• 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!

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aw, the diversion continues, it isn't the messenger it is the content of the message. Keep ignoring the decline of self reliance and divison of this country into class which of course means greater control for the Federal Govt. and decline of the state government. The liberal elite keep their power because of people like you

Those who are attacking the messenger are lining up...as predicted.

Come on, this is the same guy who couldn't figure out why the tides came in and out. :roll:
 
Hey a couple of dems voted down the bill, that was democrat codespeak for bipartisan before 2010, wasnt it?
 
Not at all and that is part of the problem. There seems to be an ideology out there today that ignores the very foundation upon which this country was built. Millions of voices however aren't being heard although the polls show it. A large majority of Americans are of the opinion that America is in decline and the poor leadership of this Administration who is more focused on dividing and promoting class warfare is to blame. In addition here is an excellent article on the subject and explanation as to why. Liberals and Obama supporters will ignore it because of the author but it is the content that matters.

Bill O'Reilly: America in Decline - Talking Points - The O'Reilly Factor - Fox News

Back to number 5 I see. I make one mistake by using population and you jump down my throat. Sorry, I'll try harder next time, you are better than me, you are the best, I wish I could give you money for how smart you are...
 
Back to number 5 I see. I make one mistake by using population and you jump down my throat. Sorry, I'll try harder next time, you are better than me, you are the best, I wish I could give you money for how smart you are...

that is the point, you continue to ignore the content and accuracy of my data to resort to spouting liberal talking points. You see, liberals don't like being challenged and resort to attacking the messenger and ignoring the message. America is in decline and it is all due to liberalism and destruction of the basic principle of self reliance. Instead of people helping each other, you promote the govt doing that ignoring that this govt. creates dependence and destroys incentive.
 
that is the point, you continue to ignore the content and accuracy of my data to resort to spouting liberal talking points. You see, liberals don't like being challenged and resort to attacking the messenger and ignoring the message. America is in decline and it is all due to liberalism and destruction of the basic principle of self reliance. Instead of people helping each other, you promote the govt doing that ignoring that this govt. creates dependence and destroys incentive.

Straw man, I make a bad calculation and suddenly I am claiming all of this? Either I'm confused or you are.
 
Your response seems to confirm that you do agree with the article. "The foundation of America's growing power was a code of conduct...neighborly charity."

Not entirely, you'll remember we started under the articles of confederation, but found it too weak and had to structure a stronger federal government to address problems. All along the way the people have used government to solve problems. Those forts were often government forts, military, calvery. Working together, then as now, has always taken multpile forms. The point is, we work collectively and not near as individually as the myth suggests.
 
How did our forefathers get help? They did help each other and it wasn't the govt. that forced it which is contrary today as this govt. is dividing people and making it tougher for individuals to help each other. When taxes go up, contributions to charities goes down. When govt. divides and demonizes people thus creating dependence then self reliance is reduced as the incentive to take care of one's self is reduced.

It is this govt. that wants expanded control over individual personal responsibility issues and that plays right into the content of this article, self reliance is a declining trait and the promotion of the ideology of two types of people, the haves and the have nots which of course blames the haves for not helping the have nots. How is that not the decline in America.

See the response above.
 
See the response above.

You know, I don't remember any of our Founders standing in the middle of a sq asking for someone else to take care of them? I do remember them all to be self reliant and ready to take care of those in need. Whatever happened to those people? As I recall the purpose of that Central govt. was for defense and PROMOTING general welfare. That has been changed by politicians to provide for general welfare because they found that they can keep their job and their power by buying votes. Is that what you support?
 
Not entirely, you'll remember we started under the articles of confederation, but found it too weak and had to structure a stronger federal government to address problems. All along the way the people have used government to solve problems. Those forts were often government forts, military, calvery. Working together, then as now, has always taken multpile forms. The point is, we work collectively and not near as individually as the myth suggests.

‘Not entirely’ would infer that you DO AGREE with some portion of O’Reilly’s rant. Other lines from the article that would support your 'working together' statement include: “After we achieved independence from England, the federal and state governments basically stepped aside allowing businesses and communities to grow without much interference”, “We looked out for each other, but did not tolerate cowardice or narcissism” and “That war united the country and brought us a common purpose”.

Given the examples of ‘working collectively’ FROM THE ARTICLE I don’t see how you can state ‘individually as the myth suggests’ but I guess a ‘not entirely’ position would accommodate this. You DID read the article DIDN’T YOU?
 
It's BS, too silly for any thinking person to accept. it misses the point, and doesn't think beyond the talkingpoint they know their audience will swallow with no further thought. Like I said, if you're accepting these types of things, you are the problem.

Again, from my previous post...since you seem to agree with some portion of the article are you considered BS? Too silly?...or maybe just not a 'thinking person'? Further since you SEEM to be accepting 'these types of things' how are you 'not the problem?

REMEMBER, these are YOUR words not mine.
 
You know, I don't remember any of our Founders standing in the middle of a sq asking for someone else to take care of them? I do remember them all to be self reliant and ready to take care of those in need. Whatever happened to those people? As I recall the purpose of that Central govt. was for defense and PROMOTING general welfare. That has been changed by politicians to provide for general welfare because they found that they can keep their job and their power by buying votes. Is that what you support?
correct, you don't remember BECAUSE YOU WERENT AROUND THEN!!! you did not know them nor can you channel them, nor do you know what they were thinking.
 
correct, you don't remember BECAUSE YOU WERENT AROUND THEN!!! you did not know them nor can you channel them, nor do you know what they were thinking.

Spoken like someone who is reliant on the union for everything they have and wants it that way. No wonder we have a problem in this country today
 
Spoken like someone who is reliant on the union for everything they have and wants it that way. No wonder we have a problem in this country today
spoken like someone who can never admit when he is wrong, nor give consideration to someone else's view point, spoken like someone who sees everything in black and white, with no middle ground...you and people like you, are the reason this country is in the shape it is in.
 
Spoken like someone who is reliant on the union for everything they have and wants it that way. No wonder we have a problem in this country today

Spoken like middle management lackey who is dependent on the whims of a corporation.


:peace
 
Last edited:
You know, I don't remember any of our Founders standing in the middle of a sq asking for someone else to take care of them? I do remember them all to be self reliant and ready to take care of those in need. Whatever happened to those people? As I recall the purpose of that Central govt. was for defense and PROMOTING general welfare. That has been changed by politicians to provide for general welfare because they found that they can keep their job and their power by buying votes. Is that what you support?

No one is really asking to be taken care of. That is really more misinformation than anything else. We're speaking as society how best to tackle a few collective problems.
 
No one is really asking to be taken care of. That is really more misinformation than anything else. We're speaking as society how best to tackle a few collective problems.

Our Founders knew how and the people today and to OWS rallies don't have a clue. People taking care of people instead of authorizing a massive federal govt. to do it is the way our Founders did it. Today, far too many fail to be self reliant and look for someone else to take care of them so up steps Barack Obama and his merry band of leftwing radicals offering to provide people with free healthcare, forgive or restructure student loans, force restructing of home loans for people under water. Yes, the nanny state is alive and well, contrary to what our Founders created.
 
‘Not entirely’ would infer that you DO AGREE with some portion of O’Reilly’s rant. Other lines from the article that would support your 'working together' statement include: “After we achieved independence from England, the federal and state governments basically stepped aside allowing businesses and communities to grow without much interference”, “We looked out for each other, but did not tolerate cowardice or narcissism” and “That war united the country and brought us a common purpose”.

Given the examples of ‘working collectively’ FROM THE ARTICLE I don’t see how you can state ‘individually as the myth suggests’ but I guess a ‘not entirely’ position would accommodate this. You DID read the article DIDN’T YOU?

No it doesn't. Few things are either all one way or another. His basic premise and the linchpin of that premise revolves around individuality and lack of using government to solve problems. He is 100% wrong about that. Now, that doesn't mean that we never did anything he says we did.

He offers very few examples in his article. Let's take WWII, and eample he did give. Government went to war, and rightly so. Government pointed to a specific reason, told the public it would be costly, and asked them to sacrific. Now, this has nothing to do with individuality. In fact, quite the opposite. It is a collective effort run largely by the government, and rightly so.

VN on the other hand had no honest reason for happening. It was largely based on a lie (Bay of Tokin) and in a flawed premise, domino theory. And did not have public support. Public support; not individual support.

Iraq went a step further, government invaded another country on a pretex and said it will cost us nothing. We'll lower taxes, use only volunteers, and you don't have to worry about it all.

None of those examples say a thing about our individuality. they only address the way government decided to address a certain problem. And remmeber, the WWII example follows this quote:


The foundation of America's growing power was a code of conduct based on honest labor and neighborly charity. We looked out for each other, but did not tolerate cowardice or narcissism. Judeo-Christian philosophy dominated the public square.

Read more: Bill O'Reilly: America in Decline - Talking Points - The O'Reilly Factor - Fox News

WWII does not support that claim at all. It's a trick, a cheap one at that, that divertes attention away from his claim. He need to show something that dealt with work ethic, honest labor, Judea-Christian philosophy. He didn't. He spoke of hwo we handled a war. Not at all the same.

With VN he discusses us distrusting authority, but doesn't touch upon what authority did to lose trust. Seems to be suggesting that trust should be blind, and that those who lose it have no accountability for losing it. Again, a trick, a diversion that really doesn't address his premise.

In case you've forgotten, this is his premise:


The answer is the decline in self-reliance. If you understand history, you know that America was founded on the independent principles of honor and hard work.

Read more: Bill O'Reilly: America in Decline - Talking Points - The O'Reilly Factor - Fox News

he has to show first, we're in decline, and that the reason is a lack of self reliance. That the US was indeed founded on honor and hard work, and that such is missing. He doesn't even address that at all. Again, he relies on tricks, trying to move his followers on the found feelings of a "good war' and the bad feelings they hold over the other 'bad" wars. All of which has nothing to do with his premise.

But to be honest, his article doesn't deserve this much of an answer. It is so weak and sloppy, of poorly reasoned and laid out, any reader should see the flaws right off. but then again, if you don't question, and always accept your affirmation, I suppose you could miss it.
 
No it doesn't. Few things are either all one way or another. His basic premise and the linchpin of that premise revolves around individuality and lack of using government to solve problems. He is 100% wrong about that. Now, that doesn't mean that we never did anything he says we did.

He offers very few examples in his article. Let's take WWII, and eample he did give. Government went to war, and rightly so. Government pointed to a specific reason, told the public it would be costly, and asked them to sacrific. Now, this has nothing to do with individuality. In fact, quite the opposite. It is a collective effort run largely by the government, and rightly so.

VN on the other hand had no honest reason for happening. It was largely based on a lie (Bay of Tokin) and in a flawed premise, domino theory. And did not have public support. Public support; not individual support.

Iraq went a step further, government invaded another country on a pretex and said it will cost us nothing. We'll lower taxes, use only volunteers, and you don't have to worry about it all.

None of those examples say a thing about our individuality. they only address the way government decided to address a certain problem. And remmeber, the WWII example follows this quote:


The foundation of America's growing power was a code of conduct based on honest labor and neighborly charity. We looked out for each other, but did not tolerate cowardice or narcissism. Judeo-Christian philosophy dominated the public square.

Read more: Bill O'Reilly: America in Decline - Talking Points - The O'Reilly Factor - Fox News

WWII does not support that claim at all. It's a trick, a cheap one at that, that divertes attention away from his claim. He need to show something that dealt with work ethic, honest labor, Judea-Christian philosophy. He didn't. He spoke of hwo we handled a war. Not at all the same.

With VN he discusses us distrusting authority, but doesn't touch upon what authority did to lose trust. Seems to be suggesting that trust should be blind, and that those who lose it have no accountability for losing it. Again, a trick, a diversion that really doesn't address his premise.

In case you've forgotten, this is his premise:


The answer is the decline in self-reliance. If you understand history, you know that America was founded on the independent principles of honor and hard work.

Read more: Bill O'Reilly: America in Decline - Talking Points - The O'Reilly Factor - Fox News

he has to show first, we're in decline, and that the reason is a lack of self reliance. That the US was indeed founded on honor and hard work, and that such is missing. He doesn't even address that at all. Again, he relies on tricks, trying to move his followers on the found feelings of a "good war' and the bad feelings they hold over the other 'bad" wars. All of which has nothing to do with his premise.

But to be honest, his article doesn't deserve this much of an answer. It is so weak and sloppy, of poorly reasoned and laid out, any reader should see the flaws right off. but then again, if you don't question, and always accept your affirmation, I suppose you could miss it.

this is an American Decline

Obama economic results in 2011,
.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
2010 2011
I II III IV I II
3.9 3.8 2.5 2.3 0.4 1.3

25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom