View Poll Results: Do you support Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

Voters
316. You may not vote on this poll
  • Mitt Romney

    86 27.22%
  • Barack Obama

    230 72.78%
Page 110 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1060100106107108109110111 LastLast
Results 2,726 to 2,750 of 2770

Thread: Obama Vs. Romney: 2012 US Election

  1. #2726
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    The debt ceiling would more then likely be negotiated out if deals were to begin.
    If we are to take Obama's plan it would give the President full control over the debt ceiling.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    However the Democrats are willing to cut entitlements by 400 billion, A great start. However Republicans are unwilling for any tax hikes.
    Might want to look a wee bit closer there.

    "President Obama embraced $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other entitlements, to be worked out next year, with no guarantees."

    If there are no guarantees then they are not really willing to cut it are they? They only need to dismiss anything the Republicans propose in the 400 billion in savings and just say "We could not reach a deal" and move on.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    This must be resolved and the american people would blame the Gop by 54 percent.
    And you honestly think that will remain as the Democrats continue to show a willingness to go over the fiscal cliff?
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  2. #2727
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post



    And you honestly think that will remain as the Democrats continue to show a willingness to go over the fiscal cliff?
    As long as the republicans don't want tax increasements for the richest 2% then yes.
        Spoiler:- My latest challenge:

  3. #2728
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7 tyranitars View Post
    As long as the republicans don't want tax increasements for the richest 2% then yes.
    And people are going to care in the middle of a new recession? ( Not like the last one really ended ). Or in the Red Republican Areas these Senators are from? "Hey I know my family is in the crap right now because the Democrats wanted to go over the cliff, but damn those Republicans for not making those evil rich pay more"
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  4. #2729
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    And people are going to care in the middle of a new recession? ( Not like the last one really ended ). Or in the Red Republican Areas these Senators are from? "Hey I know my family is in the crap right now because the Democrats wanted to go over the cliff, but damn those Republicans for not making those evil rich pay more"
    Yes or like this: Why couldn't those republicans make the rich people pay a little bit more so that we wouldn't be in this mess! Why are those republicans defending the rich?
        Spoiler:- My latest challenge:

  5. #2730
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7 tyranitars View Post
    Yes or like this: Why couldn't those republicans make the rich people pay a little bit more so that we wouldn't be in this mess! Why are those republicans defending the rich?
    Except having the rich pay more does not effect the raising or lowering of the middle class tax rate, which is what is going to hit the middle class the most. Especially since going over the Fiscal Cliff with DRASTICALLY raise taxes on the Rich, and will do alot to hurt the economy, no matter how much Democrats talk about how returning to the Clinton Era Tax rates will somehow magically bring about Clinton Era growth.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  6. #2731
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,469

    Default

    If I may propose an even darker view, then here’s mine: “Those businessmen have made our values, our livelihoods, our identities meaningless. We can’t survive under them, so we must destroy everything they built… permanently.”. “Retribution through redistribution” could be nightmarishly effective to use as a slogan, if we’re thinking even further. Call it the logical depth or conclusion to the activities of Barack Obama’s supporters, and depending on how strident those activists become, they could overwhelm even the President himself, as well as, say, Vice-President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and any of their other associates inside Washington, D.C., as Inauguration Day 2013 approaches… and then leaves our memory. All we’ll have to do at this point is continue measuring the American people’s attitudes, and it looks like Gallup will have done just that.:

    Gallup: Frank Newport: Democrats, Republicans Diverge on Capitalism, Federal Gov’t

    Small business and entrepreneurs appear to be the main consensus between Democrats and Republicans, but the differences on big business and socialism are much sharper. Interestingly, Americans as a whole think more positively about the last two terms, while moderates are just about split on rating the federal government itself.:

    • 94% of Republicans or Republican-leaning voters and 88% of Democrats or Democratic-leaning voters having a positive image of free enterprise
    • 72% of Republicans of Republican-leaning voters and 55% of Democrats or Democratic-leaning voters having a positive image of capitalism
    • 49% of Americans rating big business positively in January 2010 vs. 58% rating it positively in November 2012
    • 39% of Americans rating socialism positively vs. 54% rating it negatively
    • 32% of conservatives, 52% of moderates, and 75% of liberals rating the federal government positively

    “Practically, these data suggest that politicians seeking the most positive overall reaction from voters should choose to use the term "free enterprise" rather than "capitalism" in describing America's prevailing economic system and preface mentions of the word "business" with the adjective "small."”, concludes Gallup, and I don’t have a problem with such vocabulary. Money and weapons for international jihadists, on the other hand, could be an entirely different story.:

    New York Times: U.S.-Approved Weapons Transfer Ended Up with Libyan Jihadis
    Daily Telegraph: William Hague: Britain has evidence that Assad preparing chemical weapons for use in Syria

    Call it the most realistic conclusion conceivable: the country that owns Al-Jazeera and hosts Yusuf Qaradawi as the all-important link between the Obama administration and jihadists in both Libya and Syria. “The Obama administration did not initially raise objections when Qatar began shipping arms to opposition groups in Syria, even if it did not offer encouragement” to either Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani or his subordinates to get the weapons flow up and running. If sending those weapons to Syria wasn’t enough, then some might have also gotten sent to… Mali. The weapons were designed in France or Russia, but American officials had to alert nearby North Atlantic Treaty Organization air and naval forces to avoid interdicting the cargo planes and ships with the weapons aboard. As for Syria, well, all that Bashar Al-Assad needs is to think that those weapons of mass destruction of his are in danger of imminent capture by any Sunni supremacists lurking nearby, and once that happens, we’ll know the rest. Fortunately, it seems that the Muslim Brotherhood and the Al-Nusra Front have been excluded from the new opposition group now up for global recognition, but it could be too late already. Like Iran, those jihadists believe that total collectivism through Sharia is their society’s only option for survival, and given the advancements worldwide, Muhammad Morsi, Abdelhakim Belhadj, and so on are not wrong at all, just evil and tragic.:

    Fox News Channel: Egypt Panels Recommends Referendum Be Held on Time
    Ahram: Morsi supporters and the opposition: Two different Egypts

    The Egyptians have one more week before that referendum of theirs on that draft constitution, but since Morsi wants it shielded from any judicial challenge, his opponents are, perhaps to put it mildly, dissatisfied. There’s no consensus yet, according to some observers, and the Egyptian people don’t appear to have had much time to study the thing. The split probably doesn’t help matters any, and should the Muslim Brotherhood fail to consolidate its operations, the Salafis could step in, anyway, further endangering even the sheikhdoms along the Persian Gulf. I will blame no one here for starting to get the idea that Islam’s at a precipice.:

    British Broadcasting Corporation: Social media brings change in Gulf despite efforts at control

    Khalifa bin Zayed Al-Nahyan has a new decree saying that citizens who use the Internet to “deride or damage” any institutions related to the United Arab Emirates, such as the seven emirates, “face up to three years in prison”, while foreigners may simply be deported. He issued the decree hours after admission of the UAE onto the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, and Emirati activists appear to have stopped freely broadcasting their views altogether. Throughout the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, though, ordinary people are finding their own ways to challenge the current system, thereby nudging free expression into Islam’s backyard. If spontaneity becomes a general rule in this country, as well, then Republicans in Michigan could be among those thinking ahead.:

    Fox News Channel: Michigan Republicans Draw Union Ire with Sudden Votes on Right-to-Work Legislation

    I would have to wonder how interesting the measure in question should be for the rest of the country, and Governor Rick Snyder definitely approves of it. Labor unions naturally argue that this legislation would allow workers to stay clear of union dues, and people in Wisconsin and Indiana should be watching closely, as should President Barack Obama and Senators Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz themselves. Maybe we political junkies here should start focusing on various names to recall in this overarching trend.
    Last edited by ccangelopearl1362; 9th December 2012 at 4:44 AM.
    Babylon 5, Codename: Kids Next Door, 24, and now, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. I am many things at once, and many people might have different opinions about little, old me. If freedom is my main idea, then harmony, individuality, and modernization are the three attributes I now sense and track. Those three attributes and that idea combined to make the United States of America a great global superpower and Pearlshipping and Wishfulshipping great Pokémon couples, and now, they've combined to make those four shows truly great television programs to me. I will enjoy enthusiastically supporting the Equestrian ponies' adventures for peace, for humankind, for the future.

  7. #2732
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    So, anyone thinks there should be a filibuster reform?

  8. #2733
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    So, anyone thinks there should be a filibuster reform?
    I can't see why the Democrats are pushing for this, the House will act as a check against anything the Senate passes even with taking out the filibuster. And with the chances great the Democrats lose the Senate in 2014, it is merely giving the Republicans more power for when they take the majority in both houses of Congress.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  9. #2734
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Breaking the sound barrier
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7 tyranitars View Post
    Yes or like this: Why couldn't those republicans make the rich people pay a little bit more so that we wouldn't be in this mess! Why are those republicans defending the rich?
    Why do liberals defend Obama when he spends more on personal vacations than the entire royal family combined? Taxing the rich is meaningless either way if the money gained from taxes is invested stupidly. Besides, the rich have plenty of means to hide their money and assets so they'll dodge the higher taxes. It's a meaningless pursuit. In the end, no one feels like throwing their hard-earned money at Obama so he can go blow it all away on a lavish vacation, as a gift to some country that isn't going to change their mind about hating us, or on another stupid social program we really don't need and serves no purpose.

    Pay off the debt, quit fooling around, manage and invest the money wisely, and show some damn responsibility. That's why I can't stand this moron. He's parading around as a phony celebrity with a blank check rather than as this country's leader, and we're all paying for it.

    Taxing the rich or not, we'll still be in this mess either way, and it's going to stay that way until serious management changes are made. The rich are probably better off keeping that money.

  10. #2735
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    225

    Default

    Just a note - national level politicians, REGARDLESS OF PARTY, work explicitly and exclusively for the benefit of themselves and their wealthy and influential patrons and cronies, and all statements otherwise are propaganda meant to keep the populace content with their ongoing rape at the hands of the power/wealth elite, so that they'll continue to vote the politicians into office, so that they can continue to work explicitly and exclusively for the benefit of themselves and their wealthy and influential patrons and cronies. That comforting propaganda most often hinges on a blinkered focus on the failures of the "other" party, of which failures there are plenty, since all national level politicians work explicitly and exclusively for the benefit of themselves and their wealthy and influential patrons and cronies. This is why virtually all political discourse takes the form of condemnation of the "other" party rather than lauding the virtues of ones own - because the "other" party, whichever one it is, is eminently worthy of condemnation, and one's own party, again whichever one it is, has no virtues to laud.

    Any discussion of US politics that does not start with that understanding is of about as much use as a discussion of the optimum wingspan of a fairy.

  11. #2736
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    I can't see why the Democrats are pushing for this, the House will act as a check against anything the Senate passes even with taking out the filibuster. And with the chances great the Democrats lose the Senate in 2014, it is merely giving the Republicans more power for when they take the majority in both houses of Congress.
    Actually, one of the options would be to reform the filibuster into more of a stand up and talk method. Basically just stall the vote by talking.

    Well if the Republicans want to win the majority of the Senate, they must avoid getting Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock types because we know how that turned out this election.

  12. #2737
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in the souther. U.S.
    Posts
    1,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avenger Angel View Post
    Why do liberals defend Obama when he spends more on personal vacations than the entire royal family combined? Taxing the rich is meaningless either way if the money gained from taxes is invested stupidly. Besides, the rich have plenty of means to hide their money and assets so they'll dodge the higher taxes. It's a meaningless pursuit. In the end, no one feels like throwing their hard-earned money at Obama so he can go blow it all away on a lavish vacation, as a gift to some country that isn't going to change their mind about hating us, or on another stupid social program we really don't need and serves no purpose.

    Pay off the debt, quit fooling around, manage and invest the money wisely, and show some damn responsibility. That's why I can't stand this moron. He's parading around as a phony celebrity with a blank check rather than as this country's leader, and we're all paying for it.

    Taxing the rich or not, we'll still be in this mess either way, and it's going to stay that way until serious management changes are made. The rich are probably better off keeping that money.
    Ok. I hate to defend Obama. No Really, I do hate defending him. However, Obama has not spent more vacation time than his predecessor. His total spending on vacations is roughly 8 million dollars for his first term. That is counting the police on overtime, use of air force one, etc. This idea that the president is spending ludicrous money is asinine. Little tiny bloppers can give Justin Bieber 54 million dollars last year alone, but give our president 8 million dollars over eight years and you think is is just too much. Wow.

    2. So because the rich can hide their money, we shouldn't increase their taxes? Because we don't have a balanced budget, we shouldn't ta people? My parents payed just about 35 percent in taxes last year. If I remember correctly, their total came out to around $44,000. My Mom's a stay at home and my dad makes 135k. We pay our fair share of taxes to keep this country afloat and don't claim many ta deductions. I think the only ones they get are the house, marriage, kids, and my college books. While we don't believe in raising taxes, saying they shouldn't be raised because you don't believe in the spending is an asinine statement. (Even though I agree with you.)

    3. Yes, we will still be in this mess, but we need to take every step to get out of it. I believe that if we taxed the rich higher, that we would only be brining in 64 million a year more. While it barley dents our budget, every step we take makes a difference.

    4. I actually completely agree with your statements. It is just that there are a couple of flaws with this belief. ^.^

  13. #2738
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avenger Angel View Post
    Why do liberals defend Obama when he spends more on personal vacations than the entire royal family combined? Taxing the rich is meaningless either way if the money gained from taxes is invested stupidly. Besides, the rich have plenty of means to hide their money and assets so they'll dodge the higher taxes. It's a meaningless pursuit. In the end, no one feels like throwing their hard-earned money at Obama so he can go blow it all away on a lavish vacation, as a gift to some country that isn't going to change their mind about hating us, or on another stupid social program we really don't need and serves no purpose.

    Pay off the debt, quit fooling around, manage and invest the money wisely, and show some damn responsibility. That's why I can't stand this moron. He's parading around as a phony celebrity with a blank check rather than as this country's leader, and we're all paying for it.

    Taxing the rich or not, we'll still be in this mess either way, and it's going to stay that way until serious management changes are made. The rich are probably better off keeping that money.
    Why do people attack Obama for all his vacations? He actually hasn't taken that many. It's half of what Reagan took and a third of what Bush took. How he chooses to spend his pay check has nothing to do with his his effectiveness as president.

    So you want to pay off the debt without raising taxes? How does that work?
    99% of teens like 1 directon... put this in ur sig if you dont (started by blazeing man)

  14. #2739
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avenger Angel View Post
    Why do liberals defend Obama when he spends more on personal vacations than the entire royal family combined? Taxing the rich is meaningless either way if the money gained from taxes is invested stupidly. Besides, the rich have plenty of means to hide their money and assets so they'll dodge the higher taxes. It's a meaningless pursuit. In the end, no one feels like throwing their hard-earned money at Obama so he can go blow it all away on a lavish vacation, as a gift to some country that isn't going to change their mind about hating us, or on another stupid social program we really don't need and serves no purpose.

    Pay off the debt, quit fooling around, manage and invest the money wisely, and show some damn responsibility. That's why I can't stand this moron. He's parading around as a phony celebrity with a blank check rather than as this country's leader, and we're all paying for it.

    Taxing the rich or not, we'll still be in this mess either way, and it's going to stay that way until serious management changes are made. The rich are probably better off keeping that money.
    Well you can increase punishment on tax evasion.
        Spoiler:- My latest challenge:

  15. #2740
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Actually, one of the options would be to reform the filibuster into more of a stand up and talk method. Basically just stall the vote by talking.
    And you willing to have the Democrats only have that when they are in the minority?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Well if the Republicans want to win the majority of the Senate, they must avoid getting Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock types because we know how that turned out this election.
    Considering how many "moderate" Democrats are up in red states, that may be the only thing left for Democrats to hope for to save their majority.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  16. #2741
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    And you willing to have the Democrats only have that when they are in the minority?
    Pardon me, but isn't the filibuster supposed to be used for an extended debate instead of just threatening for a filibuster? There will be ways in reforming the filibuster without getting into the nuclear option. But you can't deny that the filibuster has been abused by Senate Republicans for the last 4 years.


    Considering how many "moderate" Democrats are up in red states, that may be the only thing left for Democrats to hope for to save their majority.
    Well as of now, you ought to be worrying about what's going on in the Republican Party concerning the in-fighting due to the results of this election.

  17. #2742
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Pardon me, but isn't the filibuster supposed to be used for an extended debate instead of just threatening for a filibuster? There will be ways in reforming the filibuster without getting into the nuclear option. But you can't deny that the filibuster has been abused by Senate Republicans for the last 4 years.
    And I seem to remember the filibuster abused by the Senate Democrats before that but lets look at what Harry Reid called the Filibuster in 2005 when Republicans were wrongly looking to change it.

    "Jefferson asked Washington what is the purpose of the Senate?
    Washington responded with a question of his own, “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” “To cool it,” Jefferson replied. To which Washington said; “Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

    And this is exactly what the filibuster does. It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.

    It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules. And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government...Separation of Powers...Checks and Balances.

    Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.

    ....

    Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.

    Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats ability to voice their concern in the Senate. If Republicans rollback our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees…the President’s nominees in general…and legislation like Social Security privatization."

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/05/18/097/40350

    Harry Reid and the Democrats control the White House, and in times past controlled all of Congress. As he himself has said, the filibuster gives rights to the minority to keep the majority from ramming through legislation. Democrats wishing to change it are merely engaging in their own party's suicide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Well as of now, you ought to be worrying about what's going on in the Republican Party concerning the in-fighting due to the results of this election.
    Yes.. because infighting in the Democratic party after 2004 prevented them from making major gains in 2006, just as infighting in the Republican party in 2008 prevented them from making major gains in 2010... oh wait.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  18. #2743
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,365

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    And I seem to remember the filibuster abused by the Senate Democrats before that but lets look at what Harry Reid called the Filibuster in 2005 when Republicans were wrongly looking to change it.

    "Jefferson asked Washington what is the purpose of the Senate?
    Washington responded with a question of his own, “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” “To cool it,” Jefferson replied. To which Washington said; “Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

    And this is exactly what the filibuster does. It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.

    It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules. And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government...Separation of Powers...Checks and Balances.

    Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.

    ....

    Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.

    Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats ability to voice their concern in the Senate. If Republicans rollback our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees…the President’s nominees in general…and legislation like Social Security privatization."

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/05/18/097/40350

    Harry Reid and the Democrats control the White House, and in times past controlled all of Congress. As he himself has said, the filibuster gives rights to the minority to keep the majority from ramming through legislation. Democrats wishing to change it are merely engaging in their own party's suicide.



    Yes.. because infighting in the Democratic party after 2004 prevented them from making major gains in 2006, just as infighting in the Republican party in 2008 prevented them from making major gains in 2010... oh wait.
    In 2006/2007 there were more than 60 filibusters. In 2008/2009 for that number doubled to 140 a year. It sure looks like the Republicans are playing fair but then again lets not force the GOP to use logic (Which we all know has a liberal Bias). That would be unfair

    Thanks to treeco123


    LIGHT SIDE HAS CUPCAKES
    DARK SIDE OFFERS COOKIES
    JOIN THE DERPY SIDE.... WE GOT MUFFINS

  19. #2744
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    In 2006/2007 there were more than 60 filibusters. In 2008/2009 for that number doubled to 140 a year. It sure looks like the Republicans are playing fair but then again lets not force the GOP to use logic (Which we all know has a liberal Bias). That would be unfair
    I could go and point out how radical the Democrats were when they got full power in 2008/2009 but then again like you said, using logic isn't playing fair is it? Either way I still have to point out that no matter how much or little it is used, it does not take away from the facts and spirit of the argument. Oh wait! There is that ole logic again!
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  20. #2745
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    I could go and point out how radical the Democrats were when they got full power in 2008/2009 but then again like you said, using logic isn't playing fair is it? Either way I still have to point out that no matter how much or little it is used, it does not take away from the facts and spirit of the argument. Oh wait! There is that ole logic again!
    Oh Radical, I mean a health care plan is so bad. I mean we are like the last meaningful nation without it means nothing. Or the fact that we expect everyone to pay their fair taxes. 1 percent of the nation uses 80 percent of the tax code. How about the fact that Obama gunna take away our Guns. Oh that didn't happen either. Oh they want Gay marriage, You know for equality. And yeah more people are on disability and medicaid. Maybe that is cause the Baby Boomers are retiring??? What exactly have the Radical dem's been doing for four years. Oh that's right that south of the border gun problem.... That no one cares about. Or perhapes the Libian emabasy attack, where a few people got killed. (Unlike the thousands of soldiers that died for Bush's war.)What exactly are we talking about.

    Thanks to treeco123


    LIGHT SIDE HAS CUPCAKES
    DARK SIDE OFFERS COOKIES
    JOIN THE DERPY SIDE.... WE GOT MUFFINS

  21. #2746
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    Oh Radical, I mean a health care plan is so bad. I mean we are like the last meaningful nation without it means nothing.
    Do you want to go down some of the problems faced by those other nations that have it? Or the fact that so much was rammed through so fast practically no one, including Congress ( Who had to pass subsequent bills just to keep their own health care )? Oh wait there is that logic!

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    Or the fact that we expect everyone to pay their fair taxes. 1 percent of the nation uses 80 percent of the tax code.
    "There's two different issues. Should you raise taxes on anybody right today -- rich or poor or middle class? No, because there's no growth in the economy."

    Bill Clinton 2011

    "First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession."

    Obama 2009

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    How about the fact that Obama gunna take away our Guns. Oh that didn't happen either. Oh they want Gay marriage, You know for equality.
    Neither of those were presented before Congress, so why do they deserve mentioning when it comes to the Filibuster? Oh wait! There is that logic thing again!

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    And yeah more people are on disability and medicaid. Maybe that is cause the Baby Boomers are retiring???
    Again what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    What exactly have the Radical dem's been doing for four years. Oh that's right that south of the border gun problem.... That no one cares about. Or perhapes the Libian emabasy attack, where a few people got killed. (Unlike the thousands of soldiers that died for Bush's war.)What exactly are we talking about.
    We can go through the failed Stimulus that did not produce the growth that equaled the cost, we can go through the pathetic health care bill which has caused all sorts of problems. Or lets talk about the many radical left wing bills that were passed by the House but stopped in the Senate how about Cap and Trade for example?
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  22. #2747
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Do you want to go down some of the problems faced by those other nations that have it? Or the fact that so much was rammed through so fast practically no one, including Congress ( Who had to pass subsequent bills just to keep their own health care )? Oh wait there is that logic!
    I love this "the problems of other nations " Thing. I do believe Canada's Dollar is strong right now. And if you ask any canadian of the middle class if they like there health care.
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post



    "There's two different issues. Should you raise taxes on anybody right today -- rich or poor or middle class? No, because there's no growth in the economy."
    So do you want jobs or a balanced budget. Here is some news, you can't have both. If you raise taxes one cent millions of jobs will be lost. If you cut the safty net then millions of people die.
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post

    Bill Clinton 2011

    "First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession."

    Obama 2009



    Neither of those were presented before Congress, so why do they deserve mentioning when it comes to the Filibuster? Oh wait! There is that logic thing again!



    Again what does that have to do with what we are talking about?
    There needs to be filibuster reform, there is a difference between a balance and taking advantage.
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post



    We can go through the failed Stimulus that did not produce the growth that equaled the cost, we can go through the pathetic health care bill which has caused all sorts of problems. Or lets talk about the many radical left wing bills that were passed by the House but stopped in the Senate how about Cap and Trade for example?
    The stimulse was Bush's plan, A republican, who Obama agreed to. A health care plan that was skinned alive by the tea party. Or cap and trade so bad that it want's to invest in new technology, Tech that China will gladly beat us to. Yeah so Radical.
    Last edited by ebilly99; 12th December 2012 at 3:01 AM.

    Thanks to treeco123


    LIGHT SIDE HAS CUPCAKES
    DARK SIDE OFFERS COOKIES
    JOIN THE DERPY SIDE.... WE GOT MUFFINS

  23. #2748
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    I love this "the problems of other nations " Thing. I do believe Canada's Dollar is strong right now. And if you ask any canadian of the middle class if they like there health care.
    What does the strength of the Canadian dollar have to do with their medical system or are you engaging another red herring? As for if they like their health care system, if you ask a middle class family in the U.S. the same thing I am sure they would give the same answer, the revolt in 2010 should have proven that. People like what they know and are scared of change.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    So do you want jobs or a balanced budget. Here is some news, you can't have both. If you raise taxes one cent millions of jobs will be lost.
    Actually you can, you can roll back on spending and engage in reforms that increase jobs, the increased income coming in from those jobs and from the less spending will balance the budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    If you cut the safty net then millions of people die.
    And if we do not reform the safety net it will cease to exist in a few decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    There needs to be filibuster reform, there is a difference between a balance and taking advantage.
    One person's balance is another's taking advantage. I do wonder if you would be so gung ho about it, if it were the Republicans poised to reform the filibuster in the Senate, giving the majority greater control to enact their view. Because you have to remember the reform that happens now, will be allowed when the Republicans retake power. But then again I am merely using that dastardly Liberal logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    The stimulse was Bush's plan, A republican, who Obama agreed to.
    Show me where Bush suggested the exact plan that was passed by Congress? Exact quote and date.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    A health care plan that was skinned alive by the tea party.
    And?

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    Or cap and trade so bad that it want's to invest in new technology, Tech that China will gladly beat us to. Yeah so Radical.
    You do realize Cap and Trade punishes the middle and lower class the most right? Some estimates putting it at a extra tax of upward of 3,000 dollars on families. Should such a thing REALLY be done during a recession? Oh wait there is that logic again!
    Last edited by BigLutz; 12th December 2012 at 3:13 AM.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  24. #2749
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    What does the strength of the Canadian dollar have to do with their medical system or are you engaging another red herring? As for if they like their health care system, if you ask a middle class family in the U.S. the same thing I am sure they would give the same answer, the revolt in 2010 should have proven that. People like what they know and are scared of change.
    The strength of their dollar shows that they still have a strong economy in this economic downturn. While there debt may be high, there unemployment is low. How is it a bad thing
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post



    Actually you can, you can roll back on spending and engage in reforms that increase jobs, the increased income coming in from those jobs and from the less spending will balance the budget.
    Government can not create jobs. They can make jobs more desired (Better roads, schools,) or cheaper (Lower taxes)
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post


    And if we do not reform the safety net it will cease to exist in a few decades.
    Exactly reform not slash it to nothing. How about we add to the age of ssi (Like make it 74 before you get it) and lower medical cost by having everyone have insurance.
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post



    One person's balance is another's taking advantage. I do wonder if you would be so gung ho about it, if it were the Republicans poised to reform the filibuster in the Senate, giving the majority greater control to enact their view. Because you have to remember the reform that happens now, will be allowed when the Republicans retake power. But then again I am merely using that dastardly Liberal logic.
    Yes Filibuster is being taken advantage of. As for real Republicans, I would love to have a real Gop'er in the house instead of these wacky tea-party rejects. However the Right went wrong and now are so far up bull crap mountain it isn't even funny. Some of my favorite Presidents were Republicans. I loved Teddy, and how about Reagan (Who would be turning in his grave right now) Let's not forget Lincoln was a Grand Old Partier.

    Thanks to treeco123


    LIGHT SIDE HAS CUPCAKES
    DARK SIDE OFFERS COOKIES
    JOIN THE DERPY SIDE.... WE GOT MUFFINS

  25. #2750
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    The strength of their dollar shows that they still have a strong economy in this economic downturn. While there debt may be high, there unemployment is low. How is it a bad thing
    Because Economic Strength =/= having a flawless health care system, again another red herring on your part.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    Government can not create jobs. They can make jobs more desired (Better roads, schools,) or cheaper (Lower taxes)
    They can also prevent jobs through burdensome regulations like what Obama has been putting up.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    Exactly reform not slash it to nothing. How about we add to the age of ssi (Like make it 74 before you get it) and lower medical cost by having everyone have insurance.
    Neither of those fix the fundamental problems with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebilly99 View Post
    Yes Filibuster is being taken advantage of. As for real Republicans, I would love to have a real Gop'er in the house instead of these wacky tea-party rejects. However the Right went wrong and now are so far up bull crap mountain it isn't even funny. Some of my favorite Presidents were Republicans. I loved Teddy, and how about Reagan (Who would be turning in his grave right now) Let's not forget Lincoln was a Grand Old Partier.
    Yes Reagan would be turning in his grave right now at seeing how radical of a President we have right now. Lets not forget what Reagan's views on socialized medicine and Liberalism was.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0NWqvRidlk
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

Page 110 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1060100106107108109110111 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •