Previous 21 - 30 Next
Piers is an idiot, but the only good thing about him is he invites people who he doesn't agree with onto his show.
What is great about the United States is that even the worst among us, like Tsarnaev, are granted adequate defense and a fair trial. We must not change what the Consitutition guarantees all Americans just because we are fearful of terrorists.
In response to:

Hookers and Sex Slaves ... and Laughs?

kozzzer Wrote: Jul 12, 2013 10:09 AM
Comedy?
From June 17th "Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said Monday he did not support the legalization of marijuana"
"Senator Paul is an interesting guy. Not as out-there as his Dad, but still steeped in a rigid libertarianism " Sen. Paul is nowhere close to rigid libertarianism. What specific positions are so outside the mainstream GOP? And should we care? The mainstream GOP sucks.
There are dozens of detainees in Guantanamo who have been cleared for release as posing no threat, and there being no proof that they ever engaged in terrorist acts either in the US or Afghanistan. I'm not arguing to close Guantanamo, but there has to be someting that can be done for all the detainees that the military officials and Bush officials have said are innocent.
In response to:

Puritanical Government

kozzzer Wrote: Jun 26, 2013 10:15 PM
I honestly thought this was sarcasm and chuckled. I hope it is.
In response to:

The State V. God

kozzzer Wrote: Jun 26, 2013 5:35 PM
I know some, not all, people on TH hate when commenters go back to the libertarian idea of getting govt out of marriage between consenting adults, but that is the best way to work this. With a flat tax and govt out of marriage, there would be no govt sponsored benefits for marriage. Any adult individual could engage in a marriage contract with any other consenting adult. Stores or private business would not be obligated to give benefits to gay couples, straight couples, or anybody. Of course, if the store did choose not to give benefits to gay couples, consumers in the free market could choose not to go to that business. Getting government out of business is the best way.
In response to:

Puritanical Government

kozzzer Wrote: Jun 26, 2013 10:48 AM
Govt may do that, but they shouldn't. Individuals should be allowed to make their own choices, and pay for those choices. But, if you are solely banning it because govt will have to pick up the tab for making something legal, you are really opening up a pandora's box. You could argue then that banning fatty foods or greater than 16 oz sodas would be good because govt has to pay for the health care of the obese. Or alcohol should be banned because of the cost to government for people who abuse alcohol.
whether or not one agrees with gay marriage, this is a win for federalism and for states' rights.
In response to:

Puritanical Government

kozzzer Wrote: Jun 26, 2013 9:56 AM
Internet gambling is a multi-billion dollar industry that could create thousands of jobs in the US, but regulation and "moral" laws have forbid. I think that is a big issue.
Previous 21 - 30 Next