Chilly Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 So, Obama is taking a hard-line stance on the Olympics being in China, saying that unlike our President, he wouldn't attend the opening ceremony. ST. LOUIS (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama took issue Monday with President Bush's decision to attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games, saying he would go to Beijing only if he saw progress between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama. "In the absence of some sense of progress, in the absence of some sense from the Dalai Lama that there was progress, I would not have gone," the presidential candidate told reporters at a news conference. Obama previously has called on the Republican president to boycott the ceremonies. Yet, for some reason, he decided to spend $5 million supporting the Olympics by buying advertising slots.
Albany,n.y. Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 So, Obama is taking a hard-line stance on the Olympics being in China, saying that unlike our President, he wouldn't attend the opening ceremony. Yet, for some reason, he decided to spend $5 million supporting the Olympics by buying advertising slots. Please explain the logic in the last statement. NBC had already gained the rights to the Olympics before Obama got the nomination and Obama is paying NBC, not the Olympics or China. So how is advertising on NBC on an event that will be highly rated have anything to do with one's stance on going to China and attending the event? He's not against the Olympics, he's against the Olympics being held in China and a President going to China. As far as I know, the ads aren't being aired in China.
Chilly Posted August 12, 2008 Author Posted August 12, 2008 Please explain the logic in the last statement. NBC had already gained the rights to the Olympics before Obama got the nomination and Obama is paying NBC, not the Olympics or China. So how is advertising on NBC on an event that will be highly rated have anything to do with one's stance on going to China and attending the event? He's not against the Olympics, he's against the Olympics being held in China and a President going to China. As far as I know, the ads aren't being aired in China. He's helping NBC profit off of an event that he disagrees with.
Ramius Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 Please explain the logic in the last statement. NBC had already gained the rights to the Olympics before Obama got the nomination and Obama is paying NBC, not the Olympics or China. So how is advertising on NBC on an event that will be highly rated have anything to do with one's stance on going to China and attending the event? He's not against the Olympics, he's against the Olympics being held in China and a President going to China. As far as I know, the ads aren't being aired in China. He's against the event being held in china, but has no problem using the event held in china to get his message out because he knows millions of people will be watching.
Chef Jim Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 He's against the event being held in china, but has no problem using the event held in china to get his message out because he knows millions of people will be watching. Now there's some change we can all get behind, huh?
/dev/null Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 Now there's some change we can all get behind, huh? Yes We Can!
SD Jarhead Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 Belief we can Change in! That Obama is sooo different from all the other politicians.
pBills Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 So, Obama is taking a hard-line stance on the Olympics being in China, saying that unlike our President, he wouldn't attend the opening ceremony. Yet, for some reason, he decided to spend $5 million supporting the Olympics by buying advertising slots. Now you're digging. Give me a break because he boycotts the event and decides not to attend. That means he can not spend money on advertising, on promoting his campaign?
Chilly Posted August 13, 2008 Author Posted August 13, 2008 Now you're digging. Give me a break because he boycotts the event and decides not to attend. That means he can not spend money on advertising, on promoting his campaign? Not if he's using the very same event he is boycotting to do so. It is not a hard concept.
GG Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 Not if he's using the very same event he is boycotting to do so. It is not a hard concept. It shouldn't be a hard concept.
blzrul Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 First, he's not boycotting because he's not President. If he actually ATTENDED then you wingnuts would be screaming that he has some freakin nerve acting like he was already elected...like you did when he was in Germany. If all you can find to nitpick him on is crap like this then it's no wonder that this country worships ciphers like Paris Hilton and elects morons like George Bush...preoccupation with stuff that doesn't matter, may not happen and is not important at this point in time .... while the big stuff goes unnoticed. My grandmother would have called it "not seeing the forest for all the trees".
Chilly Posted August 13, 2008 Author Posted August 13, 2008 First, he's not boycotting because he's not President. I guess he's only morally opposed to it if he's president. If all you can find to nitpick him on is crap like this then it's no wonder that this country worships ciphers like Paris Hilton and elects morons like George Bush... preoccupation with stuff that doesn't matter, may not happen and is not important at this point in time .... while the big stuff goes unnoticed. Yeah... a President who has shown time and time again that he's willing to completely and utterly compromise his positions on issues for political gain. That doesn't matter at all. My grandmother would have called it "not seeing the forest for all the trees". Funny, I'd use the same like about most Obama supporters.
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 This is still a non-issue. Yeah, taking a hard-line stance in relations with our largest trading partner and single largest holder of federal debt is a non-issue. Just like it was a non-issue when the last Democratic administration granted them MFN status and didn't take a hard-line stance. But the current President attending the Olympics...major issue.
/dev/null Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 This is still a non-issue. Yet you felt the need to defend Obama earlier
Cornerville Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 So, Obama is taking a hard-line stance on the Olympics being in China, saying that unlike our President, he wouldn't attend the opening ceremony. Yet, for some reason, he decided to spend $5 million supporting the Olympics by buying advertising slots. Remember...remember...places everyone...repeat after me... CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!
pBills Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 Yet you felt the need to defend Obama earlier From people blowing this out of proportion... trying to stir up more nonsense. I sure did defend him for that.
PastaJoe Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 Yeah... a President who has shown time and time again that he's willing to completely and utterly compromise his positions on issues for political gain. That doesn't matter at all. When did the topic shift to McCain's campaign to win the Republican nomination?
SilverNRed Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 If all you can find to nitpick him on is crap like this then it's no wonder that this country worships ciphers like Paris Hilton and elects morons like George Bush...preoccupation with stuff that doesn't matter, may not happen and is not important at this point in time .... while the big stuff goes unnoticed. It's ironic that you're complaining about Paris Hilton and George Bush (the "moron") when your party's solution to our problems is nominating a handsome young guy who is completely lost without his teleprompter.
Recommended Posts