• 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!

Is Obama THAT bad?

Jerry said:
Just as I was merely reacting to Obama's own policies which brought race into his administration.
Click to expand...

Which is???
YOU are the one "RACE" mongering
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
PeeWee Herman is probably not the best one to emulate in debate.
Click to expand...

Then you should change your tactics.

Redress said:
You brought race into it, I did not.
Click to expand...

Obama brought race into this, I did not. Commenting on his policies is not playing the race card. Pleas insert another quarter and try again.
 
Last edited:
Just a thought:

Assume racism exists. Is pointing that out "playing the race card"?

When racism exists, what is the better approach? Never talking about it, hoping it will go away then? Or addressing it and pointing it out?

Is it racist to pretend we live in a colorblind society, when that is not the case?

*confused*
 
Dickieboy said:
So when BHO said 'you guys gotta sit in the back' was different?
Click to expand...
Much different. In his analogy "you guys" were the people who got us into our economic mess and "you guys" wanted "the keys back", meaning they wanted to control again. He didn't say "you guys are out of the car" or "you guys aren't riding with us", which - in the same analogy - is what Bush said. Don't you see a difference between those two points of view?
 
Last edited:
German guy said:
Just a thought: Assume racism exists. Is pointing that out "playing the race card"? When racism exists, what is the better approach? Never talking about it, hoping it will go away then? Or addressing it and pointing it out? Is it racist to pretend we live in a colorblind society, when that is not the case? *confused*
Click to expand...
According to some in this thread, if you point out a car which is speeding, you are therefore also speeding, even if you're not even in a car at all.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Much different. In his analogy "you guys" were the people who got us into our economic mess and "you guys" wanted "the keys back", meaning they wanted to control again. He didn't say "you guys are out of the car" or "you guys aren't riding with us", which - in the same analogy - is what Bush said. Don't you see a difference between those two points of view?
Click to expand...

Only subtlety. If GWB’s comment was literally, ‘my way or the highway’, implying my way or leave the country your analogy seems relevant. If however his comment was interpreted ‘my way or along for the ride’ it would be quite similar to BHO’s. Do you REALLY think that GWB meant for Americans to go along or leave the country?
 
Fruityfact said:
What policies?
Click to expand...

A moderator in this thread thinks that talking about how the President's policies can be racist, is in itself racism, so I fear we can't explore the topic under threat of being suspended or banned for hate-speech.
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
Only subtlety. If GWB’s comment was literally, ‘my way or the highway’, implying my way or leave the country your analogy seems relevant. If however his comment was interpreted ‘my way or along for the ride’ it would be quite similar to BHO’s. Do you REALLY think that GWB meant for Americans to go along or leave the country?
Click to expand...
He didn't say it that way. "For us or against us" was the actual quote. (Yes, he was talking to our "allies" but many Americans echoed it toward their fellow Americans as well.) "Against us" implies animosity at the very least, a state of ill-will, and at the far extreme, a state of war. Yes, Bush sharply divided the country, there is no doubt at all on that score.

But if you want to spin it as being the same just a difference of scale then I suppose it is. Pushing someone out of the way gets the same result as shooting them. Both actions result in them not being in front of you.
 
Last edited:
German guy said:
Just a thought:

Assume racism exists. Is pointing that out "playing the race card"?

When racism exists, what is the better approach? Never talking about it, hoping it will go away then? Or addressing it and pointing it out?

Is it racist to pretend we live in a colorblind society, when that is not the case?
Click to expand...
You seem to assume there is a standard definition of what is racist. This is clearly not the case. Increasingly, with a generation of the self-righteous produce of an American educational system the word 'racism' has been bandied about to the point where it is rendered useless to all but those who tediously use it. It has essentially become an all-inclusive term to designate those-who-do-not-share-my-liberal-views-on-the-subject-of-race.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
The conservative base portrays Obama as an "Anti-Christ" figure practically. Why is this? I personally don't find Obama to be half as bad as he is portrayed to be.
Click to expand...

One of your mistakes is using the absolute of "the conservative party." That is silly.

Why would you put such a ridiculous and offensive suggestion in the OP? Hmm...
 
MoSurveyor said:
I might be the smartest guy in class or the best athlete on the team but that doesn't mean I don't respect the other class geeks or athletes on the field. Bush showed little respect for anyone who opposed him. "My way or the highway" was his motto and it didn't apply just to other countries - many of his blind followers brought that attitude right into the workplace and the bars.

BTW - I'm old school, too, and I didn't buy that line in the 60's and 70's, either. I'm unpatriotic because I oppose something our leaders are doing??? Funny, I always thought the opposite - that I could speak my mind without fear of recrimination - was what made America great.
Click to expand...

If by "my way or the highway" you are referring to Bush's famous "with us or with them" line I don't see the correlation. I do however see it when the reps went to Obama with ideas after he was elected and he basically told them to stfu, because he won.

Now for your other point about being unpatriotic when you oppose your leaders. All I heard when Bush was pres was it was patriotic to do just that. Now all I hear is if you oppose obama policies you are being partisan, not working together, unpatriotic and even racist.
 
Jerry said:
A moderator in this thread thinks that talking about how the President's policies can be racist, is in itself racism, so I fear we can't explore the topic under threat of being suspended or banned for hate-speech.
Click to expand...

I hope that is not it. Jerry - I think it is overly broad and not a bit disingenuous for to take the tact that YOU did NOT bring race into this because of the policies of President Obama even though you brought it up as racist.

To use your excuse - one can then bring race into almost anything with the fall back position that race is a part of America. Is that what you want to do?
 
German guy said:
I don't know which exact incident you are referring to. But as far as I know, bowing is a common gesture of respect in many cultures, just like the handshake is for us. I believe in Japan, you usually bow down when you meet someone. So if you're talking about the mere gesture of bowing, I don't see anything wrong with it, on the contrary.

If, for example, Obama bowed down when meeting a Japanese official, that's just a nice gesture that means: "See, I know your customs." Denying it is a bit petty, much like a Japanese denying a handshake when meeting a Westener, just because "physically touching someone means losing the face" or something like that.

But if Obama sold out American interests to some foreign leader who doesn't deserve it, that would be something different, IMO. No matter if he physically bowed or not.
Click to expand...

In Japan and China a bow is considered respect. But its a bit more nuanced than just a bow. A person of lower station would bow deeper than a person of higher station. So a peasant would quite literally put thier face to the floor (a kowtow) if they were to bow before the emperor where as a noble would just have to bend knee and the prince would just have to bow from the waist. If two nobles of equal standing faced each other however they would basically nod thier heads to each other as a sign of respect and a show of equal standing.

But then on the other hand you have the European style of bowing (with kings and queens), it was all about subservience. While they did have the same system as Japan and China (the kowtow, deep bow, head nod etc etc) the same sense of "respect" just wasn't really there (even though they said it was about respect).

So while bowing may be about a sign of respect it is also about subservience. There is a reason that there is a saying of "I shall bend knee to no one!". ;)
 
German guy said:
Just a thought:

Assume racism exists. Is pointing that out "playing the race card"?

When racism exists, what is the better approach? Never talking about it, hoping it will go away then? Or addressing it and pointing it out?

Is it racist to pretend we live in a colorblind society, when that is not the case?

*confused*
Click to expand...

Racism certainly does exist. And no one is saying that it shouldn't be talked about. The problem here is that people like to cry out racism when there is none in the subject matter. Or they cry racism for a whole segment of a population or party even though only a small minority of that population/party are actually racist. Hence the reason to start saying "playing the race card". It basically means that that person/s claim is idiotic as they are applying it.

The best example that I could think if is when it comes to illegal immigration. Those that support illegal aliens often call those that oppose illegal aliens coming to the US racists even though those against illegal immigration could really care less about race for the simple fact that illegal aliens are made up of ALL the races.
 
Wake said:
One of your mistakes is using the absolute of "the conservative party." That is silly.

Why would you put such a ridiculous and offensive suggestion in the OP? Hmm...
Click to expand...

How is it ridiculous and offensive to point out that the conservative base portays Obama to be horrible? It is merely an observation
 
Of course not. It's a sad tactic in American politics today to use hyperbole to make a case against the incumbent, and it comes from both parties equally.

Bush was a poor president, I agree, but the Left vilifying him as the "worst" is poor form and shows a pretty short-sighted view of American Presidents. The Right today is doing the same with Obama. Obviously, I agree with some Obama's policies a little bit more than I agreed with Bush Administration's, but portraying him as "destroying America" is just ridiculous. You can disagree with him strongly, and many do within reasonable terms, but it's a cheap tactic to scare the crap out of ignorant voters with Chicken Little rhetoric just to score votes.
 
Obama isn't great but the Gop alternative would be awful
 
TheLastIndependent said:
The conservative base portrays Obama as an "Anti-Christ" figure practically. Why is this? I personally don't find Obama to be half as bad as he is portrayed to be.
Click to expand...

While your meaning is intelligent, you use the same hyperbole that you accuse the Right of doing with Obama (again, not an invalid, but somewhat credible complaint).
 
Meathead said:
Right now, Obama.

Obama is not that bad, he's just way over his head and uninspiring and mediocre at best. It's rather telling that 11% of Democrats think he is the best president in US history.
Click to expand...

What is more telling is how many Republicans don't know that GW Bush was the WORST President in modern history and want continue down the same road he put us on.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
I was honestly losing faith in our president until I started watching the Republicans on stage... I quickly found a way to believe in Obama again.
Click to expand...

Indeed. After Johnson and Huntsman bailed out, Obama's star went up.

Romney will do anything and say anything to win. Romney has no core beliefs. And he's a massive liar. He enacted the precusor to Obama care and now he's saying it's different despite the very people who worked with him on it saying Romney is lying. Furthermore, Romney knows that the auto-bailout was required. No one who works in finance believes that his argument for a liquidation/bankruptcy would have worked. Romney is scum.

Santorum is the worst combination of welfare and social authoritarian. Socially Conservative, Fiscally Liberal. I will never vote for someone like that.

Paul, I do like some of his policies but his economics bother me. Plus he has no chance anyways.

Newt, the fact that no one he worked his will endorse him is sufficient evidence not to vote for him.
 
iguanaman said:
What is more telling is how many Republicans don't know that GW Bush was the WORST President in modern history and want continue down the same road he put us on.
Click to expand...

What's your time span for modern? 3 or 4 presidents? How can you be so sure of yourself a mere four years after Bush's administration ended?

I don't know that he was the "WOST" President in modern history, mostly because I don't think you can go down that road, and further, I think anyone who says that shows how short-sighted and foolish a man can be.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Of course not. It's a sad tactic in American politics today to use hyperbole to make a case against the incumbent, and it comes from both parties equally.
Click to expand...

And it shows a severe lack of any historical knowledge.

Last I checked, none of the recent presidents set the stage for 500,000 Americans to go off to die killing each other. Honestly, people need perspective.
 
Fiddytree said:
While your meaning is intelligent, you use the same hyperbole that you accuse the Right of doing with Obama (again, not an invalid, but somewhat credible complaint).
Click to expand...

I did use a hyperbole. It is a poor debate tactic but the offense behind the term drives people to respond both for and against. It also effectively alienated those who have such distaste with Obama. The only problem is that it left out the sensible opposition. I am happy that someone picked it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom