Reply With Quote
it reads, violins.
...I read somewhere that Obama has reneged on the promise sign a windfall profit tax bill when elected.
Starting to sound more like President Emily Litella, if you ask me.
"Nevermind"
it reads, violins.
So.....
You guys are unhappy about that too?
exactly how does this translate into unhappiness. what an idiot. you don't even know what i'm referring to.
So...
You guys unhappy about that too?
did you quote and respond to yourself? weird!
Politicians Should Never Change Their Minds or Reassess Situations forum
i think everyone can stop pretending that the voters based their vote on any campaign promises...from either candidate frankly...
Obama is a dem. he's black. he's wellspoken. he's not bush.
that's why he was elected.
none of that has changed.
There's a lot of truth to that.
Yeah, and the poll Zogby refused to do proves Obama voters were less informed of the issues than were McCain voters.
Dupes. Rubes. Call 'em what you will. Idiots none-the-less.
Tell me Obama voters. Which of his principle campaign promises are you most looking forward to?
all doubt about his promises vanished with the palin pick.
I voted for Obama primarily because I believe his selections to the Supreme Court will be in line with my philosophical views about rights and liberties, because I think he has the proper domestic policy objectives (regarding healthcare, education, and the economy), and because I agree with the fundamental foreign policy points that Obama has championed.
If the particulars of his tax plans have changed, it doesn't alter any part of the analysis that led me to vote for him. If anything, his willingness to be pragmatically flexible on those issues strikes me as all the more indicative of his worthiness to be President.
so he's gonna let some tax-breaks sunset instead of cutting the lights out on them. much ado bout nothing IMO.
A poll that doesn't exist proves something?
Yep, those terms fit the board Republibots to a T.Dupes. Rubes. Call 'em what you will. Idiots none-the-less.
Tell me, are you against the abandonment of the windfall profits tax?Tell me Obama voters. Which of his principle campaign promises are you most looking forward to?
I liked his promises to get us out of Iraq in 16 months so that we could quit spending all our money recruiting for Al Qaeda (sp?) and actually go to Afghanistan and start irradicating it.
I liked his promises to restore diplomatic relations with the world.
I liked his promises to negotiate, and not dictate.
I also thought that his extremely simple but very powerful idea to provide a $4k grant per year for college students provided they volunteer for 100 hours of community service each year. Shoot, I would even have no problem if they made the entire Pell grant based on this kind of a program.
I also completely agree with every word of FWDT's post. Eeeegads! a person in a seat of power who constantly looks at relevant data and reassesses a situation instead of making a decision and "staying the course."
WHAT AN ELITIST! An elite person in the oval office is exactly what I want.
Ooops...
He's already betrayed your #1 promise! I Blame President Bush and that Monday meeting when he threw back the curtain for President-elect Obama.
Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality
What I want to know, though is, now that their president will be prosecuting an illegal war of choice, will the chickenhawks on the left sign up to fight en masse?
It's astonishing to me that a political party and the entire media could so dishonestly and recklessly campaign against winning a vital war. I'm not shocked by their current position; I'm dumbfounded by their old one.On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.
But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.
“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.
Publicly at least, Mr. Obama has not set a firm number for that “residual force,” a phrase certain to become central to the debate on the way ahead in Iraq, though one of his national security advisers, Richard Danzig, said during the campaign that it could amount to 30,000 to 55,000 troops. Nor has Mr. Obama laid out any timetable beyond 16 months for troop drawdowns, or suggested when he believes a time might come for a declaration that the war is over.
In the meantime, military planners are drawing up tentative schedules aimed at meeting both Mr. Obama’s goal for withdrawing combat troops, with a target of May 2010, and the Dec. 31, 2011, date for sending the rest of American troops home that is spelled out in the new agreement between the United States and the Iraqi government.
That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 — and some say as high as 70,000 — for a substantial time even beyond 2011.
How does the media begin to walk back its insistent demands we deliberately lose the war just to humiliate George Bush and the Republican Party?
How does Keith Olbermann (and his ilk) begin to spin this?
Do they dare admit they were wrong all along?
Yeah, how is he going to do that? Our diplomatic relations with our allies are as good as they've ever been. And, who gives a rat's ass with diplomatic relations with our enemies?
Because negotiating with our enemies has worked so well in the past.
Another ineffectual, politically expediant Clinton administration. Cool.
Nice job liberal voters.
poor yoni. are you pulling your hair out, too?
No, why would I?
Wow to get back at me you post a link to an article that says that BO confirmed the promise that he made on the campaign trail? I guess I got Burned here??? (yes I realize that the way I worded it was "get out of Iraq" that was my mistake, but Obama is consistant here even if my wording wasn't). I won't lie, 30k troops is a little higher than I anticipated for a residual force (I was thinking it would take more like 15k-20k) , but once again the direction is correct. You said Bush threw back the curtain? That is probably a true statement. Barack Obama saw the realities and although some minor adjustments have to be made, he is keeping his overall campaign promise.
Why was this war vital? As far as Keith Obermann, I know that he works for CNN, I assume he is a leftist (from various posts on here), further than that I have no idea how he spins stuff etc. I generally don't watch TV news. My info is gleaned (mostly) from CNN.com, foxnews.com, and BBC.com. If a specific story from those sites catches more than just my passing interest I will go to google.com to find out more. I don't really have time to listen to guys yelling at eachother on TV. Although, I do want to see this guy Shep Smith (I think that's his name) on Fox News because I hear that he lays the smack down on anyone (left or right). I wouldn't really watch this for news value, more for entertainment value.It's astonishing to me that a political party and the entire media could so dishonestly and recklessly campaign against winning a vital war. I'm not shocked by their current position; I'm dumbfounded by their old one.
How does the media begin to walk back its insistent demands we deliberately lose the war just to humiliate George Bush and the Republican Party?
How does Keith Olbermann (and his ilk) begin to spin this?
Do they dare admit they were wrong all along?
This is just silly and you have to know it because your posts seem to be at least intelligently worded even if I don't agree with them. Our status in the world is at an all time low (even amongst our allies). Our policy with the world over the last 8 years has been "it is easier to do, then apologize, than to ask for permission." I mean when we were attacked, everyone was ready to go along with us to go get the guys who attacked us IN AFGHANISTAN, we didn't even really have to ask. Iraq on the other hand had nothing to do with it. Was Saddam bad? YES. Should he have been disposed of? YES. Unfortunately going to war for regime change purposes is illegal. It makes us look like we can't be trusted since we can't obey laws that we signed off on.
Iraq was unnecessary, not vital, and now the loss of Iran's counterbalance has caused instability in the region. We might as well have just tipped our king right at the beginning of the game, because I don't see a way that this could possibly have been more of a disaster of an idea.
As for negotiating with our enemies, go to that website that I mentioned before called google.com and type in "cold war" and hit search.
Ineffectual administrations don't turn an enormous budget deficit to a surplus. Ineffectual administrations don't increase the standard of living for the country across the board (in real dollars no less). Ineffectual administrations don't increase our standing in the world even on the heels of the previous two administrations who had themselves increased it. I also think it is funny that you think it is politically expedient to require college students to work for their grants. Do you think it would be more unpopular if it was just decided that the grants would be given to them? But whatever. If you decided that Clinton was ineffectual that means that Bush must be effective, thus you and I will never agree on this.
I don't think the much of the liberal base thought that way. Getting out of Iraq -- regardless of how Obama nuanced it on the campaign -- was what much of his voters believed would happen.
And, you're disappointed at the troop level? Why not be disillusioned that it is apparent he intends to continue the current strategy in Iraq? The Bush strategy. , he's even keeping on the SecDef.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy Obama can grasp reality. It's encouraging.
I listen to the words that people say. He said that there would be a residual force. There have been past wars where we left a residual force, they havent been 100 people strong, they have been in the 1000's, that is why I anticipated that. I didn't say I was disappointed with the troop level, just that I anticipated it to be smaller, que cera, I wasn't hired to be CIC. As far as continuing the current strategy, he was talking about the 16 month timeframe before the Bush admin started negotiating with the Iraqi's about the 16 month time. Was this in the works before he started talking about it? Maybe. I don't see it as a continuation because that wasn't (or at least didn't seem to be) the focus of the Bush admin until BO started talking about it. Call it spin or whatever, but it is just how I see it. I can admit that it is nice that Bush finally started listening to his commanders, rather than his (former) Sec of Def, among others. I can even go so far as to say that Bush has performed admirably over the last 6 mos to a year as president (stupid quotes aside). I think that if he would have either had a steel intellect with some major testicular for ude, or surrounded himself with the right group of people from the beginning, he would have been at least decent. Unfortunately he did not have the former, and just started getting the latter around the beginning of last year. Thusly, he is going down as one of the worst presidents in history
If, prior to November, liberals had been told that Barack Obama's foreign policy and national security appointments would draw praise from Henry Kissinger--a public servant of rare accomplishment whom many liberals (on this board and elsewhere) denounce as a "war criminal"--their heads likely would have exploded. Yet that is what happened today in the Washington Post. Kissinger writes:
It remains to be seen whether Obama will, in the end, double-cross the leftists who made him their party's nominee. At this point, however, they can only be dismayed to see their hero praised by Richard Nixon's Secretary of State.
Then quit crying.
what's he gonna be like when Obama actually takes office. poor guy.
Whose crying? I'm actually liking the way much of Obama's policy is shaping up...silly "Office of the President-elect" signs and all. He may turn out to be a more conservative President than was George W. Bush. Although, I'm not hopeful on the domestic front, his abandonment of the economy-killing windfall profit tax is a good start.
I'm just pointing out this is not what a good portion of his voters thought they were getting. If you can't admit that, you're just arguing because I'm Yonivore.
Have fun with that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
