Having read those quotes I don't think he was backtracking on anything. (With link to speech)
Tashmere Send a noteboard - 22/08/2010 06:27:06 AM
People are going to take whatever he says and twist it to reflect what they want it to mean or how they think. I thought the whole thing was perfectly clear. It was implicit in the first statement that he thought it was a controversial decision to build the mosque there but he believes they have the right.
I find it disgusting that he is being slammed for defending the constitutional rights of citizens of this countruy and refusing to throw weight behind efforts to stop them.
I can see what people are saying only after employing some very twisty thought processes.
I prefer to just listen to what he said and take it as he said it. It was perfectly clear when you don't go straining to read between the lines.
(Having said all that I notice what the title of the video I am linking says. What it should say is "Obama Backs the Right to Build Mosque Near Ground Zero", but apparently the person was too lazy to actually listen to the speech or to add the extra word. Unbelievable.)
I find it disgusting that he is being slammed for defending the constitutional rights of citizens of this countruy and refusing to throw weight behind efforts to stop them.
I can see what people are saying only after employing some very twisty thought processes.
I prefer to just listen to what he said and take it as he said it. It was perfectly clear when you don't go straining to read between the lines.
(Having said all that I notice what the title of the video I am linking says. What it should say is "Obama Backs the Right to Build Mosque Near Ground Zero", but apparently the person was too lazy to actually listen to the speech or to add the extra word. Unbelievable.)
An amusing column on the NYC mosque by Maureen Dowd....
20/08/2010 12:33:27 AM
- 1469 Views
She has a point. Bush had the guts to weather the storm on DPW.
20/08/2010 12:42:21 AM
- 878 Views
DPW? I keep sitting here trying to figure out what that means.
20/08/2010 12:50:14 AM
- 740 Views
Re: DPW? I keep sitting here trying to figure out what that means.
20/08/2010 12:56:44 AM
- 1001 Views
Once again, listen to the Economist and don't use abbreviations that aren't obvious.
20/08/2010 06:38:08 PM
- 734 Views
That abbreviation was obvious and all over the place at the time the incident happened.
20/08/2010 07:59:08 PM
- 795 Views
I certainly don't remember seeing it anywhere. The abbreviation was unnecessary in any event.
20/08/2010 10:43:05 PM
- 722 Views
Sure, I could've done that, if I had realized it would puzzle people. I did not. *NM*
20/08/2010 10:59:42 PM
- 477 Views
well since Christie is actually a republican he makes a better example than Bloomberg
20/08/2010 01:53:44 PM
- 818 Views
Gingrich thinks he is a deep thinker?
20/08/2010 09:42:15 AM
- 685 Views
He makes historical references as often as possible, or at least in pretty much everything I've seen
20/08/2010 12:37:02 PM
- 814 Views
As he was a history professor and writes histories and alternate histories, this is not surprising
20/08/2010 05:33:48 PM
- 981 Views
I'm aware of that
20/08/2010 11:47:32 PM
- 706 Views
Re: I'm aware of that
21/08/2010 12:40:29 AM
- 993 Views
Conservatives love Rome. I don't know why.
21/08/2010 01:20:27 AM
- 791 Views
Rome was more often than not governed by aristocrats and did, after all, invent the republic.
21/08/2010 04:50:53 PM
- 1120 Views
Except there doesn't seem to be any conflict between either position.
20/08/2010 10:06:20 AM
- 931 Views
He has to learn he needs to be crystal clear on sensitive issues
20/08/2010 02:03:43 PM
- 990 Views
In Washington, one must always present the APPEARANCE of integrity...
20/08/2010 02:40:24 PM
- 875 Views
Clinton lied about the BJ but what is your airtight proof that Bush lied?
20/08/2010 07:44:53 PM
- 941 Views
This is a bit along the lines of what I have been thinking.
20/08/2010 07:49:15 PM
- 964 Views
I didn't see the problem either. He was simply stating the obvious.
21/08/2010 01:39:44 AM
- 701 Views
Then restating it for those who refused to hear it, so that someone else could refuse to hear it.
21/08/2010 04:22:30 PM
- 955 Views
Yes, his backtracking was quite pussy-ish. *NM*
21/08/2010 04:00:31 AM
- 348 Views
How did he "backtrack" exactly?
21/08/2010 04:35:33 PM
- 1006 Views
c'mon Joel. are you being intentionally thick?
21/08/2010 05:02:27 PM
- 1024 Views
Having read those quotes I don't think he was backtracking on anything. (With link to speech)
22/08/2010 06:27:06 AM
- 981 Views
did you take into your consideration
22/08/2010 03:50:59 PM
- 718 Views
I can't imagine why they would express concern over it. It wasn't controversial. That is on them
22/08/2010 03:58:32 PM
- 918 Views
I agree he is not backtracking
22/08/2010 06:49:36 PM
- 828 Views
While we're picking sides, I'm with Mook and Roland.
22/08/2010 08:20:11 PM
- 755 Views

I like how he's got rhetorical talents when it works
22/08/2010 08:32:15 PM
- 778 Views
nope just human
*NM*
22/08/2010 08:37:17 PM
- 417 Views

that's not what Paul just said.
22/08/2010 08:42:24 PM
- 842 Views

He couldn't stay out, no.
22/08/2010 08:56:47 PM
- 878 Views
I don't want to argue with you on a Sunday, my religion says I have to relax.
22/08/2010 09:03:54 PM
- 899 Views

key word: seem
22/08/2010 09:06:40 PM
- 814 Views
I was only using that term for you guys. I don't feel like beating you with a rolling pin until you
22/08/2010 09:14:39 PM
- 714 Views
Seems I interpret his speech on the iftar differently from you and Tash - see my reply to Tash. *NM*
22/08/2010 09:25:13 PM
- 492 Views
I'm not even taking the time to comment on something so obvious as what he did. *NM*
22/08/2010 02:53:10 AM
- 472 Views
Joel
22/08/2010 05:37:45 AM
- 1030 Views
His phrasing in the first speech implied that it was a bad idea. But legally they have the right.
22/08/2010 06:32:59 AM
- 947 Views
nonsense
22/08/2010 03:39:30 PM
- 892 Views
I still don't see how it can be misinterpreted except by intent by the listener.
22/08/2010 04:08:52 PM
- 867 Views
so we have reached the point of no return...
22/08/2010 04:18:46 PM
- 876 Views
In your case it would have to be number 2.
22/08/2010 07:38:20 PM
- 851 Views
ah, but I have no agenda here...
22/08/2010 07:41:59 PM
- 683 Views
lol.<3
22/08/2010 08:49:35 PM
- 860 Views

that it is...
22/08/2010 08:57:05 PM
- 830 Views
hee. Well, I still don't agree with you, but at least you're snuggly.^_^ *NM*
22/08/2010 09:09:22 PM
- 636 Views
Tash you are very much a fair person in this world
22/08/2010 08:34:38 PM
- 951 Views
Or there is another option: 3) He was using tact.
22/08/2010 09:01:49 PM
- 856 Views
I really have to disagree with your interpretation of that first speech.
22/08/2010 09:22:32 PM
- 1152 Views
Lies, prevarication and deceit again, eh?
22/08/2010 01:17:45 PM
- 1344 Views

that was a decent explanation....
22/08/2010 05:18:18 PM
- 794 Views
In the interests of fairness ( this does not support or detract from my position), here is the full
22/08/2010 09:22:50 PM
- 1062 Views