It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama to GOP: 'I won'

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Oh boy, here we go... Day 3 and already the "Change we can believe in" has fully manifested itself. Trepid, I agree it is wrong to change a snippet from an article, but the jist is the same - Obama is being crass and arrogant, just like Bush was. No change there.

Couple this with the fact that his entire cabinet are a bunch of DC insider retreads, many with questionable ethical histories like Geithner, Governor Richardson, Eric Holder and others... I am beginning to realize that a.) there will be no change, b.) the majority of Americans were sheistered and c.) ALL of the people are controlled by the same masters.

No folks, I'm afraid that this will be more of the same with some new twists, like socialism!




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Clearly, Intrepid owes Centurion a public apology as does anyone else who accused him of altering the story.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by sos37]


Thanks. As I don't appreciate being called a liar, I do feel that way myself. But after dealing with intrepid since I've been here, I've decided that apologizing is something intrepid won't or maybe even can't do.

And if you look at the kozmo post above, you can see that intrepid and others have accomplished their goal of shooting the messenger.

And to lug - "trying to get to the bottom of this". The 3 hour difference is the difference between eastern and pacific time.
There is, however, also another almost 30 minutes between my OP and the later politico time stamp. That is when their text was changed.



[edit on 1/23/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Well, my apologies to Centurian for siding with Interepid on the changing the snippet - as it has been confirmed that it wasn't changed. My most sincere apologies Centurion - and good find.


Lug

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 



Yes... I just realized that. You're right.


By JONATHAN MARTIN & CAROL E. LEE | 1/23/09 2:31 PM EST


You posted the OP at 2:04 PM

Apologies.

The link originally provided could easily have been re-worded within that ~ half hour.




[edit on 23-1-2009 by Lug]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Lug
 


Accepted and many thanks.

Takes a much bigger person to admit when they are wrong.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Most interesting to me is the phrase "according to sources familiar with the conversation"?

What/who is a source that is "familiar with the conversation?" ...not someone in attendance? Not "according to someone present at the conversation" Not according to Senator or Congressman x?

This bit of spin was handed to a GOP staffer (potential fall guy) in case the reporter squeeled and the story was then dissemenated rapid fire through the conservative outlets.

When the call was made to the reporter you know the conversation.."Can I say Senator X heard the President say that? ...No. Can I say that Senator X told you the President said that?...No. Are you calling on behalf of Senator X? No..how about someone "familiar with" the conversation...OK. Thanks I owe you one"

And thus they feed the machine...really we are brighter than this aren't we?

Whether it be from the left or the right we should all give thought and pause when reading news pieces like this.

"according to SOMEONE..FAMILIAR WITH the conversation?" C'mon.

If it happened this way any GOP Senator in the room would be chomping at the bit to take it public....not someone familiar with the conversation.

No one smells anything suspect?

[edit on 23-1-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 23-1-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Centurion, I am not a political ideologue, meaning that I am essentially a political atheist. I gave up my support for Obama during the election season because of the vote on the bank buy-off, and Joe Biden. It is Bush who lied us into war, it is Bush who has been wiretapping EVERYONE illegally targeting journalists in particular, it is the Bush White House who ordered, planned, and executed Americas most pervasive propaganda operation by the Pentagon through the media to sell the Iraq war to Americans. It is Bush who ordered the Torture of hundreds of detainees, 8 were killed in the process that we know of, and only 3 convictions EVER came of it, and those too are suspect.

It was George W. Bush, a man who is NOT a scientist, that shut out the voices of the scientific community when it came to climate science, and its' potential impact on Earth, and the future of America. It is George W. Bush who instead of listening to those who had data on social issues, decided that the only way to do anything is through "Faith-based" initiatives which is just another way to let religious zealots take over the country on the Federal dime with ideology rather than truth based on actual data gathered.
He deregulated the housing markets because he wanted to create an "Ownership society" and before you go off blaming Clinton for that mess, just remember that Bush agreed with him enough to make the problem worse.

I could go on. But I doubt Obama is ANYTHING like this.

His first two acts were on White House ethics which the American people asked for and got, a relaxation on the FOIA rules which will make the lives of many journalists, and people on this site easier. He closed down Gitmo which is nothing short of a concentration camp, and lends itself as a justification for more terrorists to terrorize, as it makes us look like savages and hypocrites as we try to climb the broken latter to the moral high-ground.

Instituted lawful interrogation consistent with the Geneva conventions. Which we signed and ratified, and according to article 6 of the US constitution the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention are supreme law of the land.

www.whitehouse.gov...


He is currently reviewing detainee policy to try to find LEGAL way of dealing with them while ensuring the safety of Americans in the process.

www.whitehouse.gov...

He issued an executive order to disclose presidential records of past, current, and future presidents without which accountability is a pipe-dream. This puts him on the hot seat too. If he were Bush(known for needless secrecy) why would he do this?

www.whitehouse.gov...

The ethics commitment is unparalleled in the history of the Presidency. And makes no exception for prosecution and other disciplinary action regardless of who is accused, including himself:

www.whitehouse.gov...

As someone who dropped support for Obama, and have since regarded him with harsh skepticism, these things are impressive.



None of this sounds like Bush to me. Instead of cherry picking things out of articles and spinning them to make a ridiculous point, try looking at policies thus far.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by projectvxn]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 




In your wet dream he is like Bush.

You are people are ridiculous. Here's a sample of rhetoric from the pseudo-conservatives:

-Wow, Obama is going to ruin this country with socialism.

-Wow, cutting the salaries of his cabinet? That's not even socialism, I bet you guys are pissed! (forgetting that they should be happy it isn't socialism)

-Wow, he's closing Guantanamo Bay. What about the terrorists!?

-Wow, he's going to surge troops in Afghanistan, that's not liberal! (forgetting about their whining about terrorists)

-Wow, he's just like George Bush (though he hasn't lied us into war, hasn't tortured people, hasn't spied on the public, hasn't shown great disrespect or disregard for the rest of the world, and hasn't nearly brought a great country to its knees through idiocy)

I'm just going to keep going.

-Wow, Obama is going to investigate the Bush administration. Why would he do that?

-Wow, where's the change? (besides the investigating Bush, no torture, no lies into war, no spying, no disrespect, and no idiocy)

-Wow, you guys must be surprised at the lack of change.

-Wow, I am really getting redundant with this partisan rhetoric.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


The thing that impresses me about obama so far is how fast reality has made him turn his back on the far left that helped elect him. I give him a
for that and have said so on other threads.

But there are other warning signs out there. And after the "scrutiny" and bashing Bush received, anyone would have to expect the same for obama.

And I still maintain that before 4 years has gone by that all the special interest groups that believed obama's campaign promises to them, will have become sorely disappointed in their "messiah". He won't get a 2nd term.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


You may be right. Labor unions and other such social interest have campaigned hard for him, and his centrist views may block him from a second term...Or if he is as intelligent as he seems, he may find a common ground here, and still hang on to the presidency.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


And why do you even believe this story has merit. From your "source":


"I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.


What sources? Who?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I'm glad that they arguing over how to spend more of our money. Who gives a damn who won. Quit increasing our debt!!

They both want to do the same thing...what's the damn difference!



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

And I still maintain that before 4 years has gone by that all the special interest groups that believed obama's campaign promises to them, will have become sorely disappointed in their "messiah".


You'll get no argument there from me. I've mentioned to many, both on and off the boards, that he'll find himself so bogged down with the economy and other More pressing affairs that he'll be hard-pressed to address even a fraction of the Many "commitments" asserted throughout his Campaign. Not for lack of desire, mind you, but moreover and merely due to lack of time. What happens 'tween now and then will dictate whether or not he's afforded a second term, in my opinion... with "right ideas and wrong approach" playing heavily into the overall outcome.

I wish him well, but doubt his ability to accomplish the sum total in a single term... near impossible, given the plate he's been handed.

$.02



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
"I won "

"I'm the decider"

Same game -

Different guys.

Let's give him more than a 3 day honeymoon - shall we?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by projectvxn
 


The thing that impresses me about obama so far is how fast reality has made him turn his back on the far left that helped elect him. I give him a
for that and have said so on other threads.


This is what genuinely confuses me. Obama was never a raging, liberal extemist lefty..socialist that you seemed to believe he was.

Anyone supporting him knew this. He is left...not far left scary socialist...we knew this..evidently you didn't.

He is a pragmatist with a left leaning view of the world. Always has been.

Those of us who voted for him get it. His first few days in office have impressed me GREATLY...he has done more in the first couple of days than I could have hoped for.

..and if going forward he has to put items on the back burner due to security or economic reasons, then I am OK with that too....He said in his debates and campaign speeches that his agenda was contingent on the economy ...those of us who voted for him understand.

No dissapointment here....very much the opposite



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Blame Rush for posts like that. Such a twisted view of the world that they win no matter what.

Something good happens: It's not liberal so we must be disappointed.

Something bad happens: It's liberal, it's our fault, and we are to blame.

This is not the first time I've heard, "The liberals must be disappointed with that move", and it's always the furthest thing from the truth.

We made that move happen, not them. They had eight years, and they #$*#$*# it up.

[edit on 1/23/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I'm not sure why this is an issue... Obviously the GOP and D's do not see eye to eye.

YA can't have things two separate ways at the same time can you???

You do not seem to give any credit to the guy for inviting GOP leaders into the discussion.

He didn't have to do that now did he?

Ultimately OBAMA is in the drivers seat and his statement was simply pointing out the obvious.

YER party had a good long run at doing it their way, hows that working for us???

I think it is clear that letting companies run wild has destabilized the entire system.
To much greed not enough $$$$$$$$$ from the peons to hold the bloated thing up.

You see the corps were taking more than AMERICANS could produce.

This whole debacle goes to show that 2 much of one philosophy is no good for our nation.

I hope Obama can recognize this... I hope we all can.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
I'm glad that they arguing over how to spend more of our money. Who gives a damn who won. Quit increasing our debt!!

They both want to do the same thing...what's the damn difference!


AND what is that???

I would like to know so I can better understand your POV.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by centurion1211
 




In your wet dream he is like Bush.

You are people are ridiculous. Here's a sample of rhetoric from the pseudo-conservatives:



"Wet dream?"

"You are people are ridiculous."



Here's a sample of rhetoric from the pseudo-"progressives":

Is that how we have to discuss the issues?

Might not hurt to cut back some on the green beer before posting.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


You mean like posting second-hand sources that can't even name the primary sources? You mean like making a blanket statement like, "Wow, he's just like George Bush", with absolutely no context or reason to believe it.

So you know that he apparently said, "I won". What did he say it in reference to? Why did he say it? When did he say it? What was said before he said it?

You don't know any of that, and yet you come out and make a crazy statement like, "he's just like George Bush". You know, if arrogance was the worst thing about George Bush, the past 8 years wouldn't have sucked quite so bad.

I apologize if you think saying that statement is ridiculous isn't good political talk, but I don't think out of context quotes, and blanket partisan statements are great either.

[edit on 1/23/2009 by Irish M1ck]




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join