1. Economy.
2. Jobs.
3. Ozombiecare
Reuters Poll: 73% of Independents Oppose Obamacare
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfr...
Obie can kiss his ass goodbye.
And when the news outlets start showing this video, he's a goner.
Four months until Election Day 2012
Mopeder
2012/07/05 09:42:47
|
|
|||||
|
35 votes
|
|
55% | |||
|
19 votes
|
|
30% | |||
|
10 votes
|
|
16% | |||
Top Opinion
-
I can't wait.
+47Obie boi, will loose it for 3 reasons. I don't even have to bother with the rest of the reasons he will lose on. The big 3 are enough.
1. Economy.
2. Jobs.
3. Ozombiecare
Reuters Poll: 73% of Independents Oppose Obamacare
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfr...
Obie can kiss his ass goodbye.
And when the news outlets start showing this video, he's a goner.
What's crazy about letting people keep the money they have earned and that justly belongs to them? I think it's crazy to institutionalize theft!
If you believe in what government is doing, why wouldn't you voluntarily give money to support it? After all, if it's not a good enough cause for someone like you who believes in it to support it voluntarily, how can it possibly be a good enough cause to justify coercively taking money from someone else to pay for it, who might not even believe in it as you do?
What has changed through the years is that government expanded it to steal from more people, and to take larger amounts of money.
But the basic issue here is that the money belongs to the people who earn it, not to any government. Whether you are rich or poor, if government demands money from you under penalty of law, it is robbery, and it is wrong.
This is the hidden violence underlying the system which people typically try to sweep under the rug and ignore.
People who want to address society's needs via government need to put their money where their mouths are, rather than seeking to force others to subsidize their political agendas. If a proposal makes sense and sounds worthy to me, I am willing to consider voluntarily donating to support it, but I do not consent to be robbed against my will.
If the system has to rely on robbery to maintain itself, maybe that is a sign that it is not worth maintaining, and needs to reconfigure itself into something that people will voluntarily support without the threat of violence.
That is all somewhat beside the point though. Salient points here:
(1) I don't "feel sorry" for rich people in general, and certainly not for Mitt Romney in particular. I can't stand Romney; I think he is arrogant, hypocritical, unethical, an opportunistic flip-flopper, and power-hungry (not necessarily in that order).
(2) Even if someone has 10 times as much money as Romney does, he or she should not have a dime of that money stolen by any government!
(3) Since government *does* steal money from people, I don't blame anyone, rich or poor, for taking advantage of whatever tax write-offs, shelters, loopholes, and what not they can, no matter how absurd these mechanisms appear on paper, if it helps them minimize the theft.
www.GaryJohnson2012.com
The only vote that's really wasted is a vote for candidate you don't believe is the best for the job.
This is because to the extent people don't vote for the candidate they really want to see in office, democracy is broken, since the results will never reflect the public's real preferences.
If someone votes in a manner that fails to uphold the basic purpose of democracy, but instead undermines the very system that the person is expressing faith in by taking the trouble to vote in the first place, how is that not a wasted vote?
Everybody is (well, too many people are) trying to "game the system" by voting not based on their own beliefs and judgements about the merits and character of the candidates, but based on *how they expect OTHER people to vote*. People think this is being smart/clever/pragmatic, but actually all it does is ensure the perpetuation of the failed status quo, while contributing to the destruction of democracy (see above).
Your one vote will not decide the outcome of any national election anyway, any more than my vote or anyone else's will. Even in the once-in-a-lifetime-close 2000 election, you...
The only vote that's really wasted is a vote for candidate you don't believe is the best for the job.
This is because to the extent people don't vote for the candidate they really want to see in office, democracy is broken, since the results will never reflect the public's real preferences.
If someone votes in a manner that fails to uphold the basic purpose of democracy, but instead undermines the very system that the person is expressing faith in by taking the trouble to vote in the first place, how is that not a wasted vote?
Everybody is (well, too many people are) trying to "game the system" by voting not based on their own beliefs and judgements about the merits and character of the candidates, but based on *how they expect OTHER people to vote*. People think this is being smart/clever/pragmatic, but actually all it does is ensure the perpetuation of the failed status quo, while contributing to the destruction of democracy (see above).
Your one vote will not decide the outcome of any national election anyway, any more than my vote or anyone else's will. Even in the once-in-a-lifetime-close 2000 election, you would've had to convince several hundred people living in Florida to change their votes in order to change the outcome.
So if you have several hundred friends who will vote the way you tell them to, and you are a psychic who can predict that another "hanging chad" election is going to happen, then maybe it makes sense to vote for "the lesser evil" on the theory that you will change the outcome.
Otherwise, mathematically speaking, when we vote we are simply registering our preferences and adding to someone's total. I know it's not as satisfying as thinking our votes have any chance of actually changing the outcome, but I'd rather vote based on reality than based on wishful thinking.
Would you want others to deny you due process if arrested or incarcerated?
Would you want others to kill you as a civilian with drones in an undeclared war?
Would you want to take away your safe access to cannabis if you used it for a medical condition?
No? Then why vote to reelect a president who does these things to people?
If you wouldn't trust a President Romney with that power, or a President Ryan, or -- heaven forbid, a President Santorum, etc. -- then you shouldn't want Obama to have it either. Obama is jeopardizing the lives, liberty, and basic human rights of people in this country, needlessly.
There is no reason that people like Alawaki cannot be tried in absentia, if they refuse to appear in court, and the evidence against them can be presented to a jury, with counsel there to argue on their behalf. If the jury is convinced they deserve the death penalty -- something I am personally against, but leaving that aside for the moment -- then they can issue a verdict and give the Feds the green light to assassinate the person.
If the evidence against somebody isn't good enough to get a conviction in open court, maybe we ought to think twice before giving our approval to extra-judicial murders committed by those in power.
Standing up for due process and our Constitutional rights is not "nitpicking"!
And this is not just about this case of Alawaki, or about this president, Obama. It's about setting a correct rule-of-law precedent for other cases, and other presidents (including potentially Mitt Romney -- do you trust him deciding who government forces should execute without a trial?).
Anyone who cares about freedom, democracy, and basic human rights should be very, very nervous about people saying government need not waste its time putting people on trial, just decide they are guilty and kill them.
Do you really think the U.S. government is incapable of mass murder?
Or is mass murder by government (democide) only wrong in your view if it is not "random", i.e. if they come up with some barely plausible justification for the people they kill, such as "they were involved with terrorism"?
I think it's important to hold governments to equal standards, and not cut a government extra slack (or judge it more harshly, either) just because one feels some kind of personal connection to that government.
http://blog.independent.org/2...
I was born on a part of the earth's surface under the jurisdiction of the entity calling itself the United States government, and have been here most of my life. But my relationship with the U.S. government is non-consensual. I do not have any meaningful voice or say in its operation, and I do not recognize its legitimacy or authorize it to represent me. I think it is grossly and criminally mismanaging the jurisdiction it controls, and I think it has this in common with most entities in the world calling themselves governments and claiming similar jurisdiction.
Of course *we* don't put people away (assuming you, like myself, do not work for the police/prison industry). Government officials and their employees do, because as public servants they are noble, altruistic human beings only trying to do what's best for society, as opposed to the greedy, cold-hearted people who run "private" corporations. Oh wait.
Unlike the millions of innocent people who continue to be incarcerated in the name of controlling what you can put into your own body, Obama and Romney don't have to worry about the abuse of government power, because as part of the establishment they are largely above the law.
A vote for Obama is a vote for Romney, and a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama!
Just as I will always vote against rent control, despite the fact that it benefits me personally because I live in a rent-controlled apartment, because I know that it hurts people more than it helps overall.
Looking out for yourself and your family first is fine and natural when it comes to determining what decisions to make for yourself, with your own time, money, and life.
However it is unethical when it comes to determining what decisions to make in public policy, because then you are talking about using *other people's* money to forcibly interfere in other people's lives.