Republicans to Boehner: Stick it up your ass!

This shit doesnt fly any more.

Your dishonesty in this will merely help kill your party.

You have been found out and your lies dont fly anymore
 
evince said:
what we are is a type of democracy and every time you deny that fact you display your stupidity and partisan propaganda lapping abilities
Click to expand...

I didn't deny that we are a TYPE of democracy, desh. We are a representative republic. Some people call it a representative democracy as well. It can also be called a "federal republic" or a "constitutional republic" but it's just not a pure democracy, and never has been. Every link you've posted, clearly spells out the differences in the variations of democracy, so that you can educate yourself and understand what we are. I don't need to rewrite dictionaries and encyclopedias, YOU need to do some reading. We simply are not a democracy.
 
evince said:
but you just quoted that we are
Click to expand...

No, I said that we are a representative republic, which is a variety of democratic government. We are not a pure democracy, we have never been a pure democracy. Nothing you have offered up, shows that we are a pure democracy. Everything you've offered, makes the distinction that we are a VARIETY of democracy, not a pure democracy.

Now if you want to be a pure democracy, it means that Congress is illegitimate. It also means the States appoint the Senators, which means we have an overwhelming Republican Senate right now, and Obama is essentially powerless. Are you SURE you want us to be a Democracy?
 
Dixie said:
Representative democracy is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected people representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!
Click to expand...


yes you did post this and then make the idiot remark below it
 
Dixie said:
No, I said that we are a representative republic, which is a variety of democratic government. We are not a pure democracy, we have never been a pure democracy. Nothing you have offered up, shows that we are a pure democracy. Everything you've offered, makes the distinction that we are a VARIETY of democracy, not a pure democracy.

Now if you want to be a pure democracy, it means that Congress is illegitimate. It also means the States appoint the Senators, which means we have an overwhelming Republican Senate right now, and Obama is essentially powerless. Are you SURE you want us to be a Democracy?
Click to expand...



listen you fucking lying diverting piece of shit.


you fool no one with these tactics
 
evince said:
Thank you for admitting we are a democracy
Click to expand...

I didn't admit that, I stomped your ass resoundingly, and you had to backpedal. We're not a direct democracy, and you've offered not one iota of evidence to support that claim, while I have offered a variety of sources, as well as used your own sources to contradict what you said.

Again, if we ARE a direct democracy, the House of Representatives is irrelevant, they no longer exist. The Senators are appointed by the state governors, which 38 of them are Republicans at this time. So we are an overwhelmingly Republican Democracy, if we are a direct Democracy. I don't think you want to be that, do you?
 
dude your fucking worthless.

You NEVER admitt when you are wrong and you lie like a fucking rug.



You add NOTHING to this country .

you merely muddy the waters and make life less enjoyable for all Americans
 
evince said:
Democracy and Pure democracy are two differing things.

fuck off you liar Im done with you
Click to expand...

No, most people understand in common parlance of our times, a "democracy" and "pure democracy" are the same thing. Most people who graduated high school, comprehend there is an extreme difference between a "pure democracy" or "democracy" and a federal republic, which is what WE are. If you don't comprehend the difference, you should educate yourself on this, because it's pretty damn important.

You of all people, should thank the God you don't believe in, that we AREN'T a pure democracy, and that we ARE a representative republic. It is largely due to that fact we have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or even the abolition of slavery! If we were a pure democracy, the majority would have never taken such measures, and you'd be getting ready to go pick some cotton today.
 
Dixie said:
The thing that you don't seem to be getting through your thick head is, tax increases only generate increased revenue on paper. When we raise taxes, a lot of things start to happen, and they are all bad for economic growth, which means, you are collecting a higher rate in taxes on less money, ergo: you get less revenue. In order to compensate for the lost revenues due to your tax increase, we will ultimately have to make even more cuts in spending. We should be actually reducing tax rates to increase tax revenues, but on paper, that looks like it would result in less revenue, because you simple minds can't comprehend we don't live in a vacuum. Reductions in the top marginal rates have historically always produced more tax revenues. So with the fiscal cliff problem, if the idea is to generate revenue to balance the budget, we need to be cutting taxes, not raising them.

Before you start squealing, this is something that even Obama himself understands, he said so in 2008. He was asked the direct question about historically, increasing taxes produced less revenue, and you know what he said? It didn't matter, this was about leveling the playing field for all Americans, and redistributing wealth. If we are going to be "equitable and reasonable" it starts with being honest about what is equitable and then being reasonable about that.

Let's imagine a scenario using Damo's board. Let's say Damo decides that we all need to be paying "our fair share" here, and he implements a system of "taxation" on posting. He starts by announcing that all posts will be taxed .05 and all threads .10, across the board. What would be the result of such a policy? Would we have just as many posts and threads as we've had historically, or would we have fewer posts and threads? I'm guessing fewer. Let's say that after the first year of this policy, Damo has made a certain amount of money from 100 regular posters, who haven't minded paying the tax in order to speak their minds. Damo gets to figuring, if he raises his tax X amount, he should be getting X times 100 next year, from these same posters. So he increases the tax rates, in anticipation of a windfall. But what do you suppose happens when he announces the new tax rates? Well, even more people check out and say to hell with this, I can go post elsewhere for free! Now Damo is collecting more per post and thread, but he has considerably fewer people posting. He needs more revenue, so he again increases his tax rate, and it now costs $10 to post a thread and $5 per post. Where are the posters? What happened to the vibrant community we once knew and loved? They are gone, probably for good, because Damo didn't understand you can't tax your way to prosperity. And this is what happens when we increase top marginal tax rates. The people who are in this income bracket are not those who have no choice, or people who must suck it up and just pay whatever the government says, they have plenty of wealth already, so they check out. You can't tax incomes that no longer exist, and their wealth is sitting in some secure investment fund that you can't touch.

Liberals talk about the "greedy rich" when it is the liberal who is the most greedy of all, your greed prompts you to think you can 'punish' the wealthy with higher tax rates, and you'll get all that beautiful money to do all kinds of cool liberal stuff with... but it won't happen. You'll end up with less money and a dilapidated economy. Who does that hurt? Here's a clue... not the WEALTHY!
Click to expand...

This is just opinion. The CBO disagrees with you. The same argument can be made about cutting spending, and in fact, YOU have made it about cutting certain kinds of spending.

The bottom line here is that taxes are about to go up indiscriminately if they aren't able to reach a deal. That's what Boehner's legacy will be. The GOP will cause this, by their unwillingness to compromise even the smallest bit, in a way that only affects 2% of the population.
 
Dixie said:
No, most people understand in common parlance of our times, a "democracy" and "pure democracy" are the same thing. Most people who graduated high school, comprehend there is an extreme difference between a "pure democracy" or "democracy" and a federal republic, which is what WE are. If you don't comprehend the difference, you should educate yourself on this, because it's pretty damn important.

You of all people, should thank the God you don't believe in, that we AREN'T a pure democracy, and that we ARE a representative republic. It is largely due to that fact we have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or even the abolition of slavery! If we were a pure democracy, the majority would have never taken such measures, and you'd be getting ready to go pick some cotton today.
Click to expand...

That's because you assume all white people are like you. They aren't.

Do you know why Obama is the president?

It's because white people .. the majority of his voters .. elected him to be the president.
 
blackascoal said:
That's because you assume all white people are like you. They aren't.

Do you know why Obama is the president?

It's because white people .. the majority of his voters .. elected him to be the president.
Click to expand...

Again, he may not have won the presidency if we were a pure democracy. IF we were not individual states, and all lived under a single entity of democracy, he may have. But we are essentially a federation of states, and as a pure democracy, the states would have selected a president. Far more states would have voted for the Republican. It is the fact that we are NOT a democracy, that enables us to have a system of representative government, which allows us to give more weight to larger states with greater population and have an electoral college. In a "democracy" system, we would democratically elect governors and they would pick the person to preside over our federation.

Yes, as I told Desh, if we were a true pure democracy, you and her would be heading to the cotton fields today. 14% of the population would not be able to do anything politically, the majority would hoot you down, IF they even gave you the right to speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top