Certainly not mine. Obama is a puppet of wall street and out to destroy the United States. 1.7 trillion to the FED first month in office. Got torture LEGALIZED while lying, saying he was closing Guantanamo Bay. Lost America's AAA rating, botched the Gulf spill disaster, being crowned head of the UN (unconstitutional). His health care bill with 14 provisions for new taxes that removed free care for children under 12. 5 that's right, 5 new conflicts! He signed the NDAA when he promised he wouldn't ! Or what about the martial law acts? He has increased the national debt more than any other president in history, and that's in just three years! All to give to the richest institutions in the world. On and on and on, like his signing statements and pocket vetoes. Or Fast and Furious, and Solyndra, didn't he promise the most transparent presidency? ALL LIES !! Look at the economy! You cant even get a bag of chips for a dollar any more, whats the price of a can of coke? He is stealing right out of our pockets thru inflation. Look at GAS! This comes from an Obama voter in 2008, boy did he make a fool out of me. I'm now fully supporting the only non insider, the only non puppet the only one with honor in the old sense, the only one that DOES what he SAYS! RON PAUL!!!!
In 100 years the truly educated will see this president as one of the worst in history.
Economy Cuts Into Obama’s Youth Support: Can Obama Depend on Youth Vote?
Fef
2012/07/02 18:59:58
|
|
|||||
|
236 votes
|
|
37% | |||
|
407 votes
|
|
63% | |||
President Obama enjoys a wide lead over Mitt Romney among youthful voters. However, the nearly 24 percent unemployment rate among 18- and 19-year-olds cuts Obama's margin in half among that age group. Political pundits suggest that the recession and slow recovery play an important role in the 17 million newest voters.
“The concern for Obama, and the opportunity for Romney, is in the 18- to 24-year-olds who don’t have the historical or direct connection to the campaign or the movement of four years ago,” said John Della Volpe, director of polling at the Harvard Institute of Politics. “We’re also seeing that these younger members of this generation are beginning to show some more conservative traits. It doesn’t mean they are Republican. It means Republicans have an opportunity.”
“I think the lack of excitement right now is palpable enough to be a challenge to the re-election campaign” of Mr. Obama, said Peter Levine, director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University.
New York Times reports:
“The concern for Obama, and the opportunity for Romney, is in the 18- to 24-year-olds who don’t have the historical or direct connection to the campaign or the movement of four years ago,” said John Della Volpe, director of polling at the Harvard Institute of Politics. “We’re also seeing that these younger members of this generation are beginning to show some more conservative traits. It doesn’t mean they are Republican. It means Republicans have an opportunity.”
“I think the lack of excitement right now is palpable enough to be a challenge to the re-election campaign” of Mr. Obama, said Peter Levine, director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University.
New York Times reports:
Since President Obama swept into office with vast backing from young people, a new corps of voters have come of age with views shaped by the recession.
Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/us/politics/econ...
Top Opinion
-
KG 2012/07/03 19:25:19
In Monsanto's particular case, the FDA and USDA are run by them in a fashion even worse than the typical revolving door (usually "justified" by the argument that it's the only way to get people with experience into regulatory positions): People in US regulatory agencies are literally on Monsanto's payroll simultaneously!
On top of that, our government has forced Monsanto onto people in third world countries like Iraq: The US pressured the puppet Iraqi government to make it illegal for Iraqis to keep their own seeds between seasons, so they have to buy - from Monsanto of course - every year.
Moreover, Monsanto abuses patent law (itself a government invention) by deliberately driving by small farms with trucks full of [potentially dangerous, potentially terminator-gene including] seed, and leaving the trucks open so it spreads. Then, they threaten and intimidate the small farmers into destroying their crops, or sue them for patent infringement.
It's complete insanity, and it has everything to ...
In Monsanto's particular case, the FDA and USDA are run by them in a fashion even worse than the typical revolving door (usually "justified" by the argument that it's the only way to get people with experience into regulatory positions): People in US regulatory agencies are literally on Monsanto's payroll simultaneously!
On top of that, our government has forced Monsanto onto people in third world countries like Iraq: The US pressured the puppet Iraqi government to make it illegal for Iraqis to keep their own seeds between seasons, so they have to buy - from Monsanto of course - every year.
Moreover, Monsanto abuses patent law (itself a government invention) by deliberately driving by small farms with trucks full of [potentially dangerous, potentially terminator-gene including] seed, and leaving the trucks open so it spreads. Then, they threaten and intimidate the small farmers into destroying their crops, or sue them for patent infringement.
It's complete insanity, and it has everything to do with the government having the dangerous power - which it shouldn't have - to enforce their will. Your solution is to try patching the holes piecemeal, but look at China, where corruption is punishable by death yet still rampant: This is what happens when people let the government seize arbitrary regulatory power, instead of strictly chaining it down and holding it to the purpose of protecting people and their property from being violated by others.
Libertarian thought has nothing to do with assuming everyone would do the right thing just because it's the right thing...we recognize there are power-hungry people everywhere. We just recognize that they're also in (and especially in) government, and legalizing competition and individual choice in practically every area is a far better solution than praying the regulators have our best interests at heart. Who watches the Watchmen?
Unlike socialism (rife with moral hazard), libertarianism does not rest upon the utopian ideal of making people "better." Instead, it has to do with creating a world where the individual, personal incentives lean more heavily toward doing the right thing. For instance, look again to my kosher agency example for how and why it is point-blank profitable for food companies to become certified and abide by certain standards...and that's even under today's super-messed-up regulatory system!
It would probably be unreasonable for me to expect to change your mind here on Sodahead, but I really hope my posts have at least convinced you that libertarians DO care, and these issues are a little bit more complicated than saying our position is "indefensible" would imply. I guess a bit of respect is all I could really ask for right now.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." ~ Henry David Thoreau
BTW, as far as your personal attacks are concerned: Before I was a libertarian, I was a social democrat...and I was not born that way, but I became the only liberal in a neoconservative family on both sides because I was [and remain] horrified by poverty, as well as war and the police state. I'm sure you can imagine about how well my liberalism went appreciated. I spent my free time coming up with detailed universal healthcare and education schemes...until I started criticizing my own ideas on economic grounds, revising them, criticizing them, and finally needing to revise them to such a degree that it was apparent they were utterly unworkable. I had to be dragged over to libertarianism kicking and screaming, and I had already rejected it once before.
In short, I am not the evil, unempathetic narcissist you think I am, but I can assure you without a doubt that they do exist...you're just looking in the wrong place for them. Unless and until you've seen a sociopath for what they are and stared in the face of evil point blank, you have no inkling just how little empathy some people can h...
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." ~ Henry David Thoreau
BTW, as far as your personal attacks are concerned: Before I was a libertarian, I was a social democrat...and I was not born that way, but I became the only liberal in a neoconservative family on both sides because I was [and remain] horrified by poverty, as well as war and the police state. I'm sure you can imagine about how well my liberalism went appreciated. I spent my free time coming up with detailed universal healthcare and education schemes...until I started criticizing my own ideas on economic grounds, revising them, criticizing them, and finally needing to revise them to such a degree that it was apparent they were utterly unworkable. I had to be dragged over to libertarianism kicking and screaming, and I had already rejected it once before.
In short, I am not the evil, unempathetic narcissist you think I am, but I can assure you without a doubt that they do exist...you're just looking in the wrong place for them. Unless and until you've seen a sociopath for what they are and stared in the face of evil point blank, you have no inkling just how little empathy some people can have (hint: absolutely none...no love, no remorse, and complete pathological dishonesty...just totally empty and alien, but so charismatic that most people would sooner think themselves crazy than recognize what's going on). If you ever have the misfortune of experiencing this, you will recognize these people crowded around the seat of power, and you will see why there is no hope for good people to keep a government with arbitrary regulatory power under control indefinitely. (That's aside from the fact that even well-intentioned interventionist policies can still be economically destructive anyway...e.g. price controls always cause shortages.)
At least you didn't try tying me to Stefan Molyneux, the narcissistic cultist. Now there's a libertarian who is an absolute sociopath if there ever was one...but he's really not so much libertarian as he is a chameleon-like narcissist who saw an "in:" He saw a demographic of young libertarian nerds who feel alone and misunderstood and want to socialize and be accepted, and he found a jaw-droppingly sick way to exploit that.
(If you're interested in using the MBTI to help feel out people's personalities, "extreme" libertarians are commonly gifted INTP's and INTJ's. INTP's may be thinkers rather than feelers...but hardly lacking in empathy. INTJ's are often mistaken for being robots, and they can be dismissive of people who disagree with them and appear arrogant, but they're not the kind of people likely to be real sociopaths either. Pathological narcissists on the other hand are quite extraverted by nature, and ESTP's in particular are actively recruited by the military for being the most likely to be psychopaths. That said, compulsive psychopaths aren't the kind of sociopaths that "run the world" anyway. That would be the more patient, narcissistic ones, likely falling under the ESTJ or ENTJ categories...but regardless, it's rare to find a sociopath who isn't extremely extraverted and usually sensing, and libertarians are disproportionately introverted intuitive types. ;))
Calling Ron Paul an "anti-choice zealot" really just highlights your own partisan bias: He's pro-life, yes, but what exactly makes him a zealot? If you'd call all pro-lifers zealots, doesn't the term lose its meaning and impact? Unlike almost everyone else on the "right," his stance is actually more nuanced: He's pro-life - like practically anyone who believes a fetus is a unique person with its own right to life would be - but his aim is not to ban abortion on the federal level, because he correctly argues that the federal government has no legitimate jurisdiction over abortion in the first place. As such, he's a lot more moderate than the vast majority of people on BOTH sides of this issue, including yourself.
My personal politics on abortion? Believing a single-celled embryo is a full person with rights is nearly as much of a stretch as believing it's okay to jam scissors into a baby's neck right at birth as long as the head is still inside (but not after the head comes out, noooo)...but not nearly as dangerous and...ahem...unempathetic. I wish people would settle on defining life as beginning with brain waves and a heartbeat, but actually trying to be reasonable about this issue just makes me a "zealot" to both sides. Go figure.
Abortion politics aside, Ron Paul is correct about Roe vs. Wade: It was a bad decision on legal grounds. It extended the Fourth Amendment with the Ninth to imply a general right to privacy, which I actually don't mind so much despite the sketchiness of the process, but then it went off the deep end and presumed that anything done "in private" cannot be outlawed by any state, simply because it would be an unconstitutional violation of privacy to enforce the law. This argument falls flat on its face, because crimes like murder and arson are also generally committed in private, yet we still find ways to enforce laws against murder and arson without 24/7 surveillance. (Or, well...we used to, before the government became hellbent on a surveillance dragnet anyway.) Roe vs. Wade also had the unfortunate side effect of putting divisive moral wedge issues front and center in Presidential politics ever since, which has created so many single-issue voters on both sides that it has become inordinately difficult to hold politicians accountable on other issues of national importance.
Anyway, let's talk a bit about the writing on the wall. Judging by your comments about being in the "right party," you appear to be backing Democrats in a very partisan fashion, correct? As in, you might be more of a DailyKos fan than a Kucinich or Green Party fan? Take a look at the people you're supporting: Do you think it's a coincidence that they're a MAJOR party with a never-ending stream of corporate contributions? Do you think it's a coincidence that their anointed candidates receive nonstop free media coverage by the corporate media? Meanwhile, you would have me believe that libertarians, shunned and disenfranchised by the media at nearly every turn, are the real preference of corporate scumbags? If they were, you'd have seen some libertarian (or Libertarian) Presidents by now. The one time it looked like it might actually happen to a degree, with Ronald Reagan, he took a typical turn for the neoconservative instead and did terrible - but decidedly unlibertarian - damage to the country. With the way the MSM shapes public opinion to its will, they could have libertarians running the joint if they wanted...but no, they have Republicans and Democrats running the joint. Think about it and let the cognitive dissonance soak in.
Now that I've had to fight off so many insults and off-color remarks that I came off as verbose, you throw that in my face and come back at me with name calling and taunts? REALLY? And you're the one saying I'm lacking in empathy? I came right out and said earlier that the only concession I'm looking for is a bit of respect, and you can't even hold a conversation with me without resorting to bully tactics.
I guess it's like I said in my last post: Think about it and let the cognitive dissonance soak in.
As of this moment, I have no intention of casting a vote in the upcoming election. The electoral college for my state will go for Obama though... so that'll be that.