Arrogance- Obama said he's too Busy to Debate with GOP over Terrorism

[rightwinger]

If Republicans want to debate

Let them call Rush Limbaugh

 

[Timmy]

Well, is congress going to debate ? Maybe they can set up war funding ahead of time ! I'm sure they'll get right to it! Lol!

 

[Camp]

He said he did not want a rhetorical debate. Why should he debate the issue in public with publicity-seeking politicians? The debate belongs in the Congress. Republicans control congress and that is where they have the constitutional authority to influence the "debatable" issues. Elected Republican leaders have access to the President and ways to transmit their ideas and thoughts. The President would be foolish and irresponsible to publicly debate issue's of grave national security with a pack of Presidential wanna be's in a hotly contested political campaign. There is no reason for him to answer to a dozen or more unelected individuals with questionable experience and motivation.
The last part of the President's comment will as usual, be omitted

Poppycock. When criticized he pouts and runs away. He's not being asked to engage in a "rhetorical debate". He's being asked to explain what he is doing and why.

No reason for him to answer questions from unelected individuals? Really? He doesn't even have to explain his actions to the "unelected" people he is working for?

The topic is not answering questions. The topic was having a public debate. Those two things are not the same. He was answering questions when he made the comment. He specifically was talking about members of an opposing political party and not the general population and media.

The opposing political party speaks for half the general population. Obama just told them to fuck off.

No, he didn't. That is just the talking point you are stuck on. Doesn't matter to you if it is false.

 

[Interpol]

I side with the President's indignation about Republicans at this time. They say to fight ISIS, send boots on the ground and give freedom to Syrians, and apparently that's going to happen by not passing a war resolution or giving Syrian refugees freedom.

Can't bellyache if you add nothing but paranoid, hysterical, bellicose statements to the conversation. Republicans used to be the party of National Security, but now they've reduced themselves to being America's drunk uncle.

 

[HenryBHough]

Help me out here.....

Is it not that giving aid and comfort to an enemy is treason?

Is treason grounds for impeachment?

 

[Geaux4it]

Help me out here.....

Is it not that giving aid and comfort to an enemy is treason?

Is treason grounds for impeachment?

Well it is. That has been Obama's problem for 7 years now. Its his way or the highway

Very much dictator like

-Geaux

 

[edthecynic]

Well, since Bossy will not step in, I will post the exact quote in context for all the DittoRacists to read.

"With respect to the broader issue of my critics, to some degree I answered the question earlier. I think that when you listen to what they actually have to say, what they’re proposing, most of the time, when pressed, they describe things that we’re already doing. Maybe they’re not aware that we’re already doing them. Some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference -- because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough. But I haven't seen particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference.

Now, there are a few exceptions. And as I said, the primary exception is those who would deploy U.S. troops on a large scale to retake territory either in Iraq or now in Syria. And at least they have the honesty to go ahead and say that’s what they would do. I just addressed why I think they’re wrong. There have been some who are well-meaning, and I don’t doubt their sincerity when it comes to the issue of the dire humanitarian situation in Syria, who, for example, call for a no-fly zone or a safe zone of some sort.

And this is an example of the kind of issue where I will sit down with our top military and intelligence advisors, and we will painstakingly go through what does something like that look like. And typically, after we’ve gone through a lot of planning and a lot of discussion, and really working it through, it is determined that it would be counterproductive to take those steps -- in part because ISIL does not have planes, so the attacks are on the ground. A true safe zone requires us to set up ground operations. And the bulk of the deaths that have occurred in Syria, for example, have come about not because of regime bombing, but because of on-the-ground casualties. Who would come in, who could come out of that safe zone; how would it work; would it become a magnet for further terrorist attacks; and how many personnel would be required, and how would it end -- there’s a whole set of questions that have to be answered there.

I guess my point is this, Jim: My only interest is to end suffering and to keep the American people safe. And if there’s a good idea out there, then we’re going to do it. I don’t think I’ve shown hesitation to act -- whether it’s with respect to bin Laden or with respect to sending additional troops in Afghanistan, or keeping them there -- if it is determined that it’s actually going to work.

But what we do not do, what I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow, in the abstract, make America look tough, or make me look tough. And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reed, and I see a 25-year-old kid who’s paralyzed or has lost his limbs, and some of those are people I’ve ordered into battle. And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may.

We'll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it's entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I'm too busy for that."

 

[Compost]

Well, since Bossy will not step in, I will post the exact quote in context for all the DittoRacists to read.

"With respect to the broader issue of my critics, to some degree I answered the question earlier. I think that when you listen to what they actually have to say, what they’re proposing, most of the time, when pressed, they describe things that we’re already doing. Maybe they’re not aware that we’re already doing them. Some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference -- because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough. But I haven't seen particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference.

Now, there are a few exceptions. And as I said, the primary exception is those who would deploy U.S. troops on a large scale to retake territory either in Iraq or now in Syria. And at least they have the honesty to go ahead and say that’s what they would do. I just addressed why I think they’re wrong. There have been some who are well-meaning, and I don’t doubt their sincerity when it comes to the issue of the dire humanitarian situation in Syria, who, for example, call for a no-fly zone or a safe zone of some sort.

And this is an example of the kind of issue where I will sit down with our top military and intelligence advisors, and we will painstakingly go through what does something like that look like. And typically, after we’ve gone through a lot of planning and a lot of discussion, and really working it through, it is determined that it would be counterproductive to take those steps -- in part because ISIL does not have planes, so the attacks are on the ground. A true safe zone requires us to set up ground operations. And the bulk of the deaths that have occurred in Syria, for example, have come about not because of regime bombing, but because of on-the-ground casualties. Who would come in, who could come out of that safe zone; how would it work; would it become a magnet for further terrorist attacks; and how many personnel would be required, and how would it end -- there’s a whole set of questions that have to be answered there.

I guess my point is this, Jim: My only interest is to end suffering and to keep the American people safe. And if there’s a good idea out there, then we’re going to do it. I don’t think I’ve shown hesitation to act -- whether it’s with respect to bin Laden or with respect to sending additional troops in Afghanistan, or keeping them there -- if it is determined that it’s actually going to work.

But what we do not do, what I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow, in the abstract, make America look tough, or make me look tough. And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reed, and I see a 25-year-old kid who’s paralyzed or has lost his limbs, and some of those are people I’ve ordered into battle. And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may.

We'll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it's entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I'm too busy for that."

Thank you for posting the full quote. I'll say this, I like obama's current speech writer more than others he's employed. Frankly, the whole text reinforces the hostile, defensive, how dare you question me tone of the final sentences. Most instructive.

What is a "DittoRacist"? And are you are suggesting that criticism of obama is based on his skin tone?

 

[Camp]

Well, since Bossy will not step in, I will post the exact quote in context for all the DittoRacists to read.

"With respect to the broader issue of my critics, to some degree I answered the question earlier. I think that when you listen to what they actually have to say, what they’re proposing, most of the time, when pressed, they describe things that we’re already doing. Maybe they’re not aware that we’re already doing them. Some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference -- because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough. But I haven't seen particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference.

Now, there are a few exceptions. And as I said, the primary exception is those who would deploy U.S. troops on a large scale to retake territory either in Iraq or now in Syria. And at least they have the honesty to go ahead and say that’s what they would do. I just addressed why I think they’re wrong. There have been some who are well-meaning, and I don’t doubt their sincerity when it comes to the issue of the dire humanitarian situation in Syria, who, for example, call for a no-fly zone or a safe zone of some sort.

And this is an example of the kind of issue where I will sit down with our top military and intelligence advisors, and we will painstakingly go through what does something like that look like. And typically, after we’ve gone through a lot of planning and a lot of discussion, and really working it through, it is determined that it would be counterproductive to take those steps -- in part because ISIL does not have planes, so the attacks are on the ground. A true safe zone requires us to set up ground operations. And the bulk of the deaths that have occurred in Syria, for example, have come about not because of regime bombing, but because of on-the-ground casualties. Who would come in, who could come out of that safe zone; how would it work; would it become a magnet for further terrorist attacks; and how many personnel would be required, and how would it end -- there’s a whole set of questions that have to be answered there.

I guess my point is this, Jim: My only interest is to end suffering and to keep the American people safe. And if there’s a good idea out there, then we’re going to do it. I don’t think I’ve shown hesitation to act -- whether it’s with respect to bin Laden or with respect to sending additional troops in Afghanistan, or keeping them there -- if it is determined that it’s actually going to work.

But what we do not do, what I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow, in the abstract, make America look tough, or make me look tough. And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reed, and I see a 25-year-old kid who’s paralyzed or has lost his limbs, and some of those are people I’ve ordered into battle. And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may.

We'll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it's entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I'm too busy for that."

Thank you for posting the full quote. I'll say this, I like obama's current speech writer more than others he's employed. Frankly, the whole text reinforces the hostile, defensive, how dare you question me tone of the final sentences. Most instructive.

What is a "DittoRacist"? And are you are suggesting that criticism of obama is based on his skin tone?

Rush Limbaugh listeners and fans have always been referred to as "ditto heads".
The idea of Obama not being willing to discuss or debate Republicans in the normal way Presidents debate issues like this is a distorted talking point. The President has no business publicly debating national security issues with Presidential candidates like Donald Trump and talking head commentators with entertainment style TV shows. He spoke to and answered questions with 34 state Governors last night for 90 minutes in a private conference call.

 

[Compost]

Well, since Bossy will not step in, I will post the exact quote in context for all the DittoRacists to read.

"With respect to the broader issue of my critics, to some degree I answered the question earlier. I think that when you listen to what they actually have to say, what they’re proposing, most of the time, when pressed, they describe things that we’re already doing. Maybe they’re not aware that we’re already doing them. Some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference -- because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough. But I haven't seen particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference.

Now, there are a few exceptions. And as I said, the primary exception is those who would deploy U.S. troops on a large scale to retake territory either in Iraq or now in Syria. And at least they have the honesty to go ahead and say that’s what they would do. I just addressed why I think they’re wrong. There have been some who are well-meaning, and I don’t doubt their sincerity when it comes to the issue of the dire humanitarian situation in Syria, who, for example, call for a no-fly zone or a safe zone of some sort.

And this is an example of the kind of issue where I will sit down with our top military and intelligence advisors, and we will painstakingly go through what does something like that look like. And typically, after we’ve gone through a lot of planning and a lot of discussion, and really working it through, it is determined that it would be counterproductive to take those steps -- in part because ISIL does not have planes, so the attacks are on the ground. A true safe zone requires us to set up ground operations. And the bulk of the deaths that have occurred in Syria, for example, have come about not because of regime bombing, but because of on-the-ground casualties. Who would come in, who could come out of that safe zone; how would it work; would it become a magnet for further terrorist attacks; and how many personnel would be required, and how would it end -- there’s a whole set of questions that have to be answered there.

I guess my point is this, Jim: My only interest is to end suffering and to keep the American people safe. And if there’s a good idea out there, then we’re going to do it. I don’t think I’ve shown hesitation to act -- whether it’s with respect to bin Laden or with respect to sending additional troops in Afghanistan, or keeping them there -- if it is determined that it’s actually going to work.

But what we do not do, what I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow, in the abstract, make America look tough, or make me look tough. And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reed, and I see a 25-year-old kid who’s paralyzed or has lost his limbs, and some of those are people I’ve ordered into battle. And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may.

We'll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it's entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I'm too busy for that."

Thank you for posting the full quote. I'll say this, I like obama's current speech writer more than others he's employed. Frankly, the whole text reinforces the hostile, defensive, how dare you question me tone of the final sentences. Most instructive.

What is a "DittoRacist"? And are you are suggesting that criticism of obama is based on his skin tone?

Rush Limbaugh listeners and fans have always been referred to as "ditto heads".
The idea of Obama not being willing to discuss or debate Republicans in the normal way Presidents debate issues like this is a distorted talking point. The President has no business publicly debating national security issues with Presidential candidates like Donald Trump and talking head commentators with entertainment style TV shows. He spoke to and answered questions with 34 state Governors last night for 90 minutes in a private conference call.

Thank you for answering my question about ditto (heads). edthecynic will need to explain his remark about racists. I don't think I qualify as a ditto head as I've only listened to Limbaugh a dozen or so times over the years. Nevertheless, I heard nothing to suggest he is a racist.

Distorted is a good word to describe obama's statement. You might call it a variation on the straw man theme.

 

[bripat9643]

He said he did not want a rhetorical debate. Why should he debate the issue in public with publicity-seeking politicians? The debate belongs in the Congress. Republicans control congress and that is where they have the constitutional authority to influence the "debatable" issues. Elected Republican leaders have access to the President and ways to transmit their ideas and thoughts. The President would be foolish and irresponsible to publicly debate issue's of grave national security with a pack of Presidential wanna be's in a hotly contested political campaign. There is no reason for him to answer to a dozen or more unelected individuals with questionable experience and motivation.
The last part of the President's comment will as usual, be omitted

Poppycock. When criticized he pouts and runs away. He's not being asked to engage in a "rhetorical debate". He's being asked to explain what he is doing and why.

No reason for him to answer questions from unelected individuals? Really? He doesn't even have to explain his actions to the "unelected" people he is working for?

The topic is not answering questions. The topic was having a public debate. Those two things are not the same. He was answering questions when he made the comment. He specifically was talking about members of an opposing political party and not the general population and media.

The opposing political party speaks for half the general population. Obama just told them to fuck off.

No, he didn't. That is just the talking point you are stuck on. Doesn't matter to you if it is false.

Of course he did. He said he doesn't want to listen to anything Republicans have to say, or for that matter anything anyone who criticizes his policies has to say. Obama behaves like a dictator. He scolds us as if we were children instead of addressing our concerns. That's because he doesn't give a damn about our concerns. He's going to ram his agenda down our throats even if the entire country objects.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, since Bossy will not step in, I will post the exact quote in context for all the DittoRacists to read.

"With respect to the broader issue of my critics, to some degree I answered the question earlier. I think that when you listen to what they actually have to say, what they’re proposing, most of the time, when pressed, they describe things that we’re already doing. Maybe they’re not aware that we’re already doing them. Some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference -- because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough. But I haven't seen particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference.

Now, there are a few exceptions. And as I said, the primary exception is those who would deploy U.S. troops on a large scale to retake territory either in Iraq or now in Syria. And at least they have the honesty to go ahead and say that’s what they would do. I just addressed why I think they’re wrong. There have been some who are well-meaning, and I don’t doubt their sincerity when it comes to the issue of the dire humanitarian situation in Syria, who, for example, call for a no-fly zone or a safe zone of some sort.

And this is an example of the kind of issue where I will sit down with our top military and intelligence advisors, and we will painstakingly go through what does something like that look like. And typically, after we’ve gone through a lot of planning and a lot of discussion, and really working it through, it is determined that it would be counterproductive to take those steps -- in part because ISIL does not have planes, so the attacks are on the ground. A true safe zone requires us to set up ground operations. And the bulk of the deaths that have occurred in Syria, for example, have come about not because of regime bombing, but because of on-the-ground casualties. Who would come in, who could come out of that safe zone; how would it work; would it become a magnet for further terrorist attacks; and how many personnel would be required, and how would it end -- there’s a whole set of questions that have to be answered there.

I guess my point is this, Jim: My only interest is to end suffering and to keep the American people safe. And if there’s a good idea out there, then we’re going to do it. I don’t think I’ve shown hesitation to act -- whether it’s with respect to bin Laden or with respect to sending additional troops in Afghanistan, or keeping them there -- if it is determined that it’s actually going to work.

But what we do not do, what I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow, in the abstract, make America look tough, or make me look tough. And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reed, and I see a 25-year-old kid who’s paralyzed or has lost his limbs, and some of those are people I’ve ordered into battle. And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may.

We'll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it's entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I'm too busy for that."

Here's the relevant text, moron:

But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I'm too busy for that."
​

That's where he told anyone who objects to his scheme to fuck off.

Real presidential.

 

[rightwinger]

He said he did not want a rhetorical debate. Why should he debate the issue in public with publicity-seeking politicians? The debate belongs in the Congress. Republicans control congress and that is where they have the constitutional authority to influence the "debatable" issues. Elected Republican leaders have access to the President and ways to transmit their ideas and thoughts. The President would be foolish and irresponsible to publicly debate issue's of grave national security with a pack of Presidential wanna be's in a hotly contested political campaign. There is no reason for him to answer to a dozen or more unelected individuals with questionable experience and motivation.
The last part of the President's comment will as usual, be omitted

Poppycock. When criticized he pouts and runs away. He's not being asked to engage in a "rhetorical debate". He's being asked to explain what he is doing and why.

No reason for him to answer questions from unelected individuals? Really? He doesn't even have to explain his actions to the "unelected" people he is working for?

The topic is not answering questions. The topic was having a public debate. Those two things are not the same. He was answering questions when he made the comment. He specifically was talking about members of an opposing political party and not the general population and media.

The opposing political party speaks for half the general population. Obama just told them to fuck off.

No, he didn't. That is just the talking point you are stuck on. Doesn't matter to you if it is false.

Of course he did. He said he doesn't want to listen to anything Republicans have to say, or for that matter anything anyone who criticizes his policies has to say. Obama behaves like a dictator. He scolds us as if we were children instead of addressing our concerns. That's because he doesn't give a damn about our concerns. He's going to ram his agenda down our throats even if the entire country objects.

If Republicans have a proposal, why don't they put something in writing and say....This is what we recommend

Then arrange a meeting with the President

 

[Arianrhod]

Obama said he is to [sic.] busy...

...monitoring the situation, consulting with other world leaders, and making decisions, while dumbasses who don't know the difference between "to" and "too" are dictating policy on a message board.

Yes, you are the essence of arrogance.

 

[Siete]

the title of the thread is a joke ... starting from square one, the entire thread is laughable.

The POTUS debating with the GOP ?

BBBBAAAAAWWWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Londoner]

As I have pointed out over and over. This piss ant of a turd has no interest in governing. Arrogant pompus asshole.

Obama said he is to busy destroying what it means to be an American.

-Geaux
---------------------------------------

“I can’t afford to play some of the political games

Fail.

The OP is distorting the truth. Obama never refused a debate. He is calling your side out for playing politics > games.

For instance, Obama has authorized 8,000+ bombing missions over ISIS-controlled territory, but your side can't admit this because they are trying to get elected by saying he has done nothing.

The GOP is not debating facts. They are lying in order to win the next election based on their claim to being stronger on national security.

Obama has asked his political adversaries to pose a political solution for Syria. He doesn't want to feed American lives into this clusterfuck without a political environment that is capable of holding our territory gains. Trump, Carson, Limbaugh, Levine, Hannity and FOX have offered zero solutions.

Obama doesn't have time for people who have no solutions yet offer simplistic bluster about bombing them back to the Stone Age, which we're already doing.

Rather than cutting and pasting garbage from a joke newspaper, why doesn't the OP tell us about his longterm solution for solving this civil war - so we don't have to keep playing whack-a-mole with the next wave of resistance fighters.

How do we get Syria and Iraq to stand up for themselves? How do we solve the complicated power struggle between Sunni and Shias? How do we square our massive financial support of the Saudis with their funding of ISIS? If we can't create a pro-Western Syria, is it wasteful to keep sending American troops to be slaughtered? Or do we have no choice but to occupy the greater Middle East for generations? Is this even logistically possible without massive unintended consequences? Does Washington have the money and competence to refashion deeply Islamic nations into modern, pro-Western allies?

The OP can't even address these issues because he lacks information. He doesn't have a clue because he and his party are just playing games. The OP has taken no time to study the intricacies of who is fighting in Syria, both on the ground and at the funding level. He can't talk about the region as a whole. He is Trump. He can only offer simplistic tough talk.

He can't tell us the difference between Sunni and Shia; and he can't tell us how ISIS fits in, and he can't tell us why Turkey is a safe USA-friendly nation comprised of 90% Muslims, and why they could be a model if his side would stop playing political games by calling all Muslims evil.

The American Right and ISIS are both using the threat of the other to control the politics of their host nations. They are both playing games and exploiting the fear of the stupid. They offer no solutions. Only lies.

God Help Us.

 

[Sallow]

As I have pointed out over and over. This piss ant of a turd has no interest in governing. Arrogant pompus asshole.

Obama said he is to busy destroying what it means to be an American.

-Geaux
---------------------------------------

“I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may,” Mr. Obama said. “ “I’m too busy for that.”

President Obama showed a flash of anger Monday with Republican critics of his anti-terrorism strategy, saying he is “too busy” to engage in a rhetorical debate with them.

“What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership, or American winning or whatever other slogans they come up with, that has no relationship to what actually is going to work to protect the American people” and America’s allies, Mr. Obama said at a news conference in Turkey. “I’m too busy for that.”

Obama says he's 'too busy' to debate GOP over terrorism - Washington Times

Why exactly would the Commander in Chief of US armed forces waste any times in debating an party over something they should be taking up in congress.

Why aren't they debating a new AUMF?

 

[Sallow]

Obama calls for congressional authorization for the war against ISIS

Where is that? Where is the vote?

 

[edthecynic]

What is a "DittoRacist"? And are you are suggesting that criticism of obama is based on his skin tone?

This below is a DittoRacist. Are suggesting that calling Obama a "boy" (no matter how it is spelled) like his MessiahRushie often does is based on anything other than skin color?

Can't blame the boi for not wishing to disclose His true allegiance; too much chance it would slip out in "debate".

 

[Sallow]

Poppycock. When criticized he pouts and runs away. He's not being asked to engage in a "rhetorical debate". He's being asked to explain what he is doing and why.

No reason for him to answer questions from unelected individuals? Really? He doesn't even have to explain his actions to the "unelected" people he is working for?

The topic is not answering questions. The topic was having a public debate. Those two things are not the same. He was answering questions when he made the comment. He specifically was talking about members of an opposing political party and not the general population and media.

The opposing political party speaks for half the general population. Obama just told them to fuck off.

No, he didn't. That is just the talking point you are stuck on. Doesn't matter to you if it is false.

Of course he did. He said he doesn't want to listen to anything Republicans have to say, or for that matter anything anyone who criticizes his policies has to say. Obama behaves like a dictator. He scolds us as if we were children instead of addressing our concerns. That's because he doesn't give a damn about our concerns. He's going to ram his agenda down our throats even if the entire country objects.

If Republicans have a proposal, why don't they put something in writing and say....This is what we recommend

Then arrange a meeting with the President

The last time anything like that happened, Republicans got killed.