• 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!

Does Anyone Still Believe ANYTHING Obama says?

Does anyone still believe Obama?


  • Total voters
    38
UNFAIR POLL!!!

I tend to stop believing every elected official after their first 12 months in office; sometimes earlier depending on how soon I catch them dishonoring their campaign promises. ;)

So since I'd vote NO anyway...it's unfair! LOL
 
Last edited:
No. Not at all. Have an answer?
Yeah, I think the sanity part is the questionable part... I could ask the same thing, in general, about how many sane, able bodied, adult Americans vote Democrat... and so we have our answer, disappointingly, every election. I mean back in the day when they were a party less of international cosmopolitanism and less the party of dependence, they were at least a viable choice to the sane...
 
Yeah, I think the sanity part is the questionable part... I could ask the same thing, in general, about how many sane, able bodied, adult Americans vote Democrat... and so we have our answer, disappointingly, every election. I mean back in the day when they were a party less of international cosmopolitanism and less the party of dependence, they were at least a viable choice to the sane...

You did not answer the question.
 
You did not answer the question.
Well, why don't you ask it a bit more precisely. Do you mean over the history of all these job defeating socialist programs... or just now when this economy has been decimated by these same socialistic ideas put into place and there not really being all that many additional worthwhile jobs to refuse?
 
You expectations are straight out of some utopian science fiction...still admirable, in a way. But unless you expect the duumvirate of Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul to assume the sacred Consuls' power any time soon....

Yes, expecting government to be rational and measured in response is right out of some utopian sci-fi novel. So unreasonable to demand that those wielding my power and my sovereignty do so responsibly. Instead we should all just accept the ineptitude, irrationality, and knee jerk reactions of our politicians and government even when it costs us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to condemn their brothers and sisters to death with little to no consideration, sympathy, or conscientiousness.
 
Yes, expecting government to be rational and measured in response is right out of some utopian sci-fi novel. So unreasonable to demand that those wielding my power and my sovereignty do so responsibly. Instead we should all just accept the ineptitude, irrationality, and knee jerk reactions of our politicians and government even when it costs us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to condemn their brothers and sisters to death with little to no consideration, sympathy, or conscientiousness.


Oh, please. Why not go whole hog and Truth it. Hysterical peacenikism is not a reasonable stance. It's like you forget that Saddam killed, on average and only counting a few big things, ~50k a year for 20 years. And now people want to let Assad do it, with chemical weapons.
 
Oh, please. Why not go whole hog and Truth it. Hysterical peacenikism is not a reasonable stance. It's like you forget that Saddam killed, on average and only counting a few big things, ~50k a year for 20 years. And now people want to let Assad do it, with chemical weapons.

When they are fighting and killing each other, they are not so much concerned with the US.
 
When they are fighting and killing each other, they are not so much concerned with the US.

Assad's concern for us is no longer an issue; he's made that clear.
 
I voted "NO" because Obama and his administration have a long track record of being right out liars.

The only thing Obama hasn't lied about was when he said he's going to change the face of the United States military in the name of diversity. That he's redefining the purpose and character of the American military and those who serve.

That's one of the few times he didn't lie.
 
Assad's concern for us is no longer an issue; he's made that clear.

It is irrelevant what he thinks or does not think of us. The fighting in Syria is Syria's problem alone.
 
The fighting in Syria is Syria's problem alone.

Ones inability to see globalization does not remove it from existence. There are many kinds of implications for the US.

Your argument is like some guy hearing his neighbor being beaten brutally by her spouse and saying 'hey, not my business'. Your argument is the guy who lets bad things happen if he can get away. Your argument is selfish, childish, cowardly and ugly. It shows a disregard for mankind and entitlement mindset beyond recognition.

Chemical genocide is not ok, not while free people have the power to stop it.
 
Obama drew the line in the sand because the entire world is with him realizing the level of genius and legendary courage required to stare down Putin and the party of no. From health care to saving refugees, we can be grateful to have such a man who puts the L in leadership, day in and day out, while Putin and Assad run scared, being clearly outwitted

Actually he put the L in Liar.
 
Well, why don't you ask it a bit more precisely. Do you mean over the history of all these job defeating socialist programs... or just now when this economy has been decimated by these same socialistic ideas put into place and there not really being all that many additional worthwhile jobs to refuse?

I accept nutter bull**** under protest. But you are asking me to accept bull**** while not even attempting to answer the question.

Just answer it. The answer ought to be in numerical form.
 
Oh, please. Why not go whole hog and Truth it. Hysterical peacenikism is not a reasonable stance. It's like you forget that Saddam killed, on average and only counting a few big things, ~50k a year for 20 years. And now people want to let Assad do it, with chemical weapons.

Well we shouldn't have empowered Saddam or sold him those weapons. Though I doubt the 50K/year for 20 years stat. Regardless, how many are dying now? Likely more per day than under Saddam and well more randomly than before. So yay, we spent trillions, killed thousands of our brethren, killed 10's of thousands of theirs including civilians, destabilized Iraq, allowed terrorist activity to explode (sometimes quite literally) in Iraq, increased their probabilities of death, decreased their standard of living; and now we should repeat this in Syria. Huzzah!

It's like you people don't pay attention.
 
That does not excuse his actions.

But it does say we should limit our interventionism as it doesn't typically pan out. Like the Iraq war and like Syria will turn into should we get involved.
 
But it does say we should limit our interventionism as it doesn't typically own out.

So we shouldn't seek out diplomatic and economic ties as a means to progress, and we shouldn't intervene militarily? Nonsense.
 
So we shouldn't seek out diplomatic and economic ties as a means to progress, and we shouldn't intervene militarily? Nonsense.

We should not intervened militarily if the US is not threatened. Offensive wars are offensive. The rest of your tripe is just disingenuous hyperbole as no one has suggested economic or diplomatic solutions should be avoided. Just imperial, occupation wars that don't work.
 
We should not intervened militarily if the US is not threatened. Offensive wars are offensive. The rest of your tripe is just disingenuous hyperbole as no one has suggested economic or diplomatic solutions should be avoided. Just imperial, occupation wars that don't work.

You said we should not have empowered and sold things to Saddam (he actually got virtually none of his weapons from the US).
 
You said we should not have empowered and sold things to Saddam (he actually got virtually none of his weapons from the US).

We shouldn't have sold him weapons (if you'd be so honest to note, I did not say things, I said weapons) and we shouldn't have backed the Ba'athists take over that eventually lead to Saddam gaining power. Military interventionism hasn't oft produced positive results. Particularly when we're funding rebels. Thought we figured this out in the 80's, guess some of y'all are behind the curve
 
We shouldn't have sold him weapons (if you'd be so honest to note, I did not say things, I said weapons

The US sold Saddam perhaps 5% of his weaponry. If you really have a gripe about that, take it up with the other 95%.

We tried diplomacy, for 20 years - 17 Ch7 UNSCRs violated, shooting at no-fly zones, genocide twice, invaded neighbors twice, institutionalized rape and sold food that would have prevented the starvation of 400k children (thereby making a mockery of the food for oil program). Enough was enough.
 
The US sold Saddam perhaps 5% of his weaponry. If you really have a gripe about that, take it up with the other 95%.

We tried diplomacy, for 20 years - 17 Ch7 UNSCRs violated, shooting at no-fly zones, genocide twice, invaded neighbors twice, institutionalized rape and sold food that would have prevented the starvation of 400k children (thereby making a mockery of the food for oil program). Enough was enough.

Not our call. Not our country, not our sovereignty. So how is killing thousands and thousands of people, occupying land for another 10+ years, leaving an area destabilized and open to terrorist manipulation going to help the situation?

You can say "blah blah blah they're killing people and we got to stop it", but you don't actually have a plan to stop it. What we're doing has been demonstrated NOT TO WORK. 10+ years and we haven't made anything better, we've just killed more people. Fighting dead with dead is asinine, particularly when you do it through the most retarded of means and with the lack of planning that would make a toddler embarrassed.

Quit advocating the death of 10's of thousands of people.
 
Not our call. Not our country, not our sovereignty.

Sovereignty is not an absolute concept. To value sovereignty over the prevention of chemical genocide is atrocious.
 
Sovereignty is not an absolute concept. To value sovereignty over the prevention of chemical genocide is atrocious.

Not if you ain't got a better plan. So you just kill the same people but over a longer period of time....what's the difference? Besides, we don't even know if it was Assad. It's all assumptions and supposition at this point. We don't need more American dead for problems that ain't our own.
 
Back
Top Bottom