Election 2006

by **OnlyAmbrose** on Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:25 pm

cowshrptrn wrote:besides it woudl drive the price down in general, meaning we would be less averse to paying more in income taxes

Speak for yourself. I'm never going to be less averse to paying income taxes period...

by **cattrain** on Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:33 pm

i think they should just do away with partys all together... that would force people to vote on issues instead of a word... when choosing what doctor you wanted to go to would you chose one over the other just because you liked the colour of the building, when that one is know for raping all of his patients? ok, that is kinda extreme, but you get the point...

by **Econ2000** on Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:34 pm

I dont no if those comments will affect any or both parties but i think that either way the democrats will probably win control.

by **reverend_kyle** on Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:48 pm

Caleb the Cruel wrote:
cowshrptrn wrote:buy a car which eats less gas, pay higher taxes

but the government taxes 24 cents for every gallon of gas, so if we use less gas, the government gets less money...

raise income/property tax... sales tax hurts everyone equally which means it hurts bums as much as bill gates.. which isnt right... income and property tax hurts the rich who can pay more than the people who cant which is right.

by **reverend_kyle** on Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:49 pm

Caleb the Cruel wrote:
DogDoc wrote:By the way, Caleb, thanks for starting another thread that pushes people's buttons.

I disagree, caleb though he may be quite the bigot directs most of his threads and keeps them from becoming straight up shit flinging.

by **DogDoc** on Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:49 pm

cowshrptrn wrote:Also: If the rich didn't so selfishly hide their money away in tax shelters we would have billions of dollars more to use, we woudlnt' be trillions of dolalrs in debt either.

Yet another reason why the FairTax Bill would be so awesome. With a national sales tax in place of the income tax, there would BE no tax shelters. The people who make money in illicit trade, i.e. drug dealers, would also be taxed every time they buy that big, shiny new Lexus.

by **Gerazan** on Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:49 pm

I just want to see lobby reform.

I'm tired of all the legal bribery going on.

Put all lobby money in one pot to be equaly divided among the candidates.

by **strike wolf** on Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:51 pm

Where's James Monroe when you need him?

by **P Gizzle** on Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:52 pm

or George Washington

by **strike wolf** on Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:57 pm

GW as much as he would have liked to see no 2 party system was in fact a federalist or what would today be a Republican. James Monroe while a Republican, the modern day Democrat, was able to get along with both parties and create a unity amongst them that lasted until 1825, when Jackson split from the republican party and would eventually become the leader of the democratic or Jacksonian party.

by **P Gizzle** on Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:59 pm

good facts there. you out argued me.

by **OnlyAmbrose** on Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:08 am

strike wolf wrote:GW as much as he would have liked to see no 2 party system was in fact a federalist or what would today be a Republican. James Monroe while a Republican, the modern day Democrat, was able to get along with both parties and create a unity amongst them that lasted until 1825, when Jackson split from the republican party and would eventually become the leader of the democratic or Jacksonian party.

Incidentally your comparison between Federalists/Democratic-Republicans and Republicans/Democrats is not entirely accurate.

The Federalists were far more morally conservative, just like present-day Republicans, but in economics closely resembled the modern Democrats. They believed in federal taxes, lot's of federal services, and extremely centralized power.

The Democratic-Republicans, on the other hand, held veeery liberal stances on morality (like present-day Democrats) but were a bit more conservative in terms of economy- they were far more like the present Republican party in that they favored almost non-existant federal taxation.

James Monroe's time was the time at which the Federalist party essentially died, and a single party, the Democratic-Republicans, ruled. Of course, differing ideologies there caused yet another split and the Jacksonian Democrats came to power. They are basically the grandfathers of the Democrats we know today, but their ideologies were TOTALLY different- Democrats of that age loathed federal taxes but encouraged development at the expense of minorities such as the Native Americans and African slaves.

Basically you can't compare parties then to parties now. The major issues were totally different, and as such "Federalists" and all the other parties of the era can't really be compared to the ones we know today.

by **strike wolf** on Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:13 am

Well yeah if you want to get into the long boring explanation. :wink:

Im just going by what I've seen of these parties. And it wasn't because the federalist party fdied, essentially the republican party which Quincy would take charge of the new federalist party. Monroe just got along with both sides which caused a short lived unison. Sure the federalist party was weak but they didn't just die off. What was left of them started to consider themselves republicans because "they were there for the good of the republic".

by **reverend_kyle** on Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:49 am

what we really need is a modern day jefferson..

Oh wait ,teh republicans would call him "unpatriotic"

by **zarvinny** on Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:20 am

Gerazan wrote:Does it really matter.

They are both controlled by big business.

They are just carbon copies of each other that claim to have different interests but in the end they both bow down to big bucks.

They should just join together and form the Lobby party since thats who controlls them both already.

Kerry should just bury his head in the sand and never bring it out.

When a week goes by theres not a scandal in Washington we should all celebrate.

I think this first reply was probably the wisest thing said and should be repeated

by **reverend_kyle** on Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:34 am

I spent some time researching the governor candidates and have found...

Otter is full of complete and utter bullshit!

I find myself supporting brady though he's a douchebag.

by **evilclown** on Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:10 am

I think we all need to hope for an apocalyptic event that kills 75-90% of the population to happen. This world is getting tired and boring. I was really banking on the avian flu or Kim Jong Il pushing the button, but it doesn't look like any of that is gonna happen.

Maybe the Martians will come out of hiding and attack the Earth.

Hey, a boy can dream can't he? :twisted:

by **SirSebstar** on Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:11 am

DogDoc wrote:
Yet another reason why the FairTax Bill would be so awesome. With a national sales tax in place of the income tax, there would BE no tax shelters. The people who make money in illicit trade, i.e. drug dealers, would also be taxed every time they buy that big, shiny new Lexus.

and people will revert back to barter to circumvent those very high taxes oh and illigal import would rise ofcourse.

tax evasion is of all times.

by **strike wolf** on Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:29 am

reverend_kyle wrote:what we really need is a modern day jefferson..

Oh wait ,teh republicans would call him "unpatriotic"

No Jefferson is the last guy we would need to unite the parties. A good president yes but not the one for our time.

by **Econ2000** on Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:56 am

I livein Boston but im actually a Pennsylvainian and I personally think that Rick Santorm, Lynn Swann, and Mellisa Hart are all full of shit!

by **reverend_kyle** on Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:02 am

strike wolf wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:what we really need is a modern day jefferson..

Oh wait ,teh republicans would call him "unpatriotic"

No Jefferson is the last guy we would need to unite the parties. A good president yes but not the one for our time.

Who cares if the parties are you united.. quite frankly who gives a f*ck.. as long as we have good guys holding political office that shouldnt matter.

by **strike wolf** on Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:39 pm

thats the kind of close minded responce I'd expect from a Die hard (conservative or liberal). The point is that they are working so hard to stop the other party that it is standing in the way of progress.

by **reverend_kyle** on Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:15 am

Not closeminded just logical. If people are compromising their beliefs they are never going to get what they want done.. its the difference between the progressive era under Roosevelt and Taft... Roosevelt believed in the bully pulpit and taft wanted to compromise..

Who's on Mt. Rushmore again?

by **vtmarik** on Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:17 am

reverend_kyle wrote:Not closeminded just logical. If people are compromising their beliefs they are never going to get what they want done.. its the difference between the progressive era under Roosevelt and Taft... Roosevelt believed in the bully pulpit and taft wanted to compromise..

Who's on Mt. Rushmore again?

Um, Roosevelt, Jefferson, Washington, and.....

Scrappy-doo?

by **reverend_kyle** on Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:23 am

vtmarik wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:Not closeminded just logical. If people are compromising their beliefs they are never going to get what they want done.. its the difference between the progressive era under Roosevelt and Taft... Roosevelt believed in the bully pulpit and taft wanted to compromise..

Who's on Mt. Rushmore again?

Um, Roosevelt, Jefferson, Washington, and.....

Scrappy-doo?

Interesting that three you named strike wolf condemned because they didnt compromise.. right?>

Election 2006

Who is online