• 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!

The Left " Cosnpires to Produce a Compliant and Unaware Citizenry "

This is why Hillary cannot fight on issues, and rests her hopes on personal destruction. She has, like Obama... been an utter failure, they know it, and lament they can't control the dumb sheep like they once used to.

An utter failure how? GDP growth during Obama was slightly better than it was during Bush. It's not like Hillary or Obama turned a blind eye to the dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007. It's not like Hillary or Obama passed tax cuts in 2001 that erased a surplus and produced 3 record deficits in the next 8 years that would double the debt (Hillary voted against those tax cuts, BTW). It's not like Hillary and Obama participated in a propaganda-driven campaign to invade and occupy Iraq based on the premise of WMDs that weren't there. It's not like Hillary and Obama passed the largest unfunded entitlement expansion ever (which she also voted against). It's not like Hillary or Obama got complete control of the legislature and pushed through nothing but ideological red meat like they did in Kansas, which resulted in nothing but misery.

That's not to say Hillary and Obama don't have their failures. I think the biggest failure of Obama was not to prosecute the Wall Street banksters for fraud, or hauling Cheney and the Bush cabal in front of a judge for War Crimes.
 

Again, GDP growth during Obama's 8 years has been virtually identical to Bush's GDP growth over his 8 years. The difference between the two is the number of jobs Obama created vs. number of jobs Bush lost, among other things. And BTW - the years of Bush "growth" above 3% were due entirely to the housing bubble, which would burst and drop Bush's GDP growth into the negative.
 
You know, I want to agree with you. But I have a lot of friends that are Democrats.

And no, they are not "dumb sheep" "political illiterates" or "civic illiterates"

.....okay, maybe political illiterates, but not the other two.

The Democrats you know must be smarter and less ignorant than the ones I run into.
 
So...how are things working at the VA? That is a not-for-profit system.

Some VA hospitals stink, but others are very good. It's all about who is administering them. For instance, the VA Hospital in Holyoke, MA is one of the worst in the nation, yet the VA Hospital in White Plains, NY is one of the best. There are hundreds of VA hospitals and patient centers nationwide, concluding that all of them are terrible based on reports from a handful is disingenuous.

Besides, Medicare is the model we would be using. All health insurance does is administer payment of premiums you've already paid to your provider. That's it. That is the only function insurance companies have. They have no role in the quality of care you receive. Your doctor doesn't treat you better because you have Anthem than a patient that has Blue Cross. If they do, then that doctor is guilty of malpractice. A single-payer system doesn't mean the entire health care industry is under the control of the government, just the administration of payments to your provider. And why does that need to have a profit motive?
 
We didn't create the Taliban, period. And no, the people we armed didn't become the Taliban. The people we armed went to war against the Taliban, after the Russo-Afghan war ended.

You're not right about this, but fine. Believe what you want. I don't care.
 

LOL, OK, but you know that what you just cited doesn't prove your point, at all.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

Pull the numbers off there. Real GDP under Bush increased about $1.9T or 15%, and under Obama $2.0T (to date) or about 13.8%. It will go up a little more this quarter and add to the total. So real growth is roughly equal although because Bush started with a lower base, the percentage change under Bush is slightly higher, so far.

And job growth has been FAR higher under Obama than Bush. So it's sort of hard to compare them and conclude Bush's results come out on top.

BTW, just noticed that the article you cite is by Jim Hoft, aka "The dumbest man on the internet." :roll:
 
Last edited:
I noticed you dodged the hell out the rest of my post.

I bet you still believe The United States created the Taliban.

Obama gave us the worst GDP in history.

You're ignoring the point of my responses, I never mentioned the Taliban, and and I addressed GDP in another post.
 
Some VA hospitals stink, but others are very good. It's all about who is administering them. For instance, the VA Hospital in Holyoke, MA is one of the worst in the nation, yet the VA Hospital in White Plains, NY is one of the best. There are hundreds of VA hospitals and patient centers nationwide, concluding that all of them are terrible based on reports from a handful is disingenuous.

Besides, Medicare is the model we would be using. All health insurance does is administer payment of premiums you've already paid to your provider. That's it. That is the only function insurance companies have. They have no role in the quality of care you receive. Your doctor doesn't treat you better because you have Anthem than a patient that has Blue Cross. If they do, then that doctor is guilty of malpractice. A single-payer system doesn't mean the entire health care industry is under the control of the government, just the administration of payments to your provider. And why does that need to have a profit motive?

When all of them don't stink and government employees are actually held accountable, get back with me.
 
Again, GDP growth during Obama's 8 years has been virtually identical to Bush's GDP growth over his 8 years. The difference between the two is the number of jobs Obama created vs. number of jobs Bush lost, among other things. And BTW - the years of Bush "growth" above 3% were due entirely to the housing bubble, which would burst and drop Bush's GDP growth into the negative.

9bviously, you're wrong. Information is the Left's worst enemy.
 
You're ignoring the point of my responses, I never mentioned the Taliban, and and I addressed GDP in another post.

You're ignoring my posts because you know I'm right.
 
You're ignoring my posts because you know I'm right.

No, I'm responding to your posts, but not following your red herrings all over the place. If you don't understand my responses to you, that's not my problem - I can't make you see the point.
 
No, I'm responding to your posts, but not following your red herrings all over the place. If you don't understand my responses to you, that's not my problem - I can't make you see the point.

The labor participation rate is still at a 36 year low
 
An utter failure how? GDP growth during Obama was slightly better than it was during Bush. It's not like Hillary or Obama turned a blind eye to the dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007. It's not like Hillary or Obama passed tax cuts in 2001 that erased a surplus and produced 3 record deficits in the next 8 years that would double the debt (Hillary voted against those tax cuts, BTW). It's not like Hillary and Obama participated in a propaganda-driven campaign to invade and occupy Iraq based on the premise of WMDs that weren't there. It's not like Hillary and Obama passed the largest unfunded entitlement expansion ever (which she also voted against). It's not like Hillary or Obama got complete control of the legislature and pushed through nothing but ideological red meat like they did in Kansas, which resulted in nothing but misery.

That's not to say Hillary and Obama don't have their failures. I think the biggest failure of Obama was not to prosecute the Wall Street banksters for fraud, or hauling Cheney and the Bush cabal in front of a judge for War Crimes.

The economy is a mess, with over 90 million unemployed.

Obamakare is a mess that costs jobs, costs triple, and you get less service.

Black/White relations has become poisonous thanks to Obama, a race baiter mentored by a racist.

Cops get shot all over the country. Obama is responsible.

Our foreign policy is a joke. We've treated our enemies as friends and friends as enemies... And what they did in both Iraq and Iran is incompetence defined. It's dangerous too.
 
First of all, it didn't come from the campaign.

Second, I'll quote Jack Fabulous:



I don't have much to add to that along with my earlier comment you just quoted.

It came from a Bill Clintion NEA appointee who just happened to have Podesta's email and who believed that a " unaware and compliant citizenry " was a benefit to the Democrat brand

On that point he and I agree completley
 
It came from a Bill Clintion NEA appointee who just happened to have Podesta's email and who believed that a " unaware and compliant citizenry " was a benefit to the Democrat brand

AKA someone who is not part of the "Hillary campaign." If you want to say "influential leftist" or "friend of Podesta" or something, that's fair enough.

On that point he and I agree completley

Good, so do I which is why I "liked" his comment then quoted it in response to you.
 
We didn't create the Taliban, period. And no, the people we armed didn't become the Taliban. The people we armed went to war against the Taliban, after the Russo-Afghan war ended.

This is what I'm talking about. An informed populace would destroy the Democrats.

Umm. Didn't the CIA run Stinger shoulder fired anti-aircraft into Afghanistan to enable the local war lords to shoot down their tormentor in the sky, i.e. the Russian Hind-5 (or was it 7?) attack helo? I believe that even Obama Bin Laden was fighting at the time with the local population there.

Arming / creating the Taliban, well no, but arming the locals who needed help against the Russian invaders. Of course, then we left the scene, and allowed the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.
 
It came from a Bill Clintion NEA appointee who just happened to have Podesta's email and who believed that a " unaware and compliant citizenry " was a benefit to the Democrat brand

On that point he and I agree completley

An "unaware and compliant citizenry" typically don't hold their government or leaders accountable, and typically don't know when they are being lied to.

So, yeah.
 
You know Fenton, you ask a lot of theoretical questions, where all I'm doing is telling you what I see in the given text in the article.

And I don't see the premise you stated in the first clause of your reply to me.

You sir, are a good and patient man. If I owned a hat, it would be off to you for your efforts.
 
You sir, are a good and patient man. If I owned a hat, it would be off to you for your efforts.
Well, thank you!

It come's from raising kids through there teens ... ;)
 
So long as we continue to have for-profit private insurance in this country, this will always be an issue.

OFF TOPIC...

It is so strange, isn't it? Bankruptcy, crippling medical bills, and premium payments could be gone; done away with 100%. No American would ever have to pay another medical bill in this country again (except for things like plastic surgery), yet they wish to complain about how much healthcare costs them individually.

Patient: Doctor, it's hurts when I do "this"
Doctor: Then stop doing that
 
Umm. Didn't the CIA run Stinger shoulder fired anti-aircraft into Afghanistan to enable the local war lords to shoot down their tormentor in the sky, i.e. the Russian Hind-5 (or was it 7?) attack helo? I believe that even Obama Bin Laden was fighting at the time with the local population there.

Arming / creating the Taliban, well no, but arming the locals who needed help against the Russian invaders. Of course, then we left the scene, and allowed the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

This whole cause and effect thing; the whole complicated evaluation stuff; well, it's all too much to understand. Therefore you're wrong. Here's what's right:

America!
 
Well, thank you!

It come's from raising kids through there teens ... ;)

I've raised three myself and I still don't have the patience you do. :)
 
It means exactly what it appears to mean.

But by "we've all been quite content", I believe he's speaking of society collectively - not their campaign.

They're bemoaning their issue oriented campaign isn't reaching in the ways Trump does, because society & the electorate have become unaware & not interested in factual analysis. Quite frankly, I agree.


The visceral appeals to emotion by which most people make their decisions, by however little. The intellectual appeal to the rational mind tends to be less an appeal than the visceral. Appeal to fear and hate works. Hype works. Unlike Michelle Obama, Hillary has little of the visceral, however much tone control Michelle has. Yet Michelle also appeals to the rational mind. I may not agree with the position that is typically of the visceral, but I agree the visceral has an argumentative advantage the rational mind has difficulty overcoming. So, yeah, I agree with Chomsky's agreement.
 
Back
Top Bottom