Ah, cap & trade, another idea that Republicans supported until Obama began supporting it.
GabuEx
I've always found this amusing. Wasn't it as recent as 2006 when Republicans were pushing cap and trade and Democrats were pushing something more aggressive. Then as soon as Democrats start supporting cap and trade, Republicans start opposing it.
Yup. This seems to be a pretty consistent trend, where Republicans push for an idea as a sensible, market-based solution, and then when Democrats say "OK, we'll go with that", they're all "LOL WE WERE JUST KIDDING THAT'S A TERRIBLE SOCIALIST IDEA".
So the law Republicans support was in the exact same scope as the one opposed by the democrats? I listened to a LOT of news and I haven't heard anything along the lines this thread is stating.
Dems argue ticket prices could go up. So what? Amtrak is a private corp, but it depends upon federal subsidies - they are in debt for $4 billion already.
Engrish_Major
If we take away federal subsidies for roads, I'll be happy giving up federal subsidies for rail. Amtrak is actually subsidized less (percentage wise) than roads are, which Congressmen conveniently seem to forget. Its not apples to apples. A ton of the money sent BACK out to the states are from fuel taxes. So I would be happy if: the federal goveernment cuts the federal fuel tax and quits hardballing the states with transportation funding. Amtrack is a mess and has been for decades now.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Netanyahu is a much bigger threat to that relationship than Obama is. -Sun_Tzu-
Netanyahu has only responded to Obama's actions. He hasn't done anything to endanger the U.S./Israeli relationship. Obama's ignorance has. What ignorance? Obama HAS to be ignorant of the Israeli/Palestinian situation to call on Israel to revert backto the 1967 border line. Ignorant or a moron? your choice?
But we might lose them too, if Obama keeps it up the way he's been going lately.
-Sun_Tzu-
Netanyahu is a much bigger threat to that relationship than Obama is. Netanyahu has only responded to Obama's actions. He hasn't done anything to endanger the U.S./Israeli relationship. Obama's ignorance has.
[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Atheists can get married. And atheists would probably get pissed if their marriages were considered "different" or having "less meaning" than those of religious couples. Religious people do not have any monopoly on marriage or the meaning of marriage. If you believe marriage is different, whatever, have fun with that; your religious views have no place in the legal sphere of things.Theokhoth
why do they need the state to recognize that they are married?? why not just have a ceremony and say they are? if its just about two people being together no one is stopping them Because the state grants over a thousand rights and privileges to couples they recognize as being married. And why does the state do so? Seriously.
Results from the survey were based on telephone interviews conducted May 5-8, 2011 among a national probability sample of 1,007 adults age 18 and older. The overall margin of error is +/- 3.0 percentage points.
What states and areas were these 1k people from? I don't like surveys for this reason, they are not accurate when they don't explain all their data.
Former_Slacker
Why does it matter as long as the sample was random? As long as it was random, it was representative.
As long as the pool is truely representive of the whole.
Just give the civil union couples the same rights as those couples that are married and be done with it. Gays would have the same rights and that would make them happy, no?
Chutebox
They usually do. its not the rights the gay agenda is after, its the acceptance. they want the marriage label. Whether that label already "belonged" to those who fight against them or not. kinda sad and ironic in my opinion.
Log in to comment