CreateDebate


Debate Info

113
71
Yes No
Debate Score:184
Arguments:105
Total Votes:216
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (55)
 
 No (47)

Debate Creator

Apollo(1586) pic



Should Obama be Re-Elected?

There hasn't been a good political debate in a while.

It's going to be Romney v. Obama. Ron Paul supporters need to start accepting that.

Should Obama then be reelected? 

I'm leanin' towards yes. What do you think? And please add a constructive response, not PrayerFails-esque "I would choose a dead moneky over Obama" crap.

 

--Apollo

Yes

Side Score: 113
VS.

No

Side Score: 71
5 points

Obama should be re-elected because he has been cleaning up the mess that Bush left for him in the office. He ended the war in Iraq, he is fixing problems with immigration, taxes, and the economy. A republican would mess up the country.

2 years ago | Side: yes
Liber(1718) Disputed
2 points

A republican would mess up the country.

Why, because a Republican ruined the country in the first place? If you look back throughout history, you'll see that the whole mess began in the '30s with a Democrat. Obama's had four years and he's utterly failed, but electing another Republican you mayn't be reelecting Bush, for there are differences betwixt Bush and the sole worthy candidate.

2 years ago | Side: Lebensgefahr
iamdavidh(4844) Disputed
2 points

Why, because a Republican ruined the country in the first place? If you look back throughout history, you'll see that the whole mess began in the '30s with a Democrat.

Specifics? And you're aware what the Southern Strategy was I hope.

Obama's had four years and he's utterly failed, but electing another Republican you mayn't be reelecting Bush, for there are differences betwixt Bush and the sole worthy candidate.

Specifics? You've seen the job growth chart, read the healthcare bill and seen we're leaving both Iraq and Afghanistan I hope.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
damartin0(5) Disputed
1 point

dude obama didnt fix the economy the economy fixes itself and the only reason it looks like he has done anything is because we didnt have any further down to go.

2 years ago | Side: No
damartin0(5) Disputed
1 point

dude obama didnt fix the economy the economy fixes itself and the only reason it looks like he has done anything is because we didnt have any further down to go.

2 years ago | Side: No
0 points

I agree, bush put us in debt for the next 100 years, so we can blame him forever. You republicans are nothing more than a brotherhood of rich racists. You took us from our homeland and made billions of dollars off us and now you keep that money while we starve in the streets. You have kept us down so long we are killing each other because we have no money. It's time for you to give us your money and Obamas going to do it. You republicans are going to fall from grace and us poor Africans are going to take over this country, then you will know how it feels.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
4 points

Why?

Economy.

Immigration.

Gay Rights.

Middle Class taxes.

Energy Independence.

Foreign Policy.

Terrorism.

That's about it. Feel free to attack any of 'em.

2 years ago | Side: yes
Liber(1718) Disputed
3 points

Economy

He doesn't know a thing about it.

Immigration

You're talking about him, right?

Gay Rights.

Doesn't fully support them.

Middle Class taxes.

He wants to tax them too greatly.

Foreign Policy.

WarWarWarWarWar!!!

Terrorism.

You mean the terrorism of the American people via TSA, extreme surveillance, NDAA, etc.?

2 years ago | Side: Lebensgefahr
Nick91983(270) Disputed
5 points

(Pardon spelling errors)

How does Obama not know a thing about the economy? As far as i know he promotes progressive taxation, progressive taxation promotes aggregate demand which benefits everyone since this term is synonymous with economic health - see my other post about aggregate demand to know more about what i mean.

Immigration - How could anyone talk about Obama with respect to immigration as though he is an immigrant if he didnt immigrate to this country? Are you really that unaware of the fact that he was born in Hawaii? Do you really think that he would be able to become all the things he has become if he had forged the documents that prove his origins? I feel like the scrutiny would be really extreme prior to his taking office. The notion that he is from another country is at least slightly racist because it is a reflection of his non-anglo-american name and ethnicity which are irrelivant to that fact that he was born in the US.

On gay rights - maybe he doesnt fully support them, but he supports them way more than just about any other option. who is more in support of them than he?

on Middle class taxes - taxes must reflect government spending, insofar as there are bariers to the greater taxation for the wealthy, he is necessarily forced to tax the middle class more if he is to be fiscally responsible. I doubt that he is truly in favor of increasing taxes generally and specifically not in favor of taxing the middle class. but what other option does he have that doesnt increase the national debt?

On Foreign policy - are you arguing that he is pro war? Obama is trying to get us out of the wars we got into under bush II. Given the political (national and global) complexities of our modern world, you cant just withdraw at any arbitrary point once you have engaged in war. Also, as a nation we have a responsibility to ourselves (even though people would argue beyond this point) to prevent nuclear proliferation and instability in regions that supply us with natural resources as well as the threats to them - it is not only in our economic interest, but our national security interest as well. I am not pro war, but i also recognize that the complexities of geopolitical strategy suggests the irrationality of isolationist and immediate-withdrawl policies.

Terrorism - I dont have much to say about TSA and NDAA. as far as i know, these are the way they are because of Bush II. Insofar as Obama is concerned politically, it might be a bad idea to undermine strong counter terrorist innitiatives. Political dance is more than just going with what you want, you have to navigate the will of the masses to promote the best ideas. Obama cant commit political suicide by appealing to the sensabilities of the people when doing so might cause others to question his stance on national security and defense.

2 years ago | Side: yes
Apollo(1586) Disputed
2 points

He doesn't know a thing about it.

And that is your opinion.

You're talking about him, right?

Indeed I am.

Doesn't fully support them.

Ha! Has neither openly supported or come out against MARRIAGE rights, but has repealed DADT. Are you actually going to argue that republicans are MORE for gay rights than democrats?! I'd like to see this...

He wants to tax them too greatly.

Ahh. Let's look at his record, shall we?

-

1) His stimulus cut taxes for 95% of Americans.

2) He extended the Bush Tax Cuts.

3) His Jobs plan (American Jobs Act) was over 50% tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses.

4) He has cut taxes for small businesses on 16 occasions.

-

That's a hell of a tax record.

WarWarWarWarWar!!!

You appear so intelligent in your other comments. Why are you know ignoring the facts and yelling party-line, unfounded rhetoric?

-

Again. Let's look at those pesky little facts.

0) Received the Nobel Peace Prize. Now this isn't actually evidence, but it is quite telling.

1) Troop Projections in Iraq/Afghanistan for Summer 2012: 68,000

When he took office: 173,900.

THAT IS A 61% REDUCTION!!!

2) Ended War in Iraq. Self-Explanotry.

3) Engagement in Libya. Tactical air support and missiles without a single combat troop on the ground. Not one.

You mean the terrorism of the American people via TSA

Yes. Because it is the TSA that flies planes into buildings. Ya...

extreme surveillance

Do you mean the racial profiling that will occur with republican immigration laws?

NDAA

I will somewhat concede this. But this can't legally occur during his presidency (see signing statement).

-

But if you care to look at those facts again. Osama Bin Laden and 21 other Al Queda heads (out of 30) killed under Obama. Under Bush? From what I have researched, I found 4.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
SoapyTurtle(22) Disputed
2 points

Yup those are the issues in this election. The question was should Obama be re-elected. What is he doing differently than others in those issues?

2 years ago | Side: No
Apollo(1586) Disputed
4 points

The question was should Obama be re-elected.

I know. I wrote the question.

-

I'm not going to type out my entire argument for each one.

Pick one you disagree with, and I will give you my evidence.

2 years ago | Side: yes
casper3912(1553) Disputed
3 points

For one he doesn't support regressive taxation or flat taxes. Jobs are not created by the wealthy, but by the entire market.

2 years ago | Side: yes
4 points

At the very least, who would be a better choice?

I expected him to be something better in 2008, and he's been disappointing in a few areas, but I'd rather see moderate Obama over any of the Republicans.

2 years ago | Side: yes
Liber(1718) Disputed
2 points

At the very least, who would be a better choice?

This candidate about whom you may not have heard, for he's rather hush hush: Ron Paul

I'd rather see moderate Obama over any of the Republicans.

Now that's just plain old elitism. Romney and Gingrich are little different in many of their policies than Obama, but Ron Paul is nothing like them - so different that I'm reluctant to refer to him by the same label.

2 years ago | Side: Lebensgefahr
BenWalters(1496) Disputed
3 points

This candidate about whom you may not have heard, for he's rather hush hush: Ron Paul

I've heard a lot about Ron Paul actually. I respect many of his policies and views, but I feel that he does go too far at some points. For example, I've heard of his wishes to leave the UN, his economic views are risky at least, and he would simply bring civil unrest to the country, with the amount of change he would bring. I like him, I can easily imagine him as a strong Vice President, able to speak with a strong voice about issues which should be talked about but aren't, but not as a head of state.

I understand his support, he's something new and refreshing to politics, and he would eliminate many problems, but that doesn't mean he's the best choice overall.

Now that's just plain old elitism.

I'm sorry if you took it that way, but it wasn't how I meant it. I don't support Obama perpetually, I simply meant that I see him as the right choice from the available candidates, especially if you look at recent developments in the Republican candidacy, they're ripping each other apart. I would be prepared to support a Republican, if they were a better choice.

2 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

Socialism is essentially the principle of amelioration applied to social and political discourse. This doesnt mean pure equitability which characterizes communism, rather, it means to promote a balance between the tendency for stratafication and the ideal of providing for base level provisions - food, shelter, clothing, health.

Evidence suggests that socialism tends to reduce crime. Socialist policies promote education as well, which can only serve to benefit our economic situation insofar as our nation has become a service-based economy, and our remaining industries are both capital intensive and require at least some post secondary degrees (High tech industries).

Insofar as this is true, Obama, who has an idiologically left (socialistic) alignment, is the best option. His efficacy at promoting socialist policies is limited by the right aligned political majority in congress, however, if he were able to promote his ideas our country would benefit over the long run more than it would otherwise.

2 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

Why is this argument so based on what a republican did 8 years ago or what a democrat did 12 years ago. Yes, we can look which party is to blame for which problem but it doesn't help much when looking forward. You can't simply state that whoever was in office at the time an issue arose that it was their fault. Things take time to pan out.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

i would vote no but, anyways., look obama might not have screwed anything up but. like all american presidents he did noting but screwed the country more. china could kill the united states because no president focus on there metal problem of 90 trill in debt

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

He's a people president, he actually cares about American citizens.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
Liber(1718) Disputed
1 point

he actually cares about American citizens.

I would really like to know why you think this.

2 years ago | Side: No
1 point

I think this is be answered in the simplest of fashions. He will be re-elected but it is the reason for that bothers me. It is not about what he has done or not done. In 2012, it is about how the Republican Party has acted so poorly over the last year most recently and continually with the budget then add in the total lack of viable Republican candidates. Ron Paul is about the only one who has enough to say that it is worth listening to. (whether you agree or not). I am a liberal Republican and looking at this election, the Republican party might as well place a loaded trash bag in a suit and call it a candidate. Sad but true.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

YES! He has done sooo much to help the world! He has gotten troops out of countries AND is down to earth with people. The stuff he doesn't get down is because of others limitations

2 years ago | Side: Yes
Liber(1718) Disputed
1 point

He has done sooo much to help the world!

His job isn't to help the world, it's to help his people: Americans, and taking them to war ain't gonna help.

He has gotten troops out of countries

Bush got them out. What Obama did was sent them to different countries.

2 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Compared to everyone else, yes.

__________________________

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Obama is simply the only valid choice between him and the four other Republican candidates. The current front runner for the Republican party (Romney) has changed his mind so many time on such an extreme level, that he cannot be trusted. Even Ron Paul is completely crazy. He wants to get rid of civil rights laws that make segregation illegal. He is entirely for states rights to control just about everything. He wants to get rid of Federal Highways. Newt Gingrich is a complete ass who seems to like corporations than the middle class. Santorum is a Homophobic racist who pretended that he didn't say that the US should support black people, despite video evidence of him saying it. Obama is the only candidate that can be trusted to not screw the country over. I agree that his economic reform plan was not very affective, but until I hear the other four candidates suggest something that could even remotely work better than Obama, I'm going to have to stick with him.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

yes, Obama should be re -elected. He has really tried to get the economy back on it's feet and really seems to care about the middle class, bringing jobs back to America, and ending the war.

Obama gave a speech this past summer on the war and he mentioned that the war has been costing our country about $10 billion per year and I was floored by that because I think that the money can be used towards better things such as helping students pay off loans, providing jobs for Americans, putting food in people's mouths, helping people get their homes back, etc.

I also can't believe that although so many people voted Obama into office, that so many people such as in the house of representatives and/or senate have vetoed his economic proposals which were clearly created to help "the little guys" like me -poor college educated people. That just don't make sense to me, it looks like they're trying to prove a negative point such as a black guy couldn't cut it as president. While I'm not totally racist there are some people in the house of representatives, senate, and/or running for election. And not everyone who is racist is a member of the KKK, nazi, or skinhead - some of them may smile at your face and speak nice to your face but kick you in the teeth personally or professionally behind your back. And these people running for president, all I hear is "blah, blah, blah" but no one cares about the "real issues" facing American such as: health care for low income people, jobs coming back to America, creating jobs for teachers, bringing discipline back in the classrooms, etc.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
Apollo(1586) Disputed
1 point

He has really tried to get the economy back on it's feet

TRIED?! It IS back on its feet and sprinting. Don't downplay his achievements ;).

$10 billion per year

Uhh... That is PER MONTH!

helping students pay off loans

Obama's already got that covered. He passed student loan reform and is urging congress to extend low interest rates for student loans.

providing jobs for Americans

We are so close to being were we were when he took office. The past year has been incredible for the economy.

Please vote for him even if I can't! Our economy won't survive another republican "Trickle-down economics" president.

2 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Right now, this is a major global world- we're connected in ways that were thought nearly impossible just fifty years ago! The boundaries between countries are fading, so what we need now is a great FOREIGN POLICY president and if Obama is good with one thing, it's with keeping debates, being respectful, and connecting with global leaders. The U.S. has never been in a more critical global part in our lives- we import 62% percent of our oil!- and we need the good will of other countries, especially Asian superpowers whether we like it or not. Obama already proved himself efficient in this case: it took him just two weeks to convince Egyptian dictator Hasni Mubarak to step out of office. It took a year for Clinton to do the same with another unstable leader!

We already know he's a good foreign policy leader; I think that in the next four years he'll have experience enough to be a truly great one... like President Truman. Besides the president can't really control the economy all that much (too complicated to explain now) so shouldn't we elect our leaders based on what they can do?

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

A definite 'yes'. It seems a lot of people have 'conveniently' forgotten that the Bush administration pretty much sucked the wind out of our nation (and world), with its 'shoot from the hip' policies. TARP money was first brought up by him, and in case your memory is not good, most of the money Bush received could not even be traced. No one seemed to know where it went! His policies began the process of deteriotaton that Obama inherited. By the time Obama took office, the deed was done, and he was faced with something akin to being given command of the 'Titantic'. Due to his diligence and vision, we are now beginning to 'see the light', in spite of the non-cooperative Congress he is working with. If you know anything about American politics, you realize, the President's power are limited, and dependent upon Congress. In other words, even if his policies were 'perfect', if Congress decided not to support them, they would go no where.

Perhaps the greatest argument' can be found not just in the political arena, but in the totality of the man. Agree or disagree with his actions, you have to give credit to the fact that he is a man who keeps his promises, and maintains integrity in both his personal and professional life That type of man is more likely to succeed for it takes integrity and committment to accomplsh worthy goals. Everyone will never be pleased 'all the time', but if the individual leading is at least one of good moral fibre, and is reasonably intelligent, he will do the right thing which will serve everyone. Obama is such a man.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Obama is a great president despite the negative criticisms. It takes time people to rebuild an economy! Thanks to George Bush for demolishing our economy and making it worst than it already was now Obama has to come in an rectify what has been done. Obama believes in foreign policy!!!!! Just saying.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
gepetto33(2) Disputed
1 point

anyone who says obama is helping the economy is dead wrong. Just look at all the debt he's accumulated with blatant disregard for the future. Anyone in this column who said he's helped the economy is absolutely ignorant and you should not vote period. He's accumulated about the same debt as bush in half the time.. so unsustainable deficits eventually leads to more quantitative easing and drastic devaluing the worth of the dollars you saved for retirement. What's the point of saving for retirement if the dollars will be worthless when it's time to retire. If you support obama you support being broke. The only change i see are questionable policies and turning the dollars into change faster than any other president. DO NOT be fooled with this helping the common man because in the long term he is doing exactly the opposite faster than any other president. USE YOUR BRAIN. Bush and Obama were both awful and it's time we get a president who actually can spell 'economy.' His budgets were so laughable he should have been impeached and not considered for a second term.. republican democrat i have no preference for either i just want the most efficient policies and it's just about a guarantee no one will be as irresponsible to the long term financial health of this country than obama.

2 years ago | Side: No
gepetto33(2) Clarified
1 point

it's pretty easy to understand the more money that eventually needs to be printed to handle this debt/unsustainable deficits of which is spiraling out of control currently will devalue the dollar that is already scarce to the 99% much further than we have already seen. That is not helping the poorer people of this country. The way this president accumulates debt is not acceptable and he needs to go asap or else the best move is to bet against the us dollar if you want a chance at having money/significant wealth for retirement.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
4 points

Don't vote Obama, but don't vote Republican either; vote Libertarian in Republican's clothing.

2 years ago | Side: Lebensgefahr
mackle64(9) Disputed
3 points

Voting for Ron Paul wouldn't solve anything. His ideas start of OK, but then they go way to far. He wants to pull out our foreign troops. Sounds good. All of our foreign troops. Well that seems a bit much but OK. And he wants the US to become completely isolated from the rest of the world as well as, not only back out of the UN but also evict the UN from New York City. Does that not seem like a bit much to you? Not only that, but additionally, he wants to get rid of civil rights laws that prohibit segregation. How did that work out for us when segregation was legal? He even wants to get rid of federal highways. Even if he was elected, nothing would get done since congress would refuse to pass anything he created.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
Liber(1718) Disputed
1 point

His ideas start of OK, but then they go way to far. He wants to pull out our foreign troops. Sounds good. All of our foreign troops. Well that seems a bit much but OK.

They don't belong in other countries. That's why we call them other countries, they aren't our own, therefore we don't belong there in a militaristic capacity.

And he wants the US to become completely isolated from the rest of the world

It's not quite like that. He's for international business, but doesn't think that the government has any business in interfering with other governments affairs.

not only back out of the UN

We ought never have become involved in such an organization; it relieves us of some of our sovereignty, however slight, and that is never good.

but also evict the UN from New York City.

UN would collapse without US support, most likely.

Not only that, but additionally, he wants to get rid of civil rights laws that prohibit segregation.

Again, you are looking at it from the wrong angle. I am not legally required to allow any individual into my place of residence, my home, my castle; why, then, if I own a café, must I allow those individuals whom I dislike to enter my place of business? Both my house and my café are my properties, why is there a difference? My café is not public, and should therefore not be required to accept any member of the public within its walls.

How did that work out for us when segregation was legal?

I'm white, so pretty fine.

Still, though, would you, assuming that you are white, eat at a restaurant with a big sign on the door saying "niggers keep out!" Probably not, and most people wouldn't, either. Therefore, racist store owners can either keep their views to themselves or go out of business; it behoves them to do the former.

Even if he was elected, nothing would get done since congress would refuse to pass anything he created.

Even if none of his ideas came to fruition, we'd still have four years with a president refusing to sign any more liberty-crushing bills.

2 years ago | Side: No
3 points

Yes we can!" roared the crowd. It was an emotional night for everyone. The 2008 presidential election was over. John McCain had lost to the first major party endorsed African-American presidential candidate in United States history. We finally closed troubling chapters in our history such as Mississippi burning and the civil rights marches of Selma.

Republicans, including the bewildered Religious Right, sat stunned in their seats wondering what would happen to their country. It was not because the Democratic Party was any different from the Bush Administration but because the GOP had pathetically lost its neo-conservative bully pulpit in the White House.

Democrats cheered with glee at the opportunity to take back the power that was theirs during the Clinton Glory Days. They salivated at the prospect of re-introducing neo-liberal interventionism on foreign soil and overseas markets They longed to once again crank the Dollar presses to inflate the money supply in the name of the "poor" this time instead of "business". They would gladly finish the work of the Fall of the American Empire started under the Bush Regime.

And now, the smoke and mirrors game goes on. The crooked politicians of 2009 are no different than the corrupt politicians of the Gilded Age or the Roaring Twenties. Crony capitalists like oil barons and railway tycoons then lined the pockets of our nation's representatives to further the goals of Big Business and destroy the wealth of American workers. Sound familiar?

President Obama had a unique opportunity in history -- and he blew it. He brought us "change" indeed. He slammed the Bush Doctrine in all its ugly forms of secrecy and judicial obstruction into executive hyper-drive. The rhetoric of compassionate conservative now became the drivel of compassionate liberalism.

If there is one thing Americans say about Obama it is this: he cares.

He cares for the mechanic in Detroit who lost his job. He cares for the middle-aged couple living in the Hooverville tent outside Sacramento. He cares for the middle class mother and her three kids in Toledo spending their nights in a homeless shelter with the addicted and the ignored.

But does Obama really care?

In fact, his compassionate liberalism runs so deep that it pulls a move from the old Ronald Reagan playbook we knew as trickle-down economics. These days the compassionate White House grants bail-out money to financial monsters like AIG and Bank of America. There could be no better help for the American veteran shivering under a bridge tonight because there just aren't any more jobs. (Unless of course, you can beat out the 200 other people applying for that one lonely job opening.) The idea is that bail-out money will sooner or later trickle-down to the great unwashed masses of Americans wondering what in Sam Hill happened to the real estate market and their retirement accounts.

It may only be a drop of financial bail-out -- but hey it trickled down. Next up, bread lines!

The truth is that the White House allowed corporate giant CEOs to loot and pilfer the public treasury. This Administration is following the same tortured logic of the previous one which assured us that falsely accused cab drivers from Baghdad were receiving comfortable attention at Guantanamo Bay.

The left-right political paradigm in this country is a sham. (Sorry to disappoint my fellow Evangelical Christians.) Both parties have proven to be Big Business, Big Government warmongers. For those who actually wished McCain had been elected just think about this: the GOP would have put up no opposition to the new President's Stimulus Package and would have rammed through trillions more in "help" for America.

So there you have it. President Obama is as bad as the worst conservative and as bad as the worst liberal -- and all with a smile.

How is the left-right scenario a sham? Consider the following.

The gay rights issue is a political distraction. Stem cell research? Just more Big Research pork-barrel spending. Abortion? It's the political Gordian Knot that requires even the most astute of political science majors to bust a gut if they dare try to untie it. The so-called immigration invasion? A typical act of sensational yellow journalism that says, "Look over there, Bubba! It ain't your own government stealin' your hard-earned dollars, it's them Mexicans lookin' for revenge and dishwasher jobs since the Alamo!" Sorry, Pat Buchanan, the "Death of the West" comes from the corruption in our government, not the immigrants heading back home in record numbers.

What are the real issues of post-election America? For starters, the destruction of individual wealth in this country, save for the high upper class. We are on the verge of an economic meltdown that will dwarf the Great Depression and will take decades to recover. There is no need for a conspiracy theory here -- only the urgency of understanding the mess that we allowed to happen and how we can financially protect ourselves.

We must not waste time. We must move our already-compromised and over-valued U.S. Dollars into assets of real value. This does not include real estate unless you're buying ten cents or less on the high-priced dollar. Forget your 401(k), pensions and your annuities. Unless you can take your money out, they are toast. The stock market is one toxic graveyard, particularly finance shares. Dump them. Invest in precious metals, food supply, cigarettes, alcohol and medicine for trade and help for your neighbors when the Dollar collapses.

Consider buying silver, palladium and gold from reputable sellers like apmex.com. I personally recommend silverbullion.com because I support the goals of the owner Jason Hommel to bring silver back as the most effective medium of exchange. Remember, that despite the U.S. Treasury's naked assertions, the U.S. Constitution expressly reserves the right of individual States to mint legal tender coins so long as they're gold or silver.

When the dollar collapses, I do not think that New York City will burn or that the United States will come to an immediate end. But if it did, the blame must rest entirely on Barack Obama and his Congressional Criminal Syndicate.

Some might here criticize me as being unfair. After all, George W. Bush The Evangelical nearly bankrupted this country with his illegal wars, his blatant lies to stir Americans to bloodshed, his deliberate obstruction to the 9/11 Commission, his last-minute corporate bailout to the tune of hundreds of billions, his economic tinkering with interest rates, his unconscionable acts of torturing innocent men and children, his doubling of the national debt, et cetera, et cetera.

But let me be clear about this. George W. Bush is a public menace. He and his cadre must be tried and convicted of their crimes. But that will never happen under an Obama Presidency, in spite of the President's left-leaning brand of crony capitalism. The Truth Commission currently at play in the Congress is merely a circus show to fool Americans into thinking that we actually take seriously the crimes of torture, invasion, occupation, mayhem, pillaging, looting, rape, pollution, perjury, bribery and killing of civilians with illegal weapons of war.

Every moment that the Obama Administration rolls on without prosecuting the crimes of the former Administration, it exists as a de facto confirmation that our new President has sold out to the rich and that he lied to his Democratic base and the American voter. The White House today has continued in the same deadly bait-and-switch tactics of the former Village Idiot-In-Chief. Additionally, Obama has moved to control more media and aggressively solidify relationships with members of the "War and Bankers Party" on both sides of the aisle.

For a President to vociferously take on Rush Limbaugh the GOP's talk radio attack dog is an alarming signal. Besides the fact that the Democrats want to point out the weakness of the GOP's leadership vacuum, Obama is inserting himself into the realm of media and entertainment instead of focusing on how his office can uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution in light of the economic crisis. Are we really so surprised to see the leftist authoritarian Hugo Chavez, who is a regular media personality, cheer Obama in his nationalization and socialization of the banking and insurance industries?

Evangelical Christian radio stations are scared stiff about the Democratic-led Congress reviving restrictions on Americans to share their religious opinions over the people's airwaves. And they should be concerned. (I particularly enjoy my local station.) After all, the same kind of government that monitors, censors, filters and controls any form of media is the same type of authoritarianism that steals, plunders and coerces its own people. One look at China's control of the internet and Google's sickening overture to that regime is enough to make any civil libertarian's skin crawl. Reports that Australia is considering Chinese-style filtering over what their people can access on the internet makes me want to boycott eucalyptus leaves.

So why is President Obama responsible for our economic debacle?

Because it's the first rule of leadership. Everything is your fault. If he didn't like the prospect of being stuck with the mess of his predecessor he should have remained in the Senate or considered an honest living like working for AIG or Lehmann Brothers. Obama has not only repeated the same unconstitutional trespasses of Bush II, but he actually increased the amount of corporate welfare to the Bank Barons. Obama turned a blind eye to the Federal Reserve's arbitrary usury practice through the printing of increasingly worthless U.S. Dollars.

Are we really going to see a Dow Jones 4000? The answer is regrettably yes -- and then some. There are economic forces at play that will no longer be ignored or manipulated. Human behavior will always gravitate towards self-preservation and the protection of our future generations through wealth-building, capital, production and labor. All the paper fiat money and government spending in the world can never stop that or help this economic disaster recover without drastic corrections to our own cursed speculative market. The times of fast and easy money are over.

President Obama has not even finished his first year in office and I must already call him out as one of the worst Executives ever in the history of our Republic. Bush II is close behind. Every GOP and Democratic elected leader that voted for any of these crooked bail-outs deserves a one-way ticket to an electoral defeat. Should state law allow it, a public tar-and-feathering might be in order.

When our country faced economic dangers, depressionary woes and international volatility let it be said that President Obama failed to protect us from the corruption of Congress, the indifference of the Judiciary and the foolishness of the People. Let it be said that he abandoned his post to uphold the Constitution. Let it be said that he whored his policies and his office for the rich and powerful, both foreign and domestic. Let it be said that we voted for change and all we got was the Raw Deal of the Obama Failure obama is a failure

2 years ago | Side: No

If I got an dollar for every should Obama be reelected debate, I would have like $10.

If more debt and spending is something that you admire, then yes, but it will crash.

2 years ago | Side: No
Apollo(1586) Disputed
4 points

Our entire debt buildup of the past decade can be pegged to 5 things:

1) 2 unsustainable wars started by republicans

2) Three unsustainable tax cuts started by republicans

3) And unsustainable Medicare Part D program started by republicans

4) Unprecedented increase in military spending started by republicans

If you look at Obama's new spending, you will see he has spent under $350 billion in non-recession spending.

2 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

Those 5 bullet points are irrelevant because both have staunch believe in Keynesian economics. It doesn't matter what party speared it, both agreed.

And so, since Ron Paul is only candidate for Austrian Economics, he is the only one in all of Congress with brains.

2 years ago | Side: No
Liber(1718) Disputed
1 point

2 unsustainable wars started by republicans

And exacerbated by Obama.

Three unsustainable tax cuts started by republicans

Too much spending by all.

And unsustainable Medicare Part D program started by republicans

Too much spending by all.

Unprecedented increase in military spending started by republicans

And exacerbated by Obama.

2 years ago | Side: Lebensgefahr
2 points

in my point of view No. Obama didn't deliver favor, his attemts to change something was not so succeful. During his carreer as Prezident country was in a risky situation. People in USA dont want to elect Obama again becouse he has baffled them. My friend Will from USA and i was chating with him about this topic.He said that no need to elect him becouse his promises in most cases NOTHING. Americans position become risky.

2 years ago | Side: No

[Can someone please explain why Ron Paul is out of the contest??]

2 years ago | Side: No
saprophetic(385) Disputed
3 points

[Rick Santorum is more popular than Paul???? :/ Woooow. This world.]

2 years ago | Side: yes
Nick91983(270) Clarified
1 point

radical econ policy - Austrian economics

radical foreign policy - isolationist

He is old

insufficient popularity

wants to get rid of major govt agencies

Although he seems pretty smart and has had some good ideas and some popular ideas, he doesnt really fit the bill.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
2 points

Wait... who said that Ron Paul is out of the contest?

---------------------

nvm, I read the description... he's just being a jerk-face 8l

2 years ago | Side: No
Apollo(1586) Disputed
2 points

Because he has won ZERO states while Romney, Gingrich and Santorum have picked up 1.

He has 3 delegates, whereas Romney and Gingrich have about 20.

2 years ago | Side: yes
iamdavidh(4844) Disputed
2 points

Because market anarchy without checks and balances via some power in which people have a say (government) leads inevitably to serfdom at best and straight financial slavery more likely--all whilst roads crumble around us and only rich kids (inhereted rich after a generation or so since without checks on large corporations they can simply steal any idea and make it cheaper) get an education...

And only between 10% and 20% of the half-retarded american population is that fully retarded during any given election. So yeah, that's why he'll forever be "out of the contest" outside of Texas and a couple southern states.

Plus he's been spewing government all in your vagina outlawing abortion while hypocritically preaching smaller government when it comes to feeding the kid the impoverished and rape-e's are forced to take to term.

2 years ago | Side: yes

He will go down as probably one of the top 5 worst presidents that we have ever had. I believe he is a traitor.

First of all he is hiding who he says he is. Took way to long to present his birth certificate…if that is the real we probably will never know. Never would present his academic records from the colleges he supposedly attended. Would not release his medical records either. Who is he?

Well he has bowed down and kissed Arab leaders. He has treated the president of Israel terrible…what leader in the world comes to the White House and has to use the back door?

His hero is an anti-American racist who hates whites….Rev. Wright. He was in bed with Tony Rezko the Chicgo slug who is now in prison. I mean what political candidate would take money from someone who is being investigated by the FBI? OBAMA.

Then there is his affiliation to communist radicals…many of whom he appointed as Czars in his administration. Enter the scene….Bernadine Dohrn and her communist husband Bill Ayers who founded the organization Weather Underground.

"The best thing that we can be doing for ourselves, as well as for the [Black] Panthers and the revolutionary black liberation struggle, is to build a fucking white revolutionary movement." And that is what she and her husband did.

For a long time she was on the FBI's most wanted list. Her husband is just as radical as she was. Two of Obamas friends.

He failed to handle the Gulf Oil spill in a timely manner.

Failed to end the war like he promised he would do. Took him three years to end it….hundreds more died on his watch.

Putting all legislation on the Internet for five days before it came to a vote.

Snubbed the president of Israel. Snubbed Britain by returning that bust of Churchill.

He appointed Communists/Socialists/Progressives to his various Czar positions (without even getting congressional approval) then doing nothing for them after Glenn Beck calls them out…forcing many to resign.

Then there was his failed stimulus…health care the country still does not want…

Wants total amnesty for illegals.

Does not even know basic American geography and thinks there are 57 states.

Thinks that there was only one bomb that hit Pearl Harbor.

He thinks to solve any financial crisis….borrowing is the answer. So he has borrowed until we now don't even have our chins above water.

I could go on and on….

He is a narcissist and his change was not what the people who even voted for him expected he meant. His change seeks to destroy the country. He is absolutely incompetent and dangerous….and I would vote for just about anyone in order to get him out. Well except Nancy Pelosi and I think she is almost worse than Obama is.

If he is get in for four more years…we are doomed. He hates this country and it shows. He has done nothing but apologize for Americas actions since taking office and I think people even many Democrats are sick of him and can now see him for what he is.

Change is good in some cases….thats why we need to throw him out. Maybe then he can go over and listen to the Muslim call to prayer…something he said was the most beautiiful thing he has ever heard. So much for Christ eh?

2 years ago | Side: No
garry77777(1794) Disputed
5 points

It's been a while, still as crazy as ever I see.

"He has treated the president of Israel terrible"

Regardless of how he may or may not have treated the mass murdering war criminal Netanyahu, his policy towards Isreal has been exactly in line with previous presidents, I hear this accusation from crazy right wing nut jobs that Obama is anti-Isreal, it simply isn't true, the US continues to give Isreal the green light to indiscriminantly kill Palestians, kick families out of their homes, steal land that deosn't legally belong to them. etc....etc.

"His hero is an anti-American racist who hates whites….Rev. Wright"

Wow. Have you ever given a moments consideration in your life to how hard it is for a black man in your country?

"Then there is his affiliation to communist radicals…many of whom he appointed as Czars in his administration."

How do you expect people to take you seriously when you sound like an escaped mental patient?

Hey, did you know 90% of all black men are secretly working for the USSR, thats right!!!, they never disbanded, thats what they wanted you to think..(insert maniacally laugh here).

"He failed to handle the Gulf Oil spill in a timely manner."

Yes, a Republican candidate would have been all over that, just George Bush after hurricane Katrina, right?

"them after Glenn Beck calls them out"

Glenn Beck, seriously?

"Wants total amnesty for illegals."

Ya, only real americans should have amnesty, like the comanche, the mohican etc.

"Does not even know basic American geography and thinks there are 57 states."

Ya, Palin or Bachmann would ave aced that one, them being the upstanding intellectuals that they are.

"So much for Christ eh?"

Don't worry God will protect you from the destruction of your ccountry.

2 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

I disagree with everything you said, but one thing truly stood out as grotesque and ignorant.

Glenn Beck, seriously?

What is your problem with Glenn Beck? I understand that his religion is insane, but so is yours. (I'm an Atheist.)

I mean, you have people like Rachel Maddow; she makes me want to cut my wrists while sitting in the middle of the desert with no liquids or food.

The issue with liberals is that they simply "check off/dismiss" people (like Glenn Beck) because they may have heard some propaganda on YouTube about how they're "hicks" and shit.

Do your research. Don't hate him because of his background.

2 years ago | Side: No
SoapyTurtle(22) Disputed
3 points

Obama doesn't think there are 57 states. He clearly misspoke and was talking about primaries. I'm not a supporter of Obama but your arguments are pretty radical and if anything just unimportant.

First of all he is hiding who he says he is. Took way to long to present his birth certificate…if that is the real we probably will never know. Never would present his academic records

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Does anyone know where the rest of my argument went!? haha

Anyways...

There was some more to it but I forget it all now.

Rev. Wright is not his hero. He has written him off and denounced all radical ideas.

So much for god?

Ya, we will just ignore that one.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

This country needs leadership throughout all branches of government. This country needs leaders who are willing to make difficult decisions, despite the political fallout. We need one who loves this country, truly understands the values we seek to live by, and implement policies that are consistent with those values. We also need someone that is willing to recognize the policies that have worked in this country in the past and around the world and those that have not. We do not need an ideologue. We do not need arrogance. We do not need to be treated like ignorant, lazy people that have no passion, drive or work ethic. I could go on, but I simply encourage all of you to put your party affiliations aside and objectively think about these comments as you decide who to vote for. Our country is at a turning point and has significant needs. We cannot afford for voters to retreat to the political party talking points.

Research the issues and do not rely on your 10 minutes of daily news. Think. What is truly best for our country?

2 years ago | Side: No
Bohemian(3460) Disputed
1 point

And this can be achieved by voting for one of Obama's Republican competitors?

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

I do not agree with the majority of his or the Democratic party positions. Not all, but enough that I vote Republican. I would prefer to vote 3rd party if a candidate was viable.

An independent will probably not have a chance at the executive office for 4 more cycles unless they are a wild card.

It's cliche to say this but it's true; voting for a third party or abstaining is throwing your vote away when you have the opportunity to vote for the better of 2 candidates.

It's a losing situation since voting for a third party raises the numbers for next time and encourages more voters to have another option.

Even though I disagree with the President Obama's positions, he really wasn't given a good start. The housing bubble wrecked the economy. War is actually a revenue and employment generator. We really didn't get to see whatever potential he brought to the table.

I feel that he has been given too much support by a select few with too much financial and media influence. You can buy your way into an elected position or have others pay for you.

Lastly, as much as I don't want him to serve a second term, I think that he will most likely win. Mitt Romney has no personality, a large body of voters, the religious right - non-Mormon - has rejected him. And Newt Gingrich is way too controversial.

2 years ago | Side: No
1 point

The man spent more than all the other presidents combined in his first 2 years....

2 years ago | Side: No
Apollo(1586) Disputed
2 points

Everything you just said is 100% bullshit.

Obama has spent $350 billion in non-recession new spending.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

If we want to survive four more years, no. He's the next Hitler.

2 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Oh my god! No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 years ago | Side: No
1 point

If you're a proponent of fiscal irresponsibility, debt, unemployment and malaise then absolutely yes. Also if your politics tend toward the fascist/communist end of the spectrum, again yes. But if you believe in freedom, and the Constitution, and the God given rights of man and responsibility, then Obama must be thrown out. And I believe he will be.

1 year ago | Side: No
Apollo(1586) Disputed
1 point

If you're a proponent of fiscal irresponsibility, debt, unemployment and malaise then absolutely yes.

Which is why Obama has spent very little in new spending and unemployment has dropped 2% since its peak.

Also if your politics tend toward the fascist/communist end of the spectrum, again yes.

And now it is clear you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Communism and Fascism lie at opposite ends of the right/left-wing spectrum.

But if you believe in freedom

I believe strongly in social freedom, which is why I support Obama.

and the Constitution

yes

and the God given rights of man

Excuse me? Umm....God-given? Forgive me for thinking the US was a secular state.

and responsibility

Something the right lacks.

then Obama must be thrown out.

Uh....no. The facts point to the opposite conclusion.

And I believe he will be.

I don't give a shit what you believe. The facts say otherwise.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Really? Republicans have ruined this country? Are you joking or dumb? Abraham Lincoln is hands down the best president we have ever had (Republican). Ronald Reagan (republican) is in the top 3. Just because someone claims to be Republican, Conservative, Democrat, Liberal, Independent, or Green Party does not mean that that is completely true. This country suffers from a major disease called compromise. There have been "Democratic" presidents who should have called themselves Conservatives and vise versa. We need a Conservative in office that will not compromise to Congress or anyone else. I was watching the news the other day and obamination (obama) was holding a press conference. During this conference he was blaming George W. Bush for the deficit problems when (yes he messed it up) he has made it 10x worse. It really all boils down to the fact that nobody is perfect and Congress is full of a bunch of (Democratic!!) greedy bastards (pardon the language). They really don't care about how this country SHOULD be, they only care about what they can do to increase their bank accounts.

1 year ago | Side: No

We shouldn't vote Obama back into office he has already gave us 4 years of lost promises and trillion of dollars in debt. Anyone with the smallest bit of common sense would know that Obama is not the correct answer for America, because he has made it worse. I would vote Romney into office any day rather than Obama. Lets remove the problem(Obama) not put the problem back into office!.

1 year ago | Side: No
0 points

No because he has had three years to make some changes to this economy and he hasn't! Actually if you haven't heard it has DROPPED! :(

It's time for someone else to step in and help America.

2 years ago | Side: No
Apollo(1586) Disputed
1 point

Every thing you said was false. I think I can convince you to be an Obama supporter. The economy is very clearly recovering. I have posted the facts above in previous comments.

Lowest unemployment in 3 years.

Best January for the economy in this century.

Dow at 3 year high.

Nasdaq at 11 year high.

Job growth at 15 year high.

Corporate taxes at 40 year low.

Etc. etc.

Obama 2012!

2 years ago | Side: Yes
ford97(17) Disputed
0 points

2x as many people on food stamps, you cannot point the Dow and Nasdaq they fluxuate everyday. Did you forget to mention S&P;downgrading our economy, wonder why it didnt happen with bush?

2 years ago | Side: No
0 points

I don't honestly see how this man could be re-elected. For all the Lefties out there, yes President Bush was NOT the ideal president he was very far from it, I will be the first to admit that. What you must understand is that: The national average when President Bush left office the national price for unleaded gasoline was $1.75 a gallon, today as I write this, the Lowest national price for a gallon of gas is $3.80. When President Bush left office (not that this is low) the national debt was 8 trillion $'s, today it's 15 trillion $'s and climbing, do your math, President Bush created about $1 trillion a year in debt in 8 years , Obama has created $7 trillion in about 4 years, I don't see how that is attractive to lefties but it just seems to be. The last time our economy was worse than this, it was the great depression. Everyone keeps saying that "Obama got osama", Incorrect, he gave the order to kill him after 16 hours of "thought" wheather to do it or not, the Navy Seal Team 6 were the men who killed osama in Bush's war. Taxes, Conservatives want them low and Liberals want them high. Obama wants to raise them on the wealthy, WHY!? 50% of Americans pay no taxes at all! why not even give them a tax! The wealthy pay their fair share, they make up for the 20% who do pay taxes. Raising taxes is one thing but if the president is going to raise them he needs to raise them on EVERYONE. We are all in this together, stop alot of these govt funded (taxpayer funded) programs and grow a set and work for your living so your neighbor doesn't have to! Barack Obama has been a failure as a president 6x more than President Bush. If your going to argue this please do so in an intelligent, mature manner.

2 years ago | Side: No
ford97(17) Clarified
1 point

Democrats love to talk about President Bush's screw ups but they dont like to talk about their screw up of a president so here are about .3% of all things obama has screwed up on.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
Apollo(1586) Disputed
1 point

For all the Lefties out there, yes President Bush was NOT the ideal president he was very far from it, I will be the first to admit that.

Then you must also admit republican policy is "very far from [ideal]."

The national average when President Bush left office the national price for unleaded gasoline was $1.75 a gallon, today as I write this, the Lowest national price for a gallon of gas is $3.80.

Jesus! How ignorant can you be? The presidency has exactly NO control over the gas prices.

I would suggest reading this.

Oil prices are a global phenomena. You have no point.

When President Bush left office (not that this is low) the national debt was 8 trillion

$10 trillion. You have already discredited your argument.

today it's 15 trillion $'s and climbing

But why? Why is climbing? It's Obama isn't it. That nazi...always spending money.

Except it isn't Obama's policy. It's Bush's that is driving up the debt.

Almost all of our deficit can be attributed to four main spending binges:

1. Two unsustainable useless wars started, passed, and continued by republicans. It took Obama to end Iraq and create an endgame for Afghanistan pullout.

2. Two unsustainable, deficit exploding tax cuts for the rich. All passed, initiated, pushed, and signed by republicans.

3. An unsustainable social security increase. Take a guess as to who passed it?

4. An unsustainable Medicare Part D expansion, the single largest entitlement increase in United States history, and likely world history. Republicans sure are anti-entitlement small government fiscal conservatives aren't they...

-

But don't take my word for it. Here is Obama vs. Bush New Spending.

Obama is at a net $350 billion in non-recession spending (projected out for EIGHT years). Bush spent $4 trillion in the same time period.

Now look me in the eyes and call Obama a big spender.

I don't see how that is attractive to lefties but it just seems to be.

Who said liberals find it attractive?!?!?!

Liberals were AGAINST THE WARS!

AGAINST THE BUSH TAX CUTS.

Where have you been living. Why do you think they are calling on revenue increases? To cut the deficit that Bush created from a projected surplus.

The last time our economy was worse than this, it was the great depression.

The effects of trickle-down economics and republican economic policy continues to be felt...sad...

And actually, the last time it was worse than this was Summer of 2009. Since then, under Obama, the economy has recovered significantly.

Incorrect, he gave the order to kill him after 16 hours of "thought" wheather to do it or not

He did much more than that. And i'm damn glad he bought about it. There was a 60% chance that he was there. Defense Secretary Robert Gates (appointed by Bush first I might add) called it one of the gutsiest decisions he has seen made and he doubted other people who have done what Obama did.

For all the Lefties out there, yes President Bush was NOT the ideal president he was very far from it, I will be the first to admit that.

Then you must also admit republican policy is "very far from [ideal]."

The national average when President Bush left office the national price for unleaded gasoline was $1.75 a gallon, today as I write this, the Lowest national price for a gallon of gas is $3.80.

Jesus! How ignorant can you be? The presidency has exactly NO control over the gas prices.

I would suggest reading this.

Oil prices are a global phenomena. You have no point.

When President Bush left office (not that this is low) the national debt was 8 trillion

$10 trillion. You have already discredited your argument.

today it's 15 trillion $'s and climbing

But why? Why is climbing? It's Obama isn't it. That nazi...always spending money.

Except it isn't Obama's policy. It's Bush's that is driving up the debt.

Almost all of our deficit can be attributed to four main spending binges:

1. Two unsustainable useless wars started, passed, and continued by republicans. It took Obama to end Iraq and create an endgame for Afghanistan pullout.

2. Two unsustainable, deficit exploding tax cuts for the rich. All passed, initiated, pushed, and signed by republicans.

3. An unsustainable social security increase. Take a guess as to who passed it?

4. An unsustainable Medicare Part D expansion, the single largest entitlement increase in United States history, and likely world history. Republicans sure are anti-entitlement small government fiscal conservatives aren't they...

-

But don't take my word for it. Here is Obama vs. Bush New Spending.

Obama is at a net $350 billion in non-recession spending (projected out for EIGHT years). Bush spent $4 trillion in the same time period.

Now look me in the eyes and call Obama a big spender.

I don't see how that is attractive to lefties but it just seems to be.

Who said liberals find it attractive?!?!?!

Liberals were AGAINST THE WARS!

AGAINST THE BUSH TAX CUTS.

Where have you been living. Why do you think they are calling on revenue increases? To cut the deficit that Bush created from a projected surplus.

The last time our economy was worse than this, it was the great depression.

The effects of trickle-down economics and republican economic policy continues to be felt...sad...

And actually, the last time it was worse than this was Summer of 2009. Since then, under Obama, the economy has recovered significantly.

Incorrect, he gave the order to kill him after 16 hours of "thought" wheather to do it or not

He did much more than that. And i'm damn glad he bought about it. There was a 60% chance that he was there. Defense Secretary Robert Gates (appointed by Bush first I might add) called it one of the gutsiest decisions he has seen made and he doubted other people who have done what Obama did.

the Navy Seal Team 6 were the men who killed osama in Bush's war.

And this was only possible under Obama's leadership.

And don;t you dare give Bush ANY credit for this. The first shreds of intel that came about his whereabout (that of his courier actually) were found two years before the raid. Obama was president at that time.

Maybe it was Bush's infrastructure? NO. Obama has killed 22 of 30 top Al Qaeda Heads. How many did bush get in 8 years? 4...

Obama has been BY FAR the best commander in chief in modern american history.

Taxes, Conservatives want them low and Liberals want them high.

Wrong. Righties want taxes for working people, the poor and middle class (who have seen income increases of 5% in the past 30 years) to be high and cut taxes for the rich who have seen income increases of 212% in the past 30 years.

Liberals realize this is incredibly unfair and that income inequality is vicious, self-perpetuating cycle that needs to stop.

50% of Americans pay no taxes at all!

That is a lie. Stop being spoon fed republican bullshit lies and propaganda. They pay sales tax. Property tax. Estate tax. Social security/payroll taxes. Etc.

The wealthy pay their fair share

They do not.

Raising taxes is one thing but if the president is going to raise them he needs to raise them on EVERYONE.

When has obama EVER raised taxes?

He cut taxes for small businesses 16 times.

Extended the bush tax cut.

Fought against republicans to extend patrol tax cuts and won.

His jobs plan was over 50% tax cuts.

His stimulus cut taxes for 95% of americans.

He wants to cut corporate taxes from 35% to 28%.

The corporate tax actual rate (average percent paid...about 12%, not the 35% the right whines about) is the lowest in decades under Obama.

-

But no...he wants to raise taxes. You righties will just never stop smearing this president with lies will you? Sickening...

Barack Obama has been a failure

How? In what area? He has been a success. 4 more years!

6x more than President Bush.

HA! That man ruined the country and Obama begins to fix it, but no...he is 6x worse.

If your going to argue this please do so in an intelligent, mature manner.

Something you failed to do...

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Of course some moron has to down-vote this. I think it is typical of the maturity of the right.

EDIT: it was ford87 who down-voted it. NO counter-argument.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
ford97(17) Disputed
1 point

{Then you must also admit republican policy is "very far from [ideal]."}

How can that be? This president has clearly proved he knows nothing of the economy or foreign policy for that matter.

{Jesus! How ignorant can you be? The presidency has exactly NO control over the gas prices.

I would suggest reading this.

Oil prices are a global phenomena. You have no point.}

NO control? Are you serious? We are sitting on 200 years of oil, do you really think that its cheaper to pay and drill in countries over 3000 miles away? NO, drilling here at home will cost LESS, which the president does have control over FYI, if the president can decide when go to congress (which obama had not for libya) to declare war or raise taxes then he can open oil reserves with no problem. I have a fine point. YOU have no point.

{$10 trillion. You have already discredited your argument.}

True, I am willing to accept when I am wrong.

{But why? Why is climbing? It's Obama isn't it. That nazi...always spending money.

Except it isn't Obama's policy. It's Bush's that is driving up the debt.

Almost all of our deficit can be attributed to four main spending binges:

1. Two unsustainable useless wars started, passed, and continued by republicans. It took Obama to end Iraq and create an endgame for Afghanistan pullout.

2. Two unsustainable, deficit exploding tax cuts for the rich. All passed, initiated, pushed, and signed by republicans.

3. An unsustainable social security increase. Take a guess as to who passed it?

4. An unsustainable Medicare Part D expansion, the single largest entitlement increase in United States history, and likely world history. Republicans sure are anti-entitlement small government fiscal conservatives aren't they...

-

But don't take my word for it. Here is Obama vs. Bush New Spending.

Obama is at a net $350 billion in non-recession spending (projected out for EIGHT years). Bush spent $4 trillion in the same time period.

Now look me in the eyes and call Obama a big spender.}

Ok I will,

1. Don't EVER call Iraq a stupid war, if you think going to search and destroy osama bin laden in Bush's war was stupid well your very undereducated. We didn't just roll into iraq with tanks for nothing, 9/11 triggered the war, If you can remember Republicans and democrats stood on the capitol with bush in and listened to the star spangled banner in agreement that war was absolutley necessary and then the democrats all ran away and blamed bush for the war. Democrats love to pay thanks to our shitty president for getting osama but what they dont realize this is BUSH'S WAR you all opposed and still do.

2. Do the poor create jobs? NO. Does the middle class, yea they contribute small business's but Steve Job's, Bill Gates, Alan Mulally, etc, the rich create the majority with jobs and what happens when you tax them to death, well they don't want to lose all the money of starting new corporations and new enterprises along with the taxes and regulations of the govt and they end up moving their business's to other countries where they can make a profit. Did you not read the part where 50% of Americans dont pay taxes and the rich make up for the 20% that do?! and you want to tax them more!?

3. Aren't the democrats the ones who want to spend money they don't have?

4. So theres 1 liberal thing a republican did, what if we added up all the shitty euro-style policies dems keep wanting to ram down the taxpayers throats? Look what each side spent it on, Bush's was the necessary war and obama's was his failed stimulus bill and obamacare that 60% of Americans want repealed TODAY?

{Who said liberals find it attractive?!?!?!

Liberals were AGAINST THE WARS!

AGAINST THE BUSH TAX CUTS.

Where have you been living. Why do you think they are calling on revenue increases? To cut the deficit that Bush created from a projected surplus}

Ok first of all, incorrect liberals were for the war in 2001 and then they backed out of it blaming it on bush in ...2001.5.

Why raise taxes, CUT USELESS SPENDING, for example funding the egyptian military when they we just had to pay 5 million dollars to release American hostages from egypt!?!? the should FUND THEIR OWN DAMN SELVES!

YES the righties wanted taxes for the poor, CAUSE THEY DONT PAY ANY! GENIUS!

What was there to think about? was it that hard to give the go ahead to kill osama? If it haden't been for this war you were all against we would have never got him!!!

I ask you, can you look me in the eyes and tell me obama isn't the biggest screw up next to jimmy carter?

2 years ago | Side: No


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.