Obama "NAFTA not so bad after all"

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Republicans are no better or worse than the Democrat side, they both are just as guilty of pandering/lying to get more "centrist" votes.

As I said before and I'll say again, I haven't as of yet called Obama a "messiah" or the like. But I do see where people get the idea because you guys are continuing to support Obama throughout his lies, changing the word 'lies' into "flexibility" in his defense. You guys ripped up Hillary for her "flexibility" but fail to see it in who you support. Not only are his supporters (followers?) blind, but even in the face of the facts you willingly turn away from it. That's why people use that term "messiah" and I'll be damned if it doesn't fit.

What I believe many are failing to understand is that many of us Obama supporters are very well aware of what he is. Above all else, he is a politician. He is going to lie sometimes. He is going to twist things in a direction that he believes is for the greater good. He is going to put on the kinds of shows that all people in political figurehead positions do. He is going to shoot for changes. He is going to make mistakes in some areas. He is going to succeed in other areas. He is going to play the political campaign game.

Despite all of that though, many people out there including myself also realize that we will NEVER see a candidate that does not do all of those kinds of things one way or another. That's what politics in this country is all about like it or not. All that we are doing is picking the guy who we believe is going to the best job, which does not necessarily mean that we all believe he/she is going to do a good job. There is a big difference. After that, it's all about hoping for the best and continuing to vote when we can.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
I expect my candidate to serve the will of the people, and not some ideological fantasy. You're demanding the opposite.

And supporting immunity for the telcoms was serving the will of the people? Demonizing Iran is serving the will of the people? Keeping marijuana laws is serving the will of the people?

Apparently so. Just look at the platforms of the candidates. The only one taking heat on these issues is that one that is not absolutely firmly in favor of them.

He's taking heat because he's gonna win the election.

I know I have said it before, but I hope Obama does a good job as president. I'd much rather see some success than be in here saying "I told ya so," which wouldn't do anyone any good.

But so far, I am not impressed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
I expect my candidate to serve the will of the people, and not some ideological fantasy. You're demanding the opposite.

And supporting immunity for the telcoms was serving the will of the people? Demonizing Iran is serving the will of the people? Keeping marijuana laws is serving the will of the people?

Apparently so. Just look at the platforms of the candidates. The only one taking heat on these issues is that one that is not absolutely firmly in favor of them.

He's taking heat because he's gonna win the election.

I know I have said it before, but I hope Obama does a good job as president. I'd much rather see some success than be in here saying "I told ya so," which wouldn't do anyone any good.

But so far, I am not impressed.

If it's an "I told ya so" situation down the road, I'll be the first to say it. Count on that. I have no loyalties in politics whatsoever. In the meantime, keep some perspective.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre
He's taking heat because he's gonna win the election.

I know I have said it before, but I hope Obama does a good job as president. I'd much rather see some success than be in here saying "I told ya so," which wouldn't do anyone any good.

But so far, I am not impressed.

Thankfully, a campaign is nothing but the warm up period. This pendulum swings both ways and often many times before a term ends. Keep your fingers crossed because for the most part that is all any of us can do after using our best judgment when voting.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE
At least his answer to his flip flop wasn't a mcsame "No, I never said that, you are mistaken". Rare to see a politician man up to a flip flop.

I submit that it is questionable that pandering (in effect lying) to get what you want has anything with being a man. So sad that we cant seem to expect better, demand better.

:disgust: "But he's better than McCain" :disgust:

Ah so he should have followed the typical politicians game of deny deny deny? Ah I got it, he was going to be wrong no matter what he did!


"I don't care what he does, Ima find wrong in it!" :disgust:

Um, I go for option C, sticking to his stated campaign stance, having a backbone and living up to the expectations of the voters.

Very sad that you did not even think of that option. We have set our standards quite low indeed.

Some people think that the reason they can't effect their desired change into government is because we no longer live in a democracy. Not so. The reality is that you're one lone voice in 300 million.
I expect my candidate to serve the will of the people, and not some ideological fantasy. You're demanding the opposite.

First off, we are not a democracy, we are a republic with democratic ideals (huge difference). Secondly I have but one voice, and the percept of one voice is the cornerstone of our republic.
Democracy's always are despotic in nature as they empower a majority no matter how slight to destroy and rob the minority. Thus we have a republic protecting the individual through rights given to us by life itself, and these rights exist without the consent of the majority.

I expect a candidate to do what he says, if you want to call that an ideological fantasy, be my guest. but as with your candidate i think that you have set your sights for "ideological fantasy" quite low.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE
At least his answer to his flip flop wasn't a mcsame "No, I never said that, you are mistaken". Rare to see a politician man up to a flip flop.

I submit that it is questionable that pandering (in effect lying) to get what you want has anything with being a man. So sad that we cant seem to expect better, demand better.

:disgust: "But he's better than McCain" :disgust:

Ah so he should have followed the typical politicians game of deny deny deny? Ah I got it, he was going to be wrong no matter what he did!


"I don't care what he does, Ima find wrong in it!" :disgust:

Um, I go for option C, sticking to his stated campaign stance, having a backbone and living up to the expectations of the voters.

Very sad that you did not even think of that option. We have set our standards quite low indeed.

So your ideal candidate would be one that sticks to his goals and ideas no matter what, whether new information comes out or maybe he takes a different look on it? I imagine you fully support our current president than. The current problem we have with politics is people who make choices based on ideologies or sets of beliefs they think they should have because of there self described label. Instead of weighing the issue with constant updating information they instead ignore this information and follow there "gut instinct" which is usually the same as the playbook of there current ideologies.

That would be fine and all except that these "changes" were an intentional deception, to tell people what they want to hear (lying). If you really want to buy into the politcal doublespeak that is your right, but I beg to differ on the motivation.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
He said he's about change all along. Especially when it comes to changing his opinion on things.

:thumbsup:

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: AAjax

That would be fine and all except that these "changes" were an intentional deception, to tell people what they want to hear (lying). If you really want to buy into the politcal doublespeak that is your right, but I beg to differ on the motivation.

Just because there are a ton of people that support Obama does not mean that they all were deceived by him and were sucked into this change thing that you keep falling back on. Many of us have a very good idea of what is going on. The promise of change for the better is anything but new during an election year. You would have to be very new when it comes to politics and election years to believe otherwise and even then you can figure it out by doing a very minimal amount of research.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE
At least his answer to his flip flop wasn't a mcsame "No, I never said that, you are mistaken". Rare to see a politician man up to a flip flop.

I submit that it is questionable that pandering (in effect lying) to get what you want has anything with being a man. So sad that we cant seem to expect better, demand better.

:disgust: "But he's better than McCain" :disgust:

Ah so he should have followed the typical politicians game of deny deny deny? Ah I got it, he was going to be wrong no matter what he did!


"I don't care what he does, Ima find wrong in it!" :disgust:

Um, I go for option C, sticking to his stated campaign stance, having a backbone and living up to the expectations of the voters.

Very sad that you did not even think of that option. We have set our standards quite low indeed.

Some people think that the reason they can't effect their desired change into government is because we no longer live in a democracy. Not so. The reality is that you're one lone voice in 300 million.
I expect my candidate to serve the will of the people, and not some ideological fantasy. You're demanding the opposite.

First off, we are not a democracy, we are a republic with democratic ideals (huge difference). Secondly I have but one voice, and the percept of one voice is the cornerstone of our republic.
Democracy's always are despotic in nature as they empower a majority no matter how slight to destroy and rob the minority. Thus we have a republic protecting the individual through rights given to us by life itself, and these rights exist without the consent of the majority.

I expect a candidate to do what he says, if you want to call that an ideological fantasy, be my guest. but as with your candidate i think that you have set your sights for "ideological fantasy" quite low.

You overlooked my point entirely, and sidetracked it with semantics.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: AAjax

That would be fine and all except that these "changes" were an intentional deception, to tell people what they want to hear (lying). If you really want to buy into the politcal doublespeak that is your right, but I beg to differ on the motivation.

Just because there are a ton of people that support Obama does not mean that they all were deceived by him and were sucked into this change thing that you keep falling back on. Many of us have a very good idea of what is going on. The promise of change for the better is anything but new during an election year. You would have to be very new when it comes to politics and election years to believe otherwise and even then you can figure it out by doing a very minimal amount of research.

Yeah, I know, it's weird. You'd think Obama was the first politician in history to ever run on a populist platform.

And hell, even McCain has gone populist for this election. By the time either one of them is President, we're all going to have so many chickens in our pots we won't know what to do with them.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: AAjax

That would be fine and all except that these "changes" were an intentional deception, to tell people what they want to hear (lying). If you really want to buy into the politcal doublespeak that is your right, but I beg to differ on the motivation.

Just because there are a ton of people that support Obama does not mean that they all were deceived by him and were sucked into this change thing that you keep falling back on. Many of us have a very good idea of what is going on. The promise of change for the better is anything but new during an election year. You would have to be very new when it comes to politics and election years to believe otherwise and even then you can figure it out by doing a very minimal amount of research.

So your saying he is buisness as usual? Then Sir we are in agreement.

 

[Genx87]

Anybody who understands the concept of free trade but maybe not the particulars of NAFTA knew Obama was pandering. Or at worst would open his eyes eventually. I do feel sorry for anybody who actually believed him though.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: AAjax

That would be fine and all except that these "changes" were an intentional deception, to tell people what they want to hear (lying). If you really want to buy into the politcal doublespeak that is your right, but I beg to differ on the motivation.

Just because there are a ton of people that support Obama does not mean that they all were deceived by him and were sucked into this change thing that you keep falling back on. Many of us have a very good idea of what is going on. The promise of change for the better is anything but new during an election year. You would have to be very new when it comes to politics and election years to believe otherwise and even then you can figure it out by doing a very minimal amount of research.

So your saying he is buisness as usual? Then Sir we are in agreement.

Glad to see you finally came to your senses. Now please contrast Obama against his opponent(s), and not AAjax's fantasy perfect candidate. Thanks.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE
At least his answer to his flip flop wasn't a mcsame "No, I never said that, you are mistaken". Rare to see a politician man up to a flip flop.

I submit that it is questionable that pandering (in effect lying) to get what you want has anything with being a man. So sad that we cant seem to expect better, demand better.

:disgust: "But he's better than McCain" :disgust:

Ah so he should have followed the typical politicians game of deny deny deny? Ah I got it, he was going to be wrong no matter what he did!


"I don't care what he does, Ima find wrong in it!" :disgust:

Um, I go for option C, sticking to his stated campaign stance, having a backbone and living up to the expectations of the voters.

Very sad that you did not even think of that option. We have set our standards quite low indeed.

Some people think that the reason they can't effect their desired change into government is because we no longer live in a democracy. Not so. The reality is that you're one lone voice in 300 million.
I expect my candidate to serve the will of the people, and not some ideological fantasy. You're demanding the opposite.

First off, we are not a democracy, we are a republic with democratic ideals (huge difference). Secondly I have but one voice, and the percept of one voice is the cornerstone of our republic.
Democracy's always are despotic in nature as they empower a majority no matter how slight to destroy and rob the minority. Thus we have a republic protecting the individual through rights given to us by life itself, and these rights exist without the consent of the majority.

I expect a candidate to do what he says, if you want to call that an ideological fantasy, be my guest. but as with your candidate i think that you have set your sights for "ideological fantasy" quite low.

You overlooked my point entirely, and sidetracked it with semantics.

Semantics? You tried to isolate my argument by saying I was just one in a crowd of many, insinuating that your argument was based on our form of government. I was just pointing out that the nature of your argument was incorrect.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AAjax
Semantics? You tried to isolate my argument by saying I was just one in a crowd of many, insinuating that your argument was based on our form of government. I was just pointing out that the nature of your argument was incorrect.

No, what I was saying is that your 'Option C' would never get elected in our form of government, republic and all. The rule of law doesn't apply to any candidate's need to get the most votes.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: AAjax

That would be fine and all except that these "changes" were an intentional deception, to tell people what they want to hear (lying). If you really want to buy into the politcal doublespeak that is your right, but I beg to differ on the motivation.

Just because there are a ton of people that support Obama does not mean that they all were deceived by him and were sucked into this change thing that you keep falling back on. Many of us have a very good idea of what is going on. The promise of change for the better is anything but new during an election year. You would have to be very new when it comes to politics and election years to believe otherwise and even then you can figure it out by doing a very minimal amount of research.

So your saying he is buisness as usual? Then Sir we are in agreement.

If by business as usual you mean that this is just another election year except with a few twists then yes. Beyond that, I believe that Obama is the best man for the job and I have high hopes that he will provide a lot of changes even if those changes are not as concrete as the usual campaign strategies are making them out to be, but as you said that is just business as usual. I believe that he is a very smart man and he knows how to play the political game when it comes to campaigning, but it is just that...a game. McCain knows how to play it too. I most certainly believe that my life will see some better changes if Obama is elected over McCain or any other guy that has been in this race.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: AAjax

That would be fine and all except that these "changes" were an intentional deception, to tell people what they want to hear (lying). If you really want to buy into the politcal doublespeak that is your right, but I beg to differ on the motivation.

Just because there are a ton of people that support Obama does not mean that they all were deceived by him and were sucked into this change thing that you keep falling back on. Many of us have a very good idea of what is going on. The promise of change for the better is anything but new during an election year. You would have to be very new when it comes to politics and election years to believe otherwise and even then you can figure it out by doing a very minimal amount of research.

So your saying he is buisness as usual? Then Sir we are in agreement.

Glad to see you finally came to your senses. Now please contrast Obama against his opponent(s), and not AAjax's fantasy perfect candidate. Thanks.

Nah, I refuse to "compromise" on what I feel our nation deserves out of its leaders. I mean I really dont ask much, in fact all I ask for is what Obama was promising during his campaign, to revolutionize politics by running on a platform or returning the nation to the people (of course you have to follow such statements up with action, apparently that is too much trouble for Obama, or perhaps he never intended to do it and just played his supporters for fools) . As for contrast between McCain and Obama all I see is the left and right hand of the same group of robber barons hell bent on destroying our republic from within, unfortunately its a rather old story that has been played out many times before.
But hey, why give up? Its just about to get real interesting.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Nah, I refuse to "compromise" on what I feel our nation deserves out of its leaders. I mean I really dont ask much, in fact all I ask for is what Obama was promising during his campaign, to revolutionize politics by running on a platform or returning the nation to the people (of course you have to follow such statements up with action, apparently that is too much trouble for Obama, or perhaps he never intended to do it and just played his supporters for fools) . As for contrast between McCain and Obama all I see is the left and right hand of the same group of robber barons hell bent on destroying our republic from within, unfortunately its a rather old story that has been played out many times before.
But hey, why give up? Its just about to get real interesting.

I don't believe it is too much trouble for Obama. I think what you need to realize is that change just doesn't come that quickly whether you want it to or not. Obama is aware of this as well even though he is dedicated to pushing the envelope. The president is a powerful man, but he is just not that powerful. I have a good idea of what Obama wants as well as what he is shooting for. I have never set myself up with false unrealistic expectations of what to expect or when to expect it though. I do believe that he can at the very least get a lot of things geared in the right direction. I also believe that he will outright change some things which do not require as much time to change. We'll see how it goes.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: AAjax
Semantics? You tried to isolate my argument by saying I was just one in a crowd of many, insinuating that your argument was based on our form of government. I was just pointing out that the nature of your argument was incorrect.

No, what I was saying is that your 'Option C' would never get elected in our form of government, republic and all. The rule of law doesn't apply to any candidate's need to get the most votes.

So, your saying that candidates on the campaign trail can do whatever they like and that we as a people cannot hold them accountable lest be become deluded in a idealogical fantasy world? What they do in practice is what they will do in office..... or worse.

Never? Hehehe, you know what they say about that. I wont let the media or anyone else diminish my hope for our nation, no matter how dire it looks.

 

[Vic]

/face palm

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Vic
/face palm

Its OK, have a cookie

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic
-snip-
McCain.....would scuttle the collective right in the 2nd amendment thus making the individual right weaker.

Where do you get this from?

I've never heard of this. Please explain.

TIA

Fern

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: AAjax

That would be fine and all except that these "changes" were an intentional deception, to tell people what they want to hear (lying). If you really want to buy into the politcal doublespeak that is your right, but I beg to differ on the motivation.

Just because there are a ton of people that support Obama does not mean that they all were deceived by him and were sucked into this change thing that you keep falling back on. Many of us have a very good idea of what is going on. The promise of change for the better is anything but new during an election year. You would have to be very new when it comes to politics and election years to believe otherwise and even then you can figure it out by doing a very minimal amount of research.

So your saying he is buisness as usual? Then Sir we are in agreement.

Glad to see you finally came to your senses. Now please contrast Obama against his opponent(s), and not AAjax's fantasy perfect candidate. Thanks.

The problem with the "business as usual" attitude is that Obama is running a campaign based on "Washington is broken" and "change." If he falls back on being a "business as usual" politician, then what exactly is left, other than "still better than McCain?"

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE
At least his answer to his flip flop wasn't a mcsame "No, I never said that, you are mistaken". Rare to see a politician man up to a flip flop.

I submit that it is questionable that pandering (in effect lying) to get what you want has anything with being a man. So sad that we cant seem to expect better, demand better.

:disgust: "But he's better than McCain" :disgust:

Ah so he should have followed the typical politicians game of deny deny deny? Ah I got it, he was going to be wrong no matter what he did!


"I don't care what he does, Ima find wrong in it!" :disgust:

Um, I go for option C, sticking to his stated campaign stance, having a backbone and living up to the expectations of the voters.

Very sad that you did not even think of that option. We have set our standards quite low indeed.

So your ideal candidate would be one that sticks to his goals and ideas no matter what, whether new information comes out or maybe he takes a different look on it? I imagine you fully support our current president than. The current problem we have with politics is people who make choices based on ideologies or sets of beliefs they think they should have because of there self described label. Instead of weighing the issue with constant updating information they instead ignore this information and follow there "gut instinct" which is usually the same as the playbook of there current ideologies.

That would be fine and all except that these "changes" were an intentional deception, to tell people what they want to hear (lying). If you really want to buy into the politcal doublespeak that is your right, but I beg to differ on the motivation.

Ah I forgot your supreme inner knowledge of Obamas circle of judgment qualifies you to decipher his actual intents with nothing but "my gut feeling". I'm glad you cleared that up for us.

 

[piasabird]

So how do you explain to the American Tomato Farmer that his livlihood is threatened by disease infested crops from Mexico? This is what free trade gets you. The problem is we may believe in free trade but other countries do not.

Also what about free trade with Cuba? If we can have free trade with China, why not Cuba?