PDA

View Full Version : The Obama "flip-flop" score card



Elspeth
07-05-2008, 06:55 PM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06292008/photos/new008a.jpg

From the NY post.

Eyelids
07-05-2008, 07:49 PM
Elspeth, nobody could possibly out-do you in terms of flip-flops.

Elspeth
07-05-2008, 07:54 PM
Elspeth, nobody could possibly out-do you in terms of flip-flops.

True, I have many pairs of flip flops. Living in San Diego, you need 'em, :)

Goldwater
07-05-2008, 08:02 PM
Elspeth, nobody could possibly out-do you in terms of flip-flops.

You don't need to flip flop to support a different candidate, nearly every voter votes on one issue important (or seemingly important) to them. This is no different, the world lives in Nixonland.

Elspeth
07-05-2008, 08:08 PM
You don't need to flip flop to support a different candidate, nearly every voter votes on one issue important (or seemingly important) to them. This is no different, the world lives in Nixonland.

Thanks for this, but Eyelids is just spewing. He/she/it has nothing else, really. He/she/it has to accuse me (and those like me) of flip-flopping to avoid seeing how far his/her/its candidate has moved away from core Democratic principles.

Odysseus
07-05-2008, 10:57 PM
Thanks for this, but Eyelids is just spewing. He/she/it has nothing else, really. He/she/it has to accuse me (and those like me) of flip-flopping to avoid seeing how far his/her/its candidate has moved away from core Democratic principles.

Exactly, otherwise he'll have to admit that Obamessiah is *gasp* just another politician!

dixierat
07-06-2008, 12:36 AM
Thanks for this, but Eyelids is just spewing. He/she/it has nothing else, really. He/she/it has to accuse me (and those like me) of flip-flopping to avoid seeing how far his/her/its candidate has moved away from core Democratic principles.


"There are none so blind as he who will not see"

From a song or sumthin, but absolutely true in The Obama's minions eyes.

:cool:

marinejcksn
07-06-2008, 04:03 AM
Exactly, otherwise he'll have to admit that Obamessiah is *gasp* just another politician!

Say it isn't true, Sir! :eek:

Thankfully, most of my collegues here see through the hype but the vaseline smeered lens of the media seems hell bent on letting this moron coast all the way to the Oval Office. I'm stuck with a serious dilema here if Barry wins, I've got 6 years in the Marine Corps and desperately want to do at least 20 or 30 but I can't serve that man as my Commander in Chief. :confused:

AmPat
07-06-2008, 05:51 AM
Say it isn't true, Sir! :eek:

Thankfully, most of my collegues here see through the hype but the vaseline smeered lens of the media seems hell bent on letting this moron coast all the way to the Oval Office. I'm stuck with a serious dilema here if Barry wins, I've got 6 years in the Marine Corps and desperately want to do at least 20 or 30 but I can't serve that man as my Commander in Chief. :confused:

I feel the same. I really don't plan to stay any longer than required if the Waxy flexible, Lying, sack of DIMocRAT talking points gets assisted into a job WAAAAAYYYYYY above his inept head.;)

I will retire ASAP in this scenario. Unfortunately I will have this Anti-American Liar's name on my retirement paperwork.:eek:

Zathras
07-06-2008, 10:30 AM
Elspeth, nobody could possibly out-do you in terms of flip-flops.

I'm sorry oh gutless one, she just showed that your candidate flips more than a coin toss at the beggining of a football game. Why don't you address the article instead of insuling (very weakly) the poster.

Eyelids
07-06-2008, 02:28 PM
Elspeth,

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton barely disagreed on the issues: there was a tiny wrinkle in their healthcare plans (I will admit HRC's is better than Obama's, though Elizabeth Edwards has them both beat) and the gas tax holiday. They were nearly identical on every other issue. So I have to ask you, why did you sacrifice all of your political ideologies and pledge your support behind McCain? How can you say Obama wasn't fulfilling "core democratic principles" if him and HRC agreed on the issues so much?

It would make sense of you said you were going to write in Clinton or support a 3rd party candidate, but it's painfully obvious that you are switching your vote to McCain out of childish spite.

I can tolerate most of the posters here because they firmly believe in conservative principles and our differences mostly arise out of strong ideologies. I respect their opinions on most issues even though I strongly disagree because I know for a fact disagreement is the only way a representative democracy like the one we have can work. But you are that shitty little rat of a voter that every 4 years skews everything; and I'm sure there are plenty of weasels like you who are Republicans supporting Obama and you can be rest-assured that I view them much the same way I do yourself. You're a fucking child who takes their ball and goes home when they lose.

Eyelids
07-06-2008, 02:29 PM
Thanks for this.
errr... he wasnt defending you.

Elspeth
07-06-2008, 03:09 PM
Elspeth,

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton barely disagreed on the issues:

Which Obama? Which issues? And which of Obama's statements, the past or the present ones? This is exactly the problem, Eyelids. We knew who Hillary was and she hasn't deviated. We knew what Edwards stood for and quite frankly, we could follow Biden's beliefs by his votes in the Senate. Even wacko Kucinich has been consistently wacko.

On the other hand, Obama seems to have no real principles at all: he is willing to change on a dime. I saw his website early on and it was as nebulous as possible. Some of the more specific "change" he was promising was already being done by government agencies, and I know people who were doing those very changes already.

The only issue the Obama campaign and its supporters has maintained with any consistency is their view that anyone opposing them is racist. That's it. And that's not worth even considering seriously.




So I have to ask you, why did you sacrifice all of your political ideologies and pledge your support behind McCain? How can you say Obama wasn't fulfilling "core democratic principles" if him and HRC agreed on the issues so much?

As I said, Obama made it clear that he was only about Obama and not about my core principles or any other Democrat's core principles, unless you consider calling everyone racist a core Democratic principle. Other than that, he has changed his opinions on virtually everything, and has left virtually no track record except to vote "present" as often as he could.

There was simply no way to tell what his values were, and the more we see of him, the more unclear it becomes that he has any values at all.




It would make sense of you said you were going to write in Clinton or support a 3rd party candidate, but it's painfully obvious that you are switching your vote to McCain out of childish spite.\

I changed to McCain because he is the devil I know. Obama's the devil I don't know and don't trust. It's that simple. I also have a great deal of respect for military service. My uncle served in Vietnam and was exposed to Agent Orange over there. He was never able to have kids. That kind of sacrifice is something that McCain understands, not Obama.



But you are that shitty little rat of a voter that every 4 years skews everything; and I'm sure there are plenty of weasels like you who are Republicans supporting Obama and you can be rest-assured that I view them much the same way I do yourself. You're a fucking child who takes their ball and goes home when they lose.


You know, I answered your questions above because they seemed to be genuine. This last paragraph of yours, unfortunately, leads me to believe that you really weren't genuine and have some great character issues of your own. Maybe this is why you so easily gravitate towards Obama: neither of you has any character, and you name call when you don't get your way.

Goldwater
07-06-2008, 10:04 PM
I've honestly tried finding and defining Obama's plan or at least general vision for Iraq, and everything is just "get out of there responsibly", sounds like Nixon's Vietnam solution to me. Politicians shouldn't get away with being so vague, less time on flag pins and more time grilling and getting these candidates to spill their entire attitudes on the issues.

Elspeth
07-06-2008, 10:07 PM
I've honestly tried finding and defining Obama's plan or at least general vision for Iraq, and everything is just "get out of there responsibly", sounds like Nixon's Vietnam solution to me. Politicians shouldn't get away with being so vague, less time on flag pins and more time grilling and getting these candidates to spill their entire attitudes on the issues.

Thank you. I thought you and I saw eye to eye on this one.

Elspeth
07-06-2008, 10:11 PM
Written by a Democrat--and definitely worth the read:

http://camille424.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/guest-post-by-william-2/



The Democrats’ Worst Bet Ever

Have you ever known a foolish gambler who despite himself, won a bunch of money, but then handled it so poorly, made so many bad bets, that before too long, he was in worse debt than ever before? Well, even if you haven’t, you are familiar with the narrative. And now you do know someone–or someones–and the foolish gambler is called the Democratic Party....

And as Bush continued to wreck everything good about this country, it even became strongly likely that the Democrats would take back the White House. The generic polls–any Democrat vs. any Republican–had the Democrats 15 or so percentage points ahead. No one liked anything that Bush was doing; and people were desperate for any kind of change. In this zero-sum game that is our two-party system, that boded very well for the Democratic Party.

But then, like that pathetically foolish gambler, the Democrats couldn’t wait to squander their winnings. Confident that they could regain the White House with any candidate, they callously pushed aside Hillary Clinton, who had the pedigree, the proven competence, and the solid Progressive credentials to insure not only a Fall victory, but a successful administration. They did this for a variety of reasons, including jealousy of Hillary and Bill; a fear on the part of certain Congressional Democrats that Hillary would run a very effective Executive branch, thus minimizing the role of Congress; and an eagerness on the part of some big players to exact a kind of vicarious revenge for Bush’s Iraq War, by destroying the chances of a candidate who had voted for the war resolution. They needed another candidate to defeat Hillary, though; and they found it in Barack Obama, a two-year Senator, with only eight years of public service altogether; whose prime qualifications were that he was of mixed racial ancestry, and that he could read a speech off a teleprompter well. They didn’t want Hillary, so they latched onto Obama, and made sure that he would get the nomination, which they essentially stole from Clinton through a series of moves that I and others have already recounted. They are still so desperate to make sure that Obama not only is nominated, but that Hillary’s political power is destroyed, they are going to extreme lengths to stop her from being nominated at the convention, and her votes counted. Rules of democratic fairness are of no account to them, flushed with their current winnings, and eager for the high times ahead.

And it is very possible, perhaps even likely, that they can win this particular poker game. They hold all the high cards, after all....

But the point of this essay is my belief that the Democrats have already played this so badly, and have chosen such an unqualified and unreliable potential President in Obama; that even in winning, they will ensure their losses for the long term. Obama is is easily describable by the right-wing media as the epitome of what they hate about the Democrats. We all know that Limbaugh, Hannity et al, have developed a successful caricature of the “Democrat” Party as the Party of weak-willed pseudo-intellectuals, who love to paternalistically mandate the lifestyles of everyone else. A Party which doesn’t really love America, doesn’t really respect its roots. People who identify more with foreign countries, particularly those of the Third World, which they are always idealizing as more noble than we are. People who mock the average, hard-working Americans, particularly White ones. People who in their heart of hearts see them as dumb, uneducated hicks who are always angry about something and ready to turn it against Black people, liberals, the intellectual elite. These stereotypes have been relentlessly effective for the Republicans for most of the last 40 years. Bill Clinton did a lot to eradicate them. But the Democrats were happy to push Clinton to the curb, allowing Obama’s campaign to slander him as a racist, as outmoded, angry and jealous. And so here they are, about to nominate someone who just begs to be seen as the embodiment of all that so many Americans have learned to hate about the Democratic Party.

Obama even manages to make it easy for the Right, by not being able to help himself in his obvious arrogance, elitism and inability to connect with White working-class voters. He calls them “bitter people who cling to guns and religion.” He talks about “typical White people.” He–or his surrogates–are eager to label anyone who opposes him as racists, either of the explicit or closet kind. Obama has a whole history of strange and murky acquaintances and benefactors with foreign ties. He has friends who are terrorists, money launderers, people with anti-Israel agendas, big money internationalists. In short, Obama is exactly what the Democrats are always feared by much of the nation as being. But even so, he might be able to win this election, because it’s a zero-sum game, and the Republican brand is at low ebb. And that’s all he and the Democratic Party care about: winning this one pot, never mind about the future. Get Obama elected, somehow, anyhow, and it’s celebration time. That Obama is further sowing the seeds for the ultimate Democratic bankruptcy by letting his surrogates attempt to destroy McCain, portraying him as senile (the word “confused” has been used at least twice by them); and even questioning the value of his military service, is simply being ignored. Obama lacks the grace and foresight to consider the consequences of these actions. He figures that once he wins, he can go about remaking his image. He is oblivious to the millions of Americans who now positively hate him; who will not have his back when the first crisis occurs; who will wait with eagerness for the day in which his popularity falls and his administration fails....



More at the link.

This guy expresses what so many of us Democrats are thinking. For the Republicans on the board, it gives you a look at one of the biggest Democratic divisions in a long, long time. (And Donna Brazile seems to be a major culprit.)

nightflight
07-06-2008, 10:15 PM
And Donna Brazile seems to be a major culprit.

Can you explain more about that?

Elspeth
07-06-2008, 10:39 PM
Can you explain more about that?

Donna Brazile has been the spoiler in at least 2 elections. From the article above, here is a note about 2000:


Clinton left the Democrats with a blueprint for dominating Americaís political landscape. Unfortunately, his own personal failings gave the Republicans a bigger opening than they should have had. But even so, he left office with a popularity rating in the 60ís, and a comfortable baton hand-off to Al Gore, who should have been quite easily elected President. But Gore blew it, with of course the assistance of the mainstream media. Yet even with his mistakes, all Gore had to do was to allow Clinton to campaign for him in Arkansas, if nowhere else, and he would have been elected. But Donna Brazile (where have we heard that name?), Goreís campaign manager, didnít like Bill Clinton, for some reason; and so she convinced Gore not to be seen anywhere near him during the entire campaign. So Clinton couldnít help, and Gore lost, or at least came close enough to losing for the Supreme Court to be able to lock him out of his last chance. And there went the White House again.


This year, Donna Brazile was front and center at the Wardman Park Marriot Hotel this past May 31st when Florida was disenfranchised (once again) as was Michigan. Even before her direct involvement in denying Clinton her delegates, Brazile was being described by some on the left as the most divisive figure in Democratic politics (especially in characterizing the Clintons as racists):


http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/5/11217/61148



Donna Brazile has been the most divisive and destructive force in the Democratic Party this year. She engineered the Florida/Michigan fiasco, threatened to bolt the Party if the super delegates did not do her bidding and now has taken to publicly smearing the Clinton campaign...

More on Donna's divisive behavior at the following links:

Donna Brazile Hints Bill Clinton's Obama Attacks Racially Offensive
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/01/09/donna-brazile-hints-bill-clintons-obama-attacks-racially-offensive

Donna Brazile Was Behind The Stripping of The FL/MI Delegations?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/3/122945/9100

Donna Brazile is for Obama (This attacks Brazile's allegedly neutral stance)
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27389

Donna Brazile calls Hillary supporters "hysterical feminists" (even the guys?)
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/diss-me-donna/

marinejcksn
07-07-2008, 11:23 AM
I've honestly tried finding and defining Obama's plan or at least general vision for Iraq, and everything is just "get out of there responsibly", sounds like Nixon's Vietnam solution to me. Politicians shouldn't get away with being so vague, less time on flag pins and more time grilling and getting these candidates to spill their entire attitudes on the issues.


You and I both, Goldwater. It's like I've told my troops out here, no matter who wins in November I really doubt this war is ending anytime soon in the next 3 years or so. We'll draw down troop levels, which we should, but Barry isn't THAT much of an idiot to risk his entire political career to pull us out recklessly in 16 months.

WE already know exactly what'll happen if Barry gets elected. He'll immediately say Bush was holding back info on Iraq so we need to stay longer then he promised we would. Typical liberal, lies to the core. At least True Conservative Libertarians admit when they're wrong.:D

Eyelids
07-07-2008, 11:31 AM
Which Obama? Which issues? And which of Obama's statements, the past or the present ones? This is exactly the problem, Eyelids. We knew who Hillary was and she hasn't deviated. We knew what Edwards stood for and quite frankly, we could follow Biden's beliefs by his votes in the Senate. Even wacko Kucinich has been consistently wacko.

Hillary never deviated? Wow you must not have been there for NAFTA in OH or her "I love my guns" bullshit in PA. It's called broadening yourself to get as many votes possible.


On the other hand, Obama seems to have no real principles at all: he is willing to change on a dime. I saw his website early on and it was as nebulous as possible. Some of the more specific "change" he was promising was already being done by government agencies, and I know people who were doing those very changes already.

Examples. Citations. Sources.

If you dont provide them you're full of shit. And Obama's plan to get rid of the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on the upper class are well-documented and fairly obvious... that is the core Democratic ideology.


The only issue the Obama campaign and its supporters has maintained with any consistency is their view that anyone opposing them is racist. That's it. And that's not worth even considering seriously.

Please remember it wasnt Barack Obama who injected race into the campaign (unless being black is injecting race into the campaign, which it might be); it was Republican talk media. I really dont think Obama wanted to bring race into the discussion at any point because you're always going to find some narrow-minded fools who you end up offending.


I changed to McCain because he is the devil I know. Obama's the devil I don't know and don't trust. It's that simple. I also have a great deal of respect for military service. My uncle served in Vietnam and was exposed to Agent Orange over there. He was never able to have kids. That kind of sacrifice is something that McCain understands, not Obama.

Cute story, doesn't mean McCain should be president. In fact any responsible voter would not let that have any bearing on their decision.


You know, I answered your questions above because they seemed to be genuine. This last paragraph of yours, unfortunately, leads me to believe that you really weren't genuine and have some great character issues of your own. Maybe this is why you so easily gravitate towards Obama: neither of you has any character, and you name call when you don't get your way.

Oh god what a crock of shit. Grow some skin or get out of politics.

ConJinx
07-07-2008, 11:38 AM
If its not flip-floppin its the blame game. No personal responsibility is ever nor will ever be taken by the Democratic party. From stolen election nonsense to Bush lied to Obama's more defined stance on the topic of the week. When Democrats regain all 3 branches of government what will be the excuse they'll use when we are no longer a Republic. This new New deal being proposed by the left will eradicate any semblance of this once great country.

Elspeth
07-07-2008, 01:34 PM
Eyelids,

Most of your last post isn't worth responding to because you can't come back with anything that really defends your candidate's complete lack of conviction on anything, but one comment has to be addressed:



Cute story, doesn't mean McCain should be president. In fact any responsible voter would not let that have any bearing on their decision.


This comment of yours referred the story about my uncle:


My uncle served in Vietnam and was exposed to Agent Orange over there. He was never able to have kids. That kind of sacrifice is something that McCain understands, not Obama.

You can run your mouth and call me as many names as you want to but you will NOT insult my uncle's military service. You simply will not. It is not a "cute story": it is a tragedy and a sacrifice. This is something you in your selfish and foolish arrogance will never understand.

BEG
07-07-2008, 03:53 PM
Please remember it wasnt Barack Obama who injected race into the campaign (unless being black is injecting race into the campaign, which it might be); it was Republican talk media. I really dont think Obama wanted to bring race into the discussion at any point because you're always going to find some narrow-minded fools who you end up offending.




Funny, I seem to remember quite a few Democrats commenting specifically on Obama's race. Geraldine Ferraro to name one. Heck, Bill Clinton even said that Obama's campaign "Played The Race Card On Me" after he compared Obama to Jesse Jackson. It is your party who is obsessed with race and you are crazy if you don't think it is obvious.

Elspeth
07-07-2008, 04:09 PM
Funny, I seem to remember quite a few Democrats commenting specifically on Obama's race. Geraldine Ferraro to name one. Heck, Bill Clinton even said that Obama's campaign "Played The Race Card On Me" after he compared Obama to Jesse Jackson. It is your party who is obsessed with race and you are crazy if you don't think it is obvious.

Race was injected way before Ferraro. Remember Joe Biden calling Obama "articulate"? The Obama crowd called that a racial slur and that was way back in early 2007. See here:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/


The race baiting started with Obama, not with Clinton or anyone else. The strategy was to knock out solid people like Biden and Clinton by calling them racist.

LibraryLady
07-07-2008, 11:12 PM
So it was bound to happen...
Obama squirmed when he was asked about the success of the surge in the past, but today he could deny it no longer.
Obama admitted the Bush Surge is working:



Today, Obama finally admitted to the great success of the Bush Surge: (http://www.gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/)



"If current trends continue and we were in a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and stabilization and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police, then my hope could be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground."

(with Youtube proof!)

Elspeth
07-07-2008, 11:17 PM
So it was bound to happen...
Obama squirmed when he was asked about the success of the surge in the past, but today he could deny it no longer.
Obama admitted the Bush Surge is working:



Today, Obama finally admitted to the great success of the Bush Surge: (http://www.gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/)



(with Youtube proof!)

You know, the RNC needs to supply its delegates with Obama flip flops.

Goldwater
07-07-2008, 11:18 PM
HuffPo and it's children are going to be very very angry with Obama for saying this.

LibraryLady
07-07-2008, 11:21 PM
The GOP is working on it:


The GOP increasingly has sought to take advantage of any opportunity to permanently pin the flip-flopper label on Obama, with all its unappealing associations, and strip him of the shiny-new-penny one he has cultivated.

Obama's flip-flops (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11535.html)

marinejcksn
07-08-2008, 12:58 AM
Race was injected way before Ferraro. Remember Joe Biden calling Obama "articulate"? The Obama crowd called that a racial slur and that was way back in early 2007. See here:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/


The race baiting started with Obama, not with Clinton or anyone else. The strategy was to knock out solid people like Biden and Clinton by calling them racist.

Exactly. Obama is the one, NOT the GOP who is fixated on race here. Then again, it shouldn't be any suprise at all, if you know your history on the Democratic Party. They fostered the policies of Jim Crow for almost 100 years. Dwight D. Eisenhower passed 2 pieces of Civil Rights legislation that were widely protested and rallied against by white southern democrats, yet JFK and LBJ seem to share in this myth that they were "great men who brought us all together". The democratic party of the 20th century showed absolutely NO interest in fostering good race relations or ending perceived "hatred". Hell, Democrats are largely the "Man" being rallied against for keeping urban communities down! They were the party of welfare, they were the party of not taking personal responsibility....is it any suprise that "Messiah" Obama is losing his luster? But oh wait.....for arguing AGAINST progressive Liberalism as a true mental disorder, I guess I must be a....................
RACIST!:rolleyes:

Eyelids
07-08-2008, 01:11 AM
You can run your mouth and call me as many names as you want to but you will NOT insult my uncle's military service. You simply will not. It is not a "cute story": it is a tragedy and a sacrifice. This is something you in your selfish and foolish arrogance will never understand.

Get off yourself. Do you really think John McCain would be a better president because he personally understands your uncle's sacrifice? What does his ability to "understand" on a personal level have to do with him doing his job better?

Fucking one-issues/spite voters. Every time I read an Elspeth post the Winston Churchill quote comes to mind.

marinejcksn
07-08-2008, 05:22 AM
Eyelids, us in the Military understand that while McCain is in fact no Conservative he understands and appreciates us more then Barry does. Obama's already been in league with moonbats like Murtha who called my fellow Marines "Murderers" and "Nazis". Funny how Progressive Liberals love throwing the word "Nazi" around, when in fact the Left shares more with Nazism then the Right ever has.

LibraryLady
07-08-2008, 02:23 PM
You know, the RNC needs to supply its delegates with Obama flip flops.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcIeoSHTyCI



Video Script:
Obama: My assessment is that the surge has not worked.
Obama: I would end this war, and I would have our troops out within 16 months.
Obama: I will immediately begin to remove our troops.
Murtha: I think the surge is working.
Lieberman: The surge is working.
Clinton: We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working.
Gibbs: The security situation has improved, much as everybody admitted it would if we put more troops on the ground.
Axelrod: I mean, he never disputed the fact that if you throw a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can make a difference.
Obama: I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is gonna solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.
Reporter: You did not refer to the 16 month timetable. Does that mean you can tell us today that you will not change the 16 month timetable?
Obama: (smiles and breathes) Uh... I... (scratches head)


rob, please give us back the Youtube link!!!!