Here's where we disagree, if I didn't mention it, I share a similar stance.
I support a small level of taxation coupled with a small government, but can recognize that there are arguments in support of a higher level of taxation. I believe both progressive tax systems and flat rate (with annual exemption) tax systems can work. I believe that a tax system should have a redistributive element.
IMO redistribution kills motivation. Government should always be seeking ways to reduce waste, not raise taxes. Growth of the economy will create more revenue. Pull people up by giving them a job not a handout. Personal greed or ignorance is just as rife as corporate greed, the difference is companies don't vote so no one is willing to place blame or hold accountable those that are irresponsible. If you're a good squirrel and save some nuts for winter, should you have to give half to the bad squirrel that ate his nuts like no tomorrow and didn't save any? Depending how you look at it, it's an unfortunate fact that people learn quickest through pain (touch fire once, lesson learned). If there isn't the smallest amount of a chance for failure, people will never learn. JMO.
Neither system seems perfect to me, but I believe that the government should ensure everyone is able to receive basic healthcare regardless of their ability to pay, and if providing UHC should also allow private health care.
IMO one must first ask why a person doesn't have heath care? Can't afford it? Prove it. Didn't want it? That's your choice (remember the good squirrel), but don't expect me to pay for it for you.
Now I believe health care reform is needed, but don't shove a monster down my throat. Open insurance across state lines. Tort reform. Make insurance portable and cradle to grave. Make the inexpensive fixes first, then assess what else can be done. You don't need a Masserati to get to the local store.
Some folks are going to fall on hard times, it happens. If they have been paying their whole life I believe the insurance company should waive their premiums (not forever) until they are back on their feet.
I'm not a big supporter of pre-existing conditions. Imagine if you wrecked your car then bought insurance to have it fixed before dropping it again. If you have cradle to grave insurance, which is transferable and portable, you would be covered the moment the doc smacked your bottom. heck they do it now with social security numbers. Provisions would need to be make for those already born, but it would most likely not come near the trillion dollar price tag being floated in front of us now.
While not a strong anti-war believer I think the Iraq invasion was ill advised, and military action should be restricted to self-defence.
Reasonable position, but IMO not very realistic. If we stopped being the world police, that means that all the countries that depend on us to provide a large portion of their security would have to cut all their social programs, like UNC, and raise their all ready high taxes even higher. Most likely they would just skimp on their defense.
How does this affect the US? Well we see how much a small war costs. There are plenty of examples (Korea, Vietnam, right up to Afghanistan). So how much would a World War cost today? We can't afford it. As wasteful as military spending might seem for some, the alternative is unthinkable.
Besides US military spending benefits the whole world from a technological standpoint. From the Internet you use everyday to the GPS in your phone or car. Does anyone honestly believe the Russian or Chinese would have share these things with the world?
Many more reasons (deterrence) but not enough time.
I have no problems with a legal equivalent being created, but don't see why gay marriages themselves should be allowed.
IMO this should not even be a political discussion and has no place in politics. I do however believe that a person should be able to legally appoint someone the powers normally associated to a married couple. The reason for my opinion probably differs from yours. It would be to allow adult children to take care of an elderly parent, or someone without blood kin to make important decisions on their behalf, or cover with insurance. Both parties would need to consent. If this helps gays as a by product, so be it, equal law for everyone. I just wouldn't call it marriage, which I believe has no place in govt.
Before I married I had a the same girlfriend for six years before we broke up. We lived together and many people thought we were married. Had our relationship lasted another year, the state would have given her half my property and entitled her to alimony, even though she didn't bring anything of value herself to the table. IMO gays should be careful what they ask for, they might get it.
I don't recall saying that Arianna (who I've never even heard of prior to this thread) doesn't ban people who disagree or attack her/him.
Nobody suggested you did know of her policies. It is a comparison on tolerance. It's just that on the Huffington Post any criticism of the owner, Arianna Huffington, is not tolerated it comparison to JU and its owner.