• 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!

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

Thunder said:
you clearly have no idea what a strawman argument is.

the wealthiest 1% in this country don't give a **** about the middle-class, hence their constant outsourcing of jobs and mass-layoffss...while their profits continue to soar.

helping the Middle-class in America stay that way...or even progress, is the LAST thing on the minds of the 1%.
Click to expand...

Its not the wealthiests responsibility to give a crap about the middle class.

As far as outsourcing and massive layoffs go, when a company send their products overseas and layoff workers their profits soar because consumers buy more of their products. Consumer demands drive business decisions. When I say consumer demands it is not what they decide to write on billboards. Those demands are completely irrelevant. Consumer demands is show with how these consumers spend. Consumers reward companies for sending jobs overseas. Consumers reward companies for massive layoffs. Consumers reward companies who employ illegals. The only logical conclusion that can be made is consumers want these things to happen.
 
muciti said:
Its not the wealthiests responsibility to give a crap about the middle class.
Click to expand...
Responsibility? No. But in their best interests to do so. They benefit from a strong middle class. The middle class is more vested, and with more money to buy products and contribute, which helps them keep making profits and doing business. It helps the nation to have a strong middle class, and lessons dissention, which often leads to the kind of chaos and protest other countries see.
 
Boo Radley said:
Responsibility? No. But in their best interests to do so. They benefit from a strong middle class. The middle class is more vested, and with more money to buy products and contribute, which helps them keep making profits and doing business. It helps the nation to have a strong middle class, and lessons dissention, which often leads to the kind of chaos and protest other countries see.
Click to expand...

This is true, and given that why is it that our current occupant of the White House seems bent on fomenting class division?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
This is true, and given that why is it that our current occupant of the White House seems bent on fomenting class division?

j-mac
Click to expand...

J, the class division is coming from the fox political entertainers more than anyone else. You really should have your sources look in the mirror. Seriously.
 
Boo Radley said:
J, the class division is coming from the fox political entertainers more than anyone else. You really should have your sources look in the mirror. Seriously.
Click to expand...

nah, just follow the Presidents speeches...Words have meaning....I think I remember him saying that......

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
nah, just follow the Presidents speeches...Words have meaning....I think I remember him saying that......

j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes, words do have meaning. I just wish they were misrepresented so often by so many. But if you're not bothered by the language that calls people the leach class and such, you cannot be taken seriously when criticising Obama's far milder words.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, words do have meaning. I just wish they were misrepresented so often by so many. But if you're not bothered by the language that calls people the leach class and such, you cannot be taken seriously when criticising Obama's far milder words.
Click to expand...

Who said "leech class"? Got a quote from a reputable source?


j-mac
 
NEAL BOORTZ (7/6/2011): It is all-out war on the productive class in our society for the benefit of the moocher class.
JOHN STOSSEL (10/12/2010): The makers, and the takers.

BILL O'REILLY (10/12/2010): They want to take it from somebody else.

LAURA INGRAHAM (6/29/2011): Everyone's jumping in the wagon, no one wants to pull.

NEAL BOORTZ (6/22/2011): ... parasites we have out there depending on government ...

NEBRASKA ATTY. GEN. JON BRUNING (8/18/2011): The raccoons, they're not stupid, they're going to do the easy way if we make it easy for them, just like welfare recipients all across America.

ANN COULTER (8/15/2011): Welfare will create generations of utterly irresponsible animals.

Daily Kos: INCREDIBLE Jon Stewart piece on right-wing class warfare!!
 
I didn't see one reference to "leech" anything. And DailyKos? Really? That is your credible reference?

We are angered at the potus making divisive comments, and you give me pundits and think that is equal, and from a nutter source at that? Tell you what Joe, don't ever say another word about a source I use ever again. You just lost your credibility card.


J-mac
 
j-mac said:
I didn't see one reference to "leech" anything. And DailyKos? Really? That is your credible reference?

We are angered at the potus making divisive comments, and you give me pundits and think that is equal, and from a nutter source at that? Tell you what Joe, don't ever say another word about a source I use ever again. You just lost your credibility card.


J-mac
Click to expand...

It's his every day M.O. Berate everyone's source that proves him wrong, then use crap sources like Daily Kos to "prove" his own points.

He is a hypocrite.
 
Gill said:
It's his every day M.O. Berate everyone's source that proves him wrong, then use crap sources like Daily Kos to "prove" his own points.

He is a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Try using a good source. But, you miss the point. It's the source. Not the way you mean. It has nothing to do with bias. It has to do with absolute silliness. Bias is not a problem. Accuracy is what you dismiss a scource over. When they prove inaccurate, you stop using them.

And when, like J's sources, they stop considering factual information at all, and merely rant about evil liberal or conservatives, you dismiss that source as well.

But, to recognize these things, you have to be able to think. :coffeepap
 
j-mac said:
I didn't see one reference to "leech" anything. And DailyKos? Really? That is your credible reference?

We are angered at the potus making divisive comments, and you give me pundits and think that is equal, and from a nutter source at that? Tell you what Joe, don't ever say another word about a source I use ever again. You just lost your credibility card.


J-mac
Click to expand...

Ahhh, not seeking meaning again. Leech and aprasite are similar enough. And as is my habit, I gave you the first three sources. But, you will likely find a way to miss the point, pretend you don't understand. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Try using a good source. But, you miss the point. It's the source. Not the way you mean. It has nothing to do with bias. It has to do with absolute silliness. Bias is not a problem. Accuracy is what you dismiss a scource over. When they prove inaccurate, you stop using them.

And when, like J's sources, they stop considering factual information at all, and merely rant about evil liberal or conservatives, you dismiss that source as well.

But, to recognize these things, you have to be able to think. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

You mean perfectly bipartisan, nonpartisan, and fair to all sides like Daily Kos ??????


I guess you don't "think" they rant about conservatives.


You are too funny, but the sad part is you don't mean to be so hilarious.
 
Gill said:
You mean perfectly bipartisan, nonpartisan, and fair to all sides like Daily Kos ??????


I guess you don't "think" they rant about conservatives.


You are too funny, but the sad part is you don't mean to be so hilarious.
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly didn't link anything comparable. Mo evil conservative facists destroying the country stuff. But, again, you would have to think to understand the difference. :coffeepap
 
Gill said:
Really? How much spending has been cut ??
Click to expand...

"The administration identified $11.5 billion in discretionary program terminations and reductions for next year. The Defense Department will take a $9.4 billion hit, constituting 82 percent of the cuts. Defense accounts for 49 percent of spending on discretionary programs, which Congress must fund each year.

The White House identified a total of $17 billion in spending cuts, including cuts in mandatory programs that mostly involve entitlements.

“We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem,” Mr. Obama said."
Obama budget cuts target military funding - Washington Times

Affordable Care Act Strengthens Medicare By Fighting
Waste and Eliminating Overpayments to Private
Insurance Companies, Saving $500 Billion Over the
Next Decade

"The ban he signed Wednesday is part of a broader executive order to cut some $4 billion of dollars in waste and make government more efficient. Some office equipment will simply be scarcer, and fewer cell phones and laptops will be issued."
Obama Executive Order Will Cut Government Spending, Waste

By ending the war in Iraq, Obama will reduce spending by about $108 billion a year.

"Estimated Costs of an Iraq War
War in Iraq could cost up to $9 billion monthly, says CBO


Wonderful.
Click to expand...

And how much spending did we see during the last two terms of the GOP administration? How much spending was cut?

How much spending did we see cut by the 2010 Congress? $60 million by cutting funding to NPR?

Never was a "media blackout".
Click to expand...

"At the outset of the first Gulf War, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney imposed a ban on photographs and broadcast coverage of the arrival of war casualties at Dover Air Force Base [Delaware]. The media blackout lasted 18 years, until, in February 2009, President Obama ended it."
Obama's accomplishments: Lifting the media blackout at Dover | Occasional Planet


Wonderful
Click to expand...


You mean like this ???
Click to expand...

Like this:

"There have been many organizations and individuals to applaud the Open Government Directive, as they too have dedicated themselves to increasing government transparency. Some of them are as follows:

OpenTheGovernment.org, a coalition of organization and individuals dedicated to monitoring government transparency, conducted an audit of the Open Government Directive. NASA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Department of Labor (DOL) were the agencies that scored the highest. Surprisingly, the five lowest scores went to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is the very institution that is overseeing the implementation of the Open Government Directive, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of the Treasury [33]. White House spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield noted that the evaluators of the audit gave almost half of the agencies scores of 80% or higher, while a "vast majority" had scores of over 70%. [3]

OMB Watch, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization, was formed in 1983 to lift the veil of secrecy shrouding the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). It is currently conducting many observations and monitoring the transparency of government [38].

The Sunlight Foundation, created in 2006, funded through various contributions, and dedicated to using cutting-edge technology and ideas to make government transparent and accountable, hails in their mission statement: “We've created a non-partisan, non-profit organization based in Washington, DC that focuses on the digitization of government data and the creation of tools and Web sites to make that data easily accessible for all citizens. Underlying all of our efforts is a fundamental belief that increased transparency will improve the public's confidence in government” [35]

The Obama Administration has noted the fact that similar transparency and participation measures have subsequently been taken in other states across the country, as well as internationally. For example, in May 2009, Data.gov had just 47 data sets. Today, it has more than 168,000 [1]."
Obama's Open Government Directive - Participedia


This is the funniest one yet !!!!
Click to expand...

"From the beginning, the Bush White House created controversy by tapping scores of industry lobbyists to staff official positions.

Now approaching its final days, the administration might have produced even more lobbyists than it took in.

At least 150 senior Bush administration officials have traded their government service badges for K Street’s pinstripes. In its early years, the administration was estimated to have hired about 100 lobbyists.

“They have had more turnover than any administration in recent history, going back to the Kennedy administration,” when researchers began tracking that figure, said professor Paul C. Light, an expert on the executive branch at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service."
White House stocks K Street - Samuel Loewenberg - POLITICO.com

"USA Today reported that 21 members of the Obama administration have at some time been registered as federal lobbyists, although most have not within the previous two years."
Presidency of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a 79% reduction in lobbyist!!!
 
Catawba said:
"The administration identified $11.5 billion in discretionary program terminations and reductions for next year.
Click to expand...

So in other words, they didn't cut squat. Everything with this bunch is next year or after the next election.
The White House identified a total of $17 billion in spending cuts, including cuts in mandatory programs that mostly involve entitlements.
Click to expand...

One more time........... how much WAS cut?

“We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem,” Mr. Obama said."
Obama budget cuts target military funding - Washington Times
Click to expand...

And yet he has run the deficits higher than any president in history. Guess that means he's a liar.




By ending the war in Iraq, Obama will reduce spending by about $108 billion a year.
Click to expand...

Bush had already ended the war............ don't keep up with current events much do you??

And how much spending did we see during the last two terms of the GOP administration? How much spending was cut?

How much spending did we see cut by the 2010 Congress? $60 million by cutting funding to NPR?
Click to expand...

How much spending was cut during Obama's first two years when Dems controlled all three houses???


"At the outset of the first Gulf War, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney imposed a ban on photographs and broadcast coverage of the arrival of war casualties at Dover Air Force Base [Delaware]. The media blackout lasted 18 years, until, in February 2009, President Obama ended it."
Obama's accomplishments: Lifting the media blackout at Dover | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...

Yes, at the family's request.


Like this:

"There have been many organizations and individuals to applaud the Open Government Directive, as they too have dedicated themselves to increasing government transparency. Some of them are as follows:

OpenTheGovernment.org, a coalition of organization and individuals dedicated to monitoring government transparency, conducted an audit of the Open Government Directive. NASA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Department of Labor (DOL) were the agencies that scored the highest. Surprisingly, the five lowest scores went to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is the very institution that is overseeing the implementation of the Open Government Directive, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of the Treasury [33]. White House spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield noted that the evaluators of the audit gave almost half of the agencies scores of 80% or higher, while a "vast majority" had scores of over 70%. [3]

OMB Watch, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization, was formed in 1983 to lift the veil of secrecy shrouding the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). It is currently conducting many observations and monitoring the transparency of government [38].

The Sunlight Foundation, created in 2006, funded through various contributions, and dedicated to using cutting-edge technology and ideas to make government transparent and accountable, hails in their mission statement: “We've created a non-partisan, non-profit organization based in Washington, DC that focuses on the digitization of government data and the creation of tools and Web sites to make that data easily accessible for all citizens. Underlying all of our efforts is a fundamental belief that increased transparency will improve the public's confidence in government” [35]

The Obama Administration has noted the fact that similar transparency and participation measures have subsequently been taken in other states across the country, as well as internationally. For example, in May 2009, Data.gov had just 47 data sets. Today, it has more than 168,000 [1]."
Obama's Open Government Directive - Participedia
Click to expand...

Not one word on the link I posted ???? Not surprised. Hard to defend the indefensible isn't it??

"From the beginning, the Bush White House created controversy by tapping scores of industry lobbyists to staff official positions.

Now approaching its final days, the administration might have produced even more lobbyists than it took in.

At least 150 senior Bush administration officials have traded their government service badges for K Street’s pinstripes. In its early years, the administration was estimated to have hired about 100 lobbyists.

“They have had more turnover than any administration in recent history, going back to the Kennedy administration,” when researchers began tracking that figure, said professor Paul C. Light, an expert on the executive branch at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service."
White House stocks K Street - Samuel Loewenberg - POLITICO.com

"USA Today reported that 21 members of the Obama administration have at some time been registered as federal lobbyists, although most have not within the previous two years."
Presidency of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a 79% reduction in lobbyist!!!
Click to expand...

So you admit that Obama lied once again.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, I certainly didn't link anything comparable. Mo evil conservative facists destroying the country stuff. But, again, you would have to think to understand the difference. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Yeah I know.......... everyone's a dumbass except you.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, not EVERYONE. Just those who are dumbassess.

:2funny:
Click to expand...

And in your world, that is everyone that disagrees with you.

You're are not nearly as clever as you think you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom