Doesn't this bill enact a law that affects businesses, though? Isn't that the exact opposite of what Republicans are supposed to be doing, what they campaigned on in 2014?
Again, what I'm looking for isn't a world where no one is poor, and definitely not one where everyone is equal. I'm just trying to figure out how we keep things from getting worse than they are now. I don't think that's the free market, because the free market runs on incentives, and what...
Hard work? Far from a guarantee. Go volunteer at a food bank sometime, listen to the people who are working two jobs and still not getting anywhere. There's a finite amount of opportunity out there, no matter how hard you're willing to work for it.
Creating wealth requires capital. The people who already have capital aren't really affected by these problems, nor do they have any incentive to help solve them. I'm not begrudging their wealth or suggesting that we confiscate it, but making them wealthier still leaves us with the same...
So if we also want to take killing people off the table, then we're left with preventing conception in the first place. Now, someone will go "let em pay for their own pills!", but again, we can link arms and block the idea because it's the dreaded government using money for something, or we can...
I'm not talking about equal outcomes, just setting a lower bound. There is x amount of resources to go around, for y people. There are only two ways to maintain the standard of living: add more x, or reduce y. Hard and fast math, no way around it. Taking more x would be wealth...
We absolutely have more people than we can support. Forget cable, we can't even figure out health care or education for children. And even if we did, we have no jobs for them when they reach adulthood. What's the point in adding more people to an already overburdened population?
Here's a thought: perhaps conservative politicians could stop telling us that all life is precious and must be protected? You already acknowledged abortion and contraception; it boggles my mind that we still rail against these and then wonder why we have more people than we have resources to...
I didn't read the article, mostly because I don't care about who Trump tries to sleep with (as long as his spouse is okay with it). However, the idea that you have to not hate someone to use them for sex is laughable.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
And wait a sec! Wasn't the Supreme Court established by the Constitution? Y'know, before the ink dried? And by finding a law to be unconstitutional, isn't it also acting as an agent of the Founders' intent?
And you could also have bought a grandfathered AR during the AWB. Does that make that particular law okay? If not, then why are you okay with saying Obergefell could have married within a government-approved group?