US Republican Party: Evil Incarnate.

[redrox]

Then the government needs to live by a budget and stop printing money out of thin air.  Then we wouldn't be in a defecit.

[Uppercut]

Then the government needs to live by a budget and stop printing money out of thin air.  Then we wouldn't be in a defecit.

It has nothing to do with how much money is printed. My previous point would stand with any amount of money, it'd just mean they'd need to tax a higher dollar amount which would be a similar percentage.

New money needs to exist sometimes because money represents the total value of wealth. If there is more money than value of things the dollar's value goes down, if there is less money than the value of things the value of the dollar becomes harder to acquire.

[Essence]

Then the government needs to live by a budget and stop printing money out of thin air.  Then we wouldn't be in a deficit.

Agreed.  However, in times of economic emergency (i.e. the last three years), there are perfectly valid reasons why a government might need to use deficit spending.  The problem is keeping them from doing it when there's no economic reason to do so (i.e. the entire Dubya Administration's term in office.)

[redrox]

Interesting read from an cbs poll.  77% want to cut spending only 9% want to raise taxes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028612-503544.html

[Essence]

And yet, when asked if they want to cut a specific issue, 73% say it's not time to cut back. (http://all247news.com/republicans-beware-voters-support-unemployment-extension-nation-wide/8038/)

Think maybe the rich people's narrative is winning, but only when people don't stop and think about it?

[gavsword]

Ok, so here's what I'm going to do. I will ask the OP for both this thread and it's counterpart to please lock them. Then i will create a post to outline a debate.

This is a response to both the US Democratic Party: Evil Incarnate, and US Republican Party: Evil Incarnate.

My goal is to have a balanced thread where people actually think and have evidence before posting

Here's the rules.
- 3 teams of debaters (Republican, Democrat, Other)
- 1 Topic at a time
- All topics will last 1 week
- No more than 3 consecutive posts by a team
- If a team does not reply within three days, the rule above is void
- All posts from the teams must have cited sources. These sources cannot be: FOX, Wikipedia, MSN, or blogs
- If one side can post proof that a source one team uses is biased, and that it has no other sources, that post will be removed
- Any posts will be removed if offensive towards another debater
- All topics will be suggested and voted upon by a weekly poll.
- Teams can change every week. Substitutions/rotations will happen over the weekend

Frankly I would like to participate in this, and would like someone less biased to run it, but if no one is willing to do that then I will run it as fair as possible

Any questions?

[Uppercut]

Any questions?

Why can't someone cite MSN? If people on the right think MSN has a heavy liberal bias they're wrong. If MSN leans slightly to the left its because reality leans to the left.

[gavsword]

Any questions?

Why can't someone cite MSN? If people on the right think MSN has a heavy liberal bias they're wrong. If MSN leans slightly to the left its because reality leans to the left.

I banned FOX, so I had to. It's what most people complained about on this thread for "liberal" bias. I accepted it.

[BluePriest]

Fox NEWS isnt biased. Now you go to one of their opinion shows like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, ect, those are VERY biased, but the actual NEWS isnt to what I have seen.

[gavsword]

Fox NEWS isnt biased. Now you go to one of their opinion shows like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, ect, those are VERY biased, but the actual NEWS isnt to what I have seen.

It's still banned, these are overall rules. I will allow MSN and FOX to be used if I can be given legitimate proof neither has bias, which is impossible. Heck, you can make slanted media a point of debate, but FOX and MSN are banned. Now can u ask questions on the other thread please?

[Uppercut]

Fox NEWS isnt biased. Now you go to one of their opinion shows like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, ect, those are VERY biased, but the actual NEWS isnt to what I have seen.

I can't comment about their written news, but the news they have on the air is really bias and often has outright lies.

Also this:

- There were no anti-war protestors in this scenario but they called the armed people anti-war protestors for no real reason. Clearly Fox News was trying to smear anti-war protestors.

The main reason Fox shouldn't be allowed though is because of the whole Fox vs Akre case in which it was ruled that it is legal for Fox to pressure its reporting outright lies and that Fox has no obligation to report truthfully.

[Essence]

Well, I think locking the two threads is heavy-handed and unnecessary.  But I'm all for an organized debate thread.   
+Karma to gavsword for the idea and offering to moderate it.