• 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.

Are the dems getting desperate? [W:33]

I'm getting desperate. I am going to build an Armageddon Bunker. It's all I can think of to do.
 
Fruityfact said:
A good portion of that debt can be attributed to A. The slowed economy B. Tax cuts and wars enacted by the previous president(Don't say all liberals do is blame it on bush--fact is a fact)
Romney's plans start with tax cuts for everyone-even those who don't need it-and an expansion of the already bloated military.
Click to expand...

your name is very telling
 
clownboy said:
No, it really won't. The budget breakers are largely high ticket items that have already been contracted for. Cut those off and you're looking at massive unemployment in those sectors and more arms sold to foreign sources (the defense companies will try to stay in business and profitable).
Click to expand...

probably not, military export licenses are not east to get, and under an obama state dept they would be impossible to get. defense contractors are already laying people off, and obama wants them to ignore the 60 day notice requirements, which were put into law by democrats.
 
Fruityfact said:
"The United States has had a policy since WW2 to always be able to fight 2 major wars at the same time. Under Obama that has changed."
Proof please?
Cutting the US Military WILL lower our debt-something conservatives pretend to care about
Click to expand...

U.S. Can't Fight Two Wars at the Same Time Anymore - Global - The Atlantic Wire

Historically if you look at defense spending as a % of GDP during the Bush years it wasn't very high, especially if you compare it to the height of the cold war.

defense-spending-and-gdp.gif


Government Spending on entitlements is at an all time high however. We have the highest dependence on Government ever.

Report Puts Debt at 70% of GDP - WSJ.com
 
Bobcat said:
just asked a legitimate question, and as usual the liberal response is to attack the messenger.
Click to expand...

We're in different states, so maybe I'm seeing different ads from Obama than you are, but the ones I've seen (so far) don't come across as desperate. They are a bit more aggressive than I would prefer, but when you're competing with someone(s) who is strictly running negative ads against you, I suppose (in all fairness) it only makes sense to run an attack ad back. I personally wish that both sides would just strictly state what they actually stood for and not respond to the negativity from the other side, but sadly this countries citizens only respond to arguments and battles. Obama, when it comes to Conservatives, can't win no matter what he does. If a plan he is working on (big or small) works out well, then he's a Socialist and anti-American and "obviously not a real citizen," and in the same regard if one of his plans don't work out well then it is "obvious that was going to happen because he's a socialist, anti-American, and obviously not a real citizen." I think at this point there isn't going to be a happy medium between either side of the playing field. FOX News & Friends hates any Democrat and will do whatever they have to make their viewers think we're all evil. MSNBC (in my opinion) speaks more truths than anything, but even they're guilty of playing into the aggressive side-picking reporting.

So I guess my answer to your question about whether or not Democrats are desperate would be no. No the Democrats aren't desperate, they're just completely aware that regardless of what they say or do they're never going to get the Conservative side of the field to even attempt to work out a bipartisan deal on any potential law.

I'm not attacking you either, I'm just legitimately stating that I really don't think it matters what Obama does, Conservatives will always hate him. Even if he were to come out and say that he is ultra-Conservative now, he'd still be hated. He may as well speak to his supports only at this point.
 
Last edited:
laurcunningham said:
We're in different states, so maybe I'm seeing different ads from Obama than you are, but the ones I've seen (so far) don't come across as desperate. They are a bit more aggressive than I would prefer, but when you're competing with someone(s) who is strictly running negative ads against you, I suppose (in all fairness) it only makes sense to run an attack ad back. I personally wish that both sides would just strictly state what they actually stood for and not respond to the negativity from the other side, but sadly this countries citizens only respond to arguments and battles. Obama, when it comes to Conservatives, can't win no matter what he does. If a plan he is working on (big or small) works out well, then he's a Socialist and anti-American and "obviously not a real citizen," and in the same regard if one of his plans don't work out well then it is "obvious that was going to happen because he's a socialist, anti-American, and obviously not a real citizen." I think at this point there isn't going to be a happy between either side of the playing field. FOX News & Friends hates any Democrat and will do whatever they have to make their viewers think we're all evil. MSNBC (in my opinion) speaks more truths than anything, but even they're guilty of playing into the aggressive of side picking.

So I guess my answer to your question about whether or not Democrats are desperate would be no. No the Democrats aren't desperate, they're just completely aware that regardless of what they say or do they're never going to get the Conservative side of the field to even attempt to work out a partisan deal on any potential law.

I'm not attacking you either, I'm just legitimately stating that I really don't think it matters what Obama does, Conservatives will always hate him. Even if he were to come out and say that he is ultra-Conservative now, he'd still be hated. He may as well speak to his supports only at this point.
Click to expand...

Your first post gets you your first like. Welcome to Debate Politics!
 
Bobcat said:
just asked a legitimate question, and as usual the liberal response is to attack the messenger.
Click to expand...

Your question isn't legitimate. That's the problem. Your question ignores two very important things: 1) Mudslinging has been going on in politics for as long as politics has been going on; 2) Conservatives personally attack and sling mud every bit as much as liberals. A conservative who doesn't recognize this has no ability to accurately assess his side... or the other.
 
laurcunningham said:
We're in different states, so maybe I'm seeing different ads from Obama than you are, but the ones I've seen (so far) don't come across as desperate. They are a bit more aggressive than I would prefer, but when you're competing with someone(s) who is strictly running negative ads against you, I suppose (in all fairness) it only makes sense to run an attack ad back. I personally wish that both sides would just strictly state what they actually stood for and not respond to the negativity from the other side, but sadly this countries citizens only respond to arguments and battles. Obama, when it comes to Conservatives, can't win no matter what he does. If a plan he is working on (big or small) works out well, then he's a Socialist and anti-American and "obviously not a real citizen," and in the same regard if one of his plans don't work out well then it is "obvious that was going to happen because he's a socialist, anti-American, and obviously not a real citizen." I think at this point there isn't going to be a happy medium between either side of the playing field. FOX News & Friends hates any Democrat and will do whatever they have to make their viewers think we're all evil. MSNBC (in my opinion) speaks more truths than anything, but even they're guilty of playing into the aggressive side-picking reporting.

So I guess my answer to your question about whether or not Democrats are desperate would be no. No the Democrats aren't desperate, they're just completely aware that regardless of what they say or do they're never going to get the Conservative side of the field to even attempt to work out a bipartisan deal on any potential law.

I'm not attacking you either, I'm just legitimately stating that I really don't think it matters what Obama does, Conservatives will always hate him. Even if he were to come out and say that he is ultra-Conservative now, he'd still be hated. He may as well speak to his supports only at this point.
Click to expand...



what you say is true, to a point. you may not be seeing ads that you consider negative or desparate, but actions like Reid's totally unfounded allegation on the floor of the senate look like desperation to me. Attacking Ann Romney because she has a horse looks desperate, lots of average income and poor people have horses. The whole Romney tax thing is a desperate attempt to take the attention away from obama's massive failure as president and his socialist marxist leanings.

When your entire political campaign is based on slandering your opponent, thats either desperation or just plain sleaze politics.
 
Bobcat said:
what you say is true, to a point. you may not be seeing ads that you consider negative or desparate, but actions like Reid's totally unfounded allegation on the floor of the senate look like desperation to me. Attacking Ann Romney because she has a horse looks desperate, lots of average income and poor people have horses. The whole Romney tax thing is a desperate attempt to take the attention away from obama's massive failure as president and his socialist marxist leanings.

When your entire political campaign is based on slandering your opponent, thats either desperation or just plain sleaze politics.
Click to expand...

OK, folks, it's time for DP's FAVORITE game show, Hypocrisy Check! I am your host, CaptainCourtesy. And our newest contestant is Bobcat. WELCOME Bobcat. Now here's your Hypocrisy Check! question...

So, Bobcat... what do you think of a campaign that's completely based on the opponent's birth certificate, where he went to church, and who he had for dinner at his house 20 years ago? Would you say that's "sleaze politics"?
 
Re: Are the dems getting desperate?

Bobcat said:
Do you listen to the news? the dems have attacked Ann Romeny for a shirt but said nothing about Michelle wearing a $7 jacket. they have attacked Romney on just about every topic they can think of--all baseless. they have attcked their dog and their horse.
Click to expand...

I guess I didn't see the Ann Romney "attack" about a shirt, but I usually love that Michelle picks cheaper more accessible clothing to wear. That's the beside the point though. I was responding to this more because no one attacked Romney's dog, they said that Romney was inappropriate and wrong for placing his dog in a crate and tying it to the roof of his vehicle and driving at high rates of speed on a rainy day. No dog attacking there.

Also Michelle Obama is attacked daily for "being too fat," "having a big ass," "being a monkey," "forcing healthy food down our throats," and numerous amounts of other personal things constantly.

rcart76 said:
I know what you mean.

I hate the way the left keeps bringing up Romney's birth certificate or complaining about him not wearing a flag pin. Oh and the media is the worse !!!! Remember when MSNBC made a big deal about Mitt giving his wife Ann a fist bump at a rally and they said that it was a "Terrorist fist jab".

SMH... This is what American politics has degraded into.
Click to expand...

:) The terrorist fist jab statement made me laugh. How silly.

Born Free said:
Almost 6 trillion added to the national debt in just 4 yrs, unemployment at over 8% for over 40 months, and an economy stuck at 1.5% GDP. This is what your guy has to run on.
Click to expand...

I guess it is just easier to pretend that Bush didn't lead us into several wars that spiked us into a severe deficit problem. It is irresponsible of anyone to think that any president (Democrat or Republican) could make that disaster disappear in their first six months, let alone first four years. I personally remember vividly hearing Obama say as he was running for President and multiple times afterwards that things are going to get worse before they get better... but obviously that doesn't matter.

Redress said:
Your first post gets you your first like. Welcome to Debate Politics!
Click to expand...

Thanks. :)

Bobcat said:
what you say is true, to a point. you may not be seeing ads that you consider negative or desparate, but actions like Reid's totally unfounded allegation on the floor of the senate look like desperation to me. Attacking Ann Romney because she has a horse looks desperate, lots of average income and poor people have horses. The whole Romney tax thing is a desperate attempt to take the attention away from obama's massive failure as president and his socialist marxist leanings.

When your entire political campaign is based on slandering your opponent, thats either desperation or just plain sleaze politics.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how any of this is different than what the Conservative side is doing. Both sides are going to do whatever they can this close to the election to gain votes, which is stupid and immature, but in a country that has more people voting for American Idol contestants than for the Presidential campaign itself, all of these politicians have learned that acting like a child and stirring up the waters gets you a vote.

If people are still all over Obama because the birth certificate he produced "wasn't good enough," then I think it's fair for people to be questioning why Romney won't release his tax records. On a slightly different note, I work my butt off at my full-time job AND go to school full-time. I don't complain about it, I do it because I have to. I don't complain about paying taxes because clearly someone has to and obviously the people at the top aren't interested in doing it. I do it all, I don't complain, and all I expect is for everyone to do the same. It's not, in my opinion, desperation to demand evidence of doing your part for this country. If it's desperation to you that is completely okay and absolutely your right to view it that way. :)
 
Re: Are the dems getting desperate?

laurcunningham said:
I guess I didn't see the Ann Romney "attack" about a shirt, but I usually love that Michelle picks cheaper more accessible clothing to wear. That's the beside the point though. I was responding to this more because no one attacked Romney's dog, they said that Romney was inappropriate and wrong for placing his dog in a crate and tying it to the roof of his vehicle and driving at high rates of speed on a rainy day. No dog attacking there.

Also Michelle Obama is attacked daily for "being too fat," "having a big ass," "being a monkey," "forcing healthy food down our throats," and numerous amounts of other personal things constantly.
Click to expand...

I missed the shirt thing too, and the horse thing he mentions is nothing like what he claims. AS far as Michelle Obama:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ing-french-fries-but-eat-your-vegetables.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/92138-michelle-obama-putting-weight.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...n/90601-michelle-obama-kills-pedestrians.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...6691-first-lady-and-her-carbon-footprint.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...ut-lanvin-sneakers-and-theyre-only-540-a.html

But democrats are desperate....
 
Re: Are the dems getting desperate?

Redress said:
I missed the shirt thing too, and the horse thing he mentions is nothing like what he claims. AS far as Michelle Obama:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ing-french-fries-but-eat-your-vegetables.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/92138-michelle-obama-putting-weight.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...n/90601-michelle-obama-kills-pedestrians.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...6691-first-lady-and-her-carbon-footprint.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...ut-lanvin-sneakers-and-theyre-only-540-a.html

But democrats are desperate....
Click to expand...

On a personal note, I lost 80 pounds over the course of about two years and felt amazing. I did put some of it back on again and have lost some again, but it's always a struggle. Regardless of whether or not I'm a liberal or not, it really gets under my skin when Michelle is given a hard time for trying to get kids active again because she struggled with weight issues growing up and doesn't want children to have the same problem. If there was going to be anything that she was going to be hated for, this would have been the last thing on the list I would have figured would have been the hot button for people. It's really amazing to me that this is even an issue to be begin with.

Also, on the fashion side, she's the FLOTUS and just because she promotes cheaper options for people doesn't mean that she can ALWAYS show up to social events in Target, Wal-Mart, or H&M priced clothing. She is going to have to wear more fashionable things sometimes otherwise people will attack her for that as well... oh wait, they do anyway.
 
Re: Are the dems getting desperate?

Maybe I'm missing something here in the Chicago area, but I have seen very few political ads here. The most pressing issue on most people's minds, in my opinion, is the economy -- and that is directly reflected in the unemployment rate. When Obama came into the presidency in 2008, the unemployment rate was 5%. In July of this year, it stands at 8.3%. What does Obama have to talk about?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
So now "Dingy Harry" Reid is quoting anonymous sources that Romney has not paid taxes for the last 10 years.........Is senility setting in on this guy? Name the ****ing source "Dingy" if you have one which I doubt..........
 
Re: Are the dems getting desperate?

MaggieD said:
Maybe I'm missing something here in the Chicago area, but I have seen very few political ads here. The most pressing issue on most people's minds, in my opinion, is the economy -- and that is directly reflected in the unemployment rate. When Obama came into the presidency in 2008, the unemployment rate was 5%. In July of this year, it stands at 8.3%. What does Obama have to talk about?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Click to expand...

Illinois is not a battle ground state. RCP has Obama up by 20, but with no recent polls. It will go to Obama barring a miracle, and as such not much if any money will be spent there on ads.

Edit: I am a bonehead...the 20 is the number of electoral votes. It is still a safely blue state, you are still not going to get any ad money spent there.
 
Last edited:
Re: Are the dems getting desperate?

Redress said:
Illinois is not a battle ground state. RCP has Obama up by 20, but with no recent polls. It will go to Obama barring a miracle, and as such not much if any money will be spent there on ads.

Edit: I am a bonehead...the 20 is the number of electoral votes. It is still a safely blue state, you are still not going to get any ad money spent there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all Obama has to do is win Cook county and they would elect a corpse so long as it was a democrat.
Quinn only won 3 counties and Gianoulias (sp) won ONLY Cook and his loss margin was less than 2%. That tells you all that you need to know.
 
Re: Are the dems getting desperate?

Redress said:
Illinois is not a battle ground state. RCP has Obama up by 20, but with no recent polls. It will go to Obama barring a miracle, and as such not much if any money will be spent there on ads.

Edit: I am a bonehead...the 20 is the number of electoral votes. It is still a safely blue state, you are still not going to get any ad money spent there.
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

:rofl I'm tempted to use your statement there in my signature line, but the better part of discretion tells me it just might be more trouble than it's worth. ;)
 
Re: Are the dems getting desperate?

MaggieD said:
That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

:rofl I'm tempted to use your statement there in my signature line, but the better part of discretion tells me it just might be more trouble than it's worth. ;)
Click to expand...

Which part? Go ahead, I know a couple people who have quotes of me in their sig. I am cool with it. Nothing in that post I am ashamed of, and I was the one who called myself a bonehead, and sometimes it is very true.
 
Bronson said:
Our Navy fleet is half what it was under Reagan. The United States has had a policy since WW2 to always be able to fight 2 major wars at the same time. Under Obama that has changed.

National Defense is the fundamental purpose of our Government. To protect our freedom, private property rights, and the opportunity society. Liberals act like that is the magical piggy bank that will make their neo keynesian, demand driven wealth redistribution schemes work. It's one massive strawman. Cutting the US Military is not going to reduce unemployment. It's not going to generate wealth, new opportunities, or prosperity.
Click to expand...

We spend more than all other nations combined on defense. It's too damn much. Why do we want to fight even 1 more war no less 2 at a time. Our "wars" lately have been futile "adventures" with no way to win anyway. We need to spend that money rebuilding OUR bridges and infrastructure for a change.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
We spend more than all other nations combined on defense. It's too damn much. Why do we want to fight even 1 more war no less 2 at a time. Our "wars" lately have been futile "adventures" with no way to win anyway. We need to spend that money rebuilding OUR bridges and infrastructure for a change.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and Obama invaded Libya making for a 3rd. I could never figure out why he invaded Libya, it was said for humanitarian purposes, but in reality is was for oil. In Syria there are far more humanitarian needs than Libya ever had, yet Obama sits on the side line. It's all about oil.
 
Born Free said:
Yeah, and Obama invaded Libya making for a 3rd. I could never figure out why he invaded Libya, it was said for humanitarian purposes, but in reality is was for oil. In Syria there are far more humanitarian needs than Libya ever had, yet Obama sits on the side line. It's all about oil.
Click to expand...

I was in Newark airport getting on a Pan Am flight when the news came about Lockerbie Pan Am Flight 103
 
iguanaman said:
We spend more than all other nations combined on defense. It's too damn much. Why do we want to fight even 1 more war no less 2 at a time. Our "wars" lately have been futile "adventures" with no way to win anyway. We need to spend that money rebuilding OUR bridges and infrastructure for a change.
Click to expand...


Without oil, you wouldn't be able to drive on those roads and bridges.

We need a strong military so we can invade countries in the middle east.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Without oil, you wouldn't be able to drive on those roads and bridges.

We need a strong military so we can invade countries in the middle east.
Click to expand...

It would be easier and cheaper to just drill for our own oil and tell the mid east to stick it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom