Please define the "change" you expected
Posted By: in terms of cabinet appointees...sm on 2008-11-19
In Reply to: I couldn't agree more... - Marmann
Did you expect complete newcomers to Washington to take top cabinet posts at a time when the country is imploding? Is change about the people who lead or the rules they play by? Doesn't NEW POLICY count for anything? In terms of the economy, do you want experiments or experience? Remember the economy under Clinton years as opposed to W? It is a cabinet, not a regime. Please read the OP about where Obama is supposed to look for appointees and then share your ideas with us, if you don't mind.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Can someone please define *liberal* for me, please?....(sm)
I have asked this question before and did not get any answers, thought I would try again. On another board I got slammed for saying Obama was a liberal. Okay, if he is not, why isn't he? I don't want a dictionary definition, I would like to know, you who post here, how do you define liberal? How do you define yourselves, your political leaning...I am NOT trying to pick a fight, and I will not comment on the answers. I would really, really like to know, and what better place to find out than the liberal board?
Define Liberal
American Heritage Dictionary:
lib·er·al (lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. #
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
5. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
6. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
7. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
8. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
Define Liberal
That's about it, actually. That would be me. I can echo liberal democrat's sentiments too other than the democrat part. In my opinion only, "Leftist" is a term applied to people who do not agree with all conservative views, and is applied by conservatives. I would consider some of my views conservative, such as my own views on illegal immigration and fiscal responsibility, yet I have been called a leftist. Go figure.... They seem to think it is an insult I suppose.
Define Democrat, please.
Many democrats absolutely despite Fox News and all of its programs. Slanted, biased, misleading and at times, bald-face liars. They NEVER reports on isues important to democrats. NEVER.
Define morals.......
Your definition might not match mine.......That's why God gave us free will.
So one more time...please define
Bush's policies for which he should not be blamed.
Apparently you do define yourself that way.
By your own description, sex is determined by gender. Therefore, by your definition, describing yourself as female describes your sex life. So quit talking about your sex life with us. We don't want to hear it, and, if your postings are any indication, it's either really really boring or, more likely, probably kinkier than I could stomach.
Define change, please. Both sides.
nm
Could you please define "rub burn" so that
we can get to the substance of your comment?
Could you please define "rub burn" so that
we can get to the insightful substance of your comment?
you wanna go there? Define protect
We arbitrarily attacked a country that had no solid links to the attack. That has been proven. To say it was not known then is not an arguable point because it was not known then, so again, we attacked a country without probable cause.
Since our current President has been in power, no attacks have occurred. The only attack on US soil since WW II (by a known attacker, the Japanese) has been under the power of George W. Bush, and according to you, he would be the least strongest president in the present day.
To 'protect' does not translate into an aggressive attack, especially if the attacker is not a known entity.
Same ole' "Change"
OBAMA'S 'CHANGE': BACK TO THE DEMOCRATIC Washington INSIDERS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on November 7, 2008
Printer-Friendly Version
What's with Obama's choice of old-time Clinton cronies and recycled Washington insiders to run the transition to his new politics of change?
Can't the anti-Washington insiders President-elect find anyone who isn't a Beltway has-been?
Judging by the appointments to his transition committee and leaks about possible top staff and Cabinet choices, Obama appears to be practicing the politics of status quo, not the politics of change.
Obama based his innovative campaign on an emphatic and convincing commitment to change the culture of Washington and bring in new people, new ideas, and new ways of doing business.
But now, Obama has definitely changed his tune. As president-elect, he's brought back the old Washington hacks, party regulars, and Clinton sycophants that he so frequently disparaged. Like Jimmy Carter, the last President who ran as an outsider, Obama has reached out to the same old folks who dominate the Democratic Party and represent the status quo.
His Transition Committee looks like a reunion of the Clinton Administration. No new ideas of how to reform the system there. The Chairman, John Podesta, was Clinton's Chief of Staff. He presided over the outrageous last minute pardons and his style is strictly inside-the-beltway and make-no-waves.
Then there's Carol Browner, Clinton's competent former EPA Administrator who became the consummate Washington insider. She's Madeline Albright's partner and recently married mega-lobbyist and former Congressman Tom Downey. During the uproar over Dubai taking over U.S. ports, Browner brought Downey to meet with Senator Chuck Schumer to plead Dubai's case. Downey was paid half a million dollars to push Dubai's position. He's also a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, paid half a million to try to cover their rears on the subprime mortgage mess. Is his change?
Federico Pena was Clinton's Secretary of Transportation and of Energy. The President felt he was unduly soft on Air Florida after their crash and lost confidence in him. Now he's back as a Transition Committee member.
Bill Daley, Clinton's former Secretary of Commerce and the brother of the Mayor of Chicago, is the epitome of the old Democratic establishment. Clinton appointed him to the Fannie Mae Board and his son worked as a lobbyist for the agency. Aren't these the kind of folks that Obama ran against?
Larry Summers, President of Harvard and former Clinton Secretary of the Treasury is not exactly an outsider either. He's also alienated more than a few with his bizarre suggestion that women may be genetically inferior to men in math and science.
Susan Rice, Assistant Secretary of State under Clinton advised John Kerry and Mike Dukakis. Does that tell you enough?
Obama has named one of his big bundlers - Michael Froman, an executive at Citigroup. Is this supposed to symbolize change?
Obama's choice of a spokesperson for the transition is also surprising; hers' is definitely not the face of reason and new politics. Stephanie Cutter is the brash and combative former Clinton, Kerry, and Ted Kennedy mouthpiece. The liberal DailyKos.com once described Cutter as "a moron to the nth degree" when she tried unsuccessfully to force the New York Times' Adam Nagourney to treat her unsolicited email criticizing Howard Dean as "background" without mentioning her name.
Speaking of brash, Rahm Emmanuel, the new White House Chief of Staff, makes Cutter look timid. Rahm is also a former Clinton White House staffer - and a very obnoxious one. He spent his White House years leaking to the Washington Post whenever he didn't like what the President was doing. Even Bill Clinton stopped trusting him. Any hopes of Obama keeping his commitment to reach across the aisle would go right out the window with Rahm's appointment. Instead of extending a hand to the opposition, it would be like raising just one finger. And Rahm's strident demeanor laced with the 'f' word in every sentence will do little to elevate the bipartisan dialogue in Washington.
Christopher Edley, another member of the transition team, is Dean of the Berkeley Law School. He's a former member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission under Clinton and his wife, Maria Echaveste was Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff.
Transition committee staffer Christine Varney was a Federal Trade Commissioner under Clinton and worked in the White House.
Throughout the early debates, Obama criticized Hillary as part of the inside-the beltway establishment that needed to go. But now he's reaching out to these exact same folks. Some change.
Interesting....and I suppose Obama will define
xx
Well, he's not the "change" as long as...
...Bush remains "The Decider." The question is, will Bush leave when it's time, or will he hijack the country, declare martial law and promote himself to "The Dictator," which he "joked" about on three different occasions. He also giggled about World War III, and he stated back in 1999 (TWO YEARS BEFORE 9/11) that if he ever had the chance to invade Iraq, he would.
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)
-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001
"Change" does not mean it is GOOD!. Gee, some
nm
Sounds like "change" we can believe in! NM
x
O is for what "change"? Change we cant trust, plus
nm
On the "change the world" theme...
the stuff just mounts up.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/15/top-us-communist-says-elect-obama-and-change-the-world/
He's keeping his campaign of "change" - that's for sure
Change? Yeah he keeps changing his mind. I've been saying it all along with others that there is no way he can do everything he wants to and spend, spend, spend without taxing us. This is coming right out of the democrats mouth, 250, 200, 150, and now 120. It keeps going lower and lower.
Sure he wants you to go out and vote early. He keeps pushing it as hard as he can because as each hour goes by we keep learning what more of a "sleeze-bag" he really is and the truth is coming out.
Why do people want someone with his character and already the blatant lies he puts out. Have people taken a break from reality? Do people want to live in socialism and fear?
You are definitely not offending us. These fears you express are so much like mine and many others while.
As far as I'm concerned he is NOT NOT NOT eligible to be president. He has not passed the #1 criteria. "American-born citizen". If he wins it will be a stolen election and illegal and lets just see how many people who believe in the constition will be happy about that.
So NOT proud of the country. O's "change" just
nm
"Change"..."Hope"... Obama does not even to
nm
"change", "hope" -just empty slogans
nm
Oh, come on. Give Americans "hope", "change" or
nm
"Change"..the fairy tale. I certainly dont believe
nm
Obama's "change" really means... change
nm
So much for "Change"! Obama sells appointments for $$
Yeah - I know "everyone does it", but this was all supposed to stop under Obama, remember? Lobbying and all of that? Corrupting the system for bucks?
Remember?
I do. I also predicted Obama would be as bad as any of the rest of them. Given his promises, though, he is much, much worse because he's a liar.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=adfv4RHV3Kmk
This is for a serious discussion... Do you think Obama will help the black community to "change&#
I am watching a story on Nightly News maybe that's what this is... It is about what he will do for the "black community" I guess they call it. They then pointed out the murder rate between in that community, that African-Americans make up 13% of the population but 40% of the incarcerated, etc. etc.
My discussion would be this, do you think it will be a main focus for him to guide or change those young men and women into better things and do you also think that him simply becoming president gives the ones on a bad road reason to make more of their life?
Nobody called SP a pig. Phrase means JM can call change "change,"
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. JM can call change "change," but he is still 4 more years of W. SP is the one who is running on the lipstick platform. That's why her supporters are trying to accuse O of calling her a pig.
Of course I expected you to.
You said you wouldn't be.
To whom much is given, much is expected.nm
x
To whom much is given, much is expected...
oh, that doesn't apply to you...forgot.
just as I expected
So I didn't bash the GOP quite enough? Oh, please. They (GOP) spent like crazed fools, and they deserved to be punished big-time! I've read enough of your posts in the past. You're one of the reasons I quit reading the politics section of this board. The only thing of interest to me is whatever occurs MQ-wise. As for the tax and spend reality, I repeat my "tax challenge" to everyone here to keep track as the days, months, and years play out.
The numbers aren't emotional, and will speak for themselves. If you can list any taxes that the Dems have lowered or eradicated, go ahead and give it your best shot.
You expected something other than that....(sm)
from Fox? This is a perfect example of the fear generating machine that is Fox News.
Wow, Democrat. I expected more from you. SM
 It gets personal because it's made personal. How you can't see that, I am not quite sure. As for your statement elsewhere that AG and I had left before, nope. Sorry, didn't happen. I didn't say I wasn't coming back either.  Anyways, how much more personal can you get than wishing someone to die, and I am not talking about the president. It happened but the posts are gone. We all responded to the person who told Nan she was old and going to die and burn in hell. So I guess that's not personal, huh? Tell me how many times you have seen one of us do that. As far as debate, we give as good as we get. I thought you knew that, but guess I was wrong yet again. Oh well, live and learn!
Gee, who could have expected that would happen. nm
x
I didn't know you expected me to. nm
//
Exactly the response I would have expected....
if you see no difference in the way conservative posters are treated vs the way Dem posters are treated...I would not expect you to understand. It is not condescending. It is the simple truth. Your party preaches inclusion, it preaches individual freedoms, it preaches freedom of speech...yet those who post here do everything in their power to quell it, including piling on and attacking everyone who disagrees. And the more you refuse to back down, the worse they get. So they talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. That is a double standard.
82.93% Nader..Not at all what I expected...nm
Your comments are expected, ...the next
poster was correct...useless to talk to any Obama supporter sometimes at all. Why should I type out ad nauseum all of Obama's statements, when you don't remember them at all, and them blame me for "obviously not remembering." cheap shot, yet again.
You should really listen to Rush sometime. You might learn something and expand your mind. But wait, liberals think with their hearts, not their minds.
Cancel that. Just carry on with your own, bigoted opinions.
Yep -Responses from the very ones I expected.
You all are SO predictable.
TTYL...I'm off to do something constructive for our country....
I think what they expected to happen happened....
South Viet Nam fell and there was a blood bath. Anyone who had in any way aided the Americans were imprisoned and/or killed. And huge amounts of loss of life in Cambodia...remember the Killing Fields? When the barrier of the US was removed...free rein. Just like if you remove the barrier of the US between the Sunnis and Shiites. It will get really, really ugly and I think many thousands will die before...if indeed ever...we could go back on humanitarian missions. That is my fear.
As to chaos...actually in South Viet Nam, the chaos came before we went in...the Dem administration, wanting to stop the "spread of communism" wanted to stop the North from trying to take over the SOuth...but did not like the South's leader at the time. Sooo the CIA helped with a coup to get rid of him. They did not expect the chaos that ensued. And so we went in. Sounds sooo much like what happened to get us in Iraq...except we had not been attacked on our own soil, we had not been attacked, period. They just wanted to stop the "spread of communism." And many many MANY lives later, cut and run, did not accomplish the objective and in fact made things worse. Sound familiar? Sigh. It can happen no matter what administration, no matter what party. I personally think JFK was a good president based on history...but Viet Nam was a BAD mistake. Every bit as bad in that time as Iraq has turned out to be in this one. But do I blame JFK personally for Viet Nam. No.
I expected that so where do you all get your info...please share so ...sm
we can all be on the same page here. I love how people criticize but back it up with nothing. And again I repeat...this is just ONE of the places I go to the ONLY place I go to.
So where do you go to get your info? DO TELL...
64% with McCain- pretty much what I expected.
*
So you just expected to accuse Holder of
with absolutely no back-talk allowed? I think I got it now, though I am still a bit confused as to how this means that I was the one who was not allowing you to express your opinion.
You expected him to withdraw all troops on Day 1 ? nm
bn
We had 4,000 in Grand Rapids, MI. A LOT more than we expected. nm
nm
Wall street bonuses expected
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/wall-street-bonuses-expects-come-season-despite-bailout/
Paying bonuses this year is likely to result in a lot of backlash from the average American. After all, even with bonuses down dramatically, they are still higher than the average American, who is losing his or her home, makes. Not to mention the government bailout of financial firms, which seems to change daily, is coming from taxpayer dollars. Concerns abound—rightly or wrongly--that some of the $700 billion bailout could go to pay bonuses this year.
Yes, I bet over 3000 people never expected a plane to fly into their workplace either. sm
It must be nice to live in a world of denial. I know, if we leave the big bad terrorists alone and quit making them mad, they will just go away and we can continue to ignore the world problems. Wow.
This was expected right after the convention, will change shortly I'll bet. nm
.
LOL!!! I saw the clip regarding their kids being expected to make their own beds
and Barbara's incredulous reaction. That was all I could stomach.
Obama expected to announce foreclosure plan
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.foreclosures/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
|
