• 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!

Showdown over Bush tax cuts Wednesday

TheDemSocialist said:
So you believe in a armed rebellion against democratically elected people based off the reason of that you dont agree with them? Isnt that, you know, a bit undemocratic?
Click to expand...

U no-read what I said. However, socialist governments should be fair game:mrgreen:
 
TurtleDude said:
U no-read what I said. However, socialist governments should be fair game:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

This is what you stated earlier "Yeah that would really destroy the country. it would justify armed rebellion to have a government run by nothing but moon bat socialists"... :shock:
 
TheDemSocialist said:
This is what you stated earlier "Yeah that would really destroy the country. it would justify armed rebellion to have a government run by nothing but moon bat socialists"... :shock:
Click to expand...

moon bat socialists are far worse than regular socialists. they get tangled in peoples' hair, eat friendly moths and poop on our roofs
 
TurtleDude said:
moon bat socialists are far worse than regular socialists. they get tangled in peoples' hair, eat friendly moths and poop on our roofs
Click to expand...

So in your humble opinion, if someone is a "moon bat socialist" and is democratically elected and some how the vast majority of the US government is democratically elected and are "moon bat socialists" (dont even know what that means) then we should overthrow them via armed rebellion?
Tell me... How is that not "undemocratic"?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So in your humble opinion, if someone is a "moon bat socialist" and is democratically elected and some how the vast majority of the US government is democratically elected and are "moon bat socialists" (dont even know what that means) then we should overthrow them via armed rebellion?
Tell me... How is that not "undemocratic"?
Click to expand...

yeah it was justify that but the chances of that happening are zero to none-at least in our lifetime.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah it was justify that but the chances of that happening are zero to none-at least in our lifetime.
Click to expand...

So you are inherently against democratic representation when it disagrees with you? You believe we should overthrow the government when they disagree with you? So infact you are undemocratic if it goes against your views? So authoritarian?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So you are inherently against democratic representation when it disagrees with you? You believe we should overthrow the government when they disagree with you? So infact you are undemocratic if it goes against your views? So authoritarian?
Click to expand...

socialism is anti constitutional republic.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So in your humble opinion, if someone is a "moon bat socialist" and is democratically elected and some how the vast majority of the US government is democratically elected and are "moon bat socialists" (dont even know what that means) then we should overthrow them via armed rebellion?
Tell me... How is that not "undemocratic"?
Click to expand...

At what point is no longer submitting to the usurpations of liberty by our government enough for us to stand up and remove them from power, by force if required?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So you are inherently against democratic representation when it disagrees with you? You believe we should overthrow the government when they disagree with you? So infact you are undemocratic if it goes against your views? So authoritarian?
Click to expand...

The framers thought that rebellion needed to happen from time to time to keep the government from becoming too oppressive of the rights of the people...


Thomas Jefferson said:
Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms
Click to expand...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So in your humble opinion, if someone is a "moon bat socialist" and is democratically elected and some how the vast majority of the US government is democratically elected and are "moon bat socialists" (dont even know what that means) then we should overthrow them via armed rebellion?
Tell me... How is that not "undemocratic"?
Click to expand...

That is pretty much what happened in Chile in 1973.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So in your humble opinion, if someone is a "moon bat socialist" and is democratically elected and some how the vast majority of the US government is democratically elected and are "moon bat socialists" (dont even know what that means) then we should overthrow them via armed rebellion?
Tell me... How is that not "undemocratic"?
Click to expand...

Government is to be formed in the grand air of liberty. You better believe I would support killing them all.
 
Schutzengel said:
At what point is no longer submitting to the usurpations of liberty by our government enough for us to stand up and remove them from power, by force if required?
Click to expand...

only after one has gained perspective.... The best political movements are led by those grounded in reality.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
View attachment 67131438

Wrong, wrong and more wrong.... not only that, you incorrect, sir. The Bush tax cuts led to a 20% cut in income tax revenues and a income tax revenues and a 10% reduction in the income tax receipts to GDP ratio.

FDsys - Browse BUDGET

There really should be a rule that every statement made on this board be supported. Arguing with the ill-informed is a bit like having a fist fight with a psycho.... its not a fair fight for unfair reasons.
Click to expand...

oops i foprgot you ignored a massive gdp drop due to clintons dot com bubble bursting,and heavily increased revenue fro the dot com bubble building,but hey you wont include they or aknowledge it,cuz it hurts your cause unless its for claiming taxes raise revenue.

just the fact your own source shows revenue dropping before bush tax cuts were encated and rising after they were throws your entire argument out the window.TRY AGAIN>


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

as this source shows revenue as a percentage of gdp fluctuates with gdp and not rates,or else we would have lost revenue going from 94% tax on the rich to 28% under reagan,but the exact opposite occurred,your math only works against weak minded who are too incompetent to study imperical data and averages across decades.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
So you are inherently against democratic representation when it disagrees with you? You believe we should overthrow the government when they disagree with you? So infact you are undemocratic if it goes against your views? So authoritarian?
Click to expand...

I thought you liberals wanted us to help overthrow "evil" dictators. Now you're saying you'd moan and whine if we overthrew Chavez?
 
Schutzengel said:
The framers thought that rebellion needed to happen from time to time to keep the government from becoming too oppressive of the rights of the people...
Click to expand...

Yes i realize that.
But im sure the founders would not want a rebellion just because some people in the country didnt like who got elected. Pretty sad excuse for an armed rebellion.
 
Henrin said:
Government is to be formed in the grand air of liberty. You better believe I would support killing them all.
Click to expand...

Socialists want to "take your liberty"?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Socialists want to "take your liberty"?
Click to expand...

Yes, thats what its all about. look it up. in a socialist state all the power and all the money is concentracted in a very small group of super elites and everyone else is subject to the whims and dictates of that small group. look at the USSR, China, Venezueal, Cuba, North Korea. Is that really how you want to live?
 
Bobcat said:
Yes, thats what its all about. look it up. in a socialist state all the power and all the money is concentracted in a very small group of super elites and everyone else is subject to the whims and dictates of that small group. look at the USSR, China, Venezueal, Cuba, North Korea. Is that really how you want to live?
Click to expand...

:doh
Socialism is an economic policy where the workers themselves own the means of production. Socialism has been a word that has two different meanings throughout the past 100 years and for two different reasons. The two powers that used this word were the US and the USSR both for different meanings. The US used the word socialism to invoke fear and hatred towards the USSR and show that socialism means oppression. The USSR used it to claim that they were the only true socialist power and that socialism is anything along their lines. The opposite is true in both cases. Socialism is not what the US defined it as and its not what the USSR defined it as.
 
Bobcat said:
I have been to Venezuela, Chavez is a dictator.
Click to expand...

I know people who have been to Venezuela. I worked with one. Chavez is not a dictator. Are we all happy now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom