What Is Your Political Philosophy?

May I suggest you move there is you like it so much.

- - - Updated - - -

If someone has skills worth $7.25/hour and they are getting paid $7.25/hour, how is that not fair?

The problems with unions is that when the company doesn't do what they want, they strike. That's hardly a compromise but it does sound much like the Democrats of today.

 

Why don't you support yourself instead of thinking it's the government's place to do things for you that you should be doing for yourself.

 

So you believe in forcing a business to pay a low skilled worker more than they are worth on the market and limiting what a high skilled worker can make?

 

What oath are you referring to? The oath I took when I swore in at MEPS? Who in my military has not followed our oath that hasn't been punished? If you are aware of such treasonous acts, you must disclose them to your local or federal LEO entity. If you fail to do so, you would then be held accountable for protecting those engaging in treasonous activities.

 

"Allowing gay marriage does not impose anything on the lives of those who don't want to marry people of the same sex"

Unless you run a business that doesn't want to bake a cake for a same sex marriage. That imposes someone's choice over another person's beliefs.

 

What do you mean?

Should I suggest you move to Russia for its flat tax?

Perhaps you can enlighten me to your thinking generally. .

 

It isn't baseless; it is only your lack of understanding. We have a social contract that says the general government must ensure a republican form of government to the several States.

 

I find that many people say they like the way somewhere else does things better than where they happen to be is doing them. If they don't like it here, go where they like it.

 

Fail. The Constitution isn't a "Social Contract" and the reference to the United States guaranteeing a republican form of government is irrelevant to whether you've supported any of your assertions.

 

Our supreme law of the land is a social Contract; why your baseless assertions to the contrary?

 

You also don't understand the words and teachings of Christ while pretending that you do. Not one place in the Bible does it say where Jesus used the government to force one person to take care of another. While I do belief that Jesus did teach that we should help those in need, He didn't teach that it was YOUR place to dictate the level to which I should do it. That's what Democrats practice. They support the oxymoronic concept of mandated charity. Charity involves the willful act of giving by the giver not a mandate by the taker who then takes credit as if the money came out of his/her pocket.

 

Yes but how does that make sense? have you thought about that much?

It doesnt seem like you have..

 

You are confusing private charity, which only covers multitudes of sins, with public charity which should be solving simple poverty in our republic by using socialism to bailout capitalism and creating more luck.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, only the right whines about a welfare-state costing too much instead of a warfare-State costing too much.

 

When terms related to raising and supporting a military are taken out of the Constitution, you'll have an argument. When terms related to social welfare are in the Constitution, it will get stronger. Last time I looked, the former is still there and the latter never has been.

There is no such thing as public charity. Look up the word charity. It involves a willful act by the giver. Mandates for taxes that fund social welfare leeches isn't charity. If you bleeding hearts would actually do as much to prove your self proclaimed compassion as you talk about having it, mandates woulnd't be needed. When you saw a need, you would meet it. The problem is you see a need then find ways to see who else can be forced to meet it then take credit as if it came from your pockets voluntarily.

Your outlooks reminds me of this: Two co workers, one Liberal and one Conservative, finished lunch and were walking back to the office. They come into contact with an individual that asked them for money to buy something to eat. The Liberal didn't have any money but knew the Conservative had $5. At the urging of the Liberal, the Conservative gives the individual the money. Later that day, another co worker sees the Conservative in the hallway and says it was a nice thing the two of you did today helping the hungry person. The Conservative thinks that is just like the typical Liberal to take credit for something he didn't do because he was there and said that it needed to be done.

 

Your latitude of construction leaves much to be desired. There is no common Offense or general Warfare clause.

Yes, there is such a thing as public charity and it is voluntary to the extent it provides goods and services via our political process and not outright theft.

 

Pretty simple. The government that governs least, governs best.

 

It's stupidity because of what you believe.

I have a problem with the war on drugs much like the one on poverty. We've tried the same crap year after year and it hasn't worked. As for the war on terror, I support it based on the Constitutional authority given to Congress to wage war. The part I don't like is that we don't fight to win but to not lose in order to appease our enemies.

The things for which taxes can be used is delegated by the Constitution. Since you can't show me any of those words, I'll take it as you admitting defeat.

Employment should be at will. If you have to rely on some outside source (i.e. - unions) to do your bidding, it tells me you have nothing to offer.

 

Wars on abstractions constitute a common offense or the general warfare and are nowhere to be found in our federal Constitution.

Any war should require wartime tax rates, not only to ensure we can win even if only by attrition, but also to ensure it is not merely a boondoggle and potential, generational form of theft. Our federal Congress is already delegated the Power to enact letters of marque and reprisal whenever they cannot justify wartime Tax rates for a real War, to the People and Electorate of the United States.

 

Nothing abstract about planes flying into building, beheadings, etc. The delegated authority to wage war doesn't have to be against a country.

The problem with your concept of wartime taxes is that it would benefit those not paying those taxes. Just anothe typical leftwing mindset of one group being responsible for funding what supports another group. I'd be ashamed, embarrassed, and would hide my head if I knew the only way I had something I should be providing myself is someone else being forced to fund it.

 

That's just it. Some people don't have any shame.

 

You are missing the point. Any war should require wartime tax rates, not only to ensure we can win even if only by attrition, but also to ensure it is not merely a boondoggle and potential, generational form of theft. Our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, are examples.

 

Why should it, because you said so? We have been fighting a war on poverty for 50 years using increased taxes and it hasn't worked. The problem is my grandkids who are yet to be born will be paying for that crap. They are being stolen from by continued spending beyond revenue yet the left's answer is that we have to spend, spend, spend.

 

Raising taxes in war-time has been historically true in every war America has fought....until the Bush Presidencies.

It's what's called "fiscal conservatism"....actually PAYING for the endeavors the Government engages in.

But now, the new form of "fiscal conservatism" is..."Put it on the National Credit Card, because when we Republicans want a war...we don't want it to become unpopular when we have to raise taxes to pay for it."

It's not only fiscally irresponsible.....it's cowardly.

 

Did you miss the explanation?

Any war should require wartime tax rates, not only to ensure we can win even if only by attrition, but also to ensure it is not merely a boondoggle and potential, generational form of theft. Our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, are examples.

- - - Updated - - -

I am glad we agree that the right complaining about Tax and spend is less fiscally responsible than the right's, spending and financing, without the social and capital based metrics of wartime tax rates in our republic.

 

Nonsense the welfare state and taxes should be increased and the warfare state ended, the warfare state should go away giving you cons a chance to prove your mettle by both paying for and volunteering for your foreign adventures.

Nonsense, they are not, by your own admission. And we lefties will pay for it all just as we do here in Scotland. We lefties pay for everything. Including the defence costs and wars you conservatives wish for.
MOD EDIT>>>FLAME BAIT<<<