CriticalBill wrote: Tell me archer, (and I won't use flip flop), how many of Obama's campaign promises have been conveniently changed because he got "more information"? Lets see, Gitmo, Afghanistan, oil drilling, the Patriot Act extended, taxes, no lobbyists, more transparency,no earmarks, Iraq troops home in 16 months...I'm sure there's more but my fingers are tired.
One of these days I'm going to hear a liberal admit that Obama is full of crap and has no principles. There is a reason why many of his base are upset, and it's not because he's standing by what he promised before he was elected.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... se/?page=1
I personally wouldn't count any in the "In The Works" category as it remains to be seen whether they end up as "Kept" or "Broken", but here's 26 pages of what he promised, and what the result's been for each (and of course are open to debate as to whether they are the correct calls or not - like the "No Permanent Bases in Iraq" being listed as "Kept" - they didn't build temporary bases, so are we just handing those over to the Iraqis?).
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Interesting thought on a politicians keeping promises....if a promise is made in the campaign, and the politician tries to follow through but either it fails in committee....or is changed in compromises.....or it is voted down....or it is vetoed....does that mean that politician failed to keep his/her promise made to the voters? Would we vilify that politician for not being able to accomplich what was promised?
Has that ever happened to any of you.....you promised to do something then something happened and it was impossible to do? Were you vilified for that? Sure you are going to feel badly about failing to accomplish what you set out to do, but if the failure wasn't necessarily yours should you be viewed as a failure.
Or....have you ever thought that you knew the best way to accomplish a particular task, then found there was a better way.....did you stick to the first way because you had said you would do it that way....or did you take the new information and rethink what is the best way to accomplish the task?
archer wrote: Interesting thought on a politicians keeping promises....if a promise is made in the campaign, and the politician tries to follow through but either it fails in committee....or is changed in compromises.....or it is voted down....or it is vetoed....does that mean that politician failed to keep his/her promise made to the voters? Would we vilify that politician for not being able to accomplish what was promised?
Has that ever happened to any of you.....you promised to do something then something happened and it was impossible to do? Were you vilified for that? Sure you are going to feel badly about failing to accomplish what you set out to do, but if the failure wasn't necessarily yours should you be viewed as a failure.
Or....have you ever thought that you knew the best way to accomplish a particular task, then found there was a better way.....did you stick to the first way because you had said you would do it that way....or did you take the new information and rethink what is the best way to accomplish the task?
These are interesting questions Archer. Perhaps we should ask our former President (yours and mine) George Bush.
What is more interesting to me though is how the press has once again given our current President a relatively free pass on changing his mind. I don't recall any such treatment for President Bush....he was vilified by the left for most everything he did....and the press was all too quick to crucify him.
I'm not sure why, but the words "double standard and bias" keep popping into my head. I guess I shouldn't expect anything but double standards and bias from much of the left and our "balanced" press.
What's important though, is that the President IS changing direction on domestic energy despite the desires of his supporters to push us back into the Stone Age. Logic will rule here...he just took a while to read the writing on the wall.
It's all in the perspective lionshead....I agree that president Bush was vilified as much as Obama, but the difference I see is that Bush was vilified for what he did, Obama seems to be vilified as much for who he is as what he has, or has not, done. Go after his politics, that's fair game, go after his policies and decisions, that too is up for debate....but leave the personal attacks out of it, like his birth certificate, what he eats for dinner, who his wife invites to a poetry reading, his golf game (like every prersident hasn't played golf). I think the media bias depends on what channel you are watching....if you watch FOX, president Obama can't catch a break with them at all.....CBS, yeah they love him. Which is why I don't do the MSM for my political news. I guess I don't recall that much media attention on Bush changing his mind, I thought they were more concerned that he wouldn't change his mind on anything, for any reason. "stay the course" comes to mind.
I wouldn't put too much onto Obama's change in direction on energy right now.....it's expedient to change course because of the perception by the people that we need to bring down the price. This won't do it, but in politics and voter's minds, perception is everything.
Thought this article was relevant.
(P.S. maybe the big media corporations are giving him a pass, but the smaller, more independent, or energy/environment-leaning ones sure aren't)
One thing we know for certain -- more domestic drilling starting now will have exactly the same impact on prices that the increased domestic drilling in the last two years had. Zilch.
For the record, caving on drilling was probably inevitable sooner or later given gasoline prices at this level and peak oil (and the Dems' general semi-competence at coherent messaging). But it is absurd to explicitly link the drilling to the possibility of lowering prices -- as that validates "Drill, Baby, Drill." He truly is Barack "No Narrative" Obama.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/17/b ... mmunicate/
[youtube:iy2jdyss][/youtube:iy2jdyss] Weekly Address: Expanding Responsible Oil Production in America
May 14, 2011
He talks about something that I haven't seen mentioned in any of the news stories - appointing an task force led by the AG specifically to investigate fraud by traders - that might have more impact than anything else (see thread on Fed & State Gov'ts Making More Profit Than Big Oil)
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
archer wrote: That didn't answer the question ....is it OK to call Obama Obimbo?
Archer, "OK" is too subjective. Is it within the terms of service to post that? yes, Is it respectful? no, Nice? no, Intelligent or meaningful to the discussion? rarely. Legal? yes, Funny? sometimes, OK? too subjective.
For the record, I didn't use Obimbo. I have used dumbass and Obummer though. :VeryScared:
If all the posts are nothing but name calling it gets boring after awhile. Some people do it out of frustration of watching the country go down the tubes. Others use names purely to incite the other side. Its all pretty non-productive. I object more to hypocrisy than name calling.
That's my answer and I am sticking to it, don't ask me again or I'll call you a name! LOL
Cheers!
P.S. your posts are mostly "OK", no need to apologize.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Nobody is understanding this flip-flopping.
Leftist says it "he/she's learned more and become more enlightened, changed their minds & it's their idea."
RIGHT_THINKER says it "he/she's flip-flopping, lying, stupid, has no original ideas."
Funny thing is that is appears that the leftist change they're minds, when they see that the RIGHT-THINKERS idea are GOod ones and WORK!
LOL
