"change" or "status-quo"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Schmooze

First, as natepro said you have to define "change", but I think the majority on both sides and Independents are duped into believing that a vote for one of the two parties is a vote for some form of change.

The narrative may differ, but in the end a vote for mainstream D's and R's is a vote of approval of the status quo. There are endless examples of policies that have not changed for decades, regardless of which party is in power.

---

thissssss

We need to stop with these stupid wars...thats all I know.

Too much money and too many lives at stake...and I don't think the gains will ever be worth it.

Bring the troops home already.

And hire us once we are back...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by behindmydesk

There's a lot of things I'd change. I'd change and reverse Obama Care, I'd change and say gays and not religious people can have a civil union which is the exact same thing as marriage with 100% same thing. (I would have a civil union). Id' change the tax code, I'd change the weed laws and legalize it, I'd change the speed limits up. I'd change the way schools to a voucher system completely.

---

I have to ask, if a civil union is the exact same thing as marriage, why do you think gay people should be able to get one but not the other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lolPhillies

And hire us once we are back...

---

Only if you have the skills applicable to the job.



I think it's incredibly important for military vets to get a 4 year education after the military. I rarely see that around here, and it's, frankly, stupid to NOT get higher education and make yourself marketable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GA16Angels

I have to ask, if a civil union is the exact same thing as marriage, why do you think gay people should be able to get one but not the other?

---

That's not what he means (I think). From a government standpoint, they'd all be equal as a civil union. If performed in a religious setting, it would be a "marriage," but that wouldn't provide any benefit to the couple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by debo

That's not what he means (I think). From a government standpoint, they'd all be equal as a civil union. If performed in a religious setting, it would be a "marriage," but that wouldn't provide any benefit to the couple.

---

I don't think that can be right since it's possible to get married away from a religious setting already and I think it has been since around the 50s.