Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! Most people here are clueless jerks, but I hope you'll keep posting regardless.For my first thread here, I figured I may as well jump in the deep end of the pool and go for it!
1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.
The liberal idea isn't that rich people are wrong for being rich (despite what some conservatives would say). It's not that there's a gap--you're correct, there will always be one. Rather, it's that the middle and lower classes are getting more poor while the rich are getting richer. A rising tide should float all boats, as the saying goes, but it's not.
.
Prior to OBama middle class people and lower class people were making income gains. Of course under Obama everyone is a loser. Household income and net worth are back down to where they were in 90s.
But Margaret Thatcher was right: The left is OK with the poor being poorer as long as the rich are less rich.
Welcome! Most people here are clueless jerks, but I hope you'll keep posting regardless.
1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.
The liberal idea isn't that rich people are wrong for being rich (despite what some conservatives would say). It's not that there's a gap--you're correct, there will always be one. Rather, it's that the middle and lower classes are getting more poor while the rich are getting richer. A rising tide should float all boats, as the saying goes, but it's not.
.
Prior to OBama middle class people and lower class people were making income gains. Of course under Obama everyone is a loser. Household income and net worth are back down to where they were in 90s.
But Margaret Thatcher was right: The left is OK with the poor being poorer as long as the rich are less rich.
As this chart shows, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...come.png/450px-Median_US_household_income.png , the middle class' decline began in 2006. That's because it began with the Great Recession, which started while Bush II was president, not Obama. I'm not blaming Bush II for the decrease, but likewise, you cannot blame Obama for something that started before he got there.
Actually, you could--but then you'd be a lying douche. Your call.
I included the middle class because the wealth disparity is between rich and non-rich. However, if you want to restrict the conversation to rich and poor only, I'm OK with that.1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.
The liberal idea isn't that rich people are wrong for being rich (despite what some conservatives would say). It's not that there's a gap--you're correct, there will always be one. Rather, it's that the middle and lower classes are getting more poor while the rich are getting richer. A rising tide should float all boats, as the saying goes, but it's not.
Hold on, you simply rearranged the argument from "poor" to "middle class" and made the same argument, it still doesn't doesn't work.
Under your logic, there's nothing wrong with an extreme condition where a small group has almost all of the wealth and the vast majority of Americans live in poverty. Perhaps it's just my Socialist brainwashing, but I think that would be horrible. We cannot end poverty, but we can try to make more people wealthy through a combination of capitalism and regulation. That includes examining the disparity of income and looking towards how to make the poor more wealthy.Yes, there is a gap, a growing gap (disparity) in different levels of wealth. The rate this disparity grows doesn't matter if you are looking at middle class or poor, it's there, it grows. It grows because, generally speaking, rich people have more motivation to earn wealth, and therefore they do. This is a natural and normal condition of free market capitalism. You've been brainwashed by Socialists that something is wrong with this, and we should do something about it. There is nothing wrong with it, this is how life in a free market system is, those who have more motivation to succeed financially, can and do, and at a faster rate than people who lack that motivation.
Then my apologies for misinterpreting you. Some people are not motivated to get rich, I agree. But do you have any proof of this being the core reason for the income disparity? It's not like millions of people are thinking, "Eh, having more money isn't worth it. I'm fine with food stamps." Perhaps you mean people aren't willing to do what's necessary to get rich?My argument has nothing to do with "dumb and lazy" and is about MOTIVATION. Poor people are less motivated to earn wealth. So what do we do to fix that? You want to make it harder to earn wealth, to hobble the capitalists, but that only hurts everyone. I want to motivate the poor. I think motivating them to go out there and earn more wealth, will affect the 'disparity problem' more than what you want to continue doing, which hasn't worked.
Under this logic, the wealthy have no motivation either. They have a place to live, food to eat, supplies for their babies, etc., much more so than the poor. Why doesn't this level of comfort sap the motivation of the rich?Again, it is about MOTIVATION more than anything. What we've done is set people up, with a place to live, food to eat, supplies for their babies, day care, health care, cell phones, everything else. They have no motivation to "do" anything. AND... IF they happen to be blessed with some ambition, and attempt to utilize it, they are told they will have their benefits cut. So what do you expect as a result of this? Are we lessening the gap between rich and poor with this policy? Or are we imprisoning generations of people in a life they feel they can't ever escape? HOW IS THAT HELPING THEM????
This is like saying, "I've been eating food for 50 years and I'm still hungry!" Well, duh! And their situation now, under welfare, is better than it has ever been. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but in previous centuries, the poor would die from malnutrition, violence, lack of medical care, hunger, and so on in significantly higher rates. Welfare is like a bandage--it's not going to cure the wound, but it will stop it from getting worse and killing someone.But we've done this for 50 years, and it has accomplished neither. People on welfare still have problems of being poor, their situation is not much better.
Welcome! Most people here are clueless jerks, but I hope you'll keep posting regardless.
1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.
The liberal idea isn't that rich people are wrong for being rich (despite what some conservatives would say). It's not that there's a gap--you're correct, there will always be one. Rather, it's that the middle and lower classes are getting more poor while the rich are getting richer. A rising tide should float all boats, as the saying goes, but it's not.
.
Prior to OBama middle class people and lower class people were making income gains. Of course under Obama everyone is a loser. Household income and net worth are back down to where they were in 90s.
But Margaret Thatcher was right: The left is OK with the poor being poorer as long as the rich are less rich.
As this chart shows, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...come.png/450px-Median_US_household_income.png , the middle class' decline began in 2006. That's because it began with the Great Recession, which started while Bush II was president, not Obama. I'm not blaming Bush II for the decrease, but likewise, you cannot blame Obama for something that started before he got there.
Actually, you could--but then you'd be a lying douche. Your call.
Welcome! Most people here are clueless jerks, but I hope you'll keep posting regardless.
1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.
The liberal idea isn't that rich people are wrong for being rich (despite what some conservatives would say). It's not that there's a gap--you're correct, there will always be one. Rather, it's that the middle and lower classes are getting more poor while the rich are getting richer. A rising tide should float all boats, as the saying goes, but it's not.
.
Prior to OBama middle class people and lower class people were making income gains. Of course under Obama everyone is a loser. Household income and net worth are back down to where they were in 90s.
But Margaret Thatcher was right: The left is OK with the poor being poorer as long as the rich are less rich.
As this chart shows, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...come.png/450px-Median_US_household_income.png , the middle class' decline began in 2006. That's because it began with the Great Recession, which started while Bush II was president, not Obama. I'm not blaming Bush II for the decrease, but likewise, you cannot blame Obama for something that started before he got there.
Actually, you could--but then you'd be a lying douche. Your call.
WE don't need to create anything of the sort.. for your own situation, YOU are the one who has to create it for yourself
So you just took your only solution "do nothing" and wrapped it up with a pretty bow.
Guess what? It still is "do nothing" no matter how much sprinklely shit on it
I'm sorry if the solution is not yet another gov't program with a huge budget and lots of overhead. But life just sucks like that sometimes.
You are defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You are welcome to do so, but what gives you the right to force your decision on others? If there was evidence showing it harmed people, then yes. Otherwise, why can't you give homosexuals the freedom to define marriage as they want?Simply NOT TRUE! Show me one state in America that denies or recognizes the right to MARRY on the basis of sexuality? MARRY-- is to join a male and female in matrimony. There is no prerequisite regarding their sexuality. Homosexuals are not allowed to have same-sex partnerships and call those MARRIAGE. They are not being denied a right anymore than a father who wants to marry his daughter.
We are not redefining marriage for you. You can believe whatever you want. Allowing same-sex marriages (civil, not religious) gives individual adults the right to make their own definition of marriage. Again, this is about individual freedom.Again, not true. Homosexuals are free to marry, just like everyone else. Civil property rights are a different story, and this can be addressed through civil unions legislation without redefining marriage.
The restrictions on marriage, such as age limits, are done to protect people who cannot make an informed decision. Marrying an animal is just creepy. We are talking about two consenting adults. Why not let them decide what marriage will look like?The law provides the same equal treatment... heterosexuals can not marry people of the same sex either. Fathers can't marry daughters. Women can't marry German Shepherds. I can't marry someone under 18. I can't marry Christie Brinkley. There are all kinds of parameters and restrictions on marriage, you don't have the right to do whatever makes you happy and call it 'marriage' and hopefully we'll never make that the case in America.
Actually, you COULD marry the girl you've been stalking. Assuming you are a male, of course, then the opportunity, and hence the right, is there. But if you're a woman, sorry--no rights. A right is not the same thing as a physical course of action--it's having the potential. My constitutional right to free speech doesn't mean I am saying mean things about the government. It means I could do that.OH, but people have the right to marry the one they love! No they don't! If so, then can I marry the girl I've been stalking since high school? Of course not, because there are other mitigating criteria that apply. We can't just effing do whatever we please, and call it what we want.
Oh for Pete's sake, not this argument again. Look, of course criminals will break the law--but to say we shouldn't have laws banning things simply because criminals will ignore the laws is akin to saying we cannot have any laws because some people won't obey them. Buying fissionable plutonium is illegal. Yet criminals would ignore that law! Therefore, we shouldn't ban stuff that makes nuclear weapons go boom! Why make murder illegal when criminals will just ignore the law? Hell, anthrax should be available at Wal-Mart!Woah.. wait a sec... Are CRIMINALS going to obey this new law? Can you guarantee me that it will never be violated by a CRIMINAL? If so, I will accept the premise that we can pass a law to prevent criminals from doing something illegal. Until you can make this guarantee, I will go with what common sense tells me, that criminals will still do things illegally... like buy illegal guns.
Wow, I didn't know you had the power to read my mind! Thank you for telling me what I want!Let's be clear. Liberal Socialists want ALL guns banned. Period. You have been brainwashed by them, to believe they are just after THESE guns... THAT clip... THIS ammo... it's called "incrementalism" and it's the oldest trick in the book.
Oh, I would absolutely LOVE to see proof of this. Please, show me how "essentially every articulated idea" of Obama's is Marxist. Like his tax cuts of 2010? Is that Marxist?Essentially every articulated idea that has come from the mouth of Barack Obama over the past 6 years, has been virtually and contextually-speaking, right out of Karl Marx Communist Manifesto... at some points, almost copied verbatim.
Um ... that's what laws do. Murder is morally wrong, theft is wrong, hence there are laws prohibiting murder and theft. The government has always enforced morality.Wait... play by the rules? Are we on the same page? No one is suggesting we allow some companies to not play by the rules. I don't know what all this talk is about "morality" and what you mean, do you think government should be in the business of legislating morality?
Oligarchies and monopolies are problems that cannot be combated in the free market system. And while the Invisible Hand will force business who produce unsafe products, there will still be damage and even deaths to consumers while the marketplace adjusts.You can't overly-regulate free market capitalism and still have free market capitalism. It's like saying the government is going to "control every movement you make" but we're still a "free society." It's ludicrous. "Immoral Greed" can be combated in a free market system, IF it exists. Where it absolutely CAN'T be combated, is in a totalitarian Socialist system.
So you just took your only solution "do nothing" and wrapped it up with a pretty bow.
Guess what? It still is "do nothing" no matter how much sprinklely shit on it
I'm sorry if the solution is not yet another gov't program with a huge budget and lots of overhead. But life just sucks like that sometimes.
I see, so the only solutions you can see is either do nothing or govt programs with a huge budget. Oh and don't forget Lots of Overhead Too! Sure!
How about do something, govt program with a small budget and little overhead as being an option? Sorry, my bad, I forgot you were building a strawman not looking for any answers..
Continue
Oligarchies and monopolies are problems that cannot be combated in the free market system. And while the Invisible Hand will force business who produce unsafe products, there will still be damage and even deaths to consumers while the marketplace adjusts.You can't overly-regulate free market capitalism and still have free market capitalism. It's like saying the government is going to "control every movement you make" but we're still a "free society." It's ludicrous. "Immoral Greed" can be combated in a free market system, IF it exists. Where it absolutely CAN'T be combated, is in a totalitarian Socialist system.
You are defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You are welcome to do so, but what gives you the right to force your decision on others? If there was evidence showing it harmed people, then yes. Otherwise, why can't you give homosexuals the freedom to define marriage as they want?Simply NOT TRUE! Show me one state in America that denies or recognizes the right to MARRY on the basis of sexuality? MARRY-- is to join a male and female in matrimony. There is no prerequisite regarding their sexuality. Homosexuals are not allowed to have same-sex partnerships and call those MARRIAGE. They are not being denied a right anymore than a father who wants to marry his daughter.
Oh, and equating homosexuality with pedophilic incest? I'm hoping that was unintentional.
We are not redefining marriage for you. You can believe whatever you want. Allowing same-sex marriages (civil, not religious) gives individual adults the right to make their own definition of marriage. Again, this is about individual freedom.Again, not true. Homosexuals are free to marry, just like everyone else. Civil property rights are a different story, and this can be addressed through civil unions legislation without redefining marriage.
The restrictions on marriage, such as age limits, are done to protect people who cannot make an informed decision. Marrying an animal is just creepy. We are talking about two consenting adults. Why not let them decide what marriage will look like?The law provides the same equal treatment... heterosexuals can not marry people of the same sex either. Fathers can't marry daughters. Women can't marry German Shepherds. I can't marry someone under 18. I can't marry Christie Brinkley. There are all kinds of parameters and restrictions on marriage, you don't have the right to do whatever makes you happy and call it 'marriage' and hopefully we'll never make that the case in America.
As for equal treatment, please. Can straight people marry an adult they want to marry? Yes. Can homosexual people? No. Hence, unequal treatment. Your argument is like voting under Communist regimes. Everyone has to vote for the Communist candidate; therefore, everyone is treated equally.
Actually, you COULD marry the girl you've been stalking. Assuming you are a male, of course, then the opportunity, and hence the right, is there. But if you're a woman, sorry--no rights. A right is not the same thing as a physical course of action--it's having the potential. My constitutional right to free speech doesn't mean I am saying mean things about the government. It means I could do that.OH, but people have the right to marry the one they love! No they don't! If so, then can I marry the girl I've been stalking since high school? Of course not, because there are other mitigating criteria that apply. We can't just effing do whatever we please, and call it what we want.
Oh for Pete's sake, not this argument again. Look, of course criminals will break the law--but to say we shouldn't have laws banning things simply because criminals will ignore the laws is akin to saying we cannot have any laws because some people won't obey them. Buying fissionable plutonium is illegal. Yet criminals would ignore that law! Therefore, we shouldn't ban stuff that makes nuclear weapons go boom! Why make murder illegal when criminals will just ignore the law? Hell, anthrax should be available at Wal-Mart!Woah.. wait a sec... Are CRIMINALS going to obey this new law? Can you guarantee me that it will never be violated by a CRIMINAL? If so, I will accept the premise that we can pass a law to prevent criminals from doing something illegal. Until you can make this guarantee, I will go with what common sense tells me, that criminals will still do things illegally... like buy illegal guns.
Banning assault weapons doesn't magically cure all ills. It decreases the chances that the wrong people will be able to get them, and that's a good thing.
Wow, I didn't know you had the power to read my mind! Thank you for telling me what I want!Let's be clear. Liberal Socialists want ALL guns banned. Period. You have been brainwashed by them, to believe they are just after THESE guns... THAT clip... THIS ammo... it's called "incrementalism" and it's the oldest trick in the book.
I don't know what "Liberal Socialist" means--are there Conservative Socialists or Liberal Federalists?--but the liberals I know and follow in the media do NOT advocate banning all guns. They advocate limits, not total bans. There's a huge difference between the two, and I sincerely wish more conservatives understood that difference.
Oh, I would absolutely LOVE to see proof of this. Please, show me how "essentially every articulated idea" of Obama's is Marxist. Like his tax cuts of 2010? Is that Marxist?
Um ... that's what laws do. Murder is morally wrong, theft is wrong, hence there are laws prohibiting murder and theft. The government has always enforced morality.Wait... play by the rules? Are we on the same page? No one is suggesting we allow some companies to not play by the rules. I don't know what all this talk is about "morality" and what you mean, do you think government should be in the business of legislating morality?
Oligarchies and monopolies are problems that cannot be combated in the free market system. And while the Invisible Hand will force business who produce unsafe products, there will still be damage and even deaths to consumers while the marketplace adjusts.You can't overly-regulate free market capitalism and still have free market capitalism. It's like saying the government is going to "control every movement you make" but we're still a "free society." It's ludicrous. "Immoral Greed" can be combated in a free market system, IF it exists. Where it absolutely CAN'T be combated, is in a totalitarian Socialist system.
Oligarchies and monopolies are problems that cannot be combated in the free market system. And while the Invisible Hand will force business who produce unsafe products, there will still be damage and even deaths to consumers while the marketplace adjusts.You can't overly-regulate free market capitalism and still have free market capitalism. It's like saying the government is going to "control every movement you make" but we're still a "free society." It's ludicrous. "Immoral Greed" can be combated in a free market system, IF it exists. Where it absolutely CAN'T be combated, is in a totalitarian Socialist system.
Oligopolies (not oligarchies) and monopolies basically don't occur in a free market system. They are almost always and everywhere products of gov't regulation.
Oligarchies and monopolies are problems that cannot be combated in the free market system. And while the Invisible Hand will force business who produce unsafe products, there will still be damage and even deaths to consumers while the marketplace adjusts.
Oligopolies (not oligarchies) and monopolies basically don't occur in a free market system. They are almost always and everywhere products of gov't regulation.
First, thanks for the correction. You're right and I was dumb.
Second, what??? Oligopolies and monopolies are caused by regulations? So Standard Oil wouldn't have become a monopoly is the low level of gov't regulation in the Industrial Age had been even lower?
And you are welcome to define marriage for you and yours. Why not let someone else define marriage for themselves? Why should your definition be the standard? Because that's the way it's always been? If something is wrong for hundreds of years, that does not make it right.No, I am defining marriage as it has been defined since the 1500s and Martin Luther. YOU are wanting to redefine it to mean something else. That is what I have a problem with. Ironically, the Constitution is why we can't give homosexuals the right to call their relationships "marriage." IF marriage is changed to include sexual behavior or proclivity, then the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution has to apply. We can't deny any other odd or unusual sexual proclivity, to not have this same right. We have changed the definition, and that gives them the Constitutional argument to legitimize their behaviors through marriage.
Homosexuality is NOT a deviate sexual behavior. It has occurred throughout human history; the definition didn't even exist until the Victorian Age. It happens in other animal species as well. Homosexuality may not make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but it's certainly natural.Pedophilic incest and homosexuality share a common attribute, they are both deviate sexual behaviors. I realize that term is bombastic, but you asked. Marriage is simply not defined by terms of sexuality, it hasn't ever been. You are attempting to change that, and there will be an unacceptable consequence, which is why I am opposed.
Ain't that the truth?This won't happen, of course... too many extremists (both sides) make too much political hay over the issue to ever resolve it.
Rights granted by the Constitution are not absolute. Marrying the dead is disrespectful, unhealthy, and perhaps oddly most important, it's not a mutually-agreed to relationship based on two consenting adults. That means there isn't a "slippery slope".I agree, marrying an animal IS creepy, or what about marrying the dead? Even creepier! But don't you understand, the Constitution says, if you give one group of people something based on a specified criteria, then you have to give others the same equal thing? Equal protection guarantees that these "creepy" sexual proclivities have to also be legitimized through marriage, if they want to be. Are you hoping maybe they won't?
Why not let everyone define what they want marriage to be, and leave the government out of it?]/quote]
That would be the best, but I think the cat's out of the bag on that one. Marriage has too many legal ramifications tied to it. (I also think this is a prime example of the dangers of mixing religion and government, but that's a topic for another time.)
Of course! But even if there is mutual consent, two women cannot get married. Two men cannot get married. Only a man and a women can get hitched. No one has the right to get married, and that's not what I'm arguing for. A man and a women have legal permission to get married should they choose that, and because the law decides that's permitted--since the law bothers to get involved in the first place--it has to let consenting adults get married even if they are of the same gender.Frankly, you are just plain wrong. Neither straight or gay people can marry an adult they want to marry. First, there has to be mutual consent.
When we talk about rights, we really talk about what the government cannot restrict us from doing (in most circumstances). We have freedom of religion, therefore the government cannot restrict our choice of faith. We have freedom of the press, therefore the government cannot restrict what a newspaper reports simply because it might damage the government's reputation.Actually, I CAN'T marry the girl I've been stalking, she won't give me the time of day. And I just absolutely LOVE the way you've now determined that rights are just "potential" and it doesn't mean we actually have them. That is simply priceless!
Therefore, we have rights but we don't have to exercise them in order to have them. If I cannot afford to visit DC to protest on the Mall, has my right of free speech been violated? No, because I have the potential to do that. That's what a legal right is--it's something you can do and the government cannot stop you. Not do, but can do. That's potential.
You may not be able to marry the girl you're stalking, but that doesn't mean you don't have the right to marry her should she agree. If you walked into a store and tried to buy a gun, and the owner said they were closed, are your 2nd Amendment rights gone? No, they still exist because you could go to that store tomorrow, or next week, or whenever. The potential still exists.
Two gay men are denied the potential to marry, hence they are denied the right to marry.
And you are welcome to define marriage for you and yours. Why not let someone else define marriage for themselves? Why should your definition be the standard? Because that's the way it's always been? If something is wrong for hundreds of years, that does not make it right.
And if you want to bring religion into it, fine! As long as your belief isn't forced onto other people. That's part of freedom of religion--the government shall not favor one belief over another.
Under current laws, a man can marry any women who agrees to it.
However, a man cannot marry any other man despite agreeing to it.
That's where the law favors heterosexuals over homosexuals, and that's why it's unequal.
Marriage equality is not about including sexual orientation into marriage--it's about giving two people the freedom to marry if they so choose.
Homosexuality is NOT a deviate sexual behavior. It has occurred throughout human history; the definition didn't even exist until the Victorian Age. It happens in other animal species as well. Homosexuality may not make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but it's certainly natural.Pedophilic incest and homosexuality share a common attribute, they are both deviate sexual behaviors. I realize that term is bombastic, but you asked. Marriage is simply not defined by terms of sexuality, it hasn't ever been. You are attempting to change that, and there will be an unacceptable consequence, which is why I am opposed.
Rights granted by the Constitution are not absolute. Marrying the dead is disrespectful, unhealthy, and perhaps oddly most important, it's not a mutually-agreed to relationship based on two consenting adults. That means there isn't a "slippery slope".
As for your "specified criteria", that already exists. Marriage has to be entered into by two consenting adults of legal age. That right is forbidden to homosexuals.
Why not let everyone define what they want marriage to be, and leave the government out of it?]/quote]
That would be the best, but I think the cat's out of the bag on that one. Marriage has too many legal ramifications tied to it. (I also think this is a prime example of the dangers of mixing religion and government, but that's a topic for another time.)
Cat's out of the bag? I don't understand that saying with regard to the topic. What legal ramifications exist, that couldn't be fixed with CU legislation? We simply recognize standing "marriage" contracts as "unions of civil partnership" and that's that. No more "marriage" licenses, no more debate. We're ELIMINATING any government connection to religion, by eliminating "marriage" and moving to a generic CU partnership. As I said, the idea is a solution to the problem, it resolves the entire issue to the satisfaction of everyone involved. It's rejected because it's a solution, and the extremists need the issue for political reasons.
Of course! But even if there is mutual consent, two women cannot get married. Two men cannot get married.
Not to each other, because that is not marriage. I understand you want to change that, but I don't want it changed. We can't pretend like it has already been changed, and we are having this argument, because then, the argument we're having would be about inclusion of other sexuality, under the equal protection clause in the Constitution.
Only a man and a women can get hitched.
Bing-fuckio!
No one has the right to get married, and that's not what I'm arguing for.
No? Damn, what a waste of time this has been!
A man and a women have legal permission to get married should they choose that, and because the law decides that's permitted--since the law bothers to get involved in the first place--it has to let consenting adults get married even if they are of the same gender.
No it doesn't have to and it hasn't. Marriage is a union of two people who are opposite gender, and that's what marriage has been defined as... always, as far as the Constitution is concerned. What you don't seem to understand is, you are arguing for government to be able to redefine marriage, but if they can do so, they can just as easily define it to not include homosexuals, require it to be inter-denominational, all kinds of things... you want them to be able to do this. The only way to keep them from this, is to get them out of the marriage business, and stop advocating for this stupidity of gay marriage.
For my first thread here, I figured I may as well jump in the deep end of the pool and go for it! YOLO! So here I will present a sampling of liberal myths, and explain why they are, in fact, myths and not facts. Shall we begin?
1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.
It's not a myth that rich people get richer while poor people remain poor. The myth is, that we should (or could) do something to change the dynamics. We can't and shouldn't try. Rich people become richer because, generally speaking, rich people have better business sense, sharper intuition, more motivation, ambition, drive. It's kind of like saying, marathon runners win more races than couch potatoes, so we must do something to hinder the marathon runner.
Rich people mostly became rich because of their drive and ambition to do so, and poor people don't become rich, because they lack this same level of drive and ambition. Now, we can't ever "fix" this problem by making it MORE of a challenge to become rich. The best idea would be to try and foster a sense of ambition and drive in people who are poor. The easier it becomes to attain wealth, the more poor people will be inclined to achieve it.
No matter what happens, we will always live in a world where wealthy people gain wealth faster than poor people with nothing. Wealth disparity is a natural thing that happens, regardless of anything you can do. Liberals argue for wealth redistribution, but this won't work, because the drive and ambition element is unchanged. A noted economist once predicted, you could redistribute all the wealth in the world, equally distributing it to every person on the planet, and in 20 years, we'd be right back to where we started.
2. Republicans don't care about the poor, sick, or downtrodden.
This myth perpetuates itself because Liberals assume Republican objections to their ideas mean they have no compassion. Republicans, for the most part, simply have a different idea of how we "help" others. No one wants to see people suffer or die. However, in the mind of a Liberal, there is ONLY the Liberal idea, and if you are not on board with the Liberal Idea, you must hate people and want them to suffer. Fact of the matter is, we've been implementing liberal policies and programs for 60 years or more, and according to the studies, our poor and downtrodden aren't much better off. So, the liberal ideas aren't working, and intelligent rational people believe there might be a reason to try something different.
You have to almost wonder if it's not the Liberal who doesn't care about the poor, sick or downtrodden, they continue to want the same kind of policies and programs which have failed the past 60 years, and refuse to try something new. It's the same template over and over... We're going to have our liberal idea, if we have to crusade with our torches for 100 years, by god, we're going to have our liberal idea... then when the idea is implemented and doesn't work, it's because we haven't spent enough money on it. We have now spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 trillion, fighting the "war on poverty" and we have as many families at poverty level than any time in our history. We've committed to spend another $100 trillion, and any talk of reducing that amount is met with moaning and writhing in the streets by Liberals who cry that Republicans don't care.
3. Gays are being denied the right to marry!
In 1987, I attended a gay wedding in Alabama! Two of my dear sweet gay friends, decided they wanted to commemorate their love for one another, with a wedding ceremony. We gathered on a hillside in the country, with a Rastafarian minister, and they got hitched! The wedding was complete with rice and photos, and the couple dashed off on their honeymoon to Hawaii.
Now.... How can this be? Gays can't legally do this, can they? Sure they can! There is no law which prohibits a gay couple from having a wedding ceremony. In fact, there is no law which prohibits gays from getting a marriage licence, it just has to be with the opposite sex, like everyone else. That's because this is how "marriage" is defined, and it's not restricted to only heterosexuals. Nothing is being denied that isn't being denied to everyone.
4. Military-style Assault Weapons are a problem and need to be banned.
There is no such thing as a military style assault weapon. It's true! There are weapons which are "military style" and this refers to various aspects of the functionality, but the rapid-fire 'automatic' element is missing, we don't allow those type weapons to be sold to the public, they are for military use only. In a weapon available to the public, the term "military style" has more to do with the grips, the stock, the removable clip, etc. It's a much more efficient and ergonomic design, and has nothing really to do with the military or the kind of weapon they would use.
It's illegal to "assault" using a weapon in the US, and a gun is completely unable to "assault" on it's own. Therefore, the term "assault weapon" is a misnomer, it can never be legally used for this purpose in the general public.
5. Something HAS to be done about greedy capitalists!
This is pure propaganda, perpetrated by pure Communist Socialists. The very nature of free market capitalism, all but destroys the element of greed. When capitalists are free to compete, the "greedy capitalist" is quickly put out of business by the "smart capitalist" and life goes on. Oh...this multinational or that is 'bilking' us... well, go out there and find some investment capital, and start a rival company! Nothing is stopping you! If you can do it cheaper or better, without a high-dollar CEO, or whatever... go do it! Give us consumers a deal that isn't 'bilking' us and I promise, we consumers will make you rich!
The real greed exists in a closed market system, like Russia or China. Where competition has been eliminated and the State controls all wealth and power. THAT is when you see greed rear it's ugly head, for REAL. You see, the sad truth is, the 1% will ALWAYS exist... nothing you can ever do about that. In a socialist system, the 1% is the Ruling Class, who now control not only all the wealth, but all the political power as well. Government figureheads and their cronies, soak up all the gains and spoils, and the general public is left with nothing. Not only are they left with nothing, they have also been stripped of opportunity to attain wealth at all.
I have several more myths to address, but I think 5 is plenty to start with.
