WhoWee said:Are you saying Obama hasn't changed his mind on any issues...or even "modified" some of the things he's said...like "no pre-conditions" to meetings?
asdfggfdsa said:It's to be expected of politicians.
(I'm an independent, btw)
Is English your first language? The way he said it, it is clearly a twist on the common cliche' "if I were in charge..."OAQfirst said:McCain aspires to be a dictator?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8fQbkN2n2o&feature=related
I can't believe he just said that! I mean, to openly admit this?
Wrong...wrong...wrong...wrong...wrong.WhoWee said:Just remember Obama and Biden NEVER said they didn't support domestic drilling for oil...
REMEMBER...Obama never said it...Obama never said it...Obama never said it...Obama never said it...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/01/obama-shifts-on-oil-drilling/“When I’m president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts,” Obama told reporters in Jacksonville in late June. “That’s how we can protect our coastline and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good.”
IMO, refusing to take a stand is worse than flip-flopping."If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama said.
russ_watters said:? Certainly, he is, but I don't see what that has to do with your post. He was relatively clear that he did not support drilling. Now he is very unclear about support for drilling. His own position didn't have much room for hedge - his new one is all hedge.
russ_watters said:Is English your first language? The way he said it, it is clearly a twist on the common cliche' "if I were in charge..."
WhoWee said:...but (I think) he's becoming more like (the perception of) Bush every day.
phoenixy said:McCain 08 is certainly no McCain 00, or even McCain 04. Without his political integrity, his bipartisanship reputation, and his honesty, McCain has nothing of value as a politician. He has no economic expertise, and a completely dead-wrong world-view on foreign policy. He has now surrounded himself with lobbyists and campaign strategists that he was famously against in the past.
Problem with McCain right now is that he can't even dress up a lie. He would tell you he suspends his campaign because he "wants to fix the economy"; or Palin being the "best energy expert"; or Obama's tax policy would raise tax the middle class. etc. McCain is tainted by being within closed proximity to George Bush and his groupie. Above all else, bold-face lies is something that I can't stomach.
McCain needs the support from religious base, and the backing from the lobbyists. He is willing use gambits to satisfy his ambition, to win the election at all cost. The Palin VP pick reveals that his only goal is to be elected, not to govern. However, I don't think it is completely up to him to become what he is today. He knows he cannot win running an honest campaign. And so it is, he becomes another victim to the two party system political theater of America.
RIP, the true Maverick McCain.
WhoWee said:Maybe I give her too much credit...but she presented herself in a full frontal position last week. She's a little too power hungry for me.
LowlyPion said:Whatever the Nation's ills they are not likely due to Pelosi. I haven't seen her do anything but be the target of the right wing attacks.
If the current trends continue, I'm expecting that there will be a Democratic tsunami that will sweep the halls of congress clean of these pork-barrel, rebate and spend Republicans.
WhoWee said:When you take something that isn't yours (OUR money) and give it to your friends and supporters and people with their hands out that don't pay for anything (except with OUR money/OUR credit) that's called Democratic leadership.
Right?
US_Constitution_Article_I said:Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
LowlyPion said:You're mistaken. The right of the Legislature to raise revenues through taxation for the common good is inherent in the ConstitutionThis is the country you are a citizen of. This is the country you benefit from insofar as what you have learned or earned or has been passed to you by inheritance. To make the claim that the country has no rights to tax you flies in the face of the fundamental engine that was established when the country was founded. So I'm sure that can't be your claim.
Drawing upon conjecture then to suppose that your money is going to anyone but the Government looks to be wildly speculative. If there are actual abuses, I have confidence that they will sort themselves out. But suggesting that Pelosi is handing out money like party favors to her friends, looks to me like idle speculation that you would employ in place of engaging Pelosi on her policies and actions.
WhoWee said:No Taxation Without Representation...I don't think that means spend money you don't have...bill us later..
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.htmlWashingtonPost said:The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Ayers did not respond to e-mails and telephone calls requesting clarification of the relationship. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:
" Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous."
Ivan Seeking said:For us it means that you have the right to representation in Congress.
Since I'm not, no need to seek shelter behind it.WhoWee said:...and don't question my patriotism.
Who's advocating that as a right?I do maintain the government does not have a right to waste OUR taxes!
See. We're even using the same Hymnal.We need accountability and a balance of power for our system to function properly.
If it didn't require sweeteners ... where were the Republicans on the first vote?Are you comfortable with the "representation of need" we've received in the past week regarding the bailout? Aren't you just a little concerned about the way the whole bailout was presented...then padded with "sweeteners"...and pushed through?
The Republicans have been squandering the National purse the last 8 years. You're going to blame her for not being charitable in trying to clean up their mess?Did you listen to the Pelosi speech last week regarding the bailout? You don't think she's a little over the top?
Clinton managed a surplus and strong economic growth. What's Bush's excuse?The Democratic leadership (in general) has a long history of giveaways.
Seems like as good a place to start as any. It's their deficits. Their war.You can't just blame the Republicans.
WhoWee said:... I believe Nancy Pelosi will have the most influence-potential in Washington over the next 4 years (regardless of her term timeline...let's assume she'll be re-elected).
LowlyPion said:I actually voted for him in the primary, as I was more concerned about Romney being the nominee. I considered that McCain actually had some honor. I thought that he had been mistreated by the Rove politics of meanness in earlier campaigns and that he would be the safer choice, though I was not expecting to support the Republican in November regardless.
I can see now that my assessment of McCain was mistaken. I think he has sold himself even like Mitt Romney in some Faustian pact with the Religious zealotry of self enrichment merely for the purpose of personal aggrandizement. I'd say he is at this point a ship without a rudder or a moral compass. Being blinded by ambition hardly translates into any change from the current status quo.
If he doesn't compromise, you'd call him too left wing. And if he does compromise, you call him wishy-washy? I don't know about you, but I haven't heard anyone extolling the virtues of legislative compromise more than McCain.russ_watters said:Wrong...wrong...wrong...wrong...wrong. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/01/obama-shifts-on-oil-drilling/
In true Obama fashion, though, he keeps his positions soft so when he flip-flops he doesn't have far to go. He still doesn't support it - what he says is he'd accept it if forced to compromise. IMO, refusing to take a stand is worse than flip-flopping.
Obama said:Last week, Washington finally made some progress on this. A group of Democrat and Republican Senators sat down and came up with a compromise on energy that includes many of the proposals I've worked on as a Senator and many of the steps I've been calling for on this campaign. It's a plan that would invest in renewable fuels and batteries for fuel-efficient cars, help automakers re-tool, and make a real investment in renewable sources of energy.
Like all compromises, this one has its drawbacks. It includes a limited amount of new offshore drilling, and while I still don't believe that's a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term solution, I am willing to consider it if it's necessary to actually pass a comprehensive plan. I am not interested in making the perfect the enemy of the good - particularly since there is so much good in this compromise that would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Everything? Can you quote a few examples, point out where the hedge factor comes in, and/or explain how you would have preferred he worded it that made the point hedge-free?Moonbear said:I agree, the only reason people can't catch Obama flip-flopping is that you actually have to TAKE a position before you can change it. Everything he says has just enough of a hedge-factor to make it meaningless.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, or where you're getting all this info from - hope it's not Michelle Malkin!WhoWee said:Just remember Obama and Biden NEVER said they didn't support domestic drilling for oil (something to the effect that - the price would just have to go to (European price levels) if necessary...then we'll use less...and be forced to find alternative energy sources****this is what made me dislike Obama btw), plus no coal, no nukes, etc.
Obama said:In addition, we'll find safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste. And we'll invest in the technology that will allow us to use more coal, America's most abundant energy source, with the goal of creating five "first-of-a-kind" coal-fired demonstration plants with carbon capture and sequestration.
Gokul43201 said:If he doesn't compromise, you'd call him too left wing. And if he does compromise, you call him wishy-washy? I don't know about you, but I haven't heard anyone extolling the virtues of legislative compromise more than McCain.
Moonbear said:I agree, the only reason people can't catch Obama flip-flopping is that you actually have to TAKE a position before you can change it. Everything he says has just enough of a hedge-factor to make it meaningless.
- Barack Obama, October, 2002I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
I'll give him credit for saying we shouldn't go to war, but he was anything but "crystal clear". All of the consequences were "undetermined".Ivan Seeking said:How much more specific can one be; esp when faced with a war-crazed nation? When it counted the most, he made his position crystal clear. And he was absolutely correct.
russ_watters said:I'll give him credit for saying we shouldn't go to war, but he was anything but "crystal clear". All of the consequences were "undetermined".
WhoWee said:I don't hear anyone talking about McCain's military training, knowledge and experience.
phoenixy said:You don't want to hear about it. McCain was the bottom 5th of his class and made it out with some strings pull. McCain crashed more air craft then George Bush by margin of 5-0. Those weren't John's brightest days.
WhoWee said:I personally want the best military leaders we can find...on the job. McCain is the best choice for this reason...everything else is opinion and talk.
WhoWee said:How much (real time) experience does Obama have dealing with the Pentagon or defense programs?
LowlyPion said:The idea is that maybe we don't need to be so eager taking the military option. Maybe what we really need is someone that can actually do something to solve problems for the American People instead of running around erratically pursuing their own blind ambition, trying to grab power off the politics of divisiveness?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_amesTheNation said:Follieri, who posed as Vatican chief financial officer in order to win friends and investments, pleaded guilty Wednesday in a Manhattan district court to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering. As part of the plea, Follieri admitted to misappropriating at least $2.4 million of investor money and redirecting it to foreign personal bank accounts that were disguised as business accounts.
...
In February 2007, according to a recent article in the New York Daily News, Follieri retained Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort.
WhoWee said:Obama wants to be more aggressive in Afghanistan.
WarPhalange said:I don't want to read through the last page, so I don't know if this has been brought up, but what exactly gives McCain an advantage on knowledge of how to command wars and foreign policy?
He graduated from the Naval Academy, that's a plus, even if he did it on the bottom of his class, and he flew a plane in Vietnam. Then he spent 5 years as a POW. Being locked up in a room for 5 years doesn't give you any foreign policy experience or anything like that. It means that you're tough for surviving, but you don't learn anything that would apply on a global scale.
Besides that, has McCain actually taken a real interest in Foreign Policy or anything like that while in the Senate?
I am honestly asking, because I don't know. I hear him say he has experience, but from where?
LowlyPion said:Sorry, but that doesn't speak to McCain's competence to be Commander in Chief. His erratic behavior just comes off looking dangerous to America and our allies.
