Always base their claims on the idea that morality is relative and each person judges what is right and wrong….Yet, when the question of whether or not the “wealthy” and successful should be forced to pay high taxes, they claim that it’s not…….”right”….for them to have all the…
Its not morality , its practicality. If you want money you get it from those who have it. As to the rich having “all the wealth” do you think they will share it with you, or just leave you crumbs? The idea that successful hard working people have money and deserve it due to their hard work was blown out of the water with Paris Hilton, and the other unsung trust babies of billionaires. We are, all of us ‘forced’ to pay taxes, unless you are just sending them money out of the goodness of your heart. I haven’t heard anyone argue for homosexuality, just to let homosexuals form basic economic units called families. Oh yes, and they should have all the other basic rights including the right to exist.
Not all drugs should be legalized, but think of the tax money we could get if we taxed marijuana. And think of the tax money we could save in court costs and jailing costs if we legalized it. Maybe enough so Paris’ pooch could get another diamond collar.
At least you got the term correct, you are a neo con. A traditional conservative would have exactly the point that you espouse. Government has no duty to legislate for or against consensual crimes. In order to promote a responsible society, individuals have to be made to take personal responsibility for their actions. Legislation doesn’t make something right or wrong, just makes it illegal. I wouldn’t do drugs if they were legal and I am not a homosexual but isn’t our country founded on an individual’s right to make his or her own decisions?
I don’t think that is the claim at all. The argument is that it is a moral duty of a society to protect the weak. That means providing healthcare for all kids, even if the parents can’t afford it; making sure children never go to bed hungry; helping people who are subject to disasters like Katrina, and ensuring all kids get the best possible education, regardless of their background.
Remember most politicians are in the top 10% (often top 1%) of the wealthy – they have no interest in voting themselves out of their fortunes. But they do believe that rich companies and individuals can afford to give more to help the rest of society.
honestly that is a liberal social coverage, yet libertarians are socially liberal. Libertarians are for the most area denounced as liberals by technique of their own party. right here’s the way it really works.: There are 4 forms of conservatives a million) Neoconservatives 2) the non secular correct 3) classic Conservatives 4) Libertarians the first 3 are social conservatives and would or would no longer be economic Conservatives. The 4th is extreme economic conservatives yet socially liberal on maximum subject matters. so as that they are often denounced as liberals or libertines by technique of the first 3 forms of Conservatives. Libertarians are often in user-friendly words tolerated by technique of first 3 because they finally end up helping the different 3 get their in demand applicants into workplace by technique of helping the smaller authorities lip-service. Libertarians being for the most area adverse to faith-depending moral policing, and company welfare, have a tendency to get alongside with liberals really properly. Their in user-friendly words carry-up being the libertarian competition to help for the undesirable which liberals help. once you fall on the option area of moralism from the non secular correct, Neocons, and classic Conservatives, you’re a liberal as far as they are in touch. those perspectives are pertaining to to the incontrovertible actuality that both liberals and Libertarians draw their social perspectives from an same political philosophies. that’s why conservatives want to declare they are honestly classical liberals, at the same time as the in user-friendly words one which would want to declare that are Libertarians.
Homosexuality and taxes are two totally different things. I don’t think that the “Wealthy” should be getting all kinds of tax breaks, while people that don’t make as much money have to do without and pay high taxes. People that don’t make as much, like single parents (Regardless of sex…my husband was a single dad for 9 years before I met him) should be getting the tax breaks.
They argue with Conservatives with just about everything, I’m an Independent so If any issue that is not of My Personal liking I’ll just Object towards it.
I don’t Approve Legalization of Drugs, but Homosexuality doesn’t bother Me.
Liberals don’t base their argument that morality is relative, they just choose not to base their arguments on a religious argument as many conservatives do. The conservatives tend to forget that not everybody in the U.S. follows the Bible so to use that as an argument against something is just plain insulting.
Wealth is relative too. There are “rich” people in 3rd world countries that couldn’t afford a plane ticket to America. There are “poor” people in America that own homes and multiple cars and watch cable TV, talk on cell phones, etc. How poor is THAT?
But your point is valid. Liberals are hypocritical about many things.
Morality is relative and everyone can judge what is right and wrong… as long as they agree with Hillary and Nancy.
Libs are fools and hypocrites. They have an agenda to overthrow traditional America in favor of a socialist euro duplicate. Everything they say is BS, don’t even try to understand.