"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Another reason to vote against him... imo.B. W. wrote:Recent poll states that Obama has a 70 percent Approval rate amongst Muslims....
-
-
-
Even though Bush was no fiscal conservative, Obama has taken it to a new level. Also remember that we have had Democrat congress since 2007.Seraph wrote:The way I see it, there was already enough debt to last until our great grandchildren prior to Obama's presidency thanks to George W Bush and his strategy to enter two wars without raising taxes to pay for it. The republican solution was to basically not raise taxes and pretend to want spending cuts without actually following through with them and that is still their solution. At the very least, Obama is the lesser of several evils. Solutions to saving the economy are going to require a lot of spending no matter what it is, as it seems just cutting spending until we're able to repay the debt and generate significant revenue would require an extreme amount of sacrifices.You have got to be kidding me. Two stimulus packages and a 3rd one on the way that will put our great grandchildren in debt is not enough? He prints money faster than the printers can churn them out. The effects of his (dire) fiscal policies will be felt for generations to come.
Also, thanks for the great post Bart. Ron Paul actually slipped my mind, he would probably be the republican choice for me if I were to vote for one. Mitt Romney isn't an impossible choice but it isn't likely. Newt Gingrich or Michelle Bachman, probably not. Sarah Palin...lol
Ouch!!August wrote:Even though Bush was no fiscal conservative, Obama has taken it to a new level. Also remember that we have had Democrat congress since 2007.Seraph wrote:The way I see it, there was already enough debt to last until our great grandchildren prior to Obama's presidency thanks to George W Bush and his strategy to enter two wars without raising taxes to pay for it. The republican solution was to basically not raise taxes and pretend to want spending cuts without actually following through with them and that is still their solution. At the very least, Obama is the lesser of several evils. Solutions to saving the economy are going to require a lot of spending no matter what it is, as it seems just cutting spending until we're able to repay the debt and generate significant revenue would require an extreme amount of sacrifices.You have got to be kidding me. Two stimulus packages and a 3rd one on the way that will put our great grandchildren in debt is not enough? He prints money faster than the printers can churn them out. The effects of his (dire) fiscal policies will be felt for generations to come.
Also, thanks for the great post Bart. Ron Paul actually slipped my mind, he would probably be the republican choice for me if I were to vote for one. Mitt Romney isn't an impossible choice but it isn't likely. Newt Gingrich or Michelle Bachman, probably not. Sarah Palin...lol
I agree with you that it's a shame he supports abortion. The president doesn't have the final say in the matter though, and right now there are more urgent issues so I'll still vote for a president who supports it's legalization if I like them otherwise.If fiscal policy is the main issue I'll take a conservative or republican who is for lowering taxes and reducing government spending any day (knowing they're not perfect). The single most important issue for me is abortion. I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who supports it and Obama is a militant supporter.
So? Most Musilms in this country are not terrorists who wish ill-will toward America. He's shown them a lot more respect than Bush so it's understandable that they seem him as a breath of fresh air. Even if the religion has completely false theology, I think (most) American Muslims are still rational human beings and a president shouldn't be dismissed on the grounds of being liked by Muslims.Recent poll states that Obama has a 70 percent Approval rate amongst Muslims....
It definately is a big issue that needs to be solved and is points against Obama. Though, I think that graph has a tad amount of bias in the date range being shown. If you display earlier dates, you can see that it's nowhere near the highest deficit that the US has ever had and while bad, it doesn't look like doomsday for the US.Even though Bush was no fiscal conservative, Obama has taken it to a new level. Also remember that we have had Democrat congress since 2007.
I beg to differ. The president has a direct impact on abortion's legal status via the appointment of supreme court judges.Seraph wrote:I agree with you that it's a shame he supports abortion. The president doesn't have the final say in the matter though, and right now there are more urgent issues so I'll still vote for a president who supports it's legalization if I like them otherwise.If fiscal policy is the main issue I'll take a conservative or republican who is for lowering taxes and reducing government spending any day (knowing they're not perfect). The single most important issue for me is abortion. I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who supports it and Obama is a militant supporter.
Dead on Narnia4, just read today that her own cabinet and backbenchers are asking her to leave not that it would make much difference with the way the parliament is at the moment anyway.narnia4 wrote:You're probably in Australia talking about Julia Gillard, right? She has a man as a "domestic partner" instead of a husband and she doesn't believe in God... that certainly wouldn't fly in America (of course judging by her comments that I read you still have to be careful what you say).
I was actually more interested in politics in my mid-teens, some of these people are so self-serving that the belief that they profess doesn't really seem to make any difference.
First, I don't understand why you changed Democratic to Democrat, when there is no grammatical reason to do so. This is often done by the right in America, and I still don't have a clue why. Is it because it ends in rat and people dislike rats? Or is it because changing Democratic to Democrat makes people forget the positive sounding word "Democratic" by replacing it with a neutral word (with negative tones attached to it). I dislike this misuse of psychology to unconsciously swey our opinions. Second, if you want to actually resolve this, it could be done almost immediately by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. If you'd end the senseless wars as a bonus, you'd probably be running a huge surplus. However, because the "Socialist Marxist Kenyan Muslim Antichrist" Barack Obama is so weak that he's unable to resist the Republic party (see what I did there, following in the footsteps of Democratic --> Democrat) Republican economic policies are still in effect. In consequance, he extended the Bush tax cuts and gave Republicans everything they wanted and more while getting nothing in return during the debt ceiling fiasco, just to name a few examples.August wrote:Even though Bush was no fiscal conservative, Obama has taken it to a new level. Also remember that we have had Democrat congress since 2007.
(Picture)
. On a more serious note, Ron Paul is the best Republican candidate because he'd put a stop to American imperialism, end the war on drugs, and best of all, you know he's principled and not bought. I don't agree with his minarchist views, but he's principled and not corrupt, and I think that might do you guys a world of good. Though I would still rather vote for a liberal, preferably someone who's way to the left of me.That depends on whether or not you think it is very democratic.vendace20 wrote:First, I don't understand why you changed Democratic to Democrat, when there is no grammatical reason to do so.August wrote:Even though Bush was no fiscal conservative, Obama has taken it to a new level. Also remember that we have had Democrat congress since 2007.
(Picture)
It seems you don't have much of a clue about anything. If your opinion is swayed by the removal of three letters then you seem to be pretty weak-willed.vendace20 wrote:First, I don't understand why you changed Democratic to Democrat, when there is no grammatical reason to do so. This is often done by the right in America, and I still don't have a clue why. Is it because it ends in rat and people dislike rats? Or is it because changing Democratic to Democrat makes people forget the positive sounding word "Democratic" by replacing it with a neutral word (with negative tones attached to it). I dislike this misuse of psychology to unconsciously swey our opinions.August wrote:Even though Bush was no fiscal conservative, Obama has taken it to a new level. Also remember that we have had Democrat congress since 2007.
(Picture)
Oh really? The problem is a spending problem, not an income problem. But I guess that more government spending of the people's money is the solution to the problem for any socialist. It was not a problem under Bush and a Republican congress (see graph above).Second, if you want to actually resolve this, it could be done almost immediately by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
That's right, we should just let terrorists attack whomever they want without consequences, and let dictators kill and murder their people while supporting those terrorists.If you'd end the senseless wars as a bonus, you'd probably be running a huge surplus.
You are so cute with your words there, I feel so insulted. And if you think that the current economic policies are in any way conservative, you are delusional.However, because the "Socialist Marxist Kenyan Muslim Antichrist" Barack Obama is so weak that he's unable to resist the Republic party (see what I did there, following in the footsteps of Democratic --> Democrat) Republican economic policies are still in effect.
Typical foreigner viewpoint which just gets all the liberal news. So let me understand this, at a time when unemployment is at its highest in many years, there are record numbers of bankruptcies and loan defaults, government spending and deficits are out of control, the best solution is to raise taxes, and take even more money away from those who actually create jobs? Anyway, removing the tax cuts will have a very small effect on the deficit. Spending needs to be controlled.In consequance, he extended the Bush tax cuts and gave Republicans everything they wanted and more while getting nothing in return during the debt ceiling fiasco, just to name a few examples.
Like Obama and his congress destroying America's credit rating and setting record deficits? Whoever the next president is will have to deal with that mess.Oh, and me personally, if I were living in America, I'd probably vote for Sarah Palin because I have a very dark and perverse desire to see what sort of horrible, irrepairable damage she could do in four short years
Ron Paul is a nutcase, but that says a lot about you. Imperialism? Really? If America was imperialist we would maybe have the 57 states that Obama referred to.On a more serious note, Ron Paul is the best Republican candidate because he'd put a stop to American imperialism, end the war on drugs, and best of all, you know he's principled and not bought.
Just like in Britain, where the Conservatives have inherited an economic mess from the left, who have no clue how to govern.August wrote:Like Obama and his congress destroying America's credit rating and setting record deficits? Whoever the next president is will have to deal with that mess.
With all due respect, you obviously have no idea how much unconscious processes influence our everyday decisions and behaviour. In this case, as an example, the word "Democratic" directly connects with the very highy esteed word "democracy", and unconsciously forms the connection between the Democratic party and "the people" (demo-cratic). Now, if we replace the word with a meaningless phrase like Democrat, it effectively prevents people from, in the unconscious, making the connection. It might also have something to do with the fact that it ends in "rat", and since people dislike rats this might actually change the meaning from a positive one to a thorougly negative. And, if I may, the question I proposed wasn't a rhetorical one. I can make plausible psyhocological hypothesis any day of the week, but I really want to know why many conservatives change the word democratic to democrat. However, this is a somewhat irrelevant point, unless this change is brought into common everyday lexicon.August wrote:It seems you don't have much of a clue about anything. If your opinion is swayed by the removal of three letters then you seem to be pretty weak-willed
It's genuinely interesting that you'd hint at me being a socialist (if I understood right), when I actually have indicated quite the opposite. Although I consider the Communist Manifesto (among others) to be very good, sophisticated books that deal with the orchestrated exploitation of proletariat by the bourgeoisise, the solution to the problem (state-organized socialism) to be misguided. It's good that the books highlighted the problem that had existed for the entire history of civilized humanity, but I don't agree with communism (however beautiful it might sound). I think the governments we have here in the Nordic contries are quite good (a mild version of social democracy). I won't address the straw man since I see reason for it, but I'll just note that everyone understands that increases in spending have to be met with increased taxes. However, many American conservatives seem to think that taxes don't have to be raised (ans shouldn't be), and that becoming a minarchist pseudo-state is the only solution to America's problems. And to expand further, Obama just agreed to cut spending by several trillion dollars even though he got no tax increases at all. How is this not satisactory?Oh really? The problem is a spending problem, not an income problem. But I guess that more government spending of the people's money is the solution to the problem for any socialist. It was not a problem under Bush and a Republican congress (see graph above).
You're not fighting a conventional war. This is no second world war. The "war on terrorism" can't be won by conquering countries, unless you decide to conquer the entire world (and even then it wouldn't be 100% effective). What's more effective, conquering random countries that had done nothing against America (Iraq), or de-radicalizing those who are in danger of being recruited into terrorist organizations. America has gathered many enemies around the world because of its very interventionist foreign poliy, and I'd actually say that America is actually helping terrorist organizations by turning potential allies (young muslims) into bitter enemies with an unquenchable hatred for "The Great Satan". However, the recent uprisings in the Middle East (particularly in Egypt) have given me hope that young muslims around the world are turning away from violent attacks against any perceived enemies and have instead begun following the example set forth by Gandhi, among others. Also, it's interesting to note that there have been far more terrorist attacks conducted by far-right radicals than by muslim terrorists on American soil since 9/11.That's right, we should just let terrorists attack whomever they want without consequences, and let dictators kill and murder their people while supporting those terrorists.
You should note, each of the adjectives I used has been used on numerous occasions to describe Obama by some conservatives (I forgot the obvious Hitler/nazi, my mistake). Also, even though argumentum ad hominems are easy to do, I would stick to hard facts and statistics in a debate of any sort. Like I said, "he extended the Bush tax cuts and gave Republicans everything they wanted and more while getting nothing in return during the debt ceiling fiasco, just to name a few examples." I didn't even go into how much of an utter weak failure the health care "reform" bill was, but that is another debate for another time.You are so cute with your words there, I feel so insulted. And if you think that the current economic policies are in any way conservative, you are delusional.
"Putin, this is alpha delta. The American is on to us. What should we do?" On a more serious note, I actaully base my opinions on any given subject on facts, and I never believe anything (from a liberal or conservative) until I see some objective evidence to support it. But even if "the liberal news" had brainwashed me, that wouldn't change the facts. "As we all know, reality has a well known liberal bias." Also, I'd like to note that the word "millionaires" has been, rather cleverly to be honest, changed to "job creators". I think this was a brilliant application of psychology, although it was perhaps a little unfair. We're mostly talking about millionaires here (most of which have inherited at least a portion of their fortune), and even the "job creators" (CEO's) aren't going to stop creating jobs because their personal tax rate goes up a bit. How does the CEO's (or any other millionaire's) personal tax percentage extend into an unwillingness to create more jobs to get more money? Also, I think Warren Buffet raised an interesting point in the article he wrote, when he said his tax percentage (17.7%) is lower than his receptionist's (30&). I'm not an expert in American tax codes, but from this and other cases I've heard of it seems you actaully have a regressive tax (Warren Buffet has actaully flat out stated this many times). I view this as grotesque, but many American apparently do not. Also, why is your payroll tax capped at a fairly low point?Typical foreigner viewpoint which just gets all the liberal news. So let me understand this, at a time when unemployment is at its highest in many years, there are record numbers of bankruptcies and loan defaults, government spending and deficits are out of control, the best solution is to raise taxes, and take even more money away from those who actually create jobs? Anyway, removing the tax cuts will have a very small effect on the deficit. Spending needs to be controlled.
Well, technically he's not destroying America's credit rating. Since his precidency only one rating agency has downgraded America's standing, and that was from an AAA to an AA+. It's worth noting that before the econoic crisis the same firm willingly and knowingly deceived Americans by giving false AAA ratings to many that didn't deserve them.Like Obama and his congress destroying America's credit rating and setting record deficits? Whoever the next president is will have to deal with that mess.
I like honesty, so I'll be honest here. There are really only two things I agree with: 1) Full drug legalization. 2) Stopping America's interventionist foreign police. But on another note, America has gotten way too involved in the affairs of foreign nations. In the 1900's alone, America materially supported many violent overthrows all around the world with fairly sinister and selfish motives. As a fairly obvious example, they trained rebels in the Middle East (like Afghanistan), and what came of that?Ron Paul is a nutcase, but that says a lot about you. Imperialism? Really? If America was imperialist we would maybe have the 57 states that Obama referred to.
