• 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!

Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

I think Obama will win re-election in November, although I don't think that he should. Much like I thought Bush shouldn't have won the 2004 election, but still did. The similarities between GWB and BHO are uncanny, and like Bush's re-election bid opponent, I don't think that Obama's opponent is strong enough to unseat the sitting president. We'll see, and I hope that I'm wrong.
 
00timh said:
So then by your statement, Clinton gets zero credit for the economic boom of the 90's? Hell, even I had given him some.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. He and congress get some credit for getting the budget in the black. But the economy was both thriving on it's own and setting up the next problem. Government can do some minor things, but overall, the economy functions and doesn't function well regardless of government. For government to control the economy, they would have to have control, as in like China.
 
MSgt said:
The only difference is that one was bold and was forced to shoot his mouth off and the other is not. And enhanced interrogation techniques persist. We just don't talk about it anymore. Just like GITMO. Hell, even the use of dogs is ignored now. You have to admit how very passive CNN and Democrats have become. Crap they used to whine about is acceptable enough to ignore today. And FOX doesn't hit on these matters because they would appear as hypocrits for defending it under Bush. It's all BS and there really is no difference between the two. Why do you think Obama was quick to "forgive" the waterboarding under Bush once he entered the White House? The White House may have changed color, but the world did not. It was the same under Clinton. Bush was unlucky enough to have to be the face when all of this was being blasted in the media and protestors forced definitions and explanations in the heat of shallow protesting.
Click to expand...

Even if you're correct, which I don't agree you are, a wise man keeps quiet at the risk of being thought a fool. A fool opens his mouth and removes all doubt.

I can't say those techniques don't persist, and it bothers me that they may. But we're no longer lying to people that things like waterboarding isn't torture. We've stopped giving credence to that lie. This is important. I also notice the military, hardly a liberal group at any level, has stopped leaking such abuses. It was the military as much as anyone who tried to stop the abuses Bush promoted.

So, while I agree there is not enough difference, there are differences. real difference.
 
Boo Radley said:
No he doesn't. He and congress get some credit for getting the budget in the black. But the economy was both thriving on it's own and setting up the next problem. Government can do some minor things, but overall, the economy functions and doesn't function well regardless of government. For government to control the economy, they would have to have control, as in like China.
Click to expand...

So it doesn't matter by how much or how often taxes are raised, where the people's money is spent, how much the government goes into debt, or how much crony capitalism there might be. All of this is out of the governments hands.

Is the the defense for Barack Obama? Nothing is his fault and everything was out of his hands?
 
The Man said:
I think Obama will win re-election in November, although I don't think that he should. Much like I thought Bush shouldn't have won the 2004 election, but still did. The similarities between GWB and BHO are uncanny, and like Bush's re-election bid opponent, I don't think that Obama's opponent is strong enough to unseat the sitting president. We'll see, and I hope that I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that will happen as the majority of the American are just too intelligent to elect this guy twice. Once was an experiment but I doubt they will put the economic well being of their country at serious risk in order to prove a point they've already made.
 
Should be interesting this time...he's running against his twin brother. We haven't had a decent candidate to vote for in this country since Bill Clinton...and I would only qualify him as decent.
 
Grant said:
I don't believe that will happen as the majority of the American are just too intelligent to elect this guy twice. Once was an experiment but I doubt they will put the economic well being of their country at serious risk in order to prove a point they've already made.
Click to expand...

Like Mitt would do anything differently. He's the same guy. He crafted Obama's healthcare plan. He's a known tax raiser, look at his record in Massachusetts where he created 33 new fees out of thin air and raised another 57 of them. The man supports government welfare to private business as evidenced by his support of ethanol subsidies. This guy almost makes John Kerry look like a good candidate.
 
ThongPounder said:
Like Mitt would do anything differently. He's the same guy. He crafted Obama's healthcare plan. He's a known tax raiser, look at his record in Massachusetts where he created 33 new fees out of thin air and raised another 57 of them. The man supports government welfare to private business as evidenced by his support of ethanol subsidies. This guy almost makes John Kerry look like a good candidate.
Click to expand...

He's not the same guy at all. He's had a tremendous record of success in business as well as vast administrative experience whereas Barack Obama has had neither, and little significant success anywhere in his lifetime.

What's important is that its clear Barack Obama is a failure on every level. By any measurement, Mitt Romney would do better.perhaps you should familiarize yourself with his history, as well as the reason behind those "new fees".

Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
ThongPounder said:
Should be interesting this time...he's running against his twin brother. We haven't had a decent candidate to vote for in this country since Bill Clinton...and I would only qualify him as decent.
Click to expand...

Actually we have had quite a few, they just didn't get a major party nomination. ;-)
 
ThongPounder said:
Should be interesting this time...he's running against his twin brother. We haven't had a decent candidate to vote for in this country since Bill Clinton...and I would only qualify him as decent.
Click to expand...

I don't think Obama is running against his twin brother... I don't even think they are related. :roll:
 
Grant said:
So it doesn't matter by how much or how often taxes are raised, where the people's money is spent, how much the government goes into debt, or how much crony capitalism there might be. All of this is out of the governments hands.

Is the the defense for Barack Obama? Nothing is his fault and everything was out of his hands?
Click to expand...

That seems to be the very argument of many. Obama is a "nice guy" and means well so let him keep bumbling along. Any GOP candidate is "just like Bush" so never vote for one of "those guys". Yes he did!
 
Frustrated liberals want more from Obama


IMO, President is batting out of his league. He hasn't the experience, knowledge or abilities to be POTUS. We are all finding that out now - and in the hard way.


So the Libbys aren't the only ones that are frustrated with his inability to fill the positin of POTUS.
 
Let's see, Obama has continued along with Bush's foreign policy, and what do we see Mitt doing...hiring massive amounts of former Bush advisers. Mitt raised a bunch of fees in Massachusetts so he could then lower state taxes. Guess what though...fees are taxes. So he took money from one area and gave it to another to give the taxpayers the false illusion that he lowered taxes.

You failed to address Mitt's support of ethanol subsidies as well...I'd like to hear how you reason that one.
 
Boo Radley said:
Even if you're correct, which I don't agree you are, a wise man keeps quiet at the risk of being thought a fool. A fool opens his mouth and removes all doubt.

I can't say those techniques don't persist, and it bothers me that they may. But we're no longer lying to people that things like waterboarding isn't torture. We've stopped giving credence to that lie. This is important. I also notice the military, hardly a liberal group at any level, has stopped leaking such abuses. It was the military as much as anyone who tried to stop the abuses Bush promoted.

So, while I agree there is not enough difference, there are differences. real difference.
Click to expand...

Far better to put the "bad guys" on a hit list (using ??? as the criteria) and dispatch a drone to simply wipe them out (along with surrounding "friends"), than to "arrest" them, use force (torture?) and possibly get useful information from them, "try" them and sentence them to death. Indeed there are differences, but not nearly as big as you imply. ;-)
 
ThongPounder said:
Let's see, Obama has continued along with Bush's foreign policy...
Click to expand...


Absolutely untrue. Obama has snubbed our largest allies, as in Israel, and the UK. He has made a mockery of America in the eyes of the world so much so that Putin treats him like the little bitch he is, and now with the leaks coming out of his WH designed to make him look good for re election, he has our existing allies openly saying that they are skittish about working with us because his administration can't keep their mouth shut...

and what do we see Mitt doing...hiring massive amounts of former Bush advisers.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding here? Obama has nearly the entire Clinton administration working for him.

Mitt raised a bunch of fees in Massachusetts so he could then lower state taxes.
Click to expand...

A link was provided outlining the reasoning for this...I have to assume you didn't read it?

Guess what though...fees are taxes.
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree, and your man Obama is ramping those up in the HC crap law in ways we don't even know yet.

So he took money from one area and gave it to another to give the taxpayers the false illusion that he lowered taxes.
Click to expand...

Explain.

You failed to address Mitt's support of ethanol subsidies as well...I'd like to hear how you reason that one.
Click to expand...

Any support of Ethanol at this point is pandering to the Farmers. Both sides do so.

j-mac
 
ThongPounder said:
Let's see, Obama has continued along with Bush's foreign policy,
Click to expand...

Which makes BHO an obvious liar.
and what do we see Mitt doing...hiring massive amounts of former Bush advisers.
Click to expand...

And where do you see a problem with th
is?

Mitt raised a bunch of fees in Massachusetts so he could then lower state taxes. Guess what though...fees are taxes.
Click to expand...

No, they are not. Fees are based on user pays. That seems fairer than the person down the street being expected to pay for your government service.
So he took money from one area and gave it to another to give the taxpayers the false illusion that he lowered taxes.
Click to expand...

In fact he did lower taxes and brought down the deficit, something that must be done on a national level in America and a problem that BHO has only built on.
You failed to address Mitt's support of ethanol subsidies as well...I'd like to hear how you reason that one.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with those subsidies at all, the same way i disagree with Solyndra. Government should not involve themselves when the private sector can do the job more efficiently and with little or no risk to the taxpayer..
 
Absolutely untrue.
Click to expand...
Oh stop. Gitmo is still open...Afghanistan is still raging on at the pace Bush left it. Drone attacks. Troops indefinitely stored in Iraq. Foreign bases not going anywhere. Libya. The Bush Doctrine remains strong.

Are you kidding here? Obama has nearly the entire Clinton administration working for him.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The point was that Romney is going to be an extension of Bush.

A link was provided outlining the reasoning for this...I have to assume you didn't read it?
Click to expand...

You gave me Wikipedia...Thanks, maybe next time you can give me HuffPo or HotAir. Fees were raised to create the false illusion of a tax cut...use common sense here.

Any support of Ethanol at this point is pandering to the Farmers. Both sides do so.
Click to expand...

Therefore it's OK? Supporting subsidies to private business is supporting government handouts. Mitt is in support. So you are either telling me he supports these subsidies, or he's lying about it to get votes. Mitt has never met an issue that he can't be on both sides of.
 
ThongPounder said:
Oh stop. Gitmo is still open...Afghanistan is still raging on at the pace Bush left it. Drone attacks. Troops indefinitely stored in Iraq. Foreign bases not going anywhere. Libya. The Bush Doctrine remains strong.
Click to expand...

By detailing all of this you're only confirming what everyone knows. Barack H. Obama is a serial liar.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The point was that Romney is going to be an extension of Bush.
Click to expand...

Just as Obama , as detailed above, is an extension of Bush? Perhaps then it has become American foreign policy. Now the American people should elect someone foreign governments will be comfortable with, who can keep a secret, and who will support democracy wherever it has the chance to flourish. The fact that spending might come under control can only be a huge bonus.
You gave me Wikipedia...Thanks, maybe next time you can give me HuffPo or HotAir. Fees were raised to create the false illusion of a tax cut...use common sense here.
Click to expand...

If there are any facts which are incorrect please point them out. User fees are not taxes. That should be quite clear. If you don't use a service you don't pay for it. Taxes cover all government services whether you use them or not.
Therefore it's OK?
Click to expand...

As should be clear, I believe it is not okay. Perhaps you should reread my response before commenting on it.
 
ThongPounder said:
Oh stop. Gitmo is still open...Afghanistan is still raging on at the pace Bush left it. Drone attacks. Troops indefinitely stored in Iraq. Foreign bases not going anywhere. Libya. The Bush Doctrine remains strong.
Click to expand...


No, you stop. Either you really don't understand the geo political landscape, and what a true pull back from these things overnight would cause, or you are purposely ignoring the entirety of that quote, that you didn't address, in which case is transparently disingenuous.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The point was that Romney is going to be an extension of Bush.
Click to expand...

I see, so you get to attack Romney for calling on former Bush administration people, but when it is pointed out to you that Obama nearly made up his entire administration with Clinton people, you want to ignore that? Get outta here....:roll:

You gave me Wikipedia...
Click to expand...

You don't even know who provided you the link, so why would anyone think you read it.....?


maybe next time you can give me HuffPo or HotAir.
Click to expand...

Ok, why don't you outline right now what sources you accept, so that we can dispense with the usual silliness?

Fees were raised to create the false illusion of a tax cut...use common sense here.
Click to expand...

Does one have to pay a fee if they don't use the service?

Therefore it's OK?
Click to expand...

Who said that?

Supporting subsidies to private business is supporting government handouts.
Click to expand...

I agree, however, if you are like most, I have the feeling that the businesses YOU think are necessary, are ok to subsidize....

Mitt is in support.
Click to expand...

So does Obama

So you are either telling me he supports these subsidies, or he's lying about it to get votes. Mitt has never met an issue that he can't be on both sides of.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what ever dude....Go ahead and write in Paul, see what that gets us....


j-mac
 
ThongPounder said:
Let's see, Obama has continued along with Bush's foreign policy, and what do we see Mitt doing...hiring massive amounts of former Bush advisers. Mitt raised a bunch of fees in Massachusetts so he could then lower state taxes. Guess what though...fees are taxes. So he took money from one area and gave it to another to give the taxpayers the false illusion that he lowered taxes.

You failed to address Mitt's support of ethanol subsidies as well...I'd like to hear how you reason that one.
Click to expand...


So who are you going to vote for? Or are you not gonna vote?
 
Boo Radley said:
Even if you're correct, which I don't agree you are, a wise man keeps quiet at the risk of being thought a fool. A fool opens his mouth and removes all doubt.
Click to expand...

Well I didn't say he wasn't a foolish President. What else would you call man who relied upon the guidance of fools like Rumsfeld and Cheney. Rumsfeld was hated by the military as much as he hated them and Cheney's worldly perspective relied upon a Cold War with Soviets.


Boo Radley said:
I can't say those techniques don't persist, and it bothers me that they may. But we're no longer lying to people that things like waterboarding isn't torture. We've stopped giving credence to that lie. This is important. I also notice the military, hardly a liberal group at any level, has stopped leaking such abuses. It was the military as much as anyone who tried to stop the abuses Bush promoted.
Click to expand...

This is because the military constantly finds itself between a rock and a hard place and this has become more frequent since the end of the Cold War. The military is frequently at odds with the White House and always at odds with the media. Consider that it was the military that was trying to warn the White House of an impending radical problem in the Middle East throughout the 90s when talking about religion was a huge no-no in our intel circuits. Consider that it was the military that demanded more numbers in order to properly invade Iraq so as to deal with the inevitable tribal fallout. Consider that the military has manuals on interrogation and prisoner control that do not call for waterboarding. Consider how quickly Iraq turned around once Rumsfeld (a civilian) was taken out of the game and Patreaus (a military general) was put in the lead. The Pentagon had been at odds with Rumsfeld since before 2003. The hatred went both ways. The frustration of the military after the last two decades of being ignored by Washington suits who declare to know better could be seen from Mcchrystal's comments about the White House in 2010.

But the military has another problem. A U.S. Army problem. The lack of institutional discipline can be seen from Koran burnings, mass murder, Abu-Ghraib, and WikiLeaks reporting. The very few "leaks" came from idiots merely looking for YouTube fame. Actual whistleblowing came from Generals who were either retired or on their way to retirement and had a duty to deal with the base problem of abuses which were stemming from the CIA and looked towards the military to go against code. You see, a Sergeant or a Captain will be Court Martialed. A civilian CIA agent will merely get re-assigned.

And do you think these intel leaks coming from Washington make the military happy? And what is the media's role once again? I tell ya, sometimes it feels like the military is doing it's best to work loyally for children who are doing their best to make it harder. This is why the military has a long history of shoving away the media and divisions between White House and Pentagon.


Boo Radley said:
So, while I agree there is not enough difference, there are differences. real difference.
Click to expand...

Not enough to merit "Hope" and "Change" as a slogan. He was elected because of this. And now that we see barely any change, Liberals look the other way and pretend that gays in the military was all that really ever mattered.
 
Last edited:
unapologeticdan said:
I disagree, I think the left thinks he's too liberal. However, a February gallup poll shows that the left thinks Obama is just about right, proving both of us wrong on that point. Half Say Obama Too Liberal, but 47% Agree With Him on Issues

You have to remember though, the Democratic platform of today is further left from the Democratic platform of 100, 50, or even 25 years ago. Same with the Republican platform. We've all been slowly migrating left while there are those like myself who see that migration and want both parties to return to their original beliefs, focusing on the foundations of this country that made it great.
Click to expand...

I love it when a conservative drops in to tell the world what I'm thinking. It's awesome. Wrong as usual... but awesome.
 
No, you stop. Either you really don't understand the geo political landscape, and what a true pull back from these things overnight would cause, or you are purposely ignoring the entirety of that quote, that you didn't address, in which case is transparently disingenuous.
Click to expand...

An absolute pullback would have been fine, worst case it would have left the place in as much of a mess as it is in now. The whole deck of cards is going to crumble whenever we decide to leave, so just get out and get it over with already. We can't continue to prop up Karzai and expect somehow "democracy" is going to flourish. I wasn't being disingenous, I just wasn't going to allow you steer my points off to something else.

I see, so you get to attack Romney for calling on former Bush administration people, but when it is pointed out to you that Obama nearly made up his entire administration with Clinton people, you want to ignore that? Get outta here
Click to expand...

Why does an attack on one candidate automatically have to resort in an attack on the other? I thought it was a big joke that Obama hired all those Clinton supporters after claiming he was going to be different. But that fact has nothing to do with the fact that Mitt is hiring all these Bush advisers.

Does one have to pay a fee if they don't use the service?
Click to expand...

Semantics here...the people had to pay less of a fee for these services before Mitt was Governor, and for 33 of these services they never had to pay a fee before. I could play silly little games like the Neocons play and say Mitt was redistributing wealth with this scheme. He was taking from the few who had the resources to pay these fees and redistributing to the whole. Either way, he derived a set of funds from taxpayers to offset another set of funds coming from the taxpayers.

I agree, however, if you are like most, I have the feeling that the businesses YOU think are necessary, are ok to subsidize....
Click to expand...

I don't think the government should subsidize any businesses. Business should be able to stand on the merits of their labor.

Yeah, what ever dude....Go ahead and write in Paul, see what that gets us....
Click to expand...

Actually, I was going to vote for Gary Johnson. He's the most qualified of the three candidates. And, even if he loses, sooner or later the Republicans are going to have to realize that if they keep giving us wishy washy subpar candidates that we aren't going to vote for them. I'd rather sacrifice an election or two where I might have gotten a miniscule improvement if it means strengthening the party as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom