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.
I'm not totally hard edged about it, realizing that a certain amount of spending (weather it be for reasonable national defense, some core social programs, shared infrastructure etc...needing to be raised through taxes), is justifiable and prudent, but we seem to be moving WAY beyond that as the years roll by.
I'm pretty much a libertarian these days....do what you feel like doing as long as you can pay for your own lifestyle of choice be it quirky/strange/normal etc......but I do object in most cases to paying to subsidize your quirky/strange/normal lifestyle if you've chosen an unsustainable financial/moral/ethical model for your life and cannot support yourself on your own dime due in large part to your previously mentioned freely made choices.
If there is no line, then there is no line.
Government will grow its power and influence until the nation collapses into chaos.
You HAVE TO HAVE A LINE, or there are no limits ,and if there are no limits, then you have no complaint.
Leftists want no limits.
If your neighbor comes into your house and takes $10 from your cash jar each week to spend for his own wants, is he stealing?
If so, why allow it?
If not, what is theft?
If the government does it, is it theft?
Why or why not?
Tolerating a central government taking your earnings merely for the benefit of some other person is tolerating theft. It's not a matter of degree.
So, pick a morally defensible line, or don't bother.
You're just sour because you cannot win an argument on the merits.
Really? which side is using emotionalism, opinions, and symbolism and which is using facts, reason, and logic to make a augment?
Quote:
Morality is a foreign concept in your reasoning.
No, it is not, it takes its rightfully place, which is behind Facts, Logic, Reason, Deductibility and other non emtionalsim methods and thought.
PS coming from the side that punishes people for reasons steaming from envy I really don't think you and your side have any real claim to morality or its usage.
Quote:
You bury your claptrap in a bunker of rationalization and evasion of responsibility.
What responsibility? How am I responsible for the actions and well being other complete stranger while they are not even responsible for themselves?
Please explain that for us?
So you want people to be subject to inviolably responsibility of other people while they themselves are unable to take responsibility and charge over their own lives? To fulfill their want, their needs, and their dreams?
You are aware that to force any unwanted or unconsecrated contacts of actions, work, services, or obligation on to anyone is the definition of slavery...Right?
Quote:
You dodge and weave holding your prattle up to mature consideration in the context of reasonable principles of behavior.
I am not the one attacking the posters in place of making a fact based argument.
Quote:
The idea of acting like a principled adult in society with others is an anathema in your book.
You think other people have a obligation to live of other people and not from themselves..
How is that being principled?
Quote:
When all you post is evasions of moral scrutiny for what you support, it makes clear that you know, at least in your heart, that what you support is immoral.
How is it immoral to allow people to succeed and not be held back by the envy and self destructive views and actions of other people?
How is it immoral to allow children and their parents to have a choice in were their kids are sent an are sent to great schools that actually educate children?
How is it immoral to want and make the the Southern Border secure to prevent the problems of the 3rd world moving into this nation and reducing us to a 3rd world nation ourselves?
How is it immoral to keep most of what you earn?
How is it immoral to use a the vast wealth of our nation and using to become fully energy independent of tyrants and the insatiability of the Middle East, while creating millions of great paying jobs?
How is it immoral to value liberty over security?
How is it immoral to value the defense of your liberty, life, and property via the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?
Please make the case...
Quote:
Hopefully, someday, that knowledge you keep buried deep inside will come up to the surface and you'll admit the deficiency of the corrupt perspectives you support.
How are we corrupt? You view a system and views that reduce people to slavery in the name of emotionalism...
Whereas the left wing cultivates the perspective that anybody disagreeing with their tenets is a racist, sexist, warmongering, homophobic, Islamophobic, oligarchical religious zealot. I have seen posts from leftists like you many many times on this forum telling conservative people who disagree with you what they really think and what really motivates them. If they don't support abortion, it's because they hate women. If they don't support raising taxes on the rich, it's because they are selfish. If they don't support increasing welfare, it's because they hate poor people. If they don't support Obamacare, it's because they don't care about poor sick people. So really, you have no room whatsoever to talk. Allowing reasonable people to disagree with you is in no way whatsoever your strong suit.
They really do make our points for us, dont they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Bull. Racists are racists, even if you agree with them. Sexists are sexists, even if you agree with them. And so on. When I highlight such offenses they are real, even if you cannot bring yourself to rise to the level of intellectual integrity to admit the truth.
How are we "racist" if we support things like a border fence or limiting legal immigration?
How are we "sexist" if we oppose this lie that is the "war on women"?
We do have a great level of intellectual integrity, we use facts, logic, reason, history and basic observation to come to a conclusion and not that of emotions like pity, self loathing, envy and other failed methods of thinking.
Quote:
I challenge you to find one case where I labeled some person in the manner you imply where the characterization was not reasonable from the perspective of someone between you and I in political perspective. (I'm sure you can find examples that resonate within the right-wing echo chamber, but all manner of childish, corrupt, egoistic, and petulant nonsense plays well there.)
You label people "immoral", "uncaring", "selfish", "egotistical", and other baseless accusations and attacks because you and people like you cant use facts, logic, reason, or anything thing based in reality because it is not on your side...
How are they are we "childish, corrupt, egoistic, and petulant nonsense"
Quote:
The problem the right-wing has is that its perspectives truly are morally deficient. I realize that it makes right-wingers' job of supporting the claptrap they spew more difficult, but that's the burden right-wingers have chosen to take on by deciding to follow the offensively self-motivated path.
How are we "morally deficient"? You claim that anyone who disagrees with you is "morally deficient" and then just run away from anything kind of debate because the facts are not on your side...
The problem the right-wing has is that its perspectives truly are morally deficient. I realize that it makes right-wingers' job of supporting the claptrap they spew more difficult, but that's the burden right-wingers have chosen to take on by deciding to follow the offensively self-motivated path.
I'm still here asking if you dare try to defend your self proclaimed moral superiority.
Do you have the nerve to try to back up your words, or do you just shout insults and run?
Care to actually DEFEND your claim to moral superiority?
So what you're saying is that you're not internalizing what is being said to you but just lashing out like a child at the prospect that some words, which you clearly didn't read well enough to understand, seem to have been directed at condemning the corruption you like.
Go back and read my comments. You'll see I am not claiming moral superiority. Rather, I'm labeling as immoral some behaviors you advocate. And I've done so in many threads on the merits, utilizing references (which perhaps go over your head) to universally-confirmed standards of moral behavior.
If you cannot fathom the difference between claiming moral superiority and tying specific behaviors to the universal moral standards that they contravene, then just admit that failure and we can move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover
How are we "racist" if we support things like a border fence or limiting legal immigration?
This is the kind of idiocy that proves definitively that your participation here is a total farce. I support limiting legal immigration. When you start crying and whining against liberals making you feel bad about the racist preferences you advocate for by accusing them of condemning things that not only they haven't condemned but rather support, then you leave little doubt that your comments have no value whatsoever, and all that is left is the job of simply ridiculing the fact that you're sharing such comments.
So what you're saying is that you're not internalizing what is being said to you but just lashing out like a child at the prospect that some words, which you clearly didn't read well enough to understand, seem to have been directed at condemning the corruption you like.
Once again you can not defend your claim you just change the subject, make moronic statement and then claim the moral high ground that is not your to claim.
Quote:
Go back and read my comments. You'll see I am not claiming moral superiority. Rather, I'm labeling as immoral some behaviors you advocate. And I've done so in many threads on the merits, utilizing references (which perhaps go over your head) to universally-confirmed standards of moral behavior.
How are the "behaviors" we advocate "immoral"? You have to make a fact based argument.
No you have not, you just led out nebulous emotional based rants..Nothing more.
Quote:
If you cannot fathom the difference between claiming moral superiority and tying specific behaviors to the universal moral standards that they contravene, then just admit that failure and we can move on.
What is the "universal moral standard"? Moral over why is it that all cultures and people have that some moral stranded? Does that not prove that you are taking nonsense?
This is the kind of idiocy that proves definitively that your participation here is a total farce. I support limiting legal immigration. When you start crying and whining against liberals making you feel bad about the racist preferences you advocate for by accusing them of condemning things that not only they haven't condemned but rather support, then you leave little doubt that your comments have no value whatsoever, and all that is left is the job of simply ridiculing the fact that you're sharing such comments.[/quote]
Congrats to support sane immigration, you are not all liberals, you are not even a few, you are you.
I was targeting my comment and question the whole of the leftist hive..
Liberals can never make me feel bad, for their opinions are that of fools, and the opinions of fools are worth less then nothing..
I am not a "racist" so how can I have a "racist" "preferences"?
My comments to have value, for they are over whelming based on facts not emotionalism
Once again you can not defend your claim you just change the subject, make moronic statement and then claim the moral high ground that is not your to claim.
Speaking of moronic statements......you wished for the death of your fellow Americans. You won't defend your claim, but backtrack and say you were just joking, didn't really mean it or it was in jest, just as you always do when confronted with your idiotic proclamations.
You never own what you say.
So what you're saying is that you're not internalizing what is being said to you but just lashing out like a child at the prospect that some words, which you clearly didn't read well enough to understand, seem to have been directed at condemning the corruption you like.
Wrong, I'm asking you to defend your claim of moral superiority.
Quote:
Go back and read my comments. You'll see I am not claiming moral superiority.
Yes, you are.
Quote:
Rather, I'm labeling as immoral some behaviors you advocate. And I've done so in many threads on the merits, utilizing references (which perhaps go over your head) to universally-confirmed standards of moral behavior.
LOL! Do you have any other jokes?
Quote:
If you cannot fathom the difference between claiming moral superiority and tying specific behaviors to the universal moral standards that they contravene, then just admit that failure and we can move on.
Translation: "I demagogue endlessly, but no way can I debate the merits of what I say..."
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.
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.
