• 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!

Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian opposition.

Being the President of the USA does make you the Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. Military.

When voters decide who to vote for on election day, they should try to pick a person who has the ability to do the job, before he or she moves into the White House.

Other than Dwight Eisenhower, who has even run for office (let alone won) that was a military strategist? So, I feel your proposal may not be at all practical.

In theory (your theory) we should have elected John McCain, not Obama in 2008. He's a good man with some "boots" experience. He no doubt would have acted more decisively in the Syria kerfuffle.

The CIC position is one of authority, not experience. So, I suspect that most candidates are going to be reliant on guidance from career experts who in turn are influenced by analysts who are influenced by researchers who in turn are influenced by covert spies who are influenced by informants who are....

I think you are so partisan-weighted that you didn't read my post for what it was, not a defense or attack, but an explanation.

To show you that I am consistent...based again on your theory....we should have elected Romney who has far more history with business management than Obama at a time when we are floundering economically.

In other words, you are an advocate of Meritocracy. I am also. But we are a Democracy so it's all about show business, not abilities or experience. Whomever is slickest and makes more credible promises is who we elect.

Now, speaking of experience, Obama is a community organizer. Fat lot of good thats done for us. He can't even get along with his own people, let alone motivate a nation. So even what he's "qualified" for, has been of little value. So, even had he been a General, it doesn't mean he'd get it right.

Try to stand back from your partisanship and look at what I'm actually saying. Then, if you like, we can discuss this in greater depth.

Respectfully,
SpeckleBang
 
Other than Dwight Eisenhower, who has even run for office (let alone won) that was a military strategist?
So, I feel your proposal may not be at all practical.

In theory (your theory) we should have elected John McCain, not Obama in 2008. He's a good man with some "boots" experience. He no doubt would have acted more decisively in the Syria kerfuffle.

The CIC position is one of authority, not experience. So, I suspect that most candidates are going to be reliant on guidance from career experts who in turn are influenced by analysts who are influenced by researchers who in turn are influenced by covert spies who are influenced by informants who are....

I think you are so partisan-weighted that you didn't read my post for what it was, not a defense or attack, but an explanation.

To show you that I am consistent...based again on your theory....we should have elected Romney who has far more history with business management than Obama at a time when we are floundering economically.

In other words, you are an advocate of Meritocracy. I am also. But we are a Democracy so it's all about show business, not abilities or experience. Whomever is slickest and makes more credible promises is who we elect.

Now, speaking of experience, Obama is a community organizer. Fat lot of good thats done for us. He can't even get along with his own people, let alone motivate a nation. So even what he's "qualified" for, has been of little value. So, even had he been a General, it doesn't mean he'd get it right.

Try to stand back from your partisanship and look at what I'm actually saying. Then, if you like, we can discuss this in greater depth.

Respectfully,
SpeckleBang
The first former president that pops up in my head in this regard is George Washington, for sure, there are others.

If McCain had been elected president he probably would have attacked Iran and Syria in his first term.

Voters in the USA dodged a big bullet by not putting that loose cannon in the White House.

President Obama doesn't need any excuses, he did a good enough job in his first term that he was re-elected by a sizable margin over a somewhat credible opponent.
 
Last edited:
I can't tell if I agree or disagree with that Simon, might you rephrase it please?
Find the text of what Obama signed.
But the laws seem to be having the same effect since he signed w/e as before he signed w/e.
 
The first former president that pops up in my head in this regard is George Washington, for sure, there are others.

If McCain had been elected president he probably would have attacked Iran and Syria in his first term.

Voters in the USA dodged a big bullet by not putting that loose cannon in the White House.

President Obama doesn't need any excuses, he did a good enough job in his first term that he was re-elected by a sizable margin over a somewhat credible opponent.

Make up your mind. First, you say the President should have to be a military strategist. Then you say that the military strategist would be a "loose cannon". So, other than traditional partisan rhetoric, what is your point?
 
Make up your mind. First, you say the President should have to be a military strategist. Then you say that the military strategist would be a "loose cannon". So,
other than traditional partisan rhetoric, what is your point?




Other than traditional partisan rhetoric what is your point?
 
The only thing that is not completely republican about this move is we know about it.

The first black President is Republican. :lol:
 
Other than traditional partisan rhetoric what is your point?

My point is asking you what your point is? I'm defending Obama against your (IMHO) unreasonable insistence that a President must be a military strategist. I say it isn't necessary or plausible.

If you think I'm partisan, please tell me who it is I'm partisan for. Have you even read my posts or are you having some sort of automated response? When Obama is right, I support him. When he's wrong, I criticize him. If you can remember what the OP is, you'd realize that I've done nothing but attempt to explain why Obama has made the decision he's under attack for.
 
I want to start off by saying that I disagree with President Obamas decision to allow funding. On the other hand I'm just pumped to see the Obama haters come in and level him for the same exact thing that Bush did. It's always fun to be hypocritical!

For gods sake the man has been out of office going on 5 years. when are you going to let it go? what is the statute of limitation of the blame Bush or Bush did it also going to run out? all it does is make you look desperate to either excuse or distract from Obama and his failed presidency. you sound like a 7 year old "well so and so did it also"


Because you are wrong? Care to explain Reagan arming terrorist as well???

And if it wasn't bad enough going back 5 years you see fit to go back 25 years why stop their lets go back 70 years and blame FDR for arming Russia
 
Last edited:
My point is asking you what your point is?
I'm defending Obama against your (IMHO) unreasonable insistence that a President must be a military strategist
. I say it isn't necessary or plausible.

If you think I'm partisan, please tell me who it is I'm partisan for. Have you even read my posts or are you having some sort of automated response? When Obama is right, I support him. When he's wrong, I criticize him. If you can remember what the OP is, you'd realize that I've done nothing but attempt to explain why Obama has made the decision he's under attack for.




Where did I ever say that a candidate for the office of President of the USA must be a military strategist?

The simple answer is: Nowhere, I didn't say that.

What I did say was that a candidate for the office must be able to handle the job.
 
Where did I ever say that a candidate for the office of President of the USA must be a military strategist?

The simple answer is: Nowhere, I didn't say that.

What I did say was that a candidate for the office must be able to handle the job.

So are you saying Obama is a failure since he doesn't seem to know what to do about Syria? And that he might be getting advice from strategists instead of cooking up these ideas on his own?

Mmmm. OK. I concede. Obama is not qualified for the job.
 
So are you saying Obama is a failure since he doesn't seem to know what to do about Syria? And that he might be getting advice from strategists instead of cooking up these ideas on his own?

Mmmm. OK. I concede. [QUOTE]Obama is not qualified for the job
.[/QUOTE]




Whether you think President Obama is qualified for th job or not really doesn't matter.

Obama will be President of the USA until another Democrat takes his place in 2017.

Deal with it.

And have a nice day.

"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
[/I][/B].

Whether you think President Obama is qualified for th job or not really doesn't matter. Obama will be President of the USA until another Democrat takes his place in 2017.Deal with it. And have a nice day."Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.[/QUOTE]

I feel like I'm caught up in a real-life Kafka novel. I'm the one defending Obama. You're the one attacking him. And yet.....

My opinions don't mean ****. Neither do yours.
 
Whether you think President Obama is qualified for th job or not really doesn't matter. Obama will be President of the USA until another Democrat takes his place in 2017.Deal with it. And have a nice day."Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

I feel like I'm caught up in a real-life Kafka novel. I'm the one defending Obama. You're the one attacking him. And yet.....

My opinions don't mean ****. Neither do yours.
[/QUOTE]




Opinions are like assholes-everybody has one. And everybody thinks everyone else's stinks.
 
Last edited:
I feel like I'm caught up in a real-life Kafka novel. I'm the one defending Obama. You're the one attacking him. And yet.....


Opinions are like assholes-everybody has one. And everybody thinks everyone else's stinks.[/QUOTE]

I'm confident that yours smells like a rose but I refuse to verify this personally. Can we bring this conversation to a close? Thanks.
 
For gods sake the man has been out of office going on 5 years. when are you going to let it go? what is the statute of limitation of the blame Bush or Bush did it also going to run out? all it does is make you look desperate to either excuse or distract from Obama and his failed presidency. you sound like a 7 year old "well so and so did it also"

Did I ever blame him for anything? I simply said that I disagreed with his policies.
 
I think we've hit a dead end on whatever conversations were taking place.

Firstly is there anyone who is ok with Obama waiving the ban on arming terrorists? If so why?

For those who are not ok with Obama waiving these bans, what should we do to stop Obama? We can't contact him directly. There are only a few things I can think of and that's to contact our congresspeople and tell them to vote no on the funding. If this is a matter of the Executive branch then perhaps our only recourse is to start telling Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings.

It's strange because two months ago I would have thought impeaching Obama would be ridiculous as there was nothing solid on him. Now he's arming terrorists. And since he's been doing this before the waiver he should indeed be tried for "high crimes and misdemeanors".
 
I think we've hit a dead end on whatever conversations were taking place.

Firstly is there anyone who is ok with Obama waiving the ban on arming terrorists? If so why?

For those who are not ok with Obama waiving these bans, what should we do to stop Obama? We can't contact him directly. There are only a few things I can think of and that's to contact our congresspeople and tell them to vote no on the funding. If this is a matter of the Executive branch then perhaps our only recourse is to start telling Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings.

It's strange because two months ago I would have thought impeaching Obama would be ridiculous as there was nothing solid on him. Now he's arming terrorists. And since he's been doing this before the waiver he should indeed be tried for "high crimes and misdemeanors".

As he mentioned in his message to Putin, the election is over and he has more flexibility. That's the bad news.

The good news is that his supporters got more food stamps and Obamaphones.
 
Back
Top Bottom