• 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
Great video!!!
Does anyone else except me see a bit of a thing America is famous for: Hypocrisy?



First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
 
that's correct - political speech is considered different from obscenity.

however, if we want to start limiting it, I've got a whole host of issues of the commons arguments in the back of my mind about how public employee unions shouldn't be allowed to participate in politics, any more than active duty members of the military are...

You miss the point. Rights under the first amendment have reasonable limits and boundaries. Obscenity is just one of those. If I went to the same elementary school and stood on the nearby public sidewalk and started making a loud political speech which disturbed the teaching in that school, I would be subject to arrest and taken away - same thing if I stood up in the middle of the movie theater during a film and start preaching politics.

You anti-union remark is yet another knee-jerk trash the unions vitriol that we see through many of your posts. It is silly and out of place and has no rational purpose in this discussion.
 
wrong as usual

we on the right want freedom and freedom leads to winners winning and losers not winning

we don't see income inequality to be a problem worthy of the socialist or fascist solutions the losers want

we see many of those who are losers as being losers because of government policies implemented by the dems that sap ambition from the middle and lower classes and make dependency on the government way too easy

FREEDOM is often used by those on the right as a meaningless and hollow cliche devoid of any actual meaning or substance. It becomes a convenient bumper sticker or lapel pin phrase that is thrown out there by the right to justify anything they want to justify and condemn anything they opt to condemn.

This entire line of 'thinking' about winners and losers make no sense at all. It starts with the false premise that anyone who has money has somehow WON and anyone who does not have lots of money has somehow LOST. It continues with another false premise that these so called winners are in that glorious category because of their own hard work, talent or skill and thus deserve all that they have. What about those who simply had the good fortune to be born into money and inherited it? They were simply lucky enough to have their silk diapers changed by the French nanny while Mumsy and Daddykins frolicked at the private country club exchanging inside stock tips with their fellow swells. They were lucky enough to be born on third base and think that when they cross the plate they have hit a home run. They were lucky enough to get a huge boost in the family business with the first 25 miles of the marathon already run by somebody else. And that luck makes them the coveted and principled WINNERS in our society? Hardly. Thats a joke and a really bad joke at that.

So some do not see income inequality as a problem. Fine. I would guess that attitude is shared by many who think of themselves as rich... not only today but throughout history. Many of them found out the hard way what income inequality can do to destroy a society.

That is why this problem needs action today. We do not want that here for ourselves, our communities or our children.
 
Great video!!!
Does anyone else except me see a bit of a thing America is famous for: Hypocrisy?



First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.



The Iranians do not seem to have missed the irony ~

"TEHRAN, Iran (AP) – An Iranian military commander said Sunday that the protests spreading from New York's Wall Street to other U.S. cities are the beginning of an "American Spring," likening them to the uprisings that toppled Arab autocrats in the Middle East."
Iran calls Wall Street protests 'American Spring'
 
Was that because the middle class was bigger?

It's more likely that there were less tax deductions for middle income people and less tax based income supplements.

Let's really get to the meat of it though.
During a recession, there is always going to be shrinkage in class groups of one kind, to another (likely lower) of another kind.
Jobs almost always lag behind business profit, because of multiple reasons.

This whole middle class dying crap is temporary.
 
The fear, or better put, the legitimate apprehension, is that we have a President and a party who will direct the efforts (funds) of their political supporters so as to foment American against American class warfare, and eventually violence, so as to maintain political power.

These protesters are winning no hearts and minds. 30% of this country will always be the disgruntled under-achieving liberal left. As political impetus goes, they are polarizing even more folks against Obama. A pox on Obama for being such a disgusting inept putrid politician.
 
The fear, or better put, the legitimate apprehension, is that we have a President and a party who will direct the efforts (funds) of their political supporters so as to foment American against American class warfare, and eventually violence, so as to maintain political power.

These protesters are winning no hearts and minds. 30% of this country will always be the disgruntled under-achieving liberal left. As political impetus goes, they are polarizing even more folks against Obama. A pox on Obama for being such a disgusting inept putrid politician.

It seems like some people are having a problem let me explain I have seen posts by conservatives that indicate their are more very wealthy liberals then conservatives how does that work with your stereotyping stereotypical conservative assertion that
30% of this country will always be the disgruntled under-achieving liberal left.

It is going to be terrible for you having
such a disgusting inept putrid politician.
as the POTUS for another 4 years
 
It's more likely that there were less tax deductions for middle income people and less tax based income supplements.

Let's really get to the meat of it though.
During a recession, there is always going to be shrinkage in class groups of one kind, to another (likely lower) of another kind.
Jobs almost always lag behind business profit, because of multiple reasons.

This whole middle class dying crap is temporary.

What you keep failing to address is the shrinking of the middle class before the recession began. This has been occurring over the last 30 years.
 
He's actually one of the members of the band Rage Against the Machine.

Smart guy.

Yes he is, I'm glad he and the band are taking part in the protest!
 
The fear, or better put, the legitimate apprehension, is that we have a President and a party who will direct the efforts (funds) of their political supporters so as to foment American against American class warfare, and eventually violence, so as to maintain political power.

These protesters are winning no hearts and minds. 30% of this country will always be the disgruntled under-achieving liberal left. As political impetus goes, they are polarizing even more folks against Obama. A pox on Obama for being such a disgusting inept putrid politician.

Meh, that's what they said about the Vietnam war protests............
 
Meh, that's what they said about the Vietnam war protests............

Well, if you look at how the protests went from originally peaceful, to the mayhem that was the Democrat Convention in Chicago in '68, and all that violence, you might be able to understand why the Republican, Nixon, won so big that year against a very fine man, Hubert Humphrey, who suffered enormously politically because of the excesses of those protesters.

So, while I do not think you knew how much your reference would make my point, I thank you. :)
 
Last edited:
It seems like some people are having a problem let me explain I have seen posts by conservatives that indicate their are more very wealthy liberals then conservatives how does that work with your stereotyping stereotypical conservative assertion that

It is going to be terrible for you having as the POTUS for another 4 years

Let's pick one. John Kerry. John is most appreciable of his useful idiots.

Find me here in forum the day after the November 2012 elections. ;)
 
FREEDOM is often used by those on the right as a meaningless and hollow cliche devoid of any actual meaning or substance. It becomes a convenient bumper sticker or lapel pin phrase that is thrown out there by the right to justify anything they want to justify and condemn anything they opt to condemn.

This entire line of 'thinking' about winners and losers make no sense at all. It starts with the false premise that anyone who has money has somehow WON and anyone who does not have lots of money has somehow LOST. It continues with another false premise that these so called winners are in that glorious category because of their own hard work, talent or skill and thus deserve all that they have. What about those who simply had the good fortune to be born into money and inherited it? They were simply lucky enough to have their silk diapers changed by the French nanny while Mumsy and Daddykins frolicked at the private country club exchanging inside stock tips with their fellow swells. They were lucky enough to be born on third base and think that when they cross the plate they have hit a home run. They were lucky enough to get a huge boost in the family business with the first 25 miles of the marathon already run by somebody else. And that luck makes them the coveted and principled WINNERS in our society? Hardly. Thats a joke and a really bad joke at that.

So some do not see income inequality as a problem. Fine. I would guess that attitude is shared by many who think of themselves as rich... not only today but throughout history. Many of them found out the hard way what income inequality can do to destroy a society.

That is why this problem needs action today. We do not want that here for ourselves, our communities or our children.

While income inequality can be a problem every solution proposed by you and your side is far far worse
 
You do realize that OWS's use of the terms "1%" and "99%" are more symbols than they are carefully analyzed divisions meant to be taken as concrete groups?

in the context of "who gets richer while who gets poorer", they certainly are not - there is a definite assumption that these are the same people rather than a measurement that records different individuals at different times.
 
What you keep failing to address is the shrinking of the middle class before the recession began. This has been occurring over the last 30 years.

That's only true if, take home pay was an accurate way to define total compensation and income, but since it isn't, that isn't true at all.
The middle class shrinkage, is a myth.
 
Let's pick one. John Kerry. John is most appreciable of his useful idiots.

Find me here in forum the day after the November 2012 elections. ;)

Lets see if we can put this in perspective I am 65 drawing my SS and there are 40 million more 65 and older drawing SS, Now I can't speak for all 40 million but I have listened to the Tea Party, Republican nominees, conservatives and many others who support the republicans. I would have to anticipate that a lot of those in my age brackett could not trust any party but the democratic party to protect our SS and medicare.

Right now their are almost 40 million American voters age 65 and older out of a voter population of 233.1 million by 2012 their will be 100 million voters 50 and over

The problem that Republicans have is they want to steal SS and Medicare benefits from people like me that have worked all of our lives and paid into SS and Medicare. It's hard to trust anyone who has called SS a PONZI SCHEME so you could be looking at 100 million voters who may have reservations with voting republican just because of concerns about SS and Medicare. That leaves 208 million voters out of that number 74.8 million are to young to vote that leaves 133.2 million voters. Their are around 24 million under or unemployed leaving around 109.2 million voters

Work the numbers between the 50s and over and the under and unemployed your looking at 124 million voters out of 233.1 that leaves 109 million voters not immediately effected by cuts to SS/Medicare and jobs.

I would say just looking at the numbers the republicans have 2 chances one slim and the other none of winning in 2012. Add to that the way that republicans and others that support them talk down to people that do not share their politics and I think the republicans are the proverbial creek without a paddle

I will look forward to seeing you the day after the 2012 elections
 
Lets see if we can put this in perspective I am 65 drawing my SS and there are 40 million more 65 and older drawing SS, Now I can't speak for all 40 million but I have listened to the Tea Party, Republican nominees, conservatives and many others who support the republicans. I would have to anticipate that a lot of those in my age brackett could not trust any party but the democratic party to protect our SS and medicare.

Right now their are almost 40 million American voters age 65 and older out of a voter population of 233.1 million by 2012 their will be 100 million voters 50 and over

The problem that Republicans have is they want to steal SS and Medicare benefits from people like me that have worked all of our lives and paid into SS and Medicare. It's hard to trust anyone who has called SS a PONZI SCHEME so you could be looking at 100 million voters who may have reservations with voting republican just because of concerns about SS and Medicare. That leaves 208 million voters out of that number 74.8 million are to young to vote that leaves 133.2 million voters. Their are around 24 million under or unemployed leaving around 109.2 million voters

Work the numbers between the 50s and over and the under and unemployed your looking at 124 million voters out of 233.1 that leaves 109 million voters not immediately effected by cuts to SS/Medicare and jobs.

I would say just looking at the numbers the republicans have 2 chances one slim and the other none of winning in 2012. Add to that the way that republicans and others that support them talk down to people that do not share their politics and I think the republicans are the proverbial creek without a paddle

I will look forward to seeing you the day after the 2012 elections

You forgot to count in us disabled Americans who also paid into the system and unfortunately wound up in tragic health situations.
 
Lets see if we can put this in perspective I am 65 drawing my SS and there are 40 million more 65 and older drawing SS, Now I can't speak for all 40 million but I have listened to the Tea Party, Republican nominees, conservatives and many others who support the republicans. I would have to anticipate that a lot of those in my age brackett could not trust any party but the democratic party to protect our SS and medicare.

are you aware that the current democratic policy is to begin cutting your medicare benefits in 2014? are you aware that current democratic policy is to severely limit your access to providers who will take Medicare in 2014? can you name a single major Republican who has called for cuts to current recipients of Social Security or Medicare?

The problem that Republicans have is they want to steal SS and Medicare benefits from people like me that have worked all of our lives and paid into SS and Medicare.

I repeat the question. Please name a single major Republican leader who has called for cuts for current retirees, as the Obama administration has.
 
are you aware that the current democratic policy is to begin cutting your medicare benefits in 2014? are you aware that current democratic policy is to severely limit your access to providers who will take Medicare in 2014? can you name a single major Republican who has called for cuts to current recipients of Social Security or Medicare?



I repeat the question. Please name a single major Republican leader who has called for cuts for current retirees, as the Obama administration has.

Mitt Romney changes his position maybe as often as he changes his under wear, Rick Perry's distain for SS along with other undesirable traits he has makes him a candidate I could/would not trust, Herman Cain does not seem to have SS payments in his 999 plan. Any candidate with Tea Party support would be a candidate I would not trust to represent main street Americans
 
There is a great deal of anger at Wall St., the big banks, corporations, and our current system within the Tea Party. If just a bit of it merges with the 99%/OWS movement....the GOP is screwed.
 
Back
Top Bottom