Marco Rubio is delivering the GOP response to the President's State of the Union address tonight. The Rubio speech has been in preparation for weeks and will be broadcast in English and Spanish. He is expected to talk about the economy and reach out to Hispanic voters. It is going to take a lot more than broadcasting in Spanish to get the Hispanic vote. There has to be action behind those Spanish words.
Just how reliable are the words of this "Republican Savior?" Well, not very.
His "son of exiles" story was deflated by the Washington Post in 2011. He repeatedly told the story of his Cuban parents being forced off the island when Fidel Castro came into power. Documents reveal that his parents received their permanent U.S. residency two and a half years before Castro took charge. The fictional story was and still is in his biography on his Senate page. His current Senate bio page reads, "my parents who left Cuba in 1956 and, after Fidel Castro solidified his communist grip."
Rubio also "mistakenly" spent thousands of personal dollars on the GOP credit card in 2010. A mistake? It was $100,000 over a two-year period!
Charges include repairs to his minivan, plane tickets for his wife, as well as grocery, Apple online store and wine purchases. He paid back some of the charges. Listen to this excuse, he says the minivan was damaged by a valet at a GOP event. And he is so bold as to say that the charges are "all related to party business." That's some party those Republicans have there. Are you considering joining the Republican party right now so that maybe they'll buy you a bottle of wine or equip your family vehicle with a new set of tires? After all, if your family vehicle drove you to the voting booth to cast your vote for a GOP candidate, isn't that "GOP party business?"
If the charges were all "party business," why would he bother to pay any of them back?
This is not a party that should be in charge of money. You work too hard for you money to hand it over to these guys so they can buy cheese and wine with it. And the same people that gladly hand over their money to this party for expenditures such as this complain when their tax dollars go to feed hungry kids or pay for a poor person's health care. Yet, it's perfectly fine to have their money paying to feed the Rubio family. After all, he is the mouth of the Republican party, at least for tonight.
A piece of advice, don't listen to this (or any) Rubio speech too closely because after a few minutes of internet research, facts will undoubtedly be proven lies.
Image Source: The Blaze/Time
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 84
Republicans are okay with their leaders ripping them off and not okay with government spending money to alleviate poverty for a very good reason: they hate the poor and adore the rich. They think that by adoring the rich and defending their right to enjoy every privilege they can get this will get them invited to join the club and become one of the privileged.
They don't realize that the entitled rich have no sense of gratitude. They assume they are deserving and those who serve them and their interests do so because they recognize the rich as their superiors. They have a word for them: underlings.
The rest of us call them the Republican rabble.
Got any melange?
Exactly!! It's ludicrous! Scott's Ka Pow is well deserved!
'I do not recall any tradition of giving the party not in the White House "equal time".'
Where were you in 1965, watching the address?
"Republicans are okay with their leaders ripping them off"
No, I do not like any leader padding there pocket in the name of the poor.
"not okay with government spending money to alleviate poverty for a very good reason"
Our Federal government does not fix poverty, it perpetuates it. Besides it is not the job of the Federal government to fix such things. It is the job of the state and the individual.
"they hate the poor and adore the rich."
No, I reserve my GOD given right to work hard, keep most of what I earn and give it to those I deem needy. I do not intend to pay the federal government a cut to do this for me. It is my responsibility given to me by GOD.
"They think that by adoring the rich and defending their right to enjoy every privilege they can get this will get them invited to join the club and become one of the privileged. "
No, I find most rich people to be out of the closet liberals who try to win over those future potential mobs. I really do not adore one group over another. I like people who work hard and fear GOD.
So Rory, you seem to be more of a slave to the almighty Loony, me I am just trying to keep my kids and grand kids from being enslaved by the federal government.
I have no fear of a being of pure love who created me and the wonderful world He gave me to live in. I feel only love for Him.
Fear being the basis of conservatism, I guess that explains a lot.
(BTW: Which version of the 10 Commandments were you referring to?)
To balance this out, should we not at least talk about the presidents record.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160385/obama-rated-highest-foreign-affairs-lowest-deficit.aspx
"President Obama earns a 39% job approval rating for his handling of the economy, similar to his ratings on the issue one year ago. Among domestic issues, Obama's rating on the economy is above only his 31% rating for handling the federal deficit."
He has done so much for us. Last year we racked up almost $7Trillion in debt and liabilities. That was only last year. Any lie he sais about moving toward fixing the budget is just that a lie, we have continued to spend more year over year and have yet to create a budget.
{you can't let the presidents speech speak for it's self. You have to go slam the other guy before he says anything. Nice!}
Most of the members have observed and understand that you have a difficult time following a conversation and comprehending what is written or is being debated by the membership. It is obvious, that in responding with a comment to this article, you are apparently having the same problem.
I am pointing this out to you, inasmuch, as both the title of the article and the context of the article are about Marco Rubio and his SOTU presidential address rebutal. Yet, you seem to think the article is somehow about the president himself.
No Mark, this is not ad hominem (your newly learned word) directed towards you by me, this is about your continuous incomprehension of an article's subject and/or the membership's posted comments.
Thanks for telling me once again what I should, should not write about and you failed to speak substantially about what I did write.
Rubio was talking about the state of the union and wow, so was I. Using facts and public opinion polls. Yet you persist in the ad hominem, attacking me in place of finding flaws in what I said. You fail. Thanks for the complement by calling me Mark. Maybe you should call Mark John, Clark V. Just because you have several aliases in Gather does not mean that some of us conservatives do.
You said:. "To balance this out, should we not at least talk about the presidents record...Any lie he sais about moving toward fixing the budget is just that a lie, we have continued to spend more year over year and have yet to create a budget."
The president has created a budget each year he has been in office and presented it to Congress in plenty of time for them to approve it before the beginning of the New budget year. In February of 2009 he prevented the budget that took effect in October of that year. In February of 2010 he prevented his second budget, but Congress did not approval it until April of 2011. Nevertheless, Obama did present Congress with a new budget in February 2011 even though his previous budget had yet to be approved. This time Congress approved the new budget by November of 2011, only a month and a half late instead of the previous 7 month delay. A year ago today Obama prevented his budget for the current fiscal year and Congress is now 5 months late in approving it.
So credit where credit is due, to Obama for presenting new budgets in a timely fashion, and blame where it belongs, to Congress for playing a giant game of chicken with public finances and ignoring the consequences of elections.
2010 House Democrats refused to bring a proposal to the floor.
2011 Senate voted 97-0 against the presidents proposed budget.
2012 House and Senate Unanimously Reject Obama Budgets.
Yes it is simple to blame congress when it is the party in power doing more blocking than the minority. In this case it is the presidents party.
The 1974 Budget Act requires Congress to pass a budget each year by April 15. Most of them are guilty of breaking the law, on both sides. Nice try.
Conservative Wisdom trumps Leftist "logic" any and every day of the week. Try it!
And that thing with the water was just bizarre. I mean, fair enough the guy was nervous and dry, but could nobody involved in the production think to put his water bottle where he could reach it easily, so that he didn't have to look awkward and do that weird thing trying to keep eye contact?
I'm fully expecting them to try to bring in what might best be described as "illiteracy tests" for voter registration. With a simple, three-question oral exam:
1. Who was America's second-greatest president after Reagan?
A. George Washington
B. Thomas Jefferson
C. Paul Revere
D. None of the above can compare to The Mighty Reagan.
2. A good, Christian, conservative RealAmerican™ woman should be:
A. Barefoot
B. Pregnant
C. Seen and not heard
D. All of the above
3. What do plants crave?
To me, this is a slap in the face to the American Latino community, inasmuch, as it insinuates that Latinos are more apt to vote for one of their own, than to vote their conscious and political knowledge. It also indicates that the RNC believes that the American Latino community is comprised of people who are politically ignorant and therefore, will be easily led by one of their own.
As to Marco Rubio himself, he is demonstrating that his personal ambitions far outweigh his ability to think for himself or to compete on his own knowledge and political merits. Choosing to put himself first by allowing the RNC to munipulate him and to use ethnicity for their own agenda of retaking the White House in 2016.
However, I am somewhat apprehensive to see that the Republican Party is unofficially, but visually splitting into two ideologically independent groups. This is evident by the Teapublicans actually presenting their own SOTU address rebutal, with Rand Paul being chosen to deliver the rebutal speech. The split has been building for the past four years, but to see it actually happening is quite unsettling.
Apparently, the Teapublicans have come full circle and now believe that their movement has the supporting numbers allied them to break away from the GOP and it's established center right ideology and moderate conservative political philosophy. If they are right, (which I hope they are not) the GOP will suffer greatly, not only in the midterm elections, but in many elections to come. Normally, I would gloat in knowing that the GOP is having problems within it's ranks, especially with those in Congress. However, in this paricular instance, I hesitate to enjoy the moment and frankly, I am frightened by the consequences of such a split.
I say this, believing that {if} the Teapublicans actually do have the majority of the Republicans in Congress supporting their extremist ideology, it will not only be the downfall of the GOP, but more so, it would effectively shut down the business of Congress its self. A pending scenario which we all had better hope does not come to pass. We have observed the "do nothing Congress" of the past four years. As such, we do not want to see a Congress which self implodes, inasmuch, as that would mean that the US Government becomes totally incapable of passing any legislation whatsoever or dealing with problems here at home or doing required business around the world.
IMO, for the Teapublicans to actually split from the Republicans and refuse to vote on issues in a conservative manner, instead, choosing to vote in an extremist manner, would bring about total gridlock within the Congress. No government which operates under a Constitution as our government does, can have three independent factions, each voting totally different on issues. Especially when two of the factions are voting on party principle, but with the business of the people in mind and one is voting strictly on an ideological basis and agenda. A three way split in a vote with one vote unwilling to compromise with either of the two other votes, will never work in American politics.
I look at Rubio as just another congressmen and you choose to look at his race first. Yet you seem to think the republicans are the ones with the race issue. Just because you are a raciest, does not mean that all republicans are.
I take it back, Clark, I no longer think you are capable of writing any better than that. Take "hart", linguistic capabilities are not highly valued amongst conservatives. Most of your friends won't even notice.
1) {I am sure that republicans and tea partiers alike will take your warning to hart and mend all fences.}
I never warned nor meant to warn either the Republicans or the Teapublicans of any pending danger to which they should take heart therein. I simply wrote of my own personal concerns in the event that the two warring factions within the Republican members of Congress should split the voting membership into two separate ideological voting entities.
If my written concerns were a warning to anyone, it would be those who share my concerns, not those who are of a totally different political ideology. Ergo, you being an extremist ideological Teapublican, answered that which required no answer nor rebutal from you.
2) {republicans are the ones with the race issue. Just because you are a raciest, does not mean that all republicans are.}
In reality, we all have a biased racial mentality to some degree, no matter into which ethnicity we were born. However, I am not a racist in the sense that I hold racial animosity and/or hatred for those of another race. With that said, you were totally out of line in suggesting that I am a racist was both disingenuous and inexcusable. Further by doing so, you have only served to bring into question your own racial bias and thinking.
Further, nowhere in my comment did I say or insinuate that all Republicans were racist. I said that in my opinion, the Republican Party (i.e. the RNC) were apparently attempting to use Marco Rubio's ethnicity to the Party's advantage in wooing voters to their Party's membership ranks. It is a known fact that Sen. Rubio is of the Latino race and the Republican Party is on record as having recently stated that they intend to expand their party's membership to include those of the Latino community. Therefore, my comment was neither racist nor insensitive to either Sen. Rubio or the RNC and for you to suggest ortherwise, is both disingenuous and inexcusable, further it only serves to bring into question your own thinking on issues where a person's ethnicity is the subject of discussion.
3) {so that they can create more laws that kill jobs
You really have me bewildered with this statement, inasmuch, as I can not think of any laws which have been legislated and/or enacted by the 111th - 113th Congress which has killed any American jobs or potential job(s).
Your statement is inacurate inasmuch, as it is Congress which enacts laws which create jobs for the public sector only of our country's workforce. It is the industrial private sector which has devoided its self of 15 million American jobs by having shipped 75% of the American manufacturing industry to foreign countries.
If the government was in any way guilty of killing American jobs, it was the Congress under the GW Bush Administration which rescended and/or deflated restrictive laws on the manufacturing industry which allowed that industry to relocate their businesses to foreign countries which was the real killer of American jobs.
The Obama Administration has been working hard for four years to get Congress to tighten those lax laws in order to force manufacturing to return their businesses back to America. Unfortunately, it has been the Teapublicans in Congress which have blocked his every attempt to get legislation passed to enact such needed laws. Laws which would force the manufacturing industry to bring blue collar jobs back to our country.
4) {spend money that we have no way to pay back.}
As to spending money which our government has no way to repay, that is nonesense and disingenuous fear mongering which has become a staple of the Teapublican movement's leadership. Doing so without providing any substantial documentation of factual support. Its the thought that if a lie is told long enough and it will eventually become truth in the minds of those who are uninformed.
It is true that our country has a debt that is somewhere around 16 trillion dollars. But, what is left untold when the alarmist are screaming about our incurred debt, is the fact that the total is computed over a 20 year debt remittal. The alarmist also do not factor in, the earned revenue income through taxation and foreign trade which our government will receive during that same period of time. An amount which will offset a large portion of the indebtedness.
If any faction is hindering our government's ability to decrease its accured debt, I would say without reservation, that it is the Teapublicans in Congress which have stymied the whole of Congress by refusing to allow any redeeming legislation from coming to a vote of the full membership. That Congressional gridlock is essentially the cause of both the slow rebuilding of American jobs and is partially to blame for our country's mounting debt. (i.e. industry's return to America equates to more jobs which equates to more revenue for the U.S. Treasury which equates to less governmental debt)
5) its econ 101 again, scarcity of jobs is the result of an artificial increase in wage above the market value.
This statement is not your's nor is it original, so stop using it as though it is of your own thoughtful surmise. The statement is nothing but a convoluted assessment of our country's present job crises and for you to repeat it, is disingenuous.
Clark, as is often your problem when reading another persons posted comment, you have once again miscomprehended various parts of my posted comment and in doing so, you have posted inaccurate challenges. Even so, I have taken the time to refute your rebutal by pointing out each of your misunderdstanding of that which I actually wrote.
Oh and I suppose that increasing the minimum wage will knot kill jobs?
No job should consign someone to abject poverty. The minimum wage in the US is ridiculously low. Canada has lower unemployment with higher minimum wage levels set by law. And Canada's are also too low. Instead of a minimum wage we should establish a living wage that employers must pay, with full benefits for all workers whether permanent or temporary, full-time or part-time.
Any job killed by minimum wage laws is a job that no one should ever have to take in the first place. The Republican nonsense of "right to work" laws should be called "right to hire for less" laws. They don't benefit working people at all, quite the contrary.
1) Why not $20, or $40. Fact is you pay people what the market will pay. If you can afford 9 people at $5 each, then that is 3 people at $15.
First of all you are quoting the present minimum pay in Australia, ($15.00 per hr) not the $7.15 per. hr. minimum pay scale here at home in America. Second, to use your analogy, we should really only pay $1.00 per. hr. to 15 people, that way the business owner will get the most work in return for the single dollar he is paying in wages. To say the least and without question, your analogy is ridiculously thoughtless in concept and premise !!!
The proposed $9.00 per. hr. increase in the minimum wage (not $15.00) is meant to raise those on the bottom of the rung low wage earners above the established poverty living level. A proposal which first would assist hard working people to feed, cloth and house their families. Second, the increase would help many families presently living in poverty to be able to devoid themselves of some, if not all, of the government assistance programs they now depend upon.
2) the problem with your little utopia is that we can not afford what we do now otherwise we would not have the debt that we have.
As usual, you fail to not only comprehend that which is being discussed, but also have confused the issue as a whole. I say this in reading your statement, in which you are confusing the present federal debt with the cost of private business and industry in their individual operations. A cost derived from the total cost of production, deducted from the total gross sales, which equals net profit for the business owner.
A scenario which has absolutely nothing to do with our government's present expenditures verses projected gross federal revenues and income. Which is two totally different entities (private business cost/government debt) which you have confused as being the same debt in your statement.
3) The point of low paying jobs is not for high school students to have a living wage. It is so that they learn a work ethic and understand that life is in fact a bitch
This part of your statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in presenting a counter reason for not raising the minimum wage. Further, it shows that you personally harbor a mental superiority complex in regards to judging those who are less fortunate than you.
As such, it appears as though you feel that those who are being paid no more than the current minimum wage, are being paid such as a punishment with the intention of teaching them a lesson for their lower status within society. A punishment for being allowed to live among more financially fortunate and higher wage earners such as yourself.
4) you must work if you want to eat, well maybe that is asking way to much of liberals.
This part of your statement is really ridiculous in several ways. First, you are assuming that those who are in need of an increase in wages must be lazy and a non worker. When the issue is about people who {are} working, but are not being paid a living wage.
Second, you make the point that people must work to eat. Once again, ignoring the fact that we are discussing people who {are} working, but are being paid an excessively low wage which needs to be increased. An increase which will afford them the chance to better support and {feed} their families
Third, you are implying that people working at or below the currently established minimum wage must be Liberals since it is for the most part, Liberals who are pushing for a minimum wage increase. An assumption which is totally ludicris, inasmuch, as people are not hired according to their political ideology. Inasmuch, it is the whole of the workforce which is in need of a wage increase and Liberals could care less about which political ideology individual workers affiliate with.
You said:
"Second, to use your analogy, we should really only pay $1.00 per. hr. to 15 people, that way the business owner will get the most work in return for the single dollar he is paying in wages. To say the least and without question, your analogy is ridiculously thoughtless in concept and premise !!!"
No it works it is called supply and demand, econ 101 time again. Sure you could offer $1 per hour but my bet is that you will not get many people actually willing to work for that rate so the job goes unfilled and undone. That is up to the employer. If he really wants the work done, then he would offer a wage that is closer to market value for that type of work. The only way this would be "ridiculously thoughtless" is if the individual was forced to work at that wage and no I am not forcing anyone to work for a given wage. Price controls are tools of the left and the uninformed republicans, not of conservatives.
Ok I already talked about this, but you missed it. An increase to $9.00 per hour. Sure for about a week that employee will feel about 2 dollars per hour richer. Then he will go to the store to buy $9 worth of food and he will only be able to afford what he could a week prior for $7. hmmm Why? Inflation. Inflation caused by the increase in the min wage... What you going to do then increase the min wage a every week by $2, just to make someone feel like they have more money?
I am skipping to the end because, I find this a waist of time with you.
Liberals could care less about which political ideology individual workers affiliate with.
Lie, increase in min wage is nothing more than vote buying, trying to make the little guy feel good and cast a vote in the left direction. Pandering
My point was simply that you give someone a fish, then they will want another so you should teach someone to fish and they will be self reliant. But you all like the co-dependence so you all are good with the arrangement. Fine go ahead just don't expect me to like inflation and to help pay for your vote buying.
Also, raising the minimum wage rate will never, never, never fix the economic plight of the uneducated and untrained employee. If raising the minimum wage fixed anything it would have fixed it the last ten times it was increased. Raising the minimum wage is akin to lifting the bottom rung on a ladder. The people on the bottom rung will always be there if they do nothing to advance up the ladder, in the mean time the costs of all goods and services increase relative to the minimum wage increase. It is forced inflation that benefits absolutely no one.
About the only noticeable result is an increase in tax revenue which is probably the true goal of the chicanery.
Am I to understand that you are proposing that we should let 1 out of every 6 children under the age of 18 in America, starve to death because their parents, although working for a living, make less than the poverty level of $15,500.00 per year when being paid the current minimum wage of $7.15 per hour.
With your expressed attitude towards your fellow man, I sincerely hope that you don't consider yourself to be a humanitarian, a Christian, a man of faith, a human being with ethical values or a caring moral person within our society.
You have my sympathy.
If the minimum wage is increased 10%, soon thereafter the wages of those that are above minimum wage will increase 10% the cost of goods and services will increase by 10% and the poverty level will increase by 10%. The result is ... no change in the conditions for the lowest level earners.
My proof of this is that the minimum wage has increased from $1.50 to $7.15 in my lifetime and it is still not enough to support a family. It could raise by a factor of ten to $71.50 and in a short time the cost of everything will skyrocket and the minimum wage will still not be enough to support a family.
It is not a matter a lack of compassion on my part that causes starvation of low income workers, it is their lack of advancement up the ladder.
I don't need your sympathy, save it for people that don't understand economics or lack ambition to succeed.
Unintended consequences from poorly thought out policies.
Scott, clearly you miss understand economics.
No more so, than you misunderstand societal HUMANITY for fellow human beings !!!
The question is, which of us is regrettably the poorer, me for not believing in your self centered brand of economics or you for being an amoral person with no feelings for those who unlike you, are economically distitute and need our help !!!
Don't bother to answer me here on Gather, instead, explain your position to your grandson. (if you can)
I did not expect you to want, nor to accept, my offered sympathy, but being the person I am, I offered it sincerely anyway and continue to do.
I defy any of the libturds to expound on this topic as to the basis of the expertise of any member of government ruling class as relates to the value of the workers in any segment of industry, service or management. Most members of congress have never had to meet a payroll in the private sector and as such do not have any experience as rates of pay or value.
See what I mean, Clark? Linguistic capabilities are not highly valued by conservatives.
No, In reality there are signs posted that tell you not to feed the animals, I know its tough love but the alternative is more harsh. Animals, like people in fact can grow and learn to fend for themselves. Where I would in fact agree with you, I do believe it is our responsibility as humans, blessed by GOD and because of his love we are encouraged to share. That is my responsibility, given to me by GOD. I would love to do more than what I already do the problem is that the government is in the way. If I find a person in need and buy him lunch for $5, then 100% of that money goes to the need. However you seem to think that the government does a better job than I can and they scam at least 75% off the top for them selves before the need sees a dime. That is not love.
Those with Wisdom understand the concepts that you've explained. That's what terrifies them.
It's certainly, also, much more frustrating to be on the side of Common Sense, so as to have to watch how misguided the Left is. It's akin to watching a train wreck...with nothing to do about it.
1) I do believe it is our responsibility as humans, blessed by GOD and because of his love we are encouraged to share. That is my responsibility, given to me by GOD.
Why does everything have to include God or what you believe God tells you or wants you to do ? First of all, the discussion is not about you nor what you believe in accordance to your faith. In fact, your name never came up in the conversation I was having with Eric nor was there any reference to God in our back and forth POV.
The discussion of this particular thread is about the need for government to increase the minimum wage in order to assure that a worker is paid by his/her employer a fair days salary for a fair days work, nothing more, nothing less !!!
2) However you seem to think that the government does a better job than I can
I was in a discussion with Eric not with you, so I don't know how you came to the conclusion that you were somehow being compared to the efficientcy of our Government. However, since you have now intrduced the question, I can only surmise that you must really be delusional, if you actually believe that you can do anything concerning the legislating of Congressional laws. You are but an individual person in our society. You are not an elected Congressman, therefore, "Hell Yes", I would be of the thought that government is better at legislating laws than you are.
3) they scam at least 75% off the top for them selves before the need sees a dime.
If you are going to accuse federal government treasury employees of being thieves, you really need explain how you have come to that conclusion and provide documented proof to support your slanderously criminal accusation.
If, it is Congress whom you are accusing of stealing money, then you need to remember that no one in Congress handles any Treasury money, nor do they have direct access to Treasury funds. They only have indirect access to such funds by mandated Constitutional law.
Ergo, it is impossible for any Congressman to skim any monies, much less 75%, of the revenue in the U.S. Treasury. Ergo, you are making accusations which are not only disingenuous, but are slanderous and unsupportable in its entirety. Not to mention that such accusations give the impression that you believe that there are those in the federal government who are in a conspiracy to steal and are stealing money from the U.S. Treasury. An accusation which you can not possibly prove, inasmuch as it is a false statement, meant only to promote your convoluted point of view.
Last, but most important of all, you seem to be totally oblivious, ignorant and unaware of the fact that our government was organized, founded and continues to exist for only one purpose, that being, To Serve The People
Now do you get it ??? Government exist to serve the people and Congress by legislating fair and equitable laws, is, but one of the many ways that our government works to serve, we the people.
Sorry Eric for intruding on your sub thread.
Scott, there you go again telling me what I can write about. Hard to believe you believe in the freedom of speech.
My comments were directed at what you said
"With your expressed attitude towards your fellow man, I sincerely hope that you don't consider yourself to be a humanitarian, a Christian, a man of faith, a human being with ethical values or a caring moral person within our society. " Implying that if you do not go along with an increase in the min wage, then we are immoral and so on... Like is said God gave me the responsibility and I can not give it away to the government or otherwise. If I do give that responsibility away and the entity that I gave it to fails, then I fail. Thus I refuse to go along with the idea that I can simply pay the government to take away my responsibilities. Additionally I am against it because when I give up my responsibilities, I also give up freedom. Freedom and responsibilities, they go together...
Most the issues were we differ are based on your lack of knowledge of what is known as "Natural Law", Look it up.
As I have said time and time again on previous discussions, you fail to comprehend what the subject of the discussion is. In being unable to comprehend that which is being discussed, you attempt to interject what you would like the subject to be about. In this case, your supposedly mandated religious reponsibilities, when the subject ofdiscussion is about "The Minimum Wage" which does not have a damned thing to do with your religion or what its doctrine imposes upon you as a Christian.
Thus I refuse to go along with the idea that I can simply pay the government to take away my responsibilities
You don't have a choice, you must pay taxes which are used to support social programs for the unfortunate within our society. Your charitable donations and sharing has nothing to do with those government programs.
Additionally I am against it because when I give up my responsibilities, I also give up freedom. Freedom and responsibilities, they go together...
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Freedom and Responsibility are two entrely different things and neither one has anything to do with the other. Once again, it would appear that you are confusing your religious doctrine requirements as a Christian with mandated governmental requirements of you as a citizen.
Most the issues were we differ are based on your lack of knowledge of what is known as "Natural Law", Look it up.
Your accusation that I have a lack of knowledge in Natures Law aka Natural Law, is to say the least, quite arrogantly assuming of that which you have no way of knowing. Actually, I am familiar with the Law's intentionally convoluted (IMO) premise. A thesis which I find to be nothing more than pure elitist BS. A ploy which some intellectuals utilize when they are stymied for a creditable answer and/or an appropriate response to an issue. However, regardless of what I think of natures law, the use of it by you is quite amusing, to say the least.
Please Clark, just stay away from my posted comments. I really don't want to debate my POV on issues with a person who is unable to have a discussion without bringing God, Christianity and Religion into a discussion which has nothing to do with such faiths.
"the subject ofdiscussion is about "The Minimum Wage" which does not have a damned thing to do with your religion or what its doctrine imposes upon you as a Christian."
You were the one that was claiming the moral high ground by increasing the min wage. I just said that it is not moral or even helpful. It is only self serving to those who want to buy votes. I will not apologize or just stay away, when you assert that Christians fail as Christians if we don't follow your prescription of enslavement. GOD helps those who help them selves and he is a jealous GOD and does not like us bowing at the alter of a man made god, big government. Remember you were the first to bring Christianity into this thread not me. Now you are asking me to go away because I rebuke what you say.
I ask for any libturd to prove that the government has the knowledge required to determine the value of each employee. Instead Scott responded with emotional malarkey that has no substantial bearing on the matter of minimum wage.
I defy any libturd to prove that government intrusion has improved the plight of the under educated employee. After 80 years of government interference the bottom rung of the ladder is still the bottom rung, proving that government has no clue about how macro-economics works.
May I add, to your ladder analogy, I would say that as you remove the bottom rung, you add it to the top so that those at the bottom are no closer to the top no matter how many times you increase the min wage. That is how the libturds have architected this situation. No matter how many times you increase the min wage and no matter the amount, the people at the bottom will never be any closer to the top.
Another good visualization may be walking up the down escalator...
"Tithe" 10% a flat rate. God thought that it was a fair rate. Why do we have a progressive tax structure, if we are trying to be fair?