112)This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
Shadowolf
pcknowledge
Dionys
Ciera Marie
donald51
dunkirk
2sidestoeverything
bluetexasvalley
dadesider
JohnQPublic
bubba2
jordan11
IneedIwantIgottahave
smithichie
GHOSTWHOWALKS
TheRealizer
Aidenag
mesodude
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Wait, wait, wait. I am sure they Hamas was not the terrorists then that they are now. I bet they changed.
Or maybe we should just stop pretending those hoof beats are zebras. So that would mean. . .
FLIP-FLOP!!!
So again, I ask my Cons, how is a flip-flopping gigolo electable this time around?
Speaking of flip-flopping around, Barack's not too shabby himself:
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/14/...
Speaking of flip-flopping, here's another example:
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/15/...
"A crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years. 'Maybe 100,' McCain replied."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/politics/1...
"Senator John McCain declared on Thursday that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013. The remarks offered no proposals for how he would achieve that vision.
During his primary battle, Mr. McCain accused his rival Mitt Romney of setting a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, even though Mr. Romney was merely speaking generally about timetables that might be set in private discussions among Iraqi and American leaders. Since then, Mr. McCain himself has come under repeated fire for offhand comments that he could envision a United States peacekeeping presence in Iraq for 100 years."
Compare this:
"Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet "unconditionally" with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called "rogue" state. Mr. Obama believes "that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need," Dr. Rice said. "But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work."
Dr. Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official is a foreign policy adviser To Obama. And yet, in the YouTube debate... (Cont'd)
SOTM:
"Compare this"
Actually, this is not how I interpreted Obama's answer in debate. You conveniently truncated Obama's answer to "I would" while ignoring his further elaborations. The full quote reads:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/politics/2...
"COOPER: In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries? Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I would. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire."
Obama was in favor of opening lines of communication in the same way Reagan did--by sending a member of his administration to meet with these leaders unconditionally.
Heh heh heh.
Aidenag said ... "He was FOR it before he was AGAINST it".
I remember how much fun we Christian ConserVatives had with that line when Kerry did it.
All my friends laughed and laughed at Kerry for that one ... It was a definin moment for our Right Wing Media Machine.
We had it playin on the National Mainstream Media for WEEKS!
But I dont think THIS example will get much air-play. After all ... MSM only runs storyes bout our right wing OUTRAGE ... it makes the best sound/video package after all.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-leffl...
"A briefing book was prepared for Vice President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State George Shultz to use in their talks with the new Soviet leader in Moscow after Chernenko's funeral. Bush and Shultz met with Gorbachev."
Obama would be willing to send members of his administration to meet with these leaders unconditionally and lay the diplomatic groundwork that would eventually lead to an:
"engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need," Dr. Rice said. "But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work."
Personally, I didn't think Obama's position was that difficult to comprehend. But I guess when you truncate his quotes out of context, you can end up confusing yourself.
Nothing could have been clearer than Obama's response to Anderson Cooper during the YouTube debate. (transcript)
{Cont'd}
COOPER: In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries? Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I would..
I think you're right. Obama's positions aren't difficult to comprehend...until you realize that, at different times, they say different things about the same subject.
That part is confusing to most, but obviously not to his supporters. They can take what they like when he gives it to them and not bother about the rest...even when it's demonstrated to them in black and white.
For sure, that is exactly what the McCain supporters do - take what they like when he gives it to them and not bother about the rest.
One of the very big differences between the two is that McCain has a rather vociferous element of critical "conservatives" that are none to happy about certain of his positions. So, your suggestion here, while having some truth in it, is hardly comparable to many Obama supporters who simply hear "hope" and "change" and "I'm not Bush" and walk away with a smile...and never see the flip-flopperies that are there for the finding.
I would say a change back to what we had in 2000 would not be a bad thing.
One thing is for certain. The present policies of this administration aren't working and McCain is the nearest candidate to continue them. He has went on record as saying that the economy is doing well. Another senior moment or out of touch with reality??
You don't see "flip-flopperies" from Obama because there are none ...
McCain supporters apparently hear nothing and just like him because he is a Republican, because they certainly are not registering the many change-ups in his stands on most if not all of the MAIN issues.
Thats why we Christian Conservatives HATE Obama.
Who does he think he is bein all normal and so unliek the normal politician.
I remember hearin ... since I was a kid ... 'all politicians are the same'.
Well, this Obama fella AINT the same.
He dont campaign the same.
He dont respond to sityations the same.
However, we Righties will REFUSE to vote for him.
And by NOT votin for him, we demarcate Number 1,574,027 instance of hypocrisy.
Yeah!!! 1,574,027!!!
"You don't see "flip-flopperies" from Obama because there are none ..."
Wrong. They are there, but Obamaniacs don't want to see them for what they are. I hear a lot about "28-percenters" that supposedly just blindly support Prez Bush...you Obamaniacs sound like you're a lot closer to the reality of "blind followers" than those you like to criticize.
;)
You are going to have to supply more than your propellor article that has no substance and your 'example' of one thing Obama said versus one thing his advisor said in order to document your accusation of multiple "flip-flopperies" by Obama.
Obama has said he would negotiate with Iran and not bomb them whenever he has been asked about it.
Whereas, McCain has always been the one that spoke and has contradicted HIMSELF on MANY issues.
Fair enough to elaborate on the quote. However, it does not help, because Obama was replying for himself, as potential president:
"...would YOU be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries? Senator Obama?"
Not sending diplomatic personnel or a plenipotentiary.
SOTF:
"Fair enough to elaborate on the quote. However, it does not help, because Obama was replying for himself, as potential president"
You continue to ignore Obama's full response. I understood the word "you" in the quote to mean "your administration"--and it's clear from his reference of Reagan's diplomatic strategy with Moscow that this is how Obama's answered Cooper's question.
This would be obvious to anyone who bothered to read Cooper's ENTIRE question along with Obama's ENTIRE response within the proper context. You, however, persist in quoting truncated excerpts out-of-context, just as you did in your post above, so it's not surprising why you continue to be confused.
Is that the best you have? Are you telling me that you truly honestly think that the question was about the "administration" and not Obama as potential president? Really, truly? Cuz, I'm really doubting that those leaders would come to Washington (read Cooper's question again) only to meet with someone "else" in the adminstration.
You can keep saying that YOU interpreted and that's fine, but I'm thing you MISinterpreted the plain question and response.
Especially when Cooper's question was prefaced with:
"In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since."
Want to try your interpretation again?
SOTF:
"I'm doubting those leaders would come to Washington to meet with someone "else"."
And why is that? There are MANY leaders who have NEVER been to Washington and may welcome the chance to warm relations with the U.S., even if it meant meeting with the VP or Secretary of State first.
SOTF:
"You can keep saying that YOU interpreted, but I'm thing you MISinterpreted the plain question and response."
Read your own article again. Cooper certainly phrased his question in a way that implied a personal, unconditional meeting between Obama and leaders of enemy nations. But, Obama chose to take that question in a different direction by saying he would open the lines of communication IN THE SAME WAY REAGAN DID. This tactic is NOT uncommon in presidential debates.
I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. It seems as if you're more interested in confirming your misconception than understanding Obama's position.
Typical.