On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Ben Dyer <radicalbender at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Erika <ekm at seastorm.com> wrote: > >> > http://obamafactcheck.com/facts/10/331216.shtml >> >> yes, Obama's changed positions on some things.... but is that so evil, >> given the fact that he's in politics? There is I think a constant dance >> of give and take that these folks do... > > > The most irritating general political trend of the past five years or so > (probably longer, actually), is the idea that you should never change your > position on anything, ever. If you do, you are a weak flip-flopper who can't > be trusted because how do I know what you say is true? > > Issues don't stand still and they're never as black-and-white as people say. > Circumstances will change, so why is it so bad that the responses of our > elected officials change? Ben, I agree with you. This is not an example of that. Obama still thinks telecom immunity is wrong and undermines constitutional protections (his words, not mine). He voted for the bill because he was unable to get the telecom immunity portion struck out and felt the rest of the bill was needed. I am unable to reconcile any scenario where any Congressman votes for any law he or she believes is unconstitutional*. I'm pretty sure they take an oath against that. This particular move of his pissed off a lot of his supporters, but really what are they going to do about it? Vote for McCain, instead? Ha! * He didn't quite go that far with his language, mind you. But I'm not sure how we're supposed to take "undermines constitutional protections" otherwise. -- Matt Warden Cincinnati, OH, USA http://mattwarden.com This email proudly and graciously contributes to entropy.