classic liberalism. this is why our country is heading to a depression

leave it to the churches and private charities to take care of the homeless, the orphans, the drug addicts.  clearly the government.  the government should be focused on bigger and better things, like preserving our way of life and keeping the USA free and powerful.  the only involvement the government should have is to keep us safe from disrupting that way of life, from foreign and domestic threats.  public services like police and firefighters should also be around ofc, we need to be kept safe from the murderers/criminals. Infrastructure is another area where the US should be focusing, and clearly on spending money on subsidies or funding illegal alien's education.  dont even bring up welfare.

the government cannot be spending this much money, its money we dont have.  obama has increased the debt by more than double what bush did over 8 years.  what happens when we cant keep borrowing money? world war? its the only way i see us getting out of this economic depression

we should just kill off all homeless, orphans, and drug addicts

blackjack '12

this just shows how delusional you really are
but dont let facts get in the way with your views <- this is a link, i probably have to point it out to you conservatives

i want to see a poll of what people consider themselves, conservative or liberal, based in IQ.  i bet most of the high IQ would be conservative

you liberals want abortion, so that there are less drug addicts/orphans/poor children. explain how thats any better?

abortion does clearly equal genocide of lower class Americans

i didnt say genocide, i say let them fend for themselves

slippery slope arguments. lets take each topic on its own merits.

but i was listening to sean hannity and thats where i got the idea

>new yorker
>don't care

where will the line be drawn IN THE NAME OF LOVE? how is incest different from homosexuality if it's two consenting adults who are in love? why clearly let a father and son get married? the line has been crossed and there is no turning back now. it's going to be fun to see how this plays out in the future. i'll have front row seats, i live in NY



i was about to say...blackjack21 with an original thought process?



want to meet up and share a blunt together?

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/11/poli...-democrats.html

clearly as drastic as i would have thought

where will the line be drawn IN THE NAME OF LOVE? how is incest different from homosexuality if it's two consenting adults who are in love? why clearly let a father and son get married? the line has been crossed and there is no turning back now. it's going to be fun to see how this plays out in the future. i'll have front row seats, i live in NY

nah dude, i dont care enough about this shit i just like trolling joe

the line is drawn on each individual topic. a topic about homosexuality is clearly equatable or compatible. if you have a valid argument that a father should be able to marry his son i suggest you make that case.

lol n1

slippery slope arguments. lets take each topic on its own merits.

clearly a slippery slope argument, a "two consenting adults" and "if you love someone you should be allowed to marry them" argument.

a safe and reasonable response

i have a perfect counter argument for incest already anyway

im still all for it if they put in a fag tax
just like im all for pot legalization if they put the age req at 25 and tax the living fuck out of it

lol 25
18 = die in endless wars
21 = drink
25 = pot

/logic

the research suggests it comes as a detriment to a developing mind including but clearly limited to: organization of brain development, formation of memory, and functionality of higher brain

That is to say 25 is probably still too young, but laws are meant to be broken anyway
more money for police to bust kids for

the war on drugs is such a failure

im still all for it if they put in a fag tax
just like im all for pot legalization if they put the age req at 25 and tax the living fuck out of it

This poop has been edited by blackjack21 on Sun - Jun 26 2011 - 15:37:41

i put edit in brackets

i also think a fat tax is in order. no offense fatties, but if we gonna do [edit]government run[/edit] health care up in here the obese need to pay a lot more, cuz they will be the heaviest (pun intended) med care users

and clearly trolling im completely serious. need to have mandatory yearly checkups and the outcome of the checkup will determine tax you pay that year for med care (taking into consideration athleticism, cardio (yes i mean a treadmill test), diet, blood work, routine physical, overall dermatology scan, age, weight, and family history)

you have a duel scenario. gay and incest. each must be viewed for their own merits, and combining them undermines their individual rights.

generally speaking yes but clearly always. also where do you put the cut off for such a tax

i also think a fat tax is in order. no offense fatties, but if we gonna do [edit]government run[/edit] health care up in here the obese need to pay a lot more, cuz they will be the heaviest (pun intended) med care users

Wrong, because when the reproduction issue is brought up to debate gay marriage people say marriage is about love and clearly sex/reproduction.

Evan I really think you need some perspective, no trolling, but your complete lack of empathy is frightening


Also health is clearly just physical, just because you can run far does clearly mean anything

have you ever seen a 300 lb man that can run 10 miles?

In some states anal and oral sex is illegal, so gay sex is illegal. We are disputing laws we think are unfair, that's the purpose of the gay marriage discussion.

and scott, how the hell can i respect anyone who doesnt even respect themselves by being healthy. you dont have to go to the gym 2 hours a day or spend 2x the amount at the grocery eating organic, just eat the right foods (and less of it), get off your butt and try to be active and you wont be obese. its clearly that hard america