Your nail is in the wrong coffin. You continue to ignore the issue and instead present evidence of other people doing the same thing. That is not a valid defense.
Either defend Obama or admit you can not defend his actions.
I didn't raise these issues, I only parroted them from dailykos. I'll reprint it here in case you missed it earlier:
During the primary season when Obama was preferred by the vast majority of the Kossacks over HRC, it was due to the fact that somehow HRC was a continuation of the past when Obama was a clean break from the past. Now looking at the Obama's nimble position on Iraq willing to keep ("residual force for clearly defined missions" aka semi-permanent bases), 180 degree reversal on FISA, his embrace of AIPAC and Israeli hegemony in Middle East, his newest adventure in faith based initiave, this whole "move to the middle" dance has left me wondering, exactly what is it about Obama that is so radically different from Hillary Clinton who is by most account is a typical middle of the road, plain vanilla politician ??
I mean, if he is keeping the ("residual")troops in Iraq, wants to keep syping on people illegaly, will keep on appeasing the genocidial policies of Israel (and by default America's because let's face it, Israel is de-facto the 51st state of US and wouldn't dare taking a dump without its approval), will continue to blur the line between religion and politics in State affairs, really, what is it so different about this guy from a purely policy standpoint which Hillary wouldn't have delivered??
You're still insisting that Obama is "changing positions all over the place" when he changed his stance on ONE thing AND gave a pretty valid explanation of WHY.
You continue to ignore the issue and instead present evidence of other people doing the same thing. That is not a valid defense.
Either defend Obama or admit you can not defend his actions.
Actually, this sounds like a pretty good defense to me. Even if Mr. MacRoss leaves aside what you want him to leave aside, You've pretty much brought up one (1) issue, which is not really all that important, given Obama's explanation.
Do you expect that a candidate should frame his issues once in the primary, and then never, never change his mind? We've seen what good that does with this administration deciding to go to Iraq, ignoring all advice not to do it, and then once it turned to crap, ignoring all advice on how to fix it or whether it was time to leave. Candidates change their mind. They change their positions. Welcome to the real world.
As for me, I'm going to vote for Obama even if he abandons every position he's ever had. I have one reason for doing this: the number of Supreme Court Justices and the number of Federal Court Judges the next President will appoint.
Joe - I can respect your view on the issue of judges being your big thing based on your background. I have no doubt that Obama Judges will err on the side of Civil Liberties for the most part. My only concern with 'liberal' judges is that in a recent case the liberal judges were (in my opinion) on the wrong side of the DC Gun Law decision. But, being a gun owner I am obviously biased in that case.
With regards to Obama's views changing I thought that the FISA, Faith-Based Initiatives and Immediate Iraq Withdrawal issues were considered main issues by those who supported him most vocally in the primary. If a candidate I supported in the Primaries suddenly changed his opinion on my core issues I would lose all respect for that candidate.
This came up before on the forums when the Faith-Based Initiatives story broke and the topics of pandering for votes and fooling yourself on why your candidate has changed their views.
Yes, politicians can change their views over time when new data becomes available. I just find it interesting how quickly these opinions are changing when no big pieces of new information have become available.
I've been doing some web searching to compare the policies of both but all I seem to get are recent articles. When I do find older articles I do find Obama saying he is all for getting the troops out on day one but the "I'll be listening to the commanders on the ground" caveat is always there.
I also looked to see if he only recently added the qualifier "combat" to the term "troops" but he has not. So, if Obama pulls all of the combat troops out in 16 months but non-combat troops remain he will still be true to his word. Some of his supporters may not like it but I can't find him on record saying "all" troops leaving Iraq in 16 months.
All I can think of is that a lot of people made assumptions about his Iraq policy and the Obama campaign either did not notice them or chose not to notice them. Either way his policy has a lot of wiggle room built into it.
Yes Steve, Unlike current leaders Obama leaves room for someone with more knowledge of the situation then then himself to tell him his idea is a bad idea.
On the other hand it also lets him adjust his position without contradicting himself. Not a bad tactic, you know, not painting yourself into a corner.
Yes Steve, Unlike current leaders Obama leaves room for someone with more knowledge of the situation then then himself to tell him his idea is a bad idea.
On the other hand it also lets him adjust his position without contradicting himself. Not a bad tactic, you know, not painting yourself into a corner.
There is the potential downside of being branded as someone who has no plan. A downside that I do not find likely to stick to Obama given current circumstances.
He is, after all, a politician. This is what they do.
He did vote for an amendment to remove immunity from the bill, though. Why he voted for the bill without the amendment, I don't know.
Because sometimes you have to vote for something you don't completely agree with to get stuff done. For example the bill probably had like ten other provisions about feeding helpless babies attached to it. God I hate how they make bills these days.
Because sometimes you have to vote for something you don't completely agree with to get stuff done. For example the bill probably had like ten other provisions about feeding helpless babies attached to it. God I hate how they make bills these days.
That goes against the entire philosophy of having a bicameral legislature. The idea is to make it very hard to get anything done at all. The reason you want it to be very hard to get anything done is because it is better to do nothing at all than to do something that isn't terrific. If the bill is perfect in every way, except for one flaw, you are supposed to vote no. We're better off having the law never change than we are if we make even a few small bad changes.
He is, after all, a politician. This is what they do.
He did vote for an amendment to remove immunity from the bill, though. Why he voted for the bill without the amendment, I don't know.
Because sometimes you have to vote for something you don't completely agree with to get stuff done. For example the bill probably had like ten other provisions about feeding helpless babies attached to it. God I hate how they make bills these days.
Because sometimes you have to vote for something you don't completely agree with to get stuff done.
Even if it breaks say...I don't know...the Fourth Amendment?
That's why the Judicial Branch is so important and why it is so important that good people be appointed to be Federal Judges and Justices. This law will eventually be reviewed and it will hopefully be found unconstitutional.
I can't say enough times that whoever becomes President will likely be able to appoint as many as three (3) Supreme Court Justices. Think of that. That by itself makes this election important.
Is there any recation from the forum regarding the New Yorker magazine cover?
Personally, I am not sure what I find most upsetting - the fact that people actually view the Obamas that way, thus making the absurdity less obvious or the fact that editor felt that the cover would be appropriate in the current political climate.
Personally, I am not sure what I find most upsetting - the fact that people actually view the Obamas that way, thus making the absurdity less obvious or the fact that editor felt that the cover would be appropriate in the current political climate.
Personally, I am not sure what I find most upsetting - the fact that people actually view the Obamas that way, thus making the absurdity less obvious or the fact that editor felt that the cover would be appropriate in the current political climate.
I find it more upsetting that people keep calling it "satire". It's not satire so much as it is a "burlesque". I'm annoyed at people saying everything is "satire". People are going to end up using that word to describe so many different things that it will lose any meaning.
I find it more upsetting that people keep calling it "satire". It's not satire so much as it is a "burlesque". I'm annoyed at people saying everything is "satire". People are going to end up using that word to describe so many different things that it will lose any meaning.
I think it is satire, or at least sarcasm, but I see why it also upsets people. There are people who are too dumb to realize it is satire, and they take it at face value. Thus, their stupidity drags them down even lower. Smart people who get the joke, get the joke. However, if you are smart enough to get the joke, you are smart enough to realize how many stupid people are not getting the joke, and are being misinformed. Thus, the smart people do not want satire or sarcasm to be so visible in places where many stupid people will see it, because it will make them even dumber. They want smart things to stay where they won't they won't accidentally instigate acts of stupidity.
sat·ire –noun 1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
Sarcasm is when you literally say one thing, but obviously mean the opposite. You say "yeah, right" but your tone of voice lets everyone know that you really mean "no way". The artist here drew a picture of "The Obama's are terrorists", but he obviously means "The Obamas aren't terrorists, you nutjob!" He is using this sarcastic remark to deride the folly of the people who are out there actually suggesting that these crazy ideas are actually true. He's showing you just how crazy these nut jobs are by simply illustrating how crazy they are. It's what artists do.
There is only one alternative to it being satire. That alternative is that the illustrator actually is trying to say "Yes, they are terrorists. I have drawn a picture of these terrorists. Take it at face value. I'm not being sarcastic. This is what will happen if you vote for Obama." I highly doubt an illustrator for The New Yorker is going to be thinking that. Seriously.
Comments
Either defend Obama or admit you can not defend his actions.
I didn't raise these issues, I only parroted them from dailykos. I'll reprint it here in case you missed it earlier: Obama & Hillary-The Difference
Do you expect that a candidate should frame his issues once in the primary, and then never, never change his mind? We've seen what good that does with this administration deciding to go to Iraq, ignoring all advice not to do it, and then once it turned to crap, ignoring all advice on how to fix it or whether it was time to leave. Candidates change their mind. They change their positions. Welcome to the real world.
As for me, I'm going to vote for Obama even if he abandons every position he's ever had. I have one reason for doing this: the number of Supreme Court Justices and the number of Federal Court Judges the next President will appoint.
With regards to Obama's views changing I thought that the FISA, Faith-Based Initiatives and Immediate Iraq Withdrawal issues were considered main issues by those who supported him most vocally in the primary. If a candidate I supported in the Primaries suddenly changed his opinion on my core issues I would lose all respect for that candidate.
This came up before on the forums when the Faith-Based Initiatives story broke and the topics of pandering for votes and fooling yourself on why your candidate has changed their views.
Yes, politicians can change their views over time when new data becomes available. I just find it interesting how quickly these opinions are changing when no big pieces of new information have become available.
I also looked to see if he only recently added the qualifier "combat" to the term "troops" but he has not. So, if Obama pulls all of the combat troops out in 16 months but non-combat troops remain he will still be true to his word. Some of his supporters may not like it but I can't find him on record saying "all" troops leaving Iraq in 16 months.
All I can think of is that a lot of people made assumptions about his Iraq policy and the Obama campaign either did not notice them or chose not to notice them. Either way his policy has a lot of wiggle room built into it.
On the other hand it also lets him adjust his position without contradicting himself. Not a bad tactic, you know, not painting yourself into a corner.
He did vote for an amendment to remove immunity from the bill, though. Why he voted for the bill without the amendment, I don't know.
I can't say enough times that whoever becomes President will likely be able to appoint as many as three (3) Supreme Court Justices. Think of that. That by itself makes this election important.
Personally, I am not sure what I find most upsetting - the fact that people actually view the Obamas that way, thus making the absurdity less obvious or the fact that editor felt that the cover would be appropriate in the current political climate.
There is only one alternative to it being satire. That alternative is that the illustrator actually is trying to say "Yes, they are terrorists. I have drawn a picture of these terrorists. Take it at face value. I'm not being sarcastic. This is what will happen if you vote for Obama." I highly doubt an illustrator for The New Yorker is going to be thinking that. Seriously.