Tell me why we shouldn't expect Obama to fulfill EVERY campaign promise he made?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

He ran on two things: National Security and fixing he economy.

 

Obama claimed he has the ability to sit down and talk to our enemies and all will be well. No pre-conditions, no nothing. His silver toungue will make the good 'ol U.S.A beloved around the world.

 

So it stands to reason, if he can deal with despots like Putin, Chavez, and Achmameaniguy by just talking to them surely he can get any and all of his domestic polices passed without delay when all he has to deal with is a huge Demwit majority in both houses of Congress.

 

So why has he already said he will break many of his campaign promises? And please, don't any of you Obamunists come back with "but the economy is worse than expected" cuz Obama ran on a platform of this being the worst economy in decades. If you want to claim he was blindsided after the election you have no leg to stand on.

[davebg 0]

How about b/c NO politician keeps all of their campaign promises and only a fool would expect otherwise?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What about CHANGE!

[Terrapin Flyer 0]

He ran on two things: National Security and fixing he economy.

 

Obama claimed he has the ability to sit down and talk to our enemies and all will be well. No pre-conditions, no nothing. His silver toungue will make the good 'ol U.S.A beloved around the world.

 

Typical blather from a Rush Limbogus disciple. He has said on several occasions(in fact he said it to McCain during one of their debates) that he would not meet without pre-conditions. He stated that there would be certain things required of Iran and the like others if talks are to begin. Nice try.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Typical blather from a Rush Limbogus disciple. He has said on several occasions(in fact he said it to McCain during one of their debates) that he would not meet without pre-conditions. He stated that there would be certain things required of Iran and the like others if talks are to begin. Nice try.

 

How lazy of you. Is your a "Rush Limbogus disciple" the best ya got? Itsatip if it isn't on sirius I don't listen to it, and even before I had satellite radio I wasn't a rush listener. Good to know you are a mindless Demwit that can only come up with that tripe though.

 

And your only defense of The Messiah is to say he flip-flopped from his debates with Hitlery to his debates with McCain? Good to know you agree with me Obama will say anything he needs to depending on which audience he is iin front of.

 

[Durtee 0]

Typical blather from a Rush Limbogus disciple. He has said on several occasions(in fact he said it to McCain during one of their debates) that he would not meet without pre-conditions. He stated that there would be certain things required of Iran and the like others if talks are to begin. Nice try.

 

Fact Check: Would Obama meet 'unconditionally' with Iran?

...

A questioner asked in a July 23, 2007, Democratic debate if the candidates would be "willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

 

"I would," Obama said

 

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2008/1...an-without.html

 

[Terrapin Flyer 0]

Fact Check: Would Obama meet 'unconditionally' with Iran?

...

A questioner asked in a July 23, 2007, Democratic debate if the candidates would be "willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

 

"I would," Obama said

 

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2008/1...an-without.html

 

 

Jan 11, 2009

President-elect Barack Obama said Iran's nuclear quest was one of his "biggest challenges" but, vowing respect for the Islamic republic, promised a swift shift from confrontation to diplomacy.

 

"I think that Iran is going to be one of our biggest challenges," he said in an ABC News interview broadcast Sunday, warning a nuclear-armed Iran "could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East."

 

Obama promised "a new emphasis on respect and a new emphasis on being willing to talk, but also a clarity about what our bottom lines are."

 

"And we are in preparations for that. We anticipate that we're going to have to move swiftly in that area."

 

Former US defense secretary William Perry predicted Thursday that Obama would likely face a "serious crisis" over Iran's nuclear ambitions in his first year in office.

 

The Islamic republic has defied UN sanctions designed to halt its enrichment of uranium, insisting that its nuclear program is for civilian energy needs and has no military bent.

 

Obama said he would also confront Iran about its "exporting terrorism through Hamas, through Hezbollah."

 

"And we are going to have to take a new approach. And I've outlined my belief that engagement is the place to start. That the international community is going to be taking cues from us in how we want to approach Iran," he said.

 

Obama said his administration would be "sending a signal that we respect the aspirations of the Iranian people," but would also make clear that it has "certain expectations in terms of how an international actor behaves."

 

Obama's offer of direct talks represents a break with three decades of US-Iranian estrangement, which has sharpened with allegations by President George W. Bush's administration of Iranian support for extremists in Iraq.

 

Despite his overtures, last month Obama was accused of "cowboy" talk by Iran's conservative parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani for describing a nuclear-armed Iran as "unacceptable."

 

According to a New York Times report Sunday, Bush last year rejected a secret Israeli request for an air strike using US bunker-busting bombs against the main Iranian nuclear complex at Natanz.

 

But citing unidentified senior US and foreign officials, the newspaper said Bush had authorized a new covert operation aimed at sabotaging Iran's suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons.

 

It said top US officials led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is staying on in the Obama administration, had persuaded Bush that any overt attack on Iran would prove ineffective, lead to the expulsion of international inspectors and drive Iran's nuclear program deeper underground.

 

However, Bush opted for renewed US efforts to penetrate Iran's nuclear supply chain abroad, undermine the country's electrical and computer systems as well as other networks on which Iran relies, the New York Times wrote.

 

Another report by the Washington Post said Iran was successfully using front companies based in the Gulf region and Asia to import US technology that can have military uses.

 

The report said the banned items include circuit boards, software and Global Positioning System devices that are used to make sophisticated versions of the improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, deployed to kill US troops in Iraq.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

This is a little more current than your link. Seems a bit lazy to be using old news to make your point . Try and stay current. What you and want to call flip flopping I call evolving with a situation. The facts are the facts. The direction of the last 8 years has taken far more from us than the terrorists ever did with an attack. Our image in the world, our moral highground, and the collective integrety of this amazing country that once stood for something but is, at the moment, a shell of it's former self.

 

At this point it would be wise to open a respectable dialog with Iran. There should and must be some requirements for any face to face meetings but our threats are not working so maybe a more respectable approach is warranted. Perhaps labeling them the "axis of evil" is not the most productive of solutions. Why would they trust in our integrity when King George has shown absolutely none since our invasion of a sovereign nation.

 

You demand your full enforcement of the 2nd amendment but then you want to deny that to another country seems to be an oxymoron. I'm not saying that they should have nukes but it is quite a bit hypocritical if you look at it from their point of view. You want your weapons to protect yourself unconditionally from all of the bad people in the world. But in their eyes we are the bad people. And the truth is Bush has solidified that perspective with his policies and especially his attitude.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

At this point it would be wise to open a respectable dialog with Iran..

 

And exactly what would you say to Ackmameanieguy that would persuade Iran to stop their nuclear program

 

This should be good.

[I have no idea what i'm doing 0]

wow, you really do need laid.

[Terrapin Flyer 0]

And exactly what would you say to Ackmameanieguy that would persuade Iran to stop their nuclear program

 

This should be good.

 

Well, I am not a diplomat but I'd say that "f0ck you" and "axis of evil" is not a good place to start.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Well, I am not a diplomat but I'd say that "f0ck you" and "axis of evil" is not a good place to start.

 

So you have zippo. I'm betting Obama has the same.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Obama said his administration would be "sending a signal that we respect the aspirations of the Iranian people,"

 

Awesome link there, TF.

 

Obama is on record "respecting" Iran's desire to have nuclear weapons and wipe Isreal from the face of the Earth.

 

I have not seen that policy yet, that's a CHANGE in our foreign policy.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Because a campaign promise is "What I will try to do" or "What I would do if I had the power."

 

There are 535 other political wh0res up there that have a say in the matter.

 

That is not to even mention the fact that only a focking moron (like you RP) would actually want a President who never bothers to reconsider, change his mind, or adapt to circumstances. You guys already had a President like that in Bush, and see how well that worked out.

[Terrapin Flyer 0]

Awesome link there, TF.

 

Obama is on record "respecting" Iran's desire to have nuclear weapons and wipe Isreal from the face of the Earth.

 

I have not seen that policy yet, that's a CHANGE in our foreign policy.

 

 

You are so irrational it is kinda scary. The Iranian people do not build nuclear weapons you sad sad little man. Take a second to re-read that quote. Get someone to help you with your comprehension problems. But it is not about wanting them to have weapons to wipe Israel off the map. It is about trying a different tactic than disrespect in achieving our diplomatic goals. Again, you are just being obtuse.

 

And I obviously don't know exactly what to say to the Iranian regime during diplomatic discussions because(I'll talk slow here so maybe you will get it) I...am...not...a...trained...diplomat... but that is the reason I elect officials to represent me in those discussions. But just because I don't know how to do heart surgery doesn't mean I cannot recognize the fact cutting open the head is a bad place to start. I want representation that will try new tactics to find ones that work and abandon ones that don't, not someone who will let his pride get in the way of solutions.

[KSB2424 3,083]

The correct answer is that almost no politician ever does. Obama is no different. To be honest a few of the things he has said so far has given me a little hope that he will be okay as President.

 

HOWEVER, during his campaign he made a whole helluv a lot of promises. Even more than most, and way more than McCain. I truely believe that one of the reasons Obama gained so much steam was that he answered tough policy questions with answers that the people wanted to hear as opposed to what actually was feasible and reasonable. McCain did not go that route. For example any reasonable person knows you can't raise taxes on corporations/wealthy during a recession, yet Obama ran on that because all the people loved it. As far as Iraq goes, the horse is out of the barn, you can't just up and leave even though it sounds cool to the voting public, that would the be the wrong thing to do.

 

So while I'm warming up to Obama, he dug a few of these holes himself and the Repubs has every right to question him on it.

 

[wiffleball 4,645]

He ran on two things: National Security and fixing he economy.

 

Obama claimed he has the ability to sit down and talk to our enemies and all will be well.

 

 

Stupid ass premise and why nobody takes you seriously.

[gocolts 300]

You are so irrational it is kinda scary. The Iranian people do not build nuclear weapons you sad sad little man. Take a second to re-read that quote. Get someone to help you with your comprehension problems. But it is not about wanting them to have weapons to wipe Israel off the map. It is about trying a different tactic than disrespect in achieving our diplomatic goals. Again, you are just being obtuse.

 

And I obviously don't know exactly what to say to the Iranian regime during diplomatic discussions because(I'll talk slow here so maybe you will get it) I...am...not...a...trained...diplomat... but that is the reason I elect officials to represent me in those discussions. But just because I don't know how to do heart surgery doesn't mean I cannot recognize the fact cutting open the head is a bad place to start. I want representation that will try new tactics to find ones that work and abandon ones that don't, not someone who will let his pride get in the way of solutions.

 

So, are you under the impression that the president of Iran is a reasonable man that a diplomat or whatever can have a discussion with??? I think it is very clear that the president of Iran is insane.

 

He can't be bargained with, he can't be reasoned with.

[Terrapin Flyer 0]

So, are you under the impression that the president of Iran is a reasonable man that a diplomat or whatever can have a discussion with??? I think it is very clear that the president of Iran is insane.

 

He can't be bargained with, he can't be reasoned with.

 

 

And you know this how? Is it because of all the effort we have put into our diplomatic efforts over the past eight years? You know, Georgie's "axis of evil" diplomatic policies. They have worked so well up to this point.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

And you know this how? Is it because of all the effort we have put into our diplomatic efforts over the past eight years? You know, Georgie's "axis of evil" diplomatic policies. They have worked so well up to this point.

 

You must be unaware Iran's President Ackmameanieguy has said several times he isn't interested in talking to the U.S. and nothing we say will stop them from gaining nuclear weapons.

 

But you keep on with your Bush-bashing...........it's all ya got.

[heavy-set 39]

this is pretty simple.

 

 

a lot of the promises he made were before the scope of the financial meltdown(bush caused it). he will have to postpone or cancel some of them.

 

 

times change. just like when BUsh said he wasnt for nation building. after 9/11 (he let it happen) he invaded 2 countries.

[gocolts 300]

And you know this how? Is it because of all the effort we have put into our diplomatic efforts over the past eight years? You know, Georgie's "axis of evil" diplomatic policies. They have worked so well up to this point.

I'm sorry, did I say somewhere in this thread that are diplomatic efforts over the last 8 years have worked??? Didn't think so.

 

At least now I have an idea of where you are coming from. Legitimize insanity or think the president of Iran is a human being that can actually be reasoned with.

[GettnHuge 1]

Only a few more days and nobody has to pay for health care anymore, it'll be FREE!!!!

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

this is pretty simple.

a lot of the promises he made were before the scope of the financial meltdown(bush caused it). he will have to postpone or cancel some of them.

times change. just like when BUsh said he wasnt for nation building. after 9/11 (he let it happen) he invaded 2 countries.

 

Obama ran on the economy being in the toilet. Every single focking stump speech was full of him whining about it. And now you want us to believe he was blindsided by a bad economy the day after the election?

 

Wow! Thanks for confirming Obama is a total moron who is completely unprepared to run this country. Either that or he is a flat out lying sack of sh!t.

 

Which is it?

[heavy-set 39]

Obama ran on the economy being in the toilet. Every single focking stump speech was full of him whining about it. And now you want us to believe he was blindsided by a bad economy the day after the election?

 

Wow! Thanks for confirming Obama is a total moron who is completely unprepared to run this country. Either that or he is a flat out lying sack of sh!t.

 

Which is it?

i didnt say he was blindsided by it. i said the full scope wasnt known. the election was nov 5th, the bottom fell out in mid september - late october.

 

he was stumping for 2 years.

 

mccain said the fundamentals were strong and didnt know how many houses he had. who is the moron?

[heavy-set 39]

Only a few more days and nobody has to pay for health care anymore, it'll be FREE!!!!

 

free free free

[Recliner Pilot 61]

he was stumping for 2 years.

 

And whining about how bad the economy was the whole time.............so the question still stands, was he a lying sack or just a moron caught with his pants down on the economy?