Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 3
Must be a very long list.

I'll start the thread:

Dems like to play the "fair share" card.

This annoys me:
A person paying $0 income tax is paying his/her fair share.

PS
Many very poor people contribute 3%+of their income to their church.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 35
This annoys me:
A person paying $0 income tax is paying his/her fair share.
-------------------------------------------------------
What's annoying to me is the person paying $0 income tax complaining about the guy paying income tax not paying enough.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 24
What annoys me is the degree of racist hatred liberals direct at one of their captured group members when they dare think unapproved thoughts and they call us racists.

Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Mia Love, that woman who recently expressed support for Romney, etc...., but liberals aren't racist, oh no.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
This annoys me:
A person paying $0 income tax is paying his/her fair share.

-------------------------------------------------------
What's annoying to me is the person paying $0 income tax complaining about the guy paying income tax not paying enough.


What's worse is that Democrats insist that the middle class pays a higher tax rate than Romney because they are comparing the marginal rate of the middle class with Romney's effective rate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What's annoying to me is the person paying $0 income tax complaining about the guy paying income tax not paying enough.

Who's paying our Federal bills?

Obama's record:
Out of ever $100: )

$40 Borrowing (China the largest)
$80 People/corporations that pay taxes
-$20 People that get earned income tax credits, food stamps etc


Guesstimated the the $80 & -$20
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Well, these are some of the things that bug me:

1. Government in loco parentis

What I mean by that is pols calling for and people voting for the government to take care of people. Call it the social safety net, call it welfare, call it entitlements... I just call it people enslaving themselves to the government. I see no virtue in it, no compassion and no benefit.

2. Misunderstanding inherent rights.

The biggest example is the outright hostility many liberals have to our right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, community defense and national defense. It just never gets through their thick skulls that A. each one of us is ultimately responsible for our own protection, and to deny anyone the right to be armed anywhere is to deny them their right to life itself. It's so basic that you have to actively delude yourself to get it wrong, yet millions of liberals do. It's baffling!

3. The belief that government is the root of economic success.

Uh, no. Not here, not anywhere, not ever. At best the government can create an environment where you're free to succeed. However, that mainly means they stay the hell out of your way so you can succeed. No country has ever taxed or regulated their way to success. Quite the opposite.

Those are my main three. There is a thread going through all of them: freedom. A government that doesn't try to protect you from yourself, take away rights for your own good and regulate the bejeezus out you while taxing everything that moves is a free country. That should be our goal, anything or anyone moving us in the other direction (<cough>0bama and the Democrat Party</cough>) must be defeated by any means necessary.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 20
2. Misunderstanding inherent rights.

This is by far the biggest issue.

All true rights are about freedom. The right to free speech is the freedom to speak your mind. The right to own a gun is the freedom to own a gun. A property right is the freedom to use property as you wish. This is the conception of natural rights that the U.S. was founded upon.

When liberals speak of "rights," they refer to the moral justification to use force against others. Their conception of "rights" is completely opposite to natural rights. It is about force rather than freedom. The "right" to health care is actually a "right" to force others to provide health care. The "right" to a minimum standard of living is the "right" to force others to pay for that minimum standard of living.

We do have a right to health care, but not like liberals say. We have the freedom to purchase health care or obtain health care from others on a voluntary basis. We have the freedom to take actions to improve our health. We just are not justified in forcing others to provide health care or the resources to purchase health care.

Republicans aren't innocent in this regard. They share in this distorted conception of rights to a large degree. They just don't take it to the extreme that liberals do.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
2. Misunderstanding inherent rights.

Libs just don't understand the most important aspect of what a right is. Exercising one's right(s) should never obligate or burden someone else. They believe just the opposite. Apply their mentality to just a few rights and we have this:

1. I have the right to free speech and you must listen to it and agree with me or else I'll poop on the street and destroy someone else's property.
2. I have the right to health care but someone else must pay for it if I can't.
3. I have the right to an abortion and taxpayers must fund it if I can't.
4. I have the right to be promiscuous and you must pay for my birth control if I can't afford it.


Just a few.... but so true.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Republicans aren't innocent in this regard. They share in this distorted conception of rights to a large degree. They just don't take it to the extreme that liberals do.

That's true. There certainly are stances Republicans have taken that I don't agree with 100%, but often that means they compromised with Dems in ways that take away freedom. The Dem Party Platform is inherently anti-freedom.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
2. Misunderstanding inherent rights.

This is by far the biggest issue.
______________________

Or to put it into a perspective that even the most anti-political person on RECF can agree with

It is hard to make a good apple pie, if you have no clue what an apple, a pie crust or a pie actually are.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Republicans aren't innocent in this regard. They share in this distorted conception of rights to a large degree. They just don't take it to the extreme that liberals do.

That's true. There certainly are stances Republicans have taken that I don't agree with 100%, but often that means they compromised with Dems in ways that take away freedom. The Dem Party Platform is inherently anti-freedom.


It's not only their compromises with Democrats (generally entitlements) that are the problem. It's their stance against gay marriage. It's their attempts to prohibit or restrict pornography. It's their stance against the freedom to use drugs. It's their stance against free trade.

These are all restrictions of our freedoms that aren't restrictions against violating the rights of others. These restrictions on our freedom are violations of our natural rights.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's not only their compromises with Democrats (generally entitlements) that are the problem. It's their stance against gay marriage. It's their attempts to prohibit or restrict pornography. It's their stance against the freedom to use drugs. It's their stance against free trade.

These are all restrictions of our freedoms that aren't restrictions against violating the rights of others. These restrictions on our freedom are violations of our natural rights. _______________


I agree with you on most of these, but frankly marriage is a social construct, and no Republican is trying to keep gays apart(legally anyway) they just do not want to give it the same acknowledgement as marriage.

I still see that making sense, as why was marriage EVER specially treated? It was to create the next generation and replenish society.

Now, I have zero problem taking away any preferences for treating married folks if that is the intent. Extending that preference makes absolutely no sense to me.

Marriage is not a right, it is a societal construct created for a purpose.

The others? I agree WTF are the Republicans doing.

Gay marriage, I would rather see the path of abolishing marriage altogether as a societal construct. For why can't a brother and sister marry? Do not they love each other? When my daughter turns 26 if I am widowed, why can't I marry her? I do love her and want to care for her. Marriage really is not about the sex, so where is the problem?

Is there an actual purpose for marriage, and if there is not, why have it at all?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Marriage is not a right, it is a societal construct created for a purpose.

So our freedom doesn't extend to getting married? That's absurd.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's their stance against free trade.
I have a question? Why is free trade preferred or good? Next why is it the movement of "goods" is acceptable but not people?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's their stance against free trade.

I have a question? Why is free trade preferred or good?


Why is free trade within a country good but not when it crosses some arbitrary line around a "nation"?

The answer is that free trade is good due to the principle of comparative advantage. It makes no difference whether your trading partner is on the other side of an arbitrary line or on the same side. Taken to the extreme, we would have to produce *everything* by ourselves instead of specializing and trading with others if we weren't allowed to trade freely with others.

Here is a great video discussing the issue:
http://www.betweenthelines.us/rhetoric-merges/

Free trade is also a moral issue. I think it is immoral to initiate force against others which is what the government is doing when it restricts trade.

Next why is it the movement of "goods" is acceptable but not people?

I'm probably not the best person to ask because I'm in favor of free immigration (subject to a background check).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"When liberals speak of "rights," they refer to the moral justification to use force against others. Their conception of "rights" is completely opposite to natural rights. It is about force rather than freedom. The "right" to health care is actually a "right" to force others to provide health care. The "right" to a minimum standard of living is the "right" to force others to pay for that minimum standard of living."

Your post ignores the fact that everyone has WILLINGLY surrendered some of their individual rights for the betterment of society when they are a citizen.

Most intellectually mature people recognize the benefits they recieve from this agreement.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Umm wrote: Your post ignores the fact that everyone has WILLINGLY surrendered some of their individual rights for the betterment of society when they are a citizen.

How can this be when I became a citizen the moment I drew my first breath? I didn't do anything willingly except scream for my mother.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Umm wrote: Your post ignores the fact that everyone has WILLINGLY surrendered some of their individual rights for the betterment of society when they are a citizen.

Willingly? LOL! Substitute willingly with forcefully and you have the Obama/liberal core value.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
lowstudent wrote: I agree with you on most of these, but frankly marriage is a social construct,

Marriage was originally a religious construct, a sacrament. Why are people who don't follow a religious creed concerned in the slightest about marriage?

The tax code should be reformed to give no tax advantages to married couples. Then gay and straight couples would conclude, "Why are we getting married?"

Indeed, why are they?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Marriage was originally a religious construct, a sacrament. Why are people who don't follow a religious creed concerned in the slightest about marriage?

The tax code should be reformed to give no tax advantages to married couples. Then gay and straight couples would conclude, "Why are we getting married?"

Indeed, why are they?


CC


Can you imagine what would happen if employers stopped providing health insurance to married employees' spouses (i.e. treated married people like single people)? Art and 2828 would have to get a job or else find affordable health insurance. <g>

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"The tax code should be reformed to give no tax advantages to married couples. Then gay and straight couples would conclude, "Why are we getting married?"

Indeed, why are they?"

---

Still for several reasons

1) Inheritance and ownership of property and assets

2) Being able to see the other in a hospital and be allowed to make life death choices for medical care

3) Renting an apartment or house

4) Business reasons

5) Emotional reasons


You can reform the tax code so there is no 'marriage penalty' or preference, but it still comes down to other reasons.



t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You can reform the tax code so there is no 'marriage penalty' or preference, but it still comes down to other reasons.

__________________

Well, I will certainly grant the emotional reasons, as I can not claim to know someone's motivations.

However, all the other issues were essentially rejected as a core thing with the rejection of various ideas of a partner type classification. This was soundly rejected by the gay community, and would have had all but the direct dollar issues and the nebulous 'emotional'

As far as emotional? Well it would constitute a direct acceptance of the relationship as legit and sanctioned in a very well way. So speculation regarding the emotional allows a wide range of possibilities.

I personally do not think it is a particularly good idea. However, I could live with it because we just need it behind us. Frankly we have important things to worry about -- sanctioning the relationships in some way shape or form for visitation, inheritance and other non direct financial support issues should have been done already.

I do understand why it was not; if I wanted full 'marriage' and i got some other 90% solution I would know my chances of success had just passed for a few generations.

We just need this behind us. Same goes for abortion. pro and anti abortion folks are casting votes on what IMO is a crazy issue. They are also on both sides casting votes in conflict with other issues. I do not think that is doing us any good at all, and I believe it is a large part of why we can not come together.

I wish I knew the solution. However, we need someone to be forced to act decisively either way, on both these issues IMO.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
When liberals speak of "rights," they refer to the moral justification to use force against others. Their conception of "rights" is completely opposite to natural rights. It is about force rather than freedom. The "right" to health care is actually a "right" to force others to provide health care. The "right" to a minimum standard of living is the "right" to force others to pay for that minimum standard of living.

Oh, and don't forget the other 'rights' upon which liberals depend, namely:

-- the right to crap on police cars when they don't get their way
-- the right to camp out in the state capitol and have their elected Democrats flee the state when they don't get their way
-- the right to attack minorities that don't share their views, while claiming that Republicans are racist
-- the right to claim that a reduction in the rate of spending GROWTH is a 'cut' that will allow the 'millionaires and billionaires' to avoid 'paying their fair share', even as the rich pay the vast majority of income taxes
-- the right to insist that the media ignore their leadership failures, like Detroit, Chicago, California, and Illinois, not to mention the numerous Obama administration scandals
-- the right to pin every whack job to the Tea Party and/or Republicans, until it is conclusively proven that they happen to be politically agnostic or leftist
-- the right to have the media ignore the rapes at the various Occupy movement, lest any adverse publicity hurt the 'movement' whose objectives were feckless and aimless at best and destructive at worst
-- the right to run a campaign based on distraction, such as focusing on Big Bird rather than Libya
-- the right to insist that all the above hypocrisy doesn't matter because they supposedly 'care more', even as their policies leave a vast wake of personal and societal destruction
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
I wish I knew the solution. However, we need someone to be forced to act decisively either way, on both these issues IMO.

The solution is quite simple. Get the government out of the business of deciding what constitutes a "marriage" or not. It's a purely personal decision.

Instead, have a separate name for a legal contractual partnership between two or more individuals who have legal capacity to enter into contracts. The most common term is a "civil union," but it could really be anything.

The gay community is mainly concerned about equal rights, which is supposed to be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. If heterosexuals could no longer have their "marriages" legally sanctioned, I doubt that homosexuals would care so much about legalizing gay marriage.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The solution is quite simple. Get the government out of the business of deciding what constitutes a "marriage" or not. It's a purely personal decision.
__________________

As you know the simple is often complex.

Unraveling family from marriage is a big job.

I do not disagree that this path makes sense, I agree.

I heartily disagree if you are saying it is easy or straightforward.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Your post ignores the fact that everyone has WILLINGLY surrendered some of their individual rights for the betterment of society when they are a citizen.

You realize there are certain rights that are inherent and can't be surrendered, such as the right to life. Likewise no society can deprive me of the right to defend my life, thus they cannot rightfully deprive me of the right to keep and bear arms. If they do so then they're violating my rights.

Most intellectually mature people recognize the benefits they recieve from this agreement.

Most intellectually mature people know what rights they cannot be deprived of. Others are sheep. Baa baa buddy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The solution is quite simple. Get the government out of the business of deciding what constitutes a "marriage" or not. It's a purely personal decision.
__________________

As you know the simple is often complex.

Unraveling family from marriage is a big job.

I do not disagree that this path makes sense, I agree.

I heartily disagree if you are saying it is easy or straightforward.


I didn't say anything about "unraveling family from marriage." People would still get married.

And I didn't say it was easy. I said it was simple.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Someone on welfare that is having their 5th baby (by 5th different sperm donor) at 23. You can't support and take care of yourself so it is my responsibility to supprt you and your rugrats.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What annoys me? Smug hypocrisy.

You know. The kind of guy who says, "We have no civility in politics today. If it weren't for those redneck teabaggers we could all get along".

Or the Obama approach: We can do what they say because we tried it and it didn't work. This after 4 years of economy-imploding nonsense from him.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
2) Being able to see the other in a hospital and be allowed to make life death choices for medical care.

One experience changed me from being indifferent to gay marriage to a "supporter".

During ICU rotation in residency, had an AIDs patient dieing from multiorgan system failure. Estranged from his family for years. His partner was there saying this is what the patient's wishes would be. Legally I had to track down the next of kin/family. They did the total opposite of what the partner was saying just for spite.

True, the patient could have had a power of attorney written up, etc., etc., etc., but costs $$$ where a marraige license is $20.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The solution is quite simple. Get the government out of the business of deciding what constitutes a "marriage" or not. It's a purely personal decision.

Instead, have a separate name for a legal contractual partnership between two or more individuals who have legal capacity to enter into contracts. The most common term is a "civil union," but it could really be anything.


this is exactly my opinion.

Get the government out of the business of defining such things. The only reason this is an issue is because long ago the people *abdicated* the ability to make such definitions to the government.

The government should only be concerned with contractual enforcement. For convenience sake, it would make sense for the government to provide a suite of contracts for different types of situations. I would also like the government to honor such documents (such as wills) with a higher precedence than those traditionally granted by biological relationships.

Allow religions to define marriage in any way they deem best. Then it becomes a matter of whether individual religions recognize gay marriage or not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
madcap
What's worse is that Democrats insist that the middle class pays a higher tax rate than Romney because they are comparing the marginal rate of the middle class with Romney's effective rate.


I was wondering about that as well how liberals make these high tax rate declarations.

Thanks to maxing out 401ks and HSA's and itemizing charitable donations, a small amount of mortgage interest and a healthy chunk of real estate taxes, our effective tax rate is slightly under 10% on a 6 figure income.

When you live on less than 50% of your income, you can do things like max out 401k's. And we also take advantage of the over 50 contributions.

decath
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
madcap
What's worse is that Democrats insist that the middle class pays a higher tax rate than Romney because they are comparing the marginal rate of the middle class with Romney's effective rate.

I was wondering about that as well how liberals make these high tax rate declarations.

Thanks to maxing out 401ks and HSA's and itemizing charitable donations, a small amount of mortgage interest and a healthy chunk of real estate taxes, our effective tax rate is slightly under 10% on a 6 figure income.

When you live on less than 50% of your income, you can do things like max out 401k's. And we also take advantage of the over 50 contributions.

decath


Here are the effective tax rates by income category:

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/chart-day-effective-tax-rates-...

Median household income is slightly below $50,000, but for argument's sake, let's assume that "middle class" is $50,000 to $100,000. They pay only 8%.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Is there an actual purpose for marriage, and if there is not, why have it at all?

Until recently, it has been for a man to own a woman and guarantee the paternity of his children.

Getting past history, marriage is a commitment that may include children. A goal of more stable relationships is of value to society.

I have trouble understanding the emotional response against gay civil marriage. I don't see it as a threat to my marriage.

Religious organizations have every right to marry only those they approve. Not everyone qualifies for a religious marriage, even those of that religion. An in-law is a member of the clergy. It is part of the job to tell some couples that they aren't ready for marriage.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
vkg wrote: Getting past history, marriage is a commitment that may include children.

Marriage is a commitment to GOD in the presence of witnesses. It's so WEIRD to me when atheists get married. What's the point?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Marriage is a commitment to GOD in the presence of witnesses. It's so WEIRD to me when atheists get married. What's the point?

That is your definition. It is not everyone's definition.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's so WEIRD to me when atheists get married. What's the point?
------

Civil contract makes more sense. Though I knew an aetheist who was a member of a church, and in the choir, and took communion. Also got married in the church. I didn't understand, but it made her comfy. I dunno.

arrete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your post ignores the fact that everyone has WILLINGLY surrendered some of their individual rights for the betterment of society when they are a citizen.

Most intellectually mature people recognize the benefits they recieve from this agreement.



Ah, the "Social Contract" theory. I must confess, that one never made any sense to me. I am a citizen due to mere accident of birth and I don't recall "willingly" surrendering anything.

(Posted before reading rest of thread.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
During ICU rotation in residency, had an AIDs patient dieing from multiorgan system failure. Estranged from his family for years. His partner was there saying this is what the patient's wishes would be. Legally I had to track down the next of kin/family. They did the total opposite of what the partner was saying just for spite.

True, the patient could have had a power of attorney written up, etc., etc., etc., but costs $$$ where a marraige license is $20.



I can't cite specific examples at the moment, but I have read of various cases where even the power of attorney was disregarded by the courts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Marriage is a commitment to GOD in the presence of witnesses. It's so WEIRD to me when atheists get married. What's the point?

That is your definition. It is not everyone's definition.



Here's an interesting take on marriage, its origins and history, and whether the institution should still be relevant today. The author is actually someone I personally knew during my teenage years.

Should We Abolish Marriage?

http://socyberty.com/relationships/should-we-abolish-marriag...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Marriage is a commitment to GOD in the presence of witnesses.

We got married by a justice of the peace (or whatever they call them in Canada). We made a commitment to each other -- there was no mention of any supernatural being.

It's so WEIRD to me when atheists get married. What's the point?

In our case, it was so DW could get a Green Card quickly. I don't know how long it would have taken to get married absent that incentive. At some point the tax consequences would have made it a good move.

And we are still together in spite of the lack of religious trappings, long after 50% of marriages performed in churches have fallen apart.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In our case, it was so DW could get a Green Card quickly. I don't know how long it would have taken to get married absent that incentive. At some point the tax consequences would have made it a good move.

And we are still together in spite of the lack of religious trappings, long after 50% of marriages performed in churches have fallen apart.

--fleg
_______________________

More proof that there is a God, and he is good.

Even though you did not acknowledge him, still he smiled upon you and granted you the peace and joy of the union he mandated as proper.

Now I lean religion is good. But the arguments that God is or God ain't are just fodder for arguing

The topic I grant is important, but the argument? It's great taste less filling
Print the post Back To Top