• 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!

Why is The Obama’s administration in trouble?

Why is The Obama’s administration in trouble?


  • Total voters
    28
Not surprised that you resort to petty words that you have no idea weather or not are true. :roll:

"Socialist" doesnt mean a Democrat whose policies you disagree with and "Czar" doesnt mean...not quite sure what you think it means but I'd be willing to bet the real definition and your definition do not match.
 
"Socialist" doesnt mean a Democrat whose policies you disagree with and "Czar" doesnt mean...not quite sure what you think it means but I'd be willing to bet the real definition and your definition do not match.

Bold part: Whoever said it does?

Underlined part: How much would you be willing to bet?
 
.... and "Czar" doesnt mean...not quite sure what you think it means but I'd be willing to bet the real definition and your definition do not match.
If you were paying a little more attention, you would have figured out that he meant...

1. Afghanistan Czar - Richard Holbrooke
2. AIDS Czar - Jeffrey Crowley
3. Auto Recovery Czar - Ed Montgomery
4. Border Czar - Alan Bersin
5. California Water Czar - David J. Hayes
6. Car Czar - Ron Bloom
7. Central Region Czar - Dennis Ross
8. Climate Czar - Todd Stern
9. Domestic Violence Czar - Lynn Rosenthal
10. Drug Czar - Gil Kerlikowske
11. Economic Czar - Paul Volcker
12. Energy and Environment Czar - Carol Browner
13. Faith-Based Czar - Joshua DuBois
14. Government Performance Czar - Jeffrey Zients
15. Great Lakes Czar - Cameron Davis
16. Green Jobs Czar - Van Jones
17. Guantanamo Closure Czar - Daniel Fried
18. Health Czar - Nancy-Ann DeParle
19. Information Czar - Vivek Kundra
20. Intelligence Czar - Dennis Blair
21. Mideast Peace Czar - George Mitchell
22. Pay Czar - Kenneth R. Feinberg
23. Regulatory Czar - Cass R. Sunstein *
24. Science Czar - John Holdren
25. Stimulus Accountability Czar - Earl Devaney
26. Sudan Czar - J. Scott Gration
27. TARP Czar - Herb Allison
28. Technology Czar - Aneesh Chopra
29. Terrorism Czar - John Brennan
30. Urban Affairs Czar - Adolfo Carrion Jr.
31. Weapons Czar - Ashton Carter
32. WMD Policy Czar - Gary Samore
 
Bold part: Whoever said it does?
Call it a hypothesis, Socialist is the new "faggot". Dont like someone? Call them a Socialist! It's nebulous, hard to define, sounds bad, and scares people. That and the kind of language I see around here and in the media.

Underlined part: How much would you be willing to bet?
It's a loaded term. It's used because of it's connection with Tsarist Russia which people, mistakenly, connect with Communism and people apparently think "Russia = Communism" even though the term "tsar" (the actual spelling of the word) actually referers to a monarchical autocracy popular in Russia pre-revolution. Which might then make you think people are trying to indicate that these people rule like autocrats over their chosen field...except...they dont really. Any way you slice it, it's a stupid usage of an archaic word designed to elicit an emotional response.

If you were paying a little more attention, you would have figured out that he meant...
So my earlier assessment that a "czar" is a term used to emotionally load people's responses against advisors they dont like seems to be panning out

Study up on those people and you'll find out.
Been there, done that, when they were appointed. There is nothing Socialist about hardly any of them. Do you even know what Socialist means?
 
So my earlier assessment that a "czar" is a term used to emotionally load people's responses against advisors they dont like seems to be panning out
Applying the term 'czar' to a position of authority in the Executive branch has been aruound since at least FDR.

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only way for your present line of argument to be something other than intentionally dishonest is for you to not have known any better.

Perhaps you need to see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_(political_term)
 
Last edited:
I notice that few, if any, liberals have voted in the poll, though a number of them have made posts under the tiopic

If the liberals do not think that any of the 10 items listed are the reason(s) for The Obsma's popular decline and resilting political woes, I wonder how THEY explain it.
 
I notice that few, if any, liberals have voted in the poll, though a number of them have made posts under the tiopic

If the liberals do not think that any of the 10 items listed are the reason(s) for The Obsma's popular decline and resilting political woes, I wonder how THEY explain it.

Wait. You want to know why his poll numbers are low? Why didn't you ask that instead of "Why is The Obama’s administration in trouble"? The administration isn't really in trouble, it has low poll numbers, which is normal for this time in a presidency.

If you wanted an honest discussion, why did you ask a flawed question, with poll options taken from a propaganda hit piece? Why did you constantly refer to "The Obama", instead of President Obama, or just Obama? There is zero evidence you wanted an honest discussion.

The reason the poll numbers are low is pretty obvious. Economy is bad, unemployment high. When those things improve, his numbers will improve. All your propaganda has nothing to do with the real reason, and is just that, propaganda. When you want to have a real discussion on real issues, and can leave your propaganda at the door, get back to us liberals, we might try and have a discussion with you.
 
Wait. You want to know why his poll numbers are low? Why didn't you ask that instead of "Why is The Obama’s administration in trouble"? The administration isn't really in trouble...
Please feel free to subtantively refute the argument made to that effect; at this point you have provided zero evidence to that effect.
Otherwise you're just trying to avoid an issue you know that you cannot counter - and as such, the poll question and options listed are perfectly legit.

Your attacks on me and the article itself are nothing more than bitter red herrings designed to given you an excuse to avoid the issue.
 
Please feel free to subtantively refute the argument made to that effect; at this point you have provided zero evidence to that effect.
Otherwise you're just trying to avoid an issue you know that you cannot counter - and as such, the poll question and options listed are perfectly legit.

Your attacks on me and the article itself are nothing more than bitter red herrings designed to given you an excuse to avoid the issue.

Your one source is an op ed. Get real....

Edit: and why did you, once again, edit out most of my post, including where I actually talk to the question you ask, and instead raise some stupid objection that has nothing to do with anything. You have proven once again you have no interest in honest discussion.
 
Last edited:
Your one source is an op ed.
That makes an argument that you have stated that you disagee with, after which you were challenged to substantively refute.
A challenge that you are avoiding.
So, refute the argument or admit you cannot.
 
Last edited:
That makes an argument that you have stated that you disagee with, after which you were challenged to substantively refute.
A challenge that you are avoiding.
So, refute the argument or admit you cannot.

I made an effort to discuss your topic. You have no interest in a discussion though.
 
It was to be expected when a bunch of really braindead people voted for an empty suit who sounded good but who never had any evidence he knew WTF he was doing
 
I notice that few, if any, liberals have voted in the poll, though a number of them have made posts under the tiopic

If the liberals do not think that any of the 10 items listed are the reason(s) for The Obsma's popular decline and resilting political woes, I wonder how THEY explain it.

1) Glen Beck
2) Rush Limbaugh
3) Sean Hannity
4) "evil Corporations"
5) and of course-RACISM
 
I made an effort to discuss your topic.
That would be true, had you brought some substance to your claim that the argument presented by the author is unsound.
You did not, and so you have not - because you have no interest in a discussion regarding a topic you know you cannot counter.
 
It was to be expected when a bunch of really braindead people voted for an empty suit who sounded good but who never had any evidence he knew WTF he was doing

Spoken like a true Palin worshiper.
 
Obama's biggest problem is the economy, specifically unemployment. As much I love hearing people talk about the runaway deficit created by runaway spending and big government, I know the national debt only becomes a big issue when we hit economic hard times. When was the last time it was a political hot button? The 1992 elections when we were also in the middle of the recession. When the good times return, a lot people forget about the mounting debt.

But right now a lot of folks look at the huge amount spent on stimulous and see our economy's lackluster performance and they say "This is what we spent all that money for?" They want tangible positive results. Not dire lectures that "it could've been worse". All that said, if we see a serious economic rebound in the next two years, Obama's numbers will be looking much better.

Beyond that, it depends on who you're talking about. A lot of left wing folks are dissillusioned with Obama because they believe he's been too moderate and not liberal enough. That's bad news because it may mean his base won't be nearly as energized when re-election rolls around (granted there is still a lot of time for things to change, the political climate is never set in stone) While conservatives and a growing portion of independents think he overreached with healthcare and don't like his leftist stance on immigration.
 
because even the stupid people figured out he is a fraud
 
It was to be expected when a bunch of really braindead people voted for an empty suit who sounded good but who never had any evidence he knew WTF he was doing

The only one of the four in that campaign that sounded good even part of the time was Sarah Palin, and she didn't have the public speaking experience to convey her ideas effectively to a media determined to destroy all conservative pro-America women who speak up.
 
So, "I say so" argument is all you got?

I'm purposely not providing the information on those people for two reasons.

1: I'm not doing other peoples homework for them.

2: I've learned that no matter what I say no one will truely believe me unless they study up on the question themselves....or they will just cherry pick and use semantics when they know full well that what I am saying is true. This thread is actually a good example of cherry picking and semantic use. I often wonder what ever happened to an honest debate?

The only time that I ever speak up in any type of conversation is when I have studied up on what ever the question is. Otherwise I keep my mouth shut. After all....It's better to be thought a fool than to open up ones mouth and remove all doubt. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom