Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: This has been baffling me for months!

  1. #1

    Default This has been baffling me for months!

    Can someone please tell me what Obama meant when he was talking about change? I mean, sure, he was going to change things, but what things? and how? I appreciate anyone who helps answer me.

  2. #2


    Go on his website. He has details there. I am sure he wants to change a lot of things. He is not the first president to promise change nor will he be the last either. And he has changed some things but they were not the biggest things. I mean I could make you a list of all the things he promised to change but is that the answer you are really looking for or are you looking for me to tell you that "he sucks and he didn't change anything!" Because I am not all up for the ladder.

    One thing he changed was giving the money that Bush promised the Autism program in this country. Back when the 'No child left behind' campain was going around Bush promised a substantial amount of money to go into the school systems for Autistic children. I believe got less than 10% of what they were promised. Now Obama is giving them all of the money they were promised and more if I recall correctly.

    I am really not up for stating everything Obama has done and all he wants to do. Use google for that.


  3. #3


    Quote Originally Posted by Ellipsis View Post
    Can someone please tell me what Obama meant when he was talking about change? I mean, sure, he was going to change things, but what things? and how? I appreciate anyone who helps answer me.
    He may have lacked specificity early on, but I'm pretty sure he's making good on the promise for change. To help your googling, try searching for information on the relationships between the United States and Cuba, or Venezuala, or really US international relations in general.

  4. #4

  5. #5


    Patience young grasshopper, change takes time, and it's only been 3 months.


  6. #6


    Quote Originally Posted by Ellipsis View Post
    Can someone please tell me what Obama meant when he was talking about change? I mean, sure, he was going to change things, but what things? and how? I appreciate anyone who helps answer me.
    Wait... you thought he was telling the truth just as how McCain, Clinton or Palin, Or Huckabee, or Romney were?

    They were all either telling lies about what they think you want to hear or they promised stuff they could not deliver on. Don't act all shocked either, this type of BS has been going on even before you or I were born.

    Also as for it only being 3 months, umm he signed bill that has TONS of earmarks in it something he said he would get rid of. He also did it off camera too behind closed doors. He says their are good earmarks and bad ones... However what makes them good or bad? As I see it a earmark is a earmark.

    In anycase I am glad my vote never went to him and this is exactly the reason why it didn't.

  7. #7


    I really can't see who I'd vote for if I lived in America... I'd probably just vote for novelty because presidents are all pretty much the same. I guess you just want one that suits your ideals and interests best. But you can never really expect much of them...

  8. #8


    Oh things are changing alright, but did anyone say what kind? the good or the bad? Its great that he's giving money up to Autism programs really, but it still isn't money we technically have. I really doubt I'll even get 1% back on the social security I pay by the time I retire. Still tons of earmarks on older bills citing that it was "last years business". Also everything Bush did Obama spent a month going over all the laws that had been passed and Obama's staff looked around trying to indite people from the Bush administration. Also the media said nothing about the ~750,000 people that went to the various "tea parties" around the country, many of them hard working Americans. I want America to still be the great country it is for when I have kids and then grandkids. Personally I think we should focus on everything that we let get out of hand and not try so hard to please foreign countries. Bush could have done worse but he didn't do us any favors, and Obama is starting to piss of England now. I don't have high hopes for our future government doesn't even matter who it is, heck you could have thrown a dart at the ballot and it'd prolly end the same in 4 years.

  9. #9

    Default Baby Kitty has been baffling me for minutes

    When I read posts about what the Obamah administration has been doing wrong and will cost the younger generation their entitlements, such as Social Security, one should consider that Social Security could have been funded and solvent for at least 50 more years (2059) if the bush administration had not gotten us into this war with Iraq (over foreign oil).

    Read this and understand:

    The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More
    (from the Washington Post)

    There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.
    Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.
    The end result of all this wishful thinking? As we approach the fifth anniversary of the invasion, Iraq is not only the second longest war in U.S. history (after Vietnam), it is also the second most costly -- surpassed only by World War II.
    Why doesn't the public understand the staggering scale of our expenditures? In part because the administration talks only about the upfront costs, which are mostly handled by emergency appropriations. (Iraq funding is apparently still an emergency five years after the war began.) These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month -- $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.

    And Ellipsis:
    I wish when you start a thread that you would post something, anything of substance. I never see anything in your posts of any thought or substance. This has been baffling me for months!


    Can someone please tell me what Obama meant when he was talking about change? I mean, sure, he was going to change things, but what things? and how? I appreciate anyone who helps answer me.

    Thank you, gentlemen.

    There you go! There's your 38 word contribution to this thread! A stellar achievement for an OP.
    Last edited by Diapered Rabbit; 20-Apr-2009 at 10:13. Reason: corrections, punctuation, additions

  10. #10


    And if you notice, Obama doesn't intend to pull out of Iraq until 2012, and there is no timetable for withdraw from Afghanistan.

    As to the cost of war, 3 trillion certainly seems like a lot of money (and it is), but when you spread that money out over 30-50 years (veteran's care and the like), it doesn't seem like all that much, especially in light of the 2 trillion dollars in bailouts and the 750 Billion stimulus package.

    Certainly, three trillion is a lot of money. But it isn't the elephant in the room. War costs spread over time are very manageable. Especially a subjectively small figure like this (FedGov budget is about 3 trillion/year). And a good portion of these costs are for veteran's health coverage, which would have to be paid anyway even if we were not at war. In fact, just recently Obama announced a plan to have private health insurance pay for veteran's war injuries. To my knowledge, I believe he is still pursuing this plan to shed the VA of health care costs for those injured in war.

    On another note, the Obama administration certainly does not intend to change the unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping directives, or the idea of a single, unitary executive. Just because Bush was wrong doesn't make Obama any less wrong.

Similar Threads

  1. Coming out to wife after 8 months of marriage.
    By discodiaper in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 21-Mar-2009, 22:20

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  • - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community. is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.