• 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 announces his Candidacy for 2012.

CaptainCourtesy said:
My point about the Reagan quote was to demonstrate why it is important to show comparisons. Reagan ran both in 1980 and 1984 on comparisons, the first to the Carter years, the second to his own adminstrations. Comparisons are valid. That was my only point.

And where are those links/data for the Bush employment numbers?
Click to expand...

Right and Obama is runing against his record, not Bush's
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That happened on another thread too and when he was losing the debate, he began crying about how I was off-topic -- even though he took the forum off topic.
Click to expand...

Then you won't have any problem proving where I took this off topic? A response to your BDS is a response generated by one of your posts.
 
TurtleDude said:
more nonsense

if rich dems really thought they should pay more taxes (vs publicly mouthing that crap in order to advance dem election success)
they would be sending more in. there is a deficit-the uber wealthy dems could help pay that down
Click to expand...

no they wouldn't. i've already explained why.
 
Conservative said:
Your kidding, right? His record is about his candidacy as that is what he has to defend.
Click to expand...

You took it to the level of an economics debate, rather than a candidacy debate.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, he is right on target. I hate debating taxes with you because this is the one area that you are completely unable to see logic and reason. For example, here you are making a straw man argument. No one said that rich dems WANT to pay more taxes. People said that some who are wealthy, many who are dems, are OK with paying a higher amount of taxes for services. You are arguing against a position that does not exist.
Click to expand...

if a rich dem says the rich should pay more taxes you now deny that is different than saying they want to pay more? they want the rich to pay more, they are rich ergo they want to pay more
 
washunut said:
I think this is why many democrats are so dissapointed with Obama. I guess he feels they have no where else to go so he has those votes locked up anyway. The only way to really fix HC was a single payor system. Anything else is just papering over holes in the wall.
Click to expand...

I agree. I was very disappointed with the HC bill. Too many compromises and didn't go anywhere's near far enough. I'm not sure that single payer is the answer, but THAT bill sure isn't.
 
TurtleDude said:
if a rich dem says the rich should pay more taxes you now deny that is different than saying they want to pay more? they want the rich to pay more, they are rich ergo they want to pay more
Click to expand...

if you're having dinner with friends and you have more money than some of them, you might say, "i don't mind paying more of the bill". this is different from saying, "i want to pay more of the bill".
 
TurtleDude said:
if a rich dem says the rich should pay more taxes you now deny that is different than saying they want to pay more? they want the rich to pay more, they are rich ergo they want to pay more
Click to expand...

You used the word "should". That denotes a very different connotation than the word "want". Not the same concept.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You took it to the level of an economics debate, rather than a candidacy debate.
Click to expand...

His candidacy is about his record, you are really splitting hairs here. He announced his candidacy and I am pointing out why it should be a failed candidacy.
 
theplaydrive said:
if you're having dinner with friends and you have more money than some of them, you might say, "i don't mind paying more of the bill". this is different from saying, "i want to pay more of the bill".
Click to expand...

theplaydrive gets it.
 
theplaydrive said:
if you're having dinner with friends and you have more money than some of them, you might say, "i don't mind paying more of the bill". this is different from saying, "i want to pay more of the bill".
Click to expand...

yeah its basically the same thing except you actually pay for the dinner unlike the rich dems

rich dems advocate more taxes to gain power


if they really thought the government really NEEDED more money they would be sending the money in

later fighting a cold and have a bunch of witnesses to interview tomorrow in an ED case
 
Conservative said:
His candidacy is about his record, you are really splitting hairs here. He announced his candidacy and I am pointing out why it should be a failed candidacy.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between discussing reasons for him to not be a candidate and discussing intricacies of economic policy, which is what you started doing. If you are going to do so, you open the discussion up to economic comparisons.
 
TurtleDude said:
claiming people who pay 40% of the income tax and all the death tax don't pay enough or don't pay their fair share is hardly reasonable

you sound like Sarah Brady who claims she wants "reasonable" increases in gun laws
Click to expand...

You mean like GE? This year they paid a grand total of........

Drum roll please.......

Zero, and got money from the government on top of it.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah he's on your side when it comes to tax hikes

duh
Click to expand...

No, he made a logical statement that helped make your comment look illogical. Not that he needed much help.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It is very difficult for one to "run on his record" if we have no record to compare it to.
Click to expand...

WE do have a record to compare, Obama's 15 million unemployed, fewer jobs now than when he took office, 4 trillion added to the debt, $4 plus gasoline prices, mandatory healthcare program, and a world without U.S. leadership. I could go on but it is irrelevant. You are just baiting here.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
There is a difference between discussing reasons for him to not be a candidate and discussing intricacies of economic policy, which is what you started doing. If you are going to do so, you open the discussion up to economic comparisons.
Click to expand...

Repeating the same stats he does not understand is not really discussing intricacies pf economic policies.

And about those sources, any sign of them yet?
 
Conservative said:
WE do have a record to compare, Obama's 15 million unemployed, fewer jobs now than when he took office, 4 trillion added to the debt, $4 plus gasoline prices, mandatory healthcare program, and a world without U.S. leadership. I could go on but it is irrelevant. You are just baiting here.
Click to expand...

These are ALL comparisons. Thank you for proving my point.
 
Conservative said:
WE do have a record to compare, Obama's 15 million unemployed, fewer jobs now than when he took office, 4 trillion added to the debt, $4 plus gasoline prices, mandatory healthcare program, and a world without U.S. leadership. I could go on but it is irrelevant. You are just baiting here.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, you picked a very bad time to misrepresent numbers again. Sheik Yerbuti is here. You are in big trouble again. I'll give you a couple of aspirin after he is done with you. Call it compassionate Conservatism. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
WE do have a record to compare, Obama's 15 million unemployed, fewer jobs now than when he took office, 4 trillion added to the debt, $4 plus gasoline prices, mandatory healthcare program, and a world without U.S. leadership. I could go on but it is irrelevant. You are just baiting here.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating those statistics, but what you fail to realize is just because those things happened UNDER Obama's tenure doesn't mean he is COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE for those numbers. To blame obama for $4 gas is moronic.
 
Conservative said:
Obama job creation-Employment Numbers from bls.gov

Jan 2009 142221
Jan 2010 138333
Mar 2011 139864

Jobs Lost 2.3 million jobs lost and all that money wasted yet Obama wants another four years and has your vote. Says a lot about the Obama supporter
Click to expand...
Sorry, presidents do not create jobs. Demand for goods and services creates jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom