Maybe it takes more than looking like a TV president to be one?

He is evolving alright. It used to take him an entire day to flip-flop on an issue. Now he can do it in the same sentence.

 

The left needs to tread carefully in the flip-flop issue considering BO's record & all the video evidence available. We've all seen the loops of BO taking vastly different views on a myriad of subjects.

 

Nonsense! I believe that views can change over time and should if new information comes to light or a situation evolves but Romney changes his mind based on the very next poll. He is so plastic that he makes Al Gore seem like a gold medal winning Olympic gymnast.

 

If you give an example of an Obama flip-flop, I'm sure I could find an honest and reasonable reason why he did, since the President explains the "why"s much more reasonably than Mitt's "I need to win the support of such and such" reasonings. Again, it comes down to questions like What is the context? and What is the reason behind the change in position? It's important to understand why someone changes their mind on something.

 

The one I see played most often is his condemnation of Bush & calling him unpatriotic for borrowing from China & adding $4t to the debt then doing the exact same thing when he became president. Remember that one? Oh, that was good.
Or what about condemning water boarding but then taking credit for the results it produced? Need more? Gitmo just had to be closed down when he was a candidate but as president it somehow became vital to our national security. Ready for another? He aggressively protested the USA Patriot Act but what did he do? Yep, decided to keep it as law......and these are just a couple off the top of my head!

 

Is this about a pre-President Obama called Jr. unpatriotic for Jr.'s tax-breaks to the wealthy, that were paid for by borrowing from the Chinese? I'm not disagreeing that the essence of this is true, but I want to see the actual words for clarity. I will say Jr. apparently didn't have the cost of the Iraq occupation on the budget, borrowing the money from China, whereas at least Obama had the sense to add it to the budget and let the chips fall where they may. But then again, Obama didn't start the occupation and had no need to attempt to hide the costs from the American people either. Overall, my inquiry favors Obama on this one, but not by a landslide. I'd prefer we didn't borrow from China at all, but we've been forced to by the bickering between the Republicans and the Democrats, who are more intent on gaining popular support than working together sensibly.

That's a biiig bit of a stretch to say. I haven't heard Obama gloating about successful results the way you make it sound. I have heard statements that such and such was accomplished, but I didn't see him trying to take credit. It's also debateable about when and where the actionable info came from, and in either case, that info came from the same personnel. Neither President truly deserves the credit, it's not theirs to take. As for water-boarding, we'll probably never agree on most issues concerning it's use.

From day one the information about "closing Gitmo" has been inaccurately reported. Every now and then someone will mention the fact that Gitmo was never actually going to close, only that the detainees there would be moved to another area, in America or elsewhere. Obama never said he wanted to leave Cuba, to decommision the base there or whatever you'd call it. The detainees however, have been treated differently than under Jr., and that has got some Republicans angry. So when Obama says Gitmo is vital to our national security, that it's location is vital, that it's role is vital, those angry Republicans can't see the difference, they forget the facts... if they even looked for them in the first place.

Notes: The U.N. has called for the closing of the detention camp at Gitmo. Camp X-Ray, one of three detainee camps on the base, was closed in 2002. There are still about 170 detainees at Gitmo.

Yep, this one I can agree with you on. I despise the Patriot Act, even the very name of it lol ...that goes for "Homeland Security" too... I mean, who wrote these titles? A god-fearin', apple-pie-eatin', good ol' country-boy? ...(thinks about it)... Yeah, I guess one did lol

 

I have no idea why you cannot do your own searching, but here;

 

If your definition of flip-flopping is condemning deficit spending and then voting for deficit spending, then pretty much everyone running for POTUS is a flip-flopper. They all condemn it and they all do it. If you have to broaden the meaning of flip-flopping on an issue to the point of including everyone, it really isn't all that deep of an observation.
BTW They all claim to want bi-partisanship, they claim to come from the political center, many will claim that God wanted them to run, even more claim that more than anything the American people are crying out for a candidate just like them, and they certainly are all just like you and me. If you can find any other politician that switches his beliefs as frequently and exactly 180 degrees in the other direction as Mitt, I'd like you to post a video of that guy as well.

 

Guess again:

 

I see a video link with Obama's mug and a timer that says "zero", and I don't click on video links anyway anymore... so how does that prove your point? What are you saying I'm incorrect about? Be specific.

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see. It is a film clip of BO saying he intends to close GITMO and he intends to follow trough on it. AKA - PROOF!

 

In the video, Obama says, "I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo and I will follow through on that". That's about as straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak) as it gets. Is that plain enough?

 

I agree, the whole bs about closing "Gitmo" was to cater to demands from dumb people. He never should have went along with it. That he hasn't is no surprise to me... I knew it was a non-starter when the debate about it first began. But really, how big a deal is this to you guys anyway? After all, there were efforts by his administration to close it, but that was obviously doomed from the start. My issue with Obama on that is that he should have realized that too, that he should have come to the decision of not listening to idiots. So yeah, you got a point... but it's kind of a small one in my book.

 

I understand that everyone has their opinions and ideas, but the fact is everyone changes their minds, I bet most of you have changed your mind on a subject. So, if a president, any president compromises on a bill, they are flip-flopping according to many of the people that accuse others of flip-flopping. Now I saw Romney interviewed on one of the political shows this weekend. I am not for him, but what he said made sense to me. He said each state should be allowed to decide what type of health care system they choose. He also said the mandate he passed in Mass. was good for that state and a model for other states. Now that makes sense. He said he was against mandates, but each state had to decide for themselves. Now my real problem with Romney is he does not understand the everyday America and is more for big business than for the everyday American, as I think most republicans are. I do think he says what people want to hear, which is common among politicians. I do not see anything the republicans are putting out there is a viable option to our troubles.

Now Obama has stopped the bleeding that was caused by the Bush administration. Anyone that argues with that is just wrong. Not only has Obama stopped the country from imploding, is is slowly starting to rebuild itself and the economy has been growing. So what he did is working. If the economy was crashing when Obama took over and it is now growing, how can anyone say that what he has done is not working?

I understand some here just hate Obama with a passion, but you cannot argue the facts. Now once the economy completely recovers and it is headed in that direction, then Obama can work on the deficit, social security, medicare, government pension and all the other important issues that can help this country in the future. We cannot start doing these things until the country recovers from this recession. If we do, then the country could get into more trouble. Why can's people see that?

Now someone can go on a tangent about a totally different subject so they can rant about how bad Obama is now, well he is a heck of a lot better than Newt. Does anyone remember when Newt was speaker of the house? It was a disaster.

 

Just what part of the economy is improving? The latest unemployment numbers shows nothing more than people going off the employment rolls because they cannot find a job. As far as Newt's "disaster" goes, I guess the economy is of no interest to you. I seen to remember low unemployment, welfare reform, balanced budgets, people were optimistic about the US and its economy.

BTW, I have no animus for BO as a person, but I find almost nothing he stands for and has done to be remotely palatable to me.

 

So with the unemployment going down, the economy growing and jobs being produced each month, that is not a sign. Your argument has just failed with those statistics. When Obama took over, the country was losing 750,000 or more, jobs a month and the economy was about to crash.

As for Newt, I gues you don't remember who was president then do you? Many of the people that worked with Newt in congress don't want him to get the nomination because they know how he was as a congressman. That should tell you something now shouldn't it.

And I see it is what Obama can do for you that matters. Well, I am a little more concerned about him improving the country, not just me. What is really your complaint? That he is not doing it fast enough or not doing things for you personally?

 

So with the unemployment going down,- because people have stopped looking for jobs. Go read the statistics in stead of listening to the headlines.
the economy growing and jobs being produced each month, - but the population is growing faster

As for Newt, just what laws does the president pass? Which budget did he vote into effect?

 

First of all, I don't even know what your Newt statement is trying to say. Secondly, you are right, we are not producing enough jobs to stay up with the population growth, but jobs are being created now aren't they. Not like it was, but hey, who cares how it was right, I just want to argue about the Obama not doing anything and everything he does is wrong. Well the facts are the facts now aren't they. Use all the excuses you want, but yes the statistics show that the economy is growing, unemployment is going down and jobs are being created. How much do you want to bet that you would be using statistics if the statistics were showing all these things going badly. As for headlines, the media is not biased, now is it? I actually know how to read, and what I read is that the facts are this economy is in better shape now then it was when Obama took over.

 

He flip-flopped on Gitmo.

That's your response? He "catered to demands from dumb people"? That's an honest and reasonable reason?

Not only did Obama promise to close Gitmo:

"As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists".*

, but in January, 2009 he halted military trials against the detainees:

President-elect Obama's advisers are crafting plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and prosecute terrorism suspects in the U.S., a plan the Bush administration said Monday was easier said than done. Under the plan being crafted inside Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and others would be charged in U.S. courts, where they would receive constitutional rights and open trials.**


, however in March, 2009 he reversed (flip-flopped, if you will) that order:

President Obama on Monday reversed his two-year-old order halting new military charges against detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, permitting military trials to resume with revamped procedures but implicitly admitting the failure of his pledge to close the prison camp.***

Now, you can refer to the Supreme Court as "dumb people" also (that's your prerogative), but Obama himself agreed with their decision concerning military detainees:

President Obama says Guantanamo should be closed and habeas corpus (AP) should be restored for the detainees. He says the United States should have “developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.”


In June 2008, Obama praised a Supreme Court decision allowing Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their detention in civilian courts. He called the ruling "an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus."


In February 2008, Obama criticized the prosecution of six Guantanamo detainees charged with involvement in the 9/11 attacks. He said the trials are "too important to be held in a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges". Instead, Obama said, the men should be tried in a U.S. criminal court or by a military court-martial.****



* http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/07/obama-guantanamo.html
** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/obama-plans-guantanamo-cl_n_142593.html
*** http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/w...namo.html?_r=1&ref=guantanamobaynavalbasecuba
**** http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/u...tml?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

Eric, with all due respect, when RLM states that "unemployment is down because people have stopped looking for jobs" it's the absolute truth. One need only look at the statistics and not the spin being touted by the administration:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm

As you can see from this table, those persons who have given up seeking employment has INCREASED, but are not included in the unemployment totals the administration refers to. If these totals were accurately portrayed, the unemployment rate would reflect a true depiction as having INCREASED. But, you won't hear that from the administration.