• 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!

Only 24% Say They Share Obama's Political Views

Mickey Shane said:
When the GOP nomination is complete, Obama's numbers are going to skyrocket.
Click to expand...

And you base that on what? Your crystal ball?

Right now it's just the normal 'diss the prez' time, without any lesser of the two evils factored in.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that Obama is one of the "evils"???? Why?

j-mac
 
This is good new for our Nation and our children.

It means that even with most media ignoring Obama's incompetence, and lack of mental capacity the word is getting out.

We just saw another economist has jump ship and in the stories his credentials were pointed out and begs the question, if this guy was so good at the job and the last few were great at the job, why the hell did they all fail and were unable to teach Obama not one damn thing?

Obama lacks the ability learn from his mistakes.
 
Councilman said:
This is good new for our Nation and our children.

It means that even with most media ignoring Obama's incompetence, and lack of mental capacity the word is getting out.

We just saw another economist has jump ship and in the stories his credentials were pointed out and begs the question, if this guy was so good at the job and the last few were great at the job, why the hell did they all fail and were unable to teach Obama not one damn thing?

Obama lacks the ability learn from his mistakes.
Click to expand...


Or owns the hubris, and extreme arrogance to think he hasn't made any.


j-mac
 
J-mac: A fairly large portion of what he said he would do, he has done. Some things he has tried to do, but not been able to get congress to agree on. This is fairly normal of any president.
 
Redress said:
J-mac: A fairly large portion of what he said he would do, he has done. Some things he has tried to do, but not been able to get congress to agree on. This is fairly normal of any president.
Click to expand...


maybe you could be more specific and we could have a real conversation on it.....Instead of generalizations.


j-mac
 
Redress said:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/



Might take you awhile getting through the list, there are only 135 of them. Some are trivial, some are fairly big.
Click to expand...



So are we only to take to word of biased partisan sites that tout themselves so called "fact checkers" when in reality they are shills?


j-mac

In any case, I don't want you to take the easy way out and just post some website, I'd like to hear what YOU think....Is that possible?
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
So are we only to take to word of biased partisan sites that tout themselves so called "fact checkers" when in reality they are shills?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Ah, the old fallback position: when you cannot refute what a source puts out, call them biased.
 
Redress said:
Ah, the old fallback position: when you cannot refute what a source puts out, call them biased.
Click to expand...


No need to refute what is not credible to begin with.

j-mac
 
Redress said:
Using biased sources to prove bias.

See how easy that is?
Click to expand...

No one uses more questionable sources than j. He's a good fellow, but he really dismisses better sources than he uses. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
No one uses more questionable sources than j. He's a good fellow, but he really dismisses better sources than he uses. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Well, in that case neither source is unbaised so neither need be recognized nor rebutted.

Next....
 
Redress said:
Using biased sources to prove bias.

See how easy that is?
Click to expand...


I also said this:

j-mac said:
In any case, I don't want you to take the easy way out and just post some website, I'd like to hear what YOU think....Is that possible?
Click to expand...

So do you think you could do that?


j-mac
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Well, in that case neither source is unbaised so neither need be recognized nor rebutted.

Next....
Click to expand...

That's actually not true. Politifact is pretty good, j's biased sources aside. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
No one uses more questionable sources than j. He's a good fellow, but he really dismisses better sources than he uses. :coffeepap
Click to expand...


Ah, here we go....Biased sources are just fine for the left to use, but don't let the conservative pov get in there, because it only provides a distraction for you to use and avoid the topic....Get off it man, and speak to the issue will ya?

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
That's actually not true. Politifact is pretty good, j's biased sources aside. ;)
Click to expand...

No, they are biased, and proven so. St Pete times has its editorial board too closely affiliated with the supposed fact check portion, as cited before, and are in the tank for Obama. They also weigh more heavily in going after repubs than they do demo's.

But then I suppose you would say that MSNBC is fair...So.....pfft!


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
No, they are biased, and proven so. St Pete times has its editorial board too closely affiliated with the supposed fact check portion, as cited before, and are in the tank for Obama. They also weigh more heavily in going after repubs than they do demo's.

But then I suppose you would say that MSNBC is fair...So.....pfft!


j-mac
Click to expand...

No, they ahven't been. You just by the biased view. Anyone who uses the American (non)Thinker as a source for anything cannot legitmately complain about any source. But the fact is, you can't use skewed and biased sources to attack another source. Find something not as baised as those you listed, and show something credible, and we'll talk. :coffeepap
 
j-mac said:
No, they are biased, and proven so. St Pete times has its editorial board too closely affiliated with the supposed fact check portion, as cited before, and are in the tank for Obama. They also weigh more heavily in going after repubs than they do demo's.

But then I suppose you would say that MSNBC is fair...So.....pfft!


j-mac
Click to expand...

then prove it.
 
j-mac said:
Ah, here we go....Biased sources are just fine for the left to use, but don't let the conservative pov get in there, because it only provides a distraction for you to use and avoid the topic....Get off it man, and speak to the issue will ya?

j-mac
Click to expand...

No. I would never use Move on or the Nation, or even MotherJones, which I enjoy reading. But, you seem to take anything that says something you don't like as having a liberal bais. It simply doesn't work that way.
 
Boo Radley said:
Find something not as baised as those you listed, and show something credible
Click to expand...

says the person who prefers wik to the cbc, links to whitehouse.gov and comedy central and cites sources from new south wales on behalf of school teachers in new york

authenticity, anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom