Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (33785)	7/8/2008 1:08:28 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224757

Does that mean BO will withdraw troops ASAP if he wins?..that was his stance. What about no pre-conditions prior to speaking to tyrants?..another of his original positions. >Obama Tells Voters His Views Have Not Changed<

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (33785)	7/8/2008 1:17:07 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

Pulling U.S. combat forces out of Iraq would free up money for personnel programs and a host of other military needs, Obama said, citing the $10 billion to $12 billion monthly cost of military operations there. He did not mention that funding for Iraq has, so far, been emergency funding on top of the regular peacetime budget that would not automatically be diverted to other military programs. Getting U.S. combat troops out of Iraq is a key Obama goal, and one where he said he is misunderstood. His campaign materials say Obama would begin withdrawing combat troops from Iraq, one or two brigades a month, as soon as he takes office. But he added in the interview that the start of the withdrawal also depends on the security conditions on the ground. Obama said he wants to reduce combat troops, leaving forces to continue training Iraqi police and military officers, providing security for U.S. officials and facilities and for counterterrorism operations. Exactly when and how quickly this would happen depends on the situation in the field, he said, acknowledging that military commanders on the ground would play a key role in recommending what steps to take. Obama said he would not order any “precipitous” withdrawal of combat forces. Instead, he said, his policy is that “we should be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless in getting in.” “I have always said that as commander in chief, I would seek the advice and counsel of our generals,” Obama said. But, in the end, “it is the job of commander in chief to set the strategy.” A strategic factor in the decision to keep forces in Iraq includes, for him, a question about the risk of not having enough combat-ready forces for other operations. “If we have only one battle-ready brigade outside the Iraq rotation to respond to other risks, that’s not good strategic planning by the commander in chief,” he said. “If we have a situation in Afghanistan where we are seeing more and more violence in the eastern portion of Afghanistan, at a time when we’ve actually increased the forces down there and we’ve got some of the best battle-tested operations deployed there, and we’re still seeing increases in violence, what that tells me is that we’ve got real problems.” Obama said he believes he would be a far better commander in chief than McCain. “I believe that I have a better grasp of where we need to take the country, and how we should use the power of ... not just our military, but all of our power in order to achieve American security,” Obama said. “I think I have a better sense than he does of where we need to go in the future. “As somebody who has worked on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on critical issues like nuclear proliferation ... as somebody who has traveled widely and grew up traveling around the world, I think I have a clear sense of the nature of both the transnational threats and challenges but also the opportunities that are going to determine our safety and security for the foreseeable future. And that’s why I think I can be an effective commander in chief,” Obama said.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (33785)	7/8/2008 1:17:46 PM
From: tonto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

They will say anything to get elected as we all know... Obama Tells Voters His Views Have Not Changed

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (33785)	7/8/2008 2:51:26 PM
From: MJ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224757

"A Parody on Obama as the Would-Be King" by mj Setting: Anywhere USA Audience: Thousands Cast of Thousands: The Audience Actor: The Would-Be King Action: Stage Left, Enter The Would-Be King (Gazing down at The Audience-Cast of Thousands the Would-be King begins his soliloquy.) Would-be King Soliloquy "When I am King of America and the world----- everything will 'change'. I will define and refine the change. All troops will be removed from Iraq---I forgot, it will 'only take two years." (He ruminates, gazing away from the thousands,and speaks in sottoe voce---"Just think of everything I will control and do when I am King of America and the World") (Turning to The Audience-Cast of thousands) "Ah, yes my loyal subjects----during those years there will be no more airplanes flying in America, no more cars-----only the President and loyal members of Congress will be allowed to fly or drive. (Harumph}I keep my plane. I will need my plane to fly to Iran to negotiate----yes you know, you know, I think you know what negotiation means. Yeah, the King, me, declares that America will give up nuclear arms first. No preconditions, I will close our nuclear power plants to show I am serious. Afterall, we can live with the sun and wind, we must lay down arms first then I know, you know, that all of those really nice terrorists will do the same." (Suddenly, Would-Be King looks around and sees no crowd of people, his audience and cast of thousands are gone. The war he said he would end is no-more, brought to its commonsense end by BushKing. The Would-Be-King is alone. Would-Be King removes his crown and slinks silently away exiting Stage Left.) Inspired by the following link ---posted by Kenneth blog.washingtonpost.com _______________________________________________________________ "I have also consistently said, once we were in, we had to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, because once you get in, you've got to make sure our troops are safe," he said. "You've got to make sure the country doesn't collapse so what I've called for is a phased withdrawal, a phased redeployment." He continued: "Now, assuming that I take office in January, then that means that we would still have our troops there for about two more year from now. There's nothing rushed about that... When I hear John McCain saying we can't surrender, we can't wave the white flag -- nobody's talking about surrender. We're talking about common sense." Obama said: "I am going to bring this war to an end. So don't be confused: I am going to bring the Iraq war to a close when I am president of the United States of America."

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (33785)	7/8/2008 3:16:41 PM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

Looks like the New York Times disagrees, Kenneth. :) New and Not Improved July 4, 2008 Editorial Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics. Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt. Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person. The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11. In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared. Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever. The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation. He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be. On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control. Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.” What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children? We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder. We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games. There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in. nytimes.com