• 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.

The GOP screwed up so bad that even a black man can be voted President![W: 15]

TheNextEra said:
When was the last time before Obama that we had a president that encouraged people to use food stamps?
Click to expand...


I haven't seen any President, including Obama accused of that.

The topic is directed to those individuals who are racist or non-racist, short or tall, democrat or republican, striped or polka dot, dog or cat, who have attacked Obama on spending. Does it take bubble gum wrappers and pop bottles to fix the economy or will it take a considerable amount of money to do so. I am really interested to get some bids going here.

Keep in mind how bad the economy was and is in. Don't Know?
It is so bad that even a black man can be elected president!


How many people say $100,000.00 is needed?
How many people say $500,000.00 is needed?
How many people say $1,500,000.00 is needed?
How many people say $5,500,000.00 is needed?
How many people say $1,000,500,000.00 is needed?

Ya' see, when confronted in bold face, expert critics just run away because they are not sure as to where a "real life look" at this issue will lead them.

If Obama is spending too much money, stop bashing and tell the President how much he should be spending! Unless of course those so-called experts are a haters or racist and are campaigning for him to fail. And if that's the case... the big debate "is a terrible thing to waste."

This attack that "Obama is wrongfully putting us in trillions of dollars in debt for no apparent reason" is being collegially challenged.
 
debatedeb1 said:
It takes more than bubble gum wrappers and pop bottles to bring back a failed economy. A person who speaks so lightly of a crisis situation, probably doesn't understand the situation. Allow me to help you.

The GOP screwed up so bad, that even a black man could be elected President! Damn, that's bad!

They sure know how to throw a good ol' party (GOP). They are so hung over that they don't even realize what happened. Like they are still in a drunken stupor which means "a state of near-unconsciousness or insensibility".

it's going to take trillions to dig us out! TRILLIONS! They feel that there has been no harm done. They are still drunk and ready to "party down" like frat brothers and put us right back in it all over again.

...And then criticize anybody who tries to dig us out by saying with day old Vodka breath, "...wh, wh, what took you soo lo, lo, long?"

They need to pull themselves together and get their a__s in gear or risk suffering an even greater consequence...



...a Mexican President.







I look forward to it.

Sober up America.
Click to expand...

beerftw said:
theres no debate its a bait thread.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I'll bit anyway...

What's wrong with having a Black man as President? Are you saying that no Black person would ever be qualified to lead this nation? Or put another way, are you saying that the GOP has screwed up so bad that the country has gotten so desperate it will elect anybody as President including a Black man in a desperate attempt to get out of its troubles?

What exactly are you saying here? Let's not leave the matter so vague and open-ended. Say what's really on your mind.
 
debatedeb1 said:
What If someone says to you, "Your scheme is so obvious that even Stevie Wonder can see thorough it . The debate is not about Stevie Wonder. Stevie Wonder is used only to gauge the depth of injury. People who know of Stevie Wonder knows the legacy of him being blind.

"...that even a black man can be voted president". doesn't mean the debate is about a black man. A black man is used only to gauge to depth of the catastrophic situation...in this case, the failed economy.

People who know of "black men", know the legacy of being less than human, never will amount to anything, sabotage his enterprise, criminals, etc.

It's used only to gauge the seriousness of our fading economic outlook.

Critics say that Obama is spending too much money. Is he?

In the attacks that Obama is spending a lot of money, people would simply understand the gauge theory and comment on the fact that it takes a lot of money to pull this country together or it only takes bumble gum wrappers and pop bottles. On the other hand...

...I must admit that by saying "a black man" does bring about racial over tones.
So, I didn't want to go there but let's address it anyway. Non-racist would simply understand the gauge theory. Racist would understand in their own little way what this statement means. They would hang their heads in disgust as to think that they screwed up this bad.

They have become extremely bitter as to what has transpired in the White House and have vowed to use every bit of strength to oust the "less than human" by coming up with lame excuses as to why Obama shouldn't be there.

And that is what this debate is about....Spending (seriousness) , and who's complaining.
Click to expand...

Ah...

Well, why didn't you just say all this in the first place, man!
 
Mycroft said:
You seem to be quite the racist, deb.

Perhaps you should read the rules of this forum before you go much further.

Just sayin...
Click to expand...



Ya know, we have been warned about personal attacks.

Captain, in respect to you warning and wishes, I'm only offering this statement as a response of being accused of being a racist.

There was a time in this country when slavery existed. And there were laws and practices that supported the themes that said Negroes were less than human, would never amount to nothing, don't teach slaves how to read or write, don't allow them to attend school or college, don't allow time to start a business, and when it was allowed in some states to start a business the treatment was to sabotage the slave's enterprises. (Hey, this seems like a good spot to say, read my book on the history of Blacks in Business).

It is interesting that since there is nothing that I said that depicts me as being a racist, that you would find it necessary to call me one.







P.S. whenever I write a book on Blacks in Business, I'll post it here.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Ah...

Well, why didn't you just say all this in the first place, man!
Click to expand...



Ya know, you're right!

I donno, sometimes when you're frustrated and exhausted, and you just want to get it all out, your creative juices supersedes your logical juices.

Don't you just hate when people do that?












...sorry....
 
deb:
Here is one for you.
I am against the federal govt. borrowing approximately 0.40 of every dollar they spend. So yes, I think Congress and then the President who approves the spending bill is spending too much.
 
Now that debateded1 has somewhat clarified his (or her) position from the OP, I believe I understand where's he (or she) is coming from. (Sorry, but your gender isn't identified in your bio panel, so I'm left to guess whether you're male or female).

You have to look back at the economic policies of this country over the last 30 years or so to understand how we went from a major manufacturity giant and large exporter to a service sector economy relying on financial services, stock trades, corporate buy-outs via private equity funds and so forth before you can really begin to understand the mess we're all in now.

To that, debateded1 hits on a few very key points though how he/she attempts to explain things is a bit muddled. Put simply: The very people who were behind many of the economic policies that got us in this mess are now the very same people who are standing in the way of changing economic policies so that the country can move forward.

For example:

During the GOP presidential debates who was it who said he was the one who orchestrated the political movement during both the Reagan and Clinton Administrations that ushered in people and policies that lead our economy down the rabbit hole and are largely still in affect now?

Who was it who said he was a "team player" and voted for bills that went against his conservative pricinples but he voted for them anyway for the good of the (Republican) party?

And who was it who told that nation (at least those who were paying close attention to the debates) that his party was incapable of governing right now?

I'm not saying it was all the fault of Republicans - clearly Democrats share a part of the blame, too. But when you really look at the catalysist for many of our nation's economic problems, most of finger-wagging can only be pointed at those on the Right. But to be fair, Democrats didn't do their part to correct things either, and that is because where their center of power has come from over the years since the Civil Rights Movement. (Here's a hint: Look to the East-Coast)

If you really go back and do your homework on the economic policies of this country and come to understand how lobbyist, special interest and tax policies have all contributed to the problems this country now faces, you'll have a better understanding of what debateded1 is talking about. Sure, many individuals and businesses have made billions of dollars as a result of these policies, but at what collective cost to the country? Let me put this another way...

For all the money Facebook has earned Mark Zuckerberg, what has he produced really?

For all the billions of investment dollars that have gone into failing business by private equity firms, what have they produced? Did the business grow? Expand? Is it still in business today hiring people or producing tangible goods?

For all the hedge funds that exist today, are these fund managers putting their money back into the marketplace creating more businesses that produce goods and services here or are they waiting on tax policies to change in their favor so that they can either hide their money or get still more tax breaks on their earnings before they use their money to create jobs? And mind you, these are some of the very same people who continue to say that government has no place in the private sector yet these very wealthy individuals are waiting for the government to give them something before they do anything to lead this country out of its economic stooper.

And before anyone says it, I'm not against capitalism; I'm just against stupid economic policies and corporate greed just as much as I'm against foolish federal policies that do nothing except lead itself to more wasteful government spending. Still, I fully understand what President Obama is saying - has said: "Government does have a role to play either where the private sector fails or refuses to get involved to correct economic imbalances in the marketplace on their own."
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
deb:
Here is one for you.
I am against the federal govt. borrowing approximately 0.40 of every dollar they spend. So yes, I think Congress and then the President who approves the spending bill is spending too much.
Click to expand...




So, tell the President how much does it take to get the county back on track.

You are giving out some statistics that you read somewhere. But when you sat down and figured out how much is required to get this country back in shape, what was the amount that you came up with?
 
debatedeb1 said:
What If someone says to you, "Your scheme is so obvious that even Stevie Wonder can see thorough it . The debate is not about Stevie Wonder. Stevie Wonder is used only to gauge the depth of injury. People who know of Stevie Wonder knows the legacy of him being blind.

"...that even a black man can be voted president". doesn't mean the debate is about a black man. A black man is used only to gauge to depth of the catastrophic situation...in this case, the failed economy.

People who know of "black men", know the legacy of being less than human, never will amount to anything, sabotage his enterprise, criminals, etc.

It's used only to gauge the seriousness of our fading economic outlook.

Critics say that Obama is spending too much money. Is he?

In the attacks that Obama is spending a lot of money, people would simply understand the gauge theory and comment on the fact that it takes a lot of money to pull this country together or it only takes bumble gum wrappers and pop bottles. On the other hand...

...I must admit that by saying "a black man" does bring about racial over tones.
So, I didn't want to go there but let's address it anyway. Non-racist would simply understand the gauge theory. Racist would understand in their own little way what this statement means. They would hang their heads in disgust as to think that they screwed up this bad.

They have become extremely bitter as to what has transpired in the White House and have vowed to use every bit of strength to oust the "less than human" by coming up with lame excuses as to why Obama shouldn't be there.

And that is what this debate is about....Spending (seriousness) , and who's complaining.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does bring racial overtones. And no, it can't be rationalized away. Being black isn't equal to being blind. You moved it away from a rational discussion on spending to a racial one. And needlessly so. The issue of republicans spending isn't one anyone really disputes. They know there is a reason they lost (Iraq and the economy). If Obama loses, it will be the economy. There isn't really much to dispute here.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Yes, it does bring racial overtones. And no, it can't be rationalized away. Being black isn't equal to being blind. You moved it away from a rational discussion on spending to a racial one. And needlessly so. The issue of republicans spending isn't one anyone really disputes. They know there is a reason they lost (Iraq and the economy). If Obama loses, it will be the economy. There isn't really much to dispute here.
Click to expand...



I have no intentions of rationalizing away anything. What gave you that Idea?

To the extent that you believe something to be true, it we will come true for you.
 
Some dims I have talked to said
They voted for Obama to get even with the Re-Necks.
 
Obama is having an historic decline in spending. This encludes Bush's stimulus package.....



246580_10150930185041749_6815841748_9667486_1915172292_n.jpg
 
debatedeb1 said:
What's your point?

So, you are saying $500.000.00 is needed?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is, your point is lost behind the stones you are throwing right out of the gate. That and the encrypted sarcasm. Now that I know you like to use sarcasm to the hilt it won't be so encrypted though.
 
debatedeb1 said:
Makes you wonder...If Bush ended on a great note, there would have no hype for change.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder if the DOJ had stopped Florida from purging their voter registration rolls back in 2000....


Or if Monica L. had never gotten a stain on her dress....
 
hazlnut said:
Makes you wonder if the DOJ had stopped Florida from purging their voter registration rolls back in 2000....


Or if Monica L. had never gotten a stain on her dress....
Click to expand...

*edit...

you sneaky bastard making a last second change.... nvm.
 
hazlnut said:
Makes you wonder if the DOJ had stopped Florida from purging their voter registration rolls back in 2000.
Click to expand...

I can't believe voter purging is going on in that state right before a national election yet again.
 
hazlnut said:
Makes you wonder if the DOJ had stopped Florida from purging their voter registration rolls back in 2000....
Click to expand...

poweRob said:
I can't believe voter purging is going on in that state right before a national election yet again.
Click to expand...

If hanging chads becomes a problem for Florida again in the 2012 election, you can bet the SC won't intervene this time.
 
hazlnut said:
Makes you wonder if the DOJ had stopped Florida from purging their voter registration rolls back in 2000....


Or if Monica L. had never gotten a stain on her dress....
Click to expand...

or if Brokejaw had not called the election before the panhandle polls closed

or if Al Gore had not been peeing when Chinese money was flowing to his campaign

or if Al Gore had not lost his home state
 
AdamT said:
You know Obama is leading Romney by 20 points in Massachusettes, right? :lol:
Click to expand...

not really relevant to this conversation.
 
OpportunityCost said:
That you do not see what is wrong with that statement is a large part of the problem.
Click to expand...

You'll have to point out where I said I didn't see anything wrong with that or are you ASSuming again?
 
Darroll said:
Some dims I have talked to said
They voted for Obama to get even with the Re-Necks.
Click to expand...

Some Cons I have talked to said they voted gaainst Obama because he was black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom