Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling

Originally posted 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?

Its true though Obama, Osama and Mcveigh use hit the clubs here in hollywood and
get buku loaded.

But Jetxnet you still did not address Mccain and his Vietnamese filleting spree

and his associations with David Duke!

reply to post by harrytuttle


Actually, you lied by saying I took the quoted article out of context. I did no such thing, ( Imerely quoted the first three paragraphs) and yes, I did call you out to a mod.
You are distorting the facts, Jack. He is against it one day, and for it the next. There is no "degrees" of drilling, Jack, there is drilling, and not drilling. Obama switched sides when the voters called for it.
His decision was not based on principles.

Obama doesn't compromise. What am I saying, he has NO HISTORY ANYWAY.

Your right, he had the same facts for years, but only supports it now that the popular vote does?

That is called popularity, not leadership.

But I guess you couldn't gather what I was trying to say from my post, and spelling it out won't work either.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by jasonjnelson]

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
That was on his FISA flip Flop. But whatever necessary, right?

So, I said that Obama's first order of business is to get into office so he can make some changes and you INTERPRETED that to mean "by any means necessary" and attributed that phrase TO ME as a "quote" BY ME, and you've been running all over the board, saying, "BH said "by any means necessary""... Have I got that right?

So... you're lying about what I said. Hmmm... I don't appreciate that. I would appreciate if you want to quote me, either use the same words I do or use the quote function. But please stop making up thing I said and misquoting me around the board. Thanks.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Oh no BH, I'm not lying to anyone.

I'm just shifting my position on how I viewed your comment.



[edit on 2-8-2008 by jasonjnelson]

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
Oh no BH, I'm not lying to anyone.

I'm just shifting my position on how I viewed your comment.

Well, I think we just found someone qualified to be VP for either candidate.

Edit: Btw, misrepresenting other members words are actionable by the T&C.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by intrepid]

reply to post by intrepid


Okay, I wasn't going to air this out on the thread, but since you said something, and she did as well, I ask you to please review the link I gave, and see if I am really misrepresenting her words. Thank you.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I'm sorry, but go to this thread here,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Start with the 2nd post up from the bottom. Then read your post. then read the rebuttal by grambler. Then read your post.

I know that we are on good terms, and you have been here longer, but I am NOT lying, and even told you then that I was going to hold on to your little comment.

You have now descended to the arguing level where you just make false accusations.

You asked, I told you, I showed you, and you called me a liar.
I'm sure anyone can read that link and see I am not lying or twisting your words. My funny comment was meant to be just that, because I had u2u'd you...

But to say I violated the T&C's, Really?

Originally posted by RRconservative
DAMN...I just invested in a Tire Pressure Gauge because Lord Obama said low tire pressure was the cause of high gas prices.

The tire pressure tip is still a good one, and will also prevent uneven wear of your tires.

Note to Lord Obama....if you are right in the first place....you never have to flip flop. That is going to be tough on him because he is seldom right on anything.

Eventually he's going to be right on something RR, the odds are in his favor.. Nobody can be wrong all the time.

Originally posted by intrepid
Edit: Btw, misrepresenting other members words are actionable by the T&C.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by intrepid]

I checked it out and if I am not missing anything, there was no misrepresentation.

Back to the topic please.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
It sounds like you are trying to scare us with what Obama "might do". I am talking about what MCcain did. He killed, he is a legal criminal, he has blood on his hands, you can't do that to humanity. That is why I can never vote for a man like him. MCcain is experienced in making America more unpopular, he is experienced in killing people. America is on the wrong track, and the words of MCcain doesn't sound like the words of a man who is trying to change that, he actually sounds like he is gonna make things worse by the things he is planning to do,....like staying 100 years in Iraq.

Unfortunately this thread is not about John McCain, but Barack Obama. Barack is not a sage that carefully weighs out all the options before stating his position. He follows the polls, and adjust his position accordingly like all politicians do. His slogan is "Change we can believe in", but I'm just seeing a lot more of the same.

Integrity is when you take a stand on an issue, and don't allow yourself to be persuaded by detractors or panderers. If he is elected as POTUS, will he shift positions so easily whenever he encounters some resistance?

By the way, being a soldier in the service of your country does not make you a killer, it makes you a patriot.

Originally posted by jasonjnelson

 

Actually, you lied by saying I took the quoted article out of context.

That's an accusation you can't support with a quote, is it?

No, because if you actually read what I wrote carefully, you'll realize you are dead wrong.

Place the quotes that support your argument, or EDIT and stop misrepresenting what I wrote.

Quote me, I dare you. Quote me.



[Mod Edit]
Mod Note:Courtesy Is Mandatory - Please Review This Link

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/8/2008 by Sauron]

reply to post by harrytuttle


i already did. please grow up and stay on topic,

You know, it really doesn't bother me how many times Obama will be accused of flip-flopping. This will not change my mind to continue to support him. After seven years of a president that would not change his mind for any reason, I will take someone that does. That is why you will not see me bashing McCain for doing the same, because all politicians do it. It is foolish to not expect this to happen, but some of you will see it as an opportunity to further your agenda.

If your wondering what would it take for me to change my mind? What would it take to not vote for Obama and vote for McCain? I can't think of anything. You may think this election is about individual issues like offshore drilling, but I look at the bigger picture. I have seen this country "shift" further to the right heading toward fascism. Our rights are being suspended and corporations are getting a free ride. It is time to reverse this course, and electing a democratic president will help.

Obama is not the answer to all our problems, nor will he bring about the end of our country. You can try to scare people all you want, but hopefully people will use there heads and elect Obama.

Originally posted by Hal9000
You may think this election is about individual issues like offshore drilling, but I look at the bigger picture. I have seen this country "shift" further to the right heading toward fascism. Our rights are being suspended and corporations are getting a free ride. It is time to reverse this course, and electing a democratic president will help.

I find it funny that when someone like Jason actually addresses the issues, Obama supporters then change tack, and say it's not about the issues, but the bigger picture.

You can't have it both ways HAL. It's either about the issues, or it's about character or the lack of it as defined by their past actions and associations.

Obama is not the answer to all our problems, nor will he bring about the end of our country. You can try to scare people all you want, but hopefully people will use there heads and elect Obama.

The truth shouldn't frighten anybody. When you discuss a candidate in light of their past actions and associations, you're simply exploring all facets of their life, not just a few sound bytes or photo ops. what's scary about that?

[edit on 3-8-2008 by LLoyd45]

Originally posted by LLoyd45
I find it funny that when someone like Jason actually addresses the issues, Obama supporters then change tack, and say it's not about the issues, but the bigger picture.

You can't have it both ways HAL. It's either about the issues, or it's about character or the lack of it as defined by their past actions and associations.

Since when did I have it either way? I challenge you to find any of my posts where I said this election is about issues or character. If the president was elected on issues and character only, then how did GB get re-elected? And I can have it anyway I please. Last time I checked this is still a free country.

The truth shouldn't frighten anybody. When you discuss a candidate in light of their past actions and associations, you're simply exploring all facets of their life, not just a few sound bytes or photo ops. what's scary about that?

I beg to differ. Most of the past threads that were against Obama use "just a few sound bytes or photo ops" and leave out all context. I am not going to let some anti-Obama topic persuade me in my choice. Yes Obama is a liberal, and there are several things I don't agree him on, but as I said before I look at the bigger picture.

The things I do like about him are that he has told the democratic party not to accept donations from lobbyists, and he said he will review all presidential orders and reverse any that restrict our rights. He also said he would start bringing our troops home if he is elected, which is also important to me.

For me, it is all too clear. Obama is the right choice between the two candidates.

Originally posted by Hal9000
Since when did I have it either way? I challenge you to find any of my posts where I said this election is about issues or character. If the president was elected on issues and character only, then how did GB get re-elected? And I can have it anyway I please. Last time I checked this is still a free country.

I was speaking to Obama supporters in general HAL, not you specifically. My apologies for inadvertently lumping you in with them.

And "Yes" you can have it anyway you like, it is a relatively free country at the moment, but that may change soon though.

I beg to differ. Most of the past threads that were against Obama use "just a few sound bytes or photo ops" and leave out all context. I am not going to let some anti-Obama topic persuade me in my choice. Yes Obama is a liberal, and there are several things I don't agree him on, but as I said before I look at the bigger picture.

In my opinion, the excuse of someone being taken out of context is used way too often. They either said it, or they didn't. Looking at the larger picture is the best way to decide, but few do. They tend to pick and choose which parts they believe are relevant and exclude the rest.

The things I do like about him are that he has told the democratic party not to accept donations from lobbyists, and he said he will review all presidential orders and reverse any that restrict our rights. He also said he would start bringing our troops home if he is elected, which is also important to me.

Unfortunately he does support lobbyist HAL. As for bringing the troops home, he seems to be waffling a bit on this pledge, just like he did on the FISA issue where he did a complete turnabout.

For me, it is all too clear. Obama is the right choice between the two candidates.

That's your opinion, and I totally support that. I simply disagree.

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

If you two can't carry on a discussion in a civil manner from this point on, all posts will be deleted and you will be warned and given a 3 day post ban.

This is your last chance.

Originally posted by LLoyd45
I was speaking to Obama supporters in general HAL, not you specifically. My apologies for inadvertently lumping you in with them.

Apology accepted.

And "Yes" you can have it anyway you like, it is a relatively free country at the moment, but that may change soon though.

Not sure what you mean, but if you are referring to our individual rights being restricted, I would agree and that is one reason I think we need a democratic president. Contrary to what many would like us to believe, the liberals are the ideology that historically supports individual rights. That is why they support the women's right to choose abortion (which I don't support). Some have gone against that tradition when it comes to the right to bear arms, but otherwise individual rights are what they are supposed to support. There are some democrats that are more left leaning and even can be classified as socialist, but they do not represent the majority. I could go on about conservatives as well, but you get the idea. The two party system has worked pretty well to keep both opposing forces in check, and that is what we need is a correction back to center. In a few years, we may need the opposite.

In my opinion, the excuse of someone being taken out of context is used way too often. They either said it, or they didn't. Looking at the larger picture is the best way to decide, but few do. They tend to pick and choose which parts they believe are relevant and exclude the rest.

Of course you think context doesn't matter, because it negates most of the wild claims that are made. This tactic can be used on anyone. We are all guilty at being selective, including you, so you can't say only Obama supporters do it.

Unfortunately he does support lobbyist HAL. As for bringing the troops home, he seems to be waffling a bit on this pledge, just like he did on the FISA issue where he did a complete turnabout.

I looked at your thread there and will post a comment on it. I think we are getting off topic, but I'm glad he is now saying he would bring the troops home responsibly. Call it pandering, but it is a better position. FISA was a no win situation and very complicated. He did what all politicians do and that is compromise to get what we needed, which was to reverse the policy of illegal wiretapping. The bill had no chance of passing without the immunity for the tellecoms. It had to be included to get it to pass and protect our rights, and if he voted against it he would be blamed for not protecting our rights. You can spin it either way.

For me, it is all too clear. Obama is the right choice between the two candidates.

That's your opinion, and I totally support that. I simply disagree.

Fair enough.