• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Forbes to Newsmax: An Obama Win Will Lead to New Recession

TurtleDude said:
Yawn, still posting nonsense. Obama pushes incremental steps towards socialism. Does that mean he is a socialist? perhaps so perhaps not. but he's a useful tool for those who are
Click to expand...

Well, that would be true, if you have no clue what the word socialism means.
 
Here's the funny thing: saying Obama winning will lead to a recession means you have to admit that he pulled us out of one! He obviously can't lead us into something that's already going on.

I don't think he's led us out of recession, therefore I don't think he'll lead us into a recession. We're already there, and have been since before Obama got elected.
 
Redress said:
It's interesting that some on the right spend so much time claiming that the right isn't racist, yet KKKers tend to be the rights biggest cheerleaders.

See how ****ing stupid that kind of thing sounds?
Click to expand...

Actually... the KKK was the work of the Democratic Party in the south... They only switched after JFK forced the civil rights movement...

And, most of their modern affiliations are with the communist and socialist parties...
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
David Duke was some nut job nobody took serious and Republicans shunned. Robert Byrd was one of the longest seated senators in history and was a respected Democrat, see the difference?
Click to expand...

But David Duke only switched to Republican AFTER he was shunned by Democrats. In other words if Democrats hadn't shunned him first, the Republicans never would have gotten their chance.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Actually... the KKK was the work of the Democratic Party in the south... They only switched after JFK forced the civil rights movement...

And, most of their modern affiliations are with the communist and socialist parties...
Click to expand...

Thank you for the irrelevant history lesson that I knew. We live in 2012 and I was talking in the present.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
David Duke was some nut job nobody took serious and Republicans shunned. Robert Byrd was one of the longest seated senators in history and was a respected Democrat, see the difference?
Click to expand...

No, you just pretty much described socialists and how most democrats and liberals view them. You actually proved my point without trying.
 
Redress said:
Well, that would be true, if you have no clue what the word socialism means.
Click to expand...


Lets play a game-who has a better education in political science. I certainly know what socialism means (and has several definitions). And yes demonizing the rich is an incremental step towards establishing a socialist state
 
Redress said:
Thank you for the irrelevant history lesson that I knew. We live in 2012 and I was talking in the present.
Click to expand...

Hey, this election isn't about the present. It's about "the party of Lincoln" vs. "the party of slavery." It's the Civil War all over again, don't you know...(don't tell the States' Rightists in the GOP that Lincoln was against them.)
 
TurtleDude said:
Lets play a game-who has a better education in political science. I certainly know what socialism means (and has several definitions). And yes demonizing the rich is an incremental step towards establishing a socialist state
Click to expand...

I am not debating some piece of paper hanging on your wall. I am debating you. You(not your degree) has shown no knowledge of what socialism is. When you have to fall back to trying to penis measurements to win an argument, you have already lost.

And no, "demonizing the rich"(which is not something done nearly as often as conservatives claim) is not socialism.
 
I always thought this guy was critcizing Obama. I didn't realize he was a fan.

Obama's+Plan+-+White+Slavery.jpg
 
Top Cat said:
Those who dislike Obama crack me up. Label, label, label. That's pretty much in every thread, one way or another. He's this, that or some other sort of commie Pinko thing.

Muslim. Terrorist. Socialist. Communist. African Born. Anti American. Hussein Obama.


Honestly. What is so funny about this, if he was such a monster, you would think the election would be a rout for the new savior from the right.

Perhaps the American people don't agree and are seeing through the constant bombardment of right wing rhetoric and flak.
Click to expand...

Obama is a cannibal who eats babies that look like Jesus. :mrgreen:
 
Redress said:
I am not debating some piece of paper hanging on your wall. I am debating you. You(not your degree) has shown no knowledge of what socialism is. When you have to fall back to trying to penis measurements to win an argument, you have already lost.

And no, "demonizing the rich"(which is not something done nearly as often as conservatives claim) is not socialism.
Click to expand...

More nonsense-depending on the context, socialism can be anything from the public owning major utilities to massive redistributions of wealth.

demonizing the rich paves the way for socialist policies.

massive inheritance or death taxes are not "communist" part a suggested way to helping achieve it for example
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
More nonsense-depending on the context, socialism can be anything from the public owning major utilities to massive redistributions of wealth
Click to expand...

You mean like all that money the government took from the pockets of the taxpayers and redistributed to the banksters? Yup, I agree with you. :mrgreen:
 
Redress said:
I would not worry too much. Some one predicting dire events if the other side politically gets what they want is pretty much a daily occurrence and rarely comes true.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried. The stok market goes up in value when all other indicators say it should decrease. Its never really been a useful tool to measure economic stability growth or lack there of.
 
TurtleDude said:
More nonsense-depending on the context, socialism can be anything from the public owning major utilities to massive redistributions of wealth.

demonizing the rich paves the way for socialist policies.

massive inheritance or death taxes are not "communist" part a suggested way to helping achieve it for example
Click to expand...

You crack me up. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
They're right... and I can easily see why a socialist wouldn't notice how that works... If his economic stimilus was based off government subsidies, guess what happens when those subsidies stop? The economy stops... So he'd either have to keep giving subsidies (that we can't afford to give), or stop giving them and watch the economy go back to where it was...
Click to expand...

What stimulus? It was just announced today I think that new stimulus spending is not likely to happen at all. The American car companies are rockin' and rollin' like they haven't in Yeeeaaarrrs.

I don't think the GOP is going to run on the economy this year.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
David Duke was some nut job nobody took serious and Republicans shunned.
Click to expand...

He was elected to the Louisiana legislature ... AFTER switching to the Republican Party. He also got 40% of the vote in Louisiana's gubernatorial election, losing to Edwin Edwards (and knocking Buddy Roemer out in the primary). The race spawned one of the great bumper stickers of all time: "Vote for the crook, it's important...."
 
danarhea said:
Obama is a cannibal who eats babies that look like Jesus. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yep, he burrows right through pregnant women's bellies and devours their Jesus-lookin' fetuses. All according to the Alinsky/Soros plan!!
 
IndepCentristMA said:
They're right... and I can easily see why a socialist wouldn't notice how that works... If his economic stimilus was based off government subsidies, guess what happens when those subsidies stop? The economy stops... So he'd either have to keep giving subsidies (that we can't afford to give), or stop giving them and watch the economy go back to where it was...
Click to expand...

I question if you know what "subsidy" means. First of all, a full third of the stimulus was tax cuts. Another large chunk went directly to states who by state accounting got to use it however the hell they wanted to. There were no "subsidies" in the sense of a conventional "generate X units, we'll give you Y dollars" kind of deal.

You are somewhat right that when the money train of spending ends, the activity based on it ends, but that is no different then stimulating the economy via tax cuts. When the tax cuts ends, so does the activity. You are somewhat wrong on that last sentence. In a subsidy driven economy, ending the subsidy does result in hardship at the producer point. When a stimulus ends that is based on direct spending and tax cuts, that results in a wide variety of both good and bad outcomes, but it hardly the same as a subisdy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom