No thread for Obama winning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visionray

re: sitting down with people like Ahmadinejad - that is just flat out stupid and shows a total lack of experience in foreign policy, it's just not done, whether you are a republican or democrat. He'll need to spin himself out of that one somehow because it will be a major issue during the debates.

---

You're right that McCain will use that as an attack point, along with the "inexperience" attack, but the rest of that statement isn't correct.
All of the previous Presidents who we now regard as great diplomats, both Democratic and Republican, were the ones who didn't ignore the enemy and engaged in talks... aka diplomacy.

Bush is a prime example of a President who is horrible on foreign relations and diplomacy... why? because he practices the Paris Hilton method of diplomacy.
"I'm not talking to her... I don't need to tell her, she knows what she did... skank."
I can guarantee you that Reagan or Nixon would not have the legacy they do if they acted like Bush.

Also, If I remember correctly, the last poll results I saw on this very topic were that almost 60% of all Americans agreed with sitting down to talk with Iran, and almost half of all Republicans agreed as well, so it doesn't look like spinning or changing his position would be a wise move.

Quote:

---

I'm going to go on record, and air out an opinion that's invariably going to be misunderstood immensely... and lord I want to be proven wrong.

---

- Screw the world pal - always say what U need to say - ppl. understand or misunderstand is their problem not yours.

Quote:

---

40 Years after the death of MLK, we have an african-american... no, we have a black person running for president. And not one post. CNN is eerily quiet. I don't like what this has become.

---

- Just shows how backward the world is going. No-racism and tolererance is just a facade. The fact is that people are more racist than ever but put up a mask for the world. Sad but true !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visionray

Obama will have to walk on eggshells though...one tiny slipup can derail his campaign, and he really needs to straighten out some of the stuff he's said re: sitting down with people like Ahmadinejad - that is just flat out stupid and shows a total lack of experience in foreign policy, it's just not done, whether you are a republican or democrat. He'll need to spin himself out of that one somehow because it will be a major issue during the debates.

---

I'm not attacking you Vision, I just want to respond to this.

Are we too consider our enemies or possible enemies as beyond rehab? I understand it takes a huge leap and a map to think some of them are reasonable but no one said this sh*t was easy.

Easy is demonizing, sucker punching and assuming. Hard is listening, acknowledging, and understanding.



I think Obama is bold enough to try diplomacy but be ready to fk you up.

What about holding the position that Israel should be "wiped off the map" isn't already understood, acknowledged and heard? What kind of civility should our leader have to another who is directly involved with the killing of our troops?

Even if Ahmadinejad said in person to Obama that he has decided that Israel can now be on the map, would that be an accomplishment of any kind? Should Obama or anyone else believe it?

The only thing that having talks without preconditions would do is show the world that holding those positions and breaking international law are not non-starters. I don't believe that Obama actually has any real intentions of having talks with him. If he wins the presidency, he will concoct some reason for why he can't do it. It just polls well and that's what he needs right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I don't believe that Obama actually has any real intentions of having talks with him. If he wins the presidency, he will concoct some reason for why he can't do it. It just polls well and that's what he needs right now.

---

Well, so far anyway, nothing in his record or character shows that he would behave that way, unlike other candidates who flip their positions constantly.
Of course the real test of his mettle will be after he gets the job and either follows thru on his words or does a 180 and pulls a Bush on us.
Until he shows me otherwise I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Candidates have changed their positions on things before. But, I don't recall many (if any?) that have done so "constantly." Can you describe a specific case of constant flip-flopping just so I can get an idea of how you meant it? Also, I have my own ideas about this, but, what were you thinking of when you implied that Bush flip-flopped?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that, whether Obama chooses to have talks with Ahmadinejad or not, you will explain that it was the right choice. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

Candidates have changed their positions on things before. But, I don't recall many (if any?) that have done so "constantly." Can you describe a specific case of constant flip-flopping just so I can get an idea of how you meant it?

---

You're right, "constantly" was a poor choice of word to get my point across.
Perhaps I should have said "a long history of", or "habitually", or "a grand scale", or "a great degree", or "on such a great multitude of issues".
Bah, maybe it's better to just give you an example and you take from it what you will...
McCain and Romney are the first two that come to the top of my head.
Both have a long record of flip-flopping on major issues like abortion, tax cuts, campaign finance reform, torture, immigration, gay rights, as well as a multitude of minor issues depending on which position they thought would help them at the moment.

To be completely fair, Obama isn't some perfect angel, and has changed his position on a few issues as well, the Cuba embargo and marijuana decriminalization are examples, but nothing on the magnitude of what I meant by my statement above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

Also, I have my own ideas about this, but, what were you thinking of when you implied that Bush flip-flopped?

---

I was referencing his pre-election statements about working with the democratic half of the country if elected and of being a "uniter" instead of a "divider".
Then once he got into office did a 180 and became the most partisan President ever, and divided the country like none other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that, whether Obama chooses to have talks with Ahmadinejad or not, you will explain that it was the right choice. :D

---

No, I'll go on record as always being for diplomacy first when it comes to foreign relations with other countries.
If he proves me wrong then I'll say I was wrong about him.

I just like to applaud everyone in this forum for keeping respect for the other person on a high note. I have read every post in this thread and found it a refreshing thread about politics. There were no tense moments.

Again thanks for everyone who's posting in this thread. It is great to see everyone's opinion is respected ... keep it going!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

McCain and Romney are the first two that come to the top of my head.
Both have a long record of flip-flopping on major issues like abortion, tax cuts, campaign finance reform, torture, immigration, gay rights, as well as a multitude of minor issues depending on which position they thought would help them at the moment.

---

McCain changed on abortion and tax cuts. Romney changed on abortion. The rest are distortions. Given that, as you pointed out, Obama has changed on issues as well, it looks to me like he is on par with everyone else in that regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

I was referencing his pre-election statements about working with the democratic half of the country if elected and of being a "uniter" instead of a "divider".
Then once he got into office did a 180 and became the most partisan President ever, and divided the country like none other.

---

That's like saying that if Obama is unable to make national health-care happen, he will be flip-flopping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

No, I'll go on record as always being for diplomacy first when it comes to foreign relations with other countries.
If he proves me wrong then I'll say I was wrong about him.

---

You're changing the bench-mark. This is about having direct meetings without pre-conditions. Not diplomacy in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

McCain changed on abortion and tax cuts. Romney changed on abortion. The rest are distortions. Given that, as you pointed out, Obama has changed on issues as well, it looks to me like he is on par with everyone else in that regard.

---

Well if it helps you to sleep better at night, or makes it easier for you to vote for McCain seeing it that way then so be it.
Nothing I can say has ever or will ever change your mind.

For me anyway, when I look at their records I see as big a distinction as I see between a guy lying to his wife when she asks "do these jeans make me look fat" and a guy lying to his wife every friday night when he gets home after being with a prostitute and tells his wife he had to work late.
Yeah both guys are liars, but I don't exactly see the one as being "on par" with the other.
You may see it differently, again, so be it.

As for distortions, I'm not quite sure where you see the distortion regarding McCain's other flip-flops.
His change on positions from being a moderate to far right in his recent bid for the presidency are well documented.
You've already acknowledged he flip-flopped on abortion and Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, two very major issues, but he's also flip-flopped on a lot more that are going to get brought up in the next 5 months now that the spotlight is off Hillary v. Barack.

McCain is now opposed to the campaign finance reform that he himself originally sponsored.

As someone who experienced POW torture he was originally against torture of prisoners, he now condones it.

McCain was against ethanol before he was for it.

During the 2000 Republican presidential primaries he pretended to approve of the flying of the confederate flag to win favor with South Carolina conservatives, then in 2002 he admitted he was lying just to win votes and really believes it "should be taken down".

McCain previously distanced himself from the "religious right", now he is cozying up to them to try and win their votes.

McCain didn't like Jerry Falwell and called him “an agent of intolerance” until he decided he needed him politically and took it all back.

McCain was against teaching creationism in public schools before he was for it.

The old McCain also publicly stated that he was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University and condemned the Christian fundamentalist school, now the new McCain wouldn't have a problem campaigning there if invited.

Now you may choose to tell yourself those are just "distortions", but to me they are a glaring example of a "political chameleon" who has no principles or beliefs and is willing to say anything just to get elected.
If I were you, my friend, I would think long and hard before casting a ballot for him because none of us really know where his true feelings and loyalties are going to lie once he's in power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

That's like saying that if Obama is unable to make national health-care happen, he will be flip-flopping.

---

I have to disagree with your choice of words.
If Obama were to change position and state that he is against national health-care then he would be flip-flopping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

You're changing the bench-mark. This is about having direct meetings without pre-conditions. Not diplomacy in general.

---

I consider direct talks with other countries' leaders to fall under the definition of diplomacy.
Sorry.

If I might add... your definition may differ, but I don't consider getting on stage and singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran." to be a good example of diplomacy or someone who should be running a country.
Damn, I just realized that there's not much difference between McCain and Ahmadinejad when it comes to diplomacy with one's enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

McCain is now opposed to the campaign finance reform that he himself originally sponsored.

---

The finance reform that he sponsored already passed and he continues to make lobbying regulation, etc. a central issue in his campaign.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...989bdc948c.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

As someone who experienced POW torture he was originally against torture of prisoners, he now condones it.

---

No he doesn't.

McCain was instrumental in passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that prevented the military from using 19 techniques, including water-boarding.

What you are probably referring to is his vote of no to the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 on the grounds that military law should not be applied to an intelligence agency and that water-boarding and the techniques in question were already illegal according to current law. At the time that he made the vote, he called for Bush to announce the techniques as being illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

McCain was against ethanol before he was for it.

---

McCain was against ethanol subsidies, not "against ethanol."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

McCain previously distanced himself from the "religious right", now he is cozying up to them to try and win their votes.

---

Now you are cozying up to the idea that distance to political forces belongs on a list of "flip-flops" in order to make your list a little longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

McCain didn't like Jerry Falwell and called him “an agent of intolerance” until he decided he needed him politically and took it all back.

---

McCain said that the Republican party should not be defined by pandering to extreme views and listed a few people, including Jerry Falwell. Later, he did take back the "agents of intolerance" comment. But, he also said that he agreed to disagree with Falwell on issues. Hardly "taking it all back."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

McCain was against teaching creationism in public schools before he was for it.

---

You even have the distortion backwards here. He announced that he was for it "being presented" in school in 2005. In 2006 he did not say that he was changing his position but that intelligent design probably should not be taught "as a science class."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

The old McCain also publicly stated that he was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University and condemned the Christian fundamentalist school, now the new McCain wouldn't have a problem campaigning there if invited.

---

He did not say that he "wouldn't have a problem campaigning there." He said that he would have to look at the schools latest policy statements and that he had heard that they made progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

If I were you, my friend, I would think long and hard before casting a ballot for him because none of us really know where his true feelings and loyalties are going to lie once he's in power.

---

If I were you, I would think long and hard before casting a ballot for a guy who had to become embroiled in a party nomination race before it became public that he has conducted business with a known former terrorist, was a 20 year member of a church lead by bigots, whose former member of his Senate finance comittee was found guilty of a laundry list of fraud, corruption and extortion charges and upon recieving the nomination, appointed a guy instrumental in pardoning Marc Rich, who made oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis, to help decide on a vice-president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

I have to disagree with your choice of words.
If Obama were to change position and state that he is against national health-care then he would be flip-flopping.

---

How does that make any sense at all? Bush has never changed his stance to being "pro-partisan." He continues to use the same "bi-partisan effort" language he always did.

What did you think he meant when he said he wanted to encourage a bi-partisan effort? That he would do whatever Democrats wanted? Do you think that is what Obama means in reverse when he uses the same term?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

If I might add... your definition may differ, but I don't consider getting on stage and singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran." to be a good example of diplomacy or someone who should be running a country.
Damn, I just realized that there's not much difference between McCain and Ahmadinejad when it comes to diplomacy with one's enemies.

---

I can tell that you are chomping at the bit to smear McCain. I find that ironic coming from a volunteer for a guy that claims to want a "clean" presidential race. However, I'm not the one you're looking for here. I'm no fan of McCain. There are plenty of actual reasons to not like him as a candidate.

To me, it's a matter of voting for a guy who is right on only a quarter of the issues over a guy who is wrong on every one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

You're right that McCain will use that as an attack point, along with the "inexperience" attack, but the rest of that statement isn't correct.
All of the previous Presidents who we now regard as great diplomats, both Democratic and Republican, were the ones who didn't ignore the enemy and engaged in talks... aka diplomacy.

---

It seems you equate diplomacy with presidential talks. It isn't the same thing - at all. I don't think Obama should meet with A'jad, that doesn't mean I think we need put on some war paint and start dropping bombs. I think Obama screwed up in the YouTube debates when he mentioned the presidential talks. He already knows this, which is why he has been backtracking - he did so on CNN with Wolf Blitzer...now he's saying he instead wants "prepared" talks, whatever that means...and maybe not at the presidential level.

You can engage in diplomacy without having the two heads of state meet with each other. We don't have to ignore Iran, we definitely don't have to go to war. But why should our president sit down and have a fireside chat with an total a-hole like A'jad who thinks the Holocaust and 9-11 were staged, gays don't exist in Iran, and calls for the demise of Israel and the US? It just cheapens the presidency and creates a media circus.

Quote:

---

Bush is a prime example of a President who is horrible on foreign relations and diplomacy... why? because he practices the Paris Hilton method of diplomacy."I'm not talking to her... I don't need to tell her, she knows what she did... skank."I can guarantee you that Reagan or Nixon would not have the legacy they do if they acted like Bush.

---

Nixon met with Mao. FDR met with Stalin. Reagan met with Gorbechev. They all had good reason. You can't compare those leaders to people like Amadinejad and Chavez. Those presidents met with those leaders because both sides had major leverage. At this point meeting with Iran only serves Iran's interests as they have no leverage - they have no nukes, they are just talk.

The only thing that will work for Iran is to bribe them if they start building nukes and we feel we have no other choice, which is exactly what we did with North Korea, and it was accomplished without Bush having to sit down 1 on 1 with that complete nutjob - Jong Il. 1 on 1 talks w/ North Korea would have been a total disaster.

Look at North Korea now - they shut down a reactor because we essentially bribed them. We may not have had common interests w/ N. Korea, but we had negotiating leverage and goals. Their leverage was that they already had nukes. Food and fuel can win concessions even from a bats**t crazy dictator. Can the same be said of Iran? We'll see.

Quote:

---

Also, If I remember correctly, the last poll results I saw on this very topic were that almost 60% of all Americans agreed with sitting down to talk with Iran, and almost half of all Republicans agreed as well, so it doesn't look like spinning or changing his position would be a wise move.

---

I'm not sure 60% of Americans could place Iran on a map.

Good points VR.

Kind of beside the point. But, FDR never met with Stalin while he was an enemy to the US. I'm not sure if Obama is actually unaware of the historical fact that we were once allied with Stalin or if he counted on public education to make sure most of his audience didn't know. :)

Nobody is perfect but somehow we expect that from politicians. The important point are not little details here and there but the big picture. And that is that America's democracy and budget has suffered under the Bush or better Cheney government and that we now are facing inflation and loss of the $ value. I am also surprised that father (Bush) and son are so different. I recently saw a summary of father Bush's years of governing in PBS and I am impressed by him. I am not much impressed by McCaine. He is picking up some points here and there like taxcut, continuation of Irak war and abortion issues to point to every category of voters, but I don't see a big picture.

Regarding the news in Germany, Gerb read "Der Spiegel". :)

70% of americans say we should talk with our enemies/competitors.

Iran is a competitor not an enemy. They are competing with the U.S. over the trade of oil. Basically they want to set up a trade exchange separate Of OPEC (to try and break it) and sell crude oil based on a different currency then the U.S. Dollar.

This is seen as a threat to big oil companies and oil traders in the U.S as it may infact stabilize the price of crude oil.

Well FL, justify the man's history to yourself however you feel you must.
I'll give you points for deflecting and spinning it well, however I don't think that's going to work this time around.

Both men's records and positions speak pretty much for themselves.
For me it's not only a choice between a man with integrity or one without, or even between a man who's right on almost every issue and a man who's wrong on almost every issue, but also a clearcut choice that everyone can see between a man who will continue the Bush policies for the next 4 years or a man who will change them.
That, my friend, is really going to be the deciding factor in this race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frets

70% of americans say we should talk with our enemies/competitors.

---

I'd have to say that the FK board pretty much matches with the breakdown on positions in America.
We have our 20-30% that still agree with Bush and the far right on most issues.
FL, VR, and a handful of other members are probably content to fall into that category.
Then there's the 70-80% of those that want change from business and politics as usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

We have our 20-30% that still agree with Bush and the far right on most issues.
FL, VR, and a handful of other members are probably content to fall into that category.
Then there's the 70-80% of those that want change from business and politics as usual.

---

That's pretty funny, my post had absolutely nothing to do with Bush and here you are labeling me as far right because I don't think Obama should meet with A'jad.

If you recall I said in this thread that I was supporting Obama.

But who cares what I said, because in your view, supporting Obama means never questioning him, worshipping the ground he walks on, agreeing with everything he says, and making sure to demonize non liberals at every opportunity. Since I don't, it makes me a right wing, republican George Bush loyalist. That's a simple world you live in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Well FL, justify the man's history to yourself however you feel you must.

---

Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that I don't like McCain either. I have no motivation to justify any of the stupid positions and statements he has made. At the same time, however much I dislike any candidate, it just rubs me the wrong way to see inaccurate nonsense being floated. To me, we do better for ourselves to be honest about and critical of the actual world and actual events rather than trying to mold reality around the way we want it to be emotionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

I'd have to say that the FK board pretty much matches with the breakdown on positions in America.
We have our 20-30% that still agree with Bush and the far right on most issues.
FL, VR, and a handful of other members are probably content to fall into that category.
Then there's the 70-80% of those that want change from business and politics as usual.

---

I'm not sure what your aim is in comparing the demographics of FlashKit to the United States. But, I have to disagree. If anything, FlashKit more closely resembles the breakdown of international positions. Which is different than the breakdown of the US. Even that I'm not certain of since certain countries are represented much more than others and we're talking about 20 or so individuals that post regularly and about 5-6 that bother with political issues. Not exactly scientific evidence of anything there.

If you're basing your 20-30% in favor of Bush on approval ratings, I assume that you take the 18% approval rating (tied for the second lowest rating ever recorded) of congress to mean that only 18% of the country is in favor of a Democratic led congress. Considering the recent disaster of an environmental bill that has stalled, it might go down even further.

Also, maybe I'm mistaken. But, I thought I read a post where VR said he was for Obama?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visionray

But who cares what I said, because in your view, supporting Obama means never questioning him, worshipping the ground he walks on, agreeing with everything he says, and making sure to demonize non liberals at every opportunity. Since I don't, it makes me a right wing, republican George Bush loyalist. That's a simple world you live in.

---

Funny, I don't recall saying any of those things... and I wouldn't because you are not a "right wing, republican George Bush loyalist".
You are a right wing, libertarian who happens to be in the 30% that agrees with Bush on the Iraq war.
You also hold the same positions as Bush and FL on universal healthcare, Bush's tax cuts, and now the Iran diplomacy issue so I didn't think it would offend you by lumping you with FL or I would have left you out of it.
Touchy much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

...it just rubs me the wrong way to see inaccurate nonsense being floated.

---

That's odd, you don't seem to have any problems with inaccurate nonsense being floated about a democrat.
:confused:

I would if it happened here. As you pointed out, the people who post about politics here are mostly sympathetic to Democrats.

I'm sure it's happened once or twice. Can you point me to an example of someone posting something inaccurate about a Democratic candidate (other than my own comments which I obviously don't believe to be inaccurate) that I should have objected to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I'm sure it's happened once or twice...
...other than my own comments...

---

No need to spend any more time on it than that.
Besides, we have the next 5 months of Obama v. McCain distortions, smears, and lies to debate :lovers: without having to dig back thru the last 6 years of political threads just to beat on some dead horses.

man it is going to get ugly during the next several months. :(

One of the reasons why I love FK. Aaaaahhhhh. *Hugs for everyone*

aparently Obama is also unbeaten at rock, paper, scissors, 'terrorist fist jab'.

http://gawker.com/tag/oh-no/?i=50146...orist-fist-jab

Oh, thank God for FOX else we would all still be in the dark about this secret "Terrorist Fist Jab"!

I always knew there was something evil about those Wonder Twins...

http://bp3.blogger.com/_ieRaWjEboyg/...ns-rainbow.jpg



Seriously, who's butthole at FOX did this idea get pulled from?... and speaking of butts, did you notice that after the "Terrorist Fist Jab" that Obama gave his wife, he then gave her the "Al-Qaeda Suicide Bomber Death to America" pat on the butt?
:yikes:

They are now slowly changing OBama into OSama to create America's enemy No 1 interpreting body signs and twisting viewers away from the actual political issues. The flag pin stuff was such nonsense already.

Everyone say it with me - LIBERAL MEDIA!! LIBERAL MEDIA!!

:rolleyes:

terrorist fist jab. holy damn. I've finally heard it all.

Wow.

I'm not sure what the 'terrorist' part of the fist-jab story was supposed to be there. I thought Obama slapping his wife on the butt as she walked off the stage was more interesting.

Do tell... why?

i watch it with the subtitles on and after the butt tap the subtitle was "now get in the kitchen and make me some bacon and eggs"

Heh. I had the same subtitle.

It's just not every woman that is ok with public butt slaps.

Wow. Now that's a twist... seriously.

Anyway, hell, even Sealab 2021 had something about "respect knuckles"...

omg I'm going to hear that from now on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverx2

aparently Obama is also unbeaten at rock, paper, scissors, 'terrorist fist jab'.

http://gawker.com/tag/oh-no/?i=50146...orist-fist-jab

---

Well, that was fast.

This type of newsmongering is exactly why I get all of my news from the NY Post - Page Six.

Funny she apologizes then gets fired.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RfUFIkAm60Y

Did They fire her for apologizing?
Or not saying terrorist and obama enough in one sentence?

Didn't you know if you apologize you get fired? Imus knows it.

*respect knuckles*

Fox is on a roll.

http://images.salon.com/politics/war...bama/story.jpg

listen to what she says... wow

seriously... I know... I know. Nobody takes FOX News serious. But... c'mon. the easily led will fall for this type of rhetoric. It's just sloppy.

smh.