• 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!

Low Registration Sinks Tea Party Convention

you're not wrong ........ but then by the same token .... I haven't seen too many Democrats running...... that are in favor of less spending ... smaller more efficient government, and less government intervention ...... have you ??

Yes. They're called Blue Dogs and neo-liberals. Ben Nelson is an example.
 
I do not mean to sound like a pessimist but I see the republicans giving Obama his 2nd term. They are going to try to prop up a RINO like McCain OR Romney or someone who is damaged goods like Sara Palin. OR maybe they are going to prop up someone who is generally viewed as nut case. Obama is going to have to seriously **** up within a month or two of the 2012 presidential elections in order for the republicans to win.
Maybe. But probably not. The one term Marxist president Obama can be defeated by just about anybody. He has a record now. It is not a good record. The political landscape has changed since the last election. The census was taken. Redistricting has occurred or is occurring. Republicans won the last election in a way that made history. Republicans hold about 700 state offices now that they did not hold then.

The man is a loser and he deserves to be dumped onto the ash heap of history.
 
Gotta a question where have this "Tea Party" been around lately?

Oh yea... I think they got lost...
It is not their time yet. They are many local organizations. They have been focusing on school boards and local races. Conservatives are entering politics from the lowest levels on up.
 
Yes. They're called Blue Dogs and neo-liberals. Ben Nelson is an example.

yeah .. .and we can see since 2007 how much then have cut spending .. and reduced the size of government can't we ? 2010 was just a start
 
yeah .. .and we can see since 2007 how much then have cut spending .. and reduced the size of government can't we ? 2010 was just a start

Umm, the Blue Dogs are not a majority in the House or the Senate.

And the republicans have never cut federal spending or reduced the size of govt (the last was done by Clinton).
 
Umm, the Blue Dogs are not a majority in the House or the Senate.

And the republicans have never cut federal spending or reduced the size of govt (the last was done by Clinton).

yep Clinton raised taxes .. cut defense spending to the bone ..... and only raised out debt another 1.5 trillion dollars .. . so we've already seen that raising taxes wasn't enough .. haven't we in fact ... . I seem to remember one of your great graphs .. .when it was shown that the rich actually paid less after his increases .. you should remember it cause you posted the graph showing it.

here it is http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-taxrate_3.png....... showing where after the Reagan tax cuts ......and the Clinton tax increases ... they actually paid less after Clinton's increases then after Reagan's tax cuts ... so one could say that Clinton did more for the rich then Reagan did
 
Last edited:
yep Clinton raised taxes .. cut defense spending to the bone ..... and only raised out debt another 1.5 trillion dollars .. . so we've already seen that raising taxes wasn't enough .. haven't we in fact ... . I seem to remember one of your great graphs .. .when it was shown that the rich actually paid less after his increases .. you should remember it cause you posted the graph showing it.

here it is http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-taxrate_3.png....... showing where after the Reagan tax cuts ......and the Clinton tax increases ... they actually paid less after Clinton's increases then after Reagan's tax cuts ... so one could say that Clinton did more for the rich then Reagan did

Under Clinton, military spending increased. And I remember the graph. You misunderstood or misremembered it. It doesn't show the rich paying less taxes after the increase. Read the title of the graph again
 
Under Clinton, military spending increased. And I remember the graph. You misunderstood or misremembered it. It doesn't show the rich paying less taxes after the increase. Read the title of the graph again

okay here it is ...

inequality-taxrate_3.png


Now explain to me in the top graph .. .where I'm mis-understanding what it says and that the rate on millionaires didn't drop under Clinton .... oh I sorry I meant before the Bush tax cuts I guess they didn't want to mention Clinton's tax increase and reduction of tax the rich paid

Sheeez in fact .. looking closer at the bottom graph ... it shows the share of corporate income tax going up after those nasty tax cuts of Bush's .. now how can that be ?? climbing every year until after 2006 ..... now what could have happened in late in 2006 ... that would suddenly cause them to start dropping off ??? lets see corporate taxes rising under Bush .. . well above anything in the Clinton administration ?? Why that bastard Bush making Corporations pay more .. . how dare he .. But it is nice of you to share this with us
 
Last edited:
yep Clinton raised taxes .. cut defense spending to the bone ..... and only raised out debt another 1.5 trillion dollars .. . so we've already seen that raising taxes wasn't enough .. haven't we in fact ... . I seem to remember one of your great graphs .. .when it was shown that the rich actually paid less after his increases .. you should remember it cause you posted the graph showing it.

here it is http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-taxrate_3.png....... showing where after the Reagan tax cuts ......and the Clinton tax increases ... they actually paid less after Clinton's increases then after Reagan's tax cuts ... so one could say that Clinton did more for the rich then Reagan did

okay here it is ...

inequality-taxrate_3.png


Now explain to me in the top graph .. .where I'm mis-understanding what it says and that the rate on millionaires didn't drop under Clinton .... oh I sorry I meant before the Bush tax cuts I guess they didn't want to mention Clinton's tax increase and reduction of tax the rich paid

I'm not here to educate you. If someone doesn't understand a set of #'s put into pictorial form, then I doubt that using words to explain will help.

The graphs are pretty clear. The labels say exactly what they're graphing. Your misreading of these graphs does not say reflect inaccuracies in the graph.

Sheeez in fact .. looking closer at the bottom graph ... it shows the share of corporate income tax going up after those nasty tax cuts of Bush's .. now how can that be ?? climbing every year until after 2006 ..... now what could have happened in late in 2006 ... that would suddenly cause them to start dropping off ??? lets see corporate taxes rising under Bush .. . well above anything in the Clinton administration ??

If you reduce the income tax rate on the highest earners and increase the payroll tax, then of course a lower share of all taxes paid will come from the income tax


Why that bastard Bush making Corporations pay more .. . how dare he .. But it is nice of you to share this with us

You are still misreading the graph.
 
I'm not here to educate you. If someone doesn't understand a set of #'s put into pictorial form, then I doubt that using words to explain will help.

The graphs are pretty clear. The labels say exactly what they're graphing. Your misreading of these graphs does not say reflect inaccuracies in the graph.



If you reduce the income tax rate on the highest earners and increase the payroll tax, then of course a lower share of all taxes paid will come from the income tax




You are still misreading the graph.

And I'm not here to be educated by idiots ….. and your right .. the graphs say what they say .. it's not my fault they aren't saying what you want them to say …
 
Under Clinton, military spending increased. And I remember the graph. You misunderstood or misremembered it. It doesn't show the rich paying less taxes after the increase. Read the title of the graph again

Military spending increased ???
historical_defense_budget_charts.html



not according to this chart ... .but then again we don't want facts to get in the way do we
 
Military spending increased ???
historical_defense_budget_charts.html



not according to this chart ... .but then again we don't want facts to get in the way do we

"Massive spending cuts" is what you said. Your own chart proves you wrong :lol:

And again, you have misread a chart. The chart measures 2012 dollars, not actual dollars, and it doesn't include all military spending. Again, it says so right on the chart
 
Last edited:
:lol: sangha, the first thing i would point out is that you really shouldn't be harping on "reasonable discussion" when you lie about the tea party, lie about you position, call them tea baggers, who have tea "tantrums". It looks rather hypocritical. Furthermore you claim that the tea party does not reject racists it sees. I posted a link showing just the opposite. Did you miss it or are you once again practicing deciet?


Pashendale, we don't beliebe you, your feinged outrage is irrelevant.'in no instance is there a requirment for you to be believed.
 
:lol: sangha, the first thing i would point out is that you really shouldn't be harping on "reasonable discussion" when you lie about the tea party, lie about you position, call them tea baggers, who have tea "tantrums". It looks rather hypocritical. Furthermore you claim that the tea party does not reject racists it sees. I posted a link showing just the opposite. Did you miss it or are you once again practicing deciet?


Pashendale, we don't beliebe you, your feinged outrage is irrelevant.'in no instance is there a requirment for you to be believed.

The Teabaggers only objected to the racists after they started giving the teabaggers a bad rep. They didn't object to the racists because they reject racism. They're fine with the racists. They just didn't like the bad PR
 
The Teabaggers only objected to the racists after they started giving the teabaggers a bad rep. They didn't object to the racists because they reject racism. They're fine with the racists. They just didn't like the bad PR


The teabagged will often resort to lies and libel in order to smear those they disagree with politically.... Do you have any evidence of this claim or are you lying?
 
The teabagged will often resort to lies and libel in order to smear those they disagree with politically.... Do you have any evidence of this claim or are you lying?

I already posted the pictures of racists going unmolested at teabagger rallies. It got so bad that teabagger leaders had to issue statements asking their followers to stop with the racist signs and talk
 
I already posted the pictures of racists going unmolested at teabagger rallies.

This is a lie, I showed you, how the guy was confronted, and discredited.

Why haven't you "molested" the anti troop democrats? I mean I posted pictures n all. duh.,


the Teabagged are not interested in civil discourse but smears and lies.



It got so bad that teabagger leaders had to issue statements asking their followers to stop with the racist signs and talk


this is another lie that the teabagged will often resort to.
 
This is a lie, I showed you, how the guy was confronted, and discredited.

Not discredited. The man leads a teabagger organization with many teabagger followers.

Why haven't you "molested" the anti troop democrats? I mean I posted pictures n all. duh.,

Because I'm not a democrat

the Teabagged are not interested in civil discourse but smears and lies
.

the teabaggers are not interested in civil discourse; only smears and lies
 
Not discredited. The man leads a teabagger organization with many teabagger followers.


How many.


Because I'm not a democrat

Liberal, whatever, as a liberal, why do you want troops to kill thier officers, and why do you support those who want the downfall of the US?

I have tons of pictures/.


.

the teabaggers are not interested in civil discourse; only smears and lies


The irony of your post is ironic.
 
Back
Top Bottom