I also think it was just a slip that would be caught prior to any policy being formed.
Wait a minute, I though military subordinates weren't suppose to question anything?
Yeah, what about all those people who questioned GWB being branded as traitors? Did Richard Clarke stay around long after he questioned GWB? What about the people who tried to question Rumsfeld? I don't think that any mistakes would be "caught". I think they'd just try to bend reality to their will, like they have for the last eight years.
Once again, "57" states is a minor thing. Getting Sunni and Shia mixed up MANY DIFFERENT TIMES is not.
Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Sen. John McCain, the presumed GOP presidential nominee, said Johnson's resignation "raises serious questions about Barack Obama's judgment. ... By entrusting this process to a man who has now been forced to step down because of questionable loans, the American people have reason to question the judgment of a candidate who has shown he will only make the right call when under pressure from the news media.
"America can't afford a president who flip-flops on key questions in the course of 24 hours. That's not change we can believe in," Bounds added.
Please frame the issue Steve. Be sure to give us the full benefit of your sterling education and many years of experience in politics.
The main issue is that Obama has come out and effectively said, "Lobbyists are not wanted near my campaign or the DNC" yet they still remain in his campaign. If he really means what he says he should eject all lobbyists from his campaign.
The secondary issue is that he only acts reactively in this respect and not proactively when dealing with issues of a person's character. He has been using the "that person is not the person I have known for 20 years" argument too often. It makes him look like someone who is easily fooled. This time he's using the "it's not my fault" argument. If it's not his fault who picked this guy to be on Obama's VP vetting committee?
Posting links about McCain is not a valid defense of Obama.
The main issue is that Obama has come out and effectively said, "Lobbyists are not wanted near my campaign or the DNC" yet they still remain in his campaign. If he really means what he says he should ejectalllobbyists from his campaign.
But Steve - lobbyists are essential to our democracy. Maybe Obama read your posts and saw ow he was wrong and you were right. If I were you, I'd be waiting by my phone in case he calls to ask you to be his campaign manager.
The secondary issue is that he only acts reactively in this respect and not proactively when dealing with issues of a person's character. He has been using the "that person is not the person I have known for 20 years" argument too often. It makes him look like someone who is easily fooled. This time he's using the "it's not my fault" argument. If it's not his fault who picked this guy to be on Obama's VP vetting committee?
This is completely irrelevant to anything in reality. Bush was supposed to be a great judge of character. We saw how that worked out.
"Easily fooled"? Yeah, it's pretty easy to graduate from Columbia, be the president of the Harvard Law Review, teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for ten years, and write two best selling books if you're easily fooled.
Posting links about McCain is not a valid defense of Obama.
It is a defense of this stupid "flip flop" business. Politicians flip flop. That's one of the things you should expect them to do. It's stupid to think it's some sort of valid criticism of a politician that he "flip flops", at east without any reference to what the "flip flop" actually concerned.
The main issue is that Obama has come out and effectively said, "Lobbyists are not wanted near my campaign or the DNC" yet they still remain in his campaign. If he really means what he says he should ejectalllobbyists from his campaign.
But Steve - lobbyists are essential to our democracy. Maybe Obama read your posts and saw ow he was wrong and you were right. If I were you, I'd be waiting by my phone in case he calls to ask you to be his campaign manager.
It does not matter what I think about lobbyists in this case, I'm not running for President. This is about Obama, not me. Trying to use me as a defense only shows that you can't think of a good defense.
The secondary issue is that he only acts reactively in this respect and not proactively when dealing with issues of a person's character. He has been using the "that person is not the person I have known for 20 years" argument too often. It makes him look like someone who is easily fooled. This time he's using the "it's not my fault" argument. If it's not his fault who picked this guy to be on Obama's VP vetting committee?
This is completely irrelevant to anything in reality. Bush was supposed to be a great judge of character. We saw how that worked out.
"Easily fooled"? Yeah, it's pretty easy to graduate from Columbia, be the president of the Harvard Law Review, teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for ten years, and write two best selling books if you're easily fooled.
If he is not easily fooled than he is lying about not knowing the character of these people. Which is it, easily fooled or a liar?
Funny how now you use Bush in your defense of Obama, do you want four more years of a President who is a terrible judge of character?
Posting links about McCain is not a valid defense of Obama.
It is a defense of this stupid "flip flop" business. Politicians flip flop. That's one of the things you should expect them to do. It's stupid to think it's some sort of valid criticism of a politician that he "flip flops", at east without any reference to what the "flip flop" actually concerned.
It's not the flip-flops in general. Any politician who has voted on at least one bill can probably be called a flip-flopper due to the way bills are created. The problem here is that he is showing a pattern of vehemently denying the allegations until the media turns on him and then he folds and throws the guy under the bus. Why does he wait until the media turns on him to react? If the media was right all along why wait so long to do something? Is he scared of something? Is he insecure? Will he be this way as President saying one thing one day and then doing a 180 because of media pressure?
I see you defending Obama for doing some of the things you decry Bush for doing and I fight that irritating.
Also, your condescending attitude is very annoying. You seem to forget that the voting public is made up far more people like me (blue collar workers of limited education) than they are of you (highly educated white collar workers). This is why Obama's statement about people clinging to their guns and religion is so damaging to him. It gives him an air of, "I know what is best, who are you to question me you peasant?" that may work well with the college educated crowd but the rest of us do not like the tone of disrespect.
Hey Steve: Obama = Commander in Chief for all intents and purposes. If you criticize him , you're a traitor.
Is that some kind of parody/satire site?
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton April 2003
I'm just buying in to what you people have been saying for eight years, Steve. If you criticize the president, you are a traitor and you want the terrorists to win. Obama is going to be the president, so if you criticize him, you are a traitor and you want the terrorists to win. Oh yeah, and you don't love the baby Jesus.
I'm just buying in to what you people have been saying for eight years, Steve. If you criticize the president, you are a traitor and you want the terrorists to win. Obama is going to be the president, so if you criticize him, you are a traitor and you want the terrorists to win. Oh yeah, and you don't love the baby Jesus.
"Easily fooled"? Yeah, it's pretty easy to graduate from Columbia, be the president of the Harvard Law Review, teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for ten years, and write two best selling books if you're easily fooled.
If he is not easily fooled than he is lying about not knowing the character of these people. Which is it, easily fooled or a liar?
As I said, it is highly unlikely that he is easily fooled. As for lying, we have to consider what information was available to him at the time and whether he believed what he said when he said it. As we all know, if you believe what you say when you say it, then you're not lying.
"Easily fooled"? Yeah, it's pretty easy to graduate from Columbia, be the president of the Harvard Law Review, teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for ten years, and write two best selling books if you're easily fooled.
If he is not easily fooled than he is lying about not knowing the character of these people. Which is it, easily fooled or a liar?
As I said, it is highly unlikely that he is easily fooled. As for lying, we have to consider what information was available to him at the time and whether he believed what he said when he said it. As we all know, if you believe what you say when you say it, then you're not lying.
Being a good judge of character and having the ability to spot forged or inaccurate documents are two entirely different skills. The only thing they have in common is that being fooled is easier when the person or documents represent something you want to believe in.
Either way you are still using the "so-and-so did it so you can't call my guy out for it"/"everyone else is doing it" arguments which is very funny because these arguments are the same ones that get you rilled up when others use them in a discussion.
Yes, believing what you are saying when you say it does not make you a liar but it does mean someone fooled you into believing it in the first place, even if that fool is yourself.
Yes, believing what you are saying when you say it does not make you a liar but it does mean someone fooled you into believing it in the first place, even if that fool is yourself.
I would much prefer to see everyone pay the same exact percentage of income in taxes with a basic exemption on the first $30K of income. No rebates/refunds for those who do not pay income taxes. Not so sure about getting rid of deductions.
Comments
Once again, "57" states is a minor thing. Getting Sunni and Shia mixed up MANY DIFFERENT TIMES is not.
The Outrage Game Bites Obama
McCain: Flip-Flop on Immigration.
McCain: Flip-Flop on Redeployment
McCain: Flip-Flop on Taxes and Social Security.
McCain: Flip-Flop on Roe v. Wade.
McCain: Flip-Flop on whether we went into Iraq for Oil.
The secondary issue is that he only acts reactively in this respect and not proactively when dealing with issues of a person's character. He has been using the "that person is not the person I have known for 20 years" argument too often. It makes him look like someone who is easily fooled. This time he's using the "it's not my fault" argument. If it's not his fault who picked this guy to be on Obama's VP vetting committee?
Posting links about McCain is not a valid defense of Obama.
"Easily fooled"? Yeah, it's pretty easy to graduate from Columbia, be the president of the Harvard Law Review, teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for ten years, and write two best selling books if you're easily fooled. It is a defense of this stupid "flip flop" business. Politicians flip flop. That's one of the things you should expect them to do. It's stupid to think it's some sort of valid criticism of a politician that he "flip flops", at east without any reference to what the "flip flop" actually concerned.
Funny how now you use Bush in your defense of Obama, do you want four more years of a President who is a terrible judge of character? It's not the flip-flops in general. Any politician who has voted on at least one bill can probably be called a flip-flopper due to the way bills are created. The problem here is that he is showing a pattern of vehemently denying the allegations until the media turns on him and then he folds and throws the guy under the bus. Why does he wait until the media turns on him to react? If the media was right all along why wait so long to do something? Is he scared of something? Is he insecure? Will he be this way as President saying one thing one day and then doing a 180 because of media pressure?
I see you defending Obama for doing some of the things you decry Bush for doing and I fight that irritating.
Also, your condescending attitude is very annoying. You seem to forget that the voting public is made up far more people like me (blue collar workers of limited education) than they are of you (highly educated white collar workers). This is why Obama's statement about people clinging to their guns and religion is so damaging to him. It gives him an air of, "I know what is best, who are you to question me you peasant?" that may work well with the college educated crowd but the rest of us do not like the tone of disrespect.
Hey Steve: Obama = Commander in Chief for all intents and purposes. If you criticize him , you're a traitor.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton April 2003
That being said, I agree with Steve.
nuff said.
Either way you are still using the "so-and-so did it so you can't call my guy out for it"/"everyone else is doing it" arguments which is very funny because these arguments are the same ones that get you rilled up when others use them in a discussion.
Yes, believing what you are saying when you say it does not make you a liar but it does mean someone fooled you into believing it in the first place, even if that fool is yourself.
Of course, the question was for HMTKSteve, and I'd like to see his answer.
I would much prefer to see everyone pay the same exact percentage of income in taxes with a basic exemption on the first $30K of income. No rebates/refunds for those who do not pay income taxes. Not so sure about getting rid of deductions.
News Outlets Face Increasing Scrutiny in Campaign
Fox News used to be good. It has not been good for a long time.