This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Lecks
I do disagree with you here.
Why are you against a leader of one nation bowing to a leader of another nation?
I dont know about you but i viewed it as a sign of respect not a sign of submission.
Depends on which way they bow.
Post by
Skyfire
What's wrong with doubling the national debt, providing it's for a good use?
Just because you don't agree with the purpose doesn't make it automatically wrong.
Debt at the country level is not necessarily bad, like it is at the household level.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What's wrong with doubling the national debt, providing it's for a good use?
Just because you don't agree with the purpose doesn't make it automatically wrong.
The point isn't that's it's bad or not. The point is that the debt was one of the biggest thing used against Bush. Then we get Obama doubling it overnight.
Again, the point isn't that Bush was greater than Obama or vice versa. I'm just trying to show the duplicitous standards used to judge them. As an independent, they're pretty obvious, but apparently not so to democrats and republicans respectively.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I do disagree with you here.
Why are you against a leader of one nation bowing to a leader of another nation?
I don't know about you but i viewed it as a sign of respect not a sign of submission.
Bowing is a sign of respect towards someone of higher authority than yourself or a sign of submitting yourself to their authority. This includes men bowing to women (being chivalrous, putting yourself at the service of the woman), stage-performers bowing (putting themselves at the "mercy" of the crowd), and bowing to monarchs (acknowledging their authority over you).
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Debt at the country level is not necessarily bad, like it is at the household level.
It's worse. No one out there to bail out the Government.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
What's wrong with doubling the national debt, providing it's for a good use?
Just because you don't agree with the purpose doesn't make it automatically wrong.
The point isn't that's it's bad or not. The point is that the debt was one of the biggest thing used against Bush. Then we get Obama doubling it overnight.
Again, the point isn't that Bush was greater than Obama or vice versa. I'm just trying to show the duplicitous standards used to judge them. As an independent, they're pretty obvious, but apparently not so to democrats and republicans respectively.
Who said that the debt was the biggest thing used against Bush? I certainly don't believe that.
Anyway, the list came across as 'all the things Obama has done wrong' (which is what it was), rather than demonstrating that he's done all the same things that Bush did too. So I was just trying to call you up on that.
Debt at the country level is not necessarily bad, like it is at the household level.
It's worse. No one out there to bail out the Government.
Not true. The wonderful thing about Government debt is that at the end of the day, all you US taxpayers and residents are going to be the ones to pay for the Government's debt, or bail it out, as such.
At the end of the day, if the US Government needs to make interest repayments on its debt, then it either raises taxes (you pay), or it prints more money (exchange rate plummets, and you pay if you head out of the country). But it remains perfectly capable of doing either, and due to the political sensitivity of doing the former, it's currently doing the latter.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Debt at the country level is not necessarily bad, like it is at the household level.
It's worse. No one out there to bail out the Government.
Not true. The wonderful thing about Government debt is that at the end of the day, all you US taxpayers and residents are going to be the ones to pay for the Government's debt, or bail it out, as such.
At the end of the day, if the US Government needs to make interest repayments on its debt, then it either raises taxes (you pay), or it prints more money (exchange rate plummets, and you pay if you head out of the country). But it remains perfectly capable of doing either, and due to the political sensitivity of doing the former, it's currently doing the latter.
We're not talking about debt to American businesses--that break's the family analogy Skyfire provided. If the Dad owes the kid the money, that's not that much of a problem.
We're talking about debt to other nations. And printing money does absolutely nothing to help our foreign debts, except make all the rest of the money worth less.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What's wrong with doubling the national debt, providing it's for a good use?
Just because you don't agree with the purpose doesn't make it automatically wrong.
The point isn't that's it's bad or not. The point is that the debt was one of the biggest thing used against Bush. Then we get Obama doubling it overnight.
Again, the point isn't that Bush was greater than Obama or vice versa. I'm just trying to show the duplicitous standards used to judge them. As an independent, they're pretty obvious, but apparently not so to democrats and republicans respectively.
Who said that the debt was the biggest thing used against Bush? I certainly don't believe that.
Anyway, the list came across as 'all the things Obama has done wrong' (which is what it was), rather than demonstrating that he's done all the same things that Bush did too. So I was just trying to call you up on that.
You've got to pay attention to the context I was replying to. You'll note the guy I replied to implied his own list of Bush facepalm moments. My listing them off wouldn't have done anything.
Secondly Bush has been called "The Mother of All Big Spenders."
Cris Edwards said "When he gives speeches now, you hear him bashing the Democrats on overspending. It sounds ridiculous, because we know he's a big spender."
"After running up $3 trillion in new debt - including more than half a trillion dollars for what some have called his flawed Iraq policy - some people find it astounding that the president is once again lecturing Congress about fiscal responsibility and fiscal priorities," stated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev).
Also,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/15/big-spender-debt-heads-home-to-texas/
and
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Post by
Squishalot
Biggest thing, I said, if you're asking me to look at context, then you need to too :P Internationally, we don't care about the debt.
From an international perspective, the biggest problem the world had with Bush was his willingness to get involved in things that weren't his business. His eagerness to 'fix' problems that didn't need necessarily need fixing resulted in how many years of war in the Middle East?
His gung-ho "you're with us or against us" attitude to political relations was incredibly concerning.
Perhaps the debt was a big issue domestically, but internationally, Obama hasn't committed a lot of the same mistakes that Bush has, on matters that the rest of the world is concerned about, which is why Obama is seen as some sort of saviour to the US.
Anyway, feel free to continue arguing about domestic policies.
Post by
MyTie
Obama should have held the Saudi King's hand and given him hugs and kisses like George W. Bush.
I bet MyTie would agree with that.
Or maybe Obama should have given the Chancellor of Germany an awkward back rub.
I bet Hyper would agree with that.
Stupid Obama and his bad diplomatic protocol.
It would be preferable to groveling. I would prefer if the commander and chief would not grovel to foreign powers. But, as so many people have pointed out, Obama
can't do wrong
. Only Bush could. And that is that.
Post by
419497
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.