2012 Presidential Election

[SoCal]

Inefficient government is no reason to take, by force, a portion of the money I earn to give to another part of the society.

Many states have different laws. Some charge property tax, some do not. All states charge different sales taxes. Most states have different speed limits. Many states have different "age of consent laws." The list of different state laws is quite long.

That still doesn't explain why a central federal government should be able to take a part of your paycheck and use it for the monetary benefit of others. That is not in the Constitution.

[davidhayes1956]

When the government builds a road so that you can get to work and so that goods and services can reach you it is for a lot of people's monetary gain. When they give it to individuals in need that is also to give comfort to those not in need that there will be help for them when they need it. When the government gives to support those most effected by poverty (children), they give them a chance to grow up to contribute to society. I guess I need to find a pie chart to see how much we are actually giving to the poor in our country. I'm sure it won't be in excess of what we have payed to maintain a nuclear stockpile that hasn't done us much good at all.

And is the tax collector coming to your door with a gun? What's this force you are talking about? Taxes are voted on either by us or the people we elect to represent us. If your issue is with democracy, then that is a different discussion.

[SoCal]

You do realize that the United States is NOT a democracy but a republic, don't you?

If I don't pay my taxes, I will go to jail.

My problem is with a federal government seizing powers they were never designed to have, according to the Constitution, and sticking its fat hand into my back pocket to take money that I have earned to give to others.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” ¯ James Madison

[davidhayes1956]

Republic:
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Democracy:
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections


I am aware that we are what we are and we define ourselves by various terms, some of which fit better than others. The definition of republic tends to stray from democracy first by limiting who is allowed to vote. I believe that since the race and sex restrictions were removed that all that is required is citizenship, registration to vote and not currently having your voting rights taken due to being a convict. The republic also has the tiered approach where we are supposed to elect others who will vote as the citizens with voting rights direct them to ... leaving the 'supreme' power in the hands of the voters. We vary from this in that our representatives can vote in ways that we don't approve of (and may later get removed from office for it after the 'damage is done'). We also has a constitution that has limited our rights in certain ways -- such as to require more than a majority vote to make certain changes in our laws. And there are certain things that are categorized as entitlements that I've heard that no branch of the government can repeal ... but I'm not sure what would stop that from happening if enough citizens decided to repeal them.

[SoCal]

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.” ¯ James Madison

[davidhayes1956]

So, Illinois, a state that is so broke that gas stations won't fill up a highway patrol cruiser on a state credit card, should go bankrupt due to it's failure to become prosperous. Maybe then, Indiana could buy Illinois and we'd have one less state.

[SoCal]

California is probably the most in debt state in the country. All because in more "flush" times, the state employee unions demanded and got ridiculous deals for their members.

“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” ¯ James Madison

“on Democracies:

"there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” ¯ James Madison, Federalist Papers Nos. 10 and 51

[Deleted]

reason for edit: had to take out some of the Romney gifs, as the width stretched the board out of whack

[SoCal]

[KyleEl]

A commercial is running now which says Romney wants to do away with Planned Parenthood.

Now there has been breast cancer in my family. Every female who has reached 60 has had it, but most have been cured. Actually, my grandmother who I never knew was much younger and back in the day, there wasn't much that could be done. But my grandfather remarried before I was born, so as far as I'm concerned, his second wife was my grandmother.

The abortion issue, though, is different. I don't like the act, especially as a form of birth control, but if Romney can really get Roe v. Wade overturned, I worry that mothers of unwanted children will do something dangerous. The back-alley butchers don't care about providing options. At least when it's legal, there's a chance to explain options and maybe talk the mother into considering adoption.

Plus I don't like forcing rape and incest victims to give birth, but I can see the point of view who say a life is a life.

Children with serious health problems (the ones who it is predicted will never have a life by the normal defintion) are another matter, but many have been raised with those problems and have proven to be a joy in the people's lives. This isn't for everyone and maybe giving such a child up for adoption shouldn't be something to be ashamed of when there are others who will welcome the child.

Ultimately, you have to care if the mother might die.

[SoCal]

Geez, that's all the dems can muster.....Don't elect Romney, he hates puppies and kittens!

There is no freaking way on earth Romney advocates getting rid of planned parenthood. He may want it reformed and God knows, it needs reforming. It's a giant suckhole of federal tax dollars when it makes millions providing abortion services.

[davidhayes1956]

Here's Romney on Planned Parenthood. And I DO respect what he's saying about borrowing money from China to support programs that should be able to support themselves in other ways ... especially if it is money we have no way to repay. As individuals, it wouldn't be smart to borrow money we can't afford to repay in order to give it to others ... especially if it means we don't pay debts we definitely owe because of it or if we give it to people financially better off than we are or if we turn the money over to people who use it carelessly because it didn't come out of their pocket. It is nice to hear what Romney has to say in his own words and not in sound bites on a commercial opposing him and I respect that he still sticks with what he believes even when he is booed by his audience and doesn't just tell people what they want to hear. Respecting how he represents himself doesn't mean I support him in all things or would choose him to be the President of the United States. It can't all be about what he says, it has to be about what he does and how successful he is at achieving his intended goals when his programs are carried out.

[SoCal]

And last time I looked, mammograms were NOT a part of family planning.

[SoCal]

And I thought this would be good for a chuckle:

[SoCal]

BTW, here are just a few choice quotes from the founder of Planned Parenthood, eugenecist and racist, Margaret Sanger:

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
-- Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control . New York: New
York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
"There is only one reply to a request for a higher birthrate among the
intelligent, and that is to ask the government to first take the burden of
the insane and feeble-minded from your back. [Mandatory] sterilization for
these is the answer."
-- Margaret Sanger, October 1926 Birth Control Review .
"[Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are] human weeds ... a
deadweight of human waste ... [Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a] menace to
the race."
"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent
Multiplication of this bad stock."
-- Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review .

[davidhayes1956]

I always find it strange that a political party that is so keen on keeping unwanted children protected until they are born seem equally bent on not supporting those unwanted children after birth. Euthanasia = bad. Being born so you can live in poverty = ? To me, both suck. To the first, if you don't want kids, safe sex or no sex (being responsible). To the second. it isn't a child's fault to be born to people that don't want the child and the child deserves food and shelter until old enough to self-support. The more of the former means less of the latter.

[SoCal]

Jul 23, 2012 21:51:55 GMT -5 @davidhayes1956 said:

I always find it strange that a political party that is so keen on keeping unwanted children protected until they are born seem equally bent on not supporting those unwanted children after birth. Euthanasia = bad. Being born so you can live in poverty = ? To me, both suck. To the first, if you don't want kids, safe sex or no sex (being responsible). To the second. it isn't a child's fault to be born to people that don't want the child and the child deserves food and shelter until old enough to self-support. The more of the former means less of the latter.

Just because some people oppose abortion on demand, doesn't mean they are then responsible to pay, through taxation, for the lifetime support of the child. That should be up to the two people whose actions nine months earlier brought that life into the world. We all know how babies are made. If you're adult enough to engage in behavior that might cause a pregnancy, you need to be adult enough to stop acting like a child and support YOUR child.

[davidhayes1956]

I'm simply saying that by making a law against abortion, it is implying that "My morality is superior to yours so I will prevent you from killing a human fetus or punish you for doing so ... but my morality doesn't require me to help help that child you don't want alive once you have it." ... and "forcing" someone to carry through with a pregnancy is a little more personal that "forcing" someone to pay taxes. I already addressed personal responsibility but I will add that I have never heard of anyone being denied when they tried to give up a child for adoption. I do not believe in using abortion as birth control.

[KyleEl]

Jul 23, 2012 18:14:01 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Geez, that's all the dems can muster.....Don't elect Romney, he hates puppies and kittens!

There is no freaking way on earth Romney advocates getting rid of planned parenthood.

Well, whoever edited the commercial sure made it look like he would.

And we all know Romney's reputation for caring about dogs.

I don't like dogs, so I don't care. But if he hates cats ...

[KyleEl]

I just remembered. I saw Obama in a uniform with , only it was an O instead of an S.

[davidhayes1956]

Sometimes comedians get to the heart of issues better than anyone else. We open our minds for a joke and accidentally let some common sense seep in. Political commercials lie ... often by making sound bites out of statements that many might agree with is heard in their entirety. This link takes you to a segment of the "Daily Show" with Lewis Black that shows some of the deception on both sides of the race.

www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-24-2012/back-in-black---campaign-fibs

[SoCal]

[SoCal]

[Aeryn]

[SoCal]

This moron:



.....chose another moron:



...to be vice president.

Says a lot, yes?

[KyleEl]

I don't remember where I saw this, but it seemks appropriate.

I need to buy a roll of Obama blank birth certificates.

[SoCal]

[SoCal]

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. -- George Washington

[SoCal]

[Deleted]