• 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 State of the Union

From the article:

(The pact mentioned was signed by Bush)

It was, but Obama is not bound by an agreement signed by Bush, as Congress did not sign off on it.

And that does still does not change the fact that Bush ordered us to war with Iraq and Obama ordered the Pentagon to withdraw from Iraq.

That is the way it will be remembered in 2012.

With that said, I would prefer a much quicker withdrawal, but I had a choice between 16 months that one candidate offered versus 50, maybe 100 years that the other candidate offered.
 
Last edited:
It was, but Obama is not bound by an agreement signed by Bush, as Congress did not sign off on it.

And that does still does not change the fact that Bush ordered us to war with Iraq and Obama ordered the Pentagon to withdraw from Iraq.

That is the way it will be remembered in 2012.

With that said, I would prefer a much quicker withdrawal, but I had a choice between 16 months that one candidate offered versus 50, maybe 100 years that the other candidate offered.

You really do not have a clue, do you? Obama was bound by the Bush agreement. I don't know why someone continues to embarrass themselves and continues to buy what they are told by the leftwing blogs.

I posted the 9/11 Commission actual posted results which obviously the left didn't like and neither do you.

Dav posted the actual details of the agreement that Bush signed and again you prefer what the left told you

One of these days the lightbulb is bound to go off in that head of yours that the left has provided you with false, biased information that makes the true believers look like loons.
 
Sorry, wrong again.

"Marines end Iraq mission as Army begins accelerated withdrawal"



It took the Pentagon 4 months to develop plans from Obama's Jan 21 order. !6 months from when withdrawal plans were ready has the last of the combat troops out by Aug. 2010.

It started under Bush

Bush announces withdrawal of 8,000 US troops from Iraq | World news | guardian.co.uk


eorge Bush will today announce the withdrawal of 8,000 combat troops from Iraq and an increase in US forces in Afghanistan.

In remarks prepared for delivery to the US National Defence University, and released by the White House late last night, the US president bracketed Pakistan with the other two countries as major battlegrounds in the so-called war on terror.

The troop cut for Iraq will probably be Bush's last major decision in a highly unpopular war that has seen his ratings plummet.

There are around 146,000 US forces in Iraq. A marine battalion, of about 1,000 troops, would go home on schedule in November and not be replaced. An army brigade of between 3,500 and 4,000 troops would leave in February. About 3,400 support forces will also go home over the next few months.

As for Afghanistan, Bush will send roughly 4,500 troops to face a resurgent Taliban. More than half of Bush's address will be devoted to Afghanistan as he outlines a "quiet surge" of additional American forces there, bringing the US presence to nearly 31,000.

"For all the good work we have done in that country, it is clear we must do even more," Bush said.

The US president announced that a marine battalion scheduled to go to Iraq in November would go to Afghanistan instead, and that would be followed by an army combat brigade. His speech also highlights decisions to vastly increase the size of the Afghan national army, which will grow from its current size of 60,000 troops to 120,000, instead of 80,000.
 
Nah ,the Republican party is extinct,all that is left is the wingers. :2wave:

The same can be said about the Democratic Party that I belonged to for years. It has been taken over by leftwing loons who capitalize on the people that think solely with their hearts and never their brain. I didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left me. One of these days a lot of good people are going have that lightbulb go off in their head and come to the same conclusion. Hope it isn't too late.
 
:rofl now that is funny, a poll by the Daily Kos. Shows exactly the kind of sources you read and thus why you lack credibility. I have seen no evidence that liberals think at all, they only feel. When confronted with facts they go into destroy mode, destroy the person and ignore the message.

You have to do better than this.

You would probably prefer a Michael Savage poll.:roll:
 
You would probably prefer a Michael Savage poll.:roll:

Keep projecting and showing that you haven't a clue. I have never listened to Michael Savage but that doesn't stop you from assuming.

I am a conservative that learned to "trust but verify" something apparently foreign to you. You cite the Daily Kos poll and seem to believe that has credibility. All polls depend on the questions asked and the form of those questions. You assume they are accurate because you want them to be accurate. The only true poll that matters are the results from the election polls.

Obama and the radical left appeal to a declining base today as evidenced by the election results from MA., N.J., and Va. Keep spouting the leftwing rhetoric as it appears to be working for you. The support for Obama continues to drop as does the support for the radical leftwing agenda.
 
Keep projecting and showing that you haven't a clue. I have never listened to Michael Savage but that doesn't stop you from assuming.

I am a conservative that learned to "trust but verify" something apparently foreign to you. You cite the Daily Kos poll and seem to believe that has credibility. All polls depend on the questions asked and the form of those questions. You assume they are accurate because you want them to be accurate. The only true poll that matters are the results from the election polls.

Obama and the radical left appeal to a declining base today as evidenced by the election results from MA., N.J., and Va. Keep spouting the leftwing rhetoric as it appears to be working for you. The support for Obama continues to drop as does the support for the radical leftwing agenda.

You really lean right,. I think. I could say the same thing about the right wing and reagan who cut taxes for the rich and took from the poor. As far as the link I provided it had other links to back up what was reported. It is only a blog. Take it or leave it. Read it, or don't read it, I don't give a darn. Put me on your ignore button if you do not like what I post. Nobody is twisting your arm, you know.
 
You really lean right,. I think. I could say the same thing about the right wing and reagan who cut taxes for the rich and took from the poor. As far as the link I provided it had other links to back up what was reported. It is only a blog. Take it or leave it. Read it, or don't read it, I don't give a darn. Put me on your ignore button if you do not like what I post. Nobody is twisting your arm, you know.

I see, so Reagan who is ranked as one of our top Presidents gave a tax cut to only the rich and took money from the poor? How does allowing people to keep more of THEIR money take money from the poor? How did he take money away from the poor? Do you think your money belongs to someone else?

From your age, you should have been working during the 80's. Were you one of those rich people that got to keep more of what they earned? If so did you do your civic duty and send that tax refund to the poor? Or were you among the poor that Reagan took away from?

This is liberal logic that I will never understand
 
I see, so Reagan who is ranked as one of our top Presidents gave a tax cut to only the rich and took money from the poor? How does allowing people to keep more of THEIR money take money from the poor? How did he take money away from the poor? Do you think your money belongs to someone else?

From your age, you should have been working during the 80's. Were you one of those rich people that got to keep more of what they earned? If so did you do your civic duty and send that tax refund to the poor? Or were you among the poor that Reagan took away from?

This is liberal logic that I will never understand

We have a graduated tax system. Reagan took the exreme of graduated taxes and perverted it into trickle down economics.

I was one of those blue collar workers who was triying to catch some of reagans greese drippings.

Every year at festival time the lords of the manor would have a festival at which greese dripping were given to the peasants.

Daily life in medieval Europe - Google Books
 
LiberalAvenger;1058551746]We have a graduated tax system. Reagan took the exreme of graduated taxes and perverted it into trickle down economics.

I was one of those blue collar workers who was triying to catch some of reagans greese drippings.

I don't see an answer to the question, did you or did you not get a tax cut during the Reagan years?

How did Reagan take money from the poor as a result of allowing individuals to keep more of what they earned?

The rest of your post is just more diversion. I wish I could type slower for you so you can understand the questions.
 
I don't see an answer to the question, did you or did you not get a tax cut during the Reagan years?

How did Reagan take money from the poor as a result of allowing individuals to keep more of what they earned?

The rest of your post is just more diversion. I wish I could type slower for you so you can understand the questions.

You are disregarding the payroll tax where the rich stop paying it after a certain amount. Sure, I got a tax cut but I was not for one. I was willing to pay more in taxes for social programs for the needy.

I had no recourse but to accept the tax cut. I would have been a fool not to accept it. I used that money to contribute money to the poor.
 
LiberalAvenger;1058551817]You are disregarding the payroll tax where the rich stop paying it after a certain amount. Sure, I got a tax cut but I was not for one. I was willing to pay more in taxes for social programs for the needy.

Do you understand where the payroll tax goes? think about it instead of reading leftwing blogs that make you look foolish.

If you are willing to pay more why don't you send the IRS more? Better yet stop expecting the Federal govt. to do more and get your state and local govt. to do more.

I am still waiting for how Reagan took money from the poor? Stopping the payroll tax only affects SS contributions which are supposed to go back to the individual who "contributed" to the fund.

I had no recourse but to accept the tax cut. I would have been a fool not to accept it. I used that money to contribute money to the poor.

Great, now shouldn't that be the choice of others as well instead of "forced" contribution by the Govt.?
 
LiberalAvenger;1058551817]You are disregarding the payroll tax where the rich stop paying it after a certain amount. Sure, I got a tax cut but I was not for one. I was willing to pay more in taxes for social programs for the needy.

Do you understand where the payroll tax goes? think about it instead of reading leftwing blogs that make you look foolish.

If you are willing to pay more why don't you send the IRS more? Better yet stop expecting the Federal govt. to do more and get your state and local govt. to do more.

I am still waiting for how Reagan took money from the poor? Stopping the payroll tax only affects SS contributions which are supposed to go back to the individual who "contributed" to the fund.



Great, now shouldn't that be the choice of others as well instead of "forced" contribution by the Govt.?

No, Read the 16th Amendment.
 
No, Read the 16th Amendment.

Look, it is obvious to me that you will not answer the question because to do so would force you to admit that you were wrong, AGAIN.

Reagan tax cuts went to all individuals. Payroll taxes go to SS and Medicare which come back to the individual therefore Reagan did NOT take anything away from the poor.
 
It was, but Obama is not bound by an agreement signed by Bush, as Congress did not sign off on it.

He is not bound by it, but he is following it anyways.


And that does still does not change the fact that Bush ordered us to war with Iraq and Obama ordered the Pentagon to withdraw from Iraq.

That is the way it will be remembered in 2012.

What will be remembered in 2012 is that the surge Obama fought so hard against worked to achieve victory in Iraq, and that Obama did nothing except decide to follow Bush's withdrawal plan.

Of course, nobody will really remember Iraq in 2012. They're already mostly forgotten about it.


With that said, I would prefer a much quicker withdrawal, but I had a choice between 16 months that one candidate offered versus 50, maybe 100 years that the other candidate offered.

They both proposed the same damn thing. McCain's "100 years" comment related to establishing permanent bases even after withdrawing troops, something that Obama will probably do.
 
Look, it is obvious to me that you will not answer the question because to do so would force you to admit that you were wrong, AGAIN.

Reagan tax cuts went to all individuals. Payroll taxes go to SS and Medicare which come back to the individual therefore Reagan did NOT take anything away from the poor.

You are good at parsing and sophism. See and hear what you want to. No matter what I say you will disagree.

The world is round./
 
You are good at parsing and sophism. See and hear what you want to. No matter what I say you will disagree.

The world is round./

You made the claim that Reagan gave a tax cut to the rich which took money away from the poor. I refuted that and you agreed that you got a tax cut and aren't rich. Tax cuts allow people to keep more of what they earn thus have no impact on the poor.

You then went off on a tangent regarding payroll taxes which obviously you don't understand either.

There was no parsing just ignorance on your part and you cannot admit you were wrong. That is the problem with liberals today, they buy what they are told from leftwing sites and ignore actual facts and even personal experiences all for a political ideology. That is cult like following.
 
You made the claim that Reagan gave a tax cut to the rich which took money away from the poor. I refuted that and you agreed that you got a tax cut and aren't rich. Tax cuts allow people to keep more of what they earn thus have no impact on the poor.

You then went off on a tangent regarding payroll taxes which obviously you don't understand either.

There was no parsing just ignorance on your part and you cannot admit you were wrong. That is the problem with liberals today, they buy what they are told from leftwing sites and ignore actual facts and even personal experiences all for a political ideology. That is cult like following.

"I know you are but what am I" "Pee Wee's Big Adventure":roll:
 
"I know you are but what am I" "Pee Wee's Big Adventure":roll:

Keep trying to divert from the claim you made, I won't allow that to happen. You screwed up and know it. Reagan tax cuts provided more revenue to the govt. and even if it didn't allowing people to keep more of their money doesn't take money away from the poor. Liberals seem to have a problem with accuracy and always make wild claims they cannot back up.
 
:bunny::beatdeadhorse
Keep trying to divert from the claim you made, I won't allow that to happen. You screwed up and know it. Reagan tax cuts provided more revenue to the govt. and even if it didn't allowing people to keep more of their money doesn't take money away from the poor. Liberals seem to have a problem with accuracy and always make wild claims they cannot back up.

During reagan's reign the corporations left america for cheaper labor bordering on slave wages. Because of him we have no industrial base as we did during wwII. When we finally get into a big war what are we going to do? Import tanks from china? Reagan's policies created millions of new jobs but who wants to be a burger flipper>

You are like the enigizer bunny, you just keeep going and going and going....:monkeyarm

Oops, wrong bunny
 
:bunny::beatdeadhorse

During reagan's reign the corporations left america for cheaper labor bordering on slave wages. Because of him we have no industrial base as we did during wwII. When we finally get into a big war what are we going to do? Import tanks from china? Reagan's policies created millions of new jobs but who wants to be a burger flipper>

You are like the enigizer bunny, you just keeep going and going and going....:monkeyarm

Oops, wrong bunny

Where do you get your information, during the Reagan years Govt. revenue to the Treasury doubled, GDP Doubled and over 20 million jobs were created.

You keep distorting, diverting, and running from the lie that you told.
 
Back
Top Bottom