• 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!

Obama Address the Nation on the government shutdown.

disneydude said:
It simply puts your posts and mentality into perspective and explains why no one should put a great deal of weight into your ramblings and criticisms. When Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are your sources of reality.....it explains clearly why you come up with the stuff that you do. Carry on.
Click to expand...

keep diverting from what you said which was that I claimed 9/11 occurred on Clinton's watch which of course is just another lie on your part. Your claim that I stated Bin Laden was captured by Bush is another lie. You just cannot seem to get anything right including your lack of understanding that the House is "the Peoples' House" and is under Republican Control. Now you claim I listen to Hannity and Limbaugh which I haven't done in well over a year as I was too busy taking care of a sick wife. You clearly don't have a clue as to what you are talking about but most Disneyland employees are in the same boat, probably riding around all day in "It's a Small World"
 
Grant said:
It seems too many people don't believe a $17,000,000,000,000 debt is a problem, nor the estimated $70 trillion in committed debts either, but that free health care can also be added to these debts with only positive consequences for the economy. This is fiscal insanity, and appears to be deliberate.
Click to expand...

It is deliberate. The -ists plan for and want complete failure. That way just about everybody but the -ists in power have no choice but to become another stooge for an all powerful government.
 
Conservative said:
keep diverting from what you said which was that I claimed 9/11 occurred on Clinton's watch which of course is just another lie on your part. Your claim that I stated Bin Laden was captured by Bush is another lie. You just cannot seem to get anything right including your lack of understanding that the House is "the Peoples' House" and is under Republican Control. Now you claim I listen to Hannity and Limbaugh which I haven't done in well over a year as I was too busy taking care of a sick wife. You clearly don't have a clue as to what you are talking about but most Disneyland employees are in the same boat, probably riding around all day in "It's a Small World"
Click to expand...

LOL....you're talking points come straight from LIMBAUGH....you aren't fooling a soul on this site Con......You can trace your posts almost to a T on what Limbaugh said the previous day.......
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Nope. I suggest you review what has happened over the last few days. The House has clearly met it's responsibilities. The Dems in the Senate and the President have not. The partial shut down of the federal government is all on the Dems. Spinning or lying about things will not change facts.
Click to expand...

LOL...you are obviously part of the 17% of the Country that is buying that propoganda. Fortunately...the vast majority of the country knows exactly what is going on. The spin isn't working....but keep trying....
 
disneydude said:
LOL....you're talking points come straight from LIMBAUGH....you aren't fooling a soul on this site Con......You can trace your posts almost to a T on what Limbaugh said the previous day.......
Click to expand...

How would you know, do you listen to Limbaugh? Is that on break time from "It's a Small World?" You seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you and sites actual data lacks credibility when the person lacking credibility is you. Teabaggers? your new favorite term? Obviously you have no sense of history not knowing what the original TEA Party was all about nor what T.E.A. Party today stands for. Just a typical liberal how has to rely on the Federal Taxpayer to fund your state because of liberal failures. Find that state surplus yet
 
disneydude said:
LOL...you are obviously part of the 17% of the Country that is buying that propoganda. Fortunately...the vast majority of the country knows exactly what is going on. The spin isn't working....but keep trying....
Click to expand...

Do you get paid by the response you make or by posts responding to you. Good supplemental pay?
 
disneydude said:
Do you even know what the Constitution says? LOL.....you obviously are no Constitutional Scholar if you believe that today's GOP is even anywhere near following Constitutional Mandates and Guarantees. The right-wing has for decades been trying to subjugate the US Constitution and they have been successful in finally finding the teabaggers who can bring the once proud and mighty Republican party to its knees....and I'm loving every minute of it. I suspect that the moderate Republicans are going to revolt and take back their party....but I hope and pray that they continue to be spineless and cowtow to the whims of the teabaggers who have them by the balls.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that only Constitutional scholars can read the Constitution. Then you claim it's the GOP violating the Constitution, I think. It is tough to follow with all the slurs, name calling, and hyperbole. And of course you want the republicans to stay spineless and cave in to the democrats as they shred the Constitution and destroy my country. Why would you want conservatives to get us back on track and protect our liberties? The Constitution PROTECTS us from an out of control, big government, the exact opposite of what the left wants.

How about a few examples of them not following "Constitutional mandates and guarantees"?

Remember when Obama declared Congress in recess and made his little appointments? What about all his "czars" (you libs must love that word) to bypass Congress? Didn't he declare DOMA unconstitutional and decided he would pick and choose what laws he will enforce. You're right, I'm no Constitutional scholar, so maybe you can help me find those powers in the Constitution?

Where does the Constitution give him the power to waive parts of the ACA for entities that he chooses? Oh, and show me the requirement to purchase healthcare while you are at it.

You made some big claims, let's see you back them up.
 
Kal'Stang said:
One obvious difference is that blackmail doesn't necessarily mean violence. Terrorism ALWAYS includes violence.
Click to expand...

If that's the case then you're certainly correct. However, I wouldn't assume that terrorism necessarily mandates violence or threats of violence.
 
disneydude said:
LOL...you are obviously part of the 17% of the Country that is buying that propoganda. Fortunately...the vast majority of the country knows exactly what is going on. The spin isn't working....but keep trying....
Click to expand...

LOL. No spin in what I posted. Just the facts. Why is it that you want nothing to do with what has actually happened? Your spin hasn't happened. You keep making stuff up. But the facts don't change with the amount of spin you spew out.
 
Conservative said:
Do you get paid by the response you make or by posts responding to you. Good supplemental pay?
Click to expand...

Kind of reminds me of Obama. No matter how wrong he is proven to be, he just goes on as if he was right! He just told us the other day that the ACA is cutting costs and bringing the deficit down. LOL!
 
ItAin'tFree said:
LOL. No spin in what I posted. Just the facts. Why is it that you want nothing to do with what has actually happened? Your spin hasn't happened. You keep making stuff up. But the facts don't change with the amount of spin you spew out.
Click to expand...

Really? Do you actually believe that it is the other way around? That the public is behind the teabaggers and their ploys? If so, you probably also bought into the idea that Romney was going to win on election day in a landslide....and we all know how that one turned out. You would think that you would have learned not to trust your propoganda sources when they turn out to be wrong time and time again.
 
Mithros said:
If that's the case then you're certainly correct. However, I wouldn't assume that terrorism necessarily mandates violence or threats of violence.
Click to expand...

But it does mandate violence. A terrorist uses violence (perferablly mass violence) to create wide spread terror. That is the difference between a terrorist and say...a bank robber. A terrorist will cause violence first in order to create wide spread terror. A bank robber will use threats of violence, but not necessarily actual violence, to a select few in order to create terror. In other words there is a difference between "terror" and "terrorIST".

If you wanted to get technical/semantical and big time speak generally then anything that created terror in even one person could be considered "terrorist" like. But that is not what "terrorist" means nor how it is applied. If we start applying it generally then it becomes something which could make it to where any little thing could get someone charged for being a terrorist, and you can bet that the punishment would be the same as if it were actually real terrorists.
 
Kal'Stang said:
But it does mandate violence. A terrorist uses violence (perferablly mass violence) to create wide spread terror. That is the difference between a terrorist and say...a bank robber. A terrorist will cause violence first in order to create wide spread terror. A bank robber will use threats of violence, but not necessarily actual violence, to a select few in order to create terror. In other words there is a difference between "terror" and "terrorIST".

If you wanted to get technical/semantical and big time speak generally then anything that created terror in even one person could be considered "terrorist" like. But that is not what "terrorist" means nor how it is applied. If we start applying it generally then it becomes something which could make it to where any little thing could get someone charged for being a terrorist, and you can bet that the punishment would be the same as if it were actually real terrorists.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, it does require violence. So blackmail would be the proper word as the Tea Party is threatening vandalism, not violence.
 
Mithros said:
I stand corrected, it does require violence. So blackmail would be the proper word as the Tea Party is threatening vandalism, not violence.
Click to expand...

I'll accept blackmail. But honestly it is apparently OK to blackmail in the government. Both sides have done it so much its pathetic. Hell, blue dog democrats even black mailed their own party just to pass Obamacare. :shrug:

Actually...now that I think about it....I can't even remember the last time anyone in our government actually NEGOTIATED. Maybe Clinton? Because I'm pretty sure that Bush never did and I know that Obama sure hasn't. Our last two presidents have pretty much always (if not then mostly) used blackmail in their dealings....with the rest of our polticians following suit....or leading it. Depends on your POV.
 
disneydude said:
LOL....you're talking points come straight from LIMBAUGH....you aren't fooling a soul on this site Con......You can trace your posts almost to a T on what Limbaugh said the previous day.......
Click to expand...

Leftists are all ad hom when they can't respond sensibly to a post.
 
disneydude said:
Why would the whitehouse ever give into the terrorist-type ploys of the teabaggers? The United States rarely, if ever, negotiates with extortionists....why would we start now?
Click to expand...


LOL. Seriously, I was waiting on this since I first saw you posted that spin. Here it is:
Obama Invites Leaders to White House to Talk Shutdown, Debt : Roll Call News

Sooooooooooo. One of two things has happened here to you, just as I knew it would. Either (a) The President of the United States is negotiating with terrorists and extortionist which makes you look completely stupid or (b) the GOP is not terrorists or extortionists which makes you look completely stupid.

Don't worry though. I don't easily give up on people. Millions of voters smartened up and did not vote for Obama a second time. I won't quit on you yet, there is still time for you to smarten up too. You seem intelligent enough, smarten up.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'll accept blackmail. But honestly it is apparently OK to blackmail in the government. Both sides have done it so much its pathetic. Hell, blue dog democrats even black mailed their own party just to pass Obamacare. :shrug:

Actually...now that I think about it....I can't even remember the last time anyone in our government actually NEGOTIATED. Maybe Clinton? Because I'm pretty sure that Bush never did and I know that Obama sure hasn't. Our last two presidents have pretty much always (if not then mostly) used blackmail in their dealings....with the rest of our polticians following suit....or leading it. Depends on your POV.
Click to expand...

The Democrats did with Bush over the tax cuts (10 years instead of permanent), war w/ Iraq (un first), no child left behind, the prescription drug plans, the surge, etc...Yes there was plenty of name calling and ridiculous partisanship, but people were willing to compromise.

The Tea Party fundamentalism is something we haven't seen in a long while, and it's not so much a fault of Republicanism or Conservatism so much as gerrymandering and demographics. The net result is that there's a slight majority of Republicans in the house who are in uber safe GOP districts. These districts have been spoonfed from the non-thinking Hannity/Rush brand of conservatism the idea that liberals are evil, conservatives are good. Good should never compromise with evil. So even though they're less than 25% of the population, the Tea Partiers essentially control the house speakership.... and that's the problem.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It is there to FINANCIALLY protect yourself when fortune does not smile on you.
If fate does not smile on your health, you are protected FINANCIALLY.
Click to expand...
Stuart said:
But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
Click to expand...
j-mac said:
Now, do you see what is different between the two? It is glaring.....
Click to expand...
It is a potato-potato argument, The point being that Heritage/Gingrich/Romney DID want the individual mandate. If it is quibbling over "who" is being protected (the individual or society) financially....I can live with that. The point still stands, they all wanted an individual mandate.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It is a potato-potato argument, The point being that Heritage/Gingrich/Romney DID want the individual mandate. If it is quibbling over "who" is being protected (the individual or society) financially....I can live with that. The point still stands, they all wanted an individual mandate.
Click to expand...

This is as good an explanation of what's happened as any. The Resolutionary War | National Review Online
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm jumping in here but I did want to address this.

1: There is a huge difference between car mandated insurance and healthcare mandated insurance. You don't HAVE to have car insurance. Even if you own a car you do not HAVE to have car insurance. So long as you do not drive it on public roads. You can drive your car all you want on your own private property without any type of car insurance. You don't even need a drivers license to do that. Healthcare mandated insurance on the other hand is mandated to have no matter what. There is no way to opt out of it without being fined at the very least. You either get it, or else. That is a huge difference. The whole car/heal care insurance analogy is a false analogy that has never panned out...even when Obama touted it.
Click to expand...
Specious argument, the point was that 99% of the cars on the road have insurance it is a state MANDATE, even Stuart Butler makes the auto insurance analogy.

2: Just because republicans once over a decade ago wanted the same thing does not mean that they have to accept it now. It was shot down before, it should have been shot down this time also. But if you really want to play the game of hypocrisy then how does it look that at one point democrats helped shoot it down the last time (due to the American people not wanting it) and this time it was so gung ho for it that they completely ignored the majority of the American People in order to enact it this time around? Funny how that is never mentioned huh?
Click to expand...
The GOP will not accept it NOW because a black man who is a Democrat finally got a major health insurance reform in place on a national scale that Heritage/Gingrich/Romney advocated and implimented on a state scale. Of course they reject it NOW......even though it was defended by them as late as the 2008 GOP primaries.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The GOP will not accept it NOW because a black man who is a Democrat finally got a major health insurance reform in place on a national scale that Heritage/Gingrich/Romney advocated and implimented on a state scale. Of course they reject it NOW......even though it was defended by them as late as the 2008 GOP primaries.
Click to expand...

Gotta love it when somebody admits, even in a round about way, they have lost the argument. 99% of the time nowadays when somebody plays the race card it's because they have lost the argument. He just posted proof he lost the argument.
 
ItAin'tFree;106237 5225 said:
Gotta love it when somebody admits, even in a round about way, they have lost the argument. 99% of the time nowadays when somebody plays the race card it's because they have lost the argument. He just posted proof he lost the argument.
Click to expand...
If I mention that objection to a plan that conservatives not only endorsed as late as 2008 but was implemented by a GOP Gov.....is partly explained by the extreme fringes racism....that is "losing" the argument?

How is a statement of fact a reason for loss of argument?
 
Grant said:
Leftists are all ad hom when they can't respond sensibly to a post.
Click to expand...

There's nothing "ad hom" about it. You can trace Conservative's talking points to Limbaugh almost point for point the day after he airs.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom