jump to last post 1-36 of 36 discussions (325 posts)

OH GROW THE #$%^&! UP

  1. gmwilliams profile image87
    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

    President Obama won second term and THAT IS THAT!    However, some malcontents apparently are QUITE UNHAPPY with the situation at hand.    15 states want desperately to secede from the Union in addition to people writing petitions, requesting to secede!   WHAT IS GOING ON?    Well, GROW UP people,   there is a new paradigm in America,   the old conservative, homophobic, racist,  and sexist paradigm IS IN ITS DEATH THROES.    ACCEPT THAT OLD AMERICA IS ON ITS WAY OUT!      A NEW WORLD IS COMING, AMEN!

    1. tsadjatko profile image78
      tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I suppose you say the thing when high profile people on the left threaten to move to France or Canada when their candidate loses? Did you feign profanity or advocate shutting them up? Where is that thread?
      This is just a prime example of the double standard people like you love to exercise. 
      These petitions have no legal power and no president would ever agree to them. It’s a way to register dissent with the way the majority of the country voted last week. And why do you trash that right of the minority? Oh, you think you're  no longer the minority so just shut them up? The fact that people believe that their elected state leaders are more in tune with their needs than those of the federal government is a valid concern and if you could count the ~93 million eligible voters who don't even care to vote you'd probably find that most of them agree. Sounds to me like you are just a hateful duplicitous liberal dying for a chance to spike the football over a very narrow election win of which there have been the same on both sides and it has never meant the end of either party. Over half the state governments in the nation are run by Republican Governors and over 2/3 of state legislatures are controlled by Republicans so if there is an ideological problem it really does appear to be with the representation in the federal government, at least at the moment, and it will change as it always has in spite of rhetoric from people like you who are incapable of a civil discussion of the facts.

      1. The Frog Prince profile image78
        The Frog Princeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thge reason the White House made that site so that petitions could be posted was so that they can be posted and the grievances addressed.  All you left wing cry babies need to put your tissues away now.

    2. The Frog Prince profile image78
      The Frog Princeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The total is now up to 23 states.  You getting the clue yet?

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, lots of sore losers who want their cake and to eat it to.

        1. The Frog Prince profile image78
          The Frog Princeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If the Whine House doesn't want to get petitions they know what they can do now don't they?  Frigging left wing cry babies slay me.  We're going to include ya alright.  Just stay tuned.  LMBO

        2. tsadjatko profile image78
          tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Who invited you? :-) Kudos for the perfect username for a forum (that is meant o be a compliment)
          Sorelosers?  - OK, even if I give you that, but at least they find a civil way to express their concerns. Or have you forgotten about President Obama's speech on civility? (which you probably think is OK 'cause he forgot about it as soon as he finished speaking it).

        3. Drive By Quipper profile image60
          Drive By Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There are sore losers in Canada?

        4. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
          TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Bravo!

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yup there are 23 states that handle losing about as well as five year olds and who a percentage of their population are obviously not patriots, they are a minority in their states however as I doubt any have actual popular support to secede, Texas is the only deep red state than can afford to without becoming a third world nation and that is only because of the oil.

        1. tsadjatko profile image78
          tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Now up to 50 states. So I guess you figure all 50 states can't handle losing? Your statement as usual made ridiculous by the facts again. Oh I forgot,  According to the Messiah himself still 7 more to go before we have the whole US! I'm sure that's what He is waiting for to comment. I think you will be guaranteed that those 7 states won't be sore loser's so maybe you are right, in the fantasy world of Obamaville.

          1. 61
            Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know obama personally but have heard that obama comment and think it's not being used as he meant it.  When he was talking I think he was saying that he had been from state-to-state fifty-seven times during that loop of travel.  I think he was talking about the extend of his campaigning efforts - saying that so far he had traveled into various states fifty-seven times - not that he thought that there were more than fifty states.

            Of course I don't know the man personally and may be wrong - but that was my take on it.

            PHM
            ---------

      3. Greek One profile image82
        Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        so if all 50 states seceded and formed a new country.. and then this new country elects Obama as President.. do they all seceded again?

    3. Drive By Quipper profile image60
      Drive By Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's funny that you are instructing everyone to grow up and then say something so lame and immature.

      1. TNSabrina profile image59
        TNSabrinaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed.

      2. tsadjatko profile image78
        tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Couldn't have said it better...but liberals always have that double standard going on no matter what - it is OK for them but not you no matter what it is..

    4. HowardBThiname profile image88
      HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      One thing is certain - this nation is more divided today than it has been in the past century.

      I don't know that Obama is at fault completely for that - but he certainly has not helped the situation. sad

      1. tammybarnette profile image61
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Civil Rights movements always create Civil Wars

        1. HowardBThiname profile image88
          HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not sure that's true. First, there are no current civil rights movements afoot and secondly, I don't think we're near any war-type mode. I wish Obama was more of a unifying force, but I guess a person can only be what a person can be.

          1. tammybarnette profile image61
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It is most certainly a time of civil rights, women and minorities were under a policy attack if the "others" would have won,The Occupy movementhas been responding to the "class warfare" : war in this instance is more a civil unrest, the propaganda machines have created a great divide...Obama is not at fault for the divide nor is he or the democratic party the uninclusive side of the isle...the far right needs to break off so the true conservatives' hands can be untied to compromise and negotiate what is best for the country as a whole...It's time for the "grown-ups," to take care of the adult business at hand.

            1. HowardBThiname profile image88
              HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What do you think would have happened to minorities and women had Romney won? Romney doesn't have a history of voting against either women's or minority rights in all his years in politics.  I'm just asking because I can't think of anything.

              Obama is not totally responsible for the division, but actions like his immediately chastising the police office who arrested the belligerent professor haven't helped matters much. Or like Holder dropping the voter intimidation charges against the NBP members.

              While Obama still won, he lost a lot of support from four years ago. I have to agree that conservatives need to focus on important issues, but I think democrats need to hold Obama to task for his illegal war in Libya and for prosecuting whistleblowers under a little-known law against treason. Julian Assange called him a "wolf in sheeps clothing." I don't think Assange is far off.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Romney's party supported the person hood act that would make abortion illegal and more worrying still he pledged he would make a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman for the whole country.

                The people voted against that, and for a candidate that has made his stance on both those issues clear as accepting and tolerant, good on them.

                1. HowardBThiname profile image88
                  HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Josak - show me where Romney specifically supported that. Otherwise, you're just barking up the wrong tree. False accusations aren't pretty. Or desirable.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image61
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this
                  2. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The constitutional amendment pledge was one he personally made.
                    http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-iss … -marriage/

                    The person hood act is on the platform of the party he ran as president for, ignorance about the candidates isn't pretty.

        2. A Thousand Words profile image80
          A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Awesome point.

    5. Sally's Trove profile image97
      Sally's Troveposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, I guess, I suppose so. But I hate being capped at.

      1. gmwilliams profile image87
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Did not mean to offend anyone.    I just wanted to state that the old paradigm of America which is homophobic, racist, and sexist is slowly becoming obsolete.   The new paradigm of inclusivity for all Americans regardless of race, sexual orientation, and gender is coming into being.   America belongs to all people, not just the selected few.    I bid you all a pleasant, God Blessed night and by all means, continue with the discussion-it is quite interesting!

    6. 61
      Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You say:  "there is a new paradigm in America,   the old conservative, homophobic, racist,  and sexist paradigm IS IN ITS DEATH THROES.    ACCEPT THAT OLD AMERICA IS ON ITS WAY OUT!      A NEW WORLD IS COMING, AMEN!"

      OK;  so what will that world be like?  I don't know everything but so far Mr. Obama's idea seem silly to me.  For just one example:  he routinely rails against the horrors of coal.  And publicly states that he will drive the coal industry out of business by bankrupting them with onerous regulations.  OK, so since 50% of the US's energy comes from coal - what will replace it?  Or will everyone be agreeable if their electric bill suddenly doubles?  Or if they only have electricity for half of the day?  The idea of being able to get rid of coal is silly - but everyone cheers.  I'm not sure who is more silly - the general public or the president. 

      How is this new paradigm going to work exactly?  People are racist, sexist, and homophobic - what are we going to do with them?  Kill them?  How will this all work?  Can you give me some details?

      1. gmwilliams profile image87
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not all, the labels refer to those it applies to.   People who are racist, sexist, and homophobic must be educated regarding the merits of inclusivity and equality for all, regardless of protected class status.     Of course, not all Republicans and/or even all Conservatives are racist, sexist, and/or homophobic.

        1. 61
          Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          These are human beings we are talking about.  So far in history what you suggest has never once happened and humans are not substantially different now than there were before now.  If the result you suggest is being gained, I certainly can't see any signs of it.  Education isn't what's needed - or rather;  it doesn't seem to have changed things in these regards.  What seems to me to be needed is the basic gaining of a pure empathy.  Which seems unlikely to me as it requires a genuinely defined personal ego.  That is;  a genuine ego gained by positive personal awareness - rather the false ego gained by defining the world as inferior to yourself.

        2. Barefootfae profile image61
          Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          How do you plan to go about this education? Assuming the uneducated you speak of are wage earning adults?

      2. tammybarnette profile image61
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        About the coal...the right wing used old footage and a sound byte to invent the fallacy that Obama is against coal...I actually checked the charts and graphs provided by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, mining and logging are thorough the roof and off the chart under the Obama Administration. He has accomplished a lot more than you will ever hear in the media, but if you look up the CBO reports or the data from the BLS or the Treasury Dept., you can see the truth smile

        1. 61
          Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Then why did all coal and many coal-related mining company's shares prices fall so much the minute obama got elected?  Of course mine production is up - there is no alternative.  But the general perception is that obama will fight the coal companies.  Which is what he repeatedly said he would do.  Tell me more about what obama has accomplished.  And I'm not trying to be right or to argue.  I really am interested without ulterior motive.

          1. tammybarnette profile image61
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I believe the stock fell because the people believed the fallacy, the people control the market price, so being fearful of his "supposed," revenge on coal and therefore created this self- fullfilling prophecy on stocks...I have written a hub called POTUS that lists many of his accomplishments, we are not allowed to promote on forums but since you asked I hope that it ok.. smile

            1. tsadjatko profile image78
              tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Seems you all didn't notice the barrage of layoffs that were put through by coal companies immediately after Obama was elected. It is no illusion that Obama is and will target coal companies for extinction he has said so himself.

              1. tammybarnette profile image61
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Actually if you read the entire article, that happened to be the coal plant that "forced," its workers to vote Romney, he didn't win and they were let go anyway...would they have kept their jobs should he have won, I doubt that seriously...

                1. tsadjatko profile image78
                  tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  How lame can you get - so your contention is that it is good that they wouldn't keep their jobs even if  Romney was elected? No coal plant forced anyone to vote anyway or they would be in jail. There is no reasoning with someone who believes lies from the Huffington post. Coal companies are facing cancellation of customer contracts, lower coal prices and rising expenditures for environmental and other liabilities that severely constrain a company’s liquidity and financial flexibility, forcing the need for bankruptcy protection.  With coal-fired generation levels declining due to  environmental regulation and competition from natural gas, coal plants are being shuttered, and with no new coal-fired plants being built due to other environmental regulations, the coal industry in the United States is destined to dwindle, with mine closures and unemployed miners. President Obama and Vice President Biden are getting their campaign wish. As Mr. Obama said during his campaign, “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

                  1. tammybarnette profile image61
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There will be more regulation of the coal industry, but the Obama administration will help balance those costs through subsidies. The Recovery Act has already invested $3.4 billion in carbon capture and storage technologies. Additionally, the administration has put together a task force to develop a 10-year clean coal strategic plan.

                    Moreover, investors should not forget that there are other forces at play aside from President Obama’s clean energy policies. The price of natural gas in the U.S. sank to an all-time low earlier this year due to a surplus of supply. As natural gas prices come back into equilibrium, and continue to climb, the demand for cheap coal will rise as well.

                  2. tammybarnette profile image61
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The article also adds that we are not the center of the universe and other countries,such as China, use coal to supply 70% of the countries electricity..good export product, right?

                  3. Quilligrapher profile image89
                    Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    How are  you, Tsad?

                    The election cycle is over and it seems the time has come to stop pointing fingers at candidates and political parties. If you are truly interested in understanding the plight of coal-burning power plants in the US, I suggest you stop reading the political blogs and other slanted media outlets and, instead, independently research and examine the real facts facing the industry. 

                    For starters, take a look at the latest report from the consulting firm The Brattle Group. “There’s some grim news in here for the coal industry,” reports the Washington Post. “Between 59 and 77 gigawatts worth of coal capacity is set to retire by 2016 — between one-fifth and one-quarter of the country’s coal-fired plants. That’s even larger than earlier forecasts. But, the Brattle report notes, the recent uptick in retirements has largely been driven by market forces.” {1}{2}

                    Here are just a few facts that have absolutely no connection to the President and the EPA or to existing and future regulations:

                    1. Spot and forward natural gas prices have fallen drastically as a result of improvements in drilling techniques.
                    2. Wind turbines are creating more power on the national grid than ever before.
                    3. Coal mining on the East Coast has been declining for four decades due to competition from more efficient mining operations in the West. "Wyoming (with 5,837 coal miners) produces more coal than West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Alabama, and Illinois combined (with a total of 58,995 coal miners).” {3}
                    4. Newly developed mountaintop removal mining requires fewer miners underground.
                    5. In some regions, coal resources are waning. Some Appalachian seams are gradually running out. “There's just one problem: Analysts agree that much of the best coal in Southern West Virginia has already been mined…production is headed down regardless of air or water pollution restrictions.” reported the West Virginia Gazette in October 2012. {4}

                    Hence, regardless of which candidate won in 2012, more than 10% of the total coal generating capacity in the US has already been slated for retirement by 2016. If market conditions continue as expected, many additional units will join the retirement list. However, those playing the political blame game, those choosing to ignore the harsh realities that are changing the coal industry, should at least make a note of the prevailing consensus. “That change is primarily due to changing market conditions, not environmental rule revisions, which have trended towards more lenient requirements and schedules.” {2}

                    While I sympathize with the many unemployed miners, I see few reasons to blame the President and dozens of reasons why coal is not the dynamic economic engine it was a hundred years ago.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                    {1} http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won … -policies/
                    {2} http://www.brattle.com/_documents/Uploa … ad1082.pdf
                    {3} http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti … ted_States
                    {4} http://wvgazette.com/News/MiningtheMoun … 1210130087

                  4. 61
                    Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    China and India have recently become net importers of coal and will not be able to continue as-is, let alone expand as they plan to, without substantially increasing coal imports.  And neither one has an EPA to hobble their efforts.  A few years ago China was bringing new coal fired electric plants on line on-line at the rate of about ten per month.  I don't know if they have continued at that rate - but even one per month will ramp up coal demand.

                    Energy history is always dictated by cost per BTU.  And coal consistently has the lowest cost.  The US has huge coal reserves.  But apparently we are going to pay more for electricity while exporting the lower cost means of production.

                    About 50% of the electricity in the US is produced with coal.  The idea of substantially reducing that with something which heretofore does not exist just seems like an odd policy to adopt.  To me anyway.

                    PHM
                    ---------

              2. A Thousand Words profile image80
                A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Those people were told thaty would be fired if Obama won. Did you not hear about the "lay-off threat" concerning Obama being re-elected? It was a threat that was fulfilled not Obama's agenda. Seriously.

                1. 61
                  Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Do you think that companies would deprive themselves of 20,000 necessary workers just to make a point?  While crippling their own production as a result?

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, but the threat might convince some workers to vote against their best interests.

                  2. A Thousand Words profile image80
                    A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
            2. 61
              Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So far I am missing the fallacy part. 

              In the months before the election the EPA suddenly devoted a large number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations - apparently so they could be released at the end of November.  More than 50 EPA staff rushed to finish the greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants.

              The non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion dollars.  What else could this sudden rush be for except to have these new regulations in place - in case Obama did not win?  If he won, as he has, they would then have four years to do it.  But in case he lost - they rushed through it.

              The environmentalists at the EPA pulled this trick before in 2000 when the Clinton administration rushed out a finding that Mercury emissions from power plants were a growing public health threat pursuant to the Clean Air Act.  That finding did not regulate power plants itself, but it did force the Bush administration to begin a lengthy regulatory process.  The Obama EPA themselves has estimated that this regulation alone will cost the U.S. economy $10.9 billion a year.

              Obama even said publicly in 2008:  They can build all the coal plants they want - if they want to go bankrupt doing it.

              What people seem to forget is the utility companies, or any other business for that matter, do not ever pay for even one thing.  Every single thing is paid for 100% by the consumer.  Which is you and me. <g>

              PHM
              ---------

              1. tammybarnette profile image61
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                If indeed the EPA standards or regulations are "unfai,"This will never make it into law...I believe regulations are very important to the future of our Country and our Planet, I do believe it is vitally important to have Research and development to find ways to make coal as clean as possible without destroying the ability to make money in the market...The battle should be in the details, and yes costs are always passed onto the consumers, but I am willing to pay more to save the earth, it is our responsibility to do so...I believe there will be a middle ground found because this issue, as so many others, is not black and white, do it or don't, it's about compromise...

            3. Nia Foxx profile image61
              Nia Foxxposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Tammy, I just have to say you have been on point.  I've followed this thread throughout the day and applaud you for your continued input and facts.  Bravo!

              1. tsadjatko profile image78
                tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Anymore professional cheerleaders out  there? More help is needed here.

              2. tammybarnette profile image61
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you so much smile

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        They are gradually dying off. The majority of young people are less prejudiced than their parents and grandparents.



        .

        1. donotfear profile image91
          donotfearposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So true, Ralphey, so true.  I've been saying this for years.
          The generation is dying out; meaning the generation of my own father, who is 87 now.

        2. gmwilliams profile image87
          gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thank God for that,  each generation evolves from the previous generation.    Many young people today are realziing that social class, age, race, ethnic origin,  and sexual orientation are just artifical constructs.    They know that there is only one race- THE HUMAN RACE.    I applaud this and it is about time.

          Ralph, when we were growing up, the world was quite polarized and we knew that there had to be a more unified world.    Superficial subdivisions have no place in the 21st century.   Yes, there are a few extremists out there but they will eventually become extinct as people become more educated.

    7. Gemini Fox profile image93
      Gemini Foxposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why get so upset gmwilliams?! Haven't you heard? The red states are the "moochers" . . . let 'em secede, give 'em six months on their own and they'll be bankrupt and then we can take them over and annex them into the nearest blue state! I'm sure they won't mind . . . I mean that's what Romney does with companies so why can't we do that with states?! LOL!

      http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politi … le-sustain

      1. gmwilliams profile image87
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not upset at all, just startled that's all.    By the way, I just LOVE your premise!

      2. 61
        Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I have heard many times that Romney broke up or closed companies and laid off workers - people lost their jobs.  Which is no doubt true.  But that wasn't the Intent.  The intent was to buy poorly managed companies and to re-manage them into more productive forms - which would produce jobs.   And his efforts were often positive - the companies were saved and people continued to work there.  It's not as though perfectly sorted and well-ordered companies were bought in order to be destroyed. <g>

        1. psycheskinner profile image79
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, it was more to turn the acquisition into profit as quickly as possible.  Usually by ripping out the profitable bits and selling them, and closing the unprofitable bits. You could argue some jobs were saved by sacrificing others, but no new jobs were created.

          1. 61
            Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Those statements are nonsense and do not at all reflect even slight knowledge of the way business itself functions.  The only reason that a business exists is to create a profit and as a result to stay in business forever.  Turning an acquisition in a profit as quickly as possible is the core and essential nature of a business.     

            For various reasons this is not always possible:  people in management make mistakes, business conditions charge, etc.  When these things happen there are several paths.  One is to steadfastly follow the existing business paradigm that is not working.  This way leads to tragedy and business death.  Which does not typically serve to maintain or create additional jobs.  Another is to alter the business so that it can thrive, grow profits, and perhaps expand.  This does typically result in maintaining and creating jobs.

            Sometimes this requires new management.  Which is exactly what Romney and his team did:  they took control and better managed the companies.  Which is exactly how jobs are maintained and created.  There is no other way.  Allowing troubled companies to fail does not serve Labor in any way. 

            So my question is:  What alternate path would have been more agreeable to you than the one that Romney took with Bain and his related adventures?

    8. 67
      logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's what the British said just before the American Revolution.
      If you opened your eyes, it isn't just about obama winning.  It is about taxation without representation.  Congress and the president ignore the people who pay the bills.  They continue to spend money we don't have to pay back campaign contributions.
      There is no sign of the bipartisanship obama promised during the campaign.  In his own words, he won and that means he gets what he wants.  Doesn't sound very bipartisan to me. Wants to reduce deficit by 4 trillion over 10 years.  He won't be in office for 6 of those years.  4 trillion is less than he added to the deficit the past 4 years.
      Harry Reid wants to revise Senate filibuster rules so Republicans can be run over without any voice at all in the Senate.  Doesn't sound too bipartisan to me.
      Stock market has dropped like a rock and continues to fall since obama was reelected.  Unemployment has grown worse.  I work at one of the country's largest corporations and they will be laying off people due to the worsening economy.  Lower sales is the reason.  I'm guessing unemployed people won't be spending a whole lot of money this Christmas season.
      On top of that obama wants us to pay more in taxes, even though it was his idea to suspend part of the social security tax until the election.
      He didn't win because he was better than Romney, he won because he was the most vicious, the greatest liar, and more and more people are looking for a government handout.
      NO HOPE!  NO CHANGE!

      1. tammybarnette profile image61
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        My local news channel last night reports:As the economy improves consumer confidence returns, sales for the season are soaring and new seasonal jobs are becoming more available to keep up with demand...Also, I am searching for work in my field for next year when my little one starts kindergarden, I recieved and e-mail listing 100 job openings in my field, in my area...gas prices have dropped almost a dollar...yea your right, life just sucks  :eyeroll:

        1. My Minds Eye53 profile image59
          My Minds Eye53posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The only reason gas prices fell is because of the election.

          1. tammybarnette profile image61
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            But if they go up, that is because of Obama, right...

            1. My Minds Eye53 profile image59
              My Minds Eye53posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Not necessarily.  They always go down right before an election so the present President looks good no matter what party he is.

    9. Xenonlit profile image59
      Xenonlitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Darned straight! There are many, many more of us than there are of them. Heck, even some of them voted not at all or for President Obama. We have our own American Taliban and they are called Confederates. Our work is not done yet and they need to be stopped. Mid term and local elections next. Run them out of power.

    10. Onusonus profile image84
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Whitehouse.gov has received petitions from people who are asking the government to "Strip the Citizenship from Everyone who Signed a Petition to Secede and Exile Them". In a few short days it's already received over 10,000 signatures.
      Liberals are just as stupid.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image89
        Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Onus. How have you been lately?

        I just wanted to suggest that a petition with 10,000 signatures does not represent the sentiments of all Liberals, all Democrats, all Progressives, or even all Americans. We should all be bright enough to recognize this as a fact. 

        Also, Liberals are not stupid, as you put it, nor are they all ignorant or on the dole as others have claimed. The same can be said for non-Liberals as well. I believe all rational adults know this without having to be reminded. Political discussion should be about specific issues and include an exchange of reasonable, well-established facts. It should not be a verbal joust in which participants attach labels to people so they can attack the labels and the people while they ignore the pros and cons of the issues.

        In the final analysis, Onus, the best choice is not to be tethered to one or another faction. Rather, we should be independent thinkers who leave the labels, the name-calling, and the insults to the uninformed rabble who have no other arguments to offer. We should not be part of the discussion if we are unable to present and support our personal opinions with verifiable facts. The power of our facts will always have the greatest impact while our personal opinions will always be just our own personal opinions.

        I’m glad to have the opportunity to exchange thoughts with you, Onus. I hope to see you around soon. Everyone knows we can use more reasonable and effective voices in these forums.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

        1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
          TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Quill:  I have said it before and will say it again, you are a refreshing read!  You have a way of cutting through the BS and stating facts that cuts off the "rabble" at their knees.  So glad to see you in these discussions...keep it up!

          1. tammybarnette profile image61
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            +100

            1. Quilligrapher profile image89
              Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              @TT2 and Tammy too,
              tyvm
              Q.

        2. Onusonus profile image84
          Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, i did not mean to imply that all liberals are stupid. Of course not all of them are.
          However I'm glad to agree that name calling is not a very civil course of action nor is telling people to "grow the #$%^&! up". I must have missed your conversation with Mr. Williams on the subject I'm sure you would agree that the nastiness would not even exist if we were not all told to "grow the #$%^&! up".

          1. gmwilliams profile image87
            gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The title was put on for punch or kick value.     Not all Conservatives and/or Republicans are bad people.  There are many good to excellent Conservatives and/or Republicans.   However, there are many people who are disturbingly upset and in angst over President Obama's second win.   

            There are states who want to secede and people who are signing petitions to secede.   That type of behavior is quite puerile to say the least.     To pay the devil's advocate, if Romney won, I would not go into histrionic melodramatics.    Such is life.     

            We win and lose some, such is life!    We just have to accept the situation at hand and seek ways how to work within the system.   That is all I am saying, thank you ever so kindly!

        3. A Thousand Words profile image80
          A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Q, your responses are always so eloquently put.

          1. Quilligrapher profile image89
            Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Merci beaucoup.
            Q

    11. BloodRedPen profile image71
      BloodRedPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I urge you to comprehend Obama won by just over 50% of the popular vote. Hardly a mandate. And your tactic of labeling those that oppose you is "just so very FRINGE". This is going to be an interesting four years.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That "great" leader of the UK  never even managed to get 50% of the vote, her best was about 46% dropping to about 36%.

        Yes, I realise that is irrelevant.

  2. paradigmsearch profile image90
    paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

    Did someone say paradigm!?! big_smile

    1. gmwilliams profile image87
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, indeed, the old American paradigm is........dying!   Give it a GOOD SEND OFF, good bye.   The NEW paradigm of inclusivity for ALL is here!

    2. CrisSp profile image83
      CrisSpposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Lol! You guilty paradigm? (:

    3. A Thousand Words profile image80
      A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      LoL

  3. lj gonya profile image61
    lj gonyaposted 4 years ago

    Grown up? I assume you are referring to the mature behavior of the Vice-President who laughs at his opponents while they are speaking, or the so called Commander in Chief who ridicules anyone who disagrees with him, makes fun of their names, and openly declared that the opposition should sit down and shut up. Excuse some of us who happen to believe that some issues take priority over others. We currently have more liberties, and equal rights than any other country in the history of the world. These freedoms were paid for by hard work, trial and error, and the ability of this form of government to make many needed corrections throughout the ages. This isn’t going to be reversed regardless of all the liberal scare tactics and hyperbole. What some of us realize, however, is that without the basic economic backbone, and traditional strengths of this great country, none of this is possible. No one wants to limit liberties, but some of us want to preserve a country to enjoy them in.

    1. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well said. 

      And I happen to agree with you.

      1. tsadjatko profile image78
        tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ditto Motown what she said - just another example of the the left wing double standard..it's everywhere.

      2. My Minds Eye53 profile image59
        My Minds Eye53posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ditto for me also.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ah all the tie of ignorance starting with "We currently have more liberties, and equal rights than any other country in the history of the world." Nope not true even right now there are several nations (all further to the left) with greater freedoms and liberties.

      1. tsadjatko profile image78
        tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Gee I wonder why you don't name them - could it be that they don't exist?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yup sure, it varies from country to country on what you mean though, some countries allow same sex marriage nationally that is more freedom but more to what would appeal to a conservative where I am currently in New Zealand with my military service in one week an without it in four weeks I can go out and buy a crew mounted machine gun if I so chose, not something you can do in the US.

      2. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Which greater freedoms and liberties would those be?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I have already answered that on this thread:

          Yup sure, it varies from country to country on what you mean though, some countries allow same sex marriage nationally that is more freedom, but more to what would appeal to a conservative where I am currently in New Zealand with my military service in one week an without it in four weeks I can go out and buy a crew mounted machine gun if I so chose, not something you can do in the US.

  4. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    Maturity is always best expressed BY ALL CAPS AND EXCLAMATION MARKS!

    1. Shanna11 profile image90
      Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ugh, seriously. These kinds of threads just make me think of crotchety old people ranting in a straitjacket somewhere.

      1. lj gonya profile image61
        lj gonyaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        When I was a sophomore in college I felt the same way because everything and everyone is immortal. Then you get older and you realize how tentative and fragile life and society is and a lot of things begin to matter much more. I lot of us would give anything to go back to those days.

        1. Shanna11 profile image90
          Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Don't get me wrong-- I do realize a lot of that stuff now. I just don't condone or think it's appropriate to create such vitriolic threads as this. There are better ways to express oneself.

      2. My Minds Eye53 profile image59
        My Minds Eye53posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You have experience with being crotchety and wearing straight jackets Shanna?

        1. Shanna11 profile image90
          Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know whether I want to respond sarcastically, use a pre-fabricated witty comeback or make a self-deprecating joke here.

          So I'll just say "maybe" in a mysteriously creepy way.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well, one thing we know for sure, Shanna's not old!

            1. Shanna11 profile image90
              Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What if I was though? How weirded out would you all be if I was actually a fifty-something grandmother?

              1. My Minds Eye53 profile image59
                My Minds Eye53posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Then you wouldn't be for Obama unless you were in dementia.

                1. Shanna11 profile image90
                  Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Where did I say I was for Obama?

                  1. My Minds Eye53 profile image59
                    My Minds Eye53posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    My mistake, you didn't.   But we need to speak out if something is important.  Not yell and call names, but true discussions otherwise the relationship is over.

              2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hey, fifty something's not old.

  5. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    I thought the ability to seek a redress of grievances has already been annulled?

    OH, its that pesky free to speak and express thing that needs to be squashed. That would make everything so much easier.  smile

  6. My Minds Eye53 profile image59
    My Minds Eye53posted 4 years ago

    I am not homophobic, racist nor sexist!  How dare you call anyone who voted against Obama any names.  You are exactly what you call republicans.  I believe in God and in doing so, I had to vote was morally right.  I may have not like everything about Romney, but I didn't like anything about Obama.  You say we all have rights, well evidently I don't have any according to your rules.  You need to wake up.

  7. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    I believe the system itself is winning YEEEEaaaa eeee!  The powers that be seem to be more and more succesful in dividing and conquering the voters power in America .  A nation split is easier to divide !  So what will it be  a fractured society or a wiser one ! Hey I know lets all get wiser ! Be nice to each other , it works !

    1. tammybarnette profile image61
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +1

    2. lj gonya profile image61
      lj gonyaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If the system were working, we wouldn't be a nation divided.

      1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
        TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What's dividing us is not the system or the President...we are dividing ourselves by being hateful and ignorant and refusing to accept current realities.  When you refer to our President as our "so called commander in chief", you're showing what you are...sour grapes.  You certainly are not a person who wants this country to heal, and it never will, as long as people keep playing the blame game.

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is the fifth time I have seen someone use the phrase "blame game" and laying it at the feet of Republicans. Ironic really when that is the entire re-election campaign of the President wasn't it? Economy bad? It's Bush's fault! Middle East hates us? It's Bush's fault! Pretty much all they ran on was blaming Bush for anything that was wrong.

          1. tammybarnette profile image61
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sassy, Republicans have been trying to lay this whole thing on Obama, it is not playing a game to point out the fact that he adopted this economy from the Bush Administration...We paid for 2 wars on our Chinese credit card, remember...bush created a huge mess, it took 8 years to make that mess, it is ridiculous and naive to think it would take 4 to clean that mess up and then on top of that have a thriving economy...it takes twice as long at least to dig out of a hole than it does to get into one, ask anyone who has maxed out a credit card...The Republican's ran on lies and blaming Obama for a mess he did not create, and for not fixing the mess they made fast enough  roll

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, you really just proved my point. If you really understood all the nuances of what happened to the economy, you'd know that the bubbles that burst under Bush found their life under Clinton. So I guess it isn't fair to blame Bush for a mess he didn't create is it? No matter who had been President at that time, you were going to feel the effects of that. A little thing called 9/11 happened as well. That created a new division of Government, which did up spending. We're still in Afghanistan and Obama has spent more there than Bush ever did. Reagan inherited just as big a mess. He didn't spend his campaign, nor his first term, blaming Carter and the Democrats. Then you wonder why the country is divided. It is the fault of the Republicans, it is the fault of the wealthy, it is the fault of business. It is everyone's fault except those who held all the power from 2009 - 2011. In case of Congress, they held the power from 2007. The point was, you can't whine about the country being divided when the leader is playing the blame game all the way around.

              1. tammybarnette profile image61
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I have heard the blame Clinton Arguement, and yes the Bubble was created because of the Bush policy Sassy, not enough regulations on the banksters, the housing bubble however, was created under the Clinton policies...and you have proved my point, there is plenty of blame when it is not "your guy"....And the country is divided because of the propaganda machines, wonder who finances those guys? Oh yea, the big corporations smile

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, the President himself stands up there in his speeches and places blame on all those I mentioned. You can't blame propaganda machines for the things he says himself.
                  We've already seen the future coming at us like a freight train. Do you really think all those firings and layoffs right after the election mean his policies are going to help unemployment? Jobless claims rose, again, prior to all those layoffs. Heaven knows what it will be next month. The great unions have just killed Hostess. That's another 20,000 jobs gone. We just dropped from third to fifth in manufacturing.
                  You can go here to see all the job losses already,
                  http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch … ne-you-can
                  It makes me wonder how many will admit to voting for this President a year from now.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image61
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sassy, these things happen, this is not Obama policies...Hostess did the smart thing, the unions have gotten to big to fail, so Hostess closed, smart move, they can cash out or re-open and not hire Unions...Unions will get the message, right? Hirings and firings happen every year no matter who the POTUS is, that is silly, the propaganda is really doing a great job of sensationalizing every move...I do blame sound bites and editing for many misleading out of context arguements from both sides, but a speech, no your right he has to own that...I guess he and McCain may have to share some crow ...They are only people Sassy, they are not dictators so there is plenty of blame to go around, they make mistakes too, but when the media tries to annihilate Obama or Romney or McCain for there mistakes we get our panties in a bunch like we expect those "people" to be perfect...

          2. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The policies of the Bush administration did, in fact, cause our economy to crash.
            It's nothing new. Just giving credit where it's due.
            Americans have known the truth for years.

            http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e … r-economic

            "More than half of voters nationwide attribute the country's current economic problems to former President George W. Bush and Republicans as opposed to President Barack Obama and the Democrats, a new poll released Thursday shows.

            The latest release from CNN shows that 54 percent of likely voters think Bush and his Republican colleagues are more to blame for the still-sluggish national economy, compared with 38 percent who blame Obama and the Democrats. 

            It should be noted that this is not a new trend.  CNN has found that at least 50 percent of Americans pin the lion's share of the blame for nation's economic woes on Bush and the GOP dating back to September of 2010."

  8. My Minds Eye53 profile image59
    My Minds Eye53posted 4 years ago

    Our lives begin to end,
    ...the day we become silent about things that matter.

    ~ MLK ~

  9. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    I've never understood this level of anger, and these supposedly are people who are patriots, people who claim to love their country... if their guy is in office?

    1. My Minds Eye53 profile image59
      My Minds Eye53posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's not anger, it's fear RebekahELLE

  10. larakern profile image80
    larakernposted 4 years ago

    We're all humans. Is it so much to ask for us to all get along? Personally, I believe that the president and vice president shouldn't be on the same political "side." See, if they had different views perhaps all of the pros and cons of situations could be fully talked through... If five year olds are not only expected to but also manage to get along why can't the adults?

    1. 61
      Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      At one time that was the procedure that US used in determining the presidency:  The person who got the most votes became president and the closest runner up became vice-president.  That must have left too much power in the hands of the people or something because the 12th amendment did away with that method.

      PHM
      --------

  11. 0
    jenuboukaposted 4 years ago

    Hey now, we survived two terms with Bush and many aliments of his practice in office, I think we can also survive another 4 years with Obama.  Perhaps the states in question should address their locate senate first.  And perhaps understand that it takes a great deal for anything to get passed among the House and Senate.  So while the President may want things as he has in the past, it takes an army of opposites to decide the verdict.  And, we the people, are the ultimate deciders really.  WE just have forgotten our voices.  Remember back when Ben Franklin was in politics?  The politicians had REAL jobs and work on the issues on their off time.  He built schools and libraries with the help of the local communities not with gov. funding.

    Maybe those who are still so passionate on the election should start with their local congress and move up the ladder.......I think it is great that many are so vocal about the future of our country, but let's DO something about it as a team, not complain about it.  Together, we can get our country back, state by state, no matter who is in office.  One man can not be held blame for all the failing issues in the government today.....

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well I'd like to offer a perfect compromise.



      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7369010_f248.jpg

      1. tammybarnette profile image61
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is awesome Sassy:) And I would like to add, all Republicans can give up their welfare benefits, it should equal out nicely smile

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'd bet the majority of them would be quite fine with that deal. Provided NONE of their tax dollars funded welfare.

          1. tammybarnette profile image61
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sassy, red stated receive more welfare than do blue, so that was the tit for tat smile

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Based on what exactly? You do realize that Federal money received is not all slated welfare money. States with large Federal lands receive money for the upkeep, any National Monument, same deal, if they have Federal highways, money comes in for that. If Congress has appropriated funds for this or that project(s) within a State, money is allocated for that. So taking X amount in taxes and Y amount received in Federal money, does not mean it is a welfare State.

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Just as an example, here are the states with the highest welfare spending per capita
                (I've just used the top six here)
                DC
                Alaska
                Mass.
                Washington
                NJ
                NY
                Party make-up of legislature:
                DC doesn't really apply here
                Alaska  (R - House, Senate - even)
                Mass. (Dems - both Chambers)
                Washington (Dems - both Chambers)
                NJ - (Dems -both Chambers)
                NY - (D - House, R - Senate)

                Per capita spending is what determines the percentage of welfare recipients within a State. 

                source for per capital spending: (there's some other info offered here as well in chart form)

                http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/com … g_2012h40c

                Oh I included the make up of their State legislatures, but I'm sure you'll note that all but one of those were Blue states for the Presidential election.

                1. tammybarnette profile image61
                  tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Seeing there many ways too research, so this nifty little site I think you will appreciate:http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec-economy-welfare-caseloads-total-recipients
                  You can reorganize per capita, you can click on the state to review all of the economic factors, etc....Cool site smile

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That is a nifty site. I am a bit concerned that at the bottom "definition" states numbers are from 2003 (?) and the source site is a dead link.  One of the reasons I liked the one mentioned above. You can choose the year.

    2. 61
      Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Survival is not much of a goal.  I think we should aim our sights considerably higher that survival.

      PHM
      -------

  12. srijayasampath profile image60
    srijayasampathposted 4 years ago

    winning or losing is some what but need to work the people  is the ultimate

    http://topletter.blogspot.com/

  13. 61
    Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago

    I know that you all apparently find Obama a treat and his election a step forward so I sort of tried to distill my own feelings about it all today without reading what you were saying. 

    First;  I have been around a good while and I have lost elections before.  But I have never before felt the way I do now.   In 2008 I was a supporter of John McCain - but for the first time I really felt the country would be well served by either candidate (back in 2008)   Obama's  'One America'  speech at the convention in 2004 impressed me greatly - it was magical stuff.  My only concern about Obama was that I did not know him the way I knew McCain.  Bill Clinton had previously proved to me that you can give wonderful speeches and still be totally inadequate to the job if you didn't mean what you said.  Whereas I knew that with McCain, words were consistent with actions.  But with Obama I couldn't be sure without following him for decades the way I had McCain.  I didn't always agree with McCain, of course;  but I could see that he had an honest desire to serve his country AND he believed in the wisdom of what he said AND his vision of what he wanted America to be was very close to mine.

    Things have changed since then.  Obama now has a known track record with the country.  He is very much like Clinton in that his words are just a weapon to manipulate the listener.  Everything else is secondary, like truth, vision, or whether he intended to keep a promise.  From the southern culture in AK, Clinton at least had a sense of honor, warped though it was.  Obama, from solid Chicago-style politics, is pure pragmatic win at all costs.  For Obama, apparently anything goes as long as he wins power.

    Obama does has core values - but they are not American, in my opinion.  This time I did not just lose an election, I lost a country.  If my America could not defeat Obama at the polls after watching him in office for four years - then I am apparently wrong about the very existence of my country, i.e. it no longer exists. 
    Change is the only constant and everything evolves, progresses, changes, develops - I get that.
    Every generation as it comes to old age feels the change disorienting and longs for the "good old days" - I get that too.
    But this is far more than all that because it is very likely that my country is gone forever.
    The  "One America"  President who said we were all in this together has carved us up into groups and issues and played politics as only a Chicago politician can.  He broke every major promise he made, lied whenever it served his purposes, and was rewarded with a solid re-election.  If Romney could not win in those circumstances, it's over for the America I knew.  We now know that 51% of Americans agree that taxes should be increased on other Americans, the 2% - to fund more stuff for the 47% getting free stuff now - plus the extra 4% that will make for a permanent majority.  I am now part of a minority, dependent on the kindness of the majority.

    On the bright side, I think that after I get over the  "fundamental change"  as Obama calls it, there will be a burden lifted from me.  It is clearly now every-man-for-himself - and it will be a relief not to have to ask what I can do for my country. For the first time ever I will feel no need to serve a cause greater than myself - perhaps that will be a different kind of freedom that is lighter.  I find myself with very little respect for my fellow  "Americans".  My bond with them is ended.  For the first time in my life I am not proud of America and I see no exceptionalism.

    In pre-pondering the election I took the war against women too lightly.  Abortion is settled constitutional law - so how could women take that seriously?  My daughter had to explain it to me.  She voted for Romney but her friends did not. The war on women was her one complaint about Romney.  For her, she saw too many children being born to bad parents and to bad situations and that was With abortions being legal.  For her, an end to abortion would increase that problem.  Whereas in my mind the only question was whether all Americans were going to have to pay the medical abortion bills for the Americans who wanted to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion.  Were we going to have to pay for our own contraceptives directly to the drug store or were we going to do it out of tax revenue, less the massive administrative charges?  It just seemed like a trivial issue - compared to $16 trillion in debt, unemployment, and etc.   It was Big mistake - they taught me a thing or two.

    And I also took all the social issues too lightly.  Gay marriage for example.  When I had to get a marriage license it really annoyed me that the government should stick their nose into what did not concern them - a marriage is most properly a religious and personal ceremony of bonding - not a legal contract.  Now I am not inclined to impose that insult on gay people - but if they want their life long commitment recognized with a government license, what the hell;  it's all fine with me if they pay the fee.  Whether it is called marriage or civil union, as far as I am concerned, can be decided by offending the least number of people because I really don't care one way or the other.  I think two different words for two different things works best, but lots of words have more than one meaning.  Big mistake - there goes another block of voters.

    What do Latinos see in Obama?  Most of the ones who voted came legally to the US.  Hell;  Obama even won the Cuban vote in south Florida!  And Blacks!  I would have thought that if any ethnic group would follow Rev Martine Luther King's vision of a world where the character of the man matters, not his skin color, it would be Blacks - but no:  instead there were several polling locations, such as in Philadelphia, where not a single vote was recorded for Romney!  I would say  "cast"  for Romney - but I have my Chicago-style doubts.  Is it really true that there was not one black person willing to live out Martin Luther King's vision and creed?  Not even one black person willing to forgive the color of Romney's skin?

    There is something deeply flawed in that reality.

    PHM
    --------

    1. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Poodle.

      I am sympathetic. I am truly sorry that you feel so badly over a simple election. There have been 57 presidential elections. After every one of them, there were some Americans feeling as you do today. I, a registered Republican, was in the same frame of mind in 2004. It is not likely to be a terminal illness for you or the country unless you make it into one.

      Among the 100 million voters on Election Day there were over 100 million visions of America’s future and citizen had to choose between just two. You should not feel bad that your vision was not the one selected. America is not doomed because half of us did not agree on who would set the course for the country during the next four years. It is the reason we select a President and not a king. Governance is meant to change, meant to include new visions, meant to allow changes in course.

      Ours is a unique system and it has functioned fairly well for a long time. You will surely have another chance to celebrate. Until then, Poodle, sleep well and feel better in the morning. 
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. phdast7 profile image83
        phdast7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Quilligrapher -   I could almost cry -- how refreshing your statement is.  Balanced, moderate. reasonable, encouraging, and without resorting to any bashing, sarcasm, or attacks.   I think I am in intellectual love with you.

        Thank you for your comments.

    2. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well don't despair. You still have Fox News.
      Where, given the many "sound bites" in your post, it appears you get your news from.
      Didn't we just hear Bill O'Reilly make that exact same lamentation today?

      You can blame Obama all you want for dividing this nation into segments. The reality is, all of those voting blocs unified around Obama because the Republicans insulted the crap out of us.
      I mean, I can see pissing off just the Blacks. Or just the Hispanics. Gays are regularly targeted for discrimination. But Romney et al weren't satisfied with the usual suspects. Oh no.
      They went after women and students, too. And old people and veterans (included in his so-called 47 percent).
      And the crazy thing is, they thought we wouldn't notice the insults.
      You and your party must really think the rest of us are idiots.
      How could we NOT notice?
      Could it have been any more blatant and obvious?
      My Gawd!
      I know a whole lot more people who voted for Obama than voted for Romney. NONE of them is on any kind of government assistance. We are not "takers" or "moochers." We work, we pay taxes. We raise our families.
      We value intelligence. We value opportunity. We are religious or at least spiritual.
      We do believe in America.
      But mostly, we respect each other.
      There was zero -- and I do mean zero -- respect shown by Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan for any of us.

      1. Ladymudd profile image59
        Ladymuddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ...and one day soon we can all say we told you so... But it will be too late  And all your smugness will turn to dispair

        1. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Should that happen (which history has shown it does not), we will have a great model of smugness turned despair:
          The GOP after Romney's "surprise" but spectacular loss.
          smile

          1. Ladymudd profile image59
            Ladymuddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Really?   Hitlers Germany ,Stalin, Mussolini,Castro....I'm not being melodramatic.... You "enlightened" folk have lost your perspective and your minds... And u may have just given the best place in history away...

            1. tammybarnette profile image61
              tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am confused? Are you saying Obama is a socialist or a nazi?

            2. phdast7 profile image83
              phdast7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am confused.   What is your list supposed to represent?

              Hitler and Mussolini were tyrants of the extreme political right.

              Stalin and Castro were tyrants of the extreme political right.

              Only proving that extreme politics in either direction leads to oppression.

              What point were you trying to make?

    3. lj gonya profile image61
      lj gonyaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Let's talk about insults. I'm from the Midwest, rural America, where according to Obama, we are a bunch of Bible carrying, gun toting imbeciles who are so unsophisticated that we don't understand, "people that are different from ourselves" and so we are afraid of them. Were we insulted by his high handed, elitist attitude. Damn straight. Not once did Republicans go after women, children, old people, homosexuals, blacks, Latinos or veterans, and yet in the last two elections, his party has made it clear that if we didn't back him we were racist, homophobic, hard hearted money grubbers who wanted to oppress minorities. We were called that to our faces, not because of our personal convictions but because of the candidate we chose. Well here's a news flash. Most of us aren't rich by any means. We have black friends and Latino friends, and homosexual friends, but we don't make an issue of it, because they are just people. We don't consider them political leverage. What Romney said was stupid, but it was at least partly true. By the time the election rolled around, the die was cast and Obama made sure that everyone believed that voting for him was their only salvation. It's called politics. It's dirty and there are no holds barred, and it is used for one reason only - to win.

    4. Ladymudd profile image59
      Ladymuddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You summed up how I feel down to the letter   I was raised to be patriotic   And so proud to be American   After this election, I am devastated to find that most of this country sickens me  I can not even express how terribly sorry I am for my children for what they are inheriting   Obama and his ilk have destroyed the pride.  They are taking away a beautiful way of like where the future was bright for anyone who worked to get an education and worked.  Now, where's the incentive to do anything    Next the government will test you and give you your job   Tell you what you can eat and what you can't   And jail you for speaking out against them.  I would have thought this would never have happened here   But it is now a possibility   The left are fools

    5. My Minds Eye53 profile image59
      My Minds Eye53posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with poodle, I am disillusioned with where the USA is going.

  14. 61
    Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago

    I am reminded of a funny thing that happened to me.  It was the day after Clint Eastwood spoke to the empty chair.

    Which by the way, isn't odd or the product of a decaying or defective mind - it is a standard acting-school-taught technique with which Eastwood, having studied and been involved in acting for many years, would, naturally;  be very familiar.  I mention that not to defend Eastwood - he may well be all those derogatory things he was subsequently accused of, I don't know anything about him really.  But I do wonder why the chair was there in the first place.

    So anyway;  that morning I was at my friend Ray's house.  He is is rabidly republican and watches the Fox networks  (or channel or whatever they have - I don't watch it)  almost incessantly.  Ray and his wife both asked if I had seen  'the clint eastwood speech'  and being told that I had not;  proceeded to gush and rave about the brilliance and genius of Clint Eastwood's presentation.  They used words like:  powerful, insightful, hard-hitting, wonderful, and right-on-point.  They went on to tell me Eastwood had  'hit it out of the park', and also to give him various other high-end accolades.  Clint Eastwood had advanced the republican effort forward in a great and decisive leap they said.

    Just then my cell phone rang.  It was my friend Angel from Florida calling - so to talk with him I graciously excused myself and walked out onto the front lawns.  Angel is from Puerto Rico and is rabidly democrat although he always votes for the best man for the job he tells me. <g>  So after a few standard back-and-forths Angel asked if I had seen  'the clint eastwood speech'.  I explained that I hadn't so he then launched a laughing commentary all about what a  ridiculous performance it had been.  He used words like:  old, tired, decrepit, confused, and out-of-it.  He laughingly told me that Eastwood had apparently lost his mind at one point, imagined that Obama was sitting in the obviously empty chair next to the podium, spoke repeatedly with imaginary-obama, and actually thought he heard Obama speak back to him.  He said that it was almost painful to watch and that the republicans had set their efforts back irretrievably by allowing this alzheimer’s addled has-been to be associated with them and their cause.

    I like Angel and Ray, enjoy talking with them, and have known them both for many years.  But I was deeply struck by the fact that two similar aged, intelligent, thoughtful, and reasoning men had watched the exact same performance but had come away with completely divergent conclusions.  Each had watched the television through his own filter of pre-conceived notions and pre-judged opinions - letting through, or creating, only those things which agreed with their opinions. 

    And I think that is far more common than not.  Thinking is very hard and scary work and so seems to be assiduously avoided by many people whenever possible.  Luckily America is a country where this is an easy path to stick with.  People apparently  'know what they know'  and then only hear what agrees with their opinion.  Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. <g>

    PHM
    --------

  15. lj gonya profile image61
    lj gonyaposted 4 years ago

    Poodle Head Mikey is exactly right. We all make decisions and opinions based on our past experiences and our upbringing, and we all see situations through our own perspective. That is exactly what makes this administration so frightening. The President was raised in an environment that has never before become a factor in this office. By his own admission, he was raised around socialists and communists and those who felt no loyalty to the heritage, tradition, or Constitution of the United States. He is a product of his environment and most likely is sincere in his beliefs, but a lot of the rest of us simply can't share that ideology.

    1. Ladymudd profile image59
      Ladymuddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Very very good point .

    2. Jean Bakula profile image96
      Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      All this bipartisan bickering is really disturbing, and does nothing to help our country. The people have  spoken, and yes, many less vote in each election, because they feel it doesn't matter. I suppose R's were so sure Romney could win, they are still in shock. The man didn't have one plan or opinion of his own. He let far right nuts speak for him. Look at Akin. Does he really believe a woman's body shuts down so she can't get pregnant when she is raped? Can anyone really be that stupid? And Romney believes 47 % of our country are layabouts? Did he ever work a whole day in his life? I mean real work, not just walk around firing people and sending more jobs to China. His record was awful, and he still never released his tax information. He didn't even carry MA, where he was the governor. If Obama had to be hounded for 4 yrs. about his BC, Romney should have shown his income tax returns.

      It seems some of the people in the red states never saw a person who wasn't white in their neighborhood or church, so maybe it's fear of the unknown they are experiencing. Yet they all claim to be such good Christians, so they should be treating each other as brothers and sisters. The R party has to face up to reality, the country is not made up of The Old Boy System anymore. Women, young people, and people of color have a large say in elections. We need to get along now, and find solutions to the problems. Many wealthy writers and entertainers have already said they wouldn't mind paying more taxes, as it is a sensible solution to the country's financial issues, and the rates are similar to what they paid under both Clinton and Reagan. Josak has mentioned service which sounds like the National Guard in the U.S. We need them, as the country, especially the midwest, was devastated with tornados all summer, and the Guards were all sent to Iraq before people began to come home. We need our troops here. I live in New Jersey, and although I am a D, I thought Chris Christie did a great job of handling Hurricane Sandy, working well with President Obama. It isn't only South Jersey which is in bad shape, here in North Jersey many of us have had no heat or light for almost two weeks.There were quite a few deaths in NY and they are gradually finding more bodies as houses are being knocked down here. There are still utility wires all over North Jersey, but turned off, of course. We had crews here from VA and UT, so thanks to all the great people who travelled so far to help us. I am one of the lucky ones, we got heat after a week, as the temperatures are freezing. But people are suffering, and I wonder where all the money will come from if we keep getting storms of this magnitude. It is undeniable that the climate is changing. We face too many problems that need solutions to keep fighting because a candidate liked by only half the country won. This has steadily been happening over the last few elections. Sometimes we have to do things we don't like when it's in the best interest of the majority.

      1. tammybarnette profile image61
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Very well said smile

        1. Jean Bakula profile image96
          Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks Tammy smile. I've been reading the threads if not commenting, and you seem reasonable.

  16. Greek One profile image82
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2789/4446867076_7a100472b5.jpg

  17. ftclick profile image61
    ftclickposted 4 years ago

    Some people can't get over a loss. It's the same mentality as a sports fan when their team loses to a rival. And yet they think they are above others, a literary, a scholar, etc. Life is full of surprises.
    Change is imminent so you might as well live with it or you will suffer from it.
    Wow, that just came out naturally. Ok I am outta here on a high note.

  18. 61
    Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago

    As I think I said before, or at least hinted at, I find Fox as disturbingly unwatchable as I do Bill Maher  (sp. ?)  and hardly watch any other television either.  But I do sometimes tune in to CNBC to watch the ticker-crawl when the Market is open.

    What struck me most recently on CNBC was this  Rise Above  business - about the economy going into a tail spin if we go over  "the fiscal cliff".  It really made me laugh.  What silliness it sounds like.

    Let's review:

    We in America stimulate the economy with over a trillion dollars each year, then we set interest rates at zero, then we buy our own debt with imaginary money, and stimulate the economy with trillions more in  Quantitative Easing  - and still the published unemployment rate is over 8%.  The economy is now, and has been for some time, in a tailspin and heading for recession - which is why the stock market is falling.  We have had about seven years of temporary measures that cause long term problems and the formerly far-away long-term is now:  right now. 

    We mostly voted for the status quo:  more regulation, more taxes, more unemployment, and more recession.  And . . . .  we will get it.  We heartedly decry the shameful creators of the  "european crisis"  while positively Racing to catch up to Europe ourselves. <g> 

    We  "buy our own debt" - what is that exactly?  To me it seems like this:  I am a millionaire but I get up one morning, review my accounts, and find that I have no money, am spending far more than my income, and as a result am now actually a million dollars in debt. 

    Naturally;  I am deeply saddened by my newly discovered loss of financial position and very concerned for this crisis of debt I now find myself in - so I wrack my brain for a solution.    But luckily, after a time of careful consideration and deliberation;  assessing all the possible options and so forth,  the obvious answer comes to me:

    So what I do is to set down and write myself a check for two million dollars.  I use half of it to pay of the million dollars in debt and then still have enough left over to be A Millionaire again.

    This then makes me very happy as I had always enjoyed being a millionaire and now Life is good again.

    Please correct me if wrong, but isn't this exactly what the fed is doing right now? <g>

    PHM
    --------

    1. Drive By Quipper profile image60
      Drive By Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      </g></g>

      The Fed is in cahoots with the FDIC, SEC, and Treasury Department to centralize the banking industry, as well.

      Here, I found you a good avatar so you won't have to go with the man in the shadows look.

      http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQt85PefxpfSODYy-UZpwTvhxLFka4oB28uNoO-WRjzNR0MdPyMkA

      1. 61
        Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You wrote:  "The Fed is in cahoots with the FDIC, SEC, and Treasury Department to centralize the banking industry, as well."

        I ask:  How do you know this?

        PHM
        --------

      2. 61
        Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That picture looks eerily similar to me with the only exceptions being the hair, the face, and the shirt.   

        PHM
        --------

        1. never ben married profile image59
          never ben marriedposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          @Poodle Head Mikey - (Laughing)  I love it!
          wink

  19. 61
    Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago

    And speaking of unemployment -

    When history speaks about the great depression of the 1930's one of the points used to hit home the point of how bad it really was is that unemployment was 25% at some time.

    That is a very big number and does the job of impressing with the depths of the 1930's problem.

    But also consider the other contrasts between then and now.  Before FDR's massive expansion of social programs if someone was out of a job, disabled, elderly, or otherwise less able to work - they were pretty much on their own.  There was no unemployment insurance, welfare, social security, food stamps, or any of most the rest.

    But now there is and those programs have provided lots of nice benefits to lots of American citizens over the years.

    However, to make this   'then & now'  comparison on more even footing - let take today's  (about)  8% unemployment number and add to it every government job created since 1932.  Then let's add to that subtotal every person who collects any of the social program benefits which did not exist in 1932.  What might that full total then be?  Because it sure seems to me that it would be a number much closer to or possibly exceeding the horror-unemployment-number of the 1930's.

    And don't take it wrong - I am Not commenting on the value of the various programs I mention.  The social programs are just used in my commentary / question to make the point that  "eight percent unemployment"  is not really the number that casual consideration might indicate.

    Or am I wrong?

    PHM
    --------

    1. Drive By Quipper profile image60
      Drive By Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Unemployment is really about twice 8%.

      1. 61
        Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think a more accurate published unemployment number could be had by starting with the total number of all able bodied people of working age and then subtracting the number of people who file an income tax return.  The difference would be the unemployment rate.

        How would that be?

        PHM
        --------

  20. never ben married profile image59
    never ben marriedposted 4 years ago

    Okay, I read all the comments here. Lots of sharp come backs - Excellent! wink  I do agree we live in a country divided and believe there's a reason for that, which has not been brought to light in this forum. I think I may write a hub about it.

    1. 61
      Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Can you tell me what a hub is?  In detail?  That is what I originally came here to learn - but then they all distracted me with politics and I forgot to ask.

      PHM
      ---------

      1. tammybarnette profile image61
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You just write about anything your interested in studying or talking about or DIY or anything...You can add pictures videos, etc. you just go to the write hub tab and it will walk you through, very user friendly smile

        1. 61
          Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Can I just ramble on it my usual dis-associated way about all the nonsense which generally fills my head?  It is not easy being me and I am always willing to rant about it at length.

          "The write hub tab", eh?  I'll see if I can find it.

          PHM
          --------

          1. tammybarnette profile image61
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It actually says "start a new hub," silly me, I thought you were serious, I am naive and believe the best from people, so of course, sometimes I am wrong...

            1. 61
              Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I was, and am; serious.  You are not wrong in regards to me:  although my best is not always great - I always offer it first.  What I said was true:  I really have no idea how things work in Hub Land.

              PHM
              --------

              1. tammybarnette profile image61
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I apologize, tone is hard to discern in the written word... But after you click on the start new hub the promps will walk you through, and you will get better at it with time...I usually write in word and copy and paste in the text box because I like reading through and not having to scroll so much,lol...But seriously, whatever interest you, just write...it's fun to get that stuff out of your head(no pun intended poodle head smile )

              2. phdast7 profile image83
                phdast7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Poodle Head Mikey  -  You seem to have a sharp mind and some good ideas.  But to seriously write on HP, you may well have to stay out of the Forums for awhile.  They can be addictive and eat up all your time.  You will likely find a larger readership if you produce hubs instead of a series of Forum comments.  Not to be arraogant, but I write serious hubs on a variety of topics.  They are not monetized and contain few if any advertisements.  I would be glad to engage in a focused conversation with you.    And yes when you first open your page, you will see "Start a New HUb" in the top right hand corner of the screen.   Welcome to HP.

                1. 61
                  Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I like that idea quite a lot and, in fact;  it is exactly what had prompted me to come to Hub Land originally.  But theory is not made reality as easily as I had hoped because I find that I, apparently;  have no natural muse.  Whereas in a forum other people come up with the concepts which then inspire me offer my views.  Can you think of a way around that issue?

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Write hubs inspired by what you encounter on the forums?

  21. theupside profile image61
    theupsideposted 4 years ago

    Nobody cares. Really.

    1. 61
      Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have long suspected that to be the case.  I often talk at length and then when I give a quiz on the subject manner - nobody ever seems to know a damned thing.  Zupwidat anyway?

      PHM
      --------

  22. theupside profile image61
    theupsideposted 4 years ago

    Why can't you all realize the officials, senators, advisors, etc. don't give a F#*& about you. No matter what face is up on TV the agenda gets rammed through every time. It doesn't get better from here, only worse. Hope is the drug you are all on. Government doesn't need to be reformed, its the people thinking the government CAN be reformed that need to change. Change their minds from believing they need to be managed and take matters into to their own broke ass oppressed, beat down hands. Face it, there will always be a glass ceiling between the haves and the have nots. Have nots, listen to your conscience and give up on this sad, sad spectacle. The ultra rich who REALLY control the government do not fear or even bat an eyelash at your opinion. An opinion is non threatening and superficial. Action is needed. Nobody cares for your opinion. Those who see, see that action needs to be taken already. Power doesn't fold under an opinion, its just air. Air doesn't topple and empire made of stone. Didn't you learn anything from childhood?

    1. tammybarnette profile image61
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You make very good points. It will take action not just words, but actions are being taken not in spite of but because of oppression, as history dictates...However, one must never give up hope, never...we do matter, we matter to the wealthy because we do all of the working and tax paying in this country, they can not live without us:) Remember that and you always have a reason to grin...because if it gets bad enough, the people will join together; in much the same way as did a bunch of immigrants from different backgrounds that came together and buit this country smile

      1. 61
        Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I have an easy-to-apply solution for this problem.  Or at least an answer which will move us much closer to a solution for this problem.  It is this:

        Never Vote For An Incumbent

        Don't let elected officials stay in office beyond their first term and they won't have time or much inclination to build an empire for themselves.

        1. Barefootfae profile image61
          Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hear,hear!

        2. tammybarnette profile image61
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Or too accomplish anything...yes that would be the path to a truly mock heirarchy...Maybe if the term was 6 or 8 yrs to begin with?

          1. 61
            Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Are you suggesting that the people we elect to serve us in Congress are not able to do so in their first four years in office?  If that is true then we must certainly be electing the wrong people. <g>

    2. crazyhorsesghost profile image84
      crazyhorsesghostposted 4 years ago

      It's really sad but " theupside " you are spot on. The average American citizen buys into the smile and the handshake when its bullshit. Working with poverty programs like I do I see politicians from the Republican and Democratic party show up at Christmas events to get their names and faces in the newspaper.

      It's fine they show up at Christmas and Thanksgiving but what about the rest of the year. Those same people are around 365 days of the year. Not just during the Holiday Season.

      The people unhappy that Obama won should think about the fact that they have a place to lay down tonight. Many of their fellow Americans do not. Americans need to wake up and realize we have a real problem in this country and they need to wake up and see the politicians for what they really are. A bunch of crooks.

      1. My Minds Eye53 profile image59
        My Minds Eye53posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I wish I could give myself  a raise and check for the rest of life for doing nothing.  They work for us!  we should be voting on how much they make and whether we want to pay for supporting them for rest of their lives.  We should also vote on how many pleasure trips we want to pay for that they take.  Too many people don't care to look up facts, it is easier to just take things at face value.
        I will never understand the political mind. Taken at face value they are all greedy, self serving and power hungry.
        But as Tammy said, we must not give up hope. Maybe another Ben Franklin, George Washington or Abe Lincoln will show up who care more about serving his country than helping himself to whatever he can grab.

        1. theupside profile image61
          theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          My Minds Eye53: Sadly, Ben, George, Abe are all part of the same people you JUST said we need to regulate on... The COUNTRY is the problem. The word country, and belonging to it thus initiates the ENTIRE sequence in which we see today. It's an inevitably. Countries need officials, leaders, presidents, politicians, monetary systems and taxation to EXIST!!  AKA people in power taking away you birthright of FREEDOM.
          Back to the drawing board for your sir.

    3. theupside profile image61
      theupsideposted 4 years ago

      tammy: Do you not see the insanity in what you are saying? If the wealthy NEED us, why continue to be worked to death and taxed? Stop. Get some individual respect and say the hell with it all and become something MORE. I do not grin, because I do not expect to find happiness in every situation, life is much more than being happy all the time. history shows the people will not join together unless it is okayed and signed and monitored by those you so happily serve. I see you are okay with being the servant and do not aspire to be anything more. If the country were to fall, I would count on people like you to build up a replica of the same system you just destroyed because you see no other way it could be, and that is why and how you are insane.

      1. tammybarnette profile image61
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am sane, I assure you, I just have a positive personality. I am nobody's servant, I will fight for my rights, I will pass along petitions, I have joined an organization called the house fire project designed by Jim Brown aka themanwithnopants, an organization to fight corruption...Occupy Wall Street is and has made a difference, they may be an independent party before you know it...many people are doing...

        History actually shows that a group of misfit toys got sick and tired of tyranny and built this country...now I glossed over the part where we kind of stole the land from the aboriginies(I am 1/8 Cherokee, so I am not making light) I am making the point that yes, it can be done...The beautiful framework from the Founding Fathers needs dusting off, but there is no need to throw away our Constitution, we need to grow up and quit acting like spoiled children. There is no free lunch, we shouldn't think we are entitled to this land or the infrastructure. You know, you get what you pay for. smile

        1. theupside profile image61
          theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh Tammy, you are wise, but ever so clumsy in your sight. You have a stout heart but without the mind the heart goes nowhere and dies in its own chaotic prison. You seem to believe in politics and yet you say politics is what needs a fixin'. Can you fix politics WITH politics if it corrupt? How then do you obtain a country without corruption? Is this your dream? Is this your purpose? I also see you understand the money. Money in these day CAN free you from the system, but with money comes the entrenchment IN the very system you are fighting. Do you believe freedom has a price also? Or did life itself create you with.... er... fine print..

          1. tammybarnette profile image61
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Every choice has a price, every movement an equal and opposite movement. I do not believe politics can be fixed, I believe Government can be fixed and politics is the biggest money sucking problem:) Too much money floating around...lobbying should be out, campaigning out, stations allow free time per person who wants to run for office, no titles(R's or D's), the candidates can post on line their plan, the people vote...well, that's one idea anyway...Many ideas will work with the people, it's those silly willys at the top, we need to get their attention...the wealthy can not stay wealthy without employees, heck who will build their planes lol Seriously though, I know it's complicated, but with sheer determinations, we can make change, and it starts within ourselves....

            1. theupside profile image61
              theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Tammy: Why save a country that was never yours? Why save a system that is built on money? Money creates the very evil you are trying to resist but cling to as a way of life? Insanity. Communism doesn' t work. The quality of life sucks for the working class.  Capitalism doesn't work, it is the same as communism if you really look at it. The haves feed off of  the have nots. You say change begins within the individual. If they already convinced you you NEED governments, they already won you over didn't they? Not only that, you keep them in power for free with your opinion you spout to others.

              1. tammybarnette profile image61
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes I prefer to live in a civilized society? Maybe you should travel, maybe live out in the wild? Maybe this would turn your frown upside down...I hate labels, we need a mixture society, which we have we just whine too much about silly things...The haves do try to feed off the have nots(not all of them, some actually give to the have nots) But that is what the law is suppossed to do, protect the citizens...Look many things are broken, but it is repairable..And my opinion I am spouting is called free speach, pretty cool stuff smile

    4. theupside profile image61
      theupsideposted 4 years ago

      Damn, hubpages needs a "like" button crazyhorseghost.

    5. theupside profile image61
      theupsideposted 4 years ago

      Society exists in the wild, however, the construct instilled in your mind from a young age has led you into your way of thinking. No matter. You see, society is the very thing that PROLIFERATES this burden you feel. The class system is brought out and fueled by you included. Take responsibility. You allowed this beast to flourish under you very watchful eyes. You should have noticed the more you voted HOPING they will be fair this time around, the more you saw them take from you regardless of who was in power. See, the sane see patterns. Do you not see the pattern? Insanity is seeing the problem and allowing it to continue. Which are you?

      1. Jean Bakula profile image96
        Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I have seen how corrupt Government is at the local, municipal level, where my husband and I were heavily involved for about 5 or 6 years. We began as environmentalists, as our small town which does not have the infrastructure to support large age restricted townhouse complexes kept kowtowing to developers. It doesn't add children to the school system, but does not add ratables to the town either. So now we have floods, since all the pavement does not allow rainwater to seep into the Earth. and traffic and more pollution. It's not wonder the Earth is rebelling. Politicians pay everyone off to get what they want. The fights have to begin at the lower levels of government, and it's hard to involve people. Many go to work every day, and do what they must, but don't have the will or energy to get going and get these clowns out of local office, before they get farther. Tammy is right though, if you give up hope, you have nothing. We have to try to change the system. I think the U.S. needs more than two parties to break the gridlock.

    6. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

      Perhaps what we need here is a little bit of maturity !  Moronic threads like these stating such  blind  Ideals are for the young , college teens , and  other communists in general ! The world of politics especially is grey .......not just black and white !

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So let me get this right, you call for maturity then immaturely insult people on a grand scale and throw around false terms like communist? Seems you are part of the problem.

    7. izettl profile image93
      izettlposted 4 years ago

      Actually I saw that Dems and liberals were still not happy about Obama winning becasue of WHO voted- not that him winning was enough. But they say that since not enough whites voted that everyone must be racist. They are the ones who need to gow up. Who complains about their candidate they voted for winning, but Dems and liberals have found a way to do that?!
      Just the facts mam! Oabam won popular vote by a wee little margin and he got 7 million fewer votes than he di his first election. Ouch- that doens't seem like it's a major turnaround for the Dems. That's certainly not improvement or what's that word? Progress.
      I'm a Repub, or maybe an independent cause Ive voted for Dems before- I just pick the best man for the job...not woman. Yay we have a 1/2 black1/2 white  man, but call me when we have a woman in office. Then I'll feel represented.
      I don't let the other "issues" reflect my political status. I believe in gay marriage (being in the field of Psych though, gay families will have an impact on the children). And I'm for abortion- cant remember any Repubs trying to overturn that in my lifetime. Obama has you thinking all your rights will be abolished if a Repub is in office- fear tactic!

      1. Jean Bakula profile image96
        Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        izetti,
        I'm not sure if you are responding to me or not. I am aware that less people voted in this election, or at least Obama won with less votes. NJ and NY are in much worse shape than many understand, and many people were unable to vote. The R's did try hard to supress the vote in urban areas where people who were Obama voters normally come out, so I was proud of those who stood in line for 6-10 hours in order to vote. Many of them had already lost their homes due to the storm. I am not complaining that he won, I believe he deserves more time to finish what he started, or to try new ideas. Maybe it's not a lot of progress, but it was for the people who had nothing left and still stood in line to vote. I am a Dem, but also vote for who I like. It seems to me I haven't voted for an R except for Reagan one time. R governers work out OK in NJ, we just don't like BS, and I will definitely vote for Chris Christie next time. The man is amazing, and he always delivers on his promises. He also did last year when we had snow on Halloween and had a 7 day power outage. I have to disagree about abortion, it seemed every R candidate wants to overturn Roe VS Wade, but I don't think it will ever happen. I would like to see Hillary run next time, though technically I guess it's Biden's turn?

      2. tammybarnette profile image61
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hey izetti, I haven't seen you in ages, I hope you and your family and new baby have been doing well smile I think Obama lost a lot of support for three important reasons: 1) He didn't repeal the Patriot Act, he strengthened it's scope 2) He did not repeal the Bush tax cuts (but I actually understand now that was a smart decision with the economy falling through the floor) 3) He did not pursue the Bush Administration for war crimes....Those three promises were biggies to us lefties...But all of this craziness since the election was very unexpected, at least by me. I thought we were a different kind of people. This has made us all look like complete morons to the rest of the world, and that is the scariest part of all...

        So good to see you, I will have to drop in your hub and catch up on some reading...  smile

      3. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Can't recall any Repubs trying to overturn abortion rights in your lifetime?
        How about severely restricting? (see chart below). Since 2010 -- remember what happened in 2010? A whole bunch of Republians got voted into office in Congress and as governors.
        Or ...
        How about the Republican candidate (Romney) saying in the primaries he would happily sign legislation that makes abortion illegal?
        How about the other Republican candidate (Ryan) proudly touting his "pro-life" voting record and stating on camera that the method of conception (e.g., rape) doesn't change anything.
        I could go on and on about the many GOP candidates who got defeated specifically for their extreme positions on abortion.

        http://msmagazine.com/blog/files/2011/07/abortion_restrictions.jpg

        1. Onusonus profile image84
          Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It is a fallacy to imply that republicans are extreme on abortion laws when the act its self is to deny a person their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion is literally the most egregious denial of rights to a person.
          This is whats extreme, 50 million dead babies in America since Roe vs Wade. Otherwise it wouldn't be extremely offensive to show you a picture of the results.
          You see we can talk about gay marriage and you can show me a picture of two dudes kissing, (which I think is just kind of icky), but I wouldn't be offended. Because it's not as extreme as seeing a person ripping the head off of another person, or dismembering them, or seeing their blood and guts splattered all over a table.
          I'm not the kind of guy that would post that stuff though simply because I don't like to see the results of that kind of legislation which liberals are guilty of passing. Besides showing a liberal a picture of aborted babies is kind of like showing Hitler a picture of all the Jews he killed. if he really cared about them he wouldn't have done it.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Toughen up. No one likes abortion but these are the costs of freedom, it means we can't stop people from reading books that teach them to make bombs, or making racist statements and it also means we cannot force a woman to give birth against her will. If you don't like it move somewhere authoritarian where they are comfortable with that, most Americans are not.

            1. Onusonus profile image84
              Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why don't you go live in some communist country since you think it's so great? Besides I already live in an authoritarian place. Every time liberals pass legislation they seek to abridge the rights of others. They create speech codes in colleges, they take money away from the wealth producers in exchange for a vote from a growing number of their own dependents, they force companies to hire people based solely on the color of their skin, they litigate against the rights of churches, they think that cops and criminals are the only people who should posses fire arms. and their stance on abortion proves that they do not believe that all men are created equal, that some lives are more valuable than others.
              When Jefferson said the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots he wasn't talking about babies. wink

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Not a communist.


                I love how you complain about loss of liberties, the vast majority of which I disagree with too then turn around and without a trace of irony consider it to be totally OK to force people to give birth, until you get it that you cannot do that without a truly massive destruction of personal choice you will continue to be a complete hypocrite.

                1. Onusonus profile image84
                  Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Communist, socialist, whatever.
                  In order to force people to give birth you would first have to force them to have sex.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah not the same thing tongue

                    Firstly that's just not true, people can use proper protection and get pregnant, it just happens, then there is rape also, so that is a completely invalid argument.

                    What you want to do, forcing women to give birth against their will and regardless of their wishes is far more tyrannical and oppressive and is a much bigger overreach of government force than anything you have railed against in this thread, simple as that.

                    1. Onusonus profile image84
                      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Rape? You are talking about maybe a few hundred people out of millions annually. That scenario is a fraction of a percent of the real reason people get abortions.

                    2. A Thousand Words profile image80
                      A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Why people can't see that is beyond me. They want government to control women's ability to have an abortion, use contraception, they want government to tell gay men and women that they can't get married, but then they talk about how they don't want government to have so much control. It sounds a lot like contradiction. If anything, someone's governent should not be able to tell them who they can/can't marry within reason.

                  2. Mighty Mom profile image90
                    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That's called rape and it's a crime.

    8. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

      And as for Obama only winning the popular vote by a "wee little margin" -- that's a relative term. As you can see, many presidents have won the presidency with less than 50% (much less) of the popular vote.
      Obama actually won reelecction by the exact same margin as George W. Bush.
      Hmmmm.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un … ote_margin

    9. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

      Spoken like a true misogynist.

      1. Onusonus profile image84
        Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nope. If I hated women I might want to kill them. Liberals do that not me.

        1. Jillian Barclay profile image85
          Jillian Barclayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not only spoken like a misogynist, but an extremist. Maybe you can start your own government and insist that everyone agree with you and those who do not, be punished, shunned, jailed or purged. There may be some available land in Waco, Texas available for just such an adventure. If I was childish, which I am not, I would suggest that you modify your name a little. I would suggest that you substitute the letter 'a' for each of the 'o's.
          Have a great day!

          1. Onusonus profile image84
            Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah that would be pretty childish, I sure am glad you didn't suggest that. roll If I were an extremist I would probably resort to name calling when I start loosing a debate with someone. Or my extremist buddies and I might start rioting in the streets if we didn't get our way. That's actually more of a liberal thing though.

    10. rebekahELLE profile image91
      rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

      After reading most of the responses, I could only find a few which sounded like they were written by a thoughtful, reasonable adult.  I wish I could copy and paste some discussions I've read on FB written by thoughtful, reasonable young adults in their 20's-early 30's.  Extremism on either side of the political spectrum will only push us further apart.   

      Regardless of our political affiliations, we need to be independent thinkers who pay attention to what we think and what we allow to fill our minds and homes.
      Secession was settled, it's not a reasonable option.

    11. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

      What the hey?
      What proper medical care would that be?
      Are you perchance referring to the Todd Akin school of birth control? That the woman's body has ways of "shutting that whole thing down?"

      1. Onusonus profile image84
        Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So it's going to be about what one idiot said. I can't remember did that guy get ousted by the Republican party or not? Oh yeah, he did.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Two idiots actually, the fact they were chosen in the first place speaks volumes. Furthermore he was NOT kicked out of the Republican party, he is still a member and ran for re-election as the Republican representative. The Missouri gave it his full support and funding in the re-election attempt.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Way more than two. More like 12.
            I believe most if not all were NOT elected.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thank Christ.

              1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you, Jesus!
                lol

              2. Mighty Mom profile image90
                Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you, Jesus!
                lol

                1. Jillian Barclay profile image85
                  Jillian Barclayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I have to hand it to you, Mighty Mom and Josak! Even though there is no way to have a rational and informed (with informed being the key word) discussion with people on the extreme radical right, you both persist. I admire you both for your persistence and perseverence.
                  There will always be disagreement on abortion, but at least with President Obama re-elected (YES!!!!), women's rights on a national level will be preserved. On the state level, however, those rights are being abridged every single day.
                  The election is over. Regardless of what the extreme right says, they lost. They can continue to bitch and moan, but quite frankly, they will never be happy until they can be "free" to impose and force their will on everyone else, thus stripping all others of any freedom, because after all, anyone who dares to disagree with them is the enemy. Our rights to freedom? We, of course, are all godless, evil commies, socialists, Kenyans, etc., and therefore deserve to be silenced.


                  To Onus- If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one!
                  By the way, who was the last Democrat elected to the Presidency that you thought was your President, too?

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    smile
                    They can't see their hypocrisy. But everyone else can.

                    1. gmwilliams profile image87
                      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      MM, they can see it but refuse to acknowledge it.     They simply refuse to see the utter inanity of their ways, pure and simple!

                  2. georgepjr profile image79
                    georgepjrposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Jillian, you truly should have done your research, Romney was not against abortions but was going to make it so tax payers didn't have to pay for which we do now, Obama supports more people on welfare and support from the tax payers while he tries to bring us back up from unemployment.  They both had good polices, but there are up and down side to both.  Other than that they both have their head stuck up their asses and get paid to much I bet if we cut the pay of the president and the congress men/women we could be closer to being financially free as a nation smile Other than that you are right but are there not extremest on the left as well?  I am in the middle myself but I love watching people because they both have their extremest that are equally as bad as the other.  Most of our rights are being stripped away regardless, Obama said in a press meeting that the Constitution is out of date just last week, so again no matter who is in office we loose our rights and freedoms.

                    1. Jillian Barclay profile image85
                      Jillian Barclayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Respectfully, I have done my research. Please see pages 13 and 14 of the Republican Party platform in which the Republican party, including Mitt Romney, advocate for passage of the Personhood Amendment. The Personhood Amendment makes abortion a criminal act, with no exceptions.

                      Granted, Mitt Romney flip-flopped his way through every abortion question, but he is on tape saying that he supports the Personhood Amendment and that nothing would make him happier than the repeal of Roe v Wade.

                      As for your opinion of what President Obama believes, I disagree. I have also researched that. As for the Constitution being out of date? The Constitution has been amended and changed many times because it was determined to be "out of date", so to speak. The original Constitution of the United States was written in 1788. The Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments (or changes) were added to it in 1791. There have been 17 more additional amendments (changes) added over the years.

                      I must say, Congress is dysfunctional and I, same as you, do not feel represented. Many of our Congressional representatives are a joke.

                      There are extremists on both sides. They are equally a pain in the butt!

                      If our representatives cannot come together and compromise, we will, as citizens, be responsible because we vote them into office.

        2. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm actually asking for clarification of what you mean about women/girls who the victims of rape or incest can avoid getting pregnant with proper medical care.
          I'm stymied by such a statement, made with apparent certainty.
          Please explain what proper medical care prevents pregnancy in the case of rape or incest.
          And if there is such a magical pill or procedure, why would it not also apply to ALL women who wish to avoid pregnancy?
          roll

          1. Onusonus profile image84
            Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well there is the morning after pill, or the "plan B" pill. That still does not account for the fact that rape is still a very small part of the abortions that take place in America. The Guttmacher Institute has conducted two major studies asking women why they chose abortion and their answers have remained basically the same: Only 7% of women report that their abortion was because of a health reason or a possible health problem with the baby, and less than half of a percent report that their abortion was because they became pregnant as a result of rape. That's a whopping 92% of abortions in America that are purely elective, they are done on healthy women to end the lives of healthy children.
            America is the largest abortion center in the western world and it is a direct result of leftist ideology that pushes young women to choose their own personal liberties over the life of another. The modern "pro-choice" movement is desperate to protect the image of abortion as positive and pro-woman. Ironically, their biggest threat is from those they claim to champion: women. Pro life women have been coming out in increasing numbers to speak out about how abortion was not an act of empowerment but the result of abandonment, betrayal, and desperation, and how it has negatively affected their lives.
            The website www.afterabortion.com established by a woman who had 5 abortions provides a place for women to help each other cope with the aftermath of their abortions. They tell stories of how they were coerced into aborting their children by boyfriends, husbands, friends, and family. They describe how abortion was far from being a choice. They speak of overwhelming guilt, nightmares, excessive drinking, drug abuse, promiscuity, an inability to form or maintain relationships, difficulty bonding with later children, and other ways in which they are suffering.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So again you are blaming the victim and not the victimiser!

              "They describe how abortion was far from being a choice"  in other words, one set of interfering busybodies won over another set of interfering busybodies.

              I'm not pro abortion but I am pro leaving it up to the woman to decide with no outside pressure from anybody else, either for or against and certainly not through laying guilt trips on anybody.

              1. Onusonus profile image84
                Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, that's pro abortion. Again, instead of cherry picking through my comments why not address the fact that I'm talking about the 92% of women who choose to abort simply because Johnny didn't want to wear a rubber. The only victim in that situation is the baby.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Even rubbers fail.

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    54% of abortions performed in the US are to terminate an unintended pregnancy occurring while using some method of birth control.
                    Here is the rub though: Of that 54%, 76% report they used the birth control sporadically and inconsistently. In other words, they were irresponsible.

                    1. John Holden profile image60
                      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Perhaps not irresponsible but  only infrequently sexually active.
                      Sometimes passion over rides good sense.

                  2. Onusonus profile image84
                    Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So 1.5 million rubbers fail every year?

                    1. John Holden profile image60
                      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Probably not, but add in the number of pill failures, cap failures. failure to withdraw and so on and so on, you are looking at a considerable number.

                    2. A Thousand Words profile image80
                      A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Haha, side note: I have an ex-boyfriend whose nephew was conceived even though his sister was on birthcontrol AND her husband was wearing a condom. That baby was being born, no if's and's or but's about it. LoL.

              2. A Thousand Words profile image80
                A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Agreed. I find it annoying that people who talk about small government think that government should have a say in something as personal as this.

                1. Onusonus profile image84
                  Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And yet the left wants tax payers to fund this so called "personal" issue. You want the government to stay out of your bodies and at the same time want the government to foot the bill. Akin overwhelmingly lost the republican ticket for being stupid, but Sandra Fluke gets a spotlight at the DNC because she wants us to pay for her birth control. That kind of thinking reaches far beyond reason. You believe that American can't afford healthcare for all, but they can somehow afford healthcare for all and a government bureaucracy to run it.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image61
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I believe she actually wanted to have her insurance, which she pays for, not drop the coverage of her birth control...Health insurance providers have always included birth control as part of women's health policies...there would be no reason in which to change that standard practice...The arguement began that through the ACA this would also be a part of the policies available to women, the Catholic Church had a problem with that...The Catholic Church has no business in dictating governmental or health policies.

                    1. Onusonus profile image84
                      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      They do when the law encroaches on their first amendment rights.

                    2. My Minds Eye53 profile image59
                      My Minds Eye53posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      They do when it is being shoved down their throats.  When they are being forced to do something against your beliefs, yes they have a right to be upset and doing something about it.

          2. 61
            Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't understand why this is even a point of discussion?  Whether women's bodies naturally shut down in instances of rape or incest is not at all the point. 

            What is the point is that rape or incest  (and aren't they the same thing?)  is a crime deserving a Vey speedy trial culminating in a speedy application of the death penalty.

    12. georgepjr profile image79
      georgepjrposted 4 years ago

      I think that most people are upset because for the simple fact that Romney should have won ( he won the popular vote that is our vote).  Most people are upset not only because America elected someone who just simply not ready for office but that the Government complete controls everything including who wins the elections.

    13. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago

      And you Jillian.

    14. 0
      JustCraftyposted 4 years ago

      We have had four years to get use to no say and getting closer to welfare, now we have four more years to start living on welfare.

      I am a firm believer of if the old don't work toss it and get something new.

    15. Xenonlit profile image59
      Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

      President Obama won the popular vote.Romney came nowhere close to winning the popular vote, except for a minority of confederates and political extremists who are also racists. A message was sent and a lesson was taught. But with some folk, you don't make the lesson easier to understand, you change to a teacher who will get the point gets across to them..

      1. 61
        Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Watchutalkinboutwillis?

        Romney came Very close to winning the popular vote.

        "a minority of confederates and political extremists who are also racists" ? 

        Can you even hear yourself talking? 

        The people who voted for Romney, and who came Very close to electing him, are pretty much Mainstream America.

        1. tammybarnette profile image61
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I would just like to add, those that voted for and re-elected Obama are also mainstream America...

          1. Xenonlit profile image59
            Xenonlitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Too true. This election was a constant battle between the mainstream and the fringe, who thought they could legislate and cheat to help themselves to power. How many times has that happened in history? Our work was not done. There is more to do.

            1. Barefootfae profile image61
              Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hey Xenonlit......you honestly believe in all those precincts in Penn that not one.......not one now.....single vote was cast for Romney?
              You also believe in alien abduction, bigfoot and the loch ness monster?
              Nope? Then don't talk to me about who is doing what with the elections.

              1. Jillian Barclay profile image85
                Jillian Barclayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Certainly you have received your info from Hannity-
                from mediametters: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/14 … rau/191370
                For those of you not interested in the link, here is  some of the article that states that not only is the zero vote possible, but has historical precedent:

                In fact, the Inquirer article referenced by Hannity went on to detail how the most likely explanation for  the 59 divisions that voted overwhelmingly for Obama was political uniformity rather than voter fraud. The article used demographic, historical, and investigative evidence to explain what may have happened in this overwhelmingly Democratic area, focusing on one particular precinct, the 3rd division of the 28th Ward:
                ■About 94 percent of the 633 people who live in that division are black. Seven white residents were counted in the 2010 census.
                ■In the entire 28th Ward, Romney received only 34 votes to Obama's 5,920.
                ■Although voter registration lists, which often contain outdated information, show 12 Republicans live in the ward's 3rd division, The Inquirer was unable to find any of them by calling or visiting their homes.
                ■Four of the registered Republicans no longer lived there; four others didn't answer their doors. City Board of Elections registration data say a registered Republican used to live at 25th and York Streets, but none of the neighbors across the street Friday knew him.
                ■The ward's 15th division, which also cast no votes for Romney, also cast no votes for McCain in 2008. Thirteen other Philadelphia precincts also cast no votes for the Republican in both 2008 and 2012.
                ■Nationally, 93 percent of African-Americans voted for Obama, according to exit polls, so it's not surprising that the president did even better than that in some areas.

                Finally, the article commented that "in 2008, McCain got zero votes in 57 Philadelphia voting divisions." Thus, it is not surprising that Romney saw a similar result.

                1. Barefootfae profile image61
                  Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Media Matters?
                  Boy.....you got me there. That's truly unbiased stuff huh?

                  1. Jillian Barclay profile image85
                    Jillian Barclayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, it was MediaMatters reporting on and quoting the newspaper article that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

                    1. Jean Bakula profile image96
                      Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I was so proud that the very people who lived in Urban areas and just happened to be not white, stood in line hours, as long as 9, to cast their votes. It shows what strength we have in Unity. Romney even spoke about Urban areas with an almost fearful sound to his voice. We had lots of confusion in New Jersey, because up until the day before the Election, a few of the voting precincts still had no electical power. But it came on late the evening before. Even though it's North Jersey, there are pockets of people who say they are conservative, but are really racists and not too bright. I hate to say that, but it's true. I agree with Ralph and others that each generation is more used to the kind of diversity we have now. Many in NJ voted by absentee ballot too, because of the instability of our situation. So I don't know when they get counted. But I am so happy Obama won. Can you imagine if he refused to show his IRS statements? The R extremists really think they are morally superior and do not have to follow the same rules. And they have the nerve to be "shocked" about it too! They have no rights to women's bodies, and I noticed the more mainstream R's treated Romney like poison. He didn't ask George Bush to speak at his convention, really no R heavyweights spoke. Marco Rubio is their darling now, but he already lied about escaping Cuba's reign of Commie terror, which was untrue. There is monkey business going on when they keep trying to redraw the voting districts to get an R advantage, but we are wise to that. As far as Akin, this whole idiotic idea that a raped woman's body shuts down so she doesn't get pregnant is repugnant. Is he married? If so, maybe his wife has her own room and doesn't let him in? I wouldn't.

                2. Barefootfae profile image61
                  Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And no...Hannity is not someone I pay attention to.

                  1. Jillian Barclay profile image85
                    Jillian Barclayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Did you read the article that pointed out that there is historical precedence for precinct totals in Philly? Do you also realize that there were several precincts in Utah that cast no votes for Obama?

                    Believe me, if I was an urban voter in those precincts that were targeted by Pennsylvania's attempt to suppress the vote, I would have been out the door and voting for Obama- not the guy from the Party of Voter Suppression...

              2. Quilligrapher profile image89
                Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Howdy Ms. Fae.

                I spotted your comment above and became very curious. Your statement is rather vague. I can not find any reports regarding precincts reporting 100% of their ballots for President Obama. I could use your help locating the details. No doubt you have some sources. Which of the 9,245 precincts in PA are you referring to?

                Thank you so much, Ms. Fae, for your help. I am looking forward to reading your reply.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                1. Jean Bakula profile image96
                  Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I am honored and accept the responsibility of keeping that torch burning along with Mighty Mom, Xenonlit and Jillian.

                2. Quilligrapher profile image89
                  Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Never mind, Ms. Fae.

                  Thanks to Ms. Barclay, I have the information from the Philadelphia Inquirer.

                  Clearly you and Sean Hannity have made up your minds on this issue after little or no investigation. Still, I don’t blame you for not paying attention to Hannity.

                  “Mo Elleithee explained to Hannity that Romney, George W. Bush, and John Kerry all had won precincts where their opponents won zero votes. Nevertheless, Hannity insisted that the possibility of this happening is ‘zero,’ adding, ‘I don't believe it. I think this is voter fraud.’”

                  It seems his public position is to believe what he wants to believe despite the over whelming data to the contrary.

                  The Inquirer explained, “In 2008, McCain got zero votes in 57 Philadelphia voting divisions. That was a big increase from 2004, when George W. Bush was blanked in just five divisions.” According to the newspaper this phenomenon is nothing new.

                  Philadelphia has a long and well-documented history of having all the ballots in some precincts cast for just one candidate. Furthermore, evidence of fowl play has not surfaced after this election cycle. Some folks must be paranoid to spread suspicion in the absence of proof.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                  1. Barefootfae profile image61
                    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Wow! Well I guess you would have to expect that in a region that obviously has so many free thinkers.
                    Don't you think?

          2. 61
            Poodle Head Mikeyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Me thinks thou doth protect too much. <g>

     
    working