PHILLIPS: The last days of the Republican Party

Oct 12, 2013 Full story: Washington Times 2,191

The Republican Party saved the Union and abolished slavery. The Republican Party stood against Franklin Roosevelt's internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and against Jim Crow laws in the 50's.

Full Story
Billy Ringo

Forest Hills, NY

#460 Oct 18, 2013
First O destroys Bin Laden.

Now, O destroys the Rethuglican Party.

Thank you, Mr. President

“Kenyan-born Obama=Antichrist”

Since: Sep 09

Casper, WY

#461 Oct 18, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
You think 9/11 was an inside job!! F*ck off and go sell crazy somewhere else!
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled." Mark Twain

“Liberals hate free speech!”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#462 Oct 18, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
35E was my MOS. It served me well to be able to read people. You are not difficult to ascertain. Your delusion prevents logic from ever having a chance.
Why are you anti-choice?
Delusional?? 18B was my MOS, I never said I was anti-choice?!?!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#463 Oct 18, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>"It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled." Mark Twain
yup the conspiracy nutjobs sure fooled you easily enough...

look...bigfoot!
Chicopee

Danbury, CT

#464 Oct 18, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
You are incorrect. The Supreme Court says so.
Justice Black, writing for a unanimous court striking down a Maryland law requiring notaries public to affirm a belief in God, stated that "neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."
In 1968 a unanimous Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional an Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. Justice Arthur Goldberg made clear that the First Amendment guarantees "freedom from religion" as well as "freedom of religion. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
More recently, in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), Justice John Paul Stevens explained, "Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority."
Even the current Supreme Court, the most reactionary since before World War II, has refused to back down on the court's protection of "freedom from religion." Just this year, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the court ruled that a public high school cannot allow "voluntary" student prayers over its loudspeaker system at football games.
<quoted text>
It protects citizens from having religion forced upon them via public prayer, too. Did you forget that part?
<quoted text>
Not true. The highest court in the land has removed religious symbols from public buildings, especially the courts.
<quoted text>
And they are...?
<quoted text>
Why are you defending on in particular?
No, I'm not incorrect. The Supreme Court decisions you posted all concern government, state or school (public) cases. Public prayers would violate the Establishment Clause.

Individually, we all have the right to our own religious beliefs or the lack of them.

I'm not defending any one religion. I don't believe in religion, though I've examined several out of curiosity, and often question people I know of different faiths and beliefs from all over the world and people of the different Christian denominations.(How can there be so many variations based on one book of texts?)

Religion doesn't offend me, I just don't get it. Hearing prayers doesn't offend me. A Muslim gentleman I worked with several years ago rolling out a rug and praying daily didn't offend me (several people complained about it). Religious symbols don't offend me. They don't mean anything to me.

I suppose I just try to understand WHY people believe what they do and often look for what these different faiths have in common with each other.

I would never attack someone's beliefs, either. Or attack them because they believe or because they don't. And I expect the same in return.

“Smart@ss”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#465 Oct 19, 2013
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't speak for the big ones, buy my little corporation pays taxes....C corps pay 40%...34 % fed and 6% state....its a ripoff too. But say you are right, and those big corps pay no taxes....but their employees, maybe numbering into the millions, pay taxes on their personal income, paid to them by the corp, so aint that almost as good?
Nope, not even close to be just as good.

“Smart@ss”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#466 Oct 19, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
Delusional?? 18B was my MOS, I never said I was anti-choice?!?!
18B??? That's it?, damn and here I thought you was going to be impressive when you revealed your MOS.

All my dreams have been dashed aside, I thought I was debating a real life Rambo.
1 post removed

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#468 Oct 19, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>"It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled." Mark Twain
Birther nut mental defective.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#469 Oct 19, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
Delusional?? 18B was my MOS, I never said I was anti-choice?!?!
Okay, anti-law and anti-logic.

Worry about yourself not a woman's uterus.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#470 Oct 19, 2013
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm not incorrect. The Supreme Court decisions you posted all concern government, state or school (public) cases. Public prayers would violate the Establishment Clause.
Yes, and in EVERY one, they SC stated that Americans have a freedom FROM religion. Every single ruling.
Hearing prayers doesn't offend me. A Muslim gentleman I worked with several years ago rolling out a rug and praying daily didn't offend me (several people complained about it). Religious symbols don't offend me. They don't mean anything to me.
The difference is that you weren't forced to participate.

The pilgrims fled religious tyranny. Europe had several state controlled religions that citizens were forced to support and participate in. They drafted our earliest laws to prevent such nonsense.
I would never attack someone's beliefs, either. Or attack them because they believe or because they don't. And I expect the same in return.
That's a shame, I live in a world where people attack others because of their religious beliefs. Wishing we could all get along is fantasy. I have no tolerance for those who believe their religion is the only correct one.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#471 Oct 19, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
In your household situation. If your bills a more or less stable month to month and you have a shortfall you would opt to not pay bills? I understand what you are saying about a winfall being saved against a future shortfall. but it's not currently applicable when applied to the national picture.
1.) Were haven't a stable budget from which we could use that concept. And we won't approach it anytime soon. The last time we could make that claim was at the end of Clintons term
2.) Politics Last time we were generating a surplus a 'conservative' gave it back 2x over in tax cuts added a large benifit and two wars...
3)So we are still at a stage between triage and recovery. How quickly can we safely get there. it would take massive tax increases and budget cuts that we as a natiion would not allow and that could be de-stablizing economically and socially..
Triage\recovery would indicate that you look your cost first, with an eye to reducing them before attempting to scratch up enough revenue to cover, knowing full well that it won't.
With disapline and recovery we could find ourself in a spot were we can actually bank a surplus...but I can't see it with current political reality
No, if I have a shortfall in income for the month I use my SAVINGS to make up the difference so I am able to pay every bill. That's what the govt should be doing as well.

We never had a surplus- not even under Clinton. They were counting the social security taxes in that calculation, which was supposed to be going into their "lock box". Of course since everyone knows the combination of that lock box, the money was spent so they could claim we had an annual surplus.

That's why I oppose raising the debt ceiling; it would have FORCED us to balance the budget whether they wanted to or not. We take in about 2 TRILLION a year; that's more than enough to meet our current obligations.

It's time to cut spending, and cut it drastically- by about 1/3rd to be precise, which would at least balance our budget.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#472 Oct 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, if I have a shortfall in income for the month I use my SAVINGS to make up the difference so I am able to pay every bill. That's what the govt should be doing as well.
Governments do not function like private citizens. Only once in our nation's history did we not have a national debt.

During George W. Bush's terms in office, we saw seven debt ceiling raises. Despite the assurances of conservative fiscal leaders, we borrowed more to pay for a war that was based upon a lie. We are still paying for it and will for many more years.
It's time to cut spending, and cut it drastically- by about 1/3rd to be precise, which would at least balance our budget.
Okay, please tell us where you would cut spending. Elaboration is required.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#473 Oct 19, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Governments do not function like private citizens. Only once in our nation's history did we not have a national debt.
During George W. Bush's terms in office, we saw seven debt ceiling raises. Despite the assurances of conservative fiscal leaders, we borrowed more to pay for a war that was based upon a lie. We are still paying for it and will for many more years.
<quoted text>
Okay, please tell us where you would cut spending. Elaboration is required.
i bet the military could function just as it does now with one third less funding. i bet most gov't agencies could.

for the last two decades, private businesses have trimmed their operating expenses, time for the gov't to do the same. sensible budget reductions are not magic, just start each agencies'/department's budget from $0, and rewrite every one of them.
1 post removed

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#475 Oct 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i bet the military could function just as it does now with one third less funding. i bet most gov't agencies could.
for the last two decades, private businesses have trimmed their operating expenses, time for the gov't to do the same. sensible budget reductions are not magic, just start each agencies'/department's budget from $0, and rewrite every one of them.
Yeah, private businesses trimmed their operating expenses by laying people off, outsourcing jobs to the third world, and liquidating pension funds. How do you think these CEOs make the money they do? You want to teabag the rest of us and outsource all the workers here?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#476 Oct 19, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, private businesses trimmed their operating expenses by laying people off, outsourcing jobs to the third world, and liquidating pension funds. How do you think these CEOs make the money they do? You want to teabag the rest of us and outsource all the workers here?
better than closing down altogether, no?...it is a global economy, nothing you wish or hope for will ever change that.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#477 Oct 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, if I have a shortfall in income for the month I use my SAVINGS to make up the difference so I am able to pay every bill. That's what the govt should be doing as well.
We never had a surplus- not even under Clinton. They were counting the social security taxes in that calculation, which was supposed to be going into their "lock box". Of course since everyone knows the combination of that lock box, the money was spent so they could claim we had an annual surplus.
That's why I oppose raising the debt ceiling; it would have FORCED us to balance the budget whether they wanted to or not. We take in about 2 TRILLION a year; that's more than enough to meet our current obligations.
It's time to cut spending, and cut it drastically- by about 1/3rd to be precise, which would at least balance our budget.
Politics would never allow that.
All cuts with no new revenue?...see the first sentence.
Economics aren't in your corner either. to get back to your household budget , do believe that your creditors or your needs utilities,...food...can be cut by 2\3 with no repercussion?
Like many households our gov't has existing debt that must be serviced, established mandated expenses and bills of various type that will not be cut with no repercussions.
Just like economist warning of negative effects for default there are equally ominous warnings on radical austerity. As far as the social effects look to Europe trapped between debt and an IMF dictated austerity.
I suggest that a sizable downturn in the economy would greet your austerity making balancing the budget all the more challenging
A more gradual plan spread out over 2-3 years where cuts and small tax hikes keep us on a positive budget trajectory, enables us to cut foreign commitments in a way that is political do-able. Then sometime early in the next Presidents first term, assuming the next President is responsible, a budget as balanced Bill's

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#478 Oct 19, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Politics would never allow that.
All cuts with no new revenue?...see the first sentence.
Economics aren't in your corner either. to get back to your household budget , do believe that your creditors or your needs utilities,...food...can be cut by 2\3 with no repercussion?
Like many households our gov't has existing debt that must be serviced, established mandated expenses and bills of various type that will not be cut with no repercussions.
Just like economist warning of negative effects for default there are equally ominous warnings on radical austerity. As far as the social effects look to Europe trapped between debt and an IMF dictated austerity.
I suggest that a sizable downturn in the economy would greet your austerity making balancing the budget all the more challenging
A more gradual plan spread out over 2-3 years where cuts and small tax hikes keep us on a positive budget trajectory, enables us to cut foreign commitments in a way that is political do-able. Then sometime early in the next Presidents first term, assuming the next President is responsible, a budget as balanced Bill's
well, most of the EU austerity plans have to do with cutting unrealistic benefits plans... there is no way an economy could support those plans in the first place for any extended period of time.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#479 Oct 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>well, most of the EU austerity plans have to do with cutting unrealistic benefits plans... there is no way an economy could support those plans in the first place for any extended period of time.
There is no way a shrinking economy could maintain the public employee spending that most European countries, thats true , However the political sustainability of a large scale austerity, that are installed in one big gulp is clear as well. In addition to social disorder the economies of Greece ect..haven't responded positively and the original IMF plans were restructured.
Sheeple's willingness to see 1\3 of the budget sliced off in a single stroke would in my opinion cause more problems than it solves, in addition it will slow the economy (in the short term) causing deeper cuts.
What sheeple's plan lacks is a somewhat longer window. It's second flaw is the lack of new revenue. In my opinion cuts alone are not politically sellable with no revenue. The additional revenue would also enable shallower cuts.
The need for new revenue is recognized by people with impeccable anti-tax pedigrees'. Going through Barron's I came upon an article by David Stockman Reagan's omb director his tax proposal is eye opening.

http://blogs.barrons.com/penta/2013/10/11/dav...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#480 Oct 19, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Governments do not function like private citizens. Only once in our nation's history did we not have a national debt.
During George W. Bush's terms in office, we saw seven debt ceiling raises. Despite the assurances of conservative fiscal leaders, we borrowed more to pay for a war that was based upon a lie. We are still paying for it and will for many more years.
<quoted text>
Okay, please tell us where you would cut spending. Elaboration is required.
Govt not functioning like private citizens is a BIG part of the problem.

Cut EVERY program besides social security, medicare & pension obligations by 1/3rd IMMEDIATELY.

Cut defense spending by an additional 50% immediately.

Close all overseas bases immediately or charge the host country for the security we provide.

Eliminate 100% of foreign aid immediately.

Eliminate 100% of tax breaks to corporations.

Eliminate 100% of tax breaks to individuals making over $1 million.

Eliminate 1/2 of those 800,000 non-essential employees.

Cut Congressional pay to the average wage in America-$35k/yr, and tie it permanently to that. Eliminate their lifetime pensions & lifetime healthcare. Make Congress the part-time job it was intended to be.

That's a good start.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#481 Oct 19, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Politics would never allow that.
All cuts with no new revenue?...see the first sentence.
Economics aren't in your corner either. to get back to your household budget , do believe that your creditors or your needs utilities,...food...can be cut by 2\3 with no repercussion?
Like many households our gov't has existing debt that must be serviced, established mandated expenses and bills of various type that will not be cut with no repercussions.
Just like economist warning of negative effects for default there are equally ominous warnings on radical austerity. As far as the social effects look to Europe trapped between debt and an IMF dictated austerity.
I suggest that a sizable downturn in the economy would greet your austerity making balancing the budget all the more challenging
A more gradual plan spread out over 2-3 years where cuts and small tax hikes keep us on a positive budget trajectory, enables us to cut foreign commitments in a way that is political do-able. Then sometime early in the next Presidents first term, assuming the next President is responsible, a budget as balanced Bill's
Neither will ever happen, so I'll continue to dream about a REAL balanced budget.

In reality our debt will continue to climb past $20 trillion, then $30 trillion, etc, until everything eventually collapses.

Then we'll have no choice but to start over from scratch.

It's gonna suck bigtime, but that's where we're headed and nothing can stop it now.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 9 min Sunnier 261,513
CIA: ISIS has doubled in strength 9 min dumb usa 10
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min RoxLo 1,109,030
UN rights expert accuses Israel of 'ethnic clea... 12 min ThatOneBand 1,974
Obama takes tougher line against Gaza casualties 18 min ThatOneBand 422
Why They Hate Obama (Aug '13) 19 min WelbyMD 11,828
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 19 min Cornelius Scudmister 153,027
Hillary Clinton Faces Skeptical Iowa Voters 1 hr Lawrence Wolf 166
Obama to broaden US effort to combat militants 1 hr barefoot2626 251
Teen's Shooting Highlights Racial Tension 4 hr SevenTee 2,687
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

US Politics People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••