Clown,

Don't you think we're way past pretending we care about rising debt.

I think we've seen after Musk how reducing debt is a problem.

I say drive this bus off the cliff and hopefully Wall Street won't crash until I'm gone.

One,

I'll wait and see how this is resolved and who gets screwed before I form an opinion.

There's pros and cons to every decision I wouldn't possibly know about. I doubt the people in Congress fully understand the full ramifications of their options.

How many times has some bill had unanticipated consequences?

One,

Arm chair analysts have all the answers.

I doubt anyone on this blog is remotely qualified to advise Congress.

Pardon me if I don't blame one side or the other.

Clown,

Dems have had plenty of opportunities to institute tax reform.

But they don't.

You're gullible.

Clown,

"What would Jesus do?"

He might perform a miracle and distribute fish from a basket that miraculously appears.

People today would complain they have to clean the fish and cook it.

Or complain they'd rather get Big Mac and fries.

Lamp,

"The Republicans seem to be wallowing in the suffering of those who have issues putting food on the table for their family."

What an idiot.

You think all Republicans are rich and don't need SNAP.

The parties are playing chicken to see who gives in first.

Blaming one side is lazy.

Bills to fund SNAP are being introduced by Republicans and Democrats failed to vote for it because of other issues they are demanding.

We can't blame Republicans outright for the lack of SNAP funding.

Food for thought...no pun intended.

We want food prices to come down but there's no chance in hell grocery stores will do that unless they're forced to.

Now...there will be fewer dollars and fewer customers if SNAP benefits don't go out.

Will stores lower their prices a little, on some items, competing for fewer available dollars?

Something to ponder...

Corky,

Come back when Trump serves a third term.

Then you might have a point.

Of course he would.

That's the very reason two terms were established.

How many presidents do you think would've liked a third?

This thread says nothing important.

Democrats now want to extend the temporary funding measure that only passed in the first place because it had an expiration date.

Snoofy,

"Tell me the difference between a birthday cake and a wedding cake then."

Ok...

In my opinion, a cake celebrating a same sex marriage is a mockery of a holy sacrament or covenant ordained by God. A Christian might choose to forfeit the money to avoid being part of that.

A birthday cake is simply celebrating a birthday.

Snoofy,

If a gay couple ordered a birthday cake, I guarantee it would be no problem.

You are either refusing to or are not able to see the difference.

The courts need to catch up.

Snoofy,

No one ever said this is a easy problem. Obviously some people don't understand or care about Christian values or convictions.

The first amendment says,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The conflict is gay weddings and not gay people. The Supreme Court failed to recognize the distinction in the case I referred to, in my opinion, which is why I voted to see Trump nominate the 3 justices rather than Hillary.

Zed,

This is the distinction.

The linked article is about a Texas judge who refused to perform gay weddings due to long standing religious convictions. There were other judges who would. It's the service being performed. Not who being performed for.

Zed,

"When a Christian pharmacist didn't want to fill a gay's prescription, why not find another pharmacist?"

That would be discrimination against the person.

Red,

"buttercream isn't as exclusive as you'd imagine."

I agree with you.

When a Christian baker didn't want to be part of a same-sex wedding, instead of suing, why not just find another baker?

Legal,

I looked through your posts.

You don't post anything worthwhile.

You sound like a pathetic human being.

You're who should be leaving. Who would miss you?

I'm done with this thread.

Said all I'll say.

Dan,

As an afterthought, no one knew people would be marrying anyone other than the opposite sex.

If someone could predict the future they might have been more careful than using a word with religious connotations and implications.

Alex,

The government could issue some legal document but leave the "marriage" ceremony to churches.

I don't see why with the stroke of a pen Civil Unions couldn't be interchangeable with "marriages" in lawsuits if everything is worded right

Corky,

I agree with you. We're all sinners.

Alex,

The word "marriage" itself could end up being the undoing of gay marriage in the US.

It's a gray area of semantics and meaning. It is a word that began in religion, not government.

Many people believe the state should have never gotten into the "marriage" business in the first place.

Alex,

Civil Unions could be equal to Marriage.

But that's not enough, is it?

You want the illusion that somehow same-sex couples are "married" in the same sense straight couples are.

Well...they're not according to Biblical truths and a lot of churches.

That's why the lesbian couple sued the Christian bakers. They wanted a "real" wedding cake baked by Christian bakers but they couldn't get one. It was important that it be baked by Christians to feel authentic.

I always knew the truth what liberals were actually pushing for.

Snoofy,

"You done told on yourself, Bill Johnson!"

Ahhh...gotcha...you told on yourself.

From day one, years ago, I said the real goal behind the push for gay marriage wasn't equal rights. It was the idea that Biblical truth could be strong-armed into saying gay sex isn't sin, and same-sex "marriages" can somehow be real.

But God will not be strong-armed and neither will the churches that stand by His word.

I knew from the beginning the word "marriage" was the goal, not equality.

You told on yourself.