A Challenge to Obama Supporters

[KMAN]

KMAN,

Do you really understand how logic of argument actually works?

Apparently, based on the above, you really don't.

You assert a proposition, it's not up to those who read it to refute it.

It's up to you to prove those assetions true.

For example, if I asset that McCain is a Martian, I don't win the debate if you can find "a website" that refutes that.

I can make a logical argument if I can PROVE that to be true.

So are you saying that one of this is true? Obama has admitted himself he is friends with Ayers...

Everything posted above is common knowledge if you have been paying attention to politics the past year or so.

 

[SwingVoter]

With your view of history you're obviously a Democrat party hack.

LOL I've contributed to a number of GOP Senate campaigns, will be voting for GOP candidates in the Senate and House this year, and supported Bush in 2000.
As a deficit hawk, I like the results we've gotten by combining Dem presidents with GOP Congressmen.

If the GOP had another candidate anywhere near the caliber of Reagan, he'd have my vote in a second. But please tell me, when the current president has increased gov't spending as a share of GDP at a much faster rate than Clinton, how is that conservative?

 

[KMAN]

I am hoping he is liberal given the failure of conservative governance. But to address one of your nonsensical BS lies:

"Stanley Kurtz and the Anti-Obama Smear Machine" by John K. Wilson

"National Review writer Stanley Kurtz put himself into the headlines earlier this month by pushing the guilt-by-association link between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama because they both worked on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to improve public schools. When Kurtz went to look at the Annenberg files at the University of Illinois at Chicago, librarians temporarily blocked access out of concerns about whether they had the proper permission to open them to the public. UIC quickly changed their dumb decision, and this week Kurtz went to read the Annenberg papers.

Previously, Kurtz had speculated that "access to the CAC records promises to provide a treasure trove of documentary evidence."

And what did he find? Absolutely nothing.

Kurtz's grand conclusion: Ayers and Obama went to the same meetings! And this brilliant attack by Kurtz: Obama is "comfortable working with people" on the left. Well, that's no surprise, since he's also comfortable working with people on the far right.

Unlike Limbaugh, I listened to Kurtz on Rosenberg's show. More than half the show was devoted to Kurtz's laughable attacks on Obama (in one case, Kurtz started reading from an innocuous book on global justice that he admitted Obama probably never read, but which he linked to Obama because Obama knows the man who runs the foundation that produced the book)."

page down
Obama Politics

I think the realtionship is a littel more than you want to admit...

The Truth Finally Begins To Emerge On Obama And Ayers :: Political News and commentaries :: Hyscience

 

[KMAN]

You start out with a statement that assumes being liberal is bad. What kind of response do you expect.

If you look at other sources, he ranked 15 or 16 in 2006.

You defend all the lies that McCain has told and denied.

proof please....

 

[KMAN]

I care a lot more about my job, the economy, and the budget deficit than William Ayers, or Obama's friends from Chicago.

And let's talk about tax increases. Bill Clinton gave us one of the largest in history in 1993, after which 23 million new jobs were created. George Bush cut taxes, and has presided over the creation of just 4 million jobs, and crushed the dollar in the process by blowing up the budget.

Maybe the very sharp contrast between the economic performance of Clinton and Bush is why Republicans would rather talk about a Chicago professor's rants from 1970 than the economy of 2008. But unless I can tell my credit card company to accept my personal thoughts on Jeremiah Wright in lieu of a payment this month, I'll keep focusing on the economy.

I guess you are ignoring all of the other points in the post about tax increases... I guess if you are cool with increasing taxes then there is nothing I can say to change your mind. I will just say thank you in advance for paying for my children's school, healthcare, and all other expenses deemed to be rights by liberals...THANK YOU!

 

[SwingVoter]

So are you saying that one of this is true? Obama has admitted himself he is friends with Ayers...

No question he was friends with him, there's nothing to refute, and it's sickening. But how do you think it will impact how he'll govern?

Do you think he'll be even more liberal than Bush/Mac on pissing off the Pakis so we can get Bin Laden? I don't.

Do you think he'll be even more liberal than Bush/Mac on increasing the deficit? I don't.

Do you think his job creation record will be worse than Bush's? I don't.

So yeah, his relationship with Ayers is not a good thing. But 4 more years of anemic economic growth and large deficits would be much worse.

 

[xsited1]

And let's talk about tax increases. Bill Clinton gave us one of the largest in history in 1993, after which 23 million new jobs were created.

Tax increases create jobs? So you place a bigger financial burden on businesses and working people, and somehow there are more jobs? That's gotta be the funniest thing I've heard this week.

 

[DiamondDave]

No question he was friends with him, there's nothing to refute, and it's sickening. But how do you think it will impact how he'll govern?

Do you think he'll be even more liberal than Bush/Mac on pissing off the Pakis so we can get Bin Laden? I don't.

Is appeasement and a yellow streak better than pissing off another country? Not necessarily... and I would dare to say actually MORE harmful in the long term

Do you think he'll be even more liberal than Bush/Mac on increasing the deficit? I don't.

HELL YES HE WILL... his new programs do not get funded out of thin air... and even if he does the horrendous thing that Clinton did, in severely hurting the military with cuts, Obama will still cost us more

Do you think his job creation record will be worse than Bush's? I don't.

Try and understand what a job is... jobs are not 'created' by the President... though all like to claim positive news about jobs as being a result of their efforts and their position.... BUSINESS creates jobs... not the President.. not government (beyond government jobs)

So yeah, his relationship with Ayers is not a good thing. But 4 more years of anemic economic growth and large deficits would be much worse.

It is a horrible thing... and 4 years of an economic and governmental system that more closely mirrors Marxist socialism than freedom in a republic system (with emphasis on personal responsibility and smaller government) would indeed be MUCH worse

 

[SwingVoter]

I guess you are ignoring all of the other points in the post about tax increases... I guess if you are cool with increasing taxes then there is nothing I can say to change your mind. I will just say thank you in advance for paying for my children's school, healthcare, and all other expenses deemed to be rights by liberals...THANK YOU!

Very nice of you, but don't thank me, thank your children who will be paying for W's leftist spending agenda that included Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, AIDS relief in Africa, all while he refused to find any tax revenue to offset these programs which have added nearly $100 billion to the annual deficit on their own.

I don't like all these gov't programs, but if both the Dems and GOP insist on supporting them, I'd rather pay less for them now by sending my taxes to the American government, than more in the future by sending interest payments to Chinese central bankers.

 

[glockmail]

LOL I've contributed to a number of GOP Senate campaigns, will be voting for GOP candidates in the Senate and House this year, and supported Bush in 2000.
As a deficit hawk, I like the results we've gotten by combining Dem presidents with GOP Congressmen.

If the GOP had another candidate anywhere near the caliber of Reagan, he'd have my vote in a second. But please tell me, when the current president has increased gov't spending as a share of GDP at a much faster rate than Clinton, how is that conservative?

Please tell me what the current President has to do with the November 08 election. Or what the deficit has to do with economic growth.

 

[SwingVoter]

Tax increases create jobs? So you place a bigger financial burden on businesses and working people, and somehow there are more jobs?

How has weakening the dollar through Bush's borrow-and-spend Socialism created jobs?

Job creation accelerated after Clinton lifted the top tax rate from 36 to 39.6 percent, and removed the $135,000 earnings cap on the 1.45% tax for Medicare withholdings. Increasing marginal rates a few points has not proven to have any negative effect on the economy, but rather a great effect on reducing the deficit, which in turn keeps the currency strong and interest rates low. And that provides a much deeper foundation for economic growth, and gives businesses much more confidence to invest and hire than does a one-time rebate check.

 

[SwingVoter]

and 4 years of an economic and governmental system that more closely mirrors Marxist socialism

No one since LBJ has been more Socialist than Bush. Medicare Part D (drug program) was a permanent expansion of the fed gov't that will wind up costing trillions, far more than the Iraq war or the current bailout bill. Add to it No Child Left Behind and his other social engineering plans, and you have an innovative form of Socialism, in that instead of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, it redistributes wealth from future American taxpayers to current Chinese central bankers.

I hate all forms of Socialism, but one that borrows trillions of dollars from my kids is much worse than one that adds 3.6 points to Donald Trump's marginal tax rate.

 

[SwingVoter]

Please tell me what the current President has to do with the November 08 election. Or what the deficit has to do with economic growth.

Bush has added $3 trillion to the outstanding government debt, which is a great threat to future interest rates, and forces us to spend nearly half of all personal income tax receipts on interest payments to government bondholders, many of whom don't spend those dollars in our country.

In response to this ridiculous drain on our financial resources, Mac's response has been to propose new spending, and showing a lack of mathematical skill, economic knowledge, or both, has somehow determined earmarks are the problem. Yet earmarks account for a tiny sliver of the overall budget, so he's got no legit plan to reduce the deficit, and the drain on our economy created by paying so much interest to foreign debtholders.

 

[SwingVoter]

IBUSINESS creates jobs... not the President.. not government (beyond government jobs)

You're absolutely right, couldn't agree more. And under Clinton, government accounted for just 8% of new jobs, under Bush it's accounted for over 30%.

 

[glockmail]

Bush has added $3 trillion to the outstanding government debt, which is a great threat to future interest rates, and forces us to spend nearly half of all personal income tax receipts on interest payments to government bondholders, many of whom don't spend those dollars in our country.

In response to this ridiculous drain on our financial resources, Mac's response has been to propose new spending, and showing a lack of mathematical skill, economic knowledge, or both, has somehow determined earmarks are the problem. Yet earmarks account for a tiny sliver of the overall budget, so he's got no legit plan to reduce the deficit, and the drain on our economy created by paying so much interest to foreign debtholders.

Reagan invested in programs that were constitutionally mandated (the military), causing confidence and the economy to grow, which ultimately reduced deficits. I think Bush tried to do the same thing but with programs not within the constitutional mandate, a strategy which was doomed to fail. I don't agree with the Republican spending, but I do know that Democrats, when unabated, will spend more and on programs which are further and further from the federal goverments mandated role.

I also know that Democrats will increase taxes, which is always a recipe for a slow or backwards economy. I also know that the Democrats have an ultimate goal to maneuver the tax code so that at least 1/2 of all voters aren't paying anything, thereby ensuring their power until the whole ship sinks.

 

[DiamondDave]

You're absolutely right, couldn't agree more. And under Clinton, government accounted for just 8% of new jobs, under Bush it's accounted for over 30%.

link?

 

[DiamondDave]

No one since LBJ has been more Socialist than Bush. Medicare Part D (drug program) was a permanent expansion of the fed gov't that will wind up costing trillions, far more than the Iraq war or the current bailout bill. Add to it No Child Left Behind and his other social engineering plans, and you have an innovative form of Socialism, in that instead of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, it redistributes wealth from future American taxpayers to current Chinese central bankers.

I hate all forms of Socialism, but one that borrows trillions of dollars from my kids is much worse than one that adds 3.6 points to Donald Trump's marginal tax rate.

Yet the left claiming Bush is far right?? Which is it?

And if you think Bush's economics are socialist.... wait for Vladimir Obama

 

[editec]

So are you saying that one of this is true? Obama has admitted himself he is friends with Ayers...

I'm saying that you need to prove you assertions and thinking that people have to disprove them is bass-ackwards logic.

Everything posted above is common knowledge if you have been paying attention to politics the past year or so.

Common knowledge?

Facts without editorial can be common knowledge.

Very little that you wrote is simple fact.

Most of might be fact, but then you screw your argument by adding your editorial biases to those facts and think that by defying people to disprove the facts, you have proven that your editorial biases MUST be true.

Logical argument just doesn't work that way.

 

[xsited1]

How has weakening the dollar through Bush's borrow-and-spend Socialism created jobs?

Job creation accelerated after Clinton lifted the top tax rate from 36 to 39.6 percent, and removed the $135,000 earnings cap on the 1.45% tax for Medicare withholdings. Increasing marginal rates a few points has not proven to have any negative effect on the economy, but rather a great effect on reducing the deficit, which in turn keeps the currency strong and interest rates low. And that provides a much deeper foundation for economic growth, and gives businesses much more confidence to invest and hire than does a one-time rebate check.

You are confused. Increasing taxes ALWAYS results in a burden for businesses and taxpayers. The higher tax rates that Clinton imposed resulted in a DECREASE in tax revenues for the government. The reason why Clinton was able to get away with it was because the economy was in a growth period and he reduced overall government spending during his term by a little less than 1% (compared with double-digit growth under Bush). Federal revenues didn't start to rise during Clinton's term until 1997 because the capital-gains tax was cut. Imagine how much more the economy would have grown had he decreased tax rates.

Of course, the problem with Bush is that he's a big spender, even bigger than LBJ, and he started a war.

 

[SwingVoter]

but I do know that Democrats, when unabated, will spend more and on programs which are further and further from the federal goverments mandated role.

Don't minimize Bob Dole's role in '93-94 crushing all the Clinton spending bills as a minority leader. With the appalling Frist/Hastert spending duo out of the picture, there'll be great opportunities for Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to kill spending bills they haven't had while Karl Rove's been breathing down their necks to support Bush's No Child Left Behind, Medicare Drug big spending agenda.