• 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!

Does the GOP need to fear the 99% Movement?

Should the GOP should fear the 99% movement

  • Absolutely should fear it

    Votes: 19 31.1%

  • Somewhat fear it

    Votes: 7 11.5%

  • Fear it a little bit

    Votes: 1 1.6%

  • Fear it a tiny bit

    Votes: 3 4.9%

  • Absolutely nothing to fear

    Votes: 20 32.8%

  • Don't know

    Votes: 1 1.6%

  • Don't care

    Votes: 6 9.8%

  • Other (explian)

    Votes: 4 6.6%
  • Total voters
    61
TurtleDude said:
do you mean Must suck. I am not getting schooled by anyone here

I find it hilarious those who fail personal economics 101 pretend to lecture someone like me

This isn't about doling stuff out in executive paychecks BTW

its the envious whining that the rich ought to pay more on dividend income which is nothing more than ranting from those who don't have investment income about those who do
Click to expand...

alexxouellette said:
Thank you for quoting me and then not addressing anything I said it only helps to further demonstrate my argument. You were upset that these people paid no taxes, I explained why and how they are being given no truly unfair advantage. I'm not concerned with taking money from the wealthy but it isn't irrational to believe that taking 10,000 dollars from someone making 25,000 dollars is worse than taking 10,000 dollars from someone making 250,000 dollars a year. Relatively speaking that 10,000 dollars means a lot more to someone with 15,000 dollars left over not including state taxes to live on. Whereas the wealthier individual's money does truly mean less for him, not that it means little, merely that it means less. Lowering anybody's taxes isn't a reality at this point in time, I am more than willing to admit that our country has a spending problem, however amidst the spending we already incur and will continue to incur it is necessary not only to maintain revenue but to increase it. Since the amount is significant it makes more sense to take more from the wealthy who although not uninjured will not be grievously wounded than to bleed the less fortunate among us dry. How am I personally taking something from you, the money benefits you in the same way that it does me, it doesn't go from your pockets to mine.
Click to expand...

alexxouellette said:
You keep on complaining about how much we're complaining..... please make an actual argument, prove to me that it's better for society as a whole, not just a few individuals, that we don't raise taxes on the rich.
Click to expand...



TurtleDude said:
Non responsive-try again
Click to expand...

I have to type something but I think your own words sum it up quite nicely.
 
TurtleDude said:
Of course not

but you know that

I perform public services

do you?
Click to expand...

Do I now? Only if putting up with uppity soccer moms is a public service. Will I as an urban planner? Certainly. Cities without urban planning generally grow into unmitigated messes. Look at Houston, for example. Or any city in the third world, ever.

Since you're being so coy about what you do, I'll assume you're a corporate laywer. If you're anything other than a public defender, I don't see how you're doing a public service. As it is, a bigger portion of my taxes go to supporting what you do, than yours go to supporting what I do. Why should I have to pay for a court system that you're using more than me?
 
poweRob said:
Don't let him turn you off on the movie with his false teen bravado. It was a good flick.
Click to expand...
How can a movie where a hired killer teaches a 12 yo orphaned girl how to be a cleaner be a good movie? I'm genuinely puzzled. I can see the potential for some good examination of motives and emotions associated with the child's desire to avenge her family's deaths.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
How can a movie where a hired killer teaches a 12 yo orphaned girl how to be a cleaner be a good movie? I'm genuinely puzzled. I can see the potential for some good examination of motives and emotions associated with the child's desire to avenge her family's deaths.
Click to expand...

Well he's a loner of course who kind of unwillingly gets mixed up into practically adopting this girl he is trying to keep out of his business. Well done movie tbh.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
How can a movie where a hired killer teaches a 12 yo orphaned girl how to be a cleaner be a good movie? I'm genuinely puzzled. I can see the potential for some good examination of motives and emotions associated with the child's desire to avenge her family's deaths.
Click to expand...

There's even two versions, and the original is even stranger, as it includes a whole weird husband and wife dynamic rather than father daughter.

But I bet you'll love them both when its over.

(Unless you can't stand shoot-em-ups.)
 
The Republican party is hoping that this Occupy movement dies out. They're hoping that once city officials grow tired of people hanging around their public facilities, whether local residents or transients, they'll force these people to leave. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the real fun begins.

My fear is that by trying to kick the protesters out, city officials will unknowingly spark deeper resentment backs people will see this as an attempt to muzzle the desenters. The argument from the protesters will then be all about exercising one's 1st Amendment rights. This is where things will likely boil over into chaos!

NYC Mayor Bloomberg is taking the safer route by allowing the protesters to stay for as long as they like as long as they don't break the law. He knows that all it will take is one isolated incident to boil over into a firestorm! Look at what happened over in Boston where local police got into an altercation with some war veterans.

Now, I'm of that camp that says if your protest permit has expired, you pack up and go home until your new permit has been approved. I'm also of that camp that says everyone has a right to peacefully assemble in a public place, but if you're being unrully and you're breaking the law or damaging public/private property you deserve to be arrested. Even MLK, Jr recognized that even in situations of peaceful protest gatherings there was always the risk of being arrested for something. It's when the protesters are attempting to go quietly and local authorities unleash on them "Rodney King-style" that I have a problem with. (And by that I mean the police begin to treat protesters unfairly even going to the extent to find any excuse to force the protesters to leave and their forced removal brings about unrest...think Selma and Birmingham, AL in the '60s.)

I guess my point is while there are 2-sides to every story, there's also a right way and a wrong way to go about conflict resolution. The Boston PD may have been right about the damage done to public scene even if all that was destroyed were plants, but the protesters should have left quietly if asked to do so (unless, of course, the cops came in "Rodney King-style" which appears to have been the case here).
 
Objective Voice said:
The Republican party is hoping that this Occupy movement dies out. They're hoping that once city officials grow tired of people hanging around their public facilities, whether local residents or transients, they'll force these people to leave. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the real fun begins.
Click to expand...
I hope you guys stay.

Please make as much trouble as possible. :)
 
99%...according to this lunacy only 1% of the population is a republican. That would explain why republicans get elected to office...because the other 99% votes for them (ha). With that in mind no one has anything to fear from the (so called) 99%...they really need a better name, like "The Instigators".
 
coolwalker said:
99%...according to this lunacy only 1% of the population is a republican. That would explain why republicans get elected to office...because the other 99% votes for them (ha). With that in mind no one has anything to fear from the (so called) 99%...they really need a better name, like "The Instigators".
Click to expand...
:doh
The 99% saying is not saying that 1% are republican...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:doh
The 99% saying is not saying that 1% are republican...
Click to expand...
The question "Should the GOP should fear the 99% movement" would indicate that they would not be republican, otherwise why would they fear themselves? Semantics.
 
theplaydrive said:
Then I guess you support Occupy Wall Street then.
Click to expand...

I neither support or oppose OWS.

I think we've talked about ends and means before... well, this groups "means" are not what I see as wise or proper.
pretty much the same way I feel about the Tea Party... but I will say that I share many "ends" with both groups.
 
conservativeguy said:
Did you study psychiatry at the local technical school?
Click to expand...

Through real life observation of the radical right wing combined with a few college degrees and lots of psychology and sociology classes. Thanks for asking.
 
coolwalker said:
The question "Should the GOP should fear the 99% movement" would indicate that they would not be republican, otherwise why would they fear themselves? Semantics.
Click to expand...

The 99% movement means the OWS protesters....
Hence their signs/slogan "we are the 99%"....
 
Catawba said:
Republican Congressman Buddy Roemer cancels you out, as he supports the protester's goals.

Republican Buddy Roemer: First Presidential Candidate To Support Wall Street Protestors - Carbonated.TV
Click to expand...
Who the heck is Buddy Roemer?

Judging from the stub on Wikipedia about him, he was a governor of Lousiana, switched to the Republican party in 1991 and lost every election after that. He has the authenticity of Mitt Romney, and the political credentials of Herman Cain.

BTW: He didn't even get invited to the debates. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
Who the heck is Buddy Roemer?

He has the authenticity of Mitt Romney, and the political credentials of Herman Cain.
Click to expand...

That bad eh?

Yet he cancels out Ockham, with these positions from the article above:

"The statement released by him shows full support of the Wall Street protestors:

As I continue touring college campuses throughout New Hampshire, I am reminded of all the young Americans currently taking part in the Occupy Wall Street movement. Please know that I stand by you.

It is Main Street that creates the majority of jobs in America; it is Main Street that sends our brave young men and women to war; it is Main Street that hurts when another manufacturing plant closes only to be re-opened in China; it is Main Street that is being foreclosed on; and it is Main Street that is suffering while the greed of Wall Street continues to hurt our middle-class.

Too-big-to-fail banks have only gotten bigger thanks to government bailouts, and as president, I will end the corporate tax loopholes that un-American corporations take advantage of only to ship our jobs overseas. Fair trade not Free trade.

Money in politics has created institutional corruption. Both parties are guilty of taking the big check and are bought by Wall Street. My campaign is the only one that speaks out against this and I look forward to the day lobbyists are not allowed to donate to campaigns.

Wall Street grew to be a source of capital for growing companies. It has become something else: A facilitator for greed and for the selling of American jobs. Enough already.

Born in Shreveport, Roemer graduated as valedictorian of his high school class and entered Harvard University when he was just 16. Roemer went on to earn his MBA from Harvard and work in his father’s computer business before entering politics. In 1972, he was elected as a delegate to the Louisiana Constitutional Convention. He went on to serve four terms as a Democratic representative of Louisiana’s Fourth district, followed by one term as governor of Louisiana, during which he switched parties."
 
Catawba said:
That bad eh?

Yet he cancels out Ockham, with these positions from the article above:

"The statement released by him shows full support of the Wall Street protestors:

As I continue touring college campuses throughout New Hampshire, I am reminded of all the young Americans currently taking part in the Occupy Wall Street movement. Please know that I stand by you.

It is Main Street that creates the majority of jobs in America; it is Main Street that sends our brave young men and women to war; it is Main Street that hurts when another manufacturing plant closes only to be re-opened in China; it is Main Street that is being foreclosed on; and it is Main Street that is suffering while the greed of Wall Street continues to hurt our middle-class.

Too-big-to-fail banks have only gotten bigger thanks to government bailouts, and as president, I will end the corporate tax loopholes that un-American corporations take advantage of only to ship our jobs overseas. Fair trade not Free trade.

Money in politics has created institutional corruption. Both parties are guilty of taking the big check and are bought by Wall Street. My campaign is the only one that speaks out against this and I look forward to the day lobbyists are not allowed to donate to campaigns.

Wall Street grew to be a source of capital for growing companies. It has become something else: A facilitator for greed and for the selling of American jobs. Enough already.

Born in Shreveport, Roemer graduated as valedictorian of his high school class and entered Harvard University when he was just 16. Roemer went on to earn his MBA from Harvard and work in his father’s computer business before entering politics. In 1972, he was elected as a delegate to the Louisiana Constitutional Convention. He went on to serve four terms as a Democratic representative of Louisiana’s Fourth district, followed by one term as governor of Louisiana, during which he switched parties."
Click to expand...

Who's feeding OWS in NYC? All we need to do is follow the money... someone will get around to it sooner or later.
 
Ockham said:
Who's feeding OWS in NYC? All we need to do is follow the money... someone will get around to it sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Right, eating is unpatriotic!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me know when you get to the bottom of this great evil.

Curious you are more concerned about who is providing food to the protesters than you are the money wall street is providing to our politicians.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom