• 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!

More than 700 arrested in Wall Street protest

Everyone knows Bush was a neocon, its no secret by now. Most people know a neocon is a liberal on social issues and very much into policing the world. To the most part they are conservative on economic issues but they are known to have shortcoming if social issues come into play. Some like to say they are inconsistent conservatives, but I call them not conservative at all. They buckle so fast I have trouble imagining they even stand for it at all. They surely don't support free market economics as they very much are into government intervention in the market and have trouble accepting much if any of the principles that it involves. It would probably be more accurate to say they're liberals pretending to be conservative with a fighters edge but even that seems wrong to me. In the end they aren't liberals through and through but fit far closer to liberals than conservative by any measure. I stick by what I said.
 
Last edited:
I used to look at crap like this and use it as validation that my theory of, what ever libs accuse conservatives of is in fact what they do. Remember, how libs in the media, and in here tried, and continue to try and paint Tea Partiers as "extreme", "Violent", or worse?

Well, I don't recall any stories of 700 Tea Partiers being arrested...We'd better be prepared, these leftists, and libs, could very well bring violence when Barry is booted from the WH, after Obama's is done stoking the division campaign he is starting now.


j-mac

That's some major spin. The article didn't say anything about violence.

By the way...I had a great Uncle in 101'st in Korea.
 
Bush WAS a neocon in every sense of the word. He supported military involvement in the world like a neocon and he had a tendency to be very liberal on social issues like a neocon. Whichever way you put it he was neocon. Neocons like him like to say they are compassionate conservatives but they actually are liberals that enjoy fighting.

So Barrack Obama is a neo-con as well?

Now neo-con, like so many other words recently, has become so debased, and so removed from its original intent, that it now means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.
 
Don't think that is what I said. To better get my meaning I would focus on this statement:

No, i think i'll prefer to stick to your statement I was responding to, which was this.


I'm just going to address this portion. Sure, techincally it is POSSIBLE. But is it likely? It is possible to win the lottery, but not likely that most will. And too often, good people can't see their real options. And it is not unreasonabel to note that the person who starts the race with a two lap headstart will likely win more often than the one who doesn't, or who is held back by some burden. So, while it is again technically true that success is POSSIBLE. It is fair to ask how likely it is? And to not praise those who get the head start too much or condemn those who have much to overcome too much. We should try and keep some perspective.

The fact is that many went through depressions and recessions and survived to build themselves up and create better lives for themselves. In fact almost an entire generation did just that.

Now, for some odd reason, and with no evidence whatsoever, you claim that the odds of achieving success is akin to winning a lottery.

That''s untrue of course, as millions of people can attest, but what would you do to change the system in order that success comes more easily and with less effort?
 
Republicans spend as much as democrats. If there is any difference, it's just what they spend on.

Actually no President in history has created as much debt as Barrack Obama.

Where do you think those spending differences lie?
 
No, i think i'll prefer to stick to your statement I was responding to, which was this.




The fact is that many went through depressions and recessions and survived to build themselves up and create better lives for themselves. In fact almost an entire generation did just that.

Now, for some odd reason, and with no evidence whatsoever, you claim that the odds of achieving success is akin to winning a lottery.

That''s untrue of course, as millions of people can attest, but what would you do to change the system in order that success comes more easily and with less effort?

And many did not. The entire generation did not succeed. Merely being alive is not equal to succeeding. It seems you romanticize the time period more than you look at it critically. People were camped out on the WH house lawn. Poverty was rampant. Churches were begging the government for help as they couldn't handle the load. No, you see it much differently than it really was.

But we don't need to go to that extreme. It's a simple concept. Where end depends a lot on where you start, that's just a fact. However, whether you can see it or not, the last sentence summarizes my main thought. Some may well beat the odds. it happens. But the majority does not. They may well eek out a living, as one almost has to. But that is not the same as succeeding to any significatant level.
 
Actually no President in history has created as much debt as Barrack Obama.

Where do you think those spending differences lie?

You overstate it. Some of what is included in Obama's numbers actually came from Bush. But. let's not recycle all that. It should not be hard to agree both spend, a lot. The debt isn't new, and neither is spending. And republicans when they held all thepower did not decrease the debt or control spending. That is a fact we should not have to debate.
 
And many did not. The entire generation did not succeed. Merely being alive is not equal to succeeding. It seems you romanticize the time period more than you look at it critically. People were camped out on the WH house lawn. Poverty was rampant. Churches were begging the government for help as they couldn't handle the load. No, you see it much differently than it really was.

Are you talking about the Great Depression here? If so you made my point. Families were far better off in the fifties, sixties than they were in the 30's.
But we don't need to go to that extreme. It's a simple concept. Where end depends a lot on where you start, that's just a fact. However, whether you can see it or not, the last sentence summarizes my main thought. Some may well beat the odds. it happens. But the majority does not. They may well eek out a living, as one almost has to. But that is not the same as succeeding to any significatant level.

Then what is your idea is success? Just living a good and decent life isn't enough?

And what do you propose to do to change the odds to be sure that everyone is successful?
 
and your opinions of the Tea Party? They seem to have a lot of time to stand around and hold signs up as well.

not really; they didn't camp out places for weeks. Most of them have jobs and families to support - so they show up for a few hours, sing God Bless America, cheer the notion that they should be asked to provide more for themselves, and then politely pick up their trash as they leave.


so.... no. complete comparison fail.
 
Everyone knows Bush was a neocon, its no secret by now. Most people know a neocon is a liberal on social issues and very much into policing the world. To the most part they are conservative on economic issues but they are known to have shortcoming if social issues come into play. Some like to say they are inconsistent conservatives, but I call them not conservative at all. They buckle so fast I have trouble imagining they even stand for it at all. They surely don't support free market economics as they very much are into government intervention in the market and have trouble accepting much if any of the principles that it involves. It would probably be more accurate to say they're liberals pretending to be conservative with a fighters edge but even that seems wrong to me. In the end they aren't liberals through and through but fit far closer to liberals than conservative by any measure. I stick by what I said.

Look at this new conservative tactic! I love it!

"Yeah he may have sucked ass, but that is only because he was a liberal in disguise!" Get real man. There was nothing liberal about George W. Bush. Do not push him onto us. Thanks.

*Edit to add:

I smell a trollolololol.
 
Last edited:
not really; they didn't camp out places for weeks. Most of them have jobs and families to support - so they show up for a few hours, sing God Bless America, cheer the notion that they should be asked to provide more for themselves, and then politely pick up their trash as they leave.


so.... no. complete comparison fail.

Again, you do not know that these people do not have jobs. How do you know that? Do you know anything about any person there? Also, as I posted, there was a week-long Tea Party rally last year.
 
The Tea Party was an Astroturf organized by corporate powers and promoted by Fox News, Wall Street protesters are a real grass roots organization.

Actually, the tea party more or less started with the libertarian V protests, that then got hijacked and taken over by extreme conservatives. I was a part of the tea party before it made it onto main stream news, before it became a household name.
 
Are you talking about the Great Depression here? If so you made my point. Families were far better off in the fifties, sixties than they were in the 30's.

No, they weren't. That's a romanticized view that really isn't supported by facts.

Then what is your idea is success? Just living a good and decent life isn't enough?

And what do you propose to do to change the odds to be sure that everyone is successful?

Didn't say that. I said just being alive isn't success.
 
Let's put it this way, Boo...if you believe success is getting outa college and aspiring to be a retail manager in some dept store or restaurant, then a LOT of young americans are going to one day meet with success, lol.
 
Look at this new conservative tactic! I love it!

"Yeah he may have sucked ass, but that is only because he was a liberal in disguise!" Get real man. There was nothing liberal about George W. Bush. Do not push him onto us. Thanks.

*Edit to add:

I smell a trollolololol.

I don't follow the conservative mindset thanks. That is not to say I don't agree with them here or there but I'm not conservative.
 
So Barrack Obama is a neo-con as well?

Now neo-con, like so many other words recently, has become so debased, and so removed from its original intent, that it now means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

No Obama is a liberal. He doesn't have any of the issues neocons have.

And what exactly is up your ass? Are you a supporter of Bush or anal about the word neocon? Are you a neocon?
 
Let's put it this way, Boo...if you believe success is getting outa college and aspiring to be a retail manager in some dept store or restaurant, then a LOT of young americans are going to one day meet with success, lol.

Do you consider managing a department store, a restaurant or a grocery store as careers not worth pursuing?
 
Do you consider managing a department store, a restaurant or a grocery store as careers not worth pursuing?

I'm in my sophomore year of college and I work full time as an assistant manager at a restaurant.... I can honestly say beyond a shadow of doubt that given my current wage, how hard I work every day, and the limited range of upward mobility that I have, it is not a career worth pursuing. I hope you were just being sarcastic but given your user name I somehow doubt you were.
 
You overstate it. Some of what is included in Obama's numbers actually came from Bush. But. let's not recycle all that. It should not be hard to agree both spend, a lot. The debt isn't new, and neither is spending. And republicans when they held all thepower did not decrease the debt or control spending. That is a fact we should not have to debate.

There has been more debt owed under BHO than any other President in American history, and that is not debatable. Recall this silliness? Obama Pitches Pay-as-you-go Plan for Congress - YouTube
 
No, they weren't. That's a romanticized view that really isn't supported by facts.

There aren't too any who feel that people were more successful in the depression of the 1930's than the 1950's. Yours is a unique position.

Didn't say that. I said just being alive isn't success.

It's a greater success than being dead.
 
No Obama is a liberal. He doesn't have any of the issues neocons have.

You said "Most people know a neocon is a liberal on social issues and very much into policing the world".

Wouldn't that describe Barrack Obama? He is getting credit in fact for his recent successes in policing the world. In fact he's entering sovereign foreign states without Confessional approval to police the world.
 
No Obama is a liberal. He doesn't have any of the issues neocons have.

And what exactly is up your ass? Are you a supporter of Bush or anal about the word neocon? Are you a neocon?

Maybe he's a liberal at heart but his policies have been very centrist, as he is a poor negotiator and has caved into the right



There has been more debt owed under BHO than any other President in American history, and that is not debatable. Recall this silliness? Obama Pitches Pay-as-you-go Plan for Congress - YouTube

There are many more factors in our level of debt than who the president currently is. Here are the major causation factors of the huge debt increase over the past decade:

Two very expensive wars
Ridiculous defense spending in general, we currently have 53,900 troops in Germany, 28,500 in South Korea, 32,800 in Japan
Overspending on national security, there are way too many agencies and it is totally over bloated
Bush tax cuts on the wealthy
Low corporate tax rates
Jobs being shipped overseas to increase corporate profits
Combating the economic recession that was caused by financial deregulation
Increased healthcare costs because insurance and pharmaceutical companies have too much power in D.C.
Subsidies to companies who don't deserve them; Exxonmobil for instance

Now I am not saying Obama has not contributed to these problems; he most certainly has, especially regarding the defense issues. However, the current Republican party is not addressing the vast majority of these problems, and is instead focusing on things like Obama's first two stimuluses.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom