• 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

Yes, but I provided a source...:cool:

Hopefully the IRS is reliable enough...

Yes, "Libertarian" Dickieboy definitely trusts the IRS to actually give the money back taken in payroll taxes.

lmfao.gif
lmfao.gif
 
Last edited:
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?

Fundamentally, Tea Party wants reduced government size, scope and power...and that's pretty much it. Oh, for sure, there are isolated people from the Tea Party who spout off with ultra-right nonsense, but they don't have any real power or influence with the rest of them.

Now, you...with all your drivel about supply-side economics and racism...well, let's just say that I see you as someone spouting off with ultra-left nonsense.

Perhaps this link will help you understand them. http://www.teaparty-platform.com I don't see anything in there about supply-side economics or racism.
 
Last edited:
Limbaugh isn't like Palin in that he is smart enough to modify and temper his message to make it suit the times. He obviously will have to as the bagger movement begins to struggle more to exist. With Bush3 taking on Cruz it's obvious that the invitation to the fight is out there now. Too early for the baggers because they just don't have the power yet. Chances are they never will now because Cruz decided to go for all the marbles way too early.
 
Limbaugh isn't like Palin in that he is smart enough to modify and temper his message to make it suit the times. He obviously will have to as the bagger movement begins to struggle more to exist. With Bush3 taking on Cruz it's obvious that the invitation to the fight is out there now. Too early for the baggers because they just don't have the power yet. Chances are they never will now because Cruz decided to go for all the marbles way too early.

Limbaugh is the Commander-in-Chief of all GOP voters. His mind is their mind.
 
Fundamentally, Tea Party wants reduced government size, scope and power...and that's pretty much it.

WRONG. Libertarians want reduced government size, scope, and power.

teatards, OTOH, are just morons who like to play w/guns (i. e. support the 2nd Amendment) but otherwise favor large, wasteful, federal budgets to bomb the gummint's manufactured boogeymen in the ME as well as well as a large big-brotherish nanny state that supervises reproductive tracts and bedrooms.
 
Limbaugh is the Commander-in-Chief of all GOP voters. His mind is their mind.

that is a huge blanket statement. So I take your saying all 47% who voted for Romney take Limbaugh as their commander in Chief. That all 53% who voted for Republican congressional candidates in 2010 consider Limbaugh as their Commander in chief. Your statement sure doesn't seem well thought out, at least in my opinion. How about those voters who vote split ticket? Out side of political junkies, I would wager 70-80% of Americans never heard of Limbaugh.

I know who he is, I listened to him a few time in the 90's. For me he made sense on some subjects and issues and didn't on others. But no one is my commander in chief except my wife. When I was active duty military my commander in chief was who ever was president, LBJ, Nixon, Ford Carter and Reagan and working for the army as a civilian my commander in chief continued to be Reagan followed by Bush I, then Clinton, Bush II and finally Obama. By the way, I voted a straight Republican ticket in 2010 as I think our Representative should represent the people who sent them to Washington and our senators should represent the state which elected them, not a party.
 
that is a huge blanket statement. So I take your saying all 47% who voted for Romney take Limbaugh as their commander in Chief.

Yes, they're at the bottom of the cliff now.

That all 53% who voted for Republican congressional candidates in 2010 consider Limbaugh as their Commander in chief.

Absolutely.

Your statement sure doesn't seem well thought out, at least in my opinion. How about those voters who vote split ticket? Out side of political junkies, I would wager 70-80% of Americans never heard of Limbaugh.

You have it backwards. Only about 20-30% have never heard of him because they value education more.

I know who he is, I listened to him a few time in the 90's.

There ya go.

For me he made sense on some subjects

Hallelujah :rolleyes:

and issues and didn't on others.

Yes, he sometimes confuses the locations of the anus and cranium.

But no one is my commander in chief except my wife. When I was active duty military my commander in chief was who ever was president, LBJ, Nixon, Ford Carter and Reagan and working for the army as a civilian my commander in chief continued to be Reagan followed by Bush I, then Clinton, Bush II and finally Obama. By the way, I voted a straight Republican ticket in 2010 as I think our Representative should represent the people who sent them to Washington and our senators should represent the state which elected them, not a party.

No freedom-loving person would vote GOP, because the GOP favors a large, tax-ridden govt. that tries to police the world and regulate the bedroom.

The only ones who vote GOP are those that are duped by you-know-who into believing the GOP stands for limited govt.
 
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

Today, the MRI by itself is considered a rather primitive imaging device.

For most applications (i. e. spinal imaging), it has been superseded by more selective magnetic resonance imaging techniques (MR Neurography, MR Elastography, MR Venography, etc.), and none those technologies are covered by Obamcare, nor were they ever covered by any health insurer in the US.

Yes, healthcare standards are better in the US, but only if one pays for it out of pocket.
 
Last edited:
The problem is the Tea Party movement was never about that. It was a direct reaction to Obama's election. They had no problem with growing debt for 30 years. They suddenly have a problem with it when Obama gets elected.

they actually had reason when Obama eclipsed Bush's rate in 4 years versus 8. Obama has put our great grand children in jeopardy. Now ACA legislation will literally destroy households where people always had coverage.
 
Yes, they're at the bottom of the cliff now.



Absolutely.



You have it backwards. Only about 20-30% have never heard of him because they value education more.



There ya go.



Hallelujah :rolleyes:



Yes, he sometimes confuses the locations of the anus and cranium.



No freedom-loving person would vote GOP, because the GOP favors a large, tax-ridden govt. that tries to police the world and regulate the bedroom.

The only ones who vote GOP are those that are duped by you-know-who into believing the GOP stands for limited govt.

the only ones that vote democrats are lazy ass people looking to get something for nothing
 
Yes, they're at the bottom of the cliff now.



Absolutely.



You have it backwards. Only about 20-30% have never heard of him because they value education more.



There ya go.



Hallelujah :rolleyes:



Yes, he sometimes confuses the locations of the anus and cranium.



No freedom-loving person would vote GOP, because the GOP favors a large, tax-ridden govt. that tries to police the world and regulate the bedroom.

The only ones who vote GOP are those that are duped by you-know-who into believing the GOP stands for limited govt.

All I can do is shake my head and move on.
 
WRONG. Libertarians want reduced government size, scope, and power.

teatards, OTOH, are just morons who like to play w/guns (i. e. support the 2nd Amendment) but otherwise favor large, wasteful, federal budgets to bomb the gummint's manufactured boogeymen in the ME as well as well as a large big-brotherish nanny state that supervises reproductive tracts and bedrooms.

Perhaps you should read that link I gave to Michael, too, before you go on spouting off with ultra-left nonsense.
 
WRONG. Libertarians want reduced government size, scope, and power.

teatards, OTOH, are just morons who like to play w/guns (i. e. support the 2nd Amendment) but otherwise favor large, wasteful, federal budgets to bomb the gummint's manufactured boogeymen in the ME as well as well as a large big-brotherish nanny state that supervises reproductive tracts and bedrooms.

[h=3]Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated ...[/h]www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html‎
Apr 14, 2010 - Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public and tend to be Republican, white, male and married, ...:peace
 
Here is my comment just so people can see Solletica is misrepresenting my comment. Federal income tax burden means the federal income tax. Not payroll tax, not social security tax, not revenue tax on spirits tobacco or firearms etc

Tax is tax. The federal government raised the social security tax during the Reagan administration and it has been used to cash flow the government since. Suggesting that payroll taxes are a lesser tax, given that it all goes to the same pool, is a bit disingenuous. Further evidence of this commingling is now people believe that social security is an area we can reign in, calling it broke, even though it is fully funded 15 years out.... why? because the obligations and revenues are all commingled in the eyes of the politicians and cutting social security (though it suppose to be stand alone) they view as cutting government spending.
 
Last edited:
Here is my comment just so people can see Solletica is misrepresenting my comment. Federal income tax burden means the federal income tax. Not payroll tax

Payroll taxes are income taxes, because they come out of people's pockets at tax time by the federal govt. based on one's income and are not given back to the person paying it, which is what makes it a tax.

It's only not a "tax" in limbaugh's anus.
 
Tax is tax.

But according to td, it's not because people supposedly don't mind money being forcibly taken from them by the govt. as long as it's not classified as a "federal income withholding tax."
 
Last edited:
Payroll taxes are income taxes, because they come out of people's pockets at tax time by the federal govt. based on one's income and are not given back to the person paying it, which is what makes it a tax.

It's only not a "tax" in limbaugh's anus.

stop lying. Payroll taxes are not included as Federal Income taxes. Your rants about Limbaugh are just plain pavlovian nonsense.
 
Tax is tax. The federal government raised the social security tax during the Reagan administration and it has been used to cash flow the government since. Suggesting that payroll taxes are a lesser tax, given that it all goes to the same pool, is a bit disingenuous. Further evidence of this commingling is now people believe that social security is an area we can reign in, calling it broke, even though it is fully funded 15 years out.... why? because the obligations and revenues are all commingled in the eyes of the politicians and cutting social security (though it suppose to be stand alone) they view as cutting government spending.

That has nothing to do with my point. Since you all cannot dispute the fact that the top 5% pay more than half of the Federal Income Taxes (and all the DEATH TAX) you have to change the parameters.

its you Democrats and Progressives who foisted the social security ponzi scheme on us-not the GOP
 
Today, the MRI by itself is considered a rather primitive imaging device.

For most applications (i. e. spinal imaging), it has been superseded by more selective magnetic resonance imaging techniques (MR Neurography, MR Elastography, MR Venography, etc.), and none those technologies are covered by Obamcare, nor were they ever covered by any health insurer in the US.

Yes, healthcare standards are better in the US, but only if one pays for it out of pocket.

Not relevant. At the time I was speaking about, the MRI was the standard for state of the art diagnosis of soft tissue issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom