• 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: We're still working on our democracy

So in order to find out what Obama meant as "the problems", the only way for us to find out is if The Obama is going to tell us. So what are we going to discuss if The Obama doesn't come into this thread and tell us what it is?
You may continue to avoid the issue, if you want.
 
No, it was a general statement, not dissimilar to the ones I make concerning working on improving my profession, job, institution.
And yet, if you said such a thing, and made the claim you had improved the situation, you'd be able to provide examples of those problems, and the solutions you have implemented.

It seems silly to try and turn that statement into anything serious.
Well, it IS The Obama we're discussing, so I am not surprised you think that.
 
You may continue to avoid the issue, if you want.

I've given you a problem, YOU didn't want to talk about it. You said that The Obama hasn't made that statement, so it didn't matter.

So are we to wait for The Obama to come in this here thread and tell us all what the problems are in our democracy?

So what is there to discuss?
 
I've given you a problem...
No... all you have done is equivocated, obfuscated and misdirected.
In fact, you have done everying you can to -avoid- the issue.
And I really dont have the time to waste on that.
 
And yet, if you said such a thing, and made the claim you had improved the situation, you'd be able to provide examples of those problems, and the solutions you have implemented.


Well, it IS The Obama we're discussing, so I am not surprised you think that.

I would only be asked if it was a formal evaluation. In general conversation, no, I would not be asked. It would be accepted that we all do this. And I would take this silliness seriously even if we were talking abut Bush or Palin. It would still be silliness.
 
I would only be asked if it was a formal evaluation. In general conversation, no, I would not be asked.
Irrelevant -- you could still answer, with specifics.

And I would take this silliness seriously even if we were talking abut Bush or Palin.
I doubt that.
 
Irrelevant -- you could still answer, with specifics.


I doubt that.

Doesn't matter what you doubt or don't doubt. Can you provide any instance where I have ever picked some silliness like this to start a thread. If you can't, then the facts support me.

But we are not called on to answer general conversation questions. Nor are others asked to answer for us. This really is irrelevant silliness.
 
Well it just seems that no matter what Obama says or does, you'll find a problem with it no matter what, so why should I give a crap?

I honestly think conservatives are worried he has a bigger member then they do :p
 
Doesn't matter what you doubt or don't doubt.
Nor to me if you claim the contrary.

But we are not called on to answer general conversation questions. Nor are others asked to answer for us.
Which, as I said, was irrlevant.
 
Well it just seems that no matter what Obama says or does, you'll find a problem with it no matter what, so why should I give a crap?
As noted before -- if He says there are problems, and He is said to have fixed some of them, it is -more- than reeaonable to ask what those problems are, which ones He has fixed, which problems remain, and what He plans to do about them.
 
No... all you have done is equivocated, obfuscated and misdirected.
In fact, you have done everying you can to -avoid- the issue.
And I really dont have the time to waste on that.

The issue being what exactly?

You're not going to accept anything other than what The Obama has claimed as a problem in our democracy, so what is there to discuss? But as far as anyone can see, The Obama hasn't made such a statement. So I guess you're just going to keep waiting?

It was merely a statement which was to show that a perfect democracy is unattainable. Something that even YOU won't disagree with, am I correct? So what exactly is the issue with what The Obama has said about "working on our democracy?"

What you are doing is petty. I think I've done enough to show that, so I'm done. :2wave:
 
Nor to me if you claim the contrary.


Which, as I said, was irrlevant.

What is irrelevant is questioning this. It really feels like a poor self esteem issue.
 
What is irrelevant is questioning this. It really feels like a poor self esteem issue.
As noted before -- if He says there are problems, and He is said to have fixed some of them, it is -more- than reeaonable to ask what those problems are, which ones He has fixed, which problems remain, and what He plans to do about them.

Give Him a pass if you want -- I'm not surprised -- but don't try to blame -your- lack of curiosity on anything having to do with me.
 
What you are doing is petty. I think I've done enough to show that, so I'm done.
If that's what lets you sleep at night.
But, thank you for not wasting any more of my time with your equivocations, misdirections and obfuscations.
 
Arent 'private interests' just groups of people collectively expressing their political position? How is that 'wrong' in terms of this discussion?
"Private interests" are people or persons influencing the political system for personal gain such as businesses.
 
As noted before -- if He says there are problems, and He is said to have fixed some of them, it is -more- than reeaonable to ask what those problems are, which ones He has fixed, which problems remain, and what He plans to do about them.

Give Him a pass if you want -- I'm not surprised -- but don't try to blame -your- lack of curiosity on anything having to do with me.

He may well be talking about the mess Bush left, which needed fixing to say the least. But again, it was just a general statement and not something requiring this discourse. It is a silly issue that makes the person making it seem like he or she suffers from poor countryesteem.
 
"Private interests" are people or persons influencing the political system for personal gain such as businesses.
OK... and how is that a problem?
Don't people have the right to ask the government for things that benefit them, and to contribue to the election of those that will work to give it to them?
 
He may well be talking about the mess Bush left, which needed fixing to say the least.
What democracy-related mess did GWB leave?

But again, it was just a general statement and not something requiring this discourse.
The questions are perfectly reasonable; anyone with any degree of intellectual curiosity would raise them.

It is a silly issue that makes the person making it seem like he or she suffers from poor countryesteem.
Your ad-hom, the final resort of those without an argumentative leg to stand on, is noted.
 
What democracy-related mess did GWB leave?

Lord, lack of due process, spying on citizens, normalizing torture, . . . there is a list.

The questions are perfectly reasonable; anyone with any degree of intellectual curiosity would raise them.

No, they are not and there is nothing to be curious about. It's a manufactured issue and not a real one.

Your ad-hom, the final resort of those without an argumentative leg to stand on, is noted.

No, just how it strikes me. I feel the same about all those who claim and criticism is hate America first crowd stuff. I really believe there is some poor countryesteem issues going on.
 
Lord, lack of due process, spying on citizens, normalizing torture, . . . there is a list.
These dont have anything to do with democracy, per se, as none of these things are inherently related to same. So, no.

And, it should be noted, that The Obama has chosen to contine most of these Bush-Era policies.

No, they are not and there is nothing to be curious about. It's a manufactured issue and not a real one.
It is not surprising that the incurious would think this.
Isn't a lack of curiosity of one the criticisms people like you had with GWB?
 
These dont have anything to do with democracy, per se, as none of these things are inherently related to same. So, no.

And, it should be noted, that The Obama has chosen to contine most of these Bush-Era policies.

No, they are related. Inherently related. Freedom and democracy always suffer where there is a lack of respect for the rule of law.

And while Obama hasn't been as proactive and quick as I'd like, he isn't torturing to my knowledge, he is working to close gitmo, and I have no evidence he is spying on citizens. It would be a lie to say he is the same as Bush.

It is not surprising that the incurious would think this.
Isn't a lack of curiosity of one the criticisms people like you had with GWB?

Be curious about things of substance. I would still like that. And if you or anyone else brings up anything of substance, we might have a good discussion.
 
No, they are related. Inherently related.
-Nothing- about democracy necessitates the inclusion of -any- of those things -- so, no.

And while Obama hasn't been as proactive and quick as I'd like...
Equivocation.

Be curious about things of substance.
The nature of our democracy, what's wrong with it, what's been done to fix it, and what will be done to fix the rest is very much of substance.
 
as per the OP, an interesting (i thought) response:


...I just read about Obama's comments to the Kazakh president; my wife and I have lived and worked in Almaty, Kazakhstan, since August 2008—this country has no idea what democracy is, and Nazerbayev prefers to keep it that way. He is the quintessential post-modern dictator. My wife and I teach at a school where the majority of our students' parents are either in government or organized crime (it's often a very fine line, and sometimes it doesn't exist at all). I teach the comparative governments class, and it's painful to watch my Kazakh students learn what terms like "liberal democracy" and "illiberal democracy" mean, then try to make the Kazakh square peg fit the liberal democracy round hole. When I raise even the mildest of criticisms in class, I can see the Kazakhs looking around the room to see who is present, so as to know what will be acceptable to say. It's unbelievable how often I will hear a Kazakh student identify government propaganda for exactly what it is—propaganda—then follow up their analysis by immediately stating something to the effect of "but it's also the truth." No opposition parties are allowed; no negative press coverage is permitted; five-year plans are still being written with all of the passion and fanfare (and possibilities of success) of the Soviet era. And the U.S. president just told this Russian lap dog that the U.S. is still working on democracy, too. I can't stress this enough: THE KAZAKHS WILL TAKE THAT STATEMENT AT FACE VALUE!!! "Hey, I guess that we're not doing so bad, huh?"

Here's the most damning thing that I can say about a country: I spent three years teaching in Kabul, Afghanistan, and it's easy for me to imagine Afghans enjoying a more western liberal society 50 years from now than the Kazakhs. The Afghans, for the most part, have very few illusions about their place in the world and about how far they have to go to catch up; but the Kazakhs? About half of my Kazakh students are still defending the Soviet Union, and the other half are spouting government propaganda along these lines: Kazakhs have to keep out American beef because it's "more expensive, poorer quality, and loaded with drugs" (which wouldn't seem to be a winning trio in the market place, but apparently so as it must be kept out).

I'd like to personally thank Obama for confirming the suspicions and conspiracy theories of my Kazakh students. Unbelievable.
 
-Nothing- about democracy necessitates the inclusion of -any- of those things -- so, no.


Equivocation.


The nature of our democracy, what's wrong with it, what's been done to fix it, and what will be done to fix the rest is very much of substance.

I disagree with you on all three counts. Again, get some substance and let's see where that takes us.
 
as per the OP, an interesting (i thought) response:


...I just read about Obama's comments to the Kazakh president; my wife and I have lived and worked in Almaty, Kazakhstan, since August 2008—this country has no idea what democracy is, and Nazerbayev prefers to keep it that way. He is the quintessential post-modern dictator. My wife and I teach at a school where the majority of our students' parents are either in government or organized crime (it's often a very fine line, and sometimes it doesn't exist at all). I teach the comparative governments class, and it's painful to watch my Kazakh students learn what terms like "liberal democracy" and "illiberal democracy" mean, then try to make the Kazakh square peg fit the liberal democracy round hole. When I raise even the mildest of criticisms in class, I can see the Kazakhs looking around the room to see who is present, so as to know what will be acceptable to say. It's unbelievable how often I will hear a Kazakh student identify government propaganda for exactly what it is—propaganda—then follow up their analysis by immediately stating something to the effect of "but it's also the truth." No opposition parties are allowed; no negative press coverage is permitted; five-year plans are still being written with all of the passion and fanfare (and possibilities of success) of the Soviet era. And the U.S. president just told this Russian lap dog that the U.S. is still working on democracy, too. I can't stress this enough: THE KAZAKHS WILL TAKE THAT STATEMENT AT FACE VALUE!!! "Hey, I guess that we're not doing so bad, huh?"

Here's the most damning thing that I can say about a country: I spent three years teaching in Kabul, Afghanistan, and it's easy for me to imagine Afghans enjoying a more western liberal society 50 years from now than the Kazakhs. The Afghans, for the most part, have very few illusions about their place in the world and about how far they have to go to catch up; but the Kazakhs? About half of my Kazakh students are still defending the Soviet Union, and the other half are spouting government propaganda along these lines: Kazakhs have to keep out American beef because it's "more expensive, poorer quality, and loaded with drugs" (which wouldn't seem to be a winning trio in the market place, but apparently so as it must be kept out).

I'd like to personally thank Obama for confirming the suspicions and conspiracy theories of my Kazakh students. Unbelievable.

:2rofll::2rofll::2rofll::2rofll: NRO. :roll:

Well, we must always say everything is perfect. Anything less has to be a disaster. No one can ever admit to working on anything because the human being is too fragile to consider any thing in relationship to reality. Always keep the illusion alive, close our eyes and keeping saying "I believe, I believe." And be sure to demonize the most innocent of statements.

Like I said, poor country esteem issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom