Why Obama Won

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
821

Hell, yea let’s agree to get back on topic. I really did not foresee Mr Obama’s re-election. Sure, I hoped and voted against it, but I was truly surprised. Sorry if it’s been brought up already, but has anyone made a comment about Hurricane Sandy? I mean, let’s call a spade a spade; he probably did a reasonable job offering Federal support for that. Certainly better than GWB did in 2005 for Katrina, I shall admit. Even Mr Christie applauded the President’s efforts.

I should add that I am a little disturbed that some Republicans are upset with Christie for his kind words about Obama’s huriance support. If the guy did a good job, he did a good job, now shut up. At least Christie has the nutsuck to say that his opponent, who he blisters with his political speeches, did right by his state and it’s people.

822

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Hell, yea let’s agree to get back on topic. I really did not foresee Mr Obama’s re-election. Sure, I hoped and voted against it, but I was truly surprised. Sorry if it’s been brought up already, but has anyone made a comment about Hurricane Sandy? I mean, let’s call a spade a spade; he probably did a reasonable job offering Federal support for that. Certainly better than GWB did in 2005 for Katrina, I shall admit. Even Mr Christie applauded the President’s efforts.

I should add that I am a little disturbed that some Republicans are upset with Christie for his kind words about Obama’s huriance support. If the guy did a good job, he did a good job, now shut up. At least Christie has the nutsuck to say that his opponent, who he blisters with his political speeches, did right by his state and it’s people.[/quote]

No, no, no that’s not what you do with a week to go in the Presidential race. Yes, it’s fine to give Obama credit but you don’t give him oral sex in front of the nation and that’s just what Christie did. And because of that he will never become the President of the United States, at least not as a republican. There is a right and wrong way to thank obama without harming Romney, Christie didn’t take that course because he wants to run for President in 2016.

Sandy helped Obama big time and Christie was a part of it.

823

You can’t argue abortion causes social woes, in fact the opposite is true.

Crime has gone on a steady decline since Roe vs Wade. Most criminals come from single mother households. As a result of abortion, a lot of individuals at risk to be criminals were aborted.

Read: the impact of legalized abortion on crime by Stephen levitt.

The fetus is the one harmed by abortion. Society benefits, in a morbid way.

824

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I agree greed is yet one more vice…that libertarians will do nothing about.

When you say thinks like “some woman having an abortion doesn’t impact my life…” that says more about you and the other young males who follow this idiotic libertarian philosophy. Because I have a surprise for you, eventually everything impacts you!

There are many things that on their face do not impact you but in reality will eventually impact you in a very nasty way:

Who cares if people take drugs it doesn’t impact you, until someone breaks into your home, or a loved ones home and kills them for their TV because they need another fix.

Who cares if prostitution is legal it doesn’t impact you until there are numerous outbreaks of STD’s, HIV and a host of other sexually transmitted diseases. And families are broken because of marital infidelity. And it doesn’t just effect someone else, it effects people that you know. Do you care now?

Who cares if people drink until they can’t stand up, until one of those drunks hits one of your loved ones head on in an auto accident and kills them.

I can’t explain it any better than that.

You are a young male who is enthralled with libertarianism. It sounds cool, cheap and the way things ought to be…but it just totally wrong minded and takes the short-term view to an extreme degree. And all the words typed on a message board won’t change your mind because you just have not lived long enough to see the impact DIRECTLY ON YOU of the many ills of which I speak.

The only thing that will change your mind is living another 10-15 years. And that is not a put down, it’s just the way it is.

Anyway, I want to deliver my thread back to its original purpose of “Why Obama Won”[/quote]

My first question would be how old you think I am? I’m 44 and have lived or traveled (either through personal travels or deployments) to every continent. I’m a father to a young son and husband to a wonderful woman. I’ve done a lot of thinking about these subjects and unfortunately my ideas aren’t always articulated most clearly on an internet forum. But I am pretty sure that I’ve got enough life experience to have an intelligent conversation here.

I differ from most libertarians in that I do think that abject greed does need some amount of checks and balances. We used to have some of that in place and I would put my views more inline with someone like Teddy Roosevelt in that regard.

In every one of your examples you both showed the extremes of would could happen and you looked at the symptom of a different problem. People break into your home to get money for drugs not because of the drugs themselves but because of their addiction to them. There’s a world of difference there. My grandfather was an alcoholic and killed himself when my mom was still a teenager. But it wasn’t the booze that’s to blame there. It’s just the way that his mind worked. If it wasn’t booze then it would have been gambling, or food, or anything else. Does it suck that he went that route? Of course it does and it very much impacted my mom. But, even she doesn’t blame alcohol and herself will drink in moderation from time to time.

HIV and other STD’s can be easily prevented through the use of condoms. And I can get either of those even through a committed relationship and once dated a young woman who was given herpes by an old boyfriend. We were really careful but it was still a risk. The only way to be 100% sure of not contacting anything is to abstain. So should we ban all sexual contact?

My point in all of this is that we need to give the individual more responsibility not less. Legalize pot but make it illegal to drive in an altered state much like we do for DUI’s. Legalize prostitution but make it illegal to use their services without a condom.

Abortion is a sticky one to be sure. I fully admit that it’s murder. But so is the death penalty and so is war but we say that both of those are “justified”. And making abortion illegal isn’t going to stop the practice from happening. Yeah, that’s a shitty answer but it’s a realistic one. We live in reality not theory and it seems to me that many people forget that.

james

825

[quote]therajraj wrote:
You can’t argue abortion causes social woes, in fact the opposite is true.

Crime has gone on a steady decline since Roe vs Wade. Most criminals come from single mother households. As a result of abortion, a lot of individuals at risk to be criminals were aborted.

Read: the impact of legalized abortion on crime by Stephen levitt.

The fetus is the one harmed by abortion. Society benefits, in a morbid way.
[/quote]

That’s like saying we should kill everyone who is born into poverty and that will eliminate 99% of our social ills.

The end does not justify the means in either case.

826

On the topic of abortion…

827

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

legalize pot but make it illegal to drive in an altered state[/quote]

I had to single this one out because it’s so very wrong minded. Now tell me again how legalizing alcohol but making it illegal to drive under the influence has saved lives? 50,000 deaths due to driving under the influence each year. Before it was legal perhaps 100 or so.

So Mister libertarian make everything legal and just pass more laws to forbid harming others.

Wow…that is just simply naive.

But I’m done talking about libertarianism. It doesn’t work and never has anywhere in the history of the world.

Let’s get back to the purpose of my thread “Why Obama Won”

If you’d like to comment on that topic I will respond. But please no more of your libertarian musings on this thread.

Thanks.

Zeb

828

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
On the topic of abortion…[/quote]Against it. We may find a genetic propensity to all kinds of sin sooner or later. That will never be a problem for Christians like me. Catholics, modernist liberals and some Ariminians will be all messed up, but not me. Well the liberals are practically Unitarian universalists already and some fully are, so that’s how they would handle it. I apologized to you in another thread btw, but I am on my out the door for a computer call in White Lake waaaaay outta town and won’t be back til later.

829

[quote]ZEB wrote:
atypical1 wrote:

legalize pot but make it illegal to drive in an altered state

I had to single this one out because it’s so very wrong minded. Now tell me again how legalizing alcohol but making it illegal to drive under the influence has saved lives? 50,000 deaths due to driving under the influence each year. Before it was legal perhaps 100 or so.

Zeb[/quote]

Might want to put those numbers back in your ass where pulled them from. In 2010 there where a TOTAL of 32,788 fatalities nationwide and the numbers keep dropping.

830

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
atypical1 wrote:

legalize pot but make it illegal to drive in an altered state

I had to single this one out because it’s so very wrong minded. Now tell me again how legalizing alcohol but making it illegal to drive under the influence has saved lives? 50,000 deaths due to driving under the influence each year. Before it was legal perhaps 100 or so.

Zeb[/quote]

Might want to put those numbers back in your ass where pulled them from. In 2010 there where a TOTAL of 32,788 fatalities nationwide and the numbers keep dropping.
[/quote]

Drivers More Likely to be Drugged than Drunk…

Drivers on California roads on weekend nights are more likely to have drugs than alcohol in their systems, according to a results of a survey released by state officials on Monday.

About 14 percent of drivers surveyed tested positive for drugs that could impair their ability to drive, according to the California Office of Traffic Safety. That’s nearly twice as many drivers as the 7.3 percent who tested positive for alcohol, according to the survey

In 2010, 30 percent of those killed drivers tested positive for legal or illegal drugs.

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121123/A_NEWS/211230308

Yes, we legalized it, and pink unicorns didn’t come to poop money.

831

I was referring to the bogus 50,000 per year killed in drunk driving. It was 12,744 in 2009 nationwide. Nothing to sneeze at but no where near 50K.

As far as testing positive for drugs, they don’t say if they discriminate as to what type, although they did single out weed. It would seem that a majority could have some type of drug in their system. Prescription drugs kill far more people every year than illicit drugs do.

832

Testy,

I don’t want this thread to get derailed with this “legalize it” argument. But all we did was trade one addiction/bad habit for another. No one would have conceived the idea that more people driving while high on pot would happen if it were legalized. But it happened.

If people had more discipline and control over their behaviors, we would not be dealing with any of these addictions.

835

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

Might want to put those numbers back in your ass where pulled them from. In 2010 there where a TOTAL of 32,788 fatalities nationwide and the numbers keep dropping.
[/quote]

You are correct, but as of 2010. However, the most important figure is the total death toll due to alcohol in general that being 75,000 people per year. Just think if we legalize pot we can look forward to maybe 37,500 deaths per year because Pot isn’t nearly as bad as alcohol–uh huh…

Part of that enormous figure is due to disease’s related to alcohol:

I was surprised (on the one hand) to hear from you regarding facts. Judging by most of your posts you usually don’t let facts get in the way when you’re trying to make a point. That’s why I posted the link just for you.

Now get off my thread unless you have something to say about why Obama won. I know you have a very difficult time understanding that each thread has a title and that title is the topic for that specific thread. I know that’s a shocker to a hit and run coward like yourself but it happens to be the case chicken man.

In other words…move along, or make yourself relevant. Ha…that’s a funny one, you relevant.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/

836

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
You can’t argue abortion causes social woes, in fact the opposite is true.

Crime has gone on a steady decline since Roe vs Wade. Most criminals come from single mother households. As a result of abortion, a lot of individuals at risk to be criminals were aborted.

Read: the impact of legalized abortion on crime by Stephen levitt.

The fetus is the one harmed by abortion. Society benefits, in a morbid way.
[/quote]

If you’re correct in this and maybe you are, and thus makes it a desirable practice for the benefit of society then the next step would obviously would be to allow single mothers to “abort” their children even after they were born, say up the age of 7 months? Or 7 years? Or maybe 13? Or how about 16 seeing how that’s when a lot of them enter crime?
[/quote]

Indeed, sounds like some kind of pre-Death Penalty idea.

If a child’s life does not meet up to some kind of norm or expectation, we can off them, in the name of keeping crime down.

837

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Saying that because some humans do it, that all humans do it, is flat out wrong. [/quote]

Common tactic used in politics.

They like to paint an entire group of individuals with the collective brush. Ignoring the constant talk of “winning demographic blocks” just look at Limbaugh.

Here we have a controversal loud talking conservative. So what does the left do, stand up and say, over and over until it sticks, that Rush is the spokes person for every conservative. While intelligent people know nothing could be further from the truth, the bait is strong in this tactic, particularly when the target is ripe for bashing. They create a proxy, even where one doesn’t happen to be, in order to degrade an enitre group with their tearing down of the individual.

Effective, brutal and preying on the uninformed, but very effective. [/quote]

It is very effective. And it has a simple and effective counter that the Republican party, in its short sightedness, fails to use.

When republican politicans/candidates made the crazy rape comments, did Romney get on tv and say that such views are sickening and that people who spout such views are not republican/conservative? Did he try and get them off the ballot?

No. So he was seen to passively support those views.

It might not have helped his campaign, but it would help the republican party in the long term.

My social circle is mainly made up of moderates. I’m the main conservative, and there are two liberals. The liberals brought up the rape comments and tried to paint it as the way most republicans think. What a load of shit!

If Romney had made a comment saying that such views are not republican then I could have easily shut them down. Boom, shift of the moderates to the right. Of course I can use logic to counter, but in these kinds of casual conversations logic does not work as well as you would expect. And these casual conversations help shape peoples political views.

In the same way that when moderate Muslims do not speak out against the extremist Muslims we tend to believe that there are no real moderates, or that they are small in number. Or that they would rather side with the extremists than with the west.

838

[quote]phaethon wrote:

When republican politicans/candidates made the crazy rape comments, did Romney get on tv and say that such views are sickening and that people who spout such views are not republican/conservative? Did he try and get them off the ballot?

No. So he was seen to passively support those views.[/quote]

Did you pay attention to the Presidential election? Romney was all over the airwaves calling out Todd Atkins for his inane rape comment. And at the same time the corrupt MSLM were trying to link Atkins remarks to the republican party in order to hurt Romney.

Pay attention if you’re going to comment.

839

[quote]therajraj wrote:
You can’t argue abortion causes social woes, in fact the opposite is true.

Crime has gone on a steady decline since Roe vs Wade. Most criminals come from single mother households. As a result of abortion, a lot of individuals at risk to be criminals were aborted.

Read: the impact of legalized abortion on crime by Stephen levitt.

The fetus is the one harmed by abortion. Society benefits, in a morbid way.
[/quote]Oh I have no doubt about this Raj. I have said a hundred times that people who would kill their own children are folks I’d just as soon not see reproduce themselves. Christ’s body His church has less hostile adversaries, so in that sense we also win. I believe aborted infants go to heaven so they win too in my view. The God I serve who works ALL things according to the purpose of His own immutable will ALWAYS wins.

There are of course horrific downsides as well for a bloodthirsty society that butchers it’s own offspring in the name of a twisted and ghoulish misconception of freedom, but the worst losers of all are the murderers. They have committed an act of advanced depravity of such a nature that only a fully seared conscience or the blood of Christ will bring relief from the guilt. The former being superficial and temporary only.

That’s how it works see. The sovereign ruler of all that is orders even the evil that men do to His own purpose and glory. That’s why I sleep so well at night. I’m on His side. By HIS choice. That means I can never again not be on His side. That’s why I love Him.