• 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!

More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

THAT'S why the party punted?

LOL!
 
They also punted in not submitting a budget for fiscal year 2011 which began on October 1, 2010. Democrats knew that if they submitted a budget for fiscal year 2011 that the election results would be much worse than they are going to be.

The way I heard it the Dems couldn't get enough votes, not one Rep vote as usual. so they had to shelve it.

If the Dems had the balls, they'd openly blame the Reps on all the talk shows, and see how it plays out with the media.

Playing Russian roulette worked for Clinton, and got him reelected.

ricksfolly
 
The way I heard it the Dems couldn't get enough votes, not one Rep vote as usual. so they had to shelve it.

If the Dems had the balls, they'd openly blame the Reps on all the talk shows, and see how it plays out with the media.

Playing Russian roulette worked for Clinton, and got him reelected.

ricksfolly


Obama is no Clinton. Plus, the media is the last thing that demo's are worried about having them in their pocket and all, nah, they are seeing the people wake up to their lies.


j-mac
 
Nope, just greedy. The 2 percent they'd lose, $6-10 thousand, is more than enough to break ranks with the other Democrats.

ricksfolly

6 to ten thousand? WTH are you smoking?
 
No, the context you speak of is the made up context by those who refuse to actually listen to what is being said. In all seriousness, those who play with words to create the lie being told but the likes of Beck are dishonest and harm the country. If this were satire, it would be too good. As a serious debate, it is only sad.

I'm beginning to think that you are satire. Like a liberal version of Stephen Colbert's character, except he is funny. You are trying to play yourself off as being serious. It's dishonest and is harming the country. I can't believe someone would seriously attempt to defend the president by talking about "those who play with words".

Seriously, it's not funny.
 
I'm beginning to think that you are satire. Like a liberal version of Stephen Colbert's character, except he is funny. You are trying to play yourself off as being serious. It's dishonest and is harming the country. I can't believe someone would seriously attempt to defend the president by talking about "those who play with words".

Seriously, it's not funny.

I agree with everything you wrote except one thing....... Colbert is not funny.
 
I'm beginning to think that you are satire. Like a liberal version of Stephen Colbert's character, except he is funny. You are trying to play yourself off as being serious. It's dishonest and is harming the country. I can't believe someone would seriously attempt to defend the president by talking about "those who play with words".

Seriously, it's not funny.

I appreciate your attempt at humor, but the point stands. Those words do not carry the meaning you and Beck and those like him attach to them. They were all spoken in a context that Beck and his ilk ignore.
 
This is the Iraq War vote all over again. Political expediency.

They've backed the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Weapons of Economic Destruction, and now think the people are stupid enough to buy this?

And what destruction with they vote for when elected? No, no, no...

You can't fool all the people all of the time, though they try.

.

In another thread, Crosscheck was tell us that Black Americans can see through the motives of White America (i.e., the Republican Party). I wonder what these black Americans are seeing?
 
Obama is no Clinton. Plus, the media is the last thing that demo's are worried about having them in their pocket and all, nah, they are seeing the people wake up to their lies.


j-mac

Amazing how the further we get away from Clinton the more distorted his record becomes. Fact is Clinton demonized Republicans but signed GOP legislation. A simple question for Clinton supporters, did Clinton propose more or less spending than the GOP approved and which budget did he sign?

I keep waiting for any Obama supporter to tell me what economic prediction Obama has made in the past two years that have been accurate? Again Obama supporters seem to have a problem understanding the actual facts generated by the Obama legislation and agenda.
 
Amazing how the further we get away from Clinton the more distorted his record becomes. Fact is Clinton demonized Republicans but signed GOP legislation. A simple question for Clinton supporters, did Clinton propose more or less spending than the GOP approved and which budget did he sign?

I keep waiting for any Obama supporter to tell me what economic prediction Obama has made in the past two years that have been accurate? Again Obama supporters seem to have a problem understanding the actual facts generated by the Obama legislation and agenda.

The same happened with reagan. He appeased terrorist and had welfare hotels underhis watch. How many quote that when talking about him?

Just saying . . .
 
The same happened with reagan. He appeased terrorist and had welfare hotels underhis watch. How many quote that when talking about him?

Just saying . . .

Interesting how when things get back it is always divert back to either Reagan or Clinton. Let's try to stay on topic this time as this is about Obama and the true disaster he is as the actual results show. I recognize that many prefer rhetoric to actual results but facts always trump rhetoric and make Obama supporters look like fools.
 
Interesting how when things get back it is always divert back to either Reagan or Clinton. Let's try to stay on topic this time as this is about Obama and the true disaster he is as the actual results show. I recognize that many prefer rhetoric to actual results but facts always trump rhetoric and make Obama supporters look like fools.

I didn't bring it up; you did.
 
I didn't bring it up; you did.

I responded to another's post and I didn't mention Reagan, you did. Try to stick to the disaster we have in the WH right now and the economic failure he is.
 
I responded to another's post and I didn't mention Reagan, you did. Try to stick to the disaster we have in the WH right now and the economic failure he is.

Yes, but I responded to you, and you commented about Clinton and how some see his record. I only informed you it wasn't new. You didn't have to respond back. ;)
 
Yes, but I responded to you, and you commented about Clinton and how some see his record. I only informed you it wasn't new. You didn't have to respond back. ;)

Are you ever going to address the actual Obama record and tell me why there is such support for what he is doing? I don't get it as that wasn't the kind of Govt. I was taught in high school. What is wrong with all those Obama supporters who continue to allow themselves to be manipulated and controlled by today's Democrat Party. Many are indeed Marxist whereas a lot of good Americans have been duped into believing that the Federal Govt. has a responsibility to provide them with all that they need. What is it in the Obama results that you support?
 
Are you ever going to address the actual Obama record and tell me why there is such support for what he is doing? I don't get it as that wasn't the kind of Govt. I was taught in high school. What is wrong with all those Obama supporters who continue to allow themselves to be manipulated and controlled by today's Democrat Party. Many are indeed Marxist whereas a lot of good Americans have been duped into believing that the Federal Govt. has a responsibility to provide them with all that they need. What is it in the Obama results that you support?

I've done that many times. What part are you confused on?
 
Are you ever going to address the actual Obama record and tell me why there is such support for what he is doing? I don't get it as that wasn't the kind of Govt. I was taught in high school. What is wrong with all those Obama supporters who continue to allow themselves to be manipulated and controlled by today's Democrat Party. Many are indeed Marxist whereas a lot of good Americans have been duped into believing that the Federal Govt. has a responsibility to provide them with all that they need. What is it in the Obama results that you support?

Everything that you say, can be immediately dismissed when you say such untrue things as this.

If you knew what Marxism ACTUALLY was, then you'd know that what you're saying is fundamentally untrue (and the unfortunate thing is, you know it ;))

Which makes this all the more tragic. And entertaining.
 
Everything that you say, can be immediately dismissed when you say such untrue things as this.

If you knew what Marxism ACTUALLY was, then you'd know that what you're saying is fundamentally untrue (and the unfortunate thing is, you know it ;))

Which makes this all the more tragic. And entertaining.

TOO few get this. They think any outrageous stupid thing should be treated as if it were valid.
 
I've done that many times. What part are you confused on?

I am confused as to how a recession can end in June 2009 and have economic growth lower this year than last and unemployment higher EACH month of 2010 vs. 2009? I am confused as to how you and everyone else can still blame Bush today and not accept responsibility for the massive expansion of govt. and the 3 trillion added to the debt?

No one can defend the Obama results because what he has done is indefensible but is being ignored. Rhetoric in the liberal world trumps actual facts.
 
I am confused as to how a recession can end in June 2009 and have economic growth lower this year than last and unemployment higher EACH month of 2010 vs. 2009? I am confused as to how you and everyone else can still blame Bush today and not accept responsibility for the massive expansion of govt. and the 3 trillion added to the debt?

No one can defend the Obama results because what he has done is indefensible but is being ignored. Rhetoric in the liberal world trumps actual facts.

Well, you may be, but two points:

1) a technical definition of ending doesn't equal an end to all problems.

and 2) the president doesn't control the economy. Don't confuse politics with fact.
 
Everything that you say, can be immediately dismissed when you say such untrue things as this.

If you knew what Marxism ACTUALLY was, then you'd know that what you're saying is fundamentally untrue (and the unfortunate thing is, you know it ;))

Which makes this all the more tragic. And entertaining.

What I know are the actual results of the Obama agenda, try sticking to discussing those results. Explain to me how allowing the American people to keep more of what they earn is an expense to the Federal Govt? Explain to me how a recession can end in June 2009 yet economic growth is less today than it was in 2009 and unemployment is higher each month of 2010 than it was monthly in 2009? Explain to me how adding 3 trillion to the debt is moving America forward?

Everything Obama has done has promoted massive growth in the size of the govt, wealth redistribution, stifling freedom of speech yet that doesn't bother you. Maybe you ought to look up the term Marxist and its definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
 
Last edited:
Well, you may be, but two points:

1) a technical definition of ending doesn't equal an end to all problems.

and 2) the president doesn't control the economy. Don't confuse politics with fact.

Interesting how it appears that liberals believe that Bush did thus causing the recession but now that Obama is in office he has nothing to do with the results?
 
The same happened with reagan. He appeased terrorist and had welfare hotels underhis watch. How many quote that when talking about him?

Just saying . . .

Since you brought it up, could you provide some links to that information?
 
Back
Top Bottom