• 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!

Republican President, Time for War

If his loyalties were in question then why did he want to become president of the US, swear allegiance etc? What difference does it make if you didn't hear him use those words in public, and on whose watch did Bin Laden get done?
Obviously getting Bin Laden was a good thing, however Obama did not do it. That was the work of the CIA and the US Navy Seals. All Obama had to do was risk a bit of political capital if it failed. And the clue that led to finding OBL came from enhanced interrogation of terrorists during the Bush Administration.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Except that a **** load of democrats in congress voted to approve them.

You will or at least in the past always would have found some bipartisan support for a President asking that we go to war. There is a natural inclination to support the President. There will even be some bipartisan support for Idiot Trump if he decides to go to war with Iran, believe it or not. Its almost inevitable that there would be some bipartisan support even now.

The Iraq War was Dick Cheney's and John Bolton's war. "43" was along for the ride and so was everybody else.
 
Obama may not be a muslim, however his loyalties are very much in question. For his eight years in office, he went out of his way to avoid using the term "fanatical islamic terrorism". And he seemed offended when anyone else used it.

He publicly said if push comes to shove he will always stand with the Muslims!
 
I am specifically addressing the dumb claim that FDR “lured” the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor.

Crying America-centrism is utterly meaningless when one is discussing the policies of the American President.

“Anglo-imperialism” is irrelevant; it didn’t force the Japanese to commit the atrocities they did in China.

Save the pompous lecture for a thread where it’s actually relevant.

If the bolded text above is YOUR point, I agree with you. As for "crying American centrism" the alternate claim to your's about FDR is the very description of an over-exercised American Centrism perspective. So it would seem that by your own admission its relevant to the topic.

Anglo-Imperilalsim is relevant both directly and tangentially as a means to try to try to understand Imperialism in general and then Japanese Imperialism in particular. I realize that there are those in the audience that simply reject knowledge as a foundation for opinion and decision making.

Why would you reject an effort on my part to get people to learn something. I am always amazed by the STAY IGNORANT crowd. Wouldn't be an ulterior motive there now would there?
 
He publicly said if push comes to shove he will always stand with the Muslims!

How about providing the quote in context instead of dishonestly attempting to misrepresent what was actually said...

Misleading e-mail: From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

A second false quote has Obama saying he would "stand with the Muslims," words that don’t appear in his book. What he actually said is that he would stand with American immigrants from Pakistan or Arab countries should they be faced with something like the forced detention of Japanese-American families in World War II:

Actual quote from "The Audacity of Hope" [pg. 261]: Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

Obama's 'Dreams of My Father' - FactCheck.org
 
How about providing the quote in context instead of dishonestly attempting to misrepresent what was actually said...

Thanks for your post.

Funny how often the full context of something gets boiled down to something utterly inaccurate. Were it not for the constancy of that phenomenon the post count at DP Forum would be about half the actual post count.
 
Please educate yourself. Look it up.

Your claim, you provide the evidence. That's how these things work.

Edit; too late, your claim has been exposed as a misleading falsehood. Nice try though-maybe next time be aware that people aren't just going to take your word for anything, unless you back your assertion up. This way 'we' avoid looking stupid.
 
Your claim, you provide the evidence. That's how these things work.

Edit; too late, your claim has been exposed as a misleading falsehood. Nice try though-maybe next time be aware that people aren't just going to take your word for anything, unless you back your assertion up. This way 'we' avoid looking stupid.

I do not care what a democrat may or may not take seriously. I am just reduced to laughing at your ignorances!
 
I do not care what a democrat may or may not take seriously. I am just reduced to laughing at your ignorances!

For example? See, the difference between you and I is that I don't post out of context lies in an attempt at scoring cheap points (and failing miserably). That, my dear, is ignorance.
 
For example? See, the difference between you and I is that I don't post lies in an attempt at scoring cheap points (and failing dismally). That, my dear, is ignorance.


It wasn’t a lie. You’re saying it was does not make it so Mr. Devonshire!
 
It wasn’t a lie. You’re saying it was does not make it so Mr. Devonshire!

Yes it was. Your claim was taken completely out of context (as was shown), and you knew exactly what you were doing, so don't try wriggling out of it now.
 
Yes it was. Your claim was taken completely out of context (as was shown), and you knew exactly what you were doing, so don't try wriggling out of it now.


Nope! Not wiggling. Not moving either.
 
Nope! Not wiggling. Not moving either.

Ok, so you'll understand then that any of your future assertions are going to be taken with a pinch of salt. If you want to establish credibility and be taken seriously there are a couple of things you need to learn; accuracy and honesty. Just trying to help.
 
I do not care what a democrat may or may not take seriously. I am just reduced to laughing at your ignorances!

"Ignorances" is not a word. So, there is that to laugh at.
 
You will or at least in the past always would have found some bipartisan support for a President asking that we go to war. There is a natural inclination to support the President. There will even be some bipartisan support for Idiot Trump if he decides to go to war with Iran, believe it or not. Its almost inevitable that there would be some bipartisan support even now.

The Iraq War was Dick Cheney's and John Bolton's war. "43" was along for the ride and so was everybody else.
Sorry to remind you, however Bill and Hillary, Joe Biden, and even Nancy Pelosi were beating the war drums for Iraq as far back as 1998. Bush was not in office. Having said that, Trump is not beating the war drums for a land invasion of Iran. He is only warning them that there will be serious consequences if they attack American troops. That could be an air attack or making their refineries disappear. It could be a cruise missile attack similar to the one inflicted on Syria when ASSad used chemical weapons on his own people.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
I love your stupid signature line! But it’s a lie!

Deflection doesn't take away from you not knowing "ingorances" is not a word.
 
Deflection doesn't take away from you not knowing "ingorances" is not a word.




If you have more than one ignorant thought you have ignorances!
 
Back
Top Bottom