• 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!

Is Obama THAT bad?

longview said:
My issues with Obama are the same with any fiscal liberal (Myself being a fiscal conservative).
When Obama uses a phrase like, " I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money."
It shows his core believe, that the Government owns the result of your labor first, and allow you
to keep what the Government deems fair. (we are all just part of a large plantation.)
The Government is not charged participating in charity.
When did Liberals become more interested in, is everyone getting an equal amount, vs,
I want to be as free as possible?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a socialistic or communist issue. I feel that it is more of an efficiency issue. Historically, when the rich are allowed to become richer without restrictions, the middle and lower classes are hurt. It can be best seen in the Great Depression. The highly unregulated trusts, although attempts were made in the preceding progressive movement, left an extreme gap between the rich and the middle class. The middle class had begun to disappear altogether. Then, in 1930, the economy collapsed. It can also be seen in the years from the 70's until the most recent recession. The same problem is recurring and we have yet to fix it. I'm not advocating socialism, but when you give the big kid complete freedom, the little kid gets bullied. It is human nature.
 
Meathead said:
When they became socialists but were afraid of the stigma. They will say, "I am not a socialist (bad word), I am a liberal (another bad word), so now they are progressives.*

*'Socialist' and 'Liberal' have been historically such failures that they had to adopt 'Progressive', which is being added to the garbage heap. That's why so many of them call themselves 'Centrists' and 'Moderates'. Conservatives have no such qualms.
Click to expand...


Socialists are completely different from Progressives. Their beliefs aren't even close to being alike. That is mere partisan name calling.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
Socialists are completely different from Progressives. Their beliefs aren't even close to being alike. That is mere partisan name calling.
Click to expand...

You really believe that bull****, hahahahaha. You really shouldn't believe everything you think.
 
American said:
You really believe that bull****, hahahahaha. You really shouldn't believe everything you think.
Click to expand...

The 'hahahahaha' makes it convincing.

I'm not sure why people believe they should be taken seriously, when they feel their opinions put them above respecting anyone who does not share them.
 
Last edited:
'Progressive' is actually an umbrella term that encompasses the entire 'democratic left' of the political spectrum, and as such it's an inaccurate way of describing one's political views. For example, a libertarian socialist and a social-liberal could both call themselves 'progressives' despite their ideologies having little in common.

I find 'liberal' (or social-liberal, or modern liberal) to be a perfectly accurate characterization for many people on this forum who call themselves progressives.
 
Morality Games said:
The 'hahahahaha' makes it convincing.

I'm not sure why people believe they should be taken seriously, when they feel their opinions put them above respecting anyone who does not share them.
Click to expand...

If you weren't faking your lean, I'd bother to discuss it with you.
 
Morality Games said:
The 'hahahahaha' makes it convincing.

I'm not sure why people believe they should be taken seriously, when they feel their opinions put them above respecting anyone who does not share them.
Click to expand...

I dunno about that last part. People who have stupid opinions that cannot be defended shouldn't be respected if they continue to hold refuted beliefs after being shown conclusively that such a belief is wrong.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the personal crap.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The only goal of business is to make money. Buy it's very nature, a business sees humans as nothing more than another natural resource and a renewable one at that. It does not notice the health of humans, the discomfort if them, or even whether they die as long as there are plenty of replacements to continue business as usual. As long as dead or dying humans are making more money for business than they cost to replace, it's good business to let them die. Indeed, this is already a part of history where many humans have died and many more have become sick from the byproducts of business. Without government to protect humans you have condemned humans to being nothing more than another commodity existing solely to be exploited by business as it sees fit.


Edit:
For historic examples of policies that were not anti-business see: Superfund | US EPA
Click to expand...
This is the way things were in the 1600s, (slaves,etc) and to a lesser extent going into the 21st century..
It seems as if time progresses faster than some men.
Business does have responsibility beyond profits...
And if they were to be more responsible, there would be less need for government.
 
JustinS said:
'Progressive' is actually an umbrella term that encompasses the entire 'democratic left' of the political spectrum, and as such it's an inaccurate way of describing one's political views. For example, a libertarian socialist and a social-liberal could both call themselves 'progressives' despite their ideologies having little in common.

I find 'liberal' (or social-liberal, or modern liberal) to be a perfectly accurate characterization for many people on this forum who call themselves progressives.
Click to expand...

People have a right to identify how they want to identify. We can all take almost any label, analyze it and find it comes up wanting in something or the other.

I could do that with the label of conservative. One who is a self identified conservative is suppose to value and attempt to preserve what works and not be quick to change which could upset the status quo. That is hard to justify given that five "conservative" Justices of the Supreme Court gve us the Citizens United decision which upset nearly a century of precedent and throws conservative spending laws out the window. Of course, when one ponders the idea that right winger supported by corporate interests believe they stand to benefit from the practical implications of the CU decision, it all becomes clear.

Libertarians adopt their label based on the word LIBERTY. But if they got their way and government was shrunk and esmaculated in the fashion they advocate, we would sooner or later be in a fascist state where big corporations would fill the power vaccuum and prop up and control their own puppet governments making most liberty a thing of the past. Of course, they deny it, but its there just the same.

So maybe instead of examining the labels too closely, we should just let folks self indentify as they wish to.
 
Last edited:
Black_Zawisza said:
"Bush did it first" and "Obama is black, therefore you're a racist" are apparently the only talking points Obama needs to repel attacks from the right. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
I for one have little respect for the "right".
They are for the wealthy and seem to have little regard for the minorities or the environment, or for woman...or even the average American... The conservatives can raise a trillion dollars in campaign funds and all President Obama has to do with pennies is to point out these things.
 
Harshaw said:
This is the "left-wing fringe"?

.Agenda Project.

And obviously you never watch MSNBC. But it's not surprising that you're unaware of how much your own side does it. Partisan hackery.
Click to expand...
Well, I do, probably too much so...This was established primarily to offset the right-wing media (Fox).
But then, I do read and I do watch Fox and PBS/NPR...
This all can be consfusing...everyone states that they are correct....
The Liberal term, unfortunately, has negative connotations, but the Conservative term should have as well, but does not, as least not now..... it did in the 60s..

Again, balance is the key..liberalism is the accelerator and conservatism is the brake....We need all three.
 
kenvin said:
It's because he is black.
Click to expand...

George Bush Jr. Must have been black too. Forget practically being called the anti-christ, he was literally called the anti-christ by many on the left.
 
earthworm said:
Indeed.
I for one have little respect for the "right".
They are for the wealthy and seem to have little regard for the minorities or the environment, or for woman...or even the average American... The conservatives can raise a trillion dollars in campaign funds and all President Obama has to do with pennies is to point out these things.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems that you are living proof to what you say when you accept the cheap rhetoric of Obama and his liberal buddies.
 
I agree completely. I think the best one can do is break down generalizations into component parts to come up with something meaningful (unless you are willing to perform a high powered survey.) I would speculate the overexuberance of his opposition is equal parts retribution for contempt for Bush, racism, and urban versus rural divide.
 
lizzie said:
I would much rather have had Cheney than Bush.
Click to expand...

Wow, I haven't met too many women who thought Cheney was more attractive :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom