[Opinionated Blowhard]

Sure, why not? Employers and “the rich” should pay for everything. If a middle class person wants something but doesn’t have the income to pay for it, then employers and the rich should. This type of response has nothing to do with religion or moral issues. It has everything to do with people being conditioned for 80+ years of the Welfare State that someone else should pay for things that the people want.

[LibsRJerks]

Sure, why not? Employers and “the rich” should pay for everything. If a middle class person wants something but doesn’t have the income to pay for it, then employers and the rich should. This type of response has nothing to do with religion or moral issues. It has everything to do with people being conditioned for 80+ years of the Welfare State that someone else should pay for things that the people want.

**
Righteo. And don’t forget how IMPORTANT it is to eliminate all the healthcare and other “disparities” between the rich and the poor. Can’t be having any of that.

[ravenwolf]

Sure, why not? Employers and “the rich” should pay for everything. If a middle class person wants something but doesn’t have the income to pay for it, then employers and the rich should. This type of response has nothing to do with religion or moral issues. It has everything to do with people being conditioned for 80+ years of the Welfare State that someone else should pay for things that the people want.

---

You got that exactly right, the only reason religion is even mentioned is to get the more non religious to vote against the religious just because it is religion, more class warfare.

Religious against the non religious,
Non religious against the religious,
Drinkers against the smokers,
Smokers against the eaters,
Eaters against the drinkers and smokers,
health nuts against MacDonalds,
The environmentalists against everything.

This nation is just full of stupid socialist S.O.B,s.