• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Change?

Texan

Well-known member
Barnes: Obama's Tack to the Center

Barack Obama's tack to the center is quite clever for three reasons (and maybe more, but three is all I could think of). One, it may cause moderate and centrist voters to feel more comfortable about voting for him. That's the big one. Two, he's better off being attacked by John McCain as a flip-flopper than as an unrepentant liberal. And three, he gave up practically nothing in the process. The tack to the middle has been mostly a fuzzy feint that didn't lock him into any new positions.

Start with Iraq. He says he'll consult the generals before ordering troop withdrawals. No kidding! Any president would do that. The only new thing in his formulation on ending the war is that "stability" would be a consideration. But of course "stability" is a vague concept. Stability in Iraq in January 2009 will be in the eye of the beholder.

Obama's Iraq problem will come later in the campaign after his promised visit to Iraq. He'll find, contrary to his assurances last year that the surge would fail militarily and politically, that the civil war is over, al Qaeda largely beaten, and the Maliki government considerably less sectarian and dysfunctional than it had been. That's likely to be the reality that Obama will have to adjust to.

On several issues, Obama has given, then taken away. He endorsed a faith-based initiative, but said the religious organizations that accept federal funds can't discriminate in hiring. That's a killer condition, sure to drive most of them away. Religious groups, more often than not, insist on hiring co-religionists.

Obama told AIPAC, the pro-Israel group, that he favors an "undivided" Jerusalem. The next day, he took that away. On abortion, he said mental distress shouldn't be grounds for a late-term abortion, but he offered no path to instituting that change in the law. Then, not unexpectedly, he retreated from that position.

Commenting on Supreme Court decisions was the safest means for Obama to drift to the center. He said he supported the court's striking down of most of the District of Columbia's gun ban, but didn't say what sort of gun control legislation he might propose. He disagreed with the 5-4 decision to bar the death penalty for child rapists without revealing what he thought about the court's reasoning.

What have I left out? Obama said last week that he's patriotic, no matter what anyone says. This is largely a straw man. Of course he's a patriot. That's a given. Questions were raised, however, about his removal of an American flag pin from his lapel, but he provoked those by claiming he didn't want to project a false patriotism.

Anyway, bottom line: Obama is a very smart politician and an impressive candidate who wisely is trying to minimize his political vulnerabilities.

Posted by Fred Barnes on July 6, 2008 05:40 PM



http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_tacks_to_the_center_1.asp
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
He can not even take a stand on how to accessories, first he was for the lapel flag pin, then against it, and now he is back to wearing it.

Guess he had to take it off on his trip to the we hate America far left side, but now that he is heading to the right he put it back on.

I have to hand it to the man he is a smart POLITICIAN! Gets the media in his pocket then flips all over the place like a perch on the bank, and the media does nothing to point it out.
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
He can not even take a stand on how to accessories, first he was for the lapel flag pin, then against it, and now he is back to wearing it.

Guess he had to take it off on his trip to the we hate America far left side, but now that he is heading to the right he put it back on.

I have to hand it to the man he is a smart POLITICIAN! Gets the media in his pocket then flips all over the place like a perch on the bank, and the media does nothing to point it out.

Awww. Aren't you sweet. Worrying about Obama's jewlery. :wink:

The media has been all over his comments about "refining" his Iraqi policy. :roll: He stood up to those stories well, I think.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
He took a typical politician's stance where he isn't pinned down on anything. He can pull the troops out and then claim, "I told you I was going to pull them out" or he can to something totally different and then he says, "I told you I was going to continually refine my policies". He's not telling us a dang thing about what he plans on doing. That tells me that he has no idea on what to do.

Typical politician. Change my fat......
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
He took a typical politician's stance where he isn't pinned down on anything. He can pull the troops out and then claim, "I told you I was going to pull them out" or he can to something totally different and then he says, "I told you I was going to continually refine my policies". He's not telling us a dang thing about what he plans on doing. That tells me that he has no idea on what to do.

Typical politician. Change my fat......

Wrong. He still says the troops will come out of Iraq. The "refining" is the rate of pulling out. He's said he wants to pull out so many a month and that will take 16 (I think) months. But he needs to talk to the military and see if that it can be done quicker or if it's going to take 19 or 24 months. And with the Iraqi Prime Minister saying they won't sign a status of forces agreement without a withdrawal timetable, it may be a moot point anyway. :D
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0353522920080707?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
It's time you neocons begin to understand a little bit about the law. The article quoted is covered under copyright law. I notified the Standard that you are using their article, intact and without commentary, in violation of that copyright law.

Before you guys quote another article, you might familiarize yourself with the concept of Fair Use.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Maybe you and OT could start your own internet police and track down all the violations. Now all you have to do is figure out who is going to bring the donuts.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
It's time you neocons begin to understand a little bit about the law. The article quoted is covered under copyright law. I notified the Standard that you are using their article, intact and without commentary, in violation of that copyright law.

Before you guys quote another article, you might familiarize yourself with the concept of Fair Use.

Would that not also apply to all the pictures you have posted on here?
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
No. Public domain photos are not copyrighted, by definition.

copying and pasting an article, in its entirety is a violation of federal copyright law and will create liability for the host of the web site. Even if the web site perseveres in such a suit, the legal fees are typically 5 figures. The fees are generally paid by the owner of the web site AND the company that provides hosting services for that web site.

copying and pasting an article, in its entirety without attribution is plagiarism and is intellectually dishonest. How about you googling fair use laws?
 

Texan

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
It's time you neocons begin to understand a little bit about the law. The article quoted is covered under copyright law. I notified the Standard that you are using their article, intact and without commentary, in violation of that copyright law.

Before you guys quote another article, you might familiarize yourself with the concept of Fair Use.


yawn.gif



==============================================


Obama, Unrepentent Flip-Flopper

Charges of flip-flopping do play a big role--perhaps too much--in the rapid response operations of both campaigns. There are obviously a lot of reasons a candidate might alter his position that have nothing to do with political opportunism. After 9/11, for example, President Bush's foreign policy changed in a dramatic way. I don't think anyone--save perhaps Ron Paul--implored President Bush on 9/12 to stick with the neo-isolationist talking points of his campaign. Flip-flopping is very relevant, however, when it demonstrates a candidate either doesn't know what he believes or is willing to set aside any conviction for political advancement.

In Obama's case, I'm not sure which is true, but it is patently obvious from the speed and frequency with which his flip-flops seem to come that principle is not playing any role. Just consider his evolution in a single month: Obama opposed welfare reform, and now he supports it. Obama supported the D.C. handgun ban, and now he believes it was unconstitutional. Obama said he would accept public financing, and now he won't. Obama opposed immunity for telecommunications companies involved in terrorist surveillance, and now he supports it. Obama opposed the death penalty in all cases, and now believes it is justified in certain extreme instances. Obama supported immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and now he'll listen to the commanders on the ground if they tell him to phase out the troops slowly.

Nothing has fundamentally changed with any of these issues. The only thing that has changed is that Obama became the presumptive nominee. Andrew Sullivan says, "Sometimes a flip-flop is a sign of real maturity in a politician responding to new events or facts." That's only true however, when a candidate acknowledges and explains why he's changing.

Principle plays no role when the pol instead self-righteously asserts that there has been no change at all. Principle doesn't play a role when a candidate claims that everyone simply misunderstood his previous position--as with the meaning of "negotiate with Iran without precondition"--even when the misperception was widely reported and the candidate did nothing to correct it for many months. Aside from charging the other side with flip-flopping, one other job typically assigned to a campaign's war-room is correcting media reports that mischaracterize their candidate's position. That Obama's staff was apparently sitting on its hands shows Obama either meant what he said or wanted people to believe that he did.

Posted by Jaime Sneider on July 3, 2008 11:10 AM



http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_unrepentent_flipflopper_1.asp
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
© Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Newscorp.com will process notices of alleged infringement which it receives and will take appropriate actions as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws.
You claim to be a friend? Why do you put your "friend" in jeopardy?
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
© Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Newscorp.com will process notices of alleged infringement which it receives and will take appropriate actions as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws.
You claim to be a friend? Why do you put your "friend" in jeopardy?

Why are you trying to get the site shut down?
Personal revenge?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
I notified the Standard that you are using their article, intact and without commentary, in violation of that copyright law.

Tattle tell!

You always hit me as that type of tattle tell kid in school that no one wanted to play with so they told the teacher anytime someone broke a rule :roll:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
No. Public domain photos are not copyrighted, by definition.

So there is nothing wrong with posting pictures of the wild times that go on at your house? They are public domain? :wink:

Allthefun1.jpg
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
No sir, they are not. Unless you have my written permission which you do not, you are in violation of copyright law and I will turn it over to my attorney tomorrow morning. When Macon gets a letter containing a cease and desist order, who is to blame? Me? or YOU for publishing, without license, other peoples intellectual property?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
The media has been all over his comments about "refining" his Iraqi policy. :roll: He stood up to those stories well, I think.

Truthfully would you ever not agree with anything he says and not think he did a good job? You really are as party line as they come. What is it Obama voted something like 97% party line in Washington? No wonder he is your man! :roll:
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
It is your choice, you can remove any of my photos from your posts and your computer, or I can begin formal legal action.

Your call.
 
Top