Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What Should Obama's Campaign Be Based on?

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 4:53:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Elephant Watcher has recently mad three possible options for Obama to base his campaign on. Now all of you will be asking, why can't he do all three? He will, but every campaign usually has a central theme and everything is off to the side. After reading these three possible scenarios, I have a poll.

Scenario A: "Morning in America"
As time goes on, voters find themselves more and more optimistic about the direction of the economy. Rather than fearing endless stagnation or a return to the crisis of 2008-09, most Americans expect better days ahead. Romney promises a different path, but voters are afraid of changing horses midstream. Instead, they give Obama credit for saving the country's economy from total collapse, and they believe it's worth giving him another four years.

Scenario B: "He Kept Us out of War"
As the election approaches, current events force voters to shift their attention from the economy over to foreign affairs. Romney claims a threat looms on the horizon, and he calls for action. But Americans are uncertain of the danger. Years of war have made them unwilling to make any new commitments overseas. Sensing this, Obama decides not to take any action unless it can be successfully resolved prior to the election. Romney is painted as a hawk who will send American troops into another unpopular war. Given Obama's foreign policy successes, and given voters' relative unease with Romney, Obama becomes the safe option.

Scenario C: "Bush's Third Term"
Romney promises to fix America's economy, but Obama challenges him on the specifics at every turn. Voters are concerned by accounts of "vulture capitalism" during Romney's tenure at Bain Capital. They want to know precisely what Romney would do as president. Obama claims Romney will return the country to the same policies that failed under George W. Bush and led to the economic crisis of 2008-09. When Obama demands to know how Romney would be any different from Bush, Romney stumbles. The more voters look at Romney's plans and positions, the more it reminds them of what Bush already tried. Disappointed, voters see no alternative to Obama: A slow recovery is better than another collapse.

http://poll.pollcode.com...
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 4:57:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

The economy and foreign policy are his records, but it would be best for him to pick one.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
-Energy production in sectors that count is lower.
-The market is extremely hesitant and uncertain.
-He increased government expenditures by an amount more than all previous presidents combined.
-Class warfare.

And many more....
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 4:58:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd run on class warfare and demonizing the rich. It's not like its a huge change, if any, from his current route.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 5:02:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
-Energy production in sectors that count is lower.
-The market is extremely hesitant and uncertain.
-He increased government expenditures by an amount more than all previous presidents combined.
-Class warfare.

And many more....

I sense a silent majority that Approves of his Healthcare reform. The economy hasn't sprung back to its feet yet, but it has been moving steadily forward. Unemployment isn't fantastic, but it has decreased. Availability of jobs have also increased. He also has the success of the auto bailout. His stance on Gay Marriage will be an energizer for the Democratic party as far as votes and funding are concerned. and his foreign policy is perfection.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 5:06:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Perhaps it would be good to vote anyway?
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 5:07:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 5:02:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
-Energy production in sectors that count is lower.
-The market is extremely hesitant and uncertain.
-He increased government expenditures by an amount more than all previous presidents combined.
-Class warfare.

And many more....

I sense a silent majority that Approves of his Healthcare reform.

LOL! Nobody cares about your "silent majority." The polls show that the majority of Americans are against the reform.

The economy hasn't sprung back to its feet yet, but it has been moving steadily forward.

The natural movement forward is called a business cycle. However, judging by previous recession statistics, the economy ought to be in a much better shape right now that it currently is.

Unemployment isn't fantastic, but it has decreased.

It's higher than when he took office....

Availability of jobs have also increased.

More people are dropping out of the labor force in the past few months than are actually going in, therefore causing lower unemployment.

He also has the success of the auto bailout.

Lol.

His stance on Gay Marriage will be an energizer for the Democratic party as far as votes and funding are concerned.

This is the biggest celebrity president in the history of the United States. Funding will not be a problem for him. Furthermore, according to a recent Gallup Poll, more Americans will likely not vote for him because of the gay marriage debacle than actually vote for him.

and his foreign policy is perfection.

Other than killing Bin Laden and going out of Iraq, it has been pretty horrendous, i.e, Libyan intervention.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 5:10:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 5:07:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 5:02:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
-Energy production in sectors that count is lower.
-The market is extremely hesitant and uncertain.
-He increased government expenditures by an amount more than all previous presidents combined.
-Class warfare.

And many more....

I sense a silent majority that Approves of his Healthcare reform.

LOL! Nobody cares about your "silent majority." The polls show that the majority of Americans are against the reform.

The economy hasn't sprung back to its feet yet, but it has been moving steadily forward.

The natural movement forward is called a business cycle. However, judging by previous recession statistics, the economy ought to be in a much better shape right now that it currently is.

Unemployment isn't fantastic, but it has decreased.

It's higher than when he took office....

Availability of jobs have also increased.

More people are dropping out of the labor force in the past few months than are actually going in, therefore causing lower unemployment.

He also has the success of the auto bailout.

Lol.

His stance on Gay Marriage will be an energizer for the Democratic party as far as votes and funding are concerned.

This is the biggest celebrity president in the history of the United States. Funding will not be a problem for him. Furthermore, according to a recent Gallup Poll, more Americans will likely not vote for him because of the gay marriage debacle than actually vote for him.

and his foreign policy is perfection.

Other than killing Bin Laden and going out of Iraq, it has been pretty horrendous, i.e, Libyan intervention.

I'm kinda bored with the conversation,...but essentially your tactic is to put a negative spin on every issue.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 5:11:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 5:10:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/11/2012 5:07:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 5:02:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
-Energy production in sectors that count is lower.
-The market is extremely hesitant and uncertain.
-He increased government expenditures by an amount more than all previous presidents combined.
-Class warfare.

And many more....

I sense a silent majority that Approves of his Healthcare reform.

LOL! Nobody cares about your "silent majority." The polls show that the majority of Americans are against the reform.

The economy hasn't sprung back to its feet yet, but it has been moving steadily forward.

The natural movement forward is called a business cycle. However, judging by previous recession statistics, the economy ought to be in a much better shape right now that it currently is.

Unemployment isn't fantastic, but it has decreased.

It's higher than when he took office....

Availability of jobs have also increased.

More people are dropping out of the labor force in the past few months than are actually going in, therefore causing lower unemployment.

He also has the success of the auto bailout.

Lol.

His stance on Gay Marriage will be an energizer for the Democratic party as far as votes and funding are concerned.

This is the biggest celebrity president in the history of the United States. Funding will not be a problem for him. Furthermore, according to a recent Gallup Poll, more Americans will likely not vote for him because of the gay marriage debacle than actually vote for him.

and his foreign policy is perfection.

Other than killing Bin Laden and going out of Iraq, it has been pretty horrendous, i.e, Libyan intervention.

I'm kinda bored with the conversation,...but essentially your tactic is to put a negative spin on every issue.

I'm sorry if using facts is not your forte. Of course, it's not as if there are many (if any) facts supporting Obama's record, especially his economic one.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 5:13:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Obama's already running against Romney's venture capitalism.

And he's trying to make himself look as good as possible.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 5:22:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The complete elimination of the private sector. The govt is far better at creating jobs and wealth. Why do we even bother with having a private sector. Govt can create a job just like that. Look at Russia during Stalin's reign. There was no private sector and employment was 100%. It was illegal to not have a job. If creating jobs is the number one issue on the table this would solve it virtually over night. The only thing getting in the way is the private sector.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 5:26:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If he wants to win, he would run on pure propaganda; like last time.

Assertion, Bandwagon, Card stacking, Glittering Generalities, Lesser of Two Evils, Name Calling, Pinpointing the Enemy, Plain Folks, Simplification , Testimonials, and Transfer all worked in the 2008 campaign. That was essentially his whole campaign.

In 2008 he had Testimonials from various celebrities, such as Oprah, who has a cult following.
In 2008 many people voted Democrat because they was sick of the "Lesser Evil" of Republican Bush Admin.
In 2008 he held large rallies in order to create a Bandwagon effect.
In 2008 he pin pointed the Enemy as Bush and "Big Oil" (he actually used the words "Big Oil")
In 2008 when he used the words "Big Oil", he was name calling; he also called Bush a War Criminal.
In 2008 he used "Plain Folks" to draw upon the black vote

The list goes on.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 5:59:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 5:26:47 PM, DanT wrote:
If he wants to win, he would run on pure propaganda; like last time.

Assertion, Bandwagon, Card stacking, Glittering Generalities, Lesser of Two Evils, Name Calling, Pinpointing the Enemy, Plain Folks, Simplification , Testimonials, and Transfer all worked in the 2008 campaign. That was essentially his whole campaign.

In 2008 he had Testimonials from various celebrities, such as Oprah, who has a cult following.
In 2008 many people voted Democrat because they was sick of the "Lesser Evil" of Republican Bush Admin.
In 2008 he held large rallies in order to create a Bandwagon effect.
In 2008 he pin pointed the Enemy as Bush and "Big Oil" (he actually used the words "Big Oil")
In 2008 when he used the words "Big Oil", he was name calling; he also called Bush a War Criminal.
In 2008 he used "Plain Folks" to draw upon the black vote

The list goes on.

The problem is that he actually has a record now.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 6:01:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 5:13:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Obama's already running against Romney's venture capitalism.





And he's trying to make himself look as good as possible.

It doesnt matter. Obama is going to win the 2012 election. Not because of approval ratings, tv ads, propaganda, or cable news. He has already been bought and paid for by the New World Order leaders, from the Muslim Brotherhood to the European Union. This thread means absolutely nothing.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 6:28:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If he gets unelected, it's because Mitt Romney is a genius of ten times higher proportion than necessary. If he is not elected, it's because Obama is evil. Win/Win scenario there.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 8:58:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Morning in America scenario.

-Obama ordered the end of all torture
-Obama presided over the revival of the US auto industry (I have seen this in Michigan).
-Renewable energy production has doubled in his time in office.
-Over 4 million private sector jobs produced over 27 consecutive months of job growth after the worst recession in 70 years.
-Al Qaeda is dead, and the War in Iraq is over.
-Many clean energy, environmental accomplishments
-Natural Gas production is at an all time high
-Domestic oil production is at an 8 year high
-Obama has championed the lowest federal taxes in over 60 years
-A recession was reversed
-Business investment has grown 29% since 2009
-Corporate profits up 76% under Obama (not that happy about this though)
-Investments in equipment and software up 30% under Obama
-Exports up 23% under Obama
-Auto industry jobs have been added in the hundreds of thousands
-Three Free Trade agreements signed, stimulating the economy in areas such as manufacturing and saving/ supporting many jobs.
-Unemployment is trending down
-Job creation is up

Yes the health care plan was not what I wanted, but is it better than nothing? Well, no...

Regardless, Obama should show that America is now moving forward with progress since he took office, and the country was turned around. Romney's plan would explode the deficit, while Obama's budget would decrease the long term deficit. And Obama should in his next term prioritize creating 1) A Path to Citizenship, while expanding legal immigration, 2) Securing Social Security and its future, and 3) Increase economic growth by streamlining the tax code and regulation system.

But if Romney was elected and revealed himself as a Keynesian supporter and expanded from that and was an Eisenhower-type Republican, that wouldn't be too bad. Better than a Movement Conservative.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:18:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
To be fair, looks like it increased his first year in office, stayed relatively the same in his second, and decreased in his third. Now we're in his fourth.
-Energy production in sectors that count is lower.
That count? If coal energy production is down, then I'm glad, we should phase that out and switch to nuclear power or something more economical and efficient.
-The market is extremely hesitant and uncertain.
No. At the least, it's stable. Most say it is slowly improving. I
-He increased government expenditures by an amount more than all previous presidents combined.
No.
-Class warfare.
Empowering the crippled Middle Class and making the rich discontinue their use of tax loopholes is 'Class warfare'?

Hmm. Odd terminology.

And many more....

I love it how nobody has brought up the social front in amidst of all this fiscal policy.
turn down for h'what
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:23:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I mean, Mitt Romney's views on the social front scare the sh*t out of me (they would scare the sh*t out of anyone with rational thought) and I don't even know what his fiscal policy is even after extensive research.

I don't understand Romney. I know Obama's social and fiscal policies at least, although several of them I dislike, but I fear most what I do not understand.
turn down for h'what
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:41:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 11:18:42 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
To be fair, looks like it increased his first year in office, stayed relatively the same in his second, and decreased in his third. Now we're in his fourth.

Employment has stayed relatively constant for the past year at a point in which should be higher, by the recovery of previous recessions.

-Energy production in sectors that count is lower.
That count? If coal energy production is down, then I'm glad, we should phase that out and switch to nuclear power or something more economical and efficient.

I support renewable energy too. However, to support government funded renewable energy is absurd. Furthermore, this "phasing out" is economically disastrous.

-The market is extremely hesitant and uncertain.
No. At the least, it's stable. Most say it is slowly improving. I
-He increased government expenditures by an amount more than all previous presidents combined.
No.

You have got to be kidding me. This is fact.

http://cnsnews.com...

-Class warfare.
Empowering the crippled Middle Class and making the rich discontinue their use of tax loopholes is 'Class warfare'?

Hmm. Odd terminology.

Obama has constantly demonized the rich through his anti-capitalist rhetoric, taxes on the rich i.e Buffet Rule, and actually having the nerve to criticize the rich for political points.

And many more....


I love it how nobody has brought up the social front in amidst of all this fiscal policy.

Social polices are a distant second when compared to fiscal policy. Anybody that cares about that even remotely close to fiscal policy ought to be sent to a Nazi Death Camp.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:52:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 11:41:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:18:42 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
To be fair, looks like it increased his first year in office, stayed relatively the same in his second, and decreased in his third. Now we're in his fourth.

Employment has stayed relatively constant for the past year at a point in which should be higher, by the recovery of previous recessions.

You're acting as if all recessions have similar predicaments.
-Energy production in sectors that count is lower.
That count? If coal energy production is down, then I'm glad, we should phase that out and switch to nuclear power or something more economical and efficient.

I support renewable energy too. However, to support government funded renewable energy is absurd. Furthermore, this "phasing out" is economically disastrous.

-The market is extremely hesitant and uncertain.
No. At the least, it's stable. Most say it is slowly improving. I
-He increased government expenditures by an amount more than all previous presidents combined.
No.

You have got to be kidding me. This is fact.

http://cnsnews.com...

I believe contra cleared this little absurdity in a different thread.
http://www.debate.org...
-Class warfare.
Empowering the crippled Middle Class and making the rich discontinue their use of tax loopholes is 'Class warfare'?

Hmm. Odd terminology.

Obama has constantly demonized the rich through his anti-capitalist rhetoric, taxes on the rich i.e Buffet Rule, and actually having the nerve to criticize the rich for political points.

I don't believe Obama, or any other Liberal for that matter, has any sort of inclination to warrant higher taxes on the rich. Rather, the rhetoric is to make the rich actually pay their taxes, because if you didn't know A LOT OF THEM DON'T.
And many more....


I love it how nobody has brought up the social front in amidst of all this fiscal policy.

Social polices are a distant second when compared to fiscal policy. Anybody that cares about that even remotely close to fiscal policy ought to be sent to a Nazi Death Camp.

How funny of you to mention death camps when Hitler pretty much took complete dominion over the social front while the general populace was in awe of the economic boom that Hitler had previously gifted them. Your grasp of rational politics is bad and you should feel really, really bad. I'm still trying to fathom such a concept; abandoning the social front entirely for corporate gain.

Saying you want to give up social progress for a bit of temporary fiscal harmony is completely absurd. Sign your god damn rights away, why don't you? You practically want to.
turn down for h'what
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 12:09:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
f: At 6/11/2012 11:52:13 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:41:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:18:42 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
To be fair, looks like it increased his first year in office, stayed relatively the same in his second, and decreased in his third. Now we're in his fourth.

Employment has stayed relatively constant for the past year at a point in which should be higher, by the recovery of previous recessions.

You're acting as if all recessions have similar predicaments.

All recessions end at some point.

-Energy production in sectors that count is lower.
That count? If coal energy production is down, then I'm glad, we should phase that out and switch to nuclear power or something more economical and efficient.

I support renewable energy too. However, to support government funded renewable energy is absurd. Furthermore, this "phasing out" is economically disastrous.

-The market is extremely hesitant and uncertain.
No. At the least, it's stable. Most say it is slowly improving. I
-He increased government expenditures by an amount more than all previous presidents combined.
No.

You have got to be kidding me. This is fact.

http://cnsnews.com...

I believe contra cleared this little absurdity in a different thread.
http://www.debate.org...

No, its two different ways on how your both spinning it. I already explained before that If your spending $100,000 and only have $60,000 its not fiscally responsible to spend $110,000 the next year because you only increased spending by a bit more.

It actually proves the statement that Obama has spent more than any other president has.

-Class warfare.
Empowering the crippled Middle Class and making the rich discontinue their use of tax loopholes is 'Class warfare'?

Hmm. Odd terminology.

Obama has constantly demonized the rich through his anti-capitalist rhetoric, taxes on the rich i.e Buffet Rule, and actually having the nerve to criticize the rich for political points.

I don't believe Obama, or any other Liberal for that matter, has any sort of inclination to warrant higher taxes on the rich. Rather, the rhetoric is to make the rich actually pay their taxes, because if you didn't know A LOT OF THEM DON'T.

Patently absurd. Obama has endorsed the Buffet rule and has stated before that he wants to raise taxes on the rich. The idea that the rich don't pay their taxes is just plain wrong.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

http://mercatus.org...

And many more....


I love it how nobody has brought up the social front in amidst of all this fiscal policy.

Social polices are a distant second when compared to fiscal policy. Anybody that cares about that even remotely close to fiscal policy ought to be sent to a Nazi Death Camp.

How funny of you to mention death camps when Hitler pretty much took complete dominion over the social front while the general populace was in awe of the economic boom that Hitler had previously gifted them. Your grasp of rational politics is bad and you should feel really, really bad. I'm still trying to fathom such a concept; abandoning the social front entirely for corporate gain.

Saying you want to give up social progress for a bit of temporary fiscal harmony is completely absurd. Sign your god damn rights away, why don't you? You practically want to.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 1:06:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 12:09:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
f: At 6/11/2012 11:52:13 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:41:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:18:42 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
To be fair, looks like it increased his first year in office, stayed relatively the same in his second, and decreased in his third. Now we're in his fourth.

Employment has stayed relatively constant for the past year at a point in which should be higher, by the recovery of previous recessions.

You're acting as if all recessions have similar predicaments.

All recessions end at some point.

Trivia questions. (this will be fun)

How many jobs were lost in the 1981 recession (from peak to bottom)?
How many jobs were lost in the 1990 recession?
How many jobs were lost in the 2001 recession?
How many jobs were lost in the 2008 recession?

Another question.

How many jobs have been added since the bottom of the 2008 recession (hint, the jobs bottomed out in 2010)?

Here is a fun tool for people to use.

http://data.bls.gov...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 1:07:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 1:06:37 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/12/2012 12:09:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
f: At 6/11/2012 11:52:13 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:41:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:18:42 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
To be fair, looks like it increased his first year in office, stayed relatively the same in his second, and decreased in his third. Now we're in his fourth.

Employment has stayed relatively constant for the past year at a point in which should be higher, by the recovery of previous recessions.

You're acting as if all recessions have similar predicaments.

All recessions end at some point.

Trivia questions. (this will be fun)

How many jobs were lost in the 1981 recession (from peak to bottom)?
How many jobs were lost in the 1990 recession?
How many jobs were lost in the 2001 recession?
How many jobs were lost in the 2008 recession?

Another question.

How many jobs have been added since the bottom of the 2008 recession (hint, the jobs bottomed out in 2010)?

Here is a fun tool for people to use.

http://data.bls.gov...

That link doesn't work.

Use this...
http://data.bls.gov...

...and check "Total non-farm employment."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 1:28:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 1:07:47 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/12/2012 1:06:37 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/12/2012 12:09:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
f: At 6/11/2012 11:52:13 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:41:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:18:42 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
To be fair, looks like it increased his first year in office, stayed relatively the same in his second, and decreased in his third. Now we're in his fourth.

Employment has stayed relatively constant for the past year at a point in which should be higher, by the recovery of previous recessions.

You're acting as if all recessions have similar predicaments.

All recessions end at some point.

Trivia questions. (this will be fun)

How many jobs were lost in the 1981 recession (from peak to bottom)?
How many jobs were lost in the 1990 recession?
How many jobs were lost in the 2001 recession?
How many jobs were lost in the 2008 recession?

Another question.

How many jobs have been added since the bottom of the 2008 recession (hint, the jobs bottomed out in 2010)?

Here is a fun tool for people to use.

http://data.bls.gov...

That link doesn't work.

Use this...
http://data.bls.gov...

...and check "Total non-farm employment."

Jobs lost:
1981: 2,050,000 jobs lost
1990: 901,000 jobs lost
2001: 2,173,000 jobs lost
2009: 8,744,000 jobs lost

Percentage of jobs lost in 1981: 2.3%
Percentage of jobs lost in 2009: 6.3%

It's interesting because unemployment records show that in 1981 and 2010 the unemployment rate was roughly the same:

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 1:34:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just lol'ing at the half-facts people are giving (stating things that could be factual, then just claiming they are de facto true), reminds me of a quotation by Mill. "I do not mean that most conservatives are idiots, but it is true that most idiots are conservative"
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 1:37:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 1:28:39 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/12/2012 1:07:47 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/12/2012 1:06:37 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/12/2012 12:09:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
f: At 6/11/2012 11:52:13 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:41:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:18:42 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
To be fair, looks like it increased his first year in office, stayed relatively the same in his second, and decreased in his third. Now we're in his fourth.

Employment has stayed relatively constant for the past year at a point in which should be higher, by the recovery of previous recessions.

You're acting as if all recessions have similar predicaments.

All recessions end at some point.

Trivia questions. (this will be fun)

How many jobs were lost in the 1981 recession (from peak to bottom)?
How many jobs were lost in the 1990 recession?
How many jobs were lost in the 2001 recession?
How many jobs were lost in the 2008 recession?

Another question.

How many jobs have been added since the bottom of the 2008 recession (hint, the jobs bottomed out in 2010)?

Here is a fun tool for people to use.

http://data.bls.gov...

That link doesn't work.

Use this...
http://data.bls.gov...

...and check "Total non-farm employment."


Jobs lost:
1981: 2,050,000 jobs lost
1990: 901,000 jobs lost
2001: 2,173,000 jobs lost
2009: 8,744,000 jobs lost

Percentage of jobs lost in 1981: 2.3%
Percentage of jobs lost in 2009: 6.3%

It's interesting because unemployment records show that in 1981 and 2010 the unemployment rate was roughly the same:

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Oh right, unemployment rate was ridiculously low before the US recession, while during the previous recessions, the unemployment rates were higher.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 9:33:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 12:09:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
f: At 6/11/2012 11:52:13 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:41:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:18:42 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
To be fair, looks like it increased his first year in office, stayed relatively the same in his second, and decreased in his third. Now we're in his fourth.

Employment has stayed relatively constant for the past year at a point in which should be higher, by the recovery of previous recessions.

You're acting as if all recessions have similar predicaments.

All recessions end at some point.

-Energy production in sectors that count is lower.
That count? If coal energy production is down, then I'm glad, we should phase that out and switch to nuclear power or something more economical and efficient.

I support renewable energy too. However, to support government funded renewable energy is absurd. Furthermore, this "phasing out" is economically disastrous.

-The market is extremely hesitant and uncertain.
No. At the least, it's stable. Most say it is slowly improving. I
-He increased government expenditures by an amount more than all previous presidents combined.
No.

You have got to be kidding me. This is fact.

http://cnsnews.com...

I believe contra cleared this little absurdity in a different thread.
http://www.debate.org...

No, its two different ways on how your both spinning it. I already explained before that If your spending $100,000 and only have $60,000 its not fiscally responsible to spend $110,000 the next year because you only increased spending by a bit more.

Okay, let's say the federal expenditure of $100,000. Obama is simply spending that times 1.4%
It actually proves the statement that Obama has spent more than any other president has.

No. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan is in the lead for most spent.


-Class warfare.
Empowering the crippled Middle Class and making the rich discontinue their use of tax loopholes is 'Class warfare'?

Hmm. Odd terminology.

Obama has constantly demonized the rich through his anti-capitalist rhetoric, taxes on the rich i.e Buffet Rule, and actually having the nerve to criticize the rich for political points.

I don't believe Obama, or any other Liberal for that matter, has any sort of inclination to warrant higher taxes on the rich. Rather, the rhetoric is to make the rich actually pay their taxes, because if you didn't know A LOT OF THEM DON'T.

Patently absurd. Obama has endorsed the Buffet rule and has stated before that he wants to raise taxes on the rich. The idea that the rich don't pay their taxes is just plain wrong.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

http://mercatus.org...

Plain wrong? CEOs and corporate executives are given tax breaks yearly. Mitt Romney had a 15% income tax. Steve Jobs didn't pay income tax due to his loophole of havi g a $1 salary and his royalties were untaxed.
And many more....


I love it how nobody has brought up the social front in amidst of all this fiscal policy.

Social polices are a distant second when compared to fiscal policy. Anybody that cares about that even remotely close to fiscal policy ought to be sent to a Nazi Death Camp.

How funny of you to mention death camps when Hitler pretty much took complete dominion over the social front while the general populace was in awe of the economic boom that Hitler had previously gifted them. Your grasp of rational politics is bad and you should feel really, really bad. I'm still trying to fathom such a concept; abandoning the social front entirely for corporate gain.

Saying you want to give up social progress for a bit of temporary fiscal harmony is completely absurd. Sign your god damn rights away, why don't you? You practically want to.
turn down for h'what
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 10:45:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 9:33:45 AM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/12/2012 12:09:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
f: At 6/11/2012 11:52:13 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:41:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:18:42 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:58:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/11/2012 4:55:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think he should run on his record. That's the most honest and convincing argument he has.

He can't run on his record.

-Unemployment is higher than it was when he started office.
To be fair, looks like it increased his first year in office, stayed relatively the same in his second, and decreased in his third. Now we're in his fourth.

Employment has stayed relatively constant for the past year at a point in which should be higher, by the recovery of previous recessions.

You're acting as if all recessions have similar predicaments.

All recessions end at some point.

-Energy production in sectors that count is lower.
That count? If coal energy production is down, then I'm glad, we should phase that out and switch to nuclear power or something more economical and efficient.

I support renewable energy too. However, to support government funded renewable energy is absurd. Furthermore, this "phasing out" is economically disastrous.

-The market is extremely hesitant and uncertain.
No. At the least, it's stable. Most say it is slowly improving. I
-He increased government expenditures by an amount more than all previous presidents combined.
No.

You have got to be kidding me. This is fact.

http://cnsnews.com...

I believe contra cleared this little absurdity in a different thread.
http://www.debate.org...

No, its two different ways on how your both spinning it. I already explained before that If your spending $100,000 and only have $60,000 its not fiscally responsible to spend $110,000 the next year because you only increased spending by a bit more.

Okay, let's say the federal expenditure of $100,000. Obama is simply spending that times 1.4%
It actually proves the statement that Obama has spent more than any other president has.

No. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan is in the lead for most spent.

Ronald Reagan increased debt by $1.5 trillion. Obama increased debt by $6 trillion.

Unless inflation was 300%, your statement is false.



-Class warfare.
Empowering the crippled Middle Class and making the rich discontinue their use of tax loopholes is 'Class warfare'?

Hmm. Odd terminology.

Obama has constantly demonized the rich through his anti-capitalist rhetoric, taxes on the rich i.e Buffet Rule, and actually having the nerve to criticize the rich for political points.

I don't believe Obama, or any other Liberal for that matter, has any sort of inclination to warrant higher taxes on the rich. Rather, the rhetoric is to make the rich actually pay their taxes, because if you didn't know A LOT OF THEM DON'T.

Patently absurd. Obama has endorsed the Buffet rule and has stated before that he wants to raise taxes on the rich. The idea that the rich don't pay their taxes is just plain wrong.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

http://mercatus.org...

Plain wrong? CEOs and corporate executives are given tax breaks yearly. Mitt Romney had a 15% income tax. Steve Jobs didn't pay income tax due to his loophole of havi g a $1 salary and his royalties were untaxed.

You do realize what capital gains are? Capital gains, for both rich and poor, does not classify under income tax.

And many more....


I love it how nobody has brought up the social front in amidst of all this fiscal policy.

Social polices are a distant second when compared to fiscal policy. Anybody that cares about that even remotely close to fiscal policy ought to be sent to a Nazi Death Camp.

How funny of you to mention death camps when Hitler pretty much took complete dominion over the social front while the general populace was in awe of the economic boom that Hitler had previously gifted them. Your grasp of rational politics is bad and you should feel really, really bad. I'm still trying to fathom such a concept; abandoning the social front entirely for corporate gain.

Saying you want to give up social progress for a bit of temporary fiscal harmony is completely absurd. Sign your god damn rights away, why don't you? You practically want to.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."