Nickolai

That is whats wrong with that ideology. The strong is free to exploit the weak. Pay a worker what the employer is willing to pay not what a man needs to support himsel and his family. It is the ideology of inequality and predjudice and favors the Nations wealth being transfwred from the bottom to the top Keep it every man for himself and it makes it easier for the big guys to dominate the little people with a boot on their necks. It is a selfish hurray for me anf f**k you ideology.

intel1919

We'll have to disagree. 1. "Pay a worker what the employer is willing to pay, not what a man needs to support himself and family". In our system, worker can move on to new opportunities, to make more money to support himself and family. Typically worker has opportunity to move because of new training, skills. The worker is rewarded for hard work, taking advantage of new opportunities. What is wrong with that ideology? Are you saying we should reward people that don't reach upward, improve themselves, be more productive and skilled citizens and contribute to our society? We should reward or subsidize the "worker" that did nothing to improve or contribute, but take on a family or other responsibilities. Understand there are under privileged citizens, sick, people that have accidents, that need special care. I get that. But to say a conservative ideology is selfish is just crazy to me, someone who came from a poor family, worked hard, went to school with the help of the government (I am ex-military), got relevant training and schooling that is relevant today (tech) I subscribe to a selfish ideology -- don't see it that way. Not I. I teach my kids you "can be anything you want to be" and I very much see that today with other young adults and believe it today. As a business owner and leader of people, I do not subscribe to "pay a worker what the employer is willing to pay not what a man needs to support himself and his family." I have had that conversation many times with employees. Is living beyond ones' means, e.g. have 8 wireless carrier devices (iphones), every pay tv movie channel, 4 cars, go on vacations all the time, spend and have no strategy to save money or live within ones' means not to be taken in to account when describing "..... pay what the employer is willing to pay and what a man needs to support himself and his family". Or, are you saying I should just pay everyone 2x salary "just because ......" based on what?? Kindness of my heart or it is just the right thing to do? If I don't pay competitive wages, have good benefits, good environment, they will go elsewhere. You describe something that says that all people that "are rich" are bad people and it is a crime or "bad" that one can succeed in this country. Oh -- I am sure one might add, well they (successful worker) trampled on people along the way so that is bad, they screwed the little guy. I describe your ideology, respectfully I will add and in most cases, to more laziness, lack of desire to work hard and better themselves, and then having a sour-grapes attitude of "I am entitled to make more, just because.....". People have options in our society. Most states are a "right to work" state, i.e. they can fire the worker, but the worker can fire the employer too. Good debate.... :)

gaconservative74

The wealth is not transferred from the bottom up. This is stupid. Look at the earned income credit....... operative term is earned......... it isn’t earned at all!!!! This is the governments redistribution of wealth!! How does this actually play out????? For most they go and have their tax return done and then get a loan on the anticipated return, which usually costs a few hundred bucks, and they get their return late January or early February and are broke again by March!!!!! Redistribution of wealth doesn’t work!!! And I don’t care who brought up the legislation, it’s still stupid it promotes laziness. People must learn to be responsible for their own actions.

gaconservative74

You like to call it a fetus because that term desensitizes you and that’s fine if that makes you feel better.

gaconservative74

You didn’t answer the question. What do “the people” base right and wrong on? Wasn’t asking you anyway.

debeda

Oohhhhhh... you're from California. That explains a lot. In Illinois the toll roads are as I describe. First one in the state was 294. And you can hoot about your "Democratic majority " all you want. As I can talk about conservatives to you. What I have observed and experienced in my life tells me that democrats are a party that increasingly tax indiscriminately, that operate on a patronage system to enrich themselves, their families and their friends, and they are scofflaws. They have also always been incredibly elitist, thinking their way of thinkimg is the only way. No live and let live unless you're in lockstep with them. That particular attitude has been intensifying over the years, until we've arrived at today where democrats truly believe they are superior and anyone who doesnt "see the light" is a dolt. This post is not to begin a debate with you, but just to state my opinion. Democrats are like children. They grab credit for everything that seems good and assign blame for everything that goes wrong. If the children are voted back to a majority in November God help us.

debeda

You keep believing that. There have also been progressive republicans that think before they act. The days of dems being "the party with a heart" are long gone. I'm more of an independent. I'd love to see a candidate run just on issues and not really party line. Oh wait, we had one. Prez Trump .

archie bunker Loc: Texas

And what age would that be? Can a 3 year old survive on its own? Provide its own food, shelter, clothing, heat?
You think we should be able to kill our kids up until they provide for themselves, and pay their own bills?

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

I couldn't agree more.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

C'mon!!! You can't possibly believe that. When life begins is determined by religious values, not scientific fact. It depends on what sect you belong to as to how you think about abortion. Once the kids are born, it's the responsibility of the parent(s) to care for them, not kill them. But until that time, it's the decision of the family, doctor, and spiritual guide/pastor to determine what to do about any situation regarding the pregnancy.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Wow. You are probably the only person from the left on this site who doesn't sound like a bot from Media Matters or ThinkProgress. It's a pleasure to meet you, Whitney. Seriously.

You assume correctly about my reference to gun control. I could almost agree with your proposal, but not quite. First, you say 'almost' anyone should be allowed to carry a gun. I say the 'almost' part needs to be explicitly defined. Then you go on to say that those same people should not be allowed to carry a gun in places where they're most likely to need it. Now, to be fair, you say you would allow those with CC and gun training to carry there, which is the reason I can almost agree with you, but not quite. But it does raise a couple questions. Would the CC permit need to be from that specific area, or would one issued anywhere in the US be valid? Saying it's okay for CC holders to carry is all well and good, but only if actually obtaining a CC permit isn't so arduous and/or expensive that very few, if any, will be able to accomplish it.

Being a libertarian, I believe in the freedom to do what you want, as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others. Carrying a gun for self-protection doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights, so to me it should not be illegal for law-abiding citizens. Instead of a mandatory 5-year prison sentence for carrying a gun, why not impose harsher sentencing on those who commit crimes with guns? Basically, the difference between your strategy and mine is that you want to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. I want to leave the innocent alone and punish the guilty.

Another area of concern for me with your proposal is the homeowners and renters who would be 'held responsible for their [guns] use'. What does that mean? Do you want a homeowner or renter who's guns have been stolen to be considered accomplices in whatever crimes those guns are used in?

Here's the scenario I'd like to see. New laws get passed saying that anybody caught using a gun to commit a crime (other than just carrying one), or stealing a gun, gets the death penalty with special circumstances. Those special circumstances mean that they are executed, via firing squad, within 24 hours of sentencing, no appeals, no waiting on death row until dying of old age. Further, the executions are broadcast live on pay-per-view TV. If that were to happen, you'd see the rate of gun crimes drop drastically within a month. That is why it never will.

I'm glad you agree with my points concerning freedom vs socialism. Given the choice, which do you prefer? Freedom with the inherent responsibility that goes with it, or socialism?

Okay, here's the part that I just don't understand. You asked what should be done about irresponsible drivers who cause accidents while uninsured. What I don't understand is why you want to send an innocent person to jail for 5 years for simply carrying a gun in the 'wrong' area, yet think a person who deliberately flaunts responsibility and causes harm, both physical and economic, to innocents should be held blameless and be rewarded. Can you please explain the reasoning that led you to that conclusion?

Lastly, I find the 'brother's keeper' remark humorous. If you stop to think about it, don't you think it's kinda strange how leftists demand that all aspects of Christianity be removed from everything even vaguely connected with government, except that one adage, which they want enshrined as the single most important aspect of our government?

archie bunker Loc: Texas

I think you're wrong. It has nothing to do with religious values. At least for me.

It only makes sense that if life ends when a heart stops beating, it begins when a heart starts beating, which is about 22 days after conception.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

If life ended when a heart stops beating, then CPR would never work.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

A lot of times it doesn't. It didn't on my grandad, and he was dead.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

But other times it does, which is why they changed the definition of dead from no heartbeat to no brain activity.

So the real question becomes, "Should all leftists be considered dead because their brains are inactive?"