Category: News and Views
I don't know much about Romni, aside from that he is a member of the same religion as me. Nor can I know whether he'd make a good president. But this is an article I've come across which I feel raises a very valid point. So often we who vote are swayed so much by those around us - the media, other people - that we fail to do our own research on the person or party we're voting for. In this age of information it's becoming increasingly dificult for many to discern truth from opppinion. I can't vouch for the credibility of the writers of this article; I do not know which catagory it falls under. But I do know I've heard a lot of slander about Romni and his beliefs from people who clearly don't do their research. I've almost heard more slander about his beliefs than I have against his political platform. I wanted to post this article as a rebuttal to such slander, because credible or not, I feel a new perspective is required. It is the little things that define our characters. I'm not here to push my religion, or Romni as a candidate for the presidency.
Inside the Romni family home.
you don't know much about Romni, yet, you're quick to criticize others who don't do their research, and then post an article which you aren't even sure is valid. good going. a true genius, I tell ya *shrugs*.
I'm sorry but I will not read this article because I do not give a damn about Romni's religious beliefs, that has little to do with his intentions as president of this country. And, from what I've heard and read in the news Romni, and his running mate especially, want to destroy America as we know it. They want to literally take away womens rights, make it harder for minorities to vote and destroy medicade, medicare and social security. I haven't heard one good thing so far Romni and Ryan intend to actually do for the country if they get elected. So no, no, no. Romni would not make a good president, in my opinion. And I think anyone in the lower or middle classes would be a fool to vote for him because they would be voting against their own best interest.
I agree. But I'm not keen on Obunghole either.
As someone who is not following this current election - this, like the last, is little more than a popularity contest, the upshot of which is to see how can do the least damage to the USA - I found this article incredibly biased. Short on facts, long on opinion... nothing more than a blogpost. So what?As someone who has a rather
Certainly Musician is correct. WHich is why I said I didn't post it for any reason other than to create contrast. That brings up an interesting question though. What is fact? That's always been my fear with any outlet. We generally have very little certainty that what we're reading or hearing is factually based. I think that's one of the reasons voting is so daunting for people. There's a varitable quagmire of information circulating. Sometimes we ourselves can verify the truth that is, but in many instances it isn't easy.
Well, let's see... The republicans want to put women bck in the kitchen over the stove. I'm a guy, so I'll vote democrat because the dems want to put women back in the kitchen, except bent over the kitchen table... :-)
wow..., people...., no need to be so rude right? I don't like democratic politicians or the left wing but I am not going to tear it down like that! I mean no matter what people say. that's not even fair political talk. it's more like savagery, have some respect for the guy, and others who agree with him. if that's his opinion respect it!
I don't think either of them is bad, I say obama is fair as a person, but as to running our country, no thanks. his strategy is rather thuglike and his politics is brutelike. but I am sure otherwise he's okay. we'll agree to to disagree, I can tear obama down, but I am not going to here not in front of democrats, I am going to say, I love everyone, so I'll respect opinions, and to protect you from getting hurt, I won't shred him to pieces. Just saying though, if that's his idea of economic recovery it's rather strangely going the opposite way, and a funny way to make more jobs by not making them but promising.
as to you blind, I agree, I believe romney, I have faith and confidence in the guy. and, I don't believe he's not credible. I just ignore all that stupid shit and slander that comes out of the lefty papers and pretend they don't exist, it's not worth my time. I simply don't read them, I refuse to. I don't want to here the shit at all, also another reason I don't watch obama much, his political ideals makes me sick!
Right on, Dagne.
I'll say this for President Obama. He's probably a really great dad. There, now that I've said something nice about him, I now return myself to my right wing corner. lol
I disagree with most of his policies. Sure, they sound great in a happy Utopia, but we don't live in Utopia and never will. That's just not reality.
I would strongly urge anyone who's planning on voting for Obama to watch the documentary 2016, Obama's America. It explains so much about what his ultimate goal for America is, and it isn't the America we all know or anything closely resimbling a place I'd want to raise my son. His view and policies lean far more toward Comunism than toward the democratic. Democratic is one thing Marxism and Comunism are diametrically opposed to what America has always stood for.
Anyway, I could go on and on. I hesitated to get involved in this because I don't like arguing, especially when the conversation has the potential to get very heated and none of us are likely to change the others' minds but I had to chime in.
I know little of politics. But one thing I I believe very strongly. If you resort to attacking the oppositions and basically saying everything they do is bad, that does not make you credible. Show us why we should vote for you, not why we shouldn't vote for your opposition.
The problem is, BG, that the fear-mongering is effective. Paint a broad enough picture of what life is like under leader X, and the votes will come in - particularly with the last-minute decisions at the ballot box. In Alberta, about six months ago, we had a provincial election. All the polls indicated that a new party would win the provincial election, and I knew nobody who was going to vote for the currently-seated PC party (not scientific, but I know people from many walks of life). The current PC Party ran attack ads (Danyel Smith wants to take away millions of dollars from healthcare, education, etc.). Who won? The party that ran the attack ads. This is why in the US election they do it every year. It's stupid and petty and sounds a lot like bullies in the sandbox, but if it weren't effective in generating fear and getting the votes, they wouldn't do it.]
If Obama does get reelected, I would not want to be that documentary's creator. Imagine when 2016 comes around and while America will still have its problems, it won't be destroyed to that level, and then you were the one who put that out?
This has been done before: predictions of 1984-style snooping by Ashcroft and Friends, a crowd I don't agree with but understood weren't going to stage a coup.
Most of these documentaries fail to understand that in Western nations it takes support by multiple granches in government to affect this sort of thing.
Even when the Conservatives owned Legislative and Executive both, while we definitely had problems associated with single-party ownership, it was not a coup.
I'm not speaking here as an Obama supporter, just one who has watched many past documentaries after the fact predicting these terrible events of governmental takeovers and the like.
Oh and Communism is virtually dead, with two notable exceptions: the bare rock known as North Korea, and the tropical island knwon as Cuba.
China only has a few communist tendencies in name only anymore. The reason it failed was not ideological, it was economic, pure and simple.
Communism in the Marxist sense cannot be , and never has been, practiced. The soviet union was basically an oligarchy with a veneer of communist ideals to support the masses, rather despotist in the religious sense. China was similar, and is now a capitalist state, who loans us money.
The reason they don't look capitalist to us is that they are an investing / saving economy that is fully dependent on consumer economies like ours. So if we stopped consuming or went away or changed how we did things in some hippy fruit loop type scenario, the Chinese would lose profoundly. Nobody stands to gain in a communist situation, and certainly not the immense political lobbies that pay for presidents, congresspeople, and others in office.
Even North Korea and Cuba, again, are not true communist states but are dictatorial oligarchies whose current ideology has a veneer of communism, again, just like many societies use religion. Neither religion nor communism has been, or truly could be, practiced in whole as a state. Economics trump everything, because ideologues are the poster children of what it is to be a wellfare weenie: neither communism nor religion can survive without everybody else propping them up like a special needs adult who will never work a day in his or her life. Societies worldwide have decided Communism is just something that they don't want to pay for anymore: it's too expensive and too demanding of the economy.
So now what I want to know is what is all this talk about socialism taking over America?
It's more talk. Again, it's people talking who do not understand how their government works. In order for there to be a takeover, one of two things has to happen: You need an election where in all levels of government you get an overwhelming majority of candidates who not just support that idea, but want to put it into practice. I appeal to your engineering reasoning mind to consider the odds of that one, Margorp.
Add to this the immense political lobby that is financed by capital. This goes for both sides: strictly socialist economies have a lot of difficulty sustaining themselves. Far more frequently, you might see sociocapitalism in nations who are revamping their governments and economies.
The problem with these "taking over" statements is they lack actual evidence, or actual tactics. To take something over implies a Mongol-style Coup, in a country the size of the U.S., or such a widesweeping landslide in elections, not just of a particular ideology, but by people who specifically set out to single-handedly do this takeover.
Since the American public elects these people by majority, for the most part, then that would not be a takeover, it would be a decision by the American people.
Rather than blame Obama or Bush, or as some say Obamabush, one should remember who put them there. It's one thing to oust a bad leader: it's another to look at the processes by which bad leadership came to power. With a republic, like the U.S., this is pretty easy to figure out. People would rather watch documentaries that scare them, listen to shows that scare them, and feel good about beating out the enemy, instead of looking at the situation like a job interview: what's the description of the job? How well does Candidate X or Y fit that description?
People think their President is like a king or something and either expect him to eradicate something, or fear that he will totally change how their country works.
Sad: our founders labored with no computers, no typewriters, just ink wells and feather pens, to create a system of checks and balances, what many now would call gridloc, designed to do just this very thing: prevent takeovers. And now we have people insulting the Founders by daring to assert that a single individual, elected by the American public, can so usurp the Constitution and government as to take the place over as though this were Afghanistan or someplace.
We can blame fox news for this one.
We can blame fox news for a lot of things. I do think some major remodeling has to happen, I'm just not sure how it would work. I'm also an idealist mind you.
The only thing I would say is the best remodeling would be a return to many political parties. The current two parties always tout that as a bad thing because they have the market right now. But in the country's infancy, there were a lot of political parties.
I would suppose one of the best ways to manipulate the public is to set up an extremely oversimplified us-and-them mentality. No idea if this is the fault of the parties as such or just the media as a whole. Get people believing stuff like "OK, this is us and those are them. This is our guy, and that over there is their guy. Our guy stands for what we stand for, which is good and right and pure. The other feller over there and everyone who follows him are just big and bad and mean and evil and they want to make life hell for us. Plus they're nothing but a bunch of single-minded brainwashed robot zombie monsters while we are individuals who know the truth and think for ourselves. If our guy wins, it'll be heaven on earth and all our problems will be fixed because our guy can do it. If the other guy wins, it'll be misery on earth until the seventeenth of forever and not only will it be hell for us, but they'll give all the freaks and weirdos all the rights and take all of the rights away from the normal folks. So vote for our feller, he's right!"
This is why I'm voting 3rd party. I know, I'm a vote waster, sabbetur, bla, bla, bla. But at least I can sleep at night. By the way, I agree, local elections are where it's at.
I think the fear mongering goes both ways. According to the democrats, the republicans want to kill gramma, take stuff away from disabled kids, kill the plannet, and have a war on women. None of that is true.
Like someone earlier said, I wish we had more from which to choose than just the big 2. Sure, we've got 3rd party candidates but like a previous poster also said, you might as well throw your vote in the can. It's your vote though so I don't mean that as a criticism.
I'll just be glad when the election is over. I'm honestly getting tired of it and I really enjoy politics so that's saying something.
Our nation seems more divided than ever so I think either way it goes, there's going to be drama. Allot of that is the fault of the media from both sides and the fault of an education system that has done more to promote the entitlement mentality rather than educate young people on how our political system works etc. But, I digress.
It's ironic that people will say a third-party vote is a wasted vote, and then say their local elections are really important.
Vote your conscience, or your rationale, or however you vote. But if you are dedicated to a third party know this: You put that third party into office locally, there's a better chance that third party will get to the national level. The Founding Fathers created a system where the states are a microcosm of the federal government. Want to know how Romney is going to act as President? Study Massachussetts before and after. Want to know how Jesse Ventura will do for President? Study Minnesota before and after.
I found it odd that many who elected Bush in 2000 complained later, when in fact he did on a national level as he'd done in Texas.
People forget that the Presidency is not a monarchy, constitutionally or otherwise, and that the job description is in the Constitution. More gets done at your state, and, hell, at your county level.
The key is that when you vote you should carry your own agenda. This means don't waist your time listening to the chatterboxes talking about today's issues and dancing around everything else. I really do think that just as many say there should be a test for parenting there should be one for voters.
I know one thing. I'll be voting no on Propositions 1, 2 and 3 on the local balett. These were put forth by Idaho school superintendent Tom Luna or Loony as I like to call him. His latest proposals involve tax payers paying for every child in every school in Idaho to have laptops. And what with kids being kids I could see the costs getting out of hand really quickly if these laws passed. Gadgets get stolen or broken in schools all the time, so we'd have to pay for replacements.
Yeah that luna guy sounds loony to me.
Unfortunately he's managed to stay inoffice the last few elections. No argument that the educational system needs an overhaul (ditch the political correctness bullshit for one thing), but the Loony Laws are the wrong approach.
As for Romney the more I hear about him the less I feel inclined to vote for him. And I'd almost vote for Obunghole again if it'd keep Romney from the Whitehouse. Why on earth he mentions as part of his campaign that he wants to get rid of Sesame Street is beyond me. If you want to get rid of a cartoon, get rid of Barney or Spongebob.
He didn't say he wanted to "get rid " of sesame street. He said he would cut funding for PBS until we as a nation could afford it.
I'm quite certain that private donars would step in to save Big Bird.
PBS receives very little federal funding so why Romney would blame big bird for the federal deficit is quite laughable... anyway I think this country is screwed no matter who gets elected though I would prefer Obama over Romney anyday.
We've done this before: 1994 Contract With America, kids who weren't very old or born then can read all about it.
They also cut PBS funding whihch had two non-issues: First, others stepped in to pay the very little the Government provides, and second, nothing happened deficit wise. In other words, it's much ado about nothing for people to decry it, and much ado about nothing when the conservatives claim they're saving the day by cutting it.
It's tantamount to showing up to pay the repo man a dollar against your 20,000 dollar payment. Go try that and see where it gets you.
Oh and incidentally, the President does not do any of this single-handedly. Note that most of these types of decisions get made by the two houses of your legislature, aka revisit your history on 1994 kids. That was one great experiment: The Repubs had 8 years of majority in the House and the Senate six of which they also had the Executive Branch. We had heard up until then about how great they were going to be at cutting the deficit. We hadn't seen it, of course, because during Reagan and Bush Sr., those 12 years had a congress under the Democratic party.
What's interesting is that we didn't get a reduction in spending at all: in fact our deficit went through the roof like any tax-and-spender could only dream about. Nobody would be surprised to find out Harry Reed, for instance, went and spent a ton of your money. However, when the Repubs do it, it's rather like the good old days of people like Jimmy Swaggart preaching virtue and judging everyone else, only to be caught with the pants ddown.
Until the batch came in in 1994, we had never seen a congress dominated by republicans, and so we had no real memory of it. Certainly anyone looking at history books could see this, but in current experience, the democrats had had the legislature for 30 plus years. What I can't believe is people actually still believe any of the nonsense about republicans cutting the deficit. We have recent history that will show us otherwise.
Cody's right about third parties. And less-popular parties have a better chance at winning your local elections than they do taking center stage just yet.
Most of the bitching seems to come from the republicans. Let's see Mit's transcripts, birth certificate, proof that he's not a martian, etc. lol.
And Obama is not releasing those things because???
Why should he have to do any of those things domestic Goddess no one is asking for Romney's. why is it ok to do it to one guy but not another seems kinda ridiculous to me
is it because of his name
im not sure i trust anyone named Willard Romney anymore than barak obama
both are silly names in my opinion so is it about race?
i think trump offering obama 5 million dollars for his transcripts was seriously insulting and very childish
I think Romney should have to do so as well. Anyone running for the highest office in the nation should.
I don't give 2 shits about tte race of the president and I'm insulted by people who assume that because I'm opposed to Obama's policies and what I see as character flaws in the man, that it's because he's black.
I've expounded on why I oppose Obama in another thread so I won't repeat myself.
are there any republicans on this site at all? My word.
don't know, but I'm definitely not one.
well said post 33.
I wouldn't say I'm Republican because I consider myself to be a Conservative. However, I vote republican.