• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rand Paul All Right With 'Neutral' Federal Gay Marriage Law

I wonder if Rand Paul would agree that it should be left to the states as to whether the wealth of the top 1% should be confiscated? I mean, it's a political issue not a constitutional one, right?
 
Rocketman said:
Unlike Obama and Reid, I don't subsidize
Click to expand...

So you're for taxing corporation like the rest of us, then eh? Oh no, I forgot, it's libertarianlogic at work. Tax breaks for the rich aren't subsidies.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So you cant link your all mighty study. Gotcha :monkey
Click to expand...

I won't subsidize your laziness with it right here on this board. No wonder liberals need socialism:ws
 
head of joaquin said:
So you're for taxing corporation like the rest of us, then eh? Oh no, I forgot, it's libertarianlogic at work. Tax breaks for the rich aren't subsidies.
Click to expand...

:ws:ws:ws:ws
 
Rocketman said:
I won't subsidize your laziness with it right here on this board. No wonder liberals need socialism:ws
Click to expand...

The internet was created by government subsidies. So sign off and never come back.
 
Rocketman said:
I won't subsidize your laziness with it right here on this board. No wonder liberals need socialism:ws
Click to expand...

Looked for it cant find it its a pretty big and popular thread if its so hard to post a study then you should be able to find it.
 
It appears forgot to turn off my **** magnet again
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Says nothing about a "chemical imbalance" like you were saying it had something to do with genes, so jack one up for your lies. Also it says "MAY", therefore its not proven.
Click to expand...

bad genes, chemical imbalance, defect- they all have the same meaning= NOT RIGHT

You got spanked, take it like a man
 
Rocketman said:
bad genes, chemical imbalance, defect- they all have the same meaning= NOT RIGHT
Click to expand...
What makes genes be "bad genes"? How does one define "bade genes"?


You got spanked, take it like a man
Click to expand...
2ed9nwk.jpg
 
Rocketman said:
bad genes, chemical imbalance, defect- they all have the same meaning= NOT RIGHT

You got spanked, take it like a man
Click to expand...

Conservative circularity in all its splendor.
 
Sounds good. Make marriage gender neutral and everyone can be quiet.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So you didnt answer my question, please answer my question.
And no they cant. Neither can many heterosexual couples.
Click to expand...

that makes it a "defect" for both....case closed
 
Rocketman said:
It has been established by you that it is a defect, there no discussion left.
Click to expand...

I havent "defected" you have not answered my question. All i ask is that you answer my question its pretty simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom