The Official Obama debate thread.

[EnderWiggin]

And yes, although Vietnam was horrible and pointless, in the end we won most of the battles

 

Ok, I'll try it Jae's way.

 

No, Jedi_Man, Vietnam was not a success, and we did not in the end win most of the battles. Notice how Vietnam is now in a single-party communist state, and how S. Vietnam was rapidly defeated soon after we left it.

 

If you did not learn this by 9th grade, I apologize.

 

If you would like to discuss further the catastrophe that was the Vietnam War, I'd be happy to talk to you via PM. It may be slightly-offtopic to continue the discussion here.

 

It's what you basically get in what is practically a 1 party system, where the Press is in the tank for that party.

Recall that there are still 55 million GOP members in this country, and countless more independents.

 

Not really 1 party.

 

_EW_

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

typical liberal media bashing the military

[GarfieldJL]

Recall that there are still 55 million GOP members in this country, and countless more independents.

 

Let me put it this way, who controls the House and the Senate (the senate to the point all it takes is 1 vote and the Dems can ram through whatever they want), who controls the Executive Branch. And look at who controls almost the entire media.

[Adavardes]

Let me put it this way, who controls the House and the Senate (the senate to the point all it takes is 1 vote and the Dems can ram through whatever they want), who controls the Executive Branch. And look at who controls almost the entire media.

 

All this is to me is the losing party having a hissy fit about not being on top anymore. I'm just a little sick and tired of it.

[Web Rider]

Let me put it this way, who controls the House and the Senate (the senate to the point all it takes is 1 vote and the Dems can ram through whatever they want), who controls the Executive Branch. And look at who controls almost the entire media.

 

Except, the Democrats are still too stupid to be that coordinated. No, I am not mindlessly bashing Democrats, they've got a GOOD thing right now, but the one thing the Democrats could never do is get together. Not like Republicans can.

[jonathan7]

Let me put it this way, who controls the House and the Senate (the senate to the point all it takes is 1 vote and the Dems can ram through whatever they want), who controls the Executive Branch. And look at who controls almost the entire media.

 

So somehow while the Republicans had the president, and 8 years ago the Senate and House? (You'll have to forgive me, I am after all not American, though IIRC, when Bush got in, it was all Republican, but lost those both the House and the Senate, mid-term). So anyway, while Bush has been in power (and for 4 years with both House and Senate), the evil Democrats somehow took control of the media?

[Adavardes]

Except, the Democrats are still too stupid to be that coordinated. No, I am not mindlessly bashing Democrats, they've got a GOOD thing right now, but the one thing the Democrats could never do is get together. Not like Republicans can.

 

Nothing like some bribery, corruption, and corporate nepotism to keep the good ol' boys together, eh?

 

And the party whose president couldn't form a coherent sentence shouldn't be calling anyone stupid, imo.

[EnderWiggin]

Let me put it this way, who controls the House and the Senate (the senate to the point all it takes is 1 vote and the Dems can ram through whatever they want), who controls the Executive Branch. And look at who controls almost the entire media.

 

That'd be the will of the people, so if you want to be angry, be angry at the good ol' US of A. And baw that your party is the loser right now. It's not always been that way, it's not going to be that way forever. That's the ebb and flow of politics, my friend.

 

So somehow while the Republicans had the president, and 8 years ago the Senate and House? (You'll have to forgive me, I am after all not American, though IIRC, when Bush got in, it was all Republican, but lost those both the House and the Senate, mid-term). So anyway, while Bush has been in power (and for 4 years with both House and Senate), the evil Democrats somehow took control of the media?

 

No, you've got it J7. Don't kid yourself; you understand US politics better than many common Americans.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

That'd be the will of the people, so if you want to be angry, be angry at the good ol' US of A. And baw that your party is the loser right now. It's not always been that way, it's not going to be that way forever. That's the ebb and flow of politics, my friend.

 

That explains why they're trying to shut down talk radio, and anyone else that is critical of them. That also explains why they have money in the stimulus package for ACORN?

 

 

So far, I'm seeing corruption city, attempts to shut down all opposition, a media that is so utterly in the tank it would be funny if it weren't so serious.

 

The Dems tried to put in 25 billion for contraceptives, and Nancy Pelosi defended it saying it would stimulate the economy by cutting costs.

[EnderWiggin]

The Dems tried to put in 25 billion for contraceptives, and Nancy Pelosi defended it saying it would stimulate the economy by cutting costs.

I saw that on BillO too, not Pelosi's finest moment.

 

However, tell the whole story. That part of the stimulus package request was removed, at President Obama's request. I'm thinking that's not helping your "liberal agenda" point any

 

and re: talk radio, Obama has said he doesn't agree with the fairness doctrine, so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. Please explain/source?

 

_EW_

[jrrtoken]

That explains why they're trying to shut down talk radio, and anyone else that is critical of them. That also explains why they have money in the stimulus package for ACORN?

Source, cuz that sounds so utterly ridiculous.

The Dems tried to put in 25 billion for contraceptives, and Nancy Pelosi defended it saying it would stimulate the economy by cutting costs.

You're taking it WAAAY out of context. Besides, that provision is out of the bill.

 

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/27/1762544.aspx

 

And don't pull the "MSNBC IS LIBERAL!!!!!" thing on me, because you'll probably find it on Fox News as well.

[Adavardes]

I saw that on BillO too, not Pelosi's finest moment.

 

However, tell the whole story. That part of the stimulus package request was removed, at President Obama's request. I'm thinking that's not helping your "liberal agenda" point any

 

and re: talk radio, Obama has said he doesn't agree with the fairness doctrine, so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. Please explain/source?

 

_EW_

 

Nope, Obama is evil, and the "loony left" is out to enslave America forever. Anything saying otherwise is a lie built by the media, which is controlled by liberal lizard people.

 

CONSPIRACY IS EVERYWHEREEEEEEEEEEEEE

[GarfieldJL]

I saw that on BillO too, not Pelosi's finest moment.

 

No, it's just a typical Pelosi moment.

 

However, tell the whole story. That part of the stimulus package request was removed, at President Obama's request. I'm thinking that's not helping your "liberal agenda" point any

 

But what about the ACORN funding in that bill, they tried this in the first stimulus bill. Obama went after it after it was brought to public attention, whether he would have supported it is unknown.

 

and re: talk radio, Obama has said he doesn't agree with the fairness doctrine, so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. Please explain/source?

 

An earlier topic when I brought up Obama's choice for the chairman of the FCC, that individual is big time out for the "fairness doctrine" if you'd recall.

[EnderWiggin]

No, it's just a typical Pelosi moment.

 

Come now, that's just rude.

 

But what about the ACORN funding in that bill, they tried this in the first stimulus bill. Obama went after it after it was brought to public attention, whether he would have supported it is unknown.

 

I believe it's known whether or not he would have supported it as he asked for it to be removed! That means he didn't support it. By definition.

 

An earlier topic when I brought up Obama's choice for the chairman of the FCC, that individual is big time out for the "fairness doctrine" if you'd recall.

No, I don't recall. But of course, I don't care, as Obama is against the fairness doctrine. Perhaps you've forgotten that he's the man upstairs when it comes to passing legislation? Like, he can stop it?

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Come now, that's just rude.

 

Doesn't change the fact that it's probably true. Remember this is the same Pelosi that preached for bipartisanism, and then locked the Republicans out of the House of Representives so they would have no say.

 

I believe it's known whether or not he would have supported it as he asked for it to be removed! That means he didn't support it. By definition.

 

No, it isn't because Fox News exposed it first, and he wouldn't want to commit political suicide cause there would be public outrage.

 

No, I don't recall. But of course, I don't care, as Obama is against the fairness doctrine. Perhaps you've forgotten that he's the man upstairs when it comes to passing legislation? Like, he can stop it?

 

Ender, he's a politican, they tend to say one thing and actually do something else.

 

Oh by the way I found the post where I bring up Obama's FCC pick

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2550530&postcount=20

[Web Rider]

Nothing like some bribery, corruption, and corporate nepotism to keep the good ol' boys together, eh?

*shrug* They were good at shutting up, keeping their heads down, and pushing the party line.

 

And the party whose president couldn't form a coherent sentence shouldn't be calling anyone stupid, imo.

For the record, i'm bashing my own party, I am a Democrat. But one thing the Democrats are terrible about is working together, it's always this special interest or that special interest. Once the Democrats won, it's not "what's best for the party", it's "what's best for me."

 

And if it wasn't for Obama being such a uniter in his campaign, the Democrats probably would of lost again because they're all too obesessed with having THEIR president, instead of the party's president.

[Tommycat]

Nothing like some bribery, corruption, and corporate nepotism to keep the good ol' boys together, eh?

Doesn't work for the Democrats, why expect it to work better for Republicans. Unless you are going to tell me that the Democrast are free from bribery, corruption, and corporate nepotism, that's an unfounded attack.

 

And the party whose president couldn't form a coherent sentence shouldn't be calling anyone stupid, imo.

 

How stupid does it make the Democrats who couldn't even defeat THAT president?

 

Truth is Web Rider is correct. When a majority of Republicans get behind something they generally all work toward that mutual goal. The Dems all start pulling in all different directions to get what they as individuals want. It lessens their power to an extent.

 

You may ask why the crushing loss to the Dems then. Simple. McCain wasn't really our guy. Many Republicans were really turned off by him. Heck the common thought amongst McCain voters was "hold my nose and vote for McCain." Not really a strong show of support.

[GarfieldJL]

You may ask why the crushing loss to the Dems then. Simple. McCain wasn't really our guy. Many Republicans were really turned off by him. Heck the common thought amongst McCain voters was "hold my nose and vote for McCain." Not really a strong show of support.

 

Actually it was more of Obama's 10,000 press secretaries, and ridiculous campaign spending, ACORN, among other things.

 

 

Obama's push for this new stimulus package which is nothing more that giving special interests gifts, is what I was expecting clear back when he chose his Chief of Staff.

 

In this case the Dems may have shot themselves in the foot because Republicans proposed an alternative plan that is far less expensive, and is primarily tax cuts.

[jrrtoken]

Obama's push for this new stimulus package which is nothing more that giving special interests gifts, is what I was expecting clear back when he chose his Chief of Staff.

Of course, hey; he's a liberal, they always corrupt everything.

In this case the Dems may have shot themselves in the foot because Republicans proposed an alternative plan that is far less expensive, and is primarily tax cuts.

..and I'm sure that those tax cuts will be for the wealthy, much like it was for Bush.

[mur'phon]

Of course, hey; he's a politican, they always corrupt everything.

 

Fixed

 

..and I'm sure that those tax cuts will be for the wealthy, much like it was for Bush.

 

While, yes, the wealthy will benefit more (it is hard to cut taxes without this happening:xp:), the tax cuts will give average Joe a fair bit of cash to spend. However, this asumes people will actually spend much of it in a downturn, which is why I'm not terribly fond of them, still, they work a lot faster than increased public spending, so all in all they should make up a significant portion of any stimulus bill.

[Web Rider]

..and I'm sure that those tax cuts will be for the wealthy, much like it was for Bush.

 

Which they aren't, you can go look up the information and find out exactly which income groups are getting the best breaks, as I recall, the breaks essentially end at 250k.

[GarfieldJL]

Of course, hey; he's a liberal, they always corrupt everything.

 

I was thinking more of a Chicago style Politician, cause there are a few liberals out there that I'm sure are not corrupt.

 

..and I'm sure that those tax cuts will be for the wealthy, much like it was for Bush.

 

Raising taxes and digging yourself deeper into a hole won't help the economy recover.

[jrrtoken]

Which they aren't, you can go look up the information and find out exactly which income groups are getting the best breaks, as I recall, the breaks essentially end at 250k.

True, but even those in upper range saw a tax reduction, while those at poverty level got nothing. That is absolutely not fair.

Raising taxes and digging yourself deeper into a hole won't help the economy recover.

Then tax only the wealthy, the real ones who deserve to be taxed for their massive amounts of wealth. As far as I'm concerned, the poor are still getting poorer while the rich are still getting richer, which is completely backwards, IMO.

[GarfieldJL]

True, but even those in upper range saw a tax reduction, while those at poverty level got nothing. That is absolutely not fair.

 

This is a tax cut, the people at poverty level DO NOT PAY TAXES!

 

 

Then tax only the wealthy, the real ones who deserve to be taxed for their massive amounts of wealth. As far as I'm concerned, the poor are still getting poorer while the rich are still getting richer, which is completely backwards, IMO.

 

Sorry, but that just promotes socialism/communism. There needs to be some changes but trying to punish the rich (and a lot of them gained wealth through legitimate and ethical means), just discourages people from trying to be the best they can be.

[jrrtoken]

This is a tax cut, the people at poverty level DO NOT PAY TAXES!

Alright, then what about the ones right above the poverty line? The ones who are forced to live on minimum wage, and stuggle with a failing economy. They are still subjected to taxes, and I'm sure they can barely survive these days.

Sorry, but that just promotes socialism/communism.

And? A bit of socialistic practices is necessary when economic deregulation spirals out of control. Oh, and communism and socialism are two totally different things, far too often associated as one and the same.

There needs to be some changes but trying to punish the rich (and a lot of them gained wealth through legitimate and ethical means), just discourages people from trying to be the best they can be.

Since when? People will always aspire to get as much money as they can, no matter what the circumstances.