ManagingPrime

This is exactly that conversation. Government benefits that tie to the definition. Outside of government, people can and do pair up any way they want. I don't see why two individuals getting married (hetero or otherwise) is any business of the government at all - to encourage or discourage. it's non of the gov's business Get rid of those benefits (financial only)...problem solved?

To what end? I don't have any issues with queers (intended to be inclusive) and I don't have an issue with people who are repulsed by the thought of any relationship outside of a man-woman. I do have an issue with infringing upon the rights of others in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness/property if in their pursuit they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Would straight marriages somehow be sullied if gays were allowed to be married? How would they be infringing upon the rights of others? I do take issue with the government encouraging/discouraging certain behaviors using the tax code, but that's not exactly germaine to this discussion.

Look at you! Taking to the SC with gusto!

Agreed, in any case it's nice to see another politican join the middle ground. Hopefully, others in the party will take note and get over the knee jerk anti-gay position so the real debate can begin. DINKs have a lot to contribute to society and as such should not be disenfranchised.

You could say that...and more, but you could say the same of democrats.

Poor Libertarians (real ones, not the ones that keep getting hijacked) - they just want a Lot less spending and lower taxes on everyone. No one likes that at all. I really like the idea of Libertarians getting off the sinking ship. My only concern is the new "ship" literally sinking. http://theweek.com/article/index/218393/libertarian-island-a-billionaires-utopia I'm convinced people with a political bent don't want a solution, they just want to be "right". Narcissism runs strong in those with political stripes.

+1

This does seem to be the case. It's subjective, but the cuts I'm hearing about seem to be very much public facing and I can see where this works to the benefit of the administration and others. Specific to this particular cut, "fat vs. meat". I'm not sure if the Knights see any revenue from their demos or what exactly it cost them to do one, but I'm willing to bet it costs more than if it was a private demo team. That said, I see PR value in the Knights demos. Where I do not see value is in military groups that shit can gear that is perfectly usable or will have a Skyvan for the day and only sending up two jumpers per load. I've had the chance to talk with military jumpers on a number of occasions regarding this "fat". They have all told me it's waste in their eyes as well, but they "have" to spend all of their budget if they want the same level of funding the next year. It's really BS to be playing politics with these cuts. It does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental flaws in government spending. Personally, I would like to see even more cuts so that people will be forced to stop playing politics and start getting real about creating efficiencies and really addressing the issue at hand...the government wastes too much money and has absolutely ZERO interest in curbing that behavior. In all fairness, this is NOT a partisan issue. Both sides seem to absolutely love it when they are the ones in charge of holding the credit card. Can any partisan honestly say they see any "change" from the status quo on the horizon from their "party"? ".... And if the Party adopts a decision which one or other of us thinks unjust, he will say, just or unjust, it is my party, and I shall support the consequences of the decision to the end."

Maybe they are arguing based on "the upsuck" theory and being, well...republicans, they are not comfortable fully explaining thier position.

What is this ADA you reference?

She's done a good job. Should there be some cap on ceo pay as it relates to the pay of an entry level employee in the same company? That's a different debate.

Unless they smoke pot, are addicted to caffeine or god forbid are a veteran. Maybe you suspext they might, maybe, somethings, maybe not, smoke pot...you just broke the law. This is just a setup for mandatory background checks. Otherwise, the potential liability for potential private sellers is just to high. I'm all for the tougher sentences and if that was the only effect of this bill I would support it, but as it is the slope is to slippery.

They might have been able to convince one of their "straight" friends to light up with them, but I'll bet dollars to dimes the group you mention was stepping out of the bars and lighting up prior to the new law as well. Would you or your friends who don't uae drugs start using them just because the legal status changed? Soon we may see gay marriage legalized. Guess what I'm not doing right after the law passes.

I always wondered what citizens of New Sodom were called. I'm sure there are a few choice names to choose from.

Sure will! They'll just flood this country and all the dopers will be in 'high heaven'. I guess, local law enforcement will have to pick-up the government's slack. Chuck The dopers are already in high heaven...and will remain there until they stop doping....regardless of what the legal status of drugs is. Many places had laws on the books regarding sodomy. Did new sodomites come out of the wood work when the criminal penalties for sodomy were removed?

Both. It's the same problem that was underlying mortgage derivatives. The system is built around perpetual growth. It's a house of cards just waiting to be knocked down. If welfare, healthcare and military spending were not such sacred cows we could actually address the spending problem with ease. Military 14% of budget Healthcare 19% of budget Pensions 18% of budget. Bring troops home. Put them to work along with others in need of work on large infrastructure projects. Make it possible for tax payers to "opt out" of social security and medicare. If you opt out you receive a reimbursement for what you've paid in to-date, less 10%. If you want to opt back in you payback what you received + 10%. Fix the tax code. For people that make less than 113,700 in 2013 that's an effective tax cut of 15.3%. Beyond that, look at a "progressive" flat tax system, wrap your head around that oxymoron,10% if your made up to 100K, 15% if you made between 100K and 250K 25% if you made more than 250K. No deductions. No credits. In all fairness, this will probably result in higher taxes on the "rich". However, those are the same people that will be the primary beneficiaries of a mass amount of dollars entering the private market (see opt out of SS and medicare) and the massive investment in the infrastructure. I've got nothing on fixing the desire of those in congress to spend every penny they get their hands on and then another nickle on credit....find a way to put the fear of god in them? Anyone know how to get the CBO to take a look at this proposal?

There was one north of Las Cruces too, on the way to Alamogordo, not far from White Sands National Monument. My buddy is the DZO of white sands. Him and some staff got some special attention this last week at that checkpoint....they were not pleased.

Of course skydiving is on the table.

Me thinks you give them too much credit.

To my knowledge they can setup within a hundred miles. In the same camp though, too lazy to confirm.

The very last bit was funny. I get the stated objective of the checkpoints and I also understand the logic used by the more conspiracy oriented. Neither of which change the fact that the last two times I've gone through them absolutely lit and had nothing but laughs. I figure they've caught their share of illegals, saw a good size group in a cage last time. I'm also sure they've done their part in training a good share of americans to blindly comply with the "authorities". All-in-all....whatever. Swim as had as you like, you're not changing the tide.

I'd say most people agree on most things. Once, agreement is reached there is not much left to talk about for most. But, when people disagree they can argue until the cows come home. Perception is not reality.

Patriot Act would have been a better place to start. +1

To my understanding the cartels move Marijuana, Cocaine, Meth and Heroin across the US/Mexico border. It's also my understanding that Marijuana is the top import, followed by cocaine, meth and Heroin. While they supply a lot of meth in the SW US the majority of meth production is domestic. Additionally, they don't send all that much Heroin across the US MEX border....that's a different shade of cartel, seeing as how 93% of the worlds heroin is coming out of our colony, (cough), I mean war zone, in Afghanistan. Legalizing marijuana will be a major blow to the cartels. I'm not so sure that legalizing cocaine and heroin are the best way to go. But, if we are serious about the violence in mexico we need to look at a way of "pricing" them out of the game. The Dutch and Swiss have seen excellent results from Heroin clinics where they give two doses a day to addicts. http://sciencenordic.com/heroin-clinics-improve-addicts-lives

Delivering the hope and change he campainged on. Things like.... Something more akin to national health care. Ending interventionalist policies. Large public works projects on the national infrastructure. Prosecuting those responsible for the most recent financial crises. Improving transparency and accountability in the government. Ending the super cozy relationships that lobbyists and politicians share. Respecting states rights. Respecting the constitution. ... but I'll continue to shit in one had and wish in the other. I find obama worse than bush for one reason and one reason only. He campained on this hope and change bit and a lot of people belived it. Turns out he's more of the same for the most part. At least with bush I knew we were fucked from day one.