unbillievable

I was little sympathetic towards the people of Greece until I started reading opinions and comments they left on these articles. Those people are (almost) as delusional as Patriots' fans.

The Greek people are screwed no matter what they do, so they're standing on principle. They refuse to accept that their socialist policies failed, so they choose to blame the system that cut off their supply of other people's money instead. They believe that leaving the EU is a way they can hurt the "fat-cat bankers" who stopped the gravy train. At this point, it's no longer about saving their economy (something many of their citizens believe can't get much worse), but on how many countries they can take down with them. Basically, they're throwing a temper tantrum.

A simple summary of Greece's problem: 1) A large portion of their economy is tied to public jobs. 2) Because of this, they cannot grow their economy without an increase in government spending. 3) But they can't increase spending (outside of foreign bailouts) unless they increase taxes on the citizens they support. -Basically, they have to chop off their hand to feed themselves. They regulated away from private sector businesses foolishly thinking that government spending is what drives economic growth. (sound familiar?)

A major flaw of capitalism is it's ability to support the lifestyle of the socialist activist. It's much easier to convince a population they need to "redistribute the wealth" when there is an abundance of wealth available to redistribute.

Why should churches have a tax exemption? True equality means an equal sharing of miseries. That's not exactly true. People started questioning marriage benefits when women began entering the work force, making the core idea of the tax benefits moot. As two income families became the norm, it's inherent "unfairness" became obvious to the growing number of unmarried (and single parents.) The LGBT community simply wanted to hop onto the gravy train before it stopped. Ironically, it may be their inclusion that finally ends the (tax) benefits.

We'll break it so we can fix it. Punish the productive many to carry the incompetent few. It's easier to beg on your knees than to lift with your back. It's better to pay a lot now than to pay a lot later. Private companies should not provide what the Government can supply for twice the price. These are just a few suggestions for campaign slogans...

Sounds a lot like the liberal policy of passing laws to find out what is in it. "uhh.. we didn't know it would do that." While many point to the warning signs, the left keep marching forward crying ever harder that the "slippery slope" is a fallacy; reassuring us that just because they took the first step -which was painfully idiotic- they aren't planning on taking step two (just yet).

Give me back my jacket!!

This was already answered in cases following the court's ruling; Denying to bake a gay wedding cake isn't considered discriminatory unless the owner is doing so under religious reasons. Think Hate Crime criteria: you'll know it's illegal when you see it.

It's better to charge forward with a bad plan than to sit still with none? Is that in Sun Tzu?

Licenses granted in one state must now be recognized in all states? Guns and Weed for everyone!!!

It can't be any simpler. ...and there was no mention of God in the example.

A couple wants a divorce because one of them cheated on the other. Their catholic priest says they aren't allowed to divorce for any reason. The couple joins a Protestant church who allows them to end the marriage citing adultery. Was the above conflict about the couple's right to divorce or whether cheating is a valid reason?

Let's be honest. There is no legal reason for the Supreme Court's decision. The justices voted for the outcome they wanted. Even Kennedy states that it was an emotional decision. He admitted to bypassing the text of the Constitution to correct a cultural (in his opinion) grievance. The Supreme Court did what Congress was unwilling (or unable) to do. Next up: Legalize illegal immigrants:Denying the rights of citizens to non-citizens is discriminatory.

I don't know which is worse, the above statement being serious, or sarcastic.

I do wonder what would happen if states were to start eliminating marriages altogether; leaving it to the federal government. Can states be forced to hand out licenses? Will the federal government have to open new offices? Will it be called an escalation against the "War on Women"? I can see some states (Texas) bowing out of the marriage business, and leaving it exclusively to churches.

That dress is a size or three too small.

It's supposed to bring awareness to an individual's impact on the environment. It's like snapping a rubber band when you're on a diet. Paying carbon credits is self punishment for using too many resources. It also allows the carbon credit receiver to avoid getting a real job. (and keeps his SUV in the garage)

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/white-house-buildings-across-the-country-light-up-122601444526.html Liberals use public building (including the White House) to gloat. Rainbow lights splashed across monuments. For a movement that demands we butt out of their private lives, they sure love to rub their "private lives" in everyone's faces.

It's a recurring theme in gun legislation; they pass laws that make it illegal to break the law. "Gun free zones" are insane if you think about it.

The Republicans dodged a bullet here. If they had won the case, the Democrats would have pinned the overall failure of Obamacare on this one issue. As it stands, the ACA must now stand on it's own as a wholly Democrat-written law. As more of it's provisions hit the public (Obama can't delay them forever) the angrier the people will get; just wait until 2018 when the unions get hit by the "cadalac" plan tax.

As the country moves further to the left, more people will be shoved to the right as the center line moves. There will come a day when the bleeding-heart liberals of today will be called a right-wing nut job by their grand children. Yesterday, we ended a debate that lasted 20yrs over an issue that is "none of our business" that affects less than 3% of the population.

It's a weird time in history when there are two popes and one of them is nuts.

If we are to encourage (and legalize) every urge a person has because "they are born that way," the human race would cease to exist very quickly. Why hasn't the gay gene been bred out of humans if it's unlikely to propagate?

I re-read the thread thinking I must have missed your answer, but you just moved the responsibility of regulating gay marriage from the federal level to the state's, (which is what the topic is mostly about anyway so it's a perfectly valid point) but it doesn't answer the question of why the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate the terms as it desires. If asked, what valid objection (excluding religion) is there to government sanctioned same-sex marriages? I can't think of any. bottom line: Marriage is a government (historically) invention, so they should be allowed to redefine it. However, if the argument is that we should narrow the precedent to US law because it accepted the religious definition of marriage in the past, it still doesn't preclude the government's original right to change it's stance on it now. It's not like the government hasn't split from religious doctrine before.