was next door to rape to keep a job. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, folkses in wheelchairs were barred from some jobs and access to some public facilities. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, companies could dump lead into the air from gasoline anti-knock compounds, hydrogen sulfide into the air from factory waste, and untreated chemical waste into streams and back yards. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

I could go on.

Some things do change. What is required is a leader who is committed to change and not merely to rhetoric. FDR and Reagan were the two most influential politicians of the 20th century because they backed up what they promised to do. LBJ did that as well until he was derailed by Vietnam.

So far, Barack Obama has shown a gift for lofty rhetoric followed by wheel spinning and backtracking. It can fairly be said that no matter what his rhetoric may be, he will have no actual power to do anything until next week, so to a certain extent you might excuse some of the things he has said as exercises in diplomacy.

However, I don't think we'll see any changes next week from the Barack Obama who has exhibited a remarkably consistent pattern of behavior his entire career. The only question is how long he will continue to get away with it until his currently-kool-aid-drinking supporters and the press (many of whom also can be classified in the former category) call him out on it.

SportsFan68 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:It's not a meaningless example.

Thousandaire is exactly right.

The office decor changes...the policies do not...not in any meaningful way.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly naive.

i think otherwise, and i am not hopelessly naive.

Used to be, wealthy landowners, including President Jefferson, also owned slaves. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, some women had to put up with sexual innuendo and sometimes, behavior that was next door to rape to keep a job. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, folkses in wheelchairs were barred from some jobs and access to some public facilities. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, companies could dump lead into the air from gasoline anti-knock compounds, hydrogen sulfide into the air from factory waste, and untreated chemical waste into streams and back yards. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

I could go on.

That's all fine and dandy but Obama isn't going to change what's working. Current policy is what has kept us safe for the past 7 years and Obama isn't going to jeopardize our saftey for a bunch of left wing nuts. If he thinks for one little second that he can give in to the left and still keep us safe then he better not count on a second term.

toque:

That's all fine and dandy but Obama isn't going to change what's working. Current policy is what has kept us safe for the past 7 years and Obama isn't going to jeopardize our saftey for a bunch of left wing nuts.

Who gets credit for the 7 and a half years of safety before 9/11?

ne1410s wrote:toque:

That's all fine and dandy but Obama isn't going to change what's working. Current policy is what has kept us safe for the past 7 years and Obama isn't going to jeopardize our saftey for a bunch of left wing nuts.

Who gets credit for the 7 and a half years of safety before 9/11?

Certainly not the people who you think are responsible.

toque:

Certainly not the people who you think are responsible.

That is so cool. What am I thinking right now? How 'bout now? Now?

ne1410s wrote:toque:

Certainly not the people who you think are responsible.

That is so cool. What am I thinking right now? How 'bout now? Now?

Gee, just when I thought you couldn't be a bigger jerk.

SportsFan68 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:It's not a meaningless example.

Thousandaire is exactly right.

The office decor changes...the policies do not...not in any meaningful way.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly naive.

i think otherwise, and i am not hopelessly naive.

Used to be, wealthy landowners, including President Jefferson, also owned slaves. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, some women had to put up with sexual innuendo and sometimes, behavior that was next door to rape to keep a job. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, folkses in wheelchairs were barred from some jobs and access to some public facilities. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

Used to be, companies could dump lead into the air from gasoline anti-knock compounds, hydrogen sulfide into the air from factory waste, and untreated chemical waste into streams and back yards. The policies changed in a highly meaningful way.

I could go on.

That was then...this is now. I am speaking of the short-term era we are now in.

For the past 25-30 years, government has been about one thing and one thing only...making sure the "good times roll" and making sure those that make money...make more money.

And the people that should care about this don't.

Obama will be no different in this regard- no matter how much you want him to be.

You are hopelessly naive. You can't even articulate what "change we need" he's going to bring.

PS I forgot to add- those changes you talked about?

They didn't come from the government on down....or because we elected "the right person".

Jeemie wrote: You are hopelessly naive. You can't even articulate what "change we need" he's going to bring.

Obama's great gift is the ability through well spoken vague phraseology to convince a lot of people who have a lot of different priorities that the "change" he's going to bring is exactly what they feel is most important.

I'm no Karnak, so I'll just wait until things actually happen, or don't happen, before I pass judgment...