[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Here's another lie by Obama that didn't make the Top 50 List. Enjoy!!

On July 28th, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

In late winter, 2008, on the campaign trail, Obama says he wants to bring the troops home yesterday -- you decide -- was he lying then or is he lying now?

http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_Obama/ObamaLies.htm

The thing that's stupid about sites like this (and they exist on both sides of the political spectrum) is that they start with the desire to fulfill their basic premise, which in this case is that Obama is a liar. In the example you've cited here, they totally exclude the possibility that Obama has come to a differing opinion about Iraq based upon his observations over the four years that have passed since the date of the original quotes. Not that I agree with his current opinion about bringing the troops home immediately, but it's certainly possible for someone to conclude that events that have taken place in the past four years show that we're enmeshed in a civil conflict for which there is no military solution and that it's time to cut our losses and come home. That's called changing an opinion based upon your observations of the events of those four years, not lying.

For me, I don't agree with such a conclusion about the war. Further, I think the consequences, both in terms of loss of life in an all out civil war that is likely to break out after we leave, and the impacts upon the world's economy that would come from a major disruption of one of the leading oil producing regions of the world, argue that we need to stay the course for a while longer. I know that's not a popular opinion around here, but it's one that I believe to be correct and it's one of the major reasons I'll be voting for McCain unless something major changes between now and November.

[Zybot]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

For me, I don't agree with such a conclusion about the war. Further, I think the consequences, both in terms of loss of life in an all out civil war that is likely to break out after we leave, and the impacts upon the world's economy that would come from a major disruption of one of the leading oil producing regions of the world, argue that we need to stay the course for a while longer. I know that's not a popular opinion around here, but it's one that I believe to be correct and it's one of the major reasons I'll be voting for McCain unless something major changes between now and November.

This is a tough issue, and until just recently I hadn't decided what I believe is the best move to make. We screwed up Iraq, and if we leave things could be quite worse for those people and the region. If we stay, well, geez when will we ever leave or achieve peace in the region? I have decided that the Iraq conflict is too much like Vietnam and I think it is safe to say that the right move in Vietnam was to withdraw. So... I am guessing that withdrawal is the best move and provide some military weapons to the Iraq government so that they can at least attempt to maintain stability. Whether that results in a dictatorship, military coup, who is to say? But, I don't think there is clearly a right answer -- so I have decided that if withdrawal was the right move in Vietnam, then it is the right move here. The situations are not entirely similar, and I am no foreign policy expert, but I still get to vote.

[e_blazer1]

Several million people died in the aftermath of the US withdrawal from Vietnam. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have made that move, but it certainly wasn't without significant cost in loss of life and suffering. Frankly, and it's at the other end of the political policy spectrum from the humanitarian issues involved, but from a pragmatic standpoint, the unfortunate fact for Vietnam was that they just weren't of significant economic or political value to warrant our continued involvement. It sucks, but it does make a difference that oil is a huge motivating factor in maintaining some semblance of order in Iraq.

[Balian]

Originally Posted by R-Star

Wow, you're ridiculous. Its almost as though you need to talk yourself into your own idea's when you post. The conversation was "ROFL, a sub cant make more than a full time teacher" now its "They arent the same because they have different pay scales."
Im not sure why you think you're fooling anyone, but posting methods like this are pretty transparent and a dime a dozen. Improve, then try again.

Oh really? You know whats more insidious and ridiculous? A poster WRONGLY quote or misconstrue what a person wrote, and then proceed to attack and INSULT that person based on the false information. Next time, use the quote function. It's there for a reason. Your method is solely lacking in etiquette.

Originally Posted by Balian

job title = Alberta Teachers Association

ROFL ...man, are you saying something subconsciously about your wife? She is the WHOLE ASSOCIATION? I hope thats not a formal title. I was referring to her salary more than her official title. Unless I am mistaken, substitute teachers usually get less pay right? Most pay stubs usually don't have formal titles printed on them. Thanks for playing.

A question is not a statement of fact and I used TWO qualifiers.

[Zybot]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

Several million people died in the aftermath of the US withdrawal from Vietnam. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have made that move, but it certainly wasn't without significant cost in loss of life and suffering. Frankly, and it's at the other end of the political policy spectrum from the humanitarian issues involved, but from a pragmatic standpoint, the unfortunate fact for Vietnam was that they just weren't of significant economic or political value to warrant our continued involvement. It sucks, but it does make a difference that oil is a huge motivating factor in maintaining some semblance of order in Iraq.

It is a no win situation. There is no doubt that both strategies have their downsides. I just hope who ever is elected does the right thing (even if I am wrong and the right thing is to stay or even increase troops).

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Great strategy! If you can't disprove the quotes, then attack the source!

Unfortunately, it only makes you look weak, and does nothing to contradict the actual lies that Obama has told, and continues to tell . . .

Have you even read what is written there? If you had you would see the author is clearly nothing but a two bit hack. This is about as far as one can get from a reputable news source.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by sa1177

Have you even read what is written there? If you had you would see the author is clearly nothing but a two bit hack. This is about as far as one can get from a reputable news source.

But if those quotes are accurate, it shows either that Sen Obama holds a more nuanced position that is advertised or that he's changed his point of view.

I'd like to know which one it is. If he has a clear plan for leaving Iraq AFTER we've ensured that democracy will triumph, I would feel much better about his worldview. If he's changed his point of view, I'd like for him to explain why.

[Zybot]

Originally Posted by maxiep

But if those quotes are accurate, it shows either that Sen Obama holds a more nuanced position that is advertised or that he's changed his point of view.

I'd like to know which one it is. If he has a clear plan for leaving Iraq AFTER we've ensured that democracy will triumph, I would feel much better about his worldview. If he's changed his point of view, I'd like for him to explain why.

The end of the Boston Globe article is interesting:

Originally Posted by Boston Globe

Obama insisted yesterday he would stick to his plan. But Walter Russell Mead, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said voters should expect Obama's views on the war to shift.

"If you look at Obama's stands, he has taken different stands, or differently nuanced stands, based on his perceptions of the changing realities on the ground," Mead said. "As a rational human being, [if he is elected president] nine months from now, he'll have to do the same thing. He'll have to look carefully at the situation as it is, and make the best policy calls that he can."

I don't know that a nuanced change in plans is necessarily bad -- I'd rather the right decision be made then the bad one. But yes, it would be nice to know what the plan would be to a certain degree. Not an Obama apologist on this one, but I suspect that it is difficult to not be a little conflicted on the Iraq issue. It is a big issue, and drawbacks exist to any plan. I would like to know the "absolute obligation" comment in more context. The longer quote of Obama does not seem to me to be a contradiction -- more just an indictment of the war and an acceptance of the goal of leaving Iraq better off. If he doesn't answer the question, I guess he won't be different than any other politician.

[stockfire]

Originally Posted by talkhard

Great strategy! If you can't disprove the quotes, then attack the source!

Unfortunately, it only makes you look weak, and does nothing to contradict the actual lies that Obama has told, and continues to tell . . .

And just because you link to a hack website, doesn't make the content true. Why should anyone patronize you with their time when you can only supply information that is suspect at best? It's two fold. Present legit information and credible sources and people will have no choice but to engage you.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by stockfire

And just because you link to a hack website, doesn't make the content true. Why should anyone patronize you with their time when you can only supply information that is suspect at best? It's two fold. Present legit information and credible sources and people will have no choice but to engage you.

Is the Boston Globe good enough?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...evolving_view/

[stockfire]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Is the Boston Globe good enough?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...evolving_view/

You bet it is.. But looking at the topic, I don't think the Globe published this chain letter about 50 Obama lies, which is what I was addressing.

If the OP had a legitimate link addressing each one of the 50 things, there could be.... wait for it... actual discussion instead of ghost stories about the Boogeyman.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by stockfire

You bet it is.. But looking at the topic, I don't think the Globe published this chain letter about 50 Obama lies, which is what I was addressing.

If the OP had a legitimate link addressing each one of the 50 things, there could be.... wait for it... actual discussion instead of ghost stories about the Boogeyman.

That was a deft manuever. In the future, be specific about to what you're referring. You responsed to a part of the thread that was dismissing this particular issue.

As for the original post, you'll probably have to look at a minimum of 50 links to address each one. Have fun!