obama

Wesley · Post by **Wesley** » June 20th, 2008, 2:13 pm

Out of curiosity, why doesn't the "blunder" bother you?

Truthfully, would the same blunder bother you if it had been McCain who said that and then went back on it? is it the blunder itself that doesn't bother you or are you not letting it bother you because you want to support this person?

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » June 20th, 2008, 2:34 pm

Wesley wrote:Out of curiosity, why doesn't the "blunder" bother you?

Truthfully, would the same blunder bother you if it had been McCain who said that and then went back on it? is it the blunder itself that doesn't bother you or are you not letting it bother you because you want to support this person?

It has nothing to do with "letting" myself do anything. I just don't care. It doesn't bother me. Pretty simple, really. There are issues that, if Obama were to reverse his stance on them, I would feel concerned or worried. But changing his mind about fundraising and claiming that he now believes the system is broken is not one of those issues for me. If it's a matter of concern for others, that's understandable. That's why I compared it to LOST. Some people have given up on LOST because of its various inconsistencies, but so far none of those inconsistencies have been significant enough to me for me to worry about the show or have my admiration for the show diminished. And even if it was McCain who told Charlie that his death would allow Claire to leave the island in a helicopter when it turned out that Claire didn't leave the island after all, I still wouldn't be bothered by it.

nadine · Post by **nadine** » June 20th, 2008, 2:56 pm

Arrrgh careful! no LOST spoilers! I haven't caught up on the episodes.

shando · Post by **shando** » June 20th, 2008, 3:07 pm

Charlie opts of of public funding......

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » June 20th, 2008, 3:12 pm

nadine wrote:Arrrgh careful! no LOST spoilers! I haven't caught up on the episodes.

My apologies! I'm a diarrhea person.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » June 23rd, 2008, 12:53 pm

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gHF ... 2dfM8pMlPQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Route_107
69, dude.

slappywhite · Post by **slappywhite** » June 23rd, 2008, 1:56 pm

nadine wrote:Arrrgh careful! no LOST spoilers! I haven't caught up on the episodes.

In the end you find out they're all people that have been helped by Dr. Sam Beckett, and they must work together to find a way to get him home.

Cue Music

York99 · Post by **York99** » June 23rd, 2008, 4:45 pm

slappywhite wrote:
nadine wrote:Arrrgh careful! no LOST spoilers! I haven't caught up on the episodes.
In the end you find out they're all people that have been helped by Dr. Sam Beckett, and they must work together to find a way to get him home.

Cue Music

Oh boy.

nadine · Post by **nadine** » July 2nd, 2008, 2:29 pm

Bah.

"Senator Barack Obamaâ€™s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administrationâ€™s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters. "

"During the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. But he has switched positions, and now supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership. The bill is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor next Tuesday. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/po ... 2fisa.html

mpbrockman · Post by **mpbrockman** » July 2nd, 2008, 3:14 pm

In Ohio, Obama pledges to expand faith-based initiatives.

Double Bah.

Serious about continuing to chip away at the wall of separation or just sucking evangelical c*ck? Either way - Bah and Bah.

Not happy.

shando · Post by **shando** » July 2nd, 2008, 3:18 pm

nadine wrote:Bah.

"Senator Barack Obamaâ€™s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administrationâ€™s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters. "

"During the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. But he has switched positions, and now supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership. The bill is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor next Tuesday. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/po ... 2fisa.html

Indeed. Bah.

kbadr · Post by **kbadr** » July 2nd, 2008, 3:24 pm

shando wrote:
nadine wrote:Bah.

"Senator Barack Obamaâ€™s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administrationâ€™s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters. "

"During the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. But he has switched positions, and now supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership. The bill is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor next Tuesday. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/po ... 2fisa.html
Indeed. Bah.

Change we could have all predicted...

York99 · Post by **York99** » July 2nd, 2008, 4:04 pm

nadine wrote:...and now supports a compromise...

That's exactly the "change" he's been promising: compromise.

I'm not for granting the telecom companies getting immunity and I don't know enough about the faith-based initiatives to comment, but I'm definitely against just digging in heels and continuing the partisanship. This compromise involved Democrats, so that's a pretty good start in my book.

shando · Post by **shando** » July 2nd, 2008, 4:30 pm

Yeah, let's not start talking about bipartisnaship as a good unto itself. People are partisan because they disagree about things, sometimes to the point that they aren't willing to compromise. There are a number of issues like that for me.

And, here's a nice little nugget from Salon's Glenn Greenwald about bipartisanship. Which party is it that has an intractable partisanship problem again?

In almost every case, the proposals that are enacted are ones favored by the White House and supported by all GOP lawmakers, and then Democrats split and enough of them join with Republicans to ensure that the GOP gets what it wants. That's "bipartisanhip" in Washington:

To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:

GOP - 48-0

Dems - 12-36

To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:

GOP - 0-49

Dems - 24-21

To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:

GOP - 46-0

Dems - 7-40

To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:

GOP - 49-0

Dems - 8-38

Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:

GOP - 46-2

Dems - 30-20

To condemn MoveOn.org:

GOP - 49-0

Dems - 23-25

The Protect America Act:

GOP - 44-0

Dems - 20-28

Declaring English to be the Government's official language:

GOP - 48-1

Dems - 16-33

The Military Commissions Act:

GOP - 53-0

Dems - 12-34

To renew the Patriot Act:

GOP - 54-0

Dems - 34-10

Cloture Vote on Sam Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court:

GOP - 54-0

Dems - 18-25

Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:

GOP - 48-1

Dems - 29-22

York99 · Post by **York99** » July 2nd, 2008, 4:39 pm

shando wrote: let's not start talking about bipartisnaship as a good unto itself.

While I may have chimed in before I was certain about my position there and I agree that bipartisanship isn't a good unto itself, the gridlock has to stop at some point. Politicians and their respective surrogates and talking heads come across as children...

...or perhaps staunch supporters of a sports team. And while the New Orleans Saints are a lock for the Super Bowl next season, it's gotten ridiculous in politics (or rather, it's never gotten UN-ridiculous).