Ok, perhaps folks who vote for the GOP are very aware of how their policies will hurt the poor and lower middle class in exquisite detail, but they get a kick out of it. Perhaps they particularly get a kick out of seeing more and more mentally ill people standing at corners begging. Perhaps GOP voters enjoy their own housing and food more knowing others are homeless and hungry.
This just shows how much you've twisted this to somehow fit your ideology. That you state "The legislation" means that it is about both question A (Should the government define marriage?) and question B (what is the definition of marriage?) since that is purpose of legislation. If it was just about defining marriage without government then why even legislate it?
This fallacy is easily seen around by anyone who wants to see the truth. Most people are brainwashed by constant straw man arguments put out there into the media.
In principle I agree with you but it is the Republican Party Platform that says, "and promote through laws governing marriage." that shows they are not about getting rid of marriage licenses but if anything are about regulating marriage even more. I don't doubt there are many Republicans who would like to see marriage taken completely out of government hands but that isn't what is enshrined in the platform or expressed through legislation like the proposed MN Marriage Amendment.
Because other laws dictate we have a legal definition of marriage. Other laws, supported by liberals. Ex. tax breaks for married couples.
Glynch, that is an unkind as well as unfair comment. Many Republicans, including those in my church group, are volunteers for food bank programs and other charitable works. Fact is, God expects it of us but God doesn't expect us to flaunt it or brag about how great we are for doing it. BTW, how much money does Obama and Biden contribute to charity? Both became millionaires working for the government. (Gee, I wonder how that happened?) Romney alone contributes far, far more in time and money, even on a pro rata basis, than either of these two "social heroes."
Obama dedicated his life for the public good, not giving money to charities to get favors and tax credits like Romney. Let's draw an accurate distinction here. I am sure ROmney gave some to his church which is nice for him and his church. I always find it amusing when people talk about how generous rich people are because they give a sliver of their wealth to charities.
That is incorrect. Obama gets criticized for having been a community organizer which requires way more time than Romney puts in.
My rule of thumb: the people who talk about their charity most are the least charitable since they are clearly more interested in the charity being acknowledged, and there should be no "return" on this "investment".
Obama and Biden became millionaires on the backs of the poor. Obama got his working his way up in the Daley machine, and Biden made his by "honest graft" (see George Washington Plunkitt of Tamany Hall by William L. Riordon). http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/plunkett-george/tammany-hall/index.htm
Obama was a community organizer, though he could have become a millionaire working for huge investment banks.
So how does a community organizer become a millionaire? He bathes in the corruption of the Daley machine and does side deals with the likes of Tony Rezko.
He wrote "Dreams of My Father" (which demonstrates the guy is crazy as a loon in heat) in 1995, but sales didn't do much until he became President. "The Audacity of Hope" came out in 2006. Again, he sold copies due to his campaign for President. They made money for him, but he was a millionaire before then -- mostly on the backs of the poor whom he used to gather power in the Daley machine. I notice you are saying nothing of the money he made due to his close ties to the notoriously corrupt Daley machine and to other crooks like Tony Rezko et al.
Who do you think? Are you saying that the "wealthy" are getting government services that no one else is getting? As far as I know, the "rich" take nothing... until they retire and then collect the SS and Medicare to which they have contributed their entire working life.
The rich take advantage the best of what our society has to offer, the roads and other infrastructure, the educated workforce, the favorable conditions for starting and running a business, the best consumer market in the entire world, and the most robust economic engine the world has ever seen. They use government services like the court system and police departments FAR more than the average Joe, who has nobody to sue and nothing to steal. They take all of the advantages, make massive amounts of money, enjoy the best that America has to offer, and then b**** about paying taxes that will guarantee that the system which helped them succeed will be there for future generations. They are greedy, full stop.
Well facts are the food stamp program probably provides more food for the poor by a factor of perhaps 100 then all the church food banks together. Responsible main stream churches like the Methodists and the Catholics readily admit this. Sadly, some of the churches that now days almost operate as chapters of the GOP, like to pretend that this is not so. Hey some private charity, relatively little as it tends to be in the big picture, is fine.
The rich pay more their share of every tax imaginable-- sometimes more. You are hating on them for taking advantage of what this country has to offer. No one is denied access by their gain. IMHO, any problem the rich have with paying more taxes is that so many have been taking without contributing for so long....
