American Politics

[ShinyTomato]

Uhh, ShinyTomato, I do have to say, Kat was speaking on the date of the election is you haven't noticed the dates and times she posted while in the thread. Election is a time of high frustration and emotions. I don't think you should hold her accountable to that. I know I cried a little when Romney lost and went to bed earlier than I would normally because I was so stressed. Besides, today is November 10th, and the election is done and over with.

 

Edit: Day after, my bad. Although it wasn't long after the 6th, soo...

How you act in times of emotion is still your actions.

 

 

I have a question though, since I don't exactly know, how is the homosexual community being denied their rights other than the obvious being denied marriage issue (which by the way, I fully believe in marriage for everyone. So don't think I don't support it because I do.)

 

32 rights associated with marriage that homosexuals cannot claim: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/mar...fits-30190.html

 

No right to equal employment:

According to a Federal law, LGBTs are not protected against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector. The proposed bill of Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA, would put an end to this and provide everyone in the country with equal employment rights, regardless of sexual orientation.

 

Inability to adopt: Multiple states do not allow homosexuals to adopt or foster children, despite not having enough placements for the unwanted.

 

No right to equal Housing:

 

A landlord can up your rent, just because of your sexual orientation. The Republicans refuse to extend the Fair Housing Act to include sexual orientation.

[Vhale]

I believe both most of the Fast food places have started publishing calorie content and offering alternatives on their menus now. I went over calorie content with my nephew when he started school because he started falling into the fast food trap. People just have no idea how bad that food really is. When you know, it's just like... o.O

 

In other news, the people that gave Rove millions of dollars for the campaign are now wondering how it got spent. And the same secrecy that protects doners also means they've no idea how the money was spent. It might have gone to the campaign. It might have gone to someone's new car. Link

 

Also, as far as voter suppression goes, it looks like turnout met 2008 levels. Limited hours in targeted districts as well as voterid laws didn't work. So, persons like the Ohio secretary of state are devising new methods by which their candidate can lose the popular vote but still take home the EVs.

 

Defending his performance managing Ohio’s election, Husted argued that because of the high stakes involved with being an electoral vote-rich swing state, Ohio’s elections chief is always scrutinized and criticized. (Funny, we don’t remember that happening in 2008, but that’s beside the point).

 

Husted’s solution to this perceived problem of Democrats and the national media picking on him? He says we should make Ohio less important in the election by dividing up our electoral votes by Congressional district.

 

This is huge and should raise giant red flags. Under the current winner-take-all system, Obama won all 18 of Ohio’s electoral votes. Under Husted’s plan, 12 of those 18 electoral votes would be handed to Mitt Romney, the popular vote loser.

Link

[Duysterwald]

So Sad that the MOTTO is live and let live. Lets accept everything that people want to do period. Drugs, sex, no god, socilalism, communism, welfare, have kids out of wedlock, welfare again, abortion, pay for all of your ailaments, hand outs by the government, accept same sex marriages, poor people that love hand outs, no oil, coal etc, etc. Lets not forget the ILLEAGAL IMMAGRANTS, jeez, don't ya love them. Does not matter where you are from, we will give you a job ... but ... SOME AMERICANS CAN NOT GET A JOB, because you are an ALIEN,  I love it, 

 

I truly hope those that believe in Obama, suffer more than us that do not. God bless those that believe in God, and that are rich SURVIVE. In the end, AMERICA WILL COME BACK.

 

I am listening to Obam's speech about the Military, what garbarge.

 

Children that need the same fair chance at education ...Well excuse me, every child has that chance. Immigrants that are here ILLEGALLY, need to be kicked out PERIOD. Those that are already here, are keeping the illegals out, but that is ok, with most of ya'll .....right.

 

Obama did not EARN my VOTE. He is talking about the Military blah blah blah, wow this is new. I HAVE NO PRESDIENT.

 

I PRAY FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART, THE PEOPLE  THAT VOTED FOR OBAMA, GET, EVERYTHING YOU DESERVE AND THEN SOME.

 

God Bless

Frankly, I am saddened by this post and I disagree with it.

 

I come from a moderate Roman Catholic background, but I have been an atheist since I was about 8 years old. I was taught at school that one of christianity's most important messages is love thy neighbour. As such, wishing ill or hardship to other human beings (as is done in the post that I am quoting) is a very un-christian thing to do. What makes it worse, is that the poster is actually praying to their god to make sure that ills or hardships come to other human beings, just because they disagree with them. Do they seriously think that their god would actually listen to such prayers and make those prayers a reality? Since I thought that the christian god is supposed to be a very loving and compassionate god... and a loving and compassionate god would outright reject such prayers, as they go right against his or her core message (which is love, respect and tolerance). And then to put "God bless" in the post... which is of course directed to only fellow Christians and fellow Romney voters (i.e. the rest of mankind be screwed!). That's a bit of a travesty, really - to use something that is supposed to be good (blessing) after doing bad things (wishing ill) makes that good thing rather... twisted or tainted. If you see what I mean. That is really sad... and the person's own apparent unawareness of this fact is sadder still.

 

Also.... in a true democracy, everyone has the right to their own opinion and that is a great good that must be treated with respect at all times. Democrats have their own opinion and reflected it in their vote. Republicans have their own opinion and reflected it in their vote. Thanks to democracy, they can have those opinions. Both sides frequently fail to respect the other side's opinion, which is due to human nature (among others), unfortunately. But opinions should be respected at all times, as that is the most enlightened thing to do in my eyes. Because if you don't respect another's opinion, then not only do you not respect their individuality as a person and their right to their own opinion... then you also don't respect democracy, because one of the pillars of democracy is being allowed to have one's own opinion. As such, wishing a person ill or hardships to someone simply because they have a different opinion than you do, an opinion which they honestly and without malice believe in (otherwise they would not have had that opinion, of course)... is also undemocratic and dismissive of that person's rights. It's implying that your opinion is most important (and should be the one to prevail) and that other opinions have no value whatsoever - with that mindset, one is more likely to feel at home in a dictatorship than in a democracy. Which is ironic, really, because the poster claims to be against dictatorship-like systems....

 

EDIT: Before anyone construes my post as being disrespectful or dismissive of Kat's opinion, here goes.... Do I respect that the quoted post above is Kat's opinion? Yes, she is entitled to that. Do I agree with her opinion? No, I don't, even though I can imagine - in a way - why she is feeling the way she does (and how that has come about). Do I wish for some horrible thing to happen to her because her opinion is different than mine? No, I don't - my only wish would be that her opinion would become a little bit more nuanced in the future.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Duysterwald

[Violletta]

We're all human and there is still the undeniable fact that it was in the past and this is now. Besides, arguing about won't do any good because this is what got the discussion halted in the first place. Let's just forget and move on, because there's still other issues that are being discussed.

 

Well, I didn't know those right were being denied and I have to say, that's just flat out wrong. I know their has been arguments thrown around like, "America just isn't ready yet." but I know Maryland and Maine's voters approved of same-sex marriages which is great. We can't say "All men and woman are created equal" while denying the LGBT community their rights.

[Vhale]

Oh, as far as businesses and being unable to afford health care.

 

 

However, David Siegal, who also threatened mass layoffs because Obamacare might interfere with his completion of his 90,000sq foot house, relented and instead gave his employees a 5% raise.

Link

 

David posing with his wife in their lovely home.

[brairtrainer]

Oh, as far as businesses and being unable to afford health care.

 

 

However, David Siegal, who also threatened mass layoffs because Obamacare might interfere with his completion of his 90,000sq foot house, relented and instead gave his employees a 5% raise.

Link

 

David posing with his wife in their lovely home.

And this is why I don't like most big buisness owners. I like small buisness owners who care for their employees, but it seems the majority of big buisness owners only care about how deep they can make their pocket.

[Slaskia]

The big problem with Obamacare...is that many do not/will not see a 'reduction' in healthcare costs at all under it. In fact, in many cases, there will be an 'increase'.

 

Here's a some articles about it from doctor's PoV:

 

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-809989

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/07/...re-doctor-take/

 

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/07/09/a-d...n-of-obamacare/

 

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/232510/w...ks-of-obamacare

 

On cost increase, my family has already seen it. My brother's private health insurance, has gone up from $70~ to over $200 per year since Obamacare was passed. Granted, some of that could be due to the poor economy, like with prices on just about everything else, but I don't think so in this case.

 

Here's a funny story. I'm uninsured and the VA will only cover at no-cost the things I am on service disability on (tinnitus and anxiety disorder). I had to go to QuikCare earlier this year (well, forced by familiy) for a cough that wouldn't go away. When they found out I was uninsured, they gave me half-off for being a resident of the county! The pharmisist also gave me a discount (20%) for the drugs I ended up getting. Kind of telling on what they think about insurance companies!

 

A big flaw of Obamacare is that it's trying to force everyone to get health insurance. Good intentions, but since insurance companies are trying to make a profit, they will/have increased premiums on the clients they have/being forced to take. Government run insurance is not much better, as they notoriously are very slow at paying claims and/or don't pay much at all (hell, many doctors will not take Medicade patients for that reason).

 

Yes, insurance companies need to be reeled in on their costs and such, but Obamacare is not going about it the right way (and fining those without insurance? Where's the sense in that? If we can't afford insurance, what makes them THINK we can afford the flipping FINE?).

[Fuzzbucket]

The big problem with Obamacare...is that many do not/will not see a 'reduction' in healthcare costs at all under it.  In fact, in many cases, there will be an 'increase'.

Give it time. Once there is a level playing field all round, costs will plummet.

 

The ideal thing is no private insurance involved at all; all the evidence all over the world shows that publicly funded universal health care for everyone, free at the point of need, is FAR the cheapest option - but I can't see that EVER happening in the US.

One of many sources

 

The overall healthcare system in the United States is more expensive than the NHS and population health outcomes are no better

That's from the British Medical Journal (an INTERNATIONALLY respected doctors' publication.)

 

I shall be very interested to watch Vermont,

In May of 2011, the state of Vermont became the first state to pass legislation establishing a Single-Payer health care system. The legislation, known as Act 48, establishes health care in the state as a "human right" and lays the responsibility on the state to provide a health care system which best meets the needs of the citizens of Vermont. The state is currently in the studying phase of how best to implement this system.

From that bill:

It is the intent of the general assembly to create Green Mountain Care to contain costs and to provide, as a public good, comprehensive, affordable, high-quality, publicly financed health care coverage for all Vermont residents in a seamless manner regardless of income, assets, health status, or availability of other health coverage. It is the intent of the general assembly to achieve health care reform through the coordinated efforts of an independent board, state  government, and the citizens of Vermont, with input from health care professionals, businesses, and members of the public.

 

Publicly funded. THAT is where HUGE money can be saved. For ALL of you.

Edited November 10, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[Slaskia]

Give it time. Once there is a level playing field all round, costs will plummet.

 

The ideal thing is no private insurance involved at all; all the evidence all over the world shows that publicly funded universal health care for everyone, free at the point of need, is FAR the cheapest option - but I can't see that EVER happening in the US.

One of many sources

 

 

That's from the British Medical Journal (an INTERNATIONALLY respected doctors' publication.)

 

I shall be very interested to watch Vermont,

From that bill:

 

 

Publicly funded. THAT is where HUGE money can be saved. For ALL of you.

We'll see.

 

I still feel it was a mistake to pass ObamaCare in the middle of a recession though. I think that's at least part of the reason the general populous was so against it.

 

As I alluded to before, I would very much like a UHC in my country, but Obamacare...I think is going about it the wrong way....

[ShinyTomato]

I still feel it was a mistake to pass ObamaCare in the middle of a recession though. I think that's at least part of the reason the general populous was so against it.

 

It was passed during a recession because it was so badly needed during that recession. The big reason the general populaces was against it was because they didn't understand it. There were so many big ideas about what it was, that people don't get it.

 

A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found Americans split down the middle, with 41 percent approving of the law, and 40 percent saying they didn't like it ( PDF). But then Kaiser asked about 12 specific provisions in the legislation, and found that, on average, 63 percent of respondents approved of the nuts and bolts of Obamacare. Of the 12 measures they tested, only one – the controversial mandate to carry health insurance or pay a penalty – received the approval of less than half of Americans (35 percent).

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/156149/10_re...7s_really_in_it

[Fuzzbucket]

It was passed during a recession because it was so badly needed during that recession. The big reason the general populaces was against it was because they didn't understand it. There were so many big ideas about what it was, that people don't get it.

 

A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found Americans split down the middle, with 41 percent approving of the law, and 40 percent saying they didn't like it ( PDF). But then Kaiser asked about 12 specific provisions in the legislation, and found that, on average, 63 percent of respondents approved of the nuts and bolts of Obamacare. Of the 12 measures they tested, only one – the controversial mandate to carry health insurance or pay a penalty – received the approval of less than half of Americans (35 percent).

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/156149/10_re...7s_really_in_it

^this^

 

Any number of people I have spoken to think that they will still have to pay for their care and for insurance ON TOP. The idea of going into hospital and coming out without a bill was totally alien to them - they couldn't get their heads around it till a mate of mine - an American now living in Canada with his Canadian wife - posted on facebook:

 

"... and when I go to hospital I show my health card, not my Visa." He was inundated with questions from people who just did not GET that, but they started to try because he was American and had lived as they still were doing...

 

It;'s easy to diss something when you actually have no idea what it is. And when you have no experience of such a thing, I can see it is hard to grasp.

[Alpha1]

you do realize that the south has mid-population and its really the western and eastern seaboards that hold most of the US population correct.

 

Of course. I was only being half serious. Obama’s support was broad, while Romney’s was deeper.

 

Historically, from 1948 until 2012, the United States Unemployment Rate averaged 5.8 . Last month it was at 7.9. In January of last year it was up to 9.8 %. How do you figure that Obama has had a positive effect on unemployment?

 

Except in time of emergency like WWII, we generally had balanced federal budgets, and deficits were not a major concern up through the 1970s. These were times when we had the highest marginal tax rates, yet they were also our most prosperous years. In the 1980s when we had the Reagan and elder Bush administrations, we suddenly had budget deficits that were unprecedented in their size. Budget deficits and the national debt suddenly became an issue.

 

The Clinton administration in the 1990s accomplished what was generally considered impossible; they not only eliminated the deficits but created a surplus to start paying down the national debt. (Before anyone tries to jump me, I already know that those numbers do not account for intergovernmental debt) When the younger Bush administration came to power, the first thing they did was cut tax rates for the wealthy. In fact, Bush campaigned on using the budget surplus to fund these historically low tax rates. The budget surpluses disappeared, and we were back to large deficits similar to the Reagan years.

 

It is absurd to think that in January, 2009 with the country already in a deep recession and sliding towards a depression. the new Obama administration should have embarked on a restrictive fiscal policy to reduce deficits. The major objective had to be preventing a depression which meant putting money in peoples' hands and hoping they would spend it.

 

There is no question that there is a gap between the amount of money the government takes in and what it spends needs to be addressed as the baby boomers start retiring, and it will heavily depend on health care reform (it’s noteworthy that the U.S. is the issuer of its own currency, we have the reserve currency of the world, and we hold most of our debt). However, it is an issue on which Republican administrations have a poor record. Republicans have wanted to reduce taxes to reward their benefactors, been unwilling to pay the political cost of cutting entitlements unless they get a political trophy and believe that the country can never spend enough on defense. Until the Republicans change their attitudes in these areas, I will not look to them for a solution to the problems of budget deficits, the national debt or jobs. Even then, the government is not analogous to a user of a credit card, but some people have extreme austerity in mind which is a bad policy.

 

My roommate has been trying to get a job for the last 3 years and has come up empty handed every time.

 

Romney wasn’t going to help your roommate get a job. We had hit a point where we had income inequality not seen since the 1920's; Romney would welcome that.

 

Ben Bernanke: Income Inequality Is 'Creating Two Societies'

 

And let’s look at Romney's record. Just because Obama is president, it doesn't mean he has control over everything.

 

 

“I came in and the jobs had been just falling off a cliff. And I came in and they kept falling for 11 months. And then we turned around and we're coming back. And that's progress.

And if you're going to suggest to me that somehow the day I got elected, somehow jobs should immediately turn around, well that would be silly. It takes a while to get things turned around. We were in a recession; we were losing jobs every month, we've turned around, and since the turn around we've added 50,000 jobs. That's progress.

 

There will be some people who try to say, 'Well governor, net-net you've only added a few thousand jobs since you've been in.' Yeah, but ... we were in free-fall for three years and the last year of that I happened to be here and then we've turned it around as a state, private sector, government sector turned it around and now we're adding jobs.... I'm very pleased that over the last two, two-and-a-half years we've seen pretty consistent job growth.” – Romney

 

Obama promises the world and doesn't deliver a thing. Not that he is different from any other politician, but things have been pitiful and the idea that it's all Bush's fault is stupid. If you can't do anything positive in four years, then you don't need to be in office.

 

“Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term” –McConnell

 

"That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject." – McConnell

 

You have Tea Party cranks in their ranks that have made the Norquist pledge.

 

The myth that tax cuts increase revenues has been flatly rejected by economists across the ideological spectrum including former Romney adviser/Dubya chief economist Gregory Mankiw and several others who served in the Bush administration.

 

“I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.” Mankiw

 

I like how Romeny took historically poor states. It seems that the poor people are tired of being lied to by Obama.

 

What? It’s common knowledge that Democrats lead among the poor. According to exit polls, voters making under $30,000 made up 20% of the vote and overwhelmingly voted for Obama 2 to 1.

 

on the home from though, economically, i was more for Ron Paul sad.gif guy was crazy when it came to foreign policy, but a genus for Domestic policy.

 

I love how you just lectured people to take a basic economics course, yet you think Ron Paul’s Austrian economics position is the solution.

 

his party had control of the House adn Sentate for 2 YEARS, his first 2 years in office. and the LAST 2 years under Bush. what did Obama do. NOTHING under bush excpet prepare to run as president in 08 adn focused on passing a social issue instead of turnign aroudnt he economy.

 

In his first two years, that was when some major legislation got passed. Two years after, we had gridlock and a credit downgrade because of GOTea. Even now, we still do as Boehner insists that he won’t put increases for the rich on the table, though I fully suspect that they’ll cave-in as Obama has much more leverage than before.

 

Obama refuses to do this, instead he tells Republicans to "sit in the back of the bus".

 

Obama has been willing to put up entitlement reform, but the Republicans still insist that revenue should not come from the highest brackets. Why should Obama accept this? He gets absolutely nothing in return. Republicans also only control the House now because of extreme gerrymandering. They have no standing, and I’m betting Obama will stand his ground on this issue. The “fiscal cliff” this time is more like a fiscal slope.

 

we were supposedly in just a bad a state when Regan took over from Carter, and the USA was seeing growth economically within 2 years. theres no excuse, especially not for him to still be blaming Bush after 4 years. his policies and Keynesian economics are failures. he needs to grow a pair and own up to it. he wont though, cause hes a narcissist.

 

No, it wasn’t. The early 80’s recession was caused by a Fed-induced contractionary monetary policy. The 2008 recession was from private sector excess. America Is suffering from a case of debt deflation. It was bad enough that unemployment hit record highs, but our options were also limited due to the fact that the Fed was already near the bottom of interest rates, and we had historically low tax rates already in place that are blowing up the deficit. In Reagan’s situation, the Fed relented and reduced the rates which brought about a housing boom. I can get numerous credible sources saying that this recent financial crisis has been the worse since the Great Depression.

 

What? Keynesian economics a failure? You’re being obtuse to think that an austerity approach would have led to more growth in a time span of a few years. Not to mention, Reagan implemented massive tax cuts and a lot of spending.

 

Let’s put this in perspective.

 

 

 

It makes immediate nonsense of the talking point that Obama must be doing terrible damage to our economy by looking at businessmen funny or something.

 

Here’s also an amusing graph showing Bush as a public sector job creator and Obama as a private sector creator. Conservatives complain about jobs not coming back, but there have been massive layoffs in the public sector.

 

 

The big reason the general populaces was against it was because they didn't understand it. There were so many big ideas about what it was, that people don't get it.

 

Wasn’t it always almost split 50/50? In any case, I can find several polls that show that more people or just as much support it now.

 

[demonicvampiregirl]

Just because someone is elected does not mean you have to agree with all the policies they believe in. Those I voted for, I don't agree with all of their policies. I do not feel it does not mean you are not patriotic at all. Look at all of those that voted republican, they did not agree with Obama's policies, but these are still patriotic people. I still support the USA, and hope that down the road, change and hope comes my way next time, only time will tell. I do love my country that is for sure.

 

I have sons in the military, one has done two tours and will probably do another if it comes up. He did not always respect those that had command over him, because they were cheating on their spouses and doing other things that were not right, but yes he obeyed the orders. He still supports this country and is very patriotic.

 

I am sorry some things have not gone your way.

 

I agree with you when you say, you prayed that God would see fit to extend civil rights to everyone.

 

 

Yes, our founding forefathers, principals this country was founded on, certainly are taking different avenues that is for sure. I often wonder what they would have to say about it all.

Probably say it's disgraceful that people act this way. No one gets along, everyone is fighting over who is right, nothing gets done with either side as they are worried about keeping the other side from messing it up, and all the greed that is here now is disgusting.

 

 

 

 

That stupid Murray Energy Corporation in opinion deserves to lose every right he has to his mines if he is that selfish and throwing such a childish tantrum over who was elected.

 

You don't do or say the things he did ever. That is not patriotic at all. There is no way that doing or saying any of that is correct at all. You voted for someone, he didn't get it, tough luck, try next time. You don't always get your way and people should accept that.

[Fuzzbucket]

I will give Romney credit for this - after the election, he said "we should work together".

 

Those who are blasting Obama might do well to listen to their hero ?

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

I used to care about politics. But then I realized it was like trying to dam up the ocean.

The ocean's gonna win every time. It's pretty much impossible to fight it.

 

That said, if we can keep some kind of decent government I'm all for it. I mean we're not a third world country, after all. Well, yet, anyway.

 

Depends on who we elect and how badly the mess us up. This includes the past few presidents, naturally.

Edited November 10, 2012 by DarkCoffeeJazz

[Vhale]

I will give Romney credit for this - after the election, he said "we should work together".

 

Those who are blasting Obama might do well to listen to their hero ?

I did like his speech. I felt a little bad for him as he looked as if he'd been punched in the gut. I think I mentioned it before this got locked, but Obama had mentioned in an interview that he thought Republicans would work bipartisan on immigration because now they realize how much they need the hispanic vote. So between that and the Fiscal cliff, I guess those will be the major things this cycle. I'm not sure how much attention other things will get unless they go to the Supreme court.

 

But it also seems like Europe isn't having much luck with their austerity program, at least from what I've read over here. Aren't a couple of the countries looking at going the other route now?

[philpot123]

A belated congratulations to President Obama and the Democratic party on the win. I hope he has a productive second term and the country emerges the better for it.

 

 

That said, I hated both candidates, and I'm losing optimism daily. Offering my opinion as a not-quite-adequately informed libertarian... our only two solutions to the current fiscal issues are drastic measures to end federal programs in a Ron Paulish manner, which won't ever happen with the current political atmosphere, or we hike taxes on the rich. Right now the GOP just looks stupid, and will continue to look foolish if they oppose the only passable option.

 

 

By the way, I didn't vote, but I plan on complaining (when necessary).

[demonicvampiregirl]

Texas Republicans threaten to secede from U.S. after Obama's victory

 

Childish much?

[7Deadly$ins]

Texas Republicans threaten to secede from U.S. after Obama's victory

 

Childish much?

What you have to understand is that a vocal group of Texans threaten to secede like everyday.

[demonicvampiregirl]

What you have to understand is that a vocal group of Texans threaten to secede like everyday.

Still it's childish to say that kind of thing just because you didn't get your way. :/

[~Kat~]

Texas Republicans threaten to secede from U.S. after Obama's victory

 

Childish much?

Louisiana Residents Petition To Secede

 

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/louisiana-resid...tion-to-secede/

 

I can understand why all of you feel the way you do, but these people are from the accepted tradition, and under Obama, things have radically changed.

 

They see that traditions and moral values have gone. They have been going even before Obama, but the values and moral values of our forefathers have drastically changed under Obama

 

I can not blame them at all, just as I guess I can not blame any of you who feel differently either.

[demonicvampiregirl]

Louisiana Residents Petition To Secede

 

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/louisiana-resid...tion-to-secede/

 

I can understand why all of you feel the way you do, but these people are from the accepted tradition, and under Obama, things have radically changed.

 

They see that traditions and moral values have gone. They have been going even before Obama, but the values and moral values of our forefathers have drastically changed under Obama

 

I can not blame them at all, just as I guess I can not blame any of you who feel differently either.

How have they changed under Obama? What has he done to change any morals? It's not one single person who changes them. It's society.

[LascielsShadow]

Louisiana Residents Petition To Secede

 

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/louisiana-resid...tion-to-secede/

 

I can understand why all of you feel the way you do, but these people are from the accepted tradition, and under Obama, things have radically changed.

 

They see that traditions and moral values have gone. They have been going even before Obama, but the values and moral values of our forefathers have drastically changed under Obama

 

I can not blame them at all, just as I guess I can not blame any of you who feel differently either.

The "values of our forefathers" included owning other human beings, seeing women as chattel, and, essentially, only giving actual rights to wealthy white property owners. ("All men"=all free white men.)

 

Bigotry is not a moral value. Something being tradition does not make it right. Values have been changing for centuries, and they will continue to change as we move toward real equality for all. If people cannot handle that, it isn't our problem. Not much has changed under our current president, except that the rights of LGBT people have expanded, as have some for women and minorities. If you see that as a bad thing, I don't really know what to say.

Edited November 11, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[~Kat~]

How have they changed under Obama? What has he done to change any morals? It's not one single person who changes them. It's society.

You are right, it is society, such as the younger generation, which I will not go into any further, and Obama that has gone right along with a lot of what the younger generation wants to get elected, which has to do with traditional moral and values that this country was founded on.

 

Not only that, Illegal Mexicans that are here and that makes them a criminal, but yet they can stay. Now, I am I wrong on this? I am complaining on this matter with the Illegals. This is not right.

 

There is a lot wrong with this country in different ways, that the citizens have not had to deal with under Obama.

 

Please remember I am just answering your question, I have yet to complain since this thread was closed down except about the Illegals being here, or at least I have done it respectfully.

[pudding]

I'm just saying but the reason that our Constitution has a process to make amendments is because our forefathers foresaw that the country would change and we needed a way to alter the law of the land. So these so-called traditional morals and values were expected to change by the very people who wrote the Constitution.