Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Let The Debates Begin! Obama v Romney
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 76 of 86 (675567)
10-12-2012 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by dronestar
10-12-2012 12:11 PM


Dronester writes:
Phew, what a relief for the parent's of the HUNDREDS of children killed by Obama's directives that they were NOT murdered.
Correct, they were not murdered - but I doubt it offers relief.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by dronestar, posted 10-12-2012 12:11 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 77 of 86 (675575)
10-12-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Straggler
10-12-2012 6:46 AM


Is there any point voting for a president who cannot get anything through congress?
I have thought that many times myself. It seems to amount to a bait and switch. A presidential candidate can make all the claims about what laws they would enact, but presidents don't enact laws. Congress does. Obama could campaign for a full on universal, single payer, socialist medical system but that will never happen because it would never get through Congress. I also really doubt that Romney could get a bill through Congress that would privatize both Social Security and Medicare.
It's a bit like presidential candidates who campaign as pro-lifers. Do they ever really intend on pushing a pro-life bill through Congress, or even expect it to pass? Absolutely not. It is a lot of hot air. It reminds me of the Tea Party trying to repeal the ACA 30 some times in a row. It's just a waste of time.
The real focus needs to be on changing Congress, both the ideology of the members as well as the culture within DC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2012 6:46 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 78 of 86 (675576)
10-12-2012 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coyote
10-04-2012 11:37 AM


Re: So did anyone see the debate....?
Interesting take from England:
Just put that article into a bit of context the Telegraph is also known as the Torry-graph and is as right wing as they come.
Not to say his opinion is not valid but all UK papers are terribly partisan. The Guardian think Obama is wonderful.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2012 11:37 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 79 of 86 (675583)
10-12-2012 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Straggler
10-12-2012 6:46 AM


Is there any point voting for a president who cannot get anything through congress?
Imagine that instead of some Obama-supporting-foreigner without a vote it is instead an undecided voter in a swing/close/key state asking you that question.
How would you answer that question?
I'd point out that if Obama can't force through all of his agenda, at least re-electing him will stop the Republican crazies in Congress from having their agenda rubber-stamped by Mitt Romney. If you think deadlock is bad, imagine unfettered Republican power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2012 6:46 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 10-12-2012 5:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 86 (675590)
10-12-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Straggler
10-12-2012 6:46 AM


Is there any point voting for a president who cannot get anything through congress?
Why do you say that Obama "cannot get anything through Congress"? His administration has signed over 600 pieces of legislation from Congress, including such campaign priorities as the American Care Act, the Lily Ledbetter Pay Discrimination Act, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
How would you answer that question?
I guess I would say "you're clearly a nincompoop who can't be bothered to do the least bit of research about recent political history or the separation of powers delineated in the US constitution." The President doesn't get to force Congress to do anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2012 6:46 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 81 of 86 (675597)
10-12-2012 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Dr Adequate
10-12-2012 1:40 PM


I'd point out that if Obama can't force through all of his agenda, at least re-electing him will stop the Republican crazies in Congress from having their agenda rubber-stamped by Mitt Romney. If you think deadlock is bad, imagine unfettered Republican power.
I really don't think Congressional Republicans would ever put a bill in that would privatize SS and Medicare. That would be political suicide. At some point they would have to choose between massive tax cuts for the rich and lowering the debt. Every Republican president that claimed he could do both failed miserably. Even the Republican hero Reagan ran up the debt, and even increased taxes a few times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2012 1:40 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 10-12-2012 5:38 PM Taq has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 86 (675598)
10-12-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Straggler
10-12-2012 6:46 AM


Is there any point voting for a president who cannot get anything through congress?
Presidents can veto. That's their constitutional power related to legislation.
Non-constitutionally, the President, as a high-ranking official, is in a position to rally Congressand pretty much everybody elseto do his will.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2012 6:46 AM Straggler has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 83 of 86 (675600)
10-12-2012 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Taq
10-12-2012 5:02 PM


I really don't think Congressional Republicans would ever put a bill in that would privatize SS and Medicare.
Ok, I guess, but have you forgotten that's exactly what they did?
At some point they would have to choose between massive tax cuts for the rich and lowering the debt.
That also has already happened - they chose tax cuts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 10-12-2012 5:02 PM Taq has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 84 of 86 (675607)
10-13-2012 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by xongsmith
10-12-2012 12:48 AM


Obama stinks!
THIS WILL HURT MY BROTHER, RAZD - HIS CHANCES OF STAYING ALIVE.
Really? One of the main things helping your brother seems to be marijuana, a drug Obama is using federal money to control and shut down production of.
Why isn't Obama concerned with a clear cut cancer medicine, that as your brother has linked in his thread is showing evidence of helping with tumors let alone helping get through the entire process? Why has Obama turned his back on ALL the people who need this medicine? Why is he using federal money to take a proven cancer medicine and aid from those who need it? Because he stinks! Because he's a fuckin puppet who said one thing but is now dealing with the reality that he can't do shit other than what he is told to do.
They all suck in their own way. They all fuck the system up.
Obama just signed NDAA into law. Just another step to us living in a police state.
Things like gay marriage and abortion and gun control are things delt with at the state level. No president INCLUDING OBAMA will make same sex marriage legal in every state. He will not make a country wide gun control law, that's up to the states. He won't make marijuana legal in the country, that's up to the states. He also isn't ending any wars any time soon, isn't closing down Gitmo any time soon. So what the fuck is he really going to do to change any part of our lives?
Vote for your state officials, that's the only thing that affects you directly.
Good god they are so different.
Of course they are, but presidents do nothing to affect your daily life. Vote democrat in your state, that way it benefits you directly.
But to this point:
If Romney is elected he will immediately change it back to being illegal.
Where is the evidence to support that? He said this? When?
Because I'm looking at a current president who said he wouldn't fuck with weed, that federal money wouldn't be used to stop growers and that state laws would be followed.
Tell it to Asagara dealing with cancer now in a state where medicianl marijuana is illegal. And not just to Asagara, tell it to all the other cancer patients who can't get marijuana how awesome Obama is when it comes to supporting cancer medicine.
Obama supported stem-cell research because his campaign was well funded by those in that field of science. He had to return the favor. Now you hold him as some kind of hero in the field of cancer research? Please. He's a corporate shill doing what he has to do to keep his shitty job.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by xongsmith, posted 10-12-2012 12:48 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 85 of 86 (675608)
10-13-2012 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taz
10-12-2012 1:02 AM


Hitler was a liar too!
First of all, to say that they are all liars is the laziest way to go about this. This is an evolution vs creation debate forum. We see this kind of lazy thinking all the time.
A horse can move from point A to point B 2 miles away. A car can do the same thing. A car must be the same as a horse.
Well you know, I guess you're right. Being that Obama IS president his lies and broken promises actually affect people - such as those suffering with cancer, or those prisoners in Gitmo held without trial, the dead, innocent civilians being killed by drone attacks from a war he promised to end. Or how about the future of our soon to be police state after he signed NDAA into law?
You're right, some lies are worse than others.
But more importantly, when you made the statement that Obama hasn't kept some of his promises, you're assuming we elected him as the absolute emperor dictator of the country.
Wait, he's not?
Repeat after me, we didn't elect Obama to be the absolute dictator emperor of our country.
How many times should I do that? I've said it 10 times now and I still feel he's emperor dictator sir. You're going to need to be way more specific.
Since you've eaten chicken and my dogs also have eaten chicken, you must be the same as my dogs. I don't suppose you want to play catch with me?
Sometimes I read an analogy and I'm very impressed with how clear of a point it makes. Great job. I eat chicken, dogs eat chicken, I'm the same as dogs. I guess we are both meat eaters? Was this a vegan's are gay joke?
Anyway...
Now, can you tell me how "we're all doomed" if Romney is elected?
I looked all over and couldn't find it, but then there it was:
Taz writes:
Hitler was a liar, too.
Hitler!
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 10-12-2012 1:02 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Taz, posted 10-13-2012 4:10 AM onifre has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 86 of 86 (675610)
10-13-2012 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by onifre
10-13-2012 2:12 AM


Re: Hitler was a liar too!
Its a figure of speech. Romney clearly doesn't care about people in the lower 50 percent. Watch his speech on how companies can be harvested. You know, like my small business.
And as someone already pointed out, Romney is the only one who has told 95% lies on national tele and can still turn around and say aomething else. This is a scary precedent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by onifre, posted 10-13-2012 2:12 AM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024