• 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!

Obama announces his Candidacy for 2012.

Conservative said:
Results meant everything to me, a pro growth, pro capitalistic economic policy vs. the nanny state offered by Gore and Kerry.
Click to expand...
And these are the results you voted for ... Twin Towers reduced to a pile of rubble, 2 million additional unemployed, invasion of a country over WMD they didn't have, DJIA dropping 4%.

Conservative said:
How about that Obama economy and nanny state? By the way are Obama's buddies getting rich off the $4 a gallon gasoline?
Click to expand...
Are they? I'm not aware of his buddies in the oil industry. Can you elaborate?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
And these are the results you voted for ... Twin Towers reduced to a pile of rubble, 2 million additional unemployed, invasion of a country over WMD they didn't have, DJIA dropping 4%.


Are they? I'm not aware of his buddies in the oil industry. Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...

Do you enjoy seeing gasoline at $4 a gallon? Didn't you claim that Bush was responsible for the high cost of gasoline and that his buddies were getting rich off the high prices then? If so then why not now? Do you enjoy seeing less people employed today than before he passed and signed his stimulus plan? Do you enjoy seeing all those waivers for Obamacare that is supposed to be great for the country? Do you enjoy seeing 15 million unemployed Americans even after spending all that stimulus money? Yes, the Obama results speak for themselves as does his economic policies of promoting the nanny state.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
If it is by the election, can Obama count on your vote?
Click to expand...

Not with a debt more than GDP, I don't support any policy that has more people working for the govt. than working in the manufacturing private sector. The massive growth in the govt. is unsustainable and not worthy of my vote.
 
The Prof said:
125,000 per month, not even enough to keep up with population

pathetic
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, in the year leading up to when Obama became president, we lost 4.3 million jobs ... -361,000 per month.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Keep in mind, in the year leading up to when Obama became president, we lost 4.3 million jobs ... -361,000 per month.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that after spending over 800 billion on a stimulus program we continued to lose jobs and still have less employed than when had prior to the stimulus. Is that what you voted for and your idea of "fixing" the Bush mess? Keep in mind with a recession in 2001 and one in 2008 Bush still had a net job gain. When will Obama have a net job gain?
 
no, it won't

125K doesn't even keep up with population

after all we've been thru

in times like these
 
obama, 2012---f em, where else they gonna go?

elections in this country are won and lost on ENTHUSIASM

seeya at the polls, progressives

bring his RECORD
 
Conservative said:
Do you enjoy seeing gasoline at $4 a gallon? Didn't you claim that Bush was responsible for the high cost of gasoline and that his buddies were getting rich off the high prices then? If so then why not now? Do you enjoy seeing less people employed today than before he passed and signed his stimulus plan? Do you enjoy seeing all those waivers for Obamacare that is supposed to be great for the country? Do you enjoy seeing 15 million unemployed Americans even after spending all that stimulus money? Yes, the Obama results speak for themselves as does his economic policies of promoting the nanny state.
Click to expand...

The high price of gas is caused by rampant speculation on the commodities market on Wall Street. Bush's buddies were getting rich then as they are getting rich now.
 
TheBook said:
Two points:

1. Having family/friends in the military doesn't make your opinion suddenly more valid. One of the main reasons I didn't support Bush was because he risked the lives of my loved ones for seemingly no reason.

2. Libya and Iraq are vastly different in terms of scale and level of involvement.



Are you trying to make the argument that Bush was for smaller government? The guy who created a massive deficit, started 2 wars and implemented the Patriot Act, arguably one the greatest breaches of privacy in the history of the U.S.? Bush may have been socially conservative on some issues, but on most others (with the exception of his laissez-faire stance on business and tax cuts) he was everything bad about the Liberal position (essentially a Tax and Spend Liberal without the Tax part.)
Click to expand...
Don't forget Bush II also ushered in the Department of Homeland Security, THE largest federal agency every created as far as its reciept of federal dollars. How's that for "expanding government". Of course, it was done for the sake of "national security". So, it's okay. Nevermind that this agency spends BILLIONS every year on god knows what.

(Speaking to Republicans here) Sarcasm aside, I'm all for protecting our national security interest at home and abroad, but don't give me this decree for "limited government" when your party created the largest and most expensive government agency this country has ever seen! And most of its spending goes unreported because it's "classified". My point is if you're going to make the claim to reduce the size of government and rein in government spending, DON'T be hypocritical about it. Republicans "expand" government (not to mention its reach, visa-vi, via the judiciary) just as Democrats do. Your side just tries to do it "covertly" so that the People don't know what you're really up to.
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
The high price of gas is caused by rampant speculation on the commodities market on Wall Street. Bush's buddies were getting rich then as they are getting rich now.
Click to expand...

Obama said he would solve that problem so apparently now they are Obama's buddies getting rich. Congratulations on buying the Obama rhetoric along with these wonderful results.
 
Conservative said:
By the way are Obama's buddies getting rich off the $4 a gallon gasoline?

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Are they? I'm not aware of his buddies in the oil industry. Can you elaborate?

Conservative said:
Do you enjoy seeing gasoline at $4 a gallon? Didn't you claim that Bush was responsible for the high cost of gasoline and that his buddies were getting rich off the high prices then?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Non-sequitur. You asked if Obama's buddies are getting rich off of today's high gasoline prices? Unlike Bush and Cheney, who come from oil and energy backgrounds, I'm not aware of Obama's "buddies" being in the oil industry. Can you name them? Are there any?

Conservative said:
If so then why not now?
Click to expand...
In case you're interested, here's the reason for the current prices...
Here are the stats:
  • OPEC production fell 411,000 barrels per day to 29,343 million bpd.
  • Libya's production fell 343,000 barrels per day, from 1,396,000 bpd.
  • Nigeria fell 107,000 barrels per day due to Royal Dutch (RDS) Oil maintenance.
To make up for the shortfall, Saudi Arabia increased production by 500,000 barrels per day to 9.05 million bpd. Kuwait upped production by 37,000 barrels per day. Arab Emirates increased their production by 90,000 barrels per day.

Here's the real kicker. OPEC's seaborne exports are expected to fall by 530,000 barrels per day in the next four weeks.

Brent Crude Oil Explodes to $120 Per Barrel - BloggingStocks
​
Conservative said:
Do you enjoy seeing less people employed today than before he passed and signed his stimulus plan?
Click to expand...
Of course not. Unlike you, I am not happy that unemployment exploded. However, I am happy that Obama added or saved 3.5 million jobs (the number you posted), otherwise the U3 unemployment rate would be more like what it was under Reagan at nearly 11%. I can only imagine your howls then.
 
Objective Voice said:
Don't forget Bush II also ushered in the Department of Homeland Security, THE largest federal agency every created as far as its reciept of federal dollars. How's that for "expanding government". Of course, it was done for the sake of "national security". So, it's okay. Nevermind that this agency spends BILLIONS every year on god knows what.

(Speaking to Republicans here) Sarcasm aside, I'm all for protecting our national security interest at home and abroad, but don't give me this decree for "limited government" when your party created the largest and most expensive government agency this country has ever seen! And most of its spending goes unreported because it's "classified". My point is if you're going to make the claim to reduce the size of government and rein in government spending, DON'T be hypocritical about it. Republicans "expand" government (not to mention its reach, visa-vi, via the judiciary) just as Democrats do. Your side just tries to do it "covertly" so that the People don't know what you're really up to.
Click to expand...

These are the things that really get me when some members of the Republican Party assume that everyone should automatically vote for a Republican candidate in 2012 because of Obama's "excessive" spending. That argument would make sense if the Republican Party had a recent history of actually cutting spending and limiting government. However, it does not. In fact, it has the exact opposite. The argument about how a Republican president will reign in spending and limit government has long gone out the window - both parties spend out of their asses.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Non-sequitur. You asked if Obama's buddies are getting rich off of today's high gasoline prices? Unlike Bush and Cheney, who come from oil and energy backgrounds, I'm not aware of Obama's "buddies" being in the oil industry. Can you name them? Are there any?


In case you're interested, here's the reason for the current prices...
Here are the stats:
  • OPEC production fell 411,000 barrels per day to 29,343 million bpd.
  • Libya's production fell 343,000 barrels per day, from 1,396,000 bpd.
  • Nigeria fell 107,000 barrels per day due to Royal Dutch (RDS) Oil maintenance.
To make up for the shortfall, Saudi Arabia increased production by 500,000 barrels per day to 9.05 million bpd. Kuwait upped production by 37,000 barrels per day. Arab Emirates increased their production by 90,000 barrels per day.

Here's the real kicker. OPEC's seaborne exports are expected to fall by 530,000 barrels per day in the next four weeks.

Brent Crude Oil Explodes to $120 Per Barrel - BloggingStocks
​
Of course not. Unlike you, I am not happy that unemployment exploded. However, I am happy that Obama added or saved 3.5 million jobs (the number you posted), otherwise the U3 unemployment rate would be more like what it was under Reagan at nearly 11%. I can only imagine your howls then.
Click to expand...

Spent 35 years in the oil business and know that neither Bush or Obama got rich off the price of oil but that didn't stop liberals from making the claim during the Bush term thus I will make that same claim now, just another promise of Obama broken.

I am sure the u-6 unemployed are extremely happy to know that Obama saved all those jobs but wonder why it wasn't theirs they saved instead of govt. jobs?
 
theplaydrive said:
These are the things that really get me when some members of the Republican Party assume that everyone should automatically vote for a Republican candidate in 2012 because of Obama's "excessive" spending. That argument would make sense if the Republican Party had a recent history of actually cutting spending and limiting government. However, it does not. In fact, it has the exact opposite. The argument about how a Republican president will reign in spending and limit government has long gone out the window - both parties spend out of their asses.
Click to expand...

The entire election is about economic policy, If you believe it is the role of the govt. to redistribute wealth and to expand the nanny state then by all means be prepared to pay for it by voting for Obama but ask yourself can this country afford another 4 years? This country wasn't built on those principles of Obama's or whathis resume showed. He is delivering on promises to redistribute wealth and work on creating a European socialist model in this country. We all know how well that has worked overseas
 
The Prof said:
obama, 2012---f em, where else they gonna go?

elections in this country are won and lost on ENTHUSIASM

seeya at the polls, progressives

bring his RECORD
Click to expand...

Liberals, progressives, democrats...we will bring his record and we will vote for him. For no matter how disappointed we are with Obama, the liberal base will never vote for a conservative just like the conservative base will never vote for a liberal. The 2012 race will be decided, again, by the independents and the swayable members of the two big parties. For this reason, I believe Obama has a very good chance of winning again. I believe he will sway left minded progressives and independents to his side, which is key for him. But the other key is to make sure that the disenchanted liberals out there turn up to vote! The folks that feel the stimulus was too small, and that Obama gave away too much to the right, and that he compromised too much in general, will need to find the passion in him that they had in 2008.

I think it can happen, as I am not one to count Obama out.
 
Conservative said:
Not with a debt more than GDP
Click to expand...
This again just highlights your hypocrisy. You supported Bush, where debt as a percentage of GDP rose from about 56% to about 85%, an increase of about 52%; under Obama, it's gone up from about 85% to 93% an increase of about 9%. And let's not forget the Great Recession Bush gave Obama.

usgs_line.php



So can Obama count on your vote?

Conservative said:
I don't support any policy that has more people working for the govt. than working in the manufacturing private sector. The massive growth in the govt. is unsustainable and not worthy of my vote.
Click to expand...
Uh-oh!!

Wait for it ...

Wait for it ..........

When you voted for Bush in 2004 ... There were more government jobs than manufacturing jobs ...

Oct 2004:
BLS.gov: Government: 21,656,000
BLS.gov: Manufacturing: 14,334,000

I heard Limbaugh talking about this earlier. Too bad for you, you mindlessly parrot rightwing talking points without researching them first.
 
Conservative said:
The entire election is about economic policy, If you believe it is the role of the govt. to redistribute wealth and to expand the nanny state then by all means be prepared to pay for it by voting for Obama but ask yourself can this country afford another 4 years? This country wasn't built on those principles of Obama's or whathis resume showed. He is delivering on promises to redistribute wealth and work on creating a European socialist model in this country. We all know how well that has worked overseas
Click to expand...

Considering that a lot of Democrats are pissed about some of his conservativism, I think you need to rethink that statement.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
This again just highlights your hypocrisy. You supported Bush, where debt as a percentage of GDP rose from about 56% to about 85%, an increase of about 52%; under Obama, it's gone up from about 85% to 93% an increase of about 9%. And let's not forget the Great Recession Bush gave Obama.

usgs_line.php



So can Obama count on your vote?


Uh-oh!!

Wait for it ...

Wait for it ..........

When you voted for Bush in 2004 ... There were more government jobs than manufacturing jobs ...

Oct 2004:
BLS.gov: Government: 21,656,000
BLS.gov: Manufacturing: 14,334,000

I heard Limbaugh talking about this earlier. Too bad for you, you mindlessly parrot rightwing talking points without researching them first.
Click to expand...

I am still waiting for you to give me a reason to vote for Obama for all you have done if this is your argument is to provide a reason that you won't be voting for Obama whose record is worse than Bush's. Comparing Obama's results today to 2009-2010 which are disasters doesn't boost your case.
 
theplaydrive said:
These are the things that really get me when some members of the Republican Party assume that everyone should automatically vote for a Republican candidate in 2012 because of Obama's "excessive" spending. That argument would make sense if the Republican Party had a recent history of actually cutting spending and limiting government. However, it does not. In fact, it has the exact opposite. The argument about how a Republican president will reign in spending and limit government has long gone out the window - both parties spend out of their asses.
Click to expand...

Thus, for me, it's about what has been done in the wake of the economic collapse to bring the economy back around. IMHO, Pres. Obama has made some end-roads towards improving the economy. Of course, there are those who based their decision moreso on "promises kept" over "progress made". Using that logic, most former Presidents should have been re-elected to a second term. But if people really want to play that "Promises Kept/Promises Broken" game, I encourage you to review the ObamaMeter at PolitiFact.org and then read this article from CBSNews dated Sept 2, 2007 and then make a real, honest assessment of which of the last two Presidents has kept his word more.

Bottom Line: the economy, personal character and leadership will be the driving forces for the 2012 Presidential election
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
Considering that a lot of Democrats are pissed about some of his conservativism, I think you need to rethink that statement.
Click to expand...

How about responding to my statement, is that your vision for this country, the nanny state and the redistribution of wealth along with creating a socialist utopia?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom