Agreed. It just goes to show how clueless Obama is. Just throwing stuff against a wall to see what sticks
Republican fanboys' continued attacks on the next president are just stupid and baseless in most cases. Face it, he'll be here for the next four years.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=150946&highlight=community+service as usual, a basso rethread topic get it retread edit: and just to clarify, this was back in July and it was mandatory for federal aid, so I don't what the site said this morning but this has been how its been presented for four months
it is the same as from July, even the four thousand dollar number, if they changed it it was because it was a mistake. its the same plan
They are different for every state. I'm working on my CPA in GA, but we don't have to do any community service.
Isn't the $4,000 just increasing the Hope Credit? I'm sure they changed the wording because people were getting upset, I am not contending what he originally meant. All these credits, yet no way to pay for them. Getting out of Iraq by 2011 can't pay for all of this. He has me lost.
Unreal. Does anyone here really think Obama would implement mandatory service requirements? Please. If you were concerned or confused about the wording on a website that has been up all of 48-72 hours, you could easily go to the campaign website to see if there's anything that would clarify the position. In fact, there is... http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/ There you would find a bunch of things that counter any concept of mandatory. For instance, here's an excerpt from a speech... But it's clear basso and BT aren't really concerned about Obama's policy and what's really sad is that if this is the best criticism they can manage, it's going to be a loooooooong 4 years. Buck up boys... I expect better.
The original text on the change.gov web site was pretty specific with respect to using the word "required", thus basso started the thread. Using the word "required" made it newsworthy because it is not what Obama has proposed in the past, in essence, it appeared to be a different direction. I suspect more threads will be started if an Obama "approved" web site makes statements that are not in line with what he has proposed in the past.
I'll be the bigger man and not respond with personal insults like you resorted to. Let's keep the D&D civil, brah
Of course if a republican/Bush website made this 'mistake' you know it would be met with an equal amount of non-skepticism around here.
i'm amused that you would take the simple posting of a poll, with thumbs up/down options, as being inherently critical of the dear leader elect's position, to the extent that we can divine it from his website. i'd hoped to provoke debate and discussion, not knee-jerk condemnation of the OP for having the temerity to raise the issue. fairness doctrine much?
