Come out of your closet and take your licks. How can you back an explicitly pro-religion party that thinks women are second-class citizens, chattels of their husbands and The State, and who favors widening the gap between the rich and non-rich even more?
I classify myself as a libertarian which I suppose is technically a republican. But when I listen to the GOP candidates debate I cringe every 10 seconds from the stupidity of their comments...But I liked most of what Ron Paul said and Huntsman seemed reasonable but they were not outwardly religious enough I suppose.
Reading this thread has made me wonder....
Do I have more in common with free-market capitalists who are religious or the OCCUPY protesters who are Atheists?
For me, I take the free-market capitalists with a libertarian bent. If I can also find Atheist ones then I'm happy.
However trying to have a dinner conversation with some leftist hippy who thinks the world owes them & that the government should provide everything....no thanks. Give me the god-botherers. At least I can tune out their religious crap with clear knowledge that they are deluded from birth. The leftist hippies however have arrived at that position usually after thought & deliberation.
Being stupid after careful consideration is a far worse position than being deluded from birth.
The what now?
Reminds me of Minchin:
A(nother) dinner conversation with a leftist hippie, equally infuriating.
No need to make straw persons when it appears in this very thread.
Compare the statement "that the government should provide everything" with "We live in a SOCIETY where we have responsibilities to one another".
Her statement relates to the previous poster's statement "let the wealthy keep their wealth, they earned it", and thus must be interpreted to the point that they should not, in fact, be allowed to keep it as they have "earned it by cutting and cutting wages" as well as "mining resources at cut price leaving the land poisoned". This is preposterous leftist bovine feces to thick for me to care to wade through.
Our first responsibility is to ourselves, and since none of us here live by the standards of a starving citizen of the Sahel we clearly have much more than we absolutely need and don't really want to share too much, ideological claptrap notwithstanding.
All western countries are variations of heavily regulated mixed market economies, certainly neither a marxian or randian hell hole of absolute dogmatism.
As for socialist ideologues - or leftist hippies in american parlance - they certainly feel entitled to the productive capacity of others, specifically those which are lucky enough to fully utilize all the opportunities this specific system entails. Why else care about other people's money?
I am dead against taxing wealth (at least a living person's wealth) and ideally I would see no income taxes. The mantra should be to tax that which is bad and subsidize that which is good, and income and wealth are certainly good, though perhaps not in need of subsidizing. Of course, that's my ideological preference, I am not opposed to reasonable taxes on income as a realistic compromise to abate the envy of the left.
Consumption, property, sugar, cigarettes, alcohol, fat, cars, etc are all excellent sources of effective and efficient tax income. Income and wealth are not.
I already provided an explanation to your question, if the wealthy do not deserve their wealth, then she has implicitly made the judgement that she would be more deserving, either individually or collectively.
I see appealing to your ability of inference will not work since I have provided sufficient evidence as to why the conclusion can be reached. Barring the poster specifically stating the obvious there will be no convincing you, and I believe we have reached an impasse,
I see you are stating that, and I am dismissing the statement due to the fact that you haven't actually provided any argument against mine, just dismissal.
If you are going to make arguments up for her she didn't herself offer up, at least have the common decency making it short.
The gist of her argument was that the wealthy don't deserve their wealth ("Really, how exactly"). Then a rant about how awful the rich are, then a sub-conclusion that they owe society ("We live in a SOCIETY where we have responsibilities to one another"), but are screwing the poor ("further enrich at the expense of the poor"), then yet another sub-conclusion of how awful the rich are ("shows the wealthy up for what they largely are"). Ending up in an statement centering on an utter misunderstanding of the word "trickle", as opposed to stream or flow.
I didn't complain that you didn't expand, I complained that you ignored my argument and then dismissed it.
i)If the premise is that the wealthy don't deserve their wealth, you really believe the follow up argument is that they should be allowed to keep it? That doesn't make sense. Seeing as the wealthy can hardly be expected to hand their wealth over on a say-so, it would have to be forcibly collectivized, which happens to be a fairly well know leftist argument.
ii)Of course one cannot know what the individual believes unless that person specifically states that. However, I'm pigeonholing her opinion it into a fairly boilerplate leftist program which can be found here, specifically because there is a lot of overlap in arguments.