• 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: "ISIL Is Not Islamic"

Sorry to break this up a bit, but I want to keep thoughts separate as they should be:

No, ususally they go together and breaking them up often distorts. Its often used to deliberately miss the point.

Then you must be supremely disappointed in Obama right about now.

A tad. But then again, he hasn't invaded a country based on a pretext yet. But we should have congress declare war if we're going to fight a war.



Why not? Isn't that primarily how the founders set it up? Was the vote not meant to slow things down so that we as a people could make measured decisions? So that the power wasn't set up in one branch, or office for that matter, or even person? Instead, what we have today is Obama using the false premise of congress not doing anything, by having Harry Reid stop anything that doesn't match the agenda and then Obama is using his office to act unilaterally, and some say illegally, while the useful idiots in the masses, and media all blame it on the prior administration. It's a slick ruse, but a ruse none the less.

NO, they didn't. Otherwise they'd have set up a direct democracy as opposed to a representative democracy. There was no expectation that every issue would be put to a vote. None. In fact, they deliberately chose not to have a direct democracy.

What was meant to be slowed down down were constitutional changes. And some laws. But largely congress votes, and not us. Our representatives battle it out. Not us. We merely talk to our representatives, but they are free to act as they think wise, and see if we vote them out next election. But we don't vote on each issue. They do.

And there are places, like it or not, that a president can act if the congress doesn't (and has been done long before Obama).


The Constitution is clear on how power is delegated...

No one said otherwise. Here is where your cutting up is losing the point.

I would say it is Obama, and his supporters that are the misrepresenting party here.

Both sides do it, to be sure, but as the criticism of Obama is concerned, your party has lost it completely.

I don't think so. These people are adamant in their fervent belief.

Which people? You would be incorrect is you include all of those with an Islamic faith. Most believes are not radicals.

"proper perspective" in minds like yours and Obama's is to wait and see if another mass casualty attack takes place, then commission a study of what went wrong, by then he'll be out of office...

Again, completely false. It's a trick your side uses to try and avoid any actual discussion.

Most people with any military experience at all knew that we shouldn't have pulled out.

Most knew we shouldn't have gone in, but that's another issue. It's about what our goal is. If we want eternal occupation, then we shouldn't have left on Bush's and Iraq's schedule. But no matter when we were to leave, this was always going to be the response. It is the consequence of our invading and creating the vacuum.

A demo started Vietnam, and now another demo is starting this war using the same template to start this one, and I see nothing has changed on how demo messes will be blamed on the next repub to take office.

Actually, Bush started this. All of this is due to Bush invading in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom