From her new berth at the Washington Post, the Hebrew Athena alerts us to a striking new poll:
In November, 36.0% of American Adults identified themselves as Republicans; 34.7% considered themselves Democrats, and 29.3% were not affiliated with either major party. That’s the largest number of Republicans since February 2005 and the first time ever that Rasmussen Reports polling has found more people identifying as Republicans than Democrats.
Interesting trend. Let’s see if it holds up once Republicans take over in the House. If they hold true to the Reagan/Tea Party principles of more personal and economic freedom and a less intrusive governments, methinks the trend will hold.
Dan, I can’t help but think that while the trend is interesting, it’s sort of a double edged sword for those of us who are political animals… given that most Americans nearly despise the Congress or natl politics or political parties in general, I’m guessing that anyone who admits to being identified with either party must have a serious problem with self-loathing or self-esteem or something.
The same poll revealed that there’s an uptick in the level of confidence that likely voters have with the new set of House leaders, though… and that’s great news given QueenNancyP took it to the lowest possible level.
To get anyone these days to admit to being a GOPer or Democrat is quite a feat… I kind of like the broader poli-sci classification of “behavioral” GOPers or Dems because it suggests the person believes or supports the principles normally associated with the Party –as opposed to be a card-carrying member.
On that score of behavioral GOPers and Dems, the GOP’s been winning on a spread of 47-48% to 36-37% (Dem) tally since Dec 2009 (ObamaCare).
The other parallel item is that likely voters now think that the GOP is better than the Dems in correctly dealing with a whole host of national issues –by significant margins– except for a virtual tie on Education issues.
So much for the ol’ saw that the GOP is Dead… heard from the Dems and libs just a few months ago.
The reason for this is that most Americans think the Republican party is something it isn’t. They think the Republicans are Conservative Democrats–that is, they think Republicans are on the side of the working class against business and corporations. Republicans have sold Americans on the idea that they support the middle class.
In fact, Republicans are on the side of the rich against the poor and middle class. Republicans want to get rid of government regulation so that corporations can make more profit without having to worry about worker safety, minimum wage, family leave, paid vacation, retirement, health care, etc. For instance, when people who think they’re Republican actually look at the health care bill and realize that certain types of preventive care will now be paid for or that you can’t be denied for pre-existing conditions, they are for it.
People assume they must be Republican because they don’t like Obama. What they, and I, don’t like is the loony left-wing of the Democratic party which is now in power. If people saw more conservative Democrats like Manchin, Webb, Bayh, and yes, Hillary, more people would call themselves Democrats.
I’m sorry now I voted for McCain. I thought that he was paying lip service to his conservative base on gay issues, but now I know that he, like all Republicans, has sold out completely to the conservative wing. And that’s what Republicans have to do, and that’s why I, as a gay man, can’t be a Republican. Even those Republicans who want to help gays can’t because being against gays is part of the machinery of the GOP and it can’t be overcome.
But I, as a gay man, can be a conservative.
I’m sure you can, Ash. I as a fat man, can diet. Somehow I think the odds of me losing weight are greater than you being a conservative though.
The leftist spin will have to be that 36% of Americans are homophobic racists.
Correction, Ashpenaz.
Republicans are on the side of those who work and are productive.
Obama Party members like yourself are on the side of those who want the rewards of work without having to.
People see clearly that Bayh, Hillary, and the others you mention believe that those who labor should have the rewards of their labor taken away to reward those like yourself who don’t want to work.
Your statement that you looked forward to taking from my paycheck to pay your bills demonstrates that you and your Obama Party are nothing more than thieves.
Who wants to be associated with people who firmly believe that unemployment checks drive economic growth and creates jobs?
There’s Ash again asking for our paychecks with the blackmail of guilt. Hop on a treadmill and learn a trade, bucko, as I don’t wish to care for you.
Liberal ass hats want to add more JOB KILLING costs and regulations to the eeeeeeeevil rich business owners and expect the moron proletariat to thank them for destroying jobs, growth and production. Meanwhile, they get to grow government with more employees making twice as much as the private sector, don’t pay their taxes all the while doing work government has no business doing.
What’s that quote about giving up freedom for security?
If you follow the Democrats reasoning, if we could get unemployment up to 30 or 40%, then the economy would really be going gangbusters!
Since I’m an open, unabashed, proud elephant, I’ll take that one on. MM, that’s not even vaguely logical. The LAST thing a person with a self-esteem problem would do is to identify with an unpopular group. It takes confidence and a pair of cojones to defend the unpopular. People with low self esteem are most likely to be the cowardly, flip-flopping, equivocating mushy middle.
Ash,
I’m not ganging up on you here, but your problem is that you believe supporting business means being against the little guy, when the truth is just the opposite. The better business does, the better the economy does, the better the economy does, the lower unemployment is, the lower unemployment is, the more power workers have because they are in higher demand and have more choice.
It doesn’t have to be wither/or — thats the Democrat position. Republicans are for both employers and employees.
with the exception of CA and MA!
Spoken like an ignoramus. In truth, corporations *cannot make* profit without worrying about worker safety, fair wages and benefits (i.e. paying what the job is worth).
(continued) Unless, of course, a given corporation is backed and/or directed by government force. For example:
– a regulatory scheme that shuts down competitors
– a regulatory scheme that forces the corporation to worry about the regulators, instead of its customers, workers and shareholders
– a taxation scheme that makes it impossible for new (small) competitors to get ahead
– subsidy programs, for example Medicare which subsidizes Kaiser
When a corporation is government-directed and/or government-backed, *then*, and only then, it becomes a dysfunctional bureaucracy… just like government.
And kids: What do we call an economic model in which the government directs and/or backs certain corporations, effectively merging with them to benefit the powerful at everyone else’s expense? Corporatism… corporate socialism… FASCISM.
The only reason you are alive today, ILC, is because the Democrats pushed through food inspection and highway safety. The only reason you can read is because you stole from taxpayers who were not in school and did not have kids and used their money for your education. The reason you only have to work 40 hours is because Democrats limited the ability of Republican business owners to exploit their workers. The only reason you didn’t work as a child is because Democrats fought child labor laws. The only reason you have a livable wage is because Democrats fought Republican business owners who didn’t want to pay their workers more than they had to and have those worker work 12 hour days, 7 days a week until they died.
The reason I’m a Democrat is because it isn’t the candidate who matters, it’s the party. No matter how benevolent a Republican might appear (and I was taken in by McCain), that candidate is bought and paid for by the party machinery, and Republicans are the party of big business against the worker–always has been, always will be.
If McCain is going to cave on the gay issue to appease the right wing, then there is no Republican who is ever going to stand up for gays. That doesn’t mean gays can’t be conservatives, but they can’t be Republicans–at least, not without caving on any issue important to gays. Gays can certainly be Republicans as long as removing corporate taxes is more important than repealing DADT.
Although a life-long Republican I’m not completely sure what it means to be a Republican these days. Too often elected Republicans have fed at the trough of big government, wasted our money, betrayed our principles, and ignored our Constitution. If however, Republicans are for small government, federalism, fiscal sanity, strong defense, individual rights equality and liberty for all, personal responsibility . . . then I’m a fellow Republican.
I hope that some of the Social Conservatives learn something from this failed experiment. I know i have.
You cant make a person good by setting conditions for everything that occurs in life. Human dignity cannot be dispensed by government.
Dignity is a personal trait earned through individual effort.
.
Ash, that is complete bullsh*t as already explained to you.
There are many reasons I’m alive. Many. Government is one reason, in its legitimate role of protecting us all against those who would do harm or take away freedom using physical force: communists, Islamic terrorists, criminals, and so forth. That is: Government in its role of protecting individual rights to life liberty and property.
But government in its role of inspecting food? Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Cooking is what makes food safe, Ash. Not government.
And, insofar as food inspection does help: there is no reason for it to be governmentalized. Indeed the private sector could do it better, as in the case of electrical safety inspection and Underwriters Laboratories. You never remember that.
The same with the rest of your nonsense. I’ve already been over the child labor thing, for example. Do yourself a favor and read it. Big hint: Government didn’t actually end child labor. Capitalism did. It’s the historical record. Surf the link. Read it now.
The reverse claim (from what you’re saying) is true: *YOU* are alive, only because of the progress brought about in the last 250 years by capitalism. You, Ashpenaz, quite literally owe your life today to capitalism.
I don´t put too much stock in this. People are fickle. I remember during the first year of Ronald Reagan´s presidency and my first year on the LARCCC, attending our local AD meeting, Majorie Pope would spout off the latest numbers showing us gaining on the Democrats and then finally surpassing them. The real trick is not attracting more people into the Party. it´s holding on to them once they-ve declared their preference for the Republican Party.
More stupid ignorance. It overlooks that:
– Republicans freed the slaves;
– Republicans defended the wages, progress and savings of the little guy from the 1860s to the 1970s by upholding “hard money” or even a gold standard;
– ; and more recently, Democrats have been the preferred party of billionaires and Big Business, while Republicans have been more the party of small business.
As a registered independent, and as an ex-Democrat who still refuses to register Republican, I will be first to criticize Republicans when they deserve it. For example, it was wrong of Bush to propose and sign a Wall Street bailout bill – just as it was wrong for all those Democrats to vote for it, and wrong for Obama to carry it out. In another current thread on GP, someone attacked me personally because I criticized Bush for his many violations of Reagan Republicans principles.
But despite my criticisms of the Republicans, despite my inability to join them… I’m not completely stupid. Here is the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
– With Republicans, Big Government has been the solution 80% of the time – and with the Tea Party’s help, there is hope of lowering that percentage and so bringing real hope and real progress to the average person.
– With Democrats, Big Government is the solution 100% of the time. No one, who is not part of the favored political apparatus, has any real hope or opportunity.
#18: This is true, and a very important insight. I hope a lot of other people also come to these conclusions, Gastorgrab.
Very well said.
man, I have no problem agreeing.
Hillary is for small government, federalism, fiscal sanity, strong defense, individual rights equality and liberty for all, personal responsibility . . .
Which is what the alleged “food safety” bill is all about.
Like who?
Hang on! If you’re gonna keep posting, ASS, at least let me get my bullshit boots on.
Well, no wonder you like Hillary! You think she’s someone else!
Oh really, Ashpenaz?
Then how did people survive for the THOUSANDS OF YEARS PRIOR to any of these things even existing?
And how did people learn to read for the THOUSANDS OF YEARS PRIOR to government taxation and public schools?
Thank you for acknowledging that medieval peasants who knew to cook food before eating it are smarter than modern-day Obama Party voters like yourself. Thank you for acknowledging that people who not only wrote, but composed, massive epics like the Iliad and the Odyssey without so much as a single teachers’ union representative around are far superior to Hillary Clinton and the Obama Party she represent.
Actually, if you look at the Hebrew Scriptures, you will see that government played a very large role in distributing goods to the poor and protecting the poor from the exploitation of the rich. And actually, so did the feudal system. The Laird had obligations to those in his care to make sure they were fed and healthy and the roads were kept up. Read the Magna Charta.
In any case, my point is that you don’t have be a Republican to be conservative. There is a healthy, growing wing of the Democratic party which is conservative and also on the side of the worker.
Some of us believe in a country founded on ‘Live free or die’ than being a serf, Ashpenaz. Clearly you don’t.
Ashpenaz, you are truly hilarious.
First, Magna Carta, in its very first clause, makes it clear that it applies to “freemen” — which, by its very definition, excludes serfs. Serfs were not free, and were in fact the property of the lord, bound to the land from birth and unable to leave it.
Second, the Hebrew Scriptures make two other things clear — one, that those who will not work shall not eat, and two, that it is perfectly legal to enslave and sell the family members of those who do not pay their debts.
So, Ashpenaz, you can either pay me the money you’ve been taking fro
Me, or I lay immediate and inviolable claim to your labor and freedom — perfectly legitimate under both things you cited.
When one recognizes that Obama Party members like Ashpenaz don’t actually read anything they sign or cite, it becomes immediately obvious why they’re always in trouble and looking for handouts.
AE @ #11> “Since I’m an open, unabashed, proud elephant, I’ll take that one on. MM, that’s not even vaguely logical.”
It was tongue-in-cheek, AE. Sort of like the line from gayLefties that gay GOPers must all be self-loathing. Their line isn’t logical –you got that correct. Sorry for not flagging it as tongue-in-cheek.
Um–Jubilee year, gleaningss on the threshing floor (read about the undocumented worker Ruth), honor the elderly, etc. And serfs had a lot more vacation time than workers in America did before the Democrats voted in fair working conditions.
Republicans have 2 reasons for existence:
1. Businessmen against workers.
2. White, heterosexual men against everybody else.
If you are a straight, white business owner who wants to make profit and pay his workers as little as possible, then the GOP is for you. If you fall outside that small circle, then your only hope is the Democrats. Fortunately, there is a place for conservative non-white, non-straight outsiders in the Democratic party.
Ashpenaz’s conversation/claims have become sufficiently demented, and Republican-focused, that I will step back and let the blog’s actual Republicans deal with them.
#33,
Well someoen’s going to do it, I’m our designated Levi Basher.
Though I find his last screed funny since a) GE and BP might disagree with him and b) Those ‘racist republicans’ didn’t create a special post at the back of the bust for the CBC leader.
Sorry, Ashpenaz, but jubilee years did not equal freedom for people who were slaves due to their own lazy and criminal behavior, Ruth immigrated legally and with full respect and obedience to the law, and gleaning requires you to actually work to get it.
Again, Ashpenaz shows how the Obama Party is all about racism and hatred of the productive. If you are a straight white male, the Obama Party says you should be discriminated against and forced to pay for lazy and criminal minority members like Ashpenaz so they don’t have to work.
Meanwhile, Ashpenaz, thanks for making it clear that Obama Party members like yourself support and endorse slavery and serfdom and intend to abolish capitalism to restore both.
And what the hell did they have to do with vacation time? To wit:
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/006.htm
Emphasis mine. And if Minimum Wage only applies to, what, 4% of workers and raising it always results in higher unemployment, what the hell’s so great about it?
And how on earth do you come up with the absurd claim that Ruth was an “undocumented worker”?
I know I said I’d drop out but… I just can’t believe we’re back on the serfs, and how wonderful it was that they could like around for several days a week as they watched their children starve in the filth of the village.
Few times in human history were darker, more impovershed and degrading than the Age of Serfdom.
The Democratic party is build on divisiveness!
Every group of people that supports anything will always claim to be ‘inclusive’. But the one thing that all human groups have in common is their ‘exclusivity’. Their very purpose is to exclude every interest but their own. That is the nature of all human social groups. They exist only to exclude other people.
The Chess club excludes: checker players, backgammon players, poker players, chutes & ladders players, marble players, hide-n-seek players…….
The left has used this logical fallacy for decades. They use the hundreds upon hundreds of racially EXclusive, gender EXclusive, and ever other issue EXclusive groups, to show how completely INclusive they are. There are literally thousands of left wing groups out there, who all claim to work towards a ‘common’ goal, but who cant seem to build a ‘common’ institution where everyone feels welcome.
Has everyone heard about ‘The Tequila Party’ yet? They’re like the coffee party, but only for Latinos.
.
I HATE OBAMA! You can say a lot of things about me, but do NOT say that I support Obama. He is the worst of the worst of the liberal loons in my Democratic party. I was on Hillary’s side down to the wire, and when she lost, I switched to McCain.
I’m a Democrat, not an Obamacrat.
And no, Ruth was not a legal citizen of Israel. She was a Moabite, and they were outlawed.
You know… Hate isn’t very Christian-like.
Have you looked into the eyes of a real Democrat lately? I don’t mean the full-tilt psychos who are currently in control, i mean the authentic Democrats.
They look pretty distressed these days. They’re not sure if they should continue to bite their lip and hope that the delusional leftists come back to a reasonable position on things, or to risk their own futures by turning against the nut-jobs.
It’s kinda sad to watch. 🙁
.
Oh, well that makes it OK… to want to steal from people… to spew nonsense… to think Hillary stands for small government… and the rest.
By the way, how can both of the following statements be true?
The serfs didn’t have any Democrats around, to vote in that the serfs should be able to live, that their food should be inspected and so on. If Democrats are objectively required for human life to exist, how did the serfs manage without them?
What serfs like Ashpen seem to believe … and I see this at Discarded Lies all the time (a blog where he, as a Democrat who wants other people to pay for his health care, would fit in very well)… is that since unions once had the idea that some adjustments to the social contract would be beneficial and it turns out that they were… then all future progressive initiatives must be embraced fully.
They don’t understand at least two things. One is the law of diminishing returns. If common sense reforms are put in place to correct gross injustices in the system, the first reforms will bring a lot of benefit at relatively low cost. Now, unfortunately, we have reached the opposite end of that continuum… where further initiatives (socialized health care, affirmative action, extreme regulation) are enormously expensive and bring about benefits that are marginal at best and more often counterproductive.
Second, they don’t understand that waste, inefficiency, and corruption are not mere flaws in heavily regulated political economies; they are the defining characteristics of heavily regulated political economies. Why do you think Democrats don’t even blink at spending billions to bail out unions and wealthy Wall Street bankers, but choke on whether a small businessman making $250K a year should be allowed to keep a few thousand more of it?
V, like what? Slavery was abolished – against the wishes of Democrats. Henry Ford put in his famous “$5 a day wage” that lifted working class living standards – without the benefit (cough) of unions or of Democratic politicians. Likewise, child labor in the United States was 9-95% abolished – without benefit of unions or of Democrats. So, sincere question here, what reforms did you have in mind, that were highly beneficial and that would not have happened in some form, without unions or Democrats?
Sorry, typo, … “was 90-95% abolished”…
I can think of a few. One example is in the area of environmental regulation. Getting rid of lead in gasoline, banning the dumping of toxic waste, cleaning up smokestacks, putting catalytic converters on automobiles… these were common sense things that achieved huge benefits (and, in fairness, some undesirable side effects.)
But, even though 90% of the pollution has been cleaned up, and the world is much cleaner than it was when the EPA was started back in 1973… the EPA bureaucracy is bigger than ever, and being a huge government bureaucracy trying to justify its size and expense, it’s doing crazy sh-t like trying to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and pursuing hideously expensive standards of environmentally purity that have no benefit. During the Gulf Oil spill earlier this year, the EPA stopped clean up crews from sucking oil out of the ocean. Why? Because some of the oil they cleaned up might spill back into the ocean and cause pollution.
That’s pure idiocy, and it is the natural, inevitable by-product of Government regulation.
All things that were made possible by continued economic and technological progress, and that could/should have been brought about by consumer pressure (i.e., didn’t need to be governmentalized). But perhaps we’re going to disagree on that. I don’t mean to start a debate on it here; I asked for examples, you gave them, I appreciate your kindness in doing so.
Other people pay for YOUR healthcare, V the K. That’s how insurance works. Everybody puts their money in a pool, and whoever gets sick gets the money. Anytime you get sick, someone else pays for it. The only difference I suggest is that government keeps track of the pool. Because insurance companies steal money from the pool and don’t give the money to people who are sick.
But of course, Ashpenaz, since you and your fellow Ovama supporters want to take money out of the pool without putting any in.
That is the whole point of your whine; you are a lazy thief who wants everyone else to pay your bills.
Furthermore, since Ashpenaz states that any denial of claims is stealing, then it seems that his precious Hillary, Obama, and other government health care pushers are the biggest thieves of all.
I pay taxes. I put money in the pool. I am willing to put more money in the pool so everyone gets health care.
I am NOT an Obama supporter.
“Insurance companies steel from the pool” Source? Charlie Rangle stole from the american people, using Ash ‘logic’ then the government clearly forfeites its legitimacy to run health care. But then sense isn’t Ashpenaz’s strong point.
So of course Ash’s solution is to turn the program over to the agency that has a higher reject rate than any private insurance company. Higher rate of fraud than the profit of every private insurance company, and a rapidly diminishing pool of providers.
Oh, and deny the people the freedom to participate, or not, in their health care decisions.
Standard disclaimer: I work for an insurance company, I sure as hell don’t speak for them.
Any group rate that is offered in an insurance contract does so through consent. Everyone CHOOSES to participate in that legal agreement.
ObamaCare imposes a mandate on the American people. It forces people to enter into a contract against their will, with business partners who are not of their choosing. It nullifies 200 years of precedence in contract law by ignoring practice of ‘Offer and Acceptance’. Our government offered us ObamaCare, but we never accepted. We have been forced into a contract!
As Americans, we no longer have the right to enter into a contract of our choosing, and we no longer own our own will. (Obama is a tyrant!)
.
No, here is why you are wrong.
I’m a Mormon. Because I follow (as best as I can) the Word of Wisdom, I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I’m very physically fit, and I am not sexually promiscuous. For a private insurer, this means I am at lower risk of heart disease, STD’s, and obesity-related illnesses. In a perfect market, I could even decline coverage for things I am not likely to get and thus pay a lower insurance rate.
Government Health Care doesn’t work that way. Under socialized health care, they can’t “discriminate” against fatties, drug users, sluts, and so forth. The costs and benefits have to be spread out in a way bureaucrats determine to be “fair.” So, instead of rewarding my good behavior with lower insurance rates, my good behavior ends up subsidizing the behavior of people who make irresponsible choices; since I am forced to pay for services I am far less likely to use than less responsible people.
Much in the same way that the Government decided to “help out” financially irresponsible people by ordering banks to give them mortgages. And we all know how well that worked out.
V the K,
As a ‘fatty’ I recently had to have some blood tests and other things to pass through to have a lower premium. That seems fair to me. Smokers pay more for their insurance at where I work. Consequences of our actions and all that.
Ash would rather not pay for the consequences of his actions. Much like a child.
I do pay for the consequences of my actions. My premium is higher because of high blood pressure, and that’s OK.
We also don’t consent to pay for military service, public education (even those without kids are forced to help pay), food inspection, etc. I think every American should be forced to contribute to the health care of everyone the same we all pay for the education and security of everyone.
P. S. Thomas Paine, conservative hero, agrees with me.
Again, Ash, since you never answer the question.
Where in the constitution is ‘public education’ or ‘public health care’ I can find defense.
You want me to pay for your being a serf, amend the constitution.
You are aware, of course, that “appeal to authority” is a fallacious form of argument.
Being a republican myself I have an interesting take – I’d rather see it in the “independent” column. I guess I’m finally growing up……
“We also don’t consent to pay for military service, public education (even those without kids are forced to help pay), food inspection, etc.”
——————-
One of these things is not like the others!
Since the United States was founded as a mutual defense pact, where everyone does their own thing, it alone qualifies as a ‘mandatory cost’ for being American.
Until the Progressives came along, ‘Food Safety’ and ‘Public Education’ were entirely under the authority of state governments. The fascist progressives decided that they wanted more and more power, so they conspired to seize entire “industries” and create a labor monopoly.
They concentrated mostly on larger cities at first, in hopes of slowly brainwashing people into adopting the ‘material theory of economics’ (the blame game). It’s a slow form of mass hysteria created to manipulate large crowds of people. Most ‘racist’ movements use this same method of indoctrination.
Is it any coincidence that inner city voters have been poor and stupid for a century, and that inner cities have been Democratic strongholds for a century?
–
*Walter Reuther of the UAW was trained in the ‘organizing arts’ at the Gorky assembly plant, in Russia. (look it up)
.
Which one of these men is more concerned with ‘material things’?
———————
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
– Martin Luther King, Jr.
—
“In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.”
– Karl Marx
.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Health care is promoting the general welfare. No amendment needed.
Ash, B*LL SH*T!
Webster defines welfare as: 1.the state of doing (not being)well in respect to happiness, well being, or prosperity. 2, organized efforts for the social (not physical) betterment of a group in society.l
Notice the wording there?
– “PROVIDE for the common defense”
– “PROMOTE the general welfare”
If the two words mean the same thing, why did they not simply say; “PROVIDE for the common defense AND general welfare”?
.
Um, Roberto, you might notice that the definition you quote agrees with my definition. It’s hard to argue using sources that agree with your opponent. Healthcare is promoting well-being.
Could you point it out? I cant see it.
You cant be suggesting that government has the right to define happiness (a mental state) for everyone. Happiness is a subjective concept. It’s different for every individual on the planet.
Good & Bad are also subjective terms. In fact, Good & Evil are religious terms, and provide a framework for each person to determine his own moral worth. I hope you’re not suggesting that government has the right to impose any moral code on it’s people.
Is homosexuality good, or bad? Would it make everyone happy if government imposed a single standard on everyone?
How does homosexuality contribute to the ‘collective good’ of a nation?
.
Ashpenaz wants the government to make him eat his veggies.
He doesn’t want a limited government with Enumerated Powers. He wants the daddy he never had.
And again Ash, where does it say the government has the power to make you buy health care. I don’t see it in the Limited and Enumerated powers.
In fact the founders were united in the inability of the government to take from one citizen to give to another.
Nice try though.
Ash,
Webster concurs with gastorgrab.
Promote 1: to advance in station,rank, or honor 2: to contribute to the growth or prosperity of: Further 3. Launch
Provide 1: tp take measures beforehand ( against inflation) 2: to make a proviso or stipulation 3: to supply what is needed ( for a family) 4: Equip 5: to supply for use.
The Constitution does not infer that the government is to provide a free lunch, a free house, and lifetime of medical care as inherent right. This is not what were endowed with. Those things are entitlements that are found in socialist and marxist states.
They aren’t free. We all pay taxes and those taxes are distributed so that the common welfare is promoted.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?
.
They are free. Free for those who receive from the state, thanks to wealth distribution Marxist socialists love the poor that´s why they try to make the wealthy become one of them through confiscatory taxes. I can end poverty without taking from the rich. My plan is to tax any income the bottom 40% earn or receive at the rate of 50%. They´ll be climbing over each other to get out of poverty and join the ranks of the wealthy who will taxed at a lower rate.