Election 2006

[DogDoc]

I just dont understand it.

The republicans are Big Business and no help for the underprivelged.

The dems are for tax breaks for the underpriviledged and tax hikes for the rich and yet somehow with all this double talk the poor think the republicans are for them.

Example. Bush yesterday claiming the dems will raise taxes.

He forgets to mention the tax hike would be on the top 10 percent of big money makers and dems would actually lower taxes on middle and lower income Americans.

Wake up America

Where in the HELL are you getting your facts? From your NEA Union Member high school teacher?

Traditionally, Republicans believe in limited interference from the federal government and a laissez-faire attitude towards business. The Democrats, on the other hand, believe that profits are evil and must be taxed and taxed some more and that redistribution of wealth is the only thing that can save the country.

There can be no tax breaks for the "underpriveleged" as you call them (I'm guessing you're referring to those that make below "poverty wages") because they pay NO taxes! Not only that, because of the Earned Income Credit, not only do they pay no taxes, they get tax refunds!!

And the Democrats have done such a good job at fostering class envy that those on the lower end of the income ladder blame all their problems on "the rich". I don't think any believe for a second that the Republicans are "for them," whatever that means. The Democrats keep promising more and more social welfare programs, why would they want to vote for anyone but them?

And if you truly believe that the Democrats aren't out to pick everyone's pockets - including the "middle class" - you're gravely mistaken.

There was a time when the top tax bracket was 70%. The interest rate at that time was at 21%. That time was 1980. Then Ronald Reagan was elected and slashed taxes and the economy boomed. But if you consider the Jimmy Carter years as good ones for the country, then by all means, let's go back to "hosing the rich."

[ttocs]

I think it is best to have an equal balence between Republicans and Democrats, because that way no party does stupid mistakes.

[subdork]

Plus if the rich decided to pay their taxes we could be liek ireland, and send people to colelge for free, which would stimulate the ENTIRE economy and help make the coutnry a lot more equal

"Many economists credit Ireland's growth to a low corporate taxation rate (10 to 12.5 percent throughout the late 1990s)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Tiger

Also check out "Ireland has one of the faster growing economies in the EU..." http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/euce/pub/worki ... l_1998.pdf

[DogDoc]

See there? Even though the rich guy payed 2% less tax percentage, he payed $65,200 more in taxes then the middle class guy. SO STOP SAYING THE RICH AREN'T TAXED ENUFF!!!!! (BTW those rich guys create jobs for us not-so-rich guys.....so let them keep some of their money so thay don't have to shut down their buisinesses... causing us to be UNEMPLOYED!)

The onyl problem here is that the rich guys are supposed to be paying a LOT more than they currently are. They're not being taxed on a lot of their income because of tax shelters, plus WE NEED THE MONEY the rich guys dont' need their fourth hummer.

Also, if the rich weren't quite so rich we woudl have a lot mroe self-employment (look at what wal mart does when it rolls into town, it puts a lot more people out of business than it employs)

Plus if the rich decided to pay their taxes we could be liek ireland, and send people to colelge for free, which would stimulate the ENTIRE economy and help make the coutnry a lot more equal

1) Who, exactly, are the "rich"?
2) How much, then, do you think they should be taxed? You say they're not taxed enough. Is 40% good? Hell, why stop there? Think of all the money the government would have if you raise the tax rate to 90%!
3) Why are you more deserving of the money that OTHER people make than are the people that make it in the first place??
4) If the rich weren't so rich we'd have more self-employment? How do you figure??? If there were more self-employment there'd be a much higher personal bankruptcy rate than there already is. Not everyone is cut out to be self-employed. It requires hard work, dedication and a certain amount of risk-taking. It's not something that "just happens."
5) We could be like Ireland? Why in the hell would we want that? We live in the United States. If you want to live in a social welfare society under a socialized government, please, by all means, DON'T LET ME STOP YOU. Please go. I, on the other hand, prefer to live in a true land of opportunity where I'm not penalized for being successful.

[jay_a2j]

I get the sinking feeling Democrats don't recall what the Boston Tea Party was all about.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I get the sinking feeling Democrats don't recall what the Boston Tea Party was all about.

Which is a shame considering that Boston is essentially their Mecca.

edit-

though to be fair the Boston Tea Party was over taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, not just taxation period.

Nonetheless, the irony is there in that the origins of the Democratic party has its roots in Andrew Jackson, a noted anti-tax, anti-tariff, and anti-federal politician.

[OnlyAmbrose]

As an irrelevant side-note...

GOD I WISH I COULD VOTE.

[strike wolf]

Letting the underage laws stop you for shame. Im underage and yet I voted 40 times for every candidate I liked.

[jay_a2j]

Letting the underage laws stop you for shame. Im underage and yet I voted 40 times for every candidate I liked.

Awe strike wolf, even if those 40 votes went to Republicans you need to turn yourself in. Its the ethical thing to do.

[Backglass]

Why does no one realise that you can't have a war and no taxes.

Food for thought:

$340,586,299,357.00

and counting (thats 340+ BILLION for the numerically impared).

http://www.costofwar.com




Now, who does all the spending again?

[sfhbballnut]

It's called war, live with it. And by the way what is that kind of money to the richest country in the world? are they coming to your house and stealing it from you? what difference does it make?

[jay_a2j]

Yupper, most of the debt is due to war.... WWII, Cold War, Gulf War and Afghanistan/ Iraq Wars. Maybe we should use swords and chariots to make the Dems happy.

[reverend_kyle]

I just dont understand it.

The republicans are Big Business and no help for the underprivelged.

The dems are for tax breaks for the underpriviledged and tax hikes for the rich and yet somehow with all this double talk the poor think the republicans are for them.

Example. Bush yesterday claiming the dems will raise taxes.

He forgets to mention the tax hike would be on the top 10 percent of big money makers and dems would actually lower taxes on middle and lower income Americans.

Wake up America

Where in the HELL are you getting your facts? From your NEA Union Member high school teacher?

You're right unions and the NEA are especially evil.. we should go back to the times of the gilded age.


Not to mention that everything you said about republicans being limited govt is bullshit.... limited on busines but trying to legislate morality on everyones life.. which ironically is the exact opposite of the founding fathers.

[jay_a2j]

trying to legislate morality on everyones life.. which ironically is the exact opposite of the founding fathers.

You are one in a million kyle! Republicans have never tried to pass a law making it manditory to go to church. They have never passed a law that requires people to pray in school. Never told anyone that they must believe in God. Now where do you get this "legislating morality"? On the contrary, the liberals are the ones tring to get rid of anything faith based. In essence "legislating atheism". And do a little research... if our founding fathers knew what you liberals were doing to this country they'd be pissed to say the least.

[reverend_kyle]

trying to legislate morality on everyones life.. which ironically is the exact opposite of the founding fathers.

You are one in a million kyle! Republicans have never tried to pass a law making it manditory to go to church. They have never passed a law that requires people to pray in school. Never told anyone that they must believe in God. Now where do you get this "legislating morality"? On the contrary, the liberals are the ones tring to get rid of anything faith based. In essence "legislating atheism". And do a little research... if our founding fathers knew what you liberals were doing to this country they'd be pissed to say the least.

Well who decided it was immoral to be gay.. if you say god you are only proving my point.

[jay_a2j]

trying to legislate morality on everyones life.. which ironically is the exact opposite of the founding fathers.

You are one in a million kyle! Republicans have never tried to pass a law making it manditory to go to church. They have never passed a law that requires people to pray in school. Never told anyone that they must believe in God. Now where do you get this "legislating morality"? On the contrary, the liberals are the ones tring to get rid of anything faith based. In essence "legislating atheism". And do a little research... if our founding fathers knew what you liberals were doing to this country they'd be pissed to say the least.

Well who decided it was immoral to be gay.. if you say god you are only proving my point.

God does.... but it remains legal and there is no Republican trying to outlaw homosexuality.

[reverend_kyle]

trying to legislate morality on everyones life.. which ironically is the exact opposite of the founding fathers.

You are one in a million kyle! Republicans have never tried to pass a law making it manditory to go to church. They have never passed a law that requires people to pray in school. Never told anyone that they must believe in God. Now where do you get this "legislating morality"? On the contrary, the liberals are the ones tring to get rid of anything faith based. In essence "legislating atheism". And do a little research... if our founding fathers knew what you liberals were doing to this country they'd be pissed to say the least.

Well who decided it was immoral to be gay.. if you say god you are only proving my point.

God does.... but it remains legal and there is no Republican trying to outlaw homosexuality.

Bulll... what about the amendment that 'BUSH and the republican congress proposed earlier?

[SirSebstar]

not to mention the fact that if you cant outlaw homosexuality you can try to mute andthing that says anything positive about them..
http://www.irregulartimes.com/geraldallenbooks.html

ah the good old cencorship is back in town to protect us from....eh yea right

[vtmarik]

God does.... but it remains legal and there is no Republican trying to outlaw homosexuality.

No, but they're doing their damnedest not to have to deal with the issue. They're trying to pass blanket laws and edicts that will permit them to get back to the day-to-day functionality of the nation without having to take the time to make any motions toward equality or justice.

Example, there's a law on the books against female genital mutilation, but male circumcision is A-OK. Male babies aren't protected from having part of their anatomy lopped off without their consent, but if a doctor does that to a woman it means massive jail time for that doctor.

It's the Age-old American Institution: The Double Standard. Heterosexuals can get married and have power of attorney (and all the other nifty bonuses that go along with it) since that's groovy and all, but homosexuals can't because either A) It's Immoral/A Sin or B) It's never been done before.

The first argument is irrelevant in a legal context because the government is not allowed to legislate against sin. The establishment clause prevents this, and the supreme court would back me up on that I think.

The second argument, which is also known as the Traditionalist Argument, is completely inane. By that logic why did we start to build homes and shelters rather than living in caves? Why give women the right to vote? Why allow blacks to roam free? Not doing something just because 'it's never been done before' is a completely groundless argument.

"But they can't have children!"
Neither can couples with fertility issues, shall we force them to divorce?

"But the thought of two men kissing gives me the creeps!"
Then stop thinking about it! No one's forcing you to grab binoculars and spy on the gay couple next door.

"What sort of message will we be sending to our children?"
That no matter what kind of person you are, the first thing that matters is that you are an American and are no better or worse than anybody else. That freedom comes first, no matter your race, sex, religion, or sexual preference.

"It'll destroy conventional marriage!"
How? How will allowing gay people to marry each other destroy your marriage? Seriously. Give me one way that it'll affect anyone's marriage?

"But sodomy is a crime!"
Yeah, but when you and your wife do it, it's just fun isn't it? I hate to be vulgar, but that's the bare bones of it.

"They'll recruit our children and turn them gay!"
You can turn a person gay any more than you can turn a gay person straight. You cannot affect the biological trigger that causes someone to become aroused or develop deep feelings for those of the same, rather than opposite, sex. If you think you can, how about you try it for a day? For one day, become emotionally and physically attracted to a member of your sex. Have a personal yearning to spend every waking moment with that person. Then come back to me and tell me if you became genuinely interested in that person. Certainly God will forgive you if you do it to prove a point that He made.


Did I miss any arguments?

[DogDoc]

IWake up America

Where in the HELL are you getting your facts? From your NEA Union Member high school teacher?

You're right unions and the NEA are especially evil.. we should go back to the times of the gilded age.


Not to mention that everything you said about republicans being limited govt is bullshit.... limited on busines but trying to legislate morality on everyones life.. which ironically is the exact opposite of the founding fathers.

No, asshat. My point is that there is a hidden agenda from wherever he was getting his information. The NEA is especially liberal in their politics and it sounds like the author of the post has been duly influenced by them.

And I also said *traditionally* Republicans have been for a more limited government. That's what used to set them apart from the Dems. If you've read one of my previous posts you'll also see that I think there is little difference now between Republicans and Democrats.

And what do you mean, exactly, by legislating morality? Isn't that, by definition, the meaning of LAWS? To adopt a policy or rule by which society abides? To conform to society norms?

[OnlyAmbrose]

trying to legislate morality on everyones life.. which ironically is the exact opposite of the founding fathers.

You are one in a million kyle! Republicans have never tried to pass a law making it manditory to go to church. They have never passed a law that requires people to pray in school. Never told anyone that they must believe in God. Now where do you get this "legislating morality"? On the contrary, the liberals are the ones tring to get rid of anything faith based. In essence "legislating atheism". And do a little research... if our founding fathers knew what you liberals were doing to this country they'd be pissed to say the least.

Well who decided it was immoral to be gay.. if you say god you are only proving my point.

God does.... but it remains legal and there is no Republican trying to outlaw homosexuality.

Who decided it was immoral to kill someone? God decided that one too, but it seems the U.S. lawmakers agree with Him on that issue.

[SirSebstar]

Did I miss any arguments?

nope you pretty much covered it all. well done!

[reverend_kyle]

trying to legislate morality on everyones life.. which ironically is the exact opposite of the founding fathers.

You are one in a million kyle! Republicans have never tried to pass a law making it manditory to go to church. They have never passed a law that requires people to pray in school. Never told anyone that they must believe in God. Now where do you get this "legislating morality"? On the contrary, the liberals are the ones tring to get rid of anything faith based. In essence "legislating atheism". And do a little research... if our founding fathers knew what you liberals were doing to this country they'd be pissed to say the least.

Well who decided it was immoral to be gay.. if you say god you are only proving my point.

God does.... but it remains legal and there is no Republican trying to outlaw homosexuality.

Who decided it was immoral to kill someone? God decided that one too, but it seems the U.S. lawmakers agree with Him on that issue.

I disagree, because not only did god say it was immoral to kill someone, but it is also quite impractical for many main reasons as it infringes on someones life and liberty. Jefferson was a pretty out there atheist and he suscribed to that theory.

[Roger Dodger]

all i gotta say is that Joe Lieberman won in CT for US Senate after being snubbed by the Dems. ran as an independent and won...

that is good news in CT.

oh, BTW My neices husband won on the Maryland Gov. ticket as the LT. Gov. personally i don't even think they do anything however, now i can say i have political connections. NOT.

[cowshrptrn]

w00t, dems took aroudn 27 seats in the house!! plus a bunch fo republicans aren't very loyal, and we coudl concievably pull off an impeachment (though i doubt it would go through, since historically people have found that impeachments could cause a very slipper slope to legislative rule over the executive, and even congressmen are wary of that...)