Democratic Primary Debate Oct. 30

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by halfprep455, Oct 30, 2007.

  1. halfprep455 macrumors regular

    halfprep455

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland USA
    #1
    Who do you think won the most recent Democratic debate? Personally I think Edwards and Obama finally got the nerve to attack Clinton and expose her for what she is.
     
  2. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #2
    And I still don't think it's going to do a thing to prevent her from getting the nomination.
     
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    Or the White House...
     
  4. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #4
    Actually, watching the heat turned on her rather than the Republicans might be a welcome change. The rabid, far left will turn into a frothing feeding frenzy when they realize that they are just going to get more of the same, but with higher taxes.
     
  5. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #5
    Higher taxes in the USA are needed right now, unless of course the Federal Government can get spending in line (unlikely). The finances are in a major mess, and with the threat of recession looming things aren't looking good.

    Face it though. Whoever gets the Democratic nomination is going to take the White House. Bush has destroyed the Republicans chances.
     
  6. Airforce macrumors 6502a

    Airforce

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    #6
    Didn't Edwards say something along the lines:

    :confused:

    That is just not possible. I'd like to believe he would do it, but no. Not going to happen.

    I really can't say someone came out a winner. I personally don't like Obama as a speaker. He just didn't seem as well spoken on the issues. What I did like about this debate, though, is the continual bashing of the current administration. Hell yes we need to get rid of no bid contracts! We need less war spending, more "home improvement". No Child Left Behind needs to be kicked to the curb or changed dramatically. Stop letting big business run America.

    I hope the next president that we(speaking to the US citizens) elect will actually take care of the issues.
     
  7. bowens macrumors 6502a

    bowens

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Location:
    Trenton, FL
    #7
    Except when Clinton does it, right? I think it's funny how all of these dems are complaining about things Bush has done, no bid contracts to Haliburton (Bill Clinton did the same), wire tapping with no court order (again Bill did that same thing first). Bush is just going on precedent set by the previous administration but he is getting blasted for it while everyone let it slide during the Clinton years.
     
  8. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #8
    So what you're saying is that because the American public in general weren't aware that these practices were going on 10 years ago, they have no right to demand that the current administration or any future one refrain from pursuing them. This isn't a "but, but, but Clinton!!" moment. It's a major issue with the way the USA is being governed and it needs to be sorted. With an election looming, now is the time to ensure candidates commit to doing just that.
     
  9. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #9
    Based on the fact that when tax rates go down (or stay down) revenues go up, I think that the only thing the country needs is a little restraint on the spending. No one has ever taxed their way to prosperity.
     
  10. bowens macrumors 6502a

    bowens

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Location:
    Trenton, FL
    #10
    No, I'm saying that people did know about it when Clinton did it. The media did know, they just didn't care. They weren't out looking for anything to criticize the administration with.

    So you admit, then, that Clinton was wrong doing these things?
     
  11. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #11
    Totally agree. However, I'm quite certain we'll disagree on what needs cutting so let's leave it at that :D
    Any administration doing those things is wrong. Both go against the supposed ideals of the United States.
     
  12. Airforce macrumors 6502a

    Airforce

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    #12
    These things tend to come into view when you have spending in the billions per week while the country is already running on credit.

    How can you even argue with this? We are talking about saving money here by relinquishing these contracts. What the hell is wrong with saving a buck?
     
  13. bowens macrumors 6502a

    bowens

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Location:
    Trenton, FL
    #13
    I don't think every contract should be no bid. Most should not. But there are certain times when there is no time to go through the bidding process. That's when no bid contracts are necessary. When there is a town without electricity do you think they should go through a two week bidding process or go with somebody today who they know can get the job done quickly?
     
  14. Airforce macrumors 6502a

    Airforce

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    #14
    See, that's not an effective argument. Emergency situations like the one you've noted above would be taken care of in advance, with much planning involved. This is how it is done on Air Force bases and I'm sure outside them.
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    So- how many people have borrowed and spent (with no limits) their way to properity?
     
  16. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #16
    Rupert Murdoch?
     
  17. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #17
    Excluding the "with no limits" part, most successful businesses.
     
  18. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #18
    Most succesfull businesses don't blow their investor's money. They invest in their product, people and infrastructure. What Republicans would call "socialism".

    America is a bad investment right now.
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    Except most successful businiesses actually produce something.
     
  20. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #20
    You'll get no argument from me if we were to cut back the federal government to the bare bones of Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    Yet, you seem to be perfectly happy with the Bush administration spending us into oblivion. Funny, coming from someone whose main complaint against Democrats is fiscal responsibility. The bill's coming whether you like it or not. We'll have to pay it eventually.
     
  22. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #22
    When did I say I was happy with Bush's lack of a veto pen during this first administration or his use of it now? I'm angrier at Congress about this than I am the President even though I think that he should have vetoes a lot during his first term to hold their feet to the fire.

    I think they are all pigs at the trough. Some have just been feeding at it longer than others.
     
  23. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    Do I really have to go find that for you? I believe you even went so far as to say you were only slightly disappointed with Bush's performance. Am I wrong?
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    Rabid far left? Of course they will, unlike some Republicans who still support this administration and help to enable it's mistakes. The left doesn't like her. A lot of people don't like her. I'm hoping she doesn't win. If she does, and she makes the same mistakes, most of us will criticize. She has a lot to prove, and hopefully we do hold her feet to the fire. But if she doesn't, why do I have a feeling most of you who are saying now that we shouldn't be criticizing the Pres (at least GW) will suddenly change their tunes, the way you still criticize Bill?

    But we'll still hate the Republicans thanks to the current administration and it's enablers in Congress.

    First of all, some links would be nice (preferably from legitimate sources), otherwise I'm calling shenanigans.

    But even if that was true, and maybe it is, I don't think anyone here would defend it. Most of us have criticized Hillary already, and still criticize Bill, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Everything I've read about this seems to indicate that while Clinton did some questionable things, the Bush administration has turned it into an artform, used far more freely. Plus, Clinton isn't in charge right now, Bush is, and he's the one pulling this stuff right now. I wouldn't have defended Clinton then, and I don't agree with Bush doing it now. Maybe you're saying it's ok because Clinton may have done it. Maybe you're saying Bush is just as bad. Maybe you're just falling back on that old distraction technique where we stop talking about your guy, who is doing the indefensible. I don't know. But it doesn't excuse anything. Trying to make this about someone else who isn't in charge is kinda disingenuous, no?

    Besides, isn't Airforce a Republican (or used to be)?

    We aren't exactly prosperous right now are we? Didn't the deficit go down under Clinton, and up under both Bush's and Reagan. You could blame it on the Congress, but how do you explain when GW and the Repubs had all 3 and it went up? Or if it goes down under 3 with Dems in charge? And I don't know about you, but my taxes really haven't gone down very much under Bush, while every other cost has skyrocketed (ie gas, which also makes other costs go up)?

    Plus, didn't revenue also go up under Clinton, while pork went down?

    They don't need to look for anything to criticize this administration. There's so much, a lot of it is even completely missed by the MSM. Are you really trying to say the media is just out to get Bush? That there aren't enough legitimate reasons to dislike this administration. Because, um, there are. Take a look around here for some examples.

    If true, you won't find any here defending it, try as you might.
     
  25. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #25
    Uh, yes we are. Even at our worst economic times there are like 50 countries that would give their left nut to have our economy. It's all relative I guess.
     

Share This Page