• 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.

LOL!

republicans perfect?

hardly

obama's a disgrace---just look at his RECORD

have you SEEN his budget?

seeya in 12

that's in the FUTURE
 
The Prof said:
LOL!

republicans perfect?

hardly

obama's a disgrace---just look at his RECORD

have you SEEN his budget?

seeya in 12

that's in the FUTURE
Click to expand...

Who's going to beat Obama? And please don't give a Palin answer!!
 
pbrauer said:
Who's going to beat Obama? And please don't give a Palin answer!!
Click to expand...

Romney can beat Obama as can Christie and Daniels right now. Then if the numbers are as bad as they are now next year I am sure that any other Republican can win as well. Romney will wipe the stage with Obama on the economic issues.
 
Conservative said:
Romney can beat Obama as can Christie and Daniels right now. Then if the numbers are as bad as they are now next year I am sure that any other Republican can win as well. Romney will wipe the stage with Obama on the economic issues.
Click to expand...

SADLY the bible thumpers might not vote for Romney because his myths are not consistent with their myths.

Romney is clearly far more qualified than sham wow though
 
TurtleDude said:
SADLY the bible thumpers might not vote for Romney because his myths are not consistent with their myths.

Romney is clearly far more qualified than sham wow though
Click to expand...

I think that the "bible thumpers" will hold their nose and vote for Romney just to get rid of Obama
 
Conservative said:
Romney can beat Obama as can Christie and Daniels right now. Then if the numbers are as bad as they are now next year I am sure that any other Republican can win as well. Romney will wipe the stage with Obama on the economic issues.
Click to expand...
Romney? He made his money with leveraged buyouts - that's a negative for jobs. Also, there is the subject of Romneycare.
 
Conservative said:
I think that the "bible thumpers" will hold their nose and vote for Romney just to get rid of Obama
Click to expand...

I don't know-common sense eludes most of them.

I never got how someone could with -with a straight face-claim it is idiotic to believe that some angel could give Joseph Smith some gold tablets yet try to convince me in the same conversation that some guy hung on a cross for three days after having the crap beat out of him and then stuck through the side with a spear but could then rise from the dead. what the Mormons believe doesn't sound all that far fetched compared with what "real" Christians believe but the bible thumpers tell me one is completely false and the other really happened.
 
pbrauer said:
Romney? He made his money with leveraged buyouts - that's a negative for jobs. Also, there is the subject of Romneycare.
Click to expand...

yeah and smart people understand that a state doing something doesn't violate the tenth amendment but the federal government doing it does.
 
pbrauer said:
Romney? He made his money with leveraged buyouts - that's a negative for jobs. Also, there is the subject of Romneycare.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter who I give you as you continue to buy the Obama rhetoric. Romney has more experience than Obama has even now although I don't know about his golf game. I have absolutely no problem with Romneycare as that is what states are for and since healthcare is a state responsibility he did what the people of MA wanted. He would not force that nationally like Obama. He is the guy who could stand on stage and make Obama look bad although there are a lot that can do that
 
pbrauer said:
Who's going to beat Obama? And please don't give a Palin answer!!
Click to expand...

LOL!

the asker answers

you're just gonna have to wait and see, aren't you

whoever it is is gonna run against his RECORD

his supporters almost universally, it appears, are running against bush and forums members

ie, they don't seem to LIKE his record

(they don't much like forums members either, very pissy and personal, you might've noticed)

it is what it is

which side wants to talk about OBAMACARE?

which side wants to talk about THE ECONOMY?

have you seen obama's BUDGET?

mrs alaska, by the way, by all appearances, isn't even running

ie, obama's "supporters" don't seem to see what's going on around em

purblinded by all that pissiness, perhaps

OPTIMISM wins, ENTHUSIASM trumps

smile!
 
romney, march 22: if i am elected president i will WAIVE all 50 states from obamacare via EXECUTIVE ORDER

If I Were President: Obamacare, One Year In - By Mitt Romney - The Corner - National Review Online

that's gonna drive pretty far, all by itself

ask anthony i-wanna-waiver weiner, the most progressive health care warrior in the nation (and msnbc's favorite house dem)

in missouri, for example, the famous show me's who are never wrong, having famously picked the president and by the most predictive margins of any state in the union, measure c to murder THE MANDATE passed last autumn with SEVENTY ONE PERCENT

Prop C passes overwhelmingly

chew on THAT
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Since obviously you believe I made a mistake in voting for Bush for a second term I would have expected you to learn from someone else's mistake and not make it by voting for Obama for a second term. Here are a couple of the reasons I voted for Bush, here are the GDP change by year along with the employment by year.
Click to expand...
If Obama inherited an economy as strong as Bush did and had the Twin Towers obliterated on his watch and invaded a country over WMD they didn't actually have, I absolutely would not vote for Obama again. As it is, I haven't decided on voting for him in 2012. It all depends on who's running against him and what state the economy is in at that time.

Conservative said:
GDP

2000 9951.50 6.39%
2001 10286.20 3.36%
2002 10642.30 3.46%
2003 11142.10 4.70%
2004 11867.80 6.51%
2005 12638.40 6.49%
2006 13398.90 6.02%
2007 14077.60 5.07%
2008 14441.40 2.58%
2009 14256.30 -1.28%
2010 14657.8 2.82%
Click to expand...
Once again, you confuse nominal dollars with real dollars along with the reason for using real dollars. In the real world, 2010 showed 2.9% growth, which is better than 6 out of Bush's 8 years:

2000 11,226 4.1%
2001 11,347 1.1%
2002 11,553 1.8%
2003 11,841 2.5%
2004 12,264 3.6%
2005 12,638 3.1%
2006 12,976 2.7%
2007 13,229 1.9%
2008 13,229 0.0%
2009 12,881 -2.6%
2010 13,248 2.9%

Conservative said:
Employment

January numbers, employment total. Let me know when Obama gets employment back to the level it was when he took office.

2000 136559
2001 137778
2002 135701
2003 137417
2004 138472
2005 140245
2006 143142
2007 146032
2008 146421
Click to expand...
Hey, look at that ... you must think Bush was president only until January, 2008. Why did you stop there? Oh ... here's why ... over 4 million jobs were lost during Bush's final year ....

2009 142201
 
The Barbarian said:
I'll try to break this down for you in simple terms, Conservative doesn't “believe” that there have been 3.5 million jobs created by the stimulus, and neither does anyone else that has half a brain. What he is saying is that “IF” you believe that 3.5 million jobs were saved, the cost of saving those jobs was $228,000 each.
Click to expand...
I know he doesn't believe 3.5 million jobs were created/saved by the stimulus. That conundrum is his and all his. He believes each job cost $228,000 which he arrives at by calculating the cost of the stimulus, $787 billion, by 3.5 million. His problem is he's trying to eat his cake and have it too. He's trying to say each job cost $228,000, which is based on 3.5 million jobs ... but then he says there weren't 3.5 million jobs saved/created. Well then each job didn't cost $228,000 -- only his position is that they did.

The Barbarian said:
Maybe in your jaded thinking, the CBO didn't give this number, but they did, ask any 5th grader the question “ if you created or saved 3.5 million jobs, and spent $787 billion to save or create those jobs how much did each job cost"?

If you can't understand where that number came from, then by all means, don't go on the show -Are you smarter then a 5th grader,- because you aren't!
Click to expand...
The figure, $228,000 per job did not come from the CBO. Conservative posted that number here. What the CBO said was that the stimulus saved or created anywhere between 1.1 million jobs and 3.5 million jobs. He could have gone with the lower number and claimed each job cost $715,000, but he didn't. He assumed each job cost $228,000, which was based 3.5 million jobs.

I'm merely agreeing with him that 3.5 million jobs were saved/created.

The Barbarian said:
While Bush may have been wrong for wanting to pass bills that would have allowed this, I'm not certain that he ever “did” get anything passed. At least I have found nothing stating that any of what you are stating ever did get passed. So while you are busy again blaming Bush for something, you seem intent on neglecting things like the Community Reinvestment Act and repeal of Glass Steagall in 2000? Both of which loosened restrictions on mortgage lending practices that were passed by Clinton, which was the beginning of the downfall of the crash of 2008.
Click to expand...
I understand you don't read every post here, so I excuse you for assuming I neglected to fault Clinton's role, but I did. That by no means excuses Bush's actions which have been noted. Also, no law was needed because the regulations Bush sought were passed within the GSE's.


The Barbarian said:
You also ignore that twice since 2003 bills to look closer into Fanny and Freddie, were filibustered by Democrats
Click to expand...
Challenge time ... cite the two bills Democrats filibustered ...

The Barbarian said:
... or that as late as 2006 Barney Frank and Obama was backing him, that there was no need to look closely into what Fannie and Freddie were doing.
Click to expand...
Again, as late as 2006, Republicans were in charge. You can't blame a single member of the minority party for the Republicans failure to pass a bill.

The Barbarian said:
In spite of all this, you far left liberals insist, that it's all Bush's fault.
Click to expand...
I never said it was all Bush's fault. I blamed Clinton for signing the bill which repealed Glass Steagall, I blamed Phil Gramm and the Republican Congress which gave Clinton that bill, I blamed Bush for pushing for riskier loans to increase homeownership without first establishing oversight, I blamed the Republicans who ran Congress until 2007 for not passing oversight of the GSE's and and blamed the Democrats who ran Congress since 2007 for the same.

But the lion's share of the damage occurred while Bush and Republican were in charge -- I assign the lion's share of the blame to them.

The Barbarian said:
First off what Bush “may or may not” have wanted to do, has nothing to do with what he was able to do.
Click to expand...
Well he says he did. I take him at his word.

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech​



The Barbarian said:
Next when you say the CRA has nothing to do with the financial crisis you are stretching the truth, *The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group”

Such groups include Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America. Who boosted to the*New York Times*that they had "won" loan commitments totaling $3.8*billion*from Bank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group. And that is just one "community group" operating in one city — Boston.

Other groups like ACORN"community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give*them*millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.

Now maybe in your liberal thinking, this isn't forcing a bank to make questionable loans, but when you can halt a banks expansion plans simply by forming a protest, if you don't agree to make these very same questionable loans, it can be considered "forcing" in the minds of those that think reasonably.
The CRA most certainly can have some of the blame put upon them, for some of the lending practices that the banks adopted to keep any community group from protesting them.
Click to expand...
CRA was passed some 25 years before the housing bubble began exploding, and 30 years before it collapsed, and it didn't lead to the toxic loans that were the bulk of what led to the collapse. The vast majority of CRA loans were not subprime and CRA, if it contributed to the meltdown, contributed nominally.
 
TurtleDude said:
this was when? the dem plan which he supported (before electoral reality bitch slapped him in the face on November, 2010) was treating dividends the same as other income(even though it is often taxed twice) btw still a massive hike
Click to expand...
All it says it's based on the 2008 candidates' campaigns. If you have something which states differently, feel free to post it.
 
TurtleDude said:
Capital Gain and Dividend Tax Rates Poised to Rise

But the real change will be the increase in taxes paid on dividends. The maximum tax rate on dividends will head up to 39.6%. Even those in the lower tax brackets will pay 15% or 28% on dividends. For those folks, the change from 0% will be a pretty hard hit on real returns.
Click to expand...
The tax policy center disagrees with that.

Under current law, the top tax rate on capital gains would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent in 2011 and qualified dividends would face ordinary income tax rates as high as 39.6 percent. Obama’s plan would thus increase the maximum tax rate on gains from 20 percent to 25 percent and reduce that on qualified dividends from 39.6 percent to 25 percent.

Tax Policy Center​
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Which is the only poll that has him behind.
Click to expand...

it's also the most recent

it also shows barack hussein's approvals at a new ALL TIME LOW

and it shows obama LOSING to a republican of UNNAMED status

LOL!

meanwhile, don't forget that RECORD---libya, afghanistan, unemployment, debt, obamacare, housing, cap and trade, gas prices, general inflation, iran, the middle east, the cartels, immigration, gitmo, transparency...

and that 2012 budget which INCREASES the deficit by THIRTY PERCENT

seeya at the precincts, poll watchers
 
The Prof said:
it's also the most recent

it also shows barack hussein's approvals at a new ALL TIME LOW
Click to expand...
Job approval polls at this point couldn't be more meaningless in terms of an election 19 months out. Cases in point ... Ronald Reagan at 41% was even lower than Obama is and he was easily re-elected. GHW Bush had an approval rating of 83% at this point and lost his re-election.

The Prof said:
it's also the most recent

and it shows obama LOSING to a republican of UNNAMED status
Click to expand...
Too bad for Republicans that they're gonna have to put a name up against him, and so far, no one named can beat Obama.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Job approval polls at this point couldn't be more meaningless in terms of an election 19 months out.
Click to expand...

you are absolutely correct, polls are generally only of validity in the months and weeks immediate to their accountability

that said, obama's low approvals are not a plus

Ronald Reagan at 41% was even lower
Click to expand...

LOL!

obama aint no reagan

Too bad for Republicans that they're gonna have to put a name up against him
Click to expand...

still loathe to look at that record, i see

i understand
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I know he doesn't believe 3.5 million jobs were created/saved by the stimulus. That conundrum is his and all his. He believes each job cost $228,000 which he arrives at by calculating the cost of the stimulus, $787 billion, by 3.5 million. His problem is he's trying to eat his cake and have it too. He's trying to say each job cost $228,000, which is based on 3.5 million jobs ... but then he says there weren't 3.5 million jobs saved/created. Well then each job didn't cost $228,000 -- only his position is that they did.
Click to expand...

The bigger problem is the cost per job is a phony number, and does not account for the value of the work done by those people in those jobs. For example, a road crew is hired. What he is doing is counting the cost of the actual roadwork they do as part of the cost of the job, so even if that crew creates several million dollars worth of road, he is still including that in the cost per job. He is also including the cost of material. The "cost per job" figure is entirely and completely dishonest.
 
The Prof said:
it's also the most recent

it also shows barack hussein's approvals at a new ALL TIME LOW

and it shows obama LOSING to a republican of UNNAMED status

LOL!

meanwhile, don't forget that RECORD---libya, afghanistan, unemployment, debt, obamacare, housing, cap and trade, gas prices, general inflation, iran, the middle east, the cartels, immigration, gitmo, transparency...

and that 2012 budget which INCREASES the deficit by THIRTY PERCENT

seeya at the precincts, poll watchers
Click to expand...

And it is one single poll.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And in every single poll against every single individual republican, he wins or, in the case of a couple with Huckabee, ties.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom