• 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!

Has Obama been a good President?

Has Obama been a good President?


  • Total voters
    75
I insist.

All that means is that you don't actually pay attention to peoples' posts, but rather simply glance at their lean, deem them "progressive" and proceed to tell them what they believe. An all-too-common tendency of many on the right here, it seems.
 
All that means is that you don't actually pay attention to peoples' posts, but rather simply glance at their lean, deem them "progressive" and proceed to tell them what they believe. An all-too-common tendency of many on the right here, it seems.

Spoken like a true progressive.
 
All that means is that you don't actually pay attention to peoples' posts, but rather simply glance at their lean, deem them "progressive" and proceed to tell them what they believe. An all-too-common tendency of many on the right here, it seems.

As someone who was once sporting "conservative" in my lean, I can assure you that it's just as common coming from many on the left here. Not you, but many others.

And the ones on the left love to refer to conservatives as "cons" and say what all conservatives think, which always amuses me.
 
I'm not sure if Bush lied as President. I'm a pretty good judge of character, and my instinct is that he didn't. Chaingang otoh, who was effectively in charge of foreign policy in the first term, is an inveterate liar. The only character he has is bad.
 
As someone who was once sporting "conservative" in my lean, I can assure you that it's just as common coming from many on the left here. Not you, but many others.

And the ones on the left love to refer to conservatives as "cons" and say what all conservatives think, which always amuses me.

I see it thrown around by some on the left. YMMV on whether it's as common or not.
 
As someone who was once sporting "conservative" in my lean, I can assure you that it's just as common coming from many on the left here. Not you, but many others.

And the ones on the left love to refer to conservatives as "cons" and say what all conservatives think, which always amuses me.
Yep. It's amusing how both the extreme conservatives and the extreme liberals give themselves away. The extreme of any lean, really. Without even realizing it, I think. They come off as honestly seeing themselves as reasonable and rational and downright moderate.
 
Yep. It's amusing how both the extreme conservatives and the extreme liberals give themselves away. The extreme of any lean, really. Without even realizing it, I think. They come off as honestly seeing themselves as reasonable and rational and downright moderate.

The amount of extremists - on both sides - on this board is astounding.
 
No, congressional buck passing. They merely said he could decide. If he chose no, they would not have overrode his decision. So, this means he was the decider.

He received congressional approval. Are you trying to argue that point? :roll: Keep making excuses.
 
Obama voted against the Iraq invasion. Seems he was the leader you needed, after all.

I don't believe he did, but I also don't think he's really much of a leader at all to be honest. He's arrogant. He makes America look foolish. He's not a strong forceful presence. He lacks diplomacy. I could go on.

I wonder if you send him love letters? ;)
 
He received congressional approval. Are you trying to argue that point? :roll: Keep making excuses.

No. I'm arguing what you think that means. Sure, they were cowardly. But they did not decide to go. In fact, while giving approval, they asked him not to and promised to fight him if he went outside the UN. They merely passed the buck to him, once congress critters started losing seats by resisting it. I merely ask that we be honest about what went on. At the end of the day, Bush, and only Bush, decided.
 
No. I'm arguing what you think that means. Sure, they were cowardly. But they did not decide to go. In fact, while giving approval, they asked him not to and promised to fight him if he went outside the UN. They merely passed the buck to him, once congress critters started losing seats by resisting it. I merely ask that we be honest about what went on. At the end of the day, Bush, and only Bush, decided.

You'll have to provide a link to that.
 
Kerry's speech on the floor.

I'm not searching Google. I had to work all day. You look for a link and post it. You made the claim. :mrgreen:
 
Kerry's speech on the floor.

He explained his expectation that the president would consider war "the last option to address this threat, not the first," saying:

"In giving the president this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."
Secretary of State John Kerry says as a senator he
 
I'm not searching Google. I had to work all day. You look for a link and post it. You made the claim. :mrgreen:

Let me add this as well:

In this editorial posted immediately following the 2002 vote on going to war with Iraq, Larry Eichel remarks on the Democratic senators who voiced concerns on the resolution but still voted for it. He also quotes a memo from Democratic strategists, including current Kerry advisor Bob Shrum, concluding "that it almost didn't really matter (politically speaking) whether Democratic candidates were for or against military action, so long as they adopted nuanced positions, expressed doubts and concerns, and made sure to condemn the Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction." (Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 13, 2002)

John F. Kerry - The 2002 Vote On Iraq | The Choice 2004 | FRONTLINE | PBS

As I said, cowardly. But agreement was it didn't matter, Bush was going.
 
See above.

Of course, so the smarmy liar makes all KINDS of excuses for his own vote. :roll: Do you really think "your side" is any better?
 
Let me add this as well:

In this editorial posted immediately following the 2002 vote on going to war with Iraq, Larry Eichel remarks on the Democratic senators who voiced concerns on the resolution but still voted for it. He also quotes a memo from Democratic strategists, including current Kerry advisor Bob Shrum, concluding "that it almost didn't really matter (politically speaking) whether Democratic candidates were for or against military action, so long as they adopted nuanced positions, expressed doubts and concerns, and made sure to condemn the Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction." (Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 13, 2002)

John F. Kerry - The 2002 Vote On Iraq | The Choice 2004 | FRONTLINE | PBS

As I said, cowardly. But agreement was it didn't matter, Bush was going.

I'll have to look at this tomorrow or something. I'm too tired to have to read all of this boring stuff. :roll:
 
Of course, so the smarmy liar makes all KINDS of excuses for his own vote. :roll: Do you really think "your side" is any better?

Better, of course not. But no Bush, no Iraq. It's just the way it was.
 
Back
Top Bottom