Presidential Campaign Simulation Democrat v Republican

Social SecurityLet me begin this topic by saying that we do not support cutting social security to a low security level. We would, though, like to point out that Luharis does not seem to understand that social security is in no way meant to be a full retirement fund, but instead is intended to provide financial aid to retirees to build upon retirement funds and reward them for paying taxes. Also, we were just wondering where the graphs are located, as they do not seem to be anywhere in your argument. We believe in the original concept of Social Security, that it is an aid to old peopleGay RightsWe here at the APFFAOTVL would like to sort out a formality first, being that there exists no such document named the "declaration of indolenece", while we believe he means the Declaration of Independence, you never can tell nowadays. We accept your challenge good sir. First, when Luharis cites the Declaration of Independence, he blatantly uses a quote out of context. When it is written that we all have the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, this is not a justification for carelessly doing whatever so pleases you. I would like to be an axe murderer, but it seems this line does not give me the right to do so, even though I would be happy. This is only an example to show the Founders were not talking about everything anyone could ever want to do. When they say life, they mean everyone has a right to be alive, when they say liberty, they mean everyone has rights that cannot be changed or restricted by the government, and allow someone to live without oppression. And finally, when the Founders say that you have the right to the pursuit of happiness, they only mean you are allowed to do what makes you happy within the confines of logical thought and law. This last phrase in particular is about living your life without government restriction, but as you are obviously talking about gay marriage, I would like to inform you that this movement is not about freedom from government, but instead about getting in the governments face, asking for governmental intervention in their lives by accepting their marriage. To add a new point, I want to remind everyone that any 2 men or women can get married anywhere in the U. S. There are dozens of churches in every state that will marry 2 gay individuals. The only "right" being marred is that the government does not recognize this marriage. Luharis's request to substitute the word gay for "women" or "black" is not sensible. Being a woman, as well as being black, is an exterior and unchangable feature, while being gay is entirely a mental phenomenon that produces physical action. So civil rights for blacks or women are totally different because it is unfair to discriminate against someone soley because of an unchangable feature. "Gay rights" are not civil rights, because gay people fall under all other categories of races and gender, so they have the same rights as anyone else. Being gay does not entitle special rights, because, being mental, it is something that a random stranger could not know. When you say we do not have "equality for all", this is 100% false and utterly ridiculous. Every single person has the same rights and entitlements in the U. S. But people are not all the same. Equality means equal treatment and opportunity,but it does not mean I am "equal" to you in every way. Therefore, laws on marriage apply to logic and a basic understanding of society. Women can marry men, and men can marry women. Gays are free to be in personal unions with other gays, but marraige is a strictly heterosexual function that is as old as humanity itself, unchanging in its definition until recently. It is not just a union to complete yourself and fufill emotional and sexual desire, but is a union to better the other person, raise a family to order society, and provide self-giving love to the family unit. Homosexual marriage compromises this structure, and chips away at the building blocks of society and our morality - secular or religious. Not conforming to the leftist preferred definition of marriage, and choosing the ancient and natural one, brings upon oneself a hailstorm of isolation and persecution. You can even, in many cases, be sent to sensitivity training for not changing the way you think. Such an Orwellian style of society has taken root, displacing the traditional way cultures have operated. for further reading I recomend jcmaimiu's article . http://www.frc.org... EnergyLuharis is presenting an idealist's view of the world, without actually facing reality. The reality is that of course utilising efficient energy sources is a good way to sustain our country, but it does not address actual issues we deal with now. Money can be allocated for those issues, and we can work to improve our energy usage and sources at a later date. For now, though, we need to work to update our oil and fracking facilities. It has been shown that accidents and accidental emmission caused by oil drilling, fracking, and other forms of resource pooling is due to outdated and faulty construction. With proper education and refurbishment, we can rebuild our old energy sources and develop new ones at the same time. As a closing statement, I want to ask voters to actually read through this debate, and decide who was more thorough on these issues. See who proposed a better scenario for our society and its future. Thanks to Jcmiamiu for including me, and good luck.