Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
When Obama talks change; he's really talking about his mind
Topic Started: Nov 17 2008, 03:07 PM (424 Views)
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Nov 17 2008, 05:40 PM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 05:32 PM
Dandandat
Nov 17 2008, 04:44 PM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 04:37 PM
Dwayne
Nov 17 2008, 03:07 PM
Looks like Obama is changing his tune on missile defense... it must have been one helleva security briefing Pres. Bush gave Obama last week... Or he's been replaced with a look-alike.
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind, would you prefer a President who rigidly sticks to everything said before the election regardless of anything learned after the election?
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind

would you prefer a president who lied about his stand point on various issues in order to make himself more electable?
Interesting. So ifa President learns something he didn't know before and changes his stance accordingly, that somehow means he lied? Please explain.
No a President who learns something he didn't know before than changes his stance accordingly has not lied when he changes his stance.
I'm glad we're in agreement about that.

Quote:
 
Nor did I say that.
That's correct you didn't. But you did reply to me and so either it's what you meant or I don't see how your comments have relevance to what I asked. So I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming your question had relevance. However, if you were simply looking for an answer to you question, my answer is "no".

Quote:
 
However a president who lied about his stance during a presidential election, in order to become more electable, who than amends his perversely (lied bout) stance once he is elected, has lied.
I agree, but so what? Is this related to Obama somehow?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Nov 17 2008, 06:00 PM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 05:32 PM
Interesting. So if a President learns something he didn't know before and changes his stance accordingly, that somehow means he lied? Please explain.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

My oh my - how quickly things are "changing".

I just don't see "Obama lied and we got a missile defense program" catching on.

I find it extremely unlikely that Obama knows anything relevant to this topic now that he did not know prior to November 4th. Now that he's elected he can allow common sense to take over.

Who's keeping the list of broken campaign promises, or would that just be petty? Something akin to, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."

According to the talking heads in the media, the next item on any such list will be closing Gitmo.
"Without even getting into whether he changed his mind..."

Hmm, it seems to me I heard that somewhere before. :headscratch: Oh, that's right, I said it!

Yet you're arguing with me from one side of that very point as though I had something to say about it.

I didn't.

But since you brought it up, you might try answering that point both Minuet and STC made because I haven't seen evidence of any change of mind either. In fact, his position seems consistent.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
"I actually believe that we need missile defense because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons."

vs

He says he will cut spending on unproven missile defence systems.
As opposed to proven missile defense systems?

Quote:
 
While expressing concern that such a program might not work, he also has said that it makes sense to "explore the possibility of deploying missile defense systems in Europe
Something that's not yet fully invented and tested might not work?

In summary, (paraphrasing), "We need them, but they might not work, so let's cut spending on them." Huh?


Quote:
 
He also says he will not weaponise space (presumably referring to 'Star Wars').
Aren't missile defense systems currently in development ground based anyways? Are we even close to weaponizing space? Unless I'm mistaken, he might as well have told us that he wasn't going to weaponize other galaxies.

Also, is this a partial or full list of places he won't weaponize? What about the moon, other planets, Mt. Rushmore, my backyard? :P


You did make a few accurate points.
- Yes, the quote WAS from the article.
- Yes, what you quoted WAS in the video clip
- True, we cannot confirm that Gates speaks for Obama.

On THOSE three points I have no disagreement. ;)

:P
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

RTW,

Since when does "cut spending on" equal "eliminate"? There's no contradiction there. Saying we're spending too much money on it is completely different from saying we should spend no money on it.

Are you suggesting that we should continue to spend $4,000 for those hammers too that we have heard about or wouldn't you agree that maybe $10 would get you exactly the same thing...? You see? I could completely favor the idea of buying and using a hammer AND suggest that we cut spending on the hammer by $3,990 without a contradiction...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Since I never said "eliminate", nor mentioned $4,000 hammers, your response is nothing more than a "straw man" argument.

Is this level of discourse we can look forward to for the next four years?

Are you suggesting that we only cut spending on $4,000 hammers in the missile defense program? Why would you suggest that $4,000 hammers in other programs are okay? :P
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 10:49 PM
Dandandat
Nov 17 2008, 05:40 PM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 05:32 PM
Dandandat
Nov 17 2008, 04:44 PM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 04:37 PM
Dwayne
Nov 17 2008, 03:07 PM
Looks like Obama is changing his tune on missile defense... it must have been one helleva security briefing Pres. Bush gave Obama last week... Or he's been replaced with a look-alike.
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind, would you prefer a President who rigidly sticks to everything said before the election regardless of anything learned after the election?
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind

would you prefer a president who lied about his stand point on various issues in order to make himself more electable?
Interesting. So ifa President learns something he didn't know before and changes his stance accordingly, that somehow means he lied? Please explain.
No a President who learns something he didn't know before than changes his stance accordingly has not lied when he changes his stance.
I'm glad we're in agreement about that.

Quote:
 
Nor did I say that.
That's correct you didn't. But you did reply to me and so either it's what you meant or I don't see how your comments have relevance to what I asked. So I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming your question had relevance. However, if you were simply looking for an answer to you question, my answer is "no".

Quote:
 
However a president who lied about his stance during a presidential election, in order to become more electable, who than amends his perversely (lied bout) stance once he is elected, has lied.
I agree, but so what? Is this related to Obama somehow?
Come now IE, don’t insult both of our intelligence by pretending you didn't understand the relevance of my comment.

But here it is anyway.

Just as surely as you can assume Obama changed his mind based on new evidence; others can assume he never changed his mind but was only lying about his previous stance in order to appear more electable.

Since you have no way of reading the mans mind, nor where your privy to insider campaign information you could not make a case for either one being true or false. There for it is up to the individual to make the best educated guess they can on the matter and form an opinion.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Nov 18 2008, 01:21 AM
Since I never said "eliminate", nor mentioned $4,000 hammers, your response is nothing more than a "straw man" argument.
Really? So then why are these two things at odds?

RTW quoting two parts from the article
 
"I actually believe that we need missile defense because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons."

vs

He says he will cut spending on unproven missile defence systems.


And anyway, if you didn't mean "eliminate", please do explain why you think Obama has changed his mind then. :shrug:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Nov 18 2008, 09:42 AM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 10:49 PM
Dandandat
Nov 17 2008, 05:40 PM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 05:32 PM
Dandandat
Nov 17 2008, 04:44 PM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 04:37 PM
Dwayne
Nov 17 2008, 03:07 PM
Looks like Obama is changing his tune on missile defense... it must have been one helleva security briefing Pres. Bush gave Obama last week... Or he's been replaced with a look-alike.
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind, would you prefer a President who rigidly sticks to everything said before the election regardless of anything learned after the election?
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind

would you prefer a president who lied about his stand point on various issues in order to make himself more electable?
Interesting. So ifa President learns something he didn't know before and changes his stance accordingly, that somehow means he lied? Please explain.
No a President who learns something he didn't know before than changes his stance accordingly has not lied when he changes his stance.
I'm glad we're in agreement about that.

Quote:
 
Nor did I say that.
That's correct you didn't. But you did reply to me and so either it's what you meant or I don't see how your comments have relevance to what I asked. So I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming your question had relevance. However, if you were simply looking for an answer to you question, my answer is "no".

Quote:
 
However a president who lied about his stance during a presidential election, in order to become more electable, who than amends his perversely (lied bout) stance once he is elected, has lied.
I agree, but so what? Is this related to Obama somehow?
Come now IE, don’t insult both of our intelligence by pretending you didn't understand the relevance of my comment.

But here it is anyway.

Just as surely as you can assume Obama changed his mind based on new evidence; others can assume he never changed his mind but was only lying about his previous stance in order to appear more electable.

Since you have no way of reading the mans mind, nor where your privy to insider campaign information you could not make a case for either one being true or false. There for it is up to the individual to make the best educated guess they can on the matter and form an opinion.


Oh, was that your point? Sorry to tell you, but I wasn't pretending anything. You're point wasn't clear at all. You simply presented an opposing point to the one I made. Why would I not assume that IT was your point instead of what you are now saying that EITHER could be correct.

Anyway, yes you are right, we can't know and are each left to our own assessment of what's the "truth". Or, alternatively, we can simply remain at "I don't know" which is where I personally prefer to stand until there is evidence to support one side or the other.

This thread, however, doesn't remain at "I don't know". It takes an obvious "flip-flopping" side. Regardless of whether the source of the "flip-flopping" is from lying or really changing his mind, it has a negative tone. So I merely pointed out there are other reasonable conclusions from the currently available information.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Nov 18 2008, 10:29 AM
Dandandat
Nov 18 2008, 09:42 AM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 10:49 PM
Dandandat
Nov 17 2008, 05:40 PM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 05:32 PM
Dandandat
Nov 17 2008, 04:44 PM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 04:37 PM
Dwayne
Nov 17 2008, 03:07 PM
Looks like Obama is changing his tune on missile defense... it must have been one helleva security briefing Pres. Bush gave Obama last week... Or he's been replaced with a look-alike.
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind, would you prefer a President who rigidly sticks to everything said before the election regardless of anything learned after the election?
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind

would you prefer a president who lied about his stand point on various issues in order to make himself more electable?
Interesting. So ifa President learns something he didn't know before and changes his stance accordingly, that somehow means he lied? Please explain.
No a President who learns something he didn't know before than changes his stance accordingly has not lied when he changes his stance.
I'm glad we're in agreement about that.

Quote:
 
Nor did I say that.
That's correct you didn't. But you did reply to me and so either it's what you meant or I don't see how your comments have relevance to what I asked. So I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming your question had relevance. However, if you were simply looking for an answer to you question, my answer is "no".

Quote:
 
However a president who lied about his stance during a presidential election, in order to become more electable, who than amends his perversely (lied bout) stance once he is elected, has lied.
I agree, but so what? Is this related to Obama somehow?
Come now IE, don’t insult both of our intelligence by pretending you didn't understand the relevance of my comment.

But here it is anyway.

Just as surely as you can assume Obama changed his mind based on new evidence; others can assume he never changed his mind but was only lying about his previous stance in order to appear more electable.

Since you have no way of reading the mans mind, nor where your privy to insider campaign information you could not make a case for either one being true or false. There for it is up to the individual to make the best educated guess they can on the matter and form an opinion.


Oh, was that your point? Sorry to tell you, but I wasn't pretending anything. You're point wasn't clear at all. You simply presented an opposing point to the one I made. Why would I not assume that IT was your point instead of what you are now saying that EITHER could be correct.

Anyway, yes you are right, we can't know and are each left to our own assessment of what's the "truth". Or, alternatively, we can simply remain at "I don't know" which is where I personally prefer to stand until there is evidence to support one side or the other.

This thread, however, doesn't remain at "I don't know". It takes an obvious "flip-flopping" side. Regardless of whether the source of the "flip-flopping" is from lying or really changing his mind, it has a negative tone. So I merely pointed out there are other reasonable conclusions from the currently available information.
Since this is not a court of law, nor will there ever be "smoking gun" evidence to prove one side or the other; than it would be unsatisfactory to remain in an "I don't know" state indefinitely.

The very nature of the presidency breeds a lot of "I don’t knows" doe to national security concerns, yet we as the people are still obligated to judge the performance of the president in these matters. It would be remiss to remain in a constant "I don’t know" state.

Whom ever becomes president accepts that certain level of "personal unfairness" when they decided to be president.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Maybe for you, but not for me. I always maintain an open mind so "I don't know" in the absence of proof is just fine for me. I find it reasonable to draw tentative conclusions when there is substantial evidence which falls short of proof, but in this case I don't even see that much. But those tentative conclusions still amount to "I don't know" if they aren't actual conclusions.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
What I have to ask, in regards to "change," is why Obama is using so many Clinton castoffs?

Is Obama over his head (needing to bring in experienced folks) or was this the original plan?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 18 2008, 05:07 PM
What I have to ask, in regards to "change," is why Obama is using so many Clinton castoffs?

Is Obama over his head (needing to bring in experienced folks) or was this the original plan?


I tend to think you're right about the second statement, Admiral. Being president of the US and having to deal with the real-world challenges that await him, is quite a bit different than running a smooth election campaign and working the media.

I hear now that Hillary may reject the S. of State offer. That's kind of interesting.






Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
See, this is why being a member of the party out of power can be fun.

How many people didn't vote against Hillary as much as they voted against "the Clintons"? Remember, in the primaries, the actual influence of Hillary in her husband's presidency was put down by all her rivals, including Obama. So, when people voted "against the Clinton's", they weren't voting against her as much as the whole package.

Had I voted against Hillary, I would be asking now why I bothered. So far it is looking like Clinton's third term ... and I am not alone in that opinion.

This is going to be fun. :loling:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus