Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 76

Thread: Who would do best against Obama in a debate?

  1. #61
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: Who would do best against Obama in a debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helvidius View Post
    Ron Paul received 0 votes in the last Presidential election. And you haven't explained what makes Ron Paul a crazy uncle. I don't think any of his policies are crazy.
    His blind promotion of free trade is for one thing something most people are against on the basis that in the 21st century, free trade has more ramifications than Ron Paul is willing to admit.

    He believes the U.S. should do business with companies who provide jobs in Darfur. Now, on the surface that doesn't seem like that big of an issue to most people. Only that these companies are providing jobs to the same Arab majority who has conducted a genocide in the country. I don't want my government giving tax breaks or supporting companies which give jobs to countries carrying out genocides. Now I'm sure neither does Ron Paul, but his inability (well no, it's cause he's too busy thinking about the greatness of the free market) to see that by allowing these companies to operate freely he is indirectly helping to fund a genocide is quite ridiculous.

    That is what makes him crazy in my opinion. He's so busy sucking on Thomas Jefferson's dick to realize that Thomas Jefferson would have **** his pants if he had to deal with the type of complex economy we have today. I mean what was the U.S.'s main industry back then? Slavery? Cotton? That wouldn't even crack our top 100 industries today in terms of complexity and social ramifications. Seriously, he's crazy because of his unwillingness to see that purism is not always the best solution. ****, it's not even the best solution most of the time.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 09-25-10 at 01:37 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #62
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Who would do best against Obama in a debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by soccerboy22 View Post
    Just have to sit there and agree with President Obama.
    Not to mention mostly everything else.

    You have to be crazy to think that Romney would argue against Obama's bonus depreciation, low interest rates, extravagant R&D credits, payroll holidays, extravagant corporate subsidies and a huge boost to demand via stimulus and its $300 billion tax cuts.

    I'd love to see someone here argue that the market didn't like the low interest rates and stimulus.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #63
    Educator Helvidius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Good ol' US of A
    Last Seen
    02-01-17 @ 12:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    735

    Re: Who would do best against Obama in a debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    His blind promotion of free trade is for one thing something most people are against on the basis that in the 21st century, free trade has more ramifications than Ron Paul is willing to admit.

    He believes the U.S. should do business with companies who provide jobs in Darfur. Now, on the surface that doesn't seem like that big of an issue to most people. Only that these companies are providing jobs to the same Arab majority who has conducted a genocide in the country. I don't want my government giving tax breaks or supporting companies which give jobs to countries carrying out genocides. Now I'm sure neither does Ron Paul, but his inability (well no, it's cause he's too busy thinking about the greatness of the free market) to see that by allowing these companies to operate freely he is indirectly helping to fund a genocide is quite ridiculous.

    That is what makes him crazy in my opinion. He's so busy sucking on Thomas Jefferson's dick to realize that Thomas Jefferson would have **** his pants if he had to deal with the type of complex economy we have today. I mean what was the U.S.'s main industry back then? Slavery? Cotton? That wouldn't even crack our top 100 industries today in terms of complexity and social ramifications. Seriously, he's crazy because of his unwillingness to see that purism is not always the best solution. ****, it's not even the best solution most of the time.
    Ron Paul is against Congress delegating it's powers on the matter to the President and is against NAFTA and the WTO. He would not support any sort of special treatment to those companies, I do not know why you think otherwise. Not to mention as it stands now, many of those companies are SUBSIDIZED with taxpayer money. What about China? They are involved in human rights violations; should the government stop companies from trading with China?

    Your second paragraph isn't based on anything. I don't recall him ever citing Jefferson as an economist who influenced him. Maybe over abolishing the central bank, but Ron Paul is a million times better than Dodd or Frank. We are trillions of dollars in debt, continue to spend, are losing the ability to produce ANYTHING and yet Ron Paul's ideas are crazy? So is free trade the only problem you have? That is what makes him nuts? Yes, lets have companies stop trading with companies from countries with human rights violations, see how well our economy does then.
    Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: Who would do best against Obama in a debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helvidius View Post
    Ron Paul is against Congress delegating it's powers on the matter to the President and is against NAFTA and the WTO.
    That has nothing to do with what I said.

    He would not support any sort of special treatment to those companies, I do not know why you think otherwise. Not to mention as it stands now, many of those companies are SUBSIDIZED with taxpayer money.
    Only that is not what I'm arguing. I am arguing that allowing them to operate in the U.S. and receive free roam while they help fund genocides, which as I'll explain later is not simply a 'human rights violation' is the complete anti-thesis to what our government was founded upon.

    What about China? They are involved in human rights violations; should the government stop companies from trading with China?
    I'm all for it though admittedly, unlike Ron Paul, I don't actually advocate it because it is unrealistic. See what I'm getting at? Ron Paul is not a realist. He lives in the 17th century and thinks the rest of us are there with him.

    Your second paragraph isn't based on anything. I don't recall him ever citing Jefferson as an economist who influenced him.
    Is that some sort of ****ing joke?

    Entangling Alliances

    Entangling Alliances

    by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

    As President Bush addressed the United Nations last week, I could not help thinking we have become incredibly mired in the "entangling alliances" another President George – George Washington – warned against. Sadly, many in Washington and the media seem to consider UN approval of our war plans far more important than a congressional debate on the matter.

    America has an absolute sovereign right to defend itself. We do not need permission from the UN or anybody else to use military force. What is needed, however, is a congressional declaration of war. Our Constitution does not permit any President to initiate war simply because the UN gives him permission. When we seek permission, or even mere approval, from the United Nations, we give credibility to the terrible notion that American national security is a matter of international consensus. America alone should decide whether to send its sons and daughters to war.

    I’m disappointed that the President has chosen to further entangle the American people with the United Nations by rejoining UNESCO. For decades UNESCO has promoted its anti-American "education" agenda with our tax dollars. President Reagan was right to withdraw America from the politicized and corrupt UNESCO, especially since American taxpayers funded a whopping 25% of its budget. Our new promised financial commitment to UNESCO is at least $60 million annually. Given our present economic problems and immediate national security concerns, we surely cannot afford to send even more taxpayer dollars to the UN – especially to an organization that actively promotes values so contrary to those of most Americans.
    Worst part about it is he even attributes it to the wrong person.

    Maybe over abolishing the central bank, but Ron Paul is a million times better than Dodd or Frank. We are trillions of dollars in debt, continue to spend, are losing the ability to produce ANYTHING and yet Ron Paul's ideas are crazy? So is free trade the only problem you have?
    No. His solutions are the problem. Not free trade, it's his SOLUTIONS to the problems which are the problem.

    That is what makes him nuts?
    His position on abortion, gay rights, US military bases etc.

    Yes, lets have companies stop trading with companies from countries with human rights violations, see how well our economy does then.
    Ah yes, here is where we see your extremist logic and your complete inability to notice the difference between a human rights violation and a genocide. Genocides are human rights violations not all human rights violations are genocides.

    Example,

    China telling a few Christians to piss off every now and then? Human rights violation. I'm opposed to it but I do not think that means stopping companies trading with them. Sanctions, declarations etc are all acceptable forms of descent in such case.

    The government of Sudan hunting down Christians and killing them indiscriminately through proxies? Not the same thing at all. Not even a little bit. I mean sure both are human rights violations but they are not equal.

    See where I'm getting at? It's this ridiculous version you Libertarians have of the world which scares most people who've actually been outside of the country on something more than a family vacation. The fact that you live in a world of black, claim you also see grays but forget about the fact that most people see in color is what makes your ideology so unappealing.

    I'm not opposed to our government doing business with France even though they have banned Burqas. I'm not opposed to doing business with Egypt even though they subjugate religious minorities in some of their cities. I mean those are all human rights violations but I do not think they warrant stopping trade with those countries. I do however think a certain line needs to be drawn on how much we tolerate for the sake of good-clean capitalism and that is what you Libertarians along with your Messiah don't seem to understand. That in an ideal world you could probably stand opposed to everything you disagree with. However in the real world being a purist is NOT a good idea.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 09-25-10 at 02:53 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #65
    Frankernaut peepnklown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-16-15 @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    607

    Re: Who would do best against Obama in a debate?

    Me! Oh wait; Im not a republican or a candidate of the Republican Party in 2012.
    'The whole universe is going to die!'

  6. #66
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,769

    Re: Who would do best against Obama in a debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

    1. Source A says that p is true.
    2. Source A is authoritative.
    3. Therefore, p is true.

    You have yet to provide any evidence that Obama actually benefited from affirmative action. Until you do? Nothing more than penis envy.
    Waiting for you to explain how he got into Harvard Law with no honors. He has let everyone know that he did well at Harvard Law so its not like he has some policy against disclosing his academic record when it suits him. Why won't he let people know what he did at Occidental and then Columbia? DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT IF HE HAD HIGH HONORS AT COLUMBIA WE WOULD HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT?

    Obama would not have been accepted into Harvard Law as a White Man with a B to B+ average. I have known over 100 Harvard Law students (Yale had dozens accepted each year plus a bunch of us who went to other schools in that top 10 class) and In a 7 year period I never heard of a white male with less than a 3.7 getting into Harvard Law.

    That you deny that his race was a major factor for someone with a mediocre academic record (especially in light of the competition) is just a case of Plain denial on your part and you never dealt with that Chicago LR article I posted noting that if affirmative action was eliminated 90% of the blacks at top schools would not have been accepted.



  7. #67
    Advisor Johnny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    06-24-11 @ 07:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    571

    Re: Who would do best against Obama in a debate?

    Ron Paul owns all in debates.
    The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
    -James Madison

  8. #68
    Educator Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    10-07-10 @ 08:38 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,019

    Re: Who would do best against Obama in a debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    Ron Paul owns all in debates.
    Nah .. libertarians actually fail miserably when they are forced to actually deal with the implications of what they say about zero government. In fact republicans favourite economic policy (re: deregulation) has been an utter disaster.. never mind what it would mean to Americans if the government was privatised and democratic powers of the people wilted in favour of the corporations who would take public services for profit.

    Libertarians sound nice on the face but the reality is that they fail miserably in practice. In a debate all you have to do is force them to explain exactly what it means to have a telephone booth government.

  9. #69
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Who would do best against Obama in a debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Nah .. libertarians actually fail miserably when they are forced to actually deal with the implications of what they say about zero government. In fact republicans favourite economic policy (re: deregulation) has been an utter disaster.. never mind what it would mean to Americans if the government was privatised and democratic powers of the people wilted in favour of the corporations who would take public services for profit.

    Libertarians sound nice on the face but the reality is that they fail miserably in practice. In a debate all you have to do is force them to explain exactly what it means to have a telephone booth government.
    Libertarians dont advocated for no government. Please try again
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

  10. #70
    Educator Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    10-07-10 @ 08:38 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,019

    Re: Who would do best against Obama in a debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by chevydriver1123 View Post
    Libertarians dont advocated for no government. Please try again
    Whats this? Suppose libertarians want to regulate the finance industry or risky deep sea oil drilling? Protect consumers? They don't want to privatise government services to the private sector? They don't want to limit the governments powers and destroy the value of the vote? I mean basically they want to turn the government into something that is basically ineffectual which in turn makes your democracy a farce. Want more public apathy about democracy turn your government into a yes man for corperations and the "free market".

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •