• 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

The Barbarian said:
See you step on your own toes ... so you disagree that business's are making record profits ??? You can't argue that they are, then in the next breath say it's in their best interests to form a strong middle class here. Liberal likes yourself talk in circles all the time .... . the reason you give for business making record profits are that they don't care about the middle class, and ship jobs overseas. this according to "you" is what makes them "record profits"......... Now right here in this post ... you are saying what ??? That they would make even higher record profits if they took care of the middle class here ??

Are liberals really this stupid??? Do you honestly think in your very questionable business sense .... that a company any company would move overseas or lay off workers if it were going to produce less profits ?? Over and over liberals (as a whole) show very clearly, why they can't own or run a business.
Click to expand...

What you're showing is that you don't understand what I'm saying. Yes, they make good profits in the short term. But they won't in the long run. Eventrually not having enough people to buy will lead to a shrinking busness, and eventually a shrinking proit. Business has bene short sighted more than once throughout history.

So yes, in the long run they would do better to treat employees right and keep business here. If all of business did, they woudl have more consumers, more people buying and in the LONG RUN do better than simply reaping short term profits.

And yes, many have and do sacrifice furture profits for easy short term gain now. And because those running it can and often do walk away with huge profits, leaving the business to try and fix the problem after they leave, they get away not doing what is best for everyone, including the business.
 
Dickieboy said:
Sorry, but I missed your answer again...I think...please try again.

ps. About the typo, I figured it out after posting...sorry
Click to expand...

it was really quite simple. Iraq didn't send any planes in. So, Iraq wasn't the they. In first Twin Towers attack, we got the they, and stopped further action, all without invading a random country. When you go to war to stop a real and imminent threat, that can be rightly justified. When you have nothing of the kind, there is no justification for invading, and instead simmply choose to be an aggressor nation. Imperialistic if you will.
 
Boo Radley said:
it was really quite simple. Iraq didn't send any planes in. So, Iraq wasn't the they. In first Twin Towers attack, we got the they, and stopped further action, all without invading a random country. When you go to war to stop a real and imminent threat, that can be rightly justified. When you have nothing of the kind, there is no justification for invading, and instead simmply choose to be an aggressor nation. Imperialistic if you will.
Click to expand...

While I understand the point you make I believe it does not address the underlying question I asked. I saw your previous attempt but it was ambigious. The question is 'aren't all wars optional'? Your post above questions justification but evades the question. Ultimately it is my supposition that one ALWAYS has the choice to go to war or not. I understand the difference between the original twin tower attack and the 9/11 one and the subsequint justification but what about the USS Cole?

Further, you stated '...imminent threat, that can be rightly justified' which was the basis for the Iraq invasion. Intelligence at the time, regardless how incorrect we know it now was, promoted this 'imminent threat' justification. Monday morning quarterbacking can be increably believable but doesn't make the previous decisions wholly wrong just different.
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
While I understand the point you make I believe it does not address the underlying question I asked. I saw your previous attempt but it was ambigious. The question is 'aren't all wars optional'? Your post above questions justification but evades the question. Ultimately it is my supposition that one ALWAYS has the choice to go to war or not. I understand the difference between the original twin tower attack and the 9/11 one and the subsequint justification but what about the USS Cole?

Further, you stated '...imminent threat, that can be rightly justified' which was the basis for the Iraq invasion. Intelligence at the time, regardless how incorrect we know it now was, promoted this 'imminent threat' justification. Monday morning quarterbacking can be increably believable but doesn't make the previous decisions wholly wrong just different.
Click to expand...

Only in a rather strict interpretation of the word optional. When facing an imminent attack or when actually being attacked, many, myself included woudl not consider there being much option. Sure, you can say we can just take the attwack, but in real terms, that's not really true. And nation almost HAS to go to war when another nation presents that type of threat.

No, imminent threat was not the justification for the Iraq war. Not only did Iraq pose no imminent threat, no one claimed they did. No intelligence said they were an imminent threat, not even the bogus stuff Cheney's people made sure was in the report from al Libi, curveball, and Chalibi and his heros in error. Even that did not present an imminent threat.

And really as people presented this early on, including Bush's own people, we are not talking about Monday morning quarterbacking, but failure not only to have foreseight, but to deliberately ignore those who did have foresight. Bush for wantever reason wanted war. So we had war. It was a flat out choice, without real justification.
 
Dickieboy said:
Where did you get this…whitehouse.gov? This is merely talking points supporting the stimulus package. How about some REAL data supporting this? And that last line, increase capacity by more than 70%...a 70% increase in 2% is still less than 4%...whoopeee BIG DEAL!





Nice dodge…Yes they do but your original claim was ‘one failed company Solyndra,’ . I posted reference to 4 with little effort. Why not admit your error and we’ll move on?





Please quote EXACTLY where the Constitution MANDATES war? Without this wouldn’t it be optional? I agree, looking back now, that Iraq presented no threat but we all know about hindsight. The data I posted supported the ‘majority of Democrats’ voted AOF, so you concur? But consider that it DID pass Congress with more than paltry Democrat support.




Nice spin, again…Oh, I remember very well. Is it your contention that the Democrats had no option? I thought then that the Democrats should have stuck to their guns and not conceded to the GOP. They would have won ultimately but in the end they DID pass the tax extension regardless of the reason.
Click to expand...

Dickieboy said:
Success…REALLY? This is merely a commitment to do something (“ambitious plans”). No success as you claim…yet.




I know you copy/pasted this but there seems to be some ambiguity in the article. 199kwh/year for $22,500/year? That works out to $113/kwh!!! Around here electricity cost $0.09/kwh but since the article is concerning costs on a military installation kinda makes sense.




So Laredo converted it city transit system to CNG…USING STIMULUS DOLLARS. Nowhere in the article does it state that it is saving money. Please review your source and convince me how this is a measureable success…thx.




Again, collaboration does not equate success. Please review your source and advise the measurable success you claimed.
Click to expand...

Grant said:
None of those are success stories. It is just more evidence of taxpayer money being pissed away by a President with no experience in these matters whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Look, I have provided documentation to back up the case for the largest investment in green energy (better known as the best way to be independent of middle east oil) in our history. All you guys have provided is your opinion that you don't think it will work.
Fine, I got it. Some used to think a horseless carriage couldn't replace the horse and buggy. Some never thought man could fly. Some never thought man could travel to the moon. And some think its not possible to develop alternate means of energy.
 
Catawba said:
Look, I have provided documentation to back up the case for the largest investment in green energy (better known as the best way to be independent of middle east oil) in our history. All you guys have provided is your opinion that you don't think it will work.
Fine, I got it. Some used to think a horseless carriage couldn't replace the horse and buggy. Some never thought man could fly. Some never thought man could travel to the moon. And some think its not possible to develop alternate means of energy.
Click to expand...

The government played no part in the invention of the automobile or the airplane. There is no precedent in the free world of ever giving any individual many billions of taxpayer dollars, especially one with no fiscal experience at all, to speculate on energy markets.
 
Grant said:
The government played no part in the invention of the automobile or the airplane. There is no precedent in the free world of ever giving any individual many billions of taxpayer dollars, especially one with no fiscal experience at all, to speculate on energy markets.
Click to expand...
]

Not exactly true. Early aircraft development was funded in large part through government military assistance.  And of course nuclear power was developed largely as a result of government research. In fact the first commercial U.S. reactor was privately built but publicly funded and overseen by Admiral Rickover.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
<br>
<br>
Not exactly true. Early aircraft development was funded in large part through government military assistance.* And of course nuclear power was developed largely as a result of government research.
Click to expand...

It is exactly true.

The government played no role in the invention of the airplane. That they used airplanes and automobiles at a later date is not being disputed.

In the case of nuclear energy, the data was already clear and it was a government program with government oversight. There is no precedent of any government giving a BHO type billions of dollars to distribute according to his own fancies.

Perhaps the pòint will be better made when a Republican is elected President and he or she starts spending money according to their own whims and speculations.
 
Grant said:
It is exactly true.

The government played no role in the invention of the airplane. That they used airplanes and automobiles at a later date is not being disputed.

In the case of nuclear energy, the data was already clear and it was a government program with government oversight. There is no precedent of any government giving a BHO type billions of dollars to distribute according to his own fancies.

Perhaps the pòint will be better made when a Republican is elected President and he or she starts spending money according to their own whims and speculations.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand your analogy. Solar and wind power have already been invented. What's needed is financing to further develop the products and kickstart large-scale production -- much like the aviation and nuclear power industries.
 
AdamT said:
I guess I don't understand your analogy. Solar and wind power have already been invented. What's needed is financing to further develop the products and kickstart large-scale production -- much like the aviation and nuclear power industries.
Click to expand...

They were "invented" centuries ago. Now Barrack Obama is going to use his business expertise to let taxpayer money flow to those who convince him they are on the cusp of something great?

P.T. Barnum allegedly said there is a sucker born every minute, and it seems he was an optimist.
 
Grant said:
They were "invented" centuries ago. Now Barrack Obama is going to use his business expertise to let taxpayer money flow to those who convince him they are on the cusp of something great?

P.T. Barnum allegedly said there is a sucker born every minute, and it seems he was an optimist.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure it seemed pretty dumb in the early days of aviation and nuclear power, too. And satellite communications, GPS, the internet, personal computers, etc., etc. All dumb **** that's been developed with government assistance.
 
toomuchtime_ said:
Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably - 2012 Decoded

Does this mean the revolution will be called off?
Click to expand...

I have two questions regarding this poll.

1 Did the poll takers bother to question any voters within the OWS protestors, or did they just take for granted that none of these protestors vote?
2. Was there a selective process of voters questioned or was this done randon from state to state?

I ask these questions for I support the OWS protestors but was not ask to participate in any poll?
Perhaps I am not worthy enough after all I'm jost a lowly Independent, but come NOV. 2ND 2012 ny vote will be counted.
I don't think I'm the only voter that supports the OWS, I am not alone.
Perhaps this poll may have missed others like me?:peace
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, I'm sure it seemed pretty dumb in the early days of aviation and nuclear power, too. And satellite communications, GPS, the internet, personal computers, etc., etc. All dumb **** that's been developed with government assistance.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that Barrack Obama has the smarts and experience to spend millions of taxpayers dollars on a variety of projects, including energy, and and that´s just fine. I find it remarkable that this would have any taxpayer support but, as it´s your tax dollars as well as the responsibility of added debt to your economy, I´ll bow to your best instincts. You win.
 
Boo Radley said:
Only in a rather strict interpretation of the word optional.
Click to expand...

So, you agree it is optional...
I generally agree with your assertions on Iraq.
Now explain about the USS Cole.
 
Catawba said:
Look, I have provided documentation to back up the case for the largest investment in green energy (better known as the best way to be independent of middle east oil) in our history.
Click to expand...

No, technically you provided sources that revealed where the money came from and where it went and the presumption for its spending. Your references failed to ‘back up the case for the largest investment’ but this will be impossible for some time as ‘green energy’ is still in its infancy.

All you guys have provided is your opinion that you don't think it will work.
Click to expand...
Please provide reference where I stated that ‘it wouldn’t work’. I believe your stated position was that ‘one failed company Solyndra’ to which I found 4 more that had failed.

Fine, I got it. Some used to think a horseless carriage couldn't replace the horse and buggy. Some never thought man could fly. Some never thought man could travel to the moon. And some think its not possible to develop alternate means of energy.
Click to expand...

Again, please provide a reference to where I stated ‘its not possible to develop alternate means of energy’.
 
Boo Radley said:
What you're showing is that you don't understand what I'm saying. Yes, they make good profits in the short term. But they won't in the long run. Eventrually not having enough people to buy will lead to a shrinking busness, and eventually a shrinking proit. Business has bene short sighted more than once throughout history.

So yes, in the long run they would do better to treat employees right and keep business here. If all of business did, they woudl have more consumers, more people buying and in the LONG RUN do better than simply reaping short term profits.

And yes, many have and do sacrifice furture profits for easy short term gain now. And because those running it can and often do walk away with huge profits, leaving the business to try and fix the problem after they leave, they get away not doing what is best for everyone, including the business.
Click to expand...

What you are showing is your inability to think as a business person. Many of these companies sell their product in a global market. To compete they must move their company overseas, that is just a fact … you or I might not like it, but it doesn't make it any less true.

We in the US has had a standard of living that as a whole is so far above the emerging economies of other countries that it's not even funny. These emerging economies are where we were in the 50's and 60's and they are huge markets. To be competitive in theses markets is impossible at the factory wages that are being paid and expected to be paid here in the US. When it costs more to produce, then the product is selling for in those economies a company has a choice to make, either move where costs are in line with the global market, and be competitive, or ignore that market all together. From a large business perspective ignoring those markets is just stupid. I guess from your perspective big business should ignore them . Just showing once again why liberals usually don't sit at the top of big business.

The other part of your theory that is questionable is what do you consider long term? I agree maybe in 30 or 40 years it might turn out some decisions were bad, as these emerging economies get closer to ours and the global economy is much more even from country to country then having your company located in a certain country might not be as profitable as it is now. To the best of my knowledge most companies have no business plan that extends out 30 or 40 years ..

Bashing big business is just a liberal whining point, because they have no alternative or no idea what is needed to bring industry back into this country, and most liberals are exceptional when it comes to placing blame, but most un-exceptional when to comes to solutions. The only idea I see from most liberals .. including you.. is to tax them more .. make them even more uncompetitive in a global economy, and that dear Boo doesn't work in the short .. or long term.

Unlike you, I understand that to have a thriving economy we need “both” and strong middle class and a strong business and industry. Business and industry builds the middle class that then buys the products that they make, and increases the business and industry

When liberals finally understand that we need business and industry as much as we need a strong middle class and that you can't have one without the other. Maybe just maybe we can turn the corner. Keep bashing them, and making them the enemy, keep blaming them for our woes and personally I see no reason why they should do anything different different … and in fact why they wouldn't just say f**k you …. you see us as the problem, so we'll just move even more money to other countries, even more jobs overseas, and see how you do without us. Personally if I was in their shoes, that is exactly what I'd do.
 
The Barbarian said:
What you are showing is your inability to think as a business person. Many of these companies sell their product in a global market. To compete they must move their company overseas, that is just a fact … you or I might not like it, but it doesn't make it any less true.

We in the US has had a standard of living that as a whole is so far above the emerging economies of other countries that it's not even funny. These emerging economies are where we were in the 50's and 60's and they are huge markets. To be competitive in theses markets is impossible at the factory wages that are being paid and expected to be paid here in the US. When it costs more to produce, then the product is selling for in those economies a company has a choice to make, either move where costs are in line with the global market, and be competitive, or ignore that market all together. From a large business perspective ignoring those markets is just stupid. I guess from your perspective big business should ignore them . Just showing once again why liberals usually don't sit at the top of big business.

The other part of your theory that is questionable is what do you consider long term? I agree maybe in 30 or 40 years it might turn out some decisions were bad, as these emerging economies get closer to ours and the global economy is much more even from country to country then having your company located in a certain country might not be as profitable as it is now. To the best of my knowledge most companies have no business plan that extends out 30 or 40 years ..

Bashing big business is just a liberal whining point, because they have no alternative or no idea what is needed to bring industry back into this country, and most liberals are exceptional when it comes to placing blame, but most un-exceptional when to comes to solutions. The only idea I see from most liberals .. including you.. is to tax them more .. make them even more uncompetitive in a global economy, and that dear Boo doesn't work in the short .. or long term.

Unlike you, I understand that to have a thriving economy we need “both” and strong middle class and a strong business and industry. Business and industry builds the middle class that then buys the products that they make, and increases the business and industry

When liberals finally understand that we need business and industry as much as we need a strong middle class and that you can't have one without the other. Maybe just maybe we can turn the corner. Keep bashing them, and making them the enemy, keep blaming them for our woes and personally I see no reason why they should do anything different different … and in fact why they wouldn't just say f**k you …. you see us as the problem, so we'll just move even more money to other countries, even more jobs overseas, and see how you do without us. Personally if I was in their shoes, that is exactly what I'd do.
Click to expand...

So ... who's bashing business, exactly? If Obama is so anti-business, why are businesses racking up record profits? If businesses aren't sometimes shortsighted, and don't need regulation, why did we face the near total meltdown of our financial sector a few short years ago?
 
AdamT said:
So ... who's bashing business, exactly? If Obama is so anti-business, why are businesses racking up record profits? If businesses aren't sometimes shortsighted, and don't need regulation, why did we face the near total meltdown of our financial sector a few short years ago?
Click to expand...

Like far too many you focus on the huge corporations and their profits and ignore the small businesses that constitute most of the hiring and commerce in this country. Those are the ones not recording record profits and those are the ones that suffering under Obama policies. They also aren't counted as unemployed since they don't qualify for unemployment benefits.
 
The Barbarian said:
What you are showing is your inability to think as a business person. Many of these companies sell their product in a global market. To compete they must move their company overseas, that is just a fact … you or I might not like it, but it doesn't make it any less true.

We in the US has had a standard of living that as a whole is so far above the emerging economies of other countries that it's not even funny. These emerging economies are where we were in the 50's and 60's and they are huge markets. To be competitive in theses markets is impossible at the factory wages that are being paid and expected to be paid here in the US. When it costs more to produce, then the product is selling for in those economies a company has a choice to make, either move where costs are in line with the global market, and be competitive, or ignore that market all together. From a large business perspective ignoring those markets is just stupid. I guess from your perspective big business should ignore them . Just showing once again why liberals usually don't sit at the top of big business.

The other part of your theory that is questionable is what do you consider long term? I agree maybe in 30 or 40 years it might turn out some decisions were bad, as these emerging economies get closer to ours and the global economy is much more even from country to country then having your company located in a certain country might not be as profitable as it is now. To the best of my knowledge most companies have no business plan that extends out 30 or 40 years ..

Bashing big business is just a liberal whining point, because they have no alternative or no idea what is needed to bring industry back into this country, and most liberals are exceptional when it comes to placing blame, but most un-exceptional when to comes to solutions. The only idea I see from most liberals .. including you.. is to tax them more .. make them even more uncompetitive in a global economy, and that dear Boo doesn't work in the short .. or long term.

Unlike you, I understand that to have a thriving economy we need “both” and strong middle class and a strong business and industry. Business and industry builds the middle class that then buys the products that they make, and increases the business and industry

When liberals finally understand that we need business and industry as much as we need a strong middle class and that you can't have one without the other. Maybe just maybe we can turn the corner. Keep bashing them, and making them the enemy, keep blaming them for our woes and personally I see no reason why they should do anything different different … and in fact why they wouldn't just say f**k you …. you see us as the problem, so we'll just move even more money to other countries, even more jobs overseas, and see how you do without us. Personally if I was in their shoes, that is exactly what I'd do.
Click to expand...

Nope, I understand the moving perfectly. But in the long run it will hurt them. No one consumes like we do, and if we go broke, no jobs, they lose.

It's not bashing big business, and that is really where you are flawed. It is recognizing the link between business and labor. One can't be successful without the other. Favoring one at the cost of the other is harmful, and recent history ahs been to favor business, and as I said, at the expense of workers. You can call that liberal if in helps you excuse in easier, but I think it is actually reality. We'll see how things progress. ;)
 
Conservative said:
Like far too many you focus on the huge corporations and their profits and ignore the small businesses that constitute most of the hiring and commerce in this country. Those are the ones not recording record profits and those are the ones that suffering under Obama policies. They also aren't counted as unemployed since they don't qualify for unemployment benefits.
Click to expand...

Which of Obama's policies are causing them to suffer. Name a few.... :popcorn2:
 
AdamT said:
Which of Obama's policies are causing them to suffer. Name a few.... :popcorn2:
Click to expand...

Did you listen to the speech yesterday? What an embarrassment this man is to the office. As for specific policies, Obamacare will hurt small businesses, the threat to raise taxes will hurt small businesses, govt. regulations hurt small businesses. Have you ever run a small business?
 
Conservative said:
Did you listen to the speech yesterday? What an embarrassment this man is to the office. As for specific policies, Obamacare will hurt small businesses, the threat to raise taxes will hurt small businesses, govt. regulations hurt small businesses. Have you ever run a small business?
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the KS speech? I didn't see it, but I did hear a lot of people saying he was spot on, praising him for it. What about that makes it an embarassment? Just curious.
 
Boo Radley said:
Are you talking about the KS speech? I didn't see it, but I did hear a lot of people saying he was spot on, praising him for it. What about that makes it an embarassment? Just curious.
Click to expand...

The fact that he claims America has never been successful with their economic policies and his promotion of classware and redistribution of wealth. He used the term fair share at least 14 times never defining it as if people who don't pay any FIT but earn money are paying their fair share. His speech was anti American, anti capitalism, and promotion of a large central govt. with greater control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom