Santorum vs. Obama

[Amigo]

Aw so you think the poor shouldn't be able to vote. Another reason your ideology is loony.

No, I think that people who don't know about the country or the candidates shouldn't vote.

 

[Amigo]

So...you refuse to believe your lying ears eh?:lamo

I refuse to believe in the liberal messiah.

 

[TheNextEra]

No, I think that people who don't know about the country or the candidates shouldn't vote.

Then that would exclude you.

 

[johnny_rebson]

I refuse to believe in the liberal messiah.

It's good to see that I'm not the only conservative that can't stand Romney.

American needs to stand up against liberals like him.

 

[TheNextEra]

I refuse to believe in the liberal messiah.

The majority calling Obama a messiah are conservatives LOL

 

[Amigo]

And what about those are exactly egregious?

Regulations that have destroyed jobs.

 

[TheNextEra]

Regulations that have destroyed jobs.

HOW, give specific examples. Or can't you?

 

[Amigo]

HOW, give specific examples. Or can't you?

I already did.

 

[johnny_rebson]

Removing regulations would help save jobs, but the biggest problem is greedy union workers.

If union workers would accept 30 or 40 percent pay cuts, we could keep those jobs here.

 

[TheNextEra]

I already did.

No you didn't, you listed the regulations and then said they destroyed buisinesses. You didn't say HOW they destroyed them. What specificially in those regulations caused it.

Just because you parrot Rush and Glenn, doesn't mean you get a free pass not to actually think.

 

[TheNextEra]

Removing regulations would help save jobs, but the biggest problem is greedy union workers.

If union workers would accept 30 or 40 percent pay cuts, we could keep those jobs here.

Fine start by yourself asking your job to reduce your pay 30 to 40 percent. Won't hurt you right?

 

[Amigo]

No you didn't, you listed the regulations and then said they destroyed buisinesses. You didn't say HOW they destroyed them. What specificially in those regulations caused it.

Just because you parrot Rush and Glenn, doesn't mean you get a free pass not to actually think.

The picture is clear; businesses in America can’t afford to expand AND pay for the new regulations about to hit them. Hurricane Irene, and even Katrina, didn’t pack nearly the wallop that Hurricane Obama is bringing ashore. Companies already are evacuating the area of job creation.

 

[winston53660]

Removing regulations would help save jobs, but the biggest problem is greedy union workers.

If union workers would accept 30 or 40 percent pay cuts, we could keep those jobs here.

The report finds that investments driven by the EPA’s two new air quality rules will create
nearly 1.5 million jobs, or nearly 300,000 jobs a year on average over the next five years
– and at a critical moment for a struggling economy. The end product will be an up-
graded, cleaner American industry, along with good paying jobs and better health for the
nation’s most vulnerable citizens.

<snip>

Since 1970, investments to comply with the Clean Air Act have provided $4 to $8 in
economic benefits for every $1 spent on compliance, according to the nonpartisan Office
of Management and Budget. Since the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in
1990, U.S. average electricity rates (real) have remained flat even as electric utilities have
invested hundreds of billions of dollars to cut their air pollution emissions. During the
same period, America’s overall GDP increased by 60 percent in inflation-adjusted terms.
The bottom line: clean air is a worthwhile investment.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...EBNI3X&sig=AHIEtbRROnPk5fm2UJ12g470p7zqlRMQBQ


Your turn to provide some evidence of your contentions:2wave:

 

[TheNextEra]

The picture is clear; businesses in America can’t afford to expand AND pay for the new regulations about to hit them. Hurricane Irene, and even Katrina, didn’t pack nearly the wallop that Hurricane Obama is bringing ashore. Companies already are evacuating the area of job creation.

Again you don't site any specific part of the actual regulation. Sad, I thought you would actually think for yourself and prove your points. Your concession is noted.

 

[Donc]

I refuse to believe in the liberal messiah.

Yet you refuse to relive the propaganda minster of the tea party in his own words.Amazing.:shock:

 

[Amigo]

Again you don't site any specific part of the actual regulation. Sad, I thought you would actually think for yourself and prove your points. Your concession is noted.

If I didn't think for myself, I would be a liberal.

 

[Amigo]

Yet you refuse to relive the propaganda minster of the tea party in his own words.Amazing.:shock:

Who? Glenn Beck?

 

[TheNextEra]

If I didn't think for myself, I would be a liberal.

Well you can't site specific examples, you can only parrot Rush and Glenn. Like I said your concession is noted, but thanks for reminding me again.

 

[Amigo]

Well you can't site specific examples, you can only parrot Rush and Glenn. Like I said your concession is noted, but thanks for reminding me again.

I told you a fact; regulations cause bussinesses to fail. It's a fact! What more can I say? Better yet, what are you trying to say?

 

[TheNextEra]

I told you a fact; regulations cause bussinesses to fail. It's a fact! What more can I say? Better yet, what are you trying to say?

So any regulation cause a business to fail? I'm pretty sure we have lots of regulations and lots of businesses are doing fine.

Therefore, what you are saying is an OPINION, not a fact. Learn the difference please when debating.

Again, list the specific regulation and HOW it caused a buisness to fail or continue to be dismissed as a concession of failure to procide proof.

 

[Donc]

Again you don't site any specific part of the actual regulation. Sad, I thought you would actually think for yourself and prove your points. Your concession is noted.

It seems that Amigo thought the name of this forum is post opinions, rather than Debate Politics.

 

[Donc]

I told you a fact; regulations cause bussinesses to fail. It's a fact! What more can I say? Better yet, what are you trying to say?

Then your saying that bank regulations,the lack of that most economist say was the cause of the great bush recession, was not need then and is not needed now.Do i have that stated correctly?:2wave:

 

[LesGovt]

Then your saying that bank regulations,the lack of that most economist say was the cause of the great bush recession, was not need then and is not needed now.Do i have that stated correctly?:2wave:

I thought Sarbanes-Oxley would solve our financial problems. And then I thought Dodd-Frank would solve our financial problems. And then I find out that MF Global lost over a billion dollars of its clients' funds? Wow! Regulation really solved that issue. Fact is, it won't.

Second, the financial problem that has beset the country started back in the 1970s and was shepherded along until the housing market burst. Politicians were wrong. Some banks were wrong as they tried to comply with politicians' requests. Many hands are dirty in that one, but it started with politicians.

 

[Amigo]

Then your saying that bank regulations,the lack of that most economist say was the cause of the great bush recession, was not need then and is not needed now.Do i have that stated correctly?:2wave:

I'm refering to Obama's regultations on businesses only.

 

[Amigo]

It seems that Amigo thought the name of this forum is post opinions, rather than Debate Politics.

I am debating, it isn't an opinion on the regulations, it's a fact.