Will the public tire of Republiphobia?

[renard_ruse]

The latest flare up of the phenomena this week is sinking to new lows even for the DNC, the media, and its useful idiots on the net.

I believe that at some point the basic fairness of the American people will finally cause them to stop being blind to the social disease of Republiphobia and they will see it and start to reject it.

I mean can a party really really be as absolutely loathsome and monstrous as the GOP is constantly protrayed to be in the constant verbal slurs, demonizations and attacks?

 

[Squibbs]

The latest flare up of the phenomena this week is sinking to new lows even for the DNC, the media, and its useful idiots on the net.

I believe that at some point the basic fairness of the American people will finally cause them to stop being blind to the social disease of Republiphobia and they will start to reject it.

I mean can a party really really be as absolutely loathsome and monstrous as the GOP is constantly protrayed to be in the constant verbal slurs, demonizations and attacks?

Ever read vette, bb, garbage, koala, miles etc...?

Your answer is YES, absolutely.

 

[coastal-boy]

-phobia means "fear of". We don't fear Republicans...far from it. We simply want them to understand there is more to the world than their views.

 

[julybaby04]

-phobia means "fear of". We don't fear Republicans...far from it. We simply want them to understand there is more to the world than their views.

I think republicans understand that there is more to the world than their views.....I just don't think they agree with those other views.....just as democrats do not agree with republican views.

 

[coastal-boy]

I think republicans understand that there is more to the world than their views.....I just don't think they agree with those other views.....just as democrats do not agree with republican views.

That is why there is a thing called compromise. You know what that is? Right? Like the way there was a deal on the debt last year but then the republican tea baggers said "no fucking way". Now deal with it. Meet us half way.

 

[julybaby04]

That is why there is a thing called compromise. You know what that is? Right? Like the way there was a deal on the debt last year but then the republican tea baggers said "no fucking way". Now deal with it. Meet us half way.

You mean a deal like......for example.......Democrats saying "you agree to raise the taxes on the wealthiest group and we will not cut any spending at all.....and in the process we will completely blame you for raising taxes when you said you would not during the next election"........and the Republicans saying "let's look at dealing with too much spending on wasteful programs and start there"........

you mean that kind of compromise?

 

[coastal-boy]

You mean a deal like......for example.......Democrats saying "you agree to raise the taxes on the wealthiest group and we will not cut any spending at all.....and in the process we will completely blame you for raising taxes when you said you would not during the next election"........and the Republicans saying "let's look at dealing with too much spending on wasteful programs and start there"........

you mean that kind of compromise?

No democrat I know of has ever said anything like this. Why not provide some links proving this?

Raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% will not lower our debt. This can only happen by making cuts. What it DOES however, is provide enough revenue to keep the tax cuts in place for the OTHER 98%. Yes, that kind of compromise.

 

[julybaby04]

No democrat I know of has ever said anything like this. Why not provide some links proving this?

Raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% will not lower our debt. This can only happen by making cuts. What it DOES however, is provide enough revenue to keep the tax cuts in place for the OTHER 98%. Yes, that kind of compromise.

Let me address the second part first....... If raising the taxes on the 2% will not lower the debt, but will allow the cuts to stay for the other 98%.....then how is that going to help the budget? Isn't the whole point of raising taxes and reducing costs is for the debt to be reduced? If that is not the case, then eventually that 2% is not going to be 2% any longer (their money will not be there as it will be taken by taxes)...and the the 98% have no one left to carry their load.

As far as the first point goes.....there are budget talks going on right now with the whole fiscal cliff thing going on. I have heard reports that there are talks about raising the taxes on the 2% (which pay 70% of the whole tax burden, by the way) and that in return the Dems have offered nothing for their cooperation.

In knowing how the democrats operate (i.e. Bush #1.....raising taxes as a compromise and then used against him in the next election), I see no reason why this time would be any different.

 

[coastal-boy]

Let me address the second part first....... If raising the taxes on the 2% will not lower the debt, but will allow the cuts to stay for the other 98%.....then how is that going to help the budget? Isn't the whole point of raising taxes and reducing costs is for the debt to be reduced? If that is not the case, then eventually that 2% is not going to be 2% any longer (their money will not be there as it will be taken by taxes)...and the the 98% have no one left to carry their load.

As far as the first point goes.....there are budget talks going on right now with the whole fiscal cliff thing going on. I have heard reports that there are talks about raising the taxes on the 2% (which pay 70% of the whole tax burden, by the way) and that in return the Dems have offered nothing for their cooperation.

In knowing how the democrats operate (i.e. Bush #1.....raising taxes as a compromise and then used against him in the next election), I see no reason why this time would be any different.

Let me give you a history lesson. The number one cause of our deficit is a reduction in revenue. This was caused by the Bush tax cuts. Did they make sense? Sure...for the individual they did. But for the country it didn't. Why? Because if you reduce revenue, you have to reduce your expenditures. This was not done because we thought it was more important to fight 2 worthless wars. What should happen is all the bush tax cuts should be revoked. But they can't. Why? Because we are coming out of a fucked economic situation. But what can happen is we can revoke the top 2% rates, which will allow the 98% to keep their tax cut (which includes you). Then Congress will have to sit down and decide what programs to cut to start moving back to where revenue=expenditures. It really is a simple process. The only thing holding it up is the republicans not budging on revoking the top 2% tax rate.

But see, here is the tricky part...economic growth will allow us to not to have to make so many cuts (because it raises revenue). Again, there are bills sitting there that would help our economy move forward...but oh no...they "have to be paid for". But we can't pay for them because we gave the people the Bush tax cuts. See the problem? You blame "entitlements". Entitlements are an issue. They need to be dealt with. But they are NOT the reason we are where we are. This is the problem in a nutshell.

 

[eyer]

[cue stoner saying]:

Pass the seaweed, -boy!

 

[julybaby04]

Let me give you a history lesson. The number one cause of our deficit is a reduction in revenue. This was caused by the Bush tax cuts. Did they make sense? Sure...for the individual they did. But for the country it didn't. Why? Because if you reduce revenue, you have to reduce your expenditures. This was not done because we thought it was more important to fight 2 worthless wars. What should happen is all the bush tax cuts should be revoked. But they can't. Why? Because we are coming out of a fucked economic situation. But what can happen is we can revoke the top 2% rates, which will allow the 98% to keep their tax cut (which includes you). Then Congress will have to sit down and decide what programs to cut to start moving back to where revenue=expenditures. It really is a simple process. The only thing holding it up is the republicans not budging on revoking the top 2% tax rate.

But see, here is the tricky part...economic growth will allow us to not to have to make so many cuts (because it raises revenue). Again, there are bills sitting there that would help our economy move forward...but oh no...they "have to be paid for". But we can't pay for them because we gave the people the Bush tax cuts. See the problem? You blame "entitlements". Entitlements are an issue. They need to be dealt with. But they are NOT the reason we are where we are. This is the problem in a nutshell.

The problem in a nutshell is that we are spending MORE than we have...period! New programs will only increase this (ie..Obamacare).

Perhaps a history lesson is needed for you as well. Ever heard of Reagan? Well he was a President, actually a VERY good one, who understood the importance of not taxing the American people to death. He understood that in not requiring as much in taxes that, oh my goodness, the people have more money in their OWN pockets and spend as they see fit. In this spending, the economy boomed and the financial issues we face today were not present.

Also, blame Bush as you will. He made mistakes, but he made very good choices as well. The wars you spoke of, were not started by us.....but being attacked required an answer in the form of the military (which still gives you the right to be free and speak the words you wish to here).

And, speaking of Bush.....he has not been president for 4 years now. It is time to grow up and start placing the blame for where we are on the man who is making decisions (I will agree, bad ones) for the country. Obama has had 4 years to screw up all on his own and he has excelled at it.

 

[coastal-boy]

Honey...You really have difficulty reading don't you? What part of "Congress will have to decide what to cut to make revenue=expenditures" do you not understand? The fact is we had revenue UNTIL we implemented the Bush tax cuts. Once implemented, Congress didn't make the necessary cuts to balance their books. You don't want to just cut Govt...you want to cut more revenue now and then cut govt to pay for it PLUS cut govt to pay for the last 12 years. I on the other hand, think the Govt has a role to play other than just with our military. I think we should cut Govt where we can PLUS raise more revenue. That is called compromise

BTW, Iraq didn't attack us. They had no WMD. End result? Open vacuum being filled by Iran. 100% waste of money. Why did we go there? Because GW wanted to impress his daddy. Not a very good reason if you ask me. No freedom I have is a result of this war. Maybe you have some..but you aren't the sharpest tool.

Afghanistan...what a clusterfuck. Are we better off? Are we safer? Bin Laden is dead (who ordered that?). Our drones keep picking off top terrorists (who switched to these instead of ground forces?) I am willing to say something had to be done here...but it could have been done a hell of a lot cheaper and easier with better results.

Ronald was a crack pot. He left California in debt. He left America in debt. He raised taxes more than he cut. BTW, Ronald had a larger tax increase in 1982 than Obamacare when it is adjusted for inflation or as a percentage of nation's economy. Google is your friend if you really want to know.

I'm simply pointing out facts.

 

[renard_ruse]

-phobia means "fear of". We don't fear Republicans...far from it. We simply want them to understand there is more to the world than their views.

Oh look, its Rory's "coastal-boi" alt. Like anyone cares.

 

[TheLM]

I've always liked julybaby....

But tonight I am now an official fan.

 

[badbabysitter]

The latest flare up of the phenomena this week is sinking to new lows even for the DNC, the media, and its useful idiots on the net.

I believe that at some point the basic fairness of the American people will finally cause them to stop being blind to the social disease of Republiphobia and they will see it and start to reject it.

I mean can a party really really be as absolutely loathsome and monstrous as the GOP is constantly protrayed to be in the constant verbal slurs, demonizations and attacks?

thank christ you've never demonized anyone on the left

otherwise, you'd just come across as a whiny hypocrite crybaby

 

[Exquisition]

This was not done because we thought it was more important to fight 2 worthless wars.

In the early days of Iraq part 2 commentators were estimating the final bill for this illegal, pointless war would top 1 trillion USD.

Anyone know what the cost is roughly?

I know there's a lot of kickbacks to certain, well-known large corporations in 'civil' projects and good old fashioned country-raping but if the cost is around 1 trillion usd wouldn't that be of real use to the hard pushed US economy?

I mean 1 trillion could fund a lot of healthcare reform for example.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Neither party talks about taxing the NFL, labor unions, charities, and churchs.

Last year the NFL made 9 billion bux, and iced it with lotsa free stadium rent and other goodies paid by local tax payers.

A charity is a license to milk tax payers and enrich its board.

 

[Exquisition]

The wars you spoke of, were not started by us.....but being attacked

You really believe all that Fox news propaganda don't you? Frightening.

Your country, and mine went to war on a 'sexed up dossier'. USA and its poodle the UK spent months putting together spurious justification for war and in the end finding nothing conclusive to link Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda went for the 'Iraq can launch WMDs in 40 minutes' line, which Butler the UN official overseeing the crisis poured total doubt on from the start.

I remember Colin Powell's PowerPoint presentation at the UN emergency summit with it's pretty diagrams thinking it was all bullshit. Hell, he didn't even look convinced himself!

Those pretty diagrams were based on a dossier handed over by our (UK's) secret service.

The dossier was based upon a student dissertation with large swathes of it plagiarised from numerous unverified sources and conspiracy crackpots on the web.

So, the Republicans went to war illegally and it has cost you the american tax payer what? 1 trillion?

Doesn't sound very bright to me.

You should be glad Obama is back in at least he's focussing on the home front instead of looking for likely countries to go to war with abroad.

Guess who said this?

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --interview with CBS

 

[Exquisition]

Incidentally, estimates for civilian deaths range anywhere from 100,00 to 250,000 as a direct result of Iraq part 2 (i.e. a war fought on you, the electorate's behalf). As a human being, Republican or Democrat does that sit squarely with you?

It embarrasses the hell out of me that we sent UK troops over there like the good little poodle we are.

It hasn't made the world safer - in fact it's radicalised home-grown extremists.

But Bush did want his War on terror and would not be denied.

Blair & Bush should be had up for war crimes imo.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Re: OP

No. Socialism as altruism always fails because the economics of redistribution stagnate and even kill economies wherever applied and since its practitioners' motives are as pure as the Salvation Army, they cannot bring their good intentions to blame, therefore they must have an enemy that thwarts their plans; agents of failure in their midst.

The Republican is the enemy. The old white male is the enemy. The Christian woman, when she actually lives her faith is the enemy. Those who tend to charity and not government are the enemy.

I've seen the list renard, and you are in the top 100.

REPENT! REPENT! REPENT! or

FEMA Camp!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And when they run out of internal enemies and have purged their ranks a few times, a strong man emerges and their enemies become external and then there will be war.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Incidentally, estimates for civilian deaths range anywhere from 100,00 to 250,000 as a direct result of Iraq part 2 (i.e. a war fought on you, the electorate's behalf). As a human being, Republican or Democrat does that sit squarely with you?

It embarrasses the hell out of me that we sent UK troops over there like the good little poodle we are.

It hasn't made the world safer - in fact it's radicalised home-grown extremists.

But Bush did want his War on terror and would not be denied.

Blair & Bush should be had up for war crimes imo.

They were radicalized even before Hitler was using them and the Brotherhood was created in the NAZI image...

 

[mercury14]

As far as the first point goes.....there are budget talks going on right now with the whole fiscal cliff thing going on. I have heard reports that there are talks about raising the taxes on the 2% (which pay 70% of the whole tax burden, by the way) and that in return the Dems have offered nothing for their cooperation.

You don't know what's going on in the talks because they're mostly behind closed doors. Stop making things up.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Let me give you a history lesson. The number one cause of our deficit is a reduction in revenue. This was caused by the Bush tax cuts. Did they make sense? Sure...for the individual they did. But for the country it didn't. Why? Because if you reduce revenue, you have to reduce your expenditures. This was not done because we thought it was more important to fight 2 worthless wars. What should happen is all the bush tax cuts should be revoked. But they can't. Why? Because we are coming out of a fucked economic situation. But what can happen is we can revoke the top 2% rates, which will allow the 98% to keep their tax cut (which includes you). Then Congress will have to sit down and decide what programs to cut to start moving back to where revenue=expenditures. It really is a simple process. The only thing holding it up is the republicans not budging on revoking the top 2% tax rate.

But see, here is the tricky part...economic growth will allow us to not to have to make so many cuts (because it raises revenue). Again, there are bills sitting there that would help our economy move forward...but oh no...they "have to be paid for". But we can't pay for them because we gave the people the Bush tax cuts. See the problem? You blame "entitlements". Entitlements are an issue. They need to be dealt with. But they are NOT the reason we are where we are. This is the problem in a nutshell.

There is not enough revenue in the world to keep up with the altruists need to spend.

You cannot go back to some magical time, adopt its tax rates and expect to have the same economy. It is not a matter of numbers, it is a matter of human action. Economics is not one of the hard sciences, it is one of the Social Sciences...

 

[CandiCame]

Renard, no one has any problem with republicans who are actually just conservatives. It's idiocy we disagree with. I believe that we don't need big government in our buisness unless it's obvious shit like not letting kids and old people starve, but when they get down to telling me who I can enter into a legal contract with or what medication I can have... well, then we have a problem.


Let me give you a microcosm example of the problem.

Rob: FUCK THOSE FAGGOTS
LYNCH THAT FAG
GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG

Me (fag): Dude, could you please stop saying that. WTF?

Rob: STOP BEING MEAN TO REPUBLICANS

Me: Well... fine, say it, whatever, but no so loud and not in law form

Rob: FUCK YOU, FAG!

Me:...

Rob: YOU'RE AFRAID OF REPUBLICANS

Me: ...I just... have no idea how to respond to that.