• 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!

Franken sworn in as Minnesota senator

when Democrats want to be spend money, Republicans call it socialism. When Republicans want to spend money, they call it Jesus and national defense.

Republicans have never, ever been about reducing the size of government.
No, I call it what it is regardless of who does it, as I did in the post you quoted. Jesus? What does Jesus have to do with any of this? That doesn't even make sense. And Reagan increasing national defense spending was the reason we won the cold war without firing a shot. Maintaining a stout military is a tried and true way of maintaining the peace. If you can't see the difference in that type of spending and creating government dependance through entitlement programs, I really don't know what to tell you.
 
Jimmy Carter had the highest IQ of any President in the last few decades. What's your point?

smart and psycho is even worse than either separately imho. Franken is both.
 
Jimmy Carter had the highest IQ of any President in the last few decades. What's your point?

Actually, if Reagan hadn't dismantled Carters policies of conservation and new energy technologies, we would likely be the world leader in energy tech, be independent of foreign oil, and little things like 9/11, the Iraq war, and the global warming nightmare might never have happened.


American Experience | Jimmy Carter | Primary Sources
 
Actually, if Reagan hadn't dismantled Carters policies of conservation and new energy technologies, we would likely be the world leader in energy tech, be independent of foreign oil, and little things like 9/11, the Iraq war, and the global warming nightmare might never have happened.


American Experience | Jimmy Carter | Primary Sources

Yes and we can all live on the USS Enterprise in a world where there is no money, while we're at it.

You're engaging in a lot of meaningless speculation. The people can do anything if they get whipped up enough to do it, which we're about to see happen.
 
smart and psycho is even worse than either separately imho. Franken is both.

I think it's "competent" that you have trouble with. Not much experience with that characteristic among the rightwing ditto-cult
 
Yes, I am. Me and millions of other Americans who couldn't bare the thought of John Kerry and Al Gore in the White House. I think it's pretty much a concensus that the last few elections have been a choice of the lesser of two evils. I was highly disappointed in Bush's out of control spending, however. I could have gotten that with Kerry and Gore. Although I know they would have never had the fortitude to stick it out in Iraq and achieve one of the greatest military comebacks in history. Bush did have a few bright spots.

BTW, are you going to make any kind of argument, or are you just going to continue to come up with different ways of saying "Bush sucks"?

Maybe if you stopped all the childish name calling, you'd get people responding more substantively to your posts. Calling someone a dumbass (which I reported, by the way), is the behavior of a child. What is the matter with you? Not only that, but your bashing of anything liberal in the manner that you're doing it doesn't make someone want to debate with you on an intellectual level. Reconsider your demeanor, will you?
 
He is a far left ideologue. Naturally, I don't believe he will be a good Senator. Yes, I am familiar with him and have read some of his work. You can be very condescending for someone who bailed out of our last discussion so quickly.

Hmmmm. He calls Will a dumbass and then says Will is condescending. Pot, meet kettle.
 
I have heard Franken speak live and I came to the conclusion he is delusional. Not that he is a bad guy, but his views are way out there sometimes. I mean fantasy land type stuff.

I doubt any good will come of this.

I will wish him good luck though. Maybe he will prove me wrong.
 
I have heard Franken speak live and I came to the conclusion he is delusional.

Delusional is a prerequisite for a senate seat. Where have you been?
 
I have heard Franken speak live and I came to the conclusion he is delusional. Not that he is a bad guy, but his views are way out there sometimes. I mean fantasy land type stuff.

I doubt any good will come of this.

I will wish him good luck though. Maybe he will prove me wrong.

Here's a big chunk of Franken's stump speech. Please point out the parts you consider "delusional".

Your government should have your back. That should be our mission in Washington, the one FDR gave us during another challenging time: freedom from fear.

Americans have never backed away from challenges. And Minnesotans have always led the way. Our state has sent strong, progressive leaders to Washington—from Hubert Humphrey to Walter Mondale to Paul Wellstone, and now to Amy Klobuchar. Minnesota's public servants might not always look and sound like typical politicians, but they stand by their principles and lead by their values.

That's the kind of leader I think we need more of these days, and that's the kind of Senator I'll be.

President Clinton used to say that there’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be fixed by what’s right with America, or, as I would add, by what’s right with Minnesota. We can lead the fight against global warming and dependence on foreign oil by developing new sources of renewable energy—and create good Minnesota jobs in the process. We can lead the nation in finding life-saving cures by harnessing the potential of stem-cell research. We can lead the nation by sending someone to the Senate who’ll be a voice for a strong and responsible America, one that uses its relationship with our allies to create a better and more secure world for ourselves and for future generations.

My political hero is Paul Wellstone. He used to say, “The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard.” I may be a comedian by trade, but I’m passionate about the issues that matter to your family because they mattered to mine, too. And I’m ready to work as hard as I can to help us build a better future together.
Al Franken for Senate | A message from Al Franken
 
Here's a big chunk of Franken's stump speech. Please point out the parts you consider "delusional".

Why don't you point out where I said anything about his "stump speech."

While you are at it why don't you not quote me out of context...

"I have heard Franken speak live and I came to the conclusion he is delusional. Not that he is a bad guy, but his views are way out there sometimes. I mean fantasy land type stuff." - Blackdog

EPIC FAIL
 
Your own link proves my point. Thank you.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Did you happen to click on it at all? It shows that he took over half a million from PAC's and tens of thousands more from corporations. Since both of those numbers are greater than zero, it would indicate that he did in fact have plenty of backing from PAC's and corporations.
 
Actually, no, it doesn't. Did you happen to click on it at all? It shows that he took over half a million from PAC's and tens of thousands more from corporations. Since both of those numbers are greater than zero, it would indicate that he did in fact have plenty of backing from PAC's and corporations.

It showed Franken received 3% of his funding from PACs while Coleman received 17%. And the PAC that donated to Franken's campaign? It was his own PAC, the Midwest Values PAC. So unless you have some other evidence that shows Franken is in the pocket of some corporate interest (which you don't) perhaps you should do a bit more research before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
Midwest Values PAC
 
Apparently they do. He's the winner and you, obviously, are a loser. GO AL!!

3441132316_917c55af2c.jpg
I don't think you care who won as long as they have a (D) behind their name.
 
It showed Franken received 3% of his funding from PACs while Coleman received 17%.
Last I checked, 3 > 0. Why are you claiming otherwise? Oh yeah, goalpost moving. Brilliant tactic.
And the PAC that donated to Franken's campaign? It was his own PAC, the Midwest Values PAC. So unless you have some other evidence that shows Franken is in the pocket of some corporate interest (which you don't) perhaps you should do a bit more research before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
Midwest Values PAC
Midwest Values PAC accounts for a whopping $5000. On the other hand, he received almost $49,000 from Time Warner, $40,000 from moveon.org and $22,000 from News Corp (*gasp!* FOX News!).

Fool, indeed.
 
Maybe if you stopped all the childish name calling, you'd get people responding more substantively to your posts. Calling someone a dumbass (which I reported, by the way), is the behavior of a child. What is the matter with you? Not only that, but your bashing of anything liberal in the manner that you're doing it doesn't make someone want to debate with you on an intellectual level. Reconsider your demeanor, will you?
Ok, Mr. Hall Monitor(Another name, OOPS!!!) Did you actually read the post I was responding to? It wasn't exactly respectful and didn't exactly maintain a high level of discourse. I didn't call him that merely because I hate liberals. I actually engage in fruitful debate with liberals all the time. If you'll actually pay attention, he was the one who started with the cursing. I merely returned the favor. I have a feeling that if the situation were turned around, and I were a liberal, that post would have never been reported. Whatever, though. Have a nice day.
 
No, I call it what it is regardless of who does it, as I did in the post you quoted. Jesus? What does Jesus have to do with any of this? That doesn't even make sense. And Reagan increasing national defense spending was the reason we won the cold war without firing a shot. Maintaining a stout military is a tried and true way of maintaining the peace. If you can't see the difference in that type of spending and creating government dependance through entitlement programs, I really don't know what to tell you.

So what you're saying is vast government programs are ok when you agree with them.
 
So what you're saying is vast government programs are ok when you agree with them.
Do you honestly not see the difference in a strong national defense and welfare? I'll help you out. The military provides a service. They act as defenders of our nation, and history has shown that when it is properly funded, it acts as a good deterrent to conflict.

Entitlement programs, however, yield absolutely no return to society, and actually have a net negative effect by creating a culture of government dependency.

So, yes, in essence vast government programs are ok as long as I agree with them. However, it should be noted that national defense is the main purpose of government.
 
Last edited:
Do you honestly not see the difference in a strong national defense and welfare? I'll help you out. The military provides a service. They act as defenders of our nation, and history has shown that when it is properly funded, it acts as a good deterrent to conflict.

Entitlement programs, however, yield absolutely no return to society, and actually have a net negative effect by creating a culture of government dependency.

See, those are your opinions, other people have different ones.

However they clearly establish that you are not against "big government" you're just against things you disagree with.
 
See, those are your opinions, other people have different ones.

However they clearly establish that you are not against "big government" you're just against things you disagree with.
Big military does not equal big government. The military can maintain a stout presense without the government involving itself in the private sector.
 
Big military does not equal big government. The military can maintain a stout presense without the government involving itself in the private sector.

No, big government is the government spending huge amounts of money and mobilizing millions of citizens, which is EXACTLY what the military is. All the true libertarian Enlightenment liberals that wrote the constitution were terrified of the government having a standing army.

And the military industrial complex makes a mockery of any kind of market relationship between the government and arms builders.

You don't dislike big government, you just like buying bombs more then feeding people.
 
Back
Top Bottom