See: 1 year's worth of threads in which you've gone *poof* from. See: 1 year's worth of you getting owned in this forum.
The funny thing is obama is being given credit by wall street (yeah, they don't really have much cred, i know) for jumping on this economic crisis, putting his carefully selected team in place, and being proactive. wall street and the rest of the economy are looking for leadership and he's providing it, we will see if it works. and its a nice change from the rhetoric of ideology we've experienced the last eight years.
What, pray tell, has Obama done to "jump" on the crisis, other than name a treasury secvretary that's been deeply enmeshed in it's causes (read the NY fed's charter). Not saying the dude's a bad choice, but to date the actions been all bush/hank, nobama. And in foreign policy, his choices have been more cheney than change, of which basso approves.
Look back over a year's worth of posts here. While you were regurgitating right-wing nonsense, the rest of us were having real discussions. You ignored the last 100 times it was explained to you - there's no way I'm wasting my time on try #101. Educate yourself.
if you don't know we still have a president, obama can only choose his team, announce his policies, and paulson already deferred half of the Tarp money to obama's administration, although paulson maybe backing off that claim as of yesterday announcing to do something about gitmo is a huge start
Uhhh.. he named his economic team; launched a new economic recovery group; spoke on his economic plans multiple times; spoke about budget reform; etc. Did you pay attention to anything that actually happened the past 3 days?
you're right he hasn't done nothin, or iow, he's done something ooooohhhh, I just played the grammar card
Quite possibly the most idiotic, imbecilic, intentionally ignorant post ever. I'll type slowly... In this country, we have these things called elections, which are followed by transition periods, which lead to the inaugural. Until the last step happens, the person elected has absolutely no means to govern.
No it wasn't. If it was, you would have written something like... "We'll see what happens when he's in a position to implement his policies." Instead, you post...
wow, now that's some sour grapes, so you are complaining that he hasn't "changed" anything, and when you get called out on it, you post an article saying he "can't" do anything do you see the irony?
If he hasn't done anything because he can't how can you already start saying he hasn't changed anything. you can't have it both ways
