Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dear Republicans.

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by MastaShake

Originally posted by TehSlenderMan
reply to post by MastaShake
 


No need to be rude, it seems i'm thinking about something else. Regardless, Romney should have won, Obama already proved he can't do the job after the first term. God knows why he was re elected. Lets just take away all those on welfare, homosexuals, and 75% of Latinos, and you have a loss. That is the only group of people that voted for him. Now we get to sit through 4 even worse years than last time.


The only reason obama didnt do a great of a job as he could have was because the GOP was trying to stop every single thing he attempted to do. and you cant say my candidate would have won if _________ had not voted, thats not how it works. you people need to face reality and move on.


Speaking of reality, you do recall that the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the house and senate for two years after Obama was first elected and they still have a majority in the Senate? The GOP obstructionist excuse does not hold with reality.




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Eh, both parties pull that crap, it's just a crapshow for the masses. Both republican and democrats try to take full credit for anything positive that happens under their administrations, and blame the negatives on someone else. It's a cop out if you ask me. The last four years were all blamed on "inheriting bush's mess". Wonder what excuses will be used for the next four years. I don't think blaming it all on bush will hold as much mustard, even for the dimwitted. At least I "hope" not.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Speaking of reality, you do recall that the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the house and senate for two years after Obama was first elected and they still have a majority in the Senate? The GOP obstructionist excuse does not hold with reality.


Between the seating of Al Franken (Jul 7, 2009) & the death of Ted Kennedy (August 25, 2009) the dems had 60 votes for less than 2 months (7 weeks). I may be wrong but some of that time may have been a recess. The rest of the time they had 58/59 along with the highest number of filibusters in recent history by the opposition.
edit on 12-11-2012 by DarkSecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TehSlenderMan
Regardless, Romney should have won, Obama already proved he can't do the job after the first term. God knows why he was re elected. Lets just take away all those on welfare, homosexuals, and 75% of Latinos, and you have a loss. That is the only group of people that voted for him. Now we get to sit through 4 even worse years than last time.


Judging by this comment you appear to be one of the ardent supporters of the Tea Party or hard right religious wing of the GOP. Independents & swing voters will never mingle with a party that harbors such hatred. Homosexuals have historically been 10% of every society since the beginning of time. Minorities have always been frowned upon and blamed for random stuff (see Jews in Hitler's Germany). And of course poor have always been shunned and thrown into deep holes where they wouldn't offend those who were better off. Congrats you represent the mob mentality perfectly!



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by DarkSecret
 



a theocracy of crazy lunatics who only want to screw the poor, women, and middle class and let the rich and corporations run wild.


This is so much hyperbole. It was generated by the Democrat propaganda machine. If your moderate Repub friends believed it, they should just become Democrats.
Obama is a Marxist redistributionist and any Republican worth his/her salt knows this. Republicans do not have a war on women. Marxists have a war on conservatives and anyone who believes in Liberty and private property.
If we support Pro Choice then we support the taking of life in the womb and what person of deep morality will go against their own moral values? Just because young secular women chose that doesn't make it right, moral, or even the most popular.


How many abortion clinics are still licensed in the Red states? How many family planning clinics (who don't offer abortions) are still operating there? How many of them have been closed down in the last 4 years - ironically after the moderate prez Bush left office? How many vagi-probe laws have passed in the R-dominated legislatures during these past 4 years? Look into it and then tell me there's no war on women.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
You want to talk about a War on Women? Seriously? Let's talk about the march of the drones that the Obama administration orders on a daily basis to strike fear in the women in that country and other countries throughout the world. This is a stupid, stupid strawman argument that "Liberals" like to hold and completely cheapen because they can't look outside of the dial of NPR.

1. Obama has mild leaning concerning reproductive rights but not to the extent that several so called Liberals like to demogogue over and over about. However, his legislation doesn't really represent that claim. It just doesn't. It doesn’t count as big in O’s favor that he nominated 2 supposedly pro-choice Supreme Court justices (of which the only proof we have that they’ll be pro-choice is that they’re women), one of whom sided in favor of a conservative decision to limit access to reproductive rights. Of the other one, Kagan, very little favorable can be satisfactorily determined on the issue of choice.

2. It is true that Obama supported and pushed through the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which gives women a more flexible statute of limitations to sue for discriminatory wages; it doesn’t actually mandate that women be paid the SAME as men.

3. When a woman’s son or spouse or father or brother or cousin or uncle or nephew faces hourly risks of the following: being droned to death; being arrested for unknown reasons; disappearing into the indefinite detention hole for days, months, years at a time; rendered somewhere far away to be tortured; then she can no longer count on the right of cultural self-determination—because her culture is being demolished. Her family is being destroyed. Her community is disappearing. And her ability to determine herself disappears right along with the rest.

4. African American & Latino homeowners suffered disproportionately more housing foreclosures than white men or women. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, 17% of Latino homeowners, 11% of African homeowners are at risk for losing their homes. I have not been able to extract the number of women affected, but it’s safe to say black and brown women of color have also been disproportionately affected.

The current Administration did not cause these foreclosures. But according to Neil Barofsky, under Pres. Obama, the Treasury department deliberately and cynically did not use TARP money to help these homeowners despite the express bipartisan intent of the US Congress.

At most, the 49-state mortgage settlement brokered under President Obama will be at most a palliative, if not in fact harmful to these same families.

When American feminists tell me about the importance of protecting reproductive rights, do they believe that Black, Latino, undocumented, Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani women have reproductive rights, too? Or is that one of those areas where we just can’t expect the Dems to protect “my fondest dreams”? Do we have obligations to hold the Dems accountable for active harms to women around the world?

Does the economic and political detriment to women from having their sons, spouses, brothers, fathers entrapped and arrested–count as “a feminist issue”? By economic and political detriment, I mean the social ostracization, the material effect of the loss of income, the political vulnerability of having a male who is potentially the head of a household.

Arguing that Romney justices would overturn Roe v. Wade is a concession that Senate Democrats, as they did with Alito and Roberts, would allow an anti-choice justice through the Senate. More likely is that Romney, like Obama, simply does not care about abortion, but does care about the court’s business case rulings (the U.S. Chamber went undefeated last year). Romney has already said he won’t change abortion laws, and that all women should have access to contraception. He may be lying, but more likely is that he does not care and is being subjected to political pressure. But so is Obama, who is openly embracing abortion rights and contraception now that it is a political asset. In other words, what is moving women’s rights is not Obama or Romney, but the fact that a fierce political race has shown that women’s rights are popular. The lesson is not to support Obama, who will shelve women’s rights for another three years, but to continue making a strong case for women’s rights.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I am just going to help out with some factual confusion here...


Originally posted by Nite_wing
The President's solution was his budget. It didn't even get one vote from the Dems.
So, what's he do? Spends.


The President doesn't issue a budget. He issues a proposal...a rough outline of ideas for the Congress to adapt, debate and legislate around. For the first time in history the GOP House took that proposal, slapped a bill header on it and put it to a vote...just so monkeys like yourself could post such nonsense...no one voted for it because it wasn't legislation, it wasn't a bill, it didn't have the neccessary language or structure. Never before in our 250 years has a presidential proposal been voted on...it was pure nonsense and theatrics by the GOP..in perfect keeping with thier record.


Originally posted by solidguy
Because as long as Obama is in the White House we can't have a growing economy, we can't decrease the deficit (even though Obama promised to cut it in half), and as long as Obama keeps paying off the Unions, we will never fix our education system.


Our economy has been growing...gdp, employment everything that actual economists measure. You should actually look into it some time.

Deficet...the rate of growth of the deficet...the rate upon which it increases has slowed consistently and to a rate that is less than any time during the Bush years.

Unions and education?...Obama has been pushing for Union reforms aggressively..it has put a lot of tension between the administration and unions, and yet they voted for him...yes the GOP is THAT bad.

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by HauntWok
 


I respect your views and I understand the angst.

But why when a democrat has a view it's right and when a republican has a view they are "ramming it down our throats"?


You are confusing "views" with facts...facts are niether democrat nor republican...unless you listen to the republicans, then facts have a liberl, left wing bias and Factcheck (founded by a Reagan Adminsitration appointee and ferevent republican Leona Annenberg) is a communist marxist conspiracy.


Geez...I am not even through the first page...so much for conservatives realizing they live on BS mountain.
edit on 13-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Please tell me, what is supposed to fund education in the first place?
...
So you expect the corporations to pay for education?


The States should run their own public education programs, paid for by taxes and donations.



Where upon the porrer states create a circle of economic suffering..poor education leads to poor economic success which leads to lower tax revenues and even poorer education.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by snusfanatic


Compromise comes when you earnestly prepare your own ideas, not when you come with a list of what your opponent should ideally believe.

The class of 2010 was elected to stop another Obamacare/Stimulus. They did their job and held the majority this Tuesday.



Yes they were hired to create gridlock when our nation needed solutions. Success! They TP had 16 seats up for re-election on Tuesday and lost all but 4. Michelle Bachmann only survived by the narrowest or margins by running adds touting her ability to compromise and reach across the aisle...no, I am not kidding.

The TP is done...not to say it's survivors in Congress won't continue to hostage take...Freedworks ran an editorial yesterday declaring that we should go over the fiscal cliff! Despite every economist and the OMB saying it will be a sure fire double dip recession if we do. For how long do you think the American public will tolerate TP politicians sabatoging our recovery? Where ads were run associating the TP with GOP candidates, those candidates lost on Tuesday.....why? What does that tell you about 2014?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by snusfanatic


Compromise comes when you earnestly prepare your own ideas, not when you come with a list of what your opponent should ideally believe.

The class of 2010 was elected to stop another Obamacare/Stimulus. They did their job and held the majority this Tuesday.



Yes they were hired to create gridlock when our nation needed solutions. Success! They TP had 16 seats up for re-election on Tuesday and lost all but 4. Michelle Bachmann only survived by the narrowest or margins by running adds touting her ability to compromise and reach across the aisle...no, I am not kidding.

The TP is done...not to say it's survivors in Congress won't continue to hostage take...Freedworks ran an editorial yesterday declaring that we should go over the fiscal cliff! Despite every economist and the OMB saying it will be a sure fire double dip recession if we do. For how long do you think the American public will tolerate TP politicians sabatoging our recovery? Where ads were run associating the TP with GOP candidates, those candidates lost on Tuesday.....why? What does that tell you about 2014?


There was a poll today about the "fiscal cliff."

nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com...

We've known since August 2011 whose fault it is that it's come to this. And if they don't figure this out, 2 million people will be out of work, including me. It would be an economic disaster.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I think what the conservative hacks are saying is this:

The President was wildly optimistic in regards to what he could do in regards with turning the economy around. Yes, you are correct. Congress votes and enacts the budget. If the person above had been arguing that Congress have passed most of their responsibilities to the Executive branch over the course of the last century, sure that's true and so I think that's why people still look for Presidents to resolve these issues.

For those Democrat hacks who have a short memory, let's look at this from the mouth of one Senator Barack Obama: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I agree with his statement then and it's too bad that he won't stand up for that statement now. The President had made bold claims about the economy and we're just not there. We're barely at 2% growth, that's not going to cut it. Unemployment is still painfully high and the share of the population with a job is at the lowest it's been in 30 years. That's frightening and the President's policies that were voted on in Congress have done little to stem the tide or turn the tide in the favor of recovery. That's undeniable not to mention that this President and the Democrats are trying to pass the same regulations that the EU passed that have STEMMED economic growth in their countries.

I don't know how you can say that we're turning things around in regards to the economy. Homelessness is up, not a single penny of bailout money went to help those effected by the mortgage crises and give the money to those families, which is really what those TARP funds were for. Instead we bailed out Obama's good buddies at Goldman Sachs not because he's a socialist Muslim but because he's a corporate fascist Rockefeller Republican. Most of the jobs that have been created during the last 4 years are really crappy, minimum wage jobs that won't cover the rising costs of food and energy due to the backwards regulations of the EPA, the FDA and the continuation of corporate farm subsidies.

If we're doing so #ing good, exactly why are so many people on food stamps? It's not like I have a problem with helping out people who can't help themselves, but those numbers should take those rose colored glasses off quickly.
edit on 13-11-2012 by justinsweatt because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-11-2012 by justinsweatt because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MastaShake
 


To be quite honest, the only reason why Obama won was because true republicans ie. the people who believe in smaller government, less government intervention, the right to life, and fiscal responsibility did not show up and vote. Obama received 9 million less votes than last election and Mitt got less than McCain. This was a a resounding NO VOTE for the state of the Republican party, it was not a mandate by the people in favor of Obama's policies or his efforts or lack thereof in correcting an economy which was in bad shape when he took the helm, but his attempts to correct it have been feeble and misguided because of his socialist mentality.

In essence, perhaps when things are broken enough and enough of our citizens are sick and tired of being sick and tired, the people will raise up and elect someone regardless of party affiliation that will actually do what is best for America or the takers will outnumber makers, and no matter who is running, the takers will not vote to have someone cut their deserved benefits and federal feeding tube.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by justinsweatt
I think what the conservative hacks are saying is this:

The President was wildly optimistic in regards to what he could do in regards with turning the economy around. Yes, you are correct. Congress votes and enacts the budget. If the person above had been arguing that Congress have passed most of their responsibilities to the Executive branch over the course of the last century, sure that's true and so I think that's why people still look for Presidents to resolve these issues.

For those Democrat hacks who have a short memory, let's look at this from the mouth of one Senator Barack Obama: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I agree with his statement then and it's too bad that he won't stand up for that statement now. The President had made bold claims about the economy and we're just not there. We're barely at 2% growth, that's not going to cut it. Unemployment is still painfully high and the share of the population with a job is at the lowest it's been in 30 years. That's frightening and the President's policies that were voted on in Congress have done little to stem the tide or turn the tide in the favor of recovery. That's undeniable not to mention that this President and the Democrats are trying to pass the same regulations that the EU passed that have STEMMED economic growth in their countries.

I don't know how you can say that we're turning things around in regards to the economy. Homelessness is up, not a single penny of bailout money went to help those effected by the mortgage crises and give the money to those families, which is really what those TARP funds were for. Instead we bailed out Obama's good buddies at Goldman Sachs not because he's a socialist Muslim but because he's a corporate fascist Rockefeller Republican. Most of the jobs that have been created during the last 4 years are really crappy, minimum wage jobs that won't cover the rising costs of food and energy due to the backwards regulations of the EPA, the FDA and the continuation of corporate farm subsidies.

If we're doing so #ing good, exactly why are so many people on food stamps? It's not like I have a problem with helping out people who can't help themselves, but those numbers should take those rose colored glasses off quickly.
edit on 13-11-2012 by justinsweatt because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-11-2012 by justinsweatt because: (no reason given)


IMO Obama overestimated the Republicans--he honestly believed that they'd be willing to work for the good of the country.

He was wrong. If it hadn't been for them being so obtuse and obstructionist, who knows where we'd be now? Even though nobody could have fixed things in 4 years. Nobody.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
This is really bad strawman argument. The Republicans don't agree with Obama's policy and think that their point of view is the best way to lead the country. This is what's called "standing for principles" even if those principles seem to flip flop all over the place. Who said you have to vote for something? Why is it that Republicans always have to be the one to "compromise"? What the hell is that? If the Democrats had practiced the same thing in regards to George W. Bush, I know things would be a lot better right now. Instead, they failed. You can't vote to authorize war and a lot of other messed up crap during the 8 years of the Bush Administration and then point the finger at the Republicans as being "obstructionist" and "it's all their fault". This was a bi-partisan screw job and only partisan hacks will sit there and say "well if they would only do what Obama wants". Hell, per my quote above, not even Obama is behaving in the same manner that he did 4 years ago.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by justinsweatt
Congress votes and enacts the budget. If the person above had been arguing that Congress have passed most of their responsibilities to the Executive branch over the course of the last century, sure that's true and so I think that's why people still look for Presidents to resolve these issues.


Congress has passed it's responsibilities to the Executive branch? I might have missed that?


Originally posted by justinsweatt

For those Democrat hacks who have a short memory, let's look at this from the mouth of one Senator Barack Obama: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills.

I agree with his statement then and it's too bad that he won't stand up for that statement now.


I am unsure what makes you think the President is pro-debt? Doesn't consider it an issue? Does he also hate babies? I am just saying some of the premises that the rhetoric is founded on lack credibility. The rate of growth of the deficet is lower now than any time during the Bush years...Government employees...fewer than during the past ten...and he has repeatedly called for controls on spending and lowering the debt. This idea of the President as some out of control spender, though neccessary for the GOP's theme, is propaganda all the same.


Originally posted by justinsweatt

The President had made bold claims about the economy and we're just not there. We're barely at 2% growth, that's not going to cut it. Unemployment is still painfully high and the share of the population with a job is at the lowest it's been in 30 years. That's frightening and the President's policies that were voted on in Congress have done little to stem the tide or turn the tide in the favor of recovery.


We are in a recovery...from the greatest economic disaster since the great depression and we are recovering a faster clip than any economist (that doesn't work for a campaign) ever anticipated. The choice between that gridlock/obstructionism seems a no brainer.


Originally posted by justinsweatt
That's undeniable not to mention that this President and the Democrats are trying to pass the same regulations that the EU passed that have STEMMED economic growth in their countries.


That makes no sense. Regulations are not hindering Europe's recovery, austerity is. They cut too deep, too quickly...honestly...read the financial analysts...dems, repubs whatever you like agree when they aren't talking politics.


Originally posted by justinsweatt

I don't know how you can say that we're turning things around in regards to the economy.


Look at any chart for unemployment,GDP, Rate of deficet etc. Good enough? No...much better than anyone expected a few years out of near economic collapse? yes.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by justinsweatt
Congress votes and enacts the budget. If the person above had been arguing that Congress have passed most of their responsibilities to the Executive branch over the course of the last century, sure that's true and so I think that's why people still look for Presidents to resolve these issues.


Congress has passed it's responsibilities to the Executive branch? I might have missed that?


Originally posted by justinsweatt

For those Democrat hacks who have a short memory, let's look at this from the mouth of one Senator Barack Obama: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills.

I agree with his statement then and it's too bad that he won't stand up for that statement now.


I am unsure what makes you think the President is pro-debt? Doesn't consider it an issue? Does he also hate babies? I am just saying some of the premises that the rhetoric is founded on lack credibility. The rate of growth of the deficet is lower now than any time during the Bush years...Government employees...fewer than during the past ten...and he has repeatedly called for controls on spending and lowering the debt. This idea of the President as some out of control spender, though neccessary for the GOP's theme, is propaganda all the same.


Originally posted by justinsweatt

The President had made bold claims about the economy and we're just not there. We're barely at 2% growth, that's not going to cut it. Unemployment is still painfully high and the share of the population with a job is at the lowest it's been in 30 years. That's frightening and the President's policies that were voted on in Congress have done little to stem the tide or turn the tide in the favor of recovery.


We are in a recovery...from the greatest economic disaster since the great depression and we are recovering a faster clip than any economist (that doesn't work for a campaign) ever anticipated. The choice between that gridlock/obstructionism seems a no brainer.


Originally posted by justinsweatt
That's undeniable not to mention that this President and the Democrats are trying to pass the same regulations that the EU passed that have STEMMED economic growth in their countries.


That makes no sense. Regulations are not hindering Europe's recovery, austerity is. They cut too deep, too quickly...honestly...read the financial analysts...dems, repubs whatever you like agree when they aren't talking politics.


Originally posted by justinsweatt

I don't know how you can say that we're turning things around in regards to the economy.


Look at any chart for unemployment,GDP, Rate of deficet etc. Good enough? No...much better than anyone expected a few years out of near economic collapse? yes.



Yeah, apparently you did miss the memo that Congress has passed it's responsibilities regarding keeping the Executive Branch in check. The illegal war action in Libya ring any bells? Executive signing orders to circumvent Congress ring any other bells? I could go on. Seriously, how did you miss this?

Considering Obama and debt, yes, he is a very pro debt. If you refuse to correctly vote against raising the debt limit and then propose the following platitude, you might be a hack: "I think that it's important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you're a senator, traditionally what's happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it."

Also, since you don't seem to understand what "Regulations" are, let me spell it out for you. Regulations can either cut growth or promote grown, but "austerity measures" ARE regulations. You are regulating one part of the sector for the benefit of the other. Also, Obama has already agreed to austerity measures set up by the House Republicans, here is the Link



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
One other response: Yes, Obama hates babies, but mostly Pakistani, Yemeni, Afghan, Iraq, Iran, Syrian, Libyan, and Egyptian ones. You should see the piles of dead children created from his drone campaigns.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by justinsweatt

Yeah, apparently you did miss the memo that Congress has passed it's responsibilities regarding keeping the Executive Branch in check. The illegal war action in Libya ring any bells? Executive signing orders to circumvent Congress ring any other bells? I could go on. Seriously, how did you miss this?



No offense, but you seem to fall in to the category of being uneducated on th issues of which you speak and pridefully so.

Your claim that congress has passed on it's responsibilities to the executive branch..Fails in every way.
History refutes it wholeheartedly...

President Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any President in recent memory...Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, eisenhower, Truman, Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt...Teddy issued over 1000 executive orders by the way...and all of them issued more executive orders than Pres. Obama
www.snopes.com...

Libya? Boots on the ground requires Congressional approval. Offering support to Nato actions without invading or putting troops in harms way...does not.


Originally posted by justinsweatt
Considering Obama and debt, yes, he is a very pro debt.


Your qoute where President Obama admitted that as a Senator he voted against raising the debt ceiling makes him "very pro debt" how?? The rate of growth of the deficet has slowed under Obama...it grew under both Bush and Reagan. Are we adding to the debt? Yes, that is what happens post near financial collapse. Is he working hard to reverse the debt? Yes, more so than the GOP who have adopted economic sabatoge as a platform and that adds to the debt.


Originally posted by justinsweatt
Also, since you don't seem to understand what "Regulations" are, let me spell it out for you. Regulations can either cut growth or promote grown, but "austerity measures" ARE regulations. You are regulating one part of the sector for the benefit of the other. Also, Obama has already agreed to austerity measures set up by the House Republicans, here is the Link


Austerity measures are cutting government services, pensions, benefits, safety nets....that is not Regulation. Don't know how to help you there.

As far as Obama agreeing to "austerity measures"...the issue with Europe was not that they cut, it was that they cut TOO DEEPLY...cutting is good with fat, bad with muscle...cutting muscle hobbles recovery.

Is Obama for Austerity or "very pro debt"? Are you upset he voted not to raise the debt ceiling as a Senator? Or that he was honest with his reasoning? Either way how does any of it make him "Very" pro debt?

Not sure we are having an honest discussion here..definetly not an informed one.

I'll leave you to whatever angry response you can muster and gift you the last word.

peace...



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
When you can spell "THE" as not "th", then you can question my intelligence. Secondly, as a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama promised that if he was elected president he would not issue obscure declarations known as signing statements that thwart the intent of laws passed by Congress. But as the president is now relected in 2012, on at least 20 occasions Obama has embraced the same tactic he criticized George W. Bush for using, raising allegations of double-dealing in Congress and questions of constitutionality from the American Bar Association. It is well known each presidency in the past 20 years have been building executive powers that are inconsistent to the U.S. Constitution and amounts to the slow dissolving of the Judicial and legislative branch. Patriot Act ring a bell? NDAA? Secret kill lists?

First of all under the USA Patriot Act anybody that is jaywalking, doing reckless driving, speeding, vandalism, and a wide slew of other crimes that are considered an act that is dangerous to human life is considered an act of terrorism under the Patriot Act’s own definition. Even if criminal acts and hurting people are wrong and illegal, that doesn’t mean people should now be treated as a terrorist and tortured and forced to confess before a military tribunal. Military tribunals don’t grant the same rights that are in regular civilian criminal courts and are not exactly under Article III Constitution type status. They do not go under regular civilian laws but under the law of war.

Then Obama continued on the Unconstitutional, Illegal, Immoral, wars that George W. Bush started against nations that didn’t pose any danger to the United States which in turn the wars threatened the security of the United States even more then if the war had not even begun in the first place. Obama also initiated a war of his own in the country of Libya (Using NATO forces). The Libya war did not go through the U.S. Congress to seek a valid declaration of war bill as what was required under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which talks about the powers of the Legislative branch. To add insult to injury, during a Senate sessions hearing of War Secretary, Leon Panetta, told the senators that Obama will seek “seek international permission” to launch new wars under the banner of the U.S. He declared the “commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country” without consulting the American people. With Obama on the UN Security council, with Leon Penetta declaring that the only legal basis he needs is the UN or NATO to start wars, The Congress and even the Courts are cut out from Obama’s worldwide war plans.

If you cut something, how is that not a regulation? If you cut property taxes for a corporation and not a small business isn't that a regulation? I don't know, you seem to have a problem with this one.
edit on 13-11-2012 by justinsweatt because: (no reason given)


You're the one that doesn't seem very informed but merely parroting talking points from partisan hacks like Rachel Maddow (who reports news at the behest of a corporation like CNBC) and lives in an alternate universe like some yuppie on Lake Wobegon.
edit on 13-11-2012 by justinsweatt because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-11-2012 by justinsweatt because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
And if you had read my previous post, ye of little reading comprehension, I AGREED with his vote on NOT raising the debt limit. It was his cavalier "flip flopping" on the issue, a quote I posted, that makes me not take him seriously.

Let's trot some stuff out here:

Under Bill Clinton, the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent. Under George W. Bush, the average unemployment rate was 5.3 percent. Under Barack Obama, things have been much worse. The month after he took office the unemployment rate rose above 8 percent and it has stayed there ever since.

Real median household income has decreased by more than 4000 dollars since Barack Obama entered the White House.

Since Barack Obama became president, the number of long-term unemployed Americans has risen from 2.7 million to 5.2 million.

Under Barack Obama, federal spending as a percentage of GDP (25 percent) is the highest that it has been since World War II.

The U.S. government has run a budget deficit of well over a trillion dollars every single year under Barack Obama, which is above George W. Bush. These are the 4 years that Obama has been in office. That's not Bush's fault.

You could tax 128% of Corporations profit and it still won't pay down the debt in 10 years.

Since Barack Obama took office, the U.S. national debt has increased by 50 percent.

Yes, Barack Obama is not solely responsible for the economy. In fact, he does not even have the most influence over the direction of the economy.
However, if he had been willing or able to actually do what was necessary to fix the economy, he certainly had ample opportunity.
For example, the Democrats had full control of Congress during Obama’s first two years in office.
They were in a position to push through just about anything that they wanted to.

Obama definitely hasn't done anything to step out of the ways of the horrible Federal Reserve policies, not to mention that he continues to listen to that fiscal nightmare that is Fed Chair Bernake.





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join