Obama flip-flops (he don't stop)

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I don't understand.
You seem to be suggesting that backing something in 2004 and then deciding not to back it four years later is a bad thing...
I thought that's what intelligent people with their eye on current events are supposed to do, you know, change their mind depending on what's best at the time.

I understand that there is some sympathy towards ( for example ) Bush's technique of deciding to do one thing and then continuing to carry on doing it regardless of the huge amount of evidence suggesting that he shouldn't have done it in the first place but I assumed we all understood that was because he's retarded.

I mean do you really want a president who maintains the same stance regardless of what changes may happen in the world around them ? I thought that 11/09 taught you yanks that people needed to be able to change their opinions because you never knew what might be around the corner...

This truly baffles me.




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Funny how Obama supporters demand sources, references and proof of things that were easily accessible to anyone and well documented in print and video. They pretend such issues are spurious because someone hasn’t handed them a verifiable source. Then, when the information is provided, they dismiss it anyway with comments like, “Oh, it’s just a matter of interpretation” or it’s “negative spin”.

I would guess that if Obama was caught on film, kicking a puppy to death, his supporters would just say it was “taken out of context” or perhaps “not really representing what Obama stands for”.

Also, please note that, in debate, there is a fine line between actually requiring sources to validate specific claims and simply demanding “proof” of every statement made in order to circumvent discussion of the issue at hand. When claims are of such a nature that they are of common knowledge or a matter of generally understood information or so easily obtainable by the common person, they do not need to be verified by a source for every such statement. Obama supporters like to use pedantic demands for verification of everything pressed against Obama, no matter how widespread or common the information is. It’s just a petty tactic to elude pointed discussion of uncomfortable facts.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Spuggy
 


That's a great point. I actually supported the war when it started. I believed the lies they were telling us. Yeah, I felt foolish when I found out the truth, but at least I was smart enough to admit that I had been wrong and change my mind about it.




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
"Funny how Obama supporters demand sources, references and proof of things that were easily accessible to anyone and well documented in print and video."

I wasn't sure so I went back over the thread and as far as I can tell only one person has actually asked for evidence, one person has said that evidencing sources is necessary but doesn't ask for it and everyone else has completely ignored the whole "where's the evidence" argument.

I'm an Obama supporter and I haven't asked for any evidence...

I don't get it. Who are the Obama supporters you're talking about ? The "evidence" in this case is completely against you.

spin that.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Spuggy]

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Spuggy]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Since most of Obama's original plans will be detrimental to the US, maybe his flip flops are a good thing.

These flip flops should still be pointed out because it proves he is just another typical politician after all, though his people will still continue to believe he can actually walk on water.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Spuggy
 


Against him? How can you make that claim? Weren't most of those flip-flops verified?

Also, with Obama being on the far left and so many leftists being against the death penalty, how are you Obama supporters handling his backing the death penalty for child rape as in the Louisiana child rape case that the Supreme Court just botched? Even Obama disagrees with the ruling.


"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."


Source: www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spuggy
" I don't get it. Who are the Obama supporters you're talking about ? The "evidence" in this case is completely against you.

spin that.



“......there is no reference material for whence your information came.. and it could be a matter of interpretation?.”- Andrew E. Wiggin

“Most of these are a matter of interpretation (opinion) and negative spin… And post sources. Otherwise, it's just an opinion piece”. - Benevolent Heretic

“…that these claims have risen (or descended) to the status of needing extraordinary evidence (emphasis added) to back them up or they are to be dismissed out of hand… Nor is the 'evidence' so far presented in these anti-Obama rants such evidence”. - Open_Minded Skeptic

Please bear in mind that this post has just started. Two pages, about evenly-split in opinion, is not going to give me volumes of quotes. And also, I said in general "Obama suporters" - not only posters in this thread. But then, you just proved my point by asking for such references, didn’t you? Avoid the issue, ask for proof of every statement – that’s the tactic I accused Obama supporters of. You just did it and can’t even see that you did



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Your third video i can't argue with.


I have a problem with the third video.



Let's break down what is said and who's distorting who.

The news reporter says "Infact senator Mccain never said he WANTED a hundred more years of war."

Now, in the two clips of Obama, he never says McCain "WANTED" he says Mccain is "WILLING to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" and in the second clip says "SUGGESTS MIGHT GO ON another 100 years"

Now here's the unedited video of Mccain at that same meeting in Derry, New Hampshire.



OK, let's look at what is said in the above, full video.

Guy in audience: "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years"

McCain: "Make it 100"

This part is clearly cut off the first video.

So was Obama lying: NO
Was he Distorting what McCain said: NO
Was the Media distorting what Obama said: YES

Cheers.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Xeros]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by passenger
 


Here's the problem. There have so many totally false rumors spread about Obama, that the point has come that more such claims must be verified objectively, or the existing evidence lends credence to dismissing further claims forthwith.

"Obama can't be president, he was not born in the US" - proven false

"Obama is a Muslim" - if he were, he could still be president, by the US Constitution, but in any case, no evidence to support

"Obama votes Present too often" - proven false

"Obama has no experience" - proven false

"Obama is arrogant" - matter of opinion

"Obama broke the law by modifying the Presidential Seal" - proven false

"Obama is skewing the Bible" - proven false

"Obama must have the same attitude as Rev. Wright" - matter of opinion

"Obama dis-respects the United States" - matter of opinion; no evidence to support

and the list goes on.
and on.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by passenger
Then, when the information is provided, they dismiss it anyway with comments like, “Oh, it’s just a matter of interpretation” or it’s “negative spin”.


The information has not been provided. I am DONE doing research to disprove these stupid statements. You want proof that Obama has never changed his mind about something? Sorry. I know he has.



Also, please note that, in debate, there is a fine line between actually requiring sources to validate specific claims and simply demanding “proof” of every statement made in order to circumvent discussion of the issue at hand.


Well, I am not "demanding proof". I'm simply saying that if a debate is the goal, you're going to have to provide sources that he actually said that he "opposes decriminalization of marijuana" for example. Or are you suggesting I take Jetxnet's word for it?

Obama hesitantly raised his hand when asked if he disagreed with Chris Dodd's position on decriminalization. So, maybe he disagrees with some of Chris Dodd's views about it, like that the line between powder and crack coc aine should also disappear. Or maybe there are specifics that they disagree on. But Obama has always supported decriminalizing pot.

Here's what Obama's spokesperson ACTUALLY said:

SOURCE



he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use.


A person can support DECRIMINALIZING marijuana and at the same time, NOT support ELIMINATING all criminal penalties for its use and possession. See how that works?

Decriminalizing something is to reduce the criminal classification NOT necessarily ELIMINATE it for all use and/or possession. In other words, perhaps, JUST PERHAPS, he doesn't want to make growing, distribution, and unlimited possession perfectly 100% legal. He wants to decriminalize possessing small amounts for medical and personal use.

So, saying that he flipped on this issue is indeed "negative spin" that the media spoon-fed the haters, as far as I can find. If you have a source to the contrary, I would LOVE to see it!

And as has been said, he is going to change his mind on things. All politicians do. If you can live with it, you can, if you can't, you vote for someone else who ALSO flips.

Tell me that this is not spin!



Changes Presidential Seal in lewd act of disrespect, pulls the Seal later because of the negative response it got, even by his own impressionable supporters.


He did not "change the presidential seal"!
"Lewd act of disrespect"? LOL What can I say to that? That's AN OPINION. And the rest is PURE speculation. In other words, make-believe.

Look, if you wish to believe this fantasy picture that a few here wish to paint, please do. If you want others (the more critical-thinking among us) to believe it, you're going to have to provide credible sources and specifics. Sorry if that bothers you, but that's just the way it is.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


True. All of the claims you provided are clear examples of opinion and certainly subjective in nature, e.g. Obama is arrogant. I would assume that most people of average intelligence would recognize them as such. That does not include matters such as originally posted by jetxnet. The OP provided numerous items that were documented and available to the public at large, in various form (i.e. print, video, etc.).

Certainly, many Obama detractors are using subjective arguments and opinions for the basis of their indictments. But that does not excuse Obama supporters from trying to dismiss every substantive issue with claims that it is a rumor, opinion or spin – even in the face of verifiable evidence. And again, the tactic of demanding a source for everything said is simply a devious stratagem for avoiding pursuit of the issue at hand.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by passenger
“And post sources. Otherwise, it's just an opinion piece”. - Benevolent Heretic


This is a partial quote, and I was talking to the people reading the thread. See how you left that out and made it look like I was "demanding sources" from the OP? That's just the sneaky tactics people use to start these rumors and spin these stories in the first place.

But I fully and proudly admit that for me to believe something, you're going to have to provide something more than your own words. WHY? Not to prove it happened, but so I can go do my own research and see what was ACTUALLY said, stripping the issue of YOUR interpretations and assumptions, which most of the Obama rumors are based on.

I then bring the FACTS from the SOURCE to the thread. Facts, I will discuss. Opinion and spin, not interested.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
"how are you Obama supporters handling his backing the death penalty for child rape as in the Louisiana child rape case that the Supreme Court just botched?"

Personally I disagree with him. I don't believe in the death penalty regardless of the crime.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. People vote for the person who they believe will be best for the country don't they ? Obama supporters disagree with him on many issues ( or at least I assume they do ) politics is about weighing up the pro's and cons of all candidates and going with the one you feel most closely represents your own opinions / the best deal for the county.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Also, with Obama being on the far left and so many leftists being against the death penalty, how are you Obama supporters handling his backing the death penalty for child rape as in the Louisiana child rape case that the Supreme Court just botched? Even Obama disagrees with the ruling.


I'm not a "leftist" but I do disagree with the death penalty, but I perfectly understand that Obama would allow it in this case and I have no problem with that. As I've said, we disagree on some things (firearms, immigration, etc). And apparently the death penalty.

I don't expect to agree 100% with him. Can anyone say they agree 100% with their candidate of choice? I never have. I don't agree 100% with my husband.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Here's the problem. There have so many totally false rumors spread about Obama, that the point has come that more such claims must be verified objectively, or the existing evidence lends credence to dismissing further claims forthwith.


Yeah! What he said.

Basically, I've been busting my Obamanator butt going around searching for real information to post, because that's what people believe. Just because someone said, "Obama's not black, he's Arab! Here's proof!" To refute that ridiculous claim, I spend the time to find out the truth of the matter and post it here.

In proper debate, it is the responsibility of the person who makes a claim to provide resources to back up what they say. If you claim something, SOMEONE (probably me) is going to challenge it. It's not true just because you say it is and while asking for sources can be a deflection tactic, it isn't in my case. I want to see where you got your information.

On Debating



Be sure of your facts. What is the source of your information?


You can bet I'm going to be sure of my facts. It's only a suggestion that you be sure of yours. I don't "Demand Proof". I can't demand anything of you. I don't care if you (or jetxnet) provide proof or not. It's just I'm not going to believe it or give it credence if you haven't, because of all the spurious accusations and rumors about the man that abound.

And if you accuse a person of a "Flip-flop", I need a source for what he said before and another one for what he says now. Because as we see in the decriminalization issue, it MAY not be a flip-flop, but just a matter of interpretation of the reader.

Obama is an EXTREMELY intelligent man. I've been listening to him. He says exactly what he means the vast majority of the time. He trusts the people not to jump to conclusions or take him out of context. His mistake. But I listen to what he says, not what people like jetxnet would have me believe he said. I want to see HIS words, not your interpretation of them.

THAT'S why I want to see sources.


Oh, and, your first post in this thread was to call out Obama supporters for having the gall to demand proof. You're not accusing people of deflection just so you don't have to provide sources or discuss the issues, are you? As a means of deflection, perhaps?



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by passenger
Also, please note that, in debate, there is a fine line between actually requiring sources to validate specific claims and simply demanding “proof” of every statement made in order to circumvent discussion of the issue at hand.


Yes, but also in a debate, the debater sets the premise up with actual established fact, rather than spurious rumours.

And if they want their debate to be taken seriously, then revelling in hypocrisy is not the wisest thing to do, is it?



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by passenger
“And post sources. Otherwise, it's just an opinion piece”. - Benevolent Heretic


This is a partial quote, and I was talking to the people reading the thread. See how you left that out and made it look like I was "demanding sources" from the OP? That's just the sneaky tactics people use to start these rumors and spin these stories in the first place.


Ok. So let’s take a more in depth look at what you said then (originally):




Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yeah. Most of these are a matter of interpretation (opinion) and negative spin.


“Most of these”. I assume by “these” you were referring to the items provided by the OP. You classified them as “opinion” and “negative spin”. Granted it doesn’t specify the OP as solely responsible, but where should we are to assume that it also refers to “people reading the thread”?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I could spend the time to bust these wide open as I (and others) have several rumors, but if people choose to believe these things, it's because they WANT to believe them and it just shows they either haven't done their homework (and are going to depend on jetxnet - a known Obama hater - to form their opinions)


Ok. So maybe you didn’t literally use the statement “I demand sources” but how else are your statements supposed to be interpreted? Again the “these” and other “rumors” references. “Sneaky tactic”? You accuse the OP of posting rumors and then try to retreat and say that you are the one being painted in an unfair light. You try to claim a shield of simply trying to propose that everyone was being castigated, when in fact you obviously meant the OP and his items aforementioned. You state that you are not demanding sources from jetxnet, but then you cast aspursions at his post by labeling him as a “known Obama hater”. What impression is the reader supposed to form of jetxnet from that statement? Don’t attack the message – attack the messenger, that’s the Obamaphile way.




Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
OR they simply don't like Obama and are trying to come up with acceptable (politically correct) reasons to explain their hatred and fear and convince other people not to like him, too.


Here it is. But I know I’ve misinterpreted it – you’re not implying we are racists, surely. No, if someone gained that impression from this statement you’d surely claim the mantle of innocence: “ I never said that. No, not in so many words. But perhaps you would like to explain this statement of yours further?



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by passenger

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
OR they simply don't like Obama and are trying to come up with acceptable (politically correct) reasons to explain their hatred and fear and convince other people not to like him, too.


Here it is. But I know I’ve misinterpreted it – you’re not implying we are racists, surely. No, if someone gained that impression from this statement you’d surely claim the mantle of innocence: “ I never said that. No, not in so many words. But perhaps you would like to explain this statement of yours further?


I didn't write the statement in question here, but I'll jump in. I absolutely do believe that some people who oppose Obama are in fact opposed to him based on his race. That is racism.

I also believe that some people who support him do so because of his race. That is also racism.

Whether you, passenger, or any other specific individual, supports or opposes Obama on racial grounds, is not for me to say.

Other people oppose or support Obama because he is a Democrat, or a "liberal", or (in my case) because he will be different than what we have now or will have with McCain.

The subject of race is entirely too egg-shell in this country. One of the freedoms of a truly free society is the freedom to dislike, fear or hate anybody you (generic 'you') want, for whatever reason.

Some folks have stated publicly that they oppose Obama because of his middle name. That's fine, too.

Getting back on topic, I'm only going address the OPs points j, k and l, since those are all I know about right now and I really have no more time for this interesting discussion today (duty calls and all that).



j) His pledged committment with his signature to oppose private campaign funding, then going back on his word later to accept private sector funding from Corporations and Hollywood.

If this is talking about Obama's recent decision to not use public funding for the general compaign, it has been well documented (thank you, BH) that he made no such blanket promise, he did in fact pursue an agreement with his opponent and no such agreement was reached. End of story.



k) First supporting Muslims, but upon learning is bad for his image in Patriotic America, throws them under the bus like the others (i.e. two Muslim asked not to sit in front of Camera at an Obama speech)

Bit more room on this one... the two Muslim women deal was a screwup on the part of the people at that event and not the real position of Obama's campaign. I personally believe he should treat the Muslim community in the US in the same way as he does all other religous groups, whatever that is. If he is not, that is an area I disagree with him on. But it is ironic that the same 'group' (right-wing conservative, to put a label on it) that set up the current fear/hate relationship in this country with American Muslims is now bashing Obama for being impacted by it. And I don't neccessarily say that the OP is bashing Obama for that... Pat Buchanan is an example of someone that is.



L) Changes Presidential Seal in lewd act of disrespect, pulls the Seal later because of the negative response it got, even by his own impressionable supporters.

It has been well documented that Obama's seal is entirely legal, so no illegal act (note that the OP did not claim such). Obama's seal is in no way "lewd" Define lewd in the primary definition, and the 'vulgar' definition is a matter of opinion. The OP may consider it disrespectful, which is the OP's right. I do not. Two equally valid opinions. The OPs speculation on why that seal is no longer in use, if that is indeed the case, is just that - speculation.

So of these three (granted a small sample), two have been completely debunked and the third is an area where I agree that Obama could handle it better.

One final word on language choice, and insinuation...
I find interesting the use of such phrases as:



is bad for his image in Patriotic America,




lewd act of disrespect, ... his own impressionable supporters.


Now does not the first example strongly imply that Patriotic Americans do not like "Muslim lovers"? Hmmm?

And the second example seems to be trying to make a sexual connection to Obama, another area where Americans tend to be spooky. And Obama supporters are, by definition, "impressionable"?

Eh?

Frankly, I believe there is plenty of room for language 'cleanup' by pretty much everybody.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by passenger
“Most of these”. I assume by “these” you were referring to the items provided by the OP. You classified them as “opinion” and “negative spin”. Granted it doesn’t specify the OP as solely responsible, but where should we are to assume that it also refers to “people reading the thread”?


You aren't to assume anything. THat's the whole point here! I have said what I mean.



Ok. So maybe you didn’t literally use the statement “I demand sources” but how else are your statements supposed to be interpreted?


Don't "interpret" them. We are speaking the same language. There is no interpretation required. Read what I say.



You accuse the OP of posting rumors and then try to retreat and say that you are the one being painted in an unfair light.


Where did I say that? You're interpreting or assuming again.



You try to claim a shield of simply trying to propose that everyone was being castigated, when in fact you obviously meant the OP and his items aforementioned.


I was not castigating anyone. At the end of my post, I SAID, "People - Do your own research. Educate yourselves. And post sources." and that's what I meant.




What impression is the reader supposed to form of jetxnet from that statement?


jetxnet's reputation is entirely of his own doing. I am not responsible of the impression people take of him. I think he hates Obama and have said so.



Don’t attack the message – attack the messenger, that’s the Obamaphile way.


You say "don't attack the messenger" and then call me a name??? Give me a message (with a source) and I will attack it.




Here it is. But I know I’ve misinterpreted it – you’re not implying we are racists, surely. ... But perhaps you would like to explain this statement of yours further?


There are many reasons that people don't want Obama to be president. Some of them are "politically incorrect" reasons. One of them is that he's black, one is that his name is "Hussein", one is that he's [supposedly] a Muslim, one is that they don't like his wife or his ex-preacher. ANY of these reasons, I would consider not politically correct. There are also people who don't agree with his positions or just don't like him.

I've never accused anyone of being racist for not voting for Obama. I've spoken out against it, in fact. Here's a post of mine:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As regards people jumping to racism when someone says they don't like Obama. I don't like it either. It's a lame cop out as far as I'm concerned. But on the other side, there's the faction that insists that if you're voting for Obama, you think of him as a "Messiah"... You're an "Obamatron"... You're caught up in the charisma of the man. And that's just as insulting. And it's heard just as often.
...
But you can't whine about being called racist if you're calling people "Obamatrons"...


OR Obamaphiles. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to say that Obama supporters are "Omabaphiles" or any of the other cute names we've seen, JUST because they support him, then you can hardly cry about being called a name because you don't.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


Hey Jetxnet...does David Limbaugh know you LIFTED THIS LIST WORD BY WORD from the "article" he just wrote without giving him credit. How unoriginal. Does that VIOLATE ATS POLICY? I would hate to see you banned.

You can't even come up with YOUR OWN smears or at least contribute some original spin or propaganda?

Oh by the way...who is David Limbaugh? Oh he is only an objective political commentator that has written books like "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" and, "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity"

And by the way...it will be a relief to have an Executive in the highest office open to learning more about an issue and CHANGING their mind. Rather than the current POTUS who prides himself on not listening to us the people, or reading newspapers, or responding to polls. Nope it is much better to just pretend you are right and ignore every little fact or opinion that interferes with your view.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by maybereal11]





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join