• 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!

Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

Why not? I am simply pointing out that the canidate that one on hope and change thus far seems marred in scandals and opined on the reasons why.


The fact that you have issues with my criticism of the new President simply due to it not being a certain date speaks more to your failures than to the Good Reverend's. :mrgreen:

Read the title of the article and your thread....

Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

The Democratic party may be marred in scandals, but they didn't win on promises of hope and change. They won on the unpopularity of the incumbent president.
 
I doubt that, I think Obama will continue the war. Maybe not in Iraq, but probably somewhere in that area. I don't trust him to get us out of the war.

I don't forsee him creating any new wars. He has said that Afghanistan is next, so obviously Bush's war will be continued to completion.
 
Why is it that none of those scandals pertain to the Obama administration? And the ones that do are being addressed by the Obama administration as opposed to the last administration who waited until it was too late(Rumsfeld) or simply ignored the questions being raised(Cheney-Halliburton)?
 
I don't forsee him creating any new wars. He has said that Afghanistan is next, so obviously Bush's war will be continued to completion.

Government loves war, it justifies their expansion of power and build up of their might. It's not just a Bush or Obama thing...government loves war. That's why it was supposed to be restricted in the ways and reasons it could go to war. But we don't seem to care much for checks and balances and the Constitution these days.
War is Peace
 
Read the title of the article and your thread....

Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

The Democratic party may be marred in scandals, but they didn't win on promises of hope and change. They won on the unpopularity of the incumbent president.




Interesting opinion, so you are saying Obama was a lesser of two evils and there is no cult of personality here?


You don't remember obama campaigning on hope and change? Is this now thrown out the window because reality is setting in? :roll:
 
Last edited:
The Democratic party may be marred in scandals, but they didn't win on promises of hope and change. They won on the unpopularity of the incumbent president.

Ahem...I don't recall the Democrats running on Bush's low approval ratings. The presidential campaign was premised explicitly on hope and change. That campaign had long coattails and was ridden far and wide by Democrats. Congressional Democrats were not running on a theme about how unpopular Bush was.

Puhlease, Obama and the Democrats made hope and change the centerpiece of their 08 campaigns. Now that the Democrats cannot deliver on that promise you guys are engaged in a little historical revisionism to white-out that hope and change promise??

Look, we ain't that dumb.
 
Ahem...I don't recall the Democrats running on Bush's low approval ratings. The presidential campaign was premised explicitly on hope and change. That campaign had long coattails and was ridden far and wide by Democrats. Congressional Democrats were not running on a theme about how unpopular Bush was.

Puhlease, Obama and the Democrats made hope and change the centerpiece of their 08 campaigns. Now that the Democrats cannot deliver on that promise you guys are engaged in a little historical revisionism to white-out that hope and change promise??

Look, we ain't that dumb.

While the Democrats certainly took off and ran with the hope and change mantra, I don't think that's why they so overwhelmingly won. I think the major factor in that was the unpopularity of Bush and his policies. So people switched letter from R to D and came out in droves. There were the Obamanation folk, the ones who really bought into the hope and change (I think those people were fools, and really the one political group that really got under my skin) screaming about it all the time. But I think most were looking to get away from Bush and his policies. Too bad they just got more of the same in return.

BTW, anyone hear about Obama maybe militarizing NASA?

Jan. 2 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China.

Obama’s transition team is considering a collaboration between the Defense Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because military rockets may be cheaper and ready sooner than the space agency’s planned launch vehicle, which isn’t slated to fly until 2015, according to people who’ve discussed the idea with the Obama team.

The potential change comes as Pentagon concerns are rising over China’s space ambitions because of what is perceived as an eventual threat to U.S. defense satellites, the lofty battlefield eyes of the military.
Obama Moves to Counter China With Pentagon-NASA Link - Yahoo! News

Don't know how much of it is true or will come to fruition.
 
Interesting opinion, so you are saying Obama was a lesser of two evils and there is no cult of personality here?


You don't remember obama campaigning on hope and change? Is this now thrown out the window because reality is setting in? :roll:

Let me clarify. Your argument is unfocused and thus easily dismissed. You think that recent scandals in the democratic party are evidence of Obama rescinding on his promises. Since you won't coherently phrase your argument it is hopeless to respond to.
 
Government loves war, it justifies their expansion of power and build up of their might.

Hmmm, how does that apply to the US and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? How has the government expanded it's power? Specifics, please, no partisan rhetoric about liberty being denied. And how has the government built up the military? Of course, it hasn't...but how do you think it has?

That's why it was supposed to be restricted in the ways and reasons it could go to war.

Huh? While I recognize that nations have agreed to how conduct war (see Geneva, for example), they didn't do so in order to check their own ambitions to expand their power or build up their military might. They did so because such agreements recognize long-established morals of fighting wars.

Where do you get the idea that nations have agreed to restrictions on the reasons they choose to go to war? I don't know of any nation that subscribes to the idea that they have subjugated their sovereignty to any NGO, to the UN, or any other body. Do you?

But we don't seem to care much for checks and balances and the Constitution these days.

We don't?

It seems to me that the reigning argument nowadays is that Congress or the Courts should be supreme in order to check a President they hate. And this depends on the individual's policy preferences. If you're pro-abortion you want the Courts to be a superior branch to be the final arbiter of what is constitutional and to invent and protect new rights that you find preferable. If you're anti-war you demand that Congress be superior and conduct non-stop, over-arching investigations of whatever it wants to within the Executive Branch.

I have faith in the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances, but it seems to me that liberals and Democrats hate both concepts currently. And most likely becuase both concepts limit their ability to reign in the branches they need to in order to realize their policy preferences.

War is Peace

What pop culture rubbish this is. No wonder our younger generations do not deserve our respect.
 
Ahem...I don't recall the Democrats running on Bush's low approval ratings. The presidential campaign was premised explicitly on hope and change. That campaign had long coattails and was ridden far and wide by Democrats. Congressional Democrats were not running on a theme about how unpopular Bush was.

Puhlease, Obama and the Democrats made hope and change the centerpiece of their 08 campaigns. Now that the Democrats cannot deliver on that promise you guys are engaged in a little historical revisionism to white-out that hope and change promise??

Look, we ain't that dumb.

So because democrat candidates used his catch phrase and are now involved in scandals, Obama's a liar?
 
So because democrat candidates used his catch phrase and are now involved in scandals, Obama's a liar?

Who the hell said or even suggested that?

You're being foolish and absurd.

I was merely disagreeing with your suggestion that the Democrats didn't, in fact, run on a campaign theme of hope and change.

Were you that embarrassed that you felt compelled to draw such an absurd conclusion from my comments?

Just foolish!
 
Thank you. The guy hasn't even taken office yet, and these people (Ikari and Reverend) are alleging that no change will occur in the next 4 years. Nice. :roll:

Actually, there should be change... 8 years of false scandals and BS (Valerie Plame anyone?) will be replaced with real corruption. Imagine that.
 
Do you think Obama is doing the best with what is available, or is he screwing the pooch early here due to inexperience? only time will tell.....
Obama is JAFLD. He's no different than any of the FLD that came before him.

And, naturally, his supporters will give him a pass on everything.
 
Surprise, surprise. You didn't think they would somehow be different than Republicans, did you? :mrgreen:

They are hardly different; they are far worse, but in your world, you willingly swallow the disinformation produced by the mainstream media about how corrupt Republicans are without any evidence to substantiate such claims.

:2wave:
 
Who the hell said or even suggested that?

You're being foolish and absurd.

I was merely disagreeing with your suggestion that the Democrats didn't, in fact, run on a campaign theme of hope and change.

Were you that embarrassed that you felt compelled to draw such an absurd conclusion from my comments?

Just foolish!

Don't act so offended, If you would have left off your last two paragraphs it would have been a just point. Instead you added your partisan rant which I responded in like kind to. Your mock outrage is duly noted. :2wave:
 
While I know you're being factious, I think anyone who thought Obama was actually going to bring "hope" and "change" is fooling themselves. He's standard politician and that's it; Chicago at that. There will be no hope or change with Obama, there will merely be a continuation of the standard government tyranny.

In a nutshell!!
 
Let me clarify. Your argument is unfocused and thus easily dismissed. You think that recent scandals in the democratic party are evidence of Obama rescinding on his promises. Since you won't coherently phrase your argument it is hopeless to respond to.

In otherwords you don't like what I say about obama so you are gonna go with this incoherent nonsense to avoid an actual discussion.


See Obama said no to politics as usual, then he picked insiders and the usuals..... Here we see people marred in scandal that he chose. To me it looks like more of the same old.


That is the discussion. Feel free to participate or not. :2wave:
 
Hmmm, how does that apply to the US and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? How has the government expanded it's power? Specifics, please, no partisan rhetoric about liberty being denied. And how has the government built up the military? Of course, it hasn't...but how do you think it has?

Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Real ID Act, No Fly list, wiretaps, etc. Plus spending what is it, a trillion or so on a war, setting up a puppet governmnet, occupying sovereign land, going to war without formal declaration, etc. How did the government not increase in size? More laws, more control, more surveillance. We need less of all these things, not more.

Huh? While I recognize that nations have agreed to how conduct war (see Geneva, for example), they didn't do so in order to check their own ambitions to expand their power or build up their military might. They did so because such agreements recognize long-established morals of fighting wars.

Where do you get the idea that nations have agreed to restrictions on the reasons they choose to go to war? I don't know of any nation that subscribes to the idea that they have subjugated their sovereignty to any NGO, to the UN, or any other body. Do you?

Supposed to take a formal declaration of war by Congress. President is commander in chief when forces are called up. The only mechanism in the Constitution to call up is a declaration of war by Congress. When going against other nations, other government, as we did in Iraq you rightfully need a formal declaration of war. War should not be permitted without it. Not some vote to "authorize" blah blah blah; whatever the treasonous Congress did to give away part of their checks and balances over military use. The Constitution says only Congress can declare war, thus if you want to go to war, Congress must declare it. Congress is also to control the purse strings, unfortunately that too has been corrupted. Now it's "they won't fund the troops, they don't care about our military men and women" blah blah blah. How the hell is Congress supposed to exert any amount of control without being able to exercise that which was granted to it by the People? The President for all intensive purposes fully and always controls the military. He can use it as he sees fit, that sounds like the power of a King; not that of a public servant.

We don't?

No, we don't.

It seems to me that the reigning argument nowadays is that Congress or the Courts should be supreme in order to check a President they hate. And this depends on the individual's policy preferences. If you're pro-abortion you want the Courts to be a superior branch to be the final arbiter of what is constitutional and to invent and protect new rights that you find preferable. If you're anti-war you demand that Congress be superior and conduct non-stop, over-arching investigations of whatever it wants to within the Executive Branch.

Yes, Congress and the SCOTUS have some say in this. The President isn't to be king. In fact, I would say the President wasn't meant to be the most powerful political position in the US. The President is merely the Executive, the most powerful branch was to be Congress. The Congress must be made to retake the powers it gave away. Those powers aren't theirs to give away, those were demands and restrictions by the People. There must be friction between the 3 branches, there must be checks and balances. As it stands now, the President has well too much power; we weren't meant to be ruled by a king.

I have faith in the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances, but it seems to me that liberals and Democrats hate both concepts currently. And most likely becuase both concepts limit their ability to reign in the branches they need to in order to realize their policy preferences.

I think many people hate checks and balances. I would say neo-cons especially hate that. They hate the courts coming in and telling them that their fascist laws are unconstitutional. While there may be areas in which the democrats hate check and balances, you saying it's only liberals shows your true partisan behavior. Both sides do it, both sides are corrupt, both sides want nothing more than power even if it comes at the expense of the rights and liberties of the People.

What pop culture rubbish this is. No wonder our younger generations do not deserve our respect.

Maybe the younger generation is just getting sick of bowing their heads to government. You take not even the time to consider the words, knee-jerk reactionary sentiment. Oh those youngin's these days...they don't know blah blah blah. Condescending tripe. Maybe those whom have lost the will to oppose government growth don't deserve our respect. Those willing to excuse the treason and tyranny of the State for a little "safety". Franklin was right, the founders were right. Distrust the government, watch it and constrain it. It's not something to let go, it's not something to have blind faith it, it is something that will always have to be opposed. That's reality.
 
Supposed to take a formal declaration of war by Congress. President is commander in chief when forces are called up.
The President is -always- the CinC.
The "when called into service" clause refers to federalizing the militia, which does not require a DoW from congress.
 
Is this trolling or is it just whining? :roll:




Do you have any issues with the sheer amount of scandals that already surround the obama picks?

Or are you cool with politics as usual?

Maybe I'm not aware of the scandals. Lets recap and try to keep them limited to those related to Obama's actions since that's the point you seem to want to make.

Secretary Of State nominees

Hilary Clinton - Passed legislation before husband received 100,000 donation to presidential library

Bill Richardson - Subject to a grand jury hearing.
Apparently some brilliant financial company that advised Jefferson County, Alabama into near-bankruptcy was also hired to work its magic on the state of New Mexico after it donated 100 grand to various political action committees formed by Bill Richardson.

While this may seem a huge controversy to you, I find the list rather small and inconclusive in the least. Do you have anything besides the Op-Ed's partisan conclusions and cheap rhetoric to back your claim?
 
Maybe I'm not aware of the scandals. Lets recap and try to keep them limited to those related to Obama's actions since that's the point you seem to want to make.

Secretary Of State nominees

Hilary Clinton - Passed legislation before husband received 100,000 donation to presidential library

Bill Richardson - Subject to a grand jury hearing.


While this may seem a huge controversy to you, I find the list rather small and inconclusive in the least. Do you have anything besides the Op-Ed's partisan conclusions and cheap rhetoric to back your claim?




Nothing you would not cackle that its no big deal and call it "Cheap rhetortic" whitout submitting the intellectual exercise to explain why its cheap. ..... :lol:


It's funny how you excuse the scandals that surround Obamas picks....
 
The President is -always- the CinC.
The "when called into service" clause refers to federalizing the militia, which does not require a DoW from congress.

While there is need for a standing army, at the time there wasn't a standing army. It had to be called up. Washington's army was comprised of called up militia and was disbanded afterwards. Congress must have a check in terms of war, the President is not king.
 
Nothing you would not cackle that its no big deal and call it "Cheap rhetortic" whitout submitting the intellectual exercise to explain why its cheap. ..... :lol:


It's funny how you excuse the scandals that surround Obamas picks....

About all you have posted is coincidences.
 
Nothing you would cackle that its no big deal and call it "Cheap rhetortic"..... :lol:


It's funny how you excuse the scandals that surround Obamas picks....

So there aren't any more? Am I mistaken in pointing out that both nominees were discarded after these issues were discovered?

Isn't the whole idea of choosing cabinet members from lists of nominees to weed out corruption and scandal?

I'm sorry, but it still seems as if the good Reverend found an Op-Ed and failed to turn it into "Breaking News"
 
While there is need for a standing army, at the time there wasn't a standing army. It had to be called up. Washington's army was comprised of called up militia and was disbanded afterwards. Congress must have a check in terms of war, the President is not king.
However right or wrong this may be, none of this changes anything I said.

I am baffled as to where the 'The President isn't CinC unless called into service by a DoW from Congress' idea comes from.

Who, exactly, is the CinC, if not the President?
 
Back
Top Bottom