• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Barack Obama - the Best Republican President Since Eisenhower!

blaxshep said:
You are right; It is highly unlikely a nation of spoiled children would vote against Santa Clause.
Click to expand...

We certainly won't vote ourselves into another recession which is all the GOP has to offer.
 
Mycroft said:
Obama is only pragmatic when he is forced to be...as he is being forced to be by the Republican House Majority. But if you want to know Obama's true leaning, you only have to look at his first two years when he didn't worry about the Republicans.

He is a liberal through and through.

Reagan tried to be pragmatic...to work with the Democrats. They burned him. They lied to him. Same as Bush the Elder.

The moral is: You can't trust a Democrat...and that includes Obama.
Click to expand...

If Obama were 'liberal through and through' as you claim, we would have been out of both Iraq and Afghanistan within a couple of years of his first term; he would not have considered that Republican idea called the 'Individual Mandate'; he would not have sent military forces into Pakistan to get bin Laden; he would not have sent drones over Yemen and Sudan and Pakistan to hunt terrorists; he would not prosecute Snowden, much less Manning; he would not have deported a record number of illegal immigrants; he would have slashed the military budget. Need I go on? Obama's never been anything more than centrist. He's done some things that were quite liberal - like the Lilly Ledbetter Act to fight for equal pay for women, and getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell - but he's done just as many things that were quite conservative.

Guy, can you imagine what your boys on the Right would have said if he'd, say, sold arms to Iran in order to finance a military rebellion in another country? You guys would go apecrap over that! But since it was Reagan and Bush the Elder who did that, well, THAT made it all okay!
 
Glen Contrarian said:
If Obama were 'liberal through and through' as you claim, we would have been out of both Iraq and Afghanistan within a couple of years of his first term
Click to expand...

Huh?

Liberalism includes preemptive war and making the world safe for democracy. Bush was extremely liberal in his war mongering on this front.

The only wars liberals oppose are the ones they didn’t start.
 
ARealConservative said:
Huh?

Liberalism includes preemptive war and making the world safe for democracy. Bush was extremely liberal in his war mongering on this front.

The only wars liberals oppose are the ones they didn’t start.
Click to expand...


Nor do they oppose continuing or expanding them when their guy gets voted in.

In fact Obama has been pressuring Iraq to keep troops their after Bush signed the treaty for withdraw even after all the liberal sheep gave credit to Obama for "Bringing them home" ---- Really sending them to Afghanistan.
 
ARealConservative said:
Your use of Ron Paul is a pretty poor example. How many times did he introduce a bill to eliminate the NFIP? Zero. You are confusing his ideological/educational stance with the actual actions he took as a representative. He took actions to audit the Fed, not to ban the fed. He took actions to make it legal for Americans to use gold as tender, not to outlaw printing money. He took actions to return pork to his constituents that are over-taxed. All pragmatic examples. Not once did he pen legislation to do any of the things the shills on the left cry about. He has said many times we should do these things, but we can’t without a dramatic change in how Americans view the role of government. I can’t think of anything more pragmatic then attempting to educating/convince people on issues he believes in.

Pragmatism is just apologist speak anyway. We don’t need a pragmatic approach to spying on Americans by forcing Verizon to hand over info. We don’t need a pragmatic approach to go to war with Syria without congressional approval. These are bad polices by bad people.

I have a major problem with politicians that call incrementalism pragmatism, and I suspect this is where the two of us differ. Pushing Obamacare as a first step towards single payer is incrementalism and I find such acts despicable.
Click to expand...

I didn't say Ron Paul introduced such a bill - I said that's what he wants to do - and here it is in his own words.

And here's more (from an article I wrote elsewhere (with solid references)):

But let’s address Paul’s desire to rid America of FEMA. In the interview I watched with Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos, this was the exchange that got my attention:

[George Stephanopoulos] “Do you think everyone should just be responsible for themselves and if a flood washes your house away no FEMA?” the viewer asked via email, “Sink or swim?”

[Ron Paul] “I think that’s the way a free society works and that’s what the Constitution mandates.”

In the same interview, Paul went on to say, “Insurance is an old fashioned way of doing it. Buy insurance. If the insurance [company] won’t sell it to you, it means it’s too dangerous. If it’s too dangerous, why dump the responsibility on the taxpayer? You know it doesn’t make economic sense, it doesn’t make good moral sense, it doesn’t make Constitutional sense.

...

“But I have opposed, you know, flood insurance since I’ve been in Congress for 30 years, since 1976.”

And what happens when you get rid of flood insurance? From the same reference:

in 2007, Scientific American reported, “In South Carolina private companies have stopped insuring homes valued at less than $500,000. In Rhode Island some agencies have refused to cover any coastal properties. Allstate, one of the largest residential property insurers on the east coast, elected not to renew 30,000 policies covering coastal properties in New York City, Long Island, Westchester County and Connecticut, and is considering reducing coastal area coverage in Massachusetts and along the Gulf.”

And then there’s the effect on the nation’s real estate market! The Sacramento Business Journal reported that in Sacramento county alone, since no home buyer can get a mortgage without flood insurance, thanks to a filibuster by Republican Senator Jim Bunning for several days, the National Association of Realtors estimated that about 1,400 real estate transactions a day were stalled during the lapse.

ARC, I agree with you that it's a very, very good thing that he's educating us as to what he believes in, because what he believes in would crush our real estate market.
 
ARealConservative said:
Huh?

Liberalism includes preemptive war and making the world safe for democracy. Bush was extremely liberal in his war mongering on this front.

The only wars liberals oppose are the ones they didn’t start.
Click to expand...

More evidence that words mean nothing to conservatives. They just make stuff up as they go along.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I didn't say Ron Paul introduced such a bill - I said that's what he wants to do - and here it is in his own words.
Click to expand...

I just spent a great deal of time saying the problem with Reagan isn’t so much what he says, it is what he does.

I’m more interesting in critiquing actions. Actions speak louder than words. Actions are what makes a politician good or bad.

Those that care more about style than substance look at words over actions.

I think I’ve wasted enough time with your kind of contrarianism. Looks more like shillism from where I’m sitting.
 
ARealConservative said:
Pushing Obamacare as a first step towards single payer is incrementalism and I find such acts despicable.
Click to expand...

What needs to be done is to remove the insurance "middle man" and allow people to subscribe directly to doctors and hospitals.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Um, yes I did. Did you? Here it is again, for your edification:

"We pay less of a percentage of our personal income in federal taxes since any time since 1950."

Sorry, but there's nothing in that sentence that in any way refers to the GDP.
Click to expand...

Wow. Do you actually expect to be taken seriously with ridiculous responses like that?

"We pay less of a percentage of our personal income in federal taxes since any time since 1950."

The words in bold are a link, a link you provided, to the "proof" that the talking point is valid. Not only does it refer to the GDP, it uses a GDP comparison as the very basis of the talking point. You believed it unquestionably or you wouldn't have provided the link. Since your GDP-based link has been eviscerated, which makes the premise of the talking point extremely suspect, you're left with little more than spin.
 
ARealConservative said:
Huh?

Liberalism includes preemptive war and making the world safe for democracy. Bush was extremely liberal in his war mongering on this front.

The only wars liberals oppose are the ones they didn’t start.
Click to expand...

HUH???? 'Preemptive war' is LIBERALISM????

Project much?

The only 'pre-emptive wars' you might be able to pin on a Democrat would be Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs...but both were in the middle of the Cold War, the excuse for Vietnam was the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which appears to have been a 'false flag' attack with no indication that the White House knew what really may have happened...and in ANY case these were during a time when both the Republican and Democratic parties had strong liberal AND conservative factions. It was only after the passage of the Civil Rights Act that one party drifted strongly towards liberalism and the other strongly towards conservatism...

...and what boots-on-the-ground pre-emptive wars have the liberals supported since then? NONE, unless you count the liberals who (during our national insanity after 9/11) believed the outright lies that Bush told them in order to gain their support for invading Iraq...which he discussed in a cabinet meeting TEN DAYS after he took office in January 2001.
 
froggigger said:
Wow. Do you actually expect to be taken seriously with ridiculous responses like that?

"We pay less of a percentage of our personal income in federal taxes since any time since 1950."

The words in bold are a link, a link you provided, to the "proof" that the talking point is valid. Not only does it refer to the GDP, it uses a GDP comparison as the very basis of the talking point. You believed it unquestionably or you wouldn't have provided the link. Since your GDP-based link has been eviscerated, which makes the premise of the talking point extremely suspect, you're left with little more than spin.
Click to expand...

ouch. that ought to leave a mark.
 
froggigger said:
Wow. Do you actually expect to be taken seriously with ridiculous responses like that?

"We pay less of a percentage of our personal income in federal taxes since any time since 1950."

The words in bold are a link, a link you provided, to the "proof" that the talking point is valid. Not only does it refer to the GDP, it uses a GDP comparison as the very basis of the talking point. You believed it unquestionably or you wouldn't have provided the link. Since your GDP-based link has been eviscerated, which makes the premise of the talking point extremely suspect, you're left with little more than spin.
Click to expand...

Jesus.

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

You can lead a conservative to water, but you can't make him think.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
HUH???? 'Preemptive war' is LIBERALISM????

Project much?

The only 'pre-emptive wars' you might be able to pin on a Democrat would be Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs...but both were in the middle of the Cold War, the excuse for Vietnam was the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which appears to have been a 'false flag' attack with no indication that the White House knew what really may have happened...and in ANY case these were during a time when both the Republican and Democratic parties had strong liberal AND conservative factions. It was only after the passage of the Civil Rights Act that one party drifted strongly towards liberalism and the other strongly towards conservatism...

...and what boots-on-the-ground pre-emptive wars have the liberals supported since then? NONE, unless you count the liberals who (during our national insanity after 9/11) believed the outright lies that Bush told them in order to gain their support for invading Iraq...which he discussed in a cabinet meeting TEN DAYS after he took office in January 2001.
Click to expand...

Wilsonianism is owned by the American left. deal with it.
 
froggigger said:
Wow. Do you actually expect to be taken seriously with ridiculous responses like that?

"We pay less of a percentage of our personal income in federal taxes since any time since 1950."

The words in bold are a link, a link you provided, to the "proof" that the talking point is valid. Not only does it refer to the GDP, it uses a GDP comparison as the very basis of the talking point. You believed it unquestionably or you wouldn't have provided the link. Since your GDP-based link has been eviscerated, which makes the premise of the talking point extremely suspect, you're left with little more than spin.
Click to expand...

I know that some may find this difficult to understand, but "less of a percentage of our personal income in federal taxes" refers to the amount of dollars that we as individuals (and married couples) pay out of our personal income in the form of federal taxes. That in no way refers to the total amount of federal dollars collected, nor does it refer to the total amount of income earned by everyone nationwide.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
HUH???? 'Preemptive war' is LIBERALISM????

Project much?

The only 'pre-emptive wars' you might be able to pin on a Democrat would be Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs...
Click to expand...

The Republican Party is plagued with big government liberalism to the point it has become indistinguishable from the Democrats on all but a few issues, mostly which faction of Corporate America they serve.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I know that some may find this difficult to understand, but "less of a percentage of our personal income in federal taxes" refers to the amount of dollars that we as individuals (and married couples) pay out of our personal income in the form of federal taxes. That in no way refers to the total amount of federal dollars collected, nor does it refer to the total amount of income earned by everyone nationwide.
Click to expand...

Then why does the link go directly to a blogger who compares it to GDP? Are you saying it has nothing to do with GDP after posting a link that has everything to do with GDP?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I know that some may find this difficult to understand, but "less of a percentage of our personal income in federal taxes" refers to the amount of dollars that we as individuals (and married couples) pay out of our personal income in the form of federal taxes. That in no way refers to the total amount of federal dollars collected, nor does it refer to the total amount of income earned by everyone nationwide.
Click to expand...

Actually, as a share of the nation's economy, Uncle Sam's take this year will be the lowest since 1950, when the Korean War was just getting under way.
 
ARealConservative said:
Actually, as a share of the nation's economy, Uncle Sam's take this year will be the lowest since 1950, when the Korean War was just getting under way.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, the amount of our individual (and married) income that goes to federal taxes is lower than at any time in the early 1950's. Do you see the difference between what I said and what you're saying?
 
blaxshep said:
The Republican Party is plagued with big government liberalism to the point it has become indistinguishable from the Democrats on all but a few issues, mostly which faction of Corporate America they serve.
Click to expand...

We don't have a D or an R problem. We have a government problem where Ds and Rs alike spend our money to buy votes so they can maintain their privileged lifestyles. You are absolutely correct that corporate America and government are in it together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom