It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by elaine
I'm thinking you're just trolling for the "right". When will you learn that takeing sides along political parties won't work? It's too divisive to the people.
And I think the people are starting to realize it.
Are you the pot calling the kettle black?
[edit on 5-11-2006 by elaine]
Originally posted by sleeper
I’m a moderate, but when the majority of a certain party is more than willing to kowtow to those that hate democracy I take sides---because I like democracy.
The dems also hate or at least make lots of noise against things that make democracy possible, which is Capitalism.
The dems also tell us they are going to raise taxes on the rich when they really mean they are going to raise taxes on the working classes instead; they are being very deceptive with the tax issue solely for votes.
Originally posted by Liberal1984
P.S Sleeper What’s this to do with the war on terrorism? Isn’t it a U.S politics or indeed a Slug Fest Thread?
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]
Originally posted by forestlady
Hellooo, Earth to Sleeper...the Dems aren't doing anything right now and haven't for 6 years. The tax cuts were designed to make the rich richer and it was pushed by Bush, not democrats. Where do you get the idea that it was Democrats?
THe fact that you accuse Democrats of being anti-democratic is laughable, at best. What do you think we've been doing for the last 6 years? That's right, we've been protesting, writing letters, etc. to preserve the freedoms that the Repubs are taking away from us, the People. We've been complaining about our vanishing democracy for 6 years; where've you been? Or have you been a Sleeper?
Sleeper, I think you need to WAKE UP!
The dems fill almost half of both houses, but I do agree they don’t do much.
The current Congress has been marked by some of the most extreme partisanship in many decades, and has largely ignored the Democratic minority on issue after issue when it came to allowing legislation to be introduced or amended -- with Republicans sometimes engineering congressional victories by only one vote. In past decades, the Congress was much more of an institution of compromise in which the minority party was at least able to achieve some of their agenda or be allowed to have floor votes on proposed alternative legislation or amendments.
I’m a moderate,
Will have our troops fleeing from Iraq with their tails between their legs. The rest of the world will applaud that sign of weakness because it will prove that America is just like them, nothing but sheep.
"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large," the editorial reads.
"His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the Secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
"This is not about the mid-term elections," the editorial reads. "Regardless of which party wins November 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard, bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."
Q Has the President seen or been told about the editorials?
MR. SNOW: He's been told about the editorial.
Q His reaction?
MR. SNOW: His reaction was just to sort of shrug it off. I mean, he understands what editorial writers sometimes do, and in this case, they're grandstanding. The notion that somehow, as the editorial says, that this is not intended to influence the elections — you've got to be kidding me. I mean, if they didn't want it to influence the elections, they could have published it Wednesday.
Hodierne explains, "We did it right now because, last week, president Bush renewed his vows with the Secretary and said that the Secretary would be around for the balance of the two years of the president's term. We thought that was the wrong decision and took the opportunity to do so."
The dems also tell us they are going to raise taxes on the rich when they really mean they are going to raise taxes on the working classes instead;
...the world really doesn’t need meddlers who can’t or will not finish what they start.
Terrorists R US. This is the most pathetic posting i've ever read in my years here on ATS. Who do you suppose the well-known terrorists are campaigning TO???
Originally posted by RRconservative
Why do you think terrorist leaders around the world are endorsing Democrats? Terrorist know that a weak America, led by Democrats, makes their jobs easier. Instead of being hunted down as terrorists, they are looked at as common criminals.
If well-known terrorists are campaigning for Democrats, shouldn't you do the opposite and vote Republican? Unless you really hate America and want terrorists to be given a free ride?
Originally posted by zoopnfunk
I'd like some proof to back up that claim... got link? Otherwise it will seem like you are just making stuff up to further a partisian agenda.
Originally posted by nextguyinline
Are you seriously that linear minded? Just because something was started, doesn't make it right, and have to be finished at all costs.
Silly meddling Hirohito, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Bush......
Ask anyone you know that works for a living if they believe they are not paying enough in taxes.
A case in point: taxes. The conservative viewpoint is clearly that a smaller tax burden is preferable. So, if Republicans are really so conservative, then in places where Republicans are in political control the tax burden should be lower. Right?
Well, thanks to new data from The Tax Foundation, we can test that hypothesis. For each of the 50 states, the Tax Foundation measures the amount of state and local taxation as a proportion of state income. Then the Tax Foundation ranked the 50 states from 1-50 with #1 being the highest-taxed state as a proportion of state income, and #50 being the least-taxed state as a proportion of state income. Thanks to public information records, we also know which party controls which state political bodies: who the governor is, which party controls a state house, and which party controls a state senate.
SO, the Republicans-Are-Conservative (RAC) Hypotheses, restated in terms of this data, are as follows:
RAC Hypothesis #1: States with Republican Governors should have a larger Tax Foundation rank number (indicating a lower tax burden) than states with Democratic Governors.
RAC Hypothesis #2: States whose lower houses of the state legislature are controlled by Republicans should have a larger Tax Foundation rank number (indicating a lower tax burden) than states whose lower houses are controlled by Democrats.
RAC Hypothesis #3: States whose upper houses of the state legislature are controlled by Republicans should have a larger Tax Foundation rank number (indicating a lower tax burden) than states whose upper houses are controlled by Democrats.
RAC Hypothesis #1: NOT SUPPORTED. The average rank of states with a Democratic Governor is 26.7, while the average rank of states with a Republican Governor is 24.6. This outcome is opposite that predicted by the "Republicans-Are-Conservative" Hypothesis #1. If you want conservative tax policy, by all means don't get a Republican governor.
RAC Hypothesis #2: SUPPORTED. States whose upper and lower houses are controlled by Democrats have an average Tax Foundation ranking of 21.3. A state whose lower legislative house is controlled by Republicans, however, has an average Tax Foundation ranking of 29.6. This means that having a Republican-controlled lower house is positively associated with conservative tax policy, an outcome in line with the "Republicans-Are-Conservative" Hypothesis #2.
RAC Hypothesis #3: NOT SUPPORTED. States whose upper and lower houses are controlled by Democrats have an average Tax Foundation ranking of 21.3. A state whose upper legislative house is controlled by Republicans, however, has an average Tax Foundation ranking of 20.9. In other words, there's very little difference between the tax conservatism of states with upper houses run by Republicans and upper houses run by Democrats -- if anything, the states with upper houses run by Democrats tend to rank as slightly more conservative. This outcome is opposite that predicted by the "Republicans-Are-Conservative" Hypothesis #3.
Originally posted by dgtempe
Could it be that Democrats have always wanted diplomacy and peace? Nah! That couldnt be. It has to be Democrats are terrorists- everyone of them. Including me.
Originally posted by zoopnfunk
In this context your blanket statements about Democrats raising taxes would seem a bit contrived.
Originally posted by sleeper
But most people get a pay check every week or two, and they can see for themselves how much taxes keep going up----while services keep going down.