• 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.

Words Matter....

Thrilla said:
I don't mind if you and a few other find soundbites to be ok... I just happen to prefer a greater amount of context....
it's a character flaw and what makes me an oddity in modern politics.;)
Click to expand...


If you string together 20 soundbites that all demonstrate a socialist hatred of the private sector and a devotion to punish anybody who risks his personal wealth to build a business using non-union labor, it's a pretty good bet that those sound bites are painting a pretty good picture of the beliefs of the person quoted.

Even ignoring the soundbites, you just have to be impressed with the results of this inflexible ideologue who will not allow anybody to prosper who has not made a contribution to him.

At least in this we find consistency.
 
Hairytic said:
I disagree. Taxes are lower now more than ever. Taxing people is not stealing from them. We must have money to run the government. If you have a better way than taxation, then please share it.
Click to expand...




I have no problem with paying taxes. I have a problem with paying taxes and then having those funds squandered by stupid, partisan, self interested thieves who use it to pay off, pay back, bribe, and build personal fortunes. That is stealing.

Collecting taxes only builds the pot of money from which the thieves steal.

Do you really not realize this?
 
Hairytic said:
I disagree. Taxes are lower now more than ever. Taxing people is not stealing from them. We must have money to run the government. If you have a better way than taxation, then please share it.
Click to expand...



If taxes are lower, then the spending should be reduced to match. It's not. That's stupid.
 
Hairytic said:
I disagree on the point you made about these issues being states rights issues. The Federal government has the task of making sure rights are equal throughout the US. Equality in things like education, jobs, social programs, and many other things. The idea that we shouldn't fund the Federal GOvernment is odd to me. Without the Federal government, each state would just be individual countries.
Click to expand...



Please direct me to the clause in the enumerated powers that supports your assertion.
 
Bronson said:
When you have an out of control WH that is bankrupting this country, ignores the Constitution, won't pass a budget, kills economic and job growth, yep, it's the top priority.
Click to expand...

How can you pass a budget when it changes daily? In what way has he ignored the Constitution? Is the fact that jobs are increasing (something like a meager 4.5 million) evident of his secret plot to kill the economy?
 
TheLastIndependent said:
14th, 15th, and 16th Amendment is probably a good start
Click to expand...


Pretty weak connection. I didn't think you'd be able to find what you were looking for in the enumerated powers.

14th Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post-Civil War issues June 13, 1866 July 9, 1868 Full text
15th Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude February 26, 1869 February 3, 1870 Full text
16th Allows the federal government to collect income tax July 12, 1909 February 3, 1913 Full text
 
nota bene said:
Obama has changed his position on gay marriage because he needs the votes:
Click to expand...

i could buy that if it wasn't for the fact there is no other alternative. obama has always been pro-civil union, and he has said he would base his decisions on the needs of the people of the US and not the church he belonged to before he was elected in 2008. It just doesn't make sense he had to try to get gay votes when you are dealing with opponents who think homosexuality should be a crime. Also there is a big difference between changing your opinion to consider gay marriage, and coming out and saying it is time for the federal government to recognize it. You are claiming he is pandering to a mostly democrat base where he was guaranteed the majority of the vote anyway. It is like when mitt romney goes chasing down the crazy religious vote. I don't see that as pandering because he already had that vote to begin with. Pandering would have been Obama saying he would not support gay marriage in order to take votes from the republican side. Sorry, but he just never needed to do that for votes.
nota bene said:
November 2, 2008:
ABC News’ Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, Tahman Bradley, and Rigel Anderson report: Barack Obama’s nuanced position on same-sex marriage is on full display in an MTV interview which is set to air on Monday. Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."

Obama Says He Is Against Same-Sex Marriage But Also Against Ending Its Practice In Calif. - ABC News
Click to expand...

It was also mentioned on hjis webpage in 2008 that he supported civil unions but did not support marriage for the fact it contradicted his religious values. Did it make a difference in the gay vote in 2008? no because you had opposition which was not going to allow any gay marriage or civil unions.

It also shows obama is willing to put aside his religious beliefs for the sake of the people he is leading. I can also tell you most gays are not going to vote for romney because you try to pretend obama is pandering to them. Seriously, he doesn't have to pander when you have a religious nutbar who tried to end gay marriage in MA when he was governor. I think obama's record speaks for itself in that he has already done things he did not have to do for gays.
 
The only reason he flopped again was election time was drawing near, and Biden opened his big mouth, forcing the flop.
 
tererun said:
i could buy that if it wasn't for the fact there is no other alternative. obama has always been pro-civil union, and he has said he would base his decisions on the needs of the people of the US and not the church he belonged to before he was elected in 2008. It just doesn't make sense he had to try to get gay votes when you are dealing with opponents who think homosexuality should be a crime. Also there is a big difference between changing your opinion to consider gay marriage, and coming out and saying it is time for the federal government to recognize it. You are claiming he is pandering to a mostly democrat base where he was guaranteed the majority of the vote anyway. It is like when mitt romney goes chasing down the crazy religious vote. I don't see that as pandering because he already had that vote to begin with. Pandering would have been Obama saying he would not support gay marriage in order to take votes from the republican side. Sorry, but he just never needed to do that for votes.


It was also mentioned on hjis webpage in 2008 that he supported civil unions but did not support marriage for the fact it contradicted his religious values. Did it make a difference in the gay vote in 2008? no because you had opposition which was not going to allow any gay marriage or civil unions.

It also shows obama is willing to put aside his religious beliefs for the sake of the people he is leading. I can also tell you most gays are not going to vote for romney because you try to pretend obama is pandering to them. Seriously, he doesn't have to pander when you have a religious nutbar who tried to end gay marriage in MA when he was governor. I think obama's record speaks for itself in that he has already done things he did not have to do for gays.
Click to expand...



My favorite commentary on the reversal of his stance on this topic concerned the idea that his ideas had evolved.

The commentator noted that this was more a case of Intelligent Design than Evolution.
 
nota bene said:
Obama has changed his position on gay marriage because he needs the votes:

November 2, 2008:
ABC News’ Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, Tahman Bradley, and Rigel Anderson report: Barack Obama’s nuanced position on same-sex marriage is on full display in an MTV interview which is set to air on Monday. Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."

Obama Says He Is Against Same-Sex Marriage But Also Against Ending Its Practice In Calif. - ABC News
Click to expand...

Perhaps your are not familiar with how representative democracies work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom