• 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.

Actually, I thought this thread was about Obama's candidacy, but you made it about US economics, so comparisons are fair game.

so is history

but in presidentials it's a loser

have at it, whatever floats your boat
 
But why do you think that's bad? As I showed you earlier, by the 2004 election, Bush also had unemployment increase by 2 million and yet you voted for him anyway. If that wasn't bad enough to dissuade you from voting to give Bush 4 more years, why is it so terrible now for Obama?

I will not be voting for Obama but it doesn't really matter as he doesn't have a chance in the state of TX anyway. In October 2004 the economy was improving and headed in the right direction. The economic policy of Bush's was pro growth and pro free enterprise and economic growth was strong, not so with Obama. His is a pro nanny state and big central govt. policy that hasn't provided any leadership in promoting the private sector. Then there was the candidate against Bush, Kerry. Enough said. obama policies go against everything I was taught and the principles upon which this country was built.
 
For me, it's more about hypocrisy. On this thread, people on the right blame Congress for the economy during the Bush years, and Obama for the economy during the Obama years. That is pure hypocrisy and partisan hackery. I'm still waiting for someone on the right to give me a straight answer on this issue, but everyone has avoided it... not surprisingly.

i've answered you straight a half dozen times

the president proposes, congress disposes

the president is head of his party in congress

our system is based on separation of powers...

i'm stunned anyone past 8th grade would have to ask

no problem, tho

stay up
 
i've answered you straight a half dozen times

the president proposes, congress disposes

the president is head of his party in congress

our system is based on separation of powers...

i'm stunned anyone past 8th grade would have to ask

no problem, tho

stay up

Actually, you didn't answer my question. You dodged it... as you still are... as is everyone on your side of the aisle.
 
I haven't avoided the point, I've explained the flaws in your arguments.

Your main argument is: If they wanted to pay more money, they would donate to the IRS.

This is a faulty argument because: 1. It's less about giving extra money and more about taking more of the burden off of the lower classes. 2. As CC pointed out, it's less about wanting to give and more about not having a problem with giving more.

This is not avoidance at all. This is directly addressing your argument.

quit making excuses

write the check
 
Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?

well, most americans would say they're no better off

and, considering where they were 4 years ago, that's pretty bad

especially after all we've been thru

in times like these
 
noting the abject state of our economy is changing the subject?

in a thread about obama's candidacy?

wow

There is a difference betwen noting and changing the discussion to focusing. I think I was clear about that.
 
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.

he did?!

LOL!

who are you talking about, again?

is THAT gonna be obama's campaign?
 
why does obama's 2012 budget fail even to touch entitlements?

why does his budget INCREASE borrowing a brazen THIRTY PERCENT over awful '11?
 
You mean Obama's actually going to run for re-election?
 
Wrong, that link that was provided showed discusson about the Obama record which is justification for a failed candidacy. Obama has to run on his record and that record is a disaster thus his candidacy should fail.
And as another poster posted, it's completely reasonable to compare his record with others. Especially with others who did worse yet you voted for anyway.
 
You took it to the level of an economics debate, rather than a candidacy debate.

but the quality of the candidate is defined by his record

ie, the economy

i'm once more astonished

no problem, tho

stay up
 
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.

you can say that again

and so, y'see, THERE's your campaign
 
In October 2004 the economy was improving and headed in the right direction.
The same can be said about now, yet you feel Obama should not be re-elected even though you voted to give Bush 4 more years.
 
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".

ah, i see...

so long as the other guy is sure to pay his fair share
 
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.

you forgot to mention how much of the profits came from OFFSHORE

yet obama went and raised immelt to be his JOBS CZAR

go figure
 
Back
Top Bottom