dude you're killing me, I hve n o ide wre dey stant...

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Welcome to the difficult world of moderation, something Obama has preached since he started. Obama didn't come out and say, "I'm a flaming, knee-jerk liberal!!" His opponents labeled him that way because of his votes when he was representing one of the most liberal districts in the country.

Judging candidates based on votes is a terrible way to determine their positions. More often than not, the candidate isn't even voting for/against the meaty part of the bill. Often times, they're voting against wasteful spending that is attached to the bill, or voting for an earmark that was amended after the bill was drafted.

Years ago, Obama said he was pro-choice, but recognized the importance of taking certain measures and creating certain incentives to prevent women from having to get abortions. That's one of the main reasons he was endorsed by Doug Kmiec.

Now that the situation in Iraq has improved, he began to appear as though he would back off of his 18-month withdrawal plan. Rather than applaud him, the GOP attacked, forcing him to announce that he would stick to his original plan which, ironically, is exactly the opposite of the GOP agenda.

Obama has declared for some time now (Obama's Second Amendment Dance) that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right. Arguing that the D.C.-gun-ban was constitutional, and fighting for more gun control in Chicago's inner cities, is not an automatic assertion that the 2nd Amendment doesn't infer an individual right.

Obama says he doesn't like the FISA bill, but he was willing to vote to pass it because it's an improvement over the last one? What a stupid position, right? Obama's willing to support giving federal money to faith-based charities because he sees them as a legitimate means for grassroots charity work? What an idiot, right?

The most bothersome aspect of this whole flip-floppity argument is that Obama has, since he began his campaign, argued that moderation is the key to success. The "flip-flop" argument worked for George W. Bush against John Kerry because George W. Bush was steadfast to a fault. No one could argue that George W. Bush ever changed his mind about anything. If it works for John McCain, who, himself, has flip-flopped on issue after issue, my confidence in the American psyche will be seriously challenged.

The difference, though, between the Obama flip-flops and the McCain flip-flops are that Obama's flipped from, what many have argued is, the far left to the center. McCain has flip-flopped from the center to the right. John Kerry's flip-flops were more like McCain's. He supported the centrist position, then appeared to move to the left when it appeared convenient. Democrats are either too stupid to point this out, or just refuse to adopt the GOP "flip-flop" argument line.

Regardless, flip-flopping is, in my opinion, a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Everyone always seems to determined to determine exactly what a candidates "real" position is on a particular topic. I guess they forget that presidential candidates, like any politician, are held accountable for their words. If Obama says he supports an individual right to own a gun, then fights for nation-wide gun control measures, he should be easily defeated in 2012. If Obama works to overturn Roe v. Wade, he should be easily defeated in 2012.

This "flip-flop" bullshit is exactly that.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will