• 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: What do you really believe?

Obama: What do you believe


  • Total voters
    65
This is likely true, though I was and still am in favor of the bailouts... less so of the bank bailouts, more so of the auto bailouts.

I would much rather we saved our car manufacturers here in the U.S. than see all those sales go to overseas companies, thus reducing our GDP (by how much I couldn't say) and sending more of our money to foreign companies.

Or American car companies can stop making crap cars. My friend bought a Ford Focus five years ago, brand new, and he's been having issues with the car. I ask him about it and he says to me, "well, it has got over 100,000 miles on it so it's just breaking down towards the end of it's life." My immediate response was, "Really? Because my family has owned several Hondas which all have over 100,000 miles, one of which has 200,000 miles, and my dad's put close to 300,000 miles on his Camry (Toyota) before it stopped working."

The difference I want to point out is, his perspective that 100,000 miles is the life expectancy of a car because he's owned an American made car. Whereas I've never owned an American car (I do drive a Chrysler Crossfire now, but this was when Mercedes was partnered with Chrysler and essentially designed/made everything but the frame, so I still insist that I have not ever owned an American made car) and I have no such expectations.
 
Or American car companies can stop making crap cars. My friend bought a Ford Focus five years ago, brand new, and he's been having issues with the car. I ask him about it and he says to me, "well, it has got over 100,000 miles on it so it's just breaking down towards the end of it's life." My immediate response was, "Really? Because my family has owned several Hondas which all have over 100,000 miles, one of which has 200,000 miles, and my dad's put close to 300,000 miles on his Camry (Toyota) before it stopped working."

The difference I want to point out is, his perspective that 100,000 miles is the life expectancy of a car because he's owned an American made car. Whereas I've never owned an American car (I do drive a Chrysler Crossfire now, but this was when Mercedes was partnered with Chrysler and essentially designed/made everything but the frame, so I still insist that I have not ever owned an American made car) and I have no such expectations.
you're misinformed. american made cars have been ramping up their quality for some time now, and while they may not always beat foreign cars, they are damnded close, and also cheaper to repair. we drive a 2002 and 2004 chevy, and they both have been pretty damned good cars. 125k on the 2004, and 160k on the 2002. maybe 2 grand in repairs over the life, including normal maintenance.
 
I wonder what people actually believe? How much mis-information is out there, how gullible are people?

I listen to talk radio every day at work but rather than thinkin its gospel i understand its just comedy and entertainment but listening to them, and the same people on Faox News, Hannity, Beck, Rush Id really like to know what fallacies people still believe?

Most recently on talk radio they said people just need to realize that Obama "Hates all white people" and "wants payback" and "has a chip on his shoulder hates this country, will do nothing for whites wants it all to go to minorities, wants to bring america down and he wants the terrorist to win? LMAO

Wow, do people actually believe this? A while ago harris polls stated this for republicans:

* Is a socialist (67%)
* Wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (61%)
* Is a Muslim (57%)
* Wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government (51%); and
* Has done many things that are unconstitutional (55%).

Also large numbers of Republicans also believe that President Obama:

* Resents America's heritage (47%)
* Does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do (40%)
* Was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (45%)
* Is the "domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of" (45%)
* Is a racist (42%)
* Want to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (41%)
* Is doing many of the things that Hitler did (38%).

Even more remarkable perhaps, fully 24% of Republicans believe that "he may be the Anti-Christ" and 22% believe "he wants the terrorists to win."

total people believe this:
# He is a socialist (40%)
# He wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (38%)
# He is a Muslim (32%)
# He wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government (29%)
# He has done many things that are unconstitutional (29%)
# He resents America's heritage (27%)
# He does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do (27%)
# He was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (25%)
# He is a domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitutions speaks of (25%)
# He is a racist (23%)
# He is anti-American (23%)
# He wants to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (23%)
# He is doing many of the things that Hitler did (20%)
# He may be the Anti-Christ (14%)
# He wants the terrorists to win (13%)

so what do YOU believe check all that you find true
wow...looks like a whole bunch of non member **************** voted in this poll.
 
you're misinformed. american made cars have been ramping up their quality for some time now, and while they may not always beat foreign cars, they are damnded close, and also cheaper to repair. we drive a 2002 and 2004 chevy, and they both have been pretty damned good cars. 125k on the 2004, and 160k on the 2002. maybe 2 grand in repairs over the life, including normal maintenance.

I'm not misinformed, merely biased. As for repairs and up keep, my father happens to work for Honda, so not so much an issue for our family. I am fully willing to apologize for the false assumption of the crappy nature of American cars and acknowledge that less and less is this the case. However, I cannot deny I still disdain the idea of buying a car from an American manufacture because...of the United Auto Workers union. But we're going on a tangent now.
 
I'm not misinformed, merely biased. As for repairs and up keep, my father happens to work for Honda, so not so much an issue for our family. I am fully willing to apologize for the false assumption of the crappy nature of American cars and acknowledge that less and less is this the case. However, I cannot deny I still disdain the idea of buying a car from an American manufacture because...of the United Auto Workers union. But we're going on a tangent now.
disdain all you wish....but don't mislead people about why.
 
disdain all you wish....but don't mislead people about why.

Again, I apologized as I realize I may be in error in regards to the quality of American cars, but so far as my limited experience with them goes...the statement I made was still accurate to me when I made it. I acknowledge that there are people less biased and more informed on the subject than me, and you've stated you are such; hence I have momentarily respectfully withdrawn my comment as it may be in error. Until such a time as I've done the research to see if what you say is wholly accurate or not, I am merely operating under the assumption of the supremacy of your experience in this subject. How have I mislead anyone?
 
To be fair, I wonder what many liberals believe(d) about Bush.
 
To be fair, I wonder what many liberals believe(d) about Bush.

I believe he is a small glimpse of the disaster of what a Palin presidency would look like.
 
I believe he is a small glimpse of the disaster of what a Palin presidency would look like.

I can agree somewhat, but I was mainly thinking things like "Bush is the devil, ?Bush did 9/11, Bush went to war for oil..." And all those crazy things that were said and people actually believed.

On a side note, I like what Palin believes and I agree with her on several things, but she isn't presidential material (nor do I think she has the intelligence to run the country).
 
I can agree somewhat, but I was mainly thinking things like "Bush is the devil, ?Bush did 9/11, Bush went to war for oil..." And all those crazy things that were said and people actually believed.

On a side note, I like what Palin believes and I agree with her on several things, but she isn't presidential material (nor do I think she has the intelligence to run the country).

I don't think Bush was purposefully evil, but I do think he was (and still is) blinded by his own perceived ideological brilliance and sense of destiny. His main problem is that he assumed that his schemes would work without a hitch and never had a backup plan.

His sense of "nothing can go wrong because I have God and good morals on my side" is amplified many times over in Palin and that is why I think she would be a disaster. Like Bush, she lacks the mental bandwidth to be able to bend with circumstance.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Bush was purposefully evil, but I do think he was (and still is) blinded by his own perceived ideological brilliance and sense of destiny. His main problem is that he assumed that his schemes would work without a hitch and never had a backup plan.

His sense of "nothing can go wrong because I have God and good morals on my side" is amplified many times over in Palin and that is why I think she would be a disaster. Like Bush, she lacks the mental bandwidth to be able to bend with circumstance.

I'm sorry are we back to talking about Obama again?
 
I'm sorry are we back to talking about Obama again?

I do think Obama suffers from that some as well, but it is relatively minor. He seems to have a much bigger pragmatic streak than our last president.
 
Last edited:
I do think Obama suffers from that some as well, but not to the degree of the last president.

I certainly would not accuse Obama of believing God was on his side...at least not the same God Bush believes in. As for the degree...I've yet to hear of (partially because I don't listen, and can't stand to hear) Obama apologizing for breaking campaign promises, or forcing his agenda upon the American people.

My reason for why I don't much care for listening to Obama speak? His state of the Union address where he went on to talk about how those in the armed forces deserve, and I would assume have his, respect; without for one moment acknowledging and apologizing to those who serve and have served at GITMO. I don't know the full scale of what is happening there, but I do know that our military does not deserve to be slandered and smeared as the men and women who serve there have been.
 
I certainly would not accuse Obama of believing God was on his side...at least not the same God Bush believes in. As for the degree...I've yet to hear of (partially because I don't listen, and can't stand to hear) Obama apologizing for breaking campaign promises, or forcing his agenda upon the American people.

I guess I need to ask which campaign promises you speak of. Also, do you consider him trying to follow through, but not being where he wants to be to be the same as breaking them?

My reason for why I don't much care for listening to Obama speak? His state of the Union address where he went on to talk about how those in the armed forces deserve, and I would assume have his, respect; without for one moment acknowledging and apologizing to those who serve and have served at GITMO. I don't know the full scale of what is happening there, but I do know that our military does not deserve to be slandered and smeared as the men and women who serve there have been.

I do not recall where he called out those who served at Gitmo specifically in a disrespectful manner. I know of many occasions where he did state that the whole enterprise was a mistake though.
 
I guess I need to ask which campaign promises you speak of. Also, do you consider him trying to follow through, but not being where he wants to be to be the same as breaking them?

Staying with the GITMO example, he promised to close it down within 6 months of coming into office I believe? The other promises (please correct me if I'm wrong, and he did not make any of these promises, as I obviously never followed his campaign) involve his promise of bipartisanship, and an administration where all the policy decisions would be available for review by the public for 72 hours before it gets decided on. I consider failure to follow through on a set (by him) timeline a failure; whether it is actually breaking a promise...

Allow me the use of this analogy. I apply for a job (and somehow have no clue where the job site is located) and I am hired on; during my interview I'm asked if I am punctual. I tell the interviewer that I am. I arrive late my first day on the job, because I failed to plan for the two hour drive to the job site and instead only allotted myself thirty minutes to get to work. Am I still a punctual person at this point?

I do not recall where he called out those who served at Gitmo specifically in a disrespectful manner. I know of many occasions where he did state that the whole enterprise was a mistake though.

I apologize, my emotions tend to get the better of me when the issue involves veterans and those who serve in the armed forces. That said, I am not sure we will agree, but I will certainly try to explain my perspective on this matter. Having been elected President, Mr. Obama has inherited a number of titles; amongst them is Commander in Chief, meaning he is the literal (though in practice, often figurative) head of our armed forces. While I have no objection to anyone holding the opinion the whole enterprise our nation undertook at GITMO was a mistake; I think for him to say it, given his status as the Commander-in-Chief, that may not have been the most diplomatic thing to say about an enterprise in which those under his charge are undertaking.
 
Staying with the GITMO example, he promised to close it down within 6 months of coming into office I believe?

My personal view is that he misjudged how much of a cluster*** the previous administration created down there.

The other promises (please correct me if I'm wrong, and he did not make any of these promises, as I obviously never followed his campaign) involve his promise of bipartisanship

He did seem to try very hard with this one as well. Obviously though this does not mean he can bend over backwards. I think he made a more than reasonable attempt though. Consider how the left is screaming at him for how much he has done in this regard.

Ultimately, the gap here is pretty wide and neither side is satisfied.

and an administration where all the policy decisions would be available for review by the public for 72 hours before it gets decided on. I consider failure to follow through on a set (by him) timeline a failure; whether it is actually breaking a promise...

I agree. He screwed the pooch with this one. I am mad at him about it as well.

Allow me the use of this analogy. I apply for a job (and somehow have no clue where the job site is located) and I am hired on; during my interview I'm asked if I am punctual. I tell the interviewer that I am. I arrive late my first day on the job, because I failed to plan for the two hour drive to the job site and instead only allotted myself thirty minutes to get to work. Am I still a punctual person at this point?

No, but I don't think its a very good comparison. I think in this case, it would be more like not foreseeing a traffic stopping accident. He was not in a position to know the complexity of the situation since a lot of it is designated secret and a national security interest.

I apologize, my emotions tend to get the better of me when the issue involves veterans and those who serve in the armed forces. That said, I am not sure we will agree, but I will certainly try to explain my perspective on this matter. Having been elected President, Mr. Obama has inherited a number of titles; amongst them is Commander in Chief, meaning he is the literal (though in practice, often figurative) head of our armed forces. While I have no objection to anyone holding the opinion the whole enterprise our nation undertook at GITMO was a mistake; I think for him to say it, given his status as the Commander-in-Chief, that may not have been the most diplomatic thing to say about an enterprise in which those under his charge are undertaking.

Let me preface my response by stating that I have never been in the military and I do not know many RL people who have been so our perspectives may be different. The role of commander in chief is important but one of the primary aspects of that role is setting the mission. For me, there is a very clear and strong distinction between how one feels about the mission and how one feels about those who perform the mission. It is the same as a business, many businesses cause great harm, but many in individual job roles are simply doing their jobs and carry no blame.

I cannot see how anyone can realistically fault those who are doing their jobs with the overall mission itself. They are two different things to me and not respecting one has no bearing on the other. Good soldiers can be assigned to bad missions and bad soldiers can be assigned to good missions.

The closest parallel I can draw would be the CEO of the company I work for saying that what the company does is wrong. I personally would not care as long as I got paid and my job stayed secure. Now the military is more than just a job as it is also a community and for many a personal mission, so if I take that into account, I can sort of see where you are coming from. However, the truth should always be allowed to come out. If a mission is bad than it is bad (and in this case, I think it is) and we should not stop doing bad things because people's feelings might get hurt. I might sound harsh, but I think there is a real need for this distinction.
 
Last edited:
Megaprogman, I would say we're mostly in agreement, and I appreciate the civil nature of this discourse and the opportunity to have it. I will point out where we disagree entirely though, is that Obama could not have known how complex the situation at GITMO is; under your premise that much of what was going on there was classified. Correct me please if my memory fails in this matter, the reason the mainstream media has the opinion in regards to what takes place in GITMO is because several people had the opportunity to go observe and report on what took place there. I assure you if any of that was classified information, with the exception of members of Congress, no civilian would have been allowed to witness AND report on any of what took place. The military is not at all lax when it comes to trying (and failing in humorous ways) to protect classified information. I believe the information had to have been available to him, but he and/or his staff failed to do their due dilligence.
 
Megaprogman, I would say we're mostly in agreement, and I appreciate the civil nature of this discourse and the opportunity to have it. I will point out where we disagree entirely though, is that Obama could not have known how complex the situation at GITMO is; under your premise that much of what was going on there was classified. Correct me please if my memory fails in this matter, the reason the mainstream media has the opinion in regards to what takes place in GITMO is because several people had the opportunity to go observe and report on what took place there. I assure you if any of that was classified information, with the exception of members of Congress, no civilian would have been allowed to witness AND report on any of what took place. The military is not at all lax when it comes to trying (and failing in humorous ways) to protect classified information. I believe the information had to have been available to him, but he and/or his staff failed to do their due dilligence.

Perhaps you are right. I guess the reason I made this assumption is because of the Bush administrations zealousness in keeping information and not being transparent, coupled with Obama's relatively quick change in tune about Gitmo when he became president.

It lead me to believe that he found out something that he did not know before as I believe his sentiment about trying to close it is sincere.

And you are welcome. It is always a nice day at DP when I am not being called an idiot or other name for being honest about what I believe. I try to extend the same courtesy to others unless they prove themselves incapable of understanding or appreciating the respect.
 
Last edited:
I certainly would not accuse Obama of believing God was on his side...at least not the same God Bush believes in. As for the degree...I've yet to hear of (partially because I don't listen, and can't stand to hear) Obama apologizing for breaking campaign promises, or forcing his agenda upon the American people.

My reason for why I don't much care for listening to Obama speak? His state of the Union address where he went on to talk about how those in the armed forces deserve, and I would assume have his, respect; without for one moment acknowledging and apologizing to those who serve and have served at GITMO. I don't know the full scale of what is happening there, but I do know that our military does not deserve to be slandered and smeared as the men and women who serve there have been.

He did sign the papers for a military pay raise this year. Of course social security did not get a cola this year. I don't think Obama has ever made a trip to a grocery store lately.:(
 
Perhaps you are right. I guess the reason I made this assumption is because of the Bush administrations zealousness in keeping information and not being transparent, coupled with Obama's relatively quick change in tune about Gitmo when he became president.

It lead me to believe that he found out something that he did not know before as I believe his sentiment about trying to close it is sincere.

And you are welcome. It is always a nice day at DP when I am not being called an idiot or other name for being honest about what I believe. I try to extend the same courtesy to others unless they prove themselves incapable of understanding or appreciating the respect.

Aw shucks, MP. Would you like me to call you an idiot to make you feel more normal?:mrgreen:
 
Or American car companies can stop making crap cars. My friend bought a Ford Focus five years ago, brand new, and he's been having issues with the car. I ask him about it and he says to me, "well, it has got over 100,000 miles on it so it's just breaking down towards the end of it's life." My immediate response was, "Really? Because my family has owned several Hondas which all have over 100,000 miles, one of which has 200,000 miles, and my dad's put close to 300,000 miles on his Camry (Toyota) before it stopped working."

The difference I want to point out is, his perspective that 100,000 miles is the life expectancy of a car because he's owned an American made car. Whereas I've never owned an American car (I do drive a Chrysler Crossfire now, but this was when Mercedes was partnered with Chrysler and essentially designed/made everything but the frame, so I still insist that I have not ever owned an American made car) and I have no such expectations.

and yet my ford 2001 explorer sport has 198,000 miles on it with no problems. Had to replace a barring and normal maintenance.

Not saying american cars are better or worse just saying there are good and bad experiences out there. And "IMO" foreign cars arent necessarily built better (labor wise) but they use better non-union regulated, you scratch my back i scratch your back "parts" instead of stepping up the ingenuity like VW parts.
 
To be fair, I wonder what many liberals believe(d) about Bush.

thats a very fair question
I bet many "disliked" him but i bet % wise nobody thought the lunacy they think about obama

BUT

of course i could be wrong has i have no poll results to go by
 
I do not recall where he called out those who served at Gitmo specifically in a disrespectful manner. I know of many occasions where he did state that the whole enterprise was a mistake though.

Of course he did. He's a Democrat. Bringing down the other side by any means necessary no matter who or what it hurt took precedence above all else. Hell, Pelosi even offered false credit towards Iran for Iraq's turn around while our troops were the ones sweating and bleeding to accomplish.

Gitmo was supposedly full of torture and ill treatment. It was supposedly a place where American Nazis carried out brutal orders from the White House. The great cry to close down Gitmo came out of every single Democrat's mouth, to include Obama.

But what happened? Are we to believe that all of this immoral behavior in Gitmo is now accepted by the very silent Democratic Party under Obama's White House or can we conclude that there was really nothing there to begin with? Aside from a handful of waterboarding episodes, where's the great torture chambers of mass torture?

Another observation. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the rest were identified as irresponsible warmongers every time a civilain got killed (even by their own hands). One would think that no civilian is killed in Afghanistan under Obama's White House given their silence.


The sanctimony and exaggerated higher morality of the left quickly took a back seat once the throne exchanged parties. Obama was privy to more than he knew before. But did he share this with the Democratic Party? Does this explain their silence towards policies that are the same as they were under Bush? Doubtful. They've just proven to be full of ****. But hey, years of propaganda against the White House at the expense of our troop's mission and the American identity came down to an election of "change." What's changed in my world? Civilians are still dying and Gitmo is still in play.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom