Crossfire | Weeknights @ 6:30 pm ET on CNN

Join the debate

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Mark Cuban
July 30th, 2014
11:02 AM ET

Mark Cuban for president?

I'm sure you think you know him. He's everywhere: on that TV show; courtside; making headlines for saying something, er, colorful; tweeting to his 2.3 million followers.

I thought I knew Mark Cuban, too. When someone's got a mouth like his, it's hard to imagine that there's much mystery left or that anything is saved for close company. But in fact, Cuban surprisingly leaves a lot off the table and, like any good showman, tells you just enough to leave you wanting more.

He's worth billions ($2.6 billion, in fact), which you probably did know. He's owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Magnolia Pictures and Landmark Theaters, star of ABC's investor competition show "Shark Tank" and chairman of HDTV network AXS TV and sold his first company, MicroSolutions, for $6 million. His next, broadcast.com, was bought by Yahoo for $5.7 billion.

But you probably knew most of that, too. Because he's told you all about it. Full story

Posted by
Filed under: CNN Opinion • Mark Cuban • S.E. Cupp
soundoff (42 Responses)
  1. Dave

    At least he would get more worldwide respect than Obama or even Hillary.

    August 22, 2014 at 10:24 am | Reply
  2. mc

    I love when GOPer filth suggest tax dodging whoremongers for president....sippee cupp is more than half empty.

    August 20, 2014 at 7:13 am | Reply
  3. Thom

    He'd be a much better opponent than Perry. Perry is so dumb he has house keepers ties his shoes for him. Perry wanted to get on that Texas Gerrymandering bandwagon himself and decided to cut off funds to ALL orgs run by Democrats....... that's going a wee bit too far James Richard Perry.

    August 16, 2014 at 4:02 pm | Reply
  4. Tim

    I remember during the initial portion of the crisis Mr Cuban was on Squawk Box talking about bank capital. He said, "banks can recapitalize with deposits", there was dead silence. Clearly this business genius had no idea how banks built capital.

    August 14, 2014 at 9:25 am | Reply
  5. Rogue351

    Yes that is all we need, another selfish, rich, ego maniac in the office. How about a person that can actually see the rich are killing America. The middle class is becoming a thing of the past. You are either rich and can afford to send your kids to college so they can possibly get a good job and buy a house. Or you are not, in which case your kid has a very slim chance of ever owning a home or making a decent living. How about a college education for everyone that wants to put forth the effort, without 10+ years of loans all while the collages collect billions from sports. Educating the population is the answer, not religion, not guns or the military or the Wall Street Bankers. American is a first world nation and we have more people in jail than any other nation. Our test scores are lower that any other first world nation.

    August 12, 2014 at 5:02 pm | Reply
  6. WOW

    I don't care WHICH party he ran on...I would vote for him....

    August 10, 2014 at 8:10 pm | Reply
  7. countingdown

    Here is a prime example of political bias by liberal media to unofficially endorse a candidate, "Hillary Clinton's unpaid warriors". Virtually, if not all, persons running or thinking about running for office have 'unpaid warriors'. This shameful display of media liberalism can work for a candidate, but can backfire because the intended targets 'get it'. We understand you are pushing a candidate, however, a constant barrage of Hillary articles is not only a turn off, but an insult to all voters. If the left voter is so uninformed to be constantly bombarded by useless information of a non-candidate then that speaks volumes to the liberal voting base. For the right and independent voter to be constantly bombarded by useless information of a non-candidate is an insult to all Americans and a shameful display of media's control over the voting process.

    August 9, 2014 at 9:40 am | Reply
    • countingdown

      Kurt
      Don't know if this got lost with the delay but I will try again. Search who took the reins for the politics section here.

      I'm sad for our nation but have decided I will no longer be a participant in a tug of war of a shameful display of media bias and manipulation.

      Kurt, I hope you enjoy your political ramblings. Research, how you have been manipulated and socially engineered by the liberal media. Goodbye, I wish you well despite your blind following of Obama and your agnostic views.

      August 11, 2014 at 5:34 pm | Reply
      • kurt

        Well.... bye.

        I too wish you well and hope one day you learn to discuss politics by simply disagreeing on the issues rather then calling the person presenting a dissenting opinion names. Attack the evidence, not the person presenting it. You can occasionally change people's minds when you do that.

        August 14, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
  8. john

    S.E...you are right about one thing....the GOP needs a viable candidate....talk about a group of boring egocentric bland personalities.........

    August 6, 2014 at 4:36 pm | Reply
    • definitely

      john you are right about one thing....the DEMS needs a viable candidate....talk about a group of arrogant egocentric personalities...

      August 7, 2014 at 7:22 am | Reply
  9. countingdown

    Kurt
    Please download and read:
    (Summary of House Border Crisis Supplemental Package (as Modified) Funding Included in H.R.5230) or read the whole bill.

    Then tell us which parts would a problem for the senate to not pass it or the president to veto it and WHY?
    Then present an alternative to your objection!

    I think this is only fair since you guys always say Republicans never offer an alternative.

    P.S., not just the money, it can be allocated as necessary!

    August 4, 2014 at 4:47 pm | Reply
    • kurt

      Well, the money is a big issue. There isn't enough to do what they are asking to do in the bill. The bill specifically denies the executive branch the right to use the funds for anything aside from what they are allocated for in HR-5230.

      The biggest issue is that the new law would require all unaccompanied minors (regardless of country of origin) to have a hearing within 7 days without providing near enough money to actually provide hearings in that time frame. It's an impossible to execute law. It's like saying: "Congress requires the president to dig a 3 foot wide, 3 foot deep trench around the whitehouse in 5 days. Here's a spoon. Get to work."

      The reasonable action would be for the GOP in the senate to allow the senate bill to come to a vote (which provides 2 billion in funds rather then 600ish million), then let the two bills come to conference and have it come to a number where the dollars provided can fund the actions being requested. The only major differences are the dollars and the 7-day hearing change... which is the crux of the issue with those opposing the house bill. There's not enough money to pay for the required action.

      August 11, 2014 at 2:18 pm | Reply
      • countingdown

        kurt

        " Well, the money is a big issue. There isn't enough to do what they are asking to do in the bill. The bill specifically denies the executive branch the right to use the funds for anything aside from what they are allocated for in HR-5230."

        What a load of faking liberal sh it! What specifically do you want to spend money on if not for the action on the bill. Typical government taker. You have lost what little brain you have to post this fakng sh it. You are pathetic,

        "The biggest issue is that the new law would require all unaccompanied minors (regardless of country of origin) to have a hearing within 7 days without providing near enough money to actually provide hearings in that time frame.
        It's an impossible to execute law. It's like saying: "Congress requires the president to dig a 3 foot wide, 3 foot deep trench around the whitehouse in 5 days. Here's a spoon. Get to work."

        That's BS, but ok, then why doesn't Reid introduce the bill and negotiate a timeline?

        The reasonable action would be for the GOP in the senate to allow the senate bill to come to a vote (which provides 2 billion in funds rather then 600ish million), then let the two bills come to conference and have it come to a number where the dollars provided can fund the actions being requested. The only major differences are the dollars and the 7-day hearing change... which is the crux of the issue with those opposing the house bill. There's not enough money to pay for the required action.

        Boy you are clueless and a dumbazz liberal, Reid is the controlling factor in which bills come to vote in the Senate. I support every part of this bill.

        This is my last reply to you and this political BS after finding out the they have hired politicos CEO to head this crap. But I have just one more question for you.

        What would it take for you to denounce Obama?

        August 11, 2014 at 2:18 pm | Reply

        August 13, 2014 at 8:36 am |
      • kurt

        CD:

        You said "P.S., not just the money, it can be allocated as necessary!" My point about the bill is that it DOES NOT allow the money to be allocated as necessary as you stated. Get it?

        Reid HAS introduced a bill. If the GOP senators stop fillibustering it, then it will be passed and the two bills can be taken to conference to work out a compromise between the required number of days and the funding amount so that it can actually be executed. That's what is SUPPOSED to happen with bills.

        The house passes a bill. The senate passes a bill. The two get unified in congress and both vote again to pass it (if they choose to).

        The Senate bill is being FILIBUSTERED by the GOP. They refuse to give it the 60 votes needed to proceed through the Senate and get an up or down vote (which only needs 50 votes). If they stop filibustering... it will end up in conference. The GOP is preventing that... they instead want the Senate to pass their unexecutable bill as it stands and then blame the democrats when it fails to be executed.

        As for denouncing Obama... I'll do that on many issues. I think the issues with the NSA and CIA spying have been a huge black mark. I think he's gone to military strikes (mostly through drones) too often and too freely. I think he was an idiot for saying "If you like your insurance, you can keep it" as opposed to "Your insurance company can still offer the same insurance you have now if they choose to.". I think he was too quick to compromise and try to "transcend politics" in his first year instead of using the political advantages he had to smash his policies through (like Rahm Emanuel wanted him to do).

        I simply don't have a problem with the same policies YOU do.

        I also don't use profanity or attack you personally.... which you do. I view that as a pretty clear sign that even you realize you aren't making much sense. Attack the messenger if you can't attack the message effectively.

        August 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
  10. He's

    He's a Richard.

    July 31, 2014 at 4:25 pm | Reply
    • What

      What? Ha, ha, ha, did it wear you out trying to think, "The GOP Solution"? Ha, ha, ha, ha,

      August 3, 2014 at 8:32 am | Reply
    • YOU hate poor people

      You're Poor @Eugene – You're poor. You're the person most likely to NEED SS and Medicare. And it will be around unless you let the GOPTards take it away.

      August 8, 2014 02:30 pm at 2:30 pm |

      YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON YOU!

      August 8, 2014 at 4:09 pm | Reply
      • No I don't

        I'm just pointing out to you that poor people (like yourself) shouldn't vote GOP. How does my post suggest I hate poor people? It's the GOP that hate poor people not me.

        August 12, 2014 at 11:49 am |
  11. The GOP Solution

    The GOP Prayer/Mantra/Solution: Dear God...With your loving kindness, help us to turn all the Old, Sick, Poor, Non-white, Non-christian, Female, and Gay people into slaves. Then, with your guidance and compassion, we will whip them until they are Young, Healthy, Rich, White, Christian, Male, and Straight. Or until they are dead. God...Grant us the knowledge to then turn them into Soylent Green to feed the military during the next "unfunded/off-the-books" war. God...Give us the strength during our speeches to repeatedly yell........TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!..........and........GET RID OF SS AND MEDICARE!!!
    In your name we prey (purposely misspelled, or is it?)........Amen

    July 31, 2014 at 2:23 pm | Reply
    • Your Prayer

      Keep copy/pasting hate maybe I won't appear as dumb!

      I don't care about the old, sick, poor, white, Christian, female, straight as long as the government gives me free stuff.

      I hopes they die so I gets their stuff.

      Tax the rich more and more and more and more and more and more cause I ain't gonna work for me free stuff!

      My comment of soylent green is sicking but I don't care I gots to have my free stuff.

      I can lie better dan enybody so who cares.

      I don't need ss or medicare cause da gubermant man gives me free stuff and I just go er anyway.

      I can't speal enyhow an I hopes god do not read my stuplid sick stuff.

      Did I manchon I wants more free stuff!

      August 1, 2014 at 5:30 pm | Reply
    • ColoRN

      This guy is dellusional...start him on Risperdal 5mg, PO, qd, after one week increase to BID the following week increase to TID.

      August 8, 2014 at 3:41 pm | Reply
      • OR

        Or maybe it's the GOPhers that are delusional. This is the entire GOP platform in a single paragraph. It's free advertising for the GOP. Don't you just LOVE your party's platform?

        August 12, 2014 at 11:52 am |
      • marilyn58

        Agree completely, that's all we need a loud mouth narcissist that would get us involved in wars and not understand anything about the common folk.

        August 13, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
    • YOU hate poor people

      You're Poor @Eugene – You're poor. You're the person most likely to NEED SS and Medicare. And it will be around unless you let the GOPTards take it away.

      August 8, 2014 02:30 pm at 2:30 pm |

      YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON YOU!

      August 8, 2014 at 4:11 pm | Reply
      • No I don't

        I'm just pointing out to you that poor people (like yourself) shouldn't vote GOP. How does my post suggest I hate poor people? It's the GOP that hate poor people not me.

        August 12, 2014 at 11:50 am |
  12. ProtectAmericanJobs

    Mark Cuban – Interesting – Better than Trump, but I still don't think so.

    If more people would have listened to Ross Perot back in 1992, America wouldn't be in this mess. I and many other people, who were able to see through all of the left vs right BS, did vote for Perot, because he was straight forward and just used common sense. He cared about his country and the American people.

    Over the past several decades, all they've been doing is screwing the American people, by stalling, spending, removing protections and allowing illegal aliens to continue to pour in and American jobs and industry to pour out, and all while collecting their American tax-payer funded pay checks, benefits and whatever else they get on the side from their various lobbyist friends.

    Let's face it both parties are just doing the bidding of their masters, while lamely trying to look like they're trying to represent us. Wouldn't it be nice, if some of these puppet masters were conscientious loyal patriotic Americans who loved their country and cared about their fellow Americans enough that they would finally start pointing their lap-dog-politicians in the direction of doing right by the American People? – Maybe that's delusional on my part – But if this doesn't start happening soon, the American people and the future of the country that we love is doomed.

    The American People really Need Loyal Leaders That Will Honor The Fact that They Are Elected by the Citizens of the United States of America to Represent the Interests of Those Citizens and The Country Itself and that They are NOT Elected By or To Represent Lobbyist, the Global Marketplace (WTO, NAFTA, TPP), Foreign Citizens or Illegal Aliens.

    Economic Fairness for the American People and the Real American Economy: It's called Tariffs, Tax Incentives for Repatriating Industries and American Jobs and Protecting Our Southern Border.

    The people with all of the excuses as to why we can’t, shouldn't or aren’t willing to manufacture products here in the US are the same people who have provided us with the thinking that’s gotten us into this mess in the first place.

    The American people need our leaders to wake up and start putting some sensible measures in place to stem the tide or this is going to continue to have a devastating effect on the United States of America and the American people.

    We'd really all be better off by just cutting through the all the my team vs your team name calling nonsense and really focus on America and improving the future of the American people.

    We need more Americans, like Perot tried to be, to get some sensible measures put in place to protect America, the American economy and American jobs.

    July 31, 2014 at 2:08 pm | Reply
    • ProtectAmericanJobs

      Over the past several decades, all that our idiotic-traitors-politicians from both parties have been doing is screwing the American people, by stalling, spending, removing protections and allowing illegal aliens to continue to pour in and American jobs and industry to pour out, and all while collecting their American tax-payer funded pay checks, benefits and whatever else they get on the side from their various lobbyist friends.

      July 31, 2014 at 2:10 pm | Reply
    • Dee

      You are the first in many of blogs and comments I have read in the last six months that makes and sense and tells it straight up, maybe you should be running for office, you are what the people want...one thing this country does not need is career politicians and nothing will ever change until and unless that is changed....

      August 7, 2014 at 9:55 am | Reply
  13. southerngent

    An independent leaning libertarian, who advocates less is more is why you wrote " But he seems to have little interest in getting into politics so I'm not sure what the point is.". The point is the people of this country have had their feel of big government and don't like what they see. Of course with your extremist progressive liberalism views who promotes government for me attitudes it would be beyond your comprehension.

    July 31, 2014 at 1:16 pm | Reply
    • southerngent

      This was in reply to kurt my bad!

      July 31, 2014 at 1:21 pm | Reply
    • kurt

      -He's pro minimum wage (except for manufacturing... which often surpass minimum wage in my experience anyway).
      -He's for paid leave, but prefers it not be mandated. Yet he talks about how this makes fungible employees disposable and believes that's a problem for society.
      -He likes the concept of Obamacare but thinks it was horribly executed.
      -He's against legislated equal pay.
      -No real answer on government supported research.
      -He's in favor of the big soda ban.
      -He's for the legalizaton of pot.
      -He's against dogma based politicans such as Rand Paul.
      -He believes student debt is a problem and cutting loan guarantees is the solution.

      Honestly, that list is probably 70-80% in the "extremist progressive liberalism" category and more like 90% of what I personally agree with. I mean, I can talk about having read Ayn Rand too (which I have, though I feel Fountainhead was far superior to Atlas Shrugged as a novel) but I don't subscribe to much of her philosophy (and neither did she when it came down to it), but the books were interesting reads.

      I think you have a somewhat incorrect view of what liberalism is. One of the things Cuban talks about several times in the interview is how various proposals impact "society". He talks very little about the "rights of individuals" in comparison.

      Evaluating policy based on benefit to society as opposed to protecting the rights of individuals IS a liberal way of looking at things. His conclusions may not be the same as some other liberals, but his method of evaluation most certainly is a liberal one.

      It's also pretty much the antithesis of Ayn Rand's Objectivism which pushes individual and property rights and which is a large source for many of the non-religious conservatives philosophical basis.

      July 31, 2014 at 3:50 pm | Reply
      • kurt

        And for what it's worth, according to campaignmoney.com, Cuban has made a total of one campaign donation since 2000. 1000 dollars to a democratic congressional candidate in 2002, Zoe Lofgren.

        Not sure if that's enough to pin a "democrat" label on him though.

        July 31, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
      • southerngent

        Still, the point is America has had enough of liberal extremism and a weak at his best and a socialist at his worst president. Even a moderate would be an improvement. Like you said he would be willing to change his mind, however, libertarian leaning mean less government. If he ran without changing his stance on left leaning issues, he would be adrift in a leaking boat.

        August 1, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
      • southerngent

        kurt
        I think you have a somewhat incorrect view of what liberalism is.

        Your problem is you DON'T think.
        "liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty." E. B.

        Idealistically, in a perfect world every doctrine that endorses protectionism of an individual would be great. But we do not live in a perfect world. Our forefathers argued these points to arrive at a best solution for government, hense, The Constitution. Because they knew we don't live in a perfect world and understood the impossibility of creating a perfect society, they provided the wisdom to address the issue by allowing government to provide for the commonality of all citizens while preserving individual freedom and personal responsibility.

        "The disagreement among liberals over whether government should promote individual freedom rather than merely protect it is reflected to some extent in the different prevailing conceptions of liberalism in the United States and Europe since the late 20th century. In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies (see below Contemporary liberalism)." E.B.
        From the crap you post this is you.

        I have yet seen anyone, including the scholars of economics, who can show how the US could pay for the liberal social programs if they should be successful in obtaining full control of all branches of government.

        Free healthcare for all, abuse, fraud, government bureaucracy, lack of concern(VA), government control over healthcare decisions, political payoffs, buddy appointments, blackmail appointments, bought positions, other.
        Guaranteed jobs, abuse, fraud, bureaucracy, lack of concern, government control of industry, payoff, buddy system, blackmail, bought jobs, other.
        Guaranteed no one goes hungry, abuse, fraud, bureaucracy, lack of concern, government control what – when – how much,, payoff, buddy system, blackmail, bought jobs, other.
        Guaranteed housing, abuse, fraud, bureaucracy, lack of concern, government control of industry, payoff, buddy system, blackmail other.

        Free healthcare, free food for all, free higher education, free dental care, free eye care, free education, free telephones, free computers and TVs, free, free, free, free. After obamacare was passed this was what the low information people were yelling because they thought that the Republican Party was dead. You may be smart enough to realize what they were asking for would be an impossibility but the average liberal voter does not know or would ever believe it. I suppose you did not feel this way but the mass of people that post the pure hate for conservatism like the idiot (The GOP Solution) does and would in a nano second demand these things.

        August 3, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
      • kurt

        Yes, I am using the predominant US definition of liberalism because.... we're in the US.

        Classical Liberalism is more commonly referred to as libertarianism in the US. Social liberalism is what we call being "liberal" in the US... but in europe it has different names. In the UK for example the Labour Party (Party of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) would probably most closely embody what we call "liberal" in the US.

        "I have yet seen anyone, including the scholars of economics, who can show how the US could pay for the liberal social programs if they should be successful in obtaining full control of all branches of government." – It's not as complicated as you seem to think. There are plenty of countries who do have more liberal social programs then us... and they manage to pay for them. Some do a much better job then others... and I'm sure we'd figure out the stupidest way to do it if we ever got there. Australia for example manages the costs fairly well.

        "block of text which amounts to just stating words without explanation"... not sure how to respond to something that provides no argument for anything. How about blah, blah, blah, blah?

        "Free healthcare, free food for all, free higher education, free dental care, free eye care, free education, free telephones, free computers and TVs, free, free, free, free. After obamacare was passed this was what the low information people were yelling because they thought that the Republican Party was dead. You may be smart enough to realize what they were asking for would be an impossibility but the average liberal voter does not know or would ever believe it."

        The average voter (from either side) doesn't really know much about what are in laws that are passed. They just scream generalities that their media outlet of choice feeds them. Those who thought Obamacare was free healthcare are just as misinformed as those who think Obama was a muslim, or that the reason the GOP supports immigration laws has anythng to do with protecting american jobs.

        The fact is that Obamacare isn't free ANYTHING. What it does is use a 15 year old GOP plan of subsidies combined with regulations and market forces to make it so that people without company provided insurance are able to afford healthcare on the private market, even if they are sick. It's NOT a liberal program in my opinion, but it's still an improvement on what we had before. There weren't votes (even among democrats) to pass single payer... but that's the type of liberal healtcare provided by the governments of most of the rest of the world.

        I am a social liberal (liberal). I'm not a classical liberal (libertarian). I believe there are certain aspects of our society that the government should provide to all through tax dollars rather then have private industry handle. I understand others disagree. I agree government agencies are corrupt and inefficient. But I also believe large corporations in private industry tend to be greedy and unethical. I like private industry and the free market to control things where the ultimate goal is simple profit... that's how the free market works. But in areas where the major concerns are things other then profit... like HEALTH, EDUCATION or POLLUTION... then using the profit motive to handle things is less efficient then having government handle it.

        I'm not saying government does a good job of it... I'm saying the private sector is WORSE.

        Healthcare is a great example. From a profit perspective, the private sector doesn't want to cure any chronic diseases. Why? Because you only pay ONCE for a cure. If they can come up with a treatment, they can charge you for that the rest of your life. But for society, a cure would be much better. But private companies don't use research dollars to cure anything. There's no profit in that.

        The closest you get is like what we have for diabetics.... you can either pay for test strips, insulin and other diabetic supplies for the rest of your life... or you can get a pancreas transplant and pay for anti-rejection medication for the rest of your life. Either way, you're a profit center for the private healthcare providers for the rest of your days. But a cure? Nah, no money there.

        But I understand you may disagree... and that's fine.

        August 11, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
  14. kurt

    I do like that Cuban uses rational thought to craft his ideas. I wish we had more of that in our politics. I also like the fact that he admits when his opinions are based on what he's seen and reserves the right to admit that given more information he might change his opinion.

    But he seems to have little interest in getting into politics so I'm not sure what the point is.

    July 30, 2014 at 12:08 pm | Reply
    • countingdown

      You the super liberal that is always posting half truth and generalities, likes the idea of Cuban an independent using rational thought for ideas. For a brief moment it appeared you had turned around, but then we get to the heart of your post which is being able to change his mind. In your liberal mindset that means turning left of center and after reading the article he is already left of center.

      Surprisingly though, I agree with you "But he seems to have little interest in getting into politics so I'm not sure what the point is.".

      July 31, 2014 at 3:23 pm | Reply
      • kurt

        Feel free to point out any half-truths and provide the evidence showing what you think I'm hiding.

        The "heart" of my post is rationality. I like people who examine the evidence and use logical thought to come up with a conclusion. That doesn't mean they'll always agree with me... it's the process of looking at evidence and being able to say "My opionion is X. The evidence supporting that opinion is Y."

        The key with that process is that if the evidence changes, so can your opinion. Refusing to change your conclusion if the evidence changes is simply dumb.

        I find it somewhat sad that many conservatives feel that changing your conclusion based on changing evidence is a "liberal" trait. It should be viewed as a trait shared by all reasonable people.

        August 4, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
      • countingdown

        kurt
        "Feel free to point out any half-truths and provide the evidence showing what you think I'm hiding."

        Ha, ha, ha, you have been slammed by me and others so many times you should feel like a tenderized steak. Ha, ha, ha,
        I don't have time on this thread but go back to cf obamas foreign policy problem.

        "The "heart" of my post is rationality."

        Ha, ha, ha, rational ha, ha, ha

        "I like people who examine the evidence and use logical thought to come up with a conclusion."

        Ha, ha, ha, Oh my, oh my, ha, ha, ha, ha, We HAVE come to a conclusion you post in half truths, liberal lies, quote partial text out of context and in general post way too many empty sentence fillers in hope that no one will bother rebutting your liberal nonsense. Ha, ha, ha

        "That doesn't mean they'll always agree with me... it's the process of looking at evidence and being able to say "My opionion is X. The evidence supporting that opinion is Y.""

        Really, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha AND X is anything that supports obama regardless of NATIONAL opinion and Y is evidence of your liberal arrogance. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,

        "The key with that process is that if the evidence changes, so can your opinion. Refusing to change your conclusion if the evidence changes is simply dumb."

        Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, So, why haven't you presented a change of mind? I know,I know, your opinion is only HALF TRUTH and you are unable to except evidence of the whole truth. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,

        "I find it somewhat sad that many conservatives feel that changing your conclusion based on changing evidence is a "liberal" trait. It should be viewed as a trait shared by all reasonable people."

        Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha you do realize that was a poorly composed statement however, I find it completely sad that you and most liberal extremist feel that changing your conclusion based on changing evidence (truth) is a trait absent in your belief. That you are so blinded by falsehoods, so gullible as to listen to the liberal media, so unintelligent in your ability to accept truth in place of hate is beyond comprehension. Ha, ha, ha, ha

        The previous statements were to show you how stupid you sound. We hear the same crap by every extremist that post. Conservatives are attacked on a daily basis, aided by liberal media which includes almost all TV news programs and we are pushing back. It does not matter the subject, why because most extremist believe not just in big government but that a multiparty system should not exist. If that were to happen you would then be forced to change your mind. Conservatism, is the reason you can post your crap. Your hate for everything (you always post in the negative to every article), is evidence of bias You though, are particularly pathetic because nothing and I mean nothing (meaning, no amount of truth) will convince you that Obama and his adminstration has done harm to Americans both domestic and foreign.

        "The latest figures include 23% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 40% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17. Results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m."

        That is, 173.9% more STRONGLY DISAPPROVE of Obamas performance than STRONGLY APPROVE.

        Is this a truth in favor of your stance? Yes or no
        Please don't give another but Bush's numbers were statement because the issue is Obama.

        August 5, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
      • countingdown

        kurt
        I found several and here is one half truth where you were indicating that the immigration problem was Bush and Republicans doings, I didn't try to post the whole thing. "kurt The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008."

        True, BUT, liberals forget to mention that congress was controlled by democrats the last two years of Bush's administration and this law was reintroduced with modification s put forth by Senator Biden. That you tend to leave out pertinent parts make them half truths! BTW,I wasn't the comment recipient.

        However, I am wrong if I suggested you only post in half truths and generalities. After reviewing some post and finding some half truths, what I did find, is you post primarily in generalities with an occasional half truths and untruths intertwined. What I haven't figured out is, are these filler sections just to give the illusion of knowing what you discussing or are you deliberately trying to deceive the reader with a mass of wording to deflect the actual subject..

        August 6, 2014 at 5:04 pm |
      • kurt

        I'm ignoring anything where all you say is "ha, ha, ha" then a word. Because you're not providing an argument of any kind with that. I'd LIKE for you to present a few more actual arguments instead of simply saying "half truth" or "generalities" or "ha, ha, ha".

        So... taking that out of your post you don't actually present an argument with evidence at all up until the statement about approval ratings.

        Heck, I don't strongly approve of Obama. He's much too centrist for my tastes. His approval numbers reflect the odd situation where his party feels he's centrist while the opposing party feel he's extreme. I like Obamacare more then what we had before, but I certainly don't strongly approve of it. I'd like single payer.

        In general his approval ratings prior to and during the 2012 election suggest to me that while people don't necessarily like what he's doing they prefer him to the alternative. Before the GOP started getting into their nominating process, Obama was in the low 40's in approval rating... up through the end of 2011. But once the primaries picked up in early 2012... Obama's approval numbers rose to nearly 54% by December. This wasn't because people liked him any more... it was because they didn't like the alternative (Romney). By the end of March, he was back to even on approval numbers and by August of 2013 he was back to the low 40's.

        My view of him varies between slightly approve and slightly disapprove. But when I don't approve it's not because I think he's being too liberal... it's because he's not being liberal enough.

        You misunderstood me on the William Wilberforce thing. I wasn't suggesting the law was Bush's fault. I was stating that the law was passed before Obama came to office. In fact, it was renewed several times starting from when Clinton was in office before being permanently put into law under Bush. I'm not saying it's the GOP's FAULT that the law is in place. I'm saying Congress passed a law that didn't give the president any leeway to act executively... so he can't do anything other than execute what was passed until they pass something else.

        In many cases, congress has passed stuff in the past that gives the president leeway to act. The transitional authority passed into law in the early 1920's allows the executive branch to delay the implementation of taxes to aid in the transition of putting new taxes on the books. This is the justification Obama used for delaying the mandate (which the supreme court declared a tax). Congress had given the president some authority to act outside of the strict definition of the law as passed. It wasing the FAULT of the 1920's congress... it's simply a statement of why the president was able to act on that and not on immigration.

        Now as to you being upset I use too many words... those words are the evidence for what I'm claiming. I'm giving you my justification for my beliefs so you have the ability to refute it. I feel like that's a more reasonable way to talk about issues than saying: "Ha, ha, you're an idiot".

        Apparently you disagree. You believe that evidence is "filler" or "deception". So using your method, I should just say "You're dumb and wrong. Ha, ha!"

        Is that better?

        August 11, 2014 at 3:48 pm |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 94 other followers