mountainclmbr
New member
What change, specifically, are they pushing? I have my hunches, but want to understand what they are hinting at.
Change = socialism
Where are the statistics that letting gays get married will be harmful to our society? Conservative Christians do not vote on that issue based on facts.it's not facts that appeal to liberals, it's emotive.
Is this some kind of joke that I didn't get? What does that even mean? Is some candidate advocating that we bring Chinese troops here to keep watch over the dangerous plebeians?it means they'll activate all those foreign troops on our soil.
These are the reasons why so many Democrats and Republicans alike can get together to support Ron Paul, even though he is a Republican.
Fine, then pay more. Just don't demand that I pay more taxes for these services. Or better yet, set up to supply these services privately, getting government out of it.liberals are willing to pay more taxes for services we deem important
That would mean LESS government, but liberal solutions ALWAYS involve MORE government. (I usually wouldn't say always, but I think in this case it applies.) This is my second response to liberals restoring proper government function, my first was HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HALiberals want to restore proper government function
I think the general plan is (1) spend years demonizing Bush and the republican party, (2) say that we need change, and (3) claim to be the change that is needed. I think all they are pushing is their party ... the specific change needed is to have democrats in power.What change, specifically, are they pushing? I have my hunches, but want to understand what they are hinting at.
Agreed. Let's get the government out of marriage altogether.Marriage is a human, not legal, status.
"Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," -Alberto Gonzales in a letter to the senate January 17, 2007Warrentless wiretapping of Americans- Hasn't happened
The Oklahoma City Bombing was an act of war? Which country should we retaliate against with military action? Unless it is sanctioned by a sovereign state, it is not an act of war. Attacking Afghanistan was justified. The Taliban government was harboring and funding terrorists. An individual acting on his or her own behalf planning a bombing is not an enemy combatant, but a common criminal. The reason for the bombing should not determine whether they have the right to a fair trial or not.Terrorist acts ARE acts of War.
What you have described here doesn't sound good to me either.All the new laws that would cost those additional tax dollar YOU are willing to spend DO limit liberty (defined by the LACK of need to ask permission). I don't want permission to see a doctor or get the treatment I want from the Physician I prefer and I don't want to pay more taxes to have LESS liberty.
That would mean LESS government, but liberal solutions ALWAYS involve MORE government. (I usually wouldn't say always, but I think in this case it applies.) This is my second response to liberals restoring proper government function, my first was HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA
I pay and volunteer my time to help my community. The thing is, this is how a republic works. The majority elect legislators who share their views and those legislators enact laws to reflect it. If the majority think the Patriot Act is cool then I have to live with it, but I still get to vote for politicians who will vote my way and I get to try to convince people that it is wrong.Fine, then pay more. Just don't demand that I pay more taxes for these services. Or better yet, set up to supply these services privately, getting government out of it.