Another litany of wise verbiage...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I beg to differ-the democrat political party does indeed support gay marriage; it is the democrat voter who does not, at least in the eleven states where referenda were tested.

Is it your contention that conservatives do not support equal rights? :huh:

---

you see the demonisation spin works on you. They support gay marriage because they support equal rights.

If you wish to not support equal rights for ALL then you do not support equal rights....it's that simple. One can't be a champion of equality if one only wants some to be equal

Aw, vid, you forgot the republican principle - everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Hang on though, wasn't that the communist viewpoint too. :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

you see the demonisation spin works on you. They support gay marriage because they support equal rights.

If you wish to not support equal rights for ALL then you do not support equal rights....it's that simple. One can't be a champion of equality if one only wants some to be equal

---

Then you obviously support equal rights for pedophiles; NAMBLA and the whole ball-of-wax, right?

Of course I don't support equal rights for all, and neither do you, vid.

"ALL" is a pretty big blanket, wouldn't you say?

Another example of liberal policy sloppiness borne of inexact usage of language and rhetoric.

I've noticed that about the like of Ted Kennedy and Al Sharpton; when they are slobbering into the microphone, spouting the liberal line, they are loathe to use words like "except", or "but", and love to use the word "all", and here's why (you can try this yourself):

It is extremely difficult to say the words "except" and "but" forcefully, and at full volume, without spitting on the first two or three rows of your audience, however, the word "all" is not possessed of the harsh consonants that lead to spittle spray.

That's why the libs often say stuff they don't really mean, at least when a microphone is at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Then you obviously support equal rights for pedophiles; NAMBLA and the whole ball-of-wax, right?

Of course I don't support equal rights for all, and neither do you, vid.

.

---

Ahh straight away...equal rights for homosexuals brings out the "what next pedophiles?"....an often used tactic of lumping homosexuals in with an evil group as if they go hand in hand.

We are talking equal rights for consenting adults.... your arguement is quite frankly weak.

i had to Google that group to find out who they are...thanks for that

You had to google to find out who the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes were?!?!?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

When liberals in the media or in politics...

---

Any article that starts like that isn't worth reading.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/federal-debt-GDP.gif

I was wondering if anyone knew why debt increased so much (as a percentage of gdp) during bush (1) and reagan's years. At first i assumed it was defence spending during cold war years, but defence spending only increased by about 1% of gdp (compared to pre bush years). So was it just a product of the 80's recession?

Health Spending increased by about 1% GDP too.

The rest were the Tax Cuts and the recession I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Rat has a point. It's good to be a rich or at least well off American, But not so on minimum wage or in a job that doesn't subsidise your health insurance....those people would see their standard of living rise if they lived under the UK system.

The wealthy or comfortable would see little difference.

---

Isn't that what medicaid (or medicare, in this state) is for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

Isn't that what medicaid (or medicare, in this state) is for?

---

Do you think i ignored those?

Manny this is another of those theory not being the same as life examples.
not everyone is eligable for that plus not everything is covered.
In the Uk those under 18, over 65 and on social security all get full coverage and free prescription drugs as well..... (because it's already paid for)
All this coverage for every man woman and child at a cost a lot lower than we pay for medicare/aid for just those that qualify. The NHS have no co-payments either... the full cost is covered.

If one wishes one can take out private coverage as well.

Those that have to pay for prescription drugs only pay a set fee no matter what the cost of the drug...i believe its about $9 at todays rate. Then if the drugs can be sold over the counter cheaper the pharmacy does so thus saving the customer money.