If you voted for Obama, do you regret it?

I'm not really a conspiracy theorist at all, I just think both parties use wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc to create division and keep people distracted from more important issues

Not that I think abortion and gay rights aren't important, but I don't believe roe vs wade is in danger of being overturned, and I think gay rights, much like legalized marijuana, is an issue being controlled by the tide of public opinion more so than politics.

Whereas I believe our politicians are pushing forward a lot of policy which is being ignored by the public because everyone is too busy arguing over wedge issues.

I pretty much agree 100% with everything AT has said. I could go on with my own thoughts but I would just end up repeating everything she has said in her last couple of posts.

 

Wow, go you. I will vote for her in the next.

 

AT, the thing is, is that it can work, and it is an inevitability.

You can't listen to what these Liberals think, because they've become so accustomed to the status quo, through years of propaganda.

There would be "no police," in the traditional sense, but, on the private market prices would go down, and, they'd be private security,so they'd only get involved with people's personal life, if they need help, or if there was an actual crime.

Secondly, you need to utilize your second amendment Rights, because Government cannot protect you from every threat (especially if that threat is Government)

You know you're my friend, and, I agree with you alot, but, my views are a lot less idealistic, than the Liberals you're talking to, who believe a Government can control every aspect of our lives, without corruption once or ever. That is much more idealistic and, naive than a peaceful Society..

The other thing is, it seems like you're giving into these Liberal arguments that it's an "every man for himself" type scenerio, where there is NO help. People will pay for legitimate services, we wouldn't go without anything, except an institutionalized system of force. Using force to maintain peace is not only hypocritical, but, impossible.

Listen to adam kokesh's Book "Freedom"

http://www.adamvstheman.com/freedom/#.U8Ck6LF5uSo

 

Hold up, didn't my former posts here just say that I do acknowledge that corruption DOES happen.

Why are you suddenly sticking the label of "liberal" on me, and then continuing to define and contradict what my posts actually say?



---

Also many firms, do employ private security, but that works, because the law allows for those private security personal, to make a "citizen's arrest" and then bring them down to a local police station that has juristiction over where the crime took place.

That's part of how private security works.

 

Well yeah I agree with this partially but also disagree.

Here's why:

I believe MOST USA people, aren't paying attention to politics at a detailed level, and that they lack a full understanding of how campaigns are run, funded, and what and why politicians are saying what they are to certain audiences.

In a sense, they are very innocent, in that they hold politicians to their word, when they make a speech claiming their position on a certain issue. This is unrealistic as what is most likely happening is that the politician is saying what they need to in order to please their current audience from the geographical region they are in for electoral college votes.

(Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign is a perfect example of this)


The other aspect is that those who still vote, are those who may vote for one candidate or the other based on what they and their political party does on certain key issues (The wedge issues) you call them.


If I could perform a social experiment, if 65% of the electorate, came out and voted consistently for like 10 years, in both Presidential and non-presidential elections, and diluted the influence extreme right or left voting blocks cared about, you'd see a shift toward more moderate positions on the issues.


^but this never happens as people are gave up on the concept of voting, they are too depressed about it all and don't realize their own power.

 

Yep, the big things are all the same....and the wedge issues- the things people fight about (D's and R's), well, either two things... some things aren't gonna be changed anyways (birth control/abortion).... and other things-it's public opinion more than ANYTHING...and yes, just like I mentioned that w mj legislation... you are also correct that gay marriage is another one of those issues. Until public opinion started turning on the gay marriage issue, were the democrats doing anything on that issue? No. Once public opinion turns the republicans are gonna go with it as well.... if anything certain parties like to claim being responsible for certain things but they would change regardless of who's in office.

K, I'll look into it.

I do think it's sad how people are being so hard on your in the other thread... I think maybe some of them don't understand that you don't mean there would be no rules and no order and no one to do things like fire services, etc.--- When I say I don't think no gov would work.... well, that doesn't mean I don't think it could work to completely change what is considered government. There needs to be complete change in the system I know that much.... something much more smaller scale and local would be really good. But anyways, my point was...that call it what you wanna call it... government, local government, private services that actually work somehow.... and someone does need to be available when an ACTUAL CRIME (murder, rape, etc.) is committed.

 

actually no that's not true, there is a legal loophole for the effects of Roe v. Wade to be overturned. The Supreme Court left the legal loophole in their explanation why they voted the way they did on Roe v. Wade.


And that loophole is what the Tea Party Republicans and religious right potentially squeaked forward with the Hobby Lobby case.


Roe v. Wade passed because "person" in the 14th Amendment is vague and undefined.


But politicians on the right have actually brought to the floor efforts to define "personhood" as the joining of egg and sperm.

If that happens in law, that zygote , if aborted is equal to murder under the law and Roe v. Wade is negated.


If that happens, Doctors-because they take the hippocratic oath-could no longer perform the medical procedure at all potentially even in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother, depending on the details of how the bill that passes into law, would be written.

But do not think Roe. V. Wade can't be overturned. That's why it's a very polarizing issue many people care about and it drives people to the polls.



I'm sorry but in campaigns I don't hear many people asking or holding conversations about math and statistic and income tax code stuff...math to most Americans is dry discussion topic.

 

No. I am extremely disappointed in him; but the others would have only done worse.

 

good point.

 

The only place where I wonder what would have happened differently is on those flying death bots..

 

Hm, yea, you have a very good point. I forgot all about that personhood thing. That would be very scary if they are able to make it into murder even in the case of the mother dying if she carried the baby to term... doubt it'll go that far but anyways all I can really say to your post is... forgot that, touche.

 

if the republicans had won, there's be more, with corporate sponsorship and Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald faces on the front.

 

have you forgotten Savita Halappanavar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

 

Interesting. (To quote someone in the article - "this is ireland.. .it's a catholic country"... Crazy).... But I actually was in my year of no media... no internet, no tv, nothing for a year in 2012. (Other than maybe three trips to library comp in that whole year- so missed that story).

 

i haven't owned a Tv but i remember watching the ordeal at work... long story short, couple is thrilled to be pregnant, have a child. complications arise, she in no way wanted an abortion at all but the child was dead; hospital refused to give her the abortion they knew would save her life, so her husband had to watch her suffer and die of blood poisoning, which i can tell you is a horrible and painful way to die.

 

That is seriously fucked up.

 

she knew she was dying, knew an abortion would save her life, and the whole time the hospital was very callous to her. even one of my most staunch anti abortion coworkers agreed, get it out of her.

 

essentially what happened was the baby rotted inside of her.

 

And that is precisely why I rail against ideology DICTATING political policy, in bills and other legislation at any level of government.

The ideology that concepts are black or white, or must be this or must be that creates the problem that the poor woman suffered from.

To say that Jesus Christ, would've supported such a phenomena to not help that poor woman (I say this because a lot of anti-abortion people in law, stand on the foundation of the faith's tenants as the motivation behind why they are trying to shape earthly laws) will hit a moral grey area or catch-22.

-----

At a certain point, people of any faith, need to accept that sinful actions, (like abortion, lying, divorce) are gonna happen, and they need to deal with that.

If they are gonna outlaw 1 action, then they should outlaw all the other actions their faith says are sinful, and also punish themselves when they perform any of those actions....but they don't.

I've always noticed that sexual issues or topics, get politicized first especially in a religious-political context.

 

Gee, that's sure simplistic and imbecilic hogwash! Of course an elected president is going to slip somewhat in numbers from what he received in electing him. I'm rather impressed that he can hold onto 79%!

I would also suppose that if he's an honest man, which I believe he usually is, he would be governing in a more honest way now than he would be forced by the corrupt US system to govern if he needed to be re-elected.