Conquer Club

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

Sometimes the best insights come at the edge of sleep.

Hey, scrappy-doo never compromised either. He was annoying, and he embraced it!

vtmarik wrote:

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

Sometimes the best insights come at the edge of sleep.

Hey, scrappy-doo never compromised either. He was annoying, and he embraced it!

ARe you saying lincoln's annoying?

reverend_kyle wrote:ARe you saying lincoln's annoying?

Maybe. He did do that whole pesky 'getting shot' thing. That tends to get old after a while.

vtmarik wrote:

reverend_kyle wrote:ARe you saying lincoln's annoying?

Maybe. He did do that whole pesky 'getting shot' thing. That tends to get old after a while.

'
And freeing slaves... god black people are annoying, wish they were back in the fields occasionally.


*waits to do the whole getting shot thing*

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?

I don't think I said comprimise specifically Rev. This is my basic point since you can't understand it. Would you rather have one party propose an idea while another party does whatever they can to stop it so nothing gets done? Or would you have two parties get together STATE THEIR BELIEFS to the other as to the best course of action and come out with the best plan?

Secondly, compromise isn't always a bad thing. You might want to note that the Constitution was based on the GREAT COMPRIMISE. Why was the comprimise needed? Because the two sides couldn't agree on a course of action and nothing was being done

strike wolf 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?

I don't think I said comprimise specifically Rev. This is my basic point since you can't understand it. Would you rather have one party propose an idea while another party does whatever they can to stop it so nothing gets done? Or would you have two parties get together STATE THEIR BELIEFS to the other as to the best course of action and come out with the best plan?

Secondly, compromise isn't always a bad thing. You might want to note that the Constitution was based on the GREAT COMPRIMISE. Why was the comprimise needed? Because the two sides couldn't agree on a course of action and nothing was being done

Depends on what is getting done... if its stuff Idont like than I'd prefer the other party try and stop it.. instead of making it to a lesser extent.

Well yeah that does happen.

Which is whats happening now.

Basically from what I've seen, that's not the case. From what I've seen the Democrats are taking whatever the republicans are trying to do and if they can turn it into looking bad they go against, and the republicans are doing the same thing to the democrats.

maybe

Whoooo Hoooo! I just went down and voted! Yes, I ran right down the Rebublican line! (Not that it matters, most of em will lose).

I Voted this morning, and i didn't vote for arnold schwarzen-whatever! that would be like voteing for Nacho Libre! It's hard to get anything fixed in California with the BlowHards we have controlling the CA Legislature.
That is where my vote really counts!

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

Gerazan wrote:I just dont understand it.

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

What the hell are you talking about? the underprivileged get nothing but help!
At what point do people take responsibility for their own lives?
Everyone was complaining how immoral it was to put a time limit on welfare,
and after the reforms all these former welfare recipients who now were off the rolls and working were thanking the Gov't for opening their eyes.

They are now responsible and have pride in themselves. How terrible.
It's called "Tough Love", and it works!

Gerazan wrote: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

Oh, I just can't let this go unrefuted!

The Republicans are for tax cuts, smaller govornment, a pull yourself up by the boot straps and get to work party.

They are for lower taxes across the board. Cutting all the social programs which are in deparate need of an overhull.

Democrats are for Bigger govornment, higher taxes across the board (God, I still remembers Clinton's promise of "the 100,000 limit for taxes" if fell to what was it 30 -50 k? Somewhere in that range)

Democrats like to tax and spend! They push social programs that by their nature are designed to keep the poor, poor! It stands to reason because if a poor person starts to succeed and make money they often times become Republican after seeing how they are being raped by the IRS.


Wheeeeew! Got that out. Wake up Democrats.

Gerazan wrote: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

actually in Colorado, the most Democrats wanted to raise an average family's taxes by over $2000, luckily it didn't happen, or I'd probably move back to oklahoma

this is my 500th post!

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.

sorry, but George Washington was too isolationist to be a republican. You wouldn't see him getting involved with other countries like Bush sr. and Bush jr. he also would be fiscally conservative and pass taxes as well as balance the budget

Caleb the Cruel wrote:actually in Colorado, the most Democrats wanted to raise an average family's taxes by over $2000, luckily it didn't happen, or I'd probably move back to oklahoma

I'm sure they never mentioned the distribution of the taxes as in how much YOU are getting taxed in relation to how muc the RICH are being taxed (unless of course you ARE rich, in which case you'd be justified, a miser, but a justified miser)

cowshrptrn wrote:(unless of course you ARE rich, in which case you'd be justified, a miser, but a justified miser)

i'm not rich
i'm too poor to afford premium
actually I am just against paying for an online game
but I'm still against raising taxes for anyone, but the Dems support raising taxes

Why does no one realise that you can't have a war and no taxes. We're floating a gigantic debt that relies completely on how much goodwill emerging economies liek china have towards us, and whether or not they'll be willing to continue to laon us money later on, or ask for their money back one of these days, which woudl leave us in shambles.

Political parties have to go. The sit there and fight constantly. Its gotten to the point where the issue doesn't matter to each representative, just where their party stands on it. If the democrats win out in congress, nothing will get done for the two years left on Bush's term. Its neither parties fault but they have to be eliminated so that representatives can make their own decisions, not follow their parties.

On another note, in several places its gotten to the point where I'm not for anyone, I'm against one candidate or the other. Its no longer a matter of voting for, but voting against.

cowshrptrn wrote:
I'm sure they never mentioned the distribution of the taxes as in how much YOU are getting taxed in relation to how muc the RICH are being taxed (unless of course you ARE rich, in which case you'd be justified, a miser, but a justified miser)

OK, lets do the math shall we?


Welfare guy makes no money and pays no taxes.


Lets say Middle class guy makes $40,000 and is taxed at 12%, he pays $4,800 in taxes.

Now lets say Rich guy makes $700,000 and is taxed 10%, he pays $70,000 in taxes.

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!)

Well its kidn of hard to avoid political parties, its the fact that we only have two. If anyone's taken, or is taking comparative politics then they'd see that SMD plurality systems (as in highest number votes gets the seat, not a true majority) inherently foster two parties, look at britain, the Labour and Conservatives have almost all of the seats, while the liberal democrats are dragging behind, mainly because the liber democrat's constituents are spread throughout the country, not concentrated in one district to capture that vote.

cowshrptrn wrote:

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.

sorry, but George Washington was too isolationist to be a republican. You wouldn't see him getting involved with other countries like Bush sr. and Bush jr. he also would be fiscally conservative and pass taxes as well as balance the budget

What people seem to not realize about me, is that I generalize everything. GW was a federalist at least in his views but federalists aren't exactly like republicans as I generalized them. I think something like this came up earlier in the thread.

jay_a2j wrote: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

cowshrptrn wrote:

jay_a2j wrote: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

That's B.S.

Rich people pay a far higher percentage of their income to taxes than the middle-class and lower-class do. The more income you get, the more of it goes to income tax. I wouldn't be so annoyed by this fact if everyone paid an equal percentage, but the more you go up, the more the government shaves off.

I'm sick and tired of Wal-Mart bashing. We're in America and success is to be rewarded. If you don't like something a business is doing, don't go whining to the damn government, organize boycotts. We've become so cursedly reliant on government to solve all our problems that we have to pay them more and more for things that would be cheaper if we did them ourselves.

Free college doesn't mean a healthier workforce. Along with disgusting things such as affirmative action, it lessens competition to get into college, which means you'll get less qualified people getting college degrees, meaning a degree won't mean much anymore, plus class sizes will grow and you won't get as good of an education. I'm not going to be able to pay for college- I'm going to have to scholarship/loan my way in, but I'm willing to do it. I don't WANT the goddam government paying for my education, because I can do it myself.

It all boils down to one fact. This country has become way too reliant on an octopus of a government to solve all its problems.