Anonymous
12/14/2011 21:17
Subject: Re:Questions for the liberals
Why does Bush being a bad president mean Obama is also not a bad president?
Anonymous
12/14/2011 20:20
Subject: Questions for the liberals
Look all, the OP is entitled to his opinion that Obama is a socialist. Most of us think that W was an iredeemable moron who surfed to power on the coat tails of his rich daddy and left us with a staggering deficit, a reeling economy and two quagmires. I'd take a socialist any day over that.
Anonymous
12/14/2011 20:14
Subject: Re:Questions for the liberals
I understand 100% what socialism is and I think Obama is likely a socialist. That does not mean he has implemented socialism, but it means I think he would like to, and would prefer that sort of social economic and political system.
Anonymous
12/14/2011 18:01
Subject: Questions for the liberals
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, if you're such a fool as to believe that Obama is a socialist - the man who gave the farm to the banks - there's no point in talking to you about the issues you raise. You're just looking for a fight.
I actually am a socialist and Obama is far far from a socialist.
Really, get your facts straight. You have had a pretty sloppy education if you don't understand the difference between economic systems. You should be ashamed of your ignorance.
Ah yes. The all knowing super smart liberal who loves to insult people.
NP. As unfathomable as it appears to you, ordinary people can comprehend what socialism is. It does not require omniscience.
Anonymous
12/14/2011 17:16
Subject: Questions for the liberals
Anonymous wrote:OP, if you're such a fool as to believe that Obama is a socialist - the man who gave the farm to the banks - there's no point in talking to you about the issues you raise. You're just looking for a fight.
I actually am a socialist and Obama is far far from a socialist.
Really, get your facts straight. You have had a pretty sloppy education if you don't understand the difference between economic systems. You should be ashamed of your ignorance.
Ah yes. The all knowing super smart liberal who loves to insult people.
Anonymous
12/14/2011 17:12
Subject: Questions for the liberals
OP, if you're such a fool as to believe that Obama is a socialist - the man who gave the farm to the banks - there's no point in talking to you about the issues you raise. You're just looking for a fight.
I actually am a socialist and Obama is far far from a socialist.
Really, get your facts straight. You have had a pretty sloppy education if you don't understand the difference between economic systems. You should be ashamed of your ignorance.
I actually am a socialist and Obama is far far from a socialist.
Really, get your facts straight. You have had a pretty sloppy education if you don't understand the difference between economic systems. You should be ashamed of your ignorance.
Anonymous
12/14/2011 16:24
Subject: Questions for the liberals
Anonymous wrote:Before we start I'll admit I truly believe that Obama is a socialist who does not believe in American execptionalism. I also believe if he had his way he would radically change this country. That being said I don't think he's been able to do much.
I believe you are a murderous psychopath who would kill us all, but your true desires have been stifled.
You, me, and The Shadow.
takoma
12/12/2011 14:47
Subject: Questions for the liberals
Anonymous wrote:takoma wrote:Anonymous wrote:OK so how much more? How much is "fair"? We didn't have this debate until Obama became president. So tell us, how much more is a "fair share"?
Assuming that the goal is a balanced budget, there is no single correct answer. But while I am not sure what the correct answer is, I definitely do not accept the Republican answer that the burden should be borne entirely by cutting government services to those hurting most so that the rich can continue the temporary Bush tax cuts.
Where did this asinine idea come from that government needs a balanced budget? What a stupid concept.
Recently, at least, it has come from the right, and Dems in Washington seem not to have the balls to dispute it. That's why I started with "Assuming". But if you are saying it's asinine to treat the national budget like a family budget, one that even refuses to take on a mortgage, I won't argue with you.
Anonymous
12/12/2011 14:24
Subject: Questions for the liberals
takoma wrote:Anonymous wrote:OK so how much more? How much is "fair"? We didn't have this debate until Obama became president. So tell us, how much more is a "fair share"?
Assuming that the goal is a balanced budget, there is no single correct answer. But while I am not sure what the correct answer is, I definitely do not accept the Republican answer that the burden should be borne entirely by cutting government services to those hurting most so that the rich can continue the temporary Bush tax cuts.
Where did this asinine idea come from that government needs a balanced budget? What a stupid concept.
Anonymous
12/12/2011 13:41
Subject: Questions for the liberals
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Before we start I'll admit I truly believe that Obama is a socialist who does not believe in American execptionalism. I also believe if he had his way he would radically change this country. That being said I don't think he's been able to do much. But here are my questions:
What do you mean by "social justice"?
What is enough "equality"?
By what objective standard does one test "fairness"?
Love to hear the answers.
How do you think Jesus answers those questions?
No conservative wants to be reminded about what Jesus thought when it comes to money, fairness, or social justice.
takoma
12/12/2011 12:47
Subject: Questions for the liberals
Anonymous wrote:OK so how much more? How much is "fair"? We didn't have this debate until Obama became president. So tell us, how much more is a "fair share"?
Assuming that the goal is a balanced budget, there is no single correct answer. But while I am not sure what the correct answer is, I definitely do not accept the Republican answer that the burden should be borne entirely by cutting government services to those hurting most so that the rich can continue the temporary Bush tax cuts.
Anonymous
12/12/2011 10:34
Subject: Re:Questions for the liberals
Now we're talking. As I stated in my post I believe he's socialist but due to our system of government he can't enact and fully Change our country. But he sure would love to.
Can you point to *anything* that supports this belief, other than it matches up nicely with the far right narrative?
Anonymous
12/12/2011 10:32
Subject: Questions for the liberals
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Please don't insult my intelligence. I asked questions to have a larger debate about values, not sling mud at the President. Just because I don't agree with him doesn't mean I hate Obama or accuse him of things he has not yet done.
That being said, many conservatives hate the bankers. Most of us were against a bailout without restrictions. DOn't confuse the politicians who need campaign contributions with actual people. But most of the "wealthy" are not bankers and don't work on WS. They are people who built their own companies mostly small business owners, they are risk takers who saw a need for a product or service and went for it because America is great like that.
And because America is so great like that and gave them such great opportunities, they should be more than willing to pay a little bit more to help put the country back on solid economic footing, since they've benefited disproportionately from the economic and foreign policies of the recent past.
Those who made their fortune here and then bellyache about being asked to pay more hate America.
OK so how much more? How much is "fair"? We didn't have this debate until Obama became president. So tell us, how much more is a "fair share"?
Anonymous
12/12/2011 10:32
Subject: Questions for the liberals
Anonymous wrote:Before we start I'll admit I truly believe that Obama is a socialist who does not believe in American execptionalism. I also believe if he had his way he would radically change this country. That being said I don't think he's been able to do much. But here are my questions:
What do you mean by "social justice"?
What is enough "equality"?
By what objective standard does one test "fairness"?
Love to hear the answers.
First, none of those questiosn you ask can be answered without context. For example, what is enough equality is highly dependent on the situation?
Second, fair's fair - you go first. What does "American exceptionalism" mean?
Anonymous
12/12/2011 10:14
Subject: Questions for the liberals
Anonymous wrote:Please don't insult my intelligence. I asked questions to have a larger debate about values, not sling mud at the President. Just because I don't agree with him doesn't mean I hate Obama or accuse him of things he has not yet done.
That being said, many conservatives hate the bankers. Most of us were against a bailout without restrictions. DOn't confuse the politicians who need campaign contributions with actual people. But most of the "wealthy" are not bankers and don't work on WS. They are people who built their own companies mostly small business owners, they are risk takers who saw a need for a product or service and went for it because America is great like that.
And because America is so great like that and gave them such great opportunities, they should be more than willing to pay a little bit more to help put the country back on solid economic footing, since they've benefited disproportionately from the economic and foreign policies of the recent past.
Those who made their fortune here and then bellyache about being asked to pay more hate America.