President Obama breaks another campaign promise

It's called being a politician....It's also called being a De...oh I'm just not going to go there....

But let's see who has been making a lot of baseless claims lately????

Mrs. Speaker of the house were is the proof????
 
There's a huge difference between criticizing the tribunals themselves and criticizing the commissions used on them. If you read the very last sentence, that's the only thing the website actually uses as an argument...

BTW the only reason it seems to be the right decision is because the right thinks it is. This isn't exactly an unbiased website. *rolls eyes*
 
I'm still confused at how this could be considered a reliable source. Seems like a lot of whining while not having a better solution to me.
 
Here is an LA Times report on President Obama reviving the military tribunals.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military-tribunal15-2009may15,0,4322036.story

You could go to any source that you trust to verify President Obama's plan to use military tribunals. As an intelligent voter, unless you have a memory lapse, you will remember that he intended to stop military tribunals.

Some of the more conservative politicians in Los Angles refer to the LA Times as Pravda west. The Times did endorse Obama for the Presidency.

The left is upset because of his campaign promise to stop the tribunals.

Those that didn't vote for him get to say "I told you so".;)

It will be interesting to hear the "spin" President Obama's supporters put on this.
 
Guys, it its what I have said before, and it is not surprising:

- Obama is not the new saint for the world, he is an *American* President first of all.
- it is called "meeting Realpolitik".

Rattler
 
Here is an LA Times report on President Obama reviving the military tribunals.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military-tribunal15-2009may15,0,4322036.story

You could go to any source that you trust to verify President Obama's plan to use military tribunals. As an intelligent voter, unless you have a memory lapse, you will remember that he intended to stop military tribunals.

Some of the more conservative politicians in Los Angles refer to the LA Times as Pravda west. The Times did endorse Obama for the Presidency.

The left is upset because of his campaign promise to stop the tribunals.

Those that didn't vote for him get to say "I told you so".;)

It will be interesting to hear the "spin" President Obama's supporters put on this.
And those who didn't vote for George Bush get to say I told you so until someone else comes up with the WORST APPROVAL RATINGS IN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY.


Anything else you'd like to try and rub our face in? :D
 
Here is an LA Times report on President Obama reviving the military tribunals.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military-tribunal15-2009may15,0,4322036.story

You could go to any source that you trust to verify President Obama's plan to use military tribunals. As an intelligent voter, unless you have a memory lapse, you will remember that he intended to stop military tribunals.

Some of the more conservative politicians in Los Angles refer to the LA Times as Pravda west. The Times did endorse Obama for the Presidency.

The left is upset because of his campaign promise to stop the tribunals.

Those that didn't vote for him get to say "I told you so".;)

It will be interesting to hear the "spin" President Obama's supporters put on this.

Ok here's the "Spin": All Presidents eventually break campaign promises.
Its simply inevitable because its impossible to please everyone. Special interests and National interests will eventually collide at some point.

But heres the part the rightwing cannot understand:

Instead of submitting to the demands of the political extremists, President Obama actually decided to put the countries interest first. This is actually a dramatic and refreshing change from the previous way of doing things, which was to bend over to let every rightwing nutcase group imaginable take turns ass-raping the country, which of course the side-effects were predictably catastrophic for everybody else.

Thats the difference between a good president who has a high approval rating and a certain previous administration whose popularity is actually lower than stomach flu.
 
...President Obama actually decided to put the countries interest first. This is actually a dramatic and refreshing change from the previous way of doing things, which was to bend over to let every rightwing nutcase group imaginable take turns ass-raping the country, which of course the side-effects were predictably catastrophic for everybody else.

Thats the difference between a good president who has a high approval rating and a certain previous administration whose popularity is actually lower than stomach flu.

I love people that know to write what I think in correct English!

Concur 100%,

Rattler
 
I'm going to agree with mmarsh on this one.
So far I think Obama is doing a pretty good job. He's inherited a lot of problems and he's working it through and apparently doing what's right. Michelle Obama worried me a lot but it seems like she's starting to fill the shoes fitting of a First Lady.
I have to admit, that if I was an American citizen, I probably would have not voted for him but so far I don't think anything he's done is worthy of severe criticism.
 
And those who didn't vote for George Bush get to say I told you so until someone else comes up with the WORST APPROVAL RATINGS IN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY.


Anything else you'd like to try and rub our face in? :D
Wasn't a big fan of President Bush. I did vote for him in his first election, not the second.

Sources please for: "WORST APPROVAL RATINGS IN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY."

"Anything else you'd like to try and rub our face in?"

If that is what you are doing when you refer to ex-President Bush then I guess it would be fair. Or, are you one of those that can dish it out, but not take it.

Of course, you did not even bother to address the topic:

President Obama breaks another campaign promise.


OK here's the "Spin": All Presidents eventually break campaign promises.
Its simply inevitable because its impossible to please everyone. Special interests and National interests will eventually collide at some point.

But heres the part the rightwing cannot understand:

Instead of submitting to the demands of the political extremists, President Obama actually decided to put the countries interest first. This is actually a dramatic and refreshing change from the previous way of doing things, which was to bend over to let every rightwing nutcase group imaginable take turns ass-raping the country, which of course the side-effects were predictably catastrophic for everybody else.

First spin, "All Presidents eventually break campaign promises."

Not so great he campaigned on a policy of change.

Second Spin, "Instead of submitting to the demands of the political extremists, President Obama actually decided to put the countries interest first."

This one sounds great! You carefully kept any mention of Military Tribunals out of it. This gets an A+

Thats the difference between a good president who has a high approval rating and a certain previous administration whose popularity is actually lower than stomach flu.

The difference historically, between high approval ratings and low ones, has been how long they have been in office, unfortunately.

Unless you believe President Obama was naive and uninformed about the Military Tribunals when he said he would abolish them during the campaign. Then why didn't he keep his promise?
 
Wasn't a big fan of President Bush. I did vote for him in his first election, not the second.

Sources please for: "WORST APPROVAL RATINGS IN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY."

"Anything else you'd like to try and rub our face in?"

If that is what you are doing when you refer to ex-President Bush then I guess it would be fair. Or, are you one of those that can dish it out, but not take it.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106741/Bushs-69-Job-Disapproval-Rating-Highest-Gallup-History.aspx

Although he CLOSE to not having the record. Near Truman and Nixon.......... Woot?

Of course, you did not even bother to address the topic:

President Obama breaks another campaign promise.
In a roundabout way, I did... I addressed it by saying that nobody who voted for George Bush deserves to say anything about Obama breaking campaign promises... After all, George Bush SURELY didn't promise to take America to one of it's lowest points in history... So he MUST have broken some campaign promises of his own.

First spin, "All Presidents eventually break campaign promises."

Not so great he campaigned on a policy of change.
Yes, and he's had HOW LONG to change things in one of the slowest moving political vehicles in the world? Hmm?
Second Spin, "Instead of submitting to the demands of the political extremists, President Obama actually decided to put the countries interest first."

This one sounds great! You carefully kept any mention of Military Tribunals out of it. This gets an A+
You've got about as good a grading system as theobamawatch does...


The difference historically, between high approval ratings and low ones, has been how long they have been in office, unfortunately.

Unless you believe President Obama was naive and uninformed about the Military Tribunals when he said he would abolish them during the campaign. Then why didn't he keep his promise?
Because being the President is a game of give and take. You give a little to the hyenas to keep them happy while filling your promises on more IMPORTANT issues.


A side note, President Clinton had a higher approval rating when he LEFT office than when he entered... Which party was he in? I forget.
 
The thing about approval ratings is that they are direct result of the pool used to conduct the poll. So they can be skewed and the result a forgone conclusion.
 
But gallup always gives a pretty fair view. Let's face it, it's rather common knowledge that GWB had at least one of the worst presidencies, if not THE worst.
 
That at present is only an assumption on your and others parts. History judges presidents. What your saying now is what was said of Lincoln and others. Time and history will judge it in retrospect.
 
That at present is only an assumption on your and others parts. History judges presidents. What your saying now is what was said of Lincoln and others. Time and history will judge it in retrospect.

This is also true.
I think what sort of country Iraq turns out to be will be a huge factor in how history judges him.
 
That at present is only an assumption on your and others parts. History judges presidents. What your saying now is what was said of Lincoln and others. Time and history will judge it in retrospect.

Thats true, but most of the time its an exceptional that history reevaluates a President differently than its peers. Most of the time a bad administration is remembered in history and its peers as a bad administration. Harding, Hoover, Buchanan, etc...

BTW, I disagree with your example of Lincoln, Lincoln was hugely popular for us Yankees. A better example to what you are saying would be Harry Truman. Unpopular when he left office rehabilitated by History.

The thing about Bush is the news keeps getting worse, not better.
 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106741/Bushs-69-Job-Disapproval-Rating-Highest-Gallup-History.aspx

Although he CLOSE to not having the record. Near Truman and Nixon.......... Woot?

In a roundabout way, I did... I addressed it by saying that nobody who voted for George Bush deserves to say anything about Obama breaking campaign promises... After all, George Bush SURELY didn't promise to take America to one of it's lowest points in history... So he MUST have broken some campaign promises of his own.

No, you didn't. Not even in a round about way.

Yes, and he's had HOW LONG to change things in one of the slowest moving political vehicles in the world? Hmm?
You've got about as good a grading system as theobamawatch does...

Because being the President is a game of give and take. You give a little to the hyenas to keep them happy while filling your promises on more IMPORTANT issues.

Gee, I almost believed Obama's call for change was real.

A side note, President Clinton had a higher approval rating when he LEFT office than when he entered... Which party was he in? I forget.

So did Truman, his was so low at the start of his first term the Chicago Tribune declared his opponent the winner! In Clinton's case if you start out at zero, where else can you go but up?

And once again you refuse to address the topic.

He has not explained why turning the trials over to Federal Courts can't be done. After all he has also promised to make government more transparent. Is he going to renege on that also?
 
Back
Top