• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

King Obama....really?

Beaudreaux said:
As they say down here in the south, I ain't got a dog in this hunt, but since I did jump in front of your gun already, here's one time for sure:



But maybe since your user name starts with Harsh, you would prefer to just keep hammering at her.

And I'm out this time. Have fun, if this is the type of debate you prefer. I don't.
Click to expand...

I already responded to that. It doesn't answer my question.

I "hammer" at her because she's dodging, while conducting a "high road" thread about those terrible things "right-wingers" do in debate.

All she has to do is give an straight, unequivocal answer, not the non-committal, "their side does it too" handwaving.

Not sure why you think it's a problem I should ask for that. If she has the kind of intellectual honesty and consistency she's whipping others for not having, there SHOULD BE no problem.
 
Dezaad said:
The trappings of liberty are not optional to me. Theses are matters that should not be up for debate. I will not vote for any candidate in the future who does not clearly state their intention to set things back on an AMERICAN keel. If I have to, I will simply withhold my vote, and write in "none of the above".

If we are not going to have liberty at home, I really don't care about defending the home at all. The greatness of our nation is its liberty, and I see nothing of particular value to defend without it.
Click to expand...


Couldn't agree more. Just don't get fooled again. Remember, Obama did indeed promise to do just that. We were going to have a more transparent government, whistle blowers were going to be given greater protections, lobbyists were, well you get my point I'm sure.
 
opendebate said:
Taking the higher road, as desirable as that is in a leader, can sometimes make you ineffectual. I think he started with good and genuine intentions but caved. If you recall it was the mission of the right to stop him from achieving anything.
Click to expand...

Don't blame the right for Obama. He's the President, and I seriously doubt anyone can make a President do anything.

And the actual quote was: "The top POLITICAL priority over the next two years is to deny President Obama a second term."

Political priority, not legislative or governing priority. This is an example of the spin that can be put on any statements made by the "other side."

I guarantee you that the TOP POLITICAL PRIORITY of the Democratic party is to deny Republicans at every level of government the ability to be elected. If it wasn't, the Democrats would never be elected. Its politics, not governing.

Now listen to the actual statement, no the spin:
 
opendebate said:
8 and 18 then indirectly 35
Click to expand...

No, in 8 and 35, you merely said you're "not endorsing it." You are not saying you have a problem with it. You are being exceedingly dishonest.

In 18, as I've already said, you don't say what problem you have with it, as I've asked you for many times, you merely say it's "not okay when either side does it."

This is the question you flat-out refuse to answer, which is not answered in 8, 18, OR 35.

Harshaw said:
If it's "not okay," then why can't Obama be criticized without invoking the sins of Bush? Obama is in the White House; Bush isn't.

So do tell the nature of your problems with what Obama did. What was the problem with it, and why was it wrong? See if you can answer it without a tu quoque deflection.
Click to expand...

If you haven't answered by now, it can only be because you don't have any particular problem . . . and your dodges speak for themselves.

So, that's that. High-and-mighty as you've been in this thread, you have not distinguished yourself in the least.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Don't blame the right for Obama. He's the President, and I seriously doubt anyone can make a President do anything.

And the actual quote was: "The top POLITICAL priority over the next two years is to deny President Obama a second term."

Political priority, not legislative or governing priority. This is an example of the spin that can be put on any statements made by the "other side."

I guarantee you that the TOP POLITICAL PRIORITY of the Democratic party is to deny Republicans at every level of government the ability to being elected. If it wasn't, the Democrats would never be elected. Its politics, not governing.

Now listen to the actual statement, no the spin:
Click to expand...


You're right. I misspoke. But really I guess it was my interpretation of what was said in combination with how the right has behaved since this statement was made. I never claim to be innocent of anything, only that I think we should all aim for higher ground. I agree, and posted earlier, that it is important that we have opposition to keep us in check. But I do wonder, can you sight (this is a real question) a time when a president received this same level of opposition, especially from congress?
 
opendebate said:
But I do wonder, can you sight (this is a real question) a time when a president received this same level of opposition?
Click to expand...

Oh, good grief. Do you really have that little knowledge of American history?
 
opendebate said:
You're right. I misspoke. But really I guess it was my interpretation of what was said in combination with how the right has behaved since this statement was made. I never claim to be innocent of anything, only that I think we should all aim for higher ground. I agree, and posted earlier, that it is important that we have opposition to keep us in check. But I do wonder, can you sight (this is a real question) a time when a president received this same level of opposition?
Click to expand...

Yes. Many, and almost all at one time or another. Obama has had a number of bills cosponsored and/or highly supported by the Republicans. You don't hear about those because it doesn't make for sexy air time or sell ads as well as the obstruction.

Now, as for your question directly answered, research how the Republicans opposed FDR at every turn, especially on "lend-lease" and many of his other efforts to stem the tide of Nazi Germany or Japan in the late '30's. Of course, not to mention all the social and stimulus programs he forwarded to Congress. During WWII, the war was referred to as "Mr. Roosevelt's War."
 
Beaudreaux said:
Yes. Many, and almost all at one time or another. Obama has had a number of bills cosponsored and/or highly supported by the Republicans. You don't hear about those because it doesn't make for sexy air time or sell ads as well as the obstruction.

Now, as for your question directly answered, research how the Republicans opposed FDR at every turn, especially on "lend-lease" and many of his other efforts to stem the tide of Nazi Germany or Japan in the late '30's. Of course, not to mention all the social and stimulus programs he forwarded to Congress. During WWII, the war was referred to as "Mr. Roosevelt's War."
Click to expand...

I will thanks. But that isn't really the point anyway. We kind of drifted.

I'll take my shots here and I don't claim to be an expert on anything, including American History but that does not invalidate my point. ( Not that I am accusing you of trying to do that, more like I think some will smell blood in the water) Again, the point of this posting was to remind people that accusations are made from both sides and rules are broken by all Presidents regardless of their party. To take it to the extreme where you lose site of an individuals humanity really undermines our ability to effectively communicate and make progress.
 
Last edited:
opendebate said:
stop trolling me
Click to expand...

I'm not trolling you. I'm honestly baffled by people who seem to have zero knowledge of American history and think this exact moment in time is the worst we've ever gone through and is the worst it's ever been for any President ever. Democrats haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaated Abraham Lincoln. Sift through the political cartoons of that time period and you'll see him portrayed as Satan, a monkey, a woman, a murderer.... GW Bush was called every name in the book. There was even a movie created (and applauded by Hollywood, of course) about assassinating him.

You honestly think Obama has been the most vilified President when he has 90% of the media in his pocket? Please. If the vast majority of media was honest, Obama would be one of the most criticized Presidents ever. He's not.
 
Last edited:
How history is interpreted and recorded may vary considerably from all the detailed circumstances surrounding the events and changing their true perspective. Often relevant individuals are portrayed as demons and saints when in reality they were probably neither or a little of both.
 
Harshaw said:
No, in 8 and 35, you merely said you're "not endorsing it." You are not saying you have a problem with it. You are being exceedingly dishonest.

In 18, as I've already said, you don't say what problem you have with it, as I've asked you for many times, you merely say it's "not okay when either side does it."

This is the question you flat-out refuse to answer, which is not answered in 8, 18, OR 35.



If you haven't answered by now, it can only be because you don't have any particular problem . . . and your dodges speak for themselves.

So, that's that. High-and-mighty as you've been in this thread, you have not distinguished yourself in the least.
Click to expand...

I am so over you.
 
So now the left has back peddled from Obama being the greatest thing ever. Now Bush was awful, and Obama isn't that awful. It wasn't all that long ago that standards in the country were higher than this.
 
humbolt said:
It wasn't all that long ago that standards in the country were higher than this.
Click to expand...
I gather from your about tab in your profile you aren't some still wet behind the ears whippersnapper heh yeah we recall: "an America that is long since past".
 
AngryOldGuy said:
I gather from your about tab in your profile you aren't some still wet behind the ears whippersnapper heh yeah we recall: "an America that is long since past".
Click to expand...
I haven't out-lived it yet.
 
I suppose we can just sit back and snicker at them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom