In 2004 GWB blatantly executed emotional control of his voting blocks by compelling them to vote for him by pandering to their fears of gay/lesbian marriage and rampant abortion.
Really.... I voted for him strictly on the basis that I believed Kerry would be a horrible replacement, and ultimately botch the war.
He never intended to truly work toward ending abortion and gay/lesbian marriage, and why should he, as if he did he would thereby lose a major method of motivating his supporters to the polls.
If he wanted to end abortion, how exactly would he go about doing that? He can't force the USSC to make it illegal, nor could he pass a law banning it without them striking it down. So what's your point?
Moreover, he doesn't need to end homo-marriage because it's not legal yet. Your point doesn't make sense.
After all, we are a country, and a "state", in effect, of the U.N. We need to present the world with a consistent, well at least every four-years-consistent, social policy as well as a fiscal policy, as how else can we argue for human rights across the globe if we're otherwise a 50-state house divided?
We are not a state of the U.N. We don't need to present the world with anything. Being a 50-state house didn't stop us in the past, nor should it in the future.
I look forward to the day when we truly become one country, with the states, a largely outdated concept in this internet-shrunken world, replaced by a more geographically-demographically sensible division.
Sounds like a system for tyranny or civil war.
Indeed, most of our voting outcomes break down to big cities vs. country side, urban manufacturing vs. farming and ranching, congested masses vs. sparse populations ...
So?
The last thing I would want to do is to even more sacrifice our humanity to a heartless system of economics ... than we already have.
I don't even understand that concept. Money is simply a commodity like any other. People have always been part of this system, and always will be. There is nothing heartless about economics. In fact, economics is a fact of every life everywhere always.
Being heartless is only a choice of the individual, and will always be a choice of them.
After all, that's pretty much what has gotten us into the painful recessionary-depressionary mess we're presently in: sacrificing people like pawns for the sake of the Money System.
I completely disagree. The problems we're in were caused by government trying to give everyone a free lunch, only to find out, nothings free. Under the direction of government, banks made billions of dollars worth in loans, to people who couldn't pay them back.
We didn't sacrifice people for the sake of the money system. We tried to give to people something they couldn't afford. In effect we tried to circumvent economics, and shockingly, it didn't work.
We social-based human rights laws to reign in the Money System -- or replace it with a more evolved system -- so that we never have to go through this again.
Impossible. You are trying to find a solution to the unsolvable. The problem involved people borrowing money they couldn't afford to borrow. There is no way to prevent that, unless you ban borrowing money. Try that, and you'll find out what a real depression is.
