|
|
|
|
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/20/2008 9:46:04 PM | Actually, a lot more of the build up to 9/11 happened during the Clinton years. The first WTC attack and the attack on the USS Cole, not sure what else, I think there were some more attacks on American interest during his watch.
If you go back and read the 9/11 commission report you will see a lot of the "connecting the dots" or lack thereof occured during the Clinton years. Calling someone and idiot just because they don't believe everything the way you do doesn't change history and doesn't change the fact that Clinton did very little to deal with Osama Bin Laden which allowed for the tragedy to occur.
Blaming Bush for every problem in the world doesn't solve the problem and it certainly isn't rational. Besides, Bush term ends this year - who will you blame then? | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/21/2008 1:03:09 AM | Bush IS responsible for 9/11, it was his watch, it was his friend.
The bin Ladens were watching it unfold on TV with Daddy, how many dos need to be connected to open your eyes? | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/21/2008 8:15:21 AM | It looks like Senator Obama is really beginning to look like a major flip-flopper.
"Barack Obama’s rapid ascent to the Democratic presidential nomination is nothing short of remarkable and historic. Much of this rise can be traced to the power of Barack Obama’s spoken and written words. As Barack Obama said during the primaries, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”
Because of his rapid ascent and the relative lack of record from which the American people can judge, the words that Barack Obama uses deserve a level of scrutiny befitting the importance that he places on them. But when examined closely, more often than not these words are empty of any meaning in the light of his record and reality.
As we scrutinize Barack Obama’s words, it is increasingly difficult for those of us with the responsibility of following this year’s election closely to discern what Obama truly believes at his core on the issues of great importance to the American people.
Obama’s Words On Public Financing: Just yesterday, Barack Obama reversed his position on accepting general election public financing. This change in position comes after nearly two years of speaking to and signing his name to his commitment to the public financing system.
In June 2006, Barack Obama said quite clearly, “I strongly support public financing”:
OBAMA: “Well, I strongly support public financing. And I know [Senator]****[Durbin] does too. He’s going to have some things to say about it because when we were having - as you’ll recall - the major debates around lobbying reform, one of the things that**** I think, properly pointed out was that you can change the rules on lobbying here in Washington, but if we’re still getting financed primarily from individual contributions, that those with the most money are still going to have the most influence.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Constituents Breakfast, 6/29/06)
In November 2007, Barack Obama signed his name to his commitment to accept public financing as his party’s general election nominee:
QUESTION: “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?” OBAMA: “Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Presidential Candidate Questionnaire,” Midwest Democracy Network, www.commoncause.org, 11/27/07)
In February 2008, Barack Obama said that he would meet and “sit down with John McCain” to discuss and negotiate public financing were he to be his party’s nominee:
NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word.” Obama: “What I - what I have said is, at the point where I’m the nominee, at the point where it’s appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody.” (Democratic Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/0
Yet, in the end, Barack Obama’s words were empty and he decided to break his pledge to accept public financing in the general election.
Obama’s Words On Running A Different Type Of Campaign: The McCain campaign has made a good faith effort to reach out to Barack Obama offering to go Iraq together and hold 10 joint town hall meetings. These offers came after Barack Obama pledged to meet “anywhere, anytime”:
OBAMA: “I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy. If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, anytime, to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East or around the world, that is a conversation I am happy to have. Because I believe that there is no separation between John McCain and George Bush when it comes to our Middle East policy and I think their policy has failed.” (Barack Obama, Media Availability, Watertown, SD, 5/16/0
However, Barack Obama has rejected each and every offer to raise the dialogue in this campaign. As the St. Petersburg Times wrote today, Barack Obama’s words come down to “cynical political calculations,” not the new politics he promised:
“Avoiding town hall meetings and rejecting public campaign financing may be predictable strategies for minimizing one of McCain’s greatest strengths and exploiting one of his key weaknesses. But they pull Obama down into the cynical political calculations he pledged to rise above.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Big Words Ring Hollow,” St. Petersburg Times, 6/20/0
Obama’s Words On The 2005 Energy Bill: As part of his standard stump speech, Barack Obama criticizes the Bush-Cheney energy policy. However, not spoken is the fact that he voted for the Bush-Cheney energy policy in 2005.
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama has criticized the Bush-Cheney energy bill:
OBAMA: “When Bush assigned Cheney to create energy policy, he met with the environmental groups once, the renewable energy groups once, he met with the oil and gas companies 40 times. Washington has become so dominated by the powerful, by the well-connected, that the voices of the American people are no longer heard.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Detroit, MI, 6/16/0
This is good rhetoric but it does not match the record. The energy policy that he assails for being a Bush-Cheney creation for the benefit of the oil companies is the very same energy policy he voted for in the 2005 Energy Bill. Again, Barack Obama’s words on energy are empty and actually contrary to his own public record.
Obama’s Words On Trade: Barack Obama claims that he believes in free trade. However, a headline in the Detroit Free Press captures the internal conflict of Barack Obama’s words - “Obama Tries to Have it Both Ways on Free Trade Issue.” Barack Obama says, “I believe in free trade” but “then he reverted to the anti-trade rhetoric of the primaries.” We all recall Obama adviser Austin Goolsbee dismissing his candidate’s own rhetoric as primary politics. In light of this, Barack Obama’s words on the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) deserve even greater scrutiny.
During the primaries, Barack Obama pledged to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA:
NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this [NAFTA] has not worked for us, we are out?” OBAMA: “I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.” (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/0
However, in the general election, Barack Obama is backing off these words which were pretty clear. Now, Barack Obama says his words are not to be believed if they are “overheated and amplified.”
“In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA. ‘Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,’ he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA ‘devastating’ and ‘a big mistake,’ despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.” (Nina Easton, “Obama: NAFTA Not So Bad After All,” Fortune, 6/18/0
Obama’s Words On His Tax Hikes: Barack Obama has made tax increases a centerpiece of his economic agenda. However, when asked by CNBC’s John Harwood if he would be willing to hold off on raising taxes if he thought they might harm the economy, Barack Obama said:
OBAMA: “Some of those, you could possibly defer. But I think the basic principle of restoring fairness to our economy and encouraging bottom-up economic growth is important.” (CNBC, 6/9/0
This is a tacit acknowledgment that his tax increases would hurt the economy and American workers. Likewise, Barack Obama consistently attacks John McCain for favoring “tax breaks to corporations.” Yet, he recently told The Wall Street Journal that he too was considering cutting corporate taxes. Just last month, Barack Obama called corporate tax cuts “the exact wrong prescription for America.” On one day, Barack Obama took two positions on one issue, again leaving observers and voters unsure of what he really believes.
Obama’s Words On Iraq: Throughout the primaries, Barack Obama has been determined to withdraw from Iraq regardless of the consequences or the facts on the ground. This week, Barack Obama talked with the Iraqi Foreign Minister. According to The Washington Post, the Foreign Minister left the conversation “reassured” and thinking “that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain.”
The ABC News headline captures this perplexing issue clearly: “Obama and Iraqi Foreign Minister have Different Memories of their Conversation.” In our foreign policy, we cannot afford a president whose public words are discounted by allies and enemies alike.
Obama’s Words On Jerusalem: For weeks, debate has swirled around Barack Obama’s use of the word “undivided” in his speech before the Annual AIPAC Policy Conference. In the end, the American people are left with a confused position that is constantly being reinterpreted by advisors because “undivided” was nothing more than an empty word with great symbolism but no weight.
Before the Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Barack Obama clearly said that Jerusalem should be the “undivided” capital of Israel. Barack Obama and his advisers knew what this word would mean to his audience.
OBAMA: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/0
Yet, only a day later, Barack Obama said the future of Jerusalem would have to be negotiated by Israel and the Palestinians. Barack Obama was no longer prepared to say that Jerusalem should be undivided.
CNN’S CANDY CROWLEY: “I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday. You said that Jerusalem must remain undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?” OBAMA: “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 6/5/0 " | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/21/2008 10:03:17 AM | Just as a bit of an aside, and more to amuse myself...I was chatting with my best Australian mate the other night and he said to me, "You Americans don't even have a liberal candidate." I looked at him and thought........how incredible. We don't even see this. And to a large percentage of the world's population, that's their version of the truth...
I would also suggest that as the campaigns continue to unfold perhaps what we've traditionally looked at as flip-flopping is a response to the current situation. I LOVE the fact that, on the one hand Obama is viewed as soft and mushy and therefore, easily manipulated. On the other hand....where in the HELL is he getting all that money from again? Oh yeah.......from the internet. He's putting a tremendous amount of trust into his supporters by turning down public financing money. We need to not disappoint him.
I gotta say.....I do so love looking at white racist angst about Obama's 'racist' agenda. We all know that's projection, don't we? You know.....that's what THEY'D do if they were in power. Scream about poor people's lack of acceptance of responsibility and funnel more billions to their rich pals. We've got that figured out now, don't we.  | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/21/2008 2:11:25 PM |
It looks like Senator Obama is really beginning to look like a major flip-flopper.
Get real.....He never said that stuff..........
OR ....IF someone might say something bad about HIM.......or his Wife...
like "Move-On" did this week against McCain.......
He comes from the Kennedy wing of the Dem's .........
The ones that ripped off Nixon..... West Virginia.....Texas ......and .........................Chicago.....
Besides isn't it CHANGE when you have A ZILLLION $$$$$$$$ AND
Everyone only gave 1.25......... | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/21/2008 3:17:19 PM | Simm;
Too funny!
The irony of the 23% that have matching rose~colored glasses that help them see Bush in a positive light, talking about "US" listening to prpgeganda.
If only we could educate more of our populace. . . Sigh. . .
Ever notice that the ONLY ones saying that college brainwashes people are those who have no college. . . or lie about their collegiate experience? | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/21/2008 4:04:34 PM | .
If only we could educate more of our populace. . . Sigh. . .
Change... Change???
He is the first to opt out of federal public financing system since beginning of program......
the first candidate to do so since Congress passed 1970s post-Watergate campaign finance laws.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money_8
He is so afraid of 527's attacking michelle...........Or he has more money???
MOVE-ON ran a negative ad against McCain today.......
Change... Change???
I went to 8th grade ... does my vote count???
Am I tooooooo ignorant????
. | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/21/2008 6:00:44 PM | yes, i too saw the poll numbers. i was not surprised, even though i think obama is a big phony. unfortunately, mcain is just not savy enough to beat this slick polished pro. obama is very good at snowing people. couple that with the horrible job that bush has done, it's easy to see that mcain has no shot. bush has pretty much ruined the republican party for at least the next twenty years...
i did come across this little video clip of the obama campaign passing out pro obama posters made to look like they were "hand made." it's pretty laughable. i mean the lengths this phony will go to. lol! watch the video and see for youself...
mcain isn't going to beat this master propagandist... i do believe the poll is correct, and i think that while it is too far from the election to say for sure... it is doubtful that mcain will win...
http://theunfocused.blogspot.com/2008/02/passing-out-signs-at-obama-rally.html
lar | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/21/2008 9:39:10 PM | I think Obama will win for the mere fact that McCain is 72. Granted if a serious terrorist attack happens, it might help McCain a little bit, but people are sick of Bush and generally feel that the Iraq war exemplified incompetence in the Bush White House so any impending terrorist attack before election day will likely prove the failure of Bush policies instead of hurting the Democrats.
Even if Obama lacks substance, I think people are willing to take a chance on the unknown rather than knowing that McCain will spend the next 100 years in Iraq or Hillary's Iraq war vote. The public is sick of McCain and the Iraq War and its not just a vote for Obama, but its a vote against Bush and against McCain and against the DC establishment.
McCain may be a funny, personable guy, but his GOP loyalty has been questioned and the evangelical vote will not stand by him. Even if he picks Romney or Huckabee as VP, the evangelicals will stay home or vote for Obama. | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/22/2008 12:56:22 AM | | He is the first Democrat to opt out, not the first candidate. None of the Republican candidates over the past 30 years have wanted or needed the financing. Moreover, McSame was the FIRST to sign up for it, but he changed his mind after wining nomination. | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/22/2008 9:04:00 AM | http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11242.html
Obama alienates the editors
By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 6/21/08 7:07 AM EST Text Size:
For most voters, Barack Obama’s shift away from public financing is not as big a deal as the mounting death toll in Iraq, surging gas prices — or even what they’re going to make for dinner tonight.
But Obama’s announcement Thursday that he would become the first candidate to opt out of the public financing program for the general election was a big deal for some of the nation’s most influential newspaper editorial boards, which have long been ardent champions of campaign finance reform and which had thought they’d found a kindred spirit on the issue.
Friday morning, scathing editorials in many top broadsheets characterized Obama’s move as a self-interested flip-flop, dismissed his efforts to cast it as a principled stand and charged that Obama wasn’t living up to the reformer image around which he has crafted his political identity.
The scolding could mark a turning point in what has been, on balance, fawning treatment of Obama, an Illinois Senator and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, on editorial pages.
While the influence of editorial boards has diminished as the media has fragmented, they still carry weight with opinion leaders and undecided voters.
Obama’s Republican opponent, John McCain, will participate in the public financing system, which this year will provide $84 million in taxpayer funds to candidates who agree to limit their spending to that amount. Obama is expected to raise many times more than that.
Many of the same top editorial boards that have criticized McCain’s unwavering support for a long military presence in Iraq have also lauded his efforts to pass stricter campaign finance, ethics and lobbying laws.
“The fact that McCain has been willing over the years to take the lead on these issues, when it’s arguably not in his self-interest, is one measure of character that over the years we’ve respected,” said Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of The Washington Post.
In deciding which candidates to support, Hiatt told Politico that the Post’s editorial board looks at campaign finance reform issues as “a significant factor, but among many factors that we would consider.”
The board viewed Obama’s backtrack on public financing “as an important issue and also as a test of whether he would put principles he said were important to him above political calculation. And he didn’t. That tells us something. It doesn’t tell us everything.”
The Post didn’t endorse candidates in the presidential primaries, but by some counts Obama racked up as many as 120 daily newspaper endorsements, compared to around 40 for his main rival, New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. McCain racked up more than 30 such endorsements during the Republican primary.
Obama’s leadership in passing a yet-to-be-implemented provision requiring disclosure of contributions bundled by lobbyists likely appealed to editorial boards enamored with clean governance issues.
Several editorial boards had praised his earlier pledge to take public financing in the general election if his opponent agreed to do the same.
Of the editorial boards that opined Friday about his breaking the pledge, most of those that endorsed him during the primary were aggressive in their criticism.
The Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial board called the decision “as disappointing as it is disingenuous,” while The Boston Globe’s board wrote that it “deals a body blow … to his own reputation as a reform candidate.” And The Baltimore Sun’s editorial board called it “a major disappointment for those struggling to restrain the pernicious influence of special interests in American politics.”
The New York Times’ editorial board, which endorsed Clinton after allegedly leaning toward Obama, wrote that “Obama has come up short” of “his evocative vows to depart from self-interested politics.”
Obama attempted a preemptive defense of his new position by arguing that his massive base of small online donors constitute a “parallel public financing,” and that he needed to exit the program to defend himself from the independent spending of 527 groups, long a bugaboo of campaign finance reformers. Many editorial boards, though, have been outright dismissive of this argument.
The Washington Post opined that Obama’s “effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take.”
And USA Today, which also did not endorse any candidates, said Obama put “expediency over principle,” was “disingenuous about his reasons for opting out of public financing” and proved he’s not a “real reformer.”
There was hardly the same level of indignation when McCain came under fire from Democrats for using the promise of receiving public financing in the primary election to secure a loan before deciding not to take the funds.
The Post’s Friday editorial asserted that McCain “played games with taking federal matching funds for the primaries until it turned out he didn't need them.”
But Hiatt told Politico that he doesn’t count McCain’s move as “in quite the same category” as Obama’s broken pledge.
“To be the first candidate to reject public financing in a general campaign, particularly after having argued that that wouldn’t be a good thing, is a fairly significant development,” he said. | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/22/2008 1:36:18 PM | http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2000audit.html
Notice two names not one here?
Bush or Gore!
The author of the cited article didn't do his homework! | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/22/2008 3:17:56 PM |
i did come across this little video clip of the obama campaign passing out pro obama posters made to look like they were "hand made." it's pretty laughable. i mean the lengths this phony will go to. lol! watch the video and see for youself
I didn't watch the video, but if it's true, Obama's campaign is not the first to do this. It's done on a regular basis. In the Florida 2000 debacle, the Republicans sent busloads of people in to look like they were just local protesters. They also were doled out 'handmade' signs to hold. They flew down from Washington an airplane load of interns to protest. It's a common practice apparently. So now what. | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/22/2008 3:35:45 PM | You'r part way back far enough .. go further
"If you go back and read the 9/11 commission report you will see a lot of the "connecting the dots" or lack thereof occured during the Clinton years."
Further and further ...
Go back and do a simple addition problem. First component = First suicide terrorist (which wa an Israeli, btw) Plus First public transport (a bus) driven into a building and exploded Plus the first highjacking of a plane Plus the original WTC basement bomb long before 9/11 == sums up to == suicide bombers in public transport now a highjacked plane vs bus bombing the WTC again.
9/11 was simply a matter of time until the existing parts were combined.
Nobody is angry at Bush for pursuing Bin Laden. Everyone continues to favor that.
9/11 and the attack on Iraq are two separate issues. 9/11 not only did not justify the the attack on Iraq -- it drew forces away from defeating AlQeada AND strengthened them by causing more people to hate us and join them.
Clinton did not cause or do any ignoring of things that caused the Attack on Iraq .... that was a very old plan of Chaney and others with Bush Jr as their puppet. | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/22/2008 4:36:07 PM | | From 911 till now, the whole thing is bulls--t. All of it, total bulls--t. How naive are you all. Follow the money. Thats what controls this world. | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:21:31 AM | Yes, he is still in the lead. Honestly, I believe it is because the repulicans can not stop sounding like republicans money, money, war, money). The interest of big corporations continues to enter statments.
Gov. Perry (my governor) was discussing drilling and he was sounding great, but then he supported corporations (oil) and even CNN began to question him. He just ignored the question. So, Exxon/Mobile do not make 20 billion dollars, but 15 billions dollars, what is wrong with that. (We drill in the lone star state, it shows in Galveston; the fish have four heads (smile)).
The war, they will not say how they can help us slowly leave Iraq, now Iran. I know we will not just leave the minute someone is sworn in, but please show me a plan of action.
Arnold endorsed McCain, but then they did not agree on McCain's plan for oil and energy.
This is why Obama continues to be in the lead. Plus, many of the heavy hitters in the political arena continue to support him.<img src=http://www.plentyoffish.com/smiles/icon_201.gif border=0> <img src=http://www.plentyoffish.com/smiles/icon_201.gif border=0> <img src=http://www.plentyoffish.com/smiles/icon_201.gif border=0> | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:55:10 AM |
Follow the money. Thats what controls this world.
And that's why there have been people wishing to do acts of terror against the US even as far back as when Clinton wasn't inhaling and Bush was.
It doesn't matter who did do what in pursuit of Bin Laden and who didn't prior to 9/11. What matters is what this country does and has done for decades at the expense of others from foreign lands and at the expense of us in the name of greed. And it's gotten us to the doorstep of total economic and social collapse as our benefit for breeding terror against us. | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:09:29 AM | larissan04 ... I'm not sure where your mean-spiritedness regarding Obama comes from and I am not sure why you come here to spew your venom.
Every time I watch a video of Obama or see a photo of him .......and I watch closely to see if I can figure out what kind of a man he really is... I just get a very good feeling and feel very hopeful about the future of America again.
How you look at that man and see such a master charlatan, etc. is totally beyond me. I dont get people like you, honestly.
Why dont you explain to this thread why and how you see Obama as you do........cite 3-4 object lessons for us so we can get a little insight into what you perceive..... | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:27:52 AM |
However, its already to late for the 1000's of his own people that he had killed by poisen gas.
Perhaps they can be comforted by the 100,000+ that have died since the start of the invasion.
Can somebody please explain how those dead people & shattered families are better off?
You might want to check the % of ACTUAL IRAQI CITIZENS that say they were better off under Saddam. | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:49:51 AM | According to MIT and Johns Hopkins, it is over 600,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, with another 4,000,000 displaced. 3,000,000 have moved to Jordan alone.
But we're fighting them there, so it is OK.
Obama represents a fundamental change from idiocy and greed. That is more than enough to justify taking a chance on him. He has done nothing but act with class and dignity. His intellectual ability and eloquence is something we have missed for 8 years. It will be nice to be proud of our leadership again! | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/25/2008 1:11:47 PM | I do kinda hope that Obama picks up Hillary as his VP. 36 million votes at least.  | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/25/2008 1:25:08 PM | It is amazing that the same people who kept wanting to "give Bush a chance" a year or two ago are so quick to condem Obama over really silly stuff. At least wait until the guy gets elected!!!!!
Then we get to say "You have to respect the president, he is OUR president and watch them cringe. But they can never cringe as much as we have this past eight years. I cringed so much I ruptured some internal organs.
And if President Darth Vadar invades Iran, I get to cringe some more. | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/25/2008 1:27:36 PM | Intrepidinv, Republicans are still blaming todays problems on Clinton!!!!!
Bush's mess will extend long into the future, especially with the crappy trade agreements he force on U.S. workers. | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:18:12 PM | exodus~
obama stated that he would meet with, and talk to the repube nominee about both agreeing to take public financing. obama backed out of not only THIS, but the agreement to mcain to do town hall meeting style debates. he agreed to the town hall meetings, then changed his mind. why? because obama doesn't do too well without a teleprompter. also, obama is flip flopping on his earlier position on nuclear energy, (which is good, by the way), and his stance on jerusalem remaining under israeli control, among other things. obama's flip flops illustrate his political inexperience. he pins himself in to positions without enough information, then finds that he needs to soften his position, or flip flop, in order to appeal to specific constituents. he is an amateur, albeit a charismatic one, i will admit. but the fact of the matter is, we aren't voting for a rock star in chief, we are voting for president, and what might work on american idol isn't going to balance a budget (obama has projected a trillion in new spending), or keep us out of another war (obama has already threatened to attack pakistan who happens to be one of our ALLIES!).
obama is a dope, a hack, and an amateur.
lar | |
|
| Wow. Obama leads McCane
Posted: 6/26/2008 4:12:10 AM | McCain has flip flopped on a dozen issues as well. They all do it...they're campaigning. It doesn't make it right, unless they choose to soften or change their stance on something that makes more sense than something they said a year ago. When situations change, if someone is not broad minded enough to realize that sometimes circumstances dictate they must rethink their views, they would not be a very good leader.
Tell me please how Obama not taking public financing is a bad thing? I said this in another thread, but it bears repeating, it proves he's a man of his word when he said he's going to work toward ridding Washington of special interests. And how or why would not taking public financing be a bad thing? No one answered that question in the other thread, maybe someone will answer it here. I am not an economist, but on the surface, I don't see how it could possibly benefit us citizens. I see how it can benefit McCain, because that's where the majority of his money has come from so far, and now the agreement he entered with Obama is off the table and he's got nothing left, but I don't see how it is a detriment to the populace.
And he never "threatened to attack Pakistan". If you're going to talk about things he's said, put them in context. He said he would move into Pakistan if it was a good strategical move in order to do what we actually are supposed to be doing over there to paraphrase.
I'm not voting for a rock star either, I'm voting for the person I feel will get to the White House and actually be concerned with the agenda of the American people, not just himself and his buddies.
Obama '08 | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
