• 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.

A Question for the Bluers

American said:
Rules of liberal politics:

#1 Never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever compromise
#2 If you're asked to compromise, see Rule #1.
Click to expand...

Both sides are like this right now unfortunately. Can't blame the liberals without blaming the conservatives on this point.

American said:
We have safety nets and they are bankrupting the country. How many more do you want? Trouble is you expect the Right to give up all their beliefs and become liberals. BTW, you didn't win the House and lost other things. Get over your morning talking points.

GOP Grabs 30 Governor Seats, Highest for Either Party in 12 Years - ABC News
Click to expand...

There are many many things that are bankrupting the country, the main ones are:

1) The Recession
2) Military Spending
3) Safety nets
3) Deficit spending
4) Low taxes/tax loopholes

Part of blame goes to everyone, and everyone has stuff to lose/gain. The only way out of this mess is negotiatiosn and compromise on both sides. Until both sides see that, see your original argument (seen above) and add conservitive to the already labeled liberal.
 
spanky said:
This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs :)lol:);

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?
Click to expand...

This would never happen, so why are you pretending that it could!
 
spanky said:
This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs :)lol:);

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?
Click to expand...

I might have voted for colin powell had he been nominated.
 
Fiscal sanity is a terribly subjective phrase.
 
American said:
Rules of liberal politics:

#1 Never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever compromise
#2 If you're asked to compromise, see Rule #1.
Click to expand...

Yeah like republican filibusters were compomrises?
 
Hare said:
Fiscal sanity is a terribly subjective phrase.
Click to expand...

True. I propose an old strategy, the King's fifth. In Monarchial times the King got a fifth of all annual wealth from the peasants, Lords and merchant class alike. But since times have gotten more complicated I would propose a new law, the King's fourth. 25% of the annual earnings and wealth of the nation goes to gubmint, local, state and national. They can argue how they get it, who get's what, how they'll spend it, on some good some bad, do something worthwhile or flush it down the drain. But they are never allowed to confiscate more of the nations wealth then 25%.

Then we can have politicians running for office and getting elected on how effectively they will spend that 25%.

If they want to increase the amount they get, they have to increase the collective wealth of the nation.
 
I'd have to tell 'em to stick it. GOP'ers right?


Stick it.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Yeah like republican filibusters were compomrises?
Click to expand...

Reid is trying to fix that so Obama can jam his next Supreme Court nominees through, and probably some unfavorable treaties that they think will come up.
 
roflpublican said:
View attachment 67137494

but only when a democrat is in office, right? or is an illegal war in iraq based on lies told to the US congress compatible with 'fiscal responsibility/living within our means'?
Click to expand...

Oh, spamming it?

Total cost of 9/11 attack : $3.3 Trillion

Total cost of all "wars: $1.3 Trillion

Total cost of not being attacked again: $0


Total cost of wars: $1.3 Trillion

Total national debt added by Obama: $6 Trillion.

It would have been cheaper to have 10 times as much war during his first 3 3/4ths years than to have him.
 
joko104 said:
Oh, spamming it?

Total cost of 9/11 attack : $3.3 Trillion

Total cost of all "wars: $1.3 Trillion

Total cost of not being attacked again: $0


Total cost of wars: $1.3 Trillion

Total national debt added by Obama: $6 Trillion.

It would have been cheaper to have 10 times as much war during his first 3 3/4ths years than to have him.
Click to expand...

i think you're expecting a house to be rebuilt in the same time-span it took a bomb to destroy it.
 
joko104 said:
Oh, spamming it?

Total cost of 9/11 attack : $3.3 Trillion

Total cost of all "wars: $1.3 Trillion

Total cost of not being attacked again: $0


Total cost of wars: $1.3 Trillion

Total national debt added by Obama: $6 Trillion.

It would have been cheaper to have 10 times as much war during his first 3 3/4ths years than to have him.
Click to expand...









do you have any idea of which you just said, that makes sense? I don't.
 
Hare said:
Fiscal sanity is a terribly subjective phrase.
Click to expand...
As used as a BS marketing line to describe mythical concepts and reasoning, yes. When the words are taken at face value as actual English words with ascribed meaning it would refer to objective evidence, logical, and numbers it isn’t all that subjective a phrase at all. ;)
 
American said:
Reid is trying to fix that so Obama can jam his next Supreme Court nominees through, and probably some unfavorable treaties that they think will come up.
Click to expand...

The world's leaders respect obama. Maybe he will accomplish some peace treaties.
 
spanky said:
This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs :)lol:);

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?
Click to expand...

There's a good chance I would. Depending on exactly how they planned to implement the small government, low taxes, and strong defense parts of their plan.

I tend to be more liberal on social issues and more conservative on fiscal issues.
 
American said:
Reid is trying to fix that so Obama can jam his next Supreme Court nominees through, and probably some unfavorable treaties that they think will come up.
Click to expand...

Nah, nobodies going for that nuclear option.

Filibuster REFORM is necessary, to limit abuse, but nobody in politics wants to eliminate it.

They need to force them to ACTUALLY filibuster. Actually stand a d talk.

Personally, i think they should be forced to answer questions as to why the feel its necessary from voters in the gallery.

Live on CSPAN.
 
spanky said:
This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs :)lol:);

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?
Click to expand...

Considering that I don't care about two of those issues, I don't see much temptation. I wouldn't mind a moderated version of fiscal conservatism though. Perhaps lightly progressive taxes and an acceptance that government has a valid role to play in improving society, combined with cleared eyed minimalist tendencies would be ideal for me (don't spend more than we have, but don't be lessez faire either). A middle of the road proposition while taking the best from both sides.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Oh, spamming it?

Total cost of 9/11 attack : $3.3 Trillion

Total cost of all "wars: $1.3 Trillion

Total cost of not being attacked again: $0


Total cost of wars: $1.3 Trillion

Total national debt added by Obama: $6 Trillion.

It would have been cheaper to have 10 times as much war during his first 3 3/4ths years than to have him.
Click to expand...

You do know that the cost of the wars is part of the $6 trillion right?
 
upsideguy said:
I likely suffer from the same misconceptions of the right that you do of the left.... but, I for one think abortion and gay rights issues get far too much attention. I would never vote for anyone based on these issues. However, if a Republican candidate was in favor of national healthcare, social security and a reasonable safety net; wanted a strong national defense (but did not take that as a carte blanche endorsement to buy every defense system available so as to arm the US for land wars and foreign occupations); did not think diplomacy means a bigger army; was for a reasonable progressive tax system for individuals and corporations (likely at higher marginal rates than currently exist); saw the value in affordable and available education through college (with available loans and grants for those in need); believed that investing in and re-building US infrastructure was a worthy use of federal tax dollars; ... and would not try to legislate morality; he might get a look....

Republicans like this once existed, but not in 20 years....
Click to expand...

As I said in another thread Moderrate Republicans are not ghosts they were real.
 
spanky said:
This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs :)lol:);

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?
Click to expand...

In concept I would vote for that candidate. However, if they believed all that, they wouldn't be GOP.

The problem with the GOP is they are just the other side of the coin. The GOP is all for government intervention for the issues THEY want. The Dems are for government intervention for the issues THEY want.

The other side of the coin really isn't any different in the concept of liberties being taken away.
 
spanky said:
This question is directed at democrats, middle of the road left leaners, liberals and left wing nut jobs :)lol:);

If the GOP were to combine it's basic principles of small gubmint, low taxes, fiscal sanity and a strong defense along with traditional dem issues like abortion, gay rights and realistic immigration policies, would you consider voting for a GOP candidate in the future?
Click to expand...

A strong defense but wars of aggression, no.

No more roman empire ****.
 
Man, what a liberal elitist nonsense thread. What makes you think Conservatives want anything to do with you Godless loons? In a country of over 300 million people, Obama won by only 3 million votes and you feel so superior and entitled that you start such a silly, condescending thread.

The loons won by importing 80 million poverty stricken, uneducated, permanent dependency class Mexicans to vote for Obama so the government can steal for them and you think you have some sort of power or mandate? Are you silly enough to actually believe that intelligent, reasonable people in the United States leisurely considered the candidates and then cast their vote for the one that would be best for the United States?

What happens when all the foreigners you imported to vote for Obama discover there will NEVER be enough menial jobs for them and their huge families? What happens when the blacks start fighting back against the Mexicans that are driving them out of their homes and neighborhoods, often by hunting them down and killing them?

Rather than discuss nonsense, consider the fact that the ball is entirely in your court now. The election is over, but everything is the same. Now what? American loons are now under scrutiny from the entire world. Do something.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom