Obama the Conservative

[Libsmasher]

From Times Online:

Last month he dropped his opposition to a Bill before Congress that would give telecoms companies immunity from prosecution for carrying out illegal wiretaps on potential terrorist suspects.

He told a cheering crowd of Israel's supporters of his fervent commitment to the security of the Jewish state and added, for good measure, that an “undivided” Jerusalem should be the nation's capital.

He said that he likes free trade after all, and that his primary campaign pledge to dismantle the North American Free Trade Agreement was a case of “overheated rhetoric”.

Last week he expressed support for a Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban on handguns and opposition to another that outlawed the death penalty for rape of a child.

This week he promised to expand President Bush's faith-based organisations initiative, a programme that channels funds to religious groups so that they can deliver social welfare services, which the Left regards as a heinous blurring of Church-State separation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4264994.ece

flip......flop.......flip.......flop.......flip........flop.......

 

[Federal Farmer]

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I bill goes in...you are against it


Bill is changed and things you did not like are taken out

thinks you liked added....

you are now for it...

is that a flip flop ? Or is that called how you make a bill and get it passed?

 

[Federal Farmer]

I bill goes in...you are against it


Bill is changed and things you did not like are taken out

thinks you liked added....

you are now for it...

is that a flip flop ? Or is that called how you make a bill and get it passed?

Were that this were the case, but alas, it is not. If it were, I would say that he's been doing his job, and got the Bill changed, yet nothing substantive about the Bill, or any of the other stances he's made have changed, ergo, flip-flop.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well since lib wants to make the charge, I would like to see him show me

1. where Obama attacked the faith base program

2. Where he was Against the Death penalty for Child rape

3. Where he was against the DC hand gun ban

4. Where he said he was against free trade and was going to dismantle NAFTA ( changing it to enforce rules more, or other things does not = dismantle, it means make it work better) I heard him talk alot about making it a more fair system, closing loopholes and such...never Dismantling it.

5. And as for the Bill, I know of some changes that have been made, but as to when they where made into the bill, and when he changed his mind I can't say so I dont know what ones I know of , it any of them are the reason for the change.

Some changes include provisions that make them have to get a warrant to look in on Americans overseas and other such changes...But I have not read the New Bill, or whole old one to Compare..And I am not going to yell Flip Flop when I don't think any of us know the changes made to the bill overall. If someone does I would love to hear them.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Well since lib wants to make the charge, I would like to see him show me

Before your points can be addressed, we must first see how or if your questions are in fact valid.

1. where Obama attacked the faith base program

Obama hasn't "attacked" faith based programs. What's odd about this is that the DNC has made it one of it's long held beliefs in the mythical "separation of church and state", and decried public funding of faith based programs at all. How is it then that a man who allegedly supports faith based programs was able to garner such a large amount of support from the DNC?

2. Where he was Against the Death penalty for Child rape

Obama has a long history of being "soft" on the death penalty. In his own book, he clearly states that the "rape and murder of a child" is sufficient grounds for the death penalty, but now it would appear that simply raping a child doesn't quite meet his standard.

3. Where he was against the DC hand gun ban

As an Illinois Senator, he was a member of the legislatures of one of the 2 States in the country that allowed a city to have a complete ban on handgun ownership. Oh sure, Chicago said that you could have one if you obtained a permit, but then they refused to issue any permits! As a primary example of his continual "flip-flop" on the issue of firearms, he has repeatedly stated that he supports the Second Amendment, yet he believes that cities and States had the right to "infringe" on those rights. A primary example of talking out of both sides of your face at the same time.

4. Where he said he was against free trade and was going to dismantle NAFTA ( changing it to enforce rules more, or other things does not = dismantle, it means make it work better) I heard him talk alot about making it a more fair system, closing loopholes and such...never Dismantling it.

Some of the changes that are being proposed, and supported by Obama would essentially dismantle NAFTA. He even went as far as using the recent lead paint scare as an opportunity to attack NAFTA, when lead paint restrictions have been in place here for decades, and have nothing to do with NAFTA. He also consistently tries to tie labor conditions to NAFTA, as if labor conditions have anything to do with NAFTA.

5. And as for the Bill, I know of some changes that have been made, but as to when they where made into the bill, and when he changed his mind I can't say so I dont know what ones I know of , it any of them are the reason for the change.

Some changes include provisions that make them have to get a warrant to look in on Americans overseas and other such changes...But I have not read the New Bill, or whole old one to Compare..And I am not going to yell Flip Flop when I don't think any of us know the changes made to the bill overall. If someone does I would love to hear them.

We're obviously talking about two entirely different Bills. I was referring to S. 1977, which essentially expands our "policeman of the world" status by requiring the President to ensure the security of ALL nuclear weapons, and weapons grade materials around the world by 2012. Now, excuse me for a moment, but exactly HOW is an American President supposed to ensure the security of nuclear weapons and weapons grade materials in N. Korea, China, or any other sovereign nation?

 

[Libsmasher]

From interview with Christianity Today:

Question: So would you keep the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives open or restructure it?

Obama: You know, what I'd like to do is I'd like to see how it's been operating. One of the things that I think churches have to be mindful of is that if the federal government starts paying the piper, then they get to call the tune. It can, over the long term, be an encroachment on religious freedom. So, I want to see how moneys have been allocated through that office before I make a firm commitment in terms of sustaining practices that may not have worked as well as they should have.

Not exactly gung ho - yaaa? But now gung ho.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Before your points can be addressed, we must first see how or if your questions are in fact valid.



Obama hasn't "attacked" faith based programs. What's odd about this is that the DNC has made it one of it's long held beliefs in the mythical "separation of church and state", and decried public funding of faith based programs at all. How is it then that a man who allegedly supports faith based programs was able to garner such a large amount of support from the DNC?



Obama has a long history of being "soft" on the death penalty. In his own book, he clearly states that the "rape and murder of a child" is sufficient grounds for the death penalty, but now it would appear that simply raping a child doesn't quite meet his standard.



As an Illinois Senator, he was a member of the legislatures of one of the 2 States in the country that allowed a city to have a complete ban on handgun ownership. Oh sure, Chicago said that you could have one if you obtained a permit, but then they refused to issue any permits! As a primary example of his continual "flip-flop" on the issue of firearms, he has repeatedly stated that he supports the Second Amendment, yet he believes that cities and States had the right to "infringe" on those rights. A primary example of talking out of both sides of your face at the same time.



Some of the changes that are being proposed, and supported by Obama would essentially dismantle NAFTA. He even went as far as using the recent lead paint scare as an opportunity to attack NAFTA, when lead paint restrictions have been in place here for decades, and have nothing to do with NAFTA. He also consistently tries to tie labor conditions to NAFTA, as if labor conditions have anything to do with NAFTA.



We're obviously talking about two entirely different Bills. I was referring to S. 1977, which essentially expands our "policeman of the world" status by requiring the President to ensure the security of ALL nuclear weapons, and weapons grade materials around the world by 2012. Now, excuse me for a moment, but exactly HOW is an American President supposed to ensure the security of nuclear weapons and weapons grade materials in N. Korea, China, or any other sovereign nation?

the Dems being against it and him not, does not make it a flip Flop...it means he does not agree with the party. So being for faith based groups is not a flip flop then...I don't agree with him on this though, I firmly believe church and state should be kept apart. I think its best both for Governments and he Churches...What if a Church needed funds for something, but the government would not give funds if they held X view or something like that...thats alot of presure on the church to change its Religion in essance to keep that money comeing in...and some would say no...but some would say yes...and does anyone realy want that?

I have not read his books so I don't know what he said about it, if you could quote it or something that would help. Also there maybe a Diff in his Legal view verses Personal View...I have many things that I don't like, but agree with the Legal Ruling on. I believe the Death Penalty is legal...I don't believe that it should be used though.

States can and do have there own laws on handguns all the time, such as Conceal and Carry, and the Ruling stated that while in that case the ban was to much ...there ruling also did state that there are limits to the 2nd as well ( though I think that was a lame way to get out of making a hard case one way or the other and makes the ruling harder to use later in cases that may not be the same, but have the same issues at hand.

As for NAFTA...I think that the point is Labor conditions dont have anything to do with it now but many think it should be. Its hard for US companies to compete with other nations when they dont have to worry about the safety of there employees or working conditions...Personally I Hate NAFTA overall and would rather scrap it ...

back later have to run.....

And the bill I was in question is a current bill to get Phone companies immune from prosecution for allowing wiretapping after Sept 11 that may have been against the law.