[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Christianlady)
Many people would actually like to "start over." However, I disagree with the concept that electing a new president is starting over. It would have been nice, had President Obama started with a clean state and with no federal debt and no issues, but he inherited a mess from former President Bush. I personally believe that mess is due to greed, family (the Bush family) issues with Middle Eastern rulers, and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, electing a new president does not hit a magical reset button. The new president has to work with the issues and baggage that was left behind by the old president.

You misunderstand what I mean when I say 'start over'. Starting over does not mean we pressed a reset button. I'm saying that by electing a new president while this one is attempting to fix the economy (especially one that wants to undue what the current one has done) is the same as starting back where we were 4 years ago, and we can both agree that is not what this country needs. As much as republicans like to complain you can't argue that the country is in better shape now than it was then. So yes, electing romney would be bad in that we would be going back 4 years and starting the whole crisis over essentially.

What is your definitions of limited government and big government please?

A limited government would be one that doesn't involve itself in its citizens lives. But the government that Republicans want is to dictate what its citizens can and cannot do in their personal lives. That is anything but limited.

Their social policies tend to prevent using government funds to pay for the decisions of its citizens' personal lives. For example, I personally agree with the Republican platform that the federal government does not have the responsibility to make sure that a mature woman does not get pregnant if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

As a woman who knows how to make my own living (work in order to get paid), I most definitely have the means to be responsible for my own reproductive goals. My husband, who also knows how to make his own living (We do not depend on the government to provide for us.) buys condoms which we use while making love. The reason we are doing our best to not get pregnant right now is because we want to wait till we feel more financially secure before bringing another precious human life into this world. Now, I am not willing to think that other people are less intelligent than my husband and me. I believe most adults who have sex have the brains and ability to understand how human reproduction works and take the necessary precautions to prevent pregnancy until they feel it is time for taking care of a helpless little human. When birth control doesn't "work" (2 of my sisters used birth control and yet got pregnant), one can welcome their respective "surprise" babies with open arms and make do,striving to live within their means. Or, one can help the couples who cannot have babies by allowing their "surprise" baby to be adopted into another family. For cases of rape and incest, I do believe that there are many wealthy people who would be willing to freely give their money to provide the morning after pill or an abortion, without the government ever paying a cent. Private organizations most definitely can and do help people, and providing birth control and abortion costs is something that can be done on a private level. I am sure many wealthy people would rather freely give their money to help in this area (giving abortions and/or birth control to those in need) than giving more taxes to the government.

Once again you fail to realize that just because you can do something doesn't mean everyone can. If you believe otherwise again you are just ignorant. Just because you have a job that pays enough for you to live your life and pay for birth control, condoms, etc. Doesn't mean some other woman can afford that. Your personal beliefs on abortion are not something that you can force onto others though. So your conversation on that is pointless.

And again you believe many wealthy people are going to perform or pay for a stranger's abortion or birth control? What in the world makes you think that? They donate to charities sure, but they don't pay for procedures or birth control. You are truly naive if you think the rich will pay for the poor willingly.

Raising taxes is pointless because most rich people know how and do get around those taxes. It is not difficult to understand how and why they find/make loopholes. So basically, raising taxes just hurts the middle class who do not pay clever accountants/lawyers to help them find loopholes. Do you get this point?

Raising taxes on the rich still increases government income because even with loopholes they can only not pay so much. By increasing the tax rate they still have to pay more. I also am for closing many of the loopholes because the amount of money they get out of paying is utterly ridiculous. Raising the taxes also is mostly being proposed for the rich. You should pay more attention to the tax laws because there have been plenty of tax cuts for the middle class. The main place where tax increases are wanted are in the upper tax brackets.

As for the military budget, I personally believe that it is important to keep the USA safe. However, I disagree with becoming so involved with foreign affairs.

The current budget is too excessive for just keeping the country safe. It is more than the next 6 (I think) countries combined budgets.

Personally, I incline more to Ron Paul than to Romney and am hoping that Republicans will see the wisdom in this. I have not heard of a Democrat who is similar in views to Ron Paul concerning the military. If there is one, please let me know. I am an Independent, by the way, though I have friends and family who belong to both political parties.

There are plenty of Democrats who don't want to get involved in other countries. You can look them up yourself.

You can call it "invalid" all you want, but that does not convince me. What convinces me is seeing positive change, which I am not seeing with Obama. Obamacare has me gravely concerned, because I have friends who are small business owners who will be greatly hurt by this. They will have to lay off more people. They cannot afford Obamacare. Instead of forcing insurance on people, I believe it is best for the government to consider what are the reasonable prices for medical services. Many costs today are ridiculous. Once I went to the ER and was told I needed to get a MRI scan, naively thinking that my university insurance would pay for it. I stupidly didn't ask how much it would cost. I was astounded when I received the bill. Never again will I permit any medical service without knowing the cost. I think it would be good for the government to inspect if the costs are reasonable, because I personally think many are not! Pharmacies in the USA as well also charge ridiculous prices.

Really you think that we are worse off now after Obama's first term? You think our economy and global position is weaker? Also your comments on Obamacare are amusing. You know why your procedure costed so much? Because your insurance didn't cover it. So maybe if you had better insurance the cost to you wouldn't be so much. I agree that medical procedures cost a lot here in the us. But that is because Hospitals are private and are out to make a profit. This is the privatization that you want. Thats where it leads, extortion. However having good insurance lowers that cost.

What do you think he will do concerning Iran?

I honestly couldn't say.

Less fortunate how so? (I am not rich.) Again, for those who for whatever reason cannot afford their own birth control, I think it's best for wealthy people who want to freely give their own money (possibly in private organizations they run) to help provide birth control and abortions. It's not the governments' job to make sure people are not having babies. It's ideally the person's job, anyways. If the person doesn't, other people can freely help them, spending their own money to do so.

It is the governments job to ensure that its people have a good quality of life. Offering services that help people is doing that. Again with he rich paying for other people's birth control, etc. You are truly delusional to think that would happen.

Could you please quote where in the U.S. Constitution does it define marriage? Thanks. Also, where does it define having kids? Both getting married and having kids are activities couples typically do.

You should go look at the US Supreme Court decisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia you can start there.

Could you please explain why you think Detroit Mayor Dave Bing, a Democrat, said the following?

"Since I became mayor, I've made public safety my top priority, and I've said I would protect the jobs of police and firefighters, but fiscal realities have made this untenable," Bing said in a statement. "With my administration continuing to work to fiscally stabilize the city and with recent cuts to the city's budget, we're announcing the layoffs of 164 Detroit Fire Department firefighters by the end of July."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ffs/55827788/1

I couldn't explain because I don't know the situation. However, you have now jumped from a federal to a local level. That is not how this works lol Romney wants to cut government jobs, and such. Obama has supported government jobs.

My friends who run their own small businesses are all Republicans. I do have friends who are Democrats, but they typically work for the government in some capacity, which is interesting. I personally do not know any Democrat who runs their own small business. So, my observation is based on my personal contacts.

Again showing how naive you are. Just because you don't know a Democrat business owner does not mean that there are none. You are so ignorant its astounding.

[ESPORTIVA]

I hope not

[Christianlady]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Again showing how naive you are. Just because you don't know a Democrat business owner does not mean that there are none. You are so ignorant its astounding.

I never said that there are no Democrat business owners. I personally only know Republican small business owners. My personal experience is valid in my decision making as to who I will vote for in the coming election.

Regardless, it does not take intelligence, maturity, or integrity to insult another person or call them "naive" or "ignorant." For this reason, I will no longer write you. I enjoy discussing with people who can express their ideas without negatively labeling (using degrading or insulting adjectives) a person or people with whom they don't agree.

Peace, God bless you, and Goodbye

[Christianlady]

(Original post by ESPORTIVA)
I hope not

I am curious why you hope not? Thanks.

Personally, I am more inclined to vote for Romney, though I really wish I could vote for Ron Paul!

[heyhey922]

(Original post by Lukfisto)
But if Romney release his tax returs in the end of campaign, everyone will find out that he is not tax dodger and possibly will vote for Romney.

We already know he dodges taxes (not evasion)

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Christianlady)
It does not take intelligence, maturity, or integrity to insult another person or call them "naive" or "ignorant." For this reason, I will no longer write you. I enjoy discussing with people who can express their ideas without negatively labeling (using degrading or insulting adjectives) a person or people with whom they don't agree.


Peace, God bless you, and Goodbye

So you won't debate my points because I called you naive and ignorant? Two qualities that you were clearly showing? You are ignorant in that you are ill informed about the status of many people's finances and yet feel you can generalize them to be similar to your own situation.

You also show naivety in that you lack knowledge or experience in the world of business yet make generalizations about who understands it.

Those are not insults, I am merely stating what your words are.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Christianlady)
I never said that there are no Democrat business owners. I personally only know Republican small business owners. My personal experience is valid in my decision making as to who I will vote for in the coming election.

Then you should have known then that your statement that Republicans understand business better because they operate the businesses was completely biased. You should have realized how limited your personal experiences are, and how what you said does not follow from your experiences.

[AspiringGenius]

I think Obama will win, but only just and only because the Republican candidate is so poor. If we had, say, another Regan or Nixon (before the Watergate obvs!) then Obama would be packing his bags now,

[Christianlady]

(Original post by heyhey922)
We already know he dodges taxes (not evasion)

Many rich people dodge taxes. I recently read Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. He briefly explained how and why, which infuriated me but made sense at the same time.

It is also important to note that many rich people are experts at influencing politicians. For example, both President Obama and Romney have many rich supporters. Why do they support and donate thousands of dollars to their favorite politician's respective cause? It is because it is a give and take scenario. The old "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." is prevalent in politics and can be seen in how lobbyists work as well.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Christianlady)
I never said that there are no Democrat business owners. I personally only know Republican small business owners. My personal experience is valid in my decision making as to who I will vote for in the coming election.

Regardless, it does not take intelligence, maturity, or integrity to insult another person or call them "naive" or "ignorant." For this reason, I will no longer write you. I enjoy discussing with people who can express their ideas without negatively labeling (using degrading or insulting adjectives) a person or people with whom they don't agree.

Peace, God bless you, and Goodbye

We aren't insulting you, we are stating facts. You are ignorant, it's obvious you've never read any research on the subject matter. The definition of ignorant is lacking in knowledge.

You are naive in that you think you can generalize your experiences (as a white middle class individual) to everyone else in the United States. Again, this shows that you are ignorant of other people other than yourself as well as reiterates the fact that you've never actually read any papers, research, books, etc. on identity politics, women's reproductive rights, etc.

Both myself and Rand happen to actually study such politics and sociology . Myself from a more political perspective and him from a more sociological perspective; we are actually highly familiar, researched and knowledgable in the relevant subject material. To us, you've demonstrated a lack of understanding and knowledge on said subject matter.

Some of things you say are true, and for those we will give you credit - such as politicana being influenced by how much money a lobbyist group or individual has and how this has a major impact on politics. We will, however, call you out on subjects which you display clear ignorance or illogical reasoning: such as voting for the republican party because you're in favor of "small government" or assuming that everyone has equal access to reproductive services, etc.

[ConnorB]

I hope so.

I really am not comfortable with (arguably) the most powerful man in the world thinking that Jesus visited America and that Evolution "is a nice theory"

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Christianlady)
Many rich people dodge taxes. I recently read Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. He briefly explained how and why, which infuriated me but made sense at the same time.

It is also important to note that many rich people are experts at influencing politicians. For example, both President Obama and Romney have many rich supporters. Why do they support and donate thousands of dollars to their favorite politician's respective cause? It is because it is a give and take scenario. The old "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." is prevalent in politics and can be seen in how lobbyists work as well.

This I can agree is a major problem. Right now the US lobbying system is so greatly stacked in favor of the wealthy, and corporations. The average person seems to have little leverage and power in the making of laws.

[alex5455]

I do hope so, best of a bad bunch but anything is better than a republican

[pop101]

Yeah probably. He has a good personality which many people in the US respect (whilst he is focusing on degrading the other candidate in his ads).

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Christianlady)
x

Since apparently you aren't going to respond to me anymore I will say a few final things.
1. Your reason for voting republican is that it is for 'small government'. Now the Republican party is all for dictating people's lives (what they can and cannot do) and want to increase military spending and 'share' how great America is with the world. Sounds like a really small government huh?
2. Your idea that Democrats must therefore be for small government is wrong. Neither party is for a small government, they just want the power to be used differently.
3. You don't seem to have anything against Obama, you have said it many times now. He hasn't done anything really bad. He has actually helped the country recover from a difficult time. You acknowledge that he inherited a lot of s*** and yet you want to elect someone who wants to undue all that he's done into office now? I understand you may have concerns about Obamacare, but that is one law, and is hardly a deal breaker, not to mention that it seems to do more good to people than bad. If you read the law it has many good things. As Romney has said, he wants to repeal Obamacare and put something essentially the same in its place, but without the mandate. So he wants to put another program in place without funding. That sounds smart.
4. You should not feel insulted by my use of the words ignorant and naive. Ignorant is to be lacking in knowledge. Which you demonstrated and I pointed out. Naive similarly means a lack of experience which you also demonstrated, and I pointed out. I apologize if you took them as offensive but they were properly used and not used to insult you but rather to make a point. If you wish to remain ignorant fine, but don't whine that people were insulting you when they weren't.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Since apparently you aren't going to respond to me anymore I will say a few final things.
1. Your reason for voting republican is that it is for 'small government'. Now the Republican party is all for dictating people's lives (what they can and cannot do) and want to increase military spending and 'share' how great America is with the world. Sounds like a really small government huh?
2. Your idea that Democrats must therefore be for small government is wrong. Neither party is for a small government, they just want the power to be used differently.
3. You don't seem to have anything against Obama, you have said it many times now. He hasn't done anything really bad. He has actually helped the country recover from a difficult time. You acknowledge that he inherited a lot of s*** and yet you want to elect someone who wants to undue all that he's done into office now? I understand you may have concerns about Obamacare, but that is one law, and is hardly a deal breaker, not to mention that it seems to do more good to people than bad. If you read the law it has many good things. As Romney has said, he wants to repeal Obamacare and put something essentially the same in its place, but without the mandate. So he wants to put another program in place without funding. That sounds smart.
4. You should not feel insulted by my use of the words ignorant and naive. Ignorant is to be lacking in knowledge. Which you demonstrated and I pointed out. Naive similarly means a lack of experience which you also demonstrated, and I pointed out. I apologize if you took them as offensive but they were properly used and not used to insult you but rather to make a point. If you wish to remain ignorant fine, but don't whine that people were insulting you when they weren't.

I am not sure why you insist on writing me. However, please do not tell me what I should or should not feel insulted about, ok? I will not tell you what you "should" or "should not" feel insulted about! If it does not offend you to be called "naive" or "ignorant", that is fine. However, I have never called you either one nor do I think calling people negative adjectives is productive to a good conversation. Do you understand this concept?

As for your apology, thanks. I forgive you. Frankly I don't have a choice, since Jesus says to forgive. However, since you now know what insults me, are you still going to continue to label me negatively, or will you stay on subject and merely address the issues at hand? Forgiving does not mean I have to respond to people whose remarks I feel are offensive. By the way, if I ever offend you in my writings, please let me know. I do try to be kind to everyone I write, even though obviously I disagree with many people on this forum.

P.S. And no I'm not PMSing, just in case that thought crossed your mind. I am merely "speaking" my mind about how I feel concerning your description of me.

Peace and God bless you

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Christianlady)
I am not sure why you insist on writing me. However, please do not tell me what I should or should not feel insulted about, ok? I will not tell you what you "should" or "should not" feel insulted about! If it does not offend you to be called "naive" or "ignorant", that is fine. However, I have never called you either one nor do I think calling people negative adjectives is productive to a good conversation. Do you understand this concept?

I will merely point out that you only take offense because you perceive them as negative.

As for your apology, thanks. I forgive you. Frankly I don't have a choice, since Jesus says to forgive. However, since you now know what insults me, are you still going to continue to label me negatively, or will you stay on subject and merely address the issues at hand? Forgiving does not mean I have to respond to people whose remarks I feel are offensive. By the way, if I ever offend you in my writings, please let me know. I do try to be kind to everyone I write, even though obviously I disagree with many people on this forum.

If by that do you mean will I still call you out when you are saying things that are misinformed? Of course I will. I will try to refrain from using 'negative words' or what can be construed as an insult. But that doesn't mean you can say those things and think what you are saying is accurate. And to reiterate, I did not feel I was being 'unkind' as I was not trying to insult or use 'negative words' merely words that expressed what I saw you exude.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Christianlady)
P.S. And no I'm not PMSing, just in case that thought crossed your mind. I am merely "speaking" my mind about how I feel concerning your description of me.

LOL I'm sorry but the fact that you need to say that is so sad, I can't help but laugh. That is the silliest explanation to think of for a woman for typing what she thinks. It never crossed my mind. I'm sorry that you felt you had to clarify that.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
LOL I'm sorry but the fact that you need to say that is so sad, I can't help but laugh. That is the silliest explanation to think of for a woman for typing what she thinks. It never crossed my mind. I'm sorry that you felt you had to clarify that.

Whenever I get emotional, my husband asks me about when my period is lol. Don't be sorry. It was a partly a joke (I'm gad it made you laugh) but please keep in mind I am a very emotional, literal lady. Now, if you say you will no longer label me any negative adjectives, I would be happy to address the issues you addressed.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
I will merely point out that you only take offense because you perceive them as negative.

Do you see them as positive? If someone calls you "naive" or "ignorant", do you say, "Thanks! What a great point for our discussion!"?

If by that do you mean will I still call you out when you are saying things that are misinformed? Of course I will. I will try to refrain from using 'negative words' or what can be construed as an insult. But that doesn't mean you can say those things and think what you are saying is accurate. And to reiterate, I did not feel I was being 'unkind' as I was not trying to insult or use 'negative words' merely words that expressed what I saw you exude.

Thanks for explaining. However, what good does calling a person "naive" or "ignorant" do? Does it educate a person? If you truly think I am those things, instead of negatively labeling me, why not just simply "educate" me, hmm?