NationStates Jolt Archive

Breaking news according to CNN: Obama supports offshore drilling as part of larger energy plan. Which goes against most of his Democratic Party.

As his poll numbers began to drop, the race begans to tighten.

While the charges of taking positions on issues just to get your votes can be applied to all candidates, Obama, MCCain and others. Does Obama sound like the candidate of change you can believe in? The candidate who is above taking positions on issues just to get your votes?

He talks, acts, and campaingns like he is already president. According to Obama he is the only one for change and good unlike his opponents. He is the only one who has plans for the economy.

I have been posting it over and over in different similar ways. Obama is not the saint of change you can believe in he claims to be. Obama deserves to loose the election.

-------------------------

Maineiacs
At One With The Keyboard
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Well, my nation is called MAINEiacs, so draw your own conclusion

Posts: 6,201 Well, since Miami Shores can't be bothered to source his claim, I'll do it.
The bolded parts are, IMO, the most relevant.
Quote:
Obama shifts position on offshore

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"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."

Asked about Obama's comment, McCain said, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." The GOP candidate said Obama doesn't have a plan equal to the nation's energy challenges.

In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators — five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.

The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, but retain an environmental buffer zone extending 50 miles off Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.

Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.

The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.

In linking McCain to the unpopular President Bush, Obama struck a theme from Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign against President Jimmy Carter by asking a town-hall audience in St. Petersburg: "Do you think you are better off than you were four years ago or eight years ago? If you aren't better off, can you afford another four years?"

Obama primed the crowd by noting new government figures showing 51,000 jobs lost last month and citing 460,000 jobs lost over the last seven months. He tied other bad economic news from the Bush administration to McCain and offered his energy program as one route to relief.

"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said during a two-day campaign swing in Florida. "It will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills, or even to pay down your own debt."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Obama supports a compromise bill proposed by Congress members from both parties that is attempting to break the impasse on this issue.
-------------------------------------------

02-08-2008, 09:33 #19
Miami Shores
Regular


Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 54 Gracias, Maineiacs.

There's already a sticky on the US Election...and why did you make three of these?

There's already a sticky on the US Election...and why did you make three of these?

Don't you know? If you keep repeating the same mantra over and over it'll become magically true. Since Obama disagrees on something with the rest of the Democratic Party this automatically means he's disqualified from becoming President and thus we must vote for a third George W. Bush term in office. Or failing that, vote for McCain which is pretty much a third George W. Bush term in office.

Remember, the deaths of countless Americans and Iraqis are nothing compared to letting poor little Elian Gonzalez go back to that nasty, nasty Cuba and that evil man Castro.

might help to have two more options:
1) i am not a USA citizen, but if i was i would vote for Obama
2) i am not a USA citizen, but if i was i would not vote for Obama

Its nice that he put up three sepperate threads on this topic. Don't you just love Republican spammers?

it might have been an accident - i did have a glitch on the boards just before tihs was posted

Breaking news according to CNN: Obama supports offshore drilling as part of larger energy plan. Which goes against most of his Democratic Party.

I don't see it on CNN.com. Can you link to it please?

How is this breaking news? isn't it like 1 am?

WTF is Obama doing up this late?

There's already a sticky on the US Election...and why did you make three of these?

Not anymore.

How is this breaking news? isn't it like 1 am?

WTF is Obama doing up this late?

Fapping.

Fapping.

Oh shi-

Do not want.


Or do I....?

Fapping.

Just like every other American up this late.

Execpt me

Just because Obama sells out sometimes doesn't mean he's worse than McCain. It's not an all or nothing deal. One can be a very flawed person indeed and still be better than Bush plus senillity.

Just because Obama sells out sometimes doesn't mean he's worse than McCain. It's not an all or nothing deal. One can be a very flawed person indeed and still be better than Bush plus senillity.

Keep in mind who the OP is. To him, sending Elian Gonzalez back to his father in Castroland is far far worse than the horror of voting Dubya into office and indirectly causing the death of numerous Americans and Iraqis in a disastrous cockfight between him and the rest of the world.

Just because Obama sells out sometimes doesn't mean he's worse than McCain. It's not an all or nothing deal. One can be a very flawed person indeed and still be better than Bush plus senillity.

Today, 8:26 #3
Skyland Mt
Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 417 Sorry, three threads. You worthless, spamming troll.

Skyland MT, please read post 5 on the Moderation forum. Post name Come On. I stand by that statement. Please read my first post on the Moderation Forum. Post name Here We Go Again.

I will come to your defence if need be. I stand by my statement on post 4 of Come on.

Your fellow NS Nation friend despite our political, economic and social differences.

Miami Shores Sat 08-02-08.

Well, since Miami Shores can't be bothered to source his claim, I'll do it.

The bolded parts are, IMO, the most relevant.




Obama shifts position on offshore


ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"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."

Asked about Obama's comment, McCain said, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." The GOP candidate said Obama doesn't have a plan equal to the nation's energy challenges.

In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators — five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.

The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, but retain an environmental buffer zone extending 50 miles off Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.

Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.

The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.

In linking McCain to the unpopular President Bush, Obama struck a theme from Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign against President Jimmy Carter by asking a town-hall audience in St. Petersburg: "Do you think you are better off than you were four years ago or eight years ago? If you aren't better off, can you afford another four years?"

Obama primed the crowd by noting new government figures showing 51,000 jobs lost last month and citing 460,000 jobs lost over the last seven months. He tied other bad economic news from the Bush administration to McCain and offered his energy program as one route to relief.

"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said during a two-day campaign swing in Florida. "It will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills, or even to pay down your own debt."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Obama supports a compromise bill proposed by Congress members from both parties that is attempting to break the impasse on this issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Obama supports a compromise bill proposed by Congress members from both parties that is attempting to break the impasse on this issue.

Obama is willing to compromise? FLIP FLOPPER!! WE MUST VOTE FOR BUSH AGAIN!!

Obama is willing to compromise? FLIP FLOPPER!! WE MUST VOTE FOR BUSH AGAIN!!

Yeah, don't you love how Shrub made compromise a dirty word, and an inflexible inability to back down from a course of action no matter what new evidence is presented into a virtue?

Gracias, Maineiacs.

I see many of you are distorting the Public Poll by voting on both options 9 & 10 as well as others, contradicting your votes, Just goes to show your characters you despise so much in others.

A candidate who claims to be the candidate of change you can believe in should always keep his word, not change it as his poll numbers go down.

see i read it as a Maybe...
how else would you put maybe in?

why cant he keep his word, but be allowed to adjust, based on changing evidence.

I see many of you are distorting the Public Poll by voting on both options 9 & 10 as well as others, contradicting your votes, Just goes to show your characters you despise so much in others.

A candidate who claims to be the candidate of change you can believe in should always keep his word, not change it as his poll numbers go down.

My math may be a bit shaky, but as there are 18 voters(as I'm looking at it right now) and options nine and ten have 8 and 7 votes respectively, I don't see how you could know if someone voted for both or not.

cause its public

Coladrinkers and 1010102 voted for all options and didnt post...
So that kinda cancels out, right?

cause its public

:eek: I never knew you could check votes that way! Cool!

why cant he keep his word, but be allowed to adjust, based on changing evidence.

For a cadidate who claims he is the candidate of change you can believe in, the only one who is for change and good, the only one who has any plans for the economy unlike all his opponents. That is very arrogant, not the saint of change that is for bringing everyone together, not the saint of change he claims to be.

Skyland MT, did you read my post 5 on Come On in the Moderation forum, I stand by my word. Have your fun good night.

I see many of you are distorting your votes on the Public Poll by voting on options 9 & 10 as well as others, contradicting your Public votes, must show your characters you despise so much in others.

:eek: I never knew you could check votes that way! Cool!

Not all are...
depends if the author chose to make it public

For a cadidate who claims he is the candidate of change you can believe in, the only one who is for change and good, the only one who has any plans for the economy unlike all his opponents. That is very arrogant, not the saint of change that is for bringing everyone together, not the saint of change he claims to be.

More arrogant than claiming Obama will somehow make Dubya look like Mother Teresa? Then again if we consider both Dubya and Mother Teresa as willing to make others suffer for religiously-driven self-aggrandizement then you don't really need Obama to make that comparison. They're made for each other.

Oh, and here's some news updates for you:

Elian is still living in Cuba with his father, and Fidel Castro retired undefeated by the U.S. or by the Exiles.

Deal With It.

For a cadidate who claims he is the candidate of change you can believe in, the only one who is for change and good, the only one who has any plans for the economy unlike all his opponents. That is very arrogant, not the saint of change that is for bringing everyone together, not the saint of change he claims to be.l

Skyland MT, did you read my post 5 on Come On in the Moderation forum, I stand by my wordl. Have your fun good night.

I see many of you are distorting your votes on the Public Poll by voting on options 9 & 10 as well as others, contradicting your Public votes, must show your characters you despise so much in others.

One, Obama will bring change, even if he's not perfect. Perfection is not required to be an improvement. Secondly, your broken record debating style is very tired. And no, I haven't read that post in the Moderation forum, but I have a hard time thinking of anything that could realistically justify your spamming. I'll check it out now.

For a cadidate who claims he is the candidate of change you can believe in, the only one who is for change and good, the only one who has any plans for the economy unlike all his opponents. That is very arrogant, not the saint of change that is for bringing everyone together, not the saint of change he claims to be.l

Skyland MT, did you read my post 5 on Come On in the Moderation forum, I stand by my wordl. Have your fun good night.

I see many of you are distorting your votes on the Public Poll by voting on options 9 & 10 as well as others, contradicting your Public votes, must show your characters you despise so much in others.

Ok...
I voted for 5 and 6, because i think that if you have a strongly held position you should generally keep it, however all views should be reassessed at regular intervals to ensure that they are not outmoded or incorrect in the face of new facts.

Furthermore as you didnt provide an option for "I might vote for him" people who wish to say maybe can either not vote, or vote for both. - either way i would say they should put it in the comments...

So I read your post in moderation, and while I aprove of the sentiments, in the circumstances it feels a lot like an attempt to paint yourself as morally superior to anyone who might report you for spamming. And I did not rat you out to the Mods, I merely pointed out in your threads that you were spamming, which unless you had some sort of bizzare tech error is a simple statement of fact and a charge you left your self open to.

So I read your post in moderation, and while I aprove of the sentiments, in the circumstances it feels a lot like an attempt to paint yourself as morally superior to anyone who might report you for spamming. And I did not rat you out to the Mods, I merely pointed out in your threads that you were spamming, which unless you had some sort of bizzare tech error is a simple statement of fact and a charge you left your self open to.

I had problems with my browser like always. I have never said you ratted on me to the Mods. You were the one that called me a worthless Troll, distorted your votes on a very well balanced Public Poll. Make fun of my positions on the issues. With all your friends. I made my Post on Come On well before that.

If you get introuble for calling me a worthless Troll, Please let me know I will defend you with the Mods, I stand by my word. I never have that kind of fun with my fellow nations threads or views.

I accept all telegrams positive and negative with respect from all nations on all views.

I am not a saint, I have said and done things I regret like most of you. But I have never distorted, ruined and made fun of a fellow nations Public Polls, threads & posts like those fellow NS nations have done. Not the first time that has been done to my threads, posts or Public Polls with other nations of mine.

For the record I will never take a fellow nation to the Mods on any charges.

Miami Shores

Sat 08-02-08

The one who talks and acts superior is Barack Obama who claims to be Mr Perfect, everything to everyone.

Good Night you All.

When it comes down to it, critically thinking about new evidence and changing stands when necessary is better than standing on old ground knowing how it won't work. The world isn't a standstill and a candidate need to adopt to those changes. So technically I will support a candidate who has the courage to change his stands according to new evidence, even at the cost of public image.

Unfortunately when it comes to Obama though, those changes seems a little too dramatic right after his primary, but before the actual election. It give so little predictability that, as of right now I have absolutely no idea where he will stand after the election. The only thing I can be sure of is that he's a corporate democrat and is supported by many sponsors. I can't help but interpret this as his lack of foresight and experience. Or perhaps that he's just saying anything to get votes. It's just too hard to vote for him.

:eek: I never knew you could check votes that way! Cool!

are you serious? You've been around forever.

Obama is fucking trying to lose the election now.

I bet he isn't even going to be tapped for the nomination, I bet it's a god damn giant bait and switch.

The one who talks and acts superior is Barack Obama who claims to be Mr Perfect, everything to everyone.

...you're aware that you're the only person to have claimed that in this thread, right?

...you're aware that you're the only person to have claimed that in this thread, right?

Him and the McCain Mud-slinging Machine, I mean Straight-talk Express.

Well, since Miami Shores can't be bothered to source his claim, I'll do it.

The bolded parts are, IMO, the most relevant.





http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Obama supports a compromise bill proposed by Congress members from both parties that is attempting to break the impasse on this issue.
now that is what i want out of a president. not an idiot who sets his mind on a policy and never changes it but a man who will compromise and get things done.

Him and the McCain Mud-slinging Machine, I mean Straight-talk Express.

Ah yes, that ancient school of political thought: Say it 'til it's so.

A candidate who claims to be the candidate of change you can believe in should always keep his word, not change it as his poll numbers go down.

you are aware that its not a plebiscite--vote for or against barrack obama?

there are 2 major candidates to choose between. neither man is perfect. neither man will agree with you on every issue. neither man will disagree with you on every issue.

you vote based on who you trust the most, who you agree with the most, who you LIKE the most, who you think is best for the country, whatever.

you are aware that its not a plebiscite--vote for or against barrack obama?

there are 2 major candidates to choose between. neither man is perfect. neither man will agree with you on every issue. neither man will disagree with you on every issue.

you vote based on who you trust the most, who you agree with the most, who you LIKE the most, who you think is best for the country, whatever.

Sadly, he makes a point here. Obama voted against off-shore drilling just the other day. Instead of surrendering and caving into pressures created from McCain mud-slinging, he should stick to his guns and start shooting back. Though this isn't a complete turn around like the ones McCain has been making so fast that the dust clouds (combined with the fog of i-was-a-prisoner-of-war) obscure them from the AP.

Obama needs to tap a veep that can sit around and snipe McCain without being accused of being unpatriotic, but after the debacle with Wesley Clark only suggesting that being a POW doesn't make you fit for the White House by itself, the only person who could do it is zombie Eisenhower.

Sadly, he makes a point here. Obama voted against off-shore drilling just the other day. Instead of surrendering and caving into pressures created from McCain mud-slinging, he should stick to his guns and start shooting back. Though this isn't a complete turn around like the ones McCain has been making so fast that the dust clouds (combined with the fog of i-was-a-prisoner-of-war) obscure them from the AP.

Obama needs to tap a veep that can sit around and snipe McCain without being accused of being unpatriotic, but after the debacle with Wesley Clark only suggesting that being a POW doesn't make you fit for the White House by itself, the only person who could do it is zombie Eisenhower.

i was just watching obama defend himself in a press conference. he is going with a compromise plan put forth by congressman from both sides.

thats a good thing.

some offshore sites are always going to be too delicate to allow drilling in. some can be reconsidered.

only a fool takes an unchangable stance.

unfortunately zombie eisenhower isnt eligible for VP since he isnt eligible for president--already served 2 terms.

are you serious? You've been around forever.

No kidding. What else have I not noticed?

...hey, who are all these other people typing? :confused:

Originally Posted by Miami Shores
The one who talks and acts superior is Barack Obama who claims to be Mr Perfect, everything to everyone.

To answer my critics one last time I hope:

A candidate who claims to be change you can believe in. Who claims everyone knows MCCain and the Republicans have no solutions, therefore implying that he and only he does.

That he is the only one for change and good unlike his oppenents.

Obama is not above taking postions on issues just to get your votes.

Will meet with unfriendly world leaders without preconditions after preparations with conditions, lol.

Said that about Iran, Cuba, but claims he dosent mean that about the present rulers of the Gaza Strip.

Says Jerusalem should be divided, then goes out and tries to win over Jewish voters, when he has a poor record on the issues they care about.

Changed and evolved his policy on Cuba after MCCain called him on it. He has never supported the Cuban American cause on Cuba. All of a sudden after MCCain called him on it changed his policy.

Now he is for release of all Cuban political prisoners in Cuba, freedoms of assembly, press, multi political partys. He claims he would meet Fidel or Raul without preconditions after preparations with conditions.

To tell Fidel or Raul, the USA expects the release of all Cuban political prisoners in Cuba, freedoms of assembly, press, multi political partys before the USA lifts the embargo.

Yet he has never supported those positions until he runs for president, after MCCain called him on it.

From Iran, Cuba, Israel, to offshore drilling after his Poll numbers drop, ect, ect.

The list goes on and on.
That does not sound like someone who is not above taking positions on issues just to get your votes, his campaing slogan change you can believe in. That is my main point.

The list goes on and on.

He is a liberal, for those who wish to vote for a Liberal no problem, but the candidate of change you can believe in wont tell you that.

A candidate who claims to be the candidate of change you can believe in should always keep his word, not change it as his poll numbers go down.
I'm not sure how your correlating the first point (candidate of change) to the second point (always keep his word), nor am I sure that I was given his word that he was unflappable on off-shore drilling. What he did give his word about was things like reaching across the aisle and working together to bring about change-something that is accomplished by supporting a bipartisan compromise that brings about the changes in energy policy that he has been looking for while compromising slightly on some offshore sites.

So I'm a little lost as to why I'm supposed to feel betrayed. Obama wasn't the candidate that ran on the idea of 'fighting the Republicans tooth and nail,' that was Clinton. I didn't want that, so now I should be upset that I didn't get that? Again, not seeing it.

Off shore drilling wasn't a primary issue, and that single policy decision wasn't even a rivet in the supports for the platform that made me a supporter. It was, in fact, the pragmatic approach, that you can dig in and fight and exchange slings and arrows, or you can find common ground and get shit done. I submit that Obama 'sticking to the guns' of 'no offshore drilling, no matter what' would have been a far greater betrayal of what he has built his campaign on then a slight compromise to get shit done would be.

So why am I supposed to be upset again?

Is this really that big of an issue?

Is this really that big of an issue?
it depends on whether or not the change is going to screw you personally.

i live in the desert. off shore drilling isnt a big issue for me except that it be done responsibly and not forced on people who dont want it.

Says Jerusalem should be divided, then goes out and tries to win over Jewish voters, when he has a poor record on the issues they care about.
The Zionist lobby does not represent the Jewish vote.

He is a liberal, for those who wish to vote for a Liberal no problem, but the candidate of change you can believe in wont tell you that.
Ok, you go ahead and vote for the person whose only advertised "qualification" for office is that he was a POW in Vietnam for years. I can assure you that once he gets elected, that won't protect him any longer from catching shit for bad decisions and bad jokes.

I am not vrom the USA so i cant vote, but i think obama is the good choise.
I mean, the others arent good, and mccain is like bush, we dont want a bush again right?
Attacking without good reasons, just for the damn oil.

Dutch,

McCain is not Bush. Bush is not McCain. Yes, McCain is in the same 'party' as Bush, but neither party are anything near homogeneous.

And I'd keep quiet about your support for Obama if you really want him to be president - there's a substantial portion of the population that bristled when the polls that Europeans want Obama hit. The reaction was 'It's none of your business, you don't get to vote!'. Note: We're pretty fair with this, It'd piss of Nebraskans and vise versa if New York started endorsing one of their candidates.

Ok, you go ahead and vote for the person whose only advertised "qualification" for office is that he was a POW in Vietnam for years. I can assure you that once he gets elected, that won't protect him any longer from catching shit for bad decisions and bad jokes.

How about his opposition for earmarks? A different energy policy than Obama(in some respects)? An economic plan designed to encourage small business, end outsourcing, support upgrading infrastructure?

Honestly enough, I think that every voter should visit BOTH websites, then decide. Of course, then BOTH sound amazingly like the same thing. McCain is rather left leaning for a republican, and Obama just doesn't have the senatorial record for good tracking, but it's not the best for many of the policies he now espouses. I'll admit that the front page video with a hidden bypass button if you don't want to donate irked me on Obama's site. I HATE autoplay video/sound on websites.

the candidate of change you can believe in

the saint of change

the saint of change

These are clearly buzzwords (buzzphrases?) from somewhere. Where do these come from? I'm honestly curious as I'm and American but not currently in the United States and I've been away from the US media for about two years.

As to the topic, I have two things to say.

1. Obama is a politician.

2. Changing one's opinion on things isn't a bad thing.

/snip

As to the topic, I have two things to say.

1. Obama is a politician.

2. Changing one's opinion on things isn't a bad thing.

An honest change of opinion after study of the issue is fine and the ability to make an honest change is admirable. A reversal of position for the sole purpose of ensuring election is detestable since no true reversal has taken place in the opinion and belief of the candidate. Obama is a politician as you correctly note, so it is even more important to treat a 180 degree turn in stated position with a healthy dose of skepticism.

While I do support Obama, I'd like to think I'm not an Obama fanboi, as such. I don't think I look at everything Obama does and automatically qualify it as good. I'm sure I'm more inclined to do it than someone who doesn't like him at all, but I consider myself fairly neutral, skeptical, and critical. [/disclaimer]

That being said, I really do think this is an encouraging report. This shows the exact kind of thing Obama has been saying he's going to do. This is the change he's been talking about: reaching across the aisle and compromising. He's long said he doesn't want it to be a fight between the two parties; he wants it to be a body of people that represent the American people and actually get things done. I don't believe he's saying, "YA OMG KIN WE PLZ OFFSHOER DRILLZORZZZ!!!111!!!11!" He's simply saying, "I still don't care for offshore drilling, but if we have to do a bit of it in order to accomplish the goals that I feel are of paramount importance, that's a compromise I'm willing to consider."

So reasonable, so refreshing, so much better than "NYAAAH LIBZ/REPUBZ R TEH SATAAAAAAAAN."

An honest change of opinion after study of the issue is fine and the ability to make an honest change is admirable.

Sure.

A reversal of position for the sole purpose of ensuring election is detestable since no true reversal has taken place in the opinion and belief of the candidate.

Yes, but again, as Obama is a politician who is really surprised? The only person who seems to be actually shocked by this is Miami Shores.

Obama is a politician as you correctly note, so it is even more important to treat a 180 degree turn in stated position with a healthy dose of skepticism.

It isn't really a 180 turn is it? He didn't go from "I'm completely against the idea of drilling and will do everything in my power to stop it!" to "I support drilling in every way shape and form and always have!" did he? Were it something to drastic I'd care more but he's labeling it as a compromise or concession and being open that he's changing his position.

Breaking news according to CNN: Obama supports offshore drilling as part of larger energy plan. Which goes against most of his Democratic Party.

Apparently, reading comprehension isn't your forte.

In 4 pages, I'm sure this has already been said, but Obama has not said that he supports offshore drilling. What he has said is that he would be willing to support a compromise plan which included some increase in offshore drilling in order to avoid gridlock.

His position hasn't changed. All he's saying is that he's willing to compromise. Considering that compromise is how he has always gotten bills passed, I don't see how this should be a surprise.

My number onw issue but not my only issue is the majority Cuban American position on Cuba, Fidel & Raul. Senator MCCain has a pro Cuban American record.

Senator Obama has never supported the Cuban American majoritys position on Cuba, Fidel & Raul. Until he ran for president and after MCCain called him on his Cuba policy.

A 200 % turn, from a candidate that claims he is change you can believe in.

Like Jewish voters feel about Jerusalem and Israel, Obama has a poor record on the thier number 1 issue. But yet he tries to make them beleive he is their candidated. Have to go right now for personal reasons.

A candidate who claims to be the candidate of change you can believe in should always keep his word, not change it as his poll numbers go down.

CHANGE MEANS NEVER COMPROMISE EVAH!!!!!!

Yeah, because gridlock will get a lot of changes made. Obviously.

My number onw issue but not my only issue is the majority Cuban American position on Cuba, Fidel & Raul. Senator MCCain has a pro Cuban American record.

Senator Obama has never supported the Cuban American majoritys position on Cuba, Fidel & Raul. Until he ran for president and after MCCain called him on his Cuba policy.

That may be your number one issue but don't be surprised when the rest of us don't care in the slightest about it, much in the same way I'm sure you don't give two shits about Great Lakes water diversions.

A 200 % turn, from a candidate that claims he is change you can believe in.

There's that catchphrase again.

I hate Obama and McSame... Both are in the running to see who's more full of BS... Ron Paul was the only good candidate and he lost the primary. I'm either not voting or I'm voting Libertarian.

As George Carlin said, if you vote.... You have no right to complain.

CHANGE MEANS NEVER COMPROMISE EVAH!!!!!!

Yeah, because gridlock will get a lot of changes made. Obviously.

Of course, compromise sometimes gets things done the wrong way.

Nevartheless:

a) Obama, as a human being, has the right to change his mind; and,
b) I find it hilarious that Republicans are mad at Obama for moving towards Republican ideas

I hate Obama and McSame... Both are in the running to see who's more full of BS... Ron Paul was the only good candidate and he lost the primary. I'm either not voting or I'm voting Libertarian.

As George Carlin said, if you vote.... You have no right to complain.

And as Hugo Chavez's opponents in Venezuela found out, if you don't vote you have no right to complain either.

That may be your number one issue but don't be surprised when the rest of us don't care in the slightest about it, much in the same way I'm sure you don't give two shits about Great Lakes water diversions.

There's that catchphrase again.

Remember, Miami Shores has made it clear he thinks sending little Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba with his father is a more horrific crime than putting Dubya into office where he could send countless Americans to die in an endless guerilla war against Iraqi and Afghan insurgents.

Sadly, he makes a point here. Obama voted against off-shore drilling just the other day. Instead of surrendering and caving into pressures created from McCain mud-slinging, he should stick to his guns and start shooting back. Though this isn't a complete turn around like the ones McCain has been making so fast that the dust clouds (combined with the fog of i-was-a-prisoner-of-war) obscure them from the AP.

Obama has always talked about compromising with Republicans to get things done. Why should he "flip-flop" on that?


A candidate who claims to be change you can believe in. Who claims everyone knows MCCain and the Republicans have no solutions, therefore implying that he and only he does.

There's no such implication. What he is saying is that they are not putting forth solutions that would work. That doesn't imply that he is the only one with good ideas.

Obama is not above taking postions on issues just to get your votes.

No politician is completely above that. Of course, you've yet to show an instance where that appears to have happened. Instead, you show a very clear inability to understand things like compromise and nuance.

Will meet with unfriendly world leaders without preconditions after preparations with conditions, lol.

He'll meet with world leaders without preconditions - that hasn't changed. Of course there would be preparations and he would have to think that something could come of the meeting. What he wouldn't do is use the Bush administrations, "We're taking our ball and going home" strategy of diplomacy.

Says Jerusalem should be divided, then goes out and tries to win over Jewish voters, when he has a poor record on the issues they care about.[/;quote]

Where did he say that? Or was it simply that it was an option?

[quote]Changed and evolved his policy on Cuba after MCCain called him on it. He has never supported the Cuban American cause on Cuba. All of a sudden after MCCain called him on it changed his policy.

You're going to have to give some detail here.

Now he is for release of all Cuban political prisoners in Cuba, freedoms of assembly, press, multi political partys.

And he was against that before?

He claims he would meet Fidel or Raul without preconditions after preparations with conditions.

Oh noes! He would meet with a world leader that has been shunned until now!! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!

An honest change of opinion after study of the issue is fine and the ability to make an honest change is admirable. A reversal of position for the sole purpose of ensuring election is detestable since no true reversal has taken place in the opinion and belief of the candidate. Obama is a politician as you correctly note, so it is even more important to treat a 180 degree turn in stated position with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Indeed. So, when I see one, I'll be very skeptical.


I hate Obama and McSame... Both are in the running to see who's more full of BS... Ron Paul was the only good candidate and he lost the primary. I'm either not voting or I'm voting Libertarian.

Well, not voting will be a big help for you. And voting Libertarian in the presidential race will get you closer to...Bob Barr, a rather authoritarian candidate on many issues. Of course, Ron Paul is authoritarian on the same issues, so I guess that's what you're looking for.

As George Carlin said, if you vote.... You have no right to complain.

Sounds rather backwards to me.


Of course, compromise sometimes gets things done the wrong way.

Sometimes. But a refusal to compromise generally just means nothing gets done at all. If the issue is important, I'd rather see an attempt to get something done rather than sitting around bitching and moaning about the "other side".

I hate Obama and McSame... Both are in the running to see who's more full of BS... Ron Paul was the only good candidate and he lost the primary. I'm either not voting or I'm voting Libertarian.

As George Carlin said, if you vote.... You have no right to complain.
Blech. The Libertarian candidate is a typical paleoconservative.

Well, not voting will be a big help for you. And voting Libertarian in the presidential race will get you closer to...Bob Barr, a rather authoritarian candidate on many issues. Of course, Ron Paul is authoritarian on the same issues, so I guess that's what you're looking for.


As compared to Obama, who's authoritarian on all sides?

Sounds rather backwards to me.

Agreed.

Sometimes. But a refusal to compromise generally just means nothing gets done at all. If the issue is important, I'd rather see an attempt to get something done rather than sitting around bitching and moaning about the "other side".
Exactly. You aren't suppose to do that until congress is IN session.:D

He is allowed to change his opinion...I still don't see why people are shocked when a candidate changes their position, either as a way of getting more votes or as a result of a genuine reappraisal of a given issue.

The truth is, the world today is a lot different than it was in 2000 or 2002...opposing offshore drilling was easy when oil was only $20-$30 a barrel, or when it plunged in to the $10's back during the 1990's. The economic reality has changed and to see a person willing to change their views to accommodate reality isn't a flaw, it's a sign of real leadership.

I can't say I agree with Obama on most things, but I believe a shift like this is a wise move both politically and economically.

Ah. Trying to embrace the voters he rightly called stupid, eh?

Ah. Trying to embrace the voters he rightly called stupid, eh?

I thought he called people who were still hanging on to Religion and guns stupid. :confused:

I thought he called people who were still hanging on to Religion and guns stupid. :confused:

He called them "bitter."


But you guys are stupid.



( :tongue: )

I thought he called people who were still hanging on to Religion and guns stupid. :confused:
I think it was a general swipe at the more retarded end of Americans. Regardless of religion or the actual amount of guns they own.

Seriously, this offshore drilling business will not change the price of gas at the pumps. As I've already pointed out in a different thread, the problem is not the supply of crude, which is actually slightly above demand, the issue is with refined oil.

On the other hand, people don't want to hear "nothing will get fixed", they want to hear "no worries, your gas prices will be reduced". They won't be, ever, it's a cost that's going to keep rising for the next 70 years until we run out.

Larger energy plan - key point. He's not in support of offshore drilling, but will accept it if the plan also includes steps to reduce oil dependence. You really should think about the meaning behind these things before you start getting excited.

I think it was a general swipe at the more retarded end of Americans. Regardless of religion or the actual amount of guns they own.

Seriously, this offshore drilling business will not change the price of gas at the pumps. As I've already pointed out in a different thread, the problem is not the supply of crude, which is actually slightly above demand, the issue is with refined oil.

On the other hand, people don't want to hear "nothing will get fixed", they want to hear "no worries, your gas prices will be reduced". They won't be, ever, it's a cost that's going to keep rising for the next 70 years until we run out.

Retarded end? Religion is now retarded? As is wanting to defend yourself and/or wanting to go hunting?

There's already a sticky on the US Election...and why did you make three of these?Compensation issues?

Retarded end?
Yes. Working class white trash who believe anything they hear on the Murdoch channels.

Whoops, I mean good, hard-working, honest Americans!
Religion is now retarded?
Not particularly.
As is wanting to defend yourself
Should really have the police to deal with that kind of thing, rather than vigilantism. Obviously, defending your property with guns and such is a part of Being American, so this will never change, but we can hope.
and/or wanting to go hunting?
Yeah, hunting's fine also, although I'd rather that hunting lodges owned the guns rather than the public. Again, not going to happen in America, so there we go.

---

I don't think he was particularly attacking people who own guns and believe in Jesus etc., I think it was more an attack on the less intellectual end of voters. The kind of people who would imagine that if you drill oil, you can stick it in your truck straight away, and that right there is going to be the cause of gas staying at or below $3 per gallon.

The reality will be different.

Operating profits for oil companies will be down as they stick rigs in the ocean and build networks of refineries, including more and more tankers, pay for shipping crews etc., etc., which is no mean feat, so they will probably put gas prices up 'for a while' because of this, and then blame Iran for gas prices remaining at a heightened level. Hell, I know I would if I worked for Shell or anyone like that.

It's LOSE the election, not LOOSE. Go back to Fourth Grade.

Yes. Working class white trash who believe anything they hear on the Murdoch channels.

Ohhh, that end.

Should really have the police to deal with that kind of thing, rather than vigilantism. Obviously, defending your property with guns and such is a part of Being American, so this will never change, but we can hope.

If I remember right (I'll try to find the link, Having a bit of trouble now) the average police call-to-arrival time is six minutes or so. If someone breaks into your house armed with a knife, or a gun, in six minutes you could be dead (COULD, chances are you'll just end up with a few hundred dollars of missing things). Longer if you don't live near the police station of whatever town you live in.

Karnaria;13890653']It's LOSE the election, not LOOSE. Go back to Fourth Grade.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Ohhh, that end.
Aye. Them.
If I remember right (I'll try to find the link, Having a bit of trouble now) the average police call-to-arrival time is six minutes or so. If someone breaks into your house armed with a knife, or a gun, in six minutes you could be dead (COULD, chances are you'll just end up with a few hundred dollars of missing things). Longer if you don't live near the police station of whatever town you live in.
Six minutes ought to be enough :S

Aye. Them.

Six minutes ought to be enough :S
Enough to...?

As compared to Obama, who's authoritarian on all sides?

I'm sorry. Is Obama telling me that the government should be able to control my womb, my sexuality, my religion, etc?


I thought he called people who were still hanging on to Religion and guns stupid.

Nope. He said that people who were bitter over the real issues but didn't see how they could be changed sometimes cling to guns and religion as if they are the major issues.

Retarded end? Religion is now retarded? As is wanting to defend yourself and/or wanting to go hunting?

None of that is stupid. Acting like getting your religion encoded into law or getting a new automatic rifle are the most important issues in an election, on the other hand...

Enough to...?
Find the bastards.

I'm sorry. Is Obama telling me that the government should be able to control my womb, my sexuality, my religion, etc?

Is Obama telling you that the government should control your health, your company, your income, etc? Yes.

Nope. He said that people who were bitter over the real issues but didn't see how they could be changed sometimes cling to guns and religion as if they are the major issues.

Guns and Religion AREN'T major issues?

None of that is stupid. Acting like getting your religion encoded into law or getting a new automatic rifle are the most important issues in an election, on the other hand...
# FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
# Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
# Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
# Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)

http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
It would seem according to Obama, banning guns is ok as long as it isn't done on the Federal level. :rolleyes:

Although I will agree with you on the Part about Religion and the law.

Find the bastards.
Alright, I'll give you that. But, if you're shot? Or one of your family members? Or stabbed? How are the police getting there in time to find the thieves/murderers going to stop that? Six minutes is enough time for the thief/murderer to attack you. Also, what if the murderer/thief is near the phone? And you can't get to it without him seeing you?

Is Obama telling you that the government should control your health, your company, your income, etc?

I don't think Obama saying, "Here, have this health care for free if you want," is controlling health. Controlling company and income? Maybe.

Guns and Religion AREN'T major issues?

Religion certainly shouldn't be. While it is certainly important to a lot of people, it's supposed to be completely, 100 percent separate from politics. Guns are important to a lot of people, I agree.

http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
It would seem according to Obama, banning guns is ok as long as it isn't done on the Federal level. :rolleyes:

Putting a local ban on only easily concealed weapons locally in an area where violent crime with those very weapons is rampant is not an atrocity. You may think it's a bad idea, but don't act like someone can't support Second Amendment rights while banning a very specific type of gun in a very specific area where it's probably a pretty good idea. People are still very capable of defending themselves from intruders or, more importantly as this is why the Second Amendment was drafted, the government. Someone can be pro gun rights without saying that all guns should be allowed at all times under all circumstances.

Edit: That's not to say that Obama is pro guns, just to say that you're making an illogical leap here.

Is Obama telling you that the government should control your health, your company, your income, etc? Yes.

Obama isn't telling me that the government should control any of those things, although it may affect them. Obama is telling me that the government should guarantee me access to healthcare and a living wage, and I don't have a problem with that.

But you said Obama was authoritarian on all counts. So answer my question.

Guns and Religion AREN'T major issues?

Religion isn't. It shouldn't be an issue at all. People need to keep their religion out of my government.

And guns, as a general rule, are not a major issue. The extremes on that topic are rare to find in a politician. They usually vary by a matter of degree.

Now, if there was a serious attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment or ban all guns or something like that, I would see it as a major issue.

http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
It would seem according to Obama, banning guns is ok as long as it isn't done on the Federal level. :rolleyes:

And, depending on the exact ban in question, I would generally disagree.

But I see it as less of an issue than someone telling me that it's ok for local governments to control my body or dictate my religion.

Although I will agree with you on the Part about Religion and the law.

=)

I don't think Obama saying, "Here, have this health care for free if you want," is controlling health. Controlling company and income? Maybe.

He's saying: "Here, have some free health at the expense of everyone else".

Religion certainly shouldn't be. While it is certainly important to a lot of people, it's supposed to be completely, 100 percent separate from politics. Guns are important to a lot of people, I agree.

Alright, I'll concede that one.

Putting a local ban on only easily concealed weapons locally in an area where violent crime with those very weapons is rampant is not an atrocity. You may think it's a bad idea, but don't act like someone can't support Second Amendment rights while banning a very specific type of gun in a very specific area where it's probably a pretty good idea. People are still very capable of defending themselves from intruders or, more importantly as this is why the Second Amendment was drafted, the government. Someone can be pro gun rights without saying that all guns should be allowed at all times under all circumstances.

All guns should be allowed at all times, as long as you aren't in a government building, or in a private place that bans it from their property. The best way to reduce violent crime is to allow those guns. Criminals WILL get guns, no matter what the LAW is. They're CRIMINALS! They aren't going to listen to some gun ban that makes it illegal to carry a sub machine gun.Hello Obama? You hear that? And before you ask, yes, I am in a bad mood today.

All guns should be allowed at all times, as long as you aren't in a government building, or in a private place that bans it from their property. The best way to reduce violent crime is to allow those guns. Criminals WILL get guns, no matter what the LAW is. They're CRIMINALS! They aren't going to listen to some gun ban that makes it illegal to carry a sub machine gun.Hello Obama? You hear that? And before you ask, yes, I am in a bad mood today.

Because laws are never, you know, enforced…

He's saying: "Here, have some free health at the expense of everyone else".

Everyone else pays for it one way or another. At least this way, it costs less in the end and people are healthier.

All guns should be allowed at all times, as long as you aren't in a government building, or in a private place that bans it from their property.

Why just guns? The 2nd amendment says arms. So should individuals be able to own nukes?

He's saying: "Here, have some free health at the expense of everyone else".

Alright, I'll concede that one.

All guns should be allowed at all times, as long as you aren't in a government building, or in a private place that bans it from their property. The best way to reduce violent crime is to allow those guns. Criminals WILL get guns, no matter what the LAW is. They're CRIMINALS! They aren't going to listen to some gun ban that makes it illegal to carry a sub machine gun.Hello Obama? You hear that? And before you ask, yes, I am in a bad mood today.

Why government buildings? What about elementary schools? Clearly, you can see the rationale behind banning guns under certain, very limited circumstances. So what is it about those circumstances that makes them special?

And as for health care, it's been re-hashed loads of times on here, but I still think it's a bit selfish to refuse to help someone stay alive because it's your money and not theirs. I'm about to not have health care in the very near future. I'm going back to college, so I have to quit my full-time job with insurance, and I'm too old to be on my parents' insurance. However, due to my parents' income, I don't qualify for any aid of any type. If I get injured, I would like for the medical expenses to not ruin my life, even if that means that all of us have to pay an extra 0.5% sales tax (or whatever the increase would be; I don't want to argue that point). Under the current system, I've got to just hope really hard that I don't get injured or ill. It'd be nice to see that change, even if I have to pay for it. I would happily afford the same assistance to anyone in this country, or probably the world (with reasonable exceptions of course; Hitler springs to mind).

Obama isn't telling me that the government should control any of those things, although it may affect them. Obama is telling me that the government should guarantee me access to healthcare and a living wage, and I don't have a problem with that.

I do. Minimum wage is already too high. I've done the math. I could live off of five dollars an hour in an eight hour job, LESS than minimum wage. I also have a problem with government health care. Ever hear of private companies? But no, government has to take MORE of Everyone's money for a few people.
But you said Obama was authoritarian on all counts. So answer my question.
I was in a bad mood, I made a generalization. Sue me.

Religion isn't. It shouldn't be an issue at all. People need to keep their religion out of my government.

Conceded.

And guns, as a general rule, are not a major issue. The extremes on that topic are rare to find in a politician. They usually vary by a matter of degree.

And that's a problem. "Stricter gun laws" they say, "it'll make it harder for criminals to get guns, because we all know how many criminals get their guns legally"

Now, if there was a serious attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment or ban all guns or something like that, I would see it as a major issue.

Then you and me have a serious disagreement. Well, obviously.

And, depending on the exact ban in question, I would generally disagree.

With the law? With it being an issue?

But I see it as less of an issue than someone telling me that it's ok for local governments to control my body or dictate my religion.

I'm not seeing either of those in any candidates issues. Care to provide a source?

=)
:mad:

I'm amused that 'liberal' is used as a bad word by miamishores when referring to Obama. If the founders of this country (USA) had not been 'liberal' and the conservative tory sympathizers had won the political debate in the late 1700s the US would not exist.

Liberalism is what made the US independent from Europe not conservatism.

I'm amused that 'liberal' is used as a bad word by miamishores when referring to Obama. If the founders of this country (USA) had not been 'liberal' and the conservative tory sympathizers had won the political debate in the late 1700s the US would not exist.

Liberalism is what made the US independent from Europe not conservatism.
The reason why people like him/her don't bother to use that example is because that same liberalism provided rampant economic opportunity, and s/he is probably not principled enough to admit it.

Why government buildings? What about elementary schools? Clearly, you can see the rationale behind banning guns under certain, very limited circumstances. So what is it about those circumstances that makes them special?

What makes them special? The fact that it isn't public property.
And as for health care, it's been re-hashed loads of times on here, but I still think it's a bit selfish to refuse to help someone stay alive because it's your money and not theirs. I'm about to not have health care in the very near future. I'm going back to college, so I have to quit my full-time job with insurance, and I'm too old to be on my parents' insurance. However, due to my parents' income, I don't qualify for any aid of any type. If I get injured, I would like for the medical expenses to not ruin my life, even if that means that all of us have to pay an extra 0.5% sales tax (or whatever the increase would be; I don't want to argue that point). Under the current system, I've got to just hope really hard that I don't get injured or ill. It'd be nice to see that change, even if I have to pay for it. I would happily afford the same assistance to anyone in this country, or probably the world (with reasonable exceptions of course; Hitler springs to mind).
You can say it's selfish to be refused health-care, but I say it's even more selfish to take money away from a family of seven that can barely feed themselves.

I believe Mr. Obama should, as he is quoted while the center of attention in Germany, be a "[I]citizen of the world[I]", although I am unsure to which world he is referring. :gas:

I do. Minimum wage is already too high. I've done the math. I could live off of five dollars an hour in an eight hour job, LESS than minimum wage. I also have a problem with government health care. Ever hear of private companies? But no, government has to take MORE of Everyone's money for a few people.

That's really great that you could live on a $5/hour job. (No sarcasm intended.) I'm not sure where you live, but living expenses are certainly different in the various parts of the country. Where I live, not a particularly expensive region, but not cheap, this would be completely implausible to survive on without help from somewhere. Between rent, a car (no feasible public transit), some form of communication (probably cell phone since it's no more expensive than a land line), groceries, gas, car insurance, etc., there's no way I could survive on $5/hour. This doesn't even take into account things like clothes or health insurance.

As far as the private companies are concerned, I'd be all for that assuming everyone had access. But the first priority is making sure that nobody in the wealthiest country in the world is dying of the common cold, regardless of how it's accomplished.

You can say it's selfish to be refused health-care, but I say it's even more selfish to take money away from a family of seven that can barely feed themselves.

Your rejection of healthcare here, is predicated on a bad tax system, not the principle of healthcare.

An efficient and fair tax system would not be taking money away from a large family on the poverty line.

What makes them special? The fact that it isn't public property.

How is goverment property classified? (I'm not being a jerk; I thought it was public property.) Also, you didn't answer about an elementary school. Should guns be allowed there?

You can say it's selfish to be refused health-care, but I say it's even more selfish to take money away from a family of seven that can barely feed themselves.

But those families would be the ones that need the health care! That's my point! A family of seven that's barely making ends meet now has to worry about not getting groceries and ruining their kids' futures if anyone gets sick. This is why I think it's important to make sure everyone in the country has the most basic standard of living-- that which enables you to keep doing it.

I do. Minimum wage is already too high. I've done the math. I could live off of five dollars an hour in an eight hour job, LESS than minimum wage.

Depending on where you live, that might be true.

Does that mean it is true of everyone?

I also have a problem with government health care. Ever hear of private companies? But no, government has to take MORE of Everyone's money for a few people.

Yes, I have heard of private companies. And, under Obama's plan, they would still be the ones providing healthcare.

I was in a bad mood, I made a generalization. Sue me.

It happens. =)

And that's a problem.

It can be. But it hardly outweighs all other issues.

With the law? With it being an issue?

I disagree that the local government has the authority for all-out bans on guns.

I'm not seeing either of those in any candidates issues. Care to provide a source?

Anyone who says that abortion is a "states' rights" (ie. McCain) issue is putting forth the idea that the state has the authority to control my womb. McCain also supports enforcement of religious precepts through law.

And if you were one of the people who supported Ron Paul (don't remember at the moment), he definitely wished to give states the authority to dictate religion, by removing the ability to challenge such laws. (See the "We the People" Act).

Your rejection of healthcare here, is predicated on a bad tax system, not the principle of healthcare.

An efficient and fair tax system would not be taking money away from a large family on the poverty line.
An efficient and fair tax system would not take any money from anybody. But we can't have that.
That's really great that you could live on a $5/hour job. (No sarcasm intended.) I'm not sure where you live, but living expenses are certainly different in the various parts of the country. Where I live, not a particularly expensive region, but not cheap, this would be completely implausible to survive on without help from somewhere. Between rent, a car (no feasible public transit), some form of communication (probably cell phone since it's no more expensive than a land line), groceries, gas, car insurance, etc., there's no way I could survive on $5/hour. This doesn't even take into account things like clothes or health insurance.

As far as the private companies are concerned, I'd be all for that assuming everyone had access. But the first priority is making sure that nobody in the wealthiest country in the world is dying of the common cold, regardless of how it's accomplished.
I figured in rent, food, clothes, teh interwebz, and electricity.

You can't stop disease. Not even in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
How is goverment property classified? (I'm not being a jerk; I thought it was public property.) Also, you didn't answer about an elementary school. Should guns be allowed there?

Government, occasionally private. Government property is state property, public is owned by the commons.

But those families would be the ones that need the health care! That's my point! A family of seven that's barely making ends meet now has to worry about not getting groceries and ruining their kids' futures if anyone gets sick. This is why I think it's important to make sure everyone in the country has the most basic standard of living-- that which enables you to keep doing it.
But no country can have everyone with the most basic standard of living. Not without forcing people to work, not without forcing choices upon people. If you give them the health care, how will that stop a lack of food? You can't stop people from making stupid choices, and someone messed up in that family of seven.
Depending on where you live, that might be true.

Does that mean it is true of everyone?

Nope.

Yes, I have heard of private companies. And, under Obama's plan, they would still be the ones providing healthcare.

Under Obama's plan, they would be forced to under the government.

It happens. =)

*Iz in a better mood after his nightly soda*:p

It can be. But it hardly outweighs all other issues.

Not ALL other issues. But many.

I disagree that the local government has the authority for all-out bans on guns.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk294/Tombombadil9/Obama.gif

Anyone who says that abortion is a "states' rights" (ie. McCain) issue is putting forth the idea that the state has the authority to control my womb. McCain also supports enforcement of religious precepts through law.

I don't support McCain.:eek2:

And if you were one of the people who supported Ron Paul (don't remember at the moment), he definitely wished to give states the authority to dictate religion, by removing the ability to challenge such laws. (See the "We the People" Act).
Don't support Ron Paul. He was the best REPUBLICAN candidate, but that's all I can really say.

Depending on where you live, that might be true.

Does that mean it is true of everyone?



Yes, I have heard of private companies. And, under Obama's plan, they would still be the ones providing healthcare.

Hey, you really need to stop saying everything immediately after I say it. It's unbecoming.


(;))

Obama wants to increase taxes on resource consumption, so offshore drilling = mega mulah for Obama!

You can't stop disease. Not even in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

How is that an arguement against unversal health care?

If you give them the health care, how will that stop a lack of food? You can't stop people from making stupid choices, and someone messed up in that family of seven.

If they don't have to worry about affording health care, they'll have more money for food.



Under Obama's plan, they would be forced to under the government.

No, they wouldn't. That wasn't even true under Clinton's plan.

He called them "bitter."


But you guys are stupid.



( :tongue: )

What about we unbelievers with guns?

If I remember right (I'll try to find the link, Having a bit of trouble now) the average police call-to-arrival time is six minutes or so.

Six minutes! The only time I've seen response times like that from police is when they're breaking up college parties.

I do. Minimum wage is already too high. I've done the math. I could live off of five dollars an hour in an eight hour job, LESS than minimum wage.

How are you going to get to your job? Walk? What if you can't find affordable housing near your job? Also, what if the nearest grocery store to said cheap housing is a couple of miles away, are you going to carry several bags of groceries that far? Add a vehicle into the mix and you're in a world of hurt. Not to mention the fact that you'll literally be living to work as you won't be able to afford to do really anything else. What kind of life is that?

Not to mention that you'd be fucked if you got sick or seriously hurt.

Anyone who says that abortion is a "states' rights" (ie. McCain) issue is putting forth the idea that the state has the authority to control my womb. McCain also supports enforcement of religious precepts through law.

And if you were one of the people who supported Ron Paul (don't remember at the moment), he definitely wished to give states the authority to dictate religion, by removing the ability to challenge such laws. (See the "We the People" Act).

Its bastards like that who give antifederalism a bad name.

mega mullah for Obama!Fixed. :p

I figured in rent, food, clothes, teh interwebz, and electricity.

Nothing about transportation? Do you live somewhere with good public facilities?

You can't stop disease. Not even in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Of course not. But the fact that somebody gets sick shouldn't put them in debt for generations.

Government, occasionally private. Government property is state property, public is owned by the commons.

I see. So why shouldn't guns be allowed on government property? I mean, this would, after all, diminish our ability to defend ourselves from the government, say if we wanted to sack the capital. It doesn't seem like that's keeping in line with the spirit of the Second Amendment. Also, again, you didn't answer about guns at elementary schools. (I'm not trying to be a douche; I just want to flesh out your views here.)

But no country can have everyone with the most basic standard of living. Not without forcing people to work, not without forcing choices upon people. If you give them the health care, how will that stop a lack of food?

So since it won't ever be perfect, we shouldn't even try? Isn't 350 million people with the basic standard of living better than 300 million?

You can't stop people from making stupid choices, and someone messed up in that family of seven.

Why on earth would you assume that? A family of seven that's come on hard times has automatically made a mistake? Be careful; this is dangerously close to saying that all poor people deserve to be poor.

Six minutes! The only time I've seen response times like that from police is when they're breaking up college parties.

Normally less time or more?

How are you going to get to your job? Walk? What if you can't find affordable housing near your job? Also, what if the nearest grocery store to said cheap housing is a couple of miles away, are you going to carry several bags of groceries that far? Add a vehicle into the mix and you're in a world of hurt. Not to mention the fact that you'll literally be living to work as you won't be able to afford to do really anything else. What kind of life is that?

I figured everything out. Apartment near a large street, fourteen stores/gas stations within a quarter of a mile, four of them hiring, etc, etc. Not made up, it's actually the building my Grandparents live in. 'Cept they make more and hae more things.
Nothing about transportation? Do you live somewhere with good public facilities?

You mean public transportation? Or not? All I know is that half of this town is made of little corner stores.

Of course not. But the fact that somebody gets sick shouldn't put them in debt for generations.

And it won't. Unless they're making far less then minimum wage and/or don't have a job.

I see. So why shouldn't guns be allowed on government property? I mean, this would, after all, diminish our ability to defend ourselves from the government, say if we wanted to sack the capital. It doesn't seem like that's keeping in line with the spirit of the Second Amendment.

1. If we're sacking the Capital, I think we've already broken a few laws.
2. Ever hear of the army? The police? Bodyguards? Extenuating circumstances?

So since it won't ever be perfect, we shouldn't even try? Isn't 350 million people with the basic standard of living better than 300 million?

No, because EVERYONE would be at the BASIC standard of living at that point.

Why on earth would you assume that? A family of seven that's come on hard times has automatically made a mistake? Be careful; this is dangerously close to saying that all poor people deserve to be poor.
Not all of them.

An efficient and fair tax system would not take any money from anybody. But we can't have that.


That's a glib statement....

So here's one in reply:

"An efficient and fair tax system would take money from people that can afford to pay some"


So you admit that your appeal about taxes starving to death a poor family is a bad argument then? As you didn't comment on my response I will assume so. So what other reasons should we not have healthcare?

Normally less time or more?

Much more time. I had a friend who had someone try to break into their house. The guy bailed when he saw someone was home, luckily, as it took the police 30 mins to get there, and he didn't even tell them the guy left. Note that this is in a town with 5 different police agencies (State, County, City, University and Tribal) so there's no lack of personnel.

I also had a friend who liked to break into cars and he said he'd always have at least 15 minutes after someone saw him before he had to get the hell out of dodge. The only reason he got caught is because a cop happened to be driving by at the time.

I figured everything out. Apartment near a large street, fourteen stores/gas stations within a quarter of a mile, four of them hiring, etc, etc. Not made up, it's actually the building my Grandparents live in. 'Cept they make more and hae more things.

How convenient. What about people who don't live somewhere so centrally located. For example, in the town I grew up in the cheapest housing (the only housing one could afford on minimum wage) is about 5 miles from any stores except the party store that is situated right next to it. It'd kinda suck to have to walk 5 miles in January when it's -10 and windy, wouldn't it?

And it won't. Unless they're making far less then minimum wage and/or don't have a job.

I see you've never had to pay medical bills. Luckily, I haven't either but I know people who've been paying on them for years.

Also, do you have to heat this apartment of yours? The price of natural gas has skyrocketed in recent years where I was paying more for gas than I was for electricity, Internet and cell phone combined.

Another thing, with this minimum wage job lifestyle you've got all figured out, how much do you have left over every month? Could you retire on that or would you just work until you died? What about having a family? Children are quite expensive to clothe, feed, etc.

I had problems with my browser like always. I have never said you ratted on me to the Mods. You were the one that called me a worthless Troll, distorted your votes on a very well balanced Public Poll. Make fun of my positions on the issues. With all your friends. I made my Post on Come On well before that.

If you get introuble for calling me a worthless Troll, Please let me know I will defend you with the Mods, I stand by my word. I never have that kind of fun with my fellow nations threads or views.

I accept all telegrams positive and negative with respect from all nations on all views.

I am not a saint, I have said and done things I regret like most of you. But I have never distorted, ruined and made fun of a fellow nations Public Polls, threads & posts like those fellow NS nations have done. Not the first time that has been done to my threads, posts or Public Polls with other nations of mine.

For the record I will never take a fellow nation to the Mods on any charges.

Miami Shores

Sat 08-02-08

The one who talks and acts superior is Barack Obama who claims to be Mr Perfect, everything to everyone.

Good Night you All.

I'm sorry for calling you a troll if indeed you had technical troubles, though you could have just said so sooner.

But I did not intend to distort your poll. If you create a multiple-choice poll, people will vote multiple results. Sometimes people will have mixed feelings about a candadite, and that may be reflected in their votes. If I don't have a simplistic black and white view of the issue, that does not make me guilty of ruining your poll. Your implication that my actions are likely to get me "into trouble", and your oh so generous offer to support me, sound like a poor attempt to portray me as the bad guy, rather than hold a serious debate on the issue.

And I did not merely resort to mocking your beliefs, though I consider them worthy of mockery. I posted serious critisisms of your attack on Obama, and because I did so in a sarcastic manner does not automatically invalidate those arguments. Now if you want to respond to the points I raised, please do so. I'm more than ready for a serious debate, but I will not respond to any further attacks on my character unless I have done something new to justify them.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Check out the "dick move of the week" episode. Too Fing funny.

Another thing, with this minimum wage job lifestyle you've got all figured out, how much do you have left over every month? Could you retire on that or would you just work until you died? What about having a family? Children are quite expensive to clothe, feed, etc.
One hundred-twenty-three dollars, sixty two cents, for feeding two people.

One hundred-twenty-three dollars, sixty two cents, for feeding two people.

A week or month?

A week or month?
Month. I'm a natural bargain shopper. Don't ask me why I figured all of this out, I'm just weird like that.

One hundred-twenty-three dollars, sixty two cents, for feeding two people.

Do you honestly think you can live with that sort of disposable income? You haven't lived on your own yet so you likely don't know, but there are always more costs in life than you anticipate. When I budget for the month I allow an extra 10% of "Oh, shit!" money above my bills because something invariably comes up.

What do you plan on doing between work shifts, staring at the walls? Wouldn't 60 years of that (or however long you live) be a bit tiresome?

What about having a child?

Would you actually expect people to be happy living like that? Would you be happy living like that?

Do you honestly think you can live with that sort of disposable income? You haven't lived on your own yet so you likely don't know, but there are always more costs in life than you anticipate. When I budget for the month I allow an extra 10% of "Oh, shit!" money above my bills because something invariably comes up.

What do you plan on doing between work shifts, staring at the walls? Wouldn't 60 years of that (or however long you live) be a bit tiresome?

What about having a child?

Would you actually expect people to be happy living like that? Would you be happy living like that?

Listen, you give me a library card, and a notebook or two with something to write with, I could be happy for the rest of life. Savvy?

Listen, you give me a library card, and a notebook or two with something to write with, I could be happy for the rest of life. Savvy?

Oddly enough, not everyone is so easily amused.

You still haven't answered my question about raising a family. Are poor people just not supposed to have kids?

Oddly enough, not everyone is so easily amused.

You still haven't answered my question about raising a family. Are poor people just not supposed to have kids?
Until they've got money saved up and/or found a better job, got a few annual raises, whatever, no.

An efficient and fair tax system would not take any money from anybody. But we can't have that.

That would be a completely inefficient tax system, given that money has to come from somewhere and it would be completely empty otherwise.

Under Obama's plan, they would be forced to under the government.

Not forced to. The company that contracted with the government would be required to meet the terms of the contract, but that's just contract law.

*Iz in a better mood after his nightly soda*:p

Yay!

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk294/Tombombadil9/Obama.gif

=) On some things, yes. But, as someone else has said, Obama is a candidate I can disagree with. He's not out there going, "This is the way it is is and anyone who disagrees is unpatriotic/stupid/unthinking/immoral/etc. He's made it clear that he's willing to sit down and listen to all sides of an argument.

Its bastards like that who give antifederalism a bad name.

Maybe. I've got no problem with the idea of decreasing the power of the federal government. But I don't see how it helps individual liberty one iota if it is accompanied by a corresponding increase in state power.

That would be a completely inefficient tax system, given that money has to come from somewhere and it would be completely empty otherwise.

Which is why I said you can't have that. Unfortunately.:(

=) On some things, yes. But, as someone else has said, Obama is a candidate I can disagree with. He's not out there going, "This is the way it is is and anyone who disagrees is unpatriotic/stupid/unthinking/immoral/etc. He's made it clear that he's willing to sit down and listen to all sides of an argument.

*snicker*


Maybe. I've got no problem with the idea of decreasing the power of the federal government. But I don't see how it helps individual liberty one iota if it is accompanied by a corresponding increase in state power.
OH! OH! I KNOW! Easier to rebel.:D

Maybe. I've got no problem with the idea of decreasing the power of the federal government. But I don't see how it helps individual liberty one iota if it is accompanied by a corresponding increase in state power.

My version of antifederalism is to reduce the scope of the Federal government's responsibilities to foreign relations, defense and assisting with the coordination of things like disaster relief and ensuring that basic human rights are protected. Being a small "d" social democrat I want my state to do things like instituting universal healthcare, free education, extensive public works and so on. My reason for this is that Texans don't want the same things from their government as New Yorkers who don't want the same thing as Kentuckians, etc.

Basically, provided human rights are protected and the various constitutional restrictions followed, the states should be able to do as they please.

After careful review of the posts and public votes after the fact. While Skyland Mt called me a worthless spamming troll, which triggerd my response. While I had browser problems like usual he could not have known. Skyland Mt has apologised on a previous post.

While is clear a few nations did mess up the Public Poll votes on purpose, Skyland Mt did not. He voted honorably. I picked on the wrong person. I apologise. I have sent a private telegram of apology to Skyland Mt at his nation.

I hope we can put this past us to rest, dispite our political differences.

Miami Shores

As I stated on the Moderation Forum, Post 5 of Come on, I will never take a fellow nation before the Mods on any charges of flame, flaming, spamming, troll, ect, ect, ect. Even if it is directed at me. I will not seek revenge. I will defend my views and post on. I did not report any actions in this case, nor did Skyland Mt.

Miami Shores

Breaking news according to CNN: Obama supports offshore drilling as part of larger energy plan. Which goes against most of his Democratic Party.

As his poll numbers began to drop, the race begans to tighten.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Oaflipflops.jpg

Again.

I know what Jaws has to say about that.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y295/Jedi-Gilthanas/obamajaws.png

*snip* Again.

So, "flip-flop" now means "be consistent"?

So, "flip-flop" now means "be consistent"?

Rather it means someone doesn't want reading comprehension skills to get in the way of smearing someone they don't like.

Rather it means someone doesn't want reading comprehension skills to get in the way of smearing someone they don't like.

Ah, ok then.

So, "flip-flop" now means "be consistent"?Thank the repugnantcans for dumbing down the U.S. ever further in that regard.

Thank the repugnantcans for dumbing down the U.S. ever further in that regard.

It's almost Orwellian. Flexible open-mindedness is Bad, stubborn obstinancy is Good.

It's almost Orwellian. Flexible open-mindedness is Bad, stubborn obstinancy is Good.It *is* Orwellian! I can think of probably a dozen websites that go so far as to use other quotes of the administration to back that point up. :(

I see the ususal serious posters are posting again. Have your fun. It just shows your good characters. lol.

The kinds of characters you despise so much in others.

I see the ususal serious posters are posting again. Have your fun. It just shows your good characters. lol.

The kinds of characters you despise so much in others.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13892533&postcount=147
Stop, you rake. *blushes*

You are making fools of yourselves, if you wish to make fools of yourselves, make fools of yourselves. lol.

You are making fools of yourselves, if you wish to make fools of yourselves, make fools of yourselves. lol.

This coming from a one-issue Bushevik who believes sending Little Elian back to Daddy in Castroland is more horrible than getting our troops killed or crippled in two insurgencies halfway across the world by orders of the incompetent coke-snorting fratboy you voted into office to spite Slick Willy.

Obama might not be up, but the news came in at the time it would do the least damage.

And quite frankly there has never been nor ever will be a man or woman that should be trusted with the powers invested in the Office of the Presidency that is written in the US Constitution, let alone what has been allowed to grow.

After careful review of the posts and public votes after the fact. While Skyland Mt called me a worthless spamming troll, which triggerd my response. While I had browser problems like usual he could not have known. Skyland Mt has apologised on a previous post.

While is clear a few nations did mess up the Public Poll votes on purpose, Skyland Mt did not. He voted honorably. I picked on the wrong person. I apologise. I have sent a private telegram of apology to Skyland Mt at his nation.

I hope we can put this past us to rest, dispite our political differences.

Miami Shores

As I stated on the Moderation Forum, Post 5 of Come on, I will never take a fellow nation before the Mods on any charges of flame, flaming, spamming, troll, ect, ect, ect. Even if it is directed at me. I will not seek revenge. I will defend my views and post on. I did not report any actions in this case, nor did Skyland Mt.

Miami Shores

Thank you for your honesty and willingness to admit a mistake. It's all too rare to see that in these kinds of debates.

As for posting technical problems, I've had similar difficulties myself, and I should have remembered that before posting.

This coming from a one-issue Bushevik who believes sending Little Elian back to Daddy in Castroland is more horrible than getting our troops killed or crippled in two insurgencies halfway across the world by orders of the incompetent coke-snorting fratboy you voted into office to spite Slick Willy.
Run-on! Run-on! :p
And, true. S/he's a one-trick pony, by most appearances.

You are making fools of yourselves, if you wish to make fools of yourselves, make fools of yourselves. lol.

Who, exactly, are you trying to bait with this?

Who, exactly, are you trying to bait with this?
It's probably one of those sociopathic ploys, you know, persecution complex or something.
A breedbate.

I agree with OP. He said enough and nothing else needs be added.

Good point OP.

Retarded end? Religion is now retarded? As is wanting to defend yourself and/or wanting to go hunting?

The way it was explained, he was talking about how people have nothing left to turn to that would give them hope but religion and guns.

In summary, his statement can be boiled down to "the government has utterly abandoned these people, and the only thing they have to get solace in is religion and guns".

It's sort of like alcoholism you see people take up when their lives come crashing down on them.

So, I accidentally voted that I will not vote for Obama. :$

But yeah, I have to agree with everybody that says "so he's willing to *gasp* compromise!"

Another flip-flop for the "I'll say or do anything for your vote" Obama.

Fapping.

Adds this to list of "shit not to read while downing one's morning coffee"

I agree with OP. He said enough and nothing else needs be added.

Good point OP.

Because that doesn't sound just a little sycophantic. With maybe a smidge of sockpuppetry.

Because that doesn't sound just a little sycophantic. With maybe a smidge of sockpuppetry.

What? A newly created user making a short post in a long thread just to say "I agree."-- Why would you think that he's a puppet?!

The way it was explained, he was talking about how people have nothing left to turn to that would give them hope but religion and guns.

In summary, his statement can be boiled down to "the government has utterly abandoned these people, and the only thing they have to get solace in is religion and guns".

And it's important to note that he wasn't saying that people only care about religion and guns for that reason - just that it both are things that people cling to very strongly if they feel they have nothing else.


Another flip-flop for the "I'll say or do anything for your vote" Obama.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I see the trouble makers and agitators are back again, they know who they are and so does everyone else.

An honest mistake on your votes, is an honest mistake no problem.

My main point on this thread is his campaign slogan, change you can believe in is designed to mean all things to all voters just to get your votes. Just proves he is just another politician not change you can believe in he claims to be.

One thing I have noticed, as his poll numbers drop, Obama has changed positions so much. Now they are similar to MCCain's. I dont know if that is a good campaign strategy? A coincidence or an attempt to get as many votes as possible? Perhaps you all may wish to discuss this point if you have not done so already.

On Cuba which I understand and accept most of you dont care except us crazy Cuban Americans. A 200 % change only after he runs for president. Only after MCCain called him on it. As he has never cared about most Cuban Americans position on the issue. Now its almost identical to John McCains who has a perfect record on the issue..

On Israel the main personal issue of Jewish American voters, Obama has a poor record. Supports the division of Jerusalem, Yet tries to convince jewish voters he cares about thier main personal issues.

He tries to convience Arab American voters he cares about thier main personal issues Iraq & Palestine, which are in conflict with the Jewish Americans positions on thier main personal issue.

On Iraq, he was against the war, he supported to bring the troops home at any cost, withdrawl within xx number of days. Was against the surge.

Now he is against the war in Iraq, wants to bring the troops home under certain conditions, practically the same conditions as MCCain. Supports to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan. Which would require a redeployment of the troops he supports to bring home, or a surge of other American troops in Afghanistan.

I wonder how his bring the troops home at any cost supporters feel about that one? Perhaps they dont believe Obama?

Would meet with unfriendly world leaders without preconditions after preparations with conditions, lol, after he was called on it.

On Offshore Oil Drilling a 180 % degree turn which many of you have praised, some of you have pointed out, he is still basically opposed too, but would be willing to accept some offshore oil drilling, well so would MCCain.

While the Public Poll options are well balanced In retrospect, I regret options 7 & 8 should have read: Non USA Citizen I dont support Obama, Non USA Citizen I support Obama. But no poll is perfect, and I only have 10 options to work with.

Still non USA citizens could vote thier support or not on 7 & 8 as probably many did.

Options 1 through 8 have no conditions.

I am very proud of this thread, 148 posts, 141 Public votes.

It proves we are political addicts have fun in a respectful way.

One thing I have noticed, as his poll numbers drop, Obama has changed positions so much.

Are you going to point out these changes? So far, all you've shown us is a willingness to compromise.

I can actually name one issue on which he has actually changed positions - not simply agreed to compromise or admitted that he would rethink positions as situations changed. Can you?

On Cuba which I understand and accept most of you dont care except us crazy Cuban Americans. A 200 % change only after he runs for president. Only after MCCain called him on it. As he has never cared about most Cuban Americans position on the issue. Now its almost identical to John McCains who has a perfect record on the issue..

I asked for this earlier, but can you show me where Obama actually changed? Can you show me where he held one position and now holds a different or opposite position?

On Israel the main personal issue of Jewish American voters, Obama has a poor record. Supports the division of Jerusalem, Yet tries to convince jewish voters he cares about thier main personal issues.

Actually, he doesn't support the division of Jerusalem, although I believe he has stated that it would be a possible consideration in the peace process.

He tries to convience Arab American voters he cares about thier main personal issues Iraq & Palestine, which are in conflict with the Jewish Americans positions on thier main personal issue.

Wait. You mean he actually wants to see a solution all sides can live with? You mean.....compromise?

Yeah, that clearly means he's evil.

On Iraq, he was against the war, he supported to bring the troops home at any cost, withdrawl within xx number of days. Was against the surge.

Now he is against the war in Iraq, wants to bring the troops home under certain conditions, practically the same conditions as MCCain. Supports to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan. Which would require a redeployment of the troops he supports to bring home, or a surge of other American troops in Afghanistan.

He has always stated that the troops would have to be brought home carefully. He still plans on beginning withdrawal at the beginning of his presidency and currently still plans on having combat troops out in 16 months. The difference between him and the type of politician you apparently want is that he isn't (and never has been saying) he would do that under any situation. He's willing to state that such plans will have to be reconsidered at every step of the way - with changing situations.

I wonder how his bring the troops home at any cost supporters feel about that one? Perhaps they dont believe Obama?

I don't think there are many people who want to bring the troops home "at any cost". I think you're building a rather flammable strawman here.

Would meet with unfriendly world leaders without preconditions after preparations with conditions, lol, after he was called on it.

And here, as I already pointed out, is an obvious and pretty clearly deliberate strawman. He isn't going to place conditions on meeting with leaders like the Bush administration has. He isn't going to play the "We're taking our ball and going home" game of politics.

This does not, and has never, meant that he would just show up in Tehran without being careful about it. It was painted that way by people like you, but it was never something he actually said.

On Offshore Oil Drilling a 180 % degree turn which many of you have praised, some of you have pointed out, he is still basically opposed too, but would be willing to accept some offshore oil drilling, well so would MCCain.

A 180 degree turn would be supporting offshore drilling. He doesn't, so no such turn is evident.

What he has said is that he would accept a compromise solution that had some offshore drilling in it even though he doesn't support the drilling itself. Since he has always supported working with people across the aisle and finding compromise solutions, this isn't a change at all.

It proves we are political addicts have fun in a respectful way.

Respectful, eh?

So your idea of respect is posting something, ignoring all responses, telling people they are "making fools" of themselves, and then posting almost the exact same post again as if you haven't already done so and already received responses?

Ive heard 5 or 6 posters all mention Obama dropping in the polls. Yet every Poll ive seen all has him with the same 5-6% lead nationally that he has had for two or three months now.

Ive heard 5 or 6 posters all mention Obama dropping in the polls. Yet every Poll ive seen all has him with the same 5-6% lead nationally that he has had for two or three months now.

I saw some polls on CNN last night that had him dropping 2-4% in several states where he was leading. He still maintained a lead but it was narrowed.

Thank the repugnantcans for dumbing down the U.S. ever further in that regard.

Straughn, you really don't want to spur the forums to frenzies of counter-invention (such as last election's "Democraps"), because that will stir us mods to frenzies of intervention, and this would make you first in line. Don't risk it.

Rather it means someone doesn't want reading comprehension skills to get in the way of smearing someone they don't like.

*sigh* right now, mild flaming. Don't escalate it. (I seem to be saying this to you a lot recently, Gauthier. Possibly I'm just getting tetchy in my old age, but possibly not.)

Straughn, you really don't want to spur the forums to frenzies of counter-invention (such as last election's "Democraps"), because that will stir us mods to frenzies of intervention, and this would make you first in line. Don't risk it.

"Last election?" We've been having an election for years and no one told me?

Ive heard 5 or 6 posters all mention Obama dropping in the polls. Yet every Poll ive seen all has him with the same 5-6% lead nationally that he has had for two or three months now.

John McCain's Mudslinging Machine (the Straight-Talk Express was old and decrepit and had to be put down) has been coating Obama and the Obama camp is sitting around trying to be the bigger man about it, which, this being American, means he is dropping in poll numbers as everyone believes the lies and bullshit McCain is spewing and seeing no one go after McCain. Since gentlemanly responses to mudslinging don't make for good yellow journalism, everyone is reporting what McCain is saying and nothing Obama is. If Obama wants to win this election, he is going to have to release the hounds. Being the bigger man is what cost Kerry the election.

"Last election?" We've been having an election for years and no one told me?

I've had an election for years now.

I'm just a bit shy about mentioning it in the presence of a poster with no pants.

John McCain's Mudslinging Machine (the Straight-Talk Express was old and decrepit and had to be put down) has been coating Obama and the Obama camp is sitting around trying to be the bigger man about it, which, this being American, means he is dropping in poll numbers as everyone believes the lies and bullshit McCain is spewing and seeing no one go after McCain. Since gentlemanly responses to mudslinging don't make for good yellow journalism, everyone is reporting what McCain is saying and nothing Obama is. If Obama wants to win this election, he is going to have to release the hounds. Being the bigger man is what cost Kerry the election.

Heh. If Obama loses, he's a shoe-in for Secretary of the United Nations. The rest of the world fucking loves him -- a Nominee who speaks proper English like we all learnt in school. None of that Al Gore roadshow for him: straight to the top.

US will be sorry then :p

Heh. If Obama loses, he's a shoe-in for Secretary of the United Nations. The rest of the world fucking loves him -- a Nominee who speaks proper English like we all learnt in school. None of that Al Gore roadshow for him: straight to the top.

The very same United Nations that the United States doesn't give a shit about except as either a rubber stamp for idiotic invasions or a punching bag of derision and ridicule when they want to feel good about themselves?

Hardly the top for someone who wants to be President of the United States.

US will be sorry then :p

It'll only be sorry when the United Nations gets a real military force to back up its authority with.

The very same United Nations that the United States doesn't give a shit about except as either a rubber stamp for idiotic invasions or a punching bag of derision and ridicule when they want to feel good about themselves?


That's pretty much how every permanent member of the Security Council feels about it.

It's usefulness expired with the cold war. Absent some kind of new bi-polar geopolitical order it will remain a farce. No real diplomacy happens there anyway.

I see the ususal serious posters are posting again. Have your fun. It just shows your good characters. lol.

The kinds of characters you despise so much in others.

Welcome to NSG, n00b.


Goddamn I hate the bitching of the Miami Cuban lobby.