• 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!

Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

Is it unreasonable to pay a little more?

  • Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!

    Votes: 21 27.6%
  • No. There's comes a point in wealthiness where it just doesn't even matter anymore.

    Votes: 48 63.2%
  • I'm not sure.

    Votes: 7 9.2%

  • Total voters
    76
Thats whats called a Progressive :)

Which i am not :)

Now the rest of your post is spot on.

So once more what is the constitution based on?


What is this, my government class? I thought I had to raise my hand first. I have no need to prove myself to you, especially considering that, if I didn't know, I live in the 21st century, not the 19th, as mentioned, and I can Google the answer to your question without a second thought, and you would be none the wiser.

But if you must know, the Constitution is based on a mix of the teachings of Confucius, Karl Marx, Louis XIV, Kim Jong-il, and the prophet Muhammad. Happy?
 
If the big three include Welfare and SS then they should be cut as their unconstitutional. This is insanity. Entitlements are what driving us broke and we just added the biggest one ever.

Won't happen. Welfare isn't one of the big three. It's small potatoes. Medicare could be improved by UHC. But mostly, that genie is out of the bottle.
 
And what do you think the chances are that they will?

Slim. But not impossible. Let them know you're not opposed t reason and compromise, and the odds improve.
 
Earth to Boo. Obama can veto things and the Senate is demorat majority. You see the "shame" placed upon the House if they do not undo that "bipartisan" deal passed in both the House and the Senate, and signed by Obama, aka "fiscal cliff" law. That was the law, but did that matter? NO, becuase Obama, not congress, played hardball and "demanded" that the House reduce taxes for 98%+ of the people with no "pay for" in spending cuts at all. That was Obama. Get real!

Yes, and they can override his veto. And you're too forgiving of the house. They too could have played hard ball. As long as you see it as us versus them, the problem will never be tackled let alone fixed. They have to work together and compromise.
 
What is this, my government class? I thought I had to raise my hand first. I have no need to prove myself to you, especially considering that, if I didn't know, I live in the 21st century, not the 19th, as mentioned, and I can Google the answer to your question without a second thought, and you would be none the wiser.

But if you must know, the Constitution is based on a mix of the teachings of Confucius, Karl Marx, Louis XIV, Kim Jong-il, and the prophet Muhammad. Happy?

Nope as your wrong :)

Ill tell you if you like. Its been mentioned by others here already.

Ill give you a hint. It never changes.
 
Yes, and they can override his veto. And you're too forgiving of the house. They too could have played hard ball. As long as you see it as us versus them, the problem will never be tackled let alone fixed. They have to work together and compromise.

Compromise, in fact bipartisan compromise, signed into law by Obama, as effective 1/1/2013, was exactly what brought about the "trade" of letting all of the temporary "Bush" tax rate reductions expire for forcing "sequestration" federal spending cut amounts upon DOD and other "discretionary" federal spending. Simply because that was signed "pre-election" does not make it become "invalidated" or subject to change by "Obama fiat" (mandate?) because Obama simply did not like it anymore.
 
Slim. But not impossible. Let them know you're not opposed t reason and compromise, and the odds improve.

If compromise means taking poison I oppose it.
 
Compromise, in fact bipartisan compromise, signed into law by Obama, as effective 1/1/2013, was exactly what brought about the "trade" of letting all of the temporary "Bush" tax rate reductions expire for forcing "sequestration" federal spending cut amounts upon DOD and other "discretionary" federal spending. Simply because that was signed "pre-election" does not make it become "invalidated" or subject to change by "Obama fiat" (mandate?) because Obama simply did not like it anymore.

Not correct. Because they could not compromise, and felt the election prevented them from doing anything for risk of it costing the election, they invented the fiscal cliff. No one ever intended fr us to go over it. No one. But republicans could have responded by letting us. It was an option. A valid option. They chose not, I suspect fr fear of being held accountable. Still, even now, t,hey can try to broker a real compromise, though from a weaker position.
 
his post makes far more sense to me than the craving of a eurosocialist mediocrity that you often espouse

You and the others that believe the US from FDR to present was socialist is less than 1% of American voters.
 
Nope as your wrong :)

Ill tell you if you like. Its been mentioned by others here already.

Ill give you a hint. It never changes.

I'm going to stick with Confucius, Karl Marx, Louis XIV, Kim Jong-il, and the prophet Muhammad, but this time I'm going to throw George W. Bush in there for good measure, and they intended for our national religion to be animism.
 
The country is at its best with compromise. Both have. To give and get. It's not a bad word.

All I care is about following the constitution, which both parties dont seem to understand. So a compromise between fools and crooks is no good for the rest of us.
 
I'm going to stick with Confucius, Karl Marx, Louis XIV, Kim Jong-il, and the prophet Muhammad, but this time I'm going to throw George W. Bush in there for good measure, and they intended for our national religion to be animism.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God:
The True Foundation of American Law

http://http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/1/c12a.htm

These things do not change.
 
All I care is about following the constitution, which both parties dont seem to understand. So a compromise between fools and crooks is no good for the rest of us.

Gawain, I'd like to introduce you to my good friend reality. Reality, this is Gawain. I hope you have a long and prosperous relationship together.


Lemme give you a metaphor about compromise. A dragon has two heads, one red and one blue; since they share a belly, they are arguing over what to eat. The red head wants to eat sheep and refuses to eat anything else. The blue head wants to eat beef and refuses to eat sheep. Each is stubborn and refuses to back down, and one day, the dragon died of starvation.

Meanwhile, that dragon's two-headed cousin faces a similar dilemma; one head wants to have pork, and the other wants venison. They agree to eat half pork and half venison, realizing that, if they did not eat, they would die like their cousin. They eat as such, and do so each day, allowing them to grow strong and live a long and prosperous life.

What is the moral here?
 
All I care is about following the constitution, which both parties dont seem to understand. So a compromise between fools and crooks is no good for the rest of us.

I'm not convinced you're a world renown Constitutional scholar. A good number of tea party candidates and supporters have interpreted that document wrong. However, remember that it now includes two hundred plus years of history. Not likely to back to day one.
 
Gawain, I'd like to introduce you to my good friend reality. Reality, this is Gawain. I hope you have a long and prosperous relationship together.


Lemme give you a metaphor about compromise. A dragon has two heads, one red and one blue; since they share a belly, they are arguing over what to eat. The red head wants to eat sheep and refuses to eat anything else. The blue head wants to eat beef and refuses to eat sheep. Each is stubborn and refuses to back down, and one day, the dragon died of starvation.

Meanwhile, that dragon's two-headed cousin faces a similar dilemma; one head wants to have pork, and the other wants venison. They agree to eat half pork and half venison, realizing that, if they did not eat, they would die like their cousin. They eat as such, and do so each day, allowing them to grow strong and live a long and prosperous life.

What is the moral here?

Dont try making sense with a liberal
 
Both sides believe the other side's views are "taking poison". Democracy can't work if 47%ish of the population believes anything other than their view is poison....

Again when both sides are wrong whats the good of compromise?
 
I'm not convinced you're a world renown Constitutional scholar. A good number of tea party candidates and supporters have interpreted that document wrong. However, remember that it now includes two hundred plus years of history. Not likely to back to day one.
Still only around 17 pages as i recall lol. Just because your a progressive doesnt mean the rest of us have to go along.
 
Back
Top Bottom