Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling

Yea i can see how it makes one weary...if he changes everything. But a true honest human would change positions if he saw an intelligent reason to do so.

He is constantly changing in order to gain votes. That's it and nothing more. He sees how the polls are and then makes a massive shift on major issues. If he sees more people are opposed to drilling in swing states, then he'll change back again. It is that rediculous. He doesn't care about what Americans believe or standing for them on major issues. He only seeks power in the most powerful country in the world.

Wake up and quit making such lame excuses for him.

A good leader takes a stand on major issues and fights for those beliefs. Show credibility and that you stand for something with some solidarity.

Hillary did this but she was sold out by her party though winning the popular vote. Her party said Michigan and Florida would not count so that screwed her pretty good (literally speaking of course, lol).

Obama is no genius, not even remotely close to one. He is just a lieing fool.

Oh, and let's see Obama stand behind his words on this one.

Does he know Nancy Pelosi already made the decision that Congress would not have off-shore drilling? He must, this way he doesn't have to vote for it one way or the other.

He is just talk. If it comes up again in Congress and there is a vote to do so, let's see if he is a man of his word and does vote for off-shore drilling.

He is not a man of his word, so this simply won't happen.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by jetxnet]

To everyone saying "OMG - LOL - Obama flip-flopped!"... I must say...

You are fools for believing your MSM overlords. They are, oh, so crafty at sculpting YOUR OPINIONS.

First of all, the OP didn't post a quote by Obama. The OP posted a journalist's (Mike Glover of the Associated Press) opinion of Obama.

Let me repeat that, that was a journalist's opinion on Obama, not a fact. Read the OP again, you'll realize it was just the journalist's opinion. That being said, this is the quote taken out of context in the edited version of Mike Glover's article:

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

from: Yahoo News - Article posted by OP

You trust that "quote" wasn't taken out of context to distort Obama's position?

Guess again. The actual context of the quote originally included this statement of Obama, which curiously enough appears in the complete article written by Mike Glover, but mysteriously doesn't show up in about 1600 reprints of the same article!!!

In-other-words, you are all being mislead. Here's what Obama also said:

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "[color=RED]I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

from: AP - Google

(hint: read both quotes together, and you will see the truth appear in front of you.)

[edit on 2-8-2008 by harrytuttle]

go away obamanite...your a disgrace....obama is a flip flopper! Nothing to do with MSM....

Originally posted by harrytuttle
(hint: read both quotes together, and you will see the truth appear in front of you.)

That's too many words for some.

What I'm discovering is that many people are so accustomed to and comfortable with the "sound bite" and the "talking point" that they really don't want to take the time, the energy, or the brain cells to find out the truth. The truth doesn't matter. All they want is something that agrees with their position.

Sound bites and talking points live in the shallows. Easy to find.

The biggest victims of this attitude are a person's innate curiosity to look further and the imagination to hope for the future. They are dead when the sound bite is right there floating on the surface.

In other words, if they can get what they're looking for on the surface, why dig deeper for the truth?

Originally posted by Lethil
go away obamanite...your a disgrace....obama is a flip flopper!

Nothing to do with MSM....

What's your stance then buddy, you liked Obama more when he was completely opposed to offshore drilling?

You don't like it when someone says they are open to an idea even though they "remain skeptical"?

If you don't like people like that, not sure why you are here at ATS.

Many of us here at ATS are "open" to ideas, yet remain skeptical.

So, the guy isn't allowed to shift his stance a little more toward compromise on a major energy issue?

Or do you want a stupid, stubborn, "stay-the-course", Bush-like candidate?

Explain yourself, if you have the ability do do so.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by harrytuttle]

[edit on 2-8-2008 by harrytuttle]

[edit on 2-8-2008 by harrytuttle]

What happened to airing up our tires?

reply to post by harrytuttle


What the heck man??!!

I didn't take anything out of context. (I even used the article headline, when I could have said worse) I posted the first parts of the article, like we do in breaking news. Big KUDOS to you for actually clicking on the link, like you are supposed to do...

Now to answer you and all of your minions regarding this whole "compromise" issue.

THE FACT IS...

Obama has voted against every energy bill that allowed for new exploration, or drilling of currently located sources. He voted no to the shale drilling in Clorado because he wanted "more research and estimates"...

All of you who have bought this "they aren't using what they have as it is" line arte the same who actually believe the Mccain line that we should be fighting in Iraq for 100 years. That wasn't the quote, and you all know it. You just say it so some uninformed malcontent can repeat it.

The oil companies have found multiple reserves that they are still waiting DECADES LATER for the approval to drill for it...

SO ANSWER THIS QUESTION;

If Obama has had all of these facts all along, Why the sudden switch? He has had all the facts all along on both offshore drilling, and the billions invested yearly into alternative energy sources.

He has a voting history that shows his stance is on one side, with no compromise...

So are you saying he voted on bills that he never researched?

Or are you all telling me that you are proud he listened to the voices of the public?

In that case, he should drop his stance on Gay Marriage, stem cell research, and partial birth abortions. Not to mention many of the bass-ackwards things that the libs believe in. He should also propose a bill to put up a fence first by Mexico, as 70% of Americans support that as well.

How about we stand for something, based on principles, not populist whims. MOST Presidents in our history have led this way, including Lincoln and FDR.

Obama has no back bone, and I realize now my fallacy.

He has no intention of allowing offshore drilling. There is no vote this summer, and he is counting on the issue going away before a vote is called, or he is President. Either way, his "compromise" is EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING ALREADY!!!

These explored areas get locked up in studies and impact reports, and eventually get turned down or severely limited... He wants more of the same, and shows that he knows absolutely nothing about solving the current crisis.

If the Government said that we could open the spigot, all the way, the oil prices would plummet, U.S. currency would go up in value, and our economy would boom. I don't care if it takes ten years to get oil, the effect would be NOW.

And If you have read any of my threads on the subject, I have always advocated more alternative energy sources, funded by 10% off the top in the oil fields...

This is a sham, and a horrible mis use of facts by MOST OF YOU!

Poor United states citizens they expect their politicians to be honest
hahaha
the very Idea they still assume there is going to be an honest politician is repugnant .
Mccain is the closest to honest of the 2 frontrunners

"oh there will be wars lots of wars "

the Americans expect high Ideals but they deep freeze all of the Statesmen like Ron Paul
and then have the nerve to demand or expect the clowns to have ideals.

there is no logic no rhyme nor reason They make the same mistakes and get the same gangsters and can never figure it out .

the Woman vote for the best looking and don't ask them why !
Most of the men don't even know the names of the candidates and if they do they do not know the policies.
The insanity to demand ideals and virtue from morons.




[edit on 2-8-2008 by solo1]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Grambler
reply to post by xmotex

 

Even if it was just a political move to help him get elected, thats no excuse. Obama is supposedly about Change, and this behavior illustrates to me that he is not for change, but is instead for winning at any costs.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Grambler


He can't change a thing unless he can get into the office. That's the first order of business. Get the position.




Now BH, I'm going to site this phrase, again and again, over the next three months... (j/k, or am I? )

Your quote, from this thread.

That was on his FISA flip Flop. But whatever necessary, right? So you know he is lying again, but you don't care.

Well what do you think he has ever been honest about? (I'm not talking about anyone but Obama right now...)-Jason

EDIT to place the above in context



[edit on 2-8-2008 by jasonjnelson]

reply to post by jasonjnelson

Wow, are you confused.

How are you claiming that Obama voting against all previous energy bills bcause he wanted "more research" is any different from Obama saying this:

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "[color=RED]I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, [color=RED]though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact." (link is in my post above)

That's not a flip-flop, that's maintaining his position. And that is the reason I made the post above: To show that the article you linked to in your OP was EDITED to remove the quote I just gave you.

They, and you want everyone to think Obama has flip-flopped when he actually is maintaining his position.

But enough about my candidate, what about yours? McCain wants to martial law in America, or didn't you hear:

ABC's David Wright checks in after Senator McCain's appearance at the Urban League.

"Answering a question about his approach to combatting crime, John McCain suggested that military strategies currently employed by US troops in Iraq could be applied to high crime neighborhoods here in the US. McCain called them tactics 'somewhat like we use in the military...You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down, you provide a secure environment for the people that live there, and you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control. And you provide them with a stable environment and then they cooperate with law enforcement.'
The way he described it, his approach sounded an awful lot like the surge. As part of his argument, McCain praised the crime-fighting efforts of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; Urban League president Marc Morial countered that while New York did experience a drop in crime under Giuliani, there were several major instances of police misconduct. To which McCain promised aggressive prosecution of civil rights violations and a Justice Department free from political cronyism."
ABC News

Heck of a candidate you have there. With McCain you KNOW he'll do bad stuff, with Obama you only suspect it.

reply to post by harrytuttle


Hmmmm...

1- Not talking about Mccain. Just Obama.
2- Obama has voted against all drilling, and I listed 1 excuse to 1 vote. Not ALL excuses for ALL votes.
3-I realize he doesn't want to drill or compromise, just get votes.

His voting record shows his stance quite clearly, thank you very much.

Now kindly respond to my solutions, and answer me my question about Obama. Don't just pick which part of the post is easiest for you to get wrong.

He has a voting history that shows his stance is on one side, with no compromise...

So are you saying he voted on bills that he never researched?

Or are you all telling me that you are proud he listened to the voices of the public?

In that case, he should drop his stance on Gay Marriage, stem cell research, and partial birth abortions. Not to mention many of the bass-ackwards things that the libs believe in. He should also propose a bill to put up a fence first by Mexico, as 70% of Americans support that as well.

How about we stand for something, based on principles, not populist whims. MOST Presidents in our history have led this way, including Lincoln and FDR.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by jasonjnelson]

Originally posted by harrytuttle

Originally posted by Lethil
go away obamanite...your a disgrace....obama is a flip flopper!

Nothing to do with MSM....

What's your stance then buddy, you liked Obama more when he was completely opposed to offshore drilling?

You don't like it when someone says they are open to an idea even though they "remain skeptical"?

If you don't like people like that, not sure why you are here at ATS.

Many of us here at ATS are "open" to ideas, yet remain skeptical.

So, the guy isn't allowed to shift his stance a little more toward compromise on a major energy issue?

Or do you want a stupid, stubborn, "stay-the-course", Bush-like candidate?

Explain yourself, if you have the ability do do so.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by harrytuttle]

[edit on 2-8-2008 by harrytuttle]

[edit on 2-8-2008 by harrytuttle]

Obama makes poor decisions then once he has realised he has made a poor decision he changes those decisions...good in some ways ie not staying the course like you said...but it also reaks of incompetence with the amount of flippety flops that have gone on in obamas's campaign...mccain has also flip flopped...they are both ridicolous but this thread is about obama...

reply to post by harrytuttle


And if you continue to lie about my actions, I will alert a mod to your slander. I quoted the articles first three paragraphs in my OP. That is SOP for this forum. Stop calling me a liar, and start figuring out how to defend your idiot candidate.

reply to post by jasonjnelson

Since you so kindly asked, I will respond. However, you'll see in my answers that there really is no reason for me to respond because, well, your words didn't pertain to me at all...

He has a voting history that shows his stance is on one side, with no compromise...

True, he won't compromise science and fact when it comes to developing comprehensive policies aimed at reducing gas prices that may or may not include offshore drilling. And your point is...?

So are you saying he voted on bills that he never researched?

No, you are.

Or are you all telling me that you are proud he listened to the voices of the public?

Nope, I'm not telling you that either. You are.

In that case, he should drop his stance on Gay Marriage, stem cell research, and partial birth abortions. Not to mention many of the bass-ackwards things that the libs believe in. He should also propose a bill to put up a fence first by Mexico, as 70% of Americans support that as well.

Stop, this isn't "the case", so the rest of what you said doesn't apply.

How about we stand for something, based on principles, not populist whims. MOST Presidents in our history have led this way, including Lincoln and FDR.

Again, it's your accusaction that he stands on "populist whims", not mine. But you also forgot to include President George W. Bush to your list of Presidents that have lead on "principles", and look where that got us.

You see, "principles" can mean anything. Bush's principles were ignorance, blind patriotism, hubris, party loyalty. Now our country is F#CKED because of it.

Obama's principles are based on intelligence, science and fact, long-term rationalism, national interest, bi-partisan negotiation.

So, "principles" are only as good as their contents. Too bad we aren't talking about McCain, because talk about principles...

Obama's principles are based on intelligence, science and fact, long-term rationalism, national interest, bi-partisan negotiation.

You can't be serious. Really. Obama's principals are based on associations with terrorist domestic bombers and radical Muslims.

Tell us what principals define his science and fact approach to policies.

I'm sure you'll avoid that too.

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
reply to post by harrytuttle

 

And if you continue to lie about my actions, I will alert a mod to your slander. I quoted the articles first three paragraphs in my OP. That is SOP for this forum. Stop calling me a liar, and start figuring out how to defend your idiot candidate.

Oh boy, you've regressed to scare tactics now? You must be a Republican.

First off, if you are going to alert me, then alert me. Don't threaten it.

Secondly, I've never lied about anything concerning you. Nor have I ever once used the term "liar" or "lie" in regards to you. If I have, you have the ability (I hope) of copy/pasting anything I have said to support your accusation that I have have "lied" or "slandered" you. See if you can support your accusations of me, not just make them. (What is this, the McCarthy era revisted?)

The truth is, I've exposed your faults of logic and argument and you are obviously more than a little embarrassed by it, otherwise you wouldn't resort to direct threats of "alerting" me to ATS moderators (who more than likely have already been keeping an eye on this thread any ways).

Lastly jack, by you accusing me of lying when I have IN FACT not lied, is an alertable offense in and of itself.

But don't worry, I won't tell on you.



[edit on 2-8-2008 by harrytuttle]

Originally posted by jetxnet
Obama's principals are based on associations with terrorist domestic bombers and radical Muslims.

Hows the weather there in Foxnewsville? Foggy with a bit of smoke and mirrors?

Just as I said you would, totally avoid providing any proof to your statement.

I guess you agree then that Obama's scientific and factual approach to an energy policy is by "Inflating our tires and getting more tune-ups to make up for the difference in Gas prices that off-shore drilling would provide.."

Yeah, that's science and facts arlight.

If you need the video of him saying just this, let me know.



[edit on 2-8-2008 by jetxnet]

[edit on 2-8-2008 by mental modulator]