• 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!

Under Obama, Poor, Middle Class Incomes Fall Sharply

Americans for Responsible Taxes
Click to expand...

that'd be like the prof linking breitbart

LOL!
 
Navy Pride said:
Its true the economy was not in good shape when Obama took office but how you lefties can keep blaming Bush 4 years later is mind boggling because Obama has taken a bad economy and made it 10 times worse...Just keep sleeping my left ing friend............
Click to expand...

I specifically said I wasn't blaming Bush. Also 10 times worse is a really hard argument to prove, in what aspect has the economy gotten worse by that much? O you're exaggerating.

derp.
 
vote obama, 2012!

the economy has NOT gotten ten times worse!

LOL!

not funny:

8,786,049: Yet Another Record for Americans Collecting Disability | CNSNews.com

Majority of new jobs in recovery are low-paying - latimes

Household income fell 4.8% during economic recovery - latimes

Food stamp enrollment hits record high of 46.7M | Mail Online

BBC News - Number of Americans in poverty hits record high

Fox: Labor Participation Rate Falls to 63.5%, 30-Year Low

Record Social Security payouts in fiscal 2012 | Times 247

HuffPo/Long Term Unemployment: A National Crisis

Household Incomes Fall In August, Down 8.2% Under Obama - IBD

One in five households burdened by student debt, a record - latimes

Half of college grads can't find full-time jobs - CBS News

Economic recovery is weakest since World War II - Yahoo! News
 
specklebang said:
If the rich are getting richer then what does that say about the trickle down theory?
Click to expand...

Now here is the really important question. what would it mean if the rich were not getting richer?
 
Guy Incognito said:
The current crisis can really be traced back to the creation of the Federal Reserve and the fractional banking system. It's been a long time coming, and nothing can stop it. We can either institute policies that hasten the inevitable, like Romney wants, or delay it and make things worse later, like Obama wants.

Personally, I prefer Obama for president because, all else being equal, he will appoint liberal justices and judges, and that is what we need in the upcoming decades as things like human cloning become supreme court issues. Medicine cannot afford a conservative court for the next generation.
Click to expand...

well given liberal judges gave us the New Deal you pretty much have proven your claim to be a libertarian is really a joke.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Bush was no peach. He has the unique and unenviable distinction of being the president that destroyed rule of law in this country. The economy was on a downward slope long before Bush, but thanks to Bush, we are much closer to being a police state than ever before. And once a government starts taking steps towards a police state, it doesn't take steps back.
Click to expand...

More idiocy. all that federal power was grabbed under the New Deal. The crap Bush implemented was stuff clinton wanted.
 
TurtleDude said:
well given liberal judges gave us the New Deal you pretty much have proven your claim to be a libertarian is really a joke.
Click to expand...

On balance, liberal justices do far more good than harm from the libertarian perspective. It is so incredibly important to upcoming generations that we have a court that is friendly to stem cell research, cloning and other important scientific advances that a conservative court will inevitably oppose. These are life and death issues, which are far more important than base concerns over dollars and cents.
 
Guy Incognito said:
On balance, liberal justices do far more good than harm from the libertarian perspective. It is so incredibly important to upcoming generations that we have a court that is friendly to stem cell research, cloning and other important scientific advances that a conservative court will inevitably oppose. These are life and death issues, which are far more important than base concerns over dollars and cents.
Click to expand...

I reject that as someone who has studied Constitutional law. Liberal justices gave us the precedent of the New Deal. Game Set and Match
 
TurtleDude said:
I reject that as someone who has studied Constitutional law. Liberal justices gave us the precedent of the New Deal. Game Set and Match
Click to expand...

Liberal justices have done a lot as far as civil rights and the the 1st amendment.
 
zstep18 said:
Liberal justices have done a lot as far as civil rights and the the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

If it weren't for liberal justices we wouldn't have a federal government with the power to infringe on so many rights
 
TurtleDude said:
If it weren't for liberal justices we wouldn't have a federal government with the power to infringe on so many rights
Click to expand...

Was it the liberal court that ruled Brown v. Board, Gideon v. Wainwright, Engel v. Vitale, Griswold v. Connecticut, Miranda v. Arizona, etc, etc?
 
zstep18 said:
Was it the liberal court that ruled Brown v. Board, Gideon v. Wainwright, Engel v. Gidale, Griswold v. Connecticut, Miranda v. Arizona, etc, etc?
Click to expand...

Nothing Compares To Wickard. Miller etc. miranda v Arizona? I don't see that as really a triumph of freedom.
 
zstep18 said:
Fine, take out Miranda v. Arizona. Now what?
Click to expand...

take out the ND crap and we wouldn't have the war on drugs, federal gun laws and other things that cost billions to enforce and have made millions of black males wards of the state and unemployable due to felony drug convictions
 
TurtleDude said:
take out the ND crap and we wouldn't have the war on drugs, federal gun laws and other things that cost billions to enforce and have made millions of black males wards of the state and unemployable due to felony drug convictions
Click to expand...

Again, what about providing counsel to defendants who are unable to pay for their own attorneys, making school prayer unconstitutional, making it unconstitutional to criminalize contraceptives, making segregation unconstitutional, etc, etc?
 
zstep18 said:
Again, what about providing counsel to defendants who are unable to pay for their own attorneys, making school prayer unconstitutional, making it unconstitutional to criminalize contraceptives, making segregation unconstitutional, etc, etc?
Click to expand...


school prayer hardly is a pressing issue. Gideon, I have mixed feelings on it. contraceptives is a state issue, and many liberty rulings were not the same as "liberal" rulings
 
TurtleDude said:
school prayer hardly is a pressing issue. Gideon, I have mixed feelings on it. contraceptives is a state issue, and many liberty rulings were not the same as "liberal" rulings
Click to expand...

These "liberty" rulings were ruled by a "liberal" court and "liberal" chief justice.

And what do have mixed feelings about with regards to Gideon v. Wainwright? Everyone is given the right to counsel through the Sixth Amendment, which is applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
zstep18 said:
These "liberty" rulings were ruled by a "liberal" court and "liberal" chief justice.

And what do have mixed feelings about with regards to Gideon v. Wainwright? Everyone is given the right to counsel through the Sixth Amendment, which is applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

Well I have a hard to seeing why I need to be taxed for someone else's defense but then again there is something to be said that if the defendant is acquitted the state ought to pay his legal fees
 
TurtleDude said:
Well I have a hard to seeing why I need to be taxed for someone else's defense but then again there is something to be said that if the defendant is acquitted the state ought to pay his legal fees
Click to expand...

Sixth Amendment

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
 
zstep18 said:
Sixth Amendment

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
Click to expand...


hard to see this as requiring the tax payers to hire an attorney. but overall I agree with that ruling
 
zstep18 said:
Sixth Amendment

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
Click to expand...

Sounds like that is guaranteeing a right not to have private counsel prohibited, not that the government will provide free counsel. Rights are not the same thing as gifts.
 
TurtleDude said:
hard to see this as requiring the tax payers to hire an attorney. but overall I agree with that ruling
Click to expand...

Admit it, liberal courts have done some good with regards to social issues.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Sounds like that is guaranteeing a right not to have private counsel prohibited, not that the government will provide free counsel. Rights are not the same thing as gifts.
Click to expand...

Even via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom