Obama is the president elect Please use this thread to talk about and discuss it

zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2836679
Its getting to civil here:
Fellow Business Executives:
As the CFO of this business that employees 140 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama will be our next President, and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.
To compensate for these increases, I figure that the clients will have to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8% but since we cannot increase our fees right now due to the dismal state of our economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead.
This has really been eating at me for a while, as we believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who will have to go.
So, this is what I did.
I strolled thru our parking lot and found eight Obama bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.
I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem.
These folks wanted change; I gave it to them. If you have a better idea, let me know.
Sincerely,
Steve Mehyers

Dear, Mr Mehyers
I have decided to keep the 8 Obama supporters and hire four additional new employees. You may ask why I have reversed your previous decision. The answer to this question is - I have just outsourced the CFO position to India.
Regards,
Your former CEO Bill...
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Nice response, I might have to borrow your work in the other forums/blogs I have seen this (or direct you to them)! That was a delicious response to a stupid idea!
By the way....Since when are Americans quiters????
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2837089
Are you serious? Aren't you one of the people that want to QUIT in Iraq?
I don't want to needlessly stay there, no. If thats what you consider quiting, then I guess I would fit into that category. Now, if we start pulling out and all heck breaks loose, do I think we should go back in, yes. But, its funny, everyone attacked Obama for the 16 month thing, but then Bush signed an agreement with Iraq using about the same time frame.
By the way, we won already! Didn't you see Bush on an aircraft carrier with the giant "Mission Accomplished" sign??
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2837103
I don't want to needlessly stay there, no. If thats what you consider quiting, then I guess I would fit into that category. Now, if we start pulling out and all heck breaks loose, do I think we should go back in, yes. But, its funny, everyone attacked Obama for the 16 month thing, but then Bush signed an agreement with Iraq using about the same time frame.
By the way, we won already! Didn't you see Bush on an aircraft carrier with the giant "Mission Accomplished" sign??

You can't honestly think that Obama influenced the Bush timeframe? Seriously think about it. Bush since he started has said he exact same thing, we'll leave when we're done. While obama made his fame on a speech crying for a pullout 4 years ago. Now that the goal is very attainable, Bush has suddenly changed his position to fit what happens at the time to be Obama's plan, which changed at least 4 times while on the campaign trail. There is just no way you can intellectually arrive at this ideologue position.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2837118
You can't honestly think that Obama influenced the Bush timeframe?
Oh No! I don't think that is what happened at all! I was just pointing out the irony of attacking Obama for his timeline, when it turns out he was right!
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2837123
Oh No! I don't think that is what happened at all! I was just pointing out the irony of attacking Obama for his timeline, when it turns out he was right!
How was Obama right? He was calling for us to start pulling out troops before the surge even started. Had he gotten his way Al Qaeda would have complete control of Iraq by now.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2837252
How was Obama right? He was calling for us to start pulling out troops before the surge even started. Had he gotten his way Al Qaeda would have complete control of Iraq by now.
How did Al Qaeda get there???
He opposed going there in the first place as well. But I suppose we should just spend the next 100 years there, right?
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2837269
Careful; According to Senator Obama Al Qaeda is not in Iraq, remember?
Didn't know this, yet another thing I disagree with him on. But, then again what do I know.
How many Al Qaeda have you ran into?? J/K
By the way, I haven't debated with you in like a week. How's it goin?? And, I'm just curious, but what part of Iraq are you in?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2837123
Oh No! I don't think that is what happened at all! I was just pointing out the irony of attacking Obama for his timeline, when it turns out he was right!
You're bought to say something right if you change your position enough.
Watch this, Abortion is right, abortion is wrong, we need to limit abortion, we need to let woman have control of their bodies. We need to only allow abortions in certain situations.
Wham one of those has to be right.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2837427
You're bought to say something right if you change your position enough.
Watch this, Abortion is right, abortion is wrong, we need to limit abortion, we need to let woman have control of their bodies. We need to only allow abortions in certain situations.
Wham one of those has to be right.
Yeah, watch this - Keeping BIG Government out of your personal lives, freedom...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2837434
Yeah, watch this - Keeping BIG Government out of your personal lives, freedom...
and yet you voted for a democrat.
That is like this guy I know who really wanted to vote for obama but voted for Barr. 2 complete opposites.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2837461
and yet you voted for a democrat.
That is like this guy I know who really wanted to vote for obama but voted for Barr. 2 complete opposites.

I was just repeating the Republican line about Big Government and applying it to all things. Not being selective in what is considered Big Government and what is okay for Big Government to impose on personal freedoms... I am not the one conflicted...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2837477
I was just repeating the Republican line about Big Government and applying it to all things. Not being selective in what is considered Big Government and what is okay for Big Government to impose on personal freedoms... I am not the one conflicted...
No offense but this is another really poor argument.
There is nothing conflicting in arguing for limited government and the government protecting life. I think you misunderstand the conservatives position of government intervention. I content that the government not only does but is required constitutionally to have control in every day life.
The declaration of independence very clearly lays out 3 things that the government is required to uphold.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —"
So the government does have a direct roll in our lifes. To protect life, liberty and allow for our pursuit of happiness. The problem is when they step outside of those bounds.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2837553
No offense but this is another really poor argument.
There is nothing conflicting in arguing for limited government and the government protecting life. I think you misunderstand the conservatives position of government intervention. I content that the government not only does but is required constitutionally to have control in every day life.
The constitution very clearly lays out 3 things that the government is required to uphold.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —"
That's the Declaration of Independence not the constitution - come on.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2837271
Didn't know this, yet another thing I disagree with him on. But, then again what do I know.
How many Al Qaeda have you ran into?? J/K
By the way, I haven't debated with you in like a week. How's it goin?? And, I'm just curious, but what part of Iraq are you in?
Baghdad; in the International Zone.
You didn't know this... See, that is why I have such a difficult time with many of the Obama fans here. I know more about the candidate you supported than you do. That is not a good thing. When your candidate says, in the Democratic debate, that he reserved the right to send troops back to Iraq if Al Qaeda was ever forming a base here you really should know that.
You joke about us calling Obama's policies socialist; I ask you, do you really know what his positions are?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top