Barack Obama is getting hammered by some liberals for moving toward the center. “Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash,” columnist Bob Herbert wrote. But columnist Clarence Page defended Obama, saying he is “reaching for what Colin Powell has called the ‘sensible center,’ that big, broad terrain in the political middle where most American voters live.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- Phantom on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
116 Comments
It makes perfect sense because a very small majority of Americans are leftist (although they are the loudest). The center is where vast majority of Americans are. These great Americans are too busy with work and family to care to dabble in the squabble of political punditry, especially during Primary season.
It is no secret that all candidates from the Dems to the Repubs move way to the left and right to court the hard core voters in the Primaries. A large chunk of people who vote in Primaries are those who subscribe to the most extreme ends of the political and ideological spectrum.
General election time is always about the center.
Just as Congress has a 9% approval rating and President Bush has a 25%. The Leftist cannot understand why, as Congress that is controlled by hard left Democrats; in their minds, Congress should be loved by all with an 100% approval rating. Because they are out-of-touch with the rest of Americans.
So naturally they will start hating Obama because he is moving to the center. Voting for the so called “Spy Bill” just made leftist to be just beside themselves. But Obama doesn’t need the leftist anymore, so it doesn’t matter.
The problem is, Obama is an extreme leftist..only his comments/speeches are moving toward the middle as he panders for votes. He is far too extreme for most of the of the country.
What he is lurching toward is common sense. His decision to support faith-based iniatives included protections prohibiting unfair hiring practices based on religion; his vote on FISA eliminated a useless, losing and vindicative fight to punish telephone executives, and re-established clear court oversite rules. He is doing what he always said he would do if given a chance, that is, eliminate “gotcha” politics.
That fact is, Obama is not “lurching to the middle” and is not and never was an “extreme leftist.”
I swear, some of you CONs are so far to the right you couldn’t find the middle of the road with a bloodhound.
You want a Democratic presidential candidate who might be characterized as an “extreme leftist,” you have no further to look than Dennis Kucinich. Obama ran to the right of John Edwards’ populism. Obama ran to the right of Senator Dodd’s domestic program. Obama ran to the right of Senator Clinton on issues such as healtcare reform and ending the Iraq Occupation. I don’t agree with Obama’s FISA vote, but I recognize his thought process; that it’s better to have some kind of FISA law — even an imperfect one — than none at all.
CONs and the MSM have bent over backwards to try to push Obama into their standard mold for a Democratic candidate.
But this is a different kind of Democrat; a different kind of politician. CONs hate that. But being a different kind of politician doesn’t mean he’s not a politician. It might be hard to remember a time before Gingrich and Tom DeLay and Limbaugh and Faux News, but politics wasn’t always solely a blood sport. Once, politics was defined as “the art of the possible.”
It’s still possible.
And with that, the ever so cynical MonkeyHawk lined up for the Kool-aid, even more proof of the O-man’s hypnotic abilities.
While I’m not a Democrat, I find myself liking Obama more by the day. He changed his mind? BFD! Three quarters of what is wrong with you Republicans and Democrats is your monolithic mind-sets. You’re so stuck on your petty ideoligies, you can’t make dicisions based on what’s good for the country, only what’s good for your party.
We need a president who represents all Americans, not just Republicans or Democrats.We clearly need a change. Maybe Obama is it. He bears some watching.
“Moving” to the center or anywhere else can be a form of lieing. You are what you are. You believe in what you believe in.
Why would one “move”?
“fleettwood” –
Should I repost the list of John Sidney McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) flip-flops?
No need. “Moving” is done by panderers of all stripes.
“John Sidney McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term)”
Does this mean we can say Barack Hussein Obama?
It’s called politics. As a rule, you have to be pretty, ahem…”flexible”, in what you believe to be successful in politics.
Or just being a lying bastard with no moral compass will work too.
fleettwood
Posted July 11, 2008 at 8:20 am | Permalink
“Moving” to the center or anywhere else can be a form of lieing. You are what you are. You believe in what you believe in.
Why would one “move”?
The monolithic never changing mind-set in action. Changing positions doesn’t constitute lying. A lie is when you set out to decieve. A change of mind due to new information or the facts on the ground is just good sense. Most posters on these pages won’t understand that.
But this is a different kind of Democrat; a different kind of politician.
I’ll be kind. Bull&#%*.
Obama, by his voting record (when he doesn’t avoid taking a position by voting “present”) puts him squarely in the extreme left wing of the Dem party. It matters not one iota what positions he “took” while campaigning; it’s what he DID that matters. And what he does does not reflect what positions he took. More important, as the tacks to the center, positions “takes” change as is convenient.
He was for public financing of campaigns – until it was in his interest to not be.
He supported the 2nd Am. AND the DC ban (just how can one do both?) – until the polls, and the SCOTUS caused him to note that his previous position was “inartful.”
etc., etc.
Different kind of politician, my ass. Chicago machine politics, pure and simple, and a relative rookie, at that. Winning is what matters. Period.
Given Obama’s serious lack of resume, ya gotta wonder – who’s pulling his strings? Tony Rezko and Co.?
And MH, given your position in to left of most of the left, you are hardly in a position to comment on what constitutes the middle. You’re nowhere near it; I’m far nearer it than you are.
“Changing positions doesn’t constitute lying.”
No, it doesn’t. But it does when it is poll driven or when the SCOTUS upholds gun rights and Barack Hussein Obama thinks (all of the sudden) that it is a good thing.
Let’s see, the far right says the Obama is an extreme far left liberal. The far left says that Obama is abandoning his base and turning into a conservative.
Sounds to me like Barack is right where he should be.
“Winning is what matters.”
Ah, losing doesn’t get you too far in any endeavor.
WSClark
Posted July 11, 2008 at 8:49 am | Permalink
Let’s see, the far right says the Obama is an extreme far left liberal. The far left says that Obama is abandoning his base and turning into a conservative.
Sounds to me like Barack is right where he should be.
God, I hate it when I agree with WSClark. You hit it right on the head, WS.
It’s you people who have said Barack Hussein Obama is right next to Sanders and Feingold. That’s in the middle of Lib Land.
From the Page article linked above:
“Much of Obama’s perceived shift in positions comes because he was not pressed that much on the issues earlier. He navigated the primaries as a Rorschach candidate, an inkblot test in which Democratic voters tended to see what they wanted to see, not always where he actually stood on various issues.”
While Clinton and Obama spared ferociously, they spared over Jeremiah Wright and whether rural people cling to guns or not. No need to express policy, since they both were in agreement that the way to the white house was simply by bashing Bush.
Thus, everyone has a different expectation for what Obama is going to accomplish in the future. Sad thing for Obama is that tomorrow is coming much too quickly…
fleettwood
Posted July 11, 2008 at 8:48 am | Permalink
“Changing positions doesn’t constitute lying.”
No, it doesn’t. But it does when it is poll driven or when the SCOTUS upholds gun rights and Barack Hussein Obama thinks (all of the sudden) that it is a good thing.
Uh, wouldn’t going along with the SCOTUS ruling be a sign of good sense no matter what your opinion was before? And what’s this crap about anything being poll-driven? Back that up with something besides your partisian opinion.
an inkblot test in which Democratic voters tended to see what they wanted to see,
Spot on.
they spared over Jeremiah Wright and whether rural people cling to guns or not.
Correct. Now it is Jesse Jacka$$.
McCain said “It is time for action” concerning Iran. Exactly what action would that be. Our astounding press core failed to ask.
While I don’t support him in the least, Obama stated he wants to approach the Iran ‘problem’ the same way North Korea was approached.
The press core will do what makes them money. Right now that is to produce American (Idol) Candidate 2008. It isn’t about issues and policy, it is about bright shiney objects.
Demand answers from the media or you will calling 1-800-IDOL-001 for Obama or 1-800-IDOL-002 for McCain.
Google is your friend.
You’ll get 1,290,000 sites for “McCain flip-flop.”
“Uh, wouldn’t going along with the SCOTUS ruling be a sign of good sense no matter what your opinion was before?”
That’s just silly. One goes along only if one wants to get along. A SCOTUS decision can be disagreed with.
As far as poll driven goes, Barack Hussein Obama has several ex-Clinton people on staff. We know how poll driven they were. Change? Humbug.
“I’ll be kind. Bull&#%*.”
Considering the line you responded to, I will respond back. Half bullsh*t from you counselor.
Half bullsh*t because I don’t think that Obama is necessarily a “different” kind of politician. He has the same streak of pragmatism that seems to necessary for a Democrat to be elected president.
It is the “extreme liberal” portion of your diatribe I think is bs, because “extreme liberal” is very much in the eye of the beholder. It is also the predictable claim by those who are, from my standpoint, on the “extreme right” of the spectrum. More to the point, those themselves who are unabasadly left do not see Obama as “most liberal” either as a presidential candidate or as a senator. However, the right wing websites are certainly all in a lather about Obama being the “most liberal”. Of course, they overlook people like Russ Feingold and, for that matter, Dick Durbin, who beat Obama 2 out of the 3 years on the Americans for Democratic Action ratings (Obama’s rating was 75% in 2007-in the interest of disclosure, he was 100% in 2005, but so was Dick Durbin). Many of those who make the claim of Obama being “most liberal” record mine his record in the Illinois Senate.
And of course, the right tends to overlook the fact that while people don’t like “extreme left”, they also don’t like “extreme right”. And contrary to ictBEST’s post, it has been the right who has been the loudest in American politics for some time. Still are.
Until we begin finding where we agree and working on where we don’t, we’re probably left with less chance of improvement.
Trying to put any one of us in a “slot,” is disingenuous. Each of us is complex. And we aren’t static.
Think about any relationship and evaluate whether it can be successful without give and take. In my marriage my husband describes this process as, “knowing which hill I want to die on.” He and I are two different people but we’ve chosen what is most important and acquiesced where we can in order to retain the right to not budge on that most important. It works! We respect one another for that give and take, for that acknowledgment that we each have our own hill.
Go back to when Obama was introduced to America and you’ll see he hasn’t changed his desire for diplomacy, for ONE America.
Then remember they’re all politicians. One definition I found says: One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering.
‘Bout says it, doesn’t it?
“(Obama’s rating was 75% in 2007-in the interest of disclosure, he was 100% in 2005″
’nuff said.
“fleettwood” proves he hates America with –
“One goes along only if one wants to get along. A SCOTUS decision can be disagreed with.”
Yup.
And I still disagree with the SCOTUS decision (which they stressed should not be treated as a precedent) that handed George WMD Bush Florida’s Electoral College votes and overrode all CONservative rhetoric about federalism by denying Florida state law be enforced). But, as a loyal American, I accepted the fix was in and recognize George WMD Bush has served as pResident — badly — since January 20, 2001.
Do a bone-dig and you’ll find me on record looking forward to some decision on Heller; any decision. Let’s establish the rules.
I disagree with most of Scalia’s decision, but now there’s a clear SCOTUS decision — including the right of localities to issue gun control policies — because it is a SCOTUS decision.
Reality is a special case, albeit an important one.
See Barack pander.
Pander Barack pander.
How many votes is that winning you Barack? Not mine.
But the fact is you were never going to vote for him anyway so there is nothing lost there, Bluejay. We’ll find out in the fall whether there was anything gained.
BlueJay
Posted July 11, 2008 at 9:31 am | Permalink
See Barack pander.
Pander Barack pander.
How many votes is that winning you Barack? Not mine.
—-
Remember BlueJay, your not a Democrat anymore. So, it doesn’t matter.
“Go back to when Obama was introduced to America and you’ll see he hasn’t changed his desire for diplomacy, for ONE America.”
Oh yes he has linda.
Oh the unity bit remains the same.
Except now? Instead of telling the cons “I want you to like your fellow Americans.” Obama is telling his base “I want you to be more like the cons.”
No thanks.
“‘(Obama’s rating was 75% in 2007-in the interest of disclosure, he was 100% in 2005)’?
“’nuff said.”
More content free drive by snark from fleetwood.
It was hillarious reading Clark and JR beat each other up on yesterday’s Open topic.
And in this rare moment, I actually agree with JR who is accusing Clark of flip-flopping to the Conservative side – mirroring the flip-flops of Obama.
Now in defense of Clark, I have to say that JR simply hasn’t learned the Game (as Clark has) that the number ONE goal is to get elected. AND flip-flops and outright lies are required in order for Obama to gain enough Conservative or even Moderate voters, in order to win.
Obama is sooooo farrrrrr left, lies are required.
JR, whenever you disagree with something Obama is saying, you just need to be able to figure out that Obama is lying. Or is he?
Will he pull out of Iraq or not?
Will he attack Iran or not?
Will he raise taxes or not?
Will he ban guns or not?
Will he support gays or not?
Will he support the religious right or not?
Will he solve the energy crisis or not?
Will he solve global warming or not?
Clowns to the Left, Jokers to the Right, and I’m stuck in the middle with you.
YOU can decide to listen to what Obama SAYS today and believe him or not.
OR, you can look and see what Obama has DONE, how he has VOTED in the past.
IS WHAT OBAMA SAYS TODAY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE HAS DONE IN THE PAST?
No, but you LIBS think it’s OK to say anything and lie and do whatever it takes to win the election.
http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm
(You want your lil gun-banning Socialist in office afterall!)
BlueJay
Posted July 11, 2008 at 9:31 am | Permalink
See Barack pander.
Pander Barack pander.
How many votes is that winning you Barack? Not mine.
—————————————————————–
You lie too JR. YOU WILL VOTE FOR Obama!
And Obama knows that.
Will Obama lose a few Democrat votes? Yes, but he’ll gain more Moderate votes.
So by lying about being more Conservative, Obama has calculated he will gain more Moderate votes then he will lose in Liberal votes.
And JR, YOU will vote for Obama too, just like all of the other sheep!
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Or just being a lying bastard with no moral compass will work too.”
Like Bush?
“He was for public financing of campaigns – until it was in his interest to not be.”
So fleet tell me if you told your wife you’re gonna sell the house for 50k … and someone says I’ll give you 75k —- you wouldn’t take it because you told your wife something else — get over it, why shouldn’t rules of capitalism apply to politiucal campaigns — if he did accept public financing when he could have raised 4 times that amount you’d question his judgemnt ……..
BJ
Are you trying to say that Barak is the only one in the race pandering to voters — ? Surprisingly naive on ur part
All of this left and right talk is making me dizzy.
It really should be viewed as more government or less government.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=111#comments
Watch the video in the link and see what I mean. Take it easy.
“So fleet tell me if you told your wife you’re gonna sell the house for 50k … and someone says I’ll give you 75k —- you wouldn’t take it because you told your wife something else — get over it, why shouldn’t rules of capitalism apply to politiucal campaigns — if he did accept public financing when he could have raised 4 times that amount you’d question his judgemnt ……..”
#1) If I had staked my reputation on something, then did the other, I would be a liar and worse.
#2) Since when was Barack Hussein Obama a capitalist?
Indie succinctly stated what all politicians and supporters of politicians will do:
“you’d question his judgment.”
Yep, it won’t matter what they say or do, the opponents will find criticism. And all of us are the same in this regard!
Maybe we’ve happened upon that starting point of agreement?
and don’t forget —
McCain = Bush
if you dont agree, you must not like Bush
An honest person has to draw the line somewhere. If not what makes you think you can trust him in anything he says.
McCain does and says somethings I don’t agree, some I violently disagree with, but on the core issues he is consistent. He has demonstrated by his actions in the past that he doesn’t like earmarks and has ALWAYS voted against any bill that has them attached. He has said as Prez that he will veto any bill that reaches his desk with earmarks attached. This is a pattern I can count on.
He has consistently said he will put the safety of the US above all else. He has shown in the past that he IS strong on national defense. A pattern I can count on.
In looking at politicians don’t look at the lips. They lie. Look at actions. They show the man.
Phantom,
LOL. I don’t think those lyrics have ever had more appropriate usage.
“We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.”
Okobserver’s “So scared, I think he’ll fall off his chair”
And thanks. Now I have that song stuck in my head.
Watch Barack Hussein Obama’s lips move:
“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/dubious-bogus-and-utterly-phony-headlines-10/#comment-381932
okobserver
Posted July 11, 2008 at 10:21 am | Permalink
An honest person has to draw the line somewhere. If not what makes you think you can trust him in anything he says.
In looking at politicians don’t look at the lips. They lie. Look at actions. They show the man.
——————————————————————-
Very well said!
BUT,
Honesty doesn’t matter to Libs. The Bottom Line for Libs is to determine:
Which candidate will give me the most FREE GOVERNMENT STUFF!!!
Now, as far as Foregin Policy goes (you know the
primary function of Federal Government is National Defense) the most Steady, Predictable, and Strong Leader is the one you want.
If those who would attack us know exactly where we stand, if they know exactly how we will react, then the US will be less likely to be attacked.
If the next President waffles, changes his mind constantly (depending on the wind direction of the moment), and appears Weak, that President will surely be put to the test by those who would attack us.
Max,
I have to tell you, your behavior doesn’t help things.
And if you think McCain hasn’t waffled on things, boy, you haven’t been listening either. ALL candidates waffle. The nature of the beast, don’t you know? Doesn’t make it right, just makes it a reality.
Honestly, this is what my grandmother said to me (and she is a STAUNCH Republican) “I am terrified at the thought of John McCain as President. I am afraid Obama doesn’t have enough experience to run this country. We are in serious trouble.”
My response? “Well, the people with the supposed “experience” have done a good job of driving this country into the ground. Maybe it’s time we put someone without experience in office!”
Anon1_
Unfortunately, I have to more closely agree with your grandmother. If these two are the best we can do, we are in serious trouble. As far as being comfortable with putting someone without experience in office? Try this thought: SOme one is too drunk to drive 60 miles home, though the ozark mountains. Puts 12 year old who has never driven behind wheel. Feel safe? Not me. However, Obama is my current choice. McCain is simply put, unacceptable.
Littlejohn,
I see your point. however, I was that 12 year old. Literally. My dad is a recovering alcholic. Before he was recovering, when i was between the ages of 12 and 14, I did a lot of driving him, my sister and myself home from functions where the shut off drinking switch didn’t kick in. So to me – I’d much rather have the 12 year old than the drunk.
And, I didn’t necessarily think that Obama is hands away the best choice. Far from it. But really, what choice do we have? And experience hasn’t served us well at all, especially in recent years. All I know is, it is definitely time for change.
What this country REALLY needs, IMHO, is a move AWAY from partisan politics. There are too many people out there who vote Republican because they are Republican (or Democrat, substitute whatever term you want) and not because that person is the best choice or has the best policies, etc… case in point, Max’s immediate dismissal of Obama because he is a “lib” as he so eloquently puts it. He has admitted he doesn’t like McCain, but he’ll vote for him anyways, because that’s what his party tells him to do. This is a country of free thinking. So why are our political parties trying to take that away?
Anon1-
I know it wasn;t your point, but sorry to hear about your experiences.
You are right, it is time for a change. Is Obama it? Maybe. McCain certainly isn;t. Or is he? Tomorrow he may change again, and again, and again.
He may be the mean bass turd that some claim, or he may be the smiling guy down the street he tries to project. I simply don’t care. I respect the man;s service, and the facts as I understand him about his captivity. I have little or no respect for the man’s political career. I don;t care if he is a Republican by designation. He will not do.
I think you are right, movin away from partisan politics would be a great answer. Mostly the difference is rhetoric. They all attempt to buy votes, they all attempt to make the other looks like spoiled liver and smell like catfish bait. It’s all obout two things, money and power. Mostly, I think, about power. They could care less about the people, that’s mostly a lie. What they care about is power, and they will do and say whatever they have to to get it, and to keep it. Republicans and Democrats alike. They are two sides of the coin, but it’s the same coin. A pox on both thier houses.
The issues do seem to be very predictable LJ.
To some the issues are Iran, Taxes, Family Values or Handouts.
To others the issues are no bid contracts, I don’t recall, 100 year war or Global Warming.
Take your pick.
Osama Obama was ‘agin’ a lot of things then he was ‘fer’ it.
“100 year war”
That’s not what McCain said. It was this:
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
“Maybe 100,” McCain replied. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
Yes Fleetwood and none of the Democrats are speaking about government handouts either.
I suppose you can’t understand exhistential dialog regarding the partisan bickering. So you must choose the 100 years. So predictable.
“fleettwood” whines about McSame’s 100 year war –
“That’s not what McCain said.”
Yeah, well.
Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet, either. Deal with it.
John Sidney McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) pretty much accepted the concept of a hundred-year occupation of Iraq.
You wanna go on record — here and now, “fleettwood” — as advocating a hundred year occupation of Iraq?
Make your case.
Don’t piss an moan after the right-wing slime machine has taken all sorts of sound bites out of context.
You CONs advocate illegal abortion. Deal with it.
You’d rather pay more taxes under McC*nt’s plan than Obama’s (unless you make more than $225,000 a year) because Barack is a funny name. Own that issue! And sneer about a lapel pin.
Let’s make a list of issues McBush was “for” before he was against: Shrub’s “No Billionaire Left Behind” tax policy, torture, campaign finance reform (y’know, McCain-Feingold), et al…
“Why not a hundred years?”
That’s what McC*nt said about Iraq.
Admit it.
Obama promised to bring us a “new kind of politics” —
I am not a big McCain fan, but McCain has never made a similar, egotistical, messianic pledge.
Since Obama pledged to be something that he is not, flip flops will hurt Obama far more than they will hurt McCain.
Besides, the public pretty much knows McCain. I must admit that I would often rather listen to fingernails on the black board, than listen to McCain, but I don’t HAVE to listen to McCain, because I know who he is.
Better the devil you KNOW than the devil you DON’T know.
Nobody really knows Obama, so Obama’s flip flops will hurt him, badly.
Here is a funny anti-Obama site:
http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/
Obama is Hope.
Obama is Change.
Obama HOPES we won’t notice when
Obama CHANGES his mind!
LJ,
Agreed. It’s like the republican uproar over General Clark’s comments about McCain. The man NEVER said anything negative about McCain’s service. What he said was that service did not qualify him to be president. And they are all harping on how wrong that was, and then turn around and start harping on his service to our country. So it’s NOT okay to say something negative about McCain, because he’s a republican, but it IS okay to say something negative about Clark, because he’s a democrat. I see how it works now.
Anon
General Clark, the Democrat, said that he was ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there were WMD’s in Iraq.
“You wanna go on record — here and now, “fleettwood” — as advocating a hundred year occupation of Iraq?”
Sure, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.
Franklin,
My post had nothing to do with that. A lot of people said that, including Bush – remember? I didn’t believe them then and I don’t believe them now. I never said Clark was right about anything except the whole being a POW doesn’t qualify him to be president thing. My POINT, which you so obviously missed, was that Republicans were all to ready to jump down his throat, and ridicule and denigrate HIS service to our country because he was a Democrat, and for no other reason. All the while claiming that it’s just wrong for him to state a simply fact about McCain. Hypocritical. THAT was my point. But thanks for playing!
“I agree that immigrants should learn English,” Obama said. “But instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they’ll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.”
“Oopsy. Did I say that out loud?”
Que Quirer decir con esso Sr Fleetwood?
Vos Apprendiendo Inglis Fleetwood. ?Qual is la problema? No tengo un problema. ?Tienas un Problema?
Su madre es una puta del montar a caballo de la mula.
Mi Madre es mouerto Regular.
CABRON.
I didn’t ask about your mother now did I LLVET?
I must wrote a statement in Spanish.
must=just
How does one have intercourse with their mother if said mother is dead Regular?
CABRON.
http://www.languagerealm.com/spanish/puta.php
LLTVET
Posted July 11, 2008 at 4:13 pm | Permalink
How does one have intercourse with their mother if said mother is dead?
=============================
I don’t know, it’s your question, you answer it. I didn’t ask anything about your mother.
Next time you use Madre (mother) and puta (Prostitute) so loosely, don’t expect people to be flattered.
Now I will say it in english. My mother is dead
CABRON
LLTVET
Posted July 11, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Permalink
Next time you use Madre (mother) and puta (Prostitute) so loosely, don’t expect people to be flattered.
=========================
Next time I make a post with no user or users name in it, try not to take it personal.
Obama is a centrist so how can he move to the center when he’s already been there? Then again, the Republicans believe that anyone left of Rush Limbaugh is a liberal.
why does that not surprise me?
“Obama is a centrist…”
Oh brother.
Obama is a centrist . . .
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA
(breath)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA
Thanks. I needed a good laugh.
:lol:
Wow. There is a staggeringly large number of McCain supporters who seem to think they’re soothsayers, or savants, here on this thread. But I understand, you are after all being spoon fed at all your favorite news reading sites.
Some Obama supporters, too. For example, a new kinda politics? Uh, news flash: there is only one kind of politics that counts at any one point in time, and that’s the politics that wins. And yes, politics is parametric and that parameter is time (or style, which is again a function of time).
All other politics is prima facie inferior (the only option to winning politics is losing politics). If you lost you then you obviously ain’t in power.
Bonus here though. Some of the McCain supporters even argue that Obama is inexperienced, and in the very same post argue that despite his lack of a track record they still somehow know exactly what he’ll do as POTUS. :D
Ok, my turn at fortune telling. The country is suffering massive Augustus Stupidus fatigue, massive. The thing about Bush is that you can call him names all day (I do) but you have to admit that the positions of candidate Bush varied zilch from that of GOP nominee President Auger In (preznit Augustus Stupidus is a different story, of course). So my prediction is that “straight shootin’” will be discounted come November. In other words, McCain ain’t going to be able to market himself as a ‘core principles’ candidate (or he won’t reap what Bush did from that meme) and Obama ain’t going to pay retail for flip flopping like Tricky Dick Nixon in 1972.
er, 1968, sorry.
Ok, demand the oil companies explore the hundreds of thousands square miles under lease offshore that they are not drilling.
Drill There, Drill Now!
“Ok, demand the oil companies explore the hundreds of thousands square miles under lease offshore that they are not drilling.”
We can’t “demand” private companies to do anything.
Unless you are a socialist and want to Nationalize.
fleettwood
Posted July 11, 2008 at 6:47 pm | Permalink
“Ok, demand the oil companies explore the hundreds of thousands square miles under lease offshore that they are not drilling.”
We can’t “demand” private companies to do anything.
Unless you are a socialist and want to Nationalize.
—
Nationalizing oil production is the only way we’re going to effect a price drop at the pump any time soon. To drop domestic prices as quickly as your “Drill Here Drill Now” promise, you’ll have to increase domestic supply. The only way you can do that quickly is by taking that supply off the world market. In other words, you’ll have to nationalize oil distribution, including refining.
Your only other choice is market forces, which you guys don’t seem to be so hot on at this time. Probably just a political thing. :D
All this “drill now etc” stuff somehow fails to account for this fundamental premise in you “drill now” guys’ arguments.
Americans are among a few people in the world that cannot speak a foreign language. We need to learn one. Not necessarily Spanish- my daughter took 3 years of French- but a foreign language. And the Metric system too.
There are more hands that you can play in the center than you can from the middle. The right you can gamble everyday and not feel the temptation to take more money out of your checking or charge account. Just think about it for every single day.
We can not “nationalize” the oil industry and solve any problems.
For starters, we are under TREATY obligations that can not be violated, it does not matter if the United States government owns the oil, or if private business owns the oil.
That oil MUST be sold on the market, with NO government mandates or allocations as to the end user.
The next fact to consider is that the rules of supply and demand ignore ownership.
It does not matter who OWNS the oil, the PRICE will be determined by world wide supply vs world wide demand.
We can’t demand the private companies do anything, so even if given more lease rights to refuge property, there is no guarantee that those right would be exercised any more than the ones they now hold.
Even if the govt. demanded refuge oil be sold in the U.S. (we can and have done that before) like in my link, other Alaskan oil would then go on the world market to offset. 0 net gain, except for the oil companies that would pay a minimum for the lease rights and turn an even tidier profit.
Phantom
Oil sold to Japan, from Alaska, is oil Japan does not have to buy elsewhere.
Oil sold to Japan, from new wells, is oil that Japan does not have to buy from Mexico or Canada.
New wells, providing oil to Japan, will help keep the price of gasoline lower all around the world.
Poor ol’ “Franklin” has painted himself into a corner.
There might be enough American-produced crude oil to feed America’s appetite for petroleum an current levels.
Maybe it will take more “drilling here” to achieve that.
But with huge expanding markets for crude in China, India, and the rest of the Third World, additional American oil would amount to a mere drop in the barrel on the international market.
If Newtie Gingrich’s focus-grouped “Drill Here. Buy Here. Save Here” slogan were somehow to be transformed into policy, the only-est way it could work is if all America-produced oil it removed from the international market and dedicated to Americans.
Think Exxon/Mobil’s gonna go along with that?
It’s like that “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” ad campaign. The only way “Drill Here, Buy Here, Save Here” works is if what’s drilled in America is Burned in America.
And that, dear “Franklin,” mean nationalizing Big Oil.
So which is it you’re advocating?
The more there is the less it costs.
That’s the fundamental truth of markets.
The energy dept. has no doubt factored in the exporting of Alaskan oil in their few pennies p.g. projection.
That is precisely what’s wrong with the “deplete our reserves now’ argument. We would use up our reserves to make a few cents difference on the world market prices.
Which is why to have any significan effect, the only benefit would be if we ‘consumed here, what we pump here’.
Also, say Japan or China bought our oil, and decreased their purchase on mid-east oil. What’s a Saudi Arabia to do, go ahead and put up the excess oil for sale, and bring prices down. Or, leave that oil in the ground for sale later?
Their oil won’t spoil, and they are flush with our dollars.
Our ace in the whole used to be S.A., they were needing our protection and would flood the market to bring prices down for us. They no longer have that fear, and as bush demonstrated during his last visit, they laughed in his face (or the equivalent there of).
We do not have their capacity to make much difference on the world market.
There you have it,
Phantom thinks that Saudi Oil can effect price, but American Oil can Not affect price.
Also, why should we worry about keeping any of our own “reserves”???
If some new technology is really on its way, if some “alternative” is really going to happen —
Why not pump all the oil out of the ground that we can, while it is still worth something?
After all, won’t all of your promised “new technology” make oil worthless?
So why not provide as many jobs as we can, now, in the oil business?
So why not generate as much tax revenue as we can, now, in the oil business?
So why not do what ever we can, to reduce the current price of oil?
Drill Here, Drill NOW!
Obama has flat out lied, at least 72 times:
http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/its-72-documented-lies-and-still-sunny.html
I thought I didn’t need to add that using S.A. in my argument was a simplification from saying OPEC. And yes OPEC could very easily absorb any production we could possibly attain.
Now for some bullsh*t free analysis of the ads in the presidential race.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_false_accusation_about_energy.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_falsely_attacks_mccain.html
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/how_many_us_jobs_have_been_lost.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_32000_question.html
The first relates to some issues that Franklin has been bullsh*tting here on just now (the Drill Here Drill Now nonsense).
We could be forced into a position (if we don’t seek/find alternatives) that Japan was faced with. Don’t think OPEC countries would be too eager to provide us with oil to run our tanks.
Franklin has just absorbed the Republican/oil co. b.s. and become one of their useful idiots. They’ve been trying to do this for decades and will use any convenient argument to accomplish it.
Below are a few lines from Obama’s books; In HIS OWN WORDS!
From Dreams of My Father: ‘I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.’
From Dreams of My Father : ‘I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.’
From Dreams of My Father: ‘There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.’
From Dreams of My Father: ‘It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.’
From Dreams of My Father: ‘I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa , that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.’
And FINALLY the Most Damning one of ALL of them!!!
From Audacity of Hope: ‘I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.’
All you Obama maniacs explain away as best you can, or conger up and lie, but his words speak the truth before he was ‘running for the most powerful office in the this country, and maybe the world, and can no longer be ‘honest’ about himself.
And once again, we see the level of scholarship Boxlock brings to a debate. That is to say, none except to relay bullsh*t e-mails.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
Some of those quotes do not appear in the books, others are taken out of context.
Under the context of the quotation of the book, I would want a president who would “stand with the Muslims”. In fact, when a President swears to uphold the constitution, that is what any president should do when
“…the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
More on the thoroughly discredited e-mail Boxlock vomited up here.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ownwords.asp
Snopes,
In His Own Words
Claim: E-mail lists racist passages taken from Barack Obama’s books.
Status: Multiple — see below.
Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2008]
Notice it says “Multiple” NOT ‘False’
And KansasNaive is a LIAR.
He knows full well, as I have explained, I hold no stock in pharmaceutical companies directly. Let alone any providing abortion, whatever he means by that stupid statement.
There may be some in mutual funds I hold, just as there may be in any retirement account the Naive holds. Though I doubt he is responsible enough to even have retirement accounts.
He lies because he has nothing else the pathetic little weasel.
Botox, give it up.
I swear, Monty Python’s Black Knight could have been written with you in mind. . .
Rage I, no YOU, have no idea what you are talking about. Obama said those things, if that’s what you mean. And I don’t own stock in abortion providing pharmaceutical companies, whoever they are, if that’s what you mean.
And KSNaive is a liar, if that’s what you mean.
Do you know what you mean or are you just being an ass too?
That’s what I though….you’re being an ass again.
‘thought’ not ‘though’.
Boxlock…you work in the industry (unless you’ve lied about that too).
Does Dr. Tiller (and all the other abortion providers) magically produce equipment, supplies, drugs, etc. or do they obtain them from the very people you work for?
ProLife insists that the abortion industry makes billions every year. Millions must be spent on on the aforementioned items.
Claiming that you are not involved is a little like a vegetarian working the kill floor at a slaughterhouse justifying it by saying “but I didn’t EAT any meat!”
Whining Republicans refuse to see the obvious.
THEY are the problem not the solution.
I don’t work in the pharmaceutical industry, never have, have never said I did. Please try and keep up, or just read and don’t post.
I was ask to come to his slaughterhouse once to provide some things he or his staff wanted.
I REFUSED, gave them a courteous explanation and have never had contact since. My choice, I don’t need to compromise or prostitute my values for the almighty dollar, as he’s doing.
Brought over from another thread, don’t miss this.
See this before it is pulled, as similar videos have been recently blocked.
Chris Matthews slam dunked Senator Kirk Watson, when he asked the Senator for just one example of Obama’s legislative accomplishments. If you want to see a politician choke on national TV…watch this! Chris was surprised when the Obama campaign’s own surrogates are left utterly stumped when asked to list his legislative accomplishments as a Senator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o
Another Democrat, Senator Kirk Watson, who is simply an intellectual giant…NOT!