• 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

j-mac said:
Me too. With the people of this country rejecting the antisemitism, and Marxism of OWS in more and more numbers, Progressives may have to go back and hide under another rock for another 70 to 100 years.

Thanks.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure you are right that all those who hated the Marxists years in the US from the 1940's thru the 1970's, will reject the OWS.
 
j-mac said:
Romney has outlined a 59 point plan you can find here:

Jobs | Mitt Romney for President
Click to expand...

Romney's plan is just to bust union capabilities and decrease corporate taxes. Nothing of substance else is mentioned in the plan.

j-mac said:
And Gingrich's plan is here:

Jobs and the Economy | Newt Gingrich 2012
Click to expand...

Again, an empty suit. He mentions he wants to take away things he beleives are inhibiting growth, but doesn't mention what they are. More pandering with no substance.

j-mac said:
There are plenty of plans out there. Relying on the tactic of ignorance, and pretending that nothing has been offered is just plain dishonest.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't and that's the problem. There are empty promises of repealing Obama care and lowering corporate taxes. The problem isn't that corporations don't have enough money. They are sitting on trillions. Having a "R" in front of a name isn't going to take care of WHY people are losing their jobs and what needs to happen to get them back to work.

j-mac said:
Isn't that what Bush said he was? So you want another Bush back?
Click to expand...

Bush socially liberal? Are you kidding me? The guy was Pro-Life, Anti-Gay marriage, anti-gays serving in the military. How in the hell do you get socially liberal? And fiscally conservative? I think you need to take another look before you claim that.

j-mac said:
Anyway:

Jon Huntsman for President
Click to expand...

Huntsman is the closest Republican candidate that I would come close to voting for, however, I feel he is just pandering and like all the other candidates does not offer reasonable solutions to combating our high unemployment rate or shrinking middle class.

j-mac said:
Sure there is....Even worked for Obama.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't. Because Obama was going against McCain, not Bush. The more appropriate comparison is that the GOP is doing now, what the Dems tried in 2004 and failed. However, have fun repeating the same mistakes. It will allow 4 more years of Obama.

j-mac said:
Right....And many a prediction at this point comes out true....You'll excuse me if I think your prediction doesn't mean much....
Click to expand...

You're exxcused. However, when Obama wins don't come crying about it since you and others were informed of mistakes well in advance.

j-mac said:
It may have been poor wording, but I don't think I said you in particular were telling us who to pick, but rather in my opinion, all this talk of us choosing weak candidates is meant to what? Moan, and throw out empty opinion? Ok, type away.
Click to expand...

Conservatives and GOP didn't mind sticking their noses into Dem candidates and voicing their opinion so I don't see a reason why Dems and the left can't do the same regarding GOP candidates. Again, if you don't want to see it, don't read it.

j-mac said:
Why is it that you libs have to try and be as childishly offensive as possible? Ah well, I'd rather be the 'teabagger' than the 'teabaggie' choke on that ok?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Really? Have you read some of your posts regarding the left and some of the names you have used to erroneously describe the left as socialists, marxists, ect?

If you can't take it, don't dish it.
 
j-mac said:
Can't really hold one party responsible for your own failures when you hold a super majority in both houses for 2/3 of the time period we are talking about.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I look forward to you proving your fantastic claim.
 
I don't think the democrats had a super majority in recent times.

-whysoserious
 
Catawba said:
You are missing the larger point, that Obama is no progressive, and rather than having progressive to challenge Obama in a Primary, we have the OWS. In the absence of a progressive to challenge the centrist, Obama, I am so grateful the OWS is fulfilling that role.
Click to expand...


"progressive" is such a newspeak term, It indicates "progress", where many of those "progressive policies" would have a more regressive effect on society.
 
Conservative said:
Everyone of the people in the Republican field are more qualified than the one in the WH right now but in the liberal world rhetoric trumps the resume and the results. Somehow the smartest man ever to hold the office has terrible economic results and always blames someone else for his own failures. That isn't leadership.
Click to expand...

The problem right now that the GOP fails to recognize is that people see Obama has messed up. However, the reason Obama has messed up is he didn't have a plan other than to throw money at a problem.

Now the GOP wants to give more money to corporations and they aren't even combatting the reason WHY people are unemployed. People are not unemployed because of OBamaCare. They aren't unemployed because companies don't have enough money, they are sitting on trillions. People are unemployed because of training and lack of jobs. What GOP plan combats the training issue because once jobs come around people will need training for them.

What plan is there for the housing problem and people owing far far more than their house is worth?

You can say "Well that's their problem", but people are hurting and they are looking for help. If the GOP won't provide any, they will continue to look to Obama for handouts.

That isn't even taking into consideration the GOP candidates are looking like fools and out of touch with people.

Adding all that up, I would be willing to bet an Obama victory. And I don't even want Obama for 4 years, howerver none of the GOP clowns show they know what's better.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
The problem right now that the GOP fails to recognize is that people see Obama has messed up. However, the reason Obama has messed up is he didn't have a plan other than to throw money at a problem.

Now the GOP wants to give more money to corporations and they aren't even combatting the reason WHY people are unemployed. People are not unemployed because of OBamaCare. They aren't unemployed because companies don't have enough money, they are sitting on trillions. People are unemployed because of training. What GOP plan combats the training issue?

That isn't even taking into consideration the GOP candidates are looking like fools and out of touch with people.

Adding all that up, I would be willing to bet an Obama victory. And I don't even want Obama for 4 years, howerver none of the GOP clowns show they know what's better.
Click to expand...

In the liberal world allowing companies to keep more of what they earn is giving them money. That couldn't be further from the truth and shows the problems we have today.

Obamacare hurts the small businesses not the large corporations but that fact escapes the left.
 
Conservative said:
In the liberal world allowing companies to keep more of what they earn is giving them money. That couldn't be further from the truth and shows the problems we have today.

Obamacare hurts the small businesses not the large corporations but that fact escapes the left.
Click to expand...

Without ObamaCare, jobs were still being lost at a stagering rate even under Bush. Sorry, but your ObamaCare BS is proven false. And the GOP have shown they only want to keep making the rich richer instaed of helping America as a whole prosper.
 
whysoserious said:
I don't think the democrats had a super majority in recent times.

-whysoserious
Click to expand...
Per wiki:
When Democratic Senator Al Franken of Minnesota was sworn in on July 7, 2009 till the death of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy on August 26. – 50 days

Membership increased back to 60 on the swearing-in of Paul G. Kirk, the designated interim replacement for Ted Kennedy, on September 24 till February 4, 2010 – 133 days

183 days total...
 
TheNextEra said:
Without ObamaCare, jobs were still being lost at a stagering rate even under Bush. Sorry, but your ObamaCare BS is proven false. And the GOP have shown they only want to keep making the rich richer instaed of helping America as a whole prosper.
Click to expand...

Jobs were lost during the last year of the Bush Administration and still he ended up with a net job gain for his term. Bush didn't spend 4.5 trillion dollars in three years to generate a net job loss nor did the Bush stimulus bailout unions and not create any jobs. Bush inherited the Clinton recession and then had 9/11. Jobs were lost his first two years and the Bush tax cuts weren't implemented until the end of fiscal year 2001. Obama's economic policy was passed in February 2009 or the first month of his Administration and the results would have been much improved with the right economic policy.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
"progressive" is such a newspeak term, It indicates "progress", where many of those "progressive policies" would have a more regressive effect on society.
Click to expand...

Like what?
 
Dickieboy said:
Per wiki:

183 days total...
Click to expand...

Not in a row! LOL! And that's the length of time the Democrats had to fix 8 years of the Bush Administration?
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Jobs were lost during the last year of the Bush Administration and still he ended up with a net job gain for his term. Bush didn't spend 4.5 trillion dollars in three years to generate a net job loss nor did the Bush stimulus bailout unions and not create any jobs. Bush inherited the Clinton recession and then had 9/11. Jobs were lost his first two years and the Bush tax cuts weren't implemented until the end of fiscal year 2001. Obama's economic policy was passed in February 2009 or the first month of his Administration and the results would have been much improved with the right economic policy.
Click to expand...

So you're blaming Bush's problems on Clinton and 911? :lol:

You are too much. :lol: :lol:
 
j-mac said:
Can't really hold one party responsible for your own failures when you hold a super majority in both houses for 2/3 of the time period we are talking about.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Oh, I wouldn't let democrats off the hook, but your mistake is thinking it is either or. It's both. republicans are also responsible for what they did. No one gets to be exempt from responsibility for their actions.
 
AdamT said:
So you're blaming Bush's problems on Clinton and 911? :lol:

You are too much. :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

You are blaming Obama's problems on Bush three years later. Three years after the Bush economic policy was in place the economy was booming.

Big Media Distorts Bush Economic Record - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)

2) "Economy Made Few Gains in Bush Years", declared the Washington Post earlier this week. And while the story grudgingly acknowledged the 52-straight months of job growth, it dismissed any economic gains as the ephemeral product of the housing bubble and wild-spending consumers. Except ... that worker productivity -- the most important long-term indicator of the core health and competitiveness of an economy -- has risen at a really impressive 2.6 annual rate during the Bush years vs. 2.0 percent for Clinton and 1.6 percent for Reagan. (That factoid from the Wall Street Journal.) This is important stuff. It's one big reason why the World Economic Forum says the U.S. has the most competitive economy in the world. The economic rebound after the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts was no mirage.
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
Passed and supported by both parties for decades.


Which GOP candidate is proposing to end welfare for the poor?
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. the question posed is which progressive idea is regressive. The expanding welfare state the cradle to grave society creates a dependent class that is unmotivated to rise out of the free handouts. This is a spawn of "progressive" ideals.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Irrelevant. the question posed is which progressive idea is regressive. The expanding welfare state the cradle to grave society creates a dependent class that is unmotivated to rise out of the free handouts. This is a spawn of "progressive" ideals.
Click to expand...

folks can only collect welfare for 5 years. how exactly does this promote cradle-to-grave dependency?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Irrelevant. the question posed is which progressive idea is regressive. The expanding welfare state the cradle to grave society creates a dependent class that is unmotivated to rise out of the free handouts. This is a spawn of "progressive" ideals.
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove Welfare is regressive or that it was a instituted by and supported by Democrats alone.

Also, unless a person is disabled, they cannot remain on welfare longer than 2 years. Hardly, cradle to grave.


You failed to answer my last question as well, which GOP candidate is proposing to end welfare???
 
Catawba said:
You have yet to prove Welfare is regressive or that it was a instituted by and supported by Democrats alone.

Also, unless a person is disabled, they cannot remain on welfare longer than 2 years. Hardly, cradle to grave.
Click to expand...


So wait... after 2 years, we cut these people off, completley, my how do they live?



You failed to answer my last question as well, which GOP candidate is proposing to end welfare???
Click to expand...


It's a red herring and irrelevant.
 
Conservative said:
You are blaming Obama's problems on Bush three years later. Three years after the Bush economic policy was in place the economy was booming.

Big Media Distorts Bush Economic Record - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm pointing out the ridiculous irony of you steadfastly refusing to admit that Obama inherited an absolute hellish economy from Bush while you argue that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. Amazing hypocrisy.

For my part, I never denied that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. That's obvious, just as it's obvious that Obama inherited one from Bush. Of course the one Obama inherited was magnitudes worse, and Obama had far fewer tools at his disposal because Bush had already cut taxes and doubled the national debt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom