>Why are you for "gay marriage"? Why are you for changing the meaning of a term that has been with us for years? A marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman. Only recently has the definition been rewritten to accommodate homosexuals. Why not call it a "Homosexual Union", which is a more apt description of what it is? This is common sense. You don't go around redefining legal terms willy-nilly.
Why not? It's not "willy-nilly." Two people who love each other would like to say that they're married, so why can't they? Your argument is clearly reactionary.
>Frankly, only a total idiot would advocate a government run healthcare system. I deal with Medicare and Medicaid on a daily basis. You cannot make a cogent argument that government run healthcare is a good thing.
Well, then I guess I'm total idiot. Yup. Are you telling me that the HMO system is a good one? It's awful! I can't imagine a state-run system being much worse.
>Besides, why do it? Our healthcare system is indisputably the best in the world. Not one soul in this nation goes without medical care if they choose to be treated.
And for many, it costs them their livelihoods. That shouldn't be the case.
>At some point, all these liberal social programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare and Food Stamps, etc.) become tantamount to pure socialism and begin to look a lot like communism (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, you remember that, right?).
So, what's wrong with that? Socialism, in itself, isn't evil. As long as it ain't a dictatorship, it doesn't sound too bad to me. I think I combination system where a "socialist" system takes care of the things we need while a "capitalist" system makes a profit off of our wants is ideally the way to go. What's wrong with that?
>I had thought there was hope for you. Hell, I don't think you're going to grow out of this.
Nope, I grew into it.
You're not gonna like me! Your loss.
-Z |
