How many of Obama's positions have to "evolve" before you realize that the Obama running for President is not the same Obama who ran in the primary. Why are all of these positions changing now? What position will change next? Is there anything that he believes in that he will not change on when the polls change?
I think you've forgotten the term Compromise.. Obama wants to get a energy bill passed and realizes that it can not pass without some compromise with the majority of congresspersons who are facing reelection at the hands of a public that is demanding to drill for oil. Saying that he would accept some off shore drilling as a part of a comprehensive plan to rework our energy policy is not a crazy statement. Obama has run since day one with a message of changing the way we do things in Washington, in terms of sometimes you have to give a little to get what you want. Lately since 2000 it's been more of Bush and the republican congress riding over any opposition and not letting any of their ideas seep in. Obama saying that he would accept some "republican" ideas is nothing new from his message of bringing both sides together to come up with ideas that are not broken from the start. In fact he is still against Off shore drilling, but he would not veto a bill sent to him that included that. That's nothing crazy.
I really don't get you Steve. Earlier in the thread you made a point of Obama being too stiff on his energy policy, that the choice between alternate energy and foreign oil was a false one because the third alternative would be domestic U.S. drilling.
Now he is considering it a possible necessary step and you accuse him of flip-flopping. Isn't that what you actually wanted?
Steve, you shift and cherry-pick so often and fast that any discussion with you is not only frustrating, but impossible. The worst thing you do is that EVERY TIME someone posts indisputable evidence either explaining your attempts at accusation or prove them false outright, you simply say that you were arguing something different.
You can not argue effectively, you ignore proof posted in the forums, you change your arguments constantly and even those are rarely clearly stated and full if implications which you then go back on one evidence is provided that is contradictory to you.
You haven't got a leg to stand on and you're not fooling anyone or changing anyone's mind.
I really don't get you Steve. Earlier in the thread you made a point of Obama being too stiff on his energy policy, that the choice between alternate energy and foreign oil was a false one because the third alternative would be domestic U.S. drilling.
Now he is considering it a possible necessary step and you accuse him of flip-flopping. Isn't that what you actually wanted?
You are making the false assumption that I do not support Obama's shifting policies. Every day more of his positions move to the right.
The problem I have is that (to me) his positions are shifting because he knows that primary Obama can not win in November. He keeps moving to the right for political expediency rather than because he believes in the need to move to the right.
All this tells me is that Obama is not ready to be President. He needs a few more years in the Senate before he is ready to run, let alone lead. If he truly believed (as Pelosi does) that off-shore drilling is bad he would not be willing to compromise on this issue.
You are making the false assumption that I do not support Obama's shifting policies. Every day more of his positions move to the right.
The problem I have is that (to me) his positions are shifting because he knows that primary Obama can not win in November. He keeps moving to the right for political expediency rather than because he believes in the need to move to the right.
All this tells me is that Obama is not ready to be President. He needs a few more years in the Senate before he is ready to run, let alone lead. If he truly believed (as Pelosi does) that off-shore drilling is bad he would not be willing to compromise on this issue.
Wait Steve, that's a strawman, Obama's opinion is similar to mine which is that we need to force more research into alternative energy sources and focus on advancing that technology, Lower the gas price in the end will make it so people lull back into complacency. However in order to get a bill through congress that would promote alternative energy sources I would also accept some off shore drilling of Oil.. (because we need Oil for other things anyhow).
Speaking on the subject McCain recently said he would re-evaluate his opinion on off shore drilling? So how many years does Obama have to wait to be ready to be president if McCain a man of experience is moving towards a compromise position as well?
With the pitiful campaign McCain puts up I highly doubt there is a necessity for him to really move to the right to gain voters and I also think that he knows that too.
With the pitiful campaign McCain puts up I highly doubt there is a necessity for him to really move to the right to gain voters and I also think that he knows that too.
Than why can't he break 50% in the polls? Historically Democrats have huge leads over their Republican rivals at this time of the year.
Cremlian - Why does Obama feel he needs to compromise? Democrats are projected to handily win both in the House and the Senate this November. Pelosi has a lock on the house and will not let the oil drilling bill come to the floor for a vote. If his side is winning why compromise?
Personally I'm all for alternative energy and oil drilling. You can't convert the nation from oil to alternative energy overnight. The only sticking point with Obama's plan is that he is still not interested in nuclear energy. I want nuclear power in the USA partly because it is the greenest.
Cremlian - Why does Obama feel he needs to compromise? Democrats are projected to handily win both in the House and the Senate this November. Pelosi has a lock on the house and will not let the oil drilling bill come to the floor for a vote. If his side is winning why compromise?
Did you miss the point? The reason the republicans are in the situation they are in now is they ran rough shot over the democrats when they had control. So you actually want the democrats to just disregard the republicans and any valid ideas they may have?
Steve, do you think McCain would be a good president? Please explain why, so we may laugh and point at you.
Steve has claimed he doesn't like McCain. But we all know the only reason he does that is so he can attack Obama and attempt to say he is playing devil's advocate. We all know he's full of shit.
Cremlian - Why does Obama feel he needs to compromise? Democrats are projected to handily win both in the House and the Senate this November. Pelosi has a lock on the house and will not let the oil drilling bill come to the floor for a vote. If his side is winning why compromise?
Did you miss the point? The reason the republicans are in the situation they are in now is they ran rough shot over the democrats when they had control. So you actually want the democrats to just disregard the republicans and any valid ideas they may have?
Which is exactly what the Democrats have been doing!
Cremlian - Why does Obama feel he needs to compromise? Democrats are projected to handily win both in the House and the Senate this November. Pelosi has a lock on the house and will not let the oil drilling bill come to the floor for a vote. If his side is winning why compromise?
Did you miss the point? The reason the republicans are in the situation they are in now is they ran rough shot over the democrats when they had control. So you actually want the democrats to just disregard the republicans and any valid ideas they may have?
Which is exactly what the Democrats have been doing!
But this is exactly what Obama wants to put a stop to! Obama's message since day one was this wasn't about democrats or republicans.... Your Criticizing Obama for a position he's always had, That one party should not run rough-shot over the other when they have power.
Cremlian - Why does Obama feel he needs to compromise? Democrats are projected to handily win both in the House and the Senate this November. Pelosi has a lock on the house and will not let the oil drilling bill come to the floor for a vote. If his side is winning why compromise?
Did you miss the point? The reason the republicans are in the situation they are in now is they ran rough shot over the democrats when they had control. So you actually want the democrats to just disregard the republicans and any valid ideas they may have?
Which is exactly what the Democrats have been doing!
Irrelevant. Obama does not have control over congress. And you know what? I'm happy to see the D's abusing the R's. The republican neocon majority has raped this country for 8 years and they're just bitching now that the shoe is on the other foot. What, it's only okay to not listen only if you're a republican? Apparently that's the case. As far as I'm concerned, the republicans have not had a good idea in regards to anything since pre-Nixon. Show me one, ONE republican that supports any plan that will actually help the country and I'll show you someone who's lying through their teeth or has another agenda.
Irrelevant. Obama does not have control over congress. And you know what? I'm happy to see the D's abusing the R's. The republican neocon majority has raped this country for 8 years and they're just bitching now that the shoe is on the other foot. What, it's only okay to not listen only if you're a republican? Apparently that's the case. As far as I'm concerned, the republicans have not had a good idea in regards to anything since pre-Nixon. Show me one, ONE republican that supports any plan that will actually help the country and I'll show you someone who's lying through their teeth or has another agenda.
As the presumptive Democratic nominee for President he has a lot of power within the party.
8 years? So are you saying that Reid and Pelosi are Neo-Cons?
I don't think Steve actually believes the rhetoric bs of either side, though he makes it very hard to tell.
Exactly. I am trying to play the part of the right-wingnut. Sometimes I can't get my head behind their arguments so they come off badly.
I honestly do not believe that an Obama Presidency would be a bad thing for this country. I also do not think that an Obama presidency will fix everything either.
Listen, this should keep anyone from paying attention to Steve. He's just "playing a part". He doesn't really believe what he writes. He just wants to attract attention by saying the silliest thing he can imagine. Mr. MacRoss is right. Steve is a troll. He doesn't get enough attention in real life so he tries his best to get attention here. Don't enable him.
As for this spurious argument that the House Democrats "didn't allow an up or down vote", read this. The House had a chance to actually do something about gas prices RIGHT NOW by stopping wild oil speculation. We've already seen in an earlier comment in this thread how such action could immediately affect gas prices. The House Republicans had an opportunity to work with Democrats and actually provide a real solution, but instead they chose to keep oil prices and profits high while bloviating about how no one was paying attention to their obstructionism.
Steve, do you think McCain would be a good president? Please explain why, so we may laugh and point at you.
1. I never claimed McCain would be a good President. 2. This is not the McCain thread.
But it is the Obama thread -- and the fact is that it's a zero-sum game between the two. There's not much point in railing against Obama if you don't want McCain to be president. Your complaints are pretty moot in that light.
Also, you sure like to dance around issues, don't you?
As for this spurious argument that the House Democrats "didn't allow an up or down vote",read this.The House had a chance to actuallydosomething about gas prices RIGHT NOW by stopping wild oil speculation. We've already seen in an earlier comment in this thread how such action could immediately affect gas prices. The House Republicans had an opportunity to work with Democrats and actually provide a real solution, but instead they chose to keep oil prices and profits high while bloviating about how no one was paying attention to their obstructionism.
How do you equate voting something down to not even allowing a vote to take place?
How do you equate voting something down to not even allowing a vote to take place?
Steve, they already had an "up or down vote" about doing something constructive to stop rising gas prices. There was an option to do something that would cut gas prices NOW, instead of twenty years from now. The Republicans voted against lower gas prices and voted for higher gas prices. That was their "up or down vote".
Now, I know you're just "playing a part", so I don't care to pay any more attention to you than that.
How do you equate voting something down to not even allowing a vote to take place?
Steve, they alreadyhadan "up or down vote" about doing something constructive to stop rising gas prices. There was an option to do something that would cut gas prices NOW, instead of twenty years from now. The Republicans votedagainstlower gas prices and votedforhigher gas prices. That was their "up or down vote".
Now, I know you're just "playing a part", so I don't care to pay any more attention to you than that.
So you can't defend your statement? Might you be playing the role of "shit talker" that you like to assign to other people? Perhaps in lawyer world not allowing an up or down vote on a piece of legislation is the same thing as voting on it but not so in the real world.
So, if a bill comes up on an issue that you care about and it gets voted down the issue should just go away? No more bills should be voted on because one (or some) of them was voted down? You might want to read what you wrote and really think about it. Think about how you would react if the roles were reversed and Republicans were the ones denying a piece of legislation you supported from getting an up or down vote just because their version was voted down.
So you can't defend your statement? Might you be playing the role of "shit talker" that you like to assign to other people? Perhaps in lawyer world not allowing an up or down vote on a piece of legislation is the same thing as voting on it but not so in the real world.
So, if a bill comes up on an issue that you care about and it gets voted down the issue should just go away? No more bills should be voted on because one (or some) of them was voted down? You might want to read what you wrote and really think about it. Think about how you would react if the roles were reversed and Republicans were the ones denying a piece of legislation you supported from getting an up or down vote just because their version was voted down.
I don't think Steve actually believes the rhetoric bs of either side, though he makes it very hard to tell.
Exactly. I am trying to play the part of the right-wingnut. Sometimes I can't get my head behind their arguments so they come off badly.
See everyone, this is what I mean by his admission that he is "playing a part" and his admission that he does so badly. He just wants the argument to go on because he wants the attention. He didn't actually read anything that I wrote. If he did, he acts like he doesn't have the reading skill to understand what I wrote. Then he writes a paragraph that is nearly incomprehensible in its twisted, circular logic.
He wants to be a big man. He wants attention. In order to gain that attention, he "plays a part" and, by his own admission, does it badly, in order to trap people in responding to him over and over again. Mr. MacRoss is right. He cannot argue effectively, he ignores proof, he changes his arguments constantly, and he simply argues in circles. He does this to draw people into arguments with him, for, while people are paying attention to him, he can feel as though he is a big man and that his opinions matter.
Irrelevant. Obama does not have control over congress. And you know what? I'm happy to see the D's abusing the R's. The republican neocon majority has raped this country for 8 years and they're just bitching now that the shoe is on the other foot. What, it's only okay to not listen only if you're a republican? Apparently that's the case. As far as I'm concerned, the republicans have not had a good idea in regards to anything since pre-Nixon. Show me one, ONE republican that supports any plan that will actually help the country and I'll show you someone who's lying through their teeth or has another agenda.
As the presumptive Democratic nominee for President he has a lot of power within the party.
8 years? So are you saying that Reid and Pelosi are Neo-Cons?
See? See what you did right there? You avoided the subject posed by my question. You do that every time. You don't provide any relevant reubttal to your own argument, you just ask some barely related question that really had nothing to do with my statements. You've never done anything different.
Joe and Macross, both of you are still ignoring my questions and drifting.
Joe - When is not allowing a vote the same as voting something down?
Macross - I answered your post by pointing out that as the presumed Presidential candidate Obama has a lot of power within the Democratic party. If he wants a vote on something he can pick up the phone and call Pelosi or Reid and make it happen. I also called you out on the 8 years bit. I didn't answer your new question because the old question is still being avoided... by you. You remember, the "proof or STFU" comment?
Joe and Macross, both of you are still ignoring my questions and drifting.
BULLSHIT.
Macross - I answered your post by pointing out that as the presumed Presidential candidate Obama has a lot of power within the Democratic party. If he wants a vote on something he can pick up the phone and call Pelosi or Reid and make it happen. I also called you out on the 8 years bit. I didn't answer your new question because the old question is still being avoided... by you. You remember, the "proof or STFU" comment?
Here,here,here,and here.You see how I provided evidence and didn't ask some unrelated bullshit question LIKE YOU DID TWO POSTS AGO? Yeah, suck it.
Joe and Macross, both of you are still ignoring my questions and drifting.
BULLSHIT.
Macross - I answered your post by pointing out that as the presumed Presidential candidate Obama has a lot of power within the Democratic party. If he wants a vote on something he can pick up the phone and call Pelosi or Reid and make it happen. I also called you out on the 8 years bit. I didn't answer your new question because the old question is still being avoided... by you. You remember, the "proof or STFU" comment?
Here,here,here,and here.You see how I provided evidence and didn't ask some unrelated bullshit question LIKE YOU DID TWO POSTS AGO? Yeah, suck it. What are these links meant to respond to?
Obama is still the presumed nominee and with that comes a certain level of power. A level of power that includes calling Pelosi to schedule a vote on something. As the nominee he will be the leader of the party (if he's not already).
Joe and Macross, both of you are still ignoring my questions and drifting.
BULLSHIT. Macross - I answered your post by pointing out that as the presumed Presidential candidate Obama has a lot of power within the Democratic party. If he wants a vote on something he can pick up the phone and call Pelosi or Reid and make it happen. I also called you out on the 8 years bit. I didn't answer your new question because the old question is still being avoided... by you. You remember, the "proof or STFU" comment?
Here,here,here,and here.You see how I provided evidence and didn't ask some unrelated bullshit question LIKE YOU DID TWO POSTS AGO? Yeah, suck it. What are these links meant to respond to?
Obama is still the presumed nominee and with that comes a certain level of power. A level of power that includes calling Pelosi to schedule a vote on something. As the nominee he will be the leader of the party (if he's not already).Being the nominee does not in any way make you the director of party policy.
You do realize that a few posts ago you were lamenting how the Republicans ran roughshod over the Democrats while you were also condoning the Democrats for doing the same. Does this also spill over into minority vs. majority issues? Should the minority party always get the shaft? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement?
Bipartisanship and compromise only works when both sides do it.
Comments
Now he is considering it a possible necessary step and you accuse him of flip-flopping. Isn't that what you actually wanted?
You can not argue effectively, you ignore proof posted in the forums, you change your arguments constantly and even those are rarely clearly stated and full if implications which you then go back on one evidence is provided that is contradictory to you.
You haven't got a leg to stand on and you're not fooling anyone or changing anyone's mind.
I'm calling it, Steve. You're a worthless troll.
The problem I have is that (to me) his positions are shifting because he knows that primary Obama can not win in November. He keeps moving to the right for political expediency rather than because he believes in the need to move to the right.
All this tells me is that Obama is not ready to be President. He needs a few more years in the Senate before he is ready to run, let alone lead. If he truly believed (as Pelosi does) that off-shore drilling is bad he would not be willing to compromise on this issue.
Speaking on the subject McCain recently said he would re-evaluate his opinion on off shore drilling? So how many years does Obama have to wait to be ready to be president if McCain a man of experience is moving towards a compromise position as well?
Cremlian - Why does Obama feel he needs to compromise? Democrats are projected to handily win both in the House and the Senate this November. Pelosi has a lock on the house and will not let the oil drilling bill come to the floor for a vote. If his side is winning why compromise?
Personally I'm all for alternative energy and oil drilling. You can't convert the nation from oil to alternative energy overnight. The only sticking point with Obama's plan is that he is still not interested in nuclear energy. I want nuclear power in the USA partly because it is the greenest.
2. This is not the McCain thread.
8 years? So are you saying that Reid and Pelosi are Neo-Cons?
As for this spurious argument that the House Democrats "didn't allow an up or down vote", read this. The House had a chance to actually do something about gas prices RIGHT NOW by stopping wild oil speculation. We've already seen in an earlier comment in this thread how such action could immediately affect gas prices. The House Republicans had an opportunity to work with Democrats and actually provide a real solution, but instead they chose to keep oil prices and profits high while bloviating about how no one was paying attention to their obstructionism.
Kind of like Steve.
Also, you sure like to dance around issues, don't you?
Now, I know you're just "playing a part", so I don't care to pay any more attention to you than that.
So, if a bill comes up on an issue that you care about and it gets voted down the issue should just go away? No more bills should be voted on because one (or some) of them was voted down? You might want to read what you wrote and really think about it. Think about how you would react if the roles were reversed and Republicans were the ones denying a piece of legislation you supported from getting an up or down vote just because their version was voted down.
He wants to be a big man. He wants attention. In order to gain that attention, he "plays a part" and, by his own admission, does it badly, in order to trap people in responding to him over and over again. Mr. MacRoss is right. He cannot argue effectively, he ignores proof, he changes his arguments constantly, and he simply argues in circles. He does this to draw people into arguments with him, for, while people are paying attention to him, he can feel as though he is a big man and that his opinions matter.
Don't enable him any longer.
BTW, here is how the polling map looks now.
Joe - When is not allowing a vote the same as voting something down?
Macross - I answered your post by pointing out that as the presumed Presidential candidate Obama has a lot of power within the Democratic party. If he wants a vote on something he can pick up the phone and call Pelosi or Reid and make it happen. I also called you out on the 8 years bit. I didn't answer your new question because the old question is still being avoided... by you. You remember, the "proof or STFU" comment?
Yeah, suck it.
Yeah, suck it.
What are these links meant to respond to?
Obama is still the presumed nominee and with that comes a certain level of power. A level of power that includes calling Pelosi to schedule a vote on something. As the nominee he will be the leader of the party (if he's not already).
Yeah, suck it.
What are these links meant to respond to?
Obama is still the presumed nominee and with that comes a certain level of power. A level of power that includes calling Pelosi to schedule a vote on something. As the nominee he will be the leader of the party (if he's not already).Being the nominee does not in any way make you the director of party policy.
You do realize that a few posts ago you were lamenting how the Republicans ran roughshod over the Democrats while you were also condoning the Democrats for doing the same. Does this also spill over into minority vs. majority issues? Should the minority party always get the shaft? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement?
Bipartisanship and compromise only works when both sides do it.