The solution here is to give a prebate check to everyone for the amount of tax up to the poverty line. So the poor aren't taxed at all. In fact, if you spend below poverty levels you'd be earning money under this scheme. The objective should be to confiscate as little wealth as possible, as efficiently as possible, with as little market disruption as possible. Basically the polar opposite of our current system.
Gay people can marry, the debate is over public definition. But no one is saying the police should stop a church from marrying a gay couple. As for abortion, physical harm to persons or property is one person violating the rights of another (i.e my freedom to swing my fist stops at your face). Abortion in this instance being the harming of a child.
It's almost like that post was a "troll coming out" one. Did a conservative really just argue that freedom means having to put up with things one doesn't agree with morally?
Keep the government out of my definitions! I want the freedom to define marriage as I want! Who are you to say a fetus is a child? FREEDOM! Quit defining words and let me have my freedom
I agree. I agree..... although the "right" is the same way. The reason you do not see "no gays allowed" signs in the window is because people will not tolerate it, and when people have attempted to put up "signs" in the past.... it didn't work well and the GOVERNMENT had to get involved. You know.... all the "NO DOGS NO MEXICANS NO BLACKS" signs that were seen not that long ago..... the "NO IRISH", "NO WOMEN", "NO ITALIANS", "NO GERMANS" signs that have popped up from time to time in our countries history. In this country you have the right to be an a$$hole, but people also have the right to let an a$$hole know he is an a$$hole.
Here's to hoping the Republican party dies out. They need a more 'liberal' republican party -- you know, without all the homosexual hate, and xenophobia. That sect of the party is essentially the statist wing. They boast a lot of free market rhetoric, which their actions don't match, while the more important issues to them are imposing their religion, and hateful views on the population.
You can define it however you want as a private matter. As a public matter the definition must be universal, for legal reasons (I would argue marriage should not be a public institution at all). Legal definitions are necessary to protect individual rights. In this case it is necesary to define a human life. I would argue (for biological reasons), the unborn should fall under this definition of human life.
Except the legal definitions a lot of politicians are pushing for are suppressing individuals rights and protecting others. They should be removing definitions that are unable to respect the opinions of all. The definition of marriage and human life has been politically defined in an attempt to limit freedoms.
Prebates add a level of complexity that isn't necessary. That's the problem I have with the FAIR tax and also the reason I put this together... http://coffeepartyblogger.blogspot.com/2011/02/isnt-it-time-for-consumption-tax.html
No, I just want a society where religious wingnuts aren't using the law to discriminate against people they don't like.
Every year I wonder how much lower the Republicans can sink and every year they exceed my expectations.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/HFvwVi93wRs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I want to know if that charming pizza guy with the good voice who likes to pinch his employees' butts is running again. Foxy Bachman? Oops Perry? Howabout the folksy preacher from Arkansas? Palin? Which speaker claims to hate the Kenyan Socialist the most?
