• 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!

Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

Green Man said:
It's not my scenario. It is the constitution. Everybody knows about the supremacy clause, except you, evidently.
Click to expand...

I know about separation of powers.

I know about three branches of government each with its own sphere of influence and its own domain and its limitations.

I know about three levels of government each with each its own sphere of influence and its own domain and its limitations.

And I know there sure ain't some giant boogey man hiding underneath the bed ready to jump out and destroy the nation in the name of the President or Congress or anybody else .

This is at least the second time you pulled this crap and it reeks of some swarmy fourth grade kid pretending he is oh sooo coool telling other kids where babies really come from but getting half of it all screwed up in the telling.
 
haymarket said:
An while you prepare for that you may want to alert Atlatna, Georgia about a possible two feet of snow in July as there is just as much chance of that happening as your amendment making treason legit.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be treason, since it would not be making war against any of the united states. It would simply allow a state to choose to leave the union. It would be a perfectly peaceful and legal action.
 
Green Man said:
It wouldn't be treason, since it would not be making war against any of the united states. It would simply allow a state to choose to leave the union. It would be a perfectly peaceful and legal action.
Click to expand...

Yeah - the Germans tried to destroy the USA and failed. The Japanese tried to destroy the USA and failed. The Italians tried to destroy the USA and failed to. And if you go back far enough, so did the Brits.

But you would make it possible to destroy the USA right here at home.

Like I said - your little plan has about as much chance as two feet of snow this July in Atlanta Georgia.
 
haymarket said:
I know about separation of powers.

I know about three branches of government each with its own sphere of influence and its own domain and its limitations.

I know about three levels of government each with each its own sphere of influence and its own domain and its limitations.

And I know there sure ain't some giant boogey man hiding underneath the bed ready to jump out and destroy the nation in the name of the President or Congress or anybody else .
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're bringing up a giant boogey man. The supremacy clause is not all that scary. It's been in the constitution from the very beginning.
 
Green Man said:
I don't know why you're bringing up a giant boogey man. The supremacy clause is not all that scary. It's been in the constitution from the very beginning.
Click to expand...

Then why are you acting like you just discovered and trying to scare people with it? You did the same thing recently with the oh so scary process of passing laws which had also been around for a while.
 
haymarket said:
But you would make it possible to destroy the USA right here at home.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about destroying the USA. I'm talking about an amendment that would make it legal for a state to leave the union if it wished. If a state were to exercise that option and leave, the union would still exist among the remaining states.

A union that isn't voluntary isn't really much of a union anyway. It's more of an empire. If that's what you want to preserve at all costs, then you and I have very different notions about the the USA actually represents.
 
haymarket said:
Then why are you acting like you just discovered and trying to scare people with it? You did the same thing recently with the oh so scary process of passing laws which had also been around for a while.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone but you is scared by the supremacy clause.
 
Green Man said:
I'm not talking about destroying the USA. I'm talking about an amendment that would make it legal for a state to leave the union if it wished. If a state were to exercise that option and leave, the union would still exist among the remaining states.
Click to expand...

And the USA as we know it would be destroyed bit by bit piece by piece.
Got it loud and clear.
 
haymarket said:
And the USA as we know it would be destroyed bit by bit piece by piece.
Got it loud and clear.
Click to expand...

So it is you who is afraid! The way to attract people to your group is to make it attractive to them. If that isn't happening then, sooner or later, that group will dissolve.
 
haymarket said:
And the USA as we know it would be destroyed bit by bit piece by piece.
Got it loud and clear.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So you would prefer that a state who wished to leave the union be legally prevented from doing so. Don't you think that kind of makes that state something like a conquered country?
 
haymarket said:
And the USA as we know it would be destroyed bit by bit piece by piece.
Got it loud and clear.
Click to expand...

As it should be if wanted by the pieces. The good thing though is the remainder of the pieces would feel a much stronger bond with each other. If a state or some of the states don't feel "united" as in the united states it's time for them to go their own way.
 
pbrauer said:
Which was?
Click to expand...

Your link provides a fair approximation.

icon_book.png
[h=2]Definition of 'Progressive Tax'[/h] A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The United States income tax is considered progressive: in 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket. Basically, taxpayers are broken down into categories based on taxable income; the more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay once they cross the benchmark cut-off points between the different tax bracket levels.
icon_inv.png
[h=2]Investopedia explains 'Progressive Tax'[/h] The U.S. progressive income tax is effectively a means of income redistribution. Individuals who earn more pay higher taxes; those taxes are then used to fund social welfare programs that are used primarily by individuals who earn less. Critics of the progressive tax consider it to be discriminatory and believe that a flat tax system, which imposes the same tax on everyone regardless of income, is a fairer method of taxation. :peace




 
jack hays said:
your link provides a fair approximation.

icon_book.png
[h=2]definition of 'progressive tax'[/h] a tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The united states income tax is considered progressive: In 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket. Basically, taxpayers are broken down into categories based on taxable income; the more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay once they cross the benchmark cut-off points between the different tax bracket levels.
icon_inv.png
[h=2]investopedia explains 'progressive tax'[/h] the u.s. Progressive income tax is effectively a means of income redistribution. Individuals who earn more pay higher taxes; those taxes are then used to fund social welfare programs that are used primarily by individuals who earn less. Critics of the progressive tax consider it to be discriminatory and believe that a flat tax system, which imposes the same tax on everyone regardless of income, is a fairer method of taxation. :peace




Click to expand...
bye..
 
Jack Hays said:
Your link provides a fair approximation.

icon_book.png
[h=2]Definition of 'Progressive Tax'[/h] A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The United States income tax is considered progressive: in 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket. Basically, taxpayers are broken down into categories based on taxable income; the more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay once they cross the benchmark cut-off points between the different tax bracket levels.
icon_inv.png
[h=2]Investopedia explains 'Progressive Tax'[/h] The U.S. progressive income tax is effectively a means of income redistribution. Individuals who earn more pay higher taxes; those taxes are then used to fund social welfare programs that are used primarily by individuals who earn less. Critics of the progressive tax consider it to be discriminatory and believe that a flat tax system, which imposes the same tax on everyone regardless of income, is a fairer method of taxation. :peace




Click to expand...

Pb doesn't do well when confused with facts. Probably the last you will see of him until he comes back later with the same tired old argument. Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates his kind of loyalty?
 
Conservative said:
Pb doesn't do well when confused with facts. Probably the last you will see of him until he comes back later with the same tired old argument. Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates his kind of loyalty?
Click to expand...
You need some new material, don't you get tired of posting the same crap over and over and over?
 
pbrauer said:
You need some new material, don't you get tired of posting the same crap over and over and over?
Click to expand...

Never get tired of posting the truth and asking an Obamabot a question that millions would like to have answered. You are fixated on an ideology that is a failure yet continue to promote it, why?
 
haymarket said:
The people who are responsible for that determination decided otherwise.
Click to expand...
We, the people are responsible for it. We do not like this tyranny and we do not like this tyrant. Both must be undone. The five who decided this were irresponsible and unlawful. I dearly hope they get a chance to regret their actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom