NationStates

Revolutopia wrote:

Luciratus wrote:Bullshit and Alan Grayson is an ass. The Republicans preffered a less centralized style of reform- such as making the existing systems more accessible and putting more funds into those programs (at least that is what they asserted). To suggest that they wanted to do nothing (especially when they made suggestions that merely differed from the Democratic plan) is asinine.

Really, is that why they basically sat in the back and bitched while suggesting almost nothing to the debate. Besides, of course suggesting lower taxes and less regulations as how that is the perfect idea to lower costs and give people better coverage.

Do you believe that the Republican Party sincerely supports the deathes of people unable to afford coverage. Likewise, do you believe that a respectable doctor would deny services to an individual who required them to live?

Fartsniffage wrote:Those sending the emails should be caught and punished. Those encouraging violence against political leaders should be censured or punished if the calls lead to actual violence.

Absolutely. Anyone who tries to carry it out should also be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We don't need any more assassination attempts against politicians -- just vote their asses out of office.

Making death threats are wrong -- there shouldn't be much debate on that topic alone.

However, a call asking the Dems leadership to call for civility towards GOPers and Tea Baggers...you have got to be kidding -- given the rude behavior and outright lies coming from the so-called conservatives and their operatives, most notably Faux News.

Instead how about the GOP leading by example and try being civil first

Luciratus wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Less centralised is one way of putting it. "Partisanly blocking ANY reform, whilst offering nothing" would be a more accurate way to phrase it, I think.

Would you vote for a law which overtly compromised your values?

If I was a politician, elected to the position (and thus, one assumes, paid) of acting in the best interests of Americans?

Yes.

Which, I guess, is why I'm not a politician. I consider the results more important than my own ideological leanings.

Katganistan wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:Those sending the emails should be caught and punished. Those encouraging violence against political leaders should be censured or punished if the calls lead to actual violence.

Absolutely. Anyone who tries to carry it out should also be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We don't need any more assassination attempts against politicians -- just vote their asses out of office.

Now now, what sort of American are ya?

What about all that about a little revolution being good now and again and needing to water that tree with the blood of tyrants and all?

Some of the founding fathers stuff was rubbish, but that stuff sounds good to me. xP

Luciratus wrote:Would you vote for a law which overtly compromised your values? The Republicans preffer less government when possible- and frankly I usually tend to agree with them.

Is that why they support bills like the Patriot Act and others relating to issues of morality? Or the fact that they vote to keep increasing the military budget? Sorry, I am calling bullshit on the idea that Republicans want less government. The only time that calls seems to ring any truth for them is when they are out of power.

Do you believe that the Republican Party sincerely supports the deathes of people unable to afford coverage. Likewise, do you believe that a respectable doctor would deny services to an individual who required them to live?

Do you really belief the Democrats support Death Panels? All I am saying is that I doubt Republicans care one bit about reforming Healthcare besides trying to screw over the Democrats. As displayed in how during their efforts to repeal Healthcare reform they did not present one piece of legislation to replace it. Instead, like Nixon's secret peace plan they only argued that voters needed to vote them in and followed by Democrats allowing the repeal reform before they would present their ideas. However, like Nixon's peace plan I believe there proposal is no more in continuation of the failed policies of the past.

Tokyoni wrote:Now now, what sort of American are ya?

What about all that about a little revolution being good now and again and needing to water that tree with the blood of tyrants and all?

Some of the founding fathers stuff was rubbish, but that stuff sounds good to me. xP

Revolutions are idiotic and almost always end up with a dictatorship as the end result. I.E, Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Kim Il-Sung, and countless others.

Be angry, but civil. For all of our sakes... I prefer not to live under martial law.

Revolutopia wrote:

Tokyoni wrote:Now now, what sort of American are ya?

What about all that about a little revolution being good now and again and needing to water that tree with the blood of tyrants and all?

Some of the founding fathers stuff was rubbish, but that stuff sounds good to me. xP

Revolutions are idiotic and almost always end up with a dictatorship as the end result. I.E, Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Kim Il-Sung, and countless others.

Mate, I support all the above listed.

And anyhow, your nation (assuming you're an American) was FOUNDED on Revolution. So an American against Revolution is something akin to a person against sex. You wouldn't exist without it.

Frankly, after all the lies and dirty tricks the WI GOP has pulled, I'm calling complete bullshit on this.

Well, if you remember right, tea party members (near me at least) threw bricks through local democrats windows when the stimulus went through. All I have to say is good luck to those living in Wisc. good for them!

Tokyoni wrote:Mate, I support all the above listed.

And anyhow, your nation (assuming you're an American) was FOUNDED on Revolution. So an American against Revolution is something akin to a person against sex. You wouldn't exist without it.

Cool, you support dictators I however enjoy democracy and having freedoms. Yes, America was founded by Revolution around two hundred years ago I fail to see why this should be the major influence on how I view revolutions. Instead, of You known not the various other end result of revolutions that have happen since. Through, in all honestly in a political since the War of American Independence was not all that revolutionary in how they really didn't change that much in their system of governance. With states holding most of the same powers as before only now under Washington but not London.

Revolutopia wrote:

Tokyoni wrote:Mate, I support all the above listed.

And anyhow, your nation (assuming you're an American) was FOUNDED on Revolution. So an American against Revolution is something akin to a person against sex. You wouldn't exist without it.

Cool, you support dictators I however enjoy democracy and having freedoms. Yes, America was founded by Revolution around two hundred years ago therefore having to be the major influence on my view of revolutions. Instead, of You known not the various other end result of revolutions that have happen since. Through, in all honestly in a political since the War of American Independence was not all that revolutionary in how they really didn't change that much in their system of governance. With states holding most of the same powers as before only now under Washington but not London.

Cool, you support capitalists. I however enjoy socialism and having worker's control the means of production.

(And really, most of those you listed were elected to power more democratically than some recent US Presidents. xP)

As per the American Revolution; it most certainly represented a political deviation from a monarchistic system to an (albeit somewhat limited in its early formation, and still somewhat to this day arguably) democratic one. To deny that is just asininely stupid, no matter what one's position on the political spectrum.

Tokyoni wrote:

Revolutopia wrote:
Cool, you support dictators I however enjoy democracy and having freedoms. Yes, America was founded by Revolution around two hundred years ago therefore having to be the major influence on my view of revolutions. Instead, of You known not the various other end result of revolutions that have happen since. Through, in all honestly in a political since the War of American Independence was not all that revolutionary in how they really didn't change that much in their system of governance. With states holding most of the same powers as before only now under Washington but not London.

Cool, you support capitalists. I however enjoy socialism and having worker's control the means of production.

(And really, most of those you listed were elected to power more democratically than some recent US Presidents. xP)

As per the American Revolution; it most certainly represented a political deviation from a monarchistic system to an (albeit somewhat limited in its early formation, and still somewhat to this day arguably) democratic one. To deny that is just asininely stupid, no matter what one's position on the political spectrum.

Sorry to jump into the middle of the threadjack like this, but he has a point. The American Revolution doesn't really fit the defining characteristics of a revolution well. A revolution would normally be considered "A sudden and dramatic change." This is clearly not the case of what the American Revolution was. The government system remained remarkably similar in the US (2 house legislature, one elected by the common people and one elected by the "nobles" in the case of America these "nobles" were the state legislatures, and the "king" (President)), the law remained practically identical to those in place in England, etcetera.

As England's system of governance was a constitutional monarchy (very similar to the American one), a better example of an ACTUAL full-blown revolution would be the French one ten years later. Where a dictatorial monarchy was replaced by a Democratic system.

Occupied Deutschland wrote:Sorry to jump into the middle of the threadjack like this, but he has a point. The American Revolution doesn't really fit the defining characteristics of a revolution well. A revolution would normally be considered "A sudden and dramatic change." This is clearly not the case of what the American Revolution was. The government system remained remarkably similar in the US (2 house legislature, one elected by the common people and one elected by the "nobles" in the case of America these "nobles" were the state legislatures, and the "king" (President)), the law remained practically identical to those in place in England, etcetera.

As England's system of governance was a constitutional monarchy (very similar to the American one), a better example of an ACTUAL full-blown revolution would be the French one ten years later. Where a dictatorial monarchy was replaced by a Democratic system.

Thank you, for your support this was in general the point that I was trying to make. However, this issue of revolutions is only digressing from the point so I think it would be best to lay this discussion to rest for another thread and return back to the topic at hand.

Luciratus wrote:

Revolutopia wrote:
Really, is that why they basically sat in the back and bitched while suggesting almost nothing to the debate. Besides, of course suggesting lower taxes and less regulations as how that is the perfect idea to lower costs and give people better coverage.

Do you believe that the Republican Party sincerely supports the deathes of people unable to afford coverage. Likewise, do you believe that a respectable doctor would deny services to an individual who required them to live?

They believe in Social Darwinism. If someone can't afford coverage, then it's their damn fault and they deserve to die.

Gauthier wrote:

Luciratus wrote:Do you believe that the Republican Party sincerely supports the deathes of people unable to afford coverage. Likewise, do you believe that a respectable doctor would deny services to an individual who required them to live?

They believe in Social Darwinism. If someone can't afford coverage, then it's their damn fault and they deserve to die.

I think their plan is like the Whole Foods one. You get $1800 yearly to cover basics, then your cheap, high deductible insurance kicks in. Also deregulation is a part of it. People get affordable health care for cheap, problem solved.

No 'Social Darwinism' Conspiracy.

Tokyoni wrote:Cool, you support capitalists. I however enjoy socialism and having worker's control the means of production.

So its either dictatorship or capitalism?

(And really, most of those you listed were elected to power more democratically than some recent US Presidents. xP)

Indeed. It was all over the headlines when those evil presidents instituted brutal political purges, cancelled elections and executed peaceful political opponents.

Honestly, when you start this sort of stuff, it makes me defend the people I usually diametrically oppose.

Ashmoria wrote:if someone is issuing death threats do you call for civility or call the cops?

Neither. Death threats are never acted upon. Theyre just an extreme way of expressing anger.

Gauthier wrote:

Luciratus wrote:Do you believe that the Republican Party sincerely supports the deathes of people unable to afford coverage. Likewise, do you believe that a respectable doctor would deny services to an individual who required them to live?

They believe in Social Darwinism. If someone can't afford coverage, then it's their damn fault and they deserve to die.

Doctors do, you say? I am not quite certain you fully comprehend what you are stating. A number of left-wing individuals have been ranting about cuts which the GOP promised and the voters accepted. If they didn't want cunts, why would you vote for a party that advocates cutting government spending? ...Unless they dislike Obama and the Democatic Congress.

Daistallia 2104 wrote:Frankly, after all the lies and dirty tricks the WI GOP has pulled, I'm calling complete bullshit on this.

As am I.

They haven't yet acted in good faith since the election, so why should I now assume that they are on the level when they themselves have the most to gain from this supposed threat?

Cerralvo Island wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:if someone is issuing death threats do you call for civility or call the cops?

Neither. Death threats are never acted upon. Theyre just an extreme way of expressing anger.

Source?

It's hardly surprising that there are death threats when 2 groups of people treat each other like subhuman scum.Not that it's OK.

West Guiana wrote:Image

Thanks, my cereal didn't quite give me 100% of my daily requirements of hyperbole for optimal stupid growth.

Gauthier wrote:

Revolutopia wrote:Didn't Walker admit to thinking about using false protesters to discredit the unions, by having these actors perform violent actions and rioting. Additionally, if I remember correctly a Tea party leader suggested doing the samething to discredit the protests. Therefore, while obviously I believe death threats are terrible how can we logically pinpoint this only on the Union protesters. Maybe, Walker decided to take the fake Koch advice and try to discredit the Unions.

It's 50/50 of either being Scotty doing the Mubarak Shuffle, or some really out of it protestors deciding to go maverick.

He certainly admitted to thinking about it. Not to mention that various astroturf right-wing groups have called upon right-wing activists to do the same, all the while bussing in hundreds of out-of-staters to do counterprotests.

I must've missed the crosshair on his house from leading Democratic Party members, weird, I usually get the commie-socialist newsletter for these things.