U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-07-2013, 10:14 PM
 
1,496 posts, read 1,427,011 times
Reputation: 1205

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park View Post
Wait ... let me get this right ...

It's wrong because YOU say it's wrong.

You make the final decision what is right and wrong ... what is moral and immoral.

Well, I beg to differ.
he's also completely mischaracterizing the liberal point of view on the issue. Actually, it's not just a liberal point of view. I know lots of Republicans who believe that we as a society have a moral obligation to take care of the elderly and other segments of society that can't help themselves.

But the OP is personalizing so to make it seem like the people want to take his money and give it to some lazy bum on the street so he can drink and eat del taco.

Maybe he's trolling. I'm not sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-07-2013, 10:40 PM
 
11,412 posts, read 5,571,809 times
Reputation: 1670
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
IMO the most important laws are the ones that protect the right to life and freedom, protect ownership of property, and prevent fraud.
Well, at least punish fraud.

" . . unless and until we put a working system in place that holds all politicians, government and private corporations accountable for their actions? This expected new level of accountability is the mass awakening and official paradigm shift we have all been waiting for and I suggest that we are mighty close to at this point in history."

"Fact is, humanity applauds those who have stood for morality, justice, and peace more than it esteems warmongers and tyrants. The jury was in on this issue long ago. Thankfully we do not have to debate on the meaning of what is wrong and what is right on a personal level. The argument for war, killing, torture, and oppression of humans is only offered to humanity from a political perspective barring the rare religious fanatical belief that promotes this ideology which we now know, in this generation was and has been an engineered radicalization of groups now known to have been sponsored, armed, educated, radicalized, and trained by the very corrupt secret government and individuals who we are now fully exposing. In other words, we now know that the radical (Muslim) fundamentalism which has been alleged and has led to supposed violence around the world in our times was and is politically engineered."

Activist Post: Is Humanity Declaring Checkmate On The New World Order?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2013, 11:24 PM
 
7,372 posts, read 4,443,222 times
Reputation: 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park View Post
First, I do agree with you that just because something is legal it is not necessarily moral.

We see that millions of Americans regard abortion as immoral, yet it is legal. On the other hand, millions of American oppose that point of view and are pro-choice.
No. You cannot put the pro-life and the pro-choice sides on two ends of a spectrum like that.

People are not pro-life because they regard abortion as immoral. They are pro-life because they regard abortion as murder.

Everyone, pro-choice and pro-life, agrees that murder is a criminal act. The question is whether abortion is or is not murder. If everyone agreed that abortion was murder, then nobody would want it to be allowed. If everyone agreed that abortion was not murder, then nobody would want it banned. That demonstrates that the abortion debate is not about morality. It is about the nature of abortion itself, not about the morality of performing it.

Framing the abortion debate as being about morality is simply a political tactic of the pro-choice people so that they can take the high ground. This is why the pro-choice people use "reproductive rights" and "womens' healthcare" and other euphemisms. So that they can paint the pro-life people as trying to impose their will on others, and they can paint themselves as champions of freedom. It is intellectual dishonesty.
Quote:
Heres my point: who decides what is moral? Religious leaders weigh on this topic, but we do not live in a theocracy and we have no state religion.
In this country the people as a whole decide what is moral.
Quote:
If you consider taxation as a form of theft, that is fine. I have no problem with you expressing your opinion. But that is all it is: an opinion. If others believe that society - through it's institution of government - has a duty to protect it's citizens and lend a helping hand to the disabled, elderly and unemployed ... then that is an opinion as well. Just an opinion.
Yes, but here's the thing - the people who are of the second opinion want to take the money of the people who are of the first opinion. The people who want limited government are not stopping people of the second opinion from donating to charity. But the people who want big government are perfectly willing to jail someone who doesn't want to pay the level of taxes that they decide that person should pay.

And the interesting thing here, going back to your abortion comment, is that it is generally the big government supporters who are pro-choice. So they are up in arms about freedom of choice when it comes to someone else wanting to make their abortion choice for them by banning it. But they have no problems forcing other people to pay for the social programs they want.
Quote:
So we have two conflicting points of view ... what constitutes "morality?"
The first one is moral, the second one is immoral. Just because you have two competing opinions doesn't mean those opinions are equal. You can't just say some people believe A and some people believe B so therefore A and B are equivalent. They aren't. Side A does not involve forcing people to do something they don't want to do. Side B does. Therefore they are not equally moral.
Quote:
If folks who are anti-taxation gain enough support, then laws will be passed that will greatly diminish the services taxation pays for, and taxes will go down on the city, county, state, and federal levels.
No. It will greatly diminish the federal government providing those services. Nothing says that state government and private charities can't provide those services. This is another tactic of the left. They make it into an "our way or no way" situation. If you don't want to support the teacher's unions, then you don't care about kids' education. If you don't want to support welfare without work requirements, then you want poor people to starve. If you don't support Obamacare, then you want to deny people healthcare. If you don't support affirmative action, then you're racist. That's not accurate. Just because the limited government conservative doesn't want the federal government doing X, doesn't mean the limited government conservative thinks X shouldn't be done. It just means he doesn't think it is the federal government's role to do X.
Quote:
It is my impression that the chief proponents of eliminating many government programs and significantly reducing the tax burden of all American citizens is the so-called Tea Party faction of the Republican Party.
Yes. Libertarians also.
Quote:
If this true, then the vision they have for America's future has not yet resonated with the majority of American voters. They have been losing the elections. In American politics, that is all that matters.
The vision they have for America's future is the same vision that the majority of Americans had for most of the nation's history. Yet again, this is a narrative of leftists that small government conservatives are some sort of radical extremists on the very fringe. No. Big government is a relatively recent development. For the majority of the nation's history there was no income tax. There was no federal department of education. There was no federal reserve bank. Something the leftists don't like to acknowledge is that America became the most powerful nation on the planet in terms of technological development, artistic output, and economic production following conservative principles, not liberal ones.
Quote:
Do losing an election invalidate your point of view or make the other side more "moral" than you? No, of course not! No matter what happens many people will consider taxation an immoral theft of their money. They have a right to believe that. However, many more American citizens will have a different concept of morality and will want their country to be one that is reasonable and civilized and promotes domestic tranquility.
And there you reveal your bias. There is no reason other than bias to say that you have people on one hand who want limited government and people on the other hand who want reason and civilization. You try to make an even handed and objective post most of the way through, and then blow it right at the end.

I say state governments should provide welfare. You say federal government should provide welfare. But you're reasonable and civilized and I'm not? Come on.
Quote:
This debate has been going on since Hamilton versus Jefferson. It will not end soon.
I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2013, 11:37 PM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,165,944 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
They're not the same.




I just can't find better words to use to say it, so I let his words say it for me.

A lot of people on the left insist that when society wants your paycheck, they have a moral right to take it. That "majority " makes things both right and moral, when it does not. That's why taxing to redistribute is theft. It's theft whether I take it at gunpoint and redistribute it, or the IRS takes it at gunpoint.

It's immoral either way.
Really? The left aren't the ones that want to ban gay marriage because of the bible and public morals. The right all throughout my lifetime has been trying to legislate their morality on folks. If you want to talk about the government dictating morality through laws the right is the first place to look.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 12:36 AM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,193,311 times
Reputation: 17979
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
They're not the same.




I just can't find better words to use to say it, so I let his words say it for me.

A lot of people on the left insist that when society wants your paycheck, they have a moral right to take it. That "majority " makes things both right and moral, when it does not. That's why taxing to redistribute is theft. It's theft whether I take it at gunpoint and redistribute it, or the IRS takes it at gunpoint.

It's immoral either way.
Corruption is corruption to say it simply. But what is legal changes with times and some of what we believe I will be illegal later .Morals is a code that people set and accepted on behavior. Its often different with different groups and cultures. For many abortion especially unlimited abortion is murder and to others not. Even Obama has said he is against unlimited abortion on demand; and talked about his attempt to write a bill governing it. Money is seldom part of the largest moral issues at any time.Abortion;death penalty those like them are the never settled moral issues because they go to core beliefs of individuals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 12:51 AM
 
Location: Calgary, AB
3,401 posts, read 1,836,427 times
Reputation: 1072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldous9 View Post
he's also completely mischaracterizing the liberal point of view on the issue. Actually, it's not just a liberal point of view. I know lots of Republicans who believe that we as a society have a moral obligation to take care of the elderly and other segments of society that can't help themselves.

But the OP is personalizing so to make it seem like the people want to take his money and give it to some lazy bum on the street so he can drink and eat del taco.

Maybe he's trolling. I'm not sure.
Isn't your constitution fairly clear about the state having the right to levy taxes? That seems pretty important, I feel positive they wouldn't have left it out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 01:17 AM
 
1,496 posts, read 1,427,011 times
Reputation: 1205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Isn't your constitution fairly clear about the state having the right to levy taxes? That seems pretty important, I feel positive they wouldn't have left it out.
are you aware of the 16th amendment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 01:29 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
6,467 posts, read 2,277,773 times
Reputation: 3415
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
No. You cannot put the pro-life and the pro-choice sides on two ends of a spectrum like that.

People are not pro-life because they regard abortion as immoral. They are pro-life because they regard abortion as murder.

Everyone, pro-choice and pro-life, agrees that murder is a criminal act. The question is whether abortion is or is not murder. If everyone agreed that abortion was murder, then nobody would want it to be allowed. If everyone agreed that abortion was not murder, then nobody would want it banned. That demonstrates that the abortion debate is not about morality. It is about the nature of abortion itself, not about the morality of performing it.

Framing the abortion debate as being about morality is simply a political tactic of the pro-choice people so that they can take the high ground. This is why the pro-choice people use "reproductive rights" and "womens' healthcare" and other euphemisms. So that they can paint the pro-life people as trying to impose their will on others, and they can paint themselves as champions of freedom. It is intellectual dishonesty.

In this country the people as a whole decide what is moral.

Yes, but here's the thing - the people who are of the second opinion want to take the money of the people who are of the first opinion. The people who want limited government are not stopping people of the second opinion from donating to charity. But the people who want big government are perfectly willing to jail someone who doesn't want to pay the level of taxes that they decide that person should pay.

And the interesting thing here, going back to your abortion comment, is that it is generally the big government supporters who are pro-choice. So they are up in arms about freedom of choice when it comes to someone else wanting to make their abortion choice for them by banning it. But they have no problems forcing other people to pay for the social programs they want.

The first one is moral, the second one is immoral. Just because you have two competing opinions doesn't mean those opinions are equal. You can't just say some people believe A and some people believe B so therefore A and B are equivalent. They aren't. Side A does not involve forcing people to do something they don't want to do. Side B does. Therefore they are not equally moral.

No. It will greatly diminish the federal government providing those services. Nothing says that state government and private charities can't provide those services. This is another tactic of the left. They make it into an "our way or no way" situation. If you don't want to support the teacher's unions, then you don't care about kids' education. If you don't want to support welfare without work requirements, then you want poor people to starve. If you don't support Obamacare, then you want to deny people healthcare. If you don't support affirmative action, then you're racist. That's not accurate. Just because the limited government conservative doesn't want the federal government doing X, doesn't mean the limited government conservative thinks X shouldn't be done. It just means he doesn't think it is the federal government's role to do X.

Yes. Libertarians also.

The vision they have for America's future is the same vision that the majority of Americans had for most of the nation's history. Yet again, this is a narrative of leftists that small government conservatives are some sort of radical extremists on the very fringe. No. Big government is a relatively recent development. For the majority of the nation's history there was no income tax. There was no federal department of education. There was no federal reserve bank. Something the leftists don't like to acknowledge is that America became the most powerful nation on the planet in terms of technological development, artistic output, and economic production following conservative principles, not liberal ones.

And there you reveal your bias. There is no reason other than bias to say that you have people on one hand who want limited government and people on the other hand who want reason and civilization. You try to make an even handed and objective post most of the way through, and then blow it right at the end.

I say state governments should provide welfare. You say federal government should provide welfare. But you're reasonable and civilized and I'm not? Come on.

I agree.

Excellent post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 01:40 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
6,467 posts, read 2,277,773 times
Reputation: 3415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
Really? The left aren't the ones that want to ban gay marriage because of the bible and public morals. The right all throughout my lifetime has been trying to legislate their morality on folks. If you want to talk about the government dictating morality through laws the right is the first place to look.
You are confusing fiscal Conservative philosophy concerning low taxes and redistribution with the religious far rights philosophy of morality.
They are not the same thing nor are both views necessarily held by all Conservatives.
I for one could not care less if gays want to marry.......it's simply a non issue for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 01:54 AM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,165,944 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 View Post
You are confusing fiscal Conservative philosophy concerning low taxes and redistribution with the religious far rights philosophy of morality.
They are not the same thing nor are both views necessarily held by all Conservatives.
I for one could not care less if gays want to marry.......it's simply a non issue for me.
Not in the slightest. If you want to see how they are related you need to look no further then president Bush's "faith based initiative" which was basically a way to take tax dollars and front them to further the far right's religious based ideas. You also have Ken Cuccinelli's brain child which uses Virginia tax dollars to fund anti-choice pregnancy centers where such gems of wisdom as "abortions give you AIDS" and "the pill will make you sterile forever" are sold.

If you think the a huge section of right has any issue with taking tax dollars and feeding it into their unceasing efforts to try and impose there own version of religious law on America you are sadly mistaken. They will not only use your tax dollars for the schemes above but also to invest in an enforcement apparatus for whatever public morals legislation they want to put on the books. It should be worth noting that the case that brought down DOMA was one where a woman was having to pay an almost $400,000 tax simply because she was gay and the federal government had a public morals law preventing it from recognizing her marriage. Not to mention you have a fair amount of people on the right that want to have the state play an active role in promoting the Judeo-Christian religion and are more then happy to tax as much as necessary to do so.

Last edited by Egbert; 12-08-2013 at 02:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top