Seriously dude, you are so gun-ho to jump to Obama's defense that you fail to see to forest for the trees. Every single anti-Obama post finds you to be the very first to reply with some type of comeback. Stop and think for a sec before posting.
You failed to see the ironic point the OP was trying to make. It is, and correct me if I'm wrong William, that people should not blindly welcome "change" for the sake of "change" without questioning how that "change" is going to come about and at what price. The "connection" between the article and Obama is just that some new relatively new Johnny-come-lately charismatic speaker is preaching "change" and the masses are eating it up BECAUSE change right now is not a bad thing yet they are not truly asking anything further. Kinda like the old saying, "hook, line, and sinker..." The masses are following him, due to his charisma/skin color/preaching of change/promise of free healthcare/promise of lower taxes/etc, without ever taking the time to think about just how all those "changes" (which if you really look are no different than what old school dems on Capitol Hill have been TRYING to implement for years but since they've only had control of Washington for only 2 yrs they've been unsuccesful) are going to happen.
No infamous world leader ever took the podium and in their opening sentence SAID they wanted to kill people and take over the world. Doesn't mean they didn't TRY/ACHIEVE that LATER......
You can't win wars without first winning smaller battles. So just like the article said, leaders implement things that initially SEEM small and insignificant only to later turn it up to full tilt.
You totally failed to see the forest for the trees.
Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900
Seriously dude, you are so gun-ho to jump to Obama's defense that you fail to see to forest for the trees. Every single anti-Obama post finds you to be the very first to reply with some type of comeback. Stop and think for a sec before posting.
Reply With Quote