2aHawaii
General Topics => Off Topic => Topic started by: Heavies on June 16, 2012, 05:34:05 AM
-
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-gives-young-illegal-aliens-de-facto-amnesty (http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-gives-young-illegal-aliens-de-facto-amnesty)
The latest outrage by our Dictator and Chief.
So, If his high majesty doesn't like our laws, Just ignore them. Well, nothing new there, as well as his DOJ goons. :grrr:
-
Incredible
I bet his royal highnASS grants them the right to vote in the next election too.
-
Goddam immigrants! I tell ya, my family has had nothing but trouble with immigrants since we got to this country!
First, I agree. Either enforce the law or change it. This wishy washy "well, we need illegally low wage agricultural laborers to keep the prices of food bearable so we just won't fully enforce the border laws we have... and then we can turn it into a divisive election issue!! Perfect!" is doing the country no good.
Second... this is what armed forces are for everywhere else: enforcing borders. So, do we want to give the Army permission to operate on US soil or not? That would raise some eyebrows with the crowd that wantsall illegals gone, now wouldn't it? Same goes for giving the border guard the funding, equipment and numbers they would need to actually do the job as they would look and act just like the armed forces. Exactly how are we supposed to enforce immigration laws when we aren't willing to give the Border Guard the teeth they need to do so?
Third... Obama is no more or less above the law than any other president given the task of figuring out the immigration issue as part of the role of the Administrative Branch. Get over it.. King Bush II did something similar (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107692,00.html) when he offered amnesty and temporary work visas to illegals already in the country. And drew similar criticism from the hard right. The point of both attempts is to get a percentage of the illegals into a legal process and start bringing clarity to the issue.
Fourth... no one directly involved with the benefits of illegal immigration WANTS that clarity. Employers don't want to have to pay fair wages to American who don't want those jobs anyway and illegals don't want to get anywhere near an authority that might kick them out. Its not just Mexicans wanting into the US, its ag giants wanting cheap labor and not caring that its illegal as long as they can get away with it. As long as the enforcement of laws stays fuzzy there is a comfy gray area large enough to make some profit.
Firth... illegal immigration when a rich country is next to a poor county is an age old problem that no one has ever solved. Its not surprising that our leaders have never solved it. And simply enforcing the law wouldn't solve the problem, either, as the immigrant work force IS a part of the economic equation. Removing that force from the equation would both incur great expense for enforcement and great loss due to higher wages and the resulting higher food (and construction) costs.
Not an easy issue at all. Much easier to use for politics than to actually solve. Congrats! You are falling into the politics of it while getting no closer to a workable solution. Like most of the issues of consequence in this country.
edit: Fixing links since I now realize I had the syntax wrong...
-
I need to read what Obama is saying he wants to do in more detail, however keep this in mind...............once registered these guys are now on the radar to pay taxes & lessen the burden on our healthcare and government services. Less drain on law enforcement personnel as well. It may not be ideal, but it may be realistic to look at rather than trying to catch and deport tens of thousands of persons who will re-enter illegally anyway.
-
While immigration reform is probably a good idea, bypassing congress to get more votes, legally and illegally, is no the way to do it.
This guy and his whole administration are just criminal. Why the other parties are so slow to act is beyond me.
Country is just going down the tubes fast, what can be done? I am still voting "any one but Obama". However, it is probably just going to slow the decline and not solve the problem.
Unless some real leaders emerge and make these hard decisions, without regard for their relectability status we are screwed.
-
I am still voting "any one but Obama". However, it is probably just going to slow the decline and not solve the problem.
Unless some real leaders emerge and make these hard decisions, without regard for their relectability status we are screwed.
Truth.
And everyone I know who is voting for Obama feels exactly the same way. Just slowing the inevitable decline.
So if everyone thinks the country is in a slow decline... how is it that none of us can a) agree on why or b) do anything about it.
As for illegal immigrants from Mexico... why is it such a problem, again? High end estimate of what illegals cost the US is $100 billion per year. That figure does not include high end estimates that illegal (and low wage) immigrant labor accounts for as much as 5% of the American economy. Even if they aren't paying full income tax on their (low wage) labor their employers ARE paying taxes on their products when sold.
And who would want to pay 3 times the price for a head of lettuce grown and picked by Americans earning legal minimum wage? Try selling that to any constituency, election year or not. And that's on top of the rising cost of food due to the volatility of fuel prices.
The American economy would shudder and falter without illegal migrant labor. That's why no one has actually made any "hard" decisions about it. Overall we get more from it than we lose.
Bypassing congress?! Criminal? Border Patrol is under DHS which is under the direct control of the Executive Branch. Deciding how it does its job is the administration's job. The president doesn't need to get permission from Congress to do his job. Laws are incompletely enforced all the time and that gray area is a matter of policy.
Right or wrong, agree or not - Obama is acting fully within his authority. Just as Bush did when he proposed something similar. Was he a criminal for bypassing congress on this matter, as well?
I'm not defending Obama or his tactics. I'm pointing out that both parties do the same things, use the same tactics. Who gets outraged and why tends to fall along party lines and has nothing to do with the morality of the political tactic. We cry foul when someone we don't agree with does something to get more votes.
Truth and effective solutions usually have nothing to do with it.
-
Not running the party line at all. If there is a law, the law must be respected. If they will not be followed what the hell is the point to any of it.
Bush, Bama, Holder, anyone. All are not following the law needs to be held accountable.
Oh what the hell. I don't think Hawaii's CCW laws are any good. I'll just ignor them. What do you think will happen to me in this case?
Obama is not acting within his authority. He is not a judge. Judges interpret the laws and penalties spelled out in these laws.
-
Well, as soon as these illegals reach some influential position our country will be theres.
-
Well, as soon as these illegals reach some influential position our country will be theres. (theirs)
-
Well, as soon as these illegals reach some influential position our country will be theres.
They have as far as I am concerned. Obama is ineligible to be POTUS.
-
Well, as soon as these illegals reach some influential position our country will be theres.
If you look at the US, we are a country of illegal immigrants. "Legal" has only come about (relatively) recently. I am no Pro-Obama guy, but really man?
They have as far as I am concerned. Obama is ineligible to be POTUS.
Please don't tell me you are a birther.
-
Please don't tell me you are a birther.
Why whats the problem with that?
There is no solid proof
Please prove me wrong!
-
I can't prove your ~belief~ wrong. Some people also believe the world is flat, that dying a martyr will gain you 72 virgins in heaven and that we have a democratic federal government in the US. Hey, its a free country so people can believe whatever BS they want.
As for most everyone else who doesn't already believe beyond any possible proof that Obama wasn't born here, there is adequate proof (http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/). (FactCheck.org)
There are legitimate reasons to hate the man and his politics. This isn't one of them.
edit: fixed the link
-
Why whats the problem with that?
There is no solid proof
Please prove me wrong!
The solid proof is the birth certificate. Guys wishing he isn't a citizen doesn't make it so. The best thing to do now is just vote him out.
-
The solid proof is the birth certificate. Guys wishing he isn't a citizen doesn't make it so. The best thing to do now is just vote him out.
Which one? the one on whitehouse.gov is doctored.
please debunk this for me. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY)
I also do digital graphics. I could have done a better job than the whitehouse.
-
Looks pretty damning, doesn't it?
Now read this:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/)
or this:
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/March-2012/The-Obama-Birth-Certificate-and-the-Layers-Conspiracy/ (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/March-2012/The-Obama-Birth-Certificate-and-the-Layers-Conspiracy/)
And debunk this for me:
http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/ (http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/) (and note that the article, while originally posted in 2008, was updated in 2011 after the official document was released.)
Sit and spin on the birther issue if you want but you'll get no leverage from it.
That was worded more harshly than I intended. Better said: if you want to continue believing that the birther issue is valid you will likely be relegated to the fringe and not taken seriously.
-
While immigration reform is probably a good idea, bypassing congress to get more votes, legally and illegally, is no the way to do it.
This guy and his whole administration are just criminal. Why the other parties are so slow to act is beyond me.
It is because they (the parties) are all attempting to pander to the Hispanics, who make up a large voting pool.
As clshade stated, "either enforce the law or change it." Otherwise, we will continue down the slippery slope of relative enforcement. :-\
-
Looks pretty damning, doesn't it?
Now read this:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/)
or this:
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/March-2012/The-Obama-Birth-Certificate-and-the-Layers-Conspiracy/ (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/March-2012/The-Obama-Birth-Certificate-and-the-Layers-Conspiracy/)
And debunk this for me:
http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/ (http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/) (and note that the article, while originally posted in 2008, was updated in 2011 after the official document was released.)
Sit and spin on the birther issue if you want but you'll get no leverage from it.
That was worded more harshly than I intended. Better said: if you want to continue believing that the birther issue is valid you will likely be relegated to the fringe and not taken seriously.
If you dig deeper the guy who says its legit thru foxnews has retracted his statements about it being legit.
Factcheck.org is a totally liberal idiot news run obamaidiots
I have not read the chicago article. but i will
-
I am sorry I work with scan images all the time and there are no layers when scanning except in OCR. But even that the signitures will not come out how they do. they are fabrications.
I dont care who believes it or not. Its my opinion. I am not swallowing what the media is feeding us.
Also my Uncle was a OB-GYN back in the early 60's and he doesn't remember no registrars named U K L Lee
-
What I found interesting was the first link (where it says "over" and "over" again) in the Chicago article. The guy duplicates the layers by "optimizing" a scan. Which is what I was looking for to understand why those layers might be there other than that there is some huge, irrational coverup to get Obama into office. Because otherwise, I quite agree that they layers in a scan make zero sense.
Lessee if I can just embed that YouTube video...
<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XcWQw2AAIho?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0">
-
signed U K L Lee?
c'mon now!
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fWuxIA8mw4M/T7wpwTD5gII/AAAAAAAAAI0/YZsU7jNnH8s/s1600/uke2.jpg)
-
hmmmm
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
"I need to read what Obama is saying he wants to do in more detail, however keep this in mind...............once registered these guys are now on the radar to pay taxes & lessen the burden on our healthcare and government services. Less drain on law enforcement personnel as well. It may not be ideal, but it may be realistic to look at rather than trying to catch and deport tens of thousands of persons who will re-enter illegally anyway."
Actually, the main problem I see here is that these folks are coming into the country without previous background into what our country is (or was) all about --freedom and independence, including the freedom to fail. Thus, they will forever vote with their bellies instead of with a concern as to what's "good for the country." (That's in quotes, and what I mean is without any reflection at all on the impact on the country as a whole.)
Moreover, they come into this country with (usually) the basic understanding that possession of firearms should be limited to the police and military, and that the State is the ultimate authority on how to run their own lives.
Just my opinion.
Terry, 230RN
-
This topic is dumb. Unless you are Indian we are all immigrants.
-
This topic is dumb. Unless you are Indian we are all immigrants.
Being an immigrant is not the topic. This is about Obama disregarding the law.
You sir, seem to be very misinformed.
1) An immigrant is someone who moves to another country. The descendants of immigrants are not immigrants themselves.
2) I'm assuming by "Indian" you mean Native American because Indians are from India and there are a lot of Indian immigrants.
3) There is a possibility for Native American immigrants. All you need is someone of Native American descent born outside of this country to move here. Like one of the people in http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6621319.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6621319.stm)
-
1) An immigrant is someone who moves to another country. The descendants of immigrants are not immigrants themselves.
This is the thought behind Obama's proposal. Given that it is impossible to enforce the immigration laws as they are, its not entirely unreasonable.
-
oh my ....
-
View link
Check out this video on YouTube:
"Suppose Tomorrow The President Told The IRS Not To Enforce Tax Laws For Certain Special People" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zifZBsvMzQU#)
-
Wow... Maybe he slept through civics class. Or maybe civics means a car to him. :hide:
-
Wow... Maybe he slept through civics class. Or maybe civics means a car to him. :hide:
LoL, but he wasn't sleeping through civics class silly... he was at Waikiki Beach with the Choom Gang smoking some buds, he was with the local kids who were always looking for a brawl... remember, most of his high school days were just a blur cause he was always stoned.. don't believe me.. he says it himself here:
http://youtu.be/9ySamPJA7nY (http://youtu.be/9ySamPJA7nY)
-
Oh... I get it now.
You believe the bullshit that was fed to you in civics class - that laws are absolute.
In that case there is no problem with abortion, right? Law says its OK, right? People going over the speed limit, even by 1mph, deserve to be ticketed, right? Smoking pot is illegal and wrong and that's why ~everyone~ who uses pot is punished, right?
Funny how the "but its the LAW!" outrage generally only comes up when a law that ~you~ like isn't being enforced they way you want it to. Many laws are only absolute for those too timid to find the gray area at their edges.
Far - and I mean FAR - more laws are passed than can be, or are meant to be, fully enforced. Politicians, police, enforcement agencies, businesses and private citizens the world over play in the gray area between what is legal and what is enforced. They do so according you their local, personal and political goals. Why this is surprising and shocking to you is beyond me. This is politics and business as usual.
But, as I first stated when I waded into this topic, I agree that the law ~should~ be followed. If the law is unenforceable or if enforcing it would have undesirable consequences then it should be changed - then enforced. In the absence of that clarity it gives rise to silly situations like this where both sides use the gray area for divisive political gain without having to actually address the issue and resolve it.
But in the case of illegal immigration there is no resolving it - not if your idea of resolving it is stopping it. The issue has never been stopped humanely in the history of civilization when you have a very rich country next to a very poor country. Ever. Anywhere. Not once. Do you understand what I'm saying? NEVER. In all of history. Ever. Its not as simple as passing a law and enforcing it - your beliefs on the issue not withstanding.
So either you get used to and find ways of dealing with a growing illegal immigrant population or you get used to the idea of an increasingly militant police state. Take your pick. So far I agree with erring on the side of freedom.
They didn't mention this kind a stuff in Civics class.
-
Oh... I get it now.
You believe the bullshit that was fed to you in civics class - that laws are absolute.
In that case there is no problem with abortion, right? Law says its OK, right? People going over the speed limit, even by 1mph, deserve to be ticketed, right? Smoking pot is illegal and wrong and that's why ~everyone~ who uses pot is punished, right?
Funny how the "but its the LAW!" outrage generally only comes up when a law that ~you~ like isn't being enforced they way you want it to. Many laws are only absolute for those too timid to find the gray area at their edges.
Far - and I mean FAR - more laws are passed than can be, or are meant to be, fully enforced. Politicians, police, enforcement agencies, businesses and private citizens the world over play in the gray area between what is legal and what is enforced. They do so according you their local, personal and political goals. Why this is surprising and shocking to you is beyond me. This is politics and business as usual.
But, as I first stated when I waded into this topic, I agree that the law ~should~ be followed. If the law is unenforceable or if enforcing it would have undesirable consequences then it should be changed - then enforced. In the absence of that clarity it gives rise to silly situations like this where both sides use the gray area for divisive political gain without having to actually address the issue and resolve it.
But in the case of illegal immigration there is no resolving it - not if your idea of resolving it is stopping it. The issue has never been stopped humanely in the history of civilization when you have a very rich country next to a very poor country. Ever. Anywhere. Not once. Do you understand what I'm saying? NEVER. In all of history. Ever. Its not as simple as passing a law and enforcing it - your beliefs on the issue not withstanding.
So either you get used to and find ways of dealing with a growing illegal immigrant population or you get used to the idea of an increasingly militant police state. Take your pick. So far I agree with erring on the side of freedom.
They didn't mention this kind a stuff in Civics class.
What are you talking about, nobody is surprised that politicians lie, just pointing out how blatant the current president is lying to the American people without batting an eye and how most of the mainstream media sweeps it under the rug as if its no big deal. He doesn't have my vote that's for sure. During his campaign many of the promises that he made sounded pretty good but unfortunately they were all lies. Personally, i am a Ron Paul guy, not saying that he is going to win and change the country but his message makes the most sense and guess what... he seems to vote consistently on issues.. no one is perfect and the system surely isn't... the post was just to poke fun at the President and show how many everyday American's have no idea what this man really stands for... Relax
-
I agree that something being law does not make it ethically right. I also do not think breaking the law (even if one disagrees with it) is a good thing.
For my previous post, I was referring to the separation of power among the 3 branches of government. As people are not perfect and power corrupts, no one entity should be given absolute power to be executor, judge and lawmaker. The design of the US government is to have checks and balance among those 3 powers. I think that congressman in the video is rehashing this pointing out where Obama has been bypassing both legislative and judicial bodies and doing whatever he wants.
You're probably right though... This behavior is not exclusive to this president only.
-
<-- Ron Paul supporter here, too.
Not that I have any illusions that he'd have been able to make much difference. More a vote for an ideology and it would have been really interesting to see what, if anything, he could have accomplished in office and how. The only candidate with the country and the people's best interests at heart, too, regardless of how hard it would be to manifest anything for the best interest of the country or the people in DC.
As a Paul supporter you are probably not surprised that I agree the President (any president pretty much since WWII, not just this one) is wielding too much power. Executive orders, as they are used these days, are just evil. Its a trend I'd like to see reversed and ended.
(sigh) Figure the odds.
-
column by Cal Thomas: http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=3628 (http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=3628)
-
"Official unemployment for American citizens remains above 8 percent. Now, 800,000 noncitizens can work legally, in some cases for lower wages, thus robbing some citizens of what should be their priority place in the job line."
Bullshit. Well, technically "correct" if you completely ignore reality and history.
Americans have not had "priority place" for (sub-)minimum wage labor jobs for decades. And those 800,000 noncitizens aren't going to go anywhere near a legal job until laws are passed that assure they can stay in the country. Nor do their current employers want to pay them legal wages. Nor could Americans live at an American standard of living on the wages currently paid to Mexicans - who do a better job for less money precisely because they are afraid of getting shipped back to Mexico.
Do you not understand how important low wage labor is to the rest of the US economy? The real white elephant here, and the reason so little actually gets done about illegal immigration, is that it is ~illegally~ low wage labor that is so important for the rest of the economy. I don't think this is morally correct and it certainly isn't legal but its fact. And as long as there is a huge disparity in the standard of living between the US and Mexico this will always be the case.
If every ag and labor worker in the US was paid a legal American wage cost of living would go through the roof even more than it is already. No one wants that.
Obama's actions, legal or not, are completely irrelevant and pure political pandering. As are the objections to it. Its also business as usual - Bush did almost exactly the same kind of thing. None of it has anything to do with the actual issue (the enormous wealth inequality between the 2 nations) nor will it have any affect on the issue.
But... it does make a convenient dartboard to hang Obamas picture on, I suppose.
-
:closed:
-
<-- Ron Paul supporter here, too.
As a Paul supporter you are probably not surprised that I agree the President (any president pretty much since WWII, not just this one) is wielding too much power. Executive orders, as they are used these days, are just evil. Its a trend I'd like to see reversed and ended.
:shaka:
-
ANYONE BUT OBAMA Supporter!
-
ANYONE BUT OBAMA Supporter!
I would feel that way too but Mr. Willard 'Mittens' Romney may push for gun control as he did when he was Governor. Like some people say, 4 more years of King Obama or 8 years of possibly King Romney. If they are only choices then what does it matter but I wouldn't vote for either of the two. Just my 2 cents
-
Someone told me that Hawaii's 2 electoral votes don't really count in the national presidential election. Is this true?
If so, I'm going to vote for who I believe is the best for this country, not who I think is going to win. I think if folks stopped voting along party lines and started voting for the best person, we wouldn't be in this divide-and-conquer partisan politics mess.
-
Someone told me that Hawaii's 2 electoral votes don't really count in the national presidential election. Is this true?
If so, I'm going to vote for who I believe is the best for this country, not who I think is going to win. I think if folks stopped voting along party lines and started voting for the best person, we wouldn't be in this divide-and-conquer partisan politics mess.
I agree that people should vote based on who they feel is the best candidate. This is not the super bowl where u can only choose one of two teams, people don't realize that there are other candidates running but the media does not publicize so the majority of Americans have no clue what platform these people are running on.
My understanding is that Hawaii would only count if the national presidential race is within one or two electoral college votes. Hawaii usually sides with the democrats so in the case of the 2008 elections, Obama already received enough votes to clinch the nomination prior to Hawaii residents voting thus Hawaii did not count.
If people could get their information for outside the mainstream media I think this country would be more awesome than it already is. People who vote because they hear the persons name on tv more often than the other candidates or polls show such and such candidate in the lead so they jump on the band wagon are just playing into the system and deserve when rights get taken away or freedom is given up in the name of security. I am weary of our future as a country but thankful for blessings that I have been born into by just being an American citizen.
The grass to me is never greener on the other side but it is a lot better to fertilize the grass you have than to let it go to waste.
-
Kevin, I hear ya. Another one of the reasons that Paul should have gotten the nomination. He is the only Republican candidate that can pull Obama's supporters away from him. And Paul is well known grass: been on the same message for decades. Oh, well.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican strategists don't mind if Obama takes the throne for another term. The gamble is if the economy is going to get better enough in the next 4 years for a democrat to take credit. If not then getting their boy in now will be a liability next election as everyone will blame him for the economy taking so long to recover. If the timing is right they won't have to fight an incumbent next time and they'll be getting in just in time to take credit for fixing the economy. Doesn't matter that economists from one end of the scale to the other have all said that this will be a long process no matter what rabbits and shiny bits of tin foil the politicians pull out of their hats to "fix" the economy. The public didn't and doesn't want to hear that so they don't.
Public approval of congress is low enough that we're not complaining too much about the blatant obstructionist tactics so 4 more years of it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch. Obama doesn't have the political capital to get much done and the democrats are too divided amongst themselves to give him cohesive support. The republicans can consolidate their power by blaming Obama and the democrats for everything thats going wrong, mitigate the damage the Tea Party is causing for them and regroup for a strong showing in 2016.
-
I would feel that way too but Mr. Willard 'Mittens' Romney may push for gun control as he did when he was Governor. Like some people say, 4 more years of King Obama or 8 years of possibly King Romney. If they are only choices then what does it matter but I wouldn't vote for either of the two. Just my 2 cents
Agree on that but obummer is pure evil.
-
regroup for a strong showing in 2016.
I was actually watching Hannity, which I don't do often, when Rand Paul made his endorsement of Romney. I felt sick to my stomach because I had faith that he would take his fathers place in the liberty movement and be that push in 2016. I saw Ron Paul on Wolf Blitzer and was cheered up when he said he was not endorsing Romney.
Then I heard some interviews online with Rand Paul and how he is trying to play ball with the GOP in order to push the liberty movement and saying that an endorsement does not mean u agree with everything the person says but instead it means that u will be taken more seriously by the party you choose to represent. rand went on to say that he has fought for 4 bills which shrink the government since the endorsement and the GOP has taken him more seriously because of the endorsement.
Maybe Ron Paul's approach, although I like his hard nosed attitude approach, was not the way to get things done. Maybe Rand Paul, as long as his voting record remains consistent, new approach will be the ticket to bigger and better changes. I will keep my eye on Rand because he may have a strategy that hardcore Ron zpaul supporters cannot yet see. Time will tell.
-
Agree on that but obummer is pure evil.
I hear you, if he is re-elected we, in my opinion, are in for a lot of hurt as a country. More debt, more welfare, more government control of our lives. NDAA will probably be rewritten and passed under a different name, SOPA will probably be the same and forums such as these will be shut down for expressing our opinions. Side deals will be made with other countries and "messages will be transmitted to Vladimir".
I hear man, I hope the system we run and can last forever but from my understanding some geniuses at MIT said that America's economy will fall by 2030 at the rate it's going. An Obama second term with the attitude or worst that he has about spending and foreign affairs, may be shorter than that
-
2030 or so: yup, the liberalish crowd I tended to hang out with over the years thinks about the same except that McCain was the one that might have brought doomsday earlier. Romney has them scratching their heads, as does Obama, really. Neither one of them seems like a strong enough leader in one way or another to make much difference in the direction of the country. At least in terms of the overall system being absolutely unsustainable.
At this point most of the crowd of "liberals" hang around has given up hope that ~anyone~ in the government is interested in averting the eventual economic collapse. Instead, those in power seem to be just trying to set themselves and their families up as best they can before it happens. You and I are specifically not in that club.
That's what really irks me. EVERYONE thinks we're going to hell in a bucket. And yet we (the greater we, Americans, the nations of the world) all seem way more interested in positioning ourselves for the most comfortable (or prestigious, or morally superior) seat in the bucket than actually addressing the problem, finding an apolitical consensus for getting ourselves out of this mess and averting much larger consequences.
I don't mind going down with the ship. I do mind that we really are that stupid enough to set up a popcorn stand to make the last penny possible selling it to everyone as we watch the horror movie play itself out. "What? Its not MY fault! I just sell popcorn!"
-
The USA is done. RP has no chance of winning.
One can either...
Jump ship = Vote for someone who does not stand a chance of winning at all, thereby not helping the situation any and letting the ship sink.
Add to the flooding = Vote for Obama, thereby open the scuttle valve and flood this nation with the same policies and out of control spending and unachievable social programs which will kill the country.
Start bailing = Vote for Romney (and as many conservative representatives as you can), thereby, at the very least, keep the ship afloat, slow the flooding of the progressive's socialist anti American agenda.
I believe the conservatives in this nation out number the radical left. The problem is that the conservative person is very individualistic, self sufficient, and idealistic. It is very hard to get together as a team and move forward. By themselves nothing can go wrong, but hard to work together as a team. On the other hand the liberal/progressive need to feed off each other. They naturally band together and do things as a unit. Even if that unit, as a whole, follows one another off of the cliff, like lemmings.
So I submit that one should vote for the person that is the lesser of two evils. Why? Slow the ship from sinking. It is wayy easier to fix the damage to the hull if the ship is still afloat. If the ship is sunk, the ship may never be able to be salvaged and re-floated.
-
The USA is done. RP has no chance of winning.
One can either...
Jump ship = Vote for someone who does not stand a chance of winning at all, thereby not helping the situation any and letting the ship sink.
Add to the flooding = Vote for Obama, thereby open the scuttle valve and flood this nation with the same policies and out of control spending and unachievable social programs which will kill the country.
Start bailing = Vote for Romney (and as many conservative representatives as you can), thereby, at the very least, keep the ship afloat, slow the flooding of the progressive's socialist anti American agenda.
I believe the conservatives in this nation out number the radical left. The problem is that the conservative person is very individualistic, self sufficient, and idealistic. It is very hard to get together as a team and move forward. By themselves nothing can go wrong, but hard to work together as a team. On the other hand the liberal/progressive need to feed off each other. They naturally band together and do things as a unit. Even if that unit, as a whole, follows one another off of the cliff, like lemmings.
So I submit that one should vote for the person that is the lesser of two evils. Why? Slow the ship from sinking. It is wayy easier to fix the damage to the hull if the ship is still afloat. If the ship is sunk, the ship may never be able to be salvaged and re-floated.
I agreE with you in some ways for voting for the lesser of two evils but I disagree that in this election there is much of a less evil based on history. Romney has shown socialist tendencies with Romney care, support of NDAA, gun control as well as many flip flops on social issues such as abortion. I think by voting for one of the two you are playing into the system of restricting the freedom of choice. Say for instance 1 million Ron Paul supporters vote for the lesser of two evils instead of voting for Ron Paul. When the ballots are counted the media will only count those who voted for Romney or Obama.
But if Ron Paul has 15% of the vote, write in, then the media will not be able, in my opinion some media outlets, to ignore that and would at least mention it on the news that Ron Paul although not technically a candidate, cause he is not going to run 3rd party, has 15% of the vote. I think that would be awesome cause it would show that there are Ron Paul,supporters out there and guess what, someone who is a sheep and did not research for themselves but instead voted for who the media told them was the right candidate will hopefully at least google Ron Paul's name and may find take his message to heart. Then that person will spread the message and so on, which would gain support for the candidate and or platform.
In 2008 I voted McCain cause I was still stuck in the left right paradigm and never even took the time to research the other candidates. Guess what Ron Paul ran for president in 2008. From my understanding Paul did not get even half of the media time last time and if he did it was negative media. I truly think if u support a candidate just vote for that candidate, if not then whatever you believe in may be lost the next time around.
With that being said, 2012 election is, I think the most important election cause I doubt Ron Paul will run in 2016 and I cannot completely get behind Rand Paul as of yet due to the, in my opinion per-mature endorsement of Romney. So, I lean more conservative on most issues but the R or D does not really distinguish you anymore. Romney or Obama will not slow the ship from sinking but instead watch it go down while they 'bailout' *pun intended* their loved ones and friends.
Maybe I am totally wrong but I don't think a terrorist attack, meteor strike, or EMP will do us in as a country but instead our bad economy is what will bring us down. Obama will increase our debt again by trillions of dollars in a second term supporting his welfare system/nanny state and unfortunately Romney will increase our debt by dragging us into a war with Iran thus leading to WW3. That's what I think any way, so the lesser of two evils is writing in Ron Paul or better yet, if you want to vote for someone on the ticket that would actually count and may run again in 2016 then vote for Gary Johnson..
Whew, sorry I get into politics because that is what drives this country and I think 2012 is becoming an important year in our country, starting on new years eve when Obama snuck in the NDAA which was found unconstitutional by the supreme court, go figure.
Alright, enough politics, let's talk guns!!!
Thanks for humoring me though, I know I can go off on this stuff sometimes :shaka:
-
Would someone please explain the difference to me between Romney and Obama? I don't see much different between the two. Both (IMHO) are big government supporters and big spenders. Both seem to be more of the same type of politicians. I doubt if Romney gets in that we will see much if any difference in the way things are done in DC. I have tried looking for Romney's stand on certain subjects and he is either not taking a stand one way or another or he has no statement about it. For instance, what is his stand about Obama giving amnesty to all those illegals?
Ron Paul supporter here!
-
Would someone please explain the difference to me between Romney and Obama? I don't see much different between the two. Both (IMHO) are big government supporters and big spenders. Both seem to be more of the same type of politicians. I doubt if Romney gets in that we will see much if any difference in the way things are done in DC. I have tried looking for Romney's stand on certain subjects and he is either not taking a stand one way or another or he has no statement about it. For instance, what is his stand about Obama giving amnesty to all those illegals?
Ron Paul supporter here!
Color of their skin :geekdanc:
-
Someone told me that Hawaii's 2 electoral votes don't really count in the national presidential election. Is this true?
I believe Hawaii has 4 electoral votes.
Also, it doesn't really matter because Hawaii is a traditionally Democratic state, not a "swing state".
-
Someone told me that Hawaii's 2 electoral votes don't really count in the national presidential election. Is this true?
I believe Hawaii has 4 electoral votes.
Also, it doesn't really matter because Hawaii is a traditionally Democratic state, not a "swing state".
Yes, it's 4. The number of electoral votes each state gets is equal to the number of congressman the state has. Every state has 2 senators so the difference is in the House of Reps, we have 2 of each.
-
Have a great Independence Day, everyone!
We won independence from Great Britain, but we didn't win indpendence from the control-hungry governmental mentality and allowed our own to develop.
I hereby propose a new acronym to cover the bases thoroughly --FLINOS.
"Freedom Lovers In Name Only"
Suitable for either party --or individuals, for that matter.
Great post, Heavies (Reply #47) !
Terry, 230RN
-
Have a great Independence Day, everyone!
We won independence from Great Britain, but we didn't win indpendence from the control-hungry governmental mentality and allowed our own to develop.
I hereby propose a new acronym to cover the bases thoroughly --FLINOS.
"Freedom Lovers In Name Only"
Suitable for either party --or individuals, for that matter.
Great post, Heavies (Reply #47) !
Terry, 230RN
Thanks Terry, and happy 4th! I just hope... :)
-
The founding fathers did do their best to create a system that was resilient to excessive government power. While we complain about "gridlock" in the government I think it was intentionally set up to work that way. The theory being that nothing will actually get through unless there is a clear majority in support of it and not a strong enough dissent.
The details of the first federal government are a bit shocking by today's standards but the spirit of it is still inspiring.
-
Yeah, these candidates are bragging about their "strong leadership skills."
On sober reflection and careful rumination at this point in our history I think I'd rather have a wimp in that office, not a "strong leader."
Just do your job and execute the laws without trying to develop a "legacy" for yourself.
Maybe that should be your legacy.
Terry, 230RN