Thread: The Obama "flip-flop" score card

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11  
    Eyelids
    Guest
    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.
     

  2. #12  
    Eyelids
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Thanks for this.
    errr... he wasnt defending you.
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Eyelids View Post
    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.
     

  4. #14  
    Goldwater
    Guest
    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.
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldwater View Post
    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.
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,173
    Written by a Democrat--and definitely worth the read:

    http://camille424.wordpress.com/2008...-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.)
    Last edited by Elspeth; 07-06-2008 at 10:13 PM.
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    486
    And Donna Brazile seems to be a major culprit.
    Can you explain more about that?
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,173
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflight View Post
    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/bra...ally-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/2...diss-me-donna/
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member marinejcksn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Penn State
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldwater View Post
    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
    "Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards." -PJ O'Roarke
     

  10. #20  
    Eyelids
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    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.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •