Teacher Opposed to Gay Marriage Could be Fired

Yes because two of those three are pure fiction. So try a little harder.

 

(4) "Posted without comment:
http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-photo-sparks-protest-223835400.html"

 

Dick, that is simply not true. No matter how hard you try to convince yourself or others, you are flat-out wrong about this. No big deal. It's okay for you to admit you misunderstood my post. Or would you rather keep going, trying to convince me of what I was thinking?

 

So posting a link to a photo without commenting on it is repeating a talking point? I would think the LACK of comment would be a good indication of someone NOT repeating a talking point. Are you being willfully ignorant, did you forget your meds today or are you just that stupid? Seriously.

 

At the risk of being overly political, it seems people on the right tend to see things as very black and white and folks on the left tend to seen things as more gray and complicated.

 

I don't think that's necessarily true of right-leaning intellectuals. In fact, I think that most of the smartest people I've ever met have come from the intellectual right. That said, you might have a point when it comes to the two bases, although the left base's fatal flaw seems to be to constantly conflate good intentions with good results, ex. "Why wouldn't you want universal health care? It's obviously the answer!"

 

We'll go with the two bases then.

And since you bring up universal health care, it's funny that the right is against it. The conservative folks I know really hates when folks get something from the government for nothing that others have to pay for.

Well, with universal health care, you need everyone to be in or folks have to foot the bill for the freeloaders who don't want to spring for health care. But in this case Obama is trampling on their basic rights.

 

I know. I've made this argument a million times on here and to conservative friends. One of my best friends in the world, who is a staunch Rush Limbaugh conservative, finally gave up and told me he didn't want to talk about it any more when I continued to explain to him that the mandate was about protecting his insurance rates from 25-year-olds who opt out. It literally seemed to rock his world to hear that.

 

Did you tell him that it's going to be more than balanced out by how he's now going to have to pay to protect the insurance rates of the highest-cost patients in the entire system?

 

That's outside the scope of that particular conversation.

Please note that the conversation here began by me saying that good intentions don't necessarily equal good results, and I used universal health care as an example.

 

And yet you're probably against death panels for grandma.