Topic: Obama issues executive order claiming power to seize Americans' bank accounts - page 2. (Read 3569 times)

Yes, and where do you think the money for a), b), and c) come from?  From future taxes that will hinder our economy.  You may enjoy the benefits today, but you and I and everyone else will be paying for it down the road in the form of higher taxes and devaluation of our money through increased inflation.

The working class generally votes republican, because they understand personal responsibility and sustainability.  The welfare-recipients (of which I'll include you in, since you are reaping benefits at the expense of taxpayers as mentioned above) generally vote democrat, because they want "more free stuff".  Or at the very least, they don't want their free stuff taken away.

Similarly, this is why you see college campuses filled with liberal-minded people - they aren't working for a living yet, and don't understand how their utopian dreams have real-world consequences. It's why those same people eventually turn conservative when they get out in "the real world" and begin to tire of seeing people gaming the system, stealing their tax dollars to sit on the couch and watch TV while they work hard to provide for themselves.

It's sad, really.  More and more of the US populace is dependent on government aid, and that's only our own doing, electing people who give out money like it has no consequence.  The easier it is to acquire free aid from the government (and it seems to be getting easier every day), the more people we will find who choose to not work a day in their lives, the less productive our country will be, and the more difficult it will be to balance the governmental budget without increasing taxes heavily.

Think about more than just the benefits you are receiving today.  Think about how those benefits will affect your tomorrow.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we ARE the "masses". There's a 50% chance that each of us is below average intelligence, but we all insist that we're in the upper half. To top it off, I hear the EXACT same rationale from everyone else who votes Republican/Democrat. They're all just trying to save the country from those fascists/communists on the "other side".

You aren't so smart. Neither am I. When everyone oh-so-cleverly tries to game the system instead of just voting for who they like best, this is what we get. If we all voted for who we thought was best, we'd all be better off. Maybe I'm naive for thinking enough people might grow a concience to make a difference, but there's a lot of naive masses out there just like me, and I'd feel like I lost even if I voted for the Republicrat who won.

HA!! +1

err.. +666 ...that's better

Well, if it's a choice between evil and less evil, why stop at "less evil"?

Go big or go home, baby.

Rommey or Obama are more of the same... nothing will change until Ron Paul or similar get to office.
[/quote]

I agree but still think Romney will be the lesser of the 2 evils even though I don't totally believe in everything he stands for.

That point was the final straw that tipped me over into Anarchism. To quote Emma Goldman,  "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

Yeah.... That happens. Pretty much every thread gets down to base principles pretty quick. Which base principle can sometimes be predicted from the OP, but not always.

Lol what are you even talking about?

Unfortunately, they never have a chance because they never gain enough credibility in the masses. Just because we (in reference to our community) would rather see someone other than the two popular candidates, doesn't mean the other 240+ million voters agree. That's why I, and many millions of others, focus on the lesser of two evils to receive our votes. Having some "backbone" and "standing up for what you believe" is all well and good, but in the broad view it won't make much of a difference.  


Hmm, fair point and I see what you're saying. That said, I can honestly say I don't have an answer to respond with.



Side Note: I like how this thread went from an article the OP submitted to a debate about voting

More wilderness, I can stay away from it easier there.

So you can watch that trainwreck, too?

Train wrecks are awesome, and when this titanic hits the bottom, Canada here I come.

So you are voting for Obama despite him being such a cheap bastard as to not a) pay for 100% of your healthcare b) forgive all of your student loans and c) eliminate all payroll taxes instead of a measly $245B worth?  lets add a "chicken in every pot" while we're at it too.

Your vote has been bought cheaply my friend.

The choice this November isn't between Obama and Romney - it is between staying to watch the train wreck close up or leaving to watch from a distance.

Perhaps I was not clear. To rephrase: Since a) either Obama or Romney is going to be in the office no matter what, and b) Obama and Romney are essentially identical, Why vote for either? Why, in fact, vote at all, since whichever way you vote, it's wasted?

It's more subtle than that. Any vote an individual makes in a state which already is definitely one way or another is wasted since it can't affect the outcome. A vote for a third party sends a message that that third party has views which have some support and in a non-swing state, is possibly the most logical way to vote (assuming you don't actually support one of the big two).

Then again, if you find the current big-two candidates completely abhorrent, you may want to vote third party anyway. Really, you have to consider all the parts in play and any pat answers probably indicate a lack of thought.

I love how people think they HAVE to vote for the twin-headed dragon every single fucking election.

The reason other independent parties never have a chance is because everybody refuses to leave the two-party lines and then proceed to bitch about how 'broken' our political system is. Have some backbone, stand up for what you believe in for once instead of one of the two identical people shoved down your throat by the media because "hey, at-least my candidate isn't as bad as the OTHER candidate".

Well in this case, you're asserting that only one person has the chance of winning, but since it's still a close race (based on current electoral maps, focusing on swing states) it's not quite possible to call it yet. In fact, it could be possible for each candidate to hit 269 and tie it up in the actual election, resulting in the House making the final decision.

To me, a wasted vote is a vote going to a candidate that doesn't have a chance of winning, which is essentially anyone outside of the two already "approved". Voting for either Obama or Romney isn't a waste.

Rommey or Obama are more of the same... nothing will change until Ron Paul or similar get to office.

It's the main reason why I support them.

The sophistication of the techniques the Elites use to steal from the common people livestock has grown for thousands of years.  Cryptocurrencies are one of the best self-defense weapons we have ever seen. 

My estimation of your intelligence is moving up.

However, given that: a) only one of the two "approved" options has any chance of winning, and b) they are functionally identical, why is it that you consider any vote to not be a waste?

Well that's not very nice

We should also clarify that you're assuming I only see two options based on my response. The reality is that there are only two feasible options in the election. You can vote Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Roseanne Bar, or countless others...but the only two people that actually have a chance are either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. I'm not one to waste my vote..