Barack Obama is overall, a worst President than George W. Bush
| Started: | 10/16/2011 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 4,401 times | Debate No: | 18771 |
 Con  Pro Welcome to DDO. I'm looking forward to a good debate. We have no perspective history to judge the two presidents, we'll do the best we can with the data available. A Chinese historian was asked, not long ago, what he thought of the American Revolution. He said, "It's too soon to tell." You said you wanted to open, so I'll let you go first. That will give us each an equal number of arguments in the debate. |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Con 1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans. 1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged. 2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget. 2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade. 2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt. 2002: Dick Cheney declares, "Deficits don't matter." (I copied this info and I am not introducing nor supporting the suggestion presented about the participation of the political parties). When Obama takes office he inherits the following: 2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama's fiscal irresponsibility. 2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives -- including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act -- which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction. September 2010: In Obama's first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. In his first year: #Continued to draw down the misbegotten war in Iraq #Thoughtfully and decisively picked the best of several bad choices regarding the war in Afghanistan #Gave a major precedent-setting speech supporting gay rights #Restored America 's image around the globe #Banned torture of American prisoners #Stopped the free fall of the American economy #Put the USA squarely back in the bilateral international community #Put the USA squarely into the middle of the international effort to halt global warming #Stood up for educational reform #Won a Nobel peace prize #Moved the trial of terrorists back into the American judicial system of checks and balances #Did what had to be done to start the slow, torturous and almost impossible process of health care reform that 7 presidents had failed to even begin #Responded to hatred from the right and left with measured good humor and patience #Stopped the free fall of job losses #Showed immense personal courage in the face of an armed and dangerous far right opposition that included the sort of disgusting people that show up at public meetings carrying loaded weapons and carrying Timothy McVeigh-inspired signs about the "blood of tyrants" needing to "water the tree of liberty". I am opening my con side by presenting positive sides of President Obama. I do not like to present opinions by putting down the other side. Sometimes it becomes necessary but hopefully positive facts prevail. What I am suggesting here is that although there are questionable advances the stats indicated that the downfall is being arrested. The U.S. systems have been severely damaged since Clinton left office. There are many complaints that Obama has not corrected or improved things. It always takes longer to repair than to dismantle. It takes longer to repair than to damage. It takes longer to rebuild than to tear down. What hinders the "fixing" is what is called "The Messiah Complex", (written by Margaret Rioch) . Briefly explaining it: When an answer is introduced, it is in the form of a person, an idea, a statement, a plan, et al, that is the Messiah. Of course everyone does not agree that it is the Messiah and will not allow it to be tried out. Their resistance and opposition by many different methods "kills the Messiah". Therefore the Messiah never is allowed to exist or be successful. Pro Fundamental Failure President Obama is the worst president of modern times because he is endangering the economic viability of the nation. His failure relates to a fundamental challenge to democracy. In 1754 Edmund Burke, a British parliamentarian, explained it:
Budget projections show deficits of around $1 trillion out twenty years. Those projections assume a rapid return to sustained substantial economic growth, but sustained growth is impossible in an environment of severe government control of business. Revenue into the government is around $2.1 trillion, and deficits $1.4, $1.3, and $1.3 trillion in fiscal years 2009-11. http://abcnews.go.com... 2009 was Bush's responsibility and included the massive TARP bailout. However, much of TARP has been repaid, so the 2009 deficit was not as bad as it seems and 2010 and 2011, which received the repayments from TARP, are worse. Deficits of well over a trillion dollars will continue. Taxing the rich cannot solve the problem. If the optimistic Obama projections were true, taxing the rich would yield $0.3 trillion, still nowhere near what is required. However, Obama projections assume that the rich will do nothing to avoid taxes. One way to avoid taxes is to move investment out of the US. The U.S. cannot tax other countries, so there is no way to stop the outflow short of outright government seizure of assets. Canada has half the corporate tax rates of the US and has benefited greatly. The CEO of Coca Cola recently said that it is easier to do business in China than the United States. Since taxing the rich offers no solution, why does Obama talk of nothing else? He is a dedicated ideologue that knows no other approach. Economic History My opponent opened with a recounting of economic policy under President Clinton. Clinton's 1993 economic initiative was textbook Leftist, passed without Republican support, and failed. The attempt at “Hillarycare” failed and alienated voters. It raised taxes and brought about the “Republican Revolution” of the 1994 elections. Republicans took both Houses of Congress and kept control through Clinton's time in office. What made Clinton's economic policy a success was his ability to abandon rigid ideology and work with Republicans. Republicans wrote all the balanced budgets and Speaker Gingrich got them through Congress. President Clinton signed free trade agreements, a very successful welfare reform bill that include work requirements for welfare recipients, and lowered taxes on capital gains. Republicans cooperated in dismantling much of the military, cutting 600,000 soldiers in one stroke to cash in on the peace dividend after the end of the Cold War. (Not all bipartisan agreements pan out.) Democrats took over Congress in 2006, but did nothing to stem overspending. They maintained control through the last election. Obama's claimed achievements My opponent cites a list, to which I respond:
The Bush Presidency The Bush presidency was dominated by the war on terror. Bush had to craft policies and build institutions to thwart major terrorist attacks. That was in two parts, taking the offense in Iraq and Afghanistan that kept terrorists preoccupied with their survival rather than planning attacks from safe havens, and by building the Department of Homeland Security to prevent attacks. The policies worked, and Obama has continued them. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been costing around $150-200 billion a year, a tolerable expenditure in a $12-14 trillion economy, and unavoidable in view of the alternative of granting safe havens to terrorists. The Messiah My opponent appears to claim that Obama must be allowed to fulfill his role as Messiah. He must run over and dominate his opposition and be granted dictatorial powers to bring goodness to the world. Nonsense! Clinton succeeded for precisely opposite reasons. Clinton abandoned ideological purity in favor of policies that worked. Obama stays ideological pure, despite failure. A shot of penicillin can cure a long festering disease. We need free market capitalism to restore hope. |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Con Second, I quoted Dr. Rioch of NIMH and her concept called the Messiah Complex to describe a potential reason for a situation. At no time did I call Obama a Messiah. If I describe a situation with a person as the Helsinki syndrome, I am certainly not saying that the person is from Helsinki. The twists that "my opponent" puts on my statements mirror a political ploy that I could describe but I certain will not label him a "Spin Doctor". Democracy is a form of government. Capitalism is a type of economy. The interpretation of the Constitution by many seems to be that our government is an Econocracy. What does it take to become elected to an office? What does it take to get the most competent representation in the Justice System? What does it take to get adequate health care? What does it take to have food, shelter and clothing? Not equality. I in no manner suggest these things be provided for free or at the total cost of just some people. Capitalism creates a class structure. Yes anyone can become rich but not everyone. Capitalism within itself defines which class is which by the level of capital owned. The more money the more influence, When governments fear people there is liberty. When people fear governments there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson, The Federalist Papers. In 1913 a group of bankers including J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller persuaded Congress to pass the Internal Revenue Law. Yet U.S. Judicial Court Judge James C. Fox in 2003 said, "If you… examined [the 16th amendment] carefully you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." In 1914 the same bankers manipulated Congress while they were on break and attendance was light] to pass the Federal Reserve Act which gave the bankers control. Give me control of a nations money supply and I care not who makes its laws. Mayer Rothschild, private banker. Freedom to Fascism – a documentary by Aaron Russo. This documentary shows there is no law that people have to pay Federal Income Tax. There are many people who do not, including several former IRS employees who were fired for asking where is the law. The heads of IRS refuse to answer. The banks control the money and we pay them for using it. Goods and profits are supposed to be taxed not services or labor. When a person gets paid for using their body and energy they are taxed. This is one of the products of capitalism. Jim Taylor of the Harrison Group says it tells us that the affluent support higher taxes on the wealthy. He says there are two reasons: First, they can afford it, since their wealth has rebounded with the stock market. And second, "the dollar value of a tax increase pales in comparison to the dollar value of assets placed in jeopardy by our government's inability to collect taxes and finance debt. In effect, a substantial investor has more to lose in the market than in their tax return." - The Wall Street Journal I will introduce more evidence later. In response to "Obamas claimed achievements": 1.Obama removed almost all of the troops. No longer is there a person from the U.S. heading their government. The strategy changed when General Petraeus took over and went personally into the towns and mixed with the people. 2.Again General Petraeus used a different strategy. 3.You are right Bush did not make a speech, Obama was very public, stopped the government from opposing same sex marriage (in fact supports it), and killed the don't ask don't tell military policy. So Bush appointed a "token" person. Those discriminated against are use to that and to people who use the token numbers to claim progress. To date, the Obama-Biden Administration has appointed more than 210 openly LGBT professionals to full-time and advisory positions in the executive branch; more than all known LGBT appointments of other presidential administrations combined. For names and positions go to:http://www.glli.org... 4.I seem to remember Obama in other countries with hundreds of thousands of people much less security showing; no flags burning; no negative signs held up; no booing; a lot of clapping and cheering and overwhelming clapping. The sight in Germany still is embedded. Today there are still videos of people in Libya with signs saying thank you Obama. That is respect. He represents the new American glory. 5.Only three water boarded? If you know that for a fact I think you are violating security. As a person who had a clearance in the military I know you would be told loose lips sink ships. Who is trying to be humane with terrorist? So was it better for Bush not to be able to find Ben Laden, allow him to continue to rule until he could be found and questioned, or find him and eliminate him. Obama did not hit him with a drone, he sent people to capture him. In order to insure their own safety they killed him. Oh maybe they should have ignored the possibility that he may have had a bomb under his clothes and blown everyone up. According to the round up of the latest news that is their main weapon. 6.The TARP borrowers were running wild with the money until Obama stepped in and changed the rules. For the first time in history the government made a profit under Obama. The entire collapse was under Bush. Deregulation assisted the collapse and it is hurting recovery. Halliburton and others were given no bid contracts. They charged $7.95 for a six pack of Pepsi. Enormous amounts for gas and food. When a vehicle broke down they left it and bought a new one. Soldiers were court marshaled if they washed their own clothes instead of paying the private companies. These companies said they did not have to disclose their budgets. There is no oversight. A trillion dollars came up lost in Iraq. A trillion dollars disappeared in the Pentagon. Another trillion was unaccounted for in the Department of Defense. It takes oversight and regulations to bounce back and protect. 7.Nuclear proliferation? Is that like the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq had? First tell me you have proof of the proliferation. Second, tell me that the U.S. has the right to decide who can have weapons and who cannot. The only bomb ever dropped in the continental United States was dropped by the United States on its own people. 8.The hole in the ozone is still there, glaciers are still rapidly melting, Dallas and Texas broke the record for the number of heat records broken in any year and global warming crises is dead. According to Bush it never was even during the ten years you mention. In two years Obama is supposed to repair the changes. He should have caused the Polar Bears to have Pro Fundamental Failure President Obama is not a classic socialist, but neither does he believe in free market capitalism. Socialists want to directly take over the means of production, and Obama does not want to do that. The new style of Leftist ideology is to build giant a giant bureaucratic apparatus that controls even detail of business through massive regulation. The Obama Administration issues ten new regulations a day and has 4000 regulations in the pipeline. The EPA passed regulations that will cost $7 trillion and, it's claimed, prevent 0.00375 degree of global warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com... That avoids Congress passing $7 trillion in taxes for such nonsense, which in fact could not be done. The tax code has 72,000 pages of incentives through which activities favored by government are given financial rewards. Economic History My opponent claims that the President writes the budget and congress approves it, and moreover that Republicans characteristically want to spend more than Democrats. That is certainly not the history of the 1990s during the Clinton Administration. President Clinton did write the budget proposals, and in 1993 his budget raising taxes passed without a single Republican vote. However, the Republican takeover of congress in 1994 brought major budget battles in which the Republicans wanted to cut and Democrats under Clinton wanted to spend. CNN has a rundown of the budget battles showing clearly that Republicans produced budgets with cuts. http://www.cnn.com... Clinton worked with Gingrich to achieve budget agreements. “Kasich says “there’s just no substitute for leadership from the president of the United States,” citing his experience working with President Clinton in the 1990s as chairman of the House Budget Committee.” http://www.speaker.gov... President Obama submitted budget proposals for 2010 and 2011, but neither passed Congress, not even when the Democrats controlled Congress. Obama would not negotiate budget deals. Clinton and Bush consistently reached deals, including all the years when the opposition controlled Congress. Obama's 2012 budget proposal has been submitted, “Republicans said that the package of proposals doesn't do enough to bring down spending and the federal deficit, which is projected to hit a record $1.65 trillion in 2011.” http://online.wsj.com... There is little chance a budget will be passed. Obama's failure of budget leadership is unprecedented. The economic crisis at the end of the Bush Administration was set up by Freddie and Fannie, run throughout the Bush years by Democrats and who provided a deep market for bad loans. http://www.nypost.com... Karl Rove noted, “we moved aggressively in 2004 to regulate Fannie and Freddie, actually got a bill through the Senate Banking and Finance Committee only to have it filibustered by [Sen.] Chris Dodd.” I don't see much relevance in my opponent's comments on the IRS. Capital gains are a result of corporations making profits upon which they pay taxes. Raising income taxes on the rich doesn't produce much revenue, because they retreat to using the 72,000 pages of government-approved loopholes. Ultimately, investment money is just moved out of the US. Canada, with 16% corporate tax rate, is currently attractive. Obama's claimed achievements 1. Until recently Obama troop withdrawals were in keeping with what Bush planned. Recently, a major diplomatic failure has resulted in withdrawing the last 40,000 troops from Iraq. This may hand Iraq to the Iranians. 2. Bush put Patraeus in charge of Iraq, a brilliant appointment. Obama put him in charge of Afghanistan. That's consistent. 3. Bush made a major breakthrough both in appointing the first gay ambassador and in openly recruiting and hiring gay Americans for posts in the Administration. Clinton didn't do that. Obama has continued in that vein. Now, it's all about the economy. 4. Obama was cheered for his promises, but it hasn't worked out. “Great powers wield influence in the world as a result of being admired, respected or feared. The U.S. is now suffering from an unprecedented loss of influence in this important region because all three indicators are at an all-time low.” http://www.bloomberg.com... 5. Congressional investigations verified that only three terrorists were waterboarded. http://www.reuters.com.... Under Bush, more than a thousand terrorists were captured, imprisoned, and questioned. All except three talked without waterboarding. Obama deserves credit for killing bin Laden, but the overall policy is to kill rather than capture. That's a bad policy. 6. TARP remained a bipartisan program, good or bad. It is not true that Halliburton was awarded “no bid” contracts. They had to be sole-sourced to conceal war plans. However, Halliburton underestimated insurance costs and lost money. http://money.cnn.com... They sold off the government support division as low profit. 7. Democrats, including President Clinton believed Iraq had WMDs, as did the intelligence agencies of the U.K., France, Germany, and Russia. Saddam had deliberately planted misinformation to scare Iran, believing the U.S. Would do nothing. Saddam was planning to resume WMD development as soon as the heat was off. Obama claimed that his eagerness to negotiate would be greeted enthusiastically by Iran and North Korea, with resulting resolution of their nuclear weapons threats. That policy has been a total failure. 8. My opponent claims that Bush denied global warming. That's wrong, although it's fair to say was lukewarm about the issue. http://uk.reuters.com... Bush didn't do anything like the $7 trillion for 0.00375 degree regulation forced by Obama. The hole in the ozone layer is unrelated to global warming. Polar bear populations have declines about 10% from the very cold 1970s, and are currently not threatened. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov... 9. - 15. My arguments stand unanswered. The Messiah My opponent cited “messiah theory” to explain why Obama's most radical ideas have rejected. He says that doesn't mean he thinks Obama is a Messiah, only that the theory explains why he has not been able to make revolutionary changes. But he also claims that if all Obama's changes were accepted, the world would be fine. That's a fine semantic difference between being a Messiah and being as good as a Messiah. Either way, the notion fails. If it tastes bad, don't swallow the whole thing. My opponent says "Democracy is a form of government. Capitalism is a type of economy." Capitalism is not entirely a type of economy, it is also a set of laws of economic. For example, it is a law of nature that money has time value. Pretending that investment should not e rewarded does not change the fundamental fact. Overall, the evidence very strong that the greatest market freedom produces the most prosperity. India had famines under democratic socialism, just as China had famines under communism. In both economies, increasing market freedom brought great increases in prosperity. Government control by extreme regulation has lost the hope for future prosperity. We've been on that road for some time, but now it's a crisis because fiscal insolvency is less than a decade away. Bush had to face the problem of terrorism as the dominant issue, and Bush met the challenge. Obama is facing economic collapse due to government regulation and deficit spending. Obama has failed. |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Con Since I am being kept busy with the same old things, saving the big finish for Roy, I have to take shortcuts and save space. First, the end of previous comments:
8.The hole in the ozone is still there, glaciers are still rapidly melting, Dallas and Texas broke the record for the number of heat records broken in any year and global warming crises is dead. According to Bush it never was even during the ten years you mention. In two years Obama is supposed to repair the changes. He should have caused the Polar Bears to have the ice they no longer have. You must also be in favor of legalizing drugs (or at least one).
9.I wonder what the monies Obama is allocating for schools to establish models like the current successful ones. Read the news.
10.Let’s start an effort to dismantle the Nobel committee since they must not know what they are doing by going through a long difficult process to decide who did nothing and give an award.
11.Obama is head of the Executive Branch not the Judicial Branch. He cannot determine court decisions.
12.Hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, medical suppliers, and the other capitalists make free impossible. It is free in other countries. In Cuba, education is free through college and beyond and the illiteracy rate is 0%. So let the man I saw on TV yesterday who worked all of his life and had an accident and can not pay for one million dollar operation (nor will his uncontrolled insurance company) die. At least many children now can get health care. (Oops, I did not mean to use the word care).
13. How many open guns at others rallies? A little more dangerous than a sign.
14.Three thousand jobs returning from China. Ford hiring 12,000. New program creating 25,000 by 2013. Unemployment dipped for Sept.
15. Republicans: "Let’s break and go home. Let’s campaign. No negotiations, No way will I vote for that. It will never pass here." The main thing is to limit him to one turn. Obama had meeting after meeting after meeting at the White House. Congress invited him to nothing. Obama has given up several items. What did the Republicans give up? I hope you will drop the party thing and let us deal with the debate.
I have more new items but I have to deal with reality on a normal 84 degree day in late October. I am glad there is no global warming.
Response to last posting:
Unqualified: Foreign Affairs - Thought Africa was a country - Economy: Bankrupted his company - Commander-in-Chief: - Walked away from his unit (AWOL), never returned; serve out his term or get a discharge (Deserter) - Communicate: - Held book upside down while reading to kids; held up his right hand, called it his left and vice versus.
Boston Globe Nov 2000 Bush refused to sign or participate in the Kyoto Protocol to stem global warming that 141 nations signed. “A certain amount or arsenic in drinking water is healthy”. – Bush The Messiah Complex – Since the name is quoted wrong, it follows that the concept is not understood. Obama is neither a Messiah nor does he behave like one. Forget the point that you don’t get. Dictatorial! Were you talking about Obama or Bush. Cheney said Bush does not have to answer to Congress. (I also will respond no longer to Clinton comments –Bush v Obama)
Capitalism is just what it says: Those in control of the capital are the ruling class. “He who has the gold makes the rule?” People make up the companies; companies do not make up the people.
The eight years of Bush devastated the economy worst than any period since 1929. If Obama made the first profit in history, there must be some worthy to look at.
Bush Shortly after 9/11, President Bush authorised the warrant less wiretapping of certain telephone calls for the sake of national security. Eavesdropping would often top most Presidents' list of reprehensible acts but Mr Bush, supported by Congress, contended that it helped keep America safe.
We have asked 217 political bloggers, journalists and commentators both republicans and democrats to give their opinions on which mistakes and screw-ups they consider as the worst from president Bush and his administration. Not surprisingly almost all top entries were related to the Iraq war, which we have just grouped into one entry. www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/23 One hundred mistakes Bush made as of 2005. http://www.americanprogress.org... Obama
100 accomplishments as of Jan 2010: http://simplifythepositive.blogspot.com...
Closing:
October 8, 2011: So says new TIME poll: More Americans, 48% to 37%, say 44 doing a better job than 43. Plus: Obama leads the GOP field in head-to-head match-ups. Obama 46 - Romney 43
Pro President Bush's job was to fight terrorists. Attacks on the terrorists put them on the defensive as the Department of Homeland Security was built. President Bush attempted to reign in the bad loan policies of Fannie and Freddie that led to the melt down of the economy, but was blocked by filibustering Democrats. Bush achieved eight bipartisan budget agreements. President Obama's job is rebuilding the economy. He promised do so with transparency and bipartisanship. He has failed to fix the economy and has brought an unprecedented level of secret deals. Obama has never completed a successful budget negotiation. New arguments cannot be made in the final round, as my opponent has done. I will respond to Con's new arguments anyway, insofar as they are specific. He adds lists of vague accusations without argument or valid support. Those I merely deny, which suffices. Economic History Con claimed, citing his mother, that Republicans always want to spend. I gave reference showing multiple occasions when Republicans want to cut. Con claimed that the president is unilaterally responsible for the budget. I gave references showing that both Bush and Clinton negotiated budget deals with Congress. Moreover, Obama published proposals, but did no negotiate the budget with Republicans, and there has been no approved budget for 2010 and 2011, and none expected for 2012. Con claimed the budget is the President's responsibility, so this establishes a failure of leadership unprecedented in modern times. I showed that Bush attempted to regulate Fannie and Freddie to stop their practice of issuing bad loans and buying bad loans on the secondary market. Democrats filibustered to block the regulations. This was the principal cause of the financial meltdown. Con offered no rebuttal. Claimed Obama Achievements Con gives very few references to support his arguments. It's not my job to research Con's case and guess what arguments he is trying to make. If I can make a guess at what he's talking about, I have responded. 1. Con did not deny that the troop withdrawal schedules are the same as what Bush proposed. Secretary Clinton publicly affirmed that this week. http://www.rawstory.com... 2. Yes, General Patreaus was given high positions by both Bush and Obama. 3. My opponent des not deny that Bush made the first appointments of openly gay people and was the first to openly recruit them. 4. I granted that Obama's overseas "apology tour" was warmly received. Con did not deny the polls showing that the US is now held in lower regard on all three measures. The policies failed. 5. Con gives no link to a source claiming that more than three terrorists were waterboarded. Past claims by critics were shown to be false. Con doesn't even claim a total. Was it four? five? GITMO had about 1200 detainees, and nearly all talked without waterboarding. 6. Con grants the evidence that Halliburton made little profit. Con claims that support services could have been provided without contracting. A CBO study showed that doing so would require 190,000 additional troops and would have cost the Government substantially more. http://www.cbo.gov... Contractors rely on local labor for 80% of the support tasks. The National Guard was called up, so getting 190,000 additional troops was impractical. 7. Chief UN inspector Hans Blix published a book revealing that at the time he thought Saddam had WMDs, but could not prove it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Other world intelligence agencies confirmed the assessment. http://www.freerepublic.com... There were bad sources of intel, but the main reason for the error was "Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture." http://articles.cnn.com... 8. Con grants that Bush acknowledged global warming. The hole in the ozone layer is unrelated to global warming, as even the left-leaning Union of Concerned Scientists acknowledged. http://www.ucsusa.org... The past decade had hot and cold years, but the trend was for no temperature rise. The New York Times acknowledged "... Global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years." http://www.nytimes.com... 9. I cannot understand my opponents claim about schools. 10. Con proposes that the Nobel Committee that selects the Peace Prize recipients be disbanded. I concur. Their track record is poor. 11. My point is that rules of evidence will free terrorists tried in civilian courts. Con says that can't be prevented by Obama, so they'll have to be let go. However, the military tribunal system set up by Bush was passed by Congress and approved by the Supreme court, and it works successfully. Obama is now using it, with a few exceptions. 12. There is no such thing as free health care. Governments like Cuba set a budget for health spending and then ration care to fit the budget. Budget estimates for Obamacare are now up to about $2.3 trillion http://usactionnews.com..., and major pieces have been dropped by the Administration as unsustainable. http://www.npr.org... Official "childhood" has been raised to age 26. That's ridiculous. 13. Con obliquely references a Tea Party rely in Montana where participants were asked to bring unloaded weapons to show support for second amendment rights. It was a minor event, no laws were broken, and there was far from any threat of violence. My opponent claims it's more threatening than the frequent "Kill Bush" signs, ad the actual physical assaults on Tea Party protesters carried out by union thugs. An unloaded weapon. though perhaps unnecessarily provocative, is not a threat, and no threat was implied. A call to actually kill President Bush is a real threat. 14. Con's sentence lacking a verb is incomprehensible. 15. Obama began with nearly 70% approval rating. He immediately broke his campaign promise by crafting secret backroom deals on health care and refusing to meet with Republicans. Republicans worked in the Senate Baucus Committee to reach compromises, all of which were trashed by Majority Leader Reid. It is absolutely false that Obama had "meeting after meeting" in the White House on health care. There was a total of one highly publicized half-day event in which all Republican proposals were rejected. Republicans do not compromise much on big spending. Obama had two years with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, which passed failed programs. Republicans have supported Obama's military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the tax cutting aspect of stimulus, and, with some reservations, recent actions in Libya. New Bush Criticisms Is it really unreasonable to support building roads for forestry? The National Forests are multi-use resources that include forestry and cattle grazing. It was wise of Bush to promote use of renewable resources. Con provided no evidence that curbing the regulatory appetite of the EPA was unwise. "The [Obama FDA] said that ... Organic arsenic ... passes through the body quickly and isn’t harmful. It’s inorganic arsenic that can be toxic and cause cancer." http://www.longislandpress.com... Neither Bush nor Obama ere perfect Presidents, but Bush did his job and Obama has not. Obama's unrelenting vision of government control has destroyed hope of recovery. |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| b4real | RoyLatham | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: |  | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
| b4real | RoyLatham | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 7 | 0 |
| b4real | RoyLatham | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
| b4real | RoyLatham | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
| b4real | RoyLatham | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
| b4real | RoyLatham | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
| b4real | RoyLatham | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
I thought this sight was going to allow unbiased exchanges. I did not think it was going to be such a right wing, conservative vehicle. Yes, my buttons are pushed and I am gone. As my experience has been, enjoy yourselves, describing what a negative person I am and good riddance. That is the usual behavior and knowing I am not accessing the site allows the behind the back dialogue. It would be too "liberal" to forget about my disruption and forget me now.
RoyLatham, again thank you and none of this is directed at you. I do have some questions and not understanding but the bad taste does not give me the opportunity to communicate with you. Congratulations and the best to you. So long folks!
Don't get sucked into trading insults. It just wastes time.
I'll chime in on arguments and evidence. Things like simply "Halliburton" or "Katrina" or are not arguments and can just be ignored. "Halliburton made huge profits." is an assertion, but being unsupported by a reference, it can just be denied. "No they didn't." Denying the argument with a linked source puts the burden back on the debater to provide stronger counter evidence. Evidence from bloggers or opinion pieces is generally worthless, with the important exception of when the blogger cites a specific source. If both sides give sources, then the least biased is preferred.
I think a general rule s that facts can be asserted without sources in the hope that the opponent will not contest them. "The sky is blue" will pass in all but philosophical debates. Once contested or just denied, the assertion must be backed up by a source.
Arguments must be made explicitly in the debate. "Read X for the facts and arguments" fails. The debater may quote the argument and insert it word-for-word, in which case it then becomes the debater's job to defend it. In some cases, an expert opinion is good evidence, but that's mostly in technical or scientific debates.
Yes I heard of Reaganomics, he still increased the budget as I stated as my references document. I know wiki is not a reliable source which is why I listed in one case where there data came from and in the leaks case that the info was from leaked government docs.
Since you do not be able to look at where the info came from (stated by the sites) below is info on the links.
http://simplifythepositive.blogspot.com... Broughton
Kris Broughton combines searing opinions with emotionally engaging commentary to provide insightful and provocative criticism of today's social and political events. A passionate populist, his view of the political process and its players vividly champions the humanity of the everyday American citizen.
His work has been featured in The Chicago Sun-Times, Reuters, The Post Tribune, Beacon News, Computer Shopper and TV One Online.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
And if the government document they quote is not creditable enough for you debts by terms are available at .gov
Boston Globe Nov 2000- Need I explain who they are?
http://www.commentarymagazine.com...
COMMENTARY is America's premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.
If you need profanity to express yourself, so be it but bro? What is that?
Ya some of what you are saying is true but if you dont have sources you could be bull shitting us all.
And have you ever heard of Reganomics?
and wiki isn't a credible source...encyclopedia of brittanica is more reliable!
And im not trying to get in on the argument just giving some pointers bro relax
Bush increased the budget by 7.1% -2001-2005 and 20.7% 2005 -2009 (largest by any President since FDR. (Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF. Obama: 9.0%2009 -2010 http://en.wikipedia.org.... The state of the economy was in such a condition when Obama took over required heavy funds to overcome the situation. During my next debate I will try to remember that I have to quote sources on available documented facts. Two things to me are the most important in this debate. 1. Bush lied. Times poll showing that Americans of both parties say 48% to 37% Obama is a better President that Bush. I may lose the debate but the Pro position wins the position.
Sorry i wanted to accept this
Pro used 14 sources , 10 more. 6 major news stations which are arguably most reputable. 2 SEEMINGLY non-bias websites that just care about stuff. 1 from the UK which who knows if they are right but I doubt they are bias. 1 bias view from a republican. 1 news place I have never heard of. 1 wouldn't show up
Pro should win just off that. Not to mention inconsistancies I have been reading. Like "2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt." then you continue to say "2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama's fiscal irresponsibility". So if Clinton had $0 Debt and Bush added 5 trillion then why did Obama only inherit 1.3 trillion?