• 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!

Results of Obama's India Trip

Simply because the administration won't reveal the total cost does not mean its anywhere close, or for that matter how far away it is, to a number already shown to have no basis.

In other words suppose that number, which again was shown to have come from no facts, said the trip cost 200 BILLION a day instead of million. And after several high profile people decided to ask the President how much the trip did in fact cost, the President did not produce those numbers.

Would you think that 200 billion would have been close to the real cost? Probably not because that number is truely rediculous, but it shows how abritary you are judge this situation. You are only looking at and considering what you suppose is an amount you could see a President, who you also dislike so there's bias, spending per day on an International trip. Because in both hypotheticals the amount of actual proven information you have is still none, yet you're opinion and conculsion would change.

Its not the facts which changed, because there were none to begin with, what changes is how you percieve the falsehoods. But regardless there's just as many facts to suggest it was 200 million a day as there is to suggest it was 200 billion a day.

:applaud
:applaud
:applaud
 
Simply because the administration won't reveal the total cost does not mean its anywhere close, or for that matter how far away it is, to a number already shown to have no basis.

In other words suppose that number, which again was shown to have come from no facts, said the trip cost 200 BILLION a day instead of million. And after several high profile people decided to ask the President how much the trip did in fact cost, the President did not produce those numbers.

Would you think that 200 billion would have been close to the real cost? Probably not because that number is truely rediculous, but it shows how abritary you are judge this situation. You are only looking at and considering what you suppose is an amount you could see a President, who you also dislike so there's bias, spending per day on an International trip. Because in both hypotheticals the amount of actual proven information you have is still none, yet you're opinion and conculsion would change.

Its not the facts which changed, because there were none to begin with, what changes is how you percieve the falsehoods. But regardless there's just as many facts to suggest it was 200 million a day as there is to suggest it was 200 billion a day.

This administration has been shown to lie and distort facts. If they will not show proof they have no credibility and are not believable
 
I am going with 200 brazilian dollars a day. I like the picture on the front better. It's got a female beach volleyball player.
 
This administration has been shown to lie and distort facts. If they will not show proof they have no credibility and are not believable

Yes, thanks for proving his point.

Here's an idea: go look at similar trips done by the Bush administration. See if 10% of the entire US Navy was deployed.
 
nyt, today: HOURLY UPDATE: Obama’s glow dims overseas as well (11/12, 11 a.m.) :: Headline News

NationalJournal.com - America?s Rodney Dangerfield Moment - Friday, November 12, 2010

globe, today, "OBAMA'S ECONOMIC VIEW REJECTED ON WORLD STAGE:" http://www.boston.com/news/world/as.../us_south_korea_trade_accord_not_a_done_deal/

G-20 refuses to back US push on China's currency - Yahoo! News

US, South Korea trade accord not a done deal - The Boston Globe

he, however, thinks he succeeded:

My Way News - Obama claims strengthened hand in global dealings

he just doesn't get it

"prickly" isn't real presidential, is it?

Obama miffed by questions on U.S. | POLITICO 44

did you hear that one of the reasons the south korean free trade agreement crashed is cuz obama couldn't get the UNITED AUTO WORKERS to cooperate?

the story is contained in the RODNEY DANGERFIELD link from national journal

do you know national journal?

who's spinning?

when are YOU gonna see what all the pros and joes see?
 
Last edited:
did you hear that one of the reasons the south korean free trade agreement crashed is cuz obama couldn't get the UNITED AUTO WORKERS to cooperate?

No.

But I am curious as to why you think the American president should fold to foreign interests over American workers.
 
Jesh Man!

Everyone gripes that there are no jobs in the lower-end working brackets (production, mainly)

So Obama actually strikes up deals - takes some serious and heavy, hard criticism from various countries in teh process - to BOOST said production adn netting said jobs and people complain that, now, he's selling us out or outsourcing us - unacceptably.

WTF do people want?
Only Americans to Only produce and sell products Only to other Americans?

THAT is a recipe for disaster.
 
I am curious as to why you think the American president should fold to foreign interests over American workers.

ask barack obama

And despite Washington’s supposed leverage over the U.S. auto industry—a large portion of which the taxpayers now own—Obama could not persuade Chrysler, Ford, and the United Autoworkers Union to relent in accepting the immediate end to a U.S. tariff on Korean cars, a key deal breaker.

from the journal, the RODNEY DANGERFIELD piece
 
Last edited:
When you add pipes you also change the box on the air cleaner. Then a dyno is done to adjust fuel and air flow for peak performance. It is called a racing tune.

I went from just over 52 horse power to almost 70 horse power

Brother, I love you man, but sometimes I just shake my head...
 
Some people will complain about anything!

Pundits complained that the Stimulas plan didn't "stimulate" the economy as planned.

They complained that no new jobs were being created.

They complained that any Obama foreign policies would stiffle job growth and U.S. exports.

They complained that no new private sector jobs were being created.

They complained that Obama was anti-business/anti-private sector and was ALL government.

Yet when he announces a multi-BILLION dollar/10-year business deal with one of the fastest growing global markets in Asia let alone the world, suddenly he's "outsourcing jobs" or his job creation estimates are fake, over aggsagerated.

Can this man get any credit at all for doing what other Presidents have done before him? History shows that people complained when Nixon opened negotiations w/China but look at how that turned out? Until recently, few complained about Chinesse imports, but now that China holds so much of our debt folks complain about it. Here, we have a public-private partnership w/India to build and/or sell commercial and fighter planes, aircraft engines and aircraft parts by TWO leading U.S. airframe companies - Boeing and GE - a U.S./India partnership that will produce (est.) 54,000 jobs HERE in the U.S., maybe more, and all you nay-sayers can think of is the exportation of motorcycle parts to be assembled in India? My how your minds are so closed.

You can't ship an entire ASSEMBLED motorcycle (or car for that matter) overseas without it costing a bundle. The reduction in tarriffs to India will save them millions while also bolstering jobs right here in the U.S. with a leading U.S. motorcycle manufacturer. I really don't see where the problem is here. It's a win-win for both countries, IMO, especially here in the U.S. considering all the negative talk about the lack of creating private-sector jobs.
 
No.

But I am curious as to why you think the American president should fold to foreign interests over American workers.

That's another foolhearty notion the pundits have. If he goes overseas to negotiate/close a deal on U.S. export but falls short because the foreign government wants more than the U.S. is willing to compromise on, well, now he didn't do a good enough sales job. But wait a minute!

If he does broker/close a deal that only allows for the shipment of assembled parts abroad, now he's "outsourcing" U.S. jobs. Nevermind that the parts will still be manufactured HERE, that the components will be assembled into larger components HERE and that the industry manufacturing and assembling the smaller parts will remain HERE in the U.S.

Get real, people. You're really being quite foolish on this issue.
 
he's setting himself up again

Economic turmoil overshadows NATO - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

he's gonna come back from portugal, just like he returned from asia last week, rejected, rebuffed, disrespected and empty handed

he simply can't see a single move ahead

he wants help in afghanistan, which affable, laughable, gaffe-able joe biden said this morning on msnbc's coffee joe would come to know our "drop dead date" for withdrawal in TWENTY FOURTEEN

Joe Biden: 2014 Afghanistan Pullout Is 'Drop Dead Date'

how do you feel about THAT?

how do you feel about obama's ESCALATION of what BOB WOODWARD called OBAMA'S WAR?

more important, how do our nato allies feel?

read the link at the top of the page, if you don't know yet

yes, bonehead obama wants to talk afghanistan, but all his partners are interested in (especially in portugal) are AUSTERITY on the one hand and QUANTITATIVE EASING on the other

which, we've already seen what comes of that

NationalJournal.com - America?s Rodney Dangerfield Moment - Friday, November 12, 2010

by the way, when have you seen THE FED resort to POLITICAL posturing?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...28136.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsStungFedsReply

STILL not embarrassed?

you need to read more

americans have never known such amateurishness in our white house
 
Last edited:
Foreign policy setbacks deepen Obama's wounds

Since his midterm shellacking this month, [obama] has suffered a series of foreign policy setbacks, in Congress and abroad, that have put his agenda for improving America's standing and strength overseas at risk.

From failing to secure a free-trade agreement in South Korea to struggling to win Senate ratification of an arms-control treaty with Russia, Obama has bumped up against the boundaries of his power at a defining moment of his presidency.

He is halfway through his term and politically weaker after midterm voters punished his party. But ahead are a host of unresolved foreign policy issues, from drawing down troops in Afghanistan to advancing Middle East peace prospects and economic relations with China, that will require a firm base of domestic support and could help determine whether he is reelected.

wapo spells it out

1. increased allied commitment for afghanistan

2. south korean free trade (killed at least partially by his inability to win cooperation from the uaw)

3. international consensus on chinese currency (undermined by bernanke's november 3 decision to pump 600B of qe)

4. mideast peace (hillary's hi profile flop)

5. start

6. gitmo

7. sanctions vs iran (when are you gonna meet with iran's leaders, barry?)

8. clearly the world that he imagined is different than the world as it is

the rodney dangerfield of us presidents

shame
 
Can this man get any credit at all for doing what other Presidents have done before him?

No. He poisoned the well. Now he must drink deeply.

George W. Bush also poisoned the well. He was forced to drink deeply. Do you remember Michael Moore?

Unfortunately, the treatment of Bush has established a precedent in America which legitimizes the transformation of presidents into caretakers.

Obama is a caretaker, just like Bush was. America is paralyzed.
 
Obama has done more damage to hurt the world view of the US than Bush ever did
 
The One spent $2 billion to go to India, just to outsource some jobs?

Source? Pro-tip: there isn't one because it isn't true.
 
There is no source because Obama does not want you to know how much tax payer money he is spending

That's an allegation that has been proven false. It costs less than those claims to be in Afghanistan. Also without a source you can't claim any figures.
YouTube - LiberalViewer's Channel Look at that, source, with sources in the video!!!!
It's the video about O' Reily's interview on Bill Maher if it just takes you to the channel.
 
Last edited:
he simply can't see a single move ahead

chessmaster-obama-480.jpg
 
That's an allegation that has been proven false. It costs less than those claims to be in Afghanistan. Also without a source you can't claim any figures.
YouTube - LiberalViewer's Channel Look at that, source, with sources in the video!!!!
It's the video about O' Reily's interview on Bill Maher if it just takes you to the channel.

Nothing has been proven. Obama denies it but refuses to release the cost.
 
Nothing has been proven. Obama denies it but refuses to release the cost.

You didn't watch the video. Those "costs" are fake and came from some dude in India.
 
You didn't watch the video. Those "costs" are fake and came from some dude in India.

Yet you can't prove it did not cost close to that since Obama will not say how much taxpayer money was spent
 
Back
Top Bottom