| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Obama Flips on NAFTA | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 22 2009, 02:41 AM (621 Views) | |
| jon-nyc | Apr 22 2009, 02:41 AM Post #1 |
|
Cheers
|
Good for him! Of course I figured he was lying during the Ohio primary, even before his economic advisor confirmed it to the Canadians. http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...s-on-nafta.html#more And the piece Sullivan references: http://shadow.foreignpolicy.co...a_and_flops_on_nafta |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 22 2009, 02:46 AM Post #2 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
It is the right thing to do, but it will come back to haunt. I was pretty sure that once that was out of his mouth he could not win on that issue. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Apr 22 2009, 05:15 AM Post #3 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
This will likely prove costly to Obama over time. I can envision opponents in future policy debates constantly reminding people about the administration's "successful renegotiation of NAFTA," or its "successful slap down of China's currency manipulation." But this is a standing problem in pluralist democracy. The short run interest of the politician in getting elected usually trumps the long run cost of reduced credibility a few years down the road. |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 22 2009, 05:18 AM Post #4 |
|
Cheers
|
Really, P*D? Or is that just wishful thinking on your part? How much did it cost Bush to lie about Kyoto, or Clinton to back track on his middle class tax cut promise? I think most people forget about it. Theoretically he could be taken to task in the midwest in '12 but that would require either a primary challenge or a populist Buchanan-style anti-trade republican challenger. Both of those seem unlikely to me. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 22 2009, 05:24 AM Post #5 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
It will depend on how things are going. If the economy is looking up and the world situation has at least gotten no worse, they'll forget. If not, he'll be hoisted on his own petard. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Apr 22 2009, 10:25 AM Post #6 |
|
Shortstop
|
The other possibility is that he had good reason to change his mind and people agree with the change. I don't mean to suggest that Mr. Obama is reasonable or flexible in any way. But some flip-flops are good. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Apr 22 2009, 11:41 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
I think a better title would have been: Obama Flips Off The Voters that Elected Him. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Apr 22 2009, 03:21 PM Post #8 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That constituency of voters deserves to be flipped off. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 22 2009, 03:46 PM Post #9 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I don't recall Bush ever lying about Kyoto. Perhaps you could refresh my memory. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Apr 22 2009, 03:52 PM Post #10 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Snarkiness is ugly. Sorry. I'm actually a fan of the administration at present. Too bad you cannot get past the election! Whoops. Snarkiness in response. Obama pays a price if a democratic congressman from Ohio loses to a republican making the arguments I suggest. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Apr 22 2009, 04:54 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Waiting for that one, myself... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 22 2009, 04:59 PM Post #12 |
|
Cheers
|
Sorry, he didn't lie about Kyoto per se, he lied about establishing mandatory reduction targets for carbon emissions. My bad, however my point remains valid. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 22 2009, 05:17 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
The Kyoto Protocol is crap. Global warming implies that it's a global problem. Until India, Pakistan, and China are at the table, screw it. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 22 2009, 05:19 PM Post #14 |
|
Cheers
|
Might be, but that's not the point. NAFTA is an all around good idea, but that's not the point either. My point is about presidential candidates saying something during the election that is an outright lie (the Bush and Obama examples above, IMO) or is otherwise not backed away from (the Clinton example above). |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 22 2009, 05:46 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Bush Sr.'s "Read my lips: No new taxes," was a pretty damning lie, too. Then again, so was Clinton's, "I did not have sex with that woman!"
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | Apr 22 2009, 05:46 PM Post #16 |
|
Senior Carp
|
NAFTA or not, BO is a sleaze bag, IYAM. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 22 2009, 06:41 PM Post #17 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Sorry to keep pressing this, but exactly where did he lie about establishing mandatory targets? According to this website "Bush proposed a plan with incentives for U.S. businesses to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions 4.5 percent by 2010," |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 23 2009, 01:43 AM Post #18 |
|
Cheers
|
"A Comprehensive National Energy Policy," Energy and Natural Resources Policy Statement, Bush-Cheney 2000 Campaign, September 2000. It states that as president he would "establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 23 2009, 10:16 AM Post #19 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Well, Jon, given that in 1997 the Senate voted 95-0 on the Byrd Hagel resolution to reject any environmental treaties that would have mandates that not apply uniformly to all countries, that would economically harm the US, and that did not have detailed economic cost impact analysis, on the heels of the EIA statement in 2001 that showed carbon dioxide regulation would add about $90 billion to the nation's electrical generating costs, that it would "reduce the nation's economic growth rate by 1.2% and the unemployment rate increased by 0.6% in 2005 - which translates into about 1 million people being thrown out of work" -- you really think Bush "LIED" in changing the strategy to promote voluntary reductions through business incentives? Please say "no", or I'll have to think you are an ideologue. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 23 2009, 05:40 PM Post #20 |
|
Cheers
|
Wow, IT, your thinking can be quite muddled at times. Lets assume that the Byrd Hagel amendment were 100-0. Better yet, that it was a constitutional amendment ratified unanimously by all 50 states in under an hour. What would that have to do with whether or not Bush lied about his intentions prior to the election? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 23 2009, 06:17 PM Post #21 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You seem to be the one with muddled thinking, as evinced by your ranting hypotheticals that don't serve to elucidate anything of substance to the disucssion. You assert that Bush lied when all he did was change a strategy to get to try the same place. You have not shown that he lied. All you can morally claim is that he changed his strategy given the political climate. A president cannot mandate changes in the law by himself. Most rational people understand that campaign promises are intentions to achieve certain goals -- where is to be arrived is more significant than the exact road it takes to get there. But really, we are talking about your hyperbolic language that Bush lied. I cannot understand why you continue to cling to that, unless it is some attempt to save face after I already pointed out to you that you were wrong in asserting that Bush lied about Kyoto in general. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 24 2009, 12:40 AM Post #22 |
|
Cheers
|
I knew you'd ignore the question, its your standard MO when someone points out flaws in your thinking. The other day your wife called your debating style 'academic'. While I've never been in academia, I have trouble believing that your level of intellectual slipperiness - not to say dishonesty - would be tolerated in such an environment. By the way, I asserted that both the Bush and Obama examples (mandatory carbon emission controls and revisiting Nafta) were lies, while the Clinton example (middle class tax cut) was a well-intentioned promise later reneged upon. On the Clinton example, we have independent corroboration. But with Bush and Obama, it clearly that represents an opinion on my part, since it would be impossible for me to know with any certainty what Obama's true intention was in July of 2008 or Bush's in September of 2000. I will point out that while it is an opinion, its obviously not a partisan view. It is my read of their intentions based on other things we know about the candidates, their advisors, and their supporters. Funny you demand proof of my assertion that Bush lied while seemingly accepting my contention that Obama lied. Is there a reason for such a flexible evidentiary standard on your part? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 24 2009, 01:30 AM Post #23 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Jon if you want to get into a pissing contest because I don't accept your take on things, that is pretty bizarre. What question did I ignore? Some hypothetical about if X had happened when it didn't? The obvious answer is "nothing". Your question was a red herring since it has nothing to do with the question of whether Bush lied. My point was simply that the political climate might well have required a change in strategy. Yet rather than even consider that, you have to go on some pathological war path. You also just make an absolutely absurd argument that I accepted your contention that Obama lied. Is that really the best you can come up with? I neither accepted nor challenged it. I merely asked you to justify your assertion that Bush lied. I don't have to care whether you are right or wrong about Obama lying. I don't have to have an opinion about whether Obie lied about NAFTA. That is not what I was discussing with you. I was asking what evidence you have that Bush lied about emissions. That was your word, not mine. Now you admit that you really don't know that Bush lied, and it is just your opinion. That is reprehensible, Jon, and you deserve to get called out on your crap. Calling someone a liar is serious business, Jon. You better have pretty good evidence and not rely on weaselly "IMO" if you want to retain credibility. Do you always make thing up and then start making personal attacks when you are called on your crap? That seems to be your MO here. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 24 2009, 01:33 AM Post #24 |
|
Cheers
|
It really isn't reprehensible to say a politician lied. Most people accept it as a reality of our political system. Of course, it can rarely be proven. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 24 2009, 01:35 AM Post #25 |
|
Cheers
|
double post |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2











6:03 AM Jul 11