Conservative or Liberal?

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by recklessdriver

Didn't have libertarian

I was Libertarian for awhile but there's no cohesive agreement among Libertarians as to what their common goal is on several issues. Some are pretty far left on several issues while others are pretty far right. That's why I didn't use the terms "Democrat," "Republican," or "Constitution Party" name tags either.

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by Truck Vet

I totally agree, and it seems you also agree with me

We agreed on about 50% of the issue. I believe you were trying to say that Christ tolerated homosexuality because nobody is without sin. I just wanted to emphasize the fact that Christ would have told a homosexual to "sin no more" just as he had the harlot.

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by ForestBeekeeper

With every generation, there will always be some percentage that are susceptible to becoming addicted to something.

I am in favor of allowing that percentage to be addicts and removing themselves from the gene pool.

I hope that addicts can overcome their addictions and become stronger for it. I've known some addicts (including myself) that went from deadbeats to viable and productive members of society. However, if they die in their addiction they have nobody to blame but themselves.

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sockpuppet

"Classic Liberal" is a misnomer.

Liberals in the classical sense, are really Libertarian. The word was co-oped by the Left.

I know a couple of individuals who are completely opposed to the far left but consider themselves "classic liberals." I believe YouTube hose, Dave Rubin, considers himself "classic liberal" and I think that Jimmy Carter would be considered "classic Liberal" rather than "far left." I was Libertarian for awhile but didn't consider myself "Liberal" at all. I just wanted a smaller, less intrusive government; the right to keep and bear arms; the preservation of the original Constitution; and the liberty to walk my life unhindered as long as I didn't intrude upon the rights and privacy of others. I don't equate "Classic Liberalism" with "Libertarianism."

[Truck Vet]

Originally Posted by ActionJackson

We agreed on about 50% of the issue. I believe you were trying to say that Christ tolerated homosexuality because nobody is without sin. I just wanted to emphasize the fact that Christ would have told a homosexual to "sin no more" just as he had the harlot.

Where we probably disagree, is that you think the Government should tell
the Gays not to sin, and should give a straight couple a tax advantage over
a gay couple.

I believe a gay couple should have all tax advantages of a straight couple.
Gays should not be penalized for being faithful to their partner, let them
stay at home in their bedrooms rather than roaming the streets looking
for other hookups if possible. It saves us tax dollars if they spread fewer
STDs.

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by BearShark

So...the corporations who get government handouts and lobby the government for more?

Corporations put millions of people to work and pay them living salaries/wages. They also put a lot of tax money back into the government coffer. Toothless street people simply sponge off of society without contributing a thing.

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by Truck Vet

Where we probably disagree, is that you think the Government should tell
the Gays not to sin, and should give a straight couple a tax advantage over
a gay couple.

I believe a gay couple should have all tax advantages of a straight couple.
Gays should not be penalized for being faithful to their partner, let them
stay at home in their bedrooms rather than roaming the streets looking
for other hookups if possible. It saves us tax dollars if they spread fewer
STDs.

Not really. I don't want the government to intrude on the lives of gays. If a homosexual chooses to live in sin he should have that right. I'm saying that the ultimate "King" has strongly suggested that they repent of their sin or face some dire consequences. However, I am opposed to re-defining the word "marriage" to include the union of all living creatures beyond that of a "man and woman." If we can call a union of two men a "marriage" then a man and goat should be included as well. It's outside of bounds of natural law (not to mention biblical law).

[Truck Vet]

Originally Posted by ActionJackson

Not really. I don't want the government to intrude on the lives of gays. If a homosexual chooses to live in sin he should have that right. I'm saying that the ultimate "King" has strongly suggested that they repent of their sin or face some dire consequences. However, I am opposed to re-defining the word "marriage" to include the union of all living creatures beyond that of a "man and woman." If we can call a union of two men a "marriage" then a man and goat should be included as well. It's outside of bounds of natural law (not to mention biblical law).

I don't care what its called, what about the tax benefits?
What about the benefits of being a family member in the
eyes of the law?

Like I said, already, I am against any Church being forced to marry Gays
but believe the 'Union" should be legal at a Justice of the peace.

[FoxtrotVictor1]

Anytime the government rules in the matters of religions or believes, the government has crossed the line of reasonable governing. The problem today is the government is used as a weapon by those seeking to promote their dreams of a utopia.

Originally Posted by Truck Vet

Like I said, already, I am against any Church being forced to marry Gays but believe the 'Union" should be legal at a Justice of the peace.

[dontbuypotteryfromme]

Originally Posted by Cornly2

I absolutely do not "give" my taxes voluntarily.

I "give" my taxes under direct threat of imprisonment.

And again your statements make no sense. You imply that when you're filling out your return that you're paying your taxes. Maybe you are. But for most folks in the USA a tax return is just that, a return. In most cases the government has already taken your taxes throughout the year, you're just filling out the paperwork in hopes of getting a small sliver of money back.

Then your employer is giving it willingly so that he doesn't go to jail.

[dontbuypotteryfromme]

Originally Posted by FoxtrotVictor1

Anytime the government rules in the matters of religions or believes, the government has crossed the line of reasonable governing. The problem today is the government is used as a weapon by those seeking to promote their dreams of a utopia.

I very much doubt that you would say that if it was a religion you didn't like though.

Sharia anyone?

[hawk55732]

Originally Posted by dontbuypotteryfromme

Then your employer is giving it willingly so that he doesn't go to jail.

Either way someone is being forced to give it or they go to jail.

[A_SonofLiberty]

Originally Posted by Truck Vet

I don't care what its called, what about the tax benefits?
What about the benefits of being a family member in the
eyes of the law?

Like I said, already, I am against any Church being forced to marry Gays
but believe the 'Union" should be legal at a Justice of the peace.

Government should not be involved in marriage at all. Government should also not be telling Christian bakers that they must bake penis cakes.

[A_SonofLiberty]

Originally Posted by hawk55732

Either way someone is being forced to give it or they go to jail.

Hmmmm....Taking someone's money or property via use or threat of force. Seems there is a word for that, what could it be????

[Truck Vet]

Originally Posted by dontbuypotteryfromme

I very much doubt that you would say that if it was a religion you didn't like though.

Sharia anyone?

Not sure I understand you. But I am consistent in that I don't
believe the Government should force us to be Christians or
Muslims.

[BearShark]

Originally Posted by ActionJackson

Corporations put millions of people to work and pay them living salaries/wages. They also put a lot of tax money back into the government coffer. Toothless street people simply sponge off of society without contributing a thing.

You act like that's a favour to those people, it's not. It's the cost of doing business. It's fundamental remuneration for labor.

The money they pay in taxes is also the cost of doing business for having employees educated in public schools, using public roads, etc. Otherwise companies which employ large amounts of people would have to pay their employees a real wage instead of letting their employees live on food stamps.

It's fake conservatives who are in favour of social support but only when it benefits people who are already massively wealthy. They don't need handouts, but fake conservatives love to give tax cuts and government handouts to wealthy people because it costs the taxpayer, not them. And then they can soak up that sweet private lobby money, which is a real vote, not that fake vote they pretend matters.

Fake as hell cons.

[dontbuypotteryfromme]

Originally Posted by hawk55732

Either way someone is being forced to give it or they go to jail.

You would think that. But apparently not.

[dontbuypotteryfromme]

Originally Posted by Truck Vet

Not sure I understand you. But I am consistent in that I don't
believe the Government should force use to be Christians or
Muslims.

The government should definitely put a limit on religious rights.

If I want to loudspeaker the morning prayer I probably shouldn't be allowed to.

If I want to electrocute the gay out of people I probably shouldn't either.

[Stinky]

The most liberal people are conservative. They will at least listen to you without calling you a nazi or fascist.

[BearShark]

Originally Posted by Stinky

The most liberal people are conservative. They will at least listen to you without calling you a nazi or fascist.

Most reasonable people wherever they are on the political spectrum will engage with you rationally instead of calling you names and screaming at you. Whether you're conservative or liberal automatically insulting people is stupid and people who do it are irrational animals who don't deserve a moment of consideration.