Partisanship is not a game I want to play, its unproductive and irrational, both parties are following the same statist path. While I'd like to see both parties work together, I don't want them working together to create more statist policies or drive us further into debt.
I believe the American people, not our government, serve as the only moral, rational and ethical repository of our rights. Government exists to protect those rights, period. Not to coddle us from cradle to grave or be the "decider" of who can exercise what rights and how.
Your stance on the progressive tax is not based on equality, it doesn't treat everyone equally. Again, you seem to be fine with inequality so long as your among the majority that's disrespecting the rights of some minority.
If government would limit itself to doing as I propose and only protect our rights, you're hypothetical example would not be possible. Protection of our rights is an "across the board" responsibility of government.
How about bigotry? You don't seem to have any feelings of fairness where the wealthy are concerned, that or you're operating on an incredibly distorted notion of fairness - the "new" definition of fairness as used by the Progressives.
Independent, turned Clintonite, turned Obama cheerleader... What do you really believe in? Have you ever looked at the different ideologies, or do you just go along with whoever makes your leg tingle? If we but heads, its because you support Statist policies, you believe our constitution is outdated, and have a general disrespect for individual rights.
That's the biggest problem we have, too many feelers and not enough thinkers. Emotions are a poor substitute for rationality.
I'd love to see a Non-Statist party emerge that peels the Non-Statists away from the Left, Right and Libertarian "Center". A party that, unlike your statist parties, actually cares about the Constitution, our rights and the proper role of government as a protector of both.
More propaganda garbage.... Our Constitution has nothing in it that advocates, institutionalizes or otherwise promotes slavery. I also don't think you do understand my point. You recognize, and rightly so, that we shouldn't trade our freedoms for physical security where terrorism is concerned but you either don't recognize, or don't care about, trading our freedoms for economic security.
Government is a monopoly and you want that monopoly, one that cannot balance its own books, one that doesn't care about individuals but only the "common good", to be in charge of administering healthcare. That's not rational, nor is it moral or ethical to give government so much power over our lives.
There doesn't have to be any such regulation. Prior to the CRA (Government regulation), banks didn't loan to high risk individuals because it wasn't good business practice and wasn't in their rational self interest to take such unwise fiscal risks. Political activist groups (with ACORN in the lead role) said not giving high risk loans was discriminatory, they got pandering politicians to pass the CRA and government mandated that the government institutions of Fannie and Freddie create a "market" for high risk loans by offering to buy them from private banks.
Save your emotional arguments for someone who can be swayed by such irrationality. If you don't want to see babies and little children going hungry and without shelter... Don't just stand there, spend your own money to feed them and provide them with shelter! There is no shortage of private charities that do those things and you are not limited in your contributions. While others may think its "compassionate" of you to demand food and shelter be provided by government on someone elses dime, I find it incredibly parasitic and shallow.
You know the saying... When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails.... well, your only tool is government, so you use it to pound on everything. You should expand your toolbox
The party and president you support agree with all the positions I credited to you. As their biggest cheerleader on the board, I've never heard you speak out against those things. They support subsidies, tax breaks, corporate welfare, bailouts, too big to fail policies and worst of all, the takeover of private corporations by government. Exactly where do you break with Obama on those policies?
You didn't pay any attention to the charts Pidgey posted about the law of diminishing returns, the state of our currency, or any of the other relevant information he provided, did you?
Lower taxes for ALL individuals (95% isn't good enough), lower corporate taxes and expanded, targeted, legal immigration... Now that would be a recovery plan... Instead we get a "stimulus" plan of government giveaways as rewards to special interest groups for their political support.
This is what I'm talking about... I criticize his policies and you characterize it as "bashing" the man.
Right... because Obama's policies can defy the laws of economics. If we do recover, it will be despite his policies, not because of them.
Pure Hearsay. Perhaps now that the election is over, you can give me a link to a copy of his thesis from college.... Have you read it?
I don't believe for a minute that you'd have the same "give him a chance" attitude had McCain won... You'd be screaming about racism, failed Bush policies and preaching your own doom and gloom.
I just threw up in my mouth...
