• 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 Backs Away From Assault Gun Ban in Push to Stop Flow to Mexico

You fail to recongize that the issue here is people doing what they think is right over their desire to maintain political power.
Thus, there's no relevance whatsoever.
And you are simply trying to refreame the argument. It's what you do when you are caught.

It's not the motivation that is important, it's the outcome.

See above. It doesnt matter one whit who else thinks staying the course or invading Iraq was the right thing to do -- GWB did, and given the issue at hand, that's all that matters.
No, it's not all that matters. The original debate was the fact that Obama backing off the AWB was a "good thing." What doesn't matter is why he did it. You are simply trying to reframe the argument so you can criticize him in some way.

See above. It doesnt matter one whit who else thinks staying thr course or invating Iraq was the right thing to do -- GWB did, and given the issue at hand, that's all that matters.
No matter how many times you try to reframe this, it won't work.

YOUR opinion here as to why YOU think he did it doesnt matter; all that matters is that HE thought he was doing the right thing.
And you are wrong again. What matters is what actually played out and whether or not it was actually a good thing for this nation. History is on my side with regard to this.

You absolutely do NOT understand what is being argued.
-I- never stated that GWB did the right thing, or what GWB did was the right thing to do, I stated that -GWB- believed he was doing the right thing and that -he- thought what he did was the right thing to do.
You started the argument regarding "doing the right thing despite the consequences." You cited GWB and I asked for an example of the "right thing." You said the most obvious was staying the course in Iraq. It wasn't until I pointed out that this wasn't even remotely the right thing to do that you changed your argument to say "what -he- thought was the right thing to do."
Goobieman said:
Some people believe in 'doing the right thing' regardless of the political consquences (see: GWB) and other people put 'doing the right thing' behind the retention of political power.
Lerxst said:
Exactly what "right thing" are you talking about?
Goobieman said:
The most obvious was staying the course in Iraq.
You staked your claim and got called on it.
Get it yet?
Yeah I get, you waffled and tried to reframe the argument when you got busted. Fine.

More proof that you do NOT understand what is being argued.
I'm not defending ot attacking Bush's actions regarding anything.
More proof that you are doing your best to reframe the argument.
When you figure out what's REALLY being discussed here, get back to me.
I know what's being discussed, and I know what you are trying to do. I figured you out a long time ago Goobieman.
 
Bush was a two term President because we were at war during his second election.

Bush was a two term President because he received the needed electorial college votes to win.

Bush received 271 Electoral College votes.
Gore received 266 Electoral College votes.

Bush received 286 Electoral College votes.
Kerry received 251 Electoral College votes.

You can certainly offer up your opinion, I'll stick with the facts.

The way that the right wing spin machine fear mongered the U.S. public and slandered the character of John Kerry is the topic of much heated debate.

You and your conspiracy theories. :doh

Translation: The President is reaching out to our historical enemies to try and improve relations, but I don't like that, so I'll characterize Obama's efforts as something other than they are to make it sound irresponsible and bad.

No translation necessary. A picture is worth a thousand words. I provided one so that even you could follow along.

Chavez_1__524861a.jpg


You claimed Obama "unrolled an even more vast eavesdropping program." Well that's all fine and dandy, except for one thing.

Yep, and that one thing is, Obama went from "No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me" to "exceeds legal limits in eavesdropping program"

I've told you time and time again to read the written word, instead you jump around like a little boy ready to piss his pants.

But he will certainly try, and we shall see if he actually succeeds.

Trying isn't doing. You keep on trying to spin it though. :lamo

And he's only been in office three and a half months.

And he hasn't ended the perpetual wars.
 
Has Obama set a timeline for withdrawal? Yes, I think he has.

He can set all the timelines he wants. We still have troops in Iraq.

Now you can spin it all you want, but I remember the whole "a time line for withdrawal will lead to defeat in Iraq! Obama is going to cost us a loss in Iraq!" argument. But now, the time line is "staying the course?"

I've not made any such argument here, but you're certainly entitled to share your band camp stories with us. :lamo

So what did Sarah Paln know about the Bush Doctrine?

Obsess much?
 
And you are simply trying to refreame the argument.
On the contrary -- I am arguing the argument as it was originally argued.
You simply do not understand the argument.

To wit:

It's not the motivation that is important, it's the outcome.
Not in the context discussed here.
If you understood the argument you would understand that.

No, it's not all that matters. The original debate was the fact that Obama backing off the AWB was a "good thing." What doesn't matter is why he did it.
On the contrary -- WHY he did it certainly does matter.

As I said -- massah didnt stop beating you because he thought it was the right thing to do, he did it because he didnt wan to get cut off.

You are simply trying to reframe the argument so you can criticize him in some way.
And rightly so -- unless, of course, you think there's nothing wrong with putting aside 'the right thing to do' in orfer to preserve their power -- that is, unless you think there is nothing wrong with an elected official doing what he thinks is best for himself rather than doing what he thinks is best for the country.

Do you or do you not think there is nothing wrong with an elected official doing what he thinks is best for himself rather than doing what he thinks is best for the country?

No matter how many times you try to reframe this, it won't work.
A remarkable comment, from someone that doesnt understand what's being argued, or why.

And you are wrong again. What matters is what actually played out and whether or not it was actually a good thing for this nation. History is on my side with regard to this.
Not in the context discussed here.
If you understood the argument you would understand that.

You started the argument regarding "doing the right thing despite the consequences." You cited GWB and I asked for an example of the "right thing." You said the most obvious was staying the course in Iraq. It wasn't until I pointed out that this wasn't even remotely the right thing to do that you changed your argument to say "what -he- thought was the right thing to do."
You dont understand the context of my statement. At this point, this misunderstanding may well be deliberate in order to prevent you from losing face.

The point I have ALWAYS made here is in regards to the motivation behind the actions, deciding to chose 'the preservation of political power' over 'the right thing to do'. In this context, the person making the choice defines 'the right thing to do'.

For GWB, the 'right thing to do' was to stay the course in Iraq. He chose this over the preservation of political power as he knew the choice to stay was unpopular and would most certainly cost him politically.

If you understood the argument -- and/or if you actually paid attention -- you would understand that.

But, you dont -- and rather than try to do so, you'll continue to attack me.
Dont worry -- its expected. I figured you out a long time ago.
 
Last edited:
No translation necessary. A picture is worth a thousand words. I provided one so that even you could follow along.

Chavez_1__524861a.jpg
Again, you don't like it so you will characterize it to be something other than it really is. Obama is communicating with our enemies, exercising dialog. Why does that frighten you so. If Chavez decided that he liked the U.S. and wanted to forge a good relationship what would your reaction be?

Yep, and that one thing is, Obama went from "No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me" to "exceeds legal limits in eavesdropping program"
Wrong again silly boy. Obama didn't "exceed" anything. The analysts and operators at the NSA did. For Obama to be complicit here, he would have had to forge policy or actually expand the authority of the NSA in such a way as to directly allow them to exceed legal limits or he would have had to order someone to do it. Nice try.

I've told you time and time again to read the written word, instead you jump around like a little boy ready to piss his pants.
I did read the written word, and that's what got you tripped up. You aren't really very good at this and it shows.


Trying isn't doing. You keep on trying to spin it though. :lamo
And you keep being a dishonest participant in these discussions. It's what you do.


And he hasn't ended the perpetual wars.
In three and a half months. Your hyperpartisan gland is acting up as evidenced by your projectile vomiting of intellectual turds all over this thread.
 
On the contrary -- I am arguing the argument as it was originally argued.
You simply do not understand the argument.

To wit:


Not in the context discussed here.
If you understood the argument you would understand that.


On the contrary -- WHY he did it certainly does matter.

As I said -- massah didnt stop beating you because he thought it was the right thing to do, he did it because he didnt wan to get cut off.


And rightly so -- unless, of course, you think there's nothing wrong with putting aside 'the right thing to do' in orfer to preserve their power -- that is, unless you think there is nothing wrong with an elected official doing what he thinks is best for himself rather than doing what he thinks is best for the country.

Do you or do you not think there is nothing wrong with an elected official doing what he thinks is best for himself rather than doing what he thinks is best for the country?


A remarkable comment, from someone that doesnt understand what's being argued, or why.


Not in the context discussed here.
If you understood the argument you would understand that.


You dont understand the context of my statement. At this point, this misunderstanding may well be deliberate in order to prevent you from losing face.

The point I have ALWAYS made here is in regards to the motivation behind the actions, deciding to chose 'the preservation of political power' over 'the right thing to do'. In this context, the person making the choice defines 'the right thing to do'.

For GWB, the 'right thing to do' was to stay the course in Iraq. He chose this over the preservation of political power as he knew the choice to stay was unpopular and would most certainly cost him politically.

If you understood the argument -- and/or if you actually paid attention -- you would understand that.

But, you dont -- and rather than try to do so, you'll continue to attack me.
Dont worry -- its expected. I figured you out a long time ago.

Translation: I didn't mean what I said the way I said it, so here is what I really mean now.

Yeah okay, whatever you say Goobieman.

:rofl
 
Again, you don't like it so you will characterize it to be something other than it really is. Obama is communicating with our enemies, exercising dialog. Why does that frighten you so. If Chavez decided that he liked the U.S. and wanted to forge a good relationship what would your reaction be?

No need to characterize anything here. The picture speaks for itself.

Next up, Lerxst and his barrage of "ifs & buts" scenarios"....

Wrong again silly boy. Obama didn't "exceed" anything. The analysts and operators at the NSA did. For Obama to be complicit here, he would have had to forge policy or actually expand the authority of the NSA in such a way as to directly allow them to exceed legal limits or he would have had to order someone to do it. Nice try.

"No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me"

"NSA exceeds legal limits in eavesdropping program"

Right there, plain English. Obama is CiC, it's his baby.

I did read the written word, and that's what got you tripped up. You aren't really very good at this and it shows.

The Lerxst Nuh Uh®

And you keep being a dishonest participant in these discussions. It's what you do.

No, no dishonesty on my part. I'm providing facts. You keep providing nuh uh's, false assumptions, strawman arguments and your famous band camp ancedotes.

In three and a half months. Your hyperpartisan gland is acting up as evidenced by your projectile vomiting of intellectual turds all over this thread.

The only gland in this thread is the brown appendage blinding you of the facts as you suckle the sac.
 
No need to characterize anything here. The picture speaks for itself.

Next up, Lerxst and his barrage of "ifs & buts" scenarios"....
Not at all sister, but you keep playing the hyperpartisan, you're damn good at it.


"No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me"

"NSA exceeds legal limits in eavesdropping program"

Right there, plain English. Obama is CiC, it's his baby.
With your "slam Obama at any cost" mentality, I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you. To the reasonably intelligent, it's plain moronic. You said he unrolled an even more vast eavesdropping program. And the above is your evidence. :rofl

As long as the right has people like you on it's side, the left will have no trouble putting it's people in power.


The Lerxst Nuh Uh®
Awwww...now we know somebody is out of gas.

No, no dishonesty on my part. I'm providing facts. You keep providing nuh uh's, false assumptions, strawman arguments and your famous band camp ancedotes.
Absolute dishonesty on your part. The facts you provided didn't even remotely support your case, just like in the the gay inmate thread you lost your ass in. Which is your M.O. Post links to stuff, misrepresent what is said in the links, get called out on your dishonesty, and then run around whimpering. Your logic is tragically flawed and your research skills suck ass.

The only gland in this thread is the brown appendage blinding you of the facts as you suckle the sac.
Uh oh...somebody's jealous...:rofl
 
Not at all sister, but you keep playing the hyperpartisan, you're damn good at it.

No hyperpartisanship here. Just a simple picture of Obama cozying up with Chavez.

Chavez_1__524861a.jpg


With your "slam Obama at any cost" mentality, I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you.

It's really simple English, but you've got to grasp at something.

Awwww...now we know somebody is out of gas.

Not at all, just amused as you keep coming back with absolutely nothing on topic. Just more personal attacks and false assertions that you've littered this thread with.

Absolute dishonesty on your part. The facts you provided didn't even remotely support your case

Yes, more Lerxst Lies®.

Lerxst said:
Bush was a two term President because we were at war during his second election.

GottaHurt said:
Bush was a two term President because he received the needed electorial college votes to win.

Bush received 271 Electoral College votes.
Gore received 266 Electoral College votes.

Bush received 286 Electoral College votes.
Kerry received 251 Electoral College votes.

You can certainly offer up your opinion, I'll stick with the facts.

Dishonesty is synonomous with Lerxst.

Uh oh...somebody's jealous...:rofl

No jealousy here. Very amused that you've completely abandoned your feeble attempt at debate here, and have diverted to your usual tactics of name calling, tantrums and false assertions.
 
No hyperpartisanship here. Just a simple picture of Obama cozying up with Chavez.

Chavez_1__524861a.jpg




It's really simple English, but you've got to grasp at something.



Not at all, just amused as you keep coming back with absolutely nothing on topic. Just more personal attacks and false assertions that you've littered this thread with.



Yes, more Lerxst Lies®.



Dishonesty is synonomous with Lerxst.



No jealousy here. Very amused that you've completely abandoned your feeble attempt at debate here, and have diverted to your usual tactics of name calling, tantrums and false assertions.

No abandonment of debate at all. I finished with you because all you were doing was repeating your same failed logic and dishonesty. There is a difference. The sport of it all ran out. You began acting like a tool so it was time to treat you like one.

Now pick up your bottom lip and limp back to the far, far right.
 
Well the Strategy has changed to-
"international concerns in regards to assault type weapons"

IOW failing domestically they will go non-American. To treaty and such bs.

My bet is they will try/find a wordage loophole to make production of key parts illegal. Which would simply result in a larger arms market with millions of Americans owning illegal guns.
AT a time when Mexico looks to be falling into a Civil War of some sorts. Its got everything from drug warlords, indians, to chavez/castro involved...
Obama(tm) needs to wake up now... or the "war" will be in the SW USA.
 
No abandonment of debate at all. I finished with you because all you were doing was repeating your same failed logic and dishonesty. There is a difference. The sport of it all ran out. You began acting like a tool so it was time to treat you like one.

Now pick up your bottom lip and limp back to the far, far right.

Run Forrest run...
 
Translation: I didn't mean what I said the way I said it, so here is what I really mean now.
This is you blaming me for your lack of reading comprehenstion skills.
 
Again, you don't like it so you will characterize it to be something other than it really is. Obama is communicating with our enemies, exercising dialog. Why does that frighten you so. If Chavez decided that he liked the U.S. and wanted to forge a good relationship what would your reaction be?

LOL. Chavez does not like the US. That's not going to change. He even called Obama an "ignoramus at best" and said he smelled like George Bush (the "Devil"). Obama's being played like a fiddle, in the typical useful idiot fashion. This photo will serve as propaganda both here in the US and back home in Venezuela and abroad. The obvious question when dealing with Chavez is "what does he want from us?" If the answer is "money," he can go F himself.

Back when Hitler was busy destroying his democracy in Germany, Western politicians were more than eager to meet with him and shake his hand.

chamberlain.jpg


Hopefully Obama's learning from this experience and wont let it happen again.
 
Last edited:
Unless I'm mistaken, Calderon is referring to actual investment by private industry in Mexican corporations and manufacturing. In that sense, what he's saying is completely accurate and entirely uncontroversial.

Nah, we don't need Mexican's unskilled labor. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars on public education just to have our own domestic unskilled labor force.
 
Obama, April 16: A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping to keep these cartels in business. [/b]

Wrong.

It's not the demand for the drugs keeping the cartels in power, it's the prohibition of these drugs that's driving the prices up and allowing the cartels to prosper.

The opium poppy is a weed, can grow practically anywhere. Coca bushes are common, and could easily be a simple cash crop like coffee in South America, except for the global ban on cocaine.

De-criminalize the product, the criminal gangs profitting from them vanish.

Now they're trying to blame guns, instead of the wrongheaded drug policy.
 
Indeed, and he looked cozy with Chavez as he listened.

I didn't notice, but did Prince Obie bow to Chavez like he did to the King of Islam?

He's added 7-8 czars. Even the left wingnut Robert Byrd is calling it into question, you know, circumventing the confirmation process. They're all crooks.

Doesn't mean anything. Byrd is anti-Negro, the only Klansman in the Senate.
 
Exactly. The liberals just don't understand.


They understand perfectly.

They're goal was to muddle Iraq as much as possible and make it look like the Republican's fault. If Bush's efforts in Iraq hadn't been hindered by the Democrats, victory would have been achieved sooner and the Democrats would not have been able to win in 2008.
 
They understand perfectly.

They're goal was to muddle Iraq as much as possible and make it look like the Republican's fault. If Bush's efforts in Iraq hadn't been hindered by the Democrats, victory would have been achieved sooner and the Democrats would not have been able to win in 2008.

Boy are you living in a dream world. Iraq didn't need further "muddling", your charismatic cheerleader president did a fine job of messing up that cesspool, when he was supposed to be chasing Osama binLaden. You know this, and Bush is gone, so why continue to appear ignorant when you don't have to? Come out of the closet and join the world, we have a big job ahead of us cleaning up the stinking mess left by Bush and Cheney.
 
Ignore the elephant in the room that is the fact we should have never invaded in the first place.

True.

He never "stayed the course."

Wrong. Once we invaded, we were committed.

Now, the course could have been changed to be more effective, but we correctly followed the goal, something the limp-wristed left wrongly insisted on.

His first step should have been to listen to his military and national security staff and NOT INVADE.

yeah, the left still can't figure out that it doesn't friggin' matter, that we did invade and therefore not invading is still no longer a choice.
 
Boy are you living in a dream world. Iraq didn't need further "muddling", your charismatic cheerleader president did a fine job of messing up that cesspool, when he was supposed to be chasing Osama binLaden. You know this, and Bush is gone, so why continue to appear ignorant when you don't have to? Come out of the closet and join the world, we have a big job ahead of us cleaning up the stinking mess left by Bush and Cheney.
Unrestrained, unmitigated partisan bigotry, at its finest.
Well done!
 
Boy are you living in a dream world.

No, it's a nightmare world, where the media insists on cheerleading the largest anti-American team, the Democrats.

If it was a dreamworld, the Americans would win elections, and people would be free to determine their own destinies without fear the Democrats will steal their paychecks.
 
We did understand, and that is why the Dems are in power now. The GOP mucked it up so badly that the country responded. The only people telling you that you all got it right is yourselves. Over half the nation and a large portion of the rest of the world will tell you otherwise.

People that vote for a left-wing candidate are always wrong. That candidate will not do the job the president is supposed to do. We've had nothing but left-wing candidates running for office since 1988.

That the rest of the world wants a Kenyan national to be president of my country is an indictment against that Kenyan. The rest of the world does not have my best interests in mind, but theirs.
 
Bush was a two term President because we were at war during his second election.

Bush was a two-term president because the American people didn't want a purple-heart pansy "I voted for the war before I voted agaisnt it" gigolo replacing him.
 
I didn't notice, but did Prince Obie bow to Chavez like he did to the King of Islam?

There seems to be conflicting reports whether it was a bow or fallatio. Only Allah and the participants in that circle jerk know for sure.

There's nothing left to chance in this pic though:

Chavez_1__524861a.jpg


Pure campaign bliss.
 
Back
Top Bottom