• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney/RNC out raised Obama/DNC in May

IndepCentristMA said:
LMFAO @ Obama has a job... maybe he should be doing it then... as you said, Obama has outraised Romney by more than double... While Romney has had to be out there every day campaigning for the nomination... Obama was leisurely raising money and subtly campaigning, using Air Force One to travel to battleground states he hadnt been to in 3 years... Amazing how his golf playing, beach going days have suddenly come to a halt, once his real priority of campaigning comes to a head...
Click to expand...



This is funny. Agree. :lamo
 
AdamT said:
Romney has a long way to go to catch up. As of a few months ago Obama had more than double Romney's cash.
Click to expand...


GOP groups top Democrats in TV spending by far

Independent Republican groups are heavily outspending their cross-party counterparts on television advertising in the campaigns for the White House and control of the Senate, eating into President Barack Obama's financial advantage over Mitt Romney and prompting expressions of alarm from top congressional Democrats.

The disparity is most evident in the race for the White House, where Crossroads GPS, Restore Our Future and other organizations aligned with the Republicans spent nearly $37 million on TV ads through the first few days of June, most of it attacking Obama. That compares with about $11 million by groups supporting the president, with much of it from Priorities USA Action.​


Yep... citizen's united and wall street are working their butts off to make a one party system in our country. One that doesn't impede them with regulation of any kind and intends to dismantle government programs so that the public relies on wall street for everything.


Wall Street's Huge Bet on Romney

Let there be no doubt where Wall Street's political loyalties lie: Of all the money the securities and investment industry has poured into the 2012 presidential contest so far -- to the candidates and the super PACs behind them -- an unambiguous 92 percent has gone to the GOP, according to a new Center for Responsive Politics analysis.​
 
MITT_ROMNEY_CORPORATIONS%2B01.jpg
 
poweRob said:
GOP groups top Democrats in TV spending by far

Independent Republican groups are heavily outspending their cross-party counterparts on television advertising in the campaigns for the White House and control of the Senate, eating into President Barack Obama's financial advantage over Mitt Romney and prompting expressions of alarm from top congressional Democrats.

The disparity is most evident in the race for the White House, where Crossroads GPS, Restore Our Future and other organizations aligned with the Republicans spent nearly $37 million on TV ads through the first few days of June, most of it attacking Obama. That compares with about $11 million by groups supporting the president, with much of it from Priorities USA Action.​


Yep... citizen's united and wall street are working their butts off to make a one party system in our country. One that doesn't impede them with regulation of any kind and intends to dismantle government programs so that the public relies on wall street for everything.


Wall Street's Huge Bet on Romney

Let there be no doubt where Wall Street's political loyalties lie: Of all the money the securities and investment industry has poured into the 2012 presidential contest so far -- to the candidates and the super PACs behind them -- an unambiguous 92 percent has gone to the GOP, according to a new Center for Responsive Politics analysis.​
Click to expand...

Whateva.

Rift over political spending divides huge union - Peoria, IL - pjstar.com
AFSCME has pledged to spend about $100 million this election cycle — more than any other union — to help re-elect President Barack Obama and boost other labor-friendly candidates at the federal, state and local levels. AFSCME was the biggest overall spender in the 2010 midterm elections, pouring about $93 million into races around the country.
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
Right, the working class (unions) vs 1% (Wall Street) is the featured bout in November!
Click to expand...

Actually... it's about the 70% of us decent hardworking people in the 10%,15%, and 25% tax brackets not wanting a guy who is gonna raise our tax rates to 15%, 25%, and 31% to fund his wealth distribution platform, that rewards those people in our socio-economic class, that dont work hard, but instead sit around and collect from the many programs the liberals have created which rewards the culture of unfunded entitlement... That's exactly what's on stake here...

The culture of hard work and personal responsibility vs. the culture of unfunded liabilities and entitlement...

Which society would you rather live in?
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Actually... it's about the 70% of us decent hardworking people in the 10%,15%, and 25% tax brackets not wanting a guy who is gonna raise our tax rates to 15%, 25%, and 31% to fund his wealth distribution platform, that rewards those people in our socio-economic class, that dont work hard, but instead sit around and collect from the many programs the liberals have created which rewards the culture of unfunded entitlement... That's exactly what's on stake here...

The culture of hard work and personal responsibility vs. the culture of unfunded liabilities and entitlement...

Which society would you rather live in?
Click to expand...

One in which the greater good of the public and the economy comes before even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy few. A return to the tax rates under Clinton in the 90's, which is the only time we have significantly reduced the deficit in the last 30 years, seems very sensible to me.
 
Catawba said:
One in which the greater good of the public and the economy comes before even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy few. A return to the tax rates under Clinton in the 90's, which is the only time we have significantly reduced the deficit in the last 30 years, seems very sensible to me.
Click to expand...

The difference being the US had an extremely strong economy in the 90s based of technological advancements, in things like PCs, internet, fiber optic cable, cellular/wireless, etc. So we had an economy which could support those tax cuts...

Even their architect, Bill Clinton, recently said that the current economy could not support it... and that they should extend the Bush Tax Cuts in the short term... because the hike on the lower and middle tax brackets would be cripling to the economy...

Keep in mind, the raise on the taxes of the wealthy go from 35% to 38.5%... not a significant increase (and since as we have seen with the Romney and Obama tax returns, the wealthy have the ability to get around it and pay less) The raise on the lowest bracket is 10% to 15%, and 15% to 25%... and unlike the wealthy, they can't afford to avoid the tax rates...
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
One in which the greater good of the public and the economy comes before even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy few. A return to the tax rates under Clinton in the 90's, which is the only time we have significantly reduced the deficit in the last 30 years, seems very sensible to me.
Click to expand...

Are you really saying that the tax rates while Clinton was president is the reason why we had a tech boom in the 90's?
 
IndepCentristMA said:
The difference being the US had an extremely strong economy in the 90s based of technological advancements, in things like PCs, internet, fiber optic cable, cellular/wireless, etc. So we had an economy which could support those tax cuts...
Click to expand...

We have a poor economy today because of the 30 years of the GOP policies, supply side economics and deregulation. If a dog bites you once its his fault, if he bites you twice its your fault.

Even their architect, Bill Clinton, recently said that the current economy could not support it... and that they should extend the Bush Tax Cuts in the short term... because the hike on the lower and middle tax brackets would be cripling to the economy...
Click to expand...

As I was not a fan of Clinton, that carries zero weight with me.


Keep in mind, the raise on the taxes of the wealthy go from 35% to 38.5%... not a significant increase (and since as we have seen with the Romney and Obama tax returns, the wealthy have the ability to get around it and pay less) The raise on the lowest bracket is 10% to 15%, and 15% to 25%... and unlike the wealthy, they can't afford to avoid the tax rates...
Click to expand...

Can you post a link where anyone but the GOP has proposed raising tax rates for the lowest brackets? Because I have not seen them.
 
Catawba said:
We have a poor economy today because of the 30 years of the GOP policies, supply side economics and deregulation. If a dog bites you once its his fault, if he bites you twice its your fault.
Click to expand...

We have never had 30 years of GOP policies in place... so stop with the spread of fiction... However, the policies of Carter had 2 recessions in 4 years, and Reagan turned that around and created growth... Then Clinton came in and worked with a GOP congress to create the balanced budget you just praised... and for 6 of the 8 years of Bush we had growth... So your view seems slightly skewed away from the truth...

It's when the Democrats have control of both houses of the legislature that we have a problem... Twice has the debt been over 100% of our GDP, both times under Dems, FDR and Obama... both times were years after the recovery from a financial crisis which had passed... yet, they kept spending heavily anyway...

800px-Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png


Notice what happened almost every time the House and Senate was in control of the same party? When Dems controlled both houses of the legislature, the debt grew; when Republicans controlled both houses of the legislature the debt shrunk... Coincidence? Not likely... given the types of policies each party espouses... The Dems support liberal spending programs, while Repubs like conservative hands off approaches to most problems...

Catawba said:
As I was not a fan of Clinton, that carries zero weight with me.
Click to expand...

and yet, in your last post you credited the 90s tax rates under Clinton as what we should get back to... :roll: my how the times have changed... from 20 minutes ago...

Catawba said:
Can you post a link where anyone but the GOP has proposed raising tax rates for the lowest brackets? Because I have not seen them.
Click to expand...

Obama has every intention on letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire, which would mean a return to the Clinton tax rates...

Currently the rates are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%

If Obama is elected, and nothing happens the rates will go up to 15%, 28.5%, 31%, 36%, and 39.5%

Thus, for people making less than say $25K/yr, your taxes are going to go up from 10% to 15%, and for people making between like $25K/yr and $75K/yr, your taxes could go up from 15% to 28.5%, or 31% on the excess over $25K depending where in that you are... meaning you're going to be paying about 25% on your taxes...

He talks about only wanting to tax the rich, but anyone who has a clue knows exactly what's coming -- either Mitt Romney is elected, or we face a massive across the board tax cut which would be cripling to the economy...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
We have never had 30 years of GOP policies in place... so stop with the spread of fiction... However, the policies of Carter had 2 recessions in 4 years, and Reagan turned that around and created growth... Then Clinton came in and worked with a GOP congress to create the balanced budget you just praised... and for 6 of the 8 years of Bush we had growth... So your view seems slightly skewed away from the truth...
Click to expand...

The only time we have not was under part of the Clinton administration. Carter was over 30 years ago and he inherited a bad economy caused mainly by debt from the Vietnam war and the Arab oil embargo. His policies were effective and the economy later improved due to his policies during the Reagan administration. Obama has created more private sector job growth in 3 and 1/2 years than Bush created in 8 years.

It's when the Democrats have control of both houses of the legislature that we have a problem... Twice has the debt been over 100% of our GDP, both times under Dems, FDR and Obama... both times were years after the recovery from a financial crisis which had passed... yet, they kept spending heavily anyway...
Click to expand...

Reagan created more debt than all the presidents before him, combined. And it wasn't due to Congress as most of the debt was due to increased military spending and tax cuts that he pushed for. But you are welcome to post all the spending bills you think he vetoed, if you can. Likewise with the Bush vetoes of spending bills. The Iraq war for oil alone (the biggest waste of taxpayer money that I know about) carries a $2 trillion dollar price tag. A majority of Democrats voted against this optional war and all but 7 Republicans voted for it.

Obama has every intention on letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire, which would mean a return to the Clinton tax rates...
Click to expand...

For the wealthy, yes, I hope to God he does. That's one of the reasons I am voting for him.



Currently the rates are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%

If Obama is elected, and nothing happens the rates will go up to 15%, 28.5%, 31%, 36%, and 39.5%
Click to expand...

In 2010 the Democrats put up a bill to keep the tax cuts for those families making under $250,000, while letting the tax cuts for those making over that amount expire. It is my understanding that is again the plan so that taxes will not go up for those hit the hardest by the great recession. It has also been proposed to increase the Capital gains tax rate to what it was under Reagan. I support that as well, as it will have little effect on the working class or the economy, and will help reduce the deficit.
 
Catawba said:
One in which the greater good of the public and the economy comes before even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy few. A return to the tax rates under Clinton in the 90's, which is the only time we have significantly reduced the deficit in the last 30 years, seems very sensible to me.
Click to expand...

What complete idiocy. People dont hire for the greater good, they hire to make money. If you dont understand that your side absolutely deserves to lose. Its WHY Obama is going to lose, because he not only doesnt understand the private sector, he doesnt want to begin to try. You cannot force hiring. Profit must come from hiring, apparently you and the SCOAMF shared an economics class, and both failed.

Ive gone through this before but the cost of a new hire will go up approximately 20%+ at the entry level if the affordable healthcare act is kept as is. That is the big uncertainty in the market right now. Along with EPA regs, energy policy that supports green and screws the other 85% of energy production, etc etc. Energy, Healthcare and Taxes comprise a huge chunk of costs for every business, and its like a roller coaster to predict what the moron in the White House is going to decide to screw up next. Get him out and the economy will start to improve immediately.
 
Catawba said:
The only time we have not was under part of the Clinton administration. Carter was over 30 years ago and he inherited a bad economy caused mainly by debt from the Vietnam war and the Arab oil embargo. His policies were effective and the economy later improved due to his policies during the Reagan administration. Obama has created more private sector job growth in 3 and 1/2 years than Bush created in 8 years.
Click to expand...
Oh, so if we disregard the facts it makes your opinion look more accurate? Selective memory does you well?

4 Obama, 8 Bush, 8 Clinton, 4 Bush, 8 Reagan, 4 Carter, 3 Ford, 5 Nixon, 5 LBJ, 3 JFK, 8 Eisenhower, 7 Truman, 13 FDR

Seems like the leadership has fluctuated frequently... with the longest stretch of consecutive rule was the 20 year run of FDR/Truman... where the debt was also over 100% of GDP... The longest run of Republican leadership was 12 years (a time which we won the Cold War)...

Again, the chart I showed shows a correllation between Democratic control of the Legislature leading to increase of debt, and the Republican control of the legislature leading to decrease in debt... Since the revolution, only twice has our debt gone over 100% of our GDP... and that was during Democratic administrations... FDR and Obama...

Catawba said:
Reagan created more debt than all the presidents before him, combined. And it wasn't due to Congress as most of the debt was due to increased military spending and tax cuts that he pushed for. But you are welcome to post all the spending bills you think he vetoed, if you can. Likewise with the Bush vetoes of spending bills. The Iraq war for oil alone (the biggest waste of taxpayer money that I know about) carries a $2 trillion dollar price tag. A majority of Democrats voted against this optional war and all but 7 Republicans voted for it.
Click to expand...

Actually Obama has created more debt than all the presidents before him... and his first term isn't even over yet!!!

yes Reagan increased military spending, and the democrats who controlled the congress at the time also increased spending, such as the creation/expansion of welfare coverage, etc. The difference is Reagan was reacting to Carter letting the military decline, and the study that we could win the Cold Car by increasing spending, because the Soviet Union was close to collapse and wouldn't be able to keep up... and that's exactly what occured... You can't hold spending against Reagan, unless you wanted the US to have lsot the Cold War, or keep it going... Reagan rightfully aggressively pursued victory over the Soviet Union... and their form of corrupt overarching authoritarian socialization... (Unfortunately, that's what Obama is working to create here)

Lovely how the Dems support wars that are suggested by Dems, but opose war entirely when it's something a Repub "caused" or claim the wars were "optional"... You're kidding yourself with this crap... Wilson sent us to war in Europe which we were not attacked, FDR sent us to war in Europe when we were attacked by the Japanese, JFK and LBJ drastically escalated the war in Vietnam and JFK sent troops into 3 wars in Africa, Clinton sent us to war in the Balkans, East Timor, and ordered air strikes into Sudan-Iraq-Afghanistan, Obama massively expanded AFPAK and sent air strikes to Libya...

Catawba said:
For the wealthy, yes, I hope to God he does. That's one of the reasons I am voting for him.
Click to expand...

But he couldn't even pass a bill that allows him to tie his own shoes at the moment... so it's not very likely... he doesnt have the votes to support any tax hike... Thus the most likely scenario is if Obama is elected, the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and we are stuck with a massive tax hike which cripples the economy... and if the supreme court doesnt repeal the ACA than we are stuck with burdens on new hires, and job growth will continue to decline...

Tax the rich to feed the poor only works in fairy tales... in reality, the rich can pay tax firms to help them avoid the high tax rates, and the lower class ends up getting their taxes raised on them... Romney paid 14% on his taxes and Obama paid 21%... both are part of the 1% that is supposed to pay 35%... what makes you think a tax raise is going to make them pay 39.6%? They won't... a tax raise always hurts the poor and negatively affects the middle class... Even during the Clinton years, there was a huge divide forming between lower middle class and upper middle class because of it...

Catawba said:
In 2010 the Democrats put up a bill to keep the tax cuts for those families making under $250,000, while letting the tax cuts for those making over that amount expire. It is my understanding that is again the plan so that taxes will not go up for those hit the hardest by the great recession. It has also been proposed to increase the Capital gains tax rate to what it was under Reagan. I support that as well, as it will have little effect on the working class or the economy, and will help reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...
But capital gains is how small businesses grow... so you're wrong... raising capital gains taxes would prevent growth, thus slowing the economy for everyone, including the working class, who either are starting those small businesses or relying on the jobs created by them...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Oh, so if we disregard the facts it makes your opinion look more accurate? Selective memory does you well?

4 Obama, 8 Bush, 8 Clinton, 4 Bush, 8 Reagan, 4 Carter, 3 Ford, 5 Nixon, 5 LBJ, 3 JFK, 8 Eisenhower, 7 Truman, 13 FDR

Seems like the leadership has fluctuated frequently... with the longest stretch of consecutive rule was the 20 year run of FDR/Truman... where the debt was also over 100% of GDP... The longest run of Republican leadership was 12 years (a time which we won the Cold War)...

Again, the chart I showed shows a correllation between Democratic control of the Legislature leading to increase of debt, and the Republican control of the legislature leading to decrease in debt... Since the revolution, only twice has our debt gone over 100% of our GDP... and that was during Democratic administrations... FDR and Obama...



Actually Obama has created more debt than all the presidents before him... and his first term isn't even over yet!!!

yes Reagan increased military spending, and the democrats who controlled the congress at the time also increased spending, such as the creation/expansion of welfare coverage, etc. The difference is Reagan was reacting to Carter letting the military decline, and the study that we could win the Cold Car by increasing spending, because the Soviet Union was close to collapse and wouldn't be able to keep up... and that's exactly what occured... You can't hold spending against Reagan, unless you wanted the US to have lsot the Cold War, or keep it going... Reagan rightfully aggressively pursued victory over the Soviet Union... and their form of corrupt overarching authoritarian socialization... (Unfortunately, that's what Obama is working to create here)

Lovely how the Dems support wars that are suggested by Dems, but opose war entirely when it's something a Repub "caused" or claim the wars were "optional"... You're kidding yourself with this crap... Wilson sent us to war in Europe which we were not attacked, FDR sent us to war in Europe when we were attacked by the Japanese, JFK and LBJ drastically escalated the war in Vietnam and JFK sent troops into 3 wars in Africa, Clinton sent us to war in the Balkans, East Timor, and ordered air strikes into Sudan-Iraq-Afghanistan, Obama massively expanded AFPAK and sent air strikes to Libya...



But he couldn't even pass a bill that allows him to tie his own shoes at the moment... so it's not very likely... he doesnt have the votes to support any tax hike... Thus the most likely scenario is if Obama is elected, the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and we are stuck with a massive tax hike which cripples the economy... and if the supreme court doesnt repeal the ACA than we are stuck with burdens on new hires, and job growth will continue to decline...

Tax the rich to feed the poor only works in fairy tales... in reality, the rich can pay tax firms to help them avoid the high tax rates, and the lower class ends up getting their taxes raised on them... Romney paid 14% on his taxes and Obama paid 21%... both are part of the 1% that is supposed to pay 35%... what makes you think a tax raise is going to make them pay 39.6%? They won't... a tax raise always hurts the poor and negatively affects the middle class... Even during the Clinton years, there was a huge divide forming between lower middle class and upper middle class because of it...

But capital gains is how small businesses grow... so you're wrong... raising capital gains taxes would prevent growth, thus slowing the economy for everyone, including the working class, who either are starting those small businesses or relying on the jobs created by them...
Click to expand...



If you actually believe any of that, you should vote for the GOP.
 
OpportunityCost said:
What complete idiocy. People dont hire for the greater good, they hire to make money. If you dont understand that your side absolutely deserves to lose. Its WHY Obama is going to lose, because he not only doesnt understand the private sector, he doesnt want to begin to try. You cannot force hiring. Profit must come from hiring, apparently you and the SCOAMF shared an economics class, and both failed.

Ive gone through this before but the cost of a new hire will go up approximately 20%+ at the entry level if the affordable healthcare act is kept as is. That is the big uncertainty in the market right now. Along with EPA regs, energy policy that supports green and screws the other 85% of energy production, etc etc. Energy, Healthcare and Taxes comprise a huge chunk of costs for every business, and its like a roller coaster to predict what the moron in the White House is going to decide to screw up next. Get him out and the economy will start to improve immediately.
Click to expand...

What you and the rest of the 1% supporters without business savvy seem to miss is that consumer demand is required for increased production/jobs. Buffett and the 40 millionaires that petitioned Congress to raise the tax rates for the wealthy, understand that when most of the country's wealth is concentrated at the top, out of reach of consumers, a consumer based economy cannot prosper.

That is evident to most of us. The rest I suppose will vote for Romney.
 
Catawba said:
What you and the rest of the 1% supporters without business savvy seem to miss is that consumer demand is required for increased production/jobs. Buffett and the 40 millionaires that petitioned Congress to raise the tax rates for the wealthy, understand that when most of the country's wealth is concentrated at the top, out of reach of consumers, a consumer based economy cannot prosper.

That is evident to most of us. The rest I suppose will vote for Romney.
Click to expand...

Sad the arrogance that says if you don't agree with me you must be stupid.

When a small business person decides to open a pizza parlor do they wait until people ask for more pizza shops? How are markets created, by the inventor who thinks there will be demand or by people asking for something they need for whatever reason. In an economy there is no one true answer, though it would be nice if one simplistic answer fit all.

Let's remember that Buffett has petitioned congress to raise taxes at age 81 AFTER he made his 40 billion, much of which was never taxed and never will be as he has it in trusts. Quite the patriot demanding tax increases for others after he has all the money he will nedd and all he will leave his children. Why do you think his company pays no dividends. He would rather reinvest the money than pay a dividend that would be subject to personal income tax.
 
washunut said:
Sad the arrogance that says if you don't agree with me you must be stupid.

When a small business person decides to open a pizza parlor do they wait until people ask for more pizza shops?
Click to expand...

If the business is not growing due to lack of customers, they do not open new shops.


How are markets created, by the inventor who thinks there will be demand or by people asking for something they need for whatever reason. In an economy there is no one true answer, though it would be nice if one simplistic answer fit all.
Click to expand...

If an inventor creates something for which there is no demand, it will be a failure.

Let's remember that Buffett has petitioned congress to raise taxes at age 81 AFTER he made his 40 billion, much of which was never taxed and never will be as he has it in trusts. Quite the patriot demanding tax increases for others after he has all the money he will nedd and all he will leave his children. Why do you think his company pays no dividends. He would rather reinvest the money than pay a dividend that would be subject to personal income tax.
Click to expand...

Were all of the 2 dozen millionaires, that petitioned Congress to raise taxes for the wealthy, 81? And are all 200 of the patriotic millionaires that support higher taxes for the wealthy 81 as well, I think not.

"Given the dire state of our economy, it is absurd that one-quarter of all millionaires pay a lower tax rate than millions of working, middle-class American families.
The “Buffett Rule” is not the only thing we need to do to ensure the success of our country, but it is certainly the most obvious." - Sincerely,
Patriotic Millionaires

Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
What you and the rest of the 1% supporters without business savvy seem to miss is that consumer demand is required for increased production/jobs. Buffett and the 40 millionaires that petitioned Congress to raise the tax rates for the wealthy, understand that when most of the country's wealth is concentrated at the top, out of reach of consumers, a consumer based economy cannot prosper.

That is evident to most of us. The rest I suppose will vote for Romney.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Im running a business, what the **** do I know?

You still havent explained to me how you get more hiring by raising the overhead on entry level positions by 20% as a minimum.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Yeah, Im running a business, what the **** do I know?
Click to expand...

So am I, so are the 200 millionaires that petitioned Congress to raise the tax rates for the wealthy.

You still havent explained to me how you get more hiring by raising the overhead on entry level positions by 20% as a minimum.
Click to expand...

That is because you have not proven that overhead will increase by a 20% minimum as a result of health care reform.


While you are at it, please explain how a business can grow without demand for the product or service?
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Right... you have no argument, nothing to add... and you don't believe in facts so you support the Democrats... gotcha...
Click to expand...

You didn't provide facts, only your opinion.
 
Catawba said:
You didn't provide facts, only your opinion.
Click to expand...
Actually I disproved each one of the false advanced arguments of yours... then advanced the correct opinion based on the actual facts... Something you may want to begin to attempt... rather than just stating bogus opinions without the facts to back them up...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Actually I disproved each one of the false advanced arguments of yours... then advanced the correct opinion based on the actual facts... Something you may want to begin to attempt... rather than just stating bogus opinions without the facts to back them up...
Click to expand...

All you did was state your opinions without facts to back them up.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Actually I disproved each one of the false advanced arguments of yours... then advanced the correct opinion based on the actual facts... Something you may want to begin to attempt... rather than just stating bogus opinions without the facts to back them up...
Click to expand...

Ever thought that maybe Catawba is tired of refuting lie after lie after lie that keep coming from the Right? That's why I took a break from DP for awhile. It became extremely difficult to engage in civil debates where one side was resorting to blatant dishonesty and distortions and accusing the other side of doing the same.

It's almost gotten to the point where I assume that libertarian/conservatives are dishonest in political discussions until proven otherwise. And it didn't used to be that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom