Seems there are some concerns among the liberal element of the Democrat Party. Barack Obama seems to be shifting some positions on several issues. Good or bad???
Interesting article. So much for "change", but as the guy says, 'Can you remember a time in, say the past 100 years, when the American people have rejected a presidential candidate because they thought that he was insufficiently left-wing?'
As for John McCain, nobody even pays any attention to him. He's just out there wishing he had the amount of news coverage Barack Obama has.
Barack Obama has changed some positions. I think he realized when he is in the position, some of these things like FISA, is a valuable tool to have. Anyone in the position of President wants all the power available to them.
As for withdrawing from Iraq, he doesn't want the distinction of leaving too early and losing what has been gained.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Oil production from Iraq is just now about the same as when we invaded 5 years ago.
World respect for the US down significantly
Terrorism in world increased since invasion
Citizens in Iraq have less electricity, less sanitary water, less municipal services than before we invaded
Billions and billions of US taxpayers dollars just ...missing
Hundreds of billions of US taxpayers dollars spent with only the death of a dictator to show for it
Entire Mid East less stable than before we invaded
According to several active US military commanders, the US military, including the National Guard, is strained to the breaking point. (Quotes regarding this have been posted here on AnswerPool.)
Iraqi citizens are still not as safe in the streets as they were before we invaded.
Iran emboldened by US weakness in Iraq, which has led to a strengthening of Iraqi Shi'a factions
al Qeada provided with on-the-job training for new recruits
Now easier for al Qeada to recruit new members than before
Somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis dead
Over 4000 US military killed ---------- Where on Earth do you get your information from, LR? Have you not paid attention to what has happened in the last 6 years? The "gains" you must see in Iraq don't even put Iraq back where it was before we invaded. If you go to a riverboat and lose $1000 in the first 4 hours, and then in the next hour win back $500, only a fool would regard that as being ahead, as gaining.
I can only assume that, when you say leaving Iraq too soon would lose what we have gained, that you mean that Saddam will rise from the dead, because his death is all we have gained from bush's war. I really don't think that will happen, but if it does, the US will be in a great deal of trouble, much more than now, thanks to your pals in the White House.
Posts: 17183 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I think he realized when he is in the position, some of these things like FISA, is a valuable tool to have.
Obama's switch was not about whether or not FISA is a useful tool, but about an amendment to FISA bill which would provide retroactive immunity to telephone companies who co-operated with Bush's pushing the legal envelope on phone-tapping.
Maybe it does, but we'll have to wait and see. Iraqi oil is just now getting up to the production levels that it had under Saddam. Before this, it was pretty much off the market, I think.
Posts: 17183 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
'Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.'Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back
'...the occupied Iraqi government is getting ready to sign contracts with ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and Total to assist in developing Iraq's vast oil fields, holding the world's third-largest reserves. Although the contracts are simply for services, not long-term production agreements, the contracts give the major oil companies a foot in the door.
That they are no-bid contracts given to these Western firms over Russian, Chinese and Indian competitors is exceptional and clearly a matter of an occupied government responding to pressure from the occupier.'Controlling Iraqi oil
It would maybe be morally correct for a future president to allow the Iraqi government to have a normal, open bidding process - but would it go down at all well in domestic political terms? As has been said, 'blood for oil' is bad enough, but 'blood for no oil'?
Very sweet of the Iraqis to offer no bid contracts to two American, two British (one, Shell, is now,strictly speaking, Anglo-Dutch and called Royal Dutch Shell) companies and a French company. There's no hard feelings about the French contribution to the invasion, then? No freedom fries now, just freedom oil ! The rationale is that Total SA had, historically, been involved in the Iraqi oil business as one of the four companies in the Iraq Oil Company.It's not a case of their,by chance, being there and helping the Iraqis for nothing over the past two years or so.
It was reported recently in the Economist or The Times ( I forget which) that the five companies had said no to the proposed deal (see NNN's second link above) because the contract wasn't long enough (two years according to the link); five years would not be enough. Cynics may see their intransigeance as based on more than an interest in repairing and developing the infrastructure.After all, pre-Saddam's nationalisation of the business, four of them owned the oil company of Iraq.
"I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfaree. Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation because I think it had some problems."
~ Barack Obama, May 31, 1997
This is the same guy whose new "moving to the center" ad touts his support of welfare reform? Welfare reform was a Republican measure, signed into law by Bill Clinton, which ultimately required conformance action at the state level.
Posts: 7850 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
Was that welfare reform of the 90s the only method of reform, or are there better ways to lower the welfare rolls? This is basically like a false dilemma, either this or that. Reality usually has more choices, and Obama seems to recognize that with his statement.
By the way, one of the Republican measures in that reform was to stop paying for glasses for those on welfare. Recipients were required to try to get a job (which many were doing without being required), but sometimes, it may be a bit difficult to get a job if you can't see well enough to read or drive or etc. But we got them off welfare, and that's what's important!
Problems with welfare programs? Who said that?
Posts: 17183 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Is there a rule in American politics which reads " The Republicans' idea is always wrong" and another rule reading " The Democrats' idea is always wrong"? If Mr Obama or Mr McCain have it in mind not to be bound by such rules are they to be condemned, without more ado or a moment's thought ?
On U-turns and 'flip-flop' has nobody in modern politics heard of John Maynard Keynes' dictum? This question of U-turn or 'flip flop' is not new (and is a current obsession in our, British, politics). When J.M Keynes, the great economist, was accused of changing his thinking about government intervention in the economy of his day he replied "If the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"
Is there a rule in American politics which reads " The Republicans' idea is always wrong" and another rule reading " The Democrats' idea is always wrong"? If Mr Obama or Mr McCain have it in mind not to be bound by such rules are they to be condemned, without more ado or a moment's thought ?
Probably. There hasn't been an election yet. Wouldn't it be suicidal to be seen to be, for example, endorsing the opposing party's agenda? Of course your idea makes sense, a person should be able to change their way of thinking to fit a change in the situation, and be able to say so. It just seems to me, that American politics is too cutthroat for candidates to take a chance on being misconstrued as being indecisive.
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: "....and losing what has been gained."
What has been gained????
The List of Gains and Losses in Iraq
Gains We removed a dictator
Losses
Oil production from Iraq is just now about the same as when we invaded 5 years ago.
World respect for the US down significantly
Terrorism in world increased since invasion
Citizens in Iraq have less electricity, less sanitary water, less municipal services than before we invaded
Billions and billions of US taxpayers dollars just ...missing
Hundreds of billions of US taxpayers dollars spent with only the death of a dictator to show for it
Entire Mid East less stable than before we invaded
According to several active US military commanders, the US military, including the National Guard, is strained to the breaking point. (Quotes regarding this have been posted here on AnswerPool.)
Iraqi citizens are still not as safe in the streets as they were before we invaded.
Iran emboldened by US weakness in Iraq, which has led to a strengthening of Iraqi Shi'a factions
al Qeada provided with on-the-job training for new recruits
Now easier for al Qeada to recruit new members than before
Somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis dead
Over 4000 US military killed ---------- Where on Earth do you get your information from, LR? Have you not paid attention to what has happened in the last 6 years? The "gains" you must see in Iraq don't even put Iraq back where it was before we invaded. If you go to a riverboat and lose $1000 in the first 4 hours, and then in the next hour win back $500, only a fool would regard that as being ahead, as gaining.
I can only assume that, when you say leaving Iraq too soon would lose what we have gained, that you mean that Saddam will rise from the dead, because his death is all we have gained from bush's war. I really don't think that will happen, but if it does, the US will be in a great deal of trouble, much more than now, thanks to your pals in the White House.
And where is your head at DG??? Have YOU been paying any attention to the news lately??? Obviously not. You are still stuck in the time warp back 5 years ago.
You are so busy Bush-bashing, you probably haven't even noticed there is very little new news comes out of Iraq any more. The media is not interested in good news of progress, only bad news, which you seem to thrive on.
Here are some links to help you get up to speed...
DG-I hope this helps you get back into the program...that is if you can break away from your personal war against the President, long enough to do so. Because you like so many other Democrats don't care anything about the defense of the country or the war on terror, all you care about is trying to bring down George W. Bush.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Was that welfare reform of the 90s the only method of reform, or are there better ways to lower the welfare rolls? This is basically like a false dilemma, either this or that. Reality usually has more choices, and Obama seems to recognize that with his statement.
By the way, one of the Republican measures in that reform was to stop paying for glasses for those on welfare. Recipients were required to try to get a job (which many were doing without being required), but sometimes, it may be a bit difficult to get a job if you can't see well enough to read or drive or etc. But we got them off welfare, and that's what's important!
Problems with welfare programs? Who said that?
What was the point of ranting about all of that?
My only point was that Obama is taking credit for something he was clearly against.
When you personally recognized that a welfare recipient needed glasses, did you go out and buy some for him?
Posts: 7850 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
My point was that one can be for achieving a goal, but not for the method chosen. I think we'd all say that we'd like to have more money. That doesn't mean we should rob a bank to get it. -------- In a way, I did buy that welfare recipient glasses, Fuse. I was the recipient, and I had to wait a few months before I could afford a pair of $35 glasses. I was a single parent, full-time college student at the time, and glasses weren't the only thing I did without.
Posts: 17183 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
AnswerPool.com 
