Completely aside from the fact that the implementation is dreadful, the things are designed to do people out of a job, in a town that sorely needs jobs.
Agreed! That's why I refuse to use electric light bulbs. I mean, what are the lamplighters to do if there are no gas lamps to light? Huh?? They're just a way for the city to continue to take my taxes while putting people out of a job!
Umm... only two (2) of those issues are recent. The rest date back to '04, so if you're willing to give McCain a pass, you must be willing to do the same for Obama.
As for those two, I agree, his position changes on campaign finance are almost certainly driven by political concerns. His choice to take private funding was, I think, purely a matter of political expediency. His change of position on unions, however, reeks of pandering to me.
So now we have, what, four recent issues: FISA, private campaign financing, his comments on unions, and NASA. Others have included his positions on offshore drilling and the strategic petroleum reserve, but I consider those to be excellent examples of his willingness to compromise for the good of the country, and so don't qualify as pandering or flip flopping.
So... four issues. Four issues, and he's suddenly a pandering politician just like everyone else? Really?
Please cite ONE NEW FACT that would support his COMPLETE flip-flop in the period of one month.
Again, I have *no idea* what facts Obama was privy to prior to changing his decision. I have *no idea* what facts or arguments he was given to change his mind. All I know is that he did. Maybe the news that the US has been in recession since Q4 '07 caused him to compromise in order to address inflationary concerns. Maybe someone gave a good explanation of the benefits of tapping into the SPR. Hell, I'm sure I could come up with all kinds of other guesses. But I have no particular reason to assume it's just pandering, particularly given that no one has demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that he has a history of such behaviour.
I've explained my reasons why tapping into the reserve is stupid.
And I don't care.
You have done nothing to counter my reasoning.
Because it's completely an utterly beside the point. You're trying to change the dialog, from the issue of flip flopping, to whether the new position is a good one or not. Those issues are tangential, and I'm not going to fall for your attempts to conflate them.
Which is the REAL question we need to ask - would they change their stance on --insert issue-- if they weren't running for President?
Because they realized they were wrong? Or that they need to compromise their ideals in the face of a difficult economic situation? I know, it's an alien concept, but it does happen from time to time.
at a time when gas prices were HIGHER than they were when he announced his new position.
So what? That means nothing. Just because gas prices were lower, doesn't mean the problem magically went away. Gas is still extremely expensive, and the problem still requires attention. And in that intervening month, he was convinced that tapping into the SPR was an option to be considered. I still don't see how that's anything but a simple change of position in the face of new facts.
And the fact that it's such a stupid idea to begin with.
Well, that's your opinion. Good for you. That doesn't make Obama's position a flip flop. It just makes it potentially stupid (I don't know enough about the issue, so I can't really judge... and there's no reason to believe you do, either).
Fresh Cilantro or Curly Parsley look somewhat similar,
Only if you're blind. Cilantro has a broad, flat leaf, while curly parsley is just that... curly, and very much so. You can tell the difference by touch, let alone by sight.
If, by recently, you mean the last, oh, two or three years, when, after years of being a "maverick", he started heavily supporting Bush, a trend that has continued to his day.
Contrast this with Obama, and I think you can see the difference. Or, at least, I hope you can.
'course, the real irony, is that McCain selling out to the RNC now makes any position change by Obama, no matter how reasonable or well thought out, suspect...
Yup, I agree on the public funding issue. That, and FISA, were two ugly, ugly position changes that, while one can rationalize, are impossible to deny. BUT, those didn't happen in "recent weeks", so they hardly apply.
But given the difficulty of the current economic climate, what makes you believe his change of position on the SPR is a flip-flop, and not simply a re-evaluation? I mean, right about now, the *last* person you want in office is someone so completely dogmatic that they're unwilling to evaluate all options, including tapping into the SPR, or some limited amount of offshore drilling (which Obama has also recently said he'd be willing to consider).
And while you're lined up, waiting for some jackass to count out change while the cashier is scanning their dozen coupons, I'll already be out the door.
But please, keep it up! The more people like you there are, the more likely it is the self-checkout will be open and available.:)
Then you don't go to the grocery store very often. If you've only got a dozen or so items, self-checkout is *much* faster. And the greater density of machines versus human-operated tills means the total throughput is much higher, as more people can checkout at once.
Excellent, his positions on campaign financing are, I think, also good examples. Again, I think you can rationalize the change, but it's tough to avoid the fact that he clearly changed his position on the topic for political advantage.
As for the rest, *please*... picking positions that are 4 years old, and citing them as "flip flops" is more than a bit of a stretch. If a man, over the course of 4 years, can't change his mind on marijuana decriminalization, illegal immigration, or the cuba embargo, then what *can* he change his mind on?? Or would you prefer a politician who never digests and synthesizes new information in order to refine their positions?
Ah, I found it (I think), it's this quote (Caren Bohan, "Obama Says Won't Guarantee Ahmadinejad A Meeting," Reuters, 5/26/08) :
"'There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know he's actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran,'"
Supposedly, this is a flip flop because Obama has consistently said he'd meet with Iran, NK, etc. Of course, it's an incredibly stupid example, because Obama didn't say he wouldn't meet with Iranian leaders. He said he wouldn't meet with "Ahmadinejad before we know he's actually in power"... which is a *very* different thing from "I will not meet with Ahmadinejad".
Nice try, though. So we now have two (2) examples of Obama's supposed flip flopping: his position on NASA (though, IMHO, that's a simple matter of a re-evaluated position), and FISA (which I concede was an ugly change of position). Got anything else?
FISA I consider an unpleasant compromise. Yes, I realize that's an excuse and a rationalization, but without knowing the thought processes that went on behind the decision, I'm not sure I'm in a position to judge. Still, good example, I'll concede that point.
On offshore drilling, Obama said: "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."
That, to me, sounds like a reasonable, nuanced position from a man willing to hear both sides and be flexible in order to solve a problem. That's a *good* thing, damn it! Again, I get it, you're used to "the decider", but FFS, there's a difference between flip-flopping and compromising.
Regarding Iran, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I've searched for articles in the past couple months on Google regarding Obama and Iran, but I saw nothing that indicated a drastic position change. Got a citation?
You have no idea what facts/information he had before his decision, and what facts/information he has now. Unless you're inside Obama's head, your presumption that he's pandering is just that, a presumption, and a partisan one at that.
I know this is hard to understand after 8 years of "the decider", but, this is *exactly* when you want him to open his mind and alter his positions. Right now, he is, in theory, pounding the campaign trail and, *gasp*, listening to people. Did it occur to you that, during such bouts of listening, he might've actually changed his mind on one or two things?
Citation needed. Other than his position on NASA, which changed months ago (this is only a minor evolution in his most recent position), I can't think of any specific examples to support your claim (not that they don't exist, I just can't think of any). Can you?
The IR blasters are not reliable and the cable companies will not activate the serial port on that back.
Really? Weird. I have my Myth box configured with two SD tuners hooked up to a pair of Motorola STBs, driven with blasters from irblaster.info, and in the two years the system has been running it has never, repeat, *never* missed a tune. Ever. And I record a lot of crap.:)
For HD (if I ever upgrade), I'll go with the exact same setup, just using one of the new HD component capture devices that've hit the market in the last six months.
Or to put it another way a Libertarian is very likely to support the logic of emmision controls that work because you DONT have the right to produce nox that I (a libertarian) might be forced to breath to my detriment.
No, that's what *your* brand of "libertarianism" means to you. Another libertarian would scream that emission controls are evil government regulation that place an undo burden on competition by creating barriers of entry to the market, artificially raising prices while reducing competition. Competition that would magically solve the problem if we would just let the invisible hand do it's thing, because people would simply choose to buy cleaner cars if they were made available.
Of course, that's all a silly fantasy, but that's really my whole point.
The budget is Congress' fault, not the President's.
And what's your point? For most of the last 8 years, congress has been run by the neocons, and they've basically done whatever the president wants.
I mean, you aren't really so deluded as to believe that Bush would've cut spending had a line item veto been an option, are you? I mean, the tax cuts in the face of a massive war budget were his idea!
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, citations given. Where are the informative up-mods?
Well, much like your post, the problem is that the citations have been couched in trollish, partisan rhetoric.
Completely aside from the fact that the implementation is dreadful, the things are designed to do people out of a job, in a town that sorely needs jobs.
Agreed! That's why I refuse to use electric light bulbs. I mean, what are the lamplighters to do if there are no gas lamps to light? Huh?? They're just a way for the city to continue to take my taxes while putting people out of a job!
Umm... only two (2) of those issues are recent. The rest date back to '04, so if you're willing to give McCain a pass, you must be willing to do the same for Obama.
As for those two, I agree, his position changes on campaign finance are almost certainly driven by political concerns. His choice to take private funding was, I think, purely a matter of political expediency. His change of position on unions, however, reeks of pandering to me.
So now we have, what, four recent issues: FISA, private campaign financing, his comments on unions, and NASA. Others have included his positions on offshore drilling and the strategic petroleum reserve, but I consider those to be excellent examples of his willingness to compromise for the good of the country, and so don't qualify as pandering or flip flopping.
So... four issues. Four issues, and he's suddenly a pandering politician just like everyone else? Really?
Please cite ONE NEW FACT that would support his COMPLETE flip-flop in the period of one month.
Again, I have *no idea* what facts Obama was privy to prior to changing his decision. I have *no idea* what facts or arguments he was given to change his mind. All I know is that he did. Maybe the news that the US has been in recession since Q4 '07 caused him to compromise in order to address inflationary concerns. Maybe someone gave a good explanation of the benefits of tapping into the SPR. Hell, I'm sure I could come up with all kinds of other guesses. But I have no particular reason to assume it's just pandering, particularly given that no one has demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that he has a history of such behaviour.
I've explained my reasons why tapping into the reserve is stupid.
And I don't care.
You have done nothing to counter my reasoning.
Because it's completely an utterly beside the point. You're trying to change the dialog, from the issue of flip flopping, to whether the new position is a good one or not. Those issues are tangential, and I'm not going to fall for your attempts to conflate them.
Which is the REAL question we need to ask - would they change their stance on --insert issue-- if they weren't running for President?
Because they realized they were wrong? Or that they need to compromise their ideals in the face of a difficult economic situation? I know, it's an alien concept, but it does happen from time to time.
at a time when gas prices were HIGHER than they were when he announced his new position.
So what? That means nothing. Just because gas prices were lower, doesn't mean the problem magically went away. Gas is still extremely expensive, and the problem still requires attention. And in that intervening month, he was convinced that tapping into the SPR was an option to be considered. I still don't see how that's anything but a simple change of position in the face of new facts.
And the fact that it's such a stupid idea to begin with.
Well, that's your opinion. Good for you. That doesn't make Obama's position a flip flop. It just makes it potentially stupid (I don't know enough about the issue, so I can't really judge... and there's no reason to believe you do, either).
Fresh Cilantro or Curly Parsley look somewhat similar,
Only if you're blind. Cilantro has a broad, flat leaf, while curly parsley is just that... curly, and very much so. You can tell the difference by touch, let alone by sight.
If, by recently, you mean the last, oh, two or three years, when, after years of being a "maverick", he started heavily supporting Bush, a trend that has continued to his day.
Contrast this with Obama, and I think you can see the difference. Or, at least, I hope you can.
'course, the real irony, is that McCain selling out to the RNC now makes any position change by Obama, no matter how reasonable or well thought out, suspect...
Yup, I agree on the public funding issue. That, and FISA, were two ugly, ugly position changes that, while one can rationalize, are impossible to deny. BUT, those didn't happen in "recent weeks", so they hardly apply.
But given the difficulty of the current economic climate, what makes you believe his change of position on the SPR is a flip-flop, and not simply a re-evaluation? I mean, right about now, the *last* person you want in office is someone so completely dogmatic that they're unwilling to evaluate all options, including tapping into the SPR, or some limited amount of offshore drilling (which Obama has also recently said he'd be willing to consider).
And while you're lined up, waiting for some jackass to count out change while the cashier is scanning their dozen coupons, I'll already be out the door.
But please, keep it up! The more people like you there are, the more likely it is the self-checkout will be open and available. :)
This technology doesn't benefit me at all
Then you don't go to the grocery store very often. If you've only got a dozen or so items, self-checkout is *much* faster. And the greater density of machines versus human-operated tills means the total throughput is much higher, as more people can checkout at once.
Obama has in recent weeks has completely 180'ed his position on several key issues.
Such as?
Excellent, his positions on campaign financing are, I think, also good examples. Again, I think you can rationalize the change, but it's tough to avoid the fact that he clearly changed his position on the topic for political advantage.
As for the rest, *please*... picking positions that are 4 years old, and citing them as "flip flops" is more than a bit of a stretch. If a man, over the course of 4 years, can't change his mind on marijuana decriminalization, illegal immigration, or the cuba embargo, then what *can* he change his mind on?? Or would you prefer a politician who never digests and synthesizes new information in order to refine their positions?
Ah, I found it (I think), it's this quote (Caren Bohan, "Obama Says Won't Guarantee Ahmadinejad A Meeting," Reuters, 5/26/08) :
"'There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know he's actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran,'"
Supposedly, this is a flip flop because Obama has consistently said he'd meet with Iran, NK, etc. Of course, it's an incredibly stupid example, because Obama didn't say he wouldn't meet with Iranian leaders. He said he wouldn't meet with "Ahmadinejad before we know he's actually in power"... which is a *very* different thing from "I will not meet with Ahmadinejad".
Nice try, though. So we now have two (2) examples of Obama's supposed flip flopping: his position on NASA (though, IMHO, that's a simple matter of a re-evaluated position), and FISA (which I concede was an ugly change of position). Got anything else?
FISA I consider an unpleasant compromise. Yes, I realize that's an excuse and a rationalization, but without knowing the thought processes that went on behind the decision, I'm not sure I'm in a position to judge. Still, good example, I'll concede that point.
On offshore drilling, Obama said: "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."
That, to me, sounds like a reasonable, nuanced position from a man willing to hear both sides and be flexible in order to solve a problem. That's a *good* thing, damn it! Again, I get it, you're used to "the decider", but FFS, there's a difference between flip-flopping and compromising.
Regarding Iran, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I've searched for articles in the past couple months on Google regarding Obama and Iran, but I saw nothing that indicated a drastic position change. Got a citation?
Oh, it wouldn't be such a big deal if it were only one or two things
So what *other* things has he changed his mind on that make you believe he's simply pandering?
The rest of your post is a non-sequitor. Take it somewhere else, it's off topic.
You have no idea what facts/information he had before his decision, and what facts/information he has now. Unless you're inside Obama's head, your presumption that he's pandering is just that, a presumption, and a partisan one at that.
but this is a clear case of (2)
Funny, it looked like a clear case of 3 to me. Gotta love those partisan glasses... they colour everything, don't they?
I know this is hard to understand after 8 years of "the decider", but, this is *exactly* when you want him to open his mind and alter his positions. Right now, he is, in theory, pounding the campaign trail and, *gasp*, listening to people. Did it occur to you that, during such bouts of listening, he might've actually changed his mind on one or two things?
Every couple of weeks the ideas change.
Citation needed. Other than his position on NASA, which changed months ago (this is only a minor evolution in his most recent position), I can't think of any specific examples to support your claim (not that they don't exist, I just can't think of any). Can you?
Yes, because no corporation can possibly two do things at the same time...
The IR blasters are not reliable and the cable companies will not activate the serial port on that back.
Really? Weird. I have my Myth box configured with two SD tuners hooked up to a pair of Motorola STBs, driven with blasters from irblaster.info, and in the two years the system has been running it has never, repeat, *never* missed a tune. Ever. And I record a lot of crap. :)
For HD (if I ever upgrade), I'll go with the exact same setup, just using one of the new HD component capture devices that've hit the market in the last six months.
Or to put it another way a Libertarian is very likely to support the logic of emmision controls that work because you DONT have the right to produce nox that I (a libertarian) might be forced to breath to my detriment.
No, that's what *your* brand of "libertarianism" means to you. Another libertarian would scream that emission controls are evil government regulation that place an undo burden on competition by creating barriers of entry to the market, artificially raising prices while reducing competition. Competition that would magically solve the problem if we would just let the invisible hand do it's thing, because people would simply choose to buy cleaner cars if they were made available.
Of course, that's all a silly fantasy, but that's really my whole point.
The budget is Congress' fault, not the President's.
And what's your point? For most of the last 8 years, congress has been run by the neocons, and they've basically done whatever the president wants.
I mean, you aren't really so deluded as to believe that Bush would've cut spending had a line item veto been an option, are you? I mean, the tax cuts in the face of a massive war budget were his idea!
The Libertarians care about you
Oh please. The libertarians don't care about you because if you don't have the means to take care of yourself, tough shit, get out of the pool.