Obama's change: Appoint more Washington insiders than Bush+Clinton COMBINED! (ethical, thought)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is "change" to bring in Washington insiders, lobbyists, and former Clinton staffers, including the corrupt Clinton adviser, who pushed Bill Clinton to pardon that crook, Mark Rich?
If that is the Obama change, the crap will remain the same. The only change will be the flies!
Why am I not surprised that "change" just means more of the same sh*t!
Is "change" to bring in Washington insiders, lobbyists, and former Clinton staffers, including the corrupt Clinton adviser, who pushed Bill Clinton to pardon that crook, Mark Rich?
If that is the Obama change, the crap will remain the same. The only change will be the flies!
Why am I not surprised that "change" just means more of the same sh*t!
I'm sure you're an expert on crap and flies... but not about the wonderful changes that Obama will bring us...
The first one that will hit us on Jan 20th is 'NO MORE BUSH'.
Now that is one heck of a great change to start with!!!
Is "change" to bring in Washington insiders, lobbyists, and former Clinton staffers, including the corrupt Clinton adviser, who pushed Bill Clinton to pardon that crook, Mark Rich?
If that is the Obama change, the crap will remain the same. The only change will be the flies!
Why am I not surprised that "change" just means more of the same sh*t!
Obviously you're a troll, you put out some preposterous, idiotic, erroneous,tidbit and then never show up to answer pertinent questions or address facts.
As to this new looney post...so what?
Who do you think he should choose? Somebody walking down the street who has never held a political office, who has never set foot in Washington?
OK, so tell me what that person could actually accomplish???
Is "change" to bring in Washington insiders, lobbyists, and former Clinton staffers, including the corrupt Clinton adviser, who pushed Bill Clinton to pardon that crook, Mark Rich?
If that is the Obama change, the crap will remain the same. The only change will be the flies!
Why am I not surprised that "change" just means more of the same sh*t!
I notice you guys cuss a lot. Why is that.
Also, there are two threads on this subject already.
Edit - I agree Who?Me?!, I think it's another troll post.
Is "change" to bring in Washington insiders, lobbyists, and former Clinton staffers, including the corrupt Clinton adviser, who pushed Bill Clinton to pardon that crook, Mark Rich?
If that is the Obama change, the crap will remain the same. The only change will be the flies!
Why am I not surprised that "change" just means more of the same sh*t!
It is the same as it has always been. People (sheep) that thought it would be different were clueless. I am not surprised but you get what you deserve and it appearers that America is happy with a corrupt government filled with lobbyist, political insiders, and career politicians. Our founding fathers could never imagined we would have come to this. This is the very reason they came to America to leave this kind of corruption and ill-functioning government on the other side of the ocean. We would probably need another war of independence to correct the mess we have made of their beginnings. Such a shame!
Is "change" to bring in Washington insiders, lobbyists, and former Clinton staffers, including the corrupt Clinton adviser, who pushed Bill Clinton to pardon that crook, Mark Rich?
If that is the Obama change, the crap will remain the same. The only change will be the flies!
Why am I not surprised that "change" just means more of the same sh*t!
Ahhhhh - another bitter sore loser!!!
I'll just sit her and savor the moment - ooooh - it feels goood......
Obviously you're a troll, you put out some preposterous, idiotic, erroneous,tidbit and then never show up to answer pertinent questions or address facts.
As to this new looney post...so what?
Who do you think he should choose? Somebody walking down the street who has never held a political office, who has never set foot in Washington?
OK, so tell me what that person could actually accomplish???
There are plenty of more qualified people to run our government than what Obama has chosen. There are plenty of people of integrity, ethical people he could have chose.
The problem which you all seem to miss is that those people with their ethics, their morals, their wisdom and intelligence would never choose to work with the scum in DC. They would not bring themselves to the level it requires to be a politician in DC. That is the point, our politicians do not deserve to so-call serve the people but nobody else will take the job.
This is what you get with a corrupt 2-party system and stupid sheep.
These people have experience Obama lacks, and I find it comforting that he recognizes this is no time to be pulling people into dealing with a crisis who have no national government experience. Would you rather have it Bush's way, selecting unqualified cronies from Texas and attorney generals who prefer to act in the President's personal interests rather than the country's?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
