What people don't realize is that the united States was never supposed to be a democracy (rule by the people). It was set up as a republic (ruled by law) to protect the rights of the individual to own and protect his own property from all others, including the government, and the majority of other citizens. Individuals should have no legal responsibility (coersion by government through taxes) to support the standard of living of others (including educating, feeding, or providing medical care) whether or not those others are able to provide for themselves. Nor should the individual be forced (coerced by government through 'morality' legislation) to live up to the moral standards of another. So long as the individual does not physically harm (assault) or steal from (robbery, fraud) another individual, government should have no say in anything that individual does.
Whether we have a moral responsibility to support those causes which benefit others (social security, welfare, universal health care) is moot, because it is not the responsibility of government, nor should it have the authority, to enforce morality. Once you give the government the the authority to support (through taxes) "good" causes you give it the ability to define what "good" is. whether it be feeding the poor, or protecting traditional marriage.
Whatever the cause, I, as an individual, do not have the authority to force you to donate your money to support it. By what authority does the government (through taxes) force you to donate your money to support it? The government derives its authority from the individuals who are governed. If I (one of the governed) have no authority to force you to give, I cannot give government that authority (I don't have it to give). Whether the cause is foreign aid, welfare, universal health care, or bailing out $multi-billion corporations, only those individuals who want to support a particular cause should do so.
Think about all the government programs that are out there. Think about one you strongly agree with. If there were a charity that did the same thing, would you support it? (probably) Now, think about one you strongly disagree with. If there were a charity that did the same thing, would you support it? (probably not) The government is now forcing you to support that cause (leaving less money to support those causes you agree with) by using your tax money to pay for it. Many of the causes that are being funded now would probably wither away, if only those who agreed with them supported them. If that happend, maybe it wasn't such a good cause?
Name: copycat042
Date: Jan 20, 2009
copycat042 wrote:
copycat042 wrote:
What people don't realize is that the united States was never supposed to be a democracy (rule by the people). It was set up as a republic (ruled by law) to protect the rights of the individual to own and protect his own property from all others, including the government, and the majority of other citizens. Individuals should have no legal responsibility (coersion by government through taxes) to support the standard of living of others (including educating, feeding, or providing medical care) whether or not those others are able to provide for themselves. Nor should the individual be forced (coerced by government through 'morality' legislation) to live up to the moral standards of another. So long as the individual does not physically harm (assault) or steal from (robbery, fraud) another individual, government should have no say in anything that individual does.
Whether we have a moral responsibility to support those causes which benefit others (social security, welfare, universal health care) is moot, because it is not the responsibility of government, nor should it have the authority, to enforce morality. Once you give the government the the authority to support (through taxes) "good" causes you give it the ability to define what "good" is. whether it be feeding the poor, or protecting traditional marriage.
Whatever the cause, I, as an individual, do not have the authority to force you to donate your money to support it. By what authority does the government (through taxes) force you to donate your money to support it? The government derives its authority from the individuals who are governed. If I (one of the governed) have no authority to force you to give, I cannot give government that authority (I don't have it to give). Whether the cause is foreign aid, welfare, universal health care, or bailing out $multi-billion corporations, only those individuals who want to support a particular cause should do so.
Name: copycat042
Date: Jan 20, 2009
copycat042 wrote:
What people don't realize is that the united States was never supposed to be a democracy (rule by the people). It was set up as a republic (ruled by law) to protect the rights of the individual to own and protect his own property from all others, including the government, and the majority of other citizens. Individuals should have no legal responsibility (coersion by government through taxes) to support the standard of living of others (including educating, feeding, or providing medical care) whether or not those others are able to provide for themselves. Nor should the individual be forced (coerced by government through 'morality' legislation) to live up to the moral standards of another. So long as the individual does not physically harm (assault) or steal from (robbery, fraud) another individual, government should have no say in anything that individual does.
Whether we have a moral responsibility to support those causes which benefit others (social security, welfare, universal health care) is moot, because it is not the responsibility of government, nor should it have the authority, to enforce morality. Once you give the government the the authority to support (through taxes) "good" causes you give it the ability to define what "good" is. whether it be feeding the poor, or protecting traditional marriage.
Name: copycat042
Date: Jan 20, 2009
RE: Wow you all are WRONG!!!!!(addendum)
What people don't realize is that the united States was never supposed to be a democracy (rule by the people). It was set up as a republic (ruled by law) to protect the rights of the individual to own and protect his own property from all others, including the government, and the majority of other citizens. Individuals should have no legal responsibility (coersion by government through taxes) to support the standard of living of others (including educating, feeding, or providing medical care) whether or not those others are able to provide for themselves. Nor should the individual be forced (coerced by government through 'morality' legislation) to live up to the moral standards of another. So long as the individual does not physically harm (assault) or steal from (robbery, fraud) another individual, government should have no say in anything that individual does.
Name: Anonymous
Date: Jan 20, 2009
RE: Wow you all are WRONG!!!!!
Beatle Fanatic wrote:
Conservatives call liberals socialists too often. And liberals do the same thing, only instead of socialists, they call conservatives fascists. Usually both of those nicknames are wrong. Becouse the liberals that are called socialists are usually too right wing to count as socialists. And the same goes for the conservatives that are called fascists. They are usually too right wing to count as fascists.
I think what they mean is 'collectivist'. Both the Democrats and the Republicans, have what is , in effect, a collectivist agenda. The Republicans believe that the government (the majority of the people) should legislate a "moral standard" and force everyone to live up to that standard. The Democrats believe that the government (the majority of the people) should legislate a "social standard" and force everyone to give their time and effort (in the form of taxes) to bring everyone up to that standard.
Name: Beatle Fanatic
Date: Jan 19, 2009
Conservatives call liberals socialists too often. And liberals do the same thing, only instead of socialists, they call conservatives fascists. Usually both of those nicknames are wrong. Becouse the liberals that are called socialists are usually too right wing to count as socialists. And the same goes for the conservatives that are called fascists. They are usually too right wing to count as fascists.
Name: Anonymous
Date: Jan 17, 2009
obama is a socialist.................................
Name: Anonymous
Date: Dec 21, 2008
obama was in that senate under that idoit pelois
Name: Beatle Fanatic
Date: Dec 8, 2008
The United States affect the world. So this is everyone's buissiness.
Name: Anonymous
Date: Dec 8, 2008
look were r you right know???? iceland. look im sorry, but i fail to see your side in any of this. now dont tolk down to any one unless you under stand there means... i dont put demacrats down. i simply state facts that suport clames about the representitives of the demicratic party. now i am not happy with some of my partys choices ither but i stand behind them 100percent.
Name: Beatle Fanatic
Date: Nov 25, 2008
Fine, I'll tell you how democrats are better then republicans.
Democrats: Want to get the American troops out of Iraq. Repubilcans: Go to war against Iraq, becouse a group of Saudi Arabians, Egyptians and Afghans attacked you.
Democrats: Support equal rights. Republicans: Don't let people get married, just becouse theire gay. Also, racism tends to be stronger in red states.
Democrats: Are what the world would call: mainstream conservative. Like Winston Churchill. Republicans: Are ridiculously right-wing. (some of you might not think that's a bad thing, but I'm putting it there anyway)
Democrats: Fight for better health care. Republicans: Complain that too many good OB-GYN's can't practice their love with women all across the country.
So, there you have it.
Name: f obama aka none
Date: Nov 20, 2008
eomfd why do we even try? no mader what we say thell still come back with some stupid insult about us, insted of saying somthing in there defence... if they wont to keep there eyes closed and ears shut, and of cource be asses... then we..............................SHOULD BEET THE **** OUT OF THEM TILL THEY SEE IT OUR WAY... well thats what they say we do... hell i say leave um be. and eventuly they will see the trouth and lies Obama has for them, and still blame the republicans like they always do
Name: EOMFD
Date: Oct 31, 2008
What a douche...I hope this guy gets in office so all you turds can smell where your heads are. He can't even garther all you guys together. 90% of you guys are haters and the other 10% have money and really dont buy into your bill**** and only give you lip service...check and see how rich your DEM leaders are? No wonder your mascot is a JACKASS!!!!
Name: Anonymous
Date: Oct 27, 2008
Can't stand McCain or Obama.
Just remember when the Bush tax cut hit their limit Obama will not reinstate them. If you don't believe me ask him yourself.
If you make 25K you'll be paying $750.00 MORE in taxes
If you make $50K you'll pay $1500.00 more and if you make 65K you'll pay over 3,000.00 more per year in taxes.
This effects 100% of the people making less then 250K.
Obama doesn't want you to know this and McCain is too stupid to tell the American people that we will actually pay less under him.
DUH!
Name: Anonymous
Date: Oct 7, 2008
it wasn't Bush. it was the last 2 years of pelosi and her democratic congress you fools. Don't you know anything here. this is obama
Bush deserved to be impeached. He lied to the American people. I know Clinton lied too and got impeached. Don't say it was b/c of Monica...that may have been part of it but the majority of it was b/c he lied about it. Nobody died when Clinton lied. Bush has been the cause of many deaths. He sent us to Iraq for no apparent reason except for the fact that they supposidly had WMDs, but guess what we can make WMDs in the USA too. Bush has been quoted with saying the hardest part of his job was connecting Iraq to 9/11.
Name: Anonymous
Date: Sep 25, 2008
Please make an *EMERGENCY* appointment with your proctologist to see if there is even a remote chance of removing your head from your ass. Only a neocon would talk about the "tax mongering Democrats" when the Crawford village idiot turned president (thanks to Daddy's election-rigging friends) has amassed the greatest deficit in our history due a fraudulently trumped up war. Never before have we had tax cuts during a time of war! I don't like paying taxes any more than you do. But I bet the "less government, no taxes" neofascists are the first to whine when there's a pothole on their street or they find some other service deficient. The McCain campaign Titanic imitation is an amazing thing to behold. It's about time the public saw it for the empty shell that it is, and thank god the honeymoon with the press, which for far too long has given McLame a free ride, is finally over; it is finally doing its duty and casting a critical eye at his flip-flops, backpedals, and otherwise desperate ploys to save his run for the White House.
Name: Disappointed and worred guy
Date: Sep 20, 2008
I ended up at this website after reading some bitter back and forth between Obama and McCain supporters on a newspaper website in Indiana.
I tend to vote republican - but I wanted to see what the Democrats are saying to each other and to those of other beliefs - trying to get a variety of perspecitives before election day (I have NEVER voted a straight party ticket, I voted for Clinton in 1996).
I have to say I am saddened to see the level of anger and disrespect between fellow citizens that emerges in places like this - sure this cannot be what our founding fathers envisioned for us.
I have never HATED democrats, and until now did not know that YOU HATE ME just because I have different beliefs.
It is my hope and prayer that we can have a fact-based, non-insulting debate about ISSUES and what is best for our ENTIRE country - we have to stop tuning our radios into WIFM - "what's in it for me"
Name: Beatle fanatic
Date: Sep 20, 2008
Now you are clearly a republican and you had the guts to go to a website with alot of people who hate you and tell them about an opinion that conflicts with there own. And for that, I salute you. But I don't agree with that opinion, so I'm going to tell you mine. (assuming you'll come back to this site) Every one in the world outside the USA hates republican. (with the exceptions of a few nuts, like Tony Blair) In most 1st world countries obama would be a conservative.
Name: Laurie
Date: Sep 16, 2008
I fear a time that the democrats could actually come up with a candidate that might have a chance of winning. It's called the Grand Old Party for a reason. We know whats best for the country and all you are a bunch of indecisive whiney BIG GOVERNMENT LOVIN' TAX MONGERS. See you all crying in November and coming up with reasons to impeach the next GREAT LEADER! ***Also it is not so great if your "candidate" says the woman he beat may have been better for the position***
... well thats what they say we do... hell i say leave um be. and eventuly they will see the trouth and lies Obama has for them, and still blame the republicans like they always do 
