• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Why is change bad?

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Really, why is changing your mind and adapting to a fluid situation bad?


If you see that the markets in ag have changed and emus are not the hot ticket they once were....do you still stock your place to the hilt with emus?

It makes NO SENSE not to change your mind. I see it as an ability to think and adapt, an admirable trait.


Staying in a rut and refusing to change on any issue is to me ignorance and stupidity of the issue at hand.


When you start out wrong....you need to make corrections. Like so many of you lawd the ' surge' in Iraq.

Oh boy, what a great thing that was. :!: :!: :!: Yeah, man...

That in itself was a ' change' in the original WRONG and FAULTED plan that didn't put enough troops in there to start with. Do any of you scream " flip flopper" on that deal???.....NO


My Uncle would NEVER admit he was wrong....NEVER, no matter what.

One time the clock was wrong in his truck and I made the comment that he needed to re-set it. He calmly took a drag off his cig and told me , " Don't you fret, it'll change".


YEAH...but it will still be WRONG!! :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Texan said:
Did you forget to take your happy pill this morning, Sugar? :lol:



No, I took it!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

But I was just pondering several threads and these thoughts came to mind.

What's the matter....can't answer my question?
 

fff

Well-known member
Some change is good; some is not. I, too, am happy to think we may get a president who can learn, understand and possibly change his mind. The "time horizon" thing with Iraq is laughable. In fact, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki just told a German magazine he supported Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.


http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSL198009020080719
 

Texan

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Texan said:
Did you forget to take your happy pill this morning, Sugar? :lol:



No, I took it!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Lucky for us. :lol:


I would agree with you that a willingness and ability to change a position or a strategy can be an essential thing. Does that satisfy you? :wink:

On the other hand, "change" as a feel-good slogan - implying that everything needs changing - is just BS.

Keep in mind that all of the recent Presidential candidates running against the party in control of the White House have used the "change" platform. Clinton used it to win against the first President Bush and George W. Bush also ran on the "change" platform.

It's just a word that ends up meaning nothing. But...if it makes you libs FEEL better about yourselves... :lol:
 

fff

Well-known member
Texan said:
Keep in mind that all of the recent Presidential candidates running against the party in control of the White House have used the "change" platform. Clinton used it to win against the first President Bush and George W. Bush also ran on the "change" platform.

It's just a word that ends up meaning nothing. But...if it makes you libs FEEL better about yourselves... :lol:

Clinton and George W. did change things. Clinton for the better and George for much, much worse.

We know John McCain won't change much from Bush's policies, thus the McSame tag. At the rate Bush has drug this country down in his seven years, why in the world would anyone with good sense vote for four more years of the same policies? It boggles the mind.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Maybe I should have used " adaptation".....does that make you guys feel better.


Now I could come back like Larrrryyyyy& crew with a snappy , " You all sound just like Republican, Imperalist, neo-cons"...but I won't .

I really wanted to understand why so many think that the ability to adapt is so bad.


Sandy can't even open his mind up enough to answer.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Maybe I should have used " adaptation".....does that make you guys feel better.


Now I could come back like Larrrryyyyy& crew with a snappy , " You all sound just like Republican, Imperalist, neo-cons"...but I won't .

I really wanted to understand why so many think that the ability to adapt is so bad.


Sandy can't even open his mind up enough to answer.

Certainly one should be flexible and prepared to alter course with new and better information and what not. One has to do that to be successful. However, one must also have expectations based on fact that the different route that you're condidering taking will be a BETTER road.

When Obama supporters latch onto the the buzzword "change", but then can't answer the simple questions "what" and "how", where is the arguement that the change will be better? "Can't be any worse" is an answer that just exposes ignorance and lack of thought.

The next question if you believe that the new route is better is; Can we head down that road, do we have the leadership and ability? Obama is a Freshman in Washington and he didn't do anything at the state level other than set a record for "present" votes. He's shown a history of extremely poor judgement on who he follows and associates with and has proven that he's just a typical politician.

You libs need to take off your rose colored glasses and take a look at this guy under the light. He's got nothing.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
He's got nothing.

According to some polls, he's got the lead in enough states to win the election if it were held today. That's something. People have donated millions of their own, hard earned dollars, to his campaign. That's something. People are volunteering to work for his campaign in record numbers. That's something. Obama has been against the Iraqi war from the beginning and encouraged more troops in Afghanistan. Bush and McCain are both coming around to that position. That's something. :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
Maybe I should have used " adaptation".....does that make you guys feel better.


Now I could come back like Larrrryyyyy& crew with a snappy , " You all sound just like Republican, Imperalist, neo-cons"...but I won't .

I really wanted to understand why so many think that the ability to adapt is so bad.


Sandy can't even open his mind up enough to answer.

Yep Kola-- words are important to neocons-gives them wiggle and lying room----- like King George who has opposed a "timetable" for goals or withdrawl- even vetoing it--but now has proposed a "time horizon" for goals and withdrawl :roll: ---and in his bullheaded illiterate Texas mind is trying to say the two aren't the same...... :wink: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
He's got nothing.

According to some polls, he's got the lead in enough states to win the election if it were held today. That's something. People have donated millions of their own, hard earned dollars, to his campaign. That's something. People are volunteering to work for his campaign in record numbers. That's something. Obama has been against the Iraqi war from the beginning and encouraged more troops in Afghanistan. Bush and McCain are both coming around to that position. That's something. :D

I'll say it again, libs need to take off those glasses and put this guy under the light. Jimmy Carter got donations and support, too. Wasn't that something? Wasn't that a nice change?

I've asked YOU several times what is it that this guy is going to change and how is he going to do it. I'm still waiting for that answer.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
He's got nothing.

According to some polls, he's got the lead in enough states to win the election if it were held today. That's something. People have donated millions of their own, hard earned dollars, to his campaign. That's something. People are volunteering to work for his campaign in record numbers. That's something. Obama has been against the Iraqi war from the beginning and encouraged more troops in Afghanistan. Bush and McCain are both coming around to that position. That's something. :D

I'll say it again, libs need to take off those glasses and put this guy under the light. Jimmy Carter got donations and support, too. Wasn't that something? Wasn't that a nice change?

I've asked YOU several times what is it that this guy is going to change and how is he going to do it. I'm still waiting for that answer.

He's going to CHANGE which party hold the White House and that's for the better. He's going to CHANGE our occupation of Iraq and that's for the better.

I don't believe that any candidate has ever brought in the money from more individual donors than Obama. I don't remember Carter's campaign very well, but don't think he had the volunteers that have turned out for Obama. After Nixon, I think the country was tired of Republicans. In fact, I may have voted for Ford. I really can't remember, but I did think he had done a good job, considering what a mess Nixon had left him.

Jimmy Carter is responisble for one of the few successful Middle Eastern peace agreements, between Egypt and Israel. No president since then, even Saint Ronnie, has been able to do that. If Reagan had stayed with Carter's alterntive energy plans we'd be importaing a lot less oil from the Middle East than we are today.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
He's going to change the party in the white house is your answer? You could elect Marion Berry and have the exact same result.

He's going to change the occupation in Iraq? How do you know? He's talked out of both sides of his mouth on that one. Nobody knows what he's going to do. He said the surge wouldn't work, so it's a dang good thing that he didn't have the opportunity to "change" Iraq a few months ago. Why don't you tell me how he's going to change Iraq. Give me some details.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
[.

The next question if you believe that the new route is better is; Can we head down that road, do we have the leadership and ability? Obama is a Freshman in Washington and he didn't do anything at the state level other than set a record for "present" votes. He's shown a history of extremely poor judgement on who he follows and associates with and has proven that he's just a typical politician.
He's got nothing.


You really just described Bush!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
He's going to change the party in the white house is your answer? You could elect Marion Berry and have the exact same result.
.

I'm not sure even he could be any worse than what GW Bush has been.....At least he and GW have one thing in common- they both liked snorting coke- but Marion can remember it afterward :wink: :lol: :lol: :p
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
He's going to change the party in the white house is your answer? You could elect Marion Berry and have the exact same result.

He's going to change the occupation in Iraq? How do you know? He's talked out of both sides of his mouth on that one. Nobody knows what he's going to do. He said the surge wouldn't work, so it's a dang good thing that he didn't have the opportunity to "change" Iraq a few months ago. Why don't you tell me how he's going to change Iraq. Give me some details.

Except Marion Berry couldn't be elected. Obama can. :D

The surge hasn't done what Bush predicted it would. The Iraqis still haven't reached all the beanchmarks that the Democratic Congress forced Bush to put in place. If they hadn't insisted on some sort of benchmarks, no telling where the Iraqis would be today. :roll: Once those benchmarks were handed over the the Iraqi government, they managed to get some work done. Hopefully when a date certain for withdrawal is put in place, they'll get their act together there, too. Petraus is also ignoring Maliki's call for a timetable! And, btw, Obama hasn't changed is stand on getting troops out of Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/washington/16prexy.html?ref=middleeast
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
[.

The next question if you believe that the new route is better is; Can we head down that road, do we have the leadership and ability? Obama is a Freshman in Washington and he didn't do anything at the state level other than set a record for "present" votes. He's shown a history of extremely poor judgement on who he follows and associates with and has proven that he's just a typical politician.
He's got nothing.


You really just described Bush!

Or McSame-- who has been joined at the hip with the most corrupt politicians for years- and the worst in recent history- Phil Gramm- who now even many of the Republicans recognize was the artist behind all the legal changes that caused not only the Enron Scandal and downfall, but the real estate lending scandal and banking institutions downfall and the oil speculation fiasco thats ripping the common folks off....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
So Barak was correct when he predicted that the surge wouldn't work?

You never answered my question; What is Obama going to change in Iraq?
 
Top