Obama's Biggest Lies?

Originally posted by Hal9000
The FISA bill is a no win situation. If Obama doesn't vote for it he appears to not support protecting our privacy as well as the bill has no chance of passing without the compromise. If he goes along with the compromise he appears to go back on his word. This is called negotiating. Politicians do this all the time in order to get what they want.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.....


It's NOT about whether he voted for it or not.

It's about the FACT that he pledged he would filibuster ANY bill that gave the telecoms retroactive immunity. And then not only isn't he going to filibuster a bill that gives retroactive immunity, he's going to VOTE FOR THE BILL.

And it's amazingly perceptive on your part that you describe this as a "no win" situation. Yes, it's all about Obama and what's best for him, not about Obama standing for any core principles we as voters could rely on.

No, a win would be to protect our civil liberties. This was a LOSS for us.

But with his support of a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies — a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster — the honeymoon has ended.

Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.”

“He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com. “Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to challenge him.”

Source

No one wants to see our troops leave Iraq more than me, but I was actually concerned when he said he would bring them home immediately. I think it needs to be done responsibly just as he is now saying. I think the original position was due more to his inexperience than trying to please everyone. So he is learning fast.

Are you kidding? The man is running for President of the United States and as such needs to present plans for our country. And you think his original PLAN was just something he threw together and didn't think through enough?

C'mon... we're talking the single biggest issue facing the POTUS -the war in Iraq, and Obama is asking us to let him lead the country and you believe he was too inexperienced to come up with a good plan to start with?

And so what additional experience did he suddenly get???

This is the whole point about why about shouldn't get anywhere NEAR being POTUS. He does not have the experience AND he'll say anything to get elected.

Originally posted by jamie83
It's NOT about whether he voted for it or not.

It's about the FACT that he pledged he would filibuster ANY bill that gave the telecoms retroactive immunity. And then not only isn't he going to filibuster a bill that gives retroactive immunity, he's going to VOTE FOR THE BILL.

And it's amazingly perceptive on your part that you describe this as a "no win" situation. Yes, it's all about Obama and what's best for him, not about Obama standing for any core principles we as voters could rely on.

No, a win would be to protect our civil liberties. This was a LOSS for us.

No, passing the bill is a win for us. The FISA Bill reverses the policy of illegal warrantless wiretaps authorized by the Protect America Act of 2007. The bill re-instates the original restrictions from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 with some modern additions, which protects our rights to privacy. George Bush promised to veto the bill if it did not include retroactive immunity for the telecoms that cooperated with the NSA. They talked about a filibuster to delay the bill, and I don't know why they didn't try, but that is what happened, and now the bill passed in the Senate and is now in the House. I would rather it pass and our rights be protected and include the immunity for telecoms, than not pass at all. Without immunity, the telecoms could be held liable for violating our rights, which will lead to a huge lawsuit. More than likely any lawsuit would only benefit the lawyers, rather than the individual. I think only those people who's rights were violated should be entitled to sue. Any large settlement will only be passed on to the customer anyway, so why bother?

Are you kidding? The man is running for President of the United States and as such needs to present plans for our country. And you think his original PLAN was just something he threw together and didn't think through enough?

It is better than the other choice of staying there indefinitely, which McCain said he will do. I would rather have an inexperienced candidate that gets it right, than someone who does not, even though they have more experience.

edit to fix a few mistakes.

[edit on 7/4/2008 by Hal9000]

[edit on 7/4/2008 by Hal9000]

[edit on 7/4/2008 by Hal9000]

I'd also like to add on the issue of Obama changing his Iraq policy

Barack Obama is man enough to admit when he was wrong, and change his plan to meet new criteria


Certainly better than any republican i can speak of in the last 20 years.


Hence why Jr. had to outdo Sr. in the Iraqi conflict.

Hershel-walker couldnt do it

so plain ol 'W' had to get-r-done

oh well

one failed strategy deserves another i suppose.

A list of lies or speech out of both sides of Obamas mouth has reached, up til a few days ago 58. These are listed on Doubletapper.com.

Personally I believe he is a Trojan Horse, who will appear or say anything to get the attention of the group he wants to influence. Then, once inside the real Obama will appear.

It still amazes me that not one of the Democratic colleagues can name one single accomplishment of his. So he votes on a bill, that doesnt mean it passes. I vote also and by our democratic republic society that gives me the possibility that I may not get my wish all the time. But Idid get to vote.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Why did you point people to a sales website claiming that there would be info on Obama? Around here we call that bait and switch as well as spamming. That's against T&C's and should be removed.

First, Obama's Iraq policy has hardly changed at all. From the very beginning he's been clear the 16 month withdrawal time table was for "combat troops in Iraq" and he's always said a "peacekeeping force" would have to be left for a time depending on conditions on the ground. From the beginning he's talked of redeploying troops, the biggest "shift" he's made is saying redeploying to Afganistan where he used to say Kuwait or the Kurdish north. I think that's a wise shift considering the deterioration of the security in Afganistan. Indeed he reitorated yesterday that the 'refinements' in his Iraq policy have not changed the plan for a 16 month time table. So, what's all the fuss?

Obama June 3rd Comments on Iraq

On FISA he made a decision that the compromise bill was far better than the Protect America Act and it was the best that was going to get passed and still protect the country. If he had filibustered the the same people would be screaming that he was pandering to the left at the expense of the nation's security. Here's what he had to say to his supporters about it:

Obama Comments on FISA

I think it's a refreshing to have a politician who can will "take my lumps" and do what he thinks is right regardless of what the press or the party is gonna say about it. His nuanced understanding of issues, his eloquence in talking about his positions, and his relative newness in the political arena do indeed make him a totally different type of politician.