1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Do you agree with President Obama or Candidate Obama

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Salty, Mar 22, 2011.

  1. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,736
    Ratings:
    +669
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From the Boston Globe Dec 20, 2007

    Note: I have copy and past a good portion of the article in the event the link becomes invalid)

    As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.
    Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.
    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.
    “As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”
     
  2. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    21,787
    Ratings:
    +1,287
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Obama can't even agree with himself.

    He's a pathological liar.
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    Wow! There's a first; a candidate who changes his view when elected.

    Remind any one of 'Read my lips..?'

    Yet another 'pathological liar' perchance?
     
  4. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    21,787
    Ratings:
    +1,287
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yep , just as soon as you identify at least 20 more lies he told either while running for office or after he was elected. :rolleyes:

    But then your argument is specious and I think you know it. Obama would rather lie than tell the truth and we have multiple examples to prove it.
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    Politicians lie. It is what they do to get elected. Did anyone really believe that this particular candidate would be any different.

    He is just another in a long line of political pragmatists.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    21,787
    Ratings:
    +1,287
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Your post indicates lying by politicians is acceptable to you.

    Some lie a lot more than others. I didn't think anyone could top Clinton, but Obama does,

    It's good to know that lying by a politician is excusable if it appears to be pragmatic.

    That's enlightening.
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    Political lying is no more right than my lying.

    With politicians though it is just a fact of life. No thinking American really thought this president would keep his promises any more than the rest of them.
     
  8. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    21,787
    Ratings:
    +1,287
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is stating that you know what the law is and then deliberately breaking it simply pragmatic to you?

    Do you mean that violating the Constitution when you know what it says and means is just pragmatic?

    Excusing a liar for his lies never makes one look good, no matter who they are.
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    The point is not to excuse, but the note the universality of political lying. Of course President Obama lied when he said he would not take action but did. It was to be expected. Campaign promises have one purpose; to get the candidate elected. Other than that they are meaningless. That is the dirty reality behind politics.
     
  10. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,736
    Ratings:
    +669
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A lie is a statement made to deliberately deceive someone.

    It appearers some think that Obama actually lied.
    (I think that point has been amply made)

    Lets get back to the OP and in addition look at some other points of view.
    Is is possible that OB saw things differently after assuming the office. If that is the case, then he did not lie - but had a genuine change of opinion.
    If he did have a genuine change of opinion, why do you think he did? Was it advisor's, was it the status of world events, was it his upcoming election? ect...

    So back to the OP - do you agree with the Candidate Obama - NO INTERVENTION UNLESS THE U.S. IS UNDER ACTUAL OR IMMINENT THREAT
    or
    President Obama - To be Policeman of the world
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    I am always opposed to world policing, no matter who the candidate or president. That is why I wish President Obama had stuck to his guns last week and let France, the UK, and others deal with this and not caved in.

    What is interesting is that a week okay many on the right were slamming the president for letting Europe lead in this action, and now condemn him for acting.
     
  12. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    21,787
    Ratings:
    +1,287
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Riding the fence is not leadership.

    Leadership is being engaged, not on vacation. If he wanted to back military action, he should have stayed home and made his case to congress.

    Leadership is not violating our laws to give in to foreign pressure.

    Saying no, when necessary, is leadership.

    Turns out the French and the British, don't want to lead this mission, either, but they duped an inexperienced and indecisive president into doing so. The Arab League was all in favor of it until it came time to deploy their own forces. Now they're running backwards.

    So who's in charge?
    Who's killing the most Libyans?
    Who's running up the biggest tab?
    Who'll get the blame for everything that goes wrong?

    The USA.

    All of it in violation of U.S. law.
     
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    I agree with all that - what mystifies me is why so many on the right were so critical last week when the president was not acting?
     
  14. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,644
    Ratings:
    +27
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You know, it's funny. Just about three days ago, I had a conversation with somebody about Dennis Kucinich's (sp?) statement that Obama should be impeached. The person I was talking to, knowing my contempt for Obama, was shocked that I did not believe he should be impeached.

    "Imnpeachment should be only for egregious offenses", I said. "Otherwise, it just becomes a political tool to hurt your opponent. The Bill Clinton impeachment was a fiasco and the constant calls for Bush's impeachment were absurd".

    But I have to be honest and say that the more I think about this, especially with Obama's deployment of troops to Libya, I see a strong and growing case for considering impeachment.
     
Loading...