i wouldn't insult the man personally, but he never explained how gay marriage is a threat to children, but starving them isn't. i are disappoint. i thought i would solve one of the great mysteries of the dark beyond that is the social conservative mind.
What's the great mystery? That sodomy is anatomically correct? No mystery, it's a question of sheer biology and morals for many. Give it up dog or don't if you're bored, $17 bil is a piss in the bucket on a $2 trillion deficit. You know there are better ways to cut the deficit.
First of all, that only goes into the immediate effects. If you think $17 billion NOW is a piss in the bucket, you're delusional. There is nothing in there about the savings the CBO projects, or longer-term projections based on a healthier wedding industry. In any case, when has "pissing in the bucket" stopped anyone? It didn't stop House Republicans from slashing $25 million from the Peace Corps. Or $16 billion from a block grant program that provided meals on wheels for the elderly, and protected children from child abuse. That gets at me. It's moral to slash funding so that children starve, and are left without childcare or foster parents, or protection from child abuse, but it's immoral to leave them with gay parents? Uh, yeah. Mhmm.
Name me a solution to the deficit that a) does not involve massive environmental damage b) creates new jobs, and supports a buoyant, AMERICAN industry c) cuts government spending on entitlement programs d) does not harm people by doing things like snatching the food from their mouths
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality (Homosexual design?)
So even though you are a sinner and have no right to judge anyone you are going to judge gay people anyway.
Hmm, I'll play but we've been there before: -end ethanol and corn subsidies. Answer A,B,C,D Do some research on GMO crops if you do not understand how this our great nation engineers obesity and subesquent health problems and the midwest voting block, perhaps you'll also understand why the multi-national corps so badly wanted to invade Cuba in the early 60's. Sugar cane is a much more viable sugar for food than HFCS, corn fuel is stupid -reinstate bush tax cuts Answer, A,B,C,D -Subsidize development of natty gas for use in all vehicles by 2030 Answer, A(maybe, better than oil),B,C,D -Remove oil subisides and divert spending to states for usage strictly on education at elem, middle, HS levels Answer, A, B, C, D -reinstate Glass-Steagle, yo dog, you know you like that -flat tax all corps at 20 %, no corporate tax loop holes -slash DoD by 10% over 10 years, redirect strictly into roads/bridges initiative to repair and expand infrastructure -Tax capital gains by 5% additionally, subsidize/reinvest those funds strictly for companies in manufacturing business to jumpstart mfg capabilities to further improve exports repatriate all foreign held funds by corps at a flat 10% to be held in an interest bearing account to give grants to graduating seniors of college. Idea, 10% of all corporately held cash brought back into US would be held to pay final year for any student in any 4 year program. Pipe dream, sure! -legalize pot just a few for ya NSS...
Yeah without going into the nitty-gritty of specific details, I obviously support most of those, and obviously you support these as well, so why would you (or anyone else for that matter) not support another ABCD, win-win solution?
I don't give 2 ****s either way, just thought it funny you tried to make a moral issue for many into an economic solution. Crafty argument using the recession to promote social ideas and justification. I think I remember a country in Europe in the 1930's doing something similar with a certain religious sect. By the way while we were at it and dictating morality in favor of finances, I propose a 10% sin tax additional above and beyond on all cigarettes, alcohol or any food with a glycemic index rated ingredient above 90 to subsidize a single payer health care system.
Oh yeah, legalizing gay marriage is the same as promoting the mass genocide of undesirable minorities, some of which are the same homosexuals whose rights are being expanded in the former, and extinguished in the latter. I mean, if a situation seems the same because someone used economic logic to justify their beliefs, then it must be the same. Nice use of Godwin's law. Should we not do anything the Nazis did, lest we be afraid of their shadows? I guess I'm a scrooge for spending money, since the Nazis used money. Besides, give me a break, half of the solutions you've proposed are social issues that benefit immensely from the purview of economic benefit, legalization of mar1juana being the foremost. I am disappointed, actually, that you would cite such an issue (itself also tainted with irrational fears and some strict herd-like adherence to "moral codes"), and then hold such an ambiguous position on gay marriage. Gay marriage, just like legalization of mar1juana, is an issue that is more than morally defensible, and the dimension of economic benefit only adds to that.
No, not really... A country's fiscal debt level has only marginal bearing on demand for the USD. Why would anyone want to hold the USD reserves? Because our debt level is currently still acceptable to the international community? Nope. Doesn't it make more sense that people hold USD reserves because they believe they can purchase real goods/services with them? If that's the case, isn't it more important for the U.S. to worry about producing goods and services that people want? That's why the trade deficit is cause for much more concern than the budget deficit. If you look at IMF statistics, there's hardly any correlation between demand for currency vs. public debt levels. You have countries with very low debt (10% GDP or less) with high (Russia) and low (Papua New Guinea) currency demand. Likewise, you have countries with high debt (>100% GDP) with high (Japan) and low (Jamaica) currency demand. On the other hand, you'll find that the world's reserve currencies also happen to originate from some of the world's biggest economies, i.e. the world's biggest producers of goods/services.
You got me wrong man. Like I said, I don't give 2 ****s what an earth based 3rd party deems a marriage outside of my own personal moral code. I just threw that holocaust reference to counter your argument to show you where it could go and be a dick, honestly. No foul intentions. I don't disagree it will generate more revenue but there also seems to be the whole other issue of redistributing the establishment's wealth stolen from the serfs the last 35 years. This doesn't do it but hey, go for it. In 40 years, the baby boomers die and people can vote for legalization of gay marriage across the board and win. I'll be old, pounding vag and be happy none the less-just like so many others of the 'social conservative mindset.' Apparently being straight and mindin your own biz these days qualifies you as socially conservative.
I mean if that's your thing, don't forget to tell the kids sharing cookies that one of them might be the next Stalin. Sadly, most people with the socially conservative mindset don't share your views of non-intervention, and accepting history, or at least, I don't see it based on how hot of an issue this is. I think it's the libertarian in you, which excuse me for saying, makes your viewpoints, systematically speaking, much more amenable to my political palate.
Agreed. Give people more economic freedom success, wealth and the social issues hit the back burner. Who cares when you're making money, taking care of your family and doing what you want, right? All it takes is one billionaire with an ego and a vision of the way it 'should' be to make an issue appear to be a 'hot' issue. I personally think the issue over-hyped, but perhaps not, and purely political. Any real christian would not oppose to two people engaging in a homosexual union, only maybe the morality involved but even they would realize that isn't something they even need concern themselves with.
I think this might be relevant to why I might be pulled to American politics. I might seem harsh on America in these forums, and it might not seem like it, but I truly believe America is one of the hopes of this world. I abhor one-party dictatorship. I despise the denial of basic rights to any citizen of the world. I am an ardent believer in the liberal democratic system, and capitalism when it is done right. If it seems like I pick through America like a fine tooth comb, it's because I think America can do so much better, because it truly can. Every argument I advance against faults within the system are a reflection of the fact that I believe the system can be fixed, and that the American people have the ability to do so, if they had the will. I have high expectations for America, because the country truly deserves it. I've seen some of the best of America, and some of the worst, and I can honestly say I have never lost my belief in the country being able to do what was right, eventually. I think this is a viewpoint a lot of liberals on this board might share, and something I always think of when others attack people for their "patriotism", which to me is a definite mistake; the best patriot is the one who always believes their country can do better, and actively looks for ways to clean the flaws, and perfect what is already good. This viewpoint is what pushes me to argue about these issues on this forum, and it's what gives me hope for the future of not only America, but the entire world. I might not be American, but it doesn't take much to realize that what happens in America affects the whole world.
Then they don't have to do it. But why the crap are they trying to stop others from pursuing their own happiness? Lying is a moral issue for me, but there's no law against it. And, as someone here recently and hilariously said, should we have a law against coveting?
The BIBLE is also against discriminating, and not living in harmony. The BIBLE is also in favor of worrying about your own self and your own sins, and is against dealing with the sins of others. Forbidding gay marriage by law is 100% only about worrying about other people's sins. In fact JESUS talks more about those things than he does about homosexuality. So surely that is more important according to the BIBLE. As has been said, if you think it's a sin then don't do it. That's all you have to do. Other people brought up being in favor of laws against coveting, but what about prohibition? Would you be in favor of that? Should we outlaw liquor? Also, are you really being a good friend to the lesbian and other homosexuals you know? Being willing to deny them equal rights doesn't really seem like being a good friend. I'm sure most people would not want their friends voting to deny them equal rights.
Cut the debt by raising taxes to more responsible levels. I know it may be a novel concept, but we ought to try it, given that we are in the mess that we are in largely because of tax cuts.
Why don't you ask Spanish bondholders how this novel concept has worked out. Though, given most of your previous posts, I think you'd probably respond to a rhetorical request like this by driving down to your local Taco Bell and shouting into the drive through window about how your MexiMelt is debasing the currency via overly prodigious use of black olives.
