"Smaller government" advocates

[Jarlaxle]

many on the right seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

does the liberal have his single best example available?

The PATRIOT ACT.

That was a thoroughly BIPARTISAN bit of tyranny, dude.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

You do realize that the creation of gay marriage has now empowered government to regulate homosexual relationships, right? The gay marriage agenda was solely about expanding government. It was the entire goal of the movement.

How do they "regulate homosexual relationships"?

They don't regulate them, married people aren't regulated in any way.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

You do realize that the creation of gay marriage has now empowered government to regulate homosexual relationships, right? The gay marriage agenda was solely about expanding government. It was the entire goal of the movement.

How do they "regulate homosexual relationships"?

They don't regulate them, married people aren't regulated in any way.

They aren't? Then how do people get a divorce?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

You do realize that the creation of gay marriage has now empowered government to regulate homosexual relationships, right? The gay marriage agenda was solely about expanding government. It was the entire goal of the movement.

How do they "regulate homosexual relationships"?

They don't regulate them, married people aren't regulated in any way.

They aren't? Then how do people get a divorce?

What they regulate, coming from the marriage and divorce and death, is the change in status. They're not regulating the actual relationship itself, more the status for tax and other purposes based around govt things like inheritance tax.


Do you really think, as was mentioned before, that the govt allowed gay marriage in order to have more power over people?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

You do realize that the creation of gay marriage has now empowered government to regulate homosexual relationships, right? The gay marriage agenda was solely about expanding government. It was the entire goal of the movement.

How do they "regulate homosexual relationships"?

They don't regulate them, married people aren't regulated in any way.

They aren't? Then how do people get a divorce?

What they regulate, coming from the marriage and divorce and death, is the change in status. They're not regulating the actual relationship itself, more the status for tax and other purposes based around govt things like inheritance tax.


Do you really think, as was mentioned before, that the govt allowed gay marriage in order to have more power over people?

Well changing the status is regulating. If not, you would be able to get a divorce by chanting around an open fire pit and saying "divorce" three times.

Government didn't allow gay marriage--the Supreme court did. Government held votes that revealed society didn't want to accept gay marriages. The courts felt that voters should not have the right to make such decisions--the court should.

That's besides the fact no government ever disallowed gay marriages. If you wanted to get married to your "whatever" you simply found a religion willing to marry you, and you were married. Gay marriage had to do with government benefits......supposedly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

You do realize that the creation of gay marriage has now empowered government to regulate homosexual relationships, right? The gay marriage agenda was solely about expanding government. It was the entire goal of the movement.

How do they "regulate homosexual relationships"?

They don't regulate them, married people aren't regulated in any way.

They aren't? Then how do people get a divorce?

What they regulate, coming from the marriage and divorce and death, is the change in status. They're not regulating the actual relationship itself, more the status for tax and other purposes based around govt things like inheritance tax.


Do you really think, as was mentioned before, that the govt allowed gay marriage in order to have more power over people?

Well changing the status is regulating. If not, you would be able to get a divorce by chanting around an open fire pit and saying "divorce" three times.

Government didn't allow gay marriage--the Supreme court did. Government held votes that revealed society didn't want to accept gay marriages. The courts felt that voters should not have the right to make such decisions--the court should.

That's besides the fact no government ever disallowed gay marriages. If you wanted to get married to your "whatever" you simply found a religion willing to marry you, and you were married. Gay marriage had to do with government benefits......supposedly.

I see a distinction between "a relationship" and a "marriage". My relationship is what I do day to day. A marriage is merely the formality of being married and being able to get certain things from the government.

The Supreme Court happens to be 1/3rd of the US govt, by the way. Congress and the Presidency have accepted this. Mainly because Congress when through the process of writing the amendment and the states even ratified it, way back when. So, really, it's not just the Supreme Court anyway.

The people revealed they didn't want to accept gay marriage, the country was formed on the basis that individuals had rights and were protected from mob rule. Shocking, hey?

So, the principles of the country came through after 244 years, what is shocking is that it took that long.

No govt ever disallowed gay marriage. Not true. Disallowing in this context requires the allowing of gay marriage and then the prevention thereafter. I'm sure it happened in California.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You do realize that the creation of gay marriage has now empowered government to regulate homosexual relationships, right? The gay marriage agenda was solely about expanding government. It was the entire goal of the movement.

How do they "regulate homosexual relationships"?

They don't regulate them, married people aren't regulated in any way.

They aren't? Then how do people get a divorce?

What they regulate, coming from the marriage and divorce and death, is the change in status. They're not regulating the actual relationship itself, more the status for tax and other purposes based around govt things like inheritance tax.


Do you really think, as was mentioned before, that the govt allowed gay marriage in order to have more power over people?

Well changing the status is regulating. If not, you would be able to get a divorce by chanting around an open fire pit and saying "divorce" three times.

Government didn't allow gay marriage--the Supreme court did. Government held votes that revealed society didn't want to accept gay marriages. The courts felt that voters should not have the right to make such decisions--the court should.

That's besides the fact no government ever disallowed gay marriages. If you wanted to get married to your "whatever" you simply found a religion willing to marry you, and you were married. Gay marriage had to do with government benefits......supposedly.

I see a distinction between "a relationship" and a "marriage". My relationship is what I do day to day. A marriage is merely the formality of being married and being able to get certain things from the government.

The Supreme Court happens to be 1/3rd of the US govt, by the way. Congress and the Presidency have accepted this. Mainly because Congress when through the process of writing the amendment and the states even ratified it, way back when. So, really, it's not just the Supreme Court anyway.

The people revealed they didn't want to accept gay marriage, the country was formed on the basis that individuals had rights and were protected from mob rule. Shocking, hey?

So, the principles of the country came through after 244 years, what is shocking is that it took that long.

No govt ever disallowed gay marriage. Not true. Disallowing in this context requires the allowing of gay marriage and then the prevention thereafter. I'm sure it happened in California.

No, by disallowing, I meant that no government ever stopped any marriage, they just didn't recognize it, and yes, that was by the will of the people.

Of course as I stated earlier, when marriage becomes such a joke, you will realize why we had limitations on it in the first place. When sister can marry brother, mother can marry son, Grandpa can marry dog, it will be easy to recognize how the 14th was bastardized by liberal activists. After all, if we can't disallow gay marriages because of government benefits, we dan't disallow anybody, and that will be future of marriage in our country.

Before you respond by saying that will never happen, think of how people would have reacted if you could transport yourself back 40 years ago, went to a bar, and told people you were from the future, and that gays would be allowed to marry under the rule of law, they would be able to sue a bakery out of business for refusing to participate; they would be able to adopt children. They probably would have beaten the hell out of you and told you that would never happen in our country.

Liberalism is like cancer. It works slowly, but destroys everything in it's path. By the time you realize it, it's much too late to do anything about it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How do they "regulate homosexual relationships"?

They don't regulate them, married people aren't regulated in any way.

They aren't? Then how do people get a divorce?

What they regulate, coming from the marriage and divorce and death, is the change in status. They're not regulating the actual relationship itself, more the status for tax and other purposes based around govt things like inheritance tax.


Do you really think, as was mentioned before, that the govt allowed gay marriage in order to have more power over people?

Well changing the status is regulating. If not, you would be able to get a divorce by chanting around an open fire pit and saying "divorce" three times.

Government didn't allow gay marriage--the Supreme court did. Government held votes that revealed society didn't want to accept gay marriages. The courts felt that voters should not have the right to make such decisions--the court should.

That's besides the fact no government ever disallowed gay marriages. If you wanted to get married to your "whatever" you simply found a religion willing to marry you, and you were married. Gay marriage had to do with government benefits......supposedly.

I see a distinction between "a relationship" and a "marriage". My relationship is what I do day to day. A marriage is merely the formality of being married and being able to get certain things from the government.

The Supreme Court happens to be 1/3rd of the US govt, by the way. Congress and the Presidency have accepted this. Mainly because Congress when through the process of writing the amendment and the states even ratified it, way back when. So, really, it's not just the Supreme Court anyway.

The people revealed they didn't want to accept gay marriage, the country was formed on the basis that individuals had rights and were protected from mob rule. Shocking, hey?

So, the principles of the country came through after 244 years, what is shocking is that it took that long.

No govt ever disallowed gay marriage. Not true. Disallowing in this context requires the allowing of gay marriage and then the prevention thereafter. I'm sure it happened in California.

No, by disallowing, I meant that no government ever stopped any marriage, they just didn't recognize it, and yes, that was by the will of the people.

Of course as I stated earlier, when marriage becomes such a joke, you will realize why we had limitations on it in the first place. When sister can marry brother, mother can marry son, Grandpa can marry dog, it will be easy to recognize how the 14th was bastardized by liberal activists. After all, if we can't disallow gay marriages because of government benefits, we dan't disallow anybody, and that will be future of marriage in our country.

Before you respond by saying that will never happen, think of how people would have reacted if you could transport yourself back 40 years ago, went to a bar, and told people you were from the future, and that gays would be allowed to marry under the rule of law, they would be able to sue a bakery out of business for refusing to participate; they would be able to adopt children. They probably would have beaten the hell out of you and told you that would never happen in our country.

Liberalism is like cancer. It works slowly, but destroys everything in it's path. By the time you realize it, it's much too late to do anything about it.

But direct family relations can't marry, and no animal can ever consent to marriage, so.... you're talking some fantasy novel, not reality.
If we can't disallow anyone, then maybe marriage will stop being about benefits, and just be about marriage, and then, maybe, it'll all make some sense.

Okay, 40 years ago people would say that gay marriage wouldn't happen. But there's a big difference between gay marriage and marrying your dog, or marrying someone who you already can have many of these benefits from.

No, Liberalism isn't a cancer, without liberalism you'd be working down a mine or a substance farmer.

Many of the Founding Fathers were liberal for their time. CHANGE is bad for some people. What do you think George III thought about the change in 1776? Probably wasn't happy at Liberalism being like cancer, right? However for the MAJORITY of people Liberalism worked.

Now, we can generalize here till the birds come home. I'm more Liberal than Conservative, however I'm more or less my own person. I see stupid shit on both sides. Liberalism isn't necessarily good because it's Liberalism, the same from Conservatism.

What is good is people who have principles and they stand by those principles and those principles come from thought, and there are reasons why things should happen. This doesn't necessarily happen for most people, regardless of their political leanings.

So when the left shout down the right or the right the left, it baffles me, because they're generally both talking crap.

 

[kaz]

Not doing anything wrong. Well, in the age of legitimate corruption you weren't breaking the law. Doing anything wrong, well.... you were screwing over the system, you were screwing over tax payers. You were an unnecessary cog in a system that didn't need to be there. Who wouldn't try and make money where they can make money? I'm not saying you're a bad person, as you say, the govt set up a bad system that allowed corruption as legitimate business.

In the UK, your business wouldn't exist. The govt would buy this equipment, so wouldn't need to rent it out.

This is the problem. The right say it needs to be private, they make systems which are private, but then many people miss out, so the govt goes in and sets things up to make sure poorer people get private stuff, and that's where the problems lie.

Without medicare and all of that, the UK does fine. It merely has the stuff it needs and gives it to those who need it. It doesn't make huge profits for people who are unnecessary.

Well I didn't do anything wrong. I was just an employee there and several other medical companies afterwards. The companies did all of these things. I just did what I was told to do.

But that was the only way to get government business: go by their standards. We couldn't sell them the equipment if we wanted to. They rented the equipment and that was it. Who were we to argue?

There were dirty dealings going on though. We used to get business from social workers. My employer always made the holidays nice for them if you know what I mean.

Things didn't change until Reagan got elected. After that, government agencies would buy the equipment just like private insurance did. But it took Reagan to initiate it. Social workers could no longer suggest a medical equipment supplier. They had to give the patients a list of companies and they got to choose what company they wanted to deal with.

It's very hard to find politicians that actually do what is right in the US. Everyone is on the take somehow. Makes you wonder why people keep voting for the same two parties over and over and over and over and over again.

I don't wonder why, I know why.

Everybody wants to be on the side that's winning. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you just wasted your vote. He or she has no chance of winning.

This is not to mention the fact that most people vote like me. I don't vote for a candidate because of their great ideas, I vote for my candidate to keep the other candidate out.

If Trump loses steam and runs on a third party ticket, I wouldn't vote for him and most of his current supporters wouldn't either. It's not that I'm in love with any of the other Republican candidates, it's that I really don't want to see Hillary in the White House again.

Love it or hate it, that's the way we do things in this country.

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

 

[kaz]

LOL, so when I say we have a government controlled monstrosity for a healthcare system, you refute me by blasting the system. Classic. And you didn't address the ridiculous position that you think the solution to a government controlled wasteful, expensive system is for the entity ******* it up, government, to take it over. Can't make it up.

Actually, the solution is to move towards free markets. Obamacare is the completely wrong direction. Health insurance should be like other insurance, it should protect you from catastrophic losses. Rather ObamaCARE moves us towards managed care where people get for free that which they should most pay for themselves, tat which they can afford.

Most of the corruption comes from the PRIVATE PART of the system. So, your solution to private corruption in the healthcare system is to give MORE of it to the private sector.

I didn't say the system was good. The system is mostly private. Hence why I blast the system.

What I've done quite a few times is point to the public systems elsewhere as examples of places with LESS CORRUPTION.

So if you could have a system with less corruption, less cost, for the same quality, why wouldn't you go for it?

The main problem is a system of private and public together. The checks are not there that prevent corruption, nor the willingness to solve the issue.

So, separate private and public and let the public decide.

In the UK there is private and public healthcare. What do people choose?

Figures and Facts About Uk Private Healthcare

"In 2007, people spent £520 million on private health with £146 million and that going on cosmetic surgery bills. In 2008 the total had fallen to £515 million but the spending on cosmetic procedures had increased to £170 million. "

While the NHS costs..

"The overall income for the private health sector in the UK in 2007 was £3.2 billion."

"Four and a quarter million people in the UK had private medical insurance as the start of 2008. Private medical insurance and schemes for self-insurance was in place for nearly 7.5 million people, over 12% of the UK’s population."

So, 12% of people choose to have some kind of private health insurance. What's wrong with that? 88% choose the public system, 12% the private system.

It's clear which is the most popular, isn't it? So why not have such a system in the US, a private system which is completely separate from the public system? What are you afraid of?

You need to learn how free markets work and why what you are saying makes you a ridiculous man. A free market punishes corruption. Only government can maintain a corrupt system because only government can remove the choice from consumers, which is exactly what government has been doing more and more extensively for decades

No it doesn't.

Corruption can go majorly unchecked and people get away with it.

Look at the great depression. Why did it happen?

Govt is the only thing that will often reign in the corruption. The problem is many politicians will want a piece of the pie. Which is why people should vote properly.

Inefficient companies charge too high a price and they lose in the market place. That isn't happening in medical care because of government. Have you ever taken an economics class? Do you have any idea how markets work?

You need to learn how free markets work and why what you are saying makes you a ridiculous man. A free market punishes corruption. Only government can maintain a corrupt system because only government can remove the choice from consumers, which is exactly what government has been doing more and more extensively for decades

No it doesn't.

Corruption can go majorly unchecked and people get away with it.

Look at the great depression. Why did it happen?

Govt is the only thing that will often reign in the corruption. The problem is many politicians will want a piece of the pie. Which is why people should vote properly.

Inefficient companies charge too high a price and they lose in the market place. That isn't happening in medical care because of government. Have you ever taken an economics class? Do you have any idea how markets work?

Really, as if this is the only scenario that happens in capitalism. Actually what happens is companies get themselves into a position where they don't need to compete with other, by having monopolies and the like, and then do all the corruption they like.

Europe charges Microsoft with abuse of monopoly again

If capitalism is so great, then why did Microsoft get charged with abuse of monoploy. Surely under your "nothing bad happens in capitalism" this wouldn't happen.

The Ten Largest Global Business Corruption Cases

Oh, and these companies didn't engage in corruption either.

In the US you don't even need to "bribe" government officials, you just put money into their super PACs and all that "legitimate nonsense".

Corruption happens all over. People have something to offer, some opportunity, another company wants it, so they'll make sure they get it by flashing the cash and making sure some people get rich out of it.

Without governments, monopolies would be a major, MAJOR part of everyone's lives. There'd probably be only a few controlling everything. With Microsoft they had to try and keep things separate because otherwise no other company would ever stand a chance and Microsoft would control it all, meaning that they wouldn't need to compete.

So you only buy the best product at the best price sometimes? You don't always do that? Can you give me some examples of when you don't do that so I know where capitalism doesn't work?

As for monopolies, having the best product for the best price only works as long as you maintain that, once someone builds a better mousetrap you lose that monopoly. Well, except when government enforces monopolies. Only government can use force to make us pick a product which is not the best product at the best price.

Well, not you of course since you don't always pick the best product at the best price, but for the rest of us who do

♪ Happy ever after in the marketplace ♫

no one shops around while riding an ambulance.

pickles are sour

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, Liberalism isn't a cancer, without liberalism you'd be working down a mine or a substance farmer.
.

stupid stupid liberal has been told 46 times that survive in a Republican capitalist system you have to provide the best jobs and products possible. Why is a liberal always too stupid to learn?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Many of the Founding Fathers were liberal for their time. CHANGE is bad for some people.

stupid stupid stupid liberal has learned 47 times that change does not mean liberalism.
If it did Hitler and Jefferson were both liberals. How can a liberal be so stupid?? Liberalism is the cancer of pure ignorance and it has colonized our country.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

they're generally both talking crap.

if the right is talking crap present your most substantive example or admit to being far too stupid to be here.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

BBAs are ridiculous propaganda.

Newt's passed the House and fell 2 short in Senate. Today debt would be $0 not $20 trillion!! Fiscal responsibility is propaganda to a lib commie traitor studying for his GED

Nonsensical propaganda for big spender, big tax cut for the rich and giant corps PUBS. For dupes only.

Translation: "I cannot refute anything, so I will simply spray explosive diarrhea everywhere."

Franco is proud to be stupid and liberal. pub pub hater dupe is his best argument!! He is a GED student at best!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well I didn't do anything wrong. I was just an employee there and several other medical companies afterwards. The companies did all of these things. I just did what I was told to do.

But that was the only way to get government business: go by their standards. We couldn't sell them the equipment if we wanted to. They rented the equipment and that was it. Who were we to argue?

There were dirty dealings going on though. We used to get business from social workers. My employer always made the holidays nice for them if you know what I mean.

Things didn't change until Reagan got elected. After that, government agencies would buy the equipment just like private insurance did. But it took Reagan to initiate it. Social workers could no longer suggest a medical equipment supplier. They had to give the patients a list of companies and they got to choose what company they wanted to deal with.

It's very hard to find politicians that actually do what is right in the US. Everyone is on the take somehow. Makes you wonder why people keep voting for the same two parties over and over and over and over and over again.

I don't wonder why, I know why.

Everybody wants to be on the side that's winning. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you just wasted your vote. He or she has no chance of winning.

This is not to mention the fact that most people vote like me. I don't vote for a candidate because of their great ideas, I vote for my candidate to keep the other candidate out.

If Trump loses steam and runs on a third party ticket, I wouldn't vote for him and most of his current supporters wouldn't either. It's not that I'm in love with any of the other Republican candidates, it's that I really don't want to see Hillary in the White House again.

Love it or hate it, that's the way we do things in this country.

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They aren't? Then how do people get a divorce?

What they regulate, coming from the marriage and divorce and death, is the change in status. They're not regulating the actual relationship itself, more the status for tax and other purposes based around govt things like inheritance tax.


Do you really think, as was mentioned before, that the govt allowed gay marriage in order to have more power over people?

Well changing the status is regulating. If not, you would be able to get a divorce by chanting around an open fire pit and saying "divorce" three times.

Government didn't allow gay marriage--the Supreme court did. Government held votes that revealed society didn't want to accept gay marriages. The courts felt that voters should not have the right to make such decisions--the court should.

That's besides the fact no government ever disallowed gay marriages. If you wanted to get married to your "whatever" you simply found a religion willing to marry you, and you were married. Gay marriage had to do with government benefits......supposedly.

I see a distinction between "a relationship" and a "marriage". My relationship is what I do day to day. A marriage is merely the formality of being married and being able to get certain things from the government.

The Supreme Court happens to be 1/3rd of the US govt, by the way. Congress and the Presidency have accepted this. Mainly because Congress when through the process of writing the amendment and the states even ratified it, way back when. So, really, it's not just the Supreme Court anyway.

The people revealed they didn't want to accept gay marriage, the country was formed on the basis that individuals had rights and were protected from mob rule. Shocking, hey?

So, the principles of the country came through after 244 years, what is shocking is that it took that long.

No govt ever disallowed gay marriage. Not true. Disallowing in this context requires the allowing of gay marriage and then the prevention thereafter. I'm sure it happened in California.

No, by disallowing, I meant that no government ever stopped any marriage, they just didn't recognize it, and yes, that was by the will of the people.

Of course as I stated earlier, when marriage becomes such a joke, you will realize why we had limitations on it in the first place. When sister can marry brother, mother can marry son, Grandpa can marry dog, it will be easy to recognize how the 14th was bastardized by liberal activists. After all, if we can't disallow gay marriages because of government benefits, we dan't disallow anybody, and that will be future of marriage in our country.

Before you respond by saying that will never happen, think of how people would have reacted if you could transport yourself back 40 years ago, went to a bar, and told people you were from the future, and that gays would be allowed to marry under the rule of law, they would be able to sue a bakery out of business for refusing to participate; they would be able to adopt children. They probably would have beaten the hell out of you and told you that would never happen in our country.

Liberalism is like cancer. It works slowly, but destroys everything in it's path. By the time you realize it, it's much too late to do anything about it.

But direct family relations can't marry, and no animal can ever consent to marriage, so.... you're talking some fantasy novel, not reality.
If we can't disallow anyone, then maybe marriage will stop being about benefits, and just be about marriage, and then, maybe, it'll all make some sense.

Okay, 40 years ago people would say that gay marriage wouldn't happen. But there's a big difference between gay marriage and marrying your dog, or marrying someone who you already can have many of these benefits from.

No, Liberalism isn't a cancer, without liberalism you'd be working down a mine or a substance farmer.

Many of the Founding Fathers were liberal for their time. CHANGE is bad for some people. What do you think George III thought about the change in 1776? Probably wasn't happy at Liberalism being like cancer, right? However for the MAJORITY of people Liberalism worked.

Now, we can generalize here till the birds come home. I'm more Liberal than Conservative, however I'm more or less my own person. I see stupid shit on both sides. Liberalism isn't necessarily good because it's Liberalism, the same from Conservatism.

What is good is people who have principles and they stand by those principles and those principles come from thought, and there are reasons why things should happen. This doesn't necessarily happen for most people, regardless of their political leanings.

So when the left shout down the right or the right the left, it baffles me, because they're generally both talking crap.

The reason people can't marry a family member or pet is because it hasn't been challenged yet. Give it a few years or decades, you'll see what I'm talking about.

The Supreme Court cannot rule that marriage is explicit to hedero and homo couples. Marriage of any kind isn't covered in the US Constitution. They used an amendment not intended for such perversion to justify their ruling. And since you can't use any amendment to apply to certain people only, it has to apply to everybody. And that's why if the SC hears a case of a mother and son marriage, they have to rule in their favor. Those two people should not be denied benefits that other married people have. That is now written in stone.

 

[francoHFW]

BBAs are ridiculous propaganda.

Newt's passed the House and fell 2 short in Senate. Today debt would be $0 not $20 trillion!! Fiscal responsibility is propaganda to a lib commie traitor studying for his GED

Nonsensical propaganda for big spender, big tax cut for the rich and giant corps PUBS. For dupes only.

Translation: "I cannot refute anything, so I will simply spray explosive diarrhea everywhere."

Franco is proud to be stupid and liberal. pub pub hater dupe is his best argument!! He is a GED student at best!

Only the story of the New BS Fox etc GOP the last 30 years. A disgrace, Soviet dupe lol.

 

[kaz]

It's very hard to find politicians that actually do what is right in the US. Everyone is on the take somehow. Makes you wonder why people keep voting for the same two parties over and over and over and over and over again.

I don't wonder why, I know why.

Everybody wants to be on the side that's winning. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you just wasted your vote. He or she has no chance of winning.

This is not to mention the fact that most people vote like me. I don't vote for a candidate because of their great ideas, I vote for my candidate to keep the other candidate out.

If Trump loses steam and runs on a third party ticket, I wouldn't vote for him and most of his current supporters wouldn't either. It's not that I'm in love with any of the other Republican candidates, it's that I really don't want to see Hillary in the White House again.

Love it or hate it, that's the way we do things in this country.

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

Actually, in that example I did vote for Romney, my first Republican vote for President since HW in 1988. Obama stopped the Democrat trend of threatening to be a Marxist and is one. And Romney has actual business experience, I was willing to give him a shot.

However, McCain? W? W? Dole? HW? HW? I don't see the difference between them and Democrats.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What they regulate, coming from the marriage and divorce and death, is the change in status. They're not regulating the actual relationship itself, more the status for tax and other purposes based around govt things like inheritance tax.


Do you really think, as was mentioned before, that the govt allowed gay marriage in order to have more power over people?

Well changing the status is regulating. If not, you would be able to get a divorce by chanting around an open fire pit and saying "divorce" three times.

Government didn't allow gay marriage--the Supreme court did. Government held votes that revealed society didn't want to accept gay marriages. The courts felt that voters should not have the right to make such decisions--the court should.

That's besides the fact no government ever disallowed gay marriages. If you wanted to get married to your "whatever" you simply found a religion willing to marry you, and you were married. Gay marriage had to do with government benefits......supposedly.

I see a distinction between "a relationship" and a "marriage". My relationship is what I do day to day. A marriage is merely the formality of being married and being able to get certain things from the government.

The Supreme Court happens to be 1/3rd of the US govt, by the way. Congress and the Presidency have accepted this. Mainly because Congress when through the process of writing the amendment and the states even ratified it, way back when. So, really, it's not just the Supreme Court anyway.

The people revealed they didn't want to accept gay marriage, the country was formed on the basis that individuals had rights and were protected from mob rule. Shocking, hey?

So, the principles of the country came through after 244 years, what is shocking is that it took that long.

No govt ever disallowed gay marriage. Not true. Disallowing in this context requires the allowing of gay marriage and then the prevention thereafter. I'm sure it happened in California.

No, by disallowing, I meant that no government ever stopped any marriage, they just didn't recognize it, and yes, that was by the will of the people.

Of course as I stated earlier, when marriage becomes such a joke, you will realize why we had limitations on it in the first place. When sister can marry brother, mother can marry son, Grandpa can marry dog, it will be easy to recognize how the 14th was bastardized by liberal activists. After all, if we can't disallow gay marriages because of government benefits, we dan't disallow anybody, and that will be future of marriage in our country.

Before you respond by saying that will never happen, think of how people would have reacted if you could transport yourself back 40 years ago, went to a bar, and told people you were from the future, and that gays would be allowed to marry under the rule of law, they would be able to sue a bakery out of business for refusing to participate; they would be able to adopt children. They probably would have beaten the hell out of you and told you that would never happen in our country.

Liberalism is like cancer. It works slowly, but destroys everything in it's path. By the time you realize it, it's much too late to do anything about it.

But direct family relations can't marry, and no animal can ever consent to marriage, so.... you're talking some fantasy novel, not reality.
If we can't disallow anyone, then maybe marriage will stop being about benefits, and just be about marriage, and then, maybe, it'll all make some sense.

Okay, 40 years ago people would say that gay marriage wouldn't happen. But there's a big difference between gay marriage and marrying your dog, or marrying someone who you already can have many of these benefits from.

No, Liberalism isn't a cancer, without liberalism you'd be working down a mine or a substance farmer.

Many of the Founding Fathers were liberal for their time. CHANGE is bad for some people. What do you think George III thought about the change in 1776? Probably wasn't happy at Liberalism being like cancer, right? However for the MAJORITY of people Liberalism worked.

Now, we can generalize here till the birds come home. I'm more Liberal than Conservative, however I'm more or less my own person. I see stupid shit on both sides. Liberalism isn't necessarily good because it's Liberalism, the same from Conservatism.

What is good is people who have principles and they stand by those principles and those principles come from thought, and there are reasons why things should happen. This doesn't necessarily happen for most people, regardless of their political leanings.

So when the left shout down the right or the right the left, it baffles me, because they're generally both talking crap.

The reason people can't marry a family member or pet is because it hasn't been challenged yet. Give it a few years or decades, you'll see what I'm talking about.

The Supreme Court cannot rule that marriage is explicit to hedero and homo couples. Marriage of any kind isn't covered in the US Constitution. They used an amendment not intended for such perversion to justify their ruling. And since you can't use any amendment to apply to certain people only, it has to apply to everybody. And that's why if the SC hears a case of a mother and son marriage, they have to rule in their favor. Those two people should not be denied benefits that other married people have. That is now written in stone.

No, I don't think I will see what you're talking about, actually. Your claim is based on nothing.

You didn't include children in your spiel, why? Because children are minors, they can't consent to marriage. Sex with a minor is rape. The same goes for anyone or anything which can't consent. That would be animals.

Okay, if marriage applies to all people, does this mean children? No, it does not. Why? Because children have limited rights and limited responsibilities. What rights do animals have under the constitution? None, not one right for animals is protected.

So, an animal doesn't have a right to get married, it can't consent to marriage anyway, and all marriage has to be consenting, so, that defeats that part of the argument.

As for family members, again, they already get a lot of the stuff handed out by the govt anyway.

But if you say no two people should be denied benefits that other married people should have, then this means SINGLE PEOPLE should get such rights. Which then blows all your argument out of the water anyway.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's very hard to find politicians that actually do what is right in the US. Everyone is on the take somehow. Makes you wonder why people keep voting for the same two parties over and over and over and over and over again.

I don't wonder why, I know why.

Everybody wants to be on the side that's winning. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you just wasted your vote. He or she has no chance of winning.

This is not to mention the fact that most people vote like me. I don't vote for a candidate because of their great ideas, I vote for my candidate to keep the other candidate out.

If Trump loses steam and runs on a third party ticket, I wouldn't vote for him and most of his current supporters wouldn't either. It's not that I'm in love with any of the other Republican candidates, it's that I really don't want to see Hillary in the White House again.

Love it or hate it, that's the way we do things in this country.

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

People who see the choice of republicans or not voting, wow, such intelligence......