On a serious note, I don't really get why we had to fly those bombers over the penninsula. Why provoke them? Just because we can destroy them doesn't mean they can't do some damage first.
They don't like Japanese people so they will nuke Hawaii
They don't like blacks or mexicans so they will nuke LA
They don't like rich white people so they will nuke the capitol
They don't like music so they will nuke Austin
Sigh, fine.
A rather large majority was in favor of it, now a rather large majority is not.
Point is still the same. Public opinion sways with the wind.
I wasn't trying imply anyone was more libertarian than anyone else. I do remember you being less upset about government intrusion into our pocketbooks than gay marriage though. Personally the argument that "it's just going to happen anyways" is more infuriating than a true liberal's stance on finance.
I'll use the rally out though and say I could absolutely be wrong.
People should focus more on their's and less on other's.
That is the quote. I realize it was in the context of this marriage argument but he left the statement open. But the fact that people seem to be able to embrace one part of libertarian philosophy and ignore the others is what frustrates me.
What should we leave alone and what shouldn't we?
Again, he made the statement. Government is actually in the business of being in eveyone else's business. I actually agree more with his statement than he does I bet.
Because the statement was pretty clear. 'there should be no restrictions on who marries who". It wasn't, there should be no restrictions on gay marriage. It was a completely logical response to such a broad statement and a fair question.
So somebody makes a statement like "there should be no restrictions on marriage" and there should be no response to that?
For somebody who likes to call out the smallest errors in other posts that is an interesting argument.
To answer your questions, Christians care, obviously. People ask why Christians have issues with this subject, that is the answer. too bad if you don't like the answer.
My point was that spending more money when are costs per student are already in the top ten doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm sure you knew what my point was but decided to be a dick about it anyways.
This is the problem with public employee pensions. A little money here, a lotta of money there to the right people and like magic, you have some of the best pensions out there. Most companies do not offer those kind of pensions for their employees.