• 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!

Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

PRECISELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And that's why we oppose it. It doesn't solve problems, it just maintains them and creates new ones.



Your confession is accepted.

And in your mind with your own belief system and your own adopted realities - is it your opinion that there is nothing in between the two opposite ends on the continuum..... solving the problem 100% or not solving the problem and doing nothing?
 
You'll do anything to defend your hero. Why does conservatism create such devotion in it's followers? Why do results only matter to you when it's Obama, but Bush's results get sugarcoated and -- "blame the Democrats."

How's that red Kool-Aid?

Results always matter, the problem is you don't understand how to research actual results. I have posted the Bush results but you continue to buy what you are told. Suggest bls.gov, bea.gov, and the U.S. Treasury and maybe you wouldn't continue to make a fool out of yourself.
 
And I ask you one more time:

can you point to a single US Supreme Court decision in the last 200 plus years which agrees with your interpretation of the powers of Congress as you so described them here?


your really stumbling over yourself early today!

YOu need to read your actual Constitution and put down the opinions of mere individuals .
..post 114

i have read it......its hard isn't it when you have to argue against the founders, and you know your on the losing side...as you always are.
..post 213

So what did you find it in that you believe proves you correct?
...217

IN post 217 you stated what did i find in the Constitution that leads me to be believe i an correct.

i then showed you what i found in the constitution, and Jefferson even confirms what i found!

NOW you switch, and want to know what the court says..........when you asked i what i found ...what the constitution says......your switching and sleight of hand action games, are a very poor attempt to confuse the other readers of the forum.
 
Are you saying that the social welfare programs you do not favor require a budget deficit to exist while other programs in the budget do not require a budget deficit?

No. I'm saying that the inclusion of these programs, ceteris parabus, requires a massive deficit.
 
That is certainly the feeling one is beginning to get and time is running short to do anything about it.



Don't kid yourself.

I keep thinking about those montage type comedy skits where a lover displays mock outrage and then shrugs with a wry smile, shakes their head like they just can't stay mad and hugs the object of affection.

That is what is happening with the MSM and the Big 0 right now.

They got their man elected and now are giving him a fair review in the reports on the turkey of a healthcare bill.

'Round about summer they will shrug and hug and he will once again be the Golden Boy. They won't be able to help themselves.
 
NOW you switch, and want to know what the court says..........when you asked i what i found ...what the constitution says......your switching and sleight of hand action games, are a very poor attempt to confuse the other readers of the forum.

And there is a most excellent reason for asking you this. Because it is the Supreme Court who interprets the US Constitution. They have been doing so for over 220 years. And not a single Court decision agrees with your far right extremist interpretation of what the powers of Congress are or what the scope of the Federal Government is regarding the American people.

So for you to
1- know this reality about who interprets the Constitution
2- know that not a single Court decision in 220 years agrees with you
3- cling to this ridiculous interpretation in despite of those two facts

shows that their is some fantasy world of the USA that you seem to believe exists that has nothing at all to do with the real one the rest of us inhabit.
 
No. I'm saying that the inclusion of these programs, ceteris parabus, requires a massive deficit.

Please show that is the precisely the programs you object to and not the ones you do not object to that cause or require the deficit.
 
And there is a most excellent reason for asking you this. Because it is the Supreme Court who interprets the US Constitution. They have been doing so for over 220 years. And not a single Court decision agrees with your far right extremist interpretation of what the powers of Congress are or what the scope of the Federal Government is regarding the American people.

So for you to
1- know this reality about who interprets the Constitution
2- know that not a single Court decision in 220 years agrees with you
3- cling to this ridiculous interpretation in despite of those two facts

shows that their is some fantasy world of the USA that you seem to believe exists that has nothing at all to do with the real one the rest of us inhabit.

no hay, sorry again ...you wanted to know the constitution, becuase you stated...i needed to read it.......so you referring to the constitution.

now you wish to switch over to the court, and that is not what you stated in your beginning arguments.

your inconsistency is very troubling.
 
no hay, sorry again ...you wanted to know the constitution, becuase you stated...i needed to read it.......so you referring to the constitution.

And how do we know what the Constitution actually means? THE SUPREME COURT interprets it for us. Not you.

It is the Supreme Court who interprets the US Constitution. They have been doing so for over 220 years. And not a single Court decision agrees with your far right extremist interpretation of what the powers of Congress are or what the scope of the Federal Government is regarding the American people.

So for you to
1- know this reality about who interprets the Constitution
2- know that not a single Court decision in 220 years agrees with you
3- cling to this ridiculous interpretation in despite of those two facts

shows that their is some fantasy world of the USA that you seem to believe exists that has nothing at all to do with the real one the rest of us inhabit.
 
So, all other things being equal, if we eliminate these programs the deficit goes down. If we reintroduce them, the deficit goes up.

If we eliminate all other spending the same thing is also true. So what? Why are you singling out these particular programs and not the other programs and coming to the same conclusion?
 
If we eliminate all other spending the same thing is also true. So what? Why are you singling out these particular programs and not the other programs and coming to the same conclusion?

Because I consider robbing Peter to pay Paul to be completely unethical.

Unethical and VERY expensive.
 
Results always matter, the problem is you don't understand how to research actual results. I have posted the Bush results but you continue to buy what you are told. Suggest bls.gov, bea.gov, and the U.S. Treasury and maybe you wouldn't continue to make a fool out of yourself.

Bush's results: A decade of war, budget deficits, and an economic collapse.
 
Bush's results: A decade of war, budget deficits, and an economic collapse.

Your opinion noted, economic collapse? A collapse would affect All Americans, how did the recession affect you and your family? Decade of war? We were attacked, 9/11 happened, 1 trillion dollars added to the debt because of that attack. Guess we should have turned the other cheek? What is it about people like you who simply cannot get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome five years after he has been out of office?

Amazing how those years of deficits never generated a trillion dollar one and Obama takes office and we have four in a row
 
And in your mind with your own belief system and your own adopted realities - is it your opinion that there is nothing in between the two opposite ends on the continuum..... solving the problem 100% or not solving the problem and doing nothing?

Nope never said that, it's a lie. Don't run away from our discussion and try to change the subject. You responded to "Where are the examples of the Federal Govt. solving a social problem?", with "What makes you think that was the goal?". Now answer the question. So far your arguments have been obliterated, because you can't give examples.
 
no hay, sorry again ...you wanted to know the constitution, becuase you stated...i needed to read it.......so you referring to the constitution.

now you wish to switch over to the court, and that is not what you stated in your beginning arguments.

your inconsistency is very troubling.

Sadly, Ernst, what the Constitution says is actually irrelevant. Yeah, we can read it and see what the federal government's powers are SUPPOSED to be. But if the federal government says something is legal, then it's legal. It may be evil. It may be contrary to the Constitution, but none of that matters. The federal government has absolute and final legal authority to determine the extent of its own powers.
 
Sadly, Ernst, what the Constitution says is actually irrelevant. Yeah, we can read it and see what the federal government's powers are SUPPOSED to be. But if the federal government says something is legal, then it's legal. It may be evil. It may be contrary to the Constitution, but none of that matters. The federal government has absolute and final legal authority to determine the extent of its own powers.


"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

The Declaration of Independence
 
Because I consider robbing Peter to pay Paul to be completely unethical.

Unethical and VERY expensive.

Why is not almost ALL government spending robbing somebody to pay for somebody else?
 
Sadly, Ernst, what the Constitution says is actually irrelevant. Yeah, we can read it and see what the federal government's powers are SUPPOSED to be. But if the federal government says something is legal, then it's legal. It may be evil. It may be contrary to the Constitution, but none of that matters. The federal government has absolute and final legal authority to determine the extent of its own powers.

And in over 220 years not one Supreme Court decision has interpreted the powers of Congress like EB or others here believe they are to be interpreted.

Think about what the implications of that. Even in the 1700's when the Founders themselves were on the court - no such interpretation.

In the early 1800's when conservative interpretation ruled the day for decade after decade - no such interpretation was ever produced.

And on and on and on it went from Court after Court after Court after Court. Not when the Courts were very conservative did such an interpretation ever come forth. And not when the Courts were liberal did such an interpretation ever come forth.

EB cannot find a single decision which agrees with his extremist interpretation and has not even produced a single justice who agreed with him.

But none of that matters to EB or his sycophants who apparently believe rather than know.
 
Nope never said that, it's a lie. Don't run away from our discussion and try to change the subject. You responded to "Where are the examples of the Federal Govt. solving a social problem?", with "What makes you think that was the goal?". Now answer the question. So far your arguments have been obliterated, because you can't give examples.

Do you understand what a question is?

Do you know the difference between a period used as punctuation and a question mark used as punctuation?

I asked you a question based on your post. As such, a question to you clarifying your position CANNOT BE A LIE. It is impossible as it was a question which you could answer.

As to obliterating any position I have taken, exactly what position was obliterated and in what post did that supposedly happen because I can find NOTHING which even comes close.
 
Do you understand what a question is?

Do you know the difference between a period used as punctuation and a question mark used as punctuation?

I asked you a question based on your post. As such, a question to you clarifying your position CANNOT BE A LIE. It is impossible as it was a question which you could answer.

As to obliterating any position I have taken, exactly what position was obliterated and in what post did that supposedly happen because I can find NOTHING which even comes close.

You have failed to provide examples, and brought into question the premise of social safety net objectives. In fact your statements imply social safety nets were never designed to solve problems.
 
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

The Declaration of Independence

Sorry. I should have said, "While the federal government exists, is has absolute and final legal authority....blah...blah..blah"
 
You have failed to provide examples, and brought into question the premise of social safety net objectives. In fact your statements imply social safety nets were never designed to solve problems.

The premise of social safety net examples? The premise is to help people who need help. And that is what they do.

Examples:
people who are hungry get food stamps.
people who are homeless get housing.
people with kids get aid for those families.
people who are sick and cannot pay get medical treatment

Can you follow those examples? Can you get that helping those in need and alleviating their condition is proof of the programs success?

yeah I know - silly questions!!!!! :doh:roll::(
 
Back
Top Bottom