jerseyhoya wrote:

Youseff wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: while the other is the other is the overturning of millennia of understand of the institution of marriage?

I don't get why anyone would want to characterize something they are supposedly in favor of as glibly as this.

I also don't think abortion is murder.

jerseyhoya wrote:One is the murder of an unborn human being while the other is the other is the overturning of millennia of understand of the institution of marriage?

jerseyhoya wrote:One is the murder of an unborn human being

jerseyhoya wrote:murder of an unborn human

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:the fact that werthless and jh can't see the difference between abortion and gay marriage is just stellar.

One is the murder of an unborn human being while the other is the other is the overturning of millennia of understand of the institution of marriage?

the definition of "human being" in this instance is vague and very much a gray area. homosexuals, on the other hand, are actual people who do not have the full rights that others so and that is fundamentally wrong.

The problem is this is just, like, your opinion, man.

slugsrbad wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Youseff wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: while the other is the other is the overturning of millennia of understand of the institution of marriage?

I don't get why anyone would want to characterize something they are supposedly in favor of as glibly as this.

I also don't think abortion is murder.

jerseyhoya wrote:One is the murder of an unborn human being while the other is the other is the overturning of millennia of understand of the institution of marriage?

jerseyhoya wrote:One is the murder of an unborn human being

jerseyhoya wrote:murder of an unborn human

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:the fact that werthless and jh can't see the difference between abortion and gay marriage is just stellar.

One is the murder of an unborn human being while the other is the other is the overturning of millennia of understand of the institution of marriage?

the definition of "human being" in this instance is vague and very much a gray area. homosexuals, on the other hand, are actual people who do not have the full rights that others so and that is fundamentally wrong.

The problem is this is just, like, your opinion, man.

neither one of these are opinions.

there is a very real debate going on about when "life" begins. denying people their rights is also fundamentally wrong.

cool quote, though.

jerseyhoya wrote:Jesus fucking christ. How many posts have I made in politics threads over the past 7 years? 10,000 maybe? That anyone could think that I agreed with either of those statements is amazing.

Are you all PtK in disguise not actually reading what people write?

Monkeyboy wrote:Well, I'm sure the guy knew, as any person higher up in any organization/company knows, that they can be held accountable for their actions if their actions bring bad publicity to that organization, even if it seems unfair. My mother was state director for MADD way back in the day and she had a whole list of things she could lose her job for, such as getting a DUI or just saying something stupid. This isn't abnormal and I'm sure people lose their jobs for ridiculous stuff all the time It's just not as high profile as this. Truthfully, the guy probably shouldn't lose his job for expressing an opinion, even an opinion as stupid as this, but that's the way it's always been. The fact that the right is doing so much handwringing over one rich guy just shows where their priorities are. American workers are suffering right now and the rights to organize and even negotiate contracts are being attacked by the right, but they're spending all their time talking about one guy who doesn't really need their help, at least not in the way millions of others need it. They scream about hypocrisy, but don't even notice their own. "Why doesn't the left care about this one rich guy?" I don't know, man, why don't you care about the millions?

jerseyhoya wrote:Jesus fucking christ. How many posts have I made in politics threads over the past 7 years? 10,000 maybe? That anyone could think that I agreed with either of those statements is amazing.

Are you all PtK in disguise not actually reading what people write?

Monkeyboy wrote:The fact that the right is doing so much handwringing over one rich guy just shows where their priorities are. American workers are suffering right now and the rights to organize and even negotiate contracts are being attacked by the right, but they're spending all their time talking about one guy who doesn't really need their help, at least not in the way millions of others need it. They scream about hypocrisy, but don't even notice their own. "Why doesn't the left care about this one rich guy?" I don't know, man, why don't you care about the millions?

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) says in a new interview that it would be too costly for Republicans to reinstate some of the more popular provisions of Obamacare if and when the law is repealed, but that Republicans should look for alternatives.
The former GOP vice presidential nominee was asked on Bloomberg's "Political Capital with Al Hunt" about whether Republicans would keep provisions like requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions, keeping kids on their parents' insurance until they are 26 years old and barring insurance companies from having different rates for those whose jobs include physical labor.
The first two provisions are among the most popular parts of Obamacare, which as a whole is not popular. But Ryan says such provisions would also drive up the cost of insurance too much.
"If you look at these kinds of reforms, where they've been tried before — say the state of Kentucky, for example — you basically make it impossible to underwrite insurance," Ryan said, according to an advance transcript. "You dramatically crank up the cost. And you make it hard for people to get affordable health care."
Ryan added that Congress should look at different and more cost-effective ways to accomplish the same kinds of goals.

jerseyhoya wrote:Jesus fucking christ. How many posts have I made in politics threads over the past 7 years? 10,000 maybe? That anyone could think that I agreed with either of those statements is amazing.

Are you all PtK in disguise not actually reading what people write?