Meh, they tried to hard, about half of that is just non-libertarianism, not double-speak. If they stuck to the things that he really contradicted himself on, such as the troops coming and going, they would have made a better case.

There is enough quote mining in there to make me question the validity of any of the contradictions I didn't already know about. The reason.tv folks (like most libertarians) seem to think they are brilliant, this is poorly constructed propaganda piece is evidence against that assumption.

^Are you trying to tell me I'm not brilliant?

Sorry, I didn't see any contradictions there. The troop increase is in Afghanistan, and the troop withdrawal is from Iraq.

He talked about tightening budgets where we could (ie. where it isn't helping much) and investing where it would do the most good for the future. That is not contradictory.

The others were edited so tightly that they didn't make much sense out of context, certainly not enough to recognize any supposed doublespeak.

Feel free to explain more clearly anything you think is worthy of being called cognitive dissonance.

Hi I'm fairly new to this site and I'm not a very political person myself because I'm not sure who to believe. I see and hear a lot of doublespeak coming from the far left and the far right.

I think the worst thing Obama's done while in office so far is hiring all those lobbyists that he promised he wouldn't allow into his cabinet,

and not holding up to transparency of government (i.e.: his 5-day bill viewing prior to signing is but one of these issues),

and the fact that he was labled as an "anti-war" president just doesn't seem very accurate now does it? I'd say Ron Paul or Kucinich would have been more anti-war but they were not media favorites (aka corporate favorites).

I agree with you BK. I knew from the campaign that Obama wasn't going to be a savior. Politics today are designed to favor the big money interests (read Corporate and especially Investment Bankers).

I voted for him because I knew that things would be much, much worse under the direction of that old white guy and his barbie doll.

But if we had a better election system, something that would allow more than the two current parties, I would have voted for somebody like Paul, who really isn't a Republican. There's a guy who would make some changes. I didn't care for some of his social policies, but that guy knows finances.

I guess I'm confused. What was actually contradictory here?

The only one that even sounds contradictory is the first one, and it's because they took bits of him talking about drawing Iraq to a close with him talking about sending more troops to Afghanistan.

The rest, even as presented, don't sound contradictory at all.

I hate to be the one to bust your chops, Blankfist...

Taking the $30 Billion recovered from lending the big banks to smaller banks, is a sound decision. Since large banks are able to dispense more credit, smaller banks are not at the ability to do so. This makes the big banks, bigger, and smaller banks, smaller. That's less competition. So, but investing in smaller banks, the ability to issue credit, would mean more possible growth for businesses. Check out the Small Business Admin (sba.gov) for more information.