• 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!

United States loses its AAA Credit rating from S & P

Status
Not open for further replies.
I said each should be decided on their own. There is no specific number, but rather the regulation is in fact valid and needed.
Perhaps we are making progress. What obstacles do you see in using weight or measure? Or do you prefer that an independent group assesses the real costs and real benefits and we all decide by voting?
 
So, with no intended insult, how do you know you have it exactly right?

the same way you know you got the sydney morning herald exactly right, silly

LOL!
 
Even if I disagree with a law, I believe the government should enforce it. They put it there. Enforce it.

Oh, I agree.


The idea that they are "the" reason is wrong. I believe we agree that blame falls in many places.

We do.

Again, we agree that those who see things as only one sided are wrong.

Yes, we do.

I think that's only going to lead to more dissention. No, it's 45% the governments fault. No, it's only 22%. No I disagree, it's 63%
.

Not fault, control. If we agree that all government can do is help or hinder to a small degree, we have to look at other factors, take more of it out of the polticial releam. acknowledge that there will be ups and downs, and that people and companies and even lenders have to be responsible as well.


:thumbs:
 
That's an incredibily illogical leap there

says the armchair chin stroker who asserts that presidents---OUSTIDE DIRECT HIRING---have no effect on the economy

LOL!
 
Perhaps we are making progress. What obstacles do you see in using weight or measure? Or do you prefer that an independent group assesses the real costs and real benefits and we all decide by voting?

Public safety. Financial risk to all parties. Some sense of fair play (truth in advertising for example). These things matter. As for independent, depends on what we call independent. Someone without a dog in the fight may well be a government agency. Anyone, government of not, who gets a payment from the people they are assessing likely has a dog in the fight, and would not be independent.

It should be transparent, the reasoning clearly explained.
 
If we agree that all government can do is help or hinder to a small degree, we have to look at other factors, take more of it out of the polticial releam.

sure, shirley, s&p's DOWNGRADE had nothing to do with conditions IN WASHINGTON

LOL!

read much?
 
I worry about anyone spewing Marxist nonsense,
Let's take this one first. Do you know or do you care that Obama grew up with Marxists and Communists? Here is an excerpt from just one website:

As we have seen in the past anyone that mentions the fact that Barack Obama has socialist policies and tendencies is vilified, called a liar, or called crazy. The fact is that Barack grew up in a Marxist household, was born to a communist mother, and a socialist father. There have been lies told about him, but the truth in many cases are scarier than the lies. Along with his own words in “Dreams from my father” there is more than enough evidence to show that Barack Obama is indeed a Marxist Socialist, with the goal of transforming America into a socialist utopia.
Marxism, Obama and what the MSM doesn’t want you to know. | Virginia 9th Watchdog

I could provide dozens, possibly hundreds of references. But I think you already know it and secretly even agree with me that Obama's core beliefs are anti-American, Marxist beliefs.

but I think there are many out there who can think. But, many have read all kinds of documents and reach incorrect conclusions. This is true of intelligent well read people as well. So, with no intended insult, how do you know you have it exactly right?
Do you believe I intend for me to be the final arbiter of what is or is not appropriate limited government? I am only half as smart as some of the people here believe themselves to be. So I will leave that specific exercise to others. But I can participate. I have read the documents themselves. I am very familiar with the broad outlines of American history. I have read many of Jefferson's papers along with Madison and George Washington, Hamilton and Tom Paine. I have read much of Montesquieu and Locke along with a bit of Rousseau.

Do I have it right? Probably. Exactly right? That requires compromise.

What we have done will lead to either revolution, civil war or dictatorship. We can fix this. But only if we choose to do so.
 
Last edited:
Right, those poor creditors who ended up getting something, because of the bailout, as opposed to nothing, which is what they would have gotten without it.

Any idea how much that fiasco cost the American taxpayer? It would have been easier to just write them a check and it would have been less expensive. You don't seem to understand that when you are talking govt. expense you are talking taxpayer expense. Find out how much GM/Chrysler ended up costing the taxpayer
 
Review is fine.But what will you say if after reveiw, they remain?

If the voters decide they are willing to pay for the benefit then it is a good regulation. Periodically it should be reviewed, much like a baby's diaper, and for the same reason.

And as for publishing names, for what purpose? Do you suspect a conflict of interest? I would agree to that type of concerning being addressed, but not for trying to intimidate.
Intimidation. Of course. I did say it was a page from the Left's playbook, didn't I? :)
 
Predatory lenders did so willingly, knowing exactly what they doing. And again, race had little to do with it.
That's an incredibily illogical leap there.

Boo, I just laid out the case. I showed you who. I showed you what. I showed you why. I even showed you how.
 
Let's take this one first. Do you know or do you care that Obama grew up with Marxists and Communists? Here is an excerpt from just one website:


Marxism, Obama and what the MSM doesn’t want you to know. | Virginia 9th Watchdog

I could provide dozens, possibly hundreds of references. But I think you already know it and secretly even agree with me that Obama's core beliefs are anti-American, Marxist beliefs.

You can't be serious? You will have to do better than this. Sorry. :lamo :lamo :lamo


Do you believe I intend for me to be the final arbiter of what is or ins not appropriate limited government? I am only half as smart as some of the people here believe themselves to be. So I will leave that specific exercise to others. But I can participate. I have read the documents themselves. I am very familiar with the broad outlines of American history. I have read many of Jefferson's papers along with Madison and George Washington, Hamilton and Tom Paine. I have read much of Montesquieu and Locke along with a bit of Rousseau.

Do I have it right? Probably. Exactly right? That requires compromise.

What we have done will lead to either revolution, civil war or dictatorship. We can fix this. But only if we choose to do so.

I can't speak to your beliefs, as they are yours. And yes you can participate, but you have to also expect your extreme nonsense to be called what is, extreme nonsense. As for the constitution it self, you have to be more specific before anyone can comment.
 
As for the constitution it self, you have to be more specific before anyone can comment.

that's nice

and exactly how much, again, of the 5.3T does the party in power propose to close via taxes?

what does the president intend to do about the differential, certainly north of 5T?

you see, the first step of recovery is...

http://www.aa.org/lang/en/en_pdfs/smf-121_en.pdf

drink much?

LOL!
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Quote J-mac

Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense could see that it was the demos actually pushing to the brink

J-mac

Explain to me the demos push to the brink.:2wave:
 
You can't be serious? You will have to do better than this. Sorry. :lamo :lamo :lamo
Are you disputing what is in Obama's two books? Or is it the specific web site I chose? There are hundreds. Or am I actually right and you already agree that his core beliefs are anti-American, 19th century European Marxist?
 
Are you disputing what is in Obama's two books? Or is it the specific web site I chose? There are hundreds. Or am I actually right and you already agree that his core beliefs are anti-American, 19th century European Marxist?

You have to prove it is actually in his books. You need more than this silly guy saying it is. And we need context as well. In other words, we need a lot more than you provide.
 
Seriously? You're going to draw conclusions from a wingnut conspiracy theory website and try to peddle them as fact? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Take your pick. There are hundreds to choose from. Do you dispute what Obama wrote in his books? Or do you just object to the particular web site that dug around in them?
 
Take your pick. There are hundreds to choose from. Do you dispute what Obama wrote in his books? Or do you just object to the particular web site that dug around in them?

I've actually read Obama's two books: I don't need a virulent anti-Obama website to interpret them for me. You might try it yourself.
 
I've actually read Obama's two books: I don't need a virulent anti-Obama website to interpret them for me. You might try it yourself.

I haven't.But I have to believe if this guy had anything like this, Obama's opponents if no one else would have been all over it.
 
Why do you laugh? This is a tragedy not a comedy. It does not have a happy ending. Tyranny never does.
Hmmm. The tragedy here is that the financial meltdown was in part caused by S&P and nobody here seems to care.

Where in the Constitution does it speak about a limitation on the size of government????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom