• 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!

CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

Navy Pride said:
If Clinton had a budget surplus and I believe it was all fuzzy math it was because of the Republican congress and New Gingrich and his contract with america......They made slick willie balance the budget which he did not want to do....
Click to expand...

It's not really fuzzy math. The Congress of the US passed a budget in the last years of the Clinton Administration that, if one doesn't count the money stolen from Social Security, actually had a small surplus. Of course, the Democrats want to attribute that to Clinton, while the Republicans would rather claim it didn't happen, or claim "fuzzy math", or give credit where credit is due, to the Congress. Both parties want to ignore the money stolen from Social Security.

Not too many years later, the Congress of the US under a "conservative" i.e. Republican president, passed a budget that was some 300 billion out of whack even after the money stolen from Social Security was factored in. Of course, the Democrats will point to that as proof that Clinton balanced the budget, while Bush was a big spender. Republicans, looking at the same figures, suddenly remembered that it was the congress that spend the money. Of course now, the budget is so far out of balance that the country is likely going to be bankrupt very soon. Democrats want to attribute that unfortunate truth to Bush, while Republicans point to Obama. Of course, both presidents approved huge deficits, but it was, once again, the Congress of the US that spent money that the country doesn't have.

If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?

Oh yes, and neither party is the party of fiscal responsibility by any means.
 
With all the crap being thrown at him in the hope that some sticks, it's amazing that he's only just over half in the disapproval ratings. It's lucky he doesn't need to be elected right now. He has plenty time to turn things around.
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

Conservative said:
I suggest you learn to read the report. Do you see a line item called Social Security? Should SS be on budget and not be put aside for future retirement? You really are a typical liberal and don't understand what you are even looking at

Whether or not you supported the war is irrelevant, Congress did and they had the same information as the President

Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and as I recall Bush was still in office. Again what you think doesn't matter much as you have been fed a lot of false information that you buy as fact.

Take a civics class, we don't elect a King, Bush had a Democrat Congress from 2007-2008. Our govt. runs as three equal branches of govt. Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Congress is every bit as responsible for the economy as the President except in the liberal world.
Click to expand...

This is futile. I came to this site for an intelligent debate on politics, but you do not appear capable of engaging in one.

I do know how to read reports. I do know something about politics and civics and I would have more respect for you if you just argued politics and left the insults out of it.

Regarding your report, I find it very interesting that you don't think I can read it. As I mentioned previously, there is a chart on p.20 of the document that you sent out to support your point, which shows the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue. So which one of us is incapable of reading a report?

I also sent you a link to the Congressional Budgeting Office, which shows exactly the same thing -- that there were budget surpluses in 1998-2000.
Your line item regarding social security is entirely irrelevant. I understand that you don't think that the government should include these earnings, but it does, and therefore there are budget surpluses for the three years. Deal with it!

Regarding the Iraq War, yes some Democrats supported it. But it was something conceived by Bush-Cheney and sold to the American people and Congress on the basis of exaggerations and misrepresentations. Much of Congress did not support giving Bush the power to go to war in Iraq without a declaration of war, and many of those who did called on Bush to first exhaust all diplomatic means, which he did not.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's not really fuzzy math. The Congress of the US passed a budget in the last years of the Clinton Administration that, if one doesn't count the money stolen from Social Security, actually had a small surplus. Of course, the Democrats want to attribute that to Clinton, while the Republicans would rather claim it didn't happen, or claim "fuzzy math", or give credit where credit is due, to the Congress. Both parties want to ignore the money stolen from Social Security.

Not too many years later, the Congress of the US under a "conservative" i.e. Republican president, passed a budget that was some 300 billion out of whack even after the money stolen from Social Security was factored in. Of course, the Democrats will point to that as proof that Clinton balanced the budget, while Bush was a big spender. Republicans, looking at the same figures, suddenly remembered that it was the congress that spend the money. Of course now, the budget is so far out of balance that the country is likely going to be bankrupt very soon. Democrats want to attribute that unfortunate truth to Bush, while Republicans point to Obama. Of course, both presidents approved huge deficits, but it was, once again, the Congress of the US that spent money that the country doesn't have.

If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?

Oh yes, and neither party is the party of fiscal responsibility by any means.
Click to expand...

Do you know who controlled the congress in 1994.....Do you know what the Contract with America qas...........Nuff said.............
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

DenverGreg;1058577204]This is futile. I came to this site for an intelligent debate on politics, but you do not appear capable of engaging in one.

I do know how to read reports. I do know something about politics and civics and I would have more respect for you if you just argued politics and left the insults out of it.

Regarding your report, I find it very interesting that you don't think I can read it. As I mentioned previously, there is a chart on p.20 of the document that you sent out to support your point, which shows the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue. So which one of us is incapable of reading a report?

I also sent you a link to the Congressional Budgeting Office, which shows exactly the same thing -- that there were budget surpluses in 1998-2000.
Your line item regarding social security is entirely irrelevant. I understand that you don't think that the government should include these earnings, but it does, and therefore there are budget surpluses for the three years. Deal with it!
Click to expand...

Obviously you haven't a clue. If you want honest debate start by being honest and looking at the line items in the Budget. There you will see Social Insurance and Retirement. That is Social Security and has no business being on budget. Take out the SS receipts and expenditures and you have no budget surplus. Now unless you believe stealing from the SS trust fund is ok then you are being intellectually dishonest.


Regarding the Iraq War, yes some Democrats supported it. But it was something conceived by Bush-Cheney and sold to the American people and Congress on the basis of exaggerations and misrepresentations. Much of Congress did not support giving Bush the power to go to war in Iraq without a declaration of war, and many of those who did called on Bush to first exhaust all diplomatic means, which he did not
Click to expand...
.

Some? 76 Senators voted for the war resolution? As for false information, again stop reading leftwing sites. Congress had access to exactly the same information as the President. To say differently is absolutely false. It serves no purpose to relive this at this point but Bush went to Congress, went to the UN and got resolutions from both. How many UN and Congressional resolutions did Saddam Hussein have to violate before you would have taken action? Fact is apparently Saddam Hussein thought he was dealing with Clinton.
 
Navy Pride said:
Do you know who controlled the congress in 1994.....Do you know what the Contract with America qas...........Nuff said.............
Click to expand...

Yes, what did happen to the Contract with America? Wasn't it written by Republicans when they weren't in power, then ignored when they were? Didn't it include a balanced budget amendment? Why haven't we heard any more about said amendment?

Is it possible to sue a political party for breach of contract?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, what did happen to the Contract with America? Wasn't it written by Republicans when they weren't in power, then ignored when they were? Didn't it include a balanced budget amendment? Why haven't we heard any more about said amendment?

Is it possible to sue a political party for breach of contract?
Click to expand...

I believe 8 or 9 of the items on the Contract with America were carried out including balancing the budget (much against Slick Willies wishes) and welfare reform...........

I don't know where you have been.......
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

DenverGreg said:
This is futile. I came to this site for an intelligent debate on politics, but you do not appear capable of engaging in one.

I do know how to read reports. I do know something about politics and civics and I would have more respect for you if you just argued politics and left the insults out of it.

Regarding your report, I find it very interesting that you don't think I can read it. As I mentioned previously, there is a chart on p.20 of the document that you sent out to support your point, which shows the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue. So which one of us is incapable of reading a report?

I also sent you a link to the Congressional Budgeting Office, which shows exactly the same thing -- that there were budget surpluses in 1998-2000.
Your line item regarding social security is entirely irrelevant. I understand that you don't think that the government should include these earnings, but it does, and therefore there are budget surpluses for the three years. Deal with it!

Regarding the Iraq War, yes some Democrats supported it. But it was something conceived by Bush-Cheney and sold to the American people and Congress on the basis of exaggerations and misrepresentations. Much of Congress did not support giving Bush the power to go to war in Iraq without a declaration of war, and many of those who did called on Bush to first exhaust all diplomatic means, which he did not.
Click to expand...

You want honest debate or discussion? Let's discuss this, let's discuss the goodness of America, let's discuss why Obama is going to be a One Term President and why progressivism is destroying the very foundation upon which this country was built and how you are a part of that destruction? Let's see if you have the guts to take an hour of your time and witness what really made this country great. You aren't getting this in your textbook but this speech really hits home and addresses the real history that you aren't being taught.

Glenn Beck Clips CPAC 02-20-10
 
2012 Election Results


44% - Obama - Democrat

34% - GOP candidate

17% - Palin - Tea Party

5% - Other
 
hazlnut said:
2012 Election Results


44% - Obama - Democrat

34% - GOP candidate

17% - Palin - Tea Party

5% - Other
Click to expand...

Very early in the process but looks like to 44% of the people results don't matter

15 million unemployed Americans
Trillions added to the debt
Largest Govt. in U.S. History

Why would anyone vote for Obama with those results?
 
Navy Pride said:
I believe 8 or 9 of the items on the Contract with America were carried out including balancing the budget (much against Slick Willies wishes) and welfare reform...........

I don't know where you have been.......
Click to expand...

Really? I don't recall any attempt at passing a balanced budget amendment when we had a majority Republican Congress and a Republican president. In fact, where I was, the budget was being busted then, too. Maybe it was different where you were. Now, as for that balanced budget during the latter part of the Clinton Administration, which was it, fuzzy math, or an effort by Republicans to counter the wishes of the Democrat president?

Your reasoning seems to be something like this:

Republicans are conservatives, therefore the balanced budget (if there was one) has to have been the work of Republicans, because they're the fiscally conservative party.

It's very logical, in a circular sort of way.

C'mon, admit it. The Republicans are no more fiscally conservative than the Democrats are.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Really? I don't recall any attempt at passing a balanced budget amendment when we had a majority Republican Congress and a Republican president. In fact, where I was, the budget was being busted then, too. Maybe it was different where you were. Now, as for that balanced budget during the latter part of the Clinton Administration, which was it, fuzzy math, or an effort by Republicans to counter the wishes of the Democrat president?

Your reasoning seems to be something like this:

Republicans are conservatives, therefore the balanced budget (if there was one) has to have been the work of Republicans, because they're the fiscally conservative party.

It's very logical, in a circular sort of way.

C'mon, admit it. The Republicans are no more fiscally conservative than the Democrats are.
Click to expand...

I think you are using too big of a brush when you use the term Republican or Democrat in your description.

There are indeed Republicans who are more fiscally conservative than other Republicans just like there are some Democrats more fiscally conservative than other Democrats

The problem is you have Pelosi, Reid, and Obama running the govt. and that represents the most liberal wing of the nation, why by polling is about 20%.

I don't know any Republican that supports Pelosi, Reid, or Obama spending proposals and their agenda thus the 100% vote against the stimulus and healthcare. I have just mentioned the three most liberal Democrats who are running this country and setting the agenda. It is that agenda that most Republicans are against
 
Conservative said:
I think you are using too big of a brush when you use the term Republican or Democrat in your description.

There are indeed Republicans who are more fiscally conservative than other Republicans just like there are some Democrats more fiscally conservative than other Democrats
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. Republican does not mean conservative, not by any means. Democrat does not always mean liberal either. Moreover, there is no agreement as to what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" really mean anyway.

Conservative said:
The problem is you have Pelosi, Reid, and Obama running the govt. and that represents the most liberal wing of the nation, why by polling is about 20%.

I don't know any Republican that supports Pelosi, Reid, or Obama spending proposals and their agenda thus the 100% vote against the stimulus and healthcare. I have just mentioned the three most liberal Democrats who are running this country and setting the agenda. It is that agenda that most Republicans are against
Click to expand...

Yes, we have fiscal liberals running the government currently, and no, Republicans don't support the likes of Pelosi, Reid, or Obama. Does that make them conservatives, or does that make them partisans? The growth of government that took place when the Republicans were running things argues for the latter.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That's exactly my point. Republican does not mean conservative, not by any means. Democrat does not always mean liberal either. Moreover, there is no agreement as to what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" really mean anyway.



Yes, we have fiscal liberals running the government currently, and no, Republicans don't support the likes of Pelosi, Reid, or Obama. Does that make them conservatives, or does that make them partisans? The growth of government that took place when the Republicans were running things argues for the latter.
Click to expand...

Republicans did indeed lose their way and thus the birth of the "Tea Party" Movement. The issue in the past was the lesser of the two evils which is a sad state of affairs when your choice is evil.

I am a conservative and make no apology for that. There are two issues important to me, a pro growth, pro free enteprise capitalistic society and national defense. Without those two issues being handled nothing else matters.

What Obama has proposed and implemented moves us away from the free enteprise and capitalistic economy that our country was built on and giving U.S. Constitutional rights to terrorists makes us less safe. He gets a "F" on the economy and a C- on National Defense. The only reason he doesn't get a "F" on national defense is he has adopted the Bush Doctrine in Iraq and has finally given the Commanders in Iraq some of the troops they wanted.

As it stands now he is going to be a one term President as he exactly the person his resume said he would be.
 
Conservative said:
Republicans did indeed lose their way and thus the birth of the "Tea Party" Movement. The issue in the past was the lesser of the two evils which is a sad state of affairs when your choice is evil.

I am a conservative and make no apology for that. There are two issues important to me, a pro growth, pro free enteprise capitalistic society and national defense. Without those two issues being handled nothing else matters.

What Obama has proposed and implemented moves us away from the free enteprise and capitalistic economy that our country was built on and giving U.S. Constitutional rights to terrorists makes us less safe. He gets a "F" on the economy and a C- on National Defense. The only reason he doesn't get a "F" on national defense is he has adopted the Bush Doctrine in Iraq and has finally given the Commanders in Iraq some of the troops they wanted.

As it stands now he is going to be a one term President as he exactly the person his resume said he would be.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he will be, and perhaps not. The Republican Party has indeed lost its way. Maybe it will find its conservative roots, maybe the voters will forget about the disaster that was the Bush administration. Maybe Obama will screw up so badly that the Republicans will get elected even if the party doesn't get its act together.

But, don't count on it yet.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Perhaps he will be, and perhaps not. The Republican Party has indeed lost its way. Maybe it will find its conservative roots, maybe the voters will forget about the disaster that was the Bush administration. Maybe Obama will screw up so badly that the Republicans will get elected even if the party doesn't get its act together.

But, don't count on it yet.
Click to expand...

Look, I will concede that the Bush Administration with the help of Congress including a Democrat Controlled Congress the last two years of his Administration spent too much money but I will not buy the statement that his Adminstration was a disaster.

We have 46 straight months of strong economic growth. We had to pay for 9/11 which many seem to forget happened. We also had three major hurricanes which had to be paid for.

The non partisan facts seem to refute the claim of a disaster. What we have now is a disaster in the WH, someone who has taken Bush spending and put it on steroids. As was pointed out by someone else here, the deficit the first 6 years of the Bush Administration excuding the 9/11 expense pales in comparison to the expenses of a Democrat Controlled Congress and the expenses now being generated by this President and by the liberal Congress.

By current standards the Bush Administration was a rousing success.
 
Conservative said:
Look, I will concede that the Bush Administration with the help of Congress including a Democrat Controlled Congress the last two years of his Administration spent too much money but I will not buy the statement that his Adminstration was a disaster.

We have 46 straight months of strong economic growth. We had to pay for 9/11 which many seem to forget happened. We also had three major hurricanes which had to be paid for.

The non partisan facts seem to refute the claim of a disaster. What we have now is a disaster in the WH, someone who has taken Bush spending and put it on steroids. As was pointed out by someone else here, the deficit the first 6 years of the Bush Administration excuding the 9/11 expense pales in comparison to the expenses of a Democrat Controlled Congress and the expenses now being generated by this President and by the liberal Congress.

By current standards the Bush Administration was a rousing success.
Click to expand...

Let's see.

We had to pay for 9/11? Does that mean that the buildings had to be rebuilt and the city restored?

After nine years and seven billion dollars, that still hasn't happened, but then, that is the fault of New York politics rather than Washington politics.

Is that increase in deficit from zero to 477 billion due to paying for 9/11? What did we have to do that cost that much money?

As for the war in Iraq, it was not Iraq that attacked the US on 9/11. That was an elective war against Saddam Hussain, followed by an ill advised nation building project that was paid for on the national credit card.

Then there was the lack of regulation of the banks, that led at least in part to the economic meltdown of 2008, you know, the one that partisans want to blame on the Democrat president who hadn't yet taken power.

Then, there was the so called "Patriot" act.

Yes, disaster is a much better description than "rousing success", but, then compared to the current practice of, in your words, taking Bush spending and putting it on steroids", maybe the Bush era wasn't so bad after all.

It's kind of like saying that, compared to the hurricane that hit New Orleans, the blizzard on the East Coast wasn't so bad.

In fact, they were experiencing great weather, by comparison.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Really? I don't recall any attempt at passing a balanced budget amendment when we had a majority Republican Congress and a Republican president. In fact, where I was, the budget was being busted then, too. Maybe it was different where you were. Now, as for that balanced budget during the latter part of the Clinton Administration, which was it, fuzzy math, or an effort by Republicans to counter the wishes of the Democrat president?

Your reasoning seems to be something like this:

Republicans are conservatives, therefore the balanced budget (if there was one) has to have been the work of Republicans, because they're the fiscally conservative party.

It's very logical, in a circular sort of way.


C'mon, admit it. The Republicans are no more fiscally conservative than the Democrats are.
Click to expand...

There was no need for and amendment,,,,,,,Like I said it was fuzzy mathe by the Clinton administration but thanks to Newt and the Contract with America the budget was balanced.....How can you not know that?
 
Everybody keeps talking about Bush, Clinton, dems, republicans, like theres a dimes worth of difference between em!
 
Dittohead not!;1058578203]Let's see.

We had to pay for 9/11? Does that mean that the buildings had to be rebuilt and the city restored?

GAO says 9/11 cost over a trillion dollars. Ask them where the money went

After nine years and seven billion dollars, that still hasn't happened, but then, that is the fault of New York politics rather than Washington politics.
Click to expand...

Is that increase in deficit from zero to 477 billion due to paying for 9/11? What did we have to do that cost that much money?
Click to expand...

The deficit wasn't zero and again GAO claims 9/11 cost over a trillion dollars

As for the war in Iraq, it was not Iraq that attacked the US on 9/11. That was an elective war against Saddam Hussain, followed by an ill advised nation building project that was paid for on the national credit card.
Click to expand...

The invasion of Iraq came in 2003, not 2001-2002, and cost 100 billion a year.

Then there was the lack of regulation of the banks, that led at least in part to the economic meltdown of 2008, you know, the one that partisans want to blame on the Democrat president who hadn't yet taken power.
Click to expand...

Ask Barney Frank and Chris Dodd about those regulations, and better yet ask ACORN

Then, there was the so called "Patriot" act.
Click to expand...

Not sure anyone would please you as President
 
Goyboy said:
:agree

I certainly see no difference between Republicans who can't pass a balanced budget and Democrats who can't pass a balanced budget.
Click to expand...

Your right in this day there is very little difference between a Republican and a Democrat but there is a huge difference between a Liberal and a Conservative..........
 
Navy Pride said:
There was no need for and amendment,,,,,,,Like I said it was fuzzy mathe by the Clinton administration but thanks to Newt and the Contract with America the budget was balanced.....How can you not know that?
Click to expand...

No need for a balanced budget amendment? Imagine what would have been avoided had such an amendment been passed. How else are we going to keep Washington from borrowing us into the poorhouse? Surely you must know by now that voting Republican isn't going to do it.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No need for a balanced budget amendment? Imagine what would have been avoided had such an amendment been passed. How else are we going to keep Washington from borrowing us into the poorhouse? Surely you must know by now that voting Republican isn't going to do it.
Click to expand...

It isn't that easy to get a amendment through.........

I don't vote Republicans I vote against Liberal democrats........
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

USA-1 said:
:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

This is exactly why we keep electing the worst people possible. People like you settle for mediocrity.
Click to expand...

Well at least you are willing to admit President Obama is just another one of the "worst people possible".

But what do you attribute your failure to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom