General Politics Thread

[DayWalker]

It kind of seems like the President can do whatever he wants, shouldn't something like that have to go through Congress? Otherwise, what is the point of having checks and balances, apparently all we need is our glorious leader.

love it.
if congress isnt gonna do their job...

[Sub-stance1]

yea bush had a shoe thrown at him. ROFL!!!

regardless if people blame bush or congress 100% in this they shouldn't even be posting in this topic because it's obvious they dont' know what they are talking about.

yea but that was out of the country(by an Iraqi journalist) and he never had his citizenship or his education questioned. What this journalist did was totally disrespectful to the office. Doesn't matter if you disagree with what is being said you still don't interrupt the President that way while he is making a speech on national television. That goes for the left and the right.

[-Kwesnoth-]

yea but that was out of the country(by an Iraqi journalist) and he never had his citizenship or his education questioned. What this journalist did was totally disrespectful to the office. Doesn't matter if you disagree with what is being said you still don't interrupt the President that way while he is making a speech on national television. That goes for the left and the right.

You know why Bush was not questioned on his citizenship? Because there was no question that Bush is in an American citizen. And believe it or not, people can be dicks. If the president of a country can't handle being a little disrespected, then he needs to grow the fuck up.

[Sub-stance1]

You know why Bush was not questioned on his citizenship? Because there was no question that Bush is in an American citizen. And believe it or not, people can be dicks. If the president of a country can't handle being a little disrespected, then he needs to grow the fuck up.

Why, because Bush is from Texas...lol

The big difference is that Obama had to actually prove it by showing it to the public. How many other Presidents have had to do that before? I think we all know where that came from and why. He is just as American as any other president. Birthers need to just get over it.


As far as him being "disrespected", I think he handled that very well and it shows the type of leader he is. The main thing is that it never should of happened. It shows a total lack of respect to the office of the president. Its ok to disagree but at least give him the same respect that you would give any other person holding that position. He didn't accomplish anything but making himself look like a total moron. He is the one who needs to grow up.

[Bigdoggy]

who cares about interruption, there are more important matters such as how crappy his foreign policy is. o.O

[weskurtz81]

love it.
if congress isnt gonna do their job...

So, why do we even need Congress then? If the Pres can do what he wants regardless of what Congress is doing we should just drop that payroll and have one person making all the calls. Seems like you would be agreeable to that right?

[Sub-stance1]

who cares about interruption, there are more important matters such as how crappy his foreign policy is. o.O

I don't think the GOP is wanna go there. They will get creamed in that area...lol They already tried that and it didn't work.

[Morganator]

I don't think the GOP is wanna go there. They will get creamed in that area...lol They already tried that and it didn't work.

So will the democrats. But you already knew this. Even now, your boy-king is authorizing and calling for military action in Syria just like he did in Libya and he's testing the Chinese by deploying more than 60% of all our naval assets into the South China and South Pacific seas while opening and setting up a base of operations in northern Australia. As if a $1,000,000,000 "embassy", complete with 16,000 soldiers in Iraq and droning Pakistanis isn't enough. And don't blame Bush for those things. Remember, your lord and master promised to bring our troops home within six months of being elected.

Oh. Let's not forget that we're deploying and stationing a good amount of our F-22 fleet in Saudi Arabia; most likely in preparation for another undeclared war which is going to be against Iran.

[Sub-stance1]

So will the democrats. But you already knew this. Even now, your boy-king is authorizing and calling for military action in Syria just like he did in Libya and he's testing the Chinese by deploying more than 60% of all our naval assets into the South China and South Pacific seas while opening and setting up a base of operations in northern Australia. As if a $1,000,000,000 "embassy", complete with 16,000 soldiers in Iraq and droning Pakistanis isn't enough. And don't blame Bush for those things. Remember, your lord and master promised to bring our troops home within six months of being elected.

Oh. Let's not forget that we're deploying and stationing a good amount of our F-22 fleet in Saudi Arabia; most likely in preparation for another undeclared war which is going to be against Iran.

And your point is? ...lol Obama hasn't made the same foreign policy blunders the last administration did. He brought the troops home from Iraq like he promised and got bin laden while others failed. So far his foreign policy has been a success no matter what you and others may think. All the stuff you mentioned is pointless. We have always had troops deployed around the world and probably always will. That will never change.

The right said that Obama would be weak on foreign policy but he has been the opposite. In a debate he would totally cream them on the subject. Their best bet is to stick with the economy.

love it.
if congress isnt gonna do their job...

It was the right thing to do. Congress would of ended up playing more politics with it.

[Morganator]

And your point is?

Your lord and master is no different.

...lol Obama won't make the same foreign policy blunders the last administration did.

He has made the same mistakes. It's called involving the American military in the internal affairs of other nations.

He brought the troops home from Iraq like he promised and got bin laden while others failed.

No he hasn't. There are still 16,000 troops and a $1,000,000,000 "embassy" in Iraq. And he violated Pakistan's sovereignty to get Bin Laden.

So far his foreign policy has been a success no matter what you and others may think.

A success at creating more enemies.

All the stuff you mentioned is pointless.

Nonsense. Completely relevant.

We have always had troops deployed around the world and probably always will.

No, we haven't. Only since WWII has this been the case.

Don't blame him for that iraq blunder. I think we all know who that falls under.

He continued it even though he campaigned on withdraw. His continual involvement makes him just as responsible.

The right said that Obama would be weak on foreign policy but he has been the opposite. In a debate he would totally cream them on the subject.

No he hasn't and no he won't. People are realizing he is nothing but a neoconservative liberal.

[DayWalker]

So, why do we even need Congress then?

excellent question. cuz they apparently can' do anything.

let just hopt that this move will force congress to finally address immigration reform following the election

[Sub-stance1]

Your lord and master is no different.

and your point is?...

He has made the same mistakes. It's called involving the American military in the internal affairs of other nations.

Like we did in iraq and somalia, kosovo, and countless other places. Like I said before its nothing that's gonna change no matter who is in office. No need to bitch about it now.

No he hasn't. There are still 16,000 troops and a $1,000,000,000 "embassy" in Iraq. And he violated Pakistan's sovereignty to get Bin Laden.

And pakistan aided him by letting him hide out there. What's your point?

A success at creating more enemies.

For whom? The one's who don't like us never have.

Nonsense. Completely relevant.

to you maybe... but if it makes you happy, go with it..lol

No, we haven't. Only since WWII has this been the case.

We have. You just didn't know about it.

He continued it even though he campaigned on withdraw. His continual involvement makes him just as responsible.

oh, i get it now. he just didn't end it fast enough for you.

No he hasn't and no he won't. People are realizing he is nothing but a neoconservative liberal.

And who are these "people"? Foreign policy has been a success so far in his presidency. You can say what you want but you don't have jack to prove otherwise. The stuff you mentioned aren't foreign policy failures. Failure to capture Bin Laden and 911 are what you would call failures.

We can play politics but facts are facts.

[DayWalker]

Obama campaigned on a "responsible" withdrawal from Iraq and a refocus on Afghanistan.
I'm fairly certain we began moving troops from Iraq and redeploying them in Afghanistan very early in his Presidency.

[Sub-stance1]

Obama campaigned on a "responsible" withdrawal from Iraq and a refocus on Afghanistan.
I'm fairly certain we began moving troops from Iraq and redeploying them in Afghanistan very early in his Presidency.

It really doesn't matter to some. They already knew that but will continue to play the political game of right vs left politics. Even though he kept his word on a "responsible" withdrawal they will somehow find something negative in that and play political games, so I just play right along. They chose to focus on how we get out and forget how and why we went in.

[Morganator]

and your point is?...

The point has been made. Your failure to acknowledge/comprehend it is none of my concern.

Like we did in iraq and somalia, kosovo, and countless other places. Like I said before its nothing that's gonna change no matter who is in office. No need to bitch about it now.

If we don't "bitch" about our foreign interventionism and work towards ending it, we are no better. Consequently, it's your apathy which deserves the lion's share of the blame.

And pakistan aided him by letting him hide out there. What's your point?

Had we not meddled into their affairs, we wouldn't be in this position. But you know this already. Your failure to recognize the realities of blow-back is your problem, not mine.

For whom? The one's who don't like us never have.

Pure nonsense but you know this as well. Your intellectual/academic dishonesty is quite blatant. Either that or you're easily misled.

to you maybe... but if it makes you happy, go with it..lol

I will since it is relevant.

We have. You just didn't know about it.

No, we haven't. We may have occupied during times of war - which by the way, were declared by congress - but never permanent up until WWII.

oh, i get it now. he just didn't end it fast enough for you.

Hey. We just marched in. What's so wrong about just marching out?

And who are these "people"? Foreign policy has been a success so far in his presidency. You can say what you want but you don't have jack to prove otherwise. The stuff you mentioned aren't foreign policy failures. Failure to capture Bin Laden and 911 are what you would call failures.

For every troop we have stationed in Iraq, whether they "contractors", "peacekeepers" or otherwise, every missile we lob into Libya, every time our leaders open their mouths about deposing another dictator because he/she doesn't do things our way, it amounts to another foreign policy failure.

We can play politics but facts are facts.

Yep. The first sensible thing you've said in this thread.

[Sub-stance1]

The point has been made. Your failure to acknowledge/comprehend it is none of my concern.

Comprehend what? If you are a righty then you should be happy if he is no different.

If we don't "bitch" about our foreign interventionism and work towards ending it, we are no better. Consequently, it's your apathy which deserves the lion's share of the blame.

at least you admit you are bitching...lol You keep it up though because you are wasting your breath on that one. Lets just sit back and wait until another 911 happens and then react...I don't think so guy.

Had we not meddled into their affairs, we wouldn't be in this position. But you know this already. Your failure to recognize the realities of blow-back is your problem, not mine.

Their affairs became ours when he crossed into their borders seeking refuge. If they they didn't want us to meddle, then they never would of let him cross. No apologies are necessary.

Pure nonsense but you know this as well. Your intellectual/academic dishonesty is quite blatant. Either that or you're easily misled.

I think not... That's clearly you. We know who are our true allies and we know who we can't trust. Its always been that way. It was before 911 and nothing has changed since.

No, we haven't. We may have occupied during times of war - which by the way, were declared by congress - but never permanent up until WWII.

None that you know about. Don't be so naive...

Hey. We just marched in. What's so wrong about just marching out?

We did march out. We just did it the right way. Much better than the shitty way we went in.

[For every troop we have stationed in Iraq, whether they "contractors", "peacekeepers" or otherwise, every missile we lob into Libya, every time our leaders open their mouths about deposing another dictator because he/she doesn't do things our way, it amounts to another foreign policy failure.

You have a twisted definition of "failure" then...lol By your logic Hitler should of been left to do what he wanted....lol

Yep. The first sensible thing you've said in this thread.

I told you. If you wanna play politics i can get down and dirty just like you.

Killed Osama bin Laden and ramped up campaign against al qaeda
Mobilized international coalition to protect pro-democracy demonstrators
Ordered the complete withdrawal of US forces from iraq
Isolated and weakened Iran
Repealed DADT
Signed the START treaty with Russia which reduced nuclear missile launchers
Supported democratic transition in Egypt
Killed senior Alqaeda leader Anwar Al Awlaki
Strength the US-Israel relationship

I would call those success but i can see why people like yourself wouldn't. Its called politics.

[weskurtz81]

excellent question. cuz they apparently can' do anything.

let just hopt that this move will force congress to finally address immigration reform following the election

Name the last time our Congress, be it Republican or Democrat controlled, addressed our immigration issue? Why didn't the Democrat controlled congress handle this issue in the first two years? Seems to me it's better to rally these voters closer to the election than so early in a term.

[btbam]

Hey Morganator: Do you have any thoughts on Syria? This really seems to be becoming a huge ass mess. There have even been whispers in congress about selling guns or a no fly zone and i'm really concerned about how this can turn out. Plus with the reports of Russian model choppers flying over Syria firing on citizens, this could turn into something huge. Got to have that question of whether we want to stand by while humans are living in tyranny, but it also brings the question on whether their is the money or political will to do anything at all. Not to mention the consequences we could face by intervening. China? Russia? Iran? all of them have a stake in syria...This may sound melodramatic, but i can see WWIII escalating out of Syria if its not dealt with gingerly.

[weskurtz81]

So, I'm confused, Obama said last year that he can't stop deportations using an executive order last year, but all of the sudden now he can?

[Morganator]

Hey Morganator: Do you have any thoughts on Syria? This really seems to be becoming a huge ass mess. There have even been whispers in congress about selling guns or a no fly zone and i'm really concerned about how this can turn out. Plus with the reports of Russian model choppers flying over Syria firing on citizens, this could turn into something huge. Got to have that question of whether we want to stand by while humans are living in tyranny, but it also brings the question on whether their is the money or political will to do anything at all. Not to mention the consequences we could face by intervening. China? Russia? Iran? all of them have a stake in syria...This may sound melodramatic, but i can see WWIII escalating out of Syria if its not dealt with gingerly.

My thoughts on Syria is to just stay out of it. Let them deal with their own problems. If people in this country want to get involved, they should do it on a personal level by physically going to the country themselves and spending their own money. We don't need a no-fly zone nor do we need to get involved in any manner. This is an internal affair for the Syrians and as such, should be dealt in that fashion. If Russia, China and/or Iran sees fit to intervene, that is their prerogative and the methods they employ are their concern.

[DayWalker]

Name the last time our Congress, be it Republican or Democrat controlled, addressed our immigration issue? Why didn't the Democrat controlled congress handle this issue in the first two years? Seems to me it's better to rally these voters closer to the election than so early in a term.

I believe the dream act was passed in the Dem House...

And got 51 dem votes in senate... but then something weird happened, a handful of GOP senators who originally supported the bill... changed their mind, and blocked cloture (55)...

[weskurtz81]

I believe the dream act was passed in the Dem House...

And got 51 dem votes in senate... but then something weird happened, a handful of GOP senators who originally supported the bill... changed their mind, and blocked cloture (55)...

LOL, but no comment from you on the 5 Democrat senators who changed their mind and voted no along with the one that skipped the vote all together....

Too funny dude.

And, last year Obama said it would be wrong of him to use an executive order to suspend deportations... he said "it would not conform with [his] appropriate role as President"... but now that it's an election year I guess what conforms to his role as "President" has changed quite substantially.

[DayWalker]

So I have to defend 5 Dems... But you don't have to defend 45 ish repubs?

That is funny.

And technically its not an executive order. According to someone I was half listening to on the news last night...

[weskurtz81]

So I have to defend 5 Dems... But you don't have to defend 45 ish repubs?

That is funny.

And technically its not an executive order. According to someone I was half listening to on the news last night...

You specifically mentioned "a handful" of GOP senators that blocked the passage of that bill, not 45. So, I mentioned a handful of Democrat Senators that ALSO blocked the passage of that bill. If you want to change your original post to reflect that you think ALL the Republicans should have voted for it, go for it, but that's not what you initially posted and that's not what I responded to.

There were more than enough Democrats in the Senate to get it done, they didn't get it done.... sounds like a problem with the bill or leadership if you can't even get your own party on board.

From everything I've been reading, it's an executive order, I guess we will see. Either way though, it's a decision coming directly from the executive that is bypassing our law making body... might not "technically" be an executive order, but it's accomplishing the same goal.

[btbam]

MITCH DANIELS IS GOING TO BE PRESIDENT
Of Purdue University....lol.

Many have been looking at daniels for a VP slot for the GOP, but this effectively ends that speculation. Personally i think Portman will end up being Romney's VP, but Rubio seems like another option. We'll see.