Obama tells NAACP blacks must take responsibility

Abookamongstthemany

blackredyellow wrote:

Besides campaign financing, what issues has he come 180 degrees on during this campaign?

I haven't liked him from the start for his hawkish ways. But he has said he is against the patriot act yet voted for it, against building the wall at the border yet voted for it, is against predatory lenders yet they make up a larger portion of his contributor's industries, against the war yet votes to fund it, against going to war with Iran but won't take it off the table yet he calls them a grave threat to us and is willing to preemptively strike them.

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

none, propaganda works

It certainly does!

callen

_outlaw wrote:

Oh, I never said he really flip-flopped; his policies are just terrible, in general.

And I don't think he's pro war against Iran, but how can you preach diplomacy one day then push for tougher sanctions? That's not EXACTLY flip-flopping, but sanctions are an act of war...

And when he said he wouldn't take war off the table, that means that if Iran refuses to stop their LEGAL nuclear enrichment at all costs, then we're "forced" to go to war?

His policies aren't terrible.

No president should ever say war is off the table!

Remember he opposed the war with Iraq. He's took heat from repugs for saying he wanted to communicate with Iran....the nerve..wanting to actually talk to your enemies.

Obama's the best man for the job period. Realize this makes lots of people uncomfortable for various reasons but he's the best we have and I believe he will make the world a nicer place.

Its Evolution Baby

lgt wrote:

The whole FISA issue. First he was against, then voted for, I believe.

I can't really explain it nor justify it with the whole move to the centre tack to appeal to middle America and win the election, like his other moves to the centre/right, unfortunately.

Feel free to call me an Obama apologist but the main reason he voted for FISA was that they took a lot of his compromises from a previous bill he introduced. It would make sense for Obama to vote yes on the bill since many of his compromises from the previous bill made it onto this one. If they took his compromises and then he still voted against it, they would not take his compromises in the future. It's the give and take of congress in full effect.

This quote from Obama explains it pretty well:
"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

Abookamongstthemany

callen wrote:

His policies aren't terrible.

No president should ever say war is off the table!

Remember he opposed the war with Iraq. He's took heat from repugs for saying he wanted to communicate with Iran....the nerve..wanting to actually talk to your enemies.

Obama's the best man for the job period. Realize this makes lots of people uncomfortable for various reasons but he's the best we have and I believe he will make the world a nicer place.

The only way he has shown he opposed this war was to say so. His actions say different. And he wouldn't even sign a letter to Bush from the Congress asking him to get authorization through Congress first before attacking Iran!

Its Evolution Baby

callen wrote:

His policies aren't terrible.

No president should ever say war is off the table!

Remember he opposed the war with Iraq. He's took heat from repugs for saying he wanted to communicate with Iran....the nerve..wanting to actually talk to your enemies.

Obama's the best man for the job period. Realize this makes lots of people uncomfortable for various reasons but he's the best we have and I believe he will make the world a nicer place.

Exactly. If you say war is off the table then why in the hell would Iran compromise with us during the diplomatic meetings.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Exactly. If you say war is off the table then why in the hell would Iran compromise with us during the diplomatic meetings.

Well look at us! What have we done? We are told Iran is a grave threat and what have we done? Justify building up our military even larger! How big does it need to be! Jeezus! We could already destroy 100 Irans! But somehow threatening Iran will cause the opposite to happen?!

So you're gonna sit here and tell me that us threatening them is going to cause them to cease their 'whatever it is they are doing that is a threat to us'? But when we feel threatened we need to do the EXACT SAME THING that we have a problem with them doing?

Perpetual cycle of fear. See how this isn't working out guys? Oh wait, it IS working out for the defense contractors and war profiteers!

You promote peace through good will and practicing what you preach....period

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The only way he has shown he opposed this war was to say so. His actions say different. And he wouldn't even sign a letter to Bush from the Congress asking him to get authorization through Congress first before attacking Iran!

That doesn't mean he's for the war. If you read his follow up quote he says that a letter will not stop this administration, that it will take legislative action.

From his advisor:
"Senator Obama admires Senator Webb and his sincere and tireless efforts on this issue. But it will take more than a letter to prevent this administration from using the language contained within the Kyl-Lieberman resolution to justify military action in Iran. This requires a legislative answer and Senator Obama intends to propose one."

I give Obama credit for not blindly siding with the Democrats on every issue. If he thinks a letter to Bush is just for show and won't accomplish anything then he won't sign it. Good for him for having his own opinions and sticking to them. The thing you guys criticize most about him.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

That doesn't mean he's for the war. If you read his follow up quote he says that a letter will not stop this administration, that it will take legislative action.

From his advisor:
"Senator Obama admires Senator Webb and his sincere and tireless efforts on this issue. But it will take more than a letter to prevent this administration from using the language contained within the Kyl-Lieberman resolution to justify military action in Iran. This requires a legislative answer and Senator Obama intends to propose one."

I give Obama credit for not blindly siding with the Democrats on every issue. If he thinks a letter to Bush is just for show and won't accomplish anything then he won't sign it. Good for him for having his own opinions and sticking to them. The thing you guys criticize most about him.

So signing the letter would be a bad thing how? He couldn't do both things? That makes absolutely no sense. Obama has always been a Lieberman supporter. This just more of Obama saying some action taken by others is useless but then remaining useless himself and not even trying. If you disagree with Bush attacking Iran without approval then signing the letter couldn't cause any harm and would at the very lest show your solidarity. What a cop out!

lgt

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Feel free to call me an Obama apologist but the main reason he voted for FISA was that they took a lot of his compromises from a previous bill he introduced. It would make sense for Obama to vote yes on the bill since many of his compromises from the previous bill made it onto this one. If they took his compromises and then he still voted against it, they would not take his compromises in the future. It's the give and take of congress in full effect.

This quote from Obama explains it pretty well:
"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

Thanks for posting his explanation for his vote and change of mind. However, I still don't agree with this position, including the compromises introduced. This is indeed the issue that I find hard to explain as strategically worthwhile for winning the election. The point remains that the law has been changed to make it easier to infringe on the privacy of citizens and retroactive immunity has been granded. What if he's not elected president? The law still remains, so his guarantees are moot.

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Well look at us! What have we done? We are told Iran is a grave threat and what have we done? Justify building up our military even larger! How big does it need to be! Jeezus! We could already destroy 100 Irans! But somehow threatening Iran will cause the opposite to happen?!

So you're gonna sit here and tell me that us threatening them is going to cause them to cease their 'whatever it is they are doing that is a threat to us'? But when we feel threatened we need to do the EXACT SAME THING that we have a problem with them doing?

Perpetual cycle of fear. See how this isn't working out guys? Oh wait, it IS working out for the defense contractors and war profiteers!

You promote peace through good will and practicing what you preach....period

It's not a threat. He's not saying its either Diplomacy or else. He is refusing to eliminate the possibility of war is all.

Let's say he opens talks by saying Iran we won't go to war with you no matter what. Now let's negotiate a resolution to our countries issues. In this scenario Iran would have no reason to negotiate with us. They could agree to our terms with no intention of keeping them.

I can tell you one thing War is not off the table on Iran's side either. If they were so peaceful then why are they developing and testing long range missiles especially with Bush in charge who is so damn trigger happy.

And one last thing my Girlfriend's family is from Armenia and many of them were forced to come to the US in the 1970's due to the Iranian gov't. A lot of her family is still there and they have nothing but awful things to say about the current gov't in Iran.

So while I don't promote War with any country, Iran is not necessarily the innocent misunderstood country that some of you paint them as.

lgt

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Well look at us! What have we done? We are told Iran is a grave threat and what have we done? Justify building up our military even larger! How big does it need to be! Jeezus! We could already destroy 100 Irans! But somehow threatening Iran will cause the opposite to happen?!

So you're gonna sit here and tell me that us threatening them is going to cause them to cease their 'whatever it is they are doing that is a threat to us'? But when we feel threatened we need to do the EXACT SAME THING that we have a problem with them doing?

Perpetual cycle of fear. See how this isn't working out guys? Oh wait, it IS working out for the defense contractors and war profiteers!

You promote peace through good will and practicing what you preach....period

On the issue of Iran, Obama has been the only candidate (Ok, I admit ignorance of Nader's position on this) to actually advocate direct talks and diplomacy with Iran. This is a huge step forward from previous US foreign policy not to mention a glaring difference from the republican candidate.

Just on this issue they are NOT the same.

As a reminder, he reiterated his position even after Iran fired that missile a few days ago.

Its Evolution Baby

I just realized the topic was Obama and the NAACP.

But since I'm an Obama sheep I will just say I agree with him on this too.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

It's not a threat. He's not saying its either Diplomacy or else. He is refusing to eliminate the possibility of war is all.

Let's say he opens talks by saying Iran we won't go to war with you no matter what. Now let's negotiate a resolution to our countries issues. In this scenario Iran would have no reason to negotiate with us. They could agree to our terms with no intention of keeping them.

Why would Iran want to attack us then? The reason to negotiate is that their people just like our people want peace. Why would they keep agreeing to our terms after we threaten them? It hasn't worked to damn well in any case I've seen.

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I can tell you one thing War is not off the table on Iran's side either. If they were so peaceful then why are they developing and testing long range missiles especially with Bush in charge who is so damn trigger happy.

Exactly!!!!! Ding ding ding! We have a winner. See how threats aren't working?

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

And one last thing my Girlfriend's family is from Armenia and many of them were forced to come to the US in the 1970's due to the Iranian gov't. A lot of her family is still there and they have nothing but awful things to say about the current gov't in Iran.

So while I don't promote War with any country, Iran is not necessarily the innocent misunderstood country that some of you paint them as.

Who painted them as anything? I'm saying they pose no serious threat to us and to think otherwise is laughable...you need not go any further than to compare our already existing capabilities.

Threatening use of force, esp preemptive force is indeed promoting war. I can't say I'm anti-violence while going around threatening to shoot everybody. That's not how it works and then I would come across as the bad guy waving the gun when no one has done anything to me.

Abookamongstthemany

lgt wrote:

On the issue of Iran, Obama has been the only candidate (Ok, I admit ignorance of Nader's position on this) to actually advocate direct talks and diplomacy with Iran. This is a huge step forward from previous US foreign policy not to mention a glaring difference from the republican candidate.

Just on this issue they are NOT the same.

As a reminder, he reiterated his position even after Iran fired that missile a few days ago.

But just saying that he will talk to them isn't too much when he has been so prone to saying one thing and doing another.

The big issue for me is that he keeps trying to pin Iran as some grave threat to our nation's security and that is pure bologna.

Its Evolution Baby

I'm not going to post all of your quotes Abooks but I will say this, not taking war of the table does not equate to a preemptive strike. A preemptive strike is what occurred in Iraq. Obama has never claimed that this would happen with Iran.

If he does go to war with Iran he better have a very good reason for doing so or he has failed as leader. That said it should not be off the table until a resolution to our two countries issues is met.

And since you agree with me that Iran doesn't have it off the table on there side either then I really don't see an issue here.

Especially since Nader and Obama are the only 2 people who will be on the ballot in November who will even talk to Iran. That is a drastic difference to the Conservative party who are blasting Obama for still saying he will be diplomatic with Iran after they tested the missiles last week.

blackredyellow

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I haven't liked him from the start for his hawkish ways.

Hawkish ways? Seriously?

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

But he has said he is against the patriot act yet voted for it,

Voted for a compromise of it... I don't agree with him on this one, but voting against it would have ended any chance of him winning this election.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

against building the wall at the border yet voted for it,

Pandering - came out against it before Texas primary (after voting for it). Can't defend that....

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

is against predatory lenders yet they make up a larger portion of his contributor's industries,

BIG reach... And even if contributors work in that industry, how on earth does that constitute a change in policy?

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

against the war yet votes to fund it,

You will never see the other side of this argument, but defunding a war that an administration refuses to end would be nothing short of a disaster. I am against the Iraq war, but I understand and agree that taking the money away isn't the best way to end it.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

against going to war with Iran but won't take it off the table yet he calls them a grave threat to us and is willing to preemptively strike them.

That claim is just a joke... I got a present for you
http://www.flickr.com/photos/htomren/70384439/

my2hands

blackredyellow wrote:

Hawkish ways? Seriously?



Voted for a compromise of it... I don't agree with him on this one, but voting against it would have ended any chance of him winning this election.



Pandering - came out against it before Texas primary (after voting for it). Can't defend that....



BIG reach... And even if contributors work in that industry, how on earth does that constitute a change in policy?



You will never see the other side of this argument, but defunding a war that an administration refuses to end would be nothing short of a disaster. I am against the Iraq war, but I understand and agree that taking the money away isn't the best way to end it.



That claim is just a joke... I got a present for you
http://www.flickr.com/photos/htomren/70384439/

homerun

Abookamongstthemany

blackredyellow wrote:

Hawkish ways? Seriously?

Yes, he is very much pro-war, pro-military buildup, pro-threatening other countries, pro-ignoring the constitution to allow our civil liberties to be stripped away....need I go on?

blackredyellow wrote:

Voted for a compromise of it... I don't agree with him on this one, but voting against it would have ended any chance of him winning this election.

That is your opinion....looks to me like shit like this might cost him the election. You need to realize that just because you see things this way doesn't make it the truth....just mere speculation so you can continue on excusing everything Obama does that contradicts his rhetoric. If you're against something you don't support it period....no matter how you try to squirm around it.

blackredyellow wrote:

BIG reach... And even if contributors work in that industry, how on earth does that constitute a change in policy?

His vote against capping the credit card rates at 30% seems pretty indicative to me....a vote in which he went against his fellow democrats to side with the republicans, actually.

blackredyellow wrote:

You will never see the other side of this argument, but defunding a war that an administration refuses to end would be nothing short of a disaster. I am against the Iraq war, but I understand and agree that taking the money away isn't the best way to end it.

What a surprise! Here we are again, denying the facts in an attempt to claim your opinion is the only valid perspective to take.

Oh lookie! Here's some people who disagree with your take:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=N10eIKLLc3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkWavm8VelM

blackredyellow wrote:

That claim is just a joke... I got a present for you
http://www.flickr.com/photos/htomren/70384439/

How is it a joke? He has been quoted as calling Iran a grave threat and would consider attacking them if they don't comply with our demands. No jump needed just had to read it.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5346996&postcount=5

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I'm not going to post all of your quotes Abooks but I will say this, not taking war of the table does not equate to a preemptive strike. A preemptive strike is what occurred in Iraq. Obama has never claimed that this would happen with Iran.

If he does go to war with Iran he better have a very good reason for doing so or he has failed as leader. That said it should not be off the table until a resolution to our two countries issues is met.

And since you agree with me that Iran doesn't have it off the table on there side either then I really don't see an issue here.

Especially since Nader and Obama are the only 2 people who will be on the ballot in November who will even talk to Iran. That is a drastic difference to the Conservative party who are blasting Obama for still saying he will be diplomatic with Iran after they tested the missiles last week.

Nader's not the one dancing in front of AIPAC about how Iran is the great danger to our national security.