Guess which bar is more likely to get robbed or a violent crime to occur in? The same reason why you see schools and movie theaters getting shot up, and gun ranges and police stations not getting shot up...More law abiding citizens with guns means less crime, and gun free zones should be renamed soft target zones or in other words an invitation for violence.
What a surprise ...Indy picked all progressives ...WOW this shocking
As a conservative I support a persons right to marrage..any marage gay or staight..its none of the states business...But I wonder why democrats support state control on everything else...it seems sexual fredom is the only thing that is offlimit to progressives...is that the only liberty you value? Think im wrong? If you are a progressvie take a look around the room you are sitting in now..look around...try and find somthing the feds don't regulate...the lightbulbs, the T.V..what's on the T.V, the paint on the wall everything...home of thr free? ( think not...And progressives want to give the feds more control with their own healthcare among thousands of other regulations imposed this year
This is a common refrain by the left...What would Jesus do as if all conservatives are religious?..Well I suppose Jesus would want you to help your neighbor..But would he wants it at the end of a roman spear..In other words would he want you to help by the force of government?...Or would he want the hep to come from the heart?...Like everything else progressives think the only solution is government? So if you are against the coercion and plunder of government than you must of course be against helping the impoverished...Also notice the progressive that asks the question "What would Jesus do, is never accused of being a religious fanatic, when any mention of Jesus by a conservative would labeled as a christian caliphate
break my argument don’t deflect my argument by accusing me of being a conduit for the right ..I prefer to be known as a individual patriot rather than having political affiliation ...i guess if you really wanted to label me…I might even be one of the last bourbon democrats in existence. Liberalism in its classic definition , rather than it evolution into its contradiction. Now what I will ask of each of you that deny I am right …simply break my argument. Tell me how if person A works and person B does not. How does person A fall into the debt of person B? Regardless of circumstance. The gov't cannot separate rights from responsibilities. To force additional responsibilities means to subtract rights Where can you find where it is warranted by the constitution? (Please take the bait and use the term general welfare …I dare you) In I can show you in the constitution where it prohibits it (14th amendment i.e involuntary servitude) let say we do it your way…a redistribution of wealth…how does that not hinder motivation? Tax the rich? Again even if you taxed every one that makes over 500k a year by 50% …it would still take many ..many years to even make a dent in the Federal debt. You know what’s sad .. I understand a liberal’s ideology better than they do. Why? Because I’ve read the original message of Mao, Alinsky ..and Marx …You people seem to be of an off shoot of your liberal professors only grabbing drips and drabs of the original …I’m itching for a debate with these progressive professors …in front of their own students …Give me four of your best high browed progressive professors at UNC vs. me a plumber from Raleigh and I will make them look silly to anyone with common sense. I will ask them to explain to the class the origin of debt. It is either fear or ignorance that prevents progressives from identifying the origin of debt ..if they say need then they are socialist..Understanding that if you fund need you will never get rid of need .Or to show me a government in the history of man that had a redistribution of wealth idea without a aristocracy…You can’t do it. Take any of my specific points in any of my post …any of them and break my argument …you can’t do it without bringing up platitudes or stories of circumstance. I beg you to defend the plunder of government surely you can break my argument with your academic pedigree …after all I’m just a kid that grew up in a poor neighborhood in Boston without a formal education. Do you guys think for one second I consider the ultra rich when I form these ideas? Show me the rational thought in that.
This article was flawed and author ideology has been discovered in the first sentence. When the author asked the question “Why do most people vote against their own interest? How would the person asking the question know what my interest is? In other words the author as well as most of the left can never think as the voter as the individual….everything always has to be as the collective. Consider the voter that pays zero tax. Do you think that person is voting on the best interest of the tax payer? Or do you think that voter is voting for the interest of themselves? This zero liability voter of course votes in their own self interest or common interest of the common zero liability voters. Also the author attempts to make the allegation that when voting republican you support the greed of the top 1%. So if you are super rich , there is no other way you got that way unless you where greedy or did something underhanded. Hard work could never be the answer for success…Well unless you are someone super rich like MIcheal Moore ,an A list actor or a sports hero …Then not only do you get a pass …but you also have the permission of the proletariat left wing to scold other rich people …Proving once again that socialism is always just for the people but never the socialist (but I digress) But let’s consider for a minute that was true…That all the rich must have got that way by being greedy and at the expense of someone else (I’ll take that leap just for argument sake) I will then ask you. Who’s greedier that person or the person that does nothing to contribute to their social footprint? And before you gothere let me stop you …this group of people doesn’t include the handicap or the incapable. The only answer I’ll accept is that they are both equally greedy on both sides of the social spectrum. Any other answer would be ignorant.
Also Im trying to figure out how the author thinks we are going to cut the deficit without cutting spending…His refrain is tax these rich…Well I’ll take leap with you also…Even if you raised the tax rate of the super rich by 50% …you still wouldn’t even come close to balancing the budget for many.. many years . And by that time these “super rich” will have moved to more business friendly countries for good. Don’t believe me? Take an industry like textiles in the turn of the century major factories where in the northeast. Then came higher regulations, taxes and the unions. So they relocated in right to work states, with lower taxes. Now that regulations and higher taxes are being implemented on a federal level, these companies are all moving over seas
In closing I would like to say that a progressive no matter how much they want conservative to go away , when you look at it from their own ideology, their own redistribution state of utopia.. They fiscally can’t live without us…However a conservative has absolutely no use for a progressive. Think I’m wrong …consider succession? …All the progressives in one half of the country with all their social programs …and all conservatives on the other side. Who starves first?...And you hate that I’m right.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation