• 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!

What should be President Barak Obama's top priority?

What should be President Barak Obama's top priority?

  • Gaining International Support

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Regulating Wall Street

    Votes: 3 9.1%

  • Unemployment

    Votes: 9 27.3%

  • Health Care

    Votes: 6 18.2%

  • Climate Change

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Immigration

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Silencing dissenting views

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Gay/Lesbian Rights

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The War on Terror

    Votes: 8 24.2%

  • Education

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
Nope. I want the TOP priority. All I want to know is number 1. And if Silencing dissenting views is so ridiculous, why is it something that he is focusing on with Fox news and Rush Limbaugh?
 
liblady said:
with the exception of the ridiculous "silencing dissenting views", all theose issues mentioned are priorities. did you want them ranked?
Click to expand...

...top priority...
 
The War on Terror

Of all the things on the list, and of the few that has anything to do with what the government is -supposed- to do, this is the most pressing issue.
 
Goobieman said:
The War on Terror

Of all the things on the list, and of the few that has anything to do with what the government is -supposed- to do, this is the most pressing issue.
Click to expand...

Why is it the most pressing issue? The number of people who die from terrorism is tiny. A better focus would be on preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons and other WMDs, as those have the potential to do some serious damage.

A few bands of morons who manage to set off a bomb every few years are not actually a threat to national security.
 
Kandahar said:
Why is it the most pressing issue? The number of people who die from terrorism is tiny.
Click to expand...
Yours is an intentionally false standard - the number of people that have died each year is not the driving force behind the war against terrorism, it is the threat of attack on the US -- partictualy an attack on a US city w/a WMD.

There is little question that there are terrorist groups that will, if given the slightest opportunity, attack a US city with a WMD.

The numer of people that -will- die in an a WMD attack is enormous, and the effect on the nation, on numerous levels, is incalcuable; this damage far outstrips any from any of the other issues mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Rightarrow said:
Happy voting!
Click to expand...

I'm going to go with healthcare because I can't wait until unemployment sky rockets to above 20% after small businesses which provide employment to 52% of the private workforce will be given 2 options, 1) fire people, 2) keep their current employees and offer their employees health insurance, get fined if they don't AND pay a hefty pay roll tax even if they do.

Oh and I'm sure they'll be far more likely to hire new people as well.

Are the DemocRATs ****ing retarded or what? I mean when we have unemployment approaching double digits they are clawing tooth and nail for a program that is almost guaranteed to kill jobs and make small businesses less likely to hire people.

Oh and the reason why I think it should be his top priority is because I want the radical corporatist jack booted thugs now running the show to have the biggest Congressional turnaround in the history of this country but alas they don't have the votes.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Yours is an intentionally false standard - the number of people that have died each year is not the driving force behind the war against terrorism, it is the threat of attack on the US -- partictualy an attack on a US city w/a WMD.

There is little question that there are terrorist groups that will, if given the slightest opportunity, attack a US city with a WMD.

The numer of people that -will- die in an a WMD attack is enormous, and the effect on the nation, on numerous levels, is incalcuable; this damage far outstrips any from any of the other issues mentioned.
Click to expand...

Well that was the point I was making...WMDs are a serious threat, but conventional terrorism is not. As such, we're better off to focus our efforts on preventing the proliferation of WMDs than by fighting a more general "war on terrorism." There will always be terrorists.
 
His top priority should be staying out of people's business. As far as the list goes, the War on Terror and international support. Those are part of his constitutional responsibilities, the others are not. He should focus on what his job is, nothing more. I think he has actually been doing well at the international support part.
 
Kandahar said:
Well that was the point I was making...WMDs are a serious threat, but conventional terrorism is not. As such, we're better off to focus our efforts on preventing the proliferation of WMDs than by fighting a more general "war on terrorism." There will always be terrorists.
Click to expand...
You see the issues as seperate. They are not.
 
Obama's Top priority should be to follow the Constitution of the United States of America. Nothing is more top priority than that.
 
Goobieman said:
You see the issues as seperate. They are not.
Click to expand...

To a large degree they are. A few terrorists on the coast of Somalia or in the mountains of Afghanistan are not going to get their hands on nukes unless someone gives them nukes. Since the demand is far greater (and harder to control) than the supply, it makes sense to prevent people from supplying WMDs rather than fighting a "war on terrorism."

As long as they don't have access to WMDs, they're just a mere nuisance rather than a serious threat.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
To a large degree they are. A few terrorists on the coast of Somalia or in the mountains of Afghanistan are not going to get their hands on nukes unless someone gives them nukes.
Click to expand...
Another intentionally irrelevant standard. Your link to WMD proliferation is a subset of the war, and certainly part of the focus, but it is primarily a focus within the greater context.

Remember:
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated
Click to expand...
The Rhetoric of 9/11: President George W. Bush -- Address to Joint Session of Congress and the American People (9-20-01)

This means the war is against a specific set of terrorist, not every terrorist group in the world. The terrorists that we fight are those that look to attack us[sic] and our cities and cause as much harm to us as they can, not blow up the occasional police department or rival mosque.

And so, my original statement stands -- the potential harm we seek to avoid thru the war against these terrorist groups is FAR greater than that of any of the other options, and so should then be the top priority.

Whatever harm might be found in some people not being able to pay for their own health care is outrageously tiny compared to the harm found in a 100kt bomb going off in NYC.
 
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated
Click to expand...

That is not a realistic goal.

Goobieman said:
This means the war is against a specific set of terrorist, not every terrorist group in the world. The terrorists that we fight are those that look to attack us[sic] and our cities and cause as much harm to us as they can, not blow up the occasional police department or rival mosque.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "attacking our cities" if not WMDs? Conventional terrorism? It just doesn't happen often enough to pose a serious risk to national security.

Goobieman said:
Whatever harm might be found in some people not being able to pay for their own health care is outrageously tiny compared to the harm found in a 100kt bomb going off in NYC.
Click to expand...

Then the logical solution is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, rather than trying to fight a war against every terrorist in the world with an axe to grind with the United States.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
What do you mean by "attacking our cities" if not WMDs? Conventional terrorism? It just doesn't happen often enough to pose a serious risk to national security.

Then the logical solution is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, rather than trying to kill every terrorist with an axe to grind with the United States.
Click to expand...
I see you didn't pay attention to what I said. Not a surprise.
I have already directly addressed all of these issues, and explained to you how your statements are in error.
 
Rightarrow said:
Nope. I want the TOP priority. All I want to know is number 1. And if Silencing dissenting views is so ridiculous, why is it something that he is focusing on with Fox news and Rush Limbaugh?
Click to expand...

So you consider making a comment to be "focusing?"
 
Does anyone know if there is a way to permanently put someone on ignore? I would love to not have Goobieman's inanity clogging up my monitor anymore.
 
Rightarrow said:
Happy voting!
Click to expand...

Gaining International SupportThat should not be his priority.If there was WWIII going on then yes that would be a top priority to try to get allies.

Regulating Wall Streetno.At most he should impose a "no business is too big to fail" rule,so if a business goes under it goes under, no more tax payer help.

Unemploymentno, he can however lower business taxes, impose tariffs to make foreign goods have a level playing field with American goods to discourage outsourcing.

Health Careno it is not the government's responsibility to force tax payers to provide services for others.

Climate Changenever,a president has no business trying to push his religious views on others.

ImmigrationIf you mean illegal immigration then yes stopping it should be a top priority tied with the war on terror/afghanist/Iraq war

Silencing dissenting viewsA president should be the biggest proponent of all constitutional rights so not he should be trying to silencing opposing views.

Gay/Lesbian Rights They already have the same rights as me, so no.

The War on TerrorIf you mean War on terror along with Iraq and Afghanistan wars then it should be a top priority tied with trying to crack down on illegal immigration.

Education I do not see how there is anything wrong or dire with out education system so no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom