.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:1326962"][QUOTE="Burnsy:1326913"]Yes, he should have burned down Congress lol. Glad we figured it out. Cheers.[/QUOTE] Ha, fair enough. I'm not trying to be a smart ass (well any more than usual), I just honestly wonder what the suggested alternative approach for him was that would have been better. He only said change was hard and takes a long time in the '08 campaign more times than I can count. Clinton, for all the good I agree that he did, never leveled with us like than when he ran in '92. Change is good was all there was, with no effort to temper those expectations; Obama, who actually was pretty honest in speech after speech that change is frustrating and takes time, is rarely remembered for it, and everyone's like Randy Marsh in that episode of South Park after the '08 election. My point is that I can accept the argument of Obama should have done a and not b. But when there's never a plausible a suggested, that's where I don't understand the logic. Cheers.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][