• 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!

Powell cautions against a GOP slide to the right

zimmer said:
All the list I mentioned are facts.
Wright is a race baiter.
Obama sat on two boards with Ayers and launched his career from his casa.
He sees not just WV's as bitter clingers, but a broader segment.
His AG reflected their view of Americans as racial cowards.
Michelle did say TWICE, she was not proud of her nation... then they inserted a sock in her yap.
He did push for infanticide legislation to ease the burden on MD's... what a scum.

Please, don't try to tell me what Obama isn't... his record is public.


If "trickle down" doesn't work, why does the world get the flu when we sneeze?

If it didn't work, the EU would have been surfing along, beating America's brains out economically for decades instead of having high single to double digit unemployment rates long before the Freddie and Fannie induced financial mess.

Instead the best EU countries rank in the bottom five US states.

Try again.

.
Click to expand...

And the bottom line really is this, the majority of American's didn't read as much into your talking points as you did. The majority of Americans wanted this man as their President.

And our country hasn't been destroyed by a nuclear communist bankruptcy bomb carried in by a Kenyan terrorist or a racist preacher.

Suck it up.
 
Lerxst said:
And the bottom line really is this, the majority of American's didn't read as much into your talking points as you did. The majority of Americans wanted this man as their President.
Click to expand...

LOL.
Come on... ROTFLMFAO...
Most Americans that voted for Obama were clueless.

The press were cheerleaders, they failed to fulfill their Constitutional duty.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53C2-b8BOLs]YouTube - Must watch! HowObamaGotElected.com "Informed" Obama voters[/ame]

And our country hasn't been destroyed by a nuclear communist bankruptcy bomb carried in by a Kenyan terrorist or a racist preacher.

Suck it up.
Click to expand...
Lerxst, you're one funny dude.
No, it's been seven decades of socialist policy that's done the job.
Obama's here to add the finishing touches...

and...

I'll leave the sucking to you thanks.:2wave:

.
 
So Powell wants the GOP to abandon its principles?
 
zimmer said:
LOL... sorry... you're defense of Obama is laughable, Obama's record is public. Much of what I quoted is on youtube.

Trickle down... exists constantly.
Sometimes it trickles less; like when government clogs the pipes.
Then other areas grow, like the black market.

Much of Europe was destroyed, but the west has been prosperous enough since the mid 1960's. I know... I lived there. I know, I went back and have spent the better part of a quarter century there. North to south, west and former east.

Their socialist governments have prevented upward mobility. It has halted the growth of the private sector. It has overinflated the cost of basic labor... which is why they have had it tough long before Freddie and Fannie.

Their labor costs, social costs have priced basic labor out of the market; and former Commi Eastern Europe has gained much of this labor.

It's why doctors are leaving... it is why wealth is leaving for less hostile waters.

That cash is trickling elsewhere, or is being hidden until safer waters are in view.

.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken, trickle down does not always exist. There are, or were two competing economic policy ideals. Growth-based, which sought to shift higher taxes on the wealthy business class thereby allowing the Middle Class to keep more money. In doing so the Middle Class (Largest Consumer Base) spends more money on consumer goods and the Wealthy Class reaps the rewards of strong sales. This is a circular based economy.

Trickle down economics focuses of shifting more tax burden to the Middle Class and placing more capital in the hands of the wealthy, with the belief that the wealthy will invest in new business and create jobs. This form fails for multiple reasons. First, the wealthy save more than they consume, unless they are movie stars or atheletes or music stars, and with the consumer base (Middle Class) possessing less free capital, sales drop. As the U.S. economy is 70% consumer driven the market falls. Next factor is that when the markets fall from less consumer spending, the wealthy shift their investments to commodities, like oil and this dives the cost of gas-up, with other factors as well, and the Middle Class lose even more free capital for consuming goods. Finally, compaines take the free capital they have and invest in foreign countries for the higher returns on their investment, due to low pollution standards, cheaper wages,...etc, and the Middle Class loses jobs. Therefor, trickle down economics is a fools game and the final nail in the coffin came with globalization.
 
zimmer said:
LOL.
Come on... ROTFLMFAO...
Most Americans that voted for Obama were clueless.

The press were cheerleaders, they failed to fulfill their Constitutional duty.

YouTube - Must watch! HowObamaGotElected.com "Informed" Obama voters


Lerxst, you're one funny dude.
No, it's been seven decades of socialist policy that's done the job.
Obama's here to add the finishing touches...

and...

I'll leave the sucking to you thanks.:2wave:

.
Click to expand...


Do you really take youtube to be a credible source of information? Are you fifteen or something?
 
zimmer said:
LOL.
Come on... ROTFLMFAO...
Most Americans that voted for Obama were clueless.

The press were cheerleaders, they failed to fulfill their Constitutional duty.

YouTube - Must watch! HowObamaGotElected.com "Informed" Obama voters


Lerxst, you're one funny dude.
No, it's been seven decades of socialist policy that's done the job.
Obama's here to add the finishing touches...

and...

I'll leave the sucking to you thanks.:2wave:

.
Click to expand...


They interviewed the "most informed Obama supporters they could find"??
 
Captain America said:
There are still a handful of hold-outs that insist that the GOP needs to go the hard right to gain back the support of the American people. What they can't seem to get into thier thick skulls is, that is how they lost the people in the first place.
Click to expand...

The GOP went with the moderate arguably in every election since 1988, but certainly with a moderate in the last election...that didn't work. It didn't even get Powell's support. What then do you suggest, out leftist the Dems?
 
zimmer said:
LOL.
Come on... ROTFLMFAO...
Most Americans that voted for Obama were clueless.

The press were cheerleaders, they failed to fulfill their Constitutional duty.

YouTube - Must watch! HowObamaGotElected.com "Informed" Obama voters


Lerxst, you're one funny dude.
No, it's been seven decades of socialist policy that's done the job.
Obama's here to add the finishing touches...

and...

I'll leave the sucking to you thanks.:2wave:

.
Click to expand...

Yeah man cause your opinion is always fact! Hillbilly Highschool rules!
 
tlmorg02 said:
Neocon began to be used during the Reagan administration and resurged during the Bush administration to describe those who supported toppling the leadership of a nation in order to set-up a democracy.
Click to expand...

Nope. Contemporary usage of the term (this is not counting the various references to a ''neoconservatism" throughout the first half of the 20th century in political thought) came from Michael Harrington in 1973 relating to criticism of the Great Society. For many of these earlier Neoconservatives, foreign affairs was something they could not coherently agree upon-except for being liberal anti-communists, nor was it exactly their specialty.
 
Last edited:
Should we count Powell's slide to the left?
 
Catman said:
Should we count Powell's slide to the left?
Click to expand...

Powell never slid to the left, he's always been left of center.

The Republicans needed him because the media demands token blacks wherever they can find a spot to put one in. Powell was perfect for the job. Not on the right, that makes the media happy, not too black, that makes the media nervous, and he's usually good at following orders, like a good Tom should.
 
tlmorg02 said:
As far as trickle-down economics and Europe, your knowledge of this is a disaster. First of all, trickle-down has only been really used by two presidents, Reagan and George W. Bush.
Click to expand...

Oh. You mean "supply side economics", which has been used by several presidents, including Kennedy, though he didn't call it that. Supply side economics is the policy of reducing tax rates to stimulate the investment that's needed to create and grow businesses and thus create jobs.

tlmorg02 said:
Both presidents encountered recessions during their tenure utilizing the practice,
Click to expand...

Neither recession was due to supply side economics. Nor does supply side economics forbid recessions, which are an ineluctable aspect of any free market. Bush's recession was due to the confluence of the economy towards a recession then pushed by his tax increase, a notably anti-supply side action. Clinton, famously anti-economic freedom, also eventually saw a recession start on his tenure. The Second Bush fixed the Clinton recession by...applying supply side economic policies, and later the confluence of the economy and some incredibly stupid laws passed as far back as the Wilson Administration, not to mention FDR, Carter, and Clinton, caused the banking/mortgage failure.

Face facts: recessions are not caused by the government allowing the citizen to keep more of his own money.

tlmorg02 said:
In regards to your comments about Europe, they are reliant upon our economy for one reason, WWII destroyed them and allowed us to surpass them. Without that war, they would undoubtedly still be the biggest economies.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

WWI wrecked their economies.
 
tlmorg02 said:
The other things you posted are preposterous and you know it. "Spreading the wealth around," does not mean take from the wealthy to give to the poor.
Click to expand...

True enough. In modern liberaldoublespeak what it really means is taking any dollar they can from whoever earned is and handing it to a politician to buy votes with.

Naturally, state lotteries, gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, beer and liquor taxes, sales taxes, plastic grocery bag taxes, soda taxes, fat food taxes, etc, are all geared towards milking the poor, not the wealthy, and they're all areas the liberal politician is exploring to find more revenue.
 
FlappyTheKinkajou said:
So Powell wants the GOP to abandon its principles?
Click to expand...

Well, the GOP doesn't really have anything resembling principles. The GOP is nearly identical to the Democrats.

Powell wants to pretend, for reasons that probably have to do with sucking up to the new Kenyah president, that the problems the GOP is having are the result of the GOP NOT moving far enough to the left to scrape off the few Americans it had left in the party.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Powell never slid to the left, he's always been left of center.

The Republicans needed him because the media demands token blacks wherever they can find a spot to put one in. Powell was perfect for the job. Not on the right, that makes the media happy, not too black, that makes the media nervous, and he's usually good at following orders, like a good Tom should.
Click to expand...

Nice hate speech you got going on there Scarecrow.

:stop:

Seriously, you can leave that kind of stuff over at Stormfront. We don't need it at DP.
 
tlmorg02 said:
You are mistaken, trickle down does not always exist. There are, or were two competing economic policy ideals. Growth-based, which sought to shift higher taxes on the wealthy business class thereby allowing the Middle Class to keep more money.
Click to expand...

How could ANYONE call something this incredibly STUPID "growth" based? Stealing money from people doesn't do anything to grow an economy. If it did, wouldn't Cuba be the new Switzerland?

tlmorg02 said:
Trickle down economics focuses of shifting more tax burden to the Middle Class and placing more capital in the hands of the wealthy, with the belief that the wealthy will invest in new business and create jobs.
Click to expand...

Well, that may be what your "trickle down" theory says, but supply side economics says the goal is to raise government tax revenue by reducing the tax rate on everyone, which in turn allows the capitalist to keep more capital (not "place more capital" anywhere) which they then recycle back into the economy without the loss-filter of government interfering. And, because the rates are lowered, the less-than-wealthy classes also keep more of their own money, which they are free to invest or spend as their little hearts desire.


tlmorg02 said:
This form fails for multiple reasons. First, the wealthy save more than they consume,
Click to expand...

Save it? Sure. Why not?

Tell me, where do you think a rich person saves his money? Gold coin in the safe behind the picture of Ayn Rand? Cash in the mattress? Tin cans in the back yard? Or do rich people save money by buying bonds and stocks and investing in capital ventures that have a promising guarantee of return?

So, how do you think it is, rich people save money so their investment grows, or do they hide it in a tin can?

What do you think the money saved in stocks and bonds and similar instruments does for the economy?

tlmorg02 said:
and with the consumer base (Middle Class) possessing less free capital, sales drop.
Click to expand...

You mean like when their money is taxed away from them?

Got any idea who pays the corporate taxes in America? No, that's wrong. The people buying the corporate products pay the taxes, ie, the middle class consumer.
 
Lerxst said:
Nice hate speech you got going on there Scarecrow.

:stop:

Seriously, you can leave that kind of stuff over at Stormfront. We don't need it at DP.
Click to expand...

I forgot.

Only lefties are allowed to make stereotypical racial comments anywhere in America.

Sorry.

I won't poach on your land ever again.
 
Re: Hey Truth Detector, there just one line of truth

Lerxst said:
You're a prime example of why the GOP is moving to a more moderate stance. Nobody in their right mind would want to say they belong to the same party you do. The belief is that if they edge towards the center enough you will go crazy and splinter off and form your own radical sect of the conservative movement. Based upon assessments of your current behavior, they predict it will eventually be declared a terrorist organization by the government and shut down. At that point the real conservatives can safely return to the public light without fear of being associated with your antics.

That's what I heard on Glenn Beck anyway. I think he called it Operation Truth Reclamation or something.
Click to expand...

Hang on, putting my waders on.....okay back. So what I got out of this babble is blah blah blah radical blah blah crazy blah blah blah sect blah blah blah terrorist blah blah blah antics.

Did that pretty much sum up your banal blather? :roll:
 
WI Crippler said:
You know something. I never realized how full this country was, of people that hated it for one reason or another, until I started posting here. Whether it be people that hate the Republicans for their actions, or Democrats for their actions, just about everybody thats politcally involved/aware seems to be driven by negativity towards their fellow Americans. Whether its people referencing the left as "libtards" or the right as "tea-bagging rednecks" the level of animosity people have towards each other, just because they merely espouse a different set of values is simply sickening. And its reflective in the media biases that portray our fellow Americans, as enemies of ourselves.

In some ways, we may be lucky a majority of the American public doesn't care too much for politics or gets that involved, save every four years. To get everybody drawn into this vortex of hatred and animosity would just create divides too deep to heal.
Click to expand...

I would attribute much of this to Democrats beginning with Clinton's Presidency and the elevation of it during the 2000 elections when Democrats acting like spoiled little kids who didn't get their way claimed the elections were stolen by Bush then spent the next 8 years deliberately denigrating Bush and Cheney for the mere fact that they didn't like them.

I would also point to the treatment of people like Bork, Thomas, Miers and Alito whose wife ran running from the confirmation hearings in tears over the treatment of small minded Liberal Democrats.

Is there an animosity towards Democrats for their outrageous partisan conduct; you bet there is and I am NOT cutting these asinine low life small minded cretins any slack for what they are doing and have done.

Just look at their asinine behavior right now with hearings on possible impeachments of Bush and war crimes tribunals for torturing poor innocent terrorists. It doesn't get more asinine than this. What REALLY pisses me off is that Conservatives don't hit back harder but continue to try to be NICE about it all.
 
UtahBill said:
Both parties are big spenders, definitely the GOP needs to own up to its share of spending money it didn't have on hand.
I would rather we tax and spend than borrow and spend....
Click to expand...

So then you cannot be very happy with the guy you voted for which was Obama right?
 
Dav said:
Where did this ridiculous view come from that any political party is one opinion, rather than a range? The GOP is and has been for a while the party ranging from center-right to far-right.

Right now the centrists who decide elections are fed up with the Republicans of the last few years and have started voting Democrat. It is because of this shift that the Republican Party has become more right-wing, not the other way around: as it loses moderates, the "average member" becomes more conservative. It did not lose moderates by not being moderate enough. It lost moderates by being hypocritical and lacking clear values.
Click to expand...

I want to focus on this statement: "It lost moderates by being hypocritical and lacking clear values."

So Democrats won them by NOT being hypocrites and lacking clear values?

I am sorry, but Democrats are some of the biggest hypocrites walking the planet and clear values? The correct assertion would be WHAT values?

Basically, I think you are FULL of it. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom