• 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!

Shift on executive power lets Obama bypass rivals

apdst said:
Sounds a lot like you're blaiming him for the recession, to me.
Click to expand...

Then you should read more carefully and ask for clarifying questions.


What, the terrorists hated us more? Those arguments were lame 10 years ago. Can't believe you're still using them.

Are you trying to claim that the terrorists like us now, since The One got elected?
Click to expand...

Again, not what I said. But it did bring new recruits. Most of those we found coming to Iraq had never before been part of any terrorist group, so we did increase their numbers. Iraq also allowed the opportunity to kill Americans more than ever before, and all at very little risk to them (they were in Pakistan and SA, so only fresh blood got to get killed). It was a win win for them.

Nor did I say anywhere that they liked us now. But we have a lot to learn in dealing with terrorism. Bush played to our fears and made reckless and poor decisions. Something less blunt, less excessive, quieter would have done a better job at a fraction of the cost (in lives and money).
 
Boo Radley said:
Then you should read more carefully and ask for clarifying questions.
Click to expand...

I did!...LOL!!! You said the same thing, only in different words.




Again, not what I said. But it did bring new recruits. Most of those we found coming to Iraq had never before been part of any terrorist group, so we did increase their numbers. Iraq also allowed the opportunity to kill Americans more than ever before, and all at very little risk to them (they were in Pakistan and SA, so only fresh blood got to get killed). It was a win win for them.

Nor did I say anywhere that they liked us now. But we have a lot to learn in dealing with terrorism. Bush played to our fears and made reckless and poor decisions. Something less blunt, less excessive, quieter would have done a better job at a fraction of the cost (in lives and money).
Click to expand...

You said that we, "emboldened", the terrorists.

Going to war with the Facists brough new recruits, too.
 
Boo Radley said:
In fact, that was not what I was doing. But in fact he did not help. I don't believe presidents control the economy, but fighting two wars, not asking that they be paid for, telling people we can spend like drunken sailors and that we can cut taxes.

However, I was speaking to our credibility, to embolding terrorists, helping with their recruitment, destablizing the region, breaking the rule of law, and grabbing power.
Click to expand...


Blame America first...You should market that bumper sticker...

TheNextEra said:
Or there was doubt that Saddam had STOCKPILES of WMDs (Which was the key selling point for the invasion). Gee, were those stockpiles ever found? Nope
Click to expand...

Oh they will be...When Bashr Assad falls....Bet that'll get full news coverage, what do ya think?


Boo Radley said:
Nor did I say anywhere that they liked us now. But we have a lot to learn in dealing with terrorism.
Click to expand...

Seems I have heard this line of reasoning before in history...Sure your first name isn't Neville?


j-mac
 
Manc Skipper said:
Why do you hate him so? Is it his height, his education? His good looks? Maybe because he's Hawaiian, Brah?
Click to expand...

His utter lack of leadership skills.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
 
j-mac said:
Oh they will be...When Bashr Assad falls....Bet that'll get full news coverage, what do ya think?
Click to expand...

LOL so when that happens and they aren't found then what other country will you blame that has them?
 
apdst said:
I don't recall anyone complaining about Saddam being removed from power, though.
Click to expand...

Actually, there were many that voiced opposition to the way it was handled.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Why do you hate him so? Is it his height, his education? His good looks? Maybe because he's Hawaiian, Brah?
Click to expand...

Because he's half black. We don't hate the white half. Just the black half.
 
TheNextEra said:
LOL so when that happens and they aren't found then what other country will you blame that has them?
Click to expand...

Well, they were moved with the aid of the Russian's so they could be anywhere.

j-mac
 
TheNextEra said:
Actually, there were many that voiced opposition to the way it was handled.
Click to expand...

Yes, by Saddam supporters, and those trying to undermine Bush. All in all, not a very honest group.


j-mac
 
apdst said:
OMG! Are you fixing to blame Bush for the recession? That's as rediculous as saying that 9/11 was an inside job.
Click to expand...

Let's just take a look at a few things here:

Bush come into office with a budget surplus, a relatively healthy economy, growing GDP, and a combination of regulation and oversight that allowed the banks to prosper without getting out of had.

Bush then de-regulated banking enough to change oversight, took the surplus and reversed it into the largest deficit we have ever seen, took us into two wars while lowering the tax based income to the fed, and presided over the beginning of recession.

I think that certainly indicates that Bush had a very heavy hand in bringing the recession on.
 
j-mac said:
Well, they were moved with the aid of the Russian's so they could be anywhere.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Sure they were, sure they were. Did you come to that conclusion through the aid of a tinfoil hat as well?
 
j-mac said:
Yes, by Saddam supporters, and those trying to undermine Bush. All in all, not a very honest group.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yep, those had to be the ONLY two reasons to be against the war. And you say you want serious debate? :lamo
 
tecoyah said:
Let's just take a look at a few things here:

Bush come into office with a budget surplus, a relatively healthy economy, growing GDP, and a combination of regulation and oversight that allowed the banks to prosper without getting out of had.

Bush then de-regulated banking enough to change oversight, took the surplus and reversed it into the largest deficit we have ever seen, took us into two wars while lowering the tax based income to the fed, and presided over the beginning of recession.

I think that certainly indicates that Bush had a very heavy hand in bringing the recession on.
Click to expand...

There's no hope for some folks.
 
tecoyah said:
took the surplus and reversed it into the largest deficit we have ever seen
Click to expand...

Wait . . . what?

Have you seen the last few deficits?
 
Harshaw said:
Wait . . . what?

Have you seen the last few deficits?
Click to expand...

I see, so we should compare the deficits created when attempting to recover from recession, to those created due to warfare and economic policy that likely led to said recession?

This is a very poor rebuttal...almost as bad as apdst's complete lack of one.

Neither of you in any way addressed the validity of my comments, and instead proceed to avoid them by attacking first me, then Obama and the after effects of the recession I was commenting on in the first place.

This is certainly not debate, and instead ignorance incarnate.
 
tecoyah said:
I see, so we should compare the deficits created when attempting to recover from recession, to those created due to warfare and economic policy that likely led to said recession?

This is a very poor rebuttal...almost as bad as apdst's complete lack of one.

Neither of you in any way addressed the validity of my comments, and instead proceed to avoid them by attacking first me, then Obama and the after effects of the recession I was commenting on in the first place.

This is certainly not debate, and instead ignorance incarnate.
Click to expand...

#1 A surplus never existed.
#2 Every President has had a reason to run deficits
  • Reagan had the cold war
  • Bush had 9-11
  • Obama has recession

Unless we stop tolerating excessive spending for any reason it will not stop
 
Why are you soo pissed off? Because he used his legal powers?
 
I believe we do have a dangerous shift of power to the executive. It has not been limited to just this president. Congress passed laws with broad scopes that leave the administration of those laws to an agency run by the president's cabinet. That passes the power out of congress' hands and into the hands of the agency and ultimately the president.
 
apdst said:
I did!...LOL!!! You said the same thing, only in different words.
Click to expand...


You seem to lack basic understanding. Perhaps your reading is influenced by your prejudices?


You said that we, "emboldened", the terrorists.

Going to war with the Facists brough new recruits, too.
Click to expand...

Do I need to define that word for you? They got bolder. They had targets close and could use others. Emboldened.
 
apdst said:
He went to the UN. It's not his fault they chickened out. Remember Colin Powells speech to the general assembly?

I guess Saddam had too many friends in the UN.
Click to expand...

I didn't say Obama merely went to UN. I said he worked within the UN, and not on his own, and not with a coalition.

And no, Saddam was contained and not killing his people at the time. We waited until most of that was done. In waiting, we merely added injury to injury. Had we acted like Obama when Saddam was actually killing his opposition, fewer would have opposed him. But when actions only increase deaths, the support dwindles with reason.

So, to repeat, the situation and actions were different, not the same.
 
j-mac said:
Blame America first...You should market that bumper sticker...
Click to expand...

And you should work on having some national esteem. Being too sensitive is a sign of low esteem.



Seems I have heard this line of reasoning before in history...Sure your first name isn't Neville?


j-mac
Click to expand...


No, that was just the false line apologists have used not to question anything. It goes back to one of things you have to do to sell a war, paint all opposition as unpatriotic appeasers. It is another way of avoidance and to not make a judgment other than for war. Another cheat. Another sign of poor national esteem.
 
Phoenix said:
#1 A surplus never existed.
#2 Every President has had a reason to run deficits
  • Reagan had the cold war
  • Bush had 9-11
  • Obama has recession

Unless we stop tolerating excessive spending for any reason it will not stop
Click to expand...

I agree with you final statement...wholeheartedly.

However, as for point one:
"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries."

FederalDeficit(1).jpg

And yes, we live in a complex world that deals our Presidents the unforseen. There are issues that require spending...but we try to choose our leaders with wisdom in mind.
 
tecoyah said:
I see, so we should compare the deficits created when attempting to recover from recession, to those created due to warfare and economic policy that likely led to said recession?

This is a very poor rebuttal...almost as bad as apdst's complete lack of one.

Neither of you in any way addressed the validity of my comments, and instead proceed to avoid them by attacking first me, then Obama and the after effects of the recession I was commenting on in the first place.

This is certainly not debate, and instead ignorance incarnate.
Click to expand...

There's no point responding to anyone who still thinks Bush de-regulated the banking industry that his policies, alone, caused the recession.

There's the real ignorance.
 
Boo Radley said:
I didn't say Obama merely went to UN. I said he worked within the UN, and not on his own, and not with a coalition.

And no, Saddam was contained and not killing his people at the time. We waited until most of that was done. In waiting, we merely added injury to injury. Had we acted like Obama when Saddam was actually killing his opposition, fewer would have opposed him. But when actions only increase deaths, the support dwindles with reason.
Click to expand...


There wasn't a coalition effort in Libya?

So, to repeat, the situation and actions were different, not the same.
Click to expand...

The only difference I see, is that Bush was in charge of one and The Messiah was in charge of the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom