Change As He Needs

<p><font size=5><b><span class="inline inline-left">Change As He Needs</span></b></font></p>
<p><span class="inline inline-left">
<img src="http://www.progressillinois.com/files/images/changeweneed.img_assist_custom.jpg" class="image image-img_assist_custom" width="428" height="210"></span></p>
Has it occurred to you how fast this presidential candidate can change?

Here is a few already happened situations of changes:

... the pastor of 20 years ... disowned in 2008 <br>
... the ACORN ... not aware of its crimes <br>
... were they not proud of being American or actually it is &quot;prouder&quot;? ...<br>
... &quot;spread the wealth&quot;? ...<br>
... or &quot;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgc4zm3XrBc">give up your pie</a>&quot; ...<br>
... about Israel, what did he say in the final debate? And what did he say in
the tape blocked at Los Angeles Times?<br>
...

<br>
Can you believe those changes?&nbsp;
May be the candidate should change in a way that can be believed in:


<img alt="http://www.camerab.com/blog/images/2008.02.12.obama_change_DSC_5746.jpg" src="http://www.camerab.com/blog/images/2008.02.12.obama_change_DSC_5746.jpg"></p>


<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgc4zm3XrBc">Give up your pie</a>:</p>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zgc4zm3XrBc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zgc4zm3XrBc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8">Raise Captial Gains</a>:</p>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

Kind of hard for the media to criticize their own candidate that they have chosen.

 

I looked at that Obama video i literally said to myself how in the hell did he win the nomination.

 

A summary of the Republican platform so far:

Obama's flag pin. Obama's relatives. Obama's friends. Obama's suits. Obama's pastor. Obama's bicycle. Obama's name. Obama's birth certificate. Obama Obama Obama


Zero policies.

 

And once again the paid Obama troll strikes with yet another post that is irrelevant to the thread...

 

Bigdave here is a very big reason why Obama's issues are questioned and why they are still being questioned. You won't believe it but your response is actually part of the reason why the issues are still being questioned.

First of all the question to ask is not WHY they are questioned but why are they STILL questioned.

Why are the issues still being questioned?
The reason why they are still annoyingly being questioned is because no significant majority wants to investigate and provide actual evidence to make the questions go away. Instead of real investigation we have googles of people who respond the same way you do.

The main thing i gather from your response is that it does not need all that deep of analysis. Your response to Obama's beliefs in taxes are as follows- A summary of the Republican platform so far:

Obama's flag pin. Obama's relatives. Obama's friends. Obama's suits. Obama's pastor. Obama's bicycle. Obama's name. Obama's birth certificate. Obama Obama Obama.

Your response first of all does not address the issue of Obama's beliefs in taxes. Surprisingly it also brings up the other issues as if they are so unbelievable that your using them as ammo for some type of persuasion for Obama himself. The problem with your designated ammo is that sense none of that persuasive writing has been investigated all you have is a repeat of Obama's issues.

So lets say that a person with a clear mind stumbles upon all these issues. They believe Obama is a nice guy but all these issues really make them question because they have never really seen any other candidate with all these issues before. They then turn on the average media outlet and what do they get. They get exactly the same response that you just gave. They get the media saying that attacks on Obama will only hurt the republican candidate and that attacks on Obama are truly disgraceful tactics.

Hmm that person with their clear mind will say yes attacks on candidates are definitely unacceptable when these attacks are FALSE. They then if they have a mind for investigation and again clear thinking will continue to watch the media in order for the media to strongly investigate Obama's past and to strongly show that he is of course innocent of all these horrible attacks. Yet the only problem is that the media never actually reveals through investigation that Obama is entirely innocent.

So what do we have here so far? We have a clear thinking person who is entirely lost when it comes to making a judgement on Obama's issues. He does have choices though.

The choices

1. He can believe what Obama says and ignore any actual type of issues Obama has.

2. He can question Obama's issues and if he sincerely cannot find any answers in support of Obama than Obama will lose his support.

Conclusion- The reaction to Obama's issues unfortunately for the candidate is a natural reaction among many clear thinking people.

 

Given that the negative approach is backfiring for the Republicans, I'd have to say it's because his followers are not able to change direction.

That, and actual pictures. For example of his birth certificate.

It's almost as if there's no one else running.

I don't believe in credit card charges but I still have to pay them. It's called "paying the bills."

Sure, that's one myopic way of seeing things. The other is that all the Republicans have is a repeat of Obama's issues (and even then the issues seem pretty tame.)

Oh that's not possible. It's possible to fling poo faster than it's possible to clean it up. There's a famous saying that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.

So the attacks will continue unabated, even though they're backfiring badly for the Republicans. Why? Because the Republicans have no credibility left. Few "clear thinking persons" believe the attacks anymore. "Most liberal in the Senate" is a recycled attack from John Kerry (and Gore, for that matter -- every election the Republicans always claim that the opponent is "the most liberal.")

People have identified the pattern. The Republicans can claim whatever they want and most won't believe the endless smears.

How would that work, exactly? When the Republicans can keep sending out "terrrurizt!" accusation emails?

Frankly, I'm impressed that Obama has been able to respond to the smears as quickly as he has.

 

Bigdave you talk as if you have never been decieved in your entire life.

You talk as if everytime a person comes around spouting great things you instantly hook to that person.

You talk as if you never question anyone.

You talk as if you would rather believe something is good even when it's not as good as you believe it to be.

You talk as if investigation of any background issue behind any candidate is so utterly pointless that it is almost qualified to be defamation of character.

Bigdave i hear a lot of talk from you but what I ask from you is more thinking than talking.

The point- It is basic moderate reality that almost every single issue that relates to Obama has gone unanswered. The wright controversy has been around for months. I would say more than half a year is enough to pick up at least the "poop" from that issue. You may say with your strong unquestionable belief in Obama and your strong hatred for Bush that your candidate has already answered the question. The funny thing is that you don't question your candidate. Also the funny thing is that i am writing about the subject of questioning a candidate and the person I am writing too doesn't question their candidate. I already know this discussion isn't going to work because you are not a clear thinking person because if you were than you would at least look for some evidence that Obama is innocent instead of reversing the argument. The only reason you reverse the argument is because you have no answer.

Let me see here. If i knew the answer to 3+4 would i actually give the answer on the test or would i scream at the teacher for trying to make me look stupid in front of the class.

 

I do? Gosh golly.

Speaking of which, I'm suddenly very attached to you.

Okay.

Sounds good!

Investigation into the person? Yes. Guilt-by-association? No.

The Republicans are very concerned about what happened in the 1960's to someone else, and to Obama's half-aunt. Much more so than talking about their policies.

Okay. Give me something to consider.

Obama made a statement about it, disassociating himself from Wright at the beginning of the campaign. I'd say that issue has been addressed by the candidate.

You just didn't like the response, so you kept on repeating it, ad nauseum, driving voters away.

Good guess, since he did. But don't confuse my "hatred" of Bush with a intense disgust with the Republican party and the followers that they've managed to engender.

What would you like me to question? How about the way he raises his kids which I find unnecessarily strict?

Okay, I've found evidence that Obama is innocent on Wright because he's not Wright. I've found evidence that Obama is innocent on Ayers because he's not Ayers.

That wasn't hard at all. They're not him, and he's not them, any more than McCain is Lindner or Pfleger or Liddy.

 

Back when they thought McCain could win, Republican strategists (and McCain himself) voiced a vastly different view regarding smear tactics. Check out John McCain at 3:00 and Joe Watkins at 3:47 of the video.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/muu-oNy1VrQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/muu-oNy1VrQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>