• 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.

Obama campaign video suggests Romney wouldn't have killed bin Laden

You ought to read the rules. I am not personally insulting you, I am noting what you do in your posts.

And I find slurping Obama to be stupid

See, now you've flat out accused me of "slurping" Obama, specifically directing at me. That makes it a personal insult.
 
well we could start from being one of the current heads of the Longworth Family
Longworth family?

then 28 years as a fairly prominent attorney who went to fairly prominent schools (the kind with Ivy)
and then as the owner of several fairly profitable corporations-two of which I formed with my brothers, one with my late father and a fourth with my brothers and father.

The thing is, everything that you've done, you couldn't have done in a vacuum. If you had grown up as a poor child in the Third World somewhere, you wouldn't have been able to become the successful person you are today. You were able to become a successful lawyer and business owner because of the society that we live in. You went to an Ivy league school? Good for you. The American society, using the government as its agency, decided that education was important and set up colleges that lessened the pressure on your school, making it easier for you to get in and improving the quality of your education. The teachers that taught you, some of them were likely educated by the government, at a public university. Police and firefighters kept the campus safe and secure.

You practiced law? That judge was a public employee. The jury was provided by the government. Some of the opposing lawyers might have been paid by the public to be there. The entire legal system that you preyed on and exploited to make your money was paid for and set up by the community, through the government. You were taking advantage of all of our tax money and our work so that you could get rich. Without all of the work done by the government to set up our legal system, there's no way you could have been a lawyer. You were quite literally living off the government, even if you had to work for it.

You started businesses? I congratulate your work. The copyright and trademark laws the government enforces made sure that you could capitalize on your intellectual property and could be free of people duping your customers. Again, police and firefighters protected your property. Your employees almost undoubtedly took advantage of some sort of public education to be qualified to work for you. The roads or cables or phone lines that carried your goods or your service, or let customers get to you? Those were paid for with our taxes. You used money in transactions? That money only mattered because the government set up a financial system and made sure banks could safely operate. (And before anyone argues about specie vs. fiat money, even a specie economy needs the government. Otherwise, your gold coin isn't good for anything other than being a really malleable metal.)

Everything that you've done, you've been able to do because taxes paid for it, somewhere along the way. Your law practice, your businesses, our tax money let you do that. There are a million little things that society, through our government, has done to let you have the opportunity to use your native talents to become successful. Every day, you've taken advantage of this infrastructure in ways that most of us will never be able to. That is why it is fair for you to pay more.

all in all I do OK and I probably pay more taxes in a quarter than you make in a year
I'm sure you do. I am currently working to put myself through school, working towards a Master's of Urban Planning. First person in my family to go to college, too. You could say I'm pulling myself up by my bootstraps.
 
You ought to read the rules. I am not personally insulting you, I am noting what you do in your posts.

And I find slurping Obama to be stupid

See, now you've flat out accused me of "slurping" Obama, specifically directing at me. That makes it a personal insult.

And, following a period, implies a different or new thought. You really are taking this personally and its all about your sexuality. It appears no one cares but you. Stop making an issue out of it, please.
 
you are talking through your 6 dude. One of my dearest friends had none of the advantages I had. Her father took off when she was around 8 and her mother and sisters moved back to east Jesus Indiana where her mother was from: instead of growing up in the wealthy part of Virginia she was in a place that sort of reminds me of Deliverance. Her mother took two jobs to make ends meet and this woman got a scholarship based on grades and the fact that she was 5-11 and had a wicked spike in volleyball. On to pharmacy school and after graduation she worked in the worst area of Indy. Yet she also started a business which she sold at age 40 for millions. And yet people like you say she ought to pay more because of WHAT

I do pay more and under a sales tax I would pay more. But I shouldn't pay a higher rate than you do because I get absolutely NO additional benefits from the government and probably use LESS government resources than you do. And when I get time I will pull up the post Hatuey made last July which explains why the rich SHOULD not pay higher taxes based on your attitude.
 
you are talking through your 6 dude. One of my dearest friends had none of the advantages I had. Her father took off when she was around 8 and her mother and sisters moved back to east Jesus Indiana where her mother was from: instead of growing up in the wealthy part of Virginia she was in a place that sort of reminds me of Deliverance. Her mother took two jobs to make ends meet and this woman got a scholarship based on grades and the fact that she was 5-11 and had a wicked spike in volleyball. On to pharmacy school and after graduation she worked in the worst area of Indy. Yet she also started a business which she sold at age 40 for millions. And yet people like you say she ought to pay more because of WHAT
This entire paragraph is a straw man. I never said anything having to do with whether someone came from wealth or poverty. I never said you should pay more because of your privileged background, or that she should pay less because of her destitute background. My argument was that you should pay more because you've used societal infrastructure more than the common person.

I do pay more and under a sales tax I would pay more. But I shouldn't pay a higher rate than you do because I get absolutely NO additional benefits from the government and probably use LESS government resources than you do. And when I get time I will pull up the post Hatuey made last July which explains why the rich SHOULD not pay higher taxes based on your attitude.

How would you pay more under a sales tax? Sales taxes are inherently regressive, since the poor spend a greater portion of their income on goods while the very wealthy have the luxury of being able to invest what isn't needed for essentials.

I've explained how you use more government resources than I do. Do you have any actual explanation of how you use less than me? I've never directly used the legal system in my life, you made money off of it for years. I've never had intellectual property that I've needed protecting, you did. I've never owned property that needs protecting, or hired employees that need to be educated. I fail to see how I've used anywhere near the amount of government resources that you have.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060439854 said:
And, following a period, implies a different or new thought. You really are taking this personally and its all about your sexuality. It appears no one cares but you. Stop making an issue out of it, please.

Why do you care if I'm making an issue out of it? It doesn't affect you one way, or another. And where does something about a period, come from? There was no period in his statement.
 
This entire paragraph is a straw man. I never said anything having to do with whether someone came from wealth or poverty. I never said you should pay more because of your privileged background, or that she should pay less because of her destitute background. My argument was that you should pay more because you've used societal infrastructure more than the common person.



How would you pay more under a sales tax? Sales taxes are inherently regressive, since the poor spend a greater portion of their income on goods while the very wealthy have the luxury of being able to invest what isn't needed for essentials.

I've explained how you use more government resources than I do. Do you have any actual explanation of how you use less than me? I've never directly used the legal system in my life, you made money off of it for years. I've never had intellectual property that I've needed protecting, you did. I've never owned property that needs protecting, or hired employees that need to be educated. I fail to see how I've used anywhere near the amount of government resources that you have.

I'd pay far more than you under a sales tax Because I buy far more than you do. BUt you couldn't -through democrat politicians-jack my tax rate up without jacking your own up

I don't use many government resources. I don't have patents, I don't send my kid to a public school, all of my education was at private schools except one grad degree but I paid for that fully by coaching a varsity sport,

LIFE IS REGRESSIVE DUDE.

you should pay for the value you receive. I don't pay more for a cheeseburger or a car than you do even though it takes less of my income. I pay 40,000 dollars for a Lexus because I get a 40,000 dollar car in return. I pay 3 dollars for a big mac etc because I get 3 dollars worth of indigestion just like you do for the same thing

and if you base taxes on what people use than you are in the idiotic position of claiming one millionaire who pays 300K in federal income taxes uses more government than the 65 million+ people who pay (combined) NO federal income taxes and that is a losing argument
 
Why do you care if I'm making an issue out of it? It doesn't affect you one way, or another. And where does something about a period, come from? There was no period in his statement.

It shouldn't affect you either. You are making a big deal out of nothing. And BTW, this is the post in which you saw no period. There is clearly a period after the word "posts." In the next sentence the word "And" starts a new thought.

You ought to read the rules. I am not personally insulting you, I am noting what you do in your posts.

And I find slurping Obama to be stupid
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060439854 said:
And, following a period, implies a different or new thought. You really are taking this personally and its all about your sexuality. It appears no one cares but you. Stop making an issue out of it, please.

I honestly didn't bother reading his entire post-the one where he ended it claiming he was "queer". (I thought gays got upset with that). Slurping Obama has nothing to do with one's sexual preferences.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Less talking about slurping, more talking about campaign ads, please.
 
Bush didn't have the intel. I think he would have if he had the intel that Obama did.

I'd say that any President that wouldn't should be impeached.

1) Bush didn;t have the intel because he forgot about Bin Laden. It was not a priority

Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden (short version) - YouTube

2) John McCain told use that he would chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell, but not into Pakistan

McCain on OBL: To the Gates of Hell, But Not to Pakistan - YouTube

3) Obama's own advisors, including Biden, told him not to execute the plan as it was too risky

Vice-president Joe Biden admits he told Obama not to launch raid to kill Osama bin Laden | Mail Online

The execution of the actual kill order came with enormous geo-political, domestic political and human risk. It was not a slam dunk. It could have been done with a drone, with Pakistini co-operation or could have been a missed opportunity while we were elevating confirmation. The suggestion it was a slam-dunk is somewhere between naive and monday morning quarterbacking. Suggesting Bush would have... is a romantic fantasy without any evidence of support (and plenty of evidence in the contrary).

I don't know about you, but I do not think Bin Laden evades US intelligence for ten years if they are really looking for him.

Bush had seven years to find him. He not only failed but professed it was not a priority. He gets no hypothetical credit for his ultimate capture.... as he did not care.
 
1) Bush didn;t have the intel because he forgot about Bin Laden. It was not a priority

Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden (short version) - YouTube

2) John McCain told use that he would chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell, but not into Pakistan

McCain on OBL: To the Gates of Hell, But Not to Pakistan - YouTube

3) Obama's own advisors, including Biden, told him not to execute the plan as it was too risky

Vice-president Joe Biden admits he told Obama not to launch raid to kill Osama bin Laden | Mail Online

The execution of the actual kill order came with enormous geo-political, domestic political and human risk. It was not a slam dunk. It could have been done with a drone, with Pakistini co-operation or could have been a missed opportunity while we were elevating confirmation. The suggestion it was a slam-dunk is somewhere between naive and monday morning quarterbacking. Suggesting Bush would have... is a romantic fantasy without any evidence of support (and plenty of evidence in the contrary).

I don't know about you, but I do not think Bin Laden evades US intelligence for ten years if they are really looking for him.

Bush had seven years to find him. He not only failed but professed it was not a priority. He gets no hypothetical credit for his ultimate capture.... as he did not care.

I don't see any actual proof for these rather hysterical claims.

YOu are just making assumptions that appear to be based on the fact that you support Obama. and you cannot get the facts because this matter is classified.

You also are basing your rant about bush based on one comment that you cannot possibly fathom the reasons behind. Its just as reasonable to believe that was designed to help catch OBL as anything you attribute to it

and if the SEAL mission had failed-you wouldn't have heard about it.

we lost a bunch of those guys when a helicopter went down

how do you know if the explanation given was real?

YOU DO NOT
 
Right, just like we didn't hear about the failed mission to rescue the Iranian hostages, or the Blackhawk Down incident. :roll:

220px-Black_hawk_down_ver1.jpg
 
I don't see any actual proof for these rather hysterical claims.

YOu are just making assumptions that appear to be based on the fact that you support Obama. and you cannot get the facts because this matter is classified.

You also are basing your rant about bush based on one comment that you cannot possibly fathom the reasons behind. Its just as reasonable to believe that was designed to help catch OBL as anything you attribute to it

and if the SEAL mission had failed-you wouldn't have heard about it.

we lost a bunch of those guys when a helicopter went down

how do you know if the explanation given was real?

YOU DO NOT

Wow, you sure missed the point. Are you sure you are an attorney?

No, I was making an argument that the assumption that Bush would have done the same thing was a bit absurd given that a) Bush stated he was not that interested in Bin Laden (yes, it could have been a ruse, but its on the record... and his actions tended to support this) and b) that the go-no go decision had a number of complexities to it that made the decision much less than a slam dunk.

I did not say Bush would not do the same thing in the circumstance, just that there was no evidence to support that he would and...that the go-no go decision was sufficiently complicated that it wasn't a slam dunk.
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060438613 said:
This is actually humorous coming from Bill Clinton, stating Romney wouldn't have taken out OBL in Pakistan. ...

The bush scum did nothing for 8 years. It took Obama to kill the major terrorist on the planet. Not to mention a few more top strategists in A. Q. and other major terrorist organisations around the world.

If it was a Republican president that gave the kill order, the Repubs would have made him 3 dozen statues and counting. But they dismiss Obama's decisive move to kill that piece of crap. They dismiss it because the Republican Party wants the racist vote above all else.

"It's the economy stupid."

On that note, Obama wins hands down. Even though most of his supporters were against this admin's bailouts, and even though Bush initiated one of the biggest bailouts in history before he got the hell out of the presidency, with the full bless and support of all Republicans, Republicans will never admit to reality. They will always support the continuing tax breaks to oil coprs, to energy companies, to mega farm-corps, to media corps, to the richest 5% of the population, and try to sell their destructive policies with a flag and a bible and as all 3 major Repub nominees told us the past few months, it's the black's fault for being poor.

That's another reason why conservatism is the sewage of humanity.
 
I probably pay more taxes in a quarter than you make in a year

Why is it so important you point that out to someone? Is it about you having a large tax liability? Good. You should. If you're paying every quarter what you "think" someone else makes in annual income, then you make plenty to pay what you do. And I have family that are the 1 percent, like you claim to be, so I KNOW you're getting all kinds of breaks and, I know life would be just fine if you paid at thirty five percent like you should. If your tax liability causes you to default on other financial obligations then perhaps you should downsize.

Or, maybe you pointed that out because it makes you feel good to think you're above people? If such is the case, it likely matters more to you than to others. Me? I never wanted or needed Ivy League schools, millions of dollars, fancy cars or even the biggest house on the block, so I'm not missing anything..nor am I envious or "jealous". True wealth has nothing to do with money.
YOU went after a life of financial wealth because YOU wanted it, so dont get mad at everyone else because you make good money and are expected to carry YOUR weight. Just pay your rightful taxes and be satisfied with knowing you can afford it.
 
Right, just like we didn't hear about the failed mission to rescue the Iranian hostages, or the Blackhawk Down incident. :roll:

220px-Black_hawk_down_ver1.jpg

far far more people involved. try again
 
The bush scum did nothing for 8 years. It took Obama to kill the major terrorist on the planet. Not to mention a few more top strategists in A. Q. and other major terrorist organisations around the world.

If it was a Republican president that gave the kill order, the Repubs would have made him 3 dozen statues and counting. But they dismiss Obama's decisive move to kill that piece of crap. They dismiss it because the Republican Party wants the racist vote above all else.



On that note, Obama wins hands down. Even though most of his supporters were against this admin's bailouts, and even though Bush initiated one of the biggest bailouts in history before he got the hell out of the presidency, with the full bless and support of all Republicans, Republicans will never admit to reality. They will always support the continuing tax breaks to oil coprs, to energy companies, to mega farm-corps, to media corps, to the richest 5% of the population, and try to sell their destructive policies with a flag and a bible and as all 3 major Repub nominees told us the past few months, it's the black's fault for being poor.

That's another reason why conservatism is the sewage of humanity.


Obama slurpage and idiotic hackery at is POE worst
 
Why is it so important you point that out to someone? Is it about you having a large tax liability? Good. You should. If you're paying every quarter what you "think" someone else makes in annual income, then you make plenty to pay what you do. And I have family that are the 1 percent, like you claim to be, so I KNOW you're getting all kinds of breaks and, I know life would be just fine if you paid at thirty five percent like you should. If your tax liability causes you to default on other financial obligations then perhaps you should downsize.

Or, maybe you pointed that out because it makes you feel good to think you're above people? If such is the case, it likely matters more to you than to others. Me? I never wanted or needed Ivy League schools, millions of dollars, fancy cars or even the biggest house on the block, so I'm not missing anything..nor am I envious or "jealous". True wealth has nothing to do with money.
YOU went after a life of financial wealth because YOU wanted it, so dont get mad at everyone else because you make good money and are expected to carry YOUR weight. Just pay your rightful taxes and be satisfied with knowing you can afford it.


Yawn, I don't have a moral duty to pay more so politicians can give others stuff to buy their votes, You have no clue


and lose the posting in bold, your comments aren't very good and certainly do not need any extra attention
 
The bush scum did nothing for 8 years. It took Obama to kill the major terrorist on the planet. Not to mention a few more top strategists in A. Q. and other major terrorist organisations around the world.

If it was a Republican president that gave the kill order, the Repubs would have made him 3 dozen statues and counting. But they dismiss Obama's decisive move to kill that piece of crap. They dismiss it because the Republican Party wants the racist vote above all else.

On that note, Obama wins hands down. Even though most of his supporters were against this admin's bailouts, and even though Bush initiated one of the biggest bailouts in history before he got the hell out of the presidency, with the full bless and support of all Republicans, Republicans will never admit to reality. They will always support the continuing tax breaks to oil coprs, to energy companies, to mega farm-corps, to media corps, to the richest 5% of the population, and try to sell their destructive policies with a flag and a bible and as all 3 major Repub nominees told us the past few months, it's the black's fault for being poor.

That's another reason why conservatism is the sewage of humanity.

Maybe you should see someone about your rage problem. Conservative pharmaceutical companies make some good medication for that disorder and liberal physicians dispense it, well liberally.

Foreign policy will not get anyone elected to the POTUS this year, Obama included. The Clinton video is just a weak and humorous attempt to deflect the issues. Liberals talk about Romney flip flopping on issues; that's funny too, keep reading.

Are the short list of situations below Obama lies, or just more of his typical hypocrisy?

Instead of placing on trial enemy combatants, as he stated he would, Obama now just kills them.

Obama must have forgotten his pledge to negotiate with Mullah Omar because he killed him too. Oops!

Obama's "enemy combatant" policy: following a familiar pattern - Washington, D.C. - Salon.com
Barack Obama has perfected a three-step maneuver that could never even be attempted by a politician lacking his rhetorical skill or cool cynicism.

First: Denounce your presidential predecessor for a given policy, energizing your party’s base and capitalizing on his abiding unpopularity. Second: Pretend to have reversed that policy upon taking office with a symbolic act or high-profile statement. Third: Adopt a version of that same policy, knowing that it’s the only way to govern responsibly or believing that doing otherwise is too difficult.

BREAKING: Obama Signs Homeland Battlefield Bill Into Law
President Obama today signed the highly controversial Defense Spending Bill. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with its so-called Homeland Battlefield provisions, allows, according to many legal scholars, the indefinite detention of US citizens by the US military. What is most striking is a lengthy signing statement by Obama, in which he maintains his reservations about the Homeland Battlefield provisions, saying, 'I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.' His defense of civil liberties in the signing statement was passionate. Nonetheless, at the same moment, he signed the bill into law.

If Bush was so bad as Obama has stated numerous times, then why does he continue to emulate his policies?

4050674207_obama_bush_xlarge.jpg
 
Yawn, I don't have a moral duty to pay more so politicians can give others stuff to buy their votes, You have no clue


and lose the posting in bold, your comments aren't very good and certainly do not need any extra attention

One, they're good enough to get YOUR attention and keystrokes, eh?

Two, You must have me confused with your wife and/or child... I'll type however I so choose, know that.

Three, I bold because people complained and said they couldnt read my font. This isn't about "attention" though I can see why you think it would be...kinda hard to separate what YOU need from what everyone else needs, huh? Their are counselors that can help you with that problem.

Four, Freedom isn't Free...so shut up and pay your taxes like everyone else has to.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Less talking about slurping, more talking about campaign ads, please.

Can this go in the thread about the funniest warnings ever heeded on DP? If I had been drinking something at the time I read this, my laptop would have worn it.

SB is this your first warning you ever made on DP? I've never seen you put one before this, but I don't go to every section of the forum.
 
Last edited:
One, they're good enough to get YOUR attention and keystrokes, eh?

Two, You must have me confused with your wife and/or child... I'll type however I so choose, know that.

Three, I bold because people complained and said they couldnt read my font. This isn't about "attention" though I can see why you think it would be...kinda hard to separate what YOU need from what everyone else needs, huh? Their are counselors that can help you with that problem.

Four, Freedom isn't Free...so shut up and pay your taxes like everyone else has to.



ah I knew we would channel the fascist animus in you. Those of us who pay the most taxes should shut up and do what the pimps in office and the parasites they cater to tell us?

"THEIR ARE COUNSELORS THAT CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT PROBLEM"?

Maybe some can counsel you on THERE vs THEIR

just saying............
 
ah I knew we would channel the fascist animus in you. Those of us who pay the most taxes should shut up and do what the pimps in office and the parasites they cater to tell us?

"THEIR ARE COUNSELORS THAT CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT PROBLEM"?

Maybe some can counsel you on THERE vs THEIR

just saying............

lol...it's a common, thoughtless typo...you'll have to do better than that, Turtle.

You should pay what you owe. Do you not expect those who make less than you to pay what they owe? Or are you just anti tax period?
 
Former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, says it was a "Gutzy" call.

 
Back
Top Bottom