Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling

Originally posted by Hal9000
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.

Why would a Democrat be better? didn't the majority of them including Obama vote "Yes" to the Patriotic Act?

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.

No, I believe too many people are using it as an excuse to refute the very words that have came out of their own mouths. You either said something, or you didn't. Saying someone must read an entire book or transcript to understand your comments is ridiculous.

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.

Please do read my thread regarding Obama and lobbyist, and do comment on it. I think you'll see I'm right.

As for withdrawing the troops he has waffled on it. They will not be coming home anytime soon whether it's 16 months or 60. The region is just to volatile to do otherwise. it was a good talking point however to beat out Hillary.

The FISA bill is definitely a flip-flop. Obama was going to filibuster the immunity clause, then he quietly votes "Yes" to it.


[edit on 3-8-2008 by LLoyd45]

Originally posted by LLoyd45
Why would a Democrat be better? didn't the majority of them including Obama vote "Yes" to the Patriotic Act?

Another no win situation. Obama was not a senator yet so did not vote for the original PA, but did vote for the reauthorization in 2006. He did so along with others because they felt they were giving law enforcement the ability to protect us from terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. I would agree that it went too far even though they were temporary. The FISA Amendment covers the electronic surveillance aspect of the PA and is now re-instated. The democrats are the ones that try to get provisions that protect our rights, but it is all a game of negotiation and compromise. If Obama voted against it, he would be blamed for being soft on terrorism, and because he voted for it, it looks like he is restricting our rights. Can't win either way.

As for withdrawing the troops he has waffled on it. They will not be coming home anytime soon whether it's 16 months or 60. The region is just to volatile to do otherwise. it was a good talking point however to beat out Hillary.

I guess we will see. I think it is better than McCain's position of keeping them there indefinitely.

The FISA bill is definitely a flip-flop. Obama was going to filibuster the immunity clause, then he quietly votes "Yes" to it.

They could not filibuster because the majority would have overrode and brought debate to a close. The clause was not removed and the bill came up for a vote, so he had to vote on it. He can't filibuster all by himself and he felt that the bill was otherwise good for protecting our rights.

edit: removed unproductive comment.

[edit on 8/3/2008 by Hal9000]