• 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.

Fool us once shame on them, fool us twice shame on us

S

shiang

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
937
Reaction score
159
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
How's Romney really different from Bush. Same warhawk rhetoric, almost identical economic policies (only more extreme with further tax cuts, deregulation, and voucher system for healthcare).


They also claim to cut deficit spending

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php


They say "whoever gives away the most wins the election"

Who gave huge tax cuts? Not Obama.

Bush didn't win because of failing to slow the high tech collapse of 2001.
 
Last edited:
Like if Obama is any better... Going into Nations with drones and killing terrorists with no due process But won't waterboard...lol
 
Fisher said:
Romney is on the ballot and Bush is not.
Click to expand...

different face same brain, ok so Romney might be a little smarter than Bush but their ideology is almost identical.
 
305rob305 said:
Like if Obama is any better... Going into Nations with drones and killing terrorists with no due process But won't waterboard...lol
Click to expand...

Since when does one have to give terrorists that are not in the custody of the US due process? Killing terrorists is self defense, torture is not self defense, it is forbidden.
 
shiang said:
How's Romney really different from Bush. Same warhawk rhetoric, almost identical economic policies (only more extreme with further tax cuts, deregulation, and voucher system for healthcare).
Click to expand...

he's definitely running on a Bush-style neoconservative platform now. the only difference that i see is that he is much more susceptible to changing political winds. he's demonstrated that he will take about any position if it will get him closer to victory.
 
shiang said:
How's Romney really different from Bush. Same warhawk rhetoric, almost identical economic policies (only more extreme with further tax cuts, deregulation, and voucher system for healthcare).
Click to expand...

Actually Romney's rhetoric was significantly different than 2000 Bush's rhetoric. And Obama's actions in terms of foreign defense policy hasn't been too far off from Bush's actual actions.

The difference between Bush's 2000 rhetoric and his record, as well as Obama's 2008 rhetoric and his record, are both pretty keen indicators that rhetoric on foriegn policy doesn't always translate to reality.

Romney and Bush are relatively similar in terms of Economic policies in a generalized sense.

Romney unquestionably pushes and focuses on the social issues far less than Bush.

They also claim to cut deficit spending
Click to expand...

Another similarity both candidates have to Bush. Another similarity, in terms of the debt and deficit spending, Obama has in common in action with Bush.

Who gave huge tax cuts? Not Obama.
Click to expand...

According to Democratic rhetoric, yes Obama did. He gave "huge tax cuts" to the wealthy and to the middle class by signing an extension of the Tax Cuts from the 2000's. Since they're set to expire, and using the reasoning of many democrats, the fact Obama is proposing to keep them in place for the vast majority of the tax paying population would mean that yes he is trying to give a huge tax cut...just specifically one that panders to the largest group amount of the population while still generating the additional revenue he needs for other give aways in increased student loans, health care support, green energy subsidies, etc.
 
Different rhetoric, yes. Still the same agenda.
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually Romney's rhetoric was significantly different than 2000 Bush's rhetoric. And Obama's actions in terms of foreign defense policy hasn't been too far off from Bush's actual actions.

The difference between Bush's 2000 rhetoric and his record, as well as Obama's 2008 rhetoric and his record, are both pretty keen indicators that rhetoric on foriegn policy doesn't always translate to reality.

Romney and Bush are relatively similar in terms of Economic policies in a generalized sense.

Romney unquestionably pushes and focuses on the social issues far less than Bush.



Another similarity both candidates have to Bush. Another similarity, in terms of the debt and deficit spending, Obama has in common in action with Bush.



According to Democratic rhetoric, yes Obama did. He gave "huge tax cuts" to the wealthy and to the middle class by signing an extension of the Tax Cuts from the 2000's. Since they're set to expire, and using the reasoning of many democrats, the fact Obama is proposing to keep them in place for the vast majority of the tax paying population would mean that yes he is trying to give a huge tax cut...just specifically one that panders to the largest group amount of the population while still generating the additional revenue he needs for other giveaways in increased student loans, health care support, green energy subsidies, etc.
Click to expand...

Apart from "less focus on social issue" still no policy difference between Romney and Bush. Obama at least didn't give further tax cuts and looks to be seeking for tax cuts to expire for the upper bracket his next term, Romney is given further tax cuts no matter how you cut it, that's a key difference. On foreign policy Republicans consistently called him leading from behind and now you say there's on difference, there is a difference between going to war with Iraq and withdrawing troops from Iraq.
 
Peter King said:
Since when does one have to give terrorists that are not in the custody of the US due process? Killing terrorists is self defense, torture is not self defense, it is forbidden.
Click to expand...

Killing someone with a drone is self defense?? Who's the victim? The drone? Lol
 
shiang said:
Apart from "less focus on social issue" still no policy difference between Romney and Bush. Obama at least didn't give further tax cuts and looks to be seeking for tax cuts to expire for the upper bracket his next term, Romney is given further tax cuts no matter how you cut it, that's a key difference. On foreign policy Republicans consistently called him leading from behind and now you say there's on difference, there is a difference between going to war with Iraq and withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Click to expand...

First, I speak for myself, not "republicans". Second, there is a difference between defense policy and foreign policy, though they are interrelated. Obama continued the Bush plan for withdrawal from Iraq, Obama took action similar to the Bush Surge with regard to Afghanistan, Obama continued to fight for the use and protection of the PATRIOCT Act, Obama continued the use of Gitmo and rendition, and Obama continued to utilize military forces in new theaters within the middle east. While they are not IDENTICAL, there are many similarities when it comes to national defense and military policies practiced by Obama and Bush.

Personally, as a conservative who was unhappy with Bush's fiscal and governmental policies overall, I've been equally if not more unhappy with Obama on those accounts. I'm not necessarily thrilled with the prospect of Romney but, due to him being an unknown, there is at least a CHANCE that he could prove to be better in either pushing for a better direction OR in not stonewalling a better direction if the push originates in congress. I have no such faith in Obama on that matter. So it's essentially, on this issue, voting for someone I KNOW I won't agree with and will not like on these issues, or voting for someone who at least has the potential to not have me disliking/disagreeing with him.

That's the ****ty position voters are put in, but it's the reality of the situation in my eyes.
 
shiang said:
How's Romney really different from Bush.
Click to expand...

How is Obama really different than Bush? Not by a lot. It's already shame on us as we have been fooled several times now into thinking there is a difference between the branches of the Republocrats.
 
305rob305 said:
Killing someone with a drone is self defense?? Who's the victim? The drone? Lol
Click to expand...

Well, sending a drone after a terrorist (you know, one of those people who attack US forces or their allies or who plot against the US and it's citizens) and killing them is self defense.
 
shiang said:
different face same brain, ok so Romney might be a little smarter than Bush but their ideology is almost identical.
Click to expand...

Talking about how Romney may be like Bush is just partisan baiting to avoid the reality that there is not that much good to say about Obama's non-existent 2013-2017 platform in my book. More smoke, more mirrors, same old mediocre performance since the insurance agent "fear the unknown" sales pitch isn't working on sealing this deal.
 
305rob305 said:
Killing someone with a drone is self defense?? Who's the victim? The drone? Lol
Click to expand...

This really is one of the more repulsive flips conservatives have done in the last year and shows that many of them will take any contrary position to what Obama does. What really makes it hypocritical and sickening is that most of the current terrorist sympathizers(can't think of any other way to characterize it) are the same people who whole heartedly supported invading Iraq under false pretenses and slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians.
 
I honestly don't know how you can compare Romney to Obama, as Romney changes positions with lightening speed. It's ironic that those on the right are over the moon with Romney's debate performance, when his success is almost entirely attributable to his tossing overboard right wing ballast -- or at least pretending to. Romney has done this so consistently over the years that it's impossible to say who the "real" Romney is and what he would do if he wasn't guided entirely by political expediency. Is he for restricting abortion or against it? For gun control or against? For tax cuts or against them? For health care reform or against it? He's none of the above. His views will change based upon what he thinks he would need to do to get reelected. That is why I could never vote for Romney. He is a follower -- not a leader.
 
Zyphlin said:
First, I speak for myself, not "republicans". Second, there is a difference between defense policy and foreign policy, though they are interrelated. Obama continued the Bush plan for withdrawal from Iraq, Obama took action similar to the Bush Surge with regard to Afghanistan, Obama continued to fight for the use and protection of the PATRIOCT Act, Obama continued the use of Gitmo and rendition, and Obama continued to utilize military forces in new theaters within the middle east. While they are not IDENTICAL, there are many similarities when it comes to national defense and military policies practiced by Obama and Bush.

Personally, as a conservative who was unhappy with Bush's fiscal and governmental policies overall, I've been equally if not more unhappy with Obama on those accounts. I'm not necessarily thrilled with the prospect of Romney but, due to him being an unknown, there is at least a CHANCE that he could prove to be better in either pushing for a better direction OR in not stonewalling a better direction if the push originates in congress. I have no such faith in Obama on that matter. So it's essentially, on this issue, voting for someone I KNOW I won't agree with and will not like on these issues, or voting for someone who at least has the potential to not have me disliking/disagreeing with him.

That's the ****ty position voters are put in, but it's the reality of the situation in my eyes.
Click to expand...

He's not a "unknown" look at his records in Baine I think you'll like him even less.
 
AdamT said:
I honestly don't know how you can compare Romney to Obama, as Romney changes positions with lightening speed. It's ironic that those on the right are over the moon with Romney's debate performance, when his success is almost entirely attributable to his tossing overboard right wing ballast -- or at least pretending to. Romney has done this so consistently over the years that it's impossible to say who the "real" Romney is and what he would do if he wasn't guided entirely by political expediency. Is he for restricting abortion or against it? For gun control or against? For tax cuts or against them? For health care reform or against it? He's none of the above. His views will change based upon what he thinks he would need to do to get reelected. That is why I could never vote for Romney. He is a follower -- not a leader.
Click to expand...

He finally drove left instead of right and it did him a lot of good.
 
Loki97 said:
This really is one of the more repulsive flips conservatives have done in the last year and shows that many of them will take any contrary position to what Obama does. What really makes it hypocritical and sickening is that most of the current terrorist sympathizers(can't think of any other way to characterize it) are the same people who whole heartedly supported invading Iraq under false pretenses and slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

Actually I was being sarcastic. What's sickening to me is that liberals bash conservatives for water boarding but yet they approve Obama going into another nation with drones and murdering terrorists without due process and at the same time killing civilians...
 
305rob305 said:
Actually I was being sarcastic. What's sickening to me is that liberals bash conservatives for water boarding but yet they approve Obama going into another nation with drones and murdering terrorists without due process and at the same time killing civilians...
Click to expand...

A lot of liberals have vocally opposed Obama's drone program. I'm not one of them, in part because the water boarding analogy is a bad one. There are alternatives to water boarding, many of which are considered more effective than water boarding. There are no viable alternatives to drone strikes, as the terrorists move freely across Pakistan's border and we can't send in ground troops except in the most extraordinary circumstance (locating OBL).
 
305rob305 said:
Actually I was being sarcastic. What's sickening to me is that liberals bash conservatives for water boarding but yet they approve Obama going into another nation with drones and murdering terrorists without due process and at the same time killing civilians...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't give up my day job for the comedy circuit if I were you. I'm also sure the other conservatives who have expressed the same ideas are all being sarcastic also. If you can't understand the difference between engaging in a war where some collateral damage is unavoidable and torturing people then there probably is no real hope for you. The United States bombed both Germany and Japan extensively during WW II and caused heavy civilian casualties. We did not torture people however. I really think the right just is obsessed with water boarding because they get some kind of sexual thrill out of the idea.
 
shiang said:
He's not a "unknown" look at his records in Baine I think you'll like him even less.
Click to expand...

I'll give you a hint....spouting out useless liberal talking points and thinking saying "BAINE" is going to scare me is going to get you no where with me.

He's an unknown in terms of how he'll act as President, because he has never acted as President. While we can make a number of assumptions about him as President, ultimately we won't know how he'll act as President until a point he's elected an in the position.

Based on what I can glimmer from Romney's multifaceted past, it wouldn't shock me if he's as bad on the issues as Obama and Bush have been based on what's important to me on those issues. That said, he at least has a slimmer more of a chance...based both on his unknown status in the position and his history in terms of his seeming ability to waver to public opinion...to act in a way that I prefer over how either of them have acted.
 
Fisher said:
Why? Would anything anybody says change your mind?
Click to expand...

A Republican who admits they were wrong would be a start. You's think that would be easy after what Bush did to this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom