The problem for me personally is that unlike with McCain I thought Romney was an inspirational speaker. I thought he would have made a great president. It seemed obvious to my eyes. Then I back that up with GOP gains over the past 4 years on local levels. I thought turnout would favor the GOP. In the end Obama got the same D+6 electorate he had 4 years ago. How is it possible? I know personally many Obama voters that switched this year. Obama's margins were down huge in almost every state except for the key swing states. How can it be? From NJ to PA to MI to WI to WA to OR Obamas margins were down by 8-10 points yet in Ohio and Florida they were down by 1-2 points. Is that normal? I'm still trying to make sense of it.
Winning the Whitehouse involves a few key components, Values, the GOP with their Anti abortion and Anti Marriage equality stance does not sit well with the masses. They preach Freedom, but reality its freedom as long as they approve.
The other and most important component is marketing, The Dems do a far better job of packaging and selling it. The GOP is not a progressive party, in fact they have a silly desire to go back to 1955.
Society has always evolved and moved forward, the Dems have shown a great ability to adapt, where the GOP has not. Its very much like the dinosaur, they couldnt adapt to changes in the world and as a result they died.
Guess what I don't want to pay for anything government does, not one bit of it yet I do. While pro-choice I have far more respect for the moral argument of those oppossed to abortion then the infantile I don't want to pay for it argument. Who wants to pay for anything? That's the point of having elections, we have decided to give representatives of our society the right to confiscate our property in the form of taxes to fund the government actions that presumably are in our collective interest.
You want to stop paying you better convince a majority of the public to vote in representatives that will outlaw abortions. The only party that supports that position is the Republican Party.
Personally I don't think that's why they lost this election, they have lost Hispanics with their position on Immigration and that's a long term trend that is going to be hard to overcome.
Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 11-09-2012 at 08:13 AM.
I don't believe they should be tax exempt.
I don't believe they should be telling fed/states to legislate against drugs and alcohol.
I don't believe the state should be enforcing the church's view of marriage. But then i don't believe in state-sponsored marriage, and thus dont' support gay marriage laws either.
What you need to understand though is that people disagree with you. And if you believe life starts at conception, you cannot support abortion.
If you believe it starts at birth, i understand why you would think abortions should be legal, and the choice of the mother.
Personally i think defining life as a human being capable of breathing on it's own is rather arbitrary. After an accident, or at a certain age many human beings cease to be able to breathe without assistance from a machine. If independent breathing is a prerequisite for humanity, do these people being sub-human?
The crux of the discussion is at what point is life "viable" and when do rights begin. The lack of the most basic levels of education truly is disturbing, especially when people take such strong stances on issues based on total fallacy.
Last edited by JetPotato; 11-09-2012 at 08:43 AM.
While you are absolutely correct that no one can dispute that a Fetus is alive, the sperm and egg were living prior to conception as well. A woman's hair is alive too, yet we all acknowledge she has the right to cut it.
So again the question isn't so much "is it alive" as "is it human". I happen to agree with you, at conception it is human. At conception is receives it's own unique DNA it becomes a separate entity that is no longer a part of the mother.
I don't think the viability argument is particularly strong. Many babies are born without the ability to breath properly on their own. And all babies require assistance in order to continue to survive. At it's core the viability argument asserts that if you are wholly dependent upon another to continue living, you are sub-human. If that is the case, children don't become fully human until 3-4 at the earliest, prior to that there is no way for them to survive without a parent actively preventing circumstances that would lead to it's death.
Hell, by that definition my 8 yr/o son probably still hasn't achieved full humanity.
From a financial perspective DDNY it costs vastly less of "your" money for an abortion of a 0-3 month fetus than it costs you to support an unwanted child with healthcare and other government long-term benefits if this fetus is allowed to become an actual life at birth
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
Pretty ironic if you look at the current state of our country, held hostage by China and other foreign financial influences, Held hostage by Middle Eastern politics an religious conflicts, The deep division as nation which has a very similar feel to the Civil War, etc. I've never been so disappointed and disillusioned at the current and future state of this nation.They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.
This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in Governments of a Monarchical cast patriotism may look with endulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume."
Last edited by dmitexxi; 11-09-2012 at 09:19 AM.
Why the defeatist attitude?
Yes I am saying people can become confused; shocking, isn't it.