• 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.

Must-Watch Vid: Still Thinking About Voting for Obama?

zimmer said:
Such a group founded this country.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. Some of the founders understood fiscal responsibility, some pushed for a national bank and mass spending. In the end, we sit here at 16T in debt, so it appears to me, no person, no party, has ever done what is needed, otherwise we would not be where we are.
 
zimmer said:
You are trying to squirm out of what you wrote.
This is a no squirm zone.
Click to expand...

Show me how the quote you made is in any way out of line with what I previously said. You keep saying I'm dishonest, squirming but you keep avoiding it when I posted what I actually wrote. It's not hard to tell that you are being dishonest here.

So... you find Creationists a threat and would prefer the Dems; that's fine. Those were your words.
And in your specific case it was in regards to the Senate.
I believe, the way you wrote it... it applies across the board.

Which means you find Creationists a greater threat than Dems with our economy.
Click to expand...

For the third time:

No, Creationism is a symbol that the GOP places people extremely out of touch with reality on to key committees that determine the science and technology support that the country gets from Congress. As science and Technology are the only real factors for major growth in America, we need to put people who don't think that the world is 6,000 years old on key committees. It pains me that I had to explain that. That should be inherently obvious.....

It's only retarded if you think that science and technology shouldn't receive any help from the Federal Government and if you believe that we should disadvantage our industries by putting people who have no real concepts of science and technology on them when every other nation on the planet is actively helping their industries grow, expand and excel. The economic growth of our nation depends on growing technology and science sectors. Putting people who have no grasp of science on these committees is going to hold us back if not directly damage science and technology in the nation. How you think that is beneficial for America, I don't know, but I get the feeling this rant of yours is another "I hate Obvious Child, I'll attack him on anything because I have an obsession with hating him." And more then a few people have pointed this out before on your behavior in stalking me.
Click to expand...

Care to explain to me how that is in any way even remotely similar to what you are saying I'm saying? Or are you just going to pretend that doesn't exist because you are trying to get a cheap shot on me in your unhealthy hateful obsession? You seriously need to drop your grudge. It's not helping you.

Frankly, I'm not big on Creationists either, but I would rather have a Creationist than a Democrat any day in any position of power.

Our problems are deep, and Creationists are not the threat to society. Democrats and their imbecilic ideas are. That you would prefer a Democrat over a Creationist with an R by his name... OK... we know where you stand. Certainly fiscal responsibility isn't your primary concern... and yes, the R's spent too much under Bush, but we now see what a Democrat is capable of.

Democrat over a Creationist... OK. It was clear... understand.
Click to expand...

You do realize you destroy your own credibility by lying about a post you quoted where the actual quotes were provided showing that in fact, nothing you are saying is even remotely similar to what was actually said? Then again, you are responsible for your own actions. If you want to destroy what remaining credibility you have left, that is your choice. But it is also my right to point out how you are an extremely dishonest person. Your constantly lies do no one any good.

As for the 60TRILLION... I did say due to incremental Socialist Legislation.
You obviously missed that
Click to expand...

obvious Child said:
$60 trillion? That was there before 2010. Total US unfunded liabilities from county to Federal level were always huge.
Click to expand...

Oh Look. Zimmer lies again.

It is also why I made the point about Creationists vs. Democrats and the threats each pose. Creationist... a statistical Zero... Democrats... well look at the mountain of debt they created during the past 60-years, and in the last four alone!
Click to expand...

Alright, Keep going with that line. I've already posted my original quotes three times showing what you are essentially lying. If you want to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you have absolutely no problems making bold face lies in the same thread that the original quotes are provided showing you are lying, that's your right.

This long before ObamaKare. But ObamaKare isn't "socialist"... ROTFLOL.
Of course, you are a far brighter man than Friedman.
Click to expand...

Okay, explain how the ACA is Socialist.

Don't make me post that meme picture again.
 
BACotner said:
Please tell me what the UAW "gave up". Honestly, I'm interested to know.
Click to expand...

Any right to GM's coffers to pay for legacy costs. The UAW is now stuck with an ever decreasing corpus capital to generate revenues to pay for legacy costs. If GM's management issues no dividends, the UAW has to fund everything by stock sales and dues. Which means that the next round of expenses must be paid for by a smaller revenue generating amount. The UAW essentially got the shaft here as their legacy costs are still enormously high but now they are stuck on slippery slope of declining revenues to pay for it all.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Why hasn't Obama kept his promise on halving the debt? Oh, I don't know, something about a financial meltdown cause be deregulation of the banks, housing bubble bursting and so on. You can try and blame the debt on Obama, but we all really know it was caused by Bush and his policies, the same ones that Romney is trying to run on.

There is no quick fix to this. It is going to take time to dig ourselves out of this hole and you can't do that by cutting regulations, nor cutting taxes for the wealthy. It just doesn't work that way. Romney is a snake oil salesman and if you believe his lies then you end up with a wonder tonic that is just tap water.
Click to expand...

Um, generally when certain users make threads like this, nuanced views are not welcome. They are essentially looking for a proverbial term I can't use in public involving multiple gay males together. You aren't going to find intelligent discussions by these folks. Right now Zimmer is lying his butt off in a cheap attempt to feed his hateful obsession with me. I've already posted what I actually said three times and he just keeps going on and lying about it. With that in mind, you cannot expect any real understanding of markets, finances, banks, the economy, how Congress works, what powers the Executive branch has and anything really requiring a brain and education.

Spend enough time here and you'll easily recognize when a thread is nothing more then a propaganda zone by who created it.
 
zimmer said:
You are trying to squirm out of what you wrote.
Click to expand...

FYI, You ignored these:

Anywho, since when did COTUS give the Executive branch the rights and powers to write laws and spend money?
Furthermore, why do you think that we should have not cut taxes and not heavily deficit spent during 2008 and 2009?

The fastest way to cut down the deficit is to raise taxes and cut spending. Which is exactly what the sequester is about to do. Do you give Obama props for supporting that? Do you think we should have enacted European Austerity earlier? Especially in a period of high unemployment?

Not that I really expect you to answer them (or anything really with substance), but I'd like to note it in the record I attempted to get the discussion into something resembling intelligent and you refused to play along.
 
zimmer said:
I thought you were interested in keeping Creationists out of office? That seemed to be your clarion call just a day ago.
Now what?
Economics matters? Which is it? Economics or voting to keep that menace to society our of office... Creationists. Those who ran up the debt by 6 TRILLION in the last four years. Have built 60TRILLION in debt. Those damn Creationists... such a threat to society.

Your previous comments look a little silly now don't they?

As for President Barack Obama... HE repeatedly claimed his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. He made the claim. He obviously had a plan. His planned failed miserably.
Click to expand...

His plan failed because without a congress to support the president ... nothing will get done.
 
Last edited:
OnWisconsin said:
His plan failed because without a congress to support the president ... nothing will get done.. Learn what government actually does before you open your mouth (use your fingers)
Click to expand...

You can tell who is a partisan by how often they rewrite the Constitution to grant powers never given by the Constitution to branches of government when it suits their arguments.

Zimmer is now arguing that the Executive Branch has the power to write laws and spend money. Yeah. *blink*blink*

I suppose if he is willing to openly lie about what I said directly after I quoted my actual post twice, that shouldn't come as a surprise.
 
zimmer said:
Obama in his own words...
Words vs. Deeds.

..."werdz, just werdz".

Click to expand...



Bush's budget for 2009 is higher than Obama's. He's kept his deficit under Bush's. The reupblcians keep adding more money for funds for the R&D for their defense contractors where they hold stock.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Bush's budget for 2009 is higher than Obama's. He's kept his deficit under Bush's. The reupblcians keep adding more money for funds for the R&D for their defense contractors where they hold stock.
Click to expand...

Didn't Obama pledge, in 2008, to balance the budget or cut the deficit in half or something like that, before the ' end of his first term?'
 
OnWisconsin said:
His plan failed because without a congress to support the president ... nothing will get done.
Click to expand...

Democrats controlled Congress his first two years. What did he accomplish with that advantage?
 
marsden said:
Didn't Obama pledge, in 2008, to balance the budget or cut the deficit in half or something like that, before the ' end of his first term?'
Click to expand...

Nope. It's more pundit lies is all. The President KNOWS he does not fund the budget. The Congress does.

They even CUT budgets for agencies.

GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding | Drudge Retort

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15  billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration's request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Click to expand...
 
marsden said:
Didn't Obama pledge, in 2008, to balance the budget or cut the deficit in half or something like that, before the ' end of his first term?'
Click to expand...


Facts don't matter brother.....Just the silly projection they can hurl at you....;)
 
marsden said:
Democrats controlled Congress his first two years. What did he accomplish with that advantage?
Click to expand...



What advantage? The repblicans senators used more fillibusters than any other time in history.

Republicans Setting Filibuster Record

WASHINGTON — The filibuster – tool of obstruction in the U.S. Senate – is alternately blamed and praised for wilting President Barack Obama's ambitious agenda. Some even say it's made the nation ungovernable.

Maybe, maybe not. Obama's term still has three years to run.

More certain, however: Opposition Republicans are using the delaying tactic at a record-setting pace.

"The numbers are astonishing in this Congress," says Jim Riddlesperger, political science professor at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth.

The filibuster, using seemingly endless debate to block legislative action, has become entrenched like a dandelion tap root in the midst of the shrill partisanship gripping Washington.

But the filibuster is nothing new. Its use dates to the mists of Senate history, but until the civil rights era, it was rarely used.

. . .
Click to expand...

They continue to do it and last time blocked the Veterans' JOBS bill
 
j-mac said:
Facts don't matter brother.....Just the silly projection they can hurl at you....;)
Click to expand...



It's well know, from viewing FOX, that facts don't matter to right wingers. Its' why our nation is falling behind in the Standard of Living ratings worldwide. Lower wages, more tax cuts for the rich to get richer and control the wealth in this nation, loss of a middle class, higher taxes on the working poor, more polluting causing increases in cancer, less health care options and fewer people covered for health care....it shows.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Nope. It's more pundit lies is all. The President KNOWS he does not fund the budget. The Congress does.

They even CUT budgets for agencies.

GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding | Drudge Retort
Click to expand...


:lamo This meme of Security budget cuts has already been debunked in the other threads...Charlene Lamb said to a direct question under testimony that budget was not a factor in determining security. That you now want to try it here in another thread shows that your approach to this is dishonest at best.
 
j-mac said:
:lamo This meme of Security budget cuts has already been debunked in the other threads...Charlene Lamb said to a direct question under testimony that budget was not a factor in determining security. That you now want to try it here in another thread shows that your approach to this is dishonest at best.
Click to expand...

Editorial: State Department misses on Libya attack

. . .
Nordstrom told the committee that he was so frustrated with State Department rejections that he believed he would not get resources until "the aftermath of an incident."

Administration explanations of its actions, meanwhile, also pointed to a lack of awareness:

The State Department raised the danger pay for diplomats in Libya days before turning down Nordstrom's request.
It let a special security force on loan from the military leave Libya (though it was not specifically assigned to Benghazi).
Most oddly, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb, who's in charge of diplomatic security around the world, told the committee, "We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi." Given what happened, that's a breathtaking assertion, particularly in the wake of the administration's baffling five-day insistence -- since abandoned -- that the attack was the product of a protest over an anti-Muslim video.

It seems fair to conclude that the State Department underrated the threat, but the evidence still falls far short of proving Republicans' claims that the Obama administration could have prevented the first killing of an ambassador in three decades.

Even if the warnings had been heeded, and the requested security personnel added, and if they'd been assigned to Benghazi, it's still a reach to assume that they could have fought off such a lethal attack.

And that's even allowing for the benefit of hindsight. In real time, Stevens himself thought Benghazi safe enough to visit on the anniversary of 9/11, and he opposed turning U.S. diplomatic posts into armed camps.

. . .
Click to expand...

Apparently not. Seems the Whole republican pundit issue of Libya falls into a propaganda machine during election time.
 
Bottomline is, The President doesn't fund the budget.
 
obvious Child said:
Way to miss that point. I take it you've been thread banned from that thread and that's why you haven't posted a rebuttal? Usually you keep harassing me.



You do know that people can go into that thread and actually read what I wrote and realize you are flat up lying here no?

Is Zimmer being dishonest?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...te-extremely-tight-race-2.html#post1061078733



Not exactly as what you said eh?



Considering you are being dishonest about what I said, no, not really.



Yeah, candidates make lots of promises. Like Romney's claim he'll repeal Obamacare on day one. Not going to happen. Bush also said he'd stay out of nation building. That didn't happen. Furthermore, you still seem very unaware of what branch of government does what.

Oh yeah, that thing is 2008. What was it again? I forget. Financial something or whatnot?
Click to expand...

Unless archeology is really important to you, it doesn't matter who thinks the earth is 6000 years old. Technology development takes the Earth as it is, whether it's 6000 years old or 6,000,000,000 years old. So tell me how many scientists do we have on our congressional committees? Last I knew most of our elected officials are lawyers and businessmen; hardly the sort I'd pick to concern themselves with science and technology, but it is what it is.
 
Muddy Creek said:
It's well know, from viewing FOX, that facts don't matter to right wingers. Its' why our nation is falling behind in the Standard of Living ratings worldwide. Lower wages, more tax cuts for the rich to get richer and control the wealth in this nation, loss of a middle class, higher taxes on the working poor, more polluting causing increases in cancer, less health care options and fewer people covered for health care....it shows.
Click to expand...


:doh Is that all you got? Parroted talking points from the DNC?


Apparently not. Seems the Whole republican pundit issue of Libya falls into a propaganda machine during election time.
Click to expand...

Ok, which left wing rag did you pull that steaming pile of opinion from? Because I provided the direct testimony where she was asked directly, and her answer was "no sir".
 
obvious Child said:
FYI, You ignored these:

Anywho, since when did COTUS give the Executive branch the rights and powers to write laws and spend money?
Furthermore, why do you think that we should have not cut taxes and not heavily deficit spent during 2008 and 2009?

The fastest way to cut down the deficit is to raise taxes and cut spending. Which is exactly what the sequester is about to do. Do you give Obama props for supporting that? Do you think we should have enacted European Austerity earlier? Especially in a period of high unemployment?

Not that I really expect you to answer them (or anything really with substance), but I'd like to note it in the record I attempted to get the discussion into something resembling intelligent and you refused to play along.
Click to expand...

You are masterful at deflection, and stating you are winning something or keeping someone on the defensive is usually a ploy from someone who is insecure and thinks they are losing.

You fail to address the following because it makes you look idiotic.

zimmer said:
I thought you were interested in keeping Creationists out of office? That seemed to be your clarion call just a day ago.
Now what?
Economics matters? Which is it? Economics or voting to keep that menace to society our of office... Creationists. Those who ran up the debt by 6 TRILLION in the last four years. Have built 60TRILLION in debt. Those damn Creationists... such a threat to society.

Your previous comments look a little silly now don't they?

As for President Barack Obama... HE repeatedly claimed his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. He made the claim. He obviously had a plan. His planned failed miserably.
Click to expand...

You don't have to raise taxes to generate more revenue. You have to grow the economy . JFK understood this as did Reagan. You obviously do not. Add cuts and freezes in spending and you begin to reduce the deficit.

As for the 60TRILLION... it was due to Socialist legislation; not Creationists.

 
zimmer said:
You are masterful at deflection, and stating you are winning something or keeping someone on the defensive is usually a ploy from someone who is insecure and thinks they are losing.

You fail to address the following because it makes you look idiotic.
Click to expand...

You make accusations, but you run from proving them. Every. Single. Time.

You mean where I addressed those points with this post?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...ill-thinking-voting-obama.html#post1061082536

Seriously, you're not even trying.

Are you that desperate to get a cheap hit on me that you will openly lie in a thread that anyone can read and see you are resorting to bold face lies on?

Pretending that post doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means that you are pretending something that destroys your argument doesn't exist. Putting your fingers in your ears to block the noise from the bullets doesn't protect you from the bullets.

Saying I never addressed those points makes me look idiotic when I did makes you look incredibly foolish.

You don't have to raise taxes to generate more revenue. You have to grow the economy . JFK understood this as did Reagan. You obviously do not. Add cuts and freezes in spending and you begin to reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that? Did you miss this:

It's only retarded if you think that science and technology shouldn't receive any help from the Federal Government and if you believe that we should disadvantage our industries by putting people who have no real concepts of science and technology on them when every other nation on the planet is actively helping their industries grow, expand and excel. The economic growth of our nation depends on growing technology and science sectors. Putting people who have no grasp of science on these committees is going to hold us back if not directly damage science and technology in the nation. How you think that is beneficial for America, I don't know, but I get the feeling this rant of yours is another "I hate Obvious Child, I'll attack him on anything because I have an obsession with hating him." And more then a few people have pointed this out before on your behavior in stalking me.
Click to expand...

That's the fourth time I've posted it.

You can keep lying and destroy what little reputation you have left in your really unhealthy hateful obsession with me or you can attempt to act like an adult.

As for the 60TRILLION... it was due to Socialist legislation; not Creationists.
Click to expand...

Still unaware of what Socialism is eh?

Why is it so hard for you to name a single socialist program?

FYI, You're still ignoring these:

Anywho, since when did COTUS give the Executive branch the rights and powers to write laws and spend money?
Furthermore, why do you think that we should have not cut taxes and not heavily deficit spent during 2008 and 2009?

The fastest way to cut down the deficit is to raise taxes and cut spending. Which is exactly what the sequester is about to do. Do you give Obama props for supporting that? Do you think we should have enacted European Austerity earlier? Especially in a period of high unemployment?

But thanks for proving my point:

obvious Child said:
Um, generally when certain users make threads like this, nuanced views are not welcome. They are essentially looking for a proverbial term I can't use in public involving multiple gay males together. You aren't going to find intelligent discussions by these folks. Right now Zimmer is lying his butt off in a cheap attempt to feed his hateful obsession with me. I've already posted what I actually said three times and he just keeps going on and lying about it. With that in mind, you cannot expect any real understanding of markets, finances, banks, the economy, how Congress works, what powers the Executive branch has and anything really requiring a brain and education.

Spend enough time here and you'll easily recognize when a thread is nothing more then a propaganda zone by who created it.
Click to expand...
 
The best way to cut deficit is through growth+restraints on spending+higher taxing of the revenue pie. There is a reason Republicans since Reagan have all had high deficits, they have only done 1/3 of the equation. They have done nothing to restrain spending or tax income at higher rates. Even their growth policies are not that good, vast majority of economic growth in any administration since Reagan, GOP or Democrat, has been due to technology innovation, free trade, and globalism. Clinton is the only one that was lucky enough to have done all three things. In his terms .com boom, technological innovation, and globalism really took off to create high economic growth . Then he had legal spending restraints where the President and Congress had to take from one area of budget in order to give to another area, not an open credit card. Then tax rates were higher under Clinton pre-Bush tax cuts so the massive increase in revenue from the high economic growth of the time was also taxed at a higher rate. High growth, higher taxes, spending restraints equals massive surpluses. Conservatives really want to do the first two, high growth and lower spending, but they never have been able to do the lower spending part because they are like a crazy survivalist who needs 10x more weapons then he actually needs to protect himself and they can't touch entitlement spending without risking re-election. Ideologically they think trickle down tax policy creates high growth even when rates are well below hurting incentive. A rich man is not going to work less or invest less if his income is taxed 33% or 30%. He may even try and work harder to make up for the income. That extra 3% of income may lower economic growth in the yacht and Cadillac industry but it may benefit middle class housing industry as those government salaries it is used for, such as pay for firemen, teacher, etc will be put back in economy for their goods and services. What the GOP tax policies accomplish is not growth but trading the paying down of debt for the rich to get their third and fourth vacation homes, private airplanes, etc. In regards to the OP video, I agree Obama does not deserve to be re-elected simply on his deficits. Grossly irresponsible. Below is my tax code that I believe would promote high growth at the same time taxing it at a high but fair, least burdensome rate. Coupled with spending cuts and you'd quickly be on the path back to surpluses imo.

Scrap the entire tax code and start from scratch. Below will be the sole tax code; no deductions(I only tax income so of course you can deduct business costs), no joint filing, no payroll taxes.


0-$200,000 10% income tax rate no deductions
200,000-1,000,000 20% income tax rate no deductions
1,000,000 and above 30% income tax rate no deductions

0% corporate income tax rate
0% capital gains rates on ipo when a company tries to raise capital, all other capital gains taxed liked personal income at the regular 10%-20%-30% income tax rates
 
Last edited:
American said:
Unless archeology is really important to you, it doesn't matter who thinks the earth is 6000 years old. Technology development takes the Earth as it is, whether it's 6000 years old or 6,000,000,000 years old.
Click to expand...

You seem very unaware of the difference in beliefs between those who think the world is 6,000 years old and those who think it is more along the lines of 5.4 billion.

So tell me how many scientists do we have on our congressional committees?
Click to expand...

Not enough.

Last I knew most of our elected officials are lawyers and businessmen; hardly the sort I'd pick to concern themselves with science and technology, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between being indifferent and thinking that fossils are hoaxed placed by Satan to fool us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom