• 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!

Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

Phys251 said:
kos-Duffer-teaser.jpg
Click to expand...

The manufactured outrage machine strikes again!

tea.jpg
 
Have you heard what GOP Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma has said about the issue in this thread?

Republican Congressman Tom Cole: Obama Is 'Commendably Cautious' On Syria

--that the President is being "commendably cautious" here about being involved in the middle of a Syrian civil war.

so which kind of TEA-partier are you--one who complains when the President bombs, like Rand Paul, or one who complains when he doesn't ?
Anthony60 said:
Why? What do you think Ryan will do? Why should people support those that are not representing their beliefs? What's a "Tea Party Rebel"?

The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that calls awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation, the United States of America. From our founding, the Tea Party represents the voice of the true owners of the United States: WE THE PEOPLE - See more at: About Us - Tea Party

Wow, what a bunch of rebels!

Since when are you a rebel if you want government to know it's place as described by the Constitution?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
NIMBY said:
Have you heard what GOP Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma has said about the issue in this thread?

Republican Congressman Tom Cole: Obama Is 'Commendably Cautious' On Syria

--that the President is being "commendably cautious" here about being involved in the middle of a Syrian civil war.

so which kind of TEA-partier are you--one who complains when the President bombs, like Rand Paul, or one who complains when he doesn't ?
Click to expand...

Obama's too aggressive! Obama's too cautious! Yeeeeaaarrrrggghhhh!!
 
Phys251 said:
Obama's too aggressive! Obama's too cautious! Yeeeeaaarrrrggghhhh!!
Click to expand...

OMG, Obama faces criticism like every other previous president. Racists, racists everywhere. :scared:
 
Anthony60 said:
You are pretty much making my point for me. If you don't have the slightest idea, can't even come close to figuring out were he might be pushing the limits of his office, then it would be a fools errand to try and explain it to you. I haven't voted for a democrat in a long time, so I won't be doing it.
Click to expand...

There are things that Obama has done that are unconstitutional. There are things Lincoln did that were unconstitutional too. There are things that every President does that are unconstitutional. But the President is pretty much a figure head and I don't believe they have very much say in policy.

My question was: what are you referring to? Because I don't know what you have a problem with. The subject here is regarding ISIS. So I'm not sure what your point is.
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

Grant said:
Yes, it certainly is. But even if control is won what can they do about Obama?
Click to expand...

I think the real question is what will Obama do if his power is not reduced in the next election? :shock:

Two more years of Harry Read's leadership will take generations to repair. The Checks & Balances of the various over site committees will continue to be stymied. And the long list goes on.

Can you imagine the impact devastation this country would suffer if another progressive judge were to be seated on the Supreme Court?
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

99percenter said:
ok if you want to play that game

berg%2B2.jpg
Click to expand...


Game?

I would take no satisfaction from proving terrorists have little fear from the butter knife rattling of President Obama. The events of the world as it is today is all the reference needed.
 
Mustachio said:
The President is much, much less important than you seem to think he is. What Obama himself is doing to violate the constitution? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you a big fan of alternative media websites that make no attempt to relay actual facts, or are you the type who prefers to believe what extreme right wing media figures tell you without doing any research. Let me know and I'll have an easier time responding to your point.
Click to expand...


We'll need an entire thread to answer your question "What Obama himself is doing to violate the constitution"?

This administration strategically shields the President and his tendency to abide only by the laws it likes. And this alone represents a disturbing and dangerous threat to the rule of law. That's just for starters.

His blatant disregard for political due process and legal due process demonstrates his total disregard for opinions other than his party line.

-------------------


President Obama’s team recently suffered their twelfth defeat at the Supreme Court.

But, you won't see anything about this stunning record in the main stream media. Why? Duh! Because the President's propaganda machine is manipulated and controlled by progressive liberals.

“Not every case in which the president has exceeded his authority has made it all the way to the Supreme Court,” Lee, a former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito, told National Review Online. “The fact that his track record is as bad as it is in the Supreme Court . . . is yet another indication of the fact that we’ve got a president who is playing fast and loose with the Constitution.”​


In this latest case, the high court's first-ever case involving the Constitution's recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal.

Every sitting justice had concluded that Obama’s appointments violated the Constitution.

“All the liberals on the Supreme Court agreed that the president was trying to overreach his power,” John Feehery said on MSNBC.

----------------------------


This marks the twelfth time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama administration’s calls for greater federal executive power.

If the Department of Justice had won these cases, the federal government would be able to electronically track all of our movements, fine us without a fair hearing, dictate who churches choose as ministers, displace state laws based on the president’s whims, bring debilitating lawsuits against individuals based on events that occurred years ago, and destroy a person’s private property without just compensation.



Complaints about overreach by Obama have been simmering for months, if not longer, but recent controversies have pushed that criticism to the fore.

A flood of child immigrants crossing into the U.S. from Mexico has drawn new attention to Obama’s decision to allow illegal immigrants who arrived as children years ago to stay in America in a quasi-legal status. The new arrivals aren’t eligible for that program, but some were sent based on rumors they might be.


Before swapping five Taliban prisoners at Guantánamo for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl last month, the president failed to make the 30-day advance congressional notification the law requires.


Both liberals and conservatives remain aghast at the explosion of National Security Agency surveillance techniques and targeting that Obama has authorized — efforts that have outrageously expanded and broadened programs initially targeting only suspects with international ties under President George W. Bush.​


It’s clear the president and his aides view his use of executive actions as a way to get around the Checks and Balances that are supposed to take place in Congress. They’ve even branded his power grab as his “pen and phone” strategy — wielding a pen to issue executive orders and using his phone to urge outside groups to pressure Congress to act in his favor.

When President Obama’s own Supreme Court nominees join their colleagues in unanimously rejecting the administration’s call for broader federal power 12 times in 18 months, the inescapable conclusion is that the Obama administration’s view of federal power knows virtually no bounds. And still we hear nothing from Obama's main stream media puppets.

No president has gone as far as this president since Richard Nixon tried to suspend the laws he didn’t like.




And still we hear nothing from the main stream media. Our Constitutional Republic is broken.

 
Mustachio said:
The President is much, much less important than you seem to think he is. What Obama himself is doing to violate the constitution?
Click to expand...

OBAMA PUSHES FOR UN 'CLIMATE' RULES WITHOUT CONGRESS

------------------------------------


Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

By CORAL DAVENPORT AUG. 26, 2014


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

“If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time,” said Paul Bledsoe, a top climate change official in the Clinton administration who works closely with the Obama White House on international climate change policy.

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.

“There’s a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse,” said Laurence Tubiana, the French ambassador for climate change to the United Nations. “There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate.”

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies — but would voluntarily pledge to specific levels of emissions cuts and to channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change. Countries might then be legally obligated to report their progress toward meeting those pledges at meetings held to identify those nations that did not meet their cuts.

“There’s some legal and political magic to this,” said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “They’re trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold” in the Senate.
 
Mustachio said:
The President is much, much less important than you seem to think he is. What Obama himself is doing to violate the constitution? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you a big fan of alternative media websites that make no attempt to relay actual facts, or are you the type who prefers to believe what extreme right wing media figures tell you without doing any research. Let me know and I'll have an easier time responding to your point.
Click to expand...


Any U.S. President is very important in foreign affairs--that's just basic civics.

I agree with the other poster that the catalog of Mr. Obama's offenses against the Constitution is too long to get into in much depth here. It's hard to imagine how anyone who understands the Constitution could even question that he has been largely ignoring it from the beginning, whenever he finds its restrictions on his authority inconvenient for his socialist agenda. I'm sure Mr. Obama's acolytes would like to deny all this, because most of them don't like the Constitution any better than he does.
 
From WaPo today:

The world Obama now confronts is far different from the one he inherited when he came into office almost six years ago, and it is testing equally whether the style and substance of his leadership can win supporters and prevail against enemies.

...In the first years of his presidency, Obama’s principal foreign policy goals were far less reactive and were more dependent on his initiative and sense of timing.

But as he tried to engage the world on his terms, Obama quickly found out that the world had thoughts and plans of its own. Far from the reset Obama sought with Russia, President Vladimir Putin sought a new balance of power through aggression in Ukraine. While Obama offered a fresh start for the United States in the Muslim world, the Arab Spring headed toward destabilization rather than democracy.

Six years later, events seem to have spun out of his control, and Obama must react to the actions of others. Putin’s aggression in Ukraine has sparked the greatest East-West crisis since the Cold War. Islamic State advances have swallowed up a large swath of the Middle East and threaten a global upheaval far beyond the shock of al-Qaeda’s 2001 attacks. Obama sets his own pace in a world whirling with crises - The Washington Post

Here's part of the problem. From the same article: "Officials across the government spent Friday trying to clean up after Obama’s Thursday news conference. They insisted that his “no strategy” remark had been misinterpreted and that what was being portrayed as hesitation and delay was instead a sign of due diligence and a sharp focus on developing an effective long-term plan."
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

Grant said:
In fact what happened was predicted by many, including the Mitt Romney during the last Presidential campaign when Obama was saying (though later claiming it wasn't his idea!) that he would pull all the troops from Iraq.. If Obama is thinking long and hard about anything it is probably related to his golf game or Michelle.
This is Romney here:
Click to expand...

It is quite a leap to suggest that Romney predicted the facts on the ground today. What most believed was that the removal of Saddam would result in fragmentation of Iraq at best and civil war at worst. No one predicted that an external radical militia would invade and the Iraqis would refuse to defend their country. Romney was an empty suit who thought contributing to unemployment made him a good presidential candidate.
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

MMC said:
Heya USC. :2wave: Yeah some forgot that poll on BO lying and how much people trusted him nowadays.
Click to expand...

Ya'll act as though US policy in the Middle East changes from one administration to the next!

The lightning-fast march of a violent al-Qaeda splinter group through the heart of Iraq is not just one new slice of bad news from the Middle East. It is a defining moment that exposes more than a decade of failed U.S. policy and leaves the Obama administration with deeply disquieting choices.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...bama-bush-malaki-editorials-debates/10408671/


This is Middle East policy for 70 years, NOT HUMANITARIANISM or any concern for democracy!!

Because of the Cold War, the United States became deeply involved in the Middle East after 1945. Committed to containing communism around the globe, the Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower administrations strove to maintain access to petroleum resources, military bases, and lines of communication in the Middle East and to deny these assets to the Soviet Union.

http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/page/393
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

Grant said:
That 'power vacuum' occurred when Obama removed the troops and yes, what do we do now? BHO will probably start on a strategy when he returns from the fundraisers and wedding but how will any Allies react? I doubt that the military trusts him either.

It's a serious problem when the world's leading democracy, like it or not, will remain leaderless for over two years.
Click to expand...

Bull ****. The power vacuums started when Carter and Reagan armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and hasn't ended. And most recently the removal of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and the attempted removal of Assad. Your partisan opinion fails. This IS American policy in the ME.
 
Grant said:
Wasn't it great to hear Hillary tell the truth?:2wave:
Click to expand...

You mean only if Hillary Clinton says something that is disparaging of Obama is she telling the truth! Your partisan freakish opinion is clear for all to see, and this comment lays it wide open.
 
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

ObamacareFail said:
So...when did we march in Syria? When will the progressives work it out that these fanatical Islamic terrorist groups do not just spring up out of thin air. We did not create them. Nor did we create the power vacuum in Syria.
Click to expand...

"March" in my context, as you well know, is a figure of speech for ANY AND ALL, US involvement/interference in the Middle East. Whether its from the embassy level, covert operations from the Central Interference Agency, "limited" air strikes, or boots on the ground. Failed US policy for YEARS has emboldened militant Islamic groups and you freakish partisans can point a finger at one party or the other all you want, but in the meantime, as pointed out now, by many in America and by China and Russia, the US is destroying the ME!!!!
 
Mustachio said:
There are things that Obama has done that are unconstitutional. There are things Lincoln did that were unconstitutional too. There are things that every President does that are unconstitutional. But the President is pretty much a figure head and I don't believe they have very much say in policy.

My question was: what are you referring to? Because I don't know what you have a problem with. The subject here is regarding ISIS. So I'm not sure what your point is.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, and you should elaborate on what drives US policies. Because partisans on both sides think there's a world of difference between both parties when in fact, there's a dimes thickness in difference between them. Both parties use the CIA to topple left leaning democracies and replace them with right wing dictatorships, both parties have relentlessly supported Israel in the ME, both parties have simultaneously supported militant Islamic groups in the ME. Occupying troops in both Korea and Germany have been perpetuated throughout decades of both administrations. The over the top very offensive Pentagon budget has dwarfed the rest of the worlds with only slight variations between administrations. At home you hear people complaining that 110 million people are on some sort of federal assistance under Obama, as though there were none on it under Bush, when in fact there were 100 million on it then, 70 million under Clinton, 50 million under Bush, 30 million under Reagan and so on, proving that its a trend that surpasses administrations. The national debt tripled under Reagan, doubled under George W Bush and likely will double again under Obama. Our southern border has been unsecured forever, but let partisans tell it and Obama opened the gates when he became president. Abortions have been happening legally, for 45 years and the GOP campaigns on the issue, but never changes it, Navy Pride says there's 54,000,000 now. Note the Church Committees report and subsequent whistle blowers up to and including Edward Snowden, and the NSA has been engaged in one form of extra constitutional domestic spying or another for 40 years, and no party has reigned them in. And there's no end to the similitude of policies between the parties and from one administration to the next. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama has no strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

ocean515 said:
Hmmm. Do you really think so?

View attachment 67172194
Click to expand...

Militant Islamic groups have been emboldened by every US administration since Carter, at least, and you, the fellows that liked your post and all the rest of the right wingers on this board IGNORE this, are you aware of how scared terrorists were of GWB? Here's just one of several American be-headings under him! Stop being a partisan, and as such a part of what's WRONG with America, and be an American first and demand an end to insane US policy in the ME!!

Militants Behead American Hostage in Iraq
Published May 11, 2004FoxNews.comFacebook6 Twitter2 livefyre0
A 26-year-old American from Pennsylvania was beheaded to avenge the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers, and the militants who killed him videotaped the crime and posted it on a radical Islamic Web site.

Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search), believed to be behind the wave of homicide bombings in Iraq, may have either authorized the execution or actually performed the act himself, U.S. officials believe.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/05/11/militants-behead-american-hostage-in-iraq/
 
BringIt said:

We'll need an entire thread to answer your question "What Obama himself is doing to violate the constitution"?

President Obama’s team recently suffered their twelfth defeat at the Supreme Court.

But, you won't see anything about this stunning record in the main stream media. Why? Duh! Because the President's propaganda machine is manipulated and controlled by progressive liberals
Click to expand...


Are you aware that W Bush had 15 unanimous decisions against him in the supreme court?

You won't hear anything about that on your conservative propaganda websites because they are manipulated by millionaires who are tricking you into thinking that democrats vs. republicans is akin to evil socialists vs. the jedi counsel.

matchlight said:
Any U.S. President is very important in foreign affairs--that's just basic civics.

I agree with the other poster that the catalog of Mr. Obama's offenses against the Constitution is too long to get into in much depth here. It's hard to imagine how anyone who understands the Constitution could even question that he has been largely ignoring it from the beginning, whenever he finds its restrictions on his authority inconvenient for his socialist agenda. I'm sure Mr. Obama's acolytes would like to deny all this, because most of them don't like the Constitution any better than he does.
Click to expand...

In other words, you've heard and read that he does a lot of unconstitutional things, but you don't know enough about them to be able to have a discourse about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom