Objection! A girl has to let you touch her without purchase before you make such claims! I know the law. I AM THE LAW.

If you don't think your oversimplified "separation of church and state" understanding of the constitution is an argument against abortion regulation, why bother posting the oversimplified version? What's it got to do with anything discussed here? Adrius brought it up as if it was an argument against abortion/gay marriage regulations. If you didn't agree that it is, why repeat the overly simplistic "separation..." understanding which adds nothing to the discussion?

Pardon me for thinking you posted on the topic with a point.

"Speaking of The Constitution.....somewhere in there it mentions a seperation of church and state, does it not?"

No, it does not. It says that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion nor interfering with anyone's practicing their own religions. It says nothing of "separation." We're free to make laws related to philosophy and concepts of morality all we wish, so long as they don't proclaim a state religion or stop anyone from practicing their own religion. Nothing in the Constitution outlaws making laws which may or may not coincide with religious values. It has nothing to say on that matter. It absolutely does not outlaw legislation which coincides with religious values.

If you believe you have a religious duty/right to kill children, I guess I'd have to at least consider your argument that your right to kill your kids is protected under the first amendment.

"So how can republicans justify banning gay marriage or abortion?"

They believe killing human beings is wrong, no matter how developed. I don't see any establishment of religion nor prohibiting the practice of any religion involved in banning what they consider to be murder. Are you going to offer any argument of how you think it violates the constitution at all?

"Their stance on these subjects have nothing to do with logic or science. Its all based on The Bible. A perfect example of violating our founding father's vision on church and state."

They believe it's bad for society to kill children. That some people who hold this position use the Bible as a basis is irrelevant. You obviously have no idea what the founders' views were regarding church and religion, so I'm confused as to why you're posting random inaccurate thoughts on the topic.

"If republicans would actually read the bible they would realize that Jesus preached tolerance, love and helping his fellow man whenever possible."

If that was their (people against abortion) only argument, I'd agree with you. But it's not, so you're just insulting everyone's intelligence who objects to abortion with more reason than "the Bible says it's bad." Jesus preached love and compassion, not using violence to avoid the consequences of one's actions when it's convenient. He was very clearly more concerned with compassion for human life than he was with helping people avoid responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.

"There is nothing wrong with paying a little extra on your taxes to help out a fellow human being."

There are no limitations to your logic. Why not 100% taxes to maximize the help? Because at some point people stop producing, prices spike, things are scarce, people have less, and everyone is HURT by higher taxes. Without specifying any limits, it's just silly and absolutely false to claim that higher taxes are inherently good and help human beings.

"Freedom, libertys, the right to live your life as you see fit w/o some ahole trying to dictate to me how to live it."

When does this right kick in? Conception? 1 month? 5 months? 8 months? Birth, a point at which no particular development of the offspring takes place?

"Youre seriously gonna bring up the 44oz soda thing? LMAO!! You do realize that you can buy two 20oz bottles of soda, right? Or is that math too complicated for you? "

His point is it's pretty hypocritical to demand MASSIVE government regulation of how you live down to the beverage you drink but object to much less intrusive regulations as if it's on principle. If you want soda police, admit that it's not on principle of limited government and personal freedom that you want to legally kill your kids.

I can respect arguments for legal abortion, but don't pretend your objections are centered on personal freedoms and limited government when you don't think anyone has a right to whatever beverage they want. That's hypocritical and downright silly.

"Michelle Obama was getting ripped by the right for wanting to make our school lunches healthier."

No, she was mocked for being a big government communist trying to limit freedoms and force regulations on parents. It's not the government's job to be the food police for dumb, irresponsible parents. It's systematically inefficient and unjust for government to be involved.

"Or how about the right labeling anyone who wants to preserve our natural resources an 'enviromental wacko'? Havent they read a science book....oh wait, thats right....they dont believe in science. Oops my bad"

Could you be more specific of who was demagogued? If you want to tax me for breathing out carbon dioxide, you're a wacko.

Justinian I,

"The establishment clause means separation of church and state. Why is that so hard to understand?"

Not necessarily. That's an overgeneralization. Why is its language so hard to understand?

Yup. I was originally referring to the one nation under god reference.

Wouldn't everyone say either is fine? Between the corruption, embezzlement, dictators (many of whom we fund!) patting their own backs and demanding payment of tribute from the USA (it's our fault that the ones we have nothing to do with reign over 3rd world hell holes!) of the UN, the illusion that ANY statesmanship goes on there is just another distraction for already-idiotic and ignorant people. Less attention to actual events, actions, oppression, and policies is not what we need. It's a disservice to the world and everyone in it that the UN takes up anyone's money or time.

You can't formalize treating people right. You can't formalize, in an international body, responsible leaders of nations. Have you seen your fellow man? A consensus of international "leaders," most of whom don't really have the consent of those they govern, means little or nothing. It's no substitute for principled people making good decisions; it often doesn't back good decisions, and it never comes up with them.

The statement that there should never be a BS authority over the USA is a good one. Again, the statement neither requires nor presumes any faith or religion to offer this wisdom. I'm not a man of faith, but I like it. Its message offends would-be slave owners and NWO supporters for political reasons. Nobody of faith is offended by its vague "god" reference. It says nothing of anyone's god or lack thereof, it says something of government and foreign relations.

That would be hilarious.

I was on the fence about how much military aid the US gives Israel, but then I remembered that we fund Hamas and terrorists too. Might as well fund both sides to make it fair!

BeoWolfe believes personally in a book to guide his conduct and publicly in limits on extreme behavior. Adrius believes personally in nothing and publicly in any and all control fascists deem necessary to control the masses.

AdriusAvangion,

Ironic signature, for someone condoning using violence to end human life when it's convenient [in order to avoid the consequences of one's own actions]. Not only this, but you try to focus the issue on propaganda, as if men can't legitimately have a position on the topic when the violence is being performed on babies inside women's bodies. Clearly men cannot have opinions on this violence, due to its location! Infallible logic.

I'm with you on the gay marriage thing. We need to sue god for being an ignorant boob who won't let gays create children. WHAT A HATER.

The primary cause of the rapidly increasing cost of care for decades has been government policy & meddling. Consumers don't pay for healthcare the way they pay for most things they consume. In any other sector of the economy, advances result in lower costs.

In 1943 the IRS ruled that employers could pay health-insurance premiums w/pre-tax dollars. Americans, whether privately or publicly insured, tend to be over-insured and generally unaware of the real prices of the services they use. Because so little is payed for out-of-pocket, Americans tend to have little awareness and little incentive to make intelligent decisions regarding their healthcare. Health insurance is so expensive because, to the over-insured, actual services are seemingly so cheap.

Couple this with Americans having the most advanced healthcare in the history of the world, and prices rise steadily. The Affordable Care Act only makes this problem worse, in mandating what levels of care are required to avoid the tax. I'm quite positive I won't need contraception, but I'll be paying for it. I'm quite positive I'll never need STD medication, but I'll be paying for it. Obamacare is filled with policy that makes the problem with our healthcare costs worse, not better.

It's easy to say "prices were already rising! This legislation is innocent!" w/o understanding the problems which were already raising prices--problems Obamacare makes worse, not better.

New/higher taxes: The Flexible Spending Account contributions [pre-tax] cap. The itemized-deduction cap for medical expenses. The removal of the ability to pay for OTC medicine with a pre-tax flexible spending account. The 2.3% excise tax on all medical devices. And the 40% tax on the best insurance (starting in 2018). Isn't the goal for everyone to have the best medical insurance possible? How does a 40% tax on that insurance help anyone get it? How do all of these new taxes make healthcare more affordable?

Obamacare adds to the problems which are [and have been] raising our healthcare costs dramatically. Dictating what coverage people must purchase only adds to the problems resulting from the over-insured overusing our healthcare system today, and that's one thing Obamacare does to a ridiculous extent. All of the taxes contribute more to increasing costs, on top of this.

While Obamacare is obviously not the sole cause of skyrocketing healthcare costs (since that started long before it was passed), the notion that it will reduce the cost of health insurance is laughable. The only thing it does to this end is require people to purchase insurance; but the penalties for not doing so start very small (much less than insurance), and the coverage it requires is the bloated sort which has been inflating health insurance costs for decades.

Many other nations, saddled with oppressive government, have also avoided addressing the real problems with healthcare costs in recent decades. The inevitable result? Rationed care.

dfsf,

How will it "stabilize" the market? And how will it save which jobs? The problem with insurance isn't that it's unstable, its that its costs consistently rise very much. What are you talking about?

"You'll now see a drop in that and more of people who would do that if they got sick and couldn't afford it who will be covered and able to get a lower cost plan through the Obamacare plan and in the end balance out to where you'll see very little change in how business is able to be run in the healthcare industry."

The notion that anything will "balance out" is purely hopeful conjecture based on the fact that more people will be paying into the system, with absolutely no regard or accounting for everything I've discussed above.

Please stop believing propaganda until you have enough knowledge of the topic to address anything I've said above. Preferably everything.

Genesis,

All of our recent presidents have been into debt, bailouts, cronyism, and using the fed to conduct the biggest theft in the history of mankind. Obama's just the worst yet.

Justinian I,

They're both thieves saddling the nation with deflated currency and massive debt. What's funny about it?

Romney used to be pro-abortion. He could care less about abortion; he just cared about getting elected.

I agree that we shouldn't try to stop everyone from killing their kids. Some people insist on using violence to avoid the consequences of their actions, and many will do it whether it's legal or not.

Seeing as Romney could obviously care less about abortion, the only "risk" would be that Republicans would push anti-abortion legislation and he'd have to go along with it. Pretty impossible, especially with a Democrat-controlled senate. Putting the freedom to kill your kids ahead of economic freedom is a bizarre prioritization, since the freedom to kill your kids isn't at risk.

I Like Trains kid,

Income and illegitimacy by race numbers are common knowledge, aren't they? It'd be weird if anybody involved in this discussion wasn't familiar with them.

BiefstukFriet,

lol. Point taken.

Genesis,

The meaningful measure is debt relative to economic productivity. Also, we achieved this debt by copying you, not by embracing the free market principles which had us richer than you (with less debt) until very recently.

As The Yell rightly points out, actual liabilities (for both continents) are far worse than our officially recognized debt at this date. That nobody's acting in a responsible manner is a certainty.