• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Republican civil war is just getting started

Right wing murder fantasies can be entertaining as well as disturbing.

But they are pure fantasy.

I guess they need some quiet time. This last loss really must have hit pretty hard. You think they would learn, but the T's still just play them like fiddles. What a roller coaster ride they are on. It's like the one in "Nothing but Trouble" LOL
 
Eisenhower, whom is hated among modern day Republicans.

Damn....too bad we didn't listen to Ike. His take on the military industrial complex was spot on.
 
since I am a constitutionalist I don't believe in taxes which are compulsory...the founders did not believe in force on the people.

I don't believe either in the way to security, is to take away liberty.

this nations for decades, has been careless, in letting anyone in, under the name of fairness, multiculturalism, now they don't know who is here, and because they don't seek to infringe on the rights of the people.

Oh look, it's a constitutionalist who hasn't read the constitution.
 
I guess they need some quiet time. This last loss really must have hit pretty hard. You think they would learn, but the T's still just play them like fiddles. What a roller coaster ride they are on. It's like the one in "Nothing but Trouble" LOL

Quiet time? More like therapy. These people are spending an unhealthy amount of time pondering the ways in which they will murder their fellow countrymen in this civil war fantasy of theirs. Worse, they're delusional enough to think some silent majority is actually on their side, or that the military is going to back their attempt at a coup.
 
it works better for the parasites and the dependents. works better for the pimps who promise those groups that others will pay for their health club
Stop throwing catch phrases around, it reflects poorly on the statements you are making.

Every other developed nation in this world has a single payor system, it works better, faster, and higher quality, while costing less than ours does. That should be pretty obvious.
 
Stop throwing catch phrases around, it reflects poorly on the statements you are making.

Every other developed nation in this world has a single payor system, it works better, faster, and higher quality, while costing less than ours does. That should be pretty obvious.

I get tired of people telling us we ought to be like eurosocialist nations I lived near the Canadian Border at one time. I was also a professional athlete. Peers of mine from Canada would come to the states to get stuff like MRIs quickly
 
I get tired of people telling us we ought to be like eurosocialist nations I lived near the Canadian Border at one time. I was also a professional athlete. Peers of mine from Canada would come to the states to get stuff like MRIs quickly
Where near the Canadian Border? I can tell you right now it was probably not close to any major city.

We should emulate what works, and national healthcare works. Ours only works if you have the money, you lack that, you don't get care or if you do you get to stay poor for the rest of your life.
 
Where near the Canadian Border? I can tell you right now it was probably not close to any major city.

We should emulate what works, and national healthcare works. Ours only works if you have the money, you lack that, you don't get care or if you do you get to stay poor for the rest of your life.



I don't think waiting 6 weeks for an MRI works. And I have no problem preventing even more socialism in this country. ITs already ruining this country
 
I don't think waiting 6 weeks for an MRI works. And I have no problem preventing even more socialism in this country. ITs already ruining this country

In this country, many people have to wait for longer than 6 weeks to see a specialist. I had to wait over two months to get my mom into a geriatric nuerologist when she had Alzheimers.
 
In this country, many people have to wait for longer than 6 weeks to see a specialist. I had to wait over two months to get my mom into a geriatric nuerologist when she had Alzheimers.

same with dermatologists. I have had a BCC and get 6 month screenings. I missed one due to illness and I couldn't get back in for 2 months. I don't see how Obamacare will prevent that given some doctors are quitting as a result of the bureaucracy
 
I don't think waiting 6 weeks for an MRI works. And I have no problem preventing even more socialism in this country. ITs already ruining this country
Then you've never had to wait to see a specialist in this country were it can take twice as long unless you have the cash to pay upfront for it. Which is exactly why our system is highly broken. There is no reason for it.
 
same with dermatologists. I have had a BCC and get 6 month screenings. I missed one due to illness and I couldn't get back in for 2 months. I don't see how Obamacare will prevent that given some doctors are quitting as a result of the bureaucracy

Wait times have nothing to do with it. Which is why you were foolish to argue that waiting for a mri has something to do with single payer systems.
 
I get tired of people telling us we ought to be like eurosocialist nations I lived near the Canadian Border at one time. I was also a professional athlete. Peers of mine from Canada would come to the states to get stuff like MRIs quickly

Americans also go to Canada for care.

Australia, Japan, Germany, France, and Sweden all have shorter wait times overall.

Canada has been rapidly improving their wait times, I'm not sure we're even still beating them there.
 
I get tired of people telling us we ought to be like eurosocialist nations I lived near the Canadian Border at one time. I was also a professional athlete. Peers of mine from Canada would come to the states to get stuff like MRIs quickly

Once again, the "I have a friend" argument. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence in an intelligent argument. I thought you were an attorney? Obviously not a trial attorney or you would know better.

Yes, the US has far more MRI devices, so access is easier (and more expensive). It does not mean there is something wrong with the Canadian system. The main argument for the Canadian system is that delivery of healthcare services is cheaper and more equitable than that of the US. The main argument against the US system is the most expensive in world and access to the system is not distributed equitably.

So, to add real evidence to the discussion, note the attached poll conducted by Gallup, albeit about 10 years ago, concerning the satisfaction of citizens with their healthcare system.

Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada

Note that in Canada, 57% of the population is Very Satisfied or Somewhat Satisfied, in contrast to only 25% of Americans. On the dissatisfied side, 42% of Canadians are dissatisfied, compared to 72% of Americans. The polls is pretty conclusive that Canadians are happier with their healthcare than Americans.

Obviously 42% of Canadians are not happy, so you have plenty of Canadians to draw upon to find more misleading anecdotes.

http://www.nber.org/bah/fall07/w13429.html
 
And, that still doesnt' change the fact they were liberal during their time. Just because certain ideologies change as society matures doesn't make it less liberal or that person less liberal during their time frame of life. Nearly all of our founding fathers were liberals especially when they became President. They did things, many things outside of the Constitution and some of the time it was for the better, others not so much.

The Murray-Blessing 1982 survey would be the one I'm referring to, roughly 1,997 requests were sent out to all of the then current Ph.D Historians in the US.

On top of this:
political-compass-2007.png


Lincoln was the first President to pass an income tax into law. He ended slavery. He also signed the Homestead Act in 1862, making millions of acres of government-held land in the West available for purchase at very low cost. The Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act, also signed in 1862, provided government grants for agricultural colleges in each state. The Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 and 1864 granted federal support for the construction of the United States’ First Transcontinental Railroad, which was completed in 1869. He also modernized America’s economic, communications, and financial infrastructure.

I could go on and on, but you should get the idea by now.

Let's see the links to those historians that argue that Lincoln and Washington were Leftists. We're waiting...
 
2013 is not 2009-2012..
If you want part-time, look at the Interstate interchanges and fast-food in-town for Reagan's revolution..

The Obama economy is a flop...learn to live with it.
 
Let's see the links to those historians that argue that Lincoln and Washington were Leftists. We're waiting...
Look up the Murray Blessing Study, as I originally quoted. Don't read selectively.
 
The reason why the baggers are unlikely to be successful is not because of Dems fighting against them. It's because too many very wealthy businessmen in America have too much at stake. Their interest is in 'not' bringing about a large change in the system.

And so, if bagger extremism succeeded in part the backlash would be so great that it would empower the ordinary people to fight back and bring about real change. That would be exceedingly dangerous for the status quo.

The baggers will be destroyed by Republican interests from within. Big business will fund the fight. And when Obama is gone their motivation will disappear for the most part and it will be a very much reduced movement that will become the fringe again with support from the traditional fringe leaders such as Rand Paul.
 
The reason why the baggers are unlikely to be successful is not because of Dems fighting against them. It's because too many very wealthy businessmen in America have too much at stake. Their interest is in 'not' bringing about a large change in the system.

And so, if bagger extremism succeeded in part the backlash would be so great that it would empower the ordinary people to fight back and bring about real change. That would be exceedingly dangerous for the status quo.

The baggers will be destroyed by Republican interests from within. Big business will fund the fight. And when Obama is gone their motivation will disappear for the most part and it will be a very much reduced movement that will become the fringe again with support from the traditional fringe leaders such as Rand Paul.

I think you have an unrealistic view of the Tea Party.
 
Americans also go to Canada for care.

Australia, Japan, Germany, France, and Sweden all have shorter wait times overall.

Canada has been rapidly improving their wait times, I'm not sure we're even still beating them there.

Correct! It's now a tossup on whose wait times are longer. Canada's or the US's?

But that's the only argument that US big business has ever had against universal health care. No other argument was valid. It's a good reason why they won't give it up easily.
 
I think you have an unrealistic view of the Tea Party.

And I think I see it for what it really is. The roots are in supplyside economics and it has only flourished with support from the middle class and poor because of racist hate for Obama. In fact, it's a marriage made in hell of supplysiders and people who will quickly come to understand that is not a choice for ordinary people.

The racist faction is huge with the bagger parties and that hasn't been hidden very well at all. It's only partially hidden with weak protests of denial. If they really wanted to stay faithful to an agenda of some sort of economics they would have nipped the racism in the bud. They didn't because they knew all along that it would alienate far too much of their support.

That's understanding it! All that's left is the debate on whether or not it can succeed with that sort of background motivation. I believe that neither racism or supplyside economics can ever be a recipe for success.

And how do you understand it?
 
Look up the Murray Blessing Study, as I originally quoted. Don't read selectively.

You said that historians argue about who is more Liberal, Washington, or Lincoln.

Post a link to those docs, or just admit that you lied through your teeth about the whole issue. Thanks...case closed.
 
It appears you are having trouble discerning between payroll taxes and income taxes...this will help:

Understanding Taxes - Module 1: Payroll Taxes and Federal Income Tax Withholding

Payroll taxes are an income tax, by definition, because they're a tax based on income :rolleyes:.

If that isn't clear enough, the federal income tax rates quoted each year by the IRS incorporates the payroll tax. . .

2013 Tax Rate Schedules: Marginal Ordinary Income Tax Rates for 2013

The fact that the federal govt. splits the income tax into payroll taxes and a "federal withholding tax" is irrelevant. As a famous Founding Father of the Constitution once said, and as any Libertarian worth her salt knows, a tax is a tax.

Finally, td doesn't need any help from you; he's perfectly capable of sounding hilarious by himself w/his inability to back up anything he posts, including and up to his latest "95%" fantasy, which he got from his official (and only) source. . .

rush-limbaugh.jpg
 
Last edited:
absolutely, I made it as clear as possible. and "payroll taxes" are claimed to be forced savings contributions etc, not "taxes" per se.

Uh, no. Any monies taken from an individual involuntarily by his/her govt. based on his income is an income tax. The fact that those monies are redistributed, or that the govt. claims it will be (which no sensible person would trust) is irrelevant.

Furthermore, any claim on the equitability of the federal tax system (i. e. the notion that the upper 5% pay the most taxes) would only be credible if it were based on the total federal tax burden incurred by everyone, NOT just a portion of that tax.

Claiming that the upper 5% pays the most taxes by excluding that portion of the tax bill incurred mostly by the lower 95% is therefore meaningless, i. e. something rush limbaugh would say.

HINT.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom