• 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!

New Poll shows Tea party more popular than Republican Party

Scorpion89 said:
In certain States like Maine which has many towns that don't have party alleg. on them yes you can but for all State and federal Election you can't give money to just anyone that person must belong to a one of the Federal Req, Party's.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely, totally FALSE. Where do you come up with this wild stuff.

Anyone can give money directly to any candidate for federal office, no matter what party they are in, or if they are with no party. Go look at the contribution reports at www.fec.gov and see for yourself.

You have some serious, serious problems with basic facts dude.
 
As a point of interest the Civil War was actually over States Rights and against an implied 'tyranny of the majority'. The southern states did want to keep slavery - it was the basis of their economy even if the cotton mill had already made slavery less economically feasible. The whole point was that the South could see that it had the smaller population so they did not have a chance of holding things back in the House of Representatives. There were several states applying for statehood that were north of the Mason-Dixon line and thus would be admitted into the Union as non-slave states. Almost all of the territory south of the Mason-Dixon line had already been admitted as states, the little bit left would never balance out the territories admitted as non-slave, so the Senate was about to be lost to them.

States Rights and Slavery were pretty much one and the same at the time. The rights of the states to determine whether slavery was legal or not was a major issue. Other states rights were not infringed on as much. And with the loss of parity in Congress, the handwriting was on the wall for the end of slavery by the federal government. Thus the southern slave states seceded from the Union before it got to that point.

Think about what would happen if we had a new territory apply for statehood today. There would be resistance from the party that did not think they would benefit from the new Senators while the other party would be pulling out all the stops to get them joined up. The same thing was going on before the Civil War - something that many historians have pointed out.

As another aside, some recent legal reviews have decided that the southern states had the right to secede peacefully from the Union. Their mistake was the attack on Fort Sumter. This consitituted an attack by a foriegn power on US soil. It was only after Fort Sumter that Lincoln issued his call for volunteers to fight the CSA.

Note also the timing of the American Civil War occured shortly after the dissolution of the Whig party and the forming of the Republican party. If an established party fails in our two party system the replacement with another party has been accompanied by social strife and turmoil. Something to keep in mind for both the Republicans and Democrats who delight in declaring the death of the other party.
 
Scorpion89 said:
I have a far better idea for all of us Americans, it's time for all of us to stop being Republicans and Democrat and start being Americans that is what we are.

When we(Americans) decide to put away are stupid Party Loyalty then we will start become what are founding father so wished the great Country to be.

I challenge everyone on here to go and register as an American and don't let the Election Folks tell you can't. My voter card say Party American.

It's starts with an idea and goes forth after that
Click to expand...

Then why were our founding fathers members of political parties?
 
Actually no.

misterman said:
Really? The numbers seem to show that the Democratic party is doing well and the Republicans are the failures.
Click to expand...


36% are content to stick with the DNC that has been given everything they wanted and failed while the rest of us seek change that represents hope for the future and a better life for our children.

Real experience has proven the Democrat's solutions are nothing but the same old tax and spend policies for which liberals are famous. The bait and switch scam is now obvious to anyone with the IQ of a tree squirrel.

The quadrupling of the deficit with an ill advised and politically driven "stimulus" (pork) package that has failed to create jobs, a failed "cash for clunkers" program, a health care bill most Americans oppose and new "cap and trade" energy taxes on the horizon have all served to prove Democrats actually have no new ideas and, if allowed to continue, will certainly destroy the economy and the currency with their reckless spending and taxing.

The left has written the conservative obituary many, many times over the past couple years based solely on Democratic solutions to today's problems that only exist in the realm of left-leaning non-critical media and well orchestrated political infomercials. The Republicans, like the prodigal son, can cut their corporate ties and come home. Democrats, who have opposed and dismissed the public expression of outrage at the Tea Parties by referring to the participants as racist redneck tea baggers, have no such opportunity.

That is why the democrats are at 36%, will stay at 36% and lose upcoming elections to wise Republicans.
 
carlkay58 said:
As a point of interest the Civil War was actually over States Rights and against an implied 'tyranny of the majority'. The southern states did want to keep slavery - it was the basis of their economy even if the cotton mill had already made slavery less economically feasible. The whole point was that the South could see that it had the smaller population so they did not have a chance of holding things back in the House of Representatives. There were several states applying for statehood that were north of the Mason-Dixon line and thus would be admitted into the Union as non-slave states. Almost all of the territory south of the Mason-Dixon line had already been admitted as states, the little bit left would never balance out the territories admitted as non-slave, so the Senate was about to be lost to them.

States Rights and Slavery were pretty much one and the same at the time. The rights of the states to determine whether slavery was legal or not was a major issue. Other states rights were not infringed on as much. And with the loss of parity in Congress, the handwriting was on the wall for the end of slavery by the federal government. Thus the southern slave states seceded from the Union before it got to that point.

Think about what would happen if we had a new territory apply for statehood today. There would be resistance from the party that did not think they would benefit from the new Senators while the other party would be pulling out all the stops to get them joined up. The same thing was going on before the Civil War - something that many historians have pointed out.

As another aside, some recent legal reviews have decided that the southern states had the right to secede peacefully from the Union. Their mistake was the attack on Fort Sumter. This consitituted an attack by a foriegn power on US soil. It was only after Fort Sumter that Lincoln issued his call for volunteers to fight the CSA.

Note also the timing of the American Civil War occured shortly after the dissolution of the Whig party and the forming of the Republican party. If an established party fails in our two party system the replacement with another party has been accompanied by social strife and turmoil. Something to keep in mind for both the Republicans and Democrats who delight in declaring the death of the other party.
Click to expand...

Agree'd but slavery was not THE cause for the Civil War.
 
Re: Actually no.

Ted Stryker said:
36% are content to stick with the DNC that has been given everything they wanted and failed while the rest of us seek change that represents hope for the future and a better life for our children.
Click to expand...

You play the National Anthem in the background while you recite this little speech? :roll:
 
EpicDude86 said:
Agree'd but slavery was not THE cause for the Civil War.
Click to expand...

The war had many causes, linked together, and the number one cause was slavery. If slavery hadn't existed the war would never have happened.
 
misterman said:
The war had many causes, linked together, and the number one cause was slavery. If slavery hadn't existed the war would never have happened.
Click to expand...
I think you're partial correct but a bit simplistic. People weren't as nationalistic as they are now. They weren't AMERICANS, but merely Americans. Their first allegence was to their states. Freeing the slaves only in the South, was certainly not equal justice under the law.
 
American said:
I think you're partial correct but a bit simplistic. People weren't as nationalistic as they are now. They weren't AMERICANS, but merely Americans. Their first allegence was to their states. Freeing the slaves only in the South, was certainly not equal justice under the law.
Click to expand...

I agree, but how does that change things? Sure, people were more loyal to their state, but we're discussing why the states left the union. That's different from the question of why individuals fought for or supported the Confederacy. They did it for lots of reasons, and slavery probably wasn't at the top of that list. But slavery was clearly at the top of the list of the reasons the states seceded in the first place. Any reading of the articles of secession show that.
 
misterman said:
I agree, but how does that change things? Sure, people were more loyal to their state, but we're discussing why the states left the union. That's different from the question of why individuals fought for or supported the Confederacy. They did it for lots of reasons, and slavery probably wasn't at the top of that list. But slavery was clearly at the top of the list of the reasons the states seceded in the first place. Any reading of the articles of secession show that.
Click to expand...
I think it was because basically Lincoln and Congress were picking on the South. Sounds petty, but if they had banned slavery everywhere at once, it might have gone different. There were tarrifs not being applied fairly as well. Look I'm glad ultimately the South lost, but I'm not going to sit here and agree that because of slavery the South was bad and the North was good. No no no no, it's not that damn simple.
 
American said:
I think it was because basically Lincoln and Congress were picking on the South. Sounds petty, but if they had banned slavery everywhere at once, it might have gone different.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Lincoln wanted to end slavery everywhere, not just end slavery in the South (as if it was anywhere but the South, and expanding west).

There were tarrifs not being applied fairly as well.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but not enough to go to war over.

Look I'm glad ultimately the South lost, but I'm not going to sit here and agree that because of slavery the South was bad and the North was good. No no no no, it's not that damn simple.
Click to expand...

See, that's the problem - you're assuming that saying that slavery was the chief cause of the war is saying that the South was bad and the North was good. Nobody said that. You're right, it's not that simple. Certainly the North didn't fight just to free slaves. Most Northerners didn't give a damn about a bunch of blacks down south, not enough to go die for them.

On the other hand, many southern apologists have tried to avoid the fact that the primary cause of the war was slavery in order to redeem the South's reputation. That's wrong. The South embraced slavery, and fought a war primarily to keep it. That's a simple historical fact.

(I've even seen people, even today, try to claim that slavery wasn't so bad and that blacks liked being slaves.)
 
misterman said:
The war had many causes, linked together, and the number one cause was slavery. If slavery hadn't existed the war would never have happened.
Click to expand...

I'm going to say it would have happened but SOONER because without the free labor from slaves, the Northern Textile Industry would have crushed the Southern Plantation Economy faster.
 
EpicDude86 said:
I'm going to say it would have happened but SOONER because without the free labor from slaves, the Northern Textile Industry would have crushed the Southern Plantation Economy faster.
Click to expand...

How does a textile industry crush a plantation industry?

And this would have led to civil war?
 
Gill said:
Or you could buy a bag of salad mix for $2. and cook a chicken breast ($1.) and serve a healthy meal.

Serve water with it and you have a low-cost healthy meal.

It does take a little effort and you have to actually control what your kids eat instead of just giving them what they want to shut them up.
Click to expand...



That may be healthy food, but it doesn't come near approaching the necessary caloric content for a meal, regardless of whether it's healthy, or unhealthy.


Calories in Salad Bag - Lettuce, Carrots & Cabbage
Nutrition Facts
Generic - Salad Bag - Lettuce, Carrots & Cabbage

1. Servings:

Calories 20 Sodium 0 mg
Total Fat 0 g Potassium 0 mg
Saturated 0 g Total Carbs 0 g
Polyunsaturated 0 g Dietary Fiber 0 g
Monounsaturated 0 g Sugars 0 g
Trans 0 g Protein 0 g
Cholesterol 0 mg
Vitamin A 0% Calcium 0%
Vitamin C 0% Iron 0%

*Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs.

Calories in Salad Bag - Lettuce, Carrots & Cabbage - Calories and Nutrition Facts


Calories in Chicken Baked Chicken Breast
Nutrition Facts
Chicken - Baked Chicken Breast

1. Servings:

Calories 284 Sodium 128 mg
Total Fat 6 g Potassium 0 mg
Saturated 2 g Total Carbs 0 g
Polyunsaturated 1 g Dietary Fiber 0 g
Monounsaturated 2 g Sugars 0 g
Trans 0 g Protein 43 g
Cholesterol 146 mg
Vitamin A 0% Calcium 1%
Vitamin C 0% Iron 5%

*Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs.
Search our food database by name:

Calories in Chicken Baked Chicken Breast - Calories and Nutrition Facts
 
disneydude said:
LOL...are you refering to the slivers of carrots, cabbage and radish that is in the standard iceberg mix? There is little to no nutritional value in that.

Farm-to-School : University of Minnesota.
Sorry....but you cannot make a healthy meal for three kids for much less than $10. It just isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...




Yes, you can make a healthy meal for three kids for under $10. Aunt Spiker was just posting about this not too long ago, maybe I can find her post.


But, in any case, making a meal for $10 would be a very generous amount of money to spend on groceries in a month, you would not need to shop sales, use coupons, or anything.

Three meals/day x 30 day/month = 90 meals.
Ninety meals/month x $10/meal = $900/month on groceries. And that's just for the kids. Not the parents. And, no toilet paper or soap for ANYONE !


I'm guessing you don't do the shopping in your house, Disney? :2razz:



Here's a chart put out by the USDA on monthly food costs at thrifty, moderate, and liberal food plans: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/FoodPlans/2009/CostofFoodOct09.pdf
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
How does a textile industry crush a plantation industry?

And this would have led to civil war?
Click to expand...

For one, the tariffs favoring domestic textiles (mostly from the North), increasing the cost of imported goods (most of which were to the Southern States), and reducing the overseas market for southern raw goods like cotton (by way of making foreign textiles more expensive) were extremely detrimental to the South's plantation-based economy that was in kind of symbiosis with foreign buyers. Now one could argue that the South should have sold their raw goods to the North and the North sold their textiles to the south but we can go into all that later maybe.
 
disneydude said:
New poll shows 'Tea Party' more popular than Republican Party - Yahoo! News

"Okay, suppose the Tea Party Movement organized itself as a political party. When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the Tea Party candidate from your district?"

The response of all those who were polled was Democratic 36%, Tea Party 23% and Republican 18%.

Long live the tea party movement. We should all encourage their efforts.
Click to expand...

In order to be nonpartisan in my effort to clean up the BN main forum -- this really isn't "breaking" news.

IMO the BN main forum should be limited to major event stories --
 
jackalope said:
That may be healthy food, but it doesn't come near approaching the necessary caloric content for a meal, regardless of whether it's healthy, or unhealthy.
Click to expand...

Well damn.... guess me and a few million others don't eat healthy meals several times a week when we have a chicken salad for lunch or dinner..... :roll:

Maybe you should have looked here. A REAL homemade grilled chicken salad has plenty of calories for one meal, maybe too many.

Guess we should all be eating a Big Mac, fries, and a super sized soft drink... right?? I'm sure it has 2,000 calories.

You need to let the Mayo Clinic know they are serving unhealthy meals.
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
Well damn.... guess me and a few million others don't eat healthy meals several times a week when we have a chicken salad for lunch or dinner..... :roll:

Maybe you should have looked here. A REAL homemade grilled chicken salad has plenty of calories for one meal, maybe too many.

Guess we should all be eating a Big Mac, fries, and a super sized soft drink... right?? I'm sure it has 2,000 calories.

You need to let the Mayo Clinic know they are serving unhealthy meals.
Click to expand...


That's nice, but not at all what you said. You said you'd buy a bag of salad greens and a chicken breast and make a meal for three kids. Which is NOT calorically sufficient for a meal.
 
jackalope said:
That's nice, but not at all what you said. You said you'd buy a bag of salad greens and a chicken breast and make a meal for three kids. Which is NOT calorically sufficient for a meal.
Click to expand...

Ohh, so I'm not allowed to throw a few olives, peppers, and salad dressing on it?? I really don't think that would add more than 25 cents to the cost.

I didn't know I had to supply every single ingredient in the salad to satisfy you.
 
jackalope said:
Yes, you can make a healthy meal for three kids for under $10. Aunt Spiker was just posting about this not too long ago, maybe I can find her post.


But, in any case, making a meal for $10 would be a very generous amount of money to spend on groceries in a month, you would not need to shop sales, use coupons, or anything.

Three meals/day x 30 day/month = 90 meals.
Ninety meals/month x $10/meal = $900/month on groceries. And that's just for the kids. Not the parents. And, no toilet paper or soap for ANYONE !


I'm guessing you don't do the shopping in your house, Disney? :2razz:



Here's a chart put out by the USDA on monthly food costs at thrifty, moderate, and liberal food plans: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/FoodPlans/2009/CostofFoodOct09.pdf
Click to expand...

Just to be clear.....the figure I was using was for Dinner. It is substantially less for breakfast and lunch....you can often use leftovers from dinner.

And...I do ALL the shopping in my house...and I don't spend $900/month....but I do spend about $600-$700
 
Gill said:
Ohh, so I'm not allowed to throw a few olives, peppers, and salad dressing on it?? I really don't think that would add more than 25 cents to the cost.

I didn't know I had to supply every single ingredient in the salad to satisfy you.
Click to expand...


Sure you are allowed to throw a few olives, peppers, and salad dressing on it, but you'd be wrong about it costing no more 25 cents. Also, peppers will add (almost) nothing in terms of calories; olives and salad dressing will only add fat. You don't have enough protein for the three kids, with one chicken breast, and you don't have any carbs.


Why don't you just give up the fact that you were wrong. One chicken breast and a bag of salad greens will NOT make a meal for three kids.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Just to be clear.....the figure I was using was for Dinner. It is substantially less for breakfast and lunch....you can often use leftovers from dinner.

And...I do ALL the shopping in my house...and I don't spend $900/month....but I do spend about $600-$700
Click to expand...


So, you are spending $20 - $23 per day on groceries (presumably including more than just food). And, how many people is that for? I'm assuming you're willing to concede, then, that you can make a meal for three kids - a healthy meal - for less than $10?
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Just to be clear.....the figure I was using was for Dinner. It is substantially less for breakfast and lunch....you can often use leftovers from dinner.

And...I do ALL the shopping in my house...and I don't spend $900/month....but I do spend about $600-$700
Click to expand...




AS one who makes BBQ, you can do, pork shoulders that will feed a family of 4 for weeks for less than 50 cents a lp, Turkey is at 59 cents a lp right now....


Perhaps if American Poor didn't use what little money they had on multiple flat screens and cell phones, they could eat better...


Now there are some in dire straits, but the fact is, the majority of "poor" can eat just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom